4.1 Types of Crosslinguistic Humor
4.1.4 Metalinguistic comments on (lack of) English
The previous section has shown that incorrect language use can infer to an individual‘s lack of English proficiency. This section turns to language play built on overt mocking and explicit self-deprecation. The act of teasing is face-threatening (Boxer & Cortés-Conde 1997).
In this vein, humor built on criticism of incompetence in English shares the same ground with
the theory of disparagement (Suls 1972). Speakers laugh at a non-English user‘s failure in showing good English in the same manner how people deride at others‘ misfortune. The act
backgrounds the language ideology that English competence is desired. The rationalization
120
leads to the practice of lightheartedly mocking at someone‘s poor English. The act of mocking and teasing discussed below is followed by non-English users‘ self-deprecation. The deprecation keeps the mocking lighthearted and at bay. It also shows the non-English users‘
pressure to go along with the teasing by making it less face-threatening (Haugh 2010) because self-denigration projects positive image (Norrick 1993) and saves face.
An example of self-deprecation of English competence after making a scene is presented in (10) below. AX, a basic English user, fails at singing an English song. Both HZ and AX find the wine taster M to be friendly and attractive. HZ, the more proficient out of the duo, urges AX to serenade her.
(10) From Super Taste, December 1, 2015 1 HZ It‟s very sweet.
121
17 AX OK. ((clears his throat)) ((claps his hands)) Happy birthday to you.
HZ and AX taste the sweet wine made from Torrontés, an Argentine grape variety. AX uses his simple English to compliment on the wine and the wine taster (line 4) before HZ urges him to sing to her. When AX finds that he has to sing an English song, the long pause and the raised intonation (line 15) reveal that he is unprepared. In line 17, the English love song turns out to be the Happy Birthday Song. The deprecating statement in line 19 could both refer to the incapability in singing English songs, or in speaking English. Singing the Happy Birthday Song obviously violates nearly all known linguistic theories about appropriateness, as evidenced in the laughter in line 18. The deprecation excuses his inappropriate but amusing
122
choice of the song. Excerpt (10) contains comparatively longer exchange in English. Except for the expression ―OK‖ and the lyrics of the Happy Birthday song, all English phrases are
presented in Chinese in the subtitles. The program does not expect that the audience finds the three-party exchange easy to follow. Yet, the production team does assume the audience to English. As she works as a DJ for an English radio, the host, Vincent, the host who has the onstage persona of being an non-English user, asks her to demonstrate how she does traffic updates, shown in (11) below.
(11) From Half and Half, September 10, 2019
1 Caitlin 我自己也覺得 (.) 台灣人非常愛 (.) 就是學英文啊
|我自己也覺得台灣人非常愛||就是學英文啊|
(‗I also feel that Taiwanese are enthusiastic about learning English.‘)
2 我原來以為台灣人不喜歡
|我原來以為台灣人不喜歡|
(‗Originally I hadn‘t thought so.‘)
3 但是後來開始在 [radio] DJ 的時候
|但是後來開始在||廣播電台 DJ 的時候|
(‗But when I started working as a DJ at [radio],‘)
4 發現我們聽眾 (.) 一直打電話說
|發現我們聽眾一直打電話說|
(‗I found that our audience keeps on calling in and asking‘)
123
5 可以播更多英文歌
|可以播更多英文歌|
(‗whether [we can] play more English songs,‘)
6 可以 (.) 講更多英文嗎
|可以講更多英文嗎|
(‗whether [we can] speak English more often,‘)
7 Karen 恩
(‗Hmm‘)
8 可以介紹一些 (.) 就是 (.) 很棒的[英文]
|可以介紹一些 就是很棒的英文|
(‗and whether [we can] teach some useful English [expressions].‘)
9 Vincent [那你]報一下路況 (.) 好不
好
|那妳報一下路況 好不好|
(‗Do you mind showing us how you do traffic report, like‘)
10 忠孝 East Road (.) 敦化 South Road
|忠孝一路 敦化三路|
(‗Zhongxiao East Road [and] Danhua South Road‘) 11 Karen ((laughs))
(‗You surely have crammed all the English you know in this sentence.‘)
124
|你有在聽廣播電台|
(‗You tune in to [radio]?‘)
20 不小心轉到的是不是
|不小心轉到的是不是|
(‗You just accidentally bump into the program, don‘t you?‘)
21 Vincent 不小心轉到啦
(‗Then I hear [the DJ] doing traffic updates.‘)
24 講了半天
(I honestly have no idea where the traffic jams are.) 26 Karen ((laughs))
Caitlin is mesmerized about Taiwanese‘s unfailing interests in learning English when she works as a DJ (lines 1 to 8). Vincent abruptly asks her to demonstrates how traffic updates are done, such as reporting the traffic on 忠孝東路 and 敦化南路.8 The two streets are
among the busiest streets in Taipei. Vincent‘s request reveals that he listens to the English radio. However, he is portrayed by others and by himself as a non-English user. Before Caitlin has the chance to demonstrate, Karen, the hostess, quips that Vincent has used up all
8 The subtitles wrongly translated 忠孝東路 zhongxiao dong lu ‗Zhongxiao East Road‘ into 忠孝一路
‗Zhongxiao First Road‘ and 敦化南路 dunhua nan lu ‗Danhua South Road‘ into 敦化三路 ‗Danhua Third Road‘. The word ―east‖ is phonologically similar to 一 yi ‗one‘ in Mandarin Chinese while ―south‖ is phonologically similar to 三 san ‗three.‘ The post production mishears Vincent‘s English as Mandarin Chinese. The error is not directly related to the discussion and therefore put aside.
125
the English words he know (line 15). Vincent‘s later defense again seems to suggest him
being a loyal listener because he describes the traffic updates on the radio as something he hears with the use of 每次 mei ci ‗every time‘ and 一直 yizhi ‗always.‘ Karen shows her feigned surprise at Vincent‘s revelation of tuning to the English radio station (lines 19-20).
Vincent‘s persona of being a non-English user is revealed through distancing his behavior
from what typically English users do. Vincent is described to 不 小 心 bu xiaohsin
‗accidentally‘ tune in to the English radio station He then admits tuning in unintentionally to
the radio station. Karen‘s judgment to Vincent‘s behavior and Vincent‘s response imply their collaborative manipulation of Vincent‘s onstage persona as being less proficient in English.
Vincent then confesses that he has no idea where the traffic jam occurs (lines 24 and 25).
Different from straightforward demonstrating lack of English competence, this excerpt demonstrates one‘s English competence is assessed by distinguishing behaviors as what he does not normally do. The excerpt also sees how self-deprecation transforms the originally face-threatening act to lighthearted teasing.
The two excerpts present that the lack of English skills can be face-threatening.
Self-deprecated claims make the teasing sting less and retain the interaction as lighthearted.
The two examples reveal how the established language ideology ―English competence is
required‖ shapes the humorous discourse about English. When these excerpts are presented to the audience, the Chinese subtitles to English insertions manifest the established language
126
ideology that not everyone speaks English. Because bad English is considered inappropriate and criticized, teasing at one‘s English shares the similar theoretical grounds with Monro‘s concept of humor as inappropriateness (1951) and Suls‘s (1972) theory of disparagement.
Infotainment discourse reveals seemingly contradictory established language ideologies. The contestation is discussed in the next section.
4.2 Discussion
The study approaches crosslinguistic conversational joking in infotainment discourse from epistemics (Heritage & Raymond 2005; 2011; Stivers et al. 2011; Heritage 2013) to identify the dynamics of the ideologizing process of English. The section discusses three issues, how knowledge of English is assumed and shapes conversational joking, how the joking manifests two contesting language ideologies concerning English use in the Taiwanese context and how crosslinguistic humor constructs and is built on a ‗we-code.‘
Reading multilingual humor is social practice because it requires metalinguistic awareness fostered through conventionalized social experiences. The humorous conversation discussed in this chapter centers chiefly on exploiting incorrect, non-standard English. To interpret incorrect or bad English as evaluation-inviting demands the social knowledge that English competence is desired but not equally shared. The individuals‘ defense and self-deprecation explicate that labeling as bad English users is essentially face-threatening.
127
Crosslinguistic conversational joking walks a thin line of teasing and criticizing (Boxer &
Cortés-Conde 1997; Haugh 2010). This finding is also addressed by Hill (2008) in her discussion about white racism. White racism engages numerous aspects of understanding the social world through discourse, significantly without speakers‘ intention of discrimination. In the same vein, discourse about profiling English could also possess this trait-to-speaker interpretation without intending to appropriate or distance the language (and the package of social values attached to it). They are taken as simply ‗out there‘ at speakers‘ disposal. When the audience finds conversational joking humorous, they are communicating via shared metalinguistic knowledge (Boxer & Cortés-Conde 1997) regarding expectations about English. The knowledge has much to do with how English is taught, viewed, and profiled in the Taiwanese society. Due to various reasons, English in formal education in Taiwan has long been notorious for its overemphasis on grammar translation and less attention paid to speaking and listening, There are still relatively a smaller number of proficient speakers despite the pedagogical efforts (C. Wang 2002; K.-h. Wu 2010). The audience finds incorrect use of English attention-drawing, not simply because they feel related to it, but also because incorrect language use contests the established language ideology that English is desired, a prominent language ideology in Expanding Circle Countries (see the discussion in Kachru 1985), including South Korea (Yoo 2005; H. Park 2007; Song 2011; Piller & Cho 2013), Japan (Kubota 1998; Seargeant 2008; 2011), and Taiwan (S.-y. Huang 2006; Y.F. Chang 2008;
128
Lee 2012; Price 2014). The audience feels familiar and affiliated. People in Taiwan learn to evaluate one‘s English and value English competence in a highly conscious state, as the
example of ‗sugar sugar circle‘ shown in (8). Furthermore, these TV programs share the identical contextualization of situating Taiwanese (and their English) in relation to people from other countries. The pursuit of English is perceived to be how Taiwanese, not individuals, suffer, as seen in Caitlin‘s description in (11), and Alexia and Ryan‘s imitation in
(5). The upscale (Uitermark 2002; Blommaert 2007; 2010) from what individuals do to what Taiwanese do makes the referred linguistic practice, i.e. excessive codeswitching and incorrect English, a marker. It is even more obvious in (9) where a native speaker‘s spelling error is not described as humorous but non-native English users‘ failure at spotting the error is laughable. The struggle with English and the obligation to speak English are discursively constructed as shared and socially indicative. Consequently, it is not English that marks group identity. Remarkably, it is how English is discursively constructed as dis-owned by Taiwanese through lighthearted contexts in variety shows that reinforces ingroup integrity.
Epistemics refers to discursive devices that note speakers‘ commitment to a piece of
knowledge (Heritage & Raymond 2005; 2011; Stivers et al. 2011; Heritage 2013).
Knowledge of English is metalinguistic, prescriptive (with many dos and don‘ts) and determinant in how conversational joking is presented in a contextually meaningful way. It has been emphasized throughout the analysis that two types of interaction and thus two levels
129
of epistemics are identified in the infotainment discourse, in the interaction among the participants on the set, and communication from the programs to their audience. The transmission of knowledge can be graphically presented as Figure 10.
Figure 10. The possible combinations of knowledge transmission in infotainment discourse.
Infotainment discourse as a whole repackages the communication among the interaction on the recording scene and the communication to their target audience. Because interaction on the scene can be scripted, all four epistemic combinations are possible. A question or an interaction could be initiated by a speaker at either K+ or K- position to a speaker again at either K+ or K- position. What the audience sees, however, is the harmony between K- to K+.
When the infotainment discourse is communicated to the audience, they possess the knowledge and yet the audience‘s knowledge can only be speculated.
infotainment discourse as a whole
130
It may not be a coincidence that conversational joking tends to address language use
surrounding simple English, including common English vocabulary and fixed expressions. As these performances are made accessible through broadcasts, it is tangible to assume that these
performances are audience-oriented (cf. audience design (Bell 1984)). The effort to assure comprehension is made, indicating their unwillingness to overestimate the audience‘s English
proficiency. Without immediate feedback, the presentation is strategic and reflexive of how the societal multilingualism is assumed. The use of Chinese subtitles and running texts disclose their assumptions whether the general basic English command is expected.
Interestingly, this assumption works contrastively with the conversational joking on one‘s bad English. On the one hand, the media discourse constructs the lack of English competence as
laughable and comment-worthy. On the other, the media discourse makes extra efforts by not assuming the audience‘s English competence in the mediated discourse to their audience. The
ideologization web of infotainment discourse is presented in Figure 11 below.
131 Figure 11. The ideologization web of infotainment discourse
The multimodal discourse conveys two different established language ideologies. They
expect English to be necessary. The interaction among the on-set participants prevalently presents teasing at one‘s bad English. They also expect that not every audience speaks
English. When the multimodal discourse is communicated to the audience, it is more likely that the audience pays more attention to what is communicated than how the discourse is
multimodal infotainment discourse
established language ideologies
―English competence is necessary.‖
ideological stances (what is taken as funny)
―Bad English is inappropriate.‖
established language ideologies
―Not everyone speaks English.‖ (audience)
―English competence is necessary‖ (interactants)
ideological stances
Chinese subtitles should be available.
Poor English can be scripted for humor.
others‘ discourse
132
conveyed. The established language ideology for screening the discourse is that English competence is necessary. The infotainment discourse illustrates that contradictory language ideologies can be manifested in the same stretch of discourse.
Crosslinguistic humor in media backgrounds two established language ideologies.
Scripting and interpreting crosslinguistic humor relies on the knowledge that ―English competence is necessary‖ and ―Not everyone has to speak English.‖ When the two established language ideologies are manifested in conversational joking, Taiwanese is distanced from English. The discursively-constructed dis-owing is an ingroup code for Taiwanese. This explains why Chinese subtitles are preferred and why Taiwanese and Chinese readings of puns stand out more than English ones. It takes the metalinguistic knowledge about English in Taiwan to yield these humorous readings.
4.3 Conclusion
This chapter discusses how deliberate knowledge management of English can induce
humorous reading. An analysis of humorous discourse in the TV infotainment programs shows 4 linguistic strategies of presenting crosslinguistic conversational joking. These
humorous discourses mostly rely on and actively reproduce the two contrasting but established language ideologies, ―English competence is necessary,‖ and ―Not everyone has
to speak English.‖ Lack of English competence, shown through inability to use correct
133
English or identify English errors, is a common source for teasing. Nonetheless, the conceptualization of viewing English competence as required is not necessarily in accord with the way crosslinguistic conversational joking is presented in media discourse to their audience. The use of Chinese subtitles and running texts shows a relatively reserved assumption of the audience‘s linguistic competence. If the belief that English competence is required is the mainstream rationalization, the media discourse reproduces the dominant language ideology and manifests other contrastive language ideologies (Achugar & Oteíza 2009) that not everyone speaks English. In the Taiwanese context, these observations point to distinctive dimensions of profiling English apart from a domain-specific and instrument-oriented understanding of English that individuals tend to associate English with.
134
C
HAPTER5
M
ETADISCOURSE OFE
NGLISH INL
ANGUAGEP
LANNINGLanguage policy and planning serves a great site to observe how language ideologies influence social practice and vice versa. If language ideology is understood as ‗beliefs‘
(Silverstein 1979) and ‗rationalization‘ (Woolard 1998), which address, and are sometimes criticized for overemphasizing, the mental construct, then language policy and planning can be understood as how social practice embodies language ideologies, not merely in the act of planning itself, but also in the way of talking about the planning. Taiwan is currently at its onset of developing into a bilingual nation to urge Taiwanese to learn English. Discussing how English is talked about allows the study to probe into how metadiscourse of English is a site of negotiation and competition between a market-oriented perspective of language and multiple discursively-constructed spatial identities.
To relate metadiscourse of English about language planning, spatial identities and market-oriented conceptualizations of language use, the study analyzes metadiscourse from 4
different datasets regarding English in language planning: online survey comments on recognizing English as Taiwan‘s second official language, the Blueprint of Developing Taiwan into a Bilingual Nation by 2030, two YouTubers‘ vlog discourse on the Blueprint and YouTube users‘ comments under the two vlogs. The study will present that diverse opinions
on English in language planning are a consequence of individuals reflecting on a relatively
135
small number of shared, backgrounded conceptualizations of language use in the Taiwanese context. The study will also argue that these diverse stances and backgrounded beliefs, respectively termed ideological stances and established language ideologies in the study, sketch the ideological contestation associated to multiple identities.