The violations of conversational maxims of cooperative principle in creating the humorous situation in The Thin Blue Line season 1 episode 3 : Honey Trap.

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

B y

Pri cilli a W ina ta

Student Num ber: 084214043

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

i

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

B y

Pri cilli a W ina ta

Student Num ber: 084214043

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

iv

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

v

Intelligence is like underwear. It is important that you have it, but not necessary that you show it.

vi

For Jesus Christ and my brothers, Vincent and Arnold

vii

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.

viii

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

A. Background of the study………. 1

B. Problem Formulation……….. 4

C. Objectives of the Study……….. 5

D. Definition of Terms……… 5

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL REVIEW……….. 8

A. Review of Related Studies……….. 8

B. Review of Related Theories……… 11

1. Cooperative Principle and Conversational Analysis………. 11

a. Cooperative Principle………... 11

b. Conversational Analysis……… 14

2. Humour Theories……….... 18

a. Incongruity Theory……… 20

b. Hostility Theory………... 22

c. Release Theory……….. 23

ix

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY……….. 28

A. Object of the Study……….... 28

B. Approach of the Study……….……….. 29

C. Method of the Study……… 30

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS…………...………. 32

A. Violations of maxims causing the humorous situation…..,…... 32

1. Violations of maxim of quantity………... 32

2. Violations of maxim of quality………..……..…. 35

3. Violations of maxim of relation……… 38

4. Violations of maxim or manner……… 42

B. The humorous situation created from the violations of maxim.. 46

1. By making the incongruent meaning or idea between the audiences’ expectation and what actually happens in the conversation…... 46

2. By showing the feeling of hostility from some persons or communities to other………..……... 55

3. By making one person feels liberated talking about taboo topics…... 58

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION………. 61

BIBLIOGRAPHY………... 63

APPENDIX 1……… 65

x 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.

xi 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 pelanggaran-pelanggaran 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 pelanggaran-pelanggaran yang menyebabkan situasi humor. Pelanggaran-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.

1 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

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: 5-6).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

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

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?

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 TV-seriesThe 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.

The terms are as follows: 1. Conversation

Conversation is the linguistic interaction between two or more people as co-ordinated 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

(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.

8 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.

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 TV-sitcom 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

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 TV-series 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.

A.Review of Related Theories

1. Cooperative Principle and Conversational Analysis a. Cooperative Principle

According to Fromkin and Rodman, the cooperative principle is a must that the speaker’s contribution to the discourse should be as informative as is required-neither more or less (Fromkin and Rodman, 2003: 225). In making the conversation be successful, the speaker and listener have to cooperate generally in the conversation. Here, the speaker is hoped giving the relevant utterance so the listeners can receive the right information. However, in most circumstances, some speakers’ utterances are confusing and ambiguous or even not relevant from each other. Such utterances usually have something more than just what the word means. It is an additional conveyed meaning, called an implicature (Yule, 1996: 35). When the speakers have to be able to draw inferences about what is meant but not actually said in the conversation, it is called conversational implicature (O’ Grady and Archibald, et al, 2010: 232). In the conversational implicature, the speakers’ utterances have additional meaning (more being communicated than is said) and the meaning is depent in the context of the conversation. For example:

At the customs:

Custom officer: Ciggaretes, brandy, whisky...

Girl: How kind you are in this country. I’ll have a coffee please! (Chiaro, 1992: 43).

It can be seen that this conversation is placed at the customs. Absolutely, the context of the customer officer’s utterance is about the information for the custom and not the offering like a servant in the restaurant although this utterance can mean an offer. The girl should understand what the custom officer means. Of course, if the girl understands, the story would not beconsidered as the joke. So, for the event to be funny, the custom officer seems to give less information and ambiguous. It causes the girl is misunderstood.

Usually, the conversation runs smoothly and succesfully when the speaker (the custom officer) and the listener (the girl) follow certain social conventions. However, the conversation above has the problem with communication. Here, both the speakers have different assumption in their mind which cause the conversation does not run well and even be funny and as a joke. It seems the custom officer causes the first problem by 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.

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

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.

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 taking (Cutting: 2002: 29). In turn-taking, everyone can attempt to get control to speak. In the conversation, turn-taking is operated through a local management system made by members of a social group. The local management system is a set of conventions for getting turns, keeping them, or giving them away (Yule: 1996: 72). Generally, in speaking, conversation consists of two, or more, participants taking turns, and only one participant speaking at any time, then another. Any possible

change-of-turn point is called a Transition Relevance Place (TRP) (Yule, 1996: 72). Usually, the change of turn happens when the speaker takes the end of 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

not speak, then the silence is attributed to the second speaker and becomes significant (Yule, 1996: 73). It is called an attributable silence.

Related with the first example, the overlap is illustrated in the final two lines, marked by a double slash (//). The first overlap occurs as both speakers attempt to initiate talk. According to the local management system, generally one speaker will stop to allow the other take the floor in order to make the conversation runs smoothly. However, for two speakers who are having difficulty getting into a shared conversational rhythm, the stop-start-overlap-stop pattern may be repeated.

Overlap does not always occur because of the distance relation between the speakers like the example above. Overlap can also occur because of the interruption from the one speaker to the others. For example:

Joe : When they were in

// power las— wait CAN I FINISH ? Jerry : that’s my point I said—

(Yule, 1996: 74)

In this example, the overlap happens when the second speaker takes his floor before the first speaker finishes his utterance. Here, according to local management, the speaker can take his floor after the other speaker finishes his turn through takes the end of his sentence. However, in this conversation, the second speaker competes the first speaker’s floor and does not wait the first speaker finishes his utterance. It causes the first speaker complaints to the second speaker by shouting with louder voice (shown in the capital letters), saying “CAN I FINISH?”. His complaint also states the unstated rule of conversation structure that the speaker is allowed to speak

after the previous speaker finishes his utterance. In this conversation, the first speaker does not finish his utterance yet (when they were in—); suddenly the second speaker begins to talk. This is a clear interruption and breaks the ‘rules’.

Basically, the speaker who wish to get his floor will wait the possibility of TRP for himself. Based on the local management, the possibility to get his turn occurs when the previous speaker finishes his floor through the end of a syntactic unit. To keep his floor, the speaker must avoid an open pause which shows the end of his syntactic unit to protect his turn. For example:I wasn’t talking about—um his first book that was—uh really just like a start and so—uh isn’t—doesn’t count 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

facial expressions ranging from the faint smile through the broad gin to the contortions typical of explosive laughter (Benton (ed.), 1983: 5).

The laughter and smile is a spontaneous reflex activity. In the encyclopedia, the laughter is called as the unique reflex or the luxury reflex in that it has no apparent biological purpose. Its function is to provide relief from tension. However, the stimulus of laughter is different for humans. Not every human feels relief from the same stimulus of laughter. Chiaro, in The Language of Jokes, said that although the physical manifestations of the laughter are same in every human being, the stimulus for laughing differs from culture to culture (Chiaro, 1992: 4-5). Therefore, it is important to study about the culture of the society where the joke is created.

Many various of disciplines have analysed the notion of humor for centuries. Philosophers, psychologists and sociologists have attempted to define the essence of humor. Such studies have resulted in numerous theories on the subject. The researchers such as Plato and Aristotle to Cicero, through Hume and Kant to the more recent Bergson and Freud, provide us with many theories in their works. Most of their theories on humour concern with the physiological and sociological approach. Later, linguists use their theories as the foundation for their modern theories about the linguistic aspects of the comic mode.

Generally, the principal theories of humour can be divided into three classifications:

a. Incongruity theories

In this theory, many researchers view incongruity as the essential element in eliciting humour. Aristotle presents the incongruity theory of humour. He finds the best way to get an audience to laugh is to setup an expectation and deliver something “that gives a twist” (Smuts, 2012). After discussing the power of metaphors to produce a surprise in the hearer, Aristotle says:

The effect is produced even by jokes depending upon changes of the letters of aword; this too is a surprise. The word which comes is not what the hearer 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.

According to Immanuel Kantin Critique of Judgment (Smuts, 2012), he supports Aristotle’s statement of the role of incongruity in humor. He states:

In everything that is to excite a lively laugh there must be something absurd (in which the understanding, therefore, can find no satisfaction). Laughter is an affection arising from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing (Smuts, 2012). Arthur Schopenhauer offers a more specific of the incongruity theory. He says that the laughter is caused by the sudden perception of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects which have been thought through it in some relation, and laughter is the expression of this incongruity. He gives more detail how this incongruity occurs.

Two or more real objects are thought through one concept, and the identity of the concept is transferred to the objects; it then becomes strikingly apparent from the entire difference of the objects in other respects, that the concept was only applicable to them from a one sided point of view. It occurs just as often, however, that the incongruity between a single real object and the concept, under which, from one point of view, it has rightly been subsumed, is suddenly felt. Now the more correct the subsumption of such objects under a concept may be from one point of view, and the greater and more glaring their incongruity with it, from another point of view, the greater is the ludicrous effect which is produced by this contrast. All laughter, then, is occasioned by a paradox, and therefore by unexpected subsumption, whether this is expressed in words or in actions. This, briefly stated, is the true explanation of the ludicrous (Lippitt, 2012: 2).

As stated by Kant and Schopenhauer, the incongruity theory of humor specifies a necessary condition of the object of humor. Focusing on the humorous object, the incongruity theory needs the pleasure response to make the object of humour to be funny and elicit laughter. John Morreall attempts

to find sufficient conditions for identifying humor by focusing on our response. He defines humorous amusement as taking pleasure in a cognitive shift. The incongruity theory can be stated as a response focused theory, claiming that humor is a certain kind of reaction had to perceived 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

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

well as express them. Certain things are taboo subjects, for example: sex, death, excretion, bodily functions, religious matters, and politics. In the society, people do not talk about taboo topics. Even if they want to talk about it, they will talk in very roundabout ways. It is explained further:

Taboo is the prohibition or avoidance in any society of behavior believed to be harmful to its members in that it would cause them anxiety, embarrassment, or shame. (Wardhaugh, 1988: 244)

From the explanation above, it can be seen that there is an extremely strong politeness constraint in talking about taboo in society. As the result, the taboos cannot be said in the language or certain objects can be referred to only in certain circumstances, for example, only by certain people, or through deliberate circumlocutions, i.e., euphemistically. However, there are some people who break the taboos in order to show their freedom from social constraints or to expose the taboos as irrational and unjustified, as in the reason for ‘free speech’. (Wardhaugh, 1988: 249)

In Sigmund Freud’s work, he considers laughter is “an outlet for physic or nervous energy” (Schwarz, 2010: 51). It means that this physic or nervous energy is discharged through movements of laughter. He claims:

Humour as one of the so-called substitution mechanisms which enable to convert one’s socially tabooed aggressive impulses to acceptable ones and thus avoid wasting additional mental energy to suppress them (Krikmann, 2012: 28).

Hestates humour represents a way of defense that enables the people to experience pure pleasure in talking the taboo things. It shows that this

physic or nervous energy that contains the release or pleasure emotion is discharged through movements of laughter.

According to Freud, there are two forms of joking: “innocent” and

“tendentious” jokes (Schwarz, 2010: 53). Tendentious jokes usually make the

audience shocked or terrified. These jokes function as the expression of hostility and aggressiveness or obscenity and exposure. He explains that in a tendentious joke, there is an unconscious thought which is shown through the

joke’s release of repressed feelings. The pleasure caused by the outlet of their

unconscious thought reflects their hidden aggression and hostility feeling to certain persons who maybe have higher position than themselves. In other words, the tendentious joke is used to displace aggressions and hostilities. Furthermore, Freud presents three categories of tendentious jokes: exposing or obscene jokes, aggressive (hostile) jokes, and cynical (critical, blasphemous) jokes (Schwarz, 2010: 54). Obscene jokes express exposure because they are mainly of a sexual nature. People use the obscene jokes to satisfy their shameful thoughts or ideas that are repressed by their society because the content is generally considered unacceptable. Hostile jokes are used to attack other people who we dislike. These jokes express aggression, defense, and dominance.

Innocent jokes refer to amusement at bizarre happenings, illogicalities, and absurdities. Freud argues that in innocent jokes, the techniques of jokes such as incongruity are used to cause the laughter and pleasure among the audiences.

He says:

On the basis of suitable specimens of innocent jokes, in which there was no fear of our judgement being disturbed by their content or purpose, we were driven to conclude that the techniques of jokes are themselves sources of pleasure (Schwarz, 2010: 55).

It is different with the tendentious jokes. They use the aggression and hostility in which there is a fear of the judgment in their content which cause the pleasure. Here, innocent jokes elicit enjoyment of their content (Schwarz, 2010: 55).

In conclusion, it can be seen that there is a unity of release, hostility, and incongruity theories in Freud’s theory and therefore be considered to be more comprehensive theory than others which only focus on one theory explained above.

B. Theoretical Framework

In this thesis, the study emphasizes the contribution of violations ofconversational maxims of cooperative principle in creating the humorous situation as seen in TV-series “The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap”. All the theories above are used to analyse how the speakers’ utterances develop and contribute in the conversation to cause the humourous and laughter situation in this TV-series: The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap.

To analyse this thesis, first, the writer finds out the structure of the conversation happened in this TV-series. The writer uses the theory of conversation analysis to analyze how the participants are speaking or talking with the others and how they are violating in their utterances during the conversation.

Second, the writer uses Grice’s maxims of cooperative principle to find out the kinds of violations of maxim which cause humour in the conversation. According to Grice, there are four maxims in violation: quantity, quality, relation, and manner. Third, the writer finds out how the humour is occurred in the conversations which are violated through maxims. The writer uses the humour theories in order to see how the violations can give the effect to create the humorous situation.

28 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

A. Object of the Study

In this thesis, the object of this study is the conversation of a TV-series entitled The Thin Blue Line which is transcribed into a film script. The Thin Blue Line is divided into two seasons. The first season was published in 1995. Seven episodes were made in the first season: The Queen’s Birthday Present, Fire and Terror, Honey Trap, Rag Week, Night Shift, Kids Today, Yuletide Spirit. A year later, the second season was published and resulted seven episodes too: Court in the Act, Ism Ism Ism, Fly on the Wall, Alternative Culture, Come on you Blue, Road Rage, The Green Eyed Monster. In this thesis, the writer uses the first season; episode 3: Honey Trap as the object of the study.

The Thin Blue Line Season 1 TV-series is taken from www.youtube.com, while its subtitle is taken from subscene.com which provides the subtitles of most of all films. The Thin Blue Line Season 1 is one of the productions of BBC-TV, written by Ben Elton, produced by Ben Elton and Geoffrey Perkins, and directed by John Birkin. The Thin Blue Line is regarded as one of the best sitcoms to be made in the 90s. As a fact, this TV-series ranked 34th in the BBC's Britain's Best Sitcom poll in 2004.

The Thin Blue Line Season 1 is TV-sitcoms mainly tells about the daily lives of the police officers at Gasforth Police Station in fighting against urban crimes and uphold the forces of law and order. In the episode 3: Honey Trap, the

persuade Habib to pretend as a whore to trap the villain. Meanwhile, Dawkins, Fowler’s girlfriend, feels jealous with Habib because she often sees Habib and Fowler are in Fowler’s room alone. In fact, Fowler is talking about the entrapment operation with Habib.

In this thesis, the writer will observe the speakers’ utterances violating the maxims and creating the humorous situation in this TV-series. Here, the writer will focus on speakers’ utterances and how they violate Grice’s maxim and finally this violations create the humorous situation (comedy) and elicit people’s laugh in the conversation.

A. Approach of the Study

The writer uses a pragmatic approach in this thesis. The pragmatic approach looks the language relation to the contextual background. According to Cruse, pragmatics concern with two aspects of information conveyed through language: (a) pragmatics is not encoded by generally accepted convention in the linguistic forms used, (b) pragmatics depends on the meanings taken in conjunction with the context in which the forms are used (Cruse, 2000: 16). Yule states that pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those forms (Yule, 1996: 4). Both these explanation shows that in the pragmatic approach, this study to do in this thesis will look how the speakers utters their words or phrases and how they organize their utterance in the particular context in the conversation in accordance with the non-observance maxims introduced by Grice.

B. Method of the Study

In this thesis, the internet research and library researchare used to gather data and theories. The data are the conversations which are taken from the internet and transcribed into a film script. Besides, the theories are taken from internet and books. Here, the writer analyzes speakers’ utterances which violate Grice’s

maxims in creating the humorous situation. Then, the writer analyzes how Grice’s

maxims can create the humorous situation in the conversation.

The data used in this thesis are the script of The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap taken from the internet. The site used is subscene.com. Here, the writer finds some differences between the script and subtitle shown in the TV-series. These differences are match up with the TV-series.

There are four steps how the writer analyzed this thesis. First, the writer read the script while watching this TV-series more than once in order to understand deeper about the conversation. During this process, the writer found the differences of the conversation between the subtitle shown in TV-series and the script obtained from the internet. The writer matched up these differences to the TV-series. Second, since there is no narration in the script of this TV-series, the writer tried to write the narration by herself in order to help the reader to understand the conversation in this TV-series. Besides, it also helps the writer to answer the problem formulation. Third, the writer found kinds of violations of conversational maxims of cooperative principle in the conversation. Since the

pragmatic approach used in this thesis, the writer needed Grice’s maxim to

maxims occurred when the speakers do not require their conversational contribution to co-operate in the conversation. In other words, the speakers do not follow the cooperative principles which arrange the rules how the language is used to convey a message. This theory is also combined with the humour theories to find the violations of conversational maxims of cooperative principle which caused the humorous situation in the conversation. After identifying the kinds of violations which cause the humorous situation, the writer encoded them into a table as presented in the appendix. Fourth, both theories of violations and humour theories were applied to analyze howthe violations of conversational maxims created the humorous situation in the conversation. Here, the writer combined both these theories to explain more how the violations of conversational maxims of cooperative principle can be used in creating the humorous situation in this TV-series.

32 CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS

In this chapter, the writer presents the answers of the problems that have been formulated in chapter one. There are two questions which are discussed in this chapter. First, the writer will deal with the kinds of violations used in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap. Second, the writer will deal with the effect of violation in creating the humorous situation in The Thin Blue Line Season 1 Episode 3: Honey Trap.

A. Violations of Conversational Maxims causing the Humorous Situation Based on the analysis, there are 34 violations of conversational maxims which cause the humorous situation. Here, the writer will explain each violation:

1. Violations of Maxim of Quantity

Based on the analysis, there are six violations of conversational maxims of quantity found in this TV-series. Here, the writer highlights some of them, while the rest of data can be seen in the appendix 1:

Data Nu

Line Nu

Name Dialogue

3. 17. DAWKINS (she is still upset and jealous) So you kissed Maggie Habib? 18. FOWLER (he is happy and satisfied) Yes. I very nearly kissed Constable

Kray as well. Loathsome man as he is, he does know the halftime scores of every cup final since 1918.

(singing and dancing): another one bites the dust...and another one bites, another one bites (singing): another one bites the dust! (jump to the bed) Oh, god, you know how much the quiz trophy means to me. It's the only glittering prize I've ever truly coveted.

In this datum, Fowler violates the maxim of quantity. It is seen in the datum above. His utterance is the answer to Dawkins’ question “So you kissed

Maggie Habib?” Here, Fowler is expected to give the answer “yes”, but he gives

too much information that he kisses Kray too. Dawkins only asks whether she kisses Habib or not. In this case, Fowler gives too much information which is unnecessary to answer Dawkins’ question. It makes Fowler violates the maxim of quantity.

Data Nu

Line Nu

Name Dialogue

15. 64. FOWLER (looking at Grim suspiciously) Are you suggesting an entrapment operation?

65. GRIM (trying to convince Fowler) Not entrapment, Raymond. Entrapment is, as you know, illegal. But blokes drop their guard with girls. They don't think of the consequences. Blimey, we've all done it. You get all stupid with some young lovely and before you know it you're bald, 40, sitting in the car park at Sainsbury's home base. Now I want someone with brains. Brains and beauty.

In the second datum, Grim violates the maxim of quantity. It can be seen from the datum above. His utterance is the answer to Fowler’s question “Are you

suggesting an entrapment operation?” Here, Grim is expected to give the answer “not entrapment” and explain more about his operation, but he gives too much

information about his experience with the woman in the past (You get all stupid with some young lovely and before you know it you're bald, 40, sitting in the car park at Sainsbury's home base). His experience is not needed to answers

Fowler’s question. It causes Grim violates the maxim of quantity.

Data Nu

Line Nu

Name Dialogue

27. 164. GRIM (shouting) Inspector Fowler! We are discussing a dangerous operation! You're on duty, man, pull yourself together.

165. FOWLER (feeling guilty) I'm sorry, you're quite right. I will not mention the quiz again...except to say that victory will bring honor to the whole station. Honor... And a big cup! Big shiny cup! Not that one covets such trinkets, of course. But a cup that this pathetic alcoholic, this sad, raddled, beer-soaked dipsomaniac, who will no doubt arrive at the final mounted on a pink elephant, chooses to put at risk—//

166. GRIM (shouting louder) FOWLER!

In this datum, Fowler violates the maxim of quantity. As seen in the datum above, his utterance actually is the apology statement for Grim because he disturbs the operation discussion by talking the quiz and Kray’s bad habit. In the beginning of conversation, Grim and Fowler is talking about the entrapment operation seriously at the police station. However, the topic changes to the quiz

when Kray, one of the members of Fowler’s quiz group, comes and join with

them. It happens because Kray has just drunk alcohol. Fowler does not like Kray drinks alcohol because it will make Kray thinks slower to answer the quiz questions.

On the other hand, Grim is upset because Fowler does not focus to their talking. It can be seen in Grim’s reply “Inspector Fowler! We are discussing a

dangerous operation! You're on duty, man, pull yourself together”. Here, Fowler

is expected to give the apology and does not say again about the quiz, and concern to the entrapment operation since they are in the middle of discussion about the entrapment operation. In his reply, he asks the apology first, but he continues

talking about the quiz and offends Kray’s habit of drunk. It causes Grim is very

angry because Fowler does not focus on the entrapment operation. In this case, Fowler violates the maxim of quantity because he talks too much about the quiz and Kray’s bad habit, and causes Grim is angry.

1. Violations of Conversational Maxims of Quality

Based on the analysis, there are eight violations of maxim of quality found in this TV-series. Here, the writer highlights some of them, while the rest of data can be seen in the appendix 1:

Based on the datum above, Dawkins violates the maxim of quality. It can seen in the datum above. Her utterance is the response from Fowler’s previous utterance “Hello, darling (trying to stand up). I hope I didn't wake you”. Here, Dawkins does not tell the truth that Fowler disturbs her sleep by shaking her bed. In fact, she says that in implied meaning (It's the first time you've made my headboard rattle this year. I wouldn't have wanted to miss that). She says that implicitly because she wants to mock Fowler indirectly. However, Fowler does not realize Dawkins’ implied meaning in her utterance. In this case, Dawkins violates the maxim of quality because she does not tell the truth that she feels disturbed. As a consequence, Fowler does not realize her feeling.

Data Nu.

Line Nu.

Name Dialogue

1 2. FOWLER Hello, darling (trying to stand up). I hope I didn't wake you 3. DAWKINS Not at all. It's the first time you've made my headboard

rattle this year. I wouldn't have wanted to miss that. Where've you been?

4. FOWLER You know where I've been, my petal. At my pub quiz night.

Data Nu.

Line Nu.

Name Dialogue

5. 19. DAWKINS (jealous, with the flat sound) So you kissed Maggie Habib. 20. FOWLER Yes. I can't tell you how wonderful she was

21. DAWKINS

(staring to Fowler(jealous) Well, don't!

As seen in the datum above, Dawkins violates the maxim of quality.Her utterance is the answer to Fowler’s question “Darling, what? What's the matter?” Here, Dawkins tells a lie. She says that it is nothing (Nothing. Really, it's nothing). In fact, she is jealous because Fowler still admires Habib. Her lie causes Fowler misunderstands Dawkins’ utterance. It can be seen in Fowler’s reply “Oh, that's all right then. I thought you were upset or something. I'm going to brush my teeth”. Fowler’s reply shows that he thinks Dawkins is fine. In this case, Habib violates the maxim of quality since she does not tell the truth that she cries and feels jealous because Fowler admires Habib. Her lie causes Fowler misunderstands with Dawkins’ feeling. He thinks that she is allright.

Data Nu.

Line Nu.

Name Dialogue

24. 122. GLADSTONE I must say this er will look very well up on the wall.

123. KRAY Tell you what, Frank, you need a big hat to pin that badge on.

(Gladstone looks at Kray confusedly. Then, Gladstone and Goody look up at each other with confused face).

22. FOWLER (He feels enthusiasm to continue the story) It was all down to the last question, you see? I'd been stumped on the name of the chancellor In the Israeli's second administration...Would you believe it? Mr. Thickey or what? That oaf Kray had gone completely to pieces over the 1932 soviet discus team. Frankly, things were looking pretty bleak....until Habib, dear, beautiful, (admiring with rising intonation) clever little constable Habib pulled off a stunning coup by knowing the names of all a gorilla's vertebrae. (admiring) What a woman, what a woman!

23. FOWLER

(Patricia Dawkins starts crying slowly, but she turns away her face from Raymond)

(astonished) Darling, what? What's the matter? 24. DAWKINS (crying) Nothing. Really, it's nothing.

25. FOWLER Oh, that's all right then. I thought you were upset or something. I'm going to brush my teeth.

In this datum, Kray violates the maxim of quality. It can be seen in the datum above. His utterance is the reply to Gladstone’s utterance “I must say this “er” will look very well up on the wall”. Here, Kray gives the wrong statement that Gladstone needs a big hat to pin the badge on. The right statement is the crest should be put on the wall. The uniformed policemen use smaller pin to be badged on the hat. Kray says that only as a joke to mock their new royal crest. However, Goody and Gladstone do not understand Kray’s joke. It is seen in their response that they are confused. In this case, Kray violates the maxim of quality because he gives the information which is not true and causes Gladstone and Goody confused about Kray’s utterance.

Data Nu.

Line Nu.

Name Dialogue

26. 153. FOWLER You didn't drink? Tell me you didn't drink.

154. KRAY Course not, sir. I never drink on duty. Only had three pints. 155. FOWLER (shocked, with rising intonation) Three pints?! Have you any idea

how many brain cells one unit of alcohol destroys? Who won the F.A. Cup final in 1953?

Based on the datum above, Kray violates the maxim of quality. His utterance is the answer to Fowler’s question “You didn't drink? Tell me you didn't drink”. Here, Kray is inconsistent with his words. He says that he does not drink on duty first. Then, he says that he only drinks 3 pints. It means that Kray has just drunk although he is on duty. In this case, the violation of quality happens since Kray tells a lie in his speech that he does not drink. It makes Fowler confused.

2. Violations of Conversational Maxims of Relation

Based on the analysis, there are ten violations of conversational maxims of relation found in this TV-series. Here, the writer highlights some of them, while the rest of data can be seen in the appendix 1:

Data Nu.

Line Nu.

Name Dialogue

2. 11. DAWKINS (looking at Raymond’s collar suspiciously) Raymond, is that lipstick on your collar?

12. FOWLER Uh, no, it's ketchup. 13. DAWKINS Good.

14. FOWLER I remember now, Constable Habib was eating ketchupy chips when I kissed her.

15. DAWKINS (jealous)You kissed constable Habib?

16. FOWLER (happy) We're through to the local final, Patricia. We're one game away from the trophy.

In this datum, Fowler violates the maxim of relation. It is seen in the datum above. His utterance is the answer to Dawkins’ question “You kissed constable Habib?” in her jealous expression. Here, Fowler’s utterance is not related with Dawkins’ question. Fowler is expected to answer yes or no in his utterance since Dawkins asks whether Fowler kisses Habib or not. However, Fowler does not pay attention to Dawkins who feels jealous because he is still thinking about his pub quiz. In fact, Fowler talks about the quiz “We're through to the local final, Patricia. We're one game away from the trophy.” because he is still happy with his victory in the pub quiz. In this case, Fowler violates the maxim of relation because his utterance is not relevant with Dawkins’ question. He does not answer Dawkins’ question anymore and would like to talk about the quiz.

Data Nu.

Line Nu.

Name Dialogue

4. 19. DAWKINS (looking at Fowler jealousy, with the flat sound) So you kissed Maggie Habib.

20. FOWLER Yes. I can't tell you how wonderful she was.

21. DAWKINS

(both her eyes are staring to Fowler, still feel jealous, rising intonation)

Well, don't!

22. FOWLER (feel enthusiasm to continue the story) It was all down to the last question, you see? I'd been stumped on the name of the chancellor In the Israaneli's second administration... Would you believe it? Mr. Thickey or what? That oaf Kray had gone completely to pieces over the 1932 soviet discuss team. Frankly, things were looking pretty bleak....until Habib, dear, beautiful, (admiring with rising intonation) clever little constable Habib pulled off a stunning coup by knowing the names of all a gorilla's vertebrae. (admiring) What a woman, what a woman!

Here, Fowler violates the maxim of relation as seenon the table above (line number 5).His utterance is the response to Dawkins’ utterance “Well, don't!”

Here, Fowler’s utterance is not related with Dawkins’ utterance. Fowler is

expected to not admire Habib anymore since Dawkins has said that she does not want Fowler to talk about Habib. However, Fowler does not pay attention to

Dawkins’ feeling and keeps admiring Habib. His utterance does not relate with Dawkins’ utterance. In this case, Fowler violates the maxim of relation because

his utterance is not relevant with Dawkins’ utterance. He continues admiring Habib although Dawkins does not like Fowler to talk about that.

Data Nu.

Line Nu.

Name Dialogue

6. 19. DAWKINS (looking at Fowler jealousy, with the flat sound) So you kissed Maggie Habib.

20. FOWLER Yes. I can't tell you how wonderful she was.

21. DAWKINS

(staring to Fowler, still feel jealous, rising intonation) Well, don't!

22. FOWLER (feel enthusiasm to continue the story) It was all down to the last question, you see? I'd been stumped on the name of the

d. Violations of Maxim of Manner

Data Nu.

Line Nu.

Name Dialogue.

10. 51. GRIM I've got a tough job on, and I need your cooperation. Now it's pretty urgent, so I won't beat about the proverbial privet. (his face shows he is very busy and looks in hurry) Frankly, I'm too busy a man to be cluck-clucking away like a decapitated feathered fowl, so I'll get straight to the point.

52. FOWLER I'm delighted to hear it.

11. 51. GRIM I've got a tough job on, and I need your cooperation. Now it's pretty urgent, so I won't beat about the proverbial privet. (his face shows he is very busy and looks in hurry) Frankly, I'm too busy a man to be cluck-clucking away like a decapitated feathered fowl, so I'll get straight to the point. 52. FOWLER I'm delighted to hear it

53. GRIM "time waits for no man", as the proverb goes. What I say is, in C.I.D., crime waits for no man. So with that in mind, I shall cut the bovine feces altogether.

54. FOWLER Good.

12. 51. GRIM I've got a tough job on, and I need your cooperation. Now it's pretty urgent, so I won't beat about the proverbial privet. (his face shows he is very busy and looks in hurry) Frankly, I'm too busy a man to be cluck-clucking away like a decapitated feathered fowl, so I'll get straight to the point. 52. FOWLER I’m delighted to hear it

53. GRIM “time waits for no man,” as the proverb goes. What I say

is, in C.I.D., crime waits for no man. So with that in mind, I shall cut the bovine feces altogether.

54. FOWLER Good.

55. GRIM (he paces up and down in the briefing room) This is C.I.D work, Raymond. In C.I.D we dispense with niceties. We avoid irrelevance, we disregard herrings, red or otherwise. And above all we do not fanny about.

(Grim walks and almost leave Raymond in the briefing room)

56. FOWLER Inspector Grim?

57. GRIM What?

58. FOWLER Was there something you wanted to discuss? sensitive operation

84. HABIB Oh, I see. My dad's just had one of those. Bowel complaints are very common in men of your age.

85. FOWLER (upset) I'm talking about a police operation, constable. 33. 229. HABIB (displeased) What do you think, sir? Soliciting a crime is an

offense.

230. FOWLER (hesitate) I know, constable, I know. I utterly deplore this type of operation. But we've come this far and if we can just get this business over with before the pub quiz final, then you can be back on the team.

59. GRIM Oh, yes. (He sits close by Fowler. His face turns be serious). To be blunt, Raymond, I need a woman and I want your help.

14. 61. GRIM (upset)A policewoman, you idiot. We've been on to a major local villain for months, but he's slippery, like an owl. (Fowler is confused)—He does, however, have a weakness.

And that weakness is totty. 62. FOWLER (confused) Totty?

15. 61. GRIM (upset)A policewoman, you idiot. We've been on to a major local villain for months, but he's slippery, like an owl. (Fowler is confused)—He does, however, have a weakness. And that weakness is totty

62. FOWLER (confused) Totty?

63. GRIM Birds, bints, anything in a skirt- barring a Scotsman.(Fowler is still confused)— He's a ladies' man.

18. 78. GRIM Well, do it discreetly. It's not the sort of operation that wants to be blabbed round the station. Tell no one but Habib. 79. FOWLER I don't need to be told my duty, inspector Grim.

80. GRIM Well, I hope not, because it's my backside on the line and I'm right up to my neck in it.

(Fowler looks at Grim weirdly).

20. 102. GOODY (speaking seriously and rigidly) We've got the new "er", sir.

103. FOWLER (confused)—The new er? 21. 103. FOWLER (confused)—The new er?

104. GOODY That's right.The er. Beautiful it is. (admiring) Beautiful and shiny. A beautiful and shiny er! (Inspector Fowler’s face shows he still does not understand)You ordered it. 105. FOWLER (confused) I ordered an er?

106. GOODY Yes, and now it's come. Frank's been polishing it up. Come on, Frank, show Inspector Fowler his new “er”.

(Constable Glasdtone enters and brings the new desk crest E.R (Elizabeth Regina))

107. FOWLER Oh, of course, the new desk crest E.R.

29. 186. FOWLER All right, you men. I'm going to ask you a question and I want you to answer to the best of your ability. Do you understand?

187. GLADSTONE Yes, sir.

188. GOODY Just one question, sir.

189. FOWLER Yes, just the one question, Goody.

190. GOODY No, I mean, may I ask a question about your question? 191. FOWLER Yes, if you must.

192. GOODY Thank you, sir. Is that the question?

193. FOWLER (confused) Is what the question? 194. GOODY If we understand.

195. FOWLER (confused) Understand what?

197. FOWLER Is the question whether you understand the fact that I'm going to ask you a question?

198. GOODY (speaking steadily)Yes, sir. You see, you said you were going to ask us a question. And then you asked us if we understood. Now I was wondering if that was the question or just a sub question, and that the real question was still to come.

2. By showing the feeling of hostility from some persons or communities to

others

a. Violations of Maxim of Quality

Data Nu.

Line Nu.

Name Dialogue

1. 2. FOWLER Hello, darling (trying to stand up). I hope I didn't wake you. 3. DAWKINS Not at all. It's the first time you've made my headboard

rattle this year. I wouldn't have wanted to miss that. Where've you been?

4. FOWLER You know where I've been, my petal. At my pub quiz night. 24. 122. GLADSTONE (admiring) I must say this er will look very well up on the

wall.

123. KRAY Tell you what, Frank, you need a big hat to pin that badge on.

(Gladstone looks at Kray confusedly. Then, Gladstone and Goody look up at each other with confused face).

b. Violations of Maxim of Relation

3. By making one person feels liberated talking about taboo topics

a. Violations of Maxim of Manner

Data Nu.

Line Nu.

Name Dialogue

25. 147. HABIB (Inspector Fowler is surprised. Then, he walks rigidly, leaving constable Habib. In the same time, constable Goody, reading a magazine, comes through constable Habib walking in the corridor).

(purrs) (flirting) (constable Goody is surprised. His body is Data

Nu.

Line Nu.

Name Dialogue

17. 70. GRIM We're not talking about a honey trap, just a bit of intelligence gathering. C.I.D. cannot operate without intelligence. 71. FOWLER (mocking Grim) You seem to have managed very well up

till now.

72. GRIM (shouting) (warning) Listen! the bloke is laughing at the law. If you're not careful, division'll hand it over. And we'll have the flying squad back.

30. 199. FOWLER (upset) Congratulations, Goody, you've just failed your trial for the quiz team. Get out.

shaking) Hello, gorgeous. Mmm, I love a man in an uniform. (constable Habib comes closer to constable

Goody’s body) ( gasps ) is that truncheon in your

pocket or are you just pleased to see me? (leaving Constable Goody alone).

148. GOODY (take someting from his pocket with his shaking hand) (stummering) Actually it's a mars bar.

x

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.

xi

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

pelanggaran-pelanggaran 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

pelanggaran-pelanggaran yang menyebabkan situasi humor. Pelanggaran-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.