Constructivism

     Constructivism is based on the idea that people who are able to form a greater, more detailed perception of others are more successful communicators. The purpose of this theory is to try to explain the reason behind why some people are better at conveying specific messages when they communicate and achieving their desired outcomes. These people are able to deliver their messages in a more clear and direct manner than others can. For example, if a middle child was talking to her mother about a fight she had with her older sister, she might say, "That's not fair. You always take her side, she is your favorite."

Social Exchange Theory

      Social exchange theory is based on the idea that people use rewards as motivators in different situations. In general, people hope to minimize costs and maximize rewards. They will be more willing to divulge a greater amount of information to another individual if they believe it will be worth their while. The more a person believes that forming a relationship with another person will benefit them, the more information they will reveal to the other person, hence attempting to strengthen their bond. It is assumed that people can understand and relate to one another's needs. For example, if someone lends their neighbor sugar, they would expect their neighbor to return the favor later on if they found themselves needing sugar in a pinch.

Ambiguty

Ambiguity

                        Although people are sometimes said to be ambiguous in how they use language, ambiguity is, strictly speaking, a property of linguistic expressions. Ambiguity may occur in words, phrases, or sentences. Those can be said to be ambiguous if they have two or more distinct meanings. Soedjatmiko (1988: 26) defines ambiguity as a linguistic condition which can arise in a variety of ways.  According to Bach (1994: 124) there are two types of ambiguity: lexical ambiguity and structural ambiguity.

Lexical Ambiguity

Lexical ambiguity is by far more common. Everyday example is the word “Time”. This term can be a noun, a verb, and an adjective. In sentence “Time is money”, the word “time” is a noun while “time” in “Time me on the last lap” is a verb, and in the sentence “Time travel is not likely in my life time”, the word “time” is an adjective.

Another example is the words “desert” and “dessert” which function as a verb and a noun respectively. As a verb or a noun, the words are pronounced the same but spelled differently.

The other lexical ambiguity is a word ambiguity such as the word “bank” Kempson (1977: 80) stated the word “bank” has two different concepts of meanings, one describing a side of a river, the other describing the financial institution.

Structural Ambiguity

Structural ambiguity occurs when a phrase or sentence has more than one underlying structure, such as the phrases 'Tibetan history teacher', 'a student of high moral principles' and 'short men and women', and the sentences 'The girl hit the boy with a book' and 'Visiting relatives can be boring'. These ambiguities are said to be structural because each such phrase can be represented in two structurally different ways, e.g., '(Tibetan history) teacher' and 'Tibetan (history teacher)’. The following sentence “Put the box on the table by the window in the kitchen” has more than one underlying structure. The first underlying structure can be “Put the box (a specific box - the one on the table by the window) in the kitchen” and the second can be “Put the box on the table (a specific table - by the window in the kitchen)”

Bach (1994: 124) states that it is not always clear when a case is of structural ambiguity, such as the elliptical sentence; in “Peter worked hard and passed the exam. Kevin too" The elliptical sentence “Kevin too” has three interpretations: Kevin worked hard, Kevin passed the exam, and Kevin did both. The other example is 'Perot knows a richer man than Trump'. It has two meanings that Perot knows a man who is richer than Trump and that Perot knows a man who is richer than any man Trump knows. Therefore the sentence “Perot knows a rich man than Trump” is ambiguous.

The theory of ambiguity is used to analyze humor since this theory related to humor as stated by Dave Inman (1997) that humor depends on ambiguity, it seems that we are lead down the "garden path" to one meaning, and at the end find we were wrong all along. We seem to like to be surprised sometimes.

The Theory of Humor

 Veatch (1998) says, “Humor includes an apparent paradox, it is emotionally compelling; and it pervades human life. Thus it is inherently both mysterious and interesting.”

 Veatch (1998) presents an ambitious, and supposedly complete, theory of humor. It says that there are three conditions, which are individually, necessarily and jointly, sufficient for humor to occur.

1.      V (Violated)

V means things in the situation that the perceiver thinks ought to be certain way but the situation is violated.

2.      N (Normal)

N means that the situation is actually okay. That is the perceiver has in mind a predominating view of the situation as being Normal.  

3.       S (Simultaneity) 

V and N occur at the same time. If the two interpretations above are not simultaneously present, the humor perception cannot occur. It means that the N and V are not completely independent; however, they interact with one another in the mind. Frued in Soedjatmiko’s dissertation (1988: 23) stated that humor is a matter of deviation of normal thought.

            Raskin (1985: 3-5) formulates that there are some factors that characterize humor:

1.      There should be human participants in the act, the speaker and hearer.

2.      Something must happen in a humor act. An utterance has to be made; a situation has to develop or to be perceived. – In short, a new stimulus should be presented and responded to humorously. The natural term for this obligatory factor is the stimulus.

3.      The experience is the important factor. The experience of the speaker and hearer is their familiarity with humor as a special mode of communication.

4.      The psychological type of individual participating in the humor. In this case the speaker and hearer’s predispositions or background knowledge to humor are quite important.

5.      Situational context or situation. Every humor act occurs in a physical environment, which serves as one of the most important contextual factors of the humor act.

6.      Society humor occurs in a certain culture, which belongs to the society. Many researchers have commented on the fact that humor is shared by individuals belong to a certain social group.

            According to Wilson (1979: 10) the theory of humor is divided into three main types: relief theory, superiority theory, and incongruity theory.

            Relief Theory 

            Frued (1856-1939) as quoted in Monro (1988: 354) regards humor as a means of outwitting the “censor”, his name for the internal inhibitions, which prevent us from giving rein to many of our natural pulses. According to him, the censor will allow us to indulge in these forbidden thoughts only if it is first beguiled or disarmed in some way. The beguiling is done, he thinks, by means of the techniques of humor. Frued states that relief theory might account for sexual jokes.

            According to Wilson (1979: 10) this theory emphasizes on the emotional of the humor. This theory suggests that “the joke is an emotional hoax that barks without biting – threatening harm, then proving inconsequential. Raskin (1985: 40) concludes that relief theory comment on the feelings and psychology of the hearer only.

            Incongruity Theory

             Monro (1988: 351) stated that incongruity is often identified with “frustrated expectation”. This concept owed to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) who says that humor arises from the sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing. Monro (1988: 352) explains that humor consists in the violent dissolution of an emotional attitude. The humor happens by the abrupt intrusion into the attitude of some thing that is felt not to belong in minds, of some element that has stayed, as it were, from another compartment of our minds. This concept is mingling of two ideas which are felt to be utterly disparate.

            According to Monro (1988: 354) humor according to incongruity theories is the finding of the inappropriate within the appropriate. In any community certain attitudes are felt to be appropriate to something but not to others; so that stereotype developed.

            Superiority Theory

            Monro (1988: 350) states that we laugh at people because they have some feeling of defect, or because they find themselves at disadvantages in some way or suffer small misfortune. Thomas Hobbes added that we laugh at the misfortunes or infirmities of others, at our own past follies. According to this view, Monro concluded that humor is derisive. Humor derisive from our feeling of superiority over those we laugh at.

            Hobes (Monro, 1988: 350) also pointed out that even we laugh with comic vice we are laughing at, perhaps because of feeling superior and the conventional morality which is being flouted. Raskin (1985, 40) concluded that superiority theory characterizes the relation or attitudes between the speaker and the hearer.

Maxim of Joke Telling

In humor, funniness takes place when there is a violation of Grice’s maxims. Clark and Clark’s (1977: 123) give an example of verbal humor that deliberately violates most of the Grice’s maxims.

Steven: Wilfred is meeting a woman for dinner tonight.

Susan :  Does his wife know about it?

Steven:  Of course she does. The woman he is meeting is his wife.

Clark and Clark stated that Steven violated the maxim of quantity when he used the expression “a woman” for “his wife”, or he was not being as informative as he could have been. In fact, Steven violated all four maxims. He violated the maxim of quality since he knew he was saying something that was not true (a wife is not just a woman). He violated the maxim of relation (Clark (1977) and Raskin (1985) use the term relation for the maxim of relevance while Hattim (1990) uses the term maxim of relevance which means the same) since “a woman” that was connected to an adult male, according to Lackoff as quoted by Soedjatmiko (1988: 16) implies sexuality and never means “wife”. Steven violated maxim of manner for not speaking clearly, or by intentionally speaking ambiguously.

Raskin (1985:103) states there are maxims on which the cooperative principle for non-bona-fide-communication mode (the condition in which the ambiguities occur) of telling jokes is based. Those Maxims are Maxim of Quantity, Maxim of Quality, Maxim of Relation, and Maxim of Manner.

 Maxim of Quantity requires the speaker to give exactly as much information as necessary for the joke. According to Veatch, the general condition of this maxim is violated in jokes. In general, maxim of Quantity requires the speaker to give information as is required; however, in the maxim of Quantity for jokes telling, information which is given by the speaker is violated.

             Example:

             A: “Excuse me! Do you know what time it is?”

             B: “Yes”

This conversation becomes funny because B’s reply violates maxim of Quantity by answering ‘yes’. Actually, A’s question can be answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’. However, what is intended by A is that the exact time instead of want to know whether B knows what time it is.

 Maxim of Quality requires the speaker to say only compatible with the world of the joke. According to Veatch, the general condition of this maxim is violated in jokes. In general, maxim of Quality requires the speaker not to say what is false and lacks of evidence; however, in maxim of Quality for the jokes telling, what is said by the speaker is false and lacks of evidence.

 Example

 A: “Why did the vice president fly to Panama?”

 B:  “Because the fighting is over.”

This conversation is considered to be funny because B violates maxim of Quality. In this case, B lacks evidence of the flying of the President to Panama. Perhaps, the President has another reason not because the fighting was over.

Maxim of Relation requires the speaker to say only relevant to the joke. According to Veatch, the general condition of this maxim is violated in jokes. In general, maxim of Relation requires the speaker to be relevant; however, in maxim of Relation for jokes speaker is irrelevant.

            Example

            A: “How many surrealists does it take to screw in light bulb?”

            B: “Fish!”

                        This conversation is funny because B’s answer is not related. The answer which is expected by A is the number of surrealist not fish. There is no relation between surrealist and fish; therefore, this conversation relevant to the joke.

            Maxim of Manner requires the speaker to tell the joke efficiently. According to Veatch, the general condition of this maxim is violated in jokes. In general, maxim of Manner requires the speaker to avoid obscurity and ambiguity; however, in maxim of Manner for the jokes the speaker use obscurity and ambiguity expression.

            Example

            A: “Do you believe in clubs for young people?”

            B:  “Only when kindness fails.”

            This joke based on the homonymic relation between club (for organization for people who share a particular interest) and club (a thick heavy stick used to hit people or things) A is asking about club in the first sense, whereas B is responding to A’s question using the second sense of club. A is asking whether B thinks that organizations for young people are helpful, whereas B responds to the question ‘Do you believe in disciplining young people using corporal punishment?’ In this case the word “clubs” is ambiguous.

            Based on this cooperative principle the hearer does not expect the speaker to tell the truth or to convey any relevant information in the conversation in which the speaker is being engaged.

            The communication can fail when the speaker violates principle which is formulated by Grice. A humor can fail if the maxims of non-bona-fide communication are not abided by.

Speech Act Theory

            In accordance with the topic of the thesis, the deliberation of this section is intended to the theory of Speech Act since this theory is the writer’s tool to analyze the data. Cook (1989: 23) states that speech acts provides us with a means of probing beneath the surface of discourse and establishing the function of what is being said.

            J.L Austin as quoted by Palmer (1981: 161) introduces Speech Act Theory, which explains meaning in communication. He stated that language is used to perform actions. Or in brief, when we speak, as a matter of fact we do speech acts; hence, both focus on how meaning and action are related to language.

            Lavinson (1986: 236) mentioned that there are three kinds of acts, LocutionaryAct, Illocutionary Act and Perlocutionary Act. The first is locutionary act, According to Schiffrin (1994: 53) locutionary act deals with the uttering of an expression with sense and reference, for example using sounds and words with meaning, for example “This room is hot”, the locutionary act is the utterance itself and its literal meaning. The second is Illocutionary act. Schiffrin (1994: 53) said that the illocutionary act deals with performance after uttering a certain sentence in which the speaker brings one or more result of the utterance. For example; when one says, “This room is hot”, he intends someone who hears him, will turn on the Air Conditioner. The third is Perlocutionary act. According to Schiffrin (1994: 54), perlocutionary act deals with the effect on the audience by means of uttering sentences, for example when B hears A say “This room is hot” then B will turn on the air Conditioner or open the window.

            There are much brighter explanations concerning those acts. Palmer (1981: 162) stated that in the locutionary act, one is ‘saying something’, yet he may also use the locution for particular purposes, such as to answer a question, to announce a verdict, to give warning, etc. Here, he is performing an illocutionary act. So, if there is someone saying, “Kill her!”, in certain circumstances that utterance has the illocutionary force of – variously – ordering, advising the addressee to kill the woman.

            Traugott and Pratt as quoted by Olivia (2001: 14) classify seven types of illocutionary acts. The classifications are:

1.      Representatives

Undertake to represent a state of affairs, such as stating, claiming hypothesizing, describing, predicting, telling, insisting, suggesting or swearing that something is the case. 

2.      Expressive

Express only the speaker’s psychological attitude toward some state of affairs, such as congratulating, thanking, deploring, condoling, welcoming, and greeting, etc.

3.      Verdictives     

Deliver a finding as to value or fact, and thus that rate some entity or situation on a scale, such as assessing, ranking, estimating, diagnosing, grading, and all other judgmental.

4.      Directives

Get the addressee to do something, such as requesting, commanding, pleading, inviting, questioning, daring and insisting or suggesting that someone do something.

5.      Commissives

Commit the speaker to do something, but also include declarations or announcements of intention, for example promising, threatening, and vowing.

6.      Declarations

Bring about the state of affairs they refer to, for instance blessing, firing, baptizing, biding, passing sentence, arresting, and marrying.

 7.  Phatic Function

            Illucotionary act is used to maintain the social relationship, open the channel or check that the function is working, either for social reasons (‘Hello’, ‘lovely weather’, ‘do you come here often?’) or for practical ones (‘Can you hear me?’, “Are you still there?’, ‘can you see the blackboard from the back there?’, ‘Can you read my writing?’).

            Austin as quoted by Raskin (1985: 55) stated although Speech act is a means for serious and normal used language, Speech Acts is also applicable to humor. One of the mechanisms to produce humorous effect is by deliberately violating the rules of speech act. The perlocutionary act is made not inconsequently following the illocutionary act. The hearer deliberately ignores the illocutionary act and accepts the message as stated in the illocutionary act. This being ignorant or pretending to be ignorant is often so unexpected that sounds are humorous, such as in the following example as quoted in Soedjatmiko (1988: 100)

            A stranger entered the building and asked a boy standing in the lobby, “Can you tell me where Mr. Smith lives?” The lad smiled and replied pleasantly “Yes Sir, I’ll show you.” Six flights the boy pointed out the room as that belonging to Mr. Smith. The man pounded on the door repeatedly and after no response, he commented, “He is not here.” The boy replied, “Oh no sir, Mr. Smith was downstairs waiting in the lobby”