David Fernandez
Professor J. Polish
English 102
October 2, 2017
After reading the spoken word poem “3 Ways to Speak English” by Jamila Lyiscott, I started thinking if there even is a correct way to talk at all, I feel like the poem is trying to let the readers know that it does not matter how you decide to talk because it doesn’t represent your intelligence. At the start of the performance Jamila mentions a time when a woman calls her articulate “Today a baffled lady observed the shell where my soul dwells And announced that I’m “articulate”(Lyiscott). The reason why this stands out a lot is because at that time Jamila was probably using “proper” words and following the rules for “correct English” when she was speaking. However instead of sticking with that one way of speaking Jamila decides to branch out and show that there are other ways that you can communicate, and no one way is greater than the other. The use of the word articulate is brought up multiple times in this poem to emphasis that nobody has to go by the standards of society to prove that they are good enough.
Lyiscott teaches us that there are many reasons why some people including herself sometimes choose to use their own English when talking instead of using the Eurocentric ideals of speaking “But you can’t expect me to speak your history wholly while mines is broken These words are spoken By someone who is simply fed up with the Eurocentric ideals of this season”(Lyiscott). “Broken English” can also be used as reminder to explain why the people who use it are in the situation they are experiencing “I speak broken English so the profusing gashes can remind us That our current state is not a mystery I’m so tired of the negative images that are driving my people mad”(Lyiscott). As stated earlier speaking a certain way does not make you better than anyone and Jamila tells us that she feels that way “Let there be no confusion Let there be no hesitation This is not a promotion of ignorance this is a linguistic celebration”(Lyiscott). In this spoken word piece Jamila Lyiscott shows us no matter how you decide to communicate with others you are not less intelligent for doing so.
David,
I love where you’re going with this. I want you to dig a little deeper into the quotes you’re using and the way you’re discussing them, deploying your own rhetorical strategically to create a certain narrative for your reader: does Lyiscott seem to think that, for example, “it doesn’t matter how you talk”? I think I know what you mean here — that it shouldn’t matter, perhaps — but Lyiscott (and you, in class, with your wonderful commentary!) seems to suggest that it does matter (even if it shouldn’t). And, the quotes you use later — about history — are sort of explaining why. Because of the way we all carry histories of racial violence in our tongues.
How can you shape a narrative arc that takes your reader on a journey through what you ultimately want to communicate? So far, to me it seems that you’re trying to communicate that the way we speak doesn’t reflect on our intelligence; that’s an incredibly important point, but I’d love you to flesh out even more things like her repeated use of the word articulate, and the specific quotes you chose to discuss.
Please let me know if you have questions, and I’m proud of you for this wonderful start!
JP