• +91-9555269393
  • info@ijdssh.com

International Journal of Development in Social Sciences and Humanities

International Peer Reviewed (Refereed), Open Access Research Journal

E-ISSN:2455-5142 | P-ISSN:2455-7730
Impact Factor: 5.790

Typically replies within an hour

Hi there

How can I help you?
Chat with Us

Paper Details


Vol. 8, Jul-Dec 2019 | Page: 247-259

Asst. Prof. Dr. Bushra Ni’ma Rashid
College of Education, Ibn Rushd for Human Sciences, Iraq, The University of Baghdad

Received: 21-12-2018, Accepted: 11-02-2019, Published Online: 21-02-2019

. Download Full Paper


Many experienced linguists and methodology manual writers have emphasized that authentic material and using games are not just time-filling activities but also have a great educational value. These activities make learners use the language instead of thinking about learning the correct forms. These activities are highly motivating and entertaining, and they can give shy student more opportunity to speak and to express their opinions and feelings. They also help learners of the English as a foreign language to acquire new experiences which are not always possible during a typical lesson. Humor is one of such activities. It can add diversion to the regular classroom activities. It can create a relaxed atmosphere and make students remember things faster and better. Using such activity, students will be encouraged, entertained, taught, and promoted fluency. If not for any of these reasons, it should be used just because it helps students see beauty in a foreign language and not just problems that at times seem overwhelming. The present study sheds light on what is meant by humor? ? And how to be used inside the classroom? This research is predicted to find answers for the following questions: What do different types of humor occur in EFL classrooms? Are there differences in the quantity or content of humor used in 5th grade elementary school lessons as compared to 9th grade secondary school lessons? And how does the use of humor affect the atmosphere of the classroom? This study aims at: highlighting humor usage in different contexts of EFL classrooms, figuring out the differences in two groups, childhood and adolescence by investigating humor initiation of both teacher and student, pointing out the change of humor from childhood to adolescence, and finding how humor has an effect on the atmosphere of the classroom. It is hypothesized that: Humor has a considerable effect on the classroom atmosphere, there is a change of humor from the childhood to the adolescence stage, the childhood group uses more types of humor than the adolescence group. The data collected for the present study consists of 45-minute EFL lessons, 5th grade elementary school lessons and 9th grade secondary school lessons. In addition to the recordings, a 25minute thematic interview was conducted with the teacher of the lessons. The two school grades, 5th and 9th, were chosen according to the teacher’s schedule

  1. Belz, J. (2002). Second language play as a representation of the multicompetent self in foreign language study. Journal of Language: Identity, and Education 1(1), 1339. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfview er?sid=2277dc9befad4f24886ca0779384280b%40ses sionmgr110andvid=6andhid=128
  2. Chiaro, D. (1996). The language of jokes: Analysing verbal play. London: Routledge
  3. Dynel, M. (2008). No aggression, only teasing: The pragmatics of teasing and banter. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 4.2, 241-261. http://versita.metapress.com/content/a56l11728n3318 8q/fulltext.pdf
  4. Haapaniemi, K. (2011). Conversational joking in the classroom. Unpublished Pro Gradu Thesis. University of Jyväskylä, Department of Languages. https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/ 36937/URN%3aNBN%3af i%3ajyu2011111311677.pdf?sequence=1
  5. Haiman, J. (1998). Talk is cheap. Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press
  7. Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C. and Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin 127 (2), 229-248
  8. Lilja, N. (2010). Ongelmista oppimiseen. Toisen aloittamat korjausjaksot kakkoskielisessa keskustelussa. Jyväskylä studies in humanities 146. University of Jyväskylä.
  9. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis. New York: Routledge
  10. McHoul, A. (1990). The organization of repair in classroom talk. Language in Society 19, 349-377.
  11. Mulkay, M. (1988). On humor: Its nature and its place in modern society. Cambridge: Polity
  12. Nahemov, L. (1986). Humor as a data base for the study of aging. In L. Nahemov, K. A. McCluskeyFawcett and P. E. McGhee (eds.), Humor and aging. London: Academic Press Inc.
  13. Norrick, N. R. (2003). Issues in conversational joking. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (9), 1333-1359. http://ac.elscdn.com/S0378216602001807/1- s2.0S0378216602001807- main.pdf?_tid=016b9e028f1011e392ce00000aab0f26 &acdnat=1391678645_d5fc872e57ab3b1c5bdf47862 176db43
  14. Plester, B. A. and Sayers, J. (2007). ‘‘Taking the piss’’: Functions of banter in the IT industry. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research. 20 (2), 157- 187. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfview er?sid=e6fbef30ea9b4ab09362d14fccacee88%40sessi onmgr112&vid=9&hid=128
  15. Putkonen, S. (2001). Kahden maailman välissä. Kiusoittelu ja siihen vastaaminen kolmen tytön kasvokkaiskeskustelussa. In M. Heinonen, P. Korhonen, M. Mäntylä, S. Putkonen and L. Tainio (eds.) Keskustelun kuosit. Kielen opissa 6. Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitoksen julkaisuja, 197- 217
  16. Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Pub. Co.
  17. Roininen, E. (2010). Humor in the classroom. Unpublished Pro Gradu Thesis. University of Jyväskylä. Department of Languages. https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/ 38142/URN%3aNBN%3afi%3ajyu201207042000.pdf?sequence=1
  18. Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. In R. Bauman and J. F. Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 337-353.
  19. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematic for the organization of turntaking for conversation. Language 50 (4), 696-735. http://anthroweb.ucsd.edu/~jhaviland/AudVid/AudVi dReadings/Simplest_Systematics_for_TurnTaking_(Language).pdf
  20. Saharinen, K. (2007). Huumoria koulussa – kiusoittelu opettajan keinona suhtautua oppilaan virheisiin. In L. Tainio (ed.), Vuorovaikutusta luokkahuoneessa. Näkökulmana keskusteluanalyysi. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 261-287.
  21. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53 (2), 361- 382.http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/413107.pdf? &acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true.
  22. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  23. Simons, C. J. R., McCluskey-Fawcett, K. A. and Papini, D. R. (1986). Theoretical and functional perspectives on the development of humor during infancy, childhood and adolescence. In L. Nahemov, K. A. McCluskey-Fawcett and P. E. McGhee (eds.), Humor and aging. London: Academic Press Inc, 53- 80.
  24. Spåre, P. (2008). Huumori saa luokan poreilemaan. Opettaja –lehti [online].http://www.opettaja.fi/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/ OPETTAJALEHTI_EPAPER_PG/2008_37/126296. htm (Accessed on 30.10.2013)
  25. Stuart, W. D. and Rosenfeld, L. B. (1994). Student perceptions of teacher humor and classroom climate. Communication Research Reports 11 (1), 87- 97.http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfvi ewer?sid=e6fbef30ea9b4ab09362d14fccacee88%40s essionmgr112&vid=18&hid=128
  26. essionmgr112&vid=18&hid=128 • Tainio, L. (2007). Miten tutkia luokkahuoneen vuorovaikutusta keskustelunanalyysin keinoin? In L. Tainio (ed.), Vuorovaikutusta luokkahuoneessa. Näkökulmana keskusteluanalyysi. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 15-58.
  27. Thornborrow, J. (2002). Power talk. Language and interaction in institutional discourse. Harlow: Pearson Education. Wagner, J. (2004). The Classroom and Beyond. The Modern Language Journal 88 (4), 612- 616. http://www.academia.edu/823117/The_classroom_an d_beyond
  28. Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. New York: Routledge