The Possible Implementation of Puns to Teach Swedish Upper Secondary School Learners about Meanings of Polysemous Words in the L2 English Classroom

Degree Thesis

HALMSTAD

Teacher Education (Upper Secondary School), 300 credits

"Pun Intended"

The Possible Implementation of Puns to Teach Swedish Upper Secondary School Learners about Meanings of Polysemous Words in the L2 English Classroom

English for Students in Teacher Education, 15 credits

Halmstad 2021-06-18

Filippa Söderström, Jakob Thorén

Authors: Filippa Söderström and Jakob Thorén

Supervisor: Monica Karlsson, Associate Professor

Examiner: Stuart Foster, Ph.D.

Abstract

This study aims to investigate to what extent Swedish upper secondary school learners of L2 English understand the meanings of polysemous words and whether puns can be used to teach such words. A test and two questionnaires were constructed to retrieve data from both students and teachers. The results of the study show that Swedish upper secondary school learners of L2 English generally have an acceptable knowledge of polysemous words, but depending on the type of program the students are attending, their understanding differs.

Based on these results, it was also concluded that puns can be used in education to teach students about the meanings of polysemous words. The results from the questionnaires display that students in general have a positive attitude towards using puns in the classroom and that they found them entertaining and humorous. In addition, the students also saw this approach as beneficial to their retention and motivation. Lastly, the teachers expressed that using humor can strengthen the learning process, and if the students find the teaching situation enjoyable, they learn faster and it can increase their retention.

Keywords: Puns, Polysemy, Humor, Language Education, Vocabulary acquisition, SLA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ... 1

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH ... 2

2.1 T

L2

... 2

2.2 L2

... 4

2.3 A

... 7

2.4 P

... 9

2.5 U

...11

3. THE PRESENT STUDY ... 12

3.1 R

...12

3.2 M

...12

3.2.1 Digital test... 13

3.2.2 The students’ digital questionnaire ... 15

3.2.3 The teachers’ digital questionnaire ... 16

3.2.4 Method used for the analysis of the results... 16

3.2.4.1 Analysis of digital test ... 16

3.2.4.2 Analysis of students’ digital questionnaire ... 17

3.2.4.3 Analysis of teachers’ digital questionnaire ... 17

3.2.5 Ethical aspects ... 18

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 18

4.1 R

...19

4.2 R

’

...28

4.2.1 Students’ opinions on using puns in education ... 28

4.2.2 The advantages of using puns in education ... 30

4.2.3 The disadvantages of using puns in education ... 31

4.2.4 The effect on students’ motivation by using puns in education ... 33

4.2.5 Various comments made by students ... 34

4.3 R

’

...34

5. CONCLUSION ... 35

5.1 P

...38

REFERENCES ... 40

I

...41

APPENDICES... 43

1. Introduction

“[W]ithout grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed” (Wilkins, 1972, pp. 111–112).

For L2 learners of English to become proficient, having an extensive vocabulary is essential to be able to express their thoughts and ideas, as well as being able to understand other English speakers. Also, it is important to express oneself with variation and complexity, and in order for learners to do so, they need to have a rich vocabulary. However, it is not enough to acquire an extensive number of words, but also to deepen the knowledge of individual words and learn their different senses in order to form complex phrases and sentences (Ellis, 2015, pp. 86-87).

The purpose of learning English in the Swedish upper secondary school is not solely to equip students with the tools necessary to communicate with the English-speaking world. It is also to learn English in order to be able to interact in different social contexts (Skolverket, 2019).

Lems (2013, p. 26) argues that not understanding a joke in a social setting can make a learner feel like an outsider. Therefore, equipping students with a deepened vocabulary as well as an understanding of English jokes is necessary for learners to develop proficiency in the English language.

One approach to teaching students about both humor and vocabulary simultaneously is to

incorporate puns in the English education. Puns are a special form of humor playing on

ambiguity. When puns involve polysemous words, the learner is required to understand the

different senses to appreciate the joke. By using polysemous puns in the classroom, the

students will learn to both understand humor and deepen their vocabulary in terms of

knowing that words can have multiple senses, and when it is appropriate to use the different

senses when communicating. Despite the notion that the understanding of polysemous puns is

an essential tool for students to become proficient and become a part of the English-speaking

community, they are rarely used in education (Lems, 2013, p. 27). Further, using humor can

increase students’ retention (Al-Duleimi and Aziz, 2016, p. 107)). As this field has not been

properly investigated within the context of Swedish education, the present study will attempt

to investigate if puns can be incorporated into the Swedish upper secondary school to teach students about meanings of polysemous words.

2. Theoretical background and previous research

In the following subsections, previous research relevant to the present study will be

presented. Subsection 2.1 will describe the mental lexicon as well as examine the differences between the L1 and L2 mental lexicons. In subsection 2.2, L2 vocabulary acquisition will be discussed, both from a general and Swedish perspective. Subsection 2.3 will investigate context as a pedagogical approach for vocabulary acquisition. Subsection 2.4 will explain how puns can be used as a context, and lastly, in 2.5, the effects of humor on students’

affective filter and motivation will be discussed.

2.1 The mental lexicon and L2 vocabulary depth

When investigating the structure of how the lexical storage system functions for both

acquiring new words and managing them, The Mental Lexicon is a term often encountered. It is defined as the organization of word knowledge in an individual’s permanent memory.

However, the mental lexicon does not only encompass how words are stored in an

individual’s memory, but also how an individual retrieves words in both speech and writing (He and Deng, 2015, pp. 40-41). In contrast to an ordinary lexicon, the mental lexicon is dynamic. Words are constantly evolving and given new meanings, and while a physical lexicon needs to be revised to keep up with the evolution of the language, the mental lexicon can easily adapt to these changes. Another difference between a dictionary and the mental lexicon is that the words in an individual’s mental lexicon are not in an alphabetical order.

When investigating how the mental lexicon functions, it seems that initial sounds and stress are partially determining factors for how words are organized (Aitchison, 2012, pp. 11-13).

Another model for the structure of the mental lexicon is presented by Wolter (2001, p. 47), in

which the mental lexicon is viewed as consisting of several layers.

Words can be known by an individual to varying degrees. Therefore, a model of the depth of an individual’s word knowledge is presented by Wolter (2001, p. 47). This model arranges the words in the mental lexicon from the well-known core words in the center, to the slightly known words in the periphery. This aligns with Aitchison’s theory of the constant change of the mental lexicon. Wolter (2001, pp. 47-48) argues that words in the mental lexicon can advance or regress between the different layers depending on the degree of how well an individual knows the words. The degree to which the word is known depends on the frequency of usage, as well as the exposure to the word. Therefore, words in the mental lexicon can also be forgotten by an individual and thus disappear from it.

By examining the differences between the mental lexicon of a native speaker and a nonnative speaker of English, it has been suggested that the L1 and L2 mental lexicons are not

structurally different, but rather that the L2 mental lexicon is at an earlier stage of

development than the L1 mental lexicon (Wolter, 2001, p. 60). The underdevelopment of the L2 mental lexicon is due to the size of vocabulary. This was concluded by conducting a word association test where the participants were given a prompt word to respond to. The results showed that while nonnative speakers preferred to give a syntagmatic response, native speakers were more inclined to give a paradigmatic response. Wolter (2001, p. 43) exemplifies syntagmatic responses as responses to a prompt word with a collocational relationship, and usually belonging to a different word class than the prompt word (e.g. dog

→ bite). In contrast, a paradigmatic response refers to responses belonging to the same word class as the prompt word. Not only does the response belong to the same word class, it also, if put in a sentence, performs the same grammatical function. This means that the response can function as the same clause element in a sentence as the prompt word would have done (e.g.

dog → canine, dog → cat). The results also showed that both groups gave few clang

responses when given a prompt word (Wolter, 2001, pp. 60-61). A clang response refers to a

phonological similarity between the response and the prompt word with no semantic relation

between the words (e.g. dog → bog) (Wolter, 2001, p. 43). However, even though both

groups tended to give syntagmatic and paradigmatic responses rather than clang responses,

the nonnative group had less clang responses than the native group (3% versus 4%) (Wolter,

2001, pp. 60-61). It was concluded that “for nonnative speakers, phonology plays no more of

a role in determining the structure of the mental lexicon for well-known words than it does

for native speakers” (Wolter, 2001, p. 61).

When investigating the L2 mental lexicon, it is important to consider both its breadth and depth since over 40% of the words in the English language have multiple meanings (Alnamer, 2017, p. 112). It is not only the number of words in the mental lexicon that

matters, but also how words are interconnected and can be used to form complex phrases and sentences, as well as adding depth to individual words and learning their different senses (Ellis, 2015, pp. 86-87). Words with multiple meanings, called polysemes, are defined as having the same spelling and pronunciation. They consist of one core sense with multiple senses that are related to the core sense by extension (Yule, 2017, p. 133). When multiple meanings arise from a core sense, they may sometimes overlap, and when new meanings are added to an already existing word, this process is referred to as layering (Aitchison, 2012, pp.

174-175). An example of when people give a new meaning to an already existing word (layering) is the verb launch, which originally meant to wield a lance. Over time, the usage of the verb launch generalized and acquired new meanings, such as throwing an object with force. This change led to the core sense of the verb instead being associated with ships and rockets, or starting a new project (Verspoor and Lowie, 2003, p. 555). This is also an example of how a word’s different senses are stored together with the core meaning since words often are thought of as single lexical items. As all senses are stored as a single lexical item in the mental lexicon, learners can more easily understand the relationship between the different meanings (Langacker 2002 and Verspoor and Lowie 2003 (in Crossley, Salsbury and McNamara, 2010, pp. 576-577)).

2.2 L2 mastery of polysemous words

For an L2 learner to fully acquire a polysemous word, all its major meanings must be understood (Schmitt, 1998, p. 292). However, in order to learn all the major meanings, it is important to first acquire the core sense, since it makes it easier for the learner to incorporate the more peripheral senses into the lexical network, as words are not learned in isolation.

(Crossley, Salsbury and McNamara, 2010, pp. 575-576, 597). Furthermore, to permanently

incorporate a newly acquired sense into a learner’s mental lexicon, the L2 learner is required

to understand the relation of meaning between the polysemous word’s different senses. If

learners fail to understand, they have to create separate lexical items for each acquired sense

(Verspoor and Lowie, 2003, p. 551). As L2 learners usually do not have the same lexical

knowledge as a native speaker, this understanding is crucial for developing lexical networks.

(Crossley, Salsbury and McNamara, 2010, pp. 575-576, 597).

Crossley, Salsbury and McNamara (2010) conducted a study to investigate L2 learners’

mastery of polysemous words and the growth in the spoken production of words with multiple senses. The six participants in the study (1 Japanese, 1 Korean, 1 Spanish, and 3 Arabic) were all learners of L2 English between the ages 18-29. They were all studying at an American university at the time of the study, and they had all reported that they had studied secondary-level English in their native countries. Despite this, the pre-test placed all

participants in the lowest proficiency level of the six that were available. The participants were then both tested and interviewed every other week for one year (Crossley, Salsbury and McNamara, 2010, p. 580). In their first analysis, the results showed that the participants had an increase in the usage of both polysemous and frequently used words during the first four months of studying English in a natural environment. However, after the four months, the progress plateaued. (Crossley, Salsbury and McNamara, 2010, p. 587) The second analysis was based on the results from the first analysis. As the results from the first analysis showed that the learners’ progress plateaued, the researchers chose to divide the data between the first and the second trimester of that analysis. In their second analysis, six polysemous words that were all commonly produced by the participants in the first analysis were selected. The intention of using the six words was to strengthen the researchers’ argument that “learners begin with a core sense of a lexical item and then extend that knowledge to other related senses” (Crossley, Salsbury and McNamara, 2010, p. 590). In contrast to the first analysis, it was concluded from the second analysis that the L2 learners showed an increase in the number of word senses used for each of the selected words after the fourth month. Thus, the results imply that “L2 learners first produce words that have the capacity for multiple word senses and thus ambiguity; however, only after the learners have acquires the core sense of the word do they begin to acquire and produce the other word senses available to that lexical entry” (Crossley, Salsbury and McNamara, 2010, p. 597).

A study with the aim to investigate Swedish students’ mastery of polysemous words was

conducted by Odefalk (2004 (in Karlsson, 2013)). The participants in the study were

advanced-level students from three different educational levels: two groups from the adult

educational system studying two different levels corresponding to first- and second-year

courses in upper secondary school (referred to as A-level and B-level), and one group of first-

term university students. As the participants studied English at different educational levels, it was possible to compare the knowledge of polysemous words between the groups. The test consisted of 48 polysemous words, which were divided into three different parts. Each part contained progressively more infrequent words. The participants were provided with six decontextualized meanings to each word, where at least two of them were correct. They were also informed that at least one of the meanings was incorrect, and to avoid that the

participants would indicate all meanings, points would be deducted for giving the wrong answer (Odefalk, 2004 (in Karlsson, 2013, p. 85)). Based on the results, it was concluded that the scores in the three tests corresponded with the frequency of the polysemous words. The scores were highest in the test with the most frequent words and lowest in the test with the least frequent words. In addition to these results, it was also seen that the group of university students scored significantly higher on all three tests, but there was still a noticeable decline from part one to part three. However, the greatest decline of score between the different parts was seen among the A-level students.

Table 1. Average scores for the three student groups tested on the three different frequency-based test parts.

(Odefalk, 2004 (in Karlsson, 2013, p. 86)).

Further, the results showed that the majority of the students knew one meaning of the polysemous word, but when two or more meanings were considered, there was a significant decrease in the knowledge of the different senses for the word. Aligning with the results above, the university students scored higher than the A-level- and B-level students on this notion as well (Odefalk, 2004 (in Karlsson, 2013, p. 87)).

Another study investigating the knowledge of polysemous words among Swedish L2 learners

of English was conducted by Karlsson (2013). The study included 15 university students, one

native speaker of English and 14 Swedish L2 learners of English. They received two tests, one in Swedish and one in English, both consisting of 40 decontextualized polysemous words. The participants were asked to indicate the correct alternatives from the six meanings given for each word. To receive a point for a question, the respondents were required to indicate all of the correct meanings and none of the incorrect ones. After each question on both tests, the respondents had to evaluate their own knowledge on how certain they felt that they had indicated the correct meanings (Karlsson, 2013, pp 90-92). The results showed that the Swedish students did not perform well on the English test with a mean score of only 13.2 out of 40 possible points.

Table 2. The students’ results (Karlsson, 2013, p.93).

These results indicate that mastering polysemous words (both in a person’s L1 and L2) is a time-consuming process, even for advanced-level students. It was also seen that the

frequency of the word did not have any significance for whether the senses were known to the students or not (Karlsson, 2013, pp. 94-95). Lastly, it was concluded that Swedish L2 learners of English did not have a deep vocabulary knowledge despite the notion that the participants in the study reported high confidence in their own knowledge of the polysemous words and their different meanings (Karlsson, 2013, p. 97).

2.3 A pedagogical approach to mastering polysemous words

To master different senses of polysemous words, the L2 learner can either acquire the words

implicitly, or learn them explicitly. While explicit learning is a viable strategy for introducing

a new word and learning its core meaning, learning the word by encountering it in a natural

context is important for learning its complete polysemous meaning (Schmitt and McCarthy,

2002 (in He and Deng, 2015, p.43)). Dörnyei (2009, pp. 140-141) explains the natural context

in which learners acquire new words as incidental learning. In contrast to incidental learning,

intentional learning is explained as when learners are aware of the fact that they will be tested on the exposed material. It is also argued that the dichotomy of intentional learning and incidental learning corresponds to the dichotomy of explicit and implicit instruction.

A category of incidental learning, which is advantageous for acquiring different senses, is to encounter words in context. “[C]ontextualized words are recognized more quickly than isolated words; thus, proper context can hasten the recognition of words and eliminate ambiguity.” (Schmitt and McCarthy, 2002 (in He and Deng, 2015, p. 43)). Also, when an L2 learner encounters contextualized clues to the given word, it will have a greater impact on the learner’s retention. The reason for the increase in retention is due to the hypothesis claiming that the more cognitive energy the learner uses to think about the word, the higher the possibility is for the learner to produce it (Schmitt and McCarthy, 2002 (in He and Deng, 2015, p. 43)).

A pedagogical approach aligning with encountering polysemous words in context is presented by Verspoor and Lowie (2003). In their study, it was investigated whether a

contextualized core sense makes it easier to guess the meaning of the more peripheral senses, and it also explores its effect on long-term retention (Verspoor and Lowie, 2003, p. 559). The 78 participants in the study were Dutch students, who had had at least three years of English, and were taking part in a pre-university course. The participants were randomly divided into two groups, which both took three tests consisting of 18 polysemous words. There were three criteria in order for a polysemous word to be tested. Firstly, the polysemous words had to have a minimum of three different senses: a core sense (S1), a figurative sense (S2), and an abstract, even more figurative sense (S3). Secondly, the S2 had to be derived from S1 while S3 had to be derived from S2. The final criterion was for three native speakers to confirm that S3 was, in fact, more abstract than S2 (Verspoor and Lowie, 2003, p. 560). The first test consisted of 18 sentence pairs presented in context taken from the New York Times, where the participants were asked to guess the polysemous meaning and provide a correct Dutch

translation of the S2 sense. The difference between the two groups was that the first group

was provided with a sentence containing the core sense of the word (S1) and the literal Dutch

translation. The second group was instead given a sentence with an abstract sense of the word

(S3) and an equivalent Dutch translation. After the participants had completed the test, they

were given a worksheet with the instructions to memorize the translation of the S2 sense of

the word, as well as attempting to detect meaning relations between the words’ different

senses. The teacher distracted the students momentarily after the first test was completed, and at the end of the lesson, the students were given the second test, an unannounced short-term retention test. The third test, an unannounced long-term retention test, was given to the participants after 2-3 weeks to investigate whether the participants had acquired the words’

different senses in their long-term memory (Verspoor and Lowie, 2003, pp. 561-562).

From the first test, it was concluded that the group provided with the core meaning of the words (S1) performed better than the group provided with the abstract sense (S3). As predicted, the results from the short-term retention of the S2 sense yielded high scores for both groups. Furthermore, the results from the long-term retention test clearly showed that the participants with high scores on test 1 also yielded high scores on test 3 regardless of the sense they were given (S1 vs. S3). However, it was also concluded that the participants who had been given the core sense (S1) performed better on the third test than the other group (Verspoor and Lowie, 2003, pp. 563-565). Thus, providing a learner with the core sense of a word is beneficial for long-term retention, and to help the learner to guess the more figurative senses of polysemous words, since the core sense can be used to establish a meaningful link to the more peripheral senses (Verspoor and Lowie, 2003, p. 567).

2.4 Puns as a context

As discussed in subsection 2.3, encountering a polysemous word in context is beneficial for the L2 learners’ retention (Schmitt and McCarthy, 2002 (in He and Deng, 2015, p. 43)).

Verspoor and Lowie (2003, p. 549) claim that words must preferably be encountered in rich context for a learner to be provided with clues to new words’ meanings. However, they also argue that too rich of a context may be disadvantageous to learners, since the text can be understood without knowing the meaning of the word. In addition, a learner can only acquire a limited number of words from a rich context. Hence, for vocabulary acquisition, a shorter context is better for L2 learners’ retention since they are not able to guess the meaning, which they can do from a rich context. (Verspoor and Lowie, 2003, p. 549)

One approach suitable for enabling L2 learners to encounter words in short context is by

incorporating puns in the education. A pun is “a special form of humor based on double

meanings” (Pollack, 2011 (in Lems, 2013, p. 26)), an example of which is: Why are trees often mistaken for dogs? - Because of their bark (Yule, 2017, p. 133). However, puns are often regarded as a low form of humor and are almost instinctively met with groans even if they are enjoyed by the receiver. Consequently, the usage of puns has been ignored, while other types of word play have been given more attention in education (Cook, 2000, p. 81).

The ambiguity of a pun can occur in different ways in the English language, and according to Lems (2013, p. 27) there are generally four types of puns: homophonic, close-sounding, texting puns, and polysemous puns. It is only the latter type which will be considered here.

Polysemous puns are based on a word which is spelled and pronounced in the same way. The two senses of the word are also related in some manner, for example mole, which can mean both the mammal and an infiltrator (Lems, 2013, p. 27).

Not only do puns function as a short context, they are also based on word play. Since the recipient must process the meaning twice, they require a sophisticated understanding of the word the pun revolves around. Puns are also language-specific, which means that they cannot be translated into a learner’s native language. This implies that learners need to be proficient in the target language to understand the play on meanings. Therefore, puns need to be taught in order to make sense to the learner. However, puns are rarely used in classroom content since they are deemed to not be suitable for language education as puns can be considered inappropriate. Despite the notion that they are inappropriate, puns are often encountered in authentic situations, such as on TV, advertisements, newspapers, music, and in everyday communication. (Lems, 2013, p. 27)

Skolverket (2019) describe that one of the aims of the subject of English in the Swedish

upper secondary school is for students to develop all-round communicative skills, so they

have the confidence to use English for different situations and purposes. Also, students

should be aware of cultural features in the English-speaking world. Puns can therefore enable

students to participate in authentic conversations and feel more comfortable in social settings.

2.5 Using humor to increase motivation and lower the affective filter

Using puns in education is not only beneficial as they provide learners with a short context and helps to develop all-round communicative skills, but they can also help learners to feel more comfortable in learning situations as humor can lower the affective filter (Lems, 2013, p. 26). The affective filter hypothesis, developed by Krashen, is described as an adjustable filter that is affected by the learner’s attitude or emotional state. A high affective filter can block necessary input for language acquisition. Thus, it is desirable for students to have a low affective filter (Richards, 2015, p. 74). Moreover, if L2 learners find the teaching situation and classroom activities enjoyable, it can increase their intrinsic motivation. If learners also harbor a positive attitude towards the target language and its culture, they will develop an integrative motivation. (Richards, 2015, p. 150).

A study conducted by Al-Duleimi and Aziz (2016, p. 107) shows that humor can create an easy-going atmosphere in the classroom, which can reduce learners’ anxiety. Humor can also help students achieve higher motivation and increased self-confidence. In addition, humor can also improve learners’ retention since humor is connected to the memory as it is easier to recall a situation from a humorous context (Muñoz, 2005, p. 42). In their study, a

questionnaire was sent to 80 Iraqi university students to investigate their attitudes towards using humor in the classroom. The results demonstrated that over 90% of the respondents agreed with the statements that using humor both reduces tension and makes the teacher more approachable. 87.5% also agreed that humor increased their language learning ability in the classroom (Al-Duleimi and Aziz, 2016, p. 108). The researchers also sent a questionnaire to, and interviewed, fifteen Iraqi teachers to examine their experiences and attitudes towards using humor in the classroom. The results indicated that while the teachers admitted the importance of using humor to lower the students’ affective filter, they were restrictive with the usage of it as they do not feel comfortable using it, both because of their personal

inclination, and their fear of losing respect from the students (Al-Duleimi and Aziz, 2016, p.

111).

While many studies have highlighted the advantages of incorporating humor in the

classroom, it is worth considering to what extent humor is used. As mentioned by Cook

(2000, p. 182), it is important to remember that play and learning are two different activities.

While play should exert some influence upon the learning, it should never replace it, as humor is an element in learning, not learning in itself.

3. The present study

In the present study, the aim is to investigate whether puns can be used in education to teach Swedish upper secondary school learners of L2 English about polysemous words. This section will present the research questions addressed and present the material and method used to retrieve empirical data for the study.

3.1 Research questions addressed

To investigate the effectiveness of using puns in the Swedish upper secondary school, the following research questions will be addressed:

1. Do Swedish upper secondary school learners of L2 English understand the multiple meanings of polysemous words and, if so, to what extent do they understand them?

2. Based on the answers to question 1, can puns be used in the L2 classroom to teach upper secondary students about meanings of polysemous words?

3.2 Material and method

A test was constructed with the intent of investigating how well Swedish upper secondary

school students understand polysemous puns. Also, two questionnaires were created; one in

order to investigate students’ attitudes towards incorporating puns in their English education,

and another to investigate teachers’ attitudes towards, and experience of, using puns to teach

students about polysemy. In the following section, the method used for constructing the test

and the two questionnaires will be provided. Also, the methods used for interpreting and

analyzing the answers given in the test and questionnaires will be offered. In addition, the ethical policies that the study adhere to will also be explained.

3.2.1 Digital test

The intention of the test was to examine at what level the students understand polysemous puns in English, thereby providing quantitative data (see Appendix 2). It was sent to teachers in upper secondary schools in southern Sweden, who then distributed the test to their

students. The test was directed towards all students regardless of their grade or program. The only requirement was that they were studying English 5, 6, or 7 (corresponding to ages 15- 19). It was answered by 58 students in total, but five were excluded due to the answers being non-serious (for example students answering with emoticons, or words such as hammer and poop), and another three respondents were excluded due to having another native language than Swedish. Therefore, only 50 respondents have been taken into consideration for the analysis of the results.

The test was created by collecting a number of puns from internet sources (see Reference list) with the aim of finally using ten of them. The choice of materials was made on the basis of two criteria. The first one was that the humorous use of the word had to consist of a

polysemous word. To ensure that the word was polysemous, the words were searched for in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2009). Yule (2017, p. 133) states that if two senses are listed under the same lexical item, the word can be regarded as polysemous. After searching for the words in the dictionary and confirming that the two meanings were indeed listed under the same lexical item, ten puns were chosen to create the ten test items. The second criterion in the selection process required that the polysemous words were of varying frequency in order to investigate whether there was a correlation between the students’

knowledge of the polysemous words and the frequency of usage. To ensure the spread of

frequency, the words were also searched for in the Corpus of Contemporary American

English (Davies, 2008-). This corpus was utilized since it consists of texts from various

sources on the internet, and not only academic texts. The target group of this study is upper

secondary school students, and it was deemed more likely that they encounter texts on

various websites instead of in academic papers. The frequency of words in academic texts

would not make sense when investigating if frequency and score has any correlation.

The ten puns remaining after the first criterion were indeed of varying frequency, meaning that they fulfilled both criteria, hence, they were suitable for the test. After the selection process, it was possible to construct the test by arranging the puns in order of decreasing frequency. The ten polysemous words used in the test are: work (verb), stories (noun), hit (verb), interest (noun), misses (verb), clean (adjective), bright (adjective), suck (verb), stuffed (adjective), and turned on (adjective) (see Appendix 1).

In order to determine whether the words’ senses were the core sense (S1) or a peripheral sense (S2, S3, et cetera), The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) was utilized (see Appendix 1). This dictionary is used because it lists the core sense as the first definition under the lexical items. The reason for investigating what senses the different meanings of the ten words have is to be able to see if the students score better on the core senses than on the peripheral senses. When determining the senses, it was seen that story (floor levels) used a British spelling (storey) in this dictionary, thus, it was listed under a separate lexical item and the sense could not be determined. Therefore, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (2009) was used to determine this sense. When the test item turned on was searched for, it was seen that both senses were listed under the second definition, meaning that they both were considered as S2. This means that this test item will not be analyzed in the results section when determining whether the students who only indicated one meaning pointed out the core or peripheral senses, since the core sense is not present.

The test was distributed to the participants via their teachers. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the students did not attend their classes physically at the given time. Therefore, the test was conducted by the participants via distance education, meaning that they were not supervised by their teachers.

To ensure that the students understood the test, the instructions and questions were offered and asked in Swedish, while the puns themselves were written in English. The students were allowed to answer in Swedish, except when they wrote the polysemous word. When

receiving the test, the participants were instructed to indicate the polysemous word making the pun ambiguous. Thereafter, they were asked to provide the two meanings of the

ambiguous word in Swedish. An example with an additional pun was included before every

question to ensure that they understood how they should write the answers.

Before the ten puns, four general questions were asked in order to examine the spread of the grade and program of the respondents. One of the questions was included with the aim of eliminating any answers given by students with a different mother tongue than Swedish. As L2 students’ grammatical and phonological errors are, to a large extent, based on their different L1s, it can be assumed that, in many cases, this also holds true for vocabulary knowledge. It would therefore be impossible to draw conclusions from these students’ results as the present authors both have Swedish as an L1 and cannot identify whether the mistakes made by such students are a product of their mother tongue or not. Also, the words in the test might have false cognates in their L1. Another reason for excluding such students is that they might not be proficient in Swedish, which can result in difficulties with understanding the instructions for the test. For these reasons, students with a different first language than Swedish were excluded from the present study.

3.2.2 The students’ digital questionnaire

As mentioned previously, to examine the students’ attitudes towards using puns in their English education and provide qualitative data, a questionnaire was constructed. It consists of five open-ended questions where the students gave their opinions on the advantages,

disadvantages, and their attitudes towards using puns. They also relayed their opinions on how it would affect their motivation, and lastly, they were given the freedom to express any additional thoughts on using puns in the classroom (see Appendix 3). According to Wray and Bloomer (2012, p. 167), open questions provide qualitative details in questionnaires. The questions were created in order to gain a student perspective on the notion of using puns in English education since the test results could not answer if they enjoyed it or if it would increase their motivation.

It should also be mentioned that the reason for incorporating the questionnaire at the end of

the test was to ensure that the respondents answered both the test and the questionnaire. If the

test and the questionnaire had been offered separately, the students may have been less

willing to answer the questionnaire after already completing the test. Wray and Bloomer

(2012, p. 173) describe this as questionnaire-fatigue.

3.2.3 The teachers’ digital questionnaire

In addition to acquiring data from Swedish upper secondary school students, a short questionnaire was also constructed to obtain qualitative data from English teachers in the Swedish upper secondary school. The purpose of this questionnaire was to provide a teachers’ perspective to increase the validity and reliability of the study. The questionnaire was answered by three teachers. It consists of six questions about the teachers’ attitudes towards using puns in the classroom, if they had ever used puns, and if they thought this would be a beneficial approach to discuss polysemy with their students. Three of the questions were closed and three were open-ended. The closed questions, where they could answer yes, no, or maybe, were simply to investigate if they thought using puns to teach students about different meanings was an interesting approach, if they could consider using puns in the classroom, and whether the teachers had used puns before. One of the open-ended questions inquired the teachers to elaborate about if the teachers had used puns previously, and if so, how they had implemented it. Another open-ended question asked if they had ever discussed polysemy, and if so, in what context they had done so. The last open-ended question gave the teachers an opportunity to give further comments, if they had any (see Appendix 9).

3.2.4 Method used for the analysis of the results

The methods used for analyzing the test and the two questionnaires will be presented in the following subsections.

3.2.4.1 Analysis of digital test

To answer the first research question, the results from the test were analyzed. The scoring of the test offered a maximum of three points for each question (30 points in total). One point was awarded for providing the correct polysemous word and one for each correct meaning.

The answers from the test were marked and inserted into an Excel file. When marking the test, the present authors had to interpret the answers as there were several acceptable answers.

As long as the students gave an acceptable explanation, they were awarded a point. One

example of when the students were awarded a point despite the fact that they could not provide the exact Swedish translation is the word stuffed, which was explained by some students as ‘filled with cotton’. However, in the case of the pun with the polysemous word interest, several students answered that they thought it was connected to economics. This explanation was not deemed specific enough to be awarded a point.

To create tables and graphs for the results section, the results were transferred from Excel to SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), a program that automatically calculates different values and allows for analyzing results separately based on, for example, mother tongue, grade, and/or program.

3.2.4.2 Analysis of students’ digital questionnaire

The students’ questionnaire required an organized approach in order to analyze the accumulated data. The process of analyzing the students’ questionnaire was completed in various steps. The first step, which focused on establishing a general impression by getting acquainted with the data was accomplished through reading the answers multiple times.

While reading the answers, the second step was completed through finding the most notable similarities and differences. With the help of these differences and similarities, the various perceptions were divided into categories by color-coding the answers. When one respondent offered several answers, they were sometimes warranted to be placed in multiple categories.

This means that when calculating the number of answers in each category, the total sum of answers will exceed the number of respondents (see Appendices 4-8). The final step, to answer the second research question, was to study the categories and compare the results in the present study to previous research in order to gain a broader perspective on the possible application of puns in the classroom.

3.2.4.3 Analysis of teachers’ digital questionnaire

The teachers’ questionnaire only had three respondents, which made it possible to conduct a

deeper analysis of the answers. However, it did not require an organized approach. The

answers were read multiple times to gather a perception of the teachers’ opinions. The results

are all presented in the results section with quotes and comparisons of the teachers’ opinions and experiences of using puns and discussing polysemy.

3.2.5 Ethical aspects

This study acts in accordance with the Swedish Research Council (2002). They have provided four ethical considerations for research. Translated into English, the requirements listed by the Swedish Research Council for conducting an ethical approach to the research are the requirements for information, consent, confidentiality and utilization. Before the students were given access to the test and the questionnaire, they were given information about the study and what was to be investigated. They were also informed about the confidentiality of the study and that their answers could not be associated with their personal identity. The respondents were informed about the utilization of their given answers, and that they would only be used for research purposes. Lastly, the respondents were informed that the test and questionnaire were voluntary to participate in and that respondents could end their

participation at any given time. The consent to participate was given by agreeing with the information.

4. Results and discussion

In the following subsections, the results from the test, the students’ questionnaire, and the

teachers’ questionnaire will be presented, discussed and compared to the previous research

offered in the theoretical background. The results from the test will be given in subsection

4.1. In subsection 4.2, the results from the students’ questionnaire will be presented, and

lastly, in subsection 4.3, the teachers’ answers from the questionnaire will be shown.

4.1 Results from the test

Statistical information

Mean 21.4

Median 25

Std. Deviation 9.4

Mode 30

Minimum 0

Maximum 30

Table 3. The students’ results (L1 Swedish speakers)

As can be seen from Table 3, the mean score

of the students’ results is fairly high (21.4 correct answers out of 30 possible). However, the results display a vast spread among the test scores, which can be seen from the high standard deviation

(9.4). Most participants received a higher test score than the mean score (68%), but 18% of the respondents received less than 10 points. When viewing the frequency of the results (see Figure 1), it can be seen that the most frequent answer is 30 points and the median score is 25. However, the mean score is still only 21,4.

Figure 1. Frequency of the test results

1

The average score is calculated by adding all scores and dividing them by the total number of scores.

2

This is a measurement that displays how the values deviate from the mean score.

While the mean score is lower than both the mode

and the median

, it is still fairly high. In contrast, the participants in Karlsson’s (2013) study (discussed in subsection 2.2) only received a mean score of 13.2 out of 40 possible. The poor results in Karlsson (2013) could be attributed to the fact that the polysemous words in that test were completely

decontextualized. Also, the scoring system was stricter in Karlsson (2013), as points were deducted for indicating an erroneous answer. The scoring system in the present study was more lenient, and the students were allowed to guess from the context provided. Therefore, it is plausible that the context aided the participants. Thus, it is not surprising that the results seen in Karlsson as compared to the present study differ vastly. As discussed in subsection 2.4, providing words in context could supply learners with clues to the meanings sought for (Verspoor and Lowie, 2003, p. 559). Also, as He and Deng (2015, p. 43) mention, a word provided in context is more easily recognized than by providing a decontextualized word, since the sentence can provide the reader with clues to the meaning of the word.

To investigate whether the core sense of a word is more widely known to the students than the peripheral sense, the answers from the students who received two points on a question were analyzed (see Figure 2). Stemming from the theory of layering (Aitchison, 2012, pp.

174-175), which claims that multiple meanings that arise from a core sense can overlap, Crossley, Salsbury and McNamara (2010, p. 590) argue that it is important to first acquire the core sense to fully understand the polysemous word. As can be seen from Figure 2, when only one sense was provided by the students, the core sense was predominantly indicated. A plausible explanation to this is that only after the learners have acquired the core sense of a word do they acquire the more peripheral senses (Crossley, Salsbury and McNamara, 2010, p. 597). Therefore, it makes sense that the students who only scored two points indicated the core sense.

3

Mode refers to the most frequently occurring value.

4

Median refers to the value found in the middle when arranging all values in ascending order.

Figure 2. Sense indicated when only one meaning was awarded a point.

The only test item where students indicated the peripheral sense was the word stuffed with the pun ‘Why are Teddy bears never hungry? They are always stuffed’. However, this might be due to the students being able to guess the sense from the context provided, as Teddy bears are stuffed with cotton. Plausible explanations to why they could not indicate the core sense, which is stuffed as in ‘full after finishing a meal’, is that Teddy bears do not eat, or it might be due to careless errors. In addition, the reason why stuffed as in ‘full after finishing a meal’

is the core sense is because it is a broad definition which includes any type of container being filled completely, meaning that they may not be aware that stuffed means to be full.

Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the students seem to have acquired the words’ core senses before the peripheral senses. This result is positive since previous research have concluded that it is important for learners to first acquire the core sense for them to both understand the relationship between the meanings, and to permanently incorporate the senses into the learners’ mental lexicons (Verspoor and Lowie, 2003; Crossley, Salsbury,

McNamara, 2010). Since the present study attempts to investigate if students can learn new senses through the use of puns, this result is valuable for answering the second research question.

Furthermore, by sorting the results according to grade, it can be seen that there is an

observable increase of knowledge from the first to the third year, since the mean, median, and

mode increase from year one to year three (see Tables 4, 5 and 6) The results between the

three grades in upper secondary school are similar to the results in Odefalk’s study (discussed

in subsection 2.2), where the results showed a difference in the knowledge of polysemous

words depending on the students’ level of English. In Odefalk (2004), the participants studied at three different levels of English (A-level, B-level, and university level) and the same increase in knowledge was seen from the A-level to university level. In addition, it can be seen from Tables 4, 5 and 6, that the standard deviation in the present study decreases from the first grade (10.4) to the third grade (2.4), which displays that the second and third-year students’ level of knowledge is more evenly distributed. Thus, the standard deviation confirms the difference in knowledge among the three grades. Yet, the results from the present study cannot be statistically confirmed, since the sample sizes of the second and third grade students are limited (13 second year respondents and 6 third year respondents versus 31 first-year respondents).

Table 4. Statistical information (1st yr students) Table 5. Statistical information (2nd yr students) Table 6. Statistical information (3rd yr students)

However, the large standard deviation and proportionately lower score in the first grade is due to the fact that vocational students participated, which was not the case for year two and three. In addition, one reason for the high standard deviation among first-year students is the low minimum score (0), which was the score two respondents achieved (see Figure 1). These scores can alone alter the mean score and standard deviation significantly. The results from the first-year students will be discussed further below.

Since the second and third grade do not have any vocational respondents, it is necessary to

compare Tables 5 and 6 to Table 7 (which excludes the vocational students), as opposed to

Table 4, to determine whether grade is significant for the students’ knowledge of polysemous

words. When utilizing Table 7 for comparison, there is still a noticeable increase from the

first to the third grade (mean score 25.1 versus 28.8) however, it is not as disproportionate as

when comparing the results from table 4.

Table 7. Statistical information (university prep. 1st year) Table 8. Statistical information (vocational 1st year)

It can be seen from the results (see Tables 7 and 8) that the students with the greatest

understanding for polysemous words are students reading a university preparatory program.

(To compare these results, the second- and third-year students have been excluded from the analysis, since the vocational students all studied their first year of upper secondary school.) The results also show a vast difference between the mean scores of the first-year students reading a university preparatory program (25.9) versus the students reading a vocational program (10.0). Furthermore, both programs have a low minimum and a high maximum score, meaning that both programs have students that understand the puns well, and students who struggled with understanding. However, the mode displays that students reading a university preparatory program generally have a greater understanding for the multiple meanings of polysemous words, while the vocational students struggled immensely.

Thus, while the students’ knowledge increases slightly over time, the discrepancy in knowledge depending on the program the students attend is vast. Therefore, it can be concluded that both grade and program do indeed have an impact on the extent to which the students understand polysemous words, but the greatest impact is due to the type of program the student is attending.

Since the results display that it is the type of program the students are attending that has the greatest impact on the students’ knowledge of polysemous words, rather than grade, it is interesting to compare the results for each word in the test. Figure 3 shows how many percent of the maximum score for each question that the students from each type of program have scored in total. Since the number of respondents differ between the students reading a

university preparatory program and the students reading a vocational program, the results are

displayed in percentages, as opposed to points.

Figure 3. Percent of total sum scored (1st year students attending university preparatory vs. vocational).

It can be seen that the results for each question differ vastly between the two types of programs, and the students in the preparatory program exceed the students in the vocational program in every question. However, it can also be noted that regardless of the program the students are attending, most of them struggled with question 4 ‘I used to be a banker, but I lost interest’, where interest was the word sought for. Further, for some reason, the vocational program struggled immensely with the fifth test item ‘My ex-wife still misses me, but her aim is steadily improving’ with the polysemous word misses, where they scored a total of 7,1%

compared to the preparatory students who scored 70,6%. One possible explanation for this difference could be that the pun contains two polysemous words. Instead of searching for contextualized clues to understand the ambiguous use of a word, which makes the pun humorous, they might have chosen a word they know has multiple meanings (aim) and translated it, with no regard for the concept of a pun. This explanation would further strengthen the notion that puns need to be taught, since they are language specific, and this also implies that in order to understand puns, learners need to be somewhat proficient to understand the play on meanings (Lems, 2013, p. 27).

Another interesting aspect seen in the results is that there is no correlation between the

words’ frequency and the results from the test. The total sum for all participants in the present study offers a maximum score of 150 points per question if all 50 respondents would receive three points. The test items were presented to the participants in order of decreasing

frequency (see Appendix 1), meaning that test item 1 (work) is the most frequent word

(occurring 813,104 times) and test item 10 (turned on) is the least frequently occurring (8,425

times). As shown in Figure 4, there is no significant difference in the results for each question, with the exception of question 4 (interest) and question 5 (misses).

By comparing test item 1 (work) which occurs 813,104 times in the Corpus, to test item 6 (clean), occurring 81,745 times, it can be seen that the difference in the total scores is

insignificant (130 points versus 125 points) (see Figure 4). Therefore, it can be concluded that the frequency of the word does not have a significant impact on the students’ knowledge of the words and their different senses, since work occurs almost ten times more frequently than clean in the Corpus. However, the frequency has been determined by searching for the word as a single lexical item, and thus, the frequency of the different senses might be significantly different from the frequency presented in Appendix 1.

Figure 4. Total sum per question

These results agree with the results presented in Karlsson (2013), where it was also seen that the frequency did not correlate with whether the senses were known or not. In contrast, Odefalk (2004) concluded that the frequency did in fact correlate with the test scores.

However, the greatest difference between the present study and both Karlsson (2013) and Odefalk (2004) is that they provided decontextualized words. Though, it is interesting to see that in Odefalk (2004), the test results correlated to the frequency of the test items.

When investigating questions individually, the poor results of question four stood out (see

Figure 5). Here, the pun ‘I used to be a banker, but I lost interest’, where the word sought for

is interest (see Appendix 2), was by far the most difficult word for the students to provide

both correct senses. While 46% of the respondents were able to indicate the correct word, 44% of the respondents provided one correct sense (an activity you enjoy doing). However, only 22% were able to provide both correct senses (an activity you enjoy doing and the extra money paid back when borrowing money). Even though the context gave clues for it being a financial word by including the word banker, many respondents were unable to indicate the correct word and provide any of the senses (54%). However, some participants answered that they thought that the word was related to economics, but they did not know the meaning.

These answers were not offered a point. Thus, a context can function as an aid for

understanding, but only if the student is familiar with the context provided. In this case, it seems that most students were not familiar with the economical concept of interest and were therefore not assisted by the contextualized clue.

Figure 5. Results for question 4

Another question that stood out in particular was the fifth question with the pun ’My ex-wife

still misses me, but her aim is steadily improving’ (see Appendix 2), where the respondents

either received 3 or 0 points on the question (see Figure 6). Interestingly, a vast number of

respondents indicated the word aim instead of the word sought for, which was misses. As

previously stated, the vocational students struggled with this question, but some of the

students from the university preparatory program also had difficulties with this pun.

Figure 6. Results for question 5

A possible explanation for the 52% receiving 0 points is that aim also is a polysemous word.

Additionally, the punchline usually occurs at the end of a joke, which was also the case for the rest of the puns in this study. However, the play on words in question 5 is not on the word aim, but on the two senses of the word misses as in ‘longing for someone’ and ‘to miss a target’. This might explain why the students thought that the polysemous word aim was the correct answer even though it is not the word making the pun humorous. Possible

explanations for the vast number of respondents indicating the word aim is either that they did not understand the joke, but knew that aim has multiple meanings, or that they have discovered a pattern of how a pun is usually structured. The respondents indicating aim as the polysemous word provided the senses ‘hoping to achieve something’ (mål) and ‘the ability to hit what they are aiming at’ (sikte). The reason why aim does not work is because the clause

‘but her aim is steadily improving’ acts as an explanation for his ex-wife missing him (as a

target), but since her aim is improving, she will soon hit him. Also, the sense of aim ‘hoping

to achieve something’ has no relation to the sense of missing ‘longing for someone’, and the

pun fails to work.

4.2 Results from the students’ digital questionnaire and their relations to the results from the test

In the following subsections, the results from the students’ digital questionnaire will be presented. Subsection 4.2.1 will deal with the first question concerning the students’ attitudes towards using puns in education. In subsection 4.2.2, the second question, which asked the students about the advantages of using puns, will be offered, and in subsection 4.2.3, the disadvantages will be presented. The fourth question regarding motivation will be offered in subsection 4.2.4. Lastly, the fifth question, which simply asked the students if there was anything else they wanted to add, will be presented in subsection 4.2.5. All quotes given in the results section are free translations to capture the gist of what the student is trying to convey.

4.2.1 Students’ opinions on using puns in education

The first question in the questionnaire ‘What do you think about using puns in education?’

was divided into eight categories due to the vast spread among the answers. The covered categories are: general positive attitude, humorous and entertaining, vocabulary learning, variation in the classroom, retention, could be too much, neutral attitude, and uncertain (see Appendix 4).

What can be seen from the results from question 1 is that most students expressed a positive attitude towards using puns in education, where five of the eight categories express such an attitude in some way. The category with the most answers is humorous and entertaining.

Most of the 18 answers in this category simply pointed out that using puns would be

enjoyable, whereas more elaborate responses stated, for example, “it makes the lesson more

amusing and can interest more people if you are allowed to have some fun” and, “I think it

sounds like a fun idea since it breaks the convention of just having it read out loud”. Since

these respondents expressed that it makes the learning process more enjoyable, it can be

concluded that using puns can increase students’ motivation. This is supported by Al-Duleimi

and Aziz (2016, p. 107) who claim that humor creates an easy-going atmosphere and helps

students achieve higher motivation and increased self-confidence. Furthermore, Lems (2013, p. 26) states that humor can lower the affective filter, which can otherwise block necessary input for language acquisition.

Since many students expressed that it was entertaining, it would seem that using puns to learn words’ senses can be beneficial for both input and retention. It can also improve the students’

motivation, since when students find classroom activities enjoyable, their intrinsic motivation can increase (Richards, 2015, p. 74). Thus, using puns is not only suitable for vocabulary acquisition, but also for creating a positive learning environment. This is also strengthened by the eight students who claimed that using puns creates a varied environment in the classroom.

One respondent explicitly stated that “I think it can be a fun way to learn. Maybe the students who do not always enjoy the lesson will find it more amusing?”. Another student expressed that “it is instructive. It can also be entertaining to do something different like this

sometimes”.

Instead of noting the humorous value, eight respondents instead highlighted the educational value of vocabulary learning. One student stated that “it can be fun to try to figure out what the word can mean and to see that a word can have multiple meanings”. The students in this category did not only find the puns entertaining, but they also thought the process of learning a word’s senses was amusing, and they commented on the importance of improving their vocabulary. One student expressed this as “a good way to develop a larger vocabulary”.

Another student specifically noted the value of retention through using humor, “It makes it more entertaining and easier to remember”. One plausible explanation for puns making words easier to remember is the hypothesis claiming that retention increases when more cognitive energy is used to think about a word (Schmitt and McCarthy, 2002 (in He and Deng, 2015, p.

43)). This increase in cognitive energy occurs since the students are required to process the

meaning of the word the pun revolves around twice (Lems 2013, p. 27). In addition, puns can

be used as a tool to help students understand the relation of meaning between the different

senses of a polysemous word, which is important in order for students to permanently

incorporate the senses into their mental lexicons (Verspoor and Lowie, 2003, p. 551). An

example of this is how the word clean in the pun ‘I used to be addicted to soap, but I’m clean

now’ can refer to a person not being dirty, as well as a sober person. The implication being

that a sober person no longer uses “dirty” substances and has cleaned themselves up.

However, not all respondents found the usage of puns positive. Four students had a neutral opinion and two students expressed a reserved attitude and argued that while it might be entertaining, it could also be interpreted as a teacher “trying too hard”. As the respondents stated, “a little bit corny, but if the student gets it, it is good” and, “it could be fun, but some students might think that the teacher is trying too hard”. This might be true depending on the teacher, as Al-Duleimi and Aziz (2016, p. 111) concluded when interviewing teachers where some felt uncomfortable using humor and expressed a fear of losing respect. Therefore, it is important that both students and teachers are comfortable using this type of approach, and that the approach is organized. Otherwise, the learning environment can be harmed instead of strengthened.

4.2.2 The advantages of using puns in education

The second question ‘What possible advantages are there for using puns in education?’ was also divided into eight categories: context, motivation, retention, vocabulary learning, social skills, variation in the classroom, no advantages and uncertain (see Appendix 5).

Question two asked the participants to express what they thought were the advantages of using puns in education. It can be seen from the answers that the greatest advantage of using puns is connected to vocabulary learning, which 26 respondents stated. Since the explicit learning goal for using puns is to learn new senses of a word, it is not surprising to see that most students saw this as an advantage. Many respondents stated that “you learn more meanings of words” and, “it is probably effective for expanding your vocabulary”. One student also indicated that “it is a favorable approach since it brings new perspectives to the same word but with different meanings, and how much this can affect a conversation

depending on the word you use”. Not only is this quote connected to vocabulary learning, but it is also related to using English in an authentic conversation. Two other students also

commented on how puns can be used to improve one's social skills. One of these students claimed that “the puns can be used later in life to establish new friendships if you are in an English-speaking country”, whereas the other student commented that knowing puns “can give the student better social skills”. Lems (2013, p. 26) also expressed the value of

understanding puns when interacting in a social setting, and that if L2 learners of English do

not understand a joke, they can easily feel like an outsider.