Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Eva Čapková
Pragmatic Principles and Humour in "The IT Crowd"
Bachelor‟s Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Mgr., Jan Chovanec, Ph. D.
2012
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
……………………………………………..
Author‟s signature
I would like to thank to my supervisor, Mr. Jan Chovanec, whose encouragement, guidance and support from the initial to the final level enabled me to write this thesis. It is a pleasure to thank those who supported me in any respect during that time.
Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 6
2. Humour and Laughter ...... 7
3. Genre of Sitcom ...... 12
3.1 The IT Crowd ...... 17
4. Pragmatics ...... 18
4.1 Grice‟s Cooperative Principle ...... 19
4.1.1 Maxim of Quality ...... 22
4.1.2 Maxim of Quantity ...... 23
4.1.3 Maxim of Relation ...... 24
4.1.4 Maxim of Manner ...... 25
4.2 Leech‟s Politeness Principle ...... 25
4.2.1 Tact Maxim ...... 29
4.2.2 Generosity Maxim ...... 30
4.2.3 Approbation Maxim ...... 30
4.2.4 Modesty Maxim ...... 31
4.2.5 Agreement Maxim ...... 32
4.2.6 Sympathy Maxim ...... 32
4.3 Humorous potential of non-observance of the CP and PP ...... 33
5. Non-observance of the CP and PP in "The IT Crowd" ...... 34
5.1 Non-observance of the CP ...... 35
5.1.1 Maxim of Quality ...... 35
5.1.1.1 "Do not say what you believe to be false" ...... 35
5.1.1.2 "Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence" ...... 37
5.1.2 Maxim of Quantity ...... 38
5.1.2.1 "Make your contribution as informative as required" ...... 38
5.1.2.2 "Do not make your contribution more informative than is required" ...... 39
5.1.3 Maxim of Relation ...... 40
5.1.4 Maxim of Manner ...... 41
5.1.4.1 "Avoid obscurity"...... 41
5.1.4.2 "Avoid ambiguity" ...... 42
5.1.4.3 "Be brief" ...... 43
5.1.4.4 "Be orderly" ...... 44
5.2 Non-observance of the PP ...... 45
5.2.1 Tact Maxim ...... 46
5.2.2 Generosity Maxim ...... 47
5.2.3 Approbation Maxim ...... 47
5.2.4 Modesty Maxim ...... 48
5.2.5 Agreement Maxim ...... 49
5.2.6 Sympathy Maxim ...... 50
5.3 Discussion ...... 51
6. Conclusion ...... 52
Works Cited ...... 55
Anotace ...... 57
Abstract ...... 58
1. Introduction
Humour represents an important part of human experience and it is no wonder that it has been the subject of various disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, aesthetics and linguistics. An immense number of scholars has tried to provide definition of humour and large amount of theories of humour were formulated, which attempt to determine necessary and sufficient condition for humour to be funny.
(Raskin, 1985, p. 47)
In this thesis, humour in verbal communication will be discussed from linguistic, specifically pragmatic, point of view. It will be focused on the British sitcom "The IT
Crowd" in relation to the Cooperative Principle by Herbert Paul Grice and the
Politeness Principle by Geoffrey Leech. Different maxims of these two principles will be discussed in order to determine what part they play in creating humorous situations in sitcoms.
The thesis consists of six chapters, the first of which is the introduction that discusses the purpose and layout of this study. Chapter two provides the reader with theoretical background to humour and laughter. It attempts to define the term humour and establish its relation to laughter. The third chapter discusses the genre of sitcom, its main characteristics and offers brief introduction to the sitcom, which will be analysed in this study. Chapter four serves as the theoretical framework of the thesis, which includes introduction to pragmatics, the Cooperative Principle and Politeness Principle, as well as its connection to humour. In chapter five, the two principles of communication are applied on the excerpts from the sitcom "The IT Crowd" in order to determine how humour is created by non-observance of its maxims. Chapter six summarizes the findings of this thesis.
6
2. Humour and Laughter
One of the essential steps in discussion of humour is to define the word humour itself. Even thought humour constitutes almost an inseparable part of everyday life, only rarely do people stop to reflect upon what the term actually covers and how complex it can be. Scholarly research on this subject is nevertheless very extensive and many authors have managed to put forward rich amount of text concerned with humour and issues connected with definition of this term. Throughout history until these days numerous attempts have been made to define what humour is and what people find humorous. Several different fields of human studies such as psychology, sociology and linguistic try to grasp this term from different points of view in order to define some boundaries. These boundaries should not be, however, always understood as limitations for the term, but rather an attempt to create a starting point for a discussion of this subject.
Even thought so many definitions had been proposed, there is no single correct definition that would be generally agreed on by all disciplines and scholars. It is also necessary to mention that some researchers believe that the definition of humour is entirely impossible (Attardo, 1960, p. 3). This does not, however, mean that the research of humour that had taken place up to now was unsuccessful or even pointless. On the contrary, every discussion that emerges allows the researches to re-evaluate their theories and provide the world with more suitable definitions.
The definition of humour is not the only problem that is connected with this topic. Several attempts have been made to subcategorize humour. But as Attardo (1994) states: "traditional lexical categories may lead to the erroneous belief that there are clear-cut distinctions in reality" (p.5). It seems that as hard as it is to define the category
7 of humour, dividing it into subcategories is nearly impossible. Distinction between terms such as comic, humour and funniness is so unclear and fluid that scholars often cannot agree on the fact whether there is any distinction at all and whether these terms can be used interchangeably. As Attardo argues the need for the definition of humour and its categories has been put forward several times e.g.: by Sinicropi (1981):
The lack of a rigorous, or at least reliable, definition of humor and of its
categories causes ( ... ) another difficulty that hinders research; it is represented
by the fact that denominations of processes usually considered sources of humor
( ... ) are often used as if they were synonyms or if they shared a semantic space.
This denotes that the semantic field to which they belong does not have precise
boundaries. (as cited in Attardo, 1994, p.4)
On the other hand, some scholars expressed approval of relaxing the boundaries and refusal of artificial boundaries and thus allowing for the most general definition. As mentioned earlier, terminology of humour contains a lot of competing words such as
"humor, laughter, the comic, the ludicrous, the funny, joke, wit" (Raskin, 1985, p.8).
Raskin suggests to use the term "humor in the least restricted sense, interchangeably with the word the funny" (Raskin, 1985, p.8) and thus partially avoids the issue of chaos in terminology, but as Attardo (1994) points out one essential question remains to be discussed and answered – which phenomena in the world are humorous and which are not. Attardo suggests that there is one particular criterion which makes it easier to differentiate between what can be counted as humorous and what does not fall into this category and that is laughter. There has been an extensive research on the connection
8 between these two phenomena and the notion whether laughter can be generally considered as an indicator of humour.
According to Brock (2008) "laughter was long seen as an immediate consequence of humor" (p. 544) and indeed it is true that research of humour and laughter was often considered to be practically the same thing. Both Attardo (1994) and
Brock (2008) propose an essay by Bergson to be an evidence for this statement. The title of his famous and influential book is "Laughter: Essay about the meaning of humor". Later researchers pointed out that Bergson and the others, who did not make any considerable distinction between humour and laughter, failed to see the difference between the two. Regardless of this criticism there is definitely a strong link between humour and laughter.
Not only Attardo, but also other recent researchers such as Ross (1998), Palmer
(1994) and others seem to consider this relation one of the major factors of indicating humorous situation. Considering laughter as natural reaction to humour is seen as one of the basis of defining humour. By the term natural reaction is not necessarily meant that the capability to laugh at humorous impulse is biologically determined, even though many scholars put forward the argument describing laughter "as the natural expression of pleasure" (as cited in Billing, 2005, p.176). According to Billing (2005) "laughter has to be learned and thought" (p. 177). Also Morreall (1983) in his discussion of the incongruity theory of humour in the book "Taking Laughter Seriously" argues:
Infants and the higher animals, which have much in common with human adults,
including a capacity of emotion, lack a capacity for humor, because they lack
our rationality. They can learn, they have expectations, and they can be
surprised. But because they don‟t have our conceptual system with its class
9
concepts, causal patterns, and so on, they don‟t appreciate incongruity; at most
they react to the violation of their expectation with puzzlement, frustration or
distress. (p. 99)
Ross (1998) discusses the definition of humour as "something that makes a person laugh or smile" (p.1), even though he admits that this definition possesses certain limitations and exceptions, which will be touched upon later in this chapter. He goes on explaining when laughter occurs and comes with an interesting finding that "people laugh in company" (p.1). It means that the same joke or humorous situation can be received differently depending on whether the situation is experienced alone or in the company of other people. What people can find amusing in one situation can become completely uninteresting under different circumstances. Thus finding something humorous is very relative. Jokes that are repeated several times and become well-known often lose their appeal. What was once humorous becomes boring and rather formulaic.
Laughter is, as some other aspects of language, a very powerful tool to show allegiance to a group, but it can also serve as a mechanism to distance oneself from the speaker.
When the clue is given that something funny is going to be said, people often smile or laugh even though they do not necessarily understand the joke. On the other hand, when laughter is expected from the listeners and does not come it distances the audience from the speaker (p. 1-2). Laughter can indicate whether humour was received by the listeners and as Attardo (1994) argues "humor is whatever a social group defines as such". This social context of humour is, however, more complex that it may seem to be.
What people find funny depends on various factors such as different cultural background, life experience or education. If a joke contains some kind of culture dependent information, people will not be able to understand the joke unless they are
10 aware of its context. As Nanda and Warms (2011) argue, knowing only grammatical aspects of language will not help much if "speech embeds critical cultural concepts and values", which implies that "an observer cannot possibly get the joke without understanding their culture" (p. 83).
But if all the criteria for understanding joke are fulfilled, laughter is as mentioned earlier natural and expected response to humour. Also Palmer (1994) agrees that humour elicits laughter and may indicate that something humorous has taken place.
He defines humour as "everything that is actually or potentially funny, and the process by which this funniness occurs" (p. 3). He poses four questions: when and why do we find something funny, what makes us find it funny and what prevents us from finding something funny. In his discussion of these problems laughter plays an important part.
Palmer, however, continues with his discussion of laughter and argues that not all instances of laughter inevitably indicate humorous situation: "laughter does not necessarily mark the place of a joke – it might mark embarrassment, for instance" (p.
15). And indeed, his claim can be supported by other scholars such as Attardo (1994),
Brock (2008) and Ross (1998). Attardo cites the study of Olbrechts-Tyteca (1974), where several points are suggested as criticism of the notion that laughter is criterion for humour. One of the most interesting claims that Olbrechts-Tyteca makes is that
"laughter largely exceeds humor" (as cited in Attardo, 1994, p. 11).
The same issue is addressed by Brock (2008) who deals with "non-humor- related functions of laughter in specific contexts, which makes them particularly useful in establishing laughter as a research object in its own right rather than a mere by- product of humor" (p. 545) He lists several instances of laughter that are independent of humour or that are only partly associated with it such as introduction of embarrassing
11 topic, reaction to impropriety, expression of surprise, an element of the turn taking system, establishing transfer from serious to non-serious mode etc. Admitting that laughter can serve other functions beside response to humour, Brock suggests perceiving the relationship between these two on a scale between two poles. He explains that "One of the poles represents laughter as a blind, involuntary symptom of humor, the other fully deliberate, symbolic laughter without mirth, which fulfils a number of interpersonal and social functions" (p. 545). Brock argues that "most laughter would be situated somewhere between the two poles of laughter as a symptom of amusement and purely social/strategic laughter" (p.545). Even Ross (1998) agrees that
"laughter is not a necessary or sufficient condition of humor", but he adds that "from commonsense point of view it is a useful starting point for a definition" (p. 2).
Although definitions and points of view on humour-laughter relationship may vary, the researchers usually agree on the fact that one function of humour is to cause amusement, which is also closely associated with the genre of situational comedy, which will be discussed in the next chapter.
3. Genre of Sitcom
Humour has always been an important part of human life and it is no wonder that popular media use humour as one of their most appealing attraction. Whether it is a radio station, a television channel or an internet website, they all like to create relaxed atmosphere with the help of humorous devices such as jokes, funny allusions or anecdotes. Television, especially, is filled with various different programmes that are partly or fully focused on amusement. The tradition of variety shows, stand-up comedians and comedy television series can be observed almost throughout the entire history of television broadcasting.
12
One of the most popular humorous genres in television is situational comedy, often shortened to sitcom. Its popularity can be documented by great numbers of viewers that watch sitcoms on regular basis. Ross (1998) states that the final episode of the sitcom "Only Fools and Horses", which ran several seasons on BBC, was watched by a record 24.5 million people. The popularity of sitcom does not only mirror the development in recent years. Television sitcoms have enjoyed great attention from its beginning; one such example could be the American sitcom "I Love Lucy" from the
1950s (Carini, 2003).
The genre of sitcom abounds in special characteristics that cannot be found together in other television comedy genres without difficulties. As a matter of fact, situational comedies often take place on very limited space. It is possible that the entire episode is set in one room, where the whole interaction and dialogues are produced.
More frequently, however, the setting usually changes a few times throughout the episode, even though some locations are more likely to be recurrent than the others. It is quite common that such location is home (as in "Friends" or "That '70s Show") or workplace (as in "The IT Crowd" and "Black Books").
Apart from setting, another characteristic of sitcom is the usage of humour. As obvious as this criterion might seem to be, there are some very interesting and unusual humorous phenomena in sitcoms that are not necessarily found in other genres of television entertainment. One such technique frequently employed in sitcoms is a device called running joke or running gag. According to Beaver (2007) running joke "has been long recognized as a standard ingredient of slapstick comedy, and may be either a repeated comic line of dialogue or a repeated comic action" (p. 2007) Special attention in this statement should be drawn to the word "repeated", which transforms an ordinary joke into running joke. Mark Guest (2007) in the essay "Paul Ricoeur and Watching
13
Endgame" gives an example of running joke: "In Waiting for Godot, the running gag periodically reiterates the point that there is no point: "We‟re waiting for Godot" – but
Godot never comes." (p. 82)
In situational comedies, this technique proved to be very fruitful in providing amusement. The repetitive nature of many sitcoms, in which the situation at the end of each episode return to its original state, invites the scriptwriters to work the running jokes into the script. In the sitcom "The IT Crowd", which will be discussed and analysed later, running gag is a very common phenomenon. The famous quote "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" is repeated many times throughout all seasons of the series. This quote is used almost every time the phone is answered and someone demands help with his or her computer. The first time this line is used the audience is amused, because they would not expect an expert on computers to ask them such question. Later in the series the line does not lose its funniness, because the audience expects that most people would in reality try to restart their PC, but it does not happen, thus the running joke is maintained throughout the series.
One specific characteristic that distinguishes situational comedy from some other type of television comedy genres is its narrative. This statement can be supported by Ermida (2008), who shares Palmer‟s point of view of narrative:
According to Palmer, the narrative is little more than a way to fit as many jokes
as possible into a temporally feasible sequence that entertains the masses. In
light of this, TV sitcoms are typical humorous narratives which feature a group
of characters showing crystallized forms of interaction and which represent a
series of similar situations that are to be repeated in each new episode. (p. 106)
14
The claim that narrative such as sitcom is "little more" than filling time with jokes and humorous instances is certainly worth discussing more closely. An interesting comparison of sitcom can be produced by consideration of stand-up comedy and level of its narration. Stand-up comedians usually produce a sequence of jokes, humorous anecdotes, one-liners and other humorous devices. This sequence is exactly what could be understood as fitting "as many jokes as possible into a temporally feasible sequence that entertains the masses". It is quite important to note that not all jokes are narrative. If one-liners are taken into consideration, they do not contain any level of narration that could be analyzed. However, both humorous anecdotes and jokes can be narrative.
Such jokes are even called "narrative jokes" (Ermida, 2008, p. 80). This means that, even though there are some jokes that are not narrative, some level of narration is still present. What makes stand-up comedy level of narrative different from sitcom is its discontinuity. While the narrative in stand-up comedy is restricted to jokes and anecdotes, the narrative in sitcoms stretches from the beginning of the story to the end.
Another specific feature of sitcom constitutes usage of a laugh track, which is also known as fake laughter or canned laughter (Ross, 1998). It is a term describing an audio recording of human laughter, which exists separately from the audiovisual material of sitcom, and is supposed to be incorporated into the sitcom during the process of editing. The reason for inserting these laugh tracks into sitcoms is understandable – as Ross (1998) explains "people laugh in company" (p.1). He argues that "If you watch your favourite comedy in the presence of people who remain straight-faced, it can stop you finding it so funny" (p.1). The notion that there is a strong social aspect to laughter is the reason, why soundtracks of laughter of other people were introduced into sitcoms.
Another view of canned laughter was proposed by Ermida, who supports her argument by citing a work "The Art of Laughter" (1981) by Schaeffer:
15
According to Schaeffer (1981: 17), “our laughter depends upon a ludicrous
context which cues us to the nature of the experience we are about to enjoy and
prepares us to receive it and react to it in a responsive manner.” The clues that
the comic context provides are indeed essential for an appropriate reaction to
supervene. A good example of these clues is the so-called „canned laughter‟ that
is used in TV sitcoms. (Ermida, 2008, p. 37)
These two perspectives on canned laughter do not necessarily oppose each other.
On the other hand, it is quite possible to perceive them as complementary to each other.
When the laugh track marks a certain humorous situation, the viewer, who watches the sitcom alone, can respond by appropriate reaction and enjoy the joke more intensely as if he was accompanied by other people laughing at the same joke.
However, the usage of laugh track has also other implications. It constantly reminds us that what is going on in the sitcom is not actually real. The dialogues, which are recited by the actors, were written by the scriptwriter beforehand and the actors only pretend to engage in natural conversation. It means that conversation in sitcoms (as well as in other television series) pretends to be part of real-life conversation and it provokes the question whether there is any difference between natural conversation and conversation enacted in sitcoms.
First, since the dialogues between characters were primarily written, it is important to mention that it is generally agreed that there are differences between oral and written language. More specifically, Ermida (2008) states that:
It is accepted that the typically incomplete and informal nature of spoken
language, marked by the predominance of active voice constructions and of 16
coordinative structures, distances itself from the careful and lexically rich nature
of written language, composed on an intricate subordinative basis of phrasal and
clausal complexity. (p. 134)
This argument is quite unproblematic until it is necessary to apply it on humorous script of sitcoms. Since sitcoms pretend to contain natural conversation and dialogues they should be in essence the same so that the audience could relate to this conversation as they would in real life. Nevertheless, it is far more complicated than this. The problem with such logic arises from the fact that the audience cannot interact with the characters. The reason behind this is that in everyday life people rarely feel the need to be absolutely specific, because in case of misunderstanding there is always the possibility of specification. As Quaglio (2009) argues vagueness is less desirable in sitcoms "as the audience (the interlocutors of the show) cannot interact with the characters" (p. 101). Thus even though sitcoms pretend to contain natural conversation, there is certain level of stylization, which enables the viewers to relate to the characters even more.
3.1 The IT Crowd
As mentioned earlier, the British series "The IT Crowd" created by Graham
Linehan is the situational comedy that will be analysed in this thesis. So far, 24 episodes split into 4 seasons have aired on Channel 4 since the year 2006. It is set in the workplace of the IT department in Raynholm Industries in London. Its main characters are Roy Trenneman, Maurice Moss (often simply called as "Moss"), who are IT experts, and Jen Barber, who works in this department even though she knows nothing about
17 computers. Their unique personalities often clash and help to bring about humorous situation and dialogues. For the purpose of this thesis the entire amount of 24 episodes will be taken into consideration in order to provide sufficient material for the analysis.
4. Pragmatics
Human interaction, especially conversation, has always been the focus of many researchers. Conversation as one of the means of human communication is not, however, perfect and scholars have set out on a complicated journey to find out how humans manage to communicate despite of all the difficulties that are associated with conversation. This issue became one of the main goals of pragmatics. According to
Levinson (1983) the definition of pragmatics that describes it as "the study of language"
(p. 5) is hardly sufficient to fully understand the scope of this linguistic discipline. He continues to discuss various possible definitions that would include all of the study questions of pragmatics. One possible definition of pragmatics is "Pragmatics is the study of deixis (at least in part), implicature, presupposition, speech acts, and aspects of discourse structure" (p. 27), even though this list-based definition has its drawback such as the fact that it does not provide any criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of other phenomena that might be possible to study by pragmatics.
As for the purpose of this thesis, this extensional definition seems to be sufficient to cover the focus of the following study that deals with Grice‟s Cooperative principle (shortened to CP) and Leech‟s Politeness principle (shortened to PP). Both these principles basically deal with guidelines that humans should use if they want to be engaged in successful conversation, even thought there are instances, in which people
18 do not follow these guidelines and still manage to get the intended meaning across
(Levinson, 1983, 103). This issue will be addressed in the following subchapter on
Cooperative Principle.
It is, of course, clear that not all instances of humour, which are found in sitcoms, can be explained by these two principles. Some humorous situation in sitcoms can be caused by extra-linguistic phenomena and pragmatic analysis is thus impossible.
Verbal conversation is one of the conditions for pragmatic analysis of humour. Second, even if there is an instance of humour in conversation, it is possible that it was caused by other linguistic features. Nevertheless, the CP and PP are very important part of humour studies and they allow the researchers to cover wide range of humorous instances, including those found in situational comedies.
Before it is possible to focus on the way, in which humour is created with regard to the Cooperative as well as Politeness principle, it is necessary to elaborate on these theories in order to fully understand, how these principles work in real life and how it is applicable on large amount of humorous situation in conversation.
4.1 Grice’s Cooperative Principle
The main points of the Cooperative principle were formulated by Grice in the lectures at Harvard in 1967 and published in his essay "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). Levinson (1983) summarizes the CP as the specifications of "what participants have to do in order to converse in a maximally efficient, rational, co-
19 operative way: they should speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information" (p.102)
In an attempt to describe how the CP works, Grice formulated guidelines for the efficient and effective use of language in conversation. These guidelines are known as the four maxims of conversation: the Maxim of Quality, the Maxim of Quantity, the
Maxim of Relation and the Maxim of Manner (Grice, 1975, p. 45). Some of these maxims include sub-maxims which will be discussed in the appropriate subchapters.
As Levinson (1983) points out, the objection that "the view may describe a philosopher‟s paradise, but no one actually speaks like that the whole time" (p. 102) is quite irrelevant. He explains that Grice was aware of the fact that people do not always follow these guidelines:
Rather, in most ordinary kinds of talk these principles are oriented to, such that
when talk does not proceed according to their specifications, hearers assume
that, contrary to appearances, the principles are nevertheless being adhered to at
some deeper level. (p. 102)
This statement basically addresses the main reason, why Grice developed the
Cooperative principle and that is implicature (Grice, 1975, p. 44). He states that if any maxim of the CP is flouted, the speaker may imply something different by his contribution than what was said. He divided this term into conventional and conversational implicature (p.50). Conventional implicature does not depend on the context in which the utterance is said. On the other hand, conversational implicature can acquire more than one meaning if used in different context.
20
The CP principle assumes that humans, who engage in conversation, are willing to deliver and interpret a message. Without the notion of implicature, many conversations could be perceived as unsuccessful, even though in reality the receivers were able to understand the meaning that was intended by the speakers.
Grice (1975) proposes that the maxims of the Cooperative principle can be broken in several ways. According to him, when the speaker breaks a maxim, the recipient tries to look for the possible implicature that could be encoded in the utterance.
If a participant fails to observe the maxims he may: violate the maxim, opt out from the operation of the maxim and the CP, be faced with clash of two maxims or flout the maxim. If the speaker violates a maxim, he intentionally tries to mislead the receiver
(p. 49). Attardo (1990) provides an example of violating the Maxim of Quantity:
(1) A: Excuse me, do you know what time it is?
B: Yes. (p. 355)
The speaker can, however, flout the maxim as well. It means he does not intend to mislead the receiver, but tries to convey different meaning and expects that the other person, who is involved in the conversation, will be able to recognize the implicature. In the following example (2), the response of B could initially seem irrelevant, but in fact he might be implying that the car belongs to Bill and he is probably at Sue‟s.
(2) A: Where is Bill?
21
B: There‟s a yellow VW outside Sue‟s house. (Levinson, 1983, p. 102)
Opting out from operation of maxims and the CP means the speaker is unwilling to provide certain information and abide by the maxims. This is a common situation in hospitals (3), when the nurse (B) is not allowed to provide people, who are not related to the patient, with health information.
(3) A: Could you, please, give me more information?
B: I am sorry, I can‟t tell you anything.
If the speaker is faced with clash of two maxims he is not able to fulfil one maxim without violating another. The following example proposed by Grice (1975) shows that B wants to be co-operative, but lacks information and chooses to give preference to the Maxim of Quality rather than mislead A. A plans a journey to France and wants to meet C, who lives there. It the same time, A does not want to prolong the journey too much.
(4) A: Where does C live?
B: Somewhere in the south of France. (p. 51)
4.1.1 Maxim of Quality
The first maxim formulated by Grice is the Maxim of Quality. This maxim describes what Levinson (1983) called to speak "sincerely" (p.102). In Grice‟s (1975) words: "try to make your contribution one that is true" (p. 46). This means that the
22 speaker should not say a) what he believes to be false and b) that for which he lacks adequate evidence. To put it in other words the maxim of quality requires the speaker to provide the right information. It requires that the information given is genuine and justified.
Grice notes that if Maxim of Quality is flouted it can bring about occurrence of phenomena such as irony, metaphor, meiosis and hyperbole. In the following example,
B deliberately flouts the maxim of Quality and says that he or she likes the haircut of A, even though he does not like it at all. He only does it in order to create irony, which would warn A that this haircut is out of fashion.
(5) A: Do you like my new haircut?
B: Yes. My mother used to wear her hair like this back in the 80s.
4.1.2 Maxim of Quantity
The second maxim, the Maxim of Quantity, is a matter of providing the receiver with the right amount of information. While Levinson (1983) in his summary of the maxims of the CP wrote "while providing sufficient information" (p.102), which could be understood as "providing enough information", Grice also mentions that it is not desired to "make your contribution more informative than is required" (p.45). Later, he acknowledges that this maxim could be disputable, because it does not necessarily lead to unsuccessful conversation (only overinformativeness). The exact formulation of the first sub-maxim is "make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)" (p. 45).
23
An example of non-observance of this principle could be the exchange (1). Even though a positive answer is given, the lack of information is evident and A cannot be satisfied with such answer.
Some researchers suggested combining the Maxim of Quality and Quantity in order to be accurate to the CP. Such maxim is called the Maxim of Quantity-Quality and Harnish (1976) argues that it requires to "make the strongest relevant claim justifiable by your evidence" (as cited in Leech, 1983, p. 85). The idea of this maxim is that one should not make his contribution less informative than he can if he is able to give evidence of his statement.
4.1.3 Maxim of Relation
The maxim of relation (a.k.a. the maxim of relevance) requires the speaker to make his contribution relevant (Grice, 1975, p. 46). If B just came back from holiday in
France and A asked him about it, the answer that Berlin, where B was on holiday 10 years ago, was picturesque would be irrelevant.
(6) A: How was your holiday?
B: Oh, Berlin was really picturesque.
As both Grice (1975, p.46) and Levinson (1983, p.107) argue, it can be sometimes quite challenging to evaluate the relevance of other person‟s contribution. At first, the answer of B in the next example could seem completely incomprehensible. On the other hand, if both A and B are aware that milkman always comes around 8 o‟clock, it could mean that the answer of B is actually quite helpful.
(7) A: Can you tell me the time?
24
B: Well, the milkman has come. (Levinson, 1983, p.107)
4.1.4 Maxim of Manner
The fourth maxim, the Maxim of Manner, includes four sub-maxims: avoid obscurity, avoid ambiguity, be brief and be orderly. This maxim is concerned with the way in which something is said. Levinson (1983) states this sentence (8) as the example of non-observance of the sub-maxim "be orderly". The oddity of this sentence is caused by the fact that the phrases "rode into the sunset" and "jumped on his horse" are combined into sentence in wrong order.
(8) The lone ranger rode into the sunset and jumped on his horse. (p. 108)
4.2 Leech’s Politeness Principle
Even though the Gricean Cooperative Principle proved to be effective in many instances of analysis of conversation, another concept that deals with efficiency of conversation was developed – the Politeness Principle (Leech, 1983). Politeness is quite difficult to define, because as Leech states it is a culturally-defined phenomenon. He even uses the term "relative politeness" (p.84) to deal with this issue and admits that it can be extremely challenging to measure and compare the levels of politeness. He states that he was several times seriously told that some cultures are more polite than the others. As a matter of fact, Japanese and Chinese cultures are presumably more polite than Poles or Russians. Leech questions these assumptions and rejects them as stereotypic comments, which often lack evidence. He observes that what people often consider polite or impolite depends on several norms such as illocution-type and a
25 particular group of people, which could be determined on the basis of sex, age-group, etc. This might imply that his Politeness Principle is likely to be applied on a specific group of people and there is no possible usage of his principle for more general purposes. However, Leech finds this assumption unfortunate and misleading, because he uses the term politeness in a different sense of the word. He chooses to call it
"absolute politeness", which deals with politeness as a set of scales, having negative and positive poles. According to him, "some illocutions (e.g. orders) are inherently impolite, and others (e.g. offers) are inherently polite" (p. 83).
He elaborates on this statement in consideration of negative and positive politeness referring to Searle‟s concept and division of illocutionary acts. Brown and
Levinson (1987) are concerned with negative and positive politeness in the book
"Politeness: Some Universals of Language Usage" in their discussion of public self- image. According to them, "positive politeness is oriented toward the positive face of H
(hearer), that he claims for himself" (p. 317), while "negative politeness, on the other hand, is oriented mainly toward partially satisfying (redressing) H‟s negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination" (p. 317). In connection to Leech‟s discussion of absolute politeness, Leech states that "negative politeness therefore consists in minimizing the impoliteness of impolite illocutions, and positive politeness consists in maximizing the politeness of polite illocutions" (p. 84-
85).
Leech also expresses the belief that politeness can be considered as a relationship between two participants, whom he calls "self" and "other" (p.131). He assigns "self" to the speaker, but considers "other" as more complicated term. Typically,
"other" will be associated with the hearer, but as Leech does not fail to observe, sometimes it may apply to people designated by third-person pronouns. Leech argues
26 that the importance to be polite to the third party does not only depend on the relation between the third party and the hearer, but also the third party and the speaker, which might depend on cross-cultural variations.
As the Cooperative Principle is defined by set of maxims, Leech (1983) also proposed a set of maxims that would be appropriate to deal with the issue of politeness in conversation. These maxims serve as guidelines for successful conversation and help humans "to maintain the social equilibrium and the friendly relations, which enable us to assume that our interlocutors are being cooperative in the first place" (p. 82). There are altogether six maxims of the PP: the Tact Maxim, Generosity Maxim, Approbation
Maxim, Modesty Maxim, Agreement Maxima and Sympathy Maxim. Leech states that the Cooperative Principle alone is not sufficient as guidelines for successful conversation and he even argues that the Politeness Principle cannot be seen "as another principle added to the CP, but as a necessary complement, which rescues the CP from serious trouble." (p. 80)
The relation between the CP and the PP is indeed a close one. While Gricean principle is mainly concerned with "the logician‟s traditional concern with truth",
Leech‟s approach is "more interested in a broader, socially and psychologically oriented application of pragmatic purposes" (p. 80). Leech claims that it is necessary to combine these two principles in order to explain some conversational phenomena such as directness and indirectness of speech acts. This issue is also addressed by Levinson
(1983), who proposes the following examples (9, 10). According to Leech, the CP does not provide any reason, why (9) should be more acceptable that (10) and vice versa. The explanation is that in conversation, politeness should be certainly considered an important factor that influences the way people speak.
27
(9) Please lend me some cash.
(10) I don‟t suppose that you would by any chance be able to lend me some cash, would you? (p. 247)
Leech (1983) also gives examples of several instances, where the PP rescues the
CP. He explains that in (11), B clearly flouts the Maxim of Quantity. The implicature of this omission is that B will not miss Agatha. This implicature is arrived at by the assumption that B did not want to be more impolite than necessary. B could also add that he or she will miss Bill, but not Agatha, without failing to observe the CP.
(11) A: We‟ll all miss Bill and Agatha, won‟t we?
B: Well, we‟ll all miss BILL. (p. 80)
Leech also discusses the relation between the CP and PP from the point of view of superiority. Even though he admits that the CP can overrule the PP, he promptly proves that there are instances in which the PP can overrule the Maxim of Quality, which is often considered the most important one. Grice (1975) says:
Indeed, it might be felt that the importance of at least the first maxim of Quality
is such that it should not be included in a scheme of a kind I am constructing;
other maxims come into operation only on the assumption that this maxim of
Quality is satisfied. (p. 46)
28
On this assumption, which says that even the non-observance of the Maxim of
Quality can be redeemed the PP, Leech (1983) states that at least in some cases the PP has preference. He documents his statement by explanatory example: "unless you are polite to your neighbour, the channel of communication between you will break down and you will no longer be able to borrow his mower" (p. 82)
Of course, not all of the maxims of the PP share the same level of importance.
Leech claims that the Tact Maxim appears to be more powerful that the Generosity
Maxim, likewise the Approbation Maxim seems to be stronger than the Modesty
Maxim. According to Leech, this would imply that politeness in conversation is more strongly focused on "other" than on "self" (p. 133).
Once more it should be noted that equally as the maxims of the CP are not rules set in stone, neither the maxims of the PP are strictly observed in natural conversation.
It would be certainly seen as insincere behaviour if one continually tried to dispraise himself or herself. Leech argues that this is the case, in which the Maxim of Quality prevents people from being too modest and too tactful (p.133).
4.2.1 Tact Maxim
The first maxim by Leech, the Tact Maxim, requires the speaker to a) minimize cost to "other" and b) maximize benefit to "other". The second sub-maxim is less important than the first one, even though it could be said that they are complementary.
The Tact Maxim is based on "Searle‟s directive and commissive categories of illocutions, which refer, in their propositional context X, to some action to be performed, respectively, by the hearer or the speaker" (p. 107).
29
The Tact Maxim does not, however, suggest that it is always necessary to use hedges to abide by these guidelines. On the other hand, the following two examples (12,
13) suggest that sometimes the very opposite is true. In (12), the speaker tries to maximize the benefit of the hearer by restricting the opportunity of the hearer to reject.
In (13), usage of the phrase "would you mind" might suggest that the speaker wants to get rid of the sandwiches (they might be nearly spoiled).
(12) A: Have another sandwich.
(13) B: Would you mind having another sandwich? (p. 109)
4.2.2 Generosity Maxim
If the speaker wishes to observe the Generosity Maxim he has to a) minimize benefit to "self" and b) maximize cost to "self". Leech mentions that in most cases this maxim complies with the Tact Maxim and there is little need to distinguish between them. Nevertheless, there are cases in which the Generosity Maxim does not directly apply to the Tact Maxim. In this example, the first statement (13) would be generally considered more polite than (14), because of the omission of the cost to the hearer.
(13) A: I would not mind a cup of coffee.
(14) B: Would you spare me a cup of coffee? (p. 134)
4.2.3 Approbation Maxim
The Approbation Maxim is defined as a tendency to a) minimize dispraise of
"other" and b) maximize praise of "other". This maxim means that the speaker should
30 say nice things about "other" and more importantly avoid saying unpleasant things about "other". The following example is almost self-explanatory. While in (15) the speaker maximizes praise of the hearer and abides by the Approbation Maxim, in the second example (16), the speaker breaches the maxim by dispraising the hearer. Leech also argues that dispraising of the "other" is more impolite in case it is directed towards the hearer (16) than the third party (17).
(15) What a marvellous meal you cooked!
(16) What an awful meal you cooked! (p. 135)
(17) What an awful meal she cooked!
4.2.4 Modesty Maxim
As the name suggests, this maxim is concerned with modesty, more precisely modesty of the speaker. It requires that the speaker a) minimizes praise of "self" and b) maximizes dispraise of "self". It seems that it is in accordance with the Modesty Maxim to agree with commendation in all cases, except when the commendation is focused on oneself. Thus considering the following examples, (18) is completely polite and acceptable, whereas (19) violates the Modesty Maxim, because the speaker B fails to minimize praise of "self" and maximize dispraise of "self" (by saying e.g. "Oh, no. You are too kind.").
(18) A: They were so kind to us.
B: Yes. They were, weren‟t they?
(19) A: You were so kind to us.
31
B: Yes. I was, wasn‟t I? (p. 136)
4.2.5 Agreement Maxim
The Agreement Maxim means to a) minimize disagreement between "self" and
"other" and b) maximize agreement between "self" and "other". Leech argues that even though there is less evidence for the remaining two maxims to constitute unquestionable part of the Politeness Principle, there can be certainly recognized strong tendency towards reaching agreement (at least partially) with the hearer. In (20), the answer of the speaker B can be considered extremely impolite, while in (21) the speaker B tries to abide by the Agreement Maxim, even though he does not want to entirely violate the
Maxim of Quality.
(20) A: This restaurant is very good, isn‟t it?
B: No, the dessert was absolutely disgusting.
(21) A: This restaurant is very good, isn‟t it?
B: Yes, I loved the main course, but the dessert was a little bit too sweet.
4.2.6 Sympathy Maxim
The last maxim, the Sympathy Maxim, tends to a) minimize antipathy between
"self" and "other" and b) maximize sympathy between "self" and "other". Leech argues that "congratulations and condolences are courteous speech acts, even though condolences express beliefs which are negative with the speaker" (p. 138). The following example is used by Leech to prove that it is more polite not to mention the
32 propositional context X if the speaker wishes to express condolences. In (23), the propositional context that the cat "died" is mentioned and it seems less polite than the sentence (24), in which the speaker decided to omit it.
(23) I am terribly sorry to hear that your cat died.
(24) I am terribly sorry to hear about your cat. (p. 138-139)
4.3 Humorous potential of non-observance of the CP and PP
Some of the examples above proved to breach the Cooperative Principle and the
Politeness Principle, but none of them appeared to be humorous. However, as Attardo
(1990) argues, the violation of the CP can give rise to humorous instances. In his study of jokes, he states the assumption that "large number of jokes involves violations of one or more Grice‟s maxims" (p. 355).
Attardo (1994) mentions the study of Van Reamdonck (1986, 1991), who analysed a corpus of 6500 jokes, from which 243 violated the Maxim of Relevance and some of them even violated more maxims of the CP. Even though Attardo admits that the figures are not statistically reliable, they still retain interest as a well-grounded example. Attardo (1990) states several jokes as examples to give evidence that violation of the CP can cause humour.
(25) A: Do you believe in clubs for young men?
B: Only when kindness fails. (p. 355)
33
Even though Attardo‟s essay was only concerned with violation of the CP, since the maxims of the PP were suggested as necessary component of the CP it is possible to extend this theory on the PP as well. In the following section, the violation of the CP and the PP in the sitcom "The IT Crowd" will be analysed in order to support the assumption that the violation of these principles has humorous potential.
5. Non-observance of the CP and PP in "The IT Crowd"
The aim of this part of the study is to analyse how non-observance of the CP and
PP works in the sitcom "The IT Crowd" in relation to humour. As mentioned in the previous section, non-observance of these principles of communication can bring about humorous situations and sitcoms generally represent great material for humour analysis, because one of the main goals of this genre is to cause amusement and elicit laughter.
In the analysis of humorous situations, "canned laughter" served as the major guideline for discovering what the audience should find funny and how it relates to the
CP and PP. Even though laugh tracks are used to produce more mirth in the audience, the funniness of the humorous situation is intact. According to the study by Chapman
(1973), in which he analyses response of the audience to jokes with or without laugh track, "it was found that while canned laughter generated more mirth, it did not significantly affect humor-ratings or intellectual appreciation ratings" (p. 569). This implies that even though laugh track can provide the audience with notification of humorous situations, the viewer‟s rating of its funniness remain uninfluenced.
As mentioned earlier, the entire amount of 24 episodes of "The IT Crowd" was considered in this study in order to give evidence that non-observance of both discussed communicative principles can produce humour. In the following sections of this thesis,
34 short excerpts, which contain instances of non-observance of one or more maxims of the CP and PP, will be presented in order to analyse how non-observance of these principles participates on production of humour.
5.1 Non-observance of the CP
In the analysis of the examples, which were in disagreement with the CP, some maxims and sub-maxims were violated or flouted more frequently than the others. For instance, the first sub-maxim of Quality, "try to make your contribution one that is true", was not observed much more frequently than the sub-maxim of Quantity, which discourages the speaker from giving too much information.
In the following subchapters, different strategies of eliciting laughter in the sitcom "The IT Crowd" are discussed in an attempt to document how non-observance of the Cooperative Principle enables the audience to laugh about these instances. All maxims of the CP will be successively taken into consideration and they will be accompanied by one example from the series.
5.1.1 Maxim of Quality
Both sub-maxims of the Maxim of Quality proved to be broken quite frequently and regularly throughout the series. Almost each episode contained one or several instances of non-observance of this maxim. The individual sub-maxims will be dealt with separately in order to prove that both violations carry humorous potential.
5.1.1.1 "Do not say what you believe to be false"
In "The IT Crowd", characters often break this sub-maxim and say something that is apparently false. Often, this non-observance is strict violation of the CP rather
35 than flouting. According to Grice (1975), flouting this maxim can bring about rhetorical devices such as irony, metaphor, meiosis and hyperbole, which are not necessarily humorous, but they can certainly become hilarious in the right context. There is also potential funniness in deliberate lying, which is outright violation of this maxim.
In the following example (26), Jen is preparing to give a speech in front of all the shareholders and important people in Raynholm Industries. Roy and Moss try to find a way, in which they could make fun of her before the entire management of the company. They come up with an idea that they will lend her a black box and claim that it is the internet, which she could use during her speech to impress her superiors.
(26) (Jen looks at a small black box, which has a small red LED light on the top.
Moss stands next to her.)
Jen: What is it?
Moss: This, Jen, is the Internet.
Jen: What?
Moss: That's right.
Jen: This is the Internet? [Moss nods.] The whole Internet?
Moss: Yep. I asked for a loan of it, so that you could use it in your speech.
Jen: It's so small!
Moss: That's one of the surprising things about it.
Jen: Hang on; it doesn't have any wires or anything...
Moss: [rolling his eyes] It's wireless! (Linehan, 2010, S03E04)
36
In this example, Moss is deliberately lying to Jen by claiming that the black box is the internet, even though he knows that it is not true. In this case, he violates the first sub-maxim of Quality by stating the opposite of what he believes to be true. The audience is amused, because Jen, who knows nothing about technology, seems to believe that the internet can be nothing more than a little black box with a red LED light on the top.
5.1.1.2 "Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence"
The second sub-maxim of Quality requires the speaker to say only that information, which he can support by evidence. If he does not abide by this sub-maxim, there is a possibility that the hearer could be misled by the speaker‟s contribution.
Similarly to the previous example, in (27), Moss and Roy try to make fun of Jen by telling her that it is possible to destroy the internet if she writes the word "google" into the search bar of Google. This would be another example of breaking the first sub- maxim of Quality. Jen mentions this during the heads-of-department meeting and everyone laughs at her.
(27) (Jen gives a speech on the heads-of-department meeting and mentions the lie,
which Moss and Roy told her.)
John: I don‟t think that‟s true.
Jen: With all the respect, John, I am the head of IT and I have it on good
authority...If you type google into Google, you can break the internet! So
please... [dramatic pause]...no one try it, even for a joke. (Linehan, 2010,
S02E04)
37
In this example, Jen unintentionally breaks the Maxim of Quality, because she delivers a contribution for which she lacks adequate evidence. Even though she believes it to be true, the second sub-maxim is violated by insufficient evidence, because Jen clearly did not try it herself; otherwise she would know that Moss and Roy tried to trick her. It is interesting to note that in this case, amusement is elicited in both the audience and other characters in the series.
5.1.2 Maxim of Quantity
Even though the Maxim of Quantity was not broken as often as the Maxim of
Quality, several examples, which prove that non-observance of this maxim can lead to humour, can be found in the series.
5.1.2.1 "Make your contribution as informative as required"
This sub-maxim, which requires the speaker to provide the hearer with enough information, seems to be violated or flouted more often than the second sub-maxim of
Quantity. The characters tend to flout this maxim when they do not want to reveal certain information, try to use it as an escape from uncomfortable situation or genuinely do not know the answer. In (28), Roy tries to help Judy to solve her technical problem.
(28) Roy: (on the phone) Hello Judy. What can I do for you?
Judy: Computer's broken.
Roy: Is it a PC or a Mac?
Judy: Yes! (Linehan, 2010, S01E05)
38
When Roy asks Judy whether her computer is a PC or a Mac, he expects the answer to specify, which of the two possibilities is correct. Judy, however, violates the
Maxim of Quantity by not providing enough information and her answer is non- cooperative. The audience finds it funny, because Roy is evidently annoyed by this unproductive conversation.
5.1.2.2 "Do not make your contribution more informative than is required"
Even though lack of information is a possible humour-causing factor, giving too much information can elicit laughter as well. When a speaker floods the hearer with too much information, the conversation seems to collapse almost every time. In the following example (29), Jen enthusiastically tells Moss about her news. Since she is so excited, she speaks very quickly and floods Moss with information, in which he is not interested.
(29) Jen: Guess who I'm about to meet now? Helen Bewley. Oh, come on. She took
that football team to court for institutional sexism. Won massive damages and
now she's head CEO of BHDR Industries.
Moss: Sorry, I kind of switched off after the word, football. (Linehan, 2010,
S02E04)
Even though Jen considers her news very interesting and entertaining, she does not realize that Moss, who is certainly not the most social character in the series, would find her monologue unnecessarily prolonged. The viewers find the answer of Moss amusing, because they can relate to his situation that someone provides too much information on an uninteresting subject.
39
5.1.3 Maxim of Relation
As discussed earlier, the Maxim of Relation includes only one sub-maxim – "be relevant". In "The IT Crowd", this rule is not observed very frequently. Similarly to the
Maxim of Quantity, characters seem to break this maxim when they find themselves in difficult situations. Sometimes, rather than breaking the Maxim of Quantity by not providing enough information, they choose to break the maxim of relation in an attempt to save face. In the example (30), Jen decides to search for new employment and she is invited to a job interview.
(30) Interviewer: What does IT stand for?
Jen: What does it stand for? What doesn't it stand for?
Interviewer: Yes, yes, but what does it stand for?
Jen: It stands for, it stands for commitment. It stands for audacity. It stands for
courage in the face of.
Interviewer: Yes, yes I can see what you're getting at, but the specific letters IT,
what do they stand for?
Jen: What do you think they stand for?
Interviewer: No, no, perhaps I'm not making myself clear. I'm not looking for an
interpretation; I really don't know what the letters actually stand for. So, let's
start with the I. What does the I stand for?
Jen: I...need to wee wee. (Linehan, 2010, S03E03)
In this example, Jen realizes that she is not able to answer correctly the question of the interview and she tries to find her way out by avoiding answering the question directly. Her answers do not only lack required information, but they are completely
40 irrelevant as well, because the interview wants to hear clear answer to her question. Not only is her behaviour non-cooperative, but by breaking the Maxim of Relation several times in a row, humorous situation is created and the viewers laugh at Jen‟s evasive replies.
5.1.4 Maxim of Manner
In "The IT Crowd", the last maxim of the CP, the Maxim of Relation, which consists of four sub-maxims, was also broken in order to construct humorous situations.
It is necessary to add that some of the sub-maxims were violated or flouted more frequently than others. Humorous instances were most often created by non-observance of the sub-maxim "avoid ambiguity".
5.1.4.1 "Avoid obscurity"
The sub-maxim "avoid obscurity" encourages the speaker to talk clearly so that the hearer could easily understand the message. In "The IT Crowd", however, this maxim was not always observed. The following excerpt (31) is an example of violation of this convention in natural conversation. Moss is talking to his psychologist, who tells him that he is completely healthy and there is no need for further appointments. Moss, on the other hand, wants to continue with these sessions and makes up reasons, why they are necessary.
(31) Moss: I've been having dark thoughts.
Dr. Mendell: Dark thoughts?
Moss: Yes, thoughts about dark things.
Dr. Mendell: What sort of dark things?
Moss: Things that are dark.
41
Dr. Mendell: Like what?
Moss: Darkness. Night. Things of the night. Dracula. (Linehan, 2012, S01E06)
In (31), the Maxim of Quality is broken, because it is clear from the context of the situation that Moss is lying to Dr. Mendell in order to prolong their appointments.
The violation of this maxim results in violation of the sub-maxim "avoid obscurity" as well, because Moss is not able to quickly come up with satisfying evidence for his statement that other meetings are necessary and his rambling answers manages to create humorous situation.
5.1.4.2 "Avoid ambiguity"
As mentioned before, this sub-maxim was sacrificed for the sake of humour quite often. In (32), Jen tries to explain to Moss and Roy that she is a little bit grumpy during her period. She uses the term "Aunt Irma" to deliver the message.
(32) Jen: I've got Aunt Irma visiting.
Moss: Oh, do you not like Aunt Irma? I've got an aunt like that. [Roy and Moss
look confused]
Jen: It's my term for my time of the month.
Roy: Oh.
Moss: What time of the month? The weekend? (Linehan, 2010, S01E06)
At first, Jen decided to flout the Maxim of Quantity by not providing enough information, because she did not want to talk Moss and Roy openly about her private
42 matters. While Roy managed to decode Jen‟s message after she decided to specify her explanation, Moss did not get the meaning of her words. In this case, the sub-maxim
"avoid ambiguity" was flouted, because Jen tried to indirectly deliver different message.
The audience finds it funny, because Moss seems to overlook the implicature.
5.1.4.3 "Be brief"
Non-observance of the sub-maxim "be brief" can bring about humorous instances as well. When this sub-maxim was violated in the sitcom, the other characters seemed to lose interest in what was being talked about. In (33), long answer of
Richmond to Jen‟s question is a demonstrative example.
(33) Richmond: (walking out of his cupboard) Oh, hello, where are you lot off to?
Moss: (pointing) Oh, look, Richmond's still alive!
Roy: We're going to the theatre. Hey, do ya wanna come? (Jen slaps him)
Richmond: Oh, no. No thank you. And you shouldn't go either.
Jen: Why not?
Richmond: An ill wind is blowing. Last night I was stirred from my slumber by
a crow calling three times. (impersonates a crow) Caw, caw... Well you know
what a crow sounds like. Passing to my window, I trod on a piece of Lego; oh it
went right in my heel. Turning on my television set I noticed the reception
wasn't great, not terrible, just not great. Hear me well; no good can come of your
trip to the theatre tonight. No good at all! And if you ask me (turns round to see
everyone has left) That's just bloody rude! (Linehan, 2010, S02E01)
When Jen asked Richmond to provide a reason for his previous statement, she expected to hear a simple answer such as that the theatre was closed. Richmond‟s long
43 answer, which did not contain any useful information, was not expected and resulted in unsuccessful conversation, because Richmond was being uncooperative. The viewers laugh at Richmond, because the others have already left and he kept talking as if they were still present.
5.1.4.4 "Be orderly"
The last sub-maxim of the Maxim of Manner, "be orderly", should be also included in the possible humour-causing devices. In "The IT Crowd", characters often start to talk and they lose track of their chain of thoughts. In the next example (33), everyone thinks that Jen is dead and Mr. Denholm, the owner of Raynholm Industries, delivers a speech in her honour.
(34) Mr. Denholm: God I miss Jen, she reminded me of me at her age. I mean, when I
was her age she reminded me of her age. (pauses) She reminded me of my age at
her age. (pauses) When I was her age she was reminded of me. (Linehan, 2010,
S01E01)
When Mr. Denholm tries to make his point, he clearly loses his chain of thoughts and his speech becomes obscure and unorderly. His first sentence was paradoxically the most comprehensible. However, he was not satisfied with the formulation and tried to reformulate it. The following sentences became more and more confusing and unorderly and the audience finds his nonsensical formulations humorous.
44
5.2 Non-observance of the PP
As Leech (1938) argues, neither the Cooperative Principle nor the Politeness
Principle is strictly observed in natural conversation. In "The IT Crowd", non- observance of the PP was fairly frequent as well. Characters in the sitcoms often violated this principle intentionally, but in some cases the violation was not intended as in the example (41), which will be discussed in more detail later. The following subchapters will explain how the violation of the PP can cause humour, similarly to the violation of the CP.
It is, however, necessary to note that not all instances in which the PP is breached are always humorous. Sometimes they can be simply offensive without any humorous potential. Interestingly, some instances, in which exaggerated politeness can be considered inappropriate, are very amusing. In "The IT Crowd", the character of
Moss is often the author of such situation.
(35) (There is a fire in the office and Moss decides to send an e-mail to Emergency
Services, because he cannot remember the telephone number)
Moss: "Subject: Fire. Dear Sir stroke Madam: I'm writing to inform you of a fire
which has broken out at the premises of..." no, that's too formal.
(Moss deletes what he typed)
Moss: "Dear Sir stroke Madam: Fire. Exclamation mark. Fire. Exclamation
mark. Help me. Exclamation mark. 123 Clarandon Road. Looking forward to
hearing from you. All the best, Maurice Moss." (Linehan, 2010, S01E02)
This example documents how strict observance of the PP can bring about humour. The expressions such as "Dear Sir, Madam" or "looking forward to hearing
45 from you" seem to be extremely inappropriate in case of an emergency. The audience laughs not only at the fact that Moss uses e-mail to notify the Emergency Services about the fire, but also at the paradoxical usage of formal language in such situation.
5.2.1 Tact Maxim
The first maxim of the PP, which was violated very frequently in the series, was the Tact Maxim. As mentioned in the theoretical discussion of this maxim, the speaker is supposed to minimize cost to "other" and maximize benefit to "other". These guidelines were not always observed by the characters and great amount of humorous situations was created by the violation of this maxim. The example (36) describes a situation, where Jen wonders whether a colleague of her, Philip, asked her out on a date or friendly night out. Roy and Moss speculate that Philip might be homosexual.
(36) Jen: It's a date, I'm sure it is. Why else would he ask me out?
Moss: Well, don't take this the wrong way, but could he have thought you were a
man? (Linehan, 2010, S02E01)
In (36), Jen‟s question is rhetorical. She does not expect her colleagues to actually answer it, especially not in the way Moss did. Even though Moss used the hedge "don‟t take this the wrong way", he still violated the Tact Maxim by suggesting that Jen looks like a man. Hedges like this or "no offence" were often used in the sitcom to draw attention to deliberate violations of Tact Maxim, which created a lot of funny moments in the series.
46
5.2.2 Generosity Maxim
The Generosity Maxim proved to be broken in "The IT Crowd" quite often, especially when the characters broke the sub-maxim of minimizing benefit to "self".
There are many instances in the sitcom, which portray certain character as selfish.
However, examples, in which characters break the sub-maxim of maximizing cost to
"self", can be found as well. In the excerpt (37), Jen‟s colleague, Richmond, tries to tell her the story of his career. At first, he speaks about times, when he was very successful, but then he mentions that all has changed.
(37) Jen: So what happened?
Richmond: It's quite a long story, actually.
Jen: Really? Don't worry about it then. (Linehan, 2010, S01E04)
Jen intentionally violated the Generosity Maxim by minimizing cost to "self".
Notwithstanding the fact that she was not very interested in his story, according to this maxim, she should have listened to it anyway. Instead, she decided to violate the maxim so that she did not have to live through his story. Again, she used the hedge "don‟t worry", which would normally mean that one tries to minimize cost to "other", to imply that it is her who is not interested in it.
5.2.3 Approbation Maxim
The rule of the Approbation Maxim states that the speaker should not say unpleasant things about others. Nevertheless, this is not always the case of conversation in "The IT Crowd". Sometimes this maxim was broken intentionally by the characters to ridicule somebody and other times the violation appeared to be accidental. In (38), Jen is having a dinner party and she presents her new boyfriend Peter File. When Roy asks
47 for his e-mail, he says his full name out loud. Moss mishears him, thinking that the word "paedophile" was mentioned.
(38) Richmond: Who's a paedophile?
Jen: No one...
Moss: [nods] Right... It just sounds like paedophile.
Jen: No, no it doesn't.
Moss: It does a bit. Peter File.
Roy: Peter File... yeah, it does.
Richmond: Peter File...[All the guests start saying "Peter File" repeatedly].
(Linehan, 2010, S02E04)
In this example, several characters violated the Approbation Maxim at the same time. Richmond, Moss and Roy all agreed that the name of Jen‟s new boyfriend, who is present at the party, sound like "paedophile". According to the Approbation Maxim, they should not have mentioned this phonetic similarity and, what is more, they should not have argued about it at all, because it just attracted attention of other guests and made Peter even more miserable. The viewers are amused not only, because of the phonetic pun, but also because the guests violated the Approbation maxim by keeping talking about it.
5.2.4 Modesty Maxim
This maxim seemed to be very character dependent in the sitcom. While some characters seemed to follow the maxim, others violated the notion of minimizing the
48 praise of "self" quite regularly. One of such characters proved to be the owner of
Reynholm Industries, Mr. Denholm. His self-confidence and arrogance appears to be the reason of many humorous situations.
(39) Mr. Denholm: When I started Reynholm Industries, I had just two things in my
possession: a dream and 6 million pounds. Today, I have a business empire the
like of which, the world has never seen the like of which. I hope it doesn't sound
arrogant, when I say that I am the greatest man in the world! (Linehan, 2010,
S02E02)
In the excerpt (39), Mr. Denholm apparently breaches the PP by violating the
Modesty Principle. Not only does he not maximize the dispraise of "self", but he does not even try to minimize the praise of "self". In fact, he maximizes it by claiming that he is the greatest man in the world. This statement amuses the audience, because Mr.
Denholm introduced it with the phrase "I hope it doesn‟t sound arrogant", even though it is most certainly a case of violation of the Modesty Principle.
5.2.5 Agreement Maxim
Even though Leech (1983) states that there is less evidence for this maxim to be an essential part of the PP (p. 138), in "The IT Crowd", the tendency to violate this maxim can be certainly noticed and it often leads to inefficient conversation and more importantly to humorous instances. In the sitcom, the incapability to abide by the
Agreement Maxim often results in hilarious situations.
(40) Roy: Is this another one of your inventions?
Moss: Maybe.
49
Roy: What was the last one, oh yeah, a ladder to help moths escape from the
bath. How is that useful?
Moss: How's that not useful?
Roy: Moths don't get stuck in the bath.
Moss: Yes. They. Do!
Roy: Even if that were true. It's just not in their nature to learn how to use a
ladder. They have wings! (Linehan, 2010, S02E05)
In (40), both Roy and Moss failed to observe the Agreement Maxim and instead of trying to settle their dispute, they go on and forth with their argument. The humorous potential of violation of this maxim is intensified by the subject of the argument.
5.2.6 Sympathy Maxim
The last maxim of the PP, the Sympathy Maxim, was also violated in this sitcom. Even though sitcoms often react and make fun of current issues, more permanent themes such as glory, happiness and death are addressed as well. And it is the theme of death, which was often the pretext for violation of the Sympathy Maxim.
In (41), Jen, Roy and Moss go to funeral of Mr. Denholm, who committed suicide, because he was afraid of police, who found out about financial irregularities in his company.
(41) Jen: There's Denholm's wife....
Moss: I never know what to say to people at funerals.
Roy: Me too. I'm terrible.
Jen: Just say you're sorry and move on. (To Denholm's wife) He'll be in our
prayers.
50
Roy: (to Denholm's wife) I'm sorry for your loss. Move on. (Linehan, 2010,
S02E02)
In this example (41) Roy unintentionally violates the Sympathy Maxim, because he thought that Jen advised him to say "sorry" and "move on", instead of simply offering his condolences by saying "sorry" and moving on so that others could speak to the widow. By saying both expressions, Roy violates the Sympathy Maxim, because it is not appropriate to suggest at funerals that the deceased person should be forgotten so soon. The audience laughs at Roy‟s lack of social skills, which was the reason for the violation of this maxim.
5.3 Discussion
As depicted in the previous sub-chapters, both the Cooperative Principle and the
Politeness Principle can play an important role in creating humour. Non-observance of these two principles in the sitcom "The IT Crowd" often leads to humorous instances, which make the audience laugh. It is interesting to note that violation or flouting of any maxims or sub-maxims of the principles in sitcom can potentially bring about funny situations. The Politeness Principle proves to be a necessary complement of the CP in the analysis of humour in sitcom, because it manages to explain more humorous instances than the Cooperative Principle alone.
It is also beneficial to mention that some of these situations may contain not only one, but two or more violations of the CP and PP. Considering the example (41), one may notice that violation of the Sympathy Maxim was caused by preceding violation of the Maxim of Manner, specifically of the sub-maxim "avoid ambiguity". If Jen had not included the ambiguous phrase "move on" in her advice, no humorous situation would
51 have happened. Vice versa, if Roy had not repeated Jen‟s words literally, there would be no amusing situation for the audience to laugh at.
Similarly in the example (33), the sub-maxim "be brief" was violated and it resulted in the violation of the Generosity Maxim. Roy, Moss and Jen failed to abide by the rule "maximize cost to self" by not waiting for Richmond‟s monologue to be over and leaving. If the Maxim of Manner had not been violated, the subsequent breach of the PP would not have taken place.
As mentioned in the theoretical section of the Politeness Principle, Leech (1983) considered his principle to be "a necessary complement" (p.80) of the CP. This discussion indeed shows that in some cases the CP and PP are interdependent. It proves that these principles are complementary and they allow for more precise analysis of verbal humour in sitcom.
6. Conclusion
In this thesis, discussion and analysis of verbal humour in the sitcom "The IT
Crowd" was presented from the perspective of the Gricean principle of communication, the Cooperative Principle, and the Politeness Principle proposed by Geoffrey Leech.
Short excerpts from the sitcom were given as examples to prove that non-observance of these principles for efficient communication can be the cause of humour.
The chapters two to four offered the theoretical framework, which was necessary for the study of verbal humour in sitcom. In chapter two, the definition of humour was discussed to mark the boundaries of this term, which was later discussed throughout the whole study. The definition of humour by Raskin, which uses the term humour in the least restricted sense, was adopted for the purpose of this study. In connection with this
52 definition, the relation of humour and laughter was discussed. Laughter proved to be an independent subject of research, which was, however, usable as evidence of funniness as well.
Next chapter discussed the genre of sitcom and presented the object of this study
"The IT Crowd". Sitcom was described as popular comic television genre, which combines several specific features that distinguish this genre from other comic television programmes. These features include its setting, specific humorous devices, narrative and usage of laugh track, which allows the viewer to laugh at company and gives him the clues about humorous situations.
The last theoretical chapter focused on discussion of two pragmatic principles of communication: the Cooperative Principle by Grice and the Politeness Principle by
Leech. All maxims and sub-maxims of these principles were addressed so that they could be later examined in relation to humour in "The IT Crowd". It was proposed that the Politeness Principle should be considered a necessary complement of the
Cooperative Principle in order to explain more accurately the rules for successful communication. Then, humorous potential of non-observance of the principles was discussed.
The last part of the thesis applied the Cooperative and Politeness principles on the examples from the sitcom "The IT Crowd" to prove that violation and flouting of these principles can result in humorous instances. It was shown that violation of all maxims and sub-maxims of the principles elicit laughter caused by humour. Last, but not least, some examples were discussed to support the notion that interdependence between violations these principles can occur in order to produce humour. The analysis of the examples proved that significant amount of humorous instances in the sitcom
53
"The IT Crowd" can be explained by non-observance of one or more maxims of the
Cooperative and Politeness principles and that these principles are complementary to each other in the analysis of humour.
54
Works Cited
Attardo, S. (1990). The violation of grice‟s maxims in jokes. In Proceedings of the
Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 355-362). UC
Berkeley.
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beaver, F. E. (2007). Dictionary of film terms: The aesthetic companion to film art.
New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Berger, P. L. (1997). Redeeming laughter: The comic dimension of human experience.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Billing, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule. London: Sage Publication.
Brock, A. (2008). Humor, jokes and irony versus mocking, gossip and black humor. In
A. Gerd & E. Ventola (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp.
541-566). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2004). Developing a typology of humor in
audiovisual media. Media Psychology, 6, 147-167.
Carini, S. M. (2003). Love's labors almost lost: Managing crisis during the reign of "i
love lucy". Cinema Journal, 43(1), 44-62.
Chapman, A. J. (1976). Funniness of jokes, canned laughter and recall performance.
Sociometry, 36(4), 569-578.
55
Ermida, I. (2008). The language of comic narratives: humor construction in short
stories. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax
and Semantics (pp. 44-58). New York: Academic Press.
Guest, M. (2007). Paul ricoeur and watching endgame. In M. S. Byron (Ed.), Samuel
Beckett's Endgame (pp. 69-98). New York: Editions Rodopi.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linehan, G. (Writer) (2010). The it crowd [DVD].
Morreall, J. (1983). Taking laughter seriously. New York: State University of New
York Press.
Nanda, S., & Warms, R. L. (2011). Culture counts: A concise introduction to cultural
anthropology. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
Palmer, J. (1994). Taking humor seriously. London: Routledge.
Quaglio, P. (2009). Television dialogue: The sitcom friends vs. natural conversation.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing
Company.
Ross, A. (1998). Language of humour. London: Routledge.
56
Anotace
Cílem této bakalářské práce je pragmatické studium slovního humoru, který se vyskytuje v britské situační komedii "The IT Crowd". Tato práce se zaměřuje na humorné případy, které byly zapříčiněny nedodržením Griceova kooperačního principu a principu zdvořilosti, který navrhnul Geoffrey Leech. Při analýze zábavných příkladů z již zmíněného sitcomu jsou do úvahy vzaty všechny maximy těchto principů.
První část této práce se zabývá teoretickým rámcem problému, který bude poté použit při analýze konkrétních příkladů. Tato část se zabývá termíny, jako jsou humor, smích, maximy kooperačního principu a principu zdvořilosti a jejich vzájemným vztahem. Také se zaměřuje na charakteristické vlastnosti televizního žánru sitcomu a letmo představuje sitcom "The IT Crowd".
V druhé části této práce je kooperační princip a princip zdvořilosti aplikován na ukázky z tohoto sitcomu ve snaze dokázat, že nedodržení obou těchto principů může potencionálně vést ke vzniku humorných situací. Poslední podkapitola této části se zabývá vzájemnou provázaností kooperačního a zdvořilostního principu. Analýza sitcomu "The IT Crowd" dokazuje, že tyto dva principy se při studiu humorných situací navzájem doplňují.
57
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to explore verbal humour used in the British sitcom
"The IT Crowd" from pragmatic point of view. It focuses on humorous instances created by non-observance of the Gricean Cooperative Principle and the Politeness
Principle proposed by Geoffrey Leech. All the maxims of these principles are taken into consideration in the analysis of the humorous instances in "The IT Crowd".
First, theoretical framework for the study is provided in order to be later applied on the excerpts from the sitcom. The theoretical part of this works is concerned with terms such as humour, laughter, the maxims of the Cooperative and Politeness principles and their relation to each other. It also discusses the television genre of sitcom and its characteristics, as well as it briefly introduces the sitcom "The IT
Crowd".
In the second part of this thesis, the Cooperative Principle and Politeness
Principle are applied on the excerpts from the sitcom in order to prove that non- observance of the maxims of both principles carry potential to create humorous situations. In the final sub-chapter of this part of the thesis, interdependence between the
Cooperative and Politeness principles is discussed. The analysis of the sitcom "The IT
Crowd" shows that these two principles are complementary in analysing humorous situation.
58