ABSTRACT
AMIANNA, JENNA NADIA RASBI PUTRI. Humorous Situations Created By Violations and Floutings Of Conversational Maxims In A Situation Comedy Entitled How I Met Your Mother. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2016.
As a form of communication that evokes laughter, humor is seen as one of important aspects in building relationship with people. Linguists suggest that humor or jokes exist because there is non-cooperative interaction among the interlocutors resulting from not observing Cooperative Principle in the conversations. This study attempts to analyze the humorous situations in a situation comedy entitled How I Met Your Mother Season 2, Episodes 1 to 5 which are created from violating and flouting the conversational maxims as the forms of not observing the Cooperative Principle.
There are two problems formulated in this study. The first one is to identify the types of violations and floutings of conversational maxims in a situation comedy entitled How I Met Your Mother Season 2 Episodes 1 to 5. In the analysis of the first problem, it will be shown the analysis of the types of violations and floutings of conversational maxims which are done by the characters. The second one is to analyze how the humorous situations in the situation comedy are created from the violations and floutings of conversational maxims done by the characters.
In this study, documents and text analysis are applied in the analysis process. By observing the utterances from the characters in the situation comedy, the writer collected the humorous utterances which consist of violations and floutings of conversational maxims. Pragmatic approach is applied in analyzing the violations and floutings of conversational maxim in order to find out the type conversational maxims which are violated or flouted by the characters. Humor theory is applied in this study in order to explore how humorous situations are created from the violations and floutings of conversational maxims found in the situation comedy.
ABSTRAK
AMIANNA, JENNA NADIA RASBI PUTRI. Humorous Situations Created By Violations and Floutings Of Conversational Maxims In A Situation Comedy Entitled How I Met Your Mother. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2016.
Sebagai bentuk komunikasi yang menimbulkan tawa, humor dipandang sebagai salah satu aspek penting dalam membangun relasi dengan masyarakat. Ahli bahasa menyatakan bahwa humor atau lelucon tercipta karena adanya interaksi yang non-kooperatif antara lawan bicara sebagai hasil dari tidak mengamati Prinsip Kerjasama (Cooperative Principle) di dalam percakapan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis situasi humor dalam komedi situasi yang berjudul How I Met Your Mother Season 2, Episode 1 - 5 yang timbul karena adanya violations dan floutings sebagai bentuk pelanggaran dari maksim percakapan sebagai hasil dari tidak mengamati Prinsip Kerjasama (Cooperative Principle).
Dalam penelitian ini terdapat dua rumusan masalah. Yang pertama adalah untuk mengidentifikasi tipe – tipe violations dan floutings maksim percakapan dalam komedi situasi How I Met Your Mother Season 2 Episode 1 - 5. Yang kedua adalah untuk menganalisis cara terciptanya situasi humor yang disebabkan oleh violations dan floutings maksim percakapan yang dilakukan oleh para karakter dalam komedi situasi tersebut.
Dalam penelitian ini, metode analisis dokumen dan teks diaplikasikan dalam proses analisis. Dengan mengamati semua ucapan dari para karakter dalam komedi situasi tersebut, penulis mengumpulkan ungkapan - ungkapan lucu yang terdiri dari violations dan floutings maksim percakapan. Penulis menerapkan pendekatan pragmatik dalam menganalisis violations dan floutings maksim percakapan untuk mengetahui tipe dari maksim percakapan yang dilanggar oleh para karakter. Teori humor juga diaplikasikan dalam penelitian ini untuk menganalisis bagaimana situasi humor tercipta dari violations dan floutings maksim percakapan dalam komedi situasi tersebut.
HUMOROUS SITUATIONS CREATED BY VIOLATIONS AND
FLOUTINGS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
IN A SITUATION COMEDY ENTITLED
HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
JENNA NADIA RASBI PUTRI AMIANNA Student Number: 114214027
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
ii
HUMOROUS SITUATIONS CREATED BY VIOLATIONS AND
FLOUTINGS OF CONVERSATIONAL MAXIMS
IN A SITUATION COMEDY ENTITLED
HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Sastra
in English Letters
By
JENNA NADIA RASBI PUTRI AMIANNA Student Number: 114214027
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
vii
“Don’t get impatient. Even if things are
so
tangled up you can’t do anything,
don’t get desperate or blow a fuse and
start yanking on one particular thread
before it’s ready to come undone. You
have to realize it’s going to be a long
process and that you’ll work on things
slowly, one at a time.”
viii
For
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis advisor, Adventina Putranti, S.S., M.Hum. for her guidance, encouragement and patience throughout my thesis writing so that I can finally finish my undergraduate thesis. I would also like to thank my co-advisor Harris Hermansyah Setiajid, S.S, M.Hum. for the inputs, and his total support given to me.
I extend my gratitude to my family for teaching me not to easily give up on doing things, even the hardest ones. I always carry that lesson with me because it teaches me to never complain about difficult things. I would also like to send my extended gratitude to all of my friends, whose names cannot be mentioned one by one. My special love goes to my beloved friends who have been supporting me for the past view years, especially the ones who have graduated before me. Their support and successful experiences in the real world inspire me in many ways I cannot describe.
The last but not the least, I would like to thank one of my seniors, Anindita Dewangga Puri, for her suggestions, sharing, and insightful ideas given to me throughout my thesis writing process.
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITTLE PAGE ... ii
APPROVAL PAGE ... iii
ACCEPTANCE PAGE ... iv
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ... v
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH . vi MOTTO PAGE ... vii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1
A. Background of the Study ... 1
B. Problem Formulation ... 5
C. Objectives of the Study ... 5
D. Definition of Terms ... 6
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... 9
A. Review of Related studies ... 9
B. Review of Related Theories ... 13
1. Pragmatics ... 13
2. Context ... 14
3. Conversational Implicature ... 17
4. Cooperative Principle ... 19
5. Flouting Conversational Maxims ... 24
6. Violating Conversational Maxims ... 26
xi
1. Data Collection... 42
2. Data Analysis ... 42
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 46
A. Types of Violations And Floutings of Conversational Maxims ... 46
1. Violations of Conversational Maxims ... 47
2. Floutings of Conversational Maxims ... 61
B. The Humorous Situations Created in the Situation Comedy ... 74
1. By creating incongruent idea between someone’s expectation and what actually happens in the conversation ... 76
2. By mocking and laughing at someone’s inferiority to show hostility ... 84
3. By releasing emotions to experience freedom ... 87
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION ... 96
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 99
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Data Findings: Violations of Conversational Maxims………….……47 Table 2. Data Findings: Floutings of Conversational Maxims………...61 Table 3. Data Findings: The ways of how humorous situations are created
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CP : Cooperative Principle
Flo : Flouting of Conversational Maxims Hos : Hostility
Inc : Incongruent idea Man : Maxim of Manner Qual : Maxim of Quality Quan : Maxim of Quantity Rel : Maxim of Relation Rls : Released emotions
xiv ABSTRACT
AMIANNA, JENNA NADIA RASBI PUTRI. Humorous Situations Created By Violations and Floutings Of Conversational Maxims In A Situation Comedy Entitled How I Met Your Mother. Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma University, 2016.
As a form of communication that evokes laughter, humor is seen as one of important aspects in building relationship with people. Linguists suggest that humor or jokes exist because there is non-cooperative interaction among the interlocutors resulting from not observing Cooperative Principle in the conversations. This study attempts to analyze the humorous situations in a situation comedy entitled How I Met Your Mother Season 2, Episodes 1 to 5 which are created from violating and flouting the conversational maxims as the forms of not observing the Cooperative Principle.
There are two problems formulated in this study. The first one is to identify the types of violations and floutings of conversational maxims in a situation comedy entitled How I Met Your Mother Season 2 Episodes 1 to 5. In the analysis of the first problem, it will be shown the analysis of the types of violations and floutings of conversational maxims which are done by the characters. The second one is to analyze how the humorous situations in the situation comedy are created from the violations and floutings of conversational maxims done by the characters.
In this study, documents and text analysis are applied in the analysis process. By observing the utterances from the characters in the situation comedy, the writer collected the humorous utterances which consist of violations and floutings of conversational maxims. Pragmatic approach is applied in analyzing the violations and floutings of conversational maxim in order to find out the type conversational maxims which are violated or flouted by the characters. Humor theory is applied in this study in order to explore how humorous situations are created from the violations and floutings of conversational maxims found in the situation comedy.
xv ABSTRAK
AMIANNA, JENNA NADIA RASBI PUTRI. Humorous Situations Created By Violations and Floutings Of Conversational Maxims In A Situation Comedy Entitled How I Met Your Mother. Yogyakarta: Program Studi Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma, 2016.
Sebagai bentuk komunikasi yang menimbulkan tawa, humor dipandang sebagai salah satu aspek penting dalam membangun relasi dengan masyarakat. Ahli bahasa menyatakan bahwa humor atau lelucon tercipta karena adanya interaksi yang non-kooperatif antara lawan bicara sebagai hasil dari tidak mengamati Prinsip Kerjasama (Cooperative Principle) di dalam percakapan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis situasi humor dalam komedi situasi yang berjudul How I Met Your Mother Season 2, Episode 1 - 5 yang timbul karena adanya violations dan floutings sebagai bentuk pelanggaran dari maksim percakapan sebagai hasil dari tidak mengamati Prinsip Kerjasama (Cooperative Principle).
Dalam penelitian ini terdapat dua rumusan masalah. Yang pertama adalah untuk mengidentifikasi tipe – tipe violations dan floutings maksim percakapan dalam komedi situasi How I Met Your Mother Season 2 Episode 1 - 5. Yang kedua adalah untuk menganalisis cara terciptanya situasi humor yang disebabkan oleh violations dan floutings maksim percakapan yang dilakukan oleh para karakter dalam komedi situasi tersebut.
Dalam penelitian ini, metode analisis dokumen dan teks diaplikasikan dalam proses analisis. Dengan mengamati semua ucapan dari para karakter dalam komedi situasi tersebut, penulis mengumpulkan ungkapan - ungkapan lucu yang terdiri dari violations dan floutings maksim percakapan. Penulis menerapkan pendekatan pragmatik dalam menganalisis violations dan floutings maksim percakapan untuk mengetahui tipe dari maksim percakapan yang dilanggar oleh para karakter. Teori humor juga diaplikasikan dalam penelitian ini untuk menganalisis bagaimana situasi humor tercipta dari violations dan floutings maksim percakapan dalam komedi situasi tersebut.
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
On everyday life, people, as social human beings, communicate. That is an inevitable activity embedded in society. One of the ways to communicate is by talking. Every time people talk with their family, friends, and other people, they use language as the means of communication. Wood and Kroger (2000: 4) explain in their book that language is not only a means of communication, but also a feature of social life. Thus, people can produce utterances through language to share information, stories, thoughts, or ideas.
In order to understand the meaning of language, people have to know the meaning of the words, phrases, sentences, and also the context in which some utterances are produced (Fromkin, Rodman, and Hyams, 2003:173). Utterances are produced related to a certain topic and in a certain situation. The speakers have a purpose in saying some utterances in a certain situation and it cannot be separated from the context in which the conversation takes place. According to Leech (1983: 6), the study of meaning in relation to speech situation is called pragmatics.
speakers should give neither too little nor too much information in order to make a conversation run smoothly (Cutting, 2002: 34). If the speakers give less or more information than what is requested, there might be misunderstanding between the interlocutors and the conversation might stop.
Here is an example where the speaker is being cooperative in a conversation.
Example 1:
Husband : Where are the car keys? Wife : They‟re on the table in the hall.
(Thomas, 1995: 64) In the conversation above, the husband asks his wife about where the car keys are. Knowing the location of the car keys, the wife answers the husband by telling him that the car keys are on the table which is located in the hall. In the situation above, the wife is being brief and she gives the right amount of information about the location of the car keys without giving false information to her husband. The message of the conversation is successfully delivered. Thus, the wife is said to be cooperative to her husband.
In other hand, speakers are possible to give non-cooperative response in a conversation. It can be seen in the example below.
Example 2:
A : Where‟s Bill?
B : There‟s a yellow VW outside Sue‟s house.
(Levinson, 1983: 102)
From the conversation above, literally, B fails to answer A‟s question. A asks B
where Bill is and the answer B gives to A is: „there‟s a yellow VW outside Sue‟s
house‟. In here, B‟s answer is unnecessary and is not related to A‟s question since
done, B‟s utterance is said to be non-cooperative despite the fact that B is trying to
suggest deeper meaning to A. B‟s non-cooperative answer in the conversation
above might create misunderstanding between them.
The two examples above are the conversations which show whether or not a speaker is being cooperative in a conversation. Such cooperative interaction among the interlocutors is stated as theory of Cooperative Principle (Yule, 1996: 37), which is usually abbreviated into CP. Being successful in obeying the CP and its sub-principles is the proof that a person has a communicative competence as an important aspect to use language in daily life.
This study analyzes one of the social phenomena in the society dealing with language use in communication, that is, humor. Studying humor is also important, because according to Holmes & Marra (2002), humor is a means that can be used to improve communication and relationships among the speakers and the hearers. Humor, as stated in The Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus,
is “the condition of being amusing or comic.” Hence, by having the ability to
amuse, humor can create humorous situations. According to Chiaro (1992: 43-44), a humorous situation occurs when there is two-faced meaning or ambiguous meaning of linguistic features in a conversation, such as, the choice of words. This two-faced meaning exists because the participants in a conversation are not cooperative each other by not following Grice‟s Cooperative Principle (CP). The
participants‟ attitude of not following the rules of the CP will create ambiguity
Besides in social interaction, humor can also be found in TV shows. The similarity between humor found in daily interaction and the one that is found in TV shows lies on the principle which creates humor itself. As suggested by Grice, jokes are non-cooperative (Attardo, 1994: 271). Taken into account, both humorous situations in daily interactions and in TV shows occur because non-cooperative interactions exist between the interlocutors. The difference between the two lies on the process of the occurrence of the humorous situations. In daily interactions, humorous situations occur naturally in the conversations without being planned by the interlocutors. Meanwhile, the conversations in TV shows are designed by the writer in order to create humorous situations. Even though the conversations in TV shows are designed, they still carry the principle which creates humorous situations.
This study is conducted to examine the humorous situations created by non-cooperative interactions in a situation comedy, entitled How I Met Your Mother. In this case, the non-cooperative interactions result in violating and
flouting of conversational maxims as the sub principles of Grice‟s Cooperative
Principles. The data of this study are obtained from season 2, episodes 1 to 5. The 2nd season is chosen without any specific purpose since humorous situations are found in all of the 10 seasons.
To reach the aim of this study, Pragmatic approach is applied in order to analyze the violations and floutings of conversational maxims done by the characters in the situations comedy. Grice‟s Cooperative Principle and its four conversational maxims theories are applied to examine the types of conversational maxims which are violated and flouted by the characters in order to create humorous situations. Furthermore, humor theories are applied in order to analyze how the humorous situations are created by the violations and the floutings of conversational maxims found in this situation comedy.
B. Problems Formulation
In order to limit the subject of discussion, there are two problems formulated as follows:
1. What are the types of violations and floutings of conversational maxims appear in a situation comedy How I Met Your Mother season 2, episodes 1 to 5?
2. How do the violations and the floutings of conversational maxims found create humorous situations in a situation comedy entitled How I Met Your Mother season 2, episodes 1 to 5?
C. Objectives of the Study
flouted conversational maxims appear. The second objective of this study is to examine how the violations and floutings of conversational maxims can create humorous situations in this American situation comedy.
D. Definition of Terms
To avoid misunderstanding, there are several terms in this study need to be explained as follows:
Cooperative Principle, often abbreviated as CP, is a theory suggested by Grice as stated bellow:
Make your 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 (Thomas, 2013: 61-62).
By obeying the CP, people who are engaged in a conversation are supposed to respond one another by exchanging the sufficient amount of information which is required by the situation. Besides Cooperative Principle, to guide the speakers in making their contributions appropriate in a conversation, Grice proposed sub-principles of Cooperative Principle which is usually called as Conversational Maxim.
conversational maxims of Cooperative Principle. The conversational maxims which are not followed by the interlocutors are called to be violated or flouted.
Besides being obeyed, a maxim is able to be violated and flouted. Cutting (2002: 40) explains that a speaker is said to violate a maxim when he delivers utterances and knows that the hearer will not understand the whole truth and will only know the surface meaning of the words or sentences related to the topic they are talking about. In violating a maxim, a speaker intentionally wants to mislead or mischief the hearer.
On the other hand, a speaker is said to flout a maxim when he blatantly fails to follow the conversational maxims but expect the interlocutors to understand the implied meaning (Cutting, 2002: 37). In flouting a maxim, the
speaker assumes that the hearer knows the deeper meaning of the speaker‟s
statement and will understand the implicature generated by the speaker.
By doing so, the humorous situation is created between the speakers and the hearers as the product of violating or flouting the maxims.
Humor exists in TV shows such as in situation comedy. According to The American Heritage Dictionary as cited by Savorelli (2010), situation comedy is
“a humorous television series having a regular cast of characters.” From that
explanation, it can be concluded that a situation comedy has the quality of being funny. To get the deeper understanding about situation comedy, Savorelli (2010) presents the definition of situation comedy from the Encyclopedia Britannica which defines situation comedy as:
Radio or television comedy series that involves a continuing cast of characters in a succession of episodes.
Often the characters are markedly different types thrown together by circumstance and occupying a shared environment such as an apartment building or workplace. Typically half an hour in length and either taped in front of a studio audience or employing canned applause, they are marked by verbal sparring and rapidly resolved conflict. (Savorelli, 2010: 21)
9 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter presents three subchapters, which are; first, review of related studies; second, review of related theories; and, third, theoretical framework. The first subchapter, review of related studies, consists of papers and undergraduate thesis discussing the similar topic with the present study. The second subchapter, review of related theories, consists of theories which are used to analyze the problems in this study. The third subchapter, theoretical framework, explains the contribution of the theories and how they are applied in order to examine the problems in this study.
A. Review of Related Studies
There are several studies conducted under the same topic that have been done by some researchers.
The first study is “Humor Strategies in the American Sitcom Friends; An
Empirical Study with Reference to Grice‟s Cooperative Principle”, which was
conducted by Yu-wen Wu and Yong Chen in 2010. In this study, Wu and Chen
explore how American sitcom characters violate Grice‟s Cooperative Principle to
characters to create humor in the situation comedy are resulting from the violation of conversational maxims of Grice‟s Cooperative Principle. The results of the study show that irony, responding irrelevant statements, and making an excuse are the humor strategies mostly used by the characters in the 10th season of the situation comedy. Different kind of humor strategies is used by the characters depends on their intention to achieve humorous situations since each humor strategy manifests different function or purpose.
Pragmatics concepts such as implicature, Grice‟s Cooperative Principles
and its four conversational maxims (maxim of Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner) are applied in this study in order to analyze which conversational maxim is violated. Furthermore, humor theory is also applied to explore the humor strategies done by the characters.
Related to Wu and Chen‟s study, the present study‟s aim is also to
examine humorous situations in a situation comedy. It analyses how the humorous situations are created in such a way by violations and floutings of conversational maxims of Cooperative Principle which are done by the characters. The present study applies humor theory suggested by Raskin and Attardo which is the same humor theory applied by Wu and Chen in their study.
Besides the similarity, there are differences between the two studies. The first difference lies on the data source from which the data are taken. The data of
Wu and Chen aims to explore how the characters in the situation comedy create
humor by violating Grice‟s Cooperative Principle as their humor strategies. On the other hand, the present study aims to explore how the characters in the situation comedy create humorous situations by not only violating but also
flouting Grice‟s Cooperative Principle as their humor strategies. Thus, the present study applies humor theory on both of the violations and the floutings of conversational maxims done by the characters in order to explore how the humorous situations are built in the situation comedy.
The second study is “An Analysis of Humor Types and Grice‟s Maxim in the Situation Comedy Friends Episode of “The One that Could Have Been” (a Pragmatic Approach) by Sri Retno Palupi. The aims of this study are, first, to find out the types of humor which appear in this episode, and second, to define
whether those humors obey or disobey Grice‟s conversational maxims as the
standard conversational norms. This study uses pragmatic approach to analyze the problem formulations. The data are all the humor utterances which are able to create laughter found in Friends comedy series in the episode of “The One with That Could Have Been”. To analyze the types of the humor, the data are classified
episode of situation comedy, which appear in every utterance, fail to obey at least one of the conversational maxims.
Related to Palupi‟s study, the present study‟s aim is also to examine
humorous situations in a situation comedy. The present study is conducted in order to analyze how the humorous situations are created by violations and floutings of conversational maxims done by the characters. In here, the result from
humor analysis in Palupi‟s study contributes evidence that humorous situations which appear in every utterance in the situation comedy are the results of not
obeying at least one of conversational maxims of Grice‟s Cooperative Principles.
Besides the similarity and the contribution, differences are also found
between Palupi‟s study and the present study. First, on one hand, Palupi‟s study
does not stop in analyzing humor in the situation comedy. It goes further in finding out the types of humor found in the data source. On the other hand, the present study focuses on the contribution of conversational maxims of Grice‟s Cooperative Principle in creating humorous situations in How I Met Your Mother season 2, episode 1 to 5. This present study examines more closely how violating and flouting a conversational maxim of Cooperative Principle can create humorous situations in the situation comedy. It does not go further in analyzing the types of humor. Thus, theory of humor types is not applied in the present study like it is applied in Palupi‟s study in order to analyze the data. Second, the
Have Been, the data of the present study are obtained from How I Met Your Mother, season 2, episodes 1 to 5.
B. Review of Related Theories
1. Pragmatics
To this day, a number of theories of language have been developed by linguists. One of these theories is pragmatics. Thomas (1995: 22-23) defines pragmatics as meaning in interaction. It takes not only the contributions from the speakers in saying utterances, but also from the hearers in understanding the utterances from their point of view. Besides the contributions from the interlocutors, contexts of utterance, such as physical, social, and linguistic contexts, and the meaning potential of utterance are taken into account in producing meaning. Thus, pragmatics is context-dependent. An utterance cannot be understood separately from the context it is uttered.
Related to pragmatics‟ nature of context-dependent, Levinson (1983: 21) suggests that pragmatics is “the study of relations between language and context
that are basic to an account of language understanding”. The meaning of “language understanding” is that understanding an utterance does not only involve
knowing the meaning of the words and the grammatical relations between them, but most importantly, it involves the ability to make inferences in order to connect what is said to what is assumed in a certain context.
Yule (1996: 3-4) also states another definition of pragmatics. He suggests that pragmatics is concerned with four areas explained as follow. First, pragmatics
with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than the utterances mean by themselves. Second, pragmatics is “the study of contextual meaning”; meaning that context has an important role in influencing what people say. Thus, it needs a consideration of how people deliver what they want to say in accordance with who they are talking to, where, when, and under what
circumstances a conversation takes place. Third, pragmatics is “the study of how more gets communicated than is said”. From this third definition, this approach
also analyze how the listeners can make inferences about what the interlocutors
say in order to understand the speakers‟ intended meaning. Fourth, pragmatics is “the study of the expression of relative distance”. Distance, in this type, means the
closeness, whether it is physical, social, or conceptual, which implies shared experience between the speakers and the listeners. Thus, how close or distant the listener is, the speakers decide how much needs to be uttered.
From the definitions suggested by linguists as mentioned above, it can be concluded that pragmatics is the study of utterance meaning in a particular
context. Thus, by studying pragmatics, people are able to know others‟ intended
meanings, assumptions, purposes, ideas, even the action they are performing at the moment of speaking.
2. Context
which are, situational context, background knowledge context, and co-textual context.
a. Situational context
Situational context is “the situation where the interaction is taking place at the moment of speaking” (Cutting, 2002: 4). This context deals with what the speakers and the hearers can see around them. Gestures are part of situational
context because interlocutors are able to see each other‟s gestures during their
conversation. Thus, gestures add meaning to the utterances when the speakers and the hearers share the situational context.
b. Background knowledge context
There are two types of context based on background knowledge context. The first one is cultural background context and the second one in interpersonal background context.
Cultural background context is “the cultural general knowledge that most people carry with them in their minds, about area of life” (Cutting, 2002: 5). This type of background context is the knowledge that is mutually shared by people in the same community, people in the same country, people in the same school, or people in the same family. The example of this cultural background context are the knowledge people in the same country have about who the
country‟s president is, or, the students in the same class who knows about each other‟s name of the students in that class.
community think that a certain singer has a very great voice. Once other people in that community find out that the singer has a great voice, then they will modify
their attitude to like the singer‟s voice too. Thus, when speakers modify their expression to reflect their interlocutors‟, it can be seen as their effort to be
accepted and be seen that they belong to the same group. In conclusion, it is this cultural context and shared attitude in a group of people that can make humor of one country is different and is difficult to understand for people for another country, or the humor from one generation is impossible to understand for other generation.
The other type of background knowledge context is interpersonal background context. It is “knowledge acquired through previous verbal interactions or joint activities and experiences, and it includes privileged personal
knowledge about the interlocutor” (Cutting, 2002: 6). For example, a woman and
a man are best friends since they have become co-workers for five years. The man already has a wife and the woman knows his wife. In here, the man must have told the woman that he already has a wife in previous conversations. He might also
have told the woman about his wife‟s name or the place where she works. This
personal knowledge about the mas is the example of shared knowledge that is acquired through interactions or activities they experienced together.
theory is not used to analyze the data in this study, which are not taken from a text.
3. Conversational Implicature
The basic assumption in communication is that when speakers and hearers are engaged in a conversation, they are generally being cooperative with each other. At some point, the meaning of utterances is not conveyed from the expressed meaning but from the implied meaning. Something that is more than what the words mean is called an implicature; the additional conveyed meaning of utterances (Yule, 1996: 35). Implicatures are the example of more is being communicated than what is said. Implicatures which occur in conversations and depend on certain context for their interpretation is usually called conversational implicatures. The example of conversational implicature can be seen from the example bellow:
Example 3:
Nic: Did you do the homework?
Mar: I didn‟t have enough time last night.
Mar has to assume that Nic is being cooperative, but apparently, he does not mention whether or not he did the homework. He just mentions that he did not have enough time last night. By saying this, Nic must intend that Mar infer that
the sentence „I didn‟t have enough time last night‟ means that he had something to
do last night which made him did not have enough time to do the homework. In
conclusion, from the example above, it is the speakers‟ job to communicate meaning via implicature and the listeners‟ job to recognize the communicated
As stated by Yule (1996: 40-43), there are two types of conversational implicature, they are, generalized conversational implicatures and particularized conversational implicatures. The former is a type of conversational implicature which does not require certain knowledge from a particular context to understand the additional conveyed meanings. There is no special background which is required to create inferences in a conversation. One common example of generalized implicature is the use of an indefinite article of
„a‟ or „an‟, such as „a house‟, „a car‟, „a pen‟, or „an apple‟. If these phrases are
put in sentences, it means that the house, the car, the pen, or the apple does not have any relation with the speaker.
Example 4:
Jim : I walk into a house.
(Levinson, 1983: 126) From the example above, Jim says that he walks into a house. That statement
contains the generalized conversational implicature, since the expression „a house‟
creates an assumption that the house is not related to Jim.
However, there are also conversations which take place in a specific context in which recognized inferences are required. The inferences are needed to work out the additional conveyed meanings as the result of particularized conversational implicatures. It is the type of conversational implicature which requires special knowledge of specific context in order to work out the additional conveyed meanings (Yule, 1996: 40-43).
Example 5:
A : What on earth has happened to the roast beef? B : The dog is looking very happy.
In order to make B‟s answer relevant, A has to draw on some assumed knowledge
B expects him to have. It is possible that the dog has eaten the roast beef, thus, it looks very happy.
The fact that particularized conversational implicatures are the most common implicatures appear in conversations, they are typically just called implicature. Levinson also explains that most of the floutings and exploitations of the maxims are particularized (1983: 126).
4. Cooperative Principle
Yule (1996: 4-5) states that in a society, people become the members of certain social groups and will automatically follow the general patterns of behavior within the group. People will adopt the conversational norms in the society to communicate. When people are engaged in a conversation, they will exchange information with their interlocutors. The basic concept that there will be sufficient amount of information provided in a conversation is one of general idea that the interlocutors will cooperate with each other at the moment they are involved in a conversation. Grice suggests that in order to be cooperative with each other in a conversation, interlocutors should obey the Cooperative Principle which runs as follows:
Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose of direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. (Thomas, 1995: 61-62)
According to Grice‟s theory of Cooperative Principle, people should give
information in a conversation. That being done, the interlocutors are said to be cooperative in making a conversation run smoothly.
Grice suggests that in a conversational interaction, people work on the assumption that a certain set of rules is in operation, unless they receive the indication of the opposite. On one hand, there are times when speakers have indications that the interlocutors obey the same conversational norms as the
speakers do. On the other hand, there are times when speakers‟ assumption that
others are cooperating according the same conversational norms is misplaced, since, in fact, the interlocutors turn out to blatantly mislead the speakers by not obeying the conversational norms. In that condition, the speakers are expected to search the implicature might be delivered by the interlocutors.
To avoid a situation when interlocutors blatantly mislead others by not obeying Cooperative Principle, Grice develops four conversational maxims as the sub-principles of the CP. Grice‟s four conversational maxims are formulated as follows (Thomas, 1995: 63-64):
a. Maxim of Quantity
i. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange).
ii. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
According to this maxim, speakers should give neither too little nor too much information to the interlocutors. When the speakers give too little information, the hearers may not be able to understand what they are talking about
much information, the conversation may become not effective since the excess information given in the conversation. Moreover, when the speakers give excess information, it is possible that the hearers will get bored or will assume that the speakers are showing off or cocky. The following statements are the examples of violating the maxim of Quantity.
Example 6:
Rhi : Olive, did you buy the butter and milk? Olive : Yes. I bought the butter and milk?
From the conversation above, Rhi asks Olive about some information; whether or not she buys the butter and milk. Then, Olive answers her by saying: „Yes. I
bought the butter and milk‟. In here, Olive is being cooperative by providing
sufficient information just like what is requested by the situation. She does not give more information than what Rhi has asked her. By giving Rhi the right amount of answer, she is said to obey the maxim of Quantity.
b. Maxim of Quality
i. Do not say what you believe to be false.
ii. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
This kind of maxim expects the speakers to say anything based on reality. The speakers are not allowed to tell lies to the hearer or to say anything which is far from the truth.
Example 7:
Demi : Why are you late, Mon?
In the conversation above, by asking that question, Demi expects to know the reason why Monica is late meeting her. Thus, to fill her in, Monica tells Demi that
she has to drive her friend home beforehand. In here, if Monica‟s answer is based
on what actually happens, she does not lie, and it means that she is being cooperative to Demi. By not giving false information to Demi, Monica is said to obey the maxim of Quality.
c. Maxim of Relation Be relevant
Due to this maxim, speakers are supposed to say something that is relevant to what has been talked in a conversation. They must give information related to the topic of discussion. The example can be seen in the following conversation:
Example 8:
Sue : Hey, how are things going on after you broke up with Ali? Bryan : It has been tough, but I am doing great.
As Bryan‟s best friend, Sue is concerned about his condition after breaking up with Ali and she wants to cheer him up. Being asked a sensitive question, Bryan could have just distracted Sue by changing the topic of discussion. However, he appears to answer her by giving an answer that is related to the question she offers. That being done, Bryan is said to obey the maxim of Relation by providing an answer which is related to the subject Sue brings up.
d. Maxim of Manner
iii. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) iv. Be orderly
This last maxim expects the speakers to be brief in saying something. They should avoid saying something which is difficult to understand. At last, the speakers should avoid ambiguity in their utterances. When the speaker fails to obey each rule of the maxim of Manner, it is possible that the hearers also possible to miss the implicatures drawn by the speakers.
Example 9:
Cindy : Hey, Max. I like your hat. Where did you buy it? Max : Thanks. I bought it at Pick and Pay next to our campus.
Being thrown a question by Cindy, Max has given the right amount of
information and addressed Cindy‟s goal in asking the question. He mentions the
name of the store where he buys the hat and even tells her the location of it. Max‟s answer is brief and not ambiguous. Thus, Max is said to follow the maxims of Manner.
The four conversational maxims above are suggested by Grice in order to build a successful conversation in which the interlocutors should be cooperative with each other. A conversation is said to be successful when the speakers and the hearers are able to understand what each other means by giving the right amount of information, being honest, brief, and relevant to the topic of discussion. The example when the speakers and the hearers are able to observe all of the conversational maxims can be seen below.
Example 10:
Husband : Where are the car keys? Wife : They‟re on the table in the hall.
When the husband asks his wife about the car keys, she has answered him by giving clear and truthful answer. She has also given the right amount of
information and addressed her husband‟s goal in asking the question. In here, the
wife has obeyed all of the conversational maxims and she does not generate implicature (Thomas, 1995: 64). In conclusion, all of the conversational maxims in the example above are successfully observed.
5. Flouting Conversational Maxims
According to Grice, flouting a maxim is a situation when “a speaker
blatantly fails to observe a maxim” (Thomas, 1995: 65). The speakers do not have
any intention to mislead or deceive the hearers, but they expect the hearers to look for the meaning different from, or in addition to, the expressed meaning. The speakers assume that the hearers are able to infer the implied meaning of what is said.
when they provide long-winded and ambiguous explanation to the hearers. By not being order and clear in giving certain information, speakers are also said to flout the maxim of Manner.
The example of flouting of conversational maxims can be found from the conversation bellow:
Example 11:
Penny : Hey. How do I look? Luke : Your skirt is so cute…
From the conversation above, Luke has flouted the maxim of quantity by not
telling the detail information about Penny‟s appearance. Luke does not say anything about Penny‟s t-shirt or shoes, when it is clear that Penny asks for
Luke‟s advice about her overall appearance. By only mentioning her skirt, he expects Penny to understand the implied meaning he is trying to deliver, which is, that the skirt is the only thing that looks good on her. Luke could have also flouted the maxim of relation by changing the topic of discussion into a new topic, such
as: „I‟m hungry. Let‟s go get lunch‟. By doing that, Luke tries to distract Penny‟s attention from the topic of discussion. It is possible that Penny‟s appearance is not
as good as she hopes. That being done, if Penny understands the fact that Luke is trying to distract her from answering her question while she still insists in
knowing Luke‟s opinion, she will keep asking Luke until she gets Luke‟s opinion.
Based on the situation above, it is possible for Luke not to obey the maxim of Manner. He could have flouted the maxim of Manner when he answers Penny by
question. He does not say briefly whether or not she looks good in those clothes. He only gives a hint and lets her decide her own appearance. In order to be cooperative in a conversation, Luke could have given a brief and non-ambiguous answer.
Another example of flouting conversational maxims is the flouting of maxim of Quality that can be found in a situation when an employer is interviewing an applicant. The employer finds out that the applicant does not have the criteria the company is looking for. Thus, the employer tries to find a nice way
to reject the man by saying: „By having great skills and experiences in engineering
like what you have now, I am sure that you will easily fit in a larger company than
our company.‟ In here, the employer actually does not say what he really thinks. It can be concluded that the employer lies to the applicant in order to let him down easy. By saying this, the employer expects that the applicant will understand the implied meaning from his utterances, which is, that he is not accepted in the company.
6. Violating Conversational Maxims
An example when a speaker is violating conversational maxims can be seen from the explanation bellow:
Example 12:
Husband : How much did that new dress cost, darling? Wife : Less than the last one.
(Cutting, 2002: 40) From the example above, the wife does not give the husband sufficient information about the price of the dress. The wife in that situation is said to violate the maxim of Quantity. She could have just given sufficient information by mentioning the price of the dress to her husband. Besides the maxim of Quantity, the wife could have violated the maxim of Quality by not telling the real price of the dress to her husband. She could have violated the maxim of Relation
by saying: „Yes, it looks good on me, right? Let‟s have dinner‟. In here, the wife
directly changes the topic of discussion in order to distract him from asking about the price of the dress. That is said to be a violation of maxim of Relation because the wife is successful in distracting the husband since he does not ask further information about the dress. The wife could have also violated the maxim of
Manner by answering her husband: „My salary is more than enough to cover the
price, even though it was almost impossible for me to buy it.‟ In here, the wife gives long-winded explanation of the price to her husband. She could have just said directly how much the dress costs.
7. Conversational Analysis
students, an employer interviewing an applicant, two people who are debating about an issue, and other kinds of social encounters in which there is interpersonal exchange of talk. The type of talk is based on the contexts of interaction. It is different from one context to another. However, the structure of the talk, which is
the basic pattern of „I speak – you speak – I speak – you speak‟, will become the fundamental structure in an interaction. That structure is called the structure of conversation (Yule, 1996: 71).
Due to the fact that only one participant is allowed to speak at any time, the transition of turn-taking from one speaker to the other needs to be smooth. At the moment of speaking, when there is a short pause done by a speaker, it means simply hesitation. However, when a longer pause happens, that situation becomes silence. In the silence situation, when a speaker turns over the floor to another and the other does not take turn to speak, the silence is attributed to the second speaker. It is called an attributable silence. The following example is a situation when Dave does not take turn to speak when Jan turns over the floor to him. Thus, the silence is attributed to him.
Example 13:
Jan : Dave I‟m going to the store. (2 seconds)
Jan : Dave? (2 seconds)
Jan : Dave – is something wrong? Dave : What? What‟s wrong? Jan : Never mind.
(Yule, 1996: 73)
In a conversation, overlap is possible to happen in transition with a long silence between turns. It is a situation when the participants are trying to speak at
the same time when they predict that the others‟ turn is about to complete when it
avoid providing an open pause at the moment of speaking. Within an extended turn, speakers still expect the hearers to show that they are listening. There are many ways of doing this, such as, by giving facial expressions and gestures, but the most common is vocal indications which are usually called backchannel signals or backchannels. The types of backchannels can be „uh-uh‟, „yeah‟, or
„mmm‟. Those are the signals from the hearers that they are paying attention and receiving the message. When the hearers do not give backchannels as the feedback, it can be interpreted as the action to withhold agreement or disagreement.
In a community of speakers, there is often variation which can cause misunderstanding. Speakers may have different idea and expectation about how a conversation should be like. The conversational style differs from one‟s expectation to others. There are some people who expect that in a conversation, the participation among the interlocutors will be active, the speaking rate will be fast, with some overlap, and with almost no pausing between turns. That type of conversation is called a high involvement style. On the other hand, there are people who expect longer pauses between turns, with lower rate of speaking, with
second style of conversation are usually seen as shy, boring, stupid, or even seen not interested to be involved in a conversation.
Despite the fact that people have different style of conversation, they are still able to find a way to get along with each other in social interaction. They are helped with adjacency pairs, which are automatic patterns in the structure of conversation. These automatic patterns are usually in pairs of utterances. They usually consist of a first part and a second part, which are produced by different speakers and categorized as question – answer, offer – accept, blame – deny, and so on (Cutting, 2002: 30). The utterance of the first part makes an expectation of utterance of the second part. The examples of adjacency pairs can be seen below:
First Part Second Part
A: What‟s up? B: Nothin‟ much.
A: How‟s it goin‟? B: Jus‟ hangin‟ in there.
A: How are things? B: The usual.
(Yule, 1996: 77) The above examples frequently found in the opening sequence of a conversation. It is a sequence which tends to contain greetings, questions about health, or the present situation of the interlocutors. Other type of adjacency pairs is question – answer sequence. However, it often happens that a question in question – answer sequence will not be answered immediately because of another question – answer
Don : Do you want to watch Maze Runner at the movie tonight? (= Q1)
John : What time is that? (= Q2)
Don : Eight thirty. (= A2)
John : Great. I‟m on board. (= A1)
On the situation above, Don asks John to watch Maze Runner at the movie
with him. John delays responding Don‟s invitation by throwing another question to him asking about the time of the movie. After John agrees with the time, he,
then, accepts the invitation. From that situation, John‟s question about the time is
seen as the insertion sequence. That insertion sequence is an indication that not all first parts directly receive the second parts from the interlocutors. Delay in giving response marks the potential unavailability of the expected answer from the interlocutors (Yule, 1996: 78).
8. Humor
Humor is one of the important aspects in building relationship with people.
In social relationships, humor plays an important role, which is “measuring
mutual understanding about particular topics and signaling good intentions (Kuipers, 2006: 1). Several researchers who have been studying humor, such as Holmes & Marra (2002), Kuiper (2006), and Schwarz (2010), state that humor is a tool that can be used to improve communication and relationship among people.
The Encyclopedia of Britannica defines humor as a form of communication that evokes the reflex of laughter of people (Benton (ed), 1983:
7). Many linguists have taken humor as a category which covers “any events or object that elicits laughter, amuses, or is felt to be funny” (Attardo, 1994: 4). By
cited by Attardo (1994: 271-276), suggests that jokes or humor are cooperative. Meaning to say, humorous situations exist because there is non-cooperative interaction among the interlocutors. This non-non-cooperative interaction occurs because the interlocutors do not obey the CP and its maxims by violating or flouting the rules. By doing so, the humorous situation is created between the speakers and the hearers as the product of violating or flouting the maxims.
Modern theories of humor have been developed by linguists. Raskin, as one of the linguists, classifies humor into three categories, which are, incongruity theory, hostility theory, and release theory (Attardo, 1994: 47). These theories of humor are seen as the common accepted classification of humor. Each of the theory sees humor from different viewpoint.
Below is the explanation of each theory of humor which is suggested and developed by philosophers and linguists.
a. Incongruity Theory
The philosophers who are associated with incongruity theory of humor are Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) and Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860). Immanuel Kant suggests that everything that is intended to arise laughter must be something absurd. As cited by Attardo (1994: 48), Kant defines laughter as “an affection arising from sudden transformation of a strained expectation into
outcome of the unfulfilled expectation. He also sees that everything that is intended to cause laughter must be something absurd.
Meanwhile, Schopenhauer explains that laughter is caused by “the sudden perception of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects which have been thought through it in some relation, and laughter itself is just the expression
of this incongruity” (Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Idea, 1819, quoted in Attardo (1994: 48). His definition provides more understanding about
“incongruity” since he mentions it explicitly. He suggests that the greater the
incongruity is, the greater the humorous effect will be produced. Later in the
development of humor theory, Schopenhauer and Kant‟s viewpoints of laughter
and incongruity become the roots of the modern incongruity of humor.
From the explanations above, it can be seen that the basis of the incongruity theory is that humor occurs when there are differences between what is expected and what later occurs. The differences involve the feeling of surprise of the hearers or the audience. This means that humor is the outcome of incongruity created by two conflicting meanings, which are the certain idea that people have in mind and how the idea will create certain expectation as how it
will turn out. Unfortunately, the transformation of the idea makes people‟s
incongruity; and third, appreciating that the unexpected or sudden transformation of perspective is possible (Shade, 1996: 11).
b. Hostility Theory
Hostility or Superiority Theory is an earliest theory of humor which can
date back to Aristotle‟s and Plato‟s works. This theory mentions the negative
element of humor, which is its aggressive side (Attardo, 1994: 49). That aggressive side can be seen as the negative side of humor which is mainly used to humiliate, disparage, or ridicule others‟ inferiority or misfortunes. Both Aristotle and Plato emphasize that laughter is a means of power when it is directed against
others‟ faults or flaws, so that it will show someone‟s superiority among the
victims.
Thomas Hobbes, as a philosopher, suggests that “laughter arises from a
sense of superiority of the laugher towards some object” (Attardo, 1994: 49). In that case, “some object” commonly refers to the “butt of the joke”; anything that
is being laughed at. As stated in Moreall (1987: 20), Hobbes uses the term
“sudden glory” to indicate the expression arising from comparing someone‟s superiority with others‟ weaknesses. That feeling of glory bursts because there is a
combination between mockery and laughter of someone‟s foolish actions as well as sympathy, pleasant, or empathy. Besides the feeling of being superior to
someone else, Hobbes‟ humor theory also takes suddenness into account which
can create surprise effects.
behavior (Attardo, 1994: 50). According to him as explained by Schwarz in her
dissertation (2010: 49), “the ridiculous is something mechanical encrusted on the
living”. Thus, from his point of view, the purpose of laughter is to remove the
encrusted ridiculousness in the society through humiliation, so that well-adapted behavior will be produced. It is concluded that when someone behaves not in accordance with a rule or social norm, he can become the target of the joke and elicit laughter.
From the explanations above, according to hostility theory, humor is created when there is a sudden glory as the expression when someone is being superior among others. The feeling of superiority appears when someone laughs,
mocks, or humiliates at others‟ inferiority, weaknesses, stupidity, or misfortunes.
c. Release Theory
Release theory of humor is basically based on the idea that humor is used to release tension or psychic energy (Attardo, 1994: 50). Once the tension is released, someone will feel liberated. According to this theory, in order to deal with an upcoming social or psychological event, emotional tension is built. When
there is excess energy in one‟s mind, the surplus energy is dispelled through laughter.
The most influential proponent of this theory is Sigmund Freud. As quoted
by Schwarz (2010: 51), he considers laughter as “an outlet for psychic or nervous energy”. Freud sees humor as a means of defense which can enable people to
release emotion or feeling in one‟s mind. According to him, that energy is what is
released in the movements of laughter (Schwarz, 2010: 52)
According to Freud, relating to his analysis of humor, he suggests two
forms of joking, which are “innocent” and “tendentious” jokes. On one hand,
innocent joke is known as innocent humor. Instead of threatening people, this type of joke tends to elicit enjoyment of the content. Freud states that there is no fear of judgment being disturbed by the content or purpose of the jokes (Schwarz, 2010: 55)
On the other hand, tendentious joke is a joke which describes an event that commonly shock or terrify the audience. It functions either to express hostility and aggressiveness or obscenity and exposure. He argues that in tendentious joke, unconscious thought is responsible for releasing joke due to the repressed feeling. In that case, pleasure arises from the hidden aggression or hostility one feels towards people who have more power than him.
In addition, release theory also emphasizes social and behavioral components of humor. According to release theory, laughter gives people temporary freedom from restrictions in daily life, such as, constraints of conventionality, inhibition of sexual and aggressive desire, inflexibility of logic,
and people‟s egos. In this case, humor can be used to rebel against repressive or
uncontrollable elements of society (Shade, 1996: 12). In terms of language
behavior, release theory accounts for the “liberation” from the rules of language, especially for the infraction of the Grice Cooperative Principle typical of humor.
In conclusion, release theory of humor is a theory which sees humor as a means to release tension and energy someone has as the effect of being controlled and suppressed by circumstances or thoughts. People, then, get liberated by bursting out laughter in order to release the tension.
C. Theoretical Framework
The writer uses some applicable theories as the tools to analyze the problems in this study.
First, the theory of conversational analysis is used to analyze the structure of the conversations in the situation comedy. The writer applies that theory to analyze how the participants are communicating with each other. Second, the
Third, the theory of violating and flouting of maxims are applied to analyze how the participants violate or flout the conversational maxims. These theories are also used to solve the first problem in this study, which is to find out the types of violation or flouting of conversational maxims done by the participants. Fourth, the theory of humor is applied in this study to solve the second problem in this study, which is, how flouting and violations of conversational maxims that are found in the data can create humorous situations in the situational comedy.
40 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the writer presents the description of the methodology used in conducting this study. There are three subchapters presented, which are, the object of the study, the approach of the study, and the method of the study. The object of the study describes the linguistic feature that is being analyzed in this study. The approach of the study explains the approach used to analyze the problems under discussion. The method of the study consists of data collection and data analysis. The former discusses the steps of how the data are collected, and the latter discusses the way the data are analyzed.
A. Object of the study
