"Interpretations of 'Chinglish': Native Speakers, Language Learners and the Enregisterment of a Stigmatized Code" by Eric Steven Henry, and Chinglish by Henry David Hwang

[David Henry Hwang is a Tony Award-winning American playwright, librettist, screenwriter, and theater professor. Wikipedia
Born: August 11, 1957 (age 60), Los Angeles, CA
Spouse: Kathryn Layng (m. 1993), Ophelia Chong (m. 1985–1989)
Awards: Tony Award for Best Play
Parents: Dorothy Hwang, Henry Yuan Hwang
Books: FOB and Other Plays, Chinglish (TCG Edition), 

How does Act I of Hwang's Chinglish represent various attitudes toward Chinglish and China English that Eric Steven Henry's article "Interpretation of 'Chinglish'" discusses?

Eric Steven Henry, in his article "Interpretations of 'Chinglish': Native Speakers, Language Learners and the Enregisterment of a Stigmatized Code," argues “that Chinglish is not distinguished by the presence or absence of any particular linguistic feature, but a label produced in the intersubjective engagements between language learners and native speakers. Chinglish is structured by and reinforces the relations of expertise within the Chinese English language speech community, thus representing larger anxieties about nationalism and modernization in a global context” (669). “Act I” of Henry David Hwang’s play Chinglish “represents various attitudes toward Chinglish and China English that Henry’s essay discusses in several ways. To show how Chinglish represents these attitudes it is necessary to understand what Henry means by the word enregisterment. Barbara Johnstone in her article “Dialect Enregisterment in Performance” (2011) defines enregisterment and contextualizes its meaning:

[t]he process by which sets of linguistic forms become ideologically linked with social identities has been called ‘enregisterment’ (Agha 2003, 2006). Enregisterment occurs through ‘metapragmatic’ activities that permeate discourse (Silverstein 1993). These are activities in which people show one another how forms and meanings are to be linked. In recent work, my colleagues and I have been exploring how one set of linguistic forms has become enregistered as the dialect known as ‘Pittsburghese’ through a variety of discursive practices, including face-to-face conversational interaction, online discussion board talk, personal experience narrative, and the production and consumption of t-shirts (Johnstone 2007a, 2007b, 2009, 2011; Johnstone, Andrus and Danielson 2006; Johnstone and Baumgardt 2004). (1-2)

Thus, the title of Henry’s article addresses the labels “the faces,” the personas, that people and societies put on, but through the communicative enregisterment process, the result of which is Chinglish, discover labels, the faces/masks, are but a pretext, a gloss over the baseness of identifying with things such as nationalism, a title of judge in a lawless society, the use of guanxi for personal gain, that very baseness of identifying with signifiers that signs in Chinglish readily expose. In other words, falsely identifying oneself with a label causes anxiety. And, communications through Chinglish reveals the falseness of such labels by its use as an intermediary language of culturally diverse interpersonal relationships.
   Henry states “The explicit interpretation of Chinglish as a barrier to understanding (a communicative issue), overshadows the implicit negative valuation of its speakers (a symbolic issue), and the extension of this evaluation to the social group, and nation, as a whole.” Throughout Chinglish, relationships bear these facts out. As Henry goes on to explain, “The discourse of Chinglish . . . is a discourse on modern Chinese identity” (670). In “Chinglish” the business is that of communicative signs. Guanxi, the business of relationship is successfully accomplished during Daniel’s first encounter with Minister Cai except when Vice Minister Xi Yan, a female, implies that Daniel’s sign company may not be required:  “the problems with the Pudong Grand Theatre [mis-translations on signage] . . . have been corrected” (Hwang 29). As Qian attempts to explain “The Vice Minister is . . . drawing a comparison between attempts to make translation both in Western and in China, also pointing out the absurdity of both cultures” (Hwang 31). Thus, proving Henry’s point above that “a communicative issue [] casts a shadow on “a symbolic issue.” It brings to light the reality that a person’s identity is something other than a face or mask of cultural substance.
   Despite both Daniel and Xi being speakers of each other’s languages (Xi doesn’t know that Daniel speaks Chinese yet) on a more interpersonal enactment they resort to using Chinglish. Each unmasks their feelings by speaking about their spouses in the following Chinglish dialogue:

Daniel: . . . My wife--if I started to tell you! . . . My wife and I” Really. Not perfect.
Xi: My husband, only thinking himself, so therefore, no understanding.
Daniel: And he doesn’t know you are here?
Xi: He not ask.
Daniel: The two of you don’t--talk so much? No talking?
Xi: Is better, agree? Husband and wife, not so much, talk?
Daniel: Wow. Back home, that isn’t really a // philosophy--
Xi: Making the long marriage. You, your wife--talk?
Daniel: Do we--? Well, since I’ve been here in China. With the time difference. Day is night, night is day.
Xi: Yes. Husband, wife. Day, night. We agree.
Daniel: I guess. And you’re OK with that? You want that?
Xi (Laughs, then): Nobody ever asks. (Hwang 58)

Unpacking the dialogue above to point out the use of Chinglish by both Xi and Daniel in their interpersonal relationship reveals a counter-argument to Henry’s idea of “Chinglish as a barrier to understanding” and a “negative valuation  (symbolic) of its speakers”. Despite Xi’s ability to speak almost perfect English, as in her repudiation, during their business meeting, of Daniel’s reason for wanting to be the professional in charge of supplying perfectly translated signs. Here, Xi drops the auxiliary verb doesn’t in her line “He not ask, ” and she drops the subject “It,” the auxilliary verb “do” and the subject “you” from her question “Is better, agree?” Further, Daniel uses Chinglish by dropping the subject “We” and the verb “are” from his reply in the first line above “Not perfect” when he means to say "My wife and I are not in a perfect relationship either." Both Xi and Daniel utilize the process of enregisterment to express meaning through their use of Chinglish. Far from a “barrier to understanding” Chinglish helps Xi and Daniel communicate in a deeper interpersonal relationship by allowing each to express their feelings (should I say show their real face) to one another in the social context of each other’s cultural marital traditions. Xi’s use of the Chinglish analogy “Husband, wife. Day, night” reveals their understanding that the reality of the institution of marriage is that it may lead to a loss of communication in both cultures; their mutual understanding is sealed by Xi’s statement “We agree.” Linguistically, Xi's Chinglish "Husband wife, Day Night" may be said to enregister the phrase through its indexical link to communications necessary, but not existent in either Xi's or Daniel's case, for a healthy husband and wife relationship regardless of culture. In a way Chinglish may play a role as a register that is similar to the acceptable use of baby talk during romantic dialogues; unconsciously proceeding, without much thought about risks, to be heard and understood outside of the constraints of the formalities of language, to communicate one's vulnerable but genuine feeling side to another person. And, although my counter-argument to Henry may apply in one sense, Henry continues within his article to mention that Chinglish may have “an underlying hint of charm,” as in Xi's and Daniel's dialogue above. And, Xi’s analogy indeed “comes to metonymically represent the social value of the speakers” as it relates to the value of communications within the institution of marriage (672).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Part B from the following weeks prompt: What is David Henry Hwang trying to communicate through Chinglish, the play? Use textual evidence (and analysis) to support your answer.

David Henry Hwang mentions that he feels that romantic love has become, to him, a kind of humanistic religion that has replaced the old religion of the Middle Ages, and that popular art is "to glorify romantic love" (A Conversation 4). Much of the play's emphasis is on the state of romance in both Chinese and American cultures, but as an artist, I think Hwang is interested in going beyond popular culture to express through humor what could not be said more easily. His interest is not mainly to show that people of both Western and Chinese cultures are contemporarily nearly the same in manners of an individual's need for personas, marital relationships, and romantic love. I believe as an artist Hwang is most interested in answering the question suggested to his audience of pop culture minds: "If something cannot make money, is it valuable? So what do we put up in the cultural center?" (A Conversation 5).

Hwang's question is introduced to the audience when Minister Cai mentions the Party Secretary calling and "asking how [he] plan[s] to attract more tourists!" (Chinglish 54). Cai afterward asks out loud "Does that mean everything now has to make money?" Which brings up a satirical point about the cultural revolution that used brutal force to bring about cultural change. But, Hwang turns it into humor by having Cai say "sometimes I miss my old army days" (Chinglish 55). So, that is the point of the question. If you can't use taxation, or force by some means that allows for the undying performances of the Chinese Acrobats how does a cultural center survive? Or, even for that matter, remain cultural? It is in answer to this question where I believe the esthetic value of Chinglish resides. Hwang creates a kind of double entendre to first ask the question through the use of satire and then provides the play as the answer. It is sort of risky boldness to employ commercialism as esthetic value, but not something that I think goes beyond the artist's conception of bringing the meaning of art through the new religion of romance to his audiences. I mean to say, how does one reveal to the masses the importance of art without the use of a humorous adventure? But, the beauty of the play is in the way that it brings to light so many issues, such as language, culture clash, political corruption, the falseness of character, relationships, and so on, all in two Acts.

Timbur In Light Of Ricento

Note: If you see this sentence then I'm working on a Google slideshow presentation of what is below.

The acronym ELF provides an abbreviated means of discourse for the overused and lengthier--contained/labeled--concept of English as a lingua franca.

The letters ELF say nothing as to the nature of what English as a lingua franca means yet presupposes a level of understanding.

To those unacquainted with the acronym, it appears presumptuous thereby making the reader more acceptable to believe once the definitions of the Italian words are known that the concept is understood.

As Thomas Rincento illustrates throughout Language Policy and Political Economy, the acronym is as obscure as a worn out label on a bottle of an unidentified and unidentifiable substance. Although, if and sometimes when clarification of what the chemical composition of the contents is the labeling ELF has value.

Despite the uncertainty of categorization and tendency to extrapolate special case studies to imply that what takes place in the microcosm will take place in the macrocosm, educators, sociologists, and policymakers use and misuse the concept of English as a lingua franca.

My presentation attempts to illustrate some of the issues to be wary of through a contrast and comparison of John Trimbor's essay "Linguistic Memory and the Politics of U.S. English" and Ricento's book.

Admittedly, Ricento and the many authors of the information contained in Language Policy provide me with an unfair advantage for the contestation of Trimbur's conclusion which states the author's desire to have a "national language policy [that he believes], goes beyond a discourse of linguistic rights to imagine the abolition of English monolingualism altogether and the creation in its place a linguistic culture where being multilingual is both normal and desirable, as it is throughout much of the world" (587).

Authors Thomas Ricento and Gloria Anzaldua

Language Policy and Political Economy by Thomas Rincento

Thomas Ricento

Thomas Ricento is Professor and Research Chair at the University of Calgary, Canada. He has published widely in the field of language policy and on the politics of language in North America. He was a Fulbright Professor in Colombia (1989) and Costa Rica (2000), and a visiting professor at universities in Chile, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland. He was Director of English Language Programs at the Japan Center for Michigan Universities, Hikone, Japan from 1989-1991.

 I enjoy reading Ricento's book. With it, I've been able to place many ideas that I've had into more rounded associations with what I have seen taking place but have not thought about until now. Notably, within academia and the political sphere, his writings have made me aware of what communitarianism is and why it seems to be being implemented within U.S. colleges as policy. Unfortunately, for most of what is within chapters one through four I have yet to encounter the statement "Since corporate control of Western governments represents a modern day form of fascism, governmental policy is always to be classed as a form of colonialism, and any and all laws created are imposed for the profit of corporations. Therefore, any so-called social justice regulations shall be used to further suppress the populace into serving corporate interests." Although the text never goes so far as stating the obvious, it may be easily surmised by the honest and factual information put forth. Taking my point as a premise, it leaves moot any arguments from such authors as Kymlicka about group rights or individual rights because anything provided by the government is a guarantee to gradually take away all rights of those subject to the law in favor of corporate "rights." Corporations do not and cannot have morality because they are not an individual! Let me be brief here because more of what I have to say may be made clearer after first looking into the cross-textual connections between this week's readings.

Gloria Anzaldua (September 26, 1942 – May 15, 2004) was an American scholar of Chicana cultural theory, feminist theory, and queer theory.  

Anzaldua presents the theme of corporate colonialism when she mentions "U.S. colonizing companies" (32). Now that corporations are global all nation-states are but enforcement arms of borderless parasitic colonizing entities. This is the real world and not some academic fantasy land that we live in. It is past the time that all of the people should come together to address the threat. The end of corporate colonization may occur in either of two ways. The one end is the entire consumption of all peoples and resources into one corporate entity that eventually consumes itself. The other is some change brings about an end to the horrors now being inflicted on people by the global corporate elitists' systematic colonization. Anzaldua writes the article as a communitarian piece with identity politics as a theme when she speaks of the white conquest of the Americas and how her ancestors were mistreated by the whites. She fails to talk about how in the past whites were enslaved and abused by other whites, vaporized masses of fellow whites in ovens, and built the most complex society in history. The act of mistreatment is subordinate to greed and should it work to the benefit of greed then people everywhere would be lining up to subject themselves to slavery as they very much do.

Further verification that Borderlands may be classified within the identity politics genre is in the second chapter where the author speaks of boys being told to beat their wives, the use of the terms "other," "half and half" and homophobia: all things that most people don't really care about; things that have little or nothing to do with the ongoing corporate colonization taking place today; much as it took place when the author speaks of the exploitation of the indigenous populace in the first chapter. Something seems to be missing to me and that is the circumvention by the elite to use the educational system to deflect the injustices of global corporate colonialism by way of communitarianism/identity politics such that the actual cultural tyranny they inflict is transferred from them to racial or identity groups within their subservient populaces: through the establishment of racism, the myth of homophobia, and sexism; all of which are fabricated to rise within an existing homogenized and highly contemporary society. To me the implementation of communitarian ideology by academia already proved it on the path of other communist ideologies such as Stalinism and Maoism through its social justice efforts to shut down free speech via political correctness and censorship, violent political aligned protests, and the tearing down of statues, the re-writing of history and all such things that lead to the stamping out the only source of morality, the individual. Inevitably this leads to a cultural revolution and the mass murder of tens of millions of people, none of whom are likely to be members of the elite ruling class.

Outside of the sentimentalities of individual concerns imbued into the prose of Anzaldua, Ricento states the global corporate fact that "[o]nly the countries that invest massively in education and research can appropriate the foreign technologies necessary to catch up with the rich countries" (39). NAFTA minimized the effectiveness of the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico allowing U.S. (and now globally owned corporations that had once been U.S. based) corporations to do what was necessary for the establishment of autonomous Mexican corporate operations. With the achievements of NAFTA complete and with the multinationals influence over the nation-state government of Mexico, the wall can go back up like a quartering off of a prison cell block for easier multinational divide and conquer control. This time the wall seems to be more to prevent capital flight as recently implemented through various means in China rather than to have anything to do with immigration: it is being built to keep U.S. citizens or Mexican citizens from fleeing with their wealth during any future economic uncertainty. Multinational corporations and the elite class that owns them are global and not restricted by inconveniences of nation-state borders. They are the new masters of a global slave-based economy established by way of modern colonization methods: control the nation-state governments; turn the populace against one another. And, if that doesn't work, then create terrorists, Islamify the EU and as a last resort turn their countries into rubble: as in the Mid East.

So it is that I'm mystified by the value academics place on English or language as it relates to social justice or if whether or not English should be the preferred lingua franca because of this or that. The value of these concerns when compared to the "bull within the china closet," the one that such issues are subservient to, is very small. It is as if they are completely unaware, although here I presume that being able to write what I have, that Rincento is equally if not more aware than I and cannot write such things in an academic book. He comes out and says that "[t]he agendas and policies of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, for example, are determined largely by self-interested governments of the original G-7 countries, which are greatly influenced by the largest banks and corporations, all of which seek to maximize their self-interest when it comes to investment and trade policies" (38). What he does not say is that those banks print money and give that money to other banks and lend it to corporations at zero percent interest rates. Or that they can buy corporate bonds like the ECB, or government bonds and stock ETFs or like the Swiss National Bank become the largest stockholder of Facebook, or as in the United States purchase so many mortgage-backed-securities that they become the largest mortgage holders in America. Corporations are now in the process of taking title to all assets in the Western world by printing up money out of thin air for their owners. So, this is my mystification. Academics are supported by student debt, loans that come from a government under the control of corporations. They fail to see that this debt removes an entire generation from the purchase the real property that the corporations are currently taking title to. How can it be that academics write about justice, language rights, democracy, and participation in communitarian ideology, or concern themselves with whether or not English is going to provide some upward mobility when they are participating in, benefiting from and therefore complicit in the greatest inhumane colonialization by an elite class?

I can't say enough about how much I appreciate having to read Rincento's book for an assignment. I've recommended it to my brother, an English professor at LAVC, and to all of my Facebook friends. I especially liked learning about the key words and terms such as liberalism, neoliberalism, social justice, identity politics, language rights, the conceptions, and misconceptions that the author's hold about democracy, capitalism, mixed-economies, nation-states, communitarianism, code-mixing and so on. I fell in love with the book when Rincento stated that the elements of Van Parijs's argument cannot find "common ground and common purpose in a world in which everything has been, or will soon be, commodified, owned, and priced, with the owners increasingly controlling decisions about economic inputs and outputs on a global scale in the service of their own economic interests" (33).