View
225
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
HUMOR AND THE VIOLATION OF GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE (A Pragmatic Study of Episode Hadidi dan Maemun of Opera Van
Java)
By:ABDURRAHMAN
(E1D107002)
ABSTRAKKajian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui proses pembentukan humor melalui pelanggaran prinsip-prinsip kooperatif Grice di program Opera Van Java episode Hadidi dan Maemun. Prinsip kooperatif terdiri atas empat maksim, yaitu: maksim kuantitas, maksim kualitas, maksim relevansi dan maksim cara. Tujuan khusus dari studi ini adalah untuk mengetahui maksim apa yang dilanggar untuk menciptakan humor, strategi apa yang dipakai untuk menciptakan humor dan apakah konsep implikatur terjadi di episode tersebut. Studi ini memakai tekhnik purposive sampling dalam penentuan sample. Data dikumpulkan melalui teknik dokumentasi, observasi tidak langsung dan teknik pencatatan. Hasil dari studi ini menunjukkan bahwa para pemeran melanggar semua maksim. Strategi yang dipakai untuk menciptakan humor adalah dengan cara berbohong, melebih-lebihkan sesuatu, menyindir, menyangkal sesuatu, membandingkan sesuatu (maksim kualitas); terlalu informative dan kurang informative (maksim kuantitas); mengubah topik pembicaraan dan menggunakan permainan kata (maksim relevansi); berbelit-belit, menggunakan kalimat rancu, mengabaikan grammar, salah ucap kata, mengeja, mengubah kode dan menggunakan permainan kata (maksim cara). Cara-cara mereka melanggar maksim bisa juga dianggap sebagai strategi mereka untuk menciptakan humor. Konsep implikatur juga terjadi di episode tersebut dan berperan dalam penciptaan humor.
ABSTRACTThis study is aimed at investigating how humor is constructed through the violation of Grice’s cooperative principle in situational comedy Opera Van Java episode Hadidi dan Maemun. The cooperative principle consists of four maxims, namely: the maxim of quality, quantity, relevance and manner. The objectives of this study are to find out the kind of maxims that are violated to create humor, the strategies used in creating humor, and if conversational implicature occurs and takes part in the creation of humor. This study deals with a pragmatic approach. It is a descriptive study and it employs purposive sampling technique as the sampling accomplishment. The data are all humorous utterances which are able to arouse laughter from the audiences. The data are collected through documentation, non-participant observation and note taking. After transcribing the conversation into written texts and classifying them into extracts, the writer identifies and studies the extract containing maxim violation and humor, analyzes the strategies used in creating humor, investigates the conversational implicature and draws the findings of data analysis. The result of this study reveals that the characters violate all of the maxims. The strategies that are used to create humor in terms of the violation of the maxims are: telling a lie (giving false or nonsensical contribution), exaggerating things (using hyperbole), being mean (using irony/sarcasm /cynicism), distorting or denying something (using paradox/contradiction), comparing something (using metaphor, simile) (the maxim of quality); being over-informative (giving additional answer), being less informative/non-informative (repeating certain words, giving naïve answer, using tautology) (the maxim of quantity); being irrelevant/going-off topic and using puns (the maxim of relevance); being long-winded/using prolix words, using obscure expressions, being disorderly, abusing grammar, mispronouncing words, spelling words, switching code, using register/discrete code, and using puns/wordplay (the maxim of manner). Conversational implicature also occurs within the episode and takes part in the creation of humor. It happens when the characters flout the maxim of relevance and the sub-maxim of manner: be brief. They flout the maxims by being irrelevant/going off-topic and using metaphor (the maxim of relevance); being long-winded/using prolix words (the maxim of manner).
Keywords: Grice’s maxims, Humor, Violating maxim, Flouting maxim, Implicature.
1
A. Introduction
Human beings interact with one another in their everyday life. Through this
interaction, they communicate to each other by using languages as means of
communication. Language and communication are terms that cannot be separated
from one to another. When the term language appears, the term communication
appears as well in the brain of anyone who hears the terms. This case can be
analogous with human beings and air; people always take breath at anytime.
Language regularly appears as a medium of communication in any social contexts
(Mahyuni, 2006: 8). In relation to communication, Grice (1975: 45) proposes the
theory of “cooperative-principles” to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation
between the speaker and the hearer as well to make the conversation more effective
and efficient. As he says “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 (1975: 45).
Grice then formulates four maxims or co-operative principles that must be
obeyed by the participants in a conversation. The four maxims are well-known as
“Grice’s maxims”. These maxims are proposed as criteria for cooperative
communication. It means, according to Grice, if the participants follow the maxims,
they can be said cooperative in conversation or they create a harmonious
communication. Otherwise, if they do not follow the maxims, they can be said
uncooperative in conversation or they create an unharmonious communication.
Those four maxims are:
1. Maxim of quantity:
2
a. Make your contribution as informative as is required for
the current purposes of the exchange.
b. Do not make your contribution more informative than is
required.
2. Maxim of quality:
a. Do not say what you believe to be false.
b. Do not say for which you lack adequate evidence.
3. Maxim of relevance:
a. Be relevant (stay on the topic of discussion).
4. Maxim of manner:
a. Avoid obscurity of expression.
b. Avoid ambiguity.
c. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
d. Be orderly.
However, people may intentionally or unintentionally violate the maxims
when they communicate with others to get other purposes. According to Grice
(1975: 49), violation takes place when the speaker intentionally refrains to apply
certain maxims in conversation to cause misunderstanding on his/her interlocutor’s
part or to achieve some other purposes. Furthermore, he says that when the maxim
of quality is violated, complete adherence to the other maxims is difficult. When
one or more of these maxims is violated, the necessity of reconstructing the meaning
of the utterance arises in order to save the utterance from being a faulty or
meaningless conversational contribution. For example, self-evidently true or
obviously false statements must be uttered for some other purposes rather than for
3
simply conveying their stated meanings (Alvaro, 2011: 12). In this study, the
characters of episode Hadidi dan Maemun of Opera Van Java violate the maxims to
create humor.
In a short definition, humor is something funny or something that makes
people laugh (in Websters Dictionary). Humor facilitates social interaction in
people’s life. People usually use humor in their conversation with others to make the
conversation interesting. The existence of humor in facilitating conversation is
important because without humor the conversation seems to be monotonous.
Furthermore, humor is the quality in something that makes funniness or amusement
or the ability to laugh at things that are amusing (Oxford Advanced Learners
Dictionary). Ross (1998, in Capkova, 2012: 10) discusses the definition of humor as
something that makes a person laugh or smile. Ross’s point of view on humor is
rather similar with what Monro (1988: 55) says about humor in a broad sense, that
is, all those that are laughable, amusing, and funny can be called humor. Raskin
(1985: 7) also notes that humor can be understood as something that is appreciated,
enjoyed, and shared by all people to be funny. It is a kind of conversation which is
different from general conversation that we have in our daily life. Its purpose is not
only to make smooth conversation or giving information to each other, but also to
entertain people because it has funny stimulation that can make people laugh.
According to Attardo (1994: 31), the discourse of humor is processed
pragmatically like other discourse types since it does not take literal meaning into
account but requires pragmatic tools for the process of the inferences that will
account for the passage from literal meaning of the utterance to its non-literal
meaning. It means, in the process of humor, the speakers may imply the intended
4
meaning within the utterances by saying something else and it is the hearers should
infer that implied meaning. This can be achieved if both speakers and hearers know
the context, situation, topic and other features of pragmatic. These pragmatic
features also explain why some people may consider something is funny and the
other people may not. This Attardo’s point of view on humor has a close
relationship with Grice’s conversational implicature that is resulted from flouting
the maxims. According to Attardo (1994: 33), it is clear that humor is a mode of
communication which does not follow the maxims because the essence of humor is
to be false, represent little amount of information or to be too informative, not to be
relevant and to be ambiguous.
As stated earlier, people may have different experiences about humor. Some
people may consider something is funny but some others may not. Those who laugh
are able to understand how the speakers or characters create the funniness so that
they can laugh, and vice versa. It is because a good communication cannot only
depends on literal meaning of sentences but also concerns about relationship as well
context that takes place in communication. The study concerning these four areas
(meaning, context, communication and relationship/relative distance) is called
pragmatics (Yule, 1996: 3). It is a study of meaning as communicated by a speaker
(or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader) (ibid). One of the principal
subjects of pragmatic is the notion of conversational implicature which is also
proposed by Grice (1975). He uses the term “implicature” to account for what a
speaker implies, suggests, or means, as distinct from what s/he literally says
(Adapted from Grice, 1975: 43). Both pragmatical aspects and the notion of
5
conversational implicature will also be the writer’s considerations in conducting this
research.
Based on the explanation above, the writer would like to state the problems of
this research. The problems that arise are as follows:
1.2.1 What maxims are violated to create humor in episode Hadidi dan Maemun of
Opera Van Java?
1.2.2 What strategies are used to create humor in terms of the violation of the
maxims?
1.2.3 Does conversational implicature occurs and also causes humor within the
episode?
B. Methodology
As mentioned earlier, the major goal of this study is to explore humor which
is caused or created by the violations of Grice’s cooperative principle. Therefore,
the research method used is descriptive method since it deals with language which
needs to be described clearly and systematically in order to explain it. It means the
study is done by describing how the violations of Grice’s cooperative principle
possibly work out to create humor in Opera Van Java comedy program. The writer
analyzes the data from the conversation containing humorous utterances uttered by
the characters in that program and they are presented in a descriptive way.
The population of this research is all utterances produced. Then, for the
sampling accomplishment, the writer uses purposive sampling technique to choose
the data needed. The criteria used to determine the sample of this research are: the
utterances containing maxims violation, the utterances containing humorous
sense/joke which arise laughter from the audiences, and the utterances containing
6
implicature. The writer uses documentation and non-participant-observation and
note taking technique in collecting data needed. Finally, the writer takes 52 extracts
as the data of this research.
C. Finding and Discussion
After transcribing the episode into written text, the writer finds 47 violations
(in term of extracts) of Grice’s maxims covering 14 violations of the maxim of
quality, 7 violations of the maxim of quantity, 10 violations of the maxim of
relevance and 16 violations of the maxim of manner and there are 5 occurrences of
conversational implicature. In sum, the characters violate all of the maxims in
creating humor. Thus, the research question number 1.2.1 has been answered.
Next, the writer analyzes the strategies used by the characters in creating
humor in terms of violating particular maxims. That is to answer the research
question number 1.2.2.
1. The Maxim of Quality
The maxim of quality relates to the truthfulness of the contribution. Grice
(1975: 46) underlines two specific maxims, namely, (1) do not say what you believe
to be false, and (2) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Then the
violation occurs when the speaker tells a lie or gives a false information or tells
something that does not make sense, and when s/he tells something which is not
supported by enough evidence. When violating this maxim, there are several
strategies employed by the characters in producing the sense of humor, namely:
a. Exaggerating things (using hyperbole). Hyperbole is the deliberate use of
overstatement or exaggeration to achieve emphasis (Feng Cuihua in Wenting,
7
2006: 7). Hyperbole does not state a fact but an exaggeration of the fact. For
example:
Setting: Sule (as Hadidi) sits on a bench alone. He pretends to be looking pale. He is talking to himself when Nunung gets on the stage with some food. Participants: Sule, Nunung and Parto.
Nunung : Hadidi, ini aku bawain makanan buat kamu. (I have some food for you, Hadidi)
Sule : Mana? (Where are they?)
Nunung : Ini, kayaknya kamu lapar banget ya? (Here they are. You look so hungry, don’t you?)
Sule : Ya, dari kelas 3 SD aku belum makan.(Yes I do, I haven’t had eaten yet since I was in the third grade of elementary school).
In the exchange above, Sule violates the maxim of quality by exaggerating
his statement. Sule tells Nunung that he hasn’t had eaten yet since he was in the
third grade of elementary school. It sounds too exaggerated and does not make
any sense. Sule is about 35s years old when he plays in this episode which
means he does not eat for 26 years. It is exceedingly false and exaggerated.
People will not believe that a person can still alive without eating for that long.
b. Being mean (using irony/sarcasm/cynicism). Grice (1975: 53) notes that an ironic
statement implicates the contradictory of what it literally says. For example:
Setting: After doing presentation, Sule performs a magic trick on the stage. Then Parto gets on the stage and commands him not to do such magic trick because it is not in accordance with the story/narration that has been read by Parto as a puppeteer.Participants: Sule, Andre and Parto.Parto : Kamu harusnya presentasi masalah pesawat bukan sulap gini.
(You should do a presentation about plane and not to do such magic trick)
Sule : Tadi udah kan, pakai bahasa inggris, nggak ngerti pasti ya?(I did, I used English language, and it was hard for you to understand it, wasn’t it?)
Parto : Nonton saya, bagus banget bahasa inggrisnya. (I watched it, it was a very good English)
Sule : Emang.
8
(Indeed)Parto : Saya kurang ngerti tadi, keren itu bahasa inggrisnya tadi, bahasa
inggris keraton itu, jarang ada yang bisa lho!(I did not quite understand it, it was such a good English, it was a royal palace English, rarely do people can speak it)
From the conversation above, it is shown that the ironical statement is made
by Parto. Grice (1975: 53) notes that an ironic statement implicates the
contradictory of what it literally says. Parto and the audiences know that Sule
has a bad pronunciation of English and talks ungrammatically. Above, Parto
says that Sule’s English is very good and it is a kind of royal palace English. He
implies that the opposite is true that Sule’s English is completely bad.
c. Telling a lie (giving false contribution). For example:
Setting : Parto acts the part of a reporter. Parto : Ya terimakasih, sekarang saya lagi berada di lokasi kebakaran. Kebakaran terjadi di sebuah rumah di kilometer 87 disana, dan setelah diselidiki kebakaran terjadi karena ada hubungan gelap antara supir dengan majikan yang menimbulkankegerahan dan hawa panas sehingga terjadilah kebakaran… dan korban dari kebakaran ini ada 4 orang, semuanya tewas hangus terbakar, 3 mayat dibawa ke rumah sakit terdekat untuk diotopsi dan yang satunya lagi kabur melarikan diri…(Well, thank you, now I am reporting from the location of fire. The fire occurs in a house in km 87 over there, and recent investigation shows that the fire is caused by the adultery committed by the boss and the driver which causes sultry and heat that generate fire… there are 4 victims of this fire, all of them are burnt down to death, 3 corpses are moved to nearest hospital to perform an autopsy, and the other corpse runs away, escapes…)
Parto states the fire is caused by the adultery committed by a boss and her
driver which causes sultry and heat that generate fire. It is a false information
because adultery could not generate fire but short electrical circuit would
probably do so. Besides, Parto tells there are four died victims of the fire, three
corpses are moved to the hospital to get an autopsy, and the fourth corpse
escapes. This information does not make sense because a dead body/corpse could
not move much less escape.
9
d. Distorting or denying something (using paradox/contradiction). For
example:
Setting: Sule and Andre are talking about Indonesian popular artists. Andre wants to introduce Aziz, an artist, to Sule.Participants: Andre and Sule.
Andre : Saya mau kenalin kamu sama teman saya, si Aziz.(I want to introduce you to Aziz, he is my friend)
Sule : Oh si Aziz, artis itu ya?(Aziz, the artist?)
Andre : Ya, dia artis populer di Indonesia.(Yes, he is a popular artist in Indonesia)
Sule : Saya malu, pak.(Then I would be shy, sir)
Andre : Kenapa harus malu?(Whyshould you be shy?)
Sule : Dia itu kan artis, sementara saya cuma rakyat biasa.(It is because he is an artist and I am just a common people)
Andre : Nggak usah khawatir, dia itu artis populer tapi nggak ada seorangpun yang kenal sama dia.
(Don’t worry about that, he is a popular artist but no one knows him)
Above, the bold typed utterance contains a contradictory idea which is
sometimes called paradox. Andre tells Sule that Aziz is a popular artist but no
one knows him. The first idea “Dia itu artis popular/he is a popular artist”is
clearly contradictory to the second one “Nggak ada seorangpun yang kenal
sama dia/not a single person knows him”. This also can be considered a false
information because based on the common sense, a person can be said popular if
many people or everyone knows him, and vice versa.
e. Comparing something (using metaphor, simile). Metaphor contains a
comparison between two unlike elements or things. It is rather similar with
simile. According to Ratna (2009: 193), metaphor is an indirect or hidden
10
analogy/comparison and simile is a direct one. Simile usually characterized
by the use of conjunction “as” and “like”. For example:
Setting: Sule and Andre are talking to each other when Dede, the newcomer comedian, enters the stage. Participants: Sule, Andre and Dede.
Sule : Lihat nih siapa yang datang! (Look at who is coming!)
Dede : Saya mau ikut main, Bang. (I want to join in the playing, brother)
Sule : Gua lihat-lihat kepalanya kecil kayak botol kecap asin! (I guess his head is small, it’s like ketchup bottle!)
Andre : Lihat muke lu tuh kayak kunci gembok sekolahan! (Look at your face! It is like the key of school padlock!)
Dede : Lu bundaran HI! (You are HI circle!)
Andre : Akh! Lu triplek bangunan! (Huh! You are plywood!)
Dede : Lu aspal rusak! (You are perforated asphalt!)
Sule : Superman kakinya kayak tusuk sate! (Superman’s legs are like skewer of sate!)
Almost all of the utterances uttered by the characters in the exchange above
contain the violation of the maxim of quality which is indicated by the use of
metaphor (some linguists consider it the same as simile) within them. Sule says
that Dede’s head is as small as a ketchup bottle and this is hardly accepted by
common sense. The size and the shape of someone’s head are completely
different from the size and the shape of a ketchup bottle. Next, the same case is
shown within the statement made by Andre when insulting Dede. Andre says
Dede’s face is like a padlock by which it sounds ridiculous and mannered
because both things have different shape. Then, Dede also makes a metaphorical
statement when insulting Andre back. Dede says that Andre is like perforated
asphalt. Again, it is a false because humans are not similar in appearance with
asphalt, and so forth.
11
2. The Maxim of Quantity
This maxim relates to the quantity of information to be provided. Grice
(1975: 45) proposes two specific maxims of it, namely, (1) make your contribution
as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange, and (2) do not
make your contribution more informative than is required. When it comes to the
violation of this maxim, there are some strategies employed by the characters to
create humor, namely:
a. Being over-informative (giving additional answer). For example,
Setting: Nunung leaves the stage. After a while, she comes back again. Then Sule asks her about it.Participants: Sule and Nunung.
Sule : Kamu kenapa balik lagi? (Why do you come back again?)
Nunung : Di luar hujan, hujannya gedé banget… banjir, rumah-rumah pada tenggelam… aku dikejar-kejar anak kecil, aku dikira perahu karet, aku lari… terus balik ke sini.(It is raining outside, a heavy rain… flood comes, the houses sink… some children chase after me, they think I am a rubber boat, I run… then I come back here)
In the conversation, Nunung gives too much contribution to the exchange
that violates the maxim of quantity. Sule only asks her about her return to the
stage and she gives additional answers that are unnecessary. By saying “Diluar
hujan terus aku balik kesini” seems enough to answer the question. Meanwhile,
the information about flood, houses, children and rubber boat are not required by
Sule.
b. Being less informative or non-informative (repetition, using tautology,
giving naïve answer). At the level of what is said, Grice (1975: 52) considers
repetition and another kind of repetition such as patent tautology and quasi
12
tautology as the violation of the maxim of quantity because they are
noninformative. For example:
Setting: Andre sings a song, while Aziz and Desta listen to him in amazement. Suddenly, Sule enters the stage and wonders who the singer is. Participants: Sule, Andre, Desta, Aziz and Parto.
Sule :Tadi siapa! Siapa! Siapa! Siapa! Siapa yang jelek suaranya nyanyi?!(Who was that? Who was that! Who was that! Who sang badly just now?!)
Desta : Kapan, kapan, kapan, kapan?(When? When? When? When?)
Sule : Barusan! Barusan! Barusan! Barusan gué dengar dari luar!(A moment ago! A moment ago! A moment ago! I just heard it from outside a moment ago!)
Andre : Nggak ada! Nggak ada! Nggak ada! Nggak ada yang nyanyi!(None! None! None! No one was singing! )
Sule : Kamu ya! Kamu ya! Kamu ya! kamu! Kamu?!(Was it you?! Was it you?!It must be you! It must be you!)
All participants within the conversation above violate the maxim of quantity
by repeating words. In the first place, Sule repeats the word “siapa/who” five
times in his question. Then, in imitation of Sule’s remarks, Desta repeats the
word “kapan/when” four times through his response to Sule’s question. Next,
Sule replies by saying “barusan/just now” which is repeated four times. Then,
in response to Sule’s first question, Andre denies the fact (violates the maxim of
quality as well)that he is the singer by saying “nggak ada/no one” that is
repeated four times. Sule knows that Andre lies to him. Then through his
dissatisfaction, Sule puts a blame to Aziz by saying “kamu ya/was it you” which
is repeated five times, and so forth.
3. The Maxim of Relevance
According to this maxim, the speaker’s contribution should be relevant to
the current topic. As far as the violation of the maxim of relevance is concerned,
13
going-off topic or giving irrelevant contribution seems to be the main strategy
applied by the characters in creating humor. For example:
Setting: Andre repeatedly orders Sule to do several things just like a boss orders his/her servant. That makes Nunung upset because she does not want Sule (as her boyfriend) be treated like a servant.
Participants: Nunung and Sule.
Nunung : Kamu kan udah dewasa, kamu bisa nentuin sikap sendiri. Emang dia itu ‘babi siter’ kamu, ya?(You are a grown man, you can make decisions by yourself. Is he your caretaker, actually?)
Sule : Dia sahabat karibku. (No, he is my close friend)
Nunung : Kok nyuruh-nyuruh kamu terus?(But why does he order you to do this and that continuously?)
Sule : Dari lahir aja udah bareng. Nih! emaknya dia ngelahirin dia, emaknya saya ngelahirin saya, bareng tuh… balap-balapan.(We have been together since we born_born at the same time. Look! His mother bore him, and my mother bore me, together… at the same time… both of them had a race)
Sule’s answer in the bold typed utterance above is not relevant to Nunung’s
question “Kok nyuruh-nyuruh kamu terus?”. Nunung wants to know why Andre
treats him like a servant and Sule tells that he and Andre were born at the same time.
In this case, Nunung does not get matching answer from Sule.
4. The Maxim of Manner
The maxim of manner is different from other maxims in that it relates not to
what is said but rather, to how what is said is to be said (Grice, 1975: 46). Under the
category of manner, Grice includes the supermaxim “be perspicuous” and various
maxims such as: (1) avoid obscurity of expression, (2) avoid ambiguity, (3) be brief
(avoid unnecessary prolixity), and (4) be orderly. He also realizes that we may need
14
other maxims under the category of manner. The strategies used in creating humor
in terms of violating this maxim are:
a. Abusing grammar. For example:
Setting: Sule performs a presentation about the plane design.Participants: Sule and Desta.Sule : This is my bag…Desta : Yea?Sule : My bag in the presentation…Desta : Yea?Sule : Presentation in a bag… in a plane…Desta : Yea?Sule : The plane… the landing… a sleeping a wake up!
In this dialogue, it is plain that “My bag in the presentation”, “Presentation
in a bag” and “A sleeping a wake up” are ungrammatical or likely to be obscure
clauses. It would be hard to understand the meaning of those clauses if we are
not aware of the context where they uttered. Sule, in a wrong way, tells Desta
that his equipments or materials of presentation are in the bag, while the clause
“A sleeping a wake up” means a fighter/somersault plane.
b. Being long-winded or using prolix words. Prolix means using too many
words; tediously prolonged or lengthy; rambling (Webster Dictionary). For
example:
Setting: Andre and Sule enter the stage. They talk about Sule’s return from Germany.Participants: Andre and Sule.
Andre : Baru pulang dari Jerman ya? (You just returned from Germany, didn’t you?)
Sule : Ya nih! (Yes, I did)
Andre : Terus gimana acara presentasinya? (How was your presentation going?)
Sule : Alhamdulillah! Demikian, begitulah, seperti itu… lancar.(Thanks God! Such was the case, so it was… it was going smoothly)
15
In this exchange, Sule violates the sub-maxim of manner: be brief. As seen
in the bold typed utterance, Sule does not answer Andre’s question briefly, he
gives a rambling answer instead. Actually, he could simply say “Lancar” or
“Alhamdulillah” and this maxim would be fulfilled successfully, but the sense
of humor would be lost if he does so.
c. Using obscure expressions. Obscure means the quality or condition of being
imperfectly known or difficult to understand (Webster Dictionary). For
example:
Setting: In the beginning of the current segment, Andre and Sule flatter the sindén (Dewi & Sinta). They talk about love and honeymoon. Participants: Sule, Andre, Dewi and Sinta.
Sule : Kalau kamu sama Sinta mau kemana?(As for you, where will you and Sinta go?)
Andre : Kalau aku sama Sinta yang penting harmonisasi kemakmuran kita…(As for me and Sinta, all important to us is the harmony of our prosperity…)
Sinta : Oh, ya?(Is it?)
Andre : Jangan sampai terjadi kudeta dalam suatu konfrontasi yang menimbulkan… yang menimbulkan sebuah definisi dimana cintanisasi harus menjadi sebuah… sebuah ikatan batinisasi biar tidak terjadi penyakit yang namanya kontaminasi imunisasi dan untuk menghindari konspirasi urbanisasi dan transmigrasi… jadi kita ke tempat yang aman-aman aja, yang indah gitu…(To avoid the coup d’état in a confrontation that might lead to a definition where love should become a spiritual tie that prevents a disease called immunization contamination and wards off a conspiracy of urbanization and transmigration… so we will go to safe and beautiful places)
The conversation above shows that the maxim of manner is violated when
Andre uses obscure expressions and unnecessary prolixities in answering Sule’s
question. Sule asks him where he and Sinta will go to celebrate their
honeymoon. Andre could simply name a place to go as the answer but he
16
givesobscure or less meaningful and rambling answers as seen in the bold typed
utterances above.
d. Being disorderly. For example:
Setting: Sule staggers in getting on the stage. Then Andre wonders what is wrong with Sule’s legs.Participants: Andre, Sule and Parto.
Andre : Kenapa tuh jalannya kayak gitu? (Why do you walk that way?)
Sule : Kaki saya nih! (Uh! My legs!)
Andre : Kaki lu kenapa? (What’s wrong with your legs?)
Sule : Urat asam! (Asam urat_cramps! [Uttered in the reverse order])
Parto : Asam urat! (It is “Asam urat_cramps”!)
Above, Sule violates the sub-maxim of manner: be orderly. He deliberately
utters the phrase “Asam urat/cramps” in the reverse order, as he says “Urat
asam”. Thus, phrase disorganization evokes a humorous situation, or in other
words, being disorderly could be an effective strategy to create humor in terms
of violating the maxim of manner.
Last, conversational implicature also occurs and takes part in the creation of
humor within the episode. Conversational implicature can be considered as giving
or suggesting one thing by saying something else, and this is the term that the
hearers should infer of what the speakers imply in their speech events. Grice (1975:
49) states that implicature arises when one of the maxims is flouted. For example:
Setting: Aziz, Andre, Sule, Desta, and Nunung prepare for a debate. Aziz wonders whether meal is available or not during the debate.
Participants: Aziz and Parto.
Aziz : Maaf pak, apa dapat makan pak? (Execuse me sir, would I get some food?)
17
Parto : Emang nggak makan tadi di rumah? (Didn’t you eat just now in your house?)
Aziz : Saya jalan kaki kesini, pak. (I come here on foot, sir)
In this exchange, Aziz flouts the maxim of relevance when he gives
irrelevant answer to Parto’s question. Parto asks him whether he has eaten or not
before coming to studio which should be answered by saying “yes” or “no”, but
Aziz answers irrelevantly by saying “Saya jalan kaki kesini, pak”. In this case, Aziz
implies something through his answer and wants Parto to infer it. Aziz is likely to
say that he has eaten before coming to studio but he is hungry currently due to his
coming on foot. Accordingly, the implicature resulted from flouting the maxim of
relevance manages to a humorous situation.
D. Conclusion and Suggestion
After analyzing the data, there are some conclusions can be made:
1. The characters of episode Hadidi dan Maemun of Opera Van Java violate all
of the maxims (the maxim of quality, quantity, relevance and manner). The
only reason for the violations is to create humor.
2. The strategies that are used to create humor in terms of the violation of the
maxims are: telling a lie (giving false or nonsensical contribution),
exaggerating things (using hyperbole), being mean (using irony/sarcasm
/cynicism), distorting or denying something (using paradox/contradiction),
comparing something (using metaphor, simile) (the maxim of quality); being
over-informative (giving additional answer), being less informative/non-
informative (repeating certain words, giving naïve answer, using tautology)
(the maxim of quantity); being irrelevant/going-off topic and using puns (the
18
maxim of relevance); being long-winded/using prolix words, using obscure
expressions, being disorderly, abusing grammar, mispronouncing words,
spelling words, switching code, using register/discrete code, and using
puns/wordplay (the maxim of manner).
3. Conversational implicature also occurs within the episode and takes part in
the creation of humor. It happens when the characters flout the maxim of
relevance and the sub-maxim of manner: be brief. They flout the maxims by
being irrelevant/going-off topic and using metaphor (the maxim of
relevance); being long-winded/using prolix words (the maxim of manner).
4. By violating and flouting the maxims, it does not mean that the characters
are uncooperative or create unharmonious communication. They violate and
flout the maxims to create humor, that is, to make the communication
interesting as well to avoid monotonous situation. Thus, the communication
is still operative, apprehensible and successful.
Next, after concluding the findings of this research, the writer would like to
suggest the following things:
1. It is necessary to conduct advanced researches on this field, especially on
humor. The next researcher can relate humor to the theory of speech act,
the theory of politeness or the theory of gender. Besides, this research
provides appendices (extracts) which can be used as the source of data
for further researches.
2. Grice’s cooperative principle provides assumptions that can be used by
teachers and students as a strategy to improve their qualities and abilities
19
in providing information as well to make efficient and effective
communication during teaching and learning process.
3. This study is far from perfection. Therefore, constructive suggestions
and criticisms are needed.
References
Arikunto, Suharsimi. 1993. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.
Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. An Introduction to the Study of Language. London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd.
Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chaer, Abdul and Leonie Agustina. 2004. Sosiolinguistik: Perkenalan Awal. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta.
Devito, Joseph A. 1991. Human communication. New York: Harper Collins Publisher Inc.
Dijk, T. A. Van. 1998. Critical Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam Press.
Djajasudarma, T. Fatimah. 2009. Semantik 2. Bandung: PT. Refika Aditama.
Echols, John M. & Hassan Shadily. 1994. Kamus Indonesia-Inggris: An Indonesian-English Dictionary. Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Utama.
Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics; Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. England: University of Sussex Journal. Taken from
http://www.rspublication.com/ijrm/ijrm_sussex/journal_index.htm. Accessed on March 26th 2013.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Steven Davis Ed. 1991. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. Taken from
http://www.mystfx.ca/academic/philosophy/cook/2008_09/Grice-logic.pdf. Accessed on March 26th 2013.
20
Hockett, Charles F. 1960. The Origin of Speech. A Journal of Linguistics.
Taken from http://www.search-document.com/pdf/1/5/t he-origin-of- speech .html . Accessed on 24th August 2013.
Hornby, A. S. 2005. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (7th edition). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Krikmann, Arvo. 2009. On the Similarity and Distinguishability of Humour and Figurative of Speech. Folklore: Estonian Literary Museum, Tartu 13 (63/58) http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/vol33/kriku.pdf
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principle of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mahyuni. 2006. Speech Styles and Cultural Consciousness in Sasak Community. Mataram: Cerdas Press.
Monro, D. H. 1988. Theories of Humor. Victoria: Monash University. Taken from http://www.books.google.co.id/se/books?/humor_theories/usage&cd.html.
Accessed on August 24th 2013.
Nailufah, Yuyun. 2008. Flouting Maxims on Grice’s Maxims in the Drama of the Death Salesman by Arthur Miller. Unpublished S.Pd Thesis. Malang: UIN Malang.
Paakkinen, Ainomaija. 2010. Verbally Expressed Humour in the American Television Series Gilmore Girls. Pro Gradu Thesis. Finland: Department of English, University of Eastern Finland.
Taken from http://www.studyzone.org/verbal_humour/incent123/finland/html. Accessed on August 22nd 2013.
Palupi, Sri Retno. 2006. An Analysis of Humor Types and Grice’s Maxim in the Situation Comedy Friends Episode of “the one with that could have been” (a pragmatic approach). Sarjana Sastra Degree Thesis. Surakarta: English Department of Sebelas Maret University.
Pradnyani, Ketut Ayu. 2010. Maxims Violations in Conversation on Television Series “Gossip Girl” and “Friends”. Unpublished S.Pd Thesis. Mataram: FKIP Unram.
Rachmadhani, Dewi M. 2010. Examining Grice’s Maxims on the Dragqueen Language; A Case Study at Three Beauty Shops in Bima and Amahami. Unpublished S.Pd Thesis. Mataram: FKIP Unram.
21
Raskin, Victor. 1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Ratna, Nyoman Kutha. 2009. Stilistika: Kajian Puitika Bahasa, Sastra dan Budaya. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Rahma, Iis. 2005. The Use and the Pragmatic Meaning of Lembo Ade; A Case Study at Bimanese Community in Mataram. Unpublished S.Pd Thesis. Mataram: FKIP Unram.
Ritchie, Graeme. 2003. The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes. London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Spolsky, Bernard. 2008. Sociolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2010. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (sixth edition). Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Wenting, Ma. 2006. Figures of Speech Created by Violation of the Cooperative Principle. A Chinese Paper. pp. 200-205-1129. Foreign Languages Department.
Taken from http://www.icahdg.org/com/cellink_z/journal_chinese-paper/org.html. Accessed on 24thAugust 2013.
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22
Recommended