美國情境喜劇《宅男行不行》的社會語言學分析

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩士班碩士論文 Master Thesis Graduate Institute of English National Taiwan Normal University. 美國情境喜劇《宅男行不行》的社會語言學分析. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of American Sitcom The Big Bang Theory. 指導教授：蘇席瑤博士 Advisor: Dr. Hsi-Yao Su 研究生：周奕辰 Student: Yi-Chen Chou. 中華民國一○○年二月 February 2011.

(2) 摘要本論文探討美國情境喜劇《宅男行不行》中與刻板印象相關的幽默及笑點。本劇主角為四位「宅男1」(nerds)以及一位活潑的女性，宅族與非宅族間的互動，以及宅男的刻板印象再現為本劇主要的幽默來源。根據 Bucholtz (2001)的研究，美國社會中 nerd 的主要刻板印象為「社會適應不良」及「智力高於常人」。在本劇中，宅男同時被再現為科幻迷、漫畫書迷、以及電玩迷。本劇中的宅男「社會適應不良」在於無法理解語言中語用及社會語言學的重要性：對於語用中禮貌、諷刺、蘊含意義難以理解，以及社會語言學中禁忌話題及對話情境時常忽略。宅男在本劇中「智力高於常人」層面來自於不論情境時常使用正式語或書面語，以及時常對他人展現自己高超的智力，也透過自己對科學、科技的精通展示自己的男性氣概。另外，劇中的宅男被再現為科幻迷、漫畫書迷、以及電玩迷，時常引用及背誦科幻作品中的台詞，以及討論科幻作品情境及角色設定。族裔的刻板印象也是本劇的幽默來源。在五位主角中，一位是猶太人，另一位是印度人，此二族裔的刻板印象也在本劇中出現。另外三位白人主角的刻板印象(例如美國鄉下的成長背景)同樣也是本劇的幽默來源。在《宅男行不行》中，「宅」即是相對於「不宅」，因此許多情境都需要參照角色來反襯宅男與「一般人」的不同之處，通常不宅的那位女性為參照角色，但是隨情境需要可能調整。關鍵字：幽默、刻板印象、宅/宅男、情境喜劇、族裔. 1. 「宅男」為一文化相關字彙。美式英語(Standard American English)中的 nerd/geek 與台灣國語 (Taiwan Mandarin)中的「宅/宅男」涵義並不完全相同，本文作者採用「宅男」這個翻譯是為了配合片商將本情境喜劇引進台灣時所翻譯的劇名《宅男行不行》，並不代表作者對於此翻譯的偏好。 i.

(3) Abstract This thesis aims to explore the stereotype-related humor in the American sitcom The Big Bang Theory. The sitcom centers around four male physicists who are considered as “nerds/geeks.” One day, a beautiful and perky girl comes into their lives, and humor ensues from the interaction between the nerds and the non-nerd. The stereotype of nerds is the main humor source of this sitcom. Based on the research of Bucholtz (2001), the stereotype of nerds can be divided into two main dimensions: nerds as social underachievers and nerds as intellectual overachievers. In this sitcom, nerds are also represented as sci-fi, comic book and video games fans. Nerds are considered as socially underachieved because they are represented as underperforming in pragmatic and sociolinguistic dimensions of language. They have trouble adhere to the politeness theory; they have difficulty in comprehending implicature and irony; they are not aware of taboo topics and often fail to consider the setting and scene of a conversation. Nerds are considered as intellectually overachieved because they tend to employ “superstandard” language, i.e., they employ written and formal register across contexts. They are also represented as constantly demonstrating their intellect and knowledge on various topics. They are also likely to demonstrate their mastery in scientific and technological fields. Nerds are represented as sci-fi, comic books, and video games fans in this sitcom. They engage in sci-fi works and activities with strong fervor, and they often can recite and quote the lines of sci-fi movies, and constantly debate on the events in the hypothesized universe in sci-fi works. Ethnic stereotypes are another source of humor in The Big Bang Theory. Since one of the five main characters is Jewish, and another is Indian, the stereotype of their. ii.

(4) respective ethnicities serves as humor resources. However, the other three Caucasian characters are also parodied in terms of their rural upbringings. In The Big Bang Theory, nerdiness is often represented as being different to non-nerds. The non-nerd girl character often serves as a reference point to nerds in order to demonstrate how deviated from normalcy the nerds are, but in some scenes some of nerds become reference points to contrast extreme nerdiness.. Key words: humor, stereotype, nerd, sitcom, ethnicity. iii.

(5) Acknowledgements I cannot believe that I’ve finally made it to this page. How is this even possible? The whole writing process really feels like giving birth to your brainchild: you know your thesis is not the best in the world, and you doubt how many people will read it through, but still, you cherish the moments of distress, treasure the moments of breakthrough, and of course, be grateful for everyone who helps you and guides you along the way. For me, the completion of this thesis itself is a miracle. To Prof. Hsi-Yao Su: I don’t even know where to begin. We both know that things don’t work very well during the production period of this thesis, and I am truly grateful that you did not give me up. You believe in me more than I believe in myself. What more can I ask for in a teacher? Not to mention that you are always there for me when I have questions and doubts, and constantly provide me with insightful comments and opinions. I feel so blessed to have you as my advisor, for you have done so much more than an advisor. Thank you, with all my heart. To Prof. Miao-Hsia Chang: Thank you for coming to my rescue at the last minute. And frankly, if you didn’t come, I would have run into a dead end. I really appreciate your valuable comments and your compliments. I will remember your recognition and your appreciation of this work, and of course, the courses you have offered to the students. Here I express my gratitude to you. To Prof. Hui-Chen Chan: Thank you for coming from afar (from Maokong, that is) and offer me your knowledge and insight during the thesis defense. We didn’t know each other before, but your heartwarming zeal really moved me, whether on the phone or in person. I am so glad you like my topic of my thesis, and I hope I have provided you with enough comic relief to read through my thesis. Thank you so much.. iv.

(6) To Prof. Hsueh-O Lin: Thank you for your precious critiques and viewpoints during my proposal defense. I wish you will get well soon and come back to NTNU. You have so much to give to your students. To my classmates at NTNU: It has been a pleasure to meet you guys. I’ll remember all the times we shared together, especially all the lunch gatherings. Wish you well in the future. To mom, dad, and my sister Apple: Even though you don’t understand what I have been working on, I am truly touched by your relentless support. Special thanks to Apple, for you have to bear with my (almost) daily whining during the writing process. Since you are currently working on your thesis, you can whine as much as you want to me as an exchange. To my friends: I seldom contact with you during the production of this thesis, and I am sorry about that. I’ll be keeping up with you more in the future. Thanks for your patience. Last but not least, to my paternal grandma: I know you are looking down on me from heaven, and I just want to say to you, I made it! And at the same time, I want to dedicate this thesis to you.. v.

(7) Table of Contents Chinese Abstract i English Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents vi List of Tables viii List of Figures ix Chapter One: Introduction 1 Chapter Two: Literature Review 9 2.1 Indexicality 9 2.2 Nerds and geeks 15 2.3 Humor theory 21 2.4 Politeness theory 25 Chapter Three: Methodology 31 Chapter Four: Data Analysis 38 4.1 Nerds as social underachievers 39 4.1.1 Linguistic performance 40 4.1.1.1 Violation of politeness theory 40 Positive politeness 41 Negative politeness 45 4.1.1.2 Unable to perceive conversational implicature and irony 48 4.1.2 Sociolinguistic incompetence 50 4.1.2.1 Unable to perceive context of setting and scene 51 4.1.2.2 Unable to perceive taboo topics 54 4.1.3 Failure to adapt to social norms 59 4.1.3.1 Social anxiety and awkwardness 59 4.1.3.2 Lack of popular culture knowledge 64 4.1.3.3 Eccentricity 68 4.2 Nerds as intellectual overachievers 72 4.2.1 Linguistic performance: Superstandard language 73 4.2.1.1 Advanced vocabulary 73 4.2.1.2 Formal register structures 76 4.2.1.3 Subtle linguistic nuances 79 vi.

(8) 4.2.2 Sociolinguistic behaviors 81 4.2.2.1 Demonstration of knowledge 81 4.2.2.2 Demonstration of multilingualism 85 4.2.2.3 In-group humor of nerd 90 4.2.2.4 Metalinguistic comment 92 4.2.3 Technology mastery 93 4.3 Nerds as sci-fi, comic book, and video games fans 96 4.4 Ethnic stereotypes 99 4.4.1 Jewish 99 4.4.2 Indian 104 4.4.3 Other ethnic stereotypes 108 4.5 Mismatch of style 112 4.6 Reference point to nerds 118 Chapter Five: Conclusions 126 References 133. vii.

(9) List of Tables Table 1: List of all known Logical Mechanisms 25 Table 2: Positive and negative politeness 29. viii.

(10) List of Figures Figure 1: Language and gender 12 Figure 2: Incongruity-Resolution Model 22. ix.

(11) Chapter One Introduction Language is entwined in our understanding of our surroundings. It is an essential tool for every person to situate oneself in a given society, and through this process we gradually become a socialized individual. In other words, language and society are inseparable; language can be regarded as a social phenomenon, and as Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests, language can shape what we “see” in our world. Since the 20th century, electronic mass media develops rapidly, to the extent of being ubiquitous as of today. Members of a society in which electronic media is available are sure to be molded and shaped by what they see and what they hear on media. Thus, mass media is one of the most powerful agents of socialization in this process. The content of the media, be it factual (e.g. news reports, documentaries), entertaining (e.g. variety shows, game shows), or fictitious (e.g.. soap operas, sitcoms, dramatic television series, made-for-television movies, etc.), all somehow reflect and affect our visions of the world. While we are receiving the information from the media, the information itself is spoken language. It constitutes the essential content for the audience to receive such information. Of all the genres in television contents, situation comedy, or sitcom, is one of the most influential genres of television shows in the development of media, as. 1.

(12) Winzenburg (2004) suggests. He proposes that “sitcoms are the most popular type of programming on the most influential medium in history and have had a major impact on how we think and what we think about” (2004: 11). Sitcom is serial, that is, the characters in the sitcom can develop through the plots prolonged in numerous episodes, and the humor often derives from running gags. The time frame of a sitcom is mostly contemporary, thus sitcoms reflect contemporary social background and language. Also, the setting of a sitcom is mostly in regular households among friends or family members, or in certain workplaces (mostly in offices) among coworkers. The main events in a sitcom mostly deal with daily lives, chores, office work, friendship, and romantic relationships. Since the settings of sitcoms resemble the common situations in the audience, it comes as no surprise that the audience relates and responds to sitcoms, which contributes to the success of sitcom as a genre. Quaglio (2009) states that viewer identification of sitcoms is achieved through language [sic] (2009: 13). Studying sitcoms, especially language in sitcoms, not only helps us understand what is considered humorous, but also helps us understand the mechanisms of language by studying how information is “packaged” during the process of its transmission. In addition, since the intention of comedy is to make the audience laugh, what the audience finds humorous is also worthy of our concern, because why a certain. 2.

(13) linguistic exchange is funny can be attributed to pragmatic and/or sociolinguistic reasons. In previous researches, Hung (2002) discusses at length of Mandarin Chinese cold jokes and the humor mechanism behind them; Shu (2007) analyzes the pragmatic mechanisms and strategies of punchlines in American sitcom Friends, also citing review of theories about humor and its related research. In addition, Shu (2007: 1) cites that Raskin (1985) proposed humor competence in his work, and suggested that it should be integrated into the linguistic competence that is central to Chomskyan approach to linguistic studies. Carrell (1997) further argued that joke competence should be differentiated from humor competence. In any case, it is important to understand humorous texts and exchanges to communicate in daily lives. This is probably why sitcoms are so popular among Americans, and eventually in many parts of the world. The author of this thesis picked out The Big Bang Theory as a subject of research for the following reasons: first, it is a rather novel sitcom premiered in September 2007, and it is still on air, meaning that much academic discussion is to be done. Also, the characters and setting of this sitcom is extraordinary: there are four male characters and a female one, but all four males are the so-called “nerds.” The stereotype of nerds is not the first time being shown in Hollywood: Heyman (2008) points out that in the 1963 film and 1996 remake of The Nutty Professor, the main. 3.

(14) character is a nerdy and socially inept scientist working in a university who invents a potion to transform himself into a savvy, sleek girl-chasing hipster. Also, the Revenge of the Nerds film series from the 1980s to the 1990s tell the story of a bunch of nerds studying computer science in college resisting the bullying of jocks and vying for the attention and love of the girls. In television, the protagonist of CSI, Dr. Gil Grissom, can also be considered as a nerd. He is a forensic entomologist who works in Las Vegas CSI team, and he is also socially inept and peculiar in his approach during his forensic work. The Big Bang Theory is extraordinary in the sense that this is the first sitcom that combines the humor that stems from the stereotype of nerd and accurate science representation. Other than nerds, the sitcom also features other stereotypes, such as ethnic ones. These characters, except for Penny, are not the common people we meet in our daily lives, just as most American sitcom characters; they are all established young scholars working in academia (namely California Institute of Technology). The five central characters are: Dr. Sheldon Cooper, Dr. Leonard Hofstadter, Penny (whose last name remains unknown), Howard Wolowitz, and Dr. Rajesh “Raj” Koothrappali. Sheldon, a theoretical physicist, has an IQ of 187 and got his first Ph.D. at the age of 16. Now in his late 20s, he is an established scholar in his academic field. However, he acts differently from average people: he adheres to strict routines; he. 4.

(15) overly relies on logics; he is somewhat cynical, inconsiderate, and inhumane; he is very dependent on his family and his friends, yet he lacks consideration for them; he lacks knowledge of human interaction, sarcasm, humor and irony, and common popular culture (except for sci-fi themed movies, comics, video games, and online games). To sum up, he has superior knowledge, but his social skills are close to none. Along the course of the series, Sheldon is established as a breakout character, since he embodies the quintessential nerd, and attracts media and audience attention. Anderton (2010) reports that Denhart (2009) sees the character of Sheldon as “narcissistic, socially awkward, childish, hurtful, naive, irascible, selfish, rude, and irrepressible” yet “extremely popular with viewers and even lovable”. He also states that. Sheldon is the ultimate sardonic outsider who’s unaware and unconcerned of the implications of his observations, from which the show derives the bulk of the humor. While his statements often stem directly from his vast intelligence, he's so smart and detached from normal human interaction that he's frequently a jerk. Sheldon is brutally honest, often unaware of the implications of his observations, including his friends' hurt feelings.. Leonard is Sheldon’s roommate, and is Sheldon’s best friend. Also a child prodigy like Sheldon, he is a successful experimental physicist. He is aware that he is a nerd, and he tries very hard to engage in social activities. He has a crush on Penny, their new neighbor, when she moves into the apartment building in the very first episode. He shares the hobby of Sheldon’s, but he always longs for Penny’s attention.. 5.

(16) The sexual tension between Leonard and Penny serves as a main storyline in the series. In season three, Leonard and Penny eventually become couples, but they split up before the season ends. Despite the fact that they are no longer a couple, they still remain friends. Penny is the only main female character in the series, and she can be seen as the antithesis of the four nerdy men. She comes from Nebraska to Los Angeles to become an actress, but is currently working as a waitress. She did not go to college, nor is she specially gifted in any technical field, but she is approachable, energetic, perky, has great social skills, and is knowledgeable about common popular culture. The difference between her and the four men, especially Sheldon, is also one of the sources of the humor in The Big Bang Theory. Penny can be considered as a reference character for the nerds. Howard is an aerospace engineer who always hangs out with Sheldon, Leonard, and Raj, as they share the passion about everything sci-fi and Star Wars. He is currently living with his overbearing mother, and unlike the other nerds, does not own a Ph.D. degree, which bothers Sheldon very much (although he has a master’s degree from MIT, as he often emphasizes when questioned about his intelligence). He sees himself as a “ladies man” and often uses socially inappropriate language to seduce any woman surrounding him, including Penny. Since his Jewish ethnicity is. 6.

(17) repeatedly emphasized in the series, the punchlines about Howard are often based on his Jewish upbringing and his flamboyant language. Raj is an Indian astrophysicist working in the United States. He suffers from serious social anxiety, to the extent that he has selective mutism, which means that he is unable to speak when there are women other than his female family members around him. When Penny is with them, he is always silent, and whispers into Howard’s ear if he has something to say. However, under the influence of alcohol, he transforms into a womanizer and speaks with sleek language, and often brands himself as a poor but intelligent young scholar coming from an exotic subcontinent, but in actuality his family is very rich. In addition, although he comes from New Delhi and is well-educated, it is made clear in the series that his mother tongue is English, and he always speaks English, even when talking to his family via webcam. Nevertheless, he demonstrates some knowledge of Hindi in certain episodes. These characters’ attributes and special backgrounds bring about some possible research questions. This thesis aims to explore: (1) What are the sociolinguistic factors that the script writers employ to construct stereotypes, and in this sitcom, mainly nerds? Is there any other kind of stereotypes that are incorporated into this sitcom? (2) How are pragmatic strategies employed to help represent the stereotypes in. 7.

(18) The Big Bang Theory? (3) What is the relationship between do sociolinguistic factors and pragmatic strategies in forming stereotypes, such as nerds? The first research question deals with how the writers of this sitcom construct stereotypes. There is a specific social group that is depicted in this sitcom, namely nerds. What are the stereotypes that nerds are represented? And how do these stereotypes come to be realized by the script writers and the audience as humorous? The second question aims to sort out the pragmatic mechanisms of humor. Since the goal of a sitcom is to make audience laugh, what are the pragmatic strategies employed in The Big Bang Theory in order to make the content humorous? Finally, what is the relationship between sociolinguistic factors and pragmatic strategies in making the sitcom script humorous? How can we come to understand the humor in this sitcom is not only based on sociolinguistic or pragmatic reasons, but on the relationships between the two major factors? To sum up, this research aims to observe the sociolinguistic implications in this series from an outsider and an audience point of view, hoping to decode the perception of the American society of the particular social group of nerds through sociolinguistic analysis of the script.. 8.

(19) Chapter Two Literature Review In order to interpret the data of The Big Bang Theory, some issues must be tackled first. This chapter reviews some studies that have been done and theories that have been established to perceive the humor in sitcoms. The covered topics are: (1) the notion of indexicality; (2) nerd as a social group in American society, (3) humor research, and (4) politeness theory.. 2.1 Indexicality Bucholtz (2001) provides us with a simple definition of indexicality, “Indexicality involves the establishment of a connection between a linguistic form and its social significance through the recognition of their repeated conjunction; although there is no inevitable tie between form and meaning, it eventually come to be seen as inevitable hence ideological” (2001: 88). In Irvine & Gal’s (2000) study on language ideology, this process of indexicality is called iconization. Any language, or any specific linguistic trait, is seen to be inherent, iconic, and reflective of the essential characters of its users. Since languages rely on people to speak it, somehow the connection between a speaker and a language, a linguistic structure, or a style, is established. This connection between a speaker and his/her language is not only of juxtaposition but of resemblance.. 9.

(20) In her influential study on indexicality of language, Ochs (1992) undertakes her research from gender and language, and states that. Sociological and anthropological studies of language behavior are predicated on the assumptions that (1) language systematically varies across social contexts and (2) such variation is part of the meaning indexed by linguistic structures. Sociolinguistic studies tend to relate particular structures to particular situational conditions, or clusters of structures to such conditions. The meanings so indexed are referred to as social meanings, in contrast to purely referential or logical meaning expressed by linguistic structures. (1992: 337-38). That is to say, every competent member of a given speech community is able to interpret the social meanings of a linguistic structure, be it phonetic (e.g. rhoticization or not in Taiwan Mandarin), phonological (r-coloring vowels in American English versus the lack of r-coloring vowels in British English), morphological (sentence final morphological particles –ze and –wa in Japanese), grammatical (lack of copula verbs in AAVE), or pragmatic (the discourse function of dude among younger generations in the U.S., see Kiesling (2004)). Members in these respective speech communities are able to identify what kind of age, class, ethnicity, race, gender when a speaker shows or lacks such linguistic trait, and at the same time, they “give away” their background information the moment they begin to speak. In other words, we judge others, and are judged by others, from the words that come out from our mouth. This kind of social meaning is systematic, and can be indexed by language. 10.

(21) structure. Ochs cited philosophers Bahtkin (1981) and Vološinov (1973), and they state that utterances may have several “voices.” When a piece of information, encoded with language, is in the process of transmission, the voices of speaker/writer may blend into the message, and then turn into part of the social meanings indexed within the message. Social context can also be indexed either referentially or non-referentially. Silverstein (1985) proposes that referential indexes are a major source of linguistic construction of gender ideology. Take third person pronoun for example, if you address someone as “Mister”, the audience can identify that the addressee must be a male adult. However, non-referential indexes are the majority from a sociolinguistic viewpoint. For example, voice pitch is an index of speaker’s gender. We can not choose the pitch of our own voice, but we judge each other’s gender when voice pitch is the only available measure, for example, in telephone conversations. Thus, pitch has its social meanings in its own right, and through the process of socialization, every member of the society acquires this way to distinguish male and female. Ochs postulates a figure that shows how language and gender form a constitutive relation. She indicates that “one or more linguistic features may index social meanings (e.g. stances, social acts, social activities), which in turn helps to constitute gender meanings” (1992: 341). The relation between language and gender is. 11.

(22) constituted by a web of socially organized pragmatic meanings:. linguistic resources lexicon morphology syntax phonology dialect language, etc.. Stances. Acts. Activities. Gender. = direct indexical relations = constitutive, indirect indexical relations Figure 1: Language and gender (Ochs 1992: 342). Figure 1 shows that linguistic resources can directly indexes to stances, acts, social activities, and gender (through referential indexes such as “she,” “Miss,” or “little girl”). But the relations between stances, acts, social activities and gender are constitutive, that is, indirectly indexed. Researches on indexicality and language aim to discover such indirect relations. Eckert (2008) provides us an account of variation and the indexical field. She argues that the meaning of variables are not precise or fixed but rather constitute a field of potential meanings—an indexical field, or constellation of ideology related 12.

(23) meanings, any one of which can be activated in the situated use of the variable. The construction of ideology is rooted in variation. This indexical system “embeds ideology in language and that is in turn part and parcel of the construction of ideology” (2008: 453). For traditional variationist sociolinguists, the spread of sound change and its meaning in a society is the main focus of their researches. Labov (1971) distinguishes between indicators, markers, and stereotypes. As Eckert (2008) cited, in Labov’s terms, “indicators are dialectal variables that distinguish social or geographic categories but have no notice and do not figure in variation across the formality continuum”, while “markers and stereotypes are variables that have attracted sufficient attention to emerge within those categories in stylistic variation”(2008: 463). The way to tell the difference between markers and stereotypes is that the former are not subject to metapragmatic discussion, while the latter does. Indicators, in Silverstein’s (2003) terms, are first-order index, they only indexes membership in a population. When social meanings are attached to a linguistic trait, they become markers, or second-order index. A form with an indexical value is termed an nth order usage, and is always available for reinterpretation, that is, the social meaning between form and meaning is made and remade. It can acquire an n+1st value. This is the result of an ideological move, and eventually expands to an indexical field.. 13.

(24) Campbell-Kibler (2007) reports on (ING) pronunciation and the indexical field of its pronunciation in the United States. She demonstrated that hearers associate velar variant with education, intelligence, articulateness, formality, effortful pronunciation, but it also indexes pretentious and distance, while the apical variant was interpreted by the listeners as uneducated, lazy, inarticulate, but relaxed, easygoing, and unpretentious. The positive and negative impressions that one has toward the speakers of these (ING) variants are based on the judgments of the hearer. While every member may agree on who uses what variant (i.e. first-order indexicality), the ideological orientations of hearers can be polar opposite: some like the velar variant because they think the speakers of this variant can be powerful, formal, polite, educated, etc., while others do not like the speakers of it because the speakers can be pretentious, insincere, or condescending. One important idea about indexical field is that the indexes are fluid, that is, some indexes are of more permanent qualities, and others are of temporary stances. In the case of /t/ articulation in American English, Eckert (2008) reports that the hyperarticulation of /t/ releases are found in various unrelated social categories: nerd girls (Bucholtz 2001, Moore & Podesva 2009), Orthodox Jewish boys (Benor 2001), and gay men (Podesva, Roberts and Campbell-Kibler 2002). /t/ release is used by nerd girls to characterize themselves as intellectual mavericks; it is used by Orthodox. 14.

(25) Jewish boys to show they receive traditional Jewish religious education; it is also one of the features of stereotypical gay speech. From this example we can see that a single linguistic element can be attached to many different social meanings when used by different people in different contexts. It is suffice to prove that language carries more weight than just grammatical forms and semantic meanings. After watching the sitcom, it is safe to state that the general audience responds to the punchlines that corresponds to the stereotype of nerds. From a linguistic point of view, some linguistic behaviors, such as being pragmatically incapable of having appropriate conversations and often demonstrating anecdotal knowledge on various topics, are indexing nerdiness. The audience is aware of such index so that they find the sitcom funny.. 2.2 Nerds and geeks The basic definition of nerd is someone who is “an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially [sic] one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Merriam-Webster Dictionary cites the children’s book If I Ran the Zoo by Dr. Seuss (1950) as the earliest written occurrence (“And then, just to show them, I’ll sail to Ka-Troo and Bring Back an It-Kutch, a Preep and a Proo, a Nerkle, a Nerd, and a Seersucker, too!”), in which a nerd is a fictitious creature, Eglash (2002) reports that the earliest use in its contemporary sense. 15.

(26) was cited from student-produced burlesque at Swarthmore College in 1960. The term was not in common usage until the 1970s, when it became a stock phrase on the American sitcom Happy Days (2002: 61). Bucholtz (2001) defines nerds as “members of a stigmatized social category who are stereotypically cast as intellectual overachievers and social underachievers” (2001: 85). Kendall (2000) cites an online test (the Nerdity Test) which specifies the characteristics of a nerd: “fascination with technology, interest in science fiction and related media such as comic books, and perceived or actual social ineptitude and sartorial disorganization” (2000: 262). The character of nerd is also stereotypically gender-specific to men, as Kendall (2000) cites Cockburn (1985: 12), “Technology enters into our sexual identity; femininity is incompatible with technological competence; to feel technically competent is to feel manly.” This generally explains why women do not occupy the stereotypical image of a nerd. As for geek, Eglash (2002) does not make distinction between this word and nerd. He uses nerd and geek interchangeably to reduce repetition (2002: 64). Merriam-Webster Dictionary suggests that geek is: (1) a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake; (2) a person often of an intellectual bent who is disliked; and (3) an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity, i.e. a computer geek. The first. 16.

(27) meaning of geek is completely unrelated to the topic concerned here, so it can be neglected, but the second and the third meaning overlap with the definition of nerd. The shared meaning between geek and nerd is that they both refer to people who are intellectually superior but is socially inept, but geek tends to collocate with “computer”. However, it is not surprising that nerds are superior in the knowledge of computer science, or any other sub-disciplinary of science, thus it seems that the term nerd is much more general than geek, and this is the reason why the author of this thesis chooses the word “nerd” and “nerdy” to refer to the people with such quality in this work. Some researches about language and nerds have been done. Bucholtz (1999) takes a viewpoint of “community of practice” toward the research on language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. She defines nerds as people who oppose “cool” stance, or any other social identity (1999: 211). She cites Eckert (1989), “If a Jock is the opposite of a Burnout, a nerd is the opposite of both.” Bucholtz also regards nerds as people who “to a great extent consciously choose and display their identities through language and other social practices” (1999: 211), and nerds in American high schools “are not socially isolated misfits, but competent members of a distinctive and oppositionally defined community of practice” (1999: 211). Bucholtz (1998) also stated that nerd identity is linguistically indexed through their linguistic. 17.

(28) practices on various levels. There are some linguistic practices employed by nerds, some of them can be categorized as “negative identity practices,” that is, they establish their nerd identity by not employing certain linguistic features, such as resistance to colloquial phonological processes such as vowel reduction, consonant-cluster simplification, and contraction; avoidance of nonstandard syntactic forms; avoidance of current slang. Other practices can be categorized as “positive identity practices,” such as employment of superstandard and hypercorrect phonological forms, adherence to stand and superstandard syntactic forms, employment of lexical items associated with the formal register (e.g. Greco-Latinate forms), and orientation to language form. Bucholtz (2001) continues her research of nerds and proposes that nerds use a special variety of English, namely “superstandard English.” Standard English in the U.S. can be seen as “the notion of an idealized prescriptive standard, usually based on formal written language, and the spoken vernacular believed most closely to approximate it” (2001: 87-88). However, there are differences between the spoken Standard English and formal written Standard English. Superstandard English, as Bucholtz terms the variety of English used by nerds, has following features: “lexical formality, carefully articulated phonological forms, and prescriptively standard grammar” (2001: 88). This variety of English surpasses the prescriptive norm. 18.

(29) established by the standard, hence the name “superstandard.” Nevertheless, superstandard English occasionally over-applies the prescriptive grammatical rules and produces hypercorrect forms, which is extremely marked from the point of view of the linguistic ideology in the U.S. Bucholtz also notes that superstandard English “draws on the prescriptive standard, it also contributes to the linguistic ideologies that elevate one linguistic variety over others” (2001: 88). This ideology is compatible to the image of the nerds, since they are highly intelligent. In the society where high IQ is considered an advantage over others, this variety adds the flavor of nerds being in an elevated position in the society. Bucholtz further argues that superstandard English is considered to be a racialized style, that is, it is white-exclusive. She points out that this notion is likewise a work of ideology. In another research related to nerds, Moore & Podesva (2009) study the style, indexicality, and the social meaning of tag questions. They launched an ethnographical research in a high school in northwest England, and they discovered that four small social groups of girls in this school have different styles of employing tag questions, and these tags produced by the girls index to different qualities, since these four groups have completely different social protocols and attitudes within a group. One of the four groups is the geek girls. Moore & Podesva conclude that geek girls use more conservative phonology, and when talking about relationship with boys,. 19.

(30) geek girls tend to “offer their opinions and views about hypothetical relationships, with generic you” (2009: 473). They are more prone to talk with an objective voice, and sometimes they use tags to demonstrate their knowledge or to show their ability to engage in a discussion with an authoritative tone. Tags are employed by the geek girls to establish authority and power onto the addressee; this is an exceptional phenomenon unique to the group of geek girls. Eglash (2002) discusses at length on the relations among nerds, race, and gender, and how the nerd identity has become a “gatekeeper in science and technology participation” (2002: 49). He cites one previous research done by Turkle (1984):. Turkle (1984) vividly describes nerd self-identity in her ethnographic study of undergraduate men at MIT. In one social event “they flaunt their pimples, their pasty complexions, their knobby knees, their thin, underdeveloped bodies” (196); in interviews they describe themselves as losers and loners who have given up bodily pleasure in general and sexual relations in particular. But Turkle notes that this physical self-loathing is compensated for by technological mastery. (Eglash 2002: 49). From this citation, one can see that being a nerd is not always negative and undesirable: their social awkwardness and ineptitude are compensated by their technological mastery. That is to say that nerds are masculine, but different from traditional masculinity. They may lack the force, power and the violence that traditional masculinity requires, but they make it up with their knowledge and control of technology. This aspect of nerds is represented in The Big Bang Theory. 20.

(31) 2.3 Humor Theory Since the 1970s, humor research has begun to develop, and to this day, it is now an independent discipline of study itself. The most established humor theories are: Incongruity-Resolution Theory, Raskin’s (1985) Semantic Script Theory of Humor, and finally Raskin and Attardo’s (1991) General Theory of Verbal Humor. See Hung (2002) and Shu (2007) for a more detailed account on these theories. The original Incongruity-Resolution Theory (IRT) is proposed in the 1970s, and it explains how a joke works: the joke consists of two parts, namely the set-up of the joke and the punchline of the joke. There is always some level of discrepancy, known here as incongruity, between the set-up and the punchline of a joke; when the hearer of the joke detects such incongruity, his or her cognition will try to resolve such incongruity. If the incongruity is resolved, that is, the hearer reinterprets the set-up, and the less obvious interpretation is evoked, and so is the humor. If the incongruity is not solved, the hearer will not be able to reinterpret the set-up, and no other interpretation will be evoked, and neither is humor. When this situation happens, the hearer will not regard the joke as funny, or feel puzzled and lost, or even question the validity of the said joke. The model of incongruity resolution is represented in the following figure (cited from Hung 2002: 6):. 21.

(32) Yes Story or cartoon set-up. Prediction. Is Ending. or. as. Outcome. predicted?. No Surprise Find rule that makes ending. No Surprise. follow from preceding material. Is rule found?. Yes Laughter. No Puzzlement. Figure 2: Incongruity-Resolution Model (adopted from “A Two-Stage Model for the Appreciation of Jokes and Cartoons”, by J. Sul 1972). In Figure 2, when one reads a story or a cartoon set-up, one would predict the ending. If the ending is just like what is predicted, then there is no surprise, hence no humor. If the ending is not like what is predicted, incongruity ensues. At this stage, one must find a solution to the surprise in order to make sense of the whole story. If a rule is found to explain the joke, one laughs at this joke; if no such rule is found, one would feel puzzled, and don’t “get” the joke. This model is essentially a cognitive approach into humor. In Raskin’s Semantic Script Theory of Humor (SSTH), the notion of “scripts” is brought into the analysis of joke. SSTH is the first effort to theorize verbal humor. It does not concern non-verbal humor, i.e. humor without a text, such as funny costumes, 22.

(33) poses, facial expressions or movements. Likewise, the non-verbal humor of The Big Bang Theory will not be part of the data. SSTH focuses on the joke hearer’s cognition of two compatible yet somewhat conflicting scripts. Jokes consist of two overlapping scripts, and only one of them is revealed at the beginning of the joke. The other script is hidden until the punchline appears. Once the punchline appears, the joke hearer will activate another script. That is, the set-up of a joke begins with a script, but the punchline forces the hearer to backtrack and reinterpret the joke text with another script (De Mey 2005: 73). According to Raskin, ambiguity and contradiction triggers the switch of semantic script. Attardo & Raskin (1991) and Attardo (1994) further revise the SSTH into General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH). GTVH introduces six Knowledge Resources (KR) that serve as parameters of jokes. These parameters are: (1) Script Opposition (SO) A script is an interpretation of a joke. SO refers to the fact that there must be two opposing yet compatible script in a joke. Lack of SO will not produce any humor. This parameter is also required in SSTH. (2) Logical Mechanism (LM) This parameter deals with how the two scripts in the joke are brought together.. 23.

(34) (3) Situation (SI) Jokes must set a situation: who the participants are and when and where the event takes place. (4) Narrative Strategy (NS) NS concerns with the narrative organization of the joke: a story, a riddle, a dialogue, etc. (5) Target (TA) Target refers to the individual, or the group, that the joke makes fun of. (6) Language (LA) This parameter refers to all levels of linguistic elements when verbalizing a joke. By combining the different values of these parameters, one can (theoretically) generate an infinite number of jokes, i.e. Joke: {SO, LM, SI, NS, TA, LA} Attardo (1997) argues that Incongruity-Resolution Theory can be mapped onto GTVH. The parameter of Script Opposition corresponds to the incongruity part, while the parameter of Logical Mechanism corresponds to the resolution part. These two parameters are crucial in making a joke. If these two parts are omitted, then the produced text can hardly be understood as a joke. Attardo (2002) further delves into. 24.

(35) the parameter of Logical Mechanism, and proposes a list of all known logical mechanisms: Role reversals. Potency mappings. Role exchanges. Vacuous reversal. Chiasmus. Juxtapositions. Garden path. Faulty reasoning. Figure ground reversal. Almost situations. Self-undermining. Analogy. Inferring consequences. Missing link. Reasoning from false premises. Coincidence. Implicit Parallelism. Parallelism. Proportion. False analogy. Ignoring the obvious. Exaggeration. Cratylism. Field restriction. Metahumor. Referential Ambiguity. Vicious cycle. Table 1: List of all known Logical Mechanisms (Attardo 2002, cited in Shu 2007: 21-22). In the data, example of some Logical Mechanisms can be found, such as “Exaggeration,” “Role reversals,” and “Ignoring the obvious” can be found. But in The Big Bang Theory, very often the Target of the joke is nerd, and it is framed that these Logical Mechanisms are indexical to nerds, that is, these are the behaviors nerds tend to do. Of course, the Target can shift to non-nerds (as a comparison between nerds and non-nerds) or people of certain ethnicity, but the main focus is the nerds.. 2.4 Politeness Theory Politeness has gained much attention in the study of pragmatics in the last forty years. Thomas (1995) reports that since the late 1970s, vast literature has been built up to tackle on issues of politeness, register, and deference. Politeness is a strategy that the interlocutors employ in order to achieve their goals. Contexts are required in. 25.

(36) the study of politeness. Brown & Levinson (1987) propose a complete model of politeness theory, and point out that flouting the maxims of Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle is the strategy that interlocutors employ to be linguistically polite. Cooperative principle is proposed by H. P. Grice in 1975, and this principle is so influential that this set of principle is called the Gricean maxims. The four maxims are: (1) Maxim of quantity Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange). Do not make your contribution more informative than is required. (2) Maxim of quality Do not say what you believe to be false Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence (3) Maxim of manner Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be brief Be orderly (4) Maxim of relevance Be relevant. Cooperative principle explains how linguistic interactions are done. People observe cooperative principle so that the conversation can continue smoothly. If any interlocutor does not follow this principle at all, communication will break down and no further linguistic interaction can be made. In a conversation, the speaker generally 26.

(37) follows the cooperative principle and the addressee generally assumes that the speaker follows it. When a turn is made, the speaker and the addressee exchanges position, and the cooperative principle is still observed, resulting in smooth communication, until they stop talking to each other. The above example is the ideal of communication. Notice that the speaker generally follows this principle and the addressee generally assumes that the speaker follows it. This means that it is possible that either the speaker or the addressee does not follow this principle, and when this happens, the issue of implicature rises. In a sitcom, the lines of characters are written before the shooting begins, thus the script writer must create some lines that flouts the cooperative principle in order to make the audience laugh. Although in naturally-occurring conversations, implicature does not necessarily create humor, but in sitcom scripts, the lines are constructed to be humorous to fulfill the purpose of sitcom. In Shu (2007), one can see that in Friends, there are 5,164 tokens of flouting maxims of CP out of a total of 14,005 funny lines (2007: 39-40). Leech (1983) proposes that politeness is the reason why we speak indirectly, and this is an obvious violation of Grice’s maxim of quantity. He introduces, in his classic Principles of Pragmatics, the Politeness Principle (PP):. 27.

(38) Minimize (all things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs; maximize (all things being equal) the expressions of polite beliefs.. Leech states that PP explains why speakers do not always observe Grice’s Cooperative Principle (CP). Speaking indirectly is a choice and a strategy made by speakers in order to adhere to the PP. Brown & Levinson (1987) appropriates Goffman’s (1967) concept of “face” and postulates that the management of face is essential when dealing with politeness. The origin of the term comes from a Chinese concept of diulian (丟臉), which can be roughly translated into “being ashamed of oneself after doing something worthy of condemnation”. It is constantly directly translated into English literally as “losing face”. We can also “save face,” that is, do not do all things shameful. Thomas (1995) explains that in politeness theory, face “is best understood as every individual’s feeling of self-worth or self-image” (1995: 169). Grundy (2008) states that face can be comparable to self-esteem, and in most encounters, our face is put at risk; therefore, it is necessary that our face be compensated by the use of redressive language in order to satisfy the need of face of our interlocutors. Foley (1997) proposes that “Face is linguistically constructed, and the ability to use verbal skills with facility is how we can manipulate a social encounter to maximize our face gains and minimize our losses” (1997: 270). According to Brown & Levinson (1987), there are two kinds of face: positive face and negative face. Grundy (2008) reviews their work: 28.

(39) Positive face is a person’s wish to be well thought of. Its manifestations may include the desire to have what we admire admired by others, the desire to be understood by others, and the desire to be treated as a friends and a confidant … Negative face is our wish not to be imposed on by others and to be allowed to go about our business unimpeded with our rights to free and self-determined action intact. (2008: 195-196). Grundy (2008) also cited Brown and Levinson’s (1987) list of positive and negative politeness: Positive politeness. Negative politeness. Notice/attend to hearer’s wants Exaggerate interest/approval Intensify interest Use in-group identity markers Seek agreement Presuppose/assert common ground Joke Assert knowledge of hearer’s wants Offer promise Be optimistic Include speaker and hearer in the activity Give (or ask for reasons) Assume/assert reciprocity Give gifts to hearer (goods, sympathy, etc.). Be conventionally indirect Question, hedge Be pessimistic Minimize imposition Give deference Apologize Impersonalize State the imposition as a general rule Normalize Go on record as incurring a debt. Table 2: Positive and negative politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987:102, 131, cited in Grundy 2008: 199). Since we are constantly under the threat of losing our face, there are some strategies that one can employ when he or she wants to perform a face-threatening act (FTA). In Brown & Levinson’s (1987) model, these are the strategies to perform such. 29.

(40) an act:. 1. Do the act on-record (a) baldly, without redress (b) with positive-politeness redress (c) with negative-politeness redress 2. Do the act off-record 3. Do not do the act (cited in Grundy 2008: 197). As a speaker, we have to calculate which of the five strategies above that fits the context the best. Of course, we can also employ multiple strategies to fashion our language should we intend to perform an FTA. Grundy (2008) proposes an equation:. Social Distance + Power Differential + Degree of Imposition = degree of face threat to be compensated by appropriate linguistic strategy (Grundy 2008: 197). It is through this calculation that a speaker chooses to employ what kind of strategy when performing FTAs. Grundy also suggests that in television sitcoms, the miscalculation of such equation serves as a humor resource because this is one of the ways to mark incongruous politeness status of an utterance. Judging from the data collected, this is indeed one of the humor strategies used by the writers of the Big Bang Theory.. 30.

(41) Chapter Three Methodology The first three seasons of The Big Bang Theory are the data of this research. There are 63 episodes of The Big Bang Theory in the corpus. The lines of the four nerdy characters (Leonard, Sheldon, Howard, and Raj) will be the main point of this research, since the goal is to examine how language contributes to character building as nerds. The lines of Penny and other minor and recurring characters will be taken into consideration if necessary, since they often serve the function of a reference point to the four nerds. In addition, the research focuses on sociolinguistic aspects of humor, thus non-verbal humor, such as eccentric movements or peculiar facial expressions performed by actors, are excluded from the discussion. The reason why one can directly claim that the four men are nerds are implied on the official website of this sitcom, since it is the premise and the main source of humor of the show. In the section of “About the show”, it says:. Leonard and Sheldon are brilliant physicists, the kind of "beautiful minds" that understand how the universe works. But none of that genius helps them interact with people, especially women. All this begins to change when a free-spirited beauty named Penny moves in next door. Sheldon, Leonard's roommate, is quite content spending his nights playing Klingon Boggle with their socially dysfunctional friends, fellow CalTech scientists Wolowitz and Koothrappali. However, Leonard sees in Penny a whole new universe of possibilities... including love. (cited from CBS The Big Bang Theory website, section “About”) 31.

(42) From the introduction about the show, one can see that the four characters have “beautiful minds,” a direct reference to the biography of the mathematician John Forbes Nash, Jr. and the popular film adaptation starring Russell Crowe. Nash is a Nobel Prize laureate in Economics, and received his Ph.D. degree at the age of 22. He is a genius, as praised by Nash’s MA thesis advisor (Nasar 2001, xii); however, beginning from his 30s, he was plagued by paranoid schizophrenia that has troubled him for decades. Nash is a quintessential example that excellence of knowledge of someone does not help him/her engage in the society. The comparison between John Forbes Nash Jr. and the four nerds are obvious: they are extremely smart, but lack the ability to adapt to the society as a whole. The four nerds are depicted as having trouble with interacting with people, especially with women; they are “content with playing Klingon boggle,” and are “socially dysfunctional.” The qualities of nerds are introduced in this excerpt: they are sci-fi fans, and they are social underachievers. Penny, on the contrary, is introduced as a “free-spirited beauty,” thus one can see that she is not a nerd because nerds are not in any way “free-spirited”. Since the language in sitcoms is not naturally-occurring language, we should not treat the data as many researchers do when they conduct their studies with naturally-occurring language as data. Rather, an audience perspective will be taken to see how truthful the playwrights of the show represent and depict the linguistic. 32.

(43) practices of the nerds, or the deliberate violation of the linguistic practices of this social group. In addition, the audience of a sitcom may have all the presuppositions necessary to perceive an exchange hilarious, but the character in the sitcom may not. In the vein of humor research, laughter is regarded as a proof of humor, but the segmentation of the data is not divided according to laughter, but to topic chains. Following Chui (2002), this study treats topic chain as “a sequence of clauses about the same subject matter” or phrases that are semantically-related. There are different levels of topic chains, and there may be subdivisions within a topic chain. An example of dividing topic chains is presented below. In this episode, Leonard and Penny had broken up, but Sheldon wants to keep his friendship with Penny. Howard and Raj warned him that it is inadequate to hang out with your best friend’s ex-girlfriend. However, Penny offers to cook spaghetti, his favorite food, for Sheldon, and Sheldon accepts the offer. He insists that hot dogs must be cut into dices and added in the spaghetti. Penny runs out of hot dogs, so Sheldon tries to smuggle some out of his refrigerator without being discovered by Leonard, Howard and Raj by hiding these frozen hot dogs in his pants.. Example (from 320)2 TC 13 (Sheldon and Howard are downstairs) 2. 320 means Season 3 Episode 20. The first digit means season number and the last two digits refer to the episode number. 33.

(44) Sheldon: Say hello to your mother for me. Howard: OK. (opens the front door, while Sheldon stands still) (laughter) Sheldon: What? (laughter) Howard: You said you’re going for a walk. Sheldon: I didn’t say outside. (laughter) Howard: So what, you’re just gonna walk up and down the stairs? Sheldon: No, of course not. (laughter) That would be odd and suspicious behavior. (laughter) (They walk outside the building) TC 14 A woman passing by: Come on, …! Here boy! (calling her dog) TC 15 Howard: Which way are you going? Sheldon: Which way are you going? (laughter) Howard: I parked my scooter down the block= Sheldon: =I am going the other way. Bye (not moving). (laughter) Howard: Bye. (leaves, and turns around) Actually it’s this way. (laughter) (Sheldon and Howard walk along) TC 16 Howard: Do I smell hot dogs? (laughter) Sheldon: No. I mean I’ve no idea what you smell. (laughter) Howard: I definitely smell raw hot dogs. Sheldon: Perhaps you’re getting a brain tumor. (laughter) (Howard arrives at his scooter) TC 17 Howard: Alright. Have a nice walk. Sheldon: I shall. Have a nice scoot. (laughter) Howard: You might want to stand back, as I sit on top of 13 horses here (laughter) (Howard leaves riding his scooter, Sheldon waves goodbye) (laughter) TC 18 (A ferocious dog appears in front of Sheldon) (laughter) Sheldon: Oh, hello, doggie. Nice doggie. (The dog barks) (laughter) Sheldon: I bet you think you smell hot dogs. (laughter) (The dog barks loudly) Sheldon: (points) Look, a cat! (laughter) (Sheldon runs away. The dog chases him) (laughter). 34.

(45) In the excerpt above, TC 13 begins with Sheldon and Howard coming down to the first floor of the apartment building, signaling a change of place. They walk out of the door, and a woman passes by and calling for her dog. TC 14 is marked because of the introduction of a new character. TC 15 begins directly without any markers because they just got out of the door, and naturally they have to talk about which way to go, since they are heading for different destinations. TC 16 is designated because Howard brings a new topic into their talk; in this case, he smells hot dogs. TC 17 begins with “alright” a boundary marker, and what follows it is another topic, namely Sheldon and Howard bid goodbye to each other, and ends with Howard’s departure. TC 18 begins with a new character into the situation, in this TC a ferocious dog appears, going after the hot dogs Sheldon has been hiding in his pants. In comparison with Shu’s (2007) and Wen’s (2006) segmentation, the method of conversational topic chains is selected because punchlines in The Big Bang Theory often carries sociolinguistic significance. The punchlines not only employs pragmatic strategies of humor, but also a representation of a certain kind of stereotype. In Shu’s (2007) research of Friends, pragmatic strategies of humor are her main focus, thus segmenting her data with laughter are applicable. In Wen’s (2006) study of Waiting for Godot, the data is a literary work that belongs to the theater of absurd, and the author of this play does not intend to represent daily conversation, thus it is applicable. 35.

(46) to segment the data with punctuation marks. Since The Big Bang Theory is a sitcom with live audience, and sitcom usually reflects naturally-occurring conversation (see Quaglio (2009)), it is not a literary work, so it is impossible to segment the data with punctuation marks. Also, unlike Friends, the premise of The Big Bang Theory is to bring nerds into center stage and nerdiness is the main source of humor, the sociolinguistic factors must be considered when interpreting the data. Segmenting the data laughter by laughter is unable to emphasize its sociolinguistic significance. The data analysis will focus on the stereotypes of nerd as a humor resource. According to Bucholtz (2001), nerds are “members of a stigmatized social category who are stereotypically cast as intellectual overachievers and social underachievers” (2001: 85). The punchlines that contribute to the stereotype of nerds will be sorted into two major categories, “social underachievers” and “intellectual overachievers”. Other stereotype-related punchlines, such as obsession of sci-fi genre works, ethnic stereotypes, and mismatch of styles will be three other categories. Nerds are regarded as people who are social underachievers and intellectual achievers: they are awkward in social situations, i.e., they feel a certain degree of anxiety when socializing with other people, or they do not have good conversational skills. However, they are intellectually superior, and are enthusiastic about knowledge and facts. In terms of linguistic performance, they tend to use formal register across. 36.

(47) contexts, since this register of language is considered to be more precise than colloquial register. The enthusiasm of nerds also shows in sci-fi genre of films, novels, comic books, memorabilia, etc. The sociolinguistic analysis aims to examine how these stereotypes are portrayed as humorous in this sitcom. In addition to the stereotype of nerds, the stereotype of ethnicity will also be discussed since two of the four nerds in the sitcom constantly make reference to their own ethnicity. The emphasis of categorization of the data will cater to the dimensions of nerd stereotypes.. 37.

(48) Chapter Four Data Analysis With 63 episodes of The Big Bang Theory in the corpus, some of the topic chains of the script will be discussed in this chapter to demonstrate how the playwrights of this comedy represent the image of nerds through the manipulation of language and the techniques of language use. There are altogether 2130 topic chains (TCs), 892 sub-topic chains (sub-TCs), 158. sub-sub-topic. chains. (sub-sub-TCs),. 14. sub-sub-sub-topic. chains. (sub-sub-sub-TCs), and 1 sub-sub-sub-sub-topic chain (sub-sub-sub-sub-TC) in the data. The boundary of TCs and subsidiary TCs may coincide, and higher-level TCs cover lower-level TCs. The reason that this research adopts the concept of topic chains is that although topic chains are considered as “without clear and precise definition in nature” (Wen 2006: 44), and topic chain transitions are not easily recognizable in naturally-occurring data, it is suitable for sitcom because (a) sitcoms are scripted, and there are always characters interacting in a given situation (i.e. context). and (b) topic changes are usually indicated by boundary markers, a direct change of topic, a character shows up and change the situation, or a change of place. The structure of sitcom makes conversational topic chains applicable. In terms of categorizing the data, one thing must be mentioned that all the. 38.

(49) categories are not mutually exclusive. In some cases, social underachiever and intellectual overachiever can be simultaneously represented. Also qualities under one top-level category can be simultaneously represented as well. For example, the characters may be talking about comic book characters, but they end up with an unexpected conclusion (where punchline occurs) that is a taboo topic. Such cases are counted twice. The analysis will be qualitative, that is, the author will provide explanations as to why these examples contribute to the stereotype of nerds and humor in this sitcom. This chapter will be divided into six major sections: (1) nerds as social underachievers; (2) nerds as intellectual overachievers; (3) nerds as sci-fi and comic book fans; (4) ethnic stereotypes and (5) mismatch of styles. The first five sections are the categorization of the data. The sixth section discusses the reference point in representing nerds.. 4.1 Nerds as social underachievers What makes The Big Bang Theory so different from other sitcoms is that this is a sitcom dedicated to the representation and exploration of the stereotypes of a certain social group, namely nerds. They are extremely intelligent, yet they are socially tone-deaf. They are at ease in their own little world, but they are awkward and out of place when they interact with people outside of their group. Some of the punchlines in. 39.

(50) The Big Bang Theory are specifically indexical to nerds, and they are going to be shown in the sections to come. To begin with, nerds are both social underachievers and intellectual overachievers. Punchlines index to these two qualities are considered a representation of nerds in this sitcom. Bucholtz (2001) proposes that nerds are usually considered as socially underachieved. This section are further divided into three sub-sections: (1) linguistic performance, which discusses how nerds deviate from the linguistic performance from non-nerds; (2) sociolinguistic incompetence, which discusses what aspect of sociolinguistic competence that nerds are portrayed to be in want, and finally (3) failure to adapt to social norms, which discusses how nerds are represented as anxious and awkward in various social situations in this sitcom.. 4.1.1 Linguistic performance The most significant deviations of the linguistic performance of nerds from non-nerds are that nerds are considered as lacking knowledge of politeness theory and failing to perceive implicature and irony. The following sub-sections discuses such inabilities of nerds in this sitcom.. 4.1.1.1 Violation of politeness theory Violation of pragmatic principles is a common source of humor in sitcom. In The Big Bang Theory, nerds are represented as people who have trouble perceiving and observing the mechanism of politeness. Some examples are shown in the following. 40.

(51) sections, including cases of misusing and misunderstanding positive politeness and negative politeness.. Positive politeness Howard, different from the three other nerds, is always motivated to impress the ladies because he sees himself as a “ladies’ man,” and he usually puts his thoughts in fashioning his utterance: Example 1 (from 102) They meet at the corridor. sub-TC 5 Penny: Hey Raj! (Raj looks uncomfortable) (laughter) Still not talking to me, huh? Sheldon: Don’t take it personally, it’s his pathology, he can’t talk to women. => Howard: He can’t talk to attractive women, or in your case a cheesecake-scented goddess! (laughter). One of the humor sources of this sitcom is that Howard tries very hard to impress women with his fancy language; however, his strategy usually fails. Knowing that Penny works as a waitress at the Cheesecake Factory, Howard always compliments on Penny’s beauty and personality from the first time they meet, which bothers Penny very much. In the second episode, at a time when they are not very familiar with each other, the social distance between Penny and Howard is by no means close. Nevertheless, Howard’s strategy is to employ positive politeness every time he meets Penny in order to intensify her interest. Notice that he calls Penny a cheesecake-scented goddess, which suggests that Penny is as extraordinary as a 41.

(52) goddess, and that she smells as good as a cheesecake. This is a pun in relation to where Penny works, but it is somewhat implying that she is a cheesecake (after all, only cheesecakes smell like cheesecake), and that Howard has the intention to (metaphorically) consume her. Hines (1999) points out that. WOMEN AS DESSERT. has. been appearing in the media since the 1990s, and it has become a common metaphor for American audience. It begins as a compliment on young and refreshing females, who are lovely and invigorating as desserts, but it also ha been criticized as showing an attitude of objectifying women. Penny, as well as the audience, can detect the two-fold implication of Howard’s words. The laughter of the audience is evoked because they know Howard wants to make good impressions, but it seems that he forgets the other possible interpretation. When we want to tell a joke to improve the positive politeness with others, we have to make sure that other interlocutors understand the joke and that the joke does not offend them. If either of these two criteria is not met, the intention to improve the positive politeness may fail. Consider the following example:. Example 2 (from 111) At Leonard and Sheldon’s apartment. TC 2 Penny: (knocking and entering) Hi guys. Leonard: Hey!= Penny: =Get my mail? Leonard: Yeah, right here. How was Nebraska? 42.

(53) => Penny: Oh, better than North Dakota! (laughter) (long pause, as Leonard looks confused, and Sheldon is staring at her) (laughter) Guess that joke’s only funny in Nebraska. (laughter) Sheldon: From the data at hand you really can’t draw that conclusion. All you can say with absolute certainty is that that joke is not funny here. (laughter). Penny went back to her hometown in Nebraska to visit her family, and Leonard starts a new topic by inquiring her how the trip was. She makes fun of the state of North Dakota instead of answering yes or no. Both Leonard and Sheldon take her response literally and feel confused, because there must be some criteria that makes Penny to conclude that Nebraska is better than North Dakota, yet Penny does not explicate. What they do not perceive is that Penny is telling a joke. The audience know this very well, since there is a laughter right after Penny says, “Oh, better than North Dakota.” A second wave of laughter ensues when the audience sees that Leonard and Sheldon do not get the joke, since the incongruity between the question (“How was Nebraska”) and the answer (“Oh, better than North Dakota”) is obvious, but they fail to perceive that. Penny concludes that the joke is only funny in Nebraska because she ascribes the failure of the appreciation of this joke to the location factor, but Sheldon’s answer shows that they do not think it is a joke, and Sheldon analyzes what Penny says from logical viewpoints, further distancing himself with Penny. Jokes are not meant to be analyzed with logics. One of the functions of jokes is to alleviate tensions and psychological distance among interlocutors. It is also a 43.

(54) strategy of positive politeness for the speaker if he or she wants to take an initiative to build relationship and friendly atmosphere with the addressees. However, failure to perceive jokes means that this strategy fails. If the speaker refuses to provide the other one with camaraderie, solidarity, and friendliness sentiments, he or she fails to consider the positive face of the addressee. In the example below, Sheldon, as the addressee of this conversational topic chain, does not perform such positive politeness to Leonard:. Example 3 (from 117) At the university cafeteria. TC 21 Leonard: Sheldon, I think I’ve made a mistake. Sheldon: I can see that. Unless you’re planning on running a marathon, choosing both stuffing and mashed potatoes is a starch-filled redundancy. (laughter) sub-TC 21 Leonard: No, it’s about Penny. Sheldon: A mistake involving Penny? (pause) Okay, you’ll have to narrow it down. (laughter) => Leonard: I don’t think I can go out with her tonight. => Sheldon: Then don’t. (laughter) => Leonard: Other people would say “why not?” (laughter) => Sheldon: Other people might be interested. (laughter) => Leonard: I’m gonna talk anyway. => Sheldon: I assumed you would. (laughter). Leonard encounters some relationship problems with Penny. He asked her out the night before, right after she had broken up with her boyfriend. And in this TC, Leonard is not sure if he has made the right decision. He tries to engage Sheldon into 44.

(55) the conversation, and when Leonard finally expresses his concerns, Sheldon shows his indifference to Leonard. Leonard does not give up and provides Sheldon with an answer that would show the camaraderie and care about Leonard’s problem, but Sheldon replies that other people might be interested, implying that he is not interested. Sheldon’s detached attitude shows that he does not consider the positive face of Leonard when he is soliciting for advice or emotional support. Audience laughs at the fact that Sheldon boldly rejects Leonard’s friendly gestures. This TC helps to stereotype nerds as people who do not usually apply politeness principles in conversation.. Negative politeness The folk definition of politeness usually refers to negative politeness. It is a kind of politeness we employ linguistically to be indirect, humble, and minimize imposition. However, the unemployment of negative politeness in certain contexts causes incongruity, and hence the humor. In the following example, Sheldon clearly does not adhere to negative politeness when he should do so.. Example 4 (from 313) Sheldon and Leonard’s apartment was looted. They are reporting their loss to a policeman who comes to investigate. The policeman is holding a pen and a notepad to jot down their loss. TC 7 Sheldon: They took our TV, two laptops, four external hard-drives, (speaks very fast) our PS2, our PS3, our X-Box, our X-Box 360, (laughter) our 45.

(56) classic Nintendo, our Super Nintendo, our Nintendo 64 (laughter) and our Wii. Leonard: We like games. (laughter) => Sheldon: Right, games. (speaks very fast) They took Halo 1, Halo 2, Halo 3, (laughter) Call of Duty 1, Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 3, Rock Band, Rock Band 2, Final Fantasy 1 through 9, The Legend of Zelda, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Mario Brothers, Super Mario Galaxy, Mario and Sonic at the Winter Olympics (laughter) (pause) and Ms. Pacman. (laughter) Policeman: (stares at Sheldon and writes) Assorted video games. (laughter). Speakers perform negative politeness so that they do not impose their opinions and will on their interlocutors, or that they do not cause communication difficulties between the interlocutors. Since Leonard and Sheldon are the victims of a burglary, they are obliged to report their loss to the police, and the police officer should take notes. Nevertheless, Sheldon’s description seems to be too detailed, which is unnecessary, and the fact that he speaks very fast causes inconvenience for the officer. The laughter is triggered because Sheldon defies the negative politeness, and the policeman’s conclusion provides Sheldon with what he should say in such situation, and this triggers another burst of laughter. Also, the familiarity of the name of video games shows their nerdiness as well, since stereotypical nerds tend to engage in computer-related leisure activities. In another example, one can see that Sheldon speaks too directly and fails to adhere to negative politeness:. 46.