Pragmatic Analysis of Nigeria Stand Up Comedy Using Theory of Cooperative Principles and Nature of Maxim Bovi and Basketmouth as a Case Study
CHAPTER ONE
Aim and Objectives of the Study
The aim of this study is to describe the language of comedy from a pragmatic approach. The objectives of the study are:
- to describe the pragmatic features of the language of comedy.
- to discuss politeness issues in the language of comedy.
- to discuss the acts performed in the language of comedy.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter reviews past literature in pragmatics. It discusses, among other things, issues of politeness in pragmatics, speech act theory, the place of humour in pragmatics, pragmatics in the media, and the biographies of Bovi and Basket Mouth.
Pragmatics: An Overview
Norrick (4) conceives of pragmatics as the study of the context-dependent aspects of meaning which are systematically abstracted away from in the construction of logical form. In the semiotic trichotomy developed by Morris, Carnap, and Peirce in the 1930’s, syntax addresses the formal relations of signs to one another, semantics the relation of signs to what they denote, and pragmatics the relation of signs to their users and interpreters.
According to Wolfram and Norrick (2), even though its roots can be traced back to early classical traditions of rhetoric and stylistics, to Immanuel Kant’s conception of pragmatics as empirical and purposive and to William James, who pointed out its practical nature, modern pragmatics is a fairly recent discipline. Its inauguration as an independent field of study within semiotics took place early in the 20th Century by C. Morris, R. Carnap and ultimately C.S. Peirce. The classic division between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics goes back to Morris, who distinguished three separate “dimensions of semiosis” within his science of signs. According to Morris (21-22), one may study the relations of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable. This relation will be called the semantical dimension of semiosis, symbolized by the sign ‘DSEM’; the study of this dimension will be called semantics. Or the subject of study may be the relation of signs to interpreters. This relation will be called the pragmatical dimension of semiosis, symbolized by the sign ‘DP’; the study of this dimension will be named pragmatics. One important relation of signs has not yet been introduced: the formal relations of signs to one another. […] This third dimension will be called the syntactical dimension of semiosis, symbolized by the sign ‘DSYN’, and the study of this dimension will be named syntactics.
Morris attempts to separate semantics, pragmatics and syntax in the evaluation of linguistic meaning by also noting their point of convergence. According to Norrick (2), syntax studies the relations signs bear to other signs, semantics the relation between signs and objects, and pragmatics the relation between signs and their interpreters. Of course, there were and are differences of opinion on where exactly to draw the line between semantics and pragmatics. Some thirty years elapsed before pragmatics finally made its way into modern linguistics in the late 1960s, when linguists began to explore the performance phenomena. To this end, they adopted ideas developed and advanced by L. Wittgenstein, G. Ryle, P. Strawson, J.L. Austin and other eminent (ordinary or natural) language philosophers. It seems safe to claim that the ensuing ‘pragmatic turn’ was most notably induced by J.L. Austin, J.R. Searle and H.P. Grice, who were interested in utterance meaning rather than sentence or word meaning, i.e. in studying unique historical events created by actual speakers to perform linguistic acts in actual situational contexts in order to accomplish specific goals. Other scientific movements that nourished pragmatics include anthropology (B. Malinowski, P. Wegener, A. Gardiner), contextualism (J.R. Firth), functionalism (K. Buhler, R. Jakobson, D. Hymes), ethnomethodology (H. Garfinkel, E. Goffman, H. Sacks) and European sociology (J. Habermas). Since the pragmatic turn, pragmatics has developed more rapidly and diversely as a linguistic discipline. Since the 1970s, the early Anglo-American framework of pragmatic-linguistic study has been immensely expanded and enhanced by research in Continental Europe and elsewhere. With historiographic hindsight, it can be seen that the broadening, i.e. the interdisciplinary expansion, of the field of pragmatics has been a cumulative process; the broader conception of pragmatics chronologically (and causally) followed the narrower one.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN
Research Design
A survey design is considered appropriate for this research because it is designed to create a forum for selecting a representative sample derived from a large target population which permits inference and generalization to be made on populations that could be too large and extensive to study as a whole at any given time (Olaofe, 2010).
The relevance and application of the survey research method in this investigation is emphasized by Olaofe (2010) as he says that in survey research, representative samples of small population are studied in order to determine the character of the whole population, which may be of interest to the researcher.
This study, therefore, adopt the survey design in sampling selected comedies of Bovi and Basketmouth streamed on YouTube. This is because the researcher cannot exhaust the entire online comedies on YouTube by the two comedians. Also, Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory and Lawal’s (1995) ‘Aspects of a Pragmatic Theory’ model which have all been discussed previously will prove useful for this study.
Population of the Study
The population of the study is made up of all the standup comedies of Bovi and Basketmouth streamed on YouTube.
Sample Size and Sampling Procedures
For the purpose of obtaining meaningful, relevant, reliable and valid generalization on the selected data within the limited time, and for cost and conveniences, a purposive random sampling was used for the online comedies of Bovi and Basketmouth on YouTube. Out of the entire comedies available to this researcher on YouTube, two comedy videos were randomly sampled. The sampling procedures involve playing some of the videos and downloading the ones that appeal to this researcher based on the issues they treat such as religion and marital infidelity, etc.
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
Speech Act Analysis
The data was divided into two hundred and fifty (250) sentences (utterance tokens) which were numbered one to forty nine (1-49) for the first data and one to two hundred and one (1-201) for the second data (see appendix). The sentences for analysis were numbered sequentially as they appear in the transcribed utterances of the comedians; and they have been presented below for detailed analysis.
Sample 1
I know say judgment day sha, dat day go tough (sentence 1)
Illocutionary act:
- Direct : Constative (Assertive) –stating, knowing
- Indirect : Constative (informative) – describing, reminding, informing
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary
The study of meaning in context has been termed pragmatics. When Charles Morris proposed his famous trichotomy of syntax, semantics and pragmatics, he defined the last as the study of the relation of signs to interpreters but later generalized this to the relation of signs to their users. This implies that pragmatics interprets meaning from the angle of the speaker (i.e. speaker-intended meaning). Meaning is central to linguistic study because communication among individuals and groups is geared towards achieving meaning whether at the personal or interpersonal level.
The intricacies in language use have brought philosophers (first) and then linguists (later) into the study of language. Although, the first attempt made to study language was prescriptive, less technical, superficial, unprofessional, shortsighted and weak, the Greek philosophers provided the basis for which today’s linguists have made rigorous and more serious researches into the complex nature of language, its behaviour, and its workings from one society to the other or from an individual to another. In speech act, language is used to perform a variegated number of functions. It is used to socialise or to desocialise, to organise or disorganise, to cause affection or disaffection, to start war or to maintain peace, to foster harmony or disharmony, and so on. When comedians use language, what acts are they performing? What are the issues of politeness in their language use? To be polite also means, one must not be rude or offensive. One must use proper words to convey something. Foul language can put off a person. Also, one has to be choosy about words while conveying something. Whatever has to be conveyed has to be conveyed in a subtle manner. One wonders if politeness can ever find its way to the ways comedians manipulate language to elicit perlocution from their audience. It is not uncommon to find comedians ‘cracking jokes’ that may elicit negative reactions from the audience. This is usually the case when people tag such jokes as “expensive” as they can be rude, impolite, crude, or inconsiderate of the feelings of the audience. Giving answers to these issues, this study has examined the pragmatics of comedy taking into consideration the types of act performed when comedians crack jokes; and the issues of politeness in their language use.
This first chapter of this research gives a general background to the study where the problem statement, aim and objectives, methodology and significance are stated. Chapter two reviews relevant literatures in the subject of pragmatics, speech act, politeness theories, pragmatic humour and the biography of Bovi and Basketmouth, etc. Chapter three presents the research design appropriate for the analysis of the data. Chapter four presents the data and the analysis, discussing the types of acts and the issues of politeness in the language of comedy; while chapter five summarizes and concludes the study.
Conclusion
Humour has both medicinal and psychological effect for the human society. The language of comedians is geared towards creating humour for the audience. From the discussions on the pragmatics of comedy, the following conclusions can be surmised:
- The language of comedy performs both direct and indirect acts.
- The direct act is used for stating, knowing, asserting, telling, emphasizing, describing, commanding, asking, guiding, saying, informing, reporting, requesting, beckoning, thanking, etc.
- The indirect act is used for describing, reminding, informing, reporting, protesting, challenging, refusing, repudiating, stating, requesting, demanding, appealing, declaring, judging, assessing, explaining, comparing, provoking, criticizing, judging, condemning, expressing, satirizing, appreciating, etc.
- Comedians often cast aspersions on the subjects of their comedy which is geared towards correcting or exposing certain behaviour or merely being sarcastic for the purpose of humour.
- The use of aspersion performs the direct act of informing, while the indirect act is that of criticizing, satirizing, condemning and correcting.
- Name Calling is also used on the subject of comedians’ jokes to create humour or deflate character for corrective purposes and this may derive positive or negative reactions from the audience depending on “whose ox is been gored”.
- Synonyms for Liars are often adopted to criticize the subjects of jokes especially comedies that prejudices the female gender.
- The language of comedy makes use of exaggerations to drive home its point as some of the ideas being expressed are obviously unrealistic or an exaggeration. This linguistic device helps to create humour as well as present ideas for the sake of imaginative thinking.
- Sarcastic language characterizes the language of comedy. The use of such linguistic or literary device mocks the subject of discourse and lampoons certain ills or behaviours that are considered negative to society.
- The language of comedy is impolite because the direction of the message is often negative.
- Rude, offensive, inconsiderate, foul, and the use of sexual or earthy languages characterize the comedians’ choice of vocabularies.
- The impoliteness in the language use creates humour for the audience.
- Code-switching, which uses a blend of Pidgin English and Standard English, and the use of physical demonstrations also create humorous effect in the audience.
- The perlocutionary effect of the language of comedy is often laughter. However, it could be observed that not all the audience finds a piece of joke amusing but rather offensive.
REFERENCES
- Akmajian, A. etal (2008). Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited.
- Adejebija, E. E. Speech Act Analysis of Consumer Advertisement. Bloominaton Indiana University, Ph.D. Dissertation. 1982.
- ……… ‘A Comparative Study of Politeness Phenomenon in Nigeria: English, Yoruba and Ogori’. Multilingual, 8 – 1, 57 – 80. 1989.
- ……….. ‘I, major – General X: ‘Discourse tacts‘ in Military Coup Speech in Nigeria. Text 15(2), 253 – 270. 1995.
- Allan, K. Linguistic Meaning. Vol. 1. London: Routledge and kegan Paul Plc. 1986a.
- Allan, J. L. Linguistic Meaning.Vol. 2. London: Routldge and Kenga Paul Plc. 1986b.
- Austin, J. L. How to do Things with Words, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1962.
- Bach, K. and Harnish, M. H. Linguistic communication and speech Acts. Cambridge: IMT Press. 1979.
- Blakemore. D. Understanding Utterances, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
- Birner, Betty J. and Gregory, Ward. ‘Uniqueness, familiarity, and the definite article in English.’ Berkeley Linguistics Society 20, 93-102. 1994.
- Birner, Betty J. & Gregory Ward. To appear. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Dressler, .W. and Beaugrande, R. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London and New York: Longman. 1992.
- Firth, J.R .Selected Papers: 1952-54. Edited by F.R Palmer, London: Longman. 1968.
- Ghadessey, M. Register Analysis: Theory and Practice. London and New York. Pinter Publishers. 1993.
