Exploitation of Pragmatic Aspects in Indonesian Humorous Discourses

This paper is intended to analyze and describe various pragmatic aspects exploited by humorous discourse creators in creating jocular texts in Indonesian. By assuming that nearly all jokes are created through a non bona fide process of communication, in which cooperative and politeness principles are intentionally violated in various ways, there must be extensive exploitations of pragmatic aspects. The examples are many kinds of speech acts, presupposition, pragmatic implicature, etc. found in Indonesian humorous discourse to create activities. All of these aspects so far have not been seriously studied by Indonesian linguists, especially whose works concern with humorous discourses.


Introduction
Humor, which is commonly regarded as something related to trivial matters, certainly plays a very important role in human life because of its capability to release people from various kinds of tension they have faced in conducting their daily activities.The people's misleading and belittle views towards humor might directly cause the rareness study of humorous discourse found in any world language compared to the studies of other aspects of language.As far as Indonesian studies of humor are concerned, several investigations can be mentioned.Those are Wijana (1995) and Noerhadi (1992) that concern Indonesian cartoon discourse, and Wijana (2015) and Surana (2015) respectively discussing the Indonesian political humors and Indonesian humorous sticker discourse.Even though the study of Wijana (1995) and Surana (2015) is conceptually framed by sociolinguistic and pragmatic Theories and the objects of study are the shape of brief monologs or dialogs, these studies are mostly full of analysis of play upon words, such as phonological substitution and permutation, lexical and grammatical ambiguities, synonymy, antonym, euphemism, metonymy, etc., which are intentionally exploited by the cartoonists and sticker creators in arousing the comic effect of their creations.The presence of pictures or illustrations either in cartoons and stickers, which are expected to provide contextual back ground to the cartoon and sticker discourse, in fact does not help much the creators create humorous discourses on the basis of higher hierarchical pragmatic levels.Meanwhile, the study of Noerhadi (1992) and Wijana (2015) tend to focus on script oppositions created by the cartoonists and jocular discourse creators without paying much attention to the role of linguistic and pragmatic aspects in developing the wholeness of discourse.
Based on such conditions, this paper aims at finding out the exploitation of pragmatic aspects of higher level, such as speech act, pragmatic implication, and presupposition by the Indonesian humorous discourse creators.This study is considered to have a significant role in enhancing our comprehension towards the importance of those pragmatic aspects in any verbal communicative processes.Therefore, any types of humorous texts essentially are important language teaching materials to use by any party (teacher or lecture), especially to explain linguistic problems of any levels that make the teaching situation more interesting, alive and enjoyable (Wijana, 2011: 485-503).

Conceptual Framework
Conceptually usual (non-humorous) discourses are different from the humorous ones.The first is developed by certain assumptions that the text producers (writer or speaker) and the receivers (listener or reader) are tightly bound by communicative rules in which both parties will behave naturally to succeed the communication process, and no party intends to mislead the other (Allan, 1986, 3).This condition is called bona fide process of communication (Raskin, 1994, 103).From Grice's theoretical view point, the so called bona fide process of communication is marked by the obedience of interlocutors towards four conversational maxims, i.e quantity, quality, relevance, and manner maxim (Grice, 1975: 45-47).In addition, in such a situation the interlocutors should also consider the implementation of interpersonal politeness maxim which consists of six sub-maxims.Those are tact maxim, generosity maxim, approbation maxim, modesty maxim, sympathy maxim, and agreement maxim (Leech, 1983, 132).Speakers can flout or break their obedience towards those maxims as long as there are some reasons that underlie that violation.In other words, there are always implicatures of any violation towards the cooperative principles and the politeness principles.
In humorous discourses, comic effect achievement is the main reason for the violations.As the results, various types of puns, such as inter-lingual pun, malapropism, spoonerism, tongue twister, printing error, etc. can be found in the use of language (Apte, 1985. 181-187).As what will be proved in this paper, play upon words must not be the only way used by the humorous text creators, other aspects of pragmatic use of language can also be exploited in order to flout the cooperative and politeness principles have been mentioned above.

Method of Investigation
This research begins with the data collection extracted from Indonesian humorous story books.The data presented in this paper are those that exploit pragmatic aspects as the source of their humor.The pragmatic aspects are then classified whether they belong to speech act with its sub-categories, pragmatic implicatures, presupposition, or others.The Indonesian humorous discourses are presented together with their English translation.

Results
After examining the data carefully, there are at least three aspects of pragmatics that are often exploited by the humorous discourse creators.Those are speech acts, presupposition, and pragmatic implicatures which will consecutively be discussed below.

Speech Act
Speech act is the most important topic concerned in pragmatics because all utterances which constitute objects of pragmatics are produced through speech acts.Speech act is various possible acts performed by the speaker in uttering speech.In order to identify what kind of speech act an utterance belongs to, the utterance must be analyzed together with its context.Extra linguistic factors such as speaker, hearer, spatiotemporal setting of the utterance, words preceded and followed the utterance, etc. are an inherent parts of the utterance context (Leech 1996, 13;Sperber & Wilson, 15-16).Indonesian humorous text creators some time exploit sentences which have unclear contextual situation, such as shown in anecdote (1) below.
( The existence of autonomous text in (1) is due to Saya tidak tahu Jalan ke Bogor 'I don't know the road goes to Bogor' has lost its context.Thus, it can be interpreted as the act of indirect information requesting "Please tell me, where the road to Bogor is" even though the writer intends his utterance to be an indirect forbidding/prohibiting which means "Don't disturb me because I don't know the road to Bogor."Different from (1), humorous discourse (2) exploits indirect and non-literal speech acts, namely the speech act formed by sentence of the different mode from its intention and has opposite meaning to the words which construct the sentence (Parker & Riley, 2014, 42-43).In (2) the teacher's non literal command to be silent is literally taken by her students.
( In (2) it is described that on one side, the students do not comprehend their teacher's non-literal utterance which the teacher will be very happy to see her students calm and quiet.On the other side, the naughty students show that the unusual behavior is intended for their teacher's getting heart attack.Discourse (3) is intended to criticize some Indonesians who are too obedient and difficult to have different opinion from his superior.From different view point, this kind of people is alluded to be less initiative coworker/staff.The single word utterance tidak 'no' can be both an information giving or a refusal if the context of use is slipped off.

Presupposition
Any utterance in pragmatic view point is presupposed something in which the untruthfulness of something presupposed will consequently make the presupposing proposition not be judged to be true or false.In case of the following, (4), a speaker should presuppose the same condition as the people/person asked if he/she wants to show his higher capability to solve the proposed problem, eating the malakamo fruit.More clearly, the speaker must also still have mother and father.This condition does not exist in (4), or is not fully aware by the interlocutors when they are asked to solve the problem by the speaker.
(4) PERMAINAN  Pragmatically, any utterance which contains "if condition" presupposes that the interlocutor or the speaker to which the utterance is directed would perceive it as a serious matter, and then (s)he will give a proper reaction to the content of everything conditioned.In example (5) Pak Charris's unnatural behavior and unrealistic answers are due to his perception to the utterance as an unreal matter.

THE IF GAME Mr. Charris and I in several PMKH national training often tempted the training participants with a question. "Write down what would you do if I gave you 100 million rupiahs?"
The answers they gave were considerably various, such as: "I would go to be a pilgrim; I would buy a house; I would buy a motor car, etc."However, when I asked them further, "Who are among you preferably would donate the money?"Apparently there were less than 20%.This condition was really apprehensive.And then I continued, "Who among you would refuse the money?"Apparently, no one.This means that the participants tend to be uncritical receiving my gifts.I warned them that Islam wealth law should consider where the wealth was from and what it was used for.For

Pragmatic Implicatures
In communicative event, speaker's intention is not always asserted by the meaning of words constructing the utterance, but it can also be implicated by them.The relation between the intention and the utterance are made possible by the existence of pragmatic reasoning (Allan, 1986, 183-188;Wijana, 1996, 37-40).Pragmatic implicatures or conversational implicatures are different from entailment, which is semantic in nature.The following ( 6) and ( 7 SIR, THERE IS A PLANE ATTACKING "Sir, there is a British plane attacking!"An American soldier said to his commander.Then, the commander said, "Shoot that plane!"And a few minutes after, the soldier reported again, "Sir, there is a Dutch plane attacking"."Fire it."And, several hours after the soldier reported again, "Sir, there is an Indonesian plane attacking.""Just, don't shoot, it will fall itself" In (6) to give lighting for flies implies that Indonesia has a serious problem which concerns in environmental health or cleanliness.Accordingly, the tourist's utterance Bangsa Anda memang benar-benar baik hati 'your nation is really very kind' is a kind of non-literal speech act because it is not intended to give a compliment, but to express an indirect insult.Meanwhile, in (7) the commander's behavior towards the Indonesian plane implies that Indonesian made plane very bad quality.This aircraft will fall itself without being shot.This proposition implies that Indonesian aerospace technology is far behind those two countries.Different from ( 6) and ( 7), the conversational implication in (8) is drawn by the front desk library staff through the book description said by the beautiful girl.The library attendant responded, "Oh, you must be the person who took away our telephone book." In the following (9) the pragmatic implicatures are expressed by the lecturer in which the utterance " Mohon bantuannya ditutupkan pintunya dari luar, ya?" 'Would you close the door from outside, please!" indirectly suggests that the student is not allowed to follow the lecture.This pragmatic aspect is combined with non-literal apologizing speech act but cannot be understood by the student.The student's dumbness or disrespectfulness is shown by the violation of modesty maxim, one of Leech's politeness principle sub maxims.
'Every lecturer has a unique way in treating his students who come late.The first is Prof. Koentowibisono's version.He usually teases the students by saying "I am sorry, I dare to start the lecture before you are coming."Usually the dull students will give an answer "It doesn't matter, Sir.This time I forgive you."The second version is Mr. X and his friends.In the case of the students who are too late let alone they wear T shirt and slippers, they will shout: "Go out, you are not proper to enter the class."The third is Mr. Ridwan's version."For you the late comer, would you close the door from outside, please!"His expression is polite, but he means the student is not allowed to follow the lecture'.

Closing Remarks
Beside the use of play on word, as what has been proved by the previous studies, the exploitation of pragmatic aspects which have higher level than those used in punning are also found in humorous discourse creating activities.Those pragmatic aspects are speech acts, presupposition, and pragmatic implicatures.Because of the data limitation and the rareness study of these pragmatic aspects, especially on presupposition and implicature category, this paper has not been able to find out yet what types of presupposition and implicatures which are always exploited by the humorous discourse creators.
Preacher Dr. Haryatmoko in a Qualitative and Philosophy Research Methodology Training for UGM faculty of philosophy lectures, gave a good example that a text sometimes was autonomous.One time there was a truck driver went to Bogor from Yogyakarta.Because of long way travel, he felt very tired, and took some rest.He was asleep in the truck.But, not long after, someone knocked the door."Sir, where is the road goes to Bogor?"Then, he reluctantly answered, "You just go straight away, and after intersection turn left."Apparently, he was another truck driver who would go to Bogor."After saying thank you, that driver was gone.The same events happened three times with different drivers.Because he really wanted to take a rest, and was always disturbed by someone who wanted to go to Bogor, he took a piece of paper, and wrote "I don't know the road goes to Bogor." and stick it in one side of the truck. ' ) are examples of humorous discourse that exploit pragmatic implication.