i ABSTRACT Nur Latifah, A Pragmatic Approach to the Incongruity of Humor in the Dialog of Kung Fu Panda Movie. Thesis. Jakarta: Letters and Humanities Faculty, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah, September 2009. This research is a study of the incongruity of Humor in the dialogues of Kung Fu Panda Movie based on the violation of cooperative principle in pragmatics. It is aimed to know the violation of cooperative principle which can create the incongruity of humor. The writer uses a descriptive qualitative method in which she tries to describe the violation of cooperative principle that creates the incongruity of humor. The unit analysis is taken by the writer from a manuscript of Kung Fu Panda movie released in June 26 th 2008. The thesis examines the analysis of the incongruity of humor through the dialogues violated the cooperative principles. The incongruity of humor will be elaborated through Grice theory of cooperative principle. The writer observes the context which supported the analysis then she identifies the violation of cooperative principle in Kung Fu Panda movie’s dialogues and the implicature of those dialogues. The conclusions that the writer can get from the analysis are; there are two dialogues violate the maxim of quality and five dialogues violate the maxim of manner.
72
Embed
A Pragmatic Approach to the Incongruity of Humor in the ...repository.uinjkt.ac.id/dspace/bitstream/123456789/... · The thesis entitled “ A Pragmatic Approach to the Incongruity
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
i
ABSTRACT
Nur Latifah, A Pragmatic Approach to the Incongruity of Humor in the Dialog of
Kung Fu Panda Movie. Thesis. Jakarta: Letters and Humanities Faculty, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah, September 2009.
This research is a study of the incongruity of Humor in the dialogues of
Kung Fu Panda Movie based on the violation of cooperative principle in pragmatics. It is aimed to know the violation of cooperative principle which can
create the incongruity of humor. The writer uses a descriptive qualitative method
in which she tries to describe the violation of cooperative principle that creates the
incongruity of humor. The unit analysis is taken by the writer from a manuscript
of Kung Fu Panda movie released in June 26th
2008.
The thesis examines the analysis of the incongruity of humor through the
dialogues violated the cooperative principles. The incongruity of humor will be
elaborated through Grice theory of cooperative principle. The writer observes the
context which supported the analysis then she identifies the violation of
cooperative principle in Kung Fu Panda movie’s dialogues and the implicature of
those dialogues.
The conclusions that the writer can get from the analysis are; there are two
dialogues violate the maxim of quality and five dialogues violate the maxim of
manner.
ii
APPROVEMENT
A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO THE INCONGRUITY OF HUMOR IN
THE DIALOGUES OF KUNG FU PANDA MOVIE
A Thesis
Submitted to the Letters and Humanities Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Strata 1
NUR LATIFAH
105026000910
Approved by:
Advisor
Dr. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd NIP. 150 299 480
ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT
LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH
JAKARTA
2009
iii
LEGALIZATION
The thesis entitled “ A Pragmatic Approach to the Incongruity of Humor in the
Dialogues of Kung Fu Panda Movie” has been defended before the Letters and
Humanities Faculty’s Examination Committee on November 03, 2009. The thesis
has already been accepted as a partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree
of strata one.
Jakarta, November 03, 2009
Examination Committee
Chair Person, Secretary,
Dr. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd
NIP. 150 299 480 NIP. 150261902
Members:
Drs. Asep Saefuddin, M.Pd M. Supardi, S.S, M. Hum
NIP. 150261902
iv
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and that, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by
another person nor material which to substantial extent has been accepted for the
award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institute of higher
learning, except wher due acknowledgement has been made in the text.
Jakarta, September 29, 2009.
Nur Latifah
v
AKCNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the most Gracious and the most Merciful.
Praise and gratitude are only for Him, the Lord of the universe, who has
given his extraordinary mercy by succeeding the writer in making this thesis. May
blessing and salutation be upon the most honorable prophet and messenger
Muhammad SAW, his families, his companions, and his congregations.
In terms of the completion of the writer’s study, she wants to express her
deepest gratitude to Prof. Dr. Komarudin Hidayat as the Rector of UIN Syahid
Jakarta, Dr. Abdul Chair, MA as the Dean of Letters and Humanities Faculty, Dr.
Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd as the Chief of English Letters Department, Drs. Asep
Saefuddin, M.Pd as the Secretary of English Letters Department, and all inspiring
lecturers of English Letters Department for having taught and educated her during
her study at State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
The writer dedicates her much love and thanks to her beloved parents for
their guidance, struggles, sacrifice, support, pray, and material and psychological
support. She offers everything to them, and to her brothers for motivating her to
graduate.
Her foremost and deepest thanks to Boogie for teaching her the skill of life
which she never learnt it at any formal school in this world. S’ Agapo.
Furthermore, she would like to thank to mbak’ Eti for teaching her
Linguistics especially Pragmatics, uda Andri for his kindness to motivate, Ophy
and ‘Nyut for their kindness in sharing the time together, Hery for his jokes and
vi
advice, Bang Sholah for teaching me the balance of life, A’ Izzi for his kindness to
make me smile, her great classmates in class A as well as her friends in class B
and C, Imaria friends (Ida, Ayu, Mardel, Yuni, Hanum, Jannah, Hikna, Rini, and
Nurul) for the wonderful friendship, and all of her friends wherever they are that
can’t be voiced here.
Thanks are also addressed to all staffs of some libraries in Jakarta; such as
Letters and Humanities Library, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta Library, Atma Jaya Library, Indonesia University Library, British Council
Library and Regional Library of South Jakarta.
Finally, she hopes this thesis will be beneficial for the readers who are
especially interested in pragmatics.
Jakarta, September 2009
Nur Latifah
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................. i
APPROVEMENT......................................................................................... ii
LEGALIZATION ......................................................................................... iii
DECLARATION.......................................................................................... iv
AKCNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................ v
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................. vii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1
A. Background of the Study.................................................. 1
B. Focus of the Study ........................................................... 5
C. Research Question .......................................................... 5
D. Objective of the Study ..................................................... 5
E. Significance of the Study ................................................. 6
F. Research Methodology ................................................... 6
1. Method of Research ................................................... 6
2. Technique of Data Analysis ....................................... 6
3. Unit of Analysis ......................................................... 7
4. Instrument of Research.............................................. 7
CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK…………………………. .. 7
A. Pragmatics ....................................................................... 7
on psychology theory meanwhile humor actually can be analyzed through its
language using semantics or pragmatics theory.
B. Focus of the Study
On the background of the study, the writer tells that the creative works of
humor can be a picture, discourse, or other created materials produced to make
laughter for those catching them through the senses. Then, the writer solely
focuses her research to the violence to the maxims of cooperative principle in the
dialogues of Kung Fu Panda movie, the incongruos humor in those dialogues, and
the implicature of those dialogues.
C. Research Question
To make more convenient and simply in the research, the writer
formulates her research through the following questions:
1. Which maxims of the cooperative principle are being violated in the dialog of
Kung Fu Panda movie?
2. How do the incongruity of humors in those dialogues of Kung Fu Panda
movie which are violating the maxims of cooperative principle occur?
3. What are the implicature of those dialogues of Kung Fu Panda movie which
are violating the maxims of cooperative principle?
D. Objective of the Study.
The aim of this research is to analyze the incongruous humor through
pragmatics approach, specifically to:
1. Identify the maxims of the cooperative principle which are being violated
in the dialogues of Kung Fu Panda movie.
xiv
2. Identify how the incongruity of humors in those dialogues which are
violating the maxims of cooperative principle occur.
3. Identify the implicature of those dialog which are violating the maxims of
cooperative principle.
E. Significances of the Study
With this existence of this research, the writer hopes that it will be a
stimulation to analyze humor based on pragmatics which is still rare. The writer
also hopes this reserch will be profitable and beneficial for the readers especially
the ones who have interest in humor analysis based on pragmatics.
F. Research Methodology
1. Methodology of the Study
The method applied in this research is descriptive qualitative method.
Then, the writer will describe the data which are violating the cooperative
principle, the incongruity of humor, and the implicature.
2. Data Analysis.
An analysis of the data obtained qualitative cooperative principle based on
Grice theory. In order to succeed this research, the writer benefited the qualitative
analysis data by implementing the following procedures:
a. Collecting the whole books that are relevant to pragmatics and humor
theory.
b. Reading and understanding some theories of pragmatics and humor
theory..
c. Reading and understanding a manuscript of Kung Fu Panda movie.
xv
d. Identifying the dialogues of Kung Fu Panda movie that are violated the
cooperative Principle and created the incongruity of humor, and the
implicature of the dialogues.
e. Concluding the data which have been collected.
3. Unit of the Analysis.
The unit of analisis that is researched by the writer is the dialogues of
Kung Fu Panda movie released on 6 June 2008 and produced by DreamWorks
Animation's studio.
4. Instrument of The Research
The writer uses herself as a main research instrument through reading,
identifying, and classifying the data. She observes and signs the violence of
maxims of the cooperative principle within the text.
xvi
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A. Pragmatics
Pragmatics is different from the study of grammar. Pragmatics is the study
of language use which offers a complementary perspective on language, providing
an insight into the linguistic choices that users make in social situations. It is not
too important whether they observe a particular syntactic rule or not. Meanwhile,
the study of grammar focuses on the language system. “The term ‘pragmatics’ is
derived from Greek pragma which means ‘action’. Action is defined as
intentional behavior.”9
The definition of pragmatics has been stated by some linguists. Parker
stated in his book “Linguistics for non Linguists” that quoted by Kunjana Rahardi
says “pragmatics is distinct from grammar, which is the study of language.
Pragmatics is the study of how language is used to communicate”.10
Parker’s statement of the definition of pragmatics is emphasized and
supported by the statement of Jacob L. Mey and Jean Stiwell Peccei. Jacob L.
Mey argued that “pragmatics is the study of the conditions of human language
uses as these are determined by the context of the society”.11
9 Philipp Strazny, (ed.), “Pragmatics”, Encyclopedia of Linguistics vol 2 (New York:
Taylor & Fransis Book, Inc., 2005), p. 869. 10
Kunjana Rahardi. Pragmatik: Kesantunan Imperative Bahasa Indonesia (Jakarta:
Erlangga, 2002), p. 49 11
Jacob L. Mey. Pragmatics : An introduction (Oxford : Blackwell Publishers Ltd.,
2001), p. 6.
xvii
Jean Stilwell Peccei assumed that “pragmatics is the study concentrated on
aspects of meaning that can’t be predicted by linguistics knowledge alone and
takes into account knowledge about the physical and social world”12
Based on some definitions above, the writer assumes that pragmatics is the
study of meaning that can’t be identified by linguistics knowledge alone or
grammar but it is also determined by knowledge of context of society.
The example:
John : What time is it?
James : The class has begun.
If the dialog above is analyzed semantically or grammatically, that dialog
consists of interrogative sentence “what time is it? And the answer “the class has
begun” consists of noun phrase “the class” and verb phrase “has begun”. That
dialog describes that John asks James what time it is and James answers that the
class has begun. Then, grammatical analysis as a formal analysis can’t explain the
idea of that dialog. Furthermore, pragmatics analysis is able to complete it to get
the idea of it. Concerning to the context, James answers John’s question
explicitly. They can infer what time in that moment by concerning to the time
when the class begins and they have the same assumption of the time so then the
question has been answered already by saying the class has begun.
According to the explanation above, grammatical and lexical knowledge
are generally only two or several factors in the interpretation process. Aside from
physical setting, participants’ personal background knowledge and their attitude
toward each other, sociocultural assumptions concerning role and status
12 Jean stiwell peccei. Pragmatics (Routledge : New York, 1999), p. 15.
xviii
relationship as well as social values associated with various massage (sic)
components also play an important role.13
Then, to have the conversation come
alive in mutually accepted and pragmatically determined context, the speaker and
the hearer have to cooperate and adhere to the rule of communication which is
called the cooperative principles.
1. Cooperative principles
Grice suggested that there is an underlying principle that determined the
way in which language is used with the maximum efficiency and effectiveness to
achieve rational interaction in communication. He called this overarching dictum
the cooperative principle which is proposed in stating that participants expect that
each will make a “conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at
which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in
which you are engaged."14
The cooperative principle is subdivided into four maxims. Maxim means
a succinct formulation of some fundamental principle or rule of conduct.15 The
cooperative principle and its component maxims ensure that in an exchange of
conversation, the right amount of information is provided and that the interaction
is conducted a truthful, relevant, and perspicuous manner. A Speaker may respond
to the maxim by obeying the rule, violate one of the four, choose one of them, or
13
A. Hamid Hasan Lubis. Analisis Wacana Pragmatik (Bandung : Angkasa, 1986), p. 70. 14
Steve Hoenisch, Grice’s Cooperation Principle and Conversational Maxims, Accessed
on February 14, 2009. www.criticism.com/da/grice-maxims.php. 15
Anonymous, The heritage Illustrated dictionary of English Language, vol. 2 (Atalanta :
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1699), p. 808.
xix
sacrifice among the four if the condition demanding the speaker to choose, or just
ignoring the rule.16
The four maxims of cooperative principle are:
a) the maxim of quantity
This maxim proposes the speaker to give his contribution sufficiently
informative for the current purpose of the conversation and doesn’t give more
information than required.17
Example:
a. John : Excuse me, do you know what time it is?
Henry : Yes.
b. John : Excuse me, do you know what time it is?
Henry : five o’clock.18
In the discourse a, it can be identified that Henry violates the maxim of
quality because he doesn’t give sufficiently informative for the current purpose of
the conversation. John apparently doesn’t need a short answer, yes or not, but he
needs extra information for his question. On the other hand, the maxim of quality
is fulfilled all the way in the discourse b. Henry has sent sufficient information for
the question being asked by John.
b) the maxim of quality
This maxim requires the speaker not to say what he believes to be false
and lack adequate evidence.19
16
Steve Hoenisch, Grice’s Cooperation Principle and Conversational Maxims, Accessed
on February 14, 2009. www.criticism.com/da/grice-maxims.php 17
Alison Ross. The Language of Humour (London : Routledge, 1998), p. 40. 18
Salvatore Attardo. Lingustic Theories of Humor (Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter, 1994), p.
272. 19 Jacob L. Mey (2001), op. cit. p. 72.
xx
Example:
c. Sandy : What is your name?
Jack : My name is jack d. Sandy : What is your name?
Jack : You can call me Spiderman.
In conversation c, both Sandy and Jack adhere to the maxim of quality
because they believe what they say is not false or lack of evidences. In contrast to
conversation c, Jack violates the maxim of quality in conversation d because he is
not a Spiderman. Then, his said is lack of evidence.
c) the maxim of relevance
This maxim requires the speaker to give the information as required for the
goal of conversation.20
Example:
e. Boogie : What do you like to drink? Ray : I like to drink coffee
f. Boogie : What do you like to drink? Ray : I have bought a linguistics book.
Boogie and Ray have accorded the maxim of relevance in conversation e.
Ray has given the relevant information boogie asks for meanwhile Ray violates
the maxim of relevance in conversation f. He gives irrelevant answer to Boogie’s
question.
d) the maxim of manner
This maxim proposes the speaker to be brief, be orderly, avoid obscurity
of expression, and avoid ambiguity.21
20
Soenjono Dardjowidjojo. Psikolinguistik : Pengantar pemahaman Bahasa Manusia.
(Jakarta: Yayasan Obor Indonesia, 2005), p. 110. 21 I Dewa Putu Wijana. Dasar-dasar Pragmatik (Yogyakarta: Andi Offset, 1996), p. 50.
xxi
Example:
g. Glory : What movie do you want to watch? Horror or comedy?
Victoria : I want to watch comedy h. Glory : What movie do you want to watch? Horror or comedy?
Victoria : Actually, the drama is good movie but I don’t understand the plot or action movie is also good but I don’t like the actors.
In conversation g above, Glory and Victoria have evoked their ideas
clearly. All statements are understood well by them. This fact is real evidence that
the maxim of manner has been satisfied in conversation g. In conversation h,
Victoria seems to violate the maxim of manner. She doesn’t say her ideas briefly.
2. Implicature
The cooperative principle goes both ways: speakers (generally) observe
the cooperative principle, and listeners (generally) assume that speakers are
observing it. This allows for the possibility of implicatures, which are meanings
that are not explicitly conveyed in what is said, but that can nonetheless be
inferred.22
The word “implicature” is derived from the verb “to imply” as is its
cognate “implication”. Originally, ‘to imply’ means ‘to fold something into
something else’ (from the Latin verb plicare “to fold”); hence, that which is
implied is “folded in” and has to be ‘unfolded” in order to be understood.23
The notion of implicature was originated by the Oxford philosopher
Herbert Paul Grice who introduced it at Harvard in 1967.24 As John J. Gumperz in
his book “Discourse Strategies” stated that the term implicature is used to account
for what a speaker can imply, suggest, or mean as distinct from what the speaker
22 Steve Hoenisch, Grice’s Cooperation Principle and Conversational Maxims, Accessed
on February 14, 2009. www.criticism.com/da/grice-maxims.php 23
Jacob L. Mey (2001), op.cit. p. 45. 24 Yan Huang. Pragmatics (New York : Oxford university Press, 2007), p. 23
xxii
literally says.25
Therefore, the literally meaning can’t be identified by linguistics
knowledge alone or grammar but it is also determined by knowledge of context of
society. The following example is from the classic article Logic and Conversation
by Herbert Paul Grice:
“Suppose that A and B are talking about A mutual friend C, who is now
working in a bank. A asks B how C is getting on in his job, and B replies, Oh quite well, I think; he likes his colleagues and he hasn’t been to prison yet.”26
The form of B’s statement does not say everything about the meaning and
therefore the function. A can derive from B’s remark that B does not hold a high
opinion of C. in fact, B has basically said that C is a potential criminal. Yet, this
can not be derived from the literal meaning of B’s words. Why then can A draw
these conclusions? Because A can assume that there is some relevance to B’s, at
first glance, superfluous addition concerning prison. The only reason B would add
that remark is if B meant to imply that C is a potential criminal.27
3. Context
Pragmatics view context primarily as “knowledge”; although a key part of
such knowledge is “knowledge of situation”. The term of knowledge is what
speakers and hearers can be suggested to know and how that knowledge guides
the uses of language and the interpretation of utterances.28
25
A. Hamid Hasan Lubis (1986), op.cit. p. 76. 26
Jan Renkema (1993), op. cit. p. 8. 27
Ibid 28 Deborah Schiffrin. Approaches to Discourse (Oxford : Blackwell, 1994), p. 365.
xxiii
Dell Hymes identified the relevant context which quoted by A. Hamid
Hasan Lubis as advesser or speaker, advessee or hearer, topic, setting, channel,
code, massage from (sic), event.29
B. Humor
Rollo May, a humanistic psychologist, argued that humor is the capacity to
perceive, appreciate, or express what is funny, amusing, incongruous, ludicrous,
etc.30
Humor is the quality that makes something laughable or amusing;
funniness: could not see the humor of the situation, the ability to perceive, enjoy,
or express what is amusing, comical, incongruous, or absurd, or That which is
intended to induce laughter or amusement: a writer skilled at crafting humor.31
The goal of humor is to violate pragmatic knowledge to a funny end.
Then, it can liberate the perceivers of humor from the telic state, the situation
which is full of pressure, to the paratelic state, the situation when the perceivers of
humor are liberated from pressure.32
1. Theory of humor
The number of different theories of humor from the times of ancient Greek
philosophers through the present is so extensive. Victor Raskin believed that
29
A. Hamid Hasan Lubis (1986), op.cit. p. 84. 30 Steven M. Sultanoff. Integrating Humor into Psychotherapy, in Play Therapy with
Adults. ed. Charles Schaefer, (New York: Wiley and sons, 2002). Accessed on February 4, 2009.
http://www.humormatters.com. P. 17. 31
Alison Ross (1998), op.cit. p. 7. 32 I Dewa Putu Wijana. Kartun : Studi Tentang Permainan Bahasa (Yogyakarta: Ombak,
2003), p. 23.
xxiv
existing theories could be divided into three groups: incongruity theories, hostility
theories, and release theories. 33
a. The theory of Incongruity
The theory of incongruity is often called by biosociation. Many researcher
have noted that incongruity is fundamental to humor.34 This theory was proposed
by Aristotle. It stated that humor appears as a result of understanding the
incongruity between the expected, and the achieved result.35
Then, when
something is perceived or understood that was not expected or predictable from
the situation as understood up to the moment of surprise can create a joke.36
Incongruous means inconsistent; not fitting well together; disjoined;
unsuitable; which all sound of negative term. The term incongruity refers to the
possibility for two meanings being understood from the utterance.37
The humor
will often have the following elements:
a. There is a conflict between what is expected and what actually occurs in the
joke.
b. The conflict is caused by an ambiguity at some level of language.
c. The punch line is surprising, as it is no the expected interpretation, but it
resolves the conflict.38
33
Igor Krichtafovitch, Humor Theory, Linguistics. Accessed on January 28, 2009.
http://www.amazon.com/Humor-Theory-Laughter-IgorKrichtafovitch/dp/1598002228. p. 14. 34
E. Judith Weiner, “The Incongruity of Jokes, Riddles, and Humorous Situation”, Social
interaction and Discourse Structures, Vol. 2. (1997), p. 139. 35
Tom Veatch, Humor Theory, Linguistics. Accessed on February 15, 2009.