Teaching Sarcasm, Jocularity, and Other Verbal Irony
by Caleb Prichard and John Rucynski
While some teachers may think it is ridiculous to focus
on sarcasm in the language classroom, verbal irony could make up around 8% of
utterances in English conversations (Gibbs, 2000) and misunderstanding it can
lead to serious consequences, from miscommunication to interpersonal conflict.
And since sarcasm and other verbal irony are used less often or used
differently in certain cultures, including some focus on it in the ELT
classroom may be warranted. We argue that teaching about verbal irony is
essential, but not so simple!
Is It Worth Teaching?
Recognizing the value of humor in communication and the
potential for meaningful L2 instruction, Bell and Pomerantz (2019) have long
called on educators and researchers to consider how they can help learners
better identify, comprehend, produce, and respond to humor. Therefore, in our
edited book, Bridging the Humor Barrier: Humor Competency Training in
English Language Teaching (Rucynski & Prichard, 2020), we
aimed to set guidelines for implementing explicit instruction on L2 humor,
including jocular sarcasm. The first guideline is that humor instruction should
have a clear objective connected to learner needs and the program’s
curriculum.
Since we teach Japanese English learners, we recognized
that verbal irony is much less common in Japanese than in English, and we have
experienced firsthand the consequences of when our jocularity was not detected
by our Japanese students, colleagues, and friends! Therefore, we felt teaching
learners to at least detect verbal irony was worthwhile in our oral skills
classes. At the time, we also felt that teaching our students to actually use sarcasm would be too time consuming and that the risks
would outweigh the benefits. (However, our follow-up work has recently shown that learners can be taught how to use verbal irony. And because producing verbal irony has many
functions, as noted below, it may be worth teaching as well.)
Exploring the Uses of Sarcasm
A second guideline for implementing humor training is
that instructors need to overview the potential functions, benefits, and
consequences of the target humor. As for verbal irony, we stressed to our
students that it can be used to amuse, bond, tease or flirt, and to either
strengthen or lighten criticism. Teachers could show students sarcastic
dialogues, texts, or memes, and the students could discuss the
purpose.
However, critical sarcasm is often dangerous, and even
light-hearted jocularity can be damaging if misinterpreted. Therefore, the
class should also explore the possible negative effects if the verbal irony is
not detected or misinterpreted. Examples of failed humor or offensive sarcasm
could be shown, and potential consequences could be discussed.
Instruction Microskills and Examples
Numerous studies have shown that explicit instruction is effective for teaching pragmatics
(Taguchi, 2015), so we also recommend that humor competency training include
detailed instruction. A thorough review of the research is needed beforehand,
but only the most relevant microskills should be introduced: the most common
aspects or those unique to the target culture. It is better to avoid making
this a linguistics lecture, and there should be opportunities for student input
and discussion. Along with simple terminology and clear explanation, examples
are essential. Simplified examples are best to make the cues salient, but
real-world (yet comprehensible) and humorous examples are also beneficial for
motivation, context, and authenticity.
As for verbal irony, research suggests it can be
identified by an often complicated mix of contextual, vocal (e.g., prosody),
and visual cues (e.g., facial expressions), so thorough instruction is needed.
As for context cues, we asked learners to compare their expectations of what
they expect to hear with the actual words to see if there is a gap between the
two. We showed students many examples, starting with simple images and
utterances in text. This provided learners the chance to carefully explore the
context and the verbal message. For example, we showed an image of a messy
kitchen sink, along with the text “I see you cleaned the kitchen. Everything
looks sooo clean.” We also pointed out how hyperbole (“sooo clean”) is used to
further hint at the gap. Understatement can also be used (e.g., “The kitchen is just a bit messy...”), so it can be complicated!
Therefore, we often need to recognize other cues...
In a separate lesson, visual cues were introduced. We
focused on the most salient and common markers mentioned in the
research:
- rolling, wide open, or squinted eyes;
- winking;
- raised or lowered eyebrows; and
- an expression opposite of the verbal message (e.g.,
frowning with positive words).
We stressed eye rolling in our classes because this is
relatively uncommon in Japan. We modelled all of the expressions ourselves and
showed examples on the projector, including images, GIFs, and videos found on
the internet. We had students mimic these expressions. Although our objective
did not involve producing sarcasm, practicing the
non-verbal cues helped reinforce the markers. Moreover, the students seemed to
enjoy modelling them, such as the sarcastic slow clap with a mock amused facial
expression.
As for vocal cues, we introduced the following cues,
which we considered the most salient:
- exaggerated intonation (like bad acting, especially
for dripping sarcasm);
- flat tone (for dry sarcasm);
or
- a way of speaking which is different from the
speaker’s norm.
The teachers modelled these, and we had students repeat, which
again proved amusing for them.
Extensive Practice
For humor competency, practice opportunities are needed
along with explicit instruction. For identifying and comprehending humor, practice with simplified examples
should eventually extend to authentic examples. For producing and responding to humor,
structured activities should eventually lead to freer communicative activities.
Classroom practice opportunities provide a safe place for learners to engage in
language play and to explore the complexities that can trigger humor.
Our goal was simply to get learners to detect verbal
irony, but again this is not so simple! As explained above, verbal cues can
range from hyperbole to understatement, and vocal cues range from exaggerated
intonation to a flat tone. And the cues are made even more subtle in dry
sarcasm, and even fluent speakers can be tricked or confused. Developing
automaticity in cue recognition is necessary since the markers are often
presented subtly and quickly in the middle of continuous fast-paced communication.
For these reasons, we knew we needed extensive practice, so we practiced
detecting each type of cue (context, vocal, visual) for 30 minutes each over a
series of three lessons.
Practice activities on detecting verbal irony can be
done in groups, where the students discuss if the examples are sincere or
sarcastic. They can discuss the cue they found and their response. It can also
be made like a game, with points earned for each correct guess.
Even if the goal is not production, communicative
activities can help reinforce the cues. Students can be provided a list of
sentences that often produce a strong love or hate, such as:
-
I love heavy metal.
-
I hate natto (fermented beans
popular in Japan).
-
I really miss Donald Trump.
-
I hate online classes.
The students must say these sentences, regardless of their
feeling, but they can use one or more of the sarcasm cues if they disagree with
the statement. Their partner can guess the person’s true feeling. This could
also be made a survey task, where students each form one question. They mingle
(or match up online) and ask their question (“Do you like heavy metal music?”),
with the partner answering sincerely or sarcastically (“Oh, yeah, I just LOVE
heavy metal music [rolls eyes].) depending on their true feeling. Each student
later presents their results to their group or the whole class.
Does it work?
While not all humor instruction has led to success,
many studies have found significant results (see Bell & Pomerantz, 2019
or Rucynski & Prichard, 2020 for an overview). It seems to depend on
how challenging the goal is and whether the guidelines highlighted above are
followed, especially explicit instruction and extensive practice.
As for our instruction, we conducted an empirical study
involving a pre- and posttest, and a control group to examine if this training
improved learners’ ability to detect verbal irony (Prichard & Rucynski,
2020). We found that the experimental group did significantly improve compared
to the control group. However, the gains were not as large as we expected,
highlighting how complicated humor competency development can be.
More work needs to be done in this area, and we hope
more instructors consider implementing humor and sarcasm instruction after
careful research. Humor may seem like a silly focus for an ELT class, but it
has a huge role in human communication and should not be ignored.
NOTE: A version of this article first appeared in the December 2021 issue of As We Speak, the newsletter of TESOL International Association's Speech, Pronunciation, Listening, and Speaking Interest Section.
References
Bell, N., & Pomerantz, A. (2019). Humor in L2
pragmatics research. In N. Taguchi (ed.), The Routledge handbook of
second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 63–77),
Routledge.
Gibbs, R. W., (2000). Irony in talk among friends.Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 5–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2000.9678862
Prichard, C., & Rucynski, J. (2020). Humor
competency training for sarcasm and jocularity, in J. Rucynski Jr. & C.
Prichard (eds.), Bridging the humor barrier: Humor competency
training in English language teaching (pp. 165–192). Lexington
Books.
Rucynski, J., & Prichard, C. (2020). Bridging the humor barrier: Humor competency training in English
language teaching. Lexington Books.
Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance:
Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language
Teaching, 48(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444814000263
Caleb Prichard is an associate
professor at Okayama University in Japan. He coedited Bridging the
Humor Barrier. His other research interests include reading strategy
competence and program administration.
John Rucynski is an associate professor at
Okayama University. He has edited two volumes on humor in language education, New Ways in Teaching with Humor (TESOL Press) and Bridging the Humor Barrier.
Previous Article
