Annotation Blog #8: Young

1) Summary, Main Ideas
This reading references to a cultural critic named Stanley Fish. He contracts his beliefs with Stanley. He mentions that language differences and racial differences are intertwined, giving an example how there is racism in the work place if you don't talk or write  the same. He emphasizes on how attitudes maw you vulnerable to prejudice instead of their language, dialect, or style. Oppression was a main point in this article as well. The author defines Standard language ideology and dominant  language ideology. Standard language ideology is "the belief that there is one set of dominant language rules that stem from a single dominant discourse". An example would be Standard English. Dominant language is when you are free to say things how you want but only at home. He talks about dialects and how everyone has a right to their dialect and everyone should learn others dialects. He believes that we should teach language "descriptively", meaning  that "we should teach what it take to understand, listen, and write in multiple dialects simultaneously. In this article he also defines two new terms: code switching- blessing two or more dialects, languages, or rhetorical forms into one sentence.  Code meshing - the new code switching, its blending of dialects, international languages, local idioms, etc. in both formal and informal speech acts. He writes that code meshing is everywhere and benefits everybody. Young's goals is to help reduce pre justice.
2) Quotes & Reactions/ Responses
- " Besides encouraging teachers to be snide and patronizing"
I was surprised he used such strong adjectives such as "snide" and "patronizing" to describe teachers.
- " Dominant lanuage ideology also  say peeps  can speak whatever the heck they want to- BUT AT HOME!"
I feel like this isn't a fair to conceal people's language to just at home. It's shocking theres a definition that tells you specifically to keep it at home and not in public or school.
-" Fish saying he the only one who could judge what good writing is-not his colleagues."
I feel like this should be true but we are all judged by people around us and want to impress them.
3) Questions for Discussion
- I didn't understand when he said, "So when we teach the rhetorical devices of blacks we can add to the writing proficiency of whites and everybody else." Does that mean we push white language onto blacks so they write like whites?
- Why does he compare with Fish so much? Throughout ht reading he uses quotes from Fish but also disagrees with him about many briefs about language.