Introduction
Andrew Jacobs’ article Shanghai Is Trying to Untangle the Mangled English of Chinglish published in The New York Times in 2010 discusses the phenomenon, reasons, and outcomes of the existence of Chinglish. This slang of the English language causes a lot of confusion for random tourists visiting China. This confusion, as well as the embarrassment of the official representatives of China who are faced with laughs at the incompetent translations of the signs, became triggers for change.
The author vividly presents the variety of incomprehensible examples of Chinglish phrases and objectively presents the opposing views of different sides of the discussion about the appropriateness of “mangled English” (Jacobs 1). The author implicitly delivers a well-developed argument based on relevant evidence convincing the readers that Chinglish fails to serve the communicative purpose of language, leads to misinterpretations, and thus has to be corrected. This paper introduces a critical analysis of the evidence and article structure within the framework of their role in the argument presented.
Article Summary
As Jacobs states, English speakers with poor skills in Chinese encounter many difficulties in their everyday life in China. Many city signs and restaurant menus cause misunderstandings which Jacobs lists with sheer amusement. “Fried enema, cash recycling, monolith tree mushroom stem squad” and many other examples demonstrate the errors in translations of Chinese words into English (Jacobs 1).
The author analyzes the reasons why such a phenomenon appeared in China. Jacobs elaborates on the opposing views on the phenomenon which either supports or disapproves the campaign aimed at the purification of English in the signs and menus. The supporters claim that Chinglish offers a variety of expressions that show the Chinese lyrical attitude toward language perception. For example, “The little grass is sleeping. Don’t disturb it” is a Chinglish equivalent for the sign “Keep off the grass” (Jacobs 3). At the same time, many others share their embarrassment and humiliation concerning Chinglish and fight for language purification.
Evaluation of Evidence
The author presents multiple examples as evidence of the lack of clarity in the signs written in Chinglish. The expressions are introduced in a humorous manner giving readers an opportunity to assess these “maladaptations” themselves (Jacobs 3). In addition to signs examples, the author cites authority representatives and linguists that contribute to the credibility of the research. Accurately referring to both sides of the discussion, Jacobs describes an objective state of affairs.
The author provides evidence showing immense efforts spent on the cleaning of the English language in China. For instance, there is exact information about how many signs were corrected and how many people were engaged in this activity during the preparations for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing and the 2010 Expo. Therefore, the pieces of evidence justify the accuracy of the research and implicitly demonstrate the author’s support of the purification of English in China.
Indeed, poor-quality translation software and incompetent interpreters emerged as the leading causes for such a mangled form of English (Jacobs 2). Providing information from both supporters and opponents of the purification policy, Jacobs remains professionally objective. However, he influences the readers by imposing the irrelevance of Chinglish utterances. Thus, the author uses clear evidence to demonstrate Chinglish’s inability to ensure a common understanding between people.
The Relation of the Article’s Structure to Its Argument
The structure of the text is logical and understandable that contributes to the validation of the main message of the author. Starting with an introductory overview of the phenomenon, Jacobs proceeds to the discussion of the reasons for the emergence of Chinglish, the need for language purification, and presents two sides of the debate. The vivid examples at the beginning of the text capture readers’ attention and make them interested in further reading.
Jacobs does not openly take the side of either opponent’s view but finishes the article with the idea of the need for change. Structuring the article in such a way, Jacobs implicitly answers the question about the reason why there is a need to purify Chinglish which lies in the critical difference between the western and eastern mentalities. The author’s purpose is to demonstrate the acuity of the problem objectively and underline the need to mend the language according to the commonly accepted standards. Such standardization would help China open to the world.
Response to the Article
According to the article, Chinglish as a phenomenon that reflects the opposition between the West and the East causes a lot of complications. Jacobs demonstrates that China as an essential participant of international cooperation in multiple spheres with many countries of the western world needs to conform to the global standards of communication. Despite its implicit character, the author’s perspective is convincing and well-developed.
The evidence presented in the article shows that to be properly understood in the cultural and economic spheres, China needs to sacrifice the uniqueness of its mentality and fix the drawbacks in language acquisition. Otherwise, it will fail to be perceived seriously by the global community.
Conclusion
Andrew Jacobs discusses the topic of Chinglish as a linguistic and cultural phenomenon that influences the economic and political image of China. Presenting some funny examples of incompetent English translations of Chinese signs, the author underlines the reasons for such confusing language form. The causes are connected to translation software drawbacks and poor language skills of the interpreters that reflect the differences between western and eastern mentalities. While many struggles to defend the unique phenomenon, the author implicitly reasons the inability of Chinglish to ensure a clear understanding between the Chinese and the people from the West, thus validating the need for the standardization of the language.
Work Cited
Jacobs, Andrew. “Shanghai is Trying to Untangle the Mangled English of Chinglish.” The New York Times, 2010. Web.