on-verbal-humor-in-the-american-soap-opera-friends(英語專業(yè)論文)本科學(xué)位論文

PAGEPAGE17中國某某某某學(xué)校學(xué)生畢業(yè)設(shè)計(論文)題目：OnVerbalHumorintheAmericanSoapOperaFriends姓名：0000000000班級、學(xué)號：0000000000系(部)：經(jīng)濟(jì)管理系專業(yè)：商務(wù)英語指導(dǎo)教師：000000開題時間：2009-4-10完成時間：2009-10-272009年10月27日目錄畢業(yè)設(shè)計任務(wù)書…………………1畢業(yè)設(shè)計成績評定表……………2答辯申請書……………………3-4正文……………5-19答辯委員會表決意見……………20答辯過程記錄表…………………21課題OnVerbalHumorintheAmericanSoapOperaFriends課題(論文)提綱0.引言1.關(guān)于幽默1.1幽默語言的學(xué)習(xí)1.2合作原則和會話含義的介紹2.分析幽默語在情景喜劇《老友記》里的運(yùn)用2.1量的準(zhǔn)則2.2質(zhì)的準(zhǔn)則2.3關(guān)系準(zhǔn)則2.4方法準(zhǔn)則3.關(guān)于幽默語的討論4.結(jié)論二、內(nèi)容摘要美國情景喜劇《老友記》中的言語幽默在一定程度上阻礙了英語學(xué)習(xí)者對該喜劇的欣賞。本文以語用學(xué)的合作原則和會話含義理論為基礎(chǔ)，從幽默會話對合作原則及其次準(zhǔn)則的蔑視現(xiàn)象以及幽默會話中的隱含意義兩個方面對美國情景喜劇《老友記》中的言語幽默進(jìn)行了探討,并分析了《老友記》中的言語幽默效果。本研究有助于提高英語學(xué)習(xí)者欣賞該喜劇，同時提高學(xué)習(xí)者理解美式幽默的能力。參考文獻(xiàn)[1]何兆熊主編.新編語用學(xué)概要[M].上海.上海外語教育出版社.1999.

[2]何自然.語用學(xué)與英語學(xué)習(xí)[M].上海.上海外語教育出版社.1997.

[3]胡范鑄.幽默語言學(xué)[M].上海.上海社會科學(xué)院出版社.1987.

[4]劉乃實(shí).試析幽默的語用合作原則[J].清華大學(xué)研究教育.2002(2):143-147.

[5]毛榮貴.英語幽默語言賞析[M].上海.上海社會科學(xué)院出版社.1993.

[6]吳清.合作原則和情景喜劇中的幽默[J].江南大學(xué)學(xué)報.2005(2).107-110.OnVerbalHumorintheAmericanSoapOperaFriends00000000Abstract:TheverbalhumorinthefamousAmericansoapoperaFriends,toacertaindegree,preventstheEnglishlearnersfromappreciatingthesoapoperaeffectively.Thisthesis,basedonCooperativePrinciple(CP)andConversationalImplicationTheory,analyseshowverbalhumorfloutseachofthefourCooperativePrinciplesandhowtounderstandtheimpliedmeaningbehindthehumorousconversations.Meanwhile,theeffectsofverbalhumorareillustratedindetails.ThestudyissuretohelpEnglishlearnerstoappreciatethesoapoperaandimprovetheirabilityinunderstandingtheAmericanhumor.Keywords:verbalhumor；Friends；cooperativeprinciple；conversationalimplication0·Introduction

TheAmericansoapoperaFriendsisoneofthemostfamousandwelcomeinAmericaandintheworldforitsuniqueconversationalhumor.TheverbalhumorinFriendsisthetypicalhumorwithAmericancharacteristics,whichsometimesishardfornon-nativeEnglishspeakerstounderstand.Hence,detailedpragmaticanalysisoftheverbalhumorinFriendsishelpfultoimproveEnglishlearners’understandingandappreciationofthenatureofAmericanhumor.Atthesametime,itisilluminatingtoapplyhumorskillstomediateinterpersonalrelationships.1·Abouthumor

1·1studiesonhumor

Inrecentyears,anincreasingamountofstudiesonhumorhascaughttheattentionofscholarsathomeandabroad.However,thesestudiesdiscusshumoralwaysfrompsychologicalorlinguisticangles.

WalterNashconsidersthat“thehumorofpsychologicalandsocialsatireisexpressedtoaverygreatextentthroughtheflawsandconnectionsofspeechacts,thecontractualfailuresofpartiestoconversation”.Hepointsouthumorousconversationsoccurbecause“thoseexchangesviolatethemaximsof‘ordinary’conversation,asformulatedinawell-knownpaperbyH.P.Grice”.ChineseProfessorMaoRongguistudieshumorfromlinguisticview.Hedivideshumorouslanguageintotwotypes:rhetoricalhumorandnon-rhetoricalhumor.AccordingtothestudyofProfessorMao,therhetoricalhumorisproducedthroughusingvarioustropes,includingoxymoron,transferredepithet,zeugma,anticlimax,pun,irony,parody,paradox,andthenon-rhetoricalhumoriscreatedbylexicaldeviationanddeviationofregister.

Besides,manyscholarsinChinahavedoneresearchesonhumorbasedonpragmatictheories.However,thestudiesinthisfieldhavenotreachedthestageofmaturity,andtheyareratherinsufficientorlackofauthorityinChina,letalonethepragmaticstudiesonthehumorousconversationsinAmericansitcomsFriendssinceitjustcameintobeinginthe1990s.1.2ThecooperativeprincipleandconversationalimplicationThestudiesonthehumorinFriendsareratherinsufficientasitbecamepopularinChinajustinthe1990sothatthestudiesinthisfieldstillhavealongwaytoreachthestageofmaturity.Inthiscase,thisthesisismadetoresearchandfocusesonexplainingtherelationshipbetweentheverbalhumorandtheCooperativePrincipletoshowthewaysinwhichtheverbalhumorintheAmericansoapoperaFriendsfloutsthefourprinciples,thehumorouseffectistriggeredandtheimpliedmessagebehindthehumorisconveyed.

HerecomestoGrice’sCooperativePrincipleandhisconversationalimplicationtheory.Gricesuggeststhat“thereisasetofover-archingassumptionsguidingtheconductofconversation.Thesearise,itseems,frombasicrationalconsiderationsandmaybeformulatedasguidelinesfortheefficientandeffectiveuseoflanguageinconversationtofurtherco-operativeends”.Hisideaisthatinordertocarryonthetalktheparticipantsmustbewillingtocooperativeinmakingconversation.Participantsinconversationhavetheobligationtogiveadequateandaccurateinformation,andtomakerelevantresponses.Griceidentifiesasguidelinesfourbasicmaximsofconversation,calledtheCooperativePrinciple,orCPforshort.Theyareintroducedasfollows:Theco-operativeprinciple

Makeyourcontributionsuchasisrequired,atthestageatwhichitoccurs,bytheacceptedpurposeordirectionofthetalkexchangeinwhichyouareengaged

Theprincipleofquality

Trytomakeyourcontributiononthatistrue,specifically:

a.donotsaywhatyoubelievetobefalse

b.donotsaythatforwhichyoulackadequateevidence

Theprincipleofquantity

a.makeyourcontributionasinformativeasisrequiredforthecurrentpurposesoftheexchange

b.donotmakeyourcontributionmoreinformativethanisrequired

Theprincipleofrelevance

Makeyourcontributionsrelevant

Theprincipleofmanner

Beperspicuous,andspecifically:

a.avoidobscurity

b.avoidambiguity

c.bebrief

d.beorderly

2·AnalysisofhumorinFriends

TherearealargenumberofhumorousdialoguesinFriends.Therefore,thehumorousdialogueshadtobeclassifiedaccordingtothefactororthereasonofcreatinghumor.Thosethatfloutfourprincipleswerechosentobeexplainedindetails.

HumorisusuallycausedbythedeliberateviolationoftheCPbyparticipantsoftheconversation.Differentfromdailyconversation,humoristheembodimentofwisdom.Itisjocularandwittyandusuallymakespeoplelaughing.Onecharacteristicofhumoristhatthelanguageusedinitisimplicit.Itisnotinastraightforwardwaytoexpressideasorputforwardsomecriticizingorcomplainingcomments.Besides,itdisclosesthingsorideaswhichareabsurdorunreasonableinatactfulandimplicitway.Peoplekeepthinkingandinferring,andtrytograsptheintendedmeaningandunderlyingmessagethroughthelanguageofhumor.2.1TheprincipleofqualityBytheprincipleofquality,itismeantthatinadialoguewealltrytomakeourcontributiontoonethingthatistrueorsaythingsthataretrue.Tokeeptothisprinciple,wesimultaneouslyobservetwosub-principles:wedonotsaywhatwebelievetobefalse,andwedonotsayanythingwelackadequateevidence.2.1.1“Joey:Whatareyoutalkingabout?Keepit!

Phoebe:It'snotmine,Ididn'tearnit,ifIkeptit,itwouldbelikestealing.

Rachel:Yeah,butifyouspentit,itwouldbelikeshopping!

Phoebe:Okay.Okay,let'ssayIboughtareallygreatpairofshoes.DoyouknowwhatI'dhear,witheverystepItook?'Not-mine.Not-mine.Not-mine.'AndevenifIwashappy,okay,and,andskipping-'Not-not-mine,not-not-mine,not-not-mine,not-not-mine'...”(Friends,1994)ThisdialogueappearsinthescenethatonedayPhoebediscoversthereisfivehundredextradollarsinheraccount;everyoneaskshertokeepthemoney,whilesheisunwillingtokeepanduseit.Shethinkstheshoeswouldblameherifsheusedthatmoneytobuyshoes.She,ofcourse,knowsshoescouldnotsayanything.SheissayingsomethinguntrueandisthusfloutingthemaximofQuality.Atthesametime,humorisproducedbypersonifyingtheshoesasapersonhavingavoice.Herimpliedmessageis“Ishouldnotkeeptheextramoney.AndIwouldfeelguiltyifIkeptandusedit.”2.1.2“Ross:IfIhadn’tletyoutalkmetogointotheairportinthefirstplace,Iwouldn’thaveputmyfistthroughthewall.

Chandler:Youputyourfistthroughthewall?

Ross:No.Imissitandhitthedoor.Butitopenedreallyhard.”(Friends,1997)ThisconversationhappensinthesituationthatRossfailstopersuadehisgirlfriendtostaywithhim.Rosssaysheputhisfistthroughthewalltoemphasizehowupsetandangryheis.However,ChandlerdoubtsRoss’swordsbecauseheknowsRossistootimidtoputhisfistthroughthewall.Later,Rossadmitshejusthitthedoor.Here,RosssayssomethinguntrueonpurposeandthusfloutsthemaximofQuality.Humorofthiskindisfoundedlargelyonhyperbole.2.1.3“Ross:Yeah,uh…andthenIfiguredafteryouwin,wecouldallgoouttothebalconyandseeanightrainbowwithgremlinsdancingontopofit!”

2.1.4“Ross:Youknowwhat,I’msureyourwishisgonnacometrue,but,youguys—justincase,maybeageniewillcomeoutifwerubthislamp!”(Friends,1999)Rosssaysthesetwosentences,comparingthathisfriendswouldwintothatsomeonewouldseeanightrainbowwithgremlinsdancingontopofitandthatcomingoutageniefromalamp,toexpresshedoesnotbelievehisfriendwouldwin.Humorhereisachievedbyusingmetaphor.Rossknowsthephenomenonwhathesaidcouldhardlyhappen,soheisfloutingthemaximofqualitydeliberately.Theimplicationthatresultsis“Itisimpossibleforyoutowin.”2.2TheprincipleofquantityBytheprincipleofquantity,itismeantthatinadialoguewealltrytomakeourcontributionasmuchasdesired.Therearetwosub-principlesunderthequantityprinciple:wetrytomakeourcontributionasinformativeasisrequiredforthecurrentpurposeoftheexchangeandwedonotmakeourcontributionmoreinformativethanisrequired.2.2.1“Rachel:Isn’tthisamazing?Imean,I’venevermadecoffeebeforeinmyentirelife.

Chandler:That’samazing.

Joey:Congratulations.(Tasteabiteofcoffee)

Joey:AlthoughactuallyI’mreallynotthathungry.”(Friends,1995)

Aftertastingabiteofcoffee,Joeydoesnotmentionthetasteofcoffeeinhiscomment.Apparently,hisanswerislessinformativethanisrequired,thus,hefloutsthemaximofQuantity.Theimplicationthatresultsis“Thecoffeeisnottasty.”Inthefirstplace,thethreepersonsconsideritisamazingthatRachelcouldmakecoffee.ButitturnsoutthatRachel’scoffeeisterrible.Thissuddenturningpointwouldbringaboutthesenseofhumor.2.3Theprincipleofrelevance

Bytheprincipleofrelevance,itismeantthatinadialoguewealltrytomakeourcontributionrelevanttotheexchange.2.3.1“Ross:Idon’twanttobesingle,OK?Ijustwanttobemarriedagain.

(Rachelranintothecoffeeshopwearingtheweddingveil.)

Chandler:AndIjustwantamilliondollars!”(Friends,1994)

ThisconversationhappenswhenRossandChandleraretalkingaboutRoss’sloveaffair.Rosssayshewantstobemarriedagain,butChandlersayshewantsamilliondollars.Itseemsthatthetwosubjectstheymentionareirrelevant.ButitoccursinacertainsituationthatabridewearingweddingveilappearswhenRossspeaksouthisexpectationtobemarriedagain.Inthecase,Chandler’ssenseofhumorisembodiedbysayingsomethingirrelevant,i.e.floutingtheprincipleofRelevance.2.3.2“Phoebe:Oh,hey,Mon,doyoustillhaveyourlikeoldblousesanddressesfromhighschool?

Monica:Yeah,IthinkIhavesomearoundheresomewhere.Why?Phoebe:Well,it’sjustthatmaternityclothesaresoexpensive.”(Friends,2003)

Inthisconversation,whenPhoebeisaskedwhyshetalksaboutMonica’sdressesfromhighschool,sheanswersmaternityclothesareexpensive—thisreplyseemsirrelevanttothequestion,butactuallysheimplicatesthatMonica’sblousesanddressesfromhighschoolarebigenoughforapregnantwoman,whilematernityclothesaresoexpensive,soshewantstoborrowthem.Here,Phoebefloutstheprincipleofrelevancedeliberately,andthushersenseofhumorisexpressed.

2.4TheprincipleofmannerBytheprincipleofmanner,itismeantthatinadialoguewealltrytobeperspicuous(clearandlucid).Inlinewiththisprinciple,therearefoursub-principles:a.wetrytoavoidobscurity;b.wetrytoavoidambiguity;c.wetrytobebrief;d.wetrytobeorderly.

2.4.1“Phoebe:Ooh!Oh!(ShestartstopluckattheairjustinfrontofRoss.)

Ross:No,nodon't!Stopcleansingmyaura!No,justleavemyauraalone,okay?

Phoebe:Fine!Bemurky!”(Friends,1996)

Inthisconversation,PhoebewantstocatchRoss’sattentionbypluckingattheairinfrontofhim.Buthefeelsannoyingandhewantstoleavehimselfalone.Insteadofsaying“donotbotherme”directly,herefersto“myaura”andsays“stopcleansingmyaura”and“l(fā)eavemyauraalone”.Moreover,Phoebeutters“murky”todescribetheairaroundRossinsteadofusing“unhappy”or“sorrowful”todescribehimdirectly.Here,bothRossandPhoebeuseobscureexpressionandthusflouttheprincipleofManner.Butthehumorouseffecttheycreateandtheimplicationoftheirutteranceareobviousandacceptedbyaudience.

2.4.2“Emily:Whatdidyoudecide?DoesyouruncleNathangetaninvitationornot?

Ross:Oh,God!Nobodylikeshim.Andhe’ssocheap.Imeanhe’dneverflytoLondoninamillionyears…Yeah,invitehim.”(Friends,1997)RossandEmilyaredecidingwhowouldbeinvitedtotheirwedding.WhenEmilyasksRosswhetherinvitehisuncleornot,Rossdoesnotanswer“yes”or“no”brieflyanddirectly.Instead,hesaysalotofhisuncle’sweakpointsinthefirstplace,butfinallyhedecidestoinvitehimsoquickly.Thus,obviously,Ross’sdeliberatelyprolixexpressioncreatesasenseofhumorbyfloutingtheprincipleofManner.3·Discussion

Inthepreviouspart,thehumorousdialoguesinFriendswereselectedtobeanalyzedandexplainedfromtheviewoffloutingfourprinciplesofCPincludingtheprincipleofquality,quantity,relevanceandmanner.Afterdetailedanalyzing,aconclusionthatthereisimpliedmeaningbehindsomeofthehumorousconversationisdrawn.

TheverbalhumorinFriends,sometimesconveyingsomeimpliedmessage,called“conversationalimplication”–anextrameaningcomparedwiththeliteral,isstillasuccessfulcommunicationskillthoughit,toacertainextents,exteriorlyfloutstheprinciplesoftheCP.

SomeChinesescholarshaveresearchedonverbalhumorinAmericansoapoperaFriends.Theyconductananalysisontheselecteddialoguesonthebasisoftheprincipleofqualityandthemaximofmanner.Intheirresearches,theyhavethesameresultasthisthesisdoes,thatis,theparticipantsinhumorousconversationsdeliberatelyflouttheprincipleofqualityandofmanner.However,mostofthemdonotdiscussthehumorousconversationsfocusingonalloft