Author Archives: bendziewiczmf

Speech in the Classroom

Posted on by
Reply

by Maddie Bendiewicz

Fish and Young broadcast their contrasting opinions in their articles on speech in the classroom. While Fish advocates for a strict promotion of standard written English, Young advocates for a mixture of different dialects in the classroom to help level the playing field for all students. And while learning this form of English will be different for all students, teachers should acknowledge that the use of this form of English doesn’t automatically make someone more intelligent. I think standard written English should be enforced in the classroom because it provides the best opportunity for success in today’s society.

Fish writes in his article “What Should Colleges Teach?” that there should be a standard form of English taught in the classroom. Standard English is known as English that “with respect to spelling, grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary is substantially uniform.” This form of English has been “established by usage in the formal and informal speech and writing of the educated … that is widely recognized as acceptable wherever English is spoken and understood” (Webster). Fish also believes in teachers discouraging students’ dialects if they stray from the standard. This mainly affects minority students and those who are not native english speakers, and having to adapt to this new form of English is like learning a new language. This disproportionate influence on students serves as Young’s motivation for his article in response to Fish’s.

Young opposes Fish’s stance in his article “Should Writers Use They Own English” by discussing how straying from the standard form of English is not inherently incorrect. He also brings up that these societally defined “incorrect” versions of English are common in the lives of mainly minority students, and having them adhere to standard English is like making them learn another language because it may not be the version of English that they use among friends or family. Young takes issue with Fish discussing his concern that his graduate students couldn’t write very good sentences. Young thinks that if “they wrote good enuff in they essays to get into grad school” that proves that they write well enough (Young). Young calls for an introduction of “code meshing” into the classroom. This is the combination of multiple dialects within any single context of communication. Code meshing allows people to “draw upon the resources of more than one “code” in the course of constructing or communicating meaning” (Malenczyk). This will make it easier for all students to incorporate the language that they use at home into their writing.

I agree with Fish on teaching a standard form of English in the classroom. I think that there should be a standard form of English grammar and language taught in schools. Not allowing students to learn societally acceptable uses of words and language is not giving them an equal chance at success. Fish vocalizes this concern by saying “You’re not going to be able to change the world if you’re not equipped with the tools that speak to its present condition” (Fish). Society has built itself around a certain form of language, and a complete understanding of standard English is crucial for success in today’s world. Whether you’re taking the SAT, ACT, LSAT, or other standardized tests, applying for a job, meeting new people, or talking to your professors, the way you speak has a huge impact on how you come across. Especially in job interviews when the person interviewing you doesn’t know you very well, you have to make a good first impression. Having the ability to give clear answers to questions and communicate effectively is a very important part of life and succeeding in society. And because vernacular languages are less often understood, this is more difficult if you aren’t using standard English.

In the words of Dr. Brennah Hutchison, ultimately this debate comes down to the question of “Are we helping students by not addressing effective lexical or syntactic choices some might view as erroneous?” This battle is essentially on whether to “nurture students’ home languages in academic prose or ask them to conform to stuffy, grammatical rules” (Hutchison). Although these seem like radically different ideas, there is room to compromise. While I believe in conforming to standard English in the classroom, I don’t think that the struggles of minority students should be ignored. While teaching about standard written English, teachers and professors should also reinforce the idea that people who use other dialects aren’t less intelligent than people who use the standard English that is reinforced in schools. Teachers should also educate students on different vernacular languages. Students should know that vernacular languages aren’t failed attempts at standard English but rather separate languages with different grammatical rules. This should be brought into classrooms by reading literature and listening to speeches in other vernacular languages in addition to standard English, and emphasizing their importance as well.

Instead of ignoring the fact that learning these English rules will be more difficult for some students, schools should teach everyone not to discriminate against other students for the way they speak and write. Teachers should allow a safe environment for students to speak the way they are used to but encourage them to learn the version of English that will allow them to be the most successful that they can be. Teaching standard English while also instilling this awareness of other vernacular languages will help move society toward a place more accepting of other vernacular languages.

Learning how to communicate may be one of the first things you learn in school, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy. Communication comes in many forms and learning effective communication for the workplace is different for every student. Depending on the student’s background and home environment, the difficulty of learning standard written English may vary. And although this will inevitably be more challenging for certain students, this topic should not be ignored. Teaching all students standard English will open the most opportunities for them. And teaching that different dialects and forms of English that stray from what is being taught in the classroom is not inherently incorrect or that the speaker is not necessarily any less intelligent is also important. This allows students of all backgrounds to feel more comfortable and included in the classroom, and foster a better learning environment. 

 

Works Cited:

Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” New York Times, 9 Sept. 2009.

Hutchison, Brennah, and Angela Morris. “Mesh It, Y’all: Promoting Code-Meshing Through                           W        Writing Center Workshops.” The Peer Review, thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-4-2/     m          mesh-it-yall-promoting-code-meshing-through-writing-center-workshops/. Accessed 4        

             Nov. 2021.

Malenczyk, Rita, et al., editors. Composition, Rhetoric & Disciplinarity.

“Standard English.” Merriam-Webster.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?” Iowa Journal of Cultural 

Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 110-18.

 

 

 

Maddie Bendziewicz- The Covid-19 Ad Campaign That Hit Charlotte Like a Truck

Posted on by
Reply

This hard-hitting Covid-19 vaccine advertisement caught the attention of many Charlotteans as well as an expansive online audience. Sunday, September 19th a truck displaying the words “Don’t get vaccinated” drove around Charlotte, NC during the Carolina Panthers football game. Upon seeing this abnormal slogan, the audience was drawn to the advertiser, a faux company by the name of Wilmore funeral home. A rhetorical situation such as this appeals to the audience’s emotions in attempts to persuade them to get vaccinated.

The faux funeral home website: www.wilmorefuneralhome.com consists of eleven words and one link in the center with the words “Get vaccinated now. If not, see you soon” painted in white across the black screen. Upon clicking the text in the center, the viewer is directed to the StarMed website, an urgent care facility in Charlotte that administers the Covid-19 vaccine. Many well known websites including People magazine, the Washington Post, and USA Today, wrote about this ad campaign using a shock factor and a bit of dark humor to grab the attention of their audience.  The ad campaign director, David Oakley feels that “conventional advertising is not working [and] regular messages … just kind of blend in” (Ebrahimji). So Oakley decided to use “a different perspective [one that] kind of shocks people into thinking, ‘Holy moly, man.’” (Ebrahimji).

Lloyd F. Bitzer describes a rhetorical situation as “a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence which strongly invites utterance” (4). Rhetorical situations are ones that expect a reaction or change from their audience. This audience, according to Bitzer, “consists only of those persons who are capable of being influenced by discourse and of being mediators of change” (7). The audience only includes those who can be influenced by the rhetoric. Bitzer declares exigence as “any imperfection marked by urgency” and specifies that rhetorical exigence must be modifiable (6). And according to Bitzer, the constraints on this rhetoric are “made up of persons, events, objects, and relations which are part of the situation” (8). These constraints could consist of beliefs, traditions, cultures, documents, or motives, and “have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (8). Constraints serve as influences on the way the audience reacts to the exigence. 

The audience for this campaign is both the vaccinated and unvaccinated people of Charlotte. However, both parts of this audience can react in different ways. The unvaccinated people can be impacted by this harsh reality, and choose to get vaccinated or not. The vaccinated people, like many did, can repost an image of this truck on social media. This would spread awareness in unvaccinated Covid-19 death statistics, in an attempt to get those unvaccinated to consider vaccinating themselves or their children.

One form of exigence in this rhetorical situation is the vaccination status of the audience. This aligns with Bitzer’s definition of exigence because it is modifiable. If one member of the audience decides to get vaccinated, this exigence has changed. David Oakley expressed that the whole campaign will be worthwhile even if just one person decides to get vaccinated as a result (Ebrahimji). 

Another form of exigence in this situation is the rate at which people are dying of Covid-19. And despite the efforts being put to end this virus, the “current epidemic trends still remain relatively high levels in the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19” (Wang). This statistic, and more specifically the rate at which unvaccinated people are dying, are forms of exigence because the rhetorical situation is ultimately trying to change this. As of September, 2021 “Unvaccinated people are 11 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than those who are fully vaccinated” (Romo). This suits the exigence definition as put by Bitzer because if unvaccinated people understand their odds against Covid they may reconsider getting the vaccine. Some people refuse to get the vaccine because they think that they are healthy enough to survive even if they got Covid. But maybe this bold attempt for attention will at least make some who are weary of vaccination, look into it a bit further. In addition to decreased mortality rates, fully vaccinated people are also five times less likely to get infected with Covid (Romo).

The vaccination status in Charlotte is also an example of exigence. This can affect whether people choose to get vaccinated. If everyone they know has been vaccinated, it may make them more inclined to get vaccinated themselves. However, if the people around them haven’t gotten vaccinated, they may be less inclined to get vaccinated. This advertisement was created in an attempt to convince the people of Charlotte to get vaccinated, because the vaccination numbers in North Carolina are lower than the country’s average with “roughly 48.8% of residents … fully vaccinated” (Ebrahimji). 

A constraint of this situation is past experiences with both Covid-19 and with vaccinations. Usually when someone has been severely impacted by Covid, their friends and family are more likely to get vaccinated because they see the first hand impacts. This makes an advertisement about Covid mortality rates more effective for people in that category. If someone has had a bad experience with a past vaccination, they may be less likely to get the Covid vaccine, even despite the statistics. These are constraints because they have the power to constrain the audiences’ decisions.

Another constraint is the audiences’ trust in the government and in science. The audience’s trust in the government constrains their decision in whether or not to get the vaccine. If some people fully trust the government, they may be less hesitant to get vaccinated. And people who don’t like the president or the government may not have faith in the vaccine or trust the statistics that are being advertised. Same goes for science. Even despite the CDC guidelines, Covid protocols, and case statistics, if the audience has a lack of trust in the government, they might either not trust the vaccine content or the numbers of either Covid cases/deaths. 

Another constraint is the Covid-based laws in each area and the longing for normalcy. More businesses opening up and life “returning to normal” is a very common goal regardless of personal beliefs on vaccinations. If events like concerts for example, require vaccination prior to entry, people may be more likely to vaccinate. This applies for other businesses as well. If your favorite restaurant cuts capacity in half and now you can’t even get a reservation, or the football games you love going to now can’t have an audience, this may make you rethink your vaccination decision for no other reason than to get life back to normal. This longing for normalcy is something that is very common and can constrain someone’s decision to get vaccinated.

Another constraint is the awareness of the influx of people to funeral homes. This constraint is a motive of vaccination. This campaign allows people to recognize something they may not have thought about before. Funeral homes across the country have had to deal with the repercussions of the unvaccinated’s choice. They have to truck away corpses from hospitals and cremate or bury them. Funeral Director Patrick Kearns says that death rate is just too high and that “there’s no way [they] can bury or cremate them fast enough” (Fueler). This harsh reality, one that is shocking and terrifying, has not often been shared. Using a funeral home as the method of communicating this message is a powerful and unique way to reach their audience. People working in funeral homes are aware of this increase as well as people who have lost someone during this time. But this campaign seeks out those who have yet to think about this possible “side effect” of vaccination or lack thereof. This awareness can impact someone’s decision to get vaccinated by offering this perspective shift.

This rhetorical situation in the form of a harsh vaccination campaign in Charlotte, NC has people double-taking. In an attempt to avoid blending in with typical vaccine campaigns, ad campaign director David Oakley put together this faux funeral home advertisement telling people not to get vaccinated, this implying that doing so would lead to death, which would be good for their business. This dark humor is effective because it makes people think more deeply about the repercussions of not getting vaccinated. And although inevitably some will find this as an offensive or cheap attempt at promoting vaccination, I think this will challenge the ideas of the unvaccinated and make them think at least a bit more about their choice. This risky Covid-19 campaign is one Bitzer would define as a rhetorical situation because it attempts to convince the audience to get vaccinated by appealing to their emotions.