Incorrect/inappropriate language use of English

Incorrect English, either intentional or incidental, is a common target for humor. Incorrect or inappropriate English use represents a powerful ideologizing process concerning how English competence is viewed as a must. When the interaction is performed in media where linguistic performance is partially planned, the audience is required to detect incorrect English use to understand the language play. The section presents how conversational joking is built around discourse about incorrect English. It will be further presented that failure to spot errors is also a source of humor because it reveals an individual‘s (unexpected) lack of English. Usually, teasing out of incorrect English involves interactants who possess English (K+) at interactants who show less commitment to the language (K-) (Heritage & Raymond 2005;

2011; Heritage 2013). Nonetheless, the teasing by speakers at K+ to speakers at K- is further complicated in media discourse.

Incorrect translation guarantees a laugh. The example shown in (8) below illustrates

111

how crosslinguistic humor can be scripted through manipulating epistemic stances (Stivers et al. 2011) with purposefully incorrect translation. The two presenters, HZ and AX, both have the linguistic knowledge about incorrect language use create a humorous context (that is, no epistemic asymmetry).

(8) From Super Taste, November 12, 2013

19 AX 而且我們那個 (.) 燈一打開有沒有

|而且我們那個燈一打開有沒有|

(‗As soon as we turn on the spotlights,‘)

20 機器在拍

112

HZ and AX are in a famous French café in Miami. With the cameras and lights on, many eyes are on them. They note how flattered they feel to be superstars and even international stars

113

(lines 24 - 29). HZ suggests that they should go international and speak English. Their discussion about international stardom and its co-indexing of using English reveals the established language ideology between a sense of internationalization and speaking English.

AX, who has been known for his less command of English than HZ, agrees to speak English by replying ―No problem‖ (line 35). When HZ points at a plate of beignets and asks AX what

they are called in English, AX replies ―sugar sugar circle.‖ At face value, HZ asks AX a question. Supposedly, a question is initiated by a K- to a K+. Several levels of epistemic stancetaking (Stivers et al. 2011) about English occur. First, HZ‘s question is not inquiring information unknown to him. Rather, based on prior utterances about international stardom and speaking English, both HZ and AX are building up a scenario where they must speak English. If they are expected to speak impressive English, the prior utterances of declaring to be able to speak English does not make sense from a dialogic perspective (Martin and White 2005). The utterances could only be understood to prepare the audience for the upcoming skit.

It could be speculated that HZ expects AX to provide an incorrect answer. AX also knows that ―sugar sugar circle‖ is not the appropriate answer. Both the question and the answer

indicate no epistemic asymmetry between HZ and AX. The question does not show the knowledge transmit from K+ to K- because they both possess the knowledge. Furthermore, the absence of epistemic discrepancy in this adjacency pair is extended to the mediated discourse between the hosts and the audience. They expect that the audience know ―sugar

114

sugar circle‖ to be an incorrect answer as indicated by the laugher in line 39. The

incorrectness of ―sugar sugar circle‖ is not even mentioned in the excerpt. This observation shows how basic English competence is probably assumed. In addition, they know that word-by-word translation is an effective strategy for humor in the Taiwanese context. They expect the audience to find the exchange lighthearted and amusing. The finding also corresponds to Cortés-Conde and Boxer (2002)‘s discussion on how one particular code is more suitable for plotting humor in multilingual contexts. Were the context in Chinese or Taiwanese only, no humorous effects would be generated.

The previous example discusses how incorrect English use can be purposefully exploited for humorous reading. The established language ideology that English competence is required screens the linguistic inappropriateness to find codeswitching funny. It could be inferred from no explicit mentioning about the incorrect English that the audience is evaluated to have the competence required to interpret the practice. The second excerpt shows a different discursive force. This excerpt shows that failure at spotting English errors is constructed as laughter-inducing. The following excerpt is taken from an episode of Half and Half, where foreign visitors reflect on their experiences of teaching English in Taiwan. On the

scene are two hosts, six foreign teachers and three Taiwanese guests. Prior to the current discourse shown in (9), the program has established that the three guests find English challenging. Dooley, an American, is telling others how he made a spelling error in his first

115

(‗I put this sentence on the whiteboard.‘) 17 ^Karen [I like to play piano.]

(‗Then one parent kept looking at me.‘)

20 然後我就是看他

|我就是看他|<沒發現異狀>

(‗And I kept looking at the parent.‘)

21 然後就這樣子

116

26 這三位都不知道有 (.) 是有沒有什麼問題

|這三位都不知道||是有沒有什麼問題|

(‗These three have no idea what is wrong here.‘) 27 <question marks over the three guests>

28 但是我下了課之後

(‗They don‘t know how to spell [the word].‘)

117

(‗If you give them two more days,‘)

44 他們可能會看出端倪喔

|他們可能會看出端倪喔|

(‗they might be able to figure this out.‘)

45 ^{Guest 1} 不是

|不是|

(‗That‘s not the truth.‘)

Dooley does not explicitly read out the word he spelt wrong. Instead, he puts the sentence on a mini whiteboard that every guest has. At this point, no laughter or special post production effect is presented (lines 16-18). It may suggest that the error itself is not intended to draw laughter. An attention-worthy question then is why the error is not considered laughable. This interesting observation will be discussed in Section 4.2. Dooley continues telling the story. In lines 25 and 26, he stops to comment on the fact that the three Taiwanese guests do not react to the wrong spelling. In fact, no one on the scene reacts to the spelling mistake. However, the camera turns to focus on the three guests. The post-produced question marks surrounding the three guests (line 27) indicate that the three guests are presented as being oblivious to the incorrect spelling. Toward the end of his reflection, Dooley explains how he spelt ‗piano‘

118

wrong. Dallas, a Canadian, restates that the three Taiwanese guests do not spot the mistake (lines 38-39). Thomas, a British, also claims that the guests have no idea how ‗piano‘ is spelt.

At that moment, the cameras again turn to focus on the Taiwanese guests, with post-produced CG effect reading 完全狀況外 Wanquan zhuangkuang wai ‗Completely no idea.‘ The

inability to spot the error draws evaluations. Karen, the hostess, refutes the foreign guests‘

evaluations by saying 不可以這樣 bu keyi zhe yang ‗You can‘t be like that‘. Her statement

also illustrates that the act of criticizing other‘s less command of English is an act of menace.

The statement encompasses the established language ideology that English competence is required. The established language ideology places non-English speakers as inferior and less in power. The punch line, or sarcasm, is unfolded in Karen‘s later statement that the three guests would probably find something wrong if they are given more time (lines 42-43). The 兩天 liang tian, literally ‗two days,‘ does not refer to exactly two days, but definitely a time

longer than necessary to see how ‗piano‘ should be spelt. In later exchange, the three guests defend for themselves. Their defense reinforces how not being able to spot English errors goes against the expectation, and is thereby face-threatening. The excerpt poses an interesting question. None of the guests reacts to the spelling error but only the Taiwanese non-English users are teased for not responding to the error. The observation could suggest that the denigration may not be solely about language proficiency, but about whose lack of proficiency.

119

The two excerpts both background the established language ideology ―English

competence is required,‖ manifested both in the interaction among the participants on the filming and in the interaction between the program and the audience, because audience is responsible for locating incorrect language use. John B Thompson (1995) discusses the mediated vision when a public figure is screened on TV. How cameras turn to focus on a figure frames a context. This established language ideology ‗selects‘ the target of teasing.

Crosslinguistic humor is not so much about the use of English itself, but more related to who are using the language and who initiate the teasing. In the context where English is used by non-native speakers, such as the two excerpts show, the established language ideology makes linguistic practice socially meaningful, but also selects to whom the practice is meaningful.