A STUDY ON HOW SCRIPTWRITERS FLOUT CERTAIN MAXIMS OF GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE TO CREATE VERBAL IRONY THROUGH THE SITCOM FRIENDS FROM EPISODE 1 TO EPISODE 10

4

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 1
Percentage of situations flouting certain maxims
35
Graph 2
Percentage of situations flouting maxim of quality by making a statement
and asking a question
37




5

TABLE OF CONTENT

PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Rationale 1
1.2. Aims of the study 2
1.3. Research questions 2
1.4. Significance of the study 2
1.4.1. In theory 2
1.4.2. In practice 3
1.5. Scope of the study 3
1.6. Design of the study 4
PART 2: THE DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5
1.1. Implicature 5

1.1.1. Definition of implicature 5
1.1.2. Implicature and inference 6
1.1.3. Types of implicature 7
1.2. Grice’s cooperative principle 8
1.2.1. Conversational maxims 8
1.2.1.1. The maxim of quality 8
1.2.1.2. The maxim of quantity 9
1.2.1.3. The maxim of relation 10
1.2.1.4. The maxim of manner 10
1.2.2. Observing the maxims 11
1.2.3. Non-observances of the maxims 11
1.2.3.1. Flouting a maxim 12
1.2.3.2. Violating a maxim 12
1.2.3.3. Infringing a maxim 13
1.2.3.4. Opting out of a maxim 13
1.2.3.5. Suspending a maxim 14
1.2.4. Flouts exploiting the maxims 15
6

1.2.4.1. Flouts exploiting the maxim of quality 15
1.2.4.2. Flouts exploiting the maxim of quantity 16
1.2.4.3. Flouts exploiting the maxim of relevance 16
1.2.4.4. Flouts exploiting the maxim of manner 17
1.3. Irony 19
1.3.1. Ironology: A history of irony 19
1.3.2. Definition of irony 20
1.3.3. Taxonomy of irony 22
1.3.4. The risks and rewards of ironic communication 24
1.3.4.1. The risks of ironic communication 24
1.3.4.2. The rewards of ironic communication 26

1.3.5. Self-directed irony 27
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY 29
2.1. Methodology 29
2.1.1. Qualitative and quantitative methods 29
2.1.2. Some supplementary techniques 30
2.2. An introduction to American sitcoms and the sitcom “Friends” 30
2.2.1. Definition of sitcoms 30
2.2.2. Characteristics of American sitcoms 31
2.2.2.1. Common characteristics of sitcoms 31
2.2.2.2. Characteristics of American sitcoms 32
2.2.3. The sitcom “Friends” 33
2.2.3.1. Main characters 33
2.2.3.2. First season sypnose 34
2.3. Findings and discussion 35
2.3.1. Findings 35
2.3.1.1. The analysis on situations which flout the maxim of quality 36
2.3.1.2. The analysis on situations which flout the maxim of quantity 49
2.3.1.3. The analysis on situations which flout the maxim of relation 54
2.3.1.4. The analysis on situations which flout the maxim of manner 60
2.3.2. Discussion 65
7

PART 3: THE CONCLUSION 68
3.1. Recapitulation of main ideas 68
3.2. Limitations of the study 69
3.3. Suggestions for further research 69
Appendix

8

PART 1: THE INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
Verbal irony is a common form of speech used in daily discourse. The reason why
irony is deliberately chosen over its literal counterpart is because it serves several functions
that cannot be achieved through a literal utterance. These functions are derived from the
very nature of verbal irony that distinguishes it from a literal statement.
There are many ways to create verbal irony. Different approaches have different
ways to clarify the mechanism in which verbal irony is generated, but none of which has
reached their fulfillment. This study, thus, is carried out in the light of pragmatic approach
in which verbal irony is considered to be the product of the art of flouting certain maxims

of Grice‘s cooperative principle (Grice, 1975). This theory helps to analyze not only the
linguistic features of an ironic utterance but also its functions in comparison with its literal
counterpart. This is the first reason why the author decided to choose Grice‘s cooperative
principle the basis for this study.
It is also necessary to provide an explanation for the choice of analyzing the scripts
of the sitcom ―Friends‖. According to Alison, ―although British comedy has a high
reputation and used to claim a higher degree of subtlety and irony, some of the most
popular recent sitcoms are from the USA‖ (2006: 91). Among all American sitcoms,
―Friends‖ is considered to be one of the most typical and successful ones. It was even so
popular that it was rerun in 1997 as the beginning of Channel 4‘s night of comedy. The
success of the series can be attributable to many factors, among which, the great potential
for verbal irony created by the language used itself plays an important part. The verbal
irony appeared in the series have not only attracted the young but also made ―Friends‖ a
sitcom for every family.
In analyzing the scripts of the sitcom ―Friends‖ from episode 1 to episode 10, this
study aims to unpack the relationship between the verbal irony and the Cooperative
Principle in the sitcom ―Friends‖, discover how scriptwriters flout certain maxims to create
verbal irony and how the implied message behind the verbal irony is conveyed.
9

1.2. Aims of the study
This study is carried out specifically to aim at:
(1) revisiting some theoretical background knowledge of implicatures,
(especially conversational implicatures), Grice‘s cooperative principles and
verbal irony.
(2) investigating how verbal irony is generated by the art of flouting certain
maxims of Grice‘s conversational cooperative principles in the scripts of the
sitcom ―Friends‖ from episode 1 to episode 10.
(3) identifying which of the maxims of Grice‘s conversational cooperative
principle is more likely to be flouted to produce verbal irony.

1.3. Research questions
This study is supposed to answer the following questions:
(1) How verbal irony is created by the art of flouting certain maxims of Grice‘s
conversational cooperative principles in the scripts of the sitcom ―Friends‖ from
episode 1 to episode 10?
(2) Which of the maxims of Grice‘s conversational cooperative principle is the
most likely to be flouted to produce verbal irony?
1.4. Significance of the study
1.4.1. In theory
This study is designed to enhance Grice‘s observation on how people use language
to mean much more than the words they actually say. It also tries to prove that in
communication, when interlocutors aim to generate verbal irony, although the maxim of
quality is the most likely to be flouted as stated by Levinson (1984), other maxims are
flouted as well. Besides, by exploring the art of flouting certain maxims of Grice‘s
cooperative principles to create irony, the author means to give evidence that linguistic
features do contribute a great deal to the success of that sitcom.
10

1.4.2. In practice
It is because language is for communication. In other words, language is used to
realize socio-cultural functions, some of which can be to save face or amuse people. In
these situations, in order to communicate successfully (in both production and
reception), people should be more able to realize these functions. Thus, this paper aims
at facilitating interlocutors to be better-aware of the cases when speakers flout certain
maxims with the intention of generating verbal irony, which helps interlocutors to be
more successful in communication.
1.5. Scope of the study
The research on non-observances of maxims of Grice‘s cooperative principle is
so broad that it is impossible to cover all its aspects. Therefore, this study narrows
down the study only to the art of flouting certain maxims of Grice‘s cooperative

principles to create verbal irony.
Furthermore, the data are only collected from scripts of the American sitcom
―Friends‖ in the first season (from episode 1 to episode 10) in regard with the limit of time.
Also, this paper will not be able to deal with the cultural differences when
analyzing ironic dialogues because of the limit of time although is also clear that, in many
cases, the fact that people in non-English speaking countries cannot completely understand
irony in English is due to cultural differences.
Besides, in the scope of this study, figures‘ characters and traits which may have
some effect on the style of humor and the change of voices which sometimes plays a
important role in understanding irony will not be discussed. The reason is that thorough
studies on these subjects will be too broad for this research.

11

1.6. Design of the study
This thesis is divided into three main parts:
Part 1: Introduction This part is aimed at clarifying the rationale, objectives,
research questions, scope and outline of the study.
Part 2: Development This part includes two chapters:
Chapter I: Literature review This chapter is supposed to provide the readers with
the frame of the theory of the study and some basic concepts.
Chapter II: The study This chapter includes the methods employed by the study, data
collection and analysis procedures. It also lays out the findings of the study.
Part 3: Conclusion This part provides the recapitulation of the main ideas of the
study, the limitations of the study and suggestions for further research.

12

PART 2: THE DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1. Implicature
Paul Grice (1975), the American philosopher who is considered to be the ―father of
pragmatics‖ (Aitchison 2003:104), was fascinated by how the hearer gets from the
expressed meaning to the implied meaning. That is, his aim was to explain how the hearer
gets from what is said to what is meant.
1.1.1. Definition of implicature
Grice (ibid.) suggested that speakers often mean much more than what they
actually say. That‘s why the first major theory of communication that he was concerned
was the theory of meaning. He recommended two types of meaning as illustrated below:
















Non-natural meaning
Natural meaning
conveyed
Said/ entailed
Implicated

conventionally
conversationally
generalized
particularized
13

As seen above, implicature refers to the implicit meaning inferred from an
utterance. In these cases, the hearer needs to look for an implicature, i.e. the implication of
the utterance not directly stated in the words but hinted at for the hearer to interpret.
There are also some different definitions of implicature. A rather clear one is given
by Yule (1996: 35) that implicature is ―an additional conveyed meaning‖ of an utterance
(Yule 1996: 35). Moreover, many other ways of defining the term ‗implicature‘ can be
found at various websites on the Internet. According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia,
―implicature is the relationship between two statements where the truth of one suggests the
truth of the other, but does not require it. Another definition is that ―An implicature is
anything that is inferred from an utterance but that is not a condition for the truth of the
utterance‖. The point is that despite the difference in expressions, these clarifications are
all based themselves on the core idea proposed by Grice (1975).
1.1.2. Implicature and inference
With regard to the fact that these two levels of interpretation have caused much
confusion and been the root of some misunderstandings of implicature theory, I find it
necessary to make a distinction between these two terms. According to Thomas (1995: 58),
―To imply is to hint, suggest or convey some meanings indirectly by means of language‖. It is
the speaker who implies something. For example, a man and a woman are talking in a room.
When it becomes a little chilly, the woman says ―It‘s rather cold in here‖. What the woman
tries to imply can be ―Could you close the door for me, please?‖. Here the speaker is hinting
that the weather is getting bitter and the man should shut the door.
Inference, on the other hand, is the part of the listener. Thomas (1995: 58) points
out, ―To infer is to deduce something from evidence (this evidence may be linguistic,
paralinguistic or non-linguistic).‖ In the example above, the listener can fail to infer the

speaker‘s intention by saying that ―No, I feel really hot.‖ Accordingly, it can be noticed
that an implicature is produced with the intention of the speaker and it may or may not be
understood by the listener.
Thus, it is important to note that it is speakers who communicate meanings via
implicatures and it is listeners who recognize those communicated meanings via
14

inferences. The inferences selected are those which will preserve the assumption of
cooperation.
1.1.3. Types of implicature
Grice (1975) discussed two different types of implicatures: the conventional and
the conversational. These two are similar in the way the both convey an additional
meaning, beyond the semantic meaning of the words uttered. However, the difference
between these kinds of implicature lies in the extent they are dependent on contexts.
The conventional implicature has the same implication no matter what the context is
(Thomas 1995: 57).
(1) My teacher is strict, but I like him.
The implicature in (1), dependent on the word but, is that being strict is a negative
characteristic of a teacher. The implication of but shows the contrast between what comes
before and what comes after it. (Grundy 1995: 47) The source of conventional implicature,
since, is the language items themselves, so it is expected to be understood by the hearer.
‗Conversational implicature‘, on the other hand, is generated directly by the speaker
depending on the context without any obvious linguistic signals. This kind of implicature is
rather risky as it may or may not be understood. (Thomas 1995: 58). Moreover, one
utterance can have different implications on different occasions. To illustrate this I have
taken an example from Cruse‘s Meaning in Language (Cruse 2000: 349).
(2) A: Have you cleared the table and washed the dishes?
B: I‘ve cleared the table.
(3)A: Am I in time for supper?
B: I‘ve cleared the table.

In the first example speaker B‘s implication is that s/he has cleared the table but has
not washed the dishes, while the second example speaker B‘s implication is that speaker A
is late for dinner. (Cruse 2000: 349). Then, it can be noticed that the context plays the key
role in decoding conversational implicature. If extracted from its context, one utterance
would be difficult to be fully interpreted.
15

1.2. Grice’s cooperative principle
In order to explain how hearers interpret the utterance implicature, Grice (1975)
noticed that in order for the conversation to go smoothly, participants must assume that all
interlocutors are following some set of rules. Grice (ibid.) called these rules the
Cooperative Principle (CP). The CP runs like this: ―Make your contribution such as is
required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk
exchange in which you are engaged‖ (Grice 1975: 45). According to the Cooperative
Principle both speaker and hearer converse with the willingness to deliver and interpret a
message. The speaker and hearer cooperate and that is why they communicate efficiently
(Thomas 1995:63).
1.2.1. Conversational maxims
In order to illustrate how we interpret meaning, Grice (ibid.) presented, in addition
to the Cooperative Principle, four conversational maxims to show how we communicate
effectively in the light of certain rules. Thanks to Grice‘s maxims, we can interpret and
understand the underlying implication of an utterance (Thomas 2995:63)
1.2.1.1. The maxim of Quality
The maxim of quality requires that the speakers: (1) do not say what you believe
to be false, and (2) do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence (Levinson
1983: 101)

This maxim requires speakers to give the right information with sufficient
evidence. It‘s clear that this is the core maxim since it‘s necessary that this maxim should
be in operation for the three others to be valued. If a speaker does not convey the truth,

then no matter how sufficient, clear and orderly information it is, the utterance is still
worthless. The idea can be shown by the examples given by Levinson (1983):
A: John has two PhDs.
16

It means that I believe he has, and have adequate evidence that he has. Thus, it
explains why such an utterance as ―John has two PhDs but I don‘t believe he has.‖ is
impossible. According to Levinson (ibid.), the sentence is pragmatically anomalous
because it contradicts the standard Quality maxim that one believes what one asserts.
B: Does your farm contain 400 acres?
We can paraphrase B‘s utterance as ―I don‘t know if your farm contains 400 acres,
and I want to know if it does.‖ This example extends the scope of Quality maxim when
viewing truth as a special sub-case of sincerity applied to assertion; when one asks a
question, one may standardly be taken to be asking sincerely and hence to be lacking and
requiring the requested information.
In conclusion, Levinson (ibid.) states that ―Normally then, in co-operative
circumstances, when one asserts something one implicates that one believes it, when one
asks a question one implicates that one sincerely desires an answer and, by extension,
when one promises to do x, one implicates that one sincerely intends to do x, and so on.
Any other use of such utterances is likely to be a spurious or counterfeit one, and thus
liable to violate the maxim of Quality.‖
1.2.1.2. The maxim of quantity
According to the maxim of quantity, speakers should (1) make their contribution as
informative as is required (for the current purpose of the exchange and (2) do not make
your contribution more informative than is required. (Levinson ibid.)

The maxim of quantity requires speaker to give sufficient information, which
means not more or less than required by the situation. Let‘s look at the following situation
given by Levinson (ibid.):
A: How did Harry fare in court the other day?

B: Oh he got a fine.
It shall be implicated that Harry only got a fine, although it would be compatible
with this truth that in fact, he got a fine and a life sentence, too. It shall be taken to
implicate that he only got a fine and no other punishments because had he got a life
sentence, then by the maxim of Quantity (‗say as much as required‘) B should have said
so. Since B hasn‘t, B must intend to convey that Harry only got a fine.
17

1.2.1.3. The maxim of Relation
The maxim of relation requires that the speaker make their contributions relevant.
(Levinson 1983: 102)
This maxim directs speakers to organize their utterances in such a way that they are
relevant to the ongoing context and situation in which the utterance occurs (Thomas
1995:70). For example:

A: I do think Mrs Jenkins is an old windbag, don‟t you?
B: I wouldn‟t agree more.

B‘s utterance is considered relevant since when A asks a question about B‘s
opinion, B provides an answer showing his agreement with A‘s idea.
1.2.1.4. The maxim of Manner
The maxim of manner states that speakers should: (1) avoid obscurity of
expression, (2) avoid ambiguity, (3) be brief (Avoid unnecessary prolixity), and (4) be
orderly. (Levinson ibid.)

The maxim of manner is a matter of being clear and orderly when conversing. The
speaker describes things in the order in which they occurred and avoids ambiguity and
obscurity (Thomas 1995:64). The idea can be proved by the following example:

A: Can you tell me the time?

B: It‟s four o‟clock.

In this example, B sticks himself to the maxim of manner when he provides a clear
and brief response to A‘s question about time.
Grice‘s four maxims have made it possible to explain how we interpret meaning in
interactions. If not committed ourselves into such certain conversational rules, effective
communication would be impossible. However, when introducing the Cooperative
Principles, what Grice is actually aiming at is not telling speakers how they should behave
in a conversation but only suggesting that in a normal successful conversational
interaction, participants work on the assumption that a certain set of rules is in operation,
unless they receive indications to the contrary. This doesn‘t mean that breaking one or
18

some of these maxims would necessarily lead to the breakdown of a conversation. In fact,
humans tend to break these maxims as much as they follow them. The only explanation for
this is that while choosing not to stick to one of the maxims, the speaker has decided to
follow it in a deeper level. This phenomenon will be discussed further in the following part
of this paper.
1.2.2. Observing the maxims.
Thomas (2006) states that this is ―the least interesting case‖ of a conversation. Her
example is as follows:

Husband: Where are the car keys?
Wife: They‟re on the table in the hall.

Apparently, the wife is strictly sticking herself to the conversational maxims. Her
answer is clear and brief (Manner), truthful (Quality), with adequate information
(Quantity), while directly answers her husband‘s question (Relation).
The situations become much more complicated, as well as appealing when the
speakers fail to observe these maxims.

1.2.3. Non-observances of the maxims
As discussed above, presumably, interlocutors adhere to the maxims when
communicating in order for the conversation to go smoothly. However, speakers do not
always stick to all the four maxims. Sometimes, they deliberately break certain maxims to
create some further effects such as evoking humour or avoiding discomfort. In some other
cases, they are unaware of their non-observances. Grice discussed five ways of not
observing a maxim. To break a maxim ―is the prototypical way of conveying implicit
meaning‖ (Grundy 1995: 41).
19

1.2.3.1. Flouting a maxims
Thomas (1995: 65) states that the ultimate purpose of a speaker when he flouts a
maxim is not to deceive the hearer. Therefore, when the speaker intentionally fails to
observe one of the maxims, what he tries to do is to send an implicit message to the
hearer and he actually hopes that the hearer can understand that unspoken note.
Accordingly, if working under cooperative principles, the hearer will take it for granted
that although it appears that the speaker are breaking a maxim, he is trying to conform to
it at a deeper level and the hearer will make an effort to discover the missing information
relying on the context. To illustrate:

The two friends Ross and Rachel get drunk one night in Vegas and make the mistake of
getting married. At the breakfast table Ross and Rachel‟s friends ask them what they are going
to do. Ross has already been married twice before and knows the routine of divorce:

Rachel: Oh I guess we‟ll just find a divorce lawyer.
Chandler: I think, I think Ross already has one.

Chandler knows that Ross has a divorce lawyer and flouts the maxim of quality
when he claims to think Ross has one and does not say that he knows Ross does. .
Everyone understands the implicature and the effect is humorous.

1.2.3.2. Violating a maxim
Thomas also makes a comparison between flouting and violating a maxim. The key
difference between the two is that the latter is used when the speaker intends to mislead the
hearer. The speaker speaks the truth but implies what is false to confuse the hearer. This
technique is often used in advertising and marketing when the advertising agency wants
the consumer to buy their products. They often claim that by buying a certain product the
customer can save up to 25% and not state that he/ she will. This leads the customer to
draw an incorrect conclusion, namely that he/ she will save 25% buying the product.
20

1.2.3.3. Infringing a maxim
Unlike all three mentioned cases of breaking a maxim where the speaker is aware
of his non-observances before he makes an utterance, sometimes the speaker is unaware
that he is not observing the maxims. In this situation, he is considered as ―infringing a
maxim‖. In other words, the speaker does this with no intention of generating an
implicature. (Thomas, 1995: 74). Usually, this happens with people who have some
problems with his language, or his health. That‘s why infringing causes misunderstanding
and hinder the communication. Let‘s consider the following situation:

(Someone learning English as a second language speaks to a native speaker)
English speaker: Would you like ham or salad on your sandwich?
Non-English speaker: Yes.

The non-English speaker has not intentionally generated an implicature, he/ she
has not understood the utterance because of his/ her unqualified English proficiency. He
has thought that this is a normal yes/ no question and hasn‘t realized that this is a
preference question. Clearly, in this situation, he doesn‘t give sufficient information
which is required, which means that he fails to observe the maxim of quantity, or
infringe the maxim of quantity.
1.2.3.4. Opting out of a maxim

Sometimes, the speaker is put in a situation in which he cannot give adequate
information. In this case, he can decide to be straightforward and states an unwillingness to
reveal information. This kind of non-observances of the quantity maxim is called ―opting
out‖. An example of opting out can be:

John is a doctor who has complete confidentiality regarding his patients. He is
asked by the press to reveal something about the patient that he is treating and he replies:
John: I am sorry but I can‟t tell you anything.

John opts out of the maxim of quantity when he gives less information than
what is requested.
21

1.2.3.5. Suspending a maxim
In many cases, the speaker chooses not to say something or not to state the
complete truth because that is something he should not mention in moral or cultural
respects. This is called ―suspending a maxim‖ (Thomas 1995: 77). To illustrate with an
example from Thomas (1995):
… they told he could not be cured, Biste‟s daughter said in a shaky voice. She
cleared her throat, whipped the back of her hand across her eyes. „That man was strong‟,
she continued. „His spirit was strong. He didn‟t give up on things. He didn‟t want to die.
He did hardly say anything at all. I asked him. I said, My father, why – she stopped…
“Never speak the name of the dead, Chee thought. Never summon the Chindi to
you, even if the name of the ghost is Father” (Thomas 1995:77)
Chee suspends the maxim of quantity when mentioning a name of a dead person, a
taboo in her culture.
Brief conclusion
Grice, as Austin (1975) before him, is interested in explaining how humans manage
to communicate effectively regardless of the imperfection of language. Not only has he
proved that in order to achieve successful communication, humans need to be cooperative

in terms of quality, quantity, manner and relation; but he has also provided evidence that
being uncooperative, in many situations, can even help humans communicate more
efficiently. The different non-observances lead to different interpretations which are
dependent on the context in which they occur. Nevertheless, studying how maxims are
flouted in interactions in real life situations requires an extensive study. Thus, this study is
chiefly designed to observe and analyze how non-observances of the maxims are exploited
so as to generate irony in a famous sitcom, ―Friends‖. Moreover, among the five ways of
breaking the maxims, Thomas (1995) recommends that the most important category is the
first one, flouting a maxim. A flout occurs when a speaker blatantly fails to observe a
maxim with the deliberate intention of generating an implicature. This may happen, for
22

example, by giving either more or less information than is required in the situation; saying
something that is blatantly untrue; using obscure, disorder, or lengthy expressions; or by
making responses or observations which are obviously irrelevant. That‘s why, this essay
will concentrate on where and how frequently flouting certain maxims occurs to create
verbal irony in the sitcom ―Friends‖.
1.2.4. Flouts exploiting the maxims
1.2.4.1. Flouts exploiting the maxim of quality
Flouts which exploit the maxim of quality occur when the speaker says something
which is clearly untrue or for which he/she lacks adequate evidence.
One example of flouting the maxim of quality can be taken from Levinson (1983):

A: What if the USSR blockades the Gulf and all the oil?
B: Oh come now, Britain rules the seas!

Any reasonably informed participant will know that B‘s utterance is blatantly false.
However, when saying so, B is not trying to deceive A. The only way in which the
assumption that B is co-operating can be maintained is if we take B to mean something
rather different from what he has actually said. Searching around for a related but

cooperative proposition that B might be intending to convey, we arrive at the opposite, or
negation, of what B has stated – namely that Britain doesn‘t rule the seas, and thus by way
of Relevance to the prior utterance, the suggestion that there is nothing that Britain could
do. Hence, Grice claims, ironies arise and are successfully decoded. If there was no
underlying assumption of co-operation, recipients of ironies ought simply to be
nonplussed; no inferences could be drawn.
23

1.2.4.2. Flouts exploiting the maxim of quantity
The maxim of quantity requires speaker to give sufficient information, which
means not more or less than required by the situation. Let‘s look at the funny story
introduced by Yule (1996: 36):

There is a woman sitting on a park bench and a large dog lying on the ground in
front of the bench. A man comes along and sits on the bench:
Man: Does your dog bite?
Woman: No (the man reaches down to pet the dog. The dog bites the man‟s hand)
Man: Ouch! Hey! You said your dog doesn‟t bite.
Woman: He doesn‟t. But that‟s not my dog.

There seems to be no problem with the utterance meaning. The woman‘s response
(―No‖, meaning ―my dog doesn‘t bite‖) appears to be perfectly consistent with the man‘s
question (Does your dog bite?). The divergence lies in the fact that in this context, the man
has two assumptions: (1) the dog in front of them is the woman‘s dog, and (2) the woman‘s
reply, ―No‖ also applies to that animal. That‘s why, from the man‘s perspective, the
woman‘s answer provides less information than expected. However, if she had mentioned
this information earlier, the story wouldn‘t have been as funny. For the purpose of making
the event funny, the woman has to flout the maxim of quantity.
1.2.4.3. Flouts exploiting the maxim of relevance
The following example given by Levinson (1983) can illustrates how this

maxim operates.

A: Can you tell me the time?
B: Well, the milkman has come.

It is only on the basis of assuming the relevance of B‘s response that we can
understand it as providing a partial answer to A‘s question. The inference seems to work
roughly like this: assume B‘s utterance is relevant; if it‘s relevant then given that A asked a
question, B should be providing an answer; the only way one can reconcile the assumption
24

that B is co-operatively answering A‘s question with the content of B‘s utterance is to
assume that B is not in a position to provide the full information, but thinks that the
milkman‘s coming might provide A with the means of deriving a partial answer. Hence A
may infer that B intends to convey that the time is at least after whenever the milkman
normally comes.
1.2.4.4. Flouts exploiting the maxim of Manner
(A and B are attending a boring lecture)
A: What‟s the time?
B: It‟s two o‟clock, twenty minutes and forty-five seconds.

To give sufficient information for A‘s question ―What‘s the time?‖, B only needs to
give such a brief response as ―It‘s two twenty.‖ or ―It‘s twenty past two.‖ However, B
chooses a lengthy response to show his boredom with the lecture. With this unnecessary
prolixity, B is considered to flout the maxim of manner. When deliberately violating the
maxim of manner, what B is aiming at is to show that he is so bored with the lecture that
he is counting every second.
So far we have only roughly summarized how implicatures actually come about.
Grice (1975) tries to tighten up the notion along the following lines. First he proposes a
definition of implicature which we may state as follows:

S‘s saying that p conversationally implicates q iff:

(i) S is presumed to be observing the maxims, or at least (in the case of
floutings) the cooperative principle
(ii) in order to maintain this assumption it must be supposed that S thinks that q
(iii) S thinks that both S and the addressee H mutually know that H can
work out that to preserve the assumption in (i) q is in fact require

Then he points out that, for the addressee H to be able to calculate the implicature
q, H must know, or believe that he knows, the following facts:

25

(i) the conventional content of the sentence (P) uttered
(ii) the cooperative principle and its maxims
(iii) the context of P (e.g. its relevance)
(iv) certain bits of background information (e.g. P is blatantly false)
(v) that (i) - (v) are mutual knowledge shared by speaker and addressee
From all this, a general pattern for working out an implicature may be adduced:

(i) S has said that p
(ii) there‟s no reason to think S is not observing the maxims, or at least the
co-operative principle
(iii) in order for S to say that p and be indeed observing the maxims, or at
least the co-operative principle, S must think that q
(iv) S must know that it is mutual knowledge that q must be supposed if S is
to be taken to be co-operating
(v) S has done nothing to stop me, the addressee, thinking that q
(vi) therefore S intends me to think that q, and in saying that p has implicated q

All the situations in which maxims are flouted to generate verbal irony in this paper will
be analyzed based on this pattern.
26

1.3. Irony
1.3.1. Ironology: A history of irony
Muecke (1980) reasonably stated that giving a precise antiquity of the term irony
is not an easy task since the word had been used long before it was named. However, it‘s
possible for us to trace its root back to its first known integration into the human language
as the Greek word eironeia. In Plato‘s Republic, the term eironeia seems to have meant
something similar to ―a smooth, low-down way of taking people in‖ (Muecke, 1970: 14).
However, even among the ancient Greeks, the meaning of eironeia was inconsistent. To
Demosthenes an eiron was one who evaded his responsibilities as a citizen by pretending
unfitnesss, while to Theophrastus, an eiron pointed to someone both evasive and
noncommittal. Fundamentally, these ways of describing irony share the same view of irony
as a mode of behavior. Cicero, the famous Roman orator was the first to give ironia a
denotation semese. In Cicero‘s usage of the word, it evolved to also be applied to a
deceptive use of language: to blame by ironical praise or to praise by ironical blame
(Muecke, 1970).
Not until the early eighteen century did the word ―irony‖ come into general use.
Since its appearance, this concept has developed gradually and expanded its meanings. It
has been defined rather differently by different linguists and sources. Nonetheless, it seems
that this still remains a very hard task. Part of the difficulty arises from irony‘s latency in
multiple complicated forms. But additionally, it is a developing phenomenon. Our
understanding and interpretation of it evolves with time. Below are some popular views on
irony which have been widely discussed and accepted.
27

1.3.2. Definition of Irony
―Only that which has no history can be defined‖, once Nietzsche said and the

above brief history will highlight his word‘s essence (Muecke 1970: 7). Nonetheless, it
doesn‘t mean it‘s better to leave it undefined. Up to now there have appeared a variety of
definitions of this term.
According to Stephen C. Levinson (1984: 109), ―ironies consist of sentences
mentioned rather than used‖. This seems to be a rather vague definition since it is more
likely to cover a wide range of what is communicated rather than is said. Another
definition is taken from Wikipedia that irony is "the use of words to convey a meaning that
is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, ―How nice!‖ when I said I had
to work all weekend". This definition actually coincides with the one provided by
Longman dictionary of contemporary English (2003) that irony appears ―when you use
words that are the opposite of what you really mean, often in order to be amusing.‖ and the
one provided by Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary that irony is ―2) the use of words
that say the opposite of what you really mean, often as a jock and with a tone of voice that
shows this: ―England is famous for its food”, she said with heavy irony (2000: 687). That
is, irony involves the substitution of a figurative for a literal meaning in which the
figurative meaning is the opposite of the literal meaning. This way of defining ―irony‖
seems to be clearer since it makes ―irony‖ a very typical phenomenon in linguistics.
However, this definition does not appropriately characterize the phenomenon and certainly
does not explain it. There exist many examples of ironical utterances that do not concur
with this description. Not only are there examples or ironic speech that do not rely on
saying the opposite of what one means, but there are cases where all the traditional criteria
of irony exist and the utterance is not ironic. The following example has to be taken into
consideration. A mother asks her daughter, ―Would you very much mind if you, please, to
perhaps consider cleaning up your room sometime this month?‖ Here the speaker clearly
means what she says. Nevertheless the over-polite style of the statement transfers and
ironical touch. Another example of non-opposite irony is given in this incident: A review
of a French thriller called ―Torture‖ read, ―I have to say that what tortured me most in
watching this film was boredom.‖ (Barbe 1995: 17.) Here the writer is also telling the
28

truth, but he is nevertheless ironic. The ironic marker is the hyperbolic use of tortured.
Such examples expose the deficiency of traditional definitions.
In an attempt to make up for the weak points of the traditional accounts of irony,
Wilson and Sperber (1992) suggest that verbal irony is a form of echoic interpretation; that
is, speakers communicate an attitude toward some attributed proposition by echoing that
proposition explicitly or implicitly, and simultaneously commenting on it. For example,
when a speaker says ―that‘s certainly a good idea!‖ in case the listener has just raised a
very stupid suggestion. In this case, the speaker echoed the proposition that some idea was
good, but at the same time disassociated himself from the proposition and communicated
his negative attitude toward it, thereby expressing disapproval of the idea itself. He
possibly said roughly the opposite of what he meant, but he could have used
understatement and uttered, ―that idea could use some improvement.‖ Thus, he would have
avoided saying the opposite of what he meant and retained his ironic intention. To allow
listeners to understand such complex speech acts, speakers often must provide additional
information to make utterances clear.
However, it is questionable that this theory can be applied for every ironical case. A
first questionable case would be the ironic use of polysemous words. In which way are
they used in a mentioned form? Sperber‘s and Wilson‘s theory is based on a very abstract
concept of echoing. Thus, they intended to avoid the allegation to reduce irony to a simple
form of imitation (Christoph, 2006). The echo can emerge in various forms – as an
immediate echo, a delayed echo, as a reaction on a previous utterances or on thoughts and
opinions. In the same way an echo does not have to have a real source or origin. In the case
that the echoic character of the ironic statement is not obvious, an echo is nevertheless
suggested (Sperber & Wilson 1981: 310).
After having examined various attempts for definitions as well as criticism of
definitions, I will try to follow the idea of Katharina Barbe. In her book ―Irony in context‖
(1995), she tried to avoid a definition of irony, and replaced the term by characterization or
description. Therefore this paper will collect the most important evident linguistic
explanations for irony.