plagiat merupakan tindakan tidak terpuji plagiat

Transcription

PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
MOTHER SEASON 2
By
Caesilia Carolina
101214142
YOGYAKARTA
2015
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
MOTHER SEASON 2
By
Caesilia Carolina
101214142
YOGYAKARTA
2015
i
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
iv
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
v
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
vi
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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 ungkapanungkapan 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 penyimpanganpenyimpangan 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
vii
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
“Every time you find
some humor in a
difficult situation,
you win.”
DEDICATED TO:
The man upstairs, myself, big families, PBI C 2010,
readers.
ix
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
x
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
xi
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
xii
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
xiii
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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-
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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,
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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 allencompassing 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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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)
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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).
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
Mom: Yes, dear.
Child: Can I have chocolate?
summons
answer
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)
B: Hello
A: Hi
B: Oh hi!
summons
answer + display for recognition
greeting 1 claim that A has recognized B + claim that B can
recognize A
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 AB-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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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 –
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
Second pairs
First 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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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).
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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!
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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, nonverbal 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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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 sociocultural 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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
QL
Maxims
QN RL
Indication
MN
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
41
characters. The distribution of those types of maxims are described in the following
chart:
4.1 Chart of distribution of violation maxims based on the nonobservance maxims' types
27
30
25
20
15
15
10
11
10
6
5
1 0
2
0 0
0
2
4
0
4
0
0
Quality
Quantity
Flouting
Relevance
Violating
Infringing
Manner
Multiple
Suspending
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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,
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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).
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
S02E08/QN/VL3
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?
Barney: Oh, uh, once or twice.
Chinese Guy: Barney! (speak with Chinese accent)
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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).
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
63
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
S02E01/MN/VL1
The year 2030, the narrator, ted was telling his kids about how he met their mother.
Ted: Okay, where were we? It was June of 200six) 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.
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.
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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).
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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).
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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-nightstand 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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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).
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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!
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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 fastforwarding 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).
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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 nonobservance. 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 nonobservance 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:
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
73
EXCERPT
SI
S02E11/QL/FL6
At Lily’s apartment, Barney was smoking facing over the opened window while
he was sick and it was winter.
NA
(1) Robin: Barney. What the hell are you doing? Get in here, it’s freezing
(Conversation)
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
S02E02/QL/VL1
In the apartment, Marshall was aggrieved because Barney twice in a row took
the girl he approached at the bar.
(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.
Violating maxim of quality
Exaggeration
Barney’s concoction
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
S02E02/IF1
Lily, Ted and Robin were having breakfast at the restaurant. Robin was still
drunk when the waiter served the menu.
(2) Ted: She’s still drunk from last night.
(3) Robin: I don’t think so. Whoo!
Infringing maxim of quality
Ignoring the obvious
Robin’s drunkenness
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
77
EXCERPT
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
S02E15/QN/FL12
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.
(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.
Flouting maxim of quantity
Missing link
Family name of a designer
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
S02E22/QN/VL9
Empire State Building with Katy, Robin’s younger sister.
(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.
Violating maxim of quantity
Ground-role reversal
Bible Verse
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
S02E03/RL/FL2
Apartment, Ted’s mother didn’t like to talk about things that were
uncomfortable, emotional, or in any way.
(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?
Script opposition: Good vs. bad
Implicit parallelism
How Ted’s mom evade from current question.
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
S02E12/QN/FL11
At the apartment. Robin and Ted. There is a spider in the living room when
Barney opened the door.
(1) Robin: Spider! Spider!
(2) Barney: (open the door) I left something in the hallway.
Normal and abnormal
Role reversal
Barney’s reason
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
S02E09/RL/IF5
(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.
Infringing maxim of relevance
Missing link
Lily’s lack of knowledge of the topic
Idiomatic
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
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 as Lily’s boyfriend.
(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!
Flouting maxim of manner
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
83
LM
TA
LA
Almost situation
Barney’s manner in saying identical twins
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
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
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.
(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?
Violating maxim of manner
Ground reversal
Barney’s congratulation
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
S02E08/MN/VL5
(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.
Infringing maxim of manner
Consequences
Robin’s drunkenness
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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).
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
SE02E20/QN-MN/FL6
Back when both Ted and Marshall were roommate in college.
(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…”
Flouting maxim
Implicit parallelism
Ted’s response to Marshall’s inquiry
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
SI
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
SE02EP09/QL-MN/VL6
(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.
Violating maxims of quality and manner
Reasoning from false premises
Barney’s key answer
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
SI
S02E20/QN-MN/FL
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
89
NA
(Conversation)
SO
LM
TA
LA
(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?
Infringing maxim of manner and quantity
Inferring the consequences of excitement
Barney’s demonstration
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
90
d. Suspending
Suspending maxim occurred when the speaker aimed his utterance for a joke
in the situation, described as follows:
EXCERPT
SI
NA
(Conversation
SO
LM
TA
LA
S02E09/SP4
Barney proposed a ‘Slap bet’ to Marshall and offered Lily to be a slap bet
commissioner.
(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."
Suspending maxims of quality and manner
Coincidence
Marshall’s joke
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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/englishlanguage/humour-in-conversations-of-teenage-boys-english-languageessay.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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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), 551562.
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
101
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for selfcorrection in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361382.
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 21610002. 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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
APPENDICES
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
APPENDIX A
4.1 Table of Flouting Maxim of Quality in
How I Met Your Mother Season 2
NO
CODE
1.
S02E01/QL/FL1
2.
S02E04/QL/FL2
3.
S02E05/QL/FL3
4.
S02E09/QL/FL4
TYPE OF MAXIMS
QL QN RL MN
EXCERPT
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.
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.
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.
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.
102
INDICATION
√
Exaggerating
√
Exaggerating,
Metaphor
√
Metaphor
√
Delivering sarcastic
tone
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
103
5.
S02E09/QL/FL5
6.
S02E11/QL/FL6
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.
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.
√
Delivering sarcastic
tone
√
Exaggerating
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
104
APPENDIX B
4.2 Table of Flouting Maxim of Quantity in
How I Met Your Mother Television Season 2
NO
CODE
1.
S02E02/QN/FL1
2.
S02E04/QN/FL2
3.
S02E04/QN/FL3
4.
S02E07/QN/FL4
5.
S02E08/QN/FL5
EXCERPT
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.
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.
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.
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.
Salon, Robin, Lily, Marshall, Ted came by to swap Barney out together
Barney: Hey, guys.
Ted: Wow. A pedicure.
TYPE OF MAXIMS
QL QN RL MN
INDICATION
√
Giving too much
information
√
Giving other
information
√
Giving more
information
√
Giving less
information
√
Giving other
information
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
105
6.
S02E09/QN/FL6
7.
S02E09/MN/FL7
8.
S02E09/QN/FL8
9.
S02E12/QN/FL9
10.
S02E15/QN/FL10
11.
S02E21/QN/FL11
12.
S02E21/QN/FL12
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
√
Giving less
information
√
Giving more
information
√
Giving other
information
√
Giving other
information
√
Giving more
information
√
Giving other
information
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
106
13.
S02E22/QN/FL13
14.
S02E22/QN/FL14
15.
S02E22/QN/FL15
16.
S02E22/QN/FL16
Ted: What? Dude, you were there. That was like a big iconic moment in all of our lives.
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.
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.
Barney: No es possible. – Nobody moves to Argentina. The Argentinean peso has dropped twothirds 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.
At the Apartment
Lily: Are you as terrified as I am?
Marshall: I don’t want to get slap again.
√
Giving more
information
√
Giving other
information
√
Giving other
information
√
Giving more
information
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
107
APPENDIX C
4.3 Table of Flouting Maxim of Relevance in
NO
CODE
EXCERPT
1.
S02E03/RL/FL1
2.
S02E03/RL/FL2
3.
S02E03/RL/FL3
4.
S02E04/RL/FL4
5.
S02E11/RL/FL5
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.
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?
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.
(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.
(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.
TYPE OF MAXIMS
QL QN RL MN
√
INDICATION
Uttering
different topic
√
Uttering
different topic
√
Uttering
different topic
√
Uttering
different topic
√
Uttering
different topic
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
108
6.
S02E11/RL/FL6
7.
S02E18/RL/FL7
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.
(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?
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.
√
Uttering
different topic
√
Uttering
different topic
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
109
APPENDIX D
4.4 Table of Flouting Maxim of Manner in
NO
CODE
EXCERPT
1.
S02E02/MN/FL
1
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!
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.
Druthers: Now, as most of you know, my Pete Rose, Pete Rose, Pete Rose baseball has been
stolen.
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.
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
S02E04/MN/FL
2
S02E06/MN/FL
3
S02E06//MN/F
L4
S02EMN08/FL
5
TYPE OF MAXIMS
R
QL
QN
MN
L
INDICATION
√
Obscure
language
√
Tone of voice
√
Being not brief
√
Language style
√
Being indirect
and not brief
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
110
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12
S02E11/MN/FL
6
S02E11/MN/FL
7
S02E12/MN/FL
8
S02E17/MN/FL
9
S02E22/MN/FL
10
S02E12/MN/FL
11
S02E09/MN/FL
12
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Barney: No es possible. – Nobody moves to Argentina. The Argentinean peso has dropped twothirds 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.
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.
√
Using slang
√
Using slang
√
Using slang
√
Obscure
expression
√
Using slang
√
Using other
language
√
Vague language
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
111
APPENDIX E
4.5 Table of Flouting Multiple Maxims in
NO
CODE
1.
SE02E20/QNMN/FL6
2.
SE02E06/QLQN/FL6
3.
SE02E20/QNMN/FL6
4.
SE02E20/QNMN/FL6
5.
SE02E20/QLMN/FL6
EXCERPT
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)
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.
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…”
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.
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.
TYPE OF MAXIMS
QL QN RL MN
√
√
√
INDICATION
Informing
unnecessarily and
changeable expression
Telling untruth and
adding information to
be humorous
√
√
√
Telling indirectly and
adding information
unnecessarily
√
√
Adding information
unnecessarily at not the
right time
√
√
Overstate and the
fashion of language
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
112
APPENDIX F
4.6 Table of Violating Maxim of Quality in
NO
CODE
EXCERPT
1.
S02E02/QL/VL1
2.
S02E03/QL/VL2
3.
S02E03/QL/VL3
4.
S02E06/QL/VL4
5.
S02E06/QL/VL
6.
S02E06/QL/VL
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
In a café
Ted: Man, what’s that?
Marshall: What?
TYPE OF MAXIMS
QL QN RL MN
√
INDICATION
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Contradiction
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Telling untruth
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
113
7.
S02E09/QL/VL8
8.
S02E09/QL/VL9
9.
S02E09/QL/VL10
10.
S02E12/QL/VL
11.
S02E17/QL/VL12
12.
S02E19/QL/VL13
13.
S02E19/QL/VL14
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying unsure
information
√
Saying untruth
information
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
114
14.
S02E20/ MN /VL
15.
S02E20/QL/VL17
16.
S02E20/QL/VL18
17.
S02E21/QL/VL20
18.
S02E21/QL/VL21
Ted: Maybe.
(the fact is that Marshall really like that song, he never ever get sick of the song)
Ted: Now say it without winking.
Barney: No strippers. (winking)
Ted: You just winked.
Barney: No, I didn’t. (winking)
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.”
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.
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.
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.
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Giving less evidences
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
115
19.
S02E22/QL/VL22
20.
EXCERPT
21.
S02E07/QL/VL6
22.
S02E09/QL/VL7
23.
S02E12/QL/VL16
24.
S02E22/QL/VL23
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Saying untruth
information
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
116
25..
S02E22/QL/VL24
26.
27.
S02E09/QL/VL
Robin: You know what I mean.
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.
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.
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."
√
Giving less evidences
√
Saying untruth
information
√
Overstating and
saying untruth
information
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
117
APPENDIX G
4.7 Table of Violating Maxim of Quantity in
NO
CODE
EXCERPT
1.
S02E04/QN/VL1
2.
S02E06/QL/VL2
3.
S02E20/QL/VL3
4.
S02E06/QN/VL4
5.
S02E07/QN/VL5
6.
S02E08/QN/VL6
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
TYPE OF MAXIMS
QL QN RL MN
√
√
INDICATION
Giving other information
√
Giving less Giving
information not as
required
√
√
Giving more information
√
Giving less information
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
118
7.
S02E08/QN/VL7
8.
S02E08/QN/VL8
9.
S02E16/QN/VL9
10.
S02E17/QN/VL9
11.
S02E22/QN/VL9
Barney: Oh, uh, once or twice.
Guy: Barney!...(speak Chinese)
Barney: Good to see you. ----- Three times, maybe.
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.
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?
( 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.
(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.
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 less information
√
√
√
√
Giving information not as
required
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
119
APPENDIX H
4.8 Table of Violating Maxim of Relevance in
NO
CODE
1.
S02E01/RL/VL1
2.
S02E01/RL/VL2
3.
S02E02/RL/VL3
4.
S02E09/RL/VL4
5.
S02E09/RL/VL5
6.
S02E12/RL/VL6
7.
S02E19/RL/VL7
EXCERPT
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.
(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!
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.
Imagining the Oh moment,
Priest: I now pronounce you, man and wife.
Ted: I love you.
Robin: I used to be a dude.
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.
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.
When Lily and Marshall were broken up. The men were up at the bar.
Barney: Hey. What you guys talking about?
Marshall: Lily. (mimbik2)
TYPE OF MAXIMS
QL QN RL MN
√
INDICATION
Uttering different
topic
√
Uttering different
topic
√
Uttering different
topic
√
Uttering different
topic
√
Uttering different
topic
√
Uttering different
topic
√
Uttering different
topic
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
120
8.
S02E22/RL/VL8
9.
S02E22/RL/VL9
10.
S02E08/QN/VL10
Barney: I got to go.
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?
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.
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)
√
Uttering different
topic
√
Uttering different
topic
√
Uttering different
topic
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
121
APPENDIX I
4.9 Table of Violating Maxim of Manner in
NO
CODE
1.
S02E01/MN/VL1
2.
S02E05/MN/VL2
3.
S02E06/MN/VL3
EXCERPT
(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.
(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.
Druthers: Can you picture it, Ted?
Ted: I can’t un-picture it.
Druthers: Good.
TYPE OF MAXIMS
QL QN RL MN
INDICATION
√
Being indirect
√
Being not brief
√
Fashion of
language
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
122
4.
S02E07/MN/VL4
5.
S02E08/MN/VL5
6.
S02E10/MN/VL6
7.
S02E12/MN/VL7
8.
S02E12/MN/VL8
9.
S02E14/MN/VL13
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!
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?
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.
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.
(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.
Superbowl in 2006, apartment, annual inner party, Robin get invited.
Ted: How cool is Robin?
Being not brief
√
Obscure
expression
√
Obscure
expression
√
Ambiguous
language
√
Being indirect
√
Obscure
expression
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
123
10.
S02E15/MN/VL10
11.
S02E18/MN/VL11
12.
S02E19/MN/VL12
13.
S02E14/MN/VL12
14.
S02E10/MN/VL14
15.
S02E20/MN/VL15
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.
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.
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.
(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?
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.
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.
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.
√
Being unordered
Obscuring
expression
√
Obscuring
expression
√
Obscuring
expression
√
Obscuring
expression
√
Obscuring
language
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
124
APPENDIX J
4.10 Table of Violating Multiple Maxims in
NO
EXCERPT
EXCERPT
1.
SE02EP09/QLMN/VL6
2.
SE02EP11/MNRL/VL6
3.
SE02EP12/QLQN/VL6
4.
SE02EP19/QLMN/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.
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.
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)
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.
TYPE OF MAXIMS
QL QN RL MN
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
INDICATION
Giving less evidence and
obscuring expression
Obscuring expression and
uttering irrelevant topic
Giving less evidences and
giving more information
√
Obscuring expression and
uttering untruth
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
125
APPENDIX K
4.11 Table of Infringing Maxims in
NO
1.
2.
3.
CODE
S02E02/QL/IF1
S02E20/MN/IF2
S02E02/MN/IF3
4.
S02E09/RL/IF4
5.
S02E12/RL/FL5
EXCERPT
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.
Ted: She’s still drunk from last night.
Robin: I don’t think so. Whoo!
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.
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 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.
Empire State Building—what robin wish is that Katie wasn’t in such a rush to grow up.
TYPE OF MAXIMS
QL QN RL MN
√
INDICATION
Drunkenness
√
√
√
Excitement
√
Drunkenness
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
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.
PLAGIAT
PLAGIATMERUPAKAN
MERUPAKANTINDAKAN
TINDAKANTIDAK
TIDAKTERPUJI
TERPUJI
127
APPENDIX L
4.12 Table of Suspending Maxims in
How I Met Your Mother Season 2
NO
1.
2.
3.
4.
CODE
S02E06/SP1
S02E06/SP2
S02E14/SP3
S02E09/SP4
EXCERPT
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?
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?
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.
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."
TYPE OF MAXIMS
QL QN RL MN
INDICATION
√
√
Joking
√
√
Joking
√
√
√
√
Praying
Joking

plagiat merupakan tindakan tidak terpuji plagiat

Transcription

Similar documents

An Oshtemo Community Event for all!

Full Tractor Ted Set

May-June 2014 †ARIZONADRIVER ARIZONADRIVER † May

Sana and Ted

MX7538TQ - Hytronics

cadenza harnie - Riverina Genetics

Summer 2016 Newsletter

Ted Turner`s pinstripe art

Ted Britt Ford improves sales and lowers cost with KeyAdvantage!