A STUDY ON HOW SCRIPTWRITERS FLOUT CERTAIN MAXIMS OF GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE TO CREATE VERBAL IRONY THROUGH THE SITCOM FRIENDS FROM EPISODE 1 TO EPISODE 10

This study, thus, is carried out in the light of pragmatic approach in which verbal irony is considered to be the product of the art of flouting certain maxims of Grice‘s cooperative pri

TABLE OF CONTENT

PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Aims of the study 2

1.3 Research questions 2

1.4 Significance of the study 2

1.4.1 In theory 2

1.4.2 In practice 3

1.5 Scope of the study 3

1.6 Design of the study 4

PART 2: THE DEVELOPMENT 5

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5

1.1 Implicature 5

1.1.1 Definition of implicature 5

1.1.2 Implicature and inference 6

1.1.3 Types of implicature 7

1.2 Grice’s cooperative principle 8

1.2.1 Conversational maxims 8

1.2.1.1 The maxim of quality 8

1.2.1.2 The maxim of quantity 9

1.2.1.3 The maxim of relation 10

1.2.1.4 The maxim of manner 10

1.2.2 Observing the maxims 11

1.2.3 Non-observances of the maxims 11

1.2.3.1 Flouting a maxim 12

1.2.3.2 Violating a maxim 12

1.2.3.3 Infringing a maxim 13

1.2.3.4 Opting out of a maxim 13

1.2.3.5 Suspending a maxim 14

1.2.4 Flouts exploiting the maxims 15

1.2.4.1 Flouts exploiting the maxim of quality 15

1.2.4.2 Flouts exploiting the maxim of quantity 16

1.2.4.3 Flouts exploiting the maxim of relevance 16

1.2.4.4 Flouts exploiting the maxim of manner 17

1.3 Irony 19

1.3.1 Ironology: A history of irony 19

1.3.2 Definition of irony 20

1.3.3 Taxonomy of irony 22

1.3.4 The risks and rewards of ironic communication 24

1.3.4.1 The risks of ironic communication 24

1.3.4.2 The rewards of ironic communication 26

1.3.5 Self-directed irony 27

CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY 29

2.1 Methodology 29

2.1.1 Qualitative and quantitative methods 29

2.1.2 Some supplementary techniques 30

2.2 An introduction to American sitcoms and the sitcom “Friends” 30

2.2.1 Definition of sitcoms 30

2.2.2 Characteristics of American sitcoms 31

2.2.2.1 Common characteristics of sitcoms 31

2.2.2.2 Characteristics of American sitcoms 32

2.2.3 The sitcom “Friends” 33

2.2.3.1 Main characters 33

2.2.3.2 First season sypnose 34

2.3 Findings and discussion 35

2.3.1 Findings 35

2.3.1.1 The analysis on situations which flout the maxim of quality 36

2.3.1.2 The analysis on situations which flout the maxim of quantity 49

2.3.1.3 The analysis on situations which flout the maxim of relation 54

2.3.1.4 The analysis on situations which flout the maxim of manner 60

2.3.2 Discussion 65

PART 3: THE CONCLUSION 68

3.1 Recapitulation of main ideas 68

3.2 Limitations of the study 69

3.3 Suggestions for further research 69 Appendix

PART 1: THE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale

Verbal irony is a common form of speech used in daily discourse The reason why irony is deliberately chosen over its literal counterpart is because it serves several functions that cannot be achieved through a literal utterance These functions are derived from the very nature of verbal irony that distinguishes it from a literal statement

There are many ways to create verbal irony Different approaches have different ways to clarify the mechanism in which verbal irony is generated, but none of which has reached their fulfillment This study, thus, is carried out in the light of pragmatic approach

in which verbal irony is considered to be the product of the art of flouting certain maxims

of Grice‘s cooperative principle (Grice, 1975) This theory helps to analyze not only the linguistic features of an ironic utterance but also its functions in comparison with its literal counterpart This is the first reason why the author decided to choose Grice‘s cooperative principle the basis for this study

It is also necessary to provide an explanation for the choice of analyzing the scripts

of the sitcom ―Friends‖ According to Alison, ―although British comedy has a high reputation and used to claim a higher degree of subtlety and irony, some of the most popular recent sitcoms are from the USA‖ (2006: 91) Among all American sitcoms,

―Friends‖ is considered to be one of the most typical and successful ones It was even so popular that it was rerun in 1997 as the beginning of Channel 4‘s night of comedy The success of the series can be attributable to many factors, among which, the great potential for verbal irony created by the language used itself plays an important part The verbal irony appeared in the series have not only attracted the young but also made ―Friends‖ a sitcom for every family

In analyzing the scripts of the sitcom ―Friends‖ from episode 1 to episode 10, this study aims to unpack the relationship between the verbal irony and the Cooperative Principle in the sitcom ―Friends‖, discover how scriptwriters flout certain maxims to create verbal irony and how the implied message behind the verbal irony is conveyed

1.2 Aims of the study

This study is carried out specifically to aim at:

(1) revisiting some theoretical background knowledge of implicatures, (especially conversational implicatures), Grice‘s cooperative principles and verbal irony

(2) investigating how verbal irony is generated by the art of flouting certain maxims of Grice‘s conversational cooperative principles in the scripts of the sitcom ―Friends‖ from episode 1 to episode 10

(3) identifying which of the maxims of Grice‘s conversational cooperative principle is more likely to be flouted to produce verbal irony

1.3 Research questions

This study is supposed to answer the following questions:

(1) How verbal irony is created by the art of flouting certain maxims of Grice‘s conversational cooperative principles in the scripts of the sitcom ―Friends‖ from episode 1 to episode 10?

(2) Which of the maxims of Grice‘s conversational cooperative principle is the most likely to be flouted to produce verbal irony?

1.4 Significance of the study

1.4.1 In theory

This study is designed to enhance Grice‘s observation on how people use language

to mean much more than the words they actually say It also tries to prove that in communication, when interlocutors aim to generate verbal irony, although the maxim of quality is the most likely to be flouted as stated by Levinson (1984), other maxims are flouted as well Besides, by exploring the art of flouting certain maxims of Grice‘s cooperative principles to create irony, the author means to give evidence that linguistic features do contribute a great deal to the success of that sitcom

1.4.2 In practice

It is because language is for communication In other words, language is used to realize socio-cultural functions, some of which can be to save face or amuse people In these situations, in order to communicate successfully (in both production and reception), people should be more able to realize these functions Thus, this paper aims

at facilitating interlocutors to be better-aware of the cases when speakers flout certain maxims with the intention of generating verbal irony, which helps interlocutors to be more successful in communication

1.5 Scope of the study

The research on non-observances of maxims of Grice‘s cooperative principle is

so broad that it is impossible to cover all its aspects Therefore, this study narrows down the study only to the art of flouting certain maxims of Grice‘s cooperative principles to create verbal irony

Furthermore, the data are only collected from scripts of the American sitcom

―Friends‖ in the first season (from episode 1 to episode 10) in regard with the limit of time

Also, this paper will not be able to deal with the cultural differences when analyzing ironic dialogues because of the limit of time although is also clear that, in many cases, the fact that people in non-English speaking countries cannot completely understand irony in English is due to cultural differences

Besides, in the scope of this study, figures‘ characters and traits which may have some effect on the style of humor and the change of voices which sometimes plays a important role in understanding irony will not be discussed The reason is that thorough

studies on these subjects will be too broad for this research

1.6 Design of the study

This thesis is divided into three main parts:

Part 1: Introduction This part is aimed at clarifying the rationale, objectives,

research questions, scope and outline of the study

Part 2: Development This part includes two chapters:

Chapter I: Literature review This chapter is supposed to provide the readers with

the frame of the theory of the study and some basic concepts

Chapter II: The study This chapter includes the methods employed by the study, data

collection and analysis procedures It also lays out the findings of the study

Part 3: Conclusion This part provides the recapitulation of the main ideas of the

study, the limitations of the study and suggestions for further research

PART 2: THE DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1 Implicature

Paul Grice (1975), the American philosopher who is considered to be the ―father of pragmatics‖ (Aitchison 2003:104), was fascinated by how the hearer gets from the expressed meaning to the implied meaning That is, his aim was to explain how the hearer gets from what is said to what is meant

1.1.1 Definition of implicature

Grice (ibid.) suggested that speakers often mean much more than what they actually say That‘s why the first major theory of communication that he was concerned was the theory of meaning He recommended two types of meaning as illustrated below:

Non - natural meaning Natural meaning

conveyed

conventionally conversationally

As seen above, implicature refers to the implicit meaning inferred from an utterance In these cases, the hearer needs to look for an implicature, i.e the implication of the utterance not directly stated in the words but hinted at for the hearer to interpret

There are also some different definitions of implicature A rather clear one is given

by Yule (1996: 35) that implicature is ―an additional conveyed meaning‖ of an utterance (Yule 1996: 35) Moreover, many other ways of defining the term ‗implicature‘ can be found at various websites on the Internet According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,

―implicature is the relationship between two statements where the truth of one suggests the truth of the other, but does not require it Another definition is that ―An implicature is anything that is inferred from an utterance but that is not a condition for the truth of the utterance‖ The point is that despite the difference in expressions, these clarifications are all based themselves on the core idea proposed by Grice (1975)

1.1.2 Implicature and inference

With regard to the fact that these two levels of interpretation have caused much confusion and been the root of some misunderstandings of implicature theory, I find it necessary to make a distinction between these two terms According to Thomas (1995: 58),

―To imply is to hint, suggest or convey some meanings indirectly by means of language‖ It is the speaker who implies something For example, a man and a woman are talking in a room When it becomes a little chilly, the woman says ―It‘s rather cold in here‖ What the woman tries to imply can be ―Could you close the door for me, please?‖ Here the speaker is hinting that the weather is getting bitter and the man should shut the door

Inference, on the other hand, is the part of the listener Thomas (1995: 58) points out, ―To infer is to deduce something from evidence (this evidence may be linguistic, paralinguistic or non-linguistic).‖ In the example above, the listener can fail to infer the speaker‘s intention by saying that ―No, I feel really hot.‖ Accordingly, it can be noticed that an implicature is produced with the intention of the speaker and it may or may not be understood by the listener

Thus, it is important to note that it is speakers who communicate meanings via implicatures and it is listeners who recognize those communicated meanings via

inferences The inferences selected are those which will preserve the assumption of cooperation

1.1.3 Types of implicature

Grice (1975) discussed two different types of implicatures: the conventional and

the conversational These two are similar in the way the both convey an additional

meaning, beyond the semantic meaning of the words uttered However, the difference between these kinds of implicature lies in the extent they are dependent on contexts

The conventional implicature has the same implication no matter what the context is

(Thomas 1995: 57)

(1) My teacher is strict, but I like him

The implicature in (1), dependent on the word but, is that being strict is a negative characteristic of a teacher The implication of but shows the contrast between what comes

before and what comes after it (Grundy 1995: 47) The source of conventional implicature, since, is the language items themselves, so it is expected to be understood by the hearer

‗Conversational implicature‘, on the other hand, is generated directly by the speaker depending on the context without any obvious linguistic signals This kind of implicature is rather risky as it may or may not be understood (Thomas 1995: 58) Moreover, one utterance can have different implications on different occasions To illustrate this I have

taken an example from Cruse‘s Meaning in Language (Cruse 2000: 349)

(2) A: Have you cleared the table and washed the dishes?

B: I‘ve cleared the table

(3)A: Am I in time for supper?

B: I‘ve cleared the table

In the first example speaker B‘s implication is that s/he has cleared the table but has not washed the dishes, while the second example speaker B‘s implication is that speaker A

is late for dinner (Cruse 2000: 349) Then, it can be noticed that the context plays the key role in decoding conversational implicature If extracted from its context, one utterance would be difficult to be fully interpreted

1.2 Grice’s cooperative principle

In order to explain how hearers interpret the utterance implicature, Grice (1975) noticed that in order for the conversation to go smoothly, participants must assume that all interlocutors are following some set of rules Grice (ibid.) called these rules the

Cooperative Principle (CP) The CP runs like this: ―Make your contribution such as is

required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged‖ (Grice 1975: 45) According to the Cooperative

Principle both speaker and hearer converse with the willingness to deliver and interpret a message The speaker and hearer cooperate and that is why they communicate efficiently (Thomas 1995:63)

1.2.1 Conversational maxims

In order to illustrate how we interpret meaning, Grice (ibid.) presented, in addition

to the Cooperative Principle, four conversational maxims to show how we communicate effectively in the light of certain rules Thanks to Grice‘s maxims, we can interpret and understand the underlying implication of an utterance (Thomas 2995:63)

1.2.1.1 The maxim of Quality

The maxim of quality requires that the speakers: (1) do not say what you believe

to be false, and (2) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence (Levinson

A: John has two PhDs

It means that I believe he has, and have adequate evidence that he has Thus, it explains why such an utterance as ―John has two PhDs but I don‘t believe he has.‖ is impossible According to Levinson (ibid.), the sentence is pragmatically anomalous because it contradicts the standard Quality maxim that one believes what one asserts

B: Does your farm contain 400 acres?

We can paraphrase B‘s utterance as ―I don‘t know if your farm contains 400 acres, and I want to know if it does.‖ This example extends the scope of Quality maxim when viewing truth as a special sub-case of sincerity applied to assertion; when one asks a question, one may standardly be taken to be asking sincerely and hence to be lacking and requiring the requested information

In conclusion, Levinson (ibid.) states that ―Normally then, in co-operative circumstances, when one asserts something one implicates that one believes it, when one asks a question one implicates that one sincerely desires an answer and, by extension, when one promises to do x, one implicates that one sincerely intends to do x, and so on Any other use of such utterances is likely to be a spurious or counterfeit one, and thus liable to violate the maxim of Quality.‖

1.2.1.2 The maxim of quantity

According to the maxim of quantity, speakers should (1) make their contribution as informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange and (2) do not make your contribution more informative than is required (Levinson ibid.)

The maxim of quantity requires speaker to give sufficient information, which means not more or less than required by the situation Let‘s look at the following situation given by Levinson (ibid.):

A: How did Harry fare in court the other day?

B: Oh he got a fine

It shall be implicated that Harry only got a fine, although it would be compatible with this truth that in fact, he got a fine and a life sentence, too It shall be taken to implicate that he only got a fine and no other punishments because had he got a life sentence, then by the maxim of Quantity (‗say as much as required‘) B should have said

so Since B hasn‘t, B must intend to convey that Harry only got a fine

1.2.1.3 The maxim of Relation

The maxim of relation requires that the speaker make their contributions relevant

(Levinson 1983: 102)

This maxim directs speakers to organize their utterances in such a way that they are relevant to the ongoing context and situation in which the utterance occurs (Thomas 1995:70) For example:

A: I do think Mrs Jenkins is an old windbag, don‟t you?

B: I wouldn‟t agree more

B‘s utterance is considered relevant since when A asks a question about B‘s opinion, B provides an answer showing his agreement with A‘s idea

1.2.1.4 The maxim of Manner

The maxim of manner states that speakers should: (1) avoid obscurity of

expression, (2) avoid ambiguity, (3) be brief (Avoid unnecessary prolixity), and (4) be orderly (Levinson ibid.)

The maxim of manner is a matter of being clear and orderly when conversing The speaker describes things in the order in which they occurred and avoids ambiguity and obscurity (Thomas 1995:64) The idea can be proved by the following example:

A: Can you tell me the time?

B: It‟s four o‟clock

In this example, B sticks himself to the maxim of manner when he provides a clear and brief response to A‘s question about time

Grice‘s four maxims have made it possible to explain how we interpret meaning in interactions If not committed ourselves into such certain conversational rules, effective communication would be impossible However, when introducing the Cooperative Principles, what Grice is actually aiming at is not telling speakers how they should behave

in a conversation but only suggesting that in a normal successful conversational interaction, participants work on the assumption that a certain set of rules is in operation, unless they receive indications to the contrary This doesn‘t mean that breaking one or

some of these maxims would necessarily lead to the breakdown of a conversation In fact, humans tend to break these maxims as much as they follow them The only explanation for this is that while choosing not to stick to one of the maxims, the speaker has decided to follow it in a deeper level This phenomenon will be discussed further in the following part

of this paper

1.2.2 Observing the maxims

Thomas (2006) states that this is ―the least interesting case‖ of a conversation Her example is as follows:

Husband: Where are the car keys?

Wife: They‟re on the table in the hall

Apparently, the wife is strictly sticking herself to the conversational maxims Her answer is clear and brief (Manner), truthful (Quality), with adequate information (Quantity), while directly answers her husband‘s question (Relation)

The situations become much more complicated, as well as appealing when the speakers fail to observe these maxims

1.2.3 Non-observances of the maxims

As discussed above, presumably, interlocutors adhere to the maxims when communicating in order for the conversation to go smoothly However, speakers do not always stick to all the four maxims Sometimes, they deliberately break certain maxims to create some further effects such as evoking humour or avoiding discomfort In some other cases, they are unaware of their non-observances Grice discussed five ways of not observing a maxim To break a maxim ―is the prototypical way of conveying implicit meaning‖ (Grundy 1995: 41)

1.2.3.1 Flouting a maxims

Thomas (1995: 65) states that the ultimate purpose of a speaker when he flouts a maxim is not to deceive the hearer Therefore, when the speaker intentionally fails to observe one of the maxims, what he tries to do is to send an implicit message to the hearer and he actually hopes that the hearer can understand that unspoken note Accordingly, if working under cooperative principles, the hearer will take it for granted that although it appears that the speaker are breaking a maxim, he is trying to conform to

it at a deeper level and the hearer will make an effort to discover the missing information relying on the context To illustrate:

The two friends Ross and Rachel get drunk one night in Vegas and make the mistake of getting married At the breakfast table Ross and Rachel‟s friends ask them what they are going

to do Ross has already been married twice before and knows the routine of divorce:

Rachel: Oh I guess we‟ll just find a divorce lawyer

Chandler: I think, I think Ross already has one

Chandler knows that Ross has a divorce lawyer and flouts the maxim of quality when he claims to think Ross has one and does not say that he knows Ross does

Everyone understands the implicature and the effect is humorous

1.2.3.2 Violating a maxim

Thomas also makes a comparison between flouting and violating a maxim The key difference between the two is that the latter is used when the speaker intends to mislead the hearer The speaker speaks the truth but implies what is false to confuse the hearer This technique is often used in advertising and marketing when the advertising agency wants the consumer to buy their products They often claim that by buying a certain product the customer can save up to 25% and not state that he/ she will This leads the customer to draw an incorrect conclusion, namely that he/ she will save 25% buying the product

1.2.3.3 Infringing a maxim

Unlike all three mentioned cases of breaking a maxim where the speaker is aware

of his non-observances before he makes an utterance, sometimes the speaker is unaware that he is not observing the maxims In this situation, he is considered as ―infringing a maxim‖ In other words, the speaker does this with no intention of generating an implicature (Thomas, 1995: 74) Usually, this happens with people who have some problems with his language, or his health That‘s why infringing causes misunderstanding and hinder the communication Let‘s consider the following situation:

(Someone learning English as a second language speaks to a native speaker) English speaker: Would you like ham or salad on your sandwich?

Non-English speaker: Yes

The non-English speaker has not intentionally generated an implicature, he/ she has not understood the utterance because of his/ her unqualified English proficiency He has thought that this is a normal yes/ no question and hasn‘t realized that this is a preference question Clearly, in this situation, he doesn‘t give sufficient information which is required, which means that he fails to observe the maxim of quantity, or infringe the maxim of quantity

1.2.3.4 Opting out of a maxim

Sometimes, the speaker is put in a situation in which he cannot give adequate information In this case, he can decide to be straightforward and states an unwillingness to reveal information This kind of non-observances of the quantity maxim is called ―opting out‖ An example of opting out can be:

John is a doctor who has complete confidentiality regarding his patients He is asked by the press to reveal something about the patient that he is treating and he replies:

John: I am sorry but I can‟t tell you anything

John opts out of the maxim of quantity when he gives less information than

what is requested

1.2.3.5 Suspending a maxim

In many cases, the speaker chooses not to say something or not to state the complete truth because that is something he should not mention in moral or cultural respects This is called ―suspending a maxim‖ (Thomas 1995: 77) To illustrate with an example from Thomas (1995):

… they told he could not be cured, Biste‟s daughter said in a shaky voice She cleared her throat, whipped the back of her hand across her eyes „That man was strong‟, she continued „His spirit was strong He didn‟t give up on things He didn‟t want to die

He did hardly say anything at all I asked him I said, My father, why – she stopped…

“Never speak the name of the dead, Chee thought Never summon the Chindi to you, even if the name of the ghost is Father” (Thomas 1995:77)

Chee suspends the maxim of quantity when mentioning a name of a dead person, a taboo in her culture

Brief conclusion

Grice, as Austin (1975) before him, is interested in explaining how humans manage

to communicate effectively regardless of the imperfection of language Not only has he proved that in order to achieve successful communication, humans need to be cooperative

in terms of quality, quantity, manner and relation; but he has also provided evidence that being uncooperative, in many situations, can even help humans communicate more

efficiently The different non-observances lead to different interpretations which are

dependent on the context in which they occur Nevertheless, studying how maxims are flouted in interactions in real life situations requires an extensive study Thus, this study is chiefly designed to observe and analyze how non-observances of the maxims are exploited

so as to generate irony in a famous sitcom, ―Friends‖ Moreover, among the five ways of breaking the maxims, Thomas (1995) recommends that the most important category is the first one, flouting a maxim A flout occurs when a speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim with the deliberate intention of generating an implicature This may happen, for

example, by giving either more or less information than is required in the situation; saying something that is blatantly untrue; using obscure, disorder, or lengthy expressions; or by making responses or observations which are obviously irrelevant That‘s why, this essay will concentrate on where and how frequently flouting certain maxims occurs to create verbal irony in the sitcom ―Friends‖

1.2.4 Flouts exploiting the maxims

1.2.4.1 Flouts exploiting the maxim of quality

Flouts which exploit the maxim of quality occur when the speaker says something which is clearly untrue or for which he/she lacks adequate evidence

One example of flouting the maxim of quality can be taken from Levinson (1983):

A: What if the USSR blockades the Gulf and all the oil?

B: Oh come now, Britain rules the seas!

Any reasonably informed participant will know that B‘s utterance is blatantly false However, when saying so, B is not trying to deceive A The only way in which the assumption that B is co-operating can be maintained is if we take B to mean something rather different from what he has actually said Searching around for a related but cooperative proposition that B might be intending to convey, we arrive at the opposite, or negation, of what B has stated – namely that Britain doesn‘t rule the seas, and thus by way

of Relevance to the prior utterance, the suggestion that there is nothing that Britain could

do Hence, Grice claims, ironies arise and are successfully decoded If there was no underlying assumption of co-operation, recipients of ironies ought simply to be nonplussed; no inferences could be drawn

1.2.4.2 Flouts exploiting the maxim of quantity

The maxim of quantity requires speaker to give sufficient information, which means not more or less than required by the situation Let‘s look at the funny story introduced by Yule (1996: 36):

There is a woman sitting on a park bench and a large dog lying on the ground in front of the bench A man comes along and sits on the bench:

Man: Does your dog bite?

Woman: No (the man reaches down to pet the dog The dog bites the man‟s hand) Man: Ouch! Hey! You said your dog doesn‟t bite

Woman: He doesn‟t But that‟s not my dog

There seems to be no problem with the utterance meaning The woman‘s response (―No‖, meaning ―my dog doesn‘t bite‖) appears to be perfectly consistent with the man‘s question (Does your dog bite?) The divergence lies in the fact that in this context, the man has two assumptions: (1) the dog in front of them is the woman‘s dog, and (2) the woman‘s reply, ―No‖ also applies to that animal That‘s why, from the man‘s perspective, the woman‘s answer provides less information than expected However, if she had mentioned this information earlier, the story wouldn‘t have been as funny For the purpose of making the event funny, the woman has to flout the maxim of quantity

1.2.4.3 Flouts exploiting the maxim of relevance

The following example given by Levinson (1983) can illustrates how this maxim operates

A: Can you tell me the time?

B: Well, the milkman has come

It is only on the basis of assuming the relevance of B‘s response that we can understand it as providing a partial answer to A‘s question The inference seems to work roughly like this: assume B‘s utterance is relevant; if it‘s relevant then given that A asked a question, B should be providing an answer; the only way one can reconcile the assumption

that B is co-operatively answering A‘s question with the content of B‘s utterance is to assume that B is not in a position to provide the full information, but thinks that the milkman‘s coming might provide A with the means of deriving a partial answer Hence A may infer that B intends to convey that the time is at least after whenever the milkman normally comes

1.2.4.4 Flouts exploiting the maxim of Manner

(A and B are attending a boring lecture)

A: What‟s the time?

B: It‟s two o‟clock, twenty minutes and forty-five seconds

To give sufficient information for A‘s question ―What‘s the time?‖, B only needs to give such a brief response as ―It‘s two twenty.‖ or ―It‘s twenty past two.‖ However, B chooses a lengthy response to show his boredom with the lecture With this unnecessary prolixity, B is considered to flout the maxim of manner When deliberately violating the maxim of manner, what B is aiming at is to show that he is so bored with the lecture that

he is counting every second

So far we have only roughly summarized how implicatures actually come about Grice (1975) tries to tighten up the notion along the following lines First he proposes a definition of implicature which we may state as follows:

S‘s saying that p conversationally implicates q iff:

(i) S is presumed to be observing the maxims, or at least (in the case of floutings) the cooperative principle

(ii) in order to maintain this assumption it must be supposed that S thinks that q (iii) S thinks that both S and the addressee H mutually know that H can work out that to preserve the assumption in (i) q is in fact require

Then he points out that, for the addressee H to be able to calculate the implicature

q, H must know, or believe that he knows, the following facts:

(i) the conventional content of the sentence (P) uttered (ii) the cooperative principle and its maxims

(iii) the context of P (e.g its relevance) (iv) certain bits of background information (e.g P is blatantly false) (v) that (i) - (v) are mutual knowledge shared by speaker and addressee

From all this, a general pattern for working out an implicature may be adduced:

(i) S has said that p (ii) there‟s no reason to think S is not observing the maxims, or at least the co-operative principle

(iii) in order for S to say that p and be indeed observing the maxims, or at least the co-operative principle, S must think that q

(iv) S must know that it is mutual knowledge that q must be supposed if S is

to be taken to be co-operating (v) S has done nothing to stop me, the addressee, thinking that q (vi) therefore S intends me to think that q, and in saying that p has implicated q

All the situations in which maxims are flouted to generate verbal irony in this paper will

be analyzed based on this pattern

1.3 Irony

1.3.1 Ironology: A history of irony

Muecke (1980) reasonably stated that giving a precise antiquity of the term irony

is not an easy task since the word had been used long before it was named However, it‘s possible for us to trace its root back to its first known integration into the human language

as the Greek word eironeia In Plato‘s Republic, the term eironeia seems to have meant

something similar to ―a smooth, low-down way of taking people in‖ (Muecke, 1970: 14)

However, even among the ancient Greeks, the meaning of eironeia was inconsistent To Demosthenes an eiron was one who evaded his responsibilities as a citizen by pretending unfitnesss, while to Theophrastus, an eiron pointed to someone both evasive and

noncommittal Fundamentally, these ways of describing irony share the same view of irony

as a mode of behavior Cicero, the famous Roman orator was the first to give ironia a

denotation semese In Cicero‘s usage of the word, it evolved to also be applied to a deceptive use of language: to blame by ironical praise or to praise by ironical blame (Muecke, 1970)

Not until the early eighteen century did the word ―irony‖ come into general use Since its appearance, this concept has developed gradually and expanded its meanings It has been defined rather differently by different linguists and sources Nonetheless, it seems that this still remains a very hard task Part of the difficulty arises from irony‘s latency in multiple complicated forms But additionally, it is a developing phenomenon Our understanding and interpretation of it evolves with time Below are some popular views on irony which have been widely discussed and accepted

1.3.2 Definition of Irony

―Only that which has no history can be defined‖, once Nietzsche said and the above brief history will highlight his word‘s essence (Muecke 1970: 7) Nonetheless, it doesn‘t mean it‘s better to leave it undefined Up to now there have appeared a variety of definitions of this term

According to Stephen C Levinson (1984: 109), ―ironies consist of sentences mentioned rather than used‖ This seems to be a rather vague definition since it is more likely to cover a wide range of what is communicated rather than is said Another definition is taken from Wikipedia that irony is "the use of words to convey a meaning that

is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, ―How nice!‖ when I said I had

to work all weekend" This definition actually coincides with the one provided by Longman dictionary of contemporary English (2003) that irony appears ―when you use words that are the opposite of what you really mean, often in order to be amusing.‖ and the one provided by Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary that irony is ―2) the use of words that say the opposite of what you really mean, often as a jock and with a tone of voice that

shows this: ―England is famous for its food”, she said with heavy irony (2000: 687) That

is, irony involves the substitution of a figurative for a literal meaning in which the figurative meaning is the opposite of the literal meaning This way of defining ―irony‖ seems to be clearer since it makes ―irony‖ a very typical phenomenon in linguistics However, this definition does not appropriately characterize the phenomenon and certainly does not explain it There exist many examples of ironical utterances that do not concur with this description Not only are there examples or ironic speech that do not rely on saying the opposite of what one means, but there are cases where all the traditional criteria

of irony exist and the utterance is not ironic The following example has to be taken into consideration A mother asks her daughter, ―Would you very much mind if you, please, to perhaps consider cleaning up your room sometime this month?‖ Here the speaker clearly means what she says Nevertheless the over-polite style of the statement transfers and ironical touch Another example of non-opposite irony is given in this incident: A review

of a French thriller called ―Torture‖ read, ―I have to say that what tortured me most in watching this film was boredom.‖ (Barbe 1995: 17.) Here the writer is also telling the

truth, but he is nevertheless ironic The ironic marker is the hyperbolic use of tortured

Such examples expose the deficiency of traditional definitions

In an attempt to make up for the weak points of the traditional accounts of irony, Wilson and Sperber (1992) suggest that verbal irony is a form of echoic interpretation; that

is, speakers communicate an attitude toward some attributed proposition by echoing that proposition explicitly or implicitly, and simultaneously commenting on it For example, when a speaker says ―that‘s certainly a good idea!‖ in case the listener has just raised a very stupid suggestion In this case, the speaker echoed the proposition that some idea was good, but at the same time disassociated himself from the proposition and communicated his negative attitude toward it, thereby expressing disapproval of the idea itself He possibly said roughly the opposite of what he meant, but he could have used understatement and uttered, ―that idea could use some improvement.‖ Thus, he would have avoided saying the opposite of what he meant and retained his ironic intention To allow listeners to understand such complex speech acts, speakers often must provide additional information to make utterances clear

However, it is questionable that this theory can be applied for every ironical case A first questionable case would be the ironic use of polysemous words In which way are they used in a mentioned form? Sperber‘s and Wilson‘s theory is based on a very abstract concept of echoing Thus, they intended to avoid the allegation to reduce irony to a simple form of imitation (Christoph, 2006) The echo can emerge in various forms – as an immediate echo, a delayed echo, as a reaction on a previous utterances or on thoughts and opinions In the same way an echo does not have to have a real source or origin In the case that the echoic character of the ironic statement is not obvious, an echo is nevertheless suggested (Sperber & Wilson 1981: 310)

After having examined various attempts for definitions as well as criticism of definitions, I will try to follow the idea of Katharina Barbe In her book ―Irony in context‖ (1995), she tried to avoid a definition of irony, and replaced the term by characterization or description Therefore this paper will collect the most important evident linguistic explanations for irony

Dramatic irony

Wikipedia defines dramatic irony as ―device of giving the spectator an item of information that at least one of the characters in the narrative is unaware of (at least consciously), thus placing the spectator a step ahead of at least one of the characters.‖ This means that dramatic irony is characterized by a incongruity between what the audience knows to be true and what the character perceives to be true In this type of irony, the reader knows something about a character‘s situation that one or more of the characters is unaware of

One famous example can be seen in Romeo and Juliet when everyone thinks Juliet

is dead, but the audience knows she took a sleeping potion

Situational irony

Finally, situational irony involves an incongruity between reality and expectations in a state of affairs, such as the firehouse burning to the ground In this type of irony, what actually happens is not what is expected to happen Neither the character nor the reader expects the outcome (irony) since situational irony often defies logic.(Kreuz & Roberts, 1993)

Verbal irony

According to A glossary of literary terms by Abrams and Hartman:

Verbal irony is a statement in which the meaning that a speaker employs is sharply

different from the meaning that is ostensibly expressed The ironic statement usually

involves the explicit expression of one attitude or evaluation, but with indications in the overall speech-situation that the speaker intends a very different, and often opposite, attitude or evaluation

In other words, verbal irony is a discrepancy between what a speaker or writer says and what he or she believes to be true, such as the utterance ―What a sunny day‖ during a storm In this type of irony, both the character and the reader are aware of the irony Let‘s consider the following situations:

Example 1: ―The water in the building will be turned off for the next six hours

How wonderful!‖

Apparently, having the water off is the opposite of wonderful The speaker stated what

is opposite to his real intention in order to achieve some special communicational effects

Sometimes, verbal irony can also be expressed as overstatement or understatement

Example 2: ―If my computer freezes again, I‘m going to throw it out the window!‖ (The speaker is frustrated but overstates what he or she will actually do)

What differentiates verbal irony from situational irony and dramatic irony is that it

is produced deliberately by speakers For instance, if a man exclaims ―I‘m not upset!‖ but unintentionally reveals an upset emotional state through his voice, it would not be verbal irony On the contrary, if the same speaker says the same words and try to communicate that he was upset by claiming the opposite, the uterance would be verbal irony

Ironic similes are also a form of verbal irony where a speaker intends to communicate the opposite of what they mean For instance, the following explicit similes

begin with the deceptive formation of a statement that means P but that eventually conveys the meaning not P like as soft as concrete, as clear as mud , and as fun as cancer

The irony is recognizable in each case only by using stereotypical knowledge of the source concepts (e.g., that mud is opaque, that mud is dirty and cancer is not fun at all) to detect an incongruity

There are, however, examples of verbal irony that do not rely on saying the opposite of what one means, and there are cases where all the traditional criteria of irony exist and the utterance is not ironic This paper will focus on verbal irony and discuss the possibility of its flouting the Quality Maxim as well as other three Gricean Maxims

1.3.4 The risks and rewards of ironic communication

Gibbs & Colston (2001) recommend that irony cannot be characterized simply as having positive or negative social impacts, but can serve multiple communicative purposes, depending on the social context and aims of the conversational participants Actually, there are many valued payments interlocutors can receive when using irony That is also why most communicators love using irony despite all the risks of being misunderstood

1.3.4.1 The risks of ironic communication

First, irony may cause misunderstanding That irony is a frequently employed form

of figurative language indicates that it takes more effort for both speakers and listeners to produce and recognize When people utter ironic remarks, they assume that others have some ability to infer speakers‘ communicative intentions Gibbs & Colston (2001, p.188) introduce the following the situation when Mary is upset with her husband John for failing

to assist in the housecleaning and says to him while he sits idly on the couch ―Well, you‘re

a big help around here.‖ Mary‘s remark indirectly conveys her belief that John should be helping with the housecleaning, as well as her annoyance with John for his failure Of course, Mary risks John for his failure because of her nonliteral utterance It‘s possible that John take Mary‘s utterance on face value as a compliment

Second, irony may distance speakers from listeners Consider again the case where Mary says to her husband ―Well, you‘re a big help around here.‖ Many scholars argue that sarcastic irony, such as seen in this example, is especially negative in distancing speakers

from listeners From this view, Mary‘s utterance is seen as more negative and hostile than

if she stated her complaint more directly as in ―I wish you would help me,‖ or ―You‘re not helping me‖

Qualitative observation suggests that people do, in fact, sometimes use irony for hostile purposes that distances them from their listeners Various studies indicate that verbal aggression through sarcasm is directly linked to people‘s feelings of anger and loss

of self-esteem (Gates, 1926: 325 – 331) Some individuals may be more prone than others when hearing sarcasm (Calabrese, 2000: 459 – 494) Thus, people possessing temperaments viewed as ―guardian‖ (i.e., melancholic, depressive, industrious, traditional) have the greatest propensity to react angrily to sarcasm, followed by ―idealists‖ (i.e, inspired, religious, receptive, friendly), ―artisans‖ (i.e., sanguine, innovative, aesthetic, changeable), and ―rationals‖ (i.e., skeptical, curious, theoretic, tough-minded), respectively There is some data, from a study examining sarcasm in one workplace setting (staff members at a hospital), that provides partial support for this hypothesis (Calabrese, 2000: 459 – 494) Thus sarcastic irony appears to have negative effects on some social relationships, and is especially hurtful to some individual

Not all scholars view irony as distancing speakers from listeners These researchers claim that irony works to mute the negative impact of speakers‘ meanings (Dews, Kaplan,

& Winner, 1995: 347 – 367) and (Dews & Winner, 1999: 1) For instance, Mary‘s sacarstic utterance may be less offensive to her husband than if she stated her complaint directly Irony, in this view, softens the potentially negative impact of what a speaker intends to communicate Allcorn formulated a list of typical aggressive behaviors in the workplace and observed that sarcasm is an acceptable method for expressing anger, at least in some situations (and compared to lesser condoned behaviors such as bullying, slander, and physical violence) (Allcornm, 1994) Sarcasm is favored in the modern workplace because the serious risks associated with such a verbal behavior appear minimal insofar as speakers‘ comments may be subtle and even humorous

All in all, some ironic remarks make a referent situation appear positive relative to the situation being seen in isolation or when a literal remark is made about it Other remarks

shift the perceived quality of the situation to the negative as described above These different shifts are dependent not only on different cultures but also on different individuals

1.3.4.2 The rewards of ironic communication

Despite all the risks of ironic communication, in many cases, it is still preferred to literal utterances due to its special effects which cannot be acquired by using literal utterances

Firstly, irony may allow people to communicate off-record Speaking ironically may have special rewards, because it allows people to communicate ―off-record‖ Off-record speaking strategies enable speakers to deny their covert communicative intentions which can

be questioned by someone else Thus in the above brief scene, Mary could possibly deny aspects of what John understood from her sarcastic comment if John complained or raised questions about what she meant by saying ―I‘m just kidding.‖

Secondly, irony may bond speakers and listeners Speaking ―off-record‖ using irony has other rewards for both speakers and listeners, beyond allowing speakers to deny the implications of what they say In many cases, irony can serves as a mark of intimacy between speakers and listeners, and bring them even closer together A successfully respond to an irony is a signal to show that the interlocutors are tightly linked in their beliefs and attitudes (i.e., their ―common ground‖)

Thirdly, irony brings laughter to life The ―clash of values‖ (Littmann & Mey 1991: 148) that occurs in many ironic situations often has two sides, a humorous and a tragic one Even when injustice or injury are the focal points of the ironical situation, the protagonist, who often is the subject of irony himself, talks about the situation in a humorous way afterwards

It‘s difficult to clarify how often speakers use irony for hostile or humorous purposes because there are surprisingly few studies on the amount and kind of irony that people use in conversation However, the important role of what we call ―irony‖ in our communication has been confirmed by many linguists Muecke (1980: 3) even states that

―Irony may be a weapon in a satirical attack, or a smokescreen concealing a retreat, or a device for turning the world or oneself inside out; irony may be found in words and

attitudes, in events and situations; or we may find nothing on earth and quite certainly nothing in heaven that is not ironic.‖

1.3.5 Self-directed Irony

The victim of irony is the person to which the ironical utterance is aimed at The victim

is the ―target‖ of the irony (Sperber and Wilson 1981) In most cases, the victim of irony tends

to be a person other than the speaker However, there are several instances of irony in which the speaker and victim are the same person That is, irony can be self-directed

Following is an example:

When a person trip and sprain his ankle, there are several ways for this person to response to this situation:

a Oh, great That‟s nice

b Oh, darn I sprained my ankle

c I sprained my ankle I am so unlucky

d I sprained my ankle Why does everything bad happen to me!

Diverse reactions can be derived from this situation (a) is the ironic reaction to the situation, while (b) – (d) are literal responses (with increasing degree of frustration) The question is, why would the speaker choose to direct irony at oneself

Sperber and Wilson (1981: 559) suggest that it is more likely that one would say

That was a great success ironically in a situation of failure, since to expect success rather

than failure in every circumstance is a normal state of mind Conversely, saying ‗That was

a failure‟ ironically in a successful situation would be rare because no one hopes to fail

This means that an irony is a general, positive expectation about life This in turn explains why the victim of irony in (a) is the speaker: the speaker is echoing his own general expectation that everything will turn out to be ―great‖ and ―nice‖

Brief conclusion

Verbal irony is a common form of speech used in daily discourse The reason irony

is deliberately chosen over its literal counterpart is because irony serves several functions that cannot be achieved through a literal utterance These functions are derived from the very nature of verbal irony that distinguishes it from a literal statement

Because irony usually involves saying the opposite of what is intended, the hearer must undergo a sequential comprehension process to fully understand irony This complicated process emphasizes the speaker‘s utterance, and also enables the utterances to

be remembered for a longer period of time

Irony is considered to have the characteristic of being able to be self-directed The functions of self-directed irony are of self-condolence The optimism in the ironical utterance enables the speaker to view the situation itself with a positive mind Moreover, the humor effect which derives from the fact that irony contrasts with the actual situation enables the speaker to laugh off the situation

Verbal irony is an innovative use of the language, differing from literal utterances

in several aspects The special nature of irony makes it more effort consuming on the part

of both the speaker and the hearer Nevertheless, verbal irony is a favored figure of speech that prevails in daily discourse It seems, then, that although the process of uttering and interpreting irony is complicated and requires more effort, the effect of irony is so great that in the end, all the endeavors become worthwhile In the end, this is the essential reason why speakers choose to use irony

CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY 2.1 Methodology

In line with research which recommends the key roles of exploiting the Maxims to generate humour in sitcoms, this paper seeks to promote the art of flouting certain maxims

to create verbal irony in the sitcom ―Friends‖ With that purpose in mind, we have devised and carried out a study that analyzes authentic language excerpts of the popular sitcom Friends using Grice‘s cooperative principle

The study was carried out by combining both qualitative and quantitative methods, which is represented in the analysis and synthesis of the data collected from the scripts of the sitcom ―Friends‖ Besides it employs some supplementary techniques such as referencing to publications; discussing and consulting with the supervisor, teachers and friends; and exploiting personal experiences, and observation

2.1.1 Qualitative and quantitative methods

First, the study will be based on the analysis of numerous materials on theories of pragmatics (mostly concerned with the implicature and the quality maxim of Grice‘s cooperative principle)

Second, the scripts of the sitcom ―Friends‖ (from episode 1 to episode 10) were analyzed in order to select the situations in which certain maxims are flouted All results received from this analysis would be synthesized and put into groups to compare which maxim is mostly flouted to create verbal irony in the sitcom Then, the significance of the art of flouting certain maxims to create verbal irony in ―Friends‖ will be discovered

2.1.2 Some supplementary techniques

In order to make this study more persuasive and authentic, referencing to

publications is obviously of great significance Nowadays, the internet has become the

greatest storage of information of all kinds so lots of necessary information in this study was collected from the internet source at many websites which were self searched by the author or recommended by others Besides, the author also got ideas from several books

given by the supervisor, or found in some libraries Basing on the references such as internet websites, books, articles, etc some comments and conclusions were drawn out to support the findings of the study

During the process of accomplishing this graduation thesis, many mistakes were

supposed to be unavoidable Consequently, discussing and consulting with the supervisor,

other teachers and friends were not only to check and correct these mistakes but also to give the author a great deal of useful and valuable suggestions and comments

2.2 An introduction to American sitcom and the sitcom “Friends”

2.2.1 Definition of sitcoms

‗Sitcoms‘ is the short form for ―situation comedies‖ According to Wikipedia, sitcom is a genre of comedy programs which originated in radio and now, they are found almost exclusively on television Sitcoms usually consist of recurring characters in a common environment such as a home or workplace and generally include laugh tracks or studio audiences Alison Ross also shares the same view that ―Sitcoms have a series of weekly shows based around an initial idea of a situation and characters with potential for humour These characters remain essentially the same, rather than developing as they would in comedy drama.‖

To make it clearer, Wikipedia suggests that sitcom is usually a narrative-based comedy series containing short, 25 – 30 minutes long episodes with regular characters and setting In the broadcast media, it is considered a particularly suitable format for maintaining a regular audience Typical characteristics of sitcom are, for example, multiple storylines, multiple characters and a regular community or family setting One of the frequently used methods of sitcoms is repetition, and at the end of each episode, everything appears to return to the initial situation The situation will not change, but will nevertheless present a destabilization-restabilization process in each episode, and many of the events of the previous episodes are meant to be forgotten, they bear no significance to the situations

of the following episodes

The fact that the series has not been the subject of any previous studies as well as that it is indeed a very typical, as well as popular, American sitcom, in my opinion, make it

a good data for this study

2.2.2 Characteristics of American sitcoms

2.2.2.1 Common characteristics of sitcoms

Generally, sitcoms often share the same characteristics as follows:

Most sitcoms offer single episodes that are ‗self-contained‘, but recently there have been more quasi ‗serial‘ narratives in which a single storyline underpins the season

or series In the self-contained episode, the disruption to normality will normally be resolved by the end of the show The line between ‗sitcom‘, drama and other TV forms is increasingly being blurred US series, such as Roseanne in the 1980s, have given

episodes titles evoking a specific film, song etc Possible narratives of sitcoms and

characterisations are constrained by: short running time (25-30 mins), limited

sets/locations and limited number of characters

In terms of situation, the single most important consideration is that the setting and the potential group of characters must offer a range of possible narrative conflicts This is likely to mean that the characters are of different ages, social background, cultural values, personal traits and possibly gender, national, regional or ethnic differences The most common narrative situations are: ‗family‘ (in the loosest sense of people living together); workplace (office/factory); ‗social institution‘ – hospital, education, armed forces, prison etc.; leisure facility – pub, club, bar, coffee shop etc Some of the most successful sitcoms range across both family/home and work/institution and the conflicts that arise between the two

Moreover, The sitcom is an innately conservative form (because the situation never changes and any conflict must be resolved in such a way to reproduce the potential for further conflict)

2.2.2.2 Characteristics of American sitcoms

According to Wikipedia.com, most American sitcoms have some following features:

Most North American sitcoms are generally half-hour programs in which the story

is written to run a total of 22 minutes in length, leaving eight minutes for commercials American sitcoms are often written by large teams of US resident script writers during round-table sessions Most British sitcoms are written by one or two people, with four writers sometimes being the norm for some series in the recent past These divergent writing styles result in vastly different kinds of sitcoms being written

Usually sitcoms from the U.S have satire and slapstick comedy in their status America has made countless sitcoms since 1947, including sitcoms aimed specifically at children and teenagers In the US, once successful, the sitcom will have very long runs in the US while in the UK, the seasons are much shorter US shows are ‗syndicated‘ across many channels and exported worldwide

US sitcoms helped make big stars and also worked to ‗spin-off‘ new series The Mary Tyler Moore Show in the 1970s produced both Rhoda (sitcom) and Lou Grant

(drama) The Cosby Show made Bill Cosby the biggest star on US TV and created A Different World Matt LeBlanc is being ‗spun-off‘ into Joey in 2004 ‗Guest stars‘ have always been a much more impor tant attraction in long-running US shows than in the more insular UK shows

Furthermore, a ‗laughter track‘ from a studio audience or ‗canned‘ material is often added In American sitcoms, episodes are usually presented in ‗seasons‘ in the US (13 or more) and much shorter series in the UK (approx 5-7)

2.2.3 The sitcom “Friends”

2.2.3.1 Main characters

According to Wikipedia, the series featured six main cast members throughout its run, with numerous characters recurring throughout the ten seasons The main cast

members were familiar to television viewers before their roles on Friends, but were not

considered to be stars During the series' ten-season run, the actors all achieved household name celebrity status.

Jennifer Aniston portrays Rachel Green, a fashion enthusiast and Monica Geller's best friend from high school Rachel and Ross Geller are involved in an on again off again relationship throughout the series Rachel's first job is as a waitress at the coffee house Central Perk

Courteney Cox Arquette portrays Monica Geller, the mother hen of the group and a kitchen chef, known for her obsessive-compulsive and competitive nature Monica is often jokingly teased by the others for having been an extremely overweight child, especially her brother Ross

Lisa Kudrow portrays Phoebe Buffay, an eccentric masseuse and musician Phoebe

is known for her self-written guitar songs (which are commonly viewed as awful due to the fact that she is tone-deaf) and for being ditsy yet street smart

Matt LeBlanc portrays Joey Tribbiani, a struggling actor and food lover who

becomes famous for his role on Days of our Lives as Dr Drake Ramoray Joey is a

womanizer with many girlfriends throughout the series

Matthew Perry portrays Chandler Bing, an executive in statistical analysis and data reconfiguration for a large multi-national corporation Chandler quits his job and becomes

a junior copywriter at an advertising agency during season nine Chandler is known for his sarcastic sense of humor

David Schwimmer portrays Ross Geller, a paleontologist working at a museum of Prehistoric History, and later a professor of paleontology at New York University Ross is involved in an on-off relationship with Rachel throughout the series Ross also has three failed marriages during the series, which include Rachel, Emily, and his lesbian ex-wife Carol, who is also the mother of his son, Ben,

2.2.3.2 First season sypnose

The first season introduces the six main characters: Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Joey, Chandler, and Ross Rachel arrives at Central Perk after leaving her fiancé Barry at the altar and moves into Monica's apartment with her Ross constantly tries to tell Rachel that

he loves her, while his lesbian ex-wife, Carol, is expecting his baby Joey is shown to be a struggling actor, while Phoebe works as a masseuse Chandler breaks up with girlfriend Janice, who frequently returns in later seasons At the end of the season, Chandler accidentally reveals that Ross loves Rachel, who realizes that she feels the same way (Wikipedia.com)

2.3 Findings and discussion

2.3.1 Findings

The next part of the thesis is the analysis of situations in which certain maxims are flouted to create verbal irony in the sitcom ―Friends‖ (from episode 1 to episode 10) 61 conversations have been selected carefully and explained in the light of Gricean cooperative principle They are grouped into four categories; each category contains a number of situations exploiting certain maxims The frequency of flouting the maxims in these conversations can be illustrated in the following chart:

As can be seen in the chart, although scriptwriters most frequently tend to flout the maxim of quality to generate verbal irony in the sitcom ―Friends‖, all other three maxims are flouted as well

The maxim of quality is the most frequently flouted in order to create irony (65%) When intentionally providing information which is obviously false, the characters do not try to tell lies or cheat other peoples What they really aim at is to let the hearers recognize their light-hearted irony at the situation

The second most frequently flouted maxim is the maxim of manner (16%) The maxim of manner is flouted when speakers deliberately use obscure, ambiguous, lengthy

or disorder expressions In this sitcom, scriptwriters have the charaters flout the maxim of manner to avoid being too direct and clear when they give negative remarks and at the same time generate the ironic effect for their utterances

The third most frequently flouted maxim is the maxim of relation (13%) The character chooses not to observe the maxim of relation in order to avoid subjects that would embarrass them or put them in unpleasant situations as well as hint at something that they would not want to say straight out Scriptwriters have the characters flouting the maxim in order to create irony and to make statements stronger

The maxim of quantity are least frequently flouted (only 6%) The maxim of quantity is flouted when the character gives either too little or too much information The scriptwriters have the characters flout the maxim when they want to present them as mysterious or as not willing to expose what is in their mind The ultimate goal is to create verbal irony

The following part of the thesis will present the analysis of some typical situations

in which certain maxims are flouted to create verbal irony

2.3.1.1 The analysis on situations which flout the maxim of quality

The exploitation of the maxim of quality happens when the conversational participants say something which is definitely untrue or for which they lack adequate information Under these circumstances, certain conversational implicatures will be generated to produce verbal irony In the scripts of the sitcom ―Friends‖ (from episode 1 to episode 2), this maxim is mostly flouted to generate verbal irony Also, it has been discovered that situations which flout the maxim of quality can be classified into 2 groups: either the speaker says something which he/ she does not believe to be true or the speaker asks a question for which he/ she does not sincerely desire an answer The chart belows will illustrate these two categories more clearly: