3.2.1. Results of pre-post tests of humour interpretation in English jokes
3.2.1.2. Pre-post test data results
Data were collected one weekbefore the beginning of the intervention and one week after the intervention period with the instruments of two tests for the intervened students. To compare how common the phenomenon under study, the data were later analysed statistically, using the software package of SPSS. The tour guide students participating in the intervention obtained a score of 1 if they could point out the funny point and explain it correctly. If they could identify the funny point but fail to explain why it is funny, they receive a score of 0.5. If they did not find the correct funny point,
they received a score of 0. The mean and the standard deviation were calculated for each joke and for the jokes altogether in the pre-test (T1) and post-test (T2) (Appendix 16). Also, in order to ascertain that the differences to be observed between T1 and T2 within the group were statistically significant, t-test procedures were used to analyse the data from the T1 and T2. The p-value obtained from the t-tests applied in this study were set the standard 0.05 level (95% confidence) to determine the statistical significance of the results and to prove the differences between the T1 and T2 within the group to be the result of the treatment and not due to chance.
Figure 3.9 illustrates the mean of each joke in T1 and T2. In general, the result after the treatment was much greater than that before the treatment. Moreover, the Sig. (2-tailed) item in Figure 3.10 presents a smaller p value. The t-test resultsthus ascertains that the difference between T1 and T2 was statistically significant for all the jokes (with all the p values of lower than 0.05) and that the progress was made by the treatment, not by chance. Regarding the result of T2, the highest mean score was 0.8885 for joke 7, followed by those for joke 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12 at 0.8000, 0.8000, 0.7000 and 0.7000 respectively. The mean scores for joke 1, 6 and 8 were just above the average with 0.6000, 0.5750 and 0.6000 respectively. Joke 2 and 5 ranged between the scores of 0.3750 and 0.4750. The lowest value in T2 was for joke 9 with the mean of only 0.2000.
As being illustrated by Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9, many students scored 0in T1 before joining the instructional intervention on humour in English jokes but they improved their scores in T2.
Figure 3.8. Illustrating the mean of each joke in T1 and T2
Figure 3.9. Statistically Significant Difference between T1 and T2
Table 3.8 shows the percentage of the score on each joke that the subject achieved.
Joke 1 measured the subjects‘ ability to interpret humour related to polysemy.
Before the treatment, more than half of the subjects could not find the ambiguity of
.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 1.00
J 1 J 2 J 3 J 4 J 5 J 6 J 7 J 8 J 9 J 10 J 11 J 12
M ea n
Jokes
Mean of Jokes in T1 and T2
T1 T2
0.01 0 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Me an -0.375 -0.325 -0.4 -0.55 -0.425 -0.325 -0.5 -0.475 -0.175 -0.65 -0.5 -0.375
Joke 1 - T1 - Joke 1 - T2
Joke 2 - T1 - Joke 2 - T2
Joke 3 - T1 - Joke 3 - T2
Joke 4 - T1 - Joke 4 - T2
Joke 5 - T1 - Joke 5 - T2
Joke 6 - T1 - Joke 6 - T2
Joke 7 - T1 - Joke 7 - T2
Joke 8 - T1 - Joke 8 - T2
Joke 9 - T1 - Joke 9 - T2
Joke 10 - T1 - Joke
10 - T2
Joke 11 - T1 - Joke
11 - T2
Joke 12 - T1 - Joke
12 - T2 Pair1 Pair 2 Pair 3 Pair 4 Pair 5 Pair 6 Pair 7 Pair 8 Pair 9 Pair
10 Pair
11 Pair
12
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sig. (2-tailed)
humour in the joke, but after the treatment, this number was reduced to only 25%
and the number of the students was able to recognize the funny point, getting the score of 0.5 and explain the humour of this joke, attaining the score of 1. The result indicated that the subjects could explain the humour of this joke, which proved this ambiguity not to be difficult for the students.
Table 3.8: Percentage of the scores of the subjects
Score Test
Percentage (%)
J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 J9 J10 J11 J12
0
T1 60 90 25 55 90 55 55 75 95 90 75 60
T2 25 45 0 10 40 35 5 15 70 10 20 15
0.5
T1 35 10 70 40 10 40 20 25 5 10 10 15
T2 30 35 40 20 25 15 20 50 20 40 20 30
1
T1 5 0 5 5 0 5 25 0 0 0 15 25
T2 45 20 60 70 35 50 75 35 10 50 60 55
Joke 2 contained the humour ambiguity of morpheme. Nearly all the subjects scored nothing in T1, but they made much progress in T2 with 35% scoring 0.5 and 20%
scoring 1 for the joke. However, the number of the subjects who got score of 0 was the highest of all. This proved that such linguistic jokes as ones related to morpheme were various and quite difficult for the L2 students to recognize the humour points.
Joke 3 showed better improvement when the percentage of students scoring 0 was reduced from 25% in T1 to 0% in T2 while the percentage of students scoring 1 was increased from 5% in T1 to 60% in T2. This indicated that more than half of the subjects could identify and explain the funny point of this reality-based joke
containing the humour ambiguity of speech acts – illocutionary and that this type of ambiguity could be much improved by such treatment.
Joke 4 tested the students‘ ability to make sense of humour in English jokes related to homophone. In T1, 55% of the subjects could not recognize the funny point. The situation was far much better in T2. Especially, with much more than half of the subjects (70%) scoring 1 in T2, the result showed that the students were good at the level of identify and explanation where the funny point was after the intervention period and this told that some type of linguistic jokes were interesting for the students in terms of double meaning.
For joke 5, which used the ambiguity of lexis, 18 over 20 subjects (90%) did not know the answer to the joke before the treatment. After the treatment, the result was remarkably changeable with 25% subjects getting the score of 0.5 and 35% gaining 1 point. However, there were still 8 subjects who could not identify the humour of the joke in T2 , which meant it was not easy for the students to explain the humour in this joke where the multiple meaning of phrasal verbs were not easy.
Joke 6 showed a better result when there was a remarkable increase in the percentage of students who could make sense of the joke after the intervention period. In T1 there were 55% scoring 0 and 5% scoring 1, while the result was 50% scoring 1 in T2. However, the number of subjects could identify and explain the humour point in T2 increased mostly came from the number of the subjects who scored 0.5 and half from the ones scoring 0 in T1. Yet, these figures indicated that the treatment was quite effective in enabling the subjects to interpret the reality-based joke of relevance.
The effect of the treatment was best seen at the result of joke 7, which measured the subjects‘ interpretation of its speech acts – illocutionary. Although more than half of the subjects scored nothing and no subjects could explain the funny point of the joke in T1, many subjects achieved the half and full scores for the joke in T2 with 20% scoring 0.5 and 75% scoring 1 respectively, leaving only 1 subject scoring 0,
making up 5%. The treatment for this type of joke was clearly effective among the subjects of the experimental group.
Joke 8 contained the ambiguity of Grice‘s maxim of manner. Before the intervention, 85.7% of the students could not answer the question and only 14.3%
could identify where the funny point was. However, after the intervention, the students made good progress when 47.6% scored 0.5 and 33.3% scored 1, proving that this type of joke could be effectively taught for students of this level.
The result for joke 9 was very different from the rest because there was very little progress after the treatment. In T1, nearly all the students failed to find the funny point of the joke (95% scored 0 in T1. The situation was not much improved in T2 with 70% scoring 0. This meant that only 5 out of 21 subjects could identify where the humour of the joke was. The result proved that the joke of Grice‘s maxim of relation was not easy for the subjects to make sense of.
Joke 10 belonged to the linguistic type, particularly about syntax. Before the intervention sections, 90% of the students scored 0, 10% scored 0.5 and no subject got 1. However, after the sections, these figures increased considerably to 40% scoring 0.5 and also 50%
scoring 1. Therefore, it could be said that the sections were effective in improving the students‘ ability in making sense of humour in the joke.
Regarding joke 11 (related to speech acts – perlocutionary), starting at 75% of the students scoring nothing and only 15% scoring 1 in T1, the result was much improved with 60% getting 1 and the number of the subjects who got score 0 reduced to 10% in T2. The treatment made it possible for more than half of the students to interpret this joke successfully, improving their ability to identify and explain the humour of this type of joke.
Joke 12 was about Grice‘s maxim of quantity. The result for this joke showed good improvement in the scores obtained in T2 as compared to T1. At first, without treatment, 60% of the subjects got 0, 15% got 0.5 and 25% got 1. But later, thanks
to the treatment, only 15% scored nothing, 30% scored 0.5 and 55% scored 1. This intervention proved to be effective with such a result.