The maxim is broken in order to create humor when the characters say something funny which is obscure and ambiguous. As in the following example, the character says obscure utterance to make the story funny.
In the bus a well-dressed man missed his silk handkerchief and accused his neighbor, an old man, of having stolen it. But after some time the well- dressed man found the handkerchief in his pocket and apologized for having accused the old man.
-“Never mind”, said the latter, “You thought I was a thief, and I thought you were a gentleman, and we both mistaken”.
In this short story, the old man violated the maxim of manner to make an implicature. The sentence “You thought I was a thief, and I thought you were a gentleman, and we both mistaken” has an ambiguous implicature. His utterance implicated that the man was not a gentlment. However, he did not say directly,
“we both mistaken”. Readers can realize the satiric implication of the old man despite of not be obvious in explicit meaning.
This is the maxim being violated the most to creat the humor in funny stories. As such ambiguity may be a great obstacle to this maxim and an abundant source for authors of funny stories to exploit.However, non-observance of an utterance often does not only break one maxim, but several concurrently.
For instance, maxim of quantity and maxim of manner, when the communicators give enough amount of information that means it is brief. Especially, the maxims
Hoang Thi Yen - 1271A06 (2012 - 2016) 30 of relation and manner are at times hard to separate when the utterance is both irrelevant and obscure. For example, in an English funny story:
Retaliation
In a small town, farmers of the community had gotten together to discuss some important issues. About midway through the meeting, a wife of one of the farmers stood up and spoke her piece.
One of the farmers stood up and said,
“What does she know about anything? I would like to ask her if she knows how many toes a pig has.”
Quick as a flash, the woman replied,
“Take off your boots sir, and count them yourself!”
The character in this story violated the maxim of manner and relation. The man asked the woman how many toes a pig had and the woman replied by asking the man to count his toes. The man thought that the woman knew nothing but the woman implicated he also did not know anything. She compared him with a pig. In some countries, pig is a symbol of stupidity.
Baby camel and mother
A mother and a baby camel were lying around, and suddenly the baby camel asked, “Mother, may I ask you some questions? Mother said, “Sure! Why son, is there something bothering you? Baby said, “Why do camels have humps?” Mother said “Well son, we are desert animals, we need the humps to
Hoang Thi Yen - 1271A06 (2012 - 2016) 31 store water and we are known to survive without water”. Baby said, “Okay, then why are our legs long and our feet rounded?” Mother said, “Son, obviously they are meant for walking in the desert. You know with these legs I can move around the desert better than anyone does!” Baby said, “Okay, then why are our eyelashes long? Sometimes it bothers my sight”. Mother with pride said, “My son, those long thick eyelashes are your protective cover. They help to protect your eyes from the desert sand and wind”.
Baby after thinking said, “I see. So the hump is to store water when we are in the desert, the legs are for walking through the desert and these eye lashes protect my eyes from the desert then what in god’s name are we doing here in the Zoo!?”
In this story, baby camel violated the maxim of manner and quantity. The utterance of baby camel is too obscure and wordy. His implicature is that why they’re living in the Zoo, not the desert? Meanwhile, they have own characteristics to live on the desert. Through this story, the author wants to give a message “Skills, knowledge, abilities and experiences are only useful if you are at the right place”.
Relatives?
A couple drove several miles down a country road, not saying a word. An earlier discussion had led to an argument, and neither wanted to concede their position. As they passed a barnyard of mules and pigs, the wife sarcastically asked, “Relatives of yours?” “Yep,” the husband replied, “In-laws.”
Hoang Thi Yen - 1271A06 (2012 - 2016) 32 The husband’s answer in the last sentence violated the maxim of manner because he gave the obscure information. Because of their argument, he knew that his wife sarcastically asked. The wife implicated her husband was an animal.
However, the husband was also smart; he could not yield to his wife and answered “In-law” to implicate that the wife was a real animal. He got married to her, so of course, he is related to them. For that, his answer made readers laugh.