Page 10 Walker • Humor in the Foreign Language Classroom typically be more willing to speak up in class and practice using the L2. The constructs of WTC and power distance will be used to frame much of the Findings and Discussion section. Approach to Humor In order to examine the discussion of humor in the FL classroom and its effect on students’ affective filters, we must first broach the construct of humor itself. Because humor is difficult to define, many previous studies have relied on readers’ intuitive understanding of what humor is (Bell, 2009). A few trends can be identified in what we recognize as humor: subverting expectations, such as violating Gricean maxims; politeness conventions; social taboos; joking (not canned jokes, but interactional humor and joking with students); exaggeration and sarcasm; and self-deprecation (Azizifard & Jalali, 2012; Dynel, 2009). Nevertheless, Bell (2009) warns that while these typologies might be a good starting point for understanding varieties of humor, humor is complex and these categorizations “cannot be taken as accurately representing conversational joking” (p. 244). If meticulous typologies of humor are thus deemed inadequate and intuition remains a major categorizing factor, we must look at how previous researchers have gone about studying it in classrooms. Beginning with a common framework in educational research, Askildson (2005) categorizes his discussion according to direct and indirect effects of humor—the former affecting the saliency of input and information retention and the latter influencing the general class environment and factors of the affective filter. While the direct effects have been well analyzed through experimental testing and detailed qualitative research, the indirect effects have only recently begun to receive attention in literature, perhaps due to their less defined nature (Zabidin, 2015). In his 2010 article on interactional humor, Norrick discusses indirect effects of humor, noting that humor “contributes to the creation of identity and fosters group rapport” (p. 240). He also notes that joking works as “positive politeness” that builds camaraderie by lessening the distance between speakers and reducing the threat of impositions on the listener. Furthermore, he addresses an important construct—how the framing of actions in a sociolinguistic context determines the reactions they will elicit. Linguistic and paralinguistic features can signal a “play” context rather than a serious one, setting the stage for the entire interaction. Within a play frame, even insulting, mocking, or otherwise impolite speech acts can be received good-naturedly. Facework also becomes relevant here as joking can be used to reduce the threat of impositions on the listener and save face for either interlocutor (Norrick, 2010). Further in his research, Askildson (2005) describes humor as “a pedagogical instrument like any other, and one which serves as a double-edged sword—capable of improving or harming the classroom environment depending on its employment by the teacher” (p. 48-49). He notes the possible negative effects of offense and confusion if humor is used improperly or in a poor context. In his own study, Askildson aimed for a representative sample of perspectives by using a Likertscaled questionnaire to target students in various language classes. Most of the participants reported that they felt either noticeably or considerably more relaxed in class when humor was employed, and students perceived teachers as more approachable when they used humor. Participants also seemed to view target language humor as an important tool in language and cultural learning.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=