Rhetorical Analysis Of Nah We Straight

Rhetorical Analysis

David S. Khoury

Department of English, Saginaw Valley State University

English 111: Composition 1

Professor Bradley Herzog

April 1, 2023

Nah We Straight is an article written by Vershaun Young. In this article, Young presents the audience with terminology such as “code switching” and “code meshing.” Code switching does not have one singular definition. In fact, code switching can be applied to almost every aspect of our lives. Young’s definition of code switching is a transition or deliberate changing of a certain style of language use to another. In the article, Young argues that the traditional unspoken bias towards code switching that is expected at school and/or in the workplace, is discriminatory

Young retells the Story of President Barrack Obama’s outing at a food establishment. The president ordered his food, and when the waiter gave him his change from his tendered bill, Obama replied, “Nah we straight.” “Nah we straight” is just another way of saying “No I’m okay,” or “No I’m good,” in AAVE (African American Vernacular English). Young names his article after this incident to address that even our former President was able to code mesh his vernacular English with the formal accepted English. In doing this, Young provides an example of a highly esteemed individual who promotes code meshing. (This story provides complimentary anecdotal evidence to support code meshing in our society as well as gives a clear example for the audience that it is not only possible but normal to implement). Young presents another story about a meeting that took place between him and an African American female schoolteacher. Young states that this teacher speaks “black English,” as Young calls it. The teacher then goes on to explain how she would rather have her students only learn the standardized English rather than code mesh the two forms together. Young states “Yet she wants her students to somehow learn to turn off black language and use only standard, when she can't herself. After I highlighted this observation, she gave a final "tsk" and walked away” (Young 2009, p. 59).

For example, Young makes the comparison: “What if linguists were to codify the speech habits of gay men, identifying the stereotypical lisp as a common feature, highlighting the rhetorical importance of camp, insults, and undercutting among gays...And then what if they developed approaches for gay men to avoid speaking 'gay' in public, at school, and at work and restricted them only to speaking gay at home and among other gay people?” (Young 2009, p.60). By drawing a comparison such as this, he puts the audience in the uncomfortable position of comparing the stereotypical “lisp” of gay men to AAVE and other forms of speech minorities use. He then proceeds to ask if society should treat the “lisp” the same way AAVE is treated at school and institutions. This comparison is imperative to Young’s argument because it reveals the fallacy in the “conventional writing” ideology. Young knows that any sensible person in his audience understands that expecting a gay man to turn off his “lisp” to adhere to conventional language expectations is absurd. Therefore, asking minorities to change the way they communicate and write for the sake of so-called “formal” and “correct” conventional language is also absurd in the same sense. Young used the audience’s sensibility to convey his argument in a way that any sensible person cannot help but to examine the