A Speech Acts Analysis of the Misunderstanding in Abbott and Costello

A Speech Acts Analysis of the Misunderstanding in in Abbott & Costello's classic routines “Who’s on first?”

Ignasia Yuyun Indonesia University of Education Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT Speech acts is the basic unit of communication. If the addressee cannot catch what actually the addresser means or the addressee cannot catch the speech act humor. Speech act and language function cannot be separated because language function is used to highlight speech acts. In this study, the writer wants to analyze the type of speech act of the utterances in the illocutionary acts. The writer is also curious to know what makes the dialogue between Abbott and Costello “Who’s on first?” becomes humorous. It is assumed that the humorous utterances caused by misunderstanding between the participants. Thus, the writer uses Searle’s Theory (1976) of speech acts to classify the illocutionary act. The data got from http://www.phoenix5.org and then analyzed the jokes that were in the form of dialog by describing the type of speech acts. Finally, the writer explained the cause of humour of this dialogue. The The find findin ings gs rev revea eale led d that that the the types types of illo illocu cuti tion onar ary y acts acts occu occurre rred d were were assertives, directives, and expressive. Moreover, the cause of humour was because the hearer failed to catch the intended meaning of the speaker. Key words: speech acts, humour, misunderstanding INTRODUCTION

Language has an important role in human’s life. According to Wardhaugh (1977), language has several roles; ”language as a system, language as arbitrary, language as vocal, language as symbol, language as human, and the last is as communication.” The last role is one of the important roles of language. Language allows people to say things to each other and to express their communicative needs. Moreover, language is the cement of society, society, allowing allowing people to work, and play together, to tell the truth but also to tell a lie, or lies (Wardhaugh, 1977). Communication, in this case, is a social activity requiring the coordinated efforts of two or more individuals. Through communication people can express their idea or opinio opinion n toward toward someon someone e or someth something ing.. To make make commun communica icatio tion n livel lively, y, people people nee need d somet omethi hing ng inter nteres estting ing or fun unn ny to be he hear ard d or seen. een. Humo Humorr is one one way way of communication, which can entertain and make people laugh. Moreover, people like to hear humor for their relaxation after they face stressful experience in their daily life. The humo hu morr some someti time mes s occu occurs rs becau because se of the the misu misund nders ersta tand ndin ing g that that happ happens ens in the the conversation between the speakers and the addressees. Misunderstanding can be funny because when the speaker utters something to the addressee and the addressee cannot catch what actually the speaker means, but the Mini Research on Pragmatics

Page 1

The world's largest digital library

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.





addressee feels that he/she understands it or has his/her own interpretation of one speech and replies it with the answer which is unconnected to the speech. Thus, the joke occurs by the time the answer is spoken. “A locutionary locutionary act is the productio production n of sounds sounds and words words with with meanin meanings, gs, an Illocutionary act is the issuing of an utterance with conventional communicative force

achieved “in saying”, and a Perlocutionary act is the actual actual effect achieved “by saying” saying” (Schiffri (Schiffrin, n, 1994, p. 51). In this research, research, those three acts were used to analyze analyze the uttera utterance nces s that that contai contained ned humor. humor. The locuti locutiona onary ry act was the utteran utterance ce itself itself,, the illo illocu cuti tion onar ary y act act was was the the inte intend nded ed me mean anin ing g of the the spea speake ker’s r’s utte uttera ranc nce, e, and and the the perlocutionary was the response of the listener. Moreover, the reason why the writer used used speec speech h acts acts theor theory y to anal analyz yze e hu humo morr was was beca becaus use e spee speech ch acts acts deal deal with with interpretation. Speakers expect listeners to recognize the functions of the sentences they speak and to act accordingly. accordingly. Whenever Whenever they ask a question, question, for example, example, they expect their their listen listeners ers to realize realize that it is a request request for informa informatio tion. n. If the listeners listeners fail to appreciate this intention, they are judged as having "misunderstood," even though they may have taken in everything else about the utterance (Clark and Clark, 1977, p. 25)

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION Speech Act Theory

According to Austin, speech act is an action that is performed through utterance (as cited in Schriffin, Schriffin, 1994, p.49). “A locutionary act is the production of sounds and word words s with with me mean anin ings gs,, an Illocution Illocutionary ary act is the the issu issuin ing g of an utte uttera ranc nce e with with conventional communicative force achieved “in saying”, and a Perlocutionary act is the actual effect achieved “by saying” (Schiffrin, 1994, p. 51). In this study, those three acts were used to analyze the utterances that contained humor. The locutionary act was the utte uttera ranc nce e itse itself lf,, the the illo illocu cuti tion onar ary y act act was was the the inte intend nded ed me mean anin ing g of the the spea speaker ker’s ’s utterance, and the perlocutionary was the response of the listener. Moreover, Searle (1976) posits five types of speech act: 1) Assertives: statements that may be judged true or false because they purport to describe a state of affairs in the world (paradigm cases: asserting, claiming, reporting, classi classifyi fying, ng, genera generaliz lizing ing,, defini defining, ng, expla explaini ining, ng, descri describin bing, g, exe exempl mplify ifying ing,, predic predictin ting, g, advising, warning, comparing, and concluding) 2) Directives: statements that attempt to make the auditor´s actions fit the propositional cont conten entt

(par (parad adig igm m

case cases: s:

commanding, and questioning)

aski asking ng,,

sugg sugges esti ting ng,,

invi inviti ting ng,,

requ reques esti ting ng,,

orde orderi ring ng,,





4) Expressives: statem statement ents s that that express express the “since “sincerit rity y condit condition ion of the speech speech act” act” (paradigm cases: apologizing, agreeing, conceding, denying, welcoming, complaining, thanki thanking, ng,

compli compliment menting ing,,

congra congratul tulati ating, ng,

approv approving ing,,

disapp disapprov roving ing,,

reprim reprimand anding ing,,

consoling) 5) Declaratives: statements that attempt to change the world by “representing it as having been changed” (paradigm cases: excommunicating, declaring war, firing from employment). According to Kennedy (2003), “Each of these categories requires something of the listeners. listeners. Informatives Informatives are associat associated ed particula particularly rly with ideas (cognitive (cognitive matters), matters), whereas directives, expressive, commissives are more interactional, or deal with feelings (affective matters) (p. 313).

The Concept of Humor

Humor is the phenomenon when somebody hears and sees something and the laughs. It means that the person finds the audial or visual stimulus funny. Laughter can be heard frequently in most societies though its exact meaning may differ from occasion to occasion and from culture to culture. Different people will not necessarily find the same things equally funny. However, Raskin (1985) wrote that “the ability to appreciate and enjoy humor is universal and shared by all people; even if the kinds of humor they favor differ widely” (pp. 1-2). It means, “Every humor act occurs within a certain culture which belongs to a certain society” (as cited in Raskin, 1985, p.5). In his Semantic Mechanism of Humor , Raskin (1985, pp 3-5) formulates that there are some factors that characterize humor: 1.

There should be human participants in the act. These human participants are labeled the speaker and hearer.

2.

Something must happen in a humor act. An utterance has to be made, a situation has to develop or to be perceived. perceived. In short, a new stimulus stimulus should be presented presented and responded to humorously. The natural term for this obligatory factor is the stimulus.

3.

The life experience or an individual is an important factor. The term used for this is experience. An important factor in the experience of the speaker and the hearer is their familiarity with humor as a special mode of communication.

4.

The next factor is psychological type of individual participating in the humor. In this this case case,, the the spea speake kerr and and or heare hearer’s r’s predi predisp spos osit itio ions ns to hu humo morr are are quit quite e important. For this factor, Raskin gives the term psychology.





6.

Finall Finally, y, eve every ry humor humor act occurs occurs within within a certain certain culture, culture, which which belong belongs s to a certain society. The term used for this factor is society.

METHODOLOGY The The metho ethodo dolo logy gy empl employ oyed ed in this this stud study y is desc descri ript ptiv ive e qu qual alit itat ativ ive. e. A qualitative study is an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem,

based on building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting. (Cresswell, 1994). The objective of this study is to analyze pragmatically

the speech acts of a conversational humour.

More specifically, the conversational humor are discussed with respect to the theory of speech acts itself, how the theory is used to analyze misunderstanding in comedy, and how the theory is used to explain in what way the utterances utterances are humorous. humorous. The scope of this study is on discourse analysis, since it focuses on the relation between utterances and the interpretation of the utterances through the analysis of locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary acts. Moreover, the writer focused on analyzing the conversation through the speech acts. Thus, the writer writer used Searle’s theory about speech acts, which stated that utterances perform five types of speech act: assertive, directives, commissives, expressives, expressives, and declaratives. declaratives. The writer would like to analyze their speech act, “the distance between what is said and what is meant, and the multiple layers of meaning between the literal prepositional meaning of an utterance and the act which is performed in context “(Stubb, 1983, p. 147). ”, Moreover, the data were taken from conversation transcript of “Who’s on first? first? ”, ” was selected since it is a humor dialogue that tells about classic routine “Who’s on first? ”

of Abbott and Costello about baseball positions. The writer chooses this dialogue be cause the writer is interested in the way the characters (Abbott and Costello) deliver the humor or jokes through their speech. The process of data analysis comprises describing the type of speech acts produced by the participants in “ Who’s on first? ” by using speech act theory focused on illocutionary. Then, classifying them into the types of language functions. The next step is describing describing what made those conversations conversations become humorous. humorous. Then, putting the answer in the tables below in order to ease the reader in reading findings. The first table shows the result of speech acts and language function analysis. The second table shows misunderstanding in the dialog.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

As mentioned earlier, based on the theoretical framework, we proceed to analyze





TABLE 1: The result of Speech Acts analysis No

Types of

No of turn

speech acts

1

Ass Asserti ertive ves s

Frequency (%)

1,4, 1,4,5, 5,7, 7,8, 8,9, 9,10 10,,12 12,,13 13,,14 14,,15 15,,24 24,,25 25,2 ,26, 6,27 27,,28 28,,29 29,,30 30,3 ,33, 3,45 45,,4 6,47,48,50,56,57,58,60,63,66,78,80,86,88,94,97,103,104 ,105,107,109,115,117,121,123,129,131,137,138,141,143,

39

144,150,152,154,156,157,159,161,162,163,164,165,168, 2

Direct ectives

170,171,174,175,178 (69) 2,6,11,1 1,16,1 6,18,2 8,22,3 2,34,36,3 6,38,40,4 0,42,4 2,44,52,5 2,55,59,6 9,61,6 1,68,71,7 1,75, 77,81,82,83,85,89,90,91,92,93,96,100,102,106,114,118, 120,122,124,126,127,128,134,136,140,142,146,147,149,

30

151,153,155,169,172,176 (54) 3 4

Commisives Expr Expres ess sives ives

0 3,17 3,17,,19 19,,20 20,,21 21,,23 23,,31 31,,32 32,3 ,35, 5,37 37,,39 39,,41 41,,43 43,4 ,49, 9,51 51,,53 53,,54 54,,62 62,,6 4,65,67,69,70,72,73,74,76,79,84,87,95,98,99,101,103,10 8,110,111,112,113,116,119,125,130,132,133,135,139,14

31

5,148,158,160,162,166,167,173,177,179 (56) 5

Declaratives

0





Based on the table above, there are three types of speech acts are used by the partic participa ipants nts (Abbot (Abbottt and Costel Costello) lo).. Asserti Assertives ves is the most most frequen frequently tly used used by the parti partici cipa pant nts s (39% (39%). ). Here Here,, the the part partic icip ipan ants ts use use asse assert rtiv ives es to show show thei theirr clai claims ms,, conclusion conclusion,, explanation, explanation, definition, definition, description description,, exemplifica exemplification, tion, advice, advice, and warn. The second type is frequently used is expressive (31%). The participants use expressive in showing their agreement, denial, complaint, approval, and disapproval. The lowest rank is occupied by directives (30%). The participants use directives to ask, question, and sugg sugges estt thei theirr inte interl rloc ocut utor. or. Me Mean anwh whil ile, e, no part partic icip ipan antt here here use use comm commis issi sives ves and and declaratives. Moreover, the writer tries to explore more why the dialogue becomes humorous.

The result shows that the humorous happens because of the misunderstanding that happens happens in the dialogue between the speakers (Abbott) and the addressees (Costello). (Costello). Both Both speake speakers rs have have differ different ent interpr interpreta etatio tion n of each each speech speech.. The furthe furtherr informa informatio tion n provided below:

Table 2: The result of o f misunderstanding







Number of turns 25

34 36 43 64 75 76 83 87 89 90 91 95 97 99 104 106 109 118 120 120

122 123 126 127 128 133 137 138 140 140 142 142

Speaker Goof Goofe e' Dean. ean. Wel Well, let let's see, ee, we have have on the bags, Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third... Well then who's on first? I mean the fellow's name. Who is on first! Who's wife? All All I'm I'm try tryin ing g to find ind out out is what' hat's s the the guys name on first base. No. What is on second base. I'm on only as asking yo you, wh who's the gu guy on on first base? What's the guy's name on first base? I'm not asking you who's on second. Who's on first. I don't know. If I mentioned ned the third ba baseman's name, who did I say is playing third? What's on base? I don't know. Now who's playing third base? What am I putting on third. Who is on first. Then tell me who's playing left field. I'm I'm not not.. ...s .sttay out out of the infi infiel eld d!!! !!! I want to know what's the guy's name in left field? I'm not asking you who's on second. Who's on first! The left fielder's name? Why. Because! Tomorrow. Tomorrow! What time? What What time ime tom tomor orro row w are are you gonn gonna a tel telll me who's pitching? I'll I'll break reak your your arm arm if if you you say say who who's 's on first!!! I want to know what's the pitcher's name?

Number of turns 26

That's wh what I want to to fi find ou out.

35 37 44 65 76

Yes Who. I'm asking you who's on first. Yes. No. What is on second base.

77 84

I'm not asking you who's on second. That's right.

88 90 91 92

No. What is on second. Who's on first. I don't know. He's on third, we're not talking about him. No. Who's playing first.

96 98 1 00 1 05

Listener

1 07 1 10 1 19 1 21

What's on second. He's on third. Why do you insist on putting Who on third base? No. What is on second. I don't know. Who's playing first. No, What is on second.

1 23 1 24 1 27 1 28 1 29 1 34 1 38 1 39 141 141

Who's on first! I don't know W hy . Because! Oh, he's center field. You don't want to tell me today? What time? What time what? Now Now list listen en.. Who Who is not not pit pitchi ching. ng.

1 43

What's on second.





First, the exchange in ‘ Who’s on first?’ first?’ is interesting in that it contains a string of misund misunderst erstand andin ings gs based based on the local local homony homonymy my of ‘who, who, what, what, I don’t don’t know, know, why, because, because, tomorrow, tomorrow, naturally naturally ’. ’. They They are are all all trigge triggered red by the the ambi ambigui guity ty between between the

different discourse spaces Abbott’s words are thought to belong to: the actual interaction between Abbott and Costello. In this first misunderstanding occurs because Costello fails to recognize ‘who, what, I don’t know, why, because, tomorrow, naturally ’ as

noun nouns s

referring to the names of baseball players. In other words, Costello construes an obviously wrong causal causal inference inference on the basis of Abbott’s Abbott’s speech in the previous previous turn (‘‘I say Who's Who's on firs first, t, What What's 's on seco second nd,, I Do Don't n't Know' Know's s on thir third. d.’’) through through homonymic homonymic

confusion. The result can be seen as follows: •

First, misunderstanding on the word ‘who’ found in turn 34 and 35, 43 and 44, 64

and 65, 83 and 84, 89 and 90, 90 and 91, 95 and 96, 104 and 105, 116 and 117, 118 and 119, 122 and 123, 123 and 124, 140 and 141, 171 and 172, 177 and 178, 182 and 183. •

Second, misunderstanding on the word ‘what’ found in turn 75 and 76, 76 and 77,

87 and 88, 97 and 98, 106 and 107, 120 and 121, 142 and 143, 143 and 144. •

Third, misunderstanding on the word ‘I don’t know’ found in turn 90 and 91, 91 and

92, 99 and 100, 109 and 110. •

Fourth, misunderstanding on the word ‘why’ found in turn 126 and 127, 127 and

128. •

Fifth, misunderstanding on the word ‘because’ found in turn 128 and 129.

•

Sixth, misunderstanding on the word ‘tomorrow’ found in turn 133 and 134, 137

and 138. •

Finally, misunderstanding on the word ‘naturally’ found in turn 170 and 171, 171

and 172, 177 and 178, 182 and 183. Moreover, the second misunderstanding occurs when Costello misconstrues Abbott’s intonation which indicates whether it is a question or a statement when he is saying . In this case, utterances utterances (who, what, and why) can be ambiguous with respect to the illocutionary intention it expresses. The misunderstandings are at least partially

triggered by the





Speakers expect listeners to recognize the functions of the sentences they speak and to act accordingly. Whenever they ask a question, for example, they expect their listeners to realize that it is a request for information. If the listeners fail to appreciate this intention, they are judged as having "misunderstood," even though they may have taken in everything else about the utterance. Moreov Moreover, er, misund misunders erstan tandin ding g can be funny funny becaus because e when when the speake speakerr utters utters something something to the addressee and the addressee cannot catch what actually the speaker speaker mean me ans, s, but but the the addre address ssee ee feel feels s that that he/s he/she he un unde ders rsta tand nds s it or has has his/ his/he herr own own interpretation of one speech and replies it with the answer which is unconnected to the speech. Thus, the joke occurs by the time the answer is spoken.

REFERENCES

Brone, Brone, G. (2008) (2008).. HyperHyper- and misund misunderst erstand anding ing in interac interactio tional nal humor. humor. Journal Journal of Pragmatics , 2027-2062.

Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Irene, S. (2007). Speech acts and language function used by the participants in Reader's Digest's "Laughter, The Best Medicine" . Surabaya: Surabaya: Unpublished Unpublished Undergraduat Undergraduate e

Thesis of Petra Christian University. Krikmann, A. (2004). Contemporary Linguistic Theories of Humour . 27-58. Leech, G. N. 1983, Principles of Pragmatics . New York: Longman Group Limited. Levinson, S. C. 1983, Pragmatics [M] . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Raskin,Victor,1985. Semantic Mechanisms of Humor . Reidel,Dordrecht. Raskin,Victor,Attardo,Salvatore,1994.

Non-literalness and non bona-fide

in language. Pragmatics and Cognition Cognition

2,31-69.

Thomas, J. 1995, Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics . London and New York: Longman Group Limited. Veatch, T. C. (1998). A Theory of Humor. International Journal of Humor Research . Yule, G.1996, Pragmatics . New York: Oxford University Press.





A Speech Acts Analysis of the Misunderstanding in Abbott and Costello

Recommend Documents