Melissa Peyton
English 481
Code Meshing vs. Code Switching
As educators we are taught to incorporate our students culture in the classroom;
culture being their language. However, why is it then that we make a distinction between
Standard English and other forms such as AAVE? We are taught that there are appropriate
times to use their home language and times to only use standard English; the business
arena and academic sphere are two such examples. However, what is the appropriate way
to incorporate other languages into the classroom, code meshing or code switching? Code
meshing allows for students to incorporate their own language with Standard English.
Young suggests that code meshing allows for students to not “hold back their Englishes”
but rather bring them forward in their everyday speech (128). This form of speech allows
for students to express themselves through their own language while still adhering to most
of the rules of Standard English. On the other hand, we live in a white Anglo-Saxon
dominated society that, unfortunately, suppresses all other languages in an attempt to
“Americanize” the academic sphere. Code switching calls for an immediate suppression of
certain languages in certain situations and a reliance on “Standard English”. But as
teachers, what foundation for language would you incorporate into your own classroom?
While it seems more appropriate to use code-meshing as a way to incorporate all types of
languages and cultures, that sad truth is that, certain societal situations look down on those
who use anything but standard English.
Young suggests that various languages such as AAVE or other languages/dialects are
always already co-existent ( Young 123). What Young is advocating for is a realization that
since languages are already co-existent, what is the harm in allowing students to code mesh
because it is, after all, a “idiolect that expresses their unique personal identity” (Young 60).
However, a major theme in our society is the suppression of all individual cultures.
Therefore, many situations call for the use of standard English and those who do not use
that language are looked down on to be uneducated. However, Valdes suggests that
students can be translingual and move between the languages. The ability for child
interpreters to move between the languages often times helps them academically and
allows them to develop special skills that students who are monolingual may not develop
without exposure. While these students may develop faster academically, it seems that
educators are still trying to focus on code switching even though code-meshing may be a
more idyllic approach to language.
Society has developed a very structured approach to language and it seems that
even though our idyllic approach would be to teach code meshing, it seems almost
detrimental to our students especially if they do not use it correctly. For instance, lets
consider a young woman applying for a job as a house saleswoman. The woman comes
from a very educated background; however, she still mixes standard English with strong
southern slurs and slang. The impression on the company is that she has not learned the
skills to be a productive business woman and is passed over for another young woman who
is less qualified but speaks only standard English. It is human nature to look down on those
who speak anything different from the norm in society. Society has deemed Standard
English the norm language of success and stepping outside or mixing the boundaries
between languages creates a misconception that we have not fully gained the skills to be
productive language learners. In this case, code-meshing cost a young woman a job because
she did not know how to use her own language effectively.
As unfortunate as it is, language is tied to discourse and discourses carry power.
Therefore, Delpit suggests that code switching may be the best alternative language
because is allows for students to connect with a discourse that allows them to enter into a
field of social power (Delpit 150). The ability to connect with the discourse means that
students need to be in an institution that teaches that discourse. At the same time, without
a discourse that is enacted throughout the whole curriculum and agreed on by all the
educators, then students may have some confusion on what languages they should use in
order to succeed in the economic society. By teaching students to code-switch, students are
introduced to standard English as well as an opportunity to incorporate other cultures into
language. They are given the materials required to succeed in the social and economic
sphere as well as incorporate their culture into their lives. Students need to be given the
chance to succeed and code-switching allows for students to gain the necessary skills to not
only keep their culture but succeed in the real world.
So it essentially all comes down to strategy. It is not what is the better approach to
teaching language but rather which one is more appropriate give the class and the
circumstance. If students are going to learn how to code-mesh then they need to learn the
critical thinking skills to allow them to strategize when or how often to use it. While a good
skill, any teachers choose not to validate code-meshing because it becomes a students
choice on how much of their own language to use which may deviate too far from standard
English. It is a sad realization that society does not make room for other languages. Using
AAVE or other languages often leads to the misconception that students are less educated
and are not socially fit. In an idyllic language society, code meshing seems to have the most
benefits for students in the long run. Students often achieve better academically when they
have the ability to incorporate their own language into their study. On the other hand
though, code switching allows for the incorporation of standard English and their own
language use based on the situation.