Analysis of The Non-Observance of Maxims That Leads To Humor in 'Modern Family' TV Series Season 1 Episodes 1-5.

ii

Maranatha Christian University

ABSTRAK

Skripsi ini menganalisis pelanggaran bidal dalam percakapan yang menimbulkan humor. Data dalam skripsi ini bersumber dari sebuah serial komedi situasi yang berjudul Modern Family. Serial ini saya pilih sebagai sumber data karena percakapan-percakapan di dalamnya menimbulkan humor yang berasal dari pelanggaran bidal. Teori yang saya gunakan dalam menganalisis data di skripsi ini adalah teori Pragmatik, khususnya teori bidal dari Grice dan beberapa teori humor seperti teori Incongruity, teori Superiority, dan Raskin’s Theory of Script Incongruity.

Salah satu alasan mengapa saya tertarik menganalisis humor yang bersumber dari pelanggaran bidal dalam suatu percakapan ialah karena dalam kehidupan manusia di dunia ini komunikasi adalah hal yang sangat penting. Akan tetapi, ketika manusia berkomunikasi dengan sesamanya, seringkali cara mereka menyampaikan apa yang menjadi keinginan mereka tidak jelas. Hal inilah yang dapat menimbulkan kesalahpahaman dan memungkinkan munculnya humor dalam suatu proses komunikasi.

Dari analisis data dalam skripsi ini, saya menemukan bahwa dalam percakapan-percakapan yang terjadi, penutur seringkali melanggar aturan berkomunikasi. Hal ini dapat terjadi karena beberapa hal, misalnya penutur berbohong dengan mengatakan hal yang tidak benar, menceritakan hal yang berlebihan yang tidak diperlukan dalam suatu komunikasi. Hal inilah yang akhirnya menjadi humor ketika pendengar mendapati bahwa lawan

iii

Maranatha Christian University bicaranya mengatakan hal yang tidak ia sangka sebelumnya. Humor dapat terjadi jika penutur mempunyai maksud tertentu yang tidak diduga oleh pendengar.

Sebagai penutup, saya menyarankan para pembaca untuk menganalisis film Modern Family lebih dalam lagi. Karena selain film ini adalah film komedi yang menarik, didalam film ini banyak hal yang dapat digali dari segi linguistik.

i

Maranatha Christian University

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... i

ABSTRACT ... ii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study………..……… 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ... 3

1.3 Purpose of the Study ... 4

1.4 Method of Research ... 4

1.5 Organization of the Thesis ... 4

CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Pragmatics ... 6

2.2 Implicature ... 7

2.2.1 Conventional Implicature... 7

2.2.2 Conversational Implicature ... 7

2.3 Conversational Maxims ... 8

2.4 Non-observance of Maxims ... 9

2.4.1 Flouting a Maxim ... 9

2.4.2 Violating a Maxim ... 11

2.4.3 Infringing a Maxim ... 12

2.4.4 Opting out a Maxim ... 13

2.4.5 Suspending a Maxim ... 13

2.5 Incongruity Theory ... 14

2.6 Superiority Theory ... 16

2.7 Raskin’s Theory of Script Incongruity ... 16

CHAPTER THREE: ANALYSIS OF THE NON-OBSERVANCE OF MAXIMS THAT LEADS TO HUMOR IN MODERN FAMILY TV SERIES SEASON 1 EPISODES 1-5_{... 19}

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION ... 41

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 44

46

APPENDIX

No Utterance Kind of

Non- Observance

Kind of maxim

1. Phil : Luke, you in there? Luke : Hey, dad.

Phil : Hey. Hey, buddy. That was, uh, that was pretty fun today, huh. Gettin' a new bike? (a)

Luke : Yeah, it was awesome.

Phil : Anything you want to share with me? (b)

Luke : Not really. (c)

Phil : So, if I went to the garage to take a picture for a scrapbook, there’d be no surprises? (d)

Luke : I’m so sorry. I didn’t mean it. I just made a mistake.

Phil : Yeah, a big mistake! You’re making me look really bad here. I told mom you were ready for this. (e)

Luke : It’s just a scratch, dad.

Phil : That’s not the point, Luke – what? Luke : I scratched it on my way into the driveway. I’m sorry.

Flouting Flouting Violating Flouting Flouting Quality Manner Quality Manner Quantity

47 Phil : So, it’s not stolen?

Luke : No. why?

Phil : That’s good. Cause…. There are bad people out there who would steal a bike. Those are thieves. You sit there and think about the scratch part. That’s not good, either. Gonna fix that step. So, don’t scratch anything

while I’m gone. Unless it itches – that’s different. (f)

Violating

Violating Quantity _Manner

2 Claire : So where were you when it got stolen?

Phil : Oh, I was getting some gas. (a) Claire : Uh-huh?

Phil : Yeah.

Claire : You don’t stand near the car when you get gas?

Phil : Yep. But, uh, I went inside to get a soda because I was thirsty, and if I had a soda, I wouldn’t be thirsty anymore. So, I bought one, and then I drank it all there, which is why I don’t have the can. (b)

Violating

Flouting

Quality

48

3 Phil : Ohh, oh yeah! You get back here, you!

Claire :What are you doing, Phil?

Phil : I just love you so darn much! (a) Claire :I know I love you too, but that hurts.

Phil :Let’s get you inside. It’s the hot one. (b)

Desiree : Hi.

Claire :I know. That’s hurting a lot. Phil : This is the hot one. (c) Desiree : Hello, hi there.

Phil : Oh, hi!

Desiree : Hi, again. I, uh, found your bike. Uh..

Phil : Oh, good. You – the—at the gas station? (d)

Desiree : No, at my house. One of my neighbors saw it and put in my garage. When you were in my bed room, so.. (e)

Violating Violating Violating Violating Flouting Quality Quality Quality Quality Quantity

4 Phil : Ow! Ow! I need to rest my face. Jay : You’re fine. You’ll be alright Claire : Oh, my God! Dad!

Jay : Little accidents. Nothing big. (a) Phil : I was in a plane crash.

Claire : What happened?

Jay : We were threading the needle and somebody moved. (b)

Phil : No, I didn’t. You did it on purpose. Jay : That’s the painkiller talking. He’s a little loopy. (c)

Violating Violating Violating Quality Quality Quality

49 Gloria : How bad is it?

Jay : One of the wings is cracked and the propeller is bent, but I can – (d)

Gloria : I mean Phil.

Phil : I was in a plane crash.

1

Maranatha Christian University

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Communication is very important for people since they cannot live alone and they need help from others. In communicating with others, people utter what they want to say to others. When people utter something verbally, communication can be done easily. However, in many cases, a speaker does not convey their intention directly through what they utter. This may cause a misunderstanding between the speaker and the hearer. Some of the misunderstanding may result in humor. In this thesis, I would like to analyze the utterances that sometimes fail to be interpreted correctly, which finally lead to humor.

The topic of my thesis is “analysis of the on-observance of maxims that leads to humor in Modern Family TV Series Season 1 Episodes 1-5”. I chose this topic because I am interested to study about people’s utterances in their everyday life. The sources of data are the utterances spoken by some of the main characters of a situational comedy, Modern Family. I chose a film as my data source because I think film is one of the media in which the communication process between people happens. Besides, analyzing a film is more fun and interesting than analyzing other media

2

Maranatha Christian University because we could see directly how people interact with each other through their utterances.

This situational comedy contains many light humors that might also happen in everybody’s life. Modern Family is a story of three families that are interviewed by a documentary crew. In every episode of the story they reveal their everyday lives. Modern Family explores many different types of modern families. The film tells the story through the stories of a gay couple, Mitchell and Cameron, and their daughter, Lily, along with a couple named Phil and Claire, and their three children, Haley, Alex, and Luke. There is also a multicultural couple, Jay and Gloria, and their son, Manny. The story is wrapped in a form of comedy that may arise a lot of laughters (Adhari). I chose situational comedy because the story of the situational comedy is based on everyday life situation between people in a family, in a workplace, and in neighborhood, which may also happen in our real life. One of the things that makes this situational comedy funny is the use of the non-observance of maxims. All of this explains why I choose the film to be the data source of my analysis for my thesis.

There is an area of linguistics that is concerned with the speaker’s utterance and the interpretation of the utterance. It is called pragmatics. Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics that studies speaker’s meaning. According to George Yule, in his book Pragmatics, Pragmatics is “the

study of speaker meaning” which

is “concerned with the study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader)” (3). “Pragmatics explores the great deal of what is unsaid is recognized as part of what is communicated”. Yule also stated that “Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than it is said” (3). The study of Pragmatics necessarily involves the interpretation of what people actually mean in a particular context and how the context influences what is said. To avoid misunderstanding that might happen in the interpretation, Grice established the Cooperative Principle (1975).

3

Maranatha Christian University This principle can be applied if the participants of the conversation follow the maxims, which is the rules of speaking, which include quantity, quality, relevance, and manner.

Moreover, as Grice stated, when people communicate with each other in everyday lives, they do not always say what they really mean. People often mean much more than they say or they may mean the opposite of what is uttered. This happens in our everyday life, and also in the situational comedy that I am going to analyze. In Pragmatics, this issue is called the implied meaning or implicature (Yule 35). According to Yule, we can get some advantages by learning language through Pragmatics. He stated that through Pragmatics we can find people’s intention behind their utterances, behind their assumptions, and we can also know people’s purposes or goals when they speak to others (Yule 4).

It is expected that the result of this study can help people in understanding the implicature that may happen in other people’s utterances and also it is hoped that people will be able to catch the humor that lies behind the utterances through the non-observance of maxims. And hopefully, this study will improve the readers’ ability to enjoy watching a comedy film.

750 words

1.2 Statement of the Problem

In this thesis, I would like to solve the following problems:

1. What types of non-observance of maxim are found in the utterances of Modern Family TV Series Season 1 Episodes 1-5?

2. What is the implicature of each of the utterances?

4

Maranatha Christian University 1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is:

1. to describe the types of non-observance of maxims in Modern Family TV Series Season 1 Episodes 1-5.

2. to reveal the implicature of each of the utterances.

3. to explain how the non-observance of maxims leads to humor in the utterances.

1.4 Method of Research

To analyze the data, first I watched several episodes of Modern Family TV series. Then I collected the utterances containing implicature as the data. After that I searched the theories that are relevant to the topic discussed. This was done by reading some books and also browsing through the Internet to find information about the concept of Cooperative Principle and its maxims along with the theories of humor. Then I analyzed the data, focusing on the maxims that the speaker fails to observe.

1.5 Organization of the Thesis

I divide the thesis into four chapters. The first chapter is the Introduction, which consists of the Background of the Study, Statement of the Problems, Purpose of the Study, Method of Research, and Organization of the Thesis. Chapter Two contains the theoretical framework, in which I present some approaches that I use to analyze the data. Chapter Three is the analysis of the non-observance of maxims that leads to humor in Modern Family TV Series Season 1 Episodes 1-5. The last chapter, Chapter

5

Maranatha Christian University Four, is the conclusion of the analysis. At the end of the thesis, I put the Bibliography and the Appendix.

41

Maranatha Christian University

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

After watching several episodes of Modern Family¸ I find 19 utterances that are suitable to be used as my data in my thesis. In 17 utterances that I use as my data, there are 6 flouting of maxims, three of which are flouting the maxim of quantity, two of which are flouting the maxim of manner, and one is flouting the maxim of quality. There are also 11 violating of maxims, nine of which are violating the maxim of quality, one is violating maxim of relation, and there is one utterance which is violating the maxim of quantity and also violating the maxim of manner.

We can see here that the type of non-observance of maxims that most frequently happens in the utterances is the violating of maxims (11 of 17 utterances). I believe that this happens because some of the characters in the data often lie in their utterances to hide from others something bad that they have done. Moreover, they also try to deceive the hearers by saying something which is not true or in which they lack of evidence and also by giving an amount of answers which are not required by the hearers. Yet the type of non-observance of maxims that is not commonly happens and not really observed in the situational comedy is infringing a maxim, opting-out a maxim and suspending a maxim. This is true because the characters in the situational comedy tend to lie more and to give unnecessary information and not to infringe a maxim, opt-out or suspend a maxim.

42

Maranatha Christian University The character which often violates the maxim is Phil. I can conclude that Phil is not an honest person, because he often lies and says something about which he lacks evidence. Moreover, he often makes the others deceived by his utterances. He tends to utter lies in order to hide the truth from his family. For example, when his wife, Claire, asks him where he is when the bike that he brings is lost, Phil lies to Claire by answering that he is at the gas station to get some gas. Actually, the audience knows that at that time when Phil loses the bike, he is at a new sexy neighbor’s house. He lies to Claire because he knows Claire will get mad at him if she knows Phil drops by at the new sexy neighbor’s house. And when it comes to a situation in which he wants to say the truth (data 4), people seem not too sure that he is saying the truth. Moreover, he has to accept the truth that his father-in-law makes a false testimony of what he has done to Phil. Besides violating, the types of non-observance of maxims is found among the utterances is the use of flouting of maxims. I think this might happen because the characters in the data tend to lie more than to wish the hearers to just catch what the speakers want to say.

I use three theories to analyze the humor effect in my data. They are Incongruity Theory, Superiority Theory and Raskin’s Theory of Script Incongruity. Compared to Superiority Theory and Raskin’s Theory of Script Incongruity, Incongruity theory is more dominant in the data. This might happen, because I believe in making the utterance funny the situational comedy tends to put the surprise in the punch line of each of the dialogues. The utterances often start with one story or set-up then continue with the audience making a prediction of what will happen next at the end of the story. Most of the utterances in the data end up not just like what the audience has expected, so finally it makes a surprise.

In reality when we are having conversation with others, we expect true information from the person that we talk to. But somehow our conversation with others is not always like that. The answer or the utterance from the people we talk to

43

Maranatha Christian University is sometimes surprising and it can be unlike what we expected before. Based on the Theory of Incongruity, when our expectation of people’s utterance fails, the result can be humor or puzzlement. If finally the story or the conversation ends up differently from what we have expected, then the result is a surprise. So when we think what has just happened is congruous with the earlier information in the story, the laughter is raised. But if the audience does not get the joke when the incongruity is resolved, they will get puzzled. For example, when the weather is hot, we expect the person that we ask for help to open a window will say yes; however, when he rejects our request and says, “It is good for me,” we will get surprised by his answer. Later when we know that he is on a diet to lose his weight, we finally get the idea that he thinks the hot weather will make him/her to sweat and so will help him lose some weights.

For further research about the types of non-observance of maxims that leads to humor, I recommend other readers will dig more from this situational comedy,

Modern Family. I believe that this situational comedy is not only funny but there are lots of implicatures and the use of non-observance of maxims that supports the humor to rise. The characters in the film and the stories that are set-up also support the film to be a real amusement for the audience. Therefore, I really recommend other students to continue analyzing this situational comedy because there are more to find in it. It will be amusing and challenging when we are able to reveal the humor through the analysis that we make. After doing the analysis, we can know considered funny and how is the process of finding the humor behind utterances.

44

Maranatha Christian University

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Source

Modern Family TV Series 1-5. 2011. Levitan / Lloyd, 20th Century Fox Television,

Lloyd-Levitan Productions.

References

Abdalian, Andrew. “Why’s that funny?? An extension to the Semantic Theory of

Humor” 2005. Web. 8 May 2012.

Adhari, Hari. “TV Series Review, Modern Family” Curly Badindas. 2011. Web. 20 Sept, 2011.

Argumentics.”Victor Raskin and the SSTH Argument, One Argument.” Web. 9 May, 2012.

Cook, Guy. Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.

45

Maranatha Christian University Goldstein, Jeffrey H. Psychology of Humor. New York: Academic Press, 1972.

Print.

Hughes, Laura. “Grice’s Cooperative Principle, Maxims of Conversation & Conversational Implicature”. n.d. Web. 14 Feb, 2012.

McGhee, Paul E. and Jeffrey H Goldstein. Handbook of Humour Research. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983. Print.

Monro, David.Hector. “Theories of Humor” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum 3rd ed. n.d. Web. 9 May, 2012.

Short, Mike. “Grice's Cooperative Principle” Ling 131: Language & Style. n.d. Web. 10 Feb, 2012.

Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman Group Limited, 1995. Print.

Wiseman, Richard. “Laugh Lab” Superiority Theory. n.d. Web. 9 May, 2012.

Four, is the conclusion of the analysis. At the end of the thesis, I put the Bibliography and the Appendix.

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION

After watching several episodes of Modern Family¸ I find 19 utterances that are suitable to be used as my data in my thesis. In 17 utterances that I use as my data, there are 6 flouting of maxims, three of which are flouting the maxim of quantity, two of which are flouting the maxim of manner, and one is flouting the maxim of quality. There are also 11 violating of maxims, nine of which are violating the maxim of quality, one is violating maxim of relation, and there is one utterance which is violating the maxim of quantity and also violating the maxim of manner.

We can see here that the type of non-observance of maxims that most frequently happens in the utterances is the violating of maxims (11 of 17 utterances). I believe that this happens because some of the characters in the data often lie in their utterances to hide from others something bad that they have done. Moreover, they also try to deceive the hearers by saying something which is not true or in which they lack of evidence and also by giving an amount of answers which are not required by the hearers. Yet the type of non-observance of maxims that is not commonly happens and not really observed in the situational comedy is infringing a maxim, opting-out a maxim and suspending a maxim. This is true because the characters in the situational comedy tend to lie more and to give unnecessary information and not to infringe a maxim, opt-out or suspend a maxim.

The character which often violates the maxim is Phil. I can conclude that Phil is not an honest person, because he often lies and says something about which he lacks evidence. Moreover, he often makes the others deceived by his utterances. He tends to utter lies in order to hide the truth from his family. For example, when his wife, Claire, asks him where he is when the bike that he brings is lost, Phil lies to Claire by answering that he is at the gas station to get some gas. Actually, the audience knows that at that time when Phil loses the bike, he is at a new sexy neighbor’s house. He lies to Claire because he knows Claire will get mad at him if she knows Phil drops by at the new sexy neighbor’s house. And when it comes to a situation in which he wants to say the truth (data 4), people seem not too sure that he is saying the truth. Moreover, he has to accept the truth that his father-in-law makes a false testimony of what he has done to Phil. Besides violating, the types of non-observance of maxims is found among the utterances is the use of flouting of maxims. I think this might happen because the characters in the data tend to lie more than to wish the hearers to just catch what the speakers want to say.

I use three theories to analyze the humor effect in my data. They are Incongruity Theory, Superiority Theory and Raskin’s Theory of Script Incongruity. Compared to Superiority Theory and Raskin’s Theory of Script Incongruity, Incongruity theory is more dominant in the data. This might happen, because I believe in making the utterance funny the situational comedy tends to put the surprise in the punch line of each of the dialogues. The utterances often start with one story or set-up then continue with the audience making a prediction of what will happen next at the end of the story. Most of the utterances in the data end up not just like what the audience has expected, so finally it makes a surprise.

In reality when we are having conversation with others, we expect true information from the person that we talk to. But somehow our conversation with

is sometimes surprising and it can be unlike what we expected before. Based on the Theory of Incongruity, when our expectation of people’s utterance fails, the result can be humor or puzzlement. If finally the story or the conversation ends up differently from what we have expected, then the result is a surprise. So when we think what has just happened is congruous with the earlier information in the story, the laughter is raised. But if the audience does not get the joke when the incongruity is resolved, they will get puzzled. For example, when the weather is hot, we expect the person that we ask for help to open a window will say yes; however, when he rejects our request and says, “It is good for me,” we will get surprised by his answer. Later when we know that he is on a diet to lose his weight, we finally get the idea that he thinks the hot weather will make him/her to sweat and so will help him lose some weights.

For further research about the types of non-observance of maxims that leads to humor, I recommend other readers will dig more from this situational comedy, Modern Family. I believe that this situational comedy is not only funny but there are lots of implicatures and the use of non-observance of maxims that supports the humor to rise. The characters in the film and the stories that are set-up also support the film to be a real amusement for the audience. Therefore, I really recommend other students to continue analyzing this situational comedy because there are more to find in it. It will be amusing and challenging when we are able to reveal the humor through the analysis that we make. After doing the analysis, we can know considered funny and how is the process of finding the humor behind utterances.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Source

Modern Family TV Series 1-5. 2011. Levitan / Lloyd, 20th Century Fox Television,

Lloyd-Levitan Productions.

References

Abdalian, Andrew. “Why’s that funny?? An extension to the Semantic Theory of

Humor” 2005. Web. 8 May 2012.

Adhari, Hari. “TV Series Review, Modern Family” Curly Badindas. 2011. Web. 20 Sept, 2011.

Argumentics.”Victor Raskin and the SSTH Argument, One Argument.” Web. 9 May, 2012.

Cook, Guy. Language Play, Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.

Goldstein, Jeffrey H. Psychology of Humor. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Print.

Hughes, Laura. “Grice’s Cooperative Principle, Maxims of Conversation & Conversational Implicature”. n.d. Web. 14 Feb, 2012.

McGhee, Paul E. and Jeffrey H Goldstein. Handbook of Humour Research. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983. Print.

Monro, David.Hector. “Theories of Humor” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum 3rd ed. n.d. Web. 9 May, 2012.

Short, Mike. “Grice's Cooperative Principle” Ling 131: Language & Style. n.d. Web. 10 Feb, 2012.

Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman Group Limited, 1995. Print.

Wiseman, Richard. “Laugh Lab” Superiority Theory. n.d. Web. 9 May, 2012.