1

Lindsey Dotzel
Dr. Oleksiak
Theory and Practice of Writing
10 October 2014
Young vs. Fish
In his article, Should Writers Use They Own English? Vershawn Ashanti Young
critiques previous articles written by Stanley Fish. Young takes an interesting approach to this by
writing his whole article in a dialect that most would consider to be African American
vernacular. It is interesting because scholarly articles are usually written in a more standard
version of language. Young plays with the ideas of what is considered to be technically correct.

Commented [BaLM1]: NCATE/NCTE 3.7: Know research

theory and findings in ELA
This research paper demonstrates knowledge in different
research theories. The main one that this paper focuses on
is Standard English and how we address students who do
not speak a standard dialect. Vershawn Ashanti Young
explores this idea and proposes code meshing as a solution.

He is not only proving a point by the meaning behind his words, but he is also showing that
dialect does not equal educational superiority by writing in this dialect. He has created a
published article in a scholarly journal that is not grammatically correct or written in
academic English. Doing so makes a powerful statement, which is what Young was trying to
do. He wanted to shock readers and show them that a way someone writes shouldnt cause a
hindrance in their professional lives. Even though it is written this way, the article is still able to
be read and understood. The content and message that is being presented is not affected by the
dialect that the words are written in. Youngs main point is that we (students and educators)
should get to know as many dialects as we can in both oral and written forms. Advocating for
multiple dialects allows for students to use their own language. He focuses his central idea on
how to advocate for students own languages by using code meshing in the classroom.
Teaching language descriptively would allow for instruction on how language functions
in multiple cultural backgrounds. Young starts out by quoting Fish and how he believes that

Commented [BaLM2]: NCATE/NCTE 4.4: Promote

respect/support for differences
In this research paper, I am exploring how Vershawn
Ashanti Young critiques another writer, Stanley Fish about
codes meshing and dialect. Stanley Fishs article argues that
students should not be allowed to use their own dialect and
language in the classroom or job world, because it is inferior
to standard English. However, Vershawn Young refutes
this argument by proposing his idea of code meshing. Code
meshing is when you take a variety of dialects and combine
them to form a new dialect in both formal and informal
settings. The main point of this paper is to support the idea
that students and society should have respect for different
dialects and linguistic differences.

there is only one way to speak and write to get ahead in the world. Young says that Fish thinks if
a students language makes them vulnerable to prejudice, then they shouldnt have a right to their
own language. Young describes Fish as being hypocritical at this point in his argument. Fish first
states that students shouldnt believe that they have a right to their own language, and then he
explains that they do have a right, and that they should be willing to learn a second language.
Young explains this statement from Fish by saying that, what he really mean by this rhetorical
question is that the multiculturals should be thrilled to leave they own dialect and learn another
one, the one he promote (111). Young is showing how Fish believes that his dialect is superior
to others and that the students should be honored to learn his language. Fish says that the
reason to teach the standard language is so that students have a device to protect the status quo.
Young counters this argument about standard dialect by saying that nobodys language, dialect
or style make them vulnerable to prejudice (110). Just because people dont write and speak like
Fish does, doesnt mean that they are targets for racism. Young states that it is the attitudes of
people with power who created these negative views on Black English. Speakers of Black
English dont oppress themselves. For the discrimination to stop, people like Fish need to be
more aware of how they present dominant languages in the classroom or even in articles, like the
New York Times.
Youngs ultimate goal is to reduce prejudice. However, a prescriptive stance on language
doesnt increase the idea of students being able to use their own language. Unlike Fish, Young
wants to teach language descriptively. Young believes that we should focus on the functions of
languages and teach what it take to understand, listen, and write in multiple dialects
simultaneously (112). There should be a focus on mixing the dialects together and enlarging the
view on what good writing is and how it can look in different settings. Fish wants students to

Commented [BaLM3]: NCATE/NCTE 4.7: Emphasize

varied purposes for language use
This part of the paper is talking about how code meshing
could be used in everyday situations. Students no longer
have to give up their language and dialect to speak to
teachers or professionals, they are able to use code meshing
to talk to friends, family, teachers, and bosses. The
emphasis is that there are multiple purposes for code
meshing in everyday life.

write the way they speak at home on the chalk board and put the Standard English on the graded
papers. This is what is wrongly called code switching by teachers. Code switching is not about
students changing the way they speak at school from how they speak at home. Code switching
should be allowing the students to write and speak in both dialects at the same time. Students
code mesh without even knowing it, but teachers, like Fish, critique them to be more standard.
Youngs perception of code switching, from a linguistic point of view, is blending two or
more dialects, languages, or rhetorical forms into the same speech or writing. It could even been
unintentional to create these two languages co-existing in one manner. Young changes the name
to code meshing because so many people misuse the term of code switching. He directly states
that code meshing blend dialects, international languages, local idioms, chat-room lingo, and
the rhetorical styles of various ethnic and cultural groups in both formal and informal speech
acts (114). Young goes on to list examples of professionals who have used this code meshing in
formal and informal settings successfully. He talks about how students are told that dialects
should be used in the playground and Standard English is used at work, writing, and when in
formal settings. However, the examples that he listed from the professionals in pristine
newspapers prove that this isnt the case anymore. Code meshing takes the current way people
speak and write and helps them to be better at it. It even teaches some Standard English aspects
like punctuation, word choice, and structure. Young ends by saying that it is going to help reduce
prejudice by allowing students to use their own language.
Young defends his central argument that students should be able to use their own dialects
in and out of the classroom. I agree with Youngs frustration on Fishs statements about language
prejudices. I dont believe that the reason for prejudice should be blamed on someones writing.
It is not the words on paper that cause people to discriminate like they do. With Young, I think

that it is the social stigmas that we have created and the negative connotation that society has
placed on Black English both in speech and writing that give off this prejudice. Jame Baldwin, in
his article If Black English Isnt a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is? suggests that language
demonstrates power and reveals who you are. Even a single line can reveal your parents, your
youth, your school, your salary, your self-esteem, and, alas, your future, according to Baldwin.
Baldwins argument ties into Youngs idea of how code meshing is detrimental to embracing a
students language. I also support Youngs idea that writing should be taught descriptively over
prescriptively. Rather than forcing patterns that arent natural onto people, we should work on
cultural perspectives and how to understand these different dialects. The natural language that we
speak is one that comes without us even thinking. It is what people use every day when
communicating. The natural language is not how we write for standardized tests or when we are
being proper. When we understand the different dialects, we can apply them and mesh them
together to form people who are multilingual. We must expand our notion of what we consider to
be good writing and what that looks like. Doing so, can allow more dialectal freedom when it
comes to writing and speaking and it will allow for more language diversity.
Before reading this article, I was taught and believed that code switching was the ability
for students to speak two different dialects in separate situations. For example: a student would
adapt a Standard English dialect when doing academic writing or speaking in formal situations
and use their native dialects when speaking to friends and family. However, after reading
Youngs article, I realized how wrong and inappropriate this view of code switching really is.
Who am I to tell students if their dialect is or is not good enough to be used in a formal situation?
If I do this, I risk being disrespectful to students own languages and cultures. Ill give the notion
that they have to adapt a correct language (like Standard English), when they should be able to

code mesh their different dialects together. It shouldnt be the way they talk that matters, but
what they are saying. The meaning behind all of the words. Youngs idea of code meshing is
brilliant. Blending two dialects together allows for diversity and many of us do it unintentionally.
This is a more effective way to appreciate someones dialect because they are encouraged to use
their own language in the classroom. The teacher is not forcing them to change or get rid of it.
They are still able to use their own dialect and add one or two more into the mix depending on
the situation.
Something I dont think that Young considered, or perhaps maybe even overlooked, were
the positives in Fishs article. Young does states that Fish wasnt completely wrong, however,
Young didnt mention any of the better ideas that Fish had in detail. I believe that Fish makes a
good illustration in his second article when he mentions the Karate Kid. He talks about how
his method of teaching writing resembles this 1984 movie. The student in the movie is doing all
of these miscellaneous activities that have nothing to do with Karate and he doesnt think that he
is learning anything of value. However, it turns out that he is learning everything that he needs
to, just in a different context. I think Young might argue that the context shouldnt matter when it
comes to the students speaking their own dialects. Young would say that students should be
allowed to code mesh without feeling judged. Fish says that the forms his students study also
apply to this. They learn the motions and moves that they can apply to any context. I think that it
is important to teach material that can be applied the same way to other things. To teach
Shakespeare for the reason of knowing Shakespeare is one thing, but to teach it to pull out the
lessons and critical thinking that can be applied to other works, is another, greater thing. Young
might agree with this notion about being able to apply what theyve learned to different
situations.

Fish makes one more decent argument in his article. He talks about an exercise where he
has students create sentences and then analyze why they did this and how it makes sense. This
requires students to raise their thinking to self-reflect on what they have done. The must take a
three word sentence and transform it into a 100 word sentence without losing control of the basic
structure. I think that this allows students to realize how language is put together and displays
writing to them in a way that they may not have seen it before. Young might argue that it is
important for the students to write the sentences in their own language and reflect on how their
language affects the meaning of their sentences. However, I also think that Young would support
an activity that encourages students to look at language structure, like Fishs does.
Besides these two views on writing, the rest of Fishs articles are oppressive and not
beneficial to diverse students or descriptive writing. He has a closed mind as to how students
should be writing, which is not beneficial to anyone besides middle class whites. He does not
allow for students to express their own languages in the classroom. This is why I agree with
Youngs outlook on writing more than I do Fishs. Young allows diversity and a mixture of
writing styles. Fish would likely not be on board with code meshing, because he doesnt believe
in embracing students individual dialects. Young uses a distinct vernacular to bash Fish which is
both ironic and comical. Young understands that teachers should structure their classroom in a
way that allows for students to embrace their own dialect, while also adopting others. He
encourages everyone to do so in order to create a diverse classroom that is entailed to learn.