EFL learners’ Understanding of Linguistic Ambiguity in Language-based Jokes

Year 2014, Volume: 2 Issue: 2, 1 - 11, 11.07.2016

Öznur Semiz

Abstract

This study aims to examine the comprehension of linguistic ambiguity in language based jokes by investigating the responses of a group of EFL learners to twelve English jokes. 70 Turkish university students were asked to read and evaluate whether they have understood the jokes in a questionnaire and then to write the punch lines if they answered yes. They were also asked to judge the funniness of the each joke. Twelve texts, classified as lexical jokes, syntactic jokes and phonological jokes, were given. The results indicated that Turkish EFL learners achieved an average level of performance in understanding linguistic ambiguity in jokes. The results also revealed that the type of joke affected students’ comprehension of ambiguity in jokes. Learners performed better in understanding the jokes composing of lexical ambiguity than in the jokes composing of phonological and syntactic ambiguity. Lexical jokes were also found to be perceived as the funniest. The implications of the findings for language teaching are also discussed.

Keywords

joke comprehension, linguistic jokes, linguistic ambiguity

References

• Askildson, L. (2005). Effects of humor in the language classroom: Humor as a pedagogical tool in theory and practice. Arizona Working Papers in SLAT, 12, 45-61.
• Attardo, S., Attardo, D. H., Baltes, P., & Petray, M. J. (1994). The linear organization of jokes: Analysis of two thousand texts. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research.
• Bell, N. D. (2007). How native and non-native English speakers adapt to humor in intercultural interaction. Humor, 20(1), 27.
• Bell, N. D. (2009). Learning about and through humor in the second language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 13(3), 241-258.
• Bucaria, C. (2004). Lexical and syntactic ambiguity as a source of humor: The case of newspaper headlines. Humor, 17(3), 279-310.
• Carrell, A. (1997). Joke competence and humor competence. Humor-International Journal of Humor Research, 10(2), 173-186.
• Chiaro, D. (1992). The language of Joke: analyzing verbal play. New York: Routledge. de Matos, F. G. (1974). Humo (u) r, a neglected feature in foreign language teaching. ERIC Clearinghouse.
• Deneire, M. (1995). Humor and foreign language teaching. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research.
• Hayati, A. M., Shooshtari, Z. G., & Shakeri, N. (2011). Using humorous texts in improving reading comprehension of EFL learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(6), 652-661.
• Hodson, R. (2008). Challenges for EFL learners in understanding English humour: a pilot study, (9), 25-36.
• Hsin, Ai-li. 2006, Comprehension of English Jokes in Chinese EFL Learners. 2006 International Conference on English Instruction and Assessment. April. Chung-Cheng Univ. Jia-yi, ROC.
• Lew, R. (1997). Towards a taxonomy of linguistic jokes. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 31, 123-152.
• Maurice, K. (1988). Laugh while learning another language: techniques that are functional and funny. In English Teaching Forum (Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 20-25).
• Nguyễn, H. H. (2012). Examining linguistic ambiguity as a source of constructing funniness in English verbal jokes (Doctoral dissertation, H.: ĐHNN).
• Ross, A. (1998). The Language of Humor. London: Routledge.
• Stroud, R. (2013). The Laughing EFL Classroom: Potential Benefits and Barriers. English Language Teaching, 6(10), p72.
• Schmitz, J. R. (2002). Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and translation courses. Humor, 15(1), 89-114.
• Trachtenberg, S. (1979). Joke-telling as a tool in ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 89-99.
• Ziyaeemehr, A., Kumar, V., & Abdullah, M. (2011). Use and non-use of humor in academic ESL classrooms. English Language Teaching, 4(3), p111.