Pettey 1

Leighton Pettey

Professor Bonnie McLean

ENGL 215

5 June 2023

Rhetorical analysis of Young’s article "Should Writers Use They Own English?".

Vershawn Ashanti Young wrote an article on writing styles and in it he disagrees with

Stanley Fish’s arguments, in a separate paper, that students should not have the right to their

own style of writing if it makes them vulnerable to prejudice. In this essay we will analyze

Young’s article from a rhetorical perspective examining the audiences, and in depth the

exigence and motives to learn more about what Young seeks to do in his article and why he says

the things he does. First, however, we need to understand in a bit more detail what Young’s

article is all about; the following summary should acquaint us with it.

Summary of "Should Writers Use They Own English?" by Vershawn Ashanti Young. Iowa

Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 110–117,

The article by Vershawn Ashanti Young titled "Should Writer's Use They Own English?"

addresses the issue of language diversity and discrimination. Young criticizes Stanley Fish's

argument that students should not have the right to their own writing, or communication style

if it makes them vulnerable to prejudice. Young argues that it is not language itself that makes

individuals vulnerable to prejudice, but rather the negative attitudes and perceptions associated

with certain dialects or styles of language. Young advocates for a more flexible and accepting
 Pettey 2

approach to language diversity, where individuals are encouraged to use and blend multiple

dialects and languages in their communication.

Young challenges Fish's support for the standard language ideology, which promotes the

belief that there is one dominant set of language rules that everyone must conform to for

effective communication. Instead, Young suggests teaching language descriptively,

acknowledging and exploring various cultural perspectives and dialects. He argues that forcing

individuals to adhere strictly to prescriptive language rules limits their natural expression and

understanding.

Furthermore, Young discusses the concept of code meshing as an alternative to code

switching. Code meshing involves blending multiple dialects, languages, and rhetorical forms

within a single speech act or piece of writing. Young emphasizes the importance of recognizing

and embracing language diversity in both formal and informal settings.

The article highlights the implications of language discrimination and the need for a

more inclusive approach to language education. Young argues that individuals should not be

judged solely based on their adherence to standard language rules, as even highly regarded

English professors and university presidents do not always adhere to these rules. Instead, Young

advocates for enlarging the perspective on what constitutes good writing and accepting a wider

range of language diversity in both academic and non-academic contexts.

 Pettey 3

Analysis

The Audiences

The intended audiences of this article appear to be individuals who are interested in

language and its role in society, particularly in the context of education. Young addresses several

audiences throughout the article, highlighting his differing perspectives from theirs on language

use and written form, and how he would like to see language and communication styles taught

and treated.

The first audience we will discuss is composed of individuals who support the idea that

there is one dominant way of speaking and writing, often referred to as standard English. Young

criticizes this ideology and states, "Teachin speakin and writin prescriptively, as Fish want, force

people into patterns of language that aint natural or easy to understand." (Young, 112). He

argues against this audience and asserts that their ideology leads to linguistic prejudice and

discrimination.

The second audience Young addresses is educators, specifically those teaching writing

courses. He criticizes the approach of teaching a single correct way of writing, saying, "Instead

of prescribing how folks should write or speak, I say we teach language descriptively." (Young,

112). He is addressing teachers and suggesting they should teach students how to understand

and navigate multiple dialects, cultural perspectives, and learn how to code mesh.

The third audience consists of individuals who advocate for language diversity and the

recognition of different dialects and styles; this includes himself. Young emphasizes the

importance of understanding and accepting various dialects, asserting, "We should teach how
 Pettey 4

to let dialects comingle, sho nuff blend together." (Young, 112). He joins this audience and

argues for a more inclusive and flexible approach to language that embraces linguistic diversity.

Exigence and Motives.

Now that we are better acquainted with Young’s article and the audiences addressed in

it, let’s examine Young’s exigence and motives. First, what is exigence? The book “Rhetoric

Review Vol 15”, contains an article by Keith Grant Davie; in it he defines exigence as "An

imperfection marked by urgency; it is a defect, an obstacle, something waiting to be done, a

thing which is other than it should be. A rhetorical exigence is some kind of need or problem

that can be addressed and solved through rhetorical discourse.” (Davie, 265). Exigence can then

be further broken down into three questions: “What is the discourse about?”, “Why is the

discourse needed?”, and “What is the discourse trying to accomplish?”. (Davie, 268) Armed with

this knowledge let us now examine Young’s article to answer each of these questions, and to

discover what his purpose truly is.

A quick read of Young's article reveals his discourse is about challenging the notion that

there is only one correct way to speak and write in order to succeed in the world. Young

mentions “that a third of employees in the nation’s blue chip companies wrote poorly and that

businesses were spending as much as $3.1 billion annually on remedial training”, and has this to

say about it, “Now, some peeps gone say this illustrate how Fish be rite, why we need to be

teachin mo standard grammar and stuff. If you look at it from Fish view, yeah it mean that. But

if you look at it from my view, it most certainly dont mean that. (Young, 112). As can be seen

Young does not believe that standardized English is the only way forward, and instead he is
 Pettey 5

attempting to normalize a more inclusive accepting approach and attitude towards many

different styles and dialects of communication. Here we can discover his discourse is about his

need to change the notion that there is only one correct way to speak and write.

Young goes on to point out that negative views and attitudes towards certain dialects or

languages are what lead to prejudice and discrimination, not the language itself, and this gives

us hints towards answering the second question, “Why the discourse is needed”. Take for

example the following quote, "But dont nobody’s language, dialect, or style make them

'vulnerable to prejudice.' It’s ATTITUDES. It be the way folks with some power perceive other

people’s language." (Young, 110). As can be seen Young emphasizes the role of attitudes and

perceptions that are perpetrating language, or communication style prejudice. He attempts to

persuade his rhetors that it is not the language itself that leads to vulnerability, but rather the

negative views and biases held by those in positions of power. In his article he is undertaking

the task of changing those “attitudes of prejudice” to create a better world. It is an attempt to

fight, and remove the staunch positions, and strict rules enforcing “standardized English”. Young

wants to promote an environment where code meshing occurs, and where all different types

and styles of writing and communications are accepted and regarded as the norm. This is the

“why” behind his discourse.

“What is the discourse trying to accomplish?” Young wants to see language skills taught

differently. He does not believe that standardized English in the classroom is beneficial for all

students, and is trying to influence his rhetors minds to allow more dialects and code meshing

in academia. The following excerpt puts it in his own words, "Instead of prescribing how folks

should write or speak, I say we teach language descriptively. This mean we should, for instance,
 Pettey 6

teach how language functions within and from various cultural perspectives. And we should

teach what it take to understand, listen, and write in multiple dialects simultaneously." (Young,

112). As we can see Young has proposed an approach of teaching language descriptively rather

than prescriptively. He wants for teachers to instruct students how to better understand, and

appreciate language diversity, cultural perspectives, and the ability to engage with multiple

dialects simultaneously. This is not only true for “in classroom” exercises, but also in general in

the world when writing, or communicating with others.

Continuing the thought of “What is Young trying to accomplish”; in the following

example Young acknowledges that Fish's call for focusing more on teaching writing skills rather

than solely addressing topics of war, gender, race, and peace has some merit. He states “Dont

get me wrong, Fish aint all wrong. One of his points almost on da money— the one when he say

teachers of writin courses need to spend a lot of time dealin straight with writin, not only with

topics of war, gender, race, and peace. But he dont like no black English and Native American

rhetoric mixing with standard English. Yeah, he tell teachers to fake like students have language

rites.” (Young, 111). Young does agree with Fish’s one point, but then takes issue again with his

rejection of the mixing of Black English and Native American rhetoric with standard English.

Young is trying to sway his rhetors towards a more descriptive approach in language, one that

emphasizes the understanding, appreciation, and simultaneous use of multiple dialects. His

rhetorical “purpose” is to create a better understanding, recognition, and integration of

language diversity and expansion; in the classroom, as well as in the world in general. He wants

to promote a more inclusive and flexible perspective and approach on what constitutes good

writing and communications.

 Pettey 7

This is Young’s reason for writing his article, what he is trying to accomplish by it, and

what his overarching exigence is; “To create a better understanding, recognition, and

integration of language diversity and expansion; in the classroom, as well as in the world in

general.”

In conclusion, Vershawn Ashanti Young's article "Should Writers Use They Own English?"

addresses the issue of language diversity and discrimination, challenging the notion that there is

only one correct way to speak and write. Through a rhetorical analysis of the article, we have

examined the intended audiences and the exigence and motives behind Young's discourse.

Young's audiences include those who support the idea of a dominant way of speaking

and writing, educators teaching writing courses, and individuals who advocate for language

diversity and recognition of different dialects and styles. He engages with these audiences to

present his differing perspectives and promote a more inclusive approach to language.

The exigence of Young's article lies in his need to change the notion that there is only

one correct way to communicate. He is driven by his desire to create a better understanding and

acceptance of language diversity. His goal is to influence his audiences to adopt a more inclusive

and flexible perspective on language, both in academia and in broader social contexts. “To

create a better understanding, recognition, and integration of language diversity and expansion;

in the classroom, as well as in the world in general.” This is his purpose.

 Pettey 8

Works Cited

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

Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 2010, pp. 110–117,

Grant-Davie, Keith. “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 15, no.

2, 1997, pp. 264–279.

Word Count: 1915

 Pettey 9

Reflection.

In writing this rhetorical analysis, I meant as many requirements of the project as I could. I’m
not entirely sure if I got them all, as reading through all the requirements takes a considerable
amount of time, but I am reasonably confident I have done well. To the best of my knowledge I
can answer yes to all of the reflection questions in the prompt. I also did my best to cite sources
as appropriate, both in text, and in the works cited page.

I wrote this analysis using dictation in a large part, my iPad was very helpful for this, and by
quoting Davie, and Young where needed to support my main claims in regards to audiences,
and exigence. I focused primarily on the exigence as that is what I believed the prompt
instructed me to do. I wrote the exigence section of the article first, and then added the
audiences above it as I felt it was advantageous to introduce who Young was addressing before
going in depth about what he was talking about.

The most challenging part about this essay was all the reading it required to find specific ideas. I
spent a lot of time digging through Young’s article finding quotes to illustrate my points. It was a
little frustrating at times as I would remember the thought from when I read the article
previously but couldn’t find the text where it said what I was remembering.

I feel that I covered the topics of exigence, and the audience quite well, and my summary of
Young’s article I am pretty happy with. In my conclusion, I did my best to recite the important
ideas and my claims. It went a bit longer than I was envisioning, but it does cover everything
that I believe was needed.

Word Count: 300