In this section I will briefly examine some of the literature that describes how humor can be used as a pedagogical tool in foreign language classrooms. Most of this research is merely perceptual and does lack empirical evidence. However, more and more studies are popping up that are showing specifically how humor could be used as a pedagogical tool, specifically Ackildson (2005), Deneire (1995), Berwald (1992) and Trachetenberg (1979), among others. This research does represent a basis for exploring the use of humor in L2 classrooms in Taiwan. The literature mainly focuses on humor to present and explain the linguistic, cultural, and pragmatic aspects of the target language. Most research that discusses how to use to humor in the L2 classroom tends
23
to illustrate how jokes can be used as a tool to teach the discrete structural aspects of the target language. They point out that the humor in jokes often depends on the phonological, morphological, lexical, and syntactic elements of a language. For specific descriptions please see Deniere (1995) and Ross (1998, Chapter 2).
Berwald (1992) also explains how teachers can use jokes in the foreign language classroom to reinforce syntactic, phonetic, and lexical aspects of the TL. He offers numerous examples of how to take simple English jokes and translate them into French. In addition to the syntactic, phonetic and lexical elements, Vizmuller (1979) suggests that jokes and humor in the classroom environments provide both cognitive and creative benefits for language learners as they allow students to divert from the formulaic expressions that they are used to in the language classroom.
The cognitive aspect refers to recognizing the ambiguity; whereas, the creative aspect focuses on the creation of the incongruity.
Trachtenberg (1979) specifically suggests how riddles and narrative jokes can be used as mini grammar, lexical, and speech pattern lessons. For example, she explains how riddles and joke questions can be used to reinforce positive and negative interrogative forms. For example,
“What has four legs and flies? A garbage truck,” (p.93). Not only does this joke present the interrogative form, but it also demonstrates the lexical ambiguity of the word “flies.”
Additionally, Trachtenberg, (1979) discusses how the beginnings of narrative jokes can be used to teach typical native-English speaker speech patterns. As she stresses, the opening of jokes must have a precise form, for example:
A guy walks into a psychiatrist‟s office … A man is driving down a freeway … An old lady is walking along the beach …
24 (Trachtenberg, 1979, p. 95).
Trachtenberg (1979) admits that there are many different forms narrative jokes can take, but she suggests that teachers should be aware of the “verbal strategies” that these jokes offer. For example, they are often told in the present tense, they offer the use of demonstratives, and the exact description of the person and situation.
Language instructors also posit that the use of humor in language classrooms can enhance learners‟ culture competence in and pragmatic knowledge of the target culture. Berwald (1992) expounds the importance of humor when teaching language and culture. In particular, he
explains that using humorous examples of cultural faux pas in the language classroom is a great way to learn about the target cultures‟ unwritten social rules. Berwald (1992) himself states “the humor caused by the clash of cultures serves as an excellent teaching device that can prepare students to function in another setting,” (p 189). Berwald (1992) also suggests the use of comics and humorous advertisements as a great way to transfer cultural clues to students.
Trachtenberg (1979) specifically contends that jokes and humor represent a culture and when used in an L2 classroom, can serve as important conveyors of the target cultural values.
Trachtenberg (1979) argues that some jokes may be considered too culture-bound, Schmitz (2002) argues that theoretically all jokes and humor could be considered appropriate in the classroom in that jokes and humor serve as a mirror of the target culture‟s socio-cultural norms and values and by introducing humor in the classroom, students can reflect critically on the humor of the target culture.
Deniere (1995) contends that humor is an important part of communicative competence and that learners should learn what situations are suitable for joking and what topics are appropriate to joke about in the TL. In order to do this, learners must have a certain amount of
25
cultural knowledge. Humor, he argues, fosters in-group relations and is often geared at out-groups. As a result, it is extremely difficult for language learners to learn the humor of the target culture. Deniere (1995) proposes in order to construct and understand humor in an intercultural context, language learners need to learn to appreciate differences between cultures and to view the target culture as the people of the target culture do. Specifically he proposes learners need to be aware that: “1) every culture has its own internal coherence, integrity, and logic, 2) all
cultures are equally valid and 3) all people are at least partially culture bound,”(p. 295). He mentions this is not particularly easy, and learner must overcome many obstacles. However, as Harder (1980) puts it “in order to be a wit in a language, you have to be a half wit.”
Practitioners have also put forth that humor can be a formidable tool to teach socio-pragmatic concepts of the target language. Specifically, Askildson (2005) draws on Berwald‟s (1992) examples of funny cultural faux pas as an effective way to teach the pragmatic norms of the target language. He mentions that by observing violations of norms, learners will become aware of the norms themselves. Askildson (2005) offers a rather humorous example:
“An illustrative example in an English context might include a humorous
anecdote of a newly arrived immigrant to the United States who is casually asked, “How are you?” by an American colleague—out of simple politeness and with the cultural expectation of a short or one word response, if any at all—but responds with a ten minute saga of his/her minor problems of the day,” (p. 53).
This example of humor, according to Ackildson (2005), allows students to “enjoy a comedic episode through teacher assisted understanding of the proper and expected pragmatic use of a
26
greeting,” (p. 54). Moreover, Trachtenberg (1979) explains that beginnings of oral narratives can also be used to teach the common opening lines of jokes such as “Did I ever tell you about …”
or “Did you ever hear that one about …?” in which the listener must respond with a “no, go ahead tell me,” or “yeah, I heard that one.” By giving these examples to students, students can became aware of native speaker joking interactions in which “go ahead” gives the speaker the message to proceed and tell the joke. Alternatively, “yeah, I heard that one,” gives the indication to move on the something else.
To sum up, previous research on classroom humor has yielded several classification schemes that have shed light on the types of humor that are used in classrooms contexts. Past research has also evidenced that humor is used quite often in university classrooms. Needless to say, there appears to be some degree of uncertainty as to how humor actually benefits classroom contexts. For instance, it is still unclear if humor assists in the retention of new information.
Numerous studies have been conducted; however, because of unsystematic researcher methods, it is hard to have a consistent understanding of how humor affects learning outcomes.
A majority of the research on classroom humor tends to focus on the effect that humor has on the classroom “affective” environment. Immediacy, which is a behavior that enhances the closeness between two individuals, currently appears to be the most significant framework in which researchers investigate humor in classrooms. They posit that humor used to reduce tension, to facilitate self-disclosure, to relieve embarrassment, to save face, to disarm others, to alleviate boredom, to entertain, and to convey good will enhance the student teacher relationship, resulting in positive cognitive learning outcomes.
Closely linked to the immediacy framework, some EFL practitioners have documented that classroom humor has the ability to get students‟ attention, relieve tension, make learning more
27 fun, and make the class more positive.
There are also discussions in literature about how too much or inappropriate humor can have negative effects on the classroom “affective” environment.
In regard to L2 classroom humor research, empirical studies are still lacking. The literature for the most part offers examples of how humor can be used in language classrooms to sensitize learners to the linguistic, cultural, and pragmatic aspects of the target language. However, currently, there is very little research available that actually offers examples of what types of humor and how humor is used in L2 classrooms. Thus, numerous researchers are calling for a more comprehensive examination on how humor is used in L2 classrooms (i.e. Deniere 1995;
Schmitz 2002).
28
CHAPTER THREE