by Olivia Harmon
The debate regarding writing style and the usage of code-meshing within classrooms has been widely discussed over the years. Vershawn Ashanti Young prompted the conversation surrounding this topic in 2010 with his academic article “Should Writers Use They Own English?” that we discussed in class, in which he contrasted Stanley Fish’s argument that writing and literature teachers should concentrate on the framework of standard written English and discourage the usage of different dialects within the classroom. I believe that it is important for students to be exposed to a variety of dialects through diverse literature teachers and texts written outside of standard written English. Different forms of English should be studied and appreciated in schools as a form of self-expression, in addition to learning to respect the cultures from which these dialects derive from. Students can utilize formal language while still incorporating the unique way that they talk into their writing. I would argue that the central purpose of the English classroom setting is not to restrict students to a singular way of communicating, but rather to encourage students to better express themselves and their identity through writing.
There has been an increase in language diversity within literature studies in recent years (Tardy, 634). Literature teachers have the ability to enact change in the classroom through exposing students to multilingualism and code-meshing. Most significantly, the exposure to this language diversity should be executed when the students are younger, rather than older. Teaching children to read and appreciate different forms of English, all while respecting the cultures in which these forms come from, will build a more inclusive classroom and a future that encourages diversity and self-expression. It is useful to not only teach students about meshing and switching codes, but also to encourage them to “consider the politically-charged origins of the ‘codes’ they employ” and reflect on the ways that they can include these codes in terms of their social, cultural, racial, and rhetorical situations (Vance, 283). At the same time, I think it is important to inform students of the appropriate times to use informal and formal writing styles. For example, when writing a blog post for fellow students or a script for a comedy podcast, an individual is more likely to utilize an informal tone, one that is similar to speaking to a friend. Conversely, when writing a piece for a professional setting, an individual will presumably choose to write with a formal tone. Despite the differences in writing styles depending on the formality of the setting, I believe that it is crucial to teach students not to accommodate to a singular, constainting way of writing. Students can successfully get their point across without having to use language that sounds forced and robotic; code-meshing and incorporating individualized language into one’s writing can even make their point more persuasive and intriguing to read about.
Every dialect has its own set of rules, therefore, every dialect should be viewed as valid by teachers and should be graded accordingly and equally. I think it would be wrong for teachers to instruct their students that the only acceptable way to write is in standard written English; instead they should encourage students to learn about different dialects and incorporate the way they speak into their writing. Despite this, I believe that there should be some sort of limit to students’ exposure to different dialects and codes. Students should be taught not to appropriate varieties of English that are not from their own culture, such as white students being taught not to write in African American Vernacular English. As I mentioned earlier, this should be taught at a young age, as a way to create an inclusive and educated foundation for the future. In general, I believe that schools should implement a curriculum having to do with the background and usage of different forms of English, in order to effectively expose students to these dialects.
In addition to administering a curriculum in schools surrounding different dialects, the entire school system should learn to be more inclusive and accepting while grading papers written by students. A central issue within the educational system, which includes teachers and administrators, is that graders often respond to assignments written outside of standard written English with criticism, marking vernacular grammatical features as mistakes. This criticism suppresses these students’ self-expression and creativity, especially when what they are docked off for is something that comes so naturally to them. Students should have the ability to speak and write in a dialect they are most comfortable with, without having to fear criticism and a poor grade on an assignment. The acceptance of different forms of English within the school system, in addition to the inclusion of a curriculum that exposes students to different dialects and teaches them to respect these dialects, is the most effective solution.
Works Cited
Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” New York Times, New York Times, 2009, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/what-should-colleges-teach.
Tardy, Christine M. “Enacting and Transforming Local Language Policies.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 62, no. 4, National Council of Teachers of English, 2011, pp. 634–61, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23006909.
Vance, John. “Code-Meshing Meshed Codes: Some Complications and Possibilities.” JAC, vol. 29, no. 1/2, JAC, 2009, pp. 281–84, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866901.
Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010. JSTOR, ir.uiowa.edu.