avoid providing an open pause at the moment of speaking. Within an extended turn, speakers still expect the hearers to show that they are listening. There are
many ways of doing this, such as, by giving facial expressions and gestures, but
the most common is vocal indications which are usually called backchannel signals or backchannels. The types of backchannels
can be „uh-uh‟, „yeah‟, or „mmm‟. Those are the signals from the hearers that they are paying attention and
receiving the message. When the hearers do not give backchannels as the feedback, it can be interpreted as the action to withhold agreement or
disagreement. In a community of speakers, there is often variation which can cause
misunderstanding. Speakers may have different idea and expectation about how a
conversation should be like. The conversational style
differs from one‟s expectation to others. There are some people who expect that in a conversation,
the participation among the interlocutors will be active, the speaking rate will be fast, with some overlap, and with almost no pausing between turns. That type of
conversation is called a high involvement style. On the other hand, there are
people who expect longer pauses between turns, with lower rate of speaking, with no overlap, and avoid interruption or completion of the other‟s turn. That “non-
interrupting, non-
imposing style” is called a considerateness style Yule, 1996:
76. Featur es of conversational style are often interpreted as someone‟s
personality. Speakers who usually use the first style of conversation are often viewed as noisy, domineering, selfish, or tiresome, whenever they are engaged
with people who usually use the second style. Meanwhile, speakers who prefer the
second style of conversation are usually seen as shy, boring, stupid, or even seen not interested to be involved in a conversation.
Despite the fact that people have different style of conversation, they are still able to find a way to get along with each other in social interaction. They are
helped with adjacency pairs, which are automatic patterns in the structure of
conversation. These automatic patterns are usually in pairs of utterances. They
usually consist of a first part and a second part, which are produced by different
speakers and categorized as question – answer, offer – accept, blame – deny, and
so on Cutting, 2002: 30. The utterance of the first part makes an expectation of utterance of the second part. The examples of adjacency pairs can be seen below:
First Part Second Part
A: What‟s up? B: Nothin‟ much.
A: How‟s it goin‟? B: Jus‟ hangin‟ in there.
A: How are things? B: The usual.
Yule, 1996: 77
The above examples frequently found in the opening sequence of a conversation.
It is a sequence which tends to contain greetings, questions about health, or the present situation of the interlocutors. Other type of adjacency pairs is question
– answer sequence. However, it often happens that a question in question
– answer sequence will not be answered immediately because of another question
– answer sequence‟s intervention. Such intervention in question – answer sequence is called
an insertion sequence. Thus, the form will be mapped Q1 – Q2 – A2 – A1, with
the Q2 – A2 as the insertion sequence. It can be stated that insertion sequence is
an adjacency pair within other adjacency pair. The example of a conversation bellow will explain the insertion sequence:
Don : Do you want to watch Maze Runner at the movie tonight? = Q1
John : What time is that?
= Q2 Don
: Eight thirty. = A2
John : Great. I‟m on board.
= A1 On the situation above, Don asks John to watch Maze Runner at the movie
with him. John delays responding Don‟s invitation by throwing another question to him asking about the time of the movie. After John agrees with the time, he,
then, accepts the invitation. From that situation, John‟s question about the time is seen as the insertion sequence. That insertion sequence is an indication that not all
first parts directly receive the second parts from the interlocutors. Delay in giving response marks the potential unavailability of the expected answer from the
interlocutors Yule, 1996: 78.
8. Humor
Humor is one of the important aspects in building relationship with people. In social relationships, humor plays an important role, which is “measuring
mutual understanding about particular topics and signaling good intentions Kuipers, 2006: 1. Several researchers who have been studying humor, such as
Holmes Marra 2002, Kuiper 2006, and Schwarz 2010, state that humor is a tool that can be used to improve communication and relationship among people.
The Encyclopedia of Britannica defines humor as a form of communication that evokes the reflex of laughter of people Benton ed, 1983:
7. Many linguists have taken humor as a category which covers “any events or object that elicits laughter, amuses, or is felt to be funny” Attardo, 1994: 4. By
having the quality to be funny, humor can create humorous situations. Grice, as
cited by Attardo 1994: 271-276, suggests that jokes or humor are non- cooperative. Meaning to say, humorous situations exist because there is non-
cooperative interaction among the interlocutors. This non-cooperative interaction occurs because the interlocutors do not obey the CP and its maxims by violating
or flouting the rules. By doing so, the humorous situation is created between the speakers and the hearers as the product of violating or flouting the maxims.
Modern theories of humor have been developed by linguists. Raskin, as one of the linguists, classifies humor into three categories, which are, incongruity
theory, hostility theory, and release theory Attardo, 1994: 47. These theories of humor are seen as the common accepted classification of humor. Each of the
theory sees humor from different viewpoint. Below is the explanation of each theory of humor which is suggested and
developed by philosophers and linguists.
a. Incongruity Theory
The philosophers who are associated with incongruity theory of humor are Immanuel Kant 1724
– 1804 and Arthur Schopenhauer 1788 – 1860. Immanuel Kant suggests that everything that is intended to arise laughter must be
something absurd. As cited by Attardo 1994: 48, Kant defines laughter as “an
affection arising from sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing”. The attention will be focused on the sudden transformation, which is the
process of how someone‟s idea about something is transformed, and the fact that the expectation is turned into nothing. In other words, Kant sees humor as the
outcome of the unfulfilled expectation. He also sees that everything that is intended to cause laughter must be something absurd.
Meanwhile, Schopenhauer expla ins that laughter is caused by “the sudden
perception of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects which have been thought through it in some relation, and laughter itself is just the expression
of this incongruity” Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea, 1819, quoted in Attardo 1994: 48. His definition provides more understanding about
“incongruity” since he mentions it explicitly. He suggests that the greater the incongruity is, the greater the humorous effect will be produced. Later in the
development of humor theory, Schopenhauer and Kant‟s viewpoints of laughter and incongruity become the roots of the modern incongruity of humor.
From the explanations above, it can be seen that the basis of the incongruity theory is that humor occurs when there are differences between what
is expected and what later occurs. The differences involve the feeling of surprise of the hearers or the audience. This means that humor is the outcome of
incongruity created by two conflicting meanings, which are the certain idea that people have in mind and how the idea will create certain expectation as how it
will turn out. Unfortunately, the transformation of the idea makes people‟s expectation vanish and creates discrepancy which elicits laughter. Once the
hearer s find out the discrepancy between someone‟s expectations and how it turns
out, they will make an attempt to resolve the incongruity. In conclusion, according to this theory, the source of humor may involve any or all of, first, understanding
multiple meanings of words; second, detecting ambiguities and sensing
incongruity; and third, appreciating that the unexpected or sudden transformation of perspective is possible Shade, 1996: 11.
b. Hostility Theory
Hostility or Superiority Theory is an earliest theory of humor which can date back to Aristotle‟s and Plato‟s works. This theory mentions the negative
element of humor, which is its aggressive side Attardo, 1994: 49. That aggressive side can be seen as the negative side of humor which is mainly used to
hum iliate, disparage, or ridicule others‟ inferiority or misfortunes. Both Aristotle
and Plato emphasize that laughter is a means of power when it is directed against others‟ faults or flaws, so that it will show someone‟s superiority among the
victims. Thom
as Hobbes, as a philosopher, suggests that “laughter arises from a sense of superiority of the laugher towards some object” Attardo, 1994: 49. In
that case, “some object” commonly refers to the “butt of the joke”; anything that is being laughed at. As stated in Moreall 1987: 20, Hobbes uses the term
“sudden glory” to indicate the expression arising from comparing someone‟s superiority with others‟ weaknesses. That feeling of glory bursts because there is a
combination between mockery and laughter of som eone‟s foolish actions as well
as sympathy, pleasant, or empathy. Besides the feeling of being superior to someone else, Hobbes‟ humor theory also takes suddenness into account which
can create surprise effects. Bergson, as the most influential proponent of superiority theory, sees
humor as a social corrective; meaning that it is used by people to correct deviant
behavior Attardo, 1994: 50. According to him as explained by Schwarz in her dissertation 2010: 49, “the ridiculous is something mechanical encrusted on the
living”. Thus, from his point of view, the purpose of laughter is to remove the encrusted ridiculousness in the society through humiliation, so that well-adapted
behavior will be produced. It is concluded that when someone behaves not in accordance with a rule or social norm, he can become the target of the joke and
elicit laughter. From the explanations above, according to hostility theory, humor is
created when there is a sudden glory as the expression when someone is being superior among others. The feeling of superiority appears when someone laughs,
mocks, or humiliates at others‟ inferiority, weaknesses, stupidity, or misfortunes.
c. Release Theory
Release theory of humor is basically based on the idea that humor is used to release tension or psychic energy Attardo, 1994: 50. Once the tension is
released, someone will feel liberated. According to this theory, in order to deal with an upcoming social or psychological event, emotional tension is built. When
there is excess energy in one‟s mind, the surplus energy is dispelled through laughter.
The most influential proponent of this theory is Sigmund Freud. As quoted by Schwarz 2010: 51, he considers laughter as “an outlet for psychic or nervous
energy”. Freud sees humor as a means of defense which can enable people to experience pleasure. Humorous situation is one of the situations in which laughter
