Can They Comprehend with a Smile?

Detecting EFL College Learner’s Perception of Ambiguity

on Joke Comprehension

Chia-Yi Li I-Chen Chen

allison@mail.stut.edu.tw jennychen@mail.stut.edu.tw
Southern Taiwan University of Technology
Abstract
Ideally, integrating jokes into parts of learning material can increase EFL college
learners’ linguistic skills and cultural competence. Meanwhile, learning interest and
communicative competence are promoted (Trachtenberg, 1979). There have been
some researches on the incorporation of humor into the second language classroom, in
terms of motivation and cognition. Furthermore, Schmitz (2002) hypothesized that the
order of learnability for joke comprehension in the classroom. Nevertheless, this
experimental study aimed to explore gender variable correlates with ambiguity
perception since jokes are composed of linguistic and cultural elements (Sunderland,
1992; 2000). Based on the results of the comprehension tests on the web-based
English Jokes, the study would like to examine gender difference in the three aspects:
(a) the learnability of linguistic and cultural jokes. (b) the understanding of ambiguity
in linguistic jokes, including phonological, morphological, lexical, and syntactic
jokes. (c) length effect of English joke on learners’ comprehension. The findings
showed that EFL college learners demonstrated a similar pattern: they acquired better
understanding in linguistic jokes than in cultural jokes. In comparison of the score
means of the opposite sexes, T-tests proved that gender effect was significant in
comprehending lexical jokes, although female subjects achieved higher scores in four
subcategories. Surprisingly, concerning with linguistic joke comprehension, two
groups of learners obtained higher scores when encountering the longer jokes, except
for phonological jokes.
Keyword: perception of ambiguity, joke comprehension, gender variables

Introduction
Motivation and background
Language affects one’s perception of the world. Insufficient exposure to target
cultures and the lack of formal cultural learning may affect one’s interpretation as
well. In Taiwan, most of technology university students of are well-behaved learners,
but they feel frustrated in ineffective communication in English, not simply because
of lower linguistic competence, but also because of little confidence in using English.
Schmitz (2002) advocates the use of humorous materials in written and oral forms as

1
input in classroom and the careful selection to fit the linguistic competence of the
students. He claims that humorous discourse, in the form of anecdotes, jokes or puns,
should be introduced from the initial stage of language learning and throughout the
language program. And, he argues that “the earlier students are introduced to
authentic language input, to different styles of speech and to speakers of different
ages, sex, socio-cultural level and from different regions, the less artificial or
‘classroom-like’ their input will be.”
Needless to say, the interconnection between language and culture has been
encoded in the use of humor. Humor can be displayed in many forms, either verbally
or non-verbally, either dynamically or statically. Hence, joke-reading-and telling is
one way to demonstrate amusement, trigger laughter, and even provoke motivation to
appreciate a target culture. Additionally, humorous statements offer a structure that
helps students easily recall, so that students communicate with their own words
without memorizing or repeating the joke itself. Joke-telling is important in the ways
of communication, so that students can practice speaking, listening, reading at the
same time while telling a joke or asking for clarification. Maurice (1988) states,
"Humor can easily be seen as a way of activating motivation and directing attention,
but it can also be used in other events as well, from stimulating recall to eliciting
performance and providing feedback."
Therefore, 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, 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.
Research purposes and questions
Ideally, if language teachers can integrate jokes into language teaching as part of
teaching material, EFL students can increase their linguistic skills and cultural
competence. Meanwhile, learning interest and communicative competence are
promoted (Trachtenberg, 1979). There has been some research on the incorporation of

2
humor into the second language classroom, in terms of motivation and cognition.
Nevertheless, this study aims to explore how gender variable correlates with joke
comprehension since jokes are composed of linguistic and cultural elements
(Sunderland, 1992/ 2000). Based on the results of the test on English Joke, researchers
would like to examine gender difference in the appreciation of linguistic jokes and
cultural jokes, as well as in the understanding of ambiguity in linguistic jokes,
including phonological, morphological, lexical, and syntactic jokes. This study may
assist students in learning more about the cultural aspects of target language and tend
to diagnose learners’ potential problem dealing with the complex linguistic structures.
Second, by the analysis of different categories of jokes, it is expected to know
students’ strengths and weaknesses in joke comprehension.
This study aims to address the following questions:
1. Is there gender difference in the understanding cultural and linguistic jokes
respectively?
2. Is there gender difference in comprehending linguistic ambiguities (including
four subcategories) in the actual use of joke reading?
3. Does the length of English joke affect learners’ comprehension?

Literature review
Linguistic competence
Regarding the linguistic theories of humor, several previous studies concern on
the linguistic study of humor (Raskin, 1985; Chiaro, 1992; Ross, 1998). These
theorists mainly focus on how the humor is achieved by the use of language. In the
light of the Cooperative Principles proposed by Grice (1975), Raskin (1985) proposes
the non-bona-fide mode of joke-telling: (i)Maxim of Quantity: give exactly as much
information as is necessary for the joke; (ii)Maxim of Quality: say only what is
compatible with the world of the joke; (iii)Maxim of Relation: say only what is
relevant to the joke. (iv) Maxim of Manner: tell the joke efficiently. Associated with
this mode, the joke-telling occurs in four situations by the combination of the two
possibilities in (i) & (ii) with two possibilities in (iii) &(iv): (i) The speaker makes the
joke unintentionally; (ii) The speaker makes the joke intentionally; (iii)The hearer
does not expect a joke; (iv) The hearer expects a joke.
Besides, Chiaro (1992) examines the verbal techniques of jokes. She claims that
the humorous effect in jokes is created by the uses of puns, word play and
ambiguities. She classifies two groups of language techniques of jokes: the first one is
slips of tongue including metathesis, malapropisms and misplaced words; the second
one is deliberate word play, that is playing with graphology, playing with sounds,
playing with word boundaries, playing with formation, playing with lexis, playing

3
with syntax and playing with the rules of conversation.
Another important issue about linguistic analysis of humor is based on
ambiguity. Ambiguity refers to a word or phase that has more than one meaning.
Hence, humorous effect is created by wordplay. Pepicello & Weisberg (1983) states
that the linguistic humor in jokes is based on the manipulation of phonological,
morphological or syntactic features to produce ambiguities. And, they outline 12 types
of linguistic humor in jokes, including homonym, minimal distinction, deliberate
distortions, shifts of stress, and the like. After all, ambiguities are the most salient
features misleading the understanding. These ambiguities can be a result of the
possibilities of words, which are either semantically or phonologically ambiguous in
terms of the idea the speaker tries to declare (Nilsen & Nilsen, 1994).
Likewise, Ross (1998) attempts to divide ambiguities into four subcategories:
phonology, graphology, morphology, lexis, and syntax. According Ross’s analysis,
first, “phonology” is related to sound systems in a language. For example,
homophones in jokes refer to word of the same pronunciation but with different
spellings and two possible interpretations. Second, “graphology” signifies how a
language is represented visually. Next, “morphology” refers to the ways of word
construction. Morpheme is the smallest meaning unit of logic. Lexis also refers to the
word system of a language. In addition to phonology, the lexicon, or vocabulary, is
also a source of puns. Finally, in terms of the syntactic structure, meaning is produced
by the way of how words, phases, and clauses are arranged. In order to understand
the syntactic ambiguities, EFL learners have to undertake a systematic level of
analysis. As a result, they are led to develop an awareness of syntactic function and
get the possible interpretations of sentence structures.
Joke competence and EFL context
Carrell (1997) verifies a distinction between humor competence and joke
competence. She states, “humor 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”. And, 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

4
provides the order of learnability for joke comprehension 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. However,
few experimental research concerning about joke comprehension touch upon EFL
context. Therefore, this study plans to explore the understanding of EFL college
learners among phonological, morphological, lexical, and syntactic jokes to see if we
can dig out the potential gender differences.
Joke comprehension and gender variables
Regarding the relationship between jokes and gender, researches have proved
that male joke frequently than females (Tannen, 1994). Moreover, Liao (1998) states
that in Chinese society, the types of humor women and men tend to prefer differ. In
contrast, men’s jokes are of the “low type”, but women’s jokes are of the “high type.”
On the other hand, Mitchell (1985) suggests that men tell higher percentage of
obscene jokes, religious jokes, ethnic and racial jokes, jokes about death, and jokes
about drinking, while women tell higher percentages of absurd jokes, morbid jokes,
jokes about authority figures, and jokes based on wordplays.
It has been long examined that men and women perceive varied viewpoints on
the way of language use. Ziv suggests that men are more likely to joke, tease and kid,
whereas women are inclined to act as an appreciative audience than to produce humor
of their own (cited in Lampert & Ervin-Tripp, 1998). Mitchell (1985) comments that
men and women have different attitudes towards joke-telling. These attitudes affected
the kinds of jokes told by men and women, the situations in which they tell jokes, and
the audiences to whom they tell the jokes. As Mitchell indicates, women are more
likely to have a lower value on joke-telling as a form of social interaction than men
did. In addition, Chapman (1983) indicates gender difference in humor. He mentions
girls tend to be more sociable, whereas boys concentrate more on the humor per se.
Besides, Hill (1988) pointed out that females develop better language skills than
males. Based on such a factor, we will go further to look at gender effect on joke
comprehension in EFL situations.

Methodology
Subjects
In the experiment, the two groups of native Chinese speaking subjects were
randomly selected from Southern Taiwan University of Technology: 20 female
students and 20 male students. All of them are randomly selected from four freshmen
English courses. The scores of the pretest, GEPT (General English Proficiency Tests),
show that they are in the range of the intermediate language proficiency level. In the
first academic year, all of freshmen are required to take freshman English and English

5
speaking and listening courses.
Instrument
In the form of a questionnaire, all subjects are asked to fill out the background
information (part I) and respond to the Joke Test (part II). In the joke test, there are
two main joke categories (linguistic jokes and cultural jokes) and four subcategories
of linguistic jokes (refer to table 2). According to these test items, all subjects have to
identify whether it is a joke and interpret the punch line, in order to judge their joke
comprehension. Part III aims to know if insufficient vocabulary will interfere their
comprehension.

Table 1
Joke categories Subcategories Question number
Linguistics jokes 1) Phonological ambiguity Q1/Q6
2) Morphological ambiguity Q2/Q7
3) Lexical ambiguity Q3/Q8
4) Syntactic ambiguity Q4/Q9
Cultural jokes 5) Cultural ambiguity Q5/Q10
If the subject can tell the text is a joke and give appropriate explanation, s/he will
win one point for one question. However, if the subject simply judges the text is really
a joke but fails to provide the correct interpretation of the punch line, s/he will win 0.5
point. If the subject cannot identify the text is a joke, s/he receive a score of zero for
that question.

Results and Discussions

Results by previous experiences
The learner’s information shows that around 62.5% (25:40) of 40 subjects have
the experiences of reading or contacting with English jokes out of /in class. The
resources of English jokes come from the websites, newspapers, and magazines. This
result indicates the authentic materials do play a role.

Figure 1. Resource of Jokes

resourceof jokereading
other
12% textbooks
magazines textbooks
4% magazines
16%
peers
newspapers
12% newspapers
16% websites
websites peers
40% other

Results by the Joke test

Regarding the mean scores of overall performance of learners, male students

6
obtain a mean score of 4.800 on the joke test, while female students get a mean score
of 6.075 (t=-2.229, p=0.32 >.05). The female subject with highest performance scores
9 points, but the one with lowest performance obtains a score of 3. In comparison, the
male subject of highest performance scores 7.5, but the one with lowest performance
obtains a score of 2.5. T-test indicates that although female students perform than
male counterparts, there is no significant difference. It is possible that female are
more actively engaged in this language activity, but they may not have sufficient
linguistic competence and joke competence required to interpret every English joke in
the test.

Gender N Mean T-test

Male 20 4.800 t=2.229
Female 20 6.075 p=0.32
(*p<.05; **p<.01)

Results by learnability of jokes types

Schmitz (2002) hypothesized there is the order of learnability for joke
comprehension in the classroom and suggests that the learners of intermediate level
can comprehend cultural jokes better than linguistic jokes. However, in contrast, in
Figure 2, the result shows that neither EFL male learners nor female learners perform
well in cultural jokes. For both joke types, female subjects outperform male subjects.
Accordingly, this linguistic phenomenon can be explained by that females are more
attentive to social settings and more cooperative audience of humor comprehension
(as discussed in Mitchell, 1985; Chapman, 1983). In addition, females may be good at
using some appropriate strategies in joke reading, corresponding to the study of Hill
(1988).
Figure 2. Comprehension performance of Joke Types by Gender

Comprehension Performance
Mean Scores

1.00
0.75
0.50 Male
0.25
0.00 Femal
Linguistic Cultural e
Joke Types

Results by the subcategories of linguistic ambiguities

As for interpreting ambiguities (Ross’s classification), the results indicate that
EFL college learners perform better in understanding the jokes composing of

7
morphological and lexical ambiguity than in the jokes composing of phonological and
syntactic ambiguity. In comparison of the score means of two groups of subjects, T-
tests proves that gender effect is only significant in lexical jokes ( *p =0.023 ＜.05),
although females subjects achieved higher scores in four subcategories. As what Hill
(1988) proposed, females develop better language skills since they are skilled in
comprehending four types of jokes. Probably, it can be inferred that female learners
possess better grammatical knowledge and a large amount of English lexicon, in
comparing to male counterparts.
Figure 3. Comprehension for subcategories of Linguistic Jokes by Gender

Comprehension for Subcategories of Linguistic Jokes

1
Mean Scores

0.75
Male
0.5
Female
0.25
0
Phonological Morphological Lexical Syntactic

Subcategories of Ambiguities

Furthermore, Table 2 tells us that gender effect is also not significant in the
comprehension of ambiguity encoded in cultural jokes. Hence, we can generalize that
many college learners perceive difficulties in bridging a gap between linguistic
competence and cultural competence. As McCarthy and Carter (1994) point out,
cultural and linguistic competence are necessary for comprehending jokes in different
language forms.
Table 2. A comparison with linguistic ambiguity and cultural ambiguity (*p<.05; ** p <.01)
Linguistic Jokes Male (Mean score) Female(Mean score) P- value(2- tailed)
(a) Phonological ambiguity 0.4125 0.5125 p =0.261
(b)Morphological ambiguity 0.65 0.75 p =0.182
(c) Lexical ambiguity 0.5875 0.7625 p =0.023 (*)
(d) Syntactic ambiguity 0.475 0.6125 p =0.117
Cultural Jokes Male(Mean score) Female(Mean score) P- value(2- tailed)
(e) Cultural ambiguity 0.475 0.6125 p =0.096

Results by Length Comprehension

As Table 3 and Figure 4 depict, the mean scores of performance show the length
of the joke will affect learners’ comprehension. It is surprising to find out that for
linguistic jokes, two groups of learners obtain higher scores when encountering the
longer joke, except for phonological jokes. Significantly, all subjects outperform in
the longer text of syntactic joke. That is, the context provided in the longer joke can
be a cue for meaning guessing. As for the morphological and lexical jokes, the effect

8
 is not that salient because these two types of jokes are not involved in a complex
linguistic environment when learners read theses texts. In contrast, Paired sample T-
tests show that length factor is significant in cultural jokes. Different from
comprehending the linguistic jokes, both female and male learners performed better in
the longer text (blonde joke) than in the shorter text (religious joke) in the cultural
jokes. Furthermore, female students get higher scores than male students when
encountering the topic of the blonde. Hence, we may infer a possibility: the theme of
a joke will influence the comprehension of EFL college learners from different
cultural background, especially for the issue of religion. Learners’ difficulty in reading
cultural jokes tells language teachers and researchers that cross-cultural learning is
necessary in a foreign language classroom since culture, beliefs, and attitudes are
reflected in the authentic materials, like joke reading.
Table 3. A Comparison of comprehension performance by length (*p <.05 ; ** p <.01)
　Male Phonological Morphological Lexical Syntactic Cultural
Length(S) 0.525 0.65 0.575 0.275 0.1
Length(L) 0.3 0.65 0.6 0.675 0.45
P (2-tailed) *0.025 1.00 0.772 **0.002 **0.000
　Female Phonological Morphological Lexical Syntactic Cultural
Length(S) 0.675 0.7 0.775 0.425 0.275
Length(L) 0.35 0.8 0.75 0.8 0.525
P(2-tailed) **0.001 0.297 0.815 ** 0.000 **0.004
Figure 4. Length Comprehension by Gender

L ength Comprehension L ength Comprehension

(Male L earners) (Female L earners)

0.8
1
Mean Scores

0.6
Mean Scores

0.8
Length(S) 0.6 Length(S)
0.4
Length(L) 0.4 Length(L)
0.2 0.2

0 0
ti c
l
ca

ral
l
ica

l
ica
ti c
l
ca

ac
ral
l

ltu
ica

l
ica

xi
og

og
ac

Le
ltu

nt
xi

Cu
og

og

Le

nt

Sy
ol

ol
Cu

on

ph
Sy
ol

ol
on

ph

Ph

or
Ph

or

M
M

J oke categories J oke categories

Conclusions and Implications

The results of the joke test unveil that gender factor affects the performance of
the joke test and the learnability of jokes types to some extent. In general, females
achieve better scores in cultural and linguistic jokes as well as the four subcategories
of linguistic jokes than males. Therefore, for joke comprehension, EFL learners
demonstrate a similar pattern: they acquire better understanding in linguistic jokes
than in cultural jokes. Besides, the results of T-tests also prove that subjects perform
better on morphological and lexical jokes in comparing the four subcategories of the

9
linguistic jokes.
Based on the above analyses and discussions, it is evident that gender is one
crucial factor affecting EFL learners’ joke comprehension. Accordingly, we would
like to pinpoint three pedagogical implications concerning about the English joke
comprehension. To begin with, humor instruction via English jokes can be a
pedagogical tool in EFL classrooms (Schmitz, 2002). Certainly, we must recognize
gender differences on joke comprehension and advocate the delicate selection of the
diverse topics of the jokes. The more jokes the students appreciate, the higher their
motivation, the lower the affective filter. It is believed that in a relaxed atmosphere of
the class settings, learners are more likely to take risks to formulate questions, test
hypotheses, construct meanings without the fear of making mistakes. Besides, Carrell
(1997) claims that communication competence is a key component to joke
comprehension. Carrell further mentions that in reality, learners do not develop joke
and humor competence immediately; the intensive comprehension of humorous texts
depend on the sufficient input provided. In this way, EFL learners apply a variety of
language skills into learning: reading, speaking, and listening.
Secondly, many jokes are a good way of illustrating cultural aspects of the
language. Culture learning helps us be aware of how cultural awareness and language
teaching reinforce each other in the classroom. Ilieva (2001) outlines an approach to
cultural instruction in adult second-language education, named "culture exploration,"
which calls for the recognition of ambiguity embedded in cross-cultural encounters.
It argues that through culture exploration and reflection on it, students can develop an
understanding of the close relationship between language and culture. In the light of
this, learners will be empowered to act to fulfill their future goals in the new
environment, either for academic or career purposes.
As Schmitz (2002) suggests, in the intermediate stage, learners should be ready
to appreciate cultural jokes since joke materials is approached by cultural
understanding and the sense of humor, in addition to linguistic abilities. Furthermore,
in the advanced stage of language learning, learners must be given the chances to
reflect critically by reading cultural jokes and discuss some controversial or taboo
topics (like racial, sexual, political, etc.) by exchange interaction. Actually, the
findings of the current study uncover that the cultural jokes are hardly fully
understood by these intermediate-level college students. Just like what Carrell (1984)
states, the reason why the foreign language learners failed to appreciate ambiguity
embedded in a humorous text is because they perceive the joke literally and do not
activate the relevant schemata. As a result, providing adequate explanations on key
vocabulary, background information, and pun lines may be a helpful aid to the
learners with such difficulties.

10
 Finally, the findings reveal that phonological and syntactic jokes are the two
main subcategories of linguistic jokes, which the subjects feel short of. Since the
majority of technology university students are less proficient learners, who lack the
frequent contact with authentic input, English teachers should introduce some day-to-
day materials focusing on the practice of linguistic strategies as well as metalinguistic
awareness to promote learners’ linguistic competence. Besides, many learners will
not consider jokes funny due to their lack of the lexicon and experiencing puns.
Schmitz (2002) cites Hatch & Brow’s viewpoint (1995) and encourages the necessity
of “incidental vocabulary learning” in addition to core target language learning. He
proposes that students, with a great amount of vocabulary, are more confident when
they exchange information; therefore, they are able to employ vocabulary properly in
real situations naturally.
Similar to jokes, puns, integrating phonological rules and syntactic properties,
are parts of English culture. Puns and wordplays can be found in many authentic
materials, such as advertisements, newspaper headline, movie tiles, and people’s
nicknames, are good sources for enhancing comprehension of the intermediate
learners. Jokes or puns written for children can be used for light reading and listening
training in EFL classes. By telling others a joke, they can play good storytellers. In
turns, the students can benefit from “listening” in conversational exchanges.
Furthermore, the humorous materials, which are shorter and universal, can assist the
learners who have reading difficulty or who are passive in learning.
Mainly, this study confirms certain gender effects on the English joke
comprehension of EFL college students. Thus, the suggestions for further research are
listed below: First of all, researchers can enlarge the sample size; as a result, a
comprehensive picture of EFL college students can be portrayed. Next, the issue of
students’ comprehension of the subcategories of cultural jokes can be examined
further. For instance, business joke, political joke, sports joke, office joke, and the
like. Then, it also suggests that researchers may investigate further how gender factor
is reflected on conversation interaction since females attempt to appreciate jokes and
play as more collaborative partners than males (Chapman, 1983).
Reference
Carrell, A. (1997). Joke competence and humor competence. Humor, 10(2), 173-185.
Carrelll, P. L. (1984). Schema theory and ESL reading: classroom implication and
application. Modern Language Journal, 68 (4), 332-341.
Chapman, A. (1983). Humor and laugher in social interaction and some implication
for humor research. In P. E. McGhee & J.H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of
humor research: vol.1. 135-157. New York: Spring-Verlag.
Chiaro, D. (1992). The language of Joke: analyzing verbal play. New York:

11
 Routledge.
Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. IN P. Cole & J. Morgen (Ed.), Syntax and
semantics reader: vol. 3. Speech acts. Pp.41-58. New York: Academic.
Hatch. E. & Brown, C. (1995). Vocabulary, semantics, and language education.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, D.J. (1988). Humor in the classroom: a handbook for teachers (and other
entertainer!). Springfield: Charles Thomas Publishers.
Ilieva, R. (2001). Living with ambiguity: toward culture exploration in adult second
language classrooms. TESL Canada Journal. 19 (1).
Lampert, M. D., & Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1998). Exploring paradigms: The study of
gender and sense of humor near the end of the 20th century. In M. D. Lampert, &
S. M. Ervin-Tripp (Eds.), The Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality
Characteristic. Humor Research 3 (pp. 231-270). New York & Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Liao, C. C. (1998). Jokes, humor, and Chinese people. Taipei: Crane Publisher.
Maurice, K. (1988). "Laugh While Learning Another Language: Techniques That Are
Functional and Funny". English Teaching Forum, 26/2:20-25.
McCarthy, M. & Carter, R. (1994). Language as discourse: perspectives for language
teaching. New York: London.
Mitchell, C. (1985). Some differences in male and female joke-telling. In R. A. Jordan
& & S. J. Kalcik (Eds.), Women’s Folklore, Women’s Culture (pp. 163-186).
Philadelphia: University of Pennsilvannia Press.
Nilsen, D. & Nilsen, A. (1994). The appeal of bloopers: a reader-response
interpretation. Humor, 7(2), 127-137.
Pepicello, W. J. & Weisberg, R. W. (1983). Linguistics and humor. In P.E. McGhee &
J.H.Goldstein (Eds.). Handbook of humor research: vol. 1. Basic Issues. Pp.59-
83. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Poljarevic, K. (1992). "The More they Laugh, the Better the Mark". English Teaching
Forum, 30(3):5253.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dorderecht: D. Reidel Publishing
Company.
Ross, A. (1998). The language of humor. London: Routledge.
Schmitz, J. R. (2002). Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and
translation courses. Humor, (15), 89-113.
Sunderland, J. (1992). Gender in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 46(1), 81-91.
Sunderland, J. (2002). Issues of language and gender in second foreign language
education. Language Teaching, 33, 203-223.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation.

12
Trachtenberg, S.(1979). Joke-telling as a tool in ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 13(1), 89-99.
Website of English Jokes
http://iteslj.org/c/jokes-puns.html http://www.ahajokes.com/

http://web.bryant.edu.~ehu/cld/projects/grammar/page2.htm

13