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