english and vietnamese jokes - from a pragmatic perspective = phân tích truyện cười anh - việt trên bình diện ngữ dụng học

Maxim analysis of the punch line in English and Vietnamese jokes.. Aims of the study The aims of this study are:  To provide whether the theory of speech acts and theory of conversatio

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

(Phân tích truyện cười Anh- Việt trên bình diện ngữ dụng học)

M.A Minor Programme Thesis

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

(Phân tích truyện cười Anh- Việt trên bình diện ngữ dụng học)

M.A Minor Programme Thesis

EFL : English as a Foreign Language

E joke : English joke

V joke : Vietnamese joke

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

ABBREVIATIONS vi

LIST OF CHARTS vii

PART A: INTRODUCTION - 1 -

1 Rationale of the study - 10 -

2 Aims of the study - 10 -

3 Scope of the study - 11 -

4 Methodology of the study - 11 -

5 Format of the study - 13 -

PART B: DEVELOPMENT - 14 -

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND - 14 -

1.1 Theory of jokes - 14 -

1.1.2 Definition of jokes - 14 -

1.1.3 Incongruity theory - 15 -

1.2 Theories of pragmatics related to jokes - 15 -

1.2.1 Definitions of pragmatics - 15 -

1.2.2 Speech act theory - 17 -

1.2.2.1 Locutional act - 17 -

1.2.2.2 Illocutional act - 17 -

1.2.2.3 Perlocutional act - 17 -

1.2.3 Conversational implicature and context - 19 -

1.2.4 The cooperative principle - 20 -

1.2.5 Conversational maxims - 20 -

1.2.5.1 The maxim of quantity - 20 -

1.2.5.2 The maxim of quality - 20 -

1.2.5.3 The maxim of relevance - 21 -

1.2.5.4 The maxim of manner - 21 -

1.2.6 Principles of conducting maxims - 21 -

1.2.6.1 Flouting - 21 -

1.2.6.2 Violating - 23 -

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS - 23 -

2.1 Difficulties of joke analysis - 24 -

2.1.1 Cultural factor - 24 -

2.1.2 Making inferences - 24 -

2.2 Analysis procedures - 24 -

2.3 Joke analysis - 25 -

2.3.1 Speech act analysis of the set- up in English and Vietnamese jokes - 25 -

2.3.2 Maxim analysis of the punch line in English and Vietnamese jokes - 28 -

2.3.2.1 Maxim of quantity - 28 -

2.3.2.2 Maxim of quality - 29 -

2.3.2.3 Maxim of relevance - 30 -

2.3.2.4 Maxim of manner - 32 -

2.4 The analysis results - 32 -

2.4.1 The speech act analysis result of the set- up - 33 -

2.4.2 The maxim analysis result of the punch line - 33 -

2.5 Findings - 34 -

2.5.1 Pragmatic analysis of English and Vietnamese jokes - 35 -

2.5.2 Similarities - 36 -

2.5.3 Differences - 37 -

CHAPTER 3: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY - 38 -

3.1 Introducing pragmatic knowledge - 39 -

3.2 Utterance teaching via English jokes - 39 -

3.3 Utterance meaning teaching via English jokes - 40 -

3.4 Culture and pragmatic teaching via English jokes - 40 -

3.5 Conversational maxim teaching via English jokes - 41 -

3.6 Speech act teaching via English jokes - 41 -

3.7 Suggestions for classroom activities - 42 -

3.7.1 Speech act exercise - 42 -

3.7.2 Conversational maxim exercise - 43 -

3.7.3 Sample speech act quiz - 43 -

3.8 Some constructive suggestions for pragmatic teaching of jokes - 44 -

PART C: CONCLUSION - 45 -

1 Concluding remarks - 45 -

2 Limitation of the study - 46 -

3 Suggestions for further study - 46 -

REFERENCES - 48 - APPENDIX I

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the study

One of the best ways to understand people is to know what makes them laugh

(H Golden)

It is worth saying that we can laugh when reading or hearing jokes if we can understand what make us laugh Hence, we should know the communication between the participants

in jokes, the context jokes take place, and the language used Pragmatics, therefore, will let

us know what make us laugh and then we may say jokes are interesting for our life

And we now also understand that we should pay more attention to the study of jokes pragmatically as semantic analysis, sociological analysis, etc on jokes have been studied quite extensively over the years Pragmatic analysis is, thus, a relatively new approach of language And quite different from other linguistic studies, pragmatics puts more attention

on language users and the context in which the language is used And in fact, in analyzing jokes pragmatically, we might find a harmony between language for humor, language users and contexts

It is so much hoped that the study may bring a good understanding of pragmatics and concepts of pragmatics via English and Vietnamese jokes When analyzing jokes, the author is trying to reveal how the matters are interpreted in the jokes Another reason is that, as a teacher of English, the author wants to help Ha Tinh university learners of English not only read a regular text but understand its functions in context The study is also hoped to offer a suggestion about the pragmatic reading of any jokes, which, in turn, help shaping a scientific view towards pragmatics Lastly, the author wants to share a significant reference of jokes for others who are willing to make another further pragmatic research

2 Aims of the study

The aims of this study are:

 To provide whether the theory of speech acts and theory of conversational maxims has explanatory power on humor in English and Vietnamese jokes

 To figure out a brief account of possible similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese jokes in terms of the speech acts and conversational maxims

 To provide some proposals for further study and pedagogical implications for raising Ha Tinh university students’ pragmatic awareness

3 Scope of the study

Many fields of pragmatics related to jokes need to be explored and a variety of jokes can

be selected However, due to the limited time, the study is confined to the following aspects:

 Only five English jokes and five Vietnamese jokes are selected to test the theoretical preliminaries, and the jokes chosen must have the set- up and the punch line (two way- communication)

 Speech acts of Austin including locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary act are explored to interpret the set- up of English and Vietnamese jokes

 Types of Searle’s illocutionary act including directives, commissives, expressives, representatives and declaratives are used to identify speech acts

 Non- observance of conversational maxims looked at only due to flouting and violating

 The inferences made in context to interpret the way of conducting conversational maxims of joke participants

 This is a linguistic study for academic purpose only

4 Methodology of the study

The methodology employed is a qualitative research This is a study of grounded theory It has been acknowledged that with this method, the researcher as an instrument for gathering data during the study The data is analyzed inductively, selected in the form of words, and done before finding out the research questions

The process for the qualitative data analysis (QDA), Corbin and Strauss (1990: 62) will be:

 Noticing: This step means gathering English and Vietnamese jokes and the

theoretical preliminaries related to the topic This is done by producing a record of interesting things and coding them Then, a descriptive scheme is developed for the study

 Collecting: The second step means sorting the date into discrete parts under the

analysis The statistics are done to adopt percentages and scales based on the analysis results for each part to determine significance of data

 Thinking: In this step, English and Vietnamese jokes are firstly examined closely

with the theoretical background Secondly, the constant comparisons are intended

to identify similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese jokes Moreover, questions are always asked about the phenomena as reflected in the data

to generalize findings for the study and provide pedagogical implications

The joke collection:

 Five sample English jokes are selected from an English linguistic book and two reliable websites: http://rd.com Reader’s Digest, http://www.basicjokes.com

 Five sample Vietnamese jokes are selected Vietnamese funny story books and two reliable websites: http://www.tuoitrecuoi.com, http://cuoi.net/truyen-cuoi/pstory

The research questions:

 How are English and Vietnamese jokes analyzed pragmatically?

 What are the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese jokes

as seen from a pragmatic perspective?

 What tips are utilized to improve the awareness of pragmatics of learners via the study?

The hypotheses of the study are formulated

 All the types of speech acts proposed by Austin (1955) and Searle (1969) are

found in English and Vietnamese jokes

 Conversational maxims are broken to arouse humor

 Different breakings of maxims result in different ways of producing humor in English and Vietnamese jokes

5 Format of the study

The study begins with declaration, acknowledgement, table of contents, and abbreviation The main body of the study consists of three parts They are introduction, development and conclusion

Part one provides a brief account of relevant information about the rationale, aims, scope, methodology and format of the study

Part two includes three chapters

 Chapter 1: This chapter is about theoretical notions necessary for the study

including the theory of pragmatics, concepts of pragmatics, and theory of jokes

 Chapter 2: This chapter offers an analysis of English and Vietnamese jokes one by

one Firstly, the speech acts and conversational maxims are applied to interpret the set- up and the punch lines of the jokes Secondly, the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese jokes will be worked out in terms of speech acts and conversational maxims

 Chapter 3: This chapter is about some implication of the study for EFL teaching

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAl BACKGROUND

This chapter will discuss several joke and pragmatic issues which serve as theoretical foundation for the study First a brief review on theory of jokes such as definitions of jokes and incongruity theory Then theories of pragmatics related to jokes, mainly definitions of pragmatics, speech act theory, conversational implicature and context, cooperative principle, conversational maxims and principles of conducting maxims are presented

 "Is the doctor at home?" The patient asked in his bronchial whisper

"No," the doctor's young and pretty wife whispered in reply "Come right in."

According to Raskin, the joke body activates the doctor- patient script, but the punch line forces the cognitive agent to backtrack and reinterpret the joke in a lover script

Hockett (1972: 84) states that a joke consists of a build-up and a punch Similarly, Sherzer

(1985: 216) defines a joke as “a discourse unit consisting of two parts, the set- up and the punch line” The set-up (the initial portion) is normally built of a joke, while the punch line

(the second part) is the final portion of the joke, which leads to incongruity with the set-up

to provoke laughter and demands creating thinking to surprise the readers The punch line

is the funny part of the joke It can change the situation of the joke in order to make people

laugh It is the climax of the joke in which the amusing part takes place Therefore, any type of the jokes should have the punch line so readers may laugh In order to make the incongruous clearer, the following attentions will be given to the incongruity theory

of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects which have been thought through it in some relation, and laughter itself is just the expression of this incongruity.”

However, some linguists disagree with the given definitions, they see the incongruous part cannot make the perceiver laugh, but have to solve the contrary part The adding stage is called "a two stage- model", incongruity- resolusion According to this model, the cause of incongruity of joke is the pragmatic is broken and it makes readers astound The way of creating and resolving the incongruity can be analyzed as follows:

 "Is the doctor at home?" The patient asked in his bronchial whisper

"No," the doctor's young and pretty wife whispered in reply "Come right in."

The example says that the answer is seen as incongruous, with "No” ”Come right in"

interpreted as an absence of the doctor and an invitation of the patient to enter in the house, but then the resolusion occurs with the realization that there is another

interpretation, "the wife wants to have a secret meeting with the patient” basing on the

gender of the doctor’s wife, her description as well as the absence of the doctor or her husband

1.2 Theories of pragmatics related to jokes

1.2.1 Definitions of pragmatics

J.L Austin, a philosopher at Oxford University (1940s-1950s) who was interested in language, laid the groundwork for what was to become pragmatics Austin wanted to know how humans manage to communicate despite the imperfections in language One important reason for why Austin was interested in language was that he was convinced that we do not

use language to say things (to make statements), but to do things (perform actions), Thomas (1995: 31)

According to Levinson (1983: 12), “Pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of meaning not captured in a semantic theory.” This means that it has consequently more to

do with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what the words or phrases in the utterances might mean by themselves What is learnt from Crystal (1985:

225), “Pragmatics is often contrasted with semantics”, which deals with meaning without

reference to the users and communicative functions of sentences On the contrary, pragmatics includes the study of how the interpretation and use of utterances depends on knowledge of the real world, how speakers use and understand the speech acts, and how the structure of sentence is influenced by the relationship between the speaker and the hearer Furthermore, it is significant for participants to share knowledge together so that the hearer may minimize to misinterpret the speaker’s intended meaning

Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics concerned with how humans use language, what the speaker means and how the hearer interprets the words uttered A sentence uttered by a speaker can be separated into two levels of meaning: firstly the literal-propositional, i.e the expressed meaning, which remains the same no matter what the context is and secondly the implied meaning, which is what the speaker means on a specific occasion, Thomas (1995: 2-8) The expressed meaning is the meaning that we understand by interpreting the word or phrase based only on the information we get from the words uttered Considering an

example, “Are you thirsty?”

The sentence like this is easy to interpret where the obvious meaning is a request for information about the hearer, i.e if he is thirsty However, the same sentence can have a different meaning besides the literal-propositional That meaning will be dependent on the context in which the sentence is uttered Suppose that the speaker and the hearer are lost in the desert and have had nothing to drink for days; such an utterance might then be uttered

as a joke, the hearer is obviously thirsty, in order to embolden in a time of struggle In another context it could mean that the speaker wants the hearer to get him a drink This is considered to be an example of speech acts, where the speaker intends the hearer to carry out an action

Although there is no single, generally- accepted definitions of pragmatics and what it encompasses, since the field is broad and diverse, the above definitions of pragmatics sum

up on the area that we have focused on analyzing jokes However, in order to interpret the speaker’s intended meaning in producing jokes, the following concepts of pragmatics should be mentioned

1.2.2 Speech act theory

Speech act theory is not the whole of pragmatics, but is perhaps currently the most important established part of the subject According to this theory, when uttering something, people are not only saying something but doing something Austin further

concludes that "issuing an utterance" a speaker can perform three acts simultaneously:

the locutional, the illocutional and the perlocutional acts, Austin (1955: 5)

1.2.2.1 Locutional act

This is the basic act of utterance, or producing a meaningful linguistic expression Let’s

take an example of “The bar will be closed in five minutes.” The bartender is thereby

performing the locutionary act of saying that the bar (the one he is tending) will be closed

in five minutes (from the time of utterance)

1.2.2.2 Illocutional act

Mostly we don’t just produce well- formed utterances with no purpose We form an utterance with some kind of function in mind This is the illocutionary act The illocutionary act is performed via the communicative force of an utterance We might utter the sentence above to make a statement, an offer, an explanation, or for some other communicative purpose This is also generally known as the illocutionary force of the

utterance For instance, in saying that, "The bar will be closed in five minutes.” The

bartender is performing the illocutionary act of informing the patrons of the bar's imminent closing and perhaps also the act of urging them to order a last drink Thus, it is necessary to know this act because if we do not understand why a language is being used

as it is, we cannot understand its meaning in the context of social interaction, Saville (1989: 15-16)

1.2.2.3 Perlocutional act

We do not, of course, simply create an utterance with a function without intending it to have an effect This is the perlocutionary act Depending on the circumstances, we will utter that sentence on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect we intended This is also generally known as the perlocutionary effect Suppose, for

example, that a bartender utters the words, "The bar will be closed in five minutes.” He

intends to be performing the perlocutionary acts of causing the patrons to believe that the bar is about to close and of getting them to order one last drink, Yule (1996: 48)

Of all the three acts, the most discussed is the illocutionary act, or also what counts as the intended meaning of the utterance Besides, to give a clear difference between illocutionary verbs and acts, Searle (1969: 60) identified the various types of conditions underlying speech acts He divides speech acts into five classes

 Representatives: acts that commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed

proposition, using such verbs as affirm, believe, conclude, deny, report, etc

 Directives: acts that ask the speaker to get the other to do something with verbs

such as request, question, etc

 Declaratives: acts that affect immediate changes in the institutional state of

affairs and tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions, with verbs such

as appoint, declare, etc

 Commissives: here the speaker commits himself (or herself) to a (future) course

of action, with verbs such as: guarantee, pledge, promise, swear, vow, undertake, warrant

 Expressives: the speaker expresses an attitude to or about a state of affairs,

using such verbs as: apologize, appreciate, congratulate, deplore, regret, etc

Overall, the theory of speech acts is applied in order to see whether what the speaker intends to convey with such an utterance and what the hearer has inferred from that utterance The hearer, therefore, could be guided to use a particular world knowledge fit to the context This knowledge helps him understand what happens in the text is related to how he may understand what has happened in the world as well In understanding a text,

he retrieves the world knowledge, which is already stored in his memory, and then relates

it to the discourse For example, he reads a story about a visit to the relatives; he uses his knowledge of visiting those people instead of that of sending an email or going to a picnic

Thus, he only uses a limited subset of the knowledge required to understand such a discourse The limited subset is called schemata, which leads him to expect what aspects in his interpretation of discourse

1.2.3 Conversational implicature and context

One of the most important concepts in pragmatics is „conversational implicature‟ It is

meant to provide an account of how it is possible to mean more than is actually said Conversational implicature is generated directly by the speaker depending on the context This implicature may or may not be understood, Thomas (1995: 58) The same expressed meaning can have different implications on different occasions

Another concept that related to the conversational implicature is context The context

defined in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, p.282 is “words

that come before and after a word, phrase, statement, etc., helping to show what its

meaning is” or “circumstances in which something happens or in which something is to

be considered” Now, we can say, on the one hand, to judge whether an implicature is

made or not, or what it may implicate, one needs to review what has been said and preview what will be said later on, or figure out what is going on around And on the other hand, to implicate something, one may try to invoke the CP by a word, phrase or statement that feels like superfluous, false, irrelevant or fuzzy To illustrate those two concepts, we have taken these examples from Cruse (2000: 349):

 A: Have you cleared the table and washed the dishes?

B: I‟ve cleared the table

 A: Am I in time for supper?

B: I‟ve cleared the table

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

is late for dinner Thus, A is able to infer the message in B’s utterance, by appealing to the rules governing successful conversational interaction What is said and what is implicated, therefore, together form the meaning of the utterance in a given context The context is constituted by the knowledge shared between the speaker and the hearer The shared knowledge of two types: the knowledge of the language they use, and the

knowledge about the world, including the general knowledge about the world and the specific knowledge about the situation in which linguistic communication is taking place

1.2.4 The cooperative principle

In order to explain how hearers interpret the utterance implicature, Grice introduced 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 directions of the talk exchange in which you are engaged,” Grice (1991: 26) According to the CP 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)

1.2.5 Conversational maxims

In order to illustrate how we interpret meaning, Grice 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 (1995: 63) The maxims

of conversation which together express a general cooperative principle are:

1.2.5.1 The maxim of quantity

The maxim requires the speaker to give the right amount of information when s/he speaks, which means not to be too brief or to give more information than the situation requires, Thomas (1995: 63) For example, the speaker fails to observe the maxim when

he says “I‟m feeling good today, but yesterday I was very ill, and the day before that, even worse.” In this context the utterance contains too much information and the maxim

is not being observed

1.2.5.2 The maxim of quality

The maxim is a matter of giving the right information The speaker says nothing that s/he believes to be false or for which s/he lacks sufficient evidence, Thomas (1995: 67) The other maxims are dependent on this maxim This is because, if a speaker does not convey the truth then the utterance is false, even if the right amount of information is given or the speaker is clear and orderly when speaking, Finegan (1994: 341) An example of non-

observance is: “You look good with your new haircut” when one actually believes the

opposite The statement is then an untruth, the speaker fails to observe the maxim in

order to be polite

1.2.5.3 The maxim of relevance

This maxim requires the speaker to be relevant to the context and situation in which the

utterance occurs, Thomas (1995: 70) For instance, the speaker should not say “I am on

the phone” when someone asks if she wants dinner Here, the utterance meaning is

irrelevant and the speaker fails to observe the maxim

1.2.5.4 The maxim of manner

This maxim 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) A speaker fails to observe the maxim of manner when he says “I

went to bed and got undressed” when, of course, he undressed first and then went to bed

The above maxims are not supposed to describe how people actually said they merely

attempt to describe a type of conversational practice that is reasonable to follow When

people, for instance, aim to tell a joke or story, Grice (1991: 29)

1.2.6 Principles of conducting maxims

The maxims can be conducted by doing an observance of the maxims or a

non-observance of the maxims of Grice (1975) cited in Thomas (1995: 61- 62) If the speaker

observes all maxims, there is no distinction between what the speaker says and what he or

she means so there is no implicature could be

To serve for the interpretation of jokes, we will go into a non-observance of the maxims

Any failing to observe a maxim may be referred to as „breaking a maxim‟ When the

speaker breaks a maxim, the hearer looks for the implicature since he assumes the CP to

be in operation Non-observance of maxims is often used intentionally in order to evoke

humor or to avoid discomfort Grice discussed five ways of not observing a maxim They

are flouting, violating, opting out, infringing and suspending However, we only discuss

non- observance due to flouting and violating in this study

1.2.6.1 Flouting

There are two reasons why the speaker flouts a maxim One is a clash between maxims and another is flouting one of the maxims With a clash between maxims, it is common for a speaker to flout between maxim of quality and quantity or quantity and manner For

example, A is driving B to John’s house A: Where does John live? - B: Neveda There is

a clash between the maxim of quantity and quality because A is looking for a street address, but B gives less informative statement, thus the maxim of quantity is flouted If

B does not know anything more specific, however, he cannot give a more informative statement without flouting the maxim of quality When flouting a maxim, the speaker does not intend to mislead the hearer but wants the hearer to look for the conversational implicature, that is, the meaning of the utterance not directly stated in the words uttered Therefore, when the speaker intentionally fails to observe a maxim his purpose may be to effectively communicate a message, Thomas (1995: 65) Accordingly, if working under the cooperative principle the hearer will interpret the message and fill in the missing information relying on the context To illustrate,

 A: Has John got a girlfriend?

B: He‟s been making a lot of trips to Paphos lately

The maxim of quality is flouted so that the speaker derives the implicature that John may have a girlfriend in Paphos

 A: Where‟s Meredith? - B: The control room or the science lab

The quantity maxim is flouted because B does not give as much information as A wants (Meredith’s exact location), but instead gives a weaker statement (giving two possible options) This implicates that B does not know which of the two places Meredith is

 A: You really love me?

B: I like college football and things that go real fast

The maxim of relevance is flouted as B is changing the topic This can be inferred that B doesn’t want to respond to A

 A: When are you coming home?

B: I will codify that question to my superiors and respond at such a time as

an adequate answer is preparable

The maxim of manner is flouted as B is using unnecessarily complicated and confusing words and construction We can derive the implication that B does not know or does not wish to give an answer to the question

1.2.6.2 Violating

In contrast to flouting, when violating a maxim the speaker intends to mislead the hearer The speaker speaks the truth but implies what is false, Thomas (1995: 72) Violating is found in the examples of jokes extracted from Attardo (1994: 272) as follows:

 A: Excuse me, do you know what time it is? - B: Yes

It can be seen that the answer in this example violates the maxim of quantity because it does not provide enough information for the speaker

 A: Why did the Vice President fly to Panama?

B: Because the fighting was over

The example deliberately violates the maxim of quality by insinuating that the Vice President is a coward

 A: Do you believe in clubs for young people? - B: Only when kindness fails

Violating the maxim of manner is found since the ambiguity of word happens in the joke (the double meaning of the word clubs)

 A: How many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb? - B: Fish!

In this example, the maxim of relevance is violated because the word “surrealists” is associated with a completely bizarre answer “fish”

Summary

We have briefly reviewed theory of jokes and pragmatic theories related to jokes They are Grice’s Cooperative Principle, Austin and Searle’s Speech Act Theory On the basis of the pragmatic theories, we have carried out sample analyses of jokes At the same time, humor can be caused in the context In short, this chapter has been the theoretical background for the study

CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

This chapter is aimed at discovering how English and Vietnamese jokes are analyzed pragmatically and what similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese

jokes as seen from a pragmatic perspective First, analyzing jokes one by one basing on speech act theories and conversational maxim violations, then this analysis presents the results and findings Besides, analysis dificulties and discussions will be given to provide

an overall picture of the issue under study

2.1 Difficulties of joke analysis

2.1.1 Cultural factor

In order to understand humorous language, we cannot ignore the cultural background Culture is marked by its abstractness and complicatedness; yet, the mirrors in which culture finds its reflections present concrete pictures: human behavior, etc Language, one

of the important such mirrors, represents just as much culture as any other forms Many jokes give us a list of aspects such as social and cultural facts that frequently cause humor Thus, in order to make an effective comparison and analysis, the interpreter must take the cultural factor into consideration This requires the competence of cultural recognition and transmission

2.1.2 Making inferences

Inference is crucial to interpretation because a good deal of meaning is implied rather than being explicitly stated Inferences can be made from what is said and all the available facts about the world known to joke participants However, the inference might

be wrong, because this depends on the degree of knowledge of the interpreter The interpreter must make inferences that could be justified If the inferences are wrong, other inferences must be recreated to replace Overall, the inference is a complicated process for the analysis

2.2 Analysis procedures

In order to answer the three given research questions, English and Vietnamese jokes will

be analyzed one by one The analysis is organized into two main steps

 For the step one: we analyze the set- up of English and Vietnamese jokes one by one basing on the speech acts of Austin and Searle, and determine the punch lines

 For the step two: we analyze how the participants of the jokes to break maxims to derive the implicature We look at which of the four- quality, quantity, relevance and manner broken in each joke Furthermore, we look at the reason to why the

maxim is broken and distinguish between flouting and violating a maxim Besides, the inferences were made to understand the punch lines of the jokes

Then the analysis results are summarized in the form of tables and findings are performed from the analysis

In order to mark the jokes, they are given numerical symbol, from 1-5 for English jokes and 6 to 10 for Vietnamese jokes They are organized in two parts- part 2.3.1 for the first step and 2.3.2 for the second step The order of the jokes in each part does not serve any special purposes

2.3 Joke analysis

2.3.1 Speech act analysis of the set- up in English and Vietnamese jokes

(E joke 1) In this joke, when a customer was enjoying his meal, he suddenly cried,

“Waiter! There is a ”

The locutionary act of this utterance is stating that there was a fly in his soup At that time, the illocutionary act he carried is complaining the meal service The perlocutionary act is that the waiter would give him another extra soup To be more precise, we can see this as the act of representative as this customer has reported this news to the waiter Furthermore,

the punch line arouses when the waiter responded “ everyone will want a fly” Thus, the

waiter in this joke overturns the common cultural practice and the target cultural role in giving an incongruous reply to the customer

(E joke 2) Uttering that,

“were you born in a barn?”

The mother is performing the locutionary act of asking her son whether he was born in a barn, the illocutionary act of insulting her son as a horse when he forgets to close the door and the perlocutionary acts of getting her son to close the door As defined by Searle, this act is considered as a directive because the mother requests her son to close the door when

he goes out and in Whereas, the son does not take the message literally so the humorous

part takes place, “I was born in a hospital with automatic doors.” However, he

successfully communicates his message in a very appealing way, making better effect on his mother about refusing to close the door

(E joke 3) In this joke, when the woman sees how romantic the neighbor towards his wife, she said to her husband,

“Dear, look at the new spouse there Every time before going to work, the husband always

kisses his wife forehead first Why don‟t you do so?”

Thus, the locutionary act of this utterance is telling about their neighbor’s behavior towards his wife and asking why her husband does not do so She is actually performing the illocutionary act of requesting her husband to kiss her before going to work as the neighbor had done to his wife This is also the act of directive Meanwhile, the perlocutionary act is that her husband would kiss her before going to work In contrast, the husband arouses the

punch line of this humor when he said, “How can I dare? If I do so, her husband will surely get mad.”

(E joke 4) When the man asks the woman, “Does your dog bite?” the locutionary act of

the utterance is asking for whether the dog would bite, the illocutionary act is the same It can be seen that this is an act of directive The perlocutionary act is that the dog would not bite him However, the dog does attack him and the punch line comes when the

woman said, “ but that‟s not my dog”

(E joke 5) After hearing about the good news, Smith said, the locutionary act of this utterance is questioning about what the good news is and the illocutionary act of this utterance is questioning about what the good news is, too The patient manages to get the

doctor to tell him something that is really good news so this is also called a directive act

Therefore, the perlocutionary act he intended is that the doctor would tell something that

was really good news However, instead of telling good news, the doctor said, “Actually, your leg is no need to be amputated.” It is the punch line of the joke

(V joke 6) In this joke, when the beggar raised his hat and said,

“Thưa bà, nhà cháu mất một chân”

He is performing the locutionary act of informing the reason why he asks for donations And the illocutionary act is the same We can call this as a representative act because the beggar is reporting his problem Then, the perlocutionary act he expects that the rich

woman would give him something However, she ignores his request and responds, “Có

thể lắm, nhưng tại sao anh lại tưởng chân anh mất ở đây?” This utterance becomes the punch line of this joke

(V joke 7) After blaming for the people’s ill- treatment, the mandarin’s wife is consoled

by hearing that they are waiting for him with presents before seeing him off Furthermore, she asks the servants,

“họ lễ gì thế các thầy?”

By doing so, the locutionary act of her utterance is demanding the servants about presents from those residents The illocutionary act she carried is questioning about the presents This is also the act of directive The perlocutionary act is that the people should give him

presents The punch line arouses when the servant responded: “Bẩm toàn gạo, muối ”

(V joke 8) Saying that,

“Mày ăn nói chẳng có đầu đuôi gì cả, người ta cười cả tao lẫn mày

Từ nay nói cái gì thì phải nói cho có đầu có đuôi nghe không?”

The locutionary act is stating that the servant is careless about his saying and that he has to

be more careful from now on The illocutionary act of the utterance is commanding his servant to behave well In fact, this is also called a directive act Thereupon, the perlocutionary act of that utterance: he intends that the servant would obey his order

However, the punch line arouses as the servant details his utterance, “Thưa ông, con tằm

nó nhả ra tơ, và áo ông đang cháy.”

(V joke 9) While a man asked about his lost pig,

“Bác có thấy con “lợn cưới” của tôi chạy qua đây không?”

The locutionary act of the utterance is asking if this man sees a pig At that time, the illocutionary act of the utterance is asking if this man see a pig This is a directive act but with the aim of informing that the lost pig is a wedding pig The perlocutionary act is to boast a big wedding with a pig The punch line arouses when the man in a newly- cut robe

responses, “Từ lúc tôi mặc cái "áo mới" này, tôi chẳng thấy con lợn nào chạy qua đây cả!”

(V joke 10) When listening to her husband’s last request,

“Bây giờ anh đang gần đất xa trời rồi, em có thể thú nhận về mối quan

hệ của mình với tay hàng xóm được không?”

The spouse is wondering whether his wife would tell him her adulterous relationship with a neighbor (the locutionary act) The illocutionary act is that he requests his wife to tell him the truth We can say this illocutionary act is a directive act The perlocutionary act of this utterance is that her husband forces her to tell the truth so that he could die without any

trouble in mind The punch line comes when the wife said, “Thế nhỡ anh không chết thì sao?”

2.3.2 Maxim analysis of the punch line in English and Vietnamese jokes

Analyzing the punch lines due to maxim non-observances we looked at were flouting and violating We observe breakings of maxims in five English jokes and the same amount for

Vietnamese jokes

2.3.2.1 Maxim of quantity

 Violating the maxim of quantity (E joke 4)

Man: Does your dog bite?

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

The problem in this joke has something to do with communication In other words, this is a joke caused by the man’s assumption that more was communicated than said In this joke

the assumption in “your dog” is true for both speakers The man thinks the dog in front of

her belongs to her and the woman’s dog would not bite The problem is the man’s assumption that his question and the woman’s answer both apply to the dog in front of them From the perspective of the man, the woman’s answer provides less information than expected In other words, if she had mentioned the information stated in the last line earlier, the man would not have been bitten by the dog Thus, the woman violates the maxim of quantity Of course, the joke would not be as funny if the author does not let the woman violate the maxim We can derive the implicature that when the man hears the expression, he first has to assume that the woman is being cooperative and intends to communicate something The woman may actually be indicating that she does not want to take in any cooperative interaction with a stranger So she does not provide an expected amount of information Their conflicting inner thoughts form a pair of contradiction that causes the humor in it