HUMOR IN EVERYDAY TALKS: A STUDY OF VIETNAMESE LANGUAGE LEARNER’S COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE IN INTERCULTURAL SETTINGS

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIESFACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES VŨ THỊ HỢI HUMOR IN EVERYDAY TALKS: A STUDY OF VIETNAMESE LANGUAGE LE

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

VŨ THỊ HỢI

HUMOR IN EVERYDAY TALKS: A STUDY OF VIETNAMESE LANGUAGE

LEARNER’S COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

IN INTERCULTURAL SETTINGS

HÀI HƯỚC TRONG HỘI THOẠI HÀNG NGÀY: MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU

VỀ NĂNG LỰC GIAO TIẾP CỦA HỌC SINH VIỆT NAM TRONG BỐI

CẢNH GIAO TIẾP LIÊN VĂN HÓA

M.A THESIS - RESEARCH ORIENTATION

CODE: 60140111 Supervisor: Dr Hoàng Thị Hạnh

HANOI - 2015

Statement of Ownership

I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge, it contained no material previously published or written by another person (except where explicitly defined in the acknowledgements), nor material which has been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma of a university or other institutions of higher learning

At the completion of this thesis, I would like to express my deep gratitude to

Dr Hoàng Thị Hạnh (my supervisor) of University of Languages and International Studies – Vietnam National University for her constant and valuable guidance, encouragement and support Particularly, her critical comments on every single piece

of work of the thesis have contributed greatly to my learning, and to the development

of my research skills Without her supervision, I would not have been able to complete this thesis However, shortcomings and errors, if any, in the thesis are my own

I would like to give my thanks to the students and volunteers who participated

in my studies, though their name cannot be identified (for confidentiality) This thesis could not have been completed without their ideas, information and contribution Thanks to their participation, patience and painstaking efforts, this thesis has been done

My thanks also go to Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, where I have studied for two years, for providing me with valuable learning condition

Last but not least, I would like to thank my parents, my sisters, and my friends for their encouragements on my life-long learning, for their help on the completion of this thesis

Conversational humor in language teaching and learning has risen in prominence since 1990s Recently, there has been much interest in and debate concerning conversational humor and how it links to participants’ communicative competence in intercultural situations However, there has been little empirical study into how humor is used and perceived by its participants, especially when all of them are L2 speakers of English This research reports on a qualitative study investigating humor used by five L2 speakers of English in their everyday talks Although the limited number of instances reported means that further research is needed to convincingly make generalizations, it is suggested that humor cannot be perceived as stative and presumptive but as adaptive and emergent resources which are negotiated and context-dependent Therefore, conversational humor needs to move beyond the traditionally conceived stative and context-independent as innate traits, typical connecting tools to incorporate an awareness of cultural and sociolinguistic differences in using humor and the skills needed to successfully negotiate the meaning of humor in intercultural settings

Table of Contents

HÀI HƯỚC TRONG HỘI THOẠI HÀNG NGÀY: MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU i

VỀ NĂNG LỰC GIAO TIẾP CỦA HỌC SINH VIỆT NAM TRONG BỐI CẢNH GIAO TIẾP LIÊN VĂN HÓA i

Statement of Ownership ii

I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge, it contained no material previously published or written by another person (except where explicitly defined in the acknowledgements), nor material which has been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma of a university or other institutions of higher learning ii

Abstract iv

INTRODUCTION 1

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Statement of problem and rationale 1

1.1.1 Statement of problem 1

English as an international language to communicate with German students, it is noticeable that there are still observable peculiar moments 2

This thesis consists of six chapters Chapter 1 introduces the research area and the general background, as well as the purposes and significance of the study Chapter 2 is a brief literature review of the research topic It explains the concepts and theories underpinning the research Chapter 3 describes research methodology and the study design Chapter 4 is an analysis of humor used by Vietnamese students and German volunteers in their daily intercultural talks Chapter 5 includes interpretative and descriptive explanations on how Vietnamese students and German volunteers perceived the humor used by their conversation partners This chapter addresses the central issues of the thesis, i.e participants’ perception of their conversational partners’ humor and to what extent; their perception of humor in intercultural communication indicates their communicative competence Chapter 6 is a summary of findings and discussion on how Vietnamese students and German volunteers’ socio-linguistic competence and communicative competence shown through their humor competence in daily intercultural talks This chapter also suggests further research to gain a deeper insight into humor in intercultural communication, especially in situated English teaching and learning .4

CHAPTER 2 5

LITERATURE REVIEW 5

Hài hước trong hội thoại hàng ngày: Một nghiên cứu về năng lực giao tiếp của học sinh Việt Nam trong bối cảnh giao tiếp liên văn hóa 64

Hài hước trong hội thoại hàng ngày: Một nghiên cứu về năng lực giao tiếp của học sinh Việt Nam trong bối cảnh giao tiếp liên văn hóa 67

List of Transcript Conventions

Indicate intonation that is a falling or final, not necessary at the end of

the sentence

? Indicate the rising tone, not necessary a question

, Indicate “continuing” intonation, not necessarily a clause boundary.:: Indicate the prolongation or stretching of the sound just preceding them

The more colons, the longer the stretching

((laughs)) Nonlinguistic features of the transcription or transcriber’s description of

the event

(0.8) Numbers in the parentheses indicate silence, represented in tenths of a

second, what is given here in the left margin indicates 0.8 seconds of silence

(…) Indicate a section of dialogue that is not transcribed

[ ] Overlapping or interrupted speech

picks it up

hhh Indicate hearable aspiration or represent breathing, laughter, etc The

more h’s, the more aspiration

 Indicate specific parts of an extract discussed in the text

List of Abbreviations

List of Tables

Statement of Ownership ii

Abstract iv

CHAPTER 2 5

LITERATURE REVIEW 5

List of Figures

Statement of Ownership ii

Abstract iv

CHAPTER 2 5

LITERATURE REVIEW 5

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction

This thesis examines how humor is used in daily intercultural talks between Vietnamese students and German volunteers and how they perceive the humor used

by their conversation partners This first chapter introduces the research topic, and the rationale of the present study in sections 1.1 Section 1.2 describes the purpose and significance of the study The last section outlines the structure for the research presentation

1.1 Statement of problem and rationale

1.1.1 Statement of problem

The purpose of teaching English is to develop learner’s communicative competence (Hymes, 1972, 1974; Canale & Swain, 1980, 1983; Damen, 1987; Dodd, 1988; Park, 1994; Schinitzer, 1995; Ting-Toomey, 1999; Schmitz, 2002; Lantolf,

2000, 2006; Fantini, 2006; Byram, 1997, 2000; Hoa, 2007; Moosmüller & Schönhuth, 2009; Deardorff, 2009; Cetinavci, 2012) Canale and Swain (1980, 1983) divide communicative competence into four parts: (1) linguistic competence or the ability to use the linguistic code, grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary correctly; (2) discourse competence which is the ability to maintain cohesion between segments

of discourse; (3) strategic competence which is the leamer's ability to repair communication breakdown and work around gaps in his or her knowledge of the target language, and finally (4) sociolinguistic competence or learners’ ability to use language appropriately in various social contexts (Byram, 1997) To assess the communicative competences when using English as an international language, each competence cannot be viewed separately from its context (Lantolf, 2000, 2006; Fantini, 2009; Byram, 1997, 2000; Hoa, 2007; Moosmüller & Schönhuth, 2009; Deardorff, 2009; Cetinavci, 2012) This research, regarding sociolinguistic competence, studies humor competence of Vietnamese high school students who are fluent in linguistic competence when they come to interact with German students using English as an international language These Vietnamese students can speak English with fluency and accuracy in everyday talks However, when they use

English as an international language to communicate with German students, it is noticeable that there are still observable peculiar moments.

1.1.2 Rationale

Having a sense of humor helps us a lot in socializing Trachtenberg (1979) indicates that humor is indispensable in everyday socialization such as greeting someone, introducing oneself, leaving a social meeting Humor helps bring people closer to each other (Askidson, 2005; Mak, 2008; Bell, 2006; Aboudan, 2009); clear away tension atmosphere and make it enjoyable and meaningful (Attardo, 1994; Alison, 1998; Bell, 2007a; Lundquist, 2009; Lynch, 2002; Crăciun, 2014); and dispel the feeling of shyness and unconfidence (Bell, 2007a) Humor within the language teaching can reduce affective barriers to language acquisition; stimulate behaviors that are essential to success within a communicative context and create conducive learning environment (Masten, 1986; Kang & Gianato, 1999; Sullivan, 2000; Askidson, 2005; Bell, 2005; Aboudan, 2009; Hoang, 2014)

Currently, there is a noticeable shift in humor research and theory from a universal communication view point in which humor can be recognized by laughter, smiling or linguistic cues such as “I’m teasing you”, “I’m joking”, or “it was so funny” (Chiaro, 1992; Attardo, 1994; Carrell, 1997; Hay, 2001; Wiseman, 2002; Andrew, 2010) to a personal and situated perspective in which humor is constructed, perceived and negotiated in intercultural interaction (Lee, 1994; Lynch, 2002; Bell,

2006, 2007a, 2007b; Wiseman, 2002; Wiseman & Gonzalez, 2005; Gervais & Wilson, 2005; Mak, 2008; Lundquist, 2009) This research is done, taking the latter view point of humor, seeing humor as a part of sociolinguistic competence However,

it is different from the previous studies on interactional humor (Lee, 1994; Bell, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Mak, 2008; Lundquist, 2009) in that the participants in my research are all L2 speakers of English Questions remain as to the conditions under which L2 speakers may be more or less receptive to humor created by the other L2 users and how they perceive and respond to such humor My research is an attempt to answer these questions

1.2 Purpose and significance of the study

1.2.1 Purpose of the study

It is expected that this research will shed some light on conversational humor According to Attardo (1994) and Norrick (2009), conversational humor focuses on

how humor works closely with its context They emphasize that if humor is just found and analyzed in books or collections of jokes, its text does not depend on contextual factors Thus, it obviously bears little relationship to the ongoing human interactions Since Attardo’s initiation (1994), conversational humor has been the scholarship of many researchers, among them are Lee (1994); Carrell (1997); Hay (2001); Bell (2002, 2006, 2007a, 2007b) However, these studies mostly focus on the interactions between native speakers and non-native speakers Very little is known about humor in intercultural communication where interlocutors are all L2 speakers of English

The overarching questions addressed in this study have been formulated as:

 How is humor used in daily intercultural talks between Vietnamese students and German volunteers?

 How do Vietnamese students and German volunteers perceived the humor used by their conversation partners?

Thus, the overall objective of the study is to find out how humor in intercultural communication is used, perceived, recognized, understood and appreciated by participants who belong to different cultures, speak different languages but use English to communicate in everyday talks In a broad sense, this research aims at constructing knowledge about conversational humor of Vietnamese learners when they use English in intercultural settings and how their sociolinguistic competence is shown through humor competence in their daily conversations

1.2.2 Significance of the study

This study also aims at finding out how humor in intercultural communication

is perceived, recognized, understood and appreciated by participants who belong to different cultures, speak different languages but use English to communicate in everyday talks Can humor help build rapport and strengthen relationships between interlocutors as claimed by Mak (2008), Lee (1994), Bell (2006; 2007a) or cause tension between them as the case of Pum using aggressive teasing in Bell (2007b) or frequent play-on-word use and the overuse of irony among Danes in Lundquist (2009)? Andrew (2010) states that efforts made to determine the crux behind humor are greatly meaningful to the understanding of language and communication strategies, psychology and cognitive processes, as well as social personal or cultural values, beliefs, attitudes and perspectives However, according to Andrew (2010),

most attempts at humor fail because one or more of the elements involving the comprehension of humor such as personal, social factors, context, timing, and intent are misinterpreted, ignored or too ambiguous My research intends to fill in this gap

by using the triangulation of data collection including participant observation, and interviews Thus, the factors effecting the success or failure of humor in intercultural and interpersonal situations will be clarified

1.3 Structure of the thesis

This thesis consists of six chapters Chapter 1 introduces the research area and the general background, as well as the purposes and significance of the study Chapter

2 is a brief literature review of the research topic It explains the concepts and theories underpinning the research Chapter 3 describes research methodology and the study design Chapter 4 is an analysis of humor used by Vietnamese students and German volunteers in their daily intercultural talks Chapter 5 includes interpretative and descriptive explanations on how Vietnamese students and German volunteers perceived the humor used by their conversation partners This chapter addresses the central issues of the thesis, i.e participants’ perception of their conversational partners’ humor and to what extent; their perception of humor in intercultural communication indicates their communicative competence Chapter 6 is a summary

of findings and discussion on how Vietnamese students and German volunteers’ socio-linguistic competence and communicative competence shown through their humor competence in daily intercultural talks This chapter also suggests further research to gain a deeper insight into humor in intercultural communication, especially in situated English teaching and learning

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction

This study examines the use and perception of humor in daily intercultural interactions Humor, as a familiar concept in both daily life and academic fields, has been conceptualized from various perspectives, hence the need for an interdisciplinary knowledge To provide the basic theoretical framework for the study, this chapter commences with a review of humor definitions (section 2.1) This

is followed by a brief description of recent research into humor in intercultural communication (section 2.2) Section 2.3 describes humor competence as a social-cognitive construct which is distinguishable from joke competence The next section (section 2.4) discusses relationship between humor competence and sociolinguistic competence The last section (section 2.5) is the summary of the issues viewed

2.1 Humor

Humor is defined in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary as “the quality in something that makes it amusing and funny or the ability to laugh at things that are

amusing” (Hornby et al., 2010) Alison (1998) defined humor as “something that

makes a person laugh or smile” (p 1) Ziv (1988) saw “humor as a social message intending to produce laughter or smiling” (p ix) Humor “fulfills certain functions

uses, has content and used in certain situation” (p ix)

The definition of what humor is, according to Attardo (1994), ultimately depends on the purpose for which it is used He points out, in the field of literary criticism, for example, there is a need for a clear and distinct categorization whereas linguists have often been happy with a broader meaning of humor, arguing that whatever evokes laughter or is felt to be funny is humor In other words, humor can

be deduced from its effect - laughter Spanakaki (2007) defined humor as “whatever intended to be funny, even if it might not always be perceived or interpreted as such” (p 2) Lynch (2002) characterized humor as both “intended or unintended message” which is understood as funny (p 423) Holmes (2000) emphasizing the importance of analyst on identifying humor defined it “on the basis of paralinguistic, prosodic and discoursal clues, as intended by the speaker(s) to be amusing and perceived to be amusing by at least some participants” (p 163) These definitions have its problems

because it is not easy to measure intention (Thorson & Powell, 1993; Mackey & Gass, 2007) However, these definitions are useful in that humor is a fundamentally social phenomenon can vary greatly in different cultures Within the purposes of this study, I have chosen to use “humor” as a generic term covering any communicative acts with fun-inducing potential

2.2 Humor in intercultural communication

Andrew (2010) suggests that although in intercultural communication, humor

is often used as a powerful speech act for breaking the ice, establishing relationships

or diffusing a difficult situation, the idea of “funny” is rarely interpreted universally and is highly personal, context and culture specific As a consequence, many jokes, sarcastic or ironical remarks which may be deeply tied to one culture are often unperceived, misunderstood or offensive, nonsensical in the others He took the conclusion of Kant (1951) as an example: “Laughter is an effect that arises if a tense

expectation is transformed into nothing” (p 178) In other words, laughter does not

always bind to humor, people laugh in tension situations Humor may produce other reactions besides laughter and laughter may not always be a sign of amusement (Andrew, 2010) In the same spirit, Attardo (1994) and Alison (1998) claim that laughter can be delayed when hearers of jokes are faced with a dilemma; for example, when their reaction may be socially unacceptable or the situation in which laughter is inappropriate or the content of the joke is inappropriate The hearers may wait before

they laugh in order to match their reactions with the other listeners Therefore, the

interpretation of humor in intercultural communication based on salient acts such as laughter or smiling is no longer trustful and the way we perceive our humor cannot rely only on these cues

It is undeniable that there are some types of universal humor (Wiseman, 2002; Andrew, 2010) but the interpretation of how they work in different cultures is not an easy task Andrew (2010) concluded that types of humor which do not require specialized language, background knowledge or culture specific themes and artifacts are more successful In the same spirit, Schmitz (2002) categorized humor discourse

in three groups that are “universal jokes; cultural jokes; and linguistic jokes” (p 89)

A universal joke includes humor that is obtained mainly from the context and the general function of the world A cultural joke is based on cultural-background

knowledge In order to understand and appreciate this type of joke, there is a need to acquire abundant knowledge about the target society The third group is linguistic joke which is based on “specific features” in the phonology, morphology or syntax of particular language (p 94) He provided the order of learnability for joke comprehension Learners can start with universal jokes, the cultural jokes and finally reach the advanced level with linguistic jokes

It can be seen from the category of Schmitz (2002) that cultural jokes can be learnt and less complicated than linguistic jokes This view of cultural joke or humor poses a great challenge for anyone who wants to learn it and use it in intercultural communication The reason is, as stated above, people in different parts of the world tend to appreciate humor that is not culturally specific (Ziv, 1988; Wiseman, 2002; Wilson, 2003) Besides, Andrew (2010) emphasized that cultural difference is, not surprisingly, one of the greatest barriers to comprehension and enjoyment Therefore, one cultural joke can be used productively in this context with these people but may have counter-effect in other contexts with other people Thus, cultural jokes are not static and cannot be learnt separately from context It seems that the best way for people who want to learn cultural jokes is to immerse themselves in intercultural communication where cultural jokes are used and under constant contest by interlocutors Lundquist (2009) considered humor as a mediator in intercultural professional settings She concludes that “humor can neutralize linguistic and cultural barriers and create a shared world” (p 34) but frequent play-on-word use and the overuse of irony among Danes caused general discomfort among their French interlocutors (Lundquist, 2009) She advised Danes to be careful in their use of irony for French to be aware of this specific form of Danish humor Especially, her finding

of both Danish and French interlocutors who are not afraid of making language errors

in the foreign language contributes greatly to the creation of new social shapes and ties

As this thesis studies humor in intercultural conversations, I would like to take Bell’s view on humor which is both destructive and constructive (Schmitz, 2002) depending on the context; sociolinguistic background and knowledge of the participants; and whether the conversation is among NNSs or between NSs and NNSs (Bell, 2006, 2007a, 2007b) I would use Bell’s (2007b) humor competence

framework in recognizing humor during the first phase of my research on analyzing conversation transcripts Bell (2007b) categorizes the themes into joke competence/ recognition; humor competence/ understanding – appreciation; humor and agreement

as the mark in or out of the group; interactive construction of humor-identity and language building This categorization is the further development of Carrell’s (1997) joke competence and humor competence in combination with Hay’s (2001) implicature theory of humor (see figure 2.1)

Figure 2.1: Four-level Model of Humor Appreciation (Hay, 2001)

The greatest difference between my research and Bell’s is that I focus on the humor interactions between NNSs using English to communicate in everyday situations Thus, on analyzing the data, I see that when the participants are all L2 speakers, they tend to be more aware of different Englishes (vernacular, accent, dialect, genre, variety) and the context of language use They use their sense of humor

to explore even more about it (Ziv, 1988; Wiseman & Gonzalez, 2005) It is likely that the relationship between linguistic and humorous interactional adjustments that Bell (2007a) points out might work with my research However, it is too early to draw out any conclusion because L2 humor is influenced by multiple aspects of participants’ identities such as gender, personality, race, ethnicity, first language, culture, foreign language proficiency and of course the context of the interactional humor (Thorson & Powell, 1993; Bell, 2006, 2007a, 2007; Wiseman & Gonzalez, 2005; Gervais & Wilson, 2005)

2.3 Humor competence

As I stated above, joke competence and humor competence are distinct Joke competence refers to the recognition of jokes (mostly text or script analysis) while humor deals with the understanding and appreciation of jokes and/or funny events (Carrell, 1997; Hay, 2001; Bell, 2006, 2007a; Dynel, 2009) Carrell (1997) and Bell (2007b) make it clear as they state that people may ask ‘‘are you joking?’’ if the problem occurs within their joke competence, but they may confess ‘‘I don’t get it’’

at their level of humor competence Attardo (2001b) distinguished between humor competence and humor performance He defined humor competence as “the capacity

of a speaker to process semantically a given text and to locate a set of relationships among its components, such that he/she would identify the text (or part of it) as humorous in an ideal situation” (Attardo, 2001b, p 167) The latter, humor performance, is “the actual encounter of two speakers (not necessarily physically co-present), in a given actual place and time, i.e., in a given context” (Attardo, 2001b, p 167) This distinction is relevant to Chomsky’s two terms (1965) “performance” and

“competence” (p 3) in that competence is an idealized capacity, a psychological or mental property or function, and “performance” is the production of actual utterances

In Chomsky’s view, people with linguistic competence can produce and understand

an infinite number of sentences in their language, and can differentiate grammatical sentences from ungrammatical sentences Hymes (1972) rejects Chomsky on the use

of “competence” which relates to “grammaticality” and “performance” referring to

“acceptability” (p 281) Hymes addresses the importance of theory of communication and culture which puts “appropriateness” of communication acts to their contexts in its centre (1974, p viii) Joke competence may be evident from analyzing text and script but humor competence is quite abstract for it links to the cognitive “process” of interlocutors and highly embedded in the context (Attardo, 1994; Bell, 2007a)

Deardorff (2009) defined word “process” as “a primitive theoretical term”

which “broadly implies systemic aspects of ongoing or continuous change over time, functional interdependence, equifinality (different paths to the same outcome), and multifinality (one path to multiple outcomes)” (p 5) The word “competence” is often understood as abilities or skills of doing something It also refers to “understanding (e.g., accuracy, clarity, co-orientation, overlap of meanings), relationship development (e.g., attraction, intimacy), satisfaction (e.g., communication satisfaction, relational satisfaction, relational quality), effectiveness (e.g., goal achievement, efficiency, institutional success, negotiation success), appropriateness (e.g., legitimacy, acceptance, assimilation), and adaptation” (p 6) However, these definitions do not state the importance of context in interpreting “competence” because the same behavior or skill can be perceived as competent differently depending on various context and/or perceiver Deardorff poses a more convincing definition of competence as “the process of managing interaction in ways that are

likely to produce more appropriate and effective individual, relational, group, or

institutional outcomes” (Deardorff, 2009, p 6)

In conclusion, humor competence is seen first as a cognitive process which closely ties to individual and context (Chiaro, 1992; Lee, 1994; Hall, 1995; Carrell, 1997; Bell, 2002; Andrew, 2010) Also, humor competence is implicitly understood through the word “competence” (Deardorff, 2009) as a social construct which is closely related to the social rules of language such as appropriateness, formality, politeness, and directness Bell (2007a) reaffirms this view and suggests for further research being done on conversational humor in interaction from sociolinguistic and ethnographic perspectives the processing and understanding of humor This research

is intended to fill in this gap

2 4 Humor competence as a part of sociolinguistic competence

Sociolinguistic competence, according to Canale & Swain (1980, 1983), is one

of four parts of communicative competences (see figure 2.2), and is defined as the learner's ability to use language appropriately in various social contexts Van Ek defines sociolinguistic competence as the consciousness of choosing the appropriate

“language forms” in certain communicative situations (Byram, 1997, p 48) As can

be seen from the definition of Canale & Swain and Van Ek, there is a close relationship between linguistic use and their contextual or situational meaning Thus, sociolinguistic competence, as a part of communicative competence, is shown through people’s ability to produce utterances appropriate to the social situation in which they are spoken Sociolinguistic competence requires one's adjustments to use the language which is appropriate to the setting the communication takes place (Hall, 1995; Davies, 2003, Bell, 2005, 2006; Mak, 2008; Lundquist, 2009; Ziyaeemehr & Kumar, 2011)

Linguistic competence

Understanding and using:

 Vocabulary

 Language convention (grammar,

punctuation and spelling)

 Syntax (e.g: sentence structure)

Strategic competence

Using techniques to:

 Overcome language gaps

 Plan and assess the effectiveness of communication

 Achieve conversational fluency

 Modify text for audience and purpose

Having awareness of:

 Social rules of language (e.g:

appropriateness, formality, politeness,

directness)

 Nonverbal behaviors

 Cultural references (e.g: idioms,

expressions, background knowledge)

Figure 2.2: Communicative Model (Canale & Swain, 1980, 1983)

As mentioned above, sociolinguistic competence closely links to the appropriate use of language and is contested in communication Humor, likewise, needs high situation awareness and modification, and strongly connected to

interactants’ language proficiency (Davies, 2003; Bell, 2005, 2006, 2007a, 2007b;

Ziyaeemehr & Kumar, 2011) Sociolinguistic theories of humor were first addressed

in Attardo (1994) and reaffirmed in Bell (2005), Fantini (2006), Dynel (2009), Ziyaeemehr & Kumar (2011), and Hoang (2014) Attardo (1994) stated that jokes could be divided into canned or context-independent and conversational or context-dependent jokes He addressed the need to study conversation jokes Fantini (2006) considers humor as one of the common “traits” or “characteristics” of intercultural communicative competence (p 83) He also differentiates between “traits” which can

be innate like personal qualities and “characteristics” that can be cultivated later in life with individuals’ experience drawing from cultural and situational contexts Ziv (1984), Park (1994), Mizne (1997), Cook (1997), Lynch (2002), Davies (2003), Bell (2005, 2006), Ziyaeemehr & Kumar (2011), Dicioccio (2012), and Hoang (2014) emphasize the learnability of conversational humor and its connection to language proficiency Davies (2003) claims that the collaboration of participants under particular circumstances in the development of conversational joking is the “key dimension of communicative competence” (p 1381) Davies (2003), Bell (2005), and Ziyaeemehr & Kumar (2011) indicate the relationship between humor and focus-on-form use of language They all agree on that the know-how and know-when depend

on learners’ language proficiency because “humor is deeply embedded in cultural context” (Davies, 2003, p 1363) Therefore, it requires a high level of communicative competence (William, 2001; Bell, 2005, 2006; Ziyaeemehr & Kumar, 2011) Thus, there is a mutual and close relationship between humor and language proficiency and more advanced learners tend to make the most out of humor They are not only better

at making their adjustments to fit into the context but also proactive in generating and interpreting humor (Hall, 1995; Davies, 2003; Bell, 2005, 2006, 2007b; Ziyaeemehr

& Kumar, 2011) Figure 2.3 shows the relationship between humor competence and sociolinguistic competence

Figure 2.3: Relationship between Humor Competence and Sociolinguistic

Competence

Humor Competence

SociolinguisticCompetence Communicative Competence

Then what happens if all interlocutors are L2 speakers of English (German and Vietnamese)? Whether these adjustments and understandings remain true for their interactions? It is expected that my research will shed some light to the approach that see humor as an aspect of sociolinguistic competence (Attardo, 1994; Bell, 2005, 2006).

2.5 Summary

This chapter describes humor as a multifaceted concept Humor not only depends on the contexts but also the social-cognitive aspects of participants taking

part in the intercultural interactions (Ziv, 1988; Attardo, 1994; Davies, 2003; Bell,

2005, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Fantini, 2006; Dynel, 2009; Ziyaeemehr & Kumar, 2011;

Hoang, 2014) It is viewed as a potential fun-inducing communicative act In intercultural communication, humor needs to be addressed as an integrated element (Lee, 1994; Lynch, 2002; Davies, 2003; Bell, 2005, 2006, 2007a, 2007b) Both a static view and a dynamic view of humor are necessary in addressing humor in intercultural communication (Attardo, 1994, 2001a, 2001b; Wiseman, 2002; Wiseman & Gonzalez, 2005; Gervais & Wilson, 2005; Mak, 2008; Lundquist, 2009)

Humor competence is seen as one part of sociolinguistic competence and closely related to the appropriateness and effectiveness of individuals in situational communication and relationship among the members in group of interaction (Attardo,

1994; Davies, 2003; Bell, 2005) Therefore, the study of humor in intercultural communication is also an investigation into L2 speakers’ competence and performance Chomsky (1965) defined competence in terms of linguistic competence and performance is the actual use of language in situations This definition considers linguistic competence separately from the contexts where that language is used and does not state clearly the relationship between linguistic knowledge and the appropriate, effective language use of individuals and the situational outcomes Hymes (1972, 1974) and Deardorff (2009) give more

persuasive definitions of competence which involve not only linguistic knowledge but also the appropriateness and effectiveness of individuals and the skills needed to produce situational outcomes This thesis adopts humor as a social-cognitive competence perceived in Hymes’s (1972, 1974) and Deardorff’s (2009) view

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

The present study examines how humor is used and perceived by participants

in intercultural communication in their everyday talks This chapter explains how the research is done It aims to construct knowledge about conversational humor between L2 speakers (Vietnamese and German students) of English in intercultural settings, how Vietnamese learners’ sociolinguistic competence is shown through humor competence The first section 3.1 introduces the research questions that guide my study Sections 3.2 and 3.3 describe the participants and the settings of the research Section 3.4 is devoted to the description of data collection methods This is followed

by detailed explanations of data analysis methods in section 3.5

3.1 Research questions

The overarching questions addressed in this study have been formulated as:

 How is humor used in daily intercultural talks between Vietnamese students and German volunteers?

 How do Vietnamese students and German volunteers perceived the humor used by their conversation partners?

Thus, the overall objective of the study is to find out how humor in intercultural communication is used, perceived, recognized, understood and appreciated by participants who belong to different cultures, speak different languages but use English to communicate in everyday talks In a broad sense, this research aims at constructing knowledge about conversational humor of Vietnamese learners when they use English in intercultural settings and how their sociolinguistic competence is shown through humor competence in their daily conversations

3.2 Participants

The conversations are among five members: two German volunteers: Jonas and Samson; and two high school students: Thành and Nguyệt, and Hợi (also the researcher)

Jonas and Samson taught English to students in a community class where Thành and Nguyệt were students Hợi was a teacher at a nearby high school She had strong interest in this activity, and she joined every lesson in the class They often had

dinner after finishing teaching in community class at Thành’s house or on the lakeside in the centre of the district, not very far from the community class Both Jonas and Samson could speak a little Vietnamese, especially food and street names They could speak some tricky words with all the six tones; especially were very good

at the third tone such as “nước mắm”, “xúc xích”, “bún chả”, “say”, “mật ong”,

“nấm”, etc

Thành was an eleventh-grade student and Nguyệt was at grade ten They studied in a high school near the community class They had been in a group with the German volunteers for one year (they had been with Tom and Bill – the two other German volunteers), so they had good opportunity to understand German culture and practice English with them They not only learnt and taught English together but also did many things together such as eating out, going swimming, doing volunteer work, etc Table 3.1 provides demographic information about the participants

Abbreviation Name/

*Note: All names (except for the researcher’s) are pseudonyms

Table 3.1: Demographic Information about the Participants

3.3 Settings

The settings of these conversations were dinner time at Thành’s house or a restaurant on the lakeside near community class When they had dinner at Thành’s house, they would prepare the food and cooked together However, when they went

to the lakeside restaurant, they mostly had snacks like hot dog, grilled meat, bread with some drinks or fruits bought in a nearby fruit stall The quiet and fresh atmosphere at night and friendly social settings were always good for them to talk about their experience and sometimes to tease or make fun of each other

Wenger (1998), Cheng (2003), Bell (2006), and Mak (2008) pointed out that people tend to learn more and spend more time understanding each other when they are not busy at work Newcomers tend to spend their out-of-office time to relax and

be funny with their colleagues They take great attention to who create humor and try

to work it out in sociable and relaxing atmosphere (Mak, 2008) It is expected that the natural and friendly setting during dinner time after two hours of teaching in the class may be a fruitful ground for their learning, teasing and relaxing after work.

3.4 Data collection methods

3.4.1 Participant observations

The first data collection method I used in my research was participant observation (Cohen, 2005) Participant observation was selected as one of the data collection methods because it could be combined with other forms of data collection

to provide a clear picture of the participants, situation and their participation in their organizing situations and behavior (Cohen, 2005) Morrison (1993) states that the longitudinal immersion of researchers in a particular context gives them opportunities

to facilitate their thick description and explanation of events and prevent them from relying on their own inferences Table 3.2 provides information about my participant observations

Table 3.2: Information about Participant Observations

Data came from sequences of audio/video-taped spontaneous intercultural conversations mostly among five members All the audios and videos were taped after they had finished their teaching and learning in community class The data were collected over a period of three months from November 2014 to January 2015 Each video or audio was from 25 minutes to one hour and a half long The conversations and discussions in the videos and audios were sometimes a mix of Vietnamese, English and German but most of the time in English Only four conversations that were almost in English were chosen to analyze and the participants were limited to Hợi, Jonas, Samson, Thành and Nguyệt These conversations were at Thành’s house

or a restaurant on the lakeside near the class Table 3.3 provides information about these video and audio recordings.

Table 3.3: Video and Audio Recordings (VRs /ARs)

3.4.2 Stimulated recall interviews

The next sources of data are the audio recordings from the stimulated recalls

On transcribing the data and asking for the help from all participants, I noticed many moments when a sense of humor brought about surprise, roaring laugh or even silence or just an act of focusing on eating It was problematic to understand humor in these cases just by observation as I stated above laughter can be a signal of tension that turns into nothing or silence might signify delayed laughter Therefore, to know how humor is perceived, understood, or justified as appropriate in these cases, I used stimulated recall I played these parts again and asked participants some questions to help them elicit their actions/ behaviors However, most of the time I just played the videos and audios and let the interviewee describe in details about his/her own thoughts and to give reasons for actions/ behaviors This method was used after I had all the transcripts and I had noticed moments that humor was not observed or not responded as expected As the humor shown in my data sometimes mentioned sensitive issues like prostitution, so I did the stimulated recall with each participant individually

Stimulated recall is considered as useful reflections of mental process It is best known for its ability to dig deep into human mind However, it is problematic because “humans are essentially sense-making beings and tend to create explanations whether such explanations can be justified or not.” (Mackey & Gass, 2007, p 5) To overcome this drawback, I played the parts before and after the ones I do stimulated recalls on so that they can have a large number of the cues which occurred during the original situations Besides, I would use cross-check questions with every participant For example, I may ask Thành about Jonas: “Do you think that Jonas understood and

appreciated your funny stories at this moment?” Also, my full participation in every conversation helped me a lot in eliciting all the verbal and non-verbal communication and/or responses of other participants in the group.

However, my role in the stimulated recall interviews might also affect the nature and interpretation of data I was not outside the phenomenon and any preconception could lead to a false interpretation of the data (Mackey & Gass, 2007) Therefore, I prepared myself for the interview by reviewing the videos/ audios and transcribing the conversations Notes about the special moments when humor could not be perceived by observation are made Questions for the interviews were then prepared To obtain the interviewee’s own point of view on humor, I asked the interviewee to describe in details about his/her own thoughts and to give reasons for actions I also kept in mind the main idea of my research but welcome both relevant and spontaneous questions I was an active listener and might ask questions, but still open to the interviewee’s own understanding and impressions To help the interviewees understand and keep on track with the topic of humor and how humor is perceived, I gave clear guidelines to each participant and made sure they understand what we were going to do

The following procedure will be used with each participant during stimulated recall interviews (SRIs) in the study:

Figure 3.1: Procedure of Using Stimulated Recall Interviews (SRIs)

By using triangulation of participant observation, video and audio recordings, and retrospective method in the second phase of data analysis, it is expected that the data help elucidate humor in intercultural communication as viewed by interlocutors from different cultural perspectives Table 3.4 provides information about the stimulated recall interviews

Open-ended interview probe 3

Open-ended interview probe 4

Participant Series 3 Series 4

Consistent with introspective approach of speaking, the data were not collected with any specific research topic in mind; they were intended to observe intercultural spontaneous speech to draw comparisons across cultures and to see if intercultural communication could lead to any form of learning It was noticeable that after watching some videos, humor emerged from the data as salient speech acts As a participant in the interaction and from my personal and previous knowledge of the participants (I have been one member of the group for nearly two years but last year I was with different German volunteers), I was able to locate a great number of humorous situations

In this study, I qualitatively analyze the transcribed data to see how humor is used and perceived in everyday talks, which includes a triangulation of transcript analysis and thematic analysis In other words, interpreting humor using qualitative analysis is to make sense of it from the context in which it is embedded For example,

(in minutes)

(in minutes)

I am able to see humor that is not only visible such as the funny language use, emotional facial expression and other non-linguistic cues but also invisible and need

to be inferred from the context

3.5.1 Transcript analysis

Cohen (2005), Gibson & Brown (2009), and Hartas (2010) state that transcribing is a very important step because it is possible that the data lose their thick descriptions and explanation if the researchers do not take it into their consideration right from the first stage of their data collection Nevertheless, transcriptions

“inevitably lose data from the original encounter” (Cohen, 2005, p 281) They suggest that the analysis in qualitative research should begin right after the first observation, interview or/ and video and audio recording

In my research, I used the form of “focused transcription” (Gibson & Brown,

2009, p 113; Hartas, 2010, p 299) when I transcribed the VRs and ARs This form is chosen because I was not only interested in what were said but also how participants expressed themselves in the VRs and ARs Therefore, non-verbal language was also noted down and studied carefully in my research However, when I transcribed SRIs,

I adopted “unfocused transcription” (Gibson & Brown, 2009, p 113; Hartas, 2010, p 298) for my purpose was not on “any particular sections or interactional aspects of the data” (Gibson & Brown, 2009, p 114) but on what participants and I said in the recorded interview

I started to transcribe the video and audio recordings during my fieldwork process For the participants were familiar with my appearance in the group (I had been working with them in the group for nearly two years), I was able to comment on all of the non-verbal communication in these audio and video recordings I myself transcribed all these recordings (VRs & ARs) and stimulated recall interviews (SRIs) Transcribing the materials myself not only ensured confidentiality issues but also gave me a thorough understanding of the data In addition, I was able to summarize the contents of the VRs and ARs and the SRIs transcriptions The transcribing also allowed me to identify and note down the areas of interest or the unclear points that I could come back later or ask the participants for help For example, when transcribing the first VR, I noticed Jonas and Samson spoke some German that I could not understand such as “prost” or “nein”, I noted these points down and I asked them for

help Furthermore, preliminary analysis of the VRs, ARs and SRIs transcriptions allowed me to identify the themes and helped me code my data in my later data analysis.

3.5.2 Thematic analysis

I followed an inductive approach in data analysis, which is the principal technique used in the grounded theory method (Cohen, 2005; Bowen, 2006) According to Bowen (2006), the patterns, themes, and categories of inductive analysis come from the data They emerge out of the data rather than being imposed

on them prior to data collection and analysis

Thematic analysis in this research involved the search for identification of common threads that extended throughout various conversations in their natural settings (Cohen, 2005) These themes were quite abstract and therefore difficult to identify Often the theme did not immediately jump out of the conversations but might be more apparent when I stepped back and considered: “What are these conversations trying to tell me?” Thus, I spent a lot of time and efforts listening to the conversation, watching the videos, and developing my sharp observation skills during the study The themes were beneath the surface of the conversations but, once identified, appeared obvious (Cohen, 2005; Hartas, 2010)

Thematic analysis initially starts with complicated coding procedures (Cohen, 2005) Coding can be understood as the “translation of question responses and respondent information to specific categories for the purpose of analysis” (Cohen,

2005, p 287) Thus, with the aim of investigating how the participants use their humor and perceive their counterparts’ humor in everyday talks, and how their humor links to their communicative competence, my coding procedures are summarized as follows Phase one involves the analyzing the sources of data separately: the SRIs with the participants, the participant observations, the VRs and ARs Phase two includes the triangulation of data sources to generate themes as well as theme analysis and discussion

CHAPTER 4 HUMOR IN EVERYDAY INTERCULTURAL TALKS 4.0 Introduction

This chapter discusses how humor is used in everyday talks between Vietnamese students and their German conversation partners As presented in chapter

2, conversational humor has been viewed beyond the traditionally conceived stative and context-independent innate traits, typical connecting tools to incorporate an awareness of sociolinguistic differences Humor is an integral part in communication The more we understand about how people's culture and background affect their sense of humor, the more we are able to communicate effectively (Attardo, 1994; Davies, 2003; Bell, 2005) In order to understand how Vietnamese learners’ humor shown in daily intercultural communication is related to their communicative competence, it is necessary to investigate their use of humor in intercultural communication

This chapter presents and discusses the findings concerning participants’ perception of humor and how they use their humor in everyday intercultural talks The data are presented in forms of themes as they emerged from the data using thematic analysis (Cohen, 2005; Bowen, 2006; Gibson & Brown, 2009; Hartas, 2010) The chapter commences with supporting evidences for the mismatch between humor intention and humor comprehension (section 4.1) The next section (section 4.2) depicts humor related to linguistic features shown in participants’ everyday talks

It continues with the description and interpretation of humor as the mark of the group (section 4.3) Section 4.4 is the summary of the findings and discussions presented in the whole chapter

in-4.1 Humor as intention and the mismatch with humor comprehension

As indicated in section 2.1 (chapter 2), humor is often understood as intended and/or unintended message that is perceived as funny (Alison, 1998; Ziv, 1998; Holmes, 2000; Lynch, 2002; Spanakaki, 2007) However, when it comes to analyze humor in interactions, especially in intercultural communication, it is not easy to measure intention and one message can be interpreted differently by participants from various culture and language backgrounds (Thorson & Powell, 1993; Mackey & Gass, 2007; Bell, 2007a; Davies, 2003) Thus, humor has been defined in this research as a generic term covering any communicative acts with fun-inducing potential This section supports this view of humor with empirical evidence from the participant observations and stimulated recall interviews (SRIs) The analysis in the

following extracts indicates that the concepts of “funny intended or unintended messages” are loosely formed and can change with the flow of the participants’ conversations: an intended message formed by the initiators of humor could be perceived as an unintended one by the other participants Humor shown in extracts 1-

3 is perceived as unintended message which is interpreted funny (Lynch, 2002; Holmes, 2000)

08 J:  ((bursts into laughs while flapping his hand onto his leg))

This is an example of an unintended message that is perceived as funny In this extract, all participants were having dinner when Jonas unconsciously dipped his beef into Nguyệt’s bowl of coke, thinking that it was fish sauce He dipped into Nguyệt’s coke twice, but no one noticed until Nguyệt found it funny (line 02) and pointed it out

at his second time (lines 03-06) All participants burst into laugh (lines 07-11) Thinking that Jonas intentionally dipped into Nguyệt’s coke because he did it twice, I played the part of video for Nguyệt and Jonas to get their reaction They both realized that it was an unconscious action Jonas was too busy thinking about his discussion with Thành about problems in community class before that he did not see Nguyệt’s

coke in the bowl The funniest thing was that he thought it was fish sauce and it was his habit to dip into fish sauce

In the following extract, Thành unconsciously asked a question (line 08) that was out of the topic, which made everyone smile

07 S: it’s like the thing about the island and the conflict

In the above extract, Thành and Samson were talking about the problem between Chinese and Vietnamese people and the conflict between China and Vietnam

on the island issues (lines 01-07) Thành did not pay attention to what Samson had said, so he asked “you know IS?” (line 08) This question was out of the topic, and it created funny moments for both Jonas and Samson (lines 09, 15, 16) In the interview, they stated that Thành sometimes made some very funny moments even though he did not know and they were not on his purpose

Extract 3 is a part of a large conversation when the participants were talking about the Englishes of some volunteers in the voluntary organization In this extract, Thành was talking about a volunteer in VAF (the voluntary organization), and he was trying to remember his name However, he only remembered his girl friend’s name, which is itself is perceived as funny

06 T:  her name is Sixteen Really, really=

In line 06, Thành said the name of the volunteer’s girl friend that he found amusing (also see line 04) He repeated the word “really” to confirm that it was a funny name What Thành had said immediately attracted Samson’s attention and he asked Thành “WHAT? Sixteen.” (line 07) The word “WHAT?” said with a high pitch indicated that Samson was really surprised What made the story more interesting was in Thành’s continuing with “yes, Sixteen but she’s already twenty-four” (line 08) Thành’s response attracted both Samson and Jonas and they really enjoyed what he had said (lines 09-12) In the interview, Thành was sure that there was the girl named like that, and Jonas himself explained the name itself was funny

Data analysis from the interviews also pointed out that there were moments when Thành intended to generate fun but he was not successful even when all group members recognized and understood his joke Extract 4 is one example

In extract 4, Thành repeated the “handsome” joke without its context (line 06)

In this extract, Samson and Hợi were talking about the different ways of cutting the onions (line 01) In the food processing, Samson cut the onions into small pieces, so it was difficult for him to pick them up with chopsticks Hợi was explaining why Samson should have cut them into the big sizes (line 03) Then Thành said “so you’re very handsome” (line 06) Both Jonas and Samson did not appreciate this joke They disagreed with Thành (lines 07 and 08) Samson pointed out the inappropriateness of this

joke for it was used without the context (line 09) In the interview, Thành said that he did it

on his purpose to generate fun He thought that Hợi’s talking with Samson might make him stressed, so he just repeated the joke to change the topic and make fun

Extract 4 is a typical example of humor that is intended to be funny but not successful though it was fully recognized and understood by members in the group Another example that illustrates this view of humor can be seen in extract 5

08 H: I see I see, yeah, it’s just a habit (.) forget her=

In this extract, Jonas was reasoning why he had unconsciously dipped his beef into Nguyệt’s coke (lines 01-05, 07, and 09) Hợi was showing her sympathy by comforting him; however, Thành just did not wait until she finished her sentence (line 11); he jumped into the conversation and started teasing Jonas (line 12 & 13) None

of the other participants got his funny intention: Hợi and Jonas kept on talking about fish sauce (line 14) and Jonas then went to the kitchen to take it In the interview, Thành said that Jonas’s action of dipping his beef into Nguyệt’s coke was amusing Thành often laughed at Jonas’s “clumsy and stupid actions” (Thành’s words in the interviews) and he might said something to make fun of him Jonas said that he did not hear what Thành had said He did not catch the word “seven habit” because Thành was saying without the /s/ sound at the end of “habit” and he totally did not understand Thành

In conclusion, humor is a complicated communicative phenomenon In situated settings, a communicative act can be interpreted funny depending on the

context, and the words “intended” or “unintended” cannot be defined separately from the contexts where potential humor is located Therefore, it is suggested that there is a mismatch between humor as intention and humor comprehension

4.2 Humor and jokes on linguistic features

Schmitz (2002) categorized humor discourse in three groups that are universal jokes, cultural jokes, and linguistic jokes Linguistic jokes are based on specific features in the phonology, morphology or syntax of particular language He provided the order of learnability for joke comprehension Learners can start with universal jokes, the cultural jokes and finally reach the advanced level with linguistic jokes Thematic analysis of the data has indicated that the participants repeatedly used jokes related to people’s pronunciation, accent and dialect Those people were the directors, the volunteers and staffs in the national park where they worked or from Jonas and Samson’s voluntary organization, and the local people They told jokes two times on the English practice of the directors in the national park and the voluntary organization, two times on the English of the staffs in the park and one time on the English of local people Jonas and Samson said in the interviews that Vietnamese’s English pronunciation, in general, was funny They also found English Chinese accent amusing and four times they saw it enjoyable to pronounce some Vietnamese words such as “Nam Ngư, mật ong, xúc xích, nấm, cho anh xin bát cơm” (literally:

“South Fish”, “honey”, “hotdog”, “mushroom”, “give me some more rice, please”) It

is suggested that the participants used their sense of humor to explore even more about variety of English and learn the target language – Vietnamese (Ziv, 1988; Wiseman & Gonzalez, 2005) The theme is developed further as follows

In extract 6 and 7, Thành, Jonas and Samson were making jokes about the pronunciation of the Vietnamese director of the voluntary organization (Mr Long) They repeated and imitated his two famous sentences “No I mean Really” (extract 6) and “I don’t know, maybe you know Maybe good, maybe not good” (extract 7) Observational Extract 6

In extract 6, all participants were eating when Samson asked Thành for more rice (line 01) Thành noticed there was no more rice in Nguyệt’s bowl He asked her

“Do you want a new bowl or no?” (line 05) Nguyệt shaked her head meaning “no” (line 05) Thành saw this and he asked her to confirm “No, really?” (line 07) and he suddenly remembered Mr Long’s (the director of the voluntary organization) sentence “No I mean Really.” (line 08) Jonas, Samson, and he often repeated this sentence and make it a joke inside the group That was why Thành’s sentence immediately attracted Jonas and he quickly engaged into the joke (lines 09-10) From lines 12 to 16, Jonas was showing Thành how to speak like Mr Long In line 17, Jonas was nodding his head after finishing Mr Long’s sentence, which indicated that was nonverbal message Mr Long did to emphasize the word “really” Thành repeated

Mr Long’s sentence but did not perform it properly (line 19) Samson and Nguyệt did not join in the joke but they followed it appreciatively: Samson was nodding his head (a nonverbal act that was part of a joke they made on Mr Long’s sentence as analyzed above) in line 20 The imitation and repetition of the jokes on people’s linguistic features might lead to formulaicity in the participants’ group over time (Norrick, 2000)

In extract 7, Thành, Jonas, and Samson were again telling joke about Mr Long’s pronunciation This time they made fun on his sentence “I don’t know, maybe you know, maybe good, maybe not good.”

Observational Extract 7

The participants were not only aware of people’s pronunciation difference but also the dialects The following extract (extract 8) is right after the previous one (extract 7) They were talking about English of local people (including the director and the staffs in the national park) Local people, especially people in the park used a particular form of English As Samson stated in the interview, they could not speak proper English and mispronounced many words: they cut off words that they did not need for understanding and spoke with Vietnamese accent

In extract 8, Jonas was talking about a misunderstanding experience when he sent a message to a staff in the park to ask for their working schedule

Observational Extract 8