FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTA

Analysis of Humour in How I Met Yo

Bakalářská diplomová práce
Martin Štefl
Vedoucí práce: doc. Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D.

Katedra anglistiky a amerikanistiky

Obor Anglický jazyk a literatura
Brno 2021
 Analysis of Humour in How I Met Your Mother

Bibliografický záznam

Autor: Martin Štefl

Filozofická fakulta
Masarykova univerzita
Katedra anglistiky a amerikanistiky
Název práce: Analysis of Humour in How I Met Your Mother
Studijní program: Filologie
Studijní obor: Anglický jazyk a literatura
Vedoucí práce: doc. Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D.
Rok: 2021
Počet stran: 41
Klíčová slova:
humour, the Cooperative Principle, sitcom, pragmatics, humour analysis

2
 Analysis of Humour in How I Met Your Mother

Bibliographic record

Author: Martin Štefl

Faculty of Arts
Masaryk University
Department of English and American Studies
Title of Thesis: Analysis of Humour in How I Met Your Mother
Degree Programme: Philology
Field of Study: English Language and Literature
Supervisor: doc. Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D.
Year: 2021
Number of Pages: 41
Keywords:
humour, the Cooperative Principle, sitcom, pragmatics, humour analysis

3
 Analysis of Humour in How I Met Your Mother

Anotace

Cílem této bakalá řské prá ce je doká zat, zda humorné situace v sitcomu Jak jsem
poznal vaši matku jsou tvořeny nedodržením Griceova kooperačního principu. Grice
představil 4 konverzační maximy, podle kterých se má komunikace řídit, aby byla
ú spěšná . Podle některých lingvistů se nedodržová ním těchto maximů tvoří humorné
situace. Součá stí prá ce je teoretická čá st, kde je popsá na terminologie a dů ležité
pojmy. Ná sleduje pak samotná analýza, která obsahuje výň atky ze seriá lu, u kterých
je humor tvořen nedodržením výše zmíněného kooperačního principu.

4
 Analysis of Humour in How I Met Your Mother

Abstract

The aim of this thesis is to prove that humorous instances in the sitcom How I Met
Your mother are created by the non-observance of Grice’s Cooperative Principle.
Grice stated 4 conversational maxims which contain rules for a successful
conversation. According to some linguists, non-observance of these maxims can
create humorous instances. The thesis contains a theoretical framework needed for
the analysis. The other part is the analysis itself. The analysis shows excerpts from
the TV series which show that the non-observance of the Cooperative Principle
creates humorous instances.

5
 Analysis of Humour in How I Met Your Mother

Declaration

I hereby declare that this thesis with title

Analysis of Humour in How I Met Your Mother
I submit for assessment is entirely my own work and has not been taken from
the work of others save to the extent that such work has been cited and
acknowledged within the text of my.

Brno December 18, 2021 .......................................

Martin Štefl

6
 Analysis of Humour in How I Met Your Mother

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank doc. Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D. for his guidance and help with this
thesis.

Šablona DP 3.3-ARTS-dipl-obor-anglicky (2021-10-22) © 2014, 2016, 2018–2021 Masarykova univerzita

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Introduction 9

1 The Definition of Humour 10

1.1 Canned and Conversational Jokes.................................................................................12

2 Sitcom 14
2.1 How I Met Your Mother.....................................................................................................15

3 Pragmatics 17
3.1 Cooperative Principle.........................................................................................................17
3.2 Conversational implicatures...........................................................................................19

4 Humour Creation by the Violation of Grice’s Maxims 24

4.1 Bona-fide and Non-bona-fide Communication.......................................................25

5 Non-observance of the Cooperative Principle and its Humorous Potential

27

6 Non-observance of the Cooperative Principle in How I Met Your Mother28

6.1 Maxim of Quantity................................................................................................................28
6.2 Maxim of Quality...................................................................................................................30
6.3 Maxim of Relation................................................................................................................ 32
6.4 Maxim of Manner..................................................................................................................33

Conclusion 37

Bibliography 38

Resumé (English) 39

Resumé (Česky) 40

8
 CONCLUSION

Introduction

Humour is a great part of our lives, and it is connected to the communication with our
friends, colleagues, or family. Humour has been a subject of a large number of studies
throughout many disciplines, such as philosophy, psychology, and, the most
important discipline for this thesis, linguistics. Many researchers have tried to show
how humour is being created and what humour actually is.
However, humour does not occur only in our daily communication, but it is
also used in films and TV series. The TV genre that contains a lot of humorous
situations is a sitcom. Sitcoms have been an enormous part of the broadcasted TV
series since the beginning of the television era. The genre of sitcom is typical for its
humorous situations. In this thesis, the verbal humour will be analysed from
linguistic, specifically pragmatic point of view. The analysed material will be the well-
known American sitcom How I Met Your Mother, which is a typical representative of
the genre of sitcom. There are many theories describing how humour is created.
According to Attardo (1994) and other linguists, the non-observance of Grice’s
maxims can create humorous instances. The Cooperative Principles consists of 4
Maxims: Quality, Quantity, Relation and Manner. Each of the maxims states how the
conversation should look like to be effective and meaningful. The thesis tries to prove
that the non-observance of the 4 Grice’s maxims creates humorous instances in the
TV series How I Met Your Mother. The thesis will analyse in which way each of the 4
maxims create humour.
The thesis consists of eight chapters which are divided into two parts:
theoretical part and practical part. The theoretical part starts with introduction. The
introduction states the objective of the thesis and its layout. The second chapter
discusses the theoretical background of the study of humour, its connection to
laughter and the main theories of humour. The third chapter deals with the genre of
sitcom, it provides its definition, and also introduces the analysed sitcom How I Met
Your Mother. The next chapter is concerned with pragmatics, displaying the
theoretical background of this subfield of linguistics. The chapter also includes an
introduction to the Cooperative Principle by Herbert Paul Grice which is a crucial
theory used in the analysis. The next chapters introduce the humorous potential of
the non-observance of the Grice’s maxims. Chapter 6 is the practical part of this
thesis. In this part, the Cooperative Principle is applied on the excerpts with
humorous instances from the sitcom How I Met Your Mother and it is shown how the
non-observance of the Grice’s Maxims creates humour. The final chapter summarizes
and concludes the whole thesis.

9
 CONCLUSION

1 The Definition of Humour

As the thesis is concerned with the analysis of the humour creation in a sitcom, it is
convenient to define humour. This chapter focuses on the definition of humour and
the humour’s connection to laughter. It also states the main three humour theories
and defines verbal humour’s pragmatic types.
One of the most important steps in humour analysis is the definition of humour
itself. Many scholars from a variety of fields have been analysing humour and have
tried to define it. Even though scholars have provided several definitions, it is
impossible to agree on the right definition of humour in general sense and it is hard
to answer what actually counts as humour. The indefinability of humour has been
addressed several times by a variety of linguists, for example by Robert Escarpit
(Attardo, 1990, p. 3). Despite Escarpit’s and other linguist’s claims of the
indefinability of humour, several linguists have provided their understanding of what
humour really is. Raskin states that humour should be interchangeable with the word
funny and states that it should be described in the most limited way and therefore as
other “linguists, psychologists, and anthropologist have taken humour to be an all-
encompassing category, covering any event or object that elicits laughter, amuses, or
is felt to be funny” (Attardo, 1994, p. 4). However, this is still not a proper definition
as it still lacks the definition of what is funny. The lack of clear definition of humour
can be also found in works of other linguists. Both Chateau and Cometa have tried to
provide a definition by giving an opposite of that term. However, their definitions are
in conflict. Chateau (1950, as cited in Attardo, 1994) states that humour is contrasted
with seriousness. On the other hand, Cometa (1990, as cited in Attardo, 1994) argues
it should be the other way around – tragedy is the contrast of humour. However, even
if both linguists agreed, it still would not provide a clear definition of humour. As it
can be seen, a lot of linguists stated several definitions of humour, however, their
definitions are not as straightforward as definitions of other linguistic phenomena.
As seen in the definition of Raskin and other works of linguists, laughter relates
to and is discussed together with humour. The two linguistic phenomena humour and
laughter can according to some assumptions describe each other: what is humorous
provokes laughter and what provokes laughter is humorous. Some linguists even
state that laughter and humour are interchangeable, as for example Bergson or Lewis.
Piddington says in his essay: “Very many writers on the subject of laughter … have
failed to recognize the distinction between the two” (as cited in Attardo, 1960).
However, Piddington himself fails as well as those he described earlier by describing
that the ludicrous is an example of laughter-provoking situation, which basically
states that the ludicrous and laughter are the same phenomena that are replaceable
(Attardo, 1994, p. 10).

10
 CONCLUSION

Other linguists define humour in simpler ways, such as for instance Brock, who
defines humour as “something that makes a person laugh or smile” (Brock, 2008,
p.1). This is another example of humour being defined by laughter as it was described
by Lewis or Bergson. However, Brock also mentions that this definition also has its
exceptions. Something can be humorous even without a laughter following it.
Moreover, many people can laugh but someone might state that the occasion, joke etc.
was not funny at all. Laughter does not have to be a response to something
humorous. It might be a reaction to fear or embarrassment as well. Even though that
the response might not tell exactly how people perceive something, Brock argues it is
crucial to take the response into account as it is a crucial factor in defining what is
humour and what is not (1998, p.1.).
Laughter is addressed more by Brock in the next chapters of The Language of
Humour. The occurrence of laughter depends on whether the person is alone or is in a
group of more people. People that are alone laugh more rarely than people in groups.
Brock states there is a strong social aspect to how people react to humorous
instances. For example, when someone watches a favourite comedy with other
people that do not laugh, the comedy might stop being humorous even for them
(Brock, 1998, p. 1). Laughter is a way to show people’s loyalty to a group, because “if
someone signals their intention to say something humorous, the listeners
immediately ready to laugh” (Brock, 1998, p.2). Members of the group might not even
get the joke, but they still might laugh. However, the opposite might happen when the
listener does not think of the speaker in a friendly way. When the listener does not
sympathize with the speaker, then the listener is unlikely to laugh. Therefore, it is
important to analyse humour in social context. What people find humorous is
dependent on their culture, their ties with the speaker or their social group as stated
before (Brock, 1998, p.2). Brook also states that “The phrase ‘There’s time and a place
for everything’ is true of humour. It is not felt to be appropriate in certain situations”
(Brock, 1998, p.2). Humour is therefore dependent on many variables such as
mentioned social context, age of the receiver or personal taste. That is the reason why
it is almost impossible, as stated for example by Attardo (1994), to define humour.
However, for the purpose of this thesis, it is more desirable to describe how is
humour created than to try to define what it actually is. Marta Dynel (2009) lists
three main categories of humour theories: incongruity theories, superiority theories
and relief theories. According to Attardo (1994), incongruity theories are based on “a
mismatch, disharmony or contrast between ideas or elements in the broadest
possible sense” (p. 50). These theories basically state that humour is being created by
the hearer’s surprise of what was said by the speaker as it is different than from what
was expected. Superiority theories (or hostility theories) are theories that addresses
the aggressive side of humour. The aggressive side of humour is used when a speaker
wants to humiliate or ridicule someone in order to show the weaknesses and flaws of
others and therefore become superior. The last group of theories are relief (or

11
 CONCLUSION

release) theories. This group claims that humour creates a relief of from tension,
conventions, and laws. In terms of linguistics, it releases a person from following
language rules (Attardo, 1994). All of the mentioned theories can be discussed
together with non-observance of the Cooperative Principle. The first two theories
describe the non-observance of 1 or more maxims (maxims, their non-observance
and the Cooperative Principle is discussed in Chapters 4 and 5). For instance,
incongruity theories are a typical example of non-observance of Maxim of Relevance.
On the other hand, superiority theories can contain the non-observance of Maxim of
Manner. The last group of theories contain the whole idea behind the non-observance
of the Cooperative Principle and its humorous potential, as even stated by Attardo
that it is typical for “the infractions of the principle of Cooperation” (1994, p. 50). As it
can be seen, these humour theories are significant for humour analysis and give
background for further study of humour creation in chapters 4, 5 and 6.

1.1 Canned and Conversational Jokes

Humour can be divided into many classifications. However, as this thesis is

concerned with a pragmatic analysis of humour, this subchapter introduces
pragmatic types of humour.
Jokes can be divided in two types: conversational jokes and canned jokes.
According to Brzozowska (2020, as cited in Dynel, 2009a), canned jokes are repeated
verbatim, on the other hand, conversational jokes are improvised and are adapted to
a context of a conversation that is happening between at least two participants. Dynel
(2009a) states three elements that compose a canned joke:

1. Introduction, which is the background against which the punch line

appears incongruous,
2. dialogue of usually two or more characters,
3. punchline, which is the last sentence that closes the narration and
triggers the laughter (p. 10).

Dynel (2009a) also mentions that the defined elements are not perfect as a dialogue
is not an obligatory part of the canned joke. To illustrate what a canned joke is, Dynel
(2009b) states an example of a canned joke,

A man is eating a stew at a restaurant. Suddenly he feels something sharp in his

mouth. The object turns out to be an earring. The man instantly starts rebuking
the waiter, who says, ‘I’m terribly sorry but you can’t imagine how happy the chef
will be to get it back. It’s over three weeks since she lost it.’ (p. 1285)

12
 CONCLUSION

This is an example of a typical canned joke as it follows the three elements stated in
this chapter. There are other subtypes of jokes, such as shaggy-dog stories, which are
a rather longer stories with no punchline, riddles, which are composed by a question
followed by an unpredictable answer, and one-liners, typical for its punchline being
just a few words or a phrase (Dynel, 2009b, p. 1285). Conversational jokes are for
example witticisms. Conversational witticism are witty and humorous units in talk
exchanges. Witticisms operate on rhetorical figures such as metaphor or irony (these
rhetorical figures and its connection to humour are discussed further in chapters 3
and 5). Witticisms are made relevantly to a conversational context (Dynel, 2009a, p.
14). An example of a witticism is presented by Dynel (2009a), “Yes, darling, I know
you have an open mind. I can feel the draught from where I’m sitting” (p. 14). In
conclusion, canned types of jokes are not used according to the context, and they are
repeated. Contrarily, conversational jokes are used in certain conversational contexts
and are created on the spur of the moment.

13
 CONCLUSION

2 Sitcom

Sitcoms are a great representative of a TV genre that are full of humorous situations.
As this thesis analyses humour in a sitcom, this chapter focuses on the definition of
the genre of sitcom. After the definition of this TV genre, the chapter also focuses on
the description of the analysed sitcom How I Met Your Mother to inform shortly
about its plot and its characters that will occur in the excerpts in the analysis.
Sitcom is a TV genre that contains many humorous instances and is established to
make people laugh. The name sitcom comes is a combination of the collocation
situation comedy. The known characteristics of sitcom according to Hornby (2015)
are
“a single, contemporary, interior setting, zany characters who speak, dress
and
generally behave like real people of the time except in their lack of inhibition;
a focus on their personal relationships rather than politics (wars, revolutions,
environmental crisis, economic disaster, and political change all seem to have
passed them by); wise older characters who keep the zanies from getting too far
out of line. Whether televised or live onstage, it is meant to be a pleasant,
reassuring dramatic genre, but it can easily become frustrating in the way it is
capable of ignoring serious issues” (p. 111).
Simply, sitcom is usually happening in the same place and is concerned with
unserious issues connected with the daily lives of normal people. It does not deal
with serious issues in order to let people relax and laugh without thinking about
serious things happening in their lives.
As stated in the chapter The Definition of Humour, what we find humorous
depends on what others find humorous as people are socially affected by that.
Therefore, a canned laughter occurs a lot in sitcoms, especially American ones.
Canned laughter is a recording of a laughter that is used in TV programmes and radio
programmes when a joke or a humorous instance happens. As Ross (1998) argues in
The Language of Humour, “If you watch your favourite comedy in the presence of
people who remain straight-faced, it can stop you finding it so funny” (p.1). Canned
laughter is therefore used in TV and radios as it emphasizes humorous instances.
Canned laughter is also discussed by Ermida (2008) from a bit different point
of view. Ermida describes canned laughter as something that prepares us for
humorous instances and prepares us to react to them conveniently. “The clues that
the comic context provides are indeed essential for an appropriate reaction to
supervene” (p.37). Ermida describes the canned laughter in a different way, however,
the two definitions still coincide that the used of canned laughter is to induce a
reaction, preferably a laughter.
Kaufman and Hart’s You Can’t Take It With You was mentioned as the first

14
 CONCLUSION

sitcom many times despite of its premiere in 1936 which was before the invention of
television. However, it matches the typical characteristics for sitcom. Situation
comedy goes back to Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew or even to Menander in the
fourth century, whose “New Comedy” focused on the middle class with the usual
problems of usual people, such as love or money. Moreover, it happened all in one
place – a family. That shows that sitcom might not be considered only a TV genre, but
genre of every medium with the usual characteristics of sitcom (Hornby, p. 111,
2015).
As mentioned many times in this chapter, sitcoms are mostly taking place in one
place, which can be for example a flat (or 2) as in Friends, or an office as in The Office.
Friends is probably the most known sitcom among people these days and it matches
the characteristics perfectly. The contemporary interior setting as there are 3 places
where most of the plot happens: a flat, another flat and a café, a group of friends that
are dealing with everyday problems and the canned laughter being used. Among the
more recent sitcoms it can be mentioned for example The Big Bang Theory, which
also takes place in just a few interior places which do not change throughout the
series, and How I Met Your Mother, which is the sitcom which is analysed and
introduced further in this thesis. The next subchapter is focusing on the introduction
of the analysed sitcom.

2.1 How I Met Your Mother

How I Met Your Mother is an American sitcom created by Craig Thomas and
Carter Bays for CBS television. The series were broadcasted between the years 2004
and 2015 and became very popular with the audience. There are 208 episodes in 9
seasons. There are 5 main characters in the sitcom. The first one is Ted Mosby, an
architect who is at the start of his career in New York. Ted is single and is desperate
for finding the perfect woman that he could marry someday. The whole sitcom is
“narrated” by him in 2030, as Ted is describing to his kids how he met their mother.
That is where the sitcom’s name originates. Ted is living together in a flat with
Marshall Ericksen, a friend from university. Marshall is dating Lily and in the first
episode he proposes to her. Another main character in the show is Barney Stinson,
who is a complete opposite of Ted Mosby. Barney is not looking for a wife as he does
not want to be with one woman for the rest of his life. Barney often states he and Ted
are best friends, however, that is opposed by Ted many times. The next main
character from the show is Lily Aldrin, a girlfriend and later a spouse of Marshall
Ericksen. Lily is a teacher at kindergarten and an amateur painter. The last main
character is Robin Scherbatsky who is a Canadian woman who came to the USA to
pursue her journalist career. She meets Ted and they go out on a date, however, it

15
 CONCLUSION

does not end well. The two are dating many times during the series but always split
up in the end.
The series mostly takes place in 2 interior settings. The first and the main is a
pub called McLaren’s pub where the group spends most of their time, especially
evenings. They have their table where they sit every time. The next setting is Ted and
Marshall’s flat where the friends meet as well, especially Ted, Marshall and Lily.
Sometimes there’s also Robin’s flat and occasionally other interior and sometimes,
but rarely, some outdoor settings. However, most of the time the series takes place in
the 2 mentioned main interior settings.
The group deals with everyday problems, mostly love and relationships due to
Ted Mosby’s search for a perfect woman. It also deals with their professional career
as the friends often get promoted or take different paths of their career which is a
typical problem of the age group they represent.
How I Met Your Mother also contains a canned laughter described in the chapter
Sitcom as a characteristic of a sitcom. This, the interior and consistent setting, the
problems the group deals with and the occurrence of canned laughter shows that
How I Met Your Mother is a typical example of the genre of sitcom.

16
 CONCLUSION

3 Pragmatics

As the scope of this thesis is to analyse if humour in the sitcom How I Met Your
Mother is created by violation of the Cooperative Principle proposed by Herbert Paul
Grice, which focuses on communication from the pragmatic point of view, it is there-
fore
convenient to introduce that particular field of linguistics. However, the field of prag-
matics is extensive and as Levinson (1983) states in his work Pragmatics at the very
beginning, “To squeeze all that goes under the rubric of pragmatics within the con-
fines of the linguistics textbook would be neither possible nor desirable” (p. ix).
Levinson proposes a simple definition “pragmatics is the study of language”
(1998, p. 5). However, the definition is rather shallow and it does not provide what
actually people concerned with pragmatics do. Nevertheless, Levinson argues that
this simple definition can be useful in order to at least indicate what the for many
unfamiliar term means. There are several more definitions mentioned in Levinson’s
work, such as “the study of those principles that will account for why a certain set of
sentences are anomalous, or not possible utterances” or “it attempts to explain facets
of linguistic structure by reference to non-linguistic pressures and causes” (Levinson,
1983, pp. 6-7), but all of them are found “less than satisfactory” by him. Levinson
(1983) then states a definition “Pragmatics is the study of the ability of language
users to pair sentences with the contexts in which they would be appropriate” (p. 25).
This definition basically summarizes the main focus of pragmatics, which is that
everything being said has a certain meaning and purpose behind it.
Even though the field of pragmatics has not been entirely explained in this
chapter, the definition mentioned earlier is adequate for further analysis in this
thesis. It is more crucial to define the Cooperative Principle rather than the whole
field of pragmatics. Therefore, the next subchapter focuses on the definition of that
pragmatic theory.

3.1 Cooperative Principle

As this thesis is concerned with how the non-observance of the Cooperative Principle
creates humorous instances, it is therefore needed to define it. Herbert Paul Grice
published his Cooperative Principle in the essay “Logic and Conversation”. When
people have a conversation with each other, the conversation is not made by
mutually disconnected exchanges. People that are involved in a conversation are
reacting to each other, trying to be cooperative. Conversations usually have a purpose
or at least a direction in which the conversation is going. The purpose or direction
may be given at the start of a conversation, for example by an initial discussion
question which stimulates the conversation, or the direction changes while the
conversation keeps going. The purpose or direction might be definite as well as

17
 CONCLUSION

indefinite. However, each stage of a conversation has certain possible moves that
would be considered inappropriate. Grice suggests a rule that the participants should
observe (Grice, 1975, p. 45). The general rule states: “Make your conversational
contribution such as is required, as the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted
purpose of direction of the talk exchange in which you are engage” (Grice, 1975, p.
45). This rule is the foundation of what Grice calls The Cooperative Principle.
Grice proposes a distinction of the principle to categories which are then divided
into more specific maxims and submaxims. The four categories are called: Quantity,
Quality, Relation and Manner (Grice, 1975, p. 45).

3.1.1 Maxim of Quantity

This maxim associates with the amount of information that the speaker is
giving. Some of the information might be unnecessary, or there might not be enough
information needed, and the conversation then can be unsuccessful. There are two
maxims that fall under this category:

1. Make your contribution as informative as required (for the current

purposes of the exchange).
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. (Grice,
1975, p. 45).

However, Grice himself states that the second maxim is debatable as it might not lead
to non-cooperation but only to a waste of the participants’ time. However, the non-
needed extra information might confuse the hearer that might get lost in where the
conversation is going and might think that the extra information is necessary for the
discussion. Therefore, the maxim should be mentioned here (Grice, 1975, p. 46).

3.1.2 Maxim of Quality

Maxim of Quality is described by a supermaxim “Try to make your
contribution one that is true”. Therefore, speakers should always speak truly and say
only the things that they are sure about, as is described in the specific maxims:

1. Do not say what you believe is false.

2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence (Grice, 1975, p. 46).

3.1.3 Maxim of Relation

Maxim of Relation has a single supermaxim that is “Be relevant”. Grice (1975)
states that even though the maxim is quite self-explanatory, there are several
problems that might arise. The subject might be changed throughout a conversation,

18
 CONCLUSION

there might be different focuses in a conversation and other problems which Grice
did not manage to cover in the essay “Logic and Conversation” (1975, p. 46). What is
the key of this maxim is to be relevant and stick to the theme of the conversation.

3.1.4 Maxim of Manner

Maxim of Manner is described by Grice (1975) as related not to what speakers say
but in which way (manner) they say it. The supermaxim here is “Be perspicuous”.
Grice adds other more specific maxims to this category:

1. Avoid obscurity of expression.

2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
4. Be orderly. (Grice, 1975, p. 45)

To sum up the idea behind these more specific maxims, speakers should avoid
language that is not easily understandable for other participants, avoid language that
can have more interpretations, try to be as brief as possible and provide information
in order in which they are supposed to go and in which they make sense.

3.2 Conversational implicatures

After the introduction of the concepts of the Cooperative Principle, several

objections might arise such as the one proposed by Levinson (1983) “the view may
describe a philosopher’s paradise, but no one actually speaks like that the whole
time” (p. 102). However, Levinson (1983) addresses this point straightaway and
mentions that Grice’s argument is that people do not follow these guidelines
completely, but he believes that the principles are complied with at a deeper level
and hearers presume that speakers are complying with the Cooperative Principle at
some level as well (p. 102). Levinson (1983) comes with an example of such case:

(1) A: Where’s Bill?

B: There’s a yellow VW outside Sue’s house. (Levinson, 1983, p. 102).

In this example, speaker A asks about Bill’s whereabouts. A non-participant might

assume that speaker B is not following the Cooperative Principle as the speaker is not
giving the information that speaker A wanted to know. At first, it looks like a violation
of the Maxim of Relation. However, we assume that the answer had a different,
deeper meaning and we start to think about how the answer might be connected to
the question. Then we come to a suggestion that Bill drives a yellow VW and he might
be at Sue’s at the moment. Therefore, the response is not non-cooperative despite the

19
 CONCLUSION

initial thought (Levinson, 1983, p. 102). This explanation describes what Grice calls a
conversational implicature. People do not follow the maxims at all times, however,
they are orientated to them and interpret the answers themselves according to the
maxims. Another example of such implicature can also be found in this excerpt:

(2) A (to passer-by): I’ve just run out of petrol

B: Oh, there’s a garage just around the corner (Levinson, 1983, p. 104).

This again indicates that speaker B is non-cooperative. However, speaker B’s answer
most probably implicates that A can get petrol there. Speaker B is therefore being
cooperative according to the Cooperation Principle. Conversational implicature
therefore can bear more meanings depending on a context in which they are used.
To notice a conversational implicature, the hearer must follow these specific
points:
(1) the conventional meaning of the words used together with the identity of
any references that may be involved; (2) the CP and its maxims; (3) the
context, linguistic or otherwise, of the utterance; (4) other items of
background knowledge; and (5) the fact (or supposed fact) that all relevant
items falling under the previous headings are available to both participants
and both participants know or assume this to be the case (Grice, 1975, p. 50).

3.2.1 Connection between the Cooperative Principle and Conversational

Implicature
As the analysis is concerned with non-observing the maxims, it is desired to
recognize when the maxims are not being observed and state how they can be not
observed. There are several ways in which a participant might not succeed in
fulfilling the maxims. According to Grice (1975), there are four cases. The first case
being a quiet violation of a maxim. In this case, the speaker can mislead the hearer in
some situations. The second case is when a speaker chooses to opt out from the
cooperation and chooses not to cooperate anymore. An example of this is “I can’t tell
you that”. The next case is when a speaker is unable to fulfil for example the first
Maxim of Quantity while not violating the second Maxim of Quality. This happens in
situations when a speaker cannot be informative enough because of not having
sufficient information. The fourth case Grice introduces is a flouting of a maxim, when
the speaker has all the prerequisites to fulfil a maxim but chooses to blatantly fail it.
Grice states that maxim is exploited and this case usually “gives rise to a
conversational implicature” (p. 49).

20
 CONCLUSION

3.2.1.1 Implicature with No Violation of a Maxim

Grice (1975) states three groups of possible uses of implicatures. The first
group is when there is no maxim violated. This is the case of the talk exchange (2)
where there is no violation of a maxim. Grice (1975) states another example:

(3) A: Smith doesn’t seem to have a girlfriend these days.

B: He has been paying a lot of visits to New York lately. (p. 51).

This talk exchange is the same as the talk exchange (2). Speaker B implicates that
Smith might have a girlfriend in New York as he has been visiting it lately. Speaker B
must, however, believe it to observe the Maxim of Relation (Grice, 1975, p. 51).

3.2.1.2 Implicature with a Violation due to a Clash

This group of implicatures is made by a violation of a maxim. Nevertheless, the

violation is not made on purpose, but due to a clash with another maxim. To illustrate
what is meant with that, there is an example of a talk exchange:

(4) A: Where does C live?

B: Somewhere in the South of France. (Grice, 1975, p. 51).

In this case, speaker B tries to answer speaker A’s question. Unfortunately, speaker B
can’t do that because of not possessing adequate information. Therefore, Maxim of
Quantity is violated here as giving more information that speaker B does not have
evidence for would violate Maxim of Quality. B therefore implicates that he does not
know where C lives (Grice, 1975, pp. 51-52).

3.2.1.3 Implicature with Deliberate Flouting of a Maxim

In this group, speakers deliberately flout a maxim in order to create a

conversational implicature. Each maxim has several typical cases of their violation
that typically generate a conversational implicature.

Maxim of Quantity

An example of flouting the Maxim of Quantity can be found in utterances of

patent tautologies. These tautologies flout the first Maxim of Quantity “Make your
contribution as informative as required”. Examples of these tautologies are “Women
are women” or “War is War”. These tautologies are definitely not informative at all

21
 CONCLUSION

and therefore they flout the first Maxim of Quantity (Grice, 1975, p. 52). To assume
that the speaker is still being cooperative while using these tautologies, an informat-
ive inference is needed. For example, in the case of “War is war”, it could be “very
dreadful things are typical for war, and you can’t do anything to change it, therefore it
is not worthy being bothered by it” (Levinson, 1983, p. 111).

Maxim of Quality
Maxim of Quality can be flouted in several ways. Grice (1975) states 4 figures
of speech. The first figure of speech is irony. Grice gives an example of X and A, where
X discovers a secret of A’s to someone who shouldn’t have known that. X, A and the
audience all know what happened. A then says, “X is a fine friend.” A and the audience
both know that this cannot be meant truly, and A was trying to point out something
else. Therefore, A used irony to convey a message. A deliberately flouted the first
Maxim of Quality to implicate something else (p. 53). Levinson (1983) proposes a
different talk exchange which contains an apparent use of irony:

(5) A: Teheran’s in Turkey isn’t it, teacher?

B: And London’s in Armenia I suppose (p. 110).

In this talk exchange, speaker B uses irony to implicate that speaker’s A utterance is
incorrect. That is another example of flouting the first Maxim of Quality. Another
figure of speech which usage can flout a Maxim of Quality is metaphor. This can
happen for example in a sentence “You are the milk to my cereal.” This utterance
cannot be taken seriously and definitely has to implicate something else. This is
another example of usage of conversational implicature by using a figure of speech.
The next figure of speech that is used while flouting a Maxim of Quality is meiosis.
Grice states an example: “Of a man known to have broken up all the furniture, one
says ‘He was a little intoxicated’” (1975, p. 53). It is noticeable that the man couldn’t
have been just a little intoxicated and therefore the statement is not entirely true. The
last figure of speech in this group is hyperbole. For instance, when a speaker says,
“Every woman can cook,” it cannot be meant truly as the speaker must know it is not
true. In addition, the speaker might also be flouting the second Maxim of Quality
because of lacking evidence to assume so. The second Maxim of Quality can also be
flouted when presuming something is happening. If the sentence “A is definitely
partying somewhere right now while I am here alone” is said with a certain tone of a
voice, it might be clear that the speaker lacks evidence for assuming so and does it
only because of the previous attitude of A.

22
 CONCLUSION

Maxim of Relation
As stated by Grice (1975), achievement of a conversational implicature by
flouting a Maxim of Relation is rare (p. 54). Yet, Levinson (1983) gives an example of
such utterance:

(6) Johnny: Hey Sally let’s play marbles

Mother: How is your homework getting along Johnny? (p. 111).

This talk exchange shows that Mother chose to change the subject and therefore flout
a Maxim of Relation to indicate that Johnny should be working on his homework
rather than playing marbles. Another example of flouting a Maxim of Relation could
be the following talk exchange:

(7) A: I do think Mrs Jenkins is an old windbag, don’t you?

B: Huh lovely weather for March, isn’t it? (Levinson, 1983, p. 111).

This example is a bit harder to interpret, however, it shows a situation where B

notices Mrs Jenkins somewhere close and wants to change to point that out to A and
change a subject, so Mrs Jenkins does not hear what is being said about her.

Maxim of Manner
There are three situations according to Grice (1975) in which the Maxim of
Manner “Be perspicuous” can be flouted: ambiguity, obscurity and a failure to be
brief. Levinson (1983) states an example of the failure to be brief. He provides two
utterances (8) and (9) which could be found in a musical performance review:

(8) Miss Singer produced a series of sounds corresponding closely to the score of
an aria from Rigoletto
(9) Miss Singer sang an aria from Rigoletto” (Levinson, 1983, p. 112).

While both utterances mean the same thing, utterance (8) implicates something else
than utterance (9). Utterance (8) tries to devalue Miss Singer’s performance
implicating that her performance was not good enough to be called singing, but utter-
ance (8) just describes what Miss Singer was singing.

23
 CONCLUSION

4 Humour Creation by the Violation of Grice’s

Maxims

This chapter follows the previous one which focused on several occasions when the
maxims are not being fulfilled in a conversation. It connects cases of non-observance
of the maxims to the main topic of the thesis – the creation of humour. The chapter
also discusses the non-bona-fide mode in which the participants are when telling
jokes and the speakers’ and hearers’ intentional and unintentional behaviour.
The humorous potential of violation Grice’s maxims was observed by many
linguists including Grice himself. Grice has shown that while considering irony as a
figure of speech following the non-observance of Maxim of Quality. Other linguists
that were researching this phenomenon were for example Leech (1983). The
difference between flouting a maxim, as showed in the previous chapter, and
violating one is that the violation of a maxim fails to observe the recommendations of
the maxims or is not done in order to not violate a different maxim and therefore is
non-cooperative (Attardo, 1994, p. 272). To illustrate this, Attardo (1994) states an
example of a violation of each Grice’s maxim which creates humorous instances:

(10) Quantity
Excuse me, do you know what time it is?
Yes. (Attardo, 1994, p. 272).
(11) Relation
How many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Fish! (Attardo, 1994, p. 272),
(12) Manner
Do you believe in clubs for young people?
Only when kindness fails. (Attardo, 1994, p. 272).
(13) Quality
Why did the Vice President fly to Panama?
Because the fighting is over. (Attardo, 1994, p. 272).

Example (10) surely violates the Maxim of Quantity “Make your contribution as
informative as required”. In example (11) it can be noticed that there is an evident
violation of Maxim of Relation as the speaker is not being relevant with the answer to
the question. The next example (12) is ambiguous and therefore it is not following
the Maxim of Manner. And the last example shows a violation of the Maxim o Quality
as the speaker is definitely lacking evidence to assume so. All 4 are examples of
humorous utterances and it is noticeable that they were made by a violation of a
maxim.

24
 CONCLUSION

One might say that example (10) could be a simple flouting of a maxim if it was
commonly known the person had a broken watch and went to have them repaired at
a certain time. Then the question would be a differently formulated question “Did
they manage to repair your watch” and the answer “Yes” would then be following the
Maxim of Manner. However unlikely this illustration is, it illustrates the difference
between violating and flouting a maxim (Attardo, 1994, p. 273).

4.1 Bona-fide and Non-bona-fide Communication

Both Raskin (1984) and Attardo (1994) mention the non-bona-fide mode of joke-
telling. The non-bona-fide mode is the opposite of bona-fide mode which is described
by Raskin (1984) as “the earnest serious, information-conveying mode of verbal
communication” (p. 100). The non-bona-fide modes are for example “lying, play
acting, or joke telling” (Raskin, 1984, p. 100). The bona-fide communication is the one
that is following the Cooperative Principle and follows the maxims given by Grice.
The non-bona-fide mode is therefore used in joke telling, as this mode does not serve
to carry information, but rather to make the hearer laugh. That means that when a
hearer fails to recognize Grice’s maxims that are applicable in bona-fide
communication, the hearer then starts looking for a different way to interpret the
utterance. For these purposes, Raskin (1984) proposed a different set of maxims for
non-bona-fide communication mode for telling jokes:

1. Maxim of Quantity: Give exactly as much information as is necessary for the

joke
2. Maxim of Quality: Say only what is compatible with the world of joke
3. Maxim of Relation: Say only what is relevant to the joke
4. Maxim of Manner: Tell the joke efficiently (p. 103).

When a hearer notices that the Cooperative Principle for bona-fide communication is
not followed, the hearer then starts assuming that the maxims for non-bona-fide
communication are being followed. It is assumed that the speaker’s intention is not to
convey any information but to make the hearer laugh. What is also proposed by
Raskin is that the speaker’s reaction to non-bona-fide communication is an
assumption that the speaker is joking rather than lying, as joking is taken as socially
acceptable while lying is not (Raskin, 1984, p. 103). According to Raskin (1984), there
are two states of the speaker and two states of the hearer. The ones regarding the
speaker are when the speaker makes a joke unintentionally or intentionally. The ones
regarding the speaker are concerned with whether the hearer expects the joke or not.
When the speaker makes a joke unintentionally, the speaker is then part of a bona-
fide communication. However, when the speaker makes the joke intentionally, then

25
 CONCLUSION

he is engaged in non-bona-fide communication. When the hearer does not expect a

joke, he expects a bona-fide communication in the first place. After not being able to
interpret the utterance in bona-fide mode, he then tries to interpret it in non-bona-
fide mode. When the hearer expects a joke, then the hearer does not try to interpret
the joke in bona-fide communication mode. Certain combinations of these situations
create non-bona-fide communication, such as when the speaker makes the joke
unintentionally and the speaker expects the joke, and some combinations are
creating a bona-fide communication, for instance when the speaker makes the joke
unintentionally and the hearer does not expect it (pp. 100-101). Therefore, the
speaker does not always have to be the one telling the joke in the first place and the
hearer can still perceive an utterance as a humorous one.

26
 CONCLUSION

5 Non-observance of the Cooperative Principle and

its Humorous Potential

This thesis has defined the Cooperative Principle and showed many ways in which
the maxims are not being observed. This chapter is concerned with whether a
violation of a maxim proposed by Attardo (1994) is the only occasion of non-
observance of the Cooperative Principle or whether other occasions of non-
observance of the Cooperative Principle can work the same.
Attardo (1994) was mostly focused on the humorous potential of the violation of
the Cooperative Principle as can be seen when he is describing the examples of
humour creation: “It should be noted that what is being claimed is that the above
texts do not flout or exploit the maxims, but they violate them” (p. 273). Attardo also
mentions the work of Grice (1975) where he states that it is possible to flout a maxim
and still remain cooperative in the sense of the Cooperative Principle, however,
Attardo states “no ulterior interpretation of the text can salvage it from the violation
of the maxim” (p. 273) about his examples of humorous instances created by the
violation of the maxims. However, Attardo (1994) also claims that Grice also saw the
humorous potential of violation of the Cooperative Principle as he mentioned irony
as an example of implicature, which was created by flouting a maxim (pp. 271-272).
Raskin (1984) also indicates that if implicature is used in a sentence that does not
bare its literal meaning, jokes can also arise in that utterance (p. 54). Grice (1975)
has shown than even flouting a maxim can create humorous instances. It can be seen
mostly in the flouting of the maxim of quality, where 4 figures of speech arise after
the maxim is flouted. These four figures of speech (i.e. irony, metaphor, hyperbole
and meiosis) are usually used for jokes. Even the example (5) by Levinson (1983) can
be found humorous, or Grice’s own example mentioned in chapter 4 “Of a man known
to have broken up all the furniture, one says ‘He was a little intoxicated’” (Grice, 1975,
p. 3) as well. This shows that not only violating a maxim, but other occasions where
the Cooperative Principle is not
observed can create humour. Therefore, this thesis does not differentiate the
occasions and analyse the humorous potential of non-observance of the Cooperative
Principle as a whole.

27
 CONCLUSION

6 Non-observance of the Cooperative Principle in

How I Met Your Mother

As a sitcom, How I Met Your Mother contains a lot of humorous situations. Most of
these humorous situations can be observed by canned laughter (described in chapter
3) following them. This analysis chooses an example of non-observance of each
Grice’s maxim and illustrates how the non-observance of the particular maxim
creates humorous situations. As was mentioned before, it does not always have to be
the speaker’s intention to create a humorous instance and the hearer might still
perceive an utterance as a humorous one. In addition, the analysis shows a few cases
in which humorous instances are made by the reaction to the non-observance of the
Cooperative Principle and not by the non-observance itself. The analysis is limited
only to the first season of the series.

6.1 Maxim of Quantity

6.1.1 “Make your contribution as informative as is required”

This maxim that is concerned with providing enough information is not
observed many times throughout the series. It happens for example when the
speaker does not want to put emphasis on something embarrassing or when the
reveal of some information would put them in an embarrassing situation. An example
can be found in the very first episode. While Marshall and Lily are cooking a dinner
together, Marshall remembers that he has a champagne in the fridge as he wanted to
propose to Lily.
Marshall therefore goes to the fridge and gives the champagne to Lily:

(14) Marshall: Oh, hey, look what I got (runs to the fridge, takes out wine bottle and
hands it to Lily)
Lily: Oh, honey! Champagne! (hands it to Marshall)
Marshall: (after short silence) Yeah. (hands it back)
Lily: (realizing) No. You are too old to be scared to open a bottle of
champagne!
Marshall: I'm not scared.
Lily: Then open it.
Marshall: Fine. (Takes bottle. Looks at it for a couple of seconds) Please
open it. (hands it to Lily). (Bays et al., 2005)

28
 CONCLUSION

As Marshall does not want to look like a coward right before proposing to his partner,
he wants to let Lily open the champagne bottle without revealing himself. While just
saying “Yeah” and not opening the bottle, Marshall fails to observe the maxim “Make
your contribution as informative as required” as the answer “Yeah” should be rather
a demand “Can you please open it?”. Marshall with his rather awkward answer
unintentionally creates a humorous instance which is followed by canned laughter in
the series.

6.1.2 “Do not make your contribution more informative than is required”

The opposite of the previous maxim is when there is too much information
given, which can also provoke a humorous situation. When that happens in the series,
the hearer often stops listening and the communication usually fails to continue. This
example is happening at a ball which the group attended, and Lily asks a band
member if they could play a song so she could discover whether she can hire them for
their wedding:

(15) Lily: Hi. Excuse me. I was wondering If you guys could play "good feeling" By
the Violent Femmes. I know it's probably not in your repertoire, But I'm
getting married and my fiancé wants to hire you guys as the band, but I can't
sign off on it until I hear you play "good feeling” because that's our song, and
what kind of wedding band would you be If you couldn't play our song, right?
Right?
Man: Look, I'm kinda wasted right now, So I didn't understand any of that. But,
uh, if you get us the sheet music, we'll play your song. (Bays et al., 2005).

Lily’s utterance does not observe the Maxim of Quantity and her long speech to a
complete stranger is found humorous by the audience. Instead of simply asking the
band member to play the song of her choice, she uses too much of not needed
information. Even the hearer (the band member) finds the speech too long and
humorous, and his reaction is found humorous by the audience as well. This is an
example that shows the reaction to utterances which are not observing the
Cooperative Principle can also be found humorous and not just the utterance not
following it itself.
Another example of non-observance of this particular maxim can be found in
Ted’s utterance on a first date with Yasmine:

(16) Ted: I just couldn't imagine settling down right now.

Yasmine: So, do you think you'll ever get married?

29
 CONCLUSION

Ted: Well, maybe eventually... Some fall day, possibly in central park. Simple
ceremony. We'll write our own vows. Band, no DJ. People will dance! I'm not
gonna worry about it! Damn it, why did Marshall have to get engaged? (Bays et
al., 2005)

It can be seen that so much information was not what Yasmine expected as an answer
on a first date. As Ted provides that much information, he does not observe the
maxim “Do not make your contribution more informative than is required” and it is
found
humorous by the audience as they get it is not desirable to share such information on
that occasion.

6.2 Maxim of Quality

The Maxim of Quality has shown to be not observed probably the most from
all maxims. As its flouting arises irony or ambiguity, its non-observance is used a lot
while creating humour.

6.2.1 “Do not say what you believe is false”

The violation of this specific maxim is a perfect example of the use of irony.
The talk exchange is happening in a bar where Ted thinks about how to ask Robin
out. As he is too shy to ask her out directly, he introduces an idea:

(17) Ted: I got it. I don't ask her out. I invite her to our party next Friday.
Marshall: We're having a party next Friday?
Ted: We are now. Casual.
Barney: Yeah, cuz nothing says “Casual” like inviting a hundred people
over just to mack on one girl. (Bays et al., 2005)

Ted introduces an idea that he will organise a party just so he could meet with Robin
there. The funny part of the talk exchange is that Ted calls it “casual”, and Barney
could not just leave that. Therefore, Barney uses irony to implicate that the word
casual definitely does not describe having a party just to meet with one girl. As irony
is used often for creating humorous instances, Barney’s utterance is found humorous.
A different situation with the non-observance of this maxim happened when
Lily wants Ted to come help her change a broken car tire:

(18) Lily: Listen, could you take a cab out to Dutchess County and change a flat on
Marshall’s Fiero?
Ted: What? No. Can’t you just call Marshall?

30
 CONCLUSION

Lily: Marshall can’t know about this. Look, Ted, it’s dark, I don’t know how to
change a tire, I’ve stumbled into the beginning of a very scary campfire story.
Can you please hurry?
Ted: I can’t I’m waiting…
Lily: (in a frightened voice) Oh my God, is that a drifter with a hook for a hand?
No, drifter, no!
Ted: Come on, Lily!
Lily: But you see my point. (Bays et al., 2005)

Lily fakes to see something scary in order to force Ted to come help her. Even
though Ted knew she is not telling the truth, Lily’s utterance which does not observe
the Maxim of Quality is still found humorous because of the clear lie she made.

6.2.2 “Do not say for which you lack evidence”

This maxim is usually not observed when the speaker does not want to be
seen as not knowing something, which might mislead the hearer, or, as will be seen in
the example (19), to make fun of someone. Example (19) is happening right before
example (17). Therefore, the group is located in a bar and they are concerned with
Ted’s affection for Robin:

(19) Ted: She wants casual. Okay, I'll be casual. I'm going to be a mushroom cloud
of casual. Cause it's a game... I want her to skip to the end and do the whole
happily-ever-after thing. But you don't get there unless you play the game.
Marshall: So, are you going to ask her out?
Ted: Yeah... No! I can't ask her out, because if I ask her out, I'm asking her out.
So, how do I ask her out without asking her out?
Lily: Did you guys get high? (Bays et al., 2005)

Lily’s response is definitely not observing the Maxim of Quality as she definitely lacks
evidence to suppose so and uses the utterance to imply that their behaviour is not
making sense and Ted and Marshall are not speaking clearly. Lily’s utterance could be
also counted as non-observance of the maxim “Do not say what you believe is false”,
as she does not believe in what she said but she rather uses it to create a humorous
situation. However, there is still a slight possibility that Lily might have meant it truly
and therefore it is rather the non-observance of the maxim “Do not say for which you
lack
evidence”.
A different example of this maxim not being observed is when Lily makes fun
of Barney after his utterance about the purpose of being drunk:

31
 CONCLUSION

(20) Barney: No, no, it’s a great idea. That’s the whole point of getting drunk. You do
thing you’d never do in a million years if you were sober.
Lily: Says every girl you’ve ever slept with. (Bays et al., 2005)

Canned laughter occurs after this utterance that surely does not observe the
Maxim of Quality. Lily has no evidence for assuming that her utterance is true,
however, she still says it to ridicule Barney.

6.3 Maxim of Relation

Maxim of Relation has just one supermaxim “Be relevant”. In the series, its
non-observance is chosen by the speakers when they don’t feel comfortable in a
certain situation, similar to the reason of non-observance of Maxim of Quantity in
example (14). However, when a speaker decides to not observe the Maxim of
Relation, they
totally change the subject of the talk exchange. What is often humorous is the abrupt
change of the subject, as can be seen in example (21). The talk exchange happens in a
bar, where Lily, Marshall, Robin and Mike are having a dinner together. While
Marshall and Lily are showing attraction for each other by doing romantic things,
Robin does not seem to show any attraction for Mike. Mike therefore tries a lot to
speak of them as a couple:

(21) Mike: You know, if you guys like tiramisu, we found this little Italian place…
Robin: No, you found it. I came with you. Go on.
Mike: I’m just saying we love tiramisu.
Robin: I cannot get enough of it.
Mike: We’re crazy for this stuff.
Robin: I’m crazy tiramisu and you’re crazy for tiramisu.
Mike: We love tiramisu. Am I wrong in saying that?
Robin: No, no, no, I mean it just sounds a little bit weird, doesn’t it? We love
tiramisu. Is it really a group activity, loving tiramisu? Right?
Marshall: (louder, after a short silence) So this Italian place? How’s their
cannoli? (Bays et al., 2005)

In this example, Marshall is not the one who was directly involved in the talk
exchange. Nevertheless, the embarrassing situation makes him to interrupt the talk
exchange by asking a question that was not relevant to Robin’s question. The way he
asks the
question is found humorous by the audience and it surely does not observe the
Maxim of Relation.

32
 CONCLUSION

There are more examples where the non-observance of the Maxim of Relation
is used for different purposes. For instance, in example (22), Marshall interrupts the
talk exchange to show how angry he is with Ted when he left a phone booth in their
flat despite Marshall’s wishes:

(22) Marshall: You like the phone booth. It stays. I like this painting so I’m just
gonna hang it…right here on the wall.
(Marshall takes swords down and throws them down on the ground, hang
painting in their place)
Ted: Oh, so It’s like that now, is it?
Marshall: Bring, bring.
(Marshall walks over to phone booth and picks up phone)
Marshall (in British accent): Oh hello, governor, oh it’s like that, isn’t it?
Cheerio.
(Hangs up phone)
Marshall: yeah, it’s like that. (Bays et al., 2005)

As it can be seen, Marshall is not intentionally relevant to make fun of the phone
booth and show how he is angry with Ted. This interruption can be found humorous
as well and it displays non-observance of being relevant.

6.4 Maxim of Manner

6.4.1 “Avoid obscurity”

Speakers in the series choose to be obscure when they do not want someone
to know the meaning of the utterance. According to Grice, “A might be deliberately
obscure, though not too obscure, in the hope that B would understand and the third
party not” (Grice, 1975, p. 55). That is the case of a talk exchange where Ted asks Lily
if she decided to go to San Francisco for an art program which was at the same date
as her wedding with Marshall. Because he does not want Marshall to know, he
chooses to ask differently so he could not tell what he means with that:

(23) Ted: So, Lil, did you, uh, get the milk?
Lily: Yeah. Yeah, I-I got it.
Ted: You think you might want to... Drink the milk?
Lily: No. Nope, I'm good. I don't need any milk.
Marshall: Look, guys, I know milk is important-- It's got vitamin a, vitamin d,
it's a great way to start the morning. But Ted just had a huge date. How'd it go,
dude? (Bays et al., 2005)

33
 CONCLUSION

As it can be seen, the maxim “Avoid obscurity” is not observed there and Marshall
was misled because of that. As Marshall does not know anything about Lily’s art
program, there is no reason for him to suspect anything. Marshall’s response is found
humorous by the audience. This is another example that shows a humorous situation
might arise from a failure to decode the non-observance of the maxim rather than
from the non-observance itself.
An example where the non-observance itself creates a humorous instance oc-
curs in a phone call between Ted and Claudia. Ted asks Claudia about a girl he met at
her wedding but does not know her full name:

34
 CONCLUSION

(24) Ted: Uh, no. Her name was Victoria. I don’t know her last name.
Claudia: Well, lucky for you, I know that guest list backwards and forwards.
Ted: Oh, thank God!
Claudia: Unlucky for you, there was no Victoria at my wedding. Goodbye,
Ted. (Bays et al., 2005)

Claudia is intentionally obscure with her utterance and misleads Ted into believing
she knows what girl he means. Unfortunately, in the next utterance, she denies it, as
according to her, there was no Victoria at the wedding. A humorous situation was
created by Claudia’s intentional obscurity.

6.4.2 “Avoid ambiguity”

This specific Maxim of Manner is not being observed mostly intentionally in
the series. It happens when a speaker makes a joke by using a word that has more
meanings or when they want to make fun of another person and therefore make the
utterance ambiguous so it cannot be told what was originally meant with that. It can
be seen in example (25), where Robin asks the others what they are doing tomorrow
night as her plans were cancelled.

(25) Robin: Good news, I don’t have to cover the at show tomorrow night. Who’s up
for hanging out?
Ted: Oh, I can’t, I’m taking Victoria out for dinner.
Lily: No, no, we can’t, it’s our nine-year anniversary.
Robin: Wow, nine years? Your relationship’s a fourth grader. Congrats.
Marshall: It’s one of New York Magazine’s “Top five romantic getaways on a
budget.” Who says sexual can’t be sensible?
Robin: Well, looks like it’s going to be just you and me.
Barney: Really?
Robin: Actually, I was talking to my martini.

This example shows that Robin is intentionally being ambiguous so she could make
fun of Barney. There is no reason for Barney to not think that Robin means him in her
utterance as he is the only one left at the table. By not observing the Maxim of Manner
and being unclear, she manages to create a humorous situation.

35
 CONCLUSION

6.4.3 “Be brief”

The non-observance of the maxim “Be brief” is similar with the non-observance of
“Do not make your contribution more informative than is required”. Usually, both of
them are not observed at the same time. It can be seen in example (26), where Lily
tries to describe why she wants to make a mistake,

(26) Ted: No, it’s not an adventure. It’s a mistake.

Lily: Okay, yes, it’s a mistake because the only way to really know it’s a mistake
but you don’t really is a mistake because the only way to really know it’s a
mistake is to make the mistake, and look back, and say, “Yep. That was a
mistake.” So, really, the bigger mistake would be to not make the mistake,
because then you go your whole life not really knowing is something is a
mistake or not. And damn it, I’ve made no mistakes! I’ve done all of this, my
life, my relationship, my career, mistake-free. Does any of this makes sense to
you?
Ted: I don’t know. You said “mistake” a lot. Lily don’t do this.
(Bays et al., 2005)

As it can be seen, Lily is not observing the “Be brief” maxim as she turns a simple
answer to a really long and confusing one. It is more the non-observance of this
maxim rather than one of the Maxims of Quantity as it is not giving that much not
necessary information as it is rather a prolonged sentence “I’ve never made mistakes
in my life, so I want to try to make something different now”. It is different from
example (15) where Lily gives a lot of information to a total stranger who does not
want to hear any of it.
Moreover, this is another example of a reaction to the non-observance of a
maxim being humorous rather than the non-observing utterance itself.
Example (27) then shows Marshall failing to observe the maxim “Be brief” as
he describes he liked a cake. Instead of just saying it was great, he chooses a longer
utterance.

(27) Ted: I had the most amazing night ever.

Marshall: Tell me about it. That cake! Best cake I ever had. Seriously.
My stomach was like: “Hey, bro, I don’t know what you’re eating, cause
I don’t have any eyes, but it’s basically awesome. So keep sending it
down gullet alley.” (Bays et al., 2005)

This shows that Marshall’s choice to fail the maxim of manner to describe how the
cake tasted and it is found humorous even by Ted.

36
 CONCLUSION

6.4.4 “Be orderly”

The last maxim of Maxim of Manner deals with the order in which the utterance is
said. The speaker should say the utterance in the order in which the hearer can
understand it. In the series, the non-observance of this maxim happens when the
speakers lose the train of thought. That happened when Claudia wants to apologise to
Ted for hanging up, but she loses track of what she wanted to say:

(28) Ted: Hello?

Stuart: Ted? It's Stuart. My lovely bride would like to say something to
you.
Claudia: Ted. I'm sorry I hung up on you earlier. My new husband and
vodka cranberry, which cost $10.50 at the freaking airport bar...When is
this plane going to board? (Bays et al., 2005).

The example shows that Claudia forgets what she wanted to say, and it is not clear
what she wants to say with that, especially when she starts speaking about how much
the vodka costs at the airport and after she interrupts the initial conversation with
her question that is not even meant for Ted. The talk exchange can then be found
disorderly. It is found humorous by the audience how she interrupts herself and
starts screaming.
Another example of non-observance of the maxim “Be orderly” can be noticed
when Ted calls Robin while he is drunk:

(29) Ted: Hello, Robin. It’s Ted.

Robin: Oh, hi, Ted.
Ted: Hello, Robin, it’s Ted.
Robin: Hi, Ted. (Bays et al., 2005)

This talk exchange can definitely be considered disorderly as Ted repeats the
greeting twice which is definitely not an example of an orderly conversation.
The non-observance of the maxim again created a humorous instance that was found
funny by the audience.

37
 CONCLUSION

Conclusion

As mentioned in this thesis, humour is a part of our daily lives. Humour can be both
intentional and unintentional, as an utterance can be perceived in a different way by
a hearer than it was meant by a speaker. This thesis was focusing on how humour is
being created in a sitcom How I Met Your Mother by applying a theory that the non-
observance of the Cooperative Principle creates humorous instances. Excerpts with
humorous instances were given to prove that the theory applies to this particular
sitcom as well.
The first three chapters displayed a theoretical framework needed for the
analysis of humour. The first chapter focused on the definition of humour, its
connection to laughter. It also stated the main theories of humour, specifically
incongruity theories, release theories and superiority theories. Chapter two showed a
definition of a sitcom in general, as well as it introduced the sitcom How I Met Your
Mother, mainly its plot and characters that occurred in the excerpts from the sitcom.
Chapter three than offered a definition of the Cooperative Principle. It introduced
definitions of all maxims and also offered a theory of conversational implicatures,
that stated that the Grice’s maxims do not have to be observed completely, but they
might be observed at a deeper level. This chapter also showed possible non-
observances of the Cooperative Principles on examples of each maxim’s violations.
The next chapters 4 and 5 are focused on the violation and non-observance of
the Cooperative Principle and its humorous potential. Chapter 4 states Attardo’s
theory that a violation of a maxim creates humorous instances. The chapter also gives
examples that support this theory. Chapter 5 also describes the non-bona fide mode
of communication which is used while telling jokes. Moreover, it shows that humour
might not be always used intentionally and that an utterance be perceived as a
humorous one even though it was not meant humorously at a first place. Chapter five
then connects the theories mentioned in the thesis and states that all non-observance
of maxims creates humorous instances.
Chapter six is the analysis itself. It applies the theory described in chapter five on
the excerpts from the TV series How I Met Your Mother. The analysis is limited to the
first season only. The analysis has shown that the non-observance of Grice’s maxims
creates humorous instances. What is notable is that the non-observance itself does
not have to be humorous, however, the reaction to the non-observance can be
perceived as a humorous one. Therefore, the thesis proved that in the first season of
How I Met Your Mother humour is being created by the non-observance of the
Cooperative Principle.

38
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography

Attardo, S. (1990). The violation of grice’s maxims in jokes.

Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 16(1),
355-362. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v16i0.1726
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Mouton de Gruyter.
Bays C., Thomas, C. (Producers), & Fryman, P. (Director). (2005).
How I Met Your Mother [TV series]. Retrieved from https://www.netflix.com
Brock, A. (2008). Humor, jokes and irony versus mocking, gossip and black humor.
Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 541-566. Mouton de Gruyter.
Dynel, M. (2009a). Humorous garden-paths: A pragmatic-cognitive study.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Dynel, M. (2009b). Beyond a joke: Type of conversational humour.
Language and linguistics compass, 3, 1284-1299.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00152.x
Ermida, I. (2008). The language of comic narratives: humor construction in short
stories.
Mouton de Gruyter.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics, 44-58.
Academic Press.
Hornby, R. (2015). Sitcom. The Hudson Review, 68(1), 111–117.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43488996.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Ross, A. (1998). Language of humour. Routledge.

39
 RESUMÉ

Resumé (English)

The thesis analyses humour in the sitcom How I Met Your Mother from a pragmatic
point of view. The thesis consists of eight chapters which are divided into two parts:
theoretical part and practical part. The theoretical part starts with introduction. The
introduction states the objective of the thesis and its layout. The second chapter
discusses the theoretical background of the study of humour, its connection to
laughter and the main theories of humour. The third chapter deals with the genre of
sitcom, it provides its definition, and introduces the analysed sitcom How I Met Your
Mother. The next chapter is concerned with pragmatics, displaying the theoretical
background of this subfield of linguistics. The chapter also includes an introduction to
the Cooperative Principle by Herbert Paul Grice which is a crucial theory used in the
analysis. The next two chapters introduce the humorous potential of the non-
observance of the Grice’s maxims. The next chapter is the practical part of this thesis.
In this part, the Cooperative Principle is applied on the excerpts with humorous
instances from the sitcom How I Met Your Mother and it is shown how the non-
observance of the Grice’s Maxims creates humour. The final chapter summarizes and
concludes the whole thesis.

40
 RESUMÉ

Resumé (Česky)

Tato bakalá řská prá ce se zabývá analýzou humoru v sitcomu Jak jsem poznal vaši
matku z pohledu pragmatiky. Bakalá řská prá ce je rozdělena do 8 kapitol, které jsou
rozděleny na 2 čá sti, a to teoretickou a praktickou. Teoretická čá st začíná ú vodem,
který stanovuje cíl prá ce a její rozložení. Druhá kapitola se zabývá teoretický
přehledem dů ležitých pojmů v oblasti studie humoru, diskutuje jeho propojení se
smíchem a představuje hlavní teorie humoru. Třetí kapitola se pak zabývá sitcomem,
definuje ho a popisuje děj a postavy seriá lu Jak jsem poznal vaši matku. Další kapitola
definuje pragmatiku, dá le kooperační princip podle Paula Grice, což je zá sadní teorie
pro tuto prá ci. Kapitoly 4 a 5 již popisují humorný potenciá l nedodržová ní
kooperačního principu. Předposlední kapitola se pak zabývá výň atky ze seriá lu, u
kterých je patrný jejich vznik nedodržová ním kooperačního principu. Poslední
kapitola shrnuje a zakončuje celou prá ci.

41