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
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
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.
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
sitcom
Friends
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.
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.
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.
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE ……….
i
PAGE OF APPROVAL ……….
ii
PAGE OF ACCEPTANCE ………iii
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ……….….
iv
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI
……….…………..
.v
ABSTRACT ………..
vi
ABSTRAK
………..…
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……….
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ……….….
..x
LIST OF FIGURES ………....………..
....xii
LIST OF FIGURES ………....……….... xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
...xiv
CHAPTER I
.INTRODUCTION ……….………..1
A. Research Background …….………...………….………....1
B. Research Problems …….………..………..………7
C. Problem Limitation ..………...………..…….……….7
D. Research Objectives ……….………..7
E. Research Benefits ………...………..……..8
F. Definition of Terms ……….……….……...9
CHAPTER II
..REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ……….……...12
A.
...Theoretical Description ..………..……….…….12
1. Theory of Pragmatics ………...………..…………..…….…..…..12
a. Grice’s Cooperative Principle ……….………..13
b. Maxims of Conversation……….….
...13
c. Breaking Maxims (Non-observance Maxims)…. ………..…....
...14
d. Conversational Implicature ……….……….………....
....20
xi
3. Audio Visual Translation (AVT) ………....
.22
a. Subtitling ……….………..
...22
b.
Dubbing ……….………
...23
4. Translation of Verbal Humor ……….………..
....24
5. Sitcom ………..……….
....25
B. Theoretical Framework ………..………...
...26
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ….………..
..28
A. Research Method ………
.28
B. Research Subject ………..……….
...29
C. Instruments and Data Gathering Technique ………
....30
D. Data Analysis Technique ………
31
E. Research Procedures ……….…...
....33
CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ……..….…….
38
A. How Breaking Maxims are Applied in Verbal Humor
on TV-Sitcom
Friends
……….………
...38
B. The Acceptability of Indonesian Subtitles of Breaking
Maxims in Verbal Humor on Sitcom
Friends
…….……….…...
...54
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
IMPLICATIONS……….…….…..62
A. Conclusions…………..………..……..
62
B. Recommendations ………...……..
63
C. Implications………...……….…….…..…
.64
REFERENCES ………...……….………
.66
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Classifying Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of
Friends
Season 2 Eps 1...….70
APPENDIX B
Classifying Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of
Friends
Season 2 Eps 3…...78
APPENDIX C
Classifying Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of
Friends
Season 2 Eps 7……86
APPENDIX D
Translations of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of
Friends
Season 2 Eps1...93
APPENDIX E
Translations of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of
Friends
Season 2 Eps 3..97
APPENDIX F
Translations of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor of
Friends
Season 2 Eps7.101
APPENDIX G
The Script
Friends
Season 2 Episode 1………...……...….……105
APPENDIX H
The Script
Friends
Season 2 Episode 3………...………111
APPENDIX I
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter the researcher discusses the background of the research.
Background of the research contains the reason why the researcher chose this
topic and a brief introduction of Verbal Humor, Grice’s Cooperative Principle,
translation and situational comedy,
Friends
. The next parts of this chapter are
research problems, problem limitation, research objectives, research benefits, and
definition of terms.
A. Research Background
Humor is a part of conversational activities that usually has functions to
amuse and to make people laugh, but there is also humor created to tease someone
in amusing ways. Civikly (1986) says that humor is the key of both making a
friendship and entertaining someone (as cited in Lynch, 2002). Humor can be
found in any kinds of conversation because many people like to use humor
especially to build relationship with others. Since people are addicted to humor,
some corporations such as radios and televisions take advantage of this situation
to promote their products using humor. One of the products that use humor is
sitcoms. Initiated by Radio-sitcom, the use of humor in sitcoms extends into
situational comedy on TV or TV-sitcom.
in its conversation. Sitcom does not focus on the setting, but it focuses on the
humor in conversations. Kalliomaki (2005) points out that “situation comedy or
sitcom is usually a narrative-based comedy series containing short, 25-30 minutes
long episodes with regular characters and settings” (p. 10).
Linguistic humor is an interesting topic for many linguists. There are some
linguists who studied humor in linguistics’ fields, some of them were: Attardo
(1994), Olsson (2004), Dorneus (2005), Quaglio (2009), and Dynel (2009, 2011).
Though humor has been studied by linguists for years, but they admit that it is still
difficult to categorize humor (Janko, 1984; Attardo, 1994). One of the humor
categories is verbal humor. Verbal humor is included in a conversation or in a
script of play, and it is expressed verbally (Attardo, 1994; Chiaro, 2006; Dynel,
2009; Schwarz, 2010). Dynel (2009) tries to divide the types of verbal humor into
some categories; they are lexemes and phrasemes, witticisms, retorts, teasing,
banter, putdowns, self-denigrating humor, and anecdotes. Despite those categories
or other types of humor, the researcher discusses the verbal humor of sitcom in
general based on the theory of pragmatics, Grice’s Cooperative Principles.
Attardo (1994) and Lynch (2002) state that the number of conversations in
a sitcom involves violations of one or more maxims which create the verbal
humor. Recent studies conducted by Dornerus (2005) and Alvaro (2011) point out
that it is not only a violation of maxims that creates verbal humor. In their studies,
they mention that there are five ways of failing to observe the maxims. Grice
(1989) distinguishes four of them that are
violating a maxim, flouting a maxim
,
and
opting out a maxim
, and
infringing a maxim
. Then, Thomas (1995) adds the
fifth category of non- observance maxim called
suspending a maxim
(Thomas,
1995). The researcher used those five categories to analyze verbal humor in the
sitcom, and those five categories are called non-observance maxims or “breaking
maxims” (Dornerus, 2005).
Subtitling is one method of translation which is commonly used in a movie
or other visual shows (Hatim and Munday, 2004; Orero, 2004). There is another
challenge in subtitling that is translating the words effectively without changing
the meaning of the conversation. Since translating verbal humor requires many
aspects to maintain the meaning and to deliver the message, the researcher would
test the acceptability of Indonesian subtitles of a sitcom using three characteristics
of an ideal translation from Larson (1984). The three characteristics which a
translation should have are accurate (A), natural (N), and clear (C).
The researcher analyzed the broken maxims in verbal humor and its
Indonesian subtitles from an American TV-sitcom,
Friend
s. For the samples, the
researcher used three from twenty-four episodes of season 2 (1995). She chose the
second season because in that season the traits of the sixth characters are more
clearly seen than in season 1 and the problems are not too complicated compared
to the following seasons. By watching the VCDs with Indonesian subtitles and
reading the original scripts taken from www.livesinabox.com/friends
/
, the
research was conducted.
study. The language used in their conversations is casual since the characters are
young adults. Besides that, the conflicts in
Friends
are simple and easy to follow.
Here is one example of the conflicts in
Friends
Season 2 Episode 2,
The One with
the Breast Milk
:
EXCERPT Friends season 2 episode 2[08:55]
[
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
)
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.
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
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.
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
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
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)”.
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
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 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.
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
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.
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
.
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
.
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.
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
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.
-
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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,
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 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
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.
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.
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.
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
excerpt
s. 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
?
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
6.
Assessing the Acceptability of Indonesian Subtitles
This step was to answer the research question number two. When the
researcher finished retyping the Indonesian subtitles, the data were ready to be
assessed. The aim of placing the subtitles next to the verbal humor was to see the
accuracy of meaning in delivering the message, naturalness in using Indonesian
expressions in translating the humor, and clearness of the whole content so the
subtitles were easily understood by the audiences. If a translation had three
characteristics of an ideal translation: accurate (A), natural (N), and clear (C), it
was identified as ideal-acceptable (IAcc). If a translation had two of the three
characteristics, it was identified as acceptable (Acc). Meanwhile, a translation
which only possessed one of the three characteristics, it was identified as
unacceptable (Ucc). When a translation did not have any of these three
characteristics, it was considered as failed (F). In assessing the translations, the
researcher consulted with the experts to make sure the assessments were valid.
7.
Drawing Conclusions
38
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this chapter, the researcher discusses the research findings that are used
to answer the problems. The content of this chapter is divided into two parts. The
first part discusses how breaking maxims are applied in verbal humor on
TV-sitcom
Friends
. The second part discusses the acceptability of the Indonesian
subtitles of breaking maxims in verbal humor on sitcom
Friends
. The two
problems are answered based on the findings and the related theories.
A.
How Breaking Maxims are Applied in Verbal Humor on TV-Sitcom
Friends
This section is to answer the first problem about the application of
breaking maxim in verbal humor found in the scripts of sitcom
Friends
. The
findings of verbal humor have been classified based on the theory of Grice’s
Maxims of Conversations (Grice, 1989) and Non-observance Maxims (Grice,
1989; Thomas, 1995) or in this research called
‘Breaking Maxim’
(Dornerus,
2005:6).
The data were taken from three episodes of
Friends
in Season 2. There
were episode 1:
The one with Ross’ New Girlfriend
[21:45], episode 3: T
he one
where Mr. Heckles Dies
[21:04], and episode 7:
The one where Ross Finds Out
From those three episodes, there were 189 breaking maxims that were
found in verbal humor. There are five categories of breaking maxims:
Violating,
Flouting, Infringing, Opting Out,
and
Suspending
(Dornerus, 2005). The Table 4.1
below illustrates the findings based on the category of breaking maxims that are
applied on sitcom
Friends
.
Table 4.1 Category of Breaking Maxims in Verbal Humor
According to the findings,
Violating
was the category of breaking maxims
that was mostly used 51.9%, by the characters in
Friends
whereas the least
number category of breaking maxims was
Opting Out
with 0.5% which was
slightly different from
Suspending
1.6%.
Flouting
is the breaking maxim, which
has the function to create humor (Thomas, 1995), was surprisingly being the
second category that was frequently used by the characters in
Friends
with 36% or
approximately around 60 times appeared in the show.
Infringing
was rarely used
to create verbal humor in this sitcom and there were only 10% used.
To show the readers how these categories of breaking maxims were applied in
sitcom
Friends
, the findings were discussed further in the following paragraphs.
The discussions below include the cases of breaking maxims in verbal humor of
No. Categories of
Breaking Maxims
Frequency Percentage
