An analysis on breaking maxims in verbal humor of sitcom FRIENDS and the acceptability of its Indonesian subtitles.

(1)

AN ANALYSIS ON BREAKING MAXIMS

IN VERBAL HUMOR OF SITCOM

FRIENDS

AND

THE ACCEPTABILITY OF ITS INDONESIAN SUBTITLES

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

Agnes Sherly Rosasenja Student Number: 081214110

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(2)

AN ANALYSIS ON BREAKING MAXIMS IN VERBAL HUMOR OF SITCOM FRIENDS AND THE ACCEPTABILITY OF ITS INDONESIAN SUBTITLES

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

Agnes Sherly Rosasenja Student Number: 081214110

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2012

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

vi ABSTRACT

Rosasenja, Agnes Sherly. 2012. An Analysis on Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of Sitcom Friends and the Acceptability of its Indonesian Subtitles. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

The functions of humor in daily life are varied. In conversation, people use humor to build relationships with others. While in entertainment industries, the function of humor is to attract audiences. One of successful entertainment products which use humor is TV-sitcom. This study focused on how breaking maxims were applied in the creation of verbal humor in sitcom Friends and on the acceptability of Indonesian subtitles in verbal humor.

This study discussed two main problems. The first one was how breaking maxims were applied in verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends. The second one was how the acceptability of the translation of the verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends

in which the maxims were broken? The researcher as human instrument functioned as the primary agent to collect the data. Document instruments in this study were transcripts and Indonesian subtitles of three episodes of sitcom

Friends season 2.

This research was a descriptive-qualitative research. To answer the first problem, the transcripts were classified according to the existence of breaking maxims on the verbal humor. After that, the data were analyzed according to the types of breaking maxims. Breaking maxims in the verbal humor were flouting, violating, opting out, infringing, and suspending. To answer the second problem, the Indonesian subtitles were retyped and were chosen which ones were the translations of verbal humor in which the maxims were broken. The chosen subtitles were examined whether or not they were acceptable translations in three characteristics of an ideal translation. According to the theory of testing translation (Larson, 1984), there are three characteristics of an ideal translation: Accurate (A), Natural (N), and Clear (C).

Based on the result of the study, some conclusions were drawn. From the discussion on the first problem, the researcher inferred that the five breaking maxims were applied in the creation of verbal humor in sitcom Friends. In this sitcom, violating was mostly used for creating verbal humor. Surprisingly, flouting, which according to the theory has a function to create humor, was not applied as many as violating. The other three breaking maxims were rarely applied. Based on the second problem, the researcher found that more than 80% of the translations were acceptable and most of them were considered as ideal translations. The weaknesses of the translations were on the exclamations and idioms. This finding could be an interesting topic to further studies.

Keywords: Pragmatics, Grice’s Maxims, Verbal Humor, Translation, TV-Sitcom, Friends.

(8)

vii ABSTRAK

Rosasenja, Agnes Sherly. 2012. An Analysis on Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of Sitcom Friends and the Acceptability of its Indonesian Subtitles. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Fungsi humor dalam kehidupan sehari-hari bisa bermacam-macam. Dalam percakapan, orang menggunakan humor untuk membangun relasi dengan lawan bicaranya. Sedangkan dalam industri hiburan, humor dimanfaatkan untuk menarik minat penonton. Salah satu produk hiburan yang sukses menggunakan humor adalah komedi situasi (sitcom) di televisi. Studi ini fokus pada bagaimana

breaking maxims diterapkan dalam pembuatan humor verbal di sicom Friends. Selain itu, studi ini juga fokus pada nilai berterima subtitle di Bahasa Indonesia dari humor verbal.

Studi ini terdiri dari dua rumusan masalah. Yang pertama adalah bagaimana breaking maxims diterapkan dalam pembuatan humor verbal di sitcom Friends? Kedua adalah bagaimana nilai berterima dari translation humor verbal yang terdapat dalam subtitle Bahasa Indonesia di sitcom Friends? Peneliti bertindak sebagai instrumen utama dalam pengumpulan data. Sedangkan dokumen yang digunakan adalah transkrip asli dan subtitle Bahasa Indonesia dari tiga episode sitcomFriends sesi 2.

Penelitian ini merupakan riset kualitatif-deskriptif. Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah yang pertama, transkrip diklasifikasi berdasarkan humor verbal yang mengikuti aturan maxim. Kemudian, data tersebut dianalisis berdasarkan macam-macam jenis breaking maxims (Thomas, 1995). Breaking maxims yang ada dalam humor verbal antara lain flouting, violating, opting out, infringing, and

suspending. Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah kedua, subtitle Bahasa Indonesia ditulis ulang dan dipilih mana yang tidak mengikuti aturan maxim. Subtitle yang sudah dipilih kemudian dianalisis menurut nilai berterima menurut teori testing translation (Larson, 1984). Terjemahan yang ideal memiliki tiga karakteristik, yaitu: Akurat (A), Natural (N), and Jelas (C).

Menurut hasil diskusi, beberapa kesimpulan telah dibuat. Pada diskusi yang menjawab rumusan masalah pertama, peneliti menyimpulkan bahwa kelima

breaking maxims diterapkan dalam pembuatan humor verbal khususnya di sitcom Friends. Dari diskusi tersebut, diketahui bahwa violating lebih sering digunakan dibanding yang lain. Bahkan, flouting yang notabene menurut teori digunakan untuk membuat humor, justru berada diurutan kedua. Sedangkan tiga breaking maxims yang lain jarang digunakan. Dalam menjawab rumusan masalah yang kedua, peneliti menemukan bahwa lebih dari 80% terjemahan sudah memenuhi syarat berterima, dan mayoritas terjemahan tersebut ideal. Kesalahan yang ditemukan dalam terjemahan justru terletak pada ekspresi dan idiom. Hal ini dapat dijadikan topik yang menarik untuk penelitian lanjut yang berhubungan dengan penerjemahan.

Keywords: Pragmatik, Grice’s Maxims, Humor Verbal, Terjemahan, TV-Sitcom, Friends.

(9)

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this thesis has been made possible by the support and courage of my advisor, lecturers, family, and friends. Firstly, I would like to send my genuine gratitude to my advisor, Carla Sih Prabandari, S.Pd., M.Hum. for her guidance, constructive feedbacks, helpful suggestions, encouragement, and support in my difficult time.

I also would like to thank my lecturers at Sanata Dharma University whose teachings have enrich my mind and thus have facilitated me to complete this study. I am sincerely indebted to Adesti Komalasari, S.Pd., M.A. for giving me the whole series of Friends.

My special gratitude also goes to my uncle, Doddy Purwadianto, S.T, M.T., and my aunt, Catharina Kisworini, for their great love, attention, and financial support since I was a child until I finish my study at Sanata Dharma University. My gratitude and appreciation are also addressed to my beloved mother, father, and sister for their encouragement and support.

I owe a great debt to Rina Astuti Purnamaningwulan, S.Pd. for her willingness to read my thesis and correcting my grammar. I also would like to thank Leo Kusuma, Ryo ‘Pakdhe’ Surbakti, and Kang Yoko for sharing their ideas, suggestions, and giving their time to have valuable discussions with me.

My special thanks go to Adam Semitha for his willingness to accompany me in the process of finishing my thesis with his great patience and love. I appreciated him for making me believe that I could do when it seemed impossible.

(10)

I also thank my best friend, ‘kaki mejaku’ Ida Kusuma for giving me endless spirit and supports.

Finally, I deliver my best thanks to all my friends of English Language Education Study Program, the Last Leaf-ers, EGG-ers and my classmates for years, Seto, Grace, Jeni, Riska, Leo, Yoko, Ajeng, and especially to ‘the power rangers’: Beni ‘Tongtong’, Yosua ‘Oon’, Adam ‘Smith’, Adi ‘Frater’, and Yustian ‘Limbad’, for the friendship, sharing, and laughter I experienced during my study.

(11)

Page

TITLE PAGE ………. i

PAGE OF APPROVAL ……….ii

PAGE OF ACCEPTANCE ………iii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ……….….iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ……….………….. .v

ABSTRACT ………..vi

ABSTRAK………..…vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……….viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ……….…. ..x

LIST OF FIGURES ………....……….. .... xii

LIST OF FIGURES ………....……….... xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiv

CHAPTER I . INTRODUCTION ……….………..1

A. Research Background …….………...………….………....1

B. Research Problems …….………..………..………7

C. Problem Limitation ..………...………..…….……….7

D. Research Objectives ……….………..7

E. Research Benefits ………...………..……..8

F. Definition of Terms ……….……….……...9

CHAPTER II .. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ……….……...12

A. ...Theoretical Description ..………..……….…….12

1. Theory of Pragmatics ………...………..…………..…….…..…..12

a. Grice’s Cooperative Principle ……….………..13

b. Maxims of Conversation……….…. ... 13

c. Breaking Maxims (Non-observance Maxims)…. ………..…... 14

d. Conversational Implicature ……….……….……….... .... 20

(12)

3. Audio Visual Translation (AVT) ……….... . 22

a. Subtitling ……….………... 22

b.Dubbing ……….……… ... 23

4. Translation of Verbal Humor ……….……….. .... 24

5. Sitcom ………..………. .... 25

B. Theoretical Framework ………..………... ... 26

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ….……….. .. 28

A. Research Method ……… . 28

B. Research Subject ………..………. ... 29

C. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique ……… .... 30

D. Data Analysis Technique ……… 31

E. Research Procedures ……….…... .... 33

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ……..….……. 38

A. How Breaking Maxims are Applied in Verbal Humor on TV-Sitcom Friends ……….……… ... 38

B. The Acceptability of Indonesian Subtitles of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor on Sitcom Friends …….……….…... ... 54

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS……….…….…..62

A. Conclusions…………..………..…….. 62

B. Recommendations ………...…….. 63

C. Implications………...……….…….…..… . 64

REFERENCES ………...……….……… . 66

(13)

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page

2.1 An Advertisement in a Department Store ……….…….….17 3.1 An Excerpt from the Transcript to Identify the Verbal Humor ………..……34 3.2 An Excerpt from the Transcript to Identify the Breaking Maxims …….…....35

(14)

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

3.1 Excerpt and Table of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor ………...36 3.2 Table of Acceptability of the Indonesian Subtitles ……..……...…….……...37 4.1 Category of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor ………40 4.2 Acceptability of Indonesian Subtitles ……….…56

(15)

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Classifying Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of Friends Season 2 Eps 1...….70

APPENDIX B

Classifying Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of Friends Season 2 Eps 3…...78

APPENDIX C

Classifying Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of Friends Season 2 Eps 7……86

APPENDIX D

Translations of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of Friends Season 2 Eps1...93

APPENDIX E

Translations of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of Friends Season 2 Eps 3..97

APPENDIX F

Translations of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of Friends Season 2 Eps7.101

APPENDIX G

The Script Friends Season 2 Episode 1………...……...….……105

APPENDIX H

The Script Friends Season 2 Episode 3………...………111

APPENDIX I

(16)

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

In this chapter the researcher discusses the background of the research. Background of the research contains the reason why the researcher chose this topic and a brief introduction of Verbal Humor, Grice’s Cooperative Principle, translation and situational comedy, Friends. The next parts of this chapter are

research problems, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and definition of terms.

A. Research Background

Humor is a part of conversational activities that usually has functions to amuse and to make people laugh, but there is also humor created to tease someone in amusing ways. Civikly (1986) says that humor is the key of both making a friendship and entertaining someone (as cited in Lynch, 2002). Humor can be found in any kinds of conversation because many people like to use humor especially to build relationship with others. Since people are addicted to humor, some corporations such as radios and televisions take advantage of this situation to promote their products using humor. One of the products that use humor is sitcoms. Initiated by Radio-sitcom, the use of humor in sitcoms extends into situational comedy on TV or TV-sitcom.

One of the employments of humor in daily conversation can be seen in a sitcom. Sitcom is not the same as drama comedy although both are selling humor. Different from drama comedy, sitcom is a TV program that provides more humor

(17)

2 in its conversation. Sitcom does not focus on the setting, but it focuses on the humor in conversations. Kalliomaki (2005) points out that “situation comedy or sitcom is usually a narrative-based comedy series containing short, 25-30 minutes long episodes with regular characters and settings” (p. 10).

Linguistic humor is an interesting topic for many linguists. There are some linguists who studied humor in linguistics’ fields, some of them were: Attardo (1994), Olsson (2004), Dorneus (2005), Quaglio (2009), and Dynel (2009, 2011). Though humor has been studied by linguists for years, but they admit that it is still difficult to categorize humor (Janko, 1984; Attardo, 1994). One of the humor categories is verbal humor. Verbal humor is included in a conversation or in a script of play, and it is expressed verbally (Attardo, 1994; Chiaro, 2006; Dynel, 2009; Schwarz, 2010). Dynel (2009) tries to divide the types of verbal humor into some categories; they are lexemes and phrasemes, witticisms, retorts, teasing, banter, putdowns, self-denigrating humor, and anecdotes. Despite those categories or other types of humor, the researcher discusses the verbal humor of sitcom in general based on the theory of pragmatics, Grice’s Cooperative Principles.

Creating humor for a purpose is not simple. There are theories to constitute humor. Pragmatics theories are important to researchers who are conducting studies related to conversation. In this study, the researcher focuses on the non-observance maxims in the conversations of a sitcom. There are four basic maxims, namely maxim of quality, maxim of relevance, maxim of quantity, and maxim of manner.

(18)

3 Attardo (1994) and Lynch (2002) state that the number of conversations in a sitcom involves violations of one or more maxims which create the verbal humor. Recent studies conducted by Dornerus (2005) and Alvaro (2011) point out that it is not only a violation of maxims that creates verbal humor. In their studies, they mention that there are five ways of failing to observe the maxims. Grice (1989) distinguishes four of them that are violating a maxim, flouting a maxim,

and opting out a maxim, and infringing a maxim. Then, Thomas (1995) adds the

fifth category of non- observance maxim called suspending a maxim (Thomas,

1995). The researcher used those five categories to analyze verbal humor in the sitcom, and those five categories are called non-observance maxims or “breaking maxims” (Dornerus, 2005).

Another field that is discussed in this research is Indonesian subtitles of verbal humor in sitcom Friends. Linguistic problems in the translation are myriad.

According to Chiaro (1996), there are a lot of aspects that have to be considered such as cultural references, social realities which are different from one country to another, for examples: slangs, idioms, jargons, and many other aspects. Those factors affect the acceptability if the translator cannot transfer the source language (SL) into the target language (TL). According to Larson (1984), the acceptability can be valued by three characteristics of an ideal translation; they are accurate, natural, and clear. No matter how well the translator knows the target language, translating humor is still considered as an uneasy task, moreover, putting them in a form of subtitles can be even harder for who do not know the rules of subtitling.

(19)

4 Subtitling is one method of translation which is commonly used in a movie or other visual shows (Hatim and Munday, 2004; Orero, 2004). There is another challenge in subtitling that is translating the words effectively without changing the meaning of the conversation. Since translating verbal humor requires many aspects to maintain the meaning and to deliver the message, the researcher would test the acceptability of Indonesian subtitles of a sitcom using three characteristics of an ideal translation from Larson (1984). The three characteristics which a translation should have are accurate (A), natural (N), and clear (C).

The researcher analyzed the broken maxims in verbal humor and its Indonesian subtitles from an American TV-sitcom, Friends. For the samples, the

researcher used three from twenty-four episodes of season 2 (1995). She chose the second season because in that season the traits of the sixth characters are more clearly seen than in season 1 and the problems are not too complicated compared to the following seasons. By watching the VCDs with Indonesian subtitles and reading the original scripts taken from www.livesinabox.com/friends/, the research was conducted.

In this chapter, there are also reasons why the researcher chose a TV-sitcom and why she chose Friends. Since one of the problems that are discussed in

this research is verbal humor, the researcher chose sitcom as the most appropriate subject to use. It is because sitcom focuses on conversations that are full of humors. Friends is a famous TV-sitcom not only in America but also over the

world. This sitcom aired in 1994 up to 2004 and there are 10 sessions and at least 24 episodes in every session. This fact makes Friends provides many data to

(20)

5 study. The language used in their conversations is casual since the characters are young adults. Besides that, the conflicts in Friends are simple and easy to follow.

Here is one example of the conflicts in Friends Season 2 Episode 2, The One with

the Breast Milk:

EXCERPT Friends season 2 episode 2[08:55]

[Scene: Ben is Ross’ son with his ex-wife. He was just months years old, so he could only drink the breast milk. That day, Ross was responsible to take care of him while his mother was gone. The mother left her breast milk for Ben’s dinner. Here, in Monica and Rachel's apartment, Chandler, Rachel, and Joey are eating, and Phoebe is preparing Ben's milk.]

Phoebe : Ben, dinner!

Ross : Thanks Aunt Pheebs. Hey, you didn't microwave that, did you, because it's breast milk, and you're not supposed to do that. Phoebe : Duh, I think I know how to heat breast milk. Ok. (Squirts some

on her wrist and tastes it.) Chandler : What did you just do?! Phoebe : I licked my arm, what? Ross : It's breast milk.

Phoebe : So?

Rachel : Phoebe, that is juice, squeezed from a person. Joey : What is the big deal? (Tastes the breast milk.) Chandler : What did you just do?!

Ross : Ok, would people stop drinking the breast milk?!! (freaks out)

The excerpt above is the example of a simple problem faced by the characters in Friends. In this episode, the breast milk became the topic on their

conversations. Phoebe, who tasted the breast milk made Chandler and Ross freaked out and so did Rachel. They thought the breast milk was so gross to taste. Joey, who thought that the breast milk was not a problem, tasted the breast milk to prove. The funniest parts of this excerpt were when Chandler repeated his tone of freaking out What did you just do?! loudly at the first time and louder at the

(21)

6 situation, freaked out by yelling Ok, would people stop drinking the breast

milk?!!.

There are six main characters playing in Friends. They are all young adults

between 23-26 years old and they are living in New York. The six characters are Monica, Ross, Rachel, Chandler, Joey, and Phoebe. Monica and Rachel are roommates and they have been friends since high school. In the same building, living across the hall, there are Joey and Chandler. Ross, Monica’s elder brother, is more settled than others are and he lives in a different apartment. Chandler is Ross’ best friend since high school. Phoebe used to be Monica’s roommate, but now she lives with her grandma because she cannot stand Monica’s obsessions with neatness and tidiness. Although they live separately, they usually hang out together at Central Perk, their favorite coffee house, and at Monica and Rachel’s apartment.

The six characters of Friends are funny, and they have their own styles of

humor, which make Friends more interesting to study. Monica (Courteney Cox),

the one who loves cooking, is a perfectionist and an extremely organized person. Ross (David Schwimmer), a paleontologist who obsessed with dinosaurs, married to a lesbian and divorced. He always talks like he is lecturing someone and he emphasizes most of the words he says. Chandler (Matthew Perry), he always makes fun of his friends and uses humor as a defense. He feels insecure near women and the weird fact is that nobody knows what he does in his work. Rachel (Jennifer Aniston) is a spoiled girl who easily gets panics and is always talking mincing matters. Joey (Matt le Blanc), who has always been in relationships with

(22)

7 women a lot, has less brain intellect of all and he is obsessed by becoming a big actor and getting famous. Phoebe (Lisa Kudrow), the one who has the most complicated family problems, is bad at singing. She believes that she has the sixth sense, which is not, and she sometimes gives unexpected funny comments and reactions.

B. Research Problems

Based on the background above, the research problems on are:

1. How are breaking maxims applied in verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends?

2. How is the acceptability of Indonesian subtitles of breaking maxims in verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends?

C. Problem Limitation

This research focused on the breaking maxims, which includes violating a maxim, flouting a maxim, opting out a maxim, infringing a maxim, and suspending a maxim in verbal humor of sitcom Friends. Two things were

discussed in this research. The first one was a discussion on verbal humor in general. The second was a discussion on the acceptability of Indonesian subtitles. The subtitles were examined using three characteristics of ideal translations from Larson (1984). The data were taken from three episodes of Friends session 2.

(23)

8 D. Research Objectives

The objectives of this research are:

1. To see how breaking maxim are applied in verbal humor on TV-sitcom

Friends.

2. To see how the acceptability of Indonesian subtitles of breaking maxims in verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends.

E. Research Benefits

The writer expects this research to contribute academic and practical field: 1. Academic Benefit:

a. This research will contribute to pragmatics study, especially related to Grice’s Cooperative Principle, verbal humor, and humor translation.

b. The research finding will enrich the theories of pragmatics related to Grice’s Cooperative Principle, verbal humor, and humor translation.

c. This research can be used as an academic reference by other researchers to conduct further studies dealing with maxims, verbal humor, and humor translation.

2. Practical Benefit:

a. The students would be able to learn how pragmatics theories take part in the creation of verbal humor in TV-Sitcoms.

b. The teachers would know better about the use of breaking maxims in creating verbal humor on purpose.

(24)

9 F. Definition of Terms

The following explanations might help readers to comprehend the contents of this study:

1. Grice’s Cooperative Principles

Grice (1989) believes that there is a set of rules with the aim of guiding the conduct of conversation. These rules have functions as guidelines for efficient and effective use of language and they are namely as maxims of conversation. There are four basic maxims of conversation, which express a general cooperative

principle (CP) altogether. The maxims are:

a. The maxim of Quality: try to make your contribution one that is true,

specifically: 1) do not say what you believe to be false 2) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

b. The maxim of Quantity: 1) make your contribution as informative as is

required for the current purpose of the exchange 2) do not make your contribution more informative than is required

c. The maxim of Relevance: make your contribution relevant

d. The maxim of Manner: be perspicuous, and specifically, 1) avoid obscurity, 2)

avoid ambiguity, 3) be brief, 4) be orderly. (Grice 1989:26-27)

2. Breaking Maxims

In this study, any failing to obey maxims is called ‘breaking maxims’ (Dornerus, 2005; Alvaro, 2011). The five categories of breaking maxims are

(25)

10 someone is breaking a maxim, she or he wants to avoid discomforts or to create humorous situations.

3. Verbal Humor

Verbal humor in this study refers to humor that exists in a conversation or in a script of play, and it is expressed verbally (Attardo, 1994; Chiaro, 2006; Dynel, 2009; Schwarz, 2010).

4. Ideal Translation

Larson (1984) shows the way to test translations by using three characteristics of an ideal translation. They are:

- Accurate (A) : reproducing the same meaning and maintaining the message of conversation from SL to TL.

- Natural (N) : using natural expressions with appropriate kind of texts occurs in TL.

- Clear (C) : expressing all aspects in acceptable forms and clear meanings, so that it is understandable for TL audiences.

5. Sitcom Friends

According to Berger (1992:71-72), sitcoms usually focus on the dialogue, different topic in every episode, and there are only few setting movements and mostly taking place indoors.

(26)

Friends is a well-known sitcom in America. There are six main characters

in this sitcom; Monica Geller and Ross Geller, Rachel Green, Chandler Bing, Phoebe Buffay, and Joey Tribbiani. They live in New York and face chaotic problems, which are interesting to follow. This sitcom aired in 1994 until 2004.

6. Subtitle

A clear definition of translation is stated by Newmark (1987). He says that “translation is an activity of replacing a written text in one language, source language (SL), without changing the message into another language, target language (TL)”.

Hatim and Munday (2004) explain that there are two processes of translating audiovisual materials, namely dubbing and subtitling. In this study, the researcher wanted to see the translation of the conversations through the result of subtitling called subtitles. According to Orero (2004), “subtitles are spotted to coincide with the precise frame where a speaker begins and finishes talking, with the occasional adjustment of a few frames to respect a film’s takes or allow more reading time, take change permitting.” (p.13).

(27)

12 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter explores the theoretical description, and the theoretical framework of the study. The theories, which constitute the research, include the theory of pragmatics, linguistic theory of verbal humor, Audio-Visual Translation (AVT), and sitcom are discussed in the theoretical description. The theoretical framework discusses the theories used to answer the research problems.

A. Theoretical Description

In this part, the researcher discusses the theories of Pragmatics includes Grice’s theory of Cooperative Principles, implicature, and breaking (non-observance) maxims: violating maxims, flouting maxims, opting out maxims, infringing maxims, and suspending maxims. The second theory is verbal Humor. Meanwhile, the third one is theory of translations, especially audio-visual translation.

1. Theory of Pragmatics

Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics study of meaning which focuses on the use of language in communication. According to Dynel (2011), “Pragmatics is a field of linguistics that is addressing communicative processes as deployed by its users and its relation to language form, related to the cognitive and socio-cultural study of language use” (p.2). Because this research is dealing with

(28)

conversations of a sitcom, the researcher used pragmatics as the prime theory to support her study.

a. Grice’s Cooperative Principle

In a conversation, it is important for speakers to deliver the accurate information to the hearers so the conversation can run well. Grice (1989) has stated in Logic and Conversation about Cooperative Principle, “Make your

conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” (p.26). From the definition, the researcher infers that there is a set of rules guiding the conduct of conversation to use language in conversations efficiently and effectively.

b. Maxims of Conversation

Four categories of general principle are known as maxims of conversation.

Grice (1989) names the four maxims of conversations are Quantity, Quality, Relevance, and Manner. He creates these maxims to measure how effective our conversation to others.

The first maxim is maxim of Quantity. This maxim deals with amount of information given by the speaker. Under this supermaxim, there are two specific maxims: (1) the information given should be as informative as needed; (2) the information given should not be more informative as needed.

(29)

The second one is maxim of Quality. The function of this maxim is to make sure that the speaker has given the correct information to the hearer. To make conversations effective, there are two specific maxims under this super maxim: 1) the speaker should not tell a lie 2) the speaker should not tell something without enough knowledge or lack of evidence.

The third one is maxim of Relevance. The same as its name, maxim of Relevance expects the speaker to be relevant. It is important because when the hearer gets irrelevant answers the conversation would be failed.

The last one is maxim of Manner. The general understanding of this maxim is “being perspicuous”. Grice mentions clearly the various maxims include in the maxim of Manner: (1) avoid obscurity of expression, 2) avoid ambiguity, 3) be brief, and 4) be orderly.

c. Breaking Maxims (Non-observance maxims)

In daily conversations, there are times when speakers do not always follow the rules or fail to observe the maxims. According to Dornerus (2005), breaking maxims is the process of failing to observe the maxims (p.6). Breaking maxims is commonly known as non-observance maxims.

Grice (1989) firstly mentions that there are four categories of non-observance maxims; they are Flouting, Violating, Opting Out, and Infringing.

Different from Grice, according to Thomas (1995) there are five categories of breaking maxims. The first four of the categories are the same as Grice’s, but Thomas adds a non-full observance a maxim called Suspending.

(30)

1) Flouting Maxims

When someone is flouting a maxim, she/he does not intend to mislead the hearer but wants the hearer to see another meaning of the words uttered. The meaning of the utterance is indirectly stated and the purpose is to communicate a message effectively (Thomas 1995:65). In a dialogue, verbal humor is the example of flouting the maxims. See the example below:

A: Chicago is in Kansas, isn't it? B: Yeah, and L.A. is in Idaho!

In the example, B flouted maxim of Quantity by giving an unsatisfied answer. B let A to interpret by himself that the statement Chicago is in Kansas as

false as L.A is in Idaho. From the situation, the researcher inferred that B was

going to say that it was an idiotic question, so that B did not need to answer. B’s answer expressed verbal humor which implied that the statement spoken by A was totally wrong.

2) Violating Maxims

According to Dornerus (2005), when the speaker intends to mislead the hearer, he or she violates the maxims. The result of violating maxims might not be effective communication. The cases of violating maxims can be found in the

(31)

advertisements, parliamentary speeches, and arguments (Dornerus, 2005; Alvaro, 2011). As an example, look at an advertisement found in a department store:

Figure 2.1 An advertisement in a department store

The note written in the ad was long and it would possibly mislead the customers. Moreover, the note, which was written in smaller fonts compared to the digits of the discounts, would be very tricky. Considering the length of the note and the confusion results after reading the note, prove that the ad violated the maxim of Manner. If the customers did not read the note carefully and understand about the agreement, they would be screwed.

According to linguists, the misleading of information can bring the humorous effects in the conversation (Attardo, 1994; Lynch, 2002). Therefore, in certain cases, violations of maxims can be used to create humor, but the sense of humor would sound amusing for the audiences who know the precise information. The use of violating to create humor can be found in a conversation adopted from a film entitled Jack and Jill (2011) below:

A brother was so annoyed to discover that his sister was coming and wanted to stay at his house. In the other hand, the brother did not want to hurt her feeling by rejecting her. He tried to give a recommendation to his sister.

Discount

50%

+20%

every purchase of red, white, and purple shoes and get

+30%

discount for purple shoes on the second purchase.

(32)

Brother : Anyway, I was thinking that the house is gonna be very crowded, I have kids, and the guesses are coming back..and bla bla bla so, this new hotel, Hilton, has just…

Sister : But I wanna stay with your kids. Why? You don’t want me to stay with you?

Brother : No..no..no..of course I want you to stay with me. I just said it. Sister : Ok. I’ll stay with you then. Although, I heard this hotel is so

much fun. Brother : (sighed out loud)

Sister : Why did you sigh so loud?

Brother : I just really really LOVE your shoes… Sister : Thank you

The brother violated the maxim of Relevance by misleading the sister with a new topic. The audiences know the fact that he sighed so loud was because he was so annoyed at his sister and his failure at putting her away. It becomes funny, because the audiences know the truth and the brother succeeded to mislead his sister to another topic.

3) Opting Out Maxims

When a speaker does not want to cooperate with the hearer or someone who is looking for information, it is called opting out the maxims (Thomas, 1995). In this case, the speaker gives less information that she/he already has. A doctor who tells about the condition of the patient is the example of opting out a maxim. The doctor knows more than the information, but he only tells the good news to the patient to make the patient feels less worried. See the following example:

In a hospital, there is a man who becomes a victim of an accident. The man lost his right arm but he survives. The doctor is calling his wife and telling what happened.

Doctor : Your husband is in the hospital, he got an accident. Wife : (Freaks out) What?! How could this happen? Tell me

(33)

everything! How is he? Where is he?!Is he alright? I want to talk to my husband!

Doctor : Calm down, he is alright. He is safe, we have done the best and he survives.

Wife : (relieved) Thanks God… I’ll be there, Doctor, as soon as possible. Thank you for calling me.

What the doctor said to the man’s wife was true. The man was safe and survived, but the doctor did not tell about the man’s arm. The doctor said so because the information he gave was enough and it made the situation calm down. If the doctor said the bad news in the same time, the conversation would not be the same and made the wife more freaked out. This is the example of opting out maxim of Quantity.

4) Infringing Maxims

In this case, speaker is not deliberately breaking a maxim and she/he does not intend to break. The speaker does not know that she/he is breaking a maxim (Thomas, 1995). Usually, this case happens in a conversation between native speakers and non-native speakers, drunken men/women, or strangers, where one of them does not know where the conversation is going. In the example below, a native has a conversation with a foreigner who can only speak English a little:

Native : Do you know what time it is? Foreigner : Yes, I do.

The foreigner probably did not understand the whole words that the native said, but he assumed that the question that begins with ‘Do’ would be best answered by ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Grammatically, his answer was correct, but it did not

(34)

make sense. He gave an unsatisfied answer. Unconsciously, he had been infringing the maxim of Quantity.

5) Suspending Maxims

When the speaker does not want to say words or the speaker does not want to give specific information because it is not completely true or because they are taboo, it is called suspending maxims. It relates to the cultural differences. The words or the issues that are considered taboo or not polite to say might be different from one region to another. (Thomas, 1995). Below is the example of suspending a maxim taken from the script of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s

Stone:

MR. OLLIVANDER: I remember every wand I've ever sold, Mr. Potter. It so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather resides in your wand gave another feather. Just one other. It is curious that you should be destined for this wand, when its brother gave you that scar.

HARRY : And who owned that wand?

MR. OLLIVANDER: We do not speak his name. The wand chooses the wizard, Mr. Potter. It’s not always clear why. But, I think it is clear that we can expect great things from you. After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things. Terrible, yes. But great.

The words in bold spoken by Mr.Ollivander are the example of suspending a maxim. According to the story, in magic world of Harry Potter, there was a wicked wizard who was redoubtable, Voldemort. Other wizards were even afraid of mentioning his name. The wizards gave a nick name such as He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named or You-Know-Who to avoid mentioning his name.

(35)

d. Conversational Implicature

The term implicature is derived from the word ‘imply’ which means

expressing an idea or a feeling without saying it directly. Based on the meaning of the root, conversational implicature can be defined as an idea or a feeling that is indirectly expressed in a conversation. As defined by Mey (2001) “A conversational implicature is, therefore, something which is implied in conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual language use.” (p.45). The question is what is the connection between Implicature, Conversational Maxims, and Cooperative Principle? See the dialog below:

A : Is there any other slice of pizza for me? B : My cat is eating the last one.

Grice suggests that there is an effective way to communicate which we all accept as standard behavior. They are Grice’s Cooperative Principle and the four maxims aimed to make conversation effective. How if people do not follow the rules as in the example of the dialog between A and B. B did not answer A with the right amount of information nor be relevant to the question. B had just flouted the maxims and B’s answer implied something. What B wanted to say is NO, but he said it indirectly.

2. Theory of Verbal Humor

There are two major theories of verbal humor in linguistics, Semantic Script Theory of Humor (SSTH) by Raskin and General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH). GTVH is the revised version of SSTH and it includes all types of verbal

(36)

humor (Attardo, 1994; Goldberg, 2010). Verbal humor is humor that exists on a conversation or in a script of play, and it is expressed verbally (Attardo, 1994; Chiaro, 2006; Dynel, 2009; Schwarz, 2010). Although verbal humor has been studied by many linguists, but they admit that it is difficult to categorized humor (Janko, 1984; Attardo, 1994). Dynel (2009) tries to divide types of verbal humor into some categories, namely Lexemes and phrasemes, Witticisms, Retorts, Teasing, Banter, Putdowns, Self-denigrating humor, and Anecdotes (Dynel, 2009).

However, the level of humorous effects from verbal humor is different from one to another. In GTVH, there are six things to be considered to generate humor. Attardo (1994) names those six factors as Knowledge Resources (KR) (Attardo, 1994:223). Those six factors are needed to consider when someone translates verbal humor into other languages. They are:

- Language (LA): It contains information necessary for exact wording of the text and for the placement of the functional elements that constitute it.

- Narrative Strategy (NS): The information in NS accounts for the fact that any joke has to be cast in some form of narrative organization.

- Target (TA): The information contains the names of groups or individuals with humorous stereotypes attached to each.

- Situation (SI): Any joke should have some situation, although some jokes will rely more on it, while others will almost entirely ignore it.

- Logical Mechanism (LM): The logical mechanism is the indicator that accounts the two senses in the joke are brought together.

(37)

- Script Opposition (SO): Any humorous texts will present a SO. The specifics of its narrative organization, its social and historical instantiation, etc. will vary according to the place and time of its production.

3. Audio-Visual Translation (AVT)

A clear definition of translation is given by Newmark (1987). He says that translation is an activity of replacing a written text in one language without changing the meaning from source language (SL) into target language (TL). One definition of translation is also given by Catford (1974), “The replacement of textual materials in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL).” (p. 20). There is a lacking from Newmark’s and Catford’s definitions. Considering the rapid development of technology, the process of translation nowadays is not only for textual materials or for written text, but also assigned to audio-visual materials. Audio-visual materials include speeches, TV shows, interviews, movies, sitcoms and many more.

The translation of audio-visual materials is called as Audio-Visual Translation (AVT). According to Orero (2004):

AVT will encompass all translations — or multisemiotic transfer — for production or postproduction in any media or format, and also the new areas of media accessibility: subtitling for the deaf and the hard or hearing and audio-description for the blind and the visually impaired. (p. viii)

The examples of methods in AVT are subtitling and dubbing: a. Subtitling

Subtitling is the common method used in translating audio-visual communication in film or movies (Hatim and Munday, 2004; Orero, 2004). The

(38)

products of subtitling are subtitles. Subtitles are defined by Thompson (2000) as “texts read by viewer while they are disengaged to some degree from both the visual and audio of a film” (p.1).

The challenge in subtitling is to making effective words to communicate without changing the meaning. It makes subtitling is more difficult rather than translating texts. In subtitling, there are not many choices and the length of translation is also limited, normally two lines for each screen. Moreover, the translator also has to consider the timing. In order to produce effective subtitles, Chile (1999) suggests the translators to select what information should be translated and what should not be translated. The most common elements of conversation that are reduced in subtitles include greetings, vocatives, discourse markers and interjections.

Subtitle is important, especially for audiences who do not know the language used in a movie. A good subtitle is the one that can successfully deliver the message of conversation, happens in the movie (Orero, 2004). Subtitles in situational comedies are not only the message that is important but also the sense of humor.

b. Dubbing

Different from subtitling, dubbing is the type of audiovisual translation that requires the most thorough synchronization and the result of dubbing is oral translation (Orero, 2004). According to Orero (2004), it is more complex than subtitling, since dubbing requires many factors to be considered, such as: lip,

(39)

kinetic and isochronic synchrony into the bargain. Besides, the dubbers of films have to give intonation and pace properly.

4. Translation of Verbal Humor

Humor affects individuals from different cultures differently (Chile, 1999). That is the reason why humor is culture-specific, and difficult to translate. Chiaro (2006) mentions that verbal humor on screen is the most challenging subject to translate. Translating humor has its own difficulties. The biggest challenge in translating humor is to keep the meaning and to provoke the same effect of humor.

There are several methods used in translation. Newmark (1988:45) mentions eight translation methods, which are put in the diagram V below:

SL emphasis TL emphasis

Word for word translation Adaptation

Literal translation Free translation

Faithful translation Idiomatic translation

Semantic translation Communicative translation

The methods provided can be used by any translators. However, in translating humor from televisions, subtitlers or translators frequently use their instinct rather than the real guidelines. When they face problems related to cultural matters, they have to find the solution to produce acceptable translations for TL audiences. The goal in translating humor is to make the TL audiences feel the sense of humor maximally as the SL audiences do. As Newmark (1988:46) states, “It has sometimes been said that the overriding purpose of any translation should be to achieve equivalent effect.”

(40)

A successful translation can be seen from audiences’ perspective and it is varied. In general, Larson (1984) says that the successful of translation depends on how close it is to the ideal translation. Despite audiences’ perspective, he has criteria of an ideal translation:

- Accurate (A): Reproducing the same meaning of conversation from SL to TL - Natural (N): Using natural expressions with appropriate kind of texts occurs in

- Clear (C): Expressing all aspects of translations on acceptable forms and clear meanings, so that it is understandable for TL audiences.

5. Sitcom

A situational comedy or sitcom is a good subject to study verbal humor on screen. According to Berger (1992:71-72), sitcoms usually focus on the dialogue and it has only few movements and mostly takes place indoors. The characters in sitcom have their own humor styles. There are also laugh tracks that are played to

encourage the audience to laugh. The laugh tracks are also to indicate the verbal humor in this study.

Friends is a well-known American TV-sitcom in all over the world. In

Indonesia, this sitcom was aired in the late 90s and early 2000. Nowadays,

Friends can only be seen through a channel on a cable TV, Star World. The

popularity and the natural conversation in Friends make this sitcom more

(41)

rather than visually, so there is a bunch of linguistic fields to study based on one sitcom, Friends.

B. Theoretical Framework

The theory of Pragmatics is put to analyze conversations in scripts and subtitles of a sitcom. Three theories of pragmatics such as, Grice’s Cooperative Principle (Maxims), Non-observance maxims, and implicature are used to answer the first problem. Firstly, the verbal humor is chosen which one is breaking the Griece’s Maxims of conversation (Grice, 1989). Secondly, the broking maxims in verbal humor are classified into five types of Breaking Maxims (Thomas, 1995; Dornerus, 2005). Thirdly, in order to see the meaning on humor, the theory of implicature is applied.

Theory of verbal humor (Attardo, 1994) is used to strengthen the researcher’s classifications on conversations in the sitcom. Besides that, theory of verbal humor is also used to see the translation of verbal humor into Indonesian. The factors that influence the translation of verbal humor became the references for researcher to compare the translation from SL to TL.

Theory of Audio-Visual Translation is the most appropriate theory in analyzing subtitles (Orero, 2004). Theory of testing translation (Larson, 1984) is used to value the products of Indonesian subtitles in sitcom Friends. The

characteristics of an ideal translation could be known using this theory. This theory becomes the most important part in answering the second problem.

(42)

The knowledge about sitcoms is also important for the researcher to choose what kind of sitcoms that is good to be the subject of the study. Besides, knowledge about the sitcom helped the researcher to find how verbal humor in sitcom can be analyzed. The use of laugh tracks on a sitcom is shown through this theory, which is to indicate the humor on the sitcom (Berger, 1992). From this theory, the researcher could get enough information and finally decide Friends as

(43)

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researcher discusses the methodology that was used to answer the research problems. The problems were how breaking maxims are applied in verbal humor and the acceptability of the Indonesian subtitles of breaking maxims in verbal humor on sitcom Friends. The discussions in this

chapter includes the research methodology, research subjects, instruments and data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research procedures.

A. Research Method

This research was a qualitative research. According to Hansen (2005), qualitative methods rely on experiences and phenomena that need to be interpreted and explained. A brief description about the qualitative research is also given by Borg and Galls (2007), “Qualitative research is a research which presents facts in a narration with words.” The results of the research problems needed to be explained and interpreted. That were why the descriptive-qualitative research was applied in this study. According to Merriam (2002), a descriptive-qualitative research is used when data collected through interviews, observations, or documents analysis are analyzed to identify the pattern of the data. Moreover, the findings are presented and are discussed using relevant theories. Based on the theory of Grice’s Cooperative Principles and the theory of translations, the

(44)

researcher analyzed verbal humor on scripts and subtitles from a sitcom, in this case she used a document analysis method.

In 2010, Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Razavieh define a document analysis as a method that is used when someone wants to analyze any physical documents, in form of written or visual materials, in order to identify specific data. From the definition given by Ary, et.al (2010), the researcher inferred that scripts and subtitles, from which the data were gathered, were kinds of physical documents. That was the consideration for the researcher to use the document analysis method to be applied to see the role of breaking maxims in verbal humor on a sitcom. Moreover, the researcher also applied this method to analyze the acceptability of the Indonesian subtitles of the breaking maxims in verbal humor on a chosen sitcom.

B. Research Subject

Friends is a famous American sitcom, which aired in 1994 up to 2004, has

ten seasons. There are six characters of Friends: Ross and Monica Geller,

Chandler Bing, and Joey Tribbiani, Phoebe Buffay, and Rachel Green. The popularity of language in Friends spoken by the six characters makes this sitcom

is interesting to study. In the same tone, Quaglio (2009) comments about Friends,

he says that “a show about people who just sit around and talk – makes this sitcom an interesting object of study for linguistic analysis, both as a comparison to natural conversation and as an object of study in itself.” (p.13).

(45)

From the ten seasons, season 2 was chosen by the researcher to study further. There were 24 episodes in season 2 with 24-35 minutes length for each episode. Episodes 1, 3 and 7 were the main subjects for this research.

C. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique

There were two instruments employed by the researcher; human instrument and document instrument. Human instrument functioned as the primary agent to collect the data in qualitative research (Merriam, 2002; Berg and Galls, 2007; Ary, et.al, 2010). In this study, the human instrument was the researcher. The researcher was also the one who identified the verbal humor on the scripts and classified which verbal humor broke the maxims. After that, the researcher identified what kinds of maxims were broken and what categories of breaking maxims applied in the verbal humor.

Document instruments were to answer both problems. The first one is how breaking maxims are applied in verbal humor. The second one is how the acceptability of the Indonesian subtitles of breaking maxims in verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends. In this research, the document instruments were printed

scripts of the conversations and Indonesian subtitles from three episodes in sitcom

Friends season 2. In order to collect the data, the researcher used two sources:

1. Scripts

The complete scripts of Friends were written by various writers. There

(46)

the transcripts that were exactly the same as the dialogue completed with the micro expressions and setting descriptions. The copies of scripts were available

in various fan sites in the Internet. From many sites of Friends’ Fans, Quaglio

(2009) suggests a site, which provides the most complete transcripts and they could be downloaded free. The site is www.livesinabox.com/friends/. The transcripts from episode 1, 3, and 7 in Season 2, which were taken from this site, are attached on the appendices.

2. Original VCDs of sitcom Friends Season 2 with Indonesian subtitles Indonesian subtitles of Friends were not available on DVDs, so the

researcher tried to find it from five different rented CDs before she found the original VCDs with Indonesian subtitles. The three episodes of Friends season 2

were watched to get the data of the breaking maxim in verbal humor and the Indonesian subtitles. Later, the researcher examined the acceptability of humor translations on the Indonesian subtitles.

D. Data Analysis Technique

In qualitative research, there are general steps that are used to analyze the data. According to Creswell (2007), the first steps of the data analysis are “preparing” and “organizing” the data for analysis. In this step, the researcher watched the sitcom and printed the scripts to choose the dialogues that considered as verbal humor. The researcher used laugh tracks as the indicators of the verbal humor.

(47)

The second, shorting the data into some categories through a process of “coding” (Creswell, 2007 p.148). In this research, the researcher used the theory of Grice’s Cooperative Principles. There was an assumption that violating maxims created verbal humor (Attardo, 1994). Below are the four of maxims by Grice (1989:26-27):

1. The maxim of Quality: try to make your contribution one that is true,

specifically: 1) do not say what you believe to be false 2) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

2. The maxim of Quantity: 1) make your contribution as informative as is

required for the current purpose of the exchange 2) do not make your contribution more informative than is required

3. The maxim of Relevance: make your contribution relevant

4. The maxim of Manner: 1) avoid obscurity, 2) avoid ambiguity, 3) be brief, 4)

be orderly.

The last step is representing the data in a form of figures or tables before being analyzed. After the data were prepared, organized, and shortened, the researcher put them into two tables. The first table would be analyzed to answer the first research problem: how are breaking maxims applied in verbal humor on sitcom Friends? The second table was used to answer the second problem

formulation: how is the acceptability of the Indonesian subtitles of breaking maxims in verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends? The two tables could be seen in

(48)

E. Research Procedures

In this section, the researcher explained the steps in conducting the research. The steps were as follows:

1. The Steps of Classifying the Conversations

The tscripts were printed without being edited. The conversations on the transcripts were chosen, so there were only those conversations which consist of verbal humos that would be analyzed further. Then while reading the scripts, the researcher watched the sitcom Friends. Here, the researcher also listened to the

laugh tracks as the indicators of verbal humor, which appeared in the dialogues.

When the characters expressed humor verbally and the laugh track was played, the researcher classified the dialogue as the verbal humor. Here is the example of classifying the verbal humor:

Figure 3.1 an Excerpt from the Transcript to Identify the Verbal Humor

The dialogues that were printed in bolds were spoken and then the laugh tracks were played. When the laugh tracks are played, it means that the sentences are supposed to be funny for the audiences. The writers of the scripts created the humor to make the audience laugh. From that excerpt, the researcher got two

Excerpt from Season 2 Episode 1 the One with Ross’ New Girlfriend:

[Scene: airport, Rachel picks up Ross, but unfortunately she knows that now Ross is having a new girlfriend when he backs from China. Rachel thinks that the girl is Chinese]

Rachel : These are, these aren't for you. (to Julie) These are for you. (Loudly, thinking she can't speak English.) Welcome to our country.

(49)

statements that contain verbal humor. However, the data were not ready to analyze before they were put into categories. The following step was the second step conducted by the researcher.

2. The Step of Categorizing the Verbal Humor which Broke the Maxims The data were categorized based on the theory of non-observance maxims. Here is the same excerpt to show how the researcher shortened and categorized which verbal humor that broke the maxims:

Figure 3.2 an Excerpt from the Transcript to Identify the Breaking Maxims

In Figure 3.1 there were two sentences printed in bolds, but in Figure 3.2 there was only one sentence printed in bold. It was because there was only Rachel who spoke verbal humor that broke the maxims. The words Welcome to our

country. In this sentence, Rachel broke the maxim of Quality. She said something

that lack of adequate evidence. She did not know that Julie was from New York. She thought that Julie was from China.

Excerpt from Season 2 Episode 1 the One with Ross’ New Girlfriend:

[Scene: airport, Rachel picks up Ross, but unfortunately she knows that now Ross is having a new girlfriend when he backs from China. Rachel thinks that the girl is Chinese]

Rachel : These are, these aren't for you. (to Julie) These are for you. (Loudly, thinking she can't speak English.) Welcome to our country.

(50)

3. The Steps of Dividing the Excerpts

After collecting the data, the researcher put the dialogues consisting of verbal humor into tables. The tables were preceded by the text of dialogues, so that the readers could see the context of humor. These texts were called as

excerpts. This table were analyzed to answer the research problem number one

which is how are breaking maxims applied in verbal humor on sitcom Friends? The example below illustrates how the data were interpreted:

Table 3.1 Excerpt and Table of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor

Excerpt 1.2

[Scene: airport, Rachel picks up Ross, but unfortunately she knows that now Ross is having a new girlfriend when he backs from China. Rachel thinks that the girl is Chinese] Rachel : These are, these aren't for you. (to Julie) These are for you. (Loudly, thinking

she can't speak English.) Welcome to our country.

Julie : (Loudly, proving she can speak English.) Thank you. I'm from New York.

Contribution on VH BM Category of BM

Rachel: These are, these aren't for you. These

are for you. Welcome to our country.

Note:

Excerpt 1.2 = Episode 1 excerpt no.2

VH = Verbal Humor

BM = Breaking Maxim (Quality, Quantity, Relevance, and Manner)

Category of BM = Violating, Flouting, Opting Out, Infringing, and Suspending

4. The Step of Retyping the Indonesian Subtitles

This step was used to answer the problem number two, which is how is the acceptability of the Indonesian subtitles of breaking maxims in verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends?

Because there was no transcription of Indonesian subtitles available, the researcher had to retype the subtitles by herself. Before retyping, the researcher

(1)

Rachel: Oh, no, Michael, it's not you. I'm sorry, it's just, it's this thing. It's probably not as bad as it sounds but this friend of mine is, is getting a cat with his girlfriend.

Michael: Oh, that does sound. . .Ahh.

Rachel: I mean he just started going out with her. Michael: Is this guy, uhh, an old boyfriend?

Rachel: Ah, hah-hah-hah-ho, yeah, he wishes. Oh, I'm sorry, look at me. Okay, Michael, let's talk about you.

Michael: All right.

Rachel: Okay, Okay. So, you ever get a pet with a girlfriend? [Scene: Central Perk, Phoebe and Joey are sitting on the couch.] Phoebe: So, I figured it out.

Joey: What?

Phoebe: Why Scott doesn't want to sleep with me. It's 'cause I'm not sexy enough.

Joey: Phoebe, that's crazy. When I first met you, you know what I said to Chandler? I said, "Excellent butt, great rack."

Phoebe: Really? That's so sweet. I mean, I'm officially offended but, sweet.

Joey: Pheebs look, if you want to know what the deal is, you're just gonna have to ask him. Phoebe: You're right, you're right. Ah, you are so yumm. (they hug)

(Outside the window, Monica and Chandler jog up. Monica playfully pushes him. They start pushing and slapping harder and harder until Monica pushes him down. Chandler stands up, with a serious expression, and chases her away.)

[Scene: A Restaurant, Rachel pours the last of the champagne bottle in her glass.]

Rachel: (obviously drunk) I mean, it's a cat, y'know, it's a cat. Why can't they get one of those bugs, y'know, one of those fruit flies, those things that live for like a day or something? (belligerently) What're they called, what're they called, what're they called?

Michael: Fruit flies? Rachel: Yes! Thank you. (The waiter comes to the table.)

Waiter: So, would you like any dessert? Michael: No! No dessert, just a check, please. Rachel: Oh, you're not having fun, are you?

Michael: No, no, I am, but only because for the last hour and a half I've been playing the movie Diner in my head.

Rachel: Oh, Look at me, Look at me. Oh, I'm on a date with a really great guy, all I can think about is Ross and his cat and his... Julie. I just want to get over him. gosh, why can't I do that? Michael: Oy. Look, I've been through a divorce, trust me you're gonna be fine. You just can't see it now because you haven't had any closure.

Rachel: Yeah! Closure. That's what it is, that's what I need. God, you're brilliant! Why didn't I think of that? How do I get that?

Michael: Well, you know, there's no one way really, it's just, you know, whatever it takes so that you can finally say to him, "I'm over you."

Rachel: Closure, that's what it is. Closure. (she Looks around the restaurant, spotting a guy with a cellular phone) Hello, excuse me. Excuse me, hel—woo (she almost falls out of her chair) Guy: Hang on.

Rachel: Hello, excuse me. Guy: What.

Rachel: Hi, I'm sorry, I need to borrow your phone for just one minute. Guy: I'm talkin'!

Rachel: I can see that. I—just one phone call, I'll be very quick, I'll even pay for it myself. (man is still reluctant) Okay, you're bein' a little weird about your phone.

Guy: All right, fine. (on the phone) I'll call you back. (hands the phone to her) Rachel: Thank you. Okay. (dials) (to Michael) Machine. Just waiting for the beep. Michael: Good.

(2)

120

Rachel: (on phone) Ross, hi, it's Rachel. I'm just calling to say that um, everything's fine and I'm really happy for you and your cat who, by the way, I think you should name Michael. And, you know, ya see there I'm thinking of names so obviously, I am over you. I am over you and that, my friend, is what they call closure. (hangs up and tosses phone in the ice bucket)

[Scene: Chandler and Joey's, Chandler is answering the door in his robe.]

Chandler: No, no, no, no, no, no (opens door to Monica) No. Monica, it's Sunday morning. I'm not running on a Sunday.

Monica: Why not?

Chandler: Because it's Sunday. It's God's day. Monica: Okay, if you say stop, then we stop. Chandler: Okay, stop.

Monica: No, c'mon, we can't stop, c'mon, we've got three more pounds to go. I am the energy train and you are on board. Woo-woo, woo-woo, woo-woo (Chandler walks out of the apartment, leaving Monica) Woo.

[Scene: Rachel and Monica's, Rachel is taking aspirin.] Ross: (entering) Hey Rach.

Rachel: Ahhhh.

Ross: Oh. And how was the date?

Rachel: Umm, I think there was a restaurant... I know there was wine. . .

(Rachel looks at Ross as though she remembers something, but can't place what it is.) Ross: Wow, well uh, uh, actually, Julie's downstairs getting a cab, I just need the cat toy, did Monica say. . . What? Why, why are you looking at me like that?

Rachel: I don't know, I, I feel like I had a dream about you last night but I, I don't remember. Ross: Okay. Oh, oh, oh. (runs over and picks up the cat toy)

Rachel: Did we speak on the phone last night? Did you call me? Ross: No, I stayed at Julie's last night.

Rachel: Huh.

Ross: Oh, actually I haven't even been home yet. Do you mind if I check my messages? Rachel: Oh yeah, go ahead. (Rachel walks in her room. Ross picks up the phone and dials his machine to check his messages.)

Ross: Rach, I got a message from you. (pauses) Who's Michael?

(Rachel comes out of her room, suddenly she remembers leaving the message.)

Rachel: Oh my God. Oh my God Ross, no, hang up the phone, give me the phone Ross, give me the phone, give me the phone, give me the. . . (jumps the couch and lands on Ross's back, finally getting the phone from him. Ross has a confused expression on his face.)

Ross: You're over me?

Rachel: Ohhhhhhhh God. (climbs off his back) Ross: Wha... you're uh, you're, you're over me? Rachel: Ohh, ohh.

Ross: When, when were you... under me? Rach. Rachel do you, I mean, were you, uh. . . What? Rachel: Ohh, Okay, Okay, Okay, well, basically, lately, I've uh, I've uh, sort of had feelings for you.

Ross: You've had feelings for me?

Rachel: Yeah, what, so? You had feelings for me first.

Ross: Woah. Huh. You know about my, I mean, you know I had... you know? Rachel: Chandler told me.

Ross: Chandler. When did he... when did he... when did he? Rachel: When you were in China.

Ross: China.

Rachel: Meeting Julie.

Ross: Julie. Julie. That. Oh God. Julie, right. Okay, I need to lie down. No, ya know, I'm gonna stand. I'm gonna stand, I'm gonna walk, I'm walkin' and I am standing. Okay so you uh, and now wha... and now, now, now you're over me?

(3)

Rachel: Are you over me? (A moment of silence.)

Ross: (doorbell buzzes) That's, that's Julie. Ju... Julie, Julie. (talks on intercom) Hi Julie. Julie: (over intercom) Hi honey, I've got a cab waiting.

Ross: (perky) I'll be right down. Rachel: Wait, so, you're going?

Ross: Well, Okay, I uh, I have to. I can't deal with this right now. I mean, I've uh, y'know, I've got a cab, I've got a girlfriend, I'm... I'm gonna go get a cat.

Rachel: Okay, Okay. Ross: Cat. (leaves)

[Scene: Chandler and Joey's, Joey is watching a rabbi play an electric guitar on TV.] Phoebe: (entering) Hey Joey.

Joey: Hey Pheebs.

Phoebe: How come you're watching a rabbi play electric guitar? Joey: I can't find the remote. (Phoebe turns off the TV) Thank you. Phoebe: So, Scott asked me to come over for lunch today and I did. Joey: And?

Phoebe: And we did.

Joey: All right Pheebs, way to go. Phoebe: Yay me.

Joey: So, so how did it happen?

Phoebe: Well, I finally took your advice and asked him what was going on. Joey: And what did he say?

Phoebe: He said that, um, he understands how sex can be like, a very emotional thing for a woman and he was just afraid that I was gonna get all, y'know, like, 'ohh, is he gonna call me the next day' and, y'know, 'where is this going' and, ya know, blah-la-la-la-la. So he said he wanted to hold off until he was prepared to be really serious.

Joey: Wow.

Phoebe: Yeah, so I said, "Okay, relax please," y'know, I mean, sex can be just about two people right there in the moment, y'know, it's, if he wants to see me again he can call and if not, that's fine too. So after a looooot of talking. . . I convinced him.

Joey: Let me get this straight. He got you to beg to sleep with him, he got you to say he never has to call you again, and he got you thinking this was a great idea.

Phoebe: Um-hum. Joey: This man is my God.

[Scene: Central Perk, Rachel is closing up and Ross comes in.] Rachel: Hi.

Ross: I didn't get a cat.

Rachel: Oh, that's um, interesting.

Ross: No, no it's not interesting. Okay, it's very, very not interesting. In fact it's actually 100 percent completely opposite of interesting.

Rachel: All right, I got it Ross.

Ross: You had no right to tell me you ever had feelings for me. Rachel: (hurt) What?

Ross: I was doing great with Julie before I found out about you.

Rachel: Hey, I was doin' great before I found out about you. You think it's easy for me to see you with Julie?

Ross: Then you should have said something before I met her.

Rachel: I didn't know then. And how come you never said anything to me. Ross: There was never a good time.

Rachel: Right, you, you only had a year. We only hung out every night.

Ross: Not, not, not every night. You know, and... and it's not like I didn't try, Rachel, but things got in the way, y'know? Like, like Italian guys or ex-fiancés or, or, or Italian guys.

(4)

122

Rachel: Hey, there was one Italian guy, Okay, and do you even have a point?

Ross: The point is I... I don't need this right now, Okay. It, it's too late, I'm with somebody else, I'm happy. This ship has sailed.

Rachel: Yeah, what're you saying, you just sort of put away feelings or whatever the hell it was you felt for me?

Ross: Hey, I've been doin' it since the ninth grade, I've gotten pretty damn good at it. Rachel: All right, fine, you go ahead and you do that, all right Ross.

Ross: Fine.

Rachel: 'Cause I don't need your stupid ship. Ross: Good.

Rachel: Good. (Ross leaves)

(Rachel gets up and opens the door, yelling after him.) Rachel: And ya know what, now I've got closure.

(Rachel slams the door and locks it. She sits down, visibly upset. She puts her head in her hands and begins to cry. Ross comes back and is standing outside the window. When Rachel regroups and gets back up to finish closing, she sees him. She smiles. She goes to open the door and can't get the lock undone.)

Ross: Try the bottom one. (She opens the door and they kiss.)

[Scene: Chandler and Joey's, Chandler answers the door to find Monica.] Chandler: Monica, it's 6:30 in the morning. We're not working out, it's over.

Monica: No way, with one pound to go, c'mon. We're workin', we're movin', we're in the zone we're groovin'.

Chandler: Okay, I don't, I don't mind the last pound. Okay, in fact I kind of like the last pound. Okay, so don't make me do anything that I'll regret.

Monica: Ooh, what'cha gonna do, fat boy, huh? What?

Chandler: Nothing, except tell you, uh, I think it's wonderful how much energy you have. Monica: Well, thanks.

Chandler: I mean, especially considering how tough it's been for you to find work. Monica: Well, you know.

Chandler: You know, I mean, you can't tell your parents you were fired because they'd be disappointed.

Monica: (sad) Uh-huh.

Chandler: And it's not as if you have a boyfriend's shoulder to cry on. Monica: Well no, but um.

Chandler: I mean, if it were me, I think I'd have difficulty just getting out of bed at all. Monica: Y'know, I try to stay positive. . .

Chandler: So, you feel like goin' for a run? Monica: All right.

Chandler: Because, you know, you don't have to. If you want, you could just take a nap right here.

Monica: Okay. Just for a little while.

Chandler: Okay. (Puts an afghan over her and dances into his room) END

(5)

vi

ABSTRACT

Rosasenja, Agnes Sherly. 2012.

An Analysis on Breaking Maxims in Verbal

Humor of Sitcom Friends and the Acceptability of its Indonesian Subtitles

.

Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma

University.

The functions of humor in daily life are varied. In conversation, people use

humor to build relationships with others. While in entertainment industries, the

function of humor is to attract audiences. One of successful entertainment

products which use humor is TV-sitcom. This study focused on how breaking

maxims were applied in the creation of verbal humor in sitcom

Friends

and on the

acceptability of Indonesian subtitles in verbal humor.

This study discussed two main problems. The first one was how breaking

maxims were applied in verbal humor on TV-sitcom

Friends.

The second one was

how the acceptability of the translation of the verbal humor on TV-sitcom

Friends

in which the maxims were broken

?

The researcher as human instrument

functioned as the primary agent to collect the data. Document instruments in this

study were transcripts and Indonesian subtitles of three episodes of sitcom

Friends

season 2.

This research was a descriptive-qualitative research. To answer the first

problem, the transcripts were classified according to the existence of breaking

maxims on the verbal humor. After that, the data were analyzed according to the

types of breaking maxims. Breaking maxims in the verbal humor were

flouting,

violating, opting out, infringing

, and

suspending

. To answer the second problem,

the Indonesian subtitles were retyped and were chosen which ones were the

translations of verbal humor in which the maxims were broken. The chosen

subtitles were examined whether or not they were acceptable translations in three

characteristics of an ideal translation. According to the theory of testing

translation (Larson, 1984), there are three characteristics of an ideal translation:

Accurate (A), Natural (N), and Clear (C).

Based on the result of the study, some conclusions were drawn. From the

discussion on the first problem, the researcher inferred that the five breaking

maxims were applied in the creation of verbal humor in sitcom

Friends

. In this

sitcom, violating was mostly used for creating verbal humor. Surprisingly,

flouting, which according to the theory has a function to create humor, was not

applied as many as violating. The other three breaking maxims were rarely

applied. Based on the second problem, the researcher found that more than 80%

of the translations were acceptable and most of them were considered as ideal

translations. The weaknesses of the translations were on the exclamations and

idioms. This finding could be an interesting topic to further studies.

Keywords:

Pragmatics, Grice’s Maxims, Verbal Humor, Translation, TV-Sitcom,

Friends.

(6)