by Audrey Schroeder
In a nation as culturally and linguistically diverse as the United States, it should not be surprising that there are many different vernacular languages spoken here. In recent years, there has been much debate on the teaching of Standard American English in schools. This begs the question: should only teaching or accepting Standard American English in schools as a useful and valid language be the norm? Code-meshing and code-switching are forms of using more than one variety of a language that have developed out of this dilemma and have become prominent in the United States. Code-meshing is taking more than one language or vernacular and combining the languages. Some examples of code-meshing are speaking in English but switching to Spanish for some words or phrases or using both Standard American English and African American Vernacular English to better articulate oneself. Code-switching is when one uses one language or vernacular in some scenarios and switches completely to another language or vernacular in other scenarios. According to the needs of American children and students growing up in a linguistically diverse nation, schools should improve the teaching of issues surrounding varieties of English as opposed to “standard” grammar and diction.
Different academics and writers have differing opinions on the issue. For instance, Stanley Fish in his opinion piece “What Should Colleges Teach” for the New York Times, discusses what college professors should be teaching in regards to writing. Fish says he uses a method of “asking students to make a sentence out of a random list of words, and then explain what they did” then “asking students to turn a three-word sentence like “Jane likes cake” into a 100- word sentence without losing control of the basic structure and then explain, word-by-word, clause-by-clause, what they did” and finally “asking students to replace the nonsense words in the first stanza of Lewis Carroll’s “Jabberwocky” with ordinary English words in a way that makes coherent (if silly) sense, and then explain what they did, and how they knew what kind of word to put into each “slot.”’ (96-102). His approach to the issue appears to be to teach students “correct” Standard American English grammar and writing skills and encourage students to use different dialects and vernaculars to enhance style when appropriate. He cites inequality in an imperfect world as his reason for this. Fish explains that even if academically it is understood that different vernaculars and dialects are equally as acceptable, in the current state of this nation, all vernacular dialects are not accepted by certain occupations or industries and he does not want to give students false hope or skills that will not always be useful to them.
Vershawn Ashanti Young is another academic who responded to Fish’s writing in his “Should Writers Use They Own English”. Fish has the opinion that prejudices against ways of speaking that are not “standard” are often racially motivated. He writes, “But dont nobody’s language, dialect, or style make them “vulnerable to prejudice.” It’sATTITUDES. It be the way folks with some power perceive other people’s language. Like the way some view, say, black English when used in school or at work. Black English dont make it own-self oppressed. It be negative views about other people usin they own language” (Young 110). Young’s point is that if the nation continues to teach young students that the way they have learned to speak and write is incorrect when it is dependent on their socioeconomic or racial or ethnic status, the prejudices will only worsen. He takes the stance that there is great value in the differences of vernaculars and people should not have to learn to code-switch or even code-mesh. He believes that different forms of vernacular English should be accepted. He even writes in a combination of code-meshing and code-switching between African American Vernacular English and Standard American English to further his point. For English speakers who do not use African American Vernacular English, it is still easily understood, the only thing that would hinder an English speaker from understanding the meaning of his writing would be prejudice or ignorance.
Jamila Lyiscott is a poet and educator who gave a TED Talk titled “3 Ways to Speak English” about code-meshing, code-switching, and the different forms of vernacular English she speaks. She “decides to treat all her languages as equal because [she] is articulate” (Lyiscott). She performs the entire TED Talk in a form of code-meshing and code-switching alternating between the different vernacular languages she speaks. She, like Young, firmly believes the current way vernacular English speakers are treated is rooted in racism and prejudice. She even goes as far as claiming that the entire reason many people in America speak different vernaculars is because they were “stolen or raped away from their homes” and that is why she speaks a “composite version of your language” (Lyiscott). Here, she is obviously referring to the enslavement of African and Indigenous people in America and how they were forced to learn a new language and how a middle ground of different vernaculars was formed in the process. An example of this locally, could be the Gullah language spoken primarily in Charleston. Gullah is a vernacular spoken primarily in Charleston but also in similar regions. It was created by African people, who were enslaved and brought to the United States through the port city of Charleston. This vernacular is now historic and is valued, but would most likely not be applauded in academic or work circles, aside from possibly an academic group interested in history.
The Harvard Business Review published an article titled “The Costs of Code-Switching” discussing the positive and negative results of Black people in America utilizing code-switching in different environments and contexts. They explain that there are three major reasons that Black people use the strategy of code-switching in the workplace, “downplaying membership in a stigmatized racial group helps increase perceptions of professionalism”, “Avoiding negative stereotypes associated with black racial identity”, and “Expressing shared interests with members of dominant groups promotes similarity with powerful organizational members” (McCluney et al.). According to this article, even though code-meshing and using vernacular forms of English should be taught, embraced, and accepted, it is clear that they do not benefit people of color, primarily Black people in this case, in the workplace and in academia.
In summation, different varieties of vernacular English should be embraced more in schools, however, standard convention should still be taught and the context in which standard English may be helpful should also be taught. It is important to encourage young students and teach them that their vernacular is valuable and intelligent, while also ensuring they have the communication skills that are expected in work and academic realms of their life.
Works Cited
Fish, Stanley. “What Should Colleges Teach?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Aug. 2009, https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/what-should-colleges-teach/.
Lyiscott, Jamila, director. 3 Ways to Speak English, TED, Feb. 2014, https://www.ted.com/talks/jamila_lyiscott_3_ways_to_speak_english?language=en#t-73240. Accessed 29 Oct. 2021.
McCluney, Courtney L., et al. “The Costs of Code-Switching.” Harvard Business Review, 28 Jan. 2021, https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-costs-of-codeswitching.
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.