A Pragmatic Analysis of Verbal Humor —Based on Face Theory and Politeness Principle.doc

A Pragmatic Analysis of Verbal HumorBased on Face Theory and Politeness PrincipleA ThesisSubmitted toCollege of Foreign LanguagesXingtan CollegeQufu Normal UniversityIn Partial Fulfillment of the RequirementsFor the Degree of Bachelor of Arts Under the Supervision of Zhu He ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper, which is my graduation thesis, couldnt have been written without the help of a number of people. I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness and gratitude to them all.My deepest gratitude goes first and foremost to my supervisor, Ms. Zhu He, for her constant encouragement and valuable guidance. She has walked me through all the stages of the writing of this thesis. Truly, without her painstaking efforts in reading and revising as well as polishing my drafts and her patient instruction, this thesis could never have reached its present form.Secondly, I am also indebted to all my teachers, from whose devoted teaching and excellent lectures I have benefited a lot and academically prepared for this thesis.Thirdly, I owe particular thanks to my friends and fellow classmates who have offered generous help and useful suggestions in the process of writing this thesis.Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to my beloved parents for their loving considerations and continuous support and encouragement. Without the help of those people, this paper could never have been duly completed.摘 要幽默是人类文明与社会发展的标志，在人际交往中的作用是独一无二的。它是一种人生智慧，也是一种润滑剂。国内外学者大多关注言语幽默的语义特征，语用方面的研究相对缺乏。而礼貌是维系人与人交往的工具和手段，是一种社会规约，相关研究成果颇为丰盛，Brown 和Levinson 的面子理论及Leech的礼貌原则在语用学领域较为突出。本文从老友记中随机选取语境来分析幽默产生的原因，重点探讨通过违反礼貌原则产生的幽默效果。这将有利于英语学习者更好地理解幽默，有利于激发其学习热情，有利于提高其跨文化交际能力。关键词：言语幽默；礼貌原则；面子理论；老友记ABSTRACTHumor is a symbol of human civilization and social development which holds a unique position in interpersonal communication. Its a kind of wisdom which functions as lubricating oil. Scholars both at home and abroad care more about semantic features of verbal humor, and pragmatic studies on it are comparatively scarce. Politeness is a rule as well as a means to maintaining interrelationship. Meanwhile, its a conventional rule. There are lots of studies among which Brown and Levinsons face theory and Leechs Politeness Principles are prominent in pragmatic field.Selecting cases in Friends in a random way, the paper discusses reasons of humor, and focuses on the humor effects produced by the violation of politeness. It will deepen English learners understanding of humor, stir up their enthusiasm for broader learning, and improve the ability in cross-cultural communication.Key words: verbal humor, Politeness Principle, face theory, Friends16CONTENTS0. Introduction11. Methodology12. Relevant studies on “face”22.1 The definition of “face”22.2 Face-threatening acts and politeness32.2.1 Theories of face in foreign countries32.2.2 Theories of face in China42.2.3 Summary53. Relevant studies on humor53.1 The definition of humor53.2 Studies of humor from western perspective63.2.1 Traditional theories63.2.2 Modern theories83.3 Studies of humor from Chinese perspective84. An analysis of verbal humor in Friends based on Politeness Principle94.1 Verbal humor and tact maxim94.2 Verbal humor and generosity maxim104.3 Verbal humor and approbation maxim114.4 Verbal humor and modesty maxim114.5 Verbal humor and agreement maxim124.6 Verbal humor and sympathy maxim135. Conclusion13Works Cited150. IntroductionAs a special form in verbal communication, humor has been studied in various fields both at home and abroad, mostly in linguistics, anthropology, sociology, etc., but very few in pragmatics.Politeness has a close relationship with face which acts as the “public self-image” (Brown and Levinson 61). And it always coexists with humor in interpersonal communications, manifesting ones intellect and demeanor. The violation of “Politeness Principle” (Leech1983) may probably threaten others face and interrupt the conversation while the abidance of it can keep the conversation going smoothly and harmoniously.Friends, one of the most popular American situation comedies, mainly talks about stories happening among six intimate friends, including Ross, Chandler, Joey, Monica, Richard, and Phoebe. It is a mirror of the real life. Undoubtedly, verbal humor in Friends is an important factor in gaining its success. Pragmatically, quantities of humorous lines in this situation comedy violate the basic rules in daily communication such as politeness principle. But humor effects created in this situation comedy seem hard for numbers of English learners because of the cultural differences. Questions like “What is humor?”, “Where does humor come from?” “How do pragmatic theories take effect in producing humor?” perplexed them. Thus this paper mainly explains verbal humor in Friends generated through violating Leechs politeness principles.1. MethodologyThis part presents the research question, subject and source of data.The present study attempts to address the question “How is verbal humor created by violating or abiding Leechs six politeness principles in specific case?” to help us to better comprehend the importance of verbal humor in communication to improve skills of using humor in maintaining face, and to know others characteristics.With the development of globalization and internationalization, more and more Chinese people, especially the young, have a growing enthusiasm for learning English. American situation comedies characterized by witty dialogues, marvelous designs, undulating plots receive a warm welcome. As successful carriers of verbal humor, cheerful and light-hearted dialogues in situation comedies offer a lot of materials for pragmatic study in verbal humor. Hence, the data are collected from the famous American situation comedy Friends whose plots are close to our real life. This paper selects dialogues concerning verbal humor as subject in a random way and make a careful analysis over how verbal humor comes by adopting politeness principles. Scripts are downloaded from the internet. 2. Relevant studies on “face” Face problem is ubiquitous around the world. Because of historical backgrounds and various values, the west and the east shape distinct face theories.2.1 The definition of “face”Politeness is a code of conduct in our daily life which carries moral or ethical meanings. It entails all kinds of efforts people make to maintain harmonious interrelationships. It is not only a symbol of human civilization but also a main principle in social life. “Face” is an important phenomenon of politeness. Though being familiar to us, it remains to be an arduous task for those scholars to define an exact meaning.American missionary Arthur H. Smith made the first discussion about “face” in the first chapter of his work and he found that “face” was a rather complicated thing for Chinese people since it contains more notions than we could describe or grasp (16). Lin Yutang who was deeply intoxicated in Chinese culture once made a vivid description and meticulous analysis about “face”, yet he admitted its abstractness and impalpability, being easy to cite an instance but hard to define. It is neither definable nor translatable (185). Lu Hsun, famous for his dedication to the research in Chinese national character, also eschewed the notion of it. Hence, the difficulty of this job is obvious. Finally, it is Hu Hsien Chin, a Chinese anthropologist, who gave the foremost definition to “face” and introduced it to the west in her 1944 work in American Anthropologist, followed by many other researchers, Jin Yaoji, He Youhui, Zhai Xuewei, to name a few.Hu studies “face” and “lian” from the perspective of semantic analysis. After collecting and analyzing 25 phrases about “face” and “lian”, she terms “lian” as “societys belief in personal moral integrity”, “face” as “the prestige earned from his social accomplishments and the recognition of his visible accomplishments from the society” (Hu 63). The sociologist Goffman proposes that “face is a positive social value, and a reflection of self” (215). In 1987, English anthropologists Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson defined it as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself (61). To summarize, the definition is various due to the disparities between underlying cultures, personal values, or beliefs. Yet, it reflects the immaturity and dispersedness in this field. It could avoid duplication and be systematic if they work jointly.2.2 Face-threatening acts and politenessScholars both home and abroad have their own understandings on the notions of face. A lot of famous western scholars such as Leech, Brown and Levinson, Ron Scollon and Suzanne Wong Scollon, Stella Ting-Toomy have made penetrating studies on face. Extensive discussions about face and politeness have also been made in China by He Ziran, Gu Yueguo, Xu Shenghuan, etc. Their contributions are also far-reaching to cross-cultural communications.2.2.1 Theories of face in foreign countriesSo far, lots of academic researches have been made in this sphere.In 1978, Brown and Levinson published an article titled “Universal in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena”, and made a first systematic probe into politeness and face problem. They claim that politeness is a rationality adopted by “model person” (67). From their viewpoint, face has both positive and negative sides. It consists of two folds, i.e., negative face and positive face ”. Negative one refers to the expectation of freedom, that is to say they dont like coercion and interference; positive one means wishing to be recognized, loved and admired by others (62). Also, English linguist Leechs Politeness Principle based on Grices cooperative principle is famous in which another persons face is far more crucial in the process of interacting. His theory includes six detailed principles: (1) Tact Maxim: minimize unfavorable factors to others and maximize their benefit; (2) Generosity Maxim: minimize benefit to self and maximize unfavorable factors to self; (3) Approbation Maxim: minimize dispraise of others and maximize praise of others; (4) Modest Maxim: minimize praise of self and maximize dispraise of self; (5) Agreement Maxim: minimize dissent between self and others and maximize agreement between two; and (6) Sympathy Maxim: minimize abhorrence between self and others, and maximize sympathy between two (Xu Shenghuan 1-2). It therefore can be said that Leechs politeness is centering on one thing, i.e. try to benefit others and make self unfavorable. The first four principles are complementary while the last two are partial to approval and sympathy. Politeness is often used to others instead of self. However, it is not applicable in most sides of Chinese cultures because of its obvious drawback. To be specific, Leech does not pay enough attention to cultural differences. Its evident that the absolute freedom is welcomed in the West. For this reason negative face plays a central role in western cultures. Studying cross-cultures with western theories alone does not always suit. Therefore, we should mitigate face-threatening acts by using various politeness strategies according to different cultural characteristics.2.2.2 Theories of face in ChinaAs the core of politeness theory, face and politeness connect with each other closely. Gu Yueguo, a leading exponent, claims that there are almost no similarities between Brown and Levinsons negative face and “mianzi” in Chinese (1077). And politeness in modern times contains four principles. They are “respect, modesty, attitudinal, warmth and refinement”. He also brings forth principles about form of address, refinement, seeking common ground and moral conduct which are suitable in modern Chinese. Xu Shenghuan revises Leechs politeness theory. He thinks that the application of polite words is related to three aspects of speech acts in communication. They are self, the other party and the third party. He puts forth a tentative idea about politeness, i.e. pay attention to self, show respect for the other party and take the third party into consideration; polite words function as a lever adjusting all relations in the process of communication among which attending to status is very important ( Xu Shenghuan1-7). 2.2.3 SummaryVarious values and traits are formed due to the impact of social, historical and geographic factors in the development of Chinese and western cultures, thus different theories come into being. 3. Relevant studies on humorHumor is an interdisciplinary subject. Its rather difficult for scholars to reach an agreed concept of humor. Up till now, people have been investigated in philosophy, psychology, sociology, linguistics, literature, medical science, anthropology, etc.3.1 The definition of humorCited from Oxford advanced Learners English-Chinese Dictionary, the English term “humor ,stemming from the Latin word “liquid” or “moisture”, was then seen as one of the four liquids (blood, phlegm, choler and melancholy) in the body affecting a persons mental and physical qualities. Aristotle once named it as a funny thing that is twisted but not painful (Attardo 1994: 19-20). His theory then became the paradigm of the later studies. Modern theories of humor do not prosper until Ben Jonsons work in connecting the traditional meaning with Platos funniness in philosophy and Aristotles comedy in poetry. As time flies, it gradually lost its original meaning and came into its present sense. In the Web site ., humor is defined as “the sound of silence”, “something funny, laugh with lots of humor, funny makes people laugh, otherwise humor makes people think more.” This is well accepted among people. A Chinese writer once described humor as “a kind of taste of sour, sweet, bitter, spicy, and salty”. Some other people define it as “an English product, the technique of art, or he inborn quality”. Ideas seem like kaleidoscope.Acting as the lubricating oil in interpersonal communication, humor, especially verbal humor, can reduce embarrassment, or create lightly air, or save face, or help to build harmonious relationship. People can experience its true meaning in specific situation.3.2 Studies of humor from western perspectiveThis part presents three traditional theories followed by contemporary new ones.3.2.1 Traditional theoriesGenerally, there are three traditional theories of humor in the West: superiority/disparagement, relief/release, and incongruity.Firstly, on view of social acts, superiority theory originates from classical rhetorical theories in ancient Greece and Rome mainly including those based on grudge, hostility, mockeries, attack, despise, superiority complex. Aristotle regarded humor as the parodies of the inferior. According to English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, humor means the manifestation of a sudden realization of superiority. He thinks that men are always in competition and always seeking others disadvantages. So he regards laughter as the sign of superiority upon others. But his idea receives an avalanche of attack due to his narrow extend of explanation and overlook of incongruity. Charles R. Gruner (197) reinterpreted and developed Freuds theory. It consists of three parts: each humorous situation must have a winner and a loser; incongruity always occur in humorous circumstances; and “suddenly” is a must in humor.Despite some discrepancies, superiority theories have something in common, i.e. they show off the sense of superiority by despising other people or other subjects, or by gloating over others misfortune.Secondly, release theory discusses humor from the perspective of psychoanalysis. As the representative of release theories, Freud (1976) holds that humor can help to release human bodys inner nervousness and “psychic energy”. He also classifies humor (wit) into “tendency wit” and “harmless wit”. “Tendency wit” contains something offensive or sexual, thus can induce guffaw or a horse laugh while “harmless wit” only leads to smile or smirk. Furthermore, Freud limits “humor” on the basis of conscious super-ego to differentiate “harmless wit” which is established on the unconsciousness (1967). His theory neither concerns with what is humor, nor gives a better explanation to why we would think humor amusing, so it can be seen as a theory about laughter. However, Freuds influence is far-reaching. Thirdly, incongruity theory is a theory playing a leading role in contemporary era, studied in the eye of cognition. In this theory, people will try to find the reason if incongruity emerges between reality and hope, and reach agreement cognitively. Thus, humor arises. Incongruity theory which plays a dominant role in the present age is the most profound over studies on humor and laughter and is the most well welcomed (Raskin 32-33, Berger 3). Later, Kant and Schopenhauer shape their own opinion about it.Regarded as the first person to give a full notion to humor from the viewpoint of “incongruity”, Kant declares that humor appears from “the sudden change from expectation to coming to nothing” (Attardo 1997: 396). When defining laughter, Schopenhauer clearly mentions that “in each instance, the reason for a person to laugh is merely a sudden feeling of the incongruity between one notion and its reference” (Attardo 1997: 397). These three theories are concerned with different aspects of humor: superiority explains humor by ridicule; release theory explains why humor can help t