Cover not available
Article published In:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 174:1 (2023) ► pp.112–134

Cantonese and Korean speakers’ comprehension and appreciation of English textual humor

| The Chinese University of Hong Kong
ORCID logo | The Chinese University of Hong Kong

This study explored how L1 Cantonese and L1 Korean speakers would comprehend and appreciate L2 English humor, and whether their L1 background, English proficiency, and the type of humor would play as moderators. For this study, 69 Cantonese and 76 Korean undergraduate students answered a questionnaire that contained 30 English humor items in various types, i.e., lexical, morphological, syntactic, phonological, and cultural. In addition, five intermediate and five advanced participants from each L1 group participated in semi-structured interviews to elicit their English learning and use experiences and beliefs in the role of humor in English learning. The results revealed that humor comprehension scores were significantly higher for Cantonese speakers and for participants with advanced English proficiency, and morphological humor was the easiest to comprehend. Open-ended responses and interview protocols also demonstrated that different contexts of English learning and use may affect the participants’ ability to enjoy and appreciate English humor.

Keywords: second language humor, humor comprehension, first language background, second language proficiency, type of humor
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
  • Research questions
  • Methodology
    • Participants
    • Research instrument
    • Semi-structured interview
    • Procedure
  • Analysis
    • Questionnaire responses
    • Interview protocols
  • Results
    • Humor comprehension
    • Humor appreciation
    • Questionnaire responses
    • Interview responses
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.21008.fan
References
A’Beckett, L.
(2013) Strategies to discredit opponents: Russian presentations of events in countries of the former Soviet Union. Psychology of Language and Communication, 17 1, 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aarons, D.
(2012) Jokes and the linguistic mind. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attardo, S.
(2001) Humorous Texts: A semantic and pragmatic analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1997) The semantic foundations of cognitive theories of humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 4 1, 395–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Semantics and pragmatics of humor. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2 (6), 1203–1215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Azizinezhad, M., & Hashemi, M.
(2011) Humour: A pedagogical tool for language learners. Procedia–– Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30 1, 2093–2098. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, N. D.
(2007) How native and non-native English speakers adapt to humor in intercultural interaction. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 20 1, 27–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Learning about and through humor in the second language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 13 (3), 241–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Humor and second language development. In S. Attardo (Ed). The Routledge handbook of language and humor (pp. 444–455). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, N., & Attardo, S.
(2010) Failed humor: Issues in non-native speakers’ appreciation and understanding of humor. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7 (3), 423–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, D. A.
(1968) Jokes, Puns, and Riddles. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Deneire, M.
(1995) Humor and foreign language teaching. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 8 (3), 285–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comparing scores
n.d.). Retrieved March 02, 2021, from [URL]
Gelman, A., & Hill, J.
(2007) Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goatly, A.
(2012) Meaning and humour. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P.
(1975) Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, J.
(2001) The pragmatics of humor support. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 14 1, 55–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoke, H.
(1965) More jokes. New York: Franklin Watts.Google Scholar
Hsin, A. L.
(2006) Comprehension of English Jokes in Chinese EFL Learners. In 2006 International Conference on English Instruction and Assessment. April. Chung-Cheng Univ. Jia-yi, ROC.Google Scholar
Kern, R. G.
(2008) Literacy as a new organizing principle for foreign language education. In P. Patrikis (Ed.), Reading between the lines: Perspectives on foreign language literacy (pp. 40–60). New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kristmanson, P.
(2000) Affect: in the Second Language Classroom: How to create an emotional climate. Reflexions, 19 (2), 1–5.Google Scholar
Laughfactory.com
Retrieved 8 August 2020, from [URL]
Lew, R.
(1997) Towards a taxonomy of linguistic jokes. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 31 1, 123–152.Google Scholar
Lucas, T.
(2005) Language awareness and comprehension through puns among ESL learners. Language Awareness, 14 (4), 221–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, R.
(2007) The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. London, England: Elsevier Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oaks, D. D.
(1994) Creating structural ambiguities in humor: getting English grammar to cooperate. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 7 (4), 377–401. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L.
(2014) How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64 (4), 878–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team
(2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL [URL]
Raskin, V.
(2011) On Oring on GTVH. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 24 (2), 223–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) The hidden media humor and hidden theory. In J. Chovanec & I. Ermida (Eds). Language and humour in the media (pp. 45–66). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Ritchie, G.
(2004) The linguistic analysis of jokes. New York: Roudedg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbloom, J.
(1976) Biggest riddle book in the world. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Ross, A.
(2005) The language of humour. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitz, J. R.
(2002) Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and translation courses. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15 (1), 89–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Semiz, Ö.
(2014) EFL learners’ understanding of linguistic ambiguity in language-based jokes. Journal of Narrative and Language Studies, 2 (2).1–11.Google Scholar
Shardakova, M.
(2010) How to be funny in a second language: Pragmatics of L2 humor. In R. D. Brecht, L. A. Verbitskaja, M. D. Lekic, & W. P. Rivers (Eds.), Mnemosynon. Studies on language and culture in the Russophone World: A collection of papers presented to Dan E. Davidson by his students and colleagues (pp. 288–310). Moscow, Russia: Azbukovnik, Institut russkogo jazyka, RAN.Google Scholar
(2016) American learners’ comprehension of Russian textual humor. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (2), 466–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shiverly, R. L.
(2013) Learning to be funny in Spanish during study abroad: L2 humour development. The Modern Language Journal, 97 (4), 930–946. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shultz, T. R., & Horibe, F.
(1974) Development of the appreciation of verbal jokes. Developmental Psychology, 10(1), 13–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stageberg, N. C.
(1966) Structural ambiguity: some sources. The English Journal, 55 (5), 558–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulf, D.
(2010) A humour competence curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (1), 155–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar