CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE OF HUMOR IN MICHAEL

MCINTYRE INTERVIEW ON JONATHAN ROSS SHOW

A Thesis

Submitted to Letters and Humanities Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of Strata One

Tamara Seprilia Ningtyas

11140260000061

ENGLISH LETTERS DEPARTMENT

LETTERS AND HUMANITIES FACULTY

STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH

JAKARTA

2018

i

ABSTRACT

Tamara Seprilianingtyas, Conversational Implicature of Humor in Michael

Mcintyre Interview on Jonathan Ross Show. Thesis: English Letters Department,

Letters and Humanity Faculty. State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah

Jakarta. 2018

This study analyzes the conversational implicatures that is generated by the

maxim which appears on the conversation between Michael Mcintyre and

Jonathan Ross in Jonathan Ross Show. The objective of the research is to know

the process of flouting maxim in creating humor that appears through the

conversation. This study uses Grice’s Conversatinal Implicature theory to analyze

the implicature and the maxims. Moreover, it also uses Raskin’s theory of humor

to identify the humor that has been applied in the utterances. The result indicates

that both particularized conversational implicature and generalized conversational

implicature are found in the conversation. The generalized conversational

implicature and particularized conversational implicature generated by flouting

maxims based on the meaning that Michael implied in his utterance. He has been

flouted the four maxims which are maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim

of relation and maxim of manner. He chiefly flouted maxim of quantity.

Furthermore, the most Michael’s utterances indicate the incongruity theory and

spontaneous conversational humor which have dominant role in creating humor.

The spontaneous conversational humor is distinguished from certain basis of the

intentions or use of humors such as satire, overstatement and understatement, self-

deprecation, teasing, and clever or nonsensical replies to serious statements.

Moreover, the writer finds that Michael as a guest star who is also a comedian

always gives answer or statement that makes Jonathan and the audience laugh by

flouting the maxim intentionally. Thus, most of conversatioanal implicatures are

aimed to entertain and create laughter to the audience.

Keywords: Conversational Implicature, Flouting Maxim, Humor.

ii

iii

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 same material previously published or

written by another person which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the

award of any other degree or diploma of the university or other institutes of higher

education, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.

Jakarta, November 22nd

2018

Tamara Seprilia Ningtyas

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful. All praises

be to Allah SWT, the Lord of the Universe who has given an incredible strength,

patience, spirit and every single outstanding idea to the writer in the process of

writing this thesis. Peace and salutation are given to the great prophet Muhammad

SAW, his family, companions and adherents who had changed the world into the

better place to live.

Afterwards, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents, my mother

who always motivated me and reminded me especially about finishing this thesis,

moreover, my father who always supported everything that I need, and also my

two brothers who are being my superior strength.

Furthermore, I also would like to give thanks and deepest gratitude to:

1. Prof. Dr. Sukron Kamil, M.A., the Dean of Letters and Humanities

Faculty.

2. Drs. Saefudin, M.Pd, the Head of English Letters Department and all at

once as the advisor of my thesis, for all his kindness, valuable suggestions

and pleasurable guidance.

3. Elve Oktafiyani, M. Hum, the Secretary of English Letters Department.

4. All the lectures in English Letters Department who sincerely taught a

precious knowledge during my study.

5. All of the librarians and staffs of Adab and Humanities Faculty.

vi

6. All my friends in B and Linguistics Class, especially, Anisa Zakia, Alysa

Robiyanti, Nurlaelah, Wina Eka Nurhanifah, Andi Arwina Utami, Siti

Chaerunisa, Fena Basafiana and Sarah Chairunisa.

7. All my lecturers, teachers, and friends in Kahfi BBC Motivator School.

All the strengths, spirits and knowledges are truly helpful to present this

research.

8. All members of KKN 148 Al-Husna UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

9. Mareta Dalena Gumanti, my best and dearest friend.

10. Others beloved friends, relatives and students which are not mentioned one

by one.

May Allah SWT always blesses and protects us. Aamiin.

Lastly, the writer realizes that this research is still far from perfect, so for

better study, the writer is pleased to receive critics and suggestions. Hopefully,

this thesis will be an advantageous for the writer particularly and for the readers

generally.

Jakarta, November 22nd

, 2018

Tamara Seprilia Ningtyas

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………….. i

APPROVAL SHEET ………………………………………………………...… ii

LEGALIZATION ……………………………………………………………… iii

DECLARATION ………………………………………………………………..iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……………………………………………………... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS .…………………………………………..……….... vii

THE LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………….…..….. ix

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………..1

A. Background of the study …………………….………………………..……. 1

B. Focus of the Research …………………………………………….……….. 4

C. Research Questions ………………….…………………………….……….. 4

D. Significances of the Research ……………………………………….…..…. 5

E. Research Methodology …………………..………………………….…..…. 5

1. The Objectives of Research ………………………..………....…….…..…. 5

2. The Method of Research ………………………..………………….…..…. 6

3. The Instrument of the Research ………………………………………..…. 6

4. The Unit of Analysis ………………………………………….………..…. 6

5. Technique Collecting Data and Data Analysis ……………………………. 7

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ……………………………..8

A. Previous Research ………………………………………………………….. 8

B. Theory …………………………………………………………………….. 10

1. Conversational Implicature ……………………………………………….10

1.1.Definition of Implicature …………………...………………………... 10

1.2.Implicature in Conversation ………………………………………..... 10

1.3.A Guide of Implicature ………………………………………...…….. 12

1.3.1.Conversational Implicature ……………………………………..12

1.3.1.1.Generalized Conversational Implicature ……………...… 13

viii

1.3.1.2.Particularized Conversational Implicature ………...……. 13

1.3.2.Conventional Implicature …………………………………...…. 14

2. Cooperative Principle ……………………………………………...…….. 15

3. Flouting the Maxims ……………………………………………………. 18

2.1 Flouting Maxim of Quantity …………………………………………. 19

2.2 Flouting Maxim of Quality ………………………………………...… 20

2.3 Flouting Maxim of Relation ………………………………………..... 20

2.4 Flouting Maxim of Manner ………………………………………….. 21

4. Humor …………………………………………………………..……….. 21

4.1 The Definition of Humor …………………………………………….. 21

4.2 Theory of Humor …………………………………………………….. 22

4.1.1 Incongruity Theory …………………………………………….. 23

4.1.2 Superiority Theory ………………………………………...……24

4.1.3 Release Theory ………...………………………………………. 24

4.3 Types of Humor ……………………………………………………… 25

4.3.1 Canned Jokes ………………………………………………...… 26

4.3.2 Spontaneous Conversational Humor ……………………….….. 28

4.3.3 Accidental or Unintentional Humor ………………………….... 31

5. Humor and Flouting the Maxims ………………………………………... 32

CHAPTER III RESULT AND DISCUSSION ………………………………. 36

A. Data Description ……………………………………………………...……36

B. Data Analysis ………………………………………………………...…… 40

CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND SUGESTIONS ……………………... 64

A. Conclusions ……………………………………………………………….. 64

B. Suggestions ……………………………………………………………….. 65

BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………….. 66

APPENDIX …………………......……………………………………………… 68

ix

THE LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The Three Families of Theories ……………………………….………. 23

Table 2. The Data Description ………………………………………………….. 36

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Humor is ubiquitous in human social life (Dynel 50). Almost every people

likes humor, jokes and funny stories. Humor and laughter are a universal aspect of

human experience, occurring in all cultures and virtually all individuals

throughout the world. According to Ross, humor is something that makes a person

laugh or smile (1). The involuntary funny, odd and quaint object of laughter later

became known as the humourist, and the man of humour took pleasure in

exposing and imitating the peculiarities of the humourist. During this period

humor and wit became seen as talents relating to the ability to make others laugh

(Raskin and Ruch 43). Regularly, all of people react with humor, jokes and

laughter in dissimilar circumstances.

Humor can and frequently does occur in virtually any social situation. It

can take place in the conversation of a group of close friends, or in the interactions

of a group of business people. It can be used by public speakers, such as

politicians or religious leaders, addressing large audiences either in person or via

the media (Martin 5). Many different forms of humor communicated by different

means and for different purposes. Some of this humor comes to us via the mass

media. Radio hosts frequently crack jokes and make witty comments; television

provides people with a constant diet of humor in the form of sitcoms, blooper

shows, stand-up comedy, political satire, and humorous advertisements; and it is

2

also in newspaper comic strips and cartoons, comedy movies, and humorous

books (10). Humor is also often used in speeches, sermons, and lectures by

politicians, religious leaders, motivational speakers, and teachers.

However, humor is essentially a way for people to interact in a playful

manner. People experience humor and laughter in the daily life. Humor possibly

occurs in casual conversation in television program such as a talk show which

involves a presenter and the guests. The audience laughter was used as an

indicator of humor. The discussion that happens in that television program can be

analyzed through pragmatics approach by examining the implementation of

cooperative principle. Attardo has argued that humor violates Grice’s cooperative

principle. A large number of jokes involve violated or flouted of one or more of

Grice’s maxims (271).

In a conversation, beside the cooperative principle which consists of

maxims (maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of manner, and maxim of

relation), it might consist of non-observance of the maxim that generates a

conversational implicature. Study the following conversation:

(1) Michael : Do you know what horse riding in America?

Jonathan : Is not called horse riding?

Michael : Nope. Horseback riding. They need specify

how ride the horse.

Jonathan : Oh yes. Yeah.

The conversation (1) involves Jonathan Ross as a presenter and Michael

Mcintyre as a guest star. Michael Mcintyre talked about American words and

asked Jonathan Ross whether he knew what horse riding called in American.

3

Michael stated that it was not called horse riding but horseback riding. It generates

particularized conversational implicature because Jonathan did not know and

think about it (the term of horseback riding and the reason why American call it

instead horse riding). This utterance also indicates maxim of quality but when

Michael continued his explanation by saying "They need to specify how to ride the

horse”, the maxim of quality is flouted because he gave information more than is

required. Moreover, it causes humor which implies incongruous or nonsensical

statement. Thus, it considered as spontaneous conversational humor.

Additionally, this research has three related topics to the previous

researches. The first research is a journal, entitled A Pragmatic Study of Humor by

Sura Dhiaa Ibraheem and Nawal Fadhil Abbas (2015). The research intends to

show how the selected literary extract (Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure) can

be subjected to a linguistic pragmatic analysis and then be explained by applying

the incongruity theory of humor in order to show the ways or the mechanisms that

lead to the flouting, infringing and the violation of Gricean maxims can

consequently lead to the creation of humor. The second research is a journal

examined by Weiwei Pan (2012), Linguistic Basis of Humor In Uses of Grice’s

Cooperative Principle. The research is aimed at probing into the linguistic basis

involved in the process of language humor from the perspective of Grice’s

Cooperative Principle. It is also intended to reveal the relation between creation of

humor and violation of cooperative principle. The third research is a journal,

entitled The Flouting of Grice’s Conversational Maxim: Examples from Bashar

Al-Assad’s Interview during the Arab Spring by Amer Ayasreh and Razlina

4

Razali (2018), this journal aimed to illustrate some maxims that were flouted by

the Syrian leader, Bashar Al-Assad during his interview with the ARD channel.

The result of the analysis is implicated that political leaders flout maxims to

produce particular shades of meanings which may not always be conceivable to

all parties in order to gain the support from masses.

Therefore, this research is important to do because it can be preferable to

understanding the phenomenon of humor that exists in the conversation by using

Grice’s conversational implicature theory and Raskin’s humor theory. It might be

a reference for linguistic research and other fields in wider various aspects.

B. Focus of the Research

This study focuses on the analysis of humor through flouting maxim

process derived from conversation between Jonathan Ross and Michael Mcintyre.

It is taken from a popular British television program named Jonathan Ross Show.

The data is downloaded from https://youtube.com.

C. Research Questions

Based on the focus of the research that has been explained, the research

questions are formulated as follows:

1. What does the flouting maxim of the utterance between Jonathan and

Michael Mcintyre on Jonathan Ross Show imply?

2. How does the process of flouting maxim create humor that appears

through the utterances between Jonathan Ross and Michael Mcintyre on

Jonathan Ross Show?

5

D. Significances of the Research

Theoretically, this research is useful to obtain and enrich the knowledge of

humor and how it is delivered. The research also uses pragmatics as an approach

which is the branch of linguistics, specifically, conversational implicature and

cooperative principle to explain the intended meaning by the speaker in order to

avoid misunderstanding.

Practically, this research is hopefully used as an additional reference for

the development of linguistics study. In addition, through this research, the

readers will obtain more understanding about the aspects of creating humor

through the cooperative principle especially flouting maxim. Moreover, the

readers will realize the situation which occurs among them especially when the

speaker tries creating humor and it takes endeavor to understand it.

E. Research Methodology

1. The Objectives of the Research

a. To find out the types of flouting maxim and analyze the implied meaning

of the conversational implicatures that is generated from the maxim which

appears on the utterances between Michael Mcintyre and Jonathan Ross.

b. To know the process of flouting maxim in creating humor that appears

through the utterances between Jonathan Ross and Michael Mcintyre on

Jonathan Ross Show

6

2. The Method of Research

The study is a discourse analysis. It examines an issue related to

oppression of individuals. Individuals are interviewed at some length to determine

how they have personally experienced oppression (Crosswell 48). It explores the

meaning of the phenomenon in a real life context. This type of research data is in

the form of written verbal data which is selected interview transcript from

Jonathan Ross Show Season 9 Episode 6.

3. The Instrument of the Research

The instrument of this study is the researcher herself by using data taken

from the transcript of Michael Mcintyre interview in Jonathan Ross Show Season

9 Episode 6 which downloaded through https://youtube.com. All the data is

obtained by watching the video, reading and analyzing the transcript which used

pragmatic and humor theories.

4. The Unit of Analysis

The researcher uses the data from the transcript of Michael Mcintyre

interview in Jonathan Ross Show Season 9 Episode 6 which downloaded through

https://youtube.com. The researcher chooses this video as an object of analysis

because the talk show is a famous program in England. Moreover, in the Season 9

Episode 6, the guest stars is Michael Mcintyre who is a famed comedian. Thus,

this unit of analysis might provide the required data.

7

5. Technique for Collecting Data and Data Analysis

Data retrieval is done by accessing https://youtube.com, finding the video,

Jonathan Ross Show Season 9 Episode 6. Then, marking the data based on

analytical need as well as grouping it based on pragmatic aspect and humor

language. After that, recording the data that was collected in the data card. Then

the researchers conducted a critical study of the data based on relevant theories.

The procedure of collecting data consists of several steps:

1. Watching Jonathan Ross Show Season 9 Episode 6;

2. Reading and understanding the transcript of the video.

3. Giving mark the dialogues that assumed contain implicature and humor.

4. Writing down the utterances on the data card.

While, the procedure of analyzing data consists of a few steps as follows:

1. Interpreting the data by applying Paul Grice’s conversational implicature

theory and Victory Raskin’s humor theory.

2. Explaining the verbal data that has been analyzed.

3. Concluding the results of data that have been analyzed.

8

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Previous Research

This research has three related topics about pragmatics and humor theory.

The first research is a journal, entitled A Pragmatic Study of Humor by Sura Dhiaa

Ibraheem and Nawal Fadhil Abbas (2015). This study provides a pragmatic and a

linguistic analysis of Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure. The analysis is based

on the non-observance of the Gricean maxims in relation to the most dominant

theory, Kant’s incongruity theory of humor. The research findings are the

flouting, infringing and the violation of Gricean maxims that have the possibility

of creating humorous situations in certain contexts. The analysis has shown that,

interestingly, sometimes two maxims might be non-observed at the same time.

Based on the selected extract, the most violated maxim is the maxim of relation.

Consequently, the most frequent humor type used to violate Gricean maxims is

that of wit. Besides, the researchers found that shrewd characters, such as Lucio

and the first gentleman, always violate Gricean maxims and create intentional

humor. While the naive characters, such as the second gentleman due to his

imperfect use of language represented by the pun he uses, tend to flout and

infringed the Gricean maxims unintentionally, and creates unintentional humor.

The second is examined by Weiwei Pan (2012), Linguistic Basis of Humor

in Uses of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. The research is aimed at probing into

the linguistic basis involved in the process of language humor from the

9

perspective of Grice’s Cooperative Principle. It is also intended to reveal the

relation between creation of humor and violation of cooperative principle and give

critical comments on Grice’s cooperative principle, which mainly focuses on

limitations Grice’s cooperative principle. As the result, this study concludes that

humor often results from perceived violations of cooperative principle and its

maxims. Grice’s cooperative principle has already been regarded as precondition

to context successful conversation, but in some given situation people try to

achieve purpose or carry out special effect, occasionally, they have to flout this

principle deliberately or unconsciously.

The third research is The Flouting of Grice’s Conversational Maxim:

Examples from Bashar Al-Assad’s Interview during the Arab Spring by Amer

Ayasreh and Razlina Razali (2018), the interest of this article is to illustrate some

maxims that were flouted by the Syrian leader, Bashar Al-Assad during his

interview with the ARD channel. The result of the analysis is implicated that

political leaders flout maxims to produce particular shades of meanings which

may not always be conceivable to all parties in order to gain the support from

masses. The manipulation skill of people’ thoughts are universal for the

politicians all over the world to win the support of the public in favor of their

policies and goals, which is especially true for the case of Assad.

The previous studies above used Grice’s cooperative principle as the

theory. However, this research is not only applied similar theory to the previous

researches but also applied another related theory which is conversational

implicature. The use of conversational implicature theory is aimed to analyze the

10

implied meaning that is generated by the flouting maxims. This research also

involves the application of humor theory proposed by Raskin’s to identify the

humor that has been applied in the utterance.

B. Theory

1. Conversational Implicature

1.1 Definition of Implicature

The word implicature derived from the verb to imply, as 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 (Mey 45). Implicature was

defined negatively as what is communicated less 'what is said' (Noro 76; Sadock

282; Haugh 118). In other words, implicature was characterised simply as

whatever is communicated that is not part of what is said by a speaker. The only

positive characterisation of implicature by Grice (24) was his indication that it is

related to the terms imply, suggest and mean. Briefly, implicature is the act of

meaning or implying one thing in something.

1.2 Implicature in Conversation

Conversation is one of the most prevalent uses of human language.

Conversation is the way in which people socialize and develop and sustain their

relationships with each other. When people converse they engage in a form of

linguistic communication, but there is much more going on in a conversation than

just the use of a linguistic code. Much that is important in conversation is carried

11

out by things other than language, including eye gaze and body posture, silences

and the real world context in which the talk is produced (Liddicoat 1).

Based on Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, conversation is defined

as an informal talk involving a small group of people or only two: the activity of

talking (320). However, many TV’s program provides a program based on talk

show which invites famous people to be asked questions and talk in an informal

way about their work and opinions on various topics.

Meanwhile, the concept of implicature is a theoretical construct which has

known introduced first by Grice. He used the concept to deal with examples in

communication where what a speaker means goes beyond the meaning literally

expressed by a particular utterance. Horn states implicature is a component of

speaker meaning that constitutes an aspect of what is meant in a speaker’s

utterance without being part of what is said (3). What a speaker intends to

communicate is characteristically far richer than what he or she directly expresses;

linguistic meaning radically underdetermines the message conveyed and

understood.

The implicature is illustrated by the example below:

(2) Kralik: She is the most wonderful girl in the world.

Pirovitch: Is she pretty?

Kralik: She has such ideals, and such a viewpoint of

things that she’s so far above all the other.

The example (2) gives implicit meaning that Kralik wants to give implicit

meaning in his utterance that she is not very pretty. He wants Pirovitch to

understand what he meant.

12

Furthermore, a conversation cannot be separated from what speaker means

to his utterances. Most of them involve implication which can be determining by

turning out the implicature that happen in that conversation. As an aspect of

speaker meaning, implicatures are distinct from the hearer draws; it is a category

mistake to attribute implicatures either to hearers or to sentences and sub

sentential expressions (5).

1.3 A Guide of Implicature

Grice makes a distinction between natural and nonnatural meaning (42):

Natural meaning involves a non-arbitrary relationship that is independent of any

purposefulness or intent, as with Those clouds mean rain. Non-natural meaning is

arbitrary and intentional, as with “masticate” means “chew.” This meaning

relationship is arbitrary in that any other word could have come to have this same

meaning, and it is intentional in that a person uses the word “masticate”

intentionally to mean “chew” (as opposed to clouds, which don’t intentionally

indicate rain). Grice (43–44), within the category of non-natural meaning,

distinguishes between what is said and what is implicated. What is said is truth-

conditional, and what is implicated is not. What is implicated, in turn, may be

either conversationally or conventionally implicated, and what is conversationally

implicated may be due to either a generalized or a particularized conversational

implicature.

1.3.1 Conversational Implicature

Implicatures derived via the cooperative principle are called

conversational implicatures (Birner 44). According to Griffiths, conversational

13

implicatures are inferences that depend on the existence of norms for the use of

language, such as the widespread agreement that communicators should aim to

tell the truth (134). Speakers, writers and addressees assume that everyone

engaged in communication knows and accepts the communicational norms.

Speaker meaning can differ from what is said, dependent on context or on

conversation. The meaning also conveyed not so much by what is said, but by the

fact that it is said (Chapman 102).

1.3.1.1 Generalized Conversational Implicature

A generalized conversational implicature is one which is generally

attached to the form, and therefore does not need to be computed anew with each

relevant utterance (Birner 63). According to Yule, generalized conversational

implicature is when no special knowledge is required in the context to calculate

the additional meaning (41). For instance:

(3) I was sitting in garden one day. A child looked over the fence.

The implicature (2), that the garden and the child mentioned are not the

speaker’s, are calculated on the principle that if the speaker was capable of being

more specific (i.e. more informative. Following the quantity maxim), then, he or

she would have said “my garden” and “my child”.

1.3.1.2 Particularized Conversational Implicature

In contrast to the generalized implicatures, particularized conversational

implicatures are unique to the particular context in which they occur. It is one that

arises due to the interaction of an utterance with the particular, very specific

context in which it occurs, and hence does not arise in the default case of the

14

utterance’s use or the use of some more general class of utterances of which it is a

member (Birner 64-65). For instance:

(4) Rick: Hey, coming to the wild party tonight?

Tom: My parents are visiting.

In order to make Tom’s response relevant, Rick has to draw on some

assumed knowledge that one college student in this setting expects another to

have. Tom will be spending that evening with his parents, and time spent with

parents is quiet (consequently Tom not at party). Because they are by far the most

common, particularized conversational implicature are typically just called

implicatures (Yule 43).

1.3.2 Conventional Implicature

In contrast to all the conversational implicatures, conventional

implicatures are not based on the cooperative principle or the maxims. They don’t

have to occur in conversation, and they don’t depend on special contexts for their

interpretation. There are comparatively few examples of conventional

implicatures; Levinson (qtd in Thomas 57) lists four: but, even, therefore and yet

(to these we might add some uses of for, as in: She plays chess well, for a girl).

According to Fetzer (qtd. in Bublitz and Norrick 42), conventional implicature is

connected closely with linguistic form, for instance with connectives (e.g., but),

implicative verbs (e.g., manage, forget to), honorifics or nonrestrictive relative

clauses. For example:

(5) a. John came to the party.

b. He even helped tidy up afterwards.

15

When even is included in any sentence describing the event, there is an

implicature of contrary to expectation. Thus, in (4) there are two events reported

(John’s coming and John’s helping) with the conventional implicature of even

adding a contrary to expectation interpretation of those event (Yule 45).

2. Cooperative Principle

The basic concept behind the Cooperative Principle (CP) is that

interlocutors, above all else, are attempting to be cooperative in conversation

(Birner 41). The conversations are characteristically, to some degree at least,

cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a

common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction

(Grice; O’Keefe, Clancy, and Adolphs 60). Grice formulates these ‘basic

assumptions about the rational nature of conversational activity’ in his

Cooperative Principle: ‘Make your conversational contribution such as is

required, at the state at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the

talk exchange in which you are engaged’ (Senft 34). The cooperative principle

elaborates in four sub-principles, called maxims.

a. Maxim of Quantity

The category of quantity relates to the quantity of information to be

provided, and under it fall the following maxims (Grice 26).

1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current

purposes of the exchange).

2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

16

According to O’Keefe, Clancy, and Adolphs (61), quantity, requires

speakers to be as informative as required for listener comprehension, by ensuring

that they are both succinct and explicit. For example:

(6) A: . . . he’s a lovely fellow.

B: Oh yeah.

C: And see he would have spent time in Bosnia too as in they

do a lot of work over there.

B: Oh.

C: I don’t know if he’d actually be there or if he would just do

work kind of on behalf of the people there but am so I said it

to him in the car down at the church remember the night we+

A: Oh yes indeed.

C: +and couldn’t get into the church that’s another story.

The example above, as the conversation progresses, the maxim of quantity

is being observed by Speaker C’s use of the phrase that’s another story. This

functions to signal a realization that Speaker C has not provided enough

information about the story of not being able to get into the church, but also

indicates that further elaboration may perhaps risk, for example, revealing an

embarrassing situation or offending a hearer. It may also be the case that the other

story is not relevant now and that it can be elaborated on at a later stage (O’Keefe,

Clancy, and Adolphs 61).

b. Maxim of Quality

Under the category of quality falls a supermaxim- ‘Try to make your

contribution one that is true’- and two more specific maxims (Grice 27):

1. Do not say what you believe to be false.

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

17

Maxim of quality states that speakers should be truthful and not say

anything which they cannot provide adequate evidence for or do not believe to be

true. For instance:

(7) A: But I don’t think you can get insured for a month.

B: You can yeah.

A: Can you?

B: Yeah you can.

A: Can you?

B: Yeah you can. You can pay your insurance. I’m not sure

now whether it would mean your mother would have to

pay her insurance for the month . . .

Speaker A seems to be of the opinion that this is not possible but Speaker

B disagrees with him. We can see that Speaker B then moves to give his/her

reasons for disagreeing and, in doing so, introduces an element of uncertainty to

some of what she is saying by prefacing with I’m not sure, so protecting

themselves from correction or contradiction in the future (O’Keefe, Clancy, and

Adolphs 62).

c. Maxim of Relation

Under the category relation I place a single maxim, namely, ‘Be relevant’

(Grice 27). Cruse (356) stated that point of this maxim is that it is not sufficient

for a statement to be true for it to constitute an acceptable conversational

contribution. For instance:

(8) A: Now I mentioned yesterday that you should look at both sides of the

same coin. You should look at those who argue for audiences as guerrilla

readers, you know post-modern theorists will see audiences as being

involved in interpretative free for all.

18

The lecturer, in beginning this segment of his/her lecture, points to its

relevance to what has been said before by using I mentioned yesterday (O’Keefe,

Clancy, and Adolphs 62).

d. Maxim of Manner

Under the category of manner, Grice (27) includes the supermaxim ‘Be

perpicious’ and various maxims such as:

1. Avoid obscurity of expression.

2. Avoid ambiguity.

3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

4. Be orderly.

The last maxim is the maxim of manner, which requires speakers to be

clear and orderly in order to avoid ambiguity and obscurity. For instance:

(9) A: If you come across two theorists in the text or in theory in general who

you find interesting or attractive or stimulating et cetera use those too.

Don’t feel that you’re aah confined to the ones we have covered. So I hope

that’s relatively clear is it?

3. Flouting the Maxims

The Gricean maxims might also be considered to be rather vague in that it

is difficult to determine the point at which a maxim is flouted, for example,

because of lack of information or relevance. According to Levinson, the flouting

maxims take place when individuals deliberately cease to apply the maxims to

persuade their listeer to infer the hidden meaning behind the utterances; that is,

speakern employ implicature (104). The level of information that a speaker must

19

provide before flouting the maxim of quantity, for example, is highly context

specific. It is also specific to the culture in which the exchange takes place. A

court hearing might require the speaker to provide more, and more relevant,

information than a casual conversation between friends. The point at which

maxims are seen to be flouted thus depends on the context in which the interaction

takes place (O’Keefe, Clancy, and Adolphs 88-89).

According to Cruse, the other way in which implicatures arise is through

deliberate flouting of the maxims in circumstances in which (a) it is obvious to the

hearer that the maxims are being flouted, (b) it is obvious to the hearer that the

speaker intends the hearer to be aware that the maxims are being flouted, and (c)

there are no signs that the speaker is opting out of the co-operative principle (360).

3.1 Flouting Maxim of Quantity

(10) The mushroom omelette wants his coffee with.

(11) I married a rat.

(12) It'll cost the earth, but what the hell!

In their most likely contexts of use, none of the above sentences is likely to

be literally true, but equally, none of them is likely to mislead a hearer. In each

case some additional interpretive process will be brought into play. In the first

example, the interpretive process will be a metonymic one, and the understood

message will be that the person who ordered a mushroom omelet wants his coffee

served with the omelet, rather than afterwards. In the second example, the

interpretive process will be a metaphoric one. In the third example, the

implicatures are not so obvious, but hyperbole of this kind can implicate a relaxed,

20

informal relationship with interlocutors (Cruse 360). By flouting the maxim of

quantity, the speaker seems to give too little or to much information.

3.2 Flouting Maxim of Quality

(13) Doorman : I need to see your ID, it’s the rule.

Inger : But I left it back at the hotel.

Doorman : Sorry ma’am, then I can’t let you in.

Inger : But I’m twenty-nine and the mother of four!

Doorman : Yes, and I’m the pope’s grandfather and have six kids.

By way of response to Inger’s (direct and indirect) reference to her age, the

doorman gives out a blatantly false piece of information concerning his own age

(he could not have been a day over twenty-five). By flouting the maxim of

quality, he thus intends to convey a message as showed that the doorman

considers Inger’s explanation and justification as untruthful. He could have told

her directly: ‘I don’t believe you’, or: ‘That’s clearly false’, but instead, he chose

to convey his message in a more elegant and just as effective way (Mey 78).

According to Cutting (37), speakers may flout the maxim by exaggerating

as in the hyperbole, for example is ‘I could eat a horse’. Hyperbole is often at the

basis of humor. Similarly, a speaker also can flout the maxim of quality by using a

metaphor, such as “My house is a refrigerator in January’ or ‘Don’t be such a wet

blanket – we just want to have fun’. And the other ways are using irony and

banter, and they form a pair. While irony is an apparently friendly way of being

offensive (mock-politeness), the type of verbal behaviour known as “banter” is an

offensive way of being friendly (mock impoliteness).

3.3 Flouting Maxim of Relation

(14) A: I say, did you hear about Mary's...

B: Yes, well, it rained nearly the whole time we were there.

21

This example is an obviously irrelevant comment. Assume that A and B

are having a conversation about a colleague, Mary. Mary approaches them, seen

by B but not by A. The implicature is: Watch out! Here comes Mary! (Cruse 361).

The speakers flout the maxim of relation, the expect that the hearers will be able

to imagine what the utterance did not say, and make the connection between their

utterance and the preceding one(s).

3.4 Flouting Maxim of Manner

(15) A: I'll look after Samantha for you, don't worry. We'll have a lovely time.

Won't we, Sam?

B: Great, but if you don't mind, don't offer her any post-prandial concoctions

involving supercooled oxide of hydrogen. It usually gives rise to convulsive

nausea.

The implicature arising from this unnecessary prolixity is obviously that B

does not want Samantha to know what she is saying (Cruse 360).

Sometimes writers or speakers play with words to heighten the ambiguity,

in order to make a point, as in Katherine Whitehorn’s comments in Sunday Best

on ‘Decoding the West’, “I wouldn’t say when you’ve seen one Western you’ve

seen the lot; but when you’ve seen the lot you get the feeling you’ve seen one.”

Thereby implying that she agreed with the first point of view, even though she

had just said that she did not agree with it (Cutting 39).

4. Humor

4.4 The Definition of Humor

Ross defines humor as something that makes a person laugh or smile (1).

It’s possible to claim that something is humorous, even though no one laughed at

22

the time—and it can often happen that people laugh, but someone can claim,

‘That’s not funny’. Smiling and laughter can also be a sign of fear or

embarrassment. Despite these objections, the response is an important factor in

counting something as humor. Examining the language can then help to explain

why people laugh. According to Dorfles, humor is seen as "a kind of language

characterized by the negative, or paradoxical, value assumed by the sign" (qtd. in

Attardo 176). And based on Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, humor is the

quality in something that makes it funny or amusing; the ability to laugh at things

that are amusing (734).

4.5 Theory of Humor

The first people to write about the nature of laughter and humor, and their

place in human life were philosophers and religious thinkers. Before the 18th

century, the word “humor” did not mean funniness, and so what philosophers and

religious thinkers wrote about was usually laughter, with occasional references to

comedy. Until the middle of the 18th century, the only developed theory of

laughter in Western thought was the Superiority Theory. Briefly, laughter is an

expression of feelings of superiority over other people (Morreal; Raskin and Ruch

211). That idea raised moral objections to laughter and comedy

In the 18th century, two other theories arose – the Relief Theory and the

Incongruity Theory. In the Relief Theory laughter is the release of pent-up

nervous energy, and in the Incongruity Theory laughter is a response to something

unusual or out of place (211).

23

Furthermore, Raskin also pointed the various humor theories in three

families of theories: incongruity, superiority, and release. The incongruity-based

theories make a statement about the stimulus; the superiority theories characterize

the relations or attitudes between the speaker and the hearer; and the release/relief

theories comment on the feelings and psychology of the hearer only (qtd. in

Attardo 49-50).

Table 1. The Three Families of Theories

Cognitive Social Psychoanalytical

Incongruity Hostility Release

Contrast Aggression Sublimation

Superiority Liberation

Triumph Economy

Derision

Disparagement

4.5.1 Incongruity Theory

The incongruity theory focuses on the element of surprise. It states that

humor is created out of a conflict between what is expected and what actually

occurs in the joke. This accounts for the most obvious feature of much humor: an

ambiguity, or double meaning, which deliberately misleads the audience, followed

by a punchline (Ross 7). Aristotle states that a good way to get a laugh in a

speech, is to set up an expectation in the audience and then jolt them with

something they did not expect (qtd. in Raskin and Ruch 215).

According to Ross (8), the humor will often have the following elements:

• There is a conflict between what is expected and what actually occurs in the

joke.

• The conflict is caused by an ambiguity at some level of language.

24

• The punchline is surprising, as it is not the expected interpretation, but it

resolves the conflict: ‘Have you got a light, Mac?’ ‘No, but I’ve got a dark brown

overcoat.’

4.5.2 Superiority Theory

Hobbes characterized laughter as a ‘sudden glory’ at a triumph of our own

or at an indignity suffered by someone else (Ross 51). Gruner claims that a joke is

basically an attack, and even those who refuse to accept this perspective

completely cannot deny that much humor does contain aggressive elements. From

this it is apparent that a joke that is publicly aimed at a superior is a rare and

fragile thing. Yet, humor can be used by superiors to promote rapport with

subordinates or by psychiatrists with patients (Lafrance: McGhee and Goldstein

167).

The situations that superiority theories build on can be (a) Sudden victory

over an opponent in battle; triumph in an athletic contest (b) A distinguished

looking person slipping on a banana peel (or just simply falling down) (c) A

person with a big nose or outsized ears (or some other" deformity"); a silly or

insane person (d) A drunken person talking" silly" and! Or falling down and (e) A

pie in the face of another person.

4.5.3 Release Theory

The psychic release theory of humor explains the triggering of laughter by

the sense of release from a threat being overcome—such as a reduction of fears

about death and sex (Ross 61). According to Attardo, release theories maintain

25

that humor ‘release’ tensions, physic energy, or that humor release one from

inhibition, conventions and laws (50). This theory also examines that humor is

used to release tension or make someone feel easy when discussing taboo topics.

It explains the cause of laughter by feelings of detachment from overcome threats

(such as reducing fear about taboo context). Some taboo situations seem to be

mentioned such as sex, excreta, death, and religion (Ross 63-68).

However, as a note, this kind of humor is easily considered offensive

because of the diverse responses of readers / listeners. To overcome this

phenomenon as for solutions to features that allows this humor to be acceptable or

offensive. They use explicit language or use satire. For example, Marriage is like

a bank account. You put it in, you take it out, you lose interest. The context of

humor is about sex. This describes the feelings of couples making love on their

first night. The example above is in the form of innuendo. The intention of humor

will not be understood by readers / listeners if they do not share the same

awareness with the jokes. It can be concluded that humor can be used to refresh

one's mind. It can also add someone's insight in an entertaining way. Humor can

convey satire or criticism smoothly and can be used to facilitate someone in

giving a serious and formal idea.

4.6 Types of Humor

Humor is essentially an emotional response of mirth in a social context

that is elicited by a perception of playful incongruity and is expressed through

smiling and laughter (Martin 10). The philosophers encounter many different

forms of humor communicated by different means and for different purposes.

26

Some of this humor comes to people via the mass media. One of them is

television; it provides people with constant diet of humor in the form of sitcoms,

blooper shows, stand-up comedy, political satire, and humorous advertisements;

and also in newspaper comic strips and cartoons, comedy movies, and humorous

books. Humor is also often used in speeches, sermons, and lectures by politicians,

religious leaders, motivational speakers, and teachers.

However, most of the humor and laughter that people experience in the

daily lives arises spontaneously in the course of normal relations with other

people (11). This sort of interpersonal humor occurs in nearly every type of

informal and formal interaction. Moreover, some people develop such a talent at

eliciting mirth in others and making them laugh that they become professional

humor producers, entering the ranks of humorous authors, cartoonists, stand-up

comedians, comedy writers, and actors.

The humor that occurs in our everyday social interactions can be divided

into three broad categories: (1) canned jokes, which are prepackaged humorous

anecdotes that people memorize and pass on to one another; (2) spontaneous

conversational humor, which is created intentionally by individuals during the

course of a social interaction, and can be either verbal or nonverbal; and (3)

accidental or unintentional humor.

4.6.1 Canned Jokes

Jokes and other humorous utterances are a form of communication that is

usually shared in social interaction. These humorous utterances are socially and

culturally shaped, and often quite particular to a specific time and place. And the

27

topics and themes people joke about are generally central to the social, cultural

and moral order of a society or a social group (Raskin and Ruch 361).

During the course of normal conversations, some people like to amuse

others by telling jokes, which are short, amusing stories ending in a punch line.

These are sometimes also referred to as “canned jokes” to distinguish them from

the sorts of informal jesting and witty quips to which the words joke and joking

can also refer (Martin 11). According to Dynel, the (canned) joke is commonly

considered the prototypical form of verbal humor, produced orally in

conversations or published in collections (Linguistic Humor Theory 1284).

Sherzer defines a joke as ‘a discourse unit consisting of two parts, the set

up and the punch line’. The set-up is normally built of a narrative or ⁄ and a

dialogue, while the punchline is the final portion of the text, which engenders

surprise and leads to incongruity with the set-up, as in the example (16). There are

also a few subtypes of jokes different from the canonical canned joke that are

often treated as distinct categories, such as shaggy-dog stories (lengthy stories

without punchlines) as in (17), riddles (questions followed by unpredictable and

silly answers) as in (18) or one-liners (one-line jokes with punchlines reduced to a

few words) as in (19) (1285). The further examples are below:

(16) A man is eating a stew at a restaurant. Suddenly he feels something sharp

in his mouth. The object turns out to be an earring. The man instantly starts

rebuking the waiter, who says, ‘I’m terribly sorry but you can’t imagine

how happy the chef will be to get it back. It’s over three weeks since she

lost it’.

(17) Ghandi walked barefoot everywhere, to the point that his feet became quite

thick and hard. Even when he wasn’t on a hunger strike, he did not eat

much and became quite thin and frail. He also was quite a spiritual person.

28

Furthermore, due to his diet, he ended up with very bad breath. He became

known as a super-calloused fragile mystic plagued with halitosis.

(18) A: Why did the cookie cry?

B: No idea.

A: Because his mother was a wafer so long.

(19) I don’t approve of political jokes ... I’ve seen too many of them get elected.

4.6.2 Spontaneous Conversational Humor

A more extensive classification system of spontaneous conversational

humor (which they referred to as wit), was developed by psychologists Debra

Long and Arthur Graesser (Martin 12). To obtain a broad sample of the types of

humor occurring in naturalistic conversations, these authors recorded a number of

episodes of television talk shows (e.g., The Tonight Show) and then analyzed the

different types of humor that arose in the interactions between the hosts and their

guests. Audience laughter used as an indicator of humor. Based on their analyses,

these authors identified the following 11 categories, which were distinguished

from one another on the basis of their intentions or uses of humor (13):

1. Irony—the speaker expresses a statement in which the literal meaning is

opposite to the intended meaning:

(20) Saying “What a beautiful day!” when the weather is cold and stormy.

2. Satire—aggressive humor that pokes fun at social institutions or social policy:

(21) Being afraid of North Korea is like calling the FBI because someone

threatened you in a youtube comment.

(22) I’m sick and tired of people telling me to turn off lights to save the

environment. I tried it once, and I nearly killed some guy on a bike.

29

3. Sarcasm—aggressive humor that targets an individual rather than an

institution:

(23) At a fashionable dinner, a dignified lady rebuked Winston Churchill:

“Sir, you are drunk.” “Yes,” replied Churchill, “and you are ugly. But

tomorrow I shall be sober and you shall still be ugly”.

4. Overstatement and understatement—changing the meaning of something

another person has said by repeating it with a different emphasis:

(24) A guest asks host Johnny Carson, who had been married several times:

“Have you ever been married?” A second guest says, “Has he ever been

married!”.

5. Self-deprecation—humorous remarks targeting oneself as the object of

humor. This may be done to demonstrate modesty, to put the listener at ease,

or to ingratiate oneself with the listener:

(25) In today’s performance, the role of the idiot will be played by myself.

6. Teasing—humorous remarks directed at the listener’s personal appearance or

foibles. Unlike sarcasm, the intention is not to seriously insult or offend:

(26) Female: You manifest the Peter Pan syndrome.

Male: And you have the Captain Hook syndrome. (teasing)

Female: There’s no such syndrome.

Male: Obviously there is. You have it! (teasing)

(27) Female: You’re a thief and a liar.

Male: I only lied about being a thief, I don’t do that anymore. (teasing)

Female: Steal?

30

Male: Lie. (teasing)

7. Replies to rhetorical questions—because rhetorical questions are not asked

with the expectation of a reply, giving an answer to one violates a

conversational expectation and surprises the person who posed the question.

This can therefore be perceived as funny, and the intention is usually to

simply entertain a conversational partner:

(28) A: You know what I can’t understand?

B: Chinese writing.

8. Clever replies to serious statements—clever, incongruous, or nonsensical

replies to a statement or question that was meant to be serious. The statement

is deliberately misconstrued so that the speaker replies to a meaning other

than the intended one.

(29) A: You’re late. You said you’d be home by 11.45!

B: Actually, I said I’d be home by a quarter of 12.

9. Double entendres—a statement or word is deliberately misperceived or

misconstrued so as to evoke a dual meaning, which is often sexual in nature.

10. Transformations of frozen expressions—transforming well-known sayings,

clichés, or adages into novel statements:

(30) Complaint of a bald man, “Hair today, gone tomorrow”.

11. Puns—humorous use of a word that evokes a second meaning, usually based

on a homophone such as a word with a different meaning that sounds the

same:

(31) You are stuck with your debt if you can’t budge it.

31

(It kinds of homophone or phonetic similarity, of ‘budge it’ and ‘budget’)

4.6.3 Accidental or Unintentional Humor

In addition to the things people say and do during social interactions with

the intention of amusing others, much mirth and laughter also arise from

utterances or actions that are not meant to be funny. English literature professors

Alleen Nilsen and Don Nilsen referred to these as accidental humor, which they

divided into physical and linguistic forms. Accidental physical humor includes

minor mishaps and pratfalls such as the person slipping on a banana peel or

spilling a drink on one’s shirt. These sorts of events are funny when they occur in

a surprising and incongruous manner and when the person experiencing them is

not seriously hurt or badly embarrassed. This type of humor also forms the basis

of slapstick and screwball comedy (Martin 14). This accidental physical humor

could be found in any circumstances without certain reason or matter.

Accidental linguistic humor arises from misspellings, mispronunciations,

errors in logic, and the kinds of speaker confusions called Freudian slips,

malapropisms, and spoonerisms. This type of unintentional humor occurs, for

example, in newspaper headlines in which an ambiguity creates a humorous

alternative meaning: “Prostitutes appeal to pope”; “Dr. Ruth talks about sex with

newspaper editors”; “Red tape holds up bridge”. Spoonerisms are a speech error

in which the initial sounds of two or more words are transposed, creating an

unintended and humorous new meaning. They were named after a nineteenth-

century British clergyman named William Spooner who frequently made such

mistakes in his sermons and speeches, for example, he is said to have proposed a

32

toast to Queen Victoria, saying “Three cheers for our queer old dean” (14). Hence,

regardless of whether it is a accidental physical or linguistical humor, the funny or

humorous situation occurs without intentional act, moreover, people who feel it

are probably determined by personal or subjectiive taste, social background and

group even the level of intellects.

5. Humor and Flouting the Maxims

The most creative utilization of the conversational principles occurs,

however, in the flouting of the maxims. Flouting a conversational maxim, as

opposed to merely violating it, involves violating it in an ostentatious way, so as

to communicate to the listener that the maxim is being disregarded. Most often,

the flouting of a maxim carries with it an additional, non-explicit message, above

and beyond the literal meaning of what is being communicated (Dubinsky and

Holcomb 89). According to Dynel, The process of inferring conversational

implicatures depends on the assumption that the speaker is adhering to the

Cooperative Principle, while the subordinate maxims may be either observed or

flouted, i.e. exploited to yield implicatures (Humor and Grice’s Model 160).

Furthermore, the flouting of maxims plays a key role in communicating

difficult messages without being explicit, in expressing sarcasm, and in jokes

(Dubinsky and Holcomb 91). Grice notes in the case of the counterfactual

language employed in the use of sarcasm, the maxim of quality (“be truthful) is

flouted intentionally. Flouting the maxim successfully is possible only if (1)

conversationalists follow the maxims in conversation generally, and (2) they

33

follow them consistently enough that a deviation from the maxim is a signal of an

implicature other than straightforward, literal intention.

For instance, Frasier is talking to Niles about his estranged wife, Maris,

and it is Niles’ answer that flouts relevance:

(32) Frasier : By calling her so many times, you give her all the power! You’re

much better off coming from a position of strength!

Niles : Don’t pour that sherry on your shirt: it will stain.

Frasier : What?

Niles : Oh, I’m sorry. I thought this was the portion of the afternoon where

we give each other patently obvious advice.

Based on the context (32), Niles’ response to Frasier’s advice is patently

irrelevant to the preceding conversation, leading Frasier to remark on it (What?).

It is here that Niles connects the dots for Frasier, suggesting to him that the

“relevance” of Frasier’s remark and his answer to it is that they both constitute

patently obvious (and from Niles’ perspective, unwanted) advice. In Niles’ second

comeback, he makes a statement which is blatantly false (flouting quality in this

case) and thereby sarcastic. The flouting of quantity also frequently plays a key

role in jokes and other humor (92).

Flouting of maxims is a great comedic tool, and shows up in a host of

genres. Another example is below:

(33) Traveler : Hey there, mister. Where’s this road go to?

Fiddler : Well, since I’ve been livin’ here, it ain’t gone nowheres.

(Flouts quantity and relevance, ignores the ‘leads to’ meaning of

goes to)

Traveler : Mister. You’ve lived around here all your life?

Fiddler : Nope. Not yet.

(Flouts quantity and relevance, ignores the implied ‘until this

moment’)

Traveler : Hey, mister. How far is it to Little Rock?

34

Fiddler : I don’ know, but there’s a heck of a big’un down there in the

corn field.

(Flouts quality and relevance, ignores the proper name meaning

of little rock)

Traveler : Mister, you know I don’t believe there’s much between you and

a fool.

Fiddler : Nope. Just the front yard there.

(Flouts relevance, intentionally substitutes distance for

difference)

Based on the conversation (33), Fiddler as a local inhabitant repeatedly

answered the traveler’s questions by flouting the maxims and seemed to be less or

more informative. It indicates that Fiddler wanted to show the humorous

responses to build up the comedy situation in order to entertaining the viewers.

Therefore, there are some criteria of humor based on the following study:

1. Providing information more than required or lack of required

information. Speakers break the quantity maxim consciously, and do not

provide what’s addressees required or give much more than needed.

2. Providing information that is false or that is not supported by evidence.

Speakers reveal the untruthfulness by breaking the maxim of quality and

disobey the objectivity.

3. Providing information that is not relevant. Speakers againts the maxim of

relation by giving contribution that is relate clearly to the purpose of

exchange.

4. Providing information that is not perspicuous. Speakers do not follow the

maxim of manner by giving expression that is obscure, ambiguous,

unncessary prolixity and disorderly.

35

Thus, to find humorous effect, speakers might involve one criteria or more.

Moreover, leading to the unrelated topic, or distorting the implicated meaning

happens to serve the primary factors to cause humor; moreover, the exaggerated

expression and ambiguousstatement are the main reasons for producing humorous

effect as well. Accordingly, inevitably the flouting of cooperative principle has

close relation with creation of humor.

36

CHAPTER III

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. Data Description

In this chapter, the data is taken from a popular British television program

named Jonathan Ross Show: Season 9 Episode 6 which used the transcript of the

interview between Jonathan Ross, as the presenter and Michael Mcintyre, as his

guest. Furthermore, the researcher analyzes the transcript and identifies the

conversational implicature, then classifies it whether it is type of Generalized

Conversational Implicature or Particularized Conversational Implicature. The

researcher will also discern the form and types of humor that occur in the

conversation and find related to the flouting maxim.

As the data, this research consists of 15 conversational implicatures that

contains flouting maxim and humor. The 15 data will be written to the data card

for further analysis. Briefly, the data is presented in the table below. Afterward,

the interview involved Jonathan Ross (as Jonathan) and Michael Mcintyre (as

Michael).

Table 2. The Data Description

No. Data Context

1 They didn't tell me its ways to walk

use. They runway. (01.Mb)

Jonathan greet Michael in the beginning of

the show. Then, Michael told Jonathan

about something happened with him in the

waiting room.

2 a. Because I saw myself at the

monitor and they look so bloody

cool. (02.Ma)

b. I wonder like I was on the loose

security. (02.Mb)

Michael and One Direction members were

also in the same waiting room. He thaught

that One Direction got more attention than

him so the staff ignored him.

3 a. It's one of your problems. (03.Jb)

Michael talked about his suit. He thought

that there was something wrong with it.

37

b. I think it's worse when I work

on my posture. (03.Mc)

4 a. Harry got that Medusa. (04.Ja)

b. Oh no, my hairs but even

worse. Yeah. (04.Mb)

Jonathan and Michael were talking about

One Direction members who would be the

next guest through the screen. Jonathan and

Michael were in the studio and One

Direction members were in the waiting

room. Jonathan was looking at One

Direction in the screen and gave them

praise about their hair style.

5 I think the problem is there are so

many signs around the building,

saying don't fucking mention

Zayn. Don’t say. Don’t mention it

again. (05.Ma)

Jonathan talked about the ex-member of

One Direction named Zayn Malik.

6 I think so. I see he’s happy with me

as a father. (06.Ma)

Jonathan asked about how is the

relationship between Michael and his son.

7 Nothing left looks and he knows all

the words. No words left. So he

sings along. He doesn’t know what

the accent in there. Mother mother,

he say mother mother mother.

Eminim taught about his mother. I

try to be positive because he loves

his mother. You know. You should

love your mother, do you? You

need to be nicer to your mother.

You see. Eminem likes his mother.

(07.Ma)

Jonathan asked Michael about what did his

Michael’ sons do with their spare time

whether he was aware of what they played

and what music they listened to. So,

Michael explained about what the one of

his sons favorite song.

8 You don’t. You don’t. This is why I

have the pasport. I was walking

around to London. People think, oh

my God, he is the leader of North

Korea anybody thaught. No! No,

it’s me. (08.Ma)

The picture of Jonathan and his wife was

showing on the screen. The photo took in

the airport where Jonathan hold the pasport

in his left hand. In that picture Michael

looked like North Korean leader, Kim Jong-

Un. They had similar hair cut and rotund

body shape with their puffy cheeks. So,

Jonathan noticed him as a president of

North Korea.

9 What confuses me in frustrates me

and upsets me little bit is I don't

know why I lie to myself about it. I

still have. I'm so annoyed that weight

is coming back on but I still weigh

myself but I'm lying to myself. I do it

first thing in the morning. I don't wait

too what's up. Started eating because

that makes it worse so there's a bee in

the morning and I close the bathroom

products skills. I literally will I take

everything off. I take my watch off. I

Michael stated that he lost his weight at the

beginning of year and Jonathan seemed

curious about it.

38

put it on the side. I took my ring off.

I pee. I... I breathe out and then I sort

of stand on it and I hold on. I hold on

to the seat. And I just ease my way I

like that and I wait for it to give me

the reading that I like. And then I go.

That's fine for breakfast. (09.Ma)

10 a. I have no profile in America.

Nope. And people expect me to

be going there to the kids so into

disney and universal. I kept

telling people I'm going to Disney

Universal. They see one big the

meetings. But, oh great, are you

doing meetings? I'm not going

right. No profile in America.

(10.Ma)

b. I mean not only have no profile.

It's just high enough to get you

through customs. I'm in the queue

my son is in a goofy hat with an I

love Disney World t-shirt. And

the guys like, what is the purpose

of your visit. How many claims it

made? Come on people

trafficking. Let me in. (10.Mb)

Previously, Jonathan and Michael was

having conversation about Michael’s

exsistancy of stand up comedy. Michael

came to America to perform and Jonathan

asked his sights to America.

11 a. Go with me on this. Because I've

thought it’s true. They changed

some of the words so they've

taken english language but

they've looked at some of it. No.

No. I think we need a little bit

more explanation here. Okay.

That's my American accent. So

things like pavement. So they

can't work, work with pavement.

So they've changed it to sidewalk.

They needed more efficient.

They needed to know where

they were going to be walking.

They wouldn't get run over. (M.11a)

b. Pavement. Sidewalks. I think

there must been a period of

time where they ran with the

word pavement but they kept

getting hit by cars so they

changed it to sidewalk. (M.11b)

Michael gave another sight to American

about the term pavement.

39

12 a. Bin. The word for bin. In

American waste paper basket.

They needed to know what not

only what to put in it. They

needed to know that not only it

was paper but waste paper and

then it goes into a basket. It's

not just any paper. They kept

throwing away fresh paper for

a period time and introduced

the word waste paper basket.

It’s like they need instructions.

(M.12a)

b. Glasses for your eyes. They'd

call them eyeglasses. They

needed to know where they put

them because they used to have

glasses and they would put

them on their thighs. And they

put them on their feet. And

they would say, I can't see any

better with the glasses. And

somebody said, no, they are

eyeglasses. Well, why didn't you

call eye glasses? (M.12b)

Continually, Michael told about another

terms which are bin and eyeglasses.

13 It's not in America. Racquetball.

They needed to know what they

were going to keep playing with, a

racquetball and even then they get

confused because there's no court.

They don't know where to go. They

just wonder through the street. I

wanna play racquetball so cut me

down to change that. But my

favorite one without a shadow of

doubt is horse riding. (13.Mb)

The following context, Michael added

another term, racquetball and horse riding.

14 a. No. Horseback riding. They

need to specify everywhere the

horse. (14.Mb)

b. It’s terrible problems. Because

there was period of time when

they didn't call it horseback

riding. They had to use to hold

on the tail. So this is how in

riding horses in Europe. (14.Mc)

Previously, he told about horse riding.

15 Anybody's watch the show who

may have been flicking the

channels. Horseback riding in

Michael spontaneously assumed what

viewers will do after watching the show.

40

Europe. No. No. No. This was a

story about America in descriptive

words. (15.Ma)

Data Code Information:

(Number of Datum.Name of Participant+Number of utterance)

J : Jonathan Ross

M : Michael Mcintyre

a/b/c : first/second/third utterance of participant

B. Data Analysis

Datum 1

Michael : Hi. Hi.

Jonathan : Come on have a sit Michael. Great to see you again.

Michael : They didn't tell me its ways to walk use. They runway.

Michael said, “They didn't tell me its ways to walk use. They run away”.

The word they refers to the crew of Jonathan Ross Show. Following the case,

Michael implied another meaning to his utterance. He might feel dissapointed

because they ignored him, moreover, he seemed to think that they run away

because they were busy on camera stuff. To understand the meaning of the

utterance, Jonathan and the audience need to connect it to the context and have

general knowledge to understand what Michael meant, so the connversational

implicatures above is particularized conversational implicature.

Though, Jonathan warmly greet Michael by saying, “Come on have a sit,

Michael. Great to see you again.”, and Michael said, “They didn't tell me its ways

to walk use. They runway.” he should relpy Jonathan’s greeting first but he

blatantly flouted maxim of relation and maxim of manner. He gave irrelevant and

ambigous information. His utterance doesn’t have correlation with the Jonathan’s

41

utterance and the word they can refers to many people but in this situation it refers

to the crew of Jonathan Ross Show.

Those flouting maxims indicated by the utterances They didn't tell me its

ways to walk use and They runway. They created the humor because they misleads

Jonathan to his expectation. He might expect that Michael would sit down and

they started the conversation. Infact, Michael told his situation in the waiting

room, he got wrong way to go out and accused the crew by saying “They didn't

tell me its ways to walk use. They runway.” The conflict of humor based on both

utterances They didn't tell me its ways to walk use and They runway. Through the

incongruity theory, the first utterance is considered as set up which is built of

short narrative and the second utterance is considered as punchline which is the

closing statement that involved something that the hearers did not expect.

Jonathan and the audience certainly knew that Michael might not find wrong way

to go out because before he went out, of course, he has already entered the waiting

room. But he intentionally chose the wrong way and told it to the Jonathan and the

audiences, moreover, he accused the crew and stated that they run away. It is

impossible for them to run away because they had to work and look after the guest

stars. So, the hearers laughed when Michael gave surprising reply by saying “They

didn't tell me its ways to walk use. They runway.” Furthermore, this reply is also

kind of teasing, he tended to express disappointment to the crew by accusing them

but it is aimed to entertain the hearers without serious insult or offend. Thus, it is

considered as spontaneous conversational humor.

42

Datum 2

Jonathan : No. No. What? Why do you think that?

Michael : Because I saw myself at the monitor and they look so bloody cool.

Jonathan : Ok.

Michael : I wonder like I was on the loose security.

Michael compared himself with One Direction members by saying

“Because I saw myself at the monitor and they look so bloody cool”. It implicates

that Michael really admire One Direction. Next, Jonathan gave the agreement of it

by saying “Ok”. Then, Michael complained, he wondered that he was on the loose

security which is anybody turned more attention to One Direction members than

him. To understand the meaning of the utterances, Jonathan needs to know the

context and has special knowledge to understand what Michael meant, so the

connversational implicatures above is particularized conversational implicature.

Michael’s utterances, are considered as flouting maxim of quality by using

a hyperbole, “.....they look so bloody cool”, cool is an adjective and it can not be

blood but in British slang it can mean something like “very” so what Michael

meant that they (One Direction) are so/very or extremly cool. Again, “I wonder

like I was on the loose security.”, this utterance seems that Michael gives a

contribution less or more informative than is required to Jonathan’s utterance

“Ok”. Michael blatantly flouts the maxim of quantity.

The Michael’s utterances “Because I saw myself at the monitor and they

look so bloody cool.” and “I wonder like I was on the loose security.” gave

humorous contribution to the conversational implicature above. By his first

utterance, Michael did not really express about himself and just told about One

Direction but after that he expressed it which implicated that he loose security

43

because he did not as cool as One Direction. Thus, it indicates incongruous way of

humor and spontaneous conversational humor. Michael seemed to demonstrate

modesty and put One Direction at ease.

Datum 3

Michael : Is it something wrong with my suit when I'm standing up in the suit. I think it

is okay. When I sit down. It just like, it just it goes incomplete.

Jonathan : Because when you stand up, it's all distributing more when you sit down, a

sec of a high dose.

Michael : It’s posture. It is not my problem.

Jonathan : It's one of your problems.

Michael : I think it's worse when I work on my posture.

The first utterance by Michael talked about his suit. He thought that there

was something wrong with it. Then, Jonathan gave the response to Michael’s

utterance with his own assumption which related to the context which meant that

it was different when Michael stood up and sit down, when he sit down the dose

of his body is distributing more. Jonathan replied by saying It’s one of your

problems which implicated that he seemed do not care about Michael posture and

insisted that it was his problem. Moreover, the utterance I think it's worse when I

work on my posture indicates hidden meaning that Michael felt bad to wear suit

because of his posture. Hence, the implicature of this datum contains a

particularized conversational implicature because it discussed how is Michael’s

figure with his attire that obviously is known by Michael Mcintyre himself and

also people who see him at that time.

Michael said his posture it is not the problem (of the suit) but after that,

Jonathan’s replied, It's one of your problems, it is blatantly flout by a clash

between the maxim quantity and maxim quality because he did not really give the

44

information that is required and he cannot truly show the quality or the truth of

what is being said, so it cause the flouting of maxim quantity. And so does

Michael on his saying, I think it's worse when I work on my posture, he gives

more information than is required and it is also kind of hyperbole which generates

flouting the maxim of quantity and quality.

The flouting maxims cause humor, It's one of your problems, this is

overstatement and understatement of spontaneous conversational humor where

Jonathan changes the meaning of Michael has said by repeating it with a different

emphasis. Previously, Michael said innocently that it’s posture and it is not his

problem. Then, Jonathan evasived Michael’s statement clearly that it is his

problem which is the hearers did not expect it. So, it made the hearers laughed.

Another flouting maxim is I think it's worse when I work on my posture, it is also

spontaneous conversational humor which contains self-deprecation that targeting

speaker’s himself (Michael) as the object of humor. Through incongruity theory,

Michael’s utterance contains the element of surprise, firstly, he said, It’s posture.

It is not my problem but at the end, he said on the contrary, I think it's worse when

I work on my posture, that means his posture make him worse so in the other

words the posture is his problem. He used this conflict to create humor and

laughter.

Datum 4

Jonathan : I think we need to be jealous and all the boys have got stuff in their hair. How

is Harry? Harry got that Medusa. It’s a live result. Liam. Liam.

Michael : I like his hair.

Jonathan : Oh, you like his hair.

45

Michael : Except does it move. Look at it. Do everything you can to make your head

move. Nothing, nothing happens. Oh no, my hairs but even worse. Yeah.

Jonathan said, How is Harry? Harry got that Medusa. The hearers will

understand what he mean if they know Medusa who is character of Greek

Metology which her gold long wave hair turn into poisonous snakes. Michael and

the audiences will understand what Jonathan means only if they knew and saw

directly One Direction at that time, moreover, have knowledge about Medusa. So,

it must be particularized conversational implicature. And the other utterances also

generates particularized conversational implicature. “Liam. Liam.” said Jonathan.

And Michael directly states, “I like his hair.”, and then Jonathan asserted that

utterance. Michael needed special knowledge which is about Liam’s hair to be

able to like it. Moreover, he added that he liked it expect it does not move.

“Except does it move. Look at it. Do everything you can to make your head move.

Nothing, nothing happens.” This utterance implicate that He was wondering about

Liam’s hair whether it is real or not maybe using wig, so he asked Liam to do

everything that can made his head move but there was nothing happens which

meant that Liam’s hair is real. At the end, he mocked his own hair desperately by

saying, “Oh no, my hairs but even worse. Yeah.”

Jonathan gives opinion about One Direction’s hair styles, he said, “I think

we need to be jealous and all the boys have got stuff in their hair”. And then, he

said, How is Harry? Harry got that Medusa, he asked about the hair of one of One

Direction member which is Harry but after that his utterance is blatantly flouts the

maxim of quantity. He gave less or more information than is required. It is also

flouting the maxim of quality because he exaggerated his utterance to be a

46

hyperbole and lack adequate which lead the hearers to look for another meanings

of the utterance. It could be meant that Harry’s hair style is like Medusa. Harry

had long wave hair but it was not really like Medusa. And the conversation turned

to speak about Liam. “Except does it moves. Look at it. Do everything you can to

make your head move. Nothing, nothing happens. Oh no, my hairs but even worse.

Yeah.” This utterance is considered as flouting the maxim of quantity. He seemed

to give lack or more information that was needed and he also expressed his

thought about his own hair style which worse than Liam’s.

The flouting maxims above indicate humor based the type of humor which

is spontaneous conversational humor. The utterance, “How is Harry? Harry got

that Medusa”, it is kind of teasing that remarks directed at Harry’s personal

appearance and due to incongruity theory this utterance involves unexpected

interpretation that Jonathan surprise the hearer to utter that Harry’s hair was same

like Medusa’s. So, his interpretation made the hearers laughed. Then, “Oh no, my

hairs but even worse. Yeah.”, it is kind of spontaneous conversational humor

which identify by the category of self-deprecation, Michael was targeting himself

as the object of humor and used it to surprise the hearers so it causes humor effect.

Datum 5

Jonathan : Should I not mention Zayn? Because I'm looking at you and I'm thinking

Zayn.

Michael : I think the problem is there are so many signs around the building, saying

don't fucking mention Zayn. Don’t say. Don’t mention it again.

Jonathan said that when he looked at Michael, he was thinking about

Zayn. But Michael did not like and asked Jonathan to not mention Zayn anymore.

47

Altough, Michael even said, “Don’t fucking mention Zayn”, but actually he is not

truly dislike it. It implicates that Michael just wanted to build up the conversation

and make it funnier because as known, he is a comedian. Thus, to understand what

Jonathan meant, Michael must have same knowledge to the person named Zayn

which in this context refers to ex-member One Direction. Therefore, the

conversation above is particularized conversational implicature.

The Michael’s answer does not replying orderly, he explains about the

caution around the building first which is seem irrelevant with Jonathan’s

question. Moreover, the utterance seemed to be untrue information because there

was no fact about the caution, “Don’t fucking mention Zayn”, as he has been said.

Then, the word fucking seemed like Michael exaggrated his uttrance. After that,

he finally gave clear command to Jonathan to not mention Zayn. Due to his

utterance, the maxim of manner, quality and quantity has been flouted by Michael.

The flouting maxims is a kind of replies to rhetorical question of

spontaneous conversational humor, he was giving answer to Michael flouts a

conversational expectation and surprise Jonathan who posed the question and

audience who listen it. It is perceived as funny core, and the intention is usually to

simply entertain a conversational partner. Through the incongruity theory,

Michael created humor by setting up unexpected reply which is I think the

problem is there are so many signs around the building, saying don't fucking

mention Zayn. Following Don’t say. Don’t mention it again. It affirmed his reply

and resolved the conflict without intending to denigrate Zayn as a target of the

conversation.

48

Datum 6

Jonathan : And so is he..? Is he happy with you, show you off as a father or are you kind

of kept the arms length a little bit?

Michael : I think so. I see he’s happy with me as a father.

Jonathan asked about how is the relationship between Michael and his son

whether he show off Michael as a father or has a little bit avoiding

intimacy/familiarity with him. Then, Michael replied that he thaught his son was

happy with him as a father. In the case of the datum, there is no special knowledge

of the context of utterance is required to calculate the additional meaning, it is

called generalized conversational implicature.

Michael’s utterance above is considered as flouting maxim of quantity. He

seemed to give less information than is required. Jonathan asked Michael “And so

is he..? Is he happy with you, show you off as a father or are you kind of kept the

arms length a little bit?” to know whether he was intimate or close with his son or

not. But he just answered “I think so. I see he’s happy with me as a father.” he

just said that his son is happy with him as a father but he did not tell the

information that Jonathan wanted to be known.

The flout of maxim quantity above makes the utterance funny because

Michael created incongruity of the utterance. He made conflict between what was

thought by Jonathan and audience thinking but what happened in his saying turn

to be ambigous way. He might be close with his son or not, but the most

important, his son was happy with him. As as result, the hearers laughed. Thus,

because of incongruous replies to question was meant to be serious, the utterance

is type of spontaneous conversational humor.

49

Datum 7

Jonathan : It could be nothing left.

Michael : Nothing left looks and he knows all the words. No words left. So he sings

along. He doesn’t know what the accent in there. Mother mother, he say

mother mother mother. Eminim taught about his mother. I try to be positive

because he loves his mother. You know. You should love your mother, do

you? You need to be nicer to your mother. You see. Eminem likes his

mother.

Jonathan : Oh no whoever it will be such a good folks for now.

Michael : Let it be.

Michael said that his son liked one of Eminem song and once he tried to

sing it and focused on rapping part which mentioned so many words mother. He

wanted to give his opinion by commenting the song objectively and positively

although the song does not have a good meaning as he uttered. Hence, this datum

contains a particularized conversational implicature because it discussed

Michael’s son favorite song that obviously only had known by his parents, which

is Michael Mcintyre himself.

Furthermore, Michael responded to Jonathan’s question with too much

information, he could answer by mentioning one tittle of his son’s favorite song

but he tried to imitate and show the way his son express his favorite’s. By saying,

“Nothing left looks and he knows all the words. No words left. So he sings along.”

He flouted the maxim of quality because he repeated what had been uttered by

Jonathan and delivered more information than is required. He also added a

rapping part to the song but in unclear lyric “Mother mother, he say mother

mother mother. Eminim taught about his mother. I try to be positive because he

loves his mother. You know. You should love your mother do you? You need to be

50

nicer to your mother. You see. Eminem likes his mother.” which created obscurity

of expresssion. It indicates flouting maxim of quantity and manner.

The flouting maxims above are the core of humor aspect. The utterance

“He doesn’t know what the accent in there. Mother mother, he say mother mother

mother. Eminim taught about his mother. I try to be positive because he loves his

mother. You know. You should love your mother, do you? You need to be nicer to

your mother. You see. Eminem likes his mother.” indicates an apparently friendly

way of being offensive or mocking in politeness way. He intentionally flouting

those maxims to make Jonathan and the audience laugh so it is kind of

spontaneous conversational humor. According to humor theory, it considered as

superiority because Michael’s utterance contains aggressive element that refers to

Eminem song which makes funny.

Datum 8

Jonathan : You look such going out with the dely of Korea .

Michael : You don’t. You don’t. This is why I have the pasport. I was walking around

to London. People think, oh my God, he is the leader of North Korea

anybody thaught. No! No, it’s me.

Jonathan assumed that Michael such going out with dely of Korea because

people thaught he was president of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un. Michael replied it

by adding story about his experience. Although Jonathan did not asked for it, he

might to tell that funny experience to entertain Jonathan and the audience.

Therefore, the context of conversational implicature above does not need any

special knowledge, so it is called as generalized conversational implicature.

51

Jonathan inquired into Michael about the picture which was shown on the

screen,“You look such going out with the dely of Korea.”, and Michael replied,

“You don’t. You don’t. This is why I have the pasport. I was walking around to

London. People think, oh my God, he is the leader of North Korea anybody

thaught. No! No, it’s me.” from this answer Michael flouts maxim of quantity. He

gave an hyperbole information which is more informative than is required. He

should reply yes or not, in fact, he said You don’t which implicates no because he

has pasport so there is no reason for him to face interference that cause delying.

But, he also added more contribution to his utterance by telling the story of his

experience in London.

Jonathan utterances are kind of teasing where his assumption summoned

Michael to utter the reply in humorous way. As stated before, Michael tended to

exaggerate his story and exceed overstated, hence it makes the conversation

funny. It is concluded as canned joke because the utterance consists of set up and

puch line, the set up is opening story line which is I was walking around to

London. People think, oh my God, he is the leader of North Korea anybody

thaught. And the punch line is surprising element which is No! No, it’s me.

Michael wanted to clarify that he is himself Michael not a president. So, the

hearers laughed by the surprising line.

Datum 9

Jonathan : You've earned the right to put it back on?

Michael : What confuses me in frustrates me and upsets me little bit is I don't know why

I lie to myself about it. I still have. I'm so annoyed that weight is coming back

on but I still weigh myself but I'm lying to myself. I do it first thing in the

morning. I don't wait too what's up. started eating because that makes it worse

52

so there's a bee in the morning and I close the bathroom products skills. I

literally will I take everything off. I take my watch off. I put it on the side. I

took my ring off. I pee. I... I breathe out and then I sort of stand on it and I

hold on. I hold on to the seat. And I just ease my way I like that and I wait for

it to give me the reading that I like. And then I go. That's fine for breakfast.

Jonathan asked Michael, “You've earned the right to put it back on?”

Instead of saying yes or not to Jonathan’s question, Michael seemed to reply by

implicit meaning to his utterance. He tried to reduce weight by doing some

activities and passing the breakfast but the conclusion was still the same that he

could not lose his weight and keep eating for breakfast. It implicates No to the

Jonathan’s question, Michael had not earned the right to put the weight back on.

The situation that he explained does not require any special knowledge. Thus, this

datum considers as generalized conversational implicature.

The italic Michael utterance indicates the flouting maxims. He

intentionally gave too much information than is required which is considered as

flouting maxim of quantity and unnecessary prolixity which is considered as

flouting maxim of manner.

Michael’s story tends to consider as untrue story, he seemed to lie and

exaggerate it to make a joke. Although, it comes from the real experience, it is

still counted as a humor. At first his story seemed like normal activities but at the

end of his story he added surprising closing, And then I go. That's fine for

breakfast. He did everything he can do to put back his weight. Though, he taught

that it worse when he gained more weight so he had not had a breakfast and did

other activities. But at the end he thought it was fine if he had breakfast. He

deliberately misled the hearers and assumed that he will continue his routine to

53

not gain more weight. But it was not what occurred in jokes that Michael still

wanted to have a breakfast. Jonathan and the audience did not expect it so it made

the hearers laugh. Thus, it is considered as spontaneous conversational humor.

Datum 10

Jonathan : They are bigger in America than they are here.

Michael : I have no profile in America. Nope. And people expect me to be going there

to the kids so into disney and universal. I kept telling people I'm going to

Disney Universal. They see one big the meetings. but, oh great, are you doing

meetings? I'm not going right. No profile in America.

I mean not only have no profile. It's just high enough to get you through

customs. I'm in the queue my son is in a goofy hat with an I love Disney World

t-shirt. And the guys like, what is the purpose of your visit. How many claims

it made? Come on people trafficking. Let me in.

Jonathan said They are bigger in America than they are here implicate that

They which are One Direction members have bigger influence in America than in

England. Michael replied that the boys who refer to One Direction members that

is very popular in America while he is not. Then, he continued to explain his

opinion about America and as usual he put it in story line. It has same case with

previous conversation which is Michael noticed as North Korea Leader. There is

no special knowledge that is involved in that conversation implicature, so it is a

generalized conversational implicature.

Previously Jonathan asked about his sight on America. Then, He and

Michael talked about One Direction for a while. However, Michael respone

indicates a flouting maxim of manner. He did not answer the question yet, instead,

he uttered information that implicate the comparation between himself and One

Dircetion. Eventually, he also flouted the maxim of quantity by contributing his

54

sights but it seemed like less or more informative than is required, he attached his

experiance again and arranged it became an interesting and expressive story.

The first core of humorous utterance occurs in the lines, “...oh great, are

you doing meetings? I'm not going right.”, American people asked Michael

whether he was going to have meetings or not. If he had on it, they did not allow

him to visit. Becuase of that, he said that he had no profile in America. Through

this conflict, Michael tried to set up an expectation to Jonathan and the audience

and jolt them with something they did not expect. Furthermore, the story was

continuing, they was still asking him about what the purpose of his visit. Clearly,

it could be known that he and his son wanted to come to Disney land even his son

wore the t-shirt. Many people also came there but they did not accept the

interruption. Then, he asked them to let him in. Thus, the utterance “Come on

people trafficking. Let me in.” is the punch line that creates the humor. The story

of Michael is considered as canned joke. It leads incongruity with the set-up and

the puchline. The lines I mean not only have no profile. It's just high enough to get

you through customs. I'm in the queue my son is in a goofy hat with an I love

Disney World t-shirt. And the guys like, what is the purpose of your visit. How

many claims it made? They are considered as set up which is the opening and

main story. While the lines Come on people trafficking. Let me in. They are

considered as punchline, the final portion of the story, which engenders surprise.

Datum 11

Michael : The thing about Americans that I've thought about the languages that they

speak. They say they speak English but they've had to change it to make them

understand it more. Go with me on this. Because I've thought it’s true. They

55

changed some of the words so they've taken english language but they've

looked at some of it. No. No. I think we need a little bit more explanation here.

Okay. That's my American accent. So things like pavement. So they can't work,

work with pavement. So they've changed it to sidewalk. They needed more

efficient. They needed to know where they were going to be walking. They

wouldn't get run over.

Jonathan : So that's it. I didn't think of that.

Michael : Pavement. Sidewalks. I think there must been a period of time where they

ran with the word pavement but they kept getting hit by cars so they changed

it to sidewalk.

Previously, Jonathan asked Michael about his sight on America, Michael

gaves his opinion in the conversation above. He said, “They say they speak

English but they've had to change it to make them understand it more.”, it

implicates that Micheal thought American people did not truly understand English

language. They needed to specify the words or changed it to understand it more,

such for the example is the word pavemant in British which is called sidewalk in

America. On the other hand, it is common case when two words have same

meaning in same language but into different cultures. Michael also told untruthful

history by the utterance, “I think there must been a period of time where they ran

with the word pavement but they kept getting hit by cars so they changed it to

sidewalk.” He intended to express peculiarity of American people which aimed to

entertain the hearers without any intentions to vilify them. Thus, it requires special

knowledge and considered as particularized conversational implicature.

Michael is blatantly flouting the maxim of quantity and quality by the

utterance “Go with me on this. Because I've thought it’s true. They changed some

of the words so they've taken english language but they've looked at some of it.

No. No. I think we need a little bit more explanation here. Okay. That's my

56

American accent. So things like pavement. So they can't work, work with

pavement. So they've changed it to sidewalk. They needed more efficient. They

needed to know where they were going to be walking. They wouldn't get run

over.”. He gave contribution more informative than is required and it seemed to

be false because he supposed it based on his knowledge without adequate proof.

In the utterance Pavement. Sidewalks. I think there must been a period of time

where they ran with the word pavement but they kept getting hit by cars so they

changed it to sidewalk. Michael insulted Jonathan by giving too much information

and untrustable explanation.

The flouting maxims above makes utterance funny because Michael

created the element of surprise. Jonathan and the audience did not expect Michael

will explain his incongrous thought. “They needed to know where they were going

to be walking. They wouldn't get run over.” and “I think there must been a period

of time where they ran with the word pavement but they kept getting hit by cars so

they changed it to sidewalk.” These replies, therefore be perceived as funny, and

the intention is simply to entertain the hearers. Thus, the utterances are considers

as spontaneous coversational humor which the subtype is satire, an aggressive

humor that pokes fun at American people.

Datum 12

Michael : Now bear with me here John. Cause I prove this truth.

Jonathan : Okay.

Michael : Bin. The word for bin. In American waste paper basket. They needed to know

what not only what to put in it. They needed to know that not only it was

paper but waste paper and then it goes into a basket. It's not just any paper.

57

They kept throwing away fresh paper for a period time and introduced the

word waste paper basket. It’s like they need instructions.

Glasses for your eyes. They'd call them eyeglasses. They needed to know

where they put them because they used to have glasses and they would put

them on their thighs. And they put them on their feet. And they would say, I

can't see any better with the glasses. And somebody said, no, they are

eyeglasses. Well, why didn't you call eye glasses?.

The datum above still has same context with the previous datum. In this

datum, Michael talked about another term of words. First, it is about bin. He said

that American people used the word waste paper basket instead of bin because

American thought that it was not only paper but waste paper and it went into a

basket. He thought, at period of time, they kept throwing away fresh paper so they

introduced the word waste paper basket. Next, he talked about eyeglasses that

American people needed to know where they put glasses, then, they put in their

thighs and feet, they said they can not see any better with the glasses, one of them

said “No, it is eyeglasses”, another American replied, “Well, why didn't you call

eye glasses.” So, this story was made by special knowledge with the explicit

meaning to criticize American terms which was obtained by Michael’s own mind

exploration. Thus, this datum presents particularized conversational implicature.

Michael’s utterance “Bin. the word for bin. In American waste paper

basket. They needed to know, what not only what to put in it. That you didn't know

that not only it was paper but waste paper and then it goes into a basket. It's not

just any paper. They kept throwing away fresh paper for a period time introduced

the word waste paper basket. It’s like they need instructions. Glasses for your

eyes. They'd call them eyeglasses. They needed to know where they put them

because they used to have glasses and they would put them on their thighs. And

58

they put them on their feet. And they would say, I can't see any better with the

glasses. And somebody said, no, they are eyeglasses. Well, why didn't you call eye

glasses.” is considered as flouting the maxim of quantity and quality. He gave too

much information than was needed. He asked to Jonathan to take attention to his

explanation and said that it was true but in contrast to the next utterance, he

seemed tell untruth by giving too much infomation and totally unfounded.

The hearers still pay attention to Michael utterances “Bin. The word for

bin. In American waste paper basket. They needed to know what not only what to

put in it.” But they started to laugh by the utterance “They needed to know that

not only it was paper but waste paper and then it goes into a basket.” Following

“They kept throwing away fresh paper for a period time and introduced the word

waste paper basket.” The utterances contain unexpected interpretation to the word

bin. Michael was playing with the term and giving his own assumption about the

origin of word. As a result, the hearers laugh because of his incongruous way.

Similarly, the next utterances also surprised the hearers. It was about the origin of

the word eye glasses. The laughter was started to the line They'd call them

eyeglasses. Because in (British) English, they just use the term glasses that they

certainly know it is for eyes. So the hearers laugh because they know that Michael

was going to tell other incongruous way of the word. So, by following other

utterance the hearers also laugh them. He stated that American needed to know

where they put them because they used to have glasses and they would put them

on their thighs. Once, they put them on their feet. And he added such monolog

that they would say, “I can't see any better with the glasses.” And somebody said,

59

“No, they are eyeglasses.” “Well, why didn't you call eye glasses?” Briefly, all

those utterances full of laughter.

Thus, this datum presents satire as the element of humor, which is a way of

criticizing a language especially the words bin and eyeglasses in American. Satire

is one kind of spontaneous conversational humor.

Datum 13

Michael : There's a game called squash. Do you’ve heard of it?

Jonathan : Yes.

Michael : It's not in America. Racquetball. They needed to know what they were going

to keep playing with, a racquetball and even then they get confused because

there's no court. They don't know where to go. They just wonder through

the street. I wanna play racquetball so cut me down to change that. But my

favorite one without a shadow of doubt is horse riding.

In this datum, Michael asked Jonathan whether he ever heard the game

called squash and he said yes. After that, Michael added more information about

squash which is called racquetball in America. He said that American wanted to

know what thing they were playing with which was raqcuet and ball so it called

racquetball but they got confused because there was no information about where

they could play it which is the court so they just wondered through the street.

Then, he was going to talk about another term horseriding. Again, he described

the information based on his understanding and not all people have same

perception with him. Thus, this conversation considers as particularized

conversational implicature.

In this case Michael deliberately flouted the maxim of quantity and

quality. The information from Michael to Jonathan “It's not in America.

60

Racquetball. They needed to know what they were going to keep playing with, a

racquetball and even then they get confused because there's no court. They don't

know where to go. They just wonder through the street. I wanna play racquetball

so cut me down to change that. but my favorite one without a shadow of doubt is

horse riding.” used to provide contribution more informative than is required and

lack adequte evidence. The hearer must be known that his story is untrue.

Similar with the previous datum, this datum creates humor because

Michael exaggrated the information and used the incongruous way. Michael

started his explanation by saying “It's not in America. Racquetball.” Then,

Jonathan and audience started to laugh by the following utterances “They needed

to know what they were going to keep playing with, a racquetball and even then

they get confused because there's no court. They don't know where to go. They

just wonder through the street. I wanna play racquetball so cut me down to

change that.” Although his explanation is illogical, the hearers tend to enjoy it

even laugh because of it. Furthermore, it also considered as satire that he

deliberately criticized American language especially the word racquetball. Satire

is one kind of spontaneous conversational humor.

Datum 14

Michael : Do you know what horse riding is in America?

Jonathan : Is not called horse riding?

Michael : No. Horseback riding. They need to specify how ride the horse.

Jonathan : Oh yes. Yeah.

61

Michael : It’s terrible problems. Because there was period of time when they didn't

call it horseback riding. They had to use to hold on the tail. So this is how in

riding horses in Europe.

Continued to the previous datum, moreover, Michael asked Jonathan

whether he know horse riding is called in America. And Jonathan returned to ask

Jonathan “Is not called horse riding?”. Then, Michael gave the answer that in

America it is called horseback riding and added more explanation about it. He

told that there was time when American did not use the word horseback riding,

they rode the horse by holding on the tail. Furthermore, not all the hearers

(Jonathan and the audiences) knew the term of horse riding in American English

which is called horseback riding. Michael might be implicate another meaning

between the term horse riding and horseback riding. He mocked the term

smoothly. Though, the hearers knew that American people do not use the word

horseback riding just because they want to understand it more. There is no

convinced linguitic history about it. Therefore, the implicature above involves

special knowledge which is Michael’s extraordinary thought, so it consider as

particularized conversational implicature.

In this datum, both utterances “No. Horseback riding. They need to specify

how ride the horse.” and “It’s terrible problems. Because there was period of time

when they didn't call it horseback riding. They had to use to hold on the tail. So

this is how in riding horses in Europe.” flouted the maxims of quantity and

quality, since Michael is responding with more information than is required and

lack adequate evidence.

62

Michael explained about the fact only based on his mind without giving

the trustable reason. He seemed to give logical statement but attach humor on it.

The utterance “No. Horseback riding. They need to specify how ride the horse.”,

results humor effect. And Michael added it more by the utterance “It’s terrible

problems. Because there was period of time when they didn't call it horseback

riding. They had to use to hold on the tail. So this is how in riding horses in

Europe.” It has double meaning which deliberately misleads the hearers which

one of elements of ingcongruity theory. Michael’s utterance implicates that at

period of time, American do not ride the horse by sitting on his back instead

standing on the back by holding the tail. Of course, his explanation did not make

sense but he intentionally did it to create the laughter. Therefore, those utterances

are spontaneous conversational humor that caused by an ambiguity and

nonsensical statement.

Datum 15

Jonathan : That's a whole different thing you doing there.

Michael : Anybody's watch the show who may have been flicking the channels.

Horseback riding in Europe. No. No. No. This was a story about America in

descriptive words. Do you think my thaught will damage American?

Jonathan : No. You can complain it. This is the whole show. Mr. Michael Mcintyre.

In this datum, Jonathan commented to the whole Michael explaination

about several words in English and American, by saying “That's a whole different

thing you doing there” Then, Michael said that the spectators of the show might

have been flicking the channels. Then, he redemonstrated how American do the

horseback riding. After that, he clarified his utterances and said that they were just

63

the descriptive words of America story. Then, he asked Jonathan “Do you think

my thaught will damage American?”. Jonathan replied, “No. You can complain

it.” And lastly, Jonathan close the interview session. While the conversational

implicature in this datum is generalized conversational implicature because it does

not require special knowledge.

Michael’s utterance “Anybody's watch the show who may have been

flicking the channels.” seemed flouting the maxim of relavance but his utterance

still had related context to the Jonathan statement which talked about American

despite he blatantly flouted the maxim of quality. By saying “Horseback riding in

Europe. No. No. No. This was a story about America in descriptive words.”, he

exaggrated his utterance and added more infomation than is required.

Therefore, the humor aspect is existed in Michael’s utterance he created

spontaneous conversational humor intentionally. He generated the laughter of

audience by exaggrating the situation that spectators might be flicking the channel

because what had been Michael talked about. And he conveyed overstatement by

repeating “Horseback riding in Europe.” Jonathan and the audience certainly will

be recalling the data which is funny way and nonsensical explanations about some

American terms in the previous conversation. According to humor theory, this

datum used superiority theory because it contains aggressive elements to

American English. It indicates by the utterance Horseback riding in Europe.

Michael intentionally uttered it to build up more laughter.

64

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGESSTIONS

A. Conclusions

Based on the analysis, the writer finds fifteen selected data from the

conversation between Jonathan Ross and Michael Mcintyre which contain two

types of conversational implicature which are generalized conversational

implicature and particularized conversational implicature. The generalized

conversational implicature and particularized conversational implicature

generated by flouting maxims, based on the meaning that Michael implied in his

utterance. The uses of both types conversational implicature also prove that humor

could need a special or not special context to have humorous meanings.

Besides, the flouts of conversational maxim are impressive comedic tool to

entertain the hearers or the readers. The using of flouting maxim of quantity,

maxim of quality, maxim of relation and maxim of manner basically to create

surprising effect to make the hearers laugh. Michael chiefly flouted maxim of

quantity. He deliberatly did not follow the principles of maxim to implicate

laughter. However, lack of required information or provided information more

than required makes humor. Thus, the success rate in creating humor could be

determined by how maxim is flouted.

Related to the processes of creating humor, there are three theory and

types leading the humorous utterances. As the result, the incongruity theory and

spontaneous conversational humor have dominant role in creating humor. Mostly,

Michael used incongruous way of humor simply by setting up an expectation in

65

the hearers or audience and jolts them with something they did not expect.

Moreover, the most coomon types of humor found are spontaneous conversational

humor. It is distinguished from certain basis of the intentions or use of humors

such as satire, overstatement and understatement, self-deprecation, teasing, and

clever or nonsensical replies to serious statements.

B. Suggestions

Humor happens in daily life, most people tend to tell a joke and others like

being entertained. Further study on humor is always suggested. For following

research, the further researchers should deeply examine conversational

implicature and cooperative principles because it is the main tool of the

conversation. Beside pragmatic field, various research innovations are needed in

order to obtain more understanding to the phenomenon of humor. In this case, the

writer suggest further research which studying on semantics, sociolinguistic or

other linguistic fields.

66

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Attardo, Salvatore. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor. New

York: Routledge, 2017.

Birner, Betty J. Introduction to Pragmatic. UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2013.

Bublitz, Wolfram and Neal R. Norrick. Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyeter, 2011.

Chapman, Siobhan. Paul Grice, Philosopher and Linguist. Basingstoke/New

York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.

Creswell, John W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method

Approaches. California: SAGE Publications, 2014.

Cruse, Alan. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and

Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Cutting, Joan. Pragmatics and Discourse. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Dubinsky, Stanley and Chris Holcomb. Understanding Language through Humor.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Dynel, Marta. Developments in Linguistic Theory. USA: John Benjamins

Publishing, 2013.

Grice, H. Paul. Studies in the Way of Words. London: Harvard University Press,

1989.

Hornby, A.S. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 8th

ed. Oxford University

Press, 2010.

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

Martin, Road A. The Psychology of Humor: An integrative Approach. California,

Calif: Academic Press, 2007.

McGhee, Paul E. and Jeffrey H. Goldstein. Handbook of Humor Research. New

York: Springer-Verlag, 1983.

Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.

67

O’Keefe, Anne, Brian Clancy, and Svenja Adolphs. Introducing Pragmatics in

Use. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Raskin, Victor and Willibald Ruch. The Primer of Humor Research. Berlin:

Mouton de Gruyeter, 2008.

Ross, Alison. The Language of Humor. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Senft, Gunter. Understanding Pragmatics. New York: Routledge, 2014.

Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New

York: Routledge, 2013.

Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Journals

Dynel, Marta. Beyond a Joke: Types of Conversational Humour. Blackwell

Publishing Ltd., (2009): 1284-1299.

Dynel, Marta. There is Method in The Humorous Speaker’s Madness: Humour

and Grice’s Model. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4.1 (2008): 159-185

Grice, H. Paul. “Logic and Conversation” Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Arts.

(1975): 41-58.

Ibraheem, Sura Dhiaa and Nawal Fadhil Abbas. A Pragmatic Study of Humor.

Australia: Australian International Academic Centre, (February 2016): 80-

87.

Ayasreh, Amer and Razlina Razali. The Flouting of Grice’s Conversational

Maxim: Examples from Bashar Al-Assad’s Interview during the Arab

Spring. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, (May 2018): 43-47.

Weiwei Pan (2012), Linguistic Basis of Humor in Uses of Grice’s Cooperative

Principle. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature,

(November 2012): 20-25.

Websites

The Jonathan Ross Show (2011) Season 9 Episode 6. 13 November 2016.

<https://youtu.be/pDTvRK8GWUU>

68

Appendix

The transcript below is the conversation between Jonathan Ross and Michael

Mcintyre in the Jonathan Ross Show, published on YouTube on November 13th

,

2016:

Jonathan : Welcome to very special little adult show. Shall we have a look and

see who is in my grooming tonight baby. I’m so excited he's here. He

is without doubt the best stand-up comedian in the country. These

national tour set out almost instantly the world of comedy. He is king

of all his advices what you might not know about him though. He's

also a fabulous dancer. He's a formidable case fighter. He's a very

generous lover. Yes. It's mr. Michael mcintyre, ladies and gentlement.

He is a stand-up who is so successful and this is genuine he such as for

the one of the biggest venues in the country have given in his own set

of keys. So either they need a new cleaner or it's an acknowledgement

you can feel the place any time he wants. He's the undisputed king of

comedy it's mr. Michael mcintyre, ladies and gentlemen.

Michael : Hi. Hi.

Jonathan : Come on have a sit michael. Great to see you again

Michael : They didn't tell me its ways to walk use. They runway.

Jonathan : Well which way do you think, you can...

Michael : To do some kind of cameras are the wires everywhere. One direction

there to help me. Turn it horribly out of places units.

Jonathan : No. No. What? Why do you think that?

69

Michael : Because I saw myself at the monitor and they look so bloody cool.

Jonathan : Ok.

Michael : I wonder like i was on the loose security.

Jonathan : Sure. Sure.

Michael : Is it something wrong with my suit when I'm standing up in the suit. I

think it is okay. When I sit down. It just like, it just it goes incomplete.

Jonathan : Because when you stand up, it's all distributing more when you sit

down, a sec of a high dose.

Michael : It’s posture. It is not my problem.

Jonathan : It's one of your problems.

Michael : I think it's worse when I work on my posture.

Jonathan : I think we need to be jealous and all the boys have got stuff in their

hair. How is Harry? Harry got that Medusa. It’s a live result. Liam.

Liam.

Michael : I like his hair.

Jonathan : Oh, you like his hair.

Michael : Except does it move. Look at it. Do everything you can to make

your head move. Nothing, nothing happens. Oh no, my hairs but

even worse. Yeah.

Jonathan : It's fine for you

Michael : No. Not. It's not happy bring.

Jonathan : Need product there's only needs one of Zayn follow cooked or not

saying dessert. Well i missing link insane.

Michael : Well…

Jonathan : Should I not mention Zayn? Because I'm looking at you and I'm

thinking Zayn.

Michael : I think the problem is there are so many signs around the building,

saying don't fucking mention Zayn. Don’t say. Don’t mention it

again.

Jonathan : I've actually got inside. I just want that was just a why did you do that

what did i do.

70

Michael : I don't know

Jonathan : Decide.

Michael : Ok, so let's not mention Zayn.

Jonathan : That's what now shall we talking about. Ok. So you have the keys

you have success. You have and a nice thing in anyone's life I think

because that's all important but you have family, you have children.

Two boys. How are your boys?

Michael : Now they’re ten and seven years old.

Jonathan : Ok, well that's their they're great ages though exciting ages hedges at

the same time they are beginning to show signs of teenage behavior.

Are they growing up and away from in any way what sir. How are they

would daddy these days?

Michael : Oh, they're very sweet you know because when i'm away they missed

me and it's been it's a little bit difficult because you ain't talking you

someone tall but you know my tell you what lucas is getting a little bit

teenagers bows

Jonathan : And so is he..? Is he happy with you, show you off as a father or are

you kind of kept the arms length a little bit?

Michael : I think so. I see he’s happy with me as a father.

Jonathan : But when you've got... You know what I mean.

Michael : I mean come on your inquiries when my children are now they want

in divorce. Obviously, they've been googling boys they want to get rid

of me. I embarrassment so I got a phone call. They also publish

available that's all I’m. Saying well I think you know it's been tough

with me away but I'm home now.

Jonathan : So when you drop on school in the morning how they hold your hand

all the way that the gabs or is there already the beginnings. All do they

want you to drop them off further and further away the wall carpet. I'm

not having any of that. I'd like to embarrass them as much as they can

because i love them and i don't want them to leave. You know we

71

made them. I want them to stay with us and i'm not interested in them

extra cating themselves. Don't let them get away until you know

Michael : I've waved at the window I kissed them all over their faces that

they're my kids.

Jonathan : So lovely.

Michael : That’s I felt about them .

Jonathan : What, what are they do with their spare time? Are you aware of what

games they play, what music they listen to?

Michael : Well, they'd start up in my oldest. I've no idea what's going on his

teen completely obsessed with rap. He listens to eminem all the time.

It's completely inappropriate I.. I keep. once and goes away. I'm

pleased that he's interested in music but i don't know what this is. It is

absolutely everything is explicit. It has the little e next to it which

presence is completely inappropriate. It’s explicit. So you have to buy

the ones that say clean which is he clean clean and they take off all the

effing and blinding .

Jonathan : It could be nothing left

Michael : Nothing left looks and he knows all the words. No words left. So he

sings along. He doesn’t know what the accent in there. Mother

mother, he say mother mother mother. Eminim taught about his

mother. I try to be positive because he loves his mother. You know.

You should love your mother, do you? You need to be nicer to your

mother. You see. Eminem likes his mother.

Jonathan : Oh no whoever it will be such a good folks for now.

Michael : Let it be.

Jonathan : Now, I've met michael's wife a few times issues very fit in both

senses the world and…

Michael : Yes she is.

Jonathan : I knew you as kitty you've got here.

Michael : How iS that possible? Is that me? Is that I got in the airplane I think

they want letting people look at it up she's going out.

72

Jonathan : You look such going out with the dely of Korea.

Michael : You don’t. You don’t. This is why I have the pasport. I was walking

around to London. People think, oh my God, he is the leader of

North Korea anybody thaught. No! No, it’s me.

Michael : It’s a while. I have. I have the pasport.. Oh my god he is the leader of

north korea. Career and I start getting pulled over I can know it's made

I know but she keeps me does she need you to get fit because you're

not in bad shape I know but you're funny they're not as fit as you

could. I mean. I lost weight at the beginning of year

Jonathan : Lost another way and…

Michael : Another way i'm putting it back on i'm putting it back on if you yo-yo

then obviously i owe it to myself to put weight back on and i’ve lost it.

Jonathan : You've earned the right to put it back on?

Michael : What confuses me in frustrates me and upsets me little bit is I don't

know why I lie to myself about it. I still have. I'm so annoyed that

weight is coming back on but I still weigh myself but I'm lying to

myself. I do it first thing in the morning. I don't wait too what's up.

started eating because that makes it worse so there's a bee in the

morning and I close the bathroom products skills. I literally will I take

everything off. I take my watch off. I put it on the side. I took my ring

off. I pee. I... I breathe out and then I sort of stand on it and I hold on.

I hold on to the seat. And I just ease my way I like that and I wait for it

to give me the reading that I like. And then I go. That's fine for

breakfast.

Jonathan : Okay let me ask you then about when you perform like i've nobody

said on your legs now you make obviously audience know what they're

gonna get they've come to see you. Specifically they love what you do

and they love with you so much. Some of them try to do number two

and he was like featuring that in the beginning of the show. How did

that come about?

73

Michael : I got some stage by a film which i've our bands mine to basically do

their job to defect them and their lives because this has helped me over

the years. I've done lots and lots of hours and hours of material lots of

shows and people a lot to come up to me and say they you know it's

my picture they say things I can't come from a tight song without

thinking of you because I got the time to joke and so I just might be

quite fun to just throw it out there and I just put on social media you

want to make weird.

Jonathan : Hearing them do your materi about you especially so much of your

material. I think relies on on you performing it. I mean, it's good

material but you really bring you the laughs.

Michael : It's more recognition for the audience a guy the other day she said I

didn't know what it was a couple tours ago. And it was about in the

gym. How I never want to be naked for a very long time. I always

went. You know. What the first thing I'd do is put my pants back. I've

cut my bench for a short amount of time as possible and without pants

take myself a new pants sometimes I have two pants. It goes so

quickly. But some people in the gym. They liked pants so large so I

had this whole routine about people putting their socks on and the hat

or and everything's flapping around. It is you know the hat they were

drying themselves in the. It was a huge big routine at this guy go up to

the street and he says this was really got me this goes I can't burn he

said secure check it to about the gym. Whenever one swilley

throughout and I said. Oh yeah anyway. That was bad gym.

Jonathan : Well that's a different kind of season. That's already okay so this is

Michael mcintyre live video too. It's called happy and glorious.

Politically is all the previous owners left all this shit behind exactly

let's have like jordan because it is work I know that. Yeah. Now being

away from home is difficult anyway because the kids least you get

home unless you can on static. Do you have to make sure that you say

in shape to be on state up there or is that kind of like a workout?

74

Michael : Yes, I'm walking up and down and running up and down. Yup, enjoy

your nice place to get used to get used to doing the show and I thought

he's working progress gigs go through through the year .

Jonathan : So do you warm up with small gigs?

Michael : Yes, I warm up the smaller gigs and they get bigger and bigger until I

am going to the arenas. And you have to get the fundamentals right to

the material but also the functioning of the show. I think it happened

before was in a theater before the main show so they sort of convention

of the show is that. You... You know come out and tell jokes for as

long as I can you know now. And then is always an encore which is

part of its passive show business

Jonathan : So people come expecting an encore you have to have material

waiting for non comments.

Michael : Yes. I suppose you know bands they hold back a couple of songs.

Jonathan : Often hold back the biggest hit .

Michael : Yeah and then its young court and you shout more or whatever. And

they have to come back and it's always a bit dangerous me in the

arenas because especially another people that to beat the rush here so i

did i'm a determines their I milked it in wembley I went off and

awaiting us milking it you know all they love me they love me but they

fucked off to get the train. There is nobody there. Oh yeah sorry and

then just go back down. So that's very embarrassing. And so once I

normally do is they come straight back on without I'd sort of can't you

know to like 10 they get a drink and come back up and in the theaters

it differently arenas they have. You know the weeds the curtains on the

side. So I would let you I do the haa to finish the show and I do the

whole. Thank you. Thank you very get everything taken but i'd like to

get off quick so they know i'm coming back yes you daughter confuse

anybody so thank you. Thank you. I just need you go behind the

curtain and I just stand there for literally like 10 sec I just counted him

and then I come back out straight into show business like that foreman

75

do you come on yeah and that's just the inner workings of not show

business in show biz yes but I did this gig in southampton where i got

my bearings room and it led to the creepiest moment. I think if anyone

in this audience is like where did this whole thank you thank you

bowing bowing. And then I walked off and I didn't know all the way

out into the curtain. And I just stopped in the corner of the stairs. It’s

like I run out of battery. And then people weren't clapping. Like this

they sort o to unman was like the end of the blair witch project notice.

They weren't we can just look around and then shuffled into. So, you

know you got nothing with the same jam. Yeah, when I just got a little

bit bit slow but I mean i'm telling you they did not know what come

yet what's come over this.

Jonathan : But now you couldn't be any bigger in this country. I don't think. I

know you. You know just getting there consumptive easy stainless

harbor your work the very top what about other parts of the world i

guess you're because the language is different. In america do they

know in america. Do you have your sights on america?

Michael : You know this is what's so great about the boys my mates one day.

Jonathan : All over the mean.

Michael : Everyone in america knows who these these boys'll.

Jonathan : They are bigger in America than they are here.

Michael : I have no profile in America. Nope. And people expect me to be

going there to the kids so into disney and universal. I kept telling

people I'm going to Disney Universal. They see one big the meetings.

but, oh great, are you doing meetings? I'm not going right. No profile

in America. I mean not only have no profile. It's just high enough to

get you through customs. I'm in the queue my son is in a goofy hat with

an I love Disney World t-shirt. And the guys like, what is the purpose

of your visit. How many claims it made? Come on people trafficking.

Let me in.

Jonathan : He's holding hands with the leader of north korea customs official.

Michael : It’s the truth. So no Smerica haven't haven't come calling. It's not

something. But what we see.

76

Jonathan : But have you tried do you wanna got it? They would get you when

they would understand. Your stuff pretty universal I feel.

Michael : You say that you understand me. The thing about Americans that I've

thought about the languages that they speak. They say they speak

English but they've had to change it to make them understand it more.

Go with me on this. Because I've thought it’s true. They changed some

of the words so they've taken english language but they've looked at

some of it. No. No. I think we need a little bit more explanation here.

Okay. That's my American accent. So things like pavement. So they

can't work, work with pavement. So they've changed it to sidewalk.

They needed more efficient. They needed to know where they were

going to be walking. They wouldn't get run over.

Jonathan : So that's it. I didn't think of that

Michael : Pavement. Sidewalks. I think there must been a period of time where

they ran with the word pavement but they kept getting hit by cars so

they changed it to sidewalk.

Michael : Now bear with me here John. Cause I prove this truth.

Jonathan : Okay.

Michael : Bin. The word for bin. In American waste paper basket. They needed

to know what not only what to put in it. They needed to know that not

only it was paper but waste paper and then it goes into a basket. It's

not just any paper. They kept throwing away fresh paper for a period

time and introduced the word waste paper basket. It’s like they need

instructions.

Glasses for your eyes. They'd call them eyeglasses. They needed to

know where they put them because they used to have glasses and

they would put them on their thighs. And they put them on their feet.

And they would say, I can't see any better with the glasses. And

somebody said, no, they are eyeglasses. Well, why didn't you call eye

glasses?.

77

There's a game called squash. Do you’ve heard of it?

Jonathan : Yes.

Michael : It's not in America. Racquetball. They needed to know what they

were going to keep playing with, a racquetball and even then they get

confused because there's no court. They don't know where to go.

They just wonder through the street. I wanna play racquetball so cut

me down to change that. But my favorite one without a shadow of

doubt is horse riding. Do you know what horse rading is in America?

Jonathan : Is not called horse riding?

Michael : No. Horseback riding. They need to specify how ride the horse.

Jonathan : Oh yes. Yeah.

Michael : It’s terrible problems. Because there was period of time when they

didn't call it horseback riding. They had to use to hold on the tail. So

this is how in riding horses in Europe.

Jonathan : That's a whole different thing you doing there.

Michael : Anybody's watch the show who may have been flicking the

channels. Horseback riding in Europe. No. No. No. This was a story

about America in descriptive words. Do you think my thaught will

damage American?

Jonathan : No. You can complain it. This is the whole show. Mr. Michael

Mcintyre.

.