2.1TV talk shows

Conversations on TV are more readily recordable than those in real life because they are intended to be. There are some differences between the language used on TV and in everyday conversations. TV talk show conversation is classified under semi-institutional conversation (Ilie 1999Ilie, Cornelia 1999 “Question-Response Argumentation in Talk Shows.” Journal of Pragmatics 31 (8): 975–999. , 2001Ilie, Cornelia 2001 “Semi-institutional Discourse: The Case of Talk Shows.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2): 209–254. ), which is a sociocultural practice characterised by a specific configuration of participants and established conventions, but also by spontaneous intervention and unpredictable outcomes (Ilie 2001Ilie, Cornelia 2001 “Semi-institutional Discourse: The Case of Talk Shows.” Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2): 209–254. , 218). They are more scripted, and need to follow certain rules and conventions, such as in terms of policies and censorship by related departments, the style of the network, the market environment, as well as the needs and preferences of the guests and the audience. The topics and scenes in TV talk shows are more fixed and targeted.

In recent years, there has been an increase in pragmatics studies on media discourse (Lin 2020Lin, Chih-Ying 2020 “Exploring Judges’ Compliments and Criticisms on American, British, and Taiwanese Talent Shows.” Journal of Pragmatics 160: 44–59. , 45), including TV talk shows. These studies cover conversation/discourse analysis, question and answer adjacent pair, argumentation, role, identity, and relationship construction, just to name a few (Li and Ran 2016Li, Cheng-Tuan, and Yong-Ping Ran 2016 “Self-professional Identity Construction through Other-identity Deconstruction in Chinese Televised Debating Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 94: 47–63. ). In these studies, many scholars have made significant contributions to our understanding of strategies of confrontational questions and question design (Clayman and Heritage 2002Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage 2002 The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Heritage 2002Heritage, John 2002 “The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1427–1446. ). Impoliteness plays an important role in them.

After 2010, there have been some studies of (im)politeness in Chinese TV talk shows, such as Huang’s (2014)Huang, Mei-Ling 2014 “A Study of Impoliteness Strategies in a Taiwanese Talk Show: A Case Study of Kang Xi Lai Le.” MA thesis. Providence University. study of impoliteness strategies in “Kangxilaile” 康熙来了 , a Taiwanese TV talk show. Lee et al. (2013)Lee, Cher Leng, Yao Chen, and Gek Len Tan 2013 “Silence and Face-work in Two Chinese TV Talk Shows.” Discourse, Context & Media 2 (1): 52–74. use silence in conversation to further compare the face and politeness strategies in Chinese TV talk shows in Mainland China and the Taiwan region. However, related studies in other Chinese speech communities like HK are relatively few. This paper aims to fill this gap.

2.2Chinese impoliteness

(Im)politeness in the West focuses more on individual facework, compliance, and breaching certain rules and principles (Brown and Levinson 1987Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson 1987 [1978] Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Leech 1983Leech, Geoffrey 1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.). In contrast, Chinese (im)politeness pays more attention to the introspection of relationships, emotion, and morality during communicative interactions (Kádár and Pan 2012Kádár, Dániel Z., and Yuling Pan 2012 “Chinese ‘Face’ and Im/politeness: An Introduction.” Journal of Politeness Research 8 (1): 1–10. ; Ran and Zhao 2018Ran, Yongping, and Linsen Zhao 2018 “Building Mutual Affection-based Face in Conflict Mediation: A Chinese Relationship Management Model.” Journal of Pragmatics 129: 185–198. ; Zhao and Ran 2019Zhao, Linsen, and Yongping Ran 2019 “Impoliteness Revisited: Evidence from Qingmian Threats in Chinese Interpersonal Conflicts.” Journal of Politeness Research 15 (2): 257–291. ). At the same time, Chinese history and culture have also added more conventions to what Chinese (im)politeness constitutes (Pan 2000Pan, Yuling 2000 Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Stamford: Ablex.). Research on Chinese (im)politeness has been closely linked with interpersonal relationships in interaction. The connotation of face has been enriched with relationships and emotions in the Chinese context, like qingmian (  情面 affection-based face), which can be the evaluative underpinning of impoliteness (Zhao and Ran 2019Zhao, Linsen, and Yongping Ran 2019 “Impoliteness Revisited: Evidence from Qingmian Threats in Chinese Interpersonal Conflicts.” Journal of Politeness Research 15 (2): 257–291. ). Recent studies of Chinese impoliteness mainly focus on potential impolite or face-threatening speech acts, combined with specific contexts (e.g., TV shows, professional fields, daily life, particular incidents, and political and diplomatic discourse). Within these contexts, the focus has also turned to speech acts such as teasing, jocular mockery acts, and conflicts in Chinese TV shows (Zhao and Ran 2019Zhao, Linsen, and Yongping Ran 2019 “Impoliteness Revisited: Evidence from Qingmian Threats in Chinese Interpersonal Conflicts.” Journal of Politeness Research 15 (2): 257–291. ; Bi and Marsden 2020Bi, Xiaoyi, and Elizabeth Marsden 2020 “Managing Interpersonal Relationships: Teasing as a Method of Professional Identity Construction.” Journal of Pragmatics 165: 18–30. ; Yang and Ren 2020Yang, Na, and Wei Ren 2020 “Jocular Mockery in the Context of a Localised Playful Frame: Unpacking Humour in a Chinese Reality TV Show.” Journal of Pragmatics 162: 32–44. ). There are also studies on impoliteness in direct advice in traditional Chinese medicine consultations (Yip 2020Yip, Jesse W. C. 2020 “Directness of Advice Giving in Traditional Chinese Medicine Consultations.” Journal of Pragmatics 166: 28–38. ), criticisms in multi-party conversation at the Chinese dinner table (Xia and Lan 2019Xia, Dengshan and Chun Lan 2019 “(Im)politeness at a Chinese Dinner Table: A Discursive Approach to (Im)politeness in Multi-party Communication.” Journal of Politeness Research 15 (2): 223–256. ), threats, harsh demands, insults, and negative evaluation in blunt anti-epidemic slogans used in China’s health campaign against coronavirus (Han 2021Han, Yanmei 2021 “Situated Impoliteness Revisited: Blunt Anti-epidemic Slogans and Conflicting Comments During the Coronavirus Outbreak in China.” Journal of Pragmatics 178: 31–42. ), as well as how Chinese spokespersons manage the (potential) face-threats triggered by questions from journalists (Mao and Zhao 2020Mao, Yansheng, and Xin Zhao 2020 “A Discursive Approach to Disagreements Expressed by Chinese Spokespersons During Press Conferences.” Discourse, Context & Media 37. ). Our study mainly focuses on code-switching that manifests as impoliteness in the TV media of a multilingual Chinese society.

There has also been quite some research comparing Chinese impoliteness with other cultures’, for example, comparing the concept of face in English and Chinese negative reviews and responses (Lai 2019Lai, Xiaoyu 2019 “Impoliteness in English and Chinese Online Diners’ Reviews.” Journal of Politeness Research 15 (2): 293–322. ), (im)politeness in compliments and criticisms, and rapport management (Spencer-Oatey 2002Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. , 2005Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2005 “(Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging Their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119. , 2008Spencer-Oatey, Helen (ed) 2008 Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London, New York: Continuum.) on American, British, and Taiwanese talent shows (Lin 2020Lin, Chih-Ying 2020 “Exploring Judges’ Compliments and Criticisms on American, British, and Taiwanese Talent Shows.” Journal of Pragmatics 160: 44–59. ), and so on. For the study of Chinese (im)politeness to be meaningful, it needs to be situated in a given speech community, as in comparing (im)politeness between mainland China and Taiwan (Lee et al. 2013Lee, Cher Leng, Yao Chen, and Gek Len Tan 2013 “Silence and Face-work in Two Chinese TV Talk Shows.” Discourse, Context & Media 2 (1): 52–74. ), disagreement in business meetings in HK (Chan, Schnurr and Zayts 2018Chan, Angela, Stephanie Schnurr, and Olga Zayts 2018 “Exploring Face, Identity and Relationship Management in Disagreements in Business Meetings in Hong Kong.” Journal of Politeness Research 14 (2): 233–260. ), and so on. However, research on (im)politeness in different Chinese contexts is still lacking.

Some studies on HK include Pan (2011)Pan, Yuling 2011 “Cantonese Politeness in the Interviewing Setting.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 21 (1): 10–33. , who explores how (im)politeness is used as a discursive strategy in a Cantonese interview setting. Code-switching is a unique phenomenon in HK, which is a multilingual Chinese speech community, and its relationship with (im)politeness deserves further exploration. Chau and Lee (2021)Chau, Dennis, and Carmen Lee 2021 “ ‘See you soon! ADD OIL AR!’: Code-switching for Face-work in Edu-social Facebook Groups.” Journal of Pragmatics 184: 18–28. show how CS is deployed as a powerful discursive resource in the performance of face-work among Cantonese-English bilingual users in online discourse. This paper analyses the forms and functions of CS that manifest as impoliteness on a HK Cantonese TV talk show.

2.3Rapport management framework

In the ‘post-modern’ view, (im)politeness is not limited to individual facework but is redefined within a broader framework of relevance or relationship, such as ‘relational work’ and ‘rapport management’. The rapport management framework (Spencer-Oatey 2002Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. , 2005Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2005 “(Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging Their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119. , 2008Spencer-Oatey, Helen (ed) 2008 Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London, New York: Continuum.) improves upon Brown and Levinson’s (1987)Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson 1987 [1978] Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. politeness theory. Spencer-Oatey (2002)Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. takes rapport as the central concern, since (im)politeness is typically associated with harmonious/conflictual interpersonal relations (Spencer-Oatey 2005Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2005 “(Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging Their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119. , 95). Spencer-Oatey (2005)Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2005 “(Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging Their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119. uses the term ‘rapport’ to refer to subjective perceptions of (dis)harmony or smoothness-turbulence in interpersonal relations (Spencer-Oatey 2008Spencer-Oatey, Helen (ed) 2008 Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London, New York: Continuum., 335). In other words, rapport management acknowledges the need for recognition, shifting the attention from individual face to interpersonal or social face. This refers to any language used to promote, maintain or threaten harmonious relationships (Spencer-Oatey 2008Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2008 “Face, (Im)politeness and Rapport.” In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. by H. Spencer-Oatey, 11–47. London, New York: Continuum., 3).

The term ‘face’ seems to focus on concerns for the self, whereas rapport management suggests a greater balance between the self and the other (Spencer-Oatey 2008Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2008 “Face, (Im)politeness and Rapport.” In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. by H. Spencer-Oatey, 11–47. London, New York: Continuum., 12). Spencer-Oatey (2002Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. , 540) suggests that the motivational force for rapport management involves two main components: the management of face and the management of sociality rights. She suggests that face has two interrelated aspects – quality face and social identity face – and the two interrelated aspects of sociality rights are equity rights and association rights (Spencer-Oatey 2002Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. , 540–541). We will observe how the quality face, social identity face, equity rights, and association rights of interlocutors are challenged in the show through code-switching that manifests as impoliteness.

Spencer-Oatey (2005Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2005 “(Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging Their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119. , 95) proposes three key elements that influence dynamic perceptions of rapport: behavioral expectations, face sensitivities, and interactional wants. The judgment (conscious or otherwise) of rapport is largely based on assessments of these elements (Spencer-Oatey 2005Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2005 “(Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging Their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119. , 116). Spencer-Oatey (2008Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2008 “Face, (Im)politeness and Rapport.” In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. by H. Spencer-Oatey, 11–47. London, New York: Continuum., 15) further highlights the development of behavioral expectations in relation to perceived sociality rights and obligations, which can affect interpersonal rapport if these are not fulfilled.

Spencer-Oatey (2008Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2008 “Face, (Im)politeness and Rapport.” In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. by H. Spencer-Oatey, 11–47. London, New York: Continuum., 13) also proposes that rapport management entails three interconnected components: the management of face, the management of sociality rights and obligations, and the management of interactional goals. Sociality rights and obligations are concerned with social expectancies and reflect people’s concerns over fairness, consideration, and behavioral appropriateness (Spencer-Oatey 2008Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2008 “Face, (Im)politeness and Rapport.” In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. by H. Spencer-Oatey, 11–47. London, New York: Continuum., 13). Sociality rights and obligations were originally known as the expectation of equity rights and association rights in Spencer-Oatey (2002)Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. . The management of interactional goals is the third component of rapport management, which is further divided into transactional (task-oriented) goals and relational (relationship management) goals (Spencer-Oatey 2008Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2008 “Face, (Im)politeness and Rapport.” In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. by H. Spencer-Oatey, 11–47. London, New York: Continuum., 49). In our study, we will also discuss the interactional goals of code-switching that manifest as impoliteness on the show.

Culpeper (2005)Culpeper, Jonathan 2005 “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link.” Journal of Politeness Research 1: 35–72. categorises impolite cases according to the classification of Spencer-Oatey’s (2002)Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. rapport management in his analysis of the quiz show The Weakest Link, which also enlightens our data analysis. Since then, Spencer-Oatey (2002Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. , 2005Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2005 “(Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging Their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119. , 2008Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2008 “Face, (Im)politeness and Rapport.” In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, ed. by H. Spencer-Oatey, 11–47. London, New York: Continuum.) has been more widely used in studies related to TV shows. For example, Lin (2020)Lin, Chih-Ying 2020 “Exploring Judges’ Compliments and Criticisms on American, British, and Taiwanese Talent Shows.” Journal of Pragmatics 160: 44–59. uses Spencer-Oatey (2002Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. , 2005Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2005 “(Im)politeness, Face and Perceptions of Rapport: Unpackaging Their Bases and Interrelationships.” Journal of Politeness Research 1(1): 95–119. , 2008Spencer-Oatey, Helen (ed) 2008 Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. London, New York: Continuum.) as a theoretical framework to discuss how judges manage their relationship with contestants through speech acts of praise and criticism on American British and Taiwanese talent shows. Lorenzo-dus (2005)Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria 2005 “A Rapport and Impression Management Approach to Public Figures’ Performance of Talk.” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (5): 611–631. also investigates how Kilroy, a public figure, maintains the harmonious relationship and carries out good impression management in the conversation of televised audience participation debates.

2.4Code-switching

According to the definition of CS proposed by Poplack (1979)Poplack, Shana 1979 “Sometimes I’ll Start a Sentence in Spanish y termino en espanol: Toward a Typology of Code-switching.” Linguistics 18 (7–8): 581–618., Myers-Scotton (1992)Myers-Scotton, Carol 1992 “Comparing Codeswitching and Borrowing.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development XIII, 1&2: 19–37. , Grosjean and Miller (1994)Grosjean, Francois, and Joanne L. Miller 1994 “Going in and out of Languages: An Example of Bilingual Flexibility.” Psychological Science V (4): 201–206. , and Milroy and Muysken (1995)Milroy, Lesley, and Pieter Muysken 1995 “Introduction: Code-switching and Bilingualism Research.” In One Speaker Two Languages: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Code-switching, ed. by Lesley Milroy, and Pieter Muysken, 1–14. New York: Cambridge University Press. , CS is a linguistic phenomenon wherein a speaker uses two or more languages or language varieties in a single discourse, sentence or constituent. Blom and Gumperz’s (1972)Blom, Jan P., and John J. Gumperz 1972 “Social Meaning in Linguistic Structures: Code Switching in Northern Norway.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by John J. Gumperz, and Dell Hymes, 407–434. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. seminal work has motivated a new research paradigm that views code-switching as a socially and interactionally meaningful discourse strategy (Su 2009Su, Hsi-Yao 2009 “Code-switching in Managing a Face-threatening Communicative Task: Footing and Ambiguity in Conversational Interaction in Taiwan.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 372–392. , 373).

Poplack (1979)Poplack, Shana 1979 “Sometimes I’ll Start a Sentence in Spanish y termino en espanol: Toward a Typology of Code-switching.” Linguistics 18 (7–8): 581–618. and Appel and Muysken (1987)Appel, Rene, and Pieter Muysken 1987 Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold. divided CS into three types, including inter-sentential switching, intra-sentential switching, and tag switching. Myers-Scotton (1989)Myers-Scotton, Carol 1989 “Codeswitching with English: Types of Switching, Types of Communities.” World Englishes 3: 333–346. also distinguished the fourth type of intra-word switching. In our study, we will discuss CS in the form of words/phrases and sentences with their respective functions. Blom and Gumperz (1972)Blom, Jan P., and John J. Gumperz 1972 “Social Meaning in Linguistic Structures: Code Switching in Northern Norway.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by John J. Gumperz, and Dell Hymes, 407–434. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. divided CS into situational code-switching and metaphorical code-switching.

Gumperz (1982)Gumperz, John 1982 Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. proposed the communicative functions of CS as: quotations, reiteration, message qualification, objectivization, and so on. Appel and Muysken (1987)Appel, Rene, and Pieter Muysken 1987 Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold. proposed the functions of CS as: referential function, directive function, expressive function, phatic function, metalinguistic function, and poetic function. Lee (2003)Lee, Cher Leng 2003 “Motivations of Code-switching in Multi-lingual Singapore”, Journal of Chinese Linguistics 31 (1): 145–176. presented findings on the not-so-motivated and motivated code-switches among Chinese major undergraduate students in Singapore. Su (2009)Su, Hsi-Yao 2009 “Code-switching in Managing a Face-threatening Communicative Task: Footing and Ambiguity in Conversational Interaction in Taiwan.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 372–392. investigated the function of managing face-threatening acts in telephone conversations. Displaying politeness can be seen as one of the functions of code-switching (Safi 1992Safi, S. 1992 “Functions of Code-switching: Saudi Arabic in the United States.” In The Arabic Language in America, ed. by A. Rouchdy, 72–80. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.).

There is prevalent code-switching between Cantonese and English in HK (Li 2000Li, David C. S. 2000 “Cantonese-English Code-switching Research in Hong Kong: A Y2K Review.” World Englishes 19 (3): 305–322. ). Studies on CS in HK mainly research switching between Cantonese and English (Pan 2000Pan, Yuling 2000 Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Stamford: Ablex., 25). As the status and popularity of Mandarin is improving, switching between Cantonese and Mandarin is becoming more common. Pan (2000)Pan, Yuling 2000 Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Stamford: Ablex. explored CS between Cantonese and Mandarin in Guangzhou and HK service encounters, and showed the pragmatic functions of CS. She emphasised that the political change in HK would affect the use of Mandarin (Pan 2000Pan, Yuling 2000 Politeness in Chinese Face-to-Face Interaction. Stamford: Ablex., 35). Tan (2013)Tam, King Fai [譚景輝] 2013 “香港口語藝術表演的語言特色：棟篤笑的雙語幽默. [The Language Features of Hong Kong Oral Arts Performance: Bilingual Humour of Stand Comedy].” 《新亞學報》 [New Asia Journal] 31: 471–488. generalised the functions of showing practical utility and psychological distance in CS in HK stand-up comedy. Besides switching from Cantonese to English, we also pay some attention to switching from Cantonese to Mandarin.

4.1Words and phrases of CS manifesting impoliteness

In 4.1, we analyze words and phrases of code-switching that manifest as impoliteness in Sze U Tonight. They include CS in address terms, sensitive issues, and exclamations.

4.1.1Address terms

In the show, when one uses English to address the interlocutor instead of the usual Cantonese address term, it can indicate a change in attitude. In Example (1), the sidekick/bandleader Sinn is singing while a guest dances, and another guest Sandra Ng Kwan Yue  吳君如 is impolite to Sinn by challenging Sinn’s quality face when she says she feels the lyrics “about to poop” as sung by Sinn are disgusting (line 1). According to Spencer-Oatey (2002Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. , 540), quality face is a fundamental desire for people to evaluate us positively in terms of our personal qualities; e.g., our competence, abilities, appearance, etc. This concerns the value that we effective claim for ourselves in terms of personal qualities, and so is closely associated with our sense of personal self-esteem. Normally others like to address Sinn in Cantonese as “Brother Leopard”  豹哥 . Here, Sandra uses the informal form, “Ah Pal” instead of the usual “Brother Leopard” in Cantonese. The prefix “Ah” is usually used by southern Chinese speakers to address someone informally. In this case, she is impolite by telling him that she is disgusted with him. At the same time, she addresses him more informally as “Ah Pal”  阿 Pal.

Example 1

[Context: The guest Sandra Ng Kwan Yu is a famous HK actress. The cast of her new movie are guests on Sze U Tonight to promote the movie. During the game, the leading actors needed to dance along to sidekick/bandleader Sinn’s impromptu songs. The lyrics of this song are “屎急冇人知”, which means “nobody knows that I am about to poop”. The guest Ng feels the lyrics are disgusting.](Youku, Episode 1, 18:00–18:10)

1

吳君如： Ng Kwan Yue:

我 Ngo5 I 覺得， gok3 dak1， feel, 我 ngo5 I 覺得 gok3 dak1 feel 阿Pal a3Pal Ah Pal 嗰 go2 the 句 geui3 sentence “屎急” “si2 gap1” “poop urgent” 好 hou2 so 核突！ wat6 dat6！ disgusting! ‘I feel the lyrics “I am about to poop” as sung by Pal are so disgusting!’

In Example (2), sidekick Sinn addresses the guest Joe Junior as “Uncle Joe” (line 3), who is an elderly actor. Normally others just address Joe Junior as “Joe Junior”. Sinn challenges Joe’s social identity face to make him admit that he has watched a burlesque striptease performance as part of a travel show (line 4), using the address term “Uncle Joe” at the same time. Social identity face is a fundamental desire for people to acknowledge and uphold our social identities or roles – e.g., as a group leader, valued customer, close friend – which concerns the value that we effectively claim for ourselves in terms of social group roles, and is closely associated with our sense of public worth (Spencer-Oatey 2002Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. , 540). As a public figure in HK, watching a strip show is a sensitive issue and therefore it is awkward to admit this before an audience.

Example 2

[Context: An interview with Joe Junior and Bowie Woo  胡楓 , who are famous actors in HK. Host Lee mentions that Junior and Woo had watched a strip performance as part of a TV travel show. Lee and his sidekick Sinn keep emphasising that Joe and Woo have watched women perform naked.](Youku, Episode 28, 19:20–19:35)

1	李思捷： Johnson Lee:	除 Cheui4 Take 嗮 saai3 off 跳 tiu3 jump 一字馬 yat1 ji6 ma5 the splits 俾 bei2 show 你 nei5 you 睇 tai2 see 啊？ a1？ (question mark)? ‘Did they take their clothes off to do the splits for you?’
2	Joe Junior: Joe Junior:	唔 M4 Not 系！ hai6！ yes! ‘No!’
3	單立文： Sinn Lap Man:	是 Si6 Yes 就 jau6 just 是 si6 yes 啦， la1, (expletive), Uncle Uncle Uncle Joe! Joe! Joe! ‘You should answer “yes”, Uncle Joe!’
4	Joe Junior： Joe Junior:	系 Hai6 Is 上 seung6 up 半 bun3 half 身 san1 body 除 cheui4 take 嗮 saai3 off 喈！ gaai1! (phrase-final particle)! ‘They were topless, that’s all!’

4.1.2Sensitive issues

It is observed that interlocutors switch to English or Mandarin lexical items to mention sensitive issues in the show. In Example (3), the host uses “technical” to refer to the actress Ng Kwan Yue reducing the size of her breasts to cross-dress as a man in her new movie (line 1). It is impolite to mention a woman’s breasts while talking to Ng. Switching to “technical” in English shows offence to Ng by highlighting her breasts. Besides the entertainment factor, the code-switch to “technical” promotes the movie while displaying impoliteness, which is also an important transactional goal of the show.

Example 3

[Context: In this interview with the actress Sandra Ng Kwan Yue, host Lee talks about her new movie. Ng plays a man in the movie, so Lee is curious about how she dresses up as a man.](Youku, Episode 1, 13:50–14:05)

3

李思捷： Johnson Lee:

你 Nei5 You 系 hai6 are 女人 neui5 yan2 woman 扮 baan6 dress up 男人， naam yan2， man, 要 yiu3 will 整 jing2 make 返… faan1…yat1 out… 一個 go3 a 肌肉， gei1 yuk6， muscle, 其实 kei4 sat6 actually 系， hai6， is, 即 jik1 that 系 hai6 is technical technical technical 系 hai6 is 點 dim2 how 整？ jing2？ do? ‘When you dress up as a man, how do you reduce the size of your breasts to make them appear like pectoral muscles?’

The interlocutors also use CS when they want to know more about an issue that might be sensitive to the addressee. Talking about a sensitive issue might challenge the addressee’s equity rights by unduly imposing upon the addressee to let them say what is unmentionable (Spencer-Oatey 2002Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. , 540). The rapport management framework states that equity rights function as a fundamental belief that we are entitled to personal consideration from others, so that we are treated fairly: that we are not unduly imposed upon or unfairly ordered about, that we are not taken advantage of or exploited, and that we receive the benefits to which we are entitled (Spencer-Oatey 2002Spencer-Oatey, Helen 2002 “Managing Rapport in Talk: Using Rapport Sensitive Incidents to Explore the Motivational Concerns Underlying the Management of Relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (5): 529–545. , 540). By mentioning sensitive issues via CS, the speaker may be using a foreign language in exchange for psychological distance when the contents of the conversation get too sensitive (Tan 2013Tam, King Fai [譚景輝] 2013 “香港口語藝術表演的語言特色：棟篤笑的雙語幽默. [The Language Features of Hong Kong Oral Arts Performance: Bilingual Humour of Stand Comedy].” 《新亞學報》 [New Asia Journal] 31: 471–488., 481). At the same time, just by mentioning the sensitive issue, it puts the addressee on the spot.

4.1.3Exclamations

Interlocutors mainly switch to English exclamations to show exaggeration. Exclaiming in English aggravates the offence through a provocative tone, as in Example (4). Here, sidekick Sinn annoys host Lee by telling him that the actress whom Lee has a crush on now has a boyfriend, while shouting “yeah” in English (line 1), embarrassing Lee before the audience.

Example 4

[Context: In host Lee’s monologue, Lee shares the news of a wedding between two stars, and sidekick Sinn mentions that the actress Myolie Wu Hang Yee  胡杏兒 has a new boyfriend. It is said that Lee has had a long-standing crush on Wu.](Youku, Episode 4, 03:10–03:20)

1

單立文： Sinn Lap Man:

Yeah！ Yeah! Yeah! 飛 Fei1 Abandon 咗 jo2 (particle) 李思捷！ lei5 si1 jit6！ Johnson Lee! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! ‘Yeah! Ditched Johnson Lee! Yeah!’

These CS exclamations together with the exaggerated tone can express strong emotions to intensify the impoliteness.

4.2CS sentences showing impoliteness

CS could be used to show impoliteness in making requests, showing insult, displaying ignorance, and disagreement.

4.2.1Making requests

When requests are made by switching to English or Mandarin, they come across as more insistent and impolite. Moreover, the addressees’ equity rights are challenged when such requests are made with a provocative or commanding tone. A recurring gag on the show is sidekick Jackie Chen’s perceived incompetence and host Lee’s resulting annoyance with him. In Example (5), besides challenging the sidekick Chen’s equity rights, Lee repeatedly makes the same request by switching to English and Mandarin respectively (line 1). The reiteration of the request aggravates the ranking of imposition. At first, Lee requests in Cantonese that Chen change the cue card, but Jackie Chen does not respond, so Lee asks again, switching to English. Although “Can you…, please” is a conventional polite phrase, Lee uses it in an impolite way, with a commanding tone and impatient facial expression. Switching to Mandarin intensifies the degree of impoliteness, because Lee further emphasises the divergence with Chen to imply that he cannot understand Cantonese and English, which are used most commonly in HK.

Example 5

[Context: Sidekick Chen who stands near the camera and opposite host Lee is holding up the cue cards. When Lee finishes introducing the live band, Chen does not change the cue card.](Youku, Episode 1, 10:10–10:30)

1

李思捷： Johnson Lee:

啊， A1， Ah, Jackie ， Jackie ， Jackie, 其實 kei4 sat6 actually 隊 deui6 team band band band 我 ngo5 I 已 yi5 already 介紹 gaai3 siu6 introduced 咗 jo2 have 噶啦！ ga1 la1！ (phrase-final particle)! 其實 Kei4 sat6 Actually 要 yiu3 will 轉 jyun3 turn 第二個 dai6 yi6 go3 second (particle) cue cue cue card card card 即 jik1 that 系！ hai6！ is! 第二個 Dai6 yi6 go3 Second (particle) 板， baan2， board, 唔 m4 don’t 講 gong2 say 嘢！ ye5！ things! Can Can Can you you you turn turn turn around around around the the the hint hint hint card, card, card, please? please? please? 調轉， Diào Turn 對 zhuǎn ， around, 了[Mandarin] duì le ！ yes (phrase-final particle)! 我 Ngo5 I 真系 jan1 hai6 really 唔 m4 don’t 知 ji1 know 點解 dim2 gaai2 why 公司 gung1 si1 company 請 ching2 invite 佢 keui5 him 返來 faan1 loi4 return 啫？ je1? (question mark)? ‘Ah, Jackie, I have already introduced the band, time to switch the cue cards! Can you flip the cue card over, please? Flip it over! Yes! I really don’t know how he even got hired.’

4.2.2Displaying insult

In Example (6), during an interview with action star Chin Siu Ho  錢小豪 , host Lee points out that the girl should feel ashamed because she did not thank Chin who had rescued her when she was young (line 3). He insulted her by repeating “you should be ashamed” in English.

Example 6

[Context: An interview with the famous HK Kungfu actor Chin Siu Ho. Host Lee mentions that Chin had received the Good Citizen Award in HK in 1994, because he rescued a girl who was kidnapped by a gangster.](Youku, Episode 16, 13:35–15:30)

1	李思捷： Johnson Lee:	佢 Keui5 She 真系 jan1 hai6 really 一句 yat1 geui3 a sentence 多謝 do1 je6 many thanks 都 dou1 even 冇 mou5 don’t have 啊？ a1？ (question mark)? ‘She didn’t even say “many thanks” to you?’
2	錢小豪： Chin Siu Ho:	系… Hai6…yat1 Yes…a 一句 geui3 sentence 多謝 do1 je6 many thanks 都 dou1 even 冇， mou5， don’t have, 唔 m4 no 緊要 gan2 yiu3 problem 嘅… ge3… (phrase-final particle)… ‘Yes, she didn’t even say “many thanks”, no problem…’
3	李思捷： (To the girl who didn’t say thanks to Chin) Johnson Lee:	如果 Yu4 gwo2 If 你 nei5 yi4 you 宜家 ga1 now 睇 緊， tai2 gan2， watching, you you you should should should be be be ashamed! ashamed! ashamed! You You You should should should be be be ashamed! ashamed! ashamed! ‘If you are watching this, you should be ashamed! You should be ashamed!’

In Example (7), when sidekick Sinn wants host Lee to return his employee pass (line 1), Sinn challenges Lee’s equity rights by taking back his employee pass to limit his fair right to work. Lee in turn challenges Sinn’s association rights by showing no direct response with Sinn’s reasonable request to return the employee pass after leaving the company. Association rights are performed as a fundamental belief that we are entitled to association with others that is in keeping with the type of relationship that we have with them. Lee would not like to keep a friendly relationship with Sinn, says he will not return it, and switches to English in line 2 “You too simple, too naive”, insulting Sinn in an unfriendly tone (line 2).

Example 7

[Context: In the opening sketch, Sinn works for TVB Jade. He goes to a village to find Johnson Lee Sze-Chit (hereafter Lee), who was a former employee of TVB Jade. Sinn has come to claim Lee’s employee pass.](Youku, Episode 1, 01:55–02:25)

1	單立文： Sinn Lap Man:	其實 Kei4 sat6 Actually 公司 gung1 si1 company 叫 giu3 let 我 ngo5 me 來， loi4， come, 系 hai6 is 要 yiu3 going to 摞返 lo3 faan1 get back 個 go3 the 工作證。 gung1 jok3 jing3。 employee’s pass. ‘The company has sent me to retrieve your employee pass.’
2	李思捷： Johnson Lee:	我 Ngo5 My 嘅 ge3 (particle) 嘢 ye5 things 摞 lo3 get 唔 m4 can’t 返。 faan1。 back. You You You too too too simple, simple, simple, too too too naive. naive. naive. ‘My stuff can’t be returned. You’re too simple, too naive.’

4.2.3Feigning ignorance

Sometimes, when the interlocutor does not want to respond to an addressee directly, the interlocutor will switch to English to feign ignorance about what the other is saying, distracting them at the same time. In the sketch in Example (8), sidekick Sinn plays host Lee’s boss. A dying Sinn asks Lee to promise him that Lee will not replace Sinn after Sinn’s death (line 1). Lee should answer “I promise you”, “Ying1sing4nei5”  應承你 in Cantonese, but not wanting to commit to this, he says “English is the second language” in English, showing impoliteness to Sinn by ignoring him (line 2). He prolongs the first word “English” as a fake out – the pronunciation of [iŋ] in “English” is similar to that in “Ying1sing4nei5”  應承你 , leading Sinn to think Lee might really be making the promise.

Example 8

[Context: The sketch, starring host Lee and sidekick Sinn.](Youku, Episode 4, 36:30–36:55)

1	單立文： Sinn Lap Man:	應承 Ying1 sing4 Promise 我， ngo5，mou5 me, 冇 jo6 don’t 坐 ngo5 take 我嘅 ge3 my 位！ wai6！ place. ‘Promise me, don’t replace me.’
2	李思捷 Johnson Lee:	English is the second language.

4.2.4Showing disagreement

In Example (9), the guest Candy Lo Hau Yam  盧巧音 challenges host Lee’s equity rights by repeatedly asking about Lee’s girlfriend. Lee is said to have a rather colourful private life, claiming he is single at this time. Lee shows disagreement by denying having a girlfriend by switching to Mandarin (line 4). Lo also refutes in Mandarin, which makes Lee feel even more awkward (lines 5–6). In this context, switching to Mandarin may make the addressee panic and inadvertently say what the speaker wants them to, because they are less proficient in Mandarin.

Example 9

[Context: An interview with Candy Lo Hau Yam, a famous singer in HK. Host Lee asks her when she is having children. Lo says she will only have children after Lee does, and then asks if Lee has a girlfriend, and what her name is.](Youku, Episode 21, 35:25–35:40)

1	盧巧音： Lo Hau Yam:	你 Nei5 You 宜家 ji4 gaa1 neoi5 current 女朋友 pang4 jau5 girlfriend 叫 giu3 call 乜 mat1 what 名 ming4 name 啊？ aa1？ (question mark)? ‘What’s your current girlfriend’s name?’
2	李思捷： Johnson Lee:	我 Ngo5 I 宜家 ji4 gaa1 currently 冇， mou5， don’t have, 真系 zan1 hai6 really 冇。 mou5。 don’t have. ‘I don’t have currently, really don’t have.’
3	盧巧音： Lo Hau Yam:	系 Hai6 Really 吗？ maa3？ (question mark)? ‘Really?’
4	李思捷： Johnson Lee:	我 Wǒ I 沒有 méiyǒu don’t 女朋友。[Mandarin] nǚpéngyǒu。 have girlfriend. ‘I don’t have a girlfriend.’
5	盧巧音： Lo Hau Yam:	但是 Dànshì But 現在 xiànzài now 的 de (particle) 那個 nàgè that 雜誌 zázhì magazine 啊， a ， (phrase-final 裡面 lǐmiàn particle), 有 yǒu Inside 很 hěn have 多 duō so 啊！[Mandarin] ā！ many (expletive)! ‘But the magazines say you have lots of girlfriends.’
6	李思捷： Johnson Lee:	雜誌 Jaap6 ji3 Magazine 都 dou1 all 系 hai6 are 假 ga2 false 嘅， ge3， (particle), 你 nei5 you 信 seun3 believe 我 ngo5 me 啦！ la1！ (expletive)! ‘The stuff you read in magazines is false, trust me!’

In this section, we have shown how CS words/phrases and sentences manifest as impoliteness in various ways. Since Cantonese is the most spoken language in Hong Kong and English has been a language from colonial days, switching to English, the tone and pronunciation can intensify the impoliteness. In HK, Mandarin is a recent language after its return to China. For most Hong Kong residents, the proficiency of Mandarin may not be as good as that of English. Thus, switching to Mandarin may pose an even greater challenge to the addressees than English.