There are many instances where TV characters speak in a voice that is not authentically their own. First, in a Weeds episode included in SydTV the European American character Nancy noticeably imitates the African American characters who have previously called her a dumb-ass white bitch by saying I’m a bitch-ass bitch.

Second, in the pilot episode of Modern Family (not included in SydTV, although another episode is), the middle-aged father (Phil) – a ‘nice guy nerd archetype’ (Queen 2015: 39) introduces himself to the camera as a ‘cool dad’ who knows all the ‘lingo’ and culture of his kids, and is indeed featured in the episode inauthentically using particular pronunciation variants (thang, playa) and slang such as keep it real, chillax, etc, creating cringe-worthy humour.

Third, in a very funny scene from episode 8 (season 2) of the Norwegian-American Netflix comedy crime-drama Lilyhammer (not included in SydTV) Norwegian characters on a visit to New York ‘practice’ (and partially fail) how to talk like New York Mafiosos by throwing an aggressive question back at the questioner with copious amounts of the wh-the-fuck structure (e.g. Q: Who the fuck are you lookin’ at? A: The fuck are YOU lookin’ at?):

Similarly, in the Canadian sci-fi action/thriller drama Orphan Black (not included in SydTV), family father Donnie unsuccessfully tries to use slang like ‘s up and bro to be cool when talking to an adolescent drug dealer (in season 3, episode 2), while a lot of double-voicing in this series results from the clone characters pretending to be each other.

Such double-voicing functions both for characterization and to create humour, and frequently it is the characters who are ridiculed, especially when their attempts are unsuccessful or representations of transgression and ‘utter ineptitude’ (Bucholtz & Lopez 2011: 683). These and similar instances can be discussed in relation to the sociolinguistic concepts of crossing and stylization[1], and raise issues related to ideology, appropriation, legitimacy, and authenticity (e.g. Bucholtz 2011, Bucholtz & Lopez 2011). Queen (2015) provides further discussion and additional examples from the narrative mass media. Representations of crossing and stylization are thus not an isolated case, and must be considered in the analysis. In relation to linguistic investigation, such instances require great familiarity with the respective narrative and its characters.

Notes

[1] Language crossing consists of ‘code switching’ or ‘code alternation’ into a linguistic variety that is associated with a social group to which the speaker does not belong (Rampton 1995: 485), hence constituting ‘deviation from the linguistic norms of the speaker’s habitual speech’ (Rampton 1995: 492). In cases of stylization, a character speaks ‘in a voice other than one’s own in an overtly noticeable manner’, for example when s/he mimics another (Queen 2015: 242). Bucholtz & Lopez (2011: 684) draw on both notions to distinguish ‘stylistic crossing’ (habitual identity alignment) from ‘stylized crossing’ (temporary performed identity, foregrounding disalignment), while Androutsopoulos (2012: 151) distinguishes styling (characterisation through style) from stylising (exaggerated modes of styling as well as instances of characters adopting a different voice). Wolfram & Schilling Estes (2006) argue that it may be difficult ‘to determine whether someone is “crossing” into another dialect or merely using some of the features associated with another dialect’ (Wolfram & Schilling Estes 2006: 267).

References