"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.