An Analysis of Verbal Humor in Alpha House From the Violation of Cooperative Principle英语论文论文

论文题目（仿宋体五号）1AnAnalysisofVerbalHumorinAlphaHouseFromtheViolationofCooperativePrincipleAbstract：Humoristhecleveruseoflanguage,widelyexistinginsocialcommunicationandalwaysproducesunexpecteddialogueeffects.Theproductionofverbalhumorisnotonlyrelatedtolanguageitself,butalsotolanguagecommunicationinaspecificsituation.Grice’sCooperativePrinciplepointsoutthatonlyifbothsidesoftheconversationfollowcertainprinciplescantheverbalcommunicationproceedssmoothly,thusachievingthepurposeofdialogue.However,indailylife,peopleoftenintentionallyviolatetheCooperativePrincipleinordertoachievethehumorouseffect.BasedonGrice’sCooperativePrinciple,thispaperanalyzestheverbalhumorinAlphaHousethroughtheviolationofthefourmaxims.ItisdesignedtohelpEnglishlearnersbetterunderstandtheverbalhumorintheplot,correctlyusetherulesandcharacteristicsofhumor,andimprovetheabilityoflanguageexpressionandcommunication.Keywords：CooperativePrinciple；verbalhumor；AlphaHouse1Introduction1.1ResearchbackgroundHumorisaspeciallanguagephenomenonexistinginallkindsofculturalbackground.Itisacriticalpartofourdailylife.Grice’sCooperativePrincipleholdsthatparticipantsshouldfollowsomerulesandprincipleswhentheytendtocommunicateeffectively.Indailylife,inordertoachievehumorouseffect,peoplesometimesviolateCooperationPrincipleonpurpose.AlphaHouseisanAmericanpoliticalsatirewebtelevisionseries.IttellssomestoriesaboutfourRepublicanU.S.SenatorswhoshareahouseinWashington,D.C.ThefourRepublicansenatorsfacere-electionbattles,loomingindictments,andparties—allwithasenseofhumor.Theplotofthiswebtelevisionseriesiswittyandfresh,arousingmoreandmorepeople’sinterest.ThecharactersintentionallyviolatetheCooperativePrincipletoachievehumorouseffect.ThusitissuitabletoanalyzetheverbalhumorinAlphaHousebasedonCooperativePrinciple.1.2LiteraturereviewHumorisasocialartwhichexistseverywhere.Itcannotonlybringlaughterandhappinesstopeople,butalsocreatearelaxedatmosphere,drawclosertoeachotherandavoidembarrassment.Studyabouthumoralsohasarousedgreatrepercussionintheacademicworld.Indailylife,verbalhumorisoftenconnectedwithCooperativePrinciple.Inabroad,theearliestareaofcombininghumorandlinguisticsisinsemantics.Raskin(1985)proposesSemantic-ScriptTheoryofHumor(SSTH),whichusessemanticscripttosimulatehowjokerecipientsuselinguisticsandworldknowledgetointerpretjoketext,arguingthathumoristheproductofscriptopposition;VictorRaskinandAttardo(1991)proposeTheGeneralTheoryofVerbalHumor(GTVH),whichismoreacceptableandextensive.Itlaystheimportantfoundationforthelaterhumorresearch;Attardo(1993)intendstoexplainthecontradictionofthecommunicativeessenceofjokes.ThisessenceisaviolationofGrice’sCooperativePrinciple;Attardo(1994)proposessixlevelsofKnowledgeResources(KRs):ScriptOpposition(SO),LogicMechanism(LM),Situation(SI),Target(TA),NarrativeStrategy(NS),Language(LA).Fromtheperspectiveofthemajorclassictheories,therearethreetypesoftheoriesabouthumor:thereleasetheory,theincongruitytheoryandthesuperioritytheory;Attardo(1994)pointsoutthatthesethreetheoriescanbeclassifiedinto“social-behavioral”,“psychoanalytical”,and“cognitivecategory”respectively.Athome,WangYongpei(1996)alsomentionsthatthedominantandrecessivecontextsarecatalystsforverbalhumor;YuLilei(1998)studiestherelationshipbetweenhumorandcontext.Shebelievesthatthecharacterandculturalbackgroundofthebigcontextincludingtheparticipantsmainlyindicatesthegenerationofhumor,whilethemicro-contextexplainstheunderstandingofhumor;ChenChunhua(1999)believesthatverbalhumorincludesviolationoftheCooperativePrinciple;ShiJing(1999)arguesthat“unrelated”isawayforaspeakertocreateahumorouseffect;SuoZhenyu(2000)comesupwiththeAppropriatePrinciple,whichincludestheprincipleofhumor,theprincipleofpolitenessandtheprincipleofrestraint.2TheCooperativePrincipleInordertoholdacompleteandeffectiveconversation,someinvisiblebuteffectiverulesarerequired.TheAmericanphilosopherPaulGrice(1975)firstproposestheCooperativePrinciple.Heholdsthatbothpartiesmustobeysomeconceptionandcooperatewitheachothersothatcommunicationwillnotbecomeaseriesofincoherentwords,butgosmoothly.ThisiscalledtheCooperativePrincipleorCPforshort.Itconsistsoffourprinciples,thatis,themaximofquantity,themaximofquality,themaximofrelationandthemaximofmanner.Levinson(1987)putsforwardtheThreePrinciplesofLevinson,whichisthecorecontentofConversationalImplicatiureincludingtheprincipleofquantity,theinformationprincipleandthemannerprinciple.Grice’sprincipleofcooperationonlydescribestheidealstateofaconversationandsometimestheserulescanbeviolatedwhenitisnecessary.ThoughbothpartiesofthecommunicationalwaysfollowtheTheCooperativePrinciple,itdoesnotmeanthatpeoplewillabidebyalltheseguidelines.Onthecontrary,theywillinadvertentlyorintentionallyviolateoneormoreofmaximsofCP(Raskin,1985:78).Theseviolationplayssignificantroleintheproductionofhumoreffect.Asaresult,someresearchersstudyverbalhumorfromtheviewofCP.TheyintendtouseCPtoanalyzetheeffectofEnglishhumor.3AnAnalysisofVerbalHumorinAlphaHousefromtheViolationofCooperativePrinciple3.1ViolationofthemaximofquantityThemaximofquantityrequiresspeakerstoprovidesomesufficientinformation,thatis,nottoomuchortoolessinformation.Whenspeakersviolatethemaximofquantity,verbalhumoroccurs.Therearetwotypesofresults:overstatementandunderstatement.3.1.1OverstatementExample1:(RobertandGilarediscussingthetiewhichGiliswearing.)Robert:IsthatVernon’stie?Gil:Yes,itis.Hewon’tmissitinprison.Robert:Whothehellstealsatiewithgreasestainsonit?Whatelsedidyouacquire?TheconversationisheldwhenRobert,GilandVernonaresharingarentalhouse.AsaRepublicanU.S.Senator,Vernonisarrestedbecauseheviolatesthelaw.WhenRobertasksGilifthetiehewearsisownedbyVernon,theanswer“Yes,itis.”isenough,buthegivesmoreinformationthanneededintentionally,whichapparentlydisobeysthemaximofquantity.Actually,whatcanbeconcludedfrom“Hewon’tmissitinprison.”isthatGiladmitsthefactthathehasstolenthetiefromVernon,whichapparentlydoesn’tfitinwithhisstatus,sohumorouseffectisaroused.Example2:(LouisLafferandGilJohnBiggsarebeingmonitored,soLouisLafferdoesn’twantGilJohnBiggstodosomethingawkwardinthissituation.)Louis:Haven’tyoueverheardoftheYouTube?Gil:Yes.Itoldyouaboutit.GilintendstodosomethingwhichcanmakeLouisembarrassedwhentheyaremonitored.However,LouisfearsthatGil’sdeedwillbeextensivelyknownontheinternetwhereanythingcanspreadfast.SohementionsYouTubetotrytostopGil.Actually,theanswer“yes”issufficientforLouis’squestion.However,Giljustadds“Itoldyouaboutit.”,WhichmeansalthoughheknowsthepowerofYouTube,hestillwantstodoembarrassingthings.Inthiscase,Gil’sanswerfloutsthemaximofquantityandcausesverbalhumor.3.1.2UnderstatementExample3:Louis:GilJohn,fortheloveofallthat’sholy,doyouknowhowmuchIpaidforthispainting?Gil:Youpaidmoneyforthat?Inthisdialogue,GilgetsdrunkandruinsLouis’sexpensivenewlyboughtpaint,soLouisisfurious.Insteadofansweringthequestionandfeelingsorryforhisdeed,Gilsays“Youpaidmoneyforthat?”,whichviolatesthemaximofquantitybyprovidingnotenoughinformation.ItisobviousthatGilimpliessomethinginhiswords,thatis,“thepaintshouldbeforfree”.Thus,humorouseffecthasbeenachieved.Example4:Robert:Whatdoeshedo?Eve:Nothing.Robert:Psh,there’safuture.Eve:He’sinthemotorcartrade.Robert:Areyoukiddingme?Themotorcartrade?Doeshe...doesheusewritinginstruments?Doesheweartimepieces?Imean,hemakescars,Eve.Hemakes...Whatkind?Eve:Lamborghinis.RobertandEveareacouple.Inthisdialogue,EvecomestotellRobertthatshefallsinlovewithsomeoneandwantstodivorcehim.RobertasksEveabouttheman’soccupation.Inthebeginning,Evedoesn’tsaymuchwords.ItisbecauseofthisthatRobertthinksthemanisnotasgoodashimself.However,whenEvefinallysays“Lamborghinis”,herealizesthathisthoughtsistotallywrongandfeelsdepressed.Itisclearthattheanswer“Nothing.”violatesthemaximofquantityatthebeginningandherexpressionmakespeoplelaugh.3.2ViolationofthemaximofqualityThemaximofqualitymeansthatbothparticipantsincommunicationshouldmakegreatefforttosaysomethingthatistrueanddon’tsayanythingthatisabsenceofevidence.Theverbalhumorisaccomplishedwhenspeakersviolateoneoftheserules.Inmosttime,theviolationisrealizedintheformoffigureofspeech,especiallyhyperbole.Whenspeakersusehyperboleinconversation,theyblowthetruthoutofproportion.Example5:Sen:Sohelpmeunderstand,Louis.TobeatbuffaloBob,you’reflyingtoawarzone.Louis:Well,itsoundsidioticwhenyousayit.Thetrip’stheRNC’sideatosaynotoObama’scutandrun.Sen:Yourside’ssomessedupnow,honey.Lincolnwouldpuke.Sencan’tunderstandwhyLouiswouldtakeriskingoingtothewarzone.AfterlisteningtoLouis’sresponse,SenthinksLouis’schoiceisunpractical.Inordertofurtherexpresshisdisagreement,Senmakesuseofhyperbolebysaying“Lincolnwouldpuke”,whichofcourselacksofevidence.Thus,humorisgeneratedintheprocessofviolationofthemaximofquality.Example6:Aman:That’sreallynotnecessary,Senator.Louis:Well,maybenot,butyouneverknowwheretheseglassesmighthavebeen.Aman:They’vebeeninadishwasher.Louis:Hmm,whichexplainsthelackofclarity.Lookatthis,Louise.TheflutemanagerattheBellagiowouldhaveacoronary.Louise:Now,now,Mr.BraggyPants,thingscan’talwaysbelikeathome.Louis:I’mjustsaying,ifourgreatcasinosusefirmlystemwarelikethis,they’dbeoutofbusiness.ThisdialoguehappenswhenLouisandLouisearecleaningglasses.Amannexttothemmentionsthattheirbehaviorisuseless,becausethedishwashercandothis.Louisdoesn'tbelievethattheglassescanbewashedsocleanashedoes.Heshowshiswifeapolishedglasshehasjustcleanedtoprovethis.Inordertofurtherclaimhiswords,hesays“TheflutemanagerattheBellagiowouldhaveacoronary.”,whichapparentlyviolatesthequalitymaximbyusinghyperbole,sincetheflutemanagercan’thaveacoronarywhenheseesthepolishedglasses.WhatLouisintendstoimplicateisthathecanwashtheglassesmuchcleanerthandishwasher.Thenhyperboleisusedagaininthenextsentence.Throughtheviolationofthemaximofqualityandtheuseofhyperbole,thisdialoguesoundsmoreinteresting.3.3ViolationofthemaximofrelationTheviolationofthemaximofrelationhappenswhenspeakersprovideinformationthatisnotrelatedtothecurrenttopic.Thatistosay,theyswitchfromonetopictoanotherintentionallyorsaywordswhichisirrelevanttothetopic.Inthisway,verbalhumorisproduced.Inthiswebtelevisionseries,thereexistslotsofsuchkindofexamples.3.3.1TopicChangeExample7:Andy:AdrianadePortago.Ringabell?Katherine:Andy,letmecountthewaysthatdatingthatwomancouldgoterriblywrong,one...Andy:Katherine.Katherine:Two...Andy:Ilikeher...inrealtime.Unlikemyex,whohadmetgood-bye.Katherine:Atleastten,andthatiswithoutevencheckingTMZ.AndymentionsabouthisnewgirlfriendAdrianadePortagoandasks“Ringabell?”However,KatherinepointsoutthathiswayofdatingwithAdrianadePortagoiswrong,whichapparentlyisnotrelevanttowhatAndyhavesaid.Thatistosay,thecurrenttopicischanged,sosheviolatesthemaximofrelation.Here,whatKatherinewantstoimplyisthatsheisnotinterestedinwhohisgirlfriendisandonlycaresaboutthedatingresult.Inthisconversation,changingthetopicbringsaudiencealotofhumor.3.3.2IrrelevantInformationExample8:Andy:Sowhoareyou?Ayounglady:We’vealreadydated.Andy:Ofcourse.Sohaveyoubeen?Inanelevator,Andytriestostrikeupaconversationwithayoungladybysaying“Sowhoareyou?”Theyoungladyprovidestheirrelevantinformation“We’vealreadydated.”,whichmeanstheyhavedatedwitheachotherbefore.TheimplicatureisthatAndyisaplayboyandhehasdatedtoomanygirls.Here,theirrelevantinformationprovidedbytheyoungladyproduceshumorouseffect.Example9:Robert:Louis,yougotaminute?It’simportant.Louis:Clear.(LouisLaffersaidtohistwoassistantstoaskthemout)What’simportant?Robert;It’snotimportant.Ijustdon’tliketowait.WhatdoyouthinkofAndyGuzman?Louis:Guzman?He’sokay,Iguess.Iworkedwithhimonacouplereconciliations.Bitofashowboat.Why?Robert:He’slookingforaplacetostay,like,rightaway.Hejustgotelected,soyoudon’thavetoworryaboutturnover.Yougotanotherquarter?Sowhatdoyousay?Andyisfindingahousetorent.RobertthinksAndycouldbetheirroommateandasksaboutLouis’sopinion.Whentheyarediscussingthisthing,Robertsuddenlysayssomethingirrelevant“Yougotanotherquarter?”WhatLouisreallywantstodoisplayingtheone-armbanditinRobert’soffice.AndmentioningAndyisjustanexcuse.Apparently,thisbringshumorouseffecttopeoplebydisobeyingtherelationmaxim.3.4ViolationofthemaximofmannerThemaximofmannerrequiresspeakerstoexpressclearlyandproperly,whichmeansthattheyshouldavoidobscurityandambiguityandtrytobebriefandordered.However,peopledon’tfollowtheserulesinmosttime.Whentheyusesomevagueandunclearwordsintentionally,humorouseffectcantakeplace.3.4.1ObscurityAccordingtothemaximofmanner,speakersshouldexpressthemselvesinasimpleandcomprehensivewayinwhichthewordsareclearandeasilyunderstoodbyhearers.Ifpeoplefailtodothisintentionally,sometimesverbalhumorcanbecreated.Example10:Louis:Andcancelmylunchwithcommitteecouncil.I’vegotaoneo’clockatSolarPlanet.Right,thanks,bye.Gil:SolarPlanet?Thetanningsalon?Louis:Shh...Gil:What?Louis:Thedriver.Theyalltweetnow.Louiscallstheassistanttocancelhisappointmentwithcommitteecouncil,becausehehastogotoSolarPlanetatoneo’clock.Gilisonthesceneandconfusesabout“SolarPlanet”.Therefore,inordertomakeitclear,hesays“SolarPlanet?”“Thetanningsalon?”However,insteadofexplainingtoGil,Louisjustsays“Shh”,whichdoesn’texpresshimselfclearlyandisobscurity,becausehedoesn’twanthisprivatescheduletobespreadontheinternetbythedriver.Fromthispointofview,Louisdoesn’tfollowthemaximofmanner,whichcausesthehumorouseffect.3.4.2AmbiguityEffectiveandsmoothconversationdemandsthatambiguouswordsshouldbeavoided.However,ifthespeakerwantstoimplicatesomething,theywillusesomekindoffigureofspeech,especiallypun(wordswiththesamesoundbutdifferentmeanings)tocauseambiguity.Example11:Louis:Thelovedoctorhashisowntwitterfeed.Louise:LOL!LOL!Louis:Whatdoesthatmeanagain?Louise:Lotsoflove.ThebackgroundofthisconversationisthatacoupleisformallyengagedwiththehelpofRobertwhoisalovedoctorandiskeentohelpsinglesdatingwitheachother.Afterholdingacongratulationparty,Roberttweetstosharethegoodnewsaboutthecouple.LouisissurprisedtofindthatRoberthashisowntwitterfeed.HiswifeLouisesays“LOL”toexpressherhappinesstothisexcitingnews.WhatLouisewantstoexpressaboutLOLis“lotsoflove”.However,ontheinternet,“LOL”isalsoanabbreviationfor“laughingoutloud”or“laughoutloud”.Therefore,inthatsituation,itcaneasilybeunderstoodasbothofthetwomeaning.Theuseofthepun“LOL”violatesthesub-maximofmannerandthehumorouseffectsareproduced.Example12:ASoldier:Don’tworry,sir.It’snotthatbad.Justbadenoughtosayyou’vebeenintheshit.Louis:Me?Intheshit?ASoldier:Yes,sir,LouisisinjuredinAfghanistan.Inordertomakehimfeelcomfortable,asoldiersays“It’snotthatbad.Justbadenoughtosayyou'vebeenintheshit”.Asweallknow,“intheshit”isapunwhichcanbeunderstoodbydifferentpeoplewhohavetheirowncomprehension.Ithastwotypesofmeaning:beingintroubleandbeinginthesolidwastematterfromthebody.Whatthesoldiertriestoexpressisthefirstcategorymeaning,whileLouisunderstandsthesentenceasthesecondcategorymeaning.Therefore,thesoldierdoesn’tkeeptothemaximofmanner,whichcausesverbalhumor.3.4.3RedundancyRedundancyoccurswhenthespeakersaystoomuchinformationunnecessaryintheconversation.Thatistosay,thespeakerisinviolationofthemaximofmannerandhumorouseffectisgeneratedinmosttime.Example13:Sen:Givenyourpersonalconnection,Iwonderwhetheryoumightnotwanttorecuseyourself,GilJohn.Counsel:Iwaswonderingthesamething.AndnowIjointhechairinwonderingitaloud.Gil:Theladyandgentlemanneednottroublethemselves.AccordingtoSR-338SectionD“amemberofthecommitteeshallbeineligibletoparticipateinanyinquiryrelatingtobracket‘i’theconductof,bracketromannumeralone,assuchmember,bracketromannumeraltwo,anyofficeroremployeethemembersupervises,or,bracketromannumeralthree,anyemployeeofanyofficerthemembersupervises.”Now,anyoftheseexceptionssoundlikeme?Anymentionofrecusingforawingman?Ididn’thearit.Irest..Irestmyself.Amy:Okay,what’sgoingonhere?Inthisconversation,Senisholdingameetingonethicswithagroupofcommittee.SeeingthatGildoesn’tshowmuchinterests,Senremindshimbysaying“Iwonderwhetheryoumightnotwanttorecuseyourself,GilJohn.”Insteadofgivingclearexplanation,GilljustprovidesmuchinformationaboutSR-338SectionD,whichseemswordyandtedious.Actually,hecoulddirectlysay“AccordingtoSR-338SectionD,recusingforawing-manisnotmentioned”.Thus,senseofhumorcanbefeltbyaudiencewhenhedisobeysthemaximofmanner.3.4.4DisorderConversationparticipantsshouldexpressthemselvesinaorderlyandorganizedway.Oncetheyviolatetherules,conversationalimplicatureandverbalhumorcantakeplace.Example18:Adriana:Hi,youmustbehereaboutthehousekeepingjob.Maddie:I’mMrs.Biggs.Adriana:Mrs.Bi..,oh,myGod.Quepena.I'msoembarrassed.GilJohn,it’syourwife.I’msosorry.Idon’thavemycontactlensesin.SoIdidn’tseetheresemblance.Maddie:Thewhat?Adriana:Oh,myGod.no,nottheresemblance,you’renotrelated.Imean,youarerelated,butyouarenotrelated.Well,youarerelated.Ijust...youarenotrela...You’rerelated.Inthisconversation,Adrianahasn’tmetMaddiebefore,soshemistakenlytakesMaddieassomeonewhowantstofindahousekeepingjob.However,whenMaddiesays“I’mMrs.Biggs.”,sherealizessheistotallywrongandfeelsawkward.Beingnervous,sheevendoesn’tknowwhatsheissaying.Herwordsaredisorderlyandcontradictwitheachother.Thus,notkeepingthemaximofmannermakesthisdialogueinteresting.4Conclusi