Content uploaded by Robert Shoichi Murphy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Shoichi Murphy on May 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Genre analysis of the ‘simple joke’ (with TESL/TEFL applications)
Robert Murphy
2008
(WD/08/03) Choose an authentic text (in English) which could be used in a language
classroom to raise students awareness of genre conventions. Present a genre analysis of
the text. Discuss the potential applications of genre analysis to the teaching of reading
and writing in your teaching/learning context.
NOTE: Special permission has been granted from CELS to use more than one text for
the genre analysis of this assignment.
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 2
2. Genre based analysis and teaching 2
2.1 The connection of genre analysis and EFL 3
2.2 Introduction to joke analysis 4
2.3 The history of Joke Analysis in Linguistics 5
2.4 The constitution and mechanics of the joke 7
2.5 Joke one and its analysis 10
2.6 Joke vs. non-joke 15
2.7 Analysis of joke number two 16
2.8 Problems with the joke analysis 19
2.9 Observed conventions for the simple joke genre 21
3. Practical Applications of Genre Analysis in the EFL classroom 23
3.1 A pair of practical activities 23
3.2 Genre context analysis for reading and writing development 24
4. Conclusion 27
References 29
3
1. Introduction
This paper has two main objectives, the presentation and discussion of (1)
genre analysis of authentic jokes and (2) potential applications of genre based teaching
in my own teaching context. The first part of this paper will constitute an attempt to
define jokes as a genre, discuss the history, importance and difficulty of joke analysis,
make a contrast with other genres and also present an original framework for joke
analysis which will be used to analyze two authentic jokes. The second part will focus
on ideas for genre in the Japanese EFL classroom, namely by using a genre context
study activity and two other genre analysis based activities.
2. Genre based analysis and teaching
According to Johns (2002), in the timeframe of the 1970s and 1980s, the
focus on psycholinguistic/cognitive approaches led to learner-centered classrooms. The
process approach became commonplace in the writing classrooms while in speaking
classrooms, the focus on form moved to a focus on fluency. However, there has been
another shift over the last few years to an approach that focuses on the ‘situations’ or
‘contexts’ of the speaking and/or writing. Burns (2001) contributes that ESL pedagogy
has failed to teach learners what they need to know to be ‘socially powerful’. It has
focused on ‘enquiry learning, process, and naturalism’, but has deprived learners a
systematic explanation of how language functions in social contexts (p. 200). Therefore,
"[a]n important reason to consider genre-based instruction is that of empowerment: if
4
students are able to understand, access and manipulate genres, they acquire 'cultural
capital'" (Bradford-Watts 2003). By not doing this explicitly, “(we deny) students the
means to participate in and challenge the cultures of power they will encounter when
interacting with members of the target culture” (Bradford-Watts 2003). The relationship
between culture and language can be directly addressed by demonstrating to learners
how language choices are made by looking at the vocabulary and grammatical choices
and by studying the ‘who, what, where, when, how, and why’ of the text’s situation and
context (Paltridge 2001). It seems the study of context and genre itself is gaining in
importance for substantial reasons.
2.1 The connection of genre analysis and English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
According to Hyland (2004), it is not only possible to teach genre, but
necessary and essential to do so. By noticing established patterns, EFL students can
identify a recipe from a joke or a poem. The schema of prior knowledge is what is used
when noticing and adhering to genre conventions. According to Johns (2002:3) there is
“a major paradigm shift” in literacy studies and in teaching with regard to genre. It seem
that current L2 genre pedagogies are a response to process pedagogies that were born
from communicative methods. (Hyland 2004:7).
Genre-based EFL teaching can be used with several pedagogical practices;
there is no single teaching/learning approach associated with it (Derewianka 2003). The
inherent risk of genre-based teaching is having an overly prescriptive product-focused
approach that may diminish creativity, or create “repression verses expression” (Swales
5
2000). Perhaps it may also "undervalue skills needed to produce a text, and see the
learners as largely passive" (Badger & White 2000). Therefore the ‘process’ must not be
lost in the teaching (Kim and Kim 2005). The possibility of ‘dumbing down’ the learner
seems to be a key issue in this area. The incorporation of a balanced product and
process oriented teaching approach into the classroom would seem most appropriate,
however difficult it may be to define and realize exactly what such an appropriate
balance actually is. This idea is further discussed in Section 2.2.
2.2 Introduction to joke analysis
What is a joke? As a genre, jokes are reasonably easy to point out. Here are a
few examples of well-established, easily recognizable types of jokes:
Common joke types
(1) the question-answer type of joke, sometimes but not necessarily taking the form of
a genuine riddle (What did the cup say to the saucer?...)
(2) Three-character/three-cycle type of joke (an Italian, a Jew and a donkey went to
heaven…)
(3) Simple joke: a simple story (narrative) type of joke (A boy went to his doctor one
day…, or Did you hear the one about the boy who…)
Figure 1. Easily recognizable types of jokes
This paper shall focus on the genre of the ‘simple joke’ (number three), a joke genre
that has good potential for usage in the EFL classroom because this type of joke is
relatively simple to recognize and as a genre, it has only two main parts: the set up and
6
the punch line. We shall see, however, that it is extremely difficult to conduct a
meaningful yet objective analysis of simple jokes.
2.3 The history of Joke Analysis in Linguistics
“Genre analysis seeks to account for the purpose and function of linguistic
features.” (Johnson 2000:76). How about joke analysis in the field of linguistics? It is
certainly not a very popular area of study. Perhaps for many, the simple joke seems to
belong outside the realm of academics. In only a few words, the simple joke creates a
multitude of paradoxes that defies orthodox analysis. This is an example of typical
paradoxes created by the simple joke (Driessen 2001):
Driessen’s padoxes
1. Omnipresent yet elusive
Everyone has heard and perhaps told a simple joke, yet very few people
clearly understand the mechanics and psychology involved in the process.
2. Nonsensical yet serious
Simple jokes usually involve a degree of nonsense, yet the joke writer
must be serious about the writing, in order to create ‘good’ nonsense.
3. Friendly yet hostile
The simple joke calls for a friendly laugh, but is often at the expense of
someone else.
4. A universal yet specific
They have a ‘pop’ quality yet are very demanding in design.
Figure 2. Typical paradoxes found in jokes
Joke analysis requires an intellectual effort (cognition is involved in
understanding the double entendre or/or incongruence), yet such scholarly attention
spoils the punch line. ‘Cohesion’ (Halliday 1976) must occur for the joke to be
7
functional, yet this very cohesion must also be destroyed for the joke to be functional.
This paradoxical nature of the joke is further complicated by the fact that the joke
involves perception and performance, cognition and action. A joke is intellectual and
emotional, institutionalized and spontaneous (Driessen 2001). Is an unfunny joke still a
joke? If only a few people recognize a joke as a joke, does it still belong in the joke
genre? If not, which genre would it belong? Is a genre specific analysis possible for a
work that is extra-genre? Although these are intriguing questions, joke analysis remains
an unpopular academic area. Only two directly relevant large academic works have
been unearthed by this writer: Attardo and Raskin’s Semantic Script-based Theory of
Humor/General Theory of Verbal Humor (1991) and Ritchie’s The Linguistic Analysis
of Jokes (2004).
Raskin (1985) first proposed the semantic script theory of jokes, later
revised with Attardo as the General Theory of Verbal Humor (Attardo and Raskin,
1991; Raskin and Attardo, 1994). They use semantic scripts (frames, schemas) to map
the linguistic and real-world knowledge necessary to interpret the jokes. Attardo and
Raskin use this top down approach to come to their General Theory. On the other hand,
Ritchie uses a bottom up analysis and admits that his work is far from conclusive and
stresses that there currently is no theory of how humor works. In many ways, these two
works exist on opposite sides of a spectrum and involve very different approaches.
Without anything definitive to work with (Attardo and Raskin’s work is too general for
this paper and Ritchie’s is incomplete), I decided that I must devise my own definitions
and frameworks to create a more useful analysis of the simple joke.
8
2.4 The constitution and mechanics of the joke
What does a joke constitute? Gruner (1978) created this list with good potential:
Guner’s list
Exaggeration Incongruity
Surprise Slapstick
The absurd Human predicaments
Ridicule Defiance
Violence Verbal humor
Figure 3. Gruner’s list
The list is fine, but far from a complete description of was a joke actually is. As a genre,
the simple joke has simple mechanics. There are only two parts: the setup and the punch
line. An orthodox analysis with ‘moves’ of a simple joke may look as follows:
Move 1: Set up
↓
Move 2: Punch line
Figure 4. The simple analysis
While this analysis (Fig. 4) is unequivocally non-falsifiable and completely objective,
the results are hardly enlightening and, at least to this writer, borders on mundane.
Moreover, “Textual analysis does not itself provide a rationale of why texts have
acquired certain features” (Swales 1990:7). The simple analysis in Figure 4. does not
9
capture the real essence of the work, therefore ironically negating one of the greatest
potentials of genre analysis.
A good joke must have a good set up and a good surprise in the punch line. In
most genres, the successfulness of the intended outcome of the writing is not necessary
in the analysis of the genre (a bad Sci-Fi film is still a Sci-Fi film), but considering that
the simple joke, if not effective, is either a non-joke (necessarily a different genre), or
an unfunny joke (recognizable as a joke, therefore stays in the joke genre, but
ineffective) there appears to be a need to include an analysis of the joke’s effectiveness
in the analysis, to establish which genre the work actually belongs to. Such analysis is,
however, highly subjective and almost threatens to make a mockery of other (more
objective) genre analysis.
Criteria for the simple joke:
The simple joke, under detailed analysis, is far from being simple. With a
highly limited word count the joke must satisfy a number of highly specific conventions,
and then, most importantly, render the reader/listener to an amused state. The simple
joke is different from most other genres because straightforward adherence to the
conventions alone will usually only produce extra-genre texts (‘non-jokes’), and unlike
writing for similarly briefly written genres such as ‘claims forms’ or ‘postcards’, even a
total understanding of the genre conventions will not guarantee successful results as a
writer for this particular genre. Because of the lack of relevant academic work in this
field, I have opted to compose my own criteria to help establish the simple joke as a
10
genre. As stated above, the simple joke has two parts: the set up and the punch line.
Criteria for the simple joke genre
(a) A good set up must
1. establish a situation and an expectation
2. be short enough to keep keen attention
3. be easy to understand
4. not contain anything funnier than the punch line
5. provide contrast for the punch line’s impact
(b) A good punch line must
1. work off the set up
2. provide a contrast/incongruence, surprise and/or exaggeration
Additionally:
There is always a ‘funny word’ in the joke. A ‘funny word’ is a word
that has been strategically placed in the joke to trigger a laugh or
amusement. This ‘funny word’ is often (but not always) placed at the
very end of the punch line. It may or may not be a ‘funny sounding’
word.
Figure 5. Proposed criteria for the simple joke as a genre
According to Ritchie (2003), ‘supplementary information’ may be included in
the joke that is not actually necessary for the joke to function (be recognized) as a joke,
yet is included to enhance its ‘jokehood’ (liveliness as a joke). This is Ritchie’s list:
11
Ritchie’s ‘enhancing supplement’ list
Inappropriateness Question solving
Thwarted expectations Disparagement
Superiority over joke character(s) Embellishment
Dramatic tension Facilitation
Parallelism Prank
Ingenuity Funny words
Figure 6. Ritchie’s ‘enhancing supplements’ for a joke
In a nutshell, the breadth of criteria involved in simple joke writing establishes it as a
deceivingly simple yet irregular type of genre that calls for its own unique analysis
framework.
2.5 Joke one and its analysis
According to Ritchie, his own work on joke analysis is not complete. It is
nevertheless a milestone in joke analysis and therefore I have incorporated some of
Ritchie’s above observations into my own joke analysis framework. The following is an
example of a simple joke and my detailed analysis of it:
It’s tough being a vegetarian!
But actually, you know I really do enjoy vegetarian foods.
…especially with a little pork.
12
The setup is comprised of line one and line two. The punch line is the third and final
line. My analysis framework is used to analyze the five aspects of the set up and three
aspects of the punch line. It also focuses on the features such as contrasts/incongruences
and lists some supplemental areas that are necessary to attain a fuller understanding of
the design of the joke.
Humor is a wide, often subjectively treated study. Despite many
theories of humor across disciplines such as psychology, linguistics,
anthropology, and medicine, it is still nearly impossible to
determine how humor works. (Gardner 2008:9)
Because of the established elusiveness and paradoxical nature of simple jokes, rather
than attempting to ignore the simple joke’s uniqueness as a genre and deal with only the
most objective types of data for the sake of convenience, I have (with due reservations)
attempted to incorporate objective and subjective data collection within a single
framework.
13
Figure 7. Analysis of joke number one
Is it a joke or a non-joke? It is a joke.
If it is a joke, how do you rate the funniness? (low mid high)
What was the punch line? …especially with a little pork.
The Set up
Rating (1 is low)
Situation and/or an expectation establishment
1 2 3 4 5
Brevity (short enough to keep keen attention?)
1 2 3 4 5
Understandability
1 2 3 4 5
Dryness (non-jokeness)
1 2 3 4 5
Contrast for the punch line
1 2 3 4 5
The Punch line
Rating (1 is low)
Effectiveness (working off of the set up)
1 2 3 4 5
Contrast/exaggeration level
1 2 3 4 5
Proximity of funny word to end of punch line
1 2 3 4 5
What is the situation or expectation?
A vegetarian’s talk about how hard it
is being a vegetarian in this world.
Contrasts/incongruences
Vegetarian vs. non vegetarian
A difficulty vs. a non-difficulty
Vegetables vs. pig/pork
Healthy sounding food vs. fatty food
‘Sacred’ image vs. liar image
Supplemental Information
Answer Yes/No (If Yes, explain)
Did the joke solve a direct question?
No
Did it involve disparagement?
Yes – slight disparagement of the speaker
Did it involve tension?
Yes –the difficulties of the vegetarian
Was there any word play?
No
Did it involve a prank?
No
Did it make someone sound superior?
No
Rate the ingenuity of the joke
Low Mid High
Special knowledge necessary:
vegetarian
Where there any funny sounding words?
Yes
List the funny sounding words: Pork
14
This framework (Fig. 7) has been designed to have the analyzer provide
numeric (degree) responses in a vain effort to fully capture the true essence of the
writing for this genre. This of course is impossible. However, the usage of numeric
values seemed the most sensible way to combat the elusive nature of jokes. As can be
seen in the chart, the sample joke has been given high marks in the numeric ratings. It
should be noted that the success of a joke is dependant on the entire context and
delivery of the content, none of which can be reliably pre-detected or predetermined by
any reader/analyzer. This is another incorrigible aspect of joke analysis. The simple
joke as a genre appears to be too complex for any one analyzer (or a group of analyzers)
to create a fully objective and universally acceptable analysis of. This does not
automatically make the (admittedly subjective) results in Figure 7 useless and/or
superficial. Contrarily, this clearly demonstrates the ‘objectivity defying’, artistic nature
of the simple joke and helps establish it as a unique genre for which orthodox analysis
would not do justice. (A poignant analogy would be a computer generated color
analysis of Picasso’s Guernica. The computer generated color analysis would perhaps
be valid, but only on a mundane level and would certainly be missing the raison d’être
of the work.)
Although it may be instantly shunned for not sustaining a high degree of
objectivity, the proposed joke analysis chart is nevertheless useful and perhaps even
necessary in some of ways. For example, for writers it provides a thorough checklist
and rating system for the crucial components of their joke in progress and for readers it
provides a standardized (albeit subjective) system to analyze with, and helps readers
15
uncover the ‘hidden’ features of the simple joke. “A novice writer could then be
presented with a model comprising the writing conventions established by that writing
community.” (Johnson 2000:77). This helps the joke writer to be a better joke writer
and it helps the genre analyzer identify and numerically rate the components of the
writing. In short, it makes the elusive components of a joke more tangible, comparable
and probably more memorable. More practical applications of such features are
discussed in Section 3 of this paper.
The analysis of a joke would not be complete without a line-by-line narrative
summary of the linguistic nuances of the joke. The following shall be attached to the
analysis of the example joke:
This opening line sets a serious tone and begs for
sympathy with
It’s tough
. It also induces an
expectation. The reader expects to find out what
is so tough about being a vegetarian.
Line number one:
It’s tough being a vegetarian!
This line accomplishes: tension, curiosity and
sympathy.
This line changes the ‘air’ of the joke. But actually
initializes the change, you know makes the narrator
sound friendlier and closer than before. I really do enjoy
completes the transition: the serious ‘air’ becomes
pleasant. There is a feeling of relief. It makes the reader
wonder that kind of vegetarian foods the narrator
actually enjoys eating.
Line number two:
But actually, you know, I really do
enjoy vegetarian foods.
This line accomplishes: tension release and a
raise in curiosity.
Line number three:
…especially with a little pork.
It is funny because the outcome was not expected. It is
funny because a little pork was mixed in with the sacred
sounding vegetarian food. It is also funny because of the
sound of the word pork. Pork starts with P and ends with
16
K. These are high impact sounds (consonant plosives)
that sound more amusing than other softer sounds
(Menchen 1936). If the word beef (with the low impact
F sound) had been substituted in the punch line
(Especially with a little beef), it would not have sounded
as funny. A little fish, would be an even worse substitute
because of the added confusion brought on by the word
little. (A little fish could also mean a small fish.) Pork is
a good choice also because the image of a pig (and
fatness) mixed in with vegetables is immediately funnier
than a cow or fish mixed in with vegetables.
This line accomplishes:
It is the puchline.
Figure 8. Line by line narrative analysis of joke one
The line-by-line narrative analysis in Fig. 8 is also subjective and relies heavily on the
context and the reader’s understanding of the context, therefore, different analyzers will
probably produce widely different results.
2.6 Joke vs. non-joke
Thus far this paper has focused on what the simple joke is. What is a
non-joke? How does it contrast with the simple joke? To help answer these questions, a
non-joke (a slight variation of the original joke) is provided below:
It’s tough being a vegetarian!
But actually, you know, I really do enjoy my vegetarian foods.
Meat tastes nice with my vegetables.
It literally has an identical message to the original joke, yet it is now a non-joke. What
17
has happened? (1) The funny word (‘meat’) has been moved to the front of the punch
line (the timing has been changed), (2) the contrast with the set up has been lost and (3)
the plosives have been dropped. What might appear to be small changes have made the
punch line unrecognizable as the punch line and therefore has rendered this piece a
non-joke, even though the literal message remains unchanged. There seems to be only a
very fine line between a joke and a non-joke, however the small difference creates a
huge difference in the outcome. In this case, the work is no longer a joke; it can only be
classified as a non-joke, and no longer fits in the simple joke genre. This again suggests
that the factors leading to the joke’s jokehood (including the subjectively deducted
factors) are in some way relevant in the analysis of jokes.
2.7 Analysis of joke number two
While reading the morning newspaper…
Husband: Honey, you know about organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous,
right? Did you know there has also been a Procrastinator’s Society since
1947?
Wife: Really!? I never knew. Maybe you should go dear…
Husband: Yep, it’s too bad they haven’t met yet.
18
Is it a joke or a non-joke? It is a joke.
If it is a joke, how do you rate the funniness? (low mid high)
What was the punch line? Yep, it’s too bad they haven’t met yet.
The Set up
Rating (1 is low)
Situation and/or an expectation establishment
1 2 3 4 5
Brevity (short enough to keep keen attention?)
1 2 3 4 5
Understandability
1 2 3 4 5
Dryness (non-jokeness)
1 2 3 4 5
Contrast for the punch line
1 2 3 4 5
The Punch line
Rating (1 is low)
Effectiveness (working off the set up)
1 2 3 4 5
Contrast/exaggeration level
1 2 3 4 5
Proximity of funny work to the end of the punch line
1 2 3 4 5
What is the situation or expectation?
The trivial/novel ‘fact’ of the existence of a
Procrastinator’s Club.
Contrasts/incongruences
reality vs. fiction
seriousness vs. jest
real help vs. no help
Supplemental Information
Answer Yes/No (If Yes, explain)
Did the joke solve a direct question?
No
Did it involve disparagement?
No
Did it involve tension?
No
Was there any word play?
Yes – mildly with procrastinator
Did it involve a prank?
Yes, a mild prank on the wife
Did it make someone sound superior?
No
Rate the ingenuity of the joke
Low Mid High
Special knowledge necessary:
Alcoholics Anonymous, procrastinator
Where there any funny sounding words?
Yes mildly
List the funny sounding words:
procrastinator (the strong P and K sound)
Figure 9. Analysis of joke number two
19
At first glance, this joke may seem to have very little in common with joke
number one. Figure 9 however shows some interesting similarities (and differences).
Both jokes score high in the set up and punch line ratings and they both have numerous
contrasts embedded in the jokes. An interesting similarity between the two jokes can be
found at the end of the chart: both jokes make use of the strong P and K sounds. The
first joke used the word ‘pork’ as a funny word and the second joke used the word
‘procrastinate’ as its funny word. Because the funny word ‘pork’ was placed at the end
of the punch line in joke number one, it was more directly effective as a funny word
than ‘procrastinate’ in the second joke, which was not only not at the end of the punch
line, but was not in the punch line at all.
Because ‘procrastinate’ only appears in the set up, it can easily be overlooked
as the funny word, but it certainly is the funny word of joke two. Both jokes rely on the
plosives to enhance their funniness. The major differences between the two jokes (other
than the topics) were that (1) the first joke was a simple single person narrative while
the second one involved a mild prank on the wife within a short dialogue and (2) the
placement of the funny word was radically different, therefore changing the ultimate
strategy of the joke.
The placement of the funny word in joke two deserves special attention. The
discourse pattern has changed and has become effectively more ‘transactional’ (Nunan
1999:53). Joke two retains a high level of funniness even though the funny word was
not in the punch line. In normal circumstances, that could easily render the joke a
non-joke because the punch line would be unrecognizable as a punch line. What has
20
happened? Rather than relying on the sight and perceived sound from the reading of the
funny word in the punch line (an immediate ‘verbal slapstick’ type of humor), this joke
relied on the lingering memory in the reader’s mind of the nuances of the funny word
from the set up. This could be described as a form of forced ‘anaphoric cohesion’
(Coulthard, et al. 2000:53). It forced the reader to recall the funny word (procrastinate)
from the set up and create the impact in their own mind, rather than have them read it on
paper. The arrival of the solution to the joke’s initially perceived incongruence provides
the reader satisfaction partially because of the joke’s overall level of ingenuity in
forcing the anaphoric cohesion. It is also gratifying because the reader is (1) given the
opportunity to provide his/her own solution to the perceived incongruence (and
therefore the joke brings about the natural and typical satisfaction derived from ‘a job
well done’) and (2) ‘cohesive harmony’ (Coulthard, et al. 2000:55) is regained with the
help of the reader.
This second joke demonstrates that even within the rigid genre conventions of
the simple joke, it is possible to use ingenuity, deviate slightly, achieve good results and
still remain within the genre. However, this modified simple joke signifies a convention
variation that may be more useful if classified as a ‘sub-genre’ within the simple joke
genre.
2.8 Problems with the joke analysis
As with some other discourse analysis (or critique, which this joke analysis
necessarily overlaps with), the results are egocentric. For example, consider this
21
abridged analysis of joke number two from a Japanese EFL student:
The Set up
Rating (1 is low)
Situation and/or expectation establishment
1 2 3 4 5
Brevity (short enough to keep keen attention?)
1 2 3 4 5
Understandability
1 2 3 4 5
Dryness (non-jokeness)
1 2 3 4 5
Contrast for the punch line
1 2 3 4 5
The Punch line
Rating (1 is low)
Effectiveness (working off of the set up)
1 2 3 4 5
Contrast/exaggeration level
1 2 3 4 5
Proximity of funny work to end of punch line
1 2 3 4 5
Figure 10. One EFL student’s analysis of joke number two (abridged)
Ten students were required to analyze the second joke with my framework. None of the
results were identical. In fact most of the results differed widely. What could have
caused this wide variance? The writer of the above analysis was an intermediate level
EFL student who did not know the meaning or significance of ‘Alcoholics Anonymous’,
nor did she know the meaning of ‘procrastinate’. The student needed special
background knowledge to understand this joke (just as I needed this special background
knowledge about her to understand her analysis). Considering these points, it becomes
22
clearer that analysis of this type is indeed largely dependent on the context and the
analyzer’s knowledge of that context. The EFL student has since then been instructed
on the meanings and cultural significance of ‘Alcoholics Anonymous’ and
‘procrastinate’; she can now appreciate the joke and give it a higher rating. This
before/after effect realization has given me much to consider about what discourse and
genre analysis actually accomplishes. Paltridge (2001:122) shares similar concerns over
using genre in the classroom. This before/after effect can be an easily overlooked area
but should be more pronounced and perhaps more prominently included in the study of
the ‘context’. This effect can surely be turned into something productive in the
classroom. Practical uses of context study borne from genre analysis can be found in
Section 3.3 of this paper.
2.9 Observed conventions for the simple joke genre
Two simple jokes were analyzed for this paper. Both were easily recognizable
as jokes by native English speakers. What was noticed was that both simple jokes relied
on the ‘set up and the punch line’ format, funny sounding plosives, and some special
cultural knowledge. Non-native English speakers seem to have trouble analyzing works
in this genre, especially when the joke calls for cultural knowledge and/or knowledge of
higher-level vocabulary.
As with most genres, the communities that use the simple joke have certain
expectations about the design and implementation of the joke. Below (Fig. 11) are my
observed conventions of the simple joke genre. Deviations from these conventions often
23
produces non-jokes, while simple adherence alone to the conventions does not
guarantee ‘jokehood’ or even funniness. Therefore there seems to be an elusive quality
to simple jokes that often defies standard analysis frameworks. My proposed genre
conventions for the simple joke are as follows:
Genre conventions of the simple joke
1. The simple joke must have a good set up and a good punch line.
a. the set up should create an expectation
b. the set up should be concise and easy to follow
c. the set up should be dry
d. the set up much provide contrast for the punch line
e. the punch line must contrast the set up and/or exaggerate
something
2. There must be at least one contrast/incongruence. Numerous contrasts can
enhance the potency of the joke.
3. Funny sounds, especially at the end of the punch line enhance the
funniness of the joke. The consonant plosives such as the strong P and K
sounds are popular sound choices for jokes (as a form of verbal slapstick)
where the sound seems to attack (‘slap’) the reader/listener in a humorous
way.
4. The reader/listener expects their initial understanding of the presented
situation in the set up, to be falsified by the end of the punch line[Forced
Reinterpretation (Ritchie 2004)].
5 The degree of ingenuity in the dichotomy of the set up and the punch line
(such as creative word play) often separates the jokes from the unfunny
jokes and the non-jokes.
Figure 11. Observed genre conventions of the simple joke
24
3 Practical Applications of Genre Analysis in the EFL classroom
3.1 A pair of practical activities
A schema is a frame for both understanding and producing content. Schema
should be developed in the reading/writing EFL classroom for the following reasons
(Hyland 2004:72):
- Students will write more when they are writing about a familiar topic
(Freidlander, 1990)
- Writers at any level draw upon their own background experiences and
therefore the writing is at least partially shaped by classroom experiences
- Schema is developed from social and cognitive processes inside (and
outside) of the classroom
The following pair has been devised to develop schema and writing skills:
Activities for the study of genre
1. Authentic text genre analysis and mimicry
Students are required to find an authentic (relatively short) English text from
a magazine or the internet and (a) do an analysis of the text and (b) write a
similar text in the same genre. Discuss how the initial genre analysis helped
complete the activity.
2. Authentic text genre analysis and parody
Students are required to find an authentic (relatively short) English text from
a magazine or the internet and (a) do an analysis of the text and (b) create a
parody of the text in its genre. Discuss how the initial genre analysis helped
complete the activity.
Figure 12. Two genre based activities
25
The two activities in Figure 12 are relatively easy to implement assuming the
students are given instruction on how to do a genre analysis. I have had successful trials
with these activities with twelve Japanese EFL students in the following genres:
magazine advertisement, want ad, restaurant review, movie review, horoscope, and
travel information. It was not difficult for them to uncover the conventions of these
common genres. When the students showed good results with the mimicry of the genres
(Activity 1) they moved on to do parodies of the genres (Activity 2). The dryness of
Activity 1 contrasted well with the parody involved in Activity 2. This dichotomy
worked very much like the set up and punch line arrangement of the jokes discussed in
the first half of this paper and provided extremely lively and amusing results with the
students. I believe the added enjoyment from the parody creation made the activities
memorable for the students and provided them with (1) intrinsic motivation and (2) the
means to uncover genre conventions in the future on their own. It is assumed that the
combination of (1) and (2) will assist in the further development of the students’ reading
and writing skills. It should be noted that these two activities could often be used in
tandem without the fear of boredom as long as the target genres are changed each time.
3.2 Genre context analysis for reading and writing development
As discussed earlier in this paper, genre can be much more than the sum of its
visible parts such as lexis, sentences or grammar. Important factors include the
socio-cultural context of production/interpretation of the text, its intended purpose, the
audience, the discourse community’s expectations and even its relationship with other
26
texts (Paltridge 2001:45). Teachers should have their students study these contextual
issues at some point in their reading/writing education. The following worksheet (Fig.
13), adapted from Paltridge (2001:51), was used in my own EFL classes with
intermediate and high level students. It was used to teach students to be better readers of
texts because of the detailed genre/context analysis involved and was also used to help
writing students better understand the genre they were writing in. Perhaps most
importantly, it is well suited to assist in achieving the proper balance within the product
vs. process writing issue, discussed in Section 3.1.
27
Figure 13. Genre/context analysis worksheet adapted from Paltridge (2001)
What is the text about?
What is the purpose of the text?
Where is the text from? (magazine, etc.)
What is the tone of the text?
(formal/informal…)
Background information of the author:
Who is the intended audience?
What is the relationship of the author and
the intended audience?
Are there any rules or expectations that
govern how the text was written?
What cultural knowledge is assumed by
the text?
What other knowledge is assumed?
Which genre does this text belong?
Which key words from the text support
your analysis?
Explain.
28
Genre analysis is powerful. Genres adhere to their own conventions and
therefore the study of the genres exists outside the confines of ‘grammar’ or
‘vocabulary’ study. In a sea of methods and theories, genre analysis based study stands
out because it allows teachers and students to work on language reading and writing
without artificially imposed constraints (such as rigid teacher generated grammar based
syllabuses) because genres naturally transcend such artificial boundaries. Genre analysis
allows for a real study of authentic text. Perhaps the biggest concern in the West
associated with genre based teaching of writing is the possibility of “repression verses
expression” (Swales 2000). Indeed, “(g)enre analysis has been criticized by some
educationalists that feel it is too prescriptive.” (Johnson 2000:89). However,
considering the standard teacher centered teaching of Japanese school systems, rules to
“adhere to the prescribed forms” may actually be comforting, or at least ‘normal’ for
Japanese students. From what I have seen, genre analysis has been welcome in my
EFL classes and has not been treated novel by my students. It seems the concern about
“repression versus expression” need not be a realistic concern for the teaching of my
own EFL students. This is perhaps an indication that the concern of “repression” may
actually be a Western convention that does not exists (or at least not at the same level)
in Japan.
29
4 Conclusion
This paper has taken liberties with the genre analysis of the simple joke. Two
jokes were analyzed with an original analysis framework and conventions of the simple
joke as a genre have been uncovered. It is hoped that this paper has sufficiently
demonstrated that orthodox analysis of simple jokes cannot fully capture the true nature
of texts in this unique genre and that although there are reservations even from this
writer, there seems to be a real need to add subjective data to the analysis of simple
jokes. This may be why few academics dare venture into this paradoxical and elusive
genre.
Activities based on general genre studies allow learners to explore English
from an entirely realistic perspective not bound by artificial frameworks. This paper has
discussed the usage of three such activities in a positive light and this writer plans to
continue adding such genre based teaching to his repertoire in hopes that it will
genuinely help his students acquire the ‘cultural capital’ that is said to be lacking in
many EFL classrooms today.
30
References
Burns, A., & Joyce, H. (1997) Focus on speaking. Sydney: NCELTR.
Coulthard, M., Moon, M., Johnson, A., Caldas-Coulthard, C. R., Holland, B., (2000)
ELT Management, CELS: Birmingham, UK.
Derewianka, B. (1991) Exploring How Texts Work. PETA.
Driessen, H. (1997) Humor, laughter and the field: reflections from anthropology. In:
Bremmer J, Roodenburg H (eds.) A Cultural History of Humor. Oxford:Polity
Press.
Gardner, S. (2008) Three ways humor helps in the language classroom. The Language
Teacher! 32.6
Gruner, C. (1978) Understanding laughter: The Workings of wit and humor. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976) Cohesion in English (English Language Series).
Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004) Genre and Second Language Writing (The Michigan Series on
Teaching Multilingual Writers). University of Michigan Press/ESL.
Johns, A. M. (Ed.) (2002) Genre in the classroom. Multiple Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum.
Nunan, D. (1998) Second Language Teaching & Learning. Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Paltridge, B.R. (2001) Genre and the Language Learning Classroom (Michigan
Teacher Training). University of Michigan Press/ESL.
31
Raskin, V. (1985) Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Lancaster: D. Reidel.
Ritchie, G. (2003) The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes (Routledge Studies in Linguistics,
2). Routledge.
Swales, J. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings
(Cambridge Applied Linguistics). Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. & Feak, C.B. (2000) English in Today's Research World: A Writing Guide
(ELT / EAP): A Writing Guide. University of Michigan Press.
