Reading Response #3

Peter Husted
25 January 2024

The argument made by Stanley Fish is that people’s dialect and vernacular make them
more vulnerable to prejudice and make themselves targets when they choose to speak in a dialect
other than what is referred to as “standard English” at least in professional settings (Young 1).
With this mindset, Fish is essentially wanting to go back in time to a day when people who have
dialects other than this “standard English” are treated unequally and seen as dumb or lesser than.
Young brings in the idea that this concept is not only a linguistic difference, but also a racial
difference because these people who aren’t speaking easy, convenient, “standard English” are
stereotypically not white as well and have been extremely mistreated in America’s past (Young
1). Young begins to argue against Fish’s point, stating that “…nobody’s language, dialect, or
style make them ‘vulnerable to prejudice.’ It’s ATTITUDES.” (Young 1). Young is saying people
just have negative opinions about those who are speaking with different dialects, like “black
English” particularly when it’s used in school and work.
Young begins to talk about code-switching in his argument later, claiming the definition
of it has been messed up. He says that it is not translating one dialect into another, rather it is
“blendin two or mo dialects…into one sentence, one utterance, one paper.” (Young 5). Young
introduces the new term “code meshing” and claims it is the new code switching. “…it’s
multidialectalism and pluralingualism in one speech act…” (Young 5). Everybody does code
meshing, it is what we do every time we communicate. It is the blend of slang, dialect, language,
lingo, and rhetorical styles into everything we say in every setting. It can be used to add spice
and flavor to one’s work via “vernacular insertions” (Young 5). Young’s argument is also only
backed up by the effectiveness of his own dialect he is choosing to argue with. His use of African
American Vernacular English (AAVE) supports his argument in that yes, it is easy to
comprehend still, and his points are still equally valid. He is not any dumber than the next person
for not using “standard English” and in fact, he is code meshing! As he introduces this idea, it
becomes clear what he is doing in his own writing. He is throwing in huge, academic words
throughout his use of AAVE and his argument is coming through super clear, proving that maybe
using “standard English” should not be as much of a standard, especially when expressing a
viewpoint. With this AAVE, readers can feel like they get to know Young a little bit, like they
can feel how he may be feeling. It is obvious too that Young is affected by the argument and
issue he is addressing, and his viewpoint is valid as he is an active AAVE user. His use of AAVE
in his argument can prove many points to readers who may be doubting. He still sounds just as
credible and knowledgeable on the issue, it is readable and makes sense, and it makes the piece
more interesting and gives it flavor, among other things. Many doubting opinions on the use of
AAVE can be changed just from reading this work, even when the opinions don’t quite have
anything to do with the arguments Fish or Young made.