BIG POINT: Young's conclusion, part two! They address both of their arguments in the closing paragraph, tying them together once again.

BIG POINT. Part one of Young's conclusion!

Yes yes and yes! When you spend so much time developing the skill of observing the status quo, and understanding your own thoughts and language in relation to it, that skill absolutely translates to argumentation!

I really love that Young used several media-form examples to highlight this point! It acknowledges that there are more types of media now in the advent of the Internet, and it gives the audience proof that this "tool box" includes more than just academic writing.

Goes back to Inoue and the idea that "intent" communicates more than just the words themselves.

This is why we ought to study multiple languages and language influences! We would get to know why and how writers with multi-lingual backgrounds have the ability to blend language and thought in a way that is transformative!

More call to credibility here! But it also serves as an excellent proof that there are examples of code meshing that are highly successful in higher academia, this essay notwithstanding.

I enjoy the play on the idea of people appropriating Black styles, whether it's by hair or if it's through writing.

Young is leading us into a new point here. I agree that creating an entirely new playing field of communication has transformed our ability to absorb, bend, and integrate languages that we are newly exposed to.

I love the linguistic breakdown of all of these examples! It goes back to Young's earlier assertion that even people in "high-ranking" positions still bend language rules to suit what they need.

Young's using ethos here, lending credibility to the idea that code meshing has always been a Thing, and should be explored further. If it's good enough for politicians and professors, it's good enough to teach students!

Big definition of code meshing here. Pay attention, me!

Again with the self-awareness! Describing the thing while having spent six pages doing the thing! Incredible!

BIG POINT. All caps for emphasis, again!

So so so cool. From Creole to Janglish to Twitter-speak to Olde English, language has always been a swirl of multiple influences. I'm very glad I learned the real definition of code-switching, after being told something entirely different for so long.

Introduction to next point: code switching is not what we think it means!

Classrooms absolutely still teach like this. Even when I was a kid we had a list of "unacceptable slang" that we could never say or write in class.

Hehe! I love this moment! It's yet another credit to Young's intentional style. By dropping in a word like "convoluted", we see how self-aware this writing is. In short, Young makes this style-fluidity look easy!

Oof. I love that Young mentions this. It's something I wish we really took some of the pressure away from, because it certainly does lead to burnt-out students with flat writing that they take no pride in!

Fine point!

This dissection is perfect. Again we realize that by following the strings of Fish' logic, we come to the same point: marginalized communities will be shut-out, blamed for the exclusion, then asked, "why didn't you say thank you?"

Another rebuttal of Fish' argument coming up! Again Young does a good job of connecting their two primary points: that standardizing English has everything to do with race, and that multi-lingual language teaching benefits everyone.

Yup yup! Will be checking out Inoue's work for further insight in the near future! I think this is one of the best points to be made when someone polices language. If you understood what the person meant, then you understood them, period.

So after Lawrence Summers acknowledged he made a mistake in gate-keeping educational language, Stanley Fish went on an unnecessary grammar rant... to gatekeep educational language. The irony of this one white man policing another white man's writing is so ridiculous, and serves Young's point well.

OOH. This is the best point made about this subject. Nobody is perfect at language, not even the most institutionally-educated. BUT if they do get away with bending or dodging the rules, that doesn't mean that more vulnerable communities have that same privilege. I think this is brings the beginning points in this essay full-circle.

Forcing SAE hurts everyone, including the upper class.

BIG POINT: Call to action statement here by Young. This is the crown of their argument!

That would be incredible!

"Prescriptive vs. Descriptive" language-teaching. When prescriptive teaching operates on the inherent notion that some languages are "bad", descriptive teaching acknowledges that each language is valid. MORE importantly, each language doesn't just exist in a vacuum, like we tend to believe.

I really just like this word to describe Fish' process. Prescriptive implies that there is inherently something wrong with the way non-SAE speakers communicate, and that with the right treatment is can be fixed.

direct reference to Young's own point made above. "Natural vs. unnatural" is a really interesting idea to pursue! Will be thinking on that for a while. It definitely does make sense that forcing language rules actively hurts "natural" language patterns. I wonder how many of us have already gotten used to Young's writing style after a few paragraphs? Our brains are flexible!!

Young leads with Fish' argument, then refutes it immediately. This whole segment feels self-aware of the "argumentative essay genre", and it made me chuckle to read!

This also marks another transition in Young's main argument.

read: upper-middle class, probably white, educated people. I respect that Young phrases it the way that they did, because it adds to the shock value upon the first reading.

I wish this line got to stand out on its own a bit more! The citation next to it detracts from the impact of this simple (and effective) statement.

Big point here. Sets up the foundation for future evidence where Young points out the fluid use of both "Standard English" and colloquial phrases in several different forms of media.

The big argument of the piece has been addressed! I love that it was introduced right after pointing out the biggest fallacy in Fish' logic above.

EXACTLY RIGHT here. White savior complex in its fullness.

EW. If a professor wrote an essay about you and called you "infected", what does that say about his pre-conceived notion about who you are?

This part stood out to me in the several times that Young purposefully misspells "rights"-- like so much of the intentional switch-ups in this essay, this change has its own quiet meaning!

Went to search this to see if it had other effects on language-- found a pretty cool article on how this ideology is harmful to the ESL community: https://doi.org/10.52214/salt.v22i1.8726

EVIDENCE

Ties in both topics above and below. Also, if this was the only sentence in the entire work, it would still deliver!

New argument: ALSO MADE. The all-caps definitely signal us that a new point is about to be delivered, haha!

First argument: MADE.

It's actually kinda nice that Young mentions Appalachian accents here-- and the combination of all the lived identities that they mention is key, too. Though Young is approaching from a Black identity-perspective, they are keeping other identities in mind to demonstrate their point later in the essay about mixed-linguistics.

The logic in this idea, that by communicating in their own languages, students are essentially "setting themselves up" for prejudice... I almost wish we could return to this assignment later in the year, and read Stanley Fish' referenced essay, so we could pinpoint all the blatant contradictions!

I've read this intro at least three times now and this line here gets more amusing each time. We don't need to get further than the FIRST sentence to know exactly how Young sees Fish, even if we don't yet know what stance Young takes themselves.

Why would we rid ourselves of these values?? I believe this is an excellent intro quote by Young, as this line of logic provided by Fish sets the stage for us to understand what he is like as an instructor AND a "leader".

Fish is using spiritual language here-- interesting. Don't like the way it gives him that air of superiority....