CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the background of the study, problems of the study, objectives of the study,

significance of the study, scope and limitation, and definition of the key terms. 1.1. Background of the study

Humor is a language phenomenon; it is studied multi-disciplinary through linguistic, philosophy, psychology and physiological. Humor is even used in the literature. Mark Twin said, humor is mankinds greatest blessing. It can give interesting elements to the topic of communication, bring happiness and pleasant feeling to people, change a persons mood, ease a sad heart and even construct a way to a happy life. Humor plays important role in our society, in Indonesia especially humor is a part of the culture. It performs in folks art performance, such as Ludruk, Ketoprak, lenong, wayang kulit, wayang golek, and any others. Hence, for centuries, many researchers have investigated how the humor works in the culture and society and what would be considered as humorous. The results of their researches are varies from the traditional theory through the development one. Most of them are quite successful to explain humor in their own area, but yet none can cover all categories of humor in one theory.

Humor is specifically divided into visual humor (non-verbal humor) which represented by pictures and actions, and verbal humor concerning to funny utterances. Stand-up comedy could be represented both of them. Jokes produced in stand-up comedy are referenced by the real world condition,
where comedians often offer their visions to the audience about current social or political issues and try to influence the opinions of them. Thus, analyzing the humor in stand-up comedy is not enough only semantically or pragmatically.

Although many theories have explained about humor, only few attentions put in the stand-up comedy observation, probably because this kind of comedy is a new genre. Particularly in Indonesia Stand-up comedy has just being famous these three years lately and now becoming a fresh air for the image of the Indonesian comedy which tends to perform a slapstick comedy. Even though, stand-up comedy has become a part tradition of Indonesian. For instance Javaneses art performance such as, Ketoprak, Wayang, and Ludruk, which usually presenting one comedian at the beginning of the show to open the communication with the audience and then followed by the next comedian. The research of linguistic aspect in humor was pioneered by Sigmund Freuds Jokes and their Relation to the Unconscious in 1905. Freud's procedure consists of analyzing several jokes with the use of mechanisms of "reduction" and in grouping the jokes into categories according to the 2

humorous techniques which are used in them (Attardo,1994). His research laid the foundations for today's modern theories of humor as represented by influential linguists such as Goldstein and McGhee (1972), Chapman and Foot (1977), Raskin (1985), and Apte (1985). In the development of humor research recently, some researchers also had done in stand-up comedy genre, such as Jeannine Schwarz (2010) who investigated linguistic feature in stand-up comedy, also Jakoaho and Marjamki (2012) who examined the ethnic humor in discourse analysis approach performs in stand-up comedy. While in Indonesia particularly in linguistic field, Assiry (2012) has investigated stand-up comedy as the socio-pragmatic analysis.
In the following study, the main focus will be aggressiveness produced in verbal humor in Stand-Up Comedy Indonesia 3 Kompas Television program. The aggressive expressions that will be found (for instances irony or sarcasm), then the writer elaborate who or what is the target and the pragmatic elements (i.g: implicature, speech act) which are contain in those jokes in Stand-Up Comedy Indonesia 3 Kompas Television program.

1.2.

Problems of the study Based on the background of study in above the research problem are: 1) What kind of methods do the comedians use in Stand-up comedy Indonesia 3 Kompas Television program recognized as the verbal aggressiveness? 3

2) Who is the target of the aggressiveness in verbal humor performs in Stand-Up Comedy Indonesia 3 Kompas Television program? 3) What are the pragmatic elements of the aggressiveness found in the verbal humor perform by comedians in Stand-up comedy Indonesia 3 Kompas Television program? 4) What are the social functions of the aggressiveness found in the verbal humor perform by comedians in Stand-up comedy Indonesia 3 Kompas Television program? 1.3. Objectives of the Study

Based on the problems of the study, the objectives of the study are to find out the answers of: 1) To identify the methods which the comedians use in Stand-up comedy Indonesia 3 Kompas Television program recognized as the verbal aggressiveness. 2) .To identify the target of the verbal humor performs in Stand-Up Comedy Indonesia 3 Kompas Television program. 3) To examined the pragmatic element of the aggressiveness in the verbal humor perform by comedians in Stand-up comedy Indonesia 3 Kompas Television program. 4

4) To investigate the functions of aggressiveness found in the verbal humor perform by comedians in Stand-up comedy Indonesia 3 Kompas Television program. 1.4. Significance of the study Generally, this study is expected to give contributions to the humor research, which is still rarely done in Indonesia, especially microscoping the phenomena of stand-up comedy performances. Theoretically, the result of this study is expected to give contribution in understanding the humor research as the linguistic studies. Practically, the result of this study is expected to give direction for other researchers or future researchers who will conduct the research on the same field in detail or in another perspective.

1.5.

Scope and limitation This study is only focused on the analysis of aggressiveness in verbal humor performed in stand-up comedy Indonesia 3 Kompas Television program. The analysis will be done using pragmatic theory and discourse analysis approach. Regardless the para-linguistic elements of the comedians such as intonation, gesture, and mimic.

1.6.

Definition of the key terms Aggressiveness is all activities (physical or verbal) which aims at inflicting physical or psychological injuries real or symbolic Verbal Humor is funny utterances that caused being amused, excited or comic. Stand-up comedy is a monologue comedy art form performed in front of a live audience.

CHAPTER II THEORITICAL BACKGROUND 2.1 Theories of Humour

There is a long tradition to the research of humor and humorous discourse. Many theories of humor have been influenced by famous philosophers, for instance by Plato and Aristotle. That is why; many of these theories are philosophical of studies. Attardo (1994:15) states that humor research is an interdisciplinary field, ranging over various disciplines such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, literature, medicine, philosophy, philology, mathematics, education, semiotics and linguistics. According to Raskin (1985), principal theories of humor can be classified into three groups: 1. Incongruity theories 2. Hostility theories 3. Release theories There are quite similar classifications in the literature, although there is some variation of the term used among different researchers. And it is also important to examine and discuss The General Theory of Verbal Humor proposed by Salvatore Attardo and Victor Raskin, as the one of the most recent additions to the field of linguistic humor research.

2.1.1 Incongruity Theory

Morreall (in Schwarz 2010) considers the incongruity theory to be "the most popular current philosophical theory of humor" and states further that it "holds that the formal object of amusement is 'the incongruous'." Many influential researchers share his view and see incongruity as the essential element in eliciting humor. While according to Krikmann (2005), the Incongruity Theory provides an inconsistency or contradiction in a humorous text. In it, there are two incompatible lines of thought (also called planes of content, scripts, frames of references, etc.). In a joke, the surprise is generally delivered through a punch line. The punch line provides an incongruous or paradoxical idea compared to the rest of the joke. Raskin (1985:31) states that
humorous instances where there is something incongruous, stimulating surprise, or a sense of superiority in the laughter, are likely the most common kind of causes for laughter.

2.1.2 Hostility Theories The second group of theories of humor is hostility theories. The earliest theories (Plato, Aristotle) all mention the negative element of humor, its aggressive side. Raskin (1985) explains that hostility, superiority, malice, aggression, derision and disparagement make up the approaches that are generally referred to as hostility theories. Raskin (1985) states that many
researchers who follow and support hostility theories consider themselves as the

followers of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was a 17

th

century English philosopher,

who considered humor to be a result from a glory felt when recognizing ones superiority over others (Attardo, 1994). Hostility theories explain that laughter is caused, for instance, by misfortune or ignorant actions of others, or feelings of malice or envy. This type of humor is not always pleasant to the object of it.

2.1.3 Release Theories The third group of theories of humor is called the release theories. Raskin (1985) stated that the basic principle behind these theories is that laughter is the cause of relief of tension and anxiety. The most influential proponent of a release theory is certainly Freud (1905). In terms of linguistic behavior, release theories are interesting because they account for the "liberation" from the rules of language, the typical of this humor such as puns and word-play. The use of release humor is relatively common in certain communicative situations for instance, a joke that used at the beginning of a communicative event in order to decrease a potential anxious or awkward situation.
These three theories characterize the nature of humor from different perspectives, supplementing rather than contradicting each other. Incongruitybased theories explain the stimulus; hostility theories explain the relationship between the speaker and the hearer whereas release theories concentrate on the mental processes of the hearer (Raskin 1985).

2.1.4 The General Theory of Verbal Humor The General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) is a theory of verbal humor proposed by Salvatore Attardo and Victor Raskin in 1991. The theory is a revised version of Raskins script-based semantic theory of humor (SSTH) and Attardos five-level joke representation model. 2.1.4.1 Semantic Script-based Theory of Humor (SSTH) In his theory Raskin lays the idea of script opposition (SO). Essentially, a script is a piece of semantic information. According to Attardo and Raskin (1991), a script is the interpretation of a text, which constitutes a joke. The main idea of SSTH is that each text, which constitutes a joke, must be fully or in part compatible with two different scripts that need to be in opposition in order for the joke to be funny. As Raskin states, a joke is often deliberately ambiguous. Therefore the punchline will trigger a switch from one script to another. According to Krikkmann (2005) Raskins script-based semantic theory of humor (SSTH) does not aim to cover humor in general, but only verbal humor (or in practice, only punchline jokes). In Attardo (1994) the summary of Raskins analysis of a sample joke will follow. A text can be characterized as a single-joke-carrying-text if both of the [following] conditions are satisfied: i) The text is compatible, fully or in part, with two different scripts

10

ii) The two scripts with which the text is compatible are opposite (...). The two scripts with which some text is compatible are said to overlap fully or in part in this text.

2.1.4.2 The General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) Raskins SSTH was later connected with Attardos five-level model of joke representation, which led to a joke representation model in an abstract form. When refining SSTH into GTVH, GTVH retained the idea of oppositions and compatible scripts from Raskins original theory. The revision of Attardos five-level model and Raskins SSTH resulted in the birth of six Knowledge Resources (KRs), which, according to Attardo and Raskin (1991) function to describe the construction of a joke in verbal humor. The six knowledge resources are: 1. Script opposition (SO), as discussed before, two different scripts that are opposed to each other in a specific way. 2. Logical mechanisms (LM), which represents the logic in the two scripts and how they create the joke. 3. Situation (SI), objects, instruments, people who are included in the joke. 4. Target (TA), describes that which is the butt of the joke. 5. Narrative strategy (NS), describes the genre of the joke, for instance a riddle. 6. Language (LA), is the product and how a joke is realized.

11

Attardo and Raskin (1991) state that GTVH is a general theory of verbal humor and it is used to answer the question what constitutes a humor is. Attardo and Raskin point out that GTVH does not explain how people use humor. However, For a theory of verbal humor that is based merely on analysis of texts, it is not a clear option for the analysis of stand-up comedy acts although, standup comedy acts are based on written texts that have been made by the comedian before they come to the stage. This seems to indicate that GTVH as a theory of verbal humor is not able to analyze or explain the use of verbal humor. Furthermore, the notion of opposition that GTVH proposes is not always present in jokes in stand-up comedy. 2.2 Verbal Expressions of Aggressiveness Aggression is a part of human society; although its expression is differ across societies and cultures. Aggression is defined as a general term used to refer to all activities (physical or verbal) which aims at inflicting physical or psychological injuries real or symbolic (Paisert,2004). It is usually a reaction of frustration, but also a manifestation of hostility or a forceful action especially when intended to dominate. Also in Tereszkiewicz (2004) stated that we may identify negative expression of emotions, as well as paralanguage and in humor that used to display sarcasm and irony as a verbal aggressive expressions. Kayany ( in Tereszkiewicz 2004:225) analyzed the form of verbal expressions: Personal attacks name calling, insulting, humiliating,

12

Argument criticism negative evaluation of others argumentation, ridiculing the others opinion in vulgar terms;

General expression of negative emotions and general vulgarity expression of negative feelings and general opinions, venting

In the strongest context one, we may find the most frequent instances of verbal aggressions such as insulting and humiliating. However in this recent study about humor, the verbal aggressive expressions may utter explicitly or in indirect way by using irony, sarcasm and ridicule, or the lightest one as satire. Later we could investigate also what or who is the target of aggression, and what is the function of using the verbal aggression in humor particularly in stand-up comedy performances.

2.2.1 Irony Irony is often described as saying something but meaning the opposite. However, Hutcheon in (De Chille 2011:17) argues that irony does not only involve the semantic substitution of the literal meaning of an utterance for its figurative meaning, but both meanings can be considered in order to recognize a particular utterance as ironic. She states that irony is not only used to signify something but actually also perform a certain action. Thus, the views of irony not only as a semantic process but also as a pragmatic phenomenon whereby the speaker expresses what they think or feels towards what they are saying.

13

According to Wilson and Sperber (2007), irony is basically a communicative act that expresses the opposite of what is literally said. Experts consider two types of irony: verbal irony and situational irony. Most theories explain that verbal irony communicates an opposite meaning; i.e. a speaker says something that seems to be the opposite of what he/she means. Situational irony, in contrast, is an unexpected or incongruous property in a situation or event; i.e. situations that are just not meant to be. Grice in (Attardo , 2004:111) presents a model of irony. Grice treats irony as an implicature. He serves with the following points: The ironic meaning is arrived at inferentially and more or less independently from the literal meaning of the utterance, hence Irony is entirely a pragmatic phenomenon

Grice considers that an expression is ironic, if and only if, it intentionally violates any conversational maxim. In irony, as well as in many varieties of humor, the subversive frame often presents a criticism of a target, the victim of the ironic frame, but often the target of the joke or irony is a socially an accepted way of thinking about the topic. Therefore, the subversive frame may depend on shared inside knowledge accessible to those in the know (wolves) but not to outsiders

14

(sheeps / victim) (De Chile, 2011). Many comedians use irony intended to criticize one state of issues from the reference point to another.
Aggressiveness conveys a metaphorical meaning when is conducted to an ideological target, for example gender, or institutions, etc. Sometimes it is very difficult to identify it, even when an aggressive element is clearly present.

2.2.2 Ridicule and Sarcasm Ridicules are features of the joke telling techniques that display impoliteness and aggressiveness. They are used to overtly reject another person's or group's identity. Speakers often use ridicule to make fun of someone else or even to insult or attack someone verbally. Berger (in Schwarz 2010:107) defines ridicule as "a form of direct verbal attack against a person, thing, or idea." Wilson also (in Schwarz 2010:107) states that "the joker derides all or a portion of his audience" in expressing ridicule. He even distinguishes various types of ridicule and also presents "private ridicule", "shared-ridicule" and "self-ridicule". This definition shows that private ridicule is directed to real people who are either living or dead, and it is principally used to disparage racial and cultural minorities. Shared ridicule is being used when the jokers deride themselves and their audience at the same time. According to (Schwarz 2010) the verb "ridicule" carries a very negative connotation and actually is not intended to be funny. But the use of self-deprecation creates 15

humor by presenting the comedian's own shortcomings with which he wants to

amuse the audience. So actually it can be considered a positive source for creating humor which even helps the comedians to express solidarity and make the audience identify with them. By ridiculing someone or something, the speaker wants to express hostility and superiority by criticizing the behavior of a specific person or group in question. In stand-up comedy, we often found private and shared ridicules, which focus on a specific person or group by presenting them as ridiculous and silly. But when the speakers start using themselves as the target or commonly called the butt of the joke, they prefer to take selfdeprecating action rather than criticizing themselves. Sometimes comedians use self-deprecating humor to reveal weaknesses that can be generalized for all human beings so that it even tends to turn into shared ridicule. Nevertheless, Wilson stresses that ridicule is a technique which allows the speaker to criticize one's opponents in a "jocular format" ( Schwarz 2010:110). Thus, ridicule is a technique people use daily in their everyday lives. There are many situations in which they react with sarcasm, which is also a form of ridicule. Attardo (1999) defines sarcasm as an overtly aggressive type of irony, with clearer markers/cues and a clear target. According to Toplak in (De Chile 2011:33), there are many factors which affect the use, or degree of sarcasm in everyday language which are exaggeration, nature of the speaker, relationship of speaker to victim, severity of the criticism, and whether or not the criticism is being made in private or in front of an audience. However, McDonald s states in

16

(De Chile 2011:33) there is one basic factor regarding sarcasm: It is a form of ironic speech commonly used to convey implicit criticism with a particular victim as its target. Although sarcasm and irony regards as related phenomena, some says that sarcasm is more pointed, blatant and negative than irony. As Macdonalds in (De Chile 2011:34) proposed, the assumption that irony and sarcasm are essentially the same thing, with superficial differences, and the Toplak and Katz (De Chile 2011:34) conclusions; the factors involved to differentiate sarcasm from irony in this research study were: the level of aggressiveness ( for instance, if the utterance might be considered to be a face threatening or a face saving act), and even more important if the utterance was applied positive or negative politeness, by connecting irony with the concept of politeness and sarcasm with the concept of impoliteness, while sarcasm may be a polite version of criticism, it is a form of criticism that is usually accompanied by particular negative attitudes, such as disapproval, contempt, scorn, and ridicule. Sarcasm makes use of "cutting, contemptuous, and "biting" remarks, delivered often in a hostile manner" (Berger in De Chile 2011:34). Berger also stresses that sarcasm is used "as a stance, as an everyday manner of dealing with people." In using it, people often say exactly the opposite of what they mean. It often happens that someone tells a story which is interesting and funny in their opinion, whereas for others, it does not seem to be funny at all. The same reaction occurs when speakers make mistakes. This situation immediately provokes ridicule, which leads to general laughter and amusement. Only rarely

17

are such slips of the tongue ignored and treated politely. Normally, speakers and listeners try to mock wherever possible.

2.2.3 Satire In terms of the humor theories, it is clear that ridicule and satire are closest to Plato's hostility theory. Satire is mostly used to make fun of people superior to oneself. According to Berger (in Schwarz 2010), "satirists attack specific individuals or institutions or happenings". Koestler (also in Schwarz 2010) defines satire as "verbal caricature which distorts characteristic features of an individual or society by exaggeration and simplification. Satire
can be considered a subcategory of ridicule and is thus a further humor technique that can be regularly found in stand-up comedy sessions. 2.3 Pragmatic Elements

Pragmatics studies the uses and effects of language in the concrete situations. Leech (1983) states that pragmatics concerns the principles of language uses, the meaning in pragmatics is defined relative to a speaker or user of the language. It means that language is only meaningful in its situational context. Levinson (1983) also states that pragmatic theory concerns with the inference of presupposition, implicature, and participants entire knowledge of the world and a general principle of language usage. While Yule (1996) defined pragmatics concern is the study of meaning as

18

communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a listener (or reader). In conclusion, pragmatics concerns with human verbal

communication in a context. Some of the aspects of language studied in pragmatics include: Presupposition: A presupposition is referring to the logical meaning of a sentence or meanings logically associated with or entailed by a sentence (Yule, 1996). Further, Yule explained that the presupposition and the entailment are produced by the speakers, not from the sentence. The speaker can assume some potential presuppositions from the utterance, for instance: Dewis brother bought three cars. From the utterance above, the speaker would normally have the presuppositions that there is a person named Dewi that has a brother. The speaker may also assume that Dewis brother has much money that he could afford to buy three cars. All these presuppositions can be wrong; in fact the communication happened without being said. Performative Performative means to imply that by each a speakers utterance not only says something but also does certain things: such as giving information, stating a fact or simulating an attitude. The study of performatives led to the hypothesis of Speech act theory that holds that a speech event embodies

19

three acts: a locutionary act, an illocutionary act and a perlocutionary act (Austin, 1962) While Searle in1969 put classifications of speech acts into: Representatives: commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed propositions (e.g. asserting, concluding) Directives: attempt by the speaker to get the hearer to do something (e.g. request, question) Commissives: commit the speaker to some future course of action (e.g. promise, offer, threat) Expressives: express a psychological state (e.g. thanks, apologies, welcome, congratulation) Declarations: effect changes in the institutional state of affairs (e.g., declaring war, christening) Implicature The implicatures use is to convey an additional meaning. Implicature is referring to an indirect or implicit meaning of an utterance derived from context that is not present from its conventional use. From the general expression like boys will be boys, if they used in conversation, clearly the speaker intends to communicate more than it is said (Yule, 1996). 20

Grices Cooperative Principle Pragmatics are also exploring why interlocutors can successfully

converse with one another in a conversation. A basic idea is that interlocutors obey certain principles in their participation so as to sustain the conversation. One such principle is the cooperative principle, which assumes that interactions cooperate in the conversation by contributing to the ongoing speech event (Grice, 1975). As stated: Make your conversational contribution what is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged . This principle was fleshed out in a series of maxims. Maxims of Quantity: 1. Make your contribution as informative as required. 2. Dont make your contribution more informative than is required. Maxims of Quality: Be truthful. 1. Dont say what you believe to be false. 2. Dont say what you lack adequate evidence for.

21

Maxim of Relation: Be relevant. Maxims of Manner: Be perspicuous. 1. Avoid obscurity of expression. 2. Avoid ambiguity. 3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity). 4. Be orderly.
Grice (1975) proposes that communication takes place through the unconscious following of these maxims. It is noted that Grice distinguishes instances where the maxims may be flouted, opted out, or violated. Politeness Politeness often used as indirect communication. As George Yule (1996) stated as: Politeness is a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange.

Within the Politeness Principle, face has two forms: a positive form, which is used when face is reflected in the desire to be liked, approved of, respected and appreciated by others. And a negative form, which is used when face is

22

reflected in the desire not to be impeded or put upon, to have the freedom to act as one chooses. According to Yule (1996), the connection between these two concepts Face and Politeness can be explained in the sense that face (public selfimage of a person) refers to that emotional and social sense of self that everybody has an expects everyone else to recognize. While politeness is defined as the means employed to show awareness of another persons face. People in social interaction behave as if their face-wants will be respected. As Yule (1996) points out if a speaker says something that represents a threat to another individuals expectations regarding self-image, it is a Face threatening Act. Optionally, the speaker can say something to lessen the possible threat, it is known as face saving act. According to this perspective, a face saving act will show deference, will emphasize the importance of the others concerns and include an apology for the imposition or interruption when it would be oriented to the persons negative face. And will show solidarity, will emphasize that both speakers want the same thing, and also have a shared goal that would be concerned with a persons positive face.
Brown and Levinson (1987) suggest super strategies for performing facethreatening acts. There are four possibilities for performing an FTA:

23

1. Performing an FTA without any redress (bald on record) 2. Performing an FTA with redress (positive politeness) 3. Performing an FTA with redress (negative politeness) 4. Performing an FTA using off-record politeness 2.4 Stand-Up Comedy Stand-up comedy is the term for a special genre of comedy in which the performer, who is called the stand-up comedian, stands on the stage and speaks directly to the audience. Usually, stand-up comedians tell jokes about their own experiences, or daily life jokes. But even at the beginning of the appearing of this comedy, it became a media to criticize politic and social situations that time. The performer of the act is known as stand-up comedian and has no backup on stage that is, the success or failure of the show rests entirely on their shoulders. Although some comedians have screenwriters who help them in their routines, most comedians are responsible for their performances. Many stand-up comedians bring social issues as their material to produce social critics in a humorous manner. The beginning of stand-up comedy in Europe was in United Kingdom, which began in the music halls of the 18 th and 19th centuries. They combined comedy and theatre musical. Under the regime of the ruler that time, their acts have to pass the censorship. At the end of World War II, many members of the Armed Forces had developed a taste of comedy in wartime concert 24

parties and moved into professional entertainment. It is believed that stand-up comedy was originally performed as a one man show. This type of comedy lately, started to involve a group of young comedians, especially in Europe. If we talk about the history of stand-up comedy in Indonesia, the names like Taufik Savalas, Butet Kertarajasa, and Ramon P. Tommybend, were the pioneers. They began to perform in a caf at Jakarta. Butet Kertarajasa has his own character in doing stand-up comedy, he combines it with theatre act. At this recently development, we may hear names such as, Raditya Dika, Panji Pragiwaksono, and Asep Suadji.

25

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research design This study uses qualitative research approach which functions to serve lived experience directly not through an abstract generalization. Descriptive method is going to use to explain, analyze and classify the data (Gay:1987). 3.2 Technique of Data collection The data are going to collected by transcribing the utterances from videos downloaded from Youtube.com. The videos are the performances of stand-up comedians in Stand-Up Comedy Indonesia season 3 in Kompas Television. Those videos then will be transcribed and analyze for this study.

3.3 Technique of Data analysis The data analysis in this research will involve the several analytical procedures. These procedures and the criteria underlying the descriptive point that were carefully selected. The initial stage of the research involved the selection of orthographic transcription of the stand-up routines through the repeated watching and listening of the Stand-Up Comedy Indonesia season 3 in Kompas Television downloaded from youtube. Therefore, it was not possible to access the original scripts of the routines selected for analyses. After the orthographic transcription process is completed, the next step is to carefully examine every utterance of the comedians and determine to be 26

considered as the verbal aggressive. Every verbal aggressive expression then

categorized to further analyze especially in order to account the different components involved in the expression of humor. Thereby, eleven descriptive features were selected that were to validate, or otherwise the research questions. All of them are in fact pragmatic categories. They are as follows: Type of utterance, Implicature, direct speech act, indirect speech act, Cooperative Principle maxim-violation-based Principle, Face-saving act, Face-threatening act, Target, Audiences reaction, Punchline and social function.

27