plagiat merupakan tindakan tidak terpuji yang non-kooperatif antara lawan bicara sebagai hasil dari...

HUMOROUS SITUATIONS CREATED BY VIOLATIONS AND

FLOUTINGS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS

IN A SITUATION COMEDY ENTITLED

HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

in English Letters

By

JENNA NADIA RASBI PUTRI AMIANNA

Student Number: 114214027

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2016

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJIPLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ii

HUMOROUS SITUATIONS CREATED BY VIOLATIONS AND

FLOUTINGS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS

IN A SITUATION COMEDY ENTITLED

HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra

in English Letters

By

JENNA NADIA RASBI PUTRI AMIANNA

Student Number: 114214027

ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS

FACULTY OF LETTERS

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2016


A Sarj ana Sastra Undergraduate Thesis

HUIVTOROUS SITUATIONS CBEATED BY YIOLATIONS ANDFLOUTIN-GS OF COIT{VERSATIONAL MA}ilMS

IN A SITUATION COilIEDY EI'ITITLEDHOW I rt[ET yOItR'ilfOfHER

i'(E:

5j

*.'

l:

*.

{u k-kIlarrig Hprma+svah' Sethiid- S. S.. M.Hum.Co-advisor

December 1I,2015

111

Adventina }\ifr@ti. S. S,. M.t{uff

December 11,2015


A Sarjana Sastra Undergraduate Thesis

ITUMOROUS SITUATIONS CREATED BY YIOLATIONS ANI)FLOUTINGS OF COI{YERSATIONAL MAXIMS

IN A SITUATION COMEDY ENTITLEDHOW I MET YOUR MOTHER

ByJENNA NAI}IA RASBT PUTRI AMIANNA

Student Number: ll42l4|27

Defended before the Board of Examinerson January 25,2016

and Declared Acceptable

BOARI} OF EXAMINERS

llame

Chairperson : Dr. F.X. Siswadi, M.A.

Secretary : Dra. A.B. Sri Mulyani, M.A., Ph.D.

Member I : Dr. B. Ria Lestari, M.Sc.

Member 2 : Adventina Putranti, S.S., M.Hum.

Member 3 : Harris Hermansyah Setiajid, S.S., M.Hum.

Yogyakarta, January 29, 2A16Faculty of Letters

1V

fft3IBFg -s",ras sFl<Ol

fs+*"p"g

/t;,nue-- {*,'oko,

Dr. F.X. Siswadi, M.A.


vii

“Don’t get impatient. Even if things are

so tangled up you can’t do anything,

don’t get desperate or blow a fuse and

start yanking on one particular thread

before it’s ready to come undone. You

have to realize it’s going to be a long

process and that you’ll work on things

slowly, one at a time.”

- Haruki Murakami -


viii

For

People who dedicate their life to teach.


ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis advisor, Adventina

Putranti, S.S., M.Hum. for her guidance, encouragement and patience throughout

my thesis writing so that I can finally finish my undergraduate thesis. I would also

like to thank my co-advisor Harris Hermansyah Setiajid, S.S, M.Hum. for the

inputs, and his total support given to me.

I extend my gratitude to my family for teaching me not to easily give up

on doing things, even the hardest ones. I always carry that lesson with me

because it teaches me to never complain about difficult things. I would also like to

send my extended gratitude to all of my friends, whose names cannot be

mentioned one by one. My special love goes to my beloved friends who have been

supporting me for the past view years, especially the ones who have graduated

before me. Their support and successful experiences in the real world inspire me

in many ways I cannot describe.

The last but not the least, I would like to thank one of my seniors, Anindita

Dewangga Puri, for her suggestions, sharing, and insightful ideas given to me

throughout my thesis writing process.

Jenna Nadia Rasbi Putri Amianna


x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITTLE PAGE .................................................................................................... ii

APPROVAL PAGE ........................................................................................... iii

ACCEPTANCE PAGE ...................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ................................................................. v

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH . vi

MOTTO PAGE ................................................................................................... vii

DEDICATION PAGE ........................................................................................viii

ACKNOWLADGEMENTS .............................................................................. ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... x

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...........................................................................xiii

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................xiv

ABSTRAK ............................................................................................................. xv

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1

A. Background of the Study .......................................................................... 1

B. Problem Formulation ............................................................................... 5

C. Objectives of the Study ............................................................................ 5

D. Definition of Terms .................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................. 9

A. Review of Related studies ......................................................................... 9

B. Review of Related Theories ...................................................................... 13

1. Pragmatics ........................................................................................... 13

2. Context ................................................................................................ 14

3. Conversational Implicature ................................................................. 17

4. Cooperative Principle .......................................................................... 19

5. Flouting Conversational Maxims ........................................................ 24

6. Violating Conversational Maxims ...................................................... 26

7. Conversational Analysis...................................................................... 27

8. Humor ................................................................................................. 32

C. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................. 38

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 40

A. Object of the Study.................................................................................... 40

B. Approach of the Study .............................................................................. 41

C. Method of the Study .................................................................................. 41


xi

1. Data Collection.................................................................................... 42

2. Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 42

CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS .......................................... 46

A. Types of Violations And Floutings of Conversational Maxims ............... 46

1. Violations of Conversational Maxims ................................................ 47

2. Floutings of Conversational Maxims .................................................. 61

B. The Humorous Situations Created in the Situation Comedy .................... 74

1. By creating incongruent idea between someone’s expectation

and what actually happens in the conversation ................................... 76

2. By mocking and laughing at someone’s inferiority to show

hostility ................................................................................................ 84

3. By releasing emotions to experience freedom .................................... 87

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION .......................................................................... 96

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 99

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................101


xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Data Findings: Violations of Conversational Maxims………….……47

Table 2. Data Findings: Floutings of Conversational Maxims………………...61

Table 3. Data Findings: The ways of how humorous situations are created

in the situation comedy……………………………………………….75


xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CP : Cooperative Principle

Flo : Flouting of Conversational Maxims

Hos : Hostility

Inc : Incongruent idea

Man : Maxim of Manner

Qual : Maxim of Quality

Quan : Maxim of Quantity

Rel : Maxim of Relation

Rls : Released emotions

Vio : Violations of Conversational Maxim


xiv

ABSTRACT

AMIANNA, JENNA NADIA RASBI PUTRI. Humorous Situations Created By

Violations and Floutings Of Conversational Maxims In A Situation Comedy

Entitled How I Met Your Mother. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters,

Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2016.

As a form of communication that evokes laughter, humor is seen as one of

important aspects in building relationship with people. Linguists suggest that

humor or jokes exist because there is non-cooperative interaction among the

interlocutors resulting from not observing Cooperative Principle in the

conversations. This study attempts to analyze the humorous situations in a

situation comedy entitled How I Met Your Mother Season 2, Episodes 1 to 5

which are created from violating and flouting the conversational maxims as the

forms of not observing the Cooperative Principle.

There are two problems formulated in this study. The first one is to

identify the types of violations and floutings of conversational maxims in a

situation comedy entitled How I Met Your Mother Season 2 Episodes 1 to 5. In the

analysis of the first problem, it will be shown the analysis of the types of

violations and floutings of conversational maxims which are done by the

characters. The second one is to analyze how the humorous situations in the

situation comedy are created from the violations and floutings of conversational

maxims done by the characters.

In this study, documents and text analysis are applied in the analysis

process. By observing the utterances from the characters in the situation comedy,

the writer collected the humorous utterances which consist of violations and

floutings of conversational maxims. Pragmatic approach is applied in analyzing

the violations and floutings of conversational maxim in order to find out the type

conversational maxims which are violated or flouted by the characters. Humor

theory is applied in this study in order to explore how humorous situations are

created from the violations and floutings of conversational maxims found in the

situation comedy.

There are two findings from the analysis of this study. First, it is found that

each of the characters in the situation comedy appears to violate and flout the

conversational maxims, which are, maxim of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and

Manner. Second, it is found that the strategies used by the characters in creating

humorous situations in the situation comedy are creating incongruent meaning or

idea in the conversations, mocking others’ inferiority to show hostility, and

releasing emotions.


xv

ABSTRAK

AMIANNA, JENNA NADIA RASBI PUTRI. Humorous Situations Created By

Violations and Floutings Of Conversational Maxims In A Situation Comedy

Entitled How I Met Your Mother. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris,

Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2016.

Sebagai bentuk komunikasi yang menimbulkan tawa, humor dipandang

sebagai salah satu aspek penting dalam membangun relasi dengan masyarakat.

Ahli bahasa menyatakan bahwa humor atau lelucon tercipta karena adanya

interaksi yang non-kooperatif antara lawan bicara sebagai hasil dari tidak

mengamati Prinsip Kerjasama (Cooperative Principle) di dalam percakapan.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis situasi humor dalam komedi situasi

yang berjudul How I Met Your Mother Season 2, Episode 1 - 5 yang timbul karena

adanya violations dan floutings sebagai bentuk pelanggaran dari maksim

percakapan sebagai hasil dari tidak mengamati Prinsip Kerjasama (Cooperative

Principle).

Dalam penelitian ini terdapat dua rumusan masalah. Yang pertama adalah

untuk mengidentifikasi tipe – tipe violations dan floutings maksim percakapan

dalam komedi situasi How I Met Your Mother Season 2 Episode 1 - 5. Yang

kedua adalah untuk menganalisis cara terciptanya situasi humor yang disebabkan

oleh violations dan floutings maksim percakapan yang dilakukan oleh para

karakter dalam komedi situasi tersebut.

Dalam penelitian ini, metode analisis dokumen dan teks diaplikasikan

dalam proses analisis. Dengan mengamati semua ucapan dari para karakter dalam

komedi situasi tersebut, penulis mengumpulkan ungkapan - ungkapan lucu yang

terdiri dari violations dan floutings maksim percakapan. Penulis menerapkan

pendekatan pragmatik dalam menganalisis violations dan floutings maksim

percakapan untuk mengetahui tipe dari maksim percakapan yang dilanggar oleh

para karakter. Teori humor juga diaplikasikan dalam penelitian ini untuk

menganalisis bagaimana situasi humor tercipta dari violations dan floutings

maksim percakapan dalam komedi situasi tersebut.

Terdapat dua hasil dari penelitian ini. Yang pertama, masing – masing

karakter dalam komedi situasi tersebut melanggar keempat maksim percakapan,

yakni maksim kuantitas (quantity), kualitas (quality), hubungan (relation), dan

cara (manner). Yang kedua, dapat disimpulkan bahwa cara – cara yang digunakan

para karakter untuk menciptakan situasi humor dalam komedi situasi tersebut

adalah dengan menciptakan arti atau ide yang membingungkan dalam percakapan,

mengolok – olok kelemahan orang lain untuk menunjukkan sikap permusuhan,

dan mengeluarkan emosi.


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

On everyday life, people, as social human beings, communicate. That is an

inevitable activity embedded in society. One of the ways to communicate is by

talking. Every time people talk with their family, friends, and other people, they

use language as the means of communication. Wood and Kroger (2000: 4) explain

in their book that language is not only a means of communication, but also a

feature of social life. Thus, people can produce utterances through language to

share information, stories, thoughts, or ideas.

In order to understand the meaning of language, people have to know the

meaning of the words, phrases, sentences, and also the context in which some

utterances are produced (Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams, 2003:173). Utterances

are produced related to a certain topic and in a certain situation. The speakers have

a purpose in saying some utterances in a certain situation and it cannot be

separated from the context in which the conversation takes place. According to

Leech (1983: 6), the study of meaning in relation to speech situation is called

pragmatics.

When two or more people are engaged in a conversation, they should be

able to cooperate with each other. Speakers and hearers should contribute each

other and provide adequate information about what is being talked about. One

should respond the other and vice versa by giving sufficient information. The


2

speakers should give neither too little nor too much information in order to make a

conversation run smoothly (Cutting, 2002: 34). If the speakers give less or more

information than what is requested, there might be misunderstanding between the

interlocutors and the conversation might stop.

Here is an example where the speaker is being cooperative in a

conversation.

Example 1:

Husband : Where are the car keys?

Wife : They‟re on the table in the hall.

(Thomas, 1995: 64)

In the conversation above, the husband asks his wife about where the car keys are.

Knowing the location of the car keys, the wife answers the husband by telling him

that the car keys are on the table which is located in the hall. In the situation

above, the wife is being brief and she gives the right amount of information about

the location of the car keys without giving false information to her husband. The

message of the conversation is successfully delivered. Thus, the wife is said to be

cooperative to her husband.

In other hand, speakers are possible to give non-cooperative response in a

conversation. It can be seen in the example below.

Example 2:

A : Where‟s Bill?

B : There‟s a yellow VW outside Sue‟s house.

(Levinson, 1983: 102)

From the conversation above, literally, B fails to answer A‟s question. A asks B

where Bill is and the answer B gives to A is: „there‟s a yellow VW outside Sue‟s

house‟. In here, B‟s answer is unnecessary and is not related to A‟s question since

A does not ask anything about a yellow VW outside Sue‟s house. That being


3

done, B‟s utterance is said to be non-cooperative despite the fact that B is trying to

suggest deeper meaning to A. B‟s non-cooperative answer in the conversation

above might create misunderstanding between them.

The two examples above are the conversations which show whether or not

a speaker is being cooperative in a conversation. Such cooperative interaction

among the interlocutors is stated as theory of Cooperative Principle (Yule, 1996:

37), which is usually abbreviated into CP. Being successful in obeying the CP and

its sub-principles is the proof that a person has a communicative competence as an

important aspect to use language in daily life.

This study analyzes one of the social phenomena in the society dealing

with language use in communication, that is, humor. Studying humor is also

important, because according to Holmes & Marra (2002), humor is a means that

can be used to improve communication and relationships among the speakers and

the hearers. Humor, as stated in The Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus,

is “the condition of being amusing or comic.” Hence, by having the ability to

amuse, humor can create humorous situations. According to Chiaro (1992: 43-44),

a humorous situation occurs when there is two-faced meaning or ambiguous

meaning of linguistic features in a conversation, such as, the choice of words.

This two-faced meaning exists because the participants in a conversation are not

cooperative each other by not following Grice‟s Cooperative Principle (CP). The

participants‟ attitude of not following the rules of the CP will create ambiguity

and misunderstanding which later will elicit laughter as one of the effects.


4

Besides in social interaction, humor can also be found in TV shows. The

similarity between humor found in daily interaction and the one that is found in

TV shows lies on the principle which creates humor itself. As suggested by Grice,

jokes are non-cooperative (Attardo, 1994: 271). Taken into account, both

humorous situations in daily interactions and in TV shows occur because non-

cooperative interactions exist between the interlocutors. The difference between

the two lies on the process of the occurrence of the humorous situations. In daily

interactions, humorous situations occur naturally in the conversations without

being planned by the interlocutors. Meanwhile, the conversations in TV shows are

designed by the writer in order to create humorous situations. Even though the

conversations in TV shows are designed, they still carry the principle which

creates humorous situations.

This study is conducted to examine the humorous situations created by

non-cooperative interactions in a situation comedy, entitled How I Met Your

Mother. In this case, the non-cooperative interactions result in violating and

flouting of conversational maxims as the sub principles of Grice‟s Cooperative

Principles. The data of this study are obtained from season 2, episodes 1 to 5. The

2nd

season is chosen without any specific purpose since humorous situations are

found in all of the 10 seasons.

How I Met Your Mother is an American situation comedy airing from

September 19, 2005 to March 31, 2014. It is known best for its eccentric humor

and it receives positive reviews over the past view years. IMDB states that the

situation comedy is rated 8.4 out of 10 stars for its eccentric humor.


5

To reach the aim of this study, Pragmatic approach is applied in order to

analyze the violations and floutings of conversational maxims done by the

characters in the situations comedy. Grice‟s Cooperative Principle and its four

conversational maxims theories are applied to examine the types of conversational

maxims which are violated and flouted by the characters in order to create

humorous situations. Furthermore, humor theories are applied in order to analyze

how the humorous situations are created by the violations and the floutings of

conversational maxims found in this situation comedy.

B. Problems Formulation

In order to limit the subject of discussion, there are two problems

formulated as follows:

1. What are the types of violations and floutings of conversational maxims

appear in a situation comedy How I Met Your Mother season 2, episodes

1 to 5?

2. How do the violations and the floutings of conversational maxims found

create humorous situations in a situation comedy entitled How I Met

Your Mother season 2, episodes 1 to 5?

C. Objectives of the Study

In order to answer the problems formulated above, there are two objectives

of this study. The first objective is to find out the types of violations and floutings

of conversational maxims which appear in American situation comedy How I Met

Your Mother Season 2, episodes 1 to 5. The more detailed identification of the

first objective is to analyze further about the context where the violated and the


6

flouted conversational maxims appear. The second objective of this study is to

examine how the violations and floutings of conversational maxims can create

humorous situations in this American situation comedy.

D. Definition of Terms

To avoid misunderstanding, there are several terms in this study need to be

explained as follows:

Cooperative Principle, often abbreviated as CP, is a theory suggested by

Grice as stated bellow:

Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs,

by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are

engaged (Thomas, 2013: 61-62).

By obeying the CP, people who are engaged in a conversation are supposed to

respond one another by exchanging the sufficient amount of information which is

required by the situation. Besides Cooperative Principle, to guide the speakers in

making their contributions appropriate in a conversation, Grice proposed sub-

principles of Cooperative Principle which is usually called as Conversational

Maxim.

Conversational Maxims are the sub-principles of Cooperative Principle.

There are four Conversational Maxims proposed by Grice, which are Maxim of

Quantity, Maxim of Quality, Maxim of Relation, and Maxim of Manner. When

two or more people are engaged in a conversation, they should follow those four

Conversational Maxims in order to produce an efficient conversation. However,

the people who are engaged in a conversation may not obey the four


7

conversational maxims of Cooperative Principle. The conversational maxims

which are not followed by the interlocutors are called to be violated or flouted.

Besides being obeyed, a maxim is able to be violated and flouted. Cutting

(2002: 40) explains that a speaker is said to violate a maxim when he delivers

utterances and knows that the hearer will not understand the whole truth and will

only know the surface meaning of the words or sentences related to the topic they

are talking about. In violating a maxim, a speaker intentionally wants to mislead

or mischief the hearer.

On the other hand, a speaker is said to flout a maxim when he blatantly

fails to follow the conversational maxims but expect the interlocutors to

understand the implied meaning (Cutting, 2002: 37). In flouting a maxim, the

speaker assumes that the hearer knows the deeper meaning of the speaker‟s

statement and will understand the implicature generated by the speaker.

The Encyclopedia of Britannica defines humor as a form of communication

that evokes the reflex of laughter of people (Benton (ed), 1983: 7). It is also

explained in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary that humor is “the quality in

something that makes it funny or amusing”. By having the quality to be funny,

humor can create humorous situation and elicit laughter. According to Grice, as

cited by Attardo (1994: 271-276), “jokes or humor are non-cooperative”. Thus,

humorous situations exist because there is non-cooperative interaction among

the interlocutors. This non-cooperative interaction occurs because the

interlocutors do not obey the CP and its maxims by violating or flouting the rules.


8

By doing so, the humorous situation is created between the speakers and the

hearers as the product of violating or flouting the maxims.

Humor exists in TV shows such as in situation comedy. According to The

American Heritage Dictionary as cited by Savorelli (2010), situation comedy is

“a humorous television series having a regular cast of characters.” From that

explanation, it can be concluded that a situation comedy has the quality of being

funny. To get the deeper understanding about situation comedy, Savorelli (2010)

presents the definition of situation comedy from the Encyclopedia Britannica

which defines situation comedy as:

Radio or television comedy series that involves a continuing cast of

characters in a succession of episodes.

Often the characters are markedly different types thrown together by

circumstance and occupying a shared environment such as an apartment

building or workplace. Typically half an hour in length and either taped in

front of a studio audience or employing canned applause, they are marked

by verbal sparring and rapidly resolved conflict. (Savorelli, 2010: 21)

The definition stated above shows that a situation comedy is a TV show which is

presented in series of episodes and is having a class or group of people as the

characters, such as friends, co-workers, or family members. In situation comedy,

the characters often occupy a shared location such as an office, an apartment, a

café, or any other place.


9

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter presents three subchapters, which are; first, review of related

studies; second, review of related theories; and, third, theoretical framework. The

first subchapter, review of related studies, consists of papers and undergraduate

thesis discussing the similar topic with the present study. The second subchapter,

review of related theories, consists of theories which are used to analyze the

problems in this study. The third subchapter, theoretical framework, explains the

contribution of the theories and how they are applied in order to examine the

problems in this study.

A. Review of Related Studies

There are several studies conducted under the same topic that have been

done by some researchers.

The first study is “Humor Strategies in the American Sitcom Friends; An

Empirical Study with Reference to Grice‟s Cooperative Principle”, which was

conducted by Yu-wen Wu and Yong Chen in 2010. In this study, Wu and Chen

explore how American sitcom characters violate Grice‟s Cooperative Principle to

create humor in their daily conversation. The American situation comedy which is

chosen as the data source from which the data are taken is Friends. Friends is a

situation comedy which describes the relationships and the daily lives among six

close friends in New York. It is found that the humor strategies used by the


10

characters to create humor in the situation comedy are resulting from the violation

of conversational maxims of Grice‟s Cooperative Principle. The results of the

study show that irony, responding irrelevant statements, and making an excuse are

the humor strategies mostly used by the characters in the 10th

season of the

situation comedy. Different kind of humor strategies is used by the characters

depends on their intention to achieve humorous situations since each humor

strategy manifests different function or purpose.

Pragmatics concepts such as implicature, Grice‟s Cooperative Principles

and its four conversational maxims (maxim of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and

Manner) are applied in this study in order to analyze which conversational maxim

is violated. Furthermore, humor theory is also applied to explore the humor

strategies done by the characters.

Related to Wu and Chen‟s study, the present study‟s aim is also to

examine humorous situations in a situation comedy. It analyses how the humorous

situations are created in such a way by violations and floutings of conversational

maxims of Cooperative Principle which are done by the characters. The present

study applies humor theory suggested by Raskin and Attardo which is the same

humor theory applied by Wu and Chen in their study.

Besides the similarity, there are differences between the two studies. The

first difference lies on the data source from which the data are taken. The data of

Wu and Chen‟s study are taken from a situation comedy entitled Friends-Season

10. Meanwhile, the data of the present study are taken from a situation comedy

entitled How I Met Your Mother season 2, episode 1 to 5. Second, on one hand,


11

Wu and Chen aims to explore how the characters in the situation comedy create

humor by violating Grice‟s Cooperative Principle as their humor strategies. On

the other hand, the present study aims to explore how the characters in the

situation comedy create humorous situations by not only violating but also

flouting Grice‟s Cooperative Principle as their humor strategies. Thus, the present

study applies humor theory on both of the violations and the floutings of

conversational maxims done by the characters in order to explore how the

humorous situations are built in the situation comedy.

The second study is “An Analysis of Humor Types and Grice‟s Maxim in

the Situation Comedy Friends Episode of “The One that Could Have Been” (a

Pragmatic Approach) by Sri Retno Palupi. The aims of this study are, first, to find

out the types of humor which appear in this episode, and second, to define

whether those humors obey or disobey Grice‟s conversational maxims as the

standard conversational norms. This study uses pragmatic approach to analyze the

problem formulations. The data are all the humor utterances which are able to

create laughter found in Friends comedy series in the episode of “The One with

That Could Have Been”. To analyze the types of the humor, the data are classified

by applying humor theory by Anthony L. Audrieth‟s, and further, they are

analyzed by Grice‟s conversational maxims theory. The result of this study

reveals that there are eight types of humor which are found in that episode, which

are, banter, blunder, chain, Freudian Slip, irony, mistaken identity, relapse, and

repartee. Hence, related to the maxims theory, it is found that the humors in that


12

episode of situation comedy, which appear in every utterance, fail to obey at least

one of the conversational maxims.

Related to Palupi‟s study, the present study‟s aim is also to examine

humorous situations in a situation comedy. The present study is conducted in

order to analyze how the humorous situations are created by violations and

floutings of conversational maxims done by the characters. In here, the result from

humor analysis in Palupi‟s study contributes evidence that humorous situations

which appear in every utterance in the situation comedy are the results of not

obeying at least one of conversational maxims of Grice‟s Cooperative Principles.

Besides the similarity and the contribution, differences are also found

between Palupi‟s study and the present study. First, on one hand, Palupi‟s study

does not stop in analyzing humor in the situation comedy. It goes further in

finding out the types of humor found in the data source. On the other hand, the

present study focuses on the contribution of conversational maxims of Grice‟s

Cooperative Principle in creating humorous situations in How I Met Your Mother

season 2, episode 1 to 5. This present study examines more closely how violating

and flouting a conversational maxim of Cooperative Principle can create

humorous situations in the situation comedy. It does not go further in analyzing

the types of humor. Thus, theory of humor types is not applied in the present

study like it is applied in Palupi‟s study in order to analyze the data. Second, the

data from both of Palupi‟s study and the present study are not from the same data

source. While Palupi‟s data are obtained from Friends: The One with That Could


13

Have Been, the data of the present study are obtained from How I Met Your

Mother, season 2, episodes 1 to 5.

B. Review of Related Theories

1. Pragmatics

To this day, a number of theories of language have been developed by

linguists. One of these theories is pragmatics. Thomas (1995: 22-23) defines

pragmatics as meaning in interaction. It takes not only the contributions from the

speakers in saying utterances, but also from the hearers in understanding the

utterances from their point of view. Besides the contributions from the

interlocutors, contexts of utterance, such as physical, social, and linguistic

contexts, and the meaning potential of utterance are taken into account in

producing meaning. Thus, pragmatics is context-dependent. An utterance cannot

be understood separately from the context it is uttered.

Related to pragmatics‟ nature of context-dependent, Levinson (1983: 21)

suggests that pragmatics is “the study of relations between language and context

that are basic to an account of language understanding”. The meaning of

“language understanding” is that understanding an utterance does not only involve

knowing the meaning of the words and the grammatical relations between them,

but most importantly, it involves the ability to make inferences in order to connect

what is said to what is assumed in a certain context.

Yule (1996: 3-4) also states another definition of pragmatics. He suggests

that pragmatics is concerned with four areas explained as follow. First, pragmatics

is “the study of speaker meaning”. It means that pragmatics is more concerned


14

with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than the utterances

mean by themselves. Second, pragmatics is “the study of contextual meaning”;

meaning that context has an important role in influencing what people say. Thus,

it needs a consideration of how people deliver what they want to say in

accordance with who they are talking to, where, when, and under what

circumstances a conversation takes place. Third, pragmatics is “the study of how

more gets communicated than is said”. From this third definition, this approach

also analyze how the listeners can make inferences about what the interlocutors

say in order to understand the speakers‟ intended meaning. Fourth, pragmatics is

“the study of the expression of relative distance”. Distance, in this type, means the

closeness, whether it is physical, social, or conceptual, which implies shared

experience between the speakers and the listeners. Thus, how close or distant the

listener is, the speakers decide how much needs to be uttered.

From the definitions suggested by linguists as mentioned above, it can be

concluded that pragmatics is the study of utterance meaning in a particular

context. Thus, by studying pragmatics, people are able to know others‟ intended

meanings, assumptions, purposes, ideas, even the action they are performing at the

moment of speaking.

2. Context

Related to the definition of pragmatics, understanding utterances cannot be

separated from the context in which the conversation takes place. In here, context

plays an important role in the interpretation meaning. Cutting (2002: 3-7) explains

that there are three contexts in order to deal with meaning of words in context,


15

which are, situational context, background knowledge context, and co-textual

context.

a. Situational context

Situational context is “the situation where the interaction is taking place at

the moment of speaking” (Cutting, 2002: 4). This context deals with what the

speakers and the hearers can see around them. Gestures are part of situational

context because interlocutors are able to see each other‟s gestures during their

conversation. Thus, gestures add meaning to the utterances when the speakers and

the hearers share the situational context.

b. Background knowledge context

There are two types of context based on background knowledge context.

The first one is cultural background context and the second one in interpersonal

background context.

Cultural background context is “the cultural general knowledge that

most people carry with them in their minds, about area of life” (Cutting, 2002: 5).

This type of background context is the knowledge that is mutually shared by

people in the same community, people in the same country, people in the same

school, or people in the same family. The example of this cultural background

context are the knowledge people in the same country have about who the

country‟s president is, or, the students in the same class who knows about each

other‟s name of the students in that class.

People who have shared knowledge of cultural context are possible to have

shared attitude towards that cultural context. For example, some people in a music


16

community think that a certain singer has a very great voice. Once other people in

that community find out that the singer has a great voice, then they will modify

their attitude to like the singer‟s voice too. Thus, when speakers modify their

expression to reflect their interlocutors‟, it can be seen as their effort to be

accepted and be seen that they belong to the same group. In conclusion, it is this

cultural context and shared attitude in a group of people that can make humor of

one country is different and is difficult to understand for people for another

country, or the humor from one generation is impossible to understand for other

generation.

The other type of background knowledge context is interpersonal

background context. It is “knowledge acquired through previous verbal

interactions or joint activities and experiences, and it includes privileged personal

knowledge about the interlocutor” (Cutting, 2002: 6). For example, a woman and

a man are best friends since they have become co-workers for five years. The man

already has a wife and the woman knows his wife. In here, the man must have told

the woman that he already has a wife in previous conversations. He might also

have told the woman about his wife‟s name or the place where she works. This

personal knowledge about the mas is the example of shared knowledge that is

acquired through interactions or activities they experienced together.

The last type of contexts suggested by cutting is co-text; which is the

contextual context. Due to the fact that this type of context is related only to the

context in a text, this theory of co-text will not be explained further because this


17

theory is not used to analyze the data in this study, which are not taken from a

text.

3. Conversational Implicature

The basic assumption in communication is that when speakers and hearers

are engaged in a conversation, they are generally being cooperative with each

other. At some point, the meaning of utterances is not conveyed from the

expressed meaning but from the implied meaning. Something that is more than

what the words mean is called an implicature; the additional conveyed meaning

of utterances (Yule, 1996: 35). Implicatures are the example of more is being

communicated than what is said. Implicatures which occur in conversations and

depend on certain context for their interpretation is usually called conversational

implicatures. The example of conversational implicature can be seen from the

example bellow:

Example 3:

Nic: Did you do the homework?

Mar: I didn‟t have enough time last night.

Mar has to assume that Nic is being cooperative, but apparently, he does

not mention whether or not he did the homework. He just mentions that he did not

have enough time last night. By saying this, Nic must intend that Mar infer that

the sentence „I didn‟t have enough time last night‟ means that he had something to

do last night which made him did not have enough time to do the homework. In

conclusion, from the example above, it is the speakers‟ job to communicate

meaning via implicature and the listeners‟ job to recognize the communicated

meaning via inference.


18

As stated by Yule (1996: 40-43), there are two types of conversational

implicature, they are, generalized conversational implicatures and

particularized conversational implicatures. The former is a type of

conversational implicature which does not require certain knowledge from a

particular context to understand the additional conveyed meanings. There is no

special background which is required to create inferences in a conversation. One

common example of generalized implicature is the use of an indefinite article of

„a‟ or „an‟, such as „a house‟, „a car‟, „a pen‟, or „an apple‟. If these phrases are

put in sentences, it means that the house, the car, the pen, or the apple does not

have any relation with the speaker.

Example 4:

Jim : I walk into a house.

(Levinson, 1983: 126)

From the example above, Jim says that he walks into a house. That statement

contains the generalized conversational implicature, since the expression „a house‟

creates an assumption that the house is not related to Jim.

However, there are also conversations which take place in a specific

context in which recognized inferences are required. The inferences are needed to

work out the additional conveyed meanings as the result of particularized

conversational implicatures. It is the type of conversational implicature which

requires special knowledge of specific context in order to work out the additional

conveyed meanings (Yule, 1996: 40-43).

Example 5:

A : What on earth has happened to the roast beef?

B : The dog is looking very happy.

(Levinson, 1983: 126)


19

In order to make B‟s answer relevant, A has to draw on some assumed knowledge

B expects him to have. It is possible that the dog has eaten the roast beef, thus, it

looks very happy.

The fact that particularized conversational implicatures are the most

common implicatures appear in conversations, they are typically just called

implicature. Levinson also explains that most of the floutings and exploitations

of the maxims are particularized (1983: 126).

4. Cooperative Principle

Yule (1996: 4-5) states that in a society, people become the members of

certain social groups and will automatically follow the general patterns of

behavior within the group. People will adopt the conversational norms in the

society to communicate. When people are engaged in a conversation, they will

exchange information with their interlocutors. The basic concept that there will be

sufficient amount of information provided in a conversation is one of general idea

that the interlocutors will cooperate with each other at the moment they are

involved in a conversation. Grice suggests that in order to be cooperative with

each other in a conversation, interlocutors should obey the Cooperative Principle

which runs as follows:

Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs,

by the accepted purpose of direction of the talk exchange in which you are

engaged. (Thomas, 1995: 61-62)

According to Grice‟s theory of Cooperative Principle, people should give

contribution that is required by the situation, such as, giving sufficient amount of


20

information in a conversation. That being done, the interlocutors are said to be

cooperative in making a conversation run smoothly.

Grice suggests that in a conversational interaction, people work on the

assumption that a certain set of rules is in operation, unless they receive the

indication of the opposite. On one hand, there are times when speakers have

indications that the interlocutors obey the same conversational norms as the

speakers do. On the other hand, there are times when speakers‟ assumption that

others are cooperating according the same conversational norms is misplaced,

since, in fact, the interlocutors turn out to blatantly mislead the speakers by not

obeying the conversational norms. In that condition, the speakers are expected to

search the implicature might be delivered by the interlocutors.

To avoid a situation when interlocutors blatantly mislead others by not

obeying Cooperative Principle, Grice develops four conversational maxims as the

sub-principles of the CP. Grice‟s four conversational maxims are formulated as

follows (Thomas, 1995: 63-64):

a. Maxim of Quantity

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

purpose of the exchange).

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

According to this maxim, speakers should give neither too little nor too

much information to the interlocutors. When the speakers give too little

information, the hearers may not be able to understand what they are talking about

due to the hearers‟ lack of information. Meanwhile, when the speakers give too


21

much information, the conversation may become not effective since the excess

information given in the conversation. Moreover, when the speakers give excess

information, it is possible that the hearers will get bored or will assume that the

speakers are showing off or cocky. The following statements are the examples of

violating the maxim of Quantity.

Example 6:

Rhi : Olive, did you buy the butter and milk?

Olive : Yes. I bought the butter and milk?

From the conversation above, Rhi asks Olive about some information; whether or

not she buys the butter and milk. Then, Olive answers her by saying: „Yes. I

bought the butter and milk‟. In here, Olive is being cooperative by providing

sufficient information just like what is requested by the situation. She does not

give more information than what Rhi has asked her. By giving Rhi the right

amount of answer, she is said to obey the maxim of Quantity.

b. Maxim of Quality

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

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

This kind of maxim expects the speakers to say anything based on reality.

The speakers are not allowed to tell lies to the hearer or to say anything which is

far from the truth.

Example 7:

Demi : Why are you late, Mon?

Monica : I needed to drive my friend home first.


22

In the conversation above, by asking that question, Demi expects to know the

reason why Monica is late meeting her. Thus, to fill her in, Monica tells Demi that

she has to drive her friend home beforehand. In here, if Monica‟s answer is based

on what actually happens, she does not lie, and it means that she is being

cooperative to Demi. By not giving false information to Demi, Monica is said to

obey the maxim of Quality.

c. Maxim of Relation

Be relevant

Due to this maxim, speakers are supposed to say something that is relevant

to what has been talked in a conversation. They must give information related to

the topic of discussion. The example can be seen in the following conversation:

Example 8:

Sue : Hey, how are things going on after you broke up with Ali?

Bryan : It has been tough, but I am doing great.

As Bryan‟s best friend, Sue is concerned about his condition after breaking up

with Ali and she wants to cheer him up. Being asked a sensitive question, Bryan

could have just distracted Sue by changing the topic of discussion. However, he

appears to answer her by giving an answer that is related to the question she

offers. That being done, Bryan is said to obey the maxim of Relation by providing

an answer which is related to the subject Sue brings up.

d. Maxim of Manner

i. Avoid obscurity of expression

ii. Avoid ambiguity


23

iii. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity)

iv. Be orderly

This last maxim expects the speakers to be brief in saying something. They

should avoid saying something which is difficult to understand. At last, the

speakers should avoid ambiguity in their utterances. When the speaker fails to

obey each rule of the maxim of Manner, it is possible that the hearers also

possible to miss the implicatures drawn by the speakers.

Example 9:

Cindy : Hey, Max. I like your hat. Where did you buy it?

Max : Thanks. I bought it at Pick and Pay next to our campus.

Being thrown a question by Cindy, Max has given the right amount of

information and addressed Cindy‟s goal in asking the question. He mentions the

name of the store where he buys the hat and even tells her the location of it. Max‟s

answer is brief and not ambiguous. Thus, Max is said to follow the maxims of

Manner.

The four conversational maxims above are suggested by Grice in order to

build a successful conversation in which the interlocutors should be cooperative

with each other. A conversation is said to be successful when the speakers and the

hearers are able to understand what each other means by giving the right amount

of information, being honest, brief, and relevant to the topic of discussion. The

example when the speakers and the hearers are able to observe all of the

conversational maxims can be seen below.

Example 10:

Husband : Where are the car keys?

Wife : They‟re on the table in the hall.

(Thomas, 1995: 64)


24

When the husband asks his wife about the car keys, she has answered him

by giving clear and truthful answer. She has also given the right amount of

information and addressed her husband‟s goal in asking the question. In here, the

wife has obeyed all of the conversational maxims and she does not generate

implicature (Thomas, 1995: 64). In conclusion, all of the conversational maxims

in the example above are successfully observed.

5. Flouting Conversational Maxims

According to Grice, flouting a maxim is a situation when “a speaker

blatantly fails to observe a maxim” (Thomas, 1995: 65). The speakers do not have

any intention to mislead or deceive the hearers, but they expect the hearers to look

for the meaning different from, or in addition to, the expressed meaning. The

speakers assume that the hearers are able to infer the implied meaning of what is

said.

Speakers are said to flout the maxim of Quantity when they blatantly fail

to give sufficient information to the hearers in a conversation. They may give too

little or too much information than the situation requires. A flout of the maxim of

Quality occurs when the speakers fail to be truthful by saying something that is

not based on truth or fact, or even by saying something for which they lack

adequate evidence. The maxim of Relation is flouted when the speakers provide

information that is irrelevant to the topic of discussion. The example of flouting

the maxim of Relation is by changing the topic of discussion, or by failing to

address the topic directly. The speakers appear to flout the maxim of Manner


25

when they provide long-winded and ambiguous explanation to the hearers. By not

being order and clear in giving certain information, speakers are also said to flout

the maxim of Manner.

The example of flouting of conversational maxims can be found from the

conversation bellow:

Example 11: Penny : Hey. How do I look?

Luke : Your skirt is so cute…

From the conversation above, Luke has flouted the maxim of quantity by not

telling the detail information about Penny‟s appearance. Luke does not say

anything about Penny‟s t-shirt or shoes, when it is clear that Penny asks for

Luke‟s advice about her overall appearance. By only mentioning her skirt, he

expects Penny to understand the implied meaning he is trying to deliver, which is,

that the skirt is the only thing that looks good on her. Luke could have also flouted

the maxim of relation by changing the topic of discussion into a new topic, such

as: „I‟m hungry. Let‟s go get lunch‟. By doing that, Luke tries to distract Penny‟s

attention from the topic of discussion. It is possible that Penny‟s appearance is not

as good as she hopes. That being done, if Penny understands the fact that Luke is

trying to distract her from answering her question while she still insists in

knowing Luke‟s opinion, she will keep asking Luke until she gets Luke‟s opinion.

Based on the situation above, it is possible for Luke not to obey the maxim of

Manner. He could have flouted the maxim of Manner when he answers Penny by

saying: „I guess you are confident enough to wear clothes with that kind of color

combinations.‟ From his response, Luke is not being brief in answering Penny‟s


26

question. He does not say briefly whether or not she looks good in those clothes.

He only gives a hint and lets her decide her own appearance. In order to be

cooperative in a conversation, Luke could have given a brief and non-ambiguous

answer.

Another example of flouting conversational maxims is the flouting of

maxim of Quality that can be found in a situation when an employer is

interviewing an applicant. The employer finds out that the applicant does not have

the criteria the company is looking for. Thus, the employer tries to find a nice way

to reject the man by saying: „By having great skills and experiences in engineering

like what you have now, I am sure that you will easily fit in a larger company than

our company.‟ In here, the employer actually does not say what he really thinks. It

can be concluded that the employer lies to the applicant in order to let him down

easy. By saying this, the employer expects that the applicant will understand the

implied meaning from his utterances, which is, that he is not accepted in the

company.

6. Violating Conversational Maxims

Different from flouting a conversational maxim when the speakers expect

the hearers to understand the implied meaning, violating a maxim is a situation

when a speaker fails to obey a conversational maxim in order to intentionally

generate misleading implicature in a conversation (Thomas, 1995: 73). Speakers

are said to violate a conversational maxim when they know that the hearers will

not know the truth and will only know the expressed meaning of what is said. In

other words, the speakers intentionally mislead and deceive the hearers.


27

An example when a speaker is violating conversational maxims can be

seen from the explanation bellow:

Example 12: Husband : How much did that new dress cost, darling?

Wife : Less than the last one.

(Cutting, 2002: 40)

From the example above, the wife does not give the husband sufficient

information about the price of the dress. The wife in that situation is said to

violate the maxim of Quantity. She could have just given sufficient information

by mentioning the price of the dress to her husband. Besides the maxim of

Quantity, the wife could have violated the maxim of Quality by not telling the real

price of the dress to her husband. She could have violated the maxim of Relation

by saying: „Yes, it looks good on me, right? Let‟s have dinner‟. In here, the wife

directly changes the topic of discussion in order to distract him from asking about

the price of the dress. That is said to be a violation of maxim of Relation because

the wife is successful in distracting the husband since he does not ask further

information about the dress. The wife could have also violated the maxim of

Manner by answering her husband: „My salary is more than enough to cover the

price, even though it was almost impossible for me to buy it.‟ In here, the wife

gives long-winded explanation of the price to her husband. She could have just

said directly how much the dress costs.

7. Conversational Analysis

Conversation is an activity where people exchange information with each

other. It can be seen as a form of interaction in the society. Interaction can be

found in different social encounters, such as, a lecturer explaining a lecture to his


28

students, an employer interviewing an applicant, two people who are debating

about an issue, and other kinds of social encounters in which there is interpersonal

exchange of talk. The type of talk is based on the contexts of interaction. It is

different from one context to another. However, the structure of the talk, which is

the basic pattern of „I speak – you speak – I speak – you speak‟, will become the

fundamental structure in an interaction. That structure is called the structure of

conversation (Yule, 1996: 71).

Most of the time, conversation consists of two, or more, participants. As

explained by Yule (1996: 72), the participants have the right to speak in a

conversation which is usually called the floor. At the moment the participants

have the floor, they are able to control it. Having control of the floor at certain

time is called a turn. Speakers take turns. Only one person talks at a time; when

someone is talking, the other is listening. The participants are able to manage the

cooperation in a conversation through turn-taking. Turn-taking works in

accordance with local management system. It is a set of principles for getting

turns, keeping turns, or giving them away to the other interlocutors. This system is

needed at the points where there is a possible change in who has the turn. The

possibility of a change-of-turn point in a conversation is called a Transition

Relevance Place or TRP. The participants accomplish change of turn smoothly

when they are aware to take turns at an appropriate TRP. When speakers do not

want to wait until the right TRP to take turn in a conversation, it is commonly

called an interruption.


29

Due to the fact that only one participant is allowed to speak at any time,

the transition of turn-taking from one speaker to the other needs to be smooth. At

the moment of speaking, when there is a short pause done by a speaker, it means

simply hesitation. However, when a longer pause happens, that situation becomes

silence. In the silence situation, when a speaker turns over the floor to another and

the other does not take turn to speak, the silence is attributed to the second

speaker. It is called an attributable silence. The following example is a situation

when Dave does not take turn to speak when Jan turns over the floor to him. Thus,

the silence is attributed to him.

Example 13:

Jan : Dave I‟m going to the store.

(2 seconds)

Jan : Dave?

(2 seconds)

Jan : Dave – is something wrong?

Dave : What? What‟s wrong?

Jan : Never mind.

(Yule, 1996: 73)

In a conversation, overlap is possible to happen in transition with a long

silence between turns. It is a situation when the participants are trying to speak at

the same time when they predict that the others‟ turn is about to complete when it

turns out that it is not yet complete. A speaker is expected to wait until the present

speaker has reached a TRP in order to take turn. The markers of a TRP are

commonly at the end of a structural unit, such as phrase, or clause, and pause.

However, for some reasons, the current speakers who are holding the floor will

avoid to provide TRP in order to get an extended turn. To hold the floor, they will


30

avoid providing an open pause at the moment of speaking. Within an extended

turn, speakers still expect the hearers to show that they are listening. There are

many ways of doing this, such as, by giving facial expressions and gestures, but

the most common is vocal indications which are usually called backchannel

signals or backchannels. The types of backchannels can be „uh-uh‟, „yeah‟, or

„mmm‟. Those are the signals from the hearers that they are paying attention and

receiving the message. When the hearers do not give backchannels as the

feedback, it can be interpreted as the action to withhold agreement or

disagreement.

In a community of speakers, there is often variation which can cause

misunderstanding. Speakers may have different idea and expectation about how a

conversation should be like. The conversational style differs from one‟s

expectation to others. There are some people who expect that in a conversation,

the participation among the interlocutors will be active, the speaking rate will be

fast, with some overlap, and with almost no pausing between turns. That type of

conversation is called a high involvement style. On the other hand, there are

people who expect longer pauses between turns, with lower rate of speaking, with

no overlap, and avoid interruption or completion of the other‟s turn. That “non-

interrupting, non-imposing style” is called a considerateness style (Yule, 1996:

76). Features of conversational style are often interpreted as someone‟s

personality. Speakers who usually use the first style of conversation are often

viewed as noisy, domineering, selfish, or tiresome, whenever they are engaged

with people who usually use the second style. Meanwhile, speakers who prefer the


31

second style of conversation are usually seen as shy, boring, stupid, or even seen

not interested to be involved in a conversation.

Despite the fact that people have different style of conversation, they are

still able to find a way to get along with each other in social interaction. They are

helped with adjacency pairs, which are automatic patterns in the structure of

conversation. These automatic patterns are usually in pairs of utterances. They

usually consist of a first part and a second part, which are produced by different

speakers and categorized as question – answer, offer – accept, blame – deny, and

so on (Cutting, 2002: 30). The utterance of the first part makes an expectation of

utterance of the second part. The examples of adjacency pairs can be seen below:

First Part Second Part

A: What‟s up? B: Nothin‟ much.

A: How‟s it goin‟? B: Jus‟ hangin‟ in there.

A: How are things? B: The usual.

(Yule, 1996: 77)

The above examples frequently found in the opening sequence of a conversation.

It is a sequence which tends to contain greetings, questions about health, or the

present situation of the interlocutors. Other type of adjacency pairs is question –

answer sequence. However, it often happens that a question in question – answer

sequence will not be answered immediately because of another question – answer

sequence‟s intervention. Such intervention in question – answer sequence is called

an insertion sequence. Thus, the form will be mapped Q1 – Q2 – A2 – A1, with

the Q2 – A2 as the insertion sequence. It can be stated that insertion sequence is

an adjacency pair within other adjacency pair. The example of a conversation

bellow will explain the insertion sequence:


32

Don : Do you want to watch Maze Runner at the movie tonight? (= Q1)

John : What time is that? (= Q2)

Don : Eight thirty. (= A2)

John : Great. I‟m on board. (= A1)

On the situation above, Don asks John to watch Maze Runner at the movie

with him. John delays responding Don‟s invitation by throwing another question

to him asking about the time of the movie. After John agrees with the time, he,

then, accepts the invitation. From that situation, John‟s question about the time is

seen as the insertion sequence. That insertion sequence is an indication that not all

first parts directly receive the second parts from the interlocutors. Delay in giving

response marks the potential unavailability of the expected answer from the

interlocutors (Yule, 1996: 78).

8. Humor

Humor is one of the important aspects in building relationship with people.

In social relationships, humor plays an important role, which is “measuring

mutual understanding about particular topics and signaling good intentions

(Kuipers, 2006: 1). Several researchers who have been studying humor, such as

Holmes & Marra (2002), Kuiper (2006), and Schwarz (2010), state that humor is a

tool that can be used to improve communication and relationship among people.

The Encyclopedia of Britannica defines humor as a form of

communication that evokes the reflex of laughter of people (Benton (ed), 1983:

7). Many linguists have taken humor as a category which covers “any events or

object that elicits laughter, amuses, or is felt to be funny” (Attardo, 1994: 4). By

having the quality to be funny, humor can create humorous situations. Grice, as


33

cited by Attardo (1994: 271-276), suggests that jokes or humor are non-

cooperative. Meaning to say, humorous situations exist because there is non-

cooperative interaction among the interlocutors. This non-cooperative interaction

occurs because the interlocutors do not obey the CP and its maxims by violating

or flouting the rules. By doing so, the humorous situation is created between the

speakers and the hearers as the product of violating or flouting the maxims.

Modern theories of humor have been developed by linguists. Raskin, as

one of the linguists, classifies humor into three categories, which are, incongruity

theory, hostility theory, and release theory (Attardo, 1994: 47). These theories of

humor are seen as the common accepted classification of humor. Each of the

theory sees humor from different viewpoint.

Below is the explanation of each theory of humor which is suggested and

developed by philosophers and linguists.

a. Incongruity Theory

The philosophers who are associated with incongruity theory of humor are

Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) and Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860).

Immanuel Kant suggests that everything that is intended to arise laughter must be

something absurd. As cited by Attardo (1994: 48), Kant defines laughter as “an

affection arising from sudden transformation of a strained expectation into

nothing”. The attention will be focused on the sudden transformation, which is the

process of how someone‟s idea about something is transformed, and the fact that

the expectation is turned into nothing. In other words, Kant sees humor as the


34

outcome of the unfulfilled expectation. He also sees that everything that is

intended to cause laughter must be something absurd.

Meanwhile, Schopenhauer explains that laughter is caused by “the sudden

perception of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects which have

been thought through it in some relation, and laughter itself is just the expression

of this incongruity” (Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea, 1819, quoted in

Attardo (1994: 48). His definition provides more understanding about

“incongruity” since he mentions it explicitly. He suggests that the greater the

incongruity is, the greater the humorous effect will be produced. Later in the

development of humor theory, Schopenhauer and Kant‟s viewpoints of laughter

and incongruity become the roots of the modern incongruity of humor.

From the explanations above, it can be seen that the basis of the

incongruity theory is that humor occurs when there are differences between what

is expected and what later occurs. The differences involve the feeling of surprise

of the hearers or the audience. This means that humor is the outcome of

incongruity created by two conflicting meanings, which are the certain idea that

people have in mind and how the idea will create certain expectation as how it

will turn out. Unfortunately, the transformation of the idea makes people‟s

expectation vanish and creates discrepancy which elicits laughter. Once the

hearers find out the discrepancy between someone‟s expectations and how it turns

out, they will make an attempt to resolve the incongruity. In conclusion, according

to this theory, the source of humor may involve any or all of, first, understanding

multiple meanings of words; second, detecting ambiguities and sensing


35

incongruity; and third, appreciating that the unexpected or sudden transformation

of perspective is possible (Shade, 1996: 11).

b. Hostility Theory

Hostility or Superiority Theory is an earliest theory of humor which can

date back to Aristotle‟s and Plato‟s works. This theory mentions the negative

element of humor, which is its aggressive side (Attardo, 1994: 49). That

aggressive side can be seen as the negative side of humor which is mainly used to

humiliate, disparage, or ridicule others‟ inferiority or misfortunes. Both Aristotle

and Plato emphasize that laughter is a means of power when it is directed against

others‟ faults or flaws, so that it will show someone‟s superiority among the

victims.

Thomas Hobbes, as a philosopher, suggests that “laughter arises from a

sense of superiority of the laugher towards some object” (Attardo, 1994: 49). In

that case, “some object” commonly refers to the “butt of the joke”; anything that

is being laughed at. As stated in Moreall (1987: 20), Hobbes uses the term

“sudden glory” to indicate the expression arising from comparing someone‟s

superiority with others‟ weaknesses. That feeling of glory bursts because there is a

combination between mockery and laughter of someone‟s foolish actions as well

as sympathy, pleasant, or empathy. Besides the feeling of being superior to

someone else, Hobbes‟ humor theory also takes suddenness into account which

can create surprise effects.

Bergson, as the most influential proponent of superiority theory, sees

humor as a social corrective; meaning that it is used by people to correct deviant


36

behavior (Attardo, 1994: 50). According to him as explained by Schwarz in her

dissertation (2010: 49), “the ridiculous is something mechanical encrusted on the

living”. Thus, from his point of view, the purpose of laughter is to remove the

encrusted ridiculousness in the society through humiliation, so that well-adapted

behavior will be produced. It is concluded that when someone behaves not in

accordance with a rule or social norm, he can become the target of the joke and

elicit laughter.

From the explanations above, according to hostility theory, humor is

created when there is a sudden glory as the expression when someone is being

superior among others. The feeling of superiority appears when someone laughs,

mocks, or humiliates at others‟ inferiority, weaknesses, stupidity, or misfortunes.

c. Release Theory

Release theory of humor is basically based on the idea that humor is used

to release tension or psychic energy (Attardo, 1994: 50). Once the tension is

released, someone will feel liberated. According to this theory, in order to deal

with an upcoming social or psychological event, emotional tension is built. When

there is excess energy in one‟s mind, the surplus energy is dispelled through

laughter.

The most influential proponent of this theory is Sigmund Freud. As quoted

by Schwarz (2010: 51), he considers laughter as “an outlet for psychic or nervous

energy”. Freud sees humor as a means of defense which can enable people to

experience pleasure. Humorous situation is one of the situations in which laughter

is revealed. Humorous situation needs a build-up of psychic energy as the fuel to


37

release emotion or feeling in one‟s mind. According to him, that energy is what is

released in the movements of laughter (Schwarz, 2010: 52)

According to Freud, relating to his analysis of humor, he suggests two

forms of joking, which are “innocent” and “tendentious” jokes. On one hand,

innocent joke is known as innocent humor. Instead of threatening people, this type

of joke tends to elicit enjoyment of the content. Freud states that there is no fear of

judgment being disturbed by the content or purpose of the jokes (Schwarz, 2010:

55)

On the other hand, tendentious joke is a joke which describes an event that

commonly shock or terrify the audience. It functions either to express hostility and

aggressiveness or obscenity and exposure. He argues that in tendentious joke,

unconscious thought is responsible for releasing joke due to the repressed feeling.

In that case, pleasure arises from the hidden aggression or hostility one feels

towards people who have more power than him.

Furthermore, Freud presents three different categories of humor, which

are, exposing or obscene jokes, hostile jokes, and critical jokes (Schwarz, 2010:

54). Hostile jokes are the ones which are able to attack people and express

aggression. Meanwhile, obscene jokes are the ones which express mainly of a

sexual nature. They serve to overcome inhibition and express shameful thoughts

or idea people normally repress because those idea are commonly unacceptable in

society. Freud, then, emphasizes that tendentious jokes display aggression and

represent a rebellion against certain circumstances. That liberation is responsible

for the occurrence of laughter.


38

In addition, release theory also emphasizes social and behavioral

components of humor. According to release theory, laughter gives people

temporary freedom from restrictions in daily life, such as, constraints of

conventionality, inhibition of sexual and aggressive desire, inflexibility of logic,

and people‟s egos. In this case, humor can be used to rebel against repressive or

uncontrollable elements of society (Shade, 1996: 12). In terms of language

behavior, release theory accounts for the “liberation” from the rules of language,

especially for the infraction of the Grice Cooperative Principle typical of humor.

In conclusion, release theory of humor is a theory which sees humor as a

means to release tension and energy someone has as the effect of being controlled

and suppressed by circumstances or thoughts. People, then, get liberated by

bursting out laughter in order to release the tension.

C. Theoretical Framework

The writer uses some applicable theories as the tools to analyze the

problems in this study.

First, the theory of conversational analysis is used to analyze the structure

of the conversations in the situation comedy. The writer applies that theory to

analyze how the participants are communicating with each other. Second, the

theory of Grice‟s Cooperative Principle and its conversational maxims will be

useful in order to analyze the way the participants communicate with each other in

the situation comedy. Furthermore, this theory is applied to analyze the

cooperativeness of the way the participants exchange information one another.


39

Third, the theory of violating and flouting of maxims are applied to

analyze how the participants violate or flout the conversational maxims. These

theories are also used to solve the first problem in this study, which is to find out

the types of violation or flouting of conversational maxims done by the

participants. Fourth, the theory of humor is applied in this study to solve the

second problem in this study, which is, how flouting and violations of

conversational maxims that are found in the data can create humorous situations

in the situational comedy.


40

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the writer presents the description of the methodology used

in conducting this study. There are three subchapters presented, which are, the

object of the study, the approach of the study, and the method of the study. The

object of the study describes the linguistic feature that is being analyzed in this

study. The approach of the study explains the approach used to analyze the

problems under discussion. The method of the study consists of data collection

and data analysis. The former discusses the steps of how the data are collected,

and the latter discusses the way the data are analyzed.

A. Object of the study

The object of this study is the conversation of the participants taken from a

situation comedy, entitled, How I Met Your Mother as the data source. Before

being analyzed, the conversation is transcribed into film script. How I Met Your

Mother is an American sitcom airing from September 19, 2005 to March 31,

2014. This is a flash back situation comedy about a father named Ted Mosby who

is, in the year of 2030, telling his daughter and son about his journey of meeting

their mother. This sitcom offers many kinds of storylines, including the love life

of the characters, their daily activities, and careers. Since the first year until the

final year of production, How I Met Your Mother has the total of 9 seasons. This


41

situation comedy is known best for the comic and ridiculous behavior of the

characters which can please the audience.

This study focuses on the analysis of humorous utterances in the situation

comedy as the result of violations and flouting of conversational maxims done by

the characters. Grice’s theory of Cooperative Principle and its conversational

maxims and theory of humor are used in analyzing the data. Then, after analyzing

the utterances, the writer goes further in analyzing how humorous situations are

created by the violations and flouting of conversational maxims in the data source.

B. Approach of the study

The focus of this study is to analyze the utterances of the characters seen in

a particular context. Further, this study analyzes how the utterances are violated or

flouted by the characters in the situation comedy. The theory of conversational

analysis and Grice’s Cooperative Principle are applied to analyze the data. Since

the study covers the issue of violation and flouting of conversational maxims,

pragmatics is seen as the most appropriate approach in conducting this study.

It is also explained by Levinson (1983: 21) that pragmatics deals with “the

study of relations between language and context that are basic to an account of

language understanding”. Thus, pragmatics is very helpful in solving the problems

of this study because pragmatics involves context in understanding the meaning of

utterances.

C. Method of the Study

In this subchapter, the writer explains the method used in this study in

order to find out the types of violation and flouting of conversational maxims and


42

how the violations and the flouting create humorous situations in the situation

comedy. The explanation of the method of the study covers the data collection and

data analysis.

1. Data Collection

The data in this study are the humorous utterances found in the second

season of How I Met Your Mother situation comedy episodes 1 to 5 as the data

source. The writer only chose the humorous utterances of the characters which

contain violation and flouting of conversational maxims in the situation comedy.

In here, purposive way was employed in collecting the data.

The steps of how the data collection was done are explained as follows.

First, in order to understand the conversation more closely, the writer

searched the script of the situation from the internet. Second, the writer read the

script while watching the situation comedy repeatedly in order to get the better

understanding about the conversations. Third, in order to collect the data, while

watching the situation comedy, the writer highlighted the humorous utterances in

the script which consist of violations and floutings of conversational maxims.

Fourth, after the humorous utterances were found, they were categorized based on

violations or flouting of conversational maxims.

2. Data Analysis

There were several steps in analyzing this study. First, to solve the first

problem in this study, the data were collected from the data source, which are in

the form of utterances. Next, Grice’s Cooperative Principle was applied in order

to analyze the utterances; whether they were violated or flouted by the characters.


43

The writer found that the characters in the situation comedy were not being

cooperative in the process of exchanging information in the conversation. It

turned out that they did not obey the theory of Cooperative Principle. Second,

after the violations and flouts of conversational maxims were found in the

utterances, the theory of Grice’s conversational maxims was applied to the data.

The theory of conversational maxims functioned as a tool in order to find out the

type of the violations and the flouting. After that, the writer categorized the

violations and flouts of conversational maxims based on their types.

To solve the second problem in this study, humor theory was applied in

order to know how the violations and the floutings of conversational maxims

caused the humorous situations in the situation comedy. Based on the theory of

humor, humorous situations may appear when there are violations or flouts in

utterances (Attardo, 1994: 271 – 276). Thus, the theory of humor was also

combined with the theory of Cooperative Principles and its conversational

maxims. By linking these theories, it was concluded that the humorous situations

in the situation comedy were resulted from the existence of incongruity between

expectation and real objects, hostility to the inferiors, and release of emotion

which were found in the conversations between the characters.

The last step in analyzing the data was encoding each data based on its

types. The encoding of the data in this study is explained below:

a. The number of the data.

The data in this study are numbered using Arabic numerals starting

from 01.


44

b. The types of the utterances which are categorized into violations or

floutings of conversational maxims.

The data which are categorized into violations of conversational

maxims are given Vio as the code, which is the abbreviation of

Violation. Meanwhile, the data which are categorized into floutings of

conversational maxims are given Flo as the code, which is the

abbreviation of Flouting.

c. The types of conversational maxims which are violated or flouted by

the characters in the situation comedy.

Each type of conversational maxim is abbreviated as follows:

i. Quan. is the abbreviation of Quantity maxim.

ii. Qual. is the abbreviation of Quality maxim.

iii. Rel. is the abbreviation of Relation maxim.

iv. Man. is the abbreviation of Manner maxim.

d. The types of humor strategies which create humorous situations.

i. Inc. is the abbreviation of incongruent idea.

ii. Hos. is the abbreviation of hostility.

iii. Rls. is the abbreviation of released emotions.

Here are the examples of the data codes:

01/Vio/Qual/Hos

The code above means that the data is number one. Vio means that the

data is categorized into a violation of Conversational Maxim. Qual means the

types of conversational maxim which is violated is the maxim of Quality. Hos


45

means that humor strategy used in order to create humorous situation in the

conversation is by showing hostility.

Another example is:

01/Flo/Quan/Inc

The code above means that the data is number one. Flo means that the data

is categorized into a flouting of Conversational Maxim. Quan means the types of

conversational maxim which is flouted is the maxim of Quantity. Inc means that

humor strategy used in order to create humorous situation in the conversation is

by creating incongruent idea.


46

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter is divided into two subchapters. The first subchapter covers

the analysis of the first problem formulated in this study, which is the violations

and floutings of conversational maxims created in How I Met Your Mother

situation comedy season 2, episodes 1 to 5. Theories of Cooperative Principle and

its conversational maxims (Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner) are applied

in order to find out the types of violations and floutings of conversational maxims

done by the characters.

The second subchapter covers the second problem formulated in this

study, which is about how the violations and the floutings of conversational

maxims create humorous situation in the situation comedy. To analyze the second

problem, humor theory is applied.

A. The types of Violations and Flouting of Conversational Maxims

This first subchapter analyzes the types of violations and flouting of

conversational maxims found in the situation comedy. There are nineteen

violations and twenty two floutings of conversational maxims found in the data

source. These violations and floutings are done by the characters in the situation

comedy as the results of not obeying the Cooperative Principle and its

conversational maxims. Each violation and flouting of conversational maxim


47

created in the situation comedy is categorized into particular type based on its

characteristics.

Based on the data findings, the description and analysis of the violations

and floutings of conversational maxims based on its types are discussed in the

following parts.

1. Violations of Conversational Maxims

Within the four maxims of the Cooperative Principle, there are nineteen

violations of conversational maxims found in the situation comedy. There are

fourteen violations of Quantity maxim, one violation of Quality maxim, two

violations of Relation maxim, and two violations of Manner maxim. The

categorization of violations of conversational maxims in their type can be seen in

the table below:

Table 1. Data Findings: Violations of Conversational Maxims

Violation of

Conversation

al Maxims

Quantity

(14)

Quality

(1)

Relation

(2)

Manner

(2)

Data code

01/Vio/Quan/Rls

02/Vio/Quan/Inc

03/Vio/Quan/Rls

04/Vio/Quan/Rls

05/Vio/Quan/Inc

06/Vio/Quan/Inc

07/Vio/Quan/Inc

08/Vio/Quan/Rls

09/Vio/Quan/Inc

10/Vio/Quan/Inc

15/Vio/Qual/Inc 16/Vio/Rel/Rls

17/Vio/Rel/Inc

18/Vio/Man/Inc

19/Vio/Man/Inc


48

11/Vio/Quan/Inc

12/Vio/Quan/Rls

13/Vio/Quan/Inc

14/Vio/Quan/Inc

Based on the data findings above, the description and analysis of the

violations of conversational maxims based on its types are discussed in the

following parts.

a. Violations of Maxim of Quantity

There are fourteen violations of maxim of Quantity resulted from the

analysis. The writer highlights some examples of the violations of Quantity

maxim appear in the situation comedy.

Data code:

03/Vio/Quan/Rls

Ted Hey Marshall.

Marshall Hey Ted.

Ted Are you hungry?

Marshall What's the point? I could eat some food, it's just

gonna leave me.

Ted At least in that scenario, you get to do the

dumping. Come on, it's Sunday, it's pancakes

day!

Marshall

Lily always made the pancakes. God, I loved her

pancakes. So soft. So warmed. So perfectly

shaped.

Ted Are we still talking about her pancakes?

In the situation above, Marshall is still mourning after his relationship with

Lily ends. He sleeps late, he does not have appetite, and he does not hang out with

his friends. The only thing that he does is staying at his apartment and watching

TV all the time.


49

Above is the excerpt when Marshall sleeps at the sofa until Ted wakes him

up and asks him whether he is hungry or not. Marshall answers Ted by saying,

“What's the point? I could eat some food, it's just gonna leave me.” Hearing

Marshall‟s answer, Ted suggests him to eat pancakes since that day is pancakes

day. Then, Marshall responds him by saying, “Lily always made the pancakes.

God, I loved her pancakes. So soft. So warmed. So perfectly shaped.” It can be

seen from his answer above that Marshall provides excess information to Ted,

which is about how Lily‟s pancakes looked and tasted like. Marshall‟s explanation

about Lily‟s pancakes‟ taste and shape makes Ted confused because Ted does not

ask the information about the taste and the shape of Lily‟s pancakes from

Marshall. Therefore, due to the topic of discussion, that information is

unnecessary because it is not requested by Ted. The reason Marshall provides that

information is because he is still in love with Lily and he cannot get over her.

Moreover, Marshall‟s tone and expression when he utters “So soft. So warmed.

So perfectly shaped” confuses Ted even more because it looks like he does not

only talk about Lily‟s pancakes.

In conclusion, by giving unnecessary information about Lily‟s pancakes, it

is said that Marshall violates the maxim of Quantity. To be cooperative in the

conversation, Marshall could have responded Ted only by saying, “Lily usually

made the pancakes.” That statement is more concise and sufficient in the

conversation.

Data code:

05/Vio/Quan/Inc Ted OK, first of all, that is interesting. Second, we have

to tell him.


50

The conversation above happens at Ted‟s apartment. After Ted comes to

the apartment, Robin gives him news about Lily‟s getting back in town.

From the datum above, Ted and Robin are talking about the fact that Lily

has got back in town. Then, Ted asks Robin whether Lily has moved on or she has

not and then Robin answers him by saying, “Well, it happens. I've fallen out of

love faster than that before. Sometimes, boom, with no warning whatsoever.

One day we're in love, the next day, he's dead to me. But we're great!

Honey.” From Robin‟s answer, it can be seen that she provides too much

information to Ted. Due to the context of the conversation above, Lily becomes

the focus of discussion. However, when Ted asks Robin whether or not Lily has

moved on, she adds new information about her love experience instead of Lily‟s

condition as it is stated in bold above. Hearing Robin‟s response, Ted looks

shocked because he does not see that statement coming. Her answer, which is,

“I've fallen out of love faster than that before. Sometimes, boom, with no

warning whatsoever. One day we're in love, the next day, he's dead to me.

But we're great! Honey” is unnecessary because Ted does not ask any

information Robin‟s love experience beforehand. Moreover, Robin‟s statement

Robin

No, we don't. He's just starting to get better. Going

out with Barney. How do you think he'll feel when he

hears Lily's moved on?

Ted She's moved on?

Robin

Well, it happens. I've fallen out of love faster than

that before. Sometimes, boom, with no warning

whatsoever. One day we're in love, the next day,

he's dead to me. But we're great! Honey?

Ted looks confused and shocked.


51

about her love experience above makes Ted confused because it is not the topic of

the conversation.

In conclusion, by providing unnecessary information to Ted, Robin is not

being cooperative in the conversation. She is seen as violating the maxim of

Quantity. In order to avoid being too informative, Robin could have just answered

Ted by giving sufficient information about whether or not Lily has moved on.

That information is adequate in the context of the conversation. Furthermore, she

should not have told Ted about her experience of falling out of love because that

topic is not the focus of discussion.

Data code:

07//Vio/Quan/Inc

Waiter Morning guys, what can I get you?

Lily Shhh! Bring me the dirtiest, greasiest tuna melt you

got; and a milkshake.

Waiter For you, sir?

Ted Gravy

Waiter You want that gravy on something?

Ted Surprise me.

The situation above happens at a snack-bar. Ted, Robin, and Lily are still

drunk. This morning, they go to a snack-bar and order breakfast. The waiter

comes and asks three of them the menu they want to order. In the datum above,

when the waiter asks Ted what menu he would like to order, he only answers,

“Gravy”. In here, Ted is not being cooperative to the waiter by providing too little

information about the menu he wants to order. Ted only says he wants “gravy”

and does not explain further about it. Based on the context of the conversation,

“gravy” does not represent any food in the menu. It only represents a sauce made


52

from the fat or juices that come out from meat or vegetable that is usually served

on top of something. By only saying “gravy”, the waiter looks confused and asks

clarification to Ted by saying, “You want gravy on something?” Being thrown a

question from the waiter who asks about the gravy, Ted answers, “Surprise me.”

In here, Ted is also not being cooperative in the conversation because he does not

give sufficient information about the menu to the waiter. As the result, the

message is not successfully delivered to the waiter.

In conclusion, by providing less information about the menu he wants to

order, it is said that Ted violates the maxim of Quantity. His answer in bold above

is inadequate because it does not give sufficient information about the menu.

Moreover, the inadequate information gives no clue to the waiter about the menu

Ted wants to order. To be cooperative in the conversation, Ted should have

explained about the menu he wants to order with gravy on it. That information

will be sufficient in the process of exchanging information between him and the

waiter.

Data code:

11/Vio/Quan/Inc

Girl So, I know the bouncer at this techno club,

Posers. Do you feel like dancing?

Ted

Hell, yeah. I love clubs. I mean, I was going to

design a cathedral tonight, kind of take a

whack at the whole relationship between

God and man conundrum. But sure, let's go

dancing.

Girl

(looked

confused)

Yay!


53

The situation above is at a party where Ted hang out with the girl he meets

at MacLaren‟s. In the excerpt above, the girl is asking Ted to go dancing with her.

When the girl asks, “Do you feel like dancing?”, Ted answers her by saying,

“Hell, yeah. I love clubs. I mean, I was going to design a cathedral tonight,

kind of take a whack at the whole relationship between God and man

conundrum. But sure, let's go dancing”. In here, He gives excess information to

the girl. Ted‟s statement in bold, which is, “I mean, I was going to design a

cathedral tonight, kind of take a whack at the whole relationship between

God and man conundrum” is unnecessary because the girl does not ask him

about his plan at that night. It is said that his statement is not required by the

situation because what the girl wants Ted to answer is whether or not he wants to

dance with her.

In conclusion, from Ted‟s answer above, it can be seen that he has violated

the maxim of Quantity because he is being too informative by providing

information as stated in bold above which is not requested by the girl. In order to

be sufficient, Ted should have not given information more than what is required.

When the girl asks him whether or not he wants to dance, he could have just

answered that girl by saying the last statement, which is, “let's go dancing”. This

answer is brief and sufficient in order to answer the girl‟s question.

Data code:

14/Vio/Quan/Inc

Marshall Why can't two guys who are friends go to brunch?

Ted Because brunch is kind of...

Robin Girly.

Marshall Girly? Breakfast isn't girly. Lunch isn't girly.

What makes brunch girly?


54

Ted

I don't know. There's nothing girly about a horse,

nothing girly about a horn, but put them together

and you get a unicorn.

Marshall I don't care what either of you say, I am going to

the Popover Pantry with Brad.

Marshall arrives from watching Alanis Morissette‟s concert with Brad and

he finds Ted and Robin at the apartment. He explains his plan to go to brunch

with Brad to Ted and Robin. After listening to Marshall‟s plan, Robin and Ted

give the same response to Marshall.

From the excerpt above, Marshall asks Ted and Robin the reason why two

guys who are friends cannot go to brunch. He says, “Why can't two guys who are

friends go to brunch?” After that, Ted answers, “Because brunch is kind of...”, and

then Robin finishes his statement by adding, “Girly”. In here, in responding

Marshall‟s question, Robin‟s answer in bold above is too little because Marshall

expects more explanation from Robin and Ted about what they mean with the

word “girly”. Robin blatantly gives less information about it to Marshall than

what is required. Therefore, Robin‟s statement is said inadequate because she

cannot successfully deliver her message to Marshall.

By providing too little information in the conversation above, it is said that

Robin is not being cooperative. Her less informative statement is the fact that she

violates the maxim of Quantity. In order to be more cooperative in the

conversation, Robin should have provided more information by explaining further

what she means about “gravy” to give an understanding to Marshall.


55

b. Violations of maxim of Quality

There are one violation of maxim of Quality resulted from the analysis.

Data code:

15/Vio/Qual/Inc

Ted I'll hand it to you. When he got home, Marshall was

smiling. Did you sleep with him? „Cause I was

actually like three days away from suggesting that.

Robin Sometimes, all you need is to get in touch with

your feminine side. (We see Marshall shooting and

laughing maniacally)

Ted Well, congratulations. You're the first person to cheer

him up all summer. You win.

The conversation above is situated at MacLaren‟s. The excerpt above is

when Ted thanks Robin for making Marshall happy again. When Ted asks Robin

what she has done to Marshall, Robin answers, “Sometimes, all you need is to

get in touch with your feminine side”. Apparently, Robin is lying to Ted. Robin

does not tell Ted the truth since, in fact, she does not cheer Marshall up by getting

in touch with his feminine side but by teaching him how to shoot with a gun. That

is quite the contrary from what Robin has said to Ted. In here, Robin has her own

reason for not telling Ted the truth. She does that because Ted is the type of

person who is against guns and he does not know that Robin actually likes guns

since she was a kid.

It can be seen from Robin‟s answer to Ted above that she does not follow

the rule of one of Grice‟s conversational maxims, which is the maxim of Quality.

She appears to violate the maxim of Quality because she does not provides

information based on truth. Robin lies to Ted so that he would not be angry to her

for teaching Marshall to shoot. Apparently, Robin is succeed in covering up the


56

truth to Ted since hi is not being suspicious about the information Robin has given

to him.

c. Violation of maxim of Relation

There are two violations of Relation maxim resulted from the analysis.

The explanations of the violations are presented below.

Data code:

Situation:

Ted, Robin, Marshall, Lily, and Barney are having brunch with

Ted’s parents. In the middle of it, Lily and Marshall are having

a quarrel about who seduces who.

Lily Just admit it. You came here trying to seduce me.

16/Vio/Rel/Rls

Marshall Seduce you? You seduced me.

Lily You sat down next to me and took most of your

pants off.

Marshall You went to San Francisco for three months.

Lily How is that seducing you?

Marshall Well, it's not but I'm still mad about it.

The excerpt above is a situation where Marshall and Lily are having

brunch with Robin, Barney, Ted, and Ted‟s parents. At the restaurant, Marshall

and Lily are having a fight about who is seducing who. Lily accuses Marshall for

seducing her and vice versa.

In the conversation above Marshall and Lily are arguing about who is

seducing who. For Lily, Marshall is seducing her by taking most of his pants off.

Therefore, she says, “You sat down next to me and took most of your pants off.”

After that, Marshall replies Lily by saying, “You went to San Francisco for

three months.” Seeing the context of the conversation, Marshall is not following

the cooperative principle because his statement written in bold above is not related


57

to the topic of the discussion in the conversation, which is about who is seducing

who. Marshall‟s unrelated response to Lily above may lead to the assumption that

Marshall is still mad about the fact that Lily dumps him and cancels the wedding.

That being done, Marshall‟s action of not following the cooperative principle

creates misunderstanding between him and Lily. It can be said that Marshall

brings up the topic about Lily and San Francisco because he wants Lily to know

that he has not forgiven her. In here, by providing unrelated statement to change

the topic of discussion in the conversation, Marshal is said as violating the maxim

of Relation.

Data code:

17/Vio/Rel/Rls

Ted's

mother

Can I help?

Barney Yes, you can, Virginia. (Barney is starring at the

broach on Ted’s mother’s cloth). There's a story

behind that broach, and I'm going to hear it.

Ted's

mother

Well, funny you should ask…

The situation above is taken from Ted‟s kitchen. Robin wants to serve

drinks for Ted and his parents while she is having a conversation with Barney.

While Barney is fighting with Robin in the kitchen about stealing Ted‟s parents‟

attention, Ted‟s mother enters the kitchen in order to offer help to them by saying,

“Can I help?” Barney, realizing this is his chance to get Ted‟s mother‟s attention,

answers her first before Robin can by saying, “Yes, you can, Virginia. There's a

story behind that broach, and I'm going to hear it”. In here, it is clearly seen

that Barney is trying to change the topic of the discussion by talking about Ted‟s


58

mother broach. He does not want Robin to have the chance to get to know Ted‟s

mother by letting her alone in the kitchen with Robin. Thus, he steals Ted‟s

mother‟s attention by talking about her broach. In here, Barney‟s answer about

Ted‟s mother‟s broach, which is written in bold above, is not related to Ted‟s

mother‟s expectation which is about helping them in the kitchen. By providing

unrelated statement, Barney is not being cooperative in the conversation. He is

seen as violating the maxim of Relation because he provides answer that is not

related to Ted‟s mother‟s intention. From the situation above, it can be seen that

Barney is changing the topic of discussion because he does not want to continue

his argument with Robin. Furthermore, he wants to show off to Robin that he can

cheer Ted‟s mother up.

d. Violations of maxim of Manner

There are two violations of maxim of Manner resulted from the analysis.

All two of the violations are explained bellow.

Data code:

Robin Should I just kick the door in?

18/Vio/Man/Inc Lily

Those are really nice heels and you already lost the

purse. Let's see if it's unlocked. It's unlocked. Okay,

get in there and kick some spankable ass.

The excerpt above is from the situation when Robin and Lily are going to

the apartment of the girl who is hanging out with Ted that night. They have

already arrived in front of the girl‟s apartment when Robin asks Lily, “Should I

just kick the door in?” Then, Lily replies her by saying, “Those are really nice

heels and you already lost the purse. Let's see if it's unlocked. It's unlocked.


59

Okay, get in there and kick some spankable as”. In here, Lily‟s answer as written

in bold previously shows that she is not being brief to Robin. By saying that

Robin has nice heels and that she has lost her purse, she wants Robin to

understand the implicature she is trying to deliver. Lily is not merely telling Robin

that she has really nice heels without any purpose. Since previously Robin has lost

her purse, Lily does not want Robin to break her nice shoes and lose them as well

only because of kicking the apartment‟s door. Thus, Lily proceeds by checking

the front door; whether or not it is locked. Since it is not, Lily then gives a clue to

Robin to come inside.

The conversation in the situation above shows that Lily gives Robin a long

winded explanation. Lily could have become more brief and direct to Robin and

should have just answered Robin‟s question by telling her to come inside without

kicking the front door. In here, it is concluded that Lily is seen as violating the

maxim of Manner because she provides long winded explanation by saying her

statement as written in bold above.

Data code:



Robin Girly.

Marshall Girly? Breakfast isn't girly. Lunch isn't girly. What

makes brunch girly?

19/Vio/Man/Inc Ted

I don't know. There's nothing girly about a

horse, nothing girly about a horn, but put them

together and you get a unicorn.

Marshall I don't care what either of you say, I am going to

the Popover Pantry with Brad.

The conversation above is the same conversation which is explained

previously as data 14/Vio/Quan/Inc. In here, as explained before, Marshall asks


60

Ted and Robin the reason why two guys who are friends cannot go to brunch.

After that, Ted answers, ”Because brunch is kind of...”, and then Robin finishes

his statement by adding, “Girly”. In here, since Robin blatantly gives less

information to Marshall than what is required, he does not get any idea of what

Robin is trying to say. Thus, he asks them for an explanation. Therefore, Ted

answers, “I don't know. There's nothing girly about a horse, nothing girly

about a horn, but put them together and you get a unicorn”. From his

statement, Ted attempts Marshall to look for an implicature beyond his answer.

By saying his statement as written in bold previously, Ted is implying that

brunch is usually attended by couples; a man and a woman who are on a date.

Implicitly, Ted is saying that two guys who are friends having brunch together is

rare to be done. Hence, if Marshall and Brad go to brunch together even though as

friends, people who see them will think differently. In fact, instead of telling this

implicature to Marshall directly, Ted chooses to use the unicorn as a parable to

Marshall so that he can understand the deeper meaning beyond it. However, it

turns out that Marshall does not understand Ted‟s explanation which is

mentioning horse and unicorn. Thus, Ted‟s implicature is not successfully

delivered to Marshall. In here, Ted is not being cooperative in the conversation.

From the explanation above, by not being brief and direct in delivering his

message to Marshall about the fact that brunch is usually attended by couples, Ted

is seen as violating the maxim of Manner. In order to be more cooperative, Ted

could have just directly explained his message to Marshall that brunch is usually

attended by couples.


61

2. Flouting of Conversational Maxims

Within the four maxims of Cooperative Principle, there are twenty two

floutings of conversational maxims found in the situation comedy. There are two

floutings of Quantity maxim, one flouting of Quality maxim, six floutings of

Relation maxim, and thirteen floutings of Manner maxim. The categorization of

floutings of conversational maxims in their type can be seen in the table below:

Table 2. Data Findings: Flouting of Conversational Maxims

Flouting of

Conversational

Maxims

Quantity

(2)

Quality

(1)

Relation

(6)

Manner

(13)

Data code

01/Flo/Quan/Rls

02/Flo/Quan/Rls

03/Flo/Qual/Hos 04/Flo/Rel/Rls

05/Flo/Rel/Inc

06/Flo/Rel/Inc

07/Flo/Rel/Inc

08/Flo/Rel/Inc

09/Flo/Rel/Inc

10/Flo/Man/Rls

11/Flo/Man/Rls

12/Flo/Man/Inc

13/Flo/Man/Inc

14/Flo/Man/Inc

15/Flo/Man/Inc

16/Flo/Man/Hos

17/Flo/Man/Hos

18/Flo/Man/Inc

19/Flo/Man/Rls

20/Flo/Man/Inc

21/Flo/Man/Hos

22/Flo/Man/Rls

a. Flouting of maxim of Quantity

There are two floutings of maxim of Quantity resulted from the analysis.

The explanations of the floutings are presented below.


62

Data code:

01/Flo/Quan/Rls

Barney Have you chosen your entrée?

Marshall I have. A sweet brunette, eight o'clock. Nine

o'clock. Ten; thirty. She's walking to the bar.

Barney Her? Really? No, you're right. Ambition is the

enemy of success. OK, hit it.

Marshall (to the

girl)

Hey four-eyes. You got astigmatism or

something? I'm sorry, I was trying to be playful

but I just got out of a long relationship. I have

no idea what I'm doing! I'm Marshall.

Girl Hi Marshall. Amy. Don't worry, I've been there.

Hold on.

The excerpt above is the situation when Barney and Marshall are going out

at MacLaren‟s. Barney wants Marshall to flirt other woman because he is no

longer in a relationship with Lily. In the middle of their conversation, Barney asks

Marshall whether or not he has found his target. Then, Marshall tells him that he

has found a woman he wants to talk to. No longer after that, Marshall approaches

the woman and introduces himself to the woman by saying, “Hey four-eyes. You

got astigmatism or something? I'm sorry, I was trying to be playful but I just

got out of a long relationship. I have no idea what I'm doing! I'm Marshall”.

As a total stranger who wants to introduce himself, he could have greeted

the woman simply by saying, “Hi, I am Marshal.” However, Marshall‟s statement

which is written in bold previously shows that he provides too much information

to the woman. Marshall‟s statement about the fact that he has just got out from a

relationship is unnecessary in the conversation because the woman does not ask

any information about Marshall‟s love life from him due to the fact that it is the

first time they meet. Furthermore, at the beginning of his statement, Marshall


63

utters an expression toward the woman which is, “Hey four-eyes. You got

astigmatism or something?” This expression in bold may be seen as an insult to

the woman since the woman is wearing glasses. However, since after that

Marshall says, “I have no idea what I’m doing! I’m Marshall,” the woman

realizes that his statement about whether or not she has astigmatism does not

mean to insult her. She understands that by uttering such expression, Marshall is

trying to find a topic so that he can introduce himself to her.

In conclusion, by saying “Hey four-eyes. You got astigmatism or

something? I'm sorry, I was trying to be playful but I just got out of a long

relationship. I have no idea what I'm doing!”, Marshall is not being cooperative

in the conversation because he provides too much information before introducing

himself to the woman. By providing too much unnecessary information to the

woman, it is concluded that Marshall violated the maxim of Quantity. To

introduce himself, he could have just said, “Hi, I’m Marshall” to greet the

woman. That greeting would be more sufficient seen as an introduction to start a

conversation with stranger.

Data code:

02/Flo/Quan/Rls

Robin Why don't you want me to have your grandkids?

Ted's

mother

Do you want to have my grandkids?

Robin No! I mean, I don't know. I just... I want you to

want me to want to have your grandkids. And

you should. I'm a genetic gold mine. No family

history of diabetes or heart disease. Everyone has

nonporous teeth and perfect eyesight. I had one

schizophrenic uncle but even he had perfect

vision. Which was unfortunate for the people


64

around the bell tower he was in, but still he was a

very fine man, and...

Ted's

mother

Robin, it's not that I don't want grandkids. It's just I

don't think anyone should make the mistake of

getting married too young.

The situation above is the fight between Robin and Ted‟s mother.

Previously, at Casa a Pezzi, Robin and Ted think that Ted‟s mother is going to

ask both of them about having babies, but it turns out that she does not. The next

day at brunch, Robin becomes too sentimental about the fact that Ted‟s mother

does not ask her about having Ted‟s babies. Therefore, during their brunch time,

Robin asks Ted‟s mother the reason why she does not want Robin to have Ted‟s

babies. Ted‟s mother answers her by asking, “Do you want to have my

grandkids?” Then, with enthusiasm, Robin answers, “No! I mean, I don't know.

I just... I want you to want me to want to have your grandkids. And you

should. I'm a genetic gold mine. No family history of diabetes or heart

disease. Everyone has nonporous teeth and perfect eyesight. I had one

schizophrenic uncle but even he had perfect vision. Which was unfortunate

for the people around the bell tower he was in, but still he was a very fine

man, and...”

It can be seen from the answer above that Robin is trying to assure Ted‟s

mother that she is going to have great babies with Ted. However, she provides too

much information that is not required by the situation. Robin‟s explanation about

her gene, her family history, and her uncle who has perfect vision are seen

unnecessary in the conversation because Ted‟s mother does not ask Robin about


65

her family history beforehand. Furthermore, Robin‟s long-winded statements are

not the topic of discussion since Ted‟s mother‟s question is about whether or not

Robin wants to have her grandkids. In fact, instead of telling about her gene,

which is actually unnecessary to the topic of the discussion, she could have just

said directly that she wants Ted‟s mother to want Robin to have her grandkids.

That would be more sufficient and more concise. In conclusion, by saying that

long-winded explanation written in bold previously, it is said that Robin flouts the

maxim of Quantity.

b. Flouting of maxim of Quality

There is one flouting of maxim of Quality as the result of the analysis. The

explanation is presented below.

Data code:

03/Flo/Qual/Hos

Ted Hey.

Robin Hey.

Ted How was your day?

Robin Good.

Ted Wow, you're a great interviewer. Aren't you gonna

ask how my day was?

Robin No, I know how it was. It was awful. Ooh, you want

to rent a movie tonight?

Ted You know, um... I listen to your work stories all the

time.

Robin

Yeah, but... and I don't want to be rude here, but my

work stories are interesting. I'm a television news

reporter.

The situation above is taken at Ted‟s apartment. Robin just goes back from

working and Ted is waiting for her. Ted is basically an architect and Robin is a


66

television news reporter. All of this time, Ted feels that Robin has never asked

Ted about Ted‟s work stories while Ted has always been listening to Robin‟s

work stories every time. Until that night, Ted tries to make Robin ask him about

his work stories.

In that situation, Ted asks Robin how her day was, and she answers that it

was good. According to Ted, Robin‟s response is not like the way he wants

because Robin provides too little information than what he expects. Due to the

fact that Robin does not ask Ted about his work stories, Ted asks Robin again by

directly saying, “Aren't you gonna ask how my day was?”, then she answers, “No,

I know how it was. It was awful”. In here, Robin‟s answer is not based on the

truth. Robin‟s statement saying that Ted‟s job is awful only depends on her

perception about Ted‟s job. She does not truly understand about Ted‟s job yet she

still says that his job is awful. Giving information which is not based on the truth

in a conversation is the proof that Robin flouts the maxim of Quality.

c. Flouting of maxim of Relation

There are eight floutings of maxim of Relation found in the situation

comedy. The writer puts some examples of the floutings as explained below.

Data code:

04/Flo/Rel/Rls

Ted OK, where was I? It was June 2006 and life had just

taken an unexpected turn.

Ted’s

daughter

Can't you just skip ahead to the part where you

meet Mom? I feel you've been talking for like a

year.

Ted Honey, all this stuff I'm telling you is important. It's

all part of the story.


67

Ted’s son Can I go to the bathroom?

Ted No.

In this situation above, Ted‟s son and daughter are sitting on a sofa in front

of him. They are listening to Ted‟s story of how he meets their mother.

Apparently, they think that it takes too long for Ted to explain the main story.

Thus, when Ted almost starts to continue the long story of how he meets his wife,

his son asks, “Can I go to the bathroom?” It can be seen that Ted‟s son‟s

question written in bold previously is irrelevant due to the topic being discussed in

that situation since all of a sudden Ted‟s son wants to go to the bathroom.

In this situation, it can be seen that there is a deeper meaning from Ted‟s

son‟s question. Ted‟s son wants to deliver implicature that he is not interested in

listening to his Dad‟s long story. Therefore, he changes the topic of discussion by

looking for an excuse to go to the bathroom in order to avoid the storytelling.

Being asked that permission, Ted knows that his son does not literally want to go

to the bathroom because previously in the conversation, both of Ted‟s son and

daughter say that Ted has been talking for too long. Ted understands his son‟s

intention to avoid his telling the story. In conclusion, by providing irrelevant

statement to change the topic of discussion, Ted‟s son is seen as flouting the

maxim of Relation.

Data code:

07/Flo/Rel/Inc

Ted's

mother

Oh, I forgot to tell you, your cousin Jimmy had a

wonderful time at that spa he visited.

Ted You mean the spa the judge ordered him to go to to

quit cocaine?


68

Ted's

mother

Coffee?

In here, as a 30th anniversary gift, Ted buys his parents tickets to New

York. He wants them to stay for the weekend and spend some quality time with

him. Right after they arrive at Ted‟s apartment, his mother tells Ted about her

cousin. She says, “Oh, I forgot to tell you, your cousin Jimmy had a wonderful

time at that spa he visited.” Ted responds and clarifies her statement by asking,

“You mean the spa the judge ordered him to go to to quit cocaine?” Then, his

mother responds him by saying, “Coffee?”

In here, Ted knows the fact that his parents apparently do not like to talk

about things that are uncomfortable or emotional. Thus, Ted understands that her

mother attempts to change the topic of the discussion by providing a new question

about coffee which is not related to Ted‟s question about the spa. Being aware his

mother‟s intention to change the topic of discussion, he does not pose that

question again to his mother. In conclusion, it can be seen from the conversation

above that Ted‟s mother does not follow Grice‟s cooperative principle by flouting

the maxim of Relation.

Data code:

09/Flo/Rel/Inc

Ted Hey.

Robin Hey.


Robin Good.

Ted Wow, you're a great interviewer. Aren't you gonna ask

how my day was?

Robin No, I know how it was. It was awful. Ooh, you want to

rent a movie tonight?


69

The situation above is taken at Ted‟s apartment. Robin just goes back from

working and Ted is waiting for her. Ted is basically an architect and Robin is a

television news reporter. As it has been explained previously, both Ted and Robin

are arguing about each other‟s work stories in the conversation above.

In the middle of the conversation, Ted asks, “Aren't you gonna ask how

my day was?” Then, Robin answers, “No, I know how it was. It was awful,” and

she directly changes the topic of discussion by asking Ted, “Ooh, you want to

rent a movie tonight?” In here, before asking Ted to rent a movie, she says that

Ted‟s job is awful. She thinks that telling Ted that his job is awful will answer his

question because he keeps asking Robin‟s opinion about his job as an architect.

To directly change the topic of discussion, Robin asks Ted whether or not he

wants to rent a movie that night because she does not want to discuss further

about the work-sharing issue.

In here, Robin‟s question which is: “Ooh, you want to rent a movie

tonight?” is seen unrelated to the topic being discussed in the conversation which

is about Ted‟s job. Being given that question as written in bold previously, Ted

understands Robin‟s intention to change the topic of discussion. Realizing that,

instead of answering Robin‟s question, Ted keeps asking her opinion about his

job. In conclusion, Robin‟s attempt to change the topic of discussion by providing

unrelated question to Ted shows that she is not being cooperative in the

conversation. She is said to flout the maxim of Relation.


70

d. Flouting of maxim of Manner

There are thirteen floutings of manner found in the situation comedy.

Some of them are explained below.

Data Code:

11/Flo/Man/Rls

Ted Hey Marshall.

Marshall Hey Ted.

Ted Are you hungry?


gonna leave me.


dumping. Come on, it's Sunday, it's pancakes day!

Marshall



shaped.


The situation of the data above is the same situation with the data number

03/Vio/Quan/Rls. While that data highlights the violation of maxim of Quantity

done by Marshall, this one highlights the flouting of maxim of Manner done by

Marshall. When Ted asks Marshall whether or not he is hungry, Marshall

responds him without showing any intention to get up from the sofa by saying,

“What's the point? I could eat some food, it's just gonna leave me.” Marshall‟s

answer to Ted as written in bold above has deeper meaning than what he has

uttered. He does not say that because he thinks that the food is going to leave him

literally. His response about the food is showing the implication about Lily and

how Lily dumps him to chase her dream in San Francisco. Marshall hopes that

Ted will understand the implicature beyond his expression written in bold above.


71

In conclusion, by providing ambiguous statement, Marshall is said to flout the

maxim of Manner.

Data code: Situation:

At MacLaren's.

12/Flo/Man/Inc

Robin

This has to stop! Ted, we just started dating. We

agreed we don't wanna move too fast and yet

somehow we have a baby. He can't feed himself,

he cries a lot; he keeps us up all night...

Flouting of Manner

Barney Have you tried breast-feeding? Nailed it!

Ted They were together nine years. It's only been a

month and a half. He just needs to go his own pace.

Ted, Robin, and Barney are at MacLaren‟s discussing about Marshall who

is so pathetic after Lily left. Marshall has been acting so melancholic lately and it

makes Robin, who has been staying with Ted for a while, feels stressed. From the

expert above, Robin is complaining about Marshall and his behavior to Ted. She

says, “This has to stop! Ted, we just started dating. We agreed we don't wanna

move too fast and yet somehow we have a baby. He can't feed himself, he

cries a lot; he keeps us up all night”. Listening to Robin‟s statement, for people

who do not have close relation with Robin and her friends, they will think that

what Robin means with “a baby” is a real baby. That is because Robin‟s

statement about the “baby” appears to be ambiguous. In this context, what Robin

truly means with “a baby” is Marshall due to the fact that he has been crying and

mourning all day long like a baby. However, instead of being direct and saying

that what Robin means with “baby” is Marshall, she chooses to use the word

“baby” as the representation of Marshall. She wants Ted and Barney to understand


72

the implicature she is trying to deliver without saying what she truly means with

the word “baby”. That being done, it can be seen that Robin‟s utterances written

in bold above mean more than what she have said. In conclusion, by providing

ambiguous statement to Ted and Barney, Robin is seen as flouting the maxim of

Relation.

Data code:

Barney Barney.

Ted Uh, hey. Where are you guys?

14/Flo/Man/Inc Barney We're at a fundraiser helping young women

raise money for college.

Ted Strip-club. Nice. Is Marshall OK?

When Ted and Robin are on their way to Montauk, Ted calls Barney to

check on Marshall. Ted asks Barney where they are right now, and Barney

answers, “We're at fundraiser helping young women raise money for college”.

After listening to Barney‟s answer, Ted directly knows that Barney and Marshall

are in a strip-club. In here, Barney‟s statement in bold above is not brief and it

appears to be ambiguous. For people who do not have a close relation with Ted,

Barney, and Marshal, they will think that Barney provides true information that

they are really at a fundraiser and helping. However, as their friend, Ted knows

that to get away from his boredom, Barney will go to a strip club. Thus, he knows

that what Barney means with “young women” are strippers and what he means

with “a fundraiser” is a strip club. By providing ambiguous statement as stated in

bold above, it is concluded that Barney flouts the maxim of Manner. To be more


73

cooperative, he could have said briefly that he and Marshall are in a strip club to

Ted.

Data code:

16/Flo/Man/Hos

Marshall Lily is evil! She just wore that dress to torture me.

Well, you know what? Two can play at that game.

See, at brunch, I'm going to torture Lily right back.

Yeah. There's a part of my body that she's got a

weakness for, too.

Barney Dude, you can't whip that out at brunch.

Marshall No, not that. I'm going to unleash my calves.

Barney That's crazy. Nobody's turned on by men's calves.

They're a thoroughly unerotic body part.

Marshall Well, yeah, I'd say that, too, if I had those

skinny little chicken legs.

Barney I'll be waiting by the phone for your apology.

After Lily and Marshall broke up, the situation between them becomes

weird. Lily needs to find new apartment and lives separately from Marshall. Since

then, both of them are never on a date until Ted invites Marshall, Barney, Lily,

and Robin to have dinner with Ted‟s parents at Casa a Pezzi. When they are

having dinner at that restaurant, Lily wears a dress that can show her cleavage to

Marshall in order to seduce him. At that dinner, Marshall does feel that he is being

seduced. So, the next morning after the dinner at Casa a Pezzi, Marshall tell

Barnet that he plans to take revenge to Lily by showing his body part that he is

sure will seduce her.

On the situation from the excerpt above, Barney appears to flouts the

maxim of manner. After Marshall says that he is going to unleash his calves,

Barney responds him by saying, “… They're a thoroughly unerotic body part.”


74

By saying this, Barney actually means that calves are uninterested body parts that

no one will be paying attention to. He wants Marshall know that it is impossible

that Lily is going to be interested in Marshall‟s calves, but he is not being brief in

saying that to Marshall. He even uses „unerotic‟ which is a word created by

himself to describe calves.

Again, Marshall flouts the maxim of manner in responding Barney‟s

statement. He says, “Well, yeah, I'd say that, too, if I had those skinny little

chicken legs.” Here, Marshall‟s statement which is “those skinny little chicken

legs” is ambiguous and he is not being brief to Barney. There is deeper meaning

from his statement, which is “…if I had those skinny little chicken legs”. By

saying that statement, Marshall wants Barney know that the „if I had those skinny

little chicken legs‟ statement is representing Barney‟s legs which are skinny like

chicken‟s legs.

In the situation above, instead of telling Barney directly, Marshall chooses

to say it with a parable, which is finally understood by Barney. After Barney

knows what Marshall means by saying that statement, he gets offended and says:

“I'll be waiting by the phone for your apology.” This statement means that he is

going to wait for Marshall to apologize to him.

B. The humorous situations created by the violations and floutings of

conversational maxims

This second subchapter analyzes how the humorous situations are created

in the situation comedy. Humor theory is applied in the analysis process in order

to examine how humorous situations are created by the violations and the


75

floutings of conversational maxims. The results of the analysis shows that creating

incongruent idea between people‟s expectation and what actually happens,

mocking and laughing at someone else to show hostility, and releasing emotion

are the strategies of how the humorous situations are built in the situation comedy.

The categorization of the data findings can be seen in the table below:

Table 3. Data Findings: The ways of how humorous situations are

created in the situation comedy

Humorous

situations

Incongruent

idea Hostility

Released

Emotions

Data code

02/Vio/Quan/Inc

05/Vio/Quan/Inc

06/Vio/Quan/Inc

07/Vio/Quan/Inc

09/Vio/Quan/Inc

10/Vio/Quan/Inc

11/Vio/Quan/Inc

13/Vio/Quan/Inc

14/Vio/Quan/Inc

15/Vio/Qual/Inc

17/Vio/Rel/Inc

18/Vio/Man/Inc

19/Vio/Man/Inc

05/Flo/Rel/Inc

06/Flo/Rel/Inc

07/Flo/Rel/Inc

08/Flo/Rel/Inc

09/Flo/Rel/Inc

12/Flo/Man/Inc

03/Flo/Qual/Hos

16/Flo/Man/Hos

17/Flo/Man/Hos

21/Flo/Man/Hos

01/Vio/Quan/Rls

03/Vio/Quan/Rls

04/Vio/Quan/Rls

08/Vio/Quan/Rls

12/Vio/Quan/Rls

16/Vio/Rel/Rls

01/Flo/Quan/Rls

02/Flo/Quan/Rls

04/Flo/Rel/Rls

10/Flo/Man/Rls

11/Flo/Man/Rls

19/Flo/Man/Rls

22/Flo/Man/Rls


76

13/Flo/Man/Inc

14/Flo/Man/Inc

15/Flo/Man/Inc

18/Flo/Man/Inc

20/Flo/Man/Inc

The explanation of each way of creating humorous situations is explained

in the following parts.

1. By creating the incongruent idea between someone’s expectation and

what actually happens in the conversation

The way of creating an incongruent idea between someone‟s expectation

and what actually happens is the mostly used strategies in creating humorous

situations in the situation comedy. Basically, as explained before, the basis of

incongruity theory of humor as proposed by Schopenhauer and Kant is that humor

occurs when there are differences between what is expected and what later occurs

in the conversation. The differences involve the feeling of surprise of the hearers.

It means that humor is the product of incongruity created by two conflicting

meanings or ideas, which are the particular ideas that someone has in mind and

how the ideas turn out in the conversation.

In here, the writer finds that some of the violations and floutings of

conversational maxims contain incongruity between two conflicting ideas. Twenty

four out of forty one data use this method in creating humorous situation. The

incongruity is found in nine violations of Quantity maxim, one violation of

Quality maxim, one violation of Relation maxim, and two violations in Manner


77

maxim. It is also found in six floutings of Relation maxim and six floutings of

Manner maxim.

In the following section, the writer explains some of the data in order to

give clearer understanding.

a. Incongruent idea in violations of maxim of Quantity

There are eight violations of Quantity maxim containing incongruent idea

between someone‟s expectation and what actually reveals in the conversation. The

writer chooses one of the violations and explains it as presented below.

As explained in the previous section, in the situation above Robin has

violated the maxim of Quantity. She provides too much information that what is

required in the conversation. This can be seen from her answer to Ted. Ted

questions Robin about whether or not Lily has moved on and her answer is,

“Well, it happens. I've fallen out of love faster than that before. Sometimes,

Data code:

Situation: At the apartment. Robin comes and wants to tell Ted about

Lily’s getting back in town.

05/Vio/Quan/Inc

Ted OK, first of all, that is interesting. Second, we have

to tell him.

Robin


out with Barney. How do you think he'll feel when he

hears Lily's moved on?

Ted She's moved on?

Robin







78

boom, with no warning whatsoever. One day we're in love, the next day, he's

dead to me. But we're great! Honey”. In here, Robin‟s answer contains

information that is not requested in the situation. The unnecessary information is

about her personal love experience which is actually not the information expected

by Ted. Robin could have just told him Lily‟s condition at that time.

To understand how this violation of Quantity maxim creates humorous

situations, incongruity theory of humor is applied in the analysis. Related with

incongruity theory of humor, humorous situation occurs because there are two

conflicting meanings that occur in the conversation. In the situation above, the

two conflicting meanings are Ted expectation of Robin‟s answer about Lily‟s

condition and the actual answer he gets from Robin. In the conversation, Ted asks

Robin about Lily‟s condition after breaking up with Marshall and whether or not

she has moved on. He expects Robin to give sufficient answer based on his

question. In fact, instead of giving him sufficient information about Lily, Robin

gives information about her own love experience about how she handles a break

up with her ex-boyfriend which is not appropriate in the exchange of information.

She even explains it enthusiastically without realizes that she provides

unnecessary information to Ted. This unnecessary information from Robin is not

expected by Ted and the audiences. Thus, Robin‟s unexpected answer shows her

absurd and ridiculous action. Her ridiculous action is the result of her unawareness

of Ted‟s expectation. In conclusion, the transformation of the idea expected by the

audiences and what actually turns out in the conversation makes the audiences‟

expectation vanish and creates discrepancy which arouses laughter.


79

b. Incongruent idea in violation of maxim of Quality

There is only one violation of Quality Maxim containing incongruent idea

between people‟s expectation and what actually reveals in the conversation. The

explanation is presented below.

Data code:

15/Vio/Qual/Inc


smiling. Did you sleep with him? „Cause I was





Ted Well, congratulations. You're the first person to cheer

him up all summer. You win.

As explained before, in the situation above, Robin has violated the maxim

of Quality by lying to Ted. In the situation above, Ted thanks Robin for making

Marshall happy again after the break up. When Ted asks Robin what she has done

to Marshall, Robin answers, “Sometimes, all you need is to get in touch with

your feminine side”. Apparently, Robin‟s answer is not based on truth. The truth

is, instead of cheering Marshall up by getting in touch with his feminine side, she

is teaching him how to shoot with a gun. That is more to the opposite from what

Robin has said to Ted. The reason why Robin does not tell Ted the truth is

because she knows that Ted is kind of against guns and he has no idea that Robin

actually likes guns.

Related to incongruity theory of humor, there is a discrepancy between

two ideas in the conversation above. The two conflicting ideas are the audiences‟


80

expectation of Robin‟s answer and what actually occurs in the conversation. In the

situation above, Ted does not know that Robin actually lies to him by not giving

information based on truth. In this case, the truth is that Robin teaches Marshall to

shoot with a gun. Even though Ted does not know what truly happens between

Robin and Marshall, audiences know that Robin lies to Ted by giving false

information. Since the audiences are the ones who know the truth, they expect

Robin to give truthful answer to Ted. In fact, Robin‟s actual answer is

contradictory to what she has done because playing with a gun is seen more as the

symbol of masculinity than femininity. Robin‟s response shows that she is being

ridiculous by not being honest to Ted as her boyfriend. Robin‟ actual answer

makes the audiences‟ expectation vanish since the expectation is transformed into

nothing. In conclusion, the incongruity of the two conflicting ideas in the situation

above creates discrepancy which elicits laughter.

c. Incongruent idea in flouting of maxim of Relation

There are two floutings of Relation Maxim containing incongruent idea

between people‟s expectation and what actually occurs. One of the flouting is

explained below.

Data code:

07/Flo/Rel/Inc

Ted's mother Oh, I forgot to tell you, your cousin Jimmy had

a wonderful time at that spa he visited.

Ted You mean the spa the judge ordered him to go

to to quit cocaine?

Ted's mother Coffee?


81

As explained in the previous chapter, the excerpt above is the situation

when Ted‟s parents come to New York for the weekend. During their visitation,

Ted‟s mother tells him about his cousin. Ted clarifies her statement by asking,

“You mean the spa the judge ordered him to go to to quit cocaine?” Then, his

mother answers, “Coffee?”

In the situation above, Ted understands that her mother is trying to change

the topic of the discussion because his mother and father apparently do not like to

talk about things that are uncomfortable or emotional. Because Ted is sensitive

enough to understand his mother‟s intention of changing the topic, he does not

pose that question again to his mother. It can be seen from the conversation above

that Ted‟s mother does not follow Grice‟s cooperative principle. She flouts the

maxim of relation by giving an answer which is not related to the topic of

discussion.

Related to the incongruity theory of humor, in the situation above, humor

occurs because there are two conflicting ideas between the audiences‟ expectation

of Ted‟s mother‟s answer and what her actual reply in the conversation. Ted‟s

mother is expected to provide answer which is related to Ted‟s question, which is

about the spa his cousin visited back then. In fact, it turns out that her answer is

not related to the topic of discussion. She does that intentionally in order to

change the topic of discussion. Ted does not expect that his mother will change

the topic of discussion and so do the audiences. The audiences hope that Ted‟s

mother will answer Ted‟s question and explain about the spa. Ted‟s mother‟s

action of not providing related answer for the exchange of information is seen as


82

an absurd and ridiculous attitude. Her unrelated answer in the conversation makes

the audiences‟ expectation vanish and transform into nothing. The discrepancy

between what is expected by the audiences and what actually turns out create

humorous situation in the situation above.

d. Incongruent idea in flouting of maxim of Manner

There are six floutings of maxim of Manner containing incongruent ideas

between people‟s expectation and what actually occurs. The writer highlights one

of them and explains it as follows.


In a strip-club, Barney gets a call from Ted.

Barney Barney.


14/Flo/Man/Inc Barney We're at a fundraiser helping young women

raise money for college.


The excerpt above is taken at the situation when Ted and Robin are on

their way to Montauk. During the trip, Ted calls Barney to check on Marshall. Ted

asks Barney where they are at that time. Without any doubt, Barney answers him

by saying, “We're at fundraiser helping young women raise money for

college”. After listening to Barney‟s answer, Ted directly knows that Barney and

Marshall are in a strip-club. Ted knows that both of them are not really at a

fundraiser. In here, it can be seen from Barney‟s answer that he has flouted the

maxim of manner. Barney‟s answer is ambiguous and he intentionally says that to

trick Ted and let him figure out the actual meaning of his statement. Instead of


83

giving ambiguous statement, Barney could have just said, “We are in a strip club”

to Ted directly.

This is another flouting containing incongruent idea between people‟s

expectation and what it actually occurs in the conversation. To understand how

this flouting of maxim of Manner creates humorous situations, incongruity theory

of humor is also applied in the analysis. Related with incongruity theory of

humor, humorous situation occurs because there are two conflicting meanings that

occur in the conversation. In the situation above, the two conflicting meanings are

the audiences‟ expectation of Barney‟s answer to Ted and the actual answer Ted

gets in the conversation.

Ted expectation of Robin‟s answer about Lily‟s condition and the actual

answer he gets from Robin. In the conversation, Ted asks Robin about Lily‟s

condition after breaking up with Marshall and whether or not she has moved on.

He expects Robin to give sufficient answer based on his question. In fact, instead

of giving him sufficient information about Lily, Robin gives information about

her own love experience about how she handles a break up with her ex-boyfriend

which is not appropriate in the exchange of information. She even explains it

enthusiastically without realizes that she provides unnecessary information to Ted.

This unnecessary information from Robin is not expected by Ted and the

audiences. Thus, Robin‟s unexpected answer shows her absurd and ridiculous

action. Her ridiculous action is the result of her unawareness of Ted‟s expectation.

In conclusion, the transformation of the idea expected by the audiences and what


84

actually turns out in the conversation makes the audiences‟ expectation vanish and

creates discrepancy which arouses laughter.

2. By mocking and laughing at someone’s inferiority to show hostility

The way of creating humorous situation by showing hostility at someone‟s

inferiority is used the least in the situation comedy. The act of being hostile can

also be seen as the act of being superior. The basic assumption about hostility or

superior theory is that it manifests the aggressive side of humor (Attardo, 1994:

49). This aggressive side of humor is commonly used to mock, humiliate, laugh,

or ridicule others‟ inferiority or misfortunes. As explained in the previous section,

Thomas Hobbes suggests that “laughter arouses from a sense of superiority of the

laughter towards some object” (Attardo, 1994: 49). In this case, “some object”

refers to the “butt of the joke”, which is anything that is being laughed at.

From the violations and floutings that have been analyzed in the previous

subchapter, the writer only finds four out of forty one data which contain this

method in creating humorous situation. The act of being hostile is found in one

flouting of maxim of Quality and three floutings of maxim of Manner. In the

following section, the writer explains some of the floutings in order to give clearer

understanding.

a. The act of being hostile to someone’s inferiority in flouting of maxim of

Quality

There is only one flouting which using this way in creating humorous

situation, which is the flouting of maxim of Quality. The explanation of how the

humor is created is presented as follow.


85

Data code:

03/Flo/Qual/Hos

Ted Hey.

Robin Hey.


Robin Good.


ask how my day was?




time.

Robin



reporter.

As explained previously, the situation above is when Robin just goes back

from working and Ted is waiting for her at the apartment.

In that situation, Ted asks Robin how her day was, and she answers that it

was good. According to Ted, Robin‟s response is not like the way he wants.

Robin provides less information than what he expects. Further, since Robin does

not ask Ted about his work stories, Ted asks Robin again by directly saying,

“Aren't you gonna ask how my day was?”, then she answers, “No, I know how it

was. It was awful”. In fact, Robin has no idea how Ted‟s job is. She never asks

Ted about his job or what he does in the office. She does not truly understand

about Ted‟s job yet she still says that his job is awful. Her answer is only based on

her own opinion which shows her lack of adequate information about Ted‟s job.

Providing any opinion without the foundation of adequate information is the fact

that Robin has flouted the maxim of Quality. Before making any assumption, it is

better for her to know the environment of Ted‟s job.


86

In the situation above, laughter arouses when Robin flouts the maxim of

Quality, which is when she mocks Ted‟s job as an awful job. Linked to hostility

theory, Robin‟s action is seen as an action of being hostile. According to the

theory, humor is created when someone is laughing at others in an attempt to

humiliate or ridicule their inferiority or misfortunes. People who are treated as the

inferiors will be the butt of the joke. In the situation above, Robin‟s answer to Ted

is seen as the form of humiliation to Ted, and in this case, Ted is seen as the butt

of the joke. Laughter arouses when there are pleasure and glorious feelings

created from being superior to Ted.

b. The act of being hostile to someone in flouting of maxim of Manner

There are three floutings of Manner containing the feeling of hostility

which can create humorous situation. The explanation of how humor is created is

presented as follow.

Data code:

16/Flo/Man/Hos

Marshall Lily is evil! She just wore that dress to torture me.

Well, you know what? Two can play at that game.

See, at brunch, I'm going to torture Lily right back.

Yeah. There's a part of my body that she's got a

weakness for, too.





Marshall Well, yeah, I'd say that, too, if I had those

skinny little chicken legs.



87

In the conversation above, Marshall has a fight with Barney. In the

beginning, Marshall tells Barney about his plan to take revenge to Lily by

showing his body part that he is sure will seduce her. That body part is his calves.

To respond Marshall‟s plan, in disbelief Barney says, “That's crazy. Nobody's

turned on by men's calves. They're a thoroughly unerotic body part.” Barney‟s

answer is ambiguous and it carries deeper meaning which he thinks that calves are

uninterested body parts that no one will be paying attention to. He even uses the

word „unerotic‟ which is a word invented by himself to describe calves.

Offended by Barney‟s statement, Marshall abruptly says, “Well, yeah, I'd

say that, too, if I had those skinny little chicken legs.” As explained previously,

Marshall has flouted the maxim of Manner by uttering that statement. Marshall

hopes that Barney gets the implicature he delivers which is that Barney‟s thin

legs. Regarding his reply to Barney, Marshall‟s statement contains humiliation

addressed to Barney. He mocks Barney‟s legs for being too thin, especially

because they look like chicken legs. According to hostility theory, Marshall‟s

action is seen as an act of being superior and Barney is seen as the inferior. As the

victim, he becomes the butt of the joke. Glorious feeling occurs when Marshall

mocks Barney for having checks like chicken. That glorious feeling creates

laughter in the situation.

3. By releasing emotion or feeling to experience freedom

As explained in the previous chapter, the basis of release theory of humor

is that the theory is based on the idea that humor is used to release tension or

psychic energy (Attardo, 1994: 50). People will be liberated once they release


88

their tension, emotion or psychic energy inside. Thus, at the moment they release

their emotion, laughter arouses. This theory highlights the social and behavioral

components of humor since it gives temporary freedom from restrictions in daily

life.

From the violations and floutings of conversational maxims that have been

analyzed in the previous subchapter, the way of releasing emotion in order to

create laughter is found in five violations of maxim of Quantity, one violation of

maxim of Relation, two floutings of maxim of Quantity, one flouting of maxim of

Relation, and four floutings of maxim of manner.

a. Releasing emotion in violation of maxim of Quantity

There are five violations of the maxim of Quantity containing humorous

situation created by the release of emotion of the characters. The writer chooses

one of the violations and explains it as presented below.

Data code:

03/Vio/Quan/Rls

Ted Hey Marshall.

Marshall Hey Ted.

Ted Are you hungry?


gonna leave me.


dumping. Come on, it's Sunday, it's pancakes

day!

Marshall



shaped.



89

In the situation above, Marshall is still weak since he cannot get over his

breakup with Lily. The conversation above takes place in the living room.

Marshall sleeps at the sofa until Ted wakes him up and asks him whether he is

hungry or not. Helplessly, Marshall answers Ted by saying: „What's the point? I

could eat some food, it's just gonna leave me‟. Even though Marshall does not

want to listen, Ted still insists him to eat pancakes since that day is pancakes day.

Unfortunately, the pancakes – topic reminds him of Lily‟s pancakes. Thus, he

becomes too sentimental and says, “Lily always made the pancakes. God, I

loved her pancakes. So soft. So warmed. So perfectly shaped.” As it is

explained in the previous subchapter, Marshall has violated Quantity maxim by

giving that answer to Ted. He provides excess information that is not required in

the process of exchanging information. That respond is unnecessary since Ted

does not need any information about Lily‟s pancakes from Marshall.

Marshall‟s statement above which contains violation of Quantity maxim is

seen as the expression of emotional feeling after he is being left by Lily. He is

hurting so much he cannot endure the pain. It is difficult for him to accept the fact

that his relationship with Lily is over. Thus, he represses the pain in his mind and

releases the emotion by repeatedly talking about Lily. He does it anywhere and

anytime without considering who he is talking to.

According to release theory of humor, laughter arouses when someone

releases his emotion and energy as the effect of being suppressed by

circumstances. In the conversation above, it can be seen that Marshall talks about

Lily‟s pancakes emotionally. Apparently, linked to release theory of humor,


90

Marshall‟s desperate action of babbling about anything related to Lily is the action

which elicits laughter in that situation.

b. Releasing emotion in violation of maxim of Relation

There only one violation of the maxim of Relation containing humorous

situation created by the release of emotion of the characters. The analysis of how

the humorous situation occurs is presented below.

Data code:

Situation:

Ted, Robin, Marshall, Lily, and Barney are having brunch with

Ted’s parents. In the middle of it, Lily and Marshall are having

a quarrel about who seduces who.


16/Vio/Rel/Rls



pants off.




Above is a situation when Marshall is having a fight with Lily. They are

arguing about who is seducing who. Lily accuses Marshall for seducing her and

vice versa. In the middle of the fight, Marshall says, “You went to San Francisco

for three months.” As explained in the previous subchapter, his response above

is not related to the topic of discussion they are having. He does that because he

still cannot accept the fact that his wedding with Lily is canceled due to the fact

that Lily flies to San Francisco in order to chase her dream. Thus, he changes the

topic of discussion intentionally and blames Lily all over again for leaving him.

Marshall‟s statement above can be seen as a violation of maxim of Relation.


91

In here, release humor theory is applied in order to see how the humorous

situation is created by the violation of maxim of relation. In the situation above,

humor arouses when Marshall violates the maxim of relation, which is the

moment when he suddenly changes the topic of discussion by mentioning Lily‟s

journey to chase her dream in San Francisco. That statement represents Marshall‟s

anger towards Lily that he still keeps even until after Lily gets back in town.

According to release theory of humor, humor is created when someone attempts to

release particular emotion and feelings in his mind in order to be free from that

emotion. That being said, Marshall‟s action above can be seen as an attempt to

release the pain he carries in his mind. Thus, when he releases his emotion,

laughter occurs.

c. Releasing emotion in flouting of maxim of Quantity

There two floutings of the maxim of Quantity containing humorous

situation created by the release of emotion of the characters. The analysis of how

the humorous situation occurs is presented below.


At brunch, the next day.

02/Flo/Quan/Rls


Ted's

mother

Do you want to have my grandkids?

Robin No! I mean, I don't know. I just... I want you to

want me to want to have your grandkids. And

you should. I'm a genetic gold mine. No family

history of diabetes or heart disease. Everyone

has nonporous teeth and perfect eyesight. I had

one schizophrenic uncle but even he had perfect

vision. Which was unfortunate for the people

around the bell tower he was in, but still he was


92

a very fine man, and...

Ted's

mother

Robin, it's not that I don't want grandkids. It's just I

don't think anyone should make the mistake of

getting married too young.

The situation above is the fight between Robin and Ted‟s mother. The day

before, Robin and Ted think that Ted‟s mother is going to ask both of them about

having babies, but it turns out that she does not. That fact makes Robin create an

assumption that Ted‟s mother does not want her babies. Thus, during brunch,

Robin asks Ted‟s mother the reason why she does not want Robin to have Ted‟s

babies. Ted‟s mother answers her by asking, “Do you want to have my

grandkids?” Then, without thinking any further, Robin answers, “No! I mean, I

don't know. I just... I want you to want me to want to have your grandkids.

And you should. I'm a genetic gold mine. No family history of diabetes or

heart disease. Everyone has nonporous teeth and perfect eyesight. I had one

schizophrenic uncle but even he had perfect vision. Which was unfortunate

for the people around the bell tower he was in, but still he was a very fine

man, and...”

As it is explained previously, Robin‟s answer above is an attempt to assure

Ted‟s mother that she is going to have great babies with Ted, but in here, she is

being too informative by giving unnecessary information. She explains about her

family‟s history Ted‟s mother does not even ask beforehand. In here, Robin‟s

unnecessary statement shows that she has flouted the maxim of Quantity. That

being said, Robin wants Ted‟s mother to get the implicature Robin delivers which

is the fact that Robin wants her to have her grandkids.


93

In order to see how humorous situation occurs in the situation above,

release theory of humor is applied in the analysis. Release theory of humor sees

laughter as the surplus energy dispelled from ones‟ mind. By bursting out

laughter, someone feels liberated from particular repressed feeling. Linked to

release theory of humor, Robin‟s insufficient information above represents her

feeling of not being wanted by Ted‟s mother. She creates an assumption that

Ted‟s mother does not want her to have her grandkids. Robin represses that

feeling in her mind and it becomes a surplus energy waiting to be expelled.

Robin‟s action of uttering that long and unnecessary information is the moment

when the repressed emotion is expelled and the moment when laughter occurs.

d. Releasing emotion in flouting of maxim of Manner

There are four floutings of the maxim of Manner containing humorous

situation created from the release of emotion of the characters. The analysis of

how the humorous situation occurs is presented in the following explanation.

Data Code:

11/Flo/Man/Rls

Ted Hey Marshall.

Marshall Hey Ted.

Ted Are you hungry?


gonna leave me.


dumping. Come on, it's Sunday, it's pancakes day!

Marshall



shaped.



94

The situation of the data above is the same situation with the data number

03/Vio/Quan/Rls. While that data highlights the violation of maxim of quantity

done by Marshall, this one highlights the flouting of maxim of manner done by

Marshall. When Ted asks Marshall whether or not he is hungry, Marshall

responds him without showing any intention to get up from the sofa by saying,

“What's the point? I could eat some food, it's just gonna leave me.” Marshall‟s

answer to Ted has deeper meaning than what he has uttered. He does not say that

because he thinks that the food is going to leave him, literally. He‟s response

about the food is the implication about Lily and how Lily dumps him to chase her

dream in San Francisco. Marshall hopes that Ted will understand the implicature

beyond his expression. Since his statement shows ambiguity, Marshall is said to

flout the maxim of manner.

In the situation above, laughter arouses at the moment Marshall flouts the

maxim of manner, which is the time when he murmurs, “What's the point? I could

eat some food, it's just gonna leave me.” In order to see how the laughter

arouses, release theory of humor is applied in analyzing the data. As explained

previously, release theory of humor sees laughter as the surplus energy dispelled

from ones‟ mind. The surplus energy is the energy that may come from particular

emotions, such as, anger, happiness, love, hatred, or any other emotion. By

bursting out laughter, someone feels liberated from particular repressed feeling. In

Marshall‟s case above, his statement in bold appears as the representation of his

feelings towards Lily. The feelings are the combination between hatred, anger,

and also love, since he is still in love with Lily regardless what she has done to


95

him. Marshall represses his emotion in his mind. When Marshall is in a fight with

Lily, his repressed feelings are triggered and he dispels it to Lily. Apparently, the

moment Marshall dispels his feelings during the fight is the moment which

triggers laughter to occur.


96

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

This part covers the analysis and the findings of this study. First, the

findings of the first problem of this study, which is about the types of violations

and floutings of conversational maxims found in the situation comedy, are

presented. The second part of this study presents how the violations and the

floutings of the conversational maxims create humorous situations in the situation

comedy.

Humorous utterances are analyzed in order to answer the first problem of

this study. After the data are analyzed, there are nineteen violations and twenty

two floutings of conversational maxims are found. These violations and floutings

done by the characters are the results of not obeying the Cooperative Principle and

its conversational maxims. Each violation and each flouting belongs to a certain

type of conversational maxims. The categorization of the types of the violations

and floutings of conversational maxims can be seen in data findings Table 1

which can be found on page 47 and Table 2 which can be found on page 61 of

this study.

The first table of the data findings shows the types of the violations of

conversational maxims found in the situation comedy. There are fourteen

violations of maxim of Quantity, one violation of maxim of Quality, two

violations of maxim of Relation, and two violations of maxim of Manner. The


97

violations are created because the characters in the situation comedy intentionally

mislead and deceive the interlocutors by generating misleading implicatures in a

conversation.

The second table of the data findings previously shows the types of the

floutings of conversational maxims found in the situation comedy. There are two

floutings of maxim of Quantity, one flouting of maxim of Quality, six floutings of

maxim of Relation, and thirteen floutings of maxim of Manner. Different from

violations of conversational maxim, these floutings of conversational maxims are

created because the characters in the situation comedy do not intentionally

mislead and deceive the interlocutors. They expect the interlocutors to be able to

look for the meaning different from, or in addition to, the expressed meaning. The

speakers assume that the hearers are able to infer the implied meaning of what is

said.

From both tables of the data findings, it can be concluded that the

characters in the situation comedy entitled How I Met Your Mother have violated

and flouted all types of conversational maxims.

For the second problem of this study, the writer concludes that the

humorous situations are created by the violations and the floutings of

conversational maxims done by the characters in the situation comedy. From the

analysis, there are three different ways how the humorous situations are created.

First, the humorous situations are created because some of the violations and the

floutings of conversational maxims contain incongruent idea between people’s

expectation and what actually occurs in the conversation between the


98

interlocutors. This result is obtained by applying incongruity theory of humor

which sees humor as the outcome of two conflicting meanings. Second, the

humorous situations occur because some of the violations and the floutings of

conversational maxims contain the acts of being hostile to someone else;

especially by mocking or humiliating other’s inferiority. This result is obtained by

applying hostility theory of humor to the violations and floutings found in the

situation comedy. According to hostility theory of humor, humor is created when

there is a sudden glory as the expression when someone is being superior among

others. Third, the humorous situations occur because some violations and

floutings contain particular released emotions of the characters which elicit

laughter. This result is obtained by applying release theory of humor.


99

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Attardo, Salvatore. Linguistic Theory of Humor. Berlin and New York: Mouton de

Gruyter, 1994.

Benton, H. (ed.). The New Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropedia Knowledge in

Depth Volume 9. Chicago: William Benton Pub., 1983.

Chiaro, Delia. The Language of Jokes: Analysing verbal play. London and New

York: Routledge, 1992.

Cutting, Joan. Pragmatics and Discourse: A Resource Book for Students. London:

Routledge, 2002.

Fromkin, Victoria, Robert Rodman, and Nina Hyams. An Introduction to

Language: 7th

edition. Massachusetts: Thomson Corporation, 2003.

Holmes, Janet and Meredith Mara. “Over the edge? Subversive humor between

colleagues and friends”. Humor. Vol.15.No.1 (2002): pp. 65-87.

Jafari, Janin. “The Pragmatic Analysis of Wilde’s Comedy: The Importance of

Being Ernest”. Theory and Practice in Language Studies. Vol.3 No.12

(December 2013): pp. 2152-2156.

Kuipers, Giselinde. Good Humor, Bad Taste: A Sociology of the Joke. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyter, 2006.

Leech, Geoffrey. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman,

1983.

Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Morreall, John (ed.). The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. Albany: State

University of New York Press, 1987.

Palupi, Sri Retno. An Analysis of Humor Types and Grice’s Maxim in the

Situation Comedy Friends Episode of “The One with That Could Have

Been” (A Pragmatic Approach). Undergraduate thesis. Surakarta:

University of Sebelas Maret, 2006.

Savorelli, Antonio. Beyond Sitcom: New Directions in American Television

Comedy. New York: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2010.


100

Schwarz, Jeannine. Linguistic Aspects of Verbal Humor in Stand-up Comedy.

Dessertation. Saarbrücken: der Universität des Saarlandes, 2010.

Shade, Richard A. License to Laugh: Humor in the Classroom. New York:

Teacher Ideas Press, 1996

Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New

York: Routledge, 1995

Wood, Linda A. and Rolf O. Kroger. Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for

studying action in talk and text. California: Sage Publications, Inc., 2000.

Wu, Yu-wen and Yong Chen. “Humor Strategies in the American Sitcom

“Friends: An Empirical Study with Reference to Grice’s Cooperative

Principle” in [Department of English] Proceedings. Pingtung City:

National Pingtung University of Education, 2010.

Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.


101

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Violations of Conversational Maxims of Cooperative Principle

in a situation comedy entitled How I Met Your Mother

Data Code

Violations of Conversational Maxims

01/Vio/Quan/Rls

At the apartment, Robin arrives.

Ted and Marshall are still talking about Marshall’s

breaking up with Lily.

Robin Hey! So, did you hear the big news?

Ted

You mean how Lily and Marshall broke up and

Lily is gone and nothing else even remotely

important happened last night? Yeah, I think he

knows.

Robin Oh my god! I... I'm so sorry. What happened?

Marshall

Well, she left. And I don't even know if she's coming

back.

02/Vio/Quan/Inc

Still at the apartment, Robin, Ted, and Marshall are

still waiting for Barney when a few minutes later, he

finally arrives.

Robin Oh my god! I... I'm so sorry. What happened?

Marshall

Well, she left. And I don't even know if she's coming

back.

(Barney arrives.)

Barney I didn't get your message until I woke up. Bro, I am

so sorry.

Marshall Thanks

Barney

I know it must be tough. But are you ready to hear

something that will not only make you feel better but

will actively excite you?

Marshall Sure

Barney

For the first time ever, the three of us are single at

the same time. (Everyone looks confused)

I've dreamed about this day boys and it's going to

be legendary! Together, we will own this city. Any

time, a girl wants to get back at her ex-boyfriend,

we'll be there. Any time a girl wants to solve her

father issues through promiscuity and binge-

drinking, we will be there. Any time a


102

bachelorette party drives through the city in a

limo sticking their heads out, shouting "What's

up New York?" we will be what is up New York!

Gentlemen, we are about to embark on... (While

he's speaking, Barney looks at Ted and then at

Robin). Oh man, you guys did it, didn't you?!

03/Vio/Quan/Rls

Day twenty-two since Lily and Marshall broke up

and left the apartment.

At the apartment, Robin is going to the bathroom

only wearing a T-shirt while Marshall is wallowing

on the couch in underpants. Ted, in underpants too,

comes out of his room.

Ted Hey Marshall.

Marshall Hey Ted.

Ted Are you hungry?


gonna leave me.

Ted At least in that scenario, you get to do the dumping.

Come on, it's Sunday, it's pancakes day!

Marshall



shaped.


04/Vio/Quan/Rls

At MacLaren’s. Barney is taking Marshall out to

meet women for the first time since he was 17and

after he broke up with Lily.

Barney Hi. Have you met Marshall?

Woman Hi?

Marshall

Hi. Look how sweaty my hands are! It's weird,

right? Uh, sweat. Like this... Smelly water coming

out of your skin. It was nice meeting you.

The woman looks confused.

05/Vio/Quan/Inc

At the apartment. Robin comes and wants to tell Ted

about Lily’s getting back in town.

Ted OK, first of all, that is interesting. Second, we have

to tell him.

Robin


out with Barney. How do you think he'll feel when

he hears Lily's moved on?

Ted She's moved on?

Robin







103

06/Vio/Quan/Inc

Lily, Ted, and Robin in a snack-bar. Last night they

were at Robin’s until drunk. This morning, they go to

a snack-bar and order breakfast.


Lily Shhh! Bring me the dirtiest, greasiest tuna melt

you got; and a milkshake.


Ted Gravy


Ted Surprise me.

07/Vio/Quan/Inc

Lily, Ted, and Robin in a snack-bar. Last night they

were at Robin’s until drunk. This morning, they go to

a snack-bar and order breakfast.


Lily Shhh! Bring me the dirtiest, greasiest tuna melt you

got; and a milkshake.


Ted Gravy


Ted Surprise me.

08/Vio/Quan/Rls

The next morning at Ted’s apartment.

Ted You lucked out with my mom last night, huh? What

a relief, right?

Robin Oh, absolutely. Whew, what a relief it is to know

I'm the one girlfriend your mom doesn't want you

to have kids with.

Ted

(looked

confused)

Hooray?

09/Vio/Quan/Inc

At the apartment.

Robin just goes back from working.

Ted Hey.

Robin Hey.


Robin Good.


ask how my day was?




time.

Robin



reporter.

Lily and Robin hang out at the chiropodist's. Robin

just had her first fight with Ted.


104

10/Vio/Quan/Inc

Lily

Listening is the foundation of a relationship. And if

he's really droning on, you can always practice

saying the alphabet backwards. You know, in case

you get pulled over for a DUI.

Robin I guess I don't know how to do that.

Lily Yeah, it's really hard, even when you're sober. That's

what I tried to explain to the cop.

Robin

No, I mean, I guess I don't know how to do this

girlfriend thing. I've never been in a relationship this

serious before. I should probably go tell him I'm

sorry, shouldn't I?

You're trying to do it right now, aren't you?

11/Vio/Quan/Inc

At the party where Ted and the girl go to.

Girl So, I know the bouncer at this techno club, Posers.

Do you feel like dancing?

Ted

Hell, yeah. I love clubs. I mean, I was going to

design a cathedral tonight, kind of take a whack

at the whole relationship between God and man

conundrum. But sure, let's go dancing.

Girl

(looked

confused)

Yay!

12/Vio/Quan/Rls

In Ted’s office. Ted is working on his boss’ new

project when Robin comes and brings donuts.

Robin Hey.

Ted Hey. What are you doing here?

Robin I brought donuts. And I don't want to brag, but

they're filled with jelly.

13/Vio/Quan/Inc

.

After breaking up, Lily moved out from Marshall and

Ted’s apartment and found a new apartment.

That morning in Lily’s new apartment, Robin and

Ted come and visit her.

Ted Hey, is that a toilet in your kitchen?

Robin Or a stove in your bathroom?

Lily

Oh, that's not just a stove. That's a stovenkerator:

a combination of a stove, oven and sink and

refrigerator. Stovenkerator. Isn't that futuristic?

Ted God,I hope not.

14/Vio/Quan/Inc

Ted and Robin are at Ted’s apartment. Marshall

arrives from watching Alanis Morissette’s concert.



Robin Girly.


makes brunch girly?

Ted I don't know. There's nothing girly about a horse,


105

nothing girly about a horn, but put them together and

you get a unicorn.

Marshall I don't care what either of you say, I am going to the

Popover Pantry with Brad.

15/Vio/Qual/Inc

At MacLaren’s


smiling. Did you sleep with him? ‘Cause I was





Ted Well, congratulations. You're the first person to

cheer him up all summer. You win.

16/Vio/Rel/Rls

Ted, Robin, Marshall, Lily, and Barney are having

brunch with Ted’s parents. In the middle of it, Lily

and Marshall are having a quarrel about who

seduces who.




pants off.




17/Vio/Rel/Inc

In the kitchen, Robin wants to serve drinks for Ted

and his parents while she’s having a conversation

with Barney. Suddenly, Ted’s mother comes inside

offering help.

Ted's

mother

Can I help?

Barney Yes, you can, Virginia. (Barney is starring at the

broach on Ted’s mother’s cloth). There's a story

behind that broach, and I'm going to hear it.

Ted's

mother

Well, funny you should ask…

18/Vio/Man/Inc

At the girl’s apartment.

Robin Should I just kick the door in?

Lily

Those are really nice heels and you already lost

the purse. Let's see if it's unlocked. It's unlocked.

Okay, get in there and kick some spankable ass.

19/Vio/Man/Inc

Ted and Robin are at Ted’s apartment. Marshall

arrives from watching Alanis Morissette’s concert.



Robin Girly.


106


makes brunch girly?

Ted

I don't know. There's nothing girly about a horse,

nothing girly about a horn, but put them together

and you get a unicorn.

Marshall I don't care what either of you say, I am going to the

Popover Pantry with Brad.


107

Appendix 2: Floutings of Conversational Maxims of Cooperative Principle in

a situation comedy entitled How I Met Your Mother

Data Code

Flouting of Conversational Maxims

01/Flo/Quan/Rls

At MacLaren’s. Barney and Marshall hang out again.

Barney Have you chosen your entrée?

Marshall I have. A sweet brunette, eight o'clock. Nine o'clock.

Ten; thirty. She's walking to the bar.

Barney Her? Really? No, you're right. Ambition is the enemy of

success. OK, hit it.

Marshall (to

the girl)

Hey four-eyes. You got astigmatism or something?

I'm sorry, I was trying to be playful but I just got

out of a long relationship. I have no idea what I'm

doing! I'm Marshall.

Girl

Hi Marshall. Amy. Don't worry, I've been there. Hold

on.

02/Flo/Quan/Rls

At brunch, the next day.


Ted's mother Do you want to have my grandkids?

Robin No! I mean, I don't know. I just... I want you to want

me to want to have your grandkids. And you should.

I'm a genetic gold mine. No family history of

diabetes or heart disease. Everyone has nonporous

teeth and perfect eyesight. I had one schizophrenic

uncle but even he had perfect vision. Which was

unfortunate for the people around the bell tower he

was in, but still he was a very fine man, and...

Ted's mother Robin, it's not that I don't want grandkids. It's just I

don't think anyone should make the mistake of getting

married too young.

03/Flo/Qual/Hos

At the apartment.


Ted Hey.

Robin Hey.


Robin Good.


how my day was?

Robin No, I know how it was. It was awful. Ooh, you want to


108



time.

Robin



reporter.

04/Flo/Rel/Rls

Ted’s son and daughter are sitting on a sofa in front of

Ted. They are listening to Ted’s story of how he met

their mother. Apparently, it takes them too long.



Ted’s

daughter

Can't you just skip ahead to the part where you meet

Mom? I feel you've been talking for like a year.

Ted Honey, all this stuff I'm telling you is important. It's all

part of the story.


Ted No.

05/Flo/Rel/Inc

Day thirty-one since Lily and Marshall broke up and

left the apartment.

Ted, Robin and Barney are at MacLaren's; the bar

when Ted and his best friends usually hang out.

Ted

It's only been a month. He just needs to goat his own

pace. Anyway, lily is the one who caused this whole

mess.

Robin Hey, cut her some slack! She's our friend too. She's just

trying to figure out who she is.

Ted Figure out who she is? She should call me. I got a

whole list. She's selfish, she's immature, she's...

Robin What?

Ted God, your eyes are so blue…

They kiss; Barney mimes his death with a sword. Ted

and Robin look at him and keep kissing.

06/Flo/Rel/Inc

At MacLaren’s, Ted and Robin are talking at the bar

table.

Ted I'll tell what you win. I'm taking you away this

weekend.

Robin You are? That's so nice!

Ted My aunt and uncle have a beach house at Montauk. It's

really romantic. My uncle had, like, three affairs there.

Robin Wow, it must be a nice house. I saw pictures of your

uncle. This is so great.


109

07/Flo/Rel/Inc

The previous day, at the apartment. As a 30th

anniversary gift, I had flown my parents to New York

for the weekend.

Ted's mother Oh, I forgot to tell you, your cousin Jimmy had a

wonderful time at that spa he visited.

Ted You mean the spa the judge ordered him to go to to quit

cocaine?

Ted's mother Coffee?

08/Flo/Rel/Inc

At the apartment. Lily appears to the living room,

followed by Marshall, from the room where they used to

live together. Lily brings with her a box full of her

stuffs.

Lily Hi, Mr. and Mrs. Mosby.

Marshall Good to see you.

Lily I was just stopping by to pick up some of my things.

Ted's mother Yes, we were so sorry to hear about your... You know,

the, the... Well...

Marshall Lily calling off the wedding and dumping me?

Lily Me begging Marshall to take me back and him rejecting

me?

Ted's mother I love your hair.

09/Flo/Rel/Inc

At the apartment.


Ted Hey.

Robin Hey.


Robin Good.


how my day was?

Robin

No, I know how it was. It was awful. Ooh, you want to


10/Flo/Man/Rls

Ted’s son and daughter are sitting on a sofa in front of

Ted. They are listening to Ted’s story of how he met

their mother. Apparently, it takes them too long.



Ted’s

daughter

Can't you just skip ahead to the part where you meet

Mom? I feel you've been talking for like a year.

Ted Honey, all this stuff I'm telling you is important. It's all


110

part of the story.


Ted No.

11/Flo/Man/Rls

At the apartment, Robin is going to the bathroom only

wearing a T-shirt while Marshall is wallowing on the

couch in underpants. Ted, in underpants too, comes out

of his room.

Ted Hey Marshall.

Marshall Hey Ted.

Ted Are you hungry?


gonna leave me.

Ted At least in that scenario, you get to do the dumping.

Come on, it's Sunday, it's pancakes day!

Marshall Lily always made the pancakes. God, I loved her

pancakes. So soft. So warmed. So perfectly shaped.


12/Flo/Man/Inc

At MacLaren's.

Robin

This has to stop! Ted, we just started dating. We agreed

we don't wanna move too fast and yet somehow we

have a baby. He can't feed himself, he cries a lot; he

keeps us up all night...

Barney Have you tried breast-feeding? Nailed it!

Ted

They were together nine years. It's only been a month

and a half. He just needs to go his own pace.

13/Flo/Man/Inc

At the apartment.

Marshall is trying to look at Lily’s account. Ted, Robin,

and Barney are trying to tell him not to.

Marshall OK, you know what? I'm calling her.

Ted

No! You're not calling her. This changes nothing. (To

Barney) You, come here. (Barney and Robin follow Ted

in the kitchen). While we're away this weekend can you

keep an eye on him? Make sure he doesn't call her

hotel.

Barney

You want me to baby-sit him? 20 bucks. An hour.

And money for pizza.

Flouting of Manner

Ted

Um yeah. How about you do it for free or every time we

hang out you have to watch this. (To Robin) Come here

my little baby. (Ted and Robin are making out).


111

14/Flo/Man/Inc

In a strip-club, Barney gets a call from Ted.

Barney Barney.


Barney

We're at a fundraiser helping young women raise

money for college.


15/Flo/Man/Inc

Robin, Ted, Marshall, and Barney are at MacLaren’s at

usual. Robin is leaving and going back to her

apartment.

Barney You just checked out Robin's ass.

Marshall What? No. I... Barney, I was...

Barney Dude, that's awesome! You're finally forgetting

about that short redhead.

Marshall Lily.

Barney

Yes, Lily, thank you. That was gonna drive me crazy all

night.

16/Flo/Man/Hos

At the apartment; the next morning after Ted, Robin,

Marshall, Lily, and Barney are having dinner at “Casa

a Pezzi”.

Marshall Lily is evil! She just wore that dress to torture me. Well,

you know what? Two can play at that game. See, at

brunch, I'm going to torture Lily right back. Yeah.

There's a part of my body that she's got a weakness for,

too.





Marshall Well, yeah, I'd say that, too, if I had those skinny

little chicken legs.


17/Flo/Man/Hos

In the kitchen.

Robin What's the matter with you? I'm his girlfriend, and I'm

not even trying that hard. Way to wreck the curve, kiss-

ass.

Barney Robin, I'm his best friend. That's a commitment.

Girlfriend? That's like a bad flu. Out of your system

after a couple weeks in bed.

18/Flo/Man/Inc

Back at the present at the chiropodist’s.

Lily (showing Robin!


112

her shock

expression)

Robin What? I knew exactly what he was going to say. I was

just helping him get there faster.

Lily You should work at a suicide hotline.

Robin Looking at Lily and smiling

19/Flo/Man/Rls

He shows Robin his own idea of a building he has been

working on.

Robin Wow. Ted, this is amazing.

Ted Thanks. It's not like it will ever come to anything.

Robin I don't know. It might come to something. You know,

girls find architects very hot. (They kiss)

Ted Okay, but I don't want you expecting 78 stories or

anything. (They kiss again)

20/Flo/Man/Inc

Ted, Barney, and Robin are at MacLaren’s. They are

discussing about Lily, her new apartment, and a

raccoon which lives with her.

Ted Okay, we have to get Lily out of that apartment. Her

roommate is a raccoon.

Robin I'd offer her my place, but I've got dogs and she's

allergic.

Ted Dogs? I live with her ex-boyfriend. I think she's a

little more allergic to that.

21/Flo/Man/Hos

At a restaurant, Marshall comes and wants to have a

brunch, alone.

Marshall Table for one.

Head waiter One... Couple?

Marshall Um, no, just me.

Head waiter Really? For brunch?

Marshall You're right. Who am I kidding? (goes back to the

apartment)

22/Flo/Man/Rls

At Barney’s apartment.

Lily is allowed to move in with Barney for two weeks.

One morning, Lily cooks breakfast for both Barney and

herself.

Barney Lily, what was the first rule again?

Lily "Don't change anything"?

Barney Exactly! There was only one rule and you broke it.

Lily I bought groceries. That counts as changing something?

Barney

Lily, if I wanted a fridge full of groceries or fresh

coffee in the morning, I'd be in a relationship. But I

don't want to be in a relationship. That's why I make

it crystal-clear to every girl that walks through that

door that this is not a place to leave a toothbrush.

This is not a place to leave a contact lens case. This is

a place to leave.


plagiat merupakan tindakan tidak terpuji yang non-kooperatif antara lawan bicara sebagai hasil dari...

Documents