An investigation into the use of humor in first year english speaking classes at hue university college of foreign languages

--- LE THI PHUONG CHI AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF HUMOR IN FIRST-YEAR ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASSES AT HUE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES FIELD OF STUDY: THEORY AND METHODOL

-

LE THI PHUONG CHI

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF HUMOR IN FIRST-YEAR ENGLISH

SPEAKING CLASSES AT HUE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

MA THESIS IN EDUCATION

-

LE THI PHUONG CHI

AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF HUMOR IN FIRST-YEAR ENGLISH

SPEAKING CLASSES AT HUE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

FIELD OF STUDY: THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF

ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

CODE: 60.14.10

MA THESIS IN EDUCATION SUPERVISOR: DR TRUONG BACH LE

HUE, 2012

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ

-

LÊ THỊ PHƯƠNG CHI

ĐIỀU TRA VỀ VIỆC ỨNG DỤNG CÁC LOẠI HÌNH HÀI HƯỚC VÀO CÁC LỚP HỌC KỸ NĂNG NÓI TIẾNG ANH NĂM THỨ NHẤT TẠI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC

NGOẠI NGỮ HUẾ

CHUYÊN NGÀNH: LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY - HỌC

MÔN TIẾNG ANH

MÃ SỐ: 60.14.10

LUẬN VĂN THẠC SỸ GIÁO DỤC HỌC

NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN KHOA HỌC: TS TRƯƠNG BẠCH LÊ

I hereby acknowledge that the information reported in this paper is the result

of my own work, except where due reference is made The data and findings are true and with permission from associates

The thesis has not been submitted for any other degree or diploma or appeared in any other media

Author

Le Thi Phuong Chi

I would never have been able to finish this thesis without the guidance of my supervisor, help from my friends, and support from my family

I would like to begin by offering my gratitude to my advisor, Dr Truong Bach

Le, for his enthusiastic guidance and insightful supervision throughout the research He both guided me to orientate the study and allowed this research to grow into what it has become His knowledge and commitment to the highest of standards inspired and motivated me Most importantly, he has spent time correcting and giving advice to my every piece of work I do owe him a thank you for his patience and tolerance of all my downsides as well as an apology for my shortcomings as a toddler going through life

I would like to thank my lovely respectful colleague, Hoang Thi Khanh Tam, for blowing up my courage and determination throughout this process We never stopped laughing all along the way She has spent time on giving comments to my pieces of work and substituted for me to go to school during the days I was busy with this thesis and had problems with my health

I am grateful to my buddy, Ngo Thi Hong Tham, my good friend, Nguyen Nu Anh Hong, and my junior colleagues for their available help and warm support when

my time budget ran out

I am indebted to my families for their boundless support and love, for all encouragement, and sacrifice they have been making for me I keep here a thank you and an apology to my mother for what she gave me

A special thank to my husband, my eternal cheerleader, my flame holder, for his presence in my life to love me and never lose faith in me These days when I had health problems and was not able to move or get out of home, his burden of workload seemed

to multiply on his shoulder His dedicated sleepless nights to formatting my thesis before the due day after continuously sleepless nights working at the hospital made me moved when I suddenly woke up at midnight and saw him ceaselessly clicking and

learners as it is a rich source of authentic and cultural input It can be considered as

a catalyst, a stimulus to motivate students, enliven the classroom atmosphere, build

up the teacher-student rapport, and cognitively help students‟ learning procedure

This study is an attempt to make an investigation into the use of humor in first-year English speaking classes at Hue University - College of Foreign Languages It has been constructed to obtain the aims of examining the students‟ favorite humor types during the teacher-researcher‟s use as well as the students‟ challenges in comprehending humor Most importantly, the extent to which humor has beneficial effects on second language learning in speaking classes at HUCFL, the researcher‟s local context, would be definitely illuminated

The data collection tools consisted of 2 sets of questionnaire, evaluation forms, interviews, and teacher‟s diaries Data collected from quantitative instruments were transferred into tabulation in form of statistical frequency and percentage Transcripts of the interviews and the diaries were also cited for interpretation

The analysis showed that humor noticeably benefited learning in first-year English speaking classes at HUCFL in many perspectives Plus, the results from both qualitative data and quantitative data indicated that the appropriateness of humor types to students was different from type to type in the researcher‟s oral skill teaching context The challenges causing the students‟ difficulty in humor comprehension were also explored and ranked as follows: vocabulary, background knowledge, and grammar

By the way, the limitations of the study were examined, and a number of potential avenues for future research were suggested

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……… iv

ABSTRACT Error! Bookmark not defined TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 Research aims 3

1.3 Research questions 4

1.4 Research topic 4

1.5 Research scope 4

1.6 Research significance 5

1.7 Organization of the research 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.1 Introduction 7

2.2 Definition of humor 7

2.3 Theories of humor 10

2.3.1 Psychological Humor Theories 10

2.3.2 Linguistic Humor Theory 13

2.4 The Value of Humor in Language Class 16

2.4.1 Psychological benefits 17

2.4.2 Instructional/ Communication benefits 18

2.4.3 Cognitive benefits 19

2.4.4 Socio-linguistic and cultural benefits 20

2.5 Types of humor 21

2.8 Research gaps 39

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 40

3.1 Introduction 40

3.2 The Research Site 40

3.3 Research Approaches 41

3.4 Research Participants 42

3.4.1 Student participants 42

3.4.2 Teacher-researcher 43

3.5 Data collection 43

3.5.1 Questionnaire 45

3.5.2 Evaluation 46

3.5.3 Diary 46

3.5.4 Interview 47

3.6 Data analysis methods 47

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 49

4.1 Introduction 49

4.2 The appropriate types of humor for the first-year students in English speaking classes at HUCFL 49

4.3 The extent to which the use of humor benefits learning in first-year English speaking classes at HUCFL 57

4.3.1 Humor and speaking classroom atmosphere 57

4.3.2 Humor and teacher-student rapport 60

4.3.3 Humor and students‟ interest in learning speaking English 62

4.3.4 Humor and students‟ speaking learning 63

4.3.5 Students‟ generation of funny English communication in each speaking class session 66

4.3.6 The students‟ desired amount of humor for a typical class session ……… 67

4.3.7 The importance of humor to language learning in the classroom 69 4.3.8 Students‟ overall evaluation of the humor effectiveness in speaking classes 70

4.4 First-year students‟ challenges in understanding humor in English

speaking classes at HUCFL 71

4.5 Summary 73

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 74

5.1 Introduction 74

5.2 Restatement of the Study Purposes 74

5.3 Summary of the Findings 74

5.4 Implications of the Study 76

5.5 Limitations of the Study 78

5.6 Recommendations for Further Research 78

References Error! Bookmark not defined APPENDIX 1 Error! Bookmark not defined APPENDIX 2 Error! Bookmark not defined APPENDIX 3 Error! Bookmark not defined APPENDIX 4 Error! Bookmark not defined APPENDIX 5 Error! Bookmark not defined APPENDIX 6 Error! Bookmark not defined APPENDIX 7 Error! Bookmark not defined APPENDIX 8 Error! Bookmark not defined APPENDIX 9 Error! Bookmark not defined

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.5.a: Types of Humor 22

Table 2.5.b: Types of humor (Hay, 1995) 23

Table 2.6.a: Twenty-item Taxonomy of High School Teacher Humor 25

Table 2.6.b: Categories and Subcategories of Appropriate Teacher Humor 28

Table 2.6.c: Categories and Subcategories of Inappropriate Teacher Humor 33

Table 3.5: Description of data collection instruments 43

Table 4.4: Challenges of using humor in first year English speaking classes at HUCFL 71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Students‟ favorite types of humor 50

Figure 4.2: The extent to which students like types of humor applied in class 51

Figure 4.3 The extent to which learners find the types of humor applied easy to understand 53

Figure 4.4 The effectiveness of humor types applied in class 55

Figure 4.5 Humor and speaking classroom atmosphere 57

Figure 4.6 The approachable level of teacher when using humor in class 60

Figure 4.7 Humor and students‟ interest in learning speaking English 62

Figure 4.8 The extent to which humor help students learn speaking 63

Figure 4.9 Students‟ use of humor to communicate in the foreign during each class session 66

Figure 4.10 The students‟ desired amount of humor for a typical class session 67

Figure 4.11 The importance of humor to language learning in the classroom 69

Figure 4.12 Students‟ overall evaluation of humor effectiveness applied in speaking class 70

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

For a long time, humor has been highly appreciated as a great remedy for tension since “Laughter is the best medicine” and a miraculous catalyst in communication Every day, we, of all languages, laugh, tease one another, tell humorous stories for entertainment, and make fun for amusement It is obvious to recognize that humor is indispensable in our daily life as it is genuinely present in many conversations of all languages throughout the world (Kruger, 1996; Trachtenberg, 1979, as cited in Askildson, 2005) A good sense of humor can bring about high effects of communication Simply, it assists a person in a challenging dilemma that leads to blooming and successful interchange The following example

is such a case (Muqun & Lu, 2006)

A woman accosted Lloyd George, the former Prime Minister of Britain, after a speech She gushed, “Before I saw you in person, I thought you were a much taller man.” He carefully replied, “Madam, in Wales, where I come from, we measure a man from his neck up, not from the neck down.”

The clever and witty response of that Prime Minister turns the potentially embarrassing moment into a fun In place of being overwhelmed in difficulty, the speaker, with a sense of humor, has defused the barrier by expressing his humorous prowess and convincingly conquered all participants Likewise, humor places an integral role in English teaching and learning in which communicative competence

is focused as the final target

With regard to the importance of humor in the second language classroom, Morrison (2008, p 6) asserted that “look for laughter, joy, spirit, and enthusiasm in both the school and classroom and you‟ll find an environment in which learning thrives.” Used with prudence, humor can create incredible contributions to class atmosphere thanks to joy and ease Consequently, humor nurtures an optimal

environment for teaching and learning and brings high effects to the instruction as it gets students out of anxiety, maximizes brainpower, enhances creativity, and facilitates communication (Morrison, 2008) Accordingly, Sullivan (2000, as cited

in Cabrera, 2008) acknowledges the beneficial roles of humor on mediating between L2 students and enhancing students to use language In line with this idea, Hurren (2001, as cited in Jonas, 2010) shares his point of view that in addition to facilitating attention and motivation, improving teacher-student rapport, fun makes all subjects more accessible In particular, students from classrooms where laughter, smiling, and amusement are present are likely to take risks These learners are more confident when using second language without the agitation of being ridiculed or criticized (Chiasson, 2010) For all the above reasons, there is a probability to admit that, “One can never speak enough of […] the power of shared laughter" (British Council) Morrison (2008) goes to the conclusion that humor is a tonic, a sweet drink for tired educators and bored students without which it is possible for learners

to fall asleep causing a zero-accumulation of knowledge and inefficiency in learning

Passing the time with hundreds of research and practical settings, the pros of humor has been proved to be undeniable; as a certain result, Deneire (1995, as cited

in Schmitz, 2002) heightens the need for a harmonious integration of humor into existing language teaching approaches Following this idea, Attardo (1994, as cited

in Cabrera, 2008) proposes teaching language together with gaiety for L2 students

to provide them with pragmatic and communicative competence Nevertheless, humor is such a fragile concept that a serious question has been permanently raised about how to appropriately use it since too much „sweet drink‟ can cause remarkable problems Terry and Woods (1995, as cited in Askildson, 2005) specifically indicate while too little tension often results in negative effects on learning, too much tension can have similar unfavorable consequences More importantly, this question still lacks an exact answer for the fact that how sweet the

concern, interest, and efforts have been carried universally to find the key for this issue in recent years, far too little attention has been paid to using humor in teaching English in Vietnamese context

The next key feature paving the way for this study is that although humor has been applied to English teaching and learning in Vietnam, there has been still little focus on the use of humor from teachers‟ perspectives This resulted from many causes, but one of the most influential factors is the heritage of long-standing Confucius educational system in which teacher is considered as a strict authority and a serious atmosphere seems to dominate the classroom setting Along with this tradition, tension is believed to help students get acquainted with challenges and only when confronting the harshness, can learners learn best As well, it is a chance

to refine goods from bads as “in a calm sea every man is a pilot.” However, this assumption has to face with a huge wave of protest because the aim of mass education is not only for elites, intelligent students, but for an entire generation Thus, how to transmit knowledge to the learners is a special mission for education

in general and for English teaching in particular so that no one would be immersed

in a nervous or a sleepy classroom atmosphere Another contributing factor is the shortage of humor in English course books Undeniably, fun does not appear in every situation, and not every instructor with dyed-in the-wool Confucius perceptions can facilitate the laugher for students Last but not least, my first-hand experience in the teaching career has enabled me to experience the occasional boredom and sleepy speaking atmosphere Hence, I strongly expect humor to do wonder for a dull learning context With the advent of all the above-mentioned factors, an empirical study exploring the use of humor in “local” English speaking classes should be urgently implemented

which humor has beneficial effects on second language learning in the speaking classes of the researcher‟s local context would be definitely illuminated

1.3 Research questions

The project attempts to answer the following questions:

1 What are the appropriate types of humor for the first-year students in English speaking classes at HUCFL?

2 To what extent does the use of humor benefit second language learning in first-year speaking classes at HUCFL?

3 What are the challenges that the first-year learners face in understanding humor in English speaking classes at HUCFL?

1.4 Research topic

This study is entitled:

“AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF HUMOR IN FIRST-YEAR ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASSES AT HUE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES”

1.5 Research scope

This study is focused on speaking classes with major of English at Hue College of Foreign Languages It consists of subjects who are second-semester freshmen Every student has a five-month period in the first semester studying English as the main task; hence they share almost common level that is above A1 and some reach A2 according to the European Common Framework Moreover, the simple humorous materials were selected to be used on the recommendations of previous researchers about the appropriate humor types

1.6 Research significance

With the desire of facilitating and encouraging students in speaking classes, the researcher made up her mind to apply humor into the teaching and learning process The success of this research, to some extent, can be beneficial to the following groups of people:

To begin with, this application will obviously bring benefits to students since this gust of fresh air can encourage them to learn and enliven classroom

atmosphere To the teachers, this will hopefully place an impact on the awareness of

teachers Further, if possible, it proposes practical suggestions so that they can

provide learners with the optimal learning context

Next comes on the screen of humor benefits is the training quality of the school This brings a great significance to students these days when they have to achieve a certain standard European Common level each year and their accomplishment means the university‟s progress in surging learners‟ learning quality As a result, the prestige of the school would be amplified

Personally, the researcher herself also gets so many benefits thanks to this study as her knowledge and skills in implementing humor would be augmented Thanks to the findings of the research, some implications would be revealed in order to maximize the efficiency of this tool

1.7 Organization of the research

This research comprises five chapters, namely Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Findings and Discussion, and Conclusion

Chapter I – Introduction – deals with an overview of the study It states the

background, the rationale, the significance, the aims, the research topic and questions, the scope, and the organization of the research

Chapter II – Literature Review – gives consideration into the concept of

humor, psychological and linguistic Humor Theories to supply a thorough understanding of this notion In addition, it goes through the beneficial effects, types of humor, and categories of appropriate and inappropriate teachers‟ humor Then the researcher would bear in mind the actual situation of teaching oral skill in

Vietnam In the end, the gap in the literature review would be critically discussed

Chapter III – Methodology – describes the methods chosen for the study It

exposed a detailed description about research approach, research methods, subjects

of the study, data collection, and data analysis

Chapter IV – Findings and Discussion – reports the findings from data collection The data are tabulated, analyzed, and then discussed

Chapter V – Conclusion – summarizes the result of the study In addition,

this chapter proposes some implications and recommendations for further research

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter reviews the literature related to (1) the concepts of humor, (2) theories of humor - psychology and linguistics, (3) values of humor, (4) types of humor, (5) appropriate and inappropriate humor use in education, (6) situation of teaching oral skill in Vietnam, (7) and research gaps

2.2 Definition of humor

Humor has long been an intriguing concept that has appealed immense effort from theorists and scholars of many fields over the millennia, ranging from Plato and Aristotle around 300 years B.C to Hobbes, Descartes, and Kant in the 16th and

17th centuries, Freud and Bergson in the following centuries and, more recently, Robinson, Raskin, Attardo, and McGhee Honestly, the list could be endlessly extended; however, when asking them what exactly “humor” meant, it was interesting to encounter a great deal of disagreement in their concepts of humor (Martin, 1998) Actually, defining the term “humor” was genuinely far from easy (Jasper, 2003; Gulas & Weinberger, 2006; Moran, 2007; Ermida, 2008; and Tran, 2010), and the reason could be explained as follows

Firstly, it was affirmed that humor was a general category and defining it without establishing what its internal subdivisions might be impossible (Attardo,

1994, as cited in Cabrera, 2008) In support of what Attardo had stated, Ermida (2008) maintained that humor was a concept studied in many fields including psychology, sociology, anthropology, medical sciences, pedagogy, linguistics, and

so on; hence, it was unlikely to generalize the definition of humor that could be adequate for every aspect Besides, the complexity in academic humor forms and construction had also been highlighted as there existed so many humor forms and

their structures were variously built For the variety of humor forms, Ermida (2008,

p 2) stated that:

[ ] either verbal or non-verbal; it can be a subjective experience or serve communicative purposes; it can draw upon common everyday reality or consists of fiction and imagination […] Nowadays, there are also many humor media which go beyond the classic form of theatrical comedy, literary farce and limerick, or such types satirical leaflets and clown pantomime – and which range from TV sitcoms to comic movies, cartoons in the daily and weekly press, and Internet gags

From another perspective, it was believed that laughter was equated with humor, hence this act should be simply defined based on that common and typical phenomenon However, Attardo (1994, as cited in Cabrera, 2008) went on to argue that it could not be a defining characteristic of humor since this was a physical reaction that could be produced by humor or different other types of stimuli such as tickles All challenges considered, humor could only be defined in a certain field, through its features

Despite the above mentioned difficulties, in order to understand humor, Robinson‟s (1977, p 10, as cited in Weaver II & Cotrell, 2011, p 167) definition was chosen to discuss, “Humor is any communication which is perceived by any of the interacting parties as humorous and leads to laughing, smiling, or a feeling of amusement.” This definition emphasized three characteristics of humor: it took place during communication, it was perceived as funny by participants, and the most typical and important phenomena humor could create were the modes of smiling Despite the fact that Robinson was seemingly paradoxical when using the word “humorous” in the endeavor to identify humor, this did contribute to the understanding of what humor was Only the second characteristic needed more explanation as participants‟ cognitive aspect varied from person to person and changed over the different periods of time The reality was that what someone assumed humor was not the same as the others, and what we laughed 10 years ago

In seeking the answer to the above mentioned matter, Raskin (1985) though

did not define humor, indicated in the book Semantic Mechanisms of Humor that,

Responding to humor is part of human behavior, ability or competence, other parts

of which comprise such important social and psychological manifestations of homo-sapiens as language, morality, logic, faith, etc Just as all of those, humor may be described as partly natural and partly acquired (Raskin, 1985, p 2)

What this author asserted did not only indicate the procedure in which humor was formulated as both innate and social ability but also, more importantly, its development from the rudimental stage of human being up to the advanced one The more human being evolves, the more complex human‟s psychological and cognitive perception and evaluation of humor are Specifically speaking, the change of social factors such as language, culture, and knowledge brings about the alteration in people‟s perception of humor Not only does it limit in the restriction of each individual, but it also spreads from culture to culture, community to community

To specify what characterized the humor act, Raskin (1985) went on to

recommend four structural elements For one thing, there should be human participant in the act including the speaker(s) and hearer(s) in which the latter

agent, the receiver, or the addressee of the humorous stimulus was regarded as the sole participant Actually, “[i]t is the perceiver‟s presence, of course, which makes the humor act a humor act, simply because it is the perceiver who laughs” (Raskin,

1985, p 3) Secondly, there must be something within a humor act that could

stimulate laughter This element could be called stimulus However, only it could

not simultaneously constitute the necessary and sufficient condition for humor, but both “the stimulus and the human participant(s)” did (ibid, p 4) Hence, the

experience and the psychology of the participants might also be a contributing factor Next, this author went on to stress there must be a situation, the short form

of situational context which served the important role of conditioning, directing and modifying the perception of a humorous situation Last but definitely not least,

every humor act occurred within a certain context of culture which belonged to a

certain society including cultural values and norms This macro discourse did form

the disparity in the cognitive perception of a group on humor which was considered

as a universal human trait

All issues considered, it is important to take steps in defining humor for this educational research: Humor is a kind of communication which can stimulate the amusing or funny feeling via the psychological-cognitive perceptions and evaluations of the interacting parties in a certain discourse

2.3 Theories of humor

Humor is such a multi-faceted phenomenon (Haig, 1988, as cited in Gunning, 2001) that to understand what humor is, why people use humor as well as the mechanism humor works, the sole definition cannot be enough for humor comprehension In order to find out the answer key to the issues above, some psychological and linguistic Humor Theories were chosen to be analyzed

2.3.1 Psychological Humor Theories

2.3.1.1 Superiority Theory

Superiority humor or disparagement, or criticism, or hostility was usually associated with the aggressive laughter of humor user towards the target (Krikmann, 2007) In other word, humor was said to be against some people or group; people laughed at others because they felt superior in some ways such as recognizing someone‟s flaw, deformity, misfortune, or incapacity According to Lynch (2002), superiority theory was one of the oldest themes in the study of humor, dating back

to both Plato and Aristotle as a form of mockery or disdain However, the primary touchstone of this theory did not appear until Thomas Hobbes (as cited in Lynch, 2002) gave his statement, “The passion of laughter is nothing else but sudden glory arising from sudden conception of some eminency in ourselves by comparison with the infirmity of others, or with our own formerly.” From a narrower perspective,

someone owned the pleasant feeling of being able to adapt better to a new environment than others; hence the concept of humor in this situation implied the ridicule With this approach, there are individual differences in sense of humor which have to do with the perceiver‟s attitudes toward the target or "butt" of the humor Hence, “People are more likely to laugh at jokes that disparage or ridicule people whom they do not like, and less likely to laugh at jokes that disparage people with whom they identify” (Martin, 1998, p 29) However, disparagement of others

do not suffice for humor elicitation (Wyer & Collins II, 1992, as cited in Tran, 2010) since this feeling does not always make people happy and funny Hence, it is noticeable that only when there was a combination of superiority and incongruity and relief, could it create humor (Gulas & Weinberger, 2006, as cited in Tran, 2010)

2.3.1.2 Relief Theory

Relief Theory was primarily a psychological theory of humor which was famously associated with Freud as his theory placed significant influence on this area although he was not the person taking initial steps to recommend the idea It was indeed inspired by Spencer who first referred to relief humor when he suggested that, “Laughter was the result of the physical energy which was built up

to deal with disagreeable feelings” (Spencer, 1986, as cited in Lynch, 2002, p 427)

Freud‟s Humor Relief Theory was mentioned in two publications: the book “Jokes and their relation to the unconscious” (1905) and a short paper entitled “Humour”

(1928) According to Freud, relief humor encompassed two properties; for one thing, it allowed built-up tension and energy to be released From this perspective, humor was regarded as a form of escape from tension and nervous energy Meyer (2000) maintained that speakers who desired to reduce dissonance can create humor

in such nervous situations; for another, humor was an act of disguised aggression and sanctioned resistance, “the joke then represents a rebellion against that

authority, liberation from its pressure” (Freud, p 125, as cited in Lynch, 2002, p 427)

2.3.1.3 Incongruity Theory

Humor originated from Kant (1952, p 223, as cited in Lynch, 2002, p 428),

“Laughter is an affection arising from sudden transformation of a strained expectation into nothing.” According to this theory, humor came from the recognition of something paradoxical or inconsistent with the expected nature of a discourse (Lynch, 2002) In other words, when recognizing something unexpected, illogical, and incoherent, the perceiver might find it sudden and surprised; as a matter of fact, humor arose in their mind

“The incongruity theory emphasizes cognition” (Meyer, 2000, as cited in Tran, 2010, p 20) in terms of each individual‟s “differences in cognitive style, including concepts such as cognitive complexity, tolerance of ambiguity, need for certainty, and so on” (Martin, 1998, p 26) In fact, its premise was based on the intellect as it relied on the receiver‟s cognitive evaluation of an event, individual, or symbol in comparison to the prior prediction of what typically going on rather than emotion such as superiority or relief (Lynch, 2002) If there exists a difference in the expectation and in reality, humor as congruity is present As the capacity of recognizing incongruity had a substantial impact on the humor understanding, there was a close relationship between perceived humor and the individual‟s cognition Specifically, “Individuals who are more cognitively complex may enjoy humor with

a more complex structure, whereas those who are more concrete in their cognitive orientation may prefer less ambiguous humor” (Martin, 1998, p 26) This explained why humor understanding was different from individual to individual, community

to community Also, it was difficult for children to understand adult humor as their cognition seemed to be insufficient for deciphering that humor

By that way, the weakness of each was revealed as a single theory could not offer a complete picture of why a joke was funny Anyway, when taken together, they

could provide an insightful understanding into the mechanism of humor

2.3.2 Linguistic Humor Theory

While Psychological Humor Theories made an attempt to explain why people had the humorous feeling, Linguistic Humor Theory was approached so as

to study the structure of many types of humorous texts, i.e., the mechanism decoding how humor worked Among some theories, the General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH) recommended by Attardo and Jaskin (1991), a revised version of The Semantic Script Theory of Humor (SSTH), was chosen to explore as it offered not only a semantic approach but also many different linguistic aspects, such as humorous texts‟ narrativity and pragmatics; moreover, it extended the study scope

to any types of humorous text and not only jokes as in SSTH (Attardo, Linguistic

222, as cited in Cabrera, 2008) This theory composed of six principles known as knowledge resources (KR) that could create a humorous script The hierarchy of the

knowledge resources was as follows:

Language (LA)

Language is the first knowledge resource which is considered responsible for creating humor; this concept composes of all linguistic information, such as phonetic, phonologic, morphophonemic, morphologic, lexical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic features “Basically, it is the content of the joke which has to be expressed within the parameter of language.” (Raskin & Attardo, 1991, p 298, as cited in Krikmann, 2007) Consequently, understanding a humorous text requires a certain background of language competence from participants in general, and students in this case (Krikmann, 2007)

question-and-is important to keep the text sufficiently nonredundant in order not to spoil the punch line, the humorous ending of a text.” (Raskin, 1985, as cited in Krikman,

2007, p 37) The structure of a joke is described as follows to illustrate the narrative organization:

A joke is built up on a context that serves the background for it During the proceedings of the joke, there is an element namely disjunctor causing the reconstruction of sense within the joke The latter one is opposite the former In this humorous genre, the disjunctor often appears at the end of the text, known as punch line, making participants feel humorous

Target (TA)

“Target is the personalized “object” of a joke” (Krikmann, 2007, p 37), that

is any individual and/or member of a group from whom humorous behavior is expected This knowledge resource can be found within the humorous texts as they are the characters who are made fun by groups of speakers of a language living within a given community based on their perceived beliefs and ideas (Cabrera, 2008) It is said that non-human target like a car or a ball is seldom the target of jokes (Attardo, 2001, as cited in Walte, 2007), and the number of jokes without clear targets is quite small (Attardo & Raskin, 1992, as cited in Krikmann, 2007) While they emphasize the exclusively conventional character of ethnic or other choices for embodiments of stupidity, they deny any correspondence between such

stereotypes and reality

of screwing the light bulb, holding the toothbrush and moving one‟s head, holding the fan and shaking one‟s head, turning the car upside down to empty the car

ashtray, and so on

Logical mechanism (LM)

The LM is the parameter setting up the incongruity of a joke This knowledge resource makes a connection of two or more opposing and overlapping scripts by juxtaposing, creating false analogies, coincidence, and so on (Cabrera, 2008) “This KR presupposes and embodies a “local” logic, a distorted playful logic that does not necessarily hold outside the world of the joke” (Attardo, 2001, p 25,

as cited in Walte, 2007, p 36) Indeed, it is the LM that activates non-bona-fide, unreal modes of communication in which both the speakers and hearers can be aware of a “local” logic within a humorous text

Script opposition (SO)

This is exactly the same as script opposition that has been established in the SSTH by Raskin (1985, p 99, as cited in Taylor, 2004, p 13)

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

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 The set of two conditions [above] is proposed as necessary and sufficient conditions for a text to be funny

According to GTVH, a humorous text is built on the ground of six knowledge resources which are ranked as SO, LM, SI, TA, NS, LA (Attardo, as cited in Cabrera, 2008) With the hierarchy above, it is obvious that the SO is of the most importance since it is basically a defining feature and functions as the main organizing principle that facilitates other knowledge resources to occur One of the effects the knowledge resource order can bring about is the similarity of jokes (Taylor, 2004) The evidence is that the “Jokes that have all the parameters the same but Script Opposition, are less similar than jokes that have all the parameters the same but Situation, are less similar than jokes that have all the parameters the same but Target, are less similar than jokes that have all the parameters the same but Narrative Strategy, are less similar than jokes that have all the parameters the same but Language” (Taylor, 2004, p 19)

In conclusion, it is obvious that the GTVH has demonstrated its strength through the ability to analyze many types of humorous text instead of only jokes Likewise, it makes drastic progress in giving the explanation for both linguistic and non-linguistic features of humorous texts

2.4 The Value of Humor in Language Class

There is no doubt that humor is an invaluable teaching aid in the English classroom Recent researches suggest that humor has a positive influence on students‟ feelings about their teachers (Bryant, Crane, Cominsky, & Zillman, 1980,

as cited in Green & Burleson, 2003), motivation and learning (Wanzer & Frymier,

1999, ibid.), and attitudes toward their classroom experiences (Neuliep, 1991) This part of the study will divide the humor effects into four main categories, namely

as cited in Berk, 1996) All these positive effects are expected to provide a good premise for supporting a language learning environment.

This particularly brings sufficiency to shy and timid students (Chee, 2006) who rarely dare to raise their voice in class and might encounter a hindrance to improve communicative competence which is considered as a key factor of communicative approach In this situation, humor is necessarily applied to make people who are afraid of losing face during the language learning procedure feel that they are a part of the class (Chiasson, 2002) and freely contribute to the learning

Actually, learning a language is a challenge in which students are easy to make mistakes as they have to pay attention to many language factors during the formulating process Meanwhile, language anxiety has been considered as the major factor that prevents students from gaining achievement in learning (Dornyei, 2001) Evidence also proved that high anxious students had lower achievement on tests while students with low anxiety had higher achievement on test (Golchi & Jamali, 2011) For students who often have to put up with stress and anxiety in class, humor makes great contribution by helping them to get out of the pressure which may be created by the class atmosphere or learners themselves With the above reason, humor should be applied as it can ease and facilitate a comfortable and funny learning environment in which students can speak out without being threatened of criticism (Chiasson, 2002) Likewise, humor can encourage learners to be more confident and take risks in learning (Pham, 2011) By this way, this instrument is

found to be students‟ learning motivation to perceive the input and produce the language output

Not only does humor can bring psychological benefits to students but it also has positive influence on teachers Firstly, when preparing and presenting a lesson

in a humorous style, teachers are more likely to enjoy their jobs Thanks to the passion for what they are doing, their enthusiasm as well as their creativity is promoted to the full Besides, the supportive and conducive atmosphere creates strong willpower helping teachers feel less tired in the classroom Particularly, the students‟ good attitude towards learning and their fruitfulness are considered as greatest rewards to teachers (Berk, 1998) Ultimately, Morrison (2008) goes to the conclusion that humor is a tonic, a sweet drink for tired educators and bored students

2.4.2 Instructional/ Communication benefits

Among so many instructional reasons for using humor, there are two most important benefits standing out For one thing, humor builds the teacher-student rapport; for another, it engages students in the learning process (Lowman, 1995; Pham, 2011)

First of all, the humor use in classroom is believed to make the teacher become closer and more approachable (Chiasson, 2002) and break down the barrier between students and teachers (Hill, 1998, as cited in Pham, 2011) When the distance between these two agents is shortened, students who perceive their teachers

to be humorous tend to be more willing to talk; they would more frequently raise their voice, exchange ideas, ask questions and give comments From another perspective, the teacher is no longer a sole authority but can play various roles such

as an instructor, tutor, facilitator, participants, and many others As a result, students are encouraged to shift from passive information receivers to active learners and

190) went on to conclude by stressing that “A bonding rapport develops between you and your students that are founded on respect, trust, and fun.”

Secondly, humor can appeal both students‟ attendance and their participation

in class According to Berk (1998), it is believed that there exists a close correlation between attendance and humor use; with the funny classes, the students tend to visit more regularly Furthermore, the humorous and exciting learning environment does maintain learners‟ interest and encourage them to pursue what they want while the boredom prompts them to neglect studying One thing for sure is that students only participate in what they pay attention and maintain their focus when they find something interesting To wrap up, thanks to humor, students are more likely to be engaged in class activities (Pham, 2011)

2.4.3 Cognitive benefits

Humor has cognitive benefits on students, John Cleese (as cited in Pham, 2011), a famous English comedian, writer and film producer, affirms that “who laughs most, learns best” First of all, with the support of psychological and instructional benefits, humor is proved effective factor to enhance students‟ cognition (Pham, 2011) According to the findings from Matthew (2011)‟s research, students are able to remember the lesson better when it is taught with humor Similarly, the ability of recalling and learning of related information are improved (Friedman, Friedman & Amoo, 2002) In particular, when it is given prior to the presentation of content material, humor could be an effective tool for increasing divergent thinking and information acquisition Stopsky (1992), in his book: Humor

in the Classroom: A New Approach to Critical Thinking, goes on to assert that humor is a vital component of encouraging critical thinking in students; regretfully, this researcher does not mention any empirical evidence apart from suggesting examples It is obvious that humor makes deep impression on perceivers‟ brain so when they want to recall the knowledge, that humor remark on brain would be restored more easily than others

2.4.4 Socio-linguistic and cultural benefits

Learning a language is not simply learning the knowledge but communicative competence, and most importantly, learning how to use the language in appropriate contexts for purposeful communication It is necessary to understand the nature of the relationship between language and culture as it is central to the process of learning another language (Research Centre for Language and Culture).Moreover, researches conducted during the past half century indicate that students who are willing to integrate into the culture of the target language are more highly motivated and learn more successfully (Muqun & Lu, 2006) In the field of language teaching and learning, humor is recommended to be a source of enjoyment for students and teachers in which language is seen in humorous authentic and real life situations (Chiasson, 2002) Learning with humor provides meaningful opportunity for students to get familiar with real communication It is also a powerful tool for the illustration of cultural, pragmatic, and discoursal patterns During the social violation of cultural norms, people can learn pragmatic norms of a language (Deniere, as cited in Askildson, 2005) Actually, classroom exposure to humor helps students to understand and react to this pervasive and authentic element of discourse during real communicative language interactions Bell (as cited in Cabrera, 2008) states that humor is definitely important to advanced language proficiency as it is part of daily activities for language users For the reasons above, teachers might incorporate humorous examples or exercises into students‟ activities like role-plays, oral interviews to help students get familiar with the presence of humor in discourse Students can learn target culture and promote their communicative competence in an exciting way

The benefits of humor in terms of positive psychological, instructional, cognitive, and socio-linguistic and cultural effects promises potentials of the humor application into English speaking classes

2.5 Types of humor

Within the effort to study humor for hundreds of years, in parallel to the variety of humor definitions, types of humor were also classified as various taxonomies in connection with diversified purposes (Hay, 1995) It could be clearly seen that humor taxonomies varied from researcher to researcher; in support of this position, Hay (1995) highlighted that, “for almost every paper one reads on types or forms of humor, there is a new taxonomy.” She went on to argue that although there were many taxonomies designed for many contexts such as the classroom (Neuliep,

1991, as cited in Hay, 1995), the workplace (Vinton, 1989, ibid.), or to form parts of questionnaires (Graham, Papa, & Brookes, 1992, ibid.), none provided adequate coverage of her study

On the ground of Long and Graesser‟s (1988) categories, for the purpose of language translation learning, Schmitz (2002) proposed three groups of humorous discourse including humor that obtained mainly from the context and the general functioning of the world, namely the universal jokes As these jokes were based on reality, they could preserve humorous trait in translation versions from English into other target languages The second category was culture-based joke in which humor could be recognized in some communities and could not in others Coming as the last group was the linguistic joke that might not always be humorous in translation; this category was established based on linguistic features in terms of the phonology, morphology, syntax, and so on With the above mentioned taxonomy, the researcher found it difficult to use for her own thesis as each group was too broad for her to identify the specific types of humor for applying in her speaking classes However,

it could be inferred that the universal jokes as well as humor that contained understand cultural and linguistic traits should be encompassed in order to be appropriate to the student participants‟ level of language proficiency and culture understanding

easy-to-Among many taxonomies, the researcher selected Wandersee‟s (1982) and Hay‟s (1995) categories as they were in accordance with this thesis scope

Table 2.5.a: Types of Humor (Source: Wandersee, 1982, p 215)

Forms Descriptions

Joke A short prose statement followed by a punch line

Pun A humorous statement which is designed to play on the

multiple meanings of a word Limerick A nonsense poem of 5 anapestic lines

Cartoon A drawing, often accompanied by captions or dialogue,

depicting a humorous situation Riddle An information-seeking question with a clever and

humorous answer Humorous comment A short statement about current events which has a

humorous element Photon A photograph accompanied by a humorous caption or

dialogue statement Visual pun A pun presented in cartoon format

Comic verse A humorous poem which is metered and rhymed

Anecdote A humorous series of connected events described by the

observer Monologue An entertaining series of comic situations related by a

single speaker

Phony advertisement The modification of a bona fide advertisement for comic

effect by alteration of words or visual images Skit A comic theatrical sketch

Parody A literary or musical composition imitating a serious work

in a humorous way Reversed theory A form of science humor whereby the principles of an

accepted theory are revered and made to seem plausible Bogus experiment A humorous account of an unbelievable experiment

While Wandersee (1982) tended to give succinct descriptions of humor types, Hay (1995) recommended a specific and informative taxonomy including many categories which had not been identified in any other research She prioritized

an entire chapter in her study to define and explain each type of humor; Table 2.4b below attempts to illustrate a summary of what Hay presented

Table 2.5.b: Types of humor (Hay, 1995)

Form Brief definitions

Anecdotes An anecdote is a story which the speaker perceives to

be amusing It is not necessary drawn out, but must impart information This type of humor is most often about the experiences or actions of either the speaker or someone the speaker is acquainted with

Fantasy A fantasy is the construction of humorous, imaginary,

scenarios or events This is usually a collaborative activity, in which the participants jointly construct a possible or impossible series of events Fantasy humor typically involves

a lot of collaborative humor

Insult An insult is a remark that puts someone down, or

ascribes a negative characteristic to them

Irony/Sarcasm Definitions of irony/sarcasm are generally based on

one of two criteria: the speaker says the opposite of what she/he means, or saying something different from she/ he means Knowledge of the speaker and the context will be important in identifying irony/sarcasm

Jokes Jokes are chunks of humor whose basic form has been

memorized A joke will have a punchline, or some points at which an incongruity is resolved Narrative jokes and question and answer jokes are subcategories of this

Observational Humor in this category consists of quips or comments

about the environment, the events occurring at the time, or about the previous person‟s words In this sense, it is

“observational”- the speaker is making an observation about something funny, or making a witty observation

Quote A quote is a line taken from a television show or

movie, usually a comedy It depends very much on the group

as to whether this type of humor is used Appreciation of the humor requires a certain amount of in-group knowledge

Role play Role play is the adoption of another voice or

personality for humor effect This is very much based humor: the speaker is acting for their audience

performance-Self-deprecation Self deprecation is an insult directed at oneself

Vulgarity Jokes, wordplays, insults, etc can all have an aspect of

vulgarity For these cases, the vulgar aspect would be picked

up in the classification of the topic Toilet humor and sexual humor are typical instances of vulgarity The humor in both cases drives from the fact that the speakers are breaking some sort of taboo

Wordplay Wordplay is any humorous statement in which the

humor drives from the meanings, sounds or ambiguities of words The most typical instance is a pun

Other This category is for humor which does not slot into

any of the ten main categories of humor

2.6 Appropriate and Inappropriate use of Humor in education

The benefits of humor in education is undeniable that has been identified in many previous researches (Neuliep, 1991; Berk, 1996; Askildson, 2005; Wanzer, Frymier, Wojtaszczyk & Smith, 2006; Bell, 2009) As a matter of fact, humor has been encouraged to use in the language classroom However, it is considered as a double-edged sword as it can bring both positive and negative influences to the classroom According to Terry and Woods (1995, as cited in Askilson, 2005), too much humor can cause problems; hence, it would be useful for the researcher to have a review on the appropriate and inappropriate uses of humor in language classroom

In Neuliep‟s (1990) study, taxonomy of the humor that can be used in the classroom is categorized into five sections, (1) teacher targeted humor, (2) student targeted humor, (3) untargeted humor, (4) external source humor, (5) and nonverbal humor as presented in the following Table

Table 2.6.a: Twenty-item Taxonomy of High School Teacher Humor (Source: Neuliep, 1991, p 350)

Teacher role plays some characters unrelated

to the subject in humorous fashion

6 Teacher

Self-Deprecation

Teacher makes a humorous self-deprecating remark

Student targeted humor

7 Error identification Teacher identifies a student error/mistake and

jokes about it

8 Friendly insult Teacher mildly insults a student in a non

12 Joke telling Teacher simply tells a joke

13 Punning Teacher creates a play on words

14

Tongue-in-check/Facetious

Teacher engages in witty or whimsical interaction with a student or class using exaggerated or clumsy analogies Teacher

“B.S‟.s” with a student or class

External source humor

15 Historical incident Teacher relates a humorous historical event

16 Third Party

humor_Related

Teacher brings in an example of something humorous created by, or that happen to, some external source (e.g cartoon) that is related to the subject

17 Third Party

humor_Unrelated

Teacher brings in an example of something humorous created by, or that happen to, some external source (e.g., cartoon) that is not related to the subject

18 Natural phenomena

humor

Teacher demonstrates natural phenomena that students find humorous (e.g., letting the air out of a balloon and letting it fly all over the room to demonstrate low pressure.)

Nonverbal Humor

19 Affect Display Humor Teacher makes a funny face to the class

students‟ perceptions are paid attention While the Table 2.5b indicates the major characteristics of appropriate humor categories, the Table 2.5c summarizes the

main features of inappropriate humor use in the classroom

Table 2.6.b: Categories and Subcategories of Appropriate Teacher Humor (According to Wanzer, Frymier, Wojtaszczyk, & Smith (2006, as cited

in Tran, 2010))

Category 1: Related humor

Subcategories Short descriptions Examples

The teacher uses humor related to class topics

2 Using media to The teacher uses The teacher uses a

enhance learning to enhance learning related cartoon

3 Jokes The teacher uses jokes to

the course material

Ask: „What‟s someone who likes to go out a lot?‟

Answer: „Fungi‟

4 Examples The teacher uses

humorous examples to illustrate course concepts

The teacher uses names

in problem-solving situations that were humorous

5 Stories The teacher uses

humorous stories to illustrate course concepts

or reinforce learning

The teacher uses a funny story and relates it to class discussion

6 Critical/Cynical The teacher is critical or

cynical about course material in an effort to

The teacher uses „slang‟ that students use when they are discussing topics

8 Directed towards

student/teasing

The teacher uses humor attempts that are directs towards students

The teacher uses a student in a demonstration that is humorous and harmless