Introduction
Language is an axis force in our understanding of the world and a force in the mosaic of human culture and expression. Moreover, “white” or “proper” English is insisted upon in the literary and academic world; this stifles diversity of voices and enforces a monolithic view of communication that can only stifle the rich tapestry of human experience. Vershawn Ashanti Young, in his provocative article “Should Writers Use Their Own English?,” challenges the dominant opinion by defending that such a broader expression of language needs to be accepted and, if necessary, even assimilated (Young, 2010). This essay broadly supports Young’s argument and postulates that embracing the linguistic identities of the individual encourages inclusiveness in the enrichment of the literary landscape and a better reflection of the many-sidedness of human beings. By examining the importance of linguistic diversity, the problems in privileging “white” English, and some apparent benefits of accepting all forms of English, this paper will argue that writers should espouse an even more appreciative view of linguistic pluralism.
Importance of Linguistic Diversity
Linguistic diversity serves as a critical medium for expressing and preserving cultural identities. However, in writing to their English, the writer flavors his narratives with the fullness of their cultural background so that perhaps in reading, the reader might peer into experiences and perspectives that lie worlds away from their own. For example, Zora Neale Hurston’s written African American Vernacular English and Junot Díaz’s written inflected English of the Dominicans both stylistically chose to be sure. However, they added completion to the readers’ sense of the characters’ identities and the cultural contexts sustaining or oppressing their lives variably (Coleman, 2014). Forcing these stories into a one-size-fits-all “proper” English straitjacket would sap them of their power and the reader’s engagement. Clear examples show that linguistic diversity’s mission is to save the differences between literary landscapes, saving a plurality of voices and experiences, without preserving the heritage of culture.
The Problem with Privileging “White” English
An elevation of “white” or “proper” English above other variations serves to perpetuate the existing social inequalities in which some voices are privileged over others. This is not a question of personal preference or pedagogical tradition; it has roots in a history of oppression and exclusion, where language has been weaponized to find the boundaries of power. So, the world of literature and the academy have carried on for far too long, with some subtle disregard for any voice that does not conform to this particular arbitrary standard of a singular, standardized form of English (Highet, 2020). It silences, in no small terms, a host of voices, as it, in the view of many, consolidates the misconception that one’s intellectual and cultural value is to be handcuffed to conformity in language. This historical context, going back to white English used as a tool of colonialism, perpetuation as a marker of social status, is necessary to provoke the privileged position. In this manner, language reflects and reproduces how inequalities are constituted, and we take a step toward making more inclusive and equal discourses (Young, 2010).
Benefits of Embracing All Englishes
Embracing all its spoken and written English forms from the world cultivates richness in creativity, innovation, and authenticity in the English literary and academic environment. Thus, within the heritage of their language, writers have single-handedly challenged the entire order of literature, calling on the reader to redeploy the gaze and appreciate the narrative well beyond that of his cultural context. Consider the works of authors such as Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Salman Rushdie, who are laden with the beats and idioms of those cultures, bringing stories that authenticate and have universal appeal to life. Such diversity of expression in language flavors up the world of literature, making it democratically inclined to give more space for different kinds of voices to be heard and recognized, however characterized (Hady, 2023). This is, once more, the powerful meaning of such linguistic inclusivity: enabling everyone to express their very own identity and experience of being free or oppressed, thus enabling them to be able to contribute to their own and, in turn, a most authentic experience of human diversity. Thus, we ensure we champion all these Englishes, honoring the value in every writer’s voice to foster a more diverse, inclusive, and understanding world (Young, 2010).
Counterclaim and Rebuttal
Critics of linguistic diversity argue against this by saying there should be a standard way of using English for clarity, cohesion, and understanding in global communication, which might be hampered if standard English forms are absent. They notice that this opportunity allows misunderstandings and fragmentation to grow. However, this treatment is fundamentally against the intellectual capacity and flexibility of the readers or listeners to experience and understand the vast plurality of Englishes. In short, language rests in communicative and expressive capability; both qualities are far from standardized grammatical structures (Buarqoub, 2019). The success of literary works and public figures who manage to use dialects, which are either non-standard or regional, give great success not only to these works but also to the strengthening of the ability of the audience to appreciate and understand the varied expressions. More often, the richness of text comes into the authenticity and how it can impart subtleties of different cultures and experiences. It is instead from fulfilling the social contract of writing—clarity and coherence rooted in context, narrative skill, and reader participation—than rigid adherence to any homogenized linguistic standard. Therefore, while standard English has a function in some formal and academic usage, it would be unwise to allow it to have such overall domination over all forms of human communication and expression.
Conclusion
Reviewing the journey and route through linguistic diversity in literature is more than an academic exercise; it reflects the most profound explorations into what it means to be a human being. This essay has thus endeavored to show where Vershawn Ashanti Young comes from when he says that the writer should not be nailed down to “white” or “proper” English but be able to celebrate all Englishes. This approach to linguistic diversity not only welcomes linguistic diversity in the literary domain but also accounts for speakers’ historical and present-day marginalization using a non-standard dialect. They welcome results and impacts from beyond the bounds of literature: a society with value for diversity and promotion of inclusivity, known quite well because the differences, the linguistics, and all the others are fountains of power and beauty. Let us march onward as defenders of the billions of human voices composing the human narrative, for in each note of human expression; each voice is worthy of being heard.
References:
Buarqoub, I. (2019). Language barriers to effective communication. Utopía Y Praxis Latinoamericana, 24(6), 64–77. https://www.redalyc.org/journal/279/27962177008/html/
Coleman, T. R. (2014). Douglas L. Coleman, 1931–2014. Diabetologia, 57(12), 2429–2430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-014-3393-7
Hady, H. (2023). 273-Article Text-2111-1-10-20230906, 44–60. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373689647_273-Article_Text-2111-1-10-20230906
Highet, E. (2020). Becoming English speakers: a critical sociolinguistic ethnography of English, inequality and social mobility in Delhi. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10122328/1/Katherine%20Highet%20Post%20Viva%20Thesis.%20docx.pdf
Young, V. A. (2010). Should Writers Use Their Own English? Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), 110–117. https://doi.org/10.17077/2168-569x.1095
write