batuan1977

New Member
Luận văn tiếng Anh: English and Vietnamese jokes - from a pragmatic perspective = Phân tích truyện cười Anh - Việt trên bình diện ngữ dụng học. M.A. Thesis Linguistics: 60 22 15
Nhà xuất bản: ĐHNN
Ngày: 2010
Chủ đề: Truyện cười
Tiếng Anh
Tiếng Việt
Ngữ dụng học
Miêu tả: 40 p. + CD-ROM
M.A. Thesis English Linguistics -- University of Languages and International Studies. Vietnam National University, Hanoi, 2010
Electronic Resources
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION....................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................................iv
ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................................vi
LIST OF CHARTS..............................................................................................................vii
PART A: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................- 1 -
1. Rationale of the study..............................................................................................- 10 -
2. Aims of the study ...................................................................................................- 10 -
3. Scope of the study ..................................................................................................- 11 -
4. Methodology of the study........................................................................................- 11 -
5. Format of the study.................................................................................................- 13 -
PART B: DEVELOPMENT .....................................................................................- 14 -
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.................................................- 14 -
1.1. Theory of jokes.....................................................................................................- 14 -
1.1.2. Definition of jokes.........................................................................................- 14 -
1.1.3. Incongruity theory.........................................................................................- 15 -
1.2. Theories of pragmatics related to jokes .................................................................- 15 -
1.2.1. Definitions of pragmatics ..............................................................................- 15 -
1.2.2. Speech act theory ..........................................................................................- 17 -
1.2.2.1. Locutional act ........................................................................................- 17 -
1.2.2.2. Illocutional act .......................................................................................- 17 -
1.2.2.3. Perlocutional act ....................................................................................- 17 -
1.2.3. Conversational implicature and context .......................................................- 19 -
1.2.4. The cooperative principle ..............................................................................- 20 -
1.2.5. Conversational maxims ...............................................................................- 20 -
1.2.5.1. The maxim of quantity...........................................................................- 20 -
1.2.5.2. The maxim of quality.............................................................................- 20 -
1.2.5.3. The maxim of relevance.........................................................................- 21 -
1.2.5.4. The maxim of manner ............................................................................- 21 -
1.2.6. Principles of conducting maxims ...................................................................- 21 -
1.2.6.1. Flouting .................................................................................................- 21 -
1.2.6.2. Violating................................................................................................- 23 -
CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ..........................................................- 23 -
2.1. Difficulties of joke analysis ..................................................................................- 24 -- 9 -
2.1.1. Cultural factor ...............................................................................................- 24 -
2.1.2. Making inferences.........................................................................................- 24 -
2.2. Analysis procedures..............................................................................................- 24 -
2.3. Joke analysis.........................................................................................................- 25 -
2.3.1. Speech act analysis of the set- up in English and Vietnamese jokes ...............- 25 -
2.3.2. Maxim analysis of the punch line in English and Vietnamese jokes. ..............- 28 -
2.3.2.1. Maxim of quantity .................................................................................- 28 -
2.3.2.2. Maxim of quality ...................................................................................- 29 -
2.3.2.3. Maxim of relevance ...............................................................................- 30 -
2.3.2.4. Maxim of manner ..................................................................................- 32 -
2.4. The analysis results...............................................................................................- 32 -
2.4.1. The speech act analysis result of the set- up...................................................- 33 -
2.4.2. The maxim analysis result of the punch line ..................................................- 33 -
2.5. Findings ...............................................................................................................- 34 -
2.5.1. Pragmatic analysis of English and Vietnamese jokes .....................................- 35 -
2.5.2. Similarities....................................................................................................- 36 -
2.5.3. Differences....................................................................................................- 37 -
CHAPTER 3: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY ...................- 38 -
3.1. Introducing pragmatic knowledge.........................................................................- 39 -
3.2. Utterance teaching via English jokes.....................................................................- 39 -
3.3. Utterance meaning teaching via English jokes ......................................................- 40 -
3.4. Culture and pragmatic teaching via English jokes .................................................- 40 -
3.5. Conversational maxim teaching via English jokes.................................................- 41 -
3.6. Speech act teaching via English jokes ...................................................................- 41 -
3.7. Suggestions for classroom activities......................................................................- 42 -
3.7.1. Speech act exercise........................................................................................- 42 -
3.7.2. Conversational maxim exercise .....................................................................- 43 -
3.7.3. Sample speech act quiz................................................................................- 43 -
3.8. Some constructive suggestions for pragmatic teaching of jokes ............................- 44 -
PART C: CONCLUSION ........................................................................................- 45 -
1. Concluding remarks................................................................................................- 45 -
2. Limitation of the study ............................................................................................- 46 -
3. Suggestions for further study ...................................................................................- 46 -
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................- 48 -
APPENDIX............................................................................................................................I
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi- 10 -
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
One of the best ways to understand people is to know what makes them laugh.
(H. Golden)
It is worth saying that we can laugh when reading or hearing jokes if we can understand
what make us laugh. Hence, we should know the communication between the participants
in jokes, the context jokes take place, and the language used. Pragmatics, therefore, will let
us know what make us laugh and then we may say jokes are interesting for our life.
And we now also understand that we should pay more attention to the study of jokes
pragmatically as semantic analysis, sociological analysis, etc. on jokes have been studied
quite extensively over the years. Pragmatic analysis is, thus, a relatively new approach of
language. And quite different from other linguistic studies, pragmatics puts more attention
on language users and the context in which the language is used. And in fact, in analyzing
jokes pragmatically, we might find a harmony between language for humor, language users
and contexts.
It is so much hoped that the study may bring a good understanding of pragmatics and
concepts of pragmatics via English and Vietnamese jokes. When analyzing jokes, the
author is trying to reveal how the matters are interpreted in the jokes. Another reason is
that, as a teacher of English, the author wants to Giúp Ha Tinh university learners of
English not only read a regular text but understand its functions in context. The study is
also hoped to offer a suggestion about the pragmatic reading of any jokes, which, in turn,
Giúp shaping a scientific view towards pragmatics. Lastly, the author wants to share a
significant reference of jokes for others who are willing to make another further pragmatic
research.
2. Aims of the study
The aims of this study are:
 To provide whether the theory of speech acts and theory of conversational maxims
has explanatory power on humor in English and Vietnamese jokes.- 11 -
 To figure out a brief account of possible similarities and differences between
English and Vietnamese jokes in terms of the speech acts and conversational
maxims.
 To provide some proposals for further study and pedagogical implications for
raising Ha Tinh university students’ pragmatic awareness.
3. Scope of the study
Many fields of pragmatics related to jokes need to be explored and a variety of jokes can
be selected. However, due to the limited time, the study is confined to the following
aspects:
 Only five English jokes and five Vietnamese jokes are selected to test the
theoretical preliminaries, and the jokes chosen must have the set- up and the punch
line (two way- communication).
 Speech acts of Austin including locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary act
are explored to interpret the set- up of English and Vietnamese jokes.
 Types of Searle’s illocutionary act including directives, commissives, expressives,
representatives and declaratives are used to identify speech acts.
 Non- observance of conversational maxims looked at only due to flouting and
violating.
 The inferences made in context to interpret the way of conducting conversational
maxims of joke participants.
 This is a linguistic study for academic purpose only.
4. Methodology of the study
The methodology employed is a qualitative research. This is a study of grounded theory. It
has been acknowledged that with this method, the researcher as an instrument for gathering
data during the study. The data is analyzed inductively, selected in the form of words, and
done before finding out the research questions.
The process for the qualitative data analysis (QDA), Corbin and Strauss (1990: 62)
will be:
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi- 12 -
 Noticing: This step means gathering English and Vietnamese jokes and the
theoretical preliminaries related to the topic. This is done by producing a record of
interesting things and coding them. Then, a descriptive scheme is developed for the
study.
 Collecting: The second step means sorting the date into discrete parts under the
analysis. The statistics are done to adopt percentages and scales based on the
analysis results for each part to determine significance of data.
 Thinking: In this step, English and Vietnamese jokes are firstly examined closely
with the theoretical background. Secondly, the constant comparisons are intended
to identify similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese jokes.
Moreover, questions are always asked about the phenomena as reflected in the data
to generalize findings for the study and provide pedagogical implications.
The joke collection:
 Five sample English jokes are selected from an English linguistic book and two
reliable websites: . Reader’s Digest, .
 Five sample Vietnamese jokes are selected Vietnamese funny story books and two
reliable websites: , .
The research questions:
 How are English and Vietnamese jokes analyzed pragmatically?
 What are the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese jokes
as seen from a pragmatic perspective?
 What tips are utilized to improve the awareness of pragmatics of learners via the
study?
The hypotheses of the study are formulated
 All the types of speech acts proposed by Austin (1955) and Searle (1969) are
found in English and Vietnamese jokes.
 Conversational maxims are broken to arouse humor.- 13 -
 Different breakings of maxims result in different ways of producing humor in
English and Vietnamese jokes.
5. Format of the study
The study begins with declaration, acknowledgement, table of contents, and abbreviation.
The main body of the study consists of three parts. They are introduction, development and
conclusion.
Part one provides a brief account of relevant information about the rationale, aims, scope,
methodology and format of the study.
Part two includes three chapters
 Chapter 1: This chapter is about theoretical notions necessary for the study
including the theory of pragmatics, concepts of pragmatics, and theory of jokes.
 Chapter 2: This chapter offers an analysis of English and Vietnamese jokes one by
one. Firstly, the speech acts and conversational maxims are applied to interpret the
set- up and the punch lines of the jokes. Secondly, the similarities and differences
between English and Vietnamese jokes will be worked out in terms of speech acts
and conversational maxims.
 Chapter 3: This chapter is about some implication of the study for EFL teaching
and learning.
Part three includes concluding remarks, limitation of the study, and recommendations for
further research.
Apart from the three main parts, the references and the appendix of the study are included.
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi- 14 -
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAl BACKGROUND
This chapter will discuss several joke and pragmatic issues which serve as theoretical
foundation for the study. First a brief review on theory of jokes such as definitions of
jokes and incongruity theory. Then theories of pragmatics related to jokes, mainly
definitions of pragmatics, speech act theory, conversational implicature and context,
cooperative principle, conversational maxims and principles of conducting maxims are
presented.
1.1. Theory of jokes
1.1.2. Definition of jokes
According to Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1987: 256), jokes are “something that is
said or done to make people laugh, i.e. a funny story.”
Suls (1972) cited in Antony (1976: 37) proposed a model for the appreciation of jokes.
This involves a two stage- process which relies on the generation and disconfirmation of
a listener’s expectations. Raskin (1985) cited in Gruyter (2001: 195) proposed a similar
theory of humor, a joke begins by being compatible with one script, and then a scriptswitch trigger occurs which is inconsistent with the original script. The trigger is usually
the punch line. The listener then searches for an alternative, more compatible script. The
humor lies in the overlap between the two scripts. Raskin (1994:100) uses the following
joke to illustrate his point:
 "Is the doctor at home?" The patient asked in his bronchial whisper.
"No," the doctor's young and pretty wife whispered in reply. "Come right in."
According to Raskin, the joke body activates the doctor- patient script, but the punch line
forces the cognitive agent to backtrack and reinterpret the joke in a lover script.
Hockett (1972: 84) states that a joke consists of a build-up and a punch. Similarly, Sherzer
(1985: 216) defines a joke as “a discourse unit consisting of two parts, the set- up and the
punch line”. The set-up (the initial portion) is normally built of a joke, while the punch line
(the second part) is the final portion of the joke, which leads to incongruity with the set-up
to provoke laughter and demands creating thinking to surprise the readers. The punch line
is the funny part of the joke. It can change the situation of the joke in order to make people- 15 -
laugh. It is the climax of the joke in which the amusing part takes place. Therefore, any
type of the jokes should have the punch line so readers may laugh. In order to make the
incongruous clearer, the following attentions will be given to the incongruity theory.
1.1.3. Incongruity theory
This theory means that humor will happen when there are two things which are in
conflict. People will laugh if they can see those contradictions. Sultz (1976) cited in
Richie (2004: 48) refers to incongruity as "a conflict between what is expected and what
actually occurs in the joke”. This belief is supported by Schopenhauer (1883) cited in
Ritchie (2004: 46), "The cause of laughter in every case is simply the sudden perception
of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects which have been thought
through it in some relation, and laughter itself is just the expression of this incongruity.”
However, some linguists disagree with the given definitions, they see the incongruous
part cannot make the perceiver laugh, but have to solve the contrary part. The adding
stage is called "a two stage- model", incongruity- resolusion. According to this model, the
cause of incongruity of joke is the pragmatic is broken and it makes readers astound. The
way of creating and resolving the incongruity can be analyzed as follows:
 "Is the doctor at home?" The patient asked in his bronchial whisper.
"No," the doctor's young and pretty wife whispered in reply. "Come right in."
The example says that the answer is seen as incongruous, with "No”......”Come right in"
interpreted as an absence of the doctor and an invitation of the patient to enter in the
house, but then the resolusion occurs with the realization that there is another
interpretation, "the wife wants to have a secret meeting with the patient” basing on the
gender of the doctor’s wife, her description as well as the absence of the doctor or her
husband.
1.2. Theories of pragmatics related to jokes
1.2.1. Definitions of pragmatics
J.L. Austin, a philosopher at Oxford University (1940s-1950s) who was interested in
language, laid the groundwork for what was to become pragmatics. Austin wanted to know
how humans manage to communicate despite the imperfections in language. One important
reason for why Austin was interested in language was that he was convinced that we do not
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi- 16 -
use language to say things (to make statements), but to do things (perform actions),
Thomas (1995: 31).
According to Levinson (1983: 12), “Pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of
meaning not captured in a semantic theory.” This means that it has consequently more to
do with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what the words or
phrases in the utterances might mean by themselves. What is learnt from Crystal (1985:
225), “Pragmatics is often contrasted with semantics”, which deals with meaning without
reference to the users and communicative functions of sentences. On the contrary,
pragmatics includes the study of how the interpretation and use of utterances depends on
knowledge of the real world, how speakers use and understand the speech acts, and how
the structure of sentence is influenced by the relationship between the speaker and the
hearer. Furthermore, it is significant for participants to share knowledge together so that
the hearer may minimize to misinterpret the speaker’s intended meaning.
Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics concerned with how humans use language, what the
speaker means and how the hearer interprets the words uttered. A sentence uttered by a
speaker can be separated into two levels of meaning: firstly the literal-propositional, i.e. the
expressed meaning, which remains the same no matter what the context is and secondly the
implied meaning, which is what the speaker means on a specific occasion, Thomas (1995:
2-8). The expressed meaning is the meaning that we understand by interpreting the word or
phrase based only on the information we get from the words uttered. Considering an
example, “Are you thirsty?”
The sentence like this is easy to interpret where the obvious meaning is a request for
information about the hearer, i.e. if he is thirsty. However, the same sentence can have a
different meaning besides the literal-propositional. That meaning will be dependent on the
context in which the sentence is uttered. Suppose that the speaker and the hearer are lost in
the desert and have had nothing to drink for days; such an utterance might then be uttered
as a joke, the hearer is obviously thirsty, in order to embolden in a time of struggle. In
another context it could mean that the speaker wants the hearer to get him a drink. This is
considered to be an example of speech acts, where the speaker intends the hearer to carry
out an action.- 17 -
Although there is no single, generally- accepted definitions of pragmatics and what it
encompasses, since the field is broad and diverse, the above definitions of pragmatics sum
up on the area that we have focused on analyzing jokes. However, in order to interpret the
speaker’s intended meaning in producing jokes, the following concepts of pragmatics
should be mentioned.
1.2.2. Speech act theory
Speech act theory is not the whole of pragmatics, but is perhaps currently the most
important established part of the subject. According to this theory, when uttering
something, people are not only saying something but doing something. Austin further
concludes that "issuing an utterance" a speaker can perform three acts simultaneously:
the locutional, the illocutional and the perlocutional acts, Austin (1955: 5).
1.2.2.1. Locutional act
This is the basic act of utterance, or producing a meaningful linguistic expression. Let’s
take an example of “The bar will be closed in five minutes.” The bartender is thereby
performing the locutionary act of saying that the bar (the one he is tending) will be closed
in five minutes (from the time of utterance).
1.2.2.2. Illocutional act
Mostly we don’t just produce well- formed utterances with no purpose. We form an
utterance with some kind of function in mind. This is the illocutionary act. The
illocutionary act is performed via the communicative force of an utterance. We might
utter the sentence above to make a statement, an offer, an explanation, or for some other
communicative purpose. This is also generally known as the illocutionary force of the
utterance. For instance, in saying that, "The bar will be closed in five minutes.” The
bartender is performing the illocutionary act of informing the patrons of the bar's
imminent closing and perhaps also the act of urging them to order a last drink. Thus, it is
necessary to know this act because if we do not understand why a language is being used
as it is, we cannot understand its meaning in the context of social interaction, Saville
(1989: 15-16).
1.2.2.3. Perlocutional act
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi- 18 -
We do not, of course, simply create an utterance with a function without intending it to
have an effect. This is the perlocutionary act. Depending on the circumstances, we will
utter that sentence on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect we
intended. This is also generally known as the perlocutionary effect. Suppose, for
example, that a bartender utters the words, "The bar will be closed in five minutes.” He
intends to be performing the perlocutionary acts of causing the patrons to believe that the
bar is about to close and of getting them to order one last drink, Yule (1996: 48).
Of all the three acts, the most discussed is the illocutionary act, or also what counts as the
intended meaning of the utterance. Besides, to give a clear difference between
illocutionary verbs and acts, Searle (1969: 60) identified the various types of conditions
underlying speech acts. He divides speech acts into five classes.
 Representatives: acts that commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed
proposition, using such verbs as affirm, believe, conclude, deny, report, etc.
 Directives: acts that ask the speaker to get the other to do something with verbs
such as request, question, etc.
 Declaratives: acts that affect immediate changes in the institutional state of
affairs and tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions, with verbs such
as appoint, declare, etc.
 Commissives: here the speaker commits himself (or herself) to a (future) course
of action, with verbs such as: guarantee, pledge, promise, swear, vow,
undertake, warrant.
 Expressives: the speaker expresses an attitude to or about a state of affairs,
using such verbs as: apologize, appreciate, congratulate, deplore, regret, etc.
Overall, the theory of speech acts is applied in order to see whether what the speaker
intends to convey with such an utterance and what the hearer has inferred from that
utterance. The hearer, therefore, could be guided to use a particular world knowledge fit to
the context. This knowledge helps him understand what happens in the text is related to
how he may understand what has happened in the world as well. In understanding a text,
he retrieves the world knowledge, which is already stored in his memory, and then relates
it to the discourse. For example, he reads a story about a visit to the relatives; he uses his
knowledge of visiting those people instead of that of sending an email or going to a picnic.- 19 -
Thus, he only uses a limited subset of the knowledge required to understand such a
discourse. The limited subset is called schemata, which leads him to expect what aspects in
his interpretation of discourse.
1.2.3. Conversational implicature and context
One of the most important concepts in pragmatics is „conversational implicature‟. It is
meant to provide an account of how it is possible to mean more than is actually said.
Conversational implicature is generated directly by the speaker depending on the context.
This implicature may or may not be understood, Thomas (1995: 58). The same expressed
meaning can have different implications on different occasions.
Another concept that related to the conversational implicature is context. The context
defined in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, p.282 is “words
that come before and after a word, phrase, statement, etc., helping to show what its
meaning is” or “circumstances in which something happens or in which something is to
be considered”. Now, we can say, on the one hand, to judge whether an implicature is
made or not, or what it may implicate, one needs to review what has been said and
preview what will be said later on, or figure out what is going on around. And on the
other hand, to implicate something, one may try to invoke the CP by a word, phrase or
statement that feels like superfluous, false, irrelevant or fuzzy. To illustrate those two
concepts, we have taken these examples from Cruse (2000: 349):
 A: Have you cleared the table and washed the dishes?
B: I‟ve cleared the table.
 A: Am I in time for supper?
B: I‟ve cleared the table
In the first example speaker B’s implication is that he has cleared the table but has not
washed the dishes, while in the second example speaker B’s implication is that speaker A
is late for dinner. Thus, A is able to infer the message in B’s utterance, by appealing to
the rules governing successful conversational interaction. What is said and what is
implicated, therefore, together form the meaning of the utterance in a given context. The
context is constituted by the knowledge shared between the speaker and the hearer. The
shared knowledge of two types: the knowledge of the language they use, and the
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi- 20 -
knowledge about the world, including the general knowledge about the world and the
specific knowledge about the situation in which linguistic communication is taking place.
1.2.4. The cooperative principle
In order to explain how hearers interpret the utterance implicature, Grice introduced the
Cooperative Principle (CP). The CP runs like this: “Make your contribution such as is
required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or directions of the talk
exchange in which you are engaged,” Grice (1991: 26). According to the CP both
speaker and hearer converse with the willingness to deliver and interpret a message. The
speaker and hearer cooperate and that is why they communicate efficiently, Thomas
(1995: 63).
1.2.5. Conversational maxims
In order to illustrate how we interpret meaning, Grice presented, in addition to the
Cooperative Principle, four conversational maxims to show how we communicate
effectively in the light of certain rules. Thanks to Grice’s maxims, we can interpret and
understand the underlying implication of an utterance, Thomas (1995: 63). The maxims
of conversation which together express a general cooperative principle are:
1.2.5.1. The maxim of quantity
The maxim requires the speaker to give the right amount of information when s/he
speaks, which means not to be too brief or to give more information than the situation
requires, Thomas (1995: 63). For example, the speaker fails to observe the maxim when
he says “I‟m feeling good today, but yesterday I was very ill, and the day before that,
even worse.” In this context the utterance contains too much information and the maxim
is not being observed.
1.2.5.2. The maxim of quality
The maxim is a matter of giving the right information. The speaker says nothing that s/he
believes to be false or for which s/he lacks sufficient evidence, Thomas (1995: 67). The
other maxims are dependent on this maxim. This is because, if a speaker does not convey
the truth then the utterance is false, even if the right amount of information is given or the
speaker is clear and orderly when speaking, Finegan (1994: 341). An example of nonobservance is: “You look good with your new haircut” when one actually believes the- 21 -
opposite. The statement is then an untruth, the speaker fails to observe the maxim in
order to be polite.
1.2.5.3. The maxim of relevance
This maxim requires the speaker to be relevant to the context and situation in which the
utterance occurs, Thomas (1995: 70). For instance, the speaker should not say “I am on
the phone” when someone asks if she wants dinner. Here, the utterance meaning is
irrelevant and the speaker fails to observe the maxim.
1.2.5.4. The maxim of manner
This maxim is a matter of being clear and orderly when conversing. The speaker
describes things in the order in which they occurred and avoids ambiguity and obscurity,
Thomas (1995: 64). A speaker fails to observe the maxim of manner when he says “I
went to bed and got undressed” when, of course, he undressed first and then went to bed.
The above maxims are not supposed to describe how people actually said they merely
attempt to describe a type of conversational practice that is reasonable to follow. When
people, for instance, aim to tell a joke or story, Grice (1991: 29).
1.2.6. Principles of conducting maxims
The maxims can be conducted by doing an observance of the maxims or a nonobservance of the maxims of Grice (1975) cited in Thomas (1995: 61- 62). If the speaker
observes all maxims, there is no distinction between what the speaker says and what he or
she means so there is no implicature could be.
To serve for the interpretation of jokes, we will go into a non-observance of the maxims.
Any failing to observe a maxim may be referred to as „breaking a maxim‟. When the
speaker breaks a maxim, the hearer looks for the implicature since he assumes the CP to
be in operation. Non-observance of maxims is often used intentionally in order to evoke
humor or to avoid discomfort. Grice discussed five ways of not observing a maxim. They
are flouting, violating, opting out, infringing and suspending. However, we only discuss
non- observance due to flouting and violating in this study.
1.2.6.1. Flouting
The speech act theory of Austin: too general for classifying the utterances.
 The speech act theory of Searle: Giúp us identify the types of utterances underlying
speech acts.
 The set- up: when the set- up is interpreted, the interpreter is able to understand the
expressed meaning of the utterances and determine the punch lines of the jokes
more easily.
 The punch lines: we found the punch lines in English and Vietnamese jokes in the
final positions. Hence, in the view of producing humor, joke writers can obey the
same principle of the position of the punch line which is evident in all ten jokes.
 Grice‟s maxims: Giúp us properly describe the dynamics of interaction and
understand the phenomenon of cooperation and non- cooperation.
 The non- observances of maxims: we only look at flouting and violating since our
material consists of a small amount of data. Therefore, there is no generalization as
to which maxims are most frequently broken in English or Vietnamese jokes in
general.
 The cooperative principle: only operate when the participant is flouting. For
example, the participants do not intend to mislead the hearer and do not violate
when the aim is to mislead.
 The incongruity theory: it might be difficult to cause humor if the incongruous
utterances do not exist in each written text.
CHAPTER 3: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
The study suggests that there is a benefit to raise the awareness of pragmatics for Ha Tinh
university learners of English. Firstly, pragmatics gives them choices about their
interactions in the target language with their mother tongue, especially through teaching
them English jokes. In fact, jokes teach learners of English to interpret the utterances in
certain contexts, acknowledge the need for the world knowledge i.e. the socio- cultural
knowledge to be able to retrieve them. As a sequence, students know how to maintain
effective interaction with interlocutors of the target culture. Secondly, learning with jokes,
which is quite relax and interesting, can Giúp enrich learners’ background knowledge of the
people and country of the target language which in turns helps learners communicate more
successfully in the target language. Moreover, reading jokes in English should be- 39 -
encouraged because when learners read they have to produce responses within them which
are precisely the ones the author wrote. Thus, joke readers will be involved with the visual
analysis skills of speech acts and maxims through jokes. Therefore, it is highly
recommended that some pedagogical suggestions and activities should be done for
improving the awareness of pragmatics of learners via jokes in English.
3.1. Introducing pragmatic knowledge
Introducing pragmatic knowledge means that teachers should convey information about the
communicative function of different linguistic forms to students. In fact, EFL learners are
commonly misled by the so-called standard linguistic patterns they have learnt in class and
they may not be able to make adjustment in different contexts. For instance, most of the
Vietnamese EFL learners greet foreigners by saying “Nice to meet you” just because they
are taught to use the pattern “Nice to meet you. - Nice to meet you too.” by their teachers
when they first begin to learn English. However, in fact, many more different ways of
greeting are used by native English speakers. So in English classes, teachers should avoid
introducing pragmatic knowledge in a fixed way. Instead, they should teach students to
interpret the meaning of utterances from both linguistic and pragmatic perspectives so as to
obtain correct understanding. Owing to the variability of language itself, there is no
absoluteness of communicative functions of different linguistic forms. Therefore, it is not
advisable to provide rules of using certain linguistic forms exclusively. Statements like
“the imperative is used to order” are often made by teachers. And this may cause students’
misunderstanding since imperative does not always entail order, and order can also be
expressed through other linguistic forms. For instance, in the following sentences,
imperative actually means offering, advising and welcoming.
 Have some tea, please. (Offering)
 Stay in bed and have some rest. (Advising)
 Come in. (Welcoming)
Considering this, when teaching the imperative, it is better that teachers provide more
examples of imperative sentences that are applied in different contexts so that the students
can have a more comprehensive understanding of the communicative functions of
imperative and avoid committing pragmatic failures in cross cultural communication.
3.2. Utterance teaching via English jokes
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi- 40 -
Generally speaking, there exist roughly equivalent models between sentence types and
language functions in every joke. However, the equivalence can never be absolute.
Language function varies according to a situation. Some types of clauses possess several
flexible functions to be determined by different pragmatic factors. Pragmatic knowledge
should not only be taught, but also covered in the official teaching syllabus because the
ultimate purpose of utterance teaching is to Giúp the student communicate successfully in
English. The key of success lies in whether the student can use English appropriately.
Appropriateness turns out to be more challenging than correctness in English
communication. The linguistic fact requires when a student understands the common law
on the structure of English sentence, then surely a teacher should teach him the alternatives
and convention in real settings. For example, among the following three sentences,
 Be quiet
 Have some coffee
 Give us this day our daily bread.
It can be seen that though all of them are imperatives, Johnson (1987: 97), only the first
one expresses an order while the second and the third indicate an invitation and a request
respectively.
3.3. Utterance meaning teaching via English jokes
The teacher is expected to stress the utterance meaning in a specific situation through each
joke. The approach to interpret the meaning contextually is encouraged, rather than always
the one to understand literally. Take the sentence “Kim's got a knife” as an example. The
sentence can be used to accomplish different things in different contexts: “to make an
assertion”, “to give a warning” or “to ask a question”. Or in another example, “Can you
tell me the truth?” “Well, I can‟t break my promise.” The utterance “well” in this
conversation means that the speaker realizes his response can’t satisfy the hearer. Besides
the purposeful training of “pragmatic awareness via jokes” at classroom, there are many
other accesses to improve the student’s pragmatic skills, namely, watching English
comedies, funny movies, reading in the original, conversing with foreigners, and so on.
3.4. Culture and pragmatic teaching via English jokes- 41 -
In order to integrate cultural teaching with English teaching, jokes should be added to the
syllabus. Teachers can create real situations for students to participate in. For instance, the
teacher first invites students to read a joke named “A fly”, and then asks the students to act
as the waiter and customer at a restaurant in England. Students are required to talk with
each other independently. This provides a great opportunity for them to think and speak in
accordance with foreign social conventions and at the same time they have to understand
what other people say so as to make the conversation continue smoothly. This role-playing
activity increases students’ awareness of the appropriate application of cultural information
learnt in class and prepares them for real communication with native English speakers.
Besides, in order to make sure that students fulfill the activities successfully, teachers
should convey enough information about the foreign culture to the students beforehand.
3.5. Conversational maxim teaching via English jokes
For the inferences made from those jokes were not quite easy, then a familiarity with
Grice's cooperative principle will Giúp learners understand participants’ intentions. This
principle holds that in any utterances both parties are assumed to be cooperating and that
any apparent violations of this cooperation compact will be interpreted as “implicating”
some non- literal meaning. Therefore, learners with a fairly low level of target language
competence can be taught to recognize such obvious violations of the conversational
maxims.
3.6. Speech act teaching via English jokes
The view that pragmatic competence is not learned merely by exposure is shared by many
learners of English. What is at issue for teachers is how to go about the task of teaching
speech acts. This can be done as follows:
 Diagnostic assessment is often the first step which helps the teacher determine the
students’ level of awareness of speech acts in general.
 Model dialogues are a useful way to present students with examples of the speech
act in use.
 The evaluation of a situation is a useful technique to further reinforce the learners’
awareness of the factors affecting the choice of semantic formulas.
 Role-play activities are particularly suitable for practicing the use of speech acts.
Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi Ket-noi.com kho tai lieu mien phi- 42 -
 Feedback and discussion are useful activities for speech act teaching because
students need to talk about their perceptions & awareness.
 When doing exercises after reading jokes, for the specific and frequently used
speech act in many communities, such as compliment, complaint, invitation,
apologies and request, etc. present samples without responses and encourage
discussion on how each speech act makes students feel.
 When reading jokes, provide the context of a situation and ask students to arrange
short jokes in order to experience the speech acts as authentic as possible.
Drawing on the above implications, the following classroom activities can be prepared:
3.7. Suggestions for classroom activities
3.7.1. Speech act exercise
The activity is organized progressively in five phases: feeling, doing, thinking,
understanding and using. These phases are organized to Giúp students to become aware of
pragmatic aspects of language use by analyzing their own language use and by looking for
aspects of conducting speech acts that are in common or different between English and
Vietnamese. The students are, of course, given pragmatic instructions in advance. Each
joke uses the following instructional procedure:

Link Download bản DOC
Do Drive thay đổi chính sách, nên một số link cũ yêu cầu duyệt download. các bạn chỉ cần làm theo hướng dẫn.
Password giải nén nếu cần: ket-noi.com | Bấm trực tiếp vào Link để tải:

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Các chủ đề có liên quan khác

Top