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 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

MAJOR:

ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY

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.

Signature:

……………………………….

Name:

Vũ Thị Hợi

Date :

……………………………….


Acknowledgements
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.


Abstract
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

.
?
,
::
(?)
((laughs))
(.)
(0.8)

(…)
[ ]
/n/
=
Tell
TEll
hhh


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.
Inaudible
Nonlinguistic features of the transcription or transcriber’s description of
the event.
Pause – untimed
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
Phonemic transcription of sounds or words
The utterance on one line continues without a pause where the next =
picks it up.
Strong emphasis.
Especially loud voice
Indicate a cut-off or self-interruption.
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
ARs
L2
NNSs
NSs
SRIs
VRs

Audio recordings
Second language (for example: L2 speakers, L2 learners)
Non-native Speakers
Native Speakers
Stimulated recall interviews
Video recordings


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

1


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
2


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),
3


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.

4


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 socialcognitive 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
5


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
6


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
7


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).
recognition

understanding

appreciation

agreement

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
8


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 copresent), 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,

development

clarity,

(e.g.,

co-orientation, overlap

attraction,

intimacy),

of meanings),

satisfaction

(e.g.,

relationship

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

9


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).

10


Linguistic competence

Strategic competence

Understanding and using:
 Vocabulary
 Language convention (grammar,
punctuation and spelling)
 Syntax (e.g: sentence structure)

Using techniques to:
 Overcome language gaps
 Plan and assess the effectiveness of
communication
 Achieve conversational fluency
 Modify text for audience and
purpose

Communicative competence
The ability to understand and use language
effectively to communicate in “authentic”
social and school environment
Canale & Swain (1980, p. 6)

Having awareness of:
 Social

rules

of

Understanding how ideas are
language

(e.g: connected through:

appropriateness, formality, politeness,
directness)

organization

 Nonverbal behaviors
 Cultural

 Coherence and patterns of

references

 Cohesive and transitional devices
(e.g:

idioms,

expressions, background knowledge)

Sociolinguistic competence
Discourse competence
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 contextdependent 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
11


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-onform 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.

Communicative
Competence
Sociolinguistic
Competence
Humor
Competence

Figure 2.3: Relationship between Humor Competence and Sociolinguistic
Competence
12


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.

13


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
14


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
T
N
H
J

Name/
Pseudonym
Thành
Nguyệt
Hợi
Jonas

Age

Gender

Country

17
16
27
18

Male
Female
Female
Male

Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Germany

S
Samson
20
Male
*Note: All names (except for the researcher’s) are pseudonyms

Germany

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
15