- 1 -

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES
**********************

PHAN THỊ QUYÊN
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 M.A. Minor Programme Thesis Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Course: 17
Supervisor: CHU PHƯƠNG VÂN M.A. HA NOI- 2010
- 6 - ABBREVIATIONS
CP
: The Cooperative Principle

LIST OF CHARTS
Table

Page
Chart 1:
Illocutionary acts of participants in English and Vietnamese jokes
24
Chart 2:
Non- observance of maxims of participants in English and Vietnamese
jokes
25


1.2.5.2. The maxim of quality - 20 -
1.2.5.3. The maxim of relevance - 21 -
1.2.5.4. The maxim of manner - 21 -
1.2.6. Principles of conducting maxims - 21 -
1.2.6.1. Flouting - 21 -
1.2.6.2. Violating - 23 -
CHAPTER 2: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS - 23 -
2.1. Difficulties of joke analysis - 24 - - 9 -
2.1.1. Cultural factor - 24 -
2.1.2. Making inferences - 24 -
2.2. Analysis procedures - 24 -
2.3. Joke analysis - 25 -
2.3.1. Speech act analysis of the set- up in English and Vietnamese jokes - 25 -
2.3.2. Maxim analysis of the punch line in English and Vietnamese jokes. - 28 -
2.3.2.1. Maxim of quantity - 28 -
2.3.2.2. Maxim of quality - 29 -
2.3.2.3. Maxim of relevance - 30 -
2.3.2.4. Maxim of manner - 32 -
2.4. The analysis results - 32 -
2.4.1. The speech act analysis result of the set- up - 33 -
2.4.2. The maxim analysis result of the punch line - 33 -
2.5. Findings - 34 -
2.5.1. Pragmatic analysis of English and Vietnamese jokes - 35 -
2.5.2. Similarities - 36 -
2.5.3. Differences - 37 -
CHAPTER 3: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY - 38 -
3.1. Introducing pragmatic knowledge - 39 -

pragmatically as semantic analysis, sociological analysis, etc. on jokes have been studied
quite extensively over the years. Pragmatic analysis is, thus, a relatively new approach of
language. And quite different from other linguistic studies, pragmatics puts more attention
on language users and the context in which the language is used. And in fact, in analyzing
jokes pragmatically, we might find a harmony between language for humor, language users
and contexts.
It is so much hoped that the study may bring a good understanding of pragmatics and
concepts of pragmatics via English and Vietnamese jokes. When analyzing jokes, the
author is trying to reveal how the matters are interpreted in the jokes. Another reason is
that, as a teacher of English, the author wants to help Ha Tinh university learners of
English not only read a regular text but understand its functions in context. The study is
also hoped to offer a suggestion about the pragmatic reading of any jokes, which, in turn,
help shaping a scientific view towards pragmatics. Lastly, the author wants to share a
significant reference of jokes for others who are willing to make another further pragmatic
research.
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. - 11 -
 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
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

 Thinking: In this step, English and Vietnamese jokes are firstly examined closely
with the theoretical background. Secondly, the constant comparisons are intended
to identify similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese jokes.
Moreover, questions are always asked about the phenomena as reflected in the data
to generalize findings for the study and provide pedagogical implications.
The joke collection:
 Five sample English jokes are selected from an English linguistic book and two
reliable websites: http://rd.com. Reader’s Digest, http://www.basicjokes.com.
 Five sample Vietnamese jokes are selected Vietnamese funny story books and two
reliable websites: http://www.tuoitrecuoi.com, http://cuoi.net/truyen-cuoi/pstory.
The research questions:
 How are English and Vietnamese jokes analyzed pragmatically?
 What are the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese jokes
as seen from a pragmatic perspective?
 What tips are utilized to improve the awareness of pragmatics of learners via the
study?
The hypotheses of the study are formulated
 All the types of speech acts proposed by Austin (1955) and Searle (1969) are
found in English and Vietnamese jokes.
 Conversational maxims are broken to arouse humor. - 13 -
 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,

definitions of pragmatics, speech act theory, conversational implicature and context,
cooperative principle, conversational maxims and principles of conducting maxims are
presented.
1.1. Theory of jokes
1.1.2. Definition of jokes
According to Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (1987: 256), jokes are “something that is
said or done to make people laugh, i.e. a funny story.”
Suls (1972) cited in Antony (1976: 37) proposed a model for the appreciation of jokes.
This involves a two stage- process which relies on the generation and disconfirmation of
a listener’s expectations. Raskin (1985) cited in Gruyter (2001: 195) proposed a similar
theory of humor, a joke begins by being compatible with one script, and then a script-
switch trigger occurs which is inconsistent with the original script. The trigger is usually
the punch line. The listener then searches for an alternative, more compatible script. The
humor lies in the overlap between the two scripts. Raskin (1994:100) uses the following
joke to illustrate his point:
 "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."
According to Raskin, the joke body activates the doctor- patient script, but the punch line
forces the cognitive agent to backtrack and reinterpret the joke in a lover script.
Hockett (1972: 84) states that a joke consists of a build-up and a punch. Similarly, Sherzer
(1985: 216) defines a joke as “a discourse unit consisting of two parts, the set- up and the
punch line”. The set-up (the initial portion) is normally built of a joke, while the punch line
(the second part) is the final portion of the joke, which leads to incongruity with the set-up
to provoke laughter and demands creating thinking to surprise the readers. The punch line
is the funny part of the joke. It can change the situation of the joke in order to make people - 15 -
laugh. It is the climax of the joke in which the amusing part takes place. Therefore, any
type of the jokes should have the punch line so readers may laugh. In order to make the

- 16 -
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:
225), “Pragmatics is often contrasted with semantics”, which deals with meaning without
reference to the users and communicative functions of sentences. On the contrary,
pragmatics includes the study of how the interpretation and use of utterances depends on
knowledge of the real world, how speakers use and understand the speech acts, and how
the structure of sentence is influenced by the relationship between the speaker and the
hearer. Furthermore, it is significant for participants to share knowledge together so that
the hearer may minimize to misinterpret the speaker’s intended meaning.
Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics concerned with how humans use language, what the
speaker means and how the hearer interprets the words uttered. A sentence uttered by a
speaker can be separated into two levels of meaning: firstly the literal-propositional, i.e. the
expressed meaning, which remains the same no matter what the context is and secondly the
implied meaning, which is what the speaker means on a specific occasion, Thomas (1995:
2-8). The expressed meaning is the meaning that we understand by interpreting the word or
phrase based only on the information we get from the words uttered. Considering an
example, “Are you thirsty?”
The sentence like this is easy to interpret where the obvious meaning is a request for
information about the hearer, i.e. if he is thirsty. However, the same sentence can have a
different meaning besides the literal-propositional. That meaning will be dependent on the
context in which the sentence is uttered. Suppose that the speaker and the hearer are lost in
the desert and have had nothing to drink for days; such an utterance might then be uttered
as a joke, the hearer is obviously thirsty, in order to embolden in a time of struggle. In
another context it could mean that the speaker wants the hearer to get him a drink. This is
considered to be an example of speech acts, where the speaker intends the hearer to carry

as it is, we cannot understand its meaning in the context of social interaction, Saville
(1989: 15-16).
1.2.2.3. Perlocutional act - 18 -
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
intends to be performing the perlocutionary acts of causing the patrons to believe that the
bar is about to close and of getting them to order one last drink, Yule (1996: 48).
Of all the three acts, the most discussed is the illocutionary act, or also what counts as the
intended meaning of the utterance. Besides, to give a clear difference between
illocutionary verbs and acts, Searle (1969: 60) identified the various types of conditions
underlying speech acts. He divides speech acts into five classes.
 Representatives: acts that commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed
proposition, using such verbs as affirm, believe, conclude, deny, report, etc.
 Directives: acts that ask the speaker to get the other to do something with verbs
such as request, question, etc.
 Declaratives: acts that affect immediate changes in the institutional state of
affairs and tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions, with verbs such
as appoint, declare, etc.
 Commissives: here the speaker commits himself (or herself) to a (future) course
of action, with verbs such as: guarantee, pledge, promise, swear, vow,
undertake, warrant.
 Expressives: the speaker expresses an attitude to or about a state of affairs,
using such verbs as: apologize, appreciate, congratulate, deplore, regret, etc.
Overall, the theory of speech acts is applied in order to see whether what the speaker

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 - 20 -
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.
1.2.4. The cooperative principle
In order to explain how hearers interpret the utterance implicature, Grice introduced 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 directions of the talk
exchange in which you are engaged,” Grice (1991: 26). According to the CP 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).
1.2.5. Conversational maxims
In order to illustrate how we interpret meaning, Grice 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 (1995: 63). The maxims
of conversation which together express a general cooperative principle are:
1.2.5.1. The maxim of quantity

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 - 22 -
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
for a speaker to flout between maxim of quality and quantity or quantity and manner. For
example, A is driving B to John’s house. A: Where does John live? - B: Neveda. There is
a clash between the maxim of quantity and quality because A is looking for a street
address, but B gives less informative statement, thus the maxim of quantity is flouted. If
B does not know anything more specific, however, he cannot give a more informative
statement without flouting the maxim of quality. When flouting a maxim, the speaker
does not intend to mislead the hearer but wants the hearer to look for the conversational
implicature, that is, the meaning of the utterance not directly stated in the words uttered.
Therefore, when the speaker intentionally fails to observe a maxim his purpose may be to
effectively communicate a message, Thomas (1995: 65). Accordingly, if working under
the cooperative principle the hearer will interpret the message and fill in the missing

B: Because the fighting was over.
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 - 24 -
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
results and findings. Besides, analysis dificulties and discussions will be given to provide
an overall picture of the issue under study.
2.1. Difficulties of joke analysis
2.1.1. Cultural factor
In order to understand humorous language, we cannot ignore the cultural background.
Culture is marked by its abstractness and complicatedness; yet, the mirrors in which

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,
“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. - 26 -
(E. joke 3) In this joke, when the woman sees how romantic the neighbor towards his
wife, she said to her husband,
“Dear, look at the new spouse there. Every time before going to work, the husband always

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.
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
causes the humor in it.