by Sarah Alexander
In academic and professional spaces, the discourse surrounding the usage of code-switching and code-meshing has continually expanded in the past decade. While some believe the ability to switch between different styles of speaking and writing depending on context is a necessary one, many others view this expectation as one that forces people with various linguistic backgrounds to conform to a widely accepted standard, abandoning their own experiences, background, and individuality. As these social circles continue searching for inclusivity, these opposing viewpoints raise important questions about how each method of code variation could present itself in daily life.
The conscious shift one makes from one form of language to another is widely known as “code-switching” (Auer). This method can in a way be viewed as the fluency in and use of multiple sub-languages that exist within a language. In contrast, another way to incorporate different language styles into speech and writing is known as “code-meshing”, a method of blending the numerous facets of one’s linguistic identity into a single, unique pattern of speech. In professional and academic circles, there is ongoing discourse concerning the effectiveness of each of these methods in various situations. While code-meshing is generally more complex and difficult to regulate, it can serve as a useful alternative in specific situations where code-switching creates barriers in communication.
In her spoken-word essay “3 Ways to Speak English”, Jamila Lyiscott cleverly compares and contrasts the characteristics of the different patterns of speech in which she is fluent. Lyiscott emphasizes that while each form of language is different, each possesses its own set of rules that someone on the outside may not fully be aware of. She goes into detail about how each code she uses throughout her daily life is significant to her personal background and her relationships with those around her and views her ability to transition from code to code depending on the situation as an acquired skill: one that displays her vast knowledge of different forms of communication. In her speech, Lyiscott declares, “This is not a promotion of ignorance. This is a linguistic celebration,” further emphasizing the importance of keeping these three distinct forms of English separate. Each type of language holds its own significance, allowing her to be fully understood and embraced within different social circles, whether she’s conversing with her parents, greeting people she passes in the street, or having a discussion with her professor. To Lyiscott, the separation of these languages allows each of them to remain equally important in their own rights.
In contrast to Lyiscott’s perspective, many feel that the language they most regularly use represents their own multifaceted identity. Rather than taking pride in the ability to speak many types of language fluently, some appreciate possessing their own linguistic “fingerprint”” of sorts, meshing the numerous modes of speech they know into one. As Dr. Vershawn Ashanti Young points out in his essay “Should Writers Use They Own English?”, the reinforcement of the use of one particular type of language, especially within academic institutions, inadvertently implies that that style is somehow more “acceptable” than any other. This forces students who do come from different cultural backgrounds to conform and, at least momentarily, abandon the sense of identity that accompanies the language they have absorbed through personal experiences.
While both of these contrasting perspectives offer different arguments in regards to code-meshing and code-switching, each shines light on the rigid structure currently found within schools and workplaces. Code-meshing allows students and employees to maintain the connection with their identities through the language they use, and while it may create too broad a linguistic spectrum to be fully embraced in all settings, it can and should be more commonly adopted within the classroom. Code-switching, on the other hand, places a burden on those with multiple cultural identities that simply does not exist in the minds of those who have only been conditioned from a young age to use the widely accepted standard. If academic and professional circles become more accepting of different forms of language, code-meshing could, to some extent, offer a solution that not only embraces those with multicultural backgrounds, but lends itself to a more diverse canon of writing and speaking in our communities and our world.
While code-switching is a method that sometimes places an unnecessary burden on those who are accustomed to speaking types of English that are not considered standard, it is often viewed as a necessity. According to research collected through surveys in schools, many Black students who typically use African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) report that they switch to standard English to be more readily accepted by predominantly non-Black peers (McCluney). Beyond seeking respect and avoiding harsh judgement, this type of switching is often also a tool for safety, as many survival guidelines exist that encourage Black citizens to speak in a specific manner to avoid life-threatening scenarios when interacting with police (“Get Home Safely”). These high-stakes situations clearly reinforce the need for code-switching, while also increasing its overall negative impact on the mental wellbeing of the minorities who must use it.
If the existence of codes is more widely acknowledged in schools and workplaces, hopefully, wider acceptance could be reached and the necessity for this virtually unavoidable practice could be diminished. To achieve this, code-meshing could be more intentionally incorporated into our daily lives, thus expanding the overall acceptance and use of all different types of code. Educators could begin incorporating introductory-level discussions about different types of code into the curriculum so that students have a broader understanding of the various subtypes of the language. This basic level of awareness would create a more accepting professional world for future generations. If our communities, classrooms, and workplaces can achieve a more intentional acknowledgement of codes and how they are used, we can begin to understand that each code has a unique set of rules, as Lyiscott points out in her TED Talk presentation. These rules also expand the possibilities for academic work and allow for a more personal connection to one’s writing (Gardner-Chloros). By understanding the importance of this linguistic diversity, we can begin to dismantle the hierarchy that places standard English above all other forms of speech and writing.
Code-switching, while presently a necessary skill for many in academic or professional settings, places an unfair strain on those with different backgrounds to become fluent in a specific style of widely accepted language. Meanwhile, code-meshing offers an interesting alternative that could create a much more interesting and dynamic academic landscape in the years to come. When all people are permitted to write more or less in the vernacular that flows most naturally for them, all academic work will become more meaningful and capture a wider range of perspectives. While each of these methods may not be viable in every situation, acceptance of the many different types of English that exist would undoubtedly benefit our world and eliminate the need for conformity in academic writing and speaking.
Word Count: 1175
Works Cited
Auer, Peter. Code-Switching in Conversation : Language, Interaction and Identity. Routledge,
2002, doi:10.4324/9780203017883.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. Code-Switching. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
“Get Home Safely: 10 Rules of Survival.” PBS, 2019, www.pbs.org/black-culture/connect/
talk-back/10_rules_of_survival_if_stopped_by_police. Accessed 4 Nov. 2021.
Lyiscott, Jamila. “3 Ways to Speak English.” TED, 2014, www.youtu.be/k9fmJ5xQ_mc.
McCluney, Courtney L., et al. “The Costs of Code-Switching.” Harvard Business Review, 15
Nov. 2019. www.hbr.org/2019/11/the-costs-of-codeswitching. Accessed 4 Nov. 2021.
Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural
Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 110–117., https://doi.org/10.17077/2168-569x.1095.