CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE OF HUMOR IN MICHAEL MCINTYRE INTERVIEW ON JONATHAN ROSS SHOW
A Thesis
Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Strata One
Tamara Seprilia Ningtyas
11140260000061
ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT
LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH
JAKARTA
2018
ABSTRACT
Tamara Seprilianingtyas, Conversational Implicature of Humor in Michael Mcintyre Interview on Jonathan Ross Show. Thesis: English Letters Department, Letters and Humanity Faculty. State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. 2018
This study analyzes the conversational implicatures that is generated by the maxim which appears on the conversation between Michael Mcintyre and Jonathan Ross in Jonathan Ross Show. The objective of the research is to know the process of flouting maxim in creating humor that appears through the conversation. This study uses Grice’s Conversatinal Implicature theory to analyze the implicature and the maxims. Moreover, it also uses Raskin’s theory of humor to identify the humor that has been applied in the utterances. The result indicates that both particularized conversational implicature and generalized conversational implicature are found in the conversation. The generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature generated by flouting maxims based on the meaning that Michael implied in his utterance. He has been flouted the four maxims which are maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner. He chiefly flouted maxim of quantity. Furthermore, the most Michael’s utterances indicate the incongruity theory and spontaneous conversational humor which have dominant role in creating humor. The spontaneous conversational humor is distinguished from certain basis of the intentions or use of humors such as satire, overstatement and understatement, self- deprecation, teasing, and clever or nonsensical replies to serious statements. Moreover, the writer finds that Michael as a guest star who is also a comedian always gives answer or statement that makes Jonathan and the audience laugh by flouting the maxim intentionally. Thus, most of conversatioanal implicatures are aimed to entertain and create laughter to the audience.
Keywords: Conversational Implicature, Flouting Maxim, Humor.
i
ii
iii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no same material previously published or written by another person which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institutes of higher education, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.
Jakarta, November 22nd 2018
Tamara Seprilia Ningtyas
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful. All praises be to Allah SWT, the Lord of the Universe who has given an incredible strength, patience, spirit and every single outstanding idea to the writer in the process of writing this thesis. Peace and salutation are given to the great prophet Muhammad
SAW, his family, companions and adherents who had changed the world into the better place to live.
Afterwards, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents, my mother who always motivated me and reminded me especially about finishing this thesis, moreover, my father who always supported everything that I need, and also my two brothers who are being my superior strength.
Furthermore, I also would like to give thanks and deepest gratitude to:
1. Prof. Dr. Sukron Kamil, M.A., the Dean of Letters and Humanities
Faculty.
2. Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd, the Head of English Letters Department and all at
once as the advisor of my thesis, for all his kindness, valuable suggestions
and pleasurable guidance.
3. Elve Oktafiyani, M. Hum, the Secretary of English Letters Department.
4. All the lectures in English Letters Department who sincerely taught a
precious knowledge during my study.
5. All of the librarians and staffs of Adab and Humanities Faculty.
v
6. All my friends in B and Linguistics Class, especially, Anisa Zakia, Alysa
Robiyanti, Nurlaelah, Wina Eka Nurhanifah, Andi Arwina Utami, Siti
Chaerunisa, Fena Basafiana and Sarah Chairunisa.
7. All my lecturers, teachers, and friends in Kahfi BBC Motivator School.
All the strengths, spirits and knowledges are truly helpful to present this
research.
8. All members of KKN 148 Al-Husna UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
9. Mareta Dalena Gumanti, my best and dearest friend.
10. Others beloved friends, relatives and students which are not mentioned one
by one.
May Allah SWT always blesses and protects us. Aamiin.
Lastly, the writer realizes that this research is still far from perfect, so for better study, the writer is pleased to receive critics and suggestions. Hopefully, this thesis will be an advantageous for the writer particularly and for the readers generally.
Jakarta, November 22nd, 2018
Tamara Seprilia Ningtyas
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………….. i
APPROVAL SHEET ………………………………………………………...… ii
LEGALIZATION ……………………………………………………………… iii
DECLARATION ………………………………………………………………..iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……………………………………………………... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS .…………………………………………..……….... vii
THE LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………….…..….. ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………..1
A. Background of the study …………………….………………………..……. 1 B. Focus of the Research …………………………………………….……….. 4 C. Research Questions ………………….…………………………….……….. 4 D. Significances of the Research ……………………………………….…..…. 5 E. Research Methodology …………………..………………………….…..…. 5 1. The Objectives of Research ………………………..………....…….…..…. 5 2. The Method of Research ………………………..………………….…..…. 6 3. The Instrument of the Research ………………………………………..…. 6 4. The Unit of Analysis ………………………………………….………..…. 6 5. Technique Collecting Data and Data Analysis ……………………………. 7 CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ……………………………..8
A. Previous Research ………………………………………………………….. 8 B. Theory …………………………………………………………………….. 10 1. Conversational Implicature ……………………………………………….10 1.1.Definition of Implicature …………………...………………………... 10 1.2.Implicature in Conversation ………………………………………..... 10 1.3.A Guide of Implicature ………………………………………...…….. 12 1.3.1.Conversational Implicature ……………………………………..12 1.3.1.1.Generalized Conversational Implicature ……………...… 13
vii
1.3.1.2.Particularized Conversational Implicature ………...……. 13 1.3.2.Conventional Implicature …………………………………...…. 14 2. Cooperative Principle ……………………………………………...…….. 15 3. Flouting the Maxims ……………………………………………………. 18 2.1 Flouting Maxim of Quantity …………………………………………. 19 2.2 Flouting Maxim of Quality ………………………………………...… 20 2.3 Flouting Maxim of Relation ………………………………………..... 20 2.4 Flouting Maxim of Manner ………………………………………….. 21 4. Humor …………………………………………………………..……….. 21 4.1 The Definition of Humor …………………………………………….. 21 4.2 Theory of Humor …………………………………………………….. 22 4.1.1 Incongruity Theory …………………………………………….. 23 4.1.2 Superiority Theory ………………………………………...……24 4.1.3 Release Theory ………...………………………………………. 24 4.3 Types of Humor ……………………………………………………… 25 4.3.1 Canned Jokes ………………………………………………...… 26 4.3.2 Spontaneous Conversational Humor ……………………….….. 28 4.3.3 Accidental or Unintentional Humor ………………………….... 31 5. Humor and Flouting the Maxims ………………………………………... 32
CHAPTER III RESULT AND DISCUSSION ………………………………. 36
A. Data Description ……………………………………………………...……36 B. Data Analysis ………………………………………………………...…… 40
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND SUGESTIONS ……………………... 64
A. Conclusions ……………………………………………………………….. 64 B. Suggestions ……………………………………………………………….. 65
BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………….. 66
APPENDIX …………………...... ……………………………………………… 68
viii
THE LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. The Three Families of Theories ……………………………….………. 23
Table 2. The Data Description ………………………………………………….. 36
ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Humor is ubiquitous in human social life (Dynel 50). Almost every people likes humor, jokes and funny stories. Humor and laughter are a universal aspect of human experience, occurring in all cultures and virtually all individuals throughout the world. According to Ross, humor is something that makes a person laugh or smile (1). The involuntary funny, odd and quaint object of laughter later became known as the humourist, and the man of humour took pleasure in exposing and imitating the peculiarities of the humourist. During this period humor and wit became seen as talents relating to the ability to make others laugh
(Raskin and Ruch 43). Regularly, all of people react with humor, jokes and laughter in dissimilar circumstances.
Humor can and frequently does occur in virtually any social situation. It can take place in the conversation of a group of close friends, or in the interactions of a group of business people. It can be used by public speakers, such as politicians or religious leaders, addressing large audiences either in person or via the media (Martin 5). Many different forms of humor communicated by different means and for different purposes. Some of this humor comes to us via the mass media. Radio hosts frequently crack jokes and make witty comments; television provides people with a constant diet of humor in the form of sitcoms, blooper shows, stand-up comedy, political satire, and humorous advertisements; and it is
1
2
also in newspaper comic strips and cartoons, comedy movies, and humorous books (10). Humor is also often used in speeches, sermons, and lectures by politicians, religious leaders, motivational speakers, and teachers.
However, humor is essentially a way for people to interact in a playful manner. People experience humor and laughter in the daily life. Humor possibly occurs in casual conversation in television program such as a talk show which involves a presenter and the guests. The audience laughter was used as an indicator of humor. The discussion that happens in that television program can be analyzed through pragmatics approach by examining the implementation of cooperative principle. Attardo has argued that humor violates Grice’s cooperative principle. A large number of jokes involve violated or flouted of one or more of
Grice’s maxims (271).
In a conversation, beside the cooperative principle which consists of maxims (maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of manner, and maxim of relation), it might consist of non-observance of the maxim that generates a conversational implicature. Study the following conversation:
(1) Michael : Do you know what horse riding in America? Jonathan : Is not called horse riding? Michael : Nope. Horseback riding. They need specify how ride the horse. Jonathan : Oh yes. Yeah.
The conversation (1) involves Jonathan Ross as a presenter and Michael
Mcintyre as a guest star. Michael Mcintyre talked about American words and asked Jonathan Ross whether he knew what horse riding called in American.
3
Michael stated that it was not called horse riding but horseback riding. It generates particularized conversational implicature because Jonathan did not know and think about it (the term of horseback riding and the reason why American call it instead horse riding). This utterance also indicates maxim of quality but when
Michael continued his explanation by saying "They need to specify how to ride the horse”, the maxim of quality is flouted because he gave information more than is required. Moreover, it causes humor which implies incongruous or nonsensical statement. Thus, it considered as spontaneous conversational humor.
Additionally, this research has three related topics to the previous researches. The first research is a journal, entitled A Pragmatic Study of Humor by
Sura Dhiaa Ibraheem and Nawal Fadhil Abbas (2015). The research intends to show how the selected literary extract (Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure) can be subjected to a linguistic pragmatic analysis and then be explained by applying the incongruity theory of humor in order to show the ways or the mechanisms that lead to the flouting, infringing and the violation of Gricean maxims can consequently lead to the creation of humor. The second research is a journal examined by Weiwei Pan (2012), Linguistic Basis of Humor In Uses of Grice’s
Cooperative Principle. The research is aimed at probing into the linguistic basis involved in the process of language humor from the perspective of Grice’s
Cooperative Principle. It is also intended to reveal the relation between creation of humor and violation of cooperative principle. The third research is a journal, entitled The Flouting of Grice’s Conversational Maxim: Examples from Bashar
Al-Assad’s Interview during the Arab Spring by Amer Ayasreh and Razlina
4
Razali (2018), this journal aimed to illustrate some maxims that were flouted by the Syrian leader, Bashar Al-Assad during his interview with the ARD channel.
The result of the analysis is implicated that political leaders flout maxims to produce particular shades of meanings which may not always be conceivable to all parties in order to gain the support from masses.
Therefore, this research is important to do because it can be preferable to understanding the phenomenon of humor that exists in the conversation by using
Grice’s conversational implicature theory and Raskin’s humor theory. It might be a reference for linguistic research and other fields in wider various aspects.
B. Focus of the Research
This study focuses on the analysis of humor through flouting maxim process derived from conversation between Jonathan Ross and Michael Mcintyre.
It is taken from a popular British television program named Jonathan Ross Show.
The data is downloaded from https://youtube.com.
C. Research Questions
Based on the focus of the research that has been explained, the research questions are formulated as follows:
1. What does the flouting maxim of the utterance between Jonathan and
Michael Mcintyre on Jonathan Ross Show imply?
2. How does the process of flouting maxim create humor that appears
through the utterances between Jonathan Ross and Michael Mcintyre on
Jonathan Ross Show?
5
D. Significances of the Research
Theoretically, this research is useful to obtain and enrich the knowledge of humor and how it is delivered. The research also uses pragmatics as an approach which is the branch of linguistics, specifically, conversational implicature and cooperative principle to explain the intended meaning by the speaker in order to avoid misunderstanding.
Practically, this research is hopefully used as an additional reference for the development of linguistics study. In addition, through this research, the readers will obtain more understanding about the aspects of creating humor through the cooperative principle especially flouting maxim. Moreover, the readers will realize the situation which occurs among them especially when the speaker tries creating humor and it takes endeavor to understand it.
E. Research Methodology
1. The Objectives of the Research
a. To find out the types of flouting maxim and analyze the implied meaning
of the conversational implicatures that is generated from the maxim which
appears on the utterances between Michael Mcintyre and Jonathan Ross.
b. To know the process of flouting maxim in creating humor that appears
through the utterances between Jonathan Ross and Michael Mcintyre on
Jonathan Ross Show
6
2. The Method of Research
The study is a discourse analysis. It examines an issue related to oppression of individuals. Individuals are interviewed at some length to determine how they have personally experienced oppression (Crosswell 48). It explores the meaning of the phenomenon in a real life context. This type of research data is in the form of written verbal data which is selected interview transcript from
Jonathan Ross Show Season 9 Episode 6.
3. The Instrument of the Research
The instrument of this study is the researcher herself by using data taken from the transcript of Michael Mcintyre interview in Jonathan Ross Show Season
9 Episode 6 which downloaded through https://youtube.com. All the data is obtained by watching the video, reading and analyzing the transcript which used pragmatic and humor theories.
4. The Unit of Analysis
The researcher uses the data from the transcript of Michael Mcintyre interview in Jonathan Ross Show Season 9 Episode 6 which downloaded through https://youtube.com. The researcher chooses this video as an object of analysis because the talk show is a famous program in England. Moreover, in the Season 9
Episode 6, the guest stars is Michael Mcintyre who is a famed comedian. Thus, this unit of analysis might provide the required data.
7
5. Technique for Collecting Data and Data Analysis
Data retrieval is done by accessing https://youtube.com, finding the video,
Jonathan Ross Show Season 9 Episode 6. Then, marking the data based on analytical need as well as grouping it based on pragmatic aspect and humor language. After that, recording the data that was collected in the data card. Then the researchers conducted a critical study of the data based on relevant theories.
The procedure of collecting data consists of several steps:
1. Watching Jonathan Ross Show Season 9 Episode 6;
2. Reading and understanding the transcript of the video.
3. Giving mark the dialogues that assumed contain implicature and humor.
4. Writing down the utterances on the data card.
While, the procedure of analyzing data consists of a few steps as follows:
1. Interpreting the data by applying Paul Grice’s conversational implicature
theory and Victory Raskin’s humor theory.
2. Explaining the verbal data that has been analyzed.
3. Concluding the results of data that have been analyzed.
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Previous Research
This research has three related topics about pragmatics and humor theory.
The first research is a journal, entitled A Pragmatic Study of Humor by Sura Dhiaa
Ibraheem and Nawal Fadhil Abbas (2015). This study provides a pragmatic and a linguistic analysis of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure. The analysis is based on the non-observance of the Gricean maxims in relation to the most dominant theory, Kant’s incongruity theory of humor. The research findings are the flouting, infringing and the violation of Gricean maxims that have the possibility of creating humorous situations in certain contexts. The analysis has shown that, interestingly, sometimes two maxims might be non-observed at the same time.
Based on the selected extract, the most violated maxim is the maxim of relation.
Consequently, the most frequent humor type used to violate Gricean maxims is that of wit. Besides, the researchers found that shrewd characters, such as Lucio and the first gentleman, always violate Gricean maxims and create intentional humor. While the naive characters, such as the second gentleman due to his imperfect use of language represented by the pun he uses, tend to flout and infringed the Gricean maxims unintentionally, and creates unintentional humor.
The second is examined by Weiwei Pan (2012), Linguistic Basis of Humor in Uses of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. The research is aimed at probing into the linguistic basis involved in the process of language humor from the
8
9
perspective of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. It is also intended to reveal the relation between creation of humor and violation of cooperative principle and give critical comments on Grice’s cooperative principle, which mainly focuses on limitations Grice’s cooperative principle. As the result, this study concludes that humor often results from perceived violations of cooperative principle and its maxims. Grice’s cooperative principle has already been regarded as precondition to context successful conversation, but in some given situation people try to achieve purpose or carry out special effect, occasionally, they have to flout this principle deliberately or unconsciously.
The third research is The Flouting of Grice’s Conversational Maxim:
Examples from Bashar Al-Assad’s Interview during the Arab Spring by Amer
Ayasreh and Razlina Razali (2018), the interest of this article is to illustrate some maxims that were flouted by the Syrian leader, Bashar Al-Assad during his interview with the ARD channel. The result of the analysis is implicated that political leaders flout maxims to produce particular shades of meanings which may not always be conceivable to all parties in order to gain the support from masses. The manipulation skill of people’ thoughts are universal for the politicians all over the world to win the support of the public in favor of their policies and goals, which is especially true for the case of Assad.
The previous studies above used Grice’s cooperative principle as the theory. However, this research is not only applied similar theory to the previous researches but also applied another related theory which is conversational implicature. The use of conversational implicature theory is aimed to analyze the
10
implied meaning that is generated by the flouting maxims. This research also involves the application of humor theory proposed by Raskin’s to identify the humor that has been applied in the utterance.
B. Theory
1. Conversational Implicature
1.1 Definition of Implicature
The word implicature derived from the verb to imply, as its cognate implication. Originally, to imply means to fold something into something else
(from the Latin verb plicare ‘to fold’); hence, that which is implied is ‘folded in’, and has to be ‘unfolded’ in order to be understood (Mey 45). Implicature was defined negatively as what is communicated less 'what is said' (Noro 76; Sadock
282; Haugh 118). In other words, implicature was characterised simply as whatever is communicated that is not part of what is said by a speaker. The only positive characterisation of implicature by Grice (24) was his indication that it is related to the terms imply, suggest and mean. Briefly, implicature is the act of meaning or implying one thing in something.
1.2 Implicature in Conversation
Conversation is one of the most prevalent uses of human language.
Conversation is the way in which people socialize and develop and sustain their relationships with each other. When people converse they engage in a form of linguistic communication, but there is much more going on in a conversation than just the use of a linguistic code. Much that is important in conversation is carried
11
out by things other than language, including eye gaze and body posture, silences and the real world context in which the talk is produced (Liddicoat 1).
Based on Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, conversation is defined as an informal talk involving a small group of people or only two: the activity of talking (320). However, many TV’s program provides a program based on talk show which invites famous people to be asked questions and talk in an informal way about their work and opinions on various topics.
Meanwhile, the concept of implicature is a theoretical construct which has known introduced first by Grice. He used the concept to deal with examples in communication where what a speaker means goes beyond the meaning literally expressed by a particular utterance. Horn states implicature is a component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said (3). What a speaker intends to communicate is characteristically far richer than what he or she directly expresses; linguistic meaning radically underdetermines the message conveyed and understood.
The implicature is illustrated by the example below:
(2) Kralik: She is the most wonderful girl in the world. Pirovitch: Is she pretty? Kralik: She has such ideals, and such a viewpoint of things that she’s so far above all the other.
The example (2) gives implicit meaning that Kralik wants to give implicit meaning in his utterance that she is not very pretty. He wants Pirovitch to understand what he meant.
12
Furthermore, a conversation cannot be separated from what speaker means to his utterances. Most of them involve implication which can be determining by turning out the implicature that happen in that conversation. As an aspect of speaker meaning, implicatures are distinct from the hearer draws; it is a category mistake to attribute implicatures either to hearers or to sentences and sub sentential expressions (5).
1.3 A Guide of Implicature
Grice makes a distinction between natural and nonnatural meaning (42):
Natural meaning involves a non-arbitrary relationship that is independent of any purposefulness or intent, as with Those clouds mean rain. Non-natural meaning is arbitrary and intentional, as with “masticate” means “chew.” This meaning relationship is arbitrary in that any other word could have come to have this same meaning, and it is intentional in that a person uses the word “masticate” intentionally to mean “chew” (as opposed to clouds, which don’t intentionally indicate rain). Grice (43–44), within the category of non-natural meaning, distinguishes between what is said and what is implicated. What is said is truth- conditional, and what is implicated is not. What is implicated, in turn, may be either conversationally or conventionally implicated, and what is conversationally implicated may be due to either a generalized or a particularized conversational implicature.
1.3.1 Conversational Implicature
Implicatures derived via the cooperative principle are called conversational implicatures (Birner 44). According to Griffiths, conversational
13
implicatures are inferences that depend on the existence of norms for the use of language, such as the widespread agreement that communicators should aim to tell the truth (134). Speakers, writers and addressees assume that everyone engaged in communication knows and accepts the communicational norms.
Speaker meaning can differ from what is said, dependent on context or on conversation. The meaning also conveyed not so much by what is said, but by the fact that it is said (Chapman 102).
1.3.1.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature
A generalized conversational implicature is one which is generally attached to the form, and therefore does not need to be computed anew with each relevant utterance (Birner 63). According to Yule, generalized conversational implicature is when no special knowledge is required in the context to calculate the additional meaning (41). For instance:
(3) I was sitting in garden one day. A child looked over the fence.
The implicature (2), that the garden and the child mentioned are not the speaker’s, are calculated on the principle that if the speaker was capable of being more specific (i.e. more informative. Following the quantity maxim), then, he or she would have said “my garden” and “my child”.
1.3.1.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature
In contrast to the generalized implicatures, particularized conversational implicatures are unique to the particular context in which they occur. It is one that arises due to the interaction of an utterance with the particular, very specific context in which it occurs, and hence does not arise in the default case of the
14
utterance’s use or the use of some more general class of utterances of which it is a member (Birner 64-65). For instance:
(4) Rick: Hey, coming to the wild party tonight? Tom: My parents are visiting.
In order to make Tom’s response relevant, Rick has to draw on some assumed knowledge that one college student in this setting expects another to have. Tom will be spending that evening with his parents, and time spent with parents is quiet (consequently Tom not at party). Because they are by far the most common, particularized conversational implicature are typically just called implicatures (Yule 43).
1.3.2 Conventional Implicature
In contrast to all the conversational implicatures, conventional implicatures are not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims. They don’t have to occur in conversation, and they don’t depend on special contexts for their interpretation. There are comparatively few examples of conventional implicatures; Levinson (qtd in Thomas 57) lists four: but, even, therefore and yet
(to these we might add some uses of for, as in: She plays chess well, for a girl).
According to Fetzer (qtd. in Bublitz and Norrick 42), conventional implicature is connected closely with linguistic form, for instance with connectives (e.g., but), implicative verbs (e.g., manage, forget to), honorifics or nonrestrictive relative clauses. For example:
(5) a. John came to the party. b. He even helped tidy up afterwards.
15
When even is included in any sentence describing the event, there is an implicature of contrary to expectation. Thus, in (4) there are two events reported
(John’s coming and John’s helping) with the conventional implicature of even adding a contrary to expectation interpretation of those event (Yule 45).
2. Cooperative Principle
The basic concept behind the Cooperative Principle (CP) is that interlocutors, above all else, are attempting to be cooperative in conversation
(Birner 41). The conversations are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction
(Grice; O’Keefe, Clancy, and Adolphs 60). Grice formulates these ‘basic assumptions about the rational nature of conversational activity’ in his
Cooperative Principle: ‘Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the state at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged’ (Senft 34). The cooperative principle elaborates in four sub-principles, called maxims.
a. Maxim of Quantity
The category of quantity relates to the quantity of information to be provided, and under it fall the following maxims (Grice 26).
1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current
purposes of the exchange).
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
16
According to O’Keefe, Clancy, and Adolphs (61), quantity, requires speakers to be as informative as required for listener comprehension, by ensuring that they are both succinct and explicit. For example:
(6) A: . . . he’s a lovely fellow. B: Oh yeah. C: And see he would have spent time in Bosnia too as in they do a lot of work over there. B: Oh. C: I don’t know if he’d actually be there or if he would just do work kind of on behalf of the people there but am so I said it to him in the car down at the church remember the night we+ A: Oh yes indeed. C: +and couldn’t get into the church that’s another story.
The example above, as the conversation progresses, the maxim of quantity is being observed by Speaker C’s use of the phrase that’s another story. This functions to signal a realization that Speaker C has not provided enough information about the story of not being able to get into the church, but also indicates that further elaboration may perhaps risk, for example, revealing an embarrassing situation or offending a hearer. It may also be the case that the other story is not relevant now and that it can be elaborated on at a later stage (O’Keefe,
Clancy, and Adolphs 61).
b. Maxim of Quality
Under the category of quality falls a supermaxim- ‘Try to make your contribution one that is true’- and two more specific maxims (Grice 27):
1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
17
Maxim of quality states that speakers should be truthful and not say anything which they cannot provide adequate evidence for or do not believe to be true. For instance:
(7) A: But I don’t think you can get insured for a month.
B: You can yeah.
A: Can you?
B: Yeah you can.
A: Can you?
B: Yeah you can. You can pay your insurance. I’m not sure now whether it would mean your mother would have to pay her insurance for the month . . .
Speaker A seems to be of the opinion that this is not possible but Speaker
B disagrees with him. We can see that Speaker B then moves to give his/her reasons for disagreeing and, in doing so, introduces an element of uncertainty to some of what she is saying by prefacing with I’m not sure, so protecting themselves from correction or contradiction in the future (O’Keefe, Clancy, and
Adolphs 62).
c. Maxim of Relation
Under the category relation I place a single maxim, namely, ‘Be relevant’
(Grice 27). Cruse (356) stated that point of this maxim is that it is not sufficient for a statement to be true for it to constitute an acceptable conversational contribution. For instance:
(8) A: Now I mentioned yesterday that you should look at both sides of the same coin. You should look at those who argue for audiences as guerrilla readers, you know post-modern theorists will see audiences as being involved in interpretative free for all.
18
The lecturer, in beginning this segment of his/her lecture, points to its relevance to what has been said before by using I mentioned yesterday (O’Keefe,
Clancy, and Adolphs 62).
d. Maxim of Manner
Under the category of manner, Grice (27) includes the supermaxim ‘Be perpicious’ and various maxims such as:
1. Avoid obscurity of expression.
2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
4. Be orderly.
The last maxim is the maxim of manner, which requires speakers to be clear and orderly in order to avoid ambiguity and obscurity. For instance:
(9) A: If you come across two theorists in the text or in theory in general who you find interesting or attractive or stimulating et cetera use those too. Don’t feel that you’re aah confined to the ones we have covered. So I hope that’s relatively clear is it?
3. Flouting the Maxims
The Gricean maxims might also be considered to be rather vague in that it is difficult to determine the point at which a maxim is flouted, for example, because of lack of information or relevance. According to Levinson, the flouting maxims take place when individuals deliberately cease to apply the maxims to persuade their listeer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterances; that is, speakern employ implicature (104). The level of information that a speaker must
19
provide before flouting the maxim of quantity, for example, is highly context specific. It is also specific to the culture in which the exchange takes place. A court hearing might require the speaker to provide more, and more relevant, information than a casual conversation between friends. The point at which maxims are seen to be flouted thus depends on the context in which the interaction takes place (O’Keefe, Clancy, and Adolphs 88-89).
According to Cruse, the other way in which implicatures arise is through deliberate flouting of the maxims in circumstances in which (a) it is obvious to the hearer that the maxims are being flouted, (b) it is obvious to the hearer that the speaker intends the hearer to be aware that the maxims are being flouted, and (c) there are no signs that the speaker is opting out of the co-operative principle (360).
3.1 Flouting Maxim of Quantity
(10) The mushroom omelette wants his coffee with. (11) I married a rat. (12) It'll cost the earth, but what the hell!
In their most likely contexts of use, none of the above sentences is likely to be literally true, but equally, none of them is likely to mislead a hearer. In each case some additional interpretive process will be brought into play. In the first example, the interpretive process will be a metonymic one, and the understood message will be that the person who ordered a mushroom omelet wants his coffee served with the omelet, rather than afterwards. In the second example, the interpretive process will be a metaphoric one. In the third example, the implicatures are not so obvious, but hyperbole of this kind can implicate a relaxed,
20
informal relationship with interlocutors (Cruse 360). By flouting the maxim of quantity, the speaker seems to give too little or to much information.
3.2 Flouting Maxim of Quality
(13) Doorman : I need to see your ID, it’s the rule. Inger : But I left it back at the hotel. Doorman : Sorry ma’am, then I can’t let you in. Inger : But I’m twenty-nine and the mother of four! Doorman : Yes, and I’m the pope’s grandfather and have six kids.
By way of response to Inger’s (direct and indirect) reference to her age, the doorman gives out a blatantly false piece of information concerning his own age
(he could not have been a day over twenty-five). By flouting the maxim of quality, he thus intends to convey a message as showed that the doorman considers Inger’s explanation and justification as untruthful. He could have told her directly: ‘I don’t believe you’, or: ‘That’s clearly false’, but instead, he chose to convey his message in a more elegant and just as effective way (Mey 78).
According to Cutting (37), speakers may flout the maxim by exaggerating as in the hyperbole, for example is ‘I could eat a horse’. Hyperbole is often at the basis of humor. Similarly, a speaker also can flout the maxim of quality by using a metaphor, such as “My house is a refrigerator in January’ or ‘Don’t be such a wet blanket – we just want to have fun’. And the other ways are using irony and banter, and they form a pair. While irony is an apparently friendly way of being offensive (mock-politeness), the type of verbal behaviour known as “banter” is an offensive way of being friendly (mock impoliteness).
3.3 Flouting Maxim of Relation
(14) A: I say, did you hear about Mary's... B: Yes, well, it rained nearly the whole time we were there.
21
This example is an obviously irrelevant comment. Assume that A and B are having a conversation about a colleague, Mary. Mary approaches them, seen by B but not by A. The implicature is: Watch out! Here comes Mary! (Cruse 361).
The speakers flout the maxim of relation, the expect that the hearers will be able to imagine what the utterance did not say, and make the connection between their utterance and the preceding one(s).
3.4 Flouting Maxim of Manner
(15) A: I'll look after Samantha for you, don't worry. We'll have a lovely time. Won't we, Sam? B: Great, but if you don't mind, don't offer her any post-prandial concoctions involving supercooled oxide of hydrogen. It usually gives rise to convulsive nausea.
The implicature arising from this unnecessary prolixity is obviously that B does not want Samantha to know what she is saying (Cruse 360).
Sometimes writers or speakers play with words to heighten the ambiguity, in order to make a point, as in Katherine Whitehorn’s comments in Sunday Best on ‘Decoding the West’, “I wouldn’t say when you’ve seen one Western you’ve seen the lot; but when you’ve seen the lot you get the feeling you’ve seen one.”
Thereby implying that she agreed with the first point of view, even though she had just said that she did not agree with it (Cutting 39).
4. Humor
4.4 The Definition of Humor
Ross defines humor as something that makes a person laugh or smile (1).
It’s possible to claim that something is humorous, even though no one laughed at
22
the time—and it can often happen that people laugh, but someone can claim,
‘That’s not funny’. Smiling and laughter can also be a sign of fear or embarrassment. Despite these objections, the response is an important factor in counting something as humor. Examining the language can then help to explain why people laugh. According to Dorfles, humor is seen as "a kind of language characterized by the negative, or paradoxical, value assumed by the sign" (qtd. in
Attardo 176). And based on Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, humor is the quality in something that makes it funny or amusing; the ability to laugh at things that are amusing (734).
4.5 Theory of Humor
The first people to write about the nature of laughter and humor, and their place in human life were philosophers and religious thinkers. Before the 18th century, the word “humor” did not mean funniness, and so what philosophers and religious thinkers wrote about was usually laughter, with occasional references to comedy. Until the middle of the 18th century, the only developed theory of laughter in Western thought was the Superiority Theory. Briefly, laughter is an expression of feelings of superiority over other people (Morreal; Raskin and Ruch
211). That idea raised moral objections to laughter and comedy
In the 18th century, two other theories arose – the Relief Theory and the
Incongruity Theory. In the Relief Theory laughter is the release of pent-up nervous energy, and in the Incongruity Theory laughter is a response to something unusual or out of place (211).
23
Furthermore, Raskin also pointed the various humor theories in three families of theories: incongruity, superiority, and release. The incongruity-based theories make a statement about the stimulus; the superiority theories characterize the relations or attitudes between the speaker and the hearer; and the release/relief theories comment on the feelings and psychology of the hearer only (qtd. in
Attardo 49-50).
Table 1. The Three Families of Theories Cognitive Social Psychoanalytical Incongruity Hostility Release Contrast Aggression Sublimation Superiority Liberation Triumph Economy Derision Disparagement
4.5.1 Incongruity Theory
The incongruity theory focuses on the element of surprise. It states that humor is created out of a conflict between what is expected and what actually occurs in the joke. This accounts for the most obvious feature of much humor: an ambiguity, or double meaning, which deliberately misleads the audience, followed by a punchline (Ross 7). Aristotle states that a good way to get a laugh in a speech, is to set up an expectation in the audience and then jolt them with something they did not expect (qtd. in Raskin and Ruch 215).
According to Ross (8), the humor will often have the following elements:
• There is a conflict between what is expected and what actually occurs in the joke.
• The conflict is caused by an ambiguity at some level of language.
24
• The punchline is surprising, as it is not the expected interpretation, but it resolves the conflict: ‘Have you got a light, Mac?’ ‘No, but I’ve got a dark brown overcoat.’
4.5.2 Superiority Theory
Hobbes characterized laughter as a ‘sudden glory’ at a triumph of our own or at an indignity suffered by someone else (Ross 51). Gruner claims that a joke is basically an attack, and even those who refuse to accept this perspective completely cannot deny that much humor does contain aggressive elements. From this it is apparent that a joke that is publicly aimed at a superior is a rare and fragile thing. Yet, humor can be used by superiors to promote rapport with subordinates or by psychiatrists with patients (Lafrance: McGhee and Goldstein
167).
The situations that superiority theories build on can be (a) Sudden victory over an opponent in battle; triumph in an athletic contest (b) A distinguished looking person slipping on a banana peel (or just simply falling down) (c) A person with a big nose or outsized ears (or some other" deformity"); a silly or insane person (d) A drunken person talking" silly" and! Or falling down and (e) A pie in the face of another person.
4.5.3 Release Theory
The psychic release theory of humor explains the triggering of laughter by the sense of release from a threat being overcome—such as a reduction of fears about death and sex (Ross 61). According to Attardo, release theories maintain
25
that humor ‘release’ tensions, physic energy, or that humor release one from inhibition, conventions and laws (50). This theory also examines that humor is used to release tension or make someone feel easy when discussing taboo topics.
It explains the cause of laughter by feelings of detachment from overcome threats
(such as reducing fear about taboo context). Some taboo situations seem to be mentioned such as sex, excreta, death, and religion (Ross 63-68).
However, as a note, this kind of humor is easily considered offensive because of the diverse responses of readers / listeners. To overcome this phenomenon as for solutions to features that allows this humor to be acceptable or offensive. They use explicit language or use satire. For example, Marriage is like a bank account. You put it in, you take it out, you lose interest. The context of humor is about sex. This describes the feelings of couples making love on their first night. The example above is in the form of innuendo. The intention of humor will not be understood by readers / listeners if they do not share the same awareness with the jokes. It can be concluded that humor can be used to refresh one's mind. It can also add someone's insight in an entertaining way. Humor can convey satire or criticism smoothly and can be used to facilitate someone in giving a serious and formal idea.
4.6 Types of Humor
Humor is essentially an emotional response of mirth in a social context that is elicited by a perception of playful incongruity and is expressed through smiling and laughter (Martin 10). The philosophers encounter many different forms of humor communicated by different means and for different purposes.
26
Some of this humor comes to people via the mass media. One of them is television; it provides people with constant diet of humor in the form of sitcoms, blooper shows, stand-up comedy, political satire, and humorous advertisements; and also in newspaper comic strips and cartoons, comedy movies, and humorous books. Humor is also often used in speeches, sermons, and lectures by politicians, religious leaders, motivational speakers, and teachers.
However, most of the humor and laughter that people experience in the daily lives arises spontaneously in the course of normal relations with other people (11). This sort of interpersonal humor occurs in nearly every type of informal and formal interaction. Moreover, some people develop such a talent at eliciting mirth in others and making them laugh that they become professional humor producers, entering the ranks of humorous authors, cartoonists, stand-up comedians, comedy writers, and actors.
The humor that occurs in our everyday social interactions can be divided into three broad categories: (1) canned jokes, which are prepackaged humorous anecdotes that people memorize and pass on to one another; (2) spontaneous conversational humor, which is created intentionally by individuals during the course of a social interaction, and can be either verbal or nonverbal; and (3) accidental or unintentional humor.
4.6.1 Canned Jokes
Jokes and other humorous utterances are a form of communication that is usually shared in social interaction. These humorous utterances are socially and culturally shaped, and often quite particular to a specific time and place. And the
27
topics and themes people joke about are generally central to the social, cultural and moral order of a society or a social group (Raskin and Ruch 361).
During the course of normal conversations, some people like to amuse others by telling jokes, which are short, amusing stories ending in a punch line.
These are sometimes also referred to as “canned jokes” to distinguish them from the sorts of informal jesting and witty quips to which the words joke and joking can also refer (Martin 11). According to Dynel, the (canned) joke is commonly considered the prototypical form of verbal humor, produced orally in conversations or published in collections (Linguistic Humor Theory 1284).
Sherzer defines a joke as ‘a discourse unit consisting of two parts, the set up and the punch line’. The set-up is normally built of a narrative or ⁄ and a dialogue, while the punchline is the final portion of the text, which engenders surprise and leads to incongruity with the set-up, as in the example (16). There are also a few subtypes of jokes different from the canonical canned joke that are often treated as distinct categories, such as shaggy-dog stories (lengthy stories without punchlines) as in (17), riddles (questions followed by unpredictable and silly answers) as in (18) or one-liners (one-line jokes with punchlines reduced to a few words) as in (19) (1285). The further examples are below:
(16) A man is eating a stew at a restaurant. Suddenly he feels something sharp in his mouth. The object turns out to be an earring. The man instantly starts rebuking the waiter, who says, ‘I’m terribly sorry but you can’t imagine how happy the chef will be to get it back. It’s over three weeks since she lost it’.
(17) Ghandi walked barefoot everywhere, to the point that his feet became quite thick and hard. Even when he wasn’t on a hunger strike, he did not eat much and became quite thin and frail. He also was quite a spiritual person.
28
Furthermore, due to his diet, he ended up with very bad breath. He became known as a super-calloused fragile mystic plagued with halitosis.
(18) A: Why did the cookie cry? B: No idea. A: Because his mother was a wafer so long.
(19) I don’t approve of political jokes ... I’ve seen too many of them get elected.
4.6.2 Spontaneous Conversational Humor
A more extensive classification system of spontaneous conversational humor (which they referred to as wit), was developed by psychologists Debra
Long and Arthur Graesser (Martin 12). To obtain a broad sample of the types of humor occurring in naturalistic conversations, these authors recorded a number of episodes of television talk shows (e.g., The Tonight Show) and then analyzed the different types of humor that arose in the interactions between the hosts and their guests. Audience laughter used as an indicator of humor. Based on their analyses, these authors identified the following 11 categories, which were distinguished from one another on the basis of their intentions or uses of humor (13):
1. Irony—the speaker expresses a statement in which the literal meaning is
opposite to the intended meaning:
(20) Saying “What a beautiful day!” when the weather is cold and stormy.
2. Satire—aggressive humor that pokes fun at social institutions or social policy:
(21) Being afraid of North Korea is like calling the FBI because someone
threatened you in a youtube comment.
(22) I’m sick and tired of people telling me to turn off lights to save the
environment. I tried it once, and I nearly killed some guy on a bike.
29
3. Sarcasm—aggressive humor that targets an individual rather than an
institution:
(23) At a fashionable dinner, a dignified lady rebuked Winston Churchill:
“Sir, you are drunk.” “Yes,” replied Churchill, “and you are ugly. But
tomorrow I shall be sober and you shall still be ugly”.
4. Overstatement and understatement—changing the meaning of something
another person has said by repeating it with a different emphasis:
(24) A guest asks host Johnny Carson, who had been married several times:
“Have you ever been married?” A second guest says, “Has he ever been
married!”.
5. Self-deprecation—humorous remarks targeting oneself as the object of
humor. This may be done to demonstrate modesty, to put the listener at ease,
or to ingratiate oneself with the listener:
(25) In today’s performance, the role of the idiot will be played by myself.
6. Teasing—humorous remarks directed at the listener’s personal appearance or
foibles. Unlike sarcasm, the intention is not to seriously insult or offend:
(26) Female: You manifest the Peter Pan syndrome.
Male: And you have the Captain Hook syndrome. (teasing)
Female: There’s no such syndrome.
Male: Obviously there is. You have it! (teasing)
(27) Female: You’re a thief and a liar.
Male: I only lied about being a thief, I don’t do that anymore. (teasing)
Female: Steal?
30
Male: Lie. (teasing)
7. Replies to rhetorical questions—because rhetorical questions are not asked
with the expectation of a reply, giving an answer to one violates a
conversational expectation and surprises the person who posed the question.
This can therefore be perceived as funny, and the intention is usually to
simply entertain a conversational partner:
(28) A: You know what I can’t understand?
B: Chinese writing.
8. Clever replies to serious statements—clever, incongruous, or nonsensical
replies to a statement or question that was meant to be serious. The statement
is deliberately misconstrued so that the speaker replies to a meaning other
than the intended one.
(29) A: You’re late. You said you’d be home by 11.45!
B: Actually, I said I’d be home by a quarter of 12.
9. Double entendres—a statement or word is deliberately misperceived or
misconstrued so as to evoke a dual meaning, which is often sexual in nature.
10. Transformations of frozen expressions—transforming well-known sayings,
clichés, or adages into novel statements:
(30) Complaint of a bald man, “Hair today, gone tomorrow”.
11. Puns—humorous use of a word that evokes a second meaning, usually based
on a homophone such as a word with a different meaning that sounds the
same:
(31) You are stuck with your debt if you can’t budge it.
31
(It kinds of homophone or phonetic similarity, of ‘budge it’ and ‘budget’)
4.6.3 Accidental or Unintentional Humor
In addition to the things people say and do during social interactions with the intention of amusing others, much mirth and laughter also arise from utterances or actions that are not meant to be funny. English literature professors
Alleen Nilsen and Don Nilsen referred to these as accidental humor, which they divided into physical and linguistic forms. Accidental physical humor includes minor mishaps and pratfalls such as the person slipping on a banana peel or spilling a drink on one’s shirt. These sorts of events are funny when they occur in a surprising and incongruous manner and when the person experiencing them is not seriously hurt or badly embarrassed. This type of humor also forms the basis of slapstick and screwball comedy (Martin 14). This accidental physical humor could be found in any circumstances without certain reason or matter.
Accidental linguistic humor arises from misspellings, mispronunciations, errors in logic, and the kinds of speaker confusions called Freudian slips, malapropisms, and spoonerisms. This type of unintentional humor occurs, for example, in newspaper headlines in which an ambiguity creates a humorous alternative meaning: “Prostitutes appeal to pope”; “Dr. Ruth talks about sex with newspaper editors”; “Red tape holds up bridge”. Spoonerisms are a speech error in which the initial sounds of two or more words are transposed, creating an unintended and humorous new meaning. They were named after a nineteenth- century British clergyman named William Spooner who frequently made such mistakes in his sermons and speeches, for example, he is said to have proposed a
32
toast to Queen Victoria, saying “Three cheers for our queer old dean” (14). Hence, regardless of whether it is a accidental physical or linguistical humor, the funny or humorous situation occurs without intentional act, moreover, people who feel it are probably determined by personal or subjectiive taste, social background and group even the level of intellects.
5. Humor and Flouting the Maxims
The most creative utilization of the conversational principles occurs, however, in the flouting of the maxims. Flouting a conversational maxim, as opposed to merely violating it, involves violating it in an ostentatious way, so as to communicate to the listener that the maxim is being disregarded. Most often, the flouting of a maxim carries with it an additional, non-explicit message, above and beyond the literal meaning of what is being communicated (Dubinsky and
Holcomb 89). According to Dynel, The process of inferring conversational implicatures depends on the assumption that the speaker is adhering to the
Cooperative Principle, while the subordinate maxims may be either observed or flouted, i.e. exploited to yield implicatures (Humor and Grice’s Model 160).
Furthermore, the flouting of maxims plays a key role in communicating difficult messages without being explicit, in expressing sarcasm, and in jokes
(Dubinsky and Holcomb 91). Grice notes in the case of the counterfactual language employed in the use of sarcasm, the maxim of quality (“be truthful) is flouted intentionally. Flouting the maxim successfully is possible only if (1) conversationalists follow the maxims in conversation generally, and (2) they
33
follow them consistently enough that a deviation from the maxim is a signal of an implicature other than straightforward, literal intention.
For instance, Frasier is talking to Niles about his estranged wife, Maris, and it is Niles’ answer that flouts relevance:
(32) Frasier : By calling her so many times, you give her all the power! You’re much better off coming from a position of strength! Niles : Don’t pour that sherry on your shirt: it will stain. Frasier : What? Niles : Oh, I’m sorry. I thought this was the portion of the afternoon where we give each other patently obvious advice.
Based on the context (32), Niles’ response to Frasier’s advice is patently irrelevant to the preceding conversation, leading Frasier to remark on it (What?).
It is here that Niles connects the dots for Frasier, suggesting to him that the
“relevance” of Frasier’s remark and his answer to it is that they both constitute patently obvious (and from Niles’ perspective, unwanted) advice. In Niles’ second comeback, he makes a statement which is blatantly false (flouting quality in this case) and thereby sarcastic. The flouting of quantity also frequently plays a key role in jokes and other humor (92).
Flouting of maxims is a great comedic tool, and shows up in a host of genres. Another example is below:
(33) Traveler : Hey there, mister. Where’s this road go to? Fiddler : Well, since I’ve been livin’ here, it ain’t gone nowheres. (Flouts quantity and relevance, ignores the ‘leads to’ meaning of goes to) Traveler : Mister. You’ve lived around here all your life? Fiddler : Nope. Not yet. (Flouts quantity and relevance, ignores the implied ‘until this moment’) Traveler : Hey, mister. How far is it to Little Rock?
34
Fiddler : I don’ know, but there’s a heck of a big’un down there in the corn field. (Flouts quality and relevance, ignores the proper name meaning of little rock) Traveler : Mister, you know I don’t believe there’s much between you and a fool. Fiddler : Nope. Just the front yard there. (Flouts relevance, intentionally substitutes distance for
difference)
Based on the conversation (33), Fiddler as a local inhabitant repeatedly answered the traveler’s questions by flouting the maxims and seemed to be less or more informative. It indicates that Fiddler wanted to show the humorous responses to build up the comedy situation in order to entertaining the viewers.
Therefore, there are some criteria of humor based on the following study:
1. Providing information more than required or lack of required
information. Speakers break the quantity maxim consciously, and do not
provide what’s addressees required or give much more than needed.
2. Providing information that is false or that is not supported by evidence.
Speakers reveal the untruthfulness by breaking the maxim of quality and
disobey the objectivity.
3. Providing information that is not relevant. Speakers againts the maxim of
relation by giving contribution that is relate clearly to the purpose of
exchange.
4. Providing information that is not perspicuous. Speakers do not follow the
maxim of manner by giving expression that is obscure, ambiguous,
unncessary prolixity and disorderly.
35
Thus, to find humorous effect, speakers might involve one criteria or more.
Moreover, leading to the unrelated topic, or distorting the implicated meaning happens to serve the primary factors to cause humor; moreover, the exaggerated expression and ambiguousstatement are the main reasons for producing humorous effect as well. Accordingly, inevitably the flouting of cooperative principle has close relation with creation of humor.
CHAPTER III
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
A. Data Description
In this chapter, the data is taken from a popular British television program named Jonathan Ross Show: Season 9 Episode 6 which used the transcript of the interview between Jonathan Ross, as the presenter and Michael Mcintyre, as his guest. Furthermore, the researcher analyzes the transcript and identifies the conversational implicature, then classifies it whether it is type of Generalized
Conversational Implicature or Particularized Conversational Implicature. The researcher will also discern the form and types of humor that occur in the conversation and find related to the flouting maxim.
As the data, this research consists of 15 conversational implicatures that contains flouting maxim and humor. The 15 data will be written to the data card for further analysis. Briefly, the data is presented in the table below. Afterward, the interview involved Jonathan Ross (as Jonathan) and Michael Mcintyre (as
Michael).
Table 2. The Data Description No. Data Context 1 They didn't tell me its ways to walk Jonathan greet Michael in the beginning of use. They runway. (01.Mb) the show. Then, Michael told Jonathan about something happened with him in the waiting room. 2 a. Because I saw myself at the Michael and One Direction members were monitor and they look so bloody also in the same waiting room. He thaught cool. (02.Ma) that One Direction got more attention than b. I wonder like I was on the loose him so the staff ignored him. security. (02.Mb) 3 a. It's one of your problems. Michael talked about his suit. He thought (03.Jb) that there was something wrong with it.
36
37
b. I think it's worse when I work on my posture. (03.Mc) 4 a. Harry got that Medusa. (04.Ja) Jonathan and Michael were talking about b. Oh no, my hairs but even One Direction members who would be the worse. Yeah. (04.Mb) next guest through the screen. Jonathan and Michael were in the studio and One Direction members were in the waiting room. Jonathan was looking at One Direction in the screen and gave them praise about their hair style. 5 I think the problem is there are so Jonathan talked about the ex-member of many signs around the building, One Direction named Zayn Malik. saying don't fucking mention Zayn. Don’t say. Don’t mention it again. (05.Ma) 6 I think so. I see he’s happy with me Jonathan asked about how is the as a father. (06.Ma) relationship between Michael and his son. 7 Nothing left looks and he knows all Jonathan asked Michael about what did his the words. No words left. So he Michael’ sons do with their spare time sings along. He doesn’t know what whether he was aware of what they played the accent in there. Mother mother, and what music they listened to. So, he say mother mother mother. Michael explained about what the one of Eminim taught about his mother. I his sons favorite song. try to be positive because he loves his mother. You know. You should love your mother, do you? You need to be nicer to your mother. You see. Eminem likes his mother. (07.Ma) 8 You don’t. You don’t. This is why I The picture of Jonathan and his wife was have the pasport. I was walking showing on the screen. The photo took in around to London. People think, oh the airport where Jonathan hold the pasport my God, he is the leader of North in his left hand. In that picture Michael Korea anybody thaught. No! No, looked like North Korean leader, Kim Jong- it’s me. (08.Ma) Un. They had similar hair cut and rotund body shape with their puffy cheeks. So, Jonathan noticed him as a president of North Korea. 9 What confuses me in frustrates me Michael stated that he lost his weight at the and upsets me little bit is I don't beginning of year and Jonathan seemed know why I lie to myself about it. I curious about it. still have. I'm so annoyed that weight is coming back on but I still weigh myself but I'm lying to myself. I do it first thing in the morning. I don't wait too what's up. Started eating because that makes it worse so there's a bee in the morning and I close the bathroom products skills. I literally will I take everything off. I take my watch off. I
38
put it on the side. I took my ring off. I pee. I... I breathe out and then I sort of stand on it and I hold on. I hold on to the seat. And I just ease my way I like that and I wait for it to give me the reading that I like. And then I go. That's fine for breakfast. (09.Ma) 10 a. I have no profile in America. Previously, Jonathan and Michael was Nope. And people expect me to having conversation about Michael’s be going there to the kids so into exsistancy of stand up comedy. Michael disney and universal. I kept came to America to perform and Jonathan telling people I'm going to Disney asked his sights to America. Universal. They see one big the meetings. But, oh great, are you doing meetings? I'm not going right. No profile in America. (10.Ma)
b. I mean not only have no profile. It's just high enough to get you through customs. I'm in the queue my son is in a goofy hat with an I love Disney World t-shirt. And the guys like, what is the purpose of your visit. How many claims it made? Come on people trafficking. Let me in. (10.Mb) 11 a. Go with me on this. Because I've Michael gave another sight to American thought it’s true. They changed about the term pavement. some of the words so they've taken english language but they've looked at some of it. No. No. I think we need a little bit more explanation here. Okay. That's my American accent. So things like pavement. So they can't work, work with pavement. So they've changed it to sidewalk. They needed more efficient. They needed to know where they were going to be walking. They wouldn't get run over. (M.11a)
b. Pavement. Sidewalks. I think there must been a period of time where they ran with the word pavement but they kept getting hit by cars so they changed it to sidewalk. (M.11b)
39
12 a. Bin. The word for bin. In Continually, Michael told about another American waste paper basket. terms which are bin and eyeglasses. They needed to know what not only what to put in it. They needed to know that not only it was paper but waste paper and then it goes into a basket. It's not just any paper. They kept throwing away fresh paper for a period time and introduced the word waste paper basket. It’s like they need instructions. (M.12a)
b. Glasses for your eyes. They'd call them eyeglasses. They needed to know where they put them because they used to have glasses and they would put them on their thighs. And they put them on their feet. And they would say, I can't see any better with the glasses. And somebody said, no, they are eyeglasses. Well, why didn't you call eye glasses? (M.12b) 13 It's not in America. Racquetball. The following context, Michael added They needed to know what they another term, racquetball and horse riding. were going to keep playing with, a racquetball and even then they get confused because there's no court. They don't know where to go. They just wonder through the street. I wanna play racquetball so cut me down to change that. But my favorite one without a shadow of doubt is horse riding. (13.Mb) 14 a. No. Horseback riding. They Previously, he told about horse riding. need to specify everywhere the horse. (14.Mb) b. It’s terrible problems. Because there was period of time when they didn't call it horseback riding. They had to use to hold on the tail. So this is how in riding horses in Europe. (14.Mc) 15 Anybody's watch the show who Michael spontaneously assumed what may have been flicking the viewers will do after watching the show. channels. Horseback riding in
40
Europe. No. No. No. This was a story about America in descriptive words. (15.Ma) Data Code Information: (Number of Datum.Name of Participant+Number of utterance) J : Jonathan Ross M : Michael Mcintyre a/b/c : first/second/third utterance of participant
B. Data Analysis
Datum 1
Michael : Hi. Hi. Jonathan : Come on have a sit Michael. Great to see you again. Michael : They didn't tell me its ways to walk use. They runway.
Michael said, “They didn't tell me its ways to walk use. They run away”.
The word they refers to the crew of Jonathan Ross Show. Following the case,
Michael implied another meaning to his utterance. He might feel dissapointed because they ignored him, moreover, he seemed to think that they run away because they were busy on camera stuff. To understand the meaning of the utterance, Jonathan and the audience need to connect it to the context and have general knowledge to understand what Michael meant, so the connversational implicatures above is particularized conversational implicature.
Though, Jonathan warmly greet Michael by saying, “Come on have a sit,
Michael. Great to see you again.”, and Michael said, “They didn't tell me its ways to walk use. They runway.” he should relpy Jonathan’s greeting first but he blatantly flouted maxim of relation and maxim of manner. He gave irrelevant and ambigous information. His utterance doesn’t have correlation with the Jonathan’s
41
utterance and the word they can refers to many people but in this situation it refers to the crew of Jonathan Ross Show.
Those flouting maxims indicated by the utterances They didn't tell me its ways to walk use and They runway. They created the humor because they misleads
Jonathan to his expectation. He might expect that Michael would sit down and they started the conversation. Infact, Michael told his situation in the waiting room, he got wrong way to go out and accused the crew by saying “They didn't tell me its ways to walk use. They runway.” The conflict of humor based on both utterances They didn't tell me its ways to walk use and They runway. Through the incongruity theory, the first utterance is considered as set up which is built of short narrative and the second utterance is considered as punchline which is the closing statement that involved something that the hearers did not expect.
Jonathan and the audience certainly knew that Michael might not find wrong way to go out because before he went out, of course, he has already entered the waiting room. But he intentionally chose the wrong way and told it to the Jonathan and the audiences, moreover, he accused the crew and stated that they run away. It is impossible for them to run away because they had to work and look after the guest stars. So, the hearers laughed when Michael gave surprising reply by saying “They didn't tell me its ways to walk use. They runway.” Furthermore, this reply is also kind of teasing, he tended to express disappointment to the crew by accusing them but it is aimed to entertain the hearers without serious insult or offend. Thus, it is considered as spontaneous conversational humor.
42
Datum 2
Jonathan : No. No. What? Why do you think that? Michael : Because I saw myself at the monitor and they look so bloody cool. Jonathan : Ok. Michael : I wonder like I was on the loose security.
Michael compared himself with One Direction members by saying
“Because I saw myself at the monitor and they look so bloody cool”. It implicates that Michael really admire One Direction. Next, Jonathan gave the agreement of it by saying “Ok”. Then, Michael complained, he wondered that he was on the loose security which is anybody turned more attention to One Direction members than him. To understand the meaning of the utterances, Jonathan needs to know the context and has special knowledge to understand what Michael meant, so the connversational implicatures above is particularized conversational implicature.
Michael’s utterances, are considered as flouting maxim of quality by using a hyperbole, “.....they look so bloody cool”, cool is an adjective and it can not be blood but in British slang it can mean something like “very” so what Michael meant that they (One Direction) are so/very or extremly cool. Again, “I wonder like I was on the loose security.”, this utterance seems that Michael gives a contribution less or more informative than is required to Jonathan’s utterance
“Ok”. Michael blatantly flouts the maxim of quantity.
The Michael’s utterances “Because I saw myself at the monitor and they look so bloody cool.” and “I wonder like I was on the loose security.” gave humorous contribution to the conversational implicature above. By his first utterance, Michael did not really express about himself and just told about One
Direction but after that he expressed it which implicated that he loose security
43
because he did not as cool as One Direction. Thus, it indicates incongruous way of humor and spontaneous conversational humor. Michael seemed to demonstrate modesty and put One Direction at ease.
Datum 3
Michael : Is it something wrong with my suit when I'm standing up in the suit. I think it is okay. When I sit down. It just like, it just it goes incomplete. Jonathan : Because when you stand up, it's all distributing more when you sit down, a sec of a high dose. Michael : It’s posture. It is not my problem. Jonathan : It's one of your problems. Michael : I think it's worse when I work on my posture.
The first utterance by Michael talked about his suit. He thought that there was something wrong with it. Then, Jonathan gave the response to Michael’s utterance with his own assumption which related to the context which meant that it was different when Michael stood up and sit down, when he sit down the dose of his body is distributing more. Jonathan replied by saying It’s one of your problems which implicated that he seemed do not care about Michael posture and insisted that it was his problem. Moreover, the utterance I think it's worse when I work on my posture indicates hidden meaning that Michael felt bad to wear suit because of his posture. Hence, the implicature of this datum contains a particularized conversational implicature because it discussed how is Michael’s figure with his attire that obviously is known by Michael Mcintyre himself and also people who see him at that time.
Michael said his posture it is not the problem (of the suit) but after that,
Jonathan’s replied, It's one of your problems, it is blatantly flout by a clash between the maxim quantity and maxim quality because he did not really give the
44
information that is required and he cannot truly show the quality or the truth of what is being said, so it cause the flouting of maxim quantity. And so does
Michael on his saying, I think it's worse when I work on my posture, he gives more information than is required and it is also kind of hyperbole which generates flouting the maxim of quantity and quality.
The flouting maxims cause humor, It's one of your problems, this is overstatement and understatement of spontaneous conversational humor where
Jonathan changes the meaning of Michael has said by repeating it with a different emphasis. Previously, Michael said innocently that it’s posture and it is not his problem. Then, Jonathan evasived Michael’s statement clearly that it is his problem which is the hearers did not expect it. So, it made the hearers laughed.
Another flouting maxim is I think it's worse when I work on my posture, it is also spontaneous conversational humor which contains self-deprecation that targeting speaker’s himself (Michael) as the object of humor. Through incongruity theory,
Michael’s utterance contains the element of surprise, firstly, he said, It’s posture.
It is not my problem but at the end, he said on the contrary, I think it's worse when
I work on my posture, that means his posture make him worse so in the other words the posture is his problem. He used this conflict to create humor and laughter.
Datum 4
Jonathan : I think we need to be jealous and all the boys have got stuff in their hair. How is Harry? Harry got that Medusa. It’s a live result. Liam. Liam.
Michael : I like his hair.
Jonathan : Oh, you like his hair.
45
Michael : Except does it move. Look at it. Do everything you can to make your head move. Nothing, nothing happens. Oh no, my hairs but even worse. Yeah.
Jonathan said, How is Harry? Harry got that Medusa. The hearers will understand what he mean if they know Medusa who is character of Greek
Metology which her gold long wave hair turn into poisonous snakes. Michael and the audiences will understand what Jonathan means only if they knew and saw directly One Direction at that time, moreover, have knowledge about Medusa. So, it must be particularized conversational implicature. And the other utterances also generates particularized conversational implicature. “Liam. Liam.” said Jonathan.
And Michael directly states, “I like his hair.”, and then Jonathan asserted that utterance. Michael needed special knowledge which is about Liam’s hair to be able to like it. Moreover, he added that he liked it expect it does not move.
“Except does it move. Look at it. Do everything you can to make your head move.
Nothing, nothing happens.” This utterance implicate that He was wondering about
Liam’s hair whether it is real or not maybe using wig, so he asked Liam to do everything that can made his head move but there was nothing happens which meant that Liam’s hair is real. At the end, he mocked his own hair desperately by saying, “Oh no, my hairs but even worse. Yeah.”
Jonathan gives opinion about One Direction’s hair styles, he said, “I think we need to be jealous and all the boys have got stuff in their hair”. And then, he said, How is Harry? Harry got that Medusa, he asked about the hair of one of One
Direction member which is Harry but after that his utterance is blatantly flouts the maxim of quantity. He gave less or more information than is required. It is also flouting the maxim of quality because he exaggerated his utterance to be a
46
hyperbole and lack adequate which lead the hearers to look for another meanings of the utterance. It could be meant that Harry’s hair style is like Medusa. Harry had long wave hair but it was not really like Medusa. And the conversation turned to speak about Liam. “Except does it moves. Look at it. Do everything you can to make your head move. Nothing, nothing happens. Oh no, my hairs but even worse.
Yeah.” This utterance is considered as flouting the maxim of quantity. He seemed to give lack or more information that was needed and he also expressed his thought about his own hair style which worse than Liam’s.
The flouting maxims above indicate humor based the type of humor which is spontaneous conversational humor. The utterance, “How is Harry? Harry got that Medusa”, it is kind of teasing that remarks directed at Harry’s personal appearance and due to incongruity theory this utterance involves unexpected interpretation that Jonathan surprise the hearer to utter that Harry’s hair was same like Medusa’s. So, his interpretation made the hearers laughed. Then, “Oh no, my hairs but even worse. Yeah.”, it is kind of spontaneous conversational humor which identify by the category of self-deprecation, Michael was targeting himself as the object of humor and used it to surprise the hearers so it causes humor effect.
Datum 5
Jonathan : Should I not mention Zayn? Because I'm looking at you and I'm thinking Zayn.
Michael : I think the problem is there are so many signs around the building, saying don't fucking mention Zayn. Don’t say. Don’t mention it again.
Jonathan said that when he looked at Michael, he was thinking about
Zayn. But Michael did not like and asked Jonathan to not mention Zayn anymore.
47
Altough, Michael even said, “Don’t fucking mention Zayn”, but actually he is not truly dislike it. It implicates that Michael just wanted to build up the conversation and make it funnier because as known, he is a comedian. Thus, to understand what
Jonathan meant, Michael must have same knowledge to the person named Zayn which in this context refers to ex-member One Direction. Therefore, the conversation above is particularized conversational implicature.
The Michael’s answer does not replying orderly, he explains about the caution around the building first which is seem irrelevant with Jonathan’s question. Moreover, the utterance seemed to be untrue information because there was no fact about the caution, “Don’t fucking mention Zayn”, as he has been said.
Then, the word fucking seemed like Michael exaggrated his uttrance. After that, he finally gave clear command to Jonathan to not mention Zayn. Due to his utterance, the maxim of manner, quality and quantity has been flouted by Michael.
The flouting maxims is a kind of replies to rhetorical question of spontaneous conversational humor, he was giving answer to Michael flouts a conversational expectation and surprise Jonathan who posed the question and audience who listen it. It is perceived as funny core, and the intention is usually to simply entertain a conversational partner. Through the incongruity theory,
Michael created humor by setting up unexpected reply which is I think the problem is there are so many signs around the building, saying don't fucking mention Zayn. Following Don’t say. Don’t mention it again. It affirmed his reply and resolved the conflict without intending to denigrate Zayn as a target of the conversation.
48
Datum 6
Jonathan : And so is he..? Is he happy with you, show you off as a father or are you kind of kept the arms length a little bit?
Michael : I think so. I see he’s happy with me as a father.
Jonathan asked about how is the relationship between Michael and his son whether he show off Michael as a father or has a little bit avoiding intimacy/familiarity with him. Then, Michael replied that he thaught his son was happy with him as a father. In the case of the datum, there is no special knowledge of the context of utterance is required to calculate the additional meaning, it is called generalized conversational implicature.
Michael’s utterance above is considered as flouting maxim of quantity. He seemed to give less information than is required. Jonathan asked Michael “And so is he..? Is he happy with you, show you off as a father or are you kind of kept the arms length a little bit?” to know whether he was intimate or close with his son or not. But he just answered “I think so. I see he’s happy with me as a father.” he just said that his son is happy with him as a father but he did not tell the information that Jonathan wanted to be known.
The flout of maxim quantity above makes the utterance funny because
Michael created incongruity of the utterance. He made conflict between what was thought by Jonathan and audience thinking but what happened in his saying turn to be ambigous way. He might be close with his son or not, but the most important, his son was happy with him. As as result, the hearers laughed. Thus, because of incongruous replies to question was meant to be serious, the utterance is type of spontaneous conversational humor.
49
Datum 7
Jonathan : It could be nothing left.
Michael : Nothing left looks and he knows all the words. No words left. So he sings along. He doesn’t know what the accent in there. Mother mother, he say mother mother mother. Eminim taught about his mother. I try to be positive because he loves his mother. You know. You should love your mother, do you? You need to be nicer to your mother. You see. Eminem likes his mother.
Jonathan : Oh no whoever it will be such a good folks for now.
Michael : Let it be.
Michael said that his son liked one of Eminem song and once he tried to sing it and focused on rapping part which mentioned so many words mother. He wanted to give his opinion by commenting the song objectively and positively although the song does not have a good meaning as he uttered. Hence, this datum contains a particularized conversational implicature because it discussed
Michael’s son favorite song that obviously only had known by his parents, which is Michael Mcintyre himself.
Furthermore, Michael responded to Jonathan’s question with too much information, he could answer by mentioning one tittle of his son’s favorite song but he tried to imitate and show the way his son express his favorite’s. By saying,
“Nothing left looks and he knows all the words. No words left. So he sings along.”
He flouted the maxim of quality because he repeated what had been uttered by
Jonathan and delivered more information than is required. He also added a rapping part to the song but in unclear lyric “Mother mother, he say mother mother mother. Eminim taught about his mother. I try to be positive because he loves his mother. You know. You should love your mother do you? You need to be
50
nicer to your mother. You see. Eminem likes his mother.” which created obscurity of expresssion. It indicates flouting maxim of quantity and manner.
The flouting maxims above are the core of humor aspect. The utterance
“He doesn’t know what the accent in there. Mother mother, he say mother mother mother. Eminim taught about his mother. I try to be positive because he loves his mother. You know. You should love your mother, do you? You need to be nicer to your mother. You see. Eminem likes his mother.” indicates an apparently friendly way of being offensive or mocking in politeness way. He intentionally flouting those maxims to make Jonathan and the audience laugh so it is kind of spontaneous conversational humor. According to humor theory, it considered as superiority because Michael’s utterance contains aggressive element that refers to
Eminem song which makes funny.
Datum 8
Jonathan : You look such going out with the dely of Korea .
Michael : You don’t. You don’t. This is why I have the pasport. I was walking around to London. People think, oh my God, he is the leader of North Korea anybody thaught. No! No, it’s me.
Jonathan assumed that Michael such going out with dely of Korea because people thaught he was president of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un. Michael replied it by adding story about his experience. Although Jonathan did not asked for it, he might to tell that funny experience to entertain Jonathan and the audience.
Therefore, the context of conversational implicature above does not need any special knowledge, so it is called as generalized conversational implicature.
51
Jonathan inquired into Michael about the picture which was shown on the screen,“You look such going out with the dely of Korea.”, and Michael replied,
“You don’t. You don’t. This is why I have the pasport. I was walking around to
London. People think, oh my God, he is the leader of North Korea anybody thaught. No! No, it’s me.” from this answer Michael flouts maxim of quantity. He gave an hyperbole information which is more informative than is required. He should reply yes or not, in fact, he said You don’t which implicates no because he has pasport so there is no reason for him to face interference that cause delying.
But, he also added more contribution to his utterance by telling the story of his experience in London.
Jonathan utterances are kind of teasing where his assumption summoned
Michael to utter the reply in humorous way. As stated before, Michael tended to exaggerate his story and exceed overstated, hence it makes the conversation funny. It is concluded as canned joke because the utterance consists of set up and puch line, the set up is opening story line which is I was walking around to
London. People think, oh my God, he is the leader of North Korea anybody thaught. And the punch line is surprising element which is No! No, it’s me.
Michael wanted to clarify that he is himself Michael not a president. So, the hearers laughed by the surprising line.
Datum 9
Jonathan : You've earned the right to put it back on?
Michael : What confuses me in frustrates me and upsets me little bit is I don't know why I lie to myself about it. I still have. I'm so annoyed that weight is coming back on but I still weigh myself but I'm lying to myself. I do it first thing in the morning. I don't wait too what's up. started eating because that makes it worse
52
so there's a bee in the morning and I close the bathroom products skills. I literally will I take everything off. I take my watch off. I put it on the side. I took my ring off. I pee. I... I breathe out and then I sort of stand on it and I hold on. I hold on to the seat. And I just ease my way I like that and I wait for it to give me the reading that I like. And then I go. That's fine for breakfast.
Jonathan asked Michael, “You've earned the right to put it back on?”
Instead of saying yes or not to Jonathan’s question, Michael seemed to reply by implicit meaning to his utterance. He tried to reduce weight by doing some activities and passing the breakfast but the conclusion was still the same that he could not lose his weight and keep eating for breakfast. It implicates No to the
Jonathan’s question, Michael had not earned the right to put the weight back on.
The situation that he explained does not require any special knowledge. Thus, this datum considers as generalized conversational implicature.
The italic Michael utterance indicates the flouting maxims. He intentionally gave too much information than is required which is considered as flouting maxim of quantity and unnecessary prolixity which is considered as flouting maxim of manner.
Michael’s story tends to consider as untrue story, he seemed to lie and exaggerate it to make a joke. Although, it comes from the real experience, it is still counted as a humor. At first his story seemed like normal activities but at the end of his story he added surprising closing, And then I go. That's fine for breakfast. He did everything he can do to put back his weight. Though, he taught that it worse when he gained more weight so he had not had a breakfast and did other activities. But at the end he thought it was fine if he had breakfast. He deliberately misled the hearers and assumed that he will continue his routine to
53
not gain more weight. But it was not what occurred in jokes that Michael still wanted to have a breakfast. Jonathan and the audience did not expect it so it made the hearers laugh. Thus, it is considered as spontaneous conversational humor.
Datum 10
Jonathan : They are bigger in America than they are here.
Michael : I have no profile in America. Nope. And people expect me to be going there to the kids so into disney and universal. I kept telling people I'm going to Disney Universal. They see one big the meetings. but, oh great, are you doing meetings? I'm not going right. No profile in America.
I mean not only have no profile. It's just high enough to get you through customs. I'm in the queue my son is in a goofy hat with an I love Disney World t-shirt. And the guys like, what is the purpose of your visit. How many claims it made? Come on people trafficking. Let me in.
Jonathan said They are bigger in America than they are here implicate that
They which are One Direction members have bigger influence in America than in
England. Michael replied that the boys who refer to One Direction members that is very popular in America while he is not. Then, he continued to explain his opinion about America and as usual he put it in story line. It has same case with previous conversation which is Michael noticed as North Korea Leader. There is no special knowledge that is involved in that conversation implicature, so it is a generalized conversational implicature.
Previously Jonathan asked about his sight on America. Then, He and
Michael talked about One Direction for a while. However, Michael respone indicates a flouting maxim of manner. He did not answer the question yet, instead, he uttered information that implicate the comparation between himself and One
Dircetion. Eventually, he also flouted the maxim of quantity by contributing his
54
sights but it seemed like less or more informative than is required, he attached his experiance again and arranged it became an interesting and expressive story.
The first core of humorous utterance occurs in the lines, “...oh great, are you doing meetings? I'm not going right.”, American people asked Michael whether he was going to have meetings or not. If he had on it, they did not allow him to visit. Becuase of that, he said that he had no profile in America. Through this conflict, Michael tried to set up an expectation to Jonathan and the audience and jolt them with something they did not expect. Furthermore, the story was continuing, they was still asking him about what the purpose of his visit. Clearly, it could be known that he and his son wanted to come to Disney land even his son wore the t-shirt. Many people also came there but they did not accept the interruption. Then, he asked them to let him in. Thus, the utterance “Come on people trafficking. Let me in.” is the punch line that creates the humor. The story of Michael is considered as canned joke. It leads incongruity with the set-up and the puchline. The lines I mean not only have no profile. It's just high enough to get you through customs. I'm in the queue my son is in a goofy hat with an I love
Disney World t-shirt. And the guys like, what is the purpose of your visit. How many claims it made? They are considered as set up which is the opening and main story. While the lines Come on people trafficking. Let me in. They are considered as punchline, the final portion of the story, which engenders surprise.
Datum 11
Michael : The thing about Americans that I've thought about the languages that they speak. They say they speak English but they've had to change it to make them understand it more. Go with me on this. Because I've thought it’s true. They
55
changed some of the words so they've taken english language but they've looked at some of it. No. No. I think we need a little bit more explanation here. Okay. That's my American accent. So things like pavement. So they can't work, work with pavement. So they've changed it to sidewalk. They needed more efficient. They needed to know where they were going to be walking. They wouldn't get run over.
Jonathan : So that's it. I didn't think of that.
Michael : Pavement. Sidewalks. I think there must been a period of time where they ran with the word pavement but they kept getting hit by cars so they changed it to sidewalk.
Previously, Jonathan asked Michael about his sight on America, Michael gaves his opinion in the conversation above. He said, “They say they speak
English but they've had to change it to make them understand it more.”, it implicates that Micheal thought American people did not truly understand English language. They needed to specify the words or changed it to understand it more, such for the example is the word pavemant in British which is called sidewalk in
America. On the other hand, it is common case when two words have same meaning in same language but into different cultures. Michael also told untruthful history by the utterance, “I think there must been a period of time where they ran with the word pavement but they kept getting hit by cars so they changed it to sidewalk.” He intended to express peculiarity of American people which aimed to entertain the hearers without any intentions to vilify them. Thus, it requires special knowledge and considered as particularized conversational implicature.
Michael is blatantly flouting the maxim of quantity and quality by the utterance “Go with me on this. Because I've thought it’s true. They changed some of the words so they've taken english language but they've looked at some of it.
No. No. I think we need a little bit more explanation here. Okay. That's my
56
American accent. So things like pavement. So they can't work, work with pavement. So they've changed it to sidewalk. They needed more efficient. They needed to know where they were going to be walking. They wouldn't get run over.”. He gave contribution more informative than is required and it seemed to be false because he supposed it based on his knowledge without adequate proof.
In the utterance Pavement. Sidewalks. I think there must been a period of time where they ran with the word pavement but they kept getting hit by cars so they changed it to sidewalk. Michael insulted Jonathan by giving too much information and untrustable explanation.
The flouting maxims above makes utterance funny because Michael created the element of surprise. Jonathan and the audience did not expect Michael will explain his incongrous thought. “They needed to know where they were going to be walking. They wouldn't get run over.” and “I think there must been a period of time where they ran with the word pavement but they kept getting hit by cars so they changed it to sidewalk.” These replies, therefore be perceived as funny, and the intention is simply to entertain the hearers. Thus, the utterances are considers as spontaneous coversational humor which the subtype is satire, an aggressive humor that pokes fun at American people.
Datum 12
Michael : Now bear with me here John. Cause I prove this truth.
Jonathan : Okay.
Michael : Bin. The word for bin. In American waste paper basket. They needed to know what not only what to put in it. They needed to know that not only it was paper but waste paper and then it goes into a basket. It's not just any paper.
57
They kept throwing away fresh paper for a period time and introduced the word waste paper basket. It’s like they need instructions.
Glasses for your eyes. They'd call them eyeglasses. They needed to know where they put them because they used to have glasses and they would put them on their thighs. And they put them on their feet. And they would say, I can't see any better with the glasses. And somebody said, no, they are eyeglasses. Well, why didn't you call eye glasses?.
The datum above still has same context with the previous datum. In this datum, Michael talked about another term of words. First, it is about bin. He said that American people used the word waste paper basket instead of bin because
American thought that it was not only paper but waste paper and it went into a basket. He thought, at period of time, they kept throwing away fresh paper so they introduced the word waste paper basket. Next, he talked about eyeglasses that
American people needed to know where they put glasses, then, they put in their thighs and feet, they said they can not see any better with the glasses, one of them said “No, it is eyeglasses”, another American replied, “Well, why didn't you call eye glasses.” So, this story was made by special knowledge with the explicit meaning to criticize American terms which was obtained by Michael’s own mind exploration. Thus, this datum presents particularized conversational implicature.
Michael’s utterance “Bin. the word for bin. In American waste paper basket. They needed to know, what not only what to put in it. That you didn't know that not only it was paper but waste paper and then it goes into a basket. It's not just any paper. They kept throwing away fresh paper for a period time introduced the word waste paper basket. It’s like they need instructions. Glasses for your eyes. They'd call them eyeglasses. They needed to know where they put them because they used to have glasses and they would put them on their thighs. And
58
they put them on their feet. And they would say, I can't see any better with the glasses. And somebody said, no, they are eyeglasses. Well, why didn't you call eye glasses.” is considered as flouting the maxim of quantity and quality. He gave too much information than was needed. He asked to Jonathan to take attention to his explanation and said that it was true but in contrast to the next utterance, he seemed tell untruth by giving too much infomation and totally unfounded.
The hearers still pay attention to Michael utterances “Bin. The word for bin. In American waste paper basket. They needed to know what not only what to put in it.” But they started to laugh by the utterance “They needed to know that not only it was paper but waste paper and then it goes into a basket.” Following
“They kept throwing away fresh paper for a period time and introduced the word waste paper basket.” The utterances contain unexpected interpretation to the word bin. Michael was playing with the term and giving his own assumption about the origin of word. As a result, the hearers laugh because of his incongruous way.
Similarly, the next utterances also surprised the hearers. It was about the origin of the word eye glasses. The laughter was started to the line They'd call them eyeglasses. Because in (British) English, they just use the term glasses that they certainly know it is for eyes. So the hearers laugh because they know that Michael was going to tell other incongruous way of the word. So, by following other utterance the hearers also laugh them. He stated that American needed to know where they put them because they used to have glasses and they would put them on their thighs. Once, they put them on their feet. And he added such monolog that they would say, “I can't see any better with the glasses.” And somebody said,
59
“No, they are eyeglasses.” “Well, why didn't you call eye glasses?” Briefly, all those utterances full of laughter.
Thus, this datum presents satire as the element of humor, which is a way of criticizing a language especially the words bin and eyeglasses in American. Satire is one kind of spontaneous conversational humor.
Datum 13
Michael : There's a game called squash. Do you’ve heard of it?
Jonathan : Yes.
Michael : It's not in America. Racquetball. They needed to know what they were going to keep playing with, a racquetball and even then they get confused because there's no court. They don't know where to go. They just wonder through the street. I wanna play racquetball so cut me down to change that. But my favorite one without a shadow of doubt is horse riding.
In this datum, Michael asked Jonathan whether he ever heard the game called squash and he said yes. After that, Michael added more information about squash which is called racquetball in America. He said that American wanted to know what thing they were playing with which was raqcuet and ball so it called racquetball but they got confused because there was no information about where they could play it which is the court so they just wondered through the street.
Then, he was going to talk about another term horseriding. Again, he described the information based on his understanding and not all people have same perception with him. Thus, this conversation considers as particularized conversational implicature.
In this case Michael deliberately flouted the maxim of quantity and quality. The information from Michael to Jonathan “It's not in America.
60
Racquetball. They needed to know what they were going to keep playing with, a racquetball and even then they get confused because there's no court. They don't know where to go. They just wonder through the street. I wanna play racquetball so cut me down to change that. but my favorite one without a shadow of doubt is horse riding.” used to provide contribution more informative than is required and lack adequte evidence. The hearer must be known that his story is untrue.
Similar with the previous datum, this datum creates humor because
Michael exaggrated the information and used the incongruous way. Michael started his explanation by saying “It's not in America. Racquetball.” Then,
Jonathan and audience started to laugh by the following utterances “They needed to know what they were going to keep playing with, a racquetball and even then they get confused because there's no court. They don't know where to go. They just wonder through the street. I wanna play racquetball so cut me down to change that.” Although his explanation is illogical, the hearers tend to enjoy it even laugh because of it. Furthermore, it also considered as satire that he deliberately criticized American language especially the word racquetball. Satire is one kind of spontaneous conversational humor.
Datum 14
Michael : Do you know what horse riding is in America?
Jonathan : Is not called horse riding?
Michael : No. Horseback riding. They need to specify how ride the horse.
Jonathan : Oh yes. Yeah.
61
Michael : It’s terrible problems. Because there was period of time when they didn't call it horseback riding. They had to use to hold on the tail. So this is how in riding horses in Europe.
Continued to the previous datum, moreover, Michael asked Jonathan whether he know horse riding is called in America. And Jonathan returned to ask
Jonathan “Is not called horse riding?”. Then, Michael gave the answer that in
America it is called horseback riding and added more explanation about it. He told that there was time when American did not use the word horseback riding, they rode the horse by holding on the tail. Furthermore, not all the hearers
(Jonathan and the audiences) knew the term of horse riding in American English which is called horseback riding. Michael might be implicate another meaning between the term horse riding and horseback riding. He mocked the term smoothly. Though, the hearers knew that American people do not use the word horseback riding just because they want to understand it more. There is no convinced linguitic history about it. Therefore, the implicature above involves special knowledge which is Michael’s extraordinary thought, so it consider as particularized conversational implicature.
In this datum, both utterances “No. Horseback riding. They need to specify how ride the horse.” and “It’s terrible problems. Because there was period of time when they didn't call it horseback riding. They had to use to hold on the tail. So this is how in riding horses in Europe.” flouted the maxims of quantity and quality, since Michael is responding with more information than is required and lack adequate evidence.
62
Michael explained about the fact only based on his mind without giving the trustable reason. He seemed to give logical statement but attach humor on it.
The utterance “No. Horseback riding. They need to specify how ride the horse.”, results humor effect. And Michael added it more by the utterance “It’s terrible problems. Because there was period of time when they didn't call it horseback riding. They had to use to hold on the tail. So this is how in riding horses in
Europe.” It has double meaning which deliberately misleads the hearers which one of elements of ingcongruity theory. Michael’s utterance implicates that at period of time, American do not ride the horse by sitting on his back instead standing on the back by holding the tail. Of course, his explanation did not make sense but he intentionally did it to create the laughter. Therefore, those utterances are spontaneous conversational humor that caused by an ambiguity and nonsensical statement.
Datum 15
Jonathan : That's a whole different thing you doing there.
Michael : Anybody's watch the show who may have been flicking the channels. Horseback riding in Europe. No. No. No. This was a story about America in descriptive words. Do you think my thaught will damage American?
Jonathan : No. You can complain it. This is the whole show. Mr. Michael Mcintyre.
In this datum, Jonathan commented to the whole Michael explaination about several words in English and American, by saying “That's a whole different thing you doing there” Then, Michael said that the spectators of the show might have been flicking the channels. Then, he redemonstrated how American do the horseback riding. After that, he clarified his utterances and said that they were just
63
the descriptive words of America story. Then, he asked Jonathan “Do you think my thaught will damage American?”. Jonathan replied, “No. You can complain it.” And lastly, Jonathan close the interview session. While the conversational implicature in this datum is generalized conversational implicature because it does not require special knowledge.
Michael’s utterance “Anybody's watch the show who may have been flicking the channels.” seemed flouting the maxim of relavance but his utterance still had related context to the Jonathan statement which talked about American despite he blatantly flouted the maxim of quality. By saying “Horseback riding in
Europe. No. No. No. This was a story about America in descriptive words.”, he exaggrated his utterance and added more infomation than is required.
Therefore, the humor aspect is existed in Michael’s utterance he created spontaneous conversational humor intentionally. He generated the laughter of audience by exaggrating the situation that spectators might be flicking the channel because what had been Michael talked about. And he conveyed overstatement by repeating “Horseback riding in Europe.” Jonathan and the audience certainly will be recalling the data which is funny way and nonsensical explanations about some
American terms in the previous conversation. According to humor theory, this datum used superiority theory because it contains aggressive elements to
American English. It indicates by the utterance Horseback riding in Europe.
Michael intentionally uttered it to build up more laughter.
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGESSTIONS
A. Conclusions
Based on the analysis, the writer finds fifteen selected data from the conversation between Jonathan Ross and Michael Mcintyre which contain two types of conversational implicature which are generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature. The generalized conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature generated by flouting maxims, based on the meaning that Michael implied in his utterance. The uses of both types conversational implicature also prove that humor could need a special or not special context to have humorous meanings.
Besides, the flouts of conversational maxim are impressive comedic tool to entertain the hearers or the readers. The using of flouting maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner basically to create surprising effect to make the hearers laugh. Michael chiefly flouted maxim of quantity. He deliberatly did not follow the principles of maxim to implicate laughter. However, lack of required information or provided information more than required makes humor. Thus, the success rate in creating humor could be determined by how maxim is flouted.
Related to the processes of creating humor, there are three theory and types leading the humorous utterances. As the result, the incongruity theory and spontaneous conversational humor have dominant role in creating humor. Mostly,
Michael used incongruous way of humor simply by setting up an expectation in
64
65
the hearers or audience and jolts them with something they did not expect.
Moreover, the most coomon types of humor found are spontaneous conversational humor. It is distinguished from certain basis of the intentions or use of humors such as satire, overstatement and understatement, self-deprecation, teasing, and clever or nonsensical replies to serious statements.
B. Suggestions
Humor happens in daily life, most people tend to tell a joke and others like being entertained. Further study on humor is always suggested. For following research, the further researchers should deeply examine conversational implicature and cooperative principles because it is the main tool of the conversation. Beside pragmatic field, various research innovations are needed in order to obtain more understanding to the phenomenon of humor. In this case, the writer suggest further research which studying on semantics, sociolinguistic or other linguistic fields.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Attardo, Salvatore. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor. New York: Routledge, 2017.
Birner, Betty J. Introduction to Pragmatic. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2013.
Bublitz, Wolfram and Neal R. Norrick. Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyeter, 2011.
Chapman, Siobhan. Paul Grice, Philosopher and Linguist. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches. California: SAGE Publications, 2014.
Cruse, Alan. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Cutting, Joan. Pragmatics and Discourse. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Dubinsky, Stanley and Chris Holcomb. Understanding Language through Humor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Dynel, Marta. Developments in Linguistic Theory. USA: John Benjamins Publishing, 2013.
Grice, H. Paul. Studies in the Way of Words. London: Harvard University Press, 1989.
Hornby, A.S. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 8thed. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Levinson, S.C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Martin, Road A. The Psychology of Humor: An integrative Approach. California, Calif: Academic Press, 2007.
McGhee, Paul E. and Jeffrey H. Goldstein. Handbook of Humor Research. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983.
Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
66
67
O’Keefe, Anne, Brian Clancy, and Svenja Adolphs. Introducing Pragmatics in Use. New York: Routledge, 2011.
Raskin, Victor and Willibald Ruch. The Primer of Humor Research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyeter, 2008.
Ross, Alison. The Language of Humor. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Senft, Gunter. Understanding Pragmatics. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Routledge, 2013.
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Journals
Dynel, Marta. Beyond a Joke: Types of Conversational Humour. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., (2009): 1284-1299.
Dynel, Marta. There is Method in The Humorous Speaker’s Madness: Humour and Grice’s Model. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4.1 (2008): 159-185
Grice, H. Paul. “Logic and Conversation” Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Arts. (1975): 41-58.
Ibraheem, Sura Dhiaa and Nawal Fadhil Abbas. A Pragmatic Study of Humor. Australia: Australian International Academic Centre, (February 2016): 80- 87.
Ayasreh, Amer and Razlina Razali. The Flouting of Grice’s Conversational Maxim: Examples from Bashar Al-Assad’s Interview during the Arab Spring. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, (May 2018): 43-47.
Weiwei Pan (2012), Linguistic Basis of Humor in Uses of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, (November 2012): 20-25.
Websites
The Jonathan Ross Show (2011) Season 9 Episode 6. 13 November 2016.
Appendix
The transcript below is the conversation between Jonathan Ross and Michael Mcintyre in the Jonathan Ross Show, published on YouTube on November 13th , 2016:
Jonathan : Welcome to very special little adult show. Shall we have a look and see who is in my grooming tonight baby. I’m so excited he's here. He is without doubt the best stand-up comedian in the country. These national tour set out almost instantly the world of comedy. He is king of all his advices what you might not know about him though. He's also a fabulous dancer. He's a formidable case fighter. He's a very generous lover. Yes. It's mr. Michael mcintyre, ladies and gentlement. He is a stand-up who is so successful and this is genuine he such as for the one of the biggest venues in the country have given in his own set of keys. So either they need a new cleaner or it's an acknowledgement you can feel the place any time he wants. He's the undisputed king of comedy it's mr. Michael mcintyre, ladies and gentlemen. Michael : Hi. Hi. Jonathan : Come on have a sit michael. Great to see you again Michael : They didn't tell me its ways to walk use. They runway. Jonathan : Well which way do you think, you can... Michael : To do some kind of cameras are the wires everywhere. One direction there to help me. Turn it horribly out of places units. Jonathan : No. No. What? Why do you think that?
68
69
Michael : Because I saw myself at the monitor and they look so bloody cool. Jonathan : Ok. Michael : I wonder like i was on the loose security. Jonathan : Sure. Sure. Michael : Is it something wrong with my suit when I'm standing up in the suit. I think it is okay. When I sit down. It just like, it just it goes incomplete. Jonathan : Because when you stand up, it's all distributing more when you sit down, a sec of a high dose. Michael : It’s posture. It is not my problem. Jonathan : It's one of your problems. Michael : I think it's worse when I work on my posture. Jonathan : I think we need to be jealous and all the boys have got stuff in their hair. How is Harry? Harry got that Medusa. It’s a live result. Liam. Liam. Michael : I like his hair. Jonathan : Oh, you like his hair. Michael : Except does it move. Look at it. Do everything you can to make your head move. Nothing, nothing happens. Oh no, my hairs but even worse. Yeah. Jonathan : It's fine for you Michael : No. Not. It's not happy bring. Jonathan : Need product there's only needs one of Zayn follow cooked or not saying dessert. Well i missing link insane. Michael : Well… Jonathan : Should I not mention Zayn? Because I'm looking at you and I'm thinking Zayn. Michael : I think the problem is there are so many signs around the building, saying don't fucking mention Zayn. Don’t say. Don’t mention it again. Jonathan : I've actually got inside. I just want that was just a why did you do that what did i do.
70
Michael : I don't know Jonathan : Decide. Michael : Ok, so let's not mention Zayn. Jonathan : That's what now shall we talking about. Ok. So you have the keys you have success. You have and a nice thing in anyone's life I think because that's all important but you have family, you have children. Two boys. How are your boys? Michael : Now they’re ten and seven years old. Jonathan : Ok, well that's their they're great ages though exciting ages hedges at the same time they are beginning to show signs of teenage behavior. Are they growing up and away from in any way what sir. How are they would daddy these days? Michael : Oh, they're very sweet you know because when i'm away they missed me and it's been it's a little bit difficult because you ain't talking you someone tall but you know my tell you what lucas is getting a little bit teenagers bows Jonathan : And so is he..? Is he happy with you, show you off as a father or are you kind of kept the arms length a little bit? Michael : I think so. I see he’s happy with me as a father. Jonathan : But when you've got... You know what I mean. Michael : I mean come on your inquiries when my children are now they want in divorce. Obviously, they've been googling boys they want to get rid of me. I embarrassment so I got a phone call. They also publish available that's all I’m. Saying well I think you know it's been tough with me away but I'm home now. Jonathan : So when you drop on school in the morning how they hold your hand all the way that the gabs or is there already the beginnings. All do they want you to drop them off further and further away the wall carpet. I'm not having any of that. I'd like to embarrass them as much as they can because i love them and i don't want them to leave. You know we
71
made them. I want them to stay with us and i'm not interested in them extra cating themselves. Don't let them get away until you know Michael : I've waved at the window I kissed them all over their faces that they're my kids. Jonathan : So lovely. Michael : That’s I felt about them . Jonathan : What, what are they do with their spare time? Are you aware of what games they play, what music they listen to? Michael : Well, they'd start up in my oldest. I've no idea what's going on his teen completely obsessed with rap. He listens to eminem all the time. It's completely inappropriate I.. I keep. once and goes away. I'm pleased that he's interested in music but i don't know what this is. It is absolutely everything is explicit. It has the little e next to it which presence is completely inappropriate. It’s explicit. So you have to buy the ones that say clean which is he clean clean and they take off all the effing and blinding . Jonathan : It could be nothing left Michael : Nothing left looks and he knows all the words. No words left. So he sings along. He doesn’t know what the accent in there. Mother mother, he say mother mother mother. Eminim taught about his mother. I try to be positive because he loves his mother. You know. You should love your mother, do you? You need to be nicer to your mother. You see. Eminem likes his mother. Jonathan : Oh no whoever it will be such a good folks for now. Michael : Let it be. Jonathan : Now, I've met michael's wife a few times issues very fit in both senses the world and… Michael : Yes she is. Jonathan : I knew you as kitty you've got here. Michael : How iS that possible? Is that me? Is that I got in the airplane I think they want letting people look at it up she's going out.
72
Jonathan : You look such going out with the dely of Korea. Michael : You don’t. You don’t. This is why I have the pasport. I was walking around to London. People think, oh my God, he is the leader of North Korea anybody thaught. No! No, it’s me. Michael : It’s a while. I have. I have the pasport.. Oh my god he is the leader of north korea. Career and I start getting pulled over I can know it's made I know but she keeps me does she need you to get fit because you're not in bad shape I know but you're funny they're not as fit as you could. I mean. I lost weight at the beginning of year Jonathan : Lost another way and… Michael : Another way i'm putting it back on i'm putting it back on if you yo-yo then obviously i owe it to myself to put weight back on and i’ve lost it. Jonathan : You've earned the right to put it back on? Michael : What confuses me in frustrates me and upsets me little bit is I don't know why I lie to myself about it. I still have. I'm so annoyed that weight is coming back on but I still weigh myself but I'm lying to myself. I do it first thing in the morning. I don't wait too what's up. started eating because that makes it worse so there's a bee in the morning and I close the bathroom products skills. I literally will I take everything off. I take my watch off. I put it on the side. I took my ring off. I pee. I... I breathe out and then I sort of stand on it and I hold on. I hold on to the seat. And I just ease my way I like that and I wait for it to give me the reading that I like. And then I go. That's fine for breakfast. Jonathan : Okay let me ask you then about when you perform like i've nobody said on your legs now you make obviously audience know what they're gonna get they've come to see you. Specifically they love what you do and they love with you so much. Some of them try to do number two and he was like featuring that in the beginning of the show. How did that come about?
73
Michael : I got some stage by a film which i've our bands mine to basically do their job to defect them and their lives because this has helped me over the years. I've done lots and lots of hours and hours of material lots of shows and people a lot to come up to me and say they you know it's my picture they say things I can't come from a tight song without thinking of you because I got the time to joke and so I just might be quite fun to just throw it out there and I just put on social media you want to make weird. Jonathan : Hearing them do your materi about you especially so much of your material. I think relies on on you performing it. I mean, it's good material but you really bring you the laughs. Michael : It's more recognition for the audience a guy the other day she said I didn't know what it was a couple tours ago. And it was about in the gym. How I never want to be naked for a very long time. I always went. You know. What the first thing I'd do is put my pants back. I've cut my bench for a short amount of time as possible and without pants take myself a new pants sometimes I have two pants. It goes so quickly. But some people in the gym. They liked pants so large so I had this whole routine about people putting their socks on and the hat or and everything's flapping around. It is you know the hat they were drying themselves in the. It was a huge big routine at this guy go up to the street and he says this was really got me this goes I can't burn he said secure check it to about the gym. Whenever one swilley throughout and I said. Oh yeah anyway. That was bad gym. Jonathan : Well that's a different kind of season. That's already okay so this is Michael mcintyre live video too. It's called happy and glorious. Politically is all the previous owners left all this shit behind exactly let's have like jordan because it is work I know that. Yeah. Now being away from home is difficult anyway because the kids least you get home unless you can on static. Do you have to make sure that you say in shape to be on state up there or is that kind of like a workout?
74
Michael : Yes, I'm walking up and down and running up and down. Yup, enjoy your nice place to get used to get used to doing the show and I thought he's working progress gigs go through through the year . Jonathan : So do you warm up with small gigs? Michael : Yes, I warm up the smaller gigs and they get bigger and bigger until I am going to the arenas. And you have to get the fundamentals right to the material but also the functioning of the show. I think it happened before was in a theater before the main show so they sort of convention of the show is that. You... You know come out and tell jokes for as long as I can you know now. And then is always an encore which is part of its passive show business Jonathan : So people come expecting an encore you have to have material waiting for non comments. Michael : Yes. I suppose you know bands they hold back a couple of songs. Jonathan : Often hold back the biggest hit . Michael : Yeah and then its young court and you shout more or whatever. And they have to come back and it's always a bit dangerous me in the arenas because especially another people that to beat the rush here so i did i'm a determines their I milked it in wembley I went off and awaiting us milking it you know all they love me they love me but they fucked off to get the train. There is nobody there. Oh yeah sorry and then just go back down. So that's very embarrassing. And so once I normally do is they come straight back on without I'd sort of can't you know to like 10 they get a drink and come back up and in the theaters it differently arenas they have. You know the weeds the curtains on the side. So I would let you I do the haa to finish the show and I do the whole. Thank you. Thank you very get everything taken but i'd like to get off quick so they know i'm coming back yes you daughter confuse anybody so thank you. Thank you. I just need you go behind the curtain and I just stand there for literally like 10 sec I just counted him and then I come back out straight into show business like that foreman
75
do you come on yeah and that's just the inner workings of not show business in show biz yes but I did this gig in southampton where i got my bearings room and it led to the creepiest moment. I think if anyone in this audience is like where did this whole thank you thank you bowing bowing. And then I walked off and I didn't know all the way out into the curtain. And I just stopped in the corner of the stairs. It’s like I run out of battery. And then people weren't clapping. Like this they sort o to unman was like the end of the blair witch project notice. They weren't we can just look around and then shuffled into. So, you know you got nothing with the same jam. Yeah, when I just got a little bit bit slow but I mean i'm telling you they did not know what come yet what's come over this. Jonathan : But now you couldn't be any bigger in this country. I don't think. I know you. You know just getting there consumptive easy stainless harbor your work the very top what about other parts of the world i guess you're because the language is different. In america do they know in america. Do you have your sights on america? Michael : You know this is what's so great about the boys my mates one day. Jonathan : All over the mean. Michael : Everyone in america knows who these these boys'll. Jonathan : They are bigger in America than they are here. Michael : I have no profile in America. Nope. And people expect me to be going there to the kids so into disney and universal. I kept telling people I'm going to Disney Universal. They see one big the meetings. but, oh great, are you doing meetings? I'm not going right. No profile in America. I mean not only have no profile. It's just high enough to get you through customs. I'm in the queue my son is in a goofy hat with an I love Disney World t-shirt. And the guys like, what is the purpose of your visit. How many claims it made? Come on people trafficking. Let me in.
Jonathan : He's holding hands with the leader of north korea customs official. Michael : It’s the truth. So no Smerica haven't haven't come calling. It's not something. But what we see.
76
Jonathan : But have you tried do you wanna got it? They would get you when they would understand. Your stuff pretty universal I feel. Michael : You say that you understand me. The thing about Americans that I've thought about the languages that they speak. They say they speak English but they've had to change it to make them understand it more. Go with me on this. Because I've thought it’s true. They changed some of the words so they've taken english language but they've looked at some of it. No. No. I think we need a little bit more explanation here. Okay. That's my American accent. So things like pavement. So they can't work, work with pavement. So they've changed it to sidewalk. They needed more efficient. They needed to know where they were going to be walking. They wouldn't get run over. Jonathan : So that's it. I didn't think of that Michael : Pavement. Sidewalks. I think there must been a period of time where they ran with the word pavement but they kept getting hit by cars so they changed it to sidewalk. Michael : Now bear with me here John. Cause I prove this truth. Jonathan : Okay. Michael : Bin. The word for bin. In American waste paper basket. They needed to know what not only what to put in it. They needed to know that not only it was paper but waste paper and then it goes into a basket. It's not just any paper. They kept throwing away fresh paper for a period time and introduced the word waste paper basket. It’s like they need instructions.
Glasses for your eyes. They'd call them eyeglasses. They needed to know where they put them because they used to have glasses and they would put them on their thighs. And they put them on their feet. And they would say, I can't see any better with the glasses. And somebody said, no, they are eyeglasses. Well, why didn't you call eye glasses?.
77
There's a game called squash. Do you’ve heard of it? Jonathan : Yes. Michael : It's not in America. Racquetball. They needed to know what they were going to keep playing with, a racquetball and even then they get confused because there's no court. They don't know where to go. They just wonder through the street. I wanna play racquetball so cut me down to change that. But my favorite one without a shadow of doubt is horse riding. Do you know what horse rading is in America? Jonathan : Is not called horse riding? Michael : No. Horseback riding. They need to specify how ride the horse. Jonathan : Oh yes. Yeah. Michael : It’s terrible problems. Because there was period of time when they didn't call it horseback riding. They had to use to hold on the tail. So this is how in riding horses in Europe. Jonathan : That's a whole different thing you doing there. Michael : Anybody's watch the show who may have been flicking the channels. Horseback riding in Europe. No. No. No. This was a story about America in descriptive words. Do you think my thaught will damage American? Jonathan : No. You can complain it. This is the whole show. Mr. Michael Mcintyre. .