PRAGMATICS ANALYSIS IN HUMOROUS TEXT
IN READER’S DIGEST MAGAZINE
A THESIS
BY
SRI AGUSTINA
REG. NO.:070705021
ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LETTERS
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
MEDAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Assalamualaikum Warrahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
First of all I would like to thanks to Almighty Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala for giving the mercy and blessing in my life, especially during the process of finishing this thesis. Nothing is possible to happen without his permission.
I am also grateful to the Dean of Faculty of Letters, University of Sumatera Utara, Dr. Syahron Lubis, M.A, for giving all students facilities to support their study. The gratitude is also expressed to the Head and the Secretary of Department of English for the easiness and the facilities given to me during my study. I am proud to be a student of this Department.
I also would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my Supervisor and my Co-Supervisor, Drs. Umar Mono, M.Hum and Dra. Roma Ayuni Loebis, M.A. I am thankful for helps, guidance, and contributions in my thesis.
ABSTRAK
Skripsi yang berjudul Pragmatic Analysis in Humorous Text in Reader’s Digest
Magazine, menganalisis konteks dari humor yang berbentuk dialog dan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER IV PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF HUMOROUS TEXT IN READER’S DIGEST MAGAZINE ... 19
4.1 Data Findings and Analysis ... 19
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 37
5.1 Conclusions ... 37
ABSTRAK
Skripsi yang berjudul Pragmatic Analysis in Humorous Text in Reader’s Digest
Magazine, menganalisis konteks dari humor yang berbentuk dialog dan
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Analysis
Language plays an important role in human lives. Language is a tool for
communication. It means language is used to deliver messages from one to others
or from the writer to the reader; human beings interact to convey information to
one another. In addition, people can put forward their ideas, either spoken or in
written. Language is considered to be a product of social contact.
Lado (1962:2) says, “Language is primarily an instrument of
communication among human beings in a community.”
Sapir (1921:17) says, “Language is purely human and non-instinctive
method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by means of a system of
voluntarily produced symbols.”
Human beings put a large part of their lives appealing in conversation. In
conversation, language has important role in bringing message from one self to
others.
In daily conversation consciously or unconsciously people in expressing
intentions and ideas to their partner do not always say what they mean in explicit.
What they mean sometimes larger than what they say. For example if I say, “It’s
hot in here!” what I mean is someone to open the window. The problem is most
people sometimes do not understand this in their daily conversation with their
The writer would like to link this analysis to pragmatics because pragmatic
is used to analyze humor because according to Yule (1996: 4); by pragmatic’s
analysis one can talk about people’s intended meanings, their assumptions, their
purposes, and the kinds of actions such as requests and apologizes when they
speak, so by dealing with pragmatics the writer would find the meanings as
communicated by some utterances in humor, in this case the written humor.
Leech (1983:1) says, “… We cannot really understand the nature of
language itself unless we understand pragmatics: how language is used in
communication.”
Peccei (1999:2) says, “… Pragmatics concentrates on those aspects of
meaning that cannot be predicted by linguistic knowledge alone and takes into
account knowledge about the physical and social world.”
Yule (1996:3) says, “Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as
communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). It
has, accordingly, more to do with the analysis of what the participants mean by
their utterances than what the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by
themselves.”
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics developed in the late 1970s.
Pragmatics studies how people comprehend and produce a communicative act or
speech act in a concrete speech situation which is usually a conversation.
Yule (1996:3-4) shows areas which pragmatics is concerned with. First,
pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning. It involves the interpretation of what
people mean in a particular context and how the context influences what is said. It
they are talking to, where, when, and under what situation. Second, pragmatics is
a study of contextual meaning. It explores how listener can make implication
about what is said in order to arrive at interpretation of speaker’s intended
meaning. Then, pragmatics is the study of how more get communicated than is
said. It means that what decides the choice between the said and the unsaid is the
closeness between speaker (or writer) and the listener (or reader), whether
physical, social, or conceptual.
Pragmatics can be concluded as a study that deals with the meaning which
is bound with context. One of principle subjects of pragmatics that deals with how
utterance may be interpreted differently by the listener (or reader) is implicature.
The hidden meaning is somebody’s uttering may be interpreted differently
by the hearers. It depends on the implicit knowledge belonged by hearers, the
relationship between the speaker and the hearers, and the context or situation
when the utterance occurred. The hidden meaning can be analyzed by using the
theory of implicature in pragmatic.
In daily conversation people in expressing intentions and ideas to their
partner are sometimes put humor in it, to reduce the tensions that exist around
them.
Ross (1998: 1) says, “One definition of humour is: something that makes a
person laugh or smile.”
Humor as a condition or sign that can cause laugh is a common part in
everyday life. Humor can be found everywhere, and it does not regard any social
class, educational background and level of human intelligence. Humor exists in all
to utter their feelings of distress and aims to reduce the tensions that exist around
them.
Magazine is a periodical publication containing a variety of articles in
various subjects. Magazine usually published weekly or monthly. Magazines
usually have articles on popular topics, addressed to the general public and written
in a style that is easily understood by many people.
This analysis examines about humor that is connected to speech act in
Reader’s Digest. Reader’s Digest is a
The reason why Reader’s Digest was chosen, especially in the humor line,
is because the data for this analysis are taken from this magazine and the humor
line in Reader’s Digest is consists of many jokes, more or less seven jokes in
every edition.
Humor can be created from misinterpretation that happens in the
conversation between the speaker and the hearer. Misinterpretation can be funny
because when the speaker utters something to the hearer, the hearer can not catch
what actually the speaker means, but the hearer feels that he or she understands it
and replies it with the answer which is unrelated to the speech. Thus, the humor
occurs by the time the answer is spoken. Generally, humor is shown up from the
misinterpretation that happens between the speaker and the hearer. Both of them
This is one example of speech act in humor; the humor is taken from
Reader’s Digest September 2008:
It’s really humid in the woods, so the two hiking buddies remove their shirts and shoes. But when they spot a sign saying “Beware of bears”, one of them stops to put his shoes back on.
“What’s the point?” the other says. “You can’t outrun a bear.” “Actually,” says his friend, “all I have to do is outrun you.”
The context of conversation above is between the two hiking buddies in
the woods. The two hiking buddies remove their shirts and shoes, but when they
spot a sign saying “Beware of bears” one of them stops to put his shoes back on.
The humorous part is interpreted on the meaning of the sentence all I have
to do is outrun you. It can be seen from this dialog; “What’s the point?” the other
says. “You can’t outrun a bear.” “Actually,” says his friend, “all I have to do is
outrun you.” The sense of humor rises because the different perceptions about the
spot “beware of bears”. Actually, both of the two hiking buddies realize that the
spot is kind of warning, so they must be careful. The boy’s perception is he should
run well than his hiking partner; it means that if the bear is chasing them, maybe
his partner will be caught first, not him, because he runs well than his hiking
partner he can save himself. Whereas, his hiking partner’s perception is the boy
Pragmatic deals with interpretation of speaker and contextual meaning, so
through pragmatic analysis; the speakers suppose the hearer to recognize the
meaning of the sentence they speak to act accordingly. There are
misinterpretations in the conversation between the speaker and the hearer that
caused humor and the misinterpretations that happen in conversation are often
caused by different interpretation.
1.2 Problems of the Analysis
The problems that can be analyzed as the baseline data of this study can
be stated as:
1. What are the contexts of the conversation in humorous text in Reader’s
Digest?
2. How is the humor interpreted in the text?
1.3 Objectives of the Analysis
Derived from the problems of the analysis above, the writer wants to:
1. Find out the contexts of the conversation in humorous text in Reader’s
Digest.
1.4 Significances of the Analysis
The writer hopes that the result of this analysis can help out the readers to
be familiar with pragmatic analysis of humors and know what makes those
conversations become humors.
1.5 Scope of the Analysis
The scope analysis of this thesis is about pragmatic analysis of humorous
text in Reader’s Digest. The analysis is based on pragmatic view. This analysis is
limited to the analysis of humorous text in Reader’s Digest. The analysis focuses
on humors that are in the form of dialogues only and on the utterances that
produce humor. The jokes are taken from Reader’s Digest edition on August
2010, September 2010, October 2010, November 2010, and December 2010.
1.6 Method of the Analysis
In the process of doing this thesis, the writer has applied the library
research method. The data are collected from Reader’s Digest edition on August
2010, September 2010, October 2010, November 2010, and December 2010.
This analysis is focused on speech act in the humor in magazine mention above.
The writer takes randomly jokes for every edition to be analyzed. In finishing
this analysis, the writer collects the support data by generally through the library
research like reading and selecting certain textbook. These are certainly related
1.7 Review of Related Literature
There are some previous theses which are related to pragmatic and humor.
Hidayati (2009) in her thesis “Analisis Pragmatik Humor Nasruddin
Hoja” concludes that speech act in Nasruddin Hoja’s humor consists of
locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary, then applying and broking Maxim
are made in order to raise the smile and laugh of the reader. Hidayati’s thesis
supports the writer’s analysis because both of them want to find the locutionary,
illocutionary, and perlocutionary of their own objects in their analysis.
Pamela (2005) in her thesis “The Study of Speech Acts for Humorous
Purposes in Tante Tutik Drama Comedy TV Series” concludes that humor usually
came up because there was misunderstanding between the speaker and the
listener, and also because the listener can not catch what the intended meaning of
the speaker was, and there were only three types of illocutionary act found in
Pamela’s research; representative, expressive, and directive. Pamela’s analysis has
given contributions to the writer’s analysis that are about factors that raising the
humors; there was misunderstanding between the speaker and the listener, the
listener cannot catch what the intended meaning of the speaker was.
Ramadhani (2005) in her thesis “The Analysis of Speech Act in The
Novel of Enyd Blyton’s Three Cheers Secret Seven” concludes that speech acts
uttered by the speaker and the hearer found in the novel were classify into speech
acts classification based on relation of the words and the world according to the
Searle’s theory, and the utterances are contain the implicit meaning. The writer
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.3 Pragmatic
Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning as communicate by a
speaker or writer found in utterances and interpreted by a listener or reader.
Yule (1996: 4) regards pragmatics as the study of relationships between
linguistic forms and the users of those forms and pragmatics is the only one
allowing human into the analysis because through pragmatics one can talk about
people’s intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes, and the kinds of
actions such as requests and apologizes when they speak.
As social individuals, people spend much of their time talking or
interacting with other people; for example when they are getting together with
friends, workmates or families over meal time. These interactions involving
utterances can be analyzed by pragmatic analysis to find out the speaker’s
intended meanings, the listener’s assumptions or receptions regard with some
aspects such as who the speaker and the listener are, what relationship they have,
and in what context they are in when they interact. The meaning gained from an
utterance may differ from one to another person; it depends on the mentioned
aspects. For example, two friends, Maggie and James, are having a conversation
which may imply some things and infer some other things without providing any
clear linguistic evidence of ‘the meaning’ of what was being communicated.
Maggie : “Coffee?”
Maggie has to know that Jamie has to stay up all night to study for an
exam to comprehend that James receives her offering.
Here is another example of utterances in conversation which may often be
heard, but what the participants mean depend on the shared knowledge laid
between the speaker and the listener.
A: “Hey, have you?”
B: “Yap, just this morning.”
The meaning of the words in the example is understood, literally, but not
what is communicated by the speaker and the listener. However, both the speaker
and the listener seem to understand each other as B answers A’s question without
asking what does A mean with “have you?”
The speaker normally expects that his or her communicative intention will
be recognized by the hearer. Both speaker and hearer are usually helped in this
process by the circumstances surrounding the utterance.
2.3.1 Scope of Pragmatics
Yule (1996: XII) describes the subject areas of pragmatics as follows:
Entailment
Entailment is references that can be drawn only from our
knowledge about utterances. Yule (1996: 25) states that entailment is
something that logically follows from what is asserted in the utterance. For
(1) Mary’s brother has bought three horses.
In producing the utterance (1), the speaker will normally be
expected to have the presuppositions that a person called Mary has a
brother. The speaker may also hold the more specific presuppositions that
Mary has only one brother and that he has a lot of money. In fact, all of
these presuppositions are the speaker’s and all of them can be wrong. The
sentence in (1) will be treated as having some entailments such as Mary’s
brother bought something, Mary’s brother bought three animals, somebody
had bought three horses, and other similar logical consequences.
Deixis
Deixis is a process whereby words or expressions rely absolutely
on context. It is a technical term from Greek for one of the most basic
things we do with utterances which means ‘pointing’ through language.
For example:
(6) Jim: “I’ll put this here”
(The context is Jim is telling his wife that he is about to put the key
of the house in the kitchen drawer)
From sentence (6) it can be seen two deictic expressions – ‘this’
and ‘here’. These deictic expressions are conventionally understood as the
Implicature
Yule (1996: 131) states that implicature is a short version of
conversational implicature which is defined as an additional unstated
meaning in conversation. There is a basic assumption in conversation that
each participant (the speaker and the listener) attempt to cooperate to the
exchange of talk. People produce implicatures all the time but are mostly
unaware of it. For example, if someone asks, “Could you close the door?”
the listener does not usually answer “Yes,” instead they perform the
non-linguistic act of closing the door. In this case, although the speaker uses a
form of words that is conventionally a question; the listener can infer that
the speaker is making a request.
Here are two examples of implicature which implicate “I don’t
like” and “I’m not going”:
(7) A: “Do you like the color?”
B: “Red is red.”
(The context is - A and B are close friends and A knows well that B
does not like red color)
Stating that “Red is red” in (7) is apparently both too informative
(since people already know that red is red) and not informative enough
because B does not directly answer the question of A. There may be some
interpretations gained by anyone when hearing B’s answer, but since the
context is A knows that B really does not like red, then B has given the
they are talking about. B does not say that she/he does not like the color
but she/he implies it.
For another example:
(8) A: “We’re going to the movie, are you going with us tonight?”
B: “My parents’ are visiting tonight.”
(The context is that A and B are good friends and A knows that B
rarely meets her/his parents who live out of the town.)
In (8), B’s answer is not related with the question of A, because
there is not any relationship between the movie and B’s parents. However,
since there is a shared knowledge between A and B, then B has actually
answered A’s question. A knows that B seldom meets her parents living
out of the town, so A must understand that B is not going with A because
B must want to spend the night with her/his parents. B does not say that
she is not going to the movie with the other, but she implies it.
Presupposition
Yule (1996: 133) states that presupposition is something the
speaker assumes to be the case prior to making an utterance. Speakers, not
sentences, have presuppositions. For example:
Presupposition of (9): Anne has looked for the keys, but has not found it
yet.
(10) Do you want to do it again?
Presupposition of (10): You have done it already, at least one time.
(11) My wife is pregnant
Presupposition of (11): The speaker has a wife.
2.4 The Theory of Humor
In daily conversation people in expressing intentions and ideas to their
partner are sometimes put humor in it, to reduce the tensions that exist around
them.
Humor as a condition or sign that can cause laugh is a common part in
everyday life. Humor can be found everywhere, and it does not regard any social
class, educational background and level of human intelligence. Humor exists in all
class of society, in villages or cities. Humor is conducted by individuals or groups
to utter their feelings of distress and aims to reduce the tensions that exist around
them.
Different people will not necessarily find the same things equally funny.
The ability to enjoy humor is universal.
Ross (1998: 1) says, “One definition of humour is: something that makes a
Ross (1998: 2) says, “Humor has various effects, whether these are
intentional or not. It is simplistic to say that it’s just for a laugh. It’s possible to
laugh and admit that, in a sense, it’s not funny.”
There is also an important distinction between the sense and force of an
utterance. ‘You make great coffee’, taken in isolation, can be seen as imparting
some information. This is its ‘sense’. In context it can be used to convey a variety
of messages – its ‘force’ is different in each case.
1. Do I make good coffee? You make great coffee.
2. Do you think I’m a good cook? You make great coffee.
3. It’s your turn to make the coffee. You make great coffee.
There are possibilities for ambiguity of meaning when there is a gap
between the sense and force of the utterance. Misunderstanding or
misinterpretations happen when a person concentrates on the structural form of
the utterance, rather than being aware that it can have various functions.
Ross (1998: 8) says that the humor will often have the following elements:
• There is a conflict between what is expected and what actually
occurs in the joke.
• The conflict is caused by an ambiguity at some level of language.
• The punch line is surprising, as it is not the expected interpretation,
but it resolves the conflict: ‘Have you got a light, Mac?’ ‘No, but
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
3.1 Library Research
This analysis uses qualitative approach. The writer describes all the
participants’ utterances in humorous text in Reader’s Digest. The writer uses
descriptive research method to describe the contexts and how the text interprets
the humor in the joke conversation in Reader’s Digest. After that, the writer
analyzes all sentences and describes what made those conversations become
humorous.
3.2 Data Collecting Method
In collecting the data, the writer discusses three things. First, the writer
explains the data and source of data. Second, the writer describes the instrument
that is used in this research. The last thing that is discussed by the writer is
method of data collection.
The writer chooses the joke in humorous text in Reader’s Digest in the
form of dialogue only, the source data are collected from Reader’s Digest edition
on August 2010, September 2010, October 2010, November 2010, and
December 2010. The data are utterances in fifteen jokes that contained humorous
effect. The writer studies the conversations between the participants that related
As it is a qualitative research, the writer becomes the human instrument
to solve the problem. The writer analyzes the utterances to find the answers of
the research questions by using her knowledge.
The writer uses the techniques of document analysis to collect the data.
These are steps in collecting the data.
1. Making a clipping of jokes from four months (August 2010, September,
October, November, and December 2010) of the humorous text in
Reader’s Digest magazine.
2. Selecting jokes only in the form of dialogue to be analyzed.
3. Giving the coding for those humors based on the edition of the magazine.
4. And the last step is identifying the utterances of the participants that
created humor
3.3 Data Analysis Method
After collecting the data, the writer analyzes the data. In analyzing the
data, the writer does several steps. First, describes the context of each
conversation in humorous text in Reader’s Digest by pragmatic theory. Second,
describes how the humor is interpreted in the text and what make those
conversations become humorous. Finally, put the answers in the data findings
CHAPTER IV
PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF HUMOROUS TEXT IN READER’S DIGEST MAGAZINE
4.1 Data Findings and Analysis Datum 1 (August 2010)
Our receptionist had the password
“mickeyminniebatmanrobintomjerryLondon”.
I asked her why it needed to be so long.
“Because I was told it had to have at least six characters and one
capital,” she said.
Analysis
The context of the text humor above is conversation between a hotel
receptionist and a guest in the hotel. The receptionist has the password
mickeyminniebatmanrobintomjerryLondon. The guest wonders why the
password is so long.
The humor is interpreted in the text through the different perception
between the receptionist and the guest about password. The different
perception is on the password itself. The password is
mickeyminniebatmanrobintomjerryLondon. The guest asks to the receptionist
why the password is so long because he wonders and he has never found the
password so long. The receptionist answers why she has the password so long
one capital, so she mentions six characters that is names of persons (mickey,
minnie, batman, robin, tom, jerry), and one capital which she means capital
city of the country, named London.
The humorous part is in the last sentence of the text that was said by
the receptionist. She says the reason why the password needed to be so long
because she was told that the password had to have at least six characters and
one capital, so she has the password
“mickeyminniebatmanrobintomjerryLondon”. In her mind, she has to put six
characters which she means names of person, and one capital which she
means capital city of a country, while actually character in password means
Datum 2 (September 2010)
Our elderly neighbor had had enough of kids jumping over her fence and damaging her garden, so she informed the community police officer.
“Did you recognize any of them?” he asked.
“I’m pretty certain one of them is called Nicky,” she replied.
“How can you be so sure?”
“It was embroidered on his top,” my neighbor replied.
The young officer thought for a while then asked her to spell it.
“N, I, K, E,” she replied confidently.
Analysis
The context of the text humor above is a conversation between an
elderly woman’s neighbor, an elderly woman, and police officer. They talk
about the kids who jump over an elderly woman’s fence and damage her
garden.
The humor is interpreted in the text through the woman’s wrong
perciption about the word that embroidered on the kids’s top. The woman
informs the community police officer because there are kids who jump over
her fence and damage her garden. The police officer asks to the woman if she
recognizes any of the kids or not, and then the woman says that she is pretty
certain that one of the kids is called Nicky. The woman’s statement makes the
police curious to know how the woman is so sure that one of the kids is called
Nicky. The woman explains the reason why she is pretty certain that one of
top. The police officer asks the woman to spell the word which is
embroidered on the kid’s top, and then she spells it N-I-K-E.
The humorous part is when the elderly woman spells N-I-K-E that she
thinks it is name of one of the kids. The elderly woman is pretty certain that
one of the kids called Nicky because she sees that the word ‘NIKE’ is
embroidered in his top, so she is sure that his name is Nicky. Actually NIKE
is the name of brand. In the elderly woman’s mind, NIKE in the kid’s top is
the name of the kid because NIKE and Nicky have the same pronounciation
/naIki:/, unfortunately NIKE is a brand of the kid’s hat.
Datum 3 (September 2010)
My ill health had prevented me and my husband for some months. But
I’d made a complete recovery and was delighted when, while finishing
the washing up one evening, I heard my husband say, “Would you like
to go out, girl?”
“I’d love to,” I replied immediately.
We had a wonderful meal out and it wasn’t until the end of the evening
that my husband confessed, “Actually, I was talking to the dog.”
Analysis
The context of conversation above is between husband and wife in
their home. The husband asks to someone “Would you like to go out, girl?”
asks someone to go out. The wife immediately replies that she would love to
without exactly knowing to whom her husband asks to.
The humor is interpreted in the text through misunderstanding
between the husband and his wife. The misunderstanding is on the word ‘girl’
in the husband’s question. The husband asks to someone “Would you like to
go out, girl?” when his wife is finishing the washing up and she hears her
husband asks someone to go out. The word ‘girl’ in the husband’s question
refers to his dog while his wife thinks that the word ‘girl’ in her husband’s
question refers to her, because at that time she does not see to whom actually
her husband talks to.
The humorous part is when the husband honestly says to his wife that
actually he talks to the dog when her wife is finishing the washing up. The
husband asks to the dog “Would you like to go out, girl?”, whereas the wife
finishes the washing up and hears her husband asks to someone, she thinks
that her husband asks to her, so that she immediately replies that she would
Datum 4 (September 2010)
As I was admitted to the hospital prior to a procedure, the clerk asked for
my wrist, saying, “I’m going to give you a bracelet.”
“Has it got rubies and diamonds?” I asked coyly.
“No,” he said. “But it costs just as much.”
Analysis
The context of conversation above is between the clerk and a patient
in the hospital. The clerk asks to the patient that he is going to give him a
bracelet, which is a kind of plastick bracelet with the name of patient on it.
The humor is interpreted in the text through misunderstanding of the
patience about the bracelet which the clerk wants to give. The patient asks to
the clerk in order to know that the bracelet which is going to give to him has
got rubies and diamonds or not. The clerk answers the question by saying the
bracelet has not got rubies and diamonds, but it costs just as much.
The humorous part is in the last sentece of the clerk, that is “but it
costs just as much”. His statement means that he is not going to give the
patient a bracelet with rubies and diamonds, but it costs just as much because
Datum 5 (October 2010)
At our supermarket, I noticed a woman with four boys and a baby. Her
patience was wearing thin as the boys called out, "Mommy! Mommy!"
while she tried to shop.
Finally, she blurted out, "I don't want to hear the word mommy for at
least ten minutes!"
The boys fell silent for a few seconds. Then one tugged on his mother's
dress and said softly, "Excuse me, miss."
Analysis
The context of conversation above is between a woman and her boys
when they are shopping at supermarket. The woman’s patience wears thin as
the boys call out "Mommy! Mommy!", while she tries to shop. Finally she
blurts out "I don't want to hear the word mommy for at least ten minutes!",
and the boys fell silent for a few seconds, after that one tugs on his mother’s
dress and says softly "Excuse me, miss.".
The humor is interpreted through the conversation when a woman
blurts out to her boys that she does not want the word mommy for at least ten
minutes, it means she does not want the boys call her, on the other hand she
forbids her boys to call her because she is shopping. While the boys fall silent
for a few seconds then one tugs on the woman’s dress and says softly "Excuse
The humorous part is in the last sentence of the boy. The boy calls his
mother with ‘miss’, it is because his mother says that she does not want the
word ‘mommy’ for at least ten minutes, so he does not call his mother with
‘mommy’ but ‘miss’.
Datum 6 (October 2010)
My two-year-old niece Susan asked her mother why she was ironing the
clothes. “To keep the clothes neat and tidy,” her mother answered.
Susan went quiet for a while and then asked, “Then why don’t you iron
Dad?”
Analysis
The context of conversation above is between two-year-old Susan and
her mother. Susan asks to her mother why her mother was ironing the clothes.
Her mother answers that she was ironing to keep the clothes neat and tidy.
Susan goes quiet for a while and then asks innocently again to her mother
why her mother does not iron her dad.
The humor is interpreted through what is on Susan’s mind about
ironing. In her opinion, if we want something become neat and tidy, we
should iron it. So, she asks to her mother why her mother does not iron her
dad, she thinks if her mother does, her dad will become neat and tidy.
The humorous part can be seen from Susan’s innocent question when
her mother tells to her about why her mother was ironing the clothes; “Then
and tidy, we should iron it. As a two-year-old, she does not know that ironing
is only for making the clothes neat and tidy, but not for making a person
becomes neat and tidy.
Datum 7 (October 2010)
A man hasn’t been feeling well, so he goes to his doctor for a complete
check-up. Afterwards, the doctor comes out with the results.
“I’m afraid I have some very bad news,” the doctor says. “You’re dying,
and you don’t have much time left.”
“Oh, that’s terrible!” says the man. “How long have I got?”
“Ten,” the doctor says sadly.
“Ten?” the man asks.
“Ten what? Months? Weeks? What?!”
The doctor interrupts, “Nine…”
Analysis
The context of conversation above is between a doctor and his patient.
A man does not feel well, so he goes to his doctor for a complete check-up.
Afterwards, the doctor comes out with the results. The doctor says that he has
bad news for the patient. He says that the patient is dying and does not have
much time left. After hearing the doctor’s information, the patient asks to the
doctor how long has he got, but the doctor only says sadly “ten”. The patient
doctor “Ten what? Months? Weeks? What?!”. The doctor interrupts by saying
“Nine”.
The humor is interpreted in the text through all the answers from the
doctor. The doctor informs that the man’s time may be only about ten seconds
left, and then nine seconds left, because he just replies the man’s questions
with ten, and then nine, it means ten seconds left, and nine seconds left.
The humorous part is in the last sentence of the man and the last
sentence of the doctor. The man asks with curious, while the doctor only
answers with ten, and then nine, it means ten seconds left, and nine seconds
left. So in one second left, the man will die.
Datum 8 (October 2010)
Watching a movie recently, I couldn't hear the dialogue over the chatter
of the two women in front of me. Unable to bear it any longer, I tapped
one of them on the shoulder.
"Excuse me," I said. "I can't hear."
"I should hope not," she answered. "This is a private conversation."
Analysis
The context of the conversation above is between a man and women,
they are audiences in the cinema. Watching a movie recently, ‘I’ cannot hear
the dialogue over the chatter of the two women in front of him. He is unable
to bear it any longer, he taps one of the women shoulder “Excuse me, I can't
it is disturbing him in watching the movie, while the woman answers by
saying "I should hope not" and "This is a private conversation".
The humorous part is from the misconnection between what ‘I’ says
with the response from the woman. ‘I’ watch the movie recently; he cannot
hear the dialogue over the chatter of the women in front of him, so he says to
one of the women “I can’t hear” in order to ask the two women to stop their
chatting because it is disturbing him. Unfortunately, the woman does not
recognize that ‘I’ complains about their chatter and ‘I’ wants they stop their
chatter, she just answers that she hope that ‘I’ could not hear what they
chatting about, because it is a private conversation. Misconnection is
happened here, it supports the humorous part of the conversation above.
Datum 9 (November 2010)
A doctor is called to a seriously ill patient. He dashes into the room, sits
down on the patient’s bed, then after a few minutes calls out the door:
“Please give me a hammer.”
The relatives are surprised by the request, but the doctor’s word is an
order. A little later, he again looks out the door, “Quickly, a pair of
pincers!”
They hand him one of those too with urgency, but in a little while, the
doctor again begins to yell: “Now a chisel, hurry!”
Concerned, they asked, “But doctor, for God’s sake, what are you doing
in there?”
Analysis
The context of the text humor above is conversation between a doctor
and the patience’s relative in the hospital.
The humor is interpreted in the text through the different perception
between the doctor and the patience’s relative in the hospital, because the
doctor orders a hammer, a pair of pincers, and a chisel when he is checking
up the seriously ill patient.
The humorous part is when the relatives are surprised by the request
of the doctor, but actually doctor can not open his bag, so that he orders a
hammer, a pair of pincers, and a chisel.
Datum 10 (November 2010)
I should have known better than to take my four-year-old son shopping
with me. I spent the entire time in the mall chasing after him.
Finally, I’d had it. “Do you want a stranger to take you?!” I scolded.
Thrilled, he yelled back, “Will he take me to the zoo?”
Analysis
The context of the conversation above is between a woman and her
four-year-old son.
The humor is interpreted in the text through a woman wants to
frighten her four-year-old son, because she spends the entire time in the mall
a stranger take him. The boy thrills but he yells back “Will he take me to the
zoo?”.
The humorous part is in the last question of the boy. His mother wants
to frighten him with saying that a stranger will take him, but he yells with
asking to her mother if a stranger take him, will he take him to the zoo.
Datum 11 (November 2010)
While my husband and I were busy choosing an air-conditioner to buy
in the store, our six-year-old son was wandering around when he
spotted a very inviting spa bed.
We overheard the saleslady says to him, “Do you know what’s written
there? It says ‘Thank you for not sitting.’”
He answered innocently, “Yes, I know. That’s why I am lying down.”
Analysis
The context of the conversation above is between a six-year-old
son and a saleslady in the store.
The humor is interpreted in the text through when the six-year-old
boy sees the sign ‘Thank you for not sitting’ that is place around the very
inviting spa bed, the boy thinks that he can not sit on the spa bed, but he
can lay down on it. In his opinion, the sign shows that he deeds was okay,
in other words his deed is right.
The humor is playing on the boy’s innocent answer when the
you for not sitting.’”, the boy answers “Yes, I know. That’s why I am lying
down”. In his opinion, the sign shows that lying on that spa bed is okay, in
other words his deed was right. Actually, the saleslady says to him about
what is written on the sign in order to forbid him not to lay down on the
spa bed, because the statement on the sign shows the implicit meaning that
do not do all activities on that spa bed, but the boy answers innocently,
“Yes, I know. That’s why I am lying down”, because in his thought the
sign does not forbid him not to lay on the spa bed.
Datum 12 (December 2010)
The first time my son was on a bike with training wheels, I shouted,
"Step back on the pedals and the bike will brake!"
He nodded but still rode straight into a bush.
"Why didn't you push back on the pedals?" I asked, helping him up.
"You said if I did, the bike would break."
Analysis
The context of the conversation above is between a man and his
son when the son is in the first time on a bike with training wheels.
The humor is interpreted in the text through when the son hears his
father shouting that he steps back on the pedals and the bike will brake; the
son thinks that he cannot push back on the pedals because if he does, the
the pedals. The son nods but still rode straight into a bush, because in his
thought if he pushes back on the pedals, the bike will break.
The humorous part is when the son thinks his father says ‘break’,
but actually the father says ‘brake’. So the humor is by playing on the
hearing of the words ‘brake’ and ‘break’, because brake and break have
the same pronounciation /breIk/. His father says “Step back on the pedals
and the bike will brake”, in order to inform him that he should step back
on the pedals so that the bike will automatically brake. Unfortunately, the
son thinks his father says “Step back on the pedals and the bike will
break”, he interprets that statement with he cannot step back on the pedals,
because if he does, the bike will break. So, he rides straight into a bush
again.
Datum 13 (December 2010)
My sister explained to my nephew how his voice would eventually
change as he grew up.
Tyler was exuberant at the prospect. "Cool!" he said. "I hope I get a
German accent."
Analysis
The context of conversation above is between a woman and his
son.
The humorous part is from what the nephew catch from the woman
He is exuberant when he hears the woman explanation, because in her
mind the changing is in accent, so he hopes that his voice will change to be
a German accent.
Datum 14 (December 2010)
I love making clothes for my five-year-old granddaughter. And she, in
turn, always seems happy to accept them. The other day, I asked if she
would like me to make her a skirt.
"Yes," she said. "But this time, could you make it look like it came from
a store?"
Analysis
The context of the conversation above is between a grandmother
and her five-year-old granddaughter. The woman loves making clothes for
her granddaughter. Her granddaughter always seems happy to accept them.
The humorous part is when the five-year-old granddaughter says
about honestly to say that she wants that this time the cloth that her
grandmother makes look like from a store. It means the clothes that her
grandmother makes are not look like came from a store, or in the other
Datum 15 (December 2010)
As the stranger enters a country store, he spots a sign: "Danger! Beware
of Dog!" Inside, he sees a harmless old hound asleep in the middle of
the floor.
"Is that the dog we're supposed to beware of?" he asks the owner.
"That's him," comes the reply.
"He doesn't look dangerous to me. Why would you post that sign?"
"Before I posted that sign, people kept tripping over him."
Analysis
The context of the conversation above is between a stranger and the
owner in the country store.
The humorous part is from the last sentence of the owner. The
owner tells to the stranger that the reason why he posts the sign ‘Danger!
Beware of Dog’ is because before he post that sign, people keep tripping
over him. It is because a harmless old hound asleep in the middle of the
floor and maybe people do not know that there is a dog. Actually, it is not
because the dog is dangerous but he posts that sign just in order to inform
people who enters that country store know that there is a dog, so that they
do not trip over his dog.
The humor is interpreted through the sign Danger! Beware of Dog!
As the stranger enters a country store, he spots a sign that says it is danger,
old hound does not look dangerous to him, so he asks to the owner "He
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Humor is one of many other ways to relaxation. In this thesis, the humors
are analyzed through Pragmatic. It can be concluded that humorous part in each
humor is interpreted in the text through misunderstanding that happened between
the participants in the particular context.
Pragmatic interprets what the speakers mean in a particular context and
how the context influences what is said. The misunderstanding between the
participants is the main influence of humor in the data of this thesis. How
speakers arrange what they want to say in line with whom they are talking to,
where, when, and under what situation are also influence the humor.
5.2 Suggestions
Analyzing humor through Pragmatic is a very interesting research. There
are other forms of humors that can be analyzed through Pragmatic. Thus, it is
suggested to those who are interested in analyzing humor through pragmatics to
make others analysis that can be analyzed from comedy in television, humor in
