《A Pragmatic Analysis of the American Humor in Sitcom Friends1.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《A Pragmatic Analysis of the American Humor in Sitcom Friends1.doc（10页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、A Pragmatic Analysis of the American Humor in Sitcom FriendsThesis statement : How verbal humor flouts each of the four maxims in Cooperative Principal and how to understand the implied meaning behind the humorous conversations.Outline .Introduction .The Cooperative Principle and Conversational Impl
2、icature A. The maxim of Quality1. do not say what you believe to be fals2. do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence B. The maxim of Quantity1. make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange 2. do not make your contribution more informative t
3、han is required C. The maxim of Relevance Make your contributions relevant D. The maxim of Manner 1. avoid obscurity 2. avoid ambiguity 3. be brief 4. be orderly . Analysis of Humor in FriendsA. Humor Produced by the Deliberate Flout of the Maxim m of QualityB. Humor Produced by the Deliberate Flout
4、 of the Maxim of QuantityC. Humor Produced by the Deliberate Flout of the Maxim of RelevanceD. Humor Produced by the Deliberate Flout of the Maxim of Manner .Conclusion Abstract： The verbal humor in the famous American sitcom Friends, to a certain degree, prevents the English learners from appreciat
5、ing the sitcom effectively. This thesis, based on Cooperative Principle (CP) and Conversational Implicature Theory, analyses how verbal humor flouts each of the four maxims in Cooperative Principal and how to understand the implied meaning behind the humorous conversations. Meanwhile, the effects of
6、 verbal humor are illustrated in details. The study is sure to help English learners to appreciate the sitcom and improve their ability in understanding the American humor. Key Words: Verbal humor Friends Cooperative Principle Conversational Implicature .IntroductionIn Oxford Advanced Learners Engli
7、sh-Chinese Dictionary (1997:863), the notion of humor is the quality in something that makes it funny or amusing; or the ability to laugh at things that are amusing. In particular, verbal humor plays an important and irreplaceable role in entertaining people in sitcoms so that it is one of the most
8、commonly accepted language features in sitcoms. It is a fact that sitcoms catch high attention of audience worldwide. In American, people devote amount of their free time to the sitcoms mostly due to their entertainment effects. The popularity of sitcoms indicates that the advantages of humor includ
9、e conveying additional pleasure, relieving the monotony of everyday life and easing interpersonal conflict, etc.The American sitcom Friends is one of most famous and welcome sitcoms in America and in the world for its unique conversational humor. The verbal humor in Friends is the typical humor with
10、 American characteristics, which sometimes is hard for non-native English speakers to understand. Hence, detailed pragmatic analysis of the verbal humor in Friends is helpful to improve English learners understanding and appreciation of the nature of American humor. At the same time, it is illuminat
11、ing to apply humor skills to mediate interpersonal relationships.A general definition of pragmatics is that it is the study of how speakers of a language use sentences to effect successful communication. As the process of communication is essentially a process of conveying and understanding meaning
12、in a certain context, pragmatics can also be regarded as a kind of meaning study.In recent years, humor has become one of the important topics in pragmatic study, and many theses on this topic have been issued. But the researches on this topic were not rich enough. Hence, this thesis is likely to fu
13、rther the research focusing on explaining the relationship between the verbal humor and the Cooperative Principle (CP) to show how the verbal humor in the American sitcom flouts the four maxims, how the humorous conversation is achieved and how the implied message behind the humor is conveyed. Admit
14、tedly, not all the humorous conversations have implied meaning, some just for simple fun.In this thesis, a pragmatic analysis, based on the philosopher Henry Paul Grices Cooperative Principle (1975) and his conversational implicature theory, is made to explore the rules behind the verbal humor in th
15、e famous American sitcom Friends. Friends has been so popular for more than a decade that many materials of humorous dialogues are available to be analyzed. In a whole, Friends has about 240 episodes. In particular, some typically funny dialogues were selected to be illustrated in this thesis, with
16、the hope of discovering which maxim and how the maxim is flouted by the participants. On the other hand, humor, sometimes conveying some implied message, called “conversational implicature”, is a successful communication skill though it to some extends exteriorly flouts the maxims of the CP. Humor i
17、s an implicit expression to bring additional pleasure. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to show how the humorous effect is achieved owing to flouting one or several maxims of the CP, and to help English learners improve their ability of understanding and using American verbal humor.The Coope
18、rative Principle and Conversational ImplicatureThe studies on the humor in Friends are rather insufficient as it became popular in China just in the 1990 so that the studies in this field still have a long way to reach the stage of maturity. In this case, this thesis is made to further the research
19、and focuses on explaining the relationship between the verbal humor and the Cooperative Principle to show the ways in which the verbal humor in the American sitcom Friends flouts the four maxims, the humorous effect is triggered and the implied message behind the humor is conveyed. Here comes to Gri
20、ces Cooperative Principle and his conversational implicature theory. Grice suggests that “there is a set of over-arching assumptions guiding the conduct of conversation. These arise, it seems, from basic rational considerations and may be formulated as guidelines for the efficient and effective use
21、of language in conversation to further co-operative ends” (Levinson, 1983:101). His idea is that in order to carry on the talk the participants must be willing to cooperative in making conversation. Participants in conversation have the obligation to give adequate and accurate information, and to ma
22、ke relevant responses. Grice identifies as guidelines four basic maxims of conversation, called the Cooperative Principle, or CP for short. They are introduced as follows:“The co-operative principle”Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose
23、or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged The maxim of QualityTry to make your contribution on that is true, specifically:() do not say what you believe to be false() do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence The maxim of Quantity() make your contribution as informative a
24、s is required for the current purposes of the exchange() do not make your contribution more informative than is required The maxim of RelevanceMake your contributions relevant The maxim of MannerBe perspicuous, and specifically:() avoid obscurity() avoid ambiguity() be brief() be orderly”These maxim
25、s indicate that participants have to “speak sincerely, relevantly and clearly, while providing sufficient information” so as to “converse in a maximally efficient, rational, co-operative way” (Levinson, 1983:102).Whereas it is of great importance to note that some speakers do not always observe thes
26、e four maxims strictly. When they are flouting Grices terms, the conversation can be interpreted on a deeper level. Flouting one or several maxims means violating it openly, i.e. both the speaker and the hearer are aware of the violation. So if a maxim is flouted, a speaker should not be accused of
27、violating it because he does not observe the maxim. This situation is one that gives rise to a conversational implicature. “Grices point is not that we always adhere to these maxims on a superficial level but rather that, wherever possible, people will interpret what we say as conforming to the maxi
28、ms on at least some level” (Levinson, 1983:103). . Analysis of Humor in FriendsThere are a large number of humorous dialogues in Friends, however, not all those dialogues can be used in this paper. Therefore, the humorous dialogues had to be classified according to the factor or the reason of creati
29、ng humor. Those that flout four maxims were chosen to be explained in details.Humor is usually caused by the deliberate violation of the CP by participants of the conversation. Different from daily conversation, humor is the embodiment of wisdom. It is jocular and witty and usually makes people laug
30、hing. One characteristic of humor is that the language used in it is implicit. It is not in a straightforward way to express ideas or put forward some criticizing or complaining comments. Besides, it discloses things or ideas which are absurd or unreasonable in a tactful and implicit way. People kee
31、p thinking and inferring, and try to grasp the intended meaning and underlying message through the language of humor. In order to help English learners improve their ability of understanding and using American verbal humor, the author analyzes in details how the humor in American sitcom Friends is p
32、roduced by the violation of a certain maxim of the CP. Humor Produced by the Deliberate Flout of the Maxim m of QualityBy the maxim of quality, it is meant that in a dialogue we all try to make our contribution to one thing that is true or say things that are true. To keep to this maxim, we simultan
33、eously observe two sub-maxims: 1) we do not say what we believe to be false, and 2) we do not say anything we lack adequate evidence.(1) “Joey: What are you talking about? Keep it! Phoebe: Its not mine, I didnt earn it, if I kept it, it would be like stealing. Rachel: Yeah, but if you spent it, it w
34、ould be like shopping! Phoebe: Okay. Okay, lets say I bought a really great pair of shoes. Do you know what Id hear, with every step I took? Not-mine. Not-mine. Not-mine. And even if I was happy, okay, and, and skipping- Not-not-mine, not-not-mine, not-not-mine, not-not-mine.” (Friends, 1994)This di
35、alogue appears in the scene that one day Phoebe discovers there is five hundred extra dollars in her account; every one asks her to keep the money, while she is unwilling to keep and use it. She thinks the shoes would blame her if she used that money to buy shoes. She, of course, knows shoes could n
36、ot say anything. She is saying something untrue and is thus flouting the maxim of Quality. At the same time, humor is produced by personifying the shoes as a person having a voice. Her implied message is “I should not keep the extra money. And I would feel guilty if I kept and used it.”(2) “Ross: If
37、 I hadnt let you talk me to go into the airport in the first place, I wouldnt have put my fist through the wall.Chandler: You put your fist through the wall?Ross: No. I miss it and hit the door. But it opened really hard.” (Friends, 1997) This conversation happens in the situation that Ross fails to
38、 persuade his girlfriend to stay with him. Ross says he put his fist through the wall to emphasize how upset and angry he is. However, Chandler doubts Rosss words because he knows Ross is too timid to put his fist through the wall. Later, Ross admits he just hit the door. Here, Ross says something u
39、ntrue on purpose and thus flouts the maxim of Quality. Humor of this kind is founded largely on hyperbole. Humor Produced by the Deliberate Flout of the Maxim of QuantityBy the maxim of quantity, it is meant that in a dialogue we all try to make our contribution as much as desired. There are two sub
40、-maxims under the quantity maxim: 1) we try to make our contribution as informative as is required for the current purpose of the exchange, and 2) we do not make our contribution more informative than is required.(3) “Monica: Hey. Its him. (On the intercom) Who is it? Alan: (on the intercom) Its Ala
41、n. Joey: (shouting to Chandler) Chandler! Hes here! Monica: (to all) Ok, please be good, please. Just remember how much you all like me. (She opens the door and Alan enters.) Monica: Hi. Alan, this is everybody. Everybody, this is Alan. Alan: Hi. All: Hi, Alan.” (Friends, 1995)Instead of introducing
42、 her five friends one by one, Monica just uses one word “everyone” to represent five friends when she introduces them to her new boyfriend Alan. She, obviously, is withholding some of the information required at this stage of conversation and is thus flouting the maxim of Quantity. The introduction
43、is too brief because of lack of information. And this simple introduction is in contrast to everyones nervousness before seeing Alan. In this case, humor occurs gently. Monicas implied message known in the following plot is “Alan has heard so much about them, I do not have to introduce them one by o
44、ne.”(4) “Phoebe: Have you ever rescued anyone from a burning building before?Vince: 98 hot saves, highest in the group.Phoebe: Well, if Joey and I played with matches, we could get you up to an even hundred.” (Friends, 2000)Vince is a fireman who has saved 98 persons in fires and set the highest rec
45、ord in the group. While Phoebe replies if she and Joey played with matches, the record could reach the number of 100. It is enough for Phoebe to pay him some compliments, but unnecessary to mention Joey and the assumption that Joey and she could start a fire if they played with matches, because actu
46、ally Vince does not know Joey. She may just desire to make some fun relevant to the record 98. Phoebes dialogue is more informative than is required, i.e. he is flouting the maxim of Quantity. Humor Produced by the Deliberate Flout of the Maxim of RelevanceBy the maxim of relevance, it is meant that
47、 in a dialogue we all try to make our contribution relevant to the exchange.(5) “Ross: I dont want to be single, OK? I just want to be married again.(Rachel ran into the coffee shop wearing the wedding veil.)Chandler: And I just want a million dollars!” (Friends, 1994) This conversation happens when
48、 Ross and Chandler are talking about Rosss love affair. Ross says he wants to be married again, but Chandler says he wants a million dollars. It seems that the two subjects they mention are irrelevant. But it occurs in a certain situation that a bride wearing wedding veil appears when Ross speaks out his expectation to be married again. In the case, Chandlers sense of humor is embodied by saying something irrelevant, i.e. flouting th
