ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE JOKES:
FROM A PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE
(Phân tích truyện cười Anh- Việt trên bình diện ngữ dụng học)
M.A. Minor Programme Thesis

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Course: 17

1
ABSTRACT
This thesis intends to interpret English and Vietnamese jokes from a pragmatic perspective
and explores about the way language used for humor to raise the awareness of pragmatics
for the interpreter.
To accomplish this research, the theoretical preliminaries of pragmatics and humor are
worked out for the interpretations. The five English jokes and five Vietnamese jokes are
taken from the reliable sources according to certain criteria concerning the structure of
jokes, joke context and a variety of situations.
The findings from the analysis have revealed that we can analyze the set- up of each joke
based on the speech acts of Austin and Searle and find humor through the punch line due
to violating and flouting the conversational maxims of Grice. What's more, the study
provides the interpreter the better understanding of pragmatics and useful pedagogical
implications.
Hopefully, this will be a valuable material for those who are interested in the aspects of
pragmatics.
2
ABBREVIATIONS
CP : The Cooperative Principle
QUAL. : Quality
QUAN. : Quantity
QDA. : Qualitative data analysis

2. Aims of the study
The aims of this study are:
• To provide whether the theory of speech acts and theory of conversational maxims
has explanatory power on humor in English and Vietnamese jokes.
• To figure out a brief account of possible similarities and differences between
English and Vietnamese jokes in terms of the speech acts and conversational
maxims.
• To provide some proposals for further study and pedagogical implications for
raising Ha Tinh university students’ pragmatic awareness.
3. Scope of the study
4
Many fields of pragmatics related to jokes need to be explored and a variety of jokes can
be selected. However, due to the limited time, the study is confined to the following
aspects:
• Only five English jokes and five Vietnamese jokes are selected to test the
theoretical preliminaries, and the jokes chosen must have the set- up and the punch
line (two way- communication).
• Speech acts of Austin including locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary act
are explored to interpret the set- up of English and Vietnamese jokes.
• Types of Searle’s illocutionary act including directives, commissives, expressives,
representatives and declaratives are used to identify speech acts.
• Non- observance of conversational maxims looked at only due to flouting and
violating.
• The inferences made in context to interpret the way of conducting conversational
maxims of joke participants.
• This is a linguistic study for academic purpose only.
4. Methodology of the study
The methodology employed is a qualitative research. This is a study of grounded theory. It
has been acknowledged that with this method, the researcher as an instrument for gathering
data during the study. The data is analyzed inductively, selected in the form of words, and

• Different breakings of maxims result in different ways of producing humor in
English and Vietnamese jokes.
5. Format of the study
The study begins with declaration, acknowledgement, table of contents, and abbreviation.
The main body of the study consists of three parts. They are introduction, development and
conclusion.
Part one provides a brief account of relevant information about the rationale, aims, scope,
methodology and format of the study.
6
Part two includes three chapters
• Chapter 1: This chapter is about theoretical notions necessary for the study
including the theory of pragmatics, concepts of pragmatics, and theory of jokes.
• Chapter 2: This chapter offers an analysis of English and Vietnamese jokes one by
one. Firstly, the speech acts and conversational maxims are applied to interpret the
set- up and the punch lines of the jokes. Secondly, the similarities and differences
between English and Vietnamese jokes will be worked out in terms of speech acts
and conversational maxims.
• Chapter 3: This chapter is about some implication of the study for EFL teaching
and learning.
Part three includes concluding remarks, limitation of the study, and recommendations for
further research.
Apart from the three main parts, the references and the appendix of the study are included.
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAl BACKGROUND
This chapter will discuss several joke and pragmatic issues which serve as theoretical
foundation for the study. First a brief review on theory of jokes such as definitions of
jokes and incongruity theory. Then theories of pragmatics related to jokes, mainly
definitions of pragmatics, speech act theory, conversational implicature and context,
cooperative principle, conversational maxims and principles of conducting maxims are
presented.

actually occurs in the joke”. This belief is supported by Schopenhauer (1883) cited in
8
Ritchie (2004: 46), "The cause of laughter in every case is simply the sudden perception
of the incongruity between a concept and the real objects which have been thought
through it in some relation, and laughter itself is just the expression of this incongruity.”
However, some linguists disagree with the given definitions, they see the incongruous
part cannot make the perceiver laugh, but have to solve the contrary part. The adding
stage is called "a two stage- model", incongruity- resolusion. According to this model, the
cause of incongruity of joke is the pragmatic is broken and it makes readers astound. The
way of creating and resolving the incongruity can be analyzed as follows:
• "Is the doctor at home?" The patient asked in his bronchial whisper.
"No," the doctor's young and pretty wife whispered in reply. "Come right in."
The example says that the answer is seen as incongruous, with "No” ”Come right in"
interpreted as an absence of the doctor and an invitation of the patient to enter in the
house, but then the resolusion occurs with the realization that there is another
interpretation, "the wife wants to have a secret meeting with the patient” basing on the
gender of the doctor’s wife, her description as well as the absence of the doctor or her
husband.
1.2. Theories of pragmatics related to jokes
1.2.1. Definitions of pragmatics
J.L. Austin, a philosopher at Oxford University (1940s-1950s) who was interested in
language, laid the groundwork for what was to become pragmatics. Austin wanted to know
how humans manage to communicate despite the imperfections in language. One important
reason for why Austin was interested in language was that he was convinced that we do not
use language to say things (to make statements), but to do things (perform actions),
Thomas (1995: 31).
According to Levinson (1983: 12), “Pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of
meaning not captured in a semantic theory.” This means that it has consequently more to
do with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what the words or
phrases in the utterances might mean by themselves. What is learnt from Crystal (1985:

1.2.2. Speech act theory
Speech act theory is not the whole of pragmatics, but is perhaps currently the most
important established part of the subject. According to this theory, when uttering
something, people are not only saying something but doing something. Austin further
10
concludes that "issuing an utterance" a speaker can perform three acts simultaneously:
the locutional, the illocutional and the perlocutional acts, Austin (1955: 5).
1.2.2.1. Locutional act
This is the basic act of utterance, or producing a meaningful linguistic expression. Let’s
take an example of “The bar will be closed in five minutes.” The bartender is thereby
performing the locutionary act of saying that the bar (the one he is tending) will be closed
in five minutes (from the time of utterance).
1.2.2.2. Illocutional act
Mostly we don’t just produce well- formed utterances with no purpose. We form an
utterance with some kind of function in mind. This is the illocutionary act. The
illocutionary act is performed via the communicative force of an utterance. We might
utter the sentence above to make a statement, an offer, an explanation, or for some other
communicative purpose. This is also generally known as the illocutionary force of the
utterance. For instance, in saying that, "The bar will be closed in five minutes.” The
bartender is performing the illocutionary act of informing the patrons of the bar's
imminent closing and perhaps also the act of urging them to order a last drink. Thus, it is
necessary to know this act because if we do not understand why a language is being used
as it is, we cannot understand its meaning in the context of social interaction, Saville
(1989: 15-16).
1.2.2.3. Perlocutional act
We do not, of course, simply create an utterance with a function without intending it to
have an effect. This is the perlocutionary act. Depending on the circumstances, we will
utter that sentence on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect we
intended. This is also generally known as the perlocutionary effect. Suppose, for
example, that a bartender utters the words, "The bar will be closed in five minutes.” He

1.2.3. Conversational implicature and context
One of the most important concepts in pragmatics is ‘conversational implicature’. It is
meant to provide an account of how it is possible to mean more than is actually said.
Conversational implicature is generated directly by the speaker depending on the context.
This implicature may or may not be understood, Thomas (1995: 58). The same expressed
meaning can have different implications on different occasions.
12
Another concept that related to the conversational implicature is context. The context
defined in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, p.282 is “words
that come before and after a word, phrase, statement, etc., helping to show what its
meaning is” or “circumstances in which something happens or in which something is to
be considered”. Now, we can say, on the one hand, to judge whether an implicature is
made or not, or what it may implicate, one needs to review what has been said and
preview what will be said later on, or figure out what is going on around. And on the
other hand, to implicate something, one may try to invoke the CP by a word, phrase or
statement that feels like superfluous, false, irrelevant or fuzzy. To illustrate those two
concepts, we have taken these examples from Cruse (2000: 349):
• A: Have you cleared the table and washed the dishes?
B: I’ve cleared the table.
• A: Am I in time for supper?
B: I’ve cleared the table
In the first example speaker B’s implication is that he has cleared the table but has not
washed the dishes, while in the second example speaker B’s implication is that speaker A
is late for dinner. Thus, A is able to infer the message in B’s utterance, by appealing to
the rules governing successful conversational interaction. What is said and what is
implicated, therefore, together form the meaning of the utterance in a given context. The
context is constituted by the knowledge shared between the speaker and the hearer. The
shared knowledge of two types: the knowledge of the language they use, and the
knowledge about the world, including the general knowledge about the world and the
specific knowledge about the situation in which linguistic communication is taking place.

order to be polite.
1.2.5.3. The maxim of relevance
This maxim requires the speaker to be relevant to the context and situation in which the
utterance occurs, Thomas (1995: 70). For instance, the speaker should not say “I am on
the phone” when someone asks if she wants dinner. Here, the utterance meaning is
irrelevant and the speaker fails to observe the maxim.
1.2.5.4. The maxim of manner
This maxim 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,
14
Thomas (1995: 64). A speaker fails to observe the maxim of manner when he says “I
went to bed and got undressed” when, of course, he undressed first and then went to bed.
The above maxims are not supposed to describe how people actually said they merely
attempt to describe a type of conversational practice that is reasonable to follow. When
people, for instance, aim to tell a joke or story, Grice (1991: 29).
1.2.6. Principles of conducting maxims
The maxims can be conducted by doing an observance of the maxims or a non-
observance of the maxims of Grice (1975) cited in Thomas (1995: 61- 62). If the speaker
observes all maxims, there is no distinction between what the speaker says and what he or
she means so there is no implicature could be.
To serve for the interpretation of jokes, we will go into a non-observance of the maxims.
Any failing to observe a maxim may be referred to as ‘breaking a maxim’. When the
speaker breaks a maxim, the hearer looks for the implicature since he assumes the CP to
be in operation. Non-observance of maxims is often used intentionally in order to evoke
humor or to avoid discomfort. Grice discussed five ways of not observing a maxim. They
are flouting, violating, opting out, infringing and suspending. However, we only discuss
non- observance due to flouting and violating in this study.
1.2.6.1. Flouting
There are two reasons why the speaker flouts a maxim. One is a clash between maxims
and another is flouting one of the maxims. With a clash between maxims, it is common

wish to give an answer to the question.
1.2.6.2. Violating
In contrast to flouting, when violating a maxim the speaker intends to mislead the hearer.
The speaker speaks the truth but implies what is false, Thomas (1995: 72). Violating is
found in the examples of jokes extracted from Attardo (1994: 272) as follows:
• A: Excuse me, do you know what time it is? - B: Yes.
It can be seen that the answer in this example violates the maxim of quantity because it
does not provide enough information for the speaker.
• A: Why did the Vice President fly to Panama?
B: Because the fighting was over.
16
The example deliberately violates the maxim of quality by insinuating that the Vice
President is a coward.
• A: Do you believe in clubs for young people? - B: Only when kindness fails.
Violating the maxim of manner is found since the ambiguity of word happens in the joke
(the double meaning of the word clubs).
• A: How many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb? - B: Fish!
In this example, the maxim of relevance is violated because the word “surrealists” is
associated with a completely bizarre answer “fish”.
Summary
We have briefly reviewed theory of jokes and pragmatic theories related to jokes. They are
Grice’s Cooperative Principle, Austin and Searle’s Speech Act Theory. On the basis of the
pragmatic theories, we have carried out sample analyses of jokes. At the same time, humor
can be caused in the context. In short, this chapter has been the theoretical background for
the study.
CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
This chapter is aimed at discovering how English and Vietnamese jokes are analyzed
pragmatically and what similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese
jokes as seen from a pragmatic perspective. First, analyzing jokes one by one basing on
speech act theories and conversational maxim violations, then this analysis presents the

the inferences were made to understand the punch lines of the jokes.
Then the analysis results are summarized in the form of tables and findings are performed
from the analysis.
In order to mark the jokes, they are given numerical symbol, from 1-5 for English jokes
and 6 to 10 for Vietnamese jokes. They are organized in two parts- part 2.3.1 for the first
step and 2.3.2 for the second step. The order of the jokes in each part does not serve any
special purposes.
2.3. Joke analysis
2.3.1. Speech act analysis of the set- up in English and Vietnamese jokes
(E. joke 1) In this joke, when a customer was enjoying his meal, he suddenly cried,
18
“Waiter! There is a ”
The locutionary act of this utterance is stating that there was a fly in his soup. At that time,
the illocutionary act he carried is complaining the meal service. The perlocutionary act is
that the waiter would give him another extra soup. To be more precise, we can see this as
the act of representative as this customer has reported this news to the waiter. Furthermore,
the punch line arouses when the waiter responded “ everyone will want a fly”. Thus, the
waiter in this joke overturns the common cultural practice and the target cultural role in
giving an incongruous reply to the customer.
(E. joke 2) Uttering that,
“were you born in a barn?”
The mother is performing the locutionary act of asking her son whether he was born in a
barn, the illocutionary act of insulting her son as a horse when he forgets to close the door
and the perlocutionary acts of getting her son to close the door. As defined by Searle, this
act is considered as a directive because the mother requests her son to close the door when
he goes out and in. Whereas, the son does not take the message literally so the humorous
part takes place, “I was born in a hospital with automatic doors.” However, he successfully
communicates his message in a very appealing way, making better effect on his mother
about refusing to close the door.
(E. joke 3) In this joke, when the woman sees how romantic the neighbor towards his

punch line of this joke.
(V. joke 7) After blaming for the people’s ill- treatment, the mandarin’s wife is consoled
by hearing that they are waiting for him with presents before seeing him off. Furthermore,
she asks the servants,
“họ lễ gì thế các thầy?”
By doing so, the locutionary act of her utterance is demanding the servants about presents
from those residents. The illocutionary act she carried is questioning about the presents.
This is also the act of directive. The perlocutionary act is that the people should give him
presents. The punch line arouses when the servant responded: “Bẩm toàn gạo, muối ”
(V. joke 8) Saying that,
“Mày ăn nói chẳng có đầu đuôi gì cả, người ta cười cả tao lẫn mày.
20
Từ nay nói cái gì thì phải nói cho có đầu có đuôi nghe không?”
The locutionary act is stating that the servant is careless about his saying and that he has to
be more careful from now on. The illocutionary act of the utterance is commanding his
servant to behave well. In fact, this is also called a directive act. Thereupon, the
perlocutionary act of that utterance: he intends that the servant would obey his order.
However, the punch line arouses as the servant details his utterance, “Thưa ông, con tằm
nó nhả ra tơ, và áo ông đang cháy.”
(V. joke 9) While a man asked about his lost pig,
“Bác có thấy con “lợn cưới” của tôi chạy qua đây không?”
The locutionary act of the utterance is asking if this man sees a pig. At that time, the
illocutionary act of the utterance is asking if this man see a pig. This is a directive act but
with the aim of informing that the lost pig is a wedding pig. The perlocutionary act is to
boast a big wedding with a pig. The punch line arouses when the man in a newly- cut robe
responses, “Từ lúc tôi mặc cái "áo mới" này, tôi chẳng thấy con lợn nào chạy qua đây
cả!”
(V. joke 10) When listening to her husband’s last request,
“Bây giờ anh đang gần đất xa trời rồi, em có thể thú nhận về mối quan
hệ của mình với tay hàng xóm được không?”

• Flouting the maxim of quantity (Vietnamese joke 9):
This joke named “Lợn cưới, Áo mới” depicts the boastful quality of the two men. The man
with a pig should ask a lost pig, but he mentions to a wedding pig. He leaves a message
that his family has a very big and fat pig for a wedding banquet. The first man with a
newly- cut robe new should answer the information required but manages to show his dress
off.
Bác có thấy con “lợn cưới” của tôi chạy qua đây không? Anh kia liền giơ
ngay vạt áo ra, bảo:
- Từ lúc tôi mặc cái “áo mới” này, tôi chẳng thấy con lợn nào chạy qua đây cả!
The participant flouts the maxim of quantity when they give more information than the
situation requires. The utterances portray two men as normal passers- by, but at the same
time funny. They flout the maxim to show that they do not think boasting in this
unnecessary occasion is funny at all. However, they understand their implications. The
author let them flout the maxim to stereotype them as typical men who likes to show off
22
their properties in Vietnam society. The quality of boasting is seen as a bad common one in
this culture.
2.3.2.2. Maxim of quality
• Violating the maxim of quality (English joke 1):
- Diner: Waiter! There is a fly in my soup!
- Waiter: everyone will want a fly now.
The waiter violates the maxim of quality by generating a misleading implicature that others
might also want to have flies in their meals in order to have extra meals for free. Actually,
it is impossible that the other customers ask him to give them flies so that they might
complain and get new meals for free. Moreover, joke readers might infer that he uttered
such an utterance probably for avoiding the other customers knowing this bad occasion in
order to save the restaurant’s image, firstly about hygiene and next about service.
However, when this problem is in fact detected, the waiter is likely to catch the customer’s
complaint and he understands that the customer wants an extra soup. Thus, the waiter
violates the maxim in order to deceive the customer into focusing on humor, instead of

author makes the rich woman flout the maxim to look stingy and spiteful.
2.3.2.3. Maxim of relevance
• Flouting the maxim of relevance (English joke 2):
Mother: “Were you born in a barn?”
Son: “No, I was born in a hospital," he replied, smirking." with
automatic doors.”
Decoding that his mother implies him as a horse (because only such an animal was born in
a barn), the son flouts the maxim of relevance by saying something whose literal content
has nothing to do with the situation. His implicature is that “his mother gave his birth in a
hospital”, but he does not want to tell her directly because the statement would be too
weak. He flouts the maxim of relevance as he changed the topic of his birthplace to make
fun with his mother and save himself from the punishment for not closing the door.
• Violating the maxim of relevance (Vietnamese joke 10):
In this joke, the husband wants his wife to tell him the truth and therefore he gives his last
requests and thinks to be accepted. The wife violates the maxim of relevance since her
utterance is irrelevant to the question. We might infer that does not want to continue to
- Người chồng hấp hối nói với vợ: Bây giờ anh đang gần đất xa trời rồi,
em có thể thú nhận về mối quan hệ của mình với tay hàng xóm được không?
- Cô vợ ngần ngừ một lúc rồi hỏi lại: Thế nhỡ anh không chết thì sao?
24
converse with her husband. The misleading implicature she generates is that she might
have had an adulterous relationship with a neighbor. However, she can not confess this
relationship because the adultery is considered to be insulted in Vietnam. The author wants
to portray the wife as insolent.
• Violating the maxim of relevance (English joke 5)
This joke called “The good news” we can see that something good or not is relative
depended on who considers it so.
“Oh, God!” Smith screamed “And what about the good one, Doc?”
The doctor said, “Actually, your leg is no need to be amputated.”
In this case, the doctor violates the maxim of relevance since his utterance is irrelevant to