125 deployed Hawai‗i Creole and added a Local ‗flavor‘ to stories that seemed to have
nothing intrinsically Local about them. In his performance-in-interaction, Augie T deployed Hawai‗i Creole in reported speech and constructed dialogues, giving elasticity
to his performance. To stylize their audience as non-Local, the three comedians deployed discursive
resources contrastive to those used for the stylization of a Local audience. For instance, DeLima referred to tourists and long-term residents in Waik
īkī, treating them as non- Local. He also used the term haole and implied its category-bound activities and
attributes. Augie T generated similar effects by identifying a non-Local group in his predominantly Local audience and
addressing them as his ―friends‖ from the mainland. It should be noted that he clearly slowed down, switched into stylized English, and
provided a re-formulated account of dog-eating to this group. Irvine also demonstrated his finesse in illustrating in-group knowledge about Local topics such as cultural
practices, making the same distinction between Locals and non-Locals from the continental United States. In the next chapter, Irvine shows his ability to
deploy Hawai‗i Creole to create and enhance humorous effects.
3.5 Conclusion
This chapter examined performances-in-interaction between comedians and their audiences, focusing on six shows by three comedians, Frank DeLima FD, Augie T AT,
and Bo Irvine BI. I presented excerpts from shows that these comedians, except Irvine, performed in more than one site. They were engaged in audience designing through
which they achieved two things; first, DeLima and Augie T stylized their audience as
126 Local; second, they stylized themselves as Local, too, by means of treating their audience
as Local. Audience designing generated not only an audience but the performers‘ identity. Meanwhile, the audiences reflexively constituted themselves as Local by responding to
the comedians with laughter, applause, etc. Through the performances-in-interaction emerged a Local comedy community.
The three comedians also stylized their audience as non-Local through membership categorization and stake inoculation. The comedians re-formulated accounts
of Local issues either to constitute non-Local audience members in a predominantly Local audience or to constitute a predominantly non-Local audience. Again, the
discursive practice of audience designing generated not only an audience but the performers‘ identity because Local performers are responsible for welcoming non-Local
audience members and explaining Local issues for them. These audience members responded accordingly, thereby constituting themselves as non-Local.
The stylization of Local and non-Local audiences co-occurred with the deployment of two contrastive stylized languages, Hawai‗i Creole and English.
Comedians often constituted their audience as Local by invoking its category-bound activity of speaking and understanding Hawai‗i Creole. On the other hand, the comedians
stylized their audience as non-Local by talking to them in stylized English, and they also constructed non-Local characters through voicing them in certain discursive
environments such as reported speech and constructed dialogues. The next chapter pays close attention to the relationship between membership categorization and the use of
mixed codes in performances-in-interaction. The interaction of these acts constitutes the style of Local comedy that is a culturally-specific activity.
127
CHAPTER 4. PIDGIN AS A STYLIZED LANGUAGE
4.1 Introduction
