With this post I was asked to find the central idea of a spoken word piece and this helped further my understanding of the op-ed piece I was still working on.

Lysicott makes clear through her spoken word the misconception of what it is articulate means. Lysicotts central argument is that she is not inarticulate for speaking “hood” or her native language, in fact her ability to switch up her language is her equivalence of being “trilingual”. Lysicott points out that the way corporate America expects you to speak is considered to be wrong in a country like Britain, and this helped further her argument tremendously. Articulacy in itself is subjective, so no one should dictate the way you speak regardless. When in a professional setting I tend to speak English without any slang incorporated in it but when talking to someone I am familiar with i’m less formal. When placed in a setting that expects you to sound a certain way you are forced to conform. When in a job interview you cannot talk the way you’d talk to a friend you have had for 10 years because unfortunately judgments are made. Lysicott speaks about her language being “stolen from her” so individuals who are not used to talking “properly” are still expected to. When talking to family members I talk in my native language or English but that English is informal. I work in a restaurant and I am also forced to talk in a way I do not usually talk because it is considered rude if I do otherwise. The inability to speak in a manner that involves the usage of “proper English” does not make you inarticulate.