GRICE’S CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN WRITTEN SHORT HUMOR DIALOGUES.

(1)

Grice’s Conversational Implicature

in Written Short Humor Dialogues

A Research Paper

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Sarjana Sastra Degree

By:

Nesya Juliana

(0807531)

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE EDUCATION INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

Grice’s Conversational Implicature

in Written Short Humor Dialogues

Oleh:

Nesya Juliana

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana Sastra pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Agustus 2015

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(3)

3

PAGE OF APPROVAL

Grice’s Conversational Implicature in Written Short Humor Dialogues

By:

Nesya Juliana

0807531

Approved by:

First Supervisor Second Supervisor

Iwa Lukmana, M.A., Ph.D. Ernie D.A. Imperiani, M.Ed.

NIP. 196611271993031002 NIP. 197809222010122001

Head of English Education Department

Faculty of Language and Literature Education

Indonesia University of Education

Dr. Rd. Safrina Noorman, M.A.

(4)

GRICE’S CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN

WRITTEN SHORT HUMOR DIALOGUES

Nesya Juliana

Iwa Lukmana, M.A., Ph.D.

Ernie D.A. Imperiani, M.Ed.

English Language and Literature Study Program

Department of English Education

Faculty of Language and Literature Education, Indonesia University of

Education

jqueen.juliana@gmail.com, email pembimbing 1, ernie_imperiani@upi.edu

ABSTRACT

The present study, entitled Grice’s Conversational Implicature in Written

Short Humor Dialogues examines the types of conversational implicature,

hidden messages which are generated in written short humor dialogues, and

audience’s responses to implicatures. The present study uses 45 written

short humor dialogues which are taken from www.squackle.com,

www.lotsofjokes.com, www.englishindo.com, and www.jokes4u.com. The data were analyzed qualitatively by using Grice’s conversational implicature (1975). The study is also supported by Hay’s humor support strategies

(2003) to analyze the audience’s responses toward implicature. The study

discovers that particularized conversational implicature is the only type of conversational implicature which appears in written short humor dialogues. Those particularized implicatures are generated through the failure in observing maxims, in the form of flouts. Moreover, flouts maxim of relation is the mostly flouted in the written short humor dialogues with 39 occurrences (86.7%) from 45 occurrences. With regard to audience’s responses, they are obtained through a short interview with 20 students from English Education Department. The result of the interviews demonstrates that the audiences only use three strategies proposed by Hay (2003) which

are ‘contributing more humor’ (53%), ‘humor is support strategy itself’

(22%), and ‘mixed strategy’ (1%) between ‘contributing more humor’ and

‘offering sympathy’. All in all, the findings indicate that humors are easily made by flouting maxims. In addition, the audience’s responses signify that the humor is funny and entertaining.

Keyword: Conversational Implicature, Implicature, Maxims, Audience’s

(5)

Nesya Juliana, 2015

GRICE’S CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN WRITTEN SHORT HUMOR DIALOGUES Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

ABSTRAK

Penelitian berjudul Grice’s Conversational Implicature in Written Short

Humor Dialogues membahas jenis-jenis implikatur percakapan yang

muncul dalam dialog humor singkat, pembentukan pesan dalam dialog humor singkat, dan menganalisa respon dari audien terhadap implikatur dalam dialog humor singkat. Penelitian ini menggunakan data berupa 45 dialog humor singkat yang diambil dari www.squackle.com,

www.lotsofjokes.com, www.englishindo.com, dan www.jokes4u.com. Data dianalisa dengan metode kualitatif menggunakan teori implikatur percakapan Grice (1975). Penelitian ini juga didukung oleh penggunaan teori strategi pendukung humor dari Hay (2003) untuk menganalisa respon dari audien terhadap implikatur. Dari penelitian ini ditemukan bahwa implikatur percakapan khusus merupakan satu-satunya jenis implikatur percakapan yang muncul dalam dialog humor singkat. Implikatur percakapan khusus dibentuk karena adanya pelanggaran terhadap maksim, yakni jenis flouts. Sebagai tambahan, flouts maxim of relation merupakan jenis maksim yang paling sering dilanggar dalam dialog humor singkat, dengan 39 kemunculan (86.7%) dari jumlah 45 humor dialog singkat. Mengacu terhadap respon responden terhadap implikatur diperoleh dengan melakukan wawancara singkat pada 20 orang siswa dari jurusan pendidikan bahasa Inggris. Hasil dari wawancara tersebut menunjukkan bahwa responden hanya menggunakan tiga strategi pendukung humor berdasarkan teori dari Hay (2003), yaitu contributing more humor (53%), humor is

support strategy itself (22%), dan mixed strategy (1%) gabungan strategi contributing more humor and offering sympathy. Penemuan-penemuan di

atas mengindikasikan bahwa humor dapat dengan mudah dibentuk melalui

flouting maxims. Jawaban dari audien menandakan bahwa dialog humor

singkat dianggap lucu dan menghibur.

Kata Kunci : Implikatur percakapan, Implikatur, Maksims, Jawaban

(6)

TABLE OF CONTENT

PAGE OF APPROVAL ... i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION ... ii

PREFACE ... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... iv

ABSTRACT ...v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... vi

LIST OF TABLE ... ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Background ... 1

1.2 Research Question ... 3

1.3 Aims of the Study ... 4

1.4 Scope of the Study ... 4

1.5 Significance of the Study ... 4

1.6 Clarification of Related Terms ... 5

1.7 Organization of the Paper ... 5

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FOUNDATION ... 7

2.1 Implicature ... 7

2.2 Types of Implicature ... 9

2.2.1 Conventional Implicature ... 9

2.2.2 Conversational Implicature ... 10

2.2.2.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature ... 10

2.2.2.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature ... 12

2.3 Conversational Maxims ... 13

2.3.1 Types of Maxim ... 13

2.3.1.1 Quantity ... 13

(7)

GRICE’S CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE IN WRITTEN SHORT HUMOR DIALOGUES Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

vii

2.3.1.3 Manner ... 14

2.3.1.4 Relation ... 14

2.3.2 Non-observances of Maxims... 14

2.3.2.1 Flouting Maxim ... 15

2.3.2.2 Violating Maxim ... 16

2.3.2.3 Infringing Maxim ... 17

2.3.2.4 Opting out Maxim ... 18

2.3.2.5 Suspending Maxim ... 18

2.4 General Theory of Humor ... 19

2.5 Pragmatics to Support Humor ... 20

2.6 Humor Support Strategies ... 21

2.6.1 Contributing More Humor ... 21

2.6.2 Playing Along with the Gag ... 21

2.6.3 Using Echo or Overlap ... 22

2.6.4 Offering Sympathy or Contradicting Self-deprecating Humor ... 23

2.6.5 Overlap and Heightened Involvement in the Conversation ... 24

2.6.6 The Humor is Support Strategy itself ... 25

2.6.7 Irony ... 26

2.7 Previous Studies ... 26

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ...29

3.1 Research Direction ... 29

3.2 Research Design ... 29

3.3 Data Collection ... 30

3.4 Data Analysis ... 30

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND CISCUSSIONS ... 33

4.1 Types of Implicature Generated in Written Short Humor Dialogues... 33

4.2 The Way the Messages are Generated in the Implicature ... 36

4.2.1 Flout of Maxim of Quantity ... 37

4.2.2 Flout of Maxim of Quality ... 38

(8)

4.2.4 Flout of Maxim of Relation ... 42

4.2.5 Flout of Mixed Maxim ... 45

4.2.6 Implicature to Humor Through Maxim Flout ... 46

4.3 Audience’s Responses to the Implicature... 46

4.3.1 Contributing More Humor ... 47

4.3.2 The Humor is Support Strategy itself ... 51

4.3.3 Mixed Strategy ... 57

4.3.4 Response to Humor ... 59

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 61

5.1 Conclusion ... 61

5.2 Suggestion ... 63

REFERENCES ... 65

(9)

ix

LIST OF TABLE

(10)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses the background of the study, the research questions, the

aims of the study, the scope of the study, the significance of the study, the

clarification of related terms, and the organization of the paper.

1.1 Background

Conversation is a type of communication which is done by people in their daily

lives to share ideas and feelings with others. In a conversation, people use

language as the main tool. The use of the language itself is a dynamic process

accommodating both speaker’s intention and hearer’s interpretation (Marmaridou,

2000). When people converse or talk, they sometimes produce direct or indirect

meaning of utterances. When the speech has direct meaning, the hearer can easily

understand the message through the conveyed speech. In contrast, when the

speech has indirect meaning, the hearer needs to examine the context of the

conversation in order to understand the intended meaning.

In real life, sometimes the conversations among people do not run as

smoothly as it is expected. As stated by Thomas (1995: 56), “there are times when

people say or write exactly what they mean, but generally they are not totally

explicit”. They might not say the truth, be relevant, give information as is required, nor say something as clear as he/she can. These may result in misunderstanding

between speaker and hearer which is called conversational implicature. According

to Paltridge (2006: 70), conversational implicature refers to “the inference that a

hearer makes about a speaker’s intended meaning that arises from their use of the literal meaning of what the speaker said.” In other words, conversational

implicature refers to a situation when the intended meaning and literal meaning of

(11)

2 In addition, Grice (1975) proposes that in daily conversation, speakers and

hearers share a cooperative principle. Cooperative principle is a principle of

conversation in which each participant makes a conversational contribution as is

required. In his theory about speech act, Grice (1975) introduces four maxims of

conversation as guidelines for efficiency of the language use in conversation

which are maxim of quality, maxim of quantity, maxim of relation, and maxim of

manner. The maxim of quality is when the speaker tells the truth or provable by

adequate evidence. Meanwhile, the maxim of quantity is when the speaker is as

informative as required. When the speaker’s response is relevant to the topic of

discussion, it is considered as maxim of relevant. Maxim of manner, however,

occurs when the speaker avoids ambiguity or obscurity, direct and straight

forward.

When people failed to observe all four maxim of conversation, it resulted

implicature. Implicature will give effect such as laughing, misunderstanding, or

even confusing. Comedy is one form of humor that people employ in daily

interaction. Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi (2011) propose that in daily

conversation, a comedy uses implicature to reach certain purposes such as

humors/jokes.

Thomas (1995) further states that there are five ways of failing to observe

the maxim, which are flouting, violating, infringing, opting out, and suspending

maxim. All of them are also known as non-observance (Dornerus, 2005; Paakinen,

2010). In terms of non-observance, nowadays, there are comedy shows and

sitcoms which entertain audiences by flouting the maxims. Characters in comedy

shows or sitcoms might tell irrelevant things from the topic or tell a lie in order to

make the audiences laugh. Yet, even if flouting can be used for humoristic

purpose, the humor effect itself is not always understood by hearer. As Thomas

(1995: 58) says “an implicature is generated intentionally by the speaker and may

or may not be understood by the hearer”.

Some studies have been conducted by using Grice’s framework of

(12)

Paakinen, 2010; Pakpahan, 2010; Victory, 2010; Fergina, 2011, Khosravizadeh &

Sadehvandi, 2011; Sheila, 2012). Three studies from Chuandy (2007), Pakpahan

(2010), and Sheila (2012) reveal that generalized conversational implicature

(henceforth G.C.I) mostly occur in conversation to make both speaker and hearer

understand the meaning of utterances. In a comedy movie Taxi for instance,

Chuandy (2007) finds that from 70 implicatures, 36 of them are G.C.I. He defines

that G.C.I is easier to be understood by the hearer. So, there will not be

miscommunication in conversation. Pakpahan (2010) proves Chuandy’s finding

by stating that G.C.I gives strong and clear meaning. So, both speaker and hearer

will understand each other’s utterances. In contrast, previous studies from Victory (2010) resulted particularized conversational implicature (henceforth P.C.I).

Through P.C.I in a comedy movie Yes, Man, the characters are able to generate

humorous effect and involve in humorous situation. Meanwhile, the rest of five

studies (Juez, 1995; Dornerus, 2005; Paakinen, 2010; Fergina, 2011;

Khosravizadeh & Sadehvandi, 2011) revealed that both generalized and

particularized implicature appear in comedy series and movies through the failure

in observing maxims.

Unlike those previous studies which focused on types of conversational

implicature, hidden meaning and the way implicatures generated in humor which

involve adults, the present study deals with types of conversational implicature,

hidden meaning and the ways the implicatures are generated in humors which

involve children. In doing so, the present study employs the theory of

conversational implicature proposed by Grice (1975). In addition, the present

study also deals with audience’s understanding of humor through implicature

which are analyzed by using humor support strategy theory by Hay (2003).

1.2 Research Question

This study is conducted to answer problems formulated in the following

questions:

(13)

4

2. How are the messages generated in the implicatures?

3. What are audience’s responses to the implicatures?

1.3 Aims of the Study

This study is conducted to discover types of conversational implicature which are

identified in short humor dialogue which is taken from humor sites in the internet,

the ways the messages are generated in the implicatures, and the audience’s

responses to the implicatures in order to reveal their startegies to understand the

humor.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This study focuses on short humor dialogues which are taken from humor sites in

the internet. It includes the types, hidden meaning, and the way implicatures are

generated as well as the audience’s response to understand the humor. It mainly

uses Grice’s theory of conversational implicature (1975) and Hay’s theory of

humor support strategies (2003). The data source is based on written short humor

dialogues which are performed by children during home and school activities. The

data are taken from the following sites: www.squackle.com,

www.lotsofjokes.com, www.englishindo.com, and www.jokes4u.com. Those sites

are humor sites where the readers all over the world are able to submit and share

their own humors in which the actors involve children.

The audiences are students from the Department of English Education at a

university in Bandung. Since the present study uses group of students in collecting

the data, it employs ten female and male students. It is in line with Nastasi (2001)

who states that in data collection method, each group should at least consist of

five to ten persons.

1.5 Significance of the Study

Theoretically, it is hoped that the result of this study will contribute to the

(14)

the ways implicatures are produced in a comedy show through the five types of

Non-observance proposed by Grice (1975), the hidden messages which are

generated in implicatures and audience’s response to implicatures relate to humor.

1.6 Clarification of Related Terms

In order to avoid ambiguity or confusion, there are related terms that should be

clarified as follows:

Conversational implicature is the situation where there is difference between what

the words in an utterance means and what the speaker intended meaning. (Davies,

2010)

Generalized implicature is type of conversational implicature which has no

special knowledge require in the context to calculate the additional conveyed

meaning (Yule, 1996).

Particularized implicature is type of conversational implicature which requires

special/specific knowledge in the context to calculate the additional conveyed

meaning. (Yule, 1996).

Cooperative Principle is a principle where both speaker and hearer contribute

meaningful and productive utterance during conversation. So, they will build a

meaningful conversation. (Grice, 1975)

Humor is a general term which refers to something intended that caused

amusement or to whatever quality makes something amusing (Badron, 2005).

1.7 Organization of the Paper

This paper is presented in five chapters. Chapter one contains background of the

research, research questions, aims of the research, scope of the research,

significance of the research, and organization of the paper. Chapter two presents

relevant theoretical background to support the study. It covers theoretical

(15)

6

in present study. Chapter three describes methodology used in conducting the

present study, including the problem of the present study which is explained in

form of research questions, research design, data collection, collection procedures

and data analysis. Next chapter is chapter four which focuses on the result of the

study. It reveals types of implicature identified in short humor dialogues, the

hidden messages generated in the implicatures, and find out the audience’s

response towards implicatures. The last chapter is chapter five which contains a

new interpretation towards the result of the study. The interpretation is in the

(16)

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology used in the present study to investigate the

types of implicature generated in short humor dialogue, the ways the messages are generated in the implicatures, and the audience’s responses toward the implicature. It includes research design, data collection and data analysis.

3.1 Research Direction

The present study deals with the theory of Grice’s conversational

implicature in written short humor dialogues. It is conducted to examine (1) the

types of conversational implicature in written short humor dialogue, (2) hidden

messages which are generated in implicature, and (3) audience’s responses to

implicature.

3.2 Research Design

This study employs a descriptive qualitative method to achieve the aims of

the study, i.e to describe and interpret the types of implicature, the ways the implicatures are generated and the audience’s responses toward the implicatures in written short humor dialogue. The data are in the form of conversational

exchange. Therefore, a qualitative method is suitable to be applied in present

study. This is in line with Silverman (1993, cited in Metodos, 2011), who states

that a qualitative method is a method for analyzing talk, text and interaction rather

than number. It is expected to reveal audience’s understanding of humors in

(17)

30 3.3 Data Collection

There are two types of data in the present study. The first type of data is 45 written short humor dialogues about children’s life at school and home. The written short humor dialogues are obtained from the following sites:

www.squackle.com, www.lotsofjokes.com, www.englishindo.com, and

www.jokes4u.com . The data is used to explore research question 1 (what types of

implicature are generated in short humor dialogues?) and 2 (how are the messages

generated in the implicatures?).

The second type of data which is used in the present study is audience’s

responses obtained from the short interview. The data are used to explore research question 3 (what are audience’s responses to implicature?). The audiences are asked to read five different short humor dialogues which represent each types of

maxim that failed to be observed (including 1 maxim mixed) and asked to give

their understanding about the joke lies in each dialogue. If the audiences do not

get the joke in a dialogue, they will get an explanation about where the joke lies

and will be asked again whether the joke is funny or not.

3.4 Data Analysis

As mentioned above, there are two types of data, i.e written short humor

dialogues and audience’s responses. In terms of written short humor dialogues,

they are analyzed by using conversational implicature framework proposed by

Grice (1975). There are steps in analyzing the data. Firstly, the study identifies

conversational exchanges which potentially generate implicatures by noting the

setting, situation which is aimed to support the analysis. Secondly, categorizes the exchanges based on the types of implicature by using Grice’s theory of implicature (1975) as explained in chapter II and identifies the hidden meaning.

(18)

For interview data, they are analyzed by using understanding humor

framework proposed by Hay (2003). The analysis is conducted by interpreting the audience’s responses by using humor support strategy framework proposed by Hay (2003). Afterwards, the final step is analyzing and interpreting all the data.

The analysis is presented in table 3.2. on the next page.

Table 3.1 Sample Analysis of Types of Conversational Implicature and

(19)

32 Table 3.2 Sample Analysis of Audience’s Responses

(20)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This is the last chapter of the present study. It consists of two parts. The first part

presents the conclusion based on the findings and discussions in the previous

chapter. The second part puts forward the suggestions for further studies.

5.1 Conclusion

The present study is guided by three research questions which examine the types

of conversational implicature, the ways the implicature are generated, and

audience’s responses to humor. For the types of conversational implicature in

written short humor dialogue, it is revealed that there is only one out of the two

types of conversational implicature appears in written short humor dialogues

namely particularized conversational implicature. Particularized conversational

implicature appears in all the 45 written short humor dialogues. One of the

reasons that particularized conversational implicature appears because one or two

types of maxim failed to be observed in the dialogues. In humor dialogues, the

writers break one or two types of maxim for humoristic purpose. This finding is in

line with Paakinen (2010) who states that maxims are broken for humoristic

purposes through verbal and non-verbal acts.

As for the hidden messages which are generated in implicature, they are

generated through the flouting of maxim, and the remaining four did not occur.

Maxim of relation is the most flouted. Moreover, this result also shows that the

easiest way to to make a joke/humor is to be irrelevant. The jokes/humors which

are generated through flouts of maxim of relation are easily understood by the

hearers/readers.

(21)

62

more humor, ‘humor is support strategy itself’, and ‘mixed strategy’

(‘contributing more humor’ and ‘offering sympathy’). ‘Contributing more humor’

is represented by laughing at the humor. It suggests that the humors in the

dialogues are similar with types of humor which are presented in Indonesia. The

respondents acknowledge the humor. So, they easily understand the humors and

laugh at them as the response. ‘Humor is support strategy itself’ is represented by

the act of not giving any form of humor support by the respondents. Moreover, the

present study also observes that ‘humor is support strategy itself’ is used mostly

by male audiences. It suggests that the male audiences tend to be silent or not

giving response to any kind of thing they know/understand. The act of not giving

any form of support to the humor does not always mean that the audiences do not

understand the humor or think that the humor is not funny. Rather, they have other

reasons to do so. The first reason is the audience already read the same dialogue

before. So, the degree of humor is greatly reduced. Another reason is the audience

thinks the dialogue is a little bit funny. So, the humor is less funny. In addition to

the two strategies occurred, a ‘mixed strategy’ between ‘contributing more humor’

and ‘offering sympathy’ occurs in the present study since the audience thinks that

the dialogue is funny and then she feels sorry.

From each finding above, it can be concluded that humor dialogue carries

particularized conversational implicature. Particularized conversational

implicature occurs in a situation where special/specific knowledge is needed in

order to understand the additional conveyed meaning (Yule, 1996), in this case is

source of humor. In the present study, the source of humor in humor dialogue is

placed in a sentence/part where the special/specific knowledge is needed to

understand the humor. So, all of the humor dialogues contain of particularized

conversational implicature. The hidden messages in implicature are generated

through flout of maxims, because the flout of maxim is the easiest way to create a

joke. In humor dialogues, when characters flout the maxims, they may be

(22)

indicate that the humor dialogues are entertaining the audiences. The audiences

laugh as the response to humor to indicate that the humor is funny and

entertaining.

In addition, the results of analysis reveal how gender relates to the humor

support strategies. The ‘contributing more humor’ strategy is used by female and

male audiences in giving their response to humor dialogues. The percentage of

‘contributing more humor’ which is used by female audiences is 25% (25

responses) and 28% (28 responses) by male audiences from total 100 responses

(Each audience gives 5 responses). This does not support Hay’s statement which

proposes that woman tend to laugh more to humor than man. The ‘humor is

support strategy itself’ strategy is used by both female and male audiences. The

strategy is mostly used by male audiences with 13% (13 responses), while female

audiences give 9% (9 responses). The ‘mixed strategy’ (‘contributing more

humor’ and ‘offering sympathy’) occurs once (1%). The strategy is used by a

female audience in giving response to the dialogue which contains flout of maxim

of manner. The rest 24% is used by female (20%) and male (4%) audiences by not

using any form of strategy because they do not understand the humor. From this

explanation, male audiences tend to give response to humor more than female

audiences.

5.2 Suggestion

Finally, the present study achieves its purpose to answer the research

questions and lead to its conclusions. However, this study is realized to be far

from perfection. There may still weaknesess related to the content and the

arrangement. Thus, it is recomended for further research to focus on the content

and the arrangement of the research paper in order to provide more elaborate and

informative research.

Furthermore, it is suggested for further research with the same topic to

(23)

64

English Department of UPI could provide more literature references related to

pragmatic and written short humor dialogue studies, so it can help the students in

conducting their research about pragmatic and written short humor dialogue

(24)

References

Andersen, N. 2013. Flouting the Maxims in Comedy: An Analysis of Flouting in the Comedy

Series Community. Karlstads: Karlstads University Swedia.

Badron, A. 2005. The Philosophy of Humor. Winston: Wake Forest University.

Chuandy, T. 2007. A Study in Conversational Implicature as Found in Taxi Movie. Surabaya: Universitas Kristen Petra.

Classen, A ; Sandidge, M. 2010. Laughter in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times:

Epistemology of a Fundamentals Human Behavior, its Meaning, and Consequences. Berlin: Hubert & Co.

Cutting, J. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.

Dornerus, E. 2005. A Comparative Study of How Scriptwriters Break Maxims in Desperate

Housewives and That 70’s Show. _Karlstads: _{Karlstads Universitet.}

Fergina, A. 2011. Analysing Utterances on Movie by Using the Gricean Maxim. Tanjungpura: UPT Bahasa Tanjungpura University.

Grice, P. 1975. Logic and Conversation, in Cole, P and Morgan, J.L. Morgan eds, Syntax and

Semantics, vol.3. New York: Academic Press.

Hay, J. 2003. The Pragmatics of Humor Support. New Zealand: EBSCO publishing.

Juez, L.A. 1995. Verbal Irony and the Maxims of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. Madrir: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

Khosravizadeh, P ; Sadehvandi, N. 2011. Some Instances of Violation and Flouting of the

Maxim of Quantity by the Main Characters (Barry & Tim) in Dinner for Schmucks.

Singapore:IACSIT Press.

Levinson, S.C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marmaridou, S. 2000. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Co.

Metodos.2011.Silverman_Beginning research. Retrieved from :

http://metodos.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/silverman_beginningresearch.pdf [June 22, 2012]

(25)

66

Paakinen, A. 2010. Everything's a joke, Everyone's a Punchline. Verbally Expressed Humour

in the American Television Series Gilmore Girls. Kuopio: University of Eastern

Finland.

Pakpahan, I. B. 2010. An Analysis of Implicature in Smart FM’s radio Talk Show. Medan:

Universitas Negeri Medan.

Sandra.2008. The role of Conversational Implicature Generated by Flouting the Gracian

Maxims in Jokes. Bandung: Universitas Kristen Maranatha.

Sheila, N. 2012. Conversational Implicature of The Presenters in Take Me Out Indonesia. Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. NewYork: Longman.

Victory, W. R. P. 2010. Implicature Used in Humor Yes, Man Movie. Malang: Universitas Islam Negeri Malang.

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Data Sources :

www.englishindo.com. Jokes in English for the ESL/EFL Classroom : A Project of the Internet TESL Journal. Retrieved on February, 2015.

www.jokes4u.com. Clean Short Classroom Jokes in English - Students funny replies Humor

special. Retrieved on February, 2015. www.lotsofjokes.com. Retrieved on February, 2015.