ignore the feeling of opposite side when they met some topics that they don?t like or some other people requires some unreasonable demands, which will result in the inconsistency of communication, thus it can produce a comedic effect.
Case 1:
Thanksgiving was coming, it was the first time for Caroline to spend the festival after she left home without family members? companion, and she was willing to see her father in prison expectantly, but his father did not want her daughter to see his abjectness, so Caroline was inevitably in extreme disappointment.
Max: Well, I have two things to say. First of all, I?m incredibly proud of us for spreading the spirit of Thanksgiving together. And secondly, someone left an adult diaper in this booth, and I?m not dealing with that.
…
Max: What?s the sad face about? You saw the bathroom?
Caroline: It?s just even though we fed the homeless, it doesn?t feel like Thanksgiving without my father.
According to Grice?s relation maxim, communicators should avoid saying something not explicitly relevant to the topic of the conversations. Sometimes, people would violate the maxim of relation deliberately. In such cases, it is possible for speakers to give a certain conversational implicature. The hearer had better reconsider it. And humorous effect also can be caused by violation of maxim of relation. In this dialogue, at this moment, Caroline was sitting aside downheartedly, Max said: “I say two things, first, I am proud for spreading Thanksgiving spirit together; secondly, there is adult diapers in the toilet, and I will not pick them up.” Obviously, in the former semi-sentence, Max expressed her sympathy for her friends, while when she said the latter semi-sentence, she deliberately get ride of her objection of conversation.
Case 2:
Caroline: What is this, a student loan? Oh, my God, Max, you went to college? That wasn?t a judgment. It was just shocking…kind of like seeing a baby smoke on the Internet.
Max: I love that kid.
When Caroline helped Max arrange the bills she accidentally found Max?s bill of students? loan, and she was surprised that Max had ever went to college, and Caroline was afraid that Max would misunderstand and she would laugh at Max was not like a scholar, she completed that “I was only shocked, just as surprised as seeing the children?s smoking picture online.” And Max did not want to talk about the bill, so she deliberately changed the topic and said: “I love that child so much.” And this answer had politely told Caroline that she was unwilling to talk anything about the bill, so the audience would laugh heartily because of Max?s unrelated lie. The maxim of relation requires that one?s utterance should be relevant to the topic discussed in the conversation. People violate this principle in order to avoid awkwardness or express their ideas in a roundabout way. The humorous utterance would be known in the irrelevant conversation.
Case 3:
Max: Hi, ready to order?
Customer: Do you have anything that?s really special? Max: Not according to my high school guidance counselor.
xiii
Max asked: “ready to order yet?” and the customer asked: “do you have any specialties?” Here Max deliberately misunderstood this word as “specialty”, because this word not only could be used as dishes, but also it could be used as something peculiar. In the environment of restaurant, this word should be understood as dishes. Max deliberately understood this question as “do you have something special?” then Max answered: “According to my counselor in high school, I have nothing special.” Understanding this scene in this level, the audience could understand the humorous points in this play.
4.4 Non-observation of the Maxim of Manner
Grice puts forward that in order to get a better quality of conversation, brief, clear and orderly utterances are necessary. Speakers should minimize the obscure and ambiguous expressions. If this maxim is infringed, the speakers may make the hearer at a loss. As Grice argues, the maxim of manner, different from other maxims, relates not “to what is said but, rather, to how what is said is to be said”(1975: 67). The maxim of manner requires people in talk exchanges to be easy to be understood and perspicuous. It includes two sub-maxim: avoid obscurity, be brief and orderly. If one says in an obscure, lengthy or ambiguous way, he or she is considered to violate the maxim of manner.
4.4.1 Vague Expression
Avoiding ambiguity is the third sub-maxim of manner, which means that speakers are supposed to speak clearly without any “non-obvious interpretation” or incongruity in conversational exchange.(He, 1998: 72) While from some aspects, speakers may take the most of it for the sake of humor. In the sitcom 2 Broke Girls, some conversations violate the first sub-maxim of manner, that is, saying in an obscure way. Examples in the sitcom 2 Broke Girls as follows:
Case 1:
Earl: Look over there, Max. Men and women in suits. This neighborhood is definitely on the rise. I remember a time when a black man couldn?t geta cab around here. And that time was Wednesday.
Earl: Look over there, Max. Men and women in suits. This neighborhood is definitely on the rise. I remember a time when a black man couldn?t geta cab around here. And that time was Wednesday.
Earl?s speech was saying that the zone that the restaurant located was developing in a good direction, “I remember a time when a black man couldn?t geta cab around here” Because Earl was an old aged black man, and the audience were easy to imagine that “the times” was the period when Earl was young, and not being able to call a taxi was a thing many years ago. While the following sentence of Earl “that time was Wednesday”, and this was beyond all the expectations and the sentence was very funny, if Earl just simply said “I could not even call a taxi last Wednesday” and the humorous effect would be greatly reduced.
Case 2:
Caroline: Who was that, Han? Do you have a hot, new, Korean girlfriend?
Max: Yeah, someone who really likes you, and is 1.5 dollars for the first minute, and 2
xiv
dollars for each additional minute?
Han: I was talking to my mother!
Han was making a telephone, after he hang up the telephone, Caroline asked: “who were you calling? Is this your new sexy girl friend?” before Han?s answer, Max said: “yes, really, a woman who loves you very much on the phone, and the first minute she change you one point five, then she charge two for every minute?” and Max hinted that Han was making a sexual phone, but she did not speak it out clearly, so she obliquely hinted that with the example of telephone fees, which had violated the function principle, thus the humorous effect was produced.
4.4.2 Lengthy Discourse
In the second sub-maxim of manner is “be brief”, which requires people speak briefly and easyly to be understood. When one says in a complicated and leagthy way, this sub-maxim is violated.(He, 1998: 72) In Everybody Loves Raymond, there are many plots like that, the following two cases show
Case 1:
Winter was coming, but Caroline?s horse was still in the courtyard, because there was no suitable place for it to go through the winter. As her friend, Max was very worried about it and reminded Caroline kindly, but Carline was so confident that she thought it was a long time before it would snow.
Max: That?s the snow when you are rich. The only snow angels you?ll see this year are the six crack addicts frozen to our stoop. Not to mention the adorable frozen horse we have illegally living in the backyard．
Caroline: Max, don?t overreact. Chestnut?s fine. It?s gonna for weeks．
Max: All right, have it your way. But I wouldn?t want to be the next tenants who have figure out why a pissed off horse is haunting a Brooklyn apartment. I was cold and she thought she knew weather patterns.
In the above conversation, Max had not told the truth that the horse would be frozen to death after her friend did not listen to his advice, on one hand, she said: “you can insist on your idea”, on the other hand, she assumed that she was unwilling to hear that the next tenant was always hearing a ghost of a horse was complaining, “I am so cold, my host thinks she knows much about weather, as a result, I am frozen to death.” This oblique speech violated the Function principle, but it produced a implication, “if you does not believe me, the horse will be frozen to death really.” Max violates the maxim of manner that he doesn?t say things in a clear and simple way. At the same time, because of the avoiding of the direct and blunt expression, although this speech violated the Function principle, it obeyed the decent principle in polite principle, which produced a humorous effect.
5. Conclusion
This paper analyzes humorous discourse from the perspective of the famous pragmatic theory CP with the help of examples from 2 Broke Girls. It has illuminated a detailed
xv
analysis about humor. From all above, it is clear that the cooperative principle plays an important role in interpreting humor. All the examples are from 2 Broke Girls which make most audience laugh. In order to get the humorous effect, a lot of dialogues violate the CP. Therefore, the above case study can help people understand and appreciate humor better.
People become aware that many humorous conversations in sitcoms or in daily life are generated by people?s non-observation of the four maxims of CP. A better understanding of the humor-generating mechanism helps readers comprehend and master language more easily, and thus improve our ability to appreciate and use language, which are important for both native speakers and language learners. Grice?s CP plays a significant role in interpreting and improving cross-cultural communication.
xvi
