A Study of Sarcasm in the American Sitcom the Big Bang Theory
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
A STUDY OF SARCASM IN THE AMERICAN SITCOM THE BIG BANG THEORY
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
By Emma Hadiana Cahyani Student Number: 131214086
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2017
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
A STUDY OF SARCASM IN THE AMERICAN SITCOM THE BIG BANG THEORY
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree in English Language Education
By Emma Hadiana Cahyani Student Number: 131214086
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2017
i PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ABSTRACT
Cahyani, Emma Hadiana. (2017). A Study of Sarcasm in the American Sitcom The Big Bang Theory. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts Education, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.
Language as a means of communication leads to variations in humans’ verbal exchanges. They can deliver their utterances through direct and indirect speech acts. In this study, the researcher analyzed a form of indirect speech act namely sarcasm. Sarcastic utterances are conveyed in a non-detrimental manner but are aimed to hurt the addressees’ feelings through implied meanings. Taking this phenomenon into account, the researcher chose The Big Bang Theory because sarcasm is frequently used in the sitcom. In this research, the researcher addressed two research questions. The first research question is 1) Which maxims are flouted by the characters in their sarcastic utterances in the American sitcom The Big Bang Theory? The second research question is 2) What are the purposes of sarcastic utterances in the American sitcom The Big Bang Theory? In conducting this research, the researcher employed a qualitative method, specifically discourse analysis. The data were collected from the transcripts of five episodes of The Big Bang Theory Season 9. Then, the data were analyzed using Miles and Huberman’s (1994) data analysis technique. To answer the first research question, the data were classified into which maxims were flouted by the characters using Grice’s (1967, 1975) theory on the Cooperative Principle. To answer the second research question, the data were categorized into the purposes of sarcastic utterances based on Attardo’s (2002) theory. The research results revealed that all four maxims were flouted by the characters in the American sitcom The Big Bang Theory. Additionally, there were several sarcastic utterances in which the characters flouted more than one maxim. Based on the research results, the maxim of quality was most frequently flouted (72.34%). Then, the results of this study also showed that all purposes of sarcasm were present in the sarcastic utterances. There were even several sarcastic utterances which served more than one purpose. Based on the analysis of the research results, sarcasm as a sophistication was found most frequently (25.53%) followed by sarcasm as an evaluation (23.4%).
Keywords: The Big Bang Theory, sarcasm, the Cooperative Principle, maxim flouting
vi PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ABSTRAK
Cahyani, Emma Hadiana. (2017). A Study of Sarcasm in the American Sitcom The Big Bang Theory. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Bahasa sebagai alat komunikasi memunculkan variasi di dalam komunikasi. Bahasa memungkinkan manusia untuk menyatakan tuturan mereka secara langsung dan tidak langsung. Di dalam penelitian ini, peneliti mengaji sebuah bentuk tindak tutur tidak langsung, yaitu sarkasme. Tuturan sarkastik disampaikan secara halus, tetapi dimaksudkan untuk menyinggung perasaan pendengar melalui makna tersirat. Dengan mengaji fenomena ini, peneliti memilih The Big Bang Theory karena sarkasme sering digunakan di sitkom ini. Dalam melakukan penelitian ini, peneliti merumuskan dua rumusan masalah. Rumusan masalah pertama adalah 1) Maksim yang mana yang dilanggar oleh para tokoh di dalam tuturan sarkastik mereka di sitkom Amerika The Big Bang Theory? Rumusan masalah kedua adalah 2) Apa tujuan tuturan sarkastik di sitkom Amerika The Big Bang Theory? Dalam melaksanakan penelitian ini, peneliti memakai metode kualitatif, khususnya analisis wacana. Data penelitian dikumpulkan dari transkripsi lima episode The Big Bang Theory Musim 9. Lalu, data tersebut dianalisis memakai teknik analisis data menurut Miles dan Huberman (1994). Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah pertama, data tersebut diklasifikasikan berdasarkan maksim yang dilanggar oleh para tokoh menurut teori Grice (1967, 1975) tentang the Cooperative Principle. Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah kedua, data dikategorikan berdasarkan tujuan tuturan sarkastik menurut teori Attardo (2002). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa seluruh empat maksim dilanggar oleh karakter di sitkom Amerika The Big Bang Theory. Selain itu, ada beberapa tuturan sarkastik yang menunjukkan pelanggaran lebih dari satu maksim. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, maksim yang paling sering dilanggar adalah maksim kualitas (72,34%). Lalu, hasil penelitian ini juga menunjukkan bahwa semua tujuan sarkasme muncul pada tuturan sarkastik. Bahkan, ada beberapa tuturan sarkastik yang mempunyai lebih dari satu tujuan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sarkasme sebagai sophistication paling sering ditemukan (25,53%), diikuti dengan sarkasme sebagai evaluation (23,4%).
Kata kunci: The Big Bang Theory, sarcasm, the Cooperative Principle, maxim flouting
vii PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to God for his blessings, strength, and unconditional love in every moment of my life. I would like to thank both of my parents, Ignatius Sunarno Hadi and Bernadeta Padmi Indarwati, for their love, supports, and prayers. I would also like to thank my beloved aunt, Anastasia Hery Purwati, my siblings, Felix Kurniawan Hadi Pratama & Yovita Caesa Febiona, and my whole family for being my support system. Then, I would like to thank my advisor, Truly Almendo Pasaribu, S.S., M.A., for her time, patience, and encouragement to help me in finishing this thesis. I would like to send my deepest gratitude to my academic advisor, F. X. Ouda Teda Ena, S.Pd., M.Pd., Ed.D., and English Language Education Study Program (ELESP) lecturers. They have given me intellectual care, emotional support, and love during my study in Sanata Dharma University. I would like to send my warmest love to every member of ELESP batch 2013, especially Class C and D, for making my college experience wonderful and full of laughter. I would love to send my gratitude to my colleagues in Dream Catcher and Lembaga Bahasa for helping me to grow and develop as a professional. I thank Christine Permata Sari, S.Pd. and Simon Arsa Manggala, S.S., M.Hum., for helping me validate my research data. I also thank Vitaloka Irmala Dewi, Amado Anthony G. Mendoza III, and Mark Laurence D. Garcia as my proofreaders. I would never forget my best friends, Odilia Ratna Mayasari, Lusia Rita Nugraheni, Irene Jessica Isa Paskha, Dian Natalia Aryani, Yacintha Septrianti Nago, Claudia, Tri Mulyani Tampubolon, Yosephin Diva Fabiola Nuralita, Irene Benita Novenia Ardiananta, Rosendi Galih Susani, and Joanna Chue. They have motivated and inspired me in doing great things I never thought would be possible. I would love to thank them for being the fuel to my fire.
Emma Hadiana Cahyani
viii PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ...... i APPROVAL PAGES ...... ii STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ...... iv PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ...... v ABSTRACT ...... vi ABSTRAK ...... vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... viii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... ix LIST OF TABLES ...... xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xii LIST OF APPENDICES ...... xiii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. Research Background...... 1 B. Research Questions ...... 4 C. Research Significance ...... 4 D. Definition of Terms ...... 6
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 8 A. Theoretical Description ...... 8 1. Conversational Implicature ...... 8 2. The Cooperative Principle...... 9 3. Purposes of Sarcasm ...... 16 B. Theoretical Framework ...... 19
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 21 A. Research Method ...... 21 B. Source of Data ...... 22 C. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique ...... 23 1. Human Instrument ...... 23 2. Sitcom Transcripts ...... 24 D. Data Analysis Technique ...... 24 1. Data Reduction ...... 25 2. Data Display ...... 26 3. Conclusion or Verification ...... 27
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 28 A. Research Results ...... 28
ix PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
1. The Percentage of Maxims Flouted by the Characters in Their Sarcastic Utterances in The Big Bang Theory ...... 28 2. The Percentage of Purposes of Sarcastic Utterances Found in The Big Bang Theory...... 29 B. Discussion ...... 31 1. The Maxims Flouted by the Characters in Their Sarcastic Utterances in The Big Bang Theory ...... 31 2. The Purposes of Sarcastic Utterances Found in The Big Bang Theory ...... 52
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 65 A. Conclusions ...... 65 B. Implications ...... 67 C. Recommendations ...... 68
REFERENCES ...... 70
APPENDICES ...... 73
x PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1. The Categorization of Pragmatic Features and Purposes of Sarcastic
Utterances ...... 27
3.2. The Data Display of Maxims Flouted by the Characters in Their Sarcastic
Utterances ...... 28
3.3. The Data Display of Purposes of Sarcastic Utterances ...... 28
4.1. The Research Results on the Maxims Flouted by the Characters in Their
Sarcastic Utterances ...... 31
4.2. The Research Results on the Purposes of Sarcastic Utterances ...... 32
xi PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SU : Sarcastic Utterance
MQn : Maxim of Quantity
MQl : Maxim of Quality
MR : Maxim of Relation
MM : Maxim of Manner
S : Sophistication
E : Evaluation
TP : Tool for Politeness
PA : Persuasive Aspect
R : Retractability
GA : Group Affiliation
xii PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1. The List of Situations in which Sarcastic Utterances Appear ...... 77
2. The Pragmatic Features and Purposes of Sarcastic Utterances ...... 91
xiii PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter covers four parts of the introduction of this research. The first part is the research background which explains the reasons for conducting this research. The second part is the research questions which mention the formulated problems. The third part is the research significance which elaborates the impacts of this research. The fourth part is the definition of terms used in this study.
A. Research Background
Language becomes a vital part of humans’ life as it plays a crucial role for them. Language is characterized as a tool of communication (Bühler, 2011).
Communication is an act of delivering and receiving meaningful messages which is conducted by at least two people. As a tool of communication, people communicate through languages in their daily life. Languages become a bridge among a group of people in society (Radford, Atkinson, Britain, Clahsen, &
Spencer, 1999). Moreover, Adegbite and Akindele (1999) note that languages play an essential role in socio-economics, politics, and culture. Considering the importance of language, it can be deduced that language cannot be separated from society. Bühler (2011) identifies three communicative functions of language: expressive function, representative function, and conative/appealing function.
First, as an expressive function, language is used to express mental states. Second, as a representative function, language is used to give information to others. Third, as a conative/appealing function, languages is used to persuade someone to do an
1 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
2 action. According to Whorf (1956), language forms thoughts and emotions, for it determines one’s perspective of reality. As people need languages to express what they have in mind, they produce miscellaneous ways to deliver their thoughts or feelings. One’s way of conveying a message may differ from others.
The phenomenon which has been discussed above leads to variations in speech acts. Speech acts are defined as actions which are performed when someone wants to say something (Austin, 1962). In conveying utterances, there are two ways to do it. A speaker can produce utterances through a direct or indirect speech act (Searle, 1979). He communicates through a direct speech act when he delivers a message which has a conventional meaning with the words he utters. The directness in his speech act is indicated by the existence of a direct relationship between the form and function of his utterance. Otherwise, he performs an indirect speech act when he conveys an underlying meaning from the words he utters. The indirectness in his speech act makes the form and function of his utterance different but indirectly related. Classifying direct and indirect speech acts is not easy, for a speaker must know how an utterance operates on surface and implied meanings.
There are many kinds of figurative language used in communication, such as irony, sarcasm, metaphor, and hyperbole. In this research, the researcher analyzed a sarcasm phenomena. The researcher examined indirect expressions because sarcasm is an example of indirect speech act. According to Cutting
(2002), sarcasm is a form of irony which is not so friendly and usually intended to hurt. Her concept of sarcasm has been studied by Rillof et al. (2013) in their paper
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
3 entitled Sarcasm as Contrast between a Positive Sentiment and Negative
Situation. Their research on sarcasm proved its notion that there is a “contrast between a positive sentiment and negative situation” (p. 704). A speaker who is being sarcastic utters a positive sentiment, but implies a negative meaning.
Therefore, he expresses his thoughts in an opposite way and expects the ones who hear it to infer that he means the opposite.
By taking this phenomenon into account, the researcher believes that it is important for English language learners to study sarcasm. Not only will they understand sarcasm, but also they will be able to use sarcasm. When they are involved in a situation where sarcasm occurs, they will be able to recover the covert meaning implied in a sarcastic utterance. If they succeed in comprehending the implied meaning, they will contribute to a successful verbal exchange.
Otherwise, a failure in understanding the implied meaning can mislead them to a wrong interpretation of the utterance. Having understood how sarcasm works, they can use it to mitigate hurtful effects when expressing negative sentiments.
Furthermore, it is important for lecturers to help their students to study sarcasm in the class. They can use it as a discussion topic when the students learn pragmatics. Moreover, they can encourage them to conduct research on sarcasm.
As Rockwell (2000) says, research on sarcasm provides insights about different types of linguistic and extra-linguistic information to comprehend ambiguous utterances. In order to comprehend them, the students can implement pragmatic theories.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
4
In conducting this research, the researcher chose an American sitcom The
Big Bang Theory because sarcasm is widely used in conversations among the characters. The frequent use of sarcasm in their interactions provided adequate data for this research. This sitcom is about a group of brilliant scientists who work at California Institute of Technology (Caltech). They are Sheldon Cooper,
Leonard Hofstadter, Howard Wolowitz, and Raj Koothrappali. Besides working at the same place, they often hang out together since all of them share the same circle of friendship and interests in video games, comics, and movies. In addition, there are other main characters of the show besides the four characters mentioned above. They are Penny, Bernadette Rostenkowski, Amy Farrah Fowler, and Stuart
Bloom.
B. Research Questions
In this research, there are two research problems to solve:
1. Which maxims are flouted by the characters in their sarcastic utterances in
the American sitcom The Big Bang Theory?
2. What are the purposes of sarcastic utterances in the American sitcom The
Big Bang Theory?
C. Research Significance
The benefits of this research on sarcasm in the American sitcom The Big
Bang Theory are:
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
5
1. For English Language Lecturers
This research is expected to be able to assist lecturers who teach linguistics, especially pragmatics. Sarcasm as a kind of indirect speech act can become an interesting topic to discuss with their students. They can also use examples from various sources; such as speeches, movie transcripts, articles on magazines or newspapers. By helping their students to study sarcasm, the lecturers will be able to help them in understanding implicit meanings in utterances based on their contexts. Furthermore, the teachers can encourage their students to conduct some research on sarcasm from phenomena around them.
2. For English Language Learners
English language learners will have broader knowledge on pragmatics and discourse analysis, especially sarcasm. They will be able to comprehend sarcastic utterances based on their implied meanings and discover the purposes of sarcastic utterances. By analyzing sarcasm, the students can gain enlightenment on various approaches to study meanings based on their contexts. This research is expected to assist them in conducting research on sarcasm.
3. For Future Researchers
The researcher expects that this research will be beneficial and provide information for pragmatic analysis, particularly sarcasm. The theories which have been employed by the researcher are expected to help future researchers to understand the concept of sarcasm. The researcher also hopes that they can conduct other studies on sarcasm by analyzing it from different points of view. By
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
6 combining multiple linguistics disciplines, they can enrich variations of study on sarcasm.
D. Definition of Terms
The terms frequently used in this study will be defined in this section. The definitions of these terms are:
1. Sarcasm
According to Cutting (2002), sarcasm is a form of irony which is not so friendly and usually intended to hurt. An utterer says something which cannot be interpreted literally. The actual meaning of his utterances should be deduced based on the context in order to understand what the speaker tries to convey. It is often mistaken for irony since it is still related to irony. There are three types of irony which are commonly used in fiction work, namely verbal, situational, and dramatic irony (Arp & Johnson, 2012). Verbal irony appears when someone uses words to mean something which is different with he wants to say. Another type of irony is situational irony. It appears when reality is not the same as the expected situation. Pettineo (2012) states that situational irony is a result from characters’ actions which differ from what is expected. The other type of irony is dramatic irony. It is present when the audience is more aware of what happens than the characters. It happens because there is a discrepancy between what the audience and characters understand in a play (Pettineo, 2012). Thus, sarcasm is a form of verbal irony.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
7
To distinguish irony and sarcasm, Haiman (1998) states that there are two differences between irony and sarcasm. First, a situation can only be ironic, but not sarcastic. Nevertheless, someone can be ironic and sarcastic. Second, irony can happen without any intention of the speakers who are involved in the conversation. However, if someone wants to be sarcastic, he should intentionally assert his utterances in a sarcastic way. Without the existence of any intention, sarcastic utterances cannot be produced.
2. The Cooperative Principle
There are four conversational maxims of the Cooperative Principle which are suggested by Grice (1975). These maxims are called the Grice’s maxims. In order to construct successful communication, someone needs to observe the maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner. When people observe those maxims, they will be able to produce successful and efficient verbal exchanges.
3. Sitcom
Sitcom is a blended word which comes from “situation comedy”.
According to Taflinger (1996), there are three types of sitcom: actcom (action comedy), domcom (domestic comedy), and dramedy (dramatic comedy). The storyline of a sitcom is usually about everyday lives. It deals with a small number of characters who experience everyday life but it is presented in a humorous way.
The subject of a sitcom can be about family life or life at a workplace.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter is divided into two parts, namely a theoretical description and theoretical framework. The theoretical description provides the explanation of theories related to this research and similar research studies. Then, theoretical framework presents the summaries of all theories which are used by the researcher to answer the research questions.
A. Theoretical Description
Some theories which are relevant to this research are used as the theoretical basis. The theories which are used in this research are conversational implicature (Grice, 1967, 1975; Grundy, 2000), cooperative principle (Grice,
1967, 1975; Cutting, 2002), and the purposes of sarcasm (Attardo, 2002).
1. Conversational Implicature
In Logic and Conversation, Grice (1967, 1975) introduces a term which is widely used in pragmatic studies called implicature. “Implicature is component of speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s utterance without being part of what is said.” (Horn, 2004, p. 3). The message delivered by the speaker is characteristically beyond what is stated. In order to interpret what the speaker means in his utterance, the hearer has to infer the underlying meaning implied by the speaker. If this process is successfully conducted, they will form successful and efficient communication (Wray, Trott
Bloomer, & Reay, 1998). In achieving the goal of communication, the hearer has
8 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
9 to be able to identify a context which makes sense of the utterance (Grundy, 2000, p. 72). If he is aware of the context of the utterance, he will be able to recover the implicit meaning behind the utterance stated by the speaker.
Grice (1967, 1975) distinguishes natural and non-natural meanings of utterances. Natural meaning is always present in every situation when an utterance occurs. However, non-natural meaning is not always connected or taking part of what is said in utterances. He coins a term called implicature to define non-natural or non-conventional meaning. Implicature is defined as “any meaning that is implied, i.e., conveyed indirectly through hints, and understood implicitly without ever being explicitly stated” (Grundy, 2000, p. 73). Grice (1967, 1975) suggests two types of implicature: conventional and non-conventional implicature.
Conventional implicature is an implicature which has a closely lexical meaning to what has been said by the speaker. Levinson (1983, p. 127) asserts that conventional implicatures are not derived from pragmatic principles, such as conversational maxims, but are attached to certain vocabulary items or expressions. On the contrary, non-conventional implicature, or also known as conversational implicature, is an implicature which becomes a result of meaning deriving from pragmatic principles rather than merely semantic meaning.
2. The Cooperative Principle
Grice (1967, 1975) formulates a notion of conversational principles namely the Cooperative Principle. It requires people who participate in a conversation to “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
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
10 in which you are engaged” (Grice, 1975, p. 45). Finch (2000) states that Grice’s
Cooperative Principle assumes that people cooperate in conducting communication in order to reduce misunderstanding. They cooperate in the process of communication by following a number of subprinciples which are called Grice’s maxims. There are four conversational maxims which are suggested by Grice (1967, 1975). The categorization falls into maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner. a. Observing the Maxims
There are four conversational maxims suggested by Grice which should be observed or followed in order to create efficient and successful verbal exchanges:
1) The Maxim of Quantity
The category of QUANTITY relates to the quantity of information to be provided, and under it fall the following maxims: 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange). 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. (p. 45)
Utterers should give enough information to their interlocutors to observe the maxim of quantity. The information should not be less or more than it is needed by the interlocutors. When inadequate information is given, the interlocutors might miss some information. Moreover, it could make them unable to completely understand what the speakers are talking about. However, if the given information is too much, it can bore the interlocutors since they hear what they do not need to hear. Speakers who are aware that they give too abundant information than it is needed might point out their awareness by saying
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
11 something, such as ‘Well, to cut a long story short, she did not get home until two’ (Cutting, 2002, p. 34).
2) The Maxim of Quality
Under the category of QUALITY falls a supermaxim—‘Try to make your contribution one that is true’—and two more specific maxims: 1. Do not say what you believe to be false. 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. (p. 46)
In following the maxim of quality, speakers should give sincere or honest information to their interlocutors based on reality. They are expected to say something which they believe to be true or to have adequate evidence. By delivering genuine information to their interlocutors, they will contribute in creating successful communication. Nevertheless, some speakers like to indicate when they are not certain of what they say or they lack adequate evidence. They can express it by saying something, e.g. ‘as far as I know’ (Cutting, 2002, p. 35).
It is aimed to avoid being accused of lying by their hearers.
3) The Maxim of Relation
Under the category of RELATION I place a single maxim, namely, ‘Be relevant.’ Though the maxim itself is terse, its formulation conceals a number of problems that exercise me a good deal: questions about what different kinds and focuses of relevance there may be, how these shift in the course of a talk exchange, how to allow for the fact that subjects of conversation are legitimately changed, and so on. I find the treatment of such questions exceedingly difficult, and I hope to revert to them in a later work. (p. 46)
In a talk exchange process, utterers are expected to give relevant utterances to what have been said before. To indicate that what they say is related to the topic of their conversation, speakers might point it out by using a hint, such
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
12 as ‘just going back to your point’ (Cutting, 2002, p. 35). It is a way of indicating that the speakers contribute in the communication properly by conveying utterances which have relevance to the talk exchange.
4) The Maxim of Manner
Finally, under the category of MANNER, which I understand as relating not (like the previous categories) to what is said but, rather, to HOW what is said is to be said, I include the supermaxim—‘Be perspicuous’—and various maxims such as: 1. Avoid obscurity of expression. 2. Avoid ambiguity. 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). 4. Be orderly. (p. 46)
In order to observe maxim of manner, utterers should be brief and orderly in delivering their messages. They also should avoid ambiguity and obscurity.
They might provoke confusion to their interlocutors towards what they express if they are being ambiguous. Furthermore, the meanings of their messages cannot be delivered successfully. They can point to the fact that they observe the maxim by uttering expressions, e.g. ‘just to clarify a point’ (Cutting, 2002, p. 35). b. Flouting the Maxims
According to Cutting (2002), maxim floutings occur “when speakers appear not to follow the maxims but expect hearers to appreciate the meaning implied” (p. 37). They are classified as a form of indirect speech act. The form and meaning of an utterance differ because there is an implied meaning behind the utterance which is dissimilar from its literal meaning. Even though there is a maxim violation at the level of what is said, there is still an implicature which invites the hearers to draw an implicated meaning from the utterance (Grundy,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
13
2000, p. 76). Meanwhile, a speaker who merely violates a maxim deliberately hides the truth of his utterance. He does not want his addressee to know that he unostentatiously deceives his hearer. He only provides limited, insincere, irrelevant, or obscure information to mislead the addressee’s understanding. It is what makes maxim flouting and violation distinct. Therefore, a speaker who flouts a maxim is being cooperative and observing the Cooperative Principle at the level of what is implied.
1) Flouting the Maxim of Quantity
The maxim of quality is flouted when a speaker deliberately provides too little or too much information than it is required (Grice, 1975, p. 52). When the speaker does not give adequate information purposefully, he wants to hide some parts of the information he delivers. Thus, he expects his hearer to infer the whole meaning from the limited information he provides. However, the speaker may risk making his hearer bored if he deliberately provides too much information.
A speaker may flout the maxim of quantity by providing too little information in:
A Well how do I look? B Your shoes are nice … (Cutting, 2002, p. 37)
Based on the conversation above, A wanted to hear B’s opinion about his whole appearance. However, B only responded by commenting on A’s shoes. In this case, B was being non-informative at the level of what was said because he was supposed to comment on every aspect of A’s appearance. In fact, B only said that
A’s shoes were nice. It does not mean that B was not being cooperative in the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
14 conversation, he merely intended to impart the information he was reluctant to tell his interlocutor. B expected that his interlocutor would notice that there was an implied meaning behind his utterance. According to B’s judgment, it can be concluded that he only liked A’s shoes out of his appearance.
2) Flouting the Maxim of Quality
A speaker flouts the maxim of quality when he says something which lacks adequate evidence (Grice, 1975). If he is not sure about what he says, he is supposed to give a signal in his utterance that he does not have a reasonable basis.
It will put hearers in ease when they want to draw a meaning behind his utterance.
Furthermore, the maxim of quality is flouted when he utters something which does not truly represent his thoughts (Cutting, 2002). Grice (1975) states that there are some ways to flout the maxim of quality, such as by using irony, metaphor, meiosis, and hyperbole. Cutting (2002) also adds that using euphemism, banter, and sarcasm can flout the maxim of quality. In addition, there is a figurative device namely rhetorical question which flouts the maxim of quality besides the ones previously mentioned (Pop, 2010). Those figurative languages flout the maxim of quality because their meanings cannot be taken at their face values. The hearers are expected to recover the conversational implicatures by discovering the truth in the utterances.
Sarcasm, which is a figurative language, appears in the proceeding example of a flouting of the maxim of quality. Cutting (2002) gives an example in
‘Why don’t you leave all your dirty clothes on the lounge floor, love, and then you only need wash them when someone breaks a leg trying to get to the sofa?’
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
15
(p. 38). In the preceding utterance, the speaker’s thought was not truly represented by what she said. She uttered a positive sentiment but implied a negative one. Let us assume that the speaker was a mother who was talking to her child. Based on the context, she seemed mad that her child left his dirty clothes and tried to warn him through a sarcastic utterance. Since it was sarcasm, she had to flout the maxim of quality by saying the opposite of what she meant. Her real intention was to warn her child that he was not supposed to leave the dirty clothes on the floor and was supposed to wash them immediately before someone might trip over them.
3) Flouting the Maxim of Relation
The maxim of relation is flouted when a speaker blatantly makes his utterance irrelevant to preceding co-text (Grice, 1975, p. 54). The speaker tends to be cooperative in participating in communication indirectly. He expects that his hearers will be able to connect what he says and the text which precedes it.
The following talk exchange presents a situation in which the maxim of relation is flouted:
A So what do you think of Mark? B His flatmate’s a wonderful cook. (Cutting, 2002, p. 39)
If the situation above is analyzed, B’s utterance seems irrelevant to the preceding text uttered by A. B asked A about his opinion towards Mark but B did not give a proper response. Instead of giving his opinion about Mark, B told A that Mark’s flat mate was a wonderful cook. B did it purposively as he avoided to talk about
Mark. It can be assumed that he did not get a good impression on Mark. Despite
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
16 not conveying his utterance directly, his utterance was still indirectly relevant to what his interlocutor had said.
4) Flouting the Maxim of Manner
There are four criteria which can flout the maxim of manner: ambiguity, obscurity, failure to be brief or succinct, and failure to be orderly (Grice, 1975, pp.
54-55). A speaker should deliver his message clearly, briefly, and orderly. In the following conversation, it can be seen that the maxim of manner is being flouted in a conversation between a husband and a wife:
A Where are you off to? B I was thinking of going out to get some of that funny white stuff for somebody. A OK, but don’t be long – dinner’s nearly ready. (Cutting, 2002, p. 39)
B was being ambiguous and obscure when he said ‘that funny white stuff’ and
‘for somebody’. By saying ‘that funny white stuff’, the speaker meant ice cream.
It could have been mistakenly assumed as something else by his wife. Then, he also said that he would get it for somebody. The word ‘somebody’ in this context is not exactly clear referring to whom. He actually was talking about his daughter.
Hence, the ice cream was for her. He intentionally flouted the maxim of manner because he expected his wife to understand what he was talking about.
Consequently, he played with his words so that his daughter would not know and want to eat the ice cream before her meal.
3. Purposes of Sarcasm
There are six purposes of sarcasm listed by Attardo (2002) in Humor and
Irony in Interaction: From Mode Adaption to Failure of Detection. Those
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
17 purposes are sophistication, evaluation, tool for politeness, persuasive aspect, retractability, and group affiliation. a. Sophistication
Sarcasm is a sophisticated and indirect speech act, for a hearer should process implicit meanings in sarcastic utterances. Sarcasm as a form of verbal irony functions as sophistication which is used to show someone’s ability to
“play” with language to make humor. A speaker utters one thing but means to say another thing. Dews, Kaplan, and Winner (1995, p. 348) also add that discrepancy between explicit and implicit meanings in utterances may create humor. It makes sarcasm and humor subtly connected. Moreover, sarcastic utterances are more frequently perceived funny than non-sarcastic utterances (Kreuz, Long, & Church,
1991, pp. 153-154). It has also been shown that sarcastic utterances are funnier than utterances which convey literal meanings because of surprising discrepancy between utterances and implied meanings yielded by speakers (Dews et al., 1995, p. 363). However, there are cases in which humor is not sarcastic and sarcasm is not humorous. b. Evaluation
Sarcasm is a form of verbal irony which is intended to express negative sentiments towards someone. It is related to the expression of a feeling, attitude, or evaluation (Grice, 1978, p. 124; 1989, p. 53). Sperber and Wilson (1986, p.
239) also claim that expressing a negative attitude is the point using sarcasm.
Nonetheless, Dews et al. (1995, p. 349) and Dews & Winner (1995, p. 15) argue that sarcasm as an evaluation can mute the negative effects of criticism and
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
18 positive effects of praise. This muting function becomes the purpose of using sarcasm because the actual meanings are implied in utterances. c. Tool for Politeness
Sarcasm as a tool for politeness can be used to be polite. It is considered less detrimental than overt aggression in direct speech acts. Dews and Winner
(1995) state that the use of sarcasm mitigates threatening effects of intended meanings. Barbe (1995, p. 90) also notes that by using sarcasm, a speaker is able to turn conflicts aside for not delivering his utterances in an overtly offensive way.
The harmful effects of negative sentiments are mitigated by politeness in the speaker’s utterance. Hence, the use of sarcasm functions as a face-saving strategy. d. Persuasive Aspect
Sarcasm as a persuasive aspect can be used to persuade someone to do something. There are three aspects of sarcasm which can be used persuasively.
First, sarcasm is an influential rhetorical tool because it makes the truth of an implied meaning obvious (Carston, 1981, p. 30). Nevertheless, a speaker and an addressee have to share a common ground to comprehend the speaker's intention.
Second, sarcasm is memorable (Kreuz et al., 1991, p. 161). It makes a speaker succeeds in conducting his communication effectively. Third, sarcasm serves as an informative utterance and a politeness strategy (Giora, 1995). Therefore, it is necessary for a speaker and a hearer to have shared knowledge in order to achieve successful communication.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
19 e. Retractability
Sarcasm as retractability can be used to express something so that someone can avoid the responsibility of being wrong. Berendonner (1981) asserts that a speaker can “avoid any sanctions that may follow from stating directly what he/she thinks” (p. 238). This aspect allows the speaker to have an uncommitted attitude towards his utterances. f. Group Affiliation
Sarcasm as a group affiliation is able to build inclusive and exclusive status. It defines what kind of affiliation a group has. There are two functions of sarcasm (Myers-Roy, 1981). First, sarcasm can create in-group solidarity or feelings among members of a group. Second, it can also be used to express negative judgments towards others and exclude them from a group. Accordingly, it shows whether someone meets their standards of the group or not.
B. Theoretical Framework
To answer the first research question, the researcher employed Grice’s theory (1967, 1975) on the conversational implicature and the Cooperative
Principle. By employing Grice’s (1967, 1975) theory on the conversational implicature, the researcher was able to comprehend the contexts and covert meanings behind sarcastic utterances. After the sarcastic utterances and their conversational implicatures were listed, the researcher employed Grice’s (1967,
1975) theory on the Cooperative Principle in order to discover which maxims were flouted by the characters in their sarcastic utterances. According to him,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
20 there are four types of maxims namely the maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner.
To address the reasons why sarcastic utterances were conveyed, the researcher employed Attardo’s (2002) theory. Attardo (2002) mentions that there are six purposes of sarcastic utterances: sophistication, evaluation, tool for politeness, persuasive effect, retractability, and group affiliation. The sarcastic utterances which had been listed by the researcher were classified based on their purposes.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The discussion of this chapter consists of four sections. The first section is the research method which describes the method used in this study. The second section is the source of data which explains from where the data are gathered. The third section is the instruments and the data gathering technique which explains the instruments employed in this study and how the data in this study gathered.
The fourth section is the data analysis technique which describes how the data is analyzed in order to answer the research questions.
A. Research Method
The type of research which was used by the researcher was a qualitative research. “Qualitative researchers seek to understand a phenomenon by focusing on the total picture rather than breaking it down into variables” (Ary, Jacobs,
Sorensen, & Razavieh, 2010, p.29). This research was aimed to obtain the whole phenomenon in details instead of in a form of statistical numbers. The results of the research are described in a detailed way as a product of some data gathering techniques. There are many types of qualitative research, such as basic interpretative studies, case studies, document or content analysis, ethnography, grounded theory, historical studies, narrative inquiry, phenomenological studies, and discourse analysis. In this research, the researcher applied discourse analysis as the research method.
The analysis of discourse is related to the analysis of the use of language
21 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
22
(Brown & Yule, 1983). When discourse analysts study spoken or written discourse, they focus on what language is used for. They do not only examine the forms of language but also the functions of language. Language as a means of communication functions as transactional and interactional. Lyons (1977) asserts that speakers use a language as an transactional function when they are interested to exchange information with their hearers. As an interactional function, language can also be used to negotiate relationships, peer-solidarity, the exchange of turns in conversations, and the face-saving strategy between speakers and hearers
(Labov, 1972; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). To discover the use of language based on the data, the researcher referred to the contexts of the spoken discourse of the data. By focusing on analyzing and interpreting the discourse based on the contexts, the researcher could infer what utterers tried to convey.
In this research, the researcher analyzed which sarcastic utterances were found in the American sitcom The Big Bang Theory Season 9 by finding the conversational implicatures implied in the sarcastic utterances and which maxims were flouted by the characters. After discovering the sarcastic utterances, the researcher investigated the purposes of the sarcastic utterances. These processes required some pragmatic theories which are presented in Chapter II.
B. Source of Data
In conducting this research, the researcher obtained the data from The Big
Bang Theory transcripts. The researcher used the transcripts from five episodes of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
23
The Big Bang Theory Season 9. This season was chosen because it was the latest completed season when the researcher started to conduct the study. Then, the episodes which were used as a source of data were Episodes 1, 2, 3, 10, and 14.
Those episodes provided sufficient data for this research. The utterances from all characters in those episodes were analyzed in order to obtain the data. The researcher downloaded the transcripts from bigbangtrans.wordpress.com. Every utterance was checked by the researcher in order to assure that the transcripts were exactly the same as what the characters said in those episodes.
C. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique
There were two instruments which were used by the researcher in this research. The instruments were human instrument and sitcom transcripts.
1. Human Instrument
There are many major characteristics of qualitative research which distinguish it from quantitative research. Human as a research instrument is one of the distinguishing characteristics of qualitative research. This instrument becomes the means for gathering and analyzing data. Lincoln and Guba (1985) introduce the distinguishing characteristics used by qualitative researcher by introducing the concept of human as an instrument. Ary et al. (2010) state that human instrument is the only instrument which is capable of doing a complex task—studying human experiences and situations. He will interact with people, observe their activities, read their documents, and note the information in his journals. The analysis of qualitative research relies on interviewing, observation, and document analysis as
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
24 the primary means to gather data. It does not depend on highly structured protocols, such as paper-and-pencil tests, checklists, and mechanical instruments.
2. Sitcom Transcripts
In conducting this research, the researcher used sitcom transcripts as recorded materials. The transcripts were the documents needed by the researcher to analyze the characters’ utterances. The transcripts were taken from bigbangtrans.wordpress.com. By studying these documents, the research questions formulated by the researcher could be answered.
Some steps were conducted by the researcher to gather the data. In order to obtain the data, the researcher used The Big Bang Theory transcripts. First, the researcher downloaded the transcripts of the Season 9 from the internet. Second, the researcher examined the validity of the transcripts by watching the mentioned episodes while checking whether every utterance matched. Third, the researcher selected the utterances in the transcripts by identifying which utterances were considered sarcastic based on their implicatures.
D. Data Analysis Technique
Since the study focuses on a study of sarcasm, the researcher employed a qualitative approach. By using a qualitative approach, the researcher had research results which had rich descriptions of the study. The researcher employed three steps in analyzing the data. These three steps were data reduction, data display, and conclusion or verification (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
25
1. Data Reduction
Data reduction is the process where the researcher tries to reduce irrelevant information from the data which has been obtained. This process focuses on selecting, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data by implementing a process called coding. “Codes are tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study. Codes are usually attached to ‘chunks’ of varying size – words, phrases, sentences or whole paragraphs” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 56). By giving codes to units of information, the researcher was able to put the data into conceptual classifications.
First, the researcher selected the sarcastic utterances from the transcripts.
Second, the researcher created codes to make the data analysis more conceptual.
The coding process was adjusted to the research objectives which were to find out the maxims flouted by the characters and the purposes of the sarcastic utterances.
The researcher labeled a sarcastic utterance with SU followed by a number, such as SU1 for sarcastic utterance 1.
Table 3.1. Categorization of Pragmatic Features and Purposes of Sarcastic Utterances
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
26
The researcher labeled every maxim with different codes. The maxim of quantity was labeled as MQn, the maxim of quality was labeled as MQl, the maxim of manner was labeled as MM, and the maxim of relation was labeled as
MR. For the purposes of sarcasm, there are six labels namely GA for group affiliation, S for sophistication, E for evaluation, TP for tool for politeness, PA for persuasive aspect, and R for retractability. The sarcastic utterances were categorized based on which maxims the character flouted. They were also classified according to their purpose(s).
2. Data Display
In order to draw a conclusion, displaying the data in a form of table, chart, network, and other graphical format is necessary (Miles & Huberman, 1994). By analyzing the compressed data, the researcher was able to comprehend the data and decide what continual actions should be done. The data obtained in this study which were related to the flouted maxims and the purposes of sarcasm were displayed in the tables below.
Table 3.2. The Data Display of the Maxims Flouted by the Characters in Their Sarcastic Utterances Flouted Maxim Quantity Percentage (%) Maxim of Quantity (MQn) 1 2.13% Maxim of Quality (MQl) Maxim of Relation (MR) Maxim of Manner (MM) More than One Maxim Total
After all sarcastic utterances were collected, the researcher clasisified them into Table 3.2. based on which maxims were flouted by the characters. Then, the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
27 number of each maxim which was flouted was calculated. The calculation was presented in forms of number and percentage.
Table 3.3. The Data Display of Purposes of Sarcastic Utterances Purpose of Sarcasm Quantity Percentage (%) Sophistication (S) 12 25.53% Evaluation (E) Tool for Politeness (TP) Persuasive Aspect (PA) Retractability (R) Group Affiliation (GA) More than One Purpose Total
The sarcastic utterances which had been collected were classified into
Table 3.3. based on their purposes. The number of each purpose was calculated.
Then, it was presented in forms of number and percentage.
3. Conclusion or Verification
Obtaining a conclusion or verification is the last step in conducting a qualitative research. In this step, the researcher could conclude the results of the research after analyzing the data. The researcher was also able to start developing initial conclusions while collecting the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Then, the data obtained was verified by three language enthusiasts so that the researcher could generate final conclusions.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the researcher presents and discusses the data to answer the research questions. The first section presents the research results and the second section discusses the research results. The researcher elaborates the data based on the maxims flouted and the purposes of sarcastic utterances in The Big Bang
Theory.
A. Research Results
1. The Percentage of Maxims Flouted by the Characters in Their
Sarcastic Utterances in The Big Bang Theory
This section presents the answers of the first research question. To find which maxims were flouted by the characters, the researcher used Grice’s (1967, 1975)
Cooperative Principle theory which has been reviewed by Cutting (2002).
According to his theory, there are four conversational maxims which should be observed in order to have successful communication. These maxims are the maxims of quantity, quality, manner, and relation. The researcher classified the sarcastic utterances based on which maxims were flouted. Based on the results, there are 47 utterances in which maxim floutings occur. There are several utterances in which only one maxim is flouted, but there are also some utterances in which more than one maxim is flouted. The results of this research on the flouted maxims are presented in the following table.
28 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
29
Table 4.1. The Research Results on the Maxims Flouted by the Characters in Their Sarcastic Utterances Flouted Maxim Quantity Percentage (%) Maxim of Quantity (MQn) 1 2.13% Maxim of Quality (MQl) 34 72.34% Maxim of Relation (MR) 2 4.25% Maxim of Manner (MM) 1 2.13% Maxim of Quantity and Manner 3 6.38% Maxim of Quality and Relation 5 10.64% Maxim of Quantity, Quality, and 1 2.13% Manner Total 47 100%
From the table above, it can be concluded that the most flouted maxim is the maxim of quality. Based on the data, the speakers tended to be insincere in conveying their sarcastic utterances. They deliberately did not represent their thoughts in uttering their words. Hence, the interlocutors should imply the underlying meanings. The second most flouted category is the flouting which involves more than one maxim. The maxims which are flouted at the same time are the maxims of quantity & manner; quality & relation; and quantity, quality, & manner. This phenomenon appears in sarcastic utterances, for sarcasm is an indirect speech act which does not only flout one maxim but also more than one maxim at the same time (Juez, 1995). Therefore, the hearers in the sitcom were expected not to take the utterances at their face values.
2. The Percentage of Purposes of Sarcastic Utterances Found in The Big
Bang Theory
This section presents the purposes of sarcastic utterances conveyed by the characters in The Big Bang Theory. This section answers the second research question. In order to discover the purposes of the sarcastic utterances, the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
30 researcher applied Attardo’s (2002) theory. According to him, there are six purposes of sarcasm. He asserts that someone uses sarcasm to show sophistication, evaluation, politeness, persuasive aspect, retractability, and group affiliation. After analyzing the data, the researcher concluded that 47 sarcastic utterances found in the sitcom contain all of the six purposes. The detailed results are presented in the table below.
Table 4.2. The Research Results on the Purposes of Sarcastic Utterances Purpose of Sarcasm Quantity Percentage (%) Sophistication (S) 12 25.53% Evaluation (E) 11 23.4% Tool for Politeness (TP) 9 19.15% Persuasive Aspect (PA) 3 6.38% Retractability (R) 1 2.13% Group Affiliation (GA) 0 0% Sophistication and Evaluation 4 8.51% Evaluation and Tool for Politeness 1 2.13% Evaluation and Persuasive Aspect 3 6.38% Sophistication, Evaluation, and 1 2.13% Persuasive Aspect Evaluation, Tool for Politeness, 1 2.13% and Persuasive Aspect Evaluation, Tool for Politeness, 1 2.13% and Group Affiliation Total 47 100%
From the table above, it can be deduced that sarcasm as sophistication appears the most frequently. This result is related to the characters’ ability in playing with their words. They hid the surface meaning when saying something and implied another meaning. This fact leads to a requirement of having mental dexterity in order to be able to implicate the implied meaning behind an utterance.
Moreover, the use of irony as sophistication adds humorous effects to an utterance
(Attardo, 2002). Since sarcasm is a form of verbal irony, it can be perceived
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
31 clearly that the characters in The Big Bang Theory employed sarcasm to create humorous situations. Humor plays an essential role in this sitcom, for it is a comedy show.
B. Discussion
The discussion section is separated into two parts. Firstly, the researcher elaborates the maxims flouted by the characters in the sitcom. Secondly, the researcher discusses the purposes of sarcasm employed by characters in the sitcom.
1. The Maxims Flouted by the Characters in The Big Bang Theory
Grice’s maxims are flouted when a speaker seems not to observe the maxims but expects his hearer to interpret what he says from the implicit meaning. He says something but he does not want his hearer to take what he says literally. When he performs an indirect speech act, he assumes that his interlocutor understands his utterance not from its surface meaning but from the implied meaning. He wants his interlocutor knows that the function of his utterance is different from its form. In order to reach successful communication, the hearer has to be able to comprehend the explicature and implicature of the utterance.
Explicature corresponds to what is said rather than what is implicated or implied
(Horn, 2004). Horn also asserts that implicature accounts for a speaker’s meaning which does not take part of what is said directly. A speaker who intends to flout the maxim when he speaks to his interlocutor shows that both of them have shared knowledge (Cutting, 2002, p.71). The existence of same background knowledge helps the hearer to infer the implied meaning.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
32
By taking maxim floutings into account, the sarcastic utterances could be examined because sarcasm as a form of verbal irony does not only flout the maxim of quality but also other three maxims (Juez, 1995). In this study, the researcher found that all of the maxims have been flouted by the speakers. From the data displayed in Table 4.1., it can be seen that one sarcastic utterance does not only flout one maxim but it can also flout more than one maxim at the same time. a. Flouting the Maxim of Quantity
The maxim of quantity is flouted when a speaker purposively provides too little or too much information than it is required (Grice, 1975, p. 52). The speaker who gives too little information than it is required might cause confusion to his hearer because he is not explicit enough in providing adequate information.
Otherwise, he might also make his hearer bored if he provides too much information which is not needed by his hearer. Based on the research results, there is one sarcastic utterance which flouts the maxim of quantity. The detailed context in which this sarcastic utterance appears is presented below.
Situation 9 Sheldon : Why are you up? Leonard : How am I supposed to sleep? I’ve been married less than 24 hours, and my wife isn’t speaking to me. Sheldon : Perhaps you can think of this in a more positive light. In one day, you’ve managed to do what it takes many couples decades to achieve. Penny : (entering) Hi. Leonard : Hey. Penny : You couldn’t sleep either? Leonard : Of course not. Sheldon : Me neither. But I just had a tickle in my throat, not profound marital problems. (SU9)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
33
In the presented situation, Leonard stayed in Sheldon’s apartment because Penny was still mad at him about his affair with his colleague, Mandy. At the night when
Leonard could not sleep, he went to the kitchen and talked to Sheldon. While they were talking, Penny came in to Sheldon’s apartment. She asked Leonard whether he could not sleep either. Sheldon, whom she did not ask, directly told her and
Leonard that he could not sleep. Sheldon did not only tell them that he could not sleep but also informed them that it was because of his throat, not because of marital problems.
Sheldon’s utterance in SU9 actually was not required since Penny intended to ask her husband why he was still awake which made Sheldon flouted maxim of quantity. Moreover, he did not only inform that he could not sleep but also told her and Leonard the cause of his problem. In that situation, neither Penny nor
Leonard wanted to know the reason why Sheldon was still awake. Sheldon was not supposed to tell them the problem which made him stay awake if he wanted to observe the maxim of quantity. Nonetheless, Sheldon intentionally provided unnecessary information in order to impart an implicit meaning behind his utterance. His conversational implicature which was present in SU9 was that he was sorry for them because something which bothered him at that night was not as profound as their marital problems. In spite of saying a positive sentence by informing his problem to his friends, he implicitly wanted to hurt his friends’ feelings through his words. Hence, his sarcastic utterance the flouted maxim of quantity because he delivered too much information more than needed by his hearers.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
34 b. Flouting Maxim of Quality
A speaker flouts the maxim of quality when he says something which he believes to be false and lacks adequate evidence (Grice, 1975). A speaker who flouts this maxim is blatantly being insincere of what they say. The do not say something which corresponds to reality. The flouting of the maxim of quality occurs in irony, metaphor, meiosis, hyperbole, euphemism, banter, and sarcasm
(Grice, 1975; Cutting, 2002). Based on the research results, there are 34 sarcastic utterances which contain the flouting of maxim of quality. The detailed contexts in which these sarcastic utterances appear are presented below.
Situation 1 Penny : (on phone) Hey, I just heard about you and Sheldon. Are you okay? Amy : Not really. Can you come over? Penny : Uh, actually I’m in Vegas. Leonard and I are about to get married. Amy : Hold on. You’re getting married and you didn’t invite me? Penny : Well, it was kind of a spur-of-the-moment thing. Amy : Wow. Hope I can catch the bouquet from here. (SU1)
In the situation above, Penny and Amy were having a conversation on the phone.
Penny was checking her best friend’s condition after breaking up with Sheldon.
Having found out that Penny was escaping to Las Vegas with Leonard to get married, Amy was surprised and upset for being uninvited.
Amy expressed her disappointment by flouting the maxim of quality in
SU1. She expected Penny to understand that she was being insincere when she imparted her utterance. By conveying SU1, she did not truthfully represent her thoughts on Penny and Leonard’s elopement. She was aware that she was not in the same place as Penny and Leonard were, for they did not invite her to their
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
35 wedding. Accordingly, she could not make her hope for catching the bouquet come true. Even though she realized that what she said did not correspond to reality, she kept delivering her utterance. She intended to imply a negative sentiment behind her words. It could be analyzed that there was a conversational implicature arose in the utterance. Conversational implicature which arose in her utterance was that she assumed that Penny and Leonard were in a joyful moment and she wished that she could have felt the same joy as they did. As she was not invited to their wedding, she ridiculed Penny in SU1 to show that she was not a good friend to her. She also tried to make her guilty for not inviting her to the wedding. Therefore, she did not truly express her actual thought that she wished to be able to catch the bouquet. It would be impossible since she was in her apartment in California while Penny and Leonard were in Las Vegas. By flouting the maxim of quality, she aimed to convey sarcastic utterance since she imparted positive message but implied a negative sentiment in order to hurt Penny.
Another phenomenon in which the same flouting arises is illustrated in the following situation.
Situation 37 Sheldon : That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her. Leonard : Really? The old Asian man is not your Meemaw? (SU37) Sheldon : And that’s not helpful. You know, I got her an iPhone for Christmas. I’ll see where she is.
In the situation illustrated above, Leonard was accompanying Sheldon to pick up
Sheldon’s grandmother at the airport. While waiting for his grandmother, Sheldon was observing every person who arrived at the airport. He was observing
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
36 everyone thoroughly and murmuring ‘that is not her’ continuously even when the person he was looking at was a man. His action seemed to bother Leonard which led him to say SU37. In that utterance, Leonard showed that he was irritated by
Sheldon’s pointless act.
In SU37, Leonard was being insincere by asking a question which did not require an answer to Sheldon. Leonard’s question was a form of a figurative device called rhetorical question. He conveyed his annoyance toward Sheldon’s act by employing a rhetorical question. He did not expect Sheldon to answer his question because he intended to comment on what Sheldon was doing. Based on
Leonard’s reaction, it was obvious that he meant to convey a conversational implicature. The conversational implicature implied in SU37 was that it was not necessary to say ‘that is not her’ to every man and woman arrived at the airport and Sheldon’s act annoyed Leonard. Accordingly, Sheldon needed to stop it and to remain calm while waiting for his grandmother to appear. Nonetheless, he expressed his intention indirectly in a form of rhetorical question. He meant to ridicule Sheldon in a less hurtful manner by flouting maxim of quality. As a result, Leonard flouted the maxim of quality. c. Flouting the Maxim of Relation
The maxim of relation is flouted when a speaker blatantly makes his utterance irrelevant to the preceding co-text (Grice, 1975, p. 54). Despite the fact that his utterance is irrelevant or non-informative at the level of what is said, it is still relevant or informative at the level of what is meant by the speaker. Based on the research results, there are two sarcastic utterances which flout the maxim of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
37 relation. The detailed contexts in which of these sarcastic utterances appear are presented below.
Situation 10 Raj : I can’t believe you made out with Mandy Chao. Leonard : Well, trust me, I wish it never happened. Raj : And you knew about this this whole time? Howard : I did. Raj : And you didn’t think to tell me? Howard : Leonard asked me to keep it to myself. Raj : Let’s leave Leonard out of this for the moment. This is about you and me. Leonard : Wait, wait, wait, how is my day-old marriage falling apart becoming about you two? Raj : Hang on. What do I need to do to make you trust me? Howard : You think it’s hard having one wife, try having two. (SU10)
Leonard, Raj, and Howard were having a conversation about Leonard’s marriage which was in trouble. Leonard told them that his wife, Penny, was mad at him because he once had an affair with his colleague, Mandy Chao. Although the real problem was between Leonard and Penny, Raj made it seem the problem was between him and Howard. Raj accused Howard for not trusting him by not telling him what happened with Leonard’s marriage. He still could not accept Howard’s reason that Leonard told Howard to keep the matter to himself. In response,
Howard responded to Raj’s accusation by uttering SU10.
Howard flouted the maxim of relation in SU10, for he deliberately gave an irrelevant response to Raj’s question. Raj expected him to answer what could make him trust Raj in sharing a certain matter as in this case was Leonard’s affair with Mandy Chao. Instead of giving a response which could answer Raj’s curiosity, Howard responded to it with an irrelevant answer. He uttered SU10 to
Leonard in order to tell him that he felt like he had two wives since Raj
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
38 exaggerated something which was not supposed to be a problem. He found Raj’s act as another complication in his life as a married man. It could be seen that at the surface meaning, he tried to suggest Leonard to have two wives so that
Leonard could realize that having one wife was not as problematical as having two wives. SU10 was actually a conversational implicature in a form of complain implied by Howard because he felt annoyed by Raj and Raj’s act made him think as if he had two wives. Hence, Howard was being sarcastic in SU10 by flouting the maxim of relation by giving an unrelated response to Raj in order to ridicule him implicitly through his utterance.
Another situation which portrays the occurrence of the maxim of relation flouting is elaborated below.
Situation 44 Raj : Actually, that’s why I’m calling. I, um, I just, I need to let you know that I have a girlfriend. Claire : Okay. Good for you. Raj : Well, no, no. I, I didn’t want to mislead you after you asked me out. Claire : I didn’t ask you out. I just need help with my screenplay. Raj : Wait, are you saying that we didn’t have a vibe? Claire : Why do you care if we have a vibe? You have a girlfriend. Raj : Come on, I just told you I had a girlfriend. The least you can do is tell me if we had a vibe. Claire : Sure, we had a vibe. Raj : I knew it. Okay, we did have a vibe. This is exciting. What’s my next move? Bernadette : You still have a girlfriend. (SU44)
Raj, Howard, and Bernadette were having meals together at Howard and
Bernadette’s house. Raj told them that he had made a decision to do the right thing by calling Claire, a screenwriter he had met at a comic store, and telling her that he already had a girlfriend. Unfortunately, she told him that she did not mean
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
39 to ask him to go on a date; she only needed him to help her writing a science- fiction screenplay. However, Raj insisted her admit that they had a vibe when they met. Feeling satisfied with her acknowledgement, he asked Howard and
Bernadette for advice on what he should do next. In spite of receiving advice from his friends, Raj was told by Bernadette that he still had a girlfriend.
Bernadette obviously flouted the maxim of relation by uttering SU44, for she did not give a relevant response to Raj’s utterance. He asked his friends for advice on his next move to approach Claire. Bernadette, who answered his question with utterance SU44, was clearly aware that he demanded an answer which could help him to get to Claire. In spite of knowing how to respond to the preceding co-text, she consciously provided an unrelated response by telling him that he already had a girlfriend. At the level of surface meaning, she informed him that he was still in a relationship. In fact, she tacitly implicated a conversational implicature; she wanted to tell Raj that he could not or should not make any moves towards Claire since he was in a relationship with another woman.
Consequently, what was said and meant by Bernadette were different. She conveyed a non-harmful utterance but actually implied a negative intention, which was to ridicule him. She pointed the fact that he should stop approaching Claire because he was in a relationship. Her utterance might have hurt his feelings by making it clear that he could not accomplish his aim. In brief, Bernadette flouted the maxim of relation because she did not respond Raj’s question correspondingly.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
40 d. Flouting the Maxim of Manner
The maxim of manner is flouted when there are ambiguity, obscurity, failure to be brief, and failure to be orderly in utterances (Grice, 1975, pp. 54-55).
A speaker intends to violate those criteria when making a contribution but expect his hearers to recover non-tacit meaning behind his utterance. There is one sarcastic utterance in which the flouting of maxim of manner present. The situation where the sarcastic utterance occurs is illustrated as follows.
Situation 28 Bernadette : So, you’re really going out with Dave again? Amy : Why not? He’s actually a very nice guy. Bernadette : But he spent an entire date talking about how much he loves Sheldon. (SU28)
Bernadette was at Amy’s apartment talking about Amy’s date with Dave.
Bernadette asked her if she would go on a date with him again. Being aware that her decision was questioned by her friend, Amy asked Bernadette back why she should not give him a second chance. Moreover, she also stated that Dave was a very nice guy to assure her friend that she made the right decision. Bernadette who was against her friend’s opinion responded to her by pointing out that Dave had spent the entire date talking about how much he loved Sheldon.
Bernadette’s response portrayed in SU28 was ambiguous. By mentioning what Dave had done on his date with Amy, Bernadette’s utterance could be inferred differently from the explicit meaning. Her utterance could be understood as she was trying to tell Amy that Dave might not be interested in her; he might be interested in Sheldon and his work since Dave was also a scientist. Then, her utterance could also be understood as she was trying to tell Amy that Dave was an
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
41 oblivious man because he had spent the night talking about someone else, who was basically her ex-boyfriend. Even though Bernadette did not blatantly express her true intention, she assumed that Amy would be able to infer what she truly meant. In SU28, Bernadette openly expressed her disagreement towards Amy’s decision to go on a date with Dave for the second time. If her utterance was taken at the face value, she meant to tell Amy that Dave spent the night on their date talking about how much he loved Sheldon. However, she implicitly tried to ridicule Amy’s decision to even give him a second chance. She wanted to tell
Amy that she had made a bad decision, for Dave was not interested in her; he ironically was interested in her ex-boyfriend. Consequently, it could be deduced that Bernadette flouted the maxim of manner. e. Flouting more than One Maxim
According to Juez (1995) in her study entitled Verbal Irony and the
Maxims of Grice’s Cooperative Principle, verbal irony do not always only flout one maxim. She asserts that verbal irony can flout more than one maxim at the same time. The occurrence of verbal irony can happen with or without the co- occurrence with flouting of the maxim of quality in utterances. The missing of flouting of the maxim of quality in verbal irony does not decrease the effects of irony. Based on the research results, there are nine sarcastic utterances in which floutings of more than one maxim appear. The detailed contexts in which these sarcastic utterances appear are presented below.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
42
1) Flouting the Maxims of Quantity and Manner
Based on the gathered data, two maxims are flouted at the same time. The maxims flouted in this classification are the maxims of quantity and manner. First, the maxim of quantity is flouted when speakers provide too little or too much information than is needed (Grice, 1975, p.52). When a speaker flouts the maxim of quantity, he intends his hearers not to take the explicit meaning but the implicit meaning. Second, there are four criteria in utterances which flout maxim of manner: ambiguity, obscurity, failure to be brief or succinct, and failure to speak in order (Grice, 1975, pp. 54-55). A speaker should deliver his message clearly, briefly, and orderly. Hence, when he does not seem to obey the Cooperative
Principle, he wants his hearers to recover the conversational implicature based on the provided information. They can do it by understanding the relation between the natural meaning of his utterance and the context of the verbal exchange.
Having examined the data, there are three sarcastic utterances in which the floutings of maxims of quantity and manner occur. As examples, two sarcastic utterances are presented below.
Situation 12 Leonard : So, um, I’ve been thinking a lot about you and me and the boat. Mandy : What about it? Leonard : You know, what we did, when we were drunk. Mandy : Oh, no, did I sleep with you, too? Leonard : No, we just made out. Mandy : Oh. Well, good for me. (SU12) So what can I do for you?
In the presented situation above, Leonard tried to talk to his colleague, Mandy, about the accident that happened on the boat when their company had a party. He talked to her with a hope of solving his problem with his wife, Penny. He thought
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
43 that by discussing this matter with Mandy, he could diminish his guilt for having an affair with her. Although what had happened was accidental because they were both drunk, he still felt that he cheated on his wife. Ironically, Mandy did not recall what happened on that night. She felt relieved when Leonard told her that they did not have a sexual intercourse; instead, they only kissed.
Mandy’s response to Leonard’s information about what had happened at that night in SU12 the flouted maxim of quantity in co-occurrence with the maxim of manner. First, it was considered flouting maxim of quantity as Mandy did not provide enough information in her utterance which could put Leonard at ease in understanding what she said. Instead, she only conveyed too little information in her utterance. She did not state adequately why the fact that she and Leonard did not have sexual intercourse was a good thing in SU12. By providing insufficient information which was required, she risked her hearer being confused about what she truly meant. The elimination of some parts of the information was purposely done by her to eliminate some words which might hurt her interlocutor. Leaving her utterance unfinished, she successfully hid the offensive part of her utterance.
Hence, she conveyed her sarcastic utterance well by implying a negative sentiment behind a positive statement.
Secondly, Mandy also flouted the maxim of manner as it lacked adequate information which led to ambiguity and obscurity. By only uttering ‘Well, good for me’ without stating what was good for her, her utterance could be interpreted variously. Leonard as her hearer could interpret it as in she was relieved for not having sex with someone’s husband. Then, she did not have to be involved in a
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
44 feud with his wife which possibly ruined their marriage. Another possible interpretation was that she felt relieved for not having sex with a man whom she did not have interest in. In this context, she was a woman who was desired by her colleagues. Even before Leonard stated that they just kissed, she thought that she had spent a night with him too besides other colleagues. Furthermore, she did not have any interest in Leonard, for he was not her type of man. Therefore, she could convey her sarcastic utterance by making what she meant ambiguous and unclear to hide her implicit meaning by flouting the maxim of manner.
Another situation in which the flouting of more than one maxim appears, namely the maxims of quantity and manner, is elaborated as follows.
Situation 41 Meemaw : It’s interesting that Leonard and Penny know about his nickname and you don’t. Amy : Oh, well, you know, now, now that I’m hearing it, it does sound familiar. Sheldon : How could it? I never told you, and you never bothered to ask. Amy : Well, now I know. (SU41)
Meemaw was talking to Amy, Sheldon, Penny, and Loenard about their relationships and careers at Sheldon and Leonard’s apartment. When Meemaw called Sheldon Moon Pie, Amy asked why she called him so. Feeling surprised, she asked Amy back how come she did not know the meaning of Sheldon’s nickname given by Meemaw. She also emphasized that even Penny and Leonard knew what it meant. Amy, who felt embarrassed for not knowing it, tried to save her face by saying that it sounded familiar after hearing it. Sheldon wanted to know why she thought so. He did not believe what she said, for she had never
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
45 asked about it. Amy answered him by uttering SU41 in order to make him stop talking about it.
Amy’s utterance as a response to Sheldon in SU41 did not convey enough information as required by him. He needed her to explain it to him why she thought his nickname sounded familiar to her. Even though she was aware of his expectation, she intentionally did not explain how she found his nickname sound familiar. The only information she provided was that she had known the meaning of Moon Pie. She might have delivered a non-informative utterance but there was actually another meaning to it. She implicated a conversational impicature through her positive sentence. Through her positive words, she covertly had an intention to tell Sheldon to end the discussion about how she understood the meaning of his nickname. The reason of her deed was that she did not want Meemaw notice her ignorance towards her grandson’s nickname. Instead of telling him blatantly not to talk about it, she only pointed out that she knew it. For that reason, Amy was considered sarcastic and flouting the maxim of quantity.
Not only did Amy flout the maxim of quantity, but also flouted the maxim of manner. Amy, who did not provide enough information in SU41, made her unclear. She was supposed to elaborate the reason how she found Sheldon’s nickname familiar in details. However, she could not do it since she did not want
Meemaw to judge her as an ignorant girlfriend. She wanted Meemaw to see her as a good girlfriend for Sheldon. By not furthering the talk about the issue, she could prevent Meemaw from misjudging her. She attempted to tell Sheldon to end the discussion by implying her actual message in SU41. She explicitly informed him
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
46 that she knew the meaning of his nickname but she conveyed a covert meaning behind her utterance. There was a conversational implicature in her utterance as she implicated that her interlocutor had to know that it was not important to keep discussing it. Hence, he had to stop talking about the issue. It could be deduced that SU41 was in a form of positive statement but meant to impart a negative sentiment. The speaker used the utterance to covertly hurt her interlocutor’s feelings. In brief, Amy was being sarcastic and flouting the maxim of manner for being unclear.
2) Flouting the Maxims of Quality and Relation
After examining the data, there are five sarcastic utterances in which the floutings maxim quality and relation are present. Speakers who flout the maxim of quality do not have insincere meanings or lack adequate evidences (Grice, 1975).
A speaker, whose utterances flout this maxim, chooses to deliberately say something he believes to be false or does not have sufficient evidence. There are figurative devices which can flout maxim of quality: irony, metaphor, meiosis, hyperbole, euphemism, banter, and sarcasm (Grice, 1975; Cutting, 2002). Then, the maxim of relation is flouted when a speaker blatantly gives irrelevant response to the prior utterance (Grice, 1975, p. 54). His response might be explicitly unrelated to the preceding co-text but it is still implicitly relevant. There are two situations presented below in which flouting of the maxims of quality and relation occurs.
Situation 5 Sheldon : Raj, you’re probably wondering why Amy and I aren’t showing any affection to one another. Raj : Didn’t even crack the top ten. (SU5)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
47
Sheldon, Amy and their friends, including Raj, were gathering at Howard and
Bernadette’s house to stream Leonard and Penny’s wedding online. When they were waiting for the wedding ceremony to begin, Sheldon tried to start a conversation with Raj. He intentionally chose his break up with Amy as a topic.
He started to asked Raj whether he was wondering why Amy and he were not showing affection to each other. In response to Sheldon’s statement, Raj uttered
SU5.
Raj flouted the maxim of quality as he used a metaphor in his utterance.
He perceived Sheldon and Amy’s relationship as if it had been a music chart, for he mentioned ‘the top ten’. Moreover, he stated that their problem did not even make it into the top ten chart. If his utterance was understood from the explicit meaning, his hearers would assume that Sheldon and Amy’s break up simply was not in the top ten. Nevertheless, his utterance conveyed a tacit meaning beyond what it was really said. Based on the context of the verbal exchange, Raj implicated a conversational implicature. He meant to mock Sheldon by implying that Sheldon’s break up with Amy was not worth his attention. He wanted to show
Sheldon that he did not care about the break up. Despite the fact that he uttered his words in a non-hurtful manner, he still expressed his hurtful intention to Sheldon implicitly. Therefore, Raj was being sarcastic and flouting the maxim of quality.
In, SU5 Raj also flouted maxim of relation. Raj’s utterance as a response to Sheldon’s statement was irrelevant to the topic they were discussing. Sheldon was trying to talk about his break up with Amy but Raj seemed not to follow the topic. Instead of responding with something directly related to the topic, he
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
48 blatantly said something which was out of topic. He could have said something directly relevant to the preceding text, such as by stating if he was or was not wondering about Sheldon and Amy. Even if SU5 seemed irrelevant in giving a contribution to the talk exchange, Raj actually implied a hidden meaning behind his utterance. SU5 could be explicitly perceived as a statement that Sheldon and
Amy’s problem did not make it into the top ten chart. It did not make sense at all if it was what he meant. Hence, hearers should be able to recover the conversational implicature which Raj intended to hurt Sheldon’s feelings. He indeed did not ridicule Sheldon directly but he delivered his negative sentiment in
SU5 implicitly. It could be concluded that he flouted the maxim of relation.
Another example of the maxim of quality and relation flouting is explained below.
Situation 32 Leonard : Come on. I take care of him all day long. You do it for once. Penny : Once? Who got the gum out of his hair? Leonard : What do you want, a medal? It was your gum. (SU32)
When Leonard and Penny were trying to go to sleep in their room, Sheldon made a noise with his music instrument. He was trying to remember the title of a song which had been ringing in his head. Feeling disturbed by the noise, Leonard asked his wife to make Sheldon stop playing with the instrument. Leonard told his wife to take care of him for once. However, Penny argued that she had taken care of him more than once, including removing a gum from his hair. As a response to
Penny, Leonard asked whether she wanted a medal for her achievement.
Leonard’s utterance in SU32 was in a form of rhetorical question which did not require an answer. He expected Penny not to take it as an actual question.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
49
In fact, he used SU32 to mock her for bragging that she had succeeded in taking care of Sheldon. He covertly told her that it was not necessary to perceive it as a significant achievement. Hence, he asked her if she wanted a medal as a reward.
Moreover, he emphasized that it was also her responsibility because the gum belonged to her. Taking Leonard’s utterance into account, we could deduce that his utterance was in a form of question and not hurtful to his hearer. However, it implicitly conveyed a hurtful meaning towards Penny. It meant that he was not being sincere when uttering his sentence. Accordingly, he was being sarcastic utterance and flouting the maxim of quality.
In SU32, Leonard imparted an irrelevant utterance as a response to Penny.
He asked if his wife wanted a medal for showing that she had removed the gum successfully from Sheldon’s hair. He suddenly mentioned medal even though they were not talking about a competition. It made what he had said non-informative at the surface meaning. Nevertheless, there was an informative implicature in his utterance. According to the context of the conversation, he expected his hearer to recover the conversational implicature in his utterance. He meant to tell Penny that she did not have to be boastful as if she had won a competition. Instead of grumbling, he wanted her to immediately tell Sheldon to stop making noise. He purposefully hid his negative sentiment by implying it in an irrelevant response.
Therefore, his sarcastic utterance flouted the maxim of relation.
3) Flouting the Maxims of Quantity, Quality, and Manner
There is only one utterance who flouts three maxims at the same time namely the maxims of quantity, quality, and manner. A speaker flouts the maxim
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
50 of quantity when he provides inadequate or too much information more than needed by his hearers (Grice, 1975, p. 52). He also flouts another maxim, which is in this classification is the maxim of quality, when he does not deliver his utterance sincerely and does not have sufficient evidences in his utterance (Grice,
1975, p. 53). Grice also asserts that irony, metaphor, meiosis, and hyperbole, can flout the maxim of quality. Cutting (2002) adds that the use of euphemism, banter, and sarcasm flouts the maxim of quality. Furthermore, a figurative device called rhetorical question can also flout the maxim of quality (Pop, 2010). The last, a speaker flouts maxim of manner when he is being ambiguous, obscure, verbose, and disorderly in uttering his utterance.
Situation 11 Amy : What are you doing here? Sheldon : I’m here to return your belongings. That’s what people who’ve broken up do. Amy : And you didn’t do your compulsive knocking ritual so I would open the door. Sheldon : On the contrary, you no longer get to enjoy my charming eccentricities. We’re not friends with benefits. Amy : Just give me the box. Sheldon : Wait. Don’t you want to go through it to make sure I haven’t forgotten anything? Amy : Fine. My old scarf. Sheldon : You wore it the night we went ice-skating. Remember? Amy : You mean the night that I went ice-skating, and you stood at the rail googling the symptoms of hypothermia? (SU11)
In the situation above, Sheldon and Amy were having a conversation when
Sheldon came to her apartment to return her belongings. He asked her to check if he did not forget anything. When she realized that he had not brought her old scarf, he tried to recall her memory about the night when they went ice-skating.
She responded by asking a question whether that night was the night when she
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
51 went ice-skating while he only stood at the rail searching the symptoms of hypothermia online.
By uttering SU11, it could be seen that Amy flouted the maxim of quantity because she gave too much information than needed by her interlocutor. Instead of responding to Sheldon’s question with ‘yes’ or ‘no’, she chose to tell Sheldon what he did not want to know. She elaborated what really had happened at that night in details. If she wanted to observe the maxim of quantity properly, she should have given the answer as much as he needed it. She should have answered that she remembered it. However, she actually wanted to ridicule Sheldon covertly for what he said by asking a question. She wanted to make him recall that he did not ice-skate at all. To diminish the hurtful effects, she chose to use sarcasm in her utterance.
Amy’s utterance in SU11 flouted the maxim of quality as it was not a sincere question. Her question was in a form of rhetorical question which did not require an answer. However, she actually implied a meaning in her utterance. The explicature of her utterance was that she asked if what she remembered was correct. For she implied an underlying meaning behind her utterance, there was an implicature in her utterance. She implicated that she actually did not mean to ask the question to Sheldon. She only wanted to correct him that she was the only one who really ice-skated. By correcting what he had said, she intended to ridicule him by uttering SU11. This utterance was considered sarcastic since her intention to mock Sheldon was implied in a non-hurtful form, which was a question.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
52
Besides flouting the maxims of quantity and quality, Amy’s utterance in
SU11 also flouted the maxim of manner. She intentionally responded Sheldon’s question with another question which made her not straightforward. She could have delivered her actual response briefly by stating that she remembered the night they went ice-skating. Nonetheless, she chose to be excessive in uttering her words. This kind of act was considered as a prolixity. Even though she was aware that her words were verbose, she wanted to convey a conversational implicature to hide a hurtful message in her utterance. By delivering a prolix message, she was able to express her mockery towards Sheldon in a more friendly way. Hence,
Amy’s sarcastic utterance flouted the maxim of manner.
Based on the research results on which maxims were flouted by the characters in their sarcastic utterances, the maxim of quality were the most flouted maxim. The characters in The Big Bang Theory mostly used rhetorical questions and hyperbole when they flouted the maxim of quality. They delivered sarcastic implied meanings in a form of questions to hide their hurtful messages. Then, they were being hyperbolic in order to hide their harmful implicit meanings. Even though the maxim of quality was the most flouted maxim, the results showed that every maxim was flouted in the sarcastic utterances.
2. The Purposes of Sarcastic Utterances Found in The Big Bang Theory
In analyzing the purposes of sarcasm, the researcher employed Attardo’s theory (2002). According to him, there are six purposes of sarcasm: sophistication, evaluation, tool for politeness, persuasive aspect, retractability, and group affiliation. By taking sarcastic utterances’ implicatures into account, the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
53 purposes of those sarcastic utterances could be revealed. By using Attardo’s theory, the researcher classified the sarcastic utterances into seven categories. The additional category was added because after analyzing the data, the researcher found that one sarcastic utterance did not only have one purpose but could have more than one purpose. The details of the data can be seen in Table 4.1. Hence, the elaboration of each purpose is as follows. a. Sarcasm as Sophistication
Sarcasm which serves as sophistication shows a speaker’s ability to use their language to give humorous effects in his utterances. For sarcasm is a form of indirect speech act, speakers will say one thing while meaning to express another thing. An utterance in which sarcasm arises requires hearers to differentiate what is said and what is meant by speakers. There are 12 sarcastic utterances which function as sophistication. In this classification, SU2 and SU7 are elaborated below.
Situation 2 Penny : She’s upset. Look, it’s gonna be a great wedding. Look at you in your little suit. Sheldon : Amy’s upset? Is it about me? Leonard : No, I think it’s because we’re eloping. Sheldon : Your marriage is causing her pain? Yeah, great, I take it back. Go ahead and do it. Yay for love. (SU2)
Penny was talking to Amy on the phone while her husband, Leonardo, was also talking to Sheldon on phone. When Penny told Leonard that Amy was upset because they were eloping to Las Vegas, Sheldon overheard her. He thought that
Amy was upset because of their break up. Nevertheless, he was disappointed after
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
54 knowing that she was upset because Penny and Leonard got married without inviting her. As a response, Sheldon delivered SU2 to Leonard.
In SU2, Sheldon used his language in a sophisticated way to create a humorous effect. He did not express his disappointment explicitly. Even though he was disappointed after hearing that it was not their break up which caused Amy pain, he was able to control his emotion. He did not show his true feelings at that moment. Instead of being mad at Leonard for eloping to Las Vegas and upset about Amy, he uttered a humorous utterance as depicted in SU2. He purposefully created surprising disparity between what he said and what he meant to make SU2 sound humorous. For SU2 was a sarcastic utterance, Sheldon expected Leonard not take what he said literally. He expected him to recover his actual meaning behind his sophisticated words.
Another example of sarcastic utterance which serves as sophistication is presented as follows.
Situation 7 Leonard : I asked you over and over if you were okay. Why would you go through with the wedding if you weren’t? Penny : I thought I was okay, but it turns out I’m not. Leonard : Okay, listen, I may not have been entirely faithful, but you, you are not easy to lift. Sheldon : Wow. Well, marriage must agree with you. Well, you are just glowing. (SU7) Leonard : I’m not glowing. I’m upset. Sheldon : Well, whatever it is, it agrees with you.
Penny and Leonard had a dispute over their decision to get married in Las Vegas.
It resulted that Penny was not over her husband’s affair with his colleague. After having arguments with his wife, Leonard decided to sleep at Sheldon’s and his old apartment. Sheldon, who saw Leonard was very upset, conveyed SU7 to him.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
55
Leonard told him that he actually was not glowing like Sheldon had said, he told
Sheldon that he was upset.
Instead of telling Leonard that he looked upset and unhappy, Leonard chose to utter SU7 sophistically. He covertly expressed that Leonard looked miserable. He said the opposite word, which was “glowing”. Figuratively,
“glowing” can be used to describe someone who is in joy. However, he intentionally chose “glowing” instead of miserable because he wanted to play with his words. He wanted Leonard, as his addressee, to understand that he was trying to be humorous. He yielded disparity between what he uttered and what he meant to convey deliberately. b. Sarcasm as an Evaluation
Sarcasm which functions as an evaluation is not only used to express negative sentiments but also positive ones. Using sarcasm in a talk exchange can mute the negative effects of sarcastic criticism or the positive effects of sarcastic praise. There are 11 sarcastic utterances found in the data. The examples are elaborated below.
Situation 6 Leonard : No, no, no. Hang on. I believe I’m supposed to carry you across the threshold. Penny : Can you? Leonard : Who do you think carries Sheldon to bed when he falls asleep in front of the TV? (SU6)
Penny and Leonard had just come back from their wedding in Las Vegas. He tried to carry her to their bed but he struggled while doing it. Penny, who was doubtful,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
56 asked whether he could carry her to the bed. He responded his wife with SU6. He felt offended for being doubted by his wife.
Leonard uttered SU6 because he wanted to criticize his wife for not believing that he would succeed in carrying her to the bed. He felt offended by
Penny who was doubtful of her husband. However, he did not utter his intention overtly. He asked her a rhetorical question about who carried Sheldon to bed when he fell asleep in front of the TV. By uttering SU6, he did not expect his wife to answer the question. He used a rhetorical question to mute the negative effect of sarcastic criticism. He criticized his wife for assuming that he was weak and unable to carry her to the bed.
The following situation is another example of sarcastic utterance which is aimed to give evaluation.
Situation 40 Penny : Constance, are you sure I can’t pour you some wine? Meemaw : Oh, no wine for me. Sheldon’s bringing me my whiskey. Sheldon : Here you go, Meemaw. I made it just how you like, a lot in a glass. Meemaw : Thank you, Moon Pie. Amy : I’m curious. Why do you call Sheldon Moon Pie? Meemaw : ‘Cause he’s so nummy-nummy. Leonard and Penny : She could just eat him up. Sheldon : And I call her Meemaw because, well, just, well, look at her. Meemaw : It’s interesting that Leonard and Penny know about his nickname and you don’t. (SU40)
Penny, Amy, Leonard, and Sheldon were talking to Meemaw at Sheldon’s apartment. Amy, who heard Meemaw call Sheldon Moon Pie, asked her why she called him so. She explained that she called him so because he was so nummy- nummy. Penny and Leonard even added that she could just eat him up. Then,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
57
Meemaw felt surprised because Penny and Leonard knew the reason behind
Sheldon’s nickname while Amy, who was his girlfriend, did not.
By uttering SU40, Meemaw unostentatiously criticized Amy for not knowing the meaning of Sheldon’s nickname. She chose to express her displeasure towards Amy in a less detrimental manner by saying that her unawareness was interesting. By saying the opposite of her true feeling, Meemaw expected Amy to notice that she was disappointed with her. Meemaw expected her that she should have known detailed matters related to Sheldon as Penny and
Leonard did. c. Sarcasm as a Tool for Politeness
Using sarcasm as a tool for politeness is a face-saving strategy. It can be used to diminish hurtful effects of aggression or negative sentiments conveyed in utterances. Speakers are able to express their aggression through a less offensive and indirect way. There are nine sarcastic utterances which serve as a tool for politeness. To elaborate the use of sarcasm as a tool for politeness, two examples are illustrated below.
Situation 15 Sheldon : Would you pass the mustard? Leonard : Sure. Hey, want to hear a fun fact about mustard? Sheldon : Is it that the glucosinolates which give mustard its flavour were evolved by the cabbage family as a chemical defence against caterpillars? Leonard : Yeah. Sheldon : Well, that was fun. Good for you, Leonard. (SU15)
Sheldon and Leonard were having meals together at their apartment. While they were eating, Leonard offered Sheldon to hear about a fun fact about mustard.
Instead of telling Leonard that he had known the fun fact about mustard, Sheldon
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
58 elaborated what Leonard would say. Moreover, he pretended to Leonard that his fun fact about mustard was fun and pretended to praise him for trying to tell him about it.
Sheldon, who was not impressed by Leonard, delivered his sarcastic response through SU15. Even though what he imparted though his words was a positive sentiment, he actually meant to express a negative one. He delivered what he wanted to say in a less harmful way by saying the opposite. He tried to be polite in order to save his face and Leonard’s face. He did not want to sound overtly offensive. Furthermore, he wanted to save Leonard’s face from being directly humiliated. Thus, he implied his mockery towards Leonard in his sarcastic utterance.
The proceeding situation is another elaboration of how sarcastic utterance is used as a tool for politeness.
Situation 18 and 19 Bernadette : Speaking of Sheldon, how’s single life treating you? Amy : Fine, I guess. I’ve been focusing on me. I was thinking about changing my wardrobe. Penny : Yes. Bernadette : Good for you. Amy : But then I decided I don’t want to go changing who I am just because of some man. Penny : Yes. (SU18) Bernadette : Good for you. (SU19)
Bernadette, Amy, and Penny gathered at Penny’s apartment to have a little party.
Bernadette and Penny tried to help Amy to cope with her recent break up with
Sheldon. Amy told them that she had considered about changing her wardrobe but withdrew her idea. She thought that she did not want to change herself because of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
59 a man. Feeling disappointed with what they heard, Penny and Bernadette imparted
SU18 and SU19 at the same time.
Penny and Bernadette aimed to express their opinion towards Amy’s decision politely through their sarcastic utterances. They actually wanted to tell
Amy that she had made a right decision for changing her wardrobe. They thought that her wardrobe needed a change. Nonetheless, they could not convey that they were displeased with Amy’s withdrawal. They did not want to offend her with their words. Consequently, they imparted what they wanted to say implicitly. d. Sarcasm as a Persuasive Aspect
Sarcasm can be used to make someone to do something. It can be used to influence someone because of its three aspects. First, sarcasm is an influential rhetorical tool (Craston, 1981, p. 30). Second, sarcasm is memorable (Kreuz et al.,
1991, p. 161). Third, sarcasm is informative and more polite (Giora, 1995). There are three sarcastic utterances found in this study. The following examples are presented to explain how sarcasm serves as a persuasive aspect.
Situation 24 Leonard : Since when do you hum songs? Sheldon : What are you talking about? Leonard : You were just humming. Sheldon : Are you sure? Sometimes when my brain really gets moving, it makes noise. Leonard : How does your brain feel about calculating the surface tension of the domain walls? (SU24)
Leonard and Sheldon were trying to solve their physics problems at their apartment but Sheldon could not stop humming a song which had been ringing in his head. Leonard, who noticed his unusual behavior, asked him since when he
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
60 hummed songs. Nonetheless, he did not realize what he had done. He told
Leonard that sometimes his brain made noises when it worked.
By delivering SU24 to Sheldon, Leonard wanted to persuade him to stop humming and to go back to calculating their physics problems indirectly. Instead of telling him directly, Leonard uttered a rhetorical question. He did not expect
Sheldon to answer his question. He only used the question to tell him to stop humming, for it did not help them in solving the calculation. He also used it to persuade him to go back to his work, which was solving the calculation.
The proceeding explanation is another example of the use of sarcasm to persuade someone to do something.
Situation 25 Sheldon : I feel like I know what song that is, but I can’t put my finger on it. (Singing) My country, ’tis of thee. No. Leonard: : It’s just an earworm. It’ll come to you. Sheldon: : Okay. (Singing) R-E-S-P-E-C-T. No. Leonard: : Is this what we’re doing the rest of the night? (SU25)
Sheldon and Leonard were working on their physics problem when Sheldon had an earworm or a tune which was stuck in his head. He kept trying to recall what song it was. It made Leonard bothered because Sheldon repetitively sang random songs while they were working. To express his annoyance, Leonard uttered SU25.
Leonard, who was bothered by Sheldon’s act, tried to ask him to stop singing random songs to discover what song had been ringing in his head.
Conversely, he imparted his persuasion in a form of rhetorical question. He did not expect an answer from Sheldon. He merely used the question to inform
Sheldon that his humming bothered him. Thus, he meant to ask him to stop it and make a progress for their work.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
61 e. Sarcasm as Retractability
Sarcasm which serves as retractability is used when speakers want to avoid the responsibility of being wrong. When they are not sure of what they utter, they can deliver sarcastic utterances which allow them to avoid any sanction from stating their thoughts immediately. There is one sarcastic utterance which serves as retractability. The context of this example is illustrated as follows.
Situation 27 Penny : Hey, sweetie, why don’t you take a break and do something else for a while? Sheldon : There was a project I’ve been thinking about starting. Penny : Okay, great. What is it? Sheldon : I’ll show you. (Into phone camera) Dear Crazy Future Sheldon, you were driven mad by an earworm. Your mind, once your most trusted asset, is now a sack of parrots and monkeys. So, I’m going to tell you everything you need to know. Uh, first, music is dangerous. The movie Footloose tried to warn us, but we wouldn’t listen. Oh, wait. (Singing) Everybody cut footloose. Nope. Penny : I’ll pay a thousand dollars to watch you cut footloose. Sheldon : This is Penny. She is your friend. If she offers you food, it’s safe to take it. You probably paid for it, anyway. (SU27)
Sheldon had not recalled the song which had been ringing in his head when Penny stayed at his apartment for a while. After seeing him working very hard to recall the song, Penny suggested him to take a break and do something else. Then,
Sheldon showed her a project he had started. He recorded himself using his phone’s camera. He spoke as if he had spoken to future Sheldon and introduced
Penny to himself. He mentioned that she was his friend. Moreover, he also mentioned that the future Sheldon could take food from her because he might pay for it.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
62
In SU24, Sheldon showed that he was not certain whether the food Penny would offer future Sheldon was paid by him. It could be concluded so because he had said “probably” in his sarcastic utterance. He actually wanted to accuse Penny who might have eaten his food. Nevertheless, he did not want to accept any sanctions from his utterance. If he had been mistaken, Penny could have been offended by his accusation. Thus, he accused her of taking his food tacitly since he was committed to his utterance. f. Sarcasm which Serves more than One Purpose
Based on the research results, there are 11 sarcastic utterances which have more than one purpose. However, the researcher only elaborates one sarcastic utterance as a representative of those 11 sarcastic utterances. The sarcastic utterance which is elaborated in this classification serves as a group affiliation, evaluation, and tool for politeness. This sarcastic utterance is chosen because it represents sarcasm as a group affiliation which has not been explained in previous classifications. Hence, this sarcastic utterance is used to determine someone whether he belongs to a group, to mute sarcastic criticism, and to mitigate aggression.
To make the context clear, the situation in which sarcasm arises is presented as follows.
Situation 42 Meemaw : So, Penny, I understand you have a new job. Penny : Yes. I’m a pharmaceutical sales rep. Meemaw : Oh. It’s so wonderful that you modern gals can have it all. A husband and a full-time career. Amy : I have a relationship and a full-time career, too. Meemaw : That doesn’t bode well. Amy : Why not? You, you just said it’s okay for her to work.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
63
Meemaw : Well, Leonard doesn’t need as much tending to as Sheldon does. And as Moon Pie explained, Leonard’s work is more of a hobby. Leonard : That’s my best friend. (SU42)
This situation happened when Sheldon’s grandmother, Meemaw, came to visit him at his apartment. Sheldon’s close friends, Leonard & Penny, and girlfriend,
Amy, had a chat with Meemaw in the living room. They were talking about
Penny’s job as a pharmaceutical sales representative. Meemaw praised her that it was wonderful for being able to balance a full-time career and marriage. A dispute between Amy and Meemaw began when Amy told her that she had a relationship and a full time career too. Meemaw disagreed with her. She thought that Amy could not balance these matters well. She said that Sheldon needed more attention from Amy more than Leonard needed Penny’s attention, for Leonard’s job was just a hobby according to Sheldon. Leonard replied what Meemaw said by saying that Sheldon was his best friend.
By saying SU42, Leonard assumed that his hearers would not take it at its literal meaning. Even though he delivered a positive sentence, he implied a negative meaning behind it. Firstly, he wanted to criticize how incorrect Sheldon wass for calling his job was only a hobby. Sheldon should have informed
Meemaw that Leonard took his job as a scientist seriously. Secondly, Leonard’s utterance conveyed an underlying meaning that he wanted to exclude Sheldon from his group of friends. What Sheldon said to Meemaw truly showed that he should not have been considered as Leonard’s best friend. Even though he used
“best friend” to address Sheldon, Leonard meant to say the opposite to make it sarcastic. Lastly, Leonard felt offended by Sheldon but did not want to show his
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
64 feeling aggressively. Instead of being mad at Sheldon, he showed his feeling tacitly by implicating that Sheldon was not his best friend through SU42. In brief, he employed sarcastic utterance as an evaluation, group affiliation, and tool for politeness.
In conclusion, the purposes of sarcastic utterances which appeared the most were sarcasm as a sophistication and an evaluation. First, the characters played with their language to create humorous effects in their utterances. Since
The Big Bang Theory was a sitcom, sarcasm which created humor played an important role in this sitcom. Second, they used sarcasm as an evaluation to minimize negative effects of criticism. They did not criticize each other directly, they implied it through their sarcastic utterances. Besides the presence of sarcasm which served one purpose, there were also sarcastic utterances which served more than one purpose.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter consists of three sections which are conclusions, implications, and recommendations. First, the conclusions provide a summary of research results. Second, the implications present how this research is implicated in the
English teaching or learning. Third, recommendations are presented for English language lecturers, English language learners, and future researchers.
A. Conclusions
Based on the research results, there were two conclusions which could be drawn. First, floutings of the four maxims appeared in 47 sarcastic utterances.
There was an additional classification for the maxim flouting, for more than one maxim was flouted at the same time in nine sarcastic utterances. Second, six purposes of sarcasm could be found in the sarcastic utterances. There was also an additional classification for the purposes of sarcasm. There were eleven sarcastic utterances which served more than one purpose.
Firstly, the research results showed that each maxim was flouted by the characters in The Big Bang Theory. Additionally, they also flouted one maxim in co-occurrence with other maxims. Based on the research results, the most frequently flouted maxim was the maxim of quality. The characters flouted the maxim of quality to deliver utterances which did not have sufficient evidences or represent their thoughts. They conveyed their negative or hurtful sentiments through positive or less detrimental utterances to make their utterances sarcastic.
65 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
66
Furthermore, they repeatedly employed rhetorical questions and hyperbole to flout the maxim of quality. They were not being sincere when implying their sarcastic utterances through rhetorical questions because they did not expect answers from their hearers. Then, they also used hyperbole to exaggerate their words.
Consequently, they required their addresses’ mental dexterity to recover covert meanings of their utterances.
Secondly, the data findings showed that every purpose was present in the sarcastic utterances. However, there were several sarcastic utterances which served more than one purpose. After examining the data, it could be deduced that sarcasm which served as sophistication was found most frequently. Sarcasm as sophistication was most frequently used by the characters to create humorous effects in their utterances. They played with their language in order to say one thing while aiming to express another thing. The existence of humor in their sarcastic utterances made this sitcom even funnier. Then, the results also showed that sarcasm as an evaluation was most frequently used after sarcasm as sophistication. The characters did not want to criticize each other directly. They chose to mitigate the negative effects of criticism by conveying sarcastic utterances.
Based on the results on the first and second research questions, it can be concluded that all maxim floutings and purposes of sarcasm could be found in this research. It showed that the characters in the sitcom conveyed their utterances creatively. They were able to produce sarcastic utterances which involved their verbal dexterity.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
67
B. Implications
There were two objectives of this research. The first objective was to discover the maxims flouted by the characters in The Big Bang Theory. The second objective was to find the purposes of sarcastic utterances in The Big Bang
Theory. Thus, the implications from this research in the English teaching and learning are:
1. For English Language Lecturers
Sarcasm is popularly used in spoken and written communication.
However, research on sarcasm are limitedly available. Lecturers can use sarcasm as an interesting topic in class to introduce their students to linguistic phenomena, especially in pragmatics. Phenomena in which sarcasm occurs can be found in spoken discourse; e.g. speeches, TV series, or movies; and written discourse, e.g. magazines, newspapers, or advertisements. Since students are exposed to sarcasm in daily life, lecturers can help them to comprehend essential theories to study sarcasm.
2. For English Language Learners
Research on linguistics, specifically on a study of sarcasm can help
English language learners to broaden their knowledge on pragmatics. They will be able to understand that a meaning of an utterance cannot always be taken at its face value. They can enrich their knowledge on understanding various ways of conducting a verbal exchange. A verbal exchange can be done through direct and indirect ways. Since a study on sarcasm is covered in pragmatics field, they have to analyze utterances which are imparted indirectly. By studying pragmatic
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
68 theories, they will be able to examine pragmatic phenomena using linguistic approaches and theories.
3. For Future Researchers
Future researchers who are interested to conduct a study on sarcasm can use this research as a reference. They will be able to identify the steps to conduct a study on sarcasm. The theories which have been employed by the researcher can be reemployed, combined or even changed with other theories. The results of this research can also be used to support research on sarcasm.
C. Recommendations
There are some recommendations for English language lecturers, English language learners, and future researchers which are presented below.
1. For English Language Lecturers
The researcher would like to suggest English language lecturers use sarcasm phenomena as a topic to be discussed in class. Sarcasm is a form of figurative language which is popular and easily found around them. They can use examples from various sources to teach their students. The lecturers can help them to understand miscellaneous ways of communication, both through direct and indirect manners.
2. For English Language Learners
It would be better if English language learners do not only develop their speaking, writing, listening, and reading skills; but also they need to develop their linguistic knowledge, especially in pragmatics. Having awareness of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
69 understanding linguistic theories will help them in conducting successful communication. They will also be able to avoid misinterpretations in sarcastic utterances which have implied meanings. Furthermore, they can express their thoughts through sarcastic utterances based on their purposes. Then, understanding pragmatics theories can help them to conduct some research on pragmatic phenomena, especially sarcasm.
3. For Future Researchers
The researcher would like to suggest future researchers to conduct deeper research related to sarcasm, for the research only analyzed sarcasm from pragmatic point of view. It will be more comprehensive if future researchers can examine sarcasm by employing theories from other fields, e.g. phonology and semantics. Combining different fields in analyzing sarcasm will help future researchers detect sarcastic utterances more easily. They will also have more plausible evidences when they want to prove the presence of sarcasm in utterances.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
REFERENCES
Adegbite, F. & Akindele, W. (1999). The sociology and politics of English in Nigeria: An introduction. Ile-Ife: Debiyi-Iwa Publishers. Arp, T. P. & Johnson, G. (2012). Perrine’s story and structure (13th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Attardo, S. (2002). Humor and irony in interaction: From mode adoption to failure of detection. In L. Anolli, R. Ciceri. & G. Riva (Eds.), Say not to say: New perspective on miscommunication (pp. 159-179). Amsterdam: IOS Press. Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Barbe, K. (1995). Irony in context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Berrendonner, A. (1981). Eléments de pragmatique linguistique (Elements of pragmatic linguistics). Paris: Minuit. Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bü hler, K. (2011). Theory of language: The representational function of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Carston, R. (1981). Irony and parody and the use-mention distinction. The Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 10(1), 24-35. Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. London: Routledge. Dews, S., Kaplan, J. & Winner, E. (1995). Why not say it directly? The social functions of irony. Discourse Processes, 19, 347-367. Dews, S. & Winner, E. (1995). Muting the meaning: A social function of irony. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(1), 3-19.
Finch, G. (2005). Key concepts in language and linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
70 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
71
Giora, R. (1995). On irony and negation. Discourse Processes, 19, 239-264. Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. (1978). Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), Pragmatics (113-127). New York: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Grundy, P. (2000). Doing pragmatics (2nd ed.). London: Arnold. Haiman, J. (1998). Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 3-28). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Juez, L. A. (1995). Verbal irony and the maxims of Grice's cooperative principle. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 8, 25-30. Kreuz, R., Long, D. & Church, M. (1991). On being ironic: Pragmatic and mnemonic implications. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6(3), 149-162. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Myers-Roy, A. (1981). The function of irony in discourse. Text, 1(4), 407-423. Pettineo, J. F. (2012). The Ironic Imagination: Redescription and Embedded irony in Selected Works of Edgar Allan Poe and Herman Melville. Dissertation. Dallas: ProQuest LLC. Pop, A. (2010). Implicatures derived through maxim flouting in print advertising: A contrastive empirical approach. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics (TWPL), 33, 1-8.
Radford, A., Atkinson, M., Britain, D., Clahsen, H. & Spencer, A. (2009). Linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
72
Rockwell, P. (2000). Lower, slower, louder: Vocal cues of sarcasm. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 29(5), 483-495. Rillof, E., Qadir, A., Surve, P., De Silva, L., Gilbert, N. & Huang, R. (2013, October). Sarcasm as contrast between a positive sentiment and negative situation. Paper presented at the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Seattle. Retrieved on May 22, 2017, from http://www.anthology.aclweb.org/D/D13/D13-1066.pdf
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taflinger, R. F. (1996). Sitcom: What it is, how it works. Retrieved on December 14, 2016, from http://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/sitcom.html van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (p. 352). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Whorf, B. L. & Carroll, J. B. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Wray, A., Trott, K., Bloomer, A. & Reay, S. (1998). Projects in linguistics: A practical guide to researching language. London: Arnold.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
APPENDICES
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
74
Appendix 1: The List of Situations in which Sarcastic Utterances Appear No Situation Penny : (on phone) Hey, I just heard about you and Sheldon. Are you okay? Amy : Not really. Can you come over? Penny : Uh, actually I’m in Vegas. Leonard and I are about 1. to get married. Amy : Hold on. You’re getting married and you didn’t invite me? Penny : Well, it was kind of a spur-of-the-moment thing.
Amy : Wow. Hope I can catch the bouquet from here. Penny : She’s upset. Look, it’s gonna be a great wedding. Look at you in your little suit. Sheldon : Amy’s upset? Is it about me? 2. Leonard : No, I think it’s because we’re eloping. Sheldon : Your marriage is causing her pain? Yeah, great, I take it back. Go ahead and do it. Yay for love. Amy : Thank you for doing this. Bernadette : Our pleasure. You feeling okay?
3. Amy : We were together for so long, I honestly don’t know what I’m feeling. Howard : Well, that’s understandable. You forgot. It’s called happy. Amy : Thank you for doing this. Bernadette : Our pleasure. You feeling okay? Amy : We were together for so long, I honestly don’t know what I’m feeling.
4. Howard : Well, that’s understandable. You forgot. It’s called happy. Bernadette : Howard.
Howard : I’m not saying anything bad. Just that she was in love with her captor and somehow managed to escape from his dark and crazy dungeon. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
75
Sheldon : Raj, you’re probably wondering why Amy and I 5. aren’t showing any affection to one another. Raj : Didn’t even crack the top ten. Leonard : No, no, no. Hang on. I believe I’m supposed to carry you across the threshold. 6. Penny : Can you? Leonard : Who do you think carries Sheldon to bed when he falls asleep in front of the TV? Leonard : I asked you over and over if you were okay. Why would you go through with the wedding if you weren’t? Penny : I thought I was okay, but it turns out I’m not. Leonard : Okay, listen, I may not have been entirely faithful, 7. but you, you are not easy to lift. Sheldon : Wow. Well, marriage must agree with you. Well, you are just glowing. Leonard : I’m not glowing. I’m upset.
Sheldon : Well, whatever it is, it agrees with you. Sheldon : Wait a minute. I know this may sound far-fetched, but I’m on the market now. You know, if I dated Mandy, that would teach both Leonard and Amy a lesson. Penny : That’s ridiculous. Sheldon : Oh, you’re right. I could never be with a woman whose self-esteem was so low she’d be with Leonard. 8. Penny : I’m with Leonard. Sheldon : Yeah, I know. Forever. Who would have believed these things would happen to us? Penny : Right? I can’t believe Amy actually went through with it. Sheldon : Hang on. You knew that she was going to end it with me? Did you try and stop her? PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
76
Penny : I told her to be true to herself and do what makes her happy. Sheldon : Do what makes her happy? She plays the harp and her car is paid for. How much happier can she be? Sheldon : Why are you up? Leonard : How am I supposed to sleep? I’ve been married less than 24 hours, and my wife isn’t speaking to me. Sheldon : Perhaps you can think of this in a more positive light. In one day, you’ve managed to do what it takes many couples decades to achieve. 9. Penny : (entering) Hi. Leonard : Hey. Penny : You couldn’t sleep either? Leonard : Of course not.
Sheldon : Me neither. But I just had a tickle in my throat, not profound marital problems. Raj : I can’t believe you made out with Mandy Chao. Leonard : Well, trust me, I wish it never happened. Raj : And you knew about this this whole time? Howard : I did. Raj : And you didn’t think to tell me? Howard : Leonard asked me to keep it to myself. 10. Raj : Let’s leave Leonard out of this for the moment. This is about you and me. Leonard : Wait, wait, wait, how is my day-old marriage falling apart becoming about you two? Raj : Hang on. What do I need to do to make you trust me?
Howard : You think it’s hard having one wife, try having two. 11. Amy : What are you doing here? PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
77
Sheldon : I’m here to return your belongings. That’s what people who’ve broken up do. Amy : And you didn’t do your compulsive knocking ritual so I would Sheldon : On the contrary, you no longer get to enjoy my charming eccentricities. We’re not friends with benefits. Amy : Just give me the box. Sheldon : Wait. Don’t you want to go through it to make sure I haven’t forgotten anything? Amy : Fine. My old scarf. Sheldon : You wore it the night we went ice-skating. Remember? Amy : You mean the night that I went ice-skating, and you stood at the rail googling the symptoms of hypothermia? Leonard : So, um, I’ve been thinking a lot about you and me and the boat. Mandy : What about it? 12. Leonard : You know, what we did, when we were drunk. Mandy : Oh, no, did I sleep with you, too? Leonard : No, we just made out. Mandy : Oh. Well, good for me. Leonard : You know, on some level, I’ve always believed that I don’t deserve a woman like her. Mandy : Oh, you’re gonna think about that right here? Leonard : I mean, she’s really beautiful. She could have any guy she wants. Which is probably why it took her so many years to tell me she loved me. 13. Mandy : Maybe you should talk to a therapist about this. Leonard : Too expensive. You’d think I’d be used to women withholding their love. I mean, my mother did. I mean, no matter how hard I tried, she just didn’t have any interest in me.
Mandy : Imagine that. Leonard : You know, on some level, I’ve always believed 14. that I don’t deserve a woman like her. Mandy : Oh, you’re gonna think about that right here? PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
78
Leonard : I mean, she’s really beautiful. She could have any guy she wants. Which is probably why it took her so many years to tell me she loved me. Mandy : Maybe you should talk to a therapist about this. Leonard : Too expensive. You’d think I’d be used to women withholding their love. I mean, my mother did. I mean, no matter how hard I tried, she just didn’t have any interest in me.
Mandy : Imagine that. Leonard : I wonder if that’s why I have such a dysfunctional relationship with Sheldon. I had a dream the other night that I was in a cave and I was nursing a baby, but the baby had Sheldon’s head on it. Mandy : And your wife is worried about me? Sheldon : Would you pass the mustard? Leonard : Sure. Hey, want to hear a fun fact about mustard? Sheldon : Is it that the glucosinolates which give mustard its 15. flavour were evolved by the cabbage family as a chemical defence against caterpillars? Leonard : Yeah.
Sheldon : Well, that was fun. Good for you, Leonard. Raj : (entering with Howard) Hey, there.
Leonard : Hey, you’re early. The movie doesn’t start for an hour. Howard : Actually, we’re not going to the movies. We are here to kidnap you. Leonard : What are you talking about? 16. Raj : Well, you eloped and we didn’t get a chance to throw you a bachelor party, so there’s a van downstairs and we’re here to take you to a surprise location for the weekend.
Sheldon : Well, I’d hardly call this kidnapping. Where’s the blindfold? Where’s the duct tape? Where’s the part where you call me and demand ransom and I try to keep you on the phone, but you PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
79
hang up seconds before I can trace it and then I say I’m getting too old for this crud? Sheldon : Uh-oh. According to this Mexican customs website, visitors may not bring more than five laser discs, 20 compact discs or 12 VHS tapes. Raj : We don’t have any of those.
17. Sheldon : How can you be sure? VHS was king when Feynman drove this van. For all we know, there are hidden compartments lousy with Jane Fonda workout videos.
Leonard : If there was a hidden compartment, don’t you think you’d be stuffed in it by now? Bernadette : Speaking of Sheldon, how’s single life treating you? Amy : Fine, I guess. I’ve been focusing on me. I was thinking about changing my wardrobe. 18. Penny : Yes. 19. Bernadette : Good for you. Amy : But then I decided I don’t want to go changing who I am just because of some man. Penny : Yes. Bernadette : Good for you. Raj : When did you learn how to change a tire? Howard : Every self-respecting gentleman should know how in case he comes across a damsel in distress by the 20. side of the road. Sheldon : If I see one scorpion, I am getting on someone’s shoulders and never coming down.
Leonard : And there’s your damsel. Howard : Wow, this one’s really stuck. Raj : Are you turning it the right way? 21. Howard : No. I took the other four off and when I got to this one, I thought, “You know, I’m in a rut, let’s shake things up.”
22. Howard : What are you doing? Raj : It’s called Lamaze breathing. It helps you push. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
80
Howard : Great. He’s pushing with his uterus.
Penny : What? What are you doing back?
Leonard : We got a flat and couldn’t get the tire off.
Penny : Oh, I’m sorry.
Leonard : Thank you.
Penny : If it makes you feel any better, I pierced Amy’s 23. ears and her mom made her sit in my closet.
Sheldon : We blew up Feynman’s van.
Penny : My dad killed my pig with his tractor.
Leonard : I spent the night in Mexico with Sheldon. Penny : You win. Leonard : Since when do you hum songs? Sheldon : What are you talking about? Leonard : You were just humming. 24. Sheldon : Are you sure? Sometimes when my brain really gets moving, it makes noise. Leonard : How does your brain feel about calculating the surface tension of the domain walls?
Sheldon : I feel like I know what song that is, but I can’t put my finger on it. (Singing) My country, ’tis of thee. No. 25. Leonard: : It’s just an earworm. It’ll come to you. Sheldon: : Okay. (Singing) R-E-S-P-E-C-T. No. Leonard: : Is this what we’re doing the rest of the night? Sheldon : (on phone) Hello, yes, I was hoping you could help me. What song is this? La, la, la, la, la, la, la. You don’t know? Well, how dare you call 26. yourselves a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? My goodness. Do you sing along to the greatest hits of Elvis Presley with that mouth? Well, they were no help at all. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
81
Leonard: : Which is crazy, since rock and roll is all about good customer service. Penny : Hey, sweetie, why don’t you take a break and do something else for a while? Sheldon : There was a project I’ve been thinking about starting. Penny : Okay, great. What is it? Sheldon : I’ll show you. (Into phone camera) Dear Crazy Future Sheldon, you were driven mad by an earworm. Your mind, once your most trusted asset, 27. is now a sack of parrots and monkeys. So, I’m going to tell you everything you need to know. Uh, first, music is dangerous. The movie Footloose tried to warn us, but we wouldn’t listen. Oh, wait. (Singing) Everyody cut footloose. Nope.
Penny : I’ll pay a thousand dollars to watch you cut footloose. Sheldon : This is Penny. She is your friend. If she offers you food, it’s safe to take it. You probably paid for it, anyway. Bernadette : So, you’re really going out with Dave again? Amy : Why not? He’s actually a very nice guy. 28. Bernadette : But he spent an entire date talking about how much he loves Sheldon. Bernadette : Okay. So where’s he taking you? Amy : Oh, he’s coming here. I’m actually making dinner. Bernadette : Oh. That’s a big step. Amy : It is? 29. Bernadette : Yeah. You’re inviting him into your home. It’s intimate. It’s where your underpants live. Amy : You know what? Good. I tried to get back together with Sheldon, he shot me down. Dave likes me. Maybe intimate is what I need. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
82
Bernadette : You sure? You’ve never really been with a man. Do you really want to start with one that’s six- foot-seven?
Raj : Maybe we should post a comment back to our fan and thank him.
Howard : What should we write?
30. Raj : How about, uh, oh, how about, we might be Footprints on the Moon, but your kind words sent us over the moon. Howard : Someday you’re gonna make an amazing grandma. Penny : Oh, my God, he won’t stop. Leonard : How does he keep coming up with new ways to be 31. annoying? Penny : Nobody knows. That’s why he’s number one. Can you please go talk to him? Leonard : Come on. I take care of him all day long. You do it for once. 32. Penny : Once? Who got the gum out of his hair? Leonard : What do you want, a medal? It was your gum. Leonard : What do you want, a medal? It was your gum. Penny : Fine. 33. Leonard : I love you. Penny : Who cares? Bernadette : Are you stalking him? That’s creepy.
Raj : It’s not creepy. I built a Footprints on the Moon fan page, Trent joined it. Howard : After that, all I did was check out his profile, go 34. back in the archive of his feed until I found his Twitter handle. Raj : From there, it was easy to find him on Instagram, Snapchat and pretty much track his every movement. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
83
Howard : So if you think that’s creepy, you married the wrong guy. Bernadette : Maybe I should marry Trent. Raj : Yeah, like she could get Trent. Sheldon : Bah, bam, bum-bum, bah, bum, bum. This song is never going to stop. Have you ever dealt with 35. something so relentlessly irritating? Leonard : That’s a trick question, right? Sheldon : I wonder why it was this particular song that was stuck in my head. Leonard : I don’t know. It’s pretty catchy. 36. Penny : Do you even like the Beach Boys? Sheldon : They have beach right in the name. What do you think?
Sheldon : That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her. That’s not her.
37. Leonard : Really? The old Asian man is not your Meemaw?
Sheldon : And that’s not helpful. You know, I got her an iPhone for Christmas. I’ll see where she is. Howard : Here we are talking about Frozen, and yet, you got burned. Raj : I’m so sorry but, how can you not like that movie? 38. Girl : I just think it gets more credit than it deserves. Howard : Oh, that’s what I said an hour ago.
Girl : Wow. You’ve been talking about Frozen for an hour? Meemaw : Okay, now let’s you and me get something straight. He may think that I came to bake him 39. cookies, but the real reason is to size you up. Amy : S, s, si, size me up? PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
84
Meemaw : Sheldon’s mother may be okay with you, but I’m not so easy. Amy : Well, I, I’m, I’m sure you’ll like me once you get to know me.
Meemaw : Oh, you better hope so. Amy : I’m curious. Why do you call Sheldon Moon Pie? Meemaw : ‘Cause he’s so nummy-nummy. Leonard and : She could just eat him up. Penny 40. Sheldon : And I call her Meemaw because, well, just, well, look at her.
Meemaw : It’s interesting that Leonard and Penny know about his nickname and you don’t. Meemaw : It’s interesting that Leonard and Penny know about his nickname and you don’t. Amy : Oh, well, you know, now, now that I’m hearing it, 41. it does sound familiar. Sheldon : How could it? I never told you, and you never bothered to ask.
Amy : Well, now I know. Meemaw. : So, Penny, I understand you have a new job. Penny : Yes. I’m a pharmaceutical sales rep. Meemaw : Oh. It’s so wonderful that you modern gals can have it all. A husband and a full-time career. Amy : I have a relationship and a full-time career, too. 42. Meemaw : That doesn’t bode well. Amy : Why not? You, you just said it’s okay for her to work. Meemaw : Well, Leonard doesn’t need as much tending to as Sheldon does. And as Moon Pie explained, Leonard’s work is more of a hobby. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
85
Leonard : That’s my best friend. Claire : (voice) Hello? Raj : Hi. Hi. Yeah, it’s Raj. Rajesh. We met at the comic book store. 43. Claire : Hey, what’s up? Figure out what time you’re free? Raj : Actually, that’s why I’m calling. I, um, I just, I need to let you know that I have a girlfriend.
Claire : Okay. Good for you. Raj : Actually, that’s why I’m calling. I, um, I just, I need to let you know that I have a girlfriend.
Claire : Okay. Good for you. Raj : Well, no, no. I, I didn’t want to mislead you after you asked me out. Claire: : I didn’t ask you out. I just need help with my screenplay. Raj : Wait, are you saying that we didn’t have a vibe? 44. Claire : Why do you care if we have a vibe? You have a girlfriend. Raj : Come on, I just told you I had a girlfriend. The least you can do is tell me if we had a vibe. Claire : Sure, we had a vibe. Raj : I knew it. Okay, we did have a vibe. This is exciting. What’s my next move?
Bernadette : You still have a girlfriend. Penny : Hi. Sorry. Sheldon would like to say something to you. Sheldon : No, I wouldn’t. 45. Leonard : Just get in here. Sheldon : Hello. Penny : Go ahead. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
86
Sheldon : Meemaw, look, I’m sorry, but I have to defend my girlfriend to you. Amy : Oh, Sheldon, thank you.
Sheldon : Oh, great, now you’re gonna get emotional. I always looked up to you and Pop-Pop. I, I know what a challenging man he could be, but I saw you stand by him and-and make him into a better person. Sheldon : Meemaw, look, I’m sorry, but I have to defend my girlfriend to you. Amy : Oh, Sheldon, thank you. Sheldon : Oh, great, now you’re gonna get emotional. I always looked up to you and Pop-Pop. I, I know what a challenging man he could be, but I saw you stand by him and-and make him into a better person. Meemaw : I did. 46. Sheldon : Yeah, well, that is exactly what I’ve been doing the last five years with this little work in progress. Leonard : He never disappoints, does he? Amy : I think what Sheldon means to say is we’ve both grown together. Isn’t that right? Sheldon : Well… Penny : Say yes.
Sheldon : Yes. Meemaw : Fine. If you feel so strongly, I won’t stand in your way. Sheldon Sheldon: Thank you. 47. Amy : So if he wanted to give me that engagement ring, we would have your blessing? Meemaw : I suppose. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
87
Sheldon : I just gave you my virginity, woman. Cool your jets.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
88
Appendix 2: The Pragmatic Features and Purposes of Sarcastic Utterances
Abbreviations
SU : Sarcastic Utterance S : Sophistication MQn : Maxim of Quantity E : Evaluation MQl : Maxim of Quality TP : Tool for Politeness MR : Maxim of Relation PA : Persuasive Aspect MM : Maxim of Manner R : Retractability GA : Group Affiliation
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
It must be a joyful occasion. I wish I could be as happy as Wow. Hope I you are. I am sad can catch the because I have 1 Amy √ √ bouquet from broken up with my here. (SU1) boyfriend. I am actually upset too, for you did not invite me to your wedding.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
89
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
I am upset that she is Yeah, great, I upset because of your take it back. Go wedding, not me. I 2 Sheldon ahead and do it. √ √ hope you are having Yay for love. fun when I am (SU2) suffering. Well, that’s You forgot what it’s understandable. called because you You forgot. It’s are no longer able to √ √ 3 Howard called happy. feel how happiness (SU3) feels. I’m not saying anything bad. It is sad that she is in Just that she love with Sheldon 4 Howard was in love with and trying to move on √ √ her captor and from him which is somehow not easy. managed to escape from his
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
90
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
dark and crazy dungeon. (SU4)
Didn’t even I am not wondering 5 Raj crack the top √ √ √ √ about it at all. ten. (SU5)
Who do you You may think that I think carries am a weak man, but it Sheldon to bed is actually the 6 Leonard when he falls √ √ √ opposite. I am even asleep in front able to carry Sheldon of the TV? to bed. (SU6) Wow. Well, I guess something marriage must bad which was agree with you. 7 Sheldon related to your √ √ Well, you are marriage happened. just glowing. You look miserable. (SU7)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
91
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
You think Amy was Do what makes not happy with me. her happy? She However, I disagree plays the harp with you. I let her to and her car is 8 Sheldon play harp and paid √ √ paid for. How her car. I do not think much happier she could be happier can she be? than when she was (SU8) with me. Me neither. But I just had a I feel bad for you for tickle in my not being able to throat, not 9 Sheldon sleep because you √ √ profound have marital marital problems. problems. (SU9) Raj is annoying. It 10 Howard You think it’s makes me think as if √ √ hard having one I had two wives.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
92
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
wife, try having two. (SU10) Yes, I remember You mean the when you did not night that I went really skate because ice-skating, and you were busy you stood at the 11 Amy looking for the √ √ √ √ rail googling symptoms of the symptoms hypothermia. Hence, of hypothermia? I was the one who (SU11) skated, not you. Well, good for Thankfully I did not 12 Mandy √ √ √ me. (SU12) sleep with you. I know. I do not wonder why women Imagine that. 13 Mandy do not have interest √ √ √ (SU13) in you. You are not attractive.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
93
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
You even dreamed about him. Your wife And your wife should have worried 14 Mandy is worried about √ √ about you and me? (SU14) Sheldon instead of you and me. Well, that was That is not fun. fun. Good for Anyway, thank you 15 Sheldon √ √ you, Leonard. for wanting to tell me (SU15) about it. Well, I’d hardly call this kidnapping. I hardly call this Where’s the kidnapping, for you 16 Sheldon blindfold? are not doing what √ √ Where’s the kidnappers usually duct tape? do. Where’s the part where you call me and
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
94
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
demand ransom and I try to keep you on the phone, but you hang up seconds before I can trace it and then I say I’m getting too old for this crud? (SU16) If there was a hidden compartment, There clearly is no a 17 Leonard don’t you think √ √ hidden compartment. you’d be stuffed in it by now? (SU17) 18 Penny Yes. (SU18) √ √
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
95
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
That is not a good Bernadett Good for you. idea. You should 19 √ √ e (SU19) really change your wardrobe. I feel sorry for you. Sheldon is only And there’s damsel in distress 20 Leonard your damsel. √ √ who may come (SU20) across by the side of the road. No. I took the Of course I’m turning other four off it the right way. I and when I got have gotten the four to this one, I off. There is no way I 21 Howard thought, “You √ √ would fail in getting know, I’m in a the last one off. The rut, let’s shake last one is really things up.” stuck. (SU21)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
96
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
I find it bothering that he is breathing as if Great. He’s he were trying to pushing with push his nonexistent 22 Howard √ √ √ his uterus. baby from his (SU22) nonexistent uterus like a mother who is about to give a birth. You win. Your day was way 23 Penny √ √ (SU23) worse than mine. How does your You had better stop brain feel about thinking about calculating the irrelevant thing and 24 Leonard √ √ √ surface tension go back to calculating of the domain the surface tension of walls? (SU24) the domain walls. I insist you stop 25 Leonard Is this what √ √ we’re doing the humming.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
97
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
rest of the night? (SU25) Do you sing along to the It is a shame that you greatest hits of sing along with Elvis 26 Sheldon √ √ √ Elvis Presley Presley but you don’t with that know what song it is. mouth? (SU26) If she offers you food, it’s safe to I accuse Penny that take it. You 27 Sheldon she sometimes eat the √ √ probably paid food I buy. for it, anyway. (SU27)
But he spent an I think it is a bad idea Bernadett for going out with 28 entire date √ √ √ √ e talking about Dave again. He how much he seems boring.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
98
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
loves Sheldon. (SU28) I think Dave is not Do you really the right person if want to start you want you start to Bernadett 29 with one that’s have an intimate √ √ √ e six-foot-seven? relationship with him (SU29) since he is extremely tall. Someday you’re What you said was gonna make an exaggerative and that 30 Howard amazing √ √ √ √ would be something a grandma. grandmother say. (SU30) Sheldon is the most That’s why he’s annoying person 31 Penny number one. because he keeps √ √ (SU31) coming up with new ways to be annoying.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
99
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
Getting the gum out What do you of Sheldon’s hair is 32 Leonard want, a medal? √ √ √ √ not a very hard thing (SU32) to do. I am mad because I have to get up and Who cares? 33 Penny tell Sheldon to stop √ √ (SU33) playing a keyboard during bed time. There is little Yeah, like she possibility that 34 Raj could get Trent. Bernadette will make √ √ (SU34) Trent like her or even marry her. That is a very easy That’s a trick question because we 35 Leonard question, right? know the answer is √ √ (SU35) Sheldon. He is relentlessly irritating.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
100
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
Of course I like them. They have Beach Boys is a great beach right in band. It can be 36 Sheldon the name. What √ √ proved from their do you think? name which has (SU36) ‘beach’ in it. You do not have to say “that’s not her” Really? The old repetitively. Of Asian man is course I know that 37 Leonard not your the old Asian man is √ √ √ √ Meemaw? not your (SU37) grandmother, but please stop it. It is annoying. Wow. You’ve That is ridiculous. been talking You two have been 38 Girl about Frozen √ √ wasting an hour just for an hour? to talk about Frozen. (SU38)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
101
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
I suggest that you do Oh, you better 39 Meemaw not set your hope too √ √ hope so. (SU39) high. It’s interesting It is such a shame that Leonard that you are his and Penny girlfriend but you do 40 Meemaw know about his not know about his √ √ nickname and nickname while you don’t. Leonard and Penny (SU40) do. It is not important Well, now I how it sounds 41 Amy √ √ √ know. (SU41) familiar. I need you to stop bringing it up. I do not think he is my best friend since That’s my best 42 Leonard he does not know √ √ √ √ friend. (SU42) anything about my job.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
102
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
It has nothing to do Okay. Good for with me. I do not care 43 Claire √ √ you. (SU43) that you have a girlfriend. You cannot make You still have a Bernadett your next move. You 44 girlfriend. √ √ √ e are in a relationship (SU44) with another woman. It’s not great because Oh, great, now you’re going to get you’re gonna 45 Sheldon emotional for what √ √ get emotional. I’m about to do for (SU45) you.
He never What Sheldon said disappoints, was true. The one 46 Leonard √ √ does he? who has been (SU46) working on the relationship and
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
103
Flouted Maxim Purpose Sarcastic Conversational No Speaker Utterance Implicature MQn MQl MR MM S E TP PA R GA
making her partner a better person is Amy. You need to slow things down, Amy. I will not give Cool your jets. everything at once. 47 Sheldon √ √ √ (SU47) There is no way that I will propose you soon after I gave you my virginity.