Quick viewing(Text Mode)

The Non-Observance of Cooperative Principle and Its Implicature in American Tv Sitcom Friends

The Non-Observance of Cooperative Principle and Its Implicature in American Tv Sitcom Friends

THE NON-OBSERVANCE OF COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE AND ITS IN AMERICAN TV SITCOM FRIENDS

A Thesis

Submitted to Faculty of Adab and Humanities in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Strata One (S1)

By ALIFYA KEMAYA SADRA 11150260000080

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LITERATURE FACULTY OF ADAB AND HUMANITIES UNIVERSITAS ISLAM NEGERI SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA 2019

ABSTRACT

Alifya Kemaya Sadra, The Non-Observance of Cooperative Principle and Its Implicature in American TV Sitcom Friends. A thesis: Department of English Literature, Faculty of Adab and Humanities, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2019. This research aims to discover the non-observance of Cooperative Principle and its implicature in the transcript of American TV sitcom, Friends Season 10. The research is conducted using discourse analysis with approach. The theory used are the Cooperative Principle theory by P.H. Grice. The result shows that the non-observance of Cooperative Principle give rise to conversational implicature in the conversation of Friends season 10. The most common type of non-observance of Cooperative Principle found in the transcript is flouting of quality maxim. The occurrences of the non-observances and the implicated behind it depends on the context of the conversation. The most common reason of the non-observance is to deliver sarcastic comment. This research uses TV comedy series as the data, however the limitation of this research is it does not use any humor approach. Hence, the relation between the non-observance or the implicature and the humor will not be investigated. Keywords: Conversational Implicature, Cooperative Principle, Grice, Non- observance, Pragmatics.

ii

iii

LEGALIZATION

Name: Alifya Kemaya Sadra

NIM : 11150260000080

Title : The Non-Observance of Cooperative Principle and Its Implicature in American TV Sitcom Friends.

The thesis entitled above has been defended before the Faculty of Adab and Humanities Examination Committee on November 27th, 2019. It has already been accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of strata one.

Jakarta, November 27th 2019

The Examination Committees

Signature Date

1. Hasnul Insani, Ph.D. (Chairperson) 1976050 1 200801 2 010

2. M. Agus Suriadi, M. Hum. (Secretary) 1978080 1 201411 1 001

3. Hilmi Akmal, M. Hum. (Advisor) 19760918 200801 1 009

4. Dr. Saefudin, M.Pd. (Examiner I) 19640710 199303 1 006

5. Sholikatus Sa’diyah, M.Pd. (Examiner II) 19750417 200501 2 007

iv

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person nor material 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 acknowledgment has been made in the thesis.

Jakarta, November 18th 2019

Alifya Kemaya Sadra 11150260000080

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, praises and gratitude to The Most Gracious and The Most Merciful Allah SWT for His showers of blessings to make this study possible. My humblest gratitude to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) for his continuous guidance.

I would like to express my gratitude towards my family for the prayers, love, and passionate encouragement which made it possible for me to complete this study. My parents, Ahmad Gaus and Jumiati Zaini whose valuable suggestions and guidance have helped me a lot in making this study. My sister, Raysa Falsafa Nahla and my cousin, Emira Tamani, who always give emotional support and who serve as my inspiration to pursue my studies.

I owe the debt of gratitude to my advisor, Hilmi Akmal, M.Hum for imparting his knowledge and expertise in this study, and for his constant guidance and encouragement extended to me.

I extend my sincere gratitude to the following persons who have willingly helped me and have contributed in completion of my study:

1. Saiful Umam M.A., Ph.D. as the Dean of Adab and Humanities Faculty.

2. Hasnul Insani, M.Pd., Ph.D as the Head of English Literature Department.

3. Agus Suriadi, S.Pd., M.Hum as the Secretary of English Literature Department.

4. All lecturers in English Literature Department for their guidance, motivation, and immense knowledge.

5. Alecia Nabilah, Aramitha Kiarani, Naswah, Rizqiana Lestari, and Vinni Aprilia for always being there for me. Their endless supports have helped me a lot throughout this study.

6. Adelia Muthia, Alya Nadyasmara, Egi Lintang, Fachry Sudiar, Faisal Sila, Kesha Lariesa, Muhammad Kasim, Nadia Nakita, Nakita Febiola, Naufal Syauqi, Nieky Arghana, Nursyarda Aulia, Shafira Kautsar, and Vinny

vi

Oktharina for their companions, encouragements, discussions, suggestions, and inspirations. My college years would have been a lot harder and boring without them.

7. English Literature Department 2015, especially class B for the group discussions, suggestions, and motivations.

Finally, to other friends and relatives who in one way or another have contributed to my study, thank you. As it would be impossible to thank everyone individually, this acknowledgement is an expression of my deepest gratitude.

Jakarta, November 18th 2019

Alifya Kemaya Sadra

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...... ii APPROVAL SHEET ...... iii LEGALIZATION ...... iv DECLARATION ...... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... viii LIST OF TABLES ...... x CHAPTER I ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Background of the Research ...... 1 1.2. Focus of the Research ...... 3 1.3. Research Questions ...... 3 1.4.The Objectives of the Research ...... 3 1.5. Significance of the Research ...... 3 1.6. Research Methodology ...... 4 1.6.1. The Method of the Research ...... 4 1.6.2. The Instrument of the Research...... 4 1.6.3. Unit Analysis ...... 4 1.6.4. Technique of Data Collection and Data Analysis .. 5 1.6.4.1. Data Collection Technique ...... 5 1.6.4.2. Data Analysis Technique ...... 5 CHAPTER II ...... 7 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 7 2.1. Previous Research ...... 7 2.2. Pragmatics...... 8 2.3. Conversational ...... 10 2.4. Cooperative Principle ...... 11 2.5. Non-Observance of Maxims ...... 13 CHAPTER III...... 17 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ...... 17 3.1. Data Description ...... 17 3.2. Data Analysis ...... 20 CHAPTER IV ...... 51

viii

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ...... 51 4.1. Conclusion ...... 51 4.2. Suggestion ...... 52 4.3. Recommendation ...... 52 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 53 APPENDIX ...... 55

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1...... 17 Table of Data ...... i

x

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Research

Interpreting what someone meant by their utterance in conversations is not always simple, because people do not always say what they mean. They frequently mean much more than they explicitly say. For example, one might say it's hot in here! but what they mean is: Please open the window! or is it all right if I open the window? or You're wasting electricity (Thomas 1). In order to understand an utterance, it is not enough to know the meanings of the words (semantics) and how they have been integrated into a sentence (syntax); it is also necessary to know who the speaker is and what the context is, and to be able to make inferences regarding why they said it and what they intended the hearers to understand (Birner 1). The issues regarding the inferred meaning of utterances are addressed within the branch of linguistic known as pragmatics. According to Fasold (O’Keeffe, et al. 1), pragmatics is the study of the use of context to make inferences about meaning.

A philosopher of , H. P. Grice, proposed an important foundational claim in pragmatics: meanings which go beyond what is said, can be broadly classified as “speaker-intended implicatures, that is, meanings that are implied or suggested rather than said” (Culpeper and Haugh 84). Moreover, he stated that what is implicated can be contrasted with what is said. In Pragmatics, the implied meaning of utterances is called the conversational implicature.

Conversational implicature arises because speakers and listeners are expected to be cooperative by obeying the rules of conversation. This set of rules are termed Cooperative Principle (Grice 45). Grice divided the rules into four maxims, the maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner (Grice 45). In order, these maxims require speakers to be informative, be truthful, be relevant, and be perspicuous. These maxims can be observed, violated, or flouted in order to give rise to conversational implicatures (Birner 44). For example, in [1] Dexter flouts the Cooperative Principle namely maxim of Quantity, generating a conversational implicature.

1

2

[1] Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and the cheese

Dexter: Ah, I brought the bread (Yule 40).

Dexter does not explicitly say whether he brought the cheese or not, but he mentions that he brought the bread. This gives an implication that he only brought the bread, and not the cheese. This is one of the examples of how the non- observance of the maxims give rise to conversational implicature.

Conversational implicature occurs in daily interaction. Therefore, it is significant to be able to interpret and convey a message in a conversation. The study of implicature offers some explanations of how it is possible for speakers to convey meanings that are not directly expressed in words. It also attempts to analyze how the hearers interprets the intended meaning of speakers. This study aims to contribute to the study of implicature. It is conducted to analyze how conversational implicature occurs in daily interaction. One kind of TV programs, sitcom, is an excellent example of daily interaction, since the mechanisms originate in natural everyday conversations. “Friends” is a typical example of sitcom, more precisely American sitcom.

This present study is an attempt to analyze the conversational implicature which occurs by the non-observance of Cooperative Principle in the conversation of Friends. Friends is specifically chosen because it is arguably one of the most popular TV Sitcom, according to the recognitions that the show gets: it was ranked no. 21 on TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time (“TV Guide”); no. 7 on Empire magazine's The 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time (“Empire”); no. 100 on TV Guide's 100 Greatest Episodes of All-Time for the episode "The One with the Prom Video" (“Special”); no. 24 on the Writers Guild of America's 101 Best Written TV Series of All Time (“101”); and no. 28 on TV Guide's 60 Best TV Series of All Time (Fretts & Roush 16-19).

Friends has 10 seasons with 236 episodes in total. To narrow it down, only the last season of the show will be used as the data in this research. Since the data that will be analyzed is the transcript of Friends’ tenth season, this research is a discourse analysis with pragmatics as its approach.

3

1.2.Focus of the Research

The primary concern of this research is to examine the non-observance of Cooperative Principle which create conversational implicature in American situation comedy, Friends season 10. The Cooperative Principle theory used in this research is proposed by P.H. Grice.

1.3. Research Questions

The concern that has been mentioned above is developed further into three research questions:

1. What are the types of non-observance of maxims of Cooperative Principle found in Friends season 10?

2. How do the conversational implicatures occur in Friends season 10?

1.4.The Objectives of the Research

Related to the research questions, the purpose of this study concerning the conversations in sitcom Friends Season 10 are:

1. To identify the types of non-observance of Cooperative Principle’s maxims found in the conversations.

2. To examine the occurrence of the conversational implicatures in the conversations.

1.5. Significance of the Research

The significance of this research is to examine the non-observance of Cooperative and how it created implied meanings. It aims to substantiate that the non-observance of Cooperative Principle is related to the creation of conversational implicature. Furthermore, this research is conducted to contribute to the study of implicature. The phenomenon of conversational implicature often occurs in everyday interaction. Being familiar with the Cooperative Principle will contribute to the benefit of understanding the implied meanings suggested in utterances. Thus, this research will help the audience to understand implied meanings in utterances, particularly utterances in TV sitcom Friends season 10.

4

1.6. Research Methodology 1.6.1. The Method of the Research

In order to fulfill the objectives of the research, a qualitative research was held. According to Stake (11), qualitative research relies primarily on human perception and understanding. The main focus in qualitative research is to understand, explain, explore, discover and clarify situations, feelings, perceptions, attitudes, values, beliefs and experiences of a group of people (Kumar 33). For the purposes of this research, discourse analysis and pragmatic approach are used.

1.6.2. The Instrument of the Research

The instruments of this research is data cards. Data cards are the collection of data and information that is related to the research, collected from documentations, books, archive and other media (Nawawi and Hadari 171). Since the data are in the public domain, the data are collected through the internet (http://www.livesinabox.com/friends/season10.shtml) and a streaming service, Netflix. The collected data are later being written in the data cards, along with other information that are important for research purposes.

1.6.3. Unit Analysis

The unit analysis of this research is the transcript of an American sitcom, Friends, directed by David Crane and Marta Kauffman, and produced by Crane/Kauffman Productions and Warner Bros. Television. This show was broadcasted from 1994 to 2004, with 10 seasons and 236 episodes (IMDb). The main characters were played by Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, Matt LeBlanc, Matthew Perry, and David Schwimmer.

Considering the many seasons and episodes that the show has, the data used in this research is narrowed down to only the conversational implicatures found in the last season of the show, consisting of 18 episodes.

5

1.6.4. Technique of Data Collection and Data Analysis 1.6.4.1. Data Collection Technique

The technique used to collect the data for this research is document technique. According to Nawawi and Hadari (69), document technique is collecting data by using written sources such as books, newspapers, magazines, etc. Then, the written data should be classified into categories. The data used in this research is the transcript text of Friends season 10. The data is already in the public domain, and can be collected through the internet. The steps to select the data are:

a. Watching the last season of Friends;

b. Reading the transcript text;

c. Finding the implicatures in the utterances of the characters;

d. Writing down those utterances;

e. Classifying the data.

f. Processing the data by using random sampling.

1.6.4.2. Data Analysis Technique

The technique used to analyze the data is discourse analysis. According to Stubbs (1) discourse analysis “attempts to study the organization of language above the sentence or above the clause; and therefore to study large linguistic units such as conversational exchanges or written texts”. This research uses discourse analysis because it aims to examine the conversational exchanges between the characters of Friends, particularly how they fail to observe Cooperative Principle in the conversations to create implicature to achieve specific effects (to create humor, to evoke emotions, etc.).

The first step to analyze the data is developing research questions. Next is collecting and sampling data. After the data is selected, it is examined using the Cooperative Principle theory by P.H. Grice. The theory is used to identify the violations of the principles that creates the conversational implicatures in the data.

6

After the violations and its implicatures are identified, a statement based on the conclusion of the research will be made.

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. Previous Research

Researchers have examined the conversations of the characters of Friends using Cooperative Principle approach. Most of them discuss the relation between the Cooperative Principle and the humor, or how the non-observance of Grice’s maxims is used as one of the humor strategies for the show. This chapter will discuss some of the research. The first one is a study conducted by Yao Xiaosu in 2009, Conversational Implicature Analysis of Humor in American Situation Comedy “Friends”. The study used the theoretical basis of Grice’s conversation maxims. The data was a random sampling from the transcript of ten seasons of friends. The result of the study showed that the conversational implicature is one of the mechanisms that cause the humor in the sitcom.

In a further test to investigate the non-observance of Cooperative Principle in Friends, Chuanpipatpong conducted a study titled When Flouting is Funny: Analyzing Humor in ‘Friends’ via Grice’s Cooperative Principle in 2011. The findings of this study suggest that all of the Gricean maxims were flouted in Friends. The maxim of quality was flouted the most, while the maxim of relation was the least flouted.

Anna Šmilauerová conducted a similar study on conversational implicature and humor in Friends in her study, TV Sitcom Friends: Analysis of character humor strategies based on the violation of Grice’s Conversational maxims. The study examined the utterances eliciting laughter from the point of Grice’s Cooperative Principle, by two of the characters in Friends, Chandler and Pheobe. The data were the written script of five episodes from the Season 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9. The study suggests that Pheobe violates the maxim of relation the most, and Chandler violates the maxim of quality the most. The violations by both characters related to their most entertaining quality and their sense of humor.

The study by Yu-Wen Wu and Yong Chen in 2010 also investigated the conversational implicatures and humor in Friends by non-observance maxims of

7

8

Cooperative Principle. The study was titled Humor Strategies in the American Sitcom “Friends”: An Empirical Study. The findings indicate that the top humor strategies resulting from the violation of the Cooperative Principle in Friends season 10 are irony, responding irrelevant statements, and making an excuse. The study also found that the speakers would use different kinds of strategies to achieve their intended humorous effects.

Lastly, Jorfi and Dowlatabadi conducted a study titled Violating and Flouting of the Four Gricean Cooperative Maxims in Friends the American TV Series in 2015. They investigated the instances of violation and flouting of Grice’s maxims in the first episode of American TV Series “Friends”. The findings suggest that the maxim of relevance is violated the most, and the maxim of quality is flouted the most. Moreover, the findings suggest that compared to other characters, Monica is the one with the least violations of the maxims. This was due to the fact that she is the one who formed the story for everyone to react on.

To sum up, the previous studies on implicatures of sitcom Friends investigated the humor strategies with the approach of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. They studied the humor which created by the non-observances of the maxims. Unlike the previous studies, this present study is more focus to the conversational implicature in the script of Friends. Thus, this study will investigate the non-observance of Grice’s maxims and how it give rise to the conversational implicature. This study will not relating the non-observances or conversational implicatures to humor strategies or humor theories. Another thing that differs this study with the previous ones is the data. This study will only focus on the transcript of the last season of the show. The data will be randomly picked from the episodes of the last season.

2.2. Pragmatics

Pragmatics is often conceived as the science of language use, concerned with context-dependent meaning and speaker-intended meaning (Bublitz and Norrick 24). The analysis of context-dependent meaning is essential in pragmatics. Consequently, context is one of its key objects of investigation (34). On the one hand, pragmatics presupposes the existence of language, language user and context,

9

and on the other, context-independent meaning (24). In their book, Bublitz and Norrick (24-25) introduce pragmatics by presenting the definitions by experts: pragmatics is considered to be the study of invisible meaning (Yule 1996: 127), the science of the unsaid (Mey 2001: 194), the study of meaning as it “emerges in language use” (Marmaridou 2000: 1), and the study of linguistic acts and communicative action and their appropriateness (Bublitz 2009; van Dijk 2008; Fetzer 2004, 2007).

According to Yule (4), pragmatics is “the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those forms.” When investigating language using pragmatics, one can discuss people’s intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kind of actions that they are performing when they speak. Thus, it is a study that allows one to understand how people make sense of each other linguistically by requiring them to make sense of people and what they have in mind (Yule 4).

According to Mey (6), pragmatics is a study of “the use of language in human communication as determined by the conditions of society.” However, he stated that the definition of pragmatics (including the one he offered), do not delimit pragmatics clearly and neatly. In line with him, Ariel (23) stated that pragmatics was in need of a conceptual positive definition which could help resolve the contentious topics such as the status of presuppositions (are they semantic or pragmatic?).

Leech offered three possible ways of structuring the relationships between semantics and pragmatics: semanticism (pragmatics inside semantics), pragmaticism (semantics inside pragmatics), and complementarism (semantics and pragmatics complement each other, but are otherwise independent areas of research) (Mey 7). Ariel reviewed the important parameters to distinguish between pragmatic and semantic:

1. Pragmatic meanings are context-dependent, whereas semantic meanings are not; 2. Semantic meanings are truth conditional, whereas pragmatic meanings are not;

10

3. Semantic meanings have been claimed to be primary, whereas pragmatic meanings are considered secondary.

In accordance with a statement made by Ostman, if the unit of analysis in semantics is meaning: the meaning of words, phrases, larger constructions, prosody, and so on, then the unit of analysis in pragmatics is functioning of language (Mey 9-10).

2.3.Conversational Implicatures

According to Mey (45) conversational implicature is something which is implied in conversation. In other words, it is something implicit in actual language use. Conversational implicature concerns with how one comprehends an utterance in accordance to what they expect to hear. That is to say, a response that does not seem to make ‘sense’ can be an adequate answer to a question. Using Mey’s example, if someone asks, what time is it?, it makes a perfect sense to answer: the bus just went by in a particular context of conversation. This context should include the fact that the person who asks and the person who answers have the same knowledge that there is only one bus a day, and it passes by their house at 7:45 each morning.

As stated by Grice, there are two kinds of conversational implicatures (Yule, 40-43). The first one is generalized conversational implicature, which is an implicature that does not require any special background knowledge to be understood or inferenced. For example, no special knowledge is required to calculate the additional conveyed meaning in phrase in [2].

[2] I was sitting in a garden one day. A child looked over the fence.

The implicatures in [2], that the garden and the child do not belong to the speaker, can be conveyed by the principle that he or she would have said “my garden” and “my child” if he or she was capable of being more specific.

The second kind of conversational implicatures is particularized conversational implicature, which is an implicature that require shared knowledge between the speaker and the hearer in order to be understood or inferenced. For instance, in [3] Leila noticed all the work that Marry had to finish.

11

[3] Leila: Whoa! Has your boss gone crazy?

Mary: Let’s go get some coffee.

Mary’s response does not seem to have any relevance to what Leila said. In order to preserve, Leila will have to infer some local reasons on why Mary’s response is not relevant to her utterance (like her boss might be around). The implicature is that Mary cannot answer Leila in that context.

It is important to notice that it is speakers who communicate meanings via implicatures and it is hearers who recognized the communicate meanings via inference. The selected inferences are the ones which will give the assumption of cooperation.

According to Yule (46), many linguists consider the notion of “implicature” as one of the main concepts in pragmatics. An implicature is a key example of more being communicated than is said.

2.4.Cooperative Principle

Conversational implicature is essentially connected with certain general features of discourse. According to Grice (45), our talk exchanges are characteristically cooperative efforts. The direction of our talk exchanges may be fixed from the start (like by an initial proposal of a question for discussion), or it may evolve during the exchange (like in a casual conversation). However, Grice noticed that at each stage, some possible conversational moves would be excluded as conversationally unsuitable. He then formulate a rough general principle which participants of a conversation will be expected to observe, namely: “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged” (Grice 46). He called it Cooperative Principle. This general principle has four categories, which are Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. These maxims have more specific maxims and submaxims.

12

(1) Maxim of Quantity

- Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). - Do not make your contribution more informative than is required (Grice 45).

Consider example below:

[4] a. Mother: What did you have for lunch today?

b. Daughter: Baked beans on toast.

c. Daughter: Food.

d. Daughter: I had 87 warmed-up baked beans (although eight of them were slightly crushed) served on a slice of toast 12.7 cm. by 10.3 cm. which had been unevenly toasted (Cruse 356).

[4b] observes maxim of Quantity because it gives enough information. It is considered as a 'normal' answer to the question; whereas, [4c] gives too little information and [4d] gives too much.

(2) Maxim of Quality

Supermaxim: Try to make your contribution one that is true. Submaxims:

- Do not say what you believe to be false. - Do not say that for which you lack adequate (Grice 46).

Grice realized that one cannot always be certain of what is true. Therefore, the best one can do is to say what they believe to be true. He also realized that one does not say everything they believe to be true. The maxim of Quality, then, does not require speaker to must say what they believe to be true, but rather they must not say what they believe to be false (Birner 49).

For example:

[5] Phoebe: “Have you guys seen Monica?”

Ross: “She went to the salon.”

13

In the example, Ross gives truthful information that Monica went to the salon.

(3) Maxim of Relation - Be relevant (Grice 46).

This maxim requires relationship between the current utterance and the entire context. The utterance must have something to do with the context. Thus, it must be related to what has come before it in the discourse and/or what is going on in the situation (Birner 54).

Example of observing the maxim of Relation:

[6] A: “Where is the car key?”

B: “It’s on the table.”

In the example, B gives accurate information that is relevant to A’s question.

(4) Maxim of Manner

Supermaxim: Be perspicuous. Submaxims:

- Avoid obscurity of expression - Avoid - Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) - Be orderly (Grice 46).

By observing this maxim, the speaker is expected to choose the least obscure way of making their point to avoid misperception.

Example of following the rule:

[7] A: “How do I get to the nearest bookstore?”

B: “Go straight, turn right on the next corner, go past the cinema and you’ll find the bookstore.”

In this example, B responds with orderly information to A’s question.

14

2.4.1. Non-Observance of Maxims

Grice was aware that speakers may fail to observe the maxims in various ways. There are five ways of failing to fulfill a maxim:

a. Flouting a maxim

To flout a maxim is to blatantly fail to observe it (Grice, 49). This kind of non-observance of maxims is intentional and the hearer is expected to be aware of it. For example:

[8] Mike: “Yesterday I won a fight with Billy.”

Lucas: “Sure, and I won a fight with Hulk.”

By way of response to Mike’s story to get in a fight with Billy and won, Lucas gives out a blatantly fictional story (Hulk is a widely known fictional character). He intends to convey a message by flouting the maxim of Quality: that he considers Mike’s story to be as fictional as his. He could have said: ‘I don’t believe you’, or ‘that’s impossible’, but instead, he chose to respond in a sarcastic way.

b. Violating a maxim

According to Birner, violating a maxim means inconspicuously fail to observe it, with the assumption that the hearer won’t realize it (43). Grice stated that when someone violates a maxim, they ‘will be liable to mislead’ (49).

For example, a husband starts to think his wife may be having an affair.

[9] Husband: “Is there another man?”

Wife: “No, there isn’t another man.” (Thomas, 73)

The wife is not having an affair with another man, so her assertion is true, but it is not the whole truth because apparently in this context, the wife is a bisexual and is having an affair with a woman. The husband does not aware of his wife’s sexuality, thus her violation of Quantity maxim creates a misleading implicature that she is not having an affair with anyone.

15

c. Infringing a maxim

Infringing a maxim means failing to observe a maxim unintentionally, in which, the speaker has imperfect linguistic performance. According to Thomas, This type of non-observance happen because:

… The speaker has an imperfect command of the language (a young child or a foreign learner), because the speaker's performance is impaired in some way (nervousness, drunkenness, excitement), because of some cognitive impairment, or simply because the speaker is constitutionally incapable of speaking clearly, to the point, etc (Thomas, 74).

As an example, I am taking a conversation from Friends season 10 episode 16 when Rachel is saying goodbye to Monica while crying because she is going to leave to Paris.

[10] Rachel: I... I... I... (starts crying).

Monica: That is so sweet. (they hug).

In this context, Rachel is not able to speak clearly because she is crying, but Monica can read the situation and she understands that Rachel is trying to say something about their friendship. Thus, Rachel is infringing maxim of Manner.

d. Opting out of a maxim

According to Grice (49), a speaker opts out of observing a maxim when he or she is unwilling to cooperate in the way the maxim requires. Examples of opting out maxims often occur in public life, when speakers avoid to respond in the way normally expected for legal or ethical reasons. Another common reasons for speakers to opt out a maxim are because the requested information may put them in danger, or may hurt a third party (Thomas 74-75).

This conversation between a caller and a host of a radio chat show is an example of opting out a maxim:

16

[11] Caller: “... um I lived in uh a country where people sometimes need to flee that country.”

Host: “Uh, where was that?”

Caller: “It's a country in Asia and I don't want to say any more.” (Thomas 75)

e. Suspending a maxim

When speakers opt out of observing a maxim, they fail to fulfill the expectation that the maxims will be observed. However, there are certain events in which there is no expectation that the maxims will be observed (therefore, the non-observance does not create implicatures). This kind of non-observance is called suspensions of the maxim (Thomas 76-77). The common reason given for suspending a maxim is culture-specific. For example, in Navajo culture, it is taboo to say the name of a person who had died a violent or premature death. Therefore, when a speaker refers to them as “the one who got killed” or “that man/woman”, all the participants will realize that it is suspended (hence, it does not generate an implicature that the speaker does not know the name of the dead person) (Thomas 77).

CHAPTER III RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

3.1. Data Description

The data were found from the transcript text of Friends season 10, through the document technique (teknik dokumen). The utterances that contain implicature were written down in the data card and classified according to its non-observance of Cooperative Principle. After that, the utterances that contain non-observance of Grice’s maxims were chosen as the data. The data were coded based on the episodes and the order. For example, FS10E1_11 means Friends season 10, episode 1, and data number 11. After that, random sampling technique was used to select the sample data. There were 40 data selected to be analyzed. The data will be showed up in the table below:

a. Table 3.1.

NO. DATA CODE DATA 1 FS10E1_6 CHANDLER: What d'ya know... It's a treat for the eyes and the ears. 2 FS10E1_7 CHANDLER: Yeah, it's almost if Air Barbados doesn't care about your social life. 3 FS10E2_10 CHANDLER: There's a hair in my coffee. 4 FS10E2_12 FRANK JR.: I haven't slept in four years! 5 FS10E3_13 MONICA: Chandler gets pedicures! 6 FS10E3_14 CHANDLER: Sure, then you should get a mini skirt so you can really show it off. 7 FS10E3_16 MONICA: (pause) (to Phoebe) Chandler gets pedicures! 8 FS10E3_19 AMANDA: (In a fake British accent) It's so nice to see you! Both of you! Look at me. Look how young I look! Oh gosh! We have so much to catch up on! But first things first: touch my abs I don't exercise at all! Oh gosh, so Monica, you're married!

17

18

9 FS10E3_20 AMANDA: (To Phoebe) Smell my neck! It's not perfume! It's me! It's my natural scent! 10 FS10E4_23 CHANDLER: Gee if only she were one and had no idea what the hell a birthday was!

11 FS10E5_26 MONICA: Clearly we were wrong. 12 FS10E5_28 RACHEL: But Erin Brockovich had her own house. 13 FS10E5_30 ANNOUNCER: Get a load of this... She's proposing to him. Guess we know who wears the pants in that family. (People are laughing, while Mike still seems bewildered) 14 FS10E6_32 BENJAMIN: Oh, well, likewise. Actually, not likewise. I've never heard of you until this morning, but, it's nice to be nice!

15 FS10E7_34 ROSS: And you made it through that? I wonder who's gonna play you in the movie!

16 FS10E7_35 ROSS: Oh, yeah, that’s the same, I am sure there are thirty different species of poisonous swings! 17 FS10E7_38 CHARITY GUY: If I haven't said so already sir, (sarcastically pointing to Phoebe) congratulations! 18 FS10E8_42 MONICA: Oh! Enough! A monkey could have made 'em! 19 FS10E8_43 JOEY: Yeah! You, Chan, and the vein!

20 FS10E9_44 JOEY: I can see why, nice shirt! 21 FS10E9_45 PHOEBE: I’m sorry, I can’t believe I set you up with such a MONSTER! 22 FS10E9_46 JOEY: I think we’re not wearing the same shirt anymore!! 23 FS10E10_49 CHANDLER: This is bringing out a lovely color in you!

19

24 FS10E10_50 MONICA: Oh my God! Oh my God that’s awful! What did you think of the house? 25 FS10E10_52 PHOEBE: Wha..? Again with the nature, what are you? Beavers? 26 FS10E11_54 CHANDLER: You guys just keep getting cooler and cooler! 27 FS10E11_55 JOEY: (to the other contestant) I know it could be intimidating for regular people to be around celebrities but... relax, I'm just like you! Only better looking and richer. 28 FS10E11_58 PHOEBE: Oh yeah, okay. I'm uptight. Yeah, that's why I don't want to watch a middle aged guy dance around in what I can only assume is a child Halloween costume! 29 FS10E11_59 ADRIENNE: Oh believe me, Ross, I won't be telling anybody about this. 30 FS10E12_60 JOEY: Listen, I hope... that you know... (has difficulty saying it) I don't want you to see your father cry, GO TO YOUR ROOM! 31 FS10E12_62 MIKE: Are you rehearsing for some really bad mafia movie? 32 FS10E12_63 MIKE: That must have been one lousy movie. 33 FS10E13_65 ROSS: No, no, no, I'm sure you have a great excuse, wh-was it a hair appointment, a mani-pedi or was there a sale at Barney's? 34 FS10E14_68 JOEY: Me too. Yeah, this place is great. I'm so happy for you guys. Although, you know, I hope you like fungus

35 FS10E14_69 ROSS: I'm sorry, it's almost as if this wasn't built for a quick getaway!

20

36 FS10E15_71 PHOEBE: Well, I think that shirt makes you look like you should work at a Baskin Robbins... Anyway... Hey, isn't Joey's agent Estelle Leonard?

37 FS10E15_72 CHANDLER: That is a great idea! And by the way, I don't mean to sound distasteful, but when did you start crapping money!? 38 FS10E16_76 RACHEL: Oh, I'm sure gonna miss pretending to laugh at your weird jokes that I don't get.

39 FS10E17_79 PHOEBE: My medallion number is, "Get out of the cab!"

40 FS10E17_80 MONICA: Oh, great! Just what you want for a new house with infants. Bird feces.

3.2. Data Analysis

DATUM 1 (FS10E1_6)

MONICA: And listen to this... (shakes her body so the shells tingle)

CHANDLER:What d'ya know... It's a treat for the eyes and the ears.

Monica’s hair is so frizzy because of the humidity in Barbados. Chandler keeps making fun of her so she decides to go to the salon to fix her hair. She ends up having her hair done in cornrows which Chandler hates even more. However Monica loves her cornrow hair too much, she doesn’t realize that her friends and Chandler hate it. Chandler gives a hint that he hates the cornrows by delivering a sarcasm which state that the cornrows are a treat for the eyes and the ears.

The phrase “what do you know” is generally used to indicate a mild surprise. If taken literally, Chandler’s utterance would mean “it’s unexpected, but it turns out that the cornrow is a treat for both eyes and ears”. However, in this context, Chandler hates Monica’s cornrow, so his utterance is meant to be sarcastic. The connotation of the word “treat” doesn’t match with how Chandler actually feels towards Monica’s cornrow. However, Monica likes her new hair so much, it makes

21

her unable to immediately indicate the sarcasm. Thus, the non-observance of Cooperative Principle in this conversation is a violation of maxim of quality by Chandler with his sarcastic respond towards Monica. This is because Chandler fails to observe the submaxim “do not say what you believe is false”, and Monica fails to indicate the intended meaning caused by the non-observance in his utterance.

The implicature in Chandler’s utterance is caused by the non-observances of Cooperative Principle. The implicated meaning of his utterance is the opposite of what is actually said. Thus, Chandler conveys that Monica’s new hair is not at all good for the eyes, nor the ears.

DATUM 2 (FS10E1_7)

JOEY: Whoo, whoo. Wow, it's uhm... kinda weird that I'm sitting next to Charlie after we broke up

CHANDLER: Yeah, it's almost if Air Barbados doesn't care about your social life.

The group is in Barbados for Ross' conference when this utterance occur. During their time in Barbados, Joey is dating Charlie but realizes that they have nothing in common and that he actually likes Rachel. Meanwhile Ross and Charlie realize they have a lot in common. Joey and Charlie decides to break up. Joey later sees Charlie and Ross kissing, so he kisses Rachel. Now the situation is awkward because Ross is dating Joey’s ex-girlfriend and Joey is dating Ross’ ex-girlfriend. On the plane back to New York, Joey has to sit with Charlie and he does not feel very comfortable about it. Joey complains about this to Chandler and he responds with a sarcasm.

In their group, Chandler is refer to as the “funny guy”, and is known for his sarcastic comments and jokes. The utterance in this conversation is one of his sarcastic comments, aimed at Joey. The “it’s almost if…” construction he used is commonly found in sarcastic utterances and it violates maxim of manner, specifically the sub-maxim “be brief”. To convey the message more briefly, Chandler could have said “Air Barbados doesn’t care about your social life,” but instead, he uses sarcasm to playfully mock Joey’s restlessness.

22

A manner violation like this forces hearers to pay attention for the true meaning. However, in this context, Joey is used to Chandler’s sarcastic comments because he has been friends with him for a long time, therefore it is not hard for him to find the actual meaning of Chandler’s utterances. Chandler is also aware that Joey is familiar with his tendencies of being sarcastic and will immediately recognize his utterance as sarcasm. Thus, the kind of non-observance in Chandler’s utterance is a flouting of maxim of manner.

Finally, the implication generated from the utterance is that the airline does not care if Joey sits with his ex-girlfriend, and so does Chandler, so Joey should just get over it.

DATUM 3 (FS10E2_10)

MONICA: God, this adoption stuff is so overwhelming. There's inter-country adoption, dependency adoption.. There are so many ways to go, and this is like the biggest decision of our lives.

CHANDLER: There's a hair in my coffee.

After finding out they're both infertile, Monica and Chandler are planning to adopt a child, but they are having a lot of trouble figuring out the process. Monica is the one who is worried the most about the adoption thing because she has always wanted to have a baby. In this scene, they are at Central Perk and Monica has a lot of adoption brochures in front of her to help them figure out about the adoption process. She is muttering about how overwhelming the adoption process is. Chandler responds by muttering about a hair in his coffee.

In this interaction, Monica is expressing her worries about the whole adoption things. However, Chandler chooses not to respond with something relevant. Instead, he is talking about a hair in his coffee. With this respond, he fails to observe the Cooperative Principle. The kind of non-observance is flouting the maxim of relation. His choice to blatantly ignore her utterance gives a picture that he is not and does not want to be anxious about adoption process as much as Monica. He divert the conversation to avoid being too stressed out about it. The fact that Monica has a bunch of adoption brochures in front of her, while Chandler has

23

only a coffee in front of him, attest that Monica is the one who is taking care of the adoption process.

Chandler’s utterance shows that he doesn’t share Monica’s worry about the adoption. By blatantly ignoring Monica’s expression of worry, Chandler is showing lack of sympathy. His irrelevant utterance implies that Chandler fully trusts Monica about the adoption so he does not have to.

DATUM 4 (FS10E2_12)

PHOEBE: Oh, god, the last time I babysat them, they did the funniest thing…

FRANK JR.: I haven't slept in four years!

Phoebe hangs out with her brother, Frank Jr. and his toddler triplets in Central Perk coffee house. The triplets have grown into very active toddlers, and they are stressing Frank out. Frank cherishes every moments where the kids are quiet, like this moment when this conversation occur, when the triplets are sleeping on top of each other on the couch.

The conversation above shows Frank interrupting Phoebe and blatantly refuses to make a relevant respond to her preceding remark. Phoebe’s utterance “oh, god, the last time I babysat them, they did the funniest thing…” foreshadows that she is going to tell the story about the funny thing the triplets did. Whereas, Frank’s utterance “I haven't slept in four years!” refers to his weariness of raising them. With this utterance, Frank is flouting the maxim of relation because he fails to make a relevant respond by disregarding what Phoebe has to say about the triplets, and change the subject into him being sleep deprived.

Furthermore, Frank’s utterance is also an overt flouting of maxim of quality because it involves hyperbolic uses of language. Hyperbole does not express a true proposition. Therefore, it disobeys the sub-maxim “do not say what you believe to be false.” The communicated proposition in hyperbole is a related weaker implicature. Thus, “I haven't slept in four years!” would mean “I haven’t got enough sleep ever since the triplets were born”. This can be assumed because it is

24

physically impossible for human to not sleep in four years. Through the context, the “four years” can be assumed as the triplets’ age.

Frank implicates that the triplets are not always cute and funny, but they are also handful. Despite his love for his children and his willingness to take care of them, Frank admits that he is getting weary.

DATUM 5 (FS10E3_13)

ROSS: Eh, you got a spray-on tan?

MONICA: Chandler gets pedicures!

Monica enters into Central Perk where his husband, Chandler, and his brother, Ross are hanging out. Ross notices that Monica’s skin is darker than usual.

Monica’s respond in this conversation appears not to be relevant to Ross’ question that asks if she get a spray-on tan. Hence, she flouts the maxim of relation of the Cooperative Principle. Her utterance is nonetheless interpretable in the context. She diverts the attention from her spray-on tan experience to Chandler’s pedicures experience. This works, because later in the conversation, Ross responds by teasing Chandler about it. From his respond, the image of Chandler getting pedicures is considered as something embarrassing and funny. Thus, Monica’s reason to divert the attention from the image of her getting a spray-on tan to the image of Chandler getting pedicure, is because she thinks it is embarrassing to get a fake tan. However, she knows that the idea of a man getting pedicures is considered more embarrassing in the society they are living in.

Thus, the meaning of the utterance “Chandler gets pedicures!” can be interpreted as “yes, it is embarrassing, but Chandler is more embarrassing than me!”

25

DATUM 6 (FS10E3_14)

ROSS: Still, I can't believe that's sprayed on... I mean, it looks really good. I wonder if I should get one!

CHANDLER: Sure, then you should get a mini skirt so you can really show it off.

This is the same scene from the last datum. Ross, Monica and Chandler are hanging out at Central Perk and Ross is asking about Monica’s darker skin. He loves her tan and wants to get one for himself but Chandler makes fun of him.

The first time Ross notices Monica’s tan is from her legs because she wears a mini skirt. When he says he thinks the tan looks good and wants to get one, Chandler utilizes this context to mock him by saying that he should get a mini skirt so he can show off the tan. Chandler’s utterance is a flouting of quality maxim of Cooperative Principle because the utterance is not something that he believes to be true, as he only intends to make fun of Ross.

In this context, in the society that they live in, it is not common for a man to get a spray-on tan. Thus, the implicature of Chandler’s utterance that tells him to wear a skirt is that he mocks him for being like a woman.

DATUM 7 (FS10E3_16)

CHANDLER: Are you trying to do a British accent?

MONICA: (pause) (to Phoebe) Chandler gets pedicures!

Monica and Chandler are at Central Perk when Phoebe comes and brings the news about her and Monica’s obnoxious old friend visiting from England. Chandler has never heard of her, and when Monica tells him about her and tries to mimic her awful fake British accent, Chandler teases her.

After being teased by Chandler for trying to mimic British accent, Monica does not respond anything to Chandler, but she turns to Phoebe to tell her that Chandler gets pedicures. This is irrelevant to the context and it is a sudden and unnecessary information. However, from the analysis of the previous datum, we

26

concluded that the information about Chandler gets pedicures is considered embarrassing. This was informed to Ross before, but Phoebe doesn’t know yet. This information is delivered right after Chandler teases Monica, so her intention by this utterance is to embarrass Chandler in front of Phoebe, since he makes fun of her British accent. As a result, Monica flouts the relation maxim of Cooperative Principle.

The implicature behind Monica’s irrelevant and sudden utterance is that she wants to warn Chandler to not make fun of her, because she has something to embarrass him and she will use it to make fun of him in return.

DATUM 8 (FS10E3_19)

AMANDA: (In a fake British accent) It's so nice to see you! Both of you! Look at me. Look how young I look! Oh gosh! We have so much to catch up on! But first things first: touch my abs I don't exercise at all! Oh gosh, so Monica, you're married!

Monica and Phoebe try to cut Amanda off of their lives but Monica cannot reject Amanda’s request of hanging out at Central Perk because she feels bad. They finally meet her at Central Perk.

On the first meeting after a long time, old friends usually have so many things to catch up on. However, Amanda seems to give information about herself more than is required. The information that she gives are about her physical appearance, which is not a common information that people seek after a long time being apart. Generally, people talk about their appearance when the interlocutor mention it first. Amanda is talking about how young she looks and about her having abs but not exercise at all without being asked. Her contribution is more informative than is required. Thus, her utterance is a violation of quantity maxim of Cooperative Principle. The message that she is trying to implicate is that there are many things to show off about her.

27

DATUM 9 (FS10E3_20)

MONICA: (beaming) Yeah! Yeah! His name is Chandler and...

AMANDA: (To Phoebe) Smell my neck! It's not perfume! It's me! It's my natural scent!

This is the same scene from the previous datum. Monica is trying to tell Amanda about his husband because Amanda brought the topic up but she refuses to listen.

Amanda interrupts Monica by talking to Phoebe about her natural scent. This is irrelevant to the context because no one is talking and asking about scent before, especially her scent. With her interruption, Amanda fails to observe the quantity and relation maxim of Cooperative Principle. The non-observance is a violation. She interrupts Monica’s story to praise herself by talking about her nice natural scent. From these violation of maxim, Amanda is trying to imply that she is better than Monica and Phoebe. This is shown from how she keeps on talking about herself, and not interested in Monica and Phoebe’s life.

DATUM 10 (FS10E4_23)

RACHEL: No, that day... that won't be her real birthday!

CHANDLER: Gee if only she were one and had no idea what the hell a birthday was!

Rachel and Ross throw a birthday party for their daughter, Emma but Chandler and Monica have a romantic weekend planned so they ask them if the party can be postponed. Ross and Rachel consider Emma’s first birthday party a big deal so they do not want to postpone it and they desperately want the group to be there for it.

Responding to their party and their enthusiasm, Chandler is giving a sarcastic comment toward Rachel and Ross. The literal meaning of his utterance is presupposing if Emma were a one year old baby who did not understand the concept of a birthday. The sarcasm comes from the fact that Chandler knows that Emma is a one year old and therefore does not understand what a birthday is. This suggests

28

that by his respond, Chandler is verbalizing a mutually shared knowledge that Emma does not understand, moreover care about a birthday. He intentionally implies this meaning, and Ross and Rachel are expected to be aware of the intended meaning.

Similar to his utterance in datum 1, in this utterance, Chandler uses the construction “if only…” which violates briefness. “Emma doesn’t understand what a birthday is” or “Emma wouldn’t care if we celebrate her birthday” would convey the message more briefly. Hence, he fails to observe Cooperative Principle, by flouting the maxim of manner. His comment implies that he thinks Emma’s birthday celebration should not be a big deal because it is her first birthday and she would not be aware of it.

DATUM 11 (FS10E5_26)

JOEY: Whoo-weh hey weh-hey whoo hey!!

MONICA: Clearly we were wrong.

Monica and Chandler ask Rachel to write a letter of recommendation for them to their adoption agency but Joey feels left out. He wants them to ask him to write the letters. Monica and Chandler explain that they thought Joey would not be interested because they do not think of him as really being so much “with the words”.

Responding to their explanation, Joey only uses cognitive interjections to show how offended he is, without saying any more words which attests Monica’s statement that he is not very good with words. Monica replies by a sarcastic comment saying that clearly they were wrong. With this sarcasm, she is stating the opposite of her true intention, which is: they were not wrong with their statement. She delivers it with sarcasm to emphasize how unlikely it sounds if her utterance is taken literally, thereby illustrating the mockery intention. Thus, Monica is flouting the quality maxim of Cooperative Principle for not saying what she truly means, and expecting Joey to be aware of it.

29

DATUM 12 (FS10E5_28)

AMY: Thank you! So, can I stay with you?

RACHEL: But Erin Brockovich had her own house.

Rachel’s sister, Amy comes to Rachel to tell her that she plans to marry her ex-boyfriend's father, Myron only because he is rich and she loves his apartment. Rachel convinces her to left Myron because she does not love her, and because he is so much older than her.

Rachel’s respond to Amy’s request to stay with her does not really answer the request. The easy answer to the request would be a yes or a no, but instead, Rachel refers back to Amy’s previous utterance about Erin Brockovich. Amy likens herself with Erin Brockovich and Rachel referring back to that by saying that Erin Brockovich had her own house, implicates that Rachel thinks Amy should have her own house too. Rachel’s respond is a flouting of relation maxim of Cooperative Principle. She does not give a straight yes or no answer but she refers to something that Amy would understand. Her intended meaning is that she is reluctant to let Amy stay in her and Joey’s apartment.

DATUM 13 (FS10E5_30)

ANNOUNCER: Get a load of this... She's proposing to him. Guess we know who wears the pants in that family. (People are laughing, while Mike still seems bewildered)

Mike attempts to propose to Phoebe on the big screen on Knicks game but Phoebe tells him how lame that is when another couple gets engaged that way, he immediately goes off from his chair to cancel the propose plan. Phoebe realizes what he is about to do and tries to fix it by proposing to him on the big screen but Mike gets laughed at by the announcer and the audience.

The sentence “guess we know who wears the pants in that family” is an instance of nonliteral language. This sentence which uttered in a context in which speaker and hearers just witnessed unconventional proposal where a woman proposes to a man, is a flouting of quality maxim of Cooperative Principle, on the

30

basis of which the hearers infer that the speaker means the woman is the one with the dominant role, or the one who is in charge in their relationship.

The announcer intends to embarrass Phoebe and Mike for having an unconventional proposal. In the social context of this utterance, a man is usually the one who has the dominant role in a relationship. If a man is not the dominance, then he is considered to be weak. His utterance is a dispraise to Phoebe because it mocks her propose to Mike. Moreover, it is also a dispraise to Mike as he implicates that Mike is not the dominance in the relationship, and is considered to be weak, because he does not adhere to the standard relationship in the society.

DATUM 14 (FS10E6_32)

ROSS: It's an honor to meet you. I can't tell you how long I've been an admirer of your work, I mean, that Nobel Prize, (he thumbs up) whoooo! I mean, I have to tell you that, you're one of the reasons I got into the field.

BENJAMIN: Oh, well, likewise. Actually, not likewise. I've never heard of you until this morning, but, it's nice to be nice!

Ross applies for a paleontology grant and finds out that Charlie's ex- boyfriend, Benjamin Hobart reviews the applications. Charlie wants to introduce Ross to Benjamin, so the three of them go on a dinner together. Charlie and Ross does not know that Benjamin still has feelings for Charlie. His feelings toward her affect his gesture towards Ross.

In the conversation, Ross’ utterance is the expression of admiration toward Benjamin. It is, by no means, to get a praise back from him. He knows that Benjamin is more proficient than him in their field, due to the fact that he has received a Nobel Prize. Moreover, he is the reviewer of the grant’s application that Ross applies. Nevertheless, Benjamin replies the praise with, “likewise”. This is a common respond to a compliment, even if the speaker does not really mean it, because it is considered as a polite respond. However, Ross knows that Benjamin has never heard of him before, so this respond does not appear to be sincere. Moreover, Benjamin’s following utterance, contradicts his “politeness”. It follows with, “actually, not likewise. I've never heard of you until this morning, but, it's nice

31

to be nice!”. This following utterance is unnecessary because it gives information that is not significant to the situation. As a result, Benjamin’s utterance becomes demeaning instead of praising.

With this utterance, Benjamin fails to observe maxim of quantity. The reason that he seems to unnecessarily disparage Ross, after Ross praises him, is because he does not like Ross for dating his ex-girlfriend, Charlie, because he still has feelings for her. His utterance implies that he feels superior to Ross, in terms of profession. He is aware that Ross and Charlie won’t realize his intended meaning, because they don’t know his feelings. Thus, the kind of non-observance in his utterance is a violation of maxim of quantity. To observe the maxim without having to dispraise or pretend to praise Ross, Benjamin could have simply said “thank you”. However he wants to express his resentment in his utterance.

Benjamin’s respond, “I've never heard of you until this morning” after Ross praising him for receiving a Nobel Prize and for being an inspiration, is a dispraise to Ross. It is equivalent to “you are not as famous as me in this field”, which is not appropriate and remarkably unnecessary. By saying “likewise. Actually not likewise (…) but, it’s nice to be nice”, he maximizes praise of self by being nice. Ironically, his utterance becomes the opposite of nice after he clarifies his intention to be nice. The implicature of this utterance is that Benjamin is jealous of Ross for having a relationship with his ex.

DATUM 15 (FS10E7_34)

RACHEL: Yes, I was 4 years old and I was on the swing and then all of a sudden my hair got tangled in the chain. And to get me out my mom had to- had to cut a big chunk of my hair! (crying) And it was uneven for weeks!

ROSS: And you made it through that? I wonder who's gonna play you in the movie!

Rachel tells Ross about her traumatic swing incident when she was little which causes her to be afraid of the playground. She also prohibits Ross to take Emma to the playground because of her fear. Ross thinks that her fear is irrational and she should not pass it to Emma.

32

Ross’ utterance shows an admiration, as though Rachel has gone through something terrible and still manages to carry on with her life. It is even worth to be made as a movie, according to the literal meaning of his utterance. Whereas, Rachel experience on having her hair tangled in a swing’s chain is generally considered to be trivial. It is not something that usually makes a terrible trauma. Thus, it indicates that the utterance is not sincere. To reach the intended meaning of Ross’ utterance, Rachel should apply the meaning-inversion mechanism. It should be easy for her to recognize it as sarcasm because the non-observant of maxim of quality is made explicit in his utterance. Hence, the kind of non-observance here is flouting the maxim of quality.

The actual sentiment that Ross has toward Rachel is negative, in this particular situation. He doesn’t feel any sympathy for her, because he doesn’t see her experience as something traumatizing. Instead, he mocks her fear with his sarcastic comment, implying that he thinks she is being dramatic about her experience, and irrational about her fear.

DATUM 16 (FS10E7_35)

RACHEL: Irrational, huh? All right, well, I’ll remember that the next time you freak out about a spider in your apartment!

ROSS: Oh, yeah, that’s the same, I am sure there are thirty different species of poisonous swings!

Ross insists on taking Emma to the playground. Eventually Rachel agrees and she comes with them. Ross wants to help Rachel get over her fear of swings which he thinks is an irrational fear.

Ross’ respond to Rachel’s utterance is a sarcasm, which means it involves an overt flouting of quality maxim of Cooperative Principle. Ross’ utterance does not encode true propositions, because it seems clear that swings do not have any species, moreover poisonous species. In the case of sarcasm, the communicated proposition is usually the opposite of what is uttered. Thus, in this conversation, Ross’ utterance communicate that spiders and swings are not the same and thus his fear of spiders cannot be equated with Rachel’s fear of swings.

33

Since it seems clear that thirty different species of poisonous swings are not real, it can only be concluded that it is real in the case of spiders, because in this context, Ross is comparing swings with spiders. Ross uses sarcasm to enhance the negative nature of the message. He intends to say that Rachel’s fear is irrational while his fear is reasonable.

DATUM 17 (FS10E7_38)

PHOEBE: Although... it's also about the wedding... Ugh, alright... here. (She gives the check and pulls it back again) No... Oh God... Oh!

CHARITY GUY: If I haven't said so already sir, (sarcastically pointing to Phoebe) congratulations!

Phoebe and Mike decide that they don’t want to spend such a large amount of money on their wedding and agree to marry at City Hall. They donate the money to charity instead, but then they have a change of heart and take the money back. They immediately feel guilty after taking the money back so they decides to donate it again but Phoebe considers to use it for their wedding again in front of the charity guy.

The charity guy congratulates Mike for being engaged to Phoebe when she constantly changes her mind about giving the charity. Congratulating someone is a positive expression while being unsure of giving a charity is a negative action. Hence, the timing of the felicitation is inappropriate, making it sounds disingenuous. For this reason, the charity guy is flouting the maxim of quality of Cooperative Principle. the intended meaning of his utterance is to mock Phoebe for being a fickle person and to mock Mike for choosing Phoebe as his prospective wife.

DATUM 18 (FS10E8_42)

JOEY: Oh! It all looks so beautiful: the turkey, the stuffing...

CHANDLER: The cranberries...?

MONICA: Oh! Enough! A monkey could have made 'em!

34

For the first time, Chandler helps Monica out in the kitchen, but Monica only lets him to make the easiest thing, which is the cranberry sauce. Chandler is so proud of his cranberry sauce that he keeps mentioning it.

When Joey compliments Monica’s food, Chandler wants his cranberries to be complimented too. Instead, he gets mocked by Monica. Monica’s utterance, “Oh! Enough! A monkey could have made 'em!” utilizes hyperbole to express sarcasm. The statement that a monkey is capable of making a cranberry sauce is not true, because animals cannot cook. Monica uses hyperbole to emphasize how easy it is to make a cranberry sauce, that even an animal that doesn’t know how to cook, could have made it. One doesn’t need a particular knowledge to understand that this utterance is a sarcasm, because animals’ capabilities are generally known. This indicates that Monica intentionally not observing the maxim of quality, and she expects Chandler to understand her implied meaning. This kind of non-observant is a flouting of maxim of quality. The intended meaning of her utterance is to stress to Chandler that he is over proud of his cranberries, when it is actually very easy to make.

DATUM 19 (FS10E8_43)

JOEY: Yeah! You three have a nice Thanksgiving.

MONICA: The three of us?

JOEY: Yeah! You, Chan, and the vein!

Monica and Chandler refuses to host Thanksgiving dinner this year but Phoebe manipulates Monica to host it by making her prove that she is a better host than she was last year. Monica agrees because competing with her former self is her favorite thing. However, Phoebe, Rachel, Ross, and Joey are 45 minutes late to the dinner because they have agenda before that. Chandler and Monica are furious and they won’t open the door for them. The group felt terrible but gets tired when Monica and Chandler still refuse to open the door after they apologize.

It is known to the group that Monica’s forehead vein bulges every time she gets angry. Phoebe, Rachel, Ross, and Joey are outside of Monica and Chandler’s apartment because they won’t let them in, but Joey still can tell that Monica’s

35

forehead vein is bulging because he knows that Monica is mad at them. He refers to the vein as a person to create a hyperbole. This hyperbole results from the flouting of the maxim of quality of Cooperative Principle. With this utterance, Joey implies that Monica is exaggerating the problems and should have let them come in to make the Thanksgiving better.

DATUM 20 (FS10E9_44)

ROSS: Really? That would be great. I mean, I have to do something, she kinda teased me about how I dress.

JOEY: I can see why, nice shirt!

Ross asks his friends for fashion advice because he wants to look cool on his date tomorrow night. Phoebe and Rachel invite him to come shopping with them. Ross is happy with the invitation because the girl he is going to have a dinner with kind of teased his fashion sense.

In the conversation, a contradictory in Joey’s utterance is a cue for sarcasm. The utterance “I can see why” is a respond to Ross’ statement that he was being teased by the lady. That is to say, Joey agrees with the lady that Ross’ way to dress is not really good. Thus, the concept “bad” (negative) appears within this utterance. However, he continues with “nice shirt” which is a contrary from the previous statement, because it is a compliment (positive). By evaluating the polarity, this utterance can be recognized as sarcasm. This polarity verifies that the utterance is not sincere, causing Ross, as the hearer, to reconsider the intended sarcastic meaning.

To understand the meaning, the positive connotation of the word “nice” in Joey’s utterance is cancelled. Thus, the statement “nice shirt” becomes false, making it a flouting of the quality maxim. It is also worth considering that the statement becomes unnecessary. Joey could have delivered the same message by only uttering “I can see why”. Hence, the utterance is also a flouting of the manner maxim.The comment he makes about Ross’ shirt is not sincere and therefore denoting that he thinks otherwise, which is the shirt is not nice.

36

DATUM 21 (FS10E9_45)

PHOEBE: I’m sorry, I can’t believe I set you up with such a MONSTER!

Joey is set up with one of Phoebe's friends with a promise to Phoebe that he is going to call her again after the date. However, he refuses to call her again after the date because Joey hates it when she keeps eating off of his plate. Phoebe finds this reason to be ridiculous.

Phoebe’s utterance is an overt flouting of maxim of quality because she uses a hyperbole. She uses the expression of disbelief and describes her friend as a monster for eating a few fries from Joey’s plate only because Joey reacts to it as if it is a big problem. Joey hates it when anyone touches his food, but he handles it in an immature way. Phoebe’s original reaction can be seen in her previous utterance where she expresses her disbelief that Joey refuses to call her friend only because she took some fries.

The apology and the disbelief in her utterance is not sincere because she does not actually see this as a big problem as Joey does. Phoebe means to deliver the opposite message of the utterance. Her utterance implicates that she thinks Joey is being overreacted.

DATUM 22 (FS10E9_46)

ROSS: (to Joey) So? What do you think? (Shows himself - Joey observes him with a strange look on his face.)

JOEY: I think we’re not wearing the same shirt anymore!!

ROSS: (not getting it) Yeah! Yeah! Rachel picked it out for me. She told me to trust her and you know what? I'm glad I did! I turned quite a few heads on my way over here.

Rachel and Phoebe take Ross shopping for clothes for his date night, but Ross and Rachel’s bags get switched. Ross ends up wearing a woman’s sweater, and actually loving it. He thinks that Rachel picked it out for him and he trusts her on fashion. He meets Joey at Central Perk and asks his opinion about the sweater he wears.

37

Instead of giving Ross his opinion about his sweater, Joey refers to the earlier day when they wear the same shirt, and saying that they are not wearing the same shirt anymore. His answer to Ross’ question about the sweater is obscure. It can be assumed from the context that Joey avoids to give his opinion about the sweater directly because he doesn’t think Ross should wear it. The obscurity can also be assumed from Ross’ respond that shows that he is not aware of Joey’s implied meaning. Thus, Joey fails to observe the maxim of manner. The kind of the non-observance is a violation.

Joey’s intention in this utterance is to actually signal to Ross that he should not be wearing the sweater. However, Ross misinterprets people’s head turn on his way to Central Perk as a positive sign, so he is confident about his look and does not immediately catch Joey’s intended meaning.

DATUM 23 (FS10E10_49)

MONICA: And Nancy said that it's really under price, because the guy lost his job and has to move in with his parents!

CHANDLER: This is bringing out a lovely color in you!

Monica and Chandler are planning to move from their apartment to start to raise their family. They are looking to buy a house in the suburbs with their realtor, Nancy. She shows them a nice house with suitable price and they immediately like it.

Chandler and Monica are talking about how they like their prospective house, so they are naming the good things about the house. One of the good things is that it is affordable for them. However, the reason that the house is affordable is because of the unfortunate occurrence that happen to the previous householder. Monica mentions this occurrence with a happy tone because his unfortunate occurrence is a benefit to Monica and Chandler. She mentions it along with the good things about the house. Chandler responds to her by saying that it brings out a lovely color in her. Being happy about other people’s misfortune is not lovely, so the literal interpretation in Chandler’s utterance is not true. Chandler is aware that Monica understands the situation and she is familiar with his sarcastic attitude, so

38

he knows that Monica will able to infer his meaning. Thus, he overtly flouts the maxim of quality.

The implied meaning of his utterance is the opposite of what is uttered. What he intends to say from the utterance is that Monica’s attitude is inappropriate and not at all lovely

DATUM 24 (FS10E10_50)

RACHEL: Phoebe and I saw Chandler with a blonde woman today outside on the street and then we followed them to a house in Westchester.

PHOEBE: They went in together. So sorry.

MONICA: Oh my God! Oh my God that’s awful! What did you think of the house?

Rachel and Phoebe see Chandler gets into a car with another women. They decides to follow them and find them entering a house. They believe that Chandler is cheating on Monica. They tell Ross and Joey, and the four of them tell Monica. The truth is, Chandler and Monica is looking for a new home, and that woman is a realtor, but they are not ready yet to tell their friends.

The way Monica responds to the information that her husband is cheating is unexpected. At first, it seems proper: “Oh my God! Oh my God that’s awful!” but it follows with irrelevant question, “What did you think of the house?” This is because she and Chandler are looking for a house and that woman is the realtor. The group doesn’t know this information, so they don’t understand the implied meaning behind her utterance.

The utterance “Oh my God! Oh my God that’s awful!” doesn’t represent her actual feeling, because she knows that Chandler is not cheating. The information that Chandler is entering a house with a woman, is not awful, so Monica’s contribution doesn’t have a truth value. She says that to pretend to be shock and hide the truth because she is not ready to tell it to her friends. With this utterance, Monica fails to observe the Cooperative Principle by violating the maxim of quality.

39

Despite wanting to keep it a secret, Monica cannot hide her excitement about the new house and about her friends’ opinion toward the house. This is what led her to ask an irrelevant question, “What did you think of the house?”. There is a brief of pause before Phoebe responds with “what?” indicating that they fail to determine Monica’s intended meaning. This is because they don’t share the same background information with Monica. Thus, with this utterance, Monica is violating the maxim of relation. The implication generated from her utterance is that Monica is hiding something, due to the fact that she is being weird.

DATUM 25 (FS10E10_52)

MONICA: (smiling) It's so sweet. It really is. It has this big yard that leads down to this stream and then there's these old maple trees... (gets cut off)

PHOEBE: Wha..? Again with the nature, what are you? Beavers?

Monica and Chandler finally tells the group that they put an offer on a house. Monica keeps on telling them how nice the house is, especially about the nature surrounding the house. The group is not happy that Monica and Chandler are planning to move far from them, no matter how good the house is.

In this conversation, Phoebe asks a question but has no intention to seek for an answer because the answer is already obvious. She asks a rhetorical question only to emphasize a point that she does not care about the beauty of the house because no matter how beautiful the house is, Monica and Chandler are going to live far away from them and she does not like it. Thus, Phoebe is flouting the maxim of quality of Cooperative Principle by asking a question that is not sincere.

Monica is trying to convince the group on how nice the house is, but Phoebe interrupts her and gives her a rhetorical question that compares her to beavers, which implicates that she does not care. Her utterance also means to give signal to Monica to stop talking about the nature of the house.

DATUM 26 (FS10E11_54)

MONICA: Ross and I always wanted to be Donny and Marie.

CHANDLER: You guys just keep getting cooler and cooler!

40

Joey is a soap opera star and he is invited to be a guest star on the television game show, Pyramid. Ross and Monica are obsessed with game shows and they are very excited for Joey to be on one of their favorite shows. Joey offers them to watch him tape the show but they already have plans. Chandler thinks that their enthusiasm about game shows are lame.

In the context of this conversation, Chandler had already mocked Ross and Monica about their TV game shows enthusiasm before, so they already know what Chandler thinks about it. Furthermore, in the social context, the word “cool” is usually not associated with people whose hobby is only watching TV, moreover is enthusiast about it. It can be assumed that Chandler’s utterance is not sincere. Thus, his utterance is an overt flouting of quality maxim of Cooperative Principle.

He uses a sarcasm to ridicule Ross and Monica. The implicated message is the opposite of his utterance, which is that he thinks Monica and Chandler are getting lamer every time they talk about the game shows.

DATUM 27 (FS10E11_55)

JOEY: (to the other contestant) I know it could be intimidating for regular people to be around celebrities but... relax, I'm just like you! Only better looking and richer.

Joey is taping on the TV game show, Pyramid where a celebrity is partnered with a regular people. Joey is partnered with Gene Lester, a database specialist. The host is welcoming both of them as the contestants and Joey is introducing himself to Gene.

In this interaction, Joey is referring to Gene as the regular people and to himself as the celebrity. It is a true statement but it is unnecessary. Moreover, he continues by saying that he is just like Gene, only better looking and richer. The statement about his appearance and his wealth are insignificant and inappropriate. His contribution here is more than is required. Thus, he fails to observe the Cooperative Principle, by violating the maxim of quantity. The utterance implies that Joey thinks that he is better than Gene because he is a celebrity.

41

DATUM 28 (FS10E11_58)

ROY: Well, look - it's not my fault if you're too uptight to appreciate the male form in all its glory.

PHOEBE: Oh yeah, okay. I'm uptight. Yeah, that's why I don't want to watch a middle aged guy dance around in what I can only assume is a child Halloween costume! (Turns to look at Monica and Rachel who look like they feel very sorry for the stripper)

Monica and Rachel throw a bachelorette party for Phoebe but she is disappointed there is no stripper. Rachel and Monica hire a male stripper at the last minute but it turns out that the stripper they hire, Roy, is old. Phoebe is not happy with him, so she insults him.

The Cooperative Principle violation in Phoebe’s utterance is made explicit so it is easy to identify it as a sarcasm. There are two maxim-violation cues here. The first is maxim of manner. The repetition in Phoebe’s utterance violates manner, especially the sub-maxim “be brief”. The sentence “oh yeah, okay. I’m uptight. Yeah” presumably conveys the same information with the more concise, “I’m (not) uptight.” The second is maxim of quality. Phoebe is not sincere when she says she does not want to watch a middle aged guy dance around in a tiny costume because she is uptight. Seeing from Roy’s previous utterance, Roy is aware that Phoebe does not appreciate him as her stripper. By understanding this contextual cue, Roy would be able to identify Phoebe’s utterance as sarcasm. Thus, the non-observance in this utterance is flouting of manner and quality maxim.

Phoebe’s utterance are meant to be taken as a bitter critique, thus the intended meaning is the opposite of what is actually said. With her utterance, Phoebe is trying to implicate that she does not appreciate Roy because of how he is, not because she is uptight.

DATUM 29 (FS10E11_59)

ROSS: Listen Adrienne, you can't tell Chandler about this.

ADRIENNE: Oh believe me, Ross, I won't be telling anybody about this.

42

This is a throwback scene to when Ross and Chandler are still in college. They make a pact not to date Adrienne, a popular girl whom they both like, but Ross breaks the pact by kissing Adrienne. He makes her promise not to tell Chandler but she never intends to tell anybody in the first place, because Ross is not a popular guy whom anyone would think she’d date.

In this conversation, Adrienne tells Ross that she’s not going to tell anybody about them kissing. She is being sincere, but she doesn’t tell the whole truth on the reason she gives the statement. It is worth considering that Adrienne is a popular girl, whereas Ross is not so popular. He is even a member of a music band that is considered to be lame. It is a common fear for a popular girl in high school or college to be seen kissing a lame guy because it wouldn’t be good for their popularity. In this case, Adrienne is showing the same tendencies as the typical popular girl. Thus, it is implicated that the reason she doesn’t want to tell anybody about this is not for Ross’ behalf, but for hers. She doesn’t want to risk her popularity for Ross. On account of the reasoning above, Adrienne fails to observe the Cooperative Principle by violating the quality maxim.

DATUM 30 (FS10E12_60)

PHOEBE: Oh, thank you. I hope... I hope you know how much you mean to me.

JOEY: (takes her hand) Listen, I hope... that you know... (has difficulty saying it) I don't want you to see your father cry, GO TO YOUR ROOM!

Phoebe is going to get married to Mike. Their wedding is close but Phoebe’s step dad gets into prison, so she asks Joey if he’d walk her down the aisle, filling in for her step dad. Joey feels honored to do it.

In the conversation above, Joey is infringing the manner maxim of Cooperative Principle, because he is unable to speak clearly in his last utterance, due to his attempt to hold back tears. He can’t seem to finish his sentence, and even the utterance that does comes out of him is not perspicuous. However, Phoebe may presume that Joey intends to tell her how he feels and probably how much she means to him by the context of the conversation, and by her previous utterance too.

43

This non-observance is unintentional because Joey’s imperfect performance is due to the fact that he is in the verge of tears.

Moreover, Joey mentions “father” when he says that he doesn’t want Phoebe to see her father cry is referring to himself. It is obvious that Joey is not Phoebe’s father, but in this context, Joey is asked to fill in for her step-father. Joey wants to show that he takes the position very seriously, and because acting is his passion, he actually goes deep into the character as Phoebe’s father. Phoebe is expected to be aware of this. Thus, Joey’s utterance is an overt flout of quality maxim. Finally, by his utterance, Joey is implicating that he is honored and touched by her request because he loves her, and that he will take this role seriously.

DATUM 31 (FS10E12_62)

JOEY: Have a seat. (Mike sits on his bed, and Joey towers over him. He starts talking in an Italian godfather-type voice) Last night, I tried to welcome you into my family... and instead, you disrespect me... (Shakes his head) I cannot allow this.

MIKE: (not amused) Are you rehearsing for some really bad mafia movie?

At the wedding rehearsal dinner, Joey talked to Mike about his intention with Phoebe. Joey really care about Phoebe, but he made the conversation with Mike like a “dad talk” because it was a part of his attempt on going deep into the character of Phoebe’s father. However, Mike did not take it seriously. Now on the wedding day, Joey asks Mike to talk with him again but Mike still does not take it seriously.

Mike responds to Joey with a rhetorical question, which means he does not actually seek for an answer, but he intends to make a point. He knows that Joey is taking his position as Phoebe’s father on the wedding very seriously, and he knows that this attitude is one of the outcomes. Thus, he is aware that this is not Joey’s rehearsal for mafia movie, making his utterance a flouting of quality maxim of Cooperative Principle. With his utterance, Mike implicates that Joey’s utterance is ridiculous.

44

DATUM 32 (FS10E12_63)

JOEY: (very satisfied and smiling) That's what I wanted to hear! Because she's family, ok, and now you're gonna be family, and there is nothing more important in the whole world, than family.

MIKE: That must have been one lousy movie.

Joey is still trying to make sure that Mike is the right guy for Phoebe. He is talking as her friend and as her fake father. In this context, Mike has previously making fun of Joey’s speech by implicating that it sounds like a quote from a really bad movie. After he finally takes Joey seriously and let him know that he is serious with Phoebe, Joey gives his speech again. Mike responds with irrelevant utterance, “that must have been one lousy movie”. It refers to his previous mock to Joey about the bad movie.

Mike’s utterance is not relevant to Joey’s utterance but Joey is expected to get the reference from their previous conversation. For that reason, Mike utterance is an overt flouts of relation maxim of Cooperative Principle. The implication in his utterance is that Joey’s speech is cheesy and sounds like it comes from a bad or a lousy movie.

DATUM 33 (FS10E13_65)

ROSS: (looking at Rachel entering with Emma) Oh, hi! Hi! Thanks for showing you up thirty minutes late!

RACHEL: Ross...

ROSS: No, no, no, I'm sure you have a great excuse, wh-was it a hair appointment, a mani-pedi or was there a sale at Barney's?

Ross is supposed to meet Rachel earlier but she shows up late because her father had a heart attack but Ross doesn’t know. He makes an assumption that Rachel is late because of trivial things.

Ross is flouting the maxim of quality by delivering a sarcastic comment toward Rachel. When Rachel wants to give an excuse for showing up late, Ross

45

interrupts her and says that he believes she has a great excuse, then he proceeds to name things that are generally considered as bad excuses: a hair appointment, a mani-pedi, and shopping at Barney’s. This indicates a contradictory in his utterance, so the sentence cannot be true without changing the meaning of the words used. The contradictory here relies on common social knowledge of the positive or negative connotation of a particular situation. Ross and Rachel share this social knowledge, that the things he mentions are not a great excuse for being late, because it can wait. Thus, the statement “I’m sure you have a great excuse” is cancelled. The implication here is that Ross believes that Rachel doesn’t have a good excuse to be late.

Moreover, the repetition of the word “no”, the lies, and the question that does not seek an actual answer make Ross’ utterance a flouting of manner maxim. He can deliver his message with a briefer sentence, such as “I don’t think you have a good excuse to be late”.

By his utterance, he is implying that he believes the reason she’s late must be because of a trivial thing. This is a dispraise for Rachel because the things he mentions (a hair appointment, a mani-pedi, and shopping at Barney’s) are the things that she loves to do. So not only he accuses her for being late because of that, he also implies that her favorite things to do are trivial.

DATUM 34 (FS10E14_68)

MONICA: Ah, so glad you decided to come.

JOEY: Me too. Yeah, this place is great. I'm so happy for you guys. Although, you know, I hope you like fungus.

Monica and Chandler are planning to move from the apartment across Joey and Rachel’s, to a house in the suburbs. Their friends are not happy that they will move far away from them, but mostly Joey. Joey is the only one who hasn’t seen their prospective house. He finally decides to come and see the house, but only because he wants to point out everything that is wrong with the house so they don’t move.

46

In the conversation above, Joey says “I hope you like fungus” to implicate that Monica and Chandler’s prospective house is full of fungus. With this utterance, he has the intention to deceive them into thinking that the house is not as great as they think. The truth is, he wants them to stay in the apartment across him and not move to this house. This utterance also contradicts his previous utterance that the place is great and that he is happy for Chandler and Monica, in light of the fact that “great” is a positive word, while “fungus” is generally associated with negative connotation. This indicates that his utterance is not sincere. He also lies about the fungus because the real situation is that he cannot find something wrong with the house so he make it up. Thus, with this utterance Joey fails to observe the Cooperative Principle by violating the maxim of quality. Finally, the intended meaning behind his utterance is that he is not happy for them and he does not want them to move to this house.

DATUM 35 (FS10E14_69)

RACHEL: (annoyed) Ross, what is taking you so long?

ROSS: (stares at her through the door and starts pushing the chair harder, looking very annoyed. He finally manages) (sarcastic) I'm sorry, it's almost as if this wasn't built for a quick getaway!

Rachel is fired from Ralph Lauren because her boss catches her doing an interview for Gucci. Ross helps her taking her work stuff home. He is trying to squeeze and push a rather large chair through the revolving doors of the Ralph Lauren building and Rachel is annoyed that he is taking so long.

Ross is annoyed by Rachel’s attitude so he responds to her with sarcasm. He fails to observe the Cooperative Principle by flouting two maxims with this sarcasm. First is the quality maxim. The apology he uttered is not sincere, because it is uttered in a context where he is annoyed by Rachel for complaining after he helps her.

The second maxim flouted is manner maxim. Ross uses one of the most common construction for sarcasm, “it’s almost as if…” which violates the sub- maxim “be brief”. The intended message can be conveyed with a shorter, and more

47

to the point sentence, “this wasn't built for a quick getaway”. Rachel is expected to be aware of the sarcasm, so the type of non-observance in his utterance is a flouting of quality and manner maxim.

DATUM 36 (FS10E15_71)

CHANDLER: What do you think, Pheebs?

PHOEBE: Well, I think that shirt makes you look like you should work at a Baskin Robbins... Anyway... Hey, isn't Joey's agent Estelle Leonard?

The house next door to the one that Monica and Chandler are buying just went on the market and they are considering if they should take a look at it. Chandler thinks it is better for them not to see it because it will confuse them, but Monica thinks that they should see it to see if it is better than their prospective house.

When questioned about her opinion on whether or not Monica and Chandler should see the house, Phoebe gives them her opinion about Chandler’s shirt instead, and followed with a question about Joey’s agent. This respond is eminently irrelevant to the question. Phoebe has blatantly refused to make a relevant respond to signal to Monica and Chandler to look for other meaning.

In this case, her intended meaning is that she does not care whether or not they see the house. It is worth noting that in this context, Phoebe is trying to be supportive of their decision to move but she is still not very happy about it because they will be far away from the group. Monica and Chandler are aware of her feelings about their decision so they are expected to understand the implication behind Phoebe’s respond. Thus, Phoebe is flouting the maxim of relation of Cooperative Principle.

DATUM 37 (FS10E15_72)

MONICA: (Thinks a little more) Okay, Okay, (clapping her hands) All right. What if we got both houses? Huh? We can turn this house into a guest house.

CHANDLER: That is a great idea! And by the way, I don't mean to sound distasteful, but when did you start crapping money!?

48

Monica and Chandler are horrified to find out that Chandler’s obnoxious ex-girlfriend, Janice, is considering buying the house next door to them. They are trying to find a way to ensure she doesn’t move in.

Monica is trying to come up with a plan so Janice does not move in to the house next door to them but she ends up with a plan to buy the house, which they cannot afford. Responding to that, Chandler gives her a rhetorical question to be sarcastic. The statement “that is a great idea!” is clearly not sincere because it is followed by a bitter question “when did you start crapping money!?” That question is also not sincere because Chandler does not really seek for an answer, since it is an impossible question to answer. Monica is aware of the sarcasm, proven by her respond to his utterance. Thus, Chandler’s utterance is a flouting of the quality maxim of Cooperative Principle. His utterance actually implicates that Monica’s idea is bad because they both know they cannot afford to buy another house.

DATUM 38 (FS10E16_76)

CHANDLER: Uh, Rach... I think I have something that belongs to you. (Shows her the cuffs)

RACHEL: Oh, I'm sure gonna miss pretending to laugh at your weird jokes that I don't get.

Rachel and the group are in Monica and chandler’s apartment to hold Rachel’s going away party because she gets a job offer in Paris and after discussing it with Ross and the group, she decides to take the offer. Monica and Chandler start packing up their apartment and Chandler finds a pair of handcuffs. They think it belongs to Rachel because it was found in Rachel’s old bedroom.

The irrelevant respond that Rachel gives to Chandler indicates that Rachel doesn’t know about the handcuffs. She assumes that Chandler’s utterance is one of his weird jokes that she doesn’t understand. She could have said “that is not mine” or “I don’t understand” to respond to that utterance, but she chooses to deliver it in a playful way. She blatantly refuses to give a relevant respond to Chandler, so he should find the intended meaning. Thus, she is flouting the Cooperative Principle,

49

namely the maxim of relation. The implication that Chandler can take from her utterance is that the handcuffs are not hers.

In addition to that, Rachel also flouts the maxim of quality because her utterance is sarcastic. The word “miss” is a positive sentiment while the word “pretending” and “weird” have negative connotations. It is also worth noting that in this social background, Chandler’s jokes usually annoyed the group, which means it has negative connotation in their inner group. People do not generally miss something negative. Therefore, Rachel’s utterance is not sincere, and it is uttered only to convey the meaning that Rachel doesn’t understand Chandler’s meaning by his utterance, as usual with his jokes.

DATUM 39 (FS10E17_79)

MAN: Alright, I gotta report you. What's your medallion number?

PHOEBE: My medallion number is, "Get out of the cab!"

After having a going away party, Ross realizes that he doesn’t want Rachel to leave because he is still in love with her. He wants to confess his love to Rachel but she is already at the airport. Phoebe offers to drive him to the airport with her cab (Phoebe has a cab inherited from her grandmother) but when they jump in the cab, a guy comes up and gets into the backseat of the cab, thinking that it is a public cab.

After being told a few times that Phoebe does not take passengers because her cab is not a public cab, the man still insists to get into the backseat of the cab. This triggers Phoebe to yell at him because she and Ross are in a hurry to catch up Rachel. When the man asks what her medallion number is, she yells “My medallion number is, "Get out of the cab!"”. This answer is untrue and the man knows it, because a medallion number should be numbers. From this, the man is expected to be aware of the intended meaning. In this case, Phoebe implicates that she does not want to continue the conversation and she wants the man to get out. Thus, Phoebe fails to observe the Cooperative Principle by flouting the maxim of quality.

50

DATUM 40 (FS10E17_80)

CHANDLER: Really? You got us a chick and a duck?

MONICA: Oh, great! Just what you want for a new house with infants. Bird feces.

Joey gets Monica and Chandler a chick and a duck because Joey knows Chandler likes those birds. Joey and Chandler had a chick and a duck when they were still living together, but the birds died. Monica never really liked those birds so she is not very enthusiast when Joey reveals the gift.

Monica is blatantly flouts a quality maxim of Cooperative Principle by her utterance. In the context of the conversation, Joey and Chandler know that Monica often annoyed with their birds when they used to own them, but Joey knows that Chandler loves birds so he gets it for him. In addition, generally people do not want bird feces in their house, moreover if they have a baby. The pet birds carry germs and it could put baby’s health at risk, so it is understandable if Monica is not very enthusiast. It can be assumed that Monica’s utterance is a sarcasm. It can also be proven by the fact that the word “great” and “bird feces” have the opposite connotation.

The intended meaning of Monica’s utterance is that she doesn’t like the house-warming gift by Joey because she doesn’t want the pet birds for their new house where they will grow their baby.

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

4.1. Conclusion

The conversational implicature in Friends Season 10 occur because of the non- observances of Cooperative Principle proposed by Grice. The Cooperative Principle consists of four maxims, which are the maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner. These maxims require speakers to be informative, be truthful, be relevant, and be perspicuous. The characters can fail or refuse to observe one or two maxims in an utterance. They have different reasons as to why they do not observe the maxims. The most popular reason is to deliver sarcasm. The implied meanings of the violation of maxims, depends on the context of their conversations.

There are five ways of failing to observe a maxim: flouting a maxim, which is blatantly fail to observe it; violating a maxim, which means inconspicuously fail to observe it; infringing a maxim, which means unintentionally fail to observe a maxim; opting out a maxim, which happens when speakers are unwilling to cooperate in a conversation; and suspending a maxim, which happens when there is no expectation that the maxims will be observed.

Based on the research findings, for the Cooperative Principle, there are 27 non- observances of quality maxim, 10 of relation maxim, 8 of manner maxim and 3 of quantity maxim. The quality maxim is the most unobserved because the characters often deliver their message through sarcasm. The cues of sarcasm found in the data are self- contradiction and hyperbole. The second most unobserved is relation maxim. The common reasons for the characters to fail to observe this maxim is to eschew from a topic of conversation, and to show lack of sympathy. The maxim of manner is mostly unobserved because the characters intend to deliver sarcasm using repetition of words or using constructions such as “it’s almost if…” or “if only…” et cetera. Lastly, the quantity manner is violated three times by three different characters but with the similar intention: to praise themselves or to dispraise the hearer by giving unnecessary information about themselves to the hearer.

51

52

The types of non-observances found in the data are flouting, violating, and infringing maxims. There are 37 of flouting, 10 of violating, and 1 of infringing Cooperative Principle. The speakers do flouting maxims the most because their utterances are mostly sarcastic. They blatantly refuse to observe the maxims because they are aware that their hearer will recognize their implied meaning from their shared context and social knowledge. Secondly, the speakers do violation mostly when they try to hide something, like their actual feelings or opinions, or when they just want to brag about something, like themselves. Lastly, there is only one case of infringing a maxim, done by one of the characters, Joey. This occur when Joey had a difficulty to talk because he was crying.

4.2. Suggestion Implicature study is very broad. It is not limited to conversational implicature and Cooperative Principle. For instance, there is conventional implicature that always convey the sampe impicature regardless the context. Another example, implicatures that occur from politeness. Grice mentioned that politeness can also give rise to conversational implicature and responding to this, Leech (1983) introduced the Politeness Principle. The readers of this study is suggested to read variety study about implicature to understand it comprehensively.

4.3. Recommendation .

As discussed in the introduction of the study, conversational implicature is a phenomenon that occur in everyday interaction. Cognitive capacity is significant to analyze things more thoroughly to understand the intended message in conversation. Being able to convey message in utterance is also significant in conversation. The study of implicature allows people to understand in detail, about how implicatures occur, how speakers convey implied messages, and how hearers able to interpret the messages. Thus, it helps to exercise cognitive capacities. The readers are recommended to not only learn about the implicatures but also start to apply it in daily conversations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

101 Best Written TV Series. Writers Guild of America West. http://origin.www.wga.org/writers-room/101-best-lists/101-best-written-tv- series/list. Ariel, Mira. Defining pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Birner, Betty J. Introduction to pragmatics. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

Bublitz, Wolfram, and Neal R. Norrick, eds. Foundations of pragmatics. Vol. 1. Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Chuanpipatpong, Atthasith. When Flouting Is Funny: Analyzing Humor In ‘Friends’ via Grice’s Cooperative Principle. Diss. National Institute of Development Administration, 2011. Cruse, Alan. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Michael Haugh. Pragmatics and the English language. Macmillan International Higher Education, 2014. Empire Magazine’s 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time. Listal. https://www.listal.com/list/empire-magazines-50-greatest-tv. Fretts, Bruce; Roush, Matt. "The Greatest Shows on Earth". TV Guide. Vol. 61 no. 3194–3195. pp. 16–19. Grice, H. Paul, Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan. " and conversation." Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Arts. (1975): 41-58. Jorfi, Leyli and Dowlatabadi, Hamidreza. "Violating and flouting of the four Gricean cooperative maxims in Friends the American TV series." International Review of 3.8 (2015): 364-371. Kumar, Ranjit. Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. 3rd ed., Sage Publications Limited, 2011. Leech, Geoffrey N. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman Group Limited, 1983. Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed., Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2001. Nawawi, H. Hadari, and HM Martini Hadari. Instrumen penelitian bidang sosial. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, 1995. O'Keeffe, Anne, Brian Clancy, and Svenja Adolphs. Introducing pragmatics in use. New York: Routledge, 2011.

53

54

Plot Summary of Friends. IMDB, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108778/?ref_=vi_close Season Ten Scripts of Friends. Lives in a Box, http://www.livesinabox.com/friends/season10.shtml Šmilauerová, Anna. TV Sitcom Friends: Analysis of character humor strategies based on the violation of Grice's Conversational maxims. Charles University Prague, 2012. Stake, Robert E. Qualitative research: Studying how things work. Guilford Press, 2010. Stubbs, M. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Thomas, Jenny A. Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New York: Routledge, 2014. TV Guide Names Top 50 Shows. CBS News, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tv- guide-names-top-50-shows/ Wooffitt, Robin. Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis. A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: Sage, 2005 Wu, Yu-wen, and C. Yong. Humor Strategies in the American Sitcom "Friends": An Empirical Study with Reference to Grice's Cooperative Principle. National Pingtung University of Education, 2010. Xiaosu, Yao. Conversational implicature analysis of humor in American situation comedy “friends”. University Gent, 2009. Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

54

APPENDIX

55

I. Table of Data

NO. DATA DATA CONTEXT NON-OBSERVANCE OF CODE GRICE’S MAXIMS 1. FS10E1_6 MONICA: And listen to this... Monica has her hair done in cornrows to Violation of quality maxim (shakes her body so the shells get rid of her frizzy hair, but the group tingle) doesn’t really like it, especially Chandler. CHANDLER: What d'ya know... It's a treat for the eyes and the ears. 2. FS10E1_7 JOEY: On the plane from Barbados back to Flouting of manner maxim. Whoo, whoo. Wow, it's uhm... New York, Joey is worried about sitting kinda weird that I'm sitting next with Charlie after breaking up. to Charlie after we broke up.

CHANDLER: Yeah, it's almost if Air Barbados doesn't care about your social life. 3. FS10E2_10 MONICA: Monica and Chandler are in Central Flouting of relation maxim. God, this adoption stuff is so Perk with a bunch of adoption overwhelming. There's inter- brochures in front of them. They are

country adoption, dependency having a lot of trouble figuring out the adoption. There are so many ways adoption process. to go, and this is like the biggest decision of our lives.

CHANDLER: There's a hair in my coffee. 4. FS10E2_12 PHOEBE: Phoebe is meeting his brother, Frank Jr. Flouting of quality and Oh, god, the last time I babysat and his triplets in Central Perk. The relation maxim them, they did the funniest triplets are now sleeping on top of each thing… other on the couch.

FRANK JR.: I haven't slept in four years! 5. FS10E3_135 ROSS: The group are hanging out at Central Flouting of relation maxim . Eh, you got a spray-on tan? Perk. Ross notices that Monica gets so 5 tan. . MONICA: Chandler gets pedicures! 6. FS10E3_146 ROSS: Ross loves Monica’s tan and wants to Flouting of quality maxim 0 get one for himself but Chandler makes 6 fun of him.

. Still, I can't believe that's sprayed . on... I mean, it looks really good. I wonder if I should get one!

CHANDLER: Sure, then you should get a mini skirt so you can really show it off. 7. FS10E3_16 CHANDLER: Are you trying to Monica and Phoebe’s obnoxious old Flouting of relation maxim. do a British accent? friend, Amanda visits New York from England. They are talking about her at MONICA: (pause) (to Phoebe) Central Perk but Chandler has never Chandler gets pedicures! heard of her. 8. FS10E3_19 AMANDA: (In a fake British Monica and Phoebe try to cut Amanda Violation of quantity and accent) It's so nice to see you! off of their lives but Monica cannot maxim. Both of you! Look at me. Look reject Amanda’s request of hanging out how young I look! Oh gosh! We at Central Perk, because she feels bad. have so much to catch up on! But first things first: touch my abs I don't exercise at all! Oh gosh, so Monica, you're married!

9. FS10E3_20 MONICA: (beaming) Yeah! Monica is trying to tell Amanda about Violation of quantity and Yeah! His name is Chandler his husband because Amanda brought relation maxim. and... the topic up but she refuses to listen.

AMANDA: (To Phoebe) Smell my neck! It's not perfume! It's me! It's my natural scent! 10. FS10E4_23 RACHEL: Chandler and Monica are planning to go Flouting of manner maxim. No, that day... that won't be her on a romantic weekend but Ross and real birthday! Rachel throw a birthday party for their baby, Emma and desperately want them CHANDLER: to be there for it. Gee if only she were one and had no idea what the hell a birthday was! 11. FS10E5_26 JOEY: Monica and Chandler ask Rachel to Flouting of quality maxim. U-U-Um, I think there's been an write a letter of recommendation for oversight. them to their adoption agency but Joey feels left out. CHANDLER:

Joey, we would've asked you, we just thought you wouldn't be interested.

MONICA: Yeah, it's just we don't think of you as really being so much "with the words".

JOEY: Whoo-weh hey weh-hey whoo hey!!

MONICA: Clearly we were wrong. 12. FS10E5_28 AMY: Rachel’s sister, Amy plans to marry her Flouting of relation maxim. I took your advice, I left Myron. ex-boyfriend's father, Myron only because he is rich and she loves his RACHEL: apartment. Oh, good for you!

AMY:

I know! I'm Erin Brockovich!

RACHEL: Yes you are! Oh, I am so proud of you!

AMY: Thank you! So, can I stay with you?

RACHEL: But Erin Brockovich had her own house. 13. FS10E5_30 ANNOUNCER: Mike attempts to propose to Phoebe on Flouting of quality maxim. Get a load of the big screen but Phoebe tells him how this... She's proposing to him. lame that is when another couple gets Guess we know who wears the engaged that way. Phoebe tries to fix it pants in that family. (people are by proposing to him on the big screen laughing, while Mike still seems but Mike gets laughed at. bewildered) 14. FS10E6_32 ROSS: Ross applies for a paleontology grant in Violation of quantity which Charlie's ex-boyfriend, Benjamin maxim.

It's an honor to meet you. I can't Hobart reviews the applications. Charlie tell you how long I've been an wants to introduce Ross to him so they admirer of your work, I mean, go on a dinner with him. that Nobel prize, (he thumbs up) whoooo! I mean, I have to tell you that, you're one of the reasons I got into the field.

BENJAMIN: Oh, well, likewise. Actually, not likewise. I've never heard of you until this morning, but, it's nice to be nice! 15. FS10E7_34 RACHEL: Rachel doesn’t want Ross to take Emma Flouting of quality maxim. Yes, I was 4 years old and I was to the playground. She is trying to make on the swing and then all of a him understand why, by telling him sudden my hair got tangled in the about her traumatic swing incident chain. And to get me out my mom when she was little. had to-had to cut a big chunk of my hair! (crying) And it was uneven for weeks!

ROSS: And you made it through that? I wonder who's gonna play you in the movie! 16. FS10E7_35 RACHEL: Irrational, huh? All Ross insists on taking Emma to the Flouting of quality maxim. right, well, I’ll remember that the playground and he tries to help Rachel next time you freak out about a get over her fear of swings. spider in your apartment!

ROSS: Oh, yeah, that’s the same, I am sure there are thirty different species of poisonous swings! 17. FS10E7_38 PHOEBE: Although... it's also Phoebe and Mike decide that they don’t Flouting of quality maxim. about the wedding... Ugh, want to spend such a large amount of alright... here. (she gives the money on their wedding and agree to check and pulls it back again) marry at City Hall. They donate the No... Oh God... Oh! money to charity instead, but then they have a change of heart and take the CHARITY GUY: money back. They immediately feel guilty after taking the money back so they decides to donate it again.

If I haven't said so already sir, (sarcastically pointing to Phoebe) congratulations! 18. FS10E8_42 JOEY: Chandler helps Monica on cooking and Flouting of quality maxim. Oh! It all looks so beautiful: the the only thing he is allowed to make is turkey, the stuffing... the cranberry sauce. He is really proud of his cranberry sauce and keeps CHANDLER: mentioning it. Monica is annoyed The cranberries...? because she thinks he is over proud of it. MONICA: Oh! Enough! A monkey could have made 'em! 19. FS10E8_43 JOEY: Monica and Chandler are hosting the Flouting of quality maxim. Yeah! You three have a nice Thanksgiving dinner but Phoebe, Thanksgiving. Rachel, Ross, and Joey are late so Chandler and Monica are furious and MONICA: The three of us? they won’t open the door for them.

JOEY: Yeah! You, Chan, and the vein!

20. FS10E9_44 ROSS: The girl Ross is dating teased him about Flouting of quality and Damnit! I have this date his fashion sense, so he is asking his manner maxim tomorrow night and I have to look friends for fashion advice for his date cool! night.

PHOEBE: Well, you know, if you want fashion help, Rachel and I are going shopping tomorrow. You're more than welcome to come with us, right?

ROSS: Really? That would be great. I mean, I have to do something, she kinda teased me about how I dress.

JOEY: I can see why, nice shirt! 21. FS10E9_45 PHOEBE: That’s it? That’s why Joey is set up with one of Phoebe's Flouting of quality maxim. you won’t go out with her again? friends with a promise to Phoebe that he So, she took some fries, big deal! is going to call her again after the date.

However, he refuses to call her again JOEY: after the date because Joey hates it Hey, hey, look! It’s not about a when she keeps eating off of his plate. few fries... it’s about what the fries represent.

PHOEBE: What?

JOEY: ALL FOOD!

PHOEBE: I’m sorry, I can’t believe I set you up with such a MONSTER! 22. FS10E9_46 ROSS: Rachel and Phoebe take Ross shopping Violation of manner maxim. (to Joey) So? What do you think? for clothes for his date night, but Ross (Shows himself - Joey observes and Rachel’s bags get switched. Ross him with a strange look on his ends up wearing a woman’s sweater, face.) and actually loving it. He thinks Rachel picked it out for him and he trusts her JOEY: on fashion.

I think we’re not wearing the same shirt anymore!! 23. FS10E10_4 MONICA: Don’t you love the Monica and Chandler are looking to buy Flouting of quality maxim. 9 huge yard? a house in the suburbs and they find a house they like with suitable price. CHANDLER: And the fireplace in the bedroom.

MONICA: And Nancy said that it's really under price, because the guy lost his job and has to move in with his parents!

CHANDLER: This is bringing out a lovely color in you! 24. FS10E10_5 RACHEL: Rachel and Phoebe see Chandler getting Violation of quality and 0 Phoebe and I saw Chandler with a into a car with another woman. He relation maxim. blonde woman today outside on dodges their questions by pretending to the street and then we followed be at work but they follow him to the them to a house in Westchester. suburbs and find them entering a house. They believe he is cheating on Monica PHOEBE: and tell Ross and Joey. The four of

They went in together. So sorry. them tell Monica but Monica doesn't react the way they thought she would. MONICA: Oh my God! Oh my God that’s awful! What did you think of the house? 25. FS10E10_5 MONICA: (smiling) It's so Monica and Chandler finally tells the Flouting of quality maxim. 2 sweet. It really is. It has this big group that they put an offer on a house. yard that leads down to this Monica keeps on telling them how nice stream and then there's these old the house is, especially about the nature maple trees... (gets cut off) surrounding the house.

PHOEBE: Wha..? Again with the nature, what are you? Beavers? 26. FS10E11_5 MONICA: Ross and I always Joey is a soap opera star and he is Flouting of quality maxim. 4 wanted to be Donny and Marie. invited to be a guest star on the television game show, Pyramid. Ross CHANDLER: You guys just and Monica are obsessed with game keep getting cooler and cooler! shows and they are very excited for Joey to be on one of their favorite shows. Joey offers them to watch him

tape the show but they already have plans. Chandler thinks that their enthusiasm about game shows are lame. 27. FS10E11_5 DONNY OSMOND: Yeah! Joey is taping on the TV game show, Violation of quantity 5 Welcome, it is Soap Opera week Pyramid and he is partnered with Gene, maxim. here on Pyramid, let's meet our a database specialist. contestants. First, Gene Lester is a database specialist, he's gonna be playing with "Days of Our Life's" star Joey Tribbiani! (Joey's amazed at the place and he keeps looking around till he realizes the audience is applauding him)

JOEY: (to Gene) I know it could be intimidating for regular people to be around celebrities but... relax, I'm just like you! Only better looking and richer. 28. FS10E11_5 ROY: Monica and Rachel throw a bachelorette Flouting of manner and 8 party for Phoebe but she is disappointed quality maxim.

Well, look - it's not my fault if there is no stripper. Rachel and Monica you're too uptight to appreciate hire a male stripper at the last minute the male form in all its glory. but it turns out that the stripper they hire, Roy, is old. Phoebe is not happy PHOEBE: with him, so she insults him. Oh yeah, okay. I'm uptight. Yeah, that's why I don't want to watch a middle aged guy dance around in what I can only assume is a child Halloween costume! (Turns to look at Monica and Rachel who look like they feel very sorry for the stripper) 29. FS10E11_5 ROSS: In college, Ross made a pact not to date Violation of quality maxim. 9 Listen Adrienne, you can't tell Adrienne, a girl whom he and Chandler Chandler about this. liked, but Ross broke the pact by kissing Adrienne. He made her promise not to ADRIENNE: tell Chandler. She never intends to tell Oh believe me, Ross, I won't be anybody. telling anybody about this.

30. FS10E12_6 PHOEBE: Phoebe is going to get married. Her step Infringing of manner maxim 0 So... what do you say? dad is in prison so she asks Joey if he’d and flouting of quality walk her down the isle, filling in for her maxim. JOEY: step dad. Are you kidding? Phoebe, I would be honored. (they hug)

PHOEBE: Oh, thank you. I hope... I hope you know how much you mean to me.

JOEY: (takes her hand) Listen, I hope... that you know... (has difficulty saying it) I don't want you to see your father cry, GO TO YOUR ROOM! 31. FS10E12_6 JOEY: On the wedding day, Joey, acting as Flouting of quality maxim. 2 Have a seat. (Mike sits on his Phoebe’s father, asks Mike to talk with bed, and Joey towers over him. him for the second time about his He starts talking in an Italian purpose with Phoebe but Mike still does

godfather-type voice) Last night, not take it seriously, just like their first I tried to welcome you into my talk. family... and instead, you disrespect me... (Shakes his head) I cannot allow this.

MIKE: (not amused) Are you rehearsing for some really bad mafia movie? 32. FS10E12_6 MIKE: Joey is still trying to make sure that Flouting of relation maxim. 3 (gets up) Joe, I love Phoebe. She's Mike is the right guy for Phoebe. He is the single most important thing in talking as her friend and as her fake my life. I'd die before I let father. anything happen to her.

JOEY: (very satisfied and smiling) That's what I wanted to hear! Because she's family, ok, and now you're gonna be family, and there is

nothing more important in the whole world, than family.

MIKE: That must have been one lousy movie.

JOEY: (almost crying) That was ME! 33. FS10E13_6 ROSS: Ross is supposed to meet Rachel earlier Flouting of quality and 5 (looking at Rachel entering with but she shows up late because her father manner maxim. Emma) Oh, hi! Hi! Thanks for had a heart attack. showing you up thirty minutes late!

RACHEL: Ross...

ROSS: No, no, no, I'm sure you have a great excuse, wh-was it a hair

appointment, a mani-pedi or was there a sale at Barney's? 34. FS10E14_6 MONICA: Joey decides to come and see Monica Violation of quality maxim. 8 Ah, so glad you decided to come. and Chandler’s prospective house. He still cannot accept the fact that they are JOEY: going to move far from him. Me too. Yeah, this place is great. I'm so happy for you guys. Although, you know, I hope you like fungus. 35. FS10E14_6 RACHEL: (annoyed) Ross, what Rachel is fired from Ralph Lauren Flouting of quality and 9 is taking you so long? because her boss catches her doing an manner maxim. interview for Gucci. Ross helps her ROSS: taking her work stuff home. He is trying (Stares at her through the door to squeeze and push a rather large chair and starts pushing the chair through the revolving doors of the harder, looking very annoyed. He Ralph Lauren building. finally manages) (sarcastic) I'm sorry, it's almost as if this wasn't built for a quick getaway!

36. FS10E15_7 MONICA: The house next door to the one that Flouting of relation maxims. 1 But what if it is better than ours? Monica and Chandler are buying just Should we at least look? went on the market and they are considering if they should take a look at CHANDLER: it. What do you think Pheebs?

PHOEBE: Well, I think that shirt makes you look like you should work at a Baskin Robbins... Anyway... Hey, isn't Joey's agent Estelle Leonard? 37. FS10E15_7 MONICA: Monica and Chandler are horrified to Flouting of quality maxim. 2 (Thinks a little more) Okay, find out that Chandler’s obnoxious ex- Okay, (clapping her hands) All girlfriend, Janice, is considering buying right. What if we got both the house next door to them. They are houses? Huh? We can trying to find a way to ensure she turn this house into a guest house. doesn’t move in.

CHANDLER: That is a great idea! And by the way, I don't

mean to sound distasteful, but when did you start crapping money!? 38. FS10E16_7 CHANDLER: Monica and Chandler start packing up Flouting of relation and 6 Uh, Rach... I think I have their apartment and Chandler finds a quality maxim. something that belongs to you. pair of handcuffs. They think it belongs (shows her the cuffs) to Rachel because it was found in Rachel’s old bedroom. RACHEL: Oh, I'm sure gonna miss pretending to laugh at your weird jokes that I don't get. 39. FS10E17_7 ROSS: Ross wants to confess his love to Flouting of quality maxim. 9 No, you don't understand. This Rachel but she is already at the airport isn't a real cab. to leave to Paris. Phoebe offers to drive him to the airport with her cab but when MAN: they jump in the cab, a guy comes up Alright, I gotta report you. What's and gets into the backseat of the cab, your medallion number? thinking that it is a public cab.

PHOEBE:

My medallion number is, "Get out of the cab!" 40. FS10E17_8 JOEY: Joey gets Monica and Chandler a chick Flouting of quality maxim. 0 Okay, I wanted to surprise you, and a duck because Joey knows but for your house-warming gift, I Chandler likes those birds. Joey and got you a baby-chick and a baby- Chandler had a chick and a duck when duck! (Chandler grins, while they were still living together, but the Monica is less enthusiastic.) birds died. Monica never really liked those birds so she is not very enthusiast CHANDLER: Really? You got when Joey reveals the gift. us a chick and a duck?

MONICA: Oh, great! Just what you want for a new house with infants. Bird feces.