Reading “Should Writer’s Use They Own English?” was initially painful for me to read. Being a literature major I write at least one paper a week and my grammar is critiqued with each grade I receive. After going through this process one million times, reading “’clear [they] mind of the orthodoxies that have taken hold in the composition world’” as a quotation that has been corrected to fit the article’s context, with replacing their with they. Clearly this is all intentionally done, and is making a statement, but is the statement accessible to students like us?
Did you read the whole way through without wincing once, or was it just me? And if so why do you think this reaction was elicited? Does Young’s writing support her argument that writers should have more freedom to use their own language?
I think this article was very interesting. Yes, I could read the article. However, I did have difficulty. What’s interesting is I found myself mouthing out the words or having to hear the words in order to understand them, or rather, full sentences. I think I was doing this because the writing was done in the way that we hear some people speak, not write. So interpreting this unorthodox writing had to be done in the way that we conventionally took in the information, in speech. It ties in with the concept that people don’t speak like they write. A few days ago, I read one of my friend’s papers for class and it caught me off guard. He is a very casual, laid back individual, but his writing was sophisticated and eloquent with very with a wide vocabulary. If he were to talk like he wrote, I would be dumbfounded. This goes to show the use of writing vs. speech serves different purposes and thus, we express them in different ways, even though they can be expressed identically.
Maharsi, I can really relate to the way you read Young, but it brings me to another question. Does Young actually talk like this, or is this forced? Professor Vee touched on this during the last few minutes of class today, but I believe the editing, and close attention to using this dialect kind of deters it’s value.
Young uses this language as a tool instead of having it naturally flow, as opposed to a few of the people he quoted, whom spoke their genuine feelings. I believe the ending of the article in particular makes Young’s words less powerful because of his forced dialect when he states, “And another real, real, good result is we gone help reduce prejudice. Yes, mam. Now that’s a goal to reach for” (117). I have difficulty seeing the man from the video we watched to today saying “real, real, good result.” Is it just me that feels like this is a little forced? Does it change the message Young is trying to convey?