A Study of Verbal Humor Interpretation in Huckleberry Finn from the Perspective of Cooperative Principle

【Abstract】In the paper the author explores the verbal humor interpretation in Huckleberry Finn from the perspective of cooperative principle and its four maxims in the context of pragmatics. Through analyzing the purposeful violation of the maxims in the environment of the cooperation principle， the author intends to probe into the ways to figure out the implicature of humorous utterances and manage to carry on the conversation and the reproduction of the amusing effect.

【Key words】cooperative principle; maxim; conversational implicature; humor

【作者簡介】尚麗媛（1971-），女，漢族，廣東廣州人，廣州南洋理工職業學院，碩士，講師，研究方向：英語語言文學及英語教學法。

1. Introduction

Huckleberry Finn is Mark Twains representative work and a far-reaching work in the history of American literature. The central plot of the novel is the story of how the white child Huck and the slave Jim forged a deep friendship. In order to escape the abuse of his father， Huck fled to an island and ran into a runaway slave， Jim. They fled together in an attempt to escape from the Mississippi River to the northern Free State. They went through all kinds of hardships along the way with the concerted efforts. Finally， with the help of his good friend Tom， Huck rescued Jim， who was sold by a cheater， and learned the hostess had declared Jims slavery removed in her will.

2. The Cooperative Principle and Its maxims?

Herbert Paul Grice first came up with the cooperative principle in conversation. He assumes that in a conversation people usually provide necessary information. Normally， for a conversation to go on， they will make sure that their responses are relevant to the conversation. He presumably thinks that people are willing to cooperate with others in their oral communication.

Grice suggests that there are a set of over-arching assumptions guiding the conduct of conversation， which could be formulated as guidelines for the efficient and effective use of language in conversation. To better describe these assumptions， he borrows from Immanuel Kant four categories： quantity， quality， relation and manner.

2.1 The maxim of quantity

This maxim requires：

（1） Make your contribution as informative as is required.

（2） Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

This maxim is concerned with the quantity of information to be provided. It requires speakers to make their contributions as informative as is required， but not more informative than is required.

2.2 The maxim of quality

This maxim requires：

（1）Do not say what you believe to be false.

（2）Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

This maxim suggests that speakers should not provide anything they believe to be false or things that lack adequate evidence for. The observance of the quality maxim is a matter of greater urgency than that of others， because no other maxims will come into operation unless the maxim of quality is satisfied.

2.3 The maxim of relation

The only requirement of this maxim is to be relevant. To be specific， it requires speakers to make all their utterances relevant to the ongoing conversation. At the same time， it entitles listeners to use the context of an utterance to determine its meaning based on the assumption that all utterances are related to the underlying theme.

2.4 The maxim of manner

This maxim requires：

（1） Avoid obscurity.

（2） Avoid ambiguity.

（3） Be brief.

（4） Be orderly.

Unlike other maxims， the maxim of manner does not concern what is to be said， but how it is to be said. To make sure the audiences understand what the listener is trying to get across， the speaker must try to avoid ambiguity， obscurity and wordiness in their utterances. In short， these maxims specify what participants have to do in order to conduct the conversation in a cooperative way： they should try to be informative， truthful， relevant and clear.

3. Analysis of verbal humor interpretation

3.1 Humor Interpretation from violating Maxim of Quantity

“Must we always kill the people？”

“Oh， certainly. Its the best. Some authorities think different， but mostly its considered best to kill them--except some that you bring to the cave here， and keep them till they are ransomed. ”

“Ransomed？ Whats that？”

“I dont know. But thats what they do. Ive seen it in books; and so of course thats what weve got to do.”

“But how can we do it if we dont know what it is？”

“Why， blame it all， weve GOT to do it. Dont I tell you its in the book？ Do you want to go to doing different from whats in the books， and get things all muddled up？ ”

In Chapter Two， the boys start Tom Sawyers Gang. But they are not sure about what the business of this going is. In fact， even the leader Tom himself cant explain clearly the duty of the gang. He just says to them about robbery and murder in order not to lose face. According to the Quantity maxim， the speaker should offer enough information. But Toms answer is too short and not related to the business of gang. In this conversation， Tom violates the maxim of quantity. When Tom talks about robbery， murder and ransom， he wants to show off his authority as a leader. Tom does not understand the duty of gang， but he always talks about the book. For example， he often says： “Ive seen it in books”. Reading this part， readers may feel funny and relaxing about childrens naivete. This just imitates the examples in books without knowing what the fact is.

3.2 Humor Interpretation from violating Maxim of Quality

“Rounde which？”

“Harem”

“Whats de harem？”

“The place where he keep his wives. Dont you know about the harem？ Solomon had one; he had about a million wives.”

“Why， yes， dats so; I--Id done forgot it. A harems a bodn-house. I reckn...”

This dialogue happens between Huck and Jim. At the beginning of Chapter Fourteen， Huck “read considerable to Jim about kings and dukes”. Jims curiosity about the big shots stimulates Hucks interest in showing off his knowledge about history. Jim knows nothing about the history as a black slave. Huck seems like a Mr. Knowledgeable. In fact， Hucks knowledge about history is poor and he even confuses some characters and events in history. In this conversation， Huck says that Solomon has a million wives in a serious tone. He seems like a real historian. Readers share the real historical knowledge about harem and Solomon， so what Huck said here violates the maxim of Quality. Through the violation of second maxim of Quality， the reader can see Hucks innocence and wanton life of the kings. He is talking about the facts of history to Jim. But the readers can find Hucks words lack of enough evidence.

3.3 Humor Interpretation from violating Maxim of Relation

“Do you go to church， too？”

“Yes--regular.”

“Where do you set？”

“Why， in our pew.”

“Whose pew？”

“Why， OURN—your Uncle Harveys.”

“Hisn？ What does he want with a pew？”

“Wants it to set in. What did you reckon he wanted with it？”

“Why， I thought hed be in the pulpit.”

This is a conversation between hare-lip and Huck. In this dialogue， hare-lip asks Huck a simple question “Whose pew？” Huck replies that “Your Uncle Harveys”. The girl finds a questionable point in Hucks utterance. As a result， she continues her question “What does he want with a pew？” The little girl does not want to imply what the function of a pew is. In fact， preachers do not need pews in a church. When they are preaching， they just stand there. The little girl wants to use this question to point out the inconsequence of Hucks utterance. She is raising doubt about Hucks utterances. However， Huck does not notice the real intention of hare-lip， so he gives an irrelevant answer to her question. Huck violates the maxim of Relation here. He is just telling lies to hare-lip. Finally， he is in trouble by his own lies. Readers may feel laughable when they see Huck is up a stump again by his carelessness.

3.4 Humor Interpretation from violating Maxim of Manner

“I stood a-looking at him; he set there a-looking at me， with his chair tilted back a little. I set the candle down. I noticed the window was up; so he had climb in by the shed. He kept a-looking me all over.”

By and by he says：

“starchy clothes—very. You think youre a good deal of a big-bug， dont you？”

“Maybe I am， maybe I aint，” I says.

This conversation happens between Huck and his father. Hucks father gets the news that Huck has gotten a large amount of money， so he comes to Huck for the money. At the first sight of his own son， Hucks father starts with abuse and satire. He even calls him a big-bug. Being accustomed to his fathers outrageousness， Huck stays very calm to his fathers rudeness and ironic words. He just replies “Maybe I am， maybe I aint”. The meaning of the word “maybe” is obscure. It violates the first maxim of Manner and shows Huck resistance to his father. It is easy for readers to find Hucks attitude to his father. The writer shows his disgust and anger to this kind of father.

4. Conclusion

As is discussed above， Cooperative Principle is a popular theory which linguists would like to adopt in interpreting verbal humor. This paper tries to investigate how Cooperative Principle is proved highly applicable and feasible and how Cooperative Principle operates in interpreting verbal humor. The generation and interpretation of verbal humor are closely related with the violation of Cooperative Principle and its four maxims. It is hoped that interpreting verbal humor from the perspective of Cooperative Principle can be meaningful in analyzing and appreciating other humorous literary works and for further study.

References：

[1]姜望琪.語用學理論及應用[M].北京：北京大學出版社，2000.