DOCSLIB.ORG

The Freaks Vs. the Geeks Jason Gilbert Basketball. a Game Played

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Freaks Vs. the Geeks Jason Gilbert Basketball. a Game Played The Freaks vs. The Geeks Jason Gilbert Basketball. A game played with such athleticism and intensity that you must be in a peak physical condition to contest. Which is why I am creating what could be one of the greatest, or also one of the most horrendous round ball matches of all time: The gang from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia (The Freaks) vs. the brainiacs of The Big Bang Theory (The Geeks). Let’s take a look at the lineups: The Freaks: The Geeks: 1. PG‐Frank Reynolds‐5’ 1. PG‐Leonard Hofstadter‐5’5” 2. SG‐Charlie Kelly‐5’7” 2. SG‐Howard Wolowitz‐5’7” 3. SF‐Dee Reynolds‐5’8” 3. SF‐Penny‐5’5” 4. PF‐Dennis Reynolds‐5’10” 4. PF‐Raj Koothrappali‐5’8” 5. C‐Mac‐5’10” 5. C‐Sheldon Cooper‐6’1” A matchup for the ages indeed. Who would win? Who would manage to even score a basket? How many injuries would be accumulated throughout the game? All these are valid questions to ask, and also, if you’re into gambling, great lines to place a wager on. My guess is that the score wouldn’t go anywhere above 30 points per team, and that’s being generous. Two teams without any skill, horrible conditioning, and little to no knowledge of the game itself. It’s going to be a blood bath, maybe, so let’s get it going and see how it all plays out. God help us all. Point Guard Matchup: Frank Reynolds vs. Leonard Hofstadter: One manipulative 60‐something year old who likes drinking and money versus a nerdy scientist who barely knows anything about the world of sports. Even so far. The clear advantage we see is the height difference. Frank is listed at a mere 5 feet tall. That wouldn’t even cut it as a point guard in most youth leagues around the country. With a five‐inch height advantage, Leonard takes the slight lead. Leonard‐1 Frank‐0 Let’s look at Frank’s assets. He has none. He is a short, stocky, balding, drunk who probably couldn’t run a full‐court sprint if his life depended on it. He has no valuable skills, and this is both on and off the court. Although he can be quite handy to have around, Frank Reynolds is a slob who still hasn’t figured his shit out. Him on a basketball court would just be embarrassing to say the least. He did have a small stint as a coach, but his bookies gave him the boot very shortly after starting. No points awarded to Frank. Now Leonard. Sweet, sweet Dr. Leonard Hofstadter: a physicist with a high IQ and a vast knowledge for many different things, not including sports that is. But as they say: with great power comes great responsibilities, and Leonard is the main threat as the point guard of the Geeks. His thought process is much higher than that of his opponent Frank. He has a major height advantage on him, and clearly is in better (but not by much) shape than him. Maybe he can’t dribble a basketball, but after awhile (say 4 or 5 seasons), it’ll all come in place for him. Glasses and all, Dr. Hofstadter wins the point guard matchup. Leonard‐2 Frank‐0. Winner=Leonard Hofstadter. Shooting Guard Matchup: Charlie Kelly vs. Howard Wolowitz: A dimwitted bar gopher/waitress stalker who once refereed for a children’s basketball game, versus an intelligent, witty, “ladies man”, who once, we can assume, said the word basketball in a conversation he was eavesdropping in. This should be an interesting matchup indeed. Charlie, on one hand, has some aspects of athletic ability. While Howard on the other hand, exercises his thumbs and occasionally does a peeping tom session of yoga or palates. Even so far. Charlie‐0 Howard‐0. Charlie Kelly. What an inspiration to none. He is beyond illiterate and has no sense for normalcy, although, he does have a little pep in his step. Charlie is a man of many small words. He can’t dribble a basketball, or even make a layup for that matter, but his persistency and go getter attitude really gives him the spark he needs. I don’t know how he would prevail as the two guard for the Freaks, but he sure would provide the hustle and relentlessness their team would desperately need. Charlie‐1 Howard‐0. Now comes Howard Wolowitz. One thing he does have going for him are the flashy clothes he constantly wears, perfect attire for being a basketball star in today’s world. That also may be the only thing he has going for him though. He has no room being anywhere near a basketball court. The fact that cheerleaders are majorly creeped out by him is only the start of it. His uncoordinated style is very much a dagger to the heart in giving him any chances of being any major contributor to the team. He might be a good player if the ball itself was actually a martini and the game they were playing was drinking and failing at picking up women. Charlie‐1 Howard‐0. Winner=Charlie Kelly. Small Forward Matchup: Dee Reynolds vs. Penny: Ah finally. The matchup we’ve all been waiting for. THE CHICKS!! What grace and awe we would see as we watched these two goddesses back each other down in the post. Oh the imagery! Dee vs. Penny. Penny vs. Dee. The thought of this makes me want to change the whole angle to just focus entirely on this matchup right here. It’s going to be a tough choice, but one must come out a winner. One point awarded to me for creating such a spectacular battle. Dee‐0 Penny‐0 Jason‐1. Sweet Dee Reynolds, the butt of all the jokes for the freaks’ squad. She’s quirky, spastic, and full of enthusiasm. She once tried out for the Philadelphia Eagles so she has to have some athletic ability, to some extent. She prances around the bar and tries so hard to fit in. Trying to play the small forward role for her team can provide one of the greatest challenges in her life (besides birthing a child of a transsexual). She has a good height advantage on Penny and has a lot of aggressiveness pent up inside of her. Throwing elbows and possible hair pulling are only some of the cheap shots she will throw, but they will be useful and undetected. Dee‐1 Penny‐0 Jason‐1 Penny. Penny. Penny. In all honesty, looks aside, I can imagine Penny being the superstar of the Geeks. She’s the only one on the entire court with any kind of athleticism. She is from Nebraska. Her football background gives her the kind of attitude needed to be a winner. Penny would not only be a great small forward for this team, but also a great distraction. She is a waitress at the cheesecake factory, a very deadly kryptonite for Charlie (who loves waitresses and cheese). She is gorgeous, which would lead Dennis to be all over her, possibly foul out immediately, and entice Dee to get in a jealous fit of rage. She has it all. She can lead this team to victory as long as she stays off the wine, and her and Leonard don’t start to bicker. Three points awarded to our modern day wonder woman and the victory. Dee‐1 Penny‐3 Jason‐1. Winner=Penny. (I will gladly take this loss) Power Forward Matchup: Dennis Reynolds vs. Raj Koothrappali: A solid matchup here with Dennis verse Dr. K. Dennis being the cocky, slim and lanky 5’10” power forward for the Freaks, and Raj being the token Indian scientist who went to cricket camp as a child and got laughed at and made fun of. Here he is now in America playing a game he has pretty much no reason being a part of. Dennis is a tough cookie though. What he can bring to the table is much enthusiasm and an overconfident attitude to attempt a victory for his squad. Advantage Dennis Dennis‐1 Raj‐0. Dennis Reynolds, the team’s arrogant asshole. He believes he can do anything he can put his mind to and that he will always be the best. He has a long frame, which could lead to a handful of rebounds and an easy opportunity for back‐down layups in the paint. He believes more in himself than anyone else believes in him at all. He has a strong will, and with that, could create a lot of chances for his team to be winners. Dennis‐2 Raj‐0. And here we have Raj Koothrappali; A quiet‐Indian doctor who can’t talk to women to save his life, or better yet his basketball skills. There is no doubt in my mind that Raj would be the least likely player to be the hero. His national sport is cricket, and he can’t even play that well. He came to America to study and to be an astrophysicist. His “bromance” and connection with Howard could lead to a few assists and possible points, but mostly out of sheer luck. Raj doesn’t have the height or the build to contest against Dennis, so consider him a non‐factor in this game. Sorry Raj, but unless you have some alcohol in you, you have no chance in hell of being any kind of contributor to the Geek squad.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INDICE 1. Introduzione 3 2. Rassegna Della Letteratura 7 3. Metodo 15 4
    INDICE 1. Introduzione 3 2. Rassegna della letteratura 7 2.1. Introduzione 7 2.2. Studi linguistici sulla sitcom The Big Bang Theory 7 2.3. Conclusioni 13 3. Metodo 15 3.1. Introduzione 15 3.2. Quesiti della ricerca 15 3.3. Quadro teorico di riferimento 15 3.3.1. Il Principio Cooperativo di Grice 16 3.3.2. La Teoria della Pertinenza di Sperber e Wilson 22 3.3.3. La cortesia 25 3.3.3.1. Il modello di Leech 26 3.3.3.2. Il modello di Brown e Levinson 32 3.3.3.3. Conclusioni 36 3.4. Raccolta, preparazione e analisi dei dati 37 3.4.1. Raccolta dei dati 37 3.4.2. Preparazione dei dati 38 3.4.3. Analisi qualitativa 40 3.4.4 Analisi quantitativa 53 3.5. Conclusioni 53 4. Risultati 55 4.1. Introduzione 55 4.2. Risultati analitici quantitativi e qualitativi della ricerca 55 4.2.1. Risultati della prima stagione 56 4.2.2. Risultati della seconda stagione 62 4.2.3. Risultati della terza stagione 69 4.2.4. Risultati della quarta stagione 75 4.2.5. Risultati della quinta stagione 82 4.2.6. Risultati della sesta stagione 88 4.2.7. Risultati della settima stagione 94 4.2.8. Risultati della ottava stagione 101 4.2.9. Risultati della nona stagione 107 1 4.2.10. Risultati della decima stagione 114 4.3. Risultati quantitativi e qualitativi sintetici della ricerca 120 4.3.1. (In)efficienza comunicativa 120 4.3.1.2. Il Principio Cooperativo di Grice 120 4.3.1.3.
    [Show full text]
  • REDEFINING “NERDINESS”: the Big Bang Theory Reconsidered REDEFINING “NERDINESS”: Many Studies Define “Nerdiness” Differently
    ARTICLE Title REDEFINING “NERDINESS”: The Big Bang Theory Reconsidered REDEFINING “NERDINESS”: Many studies define “nerdiness” differently. Some textual cues including explicit and implicit cues. These would define gifted students as “nerds” (O’Connor 293), terms are adopted from Culpeper’s The Language and The Big Bang Theory Reconsidered suggesting that the word is based solely on intelligence. Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts, in which he Others may define “nerds” as “physical self-loathing [and explains that these textual cues can help a viewer make having] technological mastery” (Eglash 49), suggesting certain inferences about a specific character (Language that “nerds” have body issues or are somehow more and Characterisation 167). Explicit cues are when charac- BY JACLYN GINGRICH technologically savvy than the average person. Bednarek ters specifically express information about themselves or defines “nerdiness” as displaying the following linguistic others (Language of Characterisation 167). An example framework: “believes in his own intelligence,” “was a child would be when Leonard says, “Yeah, I’m a frickin’ genius” ABSTRACT it is that they are average people socializing with each prodigy,” “struggles with social skills,” “is different,” “is health (“The Middle Earth Paradigm”). Here he is explicitly other and living normal lives. The Big Bang Theory displays This paper analyzes the linguistic characteristics of Leonard obsessed/has food issues,” “has an affinity for and knowl- saying that he believes he has intellectual superiority. the comical reality of what normally happens in these Hofstadter, television character from The Big Bang Theory and edge of computer-related activities,” “does not like change,” Implicit cues are implied.
    [Show full text]
  • Filosofická Fakulta Masarykovy Univerzity
    Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Bc. Jana Vaverková Accents of English in Czech Dubbing Master‘s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: PhDr. KateřinaTomková, Ph.D. 2018 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………….. Author‘s signature I would like to thank to my supervisor, PhDr. KateřinaTomková, Ph.D., for valuable pieces of advice not only with my diploma thesis and also to my family for their never ending support and love. Table of Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 9 1 Accents of English .............................................................................................. 12 1.1 What Is an Accent ............................................................................................... 12 1.2 General British and General American ............................................................... 13 1.2.1 Received Pronunciation and General British ............................................ 13 1.2.2 General American ..................................................................................... 15 1.2.3 Difference between General British and General American .................... 16 1.3 Non-Native Accents of English
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 1 ALL in the FAMILY ARCHIE Bunker Emmy AWARD
    ALL IN THE FAMILY ARCHIE Bunker Based on the British sitcom Till MEATHEAD Emmy AWARD winner for all DEATH Us Do Part MIKE Stivic four lead actors DINGBAT NORMAN Lear (creator) BIGOT EDITH Bunker Archie Bunker’s PLACE (spinoff) Danielle BRISEBOIS FIVE consecutive years as QUEENS CARROLL O’Connor number-one TV series Rob REINER Archie’s and Edith’s CHAIRS GLORIA (spinoff) SALLY Struthers displayed in Smithsonian GOOD Times (spinoff) Jean STAPLETON Institution 704 HAUSER (spinoff) STEPHANIE Mills CHECKING In (spinoff) The JEFFERSONS (spinoff) “STIFLE yourself.” “Those Were the DAYS” MALAPROPS Gloria STIVIC (theme) MAUDE (spinoff) WORKING class T S Q L D A H R S Y C V K J F C D T E L A W I C H S G B R I N H A A U O O A E Q N P I E V E T A S P B R C R I O W G N E H D E I E L K R K D S S O I W R R U S R I E R A P R T T E S Z P I A N S O T I C E E A R E J R R G M W U C O G F P B V C B D A E H T A E M N F H G G A M A L A P R O P S E E A N L L A R C H I E M U L N J N I O P N A M R O N Z F L D E I D R E D O O G S T I V I C A E N I K H T I D E T S A L L Y Y U A I O M Y G S T X X Z E D R S Q M 1 84052-2 TV Trivia Word Search Puzzles.indd 1 10/31/19 12:10 PM THE BIG BANG THEORY The show has a science Sheldon COOPER Mayim Bialik has a Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Synopsis of the Big Bang Theory's Main Characters Dr. Leonard
    Synopsis of the Big Bang Theory's Main Characters Dr. Leonard Hofstadter Experimental Physicist at Caltech Best Friends with roommate Sheldon Come from a family of over-achievers; feels overshadowed by highly accomplished brothers and sisters and aims to be considered accomplished by his mother Is the most socially adept of the four male scientists Has a crush for Penny, whom he eventually dates Dr. Sheldon Cooper Theoretical Physicist at Caltech Best Friends with roommate Leonard A child prodigy, holds multiple university degrees, received his PhD at 16 Shows traits of Asperger's syndrome and Obsessive Compulsive personality disorder Has both an eidetic memory and extensive knowledge of multiple fields Is dating Amy, who shares similar intellectual and personality traits with Sheldon Penny Waitress at the Cheesecake Factory Moved from Nebraska to California to become an Actress, in recent seasons she has taken acting lessons to achieve her goal Did not go to college/university, but in recent seasons has enrolled in community college While she does not have a higher education, she has the most "street smarts" of all the main characters and is extremely knowledgeable about pop culture Is outgoing and has had many romantic relationships; is currently dating Leonard Howard Wolowitz Aerospace Engineer at Caltech Holds a Master's degree from MIT; gets constantly picked on by the other male characters for his lack of PhD; trained for a mission to the International Space station Best friends with Raj Is a womanizer; thinks he is a ladies' man, but fails spectacularly each time he attempts to pick up a woman Lives at home with his mother (until he marries Bernadette) Eventually falls in loves and marries Bernadette, toning down some of Howard's womanizing personality Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Sermons from Northwood United Church
    Sermons from Northwood United Church “Being: A Work of Art” Genesis 12:1-4, Matthew 22:34-46 Will Sparks October 26, 2014 May the words of my mouth, the meditations of our hearts, and the actions of our lives be acceptable in your sight O God, our strength and our redeemer. Amen Are there any fans of the Big Bang Theory here. For those of you who don't watch it, The Big Bang Theory is a popular sit com following the exploits of a small group of young adult brainiac scientists and engineers living in Pasadena California. There are the roommates Leonard Hofstadter and Sheldon Cooper, both physicists; Penny, a waitress and aspiring actress who lives across the hall; and Leonard and Sheldon's equally geeky and socially awkward friends and co- workers, mechanical engineer Howard Wolowitz and astrophysicist Raj Koothrappali. The geekiness and intellect of the four guys is contrasted for comic effect with Penny's social skills and common sense. Although sometimes a tad predictable, I love the way this show has the characters coming to terms with each other's quirky weirdness. But the particular part of the show I want to talk about is the roommate agreement. Sheldon has welcomed Leonard into his apartment as a roommate, but he has this document, the roommate agreement that he has drafted to govern how they sort things out in the apartment. Sheldon is, well, set in his ways and resistant to change, surprise, unpredictability of any kind. The roommate agreement is intended to control what happens.
    [Show full text]
  • The Big Bang Theory™ Slot Game the Newest Aristocrat Class III Game
    Aristocrat New Game Profile May 2015 The Big Bang Theory™ Slot Game The Newest Aristocrat Class III Game Aristocrat has licensed TV’s #1 comedy, The Big Bang Theory, from Warner Bros., bringing the fun and laugh- out-loud comedy of the broadcast television’s most-watched show to casinos across North America in a game that is nothing less than genius. The Big Bang Theory™ Slot Game is the newest addition to Aristocrat’s player-favorite Wonder Wheels™ product line, combining a video slot with three mechanical wheels. Leonard, Sheldon, Penny, Howard and Raj are all in this highly integrated game, with video clips, 3D animations, character images, theme music and unique character bonuses. The game has a multi-game base game where players can play up to four reel sets. One of ten mystery bonuses can be triggered within the base game at any time with any bet. Additionally, three scatters trigger The Big Bang Theory™ Bonus Wheel, which awards one of six bonus features: “Large Leonard Hofstadter Collision Feature,” with free Mega symbol spins with player-selected volatility; “Dr. Sheldon Cooper Roommate Agreement Feature,” with eight free Reel Power spins; “Penny Friendship Paradigm Feature,” with five free scatter pay spins awarded on 4X4 reel set; “Howard Wolowitz Mystic Warlords Of Ka’a Feature,” where the player selects cards to reveal multipliers and credits; “Raj Koothrappali Scavenger Vortex Feature,” where the player selects scavenger objects to reveal credits or Win All; “The Big Bang Theory™ Progressive Feature,” where the player selects symbols to win credits or progressive jackpot prize The multi-site progressive starting at $250,000 can be won on any base game spin with at least 200 credits bet, by spinning the Jackpot symbol on all 4 games.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploration of Network Television Situational Comedy and the Crime Procedural
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 6-1-2013 Penning the Shipper-Worthy Screenplay: Exploration of Network Television Situational Comedy and the Crime Procedural Kacie Henderson University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the American Film Studies Commons, and the Mass Communication Commons Recommended Citation Henderson, Kacie, "Penning the Shipper-Worthy Screenplay: Exploration of Network Television Situational Comedy and the Crime Procedural" (2013). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 282. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/282 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. PENNING THE SHIPPER-WORTHY SCREENPLAY: EXPLORATION OF NETWORK TELEVISION SITUATIONAL COMEDY AND THE CRIME PROCEDURAL __________ A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Arts and Humanities University of Denver __________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts __________ by Kacie Henderson June 2013 Advisor: Rodney Buxton ©Copyright by Kacie Henderson 2013 All Rights Reserved Author: Kacie Henderson Title: PENNING THE SHIPPER-WORTHY SCREENPLAY: EXPLORATION OF NETWORK TELEVISION SITUATIONAL COMEDY AND THE CRIME PROCEDURAL Advisor: Rodney Buxton Degree Date: June 2013 Abstract Network television writers often utilize ongoing romantic turmoil as a plot device to form loyal fan bases called “shippers,” viewers who become deeply invested in the romantic relationships between their favorite television couples. For my thesis, I explored the shipper paradigm and the differences between network sitcoms and crime procedurals by creating one spec script The Big Bang Theory and another for Bones.
    [Show full text]
  • Kim Badin Humorous Impoliteness in the Big Bang Theory and Sherlock
    Kim Badin Humorous Impoliteness in The Big Bang Theory and Sherlock: Conveying Humour with Offensive Language -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BADIN Kim. Humorous Impoliteness in The Big Bang Theory and Sherlock: Conveying Humour with Offensive Language, sous la direction de Lucile Bordet et Denis Jamet . - Lyon: Université Jean Moulin (Lyon 3), 2016. Mémoire soutenu le 01/06/2016. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Document diffusé sous le contrat Creative Commons « Paternité – pas d’utilisation commerciale - pas de modification » : vous êtes libre de le reproduire, de le distribuer et de le communiquer au public à condition d’en mentionner le nom de l’auteur et de ne pas le modifier, le transformer, l’adapter ni l’utiliser à des fins commerciales. Mémoire de Master 2 Etudes Anglophones Faculté des langues Kim BADIN Humorous Impoliteness in The Big Bang Theory and Sherlock: Conveying Humour with Offensive Language Mémoire dirigé par : Lucile BORDET Denis JAMET Année universitaire 2015-2016 Humorous Impoliteness in The Big Bang Theory and Sherlock: Conveying Humour with Offensive Language Kim BADIN Acknowledgements I would like to express my thanks to Lucile Bordet and Denis Jamet for their time and useful remarks and to Caroline Vaslin, Yoan Sechi and Pierre Mazzolini for proofreading some passages. Contents General introduction ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Een Onderzoek Naar De Vertaling Van Humor in De Nederlandse Ondertiteling Van De Amerikaanse Serie the Big Bang Theory
    Een onderzoek naar de vertaling van humor in de Nederlandse ondertiteling van de Amerikaanse serie The Big Bang Theory Masterscriptie Taalwetenschappen: Vertalen Tjitske Lemstra Studentnummer: 6051456 Begeleider O.J. Zwartjes Universiteit van Amsterdam Juni 2015 Inhoudsopgave 1. Inleiding………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 1.1 Onderzoeksmethode…………………………………………………………………………………..7 1.2 Structuur……………………………………………………………………………………………………8 1.3 Doelstellingen…………………………………………………………………………………………...9 2. Theoretisch kader………………………………………………………………………………………….10 2.1 Audiovisuele vertaling………………………………………………………………………………10 2.1.1 Audiovisuele vertaling binnen de vertaalwetenschap………………………11 2.1.1.1 De jaren vijftig tot tachtig…………………………………………………….11 2.1.1.2 De jaren negentig………………………………………………………………...13 2.1.1.3 Het nieuwe millennium……………………………………………………….14 2.1.2 Ondertiteling…………………………………………………………………………………15 2.1.2.1 Technische aspecten……………………………………………………………16 2.1.2.2 Linguïstische aspecten………………………………………………………...18 2.1.2.3 Vertaalmethodes bij ondertiteling………………………………………..19 2.1.3 Nasynchronisatie vs. ondertiteling………………………………………………….21 2.1.3.1 Voordelen…………………………………………………………………………...22 2.1.3.2 Nadelen………………………………………………………………………………22 2.1.3.3 Meningen……………………………………………………………………………23 2.2 Humorvertaling………………………………………………………………………………………..23 2.2.1 Humor…………………………………………………………………………………………..24 2.2.1.1 Superioriteitstheorie…………………………………………………………...25 2.2.1.2 Incongruentietheorie…………………………………………………………..26 2.2.1.3 Verlichtingstheorie en Speeltheorie……………………………………..27
    [Show full text]
  • The Analysis of Irony Through Relevance Theory in the Big Bang Theory Sitcom
    A análise da ironia por meio da teoria da relevância na comédia de situação The Big Bang Theory The analysis of irony through relevance theory in The Big Bang Theory sitcom Karla Camila Oliveira IZAIAS1 Resumo: Neste trabalho, será analisada a teoria da relevância proposta por Sperber e Wilson. Adicionalmente, a figura de linguagem ironia será descrita. Esse referencial teórico será utilizado para analisar um episódio da comédia de situação intitulado "The Big Bang Theory", em um esforço para demonstrar como enunciados são compreendidos entre os personagens e o público e como ironia é largamente utilizada como recurso humorístico. Palavras-chave: pragmática, teoria da relevância, ironia, comédia de situação, princípio de cooperação. Abstract: In this paper the relevance theory proposed by Sperber and Wilson will be reviewed. Additionaly, the figure of speech irony will be described. This theoretical background will be used to analyze an episode from the sitcom called ‘The Big Bang Theory’ in an effort to demonstrate how utterances are understood between characters and audience and how irony is largely used as humorous framework. Key words: pragmatics, relevance theory, irony, sitcom, cooperative principle. 1. Introduction Pragmatics is the science that is concerned with speaker’s meaning and how utterances are interpreted by listeners. Depending on how the communication between two people is stated it can be effective or it can create misunderstandings. In a conversation, speakers can express their unclear opinions by using figures of speech, such as irony. Irony deals with the idea of what is said from the unsaid and it is often showed in sitcoms, whenever a character is trying to depreciate another character’s opinion about a certain topic of the conversation.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Sitcom the Big Bang Theory Influences
    Communicating science through entertainment television: How the sitcom The Big Bang Theory influences audience perceptions of science and scientists Pei-ying Rashel Li A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Science Communication at The Australian National University May, 2016 ii Declaration This thesis is an account of research undertaken between February 2011 and October 2015 at the Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Except where acknowledged in the customary manner, the material presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge, original and has not been submitted in whole or part for a degree in any university. Two academic papers were published on this topic which I co-authored with the chair of my supervisory panel, and some of the sections of these papers have been reproduced in parts of Chapter 3. Acknowledgements of these two academic papers are written in the footnotes following the relevant sections. Pei-ying Rashel Li May, 2016 iii iv Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank my supervisory panel - Dr Lindy Orthia, Dr Merryn McKinnon, and Dr Rod Lamberts - for their enduring perseverance. Your encouragements and willingness to read through drafts have constantly increased the quality of this thesis. I only wish the sweet treats I brought back from my various overseas trips have shown you that you were always in the back of my mind. Special thanks goes to my chair of panel, Lindy. You have not only endured my Ph.D. with me, but also encouraged me consistently when I didn't give you my best work.
    [Show full text]