UNIVERZITET U NOVOM SADU FILOZOFSKI FAKULTET Studijski

Home , Chris Taub, Twenty Vicodin

UNIVERZITET U NOVOM SADU

FILOZOFSKI FAKULTET

Studijski program master akademskih studija: Engleski jezik i književnost

ZAVRŠNI RAD

Efekti narušavanja Grajsovih konverzacionih maksima u odabranim dijalozima u seriji "House M.D."

The effects of flouting Gricean conversational maxims in selected episodes of the series "House M.D."

Studentkinja: Mentorka:

Vera Đakonović prof. dr Sabina Halupka Rešetar

Novi Sad, 2020.

UNIVERZITET U NOVOM SADU

FILOZOFSKI FAKULTET

Studjski program master akademskih studija: Engleski jezik i književnost

Vera Đakonović

ZAVRŠNI RAD

Efekti narušavanja Grajsovih konverzacionih maksima u odabranim dijalozima u seriji "House M.D."

The effects of flouting Gricean conversational maxims in selected episodes of the series "House M.D."

Ovaj završni rad ne sadrži oblike nezakonitog prisvajanja ili zloupotrebe radova drugih autora. This thesis does not contain any form of illegal appropriation or abuse of other authors’ work.

Ovaj završni rad ne sme biti predmet nezakonitog prisvajanja ili zloupotrebe od strane drugih autora. This thesis must not be an object of illegal appropriation or abuse of other authors.

Potpis studentkinje

Efekti narušavanja Grajsovih konverzacionih maksima u odabranim dijalozima u seriji "House M.D."

Apstrakt

Ovaj rad se bavi analizom narušavanja četiri konverzacijske maksime u odabranim dijalozima popularne američke televizijske serije ,,House M.D.” kao i efektima do kojih dolazi kao njihov rezultat. Temelj ovog rada predstavlja Grajsov (1975) Princip kooperativnosti, kao najuticajnije shvatanje pravila kojima se sagovornici rukovode u cilju postizanja uspešne komunikacije. Grajs ta pravila naziva konverzacionim maksimama i one su sledeće: maksima informativnosti, maksima istinitosti, maksima relevantnosti i maksima jasnosti. Cilj ovog istraživanja je da se odrede i analiziraju tipovi maksima koji se javljaju u odabranim epizodama serije ,,House M.D.", kao i da se utvrde načini narušavanja maksima, te da se objasni veza između narušavanja maksima i pragmatičkih efekata koji nastaju kao njihov rezultat. Rad je zasnovan na korpusu transkripta odabranih dijaloga iz poslednje, osme sezone američke televizijske serije ,,House M.D.”, koja je emitovana u periodu od 2011. do 2012. godine. Kao metod analize primenjena je kvalitativna analiza, pomoću koje su opisani primeri koji najbolje prikazuju narušavanje Grajsovih maksima u dijalozima, uz koje su dati i kratki opisi situacije kako bi bio jasan kontekst u kojima se komunikacija odvija. Očekuje se da će u korpusu biti najbrojniji dijalozi u kojima dolazi do narušavanja maksime jasnosti i relevantnosti. Takođe, pretpostavlja se da će većina likova iz serije narušavati maksime, kao i da će se svi likovi, a ponajviše glavni lik, koristiti sarkazmom, ironijom i dvosmislenošću u cilju postizanja komunikativnog efekta.

Ključne reči: princip kooperativnosti, konverzaciona maksima, narušavanje maksima, verbalni humor, sarkazam

The effects of flouting Gricean conversational maxims in selected episodes of the series "House M.D."

Abstract

This paper deals with the analysis of flouting the four conversational maxims in selected episodes of the popular American TV series “House M.D.” as well as the effects that result from this flouting. The paper draws on the Cooperative Principle, introduced by H.P. Grice (1975), which is the most influential work for understanding of the rules which interlocutors must adhere to in order to make their communication successful. Grice names those principles ‘conversational maxims’ and they are as follows: maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner. The aim of this research is to determine and analyze the types of maxims flouted in selected episodes of the TV series “House M.D”, as well as to determine the ways in which this is done. Furthermore, the aim is to explain the relationship between flouting the maxims and the effects that occur as a result. The paper is based on a corpus of transcripts of selected dialogues taken from the final eighth season of the American TV series “House M.D.” which was aired in the period of 2011 to 2012. The research method applied is that of qualitative analysis, which helped describe the instances of flouting the Gricean maxims in the dialogues, along with short descriptions of the situations, which contributed in making the context of the communication clear. The corpus is expected to contain examples of flouting all of the four maxims, with floutings of the maxims of manner and relation being most numerous. Also, it is expected that the maxims will be flouted by most characters in the series and it is anticipated that most of them, especially the title character, will use irony, sarcasm and ambiguity in order to achieve a communicative effect.

Key words: the Cooperative Principle, conversational maxim, flouting a maxim, verbal humor, sarcasm

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 7

1.1. The subject and aims of the research ...... 7

1.2. Significance of the paper ...... 8

1.3. Structure of the paper ...... 8

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 10

2.1. Defining pragmatics ...... 10

2.2. Speech Act Theory ...... 11

2.3. Politeness Theory ...... 14

2.4. The Cooperative Principle ...... 16

2.5. Non-observance of the maxims ...... 18

2.6. The linguistic and non-linguistic context ...... 21

2.7. Conversational implicatures ...... 23

2.8. Understanding the notions of sarcasm, irony and deception ...... 25

2.9. Verbal humor and some means of its achievement ...... 28

3. CORPUS ANALYSIS ...... 31

3.1. Methodology of research ...... 31

3.2. A short synopsis of the TV series with the main characters included ...... 31

3.3. Analysis of the results ...... 32

3.3.1. Maxim of quantity ...... 32

3.3.2. Maxim of quality ...... 35

3.3.3. Maxim of relation ...... 39

3.3.4. Maxim of manner ...... 41

3.4. Multiple flouting of the maxims ...... 43

3.5. Discussion of the results ...... 47

4. CONCLUSION ...... 50

References ...... 51

Appendix ...... 53

SOURCES ...... 78

1. Introduction

1.1. The subject and aims of the research

The subject of this research is the effects of flouting the Gricean Cooperative Principle in the American medical drama “House M.D.” and the main aim of the present research is to determine, classify and describe the ways of this flouting, for which purpose the qualitative research method is used. Using the instances of this type of non-observance, this paper is also supposed to explain the relationships between the flouting of the maxims and the effects which are left on a hearer and on a viewer, which are created as a result. This paper is based on several hypotheses. The first one is that the most the most typical type of non-adherence to the maxims will be flouting because it is done intentionally in order to provoke a reaction on the part of a hearer but also because flouting the four conversational maxims generates the implicatures that the hearers are expected to recognize. It is expected that most numerous examples will be the ones which show flouting of the maxims of manner and relation. There will also be several overlapping instances of two or more maxims. Moreover, it is anticipated that most of the characters from the TV series, but mostly the title character, will use irony, sarcasm and ambiguity in order to attain a communicative effect, such as humor, shock or outrage. There are several theories and principles this paper relies on and they are covered in the second chapter. The most important is the Gricean model of conversation summed up in his Cooperative Principle along with other significant underlying concepts, such as the conversational implicature, the presence of face, which can be either positive or negative, and speech act theory. Other notions that are in a direct relation to the research analysis are those of sarcasm, irony and verbal humor. Sarcasm and irony are used as a kind of a tool for attaining the communicative effect in the TV series as well as for different psychological reasons. It is explained how these concepts change the atmosphere and the direction of conversation when used for inference by interlocutors.

1.2. Significance of the paper

This paper contributes to the pragmatic field of speech act theory and Gricean Cooperative Principle in the area of TV series. Although there has previously been thorough research of the non-adherence to the Cooperative Principle in popular media, this study is concerned with the outcomes of flouting the four conversational maxims and with the ways of using irony, sarcasm and deception to achieve humorous and other effects in the final eighth season of “House M.D.” The most important theories used as theoretical foundation are Logic and Conversation (Grice, 1975), How to Do Things with Words (Austin, 1962) and Pragmatics (Yule, 1996) as well as other significant papers and studies by Raskin (1984), Dynel (2016, 2017, 2019), Attardo (2017) and others that provide useful explanations on understanding of irony, sarcasm and humor to a great extent. The use of these concepts by the characters in the series is elaborated in the analysis.

1.3. Structure of the paper

The corpus that is used for the analysis of this paper consists of transcribed dialogues from the final eighth season of the American medical drama “House M.D.” The dialogues that are collected serve as representations of the flouting of the Gricean Cooperative Principle. The medical drama is centered around the main character, Dr. Gregory House, who operates with his team of diagnosticians at the fictional Princeton-Plainsboro Hospital in New Jersey. Dr. House is anti-social, pain killer addict, incredibly intelligent and arrogant medical doctor, also a source of many witty and ambiguous utterances that are used for this research analysis. Along with his team, Dr. House tries to cure very complex and very rare diseases, which they seem to be doing successfully together. The final season of the series starts with Dr. House in prison where he was sentenced for showing lack of responsibility at work, but soon he is released and returns to the clinic where he continues working on new cases with his old team. The final season ends with a strong message of the importance of friendship and life. The season was produced and it aired during 2011 - 2012. The process of collecting the corpus for this analysis involved several stages. The first stage was watching the season attentively to compile the transcripts of the dialogues that are necessary for this paper. The season was found online and was watched with the English

8 subtitles, which helped with transcription process. The corpus includes 100 dialogues from the final season. In order to better understand the context of the situation, each dialogue includes a short description of the situation/scene that lead to the flouting of one or more of the conversational maxims. Additionally, the dialogues will be explained in terms of the reaction of the hearer based on his understanding of the intended meaning. The qualitative method was used for the analysis, which is based on the description of examples relevant for the subject of this paper. The methodological approach to this analysis is inductive, which means that the analysis starts from the example to its description and a short conclusion. The second, which is also the next chapter, includes the theoretical framework necessary for this paper. It involves the definitions of the basic notions, as well as the examples that are useful for understanding of these theoretical concepts. The third, most important chapter consists of the analysis and discussion of the corpus as well as the discussion of the results. The fourth chapter includes the conclusion with the suggestions for further research. At the end of the paper there is a list of the references which are significant for the paper as well as sources with the list of the episodes that were relevant for the analysis. Finally, the Appendix contains the list of all the selected dialogues ordered chronologically.

2. Theoretical Framework

This chapter will cover the theoretical background that contributed to the analysis of the relevant dialogues. The important theory comprises defining pragmatics, the Cooperative Principle, speech act theory, conversational implicatures and their general effects, politeness principle, observance and non-observance of the four conversational maxims along with the ways of achieving the non-observance, verbal humour, the role of linguistic and non-linguistic context in pragmatics as well as how sarcasm and irony are realized in TV series.

2.1. Defining pragmatics

According to Yule (1996) pragmatics can be explained as the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those forms. When one talks about pragmatics, one thinks of people’s intended meanings, their assumptions, purposes or aims as well as the kind of actions, such as warnings, that they are performing when they speak. An issue here is that sometimes it is very difficult to analyse these human concepts in a precise and objective way. An example that Yule (1996) provides us with is two friends having a conversation while implying some things and inferring others without providing any clear linguistic evidence that can be used in order to explain what was actually communicated: 1) Speaker 1: So – did you? Speaker 2: Hey – who wouldn’t?

These types of conversations can often be heard and without a proper context, an occasional hearer will have no idea of what was communicated. In this situation, the first speaker communicated more than he uttered. Although it can generally be understood that something was done, we would need a wider context to realize what exactly it was. In cases such as these, pragmatics and its understanding can help us because it offers an insight into how people make sense of each other linguistically. There is a difference between the literal meaning of a sentence and its intended meaning. The intended meaning is the unsaid part of the sentence which is one of the aims of pragmatics. Furthermore, pragmatics explores the notion of relative distance, both spatial and psychological, between speakers, which is achieved through the use of deictic expressions. In English, speakers will use the adverbs such as here and there to denote their relative location, but in most cases the location from the speaker’s perspective can be set mentally as well as physically, as in I wish I was

10 here now. in which case here represents the speaker’s home location while mentally the speaker desires to be located at home although he is physically away from home. Pragmatics also explains the notion of reference, which is tightly related to the speaker’s aims and beliefs. Since there is no direct relationship between the actual words and entities, the hearer has to be able to properly infer the entity that the speaker intends to identify using a particular referring expression. For example, if the speaker uses the referring expression he invented as in Miss Naggy has arrived. the hearer has to share the same knowledge about who Miss Naggy is in order to infer the intended meaning of the expression the speaker has had in mind as well as to be able to identify the entity/the person in question. Also, pragmatics deals with conversation and discourse analysis which focuses on both written and spoken record of the communication process where language is used to express communicative intention. Discourse analysis deals with the previous knowledge, beliefs and expectations of the interlocutors. Moreover, the scope of pragmatics covers the exploration of the degree of friendliness among interlocutors, or the politeness theory, which will be discussed more in section 2.3. as well as the concepts of cooperation and conversational implicature which will be discussed in section 2.7. Finally, the next section explains the actions performed via utterances, or speech acts, which represent one of the basic principles of this paper.

2.2. Speech Act Theory

When it comes to everyday discourse, we can say that utterances do not consist only of sentences and their grammatical structures but there is also a certain function related to making utterances. Austin (1962) calls those functions speech acts and they are related to a speaker’s communicative intention. The speaker expects that his hearer will recognize his communicative intention. Searle (1979) modifies, explains and improves Austin’s taxonomy of speech acts. The author notices many flaws in Austin’s initial taxonomy which is in fact a classification of English illocutionary verbs, which Searle (1979) criticizes saying that some verbs, such as the verb intend, which Austin (1962) groups into performative verbs, does not report a speech act. The way it should make a speech act would be express an intention. As the biggest weakness of the taxonomy, Searle (1979) notes that there is no clear principle or set of principles that construct the taxonomy because there are many overlaps between illocutionary verbs and the types of acts. Generally we can divide the speech acts into two groups, by their function and

11 structure. However, Searle’s alternative taxonomy is widely accepted. Searle (1979) groups the speech acts into the following five categories according to their functions: declarations, representatives, commissives, expressives and directives. Declarations are the kind of speech acts that change the world when uttered, as in the boss telling his employee You’re fired! Representatives are the kind of speech acts that state what the speaker believes to be true or not, as in It was a warm, sunny day. The speaker makes his words fit the world. Commissives are used when the speaker intends to do something in the future, the speaker makes the world fit his words. An example of this is I’m not going to work tomorrow. Expressives are the type of speech act which state what the speaker feels, as in I’m really sorry for what I’ve done! Directives are those types of speech acts that the speaker uses to get someone else to do something for him. An example of this is Can you close the window? The structural division is based on the three types of sentences and their general communicative functions. The three types of sentential structures are declarative, interrogative and imperative. The basic communicative functions of a language are statement, question and order/request/demand. The examples below show the clear relationship between the two categories, the structure of a sentence and its function: 2) A declarative sentence which is also a statement: You work on the thesis. 3) An interrogative sentence which is also a question: Do you work on the thesis? 4) An imperative sentence which is also an order or a demand: Work on a thesis!

The examples above are types of direct speech acts. They occur when we use a statement to make a declaration, as in 5) when we use a question to interrogate about something, as in 6) and when we use an order, a request or a demand to make an imperative sentence, as in 7). 5) It’s freezing outside. 6) How was your day? 7) Do your homework!

Furthermore, there are also indirect speech acts in which cases the relationships between the structure of the sentence and its function is indirect, as the term suggests. It happens when we use a declarative or a question to demand or request for something, as in example 8) and when we use an imperative to make a statement, as can be seen in example 9). 8) I request of you to close the door now. 9) Bring me a glass of water.

According to Yule (1996), the most frequent type of indirect speech in English has the form of an interrogative, specifically when we use it for making requests. For example, a question like Would you close the door? in fact represents making a request (Close the door!). In his work, Austin (1962) also talks about the three levels of speech acts, which represent the basis of meaningful linguistic expression. Therefore, we have the locutinary act which is the basic act of utterance. In other words, it is producing a meaningful linguistic expression. Then, there is the illocutionary act which is performed via the communicative force of an utterance. The illocutionary act of an utterance expresses the communicative intention of a speaker. We may utter to make an offer or an explanation or for some other communicative purpose. This is called the illocutionary force of the utterance. The third level or speech acts is the so-called perlocutionary act. Depending on the context, the speaker will utter on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect which was intended. This is also generally known as the perlocutionary effect. To illustrate this, the locutionary act in 10) is that a person has just finished making the cake and he or she informs the hearer about it. The illocutionary act of the utterance may be to make an offer to the hearer, for example. Finally, the perlocutionary act of the utterance may be that the speaker is inviting the hearer to have a piece of cake. 10) I’ve just made a cake.

Another important thing to mention is that there must be established certain expected or appropriate circumstances for the performance of a speech act to be recognized as intended. These conditions are known as the felicity conditions (Yule, 1996). There are many clear cases of the felicity conditions used appropriately as in - I pronounce you a husband and wife. - When used by a wedding registrar in a specific context, in this case a wedding hall, the utterance is appropriate or felicitous. Austin (1962) introduced the concept of felicity conditions and he expressed them as follows: • The preparatory conditions, which state that there must exist an accepted conventional procedure with a certain conventional effect. In other words, a certain speaker utters certain words in certain circumstances and that particular person and circumstances must be appropriate; • The executive conditions, which state that a speech act has to be executed by all interlocutors properly and completely; • The fullfillment conditions, which is determined by the perlocutionary effect of the speech act.

If any of the above conditions are not satisfied within the speech act, it becomes “unhappy” or simply not felicitous. Searle (1969) exploits and develops the four necessary conditions that make a speech act felicitous and calls them: the propositional, preparatory, sincerity and essential condition. The propositional condition represents the essence of what the speech act is all about. In other words, it is the core of an utterance. The preparatory conditions are the real- world conditions for the speech act. The sincerity conditions state, as their name suggests, that a speech act has to be sincere. Finally, the essential condition states that the speech act of the speaker has to be recognized and justified by the hearer or listener. Failure to meet the essential condition leads to the speech act not being carried out. For example, if an employer says the following to his employee: I will get back to work tomorrow to see how the work is progressing. - it can be interpreted as a promise or as a threat. In case it is a promise, then the propositional condition here is that the employer will come to work in the future to check the employee’s progress. The preparatory condition is that the speaker has reasons for performing this act. The sincerity condition is on the part of the speaker or the employer, that is he intends to come to work and fulfill his promise. Lastly, the essential condition is that the employer’s utterance counts as a promise and is recognized as such by the hearer, who in this case is the employee. This section has described the basic notions of the types of speech acts as well as the essential conditions for the performance of the successful speech act. The following section covers the theory which is of importance for this paper as it is centered on the notion of face in pragmatics. This concept has developed into the theory of politeness in a language, which is one of the key theories that contribute to understanding of the interaction among interlocutors, in this case the characters of the TV series “House M.D.”

2.3. Politeness Theory

It can be said that any kind of linguistic interaction is also a social interaction. The ways in which we communicate shows how close or distant we are and the linguistic forms we use to talk to our interlocutors define our view of them as well as our relationships with them. There are certain cultural norms that interlocutors tend to regard or disregard in a talk exchange. Politeness can be generally understood in terms of certain norms, like courtesy, rapport, deference and distance. According to Brown and Levinson (1987) there is a universal

14 principle of language use in daily discourse. They say that people tend to avoid subtle and personal topics as well as strict disagreements. Also, people try to convey clear messages by pointing out important parts of the conversation, or simply important information. When we do not understand our interlocutors, we tend to use non-verbal signs. Brown and Levinson (1987) redefine the traditional notion of face in pragmatics, which has previously been explained by Goffman (1963). According to Goffman (1959) the presentation of self refers to people’s efforts to present themselves to others in the most favorable ways to their own interests or image. The author calls this impression management. It is usually something that political candidates use for elections by creating the best possible self-image to achieve certain goals or by relying on certain face-saving acts, like when they are telling white lies. They use this technique in order to protect themselves in the first place, but also the audiences they are talking to by sparing them the ugly truth. It can be said that Goffman’s (1967) view of face is considered some sort of a social mask that a person puts on during an interaction and this mask also changes in accordance with the formation of the person’s identity. This is widely used by the main character in the TV series analyzed for the purposes of this paper. Namely, Dr. House seems to put on a kind of social mask at work in order to hide his true personality which he thinks might affect other people’s views of him. The theory that Brown and Levinson (1987) develop is based on the belief that people universally cooperate in maintaining each other’s face because there is a mutual assumption that they might lose their face. They divide the concept of face into two related aspects: positive and negative face. The former denotes a person’s desire for their positive self-image to be appreciated and approved. The latter denotes a person’s desire for their freedom and self-autonomy not to be imposed on by others. However, in day-to-day discourse it happens very often that people threaten each other’s individual self-image by producing illocutionary speech acts, also called face threating acts, or FTAs. In cases some actions are interpreted as a threat to another’s face, the speaker can say something to lessen the probable threat, which is called a face saving act. To illustrate this, the example in 11) shows a husband and wife talking about their neighbors who are playing their music really loud while the couple is trying to fall asleep: 11) The husband: I’m going to go up there and tell them to stop playing that awful music right now! The wife: Maybe you could just ask them if there are going to stop playing it soon as it’s getting late and people need to go to sleep.

The wife suggests a face saving act by the use of polite words while the husband chooses a face threatening ac. A person’s negative face is threatened by the face threatening acts that affect the person’s self-image. Examples of this are expressing thanks, making blank promises or offers etc. On the other hand, the person’s positive face is threatened by acts that are made when the person loses control over a situation. Examples of this are making apologies, confessions, compliments etc. The core of their theory is that people should find a way to minimize or soften the face threatening behavior. In other words, to replace the face threatening act by the face saving act as often as possible (Panić Kavgić, 2019). Brown and Levinson add that a person can choose to do the face threatening act in two ways: off record or on record. Off record means that the person will use some indirect expressions or certain hints to express his or her intentions, for example: Excuse me, I forgot my pen. - which could be interpreted as a polite face saving request for a pen due to the use of the expression excuse me. On record means that the person’s intentions are clearly and directly expressed, for example: Give me my pen! - which could be recognized as a face threatening act being an imperative at the same time. This section dealt with the analysis of the concepts of face and politeness, which are some of the main concepts and means for the realization of a successful interaction among people. What follows in the next section is an explanation of another key principle that this paper as well as successful communication is based on, called the Cooperative Principle.

2.4. The Cooperative Principle

Grice (1975) explains that each person, both the hearer and the speaker, in a given talk exchange should make a consistent chain of utterances with a common goal or a purpose in order to make the very conversation meaningful for both interlocutors. The purpose of the conversation should be made clear from the very start of the conversation, as in making an initial question or a proposal, or it may develop during the conversation. Although it may happen that some conversational moves are excluded as conversationally unsuitable, Grice proposes a general principle which participants should observe when talking. It is summed up in his Cooperative Principle which says: “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” (Grice, 1975)

What follows from his Cooperative Principle are the four categories, or the four maxims of conversation:

1. Maxim of quantity, which says “do not make your contribution more informative than is required”; 2. Maxim of quality, which says “do not say what you believe to be false or that for which you lack adequate evidence”; 3. Maxim of relation, which says “be relevant”; 4. Maxim of manner, which says: • Avoid obscurity of expression; • Avoid ambiguity; • Be brief, avoid unnecessary prolixity; • Be orderly.

According to Grice, all other maxims operate only on the assumption that the maxim of quality is obeyed. The linguist also adds other maxims which are aesthetic, social or moral in character. That is the maxim of politeness. As Yule (1996) points out and as was already discussed in section 2.3., politeness is showing awareness of another person’s face. In this manner, politeness can be preserved in situations of social distance or closeness. Thus showing awareness for another person’s face when they seem socially distant can be described as respect or deference. Whereas showing the same awareness when the other person seems socially close is a means of friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity. The following two examples show what Yule explained in terms of politeness: 12) I am sorry, Mr. Buckingham, but can I talk to you for a minute? 13) Hey, Bucky, got a minute?

The first question can be found in a student’s question to his teacher while the second is a type of a question that a friend could ask the same individual. Leech (1983) notes that there are different subtypes of the maxim of politeness but agrees that they should be integrated into Gricean Cooperative Principle because they help account for indirect relationships between sense and force. Yule (1996) states that it is of high importance to recognize the four maxims as unstated assumptions we have in conversations. People engage in talk exchanges assuming that their interlocutors will provide a sufficient amount of information, that they are telling the truth, being relevant to the discussion and that they are doing their best to be as clear as they can. 17

The four maxims are assumed to exist in a normal conversation. As Grice (1975) concludes, the participants in a conversation share a common aim that connects the two interlocutors making them identify with the transitory conversational interests of one another but also making their contributions mutually dependent. He also adds that there should be some sort of understanding between the parties which will make them continue talking in the same style thus avoiding the termination of the talk exchange. This section has dealt with the basic principle of every purposeful conversation, which is also the basis of this paper. In the next section, we shall see what happens if the maxims are not observed and what they result in.

2.5. Non-observance of the maxims

In everyday life we expect to hear conversations that make a coherent whole which is understandable and makes sense for both participants. However, in situations when speakers fail to observe the maxims, they are usually incapable of speaking clearly or they deliberately choose to lie. The utterances that have additional meanings which are not conveyed on a direct level are of interest for the non-observance. According to Grundy (2000), interlocutors usually want to make their conversational message as clear and as informative as it can be. In case someone would simply like to stop participating in a conversation, they may use an expression No comment. On the other hand, it very often happens that an interlocutor does not want to adhere to the Cooperative Principle thus he or she fails to observe a maxim in various ways. This occurs when the interlocutor does not want to share a sufficient amount of information or shares more information than is necessary, when they are not as clear as they should be or when they speak ambiguously and not orderly. Each time when one does not adhere to the Cooperative Principle, his or her hearer must make a special effort to understand what is being conveyed. There are several ways of failing to adhere to a maxim (Grice, 1975): 1. A speaker can violate a maxim, which makes him liable to mislead. An example of this is the following situation: an athlete from a sports team gets pulled out of a race and the press officer tells the audience about the athlete’s absence: She has a family bereavement: her grandmother has died. (Thomas, 1995). It shows the violation of the quality maxim as in this case, the press officer is lying about the athlete’s absence

to hide the truth which is the fact that the athlete is absent because he turned positive on a drug test. 2. He may opt out from the operation both of the maxim and of the Cooperative Principle. An example of this is says I cannot say anymore, my lips are sealed. in which case a speaker decides not to cooperate. 3. The speaker may also be faced by a clash, which happens when he fulfills one maxim, for example the maxim of quantity, without violating the maxim of quality. The following example illustrates a clash between the maxims of quantity and quality: A: Has Chris given up smoking? B: No. Speaker B does not know for sure if Chris has given up smoking. 4. The speaker may flout a maxim. In other words, he may intentionally fail to fulfill it so a hearer has to look for the intended meaning beyond the semantic level. An example of this is the following utterance Women are women. At the locutinary level, or the level of what is said, this utterance is not informative, but at the level of what is implicated it is.

Thomas (1995) extends the Gricean taxonomy of non-observance of the four maxims. The author adds two new ways in which the non-observance happens: 1. The speaker may also infringe a maxim, which he or she does when there is no intention of deceiving a hearer. In other words, the speaker indicates certain unwillingness to cooperate in a way a given maxim requires. Thomas (1995) says that this type of non-observance could occur in case a speaker does not have a full command of the language, if it is a young child or a foreign learner, or in case a speaker’s performance is impaired in some way i.e. if they are nervous or drunk, which would make them incapable of speaking clearly. 2. The speaker may also resort to suspending a maxim, which is done in culture-specific contexts but also in specific events, when there are no specific expectations to be fulfilled. Thomas (1995) gives an example of suspending a maxim. In the acting community in Britain people refrain from saying the name of Shakespeare's play Macbeth because it is believed to be bad luck. Instead they refer to it as The Scottish Play thereby not observing the maxim of quantity.

In addition, speakers may resort to using certain expressions, called hedges, to mark that they are not fully adhering to the four conversational maxims. Hedges are used when an interlocutor wants to warn that he will not adhere to the Cooperative Principle. It is generally

19 assumed, at least according to Yule (1996), that the importance of the maxim of quality may be measured by the number of hedges that indicate that what we are saying is not completely accurate or true. Some of the expressions that speakers use are as far as I know, I may be mistaken, I’m not sure, I guess etc. when they are not sure whether or not the information they are giving is accurate. Similar types of phrases may be used in order not to violate the maxim of quantity. Some of the phrases are to cut a long story short, as you probably know, to sum up etc. In cases when speakers would like to change the topic or simply to stop talking, thus adhering to the maxim of relation, are by the way, well or anyway. Finally, the hedges speakers may use to adhere to the maxim of manner are this may be a bit confusing, I’m not sure it is makes sense and the like. The use of hedges is desirable in a conversation as it shows that people are trying to observe the four maxims, which makes them good cooperative conversational partners. An interlocutor flouts the maxim expecting the hearer to look for additional meaning. Speakers may violate maxim of quantity by giving more or less information than is necessary in order to avoid saying the truth or because they are ashamed of saying it. The reasons may be various and they depend on the speaker’s intentions. Some of the ways may be that he is saying less than is necessary for his interlocutor to understand the message or when he is using the phrases which are ambiguous. A way of the violation of maxim of quantity is the following: 14) Speaker A: Damn, you’ve spilled that red wine on my shirt! Speaker B: Don’t worry, no one will notice.

In the 14) example, the speaker B violates the quantity maxim by telling a lie in order not to discourage the speaker A. When it comes to the reasons for violating the maxim of relation, some of them are that they would like to change the topic as they do not want to comment on something that they find irrelevant or they would simply like to avoid giving the information that is requested of them. 15) Speaker A: Name? Speaker B: Neddy Seagon. Speaker A: Rank? Speaker B: Private. Speaker A: Sex? Speaker B: Yes, please.

The example above is a conversation between two officers. The maxim of relation is flouted in speaker B’s response to the question “Sex?” Here, speaker A was actually inquiring about B’s gender. However, speaker B responded by saying something irrelevant to this question, thus creating a comic effect. Speaker B intentionally misinterpreted speaker A’s utterance as an offer for sex. Finally, when it comes to violating the maxim of manner, it occurs when a speaker wants to confuse the hearer, probably deliberately. It can be seen in the following example: 16) Speaker A: I hear you went to the opera last night, how was the lead singer? Speaker B: The singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to the score of an aria from “Rigoleto”.

Speaker B’s response above shows that he would like to imply that the singer was not very good. However, instead of simply saying it, which might be rude, he violates the maxim of manner by being unnecessarily descriptive for stylistic effects. This section has explained the ways of the non-observance of the four conversational maxims, which, when it occurs, can mislead the hearer or simply take the conversation to another direction or create a different effect. Flouting a maxim is the most interesting type of non- adherence to a maxim as it leads to creating implicatures, which the speaker expects the hearer to be able to recognize. Therefore, this paper will only deal with instances of flouting the maxims.

2.6. The linguistic and non-linguistic context

We can say that the verbal communication falls under the category of linguistic context, while the non-verbal communication is a part of non-linguistic context. An interpretation of the meaning that the speaker has in mind is context-dependent. In cases where the non-linguistic context is known to both interlocutors, the communication runs successfully. A field of pragmatics that investigates these is called discourse analysis. According to Yule (1996), when restricted to specifically linguistic issues, discourse analysis focuses on the spoken or written record of the process by which language is used in some context to covey intention. Yule stresses the importance of a well-formed text and adds that there should be explicit connections between sentences in a text that make it coherent. In order to do the Pragmatics of discourse, the accent should be placed on the psychological concepts behind the very text, such as background knowledge, beliefs and expectations. To

21 put it simply, the pragmatics of discourse analyzes what the speaker or writer has in mind before commencing to speaking or writing the text. Cutting (2002) agrees with Yule on this and adds that the cohesion of the text is termed relevance by pragmatics. She also adds that both pragmatics and discourse are concerned with the function, or the speaker’s short and long-term purposes of verbal interaction. Cutting (2002) mentions the three types of contexts: • Situational context, or what speaker know about what they can see around them; • Background knowledge context, or what the speakers know about each other and the world; • Co-textual context, or what the speakers know about what they have been saying.

The situational and the co-textual types of contexts are the linguistic ones, whereas the background knowledge context is the non-linguistic one and Cutting (2002) further divides it into: • Cultural, which is some general knowledge that most people carry with them in their minds about different spheres of life; • Interpersonal knowledge, which is specific and probably private knowledge about the history of the speakers themselves.

This section is important for this paper because it explains how interlocutors who share the knowledge of context they are placed in time and space can have a successful interaction. All types of contexts should be considered in a meaningful discourse because the awareness of the context helps account for cases such as the following: 17) Speaker 1: Did you call the office yesterday? Speaker 2: Yes, I did. I informed Mary about the day off and the others are already aware of it.

Speaker 1 in 17) example can conclude who is meant by the others only if they are co- workers or if speaker 2 has already told speaker 1 about the other people. We need a wider context to find out who the others are. The content of this section is significant because contextual background, or the shared knowledge of the world between interlocutors, helps them with inference when they are speaking ambiguously using implicatures, which will be explained in the following section.

2.7. Conversational implicatures

As Grice (1975) puts it, conversational implicatures are essentially connected with certain features of discourse. Sometimes it happens that there is a certain mismatch between the meaning of an utterance on a direct level, where only the words uttered are analyzed and the meaning which is intended. The meaning of the utterance may completely differ from the speaker’s intended message and it happens when the speaker is trying to convey something in an indirect way. According to Grice (1975), the conversational implicatures are implied by the speaker in making an utterance, they are a part of the utterance, and their role in communication is to effectively share information. Everyday discourse is full of unconnected sentences. However, an interlocutor makes his conversational contribution effective to make the communication successful. So the interlocutor may use conversational implicatures to convey additional meanings to what is being said, while his hearer’s role is to infer the intended meanings. This process goes on in a linguistic context which helps the hearer connect the utterance with the context. More about the differences between linguistic and non-linguistic context is said in section 2.6. Yule (1996) gives us an example of flouting the quantity maxim: 18) Charlene: I hope you brought the bread and cheese. Dexter: Ah, I brought the bread.

Upon hearing Dexter’s response, Charlene has to understand that Dexter is adhering to the Cooperative Principle and that he is not completely unaware of the quantity maxim. However, he did not say anything about the cheese, so Charlene has to infer that what is not mentioned is not brought. In this example, Dexter has conveyed more than he actually said via the conversational implicature. The structure of what is said can be represented with b, which is bread, and c, which is cheese. Yule uses the symbol +> for an implicature, helping us represent the additional conveyed meaning: 19) Charlene: b & c? Dexter: b (+>NOT c)

Yule (1996) also points out that it is speakers who communicate meaning via implicatures and it is listeners who recognize the communicated meanings via inference. In cases where no special knowledge is required in the context to infer the additional conveyed meaning, we have a generalized conversational implicature, in contrast to

23 particularized implicatures which require our conversations to take place in specific contexts in which locally recognized inferences are assumed. An example of the former type of implicature is given below: 20) Some people are materialistic.

A hearer or a listener can conclude that a number of people are materialistic by nature while some are not. An example of the particularized type of implicature is shown in the example below: 21) Bert: Do you like ice-cream? Ernie: Is the Pope Catholic?

In 21) Ernie does not give a yes/no answer. Instead, Bert must assume that Ernie is being cooperative, so he considers Ernie’s Pope question and his response implies that the answer is Obviously, yes! An additional conveyed meaning is that the questions did not need to be asked as it was so obvious. This example shows flouting the maxim of relation. Yule (1996) adds that very common examples are represented by using an indefinite article a/an in English. 22) The cat jumped on my lap.

The 22) example shows that it is a particular cat, already a part of the knowledge of the hearer or listener. This is clearly put as the speaker uses the definite article the in English. A great number of generalized conversational implicatures are communicated on the basis of scalar values. These are known as scalar implicatures. In cases when we want to express the quantity of something, we choose a word that expresses one value from a scale of values. We can do so by using the words such as all, most, many, some, few, always, often, sometimes… The following example shows an utterance in which a speaker used a scalar conversational implicature: 23) I’m studying Maths and I’ve completed some of the required courses.

By using the word some, the speaker makes a scalar implicature, intending to say that he or she has not completed all courses. Levinson (1991) adds that most of the floutings or exploitations of the maxims are particularized. For instance, irony requires specific background assumptions that can help rule out the literal interpretations. However, he agrees that metaphors or tautologies as shown in examples 24) and 25) convey a message in a relatively context – independent way. 24) England is a sinking ship.

25) Boys will be boys.

This means that certain figures of speech, as the comparison of England to a sinking ship is, are a special class of utterances that come up as a result of maxim non-observances. On the contrary, Sperber and Wilson (1981) claim that the distinction made by Grice (1975) and Yule (1996) following is too fundamental. They also claim that the standard implicatures are actually deductions from the maxim of relation and they also suggest that figures of speech invoke images and associations of a different kind. It is important to understand the notion of conversational implicatures for this paper as they are the hidden or intended meanings in the dialogues used for analysis. The following section describes the main concepts that the characters of the TV series analyzed use for several reasons which are explained in the chapter 3 and these are sarcasm, irony and deception.

2.8. Understanding the notions of sarcasm, irony and deception

The understanding of the concepts of sarcasm, irony and deception as well as their underlying principles is important for this paper as they are central notions and most outcomes of the non-observance of maxims in the selected dialogues used for this research analysis. It is these three concepts that provoke and lead to humor in the TV series, sitcoms and other kinds of media. Their comprehension makes us remember and understand why the utterance You’re an awesome friend. may actually mean You’re a terrible friend. However, it is not easy to recognize the difference between sarcasm and irony. As Dynel (2000) explains it, the prototypical irony is based on the assumption that the speaker utters what he or she believes to be false in order to express an implicit message, or an implicature. According to Gibbs (2007) who names the traditional view of sarcasm the Standard Pragmatic Model, a hearer must first analyze the complete literal interpretation of an expression before deriving its non-literal, sarcastic meaning. Gibbs (2007) compares it to the way we interpret indirect requests, idioms and metaphors. Nonetheless, he scrutinizes this theory saying that it has its flaws because as Sperber and Wilson (1981) conclude, in most cases speakers actually mean what they literally say while speaking sarcastically at the same time. For instance, if a driver says to a passenger I love people who walk slowly! – while the passenger is actually an old person walking at slow pace, the driver is using sarcastic comment although the situation is literally true. Gibbs (2007) claims that there are certain psycholinguistic factors that influence

25 our choice of words, specifically when we are speaking sarcastically. This is generally the case because sometimes people use sarcasm when they want to insult someone but without the use of swear words. Sarcasm is also used when we want to achieve a sort of true lies, in which cases it can be both mean and funny, as in Homer Simpson’s comment to his children from the American TV Series “The Simpsons”: Kids, just because I don’t care, doesn’t mean I’m not listening. – which may be seen as a very mean parenting habit to talk to children in such a way. Furthermore, it is widely used by people for criticism which is indirect and humorous. An example of this would be a mother’s comment to her children How do you keep your room so tidy? – in which case the mother uses indirect sarcastic comment to criticize her children whose room is in fact dirty. While the difference between sarcasm and irony is not clear cut, it can be said that there are two general conditions that must exist in order to achieve the verbal irony: allusion to violated expectation and pragmatic insincerity. According to Kumon-Nakamura Glucksberg, and Brown (1995), allusion to violated expectation means a speaker must allude to a prediction, expectation, preference, previous comment or a norm that was violated by an event. The latter condition on the verbal irony refers to an ironic comment violating the felicity conditions for well-formed speech acts (Grice, 1975) in which case the comment is pragmatically insincere. Colston (2000) only partially agrees with the aforementioned claims and adds that in verbal irony, speakers may stimulate a conversational implicature by violating the maxim of quality. This happens most often with ironic utterances because the ironic expressions are generally untrue. The ironic comment would then set up a conversational implicature that the speaker intends for his or her comment to be understood ironically. This is consistent with the claim that the ironic comment must be pragmatically insincere. To show an example of this, we can consider an example: What nice weather it is outside! If a person utters this, which is inconsistent with the present situation (the weather is awful, windy and cloudy), he or she violates the maxim of quality thus being pragmatically insincere. Leech (1983) holds that irony builds upon or exploits the principle of politeness as people usually use irony for being too obviously and deliberately polite for the occasion. This goes in line with Colston’s claim that the maxim of quality is flouted by ironic implicatures. The speaker who is being ironic appears to be deceiving or misleading the hearer while at the same time he or she “indulges in an honest form of apparent deception.” The following example shows obvious violation of the quality maxim: 26) Speaker A: Tom has just borrowed your car.

Speaker B: Well, I like THAT!

The speaker B in 26) example is being polite while it is not true that he likes the fact that Tom borrowed the car without asking, thus the intended ironic implicature is that the speaker B is actually impolite to the speaker A and that is true. According to Dynel (2016) deception is considered to be an intentional act that causes the hearer to (continue to) believe what the speaker believes to be false. Lying is the most common way of deception and by lying the quality maxim gets violated. Moreover, it is also possible to have deception via irony, which means that speakers are “telling the truth falsely”. An example of this is as follows: 27) A man crashes into the wall in order to deceive others that he has had a traffic accident and one of the witnessed comments: Oh my God, did you have an accident?! The man responds: No, I crashed into the wall deliberately!

The 27) example shows that the man who crashed the wall uses ironic implicature, which can be What a stupid question. – this implicature is untruthful and so is deceptive. As Dynel (2013) claims, based on her research of the types of irony in relation to humor, there is a so-called sarcastic irony. She observes the instances of humor which have sarcastic irony as a result in selected dialogues of House M.D. Dynel (2013) concludes that Dr. House himself is using a lot of sarcastic irony in the TV series because his aim is to demean or ridicule his hearer or interlocutor. In most cases, his hearers recognize his intention to be superior in relation to them. An example from season 3, episode 6: House is talking to George, an obese patient, who is lying in bed. 28) Dr. House: So, you would rather be a blind invalid than admit the fact that maybe you might have a little problem with overeating? And by little problem of course, I mean you’ve eaten yourself half to death. George: I am not diabetic! Dr. House: Grocery stores giving away medical degrees with the free turkeys now?

In the example above, which Dynel (2013) provides in her paper, it can be seen how Dr. House is using sarcastic irony in his ironic question to the patient but also in his response. House is criticizing the patient’s attempt at self-diagnosis and also downgrades him by stressing his obesity problem. House is trying to express his superiority and wit as will be seen extensively in the next chapter under the title Corpus Analysis.

Jorgensen (1996) mentions some of the functions of the use of sarcastic irony in everyday speech, which is to complain or criticize close friends, specifically about some trivial things, as in the dialogue the author uses for her experiment: 29) Two friends are talking about their past boyfriends and one of them says: I hate the fact that my new boyfriend may be thinking about his ex-girlfriend. Her roommate responds in a critical tone: Of course he does, and, anyway, you never think about Marco!

Marco in the above example is her roommate’s old boyfriend as well. This example shows how sarcastic irony is used as a face-saving technique. If her roommate criticized her directly, it would make her appear insulting and rude. Another function of the use of sarcastic irony that Jorgensen (1996) brings up is that by using a comment which is characterized as sarcastic irony, a speaker distances himself from the hearer. This form of distancing is sometimes used for achieving humorous effect, because humor generally allows the speaker to distance himself from the “verbal attack” and denying responsibility at the same time. More will be said about the concept of verbal humor and the means of achieving humorous effects in the next section.

2.9. Verbal humor and some means of its achievement

The notion of humor varies from writer to writer as it is very difficult for linguists to come up with one single definition of humor. There have been various attempts to define it bearing in mind its scope at the same time. This is so because different people find different things funny. However, Raskin (1984) provides us with two types of humor, verbal and non- verbal humor. His categorization is widely accepted. Raskin (1984) says that any text, such as jokes, puns or word games, which is capable of creating a humorous effect, is a type of the verbal humor. The author adds that jokes are generally a type of sophisticated humor which contains an allusion thus making them either not understandable or not funny to those who are not familiar with the material alluded to. On the other hand, what falls under the category of the non-verbal humor is any humorous situation which is not created, described or expressed by text. Raskin (1984) tries to fit the notion of humor into linguistics, formulating the necessary and sufficient linguistic conditions for the text to be funny. He explains that in order to be funny, jokes have to be based on the knowledge of a presupposition shared by both the

28 speaker and the hearer. Otherwise, they are not comprehensible, or simply not funny. Furthermore, if a sentence does not have its literal meaning but carries an implicature, then many jokes can be explained in terms of implicatures. 30) “My wife used to play the violin a lot but after we had kids she had not much time for that.” “Children are a comfort, aren’t they?” (Pocheptzov, 1974)

The example above shows a hidden meaning that the hearer has to look for. His wife cannot play the violin very well so it is a comfort to him that she does not do it anymore and he owes it to his children. Raskin (1984) also mentions that many jokes can be treated in terms of possible words if they are understood as minor “impossible” derivations from the real world (e.g. using metaphors) and also as being a part of speech acts. In other words, the linguist says that the speech acts may produce jokes. The theory of humor by Raskin (1984) is based solely on the semantic properties that make some text funny as well as the humor competence of the speaker, in other words, the speaker’s intuition with respect to humor. Attardo (2017) develops his own theory of verbal humor and agrees that humor and jokes are text-built and sometimes made to mislead the hearer or listener into believing one thing only to switch the interpretation around at the right time. As Dolitsky (1983) points out, the interpretation of the hidden context must come at the end of a text or a speech act. The speaker tends to deliberately withhold the information until the very end for the purpose of making it a “surprise” because as Attardo (2017) claims, that surprising moment that is built up until the punch line is exactly what provokes humor. An example that Dolitsky (1983) uses is that of a cartoon strip in which the characters are onboarding a boat where they talk and one of them gets sick. The text is not humorous until the reader discovers in the last cartoon that the scene described takes place at a boat show and the boat is in a dry dock. It will be seen in the section Corpus Analysis that this same effect is used to a great extent by Dr. House who tends to finish his dialogues with his interlocutors leaving the humorous lines until the very end. One of the reasons for making jokes or creating humorous effects in general is the need to provoke a reaction of the hearer or listener. By using verbal humor, the speaker can produce different types of effects. Speakers can use humor in wordplay, when teasing someone, by using ambiguity or a pun, when they are playing with the meaning of an utterance. In cases when the speaker wants to be ambiguous, he can do so on three levels: grammatically, semantically and pragmatically. On the pragmatic level, ambiguity is achieved by failure to

29 adhere to the Cooperative Principle. Moreover, in cases where there is a contrast between what is said and what is meant, the speaker is being sarcastic or ironic. Colston (2017) makes a clear categorization of further types of effects created by humor: • Situational irony, also uses to label ironic contradictions or coincidences found in situations. Situational irony is very often used in sitcoms and in literature. An example can be taken from “Romeo and Juliet” by William Shakespeare, where the whole story can be considered as a situational irony. Romeo strives to make peace between the Capulets and the Montagues, but eventually the first death of Mercutio leads to a chain of deaths and in the end both main characters die. • Verbal irony, which usually refers to spoken or written creations of ironic contradictions that fall across an actual event or a situation. Verbal irony is also found in various types of mass media, such as TV shows, TV series, by TV presenters as well as in literature. An example is taken from J.K. Rowling’s famous book of “Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix”, where Harry, the title character, says: “Yeah, Quirrell was a great teacher. There was just that minor drawback of him having Lord Voldermort sticking out of the back of his head!” • Sarcasm, mostly considered a nasty, mean-spirited or simply negative form of verbal irony used on an occasion to enhance the negativity expressed relative to direct, non- figurative criticism. Sarcasm is very popular means of interaction nowadays, especially among the young, who use it widely on social media platforms mostly through the use of the popular memes and meme-like content. As an example of this, the following sarcastic meme is used: Are you free tomorrow? – No, I am expensive. • Ironic criticism or ironic praise/compliment, which is used in cases when the speaker expresses something negative by uttering something seemingly positive and the other way round, when the speaker uses a positive expression through seemingly negative utterances. An example of an ironic compliment would be a mother telling her son: Nice stain you got on your shirt!

3. Corpus Analysis

3.1. Methodology of research

The qualitative method is used in this paper, which helped describe instances of flouting of the four maxims. Firstly, the final eighth season of the popular American TV series “House M.D.” was watched online and then the corpus which consists of the transcripts from the selected episodes was compiled. In total, there are 100 dialogues in this analysis and all of the dialogues serve as representations of flouting the maxims. It is described how the maxims are flouted separately, by a maxim. Also, it is explained how two maxims are flouted in several instances. Each example from the Appendix is coded in the following way: the episode number: the example number (from a given episode). Whether a hearer recognized the intended meaning of an utterance is determined on the basis of his/her facial expression, comment or refraining from sharing any thoughts, which is usually the case in the series because the characters know each other very well and concerning they are all high professionals in the medical field, it is usually not difficult to infer the intended meaning. The fact that it is the final season of the series adds to this explanation. The following section provides a short synopsis of the TV series with the main characters and their general characteristics included. Then, what follows in the section 3.3. and its subsections are the examples from the series categorized by a maxim, the section 3.4. contains the examples of multiple flouting of maxim and the section 3.5. covers the discussion of the results.

3.2. A short synopsis of the TV series with the main characters included

“House M.D.” is a popular American medical drama TV series which aired on the FOX channel for full eight seasons, from November 16, 2004 to May 21, 2012. In the center of the TV series is a medical genius called Dr. Gregory House, better known as Dr. House, who leads a team of diagnosticians at the fictional Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital in New Jersey. The TV series was created by David Shore who is responsible for the conception of the title character. Hugh Laurie plays the main character Dr. Gregory House. He is an infectious disease specialist, a nephrologist and the head of department of diagnostic medicine in the TV series.

Dr. House is considered a witty, manipulative and sarcastic medical genuis who seems to solve cases with ease. Robert Sean Leonard plays the character of Dr. James Wilson, who is the head of department of oncology. Dr. Wilson is a smart, dedicated doctor and a close friend of Dr. House. Omar Epps plays Dr. Eric Foreman in the series. He is a neurologist and the dean of medicine. Dr. Foreman is a strong, bossy character. Jesse Spencer plays Dr. Robert Chase who is a surgeon, intensivist cardiologist and the head of department of diagnostic medicine in the TV finale. Dr. Chase is a charming, charismatic and prospective young doctor. Peter Jacobson plays Dr. Chris Taub, a plastic surgeon in the TV series. Dr. Taub is always getting into short discussions with Dr. House but is however a great contribution to his team of diagnosticians. Odette Annable plays Dr. Jessica Adams, a prison clinic physician. She is also charming, smart and apprehensive young doctor. Charlene Yi plays Dr. Chi Parl, a neurologist in Dr. House’s team. Dr. Park is witty, adjustable and a great co-worker, very much loyal to Dr. House. As a team, all of the main characters seem to act perfectly. They contribute to each other by sharing great ideas and suggestions and they appear to handle all the cases successfully.

3.3. Analysis of the results

This section is dedicated to an elaborate analysis and discussion of the dialogues from the series (for the complete list of selected dialogues, see Appendix). The dialogues are categorized and represented by a maxim in the subsections of this discussion. Since this paper only deals with the maxims that are flouted in the series, the explanations are given as to how the flouting happened, for what purpose, what implicature it held, what the reaction of the hearer was and whether he/she understood the implicature.

3.3.1. Maxim of quantity

According to Grice (1975) the maxim of quantity states “do not make your conversational contribution more informative than is required.” This maxim is flouted in

32 those cases when a speaker gives incomplete or too much information than is required. There are only a few examples found in the final season of “House M.D.”, which represent flouting. In the following instance, House is nervously standing in a row of the prison hall with other prisoners and they are waiting to be called by a pharmacist to take their medication. House is accompanied by his unconscious cellmate and helps him take his medicine. One of the other prisoners asks House why he keeps helping his cellmate and House responds sarcastically:

31) A prisoner: Why you keep helping him out? Dr. House: Yeah, why would I wanna make sure that my homicidal cellmate is taking the right anti-psychotics? (1:2)

House responds to the prisoner sharing more information than was requested, as the prisoner did not know that his cellmate is homicidal. However, House’s intended implicature that it is safer to continue helping his cellmate to keep him sane with the help of useful medication and also to keep House safe is understood by the prisoner who asked him because he only frowns and does not comment anything further. It is very typical of House to use sarcasm to express himself, which he does often, instead of giving literal responses. Sarcasm is a tool that helps House in situations such as the one explained above, when he is talking to people who are uneducated and who would need to infer the intended meaning, and it is what House wants.

The next example shows House who is in the exam room of the prison where he meets Jessica for the third time. She is interested in getting to know him better because he intrigued her with his knowledge of medicine last time they spoke, so she lets him know that she checked his biography and is surprised to see him in prison concerning his outstanding career.

32) Jessica: I checked you out. You were a pretty big deal. What went wrong? Dr. House: Something very obvious and very boring. (1:8)

House responds to Jessica’s inquiry very scarcely and he seems to be uninterested in elaborating his response. He flouts the maxim of quantity by sharing a very little amount of information insufficient for her to conclude what really led to his prison sentence. Using the lexeme boring House stresses his intended implicature which is that he would not like to talk

33 about it. However, Jessica keeps pushing House to respond as she recognizes his intention that is not to talk about himself but to comment and criticize other people including herself.

In the example below, House is entering the room and encounters Dr. Chase who is struggling to take a few steps after he had a major surgery after his legs had been badly damaged. Dr. Chase is mad at Dr. House who showed no empathy when he got stabbed by a patient. What preceded this event was House replacing Chase’s regular shampoo with Jessica’s because he wanted to let Dr. Chase know that his schedule has become messy lately and that he is not going to tolerate Dr. Chase being late at work constantly.

33) Dr. Chase: Why’d I even have to? What was the point of the orange hair? Dr. House: You hair smelled like Adams’. Since there’s no way you’re doing her without me knowing, it means you were just doing her shampoo. Which means you were out late drinking with some new girl or because there is no new girl. You were trying to make up time by showering at the hospital, but you were too lazy to buy your own shampoo. So I found a way to let you know not to be late. (11:1)

In his reply to Dr. Chase’s simple inquiry, House is elaborating his response more than is necessary adding irrelevant details thus flouting the maxim. It can be inferred from his detailed response that House thinks about and knows his colleagues more than they would assume, as he mentions Dr. Chase’s secret flirting with Jessica as well as Dr. Chase’s continuous problem with breaking up with girlfriends and finding new one-night-stands, which made him late at work repeatedly. House is implying that he is not satisfied with Dr. Chase’s lack of respect and misconduct, but he is also aware that it results from Dr. Chase’s broken trust after House showed no emotions. It also seems that House is explaining himself too much out of some nervousness because his superiority over Dr. Chase is damaged due to Dr. Chase’s indifferent attitude. Dr. Chase understands the intended meaning and he only wonders why House could not ask him to stop being late as it would have been simpler than putting too much effort into teaching him a lesson.

In the following example, House is criticizing his team members for their failure in relationships and dating life in general. After they have explained themselves for their bad luck in relationships, House seems to be tired of listening to their excuses and asks them what the real reasons are calling them morons.

34) Dr. House: Can we stop trying to argue the premise and move on to figuring out why is it you’re all social morons? Dr. Taub: You do understand the irony here. You’re mocking us for avoiding relationships, but you can’t handle losing your doll. You’re spending all this time and energy interviewing for a new one. (17:2)

Dr. Taub gets irritated because of House’s pushing to talk about their private lives instead of their patient’s diagnosis insulting them at the same time, so he elaborates his response. Dr. Taub is criticizing House in the same manner House is. Instead of giving House a clear response, Dr. Taub is implying that House should also be blamed for not involving himself in his own relationships because he is preoccupied with other insignificant things. By doll, Dr. Taub refers to the girls House is interviewing for the position of his personal assistant. It may be the case that Dr. Taub is flouting the maxim of manner as well because his response contains prolixity and due to the allusion to other girls. However, House understands the implicatures as he agrees that it is stupid of him to be bothering with insignificant things and he also understands that Dr. Taub’s criticism is aimed at him so he agrees with and states that it is a stupid idea.

3.3.2. Maxim of quality

The maxim of quality says “do not say what you believe to be false or that for which you lack adequate evidence.” (Grice, 1975) A speaker can flout this maxim in various ways: by uttering something which clearly does not match what they actually mean, by the use of hyperbole, metaphor, mock politeness, banter or irony which is the most common tool House uses to express himself thus flouting the maxim of quality. The following examples illustrate this. In the following example, House is in the exam room in prison where he serving a sentence. Dr. Jessica Adams and Dr. Sykes are in the same room with a patient who has weird inexplicable symptoms and Jessica is trying to establish the diagnosis just when House notices the patient has got a subtle eyebrow loss and suggests it is a symptom of lupus, which Jessica opposes to by saying that lupus does not usually present in discoid or malar rash. Shocked at what he has just heard, House responds to her with an ironic remark:

35) Jessica: No, there’s no reason to search for a bodily rash, since lupus doesn’t usually present that way. Dr. House (shocked): Usually? Well, I guess that’s good enough for prison work. (1:6)

House does not actually believe what he is saying. Instead, he uses to irony to imply that Jessica is superficial and lacks broader knowledge outside books. Her body posture changes and she is ready to confront him although she seems like she does not know what to say, but House leaves the exam room. House meant to criticize Jessica and expects that she will understand the implicature, which she does as she becomes a bit mad. House also uses metaphors when flouting the maxim of quality as in the following example which shows House, Jessica and Dr. Park who are in his office discussing what caused their patient’s wife’s lymphoma. Jessica believes that it could have been caused by HTLV-1 virus which is spread sexually, so she proposes that their patient contracted the virus through having sex with his wife, to which House responds ironically:

36) Jessica: Her lymphoma could have been caused by a virus, HTLV-1, which our patient contracted through having sex with his wife. Dr. House: In other words, loyalty gave him cancer. (4:4)

House does not actually believe that loyalty can be the cause of any type of cancer. He is implying that being loyal to his wife was a stupid mistake their patient made, because his wife is the one who was unfaithful. The two doctors understand this implicature as they have approving looks on their faces, so they decide to test the patient’s wife. Another instance of successful use of irony by House is shown in the next example where House and Dr. Taub are talking about the mother of their teenage patient. The mother left the boy’s father to remarry and now Dr. Taub is criticizing her for her actions. However, House figures out his intention.

37) Dr. Taub: She traded up, married a lawyer, wants to forget the lowly circus clown. Dr. House: You’re defending the father because you feel like a jerk for baking buns in two different ovens. You want to believe the mythical connection excuses for being a man-slut… (6:5)

Showing his wit, House is playing with words using metaphors baking buns and ovens to allude to sex. He obviously does not mean what he is saying but he wants to mock and demean Dr. Taub because they are used to fooling each other around at work. Dr. Taub understands House’s intended implicature and feels bad about it, more so because House insults him calling him a man-slut, as it is very typical of House’s character to call people names. However, Dr. Taub only sighs and changes the topic of the conversation. Another rather funny example shows House’s relation with his patients. It is generally considered that a doctor is supposed to be highly professional and humane, at least according to his work ethics. However, in the case of House, it is exactly the opposite. As it will be seen in several examples, House tends to ridicule and insult his patients. Very rarely does he actually talk to them, but on those occasions he is rude and impolite. In the following example House is examining his patient, a teenage boy who is feeling sick because he drank too much because he is practicing for a sophomore class pong tournament. House comments on his symptoms adding an ironic remark.

38) Dr. House: Blurry vision, headache, bit of nausea and dizziness. I am completely baffled. (15:1)

House lies on purpose, he is not actually baffled or surprised. He is implying that it is actually very typical of a teenager to get drunk and experience those symptoms. However, the tone he uses to talk to his patient is very insulting and ironic. The boy feels hungover so he does not respond to House.

The following example illustrates how other characters, in this case Dr. Taub, use irony when they get provoked by House. Firstly, House is mocking Dr. Taub for naming his two baby girls Sophie and Sophia, but he is also scorning him for not being sure is he is the father to both girls as his ex-wife cheated on him. Dr. Taub is taking one of the babies from House and the baby starts crying. Then House asks him sarcastically if the girl has started crying because she does not know the difference between his father and other people, implying that Dr. Taub is irrelevant to the babies.

39) Dr. House: She wasn’t fussy like that when I was holding her. Maybe she likes the sound of my voice, which is weird because I have no genetic connection to her. Could it be she doesn’t know the difference? Dr. Taub: So many children of your own, no wonder you have such insight into my relationship with my babies. (6:4)

Dr. Taub does not mean what he is saying, but he is using sarcasm in mentioning so many babies because House obviously does not have children. He is implying that House should not be giving advice to people regarding raising children because he does not understand the connection. It might be that Dr. Taub is also flouting the maxim of manner because he wants to let House know that he is tired of constant mocking because he sounds weary and irritated at the same time. The next example illustrates House’s relation with his patients. He tends to avoid having any kind of contact with them, but when he does, the usual talk exchange is ironic and demeaning, like the following one. House comes into the room where the patient is lying. Since it is the first time the patient sees him, he wonders who House is.

40) The patient: Who are you? Dr. House: Well, considering the only people allowed in this room are your doctors and your family, I’m your long-lost cousin Ralph. So glad to finally meet you. (15:5)

In his response to the patient’s simple question, House is not truthful in uttering that he is the patient’s long-lost cousin Ralph and he is especially lying about being glad to finally meet him because it is common sense that House does not like meeting his patients. The whole statement contains irony and House is implying “How can you be so dumb as not to guess who I am since the hospital does not allow other people visiting patients except family and doctors?” Given that he could not be his cousin as the patient would know him and also he is not black as the patient, House wants him to understand this implicature, which the patient recognizes because he further wonders if House is going to do a check-up on him. Moreover, House is flouting the maxim of quantity in his reply to the patient because the utterance is longer providing more information than is required.

3.3.3. Maxim of relation

As Grice (1975) explains, the maxim of relation says “be relevant” staying pertinent to the current conversational process. In cases where the maxim of relation is flouted, a speaker expects that a hearer will understand and conclude what was not told and also to relate what was uttered to the previous utterances. The largest number of instances of flouting occurs in the case of the maxim of relation.

The example below illustrates how House uses sarcastic irony to feel superior to his co- workers but also to ridicule them. House has just got out of prison with the help of Dr. Foreman, who is now appointed as the Dean of Medicine at the hospital. House gets back to work, it is his first day after he came out and in this scene he and the Dean are waiting for an elevator in the hospital. They are talking about a new extraordinary case House has taken, which are the lungs that are supposed to be treated and transplanted to other patient. So, he is handing in the files to the Dean who acts very formally suggesting that House can drop them in his office. House responds sarcastically to him.

41) Dean: How about you drop it in your office? Dr. House: I completely understand and almost respect your desire to appear to be Dean of Medicine given that your title is Dean of Medicine. On the other hand… seriously? (2:1)

House flouts the maxim of relation with his sarcastic comment implying that given his new title, Dr. Foreman is still only his ex-colleague and there is no need for formality on his side. Also, House is implying that he will in fact continue disrespecting him no matter what upper position he takes. The Dean feels a bit agitated, rolls his eyes thus showing that he understands the implicature. However, he does not confront House because he is aware that opposing House would prolong the arguing which he tends to avoid, especially now that he got a new role in the clinic, which requires being professional. On the other hand, House is flouting the maxim of quantity as well because he is providing too much information to Dean’s simple suggestion.

In the following instance House enters Dr. Wilson’s office and starts talking about his dead patient as he is trying to establish diagnosis although he is not allowed to do so by the Dean who threatened House with jail if he does not stick to one case only. However, Dr. Wilson is busy and seems to be unconcerned.

42) Dr. House: His kidneys died, they transfused, his lungs died, he died. Dr. Wilson: Have you seen Bride of the Monster? I just got the Ed Wood box set. Dr. House: What if the chicken was the egg? What if the lung involvement came first? Dr. Wilson: I don’t really care about the movie, I just don’t want to indulge your… Dr. House: Lupus… Dr. Wilson: because this is a bad idea, House. (7:1)

The whole dialogue between House and Dr. Wilson consists of incongruous utterances. House would like to talk about his patient and would also like Dr. Wilson’s help in diagnosing this very specific and rare case. However, Dr. Wilson is flouting the maxim by asking House out of the context question implying that he wants to avoid talking about House’s case. House does not spare him of non-verbal, facial reaction, he looks at him very seriously, but he keeps talking about his patient. Dr. Wilson is also implying that he thinks it is a bad idea that House works on the present case behind Dean’s back as it would cost him his parole, but House decides to ignore him maybe because he is too confident assuming that he is too important for the clinic and would not be imprisoned again no matter what he does. In the next example House, Dr. Park, Jessica and Dr. Thirteen are in House’s office discussing their patient’s condition which worsened after some ill treatment. All the doctors except House are trying to conclude what happened to the patient that caused his current condition. Jessica is supposing what might happen and is looking for affirmation from House.

43) Jessica: Arrhythmia, muscle tremors, and yes, mental changes. If his heart doesn’t rupture, he’s liable to rip it out and give it away. Dr. House: You know, the ‘down’ vibe in here is totally ruining my Charlie’s Angels fantasy. And that haircut isn’t helping, either. (3:10)

House gives the doctors very unsuited feedback trying to change the topic of the conversation but also to be funny and mock Dr. Park’s haircut. He feels that the situation with their patient

40 is not that serious to make the atmosphere so unpleasant. The three doctors seem a bit agitated for his irrelevant remark, especially Dr. Park who feels insulted and uneasy, but they continue talking about the patient as they seem to be used to House’s constant ridiculing his team members so they usually ignore him.

3.3.4. Maxim of manner

The maxim of manner states that a speaker needs to “avoid obscurity of expression, avoid ambiguity, be brief, avoid unnecessary prolixity and be orderly” in order to be cooperative (Grice, 1975). The maxim is flouted when the speaker is not clear or ambiguous in his/her responses. Being very intelligent but also arrogant, House tends to play with words and speak ambiguously to a great extent flouting the maxim of manner while expecting that his interlocutors will understand him by inference. In the next example House is in the exam room with his patient named Ethan, analyzing his hands. Ethan has got odd substance on his fingers and he thinks it stems from frostbite. However, he has not been out in the cold, which he explains to House and after House tells him that it definitely does not look like frostbite, Ethan asks him if he is serious, to which House responds sarcastically.

44) Ethan: You serious? Dr. House: With some difficulty. (8:2)

Ethan, a little confused, does not seem to understand at first whether House is sure about his claim or not. The implicature House intended is that he is trying hard not to laugh at his patient’s stupid questions. It takes the patient a little while to recognize this implicature because House is being ambiguous and when he does he feels ashamed. Another example also represents flouting the maxim of manner. After hiring a hooker to pretend to be a social worker who could talk to his underage patient, House is being questioned by the Dean for the reasons of doing it. Moreover, the Dean was not aware that House treated an underage patient and is reprimanding him for it because Dean’s new position in the clinic allows him to give orders. House replies with a sarcastic remark.

45) The Dean: You should have told me that you were treating an underage clinic patient. Dr. House: I was giving you the gift of deniability. (10:2)

Given the fact that the Dean has not been officially informed about the situation, House is sarcastically implying that now he is able to deny it and the Dean is not certain whether he should be thankful for the gift or not. Instead, he feels mad and House leaves his office.

The following situation shows Dr. Wilson and House who are in a café talking about Dr. Wilson’s patient who admitted not having intercourse with her partner, which intrigued Dr. Wilson to find out more about the case.

46) Dr. Wilson: You know that close to 1% of the population identifies as asexual? Dr. House: We really got to get you laid. If I have to plow that furrow myself, so be it. (9:4)

Since House does not share the knowledge of the patient with Dr. Wilson who cures the patient, he assumes that Dr. Wilson is reading the magazine article to help himself since he has not had a girlfriend in a long time. So House gives Dr. Wilson an ironic response. However, House is flouting the maxim because instead of saying that Dr. Wilson is becoming hopeless in terms of his dating life, House is offering help by telling him that he could find a one-night stand for him, which makes Dr. Wilson frustrated and nervous and he tells House that he is not trying to figure out what is wrong with him but he has a patient who is asexual. In the instance below House, Dr. Park and Dominika are in Dr. Wilson’s office practicing interview questions for Dr. House and Dominika’s fake marriage that they have to defend in front of the U.S. government so that Dominika gets the green card and stays in America. Dr. Wilson comes into the office and hears that House is giving a too elaborate explanation of Dominika’s supposedly past friendships.

47) Dr. Wilson: The right answer is the wrong answer. No husband would pay that much attention to his wife’s friend dramas. Dr. Park: Haven’t you been divorced three times? (13:3)

Dr. Park asks Dr. Wilson a rather sarcastic and harsh question implying that since he has failed in his previous marriages, he should be embarrassed for sharing his thoughts and making conclusions about other people’s marital problems. What makes this scene humorous is the fact that House’s marriage is unreal but still they are all pretty much seriously involved in the matter. Dr. Park flouts the maxim to remind Dr. Wilson of why his marriages failed, due to his lack of attention and involvement in his past marriages, which he understands and feels a bit ashamed.

3.4. Multiple flouting of the maxims

This section is dedicated to a more detailed explanation of several instances which show overlapping of two maxims in a single utterance or several utterances flouted by the same speaker.

In the following dialogue House and his colleague Dr. Wilson are in a toy store buying a present for Dr. Wilson’s son. Namely, Dr. Wilson has been told by House that his ex- girlfriend Beth was pregnant with his child when they broke up so now he has an 11-year-old son he is about to meet. Dr. Wilson is choosing presents that House disapproves of making him nervous. Moreover, House is suggesting that his son will be more of a burden than contentment for Dr. Wilson who is opposing House wondering if his son is actually a good child.

48) Dr. Wilson: What if he’s a good kid? Dr. House: He’s a kid. Best you can hope for is he’s a nightmare. (16:1)

House is flouting two maxims in his response to Dr. Wilson. He does not actually mean what he is saying but is using irony to tease Dr. Wilson for his irresponsible lack of care in the past and also to irritate him and provoke a violent reaction in order to prove that he would not make a great father although Dr. Wilson aspires to have a family of his own, so quality is flouted by House. On the other hand, by comparing a child to a nightmare House is indicating that Dr. Wilson is too ingenuous to think that having children is an easy task but House is also expressing his view of parenting which he considers to be a rather dreadful thing, so manner

43 is also flouted by House. Dr. Wilson understands the implicatures as his reaction is rough as expected by House and he recognizes that House sees him as a naïve person who would credulously take a risk without showing good judgment, which Dr. Wilson opposes saying that he is aware things between him and his son could go very bad. The next example represents a discourse between House and Dr. Jessica Adams who is doing her best to focus on the patient while House is constantly trying to change the topic of the conversation. Firstly, House implies that Jessica needs to work on her anger management as he overheard her and their patient’s daughter talking about the company that the patient fraudulently runs and House thinks Jessica was too confrontational and crossed the doctor- patient line that should be professional. However, Jessica keeps getting back to the patient suggesting his symptoms.

49) Dr. House: I heard about your conversation with the patient’s daughter. You were hostile. Jessica: Well, their company is making a decision I strongly disagree with. Dr. House: Yet you were anything but courteous to the racists and rapists in prison. Those guys made decisions you supported? (4:2)

House tries to change the topic of their conversation flouting the maxim of relation in mentioning Jessica’s attitude and behavior towards the prisoners she used to cure. He is trying to point out that she needs to control her anger and keep professional approach to her job and her patients but also to be apathetic, just like he is at all times, so relation is flouted. Furthermore, House is using a statement to make a question which he does not believe in flouting the maxim of quality as well. He is being ironic to mock Jessica’s double standards as she tends to show both civility and rudeness when she feels personally attacked or when she disagrees with her patients. Jessica recognizes his intention and keeps concentrating on the patient’s symptoms but seems to be irritated and mad.

In the following dialogue we can see that the relations between House and his co-workers are not as smooth and collaborative as they should be because he tends to disrespect his inferiors, which makes them apprehensive and uneasy in cases when they would gladly defy him. Dr. Park feels disregarded as a doctor on House’s part as he does not always accept her ideas and proposals in terms of diagnosing their patients, so Dr. Park wonders why this is the case. She

44 is in the laboratory with Dr. Taub after an argument with House and is wondering if she is being paranoid for suggesting the diagnosis for their mentally ill patient.

50) Dr. Park: So what do you think? Is the patient paranoid or am I? Dr. Taub: I don’t think stockpiling weapons is the most reasoned response, but given what I’ve seen at Bloomingdales on Black Friday, I wouldn’t say it rises to the level of mental illness. (8:5)

Dr. Taub’s response to Dr. Park’s straightforward question is overly verbose, more than is required flouting the maxim of quantity. Additionally, he is trying to avoid answering her questions in bringing up the patient’s unusual habit of collecting weapons and redirecting the topic of the conversation to the patient and other irrelevant things, implying that she should not care so much about what House tells her. Dr. Taub is flouting the maxim of relation as well. Dr. Park appears to be desperate as she nods, sighs and keeps turning the focus on herself as if she needs to be acknowledged by everyone, not just by House. In the scene that preceded the dialogue below, House is in the prison hall stopped by one of the prisoners who heard House is a doctor and is complaining about the pains in his elbows and knees because he would like to be advised about which medication to take. However, House is pretty much weary and not particularly interested in the prisoner’s inquiry.

51) The prisoner: Hey, House? I got these weird pains in my elbows and in my knees… Dr. House: You know what’s weirder is how the clinic is a large room, and you somehow confused me with it. Well, to be fair, I am large… (1:4)

House is flouting two maxims in his feedback to the prisoner’s complaint. Firstly, House is comparing himself to the clinic referring to his profession. Using sarcasm, he is implying that he would not like to be asked anything doctor-related, especially because he is aware that his parole is being questioned by the jury and that his entire career is potentially endangered, thus flouting the maxim of manner. It is also implied that he does not like talking to his patients. Additionally, House is trying to avoid the subject and answering the prisoner directly, adding an irrelevant detail – I am large… alluding to certain body parts and generating humor so he is flouting the maxim of relation too. The prisoner recognizes that House’s intention is to evade

45 answering him so he decides not to comment anything further and looks a bit perplexed at first. House is in the prison cell examining a patient, who is also one of the prisoners, and who starts talking about his girlfriend named Nicole. He is hoping that she is waiting for him outside. The patient is showing House her painting and is wondering what House thinks of it yet he is not aware that he is boring House who specifically dislikes involving himself in any kind of interaction with his patients.

52) The prisoner: You don’t believe me? Dr. House: Belief implies a level of giving a crap that I am never going to achieve. (1:7)

In his rather rude reply to the patient’s question, House is flouting two maxims. Instead of giving him a yes/no response, House is implying that he does not actually care about anything personally related to the patient. In addition, he is implying that he has not even paid attention to what the patient has been telling him about, flouting the maxim of manner. On the other hand, House is being too verbose given that he was not required to provide too much information so he is flouting the maxim of quantity as well. House’s intention is to discredit the patient, which he manages because the patient feels sad and downgraded, which means that House’s intended implicatures are successfully recognized. The dialogue below illustrates the doctor – patient relation that is supposed to be ethical and empathetic on the doctor’s side, but in the case of House it is quite the opposite. Namely, in this scene House’s patient has a special sort of migraine and the team is trying to figure out what it stems from. House is in the patient’s room with his daughter diagnosing the patient with the specific type of migraine which excludes headaches but the symptoms the patient exhibits are typical of a regular headache. House calls it Alice in Wonderland, joking.

53) Dr. House: It’s called Alice in Wonderland. The patient’s daughter: Seriously? Dr. House: I never joke. Good news is it’s treatable with medication. Bad news is it can make you very, very late for very important dates. I sometimes joke. (4:1)

House is flouting two maxims in his answer to the patient’s daughter’s inquiry. He does not actually mean what he is saying that he never or sometimes jokes, because it is just the opposite. He is being ironic in order to mock the patient and he would like both of them to realize his intention, flouting the maxim of quality. In addition, House provides more details than necessary trying to prove that he is actually sometimes funny so he is flouting the maxim of quantity at the same time. The patient and his daughter feel a bit uncertain at first thinking of what to respond but House leaves the room so they do not say anything else.

3.5. Discussion of the results

This section deals with the discussion of the outcomes of flouting the four conversational maxims in the series used for the present analysis. The examples used in this paper stem from the TV talk of the series “House M.D.” which while fictional, are still reminiscent of the real-life day-to-day interactions. As opposed to natural conversations, interactions in movies and TV series are created to be understood by outside observers, or the viewers, which makes these meta-recipients of the given talk exchanges viable to speculate the intended meanings of the characters’ utterances. The instances (see Appendix) are abundant in irony and sarcasm, predominantly utilized by the main character Dr. Gregory House. It can be said that both notions are a tool that the characters use in the series in the many instances of flouting the four maxims in order to create a certain communicative/pragmatic effect. One of the effects produced is to criticize, in which case the speaker directs that criticism at the hearer while causing certain discomfort and agitation on the part of the hearer. This can be seen in the 37) instance where House criticizes his colleague Dr. Taub for not knowing if he is the father to both his baby girls, flouting the maxim of quality. As a result, Dr. Taub has bad feelings about it and feels ridiculed, so it can be said this pragmatic effect is achieved. Additionally, another communicative effect created as a result of flouting the maxims is to provoke a reaction of the hearer when the speaker actually means what he is literally saying while speaking sarcastically at the same time, as Sperber and Wilson (1981) explain. This is presented in the 31) example where House is flouting the maxim of quantity in his response to the prisoner. Although House is being sarcastic, he also indicates that the literal reading of the utterance is what he believes in because he would be safe if his cellmate regularly took his medications.

When it comes to the verbal humor being one of the communicative effects, it is ensuing as one of the characters flouts a maxim in several examples. As Dolitsky (1983) points out, the interpretation of the hidden context must come at the end of a speech act. The characters, especially House, tend to deliberately withhold the information until the very end for the purpose of making it a “surprise” because, as Attardo (2017) claims, that surprising moment that is built up until the punch line is exactly what provokes humor. This can be seen in the example 41) where House is ridiculing the new Dean of Medicine and his former team member, Eric Foreman, for his unnecessary formality. Not until the very end of the Dean’s talk does House say anything, but then after he derisively compliments the Dean, House even laughs to emphasize his communicative purpose flouting the maxim of relation at the same time. Also, the humor of sarcasm and irony may be seen in the non-verbal aspects of speech and facial expressions as there is often a mismatch between a semantic content of an utterance and the tone of the character, his/her gesture or the accompanying facial expression. In case of the TV series used for this analysis, the tone employed by House mostly is that of superiority, especially when he talks to his patients, which happens very rarely as he prefers to avoid it. Other non-verbal expressions are rolling their eyes, frowning or just looking very seriously, in cases when the hearers understand the intended implicature but decide not to answer or comment anything further, especially when sarcasm or irony is involved in the preceding utterance. Furthermore, the characters look and feel stressed, agitated or frustrated mainly when talking to House whose intention is to make them feel just like that. In terms of sarcastic irony, it is used by the speakers to criticize and disparage their interlocutors while amusing other hearers as well, as pointed by Dynel (2013). The aim is to create a communicative effect which is to make the hearer feel embarrassed or humiliated. This can be seen in Dr. Park’s question to Dr. Wilson in the example 47), in which case she is disparaging him by pointing out his failure in his past marriages, but at the same time she is entertaining House and Dominika, who are in the same office. To illustrate the occurrence of flouting the maxims separately as well as their overlapping, please see the tables below:

Maxim Quantity Quality Relation Manner Number of 11 16 23 21 examples Table 1: The occurrence of flouting the four conversational maxims in the series

Maxims which overlapped Number of examples Relation and Manner 3 Relation and Quantity 6 Relation and Quality 5 Quality and Quantity 2 Manner and Quality 9 Manner and Quantity 4 Table 2: The occurrence of overlapping of the four conversational maxims in the series

As it was anticipated, most characters flouted some of the maxims but the majority of examples are flouted by the title character being the most interesting and the most intelligent in the series. Also, by being uncooperative in a given talk exchange, House has managed to generate an implicature or even several implicatures in a single utterance with the intention to elicit a reaction in a hearer. The language he uses, which is full of irony, sarcasm and ambiguity helps him initiate a negative pragmatic effect most typically. It seems that the way House communicates with others, such as by relying on certain face-saving acts like when he flouts the maxim of quality to tell a lie, goes line in line with Goffman’s (1959) impression management theory as House puts on a social mask to shield himself from other characters as revealing might affect their view of him. This section has dealt with the relationship between flouting the maxims and the effects that occur as a result. What follows in the next section are the concluding remarks of the paper.

4. Conclusion

The final chapter of this paper serves for final reflections and conclusions. The first chapter of this paper contains the subject and aims of the research, which leads to the second chapter that deals with the theoretical background essential for analysis of the selected dialogues. Although the core of the theoretical chapter is Grice’s Cooperative Principle (1975) accompanied by Austin’s Speech Act Theory (1962), it is further developed and elaborated by many books and papers which contribute to the understanding of the basic principles of communication. The basic terms, the four conversational maxims and the types of speech acts are explained. Also, it is described how the flouting of the maxims occurs. The concepts of implicatures, the verbal humor as well as the notions and principles underlying the notions of sarcasm, irony and deception are represented. The third chapter is the most important one because it consists of the analysis of the selected dialogues from the TV series “House M.D.” which serve as the representations of flouting the Gricean Cooperative Principle. As the results show, almost all of the flouting occurs by the witty doctor Gregory House. The results also show that the most flouted maxims are the ones of manner and relation, which can be seen in the Table 1 in the previous section. There are also a few instances of overlapping of the maxims, which can be seen in Table 2 in the previous section. As it has been expected, with the use of irony and sarcasm different communicative effects are created, such as verbal humor, outrage, surprise/shock and demeaning. Irony is used to a large extent by House to express superiority or to downgrade an interlocutor, who in most cases recognizes this intention on the part of the speaker. Sarcasm is used for criticism and as a tool for insulting the interlocutor. This paper is specific in that it describes the relationship between flouting the Gricean conversational maxims and the effects that result from this flouting with the use of irony and sarcasm, the dominant characteristics of House’s character, in the final season of the series. However, considering it is the last season most of the characters understand each other. Therefore, the reaction to irony and sarcasm utilized by House is left out. For future research, his use of irony and sarcasm and the hearers’ reactions could be explored in the previous seasons of the series. Also, it would be interesting to analyze dialogues containing ambiguity, puns and word play from the point of view of translation to Serbian or some other language and do the critical analysis of the translations between two languages.

References

Attardo, S. (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, New York. Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Brown, P. Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Colston, H.L. (2000). On Necessary Conditions for Verbal Irony Comprehension. Pragmatics & Cognition 8 (2), 277–324. Colston, H.L. (2017). Irony and Sarcasm. In S. Attardo (Ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor (234 – 249). Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, New York. Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. Routledge, London and New York. Dolitsky, M. (1983). Humor and the unsaid. Journal of Pragmatics 7, 39–48. Dynel, M. (2013). When does irony tickle the hearer?: Towards capturing the characteristics of humorous irony. In: Marta Dynel (ed.), Developments in Linguistic Humor Theory (pp. 289 – 321). John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Dynel, M. (2016). Comparing and combining covert and overt truthfulness: On lying, deception, irony and metaphor. Pragmatics & Cognition 23(1), 174–208. Dynel, M. (2017). The Irony of Irony: Irony Based on Truthfulness. Corpus Pragmatics 1, 3- 36. Published online: 11 January 2017 at Springerlink.com Gibbs, R.W. (2007). On the Psycholinguistics of Sarcasm. In R. W. Gibbs, Jr. and H. L. Colston (Eds.) Irony in Language and Thought: A Cognitive Science Reader (173 – 200). Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, New York. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books, USA. Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds),. Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41 – 58). Academic Press, New York. Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics. Second Edition. Arnold, London. Halupka Rešetar, S. (2019). Exploring Communicative Competence in English as a Foreign Language: A Student’s Resource Book. Filozofski fakultet, Novi Sad. Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, New York. Jorgensen, J. (1994). The functions of sarcastic irony in speech. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 613-634. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman. Levinson, S. (1991). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Panić Kavgić, O. (2019). Učtivost pri neslaganju i slaganju u engleskom i srpskom jeziku. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet. Dostupno na: http://digitalna.ff.uns.ac.rs/sadrzaj/2019/978-86-6065-535-8 Raskin, V. (1984). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dodrecht, Holland. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1981). Irony and the use-mention distinction. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 295–318). Academic, New York. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. Taylor & Francis, LLC, New York. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Appendix

This section contains the list of all selected episodes ordered chronologically and coded in the following way: the number of episode: the number of example from a given episode. The instances which represent flouting a maxim are bolded and the type of maxim is noted.

1:1 The jury is interrogating House in prison. They are trying to find out what the reasons for his lack of responsibility at work are. The judge: We need you to show remorse. Dr. House: Is that how our system works? Release the best actors? I shudder to think what that world would be like. - The maxim of relation The judge (frustrated): You drove your car into your ex-girlfriend’s house and then fled the country for three months.

1:2 House is in the hall of the prison along with other prisoners. They are waiting in a row to take their medicine from a pharmacist. A prisoner: Why you keep helping him out? Dr. House: Yeah, why would I wanna make sure that my homicidal cellmate is taking the right anti-psychotics? – The maxim of quantity (The prisoner frowns.)

1:3 A nurse is calling the prisoners to step up to her to take their medicine. The nurse: Mendelson? Dr. House: He’s on 80 milligrams of propranolol. This is 40. The nurse: You’re right. Sorry. Mendelson: No worries. I like my nurses naughty. – The maxim of manner (The nurse looks mad and agitated.)

1:4 House is stopped by a prisoner who is complaining of his pains and would like House to advise him on which medication to take. The prisoner: Hey, House? I got these weird pains in my elbows and in my knees… Dr. House: You know what’s weirder is how the clinic is a large room, and you somehow confused me with it. Well, to be fair, I am large… – The maxims of manner and relation (The prisoner looks confused.)

1:5 House was threatened by one of the prisoners who stole his tuna. When he comes into the toilet to mop the floor he comes across a prisoner who is urinating and seems ill-tempered and aggressive. A prisoner: I heard you’re on that short time, House? Dr. House: If you like tuna, you’re a little late. – The maxim of relation (The prisoner looks puzzled but keeps urinating in front of House.) The prisoner: I want your stereo and your headphones.

1:6 House is in the prison’s exam room with Jessica and Dr. Sykes. House comments on their patient’s symptoms. Dr. House: There’s subtle eyebrow loss. It’s lupus. Jessica: Well, there’s no discoid or malar rash on his face. Dr. House: Which would be dispositive if he was just a giant head. Dr. Sykes: He’s got a point, but I’ll let you make the call. Jessica: No, there’s no reason to search for a bodily rash, since lupus doesn’t usually present that way. Dr. House (shocked): Usually? Well, I guess that’s good enough for prison work. – The maxim of quality (Jessica looks ready to confront House but she does not.)

1:7 House is examining a patient, who is also a prisoner, to check whether he has got a rash while the patient is talking about his girlfriend he drew. Her name is Nicole and he thinks that she is waiting for him outside. House is suspicious about her actually waiting for him and he is pretty much uninterested in what the prisoner is telling him. The prisoner: You don’t believe me? Dr. House: Belief implies a level of giving a crap that I am never going to achieve. – The maxims of manner and quantity (The prisoner looks confused.)

1:8 Jessica is telling House that she checked his working history to find out what led to him being in prison. Jessica: I checked you out. You were a pretty big deal. What went wrong? Dr. House: Something very obvious and very boring. – The maxim of quantity

Jessica: Drug related? Forging prescriptions? Dr. House: You’re good. Just like lupus boy will be, when you start him on prednisone.

1:9 House is in the exam room in the prison talking to Jessica and reassuring her to believe and establish his diagnosis for her patient. Jessica: Why are you so sure I’m gonna do what you say? Dr. House: Because you’re a smart, old money trust-fund girl who took this job because your liberal ideology makes you want to make a difference, but you’re already getting bored and this is interesting. - The maxim of quantity (Jessica looks confused and a bit irritated)

1:10 House is suggesting a treatment for Jessica’s patient and she clearly disagrees with him. Dr. House: Well, but if he throws a clot and strokes out, you can use the x-ray to do the autopsy. Start him on blood thinners. Jessica: Very interesting practice you must have run. No need for tests, no need for proof? Where are you going? - The maxim of quality Dr. House: To the proof store. (Jessica laughs to her chin.)

2:1 House and the Dean are waiting for an elevator. House is supposed to go to see his ‘patient’, the lungs. He is handing in the files to the Dean. Dr. House: Take this. Dean: How about you drop it in your office? Dr. House: I completely understand and almost respect your desire to appear to be Dean of Medicine given that your title is Dean of Medicine. On the other hand… seriously? – The maxim of relation and quantity (The Dean rolls his eyes.)

2:2 House accompanies other doctors upon his return to the clinic to work on a very specific case and they are talking about the diagnosis. Dr. House: Any alveolar exudate? A doctor: No. The lungs are dry.

Dr. House: Well, it’s not ARDS. It’s the autumn. Tick borne disease season. Ehrichiosis causing bronchiolitis. You’ll appreciate that I left the “idiots” subtextual. – The maxim of relation Dr. Wilson, a bit uneasy: Blood smear was clear, and we “idiots” treated with broad spectrum antibiotics.

2:3 House and Dr. Park are getting out of the car while it is raining outside. They are going to visit their dead patient’s parents. Dr. Park: We probably shouldn’t be turning up unpronounced like this. Their son just died. Dr. House: Bright side. They’re probably up weeping. – The maxims of quality and manner (Dr. Park does not react.)

2:4 House and Dr. Park are talking about her private life. She confesses that she does not have a boyfriend, she is afraid of telling her parents that her ex-boss grabbed her behind at work because she might lose her job which she likes very much. Dr. House: Your parents know your call schedule? Dr. Park: I live with them. – The maxim of manner Dr. House, looking surprised: Right… no issues there.

2:5 House is being questioned by the Dean because he disobeyed the Dean’s order not to go to the patient’s house to interrogate more about the case he is working on. Dean: Those consultants in my office are only costing the hospital 100 bucks every minute I keep them waiting. Why didn’t you just tell me what you were doing? Dr. House: I knew you were very busy being vaguely important. – The maxims of manner and quality Dean: I might have cleared it with the cops.

2:6 House is telling his team what the next steps in their patient’s treatment are. Dr. House: We need to hit it harder. We need to carpet bomb, blitzkrieg. We need the nuclear option. – The maxim of manner Dr. Park: At some point you’re going to say that we need to radiate, right? Dr. House: See, the metaphors work.

3:1 House is in the hospital’s toilet shaving and cutting his hair. Dr. Park sees him. Dr. Park: Why am I watching you cut your hair? Dr. House: If I do it at home, I’m the one who has to clean it up. – The maxim of manner Dr. Park: Does a friend watch you where it’s happening and wonder why? Dr. House: New life, new look.

3:2 House and his team are talking about their patient Benjamin who is a very keen donator. Dr. Park: He has one pair of pants. Jessica: Most people with his kind of money are commissioning oil paintings of their Yorkshire terrier. Benjamin is sacrificing his own comfort to help others. Dr. House: That’s because helping others is his Yorkie oil painting. Jessica: That’s good. Not sick. Dr. Park: That’s naïve and sick. You really want to improve things? You do it through policy. This guy empties his pockets, what really changes? Dr. House: That’s right, all those babies with aids, they’re just using us. – The maxim of manner (The two doctors look shocked.)

3:3 Dean is inquiring about House’s future strategy at work. Dean: What’s your evil plan? Dr. House: I object to your cynicism. – The maxim of relation Dean: It’s been earned. Dr. House: That’s what I object to. The new Dean of Medicine has an ethical obligation to come in with a completely open mind about all employees, thus letting me blithely run roughshod for at least four weeks.

3:4 Dr. Park is telling House about their patient Benjamin’s diagnosis. Dr. Park: Patient got tachycardic to 185. We pushed 18 milligrams adenosive. There’s definitely something wrong with him. Dr. House: Which is awesome. Now there’s something to cure, which means there’s something to be disproportionately financially grateful for. – The maxims of relation and quality (Dr. Park ignores him.)

3:5 House is coming into Dr. Wilson’s office. Dr. Wilson: What do you want, House? Dr. House: Hypothetical – If I am offered oral sex from a sexaholic, do I have to decline? Don’t answer yet. Saying no will cause both of us pain. Saying yes will cause both of us pleasure. – The maxim of relation Dr. Wilson: You can’t take sex from a sexaholic. You can’t give booze to an alcoholic, and you can’t take this guy’s money.

3:6 Dr. Wilson is trying to get House to help him figure out diagnosis for his patient. Dr. Wilson: Got a patient with end stage renal disease. Her heart can’t support dialysis. She needs a transplant, but… you tuned out as soon as it stopped being about you, didn’t you? Dr. House: What? Dr. Wilson: I gotta go. Dr. House: It’s all moot. Patient probably has long QT. Probably just a really, really decent person. They exist, right? – The maxim of relation Dr. Wilson: You can’t take the money, House.

3:7 Jessica tries to do Dr. Park a favor. She wants to give her a pair of shoes as a gift because she would like to prove that Dr. Park can willingly accept presents. Dr. Park: You do know I punched the last person that pissed me off? Jessica: Was it Santa? – The maxims of manner and quality (Dr. Park seems frustrated.)

3:8 Dr. Wilson and House are talking about their patient whose mental condition is worsening. Dr. Wilson: House, she really needs this kidney. Dr. House: He’s not better. His mental status is declining. Dr. Wilson: Or he’s doing an amazing thing for another human being? Dr. House: I thought it was an ethical no-brainer that we can’t take stuff from sick people. – The maxim of manner Dr. Wilson: I changed my mind.

3:9 House is in the exam room with a boy who has got some inexplicable rash on his body and with the boy’s mom.

Dr. House: It is in the water. The boy’s mom: He’s allergic to chlorine? Dr. House: No, he’s allergic to summer lilac. The boy’s mom: That’s my lotion. And it’s not in the pool. Dr. House: No, it’s on the palms of his hands. In the pool is the neighbor’s daughter. Or the neighbor’s hot wife. Here’s some lube (giving him a condom). Sorry. Too late for your eyesight. – The maxim of relation (The mother looks surprised and the boy feels embarrassed.)

3:10 House, Dr. Park, Jessica and Dr. Thirteen are in House’s office discussing their patient’s condition after some treatment. Jessica: Arrhythmia, muscle tremors, and yes, mental changes. If his heart doesn’t rupture, he’s liable to rip it out and give it away. Dr. House: You know, the ‘down’ vibe in here is totally ruining my Charlie’s Angels fantasy. And that haircut isn’t helping, either. – The maxims of relation and manner (The girls feel a bit agitated.)

3:11 House is talking with his patient whilst trying to assure him that his donations are silly Dr. House: You love your family. You want them back. Your altruism was always a symptom. Benjamin: No, it wasn’t. I’m still gonna… Dr. House: Keep less? How much less? Just enough to spoil your kids? Benjamin: No. Dr. House: But they need it more than people with TB or children in Indonesia with no eyes? Diagnosticians with hearts of gold? – The maxim of relation Benjamin: I don’t wanna give you money because you’re an ass.

4:1 House is in the patient’s room with his daughter. The patient has a sort of migraine and they are trying to figure out what it stems from. House is diagnosing him with a specific kind of migraine which excludes headache. Dr. House: It’s called Alice in Wonderland. The patient’s daughter: Seriously? Dr. House: I never joke. Good news is it’s treatable with medication. Bad news is it can make you very, very late for very important dates. I sometimes joke. – The maxims of quality and quantity

(The patient and his daughter look confused.)

4:2 Jessica is trying to focus on the patient while House is constantly trying to change the topic. Dr. House: Adams is the one who needs to deal with her anger. Jessica: Myelodysplastic syndrome. Dr. House: I heard about your conversation with the patient’s daughter. You were hostile. Jessica: Well, their company is making a decision I strongly disagree with. Dr. House: Yet you were anything but courteous to the racists and rapists in prison. Those guys made decisions you supported? – The maxims of relation and quality Jessica: Myelodysplastic syndrome. Dr. House: I’m guessing it has something to do with the funeral you attended yesterday morning.

4:3 House, Dean, Dr. Park and Jessica are in the Dean’s office talking about the patient’s diagnosis. They get up from their seats and House grabs Dean’s behind. Dean: What are you doing? Dr. House: Holding your ass. You really didn’t know? Dr. Park: House…? Dr. House: I was trying to help you out of here. I figured for sure he’d punch me in the face thus proving it’s a natural response. My God, you have superhuman discipline. And glutes. - The maxim of relation Dean: Get your hands off me. Dr. Park, looking worried and stressed: Sorry. Dean: Go!

4:4 House, Jessica and Dr. Park are in House’s office discussing their patient’s condition. Jessica: I had a thought. Other than the fact that loyalty is the basis of all meaningful relationships. She said that her mother died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. What if she was misdiagnosed? Dr. House: Dutch chocolate’s not bad. Gotta give them that. Jessica: Her lymphoma could have been caused by a virus, HTLV-1, which our patient contracted through having sex with his wife. Dr. House: In other words, loyalty gave him cancer. – The maxim of quality

(The doctors have an approving look on their faces.)

4:5 Dr. Park is complaining to the Dean about House’s ill treatment as she thinks sh deserves more respect. Dr. Park: Um… I bet House $100 that I wouldn’t get fired after my disciplinary hearing. Ever since then he’s been acting like he’s actually trying to get me fired. Dr. Wilson: That’s because he is actually trying to get you fired. Dr. Park: Does he hate me? – The maxim of relation Dr. Wilson: Not sure that’s relevant to the equation.

5:1 Dean welcomes Dr. Chase and Dr. Taub who return to work in House’s diagnostic team. Dean: As the new Dean of Medicine, I’d like to personally welcome all of our new employees and ask, why the hell do you want to come back? Dr. Chase: Tired of surfing. – The maxim of quantity Dean: He hasn’t changed. Dr. Chase: And neither has the job, right?

5:2 Dean, Dr. Chase and Dr. Taub are talking about Dean’s new role in the clinic. Dr. Chase: We still get to do crazy crap? Dr. Taub: Save people’s lives instead of just their noses? Dean: About that, about the crazy stuff… Dr. Taub: Here we go. He’s gone from ally to enemy. Dr. Chase: He has no choice. He’s the boss now. He has to be professional. Has to base his decisions on what’s best for the entire hospital. We can’t take it personally. – The maxim of manner Dean, ironically: Couldn’t have said it better myself.

5:3 Dr. Park and Dr. Taub meet for the first time in House’s office. Dr. Park: Dr. Park. You’re a lot taller than I thought you’d be. Dr. Taub: And I look forward to working with you, as well. – The maxim of quality Dr. House: He’s lying.

5:4 Jessica, Dr. Chase and their patient are talking about the events that preceded to the patient's hospitalization.

Jessica: We think you were having sex, but memory loss could also be a symptom. Maybe we should ask your wife? – The maxim of quality The patient: Don’t. I did something stupid last night, but it was a one-time thing. You have no idea how bad I feel about it. Jessica: Your guilt is between you and your wife, we just need to k now what happened.

5:5 House enters Dr. Wilson’s office to inquire about where Dr. Taub’s babies might be. Dr. House: Chase and Taub are back! Dr. Wilson: You want me to pick up an ice-cream cake? Dr. House: I also think that Taub has brought his little taubettes into work with him today. Dr. Wilson: Why would he do that? Dr. House: Because I didn’t give him time to do anything else. Then I started wondering who’d be sappy enough to watch them for him? – The maxims of relation and quantity Dr. Wilson: They’re not here.

5:6 House is trying to figure out where Dr. Taub’s babies are. Dr. House: What’s that I smell, friend? Dr. Wilson: I understand your confusion. I was eating a baby for lunch and… I have a massive migraine. Will you please just go away? - The maxims of quality and relation Dr. House: Oh…. There’s one more thing. (spreads the curtains to see the two baby girls)

5:7 Dr. Wilson is taking care of Dr. Taub’s two baby girls in the hospital and the Dean encounters him pushing a baby carriage. Dr. Wilson: If you ever hear me mention anything about wanting to have kids, feel free to punch me in the liver. Dean: Why? Dr. Wilson stops for a second: Like Satan’s alarm clock. - The maxims of manner and quality

5:8 Dr. Park and Dr. Taub are in an old building passing by two strangers who look at her judgingly. Dr. Park: She thinks I’m a prostitute on her turf. Showing weakness is what gets you killed. Dr. Taub: Why would she think you’re a prostitute? Dr. Park: I’m in a dump with a guy almost twice my age. – The maxim of manner

Dr. Taub: How old do you think I am? (Dr. Taub sighs and they enter the apartment.)

5:9 Dr. Chase is asking Jessica about her love life. Dr. Chase: So who cheated on you? Jessica: We just met. Don’t you think it’s a little early to be dragging up our baggage in front of each other? – The maxims of relation and quantity Dr. Chase: Who says I have baggage?

5:10 Dr. Wilson is telling Dr. Taub that House started a betting pool with their colleagues on the legitimacy of his children. They are in a cafeteria. Dr. Wilson: Also, he started a betting pool on which kid is yours and which isn’t. (Chukles.) Dr. Taub: An entire hospital betting on the legitimacy of my kids. It’s great to be back among friends. – The maxim of quality

6:1 House and his team are discussing the disadvantages of bad parenting. Dr. House: What did your screwed-up parents do to screw up your view of parenting? Jessica: They were good parents. – The maxim of quantity Dr. House: That’s an oxymoron. Chase is right. All parents screw up all children. He’s also dreamy, but that’s not relevant.

6:2 House is in his exam room doing a check-up on his overweight hypochondriac patient. The patient: I need treatment for my Type2 diabetes. Dr. House: There is absolutely no part of that sentence that is true. The patient: I’ve been experiencing weight gain, fatigue and sluggishness. Dr. House: Weight loss is a symptom of diabetes. Fatigue is a symptom of thinking you have a disease you don’t actually have. And sluggishness is a synonym of fatigue. – The maxim of manner The patient, completely uninterested: I need insulin. I know it. Dr. House: Much as I liked to kill you by dangerously lowering your blood sugar, murder violates my parole.

6:3 House and his team are trying to establish a diagnosis for their teenage patient. Dr. Park: Syph test was negative. Plus, the kid’s never been sexually active.

Dr. House: Yeah. I got that from the line on his chart that says “birthday clown”. Dr. Taub: His late father was a circus clown. – The maxim of relation Dr. Chase: Histoplasmosis? Dr. House: He’s not immunocompromised. And I assume you added that irrelevant tidbit because you’re moved by the son’s idiotic tribute, and think it justifies keeping your daughter in New Jersey.

6:4 Dr. Taub takes his baby girl from House’s arms and she starts crying. Dr. House: She wasn’t fussy like that when I was holding her. Maybe she likes the sound of my voice, which is weird because I have no genetic connection to her. Could it be she doesn’t know the difference? Dr. Taub: So many children of your own, no wonder you have such insight into my relationship with my babies. – The maxims of quality and manner Dr. House: Good point. How could I comprehend that you’re too despised to keep them from having the same name, too overwhelmed to remember your own calendar, and too vain to admit that at this stage, you don’t matter to either baby?

6:5 House and Dr. Taub are talking about the mother of their patient who is a teenager. Dr. Taub: She traded up, married a lawyer, wants to forget the lowly circus clown. Dr. House: You’re defending the father because you feel like a jerk for baking buns in two different ovens. You want to believe the mythical connection excuses for being a man- slut… – The maxim of quality (Dr. Taub sighs, a bit agitated.) Dr. Taub: I am defending the dad because he got screwed. After he lost his son, he lost his job, been in and out of rehab, gave up clowning. Yes, as a parent, I empathize.

7:1 House would like Dr. Wilson’s help with the case he is working on so he comes into his office and begins talking about it. Dr. House: His kidneys died, they transfused, his lungs died, he died. Dr. Wilson: Have you seen Bride of the Monster? I just got the Ed Wood box set. – The maxim of relation Dr. House: What if the chicken was the egg? What if the lung involvement came first? Dr. Wilson: I don’t really care about the movie, I just don’t want to indulge your… Dr. House: Lupus…

Dr. Wilson: because this is a bad idea, House.

7:2 House has to go to a graveyard to examine a dead patient. He is talking to a gravedigger as they are approaching a tomb. The gravedigger: Before we proceed any further… Doctor, I’d like to inquire as to exactly what procedure you intend to perform on the remains. Dr. House: You ever heard of the North American Man Dead Boy Love Association? – The maxim of relation The gravedigger, a bit nervous and irritated: I consider these grounds to be a holy place and I would ask you to observe them with due decorum.

7:3 Dr. Chase has admitted doing the Brazilian wax and Jessica wonders what the reasons for it are. Jessica: How was the Brazilian? Dr. Chase: Not bad. Hurt a bit. Jessica: What about House’s theory? Why’d you really do it? Dr. Chase: Because I’m vain and shallow. – The maxim of quality Jessica: And you weren’t before? Dr. Chase: The girl I was seeing wasn’t. There’s nothing profound here.

7:4 Dr. Wilson and Dean are in an elevator talking about House who disrespected Dean’s orders to work on one case only. Dr. Wilson: Why do you care if he works on two cases? Dean: Because next it’ll be three cases, then four, then animal cases and ghost cases, then animal-ghost cases. Assuming, of course, we are talking about House. – The maxims of manner and quantity Dr. Wilson: He’s an addict.

8:1 House and Dr. Park are talking about how she gets disrespected a lot, especially by House himself, who tends to demean her and make her feel not good enough for the role. However, she would love to be appreciated by House. Dr. Park: I deserve respect. I’m a good doctor. Dr. House: People respect you. They just don’t like you. – The maxim of quantity (Dr. Park looks confused.)

8:2 House and a patient named Ethan are in the exam room, where House is trying to establish what treatment to give the patient. They are looking at his hands. Ethan: At first I thought it might be a frostbite. But I haven’t really been out in the cold. Dr. House: And yet your first thought was frostbite? Ethan: Yeah, I guess I was just going by how it looks. Dr. House: It looks absolutely nothing like frostbite. Ethan: You serious? Dr. House: With some difficulty. – The maxim of manner (Ethan still does not understand what is wrong with him, looks puzzled.)

8:3 House and his team are talking about their patient who got poisoned and they are trying to find out what he was poisoned with. Dr. Chase: But he’s not in prison, and it’s kind of hard to gas a guy unless you can seal him in a room first. Dr. House: Which is why Arseus created a universe with three states of matter, and 300 solid and liquid poisons that could cause his symptoms. – The maxim of relation Dr. Taub: Arseus? Dr. House: Look it up. And alkalinize his urine. Then search his home, talk to his wife. See if you can get her to tell us what she used. Jessica: Wait, why would you think his wife has poisoned him? Dr. House: Because dangerous people don’t break into your home, they live in it.

8:4 Dean is in an elevator with Dr. Taub and Dr. Chase and they are talking about how Dean is hot-wired about anything that happens at work. Dr. Chase: Nice move, boss. Lying to the patient. Dean: I had no choice. I knew House wouldn’t take the case unless I ruled out anxiety, right? Dr. Taub: You need a girlfriend. – The maxim of relation Dean: To keep me from lying to the patients? Dr. Taub: To give you the excitement you need so you don’t go looking for it.

8:5 Dr. Park is wondering why the rest of her team, and especially House, is not listening to her ideas regarding the patients. Dr. Park: So what do you think? Is the patient paranoid or am I?

Dr. Taub: I don’t think stockpiling weapons is the most reasoned response, but given what I’ve seen at Bloomingdales on Black Friday, I wouldn’t say it rises to the level of mental illness. – The maxims of relation and quantity Dr. Park: And me? Dr. Taub: Again, given what I’ve seen at Bloomingdales… Don’t let House get to you. Dr. Park: It’s all of you. I feel like you don’t respect me.

9:1 House, Jessica and Dr. Park are in the laboratory discussing what caused their patient’s asexual behavior. Jessica: I suppose it could be psychological intimacy issues caused by childhood abuse. Dr. House: She’s been sharing a toilet with the same gut for the last 10 years. Jessica: It’s not the same. Sex releases oxytocin, it’s the neurochemical basis for bonding. Dr. House: And that’s why men always marry their right hands. – The maxims of quality and manner (The two doctors feel uncomfortable and change the topic.)

9:2 House, Dr. Park, Dr. Chase and Jessica are in the hall of the hospital talking about their patient’s problems in his marriage. Dr. House: If they are sleeping together, why do we disapprove? Jessica: You’re pro infidelity? Dr. House: She’s not married. If marriage is feeding and cleaning someone and limiting conversation to repeating a few simple commands, then I was married to my pet rat. And a lot of people owe me wedding gifts. – The maxim of quality (The doctors ignore House.) Jessica: I don’t care how sick your spouse gets, you don’t jump ship.

9:3 Dean is giving House another order, to work on the case which is relevant for him. Dean: You’re taking this case because we’re running a Phase Two trial on an Alzheimer’s drug. Dr. House: You couldn’t round up doddering old guinea pigs, so you need us to fix this little piggy? - The maxim of manner Dean: I’d like to sit in, especially since you’re short a team member.

9:4 Dr. Wilson and House are in a café talking about Dr. Wilson’s patient who admitted not having intercourse with her partner. Dr. Wilson: You know that close to 1% of the population identifies as asexual? Dr. House: We really got to get you laid. If I have to plow that furrow myself, so be it. – The maxim of manner Dr. Wilson, a bit frustrated: I have a patient who’s asexual.

9:5 Dr. Wilson and House are talking about Dr. Wilson’s patient who is asexual and now Dr. Wilson is reading about it trying to understand what makes her asexual. Dr. Wilson: It’s a valid sexual orientation, according to this article, at least. Dr. House: Yeah, I think I read that too. Is that Fugliness Weekly? – The maxim of quality Dr. Wilson, looking a bit agitated: She’s perfectly fine-looking.

9:6 The Dean and House are trying to state a diagnosis for their patient. However, House does not like the fact that the Dean is working with him on the case and opposes his ideas and suggestions regarding the diagnosis. The Dean: You’re trying to screw with my confidence? Dr. House: Well, if I wanted to do that, I’d tell you how much the nurses hate you. – The maxim of manner and quality (The Dean looks confused.)

9:7 House, Dr. Park, Dr. Adams and Dr. Chase are talking about their patient’s paranoid rage after he has found out that his partner is having an affair. Dr. House: If they are sleeping together, why do we disapprove? Jessica: You’re pro infidelity? Dr. House: She’s not married. – The maxims of manner and quantity (All the doctors look puzzled and surprised.)

9:8 Dr. Park and House are in the laboratory examining the patient’s results and Dr. Park wonders why House has not invited Dr. Chase. Dr. Park: Why doesn’t Chase have to be here? Dr. House: You think he knows anything about women who don’t want to have sex? - The maxims of relation and quantity (Jessica looks sternly.)

10:1 House is entering the exam room seeing two people dressed in something that looks like costumes. One of them is a general and the other one is dressed as an officer. They seem like they have come from another era. The general has some issues. The officer: Hello, good sir. My brother the general here gots the green apple quick step. Dr. House: One of us in the wrong time zone. And if it’s me, I need to talk to a stockbroker and anyone from the Kennedy family. In that order. The officer: He got the runs and we do need him up and at ‘em for battle tomorrow. Dr. House: It’s hardly authentic, coming to a newfangled clinic, especially with a Yankee doctor. – The maxim of quality and manner The general, a bit frustrated: Sir, are you questioning my resolve? Dr. House: Yes, and your sanity. I’m multi-tasking.

10:2 After hiring a hooker to pretend to be a social worker who could talk to his underage patient, House is being questioned by the Dean for the reasons of doing it. The Dean: You should have told me that you were treating an underage clinic patient. Dr. House: I was giving you the gift of deniability. – The maxim of manner (The Dean looks a bit mad.)

10:3 House is in the exam room with his patient and her “father”. Dr. House: How long has your daughter had trouble breathing? The dad: About a week now. Dr. House: The best dads wait for two of more. – The maxim of manner The girl: Yeah, no it’s not like it’s serious.

11:1 House is entering the room and encounters Dr. Chase who is struggling to take a few steps after he had a major surgery. Dr. House: How’d you get the firing wire into the Vicodin bottle without me noticing? Dr. Chase: Why’d I even have to? What was the point of the orange hair? Dr. House: You hair smelled like Adams’. Since there’s no way you’re doing her without me knowing, it means you were just doing her shampoo. Which means you were out late drinking with some new girl or because there is no new girl. You were trying to make up time by showering at the hospital, but you were too lazy to buy your own shampoo. So I found a way to let you know to not be late. – The maxim of quantity (Dr. Chase looks mad.)

11:2 Dr. Chase and House talking about how House made an experiment to let Dr. Chase know that he should not be late at work Dr. Chase: You couldn’t just ask me to stop being late? Dr. House: What fun would that be? – The maxim of relation (Dr. Chase looks frustrated.)

11:3 House is being interrogated by a neurologist, Walter Cofield. There was chaos in the hospital with one of their patients as House’s team was trying to establish his diagnosis. The patient stabbed Dr. Chase with a scalpel. The neurologist is trying to clear the case and determine what happened that led to such terrible consequences. Dr. House: He had a loss of consciousness, temporary paralysis, but when I was told that the patient coughed up blood, the things really started to get interesting. Walter Cofield: Your patient was doubled over in pain and coughing up blood. And you found that interesting? Dr. House: Why, is that bad? Walter Cofield: It’s interesting. – The maxim of quality

12:1 Dr. Chase is surfing online to find out more about near-death experiences because he fell in love with a patient who wants to become a num. Now he is searching for arguments to revert her from that idea. House comes across him reading an online article. Dr. House: Noradrenaline and near-death experiences. Oh, dear. You saw God? Dr. Chase: She did. She wants to go back to the monastery. Dr. House: So now you’re preparing a Powerpoint presentation to keep her in your garden of earthly delights. You’re an idiot. – The maxim of manner (Dr. Chase is irritated.)

12:2 House is trying to make up for his lack of dedication for Dr. Chase. Dr. House: You got stabbed. You blame me. But what did you learn about me that you hadn’t known for years? Dr. Chase: Maybe I was an idiot before, I’m not one now. – The maxim of manner Dr. House: Or maybe the reverse is true.

12:3 Dr. Chase is in the operating room with other doctors. They admitted a patient who Dr. Chase slept with the night before. Now he wants to do a major surgery on her.

Jessica: You’re not gonna operate on her? Dr. Chase: Kopur and Carlyle are unavailable, Keilly’s done far fewer dissections than I have. Dr. Taub: He’s also slept with her far fewer times than you have. – The maxim of quality Jessica: Your judgement’s compromised. Dr. Chase: I spent the night with her, doesn’t change how I make an incision.

13:1 House is mocking Dr. Taub for his changed behavior since he has become a father. Dr. House: Studies have shown that raising kids lowers testosterone levels in men. The more involved you are, the lower it gets. – The maxim of relation Dr. Taub: Right, having kids has neutered me. Or maybe it’s helped me finally grow up. (House remains silent.)

13:2 House borrowed his apartment key to Dr. Wilson. Now he needs it back because his “wife” Dominika came back. She is not actually his wife but she came to the USA from Ukraine to get married for papers and to get the green card from the U.S. government. Dr. House: Need my apartment key back. Dr. Wilson: If you’re breaking up with me, can we at least talk about it first? Dr. House: Maybe if you weren’t all nag and no shag… Dr. Wilson: I don’t sleep with married men. – The maxim of relation (House sighs and ignores him.)

13:3 House, Dr. Park, Dominika and Dr. Wilson are in Dr. Wilson’s office practicing interview questions for Dr. House and Dominika’s fake marriage. Dr. Wilson: The right answer is the wrong answer. No husband would pay that much attention to his wife’s friend dramas. Dr. Park: Haven’t you been divorced three times? – The maxim of manner Dr. Wilson: In between those divorces, I was married, non-fraudulently, for 12 years total, which is 12 years longer than anyone in this room. (Dr. Wilson feels embarrassed.)

13:4 Dr. Taub is watching the motivational video their patient made and House enters the room to discuss the patient’s diagnosis. Dr. Taub: I was wondering if maybe we overlooked a symptom, or something.

Dr. House: Makes perfect sense if you’re the patient and pantywaist is the symptom. – The maxims of quality and relation Dr. Taub: Adams and I both thought the patient could have celiac, but only she was willing to go out on a limb and run the test. I gave up. Dr. House: Now you’re in here watching a motivational speech. Even your attempt to get your balls back lacks balls.

13:5 House is talking to his patient who is having a mild disorder in behavior as he does not feel attracted to neither girls nor boys after being kicked by some guys in the genitals. The patient: Do you know what’s wrong with me? Dr. House: Nothing that the Golden girls couldn’t have handled in 23 hilarious minutes. – The maxim of manner (The patient looks confused.)

13:6 Jessica and Dr. Taub are watching their patient’s changes in condition after they have injected him with a hormone, testosterone. Jessica: You really think this guy’s gonna Hulk out once the hormones kick in? Dr. Taub: Some male lizards do push-ups to attract mates. When scientists gave them extra testosterone, they did push-ups until they died. Same drive you took advantage of to get Chase to carry a box of files down to your car yesterday. – The maxims of relation and manner (Jessica looks intrigued.)

14:1 Dr. Wilson and Dr. House are talking about House’s visit to his mother. House finds out that his mother is getting married with a new Irish guy. Dr. Wilson: Have you seen your mother? Dr. House: She’s not dying. She was having sex with my father. (Dr. Park is snickering, drugged.) Ignore her. She’s on acid. - The maxim of quantity Dr. Wilson, surprised: Your father’s dead, House.

14:2 Dr. Taub and Jessica are discussing their blind patient whose condition changes suddenly. Jessica: Not seeing any seizure activity in response to low frequency sounds. I’m starting him on mid-range.

Dr. Taub: Have you seen his girlfriend? Extremely hot. – The maxim of relation Jessica: Blind people can’t have attractive girlfriends? Dr. Taub: Not my point. He actually convinced her to go for the whole relationship break thing.

14:3 Dr. Wilson is wondering how House’s marital life is going on. Dr. Wilson: You’re sleeping with her now? Dr. House: Just in case an INS guy comes in through the window. – The maxims of quality and relation Dr. Wilson sighs. Yeah, she didn’t buy it either.

15:1 House is in the exam room with a patient, a teenage boy who is overweight and drunk. Dr. House: Blurry vision, headache, bit of nausea and dizziness. I am completely baffled. – The maxim of quality The boy: I only had eight beers. Sophomore class pong tournament’s in a week. I’m working on my tolerance. Dr. House: Hop on one foot and sing the iCarly theme song. Like you don’t know it. (The boy, sighing, hops on his foot and sings.)

15:2 House is in the exam room with his patient. Dr. Wilson enters and sees the boy hopping on one foot and singing. Dr. House: Damn it, man, can’t you see I’m doctoring? - The maxim of quality (Dr. Wilson laughs.)

15:3 Dr. Park is wondering why they have to take care of the patient who is also a soldier. Dr. Park: Why wouldn’t they take care of him at a military hospital? Dr. House: I think because they wanted to annoy you. Any other conscientious objectors? – The maxim of quality Dr. Park: So I’m the only one who has a problem with someone whose duty is to protect our country blowing… Dr. House: Blowing a whistle is honorable, precisely because it’s not dutiful. I’m sorry, you said ‘blowing’. Maybe you were going somewhere else with that?

15:4 House and Dr. Taub are playing a video game while the team is talking about a patient.

Jessica: He’s clotting, but CT confirmed splenic nodules. Dr. House: Dr. Taub has an interesting idea. Dr. Taub: No, I don’t. Dr. House: You’re forfeiting? If you can’t play the game and work… Dr. Taub: Extramedullary hematopoiesis? Dr. Park: No history of anemia… - The maxim of quantity Dr. House: She’s right. You’re an idiot. Try again.

15:5 House comes into the room where his patient is lying and they meet for the first time. The patient: Who are you? Dr. House: Well, considering the only people allowed in this room are your doctors and your family, I’m your long-lost cousin Ralph. So glad to finally meet you. – The maxims of quality and quantity The patient: Are you going to check on me?

15:6 House and his team are in House’s office and they are talking about their patient. Dr. House: Taub? Loyalty issues in his personal life make sense if they cross over into his professional one. Dean: I was hoping we could get a diagnosis before the witch-hunt? Dr. House: The patient’s infection is an inherently less interesting puzzle than the stab wound in my back. – The maxim of relation Dr. Taub: Fine. I told Foreman. Can we move on?

16:1 House and Dr. Wilson are buying presents for Dr. Wilson’s son. Dr. Wilson: What if he’s a good kid? Dr. House: He’s a kid. Best you can hope for is he’s a nightmare. – The maxims of manner and quality (Dr. Wilson is a bit nervous.) House, I’m not naïve. I realize this thing could go very badly, but the point is my son wants to meet me, and I want to meet him.

16:2 Dr. Taub is talking with his patient who is a hockey player about the way the patient plays hockey and how aggressive he is. The patient: I don’t cause injuries. Dr. Taub: They’re self-inflicted?

The patient: No, I prevent them. I take the hits so the smaller guys don’t have to. I thought you’d appreciate that. – The maxim of relation (Dr. Taub remains silent and keeps staring at the wall.)

16:3 Dr. Wilson and House are talking about Dr. Wilson’s son and Dr. Wilson is defending himself from House’s claim that he quit or failed on all his past relations with people. Dr. Wilson: You think I’m gonna quit on this? On an 11-year-old? Dr. House: The only relationship you haven’t quit on has been with me. – The maxim of manner Dr. Wilson: Hmm, a needy, truculent narcissist. I think it’s been the perfect training for parenthood.

17:1 House and his team are in his office discussing their patient’s weird behavior. The patient is an older guy who has a sex doll whom he takes for his girlfriend. Jessica: Bleeding plus two new symptoms, fever and neurological. Dr. Chase: I’m not sure about that last one. I think he’s just weird. He wasn’t hallucinating. He didn’t have a thought disorder. Dr. Park: You don’t think it’s disordered to talk to… Dr. Chase: It’s not a lot different from talking to your cat or a teddy bear. Jessica: You don’t have sex with your cat or teddy bear. Dr. House: If you did, you’d probably talk to them more. Guy loves imaginary being who’s never going to respond to him. He’s no crazier than millions of churchgoers. – The maxim of manner

17:2 House is wondering why all of his team members have such bad luck in relationships. Dr. House: Can we stop trying to argue the premise and move on to figuring out why is it you’re all social morons? Dr. Taub: You do understand the irony here. You’re mocking us for avoiding relationships, but you can’t handle losing your doll. You’re spending all this time and energy interviewing for a new one. – The maxims of quantity and manner Dr. House: You’re right. That is stupid.

18:1 Dr. Wilson is in the exam room with his patient, a girl who is half-naked. He is checking on her breasts. House enters the room uninvited.

Dr. House: I had sex with Dominika. Dr. Wilson: In a dream? Dr. House: It wasn’t literally sex. Technically, it was flossing, but you know, teeth, testicles. I think the symbolism is pretty clear. – The maxim of quantity Dr. Wilson: “Later” just changed to “never”.

18:2 Dr. Park asks House if she can check the patient’s home with Dr. Chase. Dr. Park: Can I go with Taub? It was my idea. Dr. House: Right. ‘Cause for a moment there I thought you were uncomfortable around Chase because you had a nocturnal Australian. – The maxims of relation and quantity

19:1 House’s team is wondering how they are going to work without House’s participation in cases since he has decided to focus on assisting Dr. Wilson. Dr. Taub: House taking time off is a bad sign. Jessica, laughing: “A bad sign.” You think the apocalypse is coming because House wants to be there for Wilson? Dr. Taub: Yes. You’re new. – The maxim of quantity (Jessica does not respond.)

20:1 Dr. Wilson is driving a fast sports car. House, perplexed, is at a parking lot waiting for Dr. Wilson to park in front of him. Dr. Wilson: Yes, it’s mine. And yes, I know that I can’t drive stick. And, no, I don’t care that I parked in a handicap spot. Dr. House: “Staring death in the face has changed my life.” What a cliché. – The maxim of relation Dr. Wilson: The cliché is to lead a more meaningful life.

20:2 Jessica and Dr. Chase are talking with Dr. Treiber who hurt himself in the absence of common sense so he has become their new patient. Jessica: You actually think you can quantify the value of every doctor? Dr. Treiber: Someone should. And since I’m the only one who sees everything… Dr. Chase: Right, you were hired to diagnose people after they’re already dead. – The maxim of manner (Dr. Treiber remains silent.)

21:1 House wants his team to be involved in helping Dr. Wilson who has a tumor. However, they were told by the Dean to keep things in the clinic as normal as possible. Dr. House: Wilson is dying. Chase is gone. How close to normal do you think we can come? Dr. Taub: 19-year-old cheerleader admitted with massive nosebleed and dizziness. Dr. House: Cool. I just completely forgot that my best friend is dying. Wait. That just reminded me. – The maxim of quality

22:1 House has run tests for their patient on his own, which is not his usual practice. House seems to be preoccupied with one of their patient’s condition, avoiding talking about the fact that Dr. Wilson is dying. Instead, he is joking. Dr. Taub: Wilson’s dying, your parole officer is probably on his way here right now. How are you possibly in a good mood? Dr. House: Did you never see Dead Poets Society? Carpe diem. – The maxim of relation (Dr. Taub remains silent.)

Sources

The selected episodes from the American TV series “House M.D.” 1. “Twenty Vicodin”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 2. “Transplant”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 3. “Charity Case”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 4. “Risky Business”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 5. “The Confession”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 6. “Parents”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 7. “Dead & Buried”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 8. “Better Half”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 9. “Runaways”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 10. “Nobody’s Fault”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 11. “Chase”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 12. “Man of the House”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 13. “Love is Blind”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 14. “Blowing the Whistle”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011- 2012. 15. “Gut Check”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 16. “We Need the Eggs”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 17. “Body and Soul”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 18. “The C Word”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 19. “Post Mortem”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 20. “Holding On”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012. 21. “Everybody Dies”. House M.D. (Season 8). Universal Television LLC, 2011-2012.

Other Sources

1. https://europixhd.pro/tvs/house-md-online/house-md-season-8-hd-with-subtitles- europix 2. https://www.opensubtitles.org/en/ssearch/sublanguageid-eng/idmovie-3458 3. „House M.D.“ : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_(TV_series)