Startseite Humor convergence based on humor type: a quantitative study of L2 humor responses
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Humor convergence based on humor type: a quantitative study of L2 humor responses

  • Caleb Prichard

    Caleb Prichard is an Associate Professor at Okayama University in Japan. In addition to publishing several studies on L2 humor competence instruction, he researches reading strategies through eye tracking

    ORCID logo EMAIL logo
    , Audrey Rousse-Malpat

    Audrey Rousse-Malpat is an Assistant Professor of French in the program for European Languages and Cultures at Groningen University in the Netherlands. Her research revolves around second language acquisition, foreign language education, and French linguistics

    und Héloïse Girard

    Héloïse Girard is a lecturer in French language and culture. She teaches in the Franse taal en cultuur and European Studies BA programs at the University of Amsterdam.

Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 2. April 2025
HUMOR
Aus der Zeitschrift HUMOR Band 38 Heft 3

Abstract

Humor convergence, or responding to humor by adding a similar jocular response, is presumed to lead to positive affect and affiliation among interlocutors. L2 learners particularly could benefit from being able to join in on this co-construction of humor, as this would help them build bonds with target language speakers. However, research is lacking on whether convergence is common and effective for all kinds of humor, including self-deprecation and failed humor. This study examined the level at which 23 L2 French learners in a Dutch university converged to 18 fictitious messages which included various kinds of humor, including affiliative absurd irony, third-person sarcasm, jocular flattery, self-deprecation, offensive and incomprehensible humor. The study also analyzed L1 French speakers’ effectiveness ratings of the learners’ responses to the various humor types. Finally, it examined the correlation between humor convergence and effectiveness ratings to determine whether convergence is actually considered effective for all kinds of humor. The findings suggested that the type of humor had a large effect on the level of humor convergence, but more convergent responses were considered more effective for all kinds of humor, except offensive humor. Implications for researchers and educators are discussed.


Corresponding author: Caleb Prichard, Center for Language Education, 12997 Okayama University , 1-1 Naka 1-chome Tsushima, Kita-ku, Okayama, 700-8530, Japan, E-mail:

Funding source: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)

Award Identifier / Grant number: 23K00675

About the authors

Caleb Prichard

Caleb Prichard is an Associate Professor at Okayama University in Japan. In addition to publishing several studies on L2 humor competence instruction, he researches reading strategies through eye tracking

Audrey Rousse-Malpat

Audrey Rousse-Malpat is an Assistant Professor of French in the program for European Languages and Cultures at Groningen University in the Netherlands. Her research revolves around second language acquisition, foreign language education, and French linguistics

Héloïse Girard

Héloïse Girard is a lecturer in French language and culture. She teaches in the Franse taal en cultuur and European Studies BA programs at the University of Amsterdam.

References

Adams, Aubrie, Jai Miles, Norah E. Dunbar & Giles Howard. 2018. Communication accommodation in text messages: Exploring liking, power, and sex as predictors of textisms. The Journal of Social Psychology 158(4). 474–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2017.1421895.Suche in Google Scholar

Alberts, Jess K., Yvonne Kellar-Guenther & Steven R. Corman. 1996. That’s not funny: Understanding recipients’ responses to teasing. Western Journal of Communication 60(4). 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319609374553.Suche in Google Scholar

Attardo, Salvatore. 2002. Humor and irony in interaction: From mode adoption to failure of detection. In Luigi Annolli, Rita Ciceri & Guiseppe Riva (eds.), Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunication, 159–180. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Bell, Nancy. 2009a. Impolite responses to failed humor. In Delia Chiaro & Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Humor in interaction, 143–163. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.Suche in Google Scholar

Bell, Nancy. 2009b. Responses to failed humor. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 1825–1836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.010.Suche in Google Scholar

Bell, Nancy. 2013. Responses to incomprehensible humor. Journal of Pragmatics 57. 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.019.Suche in Google Scholar

Bell, Nancy & Salvatore Attardo. 2010. Failed humor: Issues in non-native speakers’ appreciation and understanding of humor. Intercultural Pragmatics 7(3). 432–447. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.019.Suche in Google Scholar

Bell, Nancy & Anne Pomerantz. 2015. Humor in the classroom: A guide for language teachers and educational researchers. New York & London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Bell, Nancy, Maria Shardakova & Rachel L. Shively. 2021. The DCT as a data collection method for L2 humor production. In J. César Félix-Brasdefer & Rachel Shively (eds.), New directions in second language pragmatics, 156–178. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Suche in Google Scholar

Chartrand, Tanya L. & Rick Van Baaren. 2009. Human mimicry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 41. 219–274.Suche in Google Scholar

Coolidge, Andrew A., Carolyn Montagnolo & Salvatore Attardo. 2023. Comedic convergence: Humor responses to verbal irony in text messages. Language Sciences 99. e101566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101566.Suche in Google Scholar

Dragojevic, Marko, Jessica Gasiorek & Howard Giles. 2015. Communication accommodation theory. The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic006.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod, Yan Zhu, Natsuko Shintani & Carsten Roever. 2021. A study of Chinese learners’ ability to comprehend irony. Journal of Pragmatics 172. 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.11.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Giles, Howard. 2016. Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Graham, Elizabeth E. 1995. The involvement of sense of humor in the development of social relationships. Communication Reports 8(2). 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934219509367622.Suche in Google Scholar

Greengross, Gil & Geoffrey F. Miller. 2008. Dissing oneself versus dissing rivals: Effects of status, personality, and sex on the short-term and long-term attractiveness of self-deprecating and other-deprecating humor. Evolutionary Psychology 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704908006003.Suche in Google Scholar

Hale, Adrian. 2018. “I get it, but it’s just not funny”. The European Journal of Humour Research 6(1). 36–61.Suche in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael. 2017. Teasing. In Salvatore Attardo (ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and humor, 204–218. England, UK: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Haugh, Michael & Danielle Pillet-Shore. 2018. Getting to know you: Teasing as an invitation to intimacy in initial interactions. Discourse Studies 20(2). 246–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2013.783929.Suche in Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer. 2001. The pragmatics of humor support. HUMOR 14(1). 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.14.1.55.Suche in Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 2006. Sharing a laugh: Pragmatic aspects of humor and gender in the workplace. Journal of Pragmatics 38(1). 26–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.007.Suche in Google Scholar

Keltner, Dacher, Randall C. Young, Erin A. Heerey, Carmen Oemig & Natalie D. Monarch. 1998. Teasing in hierarchical and intimate relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(5). 1231. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.75.5.1231.Suche in Google Scholar

Kim, Hwan, Hyera Choi & Sumi Han. 2022. The effect of sense of humor and empathy on the interpersonal adaptation. Personality and Individual Differences 197. 111791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111791.Suche in Google Scholar

Kim, Jiyun & James P. Lantolf. 2016. Developing conceptual understanding of sarcasm in L2 English through explicit instruction. Language Teaching Research 22(2). 208–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816675521.Suche in Google Scholar

Kotthoff, Helga. 2003. Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35(9). 1387–1411. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00182-0.Suche in Google Scholar

Kowalski, Robin M. 2004. Proneness to, perceptions of, and responses to teasing: The influence of both intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. European Journal of Personality 18(4). 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.522.Suche in Google Scholar

Kuipers, Giselinde & Barbara van der Ent. 2016. The seriousness of ethnic jokes: Ethnic humor and social change in The Netherlands, 1995–2012. HUMOR 29(4). 605–633. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2016-0013.Suche in Google Scholar

Kuiper, Nicholas A., Gillian A. Kirsh & Catherine Leite. 2010. Reactions to humorous comments and implicit theories of humor styles. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 6(3). 236–266.Suche in Google Scholar

Kuiper, Nicholas A., Sandra D. McKenzie & Kristine A. Belanger. 1995. Cognitive appraisals and individual differences in sense of humor: Motivational and affective implications. Personality and Individual Differences 19(3). 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00072-e.Suche in Google Scholar

Muir, Kate, Adam Joinson, Rachel Cotterill & Nigel Dewdney. 2016. Characterizing the linguistic chameleon: Personal and social correlates of linguistic style accommodation. Human Communication Research 42(3). 462–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12083.Suche in Google Scholar

Parrott, Scott & Toby Hopp. 2020. Reasons people enjoy sexist humor and accept it as inoffensive. Atlantic Journal of Communication 28(2). 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2019.1616737.Suche in Google Scholar

Plester, Barbara A. & Janet Sayers. 2007. “Taking the piss”: Functions of banter in the IT industry. HUMOR 20(2). 157–187. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2007.008.Suche in Google Scholar

Priego-Valverde, Béatrice. 2006. How funny it is when everybody gets going! A case of co-construction of humor in conversation. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación (27). 5.Suche in Google Scholar

Priego-Valverde, Béatrice. 2018. Sharing a laugh at others. The European Journal of Humour Research 6(3). 68–93. https://doi.org/10.7592/ejhr2018.6.3.priego.Suche in Google Scholar

Prichard, Caleb & Audrey Rousse-Malpat. In press. Responding to humor online: An exploratory L2 study on the effect of instruction. The European Journal of Humour Research.Suche in Google Scholar

Prichard, Caleb & John Rucynski. 2020. Humor competency training for sarcasm and jocularity. In John Rucynski Jr & Caleb Prichard (eds.), Bridging the humor barrier: Humor competency training in English language teaching, 165–192. Lanham: Lexington Books.Suche in Google Scholar

Prichard, Caleb & John Rucynski. 2022. L2 learners’ ability to recognize ironic online comments and the effect of instruction. System 105. 102733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102733.Suche in Google Scholar

Prichard, Caleb, John Rucynski & Erin Gagatko. 2024. The effect of instruction on L2 learners’ ability to use verbal irony online. HUMOR 37(4). 577–599. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2024-0011.Suche in Google Scholar

Qiu, Jia, Xinren Chen & Michael Haugh. 2021. Jocular flattery in Chinese multi-party instant messaging interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 178. 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.020.Suche in Google Scholar

Rucynski, John & Caleb Prichard. 2020. Bridging the humor barrier: Humor competency training in English language teaching. Lanham: Lexington Books.Suche in Google Scholar

Seckman, Mark A. & Carl J. Couch. 1989. Jocularity, sarcasm, and relationships: An empirical study. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18(3). 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124189018003.Suche in Google Scholar

Sheikhan, Amir. 2024. Responses to conversational humour: An analytical framework. Journal of Pragmatics 224. 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.03.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Shively, Rachel L. 2013. Learning to be funny in Spanish during study abroad: L2 humor development. The Modern Language Journal 97. 930–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12043.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Shively, Rachel L. 2018. Learning and using conversational humor in a second language during study abroad. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Suche in Google Scholar

Sue, Christina A. & Tanya Golash-Boza. 2013. It was only a joke’: How racial humour fuels colour-blind ideologies in Mexico and Peru. Ethnic and Racial Studies 36(10). 1582–1598. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2013.783929.Suche in Google Scholar

Taguchi, Naoko, Maria Pia Gomez-Laich & Maria-Jose Arrufat-Marques. 2016. Comprehension of indirect meaning in Spanish as a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals 49(4). 677–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12230.Suche in Google Scholar

Woodzicka, Julie A., Robyn K. Mallett & Kala J. Melchiori. 2020. Gender differences in using humor to respond to sexist jokes. HUMOR 33(2). 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2019-0018.Suche in Google Scholar

Wulf, Douglas. 2010. A humor competence curriculum. Tesol Quarterly 44(1). 155–169. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.215250.Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2024-09-17
Accepted: 2025-02-17
Published Online: 2025-04-02
Published in Print: 2025-08-26

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 21.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/humor-2024-0087/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen