1.2 Problems of the Study
The problems of the study must be clearly stated so that the objectives of the study can be well determined. In line with the background above, the problems of the study were
formulated as follows. 1 How do the utterances in humorous talk shows generate the humor?
2 Why do the utterances in humorous talk shows generate in the way they do?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
Based on the problems of study above, the objectives of the study were. 1 to describe and to elaborate how the utterances generate the humor in humorous
talk shows. 2 to elaborate the reasons why the utterances generate in the way they do.
1.4 Scope of the Study
The study was concerned on investigating of the humor generation in utterances of humorous talk show entitled Indonesia Lawak Klub of Trans7 and Sentilan Sentilun of
Metro TV. The study limited the analysis on the verbal humor which dealt to exploit some verbal elements such as words, phrases and sentences. In this case, it was important to
describe and elaborate the way of humor generation and the realization of linguistic level in that context so the factors generating the humor could be analyzed.
1.5 Significance of the Study
There were two general significances which would be found theoretically and practically.
Theoretically, the results of this study were useful: 1 to enrich and develop readers’ knowledge of linguistic levels which was used in
humor generation. 2 as the source of information and idea for other researchers who wanted to carry out
further study on Language and Humor LaH in the other fields. Practically, the results of this study were useful:
1 as the guiding information for readers to increase their sensitivity of finding socially appropriate humor in language use for the situation that they encountered
in communication. 2 as the guidance for the readers that humor was necessary to enhance the quality
relationship with others in different context and situation as it was a form of communication.
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the analysis, the conclusions were stated as the following. 1 Based on the data analysis, it was found that the utterances in humorous talk show in
generating the humor consisted of two ways of the three ways namely 1 incongruity way and 2 superiority way while relief way was not found. By using incongruity way,
there were two of five levels of incongruity found such as incongruity of 1 phonology and 2 graphology while morphology, lexis and syntax were not found.
2 The underlying reason for the ways of humor generation is the function of humor in the humorous talk show such as a aggressive function and b social function. The
different topics of discussion in each humorous talk show and the characterictics of the talk show itself also affect the ways of humor generation.
5.2 Suggestions
In relation to the conclusions, suggestions were offered as the following. 1
Television watchers, to pay attention to the incongruity way so they will have better
understanding in enjoying the humor.
2 Humorists, to give them more highlight on the incongruity way so that they can
create humor in such a way.
3 Further research, to conduct other researches not only in talk show but also other
different field in enriching the researcher s and the readers’ knowledge of linguistic
devices used in the ways of humor generation related to language and humor
LaH.
REFERENCES
Apte, M. 1985. Humor and Laughter: An Anthropological Approach. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
_______________ 1997. The Semantic Foundations of Cognitive Theories of Humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research. 20 4 278-367.
Audrieth, L.A. 1998. The Art of Using Humor in Public Speaking. Retrieved March 20, 2015, from http:www.squaresail.comonhumor.html.
Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education 2
nd
ed. Boston: Allan and Bacon.
Brock, A. 2008. Humor, jokes and irony versus mocking, gossip and black humor. In A. Gerd E. Ventola Eds., Handbook of Interpersonal Communication pp. 541-
566. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Denzin, N. K. Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousnds
Oaks; Sage. Freud. 1976. Jokes and Their Relation to Unconscious. Ed. Angela Richards. London:
Penguin Books. Halliday, M.A.K. R. Hasan 1994: Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hu, Shuqin. 2012. An Analysis of Humor in The Big Bang Theory from Pragmatics Perspectives. College of Foreign Languages, Qingdao University of Science and
Technology. Illie, C. 2001. Semi-Institutional Discourse: The Case of Talk Shows. Journal of
Pragmatics. 31 8, 489 -493. ______. 2006. Talk Shows. Journal of Pragmatics. 15 10, 180 -232.
Keith-Spiegel, P. 1972. Early concepts of humor: Varieties and issues. In J.H.Goldstein P.E. McGhee Eds., The Psychology of Humor pp. 4-39. New York: Academic
Press. Koestler, A. 1993. Humor and Wit. Encyclopaedia Britannica. vol. 20. Ed. Robert
McHenry. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc, 684-685.
Kategori