Violation of Maxims in Monty Python's Flying Circus Comedy Series

8/9/2019 Violation of Maxims in Monty Python's Flying Circus Comedy Series

1/23

VIOLATION OF GRICES COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE

IN MONTY PYTHONS FLYING CIRCUS COMEDY SERIES

A Research Proposal

By:

BAYU JAKA MAGISTRA

180120130006

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMME - FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

UNIVERSITAS PADJADJARAN

2014


2/23

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ i

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Rationale .....................................................................................................................1

1.2 Formulations of the Study ...........................................................................................3

1.3 Objectives of the Study ...............................................................................................4

1.4 Theoretical Outline ......................................................................................................4

1.5 Methods ......................................................................................................................4

1.6 Data Source .................................................................................................................5

1.7 Weight and Relevance .................................................................................................5

Chapter IITHEORETICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 6

2.1 Cooperative Principle ..................................................................................................6

2.2 Humor Strategies by Violation of Cooperative Principle .............................................8

2.2.1 The Maxim of Quantity and Humor...................................................................9

2.2.2 The Maxim of Quality and Humor ...................................................................11

2.2.3 The Maxim of Relation and Humor .................................................................12

2.2.4 The Maxim of Manner and Humor ..................................................................13

DATA EXAMPLES ........................................................................................................... 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 21


3/23

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale

Alwasilah (2002) states that research problems emerge because of three or more

factors i.e. experience, concepts and previous findings. These three factors interact

each other generating research problems which will be solved by the process of

research. Thus, the interaction is graphically depicted as follows.

The writer, however, firstly encountered the problems for this research because

of the experience factor which is explained as follows. Several years ago, the writer

found a blog post about a comedy troupe named Monty Python with its famous

comedy series entitled Monty Pythons Flying Circus. What is interesting about

this group, the blog post said, was that all of its members were graduates of Oxford

and Cambridge universities; except Terry Gilliam who was graduated from


4/23

2

Occidental College. Moreover, their comedy style was said to be unique, which was

tagged surrealist comedy, utilizing innovative stream-of-consciousness approach.

Interested and felt curious about it, the writer searched for some sketches of Monty

Pythons Flying Circus on YouTube, and was amazed by the unique eccentricity of

the sketches. What interested the writer mostly about the sketches was the language

play they used like the following excerpt.

First Man : Er, excuse me, I want to get married.Registrar : I'm afraid I'm already married, sir.

First Man : Er, no, no. I just want to get married.Registrar : I could get a divorce, I suppose, but it'll be a bit of a

wrench.

In the above dialog, the first mans intention was to ask the registrar to bring

about his marital union according to the laws, but the registrar misinterprets the first

mans statement; assuming that he wants to make him his spouse. This kind of

language play happened quite often in the Monty Pythons Flying Circussketches,

and made the series very funny.

The language plays that the series used involve not only the meaning of

sentences, but also other factors like pre-existing knowledge and intentions, which is

exemplified by the above excerpt. Therefore, the phenomenon is dealt by the study of

pragmatics, specifically cooperative principle developed by Paul Grice (Grice, 1991).

Grice states that communication is a process that requires interlocutors to be

cooperative with each other, and to achieve this cooperation there are four rules or


5/23

3

maxims (i.e. relation, quality, quantity, and manner) that speakers have to follow in

order to make a conversation go on effectively. However, several researchers state

that in order to arouse audiences laughter, high percentage of humorous

conversations is established by the purposeful violation of one or more of the maxims

of cooperative principle (Attardo, 1994).

The relationship between violation of maxims and humorous effect can be

exemplified by a research done by Wu & Chen (2010) which analyzes the humor

strategies found in the American sitcom Friendsbased on Grices cooperative

principle. They found out that in the sitcom, specifically in the last season, the

characters of the show use different kinds of humor strategies that violated the

cooperative principle to amuse the audience. Among all the humor strategies, irony,

in which maxim of quality was violated, was the most frequently used.

From the interaction among experience, concept and previous findings above,

the writer assumes that similar approach can be applied to the Monty Pythons

Flying Circuscomedy series. Thus, the writer will analyze the comedy strategies of

the series based on Paul Grices cooperative principle.

1.2 Formulations of the Study

Based on the aforementioned rationale, the formulations of this research are

explained as follows.


6/23

4

1. What maxims that are violated in order to create humorous effect in the

Monty Pythons flying circus comedy series?

2. What maxim that is mostly violated in the series?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

Based on the above formulations, the objectives of this study is to investigate

the maxims that are violated in the Monty pythons flying circus, and the one that is

mostly violated.

1.4 Theoretical Outline

The main theory of this research is cooperative principle and its four

conversational maxims developed by Paul Grice (Grice, 1991). However, the writer

will also base this research on Raskin (2011) and Attardo (1994) who basically state

that humor violate and also follow cooperative principle.

1.5 Methods

This research will use descriptive and qualitative methods. According to

Travers, descriptive method is aimed to describe the nature of a situation as it

exists at the time of the study and to explore the causes of particular phenomena.

Furthermore, this method determines and reports the way things are. Just as


7/23

5

historical research has no control over what was, descriptive research has no control

over what is, and it can only measure what already exists (Sevilla et al, 2007)

However, qualitative method will be used as well because this research will

involve the process of coding and categorization in analyzing the data. Alwasilah

(Alwasilah, 2002) states that generally there are three steps in analyzing the data in

qualitative research i.e. coding, categorization & developing a theory. Remembering

that this research only reports the types of Indonesian word formations in borrowing

English internet & computer terms descriptively, the last step is omitted.

1.6 Data Source

The data for this research will be sourced from two volume book entitled The

Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus; All the Words (Chapman et al., 1989)

which contain complete scripts from the four Monty Pythons Flying Circus series.

1.7 Weight and Relevance

This research will more or less enrich the humor study, specifically humor

study which is based on pragmatics.


8/23

6

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Cooperative Principle

Paul Grice proposes that in ordinary conversation, speakers and hearers share a

cooperative principle (CP) which is to make your conversation 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, 1991). This cooperative

principle is based on the assumption that language users tacitly agree to cooperate by

making their contributions to the talk as is required by the current stage of the talk or

the direction into which it develops. CP involves four maxims i.e. quantity, quality,

relation, and manner which are detailed as follows.

a. Maxim of Quantity

This maxim requires speakers to say adequately, meaning neither too

much nor too less. Supposing there is a conversation like the following.

A : Bill and Martha are leaving tomorrow.B : Ill miss Martha.

(Attardo, 1994, p. 23)


9/23

7

In this example, B flouts the maxim of quantity (as his response only

attends to part of the topic initiated by A). As a result, the deliberate

omission can be said to imply that perhaps he is not so fond of Bill.

b. Maxim of Quality

It requires speakers to be appropriately truthful. Suppose the conversation

goes like the following.

Tom : I might win the lottery

Jean : Yes, and pigs might fly.

(Attardo, 1994, p. 24)

Jean is flouting the maxim of quality because the conversation implies

that Tom's chances of winning the lottery are about the same as pigs

flying.

c. Maxim of Relevance

It means that speakers should make their utterances relevant. Supposing

there is a conversation like the following.

Jim : Wheresthe roast beef?Mary : The dog looks happy.

(Attardo, 1994, p. 26)


10/23

8

What Mary says is relevant to the question. She should have answered the

question by saying the location of where the roast beef is.

d. Maxim of Manner

This type of maxim can be interpreted as be concise, to the point, etc.

Supposing there is a conversation like the following.

A : Lets get the kids something.B : OK but not I-C-E C-R-E-A-M [spelling it out].

(Attardo, 1993, p. 357)

In the above conversation, B utterly fails to cooperatively follow the

maxim of clarity and conciseness.

2.2

Humor Strategies by Violation of Cooperative Principle

Humor is widely known as something that causes laugher or arouses peoples

interests by funny words, gestures and facial expressions. Grices CP is a core theory

that is used to analyze and control peoples conversation. Weve followed Grices

principle since we learn to speak, and weve been guided by these maxims all the

time. However, in peoples daily conversation, Grices maxims are not always

obeyed. It seems when the maxims are violated, the speakers apparently wish to end

the conversation, or wish to avoid the conversation. Otherwise, they may suppose to


11/23

9

break some of the maxims consciously, and expect the listener to understand that the

violation is occurring and why it happens.

Yet under some circumstances, the violation of cooperative principle and

accompanied four maxims isnt only intent to terminate the conversation, but also

brings comedy effect sometimes. That is to say if humor happens in conversation, it is

often in relation to the violation of the conversational cooperative principle from

some point of view. Humor actually can be derived from the deliberate flouted

maxims. Therefore, deliberate violation of CP is the linguistic basis of humor.

2.2.1The Maxim of Quantity and Humor

It means that people do not make contribution more informative than required.

When speakers break the quantity maxim consciously, and do not provide whats

addressees required or give much more than needed, humor breaks out consequently.

There are two examples of humor strategies that violate this maxim which are

explained as follows.

1. The Lack of Required Information Makes Humor

Suppose there is a conversation that goes like this:

An old lady was strolling through the park when she saw Jamie with adog. Does your dog bite? she asked. No. side Jamie. When the oldlady tried to pet the dog, it almost bit her finger off. I thought you saidyour dog doesn't bite! screamed the old lady with blood dripping fromher hand. Thats right, answered Jamie, My dog doesnt bite, butthats not my dog.(Dong, 1992, p. 2)


12/23

10

In this humor, the old lady sees Jamie with a dog together, then raises an

question naturally, Does your dog bite? trying to get more information

about the dog. But Jamie gives the information a little bit less than

expected, No. Accordingly, it causes the old lady to suppose that dog is

good-tempered, and then she rests easy and pets the dog; however, the

dog almost bites her finger broken. Of course, the old lady screams,

scolding Jamie for telling lies. To the old ladys surprise, Jamie gives the

reply that her dog indeed doesnt bite, but the real fact is thats not her

dog. As a result, the answer made the lady speechless.

2. Provided information more than required makes humor.

Supposing there is a conversation like the following.

Soprano : Did you notice how my voice filled the hall last night?

Contralto : Yes, dear. In fact, I noticed several people leaving tomake room for it.

(Dong, 1992, p. 12)

This humor occurs when one of the speakers supplies information more

than necessary. Soprano is very proud of her own voice, and meanwhile

expects to get other peoples acceptance. Then she asks a Contralto, Did

you notice how my voice full filled the hall?Contralto responds, yes,

dear. Actually, it has already contented Sopranos vanity; however,


13/23

11

Contralto also adds more information than required, I saw that the

audiences left to empty space for your voice. This additional

complement implies the performance of Soprano isnt so brilliant that the

audience couldnt bear and walk away. So the additional comment reveals

to us a great contrast between the Sopranos expectation and t he

Contraltos response. Consequently the reader can imagine the

embarrassment and depression of Soprano. Thus the violation of the

quantity maxim makes humorous effect in the conversation.

2.2.2The Maxim of Quality and Humor

As stated above, utterances demand to obey the maxim of quality. One should

try to be truthful, and does not give information that is false or that is not supported

by evidence. Supposing there is a conversation like the following.

Once, a little boy went into a barbers shop. He asked fora shave. The barbertold him to sit down, soaped his face and then left. The boy waited for 10

minutes and at last he lost his patience. Well, he shouted, what are youleaving me here for all this time? The barber replied, Im waiting for yourbeard to grow. (Li, 2002, p. 32)

In this story, it seems the little boy so eagerly wanted to show himself a grown-

up so that he could shave face in the Barbers, while the humorous barber didnt

refuse the boy directly, instead, he treated the little boy like other adult customers, got

him seated, plastered the soap, and then the barber left. The little boy was too

impatient to wait so long, yelling for why it took such a long time to serve him. The


14/23

12

humor springs up from the barbers answer. He said he was waiting for the boys

beard coming out. As is known, men are supposed to have beard after adolescence.

From the little boy, it will take many years to wear beard. Obviously, the barber told

untruthful words to the kid, and violated the second maxim of cooperative principle.

But for breaking the maxim of quality, the barber intended to tell the little boy that he

was still too young to shave. Accordingly, the humorous effect is produced for the

barbers words disobey the objectivity.

2.2.3The Maxim of Relation and Humor

The teller tries to be relevant, and says things that are pertinent to the

discussion. The participants purposed achieving the same intention. Once the

contravention of the relation maxim emerges in conversation, the conversation will be

directed towards crossroad or ceasing, moreover it may fetches the humor. Lets

illustrate the following examples.

Chemistry teacher : What is water?

Dirty-looking boy : A colorless liquid that turns black as soon as I put my

hands in it.

(Li, 2002, p. 33)

Chemistry teacher asked a question what water was, and she expected the

students to explain the question from the molecular point of view. However, the

dirty-looking boy gave a plausible reply, A colorless liquid that turns black as soon


15/23

13

as I put my hands in it It seemed a reasonable answer in daily life, but it was an

unrelated answer to chemistry course; consequently it brings humor to the class.

2.2.4The Maxim of Manner and Humor

The maxim of manner is generally governs the way you choose to construct

your conversation contributions. The general idea is that you should speak as clearly

as possible, using language appropriate to your listener and the context. It also

prevents you from holding a filibuster and requires that you at least try to organize

what you say before you begin speaking. Supposing there is a conversation like the

following.

A very shy guy goes into a bar and sees a beautiful woman sitting at the bar.After an hour of gathering up his courage, he finally goes over to her and asks

tentatively, Um, would you mind if I chatted with you for a while? Tosurprise she responds by yelling, at the top of her lungs, No, I wont sleep with

you tonight!Everyone in the bar is now starting at them. Naturally, the guy ishopelessly and completely embarrassed and he slinks back to his table. After a

few minutes, the woman walks over to him and apologizes. She smiles at him

and says, Im sorry if I embarrassed you. You see, Im a graduate student inpsychology and Im studying how people respond to embarrassing situations.To amaze he responds, at the top of his lung, What do you mean $200?

(Yang, 2003, p. 11)

From the above example, it is apparently both the boy and the girl are persisting

in violating the maxim of manner. Based on the context, we dont know what really

happened between them. At first, the girl makes embarrassment to the boy. Then the

boy gives a return as well. Not only does he make himself out of embarrassment, but


16/23

14

also plays trick on the girl. The utterance is filled with illegible and unorganized

sentences, however, readers can tell the humor easily.


17/23

15

DATA EXAMPLES

No. Data ViolatedMaxim(s)

1.

Interviewer: Hello. Tonight on 'Face the Press' we're going to examine two

different views of contemporary things. On my left is theMinister for Home Affairs who is wearing a striking organza

dress in pink tulle, with matching pearls and a diamante collar

necklace. The shoes are in brushed pigskin with gold clasps, by

Maxwell of Bond Street. The hair is by Roger, and the wholeensemble is crowned by a spectacular display of Christmas

orchids. And on my right - putting the case against the

Government - is a small patch of brown liquid... which could

be creosote or some extract used in industrial varnishing. Goodevening.

Maxim of

Relevance

2.

Host: Good evening. Tonight 'Spectrum' looks at one of the major

problems in the world today - the whole vexed question of what

is going on. Is there still time to confront it, let alone solve it, or

is it too late? What are the figures, what are the facts, what dopeople mean when they talk about things? Alexander Hardacre

of the Economic Affairs Bureau.

Hardacre: In this graph, this column represents 23% of the population. Thiscolumn represents 28% of the population, and this column

represents 43% of the population.

Host: Telling figures indeed, but what do they mean to you, what do

they mean to me, what do they mean to the average man in thestreet? With me now is Professor Tiddles of Leeds University.

Host: Professor, you've spent many years researching into things, what

do you think?

Professor: I think it's too early to tell.

Host: 'Too early to tell' ... too early to say... it means the same thing.

The word 'say' is the same as the word 'tell'. They're not spelt the

same, but they mean the same. It's an identical situation, we havewith 'ship' and 'boat' (holds up signs saying 'ship' and 'boat') but

not the same as we have with 'bow' and 'bough' (holds up signs),

they're spelt differently, mean different things but sound thesame. (he holds up signs saying 'so there') But the real question

remains. What is the solution, if any, to this problem? What can

we do? What am I saying? Why am I sitting in this chair? Why

am I on this programme? And what am I going to say next? Hereto answer this is a professional cricketer.

Cricketer: I can say nothing at this point.

Host: Well, you were wrong. Professor?

Professor: Hello.

Maxim of

Quantity


18/23

16

Host: Hello. So, where do we stand? Where do we stand? Where do wesit? Where do we come? Where do we go? What do we do?

What do we say? What do we eat? What do we drink? What do

we think? What do we do?

3.

First Man: Er, excuse me, I want to get married.Registrar: I'm afraid I'm already married, sir.

First Man: Er, no, no. I just want to get married.Registrar: I could get a divorce, I suppose, but it'll be a bit of a wrench.

First Man: Er, no, no. That wouldn't be necessary because...

Registrar: You see, would you come to my place or should I have to

come to yours, because I've just got a big mortgage.

First Man: No, no, I want to get married here.

Registrar: Oh dear. I had my heart set on a church wedding.

First Man: Look, I just want you to marry me... to...

Registrar: I want to marry you too sir, but it's not as simple as that.You sure you want to get married?

First Man: Yes. I want to get married very quickly.

Registrar: Suits me, sir. Suits me.First Man: I don't want to marry you!

Registrar: There is such a thing as breach of promise, sir.

First Man: Look, I just want you to act as registrar and marry me.

Registrar: I will marry you sir, but please make up your mind. Pleasedon't trifle with my affections.

First Man: I'm sorry, but...

Registrar: That's all right, sir. I forgive you. Lovers' tiff. But you're not

the first person to ask me today. I've turned down severalpeople already.

First Man: Look, I'm already engaged.

Registrar: Yes, and I'm already married. Still we'll get round it.Second Man: Good morning. I want to get married.

Registrar: I'm afraid I'm already marrying this gentleman, sir.

Second Man: Well, can I get married after him?

Registrar: Well, divorce isn't as quick as that, sir. Still, if you're keen.

Third Man: I want to get married, please.

Registrar: Heavens, it's my lucky day, isn't it? All right, but you'll have

to wait until I've married these two, sir.

Third Man: What, those two getting married... Nigel What are you doingmarrying him?

Registrar: He's marrying me first, sir.

Third Man: He's engaged to me.Fourth Man: Come on, Henry.

Registrar: Blimey, the wife.

Second Man: Will you marry me?

Fourth Man: I'm already married.

Maxim of

Relevance

4.

Inspector Tiger: This house is surrounded. I'm afraid I must not askanyone to leave the room. No, I must ask nobody ... no,

I must ask everybody to... I must not ask anyone to

leave the room. No one must be asked by me to leave

the room. No, no one must ask the room to leave. I ... I... ask the room shall by someone be left. Not. Ask

Maxim of

manner


19/23

17

nobody the room somebody leave shall I. Shall I leavethe room? Everyone must leave the room... as it is...

with them in it. Phew. Understand?

Colonel Pickering: You don't want anybody to leave the room.

Inspector Tiger: Now, alduce me to introlow myslef. I'm sorry. Alself meto myduce introlow myslef. Introme -to-lose mlowalself. Alme to you introself mylowduce. Excuse me a

moment. (bangs himself on the side of the head) Allow

me to introduce myself. I'm afraid I must ask that noone leave the room. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm

Inspector Tiger.

All: Tiger?

Inspector Tiger: Where? Where? What? Ah. Me Tiger. You Jane. Grrr.

Beg your pardon, allow me to introduce myself I'mafraid I must ask that no one leave the room.

Lady Velloper: Why not?

Inspector Tiger: Elementary. Since the body was found in this room, and

no one has left it. Therefore ... the murderer must be

somebody in this room.

Colonel Pickering: What body?

Inspector Tiger: Somebody. In this room. Must the murderer be. Themurderer of the body is somebody in this room, whichnobody must leave... leave the body in the room not to

be left by anybody. Nobody leaves anybody or the body

with somebody. Everybody who is anybody shall leavethe body in the room body. Take the tablets Tiger.

Anybody (as he searches for the tablets) with a body but

not the body is nobody. Nobody leaves the body in the

... (he takes the tablet) Albody me introbodyalbodyduce.

5.

Interviewer: It's taken five years to prepare and it's bound to have an

enormous impact on the future of industrial relations inthis country. In the studio tonight Lord Porlman,

Chairman of the Committee, Sir Charles Avery,

Employers' Reorganization Council, and Ray

Millichope, leader of the Allied Technicians' Union.And they're going to make a human pyramid.

Maxim of

Relevance

6.

M:Is this the right room for an argument?

O:I've told you once.

M:No you haven't!

O:Yes I have.

M:When?

Maxim of

Quantity


20/23

18

O:Just now.

M:No you didn't!

O:Yes I did!

M:You didn't!

O:I did!

M:You didn't!

O:I'm telling you, I did!M:You did not!

O:Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

M:Ah! Just the five minutes.

O:Just the five minutes. Thank you.

O:Anyway, I did.

M:You most certainly did not!

O:Now let's get one thing quite clear: I most definitely told you!

M:Oh no you didn't!

O:Oh yes I did!

M:Oh no you didn't!

O:Oh yes I did!M:Oh no you didn't!

O:Oh yes I did!

M:Oh no you didn't!

O:Oh yes I did!

M:Oh no you didn't!

O:Oh yes I did!

M:Oh no you didn't!

O:Oh yes I did!

M:No you DIDN'T!

O:Oh yes I did!

M:No you DIDN'T!O:Oh yes I did!

M:No you DIDN'T!

O:Oh yes I did!

M:Oh look, this isn't an argument!

O:Yes it is!

M:No it isn't!

M:It's just contradiction!

O:No it isn't!

M:It IS!

O:It is NOT!

M:You just contradicted me!O:No I didn't!

M:You DID!

O:No no no!

M:You did just then!

O:Nonsense!

M:Oh, this is futile!!

O:No it isn't!

M:Yes it is!

M:I came here for a good argument!


21/23

19

O:AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

M:An argument isn't just contradiction.

O:Well! it CAN be!

M:No it can't!

M:An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a

proposition.

O:No it isn't!M:Yes it is! It isn't just contradiction.

O:Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position!

M:Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.

O:Yes it is!

M:No it isn't!

O:Yes it is!

M:No it isn't!

O:Yes it is!

M:No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the

automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

O:It is NOT!M:It is!

O:Not at all!

M:It is!

O:Thank you, that's it.

M:What?

O:That's it. Good morning.

M:But I was just getting interested!

O:I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.

M:That was never five minutes just now!!

O:I'm afraid it was.

M:No it wasn't.....O:I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

M:WHAT??

O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five

minutes.

M:But that was never five minutes just now! Oh Come on! Oh this is... This

is ridiculous!

O:I told you... I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!

M:Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.) There you are.

O:Thank you.

M:Well...

O:Well WHAT?M:That was never five minutes just now.

O:I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M:Well I just paid!

O:No you didn't!

M:I DID!!!

O:YOU didn't!

M:I DID!!!

O:YOU didn't!

M:I DID!!!

O:YOU didn't!


22/23

20

M:I DID!!!

O:YOU didn't!

M:I don't want to argue about it!

O:Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!

M:Ah hah! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah

HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!

O:No you haven't!M:Yes I have! If you're arguing, I must have paid.

O:Not necessarily. I *could* be arguing in my spare time.

M:I've had enough of this!

O:No you haven't.

M:Oh shut up!


23/23

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alwasilah, A. C. (2002).Pokoknya kualitatif: dasar-dasar merancang dan

melakukan penelitian kualitatif. Pustaka Jaya.

Attardo, S. (1993). Violation of conversational maxims and cooperation: The case ofjokes.Journal of Pragmatics, 19(6), 537558.

Attardo, S. (1994).Linguistic Theories of Humor. Walter de Gruyter.

Chapman, G., Idle, E., Gilliam, T., Jones, T., Cleese, J., & Palin, M. (1989). The

Complete Monty Pythons Flying Circus; All the Words Volume One. New

York: Pantheon.

Dong, L. (1992). The World of English Humor.Foreign Languanges Teaching andResearch Press.

Grice, P. (1991). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.

Li, L. (2002). A Pragmatic Principle and English Humor.Journal of Tianjin Foreign

Studies University,2, 3236.

Raskin, V. (2011). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Springer Netherlands.

Sevilla, C. G., Ochave, J. A., Punsalan, T., Regala, B. P., & Uriarte, G. G. (2007).Research Methods. Quezon City: Rex Bookstore, Inc.

Wu, Y.-W., & Chen, Y. (2010). Humor Strategies in the American Sitcom

Friends: An Empirical Study with Reference to Grices Cooperative

Principle.:, 5471.

Yang, D. (2003). Grice:The Inferences of Conversational Implications.ForeignLanguage and Teaching, 1, 1115.

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bayu-jaka-magistra
View:	234 times
Download:	0 times

Violation of Maxims in Monty Python's Flying Circus Comedy Series

Documents