Department of English and American Studies English Language And

Home , Two and a Half Men

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Veronika Psicová

Analysis of Humour in Two and Half Men

Bachelor‟s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph. D.

2013

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Veronika Psicová

I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D. for his kind help and support.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 5

1.What is (and what is not) humour? ...... 7

1.1 Irony and sarcasm ...... 9

2.What is a sitcom? ...... 14

2.1 Two and a Half Men ...... 14

3.The Cooperative Principle ...... 18

4.Maxim of Quality ...... 19

4.1. Do not say what you believe to be false...... 19

4.2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence...... 22

5.Maxim of Quantity ...... 24

5.1 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of exchange)...... 24

5.2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required...... 27

6.Maxim of Relation ...... 31

7.Maxim of Manner ...... 35

7.1 Avoid obscurity of expression...... 35

7.2 Avoid ambiguity...... 38

7.3 Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) ...... 42

7.4 Be orderly...... 45

Conclusion ...... 48

References ...... 51

Summary ...... 54

Resumé ...... 55

Introduction

Humour is a very significant part of our everyday lives. It brings laughter and happi- ness to society, improves mood, brightens days and it can bring a positive attitude to people and the whole society and therefore humour can make things easier to bear (Hu, 2012).

However, from a linguistic and pragmatic perspective, humour is a very interesting communication device. It is almost impossible to define it exactly. There are a lot of theories which try to define humour but none of these theories is unique. The thesis will focus on definition not only of humour but also on a definition of irony and sarcasm and how humour is created with the assistance of these two. In addition, it will try to define it according to various sources such as online dictionaries and linguistic works.

The next point in my thesis is the short outline of what is a sitcom, description of Two and a Half Men and its main characters as not everybody is knowledgeable with this situational comedy. The focus will be set on the first three seasons.

The largest part of my thesis is focused on exploration of Herbert Paul Grice‟s Coop- erative Principle and his four conversational maxims (i.e. maxim of Quality, Quantity, Rela- tion and Manner). Undoubtedly, there are a lot of other different theories with their own maxims (for example politeness theories) but I will focus only on the Grice‟s Cooperative Princi- ple. Although his theories have a lot of imperfections as Grice (1975) himself admitted, his essays have been very influential and important for the further development of linguistics. I will analyse violation of these four maxims and whether the violation causes a humorous situation or not.

Last but not least, I will try to find out whether violation of some of these maxims creates humour and a humorous situation for the audience. The theory of the conversational max-

ims will be applied on the previously mentioned sitcom Two and a Half Men. It will be applied as well on the main characters‟ ironic and sarcastic utterances, comments and dialogues.

At the beginning, I will define each of the four of the maxims and also its sub-maxims and then I will provide two or three examples for each sub-maxim and analyse them.

1. What is (and what is not) humour?

Humour is a very interesting communication device which brings laughter and happi- ness to people and society, improves mood and can make a positive attitude to people and therefore make things easier (Hu, 2012). But what exactly is humour? First of all, it is more than necessary to mention that there is no unique theory of humour and therefore it is very difficult, almost impossible, to define it exactly. Shuqin Hu (2012) in her essay “An Analysis of Humor in The Big Bang Theory from Pragmatic Perspectives” introduces humour and its three most important and influential theories – Superiority Theory, the Release Theory and the Incongruity Theory..

Thomas Hobbes defined the Superiority Theory as “the sudden glory arising from the sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves, by comparison with the infirmity of others” (Hu, 2012, p. 1). According to him, people laugh at other‟s misfortune, making them superior to others.

The Release Theory takes humour more from psychological point of view. It says that

“laughter is a kind of release from social sanction physically and psychologically” (Hu, 2012, p. 1). Sigmund Freud (1976) is the main defender of this theory.

The last theory Hu (2012) mentions is the Incongruity Theory which is the most influential among these three theories (p. 1). She cites Attardo (1997), who defined this theory and the main idea is that “laughter arises from the view of two or more inconsistent, unsuitable or incongruous parts of circumstances, considered as united in one complex object or assemblage” (p. 396).

Humour prevailingly provokes laughter and amusement. On the other hand, according to a previously mentioned linguist Salvatore Attardo (2003), who deals with analysing hu-

mour; humour and laughter, while they are obviously related, are not by all means coextensive. This means that there may be various reactions to humour or jokes – laughter but also misunderstanding, non-acceptance and in some cases anger or insult. Laughter can be also a reaction to non-humorous stimulus, for example tickling or a laughter provoked by somebody‟s stumble and fall. It can be also initialized by imitation when someone hears laughter s/he simply laughs as well. It is, for example, very common with children. But that is not humour (p. 2).

Attardo (2003) in his essay “Pragmatics of Humour” claimed that “serious responses to humorous teasing (Drew, 1987) are precisely non-amusement reactions to a humorous turn in conversation” (p. 2). There may be various reactions to some non-amusement situation.

One of them is for example a denial (it is not funny!) or there can be various other factors why there is no laughter after humorous stimulus. Attardo (2003) further states in his theory of humour that:

The response of the hearer may be affected by a number of factors, such as lack of

perception of the stimulus, failure to understand it, refusal to consider it appropriate

for a humorous exchange in the current situation (for ideological or other reasons), etc.

(p. 2).

Therefore laughter is not necessarily a reaction to humour and vice versa – humour does not always produce laughter.

Definition of humour according to online dictionaries is much simpler but not very complex. According to dictionary.com, the definition of humour is following:

1. The quality of being funny

2. The ability to appreciate or express that which is humorous

3. Situations, speech, or writings that are thought to be humorous.

These definitions are simple, short, clear, easily understood and well expressed and therefore they are made for a general public. Nevertheless, they are not quite accurate, definitely not from the linguistic point of view. The first definition “the quality of being funny” is true only partly because as was mentioned before, when something is funny and produces laughter, it does not have to actually mean that it is humour (e.g. previously mentioned tickling). The second definition is, as well, truthful for the most part but not entirely. Someone (mostly small children) can start laughing only because other people around laugh. That person only imitates the others and this is not humour. The last of the three definitions, “situations, speech, or writings that are thought to be humorous” does not always hold true, too. Not every humorous situation ends with laughter. There are several factors that affect triggering laughter after a humorous situation, which have already been mentioned in this chapter earlier. There- fore it is almost impossible to define humour exactly.

1.1 Irony and sarcasm

Irony and sarcasm are very closely connected to each other. They mean almost the same thing except the sarcasm is a higher level of irony, or, some kind of an „upgrade,‟ is rude and often offensive. First of all, I would like to introduce and describe irony and then sarcasm. I have chosen two online dictionaries for better demarcation and comparison of the two expressions as well as a linguist Salvatore Attardo (2000) and his theory of irony and sarcasm in his work “Irony as Relevant Inappropriateness” and another linguist Deidre Wil- son (2012) with her “Irony Comprehension: A Developmental Perspective.”

Irony is an incongruity between what is said and what is really meant. It is defined as

“a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning” and “the humorous or mildly sarcastic

use of words to imply the opposite of what they normally mean.”1 From these definitions it is evident that there is a strong shift in meaning. Another dictionary2 defines irony very compre- hensibly in two ways:

1. a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has

the opposite or a very different result;” giving the following example – “The irony

(of it) is that the new tax system will burden those it was intended to help.

2. the use of words that are the opposite of what you mean, as a way of being funny,

and provides an example – Simone said, "We're so pleased you were able to stay

so long." (= Her voice made it obvious they were not pleased.).

Attardo (2000) in his work presents a new approach of irony and deliberately ignores literary and philosophical uses of irony (p. 1). He agrees with most of the dictionary definitions and he more-or-less considers them operational. According to him, irony does not necessarily have a negative intention or purpose as a lot of prominent scholars like Grice (1978,

1989), Kerbrat-Orecchioni (1976, 1980), and Sperber and Wilson (1981) claimed it had (cited in Attardo, 2000). It, certainly, can have also a negative meaning but it can be also “playful and affectionate” (Holdcroft, 1983: 496, cited in Attardo, 2000). As an example, he uses following statement:

“Sorry to keep bothering you like this (Spoken by your stock broker on calling for the third time to announce unexpected dividends.)” (p. 4).

It is obvious, that the stock broker conveys good news about the unexpected dividends so there is neither need to apologize nor need to think that the stock broker actually bothers the person whom s/he calls. There is an obvious shift of what is said and what is meant.

1 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony?s=t 2 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/irony_1?q=irony 9

Deirdre Wilson (2012) in her work “Irony Comprehension: A Developmental Perspec- tive” deals with irony from a very similar point of view as Attardo does and she studies relation between echoic and pretence accounts of irony. For better understanding, she provides a lot of illustrations of how an expression and ironical tone of voice changes the meaning and utterance (Wilson, 2012), for example:

1. “That went well.” (after a chaotic lecture) (p. 1)

2. “Go ahead and ruin my carpet.” (to someone who has dropped a plate of food) (p.

3. “It‟s lovely weather.” (said in a downpour) (p. 4)

In all three examples, there is an apparent shift in meaning and the statements mean the exact opposite. In the first example, it is obvious that the lecture was a mess; in the second example the speaker evidently does not want his/her carpet to be ruined and in the third example the speaker is obviously discontented with the weather and with the fact that it rains heavily.

On the other hand, there are several faults with the traditional definition (saying something while meaning something else) when irony is taken from another point of view – as a figure of speech because it is too general and there is not a clear difference between an irony and for example a metaphor. (Kaufer, 1981; Haverkate, 1990, in Attardo, 2000, p. 5).

As I have already mentioned, sarcasm has very similar meaning to irony and the difference between these two is that sarcasm is much ruder and more offensive. Attardo (2003) in his work has defined sarcasm as “an overtly aggressive type of irony, with clearer mark- ers/cues and a clear target” (p. 3). In his essay, he has also touched on two theories of irony and sarcasm tangentially. There are two groups of linguists that argue whether irony and sarcasm is the same thing or not. The first group argues that sarcasm and irony is practically the

same thing and sarcasm is in principle only a bitter and rude irony (Muecke, 1969, Mizzau,

1984, p. 26, Gibbs and O‟Brien, 1991; Kreuz and Roberts, 1993). The second group of linguists tries to distinguish irony from sarcasm. (Haiman, 1990, 1998, Brown, 1980; from At- tardo, 2000). It is exceedingly difficult to decide which of these theories is correct and which is incorrect.

Dictionaries also consider both of these theories and they try not to incline to either the first or to the latter theory. Dictionary.com defines sarcasm as:

1. harsh or bitter derision or irony

2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms

3. mocking, contemptuous, or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult

All three examples try to be neutral and state that sarcasm can be on one hand separated from irony as well as it can be a higher level of irony and therefore it comes under the irony. Dic- tionary.cambridge.com comes with a more elaborate theory of sarcasm. It reads that:

1. the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order

to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way: "You have

been working hard," he said with heavy sarcasm, as he looked at the empty page.

I like the latter theory better because the first dictionary states that sarcasm is necessarily pur- posed to insult or hurt someone, whereas it is definitely not a condition. I have found several examples3 proving that sarcasm by all means can be hurtful towards the addressee but on the other hand it does not have to and it can be a humorous criticism not only of other people but, for example, a self-criticism.

3 Examples taken from http://sgforums.com/forums/1769/topics/350299 11

1. Aw, did I step on your poor little bitty ego?

2. You look like shit. Is that the style now?

3. How many times do I have to flush before you go away?

4. Make yourself at home! Clean my kitchen for example.

5. I‟m not crazy, I‟ve just been in a very bad mood for 30 years or so.

6. Well, this day was a total waste of make-up.

7. I like dogs too. Let‟s exchange recipes.

Let us divide these examples into three basic categories. In the first category, there would be the first three examples. They are very harsh, contemptuous and critical towards the other person. Without any context, it may be enormously insulting and they apparently have negative meaning. But let us take into consideration that these utterances are spoken between two very good friends and that they are only teasing each other in a little bit unusual way. Then it completely loses its former bitter and sharply negative meaning.

Sentence number four is a sarcastic discourse but it is (with the highest probability) not meant negatively. It is the example of the humorous display of sarcasm which the first dictionary lacks to provide. Also, there is an evident shift in meaning because the speaker probably does not want the addressee to really clean his/her kitchen.

The last three illustrations show that sarcasm does not essentially mock or insult somebody. Nonetheless, sarcasm can be served in a humorous way not necessarily criticizing anyone including criticizing oneself. The first dictionary definition of sarcasm does not mention this either. The fifth and sixth illustration is a non-serious sarcastic way of making fun of oneself but it is not hurtful. The last example can be considered as a harsh and sharp sneer but, with the highest probability, it is not intended to convey scorn or insult.

2. What is a sitcom?

Situation comedy, or more simply, a sitcom, is a specific genre of comedy broadcast nowadays mainly in television. First sitcoms appeared around 1920s formerly on radio and pierced into TV in late 1940s and 1950s. They are situated in a normal everyday surrounding, usually in flats (Friends), houses (Two and a Half Men), work (Frasier) and favourite pubs

(How I Met Your Mother). There are only several places that change and these places do not change very often within one sitcom. The plot, as well as main characters‟ problems, is simple and not very demanding. The most important and crucial part of a sitcom are funny dialogues and a storyline. According to dictionary.com, a sitcom is defined as:

1. A comedy drama, especially a television series made up of discrete episodes about

the same group of characters, as members of a family. Origin: 1945-1950.

2. A comedy series involving the same characters in various day-to-day situations

which are developed as separate stories for each episode.

According to other dictionary (dictionary.cambridge.org), a situation comedy refers to “A funny television or radio show in which the same characters appear in each programme in a different story.” These definitions are very similar and one complements the other. Together they quite accurately define and explain the nature of sitcoms.

2.1 Two and a Half Men

Two and a Half Men is a short American sitcom created by Chuck Lorre and Lee Ar- onsohn. It has been shot since 2003 to present; however, I will focus only on the first three seasons in my thesis. There are seven main characters – Charlie, Alan, Jake and Evelyn Har-

per, Alan‟s ex-wife Judith Melnick, Charlie‟s a bit intrusive stalking neighbour Rose, and

Charlie‟s housekeeper Berta. The sitcom is set in Malibu, Los Angeles, mostly in Charlie‟s beach house.

Charlie Harper, performed by Charlie Sheen, is in his early 40s, he is rich, owns a beach house and expensive cars. He earns his living by making children jingles in advertise- ments. He drinks excessively, smokes a lot of cigars, and often plays poker and other hazard games. Moreover, he is a great womanizer and he sleeps almost in every episode with a different woman. He tries to play everything cool, but he has a lot of phobias and issues, mostly from his mother, whom he blames for his commitment issues4, and further, for example, from larger birds.5

Alan Harper, performed by Jon Cryer, is Charlie‟s younger brother. He has a son,

Jake, who is not exactly the brightest child under the sun. Alan works as a chiropractor who is not fully appreciated for what he does. He is very often tactless and inappropriate, for example, in the pilot episode he calls Charlie that his wife has just thrown him out standing in front of his bedroom door.6 Alan is naive, awkward, unlucky (usually about women and money, although he is lucky for now and then), he takes advantage of his rich brother and overcares so much that he sometimes suffocates and frustrates other people. He is supposed to stay at

Charlie‟s house only for a few days or weeks (although he seems to be the only one who believes it) but eventually he stays there permanently.

Jake Harper, performed by Angus T. Jones, is portrayed in the sitcom as not exactly the smartest child in the universe. In the first three seasons, he is very young (10-12) and he attends primary school where he always gets poor grades. Moreover, he loves eating and he is

4 Season 3, Episode 5 5 Season 1, Episode 2 6 Season 1, Episode 1 – Pilot 14

always soiled with something. During the working week he is with his mother Judith and on the weekends he stays with his father Alan and Uncle Charlie.

Judith Melnick, performed by Marin Hinkle, is Alan‟s mentally unstable ex-wife (or, at least, in the first season). She lacks any sense of humour, is insidious and cold-hearted. Her ex-husband Alan has to pay very high alimony, so she can stay at home and does not have to work. She has a very good lawyer, so she can force Alan to pay for Jake‟s school trips, clothes and other commodities.

Rose, performed by Melanie Lynskey, is Charlie‟s neighbour at Malibu. Before the pilot episode, they once slept together and she has become excessively obsessed with him

(e.g. she has 5 ferrets and all of them are named Charlie). She is very rich (mostly her family

– her father owns a bank and she owns 49% together with her brothers), socially awkward, and sometimes she seems to be a little disturbed because she does a lot of weird things, for example gluing Charlie‟s testicles,7 or sneaking into his house and licking his silverware.8 She is usually uninvited and never uses his front door, has a very good relationship with Evelyn,

Alan‟s and Charlie‟s mother, and Jake. They often watch TV and play video games together.

Rose claims she studied behavioural psychology although she has probably never finished her studies. Her hobby is stalking Charlie.

Evelyn Harper, performed by Holland Taylor, is Alan‟s and Charlie‟s mother and

Jake‟s grandmother. She always declares that she loves her sons and her grandchild but very often she does not act accordingly. For example, instead of buying a present for Jake, she writes him out a cheque. Then she insists on Jake‟s hugging her but after a few seconds she takes a bored look at her watches, gets up and leaves.9 In the first season, she is 58, and she is a cold-hearted and cynical successful real estate agent. She always changes her year of birth

7 Season 1, Pilot Episode 8 Season 1, Episode 3 9 Season 1, Episode 3 15

and pretends to be younger because she often dates various influential men. By other people, she is considered an angel, warm, nice and friendly woman. Otherwise, her family and everyone who knows her better considers her as a cold, devilish and manipulative person.

Berta, performed by Conchata Ferrell, is Charlie‟s full-time housekeeper. The house- hold cannot function without her because Charlie does not even know how to make his favourite coffee. When she leaves, he does not even know where the supermarket is because all the shopping and everything else always does Berta.10 Therefore, she can afford not to respect authorities, ask more money whenever she wants, mock the rich mistresses and to be cheeky

(for example, when Evelyn asked Berta, if she could get some more coffee, she replied:

“Who‟s stopping you?”)11 and nobody is angry about her. She does all the housework but she does not take it very seriously. She refuses to clean after Jake and sometimes even after Char- lie, so Alan or Charlie has to do the cleaning and very often, Berta takes a nap in Charlie‟s bed or watches TV instead of working.

10 Season 1, Episode 3 11 Season 2, Episode 2 16

3. The Cooperative Principle

Paul Grice (1975) in his essay “Logic and Conversation” dealt with divergences in meaning of an utterance. He thought that the language and mainly the natural counterparts of the valid inferences are imperfect in a language and we would have to have an infinite number of formulas to define them exactly (p. 22). In his essay, he further suggested that although there are divergences in these counterparts, people recognize them, understand them, and use them (p. 24).

For better understanding of his theory, he provided several examples and applied his theory on them. One of these examples is an utterance He is in the grip of a vice (p. 25). In order to say this, the speaker has to know several things about the person to whom he is refer- ring. Furthermore, the speaker apparently implies to the listener that this person “(1) was una- ble to rid himself of a certain kind of bad character trait or (2) some part of the person was caught in a certain kind of tool or instrument” (p. 25). This also means that both, the speaker and listener, need to know several things, such as the identity of that person, time of the utterance and also the meaning, which implies that the two people have to cooperate and obey some rules in order to understand each other.

Therefore, Grice (1975) invented this Cooperative Principle and introduced the four conversational maxims with their sub-maxims. They are the maxims of Quality, Quantity,

Relation, and Manner. Each one has one to four sub-maxims, such as Be relevant, Be brief,

Avoid ambiguity, Be orderly, etc. I will describe and explain them in more detail in the following chapters. Grice (1975) further admitted that they are not perfect and he hoped to elaborate them in a greater detail in the future (p. 27). As he stated, there were also a lot of other

maxims but he dealt only with the conversational ones. They were adopted to serve and they should have “a maximally effective exchange of information” (p. 28).

4. Maxim of Quality

Maxim of Quality is the first Grice‟s maxim. There is a supermaxim that falls under this category – “Try to make your contribution one that is true.” (Grice, 1975, p. 27). There are also two specific sub-maxims:

1. Do not say what you believe to be false.

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

Grice (1975) further clearly explains this maxim with an example:

“I expect your contribution to be genuine and not spurious. If I need sugar as an ingredient in the cake you are assisting me to make, I do not expect you to hand me salt.” (p.28).

4.1. Do not say what you believe to be false.

In this part, Grice (1975) explains in a little greater detail this maxim. He gives an example of a person X, who is a friend of a person A. The person X reveals a secret to other businessman and the person A states that X is a really fine friend. (p. 34). It is obvious, that A does not mean that X is really a good friend of his. Using irony, the person A intentionally states something what he knew was false. He states something which is not true and therefore he evidently violates the maxim of quality.

There are some other examples from the TV sitcom Two and a Half Men, where this sub-maxim is violated. Charlie comes to the hall in his house and sees Judith and Jake taking some boxes full of Jake‟s properties into his new room in Charlie‟s house. Judith is divorcing

Alan because she does not love him anymore and Alan suffocates her in their relationship.

Therefore Judith pretends that she thinks she is a lesbian. Charlie does not understand what is going on in the hall, so he asks Judith.

(1) Charlie: Hi Judith, what are you doing here?

Judith: If you must know, I‟m here to help Jake set up his room, so he feels like noth-

ing‟s changed.

Charlie: Really? You don‟t think he‟ll notice his dad‟s living here and his mum‟s da-

ting chicks?

Judith: Could you say that a little louder? Jake might not have heard you.12

This dialogue provides several good examples of violating the Maxim of Quality and its sub- maxim – Do not say what you believe to be false. Judith answers Charlie‟s question truthfully but Charlie, on contrary, is not cooperative towards her, is sarcastic and makes an utterance that he knows is not true. It is obvious that Jake has noticed a long time ago that his parents split up and that during the week he stays with his mother and during the weekends he is at

Charlie‟s house with his uncle and father who already lives there. Moreover, Jake knows that his mother is lesbian and sooner or later, he would notice if his mother had a girlfriend. Fur- thermore, Judith sarcastically asks a completely needless question because it is evident that she does not really want Jake to hear Charlie‟s statement. Therefore both of them violates the maxim of Quality.

In this example Jake leaves some food in one of the rooms in the Charlie‟s house and also leaves a window opened. As a result, a lot of seagulls fly in that room and it is really hard to get rid of them. So, Charlie and Alan come up with a specific plan:

12 Season 1, Episode 3 20

(2) Charlie: Okay, here‟s the deal – we go in there and start throwing this stuff (bait for

the seagulls) out the windows. When the last bird‟s out, we close the window and get

on with our lives.

Alan: (entering the room) You know, if they love the bait so much, why would they

even wait for…

(Both scream and jump out of the room in a hurry)

…

Alan: You got any other bright ideas?

Charlie: Yeah, I‟m gonna call a drywall guy in there and seal off that room.

Alan: Very funny.

Charlie: I‟m not kidding, that room is dead to me…13

In this example, the maxim of Quality is violated several times. Alan does not actually think that it was a good idea what Charlie did but he says it anyway. On the other hand, Alan did not think up a different plan and he agreed with it before they came to that room. Further- more, Charlie says that he would let the room to be sealed off. It is clear that he does not really mean it and therefore Alan, recognizing his sarcasm, replies to this, sarcastically, “very funny.” Again, he does not really believe that what Charlie says is funny and also Charlie does not really believe that the room is dead to him. Therefore both of them violate this sub- maxim.

13 Season 1, Episode 2 21

4.2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

This second sub-maxim simply tells us that a person should not utter anything that might not be true. Grice (1975) explains this sub-maxim on following example: “She is probably deceiving him this evening.” (p. 34). This statement is taken out of context and therefore can be misleading. Especially, if the hearer does not know this woman in question or the man she might be deceiving. The woman is not with these two persons and she is the only one who really knows whether the speaker‟s utterance is correct or not. The speaker uttered something that s/he did not known whether it was true and hence violated the second sub-maxim of

Quality.

There are some more examples from the sitcom Two and a Half Men violating this sub-maxim. In this example, Evelyn is dating a man named Tommy. She wants to introduce him to Charlie and Alan and so they have a dinner and a drink at Evelyn‟s house. Tommy starts to talk about Evelyn:

(3) Tommy: You don‟t know how lucky you are to have a mother like Evelyn. She is the

warmest, most affectionate, giving woman I have ever known.

Alan: Yeaaa, that‟s my mom…14

It is natural, that Tommy likes Evelyn and therefore he sees her character qualities only in a positive way. Although Tommy makes this utterance in a belief that Evelyn truly possesses these qualities, he is not in the position to judge whether Evelyn has been a good mother or not. He knows her only for a while but Charlie and Alan know her naturally all their lives.

Tommy also did not know them before the dinner so there is no point in judging their child- hood and Evelyn‟s educational methods applied on her sons. Moreover, he does not know

14 Season 1, Episode 6 22

their relations and whether they are close or not. By saying this statement, he violates this sub-maxim of Quality completely lacking the amount of needed information. Alan‟s reply is ironic, because he knows his mother and because of the fact that she has never been like that, violating the first sub-maxim of quality – do not say what you believe to be false.

Another illustration of violating this sub-maxim is when Alan has a date and he goes out for a dinner. He comes to Charlie, who is working out on a bench press.

(4) Alan: Hey, how do I look?

Charlie: Incredible! All men want to be you, all women want to be with you.15

In this case, Charlie makes that utterance without even taking a look at Alan, so he obviously cannot know whether Alan looks good or not. He also, naturally, lacks the opinions of all men and women and therefore the next information he provides cannot be based on a real basis.

The last example on violation of this Quality sub-maxim is when Charlie finds out that

Alan is dating his ex-wife and they argue about it because Charlie strongly disagrees about it.

(5) Alan: I, I, I know what you are thinking. I‟m being naive and romantic…

Charlie: Not even close!!

Alan: Charlie, you can‟t overlook the fact that we still have a lot in common.

Charlie: Yeah, neither of you have any respect for you.16

Alan does not really know what Charlie is thinking about him and about dating his ex-wife. In spite of it, he states that he knows what is on Charlie‟s mind. Charlie provides a sarcastic answer also not having enough evidence whether he and Judith really have any respect for himself.

15 Season 2, Episode 8 16 Season 3, Episode 3 23

5. Maxim of Quantity

This maxim relates to the amount of information that is needed to fully understand an utterance and to maximally effective exchange of information (Grice, 1975, p. 28). This maxim is also divided into two sub-maxims:

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes

of exchange).

2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

In the same spirit as in the description of the previous Maxim of Quality, Grice (1975) provides a simple explanation to this maxim: “If you are assisting me to mend a car, I expect your contribution to be neither more nor less than is required. If, for example, at a particular stage I need four screws, I expect you to hand me four, rather than two or six.” (p. 28).

5.1 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the

current purposes of exchange).

Further in his essay, Grice (1975) explained on several examples how he imagined the violation of this sub-maxim. He described a teacher who writes a testimonial letter about his student who applies for a philosophy job and the letter says: “Dear Sir, Mr. X‟s command of

English is excellent, and his attendance at tutorials has been regular. Yours, etc.” (p. 33). The teacher, with the highest probability, knows a lot of more information but s/he fails to provide them. The main point of the testimonial is to provide the highest amount of relevant information needed about the student. The teacher provides only minimum amount of information.

It is very likely that the student is bad at philosophy and the teacher does not want to harm him, so he writes only about things in which the student excels (p. 33).

Other good examples are statements like “War is war” and “Women are women” (p.

33). These utterances, if used generally, are absolutely non-informative and they do not actually tell us anything. They can be informative only between the speaker and the listener who both know the context and all the information needed to properly understand these expressions (p. 33).

Moving to the sitcom Two and a Half Men, Jake is not allowed to watch TV because he has had some problems at school. He walks around Charlie, who is just watching TV.

(6) Jake: What are you watching?

Charlie: I‟m watching a movie.17

Charlie does not want to talk to Jake very much, so he answers his question very curtly. He provides minimum amount of information which did not answer Jake‟s question, leading to a violation of this sub-maxim of Quantity. Charlie additionally uses ironic tone of voice signify- ing Jake that he should not be there watching TV and that he is not in a mood to talk to him or even argue with him about watching the TV.

In this example, Charlie finds out he has some financial problems and Alan is taking a look at his expenses trying to cut them down.

(7) Alan: Why do you have a gardener?

Charlie: Tooo tend my garden?18

There is an evident misunderstanding and conversational non-cooperation between the two.

Alan knows very well that a gardener‟s job is to tend a garden, that is why s/he is called a

17 Season 1, Episode 2 18 Season 1, Episode 14 25

gardener. He asks Charlie why he has a gardener because he does not have any garden, only

(supposedly) a few flowers and two palms. He considers the gardener as a completely useless to have and therefore to pay. However, Charlie is aware of the fact, that Alan knows all these things and makes his response short and terse not giving enough information to answer Alan‟s question. He is uncooperative probably because he does not want to continue in this conversation.

In the last example violating this sub-maxim, Alan is being angry at Charlie because he did not pick the phone and broke several promises he had given. But Charlie does not mind it and he does not understand why Alan is so upset.

(8) Alan: Why didn‟t you pick up the phone when I needed you this afternoon?

Charlie: I, I didn‟t want to?

Alan: See? See? I can‟t depend on you. I never have been able to depend on you, and I

never will be able to depend on you. And you know why?

Charlie: Because I am … undependable?

Alan: Yes! Yes, undependable and selfish! … (Goes on yelling at Charlie)

Charlie: Okay, okay, in my defence, I reaaally didn‟t want to.19

Several maxims has been violated here (e.g. Maxim of Manner and the second maxim of

Quantity) but I focus only on violating the first Maxim of Quantity – Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of exchange). Charlie does not provide sufficient quantity of information to fully satisfy Alan‟s question. Alan already knows that

Charlie simply did not want to pick up the phone, his question was rather aiming to why he did not want to answer the phone. Charlie‟s second reply is also short and does not provide the necessary amount of information needed. However, unlike the first Charlie‟s answer, this

19 Season 3, Episode 2 26

one provides at least a partial answer to Alan‟s question because it can be understood as an approval of Alan‟s accusation and admitting that Alan is right. However, Charlie‟s response partly covers Alan‟s question but not fully, so it still violates the first sub-maxim of Quantity.

The last Charlie‟s answer is as well as his previous ones, much less informative than it is required to fully satisfy Alan‟s expectations from the answer.

5.2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

This is Grice‟s second sub-maxim of Quantity. It simply states, that a speaker should provide only the required amount of information than is necessary for a given situation.

Sometimes it is not very easy to decide whether the amount of information provided is the exact amount of information needed. It depends on the hearer‟s requirements of the answer.

Therefore, the speaker may provide an utterance which for other people may seem as a sufficient amount of information, whereas for the hearer and his needs, the information provided may more informative than the hearer requires.

“Do not give more information than is required” is demonstrated on the following example, when Alan and Charlie want to go out but there is no one who could look after Jake.

So Charlie calls Rose and she comes over.

(9) Alan: You want me to leave my son with the whack job who‟s been stalking you since

your one night stand?

Charlie: You try and find a babysitter on a Friday night…

Rose: It‟s okay Alan. Charlie and I talked and I understand that we are just friends and

that it is not okay for me to sneak into his house and lick his silverware.

Alan: Uhm... as reassuring as that sounds, we can‟t go out because…20

In this case, Alan provides more information than is required to Charlie‟s understanding of his utterance. It is quite clear that both of them consider Rose a little bit crazy and also they are a little scared of her because she behaves unpredictably very often and she also does a lot of weird things. “The whack job who‟s been stalking you since your one night stand” is not necessary to tell, it is the contribution that is more informative than it is required. Charlie‟s statement about finding the babysitter on a Friday night might be disputable. The “Friday night” part of the sentence is probably pointless for Alan, because he knows for sure what day it is. However, for the audience, it is not clear that it is Friday night, so it does not violate this sub-maxim. Nonetheless, Rose‟s reply to Alan is also more than over-informative. She provides unrelated information about licking of the silverware which are not needed neither for

Alan and nor for us. Alan sarcastically adds that it sounds very reassuring leaving his son with her after this information, violating the maxim of Quality (do not say what you believe to be false).

In this example, Charlie finds out that he has run out of his money, all his credit cards are dead and he needs a loan.

(10) Alan: Let me ask you a tough question. What would you think about going to mom

for a short-term loan?

Charlie: Hmm, interesting idea. But I think I‟d rather have a pack of hyenas tear out

and devour my intestines. … I know, I know. I can‟t afford hyenas.21

Here, Charlie gives much more information than is necessary. The best possible answer could be something like “Interesting idea,” or “I‟m not sure,” or “I will call her,” or “I will think

20 Season 1, Episode 3 21 Season 1, Episode 14 28

about it.” Instead, he adds more information that is needed by the ironic utterance that he

“would rather have a pack of hyenas tear out and devour my intestines” and also the additional sentence that he cannot afford hyenas. They are over-informative and not necessary for understanding his point but they are ironic and sarcastic making the situation much funnier.

Also, Alan‟s contribution “Let me ask you a tough question” is not needed for understanding his intention.

In the second season, Charlie and Alan are out for a coffee when Charlie meets his ex- girlfriend, they talk a little and then they sit elsewhere. Alan does not understand how he could possibly leave her and how he could get bored with her after some time.

(11) Alan: Well, let me go on record as saying, I am not that guy (who gets bored). If I ev-

er had a woman like that, I would cherish her… I would… worship her… I would, I

would… start a small country and put her face on a stamp so I could lick her back of

her head.22

Alan provides a lot of unnecessary information that are not required for further understanding of his opinion towards Charlie‟s attitude to her. Moreover, the information about starting a small country, putting her face on a stamp and licking the back of her head are irrelevant and slightly weird.

Last example violating the second sub-maxim of Quantity is from the third season.

Alan is dating his ex-wife Judith again and everyone thinks it is a very bad idea. At the end,

Charlie admits that maybe they are right and they can make their relationship work again. He sits with Rose on his deck and they discuss them. Charlie admits that he would miss Jake when he and Alan leave.

22 Season 2, Episode 19 29

(12) Charlie: Love hurts, Rose.

Rose: Yes, it does. Especially when you‟ve given your heart to someone who barely

knows you exist, who insists on plowing through strange, stupid women, who could

never love him the way you do, leaving you to stand outside, alone in the night, wish-

ing with all your heart that he would come to his senses and realize that his true happi-

ness lies with you and no one else, but knowing all the while that it‟ll never happen

because he‟s a selfish, immature, heartless jerk! (Taking Charlie by his hand) I

mean… poor baby...23

Charlie is terrified by Rose‟s answer because he didn‟t expect her to get that angry and over- informative. To express her ideas, it would be enough if she said only the first sentence. It would be clear, Charlie would understand her opinion and she would avoid unnecessary prolixity of her utterance. She has also created a little ambiguity because she was indirectly talking about Charlie and probably he has found out that she was speaking about him (but one can never know it for sure). Then, she takes him by his hand and pities him, sending him contra- dictory messages.

23 Season 3, Episode 3 30

6. Maxim of Relation

Maxim of Relation is the third Grice‟s maxims. It has only one sub-maxim – “Be relevant.” Although this formulation may seem a little terse, this sub-maxim conceals various problems, such as “what different kinds and focuses of relevance there may be, how these shift in the course of a talk exchange, how to allow for the fact that subjects of conversation are legitimately changed, and so on.” (p. 27). Grice found this maxim as a very difficult to determine and he hoped to elaborate this maxim in a greater detail in the future. (p. 27). None- theless, he defined this maxim more closely – “I expect a partner‟s contribution to be appropriate to the immediate needs at each stage of the transaction. If I am mixing ingredients for a cake, I do not expect to be handed a good book, or even an oven cloth (thought this might be an appropriate contribution at a later stage)” (p. 28).

He further provides a model situation as an example: there is a genteel tea party and a woman A says about other woman B that she is an old bag. After a few moments of silence some third woman C says “The weather has been quite delightful this summer, hasn‟t it?” (p.

35). The third woman made a reply completely unrelated response to A‟s utterance. It can be of several reasons, for example A‟s utterance was socially awkward, the women did not want to discuss the woman B and they did not want to be intact by criticising the woman A or B.

Consequently, the woman C says something completely irrelevant in order to change the sub- ject and circumvent the awkwardness the woman A caused (p. 35).

In Two and a Half Men, there is a vast amount of examples violating the maxim of

Relevance. In this example, Alan has got a lot of problems, he goes through a tough time and is depressed because he tries too hard but everything goes wrong eventually. Moreover,

Jake‟s guinea pig, Porky, dies and Alan finally breaks down and cries.

(13) Charlie: Hey! Well, don‟t cry! We can still be friends!24

Charlie does not know what to say to cheer Alan up, he gets nervous and so he says the first thing that has come to his mind. Alan is, naturally, surprised because he did not expect that response since it is completely irrelevant to what Alan has said and cried about. So, Charlie further explains that this is the only response he is used to give because the only crying people around him are his girlfriends when he breaks up with them.

In this situation, Alan is doing something in the kitchen when Berta comes with her hands full of shopping bags that she can barely open the door.

(14) Alan: Morning, Berta. Need some help?

Berta: Yeah, come to my house and explain to my daughter that we don‟t put up bail

for cute guys with Costa Rican passports.25

What Berta says is a completely irrelevant response to Alan‟s question. Berta‟s answer raised only more questions leaving Alan confused about whether she needs help with the shopping bags or not. Basically she gives him an indirect answer to his question because she does not hand him the bags nor makes any sign of wanting some help with the bags. Therefore, we can assume that she does not need any help from Alan with bags and therefore she shifts the conversation elsewhere.

In this example, Evelyn is being upset at Charlie because he forgot about her birthday and Mother‟s Day. She thinks Charlie hates her and she wants to know why. Charlie wants to avoid this conversation and answering the question, so he calls Berta and Rose to join the conversation when they happen by. Berta then describes her Mother‟s Day:

24 Season 1, Episode 3 25 Season 1, Episode 14 32

(15) Berta: So, I‟m having this nice Mother‟s Day dinner with my slutty daughter and her

idiot boyfriend. Suddenly, the front door comes down and the room fills with tear gas.

Next thing I know, I‟m belly-up on the floor, hacking out a lung while the cops are

dragging out Bonnie and Claude in handcuffs. Come to find out that the money that I

loaned them to open a tanning salon was used to turn my tool shed into a hydroponic

pot farm.

Evelyn: Unbelievable … your daughter came to visit on Mother‟s Day!26

As I have previously mentioned, Evelyn is upset at Charlie because he forgot about her birthday and Mother‟s Day as well, and wants him to deeply regret it. She makes a lot of irrelevant remarks on these topics during the conversation, so Rose and Berta can feel sorry about her and reproach Charlie for that. Evelyn pretends to listen to Berta carefully but she attracts their attention to herself by this irrelevant reply. Everyone would expect that she is interested in

Berta‟s speech and the unusual things which were going on in her family when she says that her story is unbelievable. Evelyn, though, makes a remark that her children did not visit her during the Mother‟s Day, making the statement completely irrelevant to what Berta says (violating the maxim of Quantity).

The last example is picked from the third season of the sitcom when Alan dates his ex- wife again. Nobody except for Alan and Judith likes this idea and Evelyn, Rose, Berta and

Charlie are sitting in the kitchen, waiting for Alan to come and talk to him and dissuade him from continuing of the relationship.

(16) Evelyn: Alan, we‟re all here because we love you.

Rose: And we don‟t want to see you make a terrible mistake.

Berta: I‟m just waiting for my toaster strudel to pop.27

26 Season 2, Episode 2 33

By this utterance, Berta displays that she does not care about Alan, his feelings and the fact that he may be making a huge mistake about dating his ex-wife again. She is obviously only making fun of him and of the whole situation and makes unrelated contributions to the conversation.

27 Season 3, Episode 3 34

7. Maxim of Manner

This maxim is the most extensive maxim of the four conversational maxims. It is not related to what is said but rather how it is said. Grice (1975) explained this maxim as follows:

“I expect a partner to make it clear what contributions he is making and to execute his per- formance with reasonable dispatch.” (p.28) He further includes a supermaxim – “Be perspicuous” and he involves four sub-maxims (p. 27):

1. Avoid obscurity of expression.

2. Avoid ambiguity.

3. Be brief.

4. Be orderly.

This whole maxim may seem a little less important, or, in Grice‟s (1975) words “a matter of less urgency” than the others (p. 27). Someone who has expressed himself / herself with an undue prolixity would be criticised much less than someone who lied on purpose, and thus has said something s/he believes to be false (p. 27).

7.1 Avoid obscurity of expression.

The purpose of the Cooperative Principle is to operate, therefore my partner must understand what I am saying in spite of the obscurity that might be in my utterance and it should not be confusing. Let us imagine that there are two adults A and B and a child C. A and B want to communicate but they do not want the child C to understand their dialogue. So A sends an obscure message to B, so the child C does not understand the message. However, the message should not too obscure, so B can fully understand the message (Grice, 1975, p. 36).

A very good and similar example from the sitcom Two and a Half Men is when Judith says in front of Jake that Charlie thinks with his little head. Jake does not understand it and a few days later, he stares at Charlie and measures his head during the breakfast.

(17) Jake: I don‟t get it. You got a normal-sized head.

Alan: What don‟t you get, Jake?

Jake: I heard mom say the reason uncle Charlie gets into so much trouble is because he

thinks with his little head. Aaand it‟s not that little…28

Judith intentionally does not say in front of Jake what is on her mind and she means by “his little head” but she rather describes it other way, so the person she is talking to gets the message but Jake does not. Therefore, he asks Alan and Charlie what that means. They understand the utterance immediately, they try to explain it to Jake but he does not understand it, so they leave him confused.

From the second season, I have chosen the example when Evelyn is being upset because she has found out that Jake spent a week with his other grandparents. She wants him to come to visit her, too.

(18) Evelyn: He goes to visit his other grandparents. He should come to visit me.

Alan: So you wanna spend a week with him?

Evelyn: A week?! Jesus, Alan, I do have a life…

Alan: I‟m confused. What exactly do you want?

Evelyn: The same quality time Jake spends with his other grandparents. But, you

know, less.29

28 Season 1, Episode 23 29 Season 2, Episode 20 36

Evelyn sends a very obscure message because she wants Jake to visit her but when Alan asks her whether she wants to spend a whole week with Jake, her attitude is dismissive. She does not react properly according to what she has stated before. Moreover, she further utters that she wants to spend the same quality time with Jake as he spends with his other grandparents but less, making the second part of her utterance completely incompatible with the first part.

Therefore she made her utterance utterly obscure.

Here, Charlie has had the first fight in his first serious relationship with Mia. He comes to apologize but they have another fight and they break up.

(19) Alan: Hey! How did it go with Mia?

Charlie: Great, we broke up.

Alan: How‟s that great?

Charlie: Because now I can go back to being who I really am.

Alan: And, who‟s that?

Charlie: Someone who doesn‟t care who he really is.

Alan: Oh, I see... someone who spends his entire life in a drunken haze having mean-

ingless sex with strangers.

Charlie: If you knew who I am, why‟d you ask? 30

Charlie answers that it went great with Mia and that they broke up. For most people, a breakup is not „great‟ and Alan also knows that Charlie really likes Mia. Therefore it is natural that he is confused by that answer and he needs more information to properly understand what exactly Charlie means. When Charlie explains it, Alan asks him additional question – who he really is – and Charlie again provides a deliberately confusing answer by stating

30 Season 3, Episode 13 37

“someone who doesn‟t really care who he is” making it only vaguer and confusing than it was before.

7.2 Avoid ambiguity.

Grice (1975) explained that we must remember that we are talking about ambiguity that is deliberate and that the speaker “intends or expects to be recognized by his hearer.” He shows it on the example with “My love” – it can represent either a state of emotion or an object of emotion. He continues with Blake‟s verse “love that never told can be” which can actually mean two things at the same time – either it can mean “love that cannot be told”, or it may mean that “love that if told cannot continue to exist” (p.35). This example can be recognized probably only in English and when translated it most likely loses its ambiguous meaning in other language. Another example Grice (1975) provides is phonemic ambiguity. British

General who captured the province of Sind said this information to someone else. It can be either I have Sind or I have sinned. The information is primarily unambiguous but since Sind and sinned are phonemically the same, they create this ambiguity in a speech (p. 36).

In Two and a Half Men, there is a girl named Cindy, who goes surfing every morning before work. She lives far from the beach and she would travel a long time to go home, take a shower and go to work. So, she regularly takes a shower at Charlie‟s house and then she goes to work. Alan automatically supposes that Charlie sleeps with her but he doesn‟t (only because she keeps refusing to sleep with him).

(20) Charlie: Jeez, Alan, I don‟t sleep with every buff surfer chick that uses my shower.

What kind of guy do you think I am?

Alan: I think you‟re the luckiest bastard to walk the face of earth, but, that‟s not my

point. My point is, I don‟t want women flashing their butt tattoos at my son. 38

Charlie: Cindy has a tattoo? Right cheek or left? No, no, wait, don‟t tell me. I want to

be surprised.

Alan: So, you‟re not sleeping with her, but you want to.

Charlie: Well, yeah. What kind of guy do you think I am?31

Charlie, by asking what kind of guy does Alan thinks he is, creates a deliberate ambiguity because at first he asks this question and pretends to be slightly offended by Alan‟s immediate assumption that he instantly sleeps with every girl that is in his house. Alan (violating also the maxim of Quantity and Relevance) answers that he does not want his son to be exposed to any women‟s butt tattoos. Charlie makes an indication that he wants to be surprised where the tattoo is and Alan is consequently confused because Charlie seemed to be offended by his previous assumption. Afterwards Charlie answers that even though he does not sleep with her, it does not mean he does not want to sleep with her and asks him what kind of guy does Alan thinks he is, creating a deliberate ambiguity together with the first question. From the Char- lie‟s second question it is obvious, that he would like to sleep with her but the girl keeps refusing him.

In this example, Evelyn is being depressed because the man she was dating with left her and disappeared without saying goodbye. She does not return her sons‟ calls and so they decide to go to her house and see if she is all right. Alan unlocks the door:

(21) Charlie: Okay, she‟s not here. Let‟s go.

(Alan turns the lights on)

Charlie: Okay, she‟s here, let‟s go.

…

Alan: Wait, Charlie, we cannot just leave her here.

31 Season 1, Episode 7 39

C: Fine, where do you want to leave her?32

Alan and Charlie come to Evelyn‟s house in order to check whether she is okay or not. Char- lie ambiguously says “she‟s not here, let‟s go,” from the hall by the door without even turning the lights on and persuading if she really is not at home (and he also violates the maxim of

Quality because he says something without having enough evidence). Alan turns the lights on and she sits right in the living room, only a few meters from them. Charlie sees that she is alive and states again – “okay, she‟s here, let‟s go.” Charlie repeatedly and deliberately creates ambiguity and makes fun of the situation. Furthermore, Charlie wants her to leave her there and go home while Alan insists on not letting her all alone at home and taking her with them for a few days. Alan says to Charlie that they cannot leave her there. Charlie purposely makes an ambiguous utterance by saying “where do you want to leave her” indicating Alan that they do not have to leave her in her house but he does not want her in his house either.

In this example, Jake wants some advice about a girl in his school who gave him a cupcake because she likes him:

(22) Jake: Well, there‟s a girl. Her name is Robin Newberry. She gave me a cupcake.

Charlie: Yeah, so?

Jake: I think she likes me.

Charlie: So, what‟s the problem?

Jake: Now I think she thinks I like her back.

Charlie: Do you?

Jake: I didn‟t think I did, but it was a really good cupcake.

Charlie: Wow, what a perfect metaphor.

Jake: No, it was a cupcake…

32 Season 1, Episode 6 40

Charlie: Okay, never ever confuse cupcakes with love.

Jake: But I love cupcakes.

Charlie: We all love cupcakes. That doesn‟t mean you have to love the baker. … I‟m

just saying that when someone freely gives you her cupcake, your only obligation is to

enjoy it. There‟s no reason to get emotionally involved.

Jake: Why not?

Charlie: Because if you do, the next thing you know, you‟ll stuck eating the same

damn cupcake for the rest of your life.

Jake: But it was a really good cupcake. I can‟t stop thinking about it.

Charlie: Yeah, I‟ve had cupcakes like that… but the thing you‟ve got to remember is

there‟ll always be other cupcakes.33 …

The cupcake is a perfect metaphor for sex. Charlie thinks that Jake does not understand the metaphor and that they talk about the cupcake. Charlie continues with the ambiguous explanation telling Jake that he does not have to get emotionally involved when a girl gives him a cupcake even though the cupcake is really good and his only obligation is to enjoy it.

There are some more good examples involving deliberate ambiguity which I am not going to analyse:

(23) Alan: Gotta run to the grocery store, I‟m gonna need somebody to fold these clothes.

Charlie: I don‟t know if the grocery store is the first place I‟d go for that, but good

luck.34

33 Season 3, Episode 5 34 Season 1, Episode 3 41

(24) Charlie: (wakes up and there is a guinea pig in front of his face) Okay, Jake. Rule

number one – Uncle Charlie does not like to start his day with a squealing creature in

his face.

Jake: Sorry. Grandma‟s here, she wants you to come down.

Charlie: Okay, you‟re not listening. Rule number one…35

(25) Evelyn: Could I get some more coffee, Berta?

Berta: Who‟s stopping you?36

7.3 Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)

Grice (1975) himself admits that this sub-maxim is also a little disputable and is with a clash with his maxim of Quantity. He does not define nor gives an example to violation of this sub-maxim but there is a PowerPoint presentation by an unknown author from the University of Malta about these maxims. The author provides the following example:

A: So sir, do you agree with the new law on hunting?

B: Not entirely disagreeable, as I must confess myself not to be, I find certain, shall we say, solecisms in said law. (p. 12)

This example violates all of the Grice‟s sub-maxims – it is obscure and ambiguous, and it is not perspicuous, brief and orderly.

In Two and a Half Men, there are a lot of these examples violating the sub-maxim “Be brief.” One of those is when Charlie and Jake are watching a baseball match and Charlie teaches Jake how to bet. Alan passes by, sees their enthusiasm and joins their conversation:

35 Season 1, Episode 3 36 Season 2, Episode 2 42

(26) Alan: Ah, who won?

Jake: Who cares? We covered the spread!

Alan: Charlie, call me an old-fashioned dad, but I was hoping my son wouldn‟t start

betting on sports until he was old enough to have a drinking problem.

Charlie: He didn‟t really make a bet. I just gave him a taste of my action.

Alan: Nor do I want him tasting your action.37

Alan comments on what is Charlie teaching Jake and according to his sarcastic tone of voice he does not really like it. In his utterance towards Charlie, the parts “call me an old-fashioned dad” and “until he was old enough to have a drinking problem” are needless and a hearer would understand the utterance without any problems if he omitted these comments. By add- ing them in his utterance, he makes his speech ironic and also humorous although it is not necessary for further understanding.

In this example, Evelyn thinks Charlie hates her and she insists on his explanation. He does not want to have this conversation, so he calls Rose and Berta to join them in order to avoid providing the answer. However, all three start to analyse him and his behaviour and

Evelyn says that Charlie as a child had a very strong oral fixation:

(27) Rose: Come to think of it, the night we were together, he did spend a freakish amount

of time on my boobies. I mean, the foreplay is one thing, but, golly, it was like making

love to a cat.

Charlie: Rose! For God‟s sake! You‟re talking to my mother!

Rose: (turns to Evelyn) Sorry, a very giving cat.38

37 Season 1, Episode 14 38 Season 2, Episode 2 43

Rose provides more information than it is necessary to understand her utterance, so she violates not only the maxim of Quantity but also the sub-maxim of Manner – “Be brief.” She does a lot of contributions to the conversation that are not important and would not change the meaning of her utterance. Nevertheless, these contributions make the whole dialogue funnier for her, Evelyn and Berta because they embarrass Charlie.

The last example is when Alan and Charlie meet a beautiful and smart woman at a cafeteria. Alan has his eye plastered because he was previously hit in the eye by a toast

Charlie had thrown at him. Encouraged by Charlie, Alan comes to her, he asks her out and she agrees. He wants to sit down on a chair but since he has his eye plastered, he misses the chair and falls down. All the way home from the cafeteria he is singing and dancing and Charlie gets eventually nervous and angry.

(28) Alan: I‟d think you‟d be happy for me.

Charlie: I am happy for you. You had the courage to walk over there with your puss-

filled eye and fall on your ass… and still you got a date with one of the most beautiful

women I‟ve ever met. I‟m not only happy for you, I‟m proud of you. Now I have to re-

evaluate everything I thought I knew about men, women, relationships, God and the

universe.39

Similarly to the previous examples, Charlie provides more information that is needed for

Alan‟s understanding of what he thinks. He exaggerates and adds a hyperbole to his ironic tone of voice, making his statements absurd and therefore funnier. Most of the information

Charlie utters are completely needless and they have only one purpose – to mock Alan even though he is successful with the date.

39 Season 2, Episode 19 44

7.4 Be orderly.

As well as the previous subchapter “Be brief”, Grice (1975) does not specify this one either. However, Edward Finegan (2012) in his work “Language, Its Structure and Use” explains this sub-maxim at the following example:

“A birthday cake should have icing; use flour and sugar in the cake; bake it for one hour; preheat the oven to 325 degrees; and beat in three eggs” (p. 309).

Not only in English or American society is it a custom to give instructions in step by step by its chronological order. Here this rule, or custom, is obviously violated. Finegan (2012) gives another example to explain this sub-maxim of Manner:

“My hometown has five shopping malls. It is in the country seat. My father and my mother were both born there. My hometown is Midwestern town of 105,000 inhabitants, situated in the middle of the Corn Belt. I was brought up there until I was 13 years old.” (p. 309)

There is also no chronological order as there should be in telling stories and giving facts. The appropriate way of telling this story is to give the basic and general facts and then go further in the details. In this example, the child jumps from one “topic” to another – from general facts to the details and vice versa – and therefore the sub-maxim of Manner “Be orderly” is violated.

This example from Two and a Half Men is taken from the very first episodes. Evelyn is upset because Charlie does not return her calls. In the morning, she is sitting in his kitchen waiting for him when he gets up.

(29) Charlie: Morning.

Evelyn: Is that all you have to say for yourself? … You haven‟t returned any of my

call this week. It‟s all I can do to not imagine lying dead in a ditch somewhere.

Charlie: Right back at ya, mom. What did you want to talk about?

Evelyn: Too late, I‟m not speaking to you.

Charlie: All right.

Evelyn: Would you like to know why?

Charlie: No, I trust your judgment.

Evelyn: Because, when your brother‟s marriage ended and he chose to move in here,

your coldness towards your mother became more than just the behaviour of an un-

grateful son. It‟s now an obstacle to my spending quality time with my beloved grand-

child.40

The whole conversation is very chaotic and unsystematic. At first, Evelyn is being mad at

Charlie because he deliberately ignores her and her calls. Charlie does not want to speak with her but she is already in his house and he tries to pretend his interest in what she wanted before. Charlie turns from being uncooperative into being cooperative but then Evelyn changes from being cooperative into being uncooperative by stating that she is upset and she isn‟t speaking to him. She wants him to feel guilty and therefore she continues whether he wants to know why she is not talking to him. She switches from being uncooperative into being cooperative but then Charlie is again uncooperative by stating that he does not want to actually know it because he trusts her judgement. Evelyn continues anyway and explains him what he does not want to hear. Therefore, their whole conversation changing from being cooperative and uncooperative and vice versa turns into a chaotic unsystematic dialogue.

40 Season 1, Episode 3 46

In this example, Charlie finds out that he has serious problems with his money and that his credit cards are dead. He goes to visit his accountant to discuss the problem.

(30) Charlie: All of my credit cards are dead. What has happened?

Accountant: Yeah, sounds about right.

Alan: Uhm, excuse me, maybe this is none of my business, but how does something

like that happen?

Accountant: In layman‟s terms, your brother ran out of money.

Charlie: What? How did I run out of money?!

Accountant: Iiii knew you‟d ask that…41

This conversation among the three of them is chaotic and unsystematic as well. Alan and

Charlie come to see the accountant because they want to know what exactly has happened.

Charlie asks what has happened to his credit cards and logically he wants to know the answer.

He already knows that he has run out of money, so the accountant‟s answer that it “sounds about right” is a little unrelated and needless. Alan utters an awareness that what he says may be a little irrelevant and not perspicuous to ask – “uhm, excuse me, maybe this is none of my business.” The whole conversation is obscure, ambiguous and mainly chaotic and not orderly.

From the beginning Alan and Charlie want to know how something like that could happen but the accountant is not very cooperative and he does not reply their questions directly and orderly, creating the unmethodical and chaotic conversation.

41 Season 1, Episode 14 47

Conclusion

This thesis has defined what is and also what is not humour from several perspectives and sources (i.e. online dictionaries and various linguistic works dealing with humour). It has found that it is almost impossible to define humour exactly and that there is no unique theory of humour. There are three major and most influential theories: Superiority Theory, the Re- lease Theory and the Incongruity Theory. Superiority Theory (by Thomas Hobbes) is the theory that people laugh or make fun of something humiliating another person(s) or thing(s) and therefore making themselves superior above them (Hu, 2012, p. 1). The Release Theory by

Sigmund Freud (1976) takes humour from a psychological point of view and states that laughter and humour is a release from social sanction (Hu, 2012, p. 1). The last and the most influential theory is the Incongruity Theory. Hu (2012, p.1) has cited Salvatore Attardo (1997) who wrote that laughter and humour arise from “the view of two or more inconsistent, unsuitable or incongruous parts of circumstances, considered as united in one complex object or assemblage” (p. 396).

Attardo (2003) further states that even though humour provokes laughter and amusement, not everything people laugh at is humour – for example tickling or somebody‟s fall on the ground is certainly not humour (although it triggers laughter). He has further stated that humour and laughter are obviously related but they are definitely not coextensive (i.e. there are various reactions to humour – laughter but also misunderstanding or even insult). There- fore laughter is not necessarily a reaction to humour and vice versa – laughter is not always caused by humour (Attardo, 2003).

On the other hand, online dictionaries define humour very simply, briefly, clearly and they are very easily understood. They are made for a general public. Nevertheless, they are not quite accurate, mainly from the linguistic perspective.

The thesis has further tried to outline a definition of irony and sarcasm using online dictionaries as well as linguistic works and essays. Similarly to the theories of humour, there are a lot of theories on irony and sarcasm and they are not unique, too. It is often disputable and unclear whether something is or is not irony or sarcasm. The thesis provides several examples for their better image. The result is that irony mostly does not have a negative intention (Attardo, 2000). Sarcasm, on the other hand, is an aggressive type of irony, has usually negative intention, is rude, impolite, insults and mocks people (Attardo, 2003). But this might not be necessarily true. In the thesis, there are several examples of sarcasm which do not insult and scorn other people or things.

It has also tried to define a sitcom and it describes Two and a Half Men together with its main characters – Charlie, Alan, Jake and Evelyn Harper, Charlie‟s neighbour Rose, Char- lie‟s housekeeper Berta and Alan‟s ex-wife Judith. It has described their fundamental character traits for better understanding of the sitcom and humour used in it.

The most important part of the thesis is Grice‟s Cooperative Principle and his conversational maxims. It has drawn the theory and examples provided from his essay “Logic and

Conversation.” There are a lot of imperfections as he himself admitted but the work(s) has been fundamental for other scholars and for the future development of linguistics. In the Co- operative Principle, there are four conversational maxims (each having another 1-4 sub- maxims): maxim of Quality, Quantity, Relevance and Manner. They were adopted to serve and they are supposed to have “a maximally effective exchange of information” (Grice, 1975, p. 28). Each maxim is placed into separate chapter, defined and explained each single maxim according to Grice (1975) including the sub-maxims in separate subchapters. The thesis deals 49

with violations of these maxims, so it provides 2-3 examples on each sub-maxim which violate the specific maxim. It briefly analyses why each maxim and sub-maxim has been violated

(if it was because of a misunderstanding or the conversation was deliberately non- cooperative).

After defining the maxims and their sub-maxims, the thesis has found out, that it is often difficult to differentiate between Grice‟s maxim of Quantity with its sub-maxim “Do not make your contribution more informative than is required” and the sub-maxim of Manner “Be brief.” These two clashes very often because Grice (1975) did not specify more the latter one.

It is very disputable and it entirely depends on a speaker and a hearer whether the amount of information provided is sufficient enough to fully understand a speaker‟s intention and utterance and if it meets a hearer‟s needs.

Last but not least, it has found out that violating Grice‟s conversational maxims in sitcoms create humour and humorous situations. Usually a speaker and a hearer do not laugh although they mock and make fun of each other, however, for other people, observers and for an audience it definitely creates humour and humorous situations.

The thesis has studied whether humour is created by violating the Cooperative Princi- ple but it has applied the study only on the sitcom, irony and sarcasm in Two and a Half Men.

It has not studied whether this violation creates humour and humorous situations outside situational comedies in everyday common communication, therefore the findings may not be necessarily applicable to them.

References

75 great examples of sarcastic remark9002(‏.‏, March 04). Retrieved from http://sgforums.com/forums/1769/topics/350299

Aronsohn, Lee. (Producer), & Lorre, Chuck. (Producer) (2003-2006). In Aronsohn, Lee. (Ex- ecutive Producer), Two and a Half Men. Los Angeles : CBS.

Attardo, Salvatore (2003). Introduction: the pragmatics of humor. Journal Of Pragmatics,

1287–1294.

Attardo, Salvatore (2000). Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), pp. 793-826.

Attardo, Salvatore (1997). Locutionary and perlocutionary cooperation: The perlocutionary cooperative principle. Journal Of Pragmatics, (27), 753-779.

Attardo, Salvatore (1990). The violation of Grice‟s maxims in jokes. Berkley Linguistic Socie- ty, 355-362.

Finegan, Edward (2012). Language, its structure and use. (6th ed., p. 309). Boston: The

Thomson Corporation. Retrieved from http://books.google.cz/books?id=qXr4W5RC5noC&pg=PA309&dq=&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DlR

6UeuINJDG7Abd14CwBQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA

Grice, Herbert Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax

and Semantics (pp. 44-58). New York: Academic Press.

Hu, Shuqin. (2012). An analysis of humor in the big bang theory from pragmatic perspectives.

(Vol. 2, pp. 1185-1190). Finland: Academy Publisher. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA

&url=http://ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/tpls/article/download/tpls020611851190/49

65&ei=ji16UYeREcHmOZeUgJgK&usg=AFQjCNGSN5_- ak37a0TUVJHvn2Y5d_VMXA&sig2=LcoIJI3ZpUnnqEyD_DuhJA&bvm=bv.45645796,d.Z

irony. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/irony_1?q=irony

irony. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony?s=t

Lin1280 pragmatics i, cooperation and implicature. Unpublished manuscript, University of

Malta, Msida, Malta. Retrieved from http://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/125233/lin1280-lecture7-cooperation.pdf

Nordquist, Richard (n.d.). sarcasm. Retrieved from http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/sarcasmterm.htm

sarcasm. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm?s=t

sarcasm. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sarcasm?q=sarcasm

sitcom. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sitcom?s=t

situation comedy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/situation-comedy

Tomkins, Steve. (2005). The rules of sarcasm. UK: BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4384734.stm

Wilson, Deirdre. (2012). Irony comprehension:a developmental perspective. Informally pub- lished manuscript, CSMN , University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Summary

The aim of this bachelor diploma thesis is a study of irony and sarcasm in the first three seasons of American television sitcom Two and a Half Men. It studies creation of humour and humorous situation by violating Grice‟s Cooperative Principle and his conversational maxims. There are four maxims – maxim of Quality, Quantity, Relation and Manner – each one having its sub-maxims which specify them in a greater detail. Grice (1975) illustrat- ed those patterns in order to make a „perfect‟ communication and the maximally effective information exchange without disputable and ambiguous meanings and needless prolixity of an utterance (Grice, 1975).

The thesis focuses on humour, especially on irony and sarcasm. It provides several definitions of them according to two online dictionaries and linguistic works. It also defines a situational comedy and performs the television sitcom Two and a Half Men together with the description of its main characters.

The next chapters deal with Grice‟s Cooperative Principle and the conversational maxims including the sub-maxims. There are 2-3 analysed examples for each sub-maxim from the previously mentioned sitcom which violate the specific maxims and sub-maxim. The thesis tries to find out whether humour and humorous situations are created by violating these maxims and sub-maxims.

The analysis has found out that there is no unique theory of humour, irony and sarcasm and they are almost impossible to define; that sarcasm is not necessarily insulting; that the Cooperative Principle has got a lot of imperfections; and that the violations of the maxims create humour in sitcoms for observers and audience but usually not for the main characters.

Resumé

Cílem této bakalářské diplomové práce je studie ironie a sarkasmu v prvních třech sé- riích amerického sitkomu Dva půl chlapa. Práce se zabývá tvořením humoru a humorných situací při porušení Griceova Kooperačního Principu a jeho konverzačních maximů. Koope- rační Princip má čtyři maximy – maxim Kvality, Kvantity, Relevance a Způsobu – a každý tento maxim má ještě svoje podmaximy, které blíže specifikují tyto maximy. Herbert Paul

Grice (1975) navrhl tyto principy, aby tak následně mohl vytvořit „dokonalou“ komunikaci a maximálně efektivní výměnu informací bez zbytečného chaosu, dvojsmyslů a nejasností, a také bez zbytečných obšírností řečových projevů (Grice, 1975).

Práce se zaměřuje na humor, obzvláště na ironii a sarkasmus. Poskytuje několik defi- nicí podle dvou online slovníků a různých jazykovědných prací. Taktéž definuje situační ko- medii a představuje sitkom Dva a půl chlapa i s popisem hlavních postav.

Další kapitoly se zabývají Griceovým Kooperačním Principem a konverzačními maximy včetně jejich podmaximů. Ke každému podmaximu uvádím 2-3 příklady z již zmiňova- ného televizního sitkomu, které tento Princip porušují, a dále analyzuji, proč ho porušují a jaký to má následek. Pomocí téhle práce se pokouším zjistit, zda humor vzniká porušováním těchto konverzačních maximů.

Analýza zjistila několik následujících faktů: že neexistuje žádná jednotná teorie humoru, ironie a sarkasmu a je téměř nemožné je definovat; že sarkasmus není bezpodmínečně hrubý a urážlivý; že Kooperační Princip má mnoho nedostatků; a že porušení čtyř konverzač- ních maximů v sitkomu Dva a půl chlapa vytváří humor, ale většinou jen pro pozorovatele nebo publikum a zpravidla ne pro ty postavy, které ho vytváří.