a study on the main features of short jokes and implications for teaching speaking to students of grade 12 at ngoc tao upper secondary school

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP .......................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ iv
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
1. Significance of the study......................................................................................................... 1
2. Aims of the study ................................................................................................................... 2
3. Scope of the study .................................................................................................................. 2
4. Methods of the study ............................................................................................................. 3
5. Design of the study ................................................................................................................. 3
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................. 4
I.1. Humour ................................................................................................................................ 4
I.2. The distinction between humour and witticisms ................................................................... 5
I.3. The language of humour ....................................................................................................... 5
I.3.1. The Incongruity theory ...................................................................................................... 6
I.3.1.1. Structural ambiguity ....................................................................................................... 6
I.3.1.2. Unconventional use of language ..................................................................................... 7
I.3.2. The Superiority theory ....................................................................................................... 7
I.3.3. The Release/Relief theory.................................................................................................. 8
I.4. Humour competence
I.4.1. Joke competence and humour competence ......................................................................... 9
I.4.2. Social factors of humour competence .............................................................................. 10
I.5. English language and the English sense of humour ............................................................. 12
I.6. Jokes and the use of jokes in teaching English as a foreign language .................................. 13
I.7. Ambiguity in language and humour studies ........................................................................ 15
CHAPTER TWO: MAJOR LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH SHORT
JOKES

II.1. Ambiguity in English short jokes ...................................................................................... 19


5

19
II.1.1. Focus of ambiguity......................................................................................................... 19
II.1.2. Proportion in the focus of ambiguity .............................................................................. 23
II.2. Further analysis of ambiguity exploited in English puns .................................................... 24
II.2.1. The ambiguity devices ................................................................................................... 24
II.2.1.1. Lexical ambiguity ....................................................................................................... 24
II.2.1.2. Syntactic ambiguity ..................................................................................................... 25
II.2.2. Proportion of ambiguity devices exploited in English humour ........................................ 28
CHAPTER THREE: LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL DIFFICULTIES IN
APPRECIATING SHORT JOKES OF NGOC TAO STUDENTS. SUGGESTIONS
ON IMPLYING TEACHING SHORT JOKES IN SPEAKING CLASSES.
III.1. Ngoc Tao Upper Secondary School‟s Profile ................................................................... 30
III.2. Linguistic difficulties in appreciating jokes of students at Ngoc Tao High School.
III.2.1. Attitude of the learners to the humour in speaking lessons ............................................ 31
III.2.2. Difficulties in appreciating English short jokes of students in Ngoc Tao High
School ...................................................................................................................................... 32
III.3. Cultural difficulties in appreciating jokes of students at Ngoc Tao High School. .............. 35
III.4. Suggestions to use short jokes in teaching speaking skill to students of grade 12 in
Ngoc Tao Upper Secondary school........................................................................................... 35
III.5. Finding ............................................................................................................................ 37
PART III: CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 41
APPENDICE............................................................................................................................ 44

6

PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Significance of the study
Discussing about the role of humour in a foreign language class, I must use a saying
from Antonio L.Tolsta (2001, p.27) to begin my thesis:
“The use of humour makes the class atmosphere more pleasant, increases the
interaction among teacher and students, makes learning meaningful and enjoyable,
is a useful tool to get students’ attention, motivates learners and most of the time,
pleases students.”
Loomax and Moosaci (1998) in an article on the use of humour in a university
statistics class point out that anecdotal evidence in past studies consistently suggests that
humour is an extremely effective tool in education. These same studies suggest that that
use of humour in the classroom reduces tension, improves classroom climate, increases
enjoyment, increases student-teacher rapport and even facilitates learning.
One reason for using humour is that as a human trait it is a self-effacing behaviour
(Provine, 2000). It can allow the shy or timid students in our class to participate with the
group. If it is used properly, humour allows the students to feel a part of the class and
possibly contribute without loosing face, feeling exposed or vulnerable. This is of
particular importance in a communication classroom where the emphasis is on verbal
authentic communication, participation and interaction. It is a way of reaching out to those
students who are afraid or nervous to attempt expressing themselves in their second
language. Humour is as human and as authentic as the need to communicate. As with other
facet of our lives, it plays a major part in every day social interaction. We should therefore
not ignore it but instead make it of our every day classroom learning.
The benefit of using humour in the communicative language classroom is undeniable.
Using humour can play an important part in helping students to relax and encourage them
to overcome stress and nerves and make them more receptive to learning. Humour can also
help to improve the classroom atmosphere particularly for students who are worried about
making mistakes or nervous about their speaking abilities. It is, however, very important

that we learn with our students to laugh “about” mistakes rather than at the people who
make them.
From the above reasons, a question is raised in my mind “What are linguistic features
of short jokes. Should short jokes be adapted as an extra material in the speaking class to


7

motivate students of grade 12 at Ngoc Tao Upper Secondary School?” Although students
may have to overcome the challenges of cultural and linguistic understanding in English
short jokes, it is really worthwhile when these jokes bring joy over the classrooms. That is
why I desire to carry out an experiment on linguistic features of short jokes and their uses
in speaking class to motivate students with the hope that I could find out a more effective
way in creating interesting learning environment in the speaking class.
2. Aims of the study
The study is set out to address the following objectives:
- To find out some linguistic features of English short jokes.
- To examine how language activities based on short jokes motivate students
in their speaking class at Ngoc Tao Upper Secondary school.
3. Scope of the study:
The study is confined to English simple puns of various themes. The reason for the
choice is that puns are typically popular in English humour/witticisms.
The puns selected for the survey and for analysis are mainly taken from websites and
from the book “5000 One-and-Two Liners for Any and Every Occasions” by Leopold
Fetchner.
The informants for the investigation are 40 students from one class 12A1 at Ngoc Tao
Upper Secondary School where the author works as a teacher of English. These are gifted
students who, in my expectation, have better background of English than their partners
from other classes. So, the generalizations gained from the research may not hold true to
every learner of English.

4. Methods of the study
In order to complete the thesis, the following major approaches and techniques are
done:
 Firstly, data, including relevant theories and short jokes (puns) for analysis
will be collected. Relevant theories will be extracted from various linguistic books
written by several linguists, such as Alison Ross (1998) (mainly), Attardo,S.
(1994), Raskin, V. (1994), some related topics from the Internet and previous MA
thesis. English jokes (puns) will be collected from the Internet Source and 5000
One-and-Two Liners for Any and Every Occasions. These puns will be provided in
the list at the end of this thesis.


8

 Secondly, relevant theories will be presented on the ground of several
linguists‟ viewpoints.
 Next, 100 puns selected will be analyzed to work out some linguistic
features; each pun will be analyzed in terms of lexical and syntactical features.
 Finally, based on the results of the analysis, some concluding remarks can
be generalized and some implications for improving speaking skill through English
short jokes can be proposed.
So, the methods used mainly in the thesis are qualitative (observation) and
quantitative (survey questionnaires for students).
5. Design of the study
This research is composed of three main parts.
Part One, the INTRODUCTION, presents the rational, the aim, the scope and the
methods of the study as well as the organization of the study.
Part Two is the DEVELOPMENT, which consists of three chapters.
Chapter One: Theoretical background
Chapter Two: Investigation of main linguistic features of English short jokes.

Chapter Three: Linguistic and cultural difficulties in appreciating short jokes.
Suggestions of using short jokes in teaching speaking skill in a language class.
Part Three is the CONCLUSION. In this part, a review of the study is presented,
together with implications for teaching and learning, limitation of the study and
suggestions for further studies.
The study is ended with APPENDICES showing lists of English short jokes and
puns taken into consideration and questionnaire.


9

PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
I.1. Humour
Humour is infectious. The sound of roaring laughter is far more contagious than any
cough, sniffle or sneeze. When laughter is shared, it binds people together and increases
happiness and intimacy. In addition to the domino effect of joy and amusement, laughter
also triggers healthy physical changes in the body. Humour and laughter strengthen our
immune system, boost our energy, diminish pain and protect us from the damaging effects
of stress. Best of all, this priceless medicine is fun, free and easy to use. No one can deny
the positive psychological effect laughter may have on human physical and mental state. A
little smile can “work wonders” to your appearance and for an everlasting youth of the
soul. It is the best medicine which arouses enthusiasm for work, the antidote for pains and
sorrows. It makes us tolerance, and keeps us gay and young.
Humour is considered as a form of entertainment and a form of human
communication with its aim to make people laugh and feel relaxed. Humour is also
considered as a part of culture, ability or quality of a person, enrich the language of a
person. A sense of humour is variable depending on age, sex, geographical location,
culture, maturity, level of education and context.
However, not only for entertainment is humour created. Aware of the psychological

impact it can exert on human feelings, people often resort to humour when they want to
break the ice in tension situations. To warm up the relationship, nothing is better than a
good laugh together. It signal some sort of solidarity has been established between
speakers.
Actually, the world of humour has a great deal to offer. It is a lose-and-gain trip
where you can lose tears to gain laughter, lose pain to gain relief, lose sorrows to gain
happiness, lose despair to gain hope. It is an exploration into the depth as well as the
wealth of the human mind, the fortitude as well as the vulnerability of human heart. It is a
joy ride when you can enjoy a happy smile, when a gloomy mood gets subsided, when you
can start a laughing “epidemic” and spread happiness around.
The humour of a nation or individual is an integral part of that person or nation‟s
culture. Being the teacher we need to help students to appreciate the humour in order to
help them understand the culture and language.


10

I. 2. The distinction between humour and witticisms
Humour reflects the comical aspect of life and points out some inner contradictoriness
of a phenomenon, some discrepancy between form and content.
Humour is intended to excite mirth, it is kindly and tolerant on the whole. It usually
reflects the entire course of thoughts, that is to say, it is sustained, not concentrated in a
few words.
The linguistic aspects of humour are manifold.
A kin to humour is wit, a clever and humorous expression of ideas. Unlike real
humour which is sustained, wit is abrupt and often more biting than humour.
Many witticisms are based on word play or puns on words. The puns is humourous or
ludicrous use of words which sound the same or nearly the same or of two meanings of the
word.
I.3. The language of humour

“Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps; for he is the only animal that is
struck with the difference between what things are and what they ought to be”.
These words of Hazlitt(1964:285) are true to humour. Humour is a term which may
be used in both a wide and a narrow sense. In the wider sense, it is applied to all literature
and to all informal speech or writing in which the object is to amuse, or rouse laughter in,
the reader or hearer. In its narrow sense, humour is distinguished from wit, satire and farce.
It is less intellectual and more imaginative than wit, being concerned more with character
and situation than with plays upon words or upon ideas, more sympathetic and less cruel
than satire; more subtle than farce. On the other side, it shades into fancy and imagination,
since it concerned, as they are, with exploring the possibilities of unlikely situations or
combinations of ideas, but differs from them in being concerned only with the laughable
aspect of these imagined situations.
But what exactly is it about a situation that makes it laughable? We all know that
some things do make us laugh; but it is very hard to say just what it is that these laughable
things have in common. Theories of humour (in the wider sense) are attempts to solve this
problem. They may be divided into three main types: incongruity theories, superiority
theories, and release theories. A fourth type of theory, which takes the central feature of
humour to be ambivalence, a mingling of attraction and repulsion is of minor importance.
Each theory has its own definition of that humour is and is generalized mainly based on


11

Alison Ross‟s framework. These three theories of humour will be one by one discussed in
turn. The Incongruity Theory focuses on the art of using language while the Superiority
and Release Theories have a look at the social aspects of humour.
I.3.1. The Incongruity theory
The context for humour is crucial for determining whether an individual finds
something amusing or not. Even so, it is possible to examine the features of language that
have the potential to make people laugh. The incongruity theory focuses on the element of

surprise. It states that humour is created out of a conflict between what is expected and
what actually occurs in the joke. This accounts for the most obvious feature of much
humour: an ambiguity or double meaning, which deliberately misleads the audience,
followed by a punch line.
“Do you believe in clubs for young people?”
“Only when kindness fails.”
(W.C. Fields)
It is reasonable to understand the word “clubs” in the sense of “leisure groups”, but
the punch line shows that it was referring to “weapons”, a rubber stick to hit people.
A dictionary definition of incongruity is “inconsistent; not fitting well together;
disjointed; unsuitable”, which all sound like negative terms. In Alison Ross (1998), the
term incongruity refers to the possibility for two meanings being understood from the
utterance. This often called a pun. The humour will have the following elements:
- There is a conflict between what is expected and what actually occurs in the joke.
- The conflict is caused by an ambiguity at some level of language.
The punch line is surprising, as it is not the expected interpretation, but it resolves the
conflict: “Have you got a light, Mac?” “No, but I’ve got a dark brown overcoat.” In this
joke, there is an ambiguity in syntax: the listener interprets the structure as finishing on the
noun “light”, with the name of the person added on. The punchline shows that “light mac”
should be regarded as an adjective + noun unit.
I.3.1.1. Structural ambiguity
The humour based on puns will often involve:
+ A conflict between what is expected and what actually occurs in the joke which is
caused by an ambiguity at some level of language.


12

+ The conflict is finally resolved with the surprising punch-line, which is not the
expected interpretation.

In Alison Ross (1998), Structural ambiguity can occur in the English language at
various levels:
Phonology – many jokes are based on the fact that there can be two possible
interpretations of the same group of sounds.
Graphology- the way the jokes are represented in written form
Morphology- The same sound or the same group of letters can function as a syllable,
a bound morpheme or a word. This possible ambiguity in the way that morphemes are used
to construct word meanings have been exploited in some examples of humour.
Lexis-Puns take advantage of double meanings of a word or polysemy
Syntax- the way the words are structured into phrases, clauses and sentences.
I.3.1.2. Unconventional use of language
The incongruity of language in use is examined in the four sections on semantic,
pragmatic, discourse and register.
This aspect of incongruity theory refers to metaphor, simile, overstatement,
understatement, Irony, tautologies and so on.
I.3.2. The Superiority theory
Very often we laugh at people because they have some failing or defect, or because
they find themselves at a disadvantage in some way or suffer some small misfortune. The
miser, the glutton, the drunkard are all stock figures of comedy, so is the henpecked
husband or the man who gets hit with a custard pie. We laugh, too, at mistakes: at
schoolboy howlers, faulty pronunciation, bad grammar. These are all fairly crude
examples, but it may be that even the most subtle humour is merely a development of this;
and that the pleasure we take in humour derives from our feeling of superiority over those
we laugh at. According to this view, all humour is derisive.
The philosopher Thomas Hobbes explains that a person laughs about misfortunes of
others, because these misfortunes assert the person‟s superiority on the background of
shortcomings of others.
According to any superiority theory of humour the laugher always looks down on
whatever he laughs at, and so judges it inferior by some standard. Obviously many
varieties of superiority theory are possible, according to the particular standard adopted.

13

Henri Bergson (1859-1941) gives us both the clearest and most famous instance of a
particular application of the superiority theory. Bergson‟s ideal is elasticity, adaptability.
Hence the laughable is for him “something mechanical encrusted upon the living”. The
typical comic character, he says, is a man with an obsession, or idee fixe, like Don
Quixote, or Moliere‟s miser. He is not flexible enough to adapt himself to the complex and
changing demands of reality. As a typical example of comic rigidity, Bergson cites the
story of the customs officers who went bravely to the rescue of the crew of a wrecked ship.
The first thing the customs men said when they finally got the sailors ashore was: “Have
you anything to declare?” Here, Bergson says, we have the blind, the automatic persistence
of a professional habit of mind, quite regardless of altered circumstances.
In other words, the superiority theory assumes that we tend to laugh at the
misfortunes of others: it reflects our own superiority.
Of the three major categories of humour theories, superiority seems the most open to
criticism, sometimes even unwittingly by its own purported supporters. For example,
Ludovicy, a follower of Hobbes, makes the point that not only do we laugh when the butt
of a joke is a person of dignity i.e. someone to whom we may feel inferior rather than
superior, but we may even laugh more heartily if this is the case (Monro, p.103). In deed,
this could be extended to say that having a position of superiority (teacher, judge, politician
etc.) could make people more liable to humorous sniping from below with proportionately
greater consequences, based on the principle that “the higher they are, the harder they fall”.
Yet there is no talk of an “inferiority theory”. However, such anti-authoritarianism would
at the same time lend at least partial support to superiority theorists as aggression is
aggression whatever its source.
I.3.3. The Release/Relief theory
Since humour often calls conventional social requirements into question, it may be
regarded as affording us relief from the restraint of conforming to those requirements. The

relief may be only temporary: a smoking room story, for example, is not usually a serious
challenge to conventional morality, but it does enable us to air the sexual impulses which
society makes us repress. Moreover, people who have been undergoing a strain will
sometimes burst laughter if the strain is suddenly removed. It may be, then, that the central
element in humour is neither a feeling of superiority nor the awareness of incongruity, but
the feeling of relief that comes from the removal of restraint.


14

This theory has been reinforced and brought into prominence by the psychological
discoveries of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Freud himself regards humour as a means
outwitting the “censor”, his name for the internal inhibitions which prevent us from giving
rein to many of our natural impulses. It is not only our sexual impulses that are repressed
by the censor, but also our malicious ones. In this way Freud is able to account, not only
for indecent jokes and for the appeal of comic characters like Falstaff who ignores
conventional moral restraint, but also for the malicious element in humour to which
superiority theories call attention.
The intellectual pleasure of playing with words and ideas and of finding unexpected
connections, regarded by the incongruity theories as the essential element in humour, thus
find a place in Freud‟s theory as a means of tricking the censor. Since the censor is
beguiled and not merely deceived, it is presupposed that such devices are a source of
pleasure in themselves. Freud explains this by adopting Spencer‟s physiological
explanation of laughter. The pleasure results, he thinks, from the economizing of nervous
energy. Nevertheless, he does not regard the intrinsic appeal of these comic devices as
sufficient to explain humour: they would be pointless if we were not able, under their
cover, to give vent to repressed desires.
I.4. Humour competence
I.4.1. Joke competence and humour competence
Carrel (1997) verifies a distinction between humour competence and joke

competence. She states, “humour competence and joke competence, as parts of native
speaker‟s linguistic competence, are necessary to explain what happens when one
processes a joke text.” In addition, McCarthy and Carter (1994) propose that one can
comprehend jokes in various forms of language with cultural and linguistic competence. In
the same spirit, Schmitz (2002) claims there are three groups of humorous discourse. They
are: (a) universal jokes, (b) cultural jokes, and (c) linguistic jokes. A universal joke
“includes humor that is obtained mainly from the context and the general functioning of
the world”. In addition, a cultural joke is based on cultural-background knowledge. In
order to understand and appreciate this type of joke, possessing abundant knowledge about
a target society is very essential. The third group is a linguistic joke, “based on specific
features in the phonology, morphology or syntax of particular languages” (Schmitz, 2002).
Schmitz‟s claim of joke grouping provides the order of learnability for joke comprehension


15

in the classroom. Schmitz suggests that the learners of basic level can start with universal
jokes, then with cultural jokes, and finally reach the advanced level with linguistic jokes.
According to Chiaro, humour competence is the interaction of three systems: the
linguistic, the socio-cultural and the poetic (1992:13). To illustrate this she offers the
following children‟s joke.
A: How many ears has Davy Crockett?
B: Two, hasn’t he?
A: No, three. He’s got a left ear, a right ear and a wild frontier.
To understand even this simple joke, Chiaro argues, the hearer needs
+ linguistic competence to understand the meaning of the words and also that a
joke is being signaled.
+ socio-cultural competence to know who Davy Crockett was and also that the
phrase „wild frontier‟ comes from the theme song of the children‟s television show
about him.

+ poetic competence to read „wild frontier‟ as „wild front ear‟.
This formulation clearly includes a strong social dimension.
Hay (2001) talks of qualified and unqualified humour support, the latter involving a
scalar implicature (where „implicature‟ is taken to mean communicative implication). The
three implicatures are 1. recognition, 2. understanding, and 3. appreciation (p.67). In her
formulation, 2 entails 1, and 3 entails both 1 and 2, which we can represent here
diagrammatically.
1. recognition

2. understanding

3. appreciation

On this scale we see once more there is a gap between understanding a joke and
appreciating it (2 and 3), a gap which needs to be traversed across people‟s differing belief
systems. It is this, Hay adds, which enables an audience, if they so wish, to withhold full
support i.e. show understanding but not appreciation (p.67). She then explicitly associates
this with Carrell‟s comments on joke and humour competences (p.68), discussed above.
Thus, what Carrell, Chiaro, Hay, and Raju would all agree on is that the social world
and our places in it are crucial elements in any conception of humour competence, which
cannot be simply a universal cognitive skill.
I.4.2. Social factors of humour competence
1. The performer/teller:


16

It is undeniable to the important role of the teller in the construction of amusement. A
joke of the same linguistic base can sound either humorous or humorless to the listeners or
the readers. This depends mainly on the talent of the teller. This also depends on the

background of the performer.
It is common experience that we react differently to the same joke when it is told by
different people. That is the reason why many jokes are of humour value when they are
shared between people of the same background.
2. The topic:
The topic in which humour is delivered has an impact on its perception. This also
allows for the mood of any permission from the audience. For instance, there are widely
varied reactions to sexist, ethnic and racial jokes, which are influenced by the readers‟
attitudes to the subject.
3. The environment:
In an MA thesis, Truc (2005:20) said that comedic license to transgress humour is to
subject not only to social constraint but also to spacial ones. There are limits on the place
of humour. In certain situations, humour is not felt to be appropriate, for example if it
seems trivial or is a distraction from serious matters. Some special spaces give performers
greater freedom of expression, the meaning of which is constructed and perceived
differently from similar expression outside those spaces.
4. The audience:
Audiences do play an important role in this interpretation of meaning-is this funny or
is it offensive? Ross makes a point concerning this ambivalence in relation to sexist and
racist jokes, which, she says „can be told with an element of mocking allusion‟ to those
very genres (1998:57). However, this cannot guarantee that such jokes will be perceived in
the way intended. She cites Johnny Speight‟s creation of the racist bigot Alf Garnett in the
television sitcom „Till Death Us Do Part‟ as an example; Garnett‟s racist comments were
enjoyed both by people who saw the intended mockery of Garnett and those who didn‟t. So
we can say that there were those who laughed at Garnett and those who laughed with him.
Those who laughed at him need not have suspended their anti-racist attitude, but clearly,
the object and the motive of their amusement differ from those of the recipients who
laughed with him. While this conflicts with de Sousa‟s notion of humour, it adds support to
the point being made here – that different audience members will assign different

17

meanings to humorous texts. Some may express their approval through explicit displays of
amusement, while some may express their disapproval through, among other things, verbal
abuse or the use of violence, as we shall now see.
Humour appreciation is a complicated fluctuating outcome of the interaction of
different elements. The interaction between our joke competence and the language of the
joke results in either understanding or non-understanding. Yet, the understanding is not
enough for humour appreciation. A successful appreciation is granted only if the audience
like the style of the joke and find the joke funny. This depends on humour competence-the
social reception of a joke. For true appreciation of any piece of humour, the audience have
to undergo different types of tests: a test on their mind, on their heart (taste, mood,
temperament), on their social identity or membership (values, beliefs, attitudes) none of
which is perceived easier than the others to pass. (Truc, 2004)
I.5. English language and the English sense of humour
Humour is a phenomenon which is influenced by culture. Of all the characteristics,
good or bad, for which the English are known in the outside world, their sense of humour
is one of the best-known. For the English themselves, they always consider that they have
a lot of humour. This is evidenced by the incredible number of English humorous films,
publications (including such magazines as Punch and Private Eye and scores of comic
novels, from Wodehouse to Helen Fielding), and radio comedy shows.

Humour is

widespread in their society, as well as in their culture. The use of humour in social
interactions is a very important convention in England, as the American travel-writer Bill
Bryson observed: “Watch any two Britons and see how long it is before they smile or
laugh over some joke or pleasantry. It wont‟ be more than a few seconds”. (Notes from a
Small Island, Bill Bryson, Black Swan, 1996. Moreover, because they have such an

appetite for the comic and amusing, they have developed and expanded various distinctive
types of humor, much of it employing linguistic creativity and centered on social norms.
The characteristics of English people do have an influence on their humour. Since the
English rarely say what they mean and tend towards reticence and understatement, their
humour is partly based on an exaggeration of this facet of their own character. So, while in
conversation they avoid truth which might lead to confrontation, in their humour, they
mock that avoidance (Weather, 2004). Also, the English are so secure in their self-regard


18

that they can happily poke fun at themselves. That is as much recognition as it is about
their ability to laugh at themselves.
Most words in English have several meanings. This can be an advantage for learners
as they can convey different meanings using the same word in a different context. On the
other hand, this might cause confusion especially for beginners. The English language is
abundant in idioms, phrases, homonyms and homophones. Most of the English jokes are
based on such play on words. It may just be that English is suited to linguistic humour than
other languages.
I.6. Jokes and the use of jokes in teaching English as a foreign language
According to the Collins Cobuild (Lingea Lexicon, ver.3.1, 1997-2001), a pun is a
clever and amusing of a word or phrase with two meanings, or of words with the same
sound but different meanings. For example, if someone says “The peasants are revolting”,
this is a pun because it can be interpreted as meaning either that the peasants are fighting
against authority, or that they are disgusting. Puns surprise and entertain, expressing
multiple meanings with a single word or phrase.
What makes the puns humorous? The answer lies in the ambiguity that puns create.
One humour-producing aspect of ambiguity is that it is not clear what is meant, and so our
thinking goes into a state of anxiety or shock. If it is not seen to be harmful anxiety, this
ambiguous state can lead to humour.

In other word, a pun is a joke which is a “play on words” (a game using words).
People make puns in order to make other people laugh. Many jokes are actually puns. A
pun usually uses a word which can have more than one meaning, even if the spelling is
different.
What do you call a murderer with fiber? A cereal killer. (Binsted, 1996).
The students must not only understand the meanings of the central terms, e.g
murderer, but also realize that serial and cereal are homonym and be able to tell them apart.
For complete understanding the student must also recognize the ambiguity in the word
“fiber”, which can refer both to moral fiber.
Jokes perform multiple functions. Students can benefit from the language entailed in
joke discourse if the materials meet with their language proficiency level. Based on
teaching experience with joke materials in English, Poljaveric(1992) claims that learners
learn through games spontaneously and naturally. They have to integrate grammar,


19

vocabulary, and world knowledge. Thus, learners are guided to think and react quickly
without anxiety.

Furthermore, Leal (1993) points out that jokes can be used by

understanding the punch line or by providing them with parts of the joke and asking them
for continuing to make their own ones.

In short, using jokes can enhance student

participation in a more communicative approach. The benefits of joke reading include: a)
jokes are rule-governed. B) jokes embody a culture. C) jokes employ language skills:
reading, listening, and speaking. D) jokes integrate socio-linguistic, psycholinguistic,

strategic use of language in discourse level. E) speech behaviors and speech acts are
learned by jokes.
One of the language skills that have to master by students in leaning a foreign
language like English is speaking. Many students find difficulties in speaking English.
Some factors are fear of making mistakes, fear of being laughed at by their friends, and
having less confidence of their own ability. Therefore, the teacher should help the students
to overcome this problem by motivating them to speak. For this reason, teacher should use
effective methods that encourage students to take a part actively in every activity, the
teaching-learning process should involve not only between teacher and students, but also
between students and students.
It is becoming a challenging task for teachers to establish a successful language
classroom. Foreign language classes have to incorporate playful dimension, thus the
possibility for making the class as an instance of learning and a moment of fun becomes a
key element of successes in a language class.
The joke is potential for a humorous situation. The joke can reduce students‟ boredom
and allow students to interact with others naturally and may create good competition
among them. The element of surprise from joke frequently makes the class atmosphere
more pleasant, increasing interaction among students and teacher, making learning more
meaningful and enjoyable, a useful tool to get students‟ attention.
A joke is a device that creates linguistic awareness in the classroom. Understanding
and creating humour in a foreign language means that a language learner is consolidating
knowledge and making progress. The different activities presented here are just some of
the procedures to be explored in order to show students that learning a foreign language is
actually fun. Humour transforms the ambience of the class when students enjoy sharing


20

their playful strategies with others. When everyone benefits, the acquisition of a foreign
language becomes “easy”, and learners become motivated and creative.

Using humorous jokes in learning to speak, it is expected to increase confidence in
students as well as the ability to speak English by collaborating role-play, frequently asked
questions, in pair work or group work.
I.7. Ambiguity in language and humour studies
Although people are sometimes said to be ambiguous in how they use language,
ambiguity is, strictly speaking, a property of linguistic expressions. A word, phrase, or
sentence is ambiguous if it has more than one meaning. Obviously, this definition does not
say what meanings are or what it is for an expression to have one (or more than one). For a
particular language, this information is provided by a grammar, which systematically pairs
forms with meanings, ambiguous forms with more than one meaning.
There are two types of ambiguity, lexical and structural. Lexical ambiguity is by far
the more common. Everyday examples include nouns like 'chip', 'pen' and 'suit', verbs like
'call', 'draw' and 'run', and adjectives like 'deep', 'dry' and 'hard'. There are various tests for
ambiguity. One test is having two unrelated antonyms, as with 'hard', which has both 'soft'
and 'easy' as opposites. Another is the conjunction reduction test. Consider the sentence,
'The tailor pressed one suit in his shop and one in the municipal court'. Evidence that the
word 'suit' (not to mention 'press') is ambiguous is provided by the anomaly of the 'crossed
interpretation' of the sentence, on which 'suit' is used to refer to an article of clothing and
'one' to a legal action.
The above examples of ambiguity are each a case of one word with more than one
meaning. However, it is not always clear when we have only one word. The verb 'desert'
and the noun 'dessert', which sound the same but are spelled differently, count as distinct
words (they are homonyms). So do the noun 'bear' and the verb 'bear', even though they not
only sound the same but are spelled the same. These examples may be clear cases of
homonymy, but what about the noun 'respect' and the verb 'respect' or the preposition 'over'
and the adjective 'over'? Are the members of these pairs homonyms or different forms of
the same word? There is no general consensus on how to draw the line between cases of
one ambiguous word and cases of two homonymous words. Perhaps the difference is
ultimately arbitrary.

21

Sometimes one meaning of a word is derived from another. For example, the
cognitive sense of 'see' seems derived from its visual sense. The sense of 'weigh' in 'He
weighed the package' is derived from its sense in 'The package weighed two pounds'.
Similarly, the transitive senses of 'burn', 'fly' and 'walk' are derived from their intransitive
senses. Now it could be argued that in each of these cases the derived sense does not really
qualify as a second meaning of the word but is actually the result of a lexical operation on
the underived sense. This argument is plausible to the extent that the phenomenon is
systematic and general, rather than peculiar to particular words. Lexical semantics has the
task of identifying and characterizing such systematic phemena. It is also concerned to
explain the rich and subtle semantic behavior of common and highly flexible words like
the verbs 'do' and 'put' and the prepositions 'at', 'in' and 'to'. Each of these words has uses
which are so numerous yet so closely related that they are often described as 'polysemous'
rather than ambiguous.
Structural ambiguity occurs when a phrase or sentence has more than one underlying
structure, such as the phrases 'Tibetan history teacher', 'a student of high moral principles'
and 'short men and women', and the sentences 'The girl hit the boy with a book' and
'Visiting relatives can be boring'. These ambiguities are said to be structural because each
such phrase can be represented in two structurally different ways, e.g., '[Tibetan history]
teacher' and 'Tibetan [history teacher]'. Indeed, the existence of such ambiguities provides
strong evidence for a level of underlying syntactic structure. Consider the structurally
ambiguous sentence, 'The chicken is ready to eat', which could be used to describe either a
hungry chicken or a broiled chicken. It is arguable that the operative reading depends on
whether or not the implicit subject of the infinitive clause 'to eat' is tied anaphorically to
the subject ('the chicken') of the main clause.
It is not always clear when we have a case of structural ambiguity. Consider, for
example, the elliptical sentence, 'Perot knows a richer man than Trump'. It has two
meanings, that Perot knows a man who is richer than Trump and that Perot knows man

who is richer than any man Trump knows, and is therefore ambiguous. But what about the
sentence 'John loves his mother and so does Bill'? It can be used to say either that John
loves John's mother and Bill loves Bill's mother or that John loves John's mother and Bill
loves John's mother. But is it really ambiguous? One might argue that the clause 'so does
Bill' is unambiguous and may be read unequivocally as saying in the context that Bill does


22

the same thing that John does, and although there are two different possibilities for what
counts as doing the same thing, these alternatives are not fixed semantically. Hence the
ambiguity is merely apparent and better described as semantic underdetermination.
Although ambiguity is fundamentally a property of linguistic expressions, people are
also said to be ambiguous on occasion in how they use language. This can occur if, even
when their words are unambiguous, their words do not make what they mean uniquely
determinable. Strictly speaking, however, ambiguity is a semantic phenomenon, involving
linguistic meaning rather than speaker meaning 'pragmatic ambiguity' is an oxymoron.
Generally, when one uses ambiguous words or sentences, one does not consciously
entertain their unintended meanings, although there is psycholinguistic evidence that when
one hears ambiguous words one momentarily accesses and then rules out their irrelevant
senses. When people use ambiguous language, generally its ambiguity is not intended.
Occasionally, however, ambiguity is deliberate, as with an utterance of 'I'd like to see more
of you' when intended to be taken in more than one way in the very same context of
utterance.
Among the first attempt at offering a complete taxonomy of the types of syntactic
ambiguity in English are the works of Stageberg (e.g. Stageberg, 1970, 1971, and
references therein). Stageberg distinguishes between lexical ambiguity and syntactic
ambiguity, class ambiguity and script ambiguity (ambiguities that are resolves by
intonation, and hence exist only in writing). Taha (1983) follows Stageberg and claims that
“structural or syntactic ambiguity results from using carelessly constructed sentences

which lack formal signals to clarify their sentence structure” (152), and proposes a twelcecategory classification that attempts to account for types of syntactic ambiguity in both
written and oral context. However, the taxonomy does not attempt to be comprehensive
and Taha signals the existence of types of ambiguity that cannot be explained by the
twelve categories.
Although the connection between ambiguity and humour is widely recognized in the
literature, specific studies that examine the linguistic mechanisms of ambiguity as a source
of humour are less numerous. One of the first approaches in this direction is due to
Pepicello and Green’s (1984) study on the language of riddles, in which linguistic
ambiguity and the grammatical strategies used to create it are looked at, with the support of


23

numerous riddles and jokes from different traditions, as one of the peculiarities of this
genre.
A new, more concrete approach to the study of ambiguity in jokes, and, specially, an
analysis of their structural ambiguity is offered by Oaks (1994), who approaches ambiguity
not in terms of ways to avoid it, but, rather, as an important device in fields such as
humour and advertising. Also, Oaks restricts the scope of the article to the particular type
of syntactic ambiguity defined by Stageberg as “class ambiguity”, which is caused by
confusion between parts of speech. The word bite, which may be a verb or a noun, is
illustrative of this kind of ambiguity. First, Oaks identifies a few obstacles in the creation
of class ambiguity that are built into the language, such as the agreement rules among the
different parts of speech, grammatical redundancies, articles, etc., which constitute the
protecting mechanisms of the language against ambiguity. Second, using examples from
jokes, riddles and popular humour, the author goes on identifying a series of ambiguity
enablers involving the use of articles, verbs, conjunctions and other expressions that
contribute to the creation of humour based on class ambiguity. The effect of the lack of
articles is confusion about the location of constituent boundaries, as in the example quoted
in Stageberg (1971: 360):

Only a few high schools have carefully developed programs.
It is evident how the absence of an article in front of developed makes it unclear
whether the word should be interpreted as an adjective or a past participle, thus creating
confusion on where exactly VP and NP end.


24

CHAPTER TWO: MAJOR LINGUISTIC FEATURES OF ENGLISH SHORT
JOKES
II.1. Ambiguity in English short jokes
The aim of this part is to present the results of a case study on ambiguity in some
English jokes (puns) as a source of humour. The linguistic phenomena that contribute to
create this kind of semantic confusion will be analyzed and divided into three main
categories of ambiguity:
Lexical
Syntactic
Phonological
The first category includes jokes that become ambiguous because of double meaning
of a lexical item present in the joke, which will be further divided into nouns, verbs and
preposition ambiguity. The category of syntactic ambiguity, which will be further
subdivided into class ambiguity and other types of ambiguity, considers the semantic shifts
created by confusion between grammatical categories on the one hand, and, for example,
phrasal attachment and elliptic phenomena on the other. Within the category of syntactic
ambiguity, attention will be also dedicated to the fewer examples of referential ambiguity.
The example of phonological ambiguity will be dealt with separately in the last section.
II.1.1. Focus of ambiguity
Oaks defines lexical ambiguity as conveyed by “a word with more than one possible
meaning in a context” (1994:137).

The issue of ambiguity both in their lexical and

structural forms, has attracted the interest of many researchers, especially in the field of
psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, cognitive psychology. Yet, the focus of such
research is not so much on the phenomena generating ambiguity but rather on the
ambiguity resolution mechanisms and processes. Most studies differentiate between lexical
and structural ambiguity, with the former referring to ambiguity conveyed through
polysemous words/homophonous strings and the latter to phenomena of ambiguity word
order, referential ambiguity, prepositional phrase attachment.
The lexical ambiguity category includes the majority of jokes, which is more than
half of the examples in the corpus. Same-class lexical ambiguity in the corpus was found in
different parts of speech, namely nouns, verb and prepositions. While syntactical
ambiguity focuses mainly on word class, structure.


25

Lexical ambiguity on nouns
Lexical ambiguity relying on nouns can be found in some jokes in the corpus. In this
kind of ambiguity, homonymy is the main factor creating humour.
(1) One day an English grammar teacher was looking ill.
A student asked “What’s the matter?”
“Tense”, answered the teacher, describing how he felt.
The student paused, then continued. “That was the matter? What has been the
matter? What might have been the matter?”
In the example (1), the noun tense can be interpreted in more than one way. The
polysemy of the noun tense means both “the state of feeling” and “tense of verbs”. The
student, however, understood the latter. This is ambiguous and it also makes fun.
Another example is extracted from McKay, 2002:
(2) The friendly gardener had a lot of thyme for the woman

The word “thyme” in the second example can be interpreted in two ways. “thyme” is
a type of plant and a gardener often works with thyme. “Thyme” here is a word that sounds
like another word “time.”
(3)

A: “why are fish smart?”

B: “Because they travel in schools.”
This is a rather clever joke with the word school. School in the first meaning is where
children go to for an education. School in the second has the same meaning with the word
group.
Pronominal ambiguity
Actually, this is a kind of referential ambiguity.
Have a look at this example
(4) Q. Darling, if the boat sank, who would you save first, me or the children?
A. Me.
This is a very funny pun with a clever answer from the husband. The wife‟s “me”
means herself but the husband‟s “me” means himself. “Me” is a satisfactory answer. The
wife can interprets “me” herself and the husband implies “me” himself.
Verbal ambiguity
Among the jokes in which the ambiguous element is a verb, in some cases the
ambiguity of the verb results in the sentence being “reserved” in meaning, or, on other


26

cases, as having a meaning that conflict with the readers‟ expectations and knowledge of
the world. This can be clearly seen in the example below:
(5) Inspector: How many people work in this office?
Manager: About half of them.

In this example, the inspector uses the verb work with the aim to know about the
number of employees in the office. The manager with a humorous sense gives a 2-sense
answer. The answer refers to the effectiveness of the employees, too.
Sometimes a phrasal verb can be a source of ambiguity in English jokes. The joke
teller implies the nature of phrasal verbs, which can be referred to both literal and
metaphorical meanings.
(6) Funny man: Have you heard about the bed?
Feed: No, I haven’t.
Funny man: I’m not surprised- it hasn’t been made up yet.
(Make up means invent or create)
(7) The court will now stand for Judge Schonorrer-and if you’ll stand for him you’ll
stand for anything.
(Stand for something that means toterate)
Ambiguity on adjective
Puns play on the ambiguity relying on words of this part of speech is so much
dependent on the context and the word combination.
(8) A holiday-maker on the farm is inquisitive: “Can you tell me how long
cows should be milked?” To which the farmer answers: “They should be milked the
same as short ones, of course.
Adjective long has two meanings. The first refers to the measurement; the latter refers
to the time. The question implies the time while the answer refers to the measurement.
Adverbial ambiguity
This kind of ambiguity does have to rely on the context, which is the combination of
the adverbs and verbs in order to draw out the second meaning of the word.
(9) Angles can fly because they take themselves lightly.
This pun sounds rather interesting. In the example, the first sense of lightly means not
heavily, which can enable angles to be up in the sky. The second sense, however, implies


27

that angles are so risky, they don‟t take their lives seriously. Angles, at this time, are those
who are so bold when flying.
Ambiguity on preposition
Prepositions in any language are polysemous, in that their use covers a wide range of
meaning, which needs to be defined in the context in which they occur. Prepositions often
occur as parts of fixed phrases or idioms.
(10) Here’s Miller running into bowl. He’s got two short legs and one behind.
(11) A friend not in need is a friend indeed.
In example 10, joke is extracted from a cricket commentary. The ambiguous word
“behind” refers to the positions taken up by members of the fielding side in cricket. While
the second joke refers to a friend who is not in need or a friend who you are not in need.
There are two ways of interpretations.
Ambiguity on sound of words
The homophone principle can work across word boundaries as well as within them. It
seems that majority of jokes are based on the sound of the words.
(12) Many blonde dyes by her own hand.
(13) A teacher saw two boys fighting in the playground.
Stop! You know the school rules – No fighting allowed.
No, sir, we weren’t fighting aloud. We were fighting quietly.
In the first example the verb dyes is pronounced the same with the verb dies, so the
listener may have an ambiguous interpretation. In the second example, the word allowed
means permitted. However, the students, who are rather humorous, take it as the
homophone of aloud and give such an amusing reply.
Ambiguity on idiomatic expressions
Ambiguity is also very popular in the case of phrasal verbs and idioms, which can be
otherwise treated as individual words rather than a single unit with the unity of sense.
(14) A lot of women don’t care who wear the pants in the family, as long
as there is money in the pockets.
Have a look at another example:

(15) The friendly gardener had a lot of thyme for the woman (McKay, 2002)


28

McKay‟s program not only generates the humorous text itself, but also explains the
essential connections that the listeners must understand in order to understand the joke. For
example, for the above text, the program generated:
The word “time”, which is part of the idiom “have time for someone” is a homophone
of the word “thyme”. “thyme” is a type of plant, a gardener works with plants. “friendly” is
an adjective which is associated with the idiom “have, time, for, someone”.
Ambiguity on word class.
Some jokes are based on the confusion between different classes of parts of speech.
Misinterpretation occurs when the role of word is unclear.
For example
(16) After our honeymoon I felt like a new man. She said she did too.
The clause I felt like a new man can be interpreted either “I felt I liked a new man” or
“I felt I was a new man”. The word “like” is functioned as an adjective but it is understood
with the function of a verb.
(17) Mommy, Daddy just fell off the roof!
I know, dear; I saw him pass the window.
The word “pass” can be interpreted in two ways. Either the mother saw her husband
passing the window or he fell off the roof and passed the window.
Ambiguity on structure:
(18) A friend in need is a friend to avoid.
The phrase “a friend in need” can be interpreted either as “a friend who is in need” or
“a friend who you are in need”.
II.1.2. Proportion in the focus of ambiguity
Ambiguity focus (%)
Noun

Pron.

Verb

Adj

Adv

Prep

sounds

Idiom
based

Word
class

structure

11.33

0.67

12.67

9.0

0.67

0.67

22.66

13.33

8.0

15.0

Table 1: Proportion of ambiguity exploited in English simple jokes
Ten focuses of ambiguity has found available in 100 short jokes. The data analysis
has shown that all the focuses cause trouble to the joke interpretation. From the table we
can see that ambiguity focuses mainly on nouns, verbs, sounds and prepositional