101214142_full.pdf - USD Repository

AN ANALYSIS OF NON-OBSERVANCE MAXIMS IN

HUMOROUS CONVERSATION IN HOW I MET YOUR

MOTHER SEASON 2

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Caesilia Carolina

101214142

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2015

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

i

AN ANALYSIS OF NON-OBSERVANCE MAXIMS IN

HUMOROUS CONVERSATION IN HOW I MET YOUR

MOTHER SEASON 2

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Caesilia Carolina

101214142

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2015


iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY

I honestly declare that this thesis, which I have written, does not contain the work

or the parts of the work of other people, except those cited in the quotations and

the references, as a scientific paper should.

Yogyakarta, September 10, 2015

The writer

Caesilia Carolina

101214142


v

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:

Nama : Caesilia Carolina

Nomor Mahasiswa : 101214142

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan

Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

AN ANALYSIS OF NON-OBSERVANCE MAXIMS IN HUMOROUS

CONVERSATION IN HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER SEASON 2

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan

kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan,

mengalihkan dalam bentuk 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

memberikan royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai

penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 10 September 2015

Yang menyatakan,

Caesilia Carolina


vi

ABSTRACT

Carolina, Caesilia, 2015. An Analysis of Non-Observance Maxims in Humorous

Conversation in How I Met Your Mother Season 2. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma

University.

Linguistically, humor in TV-shows often arises from the verbal

interaction that often emerges in daily life conversation. The humorous fragments

are often found in the characters’ utterances when the conversation technically

does not work as is supposed to be. The similar cases can be found in sitcom How

I Met Your Mother season 2. In this case, humor was attributable to violation of

normal conversation, also the comic characters. As is known, Grice’s Cooperative

Principle governs the daily conversation based on principle of cooperation.

Accordingly, this research aims to gain the sight of the language humor process in

perspective of Grice’s CP and describe the involvement of the non-observances of

CP in creating humorous effects.

The research focus was framed within two questions: 1) What are kinds of

the non-observance maxims employed in humorous conversations in the sitcom

How I Met Your Mother season 2? And 2) How do the violations maxim take

place in creating humorous effects in sitcom How I Met Your Mother season 2?

To discover the findings, qualitative research was conducted with the

pragmatic understanding by employing discourse analysis as a method. The

research data are taken from the situation comedy How I Met Your Mother season

2. To gain the findings of the first focus, the humorous utterances in How I Met

Your Mother season 2 were identified and classified according to the four

categories of non-observance maxims, namely flouting, violating, infringing and

suspending; without an exclusion of basic conversational structure theory. The

second focus findings were gained with the guidance of the GTVH associated

with the incongruity theory.

The analysis resulted two main findings. First, there were four kinds of

non-observances maxim of CP employed in humorous conversation: flouting,

violating, infringing and suspending. Furthermore, exploiting multiple maxims

were discovered as well. Second, humor was attributable to violation of four

maxims. Violation maxims done by employing the non-observance maxims

became script opposition as knowledge resource for humor production -- when the

violation conflicted to the audiences’ normal conceptual patterns. However,

violation maxims were insufficient in the context of audiovisual humor. It needed

to be combined with other resources knowledge to be perceived that the situation

is supposed to be funny in the context given.

Keywords: non-observance, humorous effects, How I Met Your Mother season 2


vii

ABSTRAK

Carolina, Caesilia, 2015. An Analysis of Non-Observance Maxims in Humorous

Conversation in How I Met Your Mother Season 2. Yogyakarta: Universitas

Sanata Dharma.

Secara linguistik, humor di sitkom sering muncul dari interaksi lisan

dalam percakapan sehari-hari. Humor sering ditemukan pada ungkapan-

ungkapan yang diucapkan oleh tokoh ketika secara teknis percakapan tersebut

tidak berjalan semestinya. Kasus serupa dapat ditemukan di sitkom How I Met

Your Mother season 2. Dalam kasus ini, humor berasal dari pemain sitkom dan

percakapan yang dilanggar. Seperti yang diketahui, prinsip kerjasama oleh Grice

mengatur mekanisme percakapan sehari-hari berdasarkan asas kerjasama.

Sesuai hal tersebut, penelitian ini ditujukan untuk menganalis proses bahasa

humor dari perspektif prinsip kerjasama oleh Grice dan mendiskripsikan

keterlibatan cara-cara penyimpangan maksim dalam menciptakan efek humor.

Penelitian ini fokus pada dua perumusan masalah: 1) Macam cara-cara

penyimpangan apakah yang diterapkan dalam percakapan humor di sitkom How

I Met Your Mother season 2? Dan 2) Bagaimanakah penyimpangan-

penyimpangan maxim tersebut berperan dalam menciptakan efek humor di sitkom

How I Met Your Mother season 2?

Untuk menemukan hasil, penelitian kualitatif dilakukan melalui

pendekatan pragmatik dengan menerapkan analisis percakapan sebagai metode.

Data penelitian diambil dari sitkom How I Met Your Mother season 2. Rumusan

masalah pertama dijawab dengan mengidentifikasi dan mengklasifikasi

ungkapan-ungkapan lucu di sitkom How I Met Your Mother season 2 dengan

arahan teori struktur dasar percakapan dan 4 macam cara penyimpangan:

‘flouting’, ‘violating’, ‘infringing’ dan ‘suspending’. Rumusan masalah kedua

dijawab dengan mendiskripsikan hasil penyimpangan maksim dengan

berpedoman pada teori humor verbal secara umum yang dikaitkan dengan teori

humor.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan 2 penemuan utama. Pertama, 4 macam cara

penyimpangan diterapkan dalam percakapan humor: ‘flouting’, ‘violating’,

‘infringing’ dan ‘suspending’. Selain itu, penyimpangan maksim bersamaan juga

ditemukan. Kedua, humor muncul dari penyimpangam maksim. Penyimpangan

maksim dari penerapan cara penyimpangan menjadi teks oposisi, yakni sebagai

element sumber untuk pembuatan humor -- humor muncul ketika terjadi

ketidakserasian antara penyimpangan dengan konsep sehari-hari penonton.

Namun, penyimpangan-penyimpangan maksim tersebut tidak cukup dalam

konteks humor secara audiovisual. Suatu kombinasi tertentu perlu ditambahkan

agar humor dalam situasi yang diberikan dapat tangkap oleh penonton.

Kata kunci: non-observance, humorous effects, How I Met Your Mother season 2


ix

“Every time you find

some humor in a

difficult situation,

you win.”

DEDICATED TO:

The man upstairs, myself, big families, PBI C 2010,

readers.


x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Praise to Jesus, begotten Son of God. I truly thank God for every second of

breath I breathe. Uneven for not leading me into temptation but lessons learnt. For

me, everything may fail but Him. Even most rhymed, most beautiful, most

meaningful sentence in any language would fail to describe my gratitude.

The great gratitude goes to Carla Sih Pribandari, S.Pd., M.Hum. Her

favor, her patience support me during the process of accomplishing this thesis.

Moreover, her advice, comments, suggestions, and corrections were very valuable

for me. I also thank all lecturers, especially Henny Herawati, S.Pd., M.Hum. as

my academic advisor and Drs. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D. for spreading smile in

PBI district. I thank to my big families who always make me feel blessed. For

every support and companion, I favorably thank PBI C 2010 for being the living

hilarity and relentless supporters.

For the irresistible moments, I thank Ginger and Alto. For the amusing

and incongruous behavior, I thank Sendi. For the pleasurable timeline, I thank

Pandhu for the weeks of cinema and being annoying. I thank Disa, Mega, Ijah,

Kapuk, and Doci for being inside the time glasses with. I also thank Nut-nut,

Amel and Tiwi for the hilarious chats and engaging disturbing pictures. Last but

not least, I thank all friends around who met me for reasons.

Caesilia Carolina


x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE ......................................................................................................... i

APPROVAL PAGE .............................................................................................. ii

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

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

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... vi

ABSTRAK ............................................................................................................. vii

DEDICATION PAGE ........................................................................................ viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... xiv

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xv

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................... xvi

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1

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

B. Research Problems .............................................................................. 4

C. Problem Limitation ............................................................................. 4

D. Research Objectives ............................................................................ x

E. Research Benefits ............................................................................... 6

F. Definition of Terms ............................................................................ 7

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................... 10

A. Theoretical description ........................................................................ 10

1. Humor Theory ................................................................................ 10

a. General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) ............................... 14

b. Pragmatic of Humor .................................................................. 16

2. Conversation Theory ...................................................................... 16

a. Basic Structure of Conversation ............................................... 17

b. Grice’s Cooperative Principle .................................................... 21

1) Types of Maxims ............................................................. 22

2) Non-observance Maxims ................................................. 25

B. Theoretical Framework ....................................................................... 28

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................ 32

A. Research Method ................................................................................. 32

B. Research Setting .................................................................................. 34

C. Objective of Study ............................................................................... 34

D. Instrument and Data Gathering Technique ......................................... 35

E. Data Analysis Technique .................................................................... 36

F. Research Procedures ........................................................................... 37

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ....................... 40

A. Non-Observance Maxims of CP in Humorous Conversations Taken

from Sitcom How I Met Your Mother Season 2 .................................. 40


xi

1. The Analysis on a Situation which Flouts Maxims ........................ 42

a. Flouting maxim of quality ....................................................... 42

b. Flouting maxim of quantity ..................................................... 46

c. Flouting maxim of relevance ................................................... 49

d. Flouting maxim of manner ...................................................... 51

e. Flouting multiple maxims ....................................................... 54

2. The Analysis on a Situation which Violates Maxims .................. xi5

a. Violating maxim of quality ...................................................... 55

b. Violating maxim of quantity .................................................... 59

c. Violating maxim of relevance .................................................. 62

d. Violating maxim of manner ..................................................... 63

e. Violating multiple maxims ....................................................... 68

3. The Analysis on a Situation which Infringe Maxims ..................... 69

4. The Analysis on a Situation which Suspend Maxims .................... 71

B. Contribution of Non-observance Maxims in Creating Humorous

Effects in Sitcom How I Met Your Mother Season 2. ......................... 72

1. Maxim of quality ............................................................................ 72

a. Flouting ................................................................................... 72

b. Violating .................................................................................. 74

c. Infringing ................................................................................. 75

2. Maxim of quantity .......................................................................... 76

a. Flouting ................................................................................... 76

b. Violating .................................................................................. 78

3. Maxim of relevance ........................................................................ 79

a. Flouting ................................................................................... 79

b. Violating .................................................................................. 80

c. Infringing ................................................................................. 81

4. Maxim of manner ........................................................................... 82

a. Flouting ................................................................................... 82

b. Violating .................................................................................. 83

c. Infringing ................................................................................. 84

5. Multiple maxims ............................................................................. 86

a. Flouting ................................................................................... 86

b. Violating .................................................................................. 87

c. Infringing ................................................................................. 88

d. Suspending .............................................................................. 90

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 92

A. Conclusions .................................................................................... 92

B. Implications .................................................................................... 95

C. Recommendations .......................................................................... 95

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 96

APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 102


xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 Correlation of Content and Format in Adjacency Pair Sequences ................ 19

2.2 Variety of response tokens ............................................................................ 21

4.1 Distribution of violations based on the non-observance maxims’ types ..... 41


xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A 4.1 Table of Flouting Maxim of Quality ................................................... 102

B 4.2 Table of Flouting Maxim of Quantity ................................................. 105

C 4.3 Table of Flouting Maxim of Relevance .............................................. 108

D 4.4 Table of Flouting Maxim of Manner .................................................. 110

E 4.5 Table of Flouting Multiple Maxims .................................................... 112

F 4.6 Table of Violating Maxim of Quality ................................................. 113

G 4.7 Table of Violating Maxim of Quantity ............................................... 118

H 4.8 Table of Violating Maxim of Relevance ............................................ 120

I 4.9 Table of Violating Maxim of Manner ................................................. 122

J 4.10 Table of Violating Multiple Maxims ................................................ 126

K 4.11 Table of Infringing Maxim ............................................................... 127

L 4.12 Table of Suspending Maxims ........................................................... 129


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, the introduction of the research is deliberated into six parts,

namely the research background, the research problems, the problem limitations,

the research objectives, the research benefits, and the definition of terms. The

research background discusses the underlying reasons why the topic is chosen by

the researcher. As well as an introduction of an analysis of the non-observance of

cooperative principle in humorous conversation from the situation comedy How I

Met Your Mother season 2.

A. Research Background

Humor is a universal phenomenon which represents an important part of

human experiences (Raskin, 1985, p. 47). Humor, especially verbal humor often

happens in everyday interactions. Sometimes, people interact and express their

opinion and ideas either in written or spoken form with concise, humorous,

dramatic, exaggerating and sarcastic way to successfully get certain aimed effects,

as the consequences some people find it funny, and even get enlightenment. People

laugh at something pleasurable. However,

“different people will not necessarily find the same things funny – many things which will strike one group as funny may bore another group; some jokes are private or individual [but] the ability to appreciate humor is universal and shared by all people” (Raskin, 1985, p. 2). In addition, humor has its features of practicability which reflect intrinsic

rules (e.g. techniques, mechanism, types, function) and characters of English

language from various aspects and different points (Pan, 2012). It is no wonder that

1


2

it has been the subject of various disciplines such as psychology, philosophy,

aesthetic and linguistics. For that reason, this research have an attempt to appreciate

humor.

There are many forms and sources of humor which can meet people’s sense

of humor, current popular audiovisual humor such as stand-up comedy, comedy

films, and TV comedy series. One of the most popular humorous genres in

television, situation comedy is often shortened to sitcom. It is a form of humor

which attracts many people and also researcher. Sitcom has continuous storyline

and interesting composition technique, beside its joke content and audiovisual form.

Besides, sitcom has factors of humor generally: participants (speaker and hearer),

stimulus, life experience of individual, psychological type of individual, certain

physical environment and/or situation (context provided), and society (cultural

context). Apart from this, there are some remarkable and unusual humorous

phenomena in sitcoms. Besides, the conversations of sitcom often show

contradiction with the environment, action and common sense which elicits humor.

Verbal humor in situation comedy is the most important feature of sitcoms and also

the main mechanism to proceed. Characters interaction is one of the key functions

to build comedy in a sitcom which this research is interested in.

In this research, the characters’ interaction explicitly, the conversations in

How I Met Your Mother season 2 were preferred as the source data. How I Met Your

Mother season 2 has a humor which is not too long, not too short, and not too hard

to understand; has an element of surprise; adequate amount of detail situation; and

accompanied by gestures and facial expression. Accordingly, the research intends


3

to analyze the conversations which are humorous. Thus, the research places

pragmatic understanding as the baseboard of the research with the method of

discourse analysis.

In an attempt to build up the background, communicative theories are the

closest approach to discuss the conversation. Conversations that trigger audience’s

laughter will be alert, since situation comedy involves the same characters in

various day-to-day situations. There are many humor theories such as Semantic

Script Theory of Humor (SSTH) by Raskin (1985), General Theory of Verbal

Humor (GTVH) by Attardo and Raskin (1991) and violation theory by Veatch

which give insight into what lies beneath the surface of humor behavior, such as an

in-depth look at the resource elements of humor. Communicative theories such as

local organization within conversation (turn-taking, adjacency pairs), cooperative

principle by Paul Grice (1975) in which they are interrelated especially within

conversation are essentially considerable to screen verbal interaction, in the

circumstance of conversation, which source funny conversational scene. It is

assumed that in exchanging information via conversation, the participants are

following certain principles. Grice’s Cooperative Principle is proved to be effective

in many instances of analysis of conversation. In the connection with humor,

Hancher (1980) states that humor comes out by violating speech act in appropriate

condition or related conversational implicature theory. Attardo (1994) argues, the

violation of Cooperative Principle can give rise to humorous instances. He states

the assumption that “large number of jokes involves violations of one or more

Grice’s maxims” (p. 355). Holmes and Marra (2002) suggest and complete


4

Attardo’s explanation that humor which resulted from the violation maxims of

cooperative principle often occurs in the conversation among friends and

colleagues. By the same token, this research tries to discover humor which is

elicited from the violations of cooperative principle maxims by inspecting the

employment of non-observance maxims, and how the violations take part in

creating humorous effects.

B. Research Problems

The formulated problems of the research are:

1. What are kinds of the non-observance maxims employed in humorous

conversations in the sitcom How I Met Your Mother season 2?

2. How the non-observance maxims of CP take place in creating humorous

effects in sitcom How I Met Your Mother season 2?

C. Problem Limitation

The research examines and underlines the indication of violation maxims of

cooperative principle which is performed by employing the non-observance

maxims in humorous conversation in How I Met Your Mother season 2. The

discussion of which will be the first layer of the operation for the research findings

with the guidance of basic structure of conversation theory, cooperative maxims

and categories of the non-observance. Accordingly, the function of the conversation

among friends, conversational implicatures, and humor which is not governed by

cooperative principle will not be alert as the object discussion. Next stage, the

second layer will profoundly explore and analyze the contribution of non-


5

observance maxims employed in conversation in the episodes of How I Met Your

Mother season 2. Grice’s Cooperative Principles proposed by Paul Grice (1975) is

considered as the closest reference to limit the discussion, without an exclusion

from the most related theory of humor, namely incongruity theory and General

Theory of Verbal Humor.

D. Research Objectives

For the reason that there is a room to capture the answers of sort based on

the formulation of the problems, the research focuses on analyzing examples after

examples of the humorous conversation appeared in the humorous scenes of the

episodes. With the intention of examining the systematic properties of the

sequential organization of talk, the data, explicitly humorous conversations, shall

be firstly concerned with the guidance of the theory of basic structure of

conversation. Subsequently, four maxims which are failed to be observed within

conversation are identified and categorized by using non-observance maxims of CP

terms of reference. In order to capture the obvious regularities of sort which answers

the second problem, those humorous conversations employing the non-observance

maxims of Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP) will be a room to figure out how the

violations maxims of CP take place as a knowledge resource for humorous

conversations. The data will be taken from American sitcom episodes How I Met

Your Mother season 2.


6

E. Research Benefits

Some research has been conducted to analyze the language. Since this

research applies linguistic theory especially pragmatic theory, this research

analyzes language in relation to the speakers, conversation and context based on the

humor theories. The research is expected to have benefits for some parts.

Academic Benefits:

1. This research will contribute to pragmatics study, especially related to

Cooperative Principle and verbal humor.

2. The research findings will enrich the theories of pragmatics related to

Cooperative Principle.

3. This research can be used as an academic reference about a pragmatic analysis

in the language based on comedy movies.

Practical Benefits:

1. The students would be able to learn how pragmatic theories take part in the

creation of verbal humor in TV-sitcoms / comedy movies.

2. The teachers would know better about the implementation of Grice

Cooperative Principle maxims in creating verbal humor on purpose.

3. For both teachers and students, the introduction of American sitcoms will also

promote the understanding of American cultures and help to cultivate the

interest in English.


7

F. Definition of Terms

For perceiving a clear understanding upon the discussion, it is better to know

the meaning of terms used throughout the discussion:

1. Verbal humor

Verbal humor is when an aspect of language, such as structural ambiguity,

is exploited in order to achieve humorous effects (Jensen, 2009, p. 1).

2. Humorous conversation

In this research, a humorous conversation refers to a conversation which the

humorous situation occurs for the reason that one or more logical maxims of CP are

violated.

3. Grice’s Cooperative Principle

The basic description of Grice’s cooperative principle governs how people

ordinarily react in conversation: be true, be brief, be relevant and be clear.

Cooperative Principle according to Grice is to ‘make your conversational

contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted

purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged’ (Mooney,

2003, p. 1)

4. Conversational maxims

The maxims are the sub-principles of the cooperative principle. According

to Grice’s theory, the conversational maxims try to explain how listener might get

from the level of expressed meaning to the level of implied meaning (Asher, 1994,

p. 754). Grice proposed four maxims that are maxim of quality, maxim of quantity,


8

maxim of relation, and maxim of manner. Usually the maxims are regarded as

unstated assumption in the conversation (Yule, 1996, p. 37).

5. Non-observance conversational maxim

According to Grice, non-observance is defined as either blatant or

unostentatious failing to observe the maxims i.e. corresponding to ‘flouting’ or

‘violating’ of maxims (Brumark, 2004, p. 13). The rest of which are infringing,

opting-out and suspending. Non-observances are ways that the participants use to

make a distinction between what is said and what is meant which then generate

implicature (Kalliomaki, 2005, p. 24).

6. General Theory of Verbal Humor

Shortened to GTVH, a humor theory which is proposed by Victor Raskin

and Salvatore Attardo in the article “Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and

joke representation model” (Raskin & Attardo, 1991, p. 293). It integrated Raskin’s

ideas of Script Opposition (SO), developed in his Script-based Semantic Theory of

Humor [SSTH], into the GTVH as one of six levels of independent Knowledge

Resources (KRs): Script Opposition (SO), Logical Mechanism (LM), Situation

(SI), Target (TA), Narrative strategy (NS), Language (LA) (Attardo, 1991).

7. American sitcoms

How I Met Your Mother

Based on IMDb, How I Met Your Mother (HIMYM) is one of the finest late

comedy series in United States, admittedly when there are not many great ones

around. HIMYM first aired on September 19th, 2005, created by David Letterman.

The 30-minute CBS sitcom How I Met Your Mother was entirely in the flashback


9

from the vantage point of 2030. The genre of this sitcom is romantic-comedy with

narrative format in the past tense. HIMYM is well-known for its unique structure

and eccentric humor.


CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter explores a set of well-developed concepts related through

statements of relationship, which together constitute interrelated theories which can

be used to explain and predict phenomena. The theories, which constitute the

research, include the theory of humor which can be used in the view of pragmatics

and theory of conversation are discussed in theoretical description. The theoretical

framework depicts the links among the concepts of theories which are used to

discover the findings from research problems.

A. Theoretical Description

In the sub chapter, some theories are sketched out in order to expose the

territory of the discussion. The first discussed theories are humor theories,

pragmatic of humor and the General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH). The first

set theory is used jointly to answer the second question of research. The second

theories will concern on the local organization within a conversation and

Cooperative Principle by Herbert Paul Grice which are used to answer the first

question stated in the problem formulation.

1. Humor Theory

Dozens of different definitions of humor arouse from time to time. In wide-

ranging term, humor is whatever evokes laughter or felt to be funny (Spanakaki,

2007). The following are two representative ones. Crawford (1994) defines humor

as any communication that generates a ‘positive cognitive or affective response

10


11 from listeners’ (p. 57). Romero and Cruthirds (2006, p. 59) define humor as

‘amusing communications that produce positive emotions and cognitions in the

individual, group, or organization.’ There is no single universally accepted and all-

encompassing theory of humor. The following theory is the most commonly

discussed. The research comes to an agreement which states “humor primarily

consists of jokes (spoken or written words) and actions (describable through words)

which elicit laughter or generate merriment.” (Critchley, 2002; Ritchie, 2004).

Attardo (1997) is increasingly explicit to define humor, he states “laughter arises

from the view of two or more inconsistent, unsuitable or incongruous parts or

circumstances, considered as united in one complex object or assemblage (p. 396).

Another humor theory which highlight and meet this research focus and previous

theory comes from Audrieth. According to Audrieth (1998, p. 5), humor is defined

as ‘the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous

absurdly incongruous. Ludicrous is an adjective, meaning amusing or laughable

through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity (Anthony,

1998). Traditionally, there are three traditional notions of humor theory which

define what humor is:

1) Superiority Theory

Superiority theory of humor was originally proposed by the British

philosopher, Thomas Hobbes in 1651. It states that what makes the people laugh is

the sudden glory of realizing or imagining the misfortunes of disagreeable attributes

of others, which make ourselves seem superior to them although people especially

the speaker is aware of his own defect (Smuts, n.d). Within this theory, people


http://www.squaresail.com/onhumor.html

12 possess the fun parts by pointing out their perceived weaknesses, misfortunes, or

defects, such as the fun from joking people who have different social classes, or

social groups. Typically, the humor is generated from ethnic jokes, sexist jokes, and

mother-in-law jokes. In this research, this theory is not matched with the humorous

characteristic possessed from the research data since the data contains the

exploitation aspect of language.

2) Relief theory

In this theory, humor is perceived when someone faces a situation where the

tensions are created within the perceiver (Smuts, n.d). This theory is also used in

the movie, especially plots that deal with thriller and adventure. It is as a technique

used when the audience in a movie is experiencing a high tensions which include

the comic relief at the right times. The tension or the suspense is built up as much

as possible and then breaks it down slightly with a side comment, allowing the

viewer to relieve himself from the high-tension emotions. In this research, this

theory is not exactly relevant for the analysis since it is a generally psychological

scope to discuss the plot of humorous story rather than the mechanism within the

humorous utterances.

3) The Incongruity Theory

According to Cooper (2008), incongruity theory focuses on the object that

is the source of the humor, for example joke and cartoon. This theory is the leading

approach. It sees humor as a response to an incongruity, a broadly term used to

include ambiguity and inconsistence. It focuses on the element of surprise. It states

that humor is created out of a conflict between what is expected and what actually


http://www.iep.utm.edu/humor/%23SH2a

13 occurs in humor. This gives detail for the most obvious feature of much humor: an

ambiguity, or double meaning, which deliberately misleads the audience, followed

by punch line. Incongruity theory is the dominant theory of humor, since it seems

to work in most cases of humor, which is partly because “incongruity” is something

of an umbrella term (Latta, 1998, p. 106). Humor is said to have the following

elements:

• A conflict between what is expected and what actually occurs in the joke

• An ambiguity at some level of language with semantic or pragmatic

meaning or both.

• A punchline which resolves the conflict.

According to Morreal (1987), the incongruity theory creates humor from the

violation of an expectation. For humor resulted from the unexpected results, the

event must have an appropriate emotional climate, comprised of setting the

characters, prior discourse, relationship of the characters, and topic. Morreal (1987)

gives sort of incongruities under incongruity theory:

• Moral shortcoming, a violation of an understood social code;

• Ignorance, a violation of understood knowledge;

• Impersonation, pretending to be someone or something that you are not;

• Physical deformities, a violation of how we view the way in which we ought

to appear;

• Failed actions, a violation of the successful completion of an action.


14 a. The General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH)

The General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) is a tool for analyzing and

explaining humorous text (both spoken and written) formulated by Salvatore

Attardo and Victor Raskin. This theory explain that verbal humor is a construction

of knowledge resources. Raskin and Attardo (1991) jointly combined Semantic

Script Theory of Humor proposed by Raskin with five levels of joke representation

(developed by Attardo, 1987), turning them into the six-hierarchical representation

model of verbal jokes, described as follows:

1. Script opposition (SI)

Seen as the incongruity of the SSTH (Attardo, 2008). The one parameter

that every joke will contain (Attardo, 1994). In this research, the script

opposition is seen as the violation of Grice’ maxims (Attardo, 1997, p.

108)

2. Logical mechanism (LA)

The parameter that brings the two opposing scripts together (Attardo,

1994).

3. Situation (SI)

Includes all the “‘props’ of the joke: the objects, the participants,

instruments, and activities.” (Attardo, 1994, p. 24). In this data of research,

the data emphasize humorous effects (Attardo, 1994).

4. Target (TA)

The individual/object/idea being made fun of – the “butt of the joke”

(Attardo 1994, p. 224)


15

5. Narrative strategy (NA)

Divided into three general types: descriptive, dialogue, combination

(combination of first two types (Aromaa, 2011))

6. Language (LA)

Linguistic choices supporting the decisions made in other Knowledge

Resources (Attardo, 2008). The parameter which is in charge of not only

the wording and syntax but also how the different elements are arranged

(Attardo, 1994).

The GTVH posits script opposition as the necessary condition for humor. It

is necessary to note the definition of script. Attardo (1997) partly altered the

definition of script:

[Scripts are]… collections of semantic information pertaining to a given subject… [embodying] the sum total of the cultural knowledge of a society, which can be represented as a set of expectation and/or weighted choices. (p. 402) This research has a motivation to use this knowledge resources to inspect

and examine the violation of cooperative maxims as the knowledge resource

contained in humorous conversation. LM, NS, LA are groups which is tool-oriented

and the others are “content oriented” (SO, TA, SI). Specifically, “tool-oriented”

groups helps to analyze the analytic construct within the incongruity resolution.

Language (LA) and logical mechanism (LM) are accounts for manner. Attardo

stressed, the production of a joke can be triggered by any knowledge resource, with

the rest of them being filled in and the levels presented here ‘do not correspondent

to the consecutive stages of actual production’ (Attardo and Raskin, 1991, p. 327).


16 b. Pragmatic of Humor

The pragmatic constituent of humor in this research is constructed when

there is a violation of Grice’s cooperative maxims. Humor can be seen as

conversational implicature (Hassan, 2013). Conversational implicature is a type of

pragmatic inference in which the meaning is conveyed through non-conventional

means (Grice, 1975). Humor in linguistic level has three levels, derived from

linguistic devices: vocalization, lexis, syntax. Those devices are important to

construct humor. The linguistic levels of humor are phonetic levels, lexical level,

discourse level (He, 2008). This research has a tendency for humor at discourse

level since it focuses on humor which resulted from rule-breaking, explicit or

implicit meaning conveyed through the speakers’ utterances in conversation. As

Dolitsky (1992) said humor is based on the bending and breaking of rules. Thus, it

is necessary to understand some basic underlying theories of conversation.

2. Conversation Theory

According to Brown and Yule (1983) there are two main forms of

conversation which are transactional and interactional. However the discussion in

this research zooms in the theory of interactional conversation to meet the research

finding as founded in the subject data. Interactional conversation, according to

Brown and Yule (1983), refers to a form of spoken language used to allow people

to interact with each other – which features a phatic use of language whose purpose

is to establish an atmosphere and allow people to socialize.


17 a. Basic Structure of Conversation

In a conversation, there is always local management organization operating

within every conversation. Sequence and structure within conversation can be

summarized below.

1) Opening Conversations

Opening takes place in the first slice of conversation which most common

example of opening usually chances in telephone conversation. For example, first

expression to utter is a summons (i.e. call by name), the second is an answer to the

summons in return. The pair establishes an opening channel for talk.

(1) Child: Mommy summons Mom: Yes, dear. answer Child: Can I have chocolate? reason for summons

In the telephone conversations, the ringing of the telephone acts as the summons.

Additional potential problems are identification or recognition.

(2) A: (call B) summons B: Hello answer + display for recognition A: Hi greeting 1 claim that A has recognized B + claim that B can

recognize A B: Oh hi! greeting 2 + claim that B has recognized A

2) Closing Conversations

Closing conversation can be done by saying, ‘ok, bye, anyway, or other

parting phrase like see you, bye.’

3) Turn Taking

Turn taking is a basic finding which characterizes conversation at where one

participant, A, talks, stops; another, B, starts, talks, stops; and it will be obtained A-

B-A-B-A-B distribution talk across two participants (Levinson, 1983, p. 296).

Every time the participant has the right to speak, they are called as having the floor


18 and can attempt to get the floor. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974), proposed

basic rules about turn-taking, includes:

(1) If current speaker selects next speaker, he’s obliged to take the next turn

(2) Otherwise, any speaker may self-select the next turn

(3) Otherwise, the current speaker may continue

In having the conversation, there are two possible phenomena which

sometimes the participants try to speak at the same time, which is called overlap

(Yule, 1996, p. 72). As the reverse of overlap, sometimes there is an absence of

vocalization between the participants which is called as silence or gaps (Cutting,

2002). Silence is an absence of vocalization between the participants. It is a

lengthened transition space results in a silence in the talk. If any speaker actually

turns over the floor to another and the other does not speak, which produce a silence,

intending to carry meaning, the silence is called as an attributable silence (Cutting,

2002, p. 29). When a silence occurs at the end of a completed action in the talk,

such as after the answer to a question, the silence is not attributable to any particular

speaker. Some others may interpret it as ignorance. Silence is sometimes interpreted

as distance, or the absence of familiarity.

(3) A: Is this seat taken? (2 seconds) A: Excuse me, is this seat taken? B: Oh, no. (Grab her bag) You may sit here.

For many (younger) speakers, overlapping the utterances appears to function like

an expression of solidarity or closeness or excitement in expressing similar

opinions. Also, overlap can communicate competition.

(4) Joe: When they were in // power las -- wait CAN I FINISH? Jerry: // that’s my point I said –


19 4) Adjacency Pairs

According to Paltridge (2008), adjacency pairs are utterances produced by

two successive speakers in a way that the second utterance is identified as related

to the first one as an expected follow-up to that distance. The pairs of utterances

normally occur together automatically and help to structure a conversation. There

is a consistent match between format and content found across a number of

adjacency pair seconds which is described in the following table:

Table 2.1 Correlation of content and format in adjacency pair sequences

First pairs Second pairs

Preferred Dispreferred

Request Acceptance Refusal

Offer/invite Acceptance Refusal

Assessment Agreement Disagreement

Question Expected answer Unexpected answer / no answer

Blame Denial Admission

(Levinson, 1984, p.336)

Based on the table, therefore, when a speaker makes a request, as the first

part of a whole sequence of conversation, a listener can give two possible response

upon the request. This response is the second part of the sequence in which the

listener can give the response either in a preferred structure, which is by accepting

the request or complementing the question with an expected answer. Another

responses which in dispreferred structure, which is by refusing the request (opt out

maxim), not answering the question, or to answer at inappropriate length, either too

short or too excessive length, or to answer the question with another question and

tend to interrupt the smooth flow of a conversation. These pairs can be repeated in


20 the sequence. A pair can also initiated with statements, complaints, greetings,

introductions. The preferred responses for these utterances respectively are:

recognition, replies and exchange of greeting. If the rules are ignored, these patterns

are broken by means of flouting which it immediately call forth a response. There

are some ways to provide dispreferred second parts:

Table 2.2 Variety of response tokens

Variation Tokens

Delay/hesitate pause; err; em; ah

Preface well; oh

Express doubt I’m not sure; I don’t know

Token acceptance that’s great; I’d love to

Apology I’m sorry; what a pity

Mention obligation I must do X; I’m expected in Y

Appeal for understanding you see; you know

Make it non-personal everybody else; out there

Give an account too much work; no time left

Use mitigators really; mostly; sort of; kind of

Hedge the negative I guess not; not possible

5) Feedback (Backchannels)

Feedback or backchannels is the way speakers show that they are attending

what being said. It indicates that they are understanding, listening, or simply

following the other speakers’ utterances. This can be done by the use of ‘response

tokens’ such as ‘mmm’ and ‘yeah’, by paraphrasing what the interlocutor has just

said or through body position and the use of eye contact. Backchannel gestures offer


21 feedback to the speaker that the message is being received, they indicate that the

listener or following and not objecting.

6) Repair

Repair is the way the speakers correct things which has been said, and check

what they have understood in a conversation (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks,

1977). There are two types of repair:

a) Self-repair

(5) Charlotte: I saw her with a man yesterday. I mean, I saw her with a middle aged man who looks like her uncle.

b) Other-repair

(6) Miranda: But you have to introspect yourself! Cintya: Excuse me? Shouldn’t it be you?

b. Grice’s Cooperative Principle

In the field of linguistics, even more specifically in the area of pragmatics,

an important concept was introduced: maxims of conversation. It is unwritten rules

that govern people to make an appropriate conversation. The Cooperative Principle

were first formulated by Herbert Paul Grice which refers to the assumption of a

basic conversation which is made when the speaker speaks to one another that are

trying to cooperate with one another to construct meaningful conversations. As

stated in H.P. Grice’s “Logic and Conversation” (1975):

Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at

which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange

in which you are engaged (p. 45).

In the other words, the speakers try to contribute meaningful, productive

utterances to further the conversation. It then follows that, as listeners, interlocutors


22 assume that the conversational partners are doing the same. There will be times

when speakers operate the same conversational norms as the interlocutors

deliberately mislead the speakers’ utterances and cause the occurrences of the

mistakes and misunderstandings (Thomas, 1995, p. 62). Some reasons why

someone might be uncooperative in conversation. Some assume that participants

conceal the interrogated information they do not want to give up. Speakers become

uncooperative to person they hate. Another of some cases is the participants are just

being crazy.

1). Types of Maxims

Grice came up with the maxims of conversation. Maxims is kind of a rule

of thumb which is general rules the speakers follow in conversation. Those maxims

are:

1. Maxim of Quality: try to make your contribution one that is true, specifically:

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

of adequate evidence. This maxim states that one’s contribution to a

conversation should be truthful and that the speaker should have adequate and

sufficient evidence to back up what is being said. For example:

Andi’s mom expect a truthful answer from his son, after she noticed Andi’s

bad mark.

(7) Mom: Did you study last night? Andi: I did not study last night.

In linguistic term, the maxim truthfulness refers to the importance of making

only statements we believe to be true. The reason is that if we get caught

making false statements we lose our credibility, which is the important social


23

assets a person can hold. In real life, this maxim is often violated in order to

deceive the addressee. In less serious context, it can be violated in obvious

manner when the speaker tries to be humorous or teases the addressee. Grice

shows four examples to illustrate how the first maxim of quality is flouted:

irony, metaphor, hyperbole (Martinich, 1984).

2. Maxim of Quantity: 1) make your contribution as informative as is required for

the current purpose of the exchange 2) do not make your contribution more

informative than is required. The meaning of this maxim is that the speaker

should avoid including unnecessary, redundant information in the contribution.

For example:

(8) Lius: Do you know where Alto is? Linda: He’s sunbathing in the sandbox.

According to Thomas Ritter, if the speaker rambles on without saying anything

new or informative, the addressee will lose interest in the discourse very

quickly and stop paying attention (Davies, 2000). In multi-agents conversation

process in which the social relationship between participants is, to some extent,

intimate, such as relatives, lovers, good friends, if someone says something

other persons do not need and are not interested in, this redundant information

will disturb the path the communication will develop, which is one of the

sources of humor production in sitcom.

3. Maxim of Relevance: make your contribution relevant. “In the context of H.P.

Grice’s Cooperative Principle, the demand for relevance simply means that the

speaker should only include information in his communication that is relevant


24

to the topic under discussion” (Davies, 2000). For example, Mom asks if her

daughter knows who she is talking to in the telephone:

(9) Mom: Who you’re talking to? Lita: Umm, my new friend Ana.

In the purpose of creating humor, Giora (1991) states that “The joke’s marked

constituent is least relevant but not irrelevant, that is, not entire distant or

unrelated” (p. 470).

4. Maxim of Manner: be perspicuous, and specifically, 1) avoid obscurity, 2)

avoid ambiguity, 3) be brief, 4) be orderly. (Grice 1989, p. 26). For example, a

teacher ask about how to replace the:

(10) A: Can you show me where the common room is? B: Yes. It is next to K.12.

Under this category, the general idea is what is said should be expressed in a

direct, clear, brief and orderly way without any other communicative intention

involved and without thinking whether our behaviors will affect other person’s

feeling. If we put this kind communicative way into the coordinate, it will

possess the zero position. Different direction and different distance from this

zero point will make the communication achieve different effect. Actually,

people usually communicate in an “ambiguous” way, which violates manner

maxim. The speaker provides only some information hints for the hearer to

infer all what the speaker should say. Violations of the maxim of manner can

take many forms: order of presentation of information; vagueness and

ambiguity; volume and pace; choice of words; attitude; even facial/gestural

expressions (Cheung and Winnie, 2009).


25 2) Non-Observance Maxims

Maxims of CP can be exploited for communicative purpose. There are many

occasions which the conversational interaction between speakers do not happen as

what expected. In certain situation, people fail to observe the maxims for some

purpose. As the example, the speakers observe the maxim but pretend to fail rather

than cooperate. Other examples, they are incapable of speaking clearly or because

they deliberately choose to lie. According to Grice in Thomas (1995), there are five

ways of failing to observe a maxim which are flouting, violating, opting out,

infringing and suspending maxim. However, the territory of the discussion is

narrowed down explicitly into four ways of failing maxims discovered in this

research, described as follows:

1) Flouting Maxims

A flout occurs when a speaker obviously fails to observe a maxim at the

level what is said, with the deliberate intention of generating implicature (Thomas,

1995, p. 65). According to Grice (1975), this additional meaning is called

Conversational Implicature and the way by which such implicature is called

flouting a Maxim (p. 71). For example:

A lecturer speaks to a student who arrives late more than ten minutes to the

class:

(11) A: Terrific! You’re such a punctual fellow! Welcome to the class. B: Sorry, Miss! It won’t happen again.

The lecturer flouts maxim of quality to deliver implicitly a sarcastic tone.

Furthermore, speaker may flouts maxim of quantity when s/he intends to be

humorous.


26

(12) A: Where are you now? B: I’m in my clothes.

Or, the speaker may flout maxim of relevance to avoid hurting someone’s

feeling:

(13) A: What are you and C talking about? B: Oh well… why don’t we go get something to drink?

Moreover, the speaker flouts maxim of relevance when s/he utters slang or

ambiguous utterance:

(14) A: Let’s play emoji tennis. B: Ok.

The word ‘emoji tennis’ is ambiguous. However, it is a slang, meaning

texting nothing but emoticon back and forth between a friend or partner.

2) Violating Maxims

According to Grice (1975), the speaker violates a maxim when the speaker

will liable to mislead the hearer to have such implicature. The speaker deliberately

tries to make the hearer misunderstanding the truth meaning of speaking. The hearer

is misled to look for the surface meaning. This make the hearer infers an

implicature. People in real life tend to tell lies for different reasons, hide the truth,

save face, feel jealous, satisfying the hearer, cheer the hearer, building one’s belief,

avoid hurting the hearer, and convincing the hearer (as cited in “Non Observance

of Grice Maxims”, 2013). As said by Tupan and Natalia (2008), people believe that

a lying is the natural tool to survive and to avoid from anything that may put the

speaker in an inappropriate condition (p. 64-66).

A speaker violate maxim quality when s/he lies to cover the truth:

(15) A: Who was with you last night? B: He’s my cousin.


27

Furthermore, a speaker violates maxim of quantity to limit the exposure of

a truth:

(16) A: Where have you been? I called you thirty times. B: I wasn’t around. What’s the big deal?

Or, the speaker violates maxim of relevance to evade current situation or

topic being discussed:

(17) A: Why did you not come to class today? B: (pointing away) Is that Mr. Carla?

3) Opting out Maxims

Thomas (1995, p. 73), defines opting out as a situation when a speaker

“chooses not to observe a maxim and states an unwillingness to do so”. For

example, a new friend asks about personal life:

(18) A: I heard your boyfriend ran away and dumped you, is it true? B: I’m sorry I can’t say it to you. Privacy area.

There are some conversations in How I Met Your Mother season 2 which

the speakers opted out certain maxim and stated her unwillingness to do so clearly.

(19) Robin was hiding the reason why she does not go to the Mall. Robin: Sorry, I just don’t like Malls. Barney: Why not? Robin: I’d rather not say.

However, the above example in the situated condition does not appear to be

humorous. Rather it appeared to be a disappointment or curiosity for the hearer.

4) Suspending Maxims

This condition occurs when there is a certain circumstances or as part of

certain event which does not expect the participant or any participant to observe

one or several maxim (and no fulfillment does not generate any implicatures)

(Thomas, 1995, p. 76). For example:

A: Yo mama is so dumb, when she wear a yellow raincoat everyone will yell, Taxi!


28

Discovered data has the suspension of maxim within a joke uttered by Ted

in the following excerpt:

S0208/SP01 (20) Barney: A cougar. An older woman, usually in her 40s or fifties, single and on the

prowl for a younger man, Ted: What’s a women in her sixties or 70s—a turtle?

5) Infringing Maxims

Infringement occurs when a speaker fails to observe the maxim, although

the speaker has no intention of generating an implicature and deceiving the hearer.

Thomas (1995, p. 74) explains that generally infringing rooted from imperfect

linguistic performance (in the case of a young child or foreigner) or from impaired

linguistic performance triggered by nervousness, drunkenness, excitement,

disability. The following excerpt exemplifies an account of infringement triggered

by nervousness:

(21) A: Do you have any difficulties in conducting the research? B: Emm… a little. But there is a when understand, I mean when I try understand

the meaning of words. Moreover, drunkenness infringes maxim of manner as appeared in the

following humorous conversation:

(22) Robin (talking to the waiter): I’d take you with gravy. If my boyfriend wasn’t sitting right here. – Just kidding. I’m good. Lily: What are you so chirpy about? Ted: She’s still drunk from last night. Robin: I don’t think so. Whoo!

B. Theoretical Framework

The research lays the emphasis on the contribution of the non-observances

maxim in connection with humor -- fashioning the humorous situation as seemed

in TV-series How I Met Your Mother Season 2. Although, not all humorous


29 phenomena can be explained by the cooperative principle (e.g. humor from physical

behavior) and even when we are dealing with the conversational jokes (e.g. humor

at lexical or phonetic levels). Nevertheless, several linguists (Attardo, 1997;

Norrick, 1993; Raskin, 1985) have been trying to make a general pragmatic

explanation on humor with reference to Grice’s theory. Raskin (1985) suggested

that joke-telling mode of communication (non bona fide) is still governed by the

cooperative principle because he believed that humor is communicative functions.

This research takes the pragmatic view to discuss humorous conversational

interaction. Thus, conversation is to be the model of interpretation. Fundamentally,

this research put the language into a context-through with a more full contextual

analysis of humor which the context of conversation is given. Although, the built

characters in recorded data of conversation vary in characterization, background

knowledge, interests and concerns, still, conversation is a flexible text negotiated

between the various participants in a conversation as found in the data. In this

research, laughter serves as the most identifiable signal for identifying humor in the

text (cf. Archakis & Tsakona, 2005). Hay (2001, p. 56) adds that the presence of

laughter is used to characterize an utterance or a text as humorous.

Since the humor in situation comedy lays on its narration, the script is styled

and fashioned to be so much alike with natural language in order to illustrate daily

life conversation. The amusement itself is found from conversational interaction

among the characters. Accordingly, it is necessary to hire conversation theories:

cooperative principle from Paul Grice and basic structure of conversation. The

cooperative principle, which derived into four maxims principle, helps to evaluate


30 the conversations that is humorous. In this research, the conversation will be placed

and situated at the basic rules within conversation and how the characters negotiate

and exchange the information which give arise to humor in form of comedy and

intend to amuse the audience. This involves noting the role of joking regarding 1)

language games: turn taking, intruding, parting, greeting, closing, questioning,

bridging uncomfortable gaps, “winding down the conversation”, encouragement,

warning, etc. 2) intention of the speaker, e.g. to relieve embarrassment, save face,

etc. With the knowledge of Grice maxims, the humorous conversations are

evaluated by using known building blocks: adjacency pairs, turns and other

standpoints from basic structure of conversation. Since the research focuses its

concern in humorous conversation resulted from the violation of cooperative

maxims, it is oblique to examine how the speakers violate those maxim. Here, the

categories of the non-observance maxims take place. Those set of theories are

helpful to explain phenomena of violation maxims in humorous conversation and

answer the first research question.

It is noted that humor depends on the interactants’ negotiation of values in

a similar to Veatch’s description of verbal humor. Veatch (1998) determines a

funny violation of normal situation (or a subject moral order) by incorporating an

affective component into his theory. One important vehicle for humor production

is the generation of conversational implicature originating in some form of flouting

or violation of maxims (Grice, 1978): in humorous talk, speakers code and decode

messages and publicly display their knowledge of what is going on. This complex

interactional work (or, as Grice calls it, “Conversational game”) is also visible on


31 the level of exchange structure. In usual events, the conversational moves are

usually concurrently predicted, and or, paired between the inquiry and the exchange

boundaries. In conversational humor, however, results to blurred exchange

boundaries. Explicitly, the humorous effects resulted from flouting of basic formal

language rules (Vandaele, 2002, p. 150).

Standing under a concept of incongruity theory, the humorous conversations

are appreciated. Humor which arises from the violation of maxims resulting from

unusual conversation is still a dependent idea of humor production (Raskin, 1985;

Morreal, 1987 and Attardo, 2007, p. 108). In sitcom, there are some ‘props’

supporting the idea of humor (the violation maxims) which help the audiences to

understand that the text is supposed to be funny such as visualization of current

situation (Morreal, 1987 and Trizenberg, 2008, p. 536). By using the GTVH, the

elements (knowledge resources) are inspected. This theory later will shows the

contribution of the non-observance maxims as the idea for condition of humor

production in creating humorous effects. Attardo (1997) compares the GTVH with

the incongruity-resolution theories and points out that LM (one of the knowledge

resources) is in fact the resolution of the incongruity.


CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the methodology helps the researcher to conduct the

designed research. The research is to discuss how maxims are violated (viz.

flouting, violating, infringing, suspending) by the characters of sitcom in the

conversation with the reference of cooperative maxims principle, and how the

violation maxims took place in creating humorous effects. The scope of this chapter

includes research methodology, object of study, instruments and data gathering

technique, data analysis technique, and research procedures.

A. Research Method

Humor analysis is also in the same kind of conventional qualitative research

in other respects, which is characterized by a naturalistic orientation to the

investigation. The instance or setting in which the data is collected is expected to

be as close to the natural state as possible. Sen (2012) conveys, the analysis of

humor can also be naturalistic in its orientation. If the specific instances of humor

which mostly are jokes are gathered from regular conversations (i.e. spontaneous

and unscripted), then the data can be classified as those from naturalistic setting.

Sen adds, if the jokes are embedded in the script of movies, as the research does,

then there is still an air of quasi-naturalness about them and that can provide

insightful information about humor that is publicly acceptable in the society. Humor

analysis can follow the same method of inductive analysis. Instances of humor are

32


33

mined from conversations or printed matter such as movie scripts and then analyzed

for common themes or pattern.

This research observed how the humorous utterances occurred by

discovering the violations of cooperative maxims principle, which later were linked

to incongruity theory and the GTVH. Discussing how humor was built up in the

movie, this research identified conversations among characters at the discourse

level. The research employed the approach of discourse analysis (a spoken

discourse analysis) in relation to disobedience maxims using non-observances of

CP terms of framework to create humorous effects.

According to brown and yule (1983) in general, a tape-recording of an event

is the data to work on, from which then it is transformed into a written transcription,

annotated according to the research interests on a particular occasion. However,

since this research took the data from movie series, which then the verbal interaction

is presented using normal orthographic conventions; any details of intonation, non-

verbal interaction (setting) and rhythm which supports the analysis would be

verbalized as well. In discourse analysis, the data is treated as the record (text) of a

dynamic process in which language was used as an instrument of communication

in a context by a speaker to express meanings and achieve intentions (discourse).

Then, the researcher seeks to describe the regularities in the linguistic realizations

used by people to communicate those meanings and intentions.

Discourse analysis takes the communicative function of language as its

primary area of investigation and consequently seeks to describe linguistic from,

not as a static object, but as a dynamic means of expressing intended meaning. In


34

this research, the discourse was treated as a process view (Widdowson, 1979, p. 71,

Brown and Yule, p. 24). The words, the phrases and the sentences which appear in

the textual record of a discourse to be the evidences of an attempt by a producer

(speaker) to communicate his message to a recipient (hearer). This research focused

on the productions of utterances which logically elicited humorous effects. The

data then experienced the process interpreting. These involve computing the

communicative function (how to take the meaning, message), using general socio-

cultural knowledge (facts about the world) and determining the inferences to be

made.

B. Research Setting

The setting of the research refers to the setting in which the research was

conducted. The researcher conducted this research during the period of August

2014 to July 2015. The research experienced the process: analyzing the scripts;

categorizing the utterances into each proper type of maxims; identifying and

describing the utterances with the references of local management within

conversation theory and non-observance maxim theory; describing the role of

disobedience maxims in creating humorous effects; and the last was summing up

the findings.

C. Objective of Study

The object of the research was the episodes of sitcom How I Met Your

Mother season 2. Season 2 of How I Met Your Mother aired from 18 September,

2006 to May 14, 2007 and contained 22 episodes. The subject was selected because


35

the series was a comedy TV-show, also it was popular. Importantly, the series had

many unexpected situations which led to the even more unexpected reactions of

other characters and thus not only entertained but at the same time offered a great

data for this research. The data as the primary sources of the research were the script

obtained from the conversations among the characters which appeared to be

humorous.

D. Instrument and Data Gathering Technique

The research employed two instruments, human instrument and document

instrument. Human instrument functioned as the primary agent to collect the data

in qualitative research (Merriam, 2002; Berg and Galls, 2007; Ary, et.al, 2010).

Human instrument was the researcher who conducted the analysis the document

instrument employed to answer both research problems was the printed-out movie

script from the episodes of movie series How I Met Your Mother season 2. In

collecting the data, this research experienced some steps. First, the researcher did

close watching the selected episodes for several times with the help of English

subtitles available on http://www.tvsubtitles.net. Second, the researcher listened the

conversations and observed them. Third, after watching, listening, and observing

the movie, the writer made documentation of the data. The data were transcribed

orthographically from the episodes which then the transcribed data was compared

with the script provided in the internet. Thus, the prepared data could be accessed

at a time convenient to the researcher and an unobtrusive source of information

(Creswell, 2003:187). Some dissimilarities between the movie and the script

obtained from the internet befell during the transcription process. The


36

dissimilarities, then, were accorded with the movie. To the extent of analyzing,

supplementary extracts were necessary to describe the situation in own words

because there were little of none verbal communication extracts available.

The researcher selected the humorous conversations were carefully by using

criteria: occurrence of laughter track; humorous effects in form of conversation;

and detection of one or more maxims of cooperative principles violated by the

characters. The indication of humorous conversations were detected and pinpointed

by the sign of canned laughter in the scenes which might come from the speaker

while producing his/her utterance or from the audiences as a reaction to what is

being uttered.

E. Data Analysis Technique

According to Miles and Huberman (1994), qualitative research is outlined

in three flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing or

verification. This research hired those three flows.

a. Data reduction

In this research, the data reduction refers to selecting, focusing, simplifying,

abstracting and transforming the humorous conversation from the transcriptions.

The transcription of the movie conversations, which was compiled from data from

internet and movie itself, was printed. Afterward, the humorous conversations were

detected by using laugh tracks as the indicators of the occurrence of humorous

effects. Further, this research experienced to code and make the clusters and

partition (Miles & Huberman, 1994). A numbers of collected humorous

conversation was coded by using conversational maxims proposed by Paul Grice


37

(1975) with an assistance of basic structure of conversation theory in order to sort

the data into some categories in which four maxims as the categories. Then, the

proceeding coded data were clustered into proper kinds of non-observance maxim

and collected into partitions. At this stream, the researcher noted the regularities,

patterns and explanation transpired from the humorous conversation in order to

solve the research problems.

b. Data display

After reduction of data, the clustered data in this research was displayed into

tables (see appendices). It was aimed to assemble the information needed to analyze

the analytic construct of humor resulting from conversations and draw the

conclusions.

c. Conclusion drawing

In this research, the vague conclusion was prefigured during the analysis.

However, the final conclusion was verified from the elaboration of discussion after

it was over. This research sum up the violation (viz. flouting, violating, infringing,

suspending) of maxims occurred in humorous conversation and the general analytic

construct of humor which was increasingly grounded and explicit.

F. Research Procedures

The research took some ordered steps in conducting the research. The steps

were as follow:

1. The Steps of Segmenting the Transcription Based on Its Speech Events.

By using the theory of basic structure of conversation and the cooperative

principle, the maxims used in conversation which reflected humorous effects were


38

identified. The identification was seen when ‘any turns which are breaking one or

more of the Gricean maxims’ (Brumark, 2004:13).

2. Classifying the Conversations

After identifying the existence of maxim, the conversations which indicated

to have humorous effects were classified and analyzed further. The conversations,

which violated the maxims of cooperative principles were coded such as

[S02/EP01/QL/VL1], meaning the excerpt was taken from the episode 01 which

indicated to violate maxim quality.

3. The Steps of Categorizing the Violation Maxims

The data were organized by placing each conversation into its category in

the references with four (4) kinds of non-observance maxims, it might belong to

category of flouting, violating, infringing or suspending.

4. The Steps of Dividing the Excerpts

After collecting the data, the researcher put the humorous conversations

consisting of violation maxims into tables. The table were preceded by the text of

conversations, so that the context of humor could be seen. These texts were called

as excerpts. The following table were analyzed to answer the first research problem

which was what kinds of non-observance maxims employed in humorous

conversations.

2.1 Non-observance of maxims distribution based on types of maxims

No. Code Excerpt Maxims Indication QL QN RL MN


39

Note: QL: Quality QN: Quantity RL: Relevance MN: Manner

5. Analyzing Non-observance Maxims in the Connection with the GTVH and

Incongruity theory

This step was used to answer the second research problem, which how the

violation maxims took place to elicit humor. After all the dialogues, which

consisted of breaking maxims in the verbal humor, were inspected the six elements

of knowledge resources contained in humorous conversation. Types of maxims

used to create humorous effects were analyzed (Viz. quantity, quality, relevance,

and manner).

6. Drawing Conclusions

The last stage of the steps, which after the steps of segmenting, categorizing,

data gathering, analyzing the humorous conversations, and finding the results, the

conclusions were drawn. The conclusions sum up how the non-observance maxims

were applied and how the violation maxims created humorous effects in sitcom

How I Met Your Mother season 2.


CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This research only analyzes those which have the same characteristics with

the theory of humor and in the relation to the theory of maxims by Grice. Therefore

in this chapter, the classified data will be analyzed to discover the findings

concerning the statement of the problems.

This chapter will be divided into two sub chapters. The first will be the

analysis of how maxims violated (viz. flouted, violated, infringed, and suspended)

in the humorous conversation and the second will discuss the analytic construct of

the humorous effects resulting from the violation in the references of incongruity

theory and the GTVH.

A. Non-Observance Maxims of CP in Humorous Conversations Taken from

Sitcom How I Met Your Mother Season 2

Before diving into an in-depth analysis on humor elicited from the violation

maxims, the researcher discovered types of the non-observance maxims employed

in the humorous conversations explicitly flouting, violation, infringing, and

suspending. From a hundred-twenty-two (122) excerpts, the findings were

discovered to have: a hundred-nine (109) cases in which the characters did not

observed one of four maxims and another thirteen (13) in the point of multiple

violations (flouting, violating, suspending) in How I Met Your Mother season 2.

Those excerpts were found in 22 episodes of season 2, casted by five main

40


41 characters. The distribution of those types of maxims are described in the following

chart:

In the chart above, each of clusters described the maxims of CP which were

violated by the way of non-observance maxims. In the clusters, violating maxim of

quality was the most frequent above all and infringing maxim of quality was the

least, occurred in humorous conversations. As it appeared in the chart, all maxims

were violated. However, only four of five types of non-observance maxims

employed in humorous conversations (Viz. flouting, violation, infringing, and

suspending).

In this section, the researcher discussed and analyzed the violated maxims

discovered from the episodes of How I Met Your Mother season 2 in accordance

with the non-observance maxims of CP and the theory of basic structure within

conversations. Each of excerpts was exclusively presented based on its category of

non-observance: flouting maxim, violating maxim, infringing maxim and

suspending maxim.

6

27

11 10

15

41 0

2 200 0 0 0

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Quality Quantity Relevance Manner Multiple

4.1 Chart of distribution of violation maxims based on the non-observance maxims' types

Flouting Violating Infringing Suspending


42 1. The Analysis on a Situation which Flouts Maxims

Flouting a maxim occurred when a participant in a conversation chose to

ignore one or more of the maxims by using a conversational implicature (Thomas

1995, p. 65). In this research, the all four maxims of CP were discovered to be

flouted by the characters.

a. Flouting Maxim of Quality

This category chanced when the speaker blatantly intended to say something

untrue or lied and denied something. The speaker misrepresented his information

in order to make the hearer understand the intended meaning of an utterance

(Levinson, 1983, p. 110). Its implicature could be drawn when the contribution was

untrue or lack of adequate evidences. Flouting maxim of quality discovered from

the excerpts were done by exaggerating, using metaphor and delivering sarcastic

tone (Essay, 2013).

1) Using Exaggeration

The following excerpts illustrated the example of the situation in which

maxim of quantity was flouted:

S02E01/QL/FL1 The year 2030, the narrator, Ted was telling his kids a very long story about how he met their mother.

(1) Ted: Okay, where were we? It was June of 2006 and life had just taken an unexpected turn. (2) Daughter: Dad, can’t you just skip ahead to the part where you meet Mom? I feel like

you’ve been talking for like a year. S02E11/QL/FL6 At Lily’s apartment, Barney was smoking facing over the opened window while he was sick and it was winter.

(1) Robin: Barney. What the hell are you doing? Get in here, it’s freezing outside. Are you insane?

(2) Barney: Hey, blame Lily and her oppressive ‘no cigars in the apartment rule.’ God, it’s like Marshall’s marrying the Taliban.


43

As appear in the excerpt S02E01/QL/FL1, Ted’s enthusiasm did not meet

his daughter’s interest, which consequently bored the daughter, in this conversation

as the second speaker. The followed-up question produced by Ted’s daughter

indicated that she was bored to listen to father’s talking rather than being excited to

listen out for his father’s long story. In exchange to his father’s utterance, she

misrepresented the duration by laying it on thick with utterance (1) “I feel like

you’ve been talking for like a year.” It was plainly on the earth that somebody

cannot be talking in a year length. Thus, Ted’s daughter’s utterance was unreal. The

occurrence of the same account was in the excerpt S02E11/QL/FL6. In the excerpt

S02E11/QL/FL6, Robin cared about Barney’s condition by asking him to get

inside. However, Barney threw the guilt on Lily’s ‘No cigar’ rule in return. He

fashioned his utterance by hyperbolizing the situation, explicitly the rule literally

was impossible. In Barney’s utterance, he uttered that Marshall was marrying

Taliban. It was fictitious to witness that somebody literally married to an

organization.

However, both utterances above were not expected to be inferred literally.

Purposefully, the speakers aimed the implicature to be inferred without the intention

of misleading the hearer (Levinson, 1983, p. 110). That at some points, the

situations had the equivalent of the literal meaning. In the excerpt S02E11/QL/FL5,

Barney expressed the impact of ‘No cigar’ rule on him as if it was in the situation

of Taliban issues in Afghanistan in the 1990s (“Taliban”). While in the excerpt

S02E01/QL/FL1, Ted’s daughter wanted to be noticeable that it was boring to be

awaited on the point when her father met the mother. The fashion of bolded


44 utterances above, however, were exaggerated (Levinson, 1983, p. 110). In terms of

CP, those were hyperbolic, thus it flouted the maxim of quality (Essay, 2013).

2) Using metaphor

The following analysis preferably was the figure of speech metaphor which

in the situation transpired to be a result of flouting maxim of quality as appeared in

the following excerpt:

S02E05/QL/FL3 In an apartment, Marshall expostulated in a form of question about why two male friends could not go to brunch.

(1) Marshall: Girly? Breakfast isn’t girly. Lunch isn’t girly. What makes brunch girly? (2) Ted: I don’t know. There’s nothing girly about a horse. Nothing girly about a horn,

but put them together and you get a unicorn.

S02E04/QL/FL2 At the bar, knowing that Ted was meeting up kickboxing instructor, Robin as Ted’s girlfriend seemed not to freak out because she thought she didn’t have to listen Ted’s boring stuff.

(1) Robin: It’s awesome. It’s win-win. Ted got to vent and I don’t have to hear it. Maybe after he’s done with the talkie-talk, he’ll come over and I’ll get the fun part.

(2) Lily: What is wrong with you? God, I felt like I’m teaching love as a second language here. As appeared in the excerpt S02E05/QL/FL3, according to Robin, “Girly”

was a fine word to describe although it seemed to be unreasoningly and irrationally.

To bear out Marshall’s understanding, Ted metaphorically uttered “I don’t know.

There’s nothing girly about a horse. Nothing girly about a horn, but put them

together and you get a unicorn.” The use of qualifiers “I don’t know” was uttered

by Ted as a dispreferred response upon Marshall’s perception of having brunch. It

signaled that Ted was not sure. As was known, in the time, there was a wide-held

social stigma that two males walking together was a lover. By exemplifying two

male friends as a horse and a corn, and the unicorn as the effeminacy, he expected

Marshall to grasp the inference. The same account occurred in the excerpt


45 S02E04/QL/FL2. In the situation, Robin who was supposed to get panic after

hearing the bad news about his boyfriend behaving oppositely as if nothing

occurred. From Lily’s view, Robin seemed to know less about how to be in a

relationship. To express her emotion, Lily exaggerated that teaching Robin a love

had the same obstacle with teaching a second language. Besides, in that situation,

Lily implied that love had some similar characteristics of second language. In

another word, Lily took the metaphor a second language to a love.

However, those utterances were not intended to mislead the hearer. The

speakers expected the hearers to infer the implied meaning (Levinson, 1983, p.

110). With his metaphor to effeminate behavior of Marshall’s brunch invitation,

Ted was trying to tell that Marshall and his male friend would look similar to a cute

couple if they went to brunch. Ted did not assure pretty well, yet he felt uncertain.

The fashion of Ted’s utterance to response Marshall’s inquiry, however, in terms

of CP, constituted flouting maxim of quality (Essay, 2013).

3) Delivering sarcastic tone

Delivering sarcastic tone in the collected data was discovered to be the case

of flouting maxim of quality, described as follows:

S02E09/QL/FL4 (1) Marshall: She’s pretty a private person. (2) Lily: Except when she’s talking about… (visualization about Robin telling her friend’s

marriage stuff) (3) Ted: So you don’t think there’s any ‘friend’ from Canada? (4) Marshall: Oh, I’m sure there is. Just like I have a ‘friend’ who wet his bed till he was

ten. Use your brain Ted. As appeared in the excerpt above, Marshall flouted maxim of quality by

delivering sarcastic tone (Essay, 2013). The occurrence of the account was

expressed not apart from the situation which Ted was facing at the time. The privacy


46 issues about Robin’s past life in Canada brought out some presumptions from her

friends. In the view of Ted’s perspective, it was abstruse situation. Some of friends

casted their premature judgment about Robin’s past life which might be possible as

the underlying reasons why she did not want to go to a mall. Marshall suggested

Ted a hint that Robin was married at the mall. Ted with his incredulous feeling,

then, clarified the possibility that Robin casted ‘friend’ to tell her past life in

Canada. Subsequently, Marshall uttered (4) “Oh, I’m sure there is. Just like I have

a ‘friend’ who wet his bed till he was ten. Use your brain Ted.” The dispreferred

token “Oh, I’m sure there is.” in his utterance proceeded dispreffered turn of

Marshall. In his utterance, Marshall expected Ted to draw the inference that ‘friend’

was Robin herself. The fashion of Marshall uttering the exchange was intended to

deliver sarcastic tone which required to be inferred oppositely (Levinson, 183, p.

110).

b. Flouting Maxim of Quantity

This category chanced when the speaker blatantly gave more or less

information than was required in the situation, the speaker usually flouted this

maxim as the speaker provided insufficient words in the conversation. In other

words, the speaker gave incomplete words when the speaker was speaking (Leech,

1983, p. 140). The utterance at the level of face value was non informative, but it

was informative at the level of what was implicated. Its implicature was implied

when the speaker or the writer conveyed messages that were less informative or the

information which was too much and unnecessary.


47

There were nineteen (19) excerpts in which the flouting located at this

maxim. Two sub maxims of quantity were discovered to be flouted. Firstly, maxim

of quantity was flouted by contributing less informative information.

1) Providing less information

S02E09/QN/FL6 In Ted’s room, Robin and Ted was having a chat before they slept.

(1) Robin: And who gets trapped under a fake boulder at the mall? (2) Ted: Not me in Ohio when I was nine, that’s for sure.

In the excerpt S02E09/QN/FL6, the conversation occurred when Robin and

Ted were going to sleep in Ted’s bed. In the middle of their talk, Robin changed

the topic which Ted allowed the transition. As apparent in the excerpt above, Robin

questioned Ted about who got trapped under a fake boulder at the mall (“Fake

boulder”). Ted’s response to Robin’s inquiry was subsequently defensive. Robin’s

question might be a trap for Ted to answer, yet she expected her partner to take the

question as a genuine question. By the false presupposition, Ted had the exchange

boundaries. Rather than answering “I don’t know”, he followed Robin’s inquiry

with “Not me in Ohio when I was nine, that’s for sure.” Through his utterance, Ted

expected Robin to grasp the additional meaning beyond than his utterance. At the

time when he was nine, he knew somebody got trapped under a fake boulder at the

mall in Ohio, but he got no idea who exactly the person was. He also emphasized

that he was not the person who carelessly got trapped. Ted’s utterance from the

level of what he uttered was non informative, but it was informative at the level of

what Ted tried to imply (Leech, 1983, p. 140). Ted’s utterances, in terms of CP,

however, constituted flouting of the maxim of quantity.


48 2) Giving other information

Furthermore, the situation in which the speaker gave other information than

required resulted to flout maxim of quantity.

S02E07/QN/FL7 Robin found out that her favorite look of Ted was unfortunately made-up and aimed to appealed people.

(1) Robin: I love that look, I think I slept with you because of that look. -- And it’s fake? (2) Ted: Oh, and you biting your lower lip, shyly looking away and thrusting your chest

out is natural? The excerpt above illustrated Ted flouted maxim of quantity. In the

exchange of Robin’s inquiry, Ted did not give the information exactly as was

required. However, he did not evade current topic or to make new topic. He aimed

to place Robin at the same situation and position so that Robin could infer what he

tried to imply. Ted’s utterance was not informative at the level of face value but it

was informative at the level of what Ted implied (Leech, 1983, p. 140).

3) Giving more information

In addition, the maxim of quantity in this research was resulted from the

situation in which the speaker gave more information than it was required (Leech,

1983, p. 140). The following excerpt would suffice to explain how the maxim of

quality was flouted by the character.

S02E22/QN/FL16 Ted and Robin were in a confusion whether or not to tell Marshall due to the fact that Lily moved on.

(1) Robin: He’s just starting to get better, going out with Barney. I mean, how do you think he’s going to feel when he hears Lily’s moved on?

(2) Ted: She’s moved on? (3) Robin: It happens. I’ve fallen out of love faster than that before, sometimes, boom, with

no warning whatsoever. One day we’re in love, the next day, he’s dead to me. -- But we’re great, honey. In the conversation above Robin failed to observe the maxim of quantity.

The conversation occurred when Robin and Ted were talking about the fact that


49 Lily moved on, they were talking how Lily and Marshall might get along after

breakup. Robin took the invitation turn from Ted and uttered the information which

in the purpose of its exchange was unnecessary. In the current purpose of exchange,

she laid out the information possible in such situation based on her personal

experiences without making prior judgment to be important for Ted. Consequently,

the unnecessary exchange impacted on the second speaker, Ted, who has been in a

relationship with her for years. Regardless of Robin’s utterance, she did not

deliberately arranged Ted to feel upset. She expected Ted to grasp the meaning that

a women could overcome the broken heart soon they wanted to. Unfortunately, Ted

took the information oppositely, in spite Robin uttered the afterthought to repair her

utterance. Robin’s utterance, however, contributed too much information than it

was required for current purpose (Leech, 1983, p. 140). Thus, she flouted maxim of

quantity.

c. Flouting Maxim of Relevance

The maxim of relevance was flouted when a speaker was giving a response

or making an observation that was deliberately not relevant to the topic which was

being discussed. Its implicature arouse when the speaker deviated from the

particular topic being asked and discussed. The example of which could be

illustrated by changing the subject or failing to keep to the topic (Thomas 1995,

p.70).

The following excerpts would suffice to present how the characters flouted

maxim of relevance with the purpose: avoiding topic discussed and giving a hint.


50 1) Initiating a new topic to avoid current discussion

The occurrence of the situation in which maxim of relevance was flouted

appeared in the following excerpt:

S02E03/RL/FL5 Mr. and Mrs. Mosby, Ted’s parents were visiting him in the apartment, while Lily and Marshall just being single after broke up

(1) Lily: Hi, Mr. and Mrs. Mosby. (2) Mr. Mosby: Oh Lily! Hey, Marshall. (3) Marshall: Good to see you. (4) Lily: I was just stopping by to pick up some of my things. (5) Mrs. Mosby: yes we were so sorry to hear about your….you know, the, the…well. (6) Marshall: Lily calling off the wedding and dumping me? (7) Lily: Me begging Marshall to take me back and him rejecting me? (8) Mrs. Mosby: I love your hair.

The conversation above occurred when Lily came by to take the rest of her

stuff left at the apartment. The opening line from the first turn of Lily was initiated

on the floor. Structurally, there were neither overlap nor silence chanced within the

conversation and the turns among the speakers were well distributed. It means the

speakers were considered cooperative so far. At the beginning, the opening line was

going pretty well. Then, Lily’s turn at the fourth turn was to inform that she came

by for picking up her stuff. Her utterance, then, invited another sympathy which

was expressed by Mrs. Mosby. However, Mrs. Mosby’s utterance was incomplete,

which in terms of CP she flouted maxim of manner. The focus of the humorous

effects occurred within the sequence of assessment from Lily-Marshall and the

remark of Mrs. Mosby. In this excerpt the last turn of Mrs. Mosby was discovered

to flout maxim of relevance. Being at the floor, she blatantly refused to make what

she said relevant to the previous remarks uttered by Marshall and Lily (Thomas

1995, p.70). Her remark “I love your hair” was aired to imply that she did not want

to talk about the unpleasant situation between Lily and Marshall.


51 2) Initiating new topic to hint the hearer

Also, the research discovered the character flouted maxim of relevance on

account of giving hint, as appeared from the following excerpt:

S02E04/RL/FL4 Carl wished lily trade sex for beer. Robin: Hey, Carl, is Ted still here? Carl: No. – Hey, Lily. You still single? Lily: Yes. Carl: You know... I’ve poured a lot of free drinks for you over the years. A lot.

The conversation chanced when Robin and Lily swung by at the Mac’ Laren

bar to find Ted. Structurally, at the beginning, everybody involved in the

conversation were cooperative. It was indicated by the adjacency pair which

patterned well. Until Carl uttered “You know... I’ve poured a lot of free drinks for

you over the years. A lot.” Carl refused to make his utterance relevant to chance of

a new topic (Thomas 1995, p.70). Through his utterance, he implied a sex invitation

for Lily.

d. Flouting Maxim of Manner

The maxim of manner was flouted when a speaker deliberately failed to

observe the maxim by not being brief, not being orderly, using obscure language or

ambiguous language. In humorous-expressive contexts, what the speaker really

intended to point was implicitly expressed in a changing manner (Langacker, 1993,

p. 30). This created an implicature which made the participants look for an

additional set of meaning (Thomas, 1995, p. 71). Its implicature occured when the

utterances were not brief, ambiguous, and obscure.


52 1) Using slang

The following excerpts would suffice to represent how the characters

flouted maxim of relevance by using slang.

S02/E12/MN11 In the station Robin and Lily pick up Katie. They miss how cute Katie was but surprisingly, Katie grow up “fast”, she got her boyfriend and kissing in the station.

(1) Katie: Hey, Robin. How are you? (2) Robin: Oh, good. Good. (3) Robin: So, who is this….tongue person? (4) Katie: Oh, Robin. This is my boyfriend Kyle.

The excerpt above showed the situation when Katie touched down in New

York by a train in order to visit her sister, Robin. Structurally, the opening sequence

was uttered by Katie which was followed up by Robin. The play of Katie kissing

her boyfriend in the station drew her attention which led her to jump to another

question-answer sequence about who the boyfriend of Katie was. Robin uttered

“So, who is this….tongue person?” to call for Katie’s clarification about the guy.

Robin failed to mention the guy. Regardless, she did not intend to mislead Katie

with the faced-value sentence. The implicature was expected to be drawn through

the noun phrase “tongue person” which in this case was Kyle. According to

Levinson (1983), if the speaker uses slang, the speaker flouts maxim of manner (p.

104). Robin’s utterance was obscure to mention Kyle as “tongue person”, which in

terms of CP, constituted the flouting of maxim of manner.

2) Uttering ambiguous sentences

Flouting the maxim of manner occurred when the speaker said ambiguous

language or used another language which made the utterance incomprehensible for

the hearer. Moreover, if the speaker used slang or his voice was not loud enough,


53 the speaker flouted this maxim (Levinson, 1983, p. 104). The following excerpt

explained the account of using other language, described as follows:

S02E22/MN/FL19 Barney: No es possible. – Nobody moves to Argentina. The Argentinean peso has dropped two-thirds in five years, the government is opposed to free market reforms, and the railroad has been a mess since the breakup of Ferrocarriles Argentinos. By the sign of the laughter track, uttering other languages by no mean to

mislead the hearer was potential to create humorous effects as appeared in the above

excerpt. In the situation, Barney flouted maxim of manner because he used

Argentinean by no mean to make the hearer misunderstood his utterance (Levinson,

1983, p. 104). However, in terms of CP, the fashion of his utterance constituted

flouting maxim of manner.

3) Being not brief

Flouting maxim of manner in this research was done by proceeding the

fashion of constructing the utterances, as transpired from the following utterance:

S02E06/MN/FL4 Druthers: Now, as most of you know, my Pete Rose, Pete Rose, Pete Rose baseball has been stolen. The above utterance presented how the character, Druthers, uttered that his

baseball which was signed by the athlete Pete Rose three times. He fashioned his

utterance by mentioning “Pete Rose” three times to emphasize how valuable the

baseball for him was. However, in terms of CP, the fashion of Druthers’ utterance

was unnecessary which constituted the flouting maxim of manner (Thomas, 1995).


54 e. Flouting Multiple Maxims

The speaker flouted more than one maxim when the speaker wanted to

imply a certain meaning or purpose.

1) Flouting maxim quality and quantity

S02E06/QN-QL/FL4 At Big Wave Luau

(1) Ted: Robin, nothing to add? (2) Robin: No. Lily is my friend and I’m not going to make fun of her trying to follow her

dreams. (3) Lily: thank you.

Robin: -- Although, you might want to bring out big Hawaiian drum because I’m pretty sure today’s my birthday. In the excerpt above, Robin flouted both maxims of quantity and quality at

the same time. In the situation, Lily was trying to figure out and catch her dreams -

- without the exception of becoming a waitress in a restaurant. Rather than

supporting, her friends made fun of her current job. At the first place, Robin raised

Lily’s feeling by giving the false support. The maxim was flouted soon after the

false supports were uttered. Robin blatantly spelled out the unnecessary information

in current purpose by uttering “Although, you might want to bring out big Hawaiian

drum because I’m pretty sure today’s my birthday.” Robin was considered

uncooperative from Lily’s perspective because she meant her utterance to insult. In

the restaurant Big Wave Luau where Lily worked, the waitress would bring out the

drum to celebrate when the customers’ birthday. The maxim of quality was flouted

as Robin lied that it was Robin’s birthday. Besides, she added information about

special features offered in that restaurant which was meant to insult Lily. From the

point of Lily’s perspective, Robin’s utterance was unnecessary. Moreover, Robin


55 did not expect Lily and the others to grasp the meaning at the face value. Robin

aimed to convey a sense of humor (Langacker, 1993, p. 30).

2. Analysis on a Situation which Violates Maxims

Violating a maxim occurred when someone in a conversation failed to

observe one or more maxims with the intention to deceive the recipient, often using

an implicature with the intention to mislead (Thomas, 1995, p. 73). The research

discovered fifty (550) violations of four maxims.

a. Violating Maxim of Quality

Tupan and Natalia (2008, p. 64) said that the violation maxim of quality

occurred when the speaker deliberately spelling out untruthful utterances for

different reasons: hiding the truth, saving face, feeling jealous, satisfying the hearer,

cheering the hearer, building one’s belief, avoiding hurting the hearer, and

convincing the hearer (as cited in “Non Observance of Grice Maxims”, 2013). The

research discovered 24 excerpts which indicated to violate maxim of quality. They

added, the violation maxim of quality was executed by saying untruth or lying,

overstating, understating, contradiction, irony, lacking of evidence.

1) Providing falsehood

The following excerpt discovered to be a situation in which the speaker

violated maxim of quality. The research discovered that uttering falsehood with the

intention to mislead the hearer resulted a violation maxim of quality.

S02E03/QL/VL2 In restaurant, all have a meet-up dinner with Ted’s parents, Lily in stunning dress.

(1) Lily: Are you all right? You’re kind of sweating. (2) Marshall: No, I’m fine. It’s just this roll is really spicy.


56

As appeared to be humorous indicated by canned laughter in the excerpt

above, Lily successfully seduced Marshall as she looked hot in her stunning dress.

Despite she had good reason to ask a question, she tested him under her guise of

friendship. Hence, she would expect Marshall to provide adequate response to her

face-valued question. However, Marshall owned the exchange boundaries. He

could obey the maxim by spelling out truthfully what he was feeling towards Lily’s

dinner outfit which clued to embarrassment or he lied to save his face. Structurally,

both Lily and Marshall happened to have a common question-answer sequence in

conversation, yet Marshall’s response to Lily’s inquiry was liable to mislead by

untruthfully putting the blame on the roll in the table. Marshall expected Lily to

take the face value meaning from his utterance because he wanted to hide the truth

(Thomas, 1995, p. 73). In terms of the CP, the followed-up move produced by

Marshall constituted a violation of the maxim of quality.

2) Uttering ironical sentences

Violating maxim of quality discovered from the data was irony as transpired

in the following excerpt:

S02E06/QL/VL5 (1) Druthers: what do you think, Ted? It just let itself out of its plastic case and rolled away? -

- Somebody stole it. (2) Ted: Well, um I better get back to these Styrofoam trees. (3) Druthers: Oh, who cares about the trees? It’s just busy work to make you feel like you’re

contributing. (4) Ted: Inspiring as always, sir.

The excerpt above was discovered to be a result of violating maxim of

quality. The conversation happened when Hammond Druthers, a manager of a

company where Ted hired, got mad because he lost his baseball. In the earlier time,

Ted was in charged to do a project from Druthers, which was to make a set of trees


57 from Styrofoam. When Ted showed Druthers the result, rather than appreciating it,

Druthers seemed to depreciate it. As the exchange, Ted said insincere utterance

“Inspiring as always, sir.” Structurally, the conversation happened to have a

question-answer sequence at first. Druthers drew the supposition that somebody

must have stolen the baseball. For current purpose exchange, Ted was supposed to

concern it, otherwise he rather spelled out dispreffered with the prefaces “well” and

the initial hesitation “umm” to delay his disregarding sentence. Subsequently, it was

followed by Druthers’ insensitive response upon Ted’s project. In view of the fact

that Druthers was the manager, Ted confronted him with a compliment. The

compliment, however, was not sent from the bottom of the hurt but the lip. Ted

expected the utterance to be taken at its surface value. Ted made up the compliment

to satisfy Druthers by deluding Druthers a false compliment. The turn taken by Ted

resulted an utterance which in terms of CP constituted the violation maxim of

quality (Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 64).

3) Providing less assured information

As was transpired, the speaker from the following excerpt was known to

violate maxim of quality. It showed that maxim of quality was done by simply

concealing the truth to safe face which in terms of CP, the speaker violated the first

sub maxim of quality.

S02E09/QL/VL8 Marshall got three slaps. One because he lied and two for being prematurely slapped.

(1) Barney: Oh, my God. Are you gonna cry? (2) Marshall: No. – You’re gonna cry.

From the above excerpt, the conversation structurally occurred shortly after

Marshall got three slaps from Barney since he failed the gamble. The adjacency pair


58 of the conversation was question-answer sequence. The turns were well distributed

without silence or overlap chanced between the speakers. Barney’s inquiry was

reasonable since he saw Marshall suffering the pain. Inappropriately, Barney

received what he did not expect in return. Marshall refused to be cooperative by

uttering the dispreffered token as the exchange of Barney’s inquiry. In terms of CP,

Marshall violated maxim of quality (Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 64-66).

4) Providing less evidences

Furthermore, violating maxim of quality could done by uttering the

information which was lacking of adequate evidences. The following excerpt

discovered to be the violation the second sub maxim of quality.

S02E22/QL/VL24 (1) Ted: Hey, kiddo. (2) Barney: You are going to miss out on a lot of awesome stuff. You’ll be at home with

kid while I am out awesome-ing all over the place. And you’re going to get fat. The excerpt above showed the humorous conversation occurred between the

speakers, Ted and Barney. Ted came close to Barney and opened the conversation

with summon. Structurally, Barney strayed from the summon-answer sequence

offered by Ted. His disappointment utterance twisted Ted’s expectation of response

from Barney. In his exchange to Ted’s summon, Barney uttered “You are going to

miss out on a lot of awesome stuff. You’ll be at home with kid while I am out

awesome-ing all over the place. And you’re going to get fat.” Through his

utterances, Barney intended to continue the previous topic which was discussed in

the earlier time. In this situation, Barney held a premature supposition that Robin

became pregnant, impregnated by Ted. In his utterance, Barney casted a premature

guesstimate about how Ted’s life was going to be with a family without adequate


59 proves (Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 64). Accordingly, Barney was considered to

violate maxim of quality.

b. Violating Maxim of Quantity

The maxim of quality was violated when the speaker deliberately provided

insufficient information so that the hearer will not fully understand the situation.

Likewise, the speaker deliberately conveyed more information which the hearer

unnecessarily needed to know. The research discovered ten (10) cases in the point

of violation maxim of quality.

1) Providing only part of required information

The following excerpt would suffice to describe how the speaker

deliberately violated maxim of quantity by giving less information than it was

required with the intention to make the hearer not fully understood the actual

situation.

S02E08/QN/VL3 Atlantic City, all down at casino.

(1) Barney: Ah, A.C. always decline, never hitting bottom. It’s good to be back, old friend. (2) Ted: you been here before? (3) Barney: Oh, uh, once or twice. (4) Chinese Guy: Barney! (speak with Chinese accent) (5) Barney: Good to see you. -- Three times, maybe.

The excerpt above displayed the conversation which constituted the

violation maxim of quantity. Structurally, the conversation was initiated by

Barney’s remark about the casino he used to visit in Atlantic City. The followed-up

move was the sequence of question-answer between the first and the second

speaker. Ted’s question “you been here before?” was to be taken as genuine

question. However, in return, Ted received an unsatisfying answer from Barney.

Barney’s exchange was initiated with dispreferred tokens “Oh,” as the preface and


60 “uh,” as the hesitation/ delay before he uttered the point “once or twice.” Anchored

from the given situation and Barney’s remark, there were two possibilities which

could be traced down, he either rightly forgot the frequency or diminished the

frequency. In a sudden, a Chinese guy initiated a possible turn and called out

“Barney” while approaching Barney and Ted. The summons of a Chinese guy

opened a new channel for a talk which called for Barney’s response. In Barney’s

point, he was obliged to respond to summon and repair his previous utterance on

the third turn in the exchange of Ted’s inquiry. After responding his Chinese old

friend’s summon, he straightly selected Ted as the specific hearer for current

purpose of exchange. He repaired his utterance into “Three times, maybe” which

would not suffice. He intended to cover the frequency so that Ted did not fully

understand about Barney’s past life in Atlantic City. In the terms of CP, Barney

violated maxim of quantity because he gave insufficient information as was

required with the intention to mislead (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123).

Furthermore, the following excerpt illustrated the violation of the same sub

maxim as appeared in the following conversation:

S02E08/QN/VL4 In a Courthouse, Ted asked Robin to have sexual intercourse in a public place.

(1) Ted: Psssstttt.. (2) Robin: What? (3) Ted: (pervy look) (4) Robin: Here? (5) Ted: yeah. Got a little time to kill. (6) Robin: Oh, my God, it’s the T-shirt, isn’t it? (7) Ted: No. --- A little.

The conversation occurred when Lily and Marshall were eloping in

Atlantic City convoyed by their best friends. At that time, they were in a long queue

in a courthouse to ask for a marriage license. Structurally, the conversation occurred


61 to have summon-answer sequence. Ted summoned Robin to chat in a private. The

interesting point from Ted’s request on his third turn was that its nonverbal request

which was effortlessly understandable for Robin to grasp. Through his nonverbal

expression, Ted was asking for a sex to kill the time. On the sixth turn, Robin

opened a new question-answer sequence, it was the initiation sequence before

summon was answered. Ted’s answer to Robin’s inquiry was not as informative as

was expected. Through his utterance on the seventh turn, Ted covered the truth by

misrepresenting the false information so that Robin believed that it was not because

of T-shirt’s picture. However, his utterance did not suffice, the word “No” and “A

little” carried each on different meaning. In the terms of CP, Ted’s utterance

constituted the violation sub maxim of quantity.

2) Providing more information

Besides providing more information, the research discovered that

intentionally giving more information than it was required could violate maxim of

quantity as transpired in the following excerpts:

S02E16/QN/VL7 In the Mc’Laren, bar, Both Ted and Robin agreed that they should be honest each other about exes’ things.

(1) Ted: See that girl over there? Three years ago, I totally made out with her. (2) Robin: I don’t wanna hear that.

The violation maxim of quantity could be done by giving the information

which the hearer unnecessarily heard as appeared in the excerpt above. The

conversation between Ted and Robin occurred in Mac’Laren Bar. Ted on initiated

turn was considered uncooperative because he informed the unnecessary

information for Robin (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123). Ted blatantly


62 hit Robin through his utterance which was founded to be offensive. In terms of CP,

Ted violated the sub maxim of quantity.

b. Violating Maxim of Relevance

Violation of maxim of relevance occurred when the speaker blatantly

uttered an irrelevant topic. In the excerpt, the speaker’s answer or response was by

no means relevant to another speaker’s question. One reason for this answer could

be the fact that the speaker was trying to evade current topic possessed by the other

speakers.

1) Uttering other topic to evade current situation

The following excerpt would suffice to present the violation maxim of

relevance:

S02E12/MN/VL9 At the apartment. Robin, Barney and Ted. There is a spider in the living room.

(1) Robin: Spider! Spider! (2) Barney: I left something in the hallway.

As appeared in the excerpt above, the conversation occurred when Robin

exclaimed in fear upon knowing there was a spider near the couch. She exclaimed

to call for a help from anyone around. She did not select a next specific speaker so

that anyone could contribute the expected response. However, the quickest response

which she received in return was not as she expected. Barney selected himself to be

on the floor to hint Robin that he could not help her out of it. Barney’s utterance

was not cooperative by misrepresenting different topic. In fact, Barney was afraid

of spider but he covered the truth with such utterance. In the terms of CP, Barney

violated the maxim of relevance to exclude himself from current situation

(Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123).


63

S02E01/MN/VL1 The year 2030, the narrator, ted was telling his kids about how he met their mother.

(1) Ted: Okay, where were we? It was June of 200six) and life had just taken an unexpected turn.

(2) Daughter: Dad, can’t you just skip ahead to the part where you meet Mom? I feel like you’ve been talking for like a year.

(3) Ted: Honey, all this stuff I’m telling you is important. It’s all part of the story. (4) Son: Could I go to the bathroom? (5) Ted: No.

The excerpt above supported the previous presented result in which the

situation constituted the violation maxim of relevance as well. Ted opened the talk

with an invitation for his children to listen the story how he met his wife.

Structurally, the sequence for the first party was invitation-refusal. The refusal

which occurred to flout maxim of quality was uttered by the daughter. However,

both of his children seemed to be unexcited to listen the long story. Both children

were considered uncooperative. In the second party, the fourth turn, which was

taken by the son of Ted, was irrelevant to the topic being discussed in the current

conversation. The son was trying to evade the long story from his father by uttering

the irrelevant topic which was untruthful (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p.

123). In terms of CP, the son violated maxim of relevant.

c. Violating Maxim of Manner

Maxim of manner was violated when the speaker intentionally refrained to

be cooperative in their conversation by constructing obscure, ambiguous,

unordered, and undirected information to cause the hearer misunderstood or achieve

some purposes. The analysis resulted the findings that maxim of manner could be

violated by some ways.


64 1) Uttering obscure sentences

Firstly, the following excerpt illustrated the violation of the first sub maxim

of maxim manner by constructing obscure utterance:

S02E18/MN/VL15 In apartment, Barney doesn’t want Ted and Robin living together. He tried to convince them by asking made-up questions.

(1) Barney: So? We all agree? We move Ted’s stuff back up here? (2) Ted: Mm... No. we’re still moving in together. (3) Barney: Why? This is crazy. Ted, you’re throwing your life away. This girl is blinding

you. With her shinny hair and her boob shaped boobs. This is bad for you, too, you know. The conversation above which constituted the violation sub maxim of

manner occurred when Ted was about moving together in Robin’s apartment.

Barney suddenly felt that he was about to lose his best friend, and he was the one

who disagreed Ted and Robin moving together. The interesting party was occurred

when Barney initiated an offer to open an offer-refusal sequence with Ted. He

offered to move all Ted’s stuff from the lorry back to the apartment. However, Ted

gave a refusal to Barney as the exchange. Ted’s utterance used the dispreffered

token “mmm” as the delay before completing his utterance. In the exchange to Ted’s

remark, Barney refrained from talking cooperatively. He obscured the expression

by uttering “With her shinny hair and her boob shaped boobs.” to stop Ted moving

together. It was obscure to convince Ted that he was appealed and blinded by

Robin’s physical appearance. However, the remark “boob shaped boobs” was

obscure. Therefore, in terms of CP, Barney violated maxim of manner since he did

not construct his utterance clearly and obviously (Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 66).


65 2) Uttering ambiguous sentences

Secondly, the following excerpt illustrated the violation of the first sub

maxim of maxim manner by using ambiguous utterance.

S02E12/MN/VL10 Down at the bar, Barney drops some knowledge that according to him relationships are like a freeway. In fact, in previous month, he told Marshall that relationships are like a travelling circus.

(1) Barney: Freeways have exits. So do relationships. The first exit, my personal favorite, is six hours in. you meet, you talk you have sex, you exit when she’s in the shower.

(2) Robin: So every girl you have sex with feels the immediate need to shower? Actually yeah I get that. The excerpt above illustrated the utterances which were ambiguous in two

different meaning. The conversation chanced when Barney took the floor to drop

the knowledge of relationships. He did not select specifically the next speaker to

take the turn. Afterward, Robin took a chance to speak and to give a feedback. In

her utterance “So every girl you have sex with feels the immediate need to shower?

Actually yeah I get that.” however turned out to be ambiguous. Although she

intended the hearers to infer the faced-value meaning, her construction was

ambiguous. In her utterance, she possibly had ever had sex with Barney, so it was

reasonable to infer that she felt the immediate need to shower, or she possibly

understood face-to-face that the girl whom Barney had sex with felt the immediate

need to have shower after sex. Consequently, in terms of CP, she violated maxim

of manner (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123).


66 3) Being not brief

Third, the maxim of manner was violated by not being brief as appeared in

the following excerpt:

S02E05/MN/VL3 Barney’s apartment, after his one-night stand.

(1) Barney: That was close. That hippie chick wouldn’t leave. She was ready to squat here. (2) Lily: Well, she’d have to with your spring-loaded toilet seat, wouldn’t she? (3) Barney: She was freakishly immune to everything in my apartment…except you. You’re

better than porn. (4) Lily: Thank you. (5) Barney: How would you like to extend your stay here? All you’d have to do is pretend to

be my wife, and scare off the occasional one-night stand. I know, I know. You’ve got your ethics. You’ve got your principles….

(6) Lily: I’ll do it. (7) Barney: really? (8) Lily: Barney, you’ve clearly got some serious mother issues that have left you the

emotional equivalent of a scavenging sewer rat. But in other my apartment I would be living with an actual scavenging sewer rat, so you win.

(9) Barney: I’ll take it. The conversation occurred after Barney was released from a girl he slept

with the night before. Barney was used to have one night stand which was his

favorite. At the time, he got a situation that the particular girl would not leave his

apartment. In other situation, Lily got her own situation in her apartment where

many rats living. Regarding, Lily was the effective weapon to expel the one-night-

stand girl. The interesting focus of the current conversation was when Barney

initiated to get the floor to open a talk with Lily with an offer-acceptance sequence.

On her eighth turn, Lily responded to Barney’s inquiry. Through her

utterance, she expected Barney to infer the intention at the face value that his current

issues were equivalent with the scavenging sewer rats’ issues existing in Lily’s

apartment. Besides, Barney was expected to infer that Lily agreed to prolong the

stay because she wanted to help. However, Lily indeed wanted to stay out of her

own apartment because there were actual sewer rats in her apartment which was


67 unsettling for her and yet she sheltered the truth for herself. Constructively, Lily’s

utterance was extremely long and unnecessary. It was obviously no accident nor

through any inability to speak clearly. Therefore, the speaker failed to observe the

maxim of manner (Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 66).

4) Uttering unordered information

Fourth, maxim of manner could be violated by failing the utterance with

unordered information. In consequence, the hearer might be misunderstood and

confused.

S02E15/MN/VL14 The gang are down at the bar. Marshall came with broken leg,

(1) Barney: Here’s how you run a marathon. Step one, you start running. (pausing) there is no step two. The excerpt above described the violation maxim of manner done by

Barney. Structurally, there was a pause within Barney’s utterance because he got

no idea what to be the next steps. In his utterance, Barney informed the step how to

run the marathon. Informing step-by-step should be in a well order and clear

instruction, it should begin with the very first sequence followed up with the further

sequences or from the start to the finish in order to construct a well-ordered

instruction. In contrary, Barney did not inform in the way it was supposed to be, yet

he seemed to master less information. In terms of CP, Barney violated maxim of

manner because he did not construct his utterance in a good order which confused

the hearers (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123).


68 d. Violating Multiple maxims

In addition, one excerpt can also be a case of a multiple violation. A multiple

violation occurred when the speaker violated more than one maxim simultaneously

(Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 64).

1) Violating maxims of quality and relevance

S02E11/QL-RL/VL (At the bar, Robin, Ted and Barney. Barney got fever but he denied)

(1) Ted: Are you sick? (2) Barney: Is it sick to find maturity and experience sexy? (3) Ted: No, I meant do you have a cold? (4) Barney: I’m fine. – I’m fine. My nose is just overflowing with awesome and I had to

get some of it out. – Now, if you’ll excuse me, the holidays are a time when people are lonely and desperate. It’s the most wonderful time of the year.

The excerpt above showed the violation multiple maxims of quality and

relevance. The conversation chanced when Ted noticed that Barney got fever.

Incongruously, Barney uttered an irrelevant response in return. Barney was trying

to mislead Ted by altering the meaning of ‘sick’ into another meaning. Sourcing

from the www.urbandictionary.com, the word ‘sick’ in US is usually used when

something is cool or exciting (“Sick”). The meaning of which has allied meaning

with Barney’s definition. Through his utterance, Barney was trying to evade the

question by altering the topic. Being aware of the misunderstanding, Ted

recomposed the more simply comprehensible question. As the exchange to Ted’s

inquiry, Barney blatantly hid the truth by uttering “I’m fine. – I’m fine.”

Accordingly, he violated maxim of quality. His utterance “My nose is just

overflowing with awesome and I had to get some of it out.” in terms of CP was

obscure. Besides, he tried to evade current topic and a question by uttering “Now,

if you’ll excuse me, the holidays are a time when people are lonely and desperate.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/

69 It’s the most wonderful time of the year.” It which was ironic to depict his own

contradictory situation, that he was single and circled by a coupled friend.

Consequently, he violated multiple maxims.

2) Violating maxims of quality and quantity

S02E12/QL-QN/VL (1) Barney: The next exits are four days, three weeks, seven months – that’s when you

guys are gonna break up, mark your calendars. (talk to both Robin and Ted) (2) Ted: Hey! (3) Robin: What? (talk in the same time) The humorous excerpt above apparently illustrated the violation of maxim

of quality. This happens when the friends were down at the bar and Barney drops

some knowledge that according to him relationships were like a freeway.

Structurally, the overlap chanced when Ted and Robin react verbally to Barney’s

assertion at the same time. The interest in the excerpt lays on a pair initiated by

Barney with his statement about when the relationship would over and the tokens

of Ted and Robin as the exchange. When someone was telling information which

was universal for audiences, the teller was supposed to deliver it neutrally and

impersonally. However, in his above utterance, Barney blatantly added an

information which in current purpose of communication was unnecessary to the

hearers, explicitly Ted and Robin as a couple. Barney was also lacking of adequate

and sufficient evidences to prove him right, that Ted and Robin would end their

relationship within seven months. Accordingly, Barney deliberately violated

maxim of quantity and quality (Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 64).

3) Violating maxim quality and manner

The last variant of multiple violation discovered in this research was the

violation maxims of quality and manner.


70

S02E09/QL/VL7 (1) Barney: Fine. Do you wanna know what Robin’s secret is? (2) Ted: You know? (3) Barney: Of course I know. She couldn’t look at us, her face got flushed, that’s shame,

my friend. Our friend Robin used to do porn, what for it… ography. (4) Ted: Yeah, we didn’t really need to wait for that.

The conversation above arouse when the friends found that Ted’s girlfriend,

Robin, had been keeping her past life underground before she went to New York.

Her friends and even her boyfriend got clueless about her past. Barney, Ted,

Marshall and Lily tried to solve the Robin’s puzzle. Barney came out with his

hypothesis that Robin used to do pornography. The indication which Barney

exposed to prove him right about Robin’s past, however, was insufficient. If

somebody got flushed with embarrassment, the closest perception upon it did not

always signify pornography. In this case, Barney’s perception was affected by his

most interest which was sex. However, the truth about Robin’s puzzle was she used

to be a pop star in Canada. In this excerpt, the violation maxim of quality occurred

when Barney uttered his own hypothesis without sufficient evidences to build his

friends belief. Furthermore, maxim of manner was violated when Barney used

initiation “wait for it” within the word “Pornography”.

3. Analysis on a Situation which Infringes Maxims

The analysis resulted the minorities. One of which was the infringement.

This one of ways of failing maxims was described as follows:

S02E02/IF01 Lily, Ted and Robin were having breakfast at the restaurant. Robin was still drunk when the waiter served the menu.

(1) Robin (talking to the waiter): I’d take you with gravy. If my boyfriend wasn’t sitting right here. – Just kidding. I’m good.

(2) Lily: What are you so chirpy about? (3) Ted: She’s still drunk from last night. (4) Robin: I don’t think so. Whoo!


71

As appeared in the excerpt above, Robin’s drunkenness at the time affected the

ways she spoke. In given situation, Robin failed to observed maxim of quality as

she denied his state of condition at the time. Her utterance, however, was nor to

mislead or deceive the hearers. In terms of CP, Robin’s utterances constituted the

infringement maxim (Thomas, 1995, p. 74).

4. Analysis on a Situation which Suspends maxims

Another way of failing maxims which was discovered from the data was

suspension of maxim. The situation in which the speaker suspended the maxim

transpired from the following excerpt:

S02E14/SP01 They were at the apartment and ready for Mark’s funeral.

(1) Marshall: Okay, that’s great, but just to make sure it records, maybe we should bow our heads and say a quiet prayer to the TiVo gods.

(2) Ted: Almighty TiVo, we thank you for all the gifts you have given us: the power to freeze live TV to go take a leak is nothing short of Godlike. Let’s not forget fast-forwarding through commercials. It seems greedy to ask anything more from you, O Magic bos, but if you malfunction and miss the Super Bowl, we will destroy you in the alley with baseball bats. As appeared in the excerpt above, the conversation appeared to be humorous

with the situation in which the suspension maxim occurred. In the case of praying,

Ted’s utterances needed to be praiseworthy and excluded from potential

unfavorable disruption. Although the fashion of his utterance was obscure and

incongruous as he praised the Tivo, neither maxim to be observed nor implicature

to be inferred. Thus, Ted suspended maxim (Thomas, 1995, p. 76).


72 B. Contributions of Non-observance Maxims in Creating Humorous Effects

in Sitcom How I Met Your Mother Season 2.

After analyzing the selected data for each. The result would be discussed in

the connection with the humor mechanism. The research focused on the language

humor, because the process of social activities mostly takes place through

conversation, thus humor likely comes out from people’s daily language

communication.

The second layer discussion of research discusses how those five of failing

maxims contribute in creating humorous effect. The talk of the non-observance of

four maxims is the same whether these maxims located in flouting or other non-

observance. The difference is in the kind of non-observance. By using the 6

parameters of GTVH, current layer of discussion analyze how creation humorous

effects were contributable to violation (viz. flouting, violating of maxims. The

discussion was deductively organized from the view of maxim as the kinds of non-

observance maxims converge at the same target maxims.

1. Maxim of Quality

The findings showed, there were only three of five kinds of non-observance

maxims which exploited maxims of quality in order to create humorous effects:

flouting, violating, and infringing.

a. Flouting

Targeting maxim quality by implementing this kind of non-observances

resulted to be contributable in creating humorous effects. The following excerpt

exemplified the contribution:


73

EXCERPT S02E11/QL/FL6 SI At Lily’s apartment, Barney was smoking facing over the opened window while

he was sick and it was winter. NA (Conversation)

(1) Robin: Barney. What the hell are you doing? Get in here, it’s freezing outside. Are you insane?

(2) Barney: Hey, blame Lily and her oppressive ‘no cigars in the apartment rule.’ God, it’s like Marshall’s marrying the Taliban.

SO Flouting maxim of quality LM Exaggeration TA Lily’s ‘No Cigar’s rule’ LA Using word ‘Taliban’

As appeared in the excerpt S02E11/QL/FL6, Barney’s utterance was the

punchline where the humor appeared. The humor arouse within a narrative strategy

(NA): conversation. The conversation was situated (SI) when Robin cared about

Barney’s condition by asking him to get inside. As Barney threw the guilt on Lily’s

‘No cigar’ rule in return (TA), his utterance constituted flouting maxim of quality

(in form of exaggeration) by using word (LA) ‘Taliban’. Thus, the flouted maxim

of quality, in terms of GTVH characterized as the Script Opposition (SO) as was

explained by Attardo (1994). Barney’s utterance “God, it’s like Marshall’s

marrying the Taliban.” was seen as an incongruity in that script opposition, since

his utterance was fictitious that somebody literally married to an Islamic

organization (“Taliban”). Equipped with above resource knowledge, the humorous

effects was expected to be generated within the logical mechanism (LM). The

logical mechanism (LM) started to run as the exaggeration occurred in the

conversation. In other words, the exaggeration represented impossibility which in

terms of incongruity theory was incongruous. The occurrence of the incongruous

situation logically violated the audiences’ normal viewpoint of responses of certain

kinds of statement in such situation. Thus, the violation (flouting maxim of quality)

was contributable to create humorous effect.


74 b. Violating

The following excerpt illustrated the conversation in which humor was

attributable to the violating maxim of quality. As stated in chapter 2, utterances

demanded to obey the maxim of quality. One should try to be truthful, and does

give information that was false or that was not supported evidence.

EXCERPT S02E02/QL/VL1 SI In the apartment, Marshall was aggrieved because Barney twice in a row took

the girl he approached at the bar. NA (Conversation)

(1) Marshall: I hate you. (2) Barney: I am so sorry. It’s a sickness. I’m the real victim here. (3) Marshall: Twice. Twice in a row, you took my candy. That was my candy.

SO Violating maxim of quality LM Exaggeration TA Barney’s concoction LA Using hyperbolic sentence

In the conversation above, humor from the jab line uttered by Barney which

occurred within a conversation between Barney and Marshall (NA). In the situation

(SI), Marshall seemed so crestfallen at what Barney did to him. He was aggrieved

at the unfair deal. Barney, the one who was supposed to be the wingman, handed

over the deal twice. The humor sprang up from Barney’s exchange to Marshall’s

utterance. In Barney’s utterance, pretended to be sorry for what he did, instead, he

deliberately took the girl twice. He concocted (TA) a reason of what he did, that it

was a sickness. His language (LA) was hyperbolic. He reasoned out that the

sickness could not be helped, and he was the victim of which. As was known, there

never such sickness exists in the world. Obviously, Barney uttered untruthful words

which in terms of CP, he violated the first sub maxim of quality (SO). Accordingly,

the humorous effects were generated (LM) from Barney’s utterance for disobeying

the objectivity. He attributed the cause of his behavior to the sickness. Logically,

he violated the conceptual patterns held by the audiences. Barney’s performance in


75 this conversation was incongruous for the reason of being ill-treated by irrational

sickness. Combined with Barney’s apologetic facial expression, the incongruous

event triggered by his utterance was sufficient for amusement.

c. Infringing

In this sitcom, infringement was possible to bring out the humorous effect.

An excerpt exemplifies that infringing maxim of quality contributed to create

humorous effect, described as follows:

EXCERPT S02E02/IF1 SI Lily, Ted and Robin were having breakfast at the restaurant. Robin was still

drunk when the waiter served the menu. NA (Conversation)

(1) Lily: What are you so chirpy about? (2) Ted: She’s still drunk from last night. (3) Robin: I don’t think so. Whoo!

SO Infringing maxim of quality LM Ignoring the obvious TA Robin’s drunkenness LA Vague language

Humorous effects sprang up within the conversation (NA) among Robin,

Lily and Ted, specifically at Robin’s utterance as the punchline. The conversation

was situated (SI) when three of them went to have breakfast in a restaurant while

Robin was still drunk after the previous night party. Her drunkenness (TA) drove

the way she spoke to a waiter at the time. Robin’s fashion of utterance (LA), in

terms of CP constituted the infringement maxim of quality as she denied her the

obvious fact of her condition at the time. Thus, the script opposition (SO) was

sourced from the infringement. In other words, the infringement contributed to

create humorous effects. Consequently, the logical response boundary within

current situation of conversation was conflicted as Robin ignored the obvious truth

of her condition at the time (LM). The humor was generated when the audience’s

normal view of certain kind of response (what Robin ought to appear) opposed to


76 what Robin actually said (Latta, 1998, p. 106). This conflict, thus, evidently created

humorous effects.

Those three ways of failing maxims above evidently produced humorous

effects. Although they were different in the ways, they converged at the same point.

The fashion of speakers’ utterances aimed for the certain purpose: inferring the

implicatures, covering the truth or just unintentionally violate the truth. Generally,

the aims of speakers came into the same surface of humor elements seen in the view

of incongruity theory as said by Latta (1998), that a conflict between what was

expected and what actually occurred in the joke ascertains to bring out humor (p.

106). In other words, those various form of violations maxim of CP gave a basic

condition as a resource of producing humorous effect.

2. Maxim of quantity

There were four ways of five ways of non-observance maxims which were

employed in order to create humorous effects from the violation maxim of quantity

in HIMYM season 2. Those were flouting, violating, infringing, and suspending;

described as follows:

a. Flouting

Characteristically, flouting maxim of quantity occurred when the speakers

spoke either to little or too much amount of information for current purpose of

conversation. The following excerpts would suffice to explain how the humorous

effects created by flouting the maxim of quantity.


77

EXCERPT S02E15/QN/FL12 SI On the sale, wedding dress store, robin and lily. Lily has been wanting to buy

wedding dress on sale but she didn’t knew the place. NA (Conversation)

(1) Robin: This is the place. (2) Lily: Oh, wow. Badgley Mischka! Melissa Sweet! Vera Wang! Oh, Robin,

do you have any idea what you guys stumbled onto here? (3) Robin: (giggling) You said Wang.

SO Flouting maxim of quantity LM Missing link TA Family name of a designer LA Natural (do not correspondent to the production of humor)

As appeared in the excerpt above, the punchline came out from Robin

within a conversation (NA) between Robin and Lily. The conversation occurred

(SI) when Lily was delirious to run into a wedding dress on sale in a store. Lily’s

question was considered as part of speech figure which to make a point rather than

to elicit an answer. At this point, Robin’s follow-up utterance was not necessarily

aired. The humor laid on Robin’s utterance because she uttered other informative

utterance for current purpose of conversation. Consequently, she flouted maxim of

quantity. In terms of script opposition (SO) it constituted an abnormal behavior.

The logical mechanism (LM) then follows as ground reversal since the expected

situation in current conversation changes into unexpected one as in Robin’s

utterance. The humorous effects were created when the perceivers, explicitly

audiences, have the conceptual patterns which formed variable expectation of what

might be Robin’s responses in exchange to Lily’s inquiry. The formed expectation

was based on, in this given situation: topic discussed, Lily’s tone of voice, and

Lily’s gesture. Those factors formed the expectation that Robin would be as

delirious as Lily was. Unpredictably, Robin’s conflicting utterance violated the

audiences’ concept (Morreal, 1987). As a result, it gave a rise to amusement.


78 b. Violating

Violating maxim of quantity was produced when the speaker blatantly

deceived the hearer by uttering either too little or too much amount of information.

The following excerpt would suffice to explain how the utterances discovered to be

humorous:

EXCERPT S02E22/QN/VL9 SI Empire State Building with Katy, Robin’s younger sister. NA (Conversation)

(1) Barney: Oh, like First Corinthians? That Bible verse? They do that at every wedding.

(2) Robin: How’s it go? (Everyone starting to listen to Marshall)

(3) Marshall: “Love is patient and kind. Love does not envy or boast. It is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way. It is not irritable or resentful. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things… endures all things.”

(4) Robin: Lame. (5) Lily: Going on the list.

SO Violating maxim of quantity LM Ground-role reversal TA Bible Verse LA Understating: ‘lame’

The humorous situation above sprang up within a conversation (NA) among

Barney, Lily, Marshall and Robin. The situation (SI) occurred when Lily was listing

things a couple of marriage usually do in a wedding. Barney initiated a turn to

suggest a Bible verse to be on the list. The script opposition (SO) occurred as Robin

understate (LA) that Bible verse as ‘lame’. In terms of CP, her utterance constituted

the violation maxim of quantity. Subsequently, the logical mechanism (LM) came

across soon after maxim of quantity was violated. In this situation, the characters

especially Robin typically had a behavior of modern realistic citizen which strayed

from the norm. The Bible verse usually cited in a wedding was supposed to be

valued, it was not to be grasped as a cliché. Such behavior then conflicted to what

audiences’ had in mind about how the characters in the conversation ought to


79 behave (Morreal, 1987). This moral violation of such behavior was considered as

acceptably normal to the perceivers (audiences), since Robin’s utterance does not

poked a certain culture or religious issues (Attardo, 1994, P. 224). More, Robin’s

utterance was not aimed to a certain group of people. Hence, it still became

humorous.

3. Maxim of relevance

Maxim of relevance is a frame of topic discussed in a conversation. The

utterances must be relevant to the inquiry of a topic discussed. As discovered in the

first layer of research findings, the violation (viz. flouting, violating, infringing,

suspending) maxim of relevance was discovered to be fruitful in creating humorous

effects, described as follows:

a. Flouting

Humorous effects were created by flouting maxim of relevance, done by

initiating a new topic within an utterance to imply a certain meaning. The following

excerpt explained how flouted maxim of relevance contributed in creating

humorous effects.

EXCERPT S02E03/RL/FL2 SI Apartment, Ted’s mother didn’t like to talk about things that were

uncomfortable, emotional, or in any way. NA (Conversation)

(1) Ted’s mom: Oh, I forgot to tell you, your cousin Jimmy had a wonderful time at the spa he visited.

(2) Ted: You mean the spa the judge ordered him to go to, to quit cocaine? (3) Ted’s mom: Coffee?

SO Script opposition: Good vs. bad LM Implicit parallelism TA How Ted’s mom evade from current question. LA Natural

Humor sprang up from the conversation (NA) between Ted and his mom in

his apartment. It occurred (SI) when Ted’s mom told Ted a bad news about his


80 cousin that Jimmy had to stay as a detainee in a prison for consuming illegal drug.

Typically, Ted’s mother did not like to talk about something uncomfortable for both

hearer and herself, and Ted understood that. Ted’s mom fashioned her utterance by

using word ‘spa’ in order to construct a less uncomfortable or distressing

information to hear. When Ted responded her utterance by clarifying in clearer

manner, Ted’s mom initiated a new topic as she offered a cup of tea which she had

been holding during the conversation. Consequently, she flouted maxim of

relevance (SO). The humorous effects sprang up from Ted’s mother punchline

(LM). In normal situation, she ought to utter relevant topic in exchange to Ted’s

inquiry. However, she refused to make her utterance relevant to the topic. This

situation, thus, conflicted to audiences’ normal perspective and created humorous

effects (Morreal, 1987).

b. Violating

Violating maxim of manner occurred when the speaker intentionally misled

the hearer by uttering other topic with the intention to evade current discussion or

giving hints, described as follows:

EXCERPT S02E12/QN/FL11 SI At the apartment. Robin and Ted. There is a spider in the living room when

Barney opened the door. NA (Conversation)

(1) Robin: Spider! Spider! (2) Barney: (open the door) I left something in the hallway.

SO Normal and abnormal LM Role reversal TA Barney’s reason LA Natural

In the conversation above (NA), Barney’s punchline was shown to be

humorous indicated by the laughter track. This humor occurred within a situation

(SI) when Robin exclaimed in fear upon knowing there was a spider near the couch.


81 She exclaimed to call for a help from anyone around. However, the quickest

response which she received in return was not as she expected. Barney selected

himself to be on the floor to hint Robin that he could not help her out of it. In fact,

Barney was afraid of spider but he covered the truth. In the terms of CP, Barney

violated the maxim of relevance to exclude himself from current situation. In this

humor, Barney’s behavior was the incongruity (Raskin, 1985). The logical

mechanism of this humor occurred exactly when Barney open the door and aired

his utterance. In this given situation, Barney was the nearest person who could have

helped Robin. Physically, his appearance seemed to be a gentleman who somebody

could count on. However, it turned out that he was as terrified as Robin was at the

time. Consequently, Barney’s behavior violated the perception of how he ought to

behave (Morreal, 1987). In this situation, combined with Barney’s facial

expression, the incongruous event triggered by his utterance was sufficient for

amusement.

c. Infringing

The following infringement maxim of relevance described how humor was

created:

EXCERPT S02E09/RL/IF5 SI Empire State Building with Katy, Robin’s younger sister. NA (Conversation)

(1) Lily: I don’t know. He could be right. She does have the fake orgasm noises down.

(2) Ted: Hey! (3) Lily: What? The walls were thin. (4) Ted: That’s not what I’m hey-ing you about.

SO Infringing maxim of relevance LM Missing link TA Lily’s lack of knowledge of the topic LA Idiomatic


82

The excerpt above showed a conversation (NA) between Lily and Ted. The

humor appeared from the jab line uttered by Lily. In the situation (SI), Barney

casted a premature guess at Robin’s past life in Canada that she used to do porn.

The normal conversation still occurred until Lily missed the link of what Ted meant.

In terms of CP, Lily’s utterance constituted the infringement maxim of relevance

(SO). This given knowledge so far, provides a conflicting situation. Lily was

lacking of the information towards Ted’s inquiry (TA) and her utterance came at

surprise which opposed to what she ought to appear in the view of Ted (Morreal,

1987). Logically (LM), her supporting evidence to previous ideas (from Barney)

was based on what she heard. She assumed what Ted yelled at was her statement

about Robin’s fake orgasm voice. Accordingly, Lily’s jab line was irrelevant in the

given situation. Thus, it created humorous effects (Latta, 1998, 106).

4. Maxim of manner

Maxim of manner relates to how the speaker constructs the utterance. There

were three ways of failing maxims discovered in this research: flouting, violating

and infringing.

a. Flouting

Without the intention to mislead the hearer, flouting maxim of manner was

aimed to create humorous effects, described as follows:

EXCERPT S02E02/MN/FL1 SI At the bar, Marshall and Barney. Marshall felt he wasn’t good at being single

that he was good at being in a couple as Lily’s boyfriend. NA (Conversation)

(1) Barney: Come on, you can’t give up now. What if I told you that you could relive that night with the exact same conversations, the exact same jokes, only this time, you get her and I don’t.

(2) Marshall: It is not possible. (3) Barney: But it is. She has…wait for it…here it comes…almost there...

an identical twin. (banging Marshall’s chest) Yes! SO Flouting maxim of manner


83

LM Almost situation TA Barney’s manner in saying identical twins LA Obscure

The excerpt above illustrated a conversation between Marshall and Barney

(NA). The humor appeared from Barney’s punchline. In the situation (SI), Barney

was cheering Marshall up after his failure of appealing a twin. The interesting point

of Barney’s utterance was his fashion in constructing the utterance. His utterance

was not brief as he uttered some proxility within. Besides, the language used (LA),

was allusive. In terms of CP, he flouted maxim of manner which as the seed of the

script opposition. This script provided a knowledge to be interpreted logically (LM)

as humor within given situation. The language of Barney’s utterance led to an

opposition of sense (Attardo, Hempelmann and Maio, 2002). Besides, his utterance

was intriguing to the hearer. The manner of his utterance gave an almost situation

as if it was an ejaculation process. Those knowledge resources, thus, were

contributable to create humor (Morreal, 1987).

b. Violating

Violating maxim of manner appeared in Barney’s two opposing expression,

described as follows:

EXCERPT S02E08/MN/VL5 SI There are the gang but Barney seems could not read the situation. He should’ve

not said that to Marshall while there is Lily next to him. NA (Conversation)

(1) Lily: We’re going to Atlantic City to Elope right now! (2) Barney: Oh, congratulations, Lily. Marshall, you’re getting married?

What the hell? SO Violating maxim of manner LM Ground reversal TA Barney’s congratulation LA Opposing expression

The excerpt above illustrated a conversation (NA) between Lily, Marshall

and Barney. The humor sprang up from Barney’s punchline in exchange to Lily’s


84 utterance. In the situation, Lily told the friends that she was going to elope with

Marshall. Everyone seemed so happy to hear the news. However, the happy

responses did not come all the way in return. Barney’s contradicting response came

as surprise. In his utterance, he deliberately used two opposing utterances which

separately aimed for Lily and Marshall. Consequently, he violated maxim of

manner. The violation brought out a script opposition (SO) to be interpreted as

humor. The interpretation through the logical mechanism (LM) came across, what

Barney ought to say to both Lily and Marshall should not be different. In such

manner, although he already addressed the specific hearers, Barney still appeared

to be incongruous since both Marshall and Lily could still hear all the utterances

(Morreal, 1987 and Audrieth, 1998). This given condition was fruitful to create

humorous effect.

c. Infringing

The drunkenness could affect speaker’s way of speaking. Consequently, it

resulted to an obscure expression as appeared in the following excerpt:

EXCERPT S02E08/MN/VL5 SI Lily, Ted and Robin were having breakfast at the restaurant. Robin was still


(1) Waiter: (writing the order) (2) Robin (talking to the waiter): I’d take you with gravy. If my boyfriend

wasn’t sitting right here. – Just kidding. I’m good. (3) Lily: What are you so chirpy about?

SO Infringing maxim of manner LM Consequences TA Robin’s drunkenness LA Obscure

The above excerpt illustrated a conversation between Robin, Lily and the

waitress (NA). Humor sprang up from Robin’s jab lines. In the situation (SI), Ted,

Robin and Lily were having breakfast in a restaurant. Last night, they drank alcohol


85 too much and they are still hangover in the morning. Ted and Lily could handle it

well, but Robin was not that sober. The drunkenness affected Robin a lot that she

could not manner the way she spoke. The manner she spoke, in terms of CP

constituted the infringement maxim of manner (SO). The infringement, then

provided a script which opposed to a normal perception. The opposition resulted

from the infringement, logically, conflicted to a normal view of such kind of

situation. In other word, the infringement violated the normal expectation of how

Barney ought to behave in such situation (Morreal, 1987). This given condition was

expectedly become humorous to the perceiver.

Either intentionally or unintentionally, violations maxim of manner

occurred when the utterances were failed in construction. Accordingly, the indirect,

obscure, vague utterances referred to the overlapping script which was the

standpoint of humor production. Those various utterances provided sources

incongruity. Besides, violations (viz. flouting, violating, infringing, suspending) of

multiple maxims converged at the same point which to was the script opposition

(Raskin 1985 and Attardo, 2007, p. 108). The script opposition was necessary in

verbal humor, but it did not provide sufficient condition for humor. Script

opposition needed other knowledge resources such as situation and language (at

least) to provide a condition for humor before the incongruity was processed by the

logical mechanism (Morreal, 1987).


86 5. Multiple maxims

In HIMYM, the characters spoke with various intention. Also, the speaker’s

personality and the situation s/he faced determined the way the speaker spoke.

Consequently, the speaker, sometimes, violated more than one maxims in an

utterances. Remarkably, violation (viz. flouting, violating, infringing, suspending)

multiple maxims brought out script opposition as a resource of humor.

a. Flouting

In HIMYM, multiple maxims were flouted when the speakers expected the

hearers to grasp the conversational implicature. The combination of maxims flouted

in a situation could be a recipe to create humorous effect, supposed the example

went as follows:

EXCERPT SE02E20/QN-MN/FL6 SI Back when both Ted and Marshall were roommate in college. NA (Conversation)

(1) Marshall: Hey. I’m driving my Fiero back over break. I know we see enough of each other as it is, but if you want a ride, I could use the gas money. You live in Ohio, right? I could swing through and pick you up.

(2) Ted: All right, first of all, my parents live in Ohio. I live in the moment. -- Plus Karen and I haven’t seen each other since Thanksgiving. We’re both really invested in making this long-distance thing work, so…”

SO Flouting maxim LM Implicit parallelism TA Ted’s response to Marshall’s inquiry LA Indirect and vague

As appeared in the conversation between Marshall and Ted (NA), the humor

sprang up from Ted’s punchline. In the situation (SI), the plot teold the story back

when Marshall and Ted were roommate in college. Marshall offered Ted a ride to

Ohio and would pick him up during summer break under one condition: Marshall

asked for gasoline money in return. In exchange to Marshall’s inquiry, Ted

indirectly responded to the offer, neither refusing nor accepting. Rather, he jumped

to other information which prolonged the exact amount of answer. Also, his first


87 utterance was obscure. Nonetheless, Ted did not mean to mislead Marshall, he

expected Marshall to infer the point of his utterance that he refused Marshall’s offer.

In terms of CP, the fashion of language he used (LA) constituted flouting maxim of

manner and quantity. Accordingly, this given conversation disclosed an

overlapping script (SO) which then processes logical mechanism (LM): implicit

parallelism. For that reason, logically, Ted’s utterance, at the level of surface

meaning, did not exactly answer Marshall’s inquiry. However, at the implied

meaning, Ted’s utterance had similar meaning to a refuse. The humor was generated

when Ted’s last punchline resolved the obscurity conflict he made from his first

utterance. This element, as said by Latta (1998) that humor had a punchline which

resolved the conflict (p. 106).

b. Violating

The following excerpt illustrated the violation multiple maxims which were

proven to be fruitful in creating humorous effect, described as follows:

EXCERPT SE02EP09/QL-MN/VL6 SI Lily, Ted and Robin were having breakfast at the restaurant. Robin was still


(1) Barney: Fine. Do you wanna know what Robin’s secret is? (2) Ted: You know? (3) Barney: Of course I know. She couldn’t look at us, her face got flushed,

that shame, my friend. Our friend Robin used to do porn, what for it… ography.

(4) Ted: Yeah, we didn’t really need to wait for that. SO Violating maxims of quality and manner LM Reasoning from false premises TA Barney’s key answer LA Obscure

As appeared in the conversation between Ted and Barney (NA), in the

situation (SI), Barney tried to solve the Robin’s puzzle about her past life. Barney

came out with his hypothesis that Robin used to do pornography. The indication


88 which Barney exposed to prove him right about Robin’s past life, however, was

insufficient. If somebody got flushed with embarrassment, the closest perception

upon it did not always signify pornography. Personal references might affect his or

her perception. In this case, Barney’s perception was affected by his most personal

interest which was sex. In the time, Barney was trying to build other’s belief.

However, the truth about Robin’s puzzle was she used to be a pop star in Canada.

Accordingly, Barney’s utterance constituted the violation maxim of quality and

manner as Barney uttered his own hypothesis without sufficient evidences in order

to build his friends’ belief and used initiation (LA) “wait for it” within the word

“Pornography”. The humor sprang from Barney’s jab line, sourced from actual vs.

non-actual script opposition in the conversation. Logically, the violation maxim of

quality and manner aimed to resolve the puzzle. However, it conflicted to

understood knowledge about ‘got flushed’ since he reasoned from the false

premises (Attardo et al, 2002 and Morreal, 1987). Besides, obscure initiation “wait

for it” within the word “Pornography” was fruitful to create humorous effect.

Accordingly, the resources above were productive to create humor.

c. Infringement

It was unfair to put aside this way of failing maxim regarding the frequency

of the occurrence. Therefore, one of humorous conversations was described as

follows:

EXCERPT S02E20/QN-MN/FL SI Barney came at surprise by demonstrating how he would appear in TPIR.

Rather than telling Marshall and Ted what he was going to do, he left them clueless.


89

NA (Conversation)

(1) Ted, Marshall: (sitting and reading in a couch) (2) Barney: (coming in-out apartment and demonstrating “A”) (3) Ted, Marshall: (jaw-dropping) (4) Barney: (coming in-out apartment and demonstrating “B”) (5) Barney: So which one, “A” or “B”? (6) Marshall: What was that?

SO Infringing maxim of manner and quantity LM Inferring the consequences of excitement TA Barney’s demonstration LA Vague

As appeared in the excerpt above, humor occurred in a conversation

between Barney, Ted and Marshall (NA). In the situation (SI), Barney infringed

maxim of manner as his excitement influenced his manner. Barney came in the

apartment, he intended to ask suggestion on how he would appear in TV show.

Before he demonstrated how, neither Marshall nor Ted were apprised about what

Barney was going to show. Then, Barney came in a sudden and demonstrated it in

a straight line. Consequently, they were jaw-dropping and clueless and proceeded

the responses uttered by Marshall and Ted. Barney’s utterance, in terms of CP was

less informative for the hearer. Besides, it was not orderly and unclear (LA). He

was supposed to apprise Marshall and Ted then showed them afterwards. Yet, he

did not. Although the utterance was not intended to mislead the hearer, he failed to

make his friend infer his information. Therefore, he infringed maxim of manner and

quantity (SO). This was the seed of the script opposition for humor production.

Here, Barney’s action (TA) described a situation which significantly takes part in

creating humor without the exclusion of his jab line (TA). In this humor, humorous

effects were triggered when Barney violated how he ought to appear in the scene,

besides his failed action violated completion of action. As Moreall (1987) gave sort

of incongruities that humor could come from a violation of how the audiences

viewed the way in which the speaker ought to appear and a failed actions.


90 d. Suspending

Suspending maxim occurred when the speaker aimed his utterance for a joke

in the situation, described as follows:

EXCERPT S02E09/SP4 SI Barney proposed a ‘Slap bet’ to Marshall and offered Lily to be a slap bet

commissioner. NA (Conversation

(1) Lily: Ooh, I love it. What are my powers? (2) Barney: Um, if a problem arises and we need a ruling, that's your job. -- But

you have to be unbiased and put the integrity of slap bet above all else. This is an honor you will take with you to your grave. On your tombstone, it will read, "Lily Aldrin, caring wife, loving friend, Slap Bet Commissioner."

(3) Marshall (talking to Barney): And your tombstone will read "Got slapped by Marshall, so hard he died."

SO Suspending maxims of quality and manner LM Coincidence TA Marshall’s joke LA Obscure

As appeared in the excerpt above, Marshall’s utterance was aimed to joke

around. Humor sprang up from Marshall’s punchline. The conversation (NA)

occurred among Lily, Barney and Marshall. In the situation (SI), Barney proposed

a ‘Slap bet’ to Marshall and offered Lily to be a slap bet commissioner. Barney

overstated his utterance by putting ‘slap bet’ as an important and serious kind of

bet. In terms of CP, Barney violated maxim of quality. In other side, in this situation,

Marshall’s utterance (TA) did expect neither maxim to be obeyed nor implicature

to be inferred. In terms of CP, he suspended maxim of quality and manner.

Accordingly, the humorous effects sprang up soon after Marshall uttered the joke.

In this humor, Language (LA) in the way Marshall fashioned his utterance brought

out and overlapping script (SO). Here, the language, situation and the script

opposition were the knowledge resources which contributable for humor

production. Marshall put his joke in the same situation as what Barney’s said about

Lily’s tombstone. In the future if they passed away each of them would have their


91 wording on their tombstone. Sadly, Marshall joked that Barney would die because

of hard slap from Marshall. Humor occurred as Moreall (1987) gave sort of

incongruities that humor could come from a violation of understood knowledge.

Marshall’s utterance violated the understood knowledge about writing in someone’s

tombstone. Besides, slap bet causing somebody lost his life was incongruous as

well (Audrieth, 1998).

The various purposes of utterances determined how the speaker constructed

the utterances. Accordingly, the indirect, obscure, vague utterances referred to the

violations of maxims and provided resources of incongruity which was the

standpoint of humor production (Attardo, 2008). The violation maxims then

converged at the same point which was the script opposition. The script opposition

was necessary in verbal humor as a prior discourse (Morreal, 1987), but it did not

provide sufficient condition for humor. Script opposition needed other knowledge

resources such as situation and language (at least) to provide a condition for humor

before the incongruity was proceeded by the logical mechanism.


CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter consists of three parts, namely conclusions, implications, and

recommendations. Conclusions summarize the research findings and highlight the

main aspects, implications carry out the contribution of research findings for

ELESP, while recommendations consist of recommendations for the current study

and the further research.

A. Conclusions

In conclusion, there are two main findings grounded from the focus of this

research. The first is the employment of the non-observance maxims in the

humorous conversation taken from sitcom How I Met Your Mother season 2 and

the second is the how the violation (viz. flouting, violating, infringing, suspending)

maxims to create humorous effects.

Based on the first research finding, the researcher concluded that although

cooperative principle described best practices in conversation in order to facilitate

the process of conversation to be smoother for both the listener and the speaker,

people frequently disobeyed these maxims in order to achieve certain purposes.

Regarding the first objective, there are a hundred-twenty-two (122) humorous

conversation which employed four kinds of the non-observance maxims of CP:

flouting, violating, infringing, and suspending. Forty-six (46) data of which

discovered to be flouted and sixty-seven (67) discovered to be violated by the

characters. Five (5) data was transpired to be the case of infringing maxim. More,

92


93 there were four (4) situation in which the suspension occurred. In addition, there

are thirteen (13) cases of multiple violation (flouting, violating, suspending).

First, the research revealed that maxim quality was flouted by the way of

exaggerating, using metaphor and delivering sarcastic tone (Essay, 2013). The

maxim of quantity could be flouted by providing less or more information than it

was required without the intention of deceiving (Leech, 1983, p. 140). The maxim

of relevance could be flouted by chancing new topic with implicature to be inferred

(Thomas 1995, p.70). The last, maxim of manner could be flouted by constructing

obscure language, using other language, using slang (Langacker, 1993; Levinson,

1983; Thomas, 1995).

The second way of failing the maxim was violation. The finding of the

research exposed the way of violating the maxims. The maxim of quality could be

violated by sincerely lying to hide the truth or informing without adequate proof

(Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 64). The maxim of quantity could be violated by giving

less or more information with the intention of deceiving. The maxim of relevance

could be violated by straying from the subject being discussed with the intention to

exclude from current conversation (Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011, p. 123).

Lastly, the maxim of manner could be violated by the way of intentional obscure,

ambiguous and unordered (Tupan and Natalia, 2008, p. 66).

Third, the result discovered that the speaker infringed the maxims under the

conditions. It occurred when the speaker was drunk or too excited (Thomas, 1995,

p. 74). The fourth ways of failing was suspending. The result discovered that there

were neither maxim to be observed nor implicature to be inferred in suspending


94 maxims. In this research the speakers suspended two maxims in order to joke

around (Thomas, 1995, p. 76).

In the connection with humor, the creation of humor was considered

attributable to four types of non-observance maxims. The non-observance chanced

the links to humorous effects from the characters’ utterances. The humorous effects

chanced when the characters’ utterances came as complete surprises which were

unexpected, odd and or irrational. Similar to the perspective of the incongruity

theory, people laugh at what surprises them, is unexpected, or is odd in a

nonthreatening way (Berger, 1976; Deckers & Devine, 1981; McGhee, 1983). At

this point, an accepted pattern is violated, or a difference is noted-close enough to

the norm to be nonthreatening, but different enough from the norm to be

remarkable. In this difference, neither too shocking not too mundane, that provokes

humor in the mind of the receiver, according to the incongruity theory.

In this research, the characters with unique characteristics contributed

interesting ways of speaking to carry on the conversation. The characters in the

collected data used meanderings, unexpected responses and blurred exchange

boundaries which opposed the normal and strayed the subject. As the instance,

Barney was used to declaim something or his ideas. The absurdity, incongruity,

exaggeration, eccentricity resulting from the employment of non-observance

maxims provide a condition as knowledge resource (script opposition) for humor

production (Raskin, 1985; Attardo, 2007). Noting that How I Met Your Mother is

an audiovisual humor; the inconsistency, unsuitable, or incongruous part or

circumstances resulting from only script opposition as a provided condition cannot


95 be sufficient to be a resource of humor production without other knowledge

resources (Morreal, 1987; Trizenberg, 2008). For example, a script opposition is

insufficient without a situation which depicts the information needed to build a

tense and direct the audience that the text is supposed to be funny before humor is

expected to be perceived.

B. Implications

Based on the findings of this research, there are some implications of this

research that can contribute to ELESP. The findings of this research can contribute

to sociolinguistic course especially pragmatics in ELESP, as they provide examples

on how the conversations among friends are carried on. Besides, the findings

provide a material for students to learn how language works especially for humor

production. Furthermore, students can discover the meaning in text which are not

obvious on the surface (e.g. conversational implicature).

C. Recommendations

Based on the research findings, there are some recommendations proposed

for current study and further research. For current study, humor, explicitly

humorous conversations in sitcom can be interesting field in the scope of

pragmatics. In addition, type of humor can be studied from the application of

conversational maxim of CP. Furthermore, the non-observances maxims can be

applied in another layer of research focus to infer the conversational implicatures.

Since there were only 4 ways of failing to observe the maxims of CP

exclusively discussed in the research; thus, only those 4 ways were analyzed which

in accordance with the theory of humor, those potentially elicited humor.


96 Accordingly, it is expected that the findings about the rest of five ways of failing

maxims (viz. opting out maxims) will be discovered in the future research.

For linguists, the findings of this research about the non-observance maxims

and humor provide additional knowledge and consideration of how the employment

of the non-observance maxims of CP in the conversation elicit humorous effect.

Finally, this research is expected to become a reference for linguists to study humor.


REFERENCES

Archakis, A., & Tsakona, V. (2005). Analyzing conversational data in GTVH terms: A new approach to the issue of identity construction via humor. Humor, 18(1), 41- 68.

Aromaa, R. (2011). Humor in Terry Pratchett’s discworld series-application of psychological and linguistic theories of humor. Tampere: University of Tampere

Ary, D., Jacons, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Asher, R. E. (1994). The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (1st ed.). New York: Pergamon Press

Attardo, S. (1993). Violation of conversational maxims and cooperation: The case of jokes. Journal of Pragmatics, 537.

Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Attardo, S. (1997). The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humor. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research, 10, 395-420.

Attardo, S. (2007). A Primer for the linguistics of humor. In Victor Raskin (ed.), Primer of humor research, 101–156. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Attardo, S., Hempelmann, C.F., & Maio S.D. (2002). Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modelling incongruities and their resoulitions. In: Humor. International Journal of Humor Research, 15(1), 3-46.

Attardo, S. (2008). A primer for linguistics of humor. Berlin, New York: Mouten de Gruyer.

Berger, A. A. (1987). Humour: An introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 30, 6-15.

Brock, A. (2008). Humor, jokes and irony versus mocking, gossip and black humor (A. Gerd & E. Ventola, Eds.). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brumark, A. (2004). Non-observance of Gricean maxim: In family dinner table conversations. Sweden: University Sodetorns.

97


98 Cheung, L. W., & Winnie, H.Y. (2009). An animated and narrated glosarry of terms

used in Linguistics. Retrieved August 2015, from http//hkbu.edu.hk/library

Cooper, C. (2008). Elucidating the bonds of workplace humour: A relational process model. Human Relations, 61, 1087-1115.

Crawford, C. (1994). Theory and implications regarding the utilization of strategic humour by leaders. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(4), 53-67.

Cresswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Creswell, J. (2006). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication, Inc.

Critchley, S. (2002). On humour. London: Routledge.

Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and discourse. London: Routledge.

Davies, B. (2000). Grice’s cooperative principle: Getting the meaning across. In Nelson, D., & P. Foulkes (Ed.), Leeds Working Papers in Linguistics (pp. 1-26). Leeds: University of Leeds.

Deckers, L., & Devine, J. (1981). Humor by violating an existing expectancy. The Journal of Psychology, 108(1), 107-110.

Dolitsky, M. (1992). Aspects of the unsaid in humor. In: HUMOR, the International Journal of Humor Research, 5(2), 33-44.

Essays. (November 2013). Humour in conversations of teenage boys English language essay. Retrieved from http://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-language/humour-in-conversations-of-teenage-boys-english-language-essay.php?cref=1

Freud, S. (1960). Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. New York, W.W: Norton.

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2003). An introduction to linguistics. Boston: Wadsworth.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Giora, R. 1991, On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 465-485.


99 Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic in conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech

Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

Grice, H.P. (1978). "Further Notes on Logic and Conversation," Syntax and Semantics, vol.9 edited by P. Cole, Academic Press. Reprinted as ch.3 of Grice 1989, 41–57.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hancher, M. (1980). How to play games with words: Speech-act jokes. Journal of Literary Semantics, 9, 20-29.

Hassan, B. A. (2013, May ). The Pragmatic of humor: January 25th revolution and occupy Wall Street. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(2), 551-562.

Hay, J. (2001). The pragmatics of humor support. In HUMOR: International Journal of Humour Research, 14, 55-82.

Hey, J. (2000). Functions of humor in the conversations of men and women. Journal of Pragmatics, 6(32), 709-742.

Holmes, J., & Marra, M. (2002). Over the edge? Subversive humor between colleagues and friends. Humor, 15, 65-87.

IMDb Incorporated. (2015). How I Met Your Mother season 2. Retrieved July 11th, 2015, from Internet Movie Database: http://www.imdb.com/title /tt0460 649/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Jensen, K. E. (2009). Humor. Modern world, 1.

Kalliomaki, L. (2005). Ink and incapability, verbal humor in the TV sitcom Blackladder: A pragmatic and rhetoric analysis. A pro Gradu Thesis in English.

Khosravizadeh, P. & Sadehvandi, N. (2011). Some instances of violation and flouting of the maxim of quantity by the main characters (Barry & Tim) in Dinner for Schmucks. International Proceedings of Economics Development and Research, Proceedings of International Conference of Languages, Literature, and Linguistics, 26, 122-127.

Langacker, R. W. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1-38.

Latta, R. L. (1998). The basic humor process. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Leech, G. (1983). Principle of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Levinson, S. C. (1984). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


100 Liddicoat, A. (2007). Introduction to conversation analysis. New York:

Continuum, 5, 79.

Martinich, A. P. (1984). Communication and reference. New York: De Gruyter.

McGhee, P. E. (1983). The role of arousal and hemispheric lateralization in humor. In Handbook of humor research (pp. 13-37). Springer New York.

Merriam, S. B., & Associates. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.), (R. Holand, Ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Mooney, A. (2003). Co-operation, violations and making sense. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 899-920.

Morreal, J. (1987). The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Norrick, N. R. (1993). Repetition in canned jokes and spontaneous conversational joking. Humor. The International Journal of Humor Research (Vols. 6-4), 385-402. Mouton de Gruyter.

Palmer, J. (1994). Taking humor seriously. London: Routledge.

Paltridge, B. (2008). Discourse analysis (3rd ed.). Maiden: Continuum 115.

Pan, W. (2012, July). Linguistic Basis of Humor: In Uses of Grice's Cooperative Principle. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 1(6). Retrieved from URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/ ijalel.v.1 n6p.20

Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a theory of metonymy. In: K-U Panther &G. Radden (eds.), Metonym in Language and Thought. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 17-60.

Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanism of humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London: Routledge.

Romero, E. J., & Cruthirds. K.W. (2006). The use of humour in the Workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(2), 58-69.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.


101 Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-

correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.

Sen, A. (2012). Humour analysis and qualitative research. Social Research Update, 63, 1-4.

Spanakaki, K. (2007). Translating humor for subtitling. Retrieved October 31, 2014, from http://translationjournal.net/journal/40humor.htm

Smuts, A. (n.d.). The internet encyclopedia of philosophy: “Humor”. ISSN 2161-0002. http://www.iep.utm.edu/, August 2015.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Tupan, A. H., & Natalia, H. (2008). The multiple violations of conversational maxims in lying done by the characters in some episodes of Desperate Housewives. 10(1), 63-78.

Triezenberg, K. E. (2008). "Humor in Literature", pg. 536. In Primer of Humor Research, ed. Victor Raskin. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Vandaele, J. (2002). Introduction: (re-) constructing humor: Meanings and means. In: Vandaele, J. (ed.), Special Issues of the Translator, 8(2), 49-172.

Veatch, T. C. (1998). A theory of humor. In: HUMOR, the International Journal of Humor Research, 11-2, 161-215.

Raskin, V., & Attardo, S. (1991). “Script theory revis(it)ed: joke similarity and joke representation model”. In Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4(3-4), 293–348. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Widdowson, H.G. (1979). ‘Rules and Procedures in discourse analysis’ (T. Myers Ed.). The Development of Conversation and Discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

He, Yi. (2008). Humor in discourse: A linguistic study of the Chinese dialect film, Crazy Stone, 2, 989-998. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


http://translationjournal.net/journal/40humor.htm

APPENDICES


APPENDIX A 4.1 Table of Flouting Maxim of Quality in

How I Met Your Mother Season 2

NO CODE EXCERPT TYPE OF MAXIMS INDICATION QL QN RL MN

1. S02E01/QL/FL1

The year 2030, the narrator, ted is telling his kids about how he met their mother. Ted: Okay, where were we? It was June of 2006) and life had just taken an unexpected turn. Daughter: Dad, can’t you just skip ahead to the part where you meet Mom? I feel like you’ve been talking for like a year.

√ Exaggerating

2. S02E04/QL/FL2

At the bar. knowing ted meet kickboxing instructor, Robin seems not to freak out cause she think she doesn’t have to listen ted’s boring stuff Robin: Okay? It’s awesome. It’s win-win. Ted got to vent and I don’t have to hear it. Maybe after he’s done with the talkie-talk, he’ll come over and I’ll get the fun part. Lily: What is wrong with you? God, I felt like I’m teaching love as a second language here. Okay, you know how when he tells you boring work stories you’re supposed to listen? Well, when he picks up some random girl at a bar, you’re supposed to freak out.

√ Exaggerating, Metaphor

3. S02E05/QL/FL3

At the apartment Ted: You invited him to brunch? Marshall: Yeah, I invited him to brunch. Why is that weird? Ted: Yes. That’s why I was all, ‘you invited him to brunch?’ Marshall: why can’t two guys who are friends go to brunch? Ted: Because brunch is kind of…. Robin: Girly. Marshall: Girly? Breakfast isn’t girly. Lunch isn’t girly. What makes brunch girly? Ted: I don’t know. There’s nothing girly about a horse. Nothing girly about a horn, but put them together and you get a unicorn.

√ Metaphor

4. S02E09/QL/FL4

Marshall: She’s pretty a private person. Lily: Except when she’s talking about… (visualization about Robin telling her friend’s marriage stuff) Ted: So you don’t think there’s any ‘friend’ from Canada? Marshall: Oh, I’m sure there is. Just like I have a ‘friend’ who wet his bed till he was ten. Use your brain Ted.

√ Delivering sarcastic tone

102


103

5. S02E09/QL/FL5

In a bar, talking about Barney’s the Oh moment. Lily: Yeah, I agree with Ted. In a real relationship, you share everything. That’s why Marshall and I don’t keep any secrets. Barney: You’re such a cutie pie. Here’s a quarter. Go play a song on the jukebox.

√ Delivering sarcastic tone

6. S02E11/QL/FL6

Barney are outside while he’s sick and it’s winter. Robin: Barney. What the hell are you doing? Get in here, it’s freezing outside. Are you insane? Barney: Hey, blame Lily and her oppressive ‘no cigars in the apartment rule.’ God, it’s like Marshall’s marrying the Taliban.

√ Exaggerating


104

APPENDIX B 4.2 Table of Flouting Maxim of Quantity in How I Met Your Mother Television Season 2


1. S02E02/QN/FL1

Ted and Robin are in confusion whether or not to tell Marshall that Lily moved on. Robin: He’s just starting to get better, going out with Barney. I mean, how do you think he’s going to feel when he hears Lily’s moved on? Ted: she’s moved on? Robin: It happens. I’ve fallen out of love faster than that before, sometimes, boom, with no warning whatsoever. One day we’re in love, the next day, he’s dead to me. – but we’re great, honey.

√ Giving too much information

2. S02E04/QN/FL2 Robin: I’m not freaking out because in my mind, she’s fat. Girl: She’s a kickboxing instructor. Her ass looks better than my face. Robin: All right, we’ll swinging by the party.

√ Giving other information

3. S02E04/QN/FL3

Marshall: All skyscrapers kinda look like … (nonverbal move, shaping a penis) Ted: Marshall, it’s a 78-story pink marble tower with a rounded top and two spherical entryways at the front. Marshall: Wow, so it’s the whole package. Barney: (Laughing) Yeah, you did. Marshall: Had to. Barney: Oh, dud, if they’re selling condos, you got to get me in. and don’t give me the shaft. Marshall: Yeah, you did. Barney: Had to.

√ Giving more information

4. S02E07/QN/FL4

Robin’s apartment Robin: I love that look, I think I slept with you because of that look. -- And it’s fake? Ted: Oh, and you biting your lower lip, shyly looking away and thrusting your chest out is natural? Robin: Yeah, I hear you.

√ Giving less information

5. S02E08/QN/FL5 Salon, Robin, Lily, Marshall, Ted came by to swap Barney out together Barney: Hey, guys. Ted: Wow. A pedicure.



105

Barney: Uh, if there were any shame in a dude getting a pedicure I don’t think there would have been a feature about it in Details magazine.

6. S02E09/QN/FL6 Ted’s room Barney: And who gets trapped under a fake boulder at the mall? Ted: Not me in Ohio when I was nine, that’s for sure.


7. S02E09/MN/FL7

Marshall: I won the bet. Why are you still searching? Barney: Just because you were right doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Lily: Oh, right, like you need an excuse to watch porn. Barney: Canadian porn. Trust me when I tell you their universal health care system doesn’t cover breast implants. If I have to sit through one more flat-chested Nova Scotian riding a Mountie on the back of a Zamboni I’ll go out of my mind.


8. S02E09/QN/FL8

Empire State Building with Katy, Robin’s younger sister. Katy: You told them? Robin: Oh, okay yes, I told them. But only because I think you should hear it from other grownups, too. Everyone thinks you should wait. Right, guys? Ted, Marshall, Lily: Totally, you should wait. Barney: Sex is fun.


9. S02E12/QN/FL9

On the sale, wedding dress store, robin and lily. Lily has been wanting to buy wedding dress on sale but she didn’t knew the place. Robin: This is the place. Lily: Oh, wow. Badgley Mischka! Melissa Sweet! Vera Wang! Oh, Robin, do you have any idea what you guys stumbled onto here? Robin: (hehehe) You said Wang.


10. S02E15/QN/FL10

At the airport, Ted and Robin. He told Robin that he found a penny from 1939. (flashback) At the bar Ted: A sixtyseven-year-old penny. Do you realize this penny was minted during World War II? Robin: Oh, so was my grandfather, but that doesn’t make him interesting.


11. S02E21/QN/FL11

Marshall: I can’t get married like this! There’s no way! Barney: Ah, let me see what I can do. Ted: What? What can you do? Barney: I have a superpower.


12. S02E21/QN/FL12 Ted: Remember, the place where I stole the blue French horn for robin? Barney: Oh, Alright, that was you. – I knew that was somebody I knew. √ Giving other

information


106

Ted: What? Dude, you were there. That was like a big iconic moment in all of our lives.

13. S02E22/QN/FL13

Marshall: Uh, driver. Ranjit: Hello. Marshall: Ranjit. Lily: Oooow Marshall: Hey, can we make a stop before we had back to the hotel? Ranjit: You do not have to stop. You can be together as man and wife back there, and because we are friends... I will not watch.


14. S02E22/QN/FL14

Barney: No. robin, you’re not…. – No, say the story’s not over. Robin: Come on, they’re cutting the cake. Barney: Say the story’s not over! – Oh God, this is the 12th most worried I’ve ever been that someone’s pregnant.


15. S02E22/QN/FL15

Barney: No es possible. – Nobody moves to Argentina. The Argentinean peso has dropped two-thirds in five years, the government is opposed to free market reforms, and the railroad has been a mess since the breakup of Ferrocarriles Argentinos. – I hooked up with an Argentinean exchange student in a Porta-John outside Yankee Stadium. – Man, she was chatty.


16. S02E22/QN/FL16 At the Apartment Lily: Are you as terrified as I am? Marshall: I don’t want to get slap again.



107

APPENDIX C 4.3 Table of Flouting Maxim of Relevance in How I Met Your Mother Television Season 2


1. S02E03/RL/FL1 Outside the restaurant, after Ted’s parents explained and tell them their past ted supposed robin ‘wow’ on how his parents’ family story they hide from their kids just to not to make ted’s and his sister upset. The fact, robin surprised that ted’s parents love her, Robin: wow. Ted: I know. Robin: They love me.

√ Uttering different topic

2. S02E03/RL/FL2 Apartment, Ted’s mother didn’t like to talk about things that were uncomfortable, emotional, or in any way. Ted’s mom: Oh, I forgot to tell you, your cousin Jimmy had a wonderful time at the spa he visited. Ted: You mean the spa the judge ordered him to go to, to quit cocaine? Ted’s mom: Coffee?


3. S02E03/RL/FL3 Lily: Hi, Mr. and Mrs. Mosby. Mr. Mosby: Oh Lily! Hey, Marshall. Marshall: Good to see you. Lily: I was just stopping by to pick up some of my things. Mrs. Mosby: yes we were so sorry to hear about your….you know, the, the…well. Marshall: Lily calling off the wedding and dumping me? Lily: Me begging Marshall to take me back and him rejecting me? Mrs. Mosby: I love your hair.


4. S02E04/RL/FL4 (Carl wished lily trade sex for beer) Robin: Hey, Carl, is Ted still here? Carl: No. – Hey, Lily. You still single? Lily: Yes. Carl: You know... I’ve poured a lot of free drinks for you over the years. A lot.


5. S02E11/RL/FL5 (Robin, Ted and Barney are down at the bar. Ted is telling what he said to Lily.) Barney: Ted Vivian Mosby! Ted: That’s not my middle name.



108

Barney: You kiss your mother with that mouth? Ted: Like you’ve never said that word. Barney: I don’t kiss your mother with mouth. –yet.

6. S02E11/RL/FL6 (At the bar, Robin, Ted and Barney. Barney got fever but he denied.) Ted: Are you sick? Barney: Is it sick to find maturity and experience sexy? Ted: No, I meant do you have a cold?


7. S02E18/RL/FL7 Ted: But wouldn't we miss my TV? Robin: Would we? Ted: Yes, we would. We've had that TV for a long time and we would feel more at home if it were setup in our bedroom. Robin: We need wine, don't we? Ted: Yes, we do.



109

APPENDIX D 4.4 Table of Flouting Maxim of Manner in

How I Met Your Mother Television Season 2

NO CODE EXCERPT TYPE OF MAXIMS

INDICATION QL QN R

L MN

1. S02E02/MN/FL1

At the bar, Marshall and Barney. Marshall felt he wasn’t good at being single that he was good at being in a couple, Lily’s boyfriend Barney: come on, you can’t give up now. What if I told you that you could relive that night with the exact same conversations, the exact same jokes, only this time, you get her and I don’t. Marshall: it is not possible. Barney: But it is. She has…wait for it…here it comes…almost there.. an identical twin. (banged Marshall’s chest) Yes!

√ Obscure language

2. S02E04/MN/FL2

Lawyer-wanna-be party Ted: hey, Marshall. You up for some super loud, repetitive music that hasn’t change since the mid-90s? Marshall: um…. Only always. (hesitation tone) Ted: let’s go.

√ Tone of voice

3. S02E06/MN/FL3

Druthers: Now, as most of you know, my Pete Rose, Pete Rose, Pete Rose baseball has been stolen. √ Being not brief

4. S02E06//MN/FL4

Barney: Oh, my God. Incredible. Professor: hmm… C-minus. Barney: C-minus? What are you talking about? – I just pulled the all-nighter! Professor: You didn’t budget your time well. You glossed over some of the most important points, and your oral presentation was sloppy and inconclusive.

√ Language style

5. S02EMN08/FL5

In a courthouse Marshall: Hi. Hello. Uh, we need a marriage license, but we need to skip the waiting period because we’re in love. Stewardess: Aw. I’m gonna waive this waiting period right now. Lily: Oh really?! Stewardess: Is what I would say if I could waive the waiting period, but unfortunately, only a judge can do that.

√ Being indirect and not brief


110

Lily: Oh. Well, so can we see a judge? Stewardess: Absolutely. Lily: Really?! Stewardess: Is what I would say if there was any chance of you seeing a judge today, which there isn’t.

6. S02E11/MN/FL6

Apartment, when Ted Robin and Barney got Lily stole the decoration, ted calls Lily. Ted: Lily! Lily: Merry Christmas, ass-face. Ted: Umm Lily. Where are the Christmas decorations? Lily: At my apartment.

√ Using slang

7. S02E11/MN/FL7

Robin: You have to go home and get to bed. Barney: Oh, Robin, my simple friend from the untamed north, let me tell you about a little thing I like to call mind over body. You see, whenever I start feeling sick, I just stop being sick and be awesome instead. True story.

√ Using slang

8. S02E12/MN/FL8

All down at the bar. Robin drank beers ‘cause she mad. Robin: I can’t believe my baby sister is planning to lose her virginity to a douche guy with faux haw. This can’t happen. You guys have to help me talk her out of it.

√ Using slang

9. S02E17/MN/FL9

Lily and Robin in a apartment. Robin: An hour and a half delivery. We can’t wait that long. Lily: I wish we could take the Fiero, but Marshall has this insane no-food rule, Robin: But Thai food, Lily. Pad Yum Mao. Tom Kai Gah. Thai See Ran. Lily: Oh! You’re just saying random syllables, and it still sounds delicious.

√ Obscure expression

10. S02E22/MN/FL10

Lily: Mini quiches. You’re a mega-douche. Barney: Oh, that’s right, they moved that table back toward the kitchen, because that’s where they’re setting up a surprise chocolate fountain. Oh, no, I gave it away.

√ Using slang

11. S02E12/MN/FL11

Barney: No es possible. – Nobody moves to Argentina. The Argentinean peso has dropped two-thirds in five years, the government is opposed to free market reforms, and the railroad has been a mess since the breakup of Ferrocarriles Argentinos. – I hooked up with an Argentinean exchange student in a Porta-John outside Yankee Stadium. – Man, she was chatty.

√ Using other language

12 S02E09/MN/FL12

At the Bar Barney: Come on! It’s on me. I’m buying three of you foot massagers and one of you a nose hair trimmer. You know who you are, -- come on let’s go, Robin: Hey, I’m in.

√ Vague language


111

APPENDIX E 4.5 Table of Flouting Multiple Maxims in



1. SE02E20/QN-MN/FL6

Barney was telling how he met the one-night-stand woman by borrowing Ted’s identity. Barney: and that led to a couple of hours that I cannot, as a gentleman, divulge to you. We did it right here, and here and here. (pointing the spot where he banged)

√ √ Informing

unnecessarily and changeable expression

2. SE02E06/QL-QN/FL6

At Big Wave Luau, everyone made a fun of Lily’s job. Ted: Robin, nothing to add? Robin: No. Lily is my friend and I’m not going to make fun of her trying to follow her dreams. Lily: thank you. Robin: Although, you might want to bring out big Hawaiian drum because I’m pretty sure today’s my birthday.

√ √ Telling untruth and

adding information to be humorous


Back when both Ted and Marshall were roommate in college. Marshall: Hey. I’m driving my Fiero back over break. I know we see enough of each other as it is, but if you want a ride, I could use the gas money. You live in Ohio, right? I could swing through and pick you up. Ted: All right, first of all, my parents live in Ohio. I live in the moment. -- Plus Karen and I haven’t seen each other since Thanksgiving. We’re both really invested in making this long-distance thing work, so…”

√ √ Telling indirectly and adding information

unnecessarily


In the outside wedding building Lily: Marshall… Marshall: Lily, you’re not supposed to see me. Robin: Holy crap, I don’t think anyone’s supposed to see you.

√ √ Adding information

unnecessarily at not the right time

5. SE02E20/QL-MN/FL6

It was unbelievable that Barney was a fan of TPIR. Robin: Barney, I didn’t know you were such a fan of The Price Is Right. Barney: Are you kidding? T.P.I.R is not just an indescribably entertaining hour of television, it’s a microcosm of our entire economic system – a capitalist utopia, where consumers are awarded for their persistence, market acumen and intrepid spirit. – I gaze upon the glory of The Price Is Right, I see the face of America and it is divine. Plus, you know, hot chicks on sport cars.

√ √ Overstate and the fashion of language


112

APPENDIX F 4.6 Table of Violating Maxim of Quality in



1. S02E02/QL/VL1 Apartment Marshall: I hate you. Barney: I am so sorry. It’s a sickness. I’m the real victim here. Marshall: Twice. Twice in a row, you took my candy. That was my candy.

√ Saying untruth information

2. S02E03/QL/VL2 Restaurant, all have a meet-up dinner with Ted’s parents, Lily in stunning dress Lily: Are you all right? You’re kind of sweating. Marshall: No, I’m fine. It’s just this roll is really spicy.


3. S02E03/QL/VL3 Apartment Ted: You lucked out with mom last night, huh? What a relief, right? Robin: Oh, Absolutely. Whew, what a relief it is to know I’m the one girlfriend your mom doesn’t want you to have kids with. Ted: Hooray? (disappointed expression)

√ Contradiction

4. S02E06/QL/VL4 On the phone in her apartment. Robin: Her newest lifelong dream? Singing in a punk rock band. Ted: what is she doing for money through all this? Robin: Oh, she’s been waiting tables at Big Wave Luau. Ted: Wait, you mean that Hawaiian place where they wear those embarrassing outfits? Robin: No.


5. S02E06/QL/VL Druthers: What do you think, Ted? It just let itself out of its plastic case and rolled away? -- Somebody stole it. Ted: Well, um I better get back to these Styrofoam trees. Druthers: Oh, who cares about the trees? It’s just busy work to make you feel like you’re contributing. Ted: Inspiring as always, sir.


6. S02E06/QL/VL In a café Ted: Man, what’s that? Marshall: What?

√ Telling untruth


113

Ted: That cute coffee girl wrote a heart by your name. – (singing tone) somebody has a crush on you. Barney: Somebody thinks you’re me.

7. S02E09/QL/VL8 Ted: Hey. Lily: Hey, Guys. Are you free tomorrow night? I was thinking of having a wine tasting slash “help me catch the rat in my apartment” party. Ted: That’s a great idea you can put out the cheese for both.


8. S02E09/QL/VL9 Marshall got three slaps. One because he lied and two for being prematurely slapped. Barney: Oh, my God. Are you gonna cry? Marshall: No. – You’re gonna cry.


9. S02E09/QL/VL10 James: Believe me, I fought this for a long time. Come on, it’s embarrassing. Look, this felt unnatural to me, too, at first. But I fell in love. And Tom and I realized you can’t fight love. Barney: Oh, God. Is that you two do together? You sit around the house and talk about love? I think… I’m gonna sick.


10. S02E12/QL/VL Barney: Wow. Okay. Seattle. Lily: Trick question. Marshall’s never been to Pasific Northwest because he’s afraid of Sasquatch. Barney: Damn, you’re good. Marshall: I’m not afraid of Sasquatch, I just think we should all be on alert.


11. S02E17/QL/VL12 All down at the bar. Robin drank beers ‘cause she mad. Robin: I can’t believe my baby sister is planning to lose her virginity to a douche guy with faux haw. This can’t happen. You guys have to help me talk her out of it. Marshall: speech to talk a girl out of having sex, Ted: Yeah, I don’t have any of those. Barney: Discouraging premarital sex is against my religion.


12. S02E19/QL/VL13 Carl: Get out of here! I never want to see your face in this bar again! (talking to a guy) Carl: (talking to the gang) This soulless bastard just told me he can’t come to Mark’s funeral because he wants to watch the Super Bowl. Could you believe that? Carl: You guys are coming, right? The gang (Faking the expression): Yes… wouldn’t miss for the world.

√ Saying unsure information

13. S02E19/QL/VL14 On a road trip, Marshall and Ted. Ted: So,,, this song, Marshall: Oh, it’s the best song in the world. It’s the only song I like. – Just kidding. Tape’s been stuck in the player for, like, two years. Better than nothing though.



114

Ted: Maybe. (the fact is that Marshall really like that song, he never ever get sick of the song)

14. S02E20/ MN /VL Ted: Now say it without winking. Barney: No strippers. (winking) Ted: You just winked. Barney: No, I didn’t. (winking)


15. S02E20/QL/VL17 Room hotel. There’s a stripper named Treasure already in the room. Marshall: I can’t believe that you did this. Barney: I had to. I’m your bestman. Marshall: Ted’s my best man. Barney: You’ve yet to make a decision and that’s fine. But as your best-man-to-be, it’s my job to make sure at your bachelor party you see a woman take her clothes off while dancing to White snake’s “Here I Go Again.”


16. S02E20/QL/VL18 Ted and Robin just came from dinner covered with sauce while Lily stressed out because of the wedding music. Lily: Okay, sauce, go. Ted: Long story. I’ll tell you later. Robin: Yeah. Barney: It’s dirty story, isn’t it? You guys went out to dinner, did it in the kitchen and got caught. Scherbatsky reeks of someone who likes to get caught. Robin: Okay, now I have to wash up for two reasons.

√ Giving less evidences

17. S02E21/QL/VL20 In the apartment, Barney was excited to tell the friends that he was going to be on The Price Is Right. Barney: Ted, Robin get in here! – You guys know how it’s hard to be friends with me ‘cause I’m so awesome? Ted: Eee Yes, it’s hard to be friends with you. Go on.


18. S02E21/QL/VL21 Ted: Marshall, what are you doing? Marshall: Going to the bathroom. Ted: In the hall? Marshall: Sleepwalking? Ted: You’re wide awake. Marshall: Robbing us? Ted: Dude.



115

19. S02E22/QL/VL22 Ted was telling his bestman toast to Marshall. Marshall: You cannot tell that story at my wedding. My entire family’s gonna be there. My little cousins, my mom, my grandma, my grandpa the minister. Ted: That grandpa died three years ago. Marshall: His favorite grandson is getting married, Ted. I think he can take a day off from haunting the barn to make an appearance.


20. EXCERPT At the wedding Barney: Hey. A women: Hey. Barney: Can I have your phone number? A women: No. Barney: It’s for the bride. A women: Oh. Hold on. Let me go get a pen. Barney: The bride wants you to walk slower.


21. S02E07/QL/VL6 Robin: Oh, wow. Lily: Oh, Robin… My makeup looks perfect right now, and I’m about to cry. Do something. Robin: I have hairy nipples. Lily: Really? Robin: No, but it worked, didn’t it?


22. S02E09/QL/VL7 Lily’s aunt, grammie: Oh, there you are. My dear, you look so beautiful. And-------- Lily: Thanks, Grammie, but we really need to… Grammie: --- and you… you look like a 1940s movie star. Marshall: And you look like a pepper-crusted rack of lamb with mint jelly.


23. S02E12/QL/VL16 Lily: Mini quiches. You’re a mega-douche. Barney: Oh, that’s right, they moved that table back toward the kitchen, because that’s where they’re setting up a surprise chocolate fountain. Oh, no, I gave it away.


24. S02E22/QL/VL23 At Robin’s apartment Robin: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Ted: What? Robin: I don’t know if I can do this to you. Ted: Do what? Robin: Well, you say you want to move to Argentina, but you want to have kids. Ted: Oh, right. Cause there are no kids there. On Santa’s map of the world, there’s a big black “X” over Argentina.



116

Robin: You know what I mean. 25.. S02E22/QL/VL24 Ted: Hey, kiddo.

Barney: You are going to miss out on a lot of awesome stuff. You’ll be at home with kid while I am out awesome-ing all over the place. And you’re going to get fat.

√ Giving less evidences

26. Marshall: a twin isn’t the same person. Barney: Of course it is. What do you think identical means? ‘ident’ – same, ‘ical’ – person. Same person.


27. S02E09/QL/VL

Barney: You can be Slap Bet Commissioner. Lily: Ooh, I love it. What are my powers? Barney: Um, if a problem arises and we need a ruling, that's your job. -- But you have to be unbiased and put the integrity of slap bet above all else. This is an honor you will take with you to your grave. On your tombstone, it will read, "Lily Aldrin, caring wife, loving friend, Slap Bet Commissioner."

√ Overstating and saying untruth

information


117

APPENDIX G 4.7 Table of Violating Maxim of Quantity in How I Met Your Mother Television Season 2


1. S02E04/QN/VL1 Marshall: Your job’s not boring. Ted: Robin thinks so. Barney: Lots of chicks think architect are hot. Think about it, you create something out of nothing. You’re like God. There’s nobody hotter than God. Ted: I love it when you quote scripture.


2. S02E06/QL/VL2 Lily: So, I quit my job. I just couldn’t take it anymore. Approximately fifty time a day, some guy asks me for a lei…(laid) Marshall: Classic.

√ Giving less Giving information not as

required 3. S02E20/QL/VL3 Ted: What? Dude, you were there. That was like a big iconic moment in all of our lives.

Barney: Maybe in your life – I got a lot of stuff going on. √ Giving other information

4. S02E06/QN/VL4 Barney: I think I’m falling in love with you. Cougar: Oh, God. That wasn’t your first time, was it? Although that would explain a lot. Barney: What? No. We had sex yesterday. Cougar: Oh, right. That. – Well, you had sex yesterday. I revised my syllabus for the spring semester.


5. S02E07/QN/VL5 Apartment Lily: Where’s Marshall? Ted: Oh, he’s getting a haircut. Lily: Oh. For his date. Good for him. Hope he has a good time tonight. Barney: Relax, you’ve got nothing to worry about. The girl’s crazy. Lily: Thanks! Barney: He’ll just have wild monkey sex with her five times, max, and be done with her. Lily: Thanks again.


6. S02E08/QN/VL6 Atlantic city, all down at casino Barney: Ah, A.C. always decline, never hitting bottom. It’s good to be back, old friend. Ted: you been here before?



118

Barney: Oh, uh, once or twice. Guy: Barney!...(speak Chinese) Barney: Good to see you. ----- Three times, maybe.

7. S02E08/QN/VL7 Courthouse, Ted ask Robin to sex in a public place. Robin: What? Here? Ted: (pervy look) yeah. Got a little time to kill. Robin: Oh, my God, it’s the T-shirt, isn’t it? Ted: No. --- A little.


8. S02E08/QN/VL8 Judge: What’s going on? Barney: They broke up over the summer. Lily totally ran off to San Fransisco and these two just had sex in the closet. All: (surprised look) Barney: What? We’re under oath. Ted: No. we’re not. Barney: Yeah, we are. He’s a judge. Ted: Wh--- did we take an oath? Do you even know what an oath is?


9. S02E16/QN/VL9 ( At the bar, both Ted and Robin agreed that they should be honest each other about exes’ things) Ted: See that girl over there? Three years ago, I totally made out with her. Robin: I don’t wanna hear that.


10. S02E17/QN/VL9 (Car repairmen. Ted tried to make Marshall feel better.) Ted: Hey, your car’s going to be fine. This is the best auto shop around. Look at this certificate. One of the mechanics here… finished a sixty four-ounce steak.


11. S02E22/QN/VL9 Barney: Oh, like First Corinthians? That Bible verse? They do that at every wedding. Robin: How’s it go? (everyone starting to listen to Marshall) Marshall: “Love is patient and kind. Love does not envy or boast. It is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on it’s own way. It is not irritable or resentful. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things… endures all things.” Robin: Lame. Lily: Going on the list.

√ Giving information not as required


119

APPENDIX H 4.8 Table of Violating Maxim of Relevance in How I Met Your Mother Television Season 2


1. S02E01/RL/VL1 Ted: Honey, all this stuff I’m telling you is important. It’s all part of the story. Son: Could I go to the bathroom? Ted: No.


2. S02E01/RL/VL2 (In the bar, Ted, Robin and Barney. Robin complained over Marshall) Robin: This has to stop. Ted, we just started dating. We agreed we don’t want to move too fast, and yet somehow, we have a baby. He can’t feed himself. He cries a lot, he keeps us up all night. Barney: Have you tried breast-feeding? Nailed it!


3. S02E02/RL/VL3 Ted: She's miserable. She's realized she's made a huge mistake. Her and Marshall will be back together in a week. I love it! Robin: Umm, no, you just want her to be miserable. The truth is, she's happy. Ted: Trust me, I've known Lily for nine years. Robin: Trust me, I'm a girl! Ted: Yeah, but you're Canadian.


4. S02E09/RL/VL4 Imagining the Oh moment, Priest: I now pronounce you, man and wife. Ted: I love you. Robin: I used to be a dude.


5. S02E09/RL/VL5 Barney: Guys there’s no way Robin’s married. It’s ludicrous to even suggest it. Ted: Thank you, Barney. Barney: ‘Cause it is porn. Ted: I need another beer.


6. S02E12/RL/VL6 At the apartment. Robin, Barney and Ted. There is a spider in the living room. Robin: Spider! Spider! Barney: I left something in the hallway.


7. S02E19/RL/VL7 When Lily and Marshall were broken up. The men were up at the bar. Barney: Hey. What you guys talking about? Marshall: Lily. (mimbik2)



120

Barney: I got to go. 8. S02E22/RL/VL8 Barney: Anyway, guys, we’re kind of in the middle of something, so if you could go bicker or

share a tense, sexless silence or whatever married people do somewhere else, that’d be great. Lily: No, Barney, this is my wedding, and I will sit wherever I damn well… Barney: Are those mini quiches?


9. S02E22/RL/VL9 Ted: So... Argentina. Robin: Argentina. Ted: Why is this first I’ve heard of Argentina? Robin: Mmmm, American schools suck at geography. -- What would be the point in telling you that I want to live in Argentina? You don’t want to live there.


10. S02E08/QN/VL10 Judge: What’s going on? Barney: They broke up over the summer. Lily totally ran off to San Fransisco and these two just had sex in the closet. All: (surprised look) Barney: What? We’re under oath. Ted: No. we’re not. Barney: Yeah, we are. He’s a judge. Ted: Wh--- did we take an oath? Do you even know what an oath is? Barney: Uh, yeah. Courthouse. Oath. We’re under it. (knows everything look)



121

APPENDIX I 4.9 Table of Violating Maxim of Manner in How I Met Your Mother Television Season 2


1. S02E01/MN/VL1

(At the apartment, Ted told Marshal if he be okay when both Ted and Robin are away for a while) Marshall: yeah, absolutely. Dude, I’m doing much better. Ted: Oh. Marshall: In fact take my car. Ted: Really? Marshall: Yeah. Ted: Hey, thanks…and hey, if you need anything day or night, just call me--- you know what, please don’t call me.

√ Being indirect

2. S02E05/MN/VL2

(Barney apartment, after his) Barney: That was close. That hippie chick wouldn’t leave. She was ready to squat here. Lily: well, she’d have to with your spring-loaded toilet seat, wouldn’t she? Barney: She was freakishly immune to everything in my apartment…except you. You’re better than porn. Lily: Thank you. Barney: How would you like to extend your stay here? All you’d have to do is pretend to be my wife, and scare off the occasional one-night stand. I know, I know. You’ve got your ethics. You’ve got your principles…. Lily: I’ll do it. Barney: Really? Lily: Barney, you’ve clearly got some serious mother issues that have left you the emotional equivalent of a scavenging sewer rat. But in other my apartment I would be living with an actual scavenging sewer rat, so you win. Barney: I’ll take it.

√ Being not brief

3. S02E06/MN/VL3 Druthers: Can you picture it, Ted? Ted: I can’t un-picture it. Druthers: Good.

√ Fashion of language


122

4. S02E07/MN/VL4

Druthers: Normally, I would scream at everyone until my voice goes, but maybe that’s the wrong reaction here. Lily: (low voice to Ted) Interesting. Druthers: Instead, I’m giving my baseball until the end of the day to decide he’s homesick, or, tomorrow morning, I’ll begin firing three people an hour. And if the thief doesn’t believe me, well, then you are gambling more than Pete Rose – major league baseball’s all-time hit leader, a man whose absence from the Hall of Fame is a travesty to the entire sports world – ever “allegedly” did!

Being not brief

5. S02E08/MN/VL5

There are the gang but Barney seems could not read the situation. He should’ve not said that to Marshall while there is Lily next to him. Lily: We’re going to Atlantic City to Elope right now! Barney: Oh, congratulations, Lily. Marshall, you’re getting married? What the hell?


6. S02E10/MN/VL6

Barney was talking to his nephew. Barney: hey, buddy. Your parents are married. Now you listen. Just because you’re being raised by married people doesn’t mean you have to choose that lifestyle. High-five. – Luckily you got me. In 20 and a half years you’ll be 21, and I will be…. Well, I haven’t decided how old I’ll be yet. But we are gonna bro out, uncle and nephew style. Stick with me kid. I am gonna teach you how to live.


7. S02E12/MN/VL7

Down at the bar, Barney drops some knowledge that according to him relationships are like a freeway. In fact, in previous month, he told Marshall that relationships are like a travelling circus. Barney: Freeways have exits. So do relationships. The first exit, my personal favorite, is six hours in. you meet, you talk you have sex, you exit when she’s in the shower. Robin: So every girl you have sex with feels the immediate need to shower? Actually yeah I get that.

√ Ambiguous language

8. S02E12/MN/VL8

(Robin never been this longer in the relationship and she never felt so in love like she feel with Ted. It turns out that she choked to say I Love you to Ted in ‘falafel’. And lily, though she dumped Marshall over summer, they get back together eventually.) Robin: So I’ve never been on the freeway this long before. I mean, usually by now I find out the guy has some weird personality thing that makes me want to take the next exit. Lily: Yeah, been there. I once dated a guy who could only go to the bathroom when classical music was playing. --- Okay it was Marshall.

√ Being indirect

9. S02E14/MN/VL13 Superbowl in 2006, apartment, annual inner party, Robin get invited. Ted: How cool is Robin? √ Obscure

expression


123

Marshall: I can’t believe you invited this girl we’ve only known for a few months to our sacred day. Now, she’s gonna be in all the pictures. Barney: Yeah, yeah, whatever. I’ll give you the Seahawks plus six points for five hundred bucks. Marshall: Are you crazy? Maybe for fifty. Barney: Fifty $! What fun is fifty $! Why don’t we just bet air?! God, Marshall! (rapid changeable expression) Okay, fifty.

10. S02E15/MN/VL10 The gang are down at the bar. Marshall came with broken leg Barney: Here’s how you run a marathon. Step one, you start running. (pause) there is no step two.

√ Being unordered

11. S02E18/MN/VL11

In apartment, barney doesn’t want Ted and Robin living together. He tried to convince them by asking made-up questions.) Barney: So? We all agree? We move Ted’s stuff back up here? Ted: Mm.. no. we’re still moving in together. Barney: Why? This is crazy. Ted, you’re throwing your life away. This girl is blinding you. With her shinny hair and her boobed shaped boobs. This is bad for you, too, you know.

Obscuring expression

12. S02E19/MN/VL12

(On the way to bachelor party) Barney: Hi. Ted: Hi, Barney: we’re still going to Atlantic City, right? Ted: Oh, did I not tell you? Yeah, we switched it. We’re going to Foxwoods. Barney: Foxwoods? But I’ve got an ipperstray waiting in tlanticaay itycay. What the heck’s in Foxwoods?

√ Obscuring expression

13. S02E14/MN/VL12 In a bar, friends has been sitting even before he came. Ted: What is ruined? Why, why is this such a big deal? Barney: Okay guys…sit down, I’ve got to tell you something.


14. S02E10/MN/VL14

Robin: Do you have a brother? Barney: Yes, He’s the “awesome-est,” most best “looking-est, “greatest guy ever. Lily: He’s exactly like Barney. Barney: That’s what I just said.


15. S02E20/MN/VL15

When Lily listed the horrible wedding clichés they won’t touch with a ten-foot limbo pole during the wedding with Marshall, Robin and Ted. Suddenly, Barney came by. Barney: What list? Lily: Horrible wedding clichés we are not going to touch with a ten-foot limbo pole.

√ Obscuring language


124

APPENDIX J 4.10 Table of Violating Multiple Maxims in How I Met Your Mother Television Season 2

NO EXCERPT EXCERPT TYPE OF MAXIMS INDICATION QL QN RL MN

1. SE02EP09/QL-MN/VL6

Barney: Fine. Do you wanna know what Robin’s secret is? Ted: you know? Barney: Of course I know. She couldn’t look at us, her face got flushed, that shame, my friend. Our friend Robin used to do porn, what for it… ography. Ted: Yeah, we didn’t really need to wait for that.

√ √ Giving less evidence and obscuring expression

2. SE02EP11/MN-RL/VL6

At the bar, Robin, Ted and Barney. Barney got fever but he denied. Ted: No, I meant do you have a cold? Barney: I’m fine. – I’m fine. My nose is just overflowing with awesome and I had to get some of it out. – Now, if you’ll excuse me, the holidays are a time when people are lonely and desperate. It’s the most wonderful time of the year.

√ √ Obscuring expression and uttering irrelevant topic

3. SE02EP12/QL-QN/VL6

Barney: The next exits are four days, three weeks, seven months – that’s when you guys are gonna break up, mark your calendars. (talk to both Robin and Ted) Ted: hey! Robin: what? (talk in the same time)

√ √ Giving less evidences and giving more information

4. SE02EP19/QL-MN/VL6

Ted: Look, I know you have some stuff planned for Marshall’s bachelor party, but he really doesn’t want strippers. Barney: Yes, he does. Ted: Uh, well, he told me he doesn’t. Barney: Uh, well, he told me he does. Ted: When? Barney: Every minute of every day as his inner animal thrashes against the cage of his own puritanical upbringing. – Or do you guys not like naked girls.

√ √ Obscuring expression and uttering untruth


125

APPENDIX K 4.11 Table of Infringing Maxims in



1. S02E02/QL/IF1

Lily, Ted and Robin were having breakfast at the restaurant. Robin was still drunk when the waiter served the menu. Robin (talking to the waiter): I’d take you with gravy. If my boyfriend wasn’t sitting right here. – Just kidding. I’m good. Lily: What are you so chirpy about? Ted: She’s still drunk from last night. Robin: I don’t think so. Whoo!

√ Drunkenness

2. S02E20/MN/IF2

Barney was demonstrating how he would appear in TPIR. Rather telling Marshall and Ted what he is going to do, he left them clueless. Barney: So which one, “A” or “B”? Marshall: What was that? Barney: I have to decide how to run to contestant’s tow when they say, “Barney Stinson, come on down!” Oh, I didn’t realize that’s what it was. Can you do them again? Barney: Yeah, of course.

√ Excitement

3. S02E02/MN/IF3

Lily, Ted and Robin were having breakfast at the restaurant. Robin was still drunk when the waiter served the menu. Robin (talking to the waiter): I’d take you with gravy. If my boyfriend wasn’t sitting right here. – Just kidding. I’m good. Lily: What are you so chirpy about?

√ Drunkenness

4. S02E09/RL/IF4

Lily agreed to what Barney’s presumption about Robin’s past life. Lily: I don’t know. He could be right. She does have the fake orgasm noises down. Ted: Hey! Lily: What? The walls are thin. Ted: That’s not what I’m hey-ing you about.

√

5. S02E12/RL/FL5 Empire State Building—what robin wish is that Katie wasn’t in such a rush to grow up. √


126

Robin: Katie, I’ll admit, maybe I’m not in any place to lecture you on romantic relationships, but – but I just don’t want you to make the same mistakes that I’ve made. Katie: Oh, believe me, Kyle is not gay. Robin: That’s not what I meant.


127

APPENDIX L 4.12 Table of Suspending Maxims in

How I Met Your Mother Season 2


1. S02E06/SP1

At the bar Robin: A what? Barney: A cougar. An older woman, usually in her 40s or fifties, single and on the prowl for a younger man, Ted: What’s a women in her sixties or 70s—a turtle?

√

√ Joking

2. S02E06/SP2

Lily get ambitious to get married today. Marshall: Baby, anyplace we go, we’re gonna need a marriage license. Lily: Except international waters. So-so let’s find a ship captain. A ship captain can marry us. There’s boats all over this place. Ted: Oh, is that what those wooden things are floating between the garbage?

√

√ Joking

3. S02E14/SP3

At the apartment, ready for funeral. Ted: Okay here’s the plan: record the game, go to the funeral, pay our respects to Matt… Lily: Mark. Ted: Mark, and start watching only an hour late. Marshall: Okay, that’s great, but just to make sure it records, maybe we should bow our heads and say a quiet prayer to the TiVo gods. Ted: Almighty TiVo, we thank you for all the gifts you have given us: the power to freeze live TV to go take a leak is nothing short of Godlike. Let’s not forget fast-forwarding through commercials. It seems greedy to ask anything more from you, O Magic bos, but if you malfunction and miss the Super Bowl, we will destroy you in the alley with baseball bats. Marshall, Ted: Amen.

√ √

Praying

4. S02E09/SP4

Barney: You can be Slap Bet Commissioner. Lily: Ooh, I love it. What are my powers? Barney: Um, if a problem arises and we need a ruling, that's your job. -- But you have to be unbiased and put the integrity of slap bet above all else. This is an honor you will take with you to your grave. On your tombstone, it will read, "Lily Aldrin, caring wife, loving friend, Slap Bet Commissioner." Marshall: And your tombstone will read "Got slapped by Marshall, so hard he died."

√

√ Joking


101214142_full.pdf - USD Repository

Documents

Transcript of 101214142_full.pdf - USD Repository