128 responded to accordingly. The deployment of stylized languages becomes interactionally
consequential when it leads to intersubjectivity about membership categorization; that is, when the comedy participants jointly build an understanding about who is Local and who
is not. I take a discursive approach and adopt the notions of interactional relevance and
consequentiality; however, I use them somewhat flexibly for the sake of discourse analytic and interactional sociolinguistic research, to which I attempt to make
contributions. I argue that the deployment of stylized languages is performatively relevant and consequential for the Local comedy participants. To put this differently,
discursive actions in Local comedy are ideologically mediated by and intertextually connected with past and relevant texts and talk, and the comedy participants bring these
intertextual links into performance-in-interaction. I claim that discourse analysts should analyze intertextuality in a more explicitly interactional context; therefore, I propose the
notion of
interactive intertextuality
. This respecification of intertextuality is parallel to Goodwin‘s 2007 respecification of footing as interactive footing. In the following
section, I present the discursive environments of stylized languages that play a role in constituting a comedy club as an ideologically-mediated and culturally-specific
performative site for the Localization of the participants.
4.2 Discursive contexts for examining stylization
One of the contexts where stylized languages appears is
reported speech
. Doing stylized languages in reported speech is
recontextualizing
Bauman Briggs, 1990 what someone says from one space to another for performative effects. It highlights the
129 rhetorical deployment of footing Goffman, 1979 or speaking positions. The reporting
subject achieve s various functions through doing reported speech e.g., suspending one‘s
interpretation, making an assessment, etc. [Buttny, 2003]. In his analysis of racial talk, Buttny 2003 proposes two types of reported speech: 1 direct reported speech for
repres enting ‗actual‘ speech and 2 prototypical reported speech for representing the
stereotypical racial other. Similar to the latter type of reported speech is
active voicing
Wooffitt, 1992, which brings ―into being separate corroborating actors who, like ventriloquist‘s dummies, seem to have life, opinions and personality of their own‖ Potter,
1996, p. 161. This practice implies that quotes are not simply quotes and that they are actively voiced; that is, ―the speakers are designing certain utterances to be heard
as if
they were said at the time‖ Wooffitt, 1992, p. 161, emphasis in original. Thus, both direct reported speech and prototypical reported speech are in fact instances of active
voicing. Another interactional context crucial for my exploration of linguistic
heterogeneity in Local comedy is
constructed dialogue
Tannen, 1989.
47
Building on her discussion of reported speech, Tannen claims that ―casting ideas as dialogue rather than
statements is a discourse strategy for framing information in a way that communicates effectively and creates involvement‖ 1989, p. 110. It should be emphasized that both
reported speech and constructed dialogues are the discursive constructions of the reporting subject. They may not in fact be actual reports because they are assembled for
stylization. The reporting subject manages the factuality of reported events through
47
As Tannen 1989, p. 110 states that ―[r]eported speech is constructed dialogue,‖ she does not propose that the two notions are distinct but that what is commonly called reported speech would be better
understood as constructed dialogue. Clift and Holt 2007 also discuss these notions.
130 reported speech and constructed dialogues. In Hawai‗i comedy, factuality is constructed
by two contrastive stylized languages that are ideologically mediated with social structure. In the following sections, I examine these contexts of ideologically-mediated and
culturally-specific stylized languages to show membership categorization in relation to language alternation. A traditional view on language alternation or code-switching
assumes that 1 languages are systemscodes and that 2 code-switching between two languages is an indication of being a ‗perfect‘ bilingual who is capable of using each
language. Meeuwis and Blommaert 1998 propose layered code-switching or code- switching within code-switching; for instance, mixed speech such as SwahiliFrench does
not consist of two distinctive codes, but it is a code on its own; thus, this is a
monolectal view of code-switching
. Within one mixed code occurs style-shifting that is indexed through qualitative changes that involve phonological, lexical, and syntactic features.
Furthermore, speakers may switch from one mixed code to another. I argue that layered code-switching is applicable to the illustration of Local comedic speech as a sociolect.
4.3 Pidgin in stylization
