臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討國民中學三年級 (即中學九年級) 的學生對不同類型的英語笑話及其它性質的文章是否有理解欣賞與辨別的能力。此外，亦藉由前測與後測兩份問卷，進而探究學生對英語幽默文章用於英語教學上的回應。
參與本研究之受試對象為131位台南市私立崑山中學九年級的學生。研究之主要工具為四份試卷，前後測兩份問卷使研究者了解受試者對整個活動的觀感。另外兩份試卷分別係由十篇文章所組成。試卷測驗(一)為十則笑話，八篇為英語笑話，二篇為中文笑話。其中包括一般普遍笑話及語言特定笑話，以測試學生對不同笑話是否有不同的反應。試卷測驗(二)為十篇文章，其中包括中英文笑話、故事、論說文、詩歌與傳記等，以測試學生是否能區分不同性質的文章。所蒐集之資料經由SPSS程式中之X² 考驗及Wilcoxon考驗做量的統計分析，並做質的探討。
本研究主要發現如下：
1. 大部分的學生都希望英語教科書中多安排英語笑話之教材。
2. 學生對笑話題材的喜好依序為校園、性、家庭。
3. 學生對一般普遍笑話的理解欣賞能力高於語言特定笑話。
4. 學生對中文笑話的理解欣賞能力遠高於英文笑話的理解欣賞能力。
5. 笑話結局的關鍵語句與讀者原預期的結果差距越大，則其「笑」果越
大。
6. 學生大致上能辨別文章是否為笑話或非笑話。
7. 學生大致上亦能區分非笑話文章的性質。
根據以上結果，本研究提供以下建議:
1. 英語教科書的編者可於書中多增加英語幽默文章。
2. 利用幽默風趣的文章來教學，可提高學生閱讀學習的動機。
3. 英語老師提供輕鬆活潑的教學環境，能使學生更有效地學習英文。

Abstract
The main purpose of the study is to find out whether the 9th-grade students in middle school (the 3rd-grade students in junior high school) had the ability to comprehend and appreciate different types of English jokes and to discriminate between different types of English texts as well. Moreover, by using two questionnaires, the researcher tried to probe the students’ responses to English humorous texts taught in English class.
131 9th-grade subjects in Kuen-shan Middle School in Tainan City took part in the study. The major instruments were two questionnaires and two tests. The pretest and the post-test were used to investigate the subjects’ attitudes towards the whole program. Test I consisted of ten jokes, eight in English and two in Chinese including universal type and language-specific type of jokes to explore the subjects’ responses to different types of jokes. Test II had ten texts, including two English jokes, two Chinese jokes, one short story, one argumentative article, one verse, and one biography to testify if the subjects had the ability to tell jokes from non-jokes and identify different types of texts. All the collected data were analyzed quantitatively by X² test and Wilcoxon test in SPSS for Windows Program. In addition, the subjects’ comments together with suggestions to the English jokes reading program were discussed qualitatively.
Based on the data analyses, the findings of the study are summarized as follows:
1. Most of the students preferred more English humorous texts
to be included in English textbooks.
2. The students’ preferences for joke materials were
“campus,” “sex,” and “family” in priority.
3. Universal type of jokes was easier than language-specific
type of jokes for the students to comprehend and appreciate.
4. Jokes in Chinese were much easier than jokes in English for
the students to comprehend and appreciate.
5. The more surprising the “punch line” at the end of a joke
presented, the funnier the effect generated.
6. In substance, the students had the ability to tell jokes
from non-jokes in a text.
7. In substance, the students could tell what type of text the
non-joke belonged to.
On the basis of the study findings, some pedagogical implications are given as below:
1. Compilers of English textbooks should add more humorous
texts.
2. Teaching humorous texts in class can enhance students’
learning motivation in reading.
3. English teachers providing carefree learning environments
can make students learn English more effectively.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Chinese Abstract .......................................... i
English Abstract .......................................... iii
Table of Contents .......................................... v
List of Tables .......................................... viii
List of Figures .......................................... x
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION................................................ 1
1.1 Motivation of the Study................................ 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study .................................. 5
1.3 Research Questions ……………………………………………… 5
1.4 Significance of the Study ……………………………………… 6
1.5 Limitations of the Study ……………………………………… 7
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………… 9
2.1 Definition of Laughter and Humor …………………………… 9
2.2 Superiority Theories …………………………………………… 10
2.3 Release/Relief Theories ……………………………………… 11
2.4 Incongruity Theories …………………………………………… 12
2.5 Incongruity-Resolution Theories ………………………………14
2.6 Semantic Theory of Humor ……………………………………… 17
2.6.1 Humor Act ………………………………………………… 18
2.6.2 Script-based Lexicon …………………………………… 19
2.6.3 Main Hypothesis ………………………………………… 22
2.6.4 Combinatorial Rules …………………………………… 24
2.6.5 Bona-Fide vs. Non-Bona-Fide Communication ……… 26
2.6.6 Script-switch Triggers ………………………………… 28
2.6.7 Analysis of a Sample Joke …………………………… 29
2.6.8 Counterexamples of Raskin’s Theory ……………… 34
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY ……………………………………… 35
3.1 Subjects ………………………………………………………… 35
3.2 Instruments …………………………………………………… 36
3.2.1 A Pretest Questionnaire …………………………………… 36
3.2.2 Jokes Reading Comprehension Test I …………………… 36
3.2.3 Texts Reading Comprehension Test II …………………… 39
3.2.4 A Post-test Questionnaire ………………………………… 40
3.3 Study Procedures ………………………………………………… 41
3.4 Data Analysis …………………..……………………………… 43
3.4.1 Quantitative Analysis………………………………… 43
3.4.2 Qualitative Analysis…………………………………… 44
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ………………………… 45
4.1 A Pretest Questionnaire ……………………………………… 45
4.1.1 Subjects’ Attitudes towards English Jokes ……… 45
4.1.2 Subjects’Preferences for English Jokes …………… 50
4.2 Jokes Reading Comprehension Test I………………………… 52
4.2.1 Joke One …………………………………………………… 52
4.2.2 Joke Two …………………………………………………… 53
4.2.3 Joke Three ………………………………………………… 54
4.2.4 Joke Four ……………………………………………………55
4.2.5 Joke Five ……………………………………………………56
4.2.6 Joke Six …………………………………………………… 57
4.2.7 Joke Seven ………………………………………………… 59
4.2.8 Joke Eight ………………………………………………… 60
4.2.9 Joke Nine ……………………………………………………61
4.2.10 Joke Ten ……………………………………………………62
4.2.11 Discussion of Joke One to Joke Ten …………………63
4.3 Text Reading Comprehension TestII…………………………… 65
4.3.1 Text One …………………………………………………… 66
4.3.2 Text Two …………………………………………………… 67
4.3.3 Text Three ………………………………………………… 69
4.3.4 Text Four ……………………………………………………71
4.3.5 Text Five ……………………………………………………72
4.3.6 Text Six …………………………………………………… 73
4.3.7 Text Seven ………………………………………………… 75
4.3.8 Text Eight ………………………………………………… 76
4.3.9 Text Nine ………………………………………………… 78
4.3.10 Text Ten ………………………………………………… 79
4.3.11 Discussion of Text One to Text Ten …………………81
4.4 A Post-test Questionnaire…………………………………… 87
4.4.1 Part One of the Post-test …………………………… 87
4.4.2 Part Two of the Post-test …………………………… 91
4.4.3 Part Three of the Post-test ………………………… 96
4.4.3.1 Subjects’Responses to the Selected Jokes in
Test I ………………………………………………… 96
4.4.3.2 Subjects’ Responses to the Selected Texts in
Test II …………………………………………………98
4.4.3.3 Subjects’ Preferences for the Types of English
Texts…………………………………………………… 98
4.4.3.4 Subjects’ Preferences and Gain in Test I or
Test II…………………………………………………100
4.4.3.5 Subjects’ Comments about and Suggestions to
Jokes Reading Program………………………………101
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS………………………………………… 102
5.1 Conclusions……………………………………………………… 102
5.2 Pedagogical Implications……………………………………… 104
5.3 Suggestions for Further Research…………………………… 106
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………… 109
APPENDIXES
Appendix A: A Pretest Questionnaire …………………………… 115
Appendix A-1: Translation of the Pretest Questionnaire in
English ……………………………………………… 116
Appendix B: Jokes Reading Comprehension Test I …………
………………………………………………………… 117
Appendix C: Texts Reading Comprehension Test II …………
………………………………………………………… 121
Appendix D: A Post-test Questionnaire …………………………128
Appendix D-1: Translation of the Post-test Questionnaire in
English ……………………………………………… 130
Appendix E: Texts from Book Five of English Textbooks by
National Institute for Compilation and Translation
............................................132

References
Anderson, R.C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L. & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. In American Educational Research Journal 14, 367-381.
Aristotle (-4th century). De arte poetica. English translation: “Poetics.” in: Aristotle, Rhetoric, Poetics. New York: Random House, 1954, 219-266.
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford UP.
Bagnell, B. (2002). English textbook five for junior high school. Taipei: National Institute for Compilation and Translation.
Beattie, J. (1776). An essay on laughter, and ludicrous composition. In his Eaasys. Edinburgh: William Creech. Reprinted: New York: Garland, 1971.
Benton, G. (1988). The Origins of the political joke. Powell, Chris (ed.). Humor in Society. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Carrell, A. (1997). Joke competence and humor competence. Humor 10-2, 173-185.
Chen, H. J. (1991). The cognitive process of comprehending humor. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan University.
Chiaro, D. (1992). The language of jokes: analyzing verbal play. New York: Chapman and Hall, Inc.
Crystal, D. (1985). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 2nd ed. Oxford: Balckwell.
Dai, C. Z. (1996). Are you an expert in humor? Taipei: China Times.
Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: Murray. Reprinted: Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Deckers, L. & Avery, P. (1994). Altered joke endings and a joke structure schema. Humor 7-4, 313-321.
Deneire, M. (1995). Humor and foreign language teaching. Humor 8-3, 285-298.
Dolitsky, M. (1992). Aspect of the unsaid in humor. Humor 5-1, 33-34.
Eastman, M. (1936). Enjoyment of Laughter. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Forabosco, G. (1992). Cognitive aspects of the humor process: the concept of incongruity. Humor 5-1, 45-68.
Foss, B. M. (1977). Foreword. In: Chapman, A. J. & Foot, H. C. (eds.). It’s a Funny Thing, Humor, pp. xiii-xiv. Oxford: Pergamon.
Freud, S. (1905). Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten. Leipzig-Vienna: Dueticke. English translation: Jokes and their relation to the unconscious. London: Penguin, 1976.
Fry, W. F., Jr. (1963). Sweet Madness. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific.
Gardner, R.C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-280.
Giora, R. (1991). On the cognitive aspects of the joke. Journal of Pragmatics 16:5. 465-485.
Gregory, J. C. (1924). The Nature of Laughter. London: Kegan Paul.
Greig, J. Y. T. (1923). The Psychology of laughter and comedy. New York: Dodd,
Mead. Reprinted: New York: Copper Square Publishers, 1969.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole and Morgan, op. cit., 41-58.
Grotjahn, M. (1957). Beyond Laughter. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hill, D. J. (1988). Humor in the classroom: a handbook for teachers (and other entertainers). Springfield, Il: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Hobbes, T. (1650). Human nature. Oxford: Fra: Bowman. Reprinted in: The English Works of Thomas Hobbes. London: Bohn, John. 1840, Vol. IV.
Hockett, C. (1972). Jokes. Studies in Linguistics: In Honor of George L. Trager. Ed. M. Estellie Smith. pp. 153-178. The Hague Paris: Mouton.
Holy Bible (1998). Hong Kong: International Bible Society. p. 248.
Jones, J. M. (1970). Cognitive factors in the appreciation of humor: A theoretical and experimental analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
Kant, I. (1790). Kritik der Urteilskraft. Berlin: Lagarde. English translation: Critique of Judgment. New York: Hafner, 1951.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. New York: Macmillan.
Koestler, A. (1974). Humor and wit. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Vol.9, Chicago: Benton.
Krashen, S. (1982). Theory versus practice in language training. Blair (ed.), Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
La Fave, L., Haddad, J. and Maesen, W. (1976). Superiority, enhanced self-esteem, and perceived incongruity humor theory. In: Chapman, A. J. & Foot, H. C. (Eds.). Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp.63-91). London: John Wiley & Sons.
Lai, S. H. (1999). Sculpturing the wisdom by humor. Taipei: Crystal Publisher.
Leacock, S. (1937). Humor and humanity: an introduction to the study of humor. London: Thornton Butterworth.
Levine, J. (1969). Approaches to humor appreciation. Motivation in Humor. New York: Atherton.
Marino, M. (1987). Victor Raskin: Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 65, 115-120.
McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: It’s origin and development. San Francisco: Freeman.
Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: an introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mindess, H. (1971). Laughter and liberation. Los Angeles: Nash.
Monro, D. H. (1951). Argument of Laughter. Melbourne: Melbourne UP.
Nash, W. (1985). The language of humor. London: Longman.
Nerhardt, F.G. (1976). Incongruity and funniness: Toward a new descriptive model. In: Chapman, A. J. & Foot, H. C. (Eds.). Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Nerhardt, F.G. (1977). Operationalization of incongruity in humor research: A critique and suggestions. In: Chapman, A. J. and Foot, H. C. (Eds.). It’s a funny thing, humor (pp. 47-51). Oxford: Pergamon.
Norrick, N. R. (1993). Conversational joking: humor in everyday talk. Indiana: University of Indiana.
Pietsch, J. (1992). How to remember and tell jokes. New York: Avon.
Plato (-4th century). Philebus. English translation: Oxford: Clarendon, 1975.
Rapp, A. (1951). The origins of wit and humor. New York: Dutton.
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. (Synthese Language Library 24). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Schopenhauer, A. (1819). Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Brockhaus. English translation: The World as Will and Idea. Vol. 1. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1957.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Shie, J. H. (1994). Interesting English: a study of classroom activities. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Shultz, T. R. (1972). The role of incongruity and resolution in children’s appreciation of cartoon humor. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 13, 456 - 477.
Shultz, T. R. & Horibe, F. (1974). Development of the appreciation of verbal jokes. Developmental Psychology 10, 13-20.
Small, A. H. (1993). English ‘ala Cartoon. Chicago: Passport.
Suls, J.M. (1972). A two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons. Goldstein, J. H. & McGhee, P. E. (Eds.). Psychology of humor, pp. 81-99. New York: Academic.
Suls, J. M. (1983). Cognitive processes in humor appreciation. Goldstein, J. H. & McGhee, P. E. (Eds.). Handbook of humor research, Vol., pp.39-57.
Berlin: Springer.
Sy, B. M. (1994). Sex differences and language learning strategies. Paper presented at the 11th conference of teachers of English to speakers of other languages of the Republic of China, Taiwan.
Vipond, D. (1980). Micro and macro processes in text comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19, 276-296.
Wang, C.Y. (1997). Did you get it? A linguistic analysis of Chinese students’ comprehension and appreciation of jokes in English. Unpublished M.A. dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University.
Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1987). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam.
Wilson, C. P. (1979). Jokes form, content, use and function. New York: Academic.
Wright, A. (1986). How to be entertaining. Cambridge: Cambridge Company.
Yamaguchi, H. (1988). How to pull strings with words: Deceptive violations in the garden-path joke. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 323-337.
Yu, G. H. (2002). An introduction of English linguistics. 7th ed. Taipei: Bookman.
Zigler, E., Levine, J. & Gould, L. (1967). Cognitive challenge as a factor in children’s humor appreciation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6, 332-336.
Zillmann, D. & Cantor, J. (1976). A disposition theory of humor and mirth.
In: Chapman, A. J. & Foot, H. C. (Eds.). Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications (pp.93-115). London: John Wiley & Sons.