Category Archives: Rhetorical Choice

Vernacular English, Code-Meshing, Code-Switching, & Writing Conventions

Posted on by
Reply

     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. 

Proposed Solutions to Code-Meshing Within the American Education System

Posted on by
Reply

by Grace Tener

What is standard English? In the minds of many students, this phrase probably creates visions of MLA headings, the absence of to-be verbs, and the rules of semicolon usage. But what exactly does this mean for the education system as a whole and how can we move away from the biased standardized process that plagues how we are conditioned beginning in our youth? The process for updating the academic climate in America is complex, however, I propose a three-step process, although not completely realistic, that demonstrates a method to provide a more inclusive standard in alignment with the ideals of new generations. By updating and regulating the standard testing system, particularly through altering the AP and SAT format tests currently presented by the College Board (1), creating a new addition to the public education curriculum where a course on various dialects and culture is included in graduation requirements (2) and improving the standard English rules that students follow (3) formulating a new approach to code-meshing in academics becomes a possibility.  

  1. The introduction of standardized assessments began in the early 20th century with the entrance of the SAT and grew more heavily emphasized in the 1960s. Throughout their integration into the education system questions continued to arise about whether or not the examination process proved an efficient method of measuring intellect or instead revealed the discrepancies present between various individuals depending on the social background (Gerson). Research conducted by experts in the Annual Review of Sociology determined that the difference in test scores between students of different backgrounds had less to do with the intelligence level influenced by race or other genetic factors and instead proved examinations highlighted the privilege associated with students having access to academic resources. The arguments made by both Fish and Young do not seek to address the issues of standardized testing, their emphasis proves more focused on the topic of code-switching and the place of different dialects in the classroom. However, the standardization presence in education connects to this issue and testing contributes to this argument through enforcing the standard English rules that hinder the current education system’s ability to prove inclusive and in accordance with the evolving social structure. From personal experience, I had an admittedly skewed sample having attended predominantly private and religious institutes.                                                                   My academic exposure curriculum enlisted separate influences from that of typical public education systems. I am more focused on addressing the flaws within accessible education, as private institutes are harder to govern and demonstrate a majority of the academic advantages that skew testing results. I plan to emphasize more specifically the challenges within the public school system rather than compare it to private education.                                                         Having participated in taking the SAT during my college admissions process as well as the experience of EOGs in my youth, I understand to an extent how the content of standardized tests proves unfair to individuals of various backgrounds. Even in my encounters with education the skills necessary for success on the SAT do not align in any capacity with the curriculum I was used to. The format of the test questions specifically calls for the demonstration of knowledge on an array of topics not addressed within the classroom. The algebraic, geometric, and other math concepts prevalent on the test did not align with my particular math courses at the time of my taking the exam. The essay section as well proves subjective and separate from the typical format of narrative or book analysis compositions I was assigned in school. Several other factors contributed as well to my unpreparedness for the exam, and these disparities only significantly increase for students as you further delve into the various types of educational system shortcomings.                                                                                   Based on the current climate of society today, it is not plausible to eliminate completely a standard scale for which to measure student performance, however, it is possible to create an improved version that more accurately reflects the demographics of students today. The new test would account for different backgrounds and follow a more logical approach for questioning by addressing topics that prove beneficial towards student success. I would propose a basic math section that includes sections of lower-level statistics, percentages, and strengthening of other primary math skills. The reading comprehension portion would include a wider variety of styles of writing and the questions would be more aimed at determining a reader’s ability to access the content of a written piece then decipher it for grammatical discrepancies. The essay section as well if not completely eliminated would be altered to account for a student’s individual style and focus more on the ability to articulate an idea rather than follow a structural format. Simple changes to the examination process would vastly improve the gap in performance on standardized tests and make the overall process more accessible to all students.
  2. Another approach to code-meshing within the American education system would be through the formulation of a “new English” course of study that exposes students to various dialects and introduces them to new ideas of academic works to familiarize them with the presence of contradicting methods of writing. This would be a challenging curriculum to incorporate into the current education system seeing as the graduation requirements vary on a state level, it would be hard to regulate a new kind of instruction on a national scale. The modules themselves would combine aspects of history as well as the already present literature courses in schools to explain how historical events shaped the way we understand English today. By outlining the history of the standard English scale and appreciating other methods of expression in schools, new generations would be able to determine for themselves a method of self-expression and combine the ability to implement personal ideas with the understood way of writing.                   I hope this type of preparation for students could potentially move away from the current emphasis on one way of demonstrating knowledge in the classroom. The lectures would match both Young and Fish’s ideas on code usage in the classroom as the standard English system would not be challenged within the course but instruction on varying dialects would allow for the possibility for changes to be made in the future where code-meshing becomes a reality for all students to comprehend.
  3.  I mentioned previously that society relies on a standardized scale to govern all people and join us under a common understanding. However, the current standard English way of writing holds countless historical errors that make it no longer suitable for modern Americans. As outlined in the CCCC statement on White Language Supremacy, many present standardized systems within America remain inherently racist. The piece calls for the dismantling of WLS in favor of a new system that accounts for the perspective of BIPOC. The current approach to writing in the classroom caters to this WLS mindset and in recent years it has become more apparent that change is necessary to ensure inclusion for all students. Critical Language Awareness (CSL) proves one way in which social change can be implemented. The article’s main solution expressed a need to change current mindsets on written language. A key method in which it becomes possible for code-meshing to occur within education, efforts must be made beginning with the earliest stages of a child’s exposure to the language. It can be proven that children can retain language information easily and by changing the curriculum at the earliest stages of development the process of altering the biased system of writing to a modern version.                                                                The last way in which I believe that the flaws of the standard English language could be solved involves altercations at the earliest stages of learning. This would involve an almost entrance-level assessment of a child’s background. Similar to how immunization records are necessary for a child to attend school, I also believe an understanding of a young student’s intellectual development factors could allow for the education system to be able to possibly fit more clearly and address the needs of each individual child. By maintaining an idea of every person’s dialect and code background, the system could become less biased towards particular groups and strive to become suitable for all people to flourish within their educational environment. This idea matches with the ideas of Young and Fish as it allows for a standardization of education to exist but it changes the biased nature of the scale to fit all demographics and cultures of people and work with other social efforts to make American education more accessible to every student.

 

Works Cited

“Authentication Required.” College of Charleston Libraries Off-Campus Access, https://link-springer-com.nuncio.cofc.edu/chapter/10.1057/9781137486653_7. 

A Short History of Standardized Tests – JSTOR DAILY. https://daily.jstor.org/short-history-standardized-tests/.

“CCCC Statement on White Language Supremacy.” Conference on College Composition and Communication, 25 Aug. 2021, https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/white-language-supremacy. 

Should Writers Use They Own English – Texas A&M University. https://liberalarts.tamu.edu/english/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2021/01/Use-They-Own.pdf. 

“The New York Times Company.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 28 Oct. 2013, https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/category/stanley-fish. 

“8 Ideas That Are Transforming America’s Education System.” Future Focused Education, 8 Aug. 2019, https://futurefocusededucation.org/2019/08/02/8-ideas-that-are-transforming-americas-education-system/.

Talk the Talk: Examining Code-Switching vs. Code-Meshing

Posted on by
Reply

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. 

Language, Power, and Rhetorical Choice

Posted on by
Reply

by Corinne Kessler

Among humanity, embracing the variety of dialects is a gateway to diversity and wholesomeness within society. In the eyes of a writing teacher, he or she may believe that formal communication along with proper grammar, diction, and punctuation is the most effective form of language. However, I believe writing teachers should embrace the varieties of English as opposed to limiting the expression of ideas to “standard” grammar and diction. It is important to consider that “linguistic variation may be caused by differences in pronunciation, syntax, vocabulary, formality, and the ways in which language is used” which emphasizes how different forms of language should not be criticized for lacking formal standards (Uccelli). The wide range of dialects has much educational worth to offer, whether they are formal or informal, and possess great value in terms of the backgrounds and cultures they originate from.

Jamilia Lyiscott sheds light on this idea in her Ted Talk, “3 Ways to Speak English”, as she presents how she “code-meshes” and “code-switches” between her three different vernaculars: with her friends, in the classroom, and with her parents. It is important to note that, “each English she uses has rules and grammar, each is a language of its own, but not always recognized with such legitimacy” (Uccelli). Through being a “tri-tongued orator”, Lyiscott illustrates the value of each of her dialects in the sense that she has formed each one to suit the appropriate audience and setting. As Lyiscott unpacks what it means to be “articulate”, she explores the complicated history and present-day identity that each language represents. In doing so, Lyiscott strengthens the idea that educated ideas and worthy language does not necessarily have to be formal; just because one does not speak proper English, does not mean that their form of language lacks value or educated ideas. Lyiscott aims to emphasize to her audience that through acceptance and understanding, people can appreciate what others have to say despite being in a broken tongue or not (Lyiscott). In correspondence to Lyiscott’s message, writing teachers should embrace the abundance of dialects by acknowledging that they all tell a different story as to how the people speaking learned these languages and developed them over the course of time. 

Take the tongue Lyiscott uses to speak with her parents, for example. Lyiscott and her family are from Trinidad, and she was raised in a Black-Caribbean neighborhood in Brooklyn, New York City (Lysicott). Even though the official language of Trinidad is English, it is a very slang version which explains the broken English that Lysicott speaks with her parents. Slang, broken, or informal, this dialect still encompasses historic value; the dialect that Lyiscott’s family uses to communicate with one another reflects their background and culture which exemplifies how humanity is not limited to blossoming in one singular way. Applying this idea to the classroom, writing teachers should recognize how all humans are raised in terms of developing their language and appreciate these upbringings of language as they are all capable of possessing educated ideas.

Similar to Lyiscott, Vershawn Ashanti Young, author of, “Should Writers Use They Own English”, supports the idea of “code-meshing” and “code switching”; both Lyiscott and Young view the acceptance of various dialects as culturally enriching to the world. In terms of the development of dialects, Young claims, “much of what is learned is learned informally and often only partially” to stress that not all people are raised to speak languages in a formal manner as each origin, culture, and background approaches the learning of language with a different style (118). Furthermore, Young touches upon the evolution of dialects as he explains how, “social or cultural representations of recognizable forms of writing persist… [and] those recognizable forms of writing exist across several intellectual generations” (118). In other words, from the time dialects are rooted from their social and cultural origins, they develop and carry on as time progresses.

Lyiscott and Young both provide valuable insight as to why embracing different vernaculars is important to the development of diversity not only in the classroom, but among society as whole as well. This acceptance encourages humans to form a more inclusive community as it helps eliminate negative stereotypes and personal biases about different groups. By taking in all flavors of dialect with an open mind, this helps people recognize and respect the ways of being that are not necessarily their own. Accepting the wide range of dialects in the classroom is only a stepping stone in the direction of this movement, but it is a monumental step in working towards a more diverscially accepting society.