Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Mária Savkaničová

Pragmatic Analysis of Ironic Humour in

Black Books

Bachelor‟s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr., Jan Chovanec, Ph. D.

2013
 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..

Author‟s signature
I would like to express my special thanks to my supervisor, Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D
for his guidance and professional support during the time of research and writing of this
thesis. Secondly, I would also like to thank all who encouraged and helped me in any
respect during that time.
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6

2. Definition of Humour ................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Linguistic Theories of Humour ............................................................................. 11

2.1.1 Incongruity-Resolution Theories .................................................................... 11

2.2.1 The Hostility Theories .................................................................................... 12

2.3.1 Release/Relief Theories .................................................................................. 12

2.3.2 The Semantic Script Theory ........................................................................... 13

2.3.3 The General Theory of Verbal Humour ......................................................... 14

2.3.4 Conversational Humour.................................................................................. 15

2.2 Discourse of Humour ............................................................................................ 16

3. Irony ............................................................................................................................ 17

3.1 Types of Irony ....................................................................................................... 17

3.2 Pragmatics of Irony ............................................................................................... 18

3.2.1 Cooperative Principle and Implication Theory .............................................. 20

4. Television Comedy ..................................................................................................... 23

4.1 Genre of Sitcom .................................................................................................... 24

4.1.1 Black Books.................................................................................................... 27

5. Non-observance of the Cooperative Principle and Ironic Humour in the “Black

Books” ............................................................................................................................ 28

5.1 Non-observance of the Maxim of Quality ............................................................ 28

 5.1.1 „Do not say what you believe to be false‟ ....................................................... 29

5.1.2 „Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence‟................................ 32

5.2 Non-observance of the Maxim of Quantity .......................................................... 34

5.2.1 „Do not make your contribution more informative than is required‟ ............. 34

5.3 Non-observance of the Maxim of Relation ........................................................... 35

5.3.1 „Be relevant‟ ................................................................................................... 35

5.4 Non-observance of the Maxim of Manner ............................................................ 36

5.4.1 „Avoid ambiguity‟ ........................................................................................... 36

5.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 39

6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 41

Works Cited .................................................................................................................... 44

Anotace ........................................................................................................................... 46

Abstract ........................................................................................................................... 47
 1. Introduction

Humour has been for centuries a subject for an extensive scholarly research in

various fields of study including psychology, sociology and linguistics. It is an

important part of human interaction in which it serves as a multi-functional tool. The

roles and functions of the phenomenon of humour are discussed by several theories of

humour all of which put emphasis on a different aspect of its multimodality.

The core of the thesis is a study of verbal humour considered from a pragmatic

perspective of Cooperative Principle and Implication Theory formulated by Paul Grice

in 1975. Special attention is given to the study of oppositional irony which arises from

the notion of the implication theory itself. This opposition in which something else is

implied while something different is said will be discussed through individual maxims

of conversation in the examples taken from the situation comedy Black Books. The end

of discussion shows the connection between creation of humour in sitcoms and breaking

of certain conversational rules.

The content of the thesis is embedded in six chapters. The first chapter provides

an introduction into the topics which it will discuss and justifies the purpose of the

study. Next chapter is devoted to definition of humour through different linguistic

theories and depiction of humour as a certain kind of potential to be funny or to induce

amusement indicated by laughter. Chapter three provides an insight into pragmatics of

irony and its different types. It aims to establish a background for a further study of

cooperative principle. The fourth chapter deals with television comedy and a genre of

sitcom and introduces the sitcom Black Books which is to be analysed respectively in

chapter five. This chapter focuses on application of non-observance of cooperative

6
principle in the excerpts from the series to explain how humour is conveyed. The last

chapter concludes the findings of the study.

7
 2. Definition of Humour

This chapter is going to clarify the problems with definition of humour and

discuss different approaches to this phenomenon. Further, it will mention the most

important roles the humour has and will consider a social aspect of humour as one of its

biggest significances.

At the beginning of discussion about humour the definition of the term itself is

crucial. Many scholars have been trying to define humour for centuries, but no single

definition has been given. The fact that there are many theories of humour suggests that

it functions among no precise frontiers. Research has been made in several different

fields such as linguistics, psychology or sociology with an attempt to define certain

boundaries of its functions. Different points of view on this issue from different fields of

study, however, caused ambiguity and defining humour has thus become a problematic

question. Mixing of terms like humour, comic and funniness also brings inconsistency

into the research: “...the lack of rigorous, or at least reliable, definition of humour...is

represented by the fact that denominations of processes...are often used as if they were

synonyms...This denotes that the semantic field to which they belong does not have

precise boundaries” (Attardo 1994, p. 4). Attardo thus suggests that it is impossible to

give a definition of humour that will be completely unambiguous (p. 3). In spite of the

difficulties, it can be said that humour is a certain quality or potential of somebody or

something to be funny and amusing.

Humour has a frequent occurrence in society and is considered to be a very

important part of human interaction (Ross 1998, Introduction). Verbal humour, which is

the core of the discussion for this thesis, can be found in written as well as spoken forms

8
such as puns, jokes or teasing. The varieties of these forms became popular in television

broadcasting which is today an inseparable part of everyday entertainment. It is also a

powerful tool to present one‟s opinions and attitudes and thus create bonds between

certain groups of people and make them distinguishable from the others: “Humour is

influential – from political satire to joking as a way of establishing friendships and

excluding others” (Ross 1998).

Humour itself has several roles which are difficult to tell apart and in fact

function together to achieve wanted effect:

communication

cognitive development

indication of laughter, pleasure or entertainment (Clarke 2008, p.

68)

reduction of stress and anxiety

promotion of self-image (Günther 2003, p. 17-18)

Concerning the social aspect of humour, probably the most frequently

recognized role of humour is to induce laughter. It can be used in lightening of some

situations, in showing a gesture of sympathy or to arouse good mood by causing

amusement. In connection to this, Ross in his view defines humour as “something that

makes a person laugh or smile” (p. 1). To build up on this rather simplistic definition,

Palmer provides a more sophisticated interpretation when he says that humour is

“everything that is actually or potentially funny, and the process by which this funniness

occurs” (Palmer 1994, p. 3). Not every humorous event has to be funny for everybody,

though. The recognition and appreciation of humour depends on many factors such as

culture, gender or age. Humour is different from laughter. These two terms are not

9
interchangeable and cannot be considered to be the same concept. Although humour is a

primary cause of laughter, the laughter does not inevitably depend on humour and can

be in some situations a release of mental tension (as the Release theory of humour

suggests), instead of expression of amusementas well as sign of fear or embarrassment

(Ross 1998, p. 1).Also, not every humorous situation causes one to laugh. As has

already been mentioned, laughter depends on a context which certain groups of people

share.

Humour is social rather than individual phenomenon. The social aspect of

humour is supported by the notion that people usually laugh in company of other people

and certain jokes can only be appreciated in groups (Clarke 2008, p. 64). Even in

television there appears a substitute for conducted laughter of other people in order to

create a grouping effect: “Because it‟s important to sense other people responding to

humour, „canned laughter‟ is used for television or radio comedy” (Ross 1998). It is less

probable that people will laugh when alone, since laughing is a sign of “allegiance to a

group” or, on the other hand can as well serve as a tool to distance oneself from the

speaker. People laugh when they are given an initial trigger to laugh sometimes even

before the actual joke is expressed (p. 1-2). Laughter certainly does not serve as the only

essential marker of humour, but is generally recognized and thus for an initial definition

of humour is a useful tool to use.

Considering these aspects of humour and laughter it is difficult to state a general

definition. Humour is a complex issue which needs to be treated in this respect as

dependent on many factors such as context, age or a sense of belonging to a community.

In relation to its definition, a few linguistic theories of humour will be discussed in the

following section.

10
2.1 Linguistic Theories of Humour

In order to understand the complexity of research into humour, it is necessary to

look at a few linguistic theories on that issue which help to extend the definition and

role of humour itself. This subchapter is going to explain some principal theories of

humour and stress the aspects which are the most important from a linguistic point of

view.

Modern classification of theories of humour divides them into a few categories:

incongruity theories, hostility/disparagement theories (aggression, superiority, triumph,

derision), release theories (sublimation, liberation) (Attardo 1994, p. 46-47), the

semantic script theory, the general theory of verbal humour and the conversational

humour theory as the most recent of the above mentioned.

2.1.1 Incongruity-Resolution Theories

Incongruity-resolution theory is one of the first linguistic theories of humour

dating back to 18th century. Two most famous pioneers of this theory are Kant and

Schopenhauer. The core of this theory can easily be explained by Schopenhauer‟s

definition of laughter: “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” (Attardo 1994, p. 48). The idea of incongruity is based on the notion that

there is a certain pattern to the relationships between components of ideas. When the

system of arrangement does not match with the expected pattern, the event is perceived

as incongruous (p. 48). Many theorists agree that not incongruity, but congruous

outcome of the incongruity contains the funny element. This theory is a two-staged

11
model of comprehension and appreciation including incongruity and resolution.

Incongruity theory is an essentialist approach and therefore does not have a

psychological or sociological, but rather general outlook on the issue of humour (p. 49).

This theory is widely used in humour discourse because of its general nature. It

contains elements which co-occur in other theories as well and therefore it is compatible

for example with hostility or release theories.

2.2.1 The Hostility Theories

These theories address the negative element of humour. Probably the most

influential from these theories is the superiority theory advocated to a great extent by

Bergson. According to this theory, “humour is a social corrective used by society to

correct deviant behaviour” (Attardo 1994, p. 50). The original idea was proposed by

Thomas Hobbes who thought that laughter is an expression of „sudden glory‟ and

realization of being better than someone else (p. 49). In general, this theory, which is

based on sociological approach and emphasizes the aggressive aspect of humour,

assumes that people laugh at the tragedies of other people and laughter which occurs

when such a situation happens is a reflection of one‟s superiority. Humour is thus an

expression of spite and aimed at people who are being considered inferior in any kind of

way.

2.3.1 Release/Relief Theories

The basis for these theories, which take into account a psychological aspect of

humour, was proposed by Freud, who believed that humour releases tension or mental

energy and relieves a person from inhibitions imposed by conventions and laws. People

live under these prohibitions and suppressions and release themselves by bursting out in

12
laughter. The release theories have a significant contribution to linguistic research about

humour in a sense that they liberate from the rules of language which are typical for

puns and word-plays in general (p. 50). This theory also encompasses social and

behavioural elements of humour itself.

2.3.2 The Semantic Script Theory

The Semantic Script Theory of humour is different from the three theories

above, because it works within a different framework. The previous theories mentioned

are associated with a cognitive field, while the semantic script theory (further just

SSTH) is a part of generative grammar (Attardo 1994, p. 195). The theory of humour

was proposed by Raskin in 1985. Raskin‟s idea suggests that all humour includes a

semantic-pragmatic method and this method includes a semantic opposition between the

scripts. The SSTH operates with an earlier notion introduced by Chomsky in 1965,

which was intended to participate in the native speaker‟s humour competence. The

speaker can recognize if a “sentence belongs to a set of grammatical sentences” and

therefore can tell whether a text is funny or not (p. 196).

“The SSTH models the humorous competence of an idealized speaker/hearer

who is unaffected by racial or gender bias, undisturbed by scatological, obscene

or disgusting materials, not subject to boredom, and most importantly, who has

never heard it before when presented with a joke...the context of the telling of

the joke (its „performance‟) is irrelevant to its humorous nature” (p. 197).

Scripts, which are important elements in this theory, could be generally

explained as organized pieces of information about something; “cognitive structure

internalized by the speaker which provides the speaker with information on how things

are done” (p. 198).

13
2.3.3 The General Theory of Verbal Humour

As a response to above mentioned Semantic Script theory, the General Theory of

verbal Humour has been formulated in 1991 by Attardo and Raskin to expand the scope

from semantics and include also other areas of linguistics such as textual linguistics, the

theory of narrativity and pragmatics (Attardo 1994). “The GTVH broadened the SSTH

to include all linguistic levels, including an interest for social and narratological issues

absent in the SSTH” (Raskin 2008, p. 109). This extension is achieved by five other

Knowledge Resources except for the opposition which is to be found in SSTH.

The Knowledge Resources (KR) are:

The script opposition (SO)

The logical mechanism (LM)

The target (TA)

The narrative strategy (NS)

The language (LA)

The situation (SI)

A significant aspect in the GTVH is the hierarchical structure of the KRs. This

means that a KR is determined by or determines other KRs. Hierarchical organization of

KRs is following: SO  LM  SI  TA NS  LA. According to Attardo, this

indicates that “parameters determine the parameters below themselves and are

determined by those above themselves. „Determination‟ is to be intended as limiting or

reducing the options available for the installation of the parameter” (Attardo 1994, p.

227).

14
 The theory also includes the notion of „joke similarity‟. This term suggests, as a

matter of fact, that “jokes are predicted to be more similar in direct proportion to the

number of parameters they have in common, and conversely to differ more if the values

of many parameters are different...two jokes differing in only one parameter will be the

more different, the higher the parameter is in the scale” (p. 228).

2.3.4 Conversational Humour

The conversational humour approach is the most recent from the above

mentioned theories. The core for this view is consideration of „direct address‟ as a

resource for humour and the main trigger to create humour in everyday conversation.

“Direct address always has both an „attention, identification‟ function and a „contact,

expressive‟ function” while showing that both these functions play several roles in

creation of humorous discourse (Norrick XI). In this sense, this theoretical approach

develops the notion of competence present in SSTH and adds an aspect of performance

as a crucial aspect in humorous interaction.

Helga Kotthoff in her “Interactional approach to irony development” also

emphasizes the performance-related function of irony (or humour in general): “Irony

gains relevance in everyday social life as a game of mirroring typical expectations that

are actually not the case” (Kotthoff 2009, p. 72). Thus as is suggested by the

conversational approaches to humour, that there are no general signals that would lead

the listener to appreciation of humour embedded in the very words, but rather that there

are procedures such as prosody or marked wording that help to identify the humorous

instances (p. 51). Nancy Bell in her “Impolite responses to failed humour” also

emphasizes the role of context: “Behavioral norms can influence, for example, whether

humour is even acceptable within a certain context, or what type of humour is

15
appropriate” (Bell 2009, p. 145). She also suggests that “this principle is made up of

components of involvement, empathy, and respect” (Bell 2009) which supports the

notion of humour as a co-operative interactional phenomenon rather than a set of

grammatical capacity.

2.2 Discourse of Humour

Discourse analysis of humour is one of the crucial themes in humour studies.

Since discourse analysis puts emphasis on the functions and purposes of a language in

use, analysis of humour discourse will investigate language of humour in use and what

functions it serves in human interaction. Pragmatics addresses communicative processes

and “presents a wide interdisciplinary spectrum of topics capitalising in the interactions

of cognitive, social, and cultural phenomena” (Dynel 2011, p. 2). Thus the discussion

about humour as a pragmatic tool puts emphasis on its observation as a communicative

phenomenon. Humour can be conveyed by language as well as non-verbal impulses

which both have their own ways of communicating a message between the participants.

Humour is a part of interpersonal communication. Therefore it is common to observe

humorous instances within a conversation with a function to amuse a conversational

partner. Humour can be used in different discourses such as advertising, films, series,

serials or literature (p. 3) which are in fact using a model of human interaction in their

fictionalised surroundings. Irony has also its place within the discourse of humour. It

often helps to lighten a situation and deaden a negative effect by using facial

expressions and gestures except for its verbal devices. Ironic dialogical interaction is

very often present in everyday life, because of its ability to make some situations

appearing less dramatic, sad or tragic. Irony as a type of humour is therefore frequent in

sitcoms to diminish drama, tragedy or any other kind of negative aspects of situations.

16
This paper will focus on a discourse of sitcom and investigate irony‟s influence in

dialogical interaction.

3. Irony

The simplest definition of irony by Colebrook cited by Paul Simpson in his

article about ironic discourse says: “Irony has a frequent and common definition: saying

what is contrary to what is meant.” (Simpson 2011, p. 34). Irony is a set of words used

to convey meaning opposite from the literal one that they have or a statement or

situation where the meaning is contradicted by the appearance or presentation of the

idea. Using linguistic terminology to put irony into a humorous context, one can say

that irony is an incongruity between what is expected to be and what is, or a situation or

result showing such incongruity.

3.1 Types of Irony

In connection to the definition of irony this can be divided into 3 categories

which are recognized as its types:

Verbal irony–the most common type of irony that people usually get in

touch with and can be explained like difference between the intended and

expressed meaning.

Situational irony –is the incongruity between what is expected and what

actually occurs in the situation. Recognizing situational irony requires

being a part of the particular situation, because it cannot be simply

17
 recognized just by understanding the words, but also gestures and tone of

voice.

Dramatic irony –is a type of situational irony that occurs in drama. The

ironic element is produced by a narrative when the audience knows more

about present or future circumstances than the character of the story. The

incongruity happens between what the character does or in the state of

unknowingness and what audience already knows about the situation.

Another arguable type of irony is sarcasm. Some linguists consider it to be a

distinct genre of humour; but generally, sarcasm is considered to be a statement spiced

with irony. It is usually a sharp or bitter remark with an aim to taunt. Sarcasm, like

irony has a “basic pattern of reversal, a translational repetition in opposites. The

recognition of opposition requires the recognition of both competing terms...The

recognition that they are the reversal of each other produces the potential for humour.”

(Clarke 2008, p. 40). The only difference would probably be that irony has a wider

range of use than sarcasm. Except for humorous context, irony can also be used in

serious situations which would not apply to sarcasm.

3.2 Pragmatics of Irony

Pragmatics of irony reviews several approaches to describe this humorous

phenomenon. There are three most common principles giving explanation to irony

which became a vast debate for many linguists around the world since all of them can

be considered true in some aspects of their definition what it means to be ironic and still

each can be arguable to a certain extent. The three most popular views of irony

discussed by the language scientists are: oppositional (Gricean) irony, irony as pretence

and echoic irony.

18
Oppositional (Gricean) Irony

In his eclectic account of the discourse of irony Paul Simpson argues that the

foundations for linguistic pragmatics has been Grice‟s notion of Cooperative principle

and his four maxims (1975) which go together with the concept of conversational

implicature (Simpson 2011, p. 36). This notion explains primarily irony as negation

while breaching the maxim of quality (Kapogianni 2011, p. 52). Here, “irony is seen as

inference of a non-conventional sort” (Simpson 2011) and is seen as opposition

achieved by ignoring of basic conversational strategies (Simpson 2011).

Echoic Irony

Another popular theory proposed by Sperber and Wilson (1981) treats a model

of irony as echoic mention. This model is a product of relevance theory which argues

that the human mind reacts to encoded messages by considering information that it

apprehends as being relevant to these messages. This account works with logical

distinction between use and mention where “the proposition used in the first part of the

exchange is explicitly mentioned in the response in the second” (p. 37). This distinction

proves that irony arises as a result of implicit mention (Kapogianni 2011). In an

utterance: „That went well‟ (further referred to as an example 1) after a difficult meeting

we observe an apparent irony. The speaker does not assume that the meeting went well,

but they express their own reaction to a thought with a similar content which they

silently ascribe to someone else and which they suggest is absurdly inappropriate

(Wilson 2006, p. 1724). According to this theory, a speaker in this example “echoes a

thought or utterance with a similar content to the one expressed in their utterance, in

order to express a critical or mocking attitude to it” (Wilson 2006).

19
Irony as Pretence

The last view of irony to be discussed in this section is irony as pretence,

proposed by Clark and Gerrig in 1984 as an alternative to the echoic concept. The

central idea of this approach that speaker expressing an ironic utterance pretends to be

borrowing an attitude which is not their own (Kapogianni 2011, p. 52). Originally, this

concept was proposed by Grice when he in his later work (1967) assumed irony as

“making as if to say” which is the pretence itself. In the example 1 then “the speaker is

not asserting, but merely pretending to assert that the meeting went well while

expecting the audience to see through the pretence and recognise the critical or mocking

attitude behind it (Wilson, 2006). Pretence theorists define pretence as a type of

simulation which involves exploitation of resemblances on which the irony in this

account is based (p. 1740).

For the purposes of this thesis, Gricean irony and his notion on Cooperative

principle as well as four conversational maxims will beclosely analysed and discussed

with examples from the Black Books sitcom.

3.2.1 Cooperative Principle and Implication Theory

Grice formulated the main objectives of the Cooperative principle in his book

“Logic and Conversation” in 1975 where he defined the nature of the ideal

conversation: “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at

which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you

are engaged” (Grice 1975, p. 45). The cooperative principle is based on the assumption

that participants in a conversation normally attempt to be informative, truthful, relevant,

and clear. Levinson in his books on pragmatics of conversation supports the Grice‟s

notion and agrees that in order for the conversation to be effective, logical and

20
cooperative, the participants have to adhere to certain conversational rules sincerely,

relevantly, clearly and provide their listener with adequate information (Levinson 1983,

p. 105). These rules stated by Levinson are summarizing the Grice‟s idea of four

maxims of conversation which serve as certain criterions for a successful conversation:

the Maxim of Quality, the Maxim of Quantity, the Maxim of Relation and the Maxim of

Manner (Grice 1975) extended according to Grice‟s model bellow.

1. Quality –„Try to make your contribution one that is true‟

 Do not say what you believe to be false.

 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

2. Quantity – this category relates to the amount of information provided

 Make your contribution as informative as required.

 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

- Grice himself argues the disputability of the second maxim, since

overinformativeness is not an infringement of the maxim, but simply a waste of

time; however, this overinformativeness may as well be confusing and mislead

the listener

3. Relation –„Be relevant‟

- Grice questions the formulation of this maxim and says that it faces a few

problems: there may be different kinds and focuses of relevance and may shift

during the conversation

4. Manner – takes into account mainly how something is actually said rather

than what is said – „Be perspicuous‟

21
  Avoid obscurity of expression.

 Avoid ambiguity.

 Be brief.

 Be orderly.

Implication Theory

“Don‟t listen to what I say; listen to what I mean.” (Richard Feynman, American

physicist)

In order to fully understand how cooperative principle works in conversation, it

is necessary to define the technical term implicature (implication), which was produced

by Grice to serve in pragmatic demonstrations. Implicature can be defined as indirect or

implicit speech act; it means that what is intended by speaker‟s utterance is not

explicitly said by them. In other words, what the speaker is meaning to communicate is

much more abundant than what is actually expressed and thus may cause certain

problems in understanding since what is conveyed, does not always have to be

understood by the listener.

Conventional vs. Conversational Implicatures

Certain implicatures fall into conventional meanings of the words used and are

not dependant on any particular characteristics of the conversation.

In an example: „She is poor, but she is not dirty‟;

it is implicated, even though not said, that a poverty clashes with a life in filth.

This is an example of a conventional implicature. The conventionality is conveyed by

the conventional meaning of the word „but‟. This means that conventional implicatures

of expressions are part of their semantics.

22
 On the other hand, the conversational implicatures depend on the characteristics

of situational context and not just of the conventional meanings of the words used. The

crucial element of an implicature being conversational is that the hearer should be

challenged to figure out the hidden meaning (implicature). If no reasoning is required in

that stage, the implicature is conventional and not conversational.

A more precise definition of a conversational implicature might be defined by

the four maxims in the case when these go unfulfilled in the conversation. This

situation, also referred to as non-observance may happen when:

1. The maxim is violated.

2. The maxim or entire CP is opted out of.

3. The clash of maxims occurs.

4. The maxim is flouted.

4. Television Comedy

Before the occurrence of television, there was already a home-based broadcast

medium – radio – which served as an example for television programme structure and

formats. Broadcast television is therefore due to many similarities considered an

extension of a broadcast radio (Neale 2001, p. 210). Since the beginnings of its launch,

television became a powerful medium in presentation of verbal humour modelling and

extending thus a variety of radio comedy forms. Inasmuch as humour plays an

23
important role in everyday life, it is no wonder that it has emerged in broadcasting

industry as highly appealing and attractive enticement, in television being referred to as

television comedy. Television, even more than radio, provides a great variety of comedy

genres and thus reaches a vast audience, having therefore a huge impact. In general,

anything with humorous nature broadcasted on television can be considered television

comedy. Genres of television comedy include: sitcom, comedy-drama, sketch comedy,

stand-up comedy, improvisational comedy, gameshow comedy and animated cartoon.

This chapter will further explain and examine the genre of sitcom and later an analysis

of “Black Books” in pragmatic context of cooperative principle will be provided.

4.1 Genre of Sitcom

Television comedies and especially situational comedies are an important part of

popular culture. Sitcom is an abbreviation term for situational comedy, a genre that was

first broadcasted in radio in 1920s. Television began broadcasting sitcoms in 1950s,

with the first sitcom Pinwright‟s Progress, of which ten episodes were broadcasted on

BBC in 1946-1947. Sitcoms indulge in great popularity among audience partly to the

fact that shows are broadcasted regularly due to the number of episodes. As a good

example, show Only Fools and Horses can be taken into account. The sitcom ran for

several series on BBC and only the final episode was watched by a record number of

24.5 million people. Also sitcom Friends was so popular in 1997, that the series was

rerun on Friday comedy nights (Ross 1998, p. 90), which proves the trend of popularity

of situational comedies.

Sitcom is a comedy genre of its own and thus has features that are unique and

not to be found in other television genres of comedy. Sitcoms have a set of recognized

characteristics:

24
 “...series of weekly shows based around an initial idea of situations and

characters with potential for humour. These characters remain essentially the

same, rather than developing as they would in comedy drama....The humour in

sitcom comes from playing around with the comic possibilities of those

particular character types interacting with each other in that situation, and may

not involve lines or gags which are funny in isolation” (p. 89).

Thus analysis of humorous potential in sitcoms will very much depend on the

humorous potential of the situation as such. Whether some situation will be considered

funny will also require the background knowledge of the society of the time (p. 89)

since sitcoms often use social commentary.

The general rule of the sitcom situation is that nothing ever changes. Therefore it

can be said that sitcoms are based on recurrent and repetitive patterns in many ways to

create a humorous effect:

Recurrent themes –the lives of characters are most often centred around

family, work, relationships, individual desires or aspirations

Resolution strategy – typical narrative structure of one episode in a

sitcom is modelled as a cycle: illustration of a standard situation at the

beginning, disturbance of a normal situation in the middle and resolution

within the episode which leads to return to a standard state in the end of

an episode – this strategy of sitcom uses a three act structure of

equilibrium, disequilibrium and resolution which can be found in each

episode of Black Books as well

- this narrative strategy does not limit sitcoms to use of joking and

anecdotes, but proves that they have their own simple story supported

25
 with humorous devices which accompany the actual story throughout

the episode

Characters –they have certain set of characteristics which are typical for

each character – these features are based on stereotypes (also Bernard,

Manny and Fren can be easily recognized according to these features);

because of these stereotypical features it is easy to predict a behaviour of

a certain character in a situation that may be to create a sense of

recognition for audience and thus ensure a humorous effect

Humorous methods –what often makes sitcom distinguishable from

other genres of television comedy is its use of humorous techniques;

frequent humorous strategies are gags, running jokes, slapstick, dramatic

irony or creation of catchphrases (irony as a humorous device in Black

Books will be analysed further)

Setting –sitcoms usually feature a limited number of surroundings where

the situations take place and where the characters interact; typical setting

for sitcoms are usually home (8 Simple Rules), workplace (IT Crowd,

Black Books), pubs (How I Met Your Mother) or coffee shops (Friends);

an episode can be set for example in one room or office, but mostly it

changes several times throughout the episode for most sitcoms

Laugh track –is an important characteristic of sitcom usually referred to

under an umbrella term „canned laughter‟ (Ross 1998) – it is a fake

audio-recorded human laughter used as a „cue‟ during the episodes to

emphasize the funniness of a situation and prompt the audience to laugh

along with it (Neale 2001)

- Ross provides his justification of „canned laughter‟ in sitcoms:

26
 “...it‟s important to sense other people responding to

humour...Like other aspects of language, humour is a way in which

people show their allegiance to a group. If someone signals their

intention to say something humorous, the listeners are immediately

ready to laugh. People often laugh when they are given this sort of

cue, regardless of whether they even got the joke” (p. 1).

For the purposes of this thesis, I would like to apply these characteristics of

sitcom in a closer analysis of one of the most popular British sitcoms – Black Books.

4.1.1 Black Books

Black Books is a British sitcom which began broadcast in 2000 and ran up to

2004 on BBC channel 4 with three series, each having 6 episodes. The show was

created by Dylan Moran, famous Irish stand-up comedian, writer and filmmaker, and

Graham Linehan who also wrote another popular sitcom IT Crowd. The show was

ranked in 58th place in out of 100 in BBC‟s Britain‟s Best Sitcom poll in 2004 and won

BAFTA award for Best Situation Comedy in 2001 and 2005.

The Black Books series are set in a secondhand bookshop which is run by

Bernard Black (played by Dylan Moran), a sarcastic anti-social young man who doesn‟t

like people very much and detests having customers which buy his books. Probably the

only friend of his is Fren Katzenjammer (Tamsin Greig), a frustrated woman at around

thirty who is boyfriend desperate and whose relationships almost always end in a

ridiculous way. Their lives enliven a bit when Bernard employs Manny Bianco (Bill

Bailey), a little hairy stress-stricken man who immediately becomes friends with

Bernard and Fren. The trio of friends almost always finds themselves in bizarre

situations and experiences ridiculous and absurd moments.

27
 5. Non-observance of the Cooperative Principle

and Ironic Humour in the “Black Books”

This chapter will focus on the way Grice‟s co-operative principle and the four

maxims are sometimes not followed in the conversational interaction between the

participants, which leads to humorous instances and also lay foundations for irony

which will be observed and discussed through the chosen examples from the Black

Books series.

In the series, all ways of not following of the CP and maxims are present at some

point (violation, opting out of the maxim, clash of maxims, flouting), this chapter will,

however, not discuss them individually, but generally as a process of non-observance

and will mainly focus on and analyse the violation of the maxim of quality, which is the

basis for oppositional irony and is responsible for most of the ironic humour in the

series. It is not the only case when irony is used, though. Non-observance will therefore

further be demonstrated by each maxim separately by providing specific examples and

illustrations of scenes from the series.

5.1 Non-observance of the Maxim of Quality

The violation of the maxim of quality is the most common case of oppositional

irony which is the main subject for analysis in this thesis. The examples of such irony

are very frequent in situational comedies in general and the Black Books series are not

an exception. In the following section, the illustrations of breaching of both sub-maxims

28
of the quality maxim will be shown to demonstrate the humorous strategy used by

producers.

5.1.1 „Do not say what you believe to be false‟

Situation 1: In this example, a customer comes to ask Bernard whether the

Charles Dickens collection he would like to buy is bound in real leather. Bernard is

bored, indifferent and in general lacks the talent to deal with his customers in a polite

way. When they address him a question, he immediately says something to discourage

them so he can get rid of them.

Man: „Those books, how much?”

Bernard: [being apathetic]„Hm?”

Man: „Those books. Leather-bound ones.”

Bernard: „Yes, Dickens. A collected works of Charles Dickens.”

Man: „ They‟re real leather?”

Bernard: „They‟re real Dickens.”

Man: “I have to know if they‟re real leather, because they have to go with the

sofa. Everything else in my house is real. I‟ll give you two hundred for them.”

Bernard: “Two hundred what?”

Man: “Two hundred pounds.”

Bernard: “Are they leather-bound pounds?”

Man: “No.”[looking confused]

29
 Bernard: “Sorry, I need leather-bound pounds to go with my wallet. Next!”

(Moran 2000, S01E01)

In this illustration, the maxim of quality is violated by Bernard intentionally

saying what he believes to be false. We do not know whether he really has a leather

wallet, but it is clear that Bernard does not need leather-bound pounds to suit into it

even if he had, simply because such pounds do not exist. The question he gives the

customer is absurd and even though Bernard knows the customer does not have such

pounds he asks it to mock the customer‟s previous question and a remark that the books

have to be in real leather to match with his sofa.

Situation 2: Manny‟s parents come to London to visit their son. His father is

very talkative and likes to tell stories about himself. One evening while the men drink a

bottle of brandy, he starts to tell a story, but it is important for him to tell it with all the

exact details. This becomes very annoying for Bernard after some time.

Father: “Of course, I spent most of my time working for the big companies. But

I did dabble at being an entrepreneur, like you two. Remember Manny, 1972 it

was. I got back from that conference and...No, 1973 it must have been. Er, we

weren‟t in the bungalow any more...Yeah, that‟s right we moved into the semi.

Or was it a gatherhouse? No, no, I think it was the semi.”

Bernard: “More details please! What time of year was it? What jumper were

you wearing?” (Moran 2004, S03E03)

This situation uses irony based again on breaching of the first sub-maxim of

quality. Bernard says that he wants to hear more details from Manny‟s father, but his

30
tone of voice and expression on his face clearly suggest the opposite. He therefore

deliberately violates the wording of the sub-maxim and says exactly the opposite of

what he believes to be true or what he actually wants that would happen, being thus in

regard to Grice‟s CP ironic.

What is more, in this example, there are two maxims of the cooperative principle

which are not followed – the maxim of quality which is actually result from not

adhering to the quantity maxim by Manny‟s father. He burdens his listeners with too

much information, not being cooperative in the conversation which results in Bernard‟s

ironic commentary. This situation thus shows that it is not always violation or flouting

of just one maxim which makes the situation humorous, but they can work together to

achieve the effect.

Situation 3: A customer is trying to bargain for a cheaper price of a book he is

buying. Bernard, however, does not like customers and is rude to him and even though

the customer finally manages to talk the price down, Bernard sells him only a part of

the book.

Customer: “How much is this?”

Bernard: “Three pounds.”

[...]

Customer: [looking unsatisfied] “Well, I was thinking two pounds.”

Bernard: “Because three pounds is just naked profiteering for a book of a

mere... [checks the back pages of the book] 912 pages long. What'll I do with

31
 that extra pound? I'll add another acre to the grounds. I'll chuck a few more koi

carp in my piano shaped pond. No, I know, I'll build a wing on the National

Gallery with my name on it.”

Customer: “Two fifty.”

Bernard: “That's more like it. Now you're being reasonable. [takes the book

back and opens it] Two fifty gets you...[rips a few pages out of the book] this

much. You can come back and collect the rest when you have the other 50p.”

Customer: “But you...”

Bernard: [Hits a bell] “Thank you!” (Moran 2002, S02E04)

This situation, like the previous ones, is based on ironic commentary of Bernard

while violating the maxim of quality in the same way. He again says something which

he knows is not true – he says the exact opposite of what he would actually do with the

extra pound from the customer, not adhering thus to the maxim and therefore his

commentary results in irony.

5.1.2 „Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence‟

Situation 4: It is Manny‟s first day at work in the Bernard‟s bookshop, but when

he comes in he finds Bernard sleeping on the sofa. When he wakes up, having a

hangover, he does not remember that he had hired Manny to work as a shop assistant in

his bookshop the previous night. That is why he tries to think of the reasons why Manny

is not suitable for the job.

Bernard:“The thing is...the thing is...Oh, wait a second, what time is it?”

Manny: “Half ten.”

32
 Bernard: “Half ten? I‟ve never been up at half ten. What happens? Look,

ehm...ehm...”(not remembering Manny‟s name)

Manny: Manny.

Bernard: “Manny, have you ever bought a book at half ten in the morning?”

Manny: “Now you mention it, actually...”

Bernard: “No. You see? That would be a world gone topsy-turvy.”

Manny: “Yes, but if this were a bakery, this would be quite late.”

Bernard: “I‟m sorry son; I‟ve made a terrible mistake. You obviously don‟t

have what it takes to sell a book. People don‟t want them in the morning.”

Just at this moment, a man enters the bookshop in a very good mood eager to

buy a book.

Man: “Hello. I‟d like to buy a book, please.”

Bernard: “What book?”

Man: “I don‟t really care, I‟m just in a real mood to buy a book.”

Bernard: (annoyed yells at him) “It‟s closed. Get out!”

Man: “Hmm, maybe I‟ll swing by the bakery.” (Moran 2000, S01E02)

This situation demonstrates the flouting of the second sub-maxim, because

Bernard clearly says something for which he lacks adequate evidence. He thinks, that

everybody is like him and that being up at half ten is a rare thing, let alone the fact that

somebody should come and buy a book. It is clear to the audience, however, that

33
Bernard is wrong and never actually tried to find out whether it is true. The moment

when a man enters a bookshop is therefore the ironic trigger of the situation.

5.2 Non-observance of the Maxim of Quantity

Not only the quality maxim can result in situations using ironic humour, but the

case of not following the quantity maxim and its sub-maxims can also be found in the

series. It is less frequent in the series than the previous ones; nevertheless, there are still

a few examples which could be used for the demonstration of irony arising from it.

5.2.1 „Do not make your contribution more informative than is required‟

Situation 5: Manny, Bernard‟s assistant in the bookshop is a hairy man who

also has a beard, which often annoys Bernard. When Manny asks Bernard of his

opinion whether he should also wash his beard, Bernard has a sarcastic remark about

that.

Manny: “You think I should wash my beard?”

Bernard: “I think you should wash it, yeah. And shave it off, nail it to a frisbee,

and fling it over a rainbow.” (Moran 2000, S01E05)

The question Manny gives to Bernard is formulated in a way that it requires only

yes/no answer. Bernard, however, adds several other answers to it, using ironic or rather

sarcastic tone and thus clearly manifesting the violation of the maxim of quantity which

in this situation results in a humorous character.

34
5.3 Non-observance of the Maxim of Relation

5.3.1 „Be relevant‟

The non-observance of this maxim is also quite frequent in the series. Characters

use this kind of non-observance to achieve the ironic effect when they do not have

anything to add, but still they want to say something to be funny or ironic.

Situation 6: It is summer and Fran comes to work very tired, because she

thinks her flat is getting smaller and she cannot sleep because she feels as if she was

suffocating. The story, however absurd it sounds, is nevertheless true. Her landlord

built another apartment next door of which Fran does not yet know. Meanwhile, Manny

is also getting upset from the summer heat and checking the thermometer very often

whether the temperature has not dropped.

Fran: “Okay, if I told you that the walls of my flat were actually moving in,

would you think I was strange?”

Bernard: “No, I‟d ask you to come round and look after my small children.”

Fran: “If you don‟t believe me, you can come round and we‟ll watch the wall.”

Manny: “Don‟t be ridiculous. We‟ll be staying in watching the thermometer,

won‟t we Bernard?”

Bernard: “I don‟t know it is an impossible choice. Walls, thermometers...I‟ll

just hope when I flip the coin it somehow explodes and kills me.” (Moran 2002,

S02E02)

35
 Bernard expresses his annoyance about his friends in ironic terms while at the

same time not adhering to the relevance maxim. Even though when a person cannot

decide which choice to prefer, they usually flip the coin. Bernard‟s interpretation is,

however, a bit too exaggerated and does not answer questions of Fren and Manny

properly, but rather adds an irrelevant signification to his last utterance.

5.4 Non-observance of the Maxim of Manner

Non-observance of the manner maxim in connection with irony is not that

frequent in the series, there are a few examples which can be used for demonstration,

though. The maxim has four sub-maxims, some of which have a more frequent

occurrence than the others. In this case, only the „avoid ambiguity‟ sub-maxim will be

used for the illustration.

5.4.1 „Avoid ambiguity‟

Situation 7: The bookshop has been broken into and robbed. Bernard is having

a new door installed into the shop and Manny is supposed to take care of the situation

while he is outside. A man from the company explains how to use the coding system to

lock and unlock the door, but Manny is disturbed by “a little man in his hair” so he

does not pay attention to what the man tells him. When Bernard asks Manny about the

code, Manny does not know.

Bernard: “So what‟s the story with this alarm thing anyway, how does it work?

What do you do?”

[...]

Manny: “The code!”

36
 Bernard: “Thank you for that, yes...sorry to bring this up again. How do I get

in?”

Manny: “The code opens the door!”

Bernard: “I know the code opens the door! But how do I get in to punch in the

code that opens the door?! Okay, for the moment just give me the code.”

Manny: “There was a little man.”

Bernard: “There was a little man. That‟s the code?”

Manny: “No, I didn‟t actually hear the code, because there was a little man in

his hair.”

Bernard: “Well, the little man in my hair is getting very, very angry. What are

you talking about?!” (Moran 2000, S01E05)

The maxim „avoid ambiguity‟ is violated by Manny when he says to Bernard

that “there was a little man” as an explanation and excuse to the fact that he does not

know the code. Ambiguity from Manny‟s saying results in confusing Bernard by not

saying that he does not know the code, but uttering the explanation out of context. This

utterance can be therefore seen from a linguistic point of view as semantic

indeterminacy and obscurity of meaning. Bernard tries to interpret the utterance as

relevant to the context as so he thinks that the utterance “There was a little man” is the

code. With this utterance Manny breaks the maxim of manner and causes ambiguity

which is followed by Bernard‟s ironic commentary (“… little man in my hair is getting

angry…”).

37
 Situation 8: Bernard blames Manny that it is his fault that the bookshop has

been robbed, because he left the front door open. Manny does not recognize his fault

because he thinks it is perfectly normal not to lock the door, rather it is not normal to

rob a shop.

Bernard: “So what did you tell them? They‟ve gotten through the back?”

Manny: “Yes.”

Bernard: “Yeah, it wouldn‟t do to let them know that we went out and you left

the front door open, would it?”

Manny: “Yeah, but what sort of world is it where you can‟t go away and leave

the front door open without getting robbed?”

Bernard: “It‟s this sort of world, Gandalf.”

Bernard again violates the „avoid ambiguity‟ sub-maxim, when he tells Manny

that in this world it is possible to be robbed when one leaves the front door open. Using

a word „Gandalf‟ might suggest that Bernard mocks Manny‟s hair which often get on

his nerves and suggest that he looks like Gandalf or that Manny sometimes behaves as if

he came from a different world (Gandalf is a wizard and comes from a magic -

wizarding world). Therefore it is not clear what Bernard means and thus his comment

creates an ironic effect.

Situation 9: Bernard‟s accountant had to leave because of money fraud he has

been doing and Bernard has now a hard time managing all his accounts all alone. He is

desperate because he does not understand the details.

38
 Fran: “Bernard? Finished with your accounts?”

Bernard: “Yeah, I‟ve turned them into a rather smart casual jacket.”

Only when Bernard comes out from the kitchen can Fran see that he has literally

made a jacket from his bills.

Fran: “Bernard! I mean, it is a very nice jacket, but what you‟re gonna do „bout

your accounts?”

In this situation, ambiguity is reached by Bernard‟s answer, which cannot be

interpreted in a single way until we see him wearing the jacket he has made from his

bills. In another, more possible context, it could mean that he has managed to do his

accounts, get the refund for the paid taxes and bought a new jacket. In this case he is,

however, being ironic by not following the maxim of „avoiding ambiguity‟ which

results in amusement of the audience.

5.5 Discussion

The previous sub-chapters provide an illustration how irony works in the frame

of cooperative principle by aspeaker‟s non-adherence to certain criteria. Analysis is

based on the situation comedy Black Books which is rich in ironic commentary resulting

from non-observance of the four basic conversational maxims proposed by Paul Grice.

As the analyzed material shows, Cooperative Principle has an important function in the

humorous discourse. Flouting or violations of the maxims and their sub-maxims have a

potential to create humorous instances.

Special attention is given to ironic utterances. The analysis showed that irony is

most often achieved by violation of the maxim of quality and its two sub-maxims. Since

39
it is clear from irony‟s definition that it arises when something else is said from what is

thought, the violation of maxim of quality is obvious. This maxim works on assumption

that speaker will say only things which he believes are true and for which he has

evidence. If those conditions are broken, the conversation can no longer be cooperative

and leads to confusion, misunderstanding and reaction with a laugh, as we had an

opportunity to observe in the excerpts of situations 1-5 which carry an ironic potential.

However, this is not the only way of achieving irony in a conversation. Flouting and

breaching of other maxims can have the same effect reached by breaking different

conditions as in the quality maxim. Maxim of quantity is not followed when speaker

says much more than is supposed from him with an intention to do so (situation 5),

deviation from the relation maxim works on speaker‟s desire to say something

additional or different from expectation which is not always relevant (situation 6) and

maxim of manner is not followed when speakers decide not to be precise or achieve that

effect by accident (situation 7-9).

The observation also showed that, interestingly, sometimes two (possibly more)

maxims and their non-observance cooperate in order to achieve the irony. In situation 2,

first the maxim of quantity and then the maxim of quality are violated in succession

which creates a condition for humour to arise. Manny‟s father violates the quantity

maxim by providing too many irrelevant details which is immediately used by Bernard

to criticize him by using irony resulting from the fact that he actually encourages the

man by telling them more while we know that he does not want to hear it. This proves

the cooperation of the maxims is applied also in the case when they are not followed.

This discussion concludes that non-observance of one or more maxims can lead

to creation of humorous situations with a presence of irony.

40
 6. Conclusion

This thesis provided a pragmatic analysis of verbal humour in the situation

comedy Black Books. Discussion was based on non-observance of the Cooperative

principle and its four conversational maxims formulated by Paul Grice. The illustration

of non-observance was provided by examples from the series which supplemented the

theoretical background and showed that not following of the principle can be a cause for

ironic humour.

The thesis was divided into two parts: the theoretical and practical framework.

Chapters two to five present the theoretical part which was necessary for the

explanation of the basic humour processes. The role of chapter two was to define the

term humour and explain the phenomenon which it represents in many fields of study

including linguistics. Its subchapters further provided a brief insight into the theories of

humour all of which consider different aspects to be crucial in humorous event and roles

humour might play. The issue of laughter also came into consideration in connection to

social aspect of humour which cannot be ignored in discussion about pragmatic

principles of conversation. The laughter itself is a key issue of one of the humour

theories – Relief theory, which is a psychological approach. Other theories show that

humour can be studied from several other perspectives such as sociology, generative

grammar, or pragmatics.

Following chapter focused on irony. It provided its definition, categorization of

its different types and linguistic approaches to its pragmatic study. There was a brief

41
summary of the three basic irony approaches provided for the demonstration of the

boundaries of its working: oppositional irony, irony as pretence and echoic irony. In the

entire chapter the understanding of a notion that irony occurs when something different

is said from what is thought was crucial for its pragmatic account. Next subchapter dealt

with Cooperative principle and Implication theory and explained that the core of a

successful conversation is the supposition that participants in a conversation will be

adequately informative, truthful, relevant, and clear. This notion arises from the four

conversational maxims: quality, quantity, relation and manner. Implication theory

further explains the aberrations from these rules which are in fact applied to the ironic

discourse.

Chapter four is the last theoretical section which talked about the television

comedy as a popular means of mass entertainment and focused especially on the genre

of sitcoms and its characteristics typical for no other comedy genre. The characteristic

features include recurrent themes, narrative strategy with resolution at the end of every

episode, established characters, particular humorous methods and setting as well as

laugh tracks functioning as clues for the audience when a humorous situation appears.

The last chapter provided the practical application of collected theoretical

information of the Cooperative principle and Implication theory on the Black Books

television sitcom. The excerpts from the series result in occurrence of irony and

initiation of laughter which was achieved by non-observance of the four conversational

maxims. Individual sub-chapters illustrated violations and flouting by each maxim

separately. In some situations, humour was achieved by non-observance of more than

one maxim which suggested that an interdependence of maxims is possible in creation

of irony.

42
43
 Works Cited

Attardo, Salvatore (1994). Linguistic theories of humour. Berlin, New York: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Bell, Nancy D. (2009). “Impolite responses to failed humour”. In: Neal R. Norrick and

Delia Chiaro (Eds.) Humour in Interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John

Benjamins Publishing Company, 143–163.

Dynel, Marta (2011). “Pragmatics and linguistic research into humour.” In: Marta

Dynel (Ed.), The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains.

Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1-15.

Günther, Ulrike (2003). What‟s in a laugh?: Humour, jokes and laughter in the

conversational corpus of the BNC. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.

Grice, Herbert Paul (1975). “Logic and conversation.” In: Peter Cole & James L.

Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, 44-58.

Kapogianni, Eleni (2011). “Irony via surrealism”. In: Marta Dynel (Ed.), The

Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains. Amsterdam, Philadelphia:

John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51- 68.

Kotthoff, H. (2009). “An interactional approach to irony development.” In: Neal R.

Norrick & Delia Chiaro (Eds.), Humour in Interaction. Amsterdam,

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 49–77.

Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moran, Dylan & Linehan Graham (Writers). (2004). Black Books. [DVD].

44
Neale, Steve & Krutnik, Frank (2001). Popular film and television comedy. Florence:

Routledge.

Norrick, Neal R., & Chiaro, Delia (2009). “Humour and interaction.” In: Neal R.

Norrick & Delia Chiaro (Eds.), Humour in Interaction. Amsterdam,

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, IX – XVII.

Palmer, Jerry (1994). Taking humor seriously. London: Routledge.

Raskin, Victor (2008). The primer of humour research. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ross, Alison (1998). The language of humour. London: Routledge.

Simpson, Paul (2011). “That‟s not ironic, that‟s just stupid: Towards an eclectic account

of the discourse of irony.” In: Marta Dynel (Ed.), The Pragmatics of Humour

across Discourse Domains. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins

Publishing Company, 33-50.

Wilson, Deidre (2006). “The pragmatics of verbal irony: Echo or pretence?” Lingua,

116, 1722–1743.

45
 Anotace

Účelem této bakalářské práce je prozkoumat slovní humor a jeho reprezentaci

v britské situační komedii Black Books. Práce se zabývá především pragmatickým

hlediskem ironického humoru, který vzniká při nedodržení kooperačního principu a

jeho čtyř konverzačních maxim. Na jednotlivé maximy je v analýze poukázáno

individuálně na extraktech ze situací ze seriálu Black Books, které jsou nositeli

humorného potenciálu. Analýza poskytuje náhled do pragmatiky interakce a vysvětluje,

co je impulzem pro výskyt ironie.

První část práce je založená na teoretické bázi s cílem její pozdější aplikace na

vybraných příkladech ze sitcomu. Klíčovými pojmy v teoretické sekci jsou: humor a

smích, kooperační princip a teorie implikace a v neposlední řadě také pragmatika ironie.

Pro další diskusi tato část objasňuje situační komedii jako žánr, uvádí jeho typické

charakteristiky a představuje sitcom Black Books, jehož analýza je provedena

v praktické části.

Druhá sekce této bakalářské práce poskytuje pragmatickou analýzu

kooperačního principu a čtyř konverzačních maxim na příkladech ze sitcomu. Analýza

ukazuje, že nedodržení principu a jednotlivých maxim může vést k humorným situacím

a častokrát také k ironii. Diskuze na konci této sekce uzavírá výsledky zkoumání, které

ukazují, že humorný potenciál nese situace tehdy, když je jedno nebo více maxim

kooperačního principu porušeno.

46
 Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate tools of verbal humour and how it is

represented in the British situation comedy Black Books. The study takes into

consideration mainly pragmatic perspective of ironic humour which is caused by non-

observance of Cooperative Principle and its four conversational maxims. Maxims are

analysed individually on excerpts of situations taken from the Black Books series which

carry a humorous potential. The analysis provides an insight into the pragmatics of

interaction and explains what the trigger for occurrence of irony is.

The first part of the thesis explains the theoretical background for the purpose of

its later application on the chosen examples from the sitcom. The key terms in the

theoretical section are: humour and laughter, Cooperative principle and Implication

theory and the pragmatics of irony. For further discussion it also explains the genre of

situation comedy and its typical characteristics and introduces the sitcom Black Books

which is analysed in the practical section of the thesis.

The second section of the thesis provides a pragmatic analysis of Cooperative

principle and four maxims of conversation on the examples from the sitcom. It shows

that non-observance of the principle and individual maxims can lead to humorous

instances and often an ironic commentary. At the end of the section, the discussion

concludes the findings of the analysis which shows that one or more maxims of the

cooperative principle need to be broken in order to carry a humorous potential.

47