Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Code-switching - Coggle Diagram
Code-switching
Young, "Should Writers Use They Own English"
Argues for code meshing, which is blending together different dialects and languages rather than code switching which maintains the differences in languages, and confines them to their own situations to be used in.
Although I do agree with Young that code meshing is better than code switching, the other works talk of how there is history rooted in the way people talk. If people were to start code meshing and blending their languages or dialects with standard English, would they be erasing parts of their history and culture?
Young complicates both of these works. They both argue for code switching, but in its form of 'I speak this way to my parents, this way to my friends, and this way to my professors.' Young argues for code meshing instead, the idea of blending dialects and languages into one.
Young and Cunningham disagree about the idea of meshing together languages and dialects. Cunningham argues that as African American English is its own language with its own rules, combining them would be "confusing at best and damaging at worst."
-
Lyiscott, "3 Ways to Speak English"
Lyiscott views the three languages she code switches between as equal and help her be 'articulate' across different people.
The three ways Lyiscott speak are all very different. Although she may view her ways of speaking as equal, can other people who code switch do the same? The idea of code switching may aim to normalize other dialects, but by keeping them distinct, it somewhat pushes the idea that a dialect may be wrong based on the settings you could use it in.
-
Lyiscott extends Pattanayak's work. Pattanayak talks about how harmful standard English can be on minorities and how we need to value code switching, and Lyiscott exemplifies Pattanayak's arguments.
-
Pattanayak, "There is One Correct Way of Writing and Speaking"
To combat against the harmful ideas pushed out by the myth of standard English, we need to value code switching in different communication situations.
Pattanayak proposes that a way to combat the prejudice that lies in the idea of 'correct English' is first recognizing and questioning our own perceptions and assumptions about communication, then valuing code switching. But from I understood is that Pattanayak, similar to Lyiscott, perceives code switching as using two different dialects and maintaining the differences in them. So similar to Lyiscott, I think even if people begin to value code switching, this form of it may still be harmful.
-
-
Cunningham, "African American Language is Not Good English"
African American English isn't erroneous in that it doesn't follow standard English, but that there's an error in communication when a person doesn't code switch properly to fit the situation.
Cunningham offers the perspective that African American English is its own language, rather than a dialect of standard English. So trying to mesh it with standard English would have an overall negative affect, and that it is better to recognize African American English and English as two languages.
But how does this apply to a dialect of English, like an Asian person who may speak 'broken English'? As Cunningham follows the theory that African American English is its own language (due to its origins), which leads to it being more grammatically African. Can this thinking apply to other forms of English? And can we recognize other forms as equal even if they may not have roots as deep as African American English.
-
Cunningham extends Lyiscott's view as Lyiscott refers to her three ways of speaking English (or at least implies) as their own languages and goes into some depth about the history of 'broken English.' Cunningham supports this as they go into more depth about the theory of African American English having its own origins, and how it should be treated as a different language.
Both obviously agree that all forms of English are equal
-