Context is Key Code-Switching Essay

by Makenna Stone

So like I dunno how you guys speak but um, I know its different then like most of the way you guys speak down here. While I think about all this stuff, could I get a pop? Yeah, I say pop. It’s definitely not soda. Oh, you can’t help me because you’re eating chicken bog, hitting the lights, and mashing the buttons? Ah, gotcha. Moving to the south changed my world. It expanded my horizons far beyond the small-town, Indiana farm culture I grew up in. Though I first believed the people around me all had the accents, I quickly came to realize that I was the stranger to their culture. It was me who had the accent. Not only did I have the midwestern accent, but I also embodied the midwestern dialect. The phrases, words, and sayings are part of my vocabulary, and they followed me to the south. My midwestern dialect penetrated the southern culture, dialect, and accent. Dialects are present within every language due to regional and cultural differences. Theses dialects and respective cultures must, therefore, be recognized within the educational world to teach students about cultural appreciation. However, due to the formalities required in academic writing, dialects, regardless of race, should not be present in academic pieces.

Dialects are variations of their foundational language. Because they are variations, they not only follow similar grammatical rules, but they also have their own forms of slang and colloquial phrases that should not be present in formal writing. Formal writing constitutes pieces designated for the business, legal, scientific, and academic worlds that removes personal connections and voice of the author from the writing. On the contrary, informal writing constitutes pieces that thrive based on the author’s voice and connections being present in writings used for entertainment, academics, or personal use. Informal writing can also contain colloquial diction such as slang, but formal writing tends to avoid it. Because both formal and informal writings can occur in academic settings such as educational institutions, controversy has begun to occur over when it is appropriate to include formal aspects of dialects within academic pieces. In this case, distinctions must be maintained within various contexts and situations. Creative writing classes, for example, should celebrate formal aspects of all dialects as they enhance writings to include the author’s voice; however, writings in science labs should maintain an unbiased, neutral tone that avoids including the author’s voice. If personal feelings are included in formal pieces such as science labs, then a biased tone could come across and result in decreased credibility. The intended audience of said pieces is key to understanding whether dialects should be present in the writing. Clear and concise writings allow readers to understand the points the author is trying to make (Verblio). Once the author identifies the audience, then he or she may proceed to make a well-informed decision as to include his or her dialect in the writing.

Because the dialect controversy occurs within educational settings, sometimes writers must conform to the rubric of an educator. Such rubrics tend to be based around Standard English, as it is a unified, formal version of English that does not include dialects; therefore, it can be a unifying form of writing that all English-speakers understand. Because it is heavily modified and regulated to sound formal, English-speakers generally do not speak in Standard English, but rather their own dialects. Therefore, no specific dialect is being prioritized within formal or academic pieces. All dialects have been modified over time and throughout regions. In Stanley Fish’s article, he supplies the reasoning behind the CCC resolution for student’s language rights within educational institutions. He explains the “theoretical argument (that) linguistic forms… are not God-given; they are the conventional products of social/cultural habit and therefore none of them is naturally superior or politically ‘correct.’” (Fish 2) Once again, though all dialects should be considered equal, the context and audience of the piece should determine whether dialects are used at all. It is not a matter of using one dialect and discriminating against another, it is deciphering when it is beneficial to include a dialect in the piece to begin with.

Some may argue that educational institutions, by forcing students to abide by Standard English, are dismissing the cultural and social significance and personal empowerment that comes with affirming their natural dialects. Regardless of race, forcing any student to abandon a part of his or her-self for the sake of others is a problem that necessitates a remedial action. Standard English educators and classes already have a large curriculum that must be taught though, so a potential solution could be a linguistic diversity class that teaches various dialects. The class would also allow schools to promote dialect diversity within these unique classes while simultaneously teaching formal writing practices in Standard English classes. A class such as this would work to combat the implicit judgement that Standard English is better when non-standard English is corrected, as Qamar Shafiq explains in his blog “Why I Insist on Standard English in My Classroom.” He notes that “This is not a complicated issue to address. I think students should be made aware there are certain circumstance where non-standard English is appropriate, but that in the classroom it is more appropriate to speak in standard English” (Shafiq). Schools should continue to teach Standard English as formal writing, but also have dialect classes that teach the rules behind certain dialects. The class could not only teach the rules, but it could also teach about the cultures that various dialects stem from. Simultaneously, the class will increase the proficiency of code-switching for both students and teachers, “I think,” Shafiq writes, “we undermine the intellectual capacity of our students that prioritizing standard English means to undermine non-standard English. Students are perfectly capable of code-switching.” Any essay assignments within the class could be written in the student’s choice of dialect, so long as it abides by the formal rules of the dialect. Teachers could go to professional development to better understand the general rules of the dialects; therefore, both students and teachers would be gaining linguistic skills from other dialects. All teachers, regardless of their own race, can attend the professional development to further enhance their teaching methods and understanding of a variety of dialects. Once dialects become widely accepted and understood, then the attitudes Vershawn Young talks about in his article, “Should Writers use They Own Language,” will change. Young claims that negative views toward people who speak in their natural dialects and languages, not the language they are speaking, creates oppression (Young 110). However, if the attitudes toward others begin to shift, then the vulnerability to prejudice that Young speaks of will begin to shift as well.

The controversial topic of the presence of dialects in formal and academic pieces of writing depends on context. Writing is not a subject considered to be “black or white,” but rather a gray area that is up to interpretation from both writer and reader. Because of its gray nature, the presence of dialects requires writers to create a non-traditional solution with compromise from all sides. Writing is the physical form of personal expression. Though there are certain circumstances that require the absence of dialects, discrimination against dialects without purpose creates a negative atmosphere for writers around the world. So, I guess from here I’d say to watch the context, read the room, and write in a way that shows appreciation for all people.

Works Cited

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach? Part 3.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Sept. 2009, opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/what-should-colleges-teach-part-3/. Accessed 27 October 2021.

Shafiq, Qamar. “Why I insist on standard English in my classroom.” tes, 13 September 2020, www.tes.com/news/why-i-insist-standard-english-my-classroom. Accessed 1 November 2021.

Verblio. “Do You Write the Way You Speak? Here’s Why Most Good Writers Don’t.” Do Write The Way You Speak? Here’s Why Most Good Writers Don’t, Medium, 22 Jan. 2016, medium.com/@blogmutt/do-you-write-the-way-you-speak-here-s-why-most-good-writers-don-t-547a53548e26. Accessed 27 October 2021.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English.” Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, Volume 12, Issue 1, 2010, pp 110-118.

Makenna Stone – Rhetorical Situation Analysis Essay

The oceans sustain life on Earth, but man has repaid it with death by plastic. The plastic crisis facing marine environments is exponentially increasing, which affects coastal communities, mankind’s food sources, and life under the water. Plastic production has consistently increased from the world’s 1.9 tons of plastic generated in 1950 to the 330 million tons globally produced in 2013 (Seltenrich 2). With the increase in production, an increase in pollution followed. Though models predict the production of plastic to quadruple by 2050, some organizations are working to combat current effects and create proactive measures to protect the ocean’s future (Oceana 1:50). One of those organizations, Oceana, works to restore the oceans through global policy initiatives with the support of all people. The work Oceana accomplishes would not be possible without its supporters; therefore, Oceana has created multiple marketing tools to increase engagement. The video “Why We Need to Stop Plastic Pollution in Our Oceans for Good,” produced by Oceana, responds to plastic pollution as a rhetorical situation.

Lloyd Bitzer, author of the article “The Rhetorical Situation,” defines multiple terms used to analyze rhetorical situations, which he describes as “a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence which strongly invites utterance” (4). Because of how Bitzer defines a rhetorical situation, one can infer that a situation is required for discourse to occur. In the case of the Oceana video, the rhetorical situation would be the ocean plastic crisis, and the informational video would be the rhetorical discourse. However, to deem the discourse successful in incurring change, one must analyze the situation for three components: exigence, audience, and constraints. The term exigence calls the audience to positive action concerning the discourse. The audience, classified into primary and secondary, consists of the people or groups who can influence the exigence and respond to its call to action. The final aspect of the three components, the constraints, can restrict the change called for by the exigence. Because the delivery and communication constraints limit the exigence, it can lose its effectiveness. Constraints are not only considered people, but, according to Bitzer, they are also events, objects, and relations (8). All three elements present themselves within rhetorical situations and affect the success of the discourse.

Plastic pollution congregating at the water’s surface; Pixabay

Though the exigence set up by the rhetorical situation presented in the Oceana video may seem straightforward, there are multifaceted layers that viewers must understand. The main exigence of the video is the increase in ocean pollution and its effects on the environment and mankind. To inform the audience of the video’s purpose, Oceana states that “17.6 billion pounds of plastic enter the oceans each year” (Oceana 0:25), and that “less than 4% of the oceans remain unaffected by human activity (“What We Do”). These statistics alert the reader to the immediate problem of plastic pollution. After the video establishes the main exigence, it asserts that “four times more plastic will be produced between now and the middle of the century than has been produced in all of history,” which creates an additional exigence: the lack of awareness and political urgency for environmental protections. (Oceana 1:48). Because Oceana’s primary purpose is to bring about positive political changes that protect the future ocean environments, viewers can infer that the exponential increase in plastic production is due to a gap between politicians and the essential environmental policies they create.

Along with exigence, there are usually more than one intended audiences who respond to a rhetorical situation. Though politicians are not the obvious audience for the video, they are part of the secondary audience Oceana aimed to reach. They can change and create policy initiatives that will result in protective regulations for the oceans. The primary audience that Oceana geared the video towards is the public. The reason they chose citizens as their target market for the video is that Oceana needs support from the public to gain support for their cause of ocean restoration. According to an article published by National Geographic, “single-use plastics account for 40% of the plastic produced every year,” which are used by most of the population (Parker). By increasing awareness for plastic pollution and gaining support from the people, Oceana hopes to decrease the demand for single-use plastics. With the decrease in the need for plastics, their supply and presence in the oceans will, as a result, decrease as well.

Plastic pollution littering sand walkways along the beach; Pixabay

 

In theory, gaining public support, changing policies, and changing human behavioral patterns should be enough to change the course of the plastic crisis; however, some constraints will restrict the progress of Oceana and other similar organizations. One of the primary constraints of the rhetorical discourse is the medium to which it was published. Oceana uploaded the five-minute video to YouTube, which constrained the discourse since it is one of the only places, other than live events, that Oceana broadcasts its content. The YouTube algorithms work to show a variety of quality videos; however, because anyone can create content on YouTube, the mere quantity of videos can result in quality videos not being viewed. Recently, social media algorithms have shifted to showing videos the algorithm determines to align with the viewers’ beliefs and interests. As a result, the video may not appear to people who have not interacted with ocean conservation topics beforehand. Therefore, viewers’ beliefs can also be considered a constraint upon the video related to its medium. Though not all viewers will share the same opinions, the video will likely attract viewers interested in sustainability, conservation practices, climate change, etc. Generally, left-leaning liberals focus more on climate change than right-leaning conservatives; however, anyone interested in protecting the environment can promote climate protection policies within their political groups. Another constraint found within the video is the inferred ethnicity of the speaker as a white male for the voiceover. Oceana is a global organization that aims to impact global policies for ocean conservation. However, employing an assumed American creates a disparity between Oceana’s goal of international presence and their actions.

Some constraints, known as affordances, can enable the modification of the exigence. The primary affordance for Oceana’s video is its multimodal nature, as it contains four of the five modes of communication: visual, spatial, aural, and linguistic. Throughout the video, the visual mode conveys the severity of the plastic crisis. One of the images used in the video, displayed to the right, depicts a sea turtle consuming a plastic bag that it mistakes for a jellyfish. The spatial mode also plays

Sea turtle biting a piece of clear plastic; Oceana Video

a part in emphasizing the exigence of plastic pollution in marine environments as the video fills the screen with the image of the helpless, unknowing sea turtle, which can invoke empathy in the viewer. The linguistic mode aids the video by allowing visually impaired people and other viewers to listen to the voiceover that explains the issue and how the audience can help be a part of the change. The voiceover, along with the background music, combines to create the aural mode, which guides the thought process of the listener. The music evokes emotions that correspond to the information presented by the voiceover and the visuals. Throughout the video, the background music consistently conveyed the tone and matched with the information explained by the voiceover. The ominous music at the beginning of the video aligned with the presentation of the seemingly hopeless marine plastic issue; however, there is a music shift from ominous to hopeful when the voiceover exclaims the urgency for “plastic-free choices” (Oceana 2:47). Then, the music realigns for a second time later in the video from a hopeful to a victorious tone as the voiceover begins sharing some of the policies that support the positive change of its primary exigence.

The modes presented in the video allow for the occurrence of the design elements as a rhetorical response. Three of the central design elements found in the video are emphasis, contrast, and organization. Emphasis is found where certain words are stressed over other less important words. The video applied emphasis to the words “four, times, more” by having them appear in large bold letters during the key moment of revealing the bleak future of the ocean if the plastic crisis is not addressed (Oceana 1:55). Contrast is the variance in elements that places greater importance on one element over another. At the end of the video, the music ceases, and the voiceover closes with only his voice echoing, “Please join our campaign” against a black screen with the Oceana logo in white letters. The conclusion utilizes aural and visual contrast as a design element to leave the viewers processing how they can be a part of the change against pollution by supporting Oceana’s initiatives (Oceana 4:28). The examples of emphasis and contrast in the video work together to create a tone of power and importance. These two design elements were also strategically used on the points that Oceana wanted its viewers to remember. Throughout the video, text is only used three times, which indicates that Oceana included the text with contrast and emphasis to further emphasize their stance on the effects of plastic pollution. Most of the video comprises clips of dying or stranded animals and the plastic that is killing them, which invokes feelings of sadness, pity, anger, and disgust at the horrors the oceans and their creatures face. By instilling these feelings in the viewers, the design elements achieve their purpose of igniting a passion for the topic in the viewers.

Even with its promotional intentions, Oceana did not mention itself until the last half of the video, which displays the reliance the organization places on the devices used to create a successful rhetorical response to the plastic crisis. The marketing team is relying on the video being powerful enough to urge viewers to join the ocean conservation campaign, rather than directly promoting Oceana as an organization. In doing so, the team effectively creates a video that responds to their predetermined exigence and calls their supporters to action. The concluding words of the video, “Please join our campaign,” present an avenue for the viewers to act against the eight million metric tons of plastic pollution that enter the oceans annually (Stahl Jr.). By giving people the opportunities to engage with the issue, such as signing an Oceana petition, the people who support Oceana induce the positive change needed to work towards Oceana’s mission: to restore the world’s oceans.