Chinese: What does the Chinese language mean to Western tourists visiting China?

Ingrid’s blog post “Character challenge” has set me thinking about Chinese language learning these days. I have found her observation about learning Chinese characters as “the most intriguing pastime” particularly impressive, especially when I look again at the data I analyzed for my thesis. There I looked (inter alia) at the ways in which English-language travel writers describe their communicative encounters in China.

In my corpus, only few writers seem to have made any attempt to learn Chinese before they traveled to China. However, they usually have a lot to say about the English deficiencies they observe in Chinese locals (as is also the case in hotel reviews).

How does Chinese figure in English-language travel writing? Mostly as an absence. My corpus consists of travelogues from the New York Times and China Daily. Despite their different origins from outside and within China, both newspapers have little to say about any communication occurring in Chinese.

To begin with, Chinese languages tend to be lumped into one single variety, “Chinese.” Regional dialects and ethnic minority languages are generally rendered invisible.

Second, Chinese words or phrases are sometimes used as iconic tokens to refer to local cultural specifics and to signify authenticity. Examples include place names for which a conventional English translation exists such as Changjiang instead of “Yangtze River” and names of Chinese dishes such as xiao long bao (soup dumpling) or baochaoyaohua (fried pig kidney). Other Chinese terms that I’ve found in my corpus included Qipao (a type of clothing), Xiangqi (a game similar to chess), baijiu (an alcoholic drink), pipa (loquat) or shanzha (hawthorn). Instead of serving any communicative function, these snippets of Chinese languages act as “linguistic decorations.” They serve to inject some local flavor authenticating the writers’ touristic experiences and thus contribute to linguascaping the exotic in China.

Third, Chinese languages are also exoticized in meta-comments that make judgments about or express attitudes toward local linguistic practices, serving the purpose of drawing social boundaries and reinforcing similarities and differences between the Self and the Other. For instance, the Guilin accent is described as “fairly different” from Mandarin, Cantonese is labeled as “bird language” or the Jinan dialect is compared to Putonghua spoken by foreigners who cannot grasp the four tones. By recursive logic, such linguistic differentiation is transposed onto the differentiation of destinations and local people. Thus, Guilin is constructed as a peripheral destination; Cantonese speakers are rendered sub-human as their language is compared to animal sounds; and Jinan speakers are made to look foreign and non-belonging.

Finally, some travel writers playfully cross into Chinese languages to enact an elite identity of sophisticated travelers belonging to a global community of tourists. For example, in a travelogue about Yunnan, the travel journalist describes himself as greeting some pilgrims by saying “Tashi delek” (Tibetan greeting). By crossing into Tibetan, the writer momentarily embraces the identities of the Tibetan pilgrims but also maintains his identity as an American tourist. This instance of language crossing presents the travel writer as knowledgeable and well-travelled but not a cultural/linguistic imperialist.

So, what do Chinese languages mean to English-speaking tourists? It’s easy to say what they are not: languages that have any communicative value. Firmly assigned to the Other and lacking any intrinsic interest, they are reduced to commodified snippets serving to affirm touristic identities. One could almost conclude that travel to China is not about China but about the ‘me’ of the tourist.

Publications based on my research are forthcoming. In the meantime, I would refer readers to Jaworski et al. (2003) for further reading.

Jaworski, A., Thurlow, C., Lawson, S., & Ylänne-McEwen, V. (2003). The Uses and Representations of Local Languages in Tourist Destinations: A View from British TV Holiday Programmes Language Awareness, 12 (1), 5-29 DOI: 10.1080/09658410308667063

In the article, the principal shares a sad story about the cultural bias of the 5^th-grade reading test, which will from now on become a stock of my intercultural communication teaching. Oscar, a recent arrival to the Vermont school from a refugee camp in Africa, took the same test as all the other kids around the country who have grown up in the USA and spoken English all their lives:

Oscar needed 20 minutes to read a passage on Neil Armstrong landing his Eagle spacecraft on the moon; it should have taken 5 minutes […] but Oscar was determined, reading out loud to himself.

The first question asked whether the passage was fact or fiction. “He said, ‘Oh, Mrs. Irvine, man don’t go on the moon, man don’t go on the back of eagles, this is not true.’”

Oscar had understood the text and he understood the difference between factual and fictional writing. However, his lack of exposure to (American) media, meant he got the first question and, subsequently, all the other five questions, which were based on the first one, wrong.

Oscar got penalized for the fact that his knowledge of the world was quite different from that of the middle-class native-born “standard” (?) child the test designers had in mind. In the policy context of No Child Left Behind the school and the principal were penalized, too.

Cultural bias has been a concern for assessment researchers and practitioners since the emergence of IQ tests in the first half of the 20^th century. The evidence is there that standardized assessment disadvantages even among native-born students those from non-middle class backgrounds (Mac Ruairc, 2009, is a recent study in the Irish context well-worth reading). Students from migrant backgrounds and from linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds are further disadvantaged. Despite all the evidence and all the research, standardized assessment and the idea that it means quality spreads like a cancer from one educational system to the next.

Dear readers, share Oscar’s story widely! Many adults in the developed world believe the moon-landing is not fact but fiction, and it’s plain to see that the fact that Oscar thought it was a story tells us nothing about his reading ability nor about the quality of the instruction he received in his school. There are thousands of such testing stories out there. How can so many wrongs add up to a right – the imagined standardized high-quality education system?

Ruairc, G. (2009). ‘Dip, dip, sky blue, who’s it? NOT YOU’: children’s experiences of standardised testing: a socio-cultural analysis Irish Educational Studies, 28 (1), 47-66 DOI: 10.1080/03323310802597325

Multilingual sign in Namtso (Image Credit: Wikipedia)

Italian version of my blog post about Chinglish. Translated by Emanuela Moretto

Per un attimo provate a pensare che il New York Times abbia chiesto ai propri lettori di inviare barzellette sulle classiche oche giulive, oppure di riportare un episodio divertente che aveva per protagonista una persona di colore. Bene, adesso provate ad immaginare che a seguito della richiesta la blogosfera sia stata bombardata da messaggi e che tutti coloro che si interessano di differenze tra i sessi o tra le etnie abbiano creato un blog o abbiano mandato il proprio contributo su facebook o twitter e che persino gli studiosi nel campo improvvisamente si siano animati ed abbiano proposto analisi sul perché le sopracitate oche giulive o le persone di colore si comportino in una maniera così assurda.

In realtà, ciò non potrebbe succedere, semplicemente perché sarebbe palesemente ed oscenamente sessista o razzista. Ed infatti tiro un sospiro di sollievo che queste cose non facciano più parte della mainstream. Quindi è anche arrivato il momento di giungere allo stesso risultato dal punto di vista della diversità linguistica. Chiariamo subito una cosa: il prendersi gioco di un’altra lingua non è un gioco! Infatti non è altro che una riprova della stessa mentalità ristretta che si ritrova nelle barzellette sulla differenza tra i sessi o tra le etnie, con la piccola eccezione che mentre si considera inaccettabile l’espressione del sessimo o del razzismo, a nessuno viene in mente di eccepire qualcosa quando sono espressi dei pregiudizi a carattere linguistico.

Il New York Times ha pubblicato di recente un articolo intitolato Chinglish, ovvero ‘cinglese’, che per qualche tempo è stato anche l’articolo che ha ricevuto il numero maggiore di email-commento. La reazione da parte dei lettori è stata tale, e tale anche la circolazione di commenti nella blogosfera, che il giornale ha chiesto ai lettori di inviare immagini di “cartelli stranieri e strani”. Persino un blog accademico del campo si è offerto di illuminare i lettori dibattendo sul perché e sul percome “gli errori di traduzione dalla lingua cinese risultino in una versione inglese ridicola o addirittura incomprensibile”.

Non riscontro nessun problema nel ridicolizzare cartelli ridicoli e e dal linguaggio pomposo. Ma vedo un problema quando ci si prende gioco della lingua utilizzata nel cartello solo perché, apparentemente, non corrisponde alla norma linguistica seguita dai madrelingua.

Che il mondo intero si metta ad imparare l’inglese ed allo stesso tempo ne derivi un perenne complesso di inferiorità ha certamente senso dal punto di vista commerciale – ne è la riprova, l’industria multimiliardaria del TESOL. È un sistema aperto allo sfruttamento. È anche del tutto immorale.

L’articolo del New York Times è seguito da due errate corrige; la prima per non aver riportato in modo corretto il titolo di un lettore cinese e la seconda per aver sbagliato a scrivere il nome di un programma di software per la traduzione cinese-inglese. E allora sono l’unica a vedere l’ironia di tutto questo?

Multilingual sign in Namtso (Image Credit: Wikipedia)

Persian version of my recent blog post about Chinglish
Translated by Tahmineh Tayebi (تهمینه طیبی) & Vahid Parvaresh (وحید پرورش)

تصور کنید که روزنامه ی نیویورک تایمز از خواننده های خود بخواهد خنده دار ترین لطیفه ایی که در مورد افرادِ موبور  شنیده اند را برای روزنامه بفرستند و یا خنده دار ترین کاری که دیده اند شخصی با رنگ پوست و نژاد متفاوت انجام داده را برای روزنامه گزارش کنند. و حالا تصور کنید که قبل از اینکه این اقدامات مسیر کامل خود را طی کند،  دنیای وبلاگ ها از این گزارش ها پر شود و هر کسی که به نژاد و جنسیت علاقه مند است در وبلاگش چیزی نوشته ویا اینکه در فیسبوک وتویتر ذکری از آن به میان آورد و حتی مراکز دانشگاهی در زمینه ی مطالعات نژادی و جنسیت همگی از این پیشنهاد به وجد آمده و تجزیه و تحلیل هایی ارائه دهند مبنی بر این که چرا افراد موبور یا آن هایی که رنگ پوست و نژاد متفاوت دارند چنین رفتار مسخره ایی از خود نشان می دهند.

البته این موضوع قرار نیست رخ دهد چرا که چنین چیزی به طور وقیحانه و شرم آوری نژاد پرستانه یا تبعیض جنسیتی به شمار خواهد رفت. من خوشحالم  که چنین مسایلی دیگر قسمتی از تفکرات رایج و غالب  نیست و اکنون دیگر زمان آن رسیده که ما به درک مشابهی از گوناگونی و اختلاف های زبانی نیز برسیم. مسخره کردن زبانِ یک شخص اصلا خنده دار نیست! بلکه به اندازه ی شوخی های نژاد پرستانه و جنسیتی متعصبانه  است با این تفاوت که بیان کردن تبعیضات جنسیتی و نژادی غیر قابل قبول است. اما این چنین که به نظر می آید هیچ کس هیچ مشکلی با اظهار کردن تعصباتِ زبانیِ خود نمی بیند.

روزنامه نیویورک تایمز اخیرا مقاله ایی درباره چینگلیش (انگلیسیِ چینی ها) به چاپ رساند که برای مدتی بیشترین مقاله ی ایمیل شده ی آن ها بود. در واقع این مقاله چنان مورد توجه خوانندگان قرار گرفت و چنان سر و صدایی  در دنیای وبلاگ ها ایجاد کرد که از مردم خواسته شد تصاویر شخصی خود از “نشانه هایِ عجیبِ خارج” را برای آن روزنامه بفرستند. حتی یک وبلاگ دانشگاهی نیز در این زمینه دست به کار شد تا با ارائه ی یک سری تجزیه و تحلیل، این موضوع را که “چگونه اشتباهات غیر عمد در ترجمه های عبارات چینی منجر به انگلیسیِ مضحک و غیر قابل فهم می شود” روشن کند.

من هیچ مشکلی با مسخره کردن نشانه های اغراق آمیز و خنده دار ندارم. مسئله ایی که مورد اعتراض من است به سُخره گرفتن زبان آن نشانه ها ست آن هم صرفا به این علت که زبان آن نشانه ها با استانداردهای بعضی از بومیان هماهنگ نیست.

وادار کردن تمام جهان به یادگیری زبان انگلیسی و در عین حال تزریق آهسته ی یک عقده ی حقارتِ همیشگی به افرادی که به زبان های دیگر صحبت می کنند ممکن است به لحاظ تجاری، یعنی برای صنعت چند میلیارد دلاری آموزش زبان انگلیسی ، با مفهوم باشد ولی در اصل یک حُقه ی استثماری محض بوده و کاملا غیر اخلاقی است.

مقاله مذکور در روزنامه نیو یورک تایمز با دو اصلاح همراه شد چرا که هیأت تحریریه نتوانسته بود لقب یک منبعِ آگاهِ چینی و هم چنین املایِ صحیحِ یک نرم افزارِ ترجمه ی انگلیسی-چینی را در اولین دورِ چاپ خود درست در بیاورد. آیا من تنها فردی هستم که این طنزِ ظریف را دریافته است؟

Multilingual sign in Namtso (Image Credit: Wikipedia)

Korean version of my recent blog post about Chinglish

Translated by Sun-Young Chung (정선영)

뉴욕타임즈가 독자들로부터 그들의 재미난 금발머리 농담이나 유색인종 사람과 관련된 배꼽 잡는 얘깃거리를 받아 싣겠노라고 했다고 상상해보자. 이제, 그러한 캠페인이 진행되면서 블로그 세계는 네티즌들의 이러한 얘기들로 가득 차고, 성별이나 인종 블로그에 관심 있는 사람이라면 누구나 페이스북이나 트위터 등을 통해 그것에 대해 얘기하며, 성별이나 민족성 분야의 학자들 또한 격분하여 금발머리 여자나 유색인종들이 왜 그렇게 우스꽝스럽게 묘사되어야 하는 지에 대해 분석한다고 상상해보자.

그러한 일은 말도 안되게 터무니없이 성차별적이고 인종차별적이기 때문에 당연히 일어나지 않을 것이다. 그러한 것들이 더 이상은 주류의 일부가 아니고 우리가 언어적 다양성의 인정 면에서도 유사한 정점에 이르렀다는 사실에 난 감사한다. 누군가의 언어에 대해 조롱하는 것은 정말이지 하나도 재미있지 않다! 그것은 성차별적 또는 인종차별적 농담만큼이나 편견적이고 편협적이다. 단 성차별이나 인종차별에 대한 발언은 용납되지 않아도 언어 편견적인 발언에 대해서는 아무도 이상하게 여기지 않는다는 점을 제외하고선 말이다.

뉴욕타임즈는 최근에 중국식 영어(칭글리쉬)에 대한 기사를 실었는데, 한 동안 이 기사는 가장 많이 이메일로 전달되기도 했다. 사실, 이 기사는 독자들로 하여금 “해외에서 찍은 이상한 표지판”에 관한 자신의 사진을 신문에 투고할 것을 요청하여 독자들로부터 수많은 회신을 받았고, 블로그 세계에서도 파문을 일으켰다. 관련분야의 학문적 블로그들 조차도 어떻게 “중국어에서의 의도치 않은 번역의 오류가 터무니없고 불가해한 영어를 만들어내는지” 밝혀내기 위해 일련의 분석을 늘어놓으며 가세했다.

터무니없고 거만한 표지판을 조롱하는 것에 대해서는 난 전혀 문제삼지 않는다. 내가 반대하는 것은 표지판의 언어가 몇몇 원어민의 표준에 맞지 않는다고 하여 그것에 대해 조롱하는 것이다.

세상 전체로 하여금 영어를 배우게 하면서 동시에 추가 언어 화자들에게 끊임없이 열등의식을 주입시키는 것은 기업을 증대시키는데, 더 정확히 말해서, 수십억 TESOL 산업을 발전시키는 데에 중요한 것일지도 모른다. 그것은 완벽한 착취의 체제이다. 그것은 또한 완벽하게 비도덕적이다.

이 뉴욕타임즈 기사는 처음 게시할 때 중국인 제보자의 직위와 중국어-영어 번역 소프트웨어의 철자를 바르게 쓰지 않아서 두 번이나 수정되었다. 여기서 아이러니를 보는 사람이 나뿐일까?

Multilingual sign in Namtso (Image Credit: Wikipedia)

Malay version of my recent blog post about Chinglish

Translated by Ridwan Wahid

Bayangkan sekiranya akhbar New York Times meminta pembacanya menghantar ‘blonde jokes’ kegemaran mereka ataupun melaporkan karenah-karenah paling lucu yang pernah mereka saksikan yang melibatkan orang-orang kulit berwarna. Sekiranya kempen ini benar terjadi, sudah tentulah alam blogosfera akan dipenuhi dengan lawak jenaka sebegini dan sudah tentulah sesiapa saja yang berminat dalam pengajian gender atau perhubungan kaum akan mengupas perihal peristiwa ini di dalam blog, facebook dan tweeter, sehinggakan ahli akademik daripada bidang-bidang yang sama akan turut sama teruja dan mengutarakan pelbagai analisa kenapa wanita berambut perang atau orang kulit berwarna boleh berkelakuan aneh sebegitu rupa.

Kita bernasib baik kerana perkara sedemikian tentu saja tidak akan berlaku. Jika ianya berlaku sekalipun, sudah tentu ia akan dilabelkan sebagai seksis ataupun berbaur perkauman. Saya bersyukur kerana perkara sebegitu bukan lagi menjadi suatu kebiasaan dan rasa saya sudah sampai masanya untuk kita memahami dalam kaedah yang sama kenapa kita perlu ada kepelbagaian linguistik. Mengejek bahasa seseorang adalah tidak lucu langsung! Ianya sebenarnya sama saja sempit dan sama saja prejudis seperti lawak jenaka yang seksis atau berbaur perkauman – cuma, walaupun isu ’sexism’ dan ’racism’ sememangnya dianggap salah, tidak ramai pula yang menganggap prejudis dalam penggunaan bahasa itu adalah satu kesalahan yang sama saja beratnya.

Baru-baru ini, New York Times menyiarkan satu artikel mengenai Chinglish, dan untuk beberapa ketika ianya menjadi artikel yang paling kerap disebarkan melalui emel oleh pembaca akhbar tersebut. Sememangnya artikel ini telah menerima satu respon yang luarbiasa daripada pembacanya dan ianya juga telah menjadikan alam blogofesra berdengung dengan cerita mengenainya sehinggakan akhbar tersebut terdorong untuk meminta pembacanya menghantar gambar yang menunjukkan “papan tanda aneh dari luar negara.” Malah, terdapat satu blog akademik yang turut sama menyahut seruan akhbar tersebut dengan mengutarakan beberapa analisa untuk menerangkan bagaimana “kesilapan penterjemahan dari bahasa Cina yang tidak sengajakan boleh membawa kepada maksud yang aneh dan salah.”

Saya tidak ada masalah untuk mempersendakan papan tanda yang ganjil dan janggal bunyinya. Apa yang saya bantah ialah mempersendakan bahasa dalam papan tanda tersebut kerana kononnya ia tidak memenuhi suatu standard penutur asli.

Menjadikan seluruh dunia belajar bahasa Inggeris dan pada masa yang sama menyemai dalam penutur bukan asli rasa rendah diri merupakan langkah yang baik untuk memajukan perniagaan, iaitu industri TESOL yang bernilai berbilion-bilion dolar. Ianya merupakan satu perancangan yang eksploitatif. Ianya juga satu perlakuan yang sungguh tidak bermoral.

Artikel New York Times tersebut diikuti dengan dua pembetulan kerana khabarnya mereka tidak berjaya memperolehi gelaran yang betul untuk salah seorang pemberi maklumat mereka yang berbangsa Cina dan juga ejaan yang betul untuk nama perisian penterjemahan Cina ke Bahasa Inggeris semasa artikel tersebut dicetak. Saya seorangkah yang dapat melihat ironinya di sini?

Multilingual sign in Namtso (Image Credit: Wikipedia)

Japanese version of my recent blog post about Chinglish

Translated by Kimie Takahashi　（高橋　君江）

このシナリオを想像してみてください。もしNew Yorkタイムズがブロンド女性を馬鹿にするジョークや黄色人種の面白エピソードを募集したとしたらどうでしょうか？さらにその応募キャンペーンが盛り上がり、ブログや Facebookやツイッターでそれが出回り、さらには、ジェンダー、エスニックの学者達がそれを取り上げ、「なぜブロンド女性や黄色人種はこんな馬鹿な ことをするのか」などと分析しだしたりしたらどうなるでしょうか？

もちろんこのシナリオは起こらないはず。そんな事はあきらかに性差別そして人種差別行為にあたるからです。私たちはジェンダーと人種の議論に関 しては、かなりの進歩を遂げてきました。今、その教訓を言語にも生かすべきだと思います。言語を馬鹿にするということは決して「面白い事」ではありませ ん。性差別、人種差別と同等の事です。しかし、他の差別は「だめ！」と思っている方が多い中、言語差別はいまだに広く存在しています。

New Yorkタイムズは最近「Chinglish -　チングリッシュ」という記事を掲載しました。とても大きな反響があったため、さらに「外国の変な掲示」を募集しました。アカデミッ クなブログでさえ「なぜ中国語からの不注意な翻訳が変な英語になってしまうのか」という分析まで登場しました。

個人的に、「変な掲示」を皮肉るのは問題ありません。私が問題 と感じるのは、「ネイティブスピーカーのスタンダード」と違うものを馬鹿にする事です。英語を習え習えとまくし立てながら、同時にコンプレッ クスを植えつける。それが年商何兆円というTESOL業界のやり方です。まさに悪徳。そして倫理に欠ける行為です。

実は、New Yorkタイムズは二度ほど間違いの訂正を発表しています。なにやら、中国人の方の役職そして中国語・英語の翻訳ソフトウェアのつづりを間違えたとか。それに皮肉を感じているのは私だけでしょうか？

Multilingual sign in Namtso (Image Credit: Wikipedia)

Chinese version of my recent blog post about Chinglish

Translated by Zhang Jie (张洁); 译文：张洁

设想某日《纽约时报》向读者征集最喜爱的金发女郎笑话[1]或者有色人种所做的最滑稽的事。再设想该活动开展后迅速充斥了整个网络空间，任何对性别或种族问题有所兴趣的人都在博客、facebook和微博上热烈讨论着，甚至连从事性别和种族研究的学者们也开始群情激昂地对金发女郎或有色人种的荒谬行径提供种种分析。

当然，这种宣扬性别歧视和种族主义的极端恶劣事件不会发生。我庆幸这种内容不再融入主流文化，同时也呼吁到了为语言的多样性正名的时候。嘲笑他人的语言实无风趣可言。其本质就如同那些低劣的性别歧视或种族主义玩笑一样 — 只不过性别歧视和种族主义如今已不被人接受，但对语言发表一些成见却似乎仍无伤大雅。

《纽约时报》近日刊登了一篇有关中式英语的新闻，一时成为电邮转载率最高的文章。由于这篇文章引起的读者关注度以及在博客空间造成的极大反响，《纽约时报》决定向读者征集有关“千奇百怪的国外标识”的照片，甚至创建了学术博客提供一系列专业分析，阐释“汉英翻译中一些无心之失如何造成了令人捧腹或费解的英语译文。”

取乐于荒诞滑稽和矫揉造作的标识，无可厚非。但是，仅仅因为不符合所谓的母语规范而嘲弄标识上的语言，我不能苟同。

发动全世界人学习英语并灌输给所有英语学习者无法消解的自卑感，对利润丰厚的外语教育产业来说也许意味着无限商机。但我们需清醒地认识到，这是一个完美的剥削陷阱，这也是完全不道德的。

《纽约时报》的这篇文章后紧接着刊登了两则纠正信息，因为该报社没能在第一时间弄清楚一位中国受访者的现任职务以及某个汉英翻译软件的正确拼写。是否只有我看到了一丝讽刺的意味呢？

[1] 金发女郎笑话（blonde joke）是欧美的一种笑话类别，专门嘲弄金发女郎的愚蠢行为。这类笑话的主人公多为女性，僵化了人们对金发女郎的刻板印象，有明显的性别歧视色彩，遭到了广泛的批评。

Multilingual sign in Namtso (Image Credit: Wikipedia)

Imagine the New York Times asked readers to send in their favorite blonde jokes or to report the funniest thing they’ve ever seen a person of color do. Now, imagine that once that campaign is underway the blogosphere is full of it and anyone interested in gender or race blogs, facebooks and tweets about it, and even academics in the fields of gender studies and ethnicity studies get all excited and offer analyses as to why blondes or persons of color act in such ridiculous ways.

It’s not going to happen, of course, because such a thing would be outrageously and obscenely sexist or racist. I am thankful that such stuff is no longer part of the mainstream and it’s high time we arrived at a similar understanding of linguistic diversity. Making fun of someone else’s language is just not funny! It’s just as bigoted as sexist or racist jokes – except that it’s unacceptable to express sexism or racism but no one seems to see anything wrong with expressing their linguistic prejudices.

The New York Times recently carried an article about Chinglish, which was for some time their most e-mailed article. Indeed, it created such a reader response and so much buzz in the blogosphere that the newspaper called for readers to send in their own pictures of “strange signs from abroad.” Even an academic blog in the field pitched in by offering a series of analyses to illuminate how “unintentional errors of translation from Chinese result in ludicrous or impenetrable English.”

I have no problem with making fun of ludicrous and pompous signage. What I object to is making fun of the language of signage because it doesn’t meet some native-speaker norm.

Getting the whole world to learn English and simultaneously instilling a perpetual inferiority complex in additional language speakers may make good business sense – to wit, the multi-billion TESOL industry. It’s a perfect exploitative set-up. It’s also perfectly immoral.

The New York Times article is followed by two corrections because they couldn’t get the title of a Chinese informant nor the spelling of a Chinese-English translation software right the first time round. Am I the only one who is seeing the irony?