VERBAL HUMOR IN LOUIS C.K. S STAND-UP COMEDY CONCERT OH MY GOD : THE PRAGMATIC STRATEGIES

Transcription

1 PAGE OF TITTLE VERBAL HUMOR IN LOUIS C.K. S STAND-UP COMEDY CONCERT OH MY GOD : THE PRAGMATIC STRATEGIES A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra (S.S.) By: Uda Makiyya Syauqillah C ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM FACULTY OF HUMANITIES DIAN NUSWANTORO UNIVERSITY SEMARANG 2016

2 DECLARATION OF NON-PLAGIARISM ii

3 STATEMENT OF PUBLICATION iii

4 ADVISOR APPROVAL iv

5 PAGE OF APPROVAL v

6 MOTTO When you are disappointed by your life, just bear in mind that life sucks so bad, so you can just suck it up. - Uda Makiyya Syauqillah vi

7 DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to: - Buya vii

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT At the valuable moment, I would like to say gratitude to Allah SWT who always blesses me during the process of writing this thesis. I would like to say gratitude to the people who always give me support to complete this thesis: 1. Dr. Ir. Dwi Eko Waluyo, M.M., Dean of Faculty of Humanities of Dian Nuswanotro 2. Dr. Drs. Jumanto, M.Pd., head of English Department, Faculty of Humanities of Dian Nuswantoro University. 3. Nina Setyaningsih, M.Hum., as my advisor for her guidance and advice all the time since this research started until finished with a wholeheartedly patience within my sloppiness and my mistake that I did on the process of writing this thesis. 4. All the lecturers at the English Department of Dian Nuswantoro University for teaching me on the hard skill of the English study and soft skill that I cannot mention one-by-one. 5. My parents who have supported me since I started to study in this university and my brothers and sister who also support me to afford all the things that I cannot do by myself. 6. My beloved girlfriend, Tiyas Ayu Puspa Dewi, who always supports me whenever I am and whatever I do. I could not do everything that I have achieved without you behind my back. 7. All my best friends who always support me, Tommy, Angga, Lidia, Bagus, Qois, and Messi Ratih. Thank for all the laughter that prevents me from getting crazy. 8. All the UDC members, Mbak Elve, Mas Angga, Jeffrey, Aga, Reynald, Vega, and everyone who have shared anger, smile, stress, and everything since I joined parliament debate. I owe so much from you guys. Without you, I will have less achievement during my time in the college. viii

9 ix

10 TABLE OF CONTENT PAGE OF TITTLE... i DECLARATION OF NON-PLAGIARISM... ii STATEMENT OF PUBLICATION... iii ADVISOR APPROVAL...iv PAGE OF APPROVAL... v MOTTO...vi DEDICATION... vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT... viii TABLE OF CONTENT... x LIST OF FIGURE... xii LIST OF TABLE... xiii LIST OF APPENDIX... xiv ABSTRACT... xv CHAPTER Background Statement of the Problem Objectives of the Study Scope of the Study Significant of the Study Thesis organization... 4 CHAPTER Previous Studies Humor Theories Incongruity Theories Superiority Theories Semantic Script Theory of Humor Script Overlapping Oppositeness The Doctor s Wife Joke General Theory of Verbal Humor Script Opposition (SO) x

11 2.4.2 Logical Mechanism (LM) (SI) (TA) Narrative Strategy (NS) (LA) Gricean Maxim Maxim of Quantity Maxim of quality Maxim of Relation Maxim of Manner Function of the Joke CHAPTER RESEARCH METHOD Research Design Unit of Analysis Source of the Data Technique of Data Collection Technique of Data Analysis CHAPTER Pragmatic Strategies in Louis C.K. s Oh My God Maxim of Quality Violation Maxim of Quantity Violation Maxim of Relevance Maxim of Manner Function of the joke Louis C.K. s Own Life Louis C.K. s Thought to Other Thing CHAPTER Conclusion Suggestion BIBLIOGRAPY APPENDICES xi

12 LIST OF FIGURE Figure 2.1 Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge Resources Figure 2.2 List of known LMs xii

13 LIST OF TABLE Table 4.1 Knowledge Resources of Louis C.K. s Oh My God xiii

14 LIST OF APPENDIX Appendix 1 Knowledge Resources Analysis xiv

15 ABSTRACT Uda Makiyya Syauqillah Verbal Humor in Louis C.K. s Stand-Up Comedy Concert Oh My God : The Pragmatic Strategies. English Study Program, Dian Nuswantoro University. Advisor: Nina Setyaningsih, M.Hum, Keywords: Pragmatics, Stand-up Comedy, GTVH, Knowledge Resource, Cooperative Principle This thesis is entitled Verbal Humor in Louis C.K. s Stand-up Comedy Concert Oh My God : The Pragmatic Strategies. This study is aimed at analyzing the pragmatic strategies and function of the stand-up comedy concert Oh My God. The researcher used descriptive qualitative to analyze the data and used framework from Raskin and Attardo (1992) of General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) and Grice s (1975) maxim of cooperative principle. Based on the analysis, the researcher found the script oppositeness always appears in every jokes. The logical mechanisms that are mostly used is faulty reasoning and exaggeration (15). The situations which have joke inside are 17 topics. The target which is mostly used in the whole joke is other people (29). The narrative strategy of the joke mostly uses description (34) and the language of the joke is mostly maxim of quantity violation (18). It can be concluded that joke from Oh My God Louis C.K. exaggerates and gives the faulty reason on the message to the audience to creates laughter. The researcher also found that the joke is a form of giving a narrative to the audiences to understand the reality that people face in another point of view. xv

16 CHAPTER 1 INTODUCTION 1.1 Background In society, people communicate with the other to deliver message one to another. In conducting communication, people use language as the media to deliver the message. This media can be used through two ways either directly or indirectly. Direct way means no mediator is used between the users, it is usually called spoken language. Spoken language is also means of form of communication which is produced by human voice and released through the mouth to produce a series of word arranged systematically, called utterance. The common example of spoken language is conversation between people. While the indirect communication is a communication which comes through the other communication bridge called communication device. This kind of communication usually called written language. Several examples, not limited to, to interpret the device is, letter, newspaper, and short message service (SMS). The representation of those direct and indirect phenomenon can be seen from an activity called public speaking. Public speaking as literally viewed can be divided onto two words, public and speaking. Public means in mass and which deals with a lot of people while speaking means talk or say about something and as one of communication method. Thus, public-speaking is generally described as communication between one person to people other in mass scale. Public speaking is now become necessity because it is one of an effective ways to share idea to a massive scale of people. There are many situations which use public speaking as the media of communication such as presidential speech and sermon of some religions. However, public speaking is not only limited to formal occasion, but also informal ones such as a stand-up comedy performance. 1

17 2 Stand-up comedy is the term for special genre of comedy in which a performer who is called stand-up comedian stands on the stage and speaks directly to the audiences. What makes stand-up comedy different from other public speaking is this individual intends to deliver jokes to the audiences. Standup comedy is already famous since the Renaissance era where it was performed by the clown to entertain the king (Schwarz, 2010). However, the essence of standup comedy is few to entertain among people not limited to certain people. The stand-up comedian makes jokes in front of the audiences to amuse the audiences. Raskin (1994) states the joke carrying text should be opposed to the other script. Moreover, because of the opposing script that Raskin has stated, the joke mostly violates Grice s maxim. The maxim violations are caused by the opposing script which is intentionally made by the comedian to make the joke work. This violation of maxim is caused by the untrue statement which is delivered to the audiences in the performance. Nonetheless, joke involves fantasies, hyperbole, fiction, etc. which the audiences know the intention of the performer. To make clearer understanding of the research, here is an instance of the data: I live in New York. I always like, there's this old lady in my neighborhood, and she's always walking her dog. She's always just she's very old. She just stands there just being old, and the dog just fights gravity every day, just The two of them, it's really The dog's got a cloudy eye, and she's got a cloudy eye, and they just stand there looking at the street In two dimensions together, and and she's always wearing, like, this old sweater dress. I guess it was a sweater when she was, like, 5'10", but now it's just, like, this sweater and her legs are her legs are awful. I saw a guy with no legs wheeling by, and he was like, "yecch, no thank you. I do not want those. I'd rather just have air down here like I have than to look down at that shit. (Louis C.K. Oh My God) On the excerpt above, there is a figurative language which is used by the Louis C.K. in delivering the joke to the audiences. Louis C.K. uses hyperbole as the figurative language to create laughter from the audiences whereas hyperbole is

18 3 not a proper language to use in delivering a message. The way Louis C.K. delivers the message to the audiences is violating Grice s maxim. The audiences who receive unusual description of a leg, somehow, laugh as the reaction. Figurative language is one of many ways to deliver the joke on the stand-up comedy performance. On the other hand, stand-up comedy performance is not merely about amusing the audiences with the joke, but it has other functions. Furthermore, stand-up comedy performance can be categorized into two. Firstly, stand-up comedy gigs routine. This category means the stand-up comedian is invited by some corporation to entertain and amuse the audiences. In gigs routine, the stand-up comedians, mostly, do not have a general topic that the comedian focuses. They prefer to deliver the funniest material of theirs. Secondly, stand-up comedy concert. In this category, the stand-up comedians mostly initiate to conduct their own routine. Usually, the stand-up comedians deliver their jokes in a big topic. Moreover, the stand-up comedians differ the joke from their routine gigs with the concert, so the concert can be felt more personal than corporate gigs routine. The example of stand-up concert is one performed by Louis C.K. as can be seen above. Having seen the comedy performance phenomenon by Louis C.K., the researcher is interested in analyzing the phenomenon that occurs in the stand-up comedy concert. The research focuses on the characteristics of the jokes which are delivered by Louis C.K. on his stand-up comedy concert Oh My God. Hence, this research analyzes the utterance of the performer. Moreover, this research also analyzes the function of the joke in the concert. The analysis of the function of the joke will be taken from the whole joke delivered by Louis C.K. 1.2 Statement of the Problem Based on the phenomenon described above, the researcher analyzes the utterance based on the theory of verbal humor and cooperative principle. Thus, the statements of problems are:

19 4 1. What are the pragmatic strategies used in Louis C.K. s stand-up comedy concert entitled Oh My God? 2. What are the functions of the joke in Louis C.K. s stand-up comedy concert entitled Oh My God? 1.3 Objectives of the Study In line with the statement of the problem, the object of the study will be: 1. To investigate the pragmatic strategies in Louis C.K. s stand-up comedy concert entitled Oh My God 2. To investigate the functions of the joke in Louis C.K. s stand-up comedy concert entitled Oh My God 1.4 Scope of the Study The research focuses on the Grice s maxim violation on Louis C.K. s joke and is based on the General Theory of Verbal Humors (GTVH). The researcher limits the study only on the verbal joke excluding the performance aspects such as gesture, tone, etc. 1.5 Significant of the Study This research is expected to be useful for the researcher and the reader in general. However the researcher also expects that this research becomes: 1. Contribution to the writer in discovering and analyzing the joke, in general, and especially GTVH analysis 2. One of the bases or references for the students and develop more by the student in general, especially student of English Department of Dian Nuswantoro Semarang. 1.6 Thesis organization In order to present this thesis systematically in accordance to writing principle and to make it easy for the readers to understand the content of the thesis, it is presented in five chapters with the following organization.

20 5 The first chapter is introduction. It consists of background of the study, statements of the problems, scope of the study, objective of the study, significant of the study, and thesis organization. The second chapter is review of related literature. This chapter is arranged to support and direct the researcher in analyzing the data of the problem. The third chapter is research method that begins with the method used in this chapter. This chapter contains five sub chapters: research design, unit of analysis, source of data, technique of data collection, and technique of data analysis. The fourth chapter is data analysis. It presents research finding and discussion. The last chapter is the conclusion. It also presents suggestion from the researcher related to the subject being analyzed.

21 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter provides the previous studies and related literature which are used in this thesis. The related literatures which will be explained in this chapter are Humor Theories, General Theory of Verbal Humor, Gricean Maxim, and Function of the joke. 2.1 Previous Studies The previous studies related to humor study have been done by some researchers. Ghafourisaleh & Modarresi (2013) conduct a research on the humor study. That research analyzes Persian joke to prove whether the GTVH approach from Attardo is applicable into other joke than English. The research is conducted by analyzing one hundred of Persian jokes taken from the websites. The result of the research shows that GTVH is appropriate for analyzing Persian jokes. On another study of humor, Lamuño (2014) conducts the research from some scenes of the situation comedy The Big Bang Theory. The theory also used GTVH as the approach for the data. The data of the research are from three chosen scenes of the sitcom. The episodes are chosen randomly. The main goal of the study is to analyze the humorous texts according to the GTVH and provide how the opposing script that makes the text funny could be given to the audiences. The result of this study is the hypothesis succeeded to analyze the linguistic humor of some texts from the sitcom and concluded that it is possible for the viewer to be the one adding the opposing script to some of the humorous dialogue. This research, moreover, has different aims from those two previous studies. This study uses stand-up comedy performance which is only limited to the utterance of the performer without considering the gesture, tone, etc. Compare to the previous studies, this research is an attempt to analyze the GTVH and maxim violation as the linguistic parameter of the joke. 6

22 7 2.2 Humor Theories The study of humor through linguistic lens has only recently been formalized into semantic theory, the study of humor, from philosophical standpoint at least, was a point of interest as long ago as ancient Greece when Plato mused about what sort of forces caused the effect known as humor. As is widely known, theories of humor are traditionally divided into three branches: 1) Incongruity Theories 2) Superiority Theories 3) Released Theories This classification will be elaborated briefly on the following section The humor theories are not the standpoint of the theory. There are some theories to help the analysis of humor. On 1985 Raskin propose a theory as the approach for the humor itself, which also become the basis of the next generation of humor approach, called as Semantic Script Theory of Humor. Moreover, Raskin made the revised and developed approach with Attardo in 1994 as known as General Theory of Verbal Humor. The theories from Raskin will be elaborated later on Incongruity Theories The term incongruity theory refers to a group of philosophical account of humor that posits the perception of incongruity as the source of amusement. Though, the incongruity theory is not entirely flawless. This theory acts as the most prominent account of amusement in the recent discussion of humor theory. Incongruity theory works in two ways. First, it explains why people react laughter in very wide range. In other word, this theory explains why people acknowledge certain situations are funny. Second, it provides an explanation of what makes a situation itself is funny. This explanatory versatility is an attractive feature of incongruity theory (Straus, 2014:7). Straus also stated that the first way is the most important thing from the incongruity theory itself.

23 8 On the other hand, incongruity theory is not always working as the form of amusement. Morrel on Lamuño (2014) stated that incongruity theory is an intellectual reaction to something that is unexpected, illogical, or inappropriate in some other way. (Lamuño, 2014:15). Moreover, the laughter cannot been produced by the incongruity, per se. Humor may be perceive as funny because of the individual finds funny. Due to vary of individual differences such as culture, beliefs, time, experience, etc. they cannot perceive the humor as funny, universally Superiority Theories Superiority theory is the form of laughter in the different perspective of the incongruity theory. If the incongruity theory says that humor is the intellectual reaction to something that is unexpected, illogical, or inappropriate, superiority theory is the expression people s superiorities of others. The superiority says the comical perceived as inferior and our laughter is an expression of the sudden realization of our superiority (Kulka, 2007:320). The laughter as the expression of the superiority is because of the sudden glory that coming from the conception of the superiority compared to the others. Hassaine (2014) argued that laughter is generated by humiliating and laughing at the misfortunes of others to reflect ones superiority. It can be concluded that humor is to be pointed against some person, of group, typically on political, ethnic or gender ground (Krikmann, 2006:27) Released Theories Raskin (as cited in Jakoaho, 2012) report that the basic principle of this theory is the cause of the release of tension and anxiety. The use of is relatively common in certain communicative situation. For instance, humor used at the beginning of communicative event in order to defuse potentially anxious situation. According to Marin-Aresse (2002) humor and laughter are relief mechanism that occur to dispel the tension that is associated with hostility, anxiety, conflict, or sexuality. This theory is focused mainly on the recipient of the humor. The

24 9 release tension from the recipient of the joke as the expression from the recipient is the psychological effects humor allegedly brings bring about the recipient. Morreal on Lamuño (2014) taboos such as sex, and violence trigger humor when they are broken because, according to this theory, all the repression that they have caused on people is released and result is laughter. 2.3 Semantic Script Theory of Humor Semantic Script Theory of Humor (later will be mentioned as SSTH) is the theory of humor approach which proposed by Raskin (1985). This approach becomes based of the most humor approach in linguistics. This theory reveals the structure of the joke-carrying text should satisfy following condition, as stated by Raskin on Abdalian (2005): 1) The text is compatible, fully or in part, with two different scripts 2) The two scripts with which text the text is compatible are opposite ( ). The two scripts with which some text is compatible are said to overlap fully or in part in this text. These two conditions are both necessary and sufficient to establish a text as containing a joke. The first condition means that the joke is described as consisting of an initial part which can be subject to two possible interpretations. Tor the listeners one of these two interpretation seems more to be obvious than the second one, which first passes completely unnoticed. In a quite sudden and surprising way, the last part of the joke brings this second possibility of interpretation closer to the listener s consciousness. The second condition reveals that contrast plays central role; Raskin stated that two scripts must be opposed. The brief explanation about script, overlap, and oppositeness will be conducted on the sections as follows Script Raskin s theoretical mechanism for analyzing incongruity is the use of script. He has explain the script as an organized complex of information about some entity in a broadest sense. The sense of script could be an object (real or imagery),

25 10 an event, an action, a quality, etc. each script is a recognizable or typival narrative whose whole is implied by its beginning. Most definition of script agree that it contains information which is prototypical of the entity being describe, such as well-established routine and common ways to do things and to go about activities. At the simplest level, a script is equivalent to the lexical meaning of a word. Clearly, this issue is complex, but it does provide evidence for the falsifiability of the concept of script, and hence deserve particular attention. Essentially, one can never know that a given script is complete, since the next sentence one processes may include a new bit of information that was previously unavailable to one. It is simple to imagine a dynamic system which updates its knowledge banks whenever it encounters a bit of transformation it was not aware of (and which is consistent with its prior knowledge). While this may seem to be problematic, since it is tantamount to claiming that script are open-ended, in fact it is evidence of the falsifiability of the concept. Basically, we can consider a script as a hypothesis on semantic content of a given lexeme which is disproved if a bit of information not included in the script surfaces Overlapping During the process of combining scripts, the semantic theory will occasionally encounter stretches of text that are compatible with more than one reading i.e., would fit more than one script; for instance, imagine a text describing someone getting up, fixing breakfast, leaving the house, etc. These events could fit the script for go to work but also for go on a fishing trip. Hence the stretch of text would be compatible with one or the other script. It should be noted that the overlap between two scripts may be partial or total. If the overlap is total, the text in its entirety is compatible with both scripts; if the overlap is partial, some part of the text, or some detail, will not be compatible with one or other script.

26 11 Raskin also introduce the script-switch trigger, i.e., the element of the text that causes passage from the first to the second script actualized in the text. Script switch trigger are a fairly straightforward mechanism that prompt the listener to consider the scripts other than the one he or she first had Oppositeness The overlapping of two scripts is not necessarily a cause humor per se. ambiguous, metaphorical, figurative, allegorical, mythical, allusive and obscure text present overlapping scripts, but they are not necessarily (if at all) funny. This is because the second necessary and sufficient condition in the SSTH is not fulfilled in these non-humorous texts. The second condition of the SSTH calls for the script that overlaps in the text to be opposed in a technical sense, to which we presently turn. Most nebulous is the particular type of script that are opposed to one another. Raskin (1985) initially describe this opposition by simply taking a main element from the first script and one form second script and describe that as an opposition. His framework consists of three types of real vs. not real opposition as in: a) Actual vs. not actual b) Expected vs. not expected c) Plausible (or possible) vs. implausible (or imposible) The idea of a third level of abstraction in oppositions has merged (Di Maio 2000): essentially, each humorous text would instantiate a concrete opposition, besides the other side two levels, an intermediate one, such as SEX/NO SEX and a very abstract one, corresponig to the three Script Oppositeness s listed by Raskin. If a text is compatible fully or in part with two scripts, and the two scripts happen to be opposed to each other, then, and only then, will the text classified as funny by SSTH. Ideally, the SSTH s prediction will match the speakers and the theory will be confirmed.

27 The Doctor s Wife Joke Raskin has provided his theory with his one famous example to explain how SSTH work. The example is famous as Doctor s wife joke. To make better explanation, the researcher puts the joke as below: Is the doctor at home? the patient asked in his bronchial whisper. No, the doctor s young pretty wife whispered in reply. Come right in (Raskin, 1985) The first step of analysis of the joke is the script, whether the script overlaps or not. In this joke, the script overlaps because on the first utterance that the joke talks about is asking about the present of the doctor in home. On the other hand, the reply from the wife is known as the second script because it replies the question from the patient. On that logic, the joke has two script which overlaps into each other. Second logic to analyze SSTH is the oppositeness of two script. The oppositeness of the scripts is not merely on the explicit meaning of the joke, but more on implicit meaning. On the first script, the hearer assumes that the person who throws the question is a person who is ill and wants to be treated from the illness. However on the second script, the wife answers the question which is not as the hearer expects. The wife answers the patient that the doctor is not home so he can come right away. The second script is implicitly opposing the first script that the patient should be treated form the illness, while the second script portrays that the patient and the doctor s wife are lovers. Based on that excerpt, we can conclude how the SSTH works with the overlapping and oppositeness. 2.4 General Theory of Verbal Humor General theory of Verbal humor (GTVH) is the revised and developed theory of Raskin s SSTH. This theory has more specific approach to the humor, specifically verbal humor. SSTH hypothesis reveals that the joke carrying text is when it has overlapping script oppositeness, GTVH has expanded the description of it. GTVH also originated from five level-model of Attardo (1989) which completed into six dimensions which also incorporates which the script oppositeness from SSTH as

28 13 the most important of these dimensions called as Knowledge Resources (KRs) (Raskin, Hempelmann, & Taylor, 2009). Knowledge resources have hierarchy to create a joke text. Script Oppositeness Logical Mechanism Narrative Strategy Figure 2.1 Hierarchical Organization of Knowledge Resources This hierarchy of the joke presents itself as a mechanism capable of generating infinite number of jokes by combining the various values that each parameter can take. Various consideration of interdependence and/or independence among the knowledge resources have allowed the determination of the hierarchical organization. The KRs will be elaborated as the following section Script Opposition (SO) This KRs deals with the script oppositeness which resented on SSTH by Raskin. It should be noted that SO is the most abstract of all KRs. However, this is, still, the most important aspect of the KRs because the humor can be reflected because the oppositeness of the script. This script is, basically, relay on the main hypothesis from Raskin (1985) that joke should overlaps and/or opposites the other script partially or fully. Excerpt:

29 14 How many pole does it take to screw a light bulb? Five. One to take his shoe of, get on the table, and screw in the light bulb and four to wave the air deodorant to kill his foot odor (Raskin, 1992:90). In this excerpt, the joke satisfies the main hypothesis from Raskin about joke. This joke has two scripts that overlap. The first script, the joke is questioning the number of pole needed to screw a light bulb. The second script, the joke is partially overlap because the second script is answering the first script Logical Mechanism (LM) The idea is that the LM of a joke embodies the logic of that particular joke. Not every joke has to have its own specific alien form of logic, so the LM is an optional parameter in the GTVH. Role-reversals Role exchanges Potency mappings Vacuous reversal Juxtaposition Chiasmus Garden-path Figure-ground reversal Faulty reasoning Almost situations Analogy Self-undermining Inferring consequences Reason From false premise Missing link Coincidence Parallelism Implicit parallel Proportion Ignoring the obvious False analogy Exaggeration Field restriction Cratylism Meta-humor Vicious circle Referential ambiguity Figure 2.2 List of known LMs Most recently work on this KR has yielded a significant analysis of a corpus which results in a lists of some 20 different types of LMs. Finally, Attardo et al. have proposed a formal model of some LMs and claim that, for those LMs that can be modeled using the theory or partially ordered sets and theory of graphs, there is general mapping function which introduces spurious similarities between elements in the script involved.

30 15 Excerpt: How many pole does it take to screw in a light bulb. Five. One to hold the light bulb and four to look for the right screwdriver. In this excerpt, the joke teller uses the faulty reason as the logical mechanism to make the laughter. Faulty reason is using wrong statement to make a point. On the punch-line of the joke, the joke teller give the reason why need five poles to screw in a light bulb, but the reason is not good acceptable in the logic (SI) Basically, a joke must have some situation to be explain thus the joke can be transferred better into the audiences. Roughly, SI can refer to the place, the participants, and the background where the joke happens. Excerpt: Can you write shorthand? Yes, but it takes me longer (Attardo & Raskin, 2001:24) In this excerpt, the joke presupposes is on the stenography. It takes the situation of the joke that the writing in shorter way, but the second script makes the situation about the matter of speed of writing (TA) This is also known as the butt of the joke. Stated by Attardo that a joke is somehow has person or object that directed as the target. This is also, in some circumstances, the reason of the superiority theory is satisfied. Excerpt: How many Irishmen does it take to screw in a light bulb? Five. One to hold the light bulb and four to the table he s standing on. (Raskin, 1992:90)

31 16 On this excerpt, the target of the joke is Irishmen. From the joke, the hearer would interpret the Irishmen as a stupid people because they even need four people to hold for one person screwing in the light bulb Narrative Strategy (NS) The information in this KR accounts that any joke has to be cast in some form of narrative organization, either as a simple narrative, as dialogue, or combination of two ways. This KR also known as the genre of the joke. It takes five poles to screw in a light bulb: one to hold the light bulb and four to turn the table he s standing on (Raskin, 1992:90). On the excerpt above the joke is presented in a narrative way. This strategy is mostly used in the stand-up comedy performance (LA) This KRs contains all the information necessary for the verbalization of a text. It is responsible for exact wording of the text and for the placement of the functional elements that constitute it. This KR gives the information for the verbalization of a text and determines how it should be said in order to be functional; for example a joke like How many pole does it takes to screw the light bulb? Five, one to hold light bulb and four to turn the table Can be paraphrased as The number of Pollacks needed to screw in a light bulb? Five one to hold the bulb and four to turn the table. (Raskin, 1992:90) In this KR, the exact wording of the punch line is extremely important because it is necessary for the linguistic element to be ambiguous and to connect the two opposed sense in the text.

32 17 The GTVH presents itself as a mechanism capable of generating an infinite number of joke combining the various values that each parameter can take. It should be noted that these values are not binary. The value of LM and SO seems to be limited in number, while the possibilities for the SI and LA are much more numerous. Descriptively, to analyze joke by the GTVH consists of listing the values of six KRs (with the caveat that TA and LM may be empty). As we will see, this technique will be applied to punch lines, where it was originally developed, but also to any humorous instance within the text (jab line) (Attardo & Raskin, 2001). 2.5 Gricean Maxim On the recent study of humor, Raskin stated that humor as the non-bona fide (NBF) communication which also the most cooperative communication (Raskin, 1992). When hard-pressed for real-life example of Grice s true bona-fide (BF) mode of communication, one realizes that BF is often lighten up by brief humorous diversions. Unlike BF mode of communication, humor is most committed to the truth of what it said. Jokes involve fictions, fantasies, hyperbole, etc. Nevertheless, humor is a very cooperative mode of communication, and it is used for productive and efficient discourse when both sides, the speaker and the hearer operate in the same mode. Grice argued that the information given by the speaker should be mattered as the cooperative principle where the cooperation between the speaker and the hearer are mutual. This argument led to the cooperative principle which consisted four maxim proposed by Grice (1975). These maxim are maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relation, and maxim of manner. Grice (as cited in Jafari, 2013) argues that people basically try to cooperate to convey their intention on construct meaningful conversation. In intention to make the clearer explanation of semantic maxim of Grice the following section would explain each maxim Maxim of Quantity In this maxim the speaker supposed to speak as informative as required. The speaker should not giving too much information nor giving too little information.

33 18 Example: A: Excuse me, where is the police station? B: Actually, there are three police stations in our city, but the nearest police station is over there. (Pointing that direction which is opposite of the road) C: It s over there, opposite of the road. (Shuwei, 2014:17) The example above violates the cooperative principle of maxim quantity. The violation of maxim quantity is because (B) answers the question with more information than (A) needs. This is not a good way to communicate with other when the answer has broader spectrum that not really need to be mentioned Maxim of quality In this maxim the speaker is supposed to speak the truth and provide adequate evidence toward the information that given. This maxim tells that the speaker should not lie in any matter of information to make a good cooperation. Example: A: What will you do if you lose your wallet? B: I will eat my shoes (Shuwei, 2014:20) The example above shows that the conversation violates cooperative principle of maxim quality. The violation happens because (B) is not giving true answer from (A) s question Maxim of Relation In this maxim the speaker s response should be relevant to the topic. The speaker s response should not immediately change the topic. Example: A: I am out of petrol B: there is garage around the corner (Shuwei, 2014:21)

34 19 The example above shows that the conversation has violating the cooperative principle of maxim relation. It happens because the what (B) says is not relevance with (A) says about running out of petrol Maxim of Manner In this maxim the speaker should be straightforward. The speaker should avoid the ambiguity and be brief. If the speaker obeys this maxim in the cooperative communication, the speaker s response should be directly to what the speaker should response. Example: A birthday cake should have icing; use unbleached flour and sugar in the cake; bake it for one hour; preheat the oven to 325 degrees; and beat in three fresh egg (Shuwei, 2014:22) In this example, the recipe for a cake is provided, but it is odd for the simple reason that Native-English frequently follow the chronological order of event in expressing something, such as in baking cake. Thus this example is violating maxim of manner. Grice stated that by satisfying these maxim, the conversation between other will meet the cooperation, also known as the bona fide communication. Moreover, joking is a form of non-bona fide speech, a type of speech in which aspects as the cooperative principle are flouted (Abdalian, 2005:18). Whereas the a purpose of non-bona fide speech is to convey meaningful and useful knowledge, the humor act is not very concerned with the practical utility if the information it conveys, but rather focuses its attention on conveying information in a manner that will prompt a humor response. 2.6 Function of the Joke The joke presented to the audiences is not merely as amusement and to make laughter, but sometimes it also has function. Comics have their own intention in delivering their joke. Marin-Arrese ( 2006) cited that the role that

35 20 input frames, blending processes and humorous blend may play in reinforcing or in challenging cultural models ( ) in the process of ideological struggle where the various groups compete in the construction of social reality. In some point, humor has a role as the ideological struggle of the speaker. Douglas (1968) argued the joke as a form of anti-rite because the rite imposes order and harmony while the joke disorganizes. Great ritual creates unity in experience and asserts hierarchy and order. Meanwhile, joke has the opposite effect. They connect widely differing field, but the connection destroys hierarchy and order. They do not affirm the dominant values, but denigrate and devalue. Furthermore, Jenkins (2015) says that stand-up comedy performance contribute to systems of progressive social change, and alternately where their material perhaps reifies dominant logics and disciplines on behalf of the status quo. In stand-up comedy performance, audiences directly and collectively grapple in a non-combative manner with norms and ideology through talk.

36 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD 3.1 RESEARCH METHOD In conducting the research, it is important for the researcher to determine the research method that the researcher would like to use. On this chapter, the researcher will give brief explanation of research method used in this research Research Design This study is descriptive qualitative research. The descriptive research is a research conducted to answer more abstract or concrete question. This type also can generate to mindless gathering or abstract empiricism (Broadhurst, Holt, & Doherty, 2012). On the other hand, qualitative research method is developed in the social science to enable the researcher to study social and cultural phenomena like case study and ethnography (Bricki & Green, 2007). Furthermore, this research describes the characteristics of the verbal humor from stand-up comedy concert by Louis C.K. Therefore, the research is not only on collecting and organizing the data, but also describing and analyzing the data. The research is also qualitative. It means the research is not be presented in statistic procedure Unit of Analysis The unit of analysis of this research is the utterance from the transcription of the stand-up comedy solo concert by Louis C.K. titled Oh My God. The researcher only focused on the joke utterances, not on the performance of the stand-up comedy such as gesture, tone, etc Source of the Data The researcher used the data in form of transcription of Louis C.K. stand-up comedy concert. The researcher also needed the video to support the written data. 21

37 22 To help the researcher transcribe the show, the researcher used the subtitle of the show. The researcher downloaded the subtitle from the internet. The subtitle were taken from The subtitle were downloaded in March, Technique of Data Collection The data used were taken from Louis C.K. s solo stand-up comedy show entitled Oh My God. In the way of data collection, the researcher used the following steps: 1. Searching the video The researcher watched some stand-up comedies and studied the data, then chose one with the most relevant phenomenon with the framework of the study. 2. Transcribing the video The researcher transcribed from the video which has been downloaded before. The researcher made the transcription from the subtitle which appeared on the video as the helping media Technique of Data Analysis In analyzing the data, the researcher used GTVH framework as the analysis of the joke and provided the humor text then used the framework of Grice s maxim as the analysis of the maxim violation of the joke. The analysis steps will be explained further on the following section. 1. Sorting the utterance containing maxim violation. The researcher only focused on utterances which contain maxim violation and acknowledge as the joke from the laugh of the audiences. The researcher only acknowledged the joke which makes laughter necessarily on the utterance not a slapstick joke. 2. Classifying the maxim violation.

38 23 After sorting all the utterances containing maxim violation, the researcher classified the data. The data were classified into the categories maxim of cooperative principle. 3. Analyzing the joke. The researcher analyzed the utterances which are classified as the joke and contain maxim violation. The analysis focused on the KRs of GTVH and on the maxim violation of the joke. 4. Analyzing the function of the joke. On the last step, the researcher analyzed the whole topic in general to draw the conclusion of the functions of the stand-up comedy concert. This analysis is not merely an assumption because it is generated from the analysis of the GTVH and maxim violation which have been mentioned before

39 CHAPTER 4 FINDING AND ANALYSIS In this chapter, the researcher provides the finding and the analysis of the data. The analysis focuses on the pragmatic strategies (the maxim violations) and their relation to other verbal humor parameters (the knowledge resources) in General Theory of Verbal Humor. The result of the analysis shows that there are 48 verbal jokes that violate the cooperative principle. To help understanding, the researcher provides the finding on the table and followed by analysis. Table 4.1 Pragmatic Strategies of Louis C.K. s Oh My God Parameter Description Frequent Script Oppositeness Nice/bad 10 Walk/stand 1 Legs/no leg 1 In/out 2 Die/live 6 Care/do not care 1 Being eaten/eating 1 Smart/stupid 2 Poor/rich 1 Presentable/unpresentable 1 Come/leave 1 True/false 1 Healthy/not-so-healthy 1 Early/later 1 Old/young 2 Move/stay 1 Ineffectual/effectual 1 Sitting/standing 2 Hard/easy 1 Threat/opportunity 1 Granted/rejected 1 Divorce/married 1 Responsible/reckless 1 Blocking/directly see 1 Compassionate/reckless 1 Say/silent 1 Legal/illegal 1 Differently/same 1 Done with nut allergic/have problem with nut allergic 1 24

40 Build/destroy 1 Quickly/late 1 Total 48 Logical Mechanism Missing link 1 Referential ambiguity 2 Analogy 3 Faulty reasoning 15 Exaggeration 15 Reason from false premise 6 self-undermining 2 Juxtaposition 3 ignoring obvious 1 Total 48 Phoenix, Philadelphia 2 Old lady 3 Animal 2 Human out of food chain 1 Predator 1 Guy in courtyard 4 Louis C.K. old life 10 Older, smarter 1 Getting older 1 Dating 2 Touch two women breasts 1 Divorce 3 Kids dance event 1 Life 2 Different set of value 3 Legal murder 3 Bad thought and good thought 8 Total 48 Himself 10 Animal 5 People 29 Place 2 2 Total 48 Narrative Strategy Dialogue 2 Description 34 Description and dialogue 12 Total 48 Maxim of quality violation 7 Maxim of quantity violation 18 Maxim of relevance violation 17 Maxim of manner violation 6 Total 48 25

41 26 From the table above, it shows that the characteristic of the joke can be identified by analyzing six Knowledge Resources (KR) from General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH). The table shows that the script oppositeness is not always between one and another jokes. The joke may carry different type of script oppositeness, but it always has the script oppositeness. On the other hand, the logical mechanism of the joke may vary, depending on how the performer to make the joke incongruent of the audiences. The researcher found nine different types of logical mechanism in Louis C.K. show Oh My God. The most frequent logical mechanism used in this joke is faulty reasoning and exaggeration (15). Furthermore, the researcher found 17 different situations used in the joke. The situation that mostly used is on Louis C.K. s old life (10). Moreover, the researcher found five different categories of joke target. The target of the joke is supposed to make the audiences feel superior. Louis C.K. uses the other people (29) as the party who becomes a target of the joke. The narrative strategy of the joke mostly uses description (34). The last knowledge resource is language. The researcher focuses on the cooperative principle violation based on Grice (1975) as the basis of language aspect of the joke. In delivering his joke, Louis C.K. mostly violates maxim of quantity (18). To make better understanding of the pragmatic strategies of the joke and the function of the joke, the researcher gives the elaboration as follows 4.1 Pragmatic Strategies in Louis C.K. s Oh My God Maxim of Quality Violation Maxim of quality is violated when Louis C.K. presents his joke by telling something logically wrong or does not have any proof in the real fact. The joke violates maxim of quality because of the logical mechanism Louis C.K. used in the joke. The joke that violates the maxim of quality has false premise or the obviousness that been violated in the joke. Here are the excerpts followed by analysis to make the comprehensive understanding.

42 27 Excerpt 1 (Line 92) (Line 93) (Line 94) (Line 95) (Line 96) (Line 97) (Line 98) (Line 99) I don't think they need to be separate things. I really don't. They don't care, and we don't care. There's, like, three scientists who give a shit what we call all those things. The scientists could go on tv tomorrow and say, "ok, everybody. From now on, seals and sea lions and walruses, and--you know what? Penguins are all seals now," (laughter) and we would all be like, "yeah, all right. Fine. Yes. Whatever, man." (laughter) Script Oppositeness Logical Mechanism Narrative Strategy Care/do not care Reason from false premise Animals Animals Description and dialogue Maxim of quality violation The excerpt above can be explained as follows. The Script Oppositeness of the joke is care/does not care. The joke talks about the people who care and people who do not care about seals and sea lions. The Logical Mechanism of the joke is reason from false premise. Louis C.K. makes the premise that he thinks seals and sea lions should not be separated. The situation of the joke is on the topic of animal. The target of the joke is animal that been categorized by the scientists as same species with seals. The Narrative strategy of the joke is description and dialogue. This is the way to make the audiences understand the situation of the joke. The language aspect of the joke is maxim of quality violation. This joke violates the cooperative principle because Louis C.K. brings the wrong fact about the animals. The script oppositeness of the joke shows that the joke talks about the people who care and do not care about those animal categorized into. In line 95 and 96, Louis C.K. says that three scientists care about the category of seals, sea lions, walruses, and penguins. On the other hand, in line 98 Louis C.K. shows that

43 28 the people do not care what they called. From the logical mechanism, the premise of the joke is when he thinks that seals and walruses should not been separated and this is wrong because in the matter of fact, those animals have different characteristic, hence it is called in different terms. Louis C.K. gives the reason that people do not care by making a parody how people react when those animals named as same species. This reason creates a laughter from the audiences because the audiences do not expect the reason of the premise simply because people do not care about those animal being called. The audiences acknowledge these lines as joke because the aspect of amusement in the lines. The situation of the joke is on the topic of animal. This topic talks when Louis C.K. taking his kids to Boston aquarium. In that place, Louis C.K. saw an animal. He does not really sure whether that is seals or sea lions. From that moment he thought those animal should not been separated. The target of the joke is the animal, precisely seals and sea lions, because how people do not care about the animal as a form of mockery. This makes people feel superior compare to the animal because they think that its life is not necessary to be consider. The narrative strategy of the joke is description and dialogue. Louis C.K. delivers his thought about seals and sea lions by describing the reason. The dialogues support the reason how people do not really care about seals and sea lions being called by making a parody of scientist who try to convince people that seals and sea lions is one species. When delivering this topic, Louis C.K. violates maxim of quality. This violation occurs because Louis C.K. presents wrong statement in the joke. It can be seen in line 94. He thinks that these animals should not be separated. However, he does not have a decent reason and adequate prove to say that these animals should be on same species. Louis C.K. describes the reason, but, since the premise that he gives is factually wrong, it still cannot been accepted. It relates with the logical mechanism about the false premise that he uses to present his joke to the audiences. Louis C.K. intentionally presents a wrong fact, which according to