An analysis on breaking maxims in verbal humor of sitcom FRIENDS and the acceptability of its Indonesian subtitles.

(1)

IN VERBAL HUMOR OF SITCOM

FRIENDS

AND

THE ACCEPTABILITY OF ITS INDONESIAN SUBTITLES

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Agnes Sherly Rosasenja

Student Number: 081214110

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(2)

i

AN ANALYSIS ON BREAKING MAXIMS

IN VERBAL HUMOR OF SITCOM FRIENDS AND

THE ACCEPTABILITY OF ITS INDONESIAN SUBTITLES

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By

Agnes Sherly Rosasenja

Student Number: 081214110

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

vi ABSTRACT

Rosasenja, Agnes Sherly. 2012. An Analysis on Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of Sitcom Friends and the Acceptability of its Indonesian Subtitles. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

The functions of humor in daily life are varied. In conversation, people use humor to build relationships with others. While in entertainment industries, the function of humor is to attract audiences. One of successful entertainment products which use humor is TV-sitcom. This study focused on how breaking maxims were applied in the creation of verbal humor in sitcom Friends and on the acceptability of Indonesian subtitles in verbal humor.

This study discussed two main problems. The first one was how breaking maxims were applied in verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends. The second one was how the acceptability of the translation of the verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends

in which the maxims were broken? The researcher as human instrument functioned as the primary agent to collect the data. Document instruments in this study were transcripts and Indonesian subtitles of three episodes of sitcom

Friends season 2.

This research was a descriptive-qualitative research. To answer the first problem, the transcripts were classified according to the existence of breaking maxims on the verbal humor. After that, the data were analyzed according to the types of breaking maxims. Breaking maxims in the verbal humor were flouting, violating, opting out, infringing, and suspending. To answer the second problem, the Indonesian subtitles were retyped and were chosen which ones were the translations of verbal humor in which the maxims were broken. The chosen subtitles were examined whether or not they were acceptable translations in three characteristics of an ideal translation. According to the theory of testing translation (Larson, 1984), there are three characteristics of an ideal translation: Accurate (A), Natural (N), and Clear (C).

Based on the result of the study, some conclusions were drawn. From the discussion on the first problem, the researcher inferred that the five breaking maxims were applied in the creation of verbal humor in sitcom Friends. In this sitcom, violating was mostly used for creating verbal humor. Surprisingly, flouting, which according to the theory has a function to create humor, was not applied as many as violating. The other three breaking maxims were rarely applied. Based on the second problem, the researcher found that more than 80% of the translations were acceptable and most of them were considered as ideal translations. The weaknesses of the translations were on the exclamations and idioms. This finding could be an interesting topic to further studies.

(8)

vii ABSTRAK

Rosasenja, Agnes Sherly. 2012. An Analysis on Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of Sitcom Friends and the Acceptability of its Indonesian Subtitles. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Fungsi humor dalam kehidupan sehari-hari bisa bermacam-macam. Dalam percakapan, orang menggunakan humor untuk membangun relasi dengan lawan bicaranya. Sedangkan dalam industri hiburan, humor dimanfaatkan untuk menarik minat penonton. Salah satu produk hiburan yang sukses menggunakan humor adalah komedi situasi (sitcom) di televisi. Studi ini fokus pada bagaimana

breaking maxims diterapkan dalam pembuatan humor verbal di sicom Friends. Selain itu, studi ini juga fokus pada nilai berterima subtitle di Bahasa Indonesia dari humor verbal.

Studi ini terdiri dari dua rumusan masalah. Yang pertama adalah bagaimana breaking maxims diterapkan dalam pembuatan humor verbal di sitcom Friends? Kedua adalah bagaimana nilai berterima dari translation humor verbal yang terdapat dalam subtitle Bahasa Indonesia di sitcom Friends? Peneliti bertindak sebagai instrumen utama dalam pengumpulan data. Sedangkan dokumen yang digunakan adalah transkrip asli dan subtitle Bahasa Indonesia dari tiga episode sitcomFriends sesi 2.

Penelitian ini merupakan riset kualitatif-deskriptif. Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah yang pertama, transkrip diklasifikasi berdasarkan humor verbal yang mengikuti aturan maxim. Kemudian, data tersebut dianalisis berdasarkan macam-macam jenis breaking maxims (Thomas, 1995). Breaking maxims yang ada dalam humor verbal antara lain flouting, violating, opting out, infringing, and

suspending. Untuk menjawab rumusan masalah kedua, subtitle Bahasa Indonesia ditulis ulang dan dipilih mana yang tidak mengikuti aturan maxim. Subtitle yang sudah dipilih kemudian dianalisis menurut nilai berterima menurut teori testing translation (Larson, 1984). Terjemahan yang ideal memiliki tiga karakteristik, yaitu: Akurat (A), Natural (N), and Jelas (C).

Menurut hasil diskusi, beberapa kesimpulan telah dibuat. Pada diskusi yang menjawab rumusan masalah pertama, peneliti menyimpulkan bahwa kelima

breaking maxims diterapkan dalam pembuatan humor verbal khususnya di sitcom Friends. Dari diskusi tersebut, diketahui bahwa violating lebih sering digunakan dibanding yang lain. Bahkan, flouting yang notabene menurut teori digunakan untuk membuat humor, justru berada diurutan kedua. Sedangkan tiga breaking maxims yang lain jarang digunakan. Dalam menjawab rumusan masalah yang kedua, peneliti menemukan bahwa lebih dari 80% terjemahan sudah memenuhi syarat berterima, dan mayoritas terjemahan tersebut ideal. Kesalahan yang ditemukan dalam terjemahan justru terletak pada ekspresi dan idiom. Hal ini dapat dijadikan topik yang menarik untuk penelitian lanjut yang berhubungan dengan penerjemahan.

(9)

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this thesis has been made possible by the support and

courage of my advisor, lecturers, family, and friends. Firstly, I would like to send

my genuine gratitude to my advisor, Carla Sih Prabandari, S.Pd., M.Hum. for

her guidance, constructive feedbacks, helpful suggestions, encouragement, and

support in my difficult time.

I also would like to thank my lecturers at Sanata Dharma University whose

teachings have enrich my mind and thus have facilitated me to complete this

study. I am sincerely indebted to Adesti Komalasari, S.Pd., M.A. for giving me

the whole series of Friends.

My special gratitude also goes to my uncle, Doddy Purwadianto, S.T,

M.T., and my aunt, Catharina Kisworini, for their great love, attention, and

financial support since I was a child until I finish my study at Sanata Dharma

University. My gratitude and appreciation are also addressed to my beloved

mother, father, and sister for their encouragement and support.

I owe a great debt to Rina Astuti Purnamaningwulan, S.Pd. for her

willingness to read my thesis and correcting my grammar. I also would like to

thank Leo Kusuma, Ryo ‘Pakdhe’ Surbakti, and Kang Yoko for sharing their

ideas, suggestions, and giving their time to have valuable discussions with me.

My special thanks go to Adam Semitha for his willingness to accompany

me in the process of finishing my thesis with his great patience and love. I

(10)

ix

I also thank my best friend, ‘kaki mejaku’ Ida Kusuma for giving me endless

spirit and supports.

Finally, I deliver my best thanks to all my friends of English Language

Education Study Program, the Last Leaf-ers, EGG-ers and my classmates for

years, Seto, Grace, Jeni, Riska, Leo, Yoko, Ajeng, and especially to ‘the power

rangers’: Beni ‘Tongtong’, Yosua ‘Oon’, Adam ‘Smith’, Adi ‘Frater’, and

Yustian ‘Limbad’, for the friendship, sharing, and laughter I experienced during

my study.

(11)

x

[Scene: Ben is Ross’ son with his ex-wife. He was just months years old, so he could only drink the breast milk. That day, Ross was responsible to take care of him while his mother was gone. The mother left her breast milk for Ben’s dinner. Here, in Monica and Rachel's apartment, Chandler, Rachel, and Joey are eating, and Phoebe is preparing Ben's milk.]

Phoebe : Ben, dinner!

Ross : Thanks Aunt Pheebs. Hey, you didn't microwave that, did you, because it's breast milk, and you're not supposed to do that. Phoebe : Duh, I think I know how to heat breast milk. Ok. (Squirts some

on her wrist and tastes it.) Chandler : What did you just do?! Phoebe : I licked my arm, what? Ross : It's breast milk.

Phoebe : So?

Rachel : Phoebe, that is juice, squeezed from a person. Joey : What is the big deal? (Tastes the breast milk.) Chandler : What did you just do?!

Ross : Ok, would people stop drinking the breast milk?!! (freaks out)

The excerpt above is the example of a simple problem faced by the

characters in Friends. In this episode, the breast milk became the topic on their

conversations. Phoebe, who tasted the breast milk made Chandler and Ross

freaked out and so did Rachel. They thought the breast milk was so gross to taste.

Joey, who thought that the breast milk was not a problem, tasted the breast milk to

prove. The funniest parts of this excerpt were when Chandler repeated his tone of

freaking out What did you just do?! loudly at the first time and louder at the

(21)

situation, freaked out by yelling Ok, would people stop drinking the breast

milk?!!.

There are six main characters playing in Friends. They are all young adults

between 23-26 years old and they are living in New York. The six characters are

Monica, Ross, Rachel, Chandler, Joey, and Phoebe. Monica and Rachel are

roommates and they have been friends since high school. In the same building,

living across the hall, there are Joey and Chandler. Ross, Monica’s elder brother,

is more settled than others are and he lives in a different apartment. Chandler is

Ross’ best friend since high school. Phoebe used to be Monica’s roommate, but

now she lives with her grandma because she cannot stand Monica’s obsessions

with neatness and tidiness. Although they live separately, they usually hang out

together at Central Perk, their favorite coffee house, and at Monica and Rachel’s

apartment.

The six characters of Friends are funny, and they have their own styles of

humor, which make Friends more interesting to study. Monica (Courteney Cox),

the one who loves cooking, is a perfectionist and an extremely organized person.

Ross (David Schwimmer), a paleontologist who obsessed with dinosaurs, married

to a lesbian and divorced. He always talks like he is lecturing someone and he

emphasizes most of the words he says. Chandler (Matthew Perry), he always

makes fun of his friends and uses humor as a defense. He feels insecure near

women and the weird fact is that nobody knows what he does in his work. Rachel

(Jennifer Aniston) is a spoiled girl who easily gets panics and is always talking

(22)

women a lot, has less brain intellect of all and he is obsessed by becoming a big

actor and getting famous. Phoebe (Lisa Kudrow), the one who has the most

complicated family problems, is bad at singing. She believes that she has the sixth

sense, which is not, and she sometimes gives unexpected funny comments and

reactions.

B. Research Problems

Based on the background above, the research problems on are:

1. How are breaking maxims applied in verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends?

2. How is the acceptability of Indonesian subtitles of breaking maxims in verbal

humor on TV-sitcom Friends?

C. Problem Limitation

This research focused on the breaking maxims, which includes violating a

maxim, flouting a maxim, opting out a maxim, infringing a maxim, and

suspending a maxim in verbal humor of sitcom Friends. Two things were

discussed in this research. The first one was a discussion on verbal humor in

general. The second was a discussion on the acceptability of Indonesian subtitles.

The subtitles were examined using three characteristics of ideal translations from

(23)

D. Research Objectives

The objectives of this research are:

1. To see how breaking maxim are applied in verbal humor on TV-sitcom

Friends.

2. To see how the acceptability of Indonesian subtitles of breaking maxims in

verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends.

E. Research Benefits

The writer expects this research to contribute academic and practical field:

1. Academic Benefit:

a. This research will contribute to pragmatics study, especially related to

Grice’s Cooperative Principle, verbal humor, and humor translation.

b. The research finding will enrich the theories of pragmatics related to

Grice’s Cooperative Principle, verbal humor, and humor translation.

c. This research can be used as an academic reference by other researchers to

conduct further studies dealing with maxims, verbal humor, and humor

translation.

2. Practical Benefit:

a. The students would be able to learn how pragmatics theories take part in the

creation of verbal humor in TV-Sitcoms.

b. The teachers would know better about the use of breaking maxims in

(24)

F. Definition of Terms

The following explanations might help readers to comprehend the contents

of this study:

1. Grice’s Cooperative Principles

Grice (1989) believes that there is a set of rules with the aim of guiding the

conduct of conversation. These rules have functions as guidelines for efficient and

effective use of language and they are namely as maxims of conversation. There

are four basic maxims of conversation, which express a general cooperative

principle (CP) altogether. The maxims are:

a. The maxim of Quality: try to make your contribution one that is true,

specifically: 1) do not say what you believe to be false 2) do not say that for

which you lack adequate evidence

b. The maxim of Quantity: 1) make your contribution as informative as is

required for the current purpose of the exchange 2) do not make your

contribution more informative than is required

c. The maxim of Relevance: make your contribution relevant

d. The maxim of Manner: be perspicuous, and specifically, 1) avoid obscurity, 2)

avoid ambiguity, 3) be brief, 4) be orderly. (Grice 1989:26-27)

2. Breaking Maxims

In this study, any failing to obey maxims is called ‘breaking maxims’

(Dornerus, 2005; Alvaro, 2011). The five categories of breaking maxims are

(25)

someone is breaking a maxim, she or he wants to avoid discomforts or to create

humorous situations.

3. Verbal Humor

Verbal humor in this study refers to humor that exists in a conversation or

in a script of play, and it is expressed verbally (Attardo, 1994; Chiaro, 2006;

Dynel, 2009; Schwarz, 2010).

4. Ideal Translation

Larson (1984) shows the way to test translations by using three

characteristics of an ideal translation. They are:

- Accurate (A) : reproducing the same meaning and maintaining the message of

conversation from SL to TL.

- Natural (N) : using natural expressions with appropriate kind of texts occurs in

TL.

- Clear (C) : expressing all aspects in acceptable forms and clear meanings, so

that it is understandable for TL audiences.

5. Sitcom Friends

According to Berger (1992:71-72), sitcoms usually focus on the dialogue,

different topic in every episode, and there are only few setting movements and

(26)

Friends is a well-known sitcom in America. There are six main characters

in this sitcom; Monica Geller and Ross Geller, Rachel Green, Chandler Bing,

Phoebe Buffay, and Joey Tribbiani. They live in New York and face chaotic

problems, which are interesting to follow. This sitcom aired in 1994 until 2004.

6. Subtitle

A clear definition of translation is stated by Newmark (1987). He says that

“translation is an activity of replacing a written text in one language, source

language (SL), without changing the message into another language, target

language (TL)”.

Hatim and Munday (2004) explain that there are two processes of

translating audiovisual materials, namely dubbing and subtitling. In this study, the

researcher wanted to see the translation of the conversations through the result of

subtitling called subtitles. According to Orero (2004), “subtitles are spotted to

coincide with the precise frame where a speaker begins and finishes talking, with

the occasional adjustment of a few frames to respect a film’s takes or allow more

(27)

12 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter explores the theoretical description, and the theoretical

framework of the study. The theories, which constitute the research, include the

theory of pragmatics, linguistic theory of verbal humor, Audio-Visual Translation

(AVT), and sitcom are discussed in the theoretical description. The theoretical

framework discusses the theories used to answer the research problems.

A. Theoretical Description

In this part, the researcher discusses the theories of Pragmatics includes

Grice’s theory of Cooperative Principles, implicature, and breaking

(non-observance) maxims: violating maxims, flouting maxims, opting out maxims,

infringing maxims, and suspending maxims. The second theory is verbal Humor.

Meanwhile, the third one is theory of translations, especially audio-visual

translation.

1. Theory of Pragmatics

Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics study of meaning which focuses on

the use of language in communication. According to Dynel (2011), “Pragmatics is

a field of linguistics that is addressing communicative processes as deployed by

its users and its relation to language form, related to the cognitive and

(28)

conversations of a sitcom, the researcher used pragmatics as the prime theory to

support her study.

a. Grice’s Cooperative Principle

In a conversation, it is important for speakers to deliver the accurate

information to the hearers so the conversation can run well. Grice (1989) has

stated in Logic and Conversation about Cooperative Principle, “Make your

conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by

the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”

(p.26). From the definition, the researcher infers that there is a set of rules guiding

the conduct of conversation to use language in conversations efficiently and

effectively.

b. Maxims of Conversation

Four categories of general principle are known as maxims of conversation.

Grice (1989) names the four maxims of conversations are Quantity, Quality,

Relevance, and Manner. He creates these maxims to measure how effective our

conversation to others.

The first maxim is maxim of Quantity. This maxim deals with amount of

information given by the speaker. Under this supermaxim, there are two specific

maxims: (1) the information given should be as informative as needed; (2) the

(29)

The second one is maxim of Quality. The function of this maxim is to

make sure that the speaker has given the correct information to the hearer. To

make conversations effective, there are two specific maxims under this super

maxim: 1) the speaker should not tell a lie 2) the speaker should not tell something

without enough knowledge or lack of evidence.

The third one is maxim of Relevance. The same as its name, maxim of

Relevance expects the speaker to be relevant. It is important because when the

hearer gets irrelevant answers the conversation would be failed.

The last one is maxim of Manner. The general understanding of this

maxim is “being perspicuous”. Grice mentions clearly the various maxims include

in the maxim of Manner: (1) avoid obscurity of expression, 2) avoid ambiguity, 3)

be brief, and 4) be orderly.

c. Breaking Maxims (Non-observance maxims)

In daily conversations, there are times when speakers do not always follow

the rules or fail to observe the maxims. According to Dornerus (2005), breaking

maxims is the process of failing to observe the maxims (p.6). Breaking maxims is

commonly known as non-observance maxims.

Grice (1989) firstly mentions that there are four categories of

non-observance maxims; they are Flouting, Violating, Opting Out, and Infringing.

Different from Grice, according to Thomas (1995) there are five categories of

breaking maxims. The first four of the categories are the same as Grice’s, but

(30)

1) Flouting Maxims

When someone is flouting a maxim, she/he does not intend to mislead the

hearer but wants the hearer to see another meaning of the words uttered. The

meaning of the utterance is indirectly stated and the purpose is to communicate a

message effectively (Thomas 1995:65). In a dialogue, verbal humor is the

example of flouting the maxims. See the example below:

A: Chicago is in Kansas, isn't it? B: Yeah, and L.A. is in Idaho!

In the example, B flouted maxim of Quantity by giving an unsatisfied

answer. B let A to interpret by himself that the statement Chicago is in Kansas as

false as L.A is in Idaho. From the situation, the researcher inferred that B was

going to say that it was an idiotic question, so that B did not need to answer. B’s

answer expressed verbal humor which implied that the statement spoken by A was

totally wrong.

2) Violating Maxims

According to Dornerus (2005), when the speaker intends to mislead the

hearer, he or she violates the maxims. The result of violating maxims might not be

(31)

advertisements, parliamentary speeches, and arguments (Dornerus, 2005; Alvaro,

2011). As an example, look at an advertisement found in a department store:

Figure 2.1 An advertisement in a department store

The note written in the ad was long and it would possibly mislead the

customers. Moreover, the note, which was written in smaller fonts compared to

the digits of the discounts, would be very tricky. Considering the length of the

note and the confusion results after reading the note, prove that the ad violated the

maxim of Manner. If the customers did not read the note carefully and understand

about the agreement, they would be screwed.

According to linguists, the misleading of information can bring the

humorous effects in the conversation (Attardo, 1994; Lynch, 2002). Therefore, in

certain cases, violations of maxims can be used to create humor, but the sense of

humor would sound amusing for the audiences who know the precise information.

The use of violating to create humor can be found in a conversation adopted from

a film entitled Jack and Jill (2011) below:

A brother was so annoyed to discover that his sister was coming and wanted to stay at his house. In the other hand, the brother did not want to hurt her feeling by rejecting her. He tried to give a recommendation to his sister.

Discount

50%

+20%

every purchase of red, white,

(32)

Brother : Anyway, I was thinking that the house is gonna be very crowded, I have kids, and the guesses are coming back..and bla bla bla so, this new hotel, Hilton, has just…

Sister : But I wanna stay with your kids. Why? You don’t want me to stay with you?

Brother : No..no..no..of course I want you to stay with me. I just said it. Sister : Ok. I’ll stay with you then. Although, I heard this hotel is so

much fun. Brother : (sighed out loud)

Sister : Why did you sigh so loud?

Brother : I just really really LOVE your shoes… Sister : Thank you

The brother violated the maxim of Relevance by misleading the sister with

a new topic. The audiences know the fact that he sighed so loud was because he

was so annoyed at his sister and his failure at putting her away. It becomes funny,

because the audiences know the truth and the brother succeeded to mislead his

sister to another topic.

3) Opting Out Maxims

When a speaker does not want to cooperate with the hearer or someone

who is looking for information, it is called opting out the maxims (Thomas, 1995).

In this case, the speaker gives less information that she/he already has. A doctor

who tells about the condition of the patient is the example of opting out a maxim.

The doctor knows more than the information, but he only tells the good news to

the patient to make the patient feels less worried. See the following example:

In a hospital, there is a man who becomes a victim of an accident. The man lost his right arm but he survives. The doctor is calling his wife and telling what happened.

(33)

everything! How is he? Where is he?!Is he alright? I want to talk to my husband!

Doctor : Calm down, he is alright. He is safe, we have done the best and he survives.

Wife : (relieved) Thanks God… I’ll be there, Doctor, as soon as possible. Thank you for calling me.

What the doctor said to the man’s wife was true. The man was safe and

survived, but the doctor did not tell about the man’s arm. The doctor said so

because the information he gave was enough and it made the situation calm down.

If the doctor said the bad news in the same time, the conversation would not be

the same and made the wife more freaked out. This is the example of opting out

maxim of Quantity.

4) Infringing Maxims

In this case, speaker is not deliberately breaking a maxim and she/he does

not intend to break. The speaker does not know that she/he is breaking a maxim

(Thomas, 1995). Usually, this case happens in a conversation between native

speakers and non-native speakers, drunken men/women, or strangers, where one

of them does not know where the conversation is going. In the example below, a

native has a conversation with a foreigner who can only speak English a little:

Native : Do you know what time it is? Foreigner : Yes, I do.

The foreigner probably did not understand the whole words that the native

said, but he assumed that the question that begins with ‘Do’ would be best

(34)

make sense. He gave an unsatisfied answer. Unconsciously, he had been

infringing the maxim of Quantity.

5) Suspending Maxims

When the speaker does not want to say words or the speaker does not want

to give specific information because it is not completely true or because they are

taboo, it is called suspending maxims. It relates to the cultural differences. The

words or the issues that are considered taboo or not polite to say might be

different from one region to another. (Thomas, 1995). Below is the example of

suspending a maxim taken from the script of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s

Stone:

MR. OLLIVANDER: I remember every wand I've ever sold, Mr. Potter. It so happens that the phoenix whose tail feather resides in your wand gave another feather. Just one other. It is curious that you should be destined for this wand, when its brother gave you that scar. HARRY : And who owned that wand?

MR. OLLIVANDER: We do not speak his name. The wand chooses the wizard, Mr. Potter. It’s not always clear why. But, I think it is clear that we can expect great things from you. After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things. Terrible, yes. But great.

The words in bold spoken by Mr.Ollivander are the example of suspending

a maxim. According to the story, in magic world of Harry Potter, there was a

wicked wizard who was redoubtable, Voldemort. Other wizards were even afraid

of mentioning his name. The wizards gave a nick name such as

(35)

d. Conversational Implicature

The term implicature is derived from the word ‘imply’ which means

expressing an idea or a feeling without saying it directly. Based on the meaning of

the root, conversational implicature can be defined as an idea or a feeling that is

indirectly expressed in a conversation. As defined by Mey (2001) “A

conversational implicature is, therefore, something which is implied in

conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual language use.”

(p.45). The question is what is the connection between Implicature,

Conversational Maxims, and Cooperative Principle? See the dialog below:

A : Is there any other slice of pizza for me? B : My cat is eating the last one.

Grice suggests that there is an effective way to communicate which we all

accept as standard behavior. They are Grice’s Cooperative Principle and the four

maxims aimed to make conversation effective. How if people do not follow the

rules as in the example of the dialog between A and B. B did not answer A with

the right amount of information nor be relevant to the question. B had just flouted

the maxims and B’s answer implied something. What B wanted to say is NO, but

he said it indirectly.

2. Theory of Verbal Humor

There are two major theories of verbal humor in linguistics, Semantic

Script Theory of Humor (SSTH) by Raskin and General Theory of Verbal Humor

(36)

humor (Attardo, 1994; Goldberg, 2010). Verbal humor is humor that exists on a

conversation or in a script of play, and it is expressed verbally (Attardo, 1994;

Chiaro, 2006; Dynel, 2009; Schwarz, 2010). Although verbal humor has been

studied by many linguists, but they admit that it is difficult to categorized humor

(Janko, 1984; Attardo, 1994). Dynel (2009) tries to divide types of verbal humor

into some categories, namely Lexemes and phrasemes, Witticisms, Retorts,

Teasing, Banter, Putdowns, Self-denigrating humor, and Anecdotes (Dynel,

2009).

However, the level of humorous effects from verbal humor is different

from one to another. In GTVH, there are six things to be considered to generate

humor. Attardo (1994) names those six factors as Knowledge Resources (KR)

(Attardo, 1994:223). Those six factors are needed to consider when someone

translates verbal humor into other languages. They are:

- Language (LA): It contains information necessary for exact wording of the text

and for the placement of the functional elements that constitute it.

- Narrative Strategy (NS): The information in NS accounts for the fact that any

joke has to be cast in some form of narrative organization.

- Target (TA): The information contains the names of groups or individuals with

humorous stereotypes attached to each.

- Situation (SI): Any joke should have some situation, although some jokes will

rely more on it, while others will almost entirely ignore it.

- Logical Mechanism (LM): The logical mechanism is the indicator that accounts

(37)

- Script Opposition (SO): Any humorous texts will present a SO. The specifics of

its narrative organization, its social and historical instantiation, etc. will vary

according to the place and time of its production.

3. Audio-Visual Translation (AVT)

A clear definition of translation is given by Newmark (1987). He says that

translation is an activity of replacing a written text in one language without

changing the meaning from source language (SL) into target language (TL). One

definition of translation is also given by Catford (1974), “The replacement of

textual materials in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another

language (TL).” (p. 20). There is a lacking from Newmark’s and Catford’s

definitions. Considering the rapid development of technology, the process of

translation nowadays is not only for textual materials or for written text, but also

assigned to audio-visual materials. Audio-visual materials include speeches, TV

shows, interviews, movies, sitcoms and many more.

The translation of audio-visual materials is called as Audio-Visual

Translation (AVT). According to Orero (2004):

AVT will encompass all translations — or multisemiotic transfer — for production or postproduction in any media or format, and also the new areas of media accessibility: subtitling for the deaf and the hard or hearing and audio-description for the blind and the visually impaired. (p. viii)

The examples of methods in AVT are subtitling and dubbing:

a. Subtitling

Subtitling is the common method used in translating audio-visual

(38)

products of subtitling are subtitles. Subtitles are defined by Thompson (2000) as

“texts read by viewer while they are disengaged to some degree from both the

visual and audio of a film” (p.1).

The challenge in subtitling is to making effective words to communicate

without changing the meaning. It makes subtitling is more difficult rather than

translating texts. In subtitling, there are not many choices and the length of

translation is also limited, normally two lines for each screen. Moreover, the

translator also has to consider the timing. In order to produce effective subtitles,

Chile (1999) suggests the translators to select what information should be

translated and what should not be translated. The most common elements of

conversation that are reduced in subtitles include greetings, vocatives, discourse

markers and interjections.

Subtitle is important, especially for audiences who do not know the

language used in a movie. A good subtitle is the one that can successfully deliver

the message of conversation, happens in the movie (Orero, 2004). Subtitles in

situational comedies are not only the message that is important but also the sense

of humor.

b. Dubbing

Different from subtitling, dubbing is the type of audiovisual translation

that requires the most thorough synchronization and the result of dubbing is oral

translation (Orero, 2004). According to Orero (2004), it is more complex than

(39)

kinetic and isochronic synchrony into the bargain. Besides, the dubbers of films

have to give intonation and pace properly.

4. Translation of Verbal Humor

Humor affects individuals from different cultures differently (Chile, 1999).

That is the reason why humor is culture-specific, and difficult to translate. Chiaro

(2006) mentions that verbal humor on screen is the most challenging subject to

translate. Translating humor has its own difficulties. The biggest challenge in

translating humor is to keep the meaning and to provoke the same effect of humor.

There are several methods used in translation. Newmark (1988:45)

mentions eight translation methods, which are put in the diagram V below:

SL emphasis TL emphasis

Word for word translation Adaptation

Literal translation Free translation

Faithful translation Idiomatic translation Semantic translation Communicative translation

The methods provided can be used by any translators. However, in

translating humor from televisions, subtitlers or translators frequently use their

instinct rather than the real guidelines. When they face problems related to

cultural matters, they have to find the solution to produce acceptable translations

for TL audiences. The goal in translating humor is to make the TL audiences feel

the sense of humor maximally as the SL audiences do. As Newmark (1988:46)

states, “It has sometimes been said that the overriding purpose of any translation

(40)

A successful translation can be seen from audiences’ perspective and it is

varied. In general, Larson (1984) says that the successful of translation depends

on how close it is to the ideal translation. Despite audiences’ perspective, he has

criteria of an ideal translation:

- Accurate (A): Reproducing the same meaning of conversation from SL to TL

- Natural (N): Using natural expressions with appropriate kind of texts occurs in

TL

- Clear (C): Expressing all aspects of translations on acceptable forms and clear

meanings, so that it is understandable for TL audiences.

5. Sitcom

A situational comedy or sitcom is a good subject to study verbal humor on

screen. According to Berger (1992:71-72), sitcoms usually focus on the dialogue

and it has only few movements and mostly takes place indoors. The characters in

sitcom have their own humor styles. There are also laugh tracks that are played to

encourage the audience to laugh. The laugh tracks are also to indicate the verbal

humor in this study.

Friends is a well-known American TV-sitcom in all over the world. In

Indonesia, this sitcom was aired in the late 90s and early 2000. Nowadays,

Friends can only be seen through a channel on a cable TV, Star World. The

popularity and the natural conversation in Friends make this sitcom more

(41)

rather than visually, so there is a bunch of linguistic fields to study based on one

sitcom, Friends.

B. Theoretical Framework

The theory of Pragmatics is put to analyze conversations in scripts and

subtitles of a sitcom. Three theories of pragmatics such as, Grice’s Cooperative

Principle (Maxims), Non-observance maxims, and implicature are used to answer

the first problem. Firstly, the verbal humor is chosen which one is breaking the

Griece’s Maxims of conversation (Grice, 1989). Secondly, the broking maxims in

verbal humor are classified into five types of Breaking Maxims (Thomas, 1995;

Dornerus, 2005). Thirdly, in order to see the meaning on humor, the theory of

implicature is applied.

Theory of verbal humor (Attardo, 1994) is used to strengthen the

researcher’s classifications on conversations in the sitcom. Besides that, theory of

verbal humor is also used to see the translation of verbal humor into Indonesian.

The factors that influence the translation of verbal humor became the references

for researcher to compare the translation from SL to TL.

Theory of Audio-Visual Translation is the most appropriate theory in

analyzing subtitles (Orero, 2004). Theory of testing translation (Larson, 1984) is

used to value the products of Indonesian subtitles in sitcom Friends. The

characteristics of an ideal translation could be known using this theory. This

(42)

The knowledge about sitcoms is also important for the researcher to

choose what kind of sitcoms that is good to be the subject of the study. Besides,

knowledge about the sitcom helped the researcher to find how verbal humor in

sitcom can be analyzed. The use of laugh tracks on a sitcom is shown through this

theory, which is to indicate the humor on the sitcom (Berger, 1992). From this

theory, the researcher could get enough information and finally decide Friends as

(43)

28

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the researcher discusses the methodology that was used to

answer the research problems. The problems were how breaking maxims are

applied in verbal humor and the acceptability of the Indonesian subtitles of

breaking maxims in verbal humor on sitcom Friends. The discussions in this

chapter includes the research methodology, research subjects, instruments and

data gathering technique, data analysis technique, and research procedures.

A. Research Method

This research was a qualitative research. According to Hansen (2005),

qualitative methods rely on experiences and phenomena that need to be

interpreted and explained. A brief description about the qualitative research is also

given by Borg and Galls (2007), “Qualitative research is a research which

presents facts in a narration with words.” The results of the research problems

needed to be explained and interpreted. That were why the descriptive-qualitative

research was applied in this study. According to Merriam (2002), a

descriptive-qualitative research is used when data collected through interviews, observations,

or documents analysis are analyzed to identify the pattern of the data. Moreover,

the findings are presented and are discussed using relevant theories. Based on the

(44)

researcher analyzed verbal humor on scripts and subtitles from a sitcom, in this

case she used a document analysis method.

In 2010, Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, and Razavieh define a document analysis

as a method that is used when someone wants to analyze any physical documents,

in form of written or visual materials, in order to identify specific data. From the

definition given by Ary, et.al (2010), the researcher inferred that scripts and

subtitles, from which the data were gathered, were kinds of physical documents.

That was the consideration for the researcher to use the document analysis method

to be applied to see the role of breaking maxims in verbal humor on a sitcom.

Moreover, the researcher also applied this method to analyze the acceptability of

the Indonesian subtitles of the breaking maxims in verbal humor on a chosen

sitcom.

B. Research Subject

Friends is a famous American sitcom, which aired in 1994 up to 2004, has

ten seasons. There are six characters of Friends: Ross and Monica Geller,

Chandler Bing, and Joey Tribbiani, Phoebe Buffay, and Rachel Green. The

popularity of language in Friends spoken by the six characters makes this sitcom

is interesting to study. In the same tone, Quaglio (2009) comments about Friends,

he says that “a show about people who just sit around and talk – makes this sitcom

an interesting object of study for linguistic analysis, both as a comparison to

(45)

From the ten seasons, season 2 was chosen by the researcher to study

further. There were 24 episodes in season 2 with 24-35 minutes length for each

episode. Episodes 1, 3 and 7 were the main subjects for this research.

C. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique

There were two instruments employed by the researcher; human

instrument and document instrument. Human instrument functioned as the

primary agent to collect the data in qualitative research (Merriam, 2002; Berg and

Galls, 2007; Ary, et.al, 2010). In this study, the human instrument was the

researcher. The researcher was also the one who identified the verbal humor on

the scripts and classified which verbal humor broke the maxims. After that, the

researcher identified what kinds of maxims were broken and what categories of

breaking maxims applied in the verbal humor.

Document instruments were to answer both problems. The first one is how

breaking maxims are applied in verbal humor. The second one is how the

acceptability of the Indonesian subtitles of breaking maxims in verbal humor on

TV-sitcom Friends. In this research, the document instruments were printed

scripts of the conversations and Indonesian subtitles from three episodes in sitcom

Friends season 2. In order to collect the data, the researcher used two sources:

1. Scripts

The complete scripts of Friends were written by various writers. There

(46)

the transcripts that were exactly the same as the dialogue completed with the

micro expressions and setting descriptions. The copies of scripts were available

in various fan sites in the Internet. From many sites of Friends’ Fans, Quaglio

(2009) suggests a site, which provides the most complete transcripts and they

could be downloaded free. The site is www.livesinabox.com/friends/. The

transcripts from episode 1, 3, and 7 in Season 2, which were taken from this site,

are attached on the appendices.

2. Original VCDs of sitcom Friends Season 2 with Indonesian subtitles

Indonesian subtitles of Friends were not available on DVDs, so the

researcher tried to find it from five different rented CDs before she found the

original VCDs with Indonesian subtitles. The three episodes of Friends season 2

were watched to get the data of the breaking maxim in verbal humor and the

Indonesian subtitles. Later, the researcher examined the acceptability of humor

translations on the Indonesian subtitles.

D. Data Analysis Technique

In qualitative research, there are general steps that are used to analyze the

data. According to Creswell (2007), the first steps of the data analysis are

“preparing” and “organizing” the data for analysis. In this step, the researcher

watched the sitcom and printed the scripts to choose the dialogues that considered

as verbal humor. The researcher used laugh tracks as the indicators of the verbal

(47)

The second, shorting the data into some categories through a process of

“coding” (Creswell, 2007 p.148). In this research, the researcher used the theory

of Grice’s Cooperative Principles. There was an assumption that violating maxims

created verbal humor (Attardo, 1994). Below are the four of maxims by Grice

(1989:26-27):

1. The maxim of Quality: try to make your contribution one that is true,

specifically: 1) do not say what you believe to be false 2) do not say that for

which you lack adequate evidence

2. The maxim of Quantity: 1) make your contribution as informative as is

required for the current purpose of the exchange 2) do not make your

contribution more informative than is required

3. The maxim of Relevance: make your contribution relevant

4. The maxim of Manner: 1) avoid obscurity, 2) avoid ambiguity, 3) be brief, 4)

be orderly.

The last step is representing the data in a form of figures or tables before

being analyzed. After the data were prepared, organized, and shortened, the

researcher put them into two tables. The first table would be analyzed to answer

the first research problem: how are breaking maxims applied in verbal humor on

sitcom Friends? The second table was used to answer the second problem

formulation: how is the acceptability of the Indonesian subtitles of breaking

maxims in verbal humor on TV-sitcom Friends? The two tables could be seen in

(48)

E. Research Procedures

In this section, the researcher explained the steps in conducting the

research. The steps were as follows:

1. The Steps of Classifying the Conversations

The tscripts were printed without being edited. The conversations on the

transcripts were chosen, so there were only those conversations which consist of

verbal humos that would be analyzed further. Then while reading the scripts, the

researcher watched the sitcom Friends. Here, the researcher also listened to the

laugh tracks as the indicators of verbal humor, which appeared in the dialogues.

When the characters expressed humor verbally and the laugh track was played,

the researcher classified the dialogue as the verbal humor. Here is the example of

classifying the verbal humor:

Figure 3.1 an Excerpt from the Transcript to Identify the Verbal Humor

The dialogues that were printed in bolds were spoken and then the laugh

tracks were played. When the laugh tracks are played, it means that the sentences

are supposed to be funny for the audiences. The writers of the scripts created the

humor to make the audience laugh. From that excerpt, the researcher got two

Excerpt from Season 2 Episode 1 the One with Ross’ New Girlfriend:

[Scene: airport, Rachel picks up Ross, but unfortunately she knows that now Ross is having a new girlfriend when he backs from China. Rachel thinks that the girl is Chinese]

Rachel : These are, these aren't for you. (to Julie) These are for you. (Loudly, thinking she can't speak English.) Welcome to our country.

(49)

statements that contain verbal humor. However, the data were not ready to

analyze before they were put into categories. The following step was the second

step conducted by the researcher.

2. The Step of Categorizing the Verbal Humor which Broke the Maxims

The data were categorized based on the theory of non-observance maxims.

Here is the same excerpt to show how the researcher shortened and categorized

which verbal humor that broke the maxims:

Figure 3.2 an Excerpt from the Transcript to Identify the Breaking Maxims

In Figure 3.1 there were two sentences printed in bolds, but in Figure 3.2

there was only one sentence printed in bold. It was because there was only Rachel

who spoke verbal humor that broke the maxims. The words Welcome to our

country. In this sentence, Rachel broke the maxim of Quality. She said something

that lack of adequate evidence. She did not know that Julie was from New York.

She thought that Julie was from China.

Excerpt from Season 2 Episode 1 the One with Ross’ New Girlfriend:

[Scene: airport, Rachel picks up Ross, but unfortunately she knows that now Ross is having a new girlfriend when he backs from China. Rachel thinks that the girl is Chinese]

Rachel : These are, these aren't for you. (to Julie) These are for you. (Loudly, thinking she can't speak English.) Welcome to our country.

(50)

3. The Steps of Dividing the Excerpts

After collecting the data, the researcher put the dialogues consisting of

verbal humor into tables. The tables were preceded by the text of dialogues, so

that the readers could see the context of humor. These texts were called as

excerpts. This table were analyzed to answer the research problem number one

which is how are breaking maxims applied in verbal humor on sitcom Friends?

The example below illustrates how the data were interpreted:

Table 3.1 Excerpt and Table of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor

Excerpt 1.2

[Scene: airport, Rachel picks up Ross, but unfortunately she knows that now Ross is having a new girlfriend when he backs from China. Rachel thinks that the girl is Chinese] Rachel : These are, these aren't for you. (to Julie) These are for you. (Loudly, thinking

she can't speak English.) Welcome to our country.

Julie : (Loudly, proving she can speak English.) Thank you. I'm from New York. Contribution on VH BM Category of BM Rachel: These are, these aren't for you. These

are for you. Welcome to our country.

Note:

Excerpt 1.2 = Episode 1 excerpt no.2 VH = Verbal Humor

BM = Breaking Maxim (Quality, Quantity, Relevance, and Manner)

Category of BM = Violating, Flouting, Opting Out, Infringing, and Suspending

4. The Step of Retyping the Indonesian Subtitles

This step was used to answer the problem number two, which is how is the

acceptability of the Indonesian subtitles of breaking maxims in verbal humor on

TV-sitcom Friends?

Because there was no transcription of Indonesian subtitles available, the

(51)

Note: A= Accurate

N= Natural

C= Clear

Acceptability= IAcc(Ideal-Acceptable), Acc(Acceptable), Ucc(Unacceptable), F(Failed)

put the verbal humor, which broke the maxims, into a table. After that, the

researcher watched the VCDs of Friends with Indonesian subtitles. When the

researcher found the translations of a dialogue that contain verbal humor, which

broken the maxim, she paused and wrote the Indonesian subtitles next to the

dialogue intended. Here is the illustration how the subtitles were organized:

Table 3.2 Table of Acceptability of the Indonesian Subtitles

Transcript of Broken Maxim

Verbal Humor Indonesian Translation

A N C Acceptability

Rachel: These are, these aren't for you. These are for you. Welcome to our country.

Ini adalah..ini..bukan untukmu. Ini untukmu. Selamat datang di Negara kami.

5. Analyzing Breaking Maxims

After all the dialogues, which consisted of breaking maxims in the verbal

humor, were put in the tables, the researcher analyzed the types of maxims

(quantity, quality, relevance, and manner) that were broken. After that, she

decided what categories of breaking maxim (Violating, Flouting, Opting Out,

Infringing, and Suspending) which produced the verbal humor. The results of all

An analysis on breaking maxims in verbal humor of sitcom FRIENDS and the acceptability of its Indonesian subtitles.

IN VERBAL HUMOR OF SITCOM

FRIENDS

AND

THE ACCEPTABILITY OF ITS INDONESIAN SUBTITLES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

50%

+20%