ENGLISH LE TTERS STUDY PRO GRAMME DE PART MENT O F ENGLISH LE TTERS FACULT Y O F LET TERS SANATA DH ARMA UNIVE RSIT Y 2012
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
THE VIOLATIONS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN CREATING
THE HUMOROUS SITUATION IN THE THIN BLUE LINE
SEASON 1 EPISODE 3: HONEY TRAP
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
Pricillia Winata
Student Number: 084214043
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
2012
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
THE VIOLATIONS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN CREATING
THE HUMOROUS SITUATION IN THE THIN BLUE LINE
SEASON 1 EPISODE 3: HONEY TRAP
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
Pricillia Winata
Student Number: 084214043
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
2012
i
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
iii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertandatangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:
Nama
: Pricillia Winata
Nomor Mahasiswa
: 084214043
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan
Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
THE VIOLATIONS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN CREATING
THE HUMOROUS SITUATION IN THE THIN BLUE LINE
SEASON 1 EPISODE 3: HONEY TRAP
Beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan
kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan
dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data,
mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media
lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun
member royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai
penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini yang dapat saya buat dengan sebenarnya.
Dibuat di Yogyakarta
Pada tanggal12 Desember 2012
Yang menyatakan
Pricillia Winata
iv
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Intelligence is like underwear. It is important that you have it, but
not necessary that you show it.
(Chinese Proverb)
v
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
For Jesus Christ
and
my brothers,
Vincent and Arnold
vi
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I will never finish this thesis without His Grace, Jesus Christ, and the help
of people around me. I am very grateful to Jesus Christ for His blessings and the
strength given to me so I can finish this thesis finally. I sincerely thank my
wonderful advisor, Adventina Putranti, S. S., M. Hum., for her patience in giving
me advice and suggestions to write this thesis. I also thank my academic advisor,
Miss Tata, who had encouraged and supported me since I was in the first semester
until now.
I also thank my co-advisor, Harris H. Setiajid, S. S., M. Hum., in giving
corrections, suggestions, and encouragements to complete my thesis. Without his
help, this thesis will never be finished well. My sincere gratitude also goes to my
beloved parents and brothers for their prayers, spirit and financial support so I can
finish my study. All of your supports give me strength to not give up and to finish
this thesis from the beginning until the end.
The last, but not the least, I have to thank all my true friends for giving me
support and strength during the process of this thesis. I would like to thank Merry,
Silvi, Surya, and Sulung who taught me how to make the table in Microsoft Word.
I also thank Luke, Grety, Astu, Luke, Michelle, Dewi, Wella, Dian, and the others
who share their experiences and support me to keep fighting in writing my thesis.
May God bless and guide us forever and ever. Amen.
vii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE……………………………………………………………...
i
APPROVAL PAGE……………………………………………………….
ii
ACCEPTANCE PAGE……………………………………………………
iii
LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH...……….
iv
MOTTO PAGE……..……………………………………………………..
v
DEDICATION PAGE………………………………………….................
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………...
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………….
viii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………..................
x
ABSTRAK…………………………………………………………………
xi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………
1
Background of the study……………………………………….
Problem Formulation…………………………………………..
Objectives of the Study………………………………………..
Definition of Terms……………………………………………
1
4
5
5
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW……………………………..
8
A. Review of Related Studies……………………………………..
B. Review of Related Theories……………………………………
1. Cooperative Principle and Conversational Analysis……….
a. Cooperative Principle……………………………….......
b. Conversational Analysis…………………………………
2. Humour Theories…………………………………………....
a. Incongruity Theory………………………………………
b. Hostility Theory……………………………………….....
c. Release Theory…………………………………………..
C. Theoretical Framework………………………………………..
8
11
11
11
14
18
20
22
23
26
A.
B.
C.
D.
viii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY……………………………………..
A. Object of the Study…………………………………………....
B. Approach of the Study…………….…………………………..
C. Method of the Study……………………………………………
28
28
29
30
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS…………...………………………………….
A. Violations of maxims causing the humorous situation…..,…...
1. Violations of maxim of quantity…………………………...
2. Violations of maxim of quality…………………..……..….
3. Violations of maxim of relation……………………………
4. Violations of maxim or manner……………………………
32
32
32
35
38
42
B. The humorous situation created from the violations of maxim..
1. By making the incongruent meaning or idea between
the audiences’ expectation and what actually happens
in the conversation….........................................................
2. By showing the feeling of hostility from some persons
or communities to other……………………………..……...
3. By making one person feels liberated talking about
taboo topics…......................................................................
46
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION………………………………………….
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………… ……...
63
APPENDIX 1………………………………………………………………
65
APPENDIX 2……………………………………………………………..
73
ix
46
55
58
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ABSTRACT
PRICILLIA WINATA. THE VIOLATIONS OF CONVERSATIONAL
MAXIMS OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN CREATING THE
HUMOROUS SITUATION IN THE THIN BLUE LINE SEASON 1
EPISODE 3: HONEY TRAP. Yogyakarta. Department of English Letters, Faculty
of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2012.
The object of the study is a comedy TV-series entitled The Thin Blue Line
Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. In this thesis, the writer analyzes violations of
conversational maxims of cooperative principle in creating the humorous situation
in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. The aims of this thesis
are to find out the kinds of violations of conversational maxims of cooperative
principle and how these violations create the humorous situation in this TV-series.
The writer chooses this TV-series as the object of the study because there is a
relation between the violations of maxim in cooperative principle and the
humorous situation.
In doing the analysis, there are two questions in problem formulation
based on the topic. First, what kinds of violations of conversational maxims of
Cooperative Principle which cause humour in The Thin Blue Line Season 1
Episode 3: Honey Trap? Second, how the violations of conversational maxims
create the humorous situation in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey
Trap?
The writer uses the empirical study in this thesis. In doing her analysis, the
writer uses the pragmatic approach. Based on the analysis, the writer concludes
that there are 34 violations of conversational maxims which cause the humorous
situation. These violations consist of ten violations of maxims of manner, ten
violations of maxims of relation, eight violations of maxims of quality, and six
violations of maxims of quantity. Besides, the writer also concludes three ways to
create the humorous situation through the violations of conversational maxims.
The ways are by making the incongruent meaning or idea between the audiences’
expectation and what actually happens in the conversation, by showing the feeling
of hostility from some persons or communities to others, and by making one
person feels liberated talking about taboo topics.
x
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ABSTRAK
PRICILLIA WINATA. THE VIOLATIONS OF CONVERSATIONAL
MAXIMS OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN CREATING THE
HUMOROUS SITUATION IN THE THIN BLUE LINE SEASON 1
EPISODE 3: HONEY TRAP. Yogyakarta. Department of English Letters, Faculty
of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2012.
Objek dalam penelitian ini adalah sebuah TV-series komedi berjudul The
Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. Dalam penulisan skripsi ini,
peneliti secara khusus menganalisis pelanggaran-pelanggaran maksim dari prinsip
kerjasama dalam percakapan dalam menciptakan situasi humor pada film The
Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. Tujuan dari penulisan skripsi ini
adalah untuk menemukan berbagai jenis pelanggaran maksim percakapan dari
prinsip kerjasama (violations of conversational maxims of cooperative principle)
dalam percakapan dan bagaimana pelanggaran-pelanggaran tersebut dapat
menciptakan situasi humor di TV-series. Penulis memilih TV-series ini sebgai
objek penelitian karena adanya hubungan antara pelanggaran-pelanggaran maksim
dari prinsip kerjasama dalam percakapan dan situasi humor.
Di dalam melakukan penelitian, terdapat dua rumusan masalah
berdasarkan topik. Pertama, apa saja jenis-jenis penulis pelanggaran maxim
percakapan dari prinsip kerjasama yang menyebabkan humor dalam The Thin
Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap? Kedua, bagaimana pelanggaranpelanggaran maxim percakapan dari prinsip kerjasama dapat menciptakan situasi
humor di The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap?
Penulis menggunakan penelitian empiris dalam penulisan skripsi ini.
Dalam melakukan penelitian, penulis menerapkan pendekatan pragmatik.
Berdasarkan hasil analisis, penulis menyimpulkan terdapat 34 pelanggaranpelanggaran yang menyebabkan situasi humor. Pelanggaran-pelanggaran tersebut
terdiri dari sepuluh pelanggaran maksim hubungan, sepuluh pelanggaran maksim
cara, delapan pelanggaran maksim kualitas, enam pelanggaran maksim kuantitas.
Selain itu, terdapat tiga cara untuk menciptakan situasi humor melalui
pelanggaran-pelanggaran maksim percakapan, yaitu: dengan membuat arti atau
ide dalam percakapan menjadi membingungkan antara dugaan para penonton dan
kenyataan yang terjadi dalam percakapan, membuat perasaan permusuhan antara
sekelompok orang atau komunitas dengan yang lain, dan membuat seseorang
merasa bebas untuk membicarakan hal-hal yang tabu.
xi
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
The main function of language is to communicate ideas between
humans.Edward Sapir stated that language is a purely human and non-instinctive
method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by meansof a system of
voluntarily produced symbols (Poole, 1999: 4).
From this definition, Sapir explains that language is a speech tool or sign
language. As the sign or tool, language refers to certain objects or concepts or
ideas or emotions which are accepted by humans. This thing shows that there is an
association between words and objects or concepts made by the community who
uses the word or language. The speakers of the language can understand the
communication because they utter the same word and language.
To have a good conversation, speakers have to understand the language
that they useto convey their concept or idea. To understand the language, speakers
need to know the meanings of language used; how the meanings of words used in
phrase and sentence meanings to show their thought. As it is said in An
Introduction to Language: 7th edition:
To understand language we need to know the meaning of words and of the
morphemes that compose them. We also must know how the meanings of
words combine into phrase and sentence meanings (Fromkin and Rodman,
2003: 173).
The study of what the words means by themselves, out of context, as they
are in a dictionary is called Semantics (Cutting, 2002: 1). In Semantics, the
domains of word meanings are based on the ‘dictionary meaning’. It means that
1
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
2
the speakers of language share the same meanings of words based on the
dictionary agreed by all the speakers of language. This dictionary is in speakers’s
mind and helps them to express their thought and understand the other’s utterance
in communication.
In certain conditions, it is difficult to understand the speakers’ meaning
based on the dictionary meaning. Sometimes, the meanings of their utteranceonly
can be understood by knowing the context or situation when they utter. For
example, when someone says “It’s cold in here”, this sentence can be seen as the
statement. However, if this utterance is said in the situation when the speaker is in
the room and it is in the winter now, his utterance can mean a complaint and
(perhaps more indirectly) a request to turn up the heating (Verschueren, 1998: 56).From this example above, it is impossible to understand the second meaning
based on semantics level, since semantics only see how the words literally connect
to things without considering how they are used in certain condition or situation.
The study of language use, or to employ a somewhat more complicated phrasing,
the study of linguistic phenomena from the point of view of their usage properties
and processes is called pragmatics (Verschueren, 1998: 1). Here, pragmaticsis
allowed to analyzethe language through people’s intended meanings, their
assumptions, their goals, and the kinds of action that they are performing when
they speak.
In pragmatics, when speakers utter, they are hoped giving the required
utterance in the conversation for cooperating with each other. According to Grice,
there are some requirements needed in the speakers’ utterance to make the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
3
conversation runs well. These requirements are called maxims of cooperative
principle. There are four maxims: quantity, quality, relation, and manner.
In the application of these maxims, not all people follow the maxims in
their utterance. When some people talk unrelated with the topic which is
discussing in the conversation intentionally or unintentionally, it is called
violating the maxims. It is supported by J. Thomas in Meaning in Interaction (in
Cutting, 2002: 40) that the maxim violation occurs when the speaker delivers
insincere, irrelevant or ambiguous, and the hearer wrongly assumes that they are
cooperating.It can be concluded that violation always breaks the four rules of
maxims of cooperative principle in the conversation. In the example above, when
the listener is not able to understand the speaker’s implied meaning (a request to
close the window), and gives response like “yes, it is”, it shows the listener
violates the maxim (maxim of relation).
Violation often can be seen in every conversation, especially for the reason
of humour. InThe New Encyclopedia Britannica, the form of humour happens
when the perceiving of a situation in two self-consistent but mutually
incompatible frames of reference or associative contexts (Benton (ed.), 1983: 6).
In The Language of Jokes, humour occurs when there are two-faced meanings
applied in the conversation. It causes the ambiguity, misunderstanding,
contradiction, amusement, and laughter. These two-faced meanings can occur
because the speakers do not respect Grice’s cooperative principle well in the
conversation. In other words, the speakers are playing with the rules of
conversation (Grice’s cooperative principle) to create the ambiguity and
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
4
misunderstanding, and finally elicit the laughter from the audiences (Chiaro,
1992: 43-44).
In this thesis, the writer analyses the violations of conversational maxims
through TV-seriesThe Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. The
maxims of cooperative principle will be used to explain the kinds of violations
happen in this film. The Thin Blue line Season 1 is a TV-series made in England
in 1995. This film is about the life of police officers in Glasforth. In this film, the
main actor “Rowan Atkinson” as an arrogance Inspector Fowler, has to face his
weird and clumsy officers in his daily life. This film is divided in 6 series and
each series takes an hour. The writer chooses this TV-series because most of
humouroccurred by violation of Grice’s cooperative principles during the
conversation (Chiaro, 1992: 44). Here, the writer tries to reveal how the
manipulation of Grice’s cooperative principles can create the humorous situation
and finally provoke people’s laughter.
In this TV-series, the characters utilize maxims in their conversation in
oder to make the film funny and the people laugh. This thesis is interesting to be
analysed because it can help the readers to understand deeper humorous situation
occured in this TV-series. Besides, the readers can understand how the violations
of conversational maxims can create the humour in this TV-series.
A. Problem Formulation
1. What kinds of violations of conversational maxims of Cooperative Principle
which cause humourin The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap?
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
5
2. How the violations of conversational maximsof Cooperative Principle create
thehumorous situation in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey
Trap?
B. Objective of the Study
In this thesis, the writer focuses on the readers can understandkinds
ofviolations ofconversational maxims of Cooperative Principleswhich cause
humour and how these violations create the humorous situation inThe Thin Blue
Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. There are two objectives study. The first is
to find out the kinds of violation which cause humour during the conversationin
that TV-series. Here,the conversational maxims of cooperative principle are used
to explain the kinds of violation in the conversation between the speakers.
According to Grice, there are four maxims: the quantity maxim, the quality
maxim, the relation maxim, the manner maxim. They are explained further in the
chapter 2.The second, the writer finds out how the violationsin this comedy TVseriesThe Thin Blue Line Season 1 in creating the humorous situation.
C. Definition terms
In this part, several terms which are used in the study are explained. It is
necessary to define them since they are the key words of the research.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
6
The terms are as follows:
1. Conversation
Conversation is the linguistic interaction between two or more people as coordinated
and
collaborative
social
action
(Verschueren,
1998:
50).
Conversation is used forany form of spoken discourse involving more than one
speaker in formal or informal setting.
2. Cooperative Principles
According to Fromkin and Rodman, the cooperative principlesare 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). From this
definition, it explains that the cooperative principles are the rules for
conversation in which arrange our understanding of how language is used in
particular situations to convey a message. The rules that arrange the
conversation are called maxims. Grice said that maxims are a certain set of
conversational rules which governs the ordinary conversations (Richards and
Schmidt, 1984: 45). These rules arrange how the speakers behave in the
conversation to avoid the violation at a given point in a conversation. There are
four maxims proposed.
3. The humor
In The New Encyclopedia Britannica, humour is the only form of
communication in which a stimulus on a high level of complexity produces a
stereotyped, predictable response on the physiological reflex level (Benton
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
7
(ed.), 1983: 7). This form communication stimulates the ridiculous things and
then responds the laughter reflex for the people.
4. Violation of conversational maxims
According to J. Thomas in Meaning in Interaction (in Cutting, 2002: 40),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.
They intentionally generate a misleading implicature; maxim violation is
unostentatiously, quite deceiving. In the violation, the speaker gives
insufficient, insincere, and ambiguous information to the hearer and this thing
causes the hearer gets the wrong information in the conversation.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
This chapter consists of three parts. The first is review of related studies.
This review contains the previous essay and article which relate with the kinds of
violations of conversational maxims in creating humour. The second is review of
related theories. This review contains the theories that needed to analyse the kinds
of violations of conversational maxims and how their effect in creating the
humorous situation in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. The
third is review of the theoretical framework. This review describes how the
theories are applied in order to analyse this thesis.
A. Review of Related Studies
The review of related theories is taken from two previous study. The first
is from Yenny Susanti entitled “A Semantic Analysis on Punch Lines in English
Jokes”. In her study, Yenny observes the semantic components can explain the
point of laughter in the jokes. She wants to analyze why a joke can be so funny. In
order to understand, she needs to know the meaning of the language used. Then,
she usesSemantics which explain about the meaning of the language. This
component is used as the basic theory to analyze her study.
In this study, she gathers 100 jokes from a lot of different sources, such as
internet, books on jokes, books on anecdotes and Reader’s Digest Magazine.
These sources are analyzed in this thesis to describe the linguistic segments found
in jokes.
8
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
9
In this theory, she has several results based on her problem formulation.
The first is shefinds three components that make the laughter come. They are
lexical ambiguity, structural ambiguity, and the violation of the maxim of
conversations. The second is she explains how these components show the point
of the laughter. Here, it is explained that the lexical ambiguity happens when two
or more sentences contain one or more ambiguous words. Lexical ambiguity is
divided in three parts: homophone, homonyme, and polyseme ambiguity. Lexical
ambiguity also happens because of certain conditions, like the unknown of a
word, the unknown of a name or something, the formation of word based on the
previous rule, and the twist of the formula of a word.
Besides, structural ambiguity happens as a result of two or more structures
underlying the same strings of words. This structural ambiguity happens because
the structure of the sentence shows more than one meaning. The last is the
violation of the maxim of conversation which is the action of violating the rules of
conversational conventions. This violation causes the incongruent meaning in the
conversation which elicits the joke.
The second is from Laura Kalliomäki entitled Ink and Capability: Verbal
Humour in Tv-series Blackadder a Pragmatic and Rhetorical Analysis. In this
study, Kalliomäki analyzed a more general analysis of verbal humour in a TVsitcom through two separate viewpoints: a pragmatic and a rhetorical one. In
pragmatics’ view, Kalliomäki assumes the verbal humour violates Grice’s
cooperative principle (Quality, Quantity, Relation, and Manner). In rhetorical
analysis, Kalliomäki sees if humour in the data has been achieved by using the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
10
rhetorical techniques of humour compiled by Berger. The data is taken from the
TV-series Blackadder, consisted of all 24 episodes.
In doing her analysis, Kalliomäki first analyzes the dialogues in this TVseries through the maxims of violation. The result is all the maxims were violated
in this series to create humour, but the violations of the maxims of Quality and
Manner were the most frequent ones. The maxim of quality is mostly violated in
the dialogues by saying something that was not true, in other words by
exaggerating, by using irony or repartee, by absurdities or simply by lying; based
on the rhetorical techniques. The maxim of manner is violated the most by insults,
repartee, and absurdities. The maxims of quantity and relevance are not violated
frequently and there are a number of difficulties in the detection of the violations
of these maxims. Then, Kalliomäki uses the rhetorical techniques to analyse how
the humour is created through the maxim of violation. The result is mostly
humour created by repartee, absurdity, insults, and mistakes.
However, the study that is done is different from the previous studies by
Yenny Susanti and Laura Kalliomäki. In this thesis, the writer more focuses on
the contribution of conversational maxims of the cooperative principle which
cause the humour in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. This
thesis explains how violating maxims of cooperation (quantity, quality, relation,
and manner) can create humour in the speakers’ utterance in The Thin Blue Line
Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. Besides, the object of study in this thesis is
different from two previous thesis. The object is taken from TV-SitcomThe Thin
Blue LineSeason1 Episode 3: Honey Trap.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
11
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).
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
12
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 his/her
assumption that less was communicated than was said. His/her utterance
actually means a request for information. 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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
13
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 momy 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
14
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 he/she 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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
15
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 his/her 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 turntaking, 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
16
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 his/her 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
17
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-startoverlap-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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
18
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 really(Yule, 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
19
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
20
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 imagined(Smuts, 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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
21
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
22
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
incongruity(Smuts, 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
23
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 living” (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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
24
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
25
physic or nervous energy that contains the release or pleasure emotion is
discharged through movements of laughter.
According to Freud, there are two forms of joking: “innocent” and
“tendentious” jokes (Schwarz, 2010:
THE VIOLATIONS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN CREATING
THE HUMOROUS SITUATION IN THE THIN BLUE LINE
SEASON 1 EPISODE 3: HONEY TRAP
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
Pricillia Winata
Student Number: 084214043
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
2012
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
THE VIOLATIONS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN CREATING
THE HUMOROUS SITUATION IN THE THIN BLUE LINE
SEASON 1 EPISODE 3: HONEY TRAP
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of Requirements
For the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
Pricillia Winata
Student Number: 084214043
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
2012
i
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
iii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertandatangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:
Nama
: Pricillia Winata
Nomor Mahasiswa
: 084214043
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan
Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
THE VIOLATIONS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN CREATING
THE HUMOROUS SITUATION IN THE THIN BLUE LINE
SEASON 1 EPISODE 3: HONEY TRAP
Beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan
kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan
dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data,
mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media
lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun
member royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai
penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini yang dapat saya buat dengan sebenarnya.
Dibuat di Yogyakarta
Pada tanggal12 Desember 2012
Yang menyatakan
Pricillia Winata
iv
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
Intelligence is like underwear. It is important that you have it, but
not necessary that you show it.
(Chinese Proverb)
v
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
For Jesus Christ
and
my brothers,
Vincent and Arnold
vi
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I will never finish this thesis without His Grace, Jesus Christ, and the help
of people around me. I am very grateful to Jesus Christ for His blessings and the
strength given to me so I can finish this thesis finally. I sincerely thank my
wonderful advisor, Adventina Putranti, S. S., M. Hum., for her patience in giving
me advice and suggestions to write this thesis. I also thank my academic advisor,
Miss Tata, who had encouraged and supported me since I was in the first semester
until now.
I also thank my co-advisor, Harris H. Setiajid, S. S., M. Hum., in giving
corrections, suggestions, and encouragements to complete my thesis. Without his
help, this thesis will never be finished well. My sincere gratitude also goes to my
beloved parents and brothers for their prayers, spirit and financial support so I can
finish my study. All of your supports give me strength to not give up and to finish
this thesis from the beginning until the end.
The last, but not the least, I have to thank all my true friends for giving me
support and strength during the process of this thesis. I would like to thank Merry,
Silvi, Surya, and Sulung who taught me how to make the table in Microsoft Word.
I also thank Luke, Grety, Astu, Luke, Michelle, Dewi, Wella, Dian, and the others
who share their experiences and support me to keep fighting in writing my thesis.
May God bless and guide us forever and ever. Amen.
vii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE……………………………………………………………...
i
APPROVAL PAGE……………………………………………………….
ii
ACCEPTANCE PAGE……………………………………………………
iii
LEMBAR PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH...……….
iv
MOTTO PAGE……..……………………………………………………..
v
DEDICATION PAGE………………………………………….................
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………………………...
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………….
viii
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………..................
x
ABSTRAK…………………………………………………………………
xi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………
1
Background of the study……………………………………….
Problem Formulation…………………………………………..
Objectives of the Study………………………………………..
Definition of Terms……………………………………………
1
4
5
5
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW……………………………..
8
A. Review of Related Studies……………………………………..
B. Review of Related Theories……………………………………
1. Cooperative Principle and Conversational Analysis……….
a. Cooperative Principle……………………………….......
b. Conversational Analysis…………………………………
2. Humour Theories…………………………………………....
a. Incongruity Theory………………………………………
b. Hostility Theory……………………………………….....
c. Release Theory…………………………………………..
C. Theoretical Framework………………………………………..
8
11
11
11
14
18
20
22
23
26
A.
B.
C.
D.
viii
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY……………………………………..
A. Object of the Study…………………………………………....
B. Approach of the Study…………….…………………………..
C. Method of the Study……………………………………………
28
28
29
30
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS…………...………………………………….
A. Violations of maxims causing the humorous situation…..,…...
1. Violations of maxim of quantity…………………………...
2. Violations of maxim of quality…………………..……..….
3. Violations of maxim of relation……………………………
4. Violations of maxim or manner……………………………
32
32
32
35
38
42
B. The humorous situation created from the violations of maxim..
1. By making the incongruent meaning or idea between
the audiences’ expectation and what actually happens
in the conversation….........................................................
2. By showing the feeling of hostility from some persons
or communities to other……………………………..……...
3. By making one person feels liberated talking about
taboo topics…......................................................................
46
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION………………………………………….
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………… ……...
63
APPENDIX 1………………………………………………………………
65
APPENDIX 2……………………………………………………………..
73
ix
46
55
58
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ABSTRACT
PRICILLIA WINATA. THE VIOLATIONS OF CONVERSATIONAL
MAXIMS OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN CREATING THE
HUMOROUS SITUATION IN THE THIN BLUE LINE SEASON 1
EPISODE 3: HONEY TRAP. Yogyakarta. Department of English Letters, Faculty
of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2012.
The object of the study is a comedy TV-series entitled The Thin Blue Line
Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. In this thesis, the writer analyzes violations of
conversational maxims of cooperative principle in creating the humorous situation
in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. The aims of this thesis
are to find out the kinds of violations of conversational maxims of cooperative
principle and how these violations create the humorous situation in this TV-series.
The writer chooses this TV-series as the object of the study because there is a
relation between the violations of maxim in cooperative principle and the
humorous situation.
In doing the analysis, there are two questions in problem formulation
based on the topic. First, what kinds of violations of conversational maxims of
Cooperative Principle which cause humour in The Thin Blue Line Season 1
Episode 3: Honey Trap? Second, how the violations of conversational maxims
create the humorous situation in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey
Trap?
The writer uses the empirical study in this thesis. In doing her analysis, the
writer uses the pragmatic approach. Based on the analysis, the writer concludes
that there are 34 violations of conversational maxims which cause the humorous
situation. These violations consist of ten violations of maxims of manner, ten
violations of maxims of relation, eight violations of maxims of quality, and six
violations of maxims of quantity. Besides, the writer also concludes three ways to
create the humorous situation through the violations of conversational maxims.
The ways are by making the incongruent meaning or idea between the audiences’
expectation and what actually happens in the conversation, by showing the feeling
of hostility from some persons or communities to others, and by making one
person feels liberated talking about taboo topics.
x
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ABSTRAK
PRICILLIA WINATA. THE VIOLATIONS OF CONVERSATIONAL
MAXIMS OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE IN CREATING THE
HUMOROUS SITUATION IN THE THIN BLUE LINE SEASON 1
EPISODE 3: HONEY TRAP. Yogyakarta. Department of English Letters, Faculty
of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2012.
Objek dalam penelitian ini adalah sebuah TV-series komedi berjudul The
Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. Dalam penulisan skripsi ini,
peneliti secara khusus menganalisis pelanggaran-pelanggaran maksim dari prinsip
kerjasama dalam percakapan dalam menciptakan situasi humor pada film The
Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. Tujuan dari penulisan skripsi ini
adalah untuk menemukan berbagai jenis pelanggaran maksim percakapan dari
prinsip kerjasama (violations of conversational maxims of cooperative principle)
dalam percakapan dan bagaimana pelanggaran-pelanggaran tersebut dapat
menciptakan situasi humor di TV-series. Penulis memilih TV-series ini sebgai
objek penelitian karena adanya hubungan antara pelanggaran-pelanggaran maksim
dari prinsip kerjasama dalam percakapan dan situasi humor.
Di dalam melakukan penelitian, terdapat dua rumusan masalah
berdasarkan topik. Pertama, apa saja jenis-jenis penulis pelanggaran maxim
percakapan dari prinsip kerjasama yang menyebabkan humor dalam The Thin
Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap? Kedua, bagaimana pelanggaranpelanggaran maxim percakapan dari prinsip kerjasama dapat menciptakan situasi
humor di The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap?
Penulis menggunakan penelitian empiris dalam penulisan skripsi ini.
Dalam melakukan penelitian, penulis menerapkan pendekatan pragmatik.
Berdasarkan hasil analisis, penulis menyimpulkan terdapat 34 pelanggaranpelanggaran yang menyebabkan situasi humor. Pelanggaran-pelanggaran tersebut
terdiri dari sepuluh pelanggaran maksim hubungan, sepuluh pelanggaran maksim
cara, delapan pelanggaran maksim kualitas, enam pelanggaran maksim kuantitas.
Selain itu, terdapat tiga cara untuk menciptakan situasi humor melalui
pelanggaran-pelanggaran maksim percakapan, yaitu: dengan membuat arti atau
ide dalam percakapan menjadi membingungkan antara dugaan para penonton dan
kenyataan yang terjadi dalam percakapan, membuat perasaan permusuhan antara
sekelompok orang atau komunitas dengan yang lain, dan membuat seseorang
merasa bebas untuk membicarakan hal-hal yang tabu.
xi
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
The main function of language is to communicate ideas between
humans.Edward Sapir stated that language is a purely human and non-instinctive
method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by meansof a system of
voluntarily produced symbols (Poole, 1999: 4).
From this definition, Sapir explains that language is a speech tool or sign
language. As the sign or tool, language refers to certain objects or concepts or
ideas or emotions which are accepted by humans. This thing shows that there is an
association between words and objects or concepts made by the community who
uses the word or language. The speakers of the language can understand the
communication because they utter the same word and language.
To have a good conversation, speakers have to understand the language
that they useto convey their concept or idea. To understand the language, speakers
need to know the meanings of language used; how the meanings of words used in
phrase and sentence meanings to show their thought. As it is said in An
Introduction to Language: 7th edition:
To understand language we need to know the meaning of words and of the
morphemes that compose them. We also must know how the meanings of
words combine into phrase and sentence meanings (Fromkin and Rodman,
2003: 173).
The study of what the words means by themselves, out of context, as they
are in a dictionary is called Semantics (Cutting, 2002: 1). In Semantics, the
domains of word meanings are based on the ‘dictionary meaning’. It means that
1
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
2
the speakers of language share the same meanings of words based on the
dictionary agreed by all the speakers of language. This dictionary is in speakers’s
mind and helps them to express their thought and understand the other’s utterance
in communication.
In certain conditions, it is difficult to understand the speakers’ meaning
based on the dictionary meaning. Sometimes, the meanings of their utteranceonly
can be understood by knowing the context or situation when they utter. For
example, when someone says “It’s cold in here”, this sentence can be seen as the
statement. However, if this utterance is said in the situation when the speaker is in
the room and it is in the winter now, his utterance can mean a complaint and
(perhaps more indirectly) a request to turn up the heating (Verschueren, 1998: 56).From this example above, it is impossible to understand the second meaning
based on semantics level, since semantics only see how the words literally connect
to things without considering how they are used in certain condition or situation.
The study of language use, or to employ a somewhat more complicated phrasing,
the study of linguistic phenomena from the point of view of their usage properties
and processes is called pragmatics (Verschueren, 1998: 1). Here, pragmaticsis
allowed to analyzethe language through people’s intended meanings, their
assumptions, their goals, and the kinds of action that they are performing when
they speak.
In pragmatics, when speakers utter, they are hoped giving the required
utterance in the conversation for cooperating with each other. According to Grice,
there are some requirements needed in the speakers’ utterance to make the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
3
conversation runs well. These requirements are called maxims of cooperative
principle. There are four maxims: quantity, quality, relation, and manner.
In the application of these maxims, not all people follow the maxims in
their utterance. When some people talk unrelated with the topic which is
discussing in the conversation intentionally or unintentionally, it is called
violating the maxims. It is supported by J. Thomas in Meaning in Interaction (in
Cutting, 2002: 40) that the maxim violation occurs when the speaker delivers
insincere, irrelevant or ambiguous, and the hearer wrongly assumes that they are
cooperating.It can be concluded that violation always breaks the four rules of
maxims of cooperative principle in the conversation. In the example above, when
the listener is not able to understand the speaker’s implied meaning (a request to
close the window), and gives response like “yes, it is”, it shows the listener
violates the maxim (maxim of relation).
Violation often can be seen in every conversation, especially for the reason
of humour. InThe New Encyclopedia Britannica, the form of humour happens
when the perceiving of a situation in two self-consistent but mutually
incompatible frames of reference or associative contexts (Benton (ed.), 1983: 6).
In The Language of Jokes, humour occurs when there are two-faced meanings
applied in the conversation. It causes the ambiguity, misunderstanding,
contradiction, amusement, and laughter. These two-faced meanings can occur
because the speakers do not respect Grice’s cooperative principle well in the
conversation. In other words, the speakers are playing with the rules of
conversation (Grice’s cooperative principle) to create the ambiguity and
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
4
misunderstanding, and finally elicit the laughter from the audiences (Chiaro,
1992: 43-44).
In this thesis, the writer analyses the violations of conversational maxims
through TV-seriesThe Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. The
maxims of cooperative principle will be used to explain the kinds of violations
happen in this film. The Thin Blue line Season 1 is a TV-series made in England
in 1995. This film is about the life of police officers in Glasforth. In this film, the
main actor “Rowan Atkinson” as an arrogance Inspector Fowler, has to face his
weird and clumsy officers in his daily life. This film is divided in 6 series and
each series takes an hour. The writer chooses this TV-series because most of
humouroccurred by violation of Grice’s cooperative principles during the
conversation (Chiaro, 1992: 44). Here, the writer tries to reveal how the
manipulation of Grice’s cooperative principles can create the humorous situation
and finally provoke people’s laughter.
In this TV-series, the characters utilize maxims in their conversation in
oder to make the film funny and the people laugh. This thesis is interesting to be
analysed because it can help the readers to understand deeper humorous situation
occured in this TV-series. Besides, the readers can understand how the violations
of conversational maxims can create the humour in this TV-series.
A. Problem Formulation
1. What kinds of violations of conversational maxims of Cooperative Principle
which cause humourin The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap?
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
5
2. How the violations of conversational maximsof Cooperative Principle create
thehumorous situation in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey
Trap?
B. Objective of the Study
In this thesis, the writer focuses on the readers can understandkinds
ofviolations ofconversational maxims of Cooperative Principleswhich cause
humour and how these violations create the humorous situation inThe Thin Blue
Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. There are two objectives study. The first is
to find out the kinds of violation which cause humour during the conversationin
that TV-series. Here,the conversational maxims of cooperative principle are used
to explain the kinds of violation in the conversation between the speakers.
According to Grice, there are four maxims: the quantity maxim, the quality
maxim, the relation maxim, the manner maxim. They are explained further in the
chapter 2.The second, the writer finds out how the violationsin this comedy TVseriesThe Thin Blue Line Season 1 in creating the humorous situation.
C. Definition terms
In this part, several terms which are used in the study are explained. It is
necessary to define them since they are the key words of the research.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
6
The terms are as follows:
1. Conversation
Conversation is the linguistic interaction between two or more people as coordinated
and
collaborative
social
action
(Verschueren,
1998:
50).
Conversation is used forany form of spoken discourse involving more than one
speaker in formal or informal setting.
2. Cooperative Principles
According to Fromkin and Rodman, the cooperative principlesare 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). From this
definition, it explains that the cooperative principles are the rules for
conversation in which arrange our understanding of how language is used in
particular situations to convey a message. The rules that arrange the
conversation are called maxims. Grice said that maxims are a certain set of
conversational rules which governs the ordinary conversations (Richards and
Schmidt, 1984: 45). These rules arrange how the speakers behave in the
conversation to avoid the violation at a given point in a conversation. There are
four maxims proposed.
3. The humor
In The New Encyclopedia Britannica, humour is the only form of
communication in which a stimulus on a high level of complexity produces a
stereotyped, predictable response on the physiological reflex level (Benton
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
7
(ed.), 1983: 7). This form communication stimulates the ridiculous things and
then responds the laughter reflex for the people.
4. Violation of conversational maxims
According to J. Thomas in Meaning in Interaction (in Cutting, 2002: 40),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.
They intentionally generate a misleading implicature; maxim violation is
unostentatiously, quite deceiving. In the violation, the speaker gives
insufficient, insincere, and ambiguous information to the hearer and this thing
causes the hearer gets the wrong information in the conversation.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
This chapter consists of three parts. The first is review of related studies.
This review contains the previous essay and article which relate with the kinds of
violations of conversational maxims in creating humour. The second is review of
related theories. This review contains the theories that needed to analyse the kinds
of violations of conversational maxims and how their effect in creating the
humorous situation in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. The
third is review of the theoretical framework. This review describes how the
theories are applied in order to analyse this thesis.
A. Review of Related Studies
The review of related theories is taken from two previous study. The first
is from Yenny Susanti entitled “A Semantic Analysis on Punch Lines in English
Jokes”. In her study, Yenny observes the semantic components can explain the
point of laughter in the jokes. She wants to analyze why a joke can be so funny. In
order to understand, she needs to know the meaning of the language used. Then,
she usesSemantics which explain about the meaning of the language. This
component is used as the basic theory to analyze her study.
In this study, she gathers 100 jokes from a lot of different sources, such as
internet, books on jokes, books on anecdotes and Reader’s Digest Magazine.
These sources are analyzed in this thesis to describe the linguistic segments found
in jokes.
8
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
9
In this theory, she has several results based on her problem formulation.
The first is shefinds three components that make the laughter come. They are
lexical ambiguity, structural ambiguity, and the violation of the maxim of
conversations. The second is she explains how these components show the point
of the laughter. Here, it is explained that the lexical ambiguity happens when two
or more sentences contain one or more ambiguous words. Lexical ambiguity is
divided in three parts: homophone, homonyme, and polyseme ambiguity. Lexical
ambiguity also happens because of certain conditions, like the unknown of a
word, the unknown of a name or something, the formation of word based on the
previous rule, and the twist of the formula of a word.
Besides, structural ambiguity happens as a result of two or more structures
underlying the same strings of words. This structural ambiguity happens because
the structure of the sentence shows more than one meaning. The last is the
violation of the maxim of conversation which is the action of violating the rules of
conversational conventions. This violation causes the incongruent meaning in the
conversation which elicits the joke.
The second is from Laura Kalliomäki entitled Ink and Capability: Verbal
Humour in Tv-series Blackadder a Pragmatic and Rhetorical Analysis. In this
study, Kalliomäki analyzed a more general analysis of verbal humour in a TVsitcom through two separate viewpoints: a pragmatic and a rhetorical one. In
pragmatics’ view, Kalliomäki assumes the verbal humour violates Grice’s
cooperative principle (Quality, Quantity, Relation, and Manner). In rhetorical
analysis, Kalliomäki sees if humour in the data has been achieved by using the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
10
rhetorical techniques of humour compiled by Berger. The data is taken from the
TV-series Blackadder, consisted of all 24 episodes.
In doing her analysis, Kalliomäki first analyzes the dialogues in this TVseries through the maxims of violation. The result is all the maxims were violated
in this series to create humour, but the violations of the maxims of Quality and
Manner were the most frequent ones. The maxim of quality is mostly violated in
the dialogues by saying something that was not true, in other words by
exaggerating, by using irony or repartee, by absurdities or simply by lying; based
on the rhetorical techniques. The maxim of manner is violated the most by insults,
repartee, and absurdities. The maxims of quantity and relevance are not violated
frequently and there are a number of difficulties in the detection of the violations
of these maxims. Then, Kalliomäki uses the rhetorical techniques to analyse how
the humour is created through the maxim of violation. The result is mostly
humour created by repartee, absurdity, insults, and mistakes.
However, the study that is done is different from the previous studies by
Yenny Susanti and Laura Kalliomäki. In this thesis, the writer more focuses on
the contribution of conversational maxims of the cooperative principle which
cause the humour in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. This
thesis explains how violating maxims of cooperation (quantity, quality, relation,
and manner) can create humour in the speakers’ utterance in The Thin Blue Line
Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. Besides, the object of study in this thesis is
different from two previous thesis. The object is taken from TV-SitcomThe Thin
Blue LineSeason1 Episode 3: Honey Trap.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
11
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).
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
12
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 his/her
assumption that less was communicated than was said. His/her utterance
actually means a request for information. 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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
13
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 momy 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
14
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 he/she 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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
15
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 his/her 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 turntaking, 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
16
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 his/her 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
17
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-startoverlap-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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
18
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 really(Yule, 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
19
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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
20
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 imagined(Smuts, 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.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
21
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
22
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
incongruity(Smuts, 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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
23
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 living” (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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
24
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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
25
physic or nervous energy that contains the release or pleasure emotion is
discharged through movements of laughter.
According to Freud, there are two forms of joking: “innocent” and
“tendentious” jokes (Schwarz, 2010: