A. Review of Related Theories
1. Cooperative Principle and Conversational Analysis
a. Cooperative Principle According to Fromkin and Rodman, the cooperative principle is a
must that the speaker’s contribution to the discourse should be as informative as is required-neither more or less Fromkin and Rodman, 2003: 225. In
making the conversation be successful, the speaker and listener have to cooperate generally in the conversation. Here, the speaker is hoped giving the
relevant utterance so the listeners can receive the right information. However, in most circumstances, some speakers
’ utterances are confusing and ambiguous or even not relevant from each other. Such utterances usually have
something more than just what the word means. It is an additional conveyed meaning, called an implicature Yule, 1996: 35. When the speakers have to
be able to draw inferences about what is meant but not actually said in the conversation, it
is called conversational implicature O’ Grady and Archibald, et al, 2010
: 232. In the conversational implicature, the speakers’ utterances have additional meaning more being communicated than is said and the
meaning is depent in the context of the conversation. For example: At the customs:
Custom officer: Ciggaretes, brandy, whisky... Girl: How kind you are in this country. I’ll have a coffee please
Chiaro, 1992: 43.
It can be seen that this conversation is placed at the customs. Absolutely, the context of the customer officer’s utterance is about the
information for the custom and not the offering like a servant in the restaurant although this utterance can mean an offer. The girl should understand what
the custom officer means. Of course, if the girl understands, the story would not beconsidered as the joke. So, for the event to be funny, the custom officer
seems to give less information and ambiguous. It causes the girl is misunderstood.
Usually, the conversation runs smoothly and succesfully when the speaker the custom officer and the listener the girl follow certain social
conventions. However, the conversation above has the problem with communication. Here, both the speakers have different assumption in their
mind which cause the conversation does not run well and even be funny and as a joke. It seems the custom officer causes the first problem by hisher
assumption that less was communicated than was said. Hisher utterance actually means a request for informati
on. However, in the girl’s perspective, the custom officer’s utterance is to imply an offer.
From this example, the ambiguous and misunderstood assumption cause the cooperative conversation does not run well. According to Grice,
there are cooperative principles which required to make the conversation run smoothly and succesfully.
These principles are elaborated in four maxims of cooperative principle Cutting, 2002: 34-35:
1. Maxim of quantity
In the maxim of quantity, the speakers should be as informative as is required, that they should give neither too little information nor too much.
2. Maxim of quality
In the maxim of quality, the speakers are expected to be sincere, to be saying something that they believe corresponds to reality. They are
assumed not to say anything that they believe to be false or anything which they lack evidence.
3. Maxim of relation
In the maxim of relation, the speakers are assumed to be say something that is relevant to what has
been said before. Thus, if we hear ‘The baby cried. The mom
y picked it up’ as stated by H. Garfinkel in Studies in Ethnomethodology
in Cutting, 2002:34-35, we assume that the ‘mommy’
was the mother of the crying baby and that she picked the baby up because it was crying.
4. Maxim of manner
In the maxim of manner, the speakers should be brief and orderly, and avoid obscurity and ambiguity.
Based on these principles showing the requirement of the right amount of information, telling the truth, being relevant and cleared, the flow
of the conversation will run better and not ambiguous. Nevertheless, not all
these principles are found in every conversation. Usually these principles are assumed in normal interaction. In some circumstances, the speakers follow
the maxims. Sometimes, they don’t follow them; they convey more meaning
than said, but the listeners can still understand their assumption. However, sometimes the speakers also are fail to convey the information and cause the
listeners confused. According to Grice, there are four ways to fail to fulfill the maxims in the conversation; but only one way are presented in this thesis. It
is the violations of maxim of cooperative principles. According to Thomas, A speaker can be said to ‘violate’ a maxim
when they know that the hearer will not know the truth and will only understand the surface meaning of the words Cutting, 2002: 40. They
intentionally generate a misleading implicature. The speakers’ utterances are ambiguous or irrelevant and cause the listeners’ assumptions are wrong. In
other words, when a speaker violates the maxims, it means heshe is against the rules of Grice’s maxims of the cooperative principle.
b. Conversation analysis
Conversation is the activity which cannot be separated in human’s daily life. As a social creature, the human needs “interaction” with the others
by talking in different social encounters. For example: a teacher talking to his students in a classroom, a waiter talking to the visitor in a restaurant, and a
doctor talking to his patient in the hospital. All these activities have different way of talking based on the different contexts of interaction. However, they
have the same basic pattern of talking; I speak-you speak-I speak-you speak.
This is called the basic structure of conversation Yule, 1996: 71. In this part, the conversation structure will be explained further through the aspects of
pragmatics. However, the writer only explains some of them which relate with this thesis
According to Cutting, conversation is a discourse mutually constructed and negotiated in time between speakers; it is usually informal
and unplanned Cutting, 2002: 28. In conversation analysis, it looks conversation as a linear ongoing event, that unfolds little by little and implies
the negotiation of cooperation between speakers along the way, thus viewing conversation as a process. Conversation analysis takes real data and then
examines the language and demonstrates that conversation is systematically structured. Related with the conversation structure, there are some patterns in
cooperating the conversation.One of them is called turn-taking. Every speaker is allowed to utter hisher mind or thought in the
conversation. This is called the floor which can be defined as the right to speak Yule, 1996: 72. Having control to speak in conversation at any time is
managed by all participants through turn-taking Cutting: 2002: 29. In turn- taking, everyone can attempt to get control to speak. In the conversation,
turn-taking is operated through a local management system made by members of a social group. The local management system is a set of conventions for
getting turns, keeping them, or giving them away Yule: 1996: 72. Generally, in speaking, conversation consists of two, or more, participants taking turns,
and only one participant speaking at any time, then another. Any possible
change-of-turn point is called a Transition Relevance Place TRP Yule, 1996: 72. Usually, the change of turn happens when the speaker takes the
end of hisher sentence; it means the current speaker’s turn is complete and the other can take the floor.
However, not all speakers follow TRP in the conversation. It causes the transition from one speaker to another does not run smoothly. Transitions
with a long silence between turns or with substantial overlap i.e. both
speakers trying to speak at the same time are felt to be awkward Yule, 1996: 72. However, usually when there is no smooth transition to their transitions
in their utterances, much more being is communicated than is said. In the following example, there is a conversation between a student and his friend’s
father. Their interaction shows the sense of distance, an absence of familiarity between them.
Mr. Strait : What’s your major Dave?
Dave : English
—well I haven’t really decided yet. 3 seconds
Mr. Strait : So —you want to be a teacher?
Dave : No
—not really—well not if I can help it. 2,5 seconds
Mr. Strait : Wha — Where do you— go ahead
Dave :
I mean it’s a— oh sorry I em— Yule, 1996: 73
From this example, very short pauses marked with a dash are simply hesitations, but longer pauses become silences. The silences in the example
above are not attributable to either speaker because each has completed a turn. If one speaker actually turns over the floor to another and the other does
not speak, then the silence is attributed to the second speaker and becomes significant Yule, 1996: 73. It is called an attributable silence.
Related with the first example, the overlap is illustrated in the final two lines, marked by a double slash . The first overlap occurs as both
speakers attempt to initiate talk. According to the local management system, generally one speaker will stop to allow the other take the floor in order to
make the conversation runs smoothly. However, for two speakers who are having difficulty getting into a shared conversational rhythm, the stop-start-
overlap-stop pattern may be repeated. Overlap does not always occur because of the distance relation
between the speakers like the example above. Overlap can also occur because of the interruption from the one speaker to the others. For example:
Joe : When they were in
power las —
wait CAN I FINISH ? Jerry
: that’s my point I said—
Yule, 1996: 74 In this example, the overlap happens when the second speaker takes
his floor before the first speaker finishes his utterance. Here, according to local management, the speaker can take his floor after the other speaker
finishes his turn through takes the end of his sentence. However, in this conversation, the second speaker competes the first speaker’s floor and does
not wait the first speaker finishes his utterance. It causes the first speaker complaints to the second speaker by shouting with louder voice shown in the
capital letters, saying “CAN I FINISH?”. His complaint also states the unstated rule of conversation structure that the speaker is allowed to speak
after the previous speaker finishes his utterance. In this conversation, the first speaker does not finish his utterance yet when they were in
—; suddenly the second speaker begins to talk. This is a clear interruption and breaks the
‘rules’. Basically, the speaker who wish to get his floor will wait the
possibility of TRP for himself. Based on the local management, the possibility to get his turn occurs when the previous speaker finishes his floor
through the end of a syntactic unit. To keep his floor, the speaker must avoid an open pause which shows the end of his syntactic unit to protect his turn.
For example:I wasn’t talking about—um his first book that was—uh really just like a start and so
—uh isn’t—doesn’t count reallyYule, 1996: 75. In this example, the speaker fills each of his pauses ‘um’ or ‘uh’
which are placed inside, not at the end of, syntactic units. It keeps his turn and does not allow the other speaker to take his floor.
2. Humor Theories
When talking about the comedy, it cannot be separated with the humor because the comedy play or film concern with humorous things in order to
make the funny stories. In The New Encylopedia Britannica, humor can be defined as a type of stimulation that tends to elicit the laughter reflex.
Spontaneous laughter is a motor reflex produced by the coordinated contraction of 15 facial muscles in a stereotyped pattern and accompanied by
altered breathing. Electrical stimulation of the main lifting muscle of the upper lip, the zygomatic major, with currents of varying intensity produces
facial expressions ranging from the faint smile through the broad gin to the contortions typical of explosive laughter Benton ed., 1983: 5.
The laughter and smile is a spontaneous reflex activity. In the encyclopedia, the laughter is called as the unique reflex or the luxury reflex in
that it has no apparent biological purpose. Its function is to provide relief from tension. However, the stimulus of laughter is different for humans. Not
every human feels relief from the same stimulus of laughter. Chiaro, in The Language of Jokes, said that although the physical manifestations of the
laughter are same in every human being, the stimulus for laughing differs from culture to culture Chiaro, 1992: 4-5. Therefore, it is important to study
about the culture of the society where the joke is created. Many various of disciplines have analysed the notion of humor for
centuries. Philosophers, psychologists and sociologists have attempted to define the essence of humor. Such studies have resulted in numerous theories
on the subject. The researchers such as Plato and Aristotle to Cicero, through Hume and Kant to the more recent Bergson and Freud, provide us with many
theories in their works. Most of their theories on humour concern with the physiological and sociological approach. Later, linguists use their theories as
the foundation for their modern theories about the linguistic aspects of the comic mode.
Generally, the principal theories of humour can be divided into three classifications:
a. Incongruity theories
In this theory, many researchers view incongruity as the essential element in eliciting humour. Aristotle presents the incongruity theory of
humour. He finds the best way to get an audience to laugh is to setup an expectation and deliver something “that gives a twist” Smuts, 2012. After
discussing the power of metaphors to produce a surprise in the hearer, Aristotle says:
The effect is produced even by jokes depending upon changes of the letters of aword; this too is a surprise. The word which comes is not
what the hearer imaginedSmuts, 2012. It means that the humour occurs when there are differences or
contrastive meanings between what the audiences expect and what actually happens in the situation or condition. These differences involve the feeling of
surprise for the audiences. Then, Aristotle also explains how the surprise must somehow “fit the facts” Smuts, 2012. The incongruity must be capable
of a resolution. It means to get the audiences laugh; in the beginning, they have to expect how the joke will turn out as the fact or reality in the society. It
shows they should have the resolution to this joke. However, the incongruity occured in the joke makes their expectation vanish and provokes conflicting
meaning which elicit laughter.
According to Immanuel Kantin Critique of Judgment Smuts, 2012, he
supports Aristotle’s statement of the role of incongruity in humor. He states:
In everything that is to excite a lively laugh there must be something absurd in which the understanding, therefore, can find no
satisfaction. Laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing Smuts, 2012.
Arthur Schopenhauer offers a more specific of the incongruity theory.
He says that the 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 is the expression of this incongruity. He gives more detail how this incongruity occurs.
Two or more real objects are thought through one concept, and the identity of the concept is transferred to the objects; it then becomes
strikingly apparent from the entire difference of the objects in other respects, that the concept was only applicable to them from a one
sided point of view. It occurs just as often, however, that the incongruity between a single real object and the concept, under which,
from one point of view, it has rightly been subsumed, is suddenly felt. Now the more correct the subsumption of such objects under a
concept may be from one point of view, and the greater and more glaring their incongruity with it, from another point of view, the
greater is the ludicrous effect which is produced by this contrast. All laughter, then, is occasioned by a paradox, and therefore by
unexpected subsumption, whether this is expressed in words or in actions. This, briefly stated, is the true explanation of the ludicrous
Lippitt, 2012: 2. As stated by Kant and Schopenhauer, the incongruity theory of humor
specifies a necessary condition of the object of humor. Focusing on the humorous object, the incongruity theory needs the pleasure response to make
the object of humour to be funny and elicit laughter. John Morreall attempts
to find sufficient conditions for identifying humor by focusing on our response. He defines humorous amusement as taking pleasure in a cognitive
shift. The incongruity theory can be stated as a response focused theory, claiming that humor is a certain kind of reaction had to perceived
incongruitySmuts, 2012. b.
Hostility Theories Among the researchers, hostility theory has some other names. As it is
said by Schwarz: Hostility theories, also known as disparagement theories in Suls,
1977, derision theories in MacHovec, 1988, superiority theories in Morreall, 1987, and the theories of frustrated expectation Schwarz,
2010: 47. There are two important aspects in the superiority theory of humour:
a the strong claim holds that all humor involves a feeling of superiority, and b the weak claim suggests that feelings of superiority are frequently found
in many cases of humour Smuts, 2012. Plato claims that the role of feelings of superiority can be found in
something funny. Plato states “`the mixture of pleasure and pain that lies in
the malice of amusement” Smuts, 2012. He argues that ignorance is a misfortune that when found in the weak is considered ridiculous. In comedy,
the people take malicious pleasure from the ridiculous, mixing pleasure with a pain of the soul. From Plato’s explanation, it can be seen that humour is a
means of expressing malicious pleasure to other people who are considered
powerless or weak. The people who are powerless or weak will be treated as the butts of ridiculous by the superiority people.
Thomas Hobbes also explains further about the superiority theory. He developed the most known version of the superiority theory. He says “that the
passion of laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from some sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity
of others, or with our formerly” Smuts, 2012. Bergson also explains the hostility theory in his work. He states the ridiculous is “something mechanical
encrusted on the livin g” Schwarz, 2010: 49. He says that the purpose of
laughter is to remove that encrustation through humiliation, and thus promote free, well-adapted behavior Schwarz, 2010: 49.
From both these explanations, we can conclude that humour occurs when there is a feeling of superiority from some persons or communities to
the other persons or groups who are considered as the inferior. Here, the certain people or communities are treated as the inferior when someone’s
manner is incongruous with a social norm. This incongruity causes they will be the butt of joke and elicit laughter among the others. This laughter results
from the feeling of superiority felt by the recipients. This feeling of superiority creates the glory and pleasure.
c. Release Theories
In release theories, humour is used to release tensions or to make one feel liberated when talking about taboo topics such as sex. In Words and
Culture, it is said that people use language to avoid saying certain things as
well as express them. Certain things are taboo subjects, for example: sex, death, excretion, bodily functions, religious matters, and politics. In the
society, people do not talk about taboo topics. Even if they want to talk about it, they will talk in very roundabout ways. It is explained further:
Taboo is the prohibition or avoidance in any society of behavior believed to be harmful to its members in that it would cause them
anxiety, embarrassment, or shame. Wardhaugh, 1988: 244
From the explanation above, it can be seen that there is an extremely
strong politeness constraint in talking about taboo in society. As the result, the taboos cannot be said in the language or certain objects can be referred to
only in certain circumstances, for example, only by certain people, or through deliberate circumlocutions, i.e., euphemistically. However, there are some
people who break the taboos in order to show their freedom from social constraints or to expose the taboos as irrational and unjustified, as in the
reason for ‘free speech’. Wardhaugh, 1988: 249 In Sigmund Freud’s work, he considers laughter is “an outlet for
physic or nervous energy” Schwarz, 2010: 51. It means that this physic or nervous energy is discharged through movements of laughter. He claims:
Humour as one of the so-called substitution mechanisms which enable to convert one’s socially tabooed aggressive impulses to acceptable
ones and thus avoid wasting additional mental energy to suppress them Krikmann, 2012: 28.
Hestates humour represents a way of defense that enables the people to experience pure pleasure in talking the taboo things. It shows that this
physic or nervous energy that contains the release or pleasure emotion is discharged through movements of laughter.
According to Freud, t here are two forms of joking: “innocent” and
“tendentious” jokes Schwarz, 2010: 53. Tendentious jokes usually make the audience shocked or terrified. These jokes function as the expression of
hostility and aggressiveness or obscenity and exposure. He explains that in a tendentious joke, there is an unconscious thought which is shown through the
joke’s release of repressed feelings. The pleasure caused by the outlet of their unconscious thought reflects their hidden aggression and hostility feeling to
certain persons who maybe have higher position than themselves. In other words, the tendentious joke is used to displace aggressions and hostilities.
Furthermore, Freud presents three categories of tendentious jokes: exposing or obscene jokes, aggressive hostile jokes, and cynical critical,
blasphemous jokes Schwarz, 2010: 54. Obscene jokes express exposure because they are mainly of a sexual nature. People use the obscene jokes to
satisfy their shameful thoughts or ideas that are repressed by their society because the content is generally considered unacceptable. Hostile jokes are
used to attack other people who we dislike. These jokes express aggression, defense, and dominance.
Innocent jokes refer to amusement at bizarre happenings, illogicalities, and absurdities. Freud argues that in innocent jokes, the techniques of jokes
such as incongruity are used to cause the laughter and pleasure among the audiences.
He says: On the basis of suitable specimens of innocent jokes, in which there
was no fear of our judgement being disturbed by their content or purpose, we were driven to conclude that the techniques of jokes are
themselves sources of pleasure Schwarz, 2010: 55.
It is different with the tendentious jokes. They use the aggression and hostility in which there is a fear of the judgment in their content which cause
the pleasure. Here, innocent jokes elicit enjoyment of their content Schwarz, 2010: 55.
In conclusion, it can be seen that there is a unity of release, hostility, and incongruity theories in Freud’s theory and therefore be considered to be
more comprehensive theory than others which only focus on one theory explained above.
B. Theoretical Framework
Kategori