Contextualization of Laughter in Extravaganza

A PROPOSAL

By Heri Romzy E1D 005 027

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION MATARAM UNIVERSITY 2011

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study In modern times, humans mental ability has developed beyond those achieved in the past. Modern men have expanded their thinking capacity to help surpassing many tasks of daily life from making simple handicrafts which evolve to complex nanotechnology. Parts of brain which handle this thinking process have advanced and replaced the parts our ancestors have which handle the sense of sight, smell, and touches, for solely physical survival (Khavari, 2000). Include to this vivid evolution of mankind are shown by the evolution of language. Language is humans unique character. It is much more complex than an animals cry. An animal cries to respond a situation, but human can modify a situation by using language. Clyde Kluckohn (in Anderson (ed) 1970) states that human can communicate abstract ideas and converse about situation contrary to facts. Language represents reality. It affects the way human thinks about reality. Language interferes humans daily experience (Edward Sapir in Anderson (ed) 1970). Abstract experience is decoded into words which enable man to interpret the experience as well to let others know it. But in order to understand one another, wprds themselves are insufficient. There are other factors outside the language which play important role in determining the interpretation of it (Widdowson 2004). Language is a bridge among humans. In an interaction, language speakers cooperate in providing referential meaning of an utterance. They are constrained in specific meanings which are shared by speakers in the situation of the conversation. An example can be taken from the example below: A : where were you yesterday? B : my motorcycle is broken. I need to fix it.

The conversation above is indirect statements. It exemplifies the shared context by the speakers which constrains the possible meaning. Speaker A does not intend to ask where B was yesterday, but to investigate why B did not come. The statement answered by speaker B does not mean to explain his condition but rather to emphasize the reason of his absence. Contextualization as to make the text relevant is common for the speakers of a language. The speakers cooperatively involve in making the context available in the process of discourse. In the view of Gumperz, text construes context instead of being determined by it (Auer 1992). The knowledge of this context is assumed to be shared by the speakers and referred to anytime in the conversation. Someone who cannot realize this contextualization is said to be irrelevant and out of context. Language is inextricable from the social aspect inherent in it. It is used among the speakers as an instrument of action (Kluckhohn in Anderson (ed) 1969). In a conversation, language determines the social role of the speakers and the varieties of language used in the beginning of the interaction. The speakers are expected to conform to this social role which abides them to use formal, informal or non-formal language. There are two significant elements which in a discourse. The first one is a text. A text is a product of a discourse and it takes the form of linguistic units (Widdowson 2004). A text can be applied to spoken or written. The second one is context. Context is the basis, cognitively or materially, from which we derive relevant interpretation. This knowledge of context is shared to all the members of speakers. Extravaganza, as the object of this study, builds its own distinctive discourse. It has particular language variety and strategy to achieve certain goals which mainly to entertain. The plot of the story and the dialogue has been prearranged to construct laughter of the audience. The show emphasizes on contextualization where interpretation is derived from it. Extravaganza differs from another popular comedy show Opera van Java (OvJ) in Trans 7 in several ways. Extravaganza relies on language in constructing its humor. Moves from one utterance to another are clear in describing the process of the

constructing laughter. In OvJ, the emphasis is in the gestural jokes, such pantomime, mimics plays, or the most popular example, being pushed and falls down on the prepared materials. The conversation in Extravaganza is prearranged. The performers must memorize the script and execute the stories based on it. OvJ on the other hand is spontaneous and relies on it in most of its strategies in construction laughter. This research attempts to identify the process of this contextualization cues. It also seeks the role of language its utilization in constructing laughter. Extravaganza thus is the most suitable object of study because its emphasis in language use for constructing humor. The result of this study signifies a more considerable approach to discourse analysis and its implication can be used for further research about discourse and providing source for the application in language teaching in the classroom. Moreover, the principles can also be used to increase the effectiveness in most of our communication. 1.2 Statement of Problems Some problem are attempted to be solved by this study such as follows: 1. What varieties of language are used in Extravaganza? 2. What is the role of language in the construction of laughter in Extravaganza? 3. What strategies are used in the construction of laughter in Extravaganza?

1.3 Purposes of Study This study will examine the characteristics of contextualization cues in Extravaganza. Specifically, this study attempts to achieve some purposes such as: 1. To identify the variety of language used in Extravaganza. 2. To analyze the role of language in the construction of laughter in Extravaganza. 3. To identify the strategies used in the construction of laughter in Extravaganza. 1.4 Scope of Study

The scope of this study is the language constructing laughter in Extravaganza comedy show broadcasted by Trans TV with the focus on the contextualization cues. There are four downloaded videos which are taken randomly and each has different topic and story. The videos entitle: Playgroup (6min 59sec), ATM (9min 36sec) and Monopoly Ajaib (7min) and Perpustakaan Umum (8 min 38sec). These videos are downloaded from internet video provider Youtube (www.youtube.com). The theory on contextualization proposed by John J. Gumperz is used as the basis in doing the research. Gumperz (in Auer 1992) takes into consideration the significance of contextualization along with the text which constitute particular purposeful discourse. The writer uses the principles of contextualization cues in analyzing the discourse in Extravaganza. There are two kinds of contextualization cues: verbal and non-verbal. In this case, it will be easier to focus only on the verbal one because the purpose of this study is to show the language used in the show. The nonverbal contextualization such as gesture, prosody, posture, gaze, and slapstick will be excluded. 1.5 Significance of Study The significance of this study can be expected in two ways: 1. The basic principles of the result from this study can be applied to the language teaching in a classroom. Insights about context and its realization in a discourse will be expected to bring different approach in the language teaching which does not merely focus on forms of language but to the use of language in an appropriate context. the analysis on contextualization cues can give a framework on how the speakers of a language process the information they encounter. 2. The result is expected to enhance the communication skill. In communication good strategies are necessary to attain its goal. Sometimes jokes are needed to break the ice in a conversation especially in conversing with new people. By considering more to this strategy, the goal can be achieved more effectively. 1.6 Definition of Key Terms

Definition of key terms is given here to avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation as they are used in this study. The most key terms currently occur are as follow: 1. Communication Communication is the activity or process of expressing ideas and feelings or of giving people information( Wehmeier(ed) 2000). 2. Context Context is the situation in which something happens and that helps you to understand it (Wehmeier(ed) 2000). Context can support the meaning determined by the linguistic form (text) (Hymes, in Widdowson 2004). Context functions as a basis for the interpretation of the text in a discourse. 3. Contextualization cues are all the form-related means by which participants contextualize language (Auer 1992). The cues can be verbal or non-verbal. 4. Discourse Discourse is the use of language in speech or in writing in order to produce meaning (Wehmeier(ed) 2000). Widdowson (2004) emphasizes the aspect of process in the discourse. This process is what the participants directly experience and to be accessed on line by the time the discourse takes place. 5. Text Text is a product of discourse which takes the form of linguistic units (Widdowson 2004). There is no limitation extent of text to be considered as a text. Text construes context and there can be both written and spoken text. The text used in this study is the transcribed conversation of the Extravaganza videos.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter, ideas and theories related to this study are presented. The discussion includes language and human thought, language variety, contextualization cues, and language in laughter. 2.1 Language and Human Thought In the time an infant interacts with the world, he will learn to utilize language. His brain ever since will absorb the language and the knowledge about reality inherent in that language like a sponge absorbs water. After the preparation completed he then must expose himself to the society, with responsibilities and rights. It is clear, in the process, language affects the human thinks. As social creature, human learns the knowledge of the culture as well as the language. He is expected to conform to the societys rules, as a member of it who involves in the continuance of it. This knowledge of culture will help him identifying the signs commonly used in communication. This also gives him an identity enacted among the society. Every experience encountered can be altered into verbal. As Edward Sapir says that it is as though the reality around us is formed by language (Sapir in Kluckohn in Anderson 1970). Language binds abstract reality in order to be grasped by the human mind which in turn limits it. In other words, language affects the conceptual view points and aesthetic interpretation. Cultural knowledge is represented within the language. This knowledge functions in two ways. It is the reference of the conventional interpretation. We can interpret the social semiotics around us because we have learnt this language. We know, for example, that the letter P sign in the pole is the sign that we can park our vehicle

there (Widdowson 2004). This can be done because we have the background knowledge about the conventional meaning about the letter. The second function relate to language as social behavior. Language is used as an instrument for action (Kluckohn in Anderson 1970). We use language to achieve many social purposes. We complain, influence, persuade, as well as giving information to others. 2.2 Language Varieties There are three options of language varieties that we can use. Each of it requires specific conditions and requisite. These options enable us to construct discourse which offer us the way of the conversation as expected by the society. As the member of the society, we are obliged to conform to the requisite. Joshua Fishman states these language varieties in the domain theory. The three domains of varieties are informal, non-formal, and formal domain. Informal language is used in the situation where the status of the speakers of the language is equal and they can freely to choose the language they use. It is often uses colloquialism or conversational expressions used only in certain locales or by a familiar group (Buscemi 2001:10). Thus, it gives limited access to its semantic meaning which common people would hardly understand. It also uses slang. Slang is commonly used by youth which popular but vulnerable to changes. Slang usually has short lifespan. Non-formal is used in equal status of the speakers. But the difference than the informal is that the speakers use non-formal language to show respect. It is like the everyday conversation between intelligent people (Buscemi 2002:11). It also uses clich. Clich is the terms which lace of originality which used in particular society or group. It is only understood by the members of the society or group. Buscemi (2002) furthermore discusses formal language. Formal language is the highest level among the three. It is highly restricted. The speakers are obliged to use correct English. Consequently, language sucha as clich, colloquialism, or slang are excluded. Formal language is used in formal situation where the statuses of the speakers

are unequal. For example, between a teacher with a student, or a manager with an employer, etc. 2.3 Language in Laughter Humor is universal. Every person in the part of the world respond to humor by either laughter or smile. It is the combination of ridiculousness and wit of an individual (Wikipedia.com). This aspect will help that individual recognize the pattern of a humor. In recent studies, humor is affirmed as the cognitive process in human mind. Humor has been defined in many different cultures. Ancient Greek views it as deformity of object, India relates it to be mirth, and in Arabic, it is viewed as the art of reprehension (Wikipedia.com). The modern studies emphasize the involvement of cognitive process of an individual. Alastair Clarke states that the brain responds to a pattern that surprises it, in this case a humor, by amusement, smile or laughter (Wikipedia.com). this unique respond is different for different persons depends on the geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence, and context. The aspect of surprise in a humor is often caused by unexpected and sudden shift in perspective. This perspective twist results from the structure mapping in the mind which create novel meaning (Wikipedia.com). Humor thus does not come out of nothing. There should be preparation to gain the surprising effect. Language can be used to build this preparation. Wikipedia identifies several root components of humor such as follows: a. Being reflexive of or imitative of reality, b. Surprise or misdirection, contradiction or paradox, and ambiguity From the same source (Wikipedia.com), there are also mentioned methods of humor, which are: a. Farce b. Reframing

c. Hyperbole d. Metaphor e. Timing One common aspect of humor is exaggeration. The exaggeration is on the behavior, place,and size (Wikipedia.com). the performers exaggerate the resource to increase the effect of the surprise. The example of exaggeration is shown below:
A language teacher in an elementary school wrote a sentence on the blackboard: The car broke. The teacher then asked one of the students to fix the sentence. Didi, what should you do to fix this? Take it to a mechanic!, Didi answered

in ordinary situation, the answer from the text will be considered silly. But the purpose of the text is not to show the students respond, but to situate it in an appropriate context prepared by the readers. The readers will search the humor in the first place and the text is structured to provide it. 2.4 Contextualization Cues In Gumperzs notion the term cue denotes an encoded or conventional reminder, like a knot in a handkerchief (Levinson in Eederman (ed) 2003). The content where the cue indicates is inferentially determined. Contextualization cues are all the form-related means by which participants contextualize language (Auer 1992). This can be divided mainly into two kinds: verbal and non-verbal. Verbal includes all the lexical representation in a text. Non-verbal includes the gesture, posture, prosody, gaze, backchannels an linguistic variations (Auer 1992). Generally, both verbal and nonverbal contextualization cues are applied in the course of interaction. The language speakers cooperatively make this contextualization cues available to be accessed which make the conversation relevant and organized. There are two issues worth exploring in Gumperzs work (Levinson in Eederman (ed) 2003). The first issue is the notion of presupposes about the nature of context. The

second one is the role of implicit distinction between foreground and background information in a message. The issues correlate to each other and are shared and accessible by the speakers. In its process, contextualization cues are provided on line in the time of interaction. Contextualization cues indicate two things at the same time (Auer 1992). Firstly, they establish a contrast which predicts something new is going to come. This is the expectation naturally emerge as the response of cues used in the interaction. Secondly, the cues restrict plausible inferences of this expectation. It limits the consideration of relevancy of the inherent meaning of the cues. Levinson discusses contextualization cues properties (Levinson in Eederman (ed)2003). The properties are divided into two, such as follows: 1. Formal properties a. A tendency towards non-segmentable, prosodic, paralinguistic, or kinesics features; b. If cued in lexico-syntax, then by lexical alternate (register) or minor grammatical class (e.g. particles); c. Any one clear function associated with a whole cluster of disparate features. Such features are often cross-channel (a constellation of kinesics, prosodic and lexical features). 2. Content properties a. out of awareness background features; b. Non-propositional content, e.g. affectual, rhetorical, social or metalinguistic; c. Tendency to invoke holistic body of assumptions (contextual frames) which then play a role in the interpretation of the utterance;

d. Content not coded but cued; thus the inferred content of the same cues can be different in different utterances.

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS

3.1 Methods This research concerns with contextualization of laughter in Extravaganza. The object of this study is Extravaganza videos downloaded from internet. The contextualization cues, particularly the verbal ones in constructing laughter, are identified in this research. This research can be included under the scope of Discourse Analysis which focuses on naturally occurring data in actual life. The language used in Extravaganza represents how the people use the language for particular purposes i.e. for entertaining. The data will be treated by descriptive qualitative analysis. The language and the contextualization cues are identified and their roles are described in constructing laughter in Extravaganza. The strategies or moves in laughter construction are also discussed. 3.2 Population The downloaded videos are caption of an episode of Extravaganza uploaded in Youtube. Each caption is a part of a whole episode broadcasted in one day. There is no exact information of the total amount of the shows episodes since its first appearance in 2004 until the last appearance in 2009. The population of the caption then is taken from videos provided by the website. There are one hundred videos offered by Youtube by hitting the keyword Extravaganza. 3.3 Sample The samples taken in this study is purposive sample. In order to avoid abundance of data to analyze, four videos are taken as the representation of the whole videos found in Youtube. The reason in choosing the videos in this study is the consideration of the clear strategy in utilizing the contextualization cues. It is shown by creatively using language to construct laughter. Although it is relative, another reason in choosing them is the

videos chosen by the viewers. The videos are decided as the most laughed caption. The writer also considers the opinions from the colleagues who have watched the videos and regard them as the most successful captions in laughter construction of the episodes in Extravaganza. 3.4 Data Collection Extravaganza has reached its end of episodes and is not broadcasted in television anymore. In order to gather the data, the writer downloads the videos from the internet video provider Youtube. Extravaganza consists of several parts of a different story each day. The downloaded videos are the part of an episode broadcasted in one day. Those videos entitled: 1. Playgroup downloaded on March, 4 2010. The duration is 6 minutes 59 seconds. 2. ATM downloaded on March, 4 2010. The duration is 9 minutes 39 seconds. 3. Monopoly Ajaib downloaded on September, 9 2011. The duration is 7 minutes. 4. Perpustakaan Umun downloaded on September, 5 2011. The duration is 8 minutes 38 seconds. Subsequently, the writer will do the following treatment: 1. Transcription. The conversation in Extravaganza will be transcribed into Indonesian. This transcription is used partly, taken purposely by the writer to display the contextualization cues in the show. 2. Translation. The transcription in Indonesian then will be translated deliberately to state the equivalence in English. The analysis will focus in this transcription along with the writers knowledge in the contextualization.

3.3 Data Analysis The transcription will then be analyzed in three ways: 1. Identify the language variety used in Extravaganza and decide which variety is used most in the show. The writer will listen to the videos and then transcribe the conversations. Subsequently, the language varietiy used is marked as: Bold writing for formal language Italic writing for colloquial And underlined writing for informal language

2. Identify the contextualization cues (the verbal one) used in the show. The cues then will be analyzed in the sense of its role in constructing the laughter in Extravaganza. This relates to the moves analyzed in point 3 below. 3. Describe the strategy used in laughter construction. The writer will list the sequence in the transcription into moves as Susanne M. Eggins suggests ( Analyzing Casual Conversation in Google books). The specification of the moves is shown below:

Question Initiate --Statement MOVE TYPE --Answer Respond Agree Deny knowledge Disagree (summarized from Whittaker, et.al)

REFERENCES

Auer, Peter. (without year). The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam:Universitat Friburg. Translated by Benjamins (1992). Introduction: John Gumperzs Approach to Contextualization [available at:http://www.freidok.uni-

freiburg.de/volltexte/4793/pdf/Auer_Introduction_John_Gumperz.pdf] Buscemi, Santi V.(2002). A Reader for Developing Writers. 5th Ed. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies. Eederman, Susan L.(ed) (2003). Language and Interaction: Discussion with John J. Gumperz. John Benjamins Publishing Co.(pp. 31-39) Khavari, Khalil A (2006). The Art of Happiness Mencipta Kebahagiaan dalam setiap Keadaan. Jakarta: Serambi, Indonesian edition Kluckohn, Clyde (1949). The Gift of Tongues. McGraw-Hill Company. In:Anderson, Wallace L.(ed) and Stageberg, Norman C.(ed). (1970). Introductory Readings on Language. no publisher (pp. 35-53) Wehmeier, Sally(ed) (2000). Oxford Andvanced Learners of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Whittaker, Rachel, et.al. English Discourse Analysis: Topic 5: Analysing Casual Conversation. Downloaded from http://web.uam.es/departamentos/filoyletras/filoinglesa/Courses/DA2011/DA2011-class5.pdf Widdowson, Henry G.(2004). Text, Context, Pretext Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. www.wikipedia.com/Downloads/Humour%2020Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encycl opedia.htm downloaded on September, 06 2011