3 ways to speak English

Jamila Lyiscott tells the audience the key to her TedTalk: when it comes to enunciation and diction, she is “articulate”. She does this to declare that if a person speaks a language in their own manner, they are not being ignorant. Lyiscott describes herself as a “tri-tongued orator” as she uses three unique dialects when speaking, each of them being activated for different occasions. There is the English she speaks with her parents, friends, and in the classroom. In class, her answer is intentionally “tainted with a connotation of urbanized suggestion”, which is known as Broken English. When her Trinidadian father asks her a question, she speaks formally. When speaking to her friend, she uses a Jamaican accent. The point is that the speaker is treating all three of her languages as equal; she is tired of all the misconceptions people carry against speaking differently that the norm. 

She then explores history and present day issues to justify why she borrowed American English to speak her own composite version of it. At that point the audience is revealed to be Americans, especially the ones who believe she’s ignorant. That is given due to the fact she utilizes “us” to symbolize her and the black community, who have been suffering from racial disparity, and “your” to the people expect her to speak “proper and formal American English”. Lastly, the raping style of talking instantly captures the reader’s attention. The rhyming and word choice add flavor to her speech, making it interesting to watch. 

Jamila Lyiscott speaks as a woman who is fed up with the negative images that are automatically predetermined to her people, only because of the way they speak. Her emotional and powerful tone captured me and led my opinion to stand by hers.

P.C. Language Saved My Life

Gioncarlo Valentine’s essay manifests that language can be a lifeline. Although there is a sentiment that things are far too politically correct, it is false, as one never knows when their language will affect someone. The author explains how when he believed he was transgender, there was no language to describe the process he was going through. As his friends used the word “transitioning” he followed, however, it was not sufficient to make him feel secure. 

Although Gioncarlo made friends who protected him, the struggle to properly identify himself with words grew stronger. Words like “he” or “she” hurt like a stab to the heart, as it felt like they were being used to remind him of his standard place in society. Not feeling represented by the transgender community, led to an attempt to end his life, which thankfully was unsuccessful. The audience immediately sympathizes with him, as it reveals that he kept fighting despite all the hardships that were faced. For readers who battle through pain of their own, it demonstrates how suicide is a foolish path to take. With time and support, no matter what the situation is, it will improve.

Nowadays, the writer is completely comfortable being referred to as “he” or “him”, however, it feels as if he is not being true to who he really is. It can be presumed that his audience is society as a whole and people experiencing situations similar to his. By saying “us”, it means individuals undergoing struggles like he went through. When referring to society “we” is applied to symbolize humankind. I always believed that there is no such thing as being too politically correct, respect is one of the most important values one could have.

The Case Against ‘LatinX’

The Los Angeles Times article The Case Against ‘LatinX’, is written by Daniel Hernandez, a “Latino”, who publishes his thoughts on the new word “LatinX”. LatinX serves to create a less determinist and more inclusive term to replace “Latino” and “Latina”. The public awareness of transgender and non-binary gender identities keeps increasing, however, opinions on this topic contrast. 

The author does not believe the expression should be used, in fact, he persuades the reader into thinking that LatinX does not work. Hernandez gives us the history of the word “Latino” and then how Latina followed naturally. In the Spanish language, nouns vary from male to female, for example, “la chica” is female while “el chico” is male. However, when describing a group containing different genders, the language usually defaults to the masculine. While some find this a “reinforcement of patriarchy”, the writer presumes it is an instinctive objection. His next argument states that by the argumentation of LatinX, speakers will need to substitute the suffixes of other words as well. Consequently, the vocabulary would be unpronounceable as words like amigos would become “amigxs”. This is so obvious but important at the same time, that it brings a sense of humor to the reasoning. By then including this ironic phrase, “The amigxs are hopping in their autxs to head to one of L.A.’s playxs!” it is clear that comedy was intended to be passed on to the reader.

 It can be concluded that he was aloof towards the suffix. Cool and distant, he just dropped the word out his vocabulary. I enjoyed how the author dealt with this topic, simple and clear, therefore, my point of view is equivalent to his.