从合作原则角度分析《生活大爆炸》中的对话幽默英语论文

Chapter1.Introduction1.1CooperativePrincipleCooperativePrinciple(CP)wasproposedbyanOxfordphilosopherHerbertPaulGrice.Itfirstbecameknowntothepublicin1967throughtheWilliamJameslecturesGricedeliveredatHarvard.PartofthetheorywaspublishedinhisLogicandConversationin1975.“Inaconversation,aspeakerandaheareraresupposedtorespondtoeachotherintheirturnandexchangewithneededinformationthatbenefitsbothofthem”(CrowleyandMitchell,1994:140).Onlythroughthiscantheparticipantscreateasuccessfulandsmoothconversation.AccordingtoGrice(Grice,1975),toachievesucheffect,peoplearesupposedtofollowacertainsetofprinciples,thatis,theCooperativePrinciple.Theseprinciplesarewhatparticipantsshouldfollowinordertoachieveasatisfactoryandefficientconversation.However,Gricefoundthatinmanycases,peoplefailtofulfilltheminvariouswaysthoughtheystillwanttocreateasuccessfulcommunication.Byviolatingthem,peoplecanexpresstheirdeepmeaningsoruseitasastrategytocommunicate.Griceusedaterm“implicature”torefertosuchkindofdeepmeaning.Generallyspeaking,ifwestudyitfurther,wecanfindoutthatalotoflaughterandhumorcanbecreatedandunderstoodthroughunderstandingtheimplicature.TheCPisstatedasfollows:“Makeyouconversationalcontributionsuchasrequiredatthestageatwhichitoccurs,bytheacceptedpurposeordirectionofthetalkexchangeinwhichyouareengaged”(Grice,1975:45).TospecifytheCPfurther,Griceintroducedfourcategoriesofmaximsasfollows:Quality:Trytomakeyourcontributiononethatistrue.Donotsaywhatyoubelievetobefalse.Donotsaywhatforwhichyoulackadequateevidence.Quantity:Makeyourcontributionasinformativeasisrequired(forthecurrentpurposeofexchange).Donotmakeyourcontributionmoreinformativethanisrequired.Relation:Berelevant.Manner:Beperspicuous.Avoidobscurityofexpression.Avoidambiguity.Bebrief(avoidunnecessaryprolixity).Beorderly(Grice45-46).PeopleobservetheCooperativePrincipleconsciouslyorevenunconsciouslywhencommunicatingwithothers.HuZhuanglinhaspointedthattheCPismeanttodescribewhatactuallyhappensinconversationinsteadoftellingthespeakershowtheyoughttobehave,thoughitisdescribedintheimperative(Hu,2006:192).Thatistosay,peopleusuallydisobeythesemaximshereandthereduetovariouspurposesandsuchconditioniscalledviolation.Throughviolation,someunexpectedandintentionalpurposeswillappear.Suchdeepermeaningintheconversationistheimplicationthatthehearerhastothinkabout,“Gricecoinedthetermimplicature”(Hu,2006:191).AccordingtoGrice’stheory,ifthespeakerviolatestheCP,itdoesn’tmeanthathe/shedoesn’twanttocooperatewithhis/herpartner;instead,itindicatesthathe/shewantstohaveabettercommunicationwiththehearer.Throughimplicature,thespeakermayexpresshis/herdeepmeaningbetter.Thatistosay,implicatureisveryimportantinourcommunicationsinceitcanhelpusunderstandeachotherbetter.1.2HumorIntroductionPeopleofallagesandculturesrespondtohumor.Themajorityofpeopleareabletoexperiencehumor,i.e.,tobeamused,tolaughorsmileatsomethingfunny,andthustheyareconsideredtohaveasenseofhumor.Humoriseverywhereinourdailylife.Asalanguagephenomenon,humorplaysanimportantroleinoursocietysinceitcannotonlyimproveourpersonalrelationship,butalsodisplayourwitandglamour.1.2.1DefinitionofHumorAlthoughhumorhasbeenstudiedbydifferentscholarsfromdifferentanglesforthousandsofyears,therearestillquitealotofcontroversiesaboutwhathumoris.GoldsteinandMcGheedonotevenattempttodefinehumor“forthesimplereasonthatthereisnosingledefinitiontaskitappears,afeasibledefinitionofthehumoracceptabletoallinvestigationinthearea”(Apte,1985:13).Thoughatoughtaskitappears,afeasibledefinitionofthekeyterm”humor’hastobepresentedsinceitistheverysubjectmatterinthisthesis.Theterm”humor“originatesfromtheLatinword”liquid”,”fluid”,or“moisture”.Ancientphysiologiststendtoconsiderman’stemperatureasthebalanceoffourkindsofhumor,namelycholer,melancholy,bloodandphlegm.InPlatoandAristotle’sviews,laughterwasregardedasthepropercorrectionoftheexcessive,theridiculousandtheludicrous.Thosewhopossesstheexcessofanyhumorarecalled“humorists”,i.e.objectsoflaughter.Gradually,thefourkindsofhumorsarerespectivelyrelatedtopersonalityoffourkinds.Andtherefore,humorcomestomeancharacterorstyle,specifically,afancifulstateofmind.Inmodernusage,humormeansthecomic,thelaughable,orthatwhichisfunny,witty,orinanywaymakespeoplelaugh.Inthisperiod,thetitleof“humorist”comestosignifythosewhoareamusingandskilledintheliteraryorartisticexpressionofhumor.AccordingtoWebster’sCollegiateDictionary(11thEdition),partofthedefinitionofhumorisasfollows:Thatqualitywhichappealstoasenseoftheludicrousorabsurdlyincongruous.Thementalfacultyofdiscovering,expressing,orappreciatingtheludicrousorabsurdlyincongruous.Somethingthatisorisdesignedtobecomicalamusing.Takingacloserlookattheabovethreedefinitions,itcanbeobviouslyfoundthattheyemphasizesomethingdifferent:(a)defineshumorassomethingthatissomeone’sattribute;(b)equateshumorasahumancognitivefacultywhichfunctionsintheperceptionofhumor;(c)referstothething,ideaoreventthatisofhumor.Similarly,manyotherscholarstendtoemphasizedifferentaspectsofhumordependingontheirdifferentresearchpurposesandorientations.Amongthemanydefinitions,theverytwoonesinageneralsensebytwofamoushumorscholarsareworthtobequotedhere.OnescholarisAttardo(1994),whodefineshumorasatechnicalterm,coveringanythingthatis(ormaybe)perceivedasfunny,amusing,orlaughable.AnotheroneisRaskin(1985),who,intheleastrestrictedsense,proposestoconsider”humor“asaninterchangeablewordwith“funny”.Asfarasthisthesisisconcerned,itsufficestoadoptageneraldefinitionofhumor,takingitasall-inclusiveterm.Orputitinanotherway,humorinthisthesiscoversthetypesofstimulationwhichareperceivedasfunnyandwhichcanelicitlaughter,orwhichatleastintendstodoso.1.2.2ClassificationsofHumorsInvolvingclassificationofhumor,scholarshavetriedtofindauniformmethodofclassification;thecriteriafortheclassificationarevariedinaccordancewithdifferentcriteria.Forexample,humorcanbedividedintoverbalhumorandnon-verbalhumoraccordingtotherelationshiptolanguage;humorcanbegroupedintointentionalhumorandunintentionalhumoraccordingtospeaker’sintention;humorfallsintoactivehumorandpassivehumoraccordingtothereceiver’sexpectedmentalstate.Onthebasisofsemanticcontent,humorcanbecategorizedintopoliticaljoke,sex,religiousjoke,Jewishjoke,etc.Americanscholarswhojoinrhetoricandfunctionsofhumortogetherdividethehumorintojoke,satire,wit,irony,comedy,wise-crack,farce,pun,etc.Situationcomedyisfamousforitshumorswhichexistindiversifiedforms,andthetwomaintypesofhumorareverbalhumorandnon-verbalhumor.Thispaperonlyfocusesontheverbalhumorinthatmostorthehumorsinsituationcomedyexistintheformofverbalhumor.Verbalhumorisalsoknownaslanguagehumor,whichthehumoreffectisproducedthroughthemediumofhumanlanguage,includinghumorexpressedinlanguageandhumorcreatedbyusinghumanlanguage,thatistosaythehumorouseffectcomesintobeingwiththehelpofwordplaymakinghearerslaugh.Fromthenameofnon-verbalhumor,itcanbeeasilyseenthatsuchhumorouseffectisnotgeneratedthroughhumanlanguage,sonon-verbalhumorisalsonamedsituationalhumor.Theamusementofnon-verbalhumordependsonacertainsituationorcontextandtheunderstandingofthehumorousmeaningmustdependonthecontexttoacertaindegree.1.3SignificanceofPresentResearchThisstudyisofparticularsignificancefromboththeoreticalandpracticalangles.Theoretically,thisstudyofhumorfunctionsasaspecificapplicationofpragmatics.Pragmatics,arathernewfieldinlinguistics,studieshowhumaninterpretlanguageanduseitinrealcommunication.Itismainlyconcernedwithsuchtopicsasdeixis,conversationalimplicature,presupposition,speechactsandrelevancetheory,etc.Throughanalysis,abetterunderstandingofhowthehumorouseffectsarerealizedwillbeattained.Assuch,acomprehensiveknowledgeastohowtocreatehumorandhowtoappreciatehumoriscrated.Practically,theexplorationofEnglishhumoranditsimplicationcanhelpChineseviewersbetterunderstandforeignsituationalcomedies.Nowadaysinchina,alotofcollegestudentsbegintogetinterestedinhotforeignTVprograms.Knowingthetechniquesofmakinghumorouseffectwillhelptograsptheessenceofdialoguesinthesituationalcomedy.Inaword,nomatterwhetheritisseenfromthetheoreticalangelorthepracticalone,itcanbeseenthatthestudyonhumorfromthepragmaticperspectiveisquiteimportantandnecessary.Chapter2LiteratureReview2.1LinguisticApproachesonVerbalHumorStudyAbroadHumorresearchhasalongandglorioushistory.However,linguisticsheldanassuredpositioninthelate1970samongthecentralplayerofhumorresearch,whichwastraditionallypsychology,sociology,andphilosophy(Attardo,1997:395).Linguisticstudyonhumorisconcerningwithlinguisticdevicessuchasexaggeration,ambiguity,punetcisverycommon.PepicelloinhisworkTheLanguageofRiddles(1984)pointedoutthathumorhadacloserelationshipwithambiguity,andhumordependedontheindecipherableambiguityuntilthepunchlineresolveditinanunexpectedway.Raskin’stheSemanticScriptTheoryofHumor(SSTHforshort)(1985)isthesemantictheoryonverbalhumorfromthepointofcognitivelinguistics.TheaimoftheSSHTis,“ideally,alinguistictheoryofhumorshoulddetermineandformulatethenecessaryandsufficientlinguisticconditionsforthetexttobefunny”(Raskin,1985:47).Atextcanbecharacterizedasasingle-joke-carryingtextifbothoftheconditionaresatisfied:”thetextiscompatible,fullyorinpart,withtwodifferentscriptsand,thetwoscriptswithwhichthetextiscompatibleareopposite”(Raskin,1985:81).Herethescriptreferstoalargechunkofsemanticinformationsurroundingthewordorevokedbyit.Thereforethe“script”herecontainsmoremeaningsthanthelexicalmeaningsofferedbythedictionary.Theoppositionofthescriptisthemostimportantelementtoinfluenceajoke.AttardoandRaskincooperatewitheachotherandsetupanewtheorynamedthe“GeneralTheoryofVerbalHumor”(GTVHforshort),whichisarevisionofRaskin’sSSHT.AsAttardoputsforward:”whereastheSSHTwasasemantictheoryofhumor,theGTVHisalinguistictheoryforitincludesotherareasoflinguisticsaswell,including,mostnotably,textuallinguistics,thetheoryofnarrativity,andpragmatics”(Attardo,1994:222).Comparativelyspeaking,theGTVHcontainsmorelinguisticsknowledgethantheSSHT.Raskin’sSemanticScriptTheoryofHumoranditsfurtherdevelopedversionGeneralTheoryofVerbalhumorarethetwomostinfluentialtheoriesonhumorstudyfromtheperspectiveoflinguistics.Coulsonistheinitiatorwhoemploysconceptualblendingtheorytostudyhumor.Inhispaper”what’ssofunny?Conceptualintegrationinhumorousexamples”(2002),hepaidmuchattentiontothehumorousexamplesfrompoliticalcartoons,andaimedtoexploretheroleofConceptualintegrationintheseexamples.Hefocusedontheculturalconceptsinvolvedintheseexamples,andexaminedhowconceptualblendingworks.ThereisaspecialtopiconhumorstudyfromthecognitivelinguisticwayontheeighthInternationalCognitiveLinguisticsAssociationconferencein2003.G.Rithchie’stheLinguisticAnalysisofJoke(2004)andAlanPartington’stheLinguisticofLaughter(2006)arethemasterpiecesofhumorstudyinthisfield.G.Rithchietakesonesubclassofjoke-pun-asexample,aimstodiscovertheinnergenerationmechanismofjokes.Partington’sworkexaminesthephenomenonof“laughter-talk”withtheassistanceoflanguagecorpora.Theauthortriestoinvestigate“whatspeakerstrytoachievebyengaginginlaughter-talkandwhatbothspeakersandhearersmatbesignalingwhenthenproducelaughter”(Partington,2006:1)2.2LinguisticApproachesonVerbalHumorStudyatHomeItwasLinYutang,agreatwriter,whointroducedtheword“humor”foritscurrentmeaningin1923.Sohumorstudyathomeisrelativelynew,andscholarsbegantostudylanguagehumorfromlinguisticaspectsin1980s.Fromthattimeon,theoriesonhumortakeonanewlook,andthestudiesonhumorsgofurther.Aroundthe1990s,humorstudiesconcentratedonrhetoric.Hu’sLinguisticsofHumor(1987)andTan’sHumorandLanguageHumor(1997)aretherepresentatives;bothoftheworksareanalyzinghumorfromtheviewpointofrhetoric.Theytakehumorasakindofrhetoric,andpayalotattentiontotherhetoricalstructuresandtechniquesofhumor;however,theyoverlooktheinternalmechanism,causationandprocessofhumor.Manyscholarspayattentiontohowthehumorcomesintobeing.Yuan(2002)studieshowthehumoreffortsareproducedfromtheperspectiveoflanguagedeviation.Herpaper,thehumorouseffectoflanguagedeviation,showstheeffortsareproducedfromtheperspectiveoflanguagedeviation.Herpaper,theHumorousEffectofLanguageDeviation,showstheformationoflanguagedeviationanditshumorouseffectbytakingdifferentdeviationsandthehumorouseffectasexamples,suchvocabularydeviationandhumorouseffect,grammardeviationandhumorouseffect,semanticdeviationandhumorouseffect,etc.Zhang(1993)andCai(2001)dothatresearchonhumorfromtheambiguityandmisunderstandingrespectively.Studyonhumorfrompragmaticsispopularrecently.Duan(2002)appliesconversationalmaxims,Politenessprinciple,Deixis,andPragmaticVaguenesstostudythehumorinChinese.Wu(2005)wroteapapernamedTheCooperativePrincipleandHumorinSit-coms.SheusedCooperativePrincipletoshowthathowthehumorouseffectwasachievedduetotheviolationofacertainmaximoftheCooperativePrinciple.Comparedwithhumorstudyabroad,thehumorstudyathomeisnotsufficientenoughwhetherinscopeorindepth.Notsomuchinterestisinvestedinthisfield;articlesonhumorpublishedonthejournalsandworksonhumorstudyarerare,somoreemphasisshouldbeputonhumorresearch.chapter3.ViolationofCPonHumorintheBigBangTheoryTheBigBangTheoryisverypopularintheUSA.Ittellsabouteightyoungpeople,withdifferentbackgrounds,livingtogetherandcreatingmanyhumorousstoriesintheirdailylife.ThispaperwillfocusonitsdialoguesasmaterialtoanalyzethehumorthatiscreatedbyviolatingtheCP.Gricefurtherdistinguishedliteralmeaningfromspeaker’sintention.Hearingtheutterance,thehearerfirstworksoutitsliteralmeaningandthenassumesthatthespeakerisobservingtheCP.Butsometimes,theutterancedoesn’tfitthecontext.Thatistosay,thehearermusttrytoworkoutthepossibleimplicaturescorrespondingtothespeaker’sintention.“Theclashbetweentheinitialliteraryinterpretationandtheimplicatureservestogeneratehumor.Therefore,thehumorproductionischaracterizedasanintentionalandregularviolationofGrice’smaxims,especiallythemaximofqualityandrelevance”.(Attardo,1985:541).Next,wewillusethedialoguesintheBigBangTheoryasexamplestoillustratethehumorouseffectcreatedbyviolatingtheCP.3.1HumorcreatedbyviolatingthemaximofQuantityAnefficientspeakershouldknowwhenandwheretostoptalkingandnottooverdoit.Moreinformationwillenhancecomprehension,buttoomuchwillleadtojusttheopposite.Theresultwillbealsounacceptableifpeopledonotgiveenoughinformation.Theguidelinestodistinguishwhetherthismaximisviolatedinclude:“ifthespeakerdoescircumlocutionornottothepoint;ifthespeakerisuninformative;ifthespeakertalkstooshort;ifthespeakertalkstoomuch;ifthespeakerrepeatscertainwords”(Grice,1975:47).However,ifthespeakerviolatesthismaximdeliberately,he/shegeneratessomehumorouseffect.Thenwewillanalyzeitmainlybymeansofsomerhetoricaldevicessuchasrepetitionandellipsis.3.1.1“Repetitionisapowerfulrhetoricaldevicewhichcreatesgoodrhythmandparallelismtomakethelanguagemusical,emphatic,attractiveandmemorable”(Zhang,2005:116).Astothesitcom,thecharactersusuallyrepeatsomewordsorsentencesapparentlymanytimes.He/sheviolatesthemaximofQuantityforhe/shegivesmoreinformationthanwhatisneeded.However,bydoingso,itcancreatehumorouseffect.Thefollowingaresomeexamples:1.SHELDON:Newneighbor?LEONARD:EvidentlySHELDON:Significantimprovementovertheoldneighbor.LEONARD:200-poundtransvestitewithaskincondition?Yes,sheis.PENNY:Oh,hi!LEONARD:hi!SHELDON:hi!LEONARD:hi!SHELDON:hi!Here,thisisthefirsttimeSheldonandLeonardmeetPenny.Asweallknow,Pennyisaverynicegirlwhoisalwaysonsexydress.However,SheldonandLeonardareyoungscientistswhosetopicsarealwaysconcentratedonscientificstudiesandappeartobealittledumb.Whentheymeetthisattractivegirlandknowsheisgoingtobetheirneighbor,theybecomenervous,embarrassedandexcited.Sotheyrepeattheword“hi”manytimesjusttodelaythetimeandtrytofigureoutwhattosay.Anyway,asinnormalconversation,wedon’tneedotherstosaythesamethingmorethanonetime.Apparently,hereSheldonandLeonardviolatethemaximofQuantity.Butsuchsentencesmakethetwoguyslovelierandsuchstammermakestheaudiencesburstintolaughing.2.SHELDON:ThereissomethingIneedtotellyou.LEONARD:OKSHELDON:Ican’ttellyou.LEONARD:WhySHELDON:Ican’ttellyouwhyIcan’ttellyou.SoIguesstherearetwothingsIcan’ttellyou.HereSheldonwantstotellLeonardthesecretthatLeonard’sgirlfriendwantstobreakupwithhimbutSheldonhaspromisedtohisowngirlfriendtokeepthesecret.Onesideishisgirlfriend,theothersideishisbestfriend,soherepeatsthesentence”Ican’ttellyou”tothinkwhetherheshouldtellSheldonthetruth.IftheaudiencesrealizethatLeonard’sgirlfrienddon’twanttobreakupwithhimandSheldonmakestoomuchfuss,he/shewillunderstandtheemotionintheutteranceandsmileforthepoorguy’sbehavior.Asaresult,akindofhumorariseshere.3.1.2Ellipsismeanstheactof“leavingoutawordorwordsfromasentencedeliberately,whenthemeaningcanbeunderstoodwithoutthem”(“Ellipsis”).Throughthis,peoplecanrealizetheimpliedmeaningandcangetmoreinformationthoughitdeliberatelyviolatesthemaximofQuantityforitlackstheneededinformation.Thefollowingaresomeexamples:1.SHELDON:You,really?Youcanassessthequalityofmywork?OK,um,here.PENNY:“Aproofthatalgebraictopologycanneverhaveanon-selfcontradictorysetofapheliongroups“.Iamjustablondemonkeytoyou,aren’tI?Here,apparently,Sheldonwantssomeonewitharudimentaryunderstandingofsciencetohelphimcombthroughhisnotes.PennyisinterestedinthesenotesandvolunteerstohelpSheldon.However,PennyisjustawaitressandSheldondon’tbelieveshehasgottheabilitytosortoutthesenotes.HerejectsPennyindirectlybymakeherreadanarticle.Afterreadingsomelines,Pennyfindsthatshecannotunderstandtheseterms.Sheldonisstaringatherwithastrangeexpressionandomittingtheinformationlike”look,youarenotcompetent”.Shestopsutteranceandknowshowtheylookather.SothehumorouseffectisgeneratedbyviolatingthemaximofQuantity.What’smore,afterlaughing,wemayrealizethattherewillappearanewroleinthesitcomtobeSheldon’sassistant,whicharisesourcuriosity.2.LEONARD:Sheseemsnice.RAJ:Hey,you’vealreadygotagirlfriend.Icalldibs.LEONARD:AllIsaidwas”Sheseemsnice.”RAJ:Yeah,well.Iloveher.Inthisscene,LeonardandRajmeetSheldon’snewassistantAlex.TheyareshockedbythebeautyofAlex.WhenAlexleaves,LeonardsaystoSheldonthathisnewassistantisanicegirl.Raj,originallyfromNewDelhi,India,isveryshyaroundwomenandisphysically\o"Selectivemutism"unabletotalktothem.HearingLeonard’swords,RajthinksLeonardwillpursueAlexbyinterpretatinghisutteranceas”sheisnice,andIwanthertobemygirlfriend”.SohewarnsSheldonthatdonottrytochaseAlexandpretendstobemoreinterestedinthisgirlthanLeonard.Actually,LeonardfeelsgoodaboutAlexalthoughheexplainstoRaj.ThelaterstoryprovesthatthereisavaguerelationshipbetweenLeonardandAlex.Afterdrawingtheinference,thehumorouseffectisgeneratedbyviolatingellipsis.3.1.3UseofroundaboutsRoundaboutsentencesrefertotheutterancesthatarenotdoneorsaidusingtheshortest,simplest,ormostdirectwaypossible.ZhangYanhaspointedthatinsuchcases,speakersdeliberatelyavoidthethemeofthetopicandchoosetosaysomethinginaroundaboutwaysoastoconveysomethingimpliedortoexpresssomethingindirectly,whichcancreatearidiculousandhumorouseffect(Zhang,2002:18).Insuchkindofconversation,thespeakertendstosupplyinadequateinformationattheverybeginning,soitisaviolationofthemaximofQuantity.Considerthefollowingdialogue:Bernadette:Whataboutyou,Penny?Penny:whataboutmewhat?Bernadette:DoyouthinkyouandLeonardmightevergetmarried？Penny:oh,well,heissweetie.Amy:Youarenotansweringthequestion.Doyoulovehim?Penny:Yeah,sure,ofcourse,Ilovehim.Bernadette:Itdoesn’tsoundlikethat.Penny:well,Ido.Bernadette:Doyoutellhimthat?Penny:He’djusttakeitthewrongway.Bernadette:Whatdoesthatmean?Penny:Imeanheisspecialandsmartandnice.Thebackgroundisthethreegirlsaretalkingabouttheirboyfriendsandtheirfuturemarriage.AlthoughPennyloveshisboyfriendLeonard,butsheneverthinktomarryhim.TheothertwogirlsfeelunbelievableofPenny’sreflectionandkeepaskinghertruefeeling.Pennyavoidsansweringitdirectlybutchoosesherowntopicanddelaystogivetherequiredinformation.SosherisksviolatingthemaximofQuantityjusttoburyherrealthinking.Definitely,hertactfulandinnocentroundaboutwaymakestheaudiencelaughimmediately.3.2HumorcreatedbyviolatingthemaximofQualityInourdailyconversation,speakersobservethismaximforasuccessfulcommunication.“Intheformalcircumstances,ifweviolatethismaxim,wewilllosesomecredibility.However,undersomelessseriouscircumstances,violatingsuchmaximmayleadtoamusementandhumor.Thecriteriaofsuchviolationare:“ifthespeakerliesorsayssomethingthatisbelievedtobefalse;ifthespeakerdoesironyormakesironicandsarcasticstatement;ifthespeakerdeniessomething;ifthespeakerdistortsinformation”(Grice,1975:47).Suchviolationmakestheaudiencelaughandleadsthemtoinfertheconversationalimplicatureinthedeeplevel.3.2.1ThisrhetoricaldeviceistheuppermostfigureofspeechappliedintheBigBangTheory.Ironyis“afigureofspeechinwhichtheintendedmeaningofthewordsusedisdirectlyoppositetotheirusualsense”(Zhang,2005:216).Soinanirony,therelationshipbetweentheexplicitutterancesandtheintentionalmeaningsisopposite.Thus,thespeakerviolatesthemaximofQuality—Donotsaywhatyoubelievetobefalse.Inthefollowing,wewilldiscusssomeinterestingexamples.1.PENNY:Oh,guys.Sohowwaspaintball?Didyouhavefun?SHELDON:Sure,ifyouconsiderbeingfraggedbyyourowntroopsfun.Inthisscene,thefourguysloseapaintballgame.Theyfeeldepressedandshameful.SheldonsaidthemainreasonwhytheyfailthegameisthatsomepeopleintheirgroupdonotfollowthechainofcommandandWolowitsshoothiminthebackduringthegame.WhentheymeetPenny,Sheldonexpressesakindofsadnesswiththeoppositewords.Apparently,Sheldon’sutteranceisanironyandisabsolutelyoppositetotherealitywhichisaviolationofthemaximofQuality.Fromthis,theaudiencecanreallyfeelthefourguys’sadnessandwillburstintolaughforhishumorousutterancewhichisreallybeyondexpectation.2.PENNY:hi,guys.Ineedsomeguineapigs.SHELDON:Ok,thereisalabanimalsupplycompanyinResedayoucouldtry.Butifyourresearchisgoingtohavehumanapplications,mayIjustsuggestwhitemiceinstead?Theirbrainchemistryisfarclosertoours.PENNY:Isweartogod,Sheldon,oneday,I’mgoingtogetthehangoftalkingtoyou.Actually,Sheldonusestoomuchtechnicaltermswhiletalkingthatotherscannotfollowhisspeedandunderstandhim.PennydonotreallymeansthatshewilltryherbesttounderstandSheldon,buttosaythatSheldonspeakstoofastandhemustcorrecthisutterancestyleinordertoletpeopleeasilygethismeaning.Infact,PennyswearstogodthatonedayshewillmakeSheldonadapttoher,notletherselfgetusedtoSheldon.Soapparently,thisisanirony.PennysacrificesthemaximofQualitytoconveyhiscriticismandcomplaint.Asaudience,wewilldefinitelylaughfortheblackhumorcreatedbythelovelygirl.3.PENNY:So,youandLeonard?SHELDON:Oh,dear,god!PENYY:Alittlemisunderstanding?Huh?SHELDON:alittlemisunderstanding?Galileoandthepopehadalittlemisunderstand-ing.SheldonandLeonardreceivedaletterfromtheinstituteforexperimentalphysicswhowantsthemtodeliveraspeechabouttheirresearchfruits.Sheldonrefusesthisinvitationbecausehehasnointerestinstandingintheroseroominfrontofagroupofjudgmentalstrangerswhohethinkswouldnotrecognizetruegenius.WhileLeonardvaluesthishonorandstronglywishtoattenditandhasaquarrelwithSheldon.Pennywantstopersuadethetwoguystocompromise,whileSheldonraisestheexampleofGalileoandthepopetoprovethattheyhavetotallydifferentvaluesandtheyhave