Ummat 1
Ishani Ummat
Adriana Campoy
ENGL 131
28 January 2014
An (Im)Pure Language
What is academic writing? In order for us to take a stance on whether or not
academic writing should include non-standard forms of English, we first need to have a
working definition of the concept itself. According to Elizabeth Wardle’s manual, Writing
about Writing, “Typically, scholarly writing has an objective stance; clearly states the
significance of the topic; and is organized with adequate detail so that other scholars
may try to replicate the results. Strong papers are not overly general and correctly
utilize formal academic rhetoric.” Traditionally, academic papers are expected to be
precise, semi-formal, and objective, and any writer’s guide or manual will tell you as
much. However, today’s writing standards of “academic” and “scholarly” don’t fit the
conventions set by old ideas. Today’s writers are bloggers, young creative authors and
people who challenge the very convention that is contained within the concept of
writing itself. Strict grammar rules are abided by in institutions requiring it, but why is
that institution limited to what we know instead of exploring the type of academic
writing that could be? It’s worth arguing that the purpose traditional academic writing
once served is no longer applicable to our current society, as exemplified by many
authors like Amy Tan, James Baldwin, Gloria Anzaldúa and Toni Morrison. In their
respective works, all these authors challenge the conventions set forth by academic
Ummat 2
institutions, test limits and explore the many uses of language. They force us to see how
these rigid instructions around academic writing reflect the value we still place on
convention, and juxtapose it with a modern society that rejects conformity. With the aid
of these authors, we can argue that non-traditional English not only should but already
is incorporated into academic writing. Toni Morrison, who incorporated “Blacker”
English than James Baldwin into her bestselling novel Beloved, served as a celebrated
professor of Creative Writing at Princeton University, and what could be established as
more academic than that?
English has evolved and so have the standards that writers today set for
academic writing. There is so much to be said for the mixing cultures and populations
represented in English-speaking countries today that isn’t officially reflected in the
language books but that is represented in scholarly writing everywhere. Amy Tan’s
argument in “Mother Tongue” is sophisticated, complex, states the significance of her
topic and is able to hone in on the precise elements that make up her argument. She
tells both personal and powerful stories to capture the audience and then makes a very
logical and important argument about how non-traditional English is discriminated
against in many forms. What part of this is breaking the rules of academic writing? The
vernacular we use today, even in typically academic writing, is exceptionally different
from the English of two hundred years ago in which Shakespeare reigned. Writing, like
language, evolves and so should the standards associated with it, otherwise it is not a
good reflection of society’s value and beliefs regarding it.
If we take a look at Tan’s argument, she immediately attributes worse SAT,
Ummat 3
achievement IQ test scores to her lack of exposure to what we call a conventional
English, “While my English skills were never judged as poor, compared to math, English
could not be considered my strong suit” (Tan 3). Because her mother’s English was
accepted enough at home and in general conversation, but not in an academic setting,
Tan was automatically penalized; she became a victim of circumstance, one that almost
went into a completely different field because of what “standardized” tests told her.
The outside perspective, the one that emphasized a perfect English doesn’t account for
what so much of the population experiences as English on a daily basis. Thus, their
English’s are neglected and openly discriminated against as “broken” or “limited”. I’m
not saying that all the technically incorrect grammatical structures that Tan describes
her mother using should be accepted into academic writing but the concept should at
least be more widely encompassing, to accurately represent how the people experience
English outside of the traditional academic sphere.
James Baldwin would happily agree with Amy Tan’s perspective and even go
further to suggest that it is less about the language itself and more about the role that it
plays. We already accept the different “dialects” or as he refers to them, languages
associated with geographical differences, so how come we cannot accept the ones that
are seemingly categorized by race? Black Americans have an exceptionally strong
communal identity and their English is a huge part of that. He articulates, “Black English
is the creation of the black diaspora. Blacks came to the United States chained to each
other, but from different tribes: Neither could speak the other's language. If two black
people, at that bitter hour of the world's history, had been able to speak to each other,
Ummat 4
the institution of chattel slavery could never have lasted as long as it did.” (Baldwin 2).
We discriminate, punish for an English that doesn’t fit our constrained definitions of
what should be. The implications of this discrimination based on language go far beyond
those of academic writing but the concept behind it all remains the same – there is a
fundamental problem with how we deal with language and nobody picks it up better
than Gloria Anzaldúa.
Anzaldúa blends and fuses languages; seamlessly creating a new one that proves
her entire point. Her creation is beautiful, it flows mellifluously and we inevitably end up
agreeing, siding with her. In a combination of the arguments presented by James
Baldwin and Amy Tan, Anzaldúa incorporates personal anecdotes about being
discriminated against as a Chiacno, background information about language, culture and
her own self. They all come together to form a logical and coherent explanation of why
Chicanos are made to feel that their language isn’t a legitimate one, and a call to make
our society one of acceptance helps establish one of her most important conclusions: “I
am my language” (Anzaldúa 502). The fusion of Spanish and English in her text is
designed with specific purposes in mind; it forces those of us who don’t speak Spanish
to be inconvenienced, like many Hispanics are with English and it establishes Anzaldúa’s
credibility with those who do speak Spanish as a native language. After all, she is one of
them. Not only are we appealing to the emotional sense of the reader, but Anzaldúa’s
work is literary perfection. It addresses the originality vs. convention paradox by
expertly placing the old idea of acceptance that has been tossed around for years, with
an entirely new literary approach to it. She creates something original, expanding the
Ummat 5
borders of convention in English and at the same time is articulating an argument that
intellectuals have made for years about discrimination based on differences in language
that need to be broken down. Gloria Anzaldúa epitomizes what should be academic
writing because it challenges the limits and pushes the boundaries of the academic
writing our society is stuck in. She breaks down the different languages she uses on a
daily basis, with whom and explains her reasoning. This is no different than the way you
and I alter our language based on whom we are addressing and for what purpose.
Anzaldúa even goes into depth about Chicano Spanish itself, detailing how and why it is
different from a conventional Spanish we would learn in a classroom setting and the
fundamental is that her argument is intellectual, complex, precise and utilizes formal
academic rhetoric better than most writers could ever hope to. Her usage of the three
Aristotelian appeals rivals that of many famous authors and the addition of Chicano
Spanish into her writing gives it even more credibility and influence among a wider
audience that matters to her.
There are challenges, there are drawbacks and preservation of a language is
important, but is it more important than the social progress made by inclusion of
languages people speak every day? Many argue that it is simply not practical to include
non-standard forms of English in academic writing but the writing itself becomes dry
and old-fashioned without incorporating what our global society experiences firsthand
as language. Language and academic writing are very different and not to be confused,
but there should never be a restriction on what language can be incorporated into
academic writing, as long as the level and depth of writing are of the high standard that
Ummat 6
academia expects. Yes, to implement this into an academic institution is a serious
logistical challenge but at least in my mind, the ideology of inclusiveness and creativity
behind it overcomes the practical element. Perhaps this ideology does not transcend
discipline. Perhaps there is no way or reason to change the way a scientific research
report is written but the humanities have already seen and begun the change towards
including non-standard forms of English. James Baldwin, Amy Tan and Gloria Anzaldúa
are just a few of the authors that advocate an increase in quality, standard, creativity
and effectiveness by including their own languages into academic writing.
Ummat 7
Works Cited
Anzaldúa, Gloria. "How to Tame Wild Tongue."Borderlands/La Frontera: The New
Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1987. 497-506. Print.
Baldwin, James. “If Black English Isn’t a Language Then Tell Me, What Is?” Contexts for
Inquiry. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 507-509 Print.
Tan, Amy. “Mother Tongue.” Contexts for Inquiry. Boston: Bedform/St. Martin’s, 2008.
886-890. Print