Humorous language play in teaching computational engineers.
Popescu, Carmen ; Smoleanu, Oana
1. INTRODUCTION
The present paper deals with the process of language comprehension,
i.e. interpreting meaning from texts, in particular from humorous texts.
The main assumption is that while humour can be successfully
incorporated in the language learning process at all levels, the study
of its mechanisms and its impact on computational linguistics can offer
a broader understanding of the production or processing of texts for
computational engineers, as well as for engineers in general.
Since the early 1990's, there has been a growing interest in
the computer generation of humorous texts and small humour-generation
programmes have been implemented: the LIBJOG system (Raskin &
Attardo, 1994), The Tom Swifty generator (Lessard & Levinson, 1992),
the JAPE riddle generator (Binsted & Ritchie, 1994), the HCPP generator (Lessard et al., 2002), The WisCraic pun generator (Mc Kay,
2002), and the HAHA acronym manipulator (Stock & Strapparava, 2002;
Attardo & Mele 2002). Ritchie (2004) also mentions the possibility
of creating a joke-understander--'a programme which takes as input
a possible joke and gives as output a rating (...) of its
funniness'.
This area of interpretation seems interesting in the light of
schema theory applied to discourse processing, which can further lead to
discourse generation. Humour research enumerates 'script-based
theories' as one of its important directions.
2. THE FRAMEWORK OF SCHEMA THEORY
Schema theory has its origins in the Gestalt psychology of the
1920's and 1930's. Its basic claim is that 'a new
experience is understood by comparison with a stereotypical version of a
similar experience held in memory. The new experience is then processed
in terms of its deviation from the stereotypical version, or in
conformity to it'. (Cook, 1994) The theory can be applied not only
to sensory data processing but also to the processing of language.
Artificial Intelligence work on text understanding was drawn on by
discourse analysis and reading theory and it provided an insight into
the way in which knowledge schemata (i.e. mental representations of
typical situations, entities, events) are used (i.e. activated) by
readers to predict and make sense of the text by drawing inferences. The
construct of schema, the basic unit of prior knowledge, is described by
Bartlett as'an active organisation of past reactions, or past
experiences, which must always be supposed to be operating in
well-adapted organic response'. A series of authors, (Semino, 1997;
Rumelhart, 1980) consider schemata as playing an active role in all
information processing, as basic elements that determine the
organization of actions, goals, subgoals, resources, and guide 'the
flow of the processing system' (Rumelhart, 1980, quoted in Semino,
1997). Each schema contains several variables, i.e. different
realizations of the environment in different applications of the schema
and constraints that apply to the variables, i.e. specifications about
the entities (persons, objects, situations, events, sequences of events,
sequences of actions) that are typically activated by the schema and
guide the comprehender's search. For instance, in a text such as
the following:
"One of Mr. Smith's neighbours approached one Sunday
afternoon and asked: 'I wonder if you are using your grassmower
this afternoon.' 'Yes, I am,' Mr. Smith replied coldly.
Then the neighbourhood borrower replied: 'Do you think I could use
it when you have finished?'"--the schema for BORROWING is
activated. We identify four main variables--a borrower, a lender, the
use of some object and the method of getting the use of the object
needed. In point of constraints, the borrower and the lender will share
the feature [+human]. This constraint will change if the students are
aware that they are reading a fable, for example, accepting the
conventions of this genre in which grasshoppers and ants can talk. Thus
the constraint will be altered to [+/-human]. The fact that the lender
may or may not be in the possession of the particular object that the
borrower needs to use can be taken as the constraint of the variable
'lender' (i.e. +/-possess).
An important function that the variable constraints have is to
'provide default values, (i.e. elements of the schema taken as
known or assumed and therefore redundant in communication) for variables
that are not specified by a particular input' (Rumelhart &
Ortony, 1977; Rumelhart, 1980 quoted in Semino, 1997). These default
elements are filled in by the readers according to their expectations
about the default elements of the schemata. Semino argues that different
default expectations will lead to different interpretations. In the
example of the BORROWING schema discussed above, the fact that the
borrower needs the use of the object he asks for is a shared expectation
about one of its default elements. This will lead to the interpretation
of the text as a request-refusal-insistence sequence. If this
expectation is not shared by some comprehenders, for some reason which
can be traced back to their prior knowledge (for example a reader with a
suspicious mind), a certain deviation of the schema can occur and
different inferences will be drawn. For instance, that the borrower asks
for an object that he does not need and therefore he is a liar. In its
turn, this will trigger a different interpretation of the relationship
between the lender and the borrower and will throw a different light
upon their personalities, their goals and upon the predicted future
course of events. Moreover, it will affect the expectations about
another variable mentioned, i.e. the method of getting the object. Such
a method will no longer qualify as belonging to the bonafide (serious)
mode of communication, i.e. 'polite demand', but on the
contrary to the non-bona fide communication mode, typical of lying,
playing and joke telling (Attardo, 1994). This may lead to a change in
the initial schema, so as to adjust it to the new interpretation. In
this way the situation can be accounted for, in other words can be
comprehended.
Therefore, this whole process of assigning a different default
value to some constraint variables in the text mentioned above can also
occur, so to say, in retrospect, and therefore can be looked at as a
two-way process. That is to say, a modification in a default value can
affect the schema just as the activation of an alternative schema can
lead to the reinterpretation of one of the default values. When the
comprehender identifies his/her false expectation as the source of the
schema change, they will know they will have to reprocess the entire
text.
3. APPLICATION
An interesting multiple choice exercise can be used in the language
class in order to highlight the alterations of variables and scripts in
the processing of texts:
The neighbourhood borrower approached Mr. Smith one Sunday
afternoon and asked: "I wonder if you are using your grassmower
this afternoon?" "Yes, I am," Mr. Smith replied coldly.
Then the neighbourhood borrower replied:
1. "Great! Then you won't be needing your gulf clubs.
I'll just borrow them."
2. "Do you think I could use it when you have finished?"
3. "You know the grass is greener on the other side."
The selection by the students of answer 1, the correct punchline,
proves that the reader got the joke; after forming some expectations,
s/he chose the surprise element present in this option, reinterpreted
the beginning and 'reconciled ' with it.
The selection of answer 2, a straightforward ending, shows that the
reader did not take the text to be a joke, rejected the incongruous
element and therefore no 'reconciliation' was necessary. This
reader looks for an interpretation that can 'save' the text
and make it relevant, true and coherent.
The selection of answer 3, a nonsensical ending (a proverb that may
be misleading because of its contained reference to the grass, already
mentioned in the text) indicated that the reader went for the surprise
element. This may be due to an intuition of the text being a joke,
without actually understanding it as such.
This type of exercise can serve as the starting point for
presenting and discussing script based theories and their role in
artificial intelligence work on the interpretation of texts.
4. CONCLUSION
The presentation of schema theory, accompanied by language practice
based on humorous texts such as the ones discussed above could have a
double benefit for the language education of engineers: firstly, they
could improve their foreign language skills in a more interesting and
relaxed teaching context, as some humour studies claim. Reading
comprehension is the skill that would benefit most from the
incorporation of jokes in the language classroom. Secondly, students
could familiarize themselves with incongruities, double meanings,
revisions of expectations, and multiplicity of viewpoints, that the
interpretation of humorous texts require. Importantly, they could be
guided into understanding the relevance of these instances of language
play to applications in computational linguistics, which could result in
the development of programmes to be used in language education and not
only.
As mentioned above, several applications of a computational model
of humour are suggested in the literature, e.g.: a machine assisted joke
generator or a humour understander that could be successfully used in
language education (Mc Kay 2002, O'Mara et al., 2002). Another
possible use of a computational model of humour is to make a computer
system more friendly and pleasant by the use of humour generation in a
user-interface, in the form of humorous remarks from the system which
could ease interaction with humans by relaxing the user/learner
(Binsted, 1994) stressed by "temperamental" computers. That is
why we argue that computational engineers and other professionals in the
field might be interested in this rather new area, that joins computers,
humorous language play and language education. Cognitive psychology and
(computational) linguistics are the disciplines that can offer valuable
background information to be used in the development of such programmes.
Humour in this context can be regarded as a motivational incentive and
can create a link between the transactional and the interpersonal use of
language.
In the end, we have to admit that the strategy proposed needs to be
developed and improved and further evidence needs to be obtained about
the beneficial effect of humour in the language education of
computational engineers.
5. REFERENCES
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humour. No. 1 in Humour
Research, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, ISBN 3110142554
Attardo, S. & Mele, F. (2002). HAHAcronym evaluation and
application opportunities, deliverable D2, HAHAcronym: Humorous Agent
for Humorous Acronyms, IST Programme, Future and Emerging Technologies,
European Commission
Binsted, K. & Ritchie, G. (1994). An implemented model of
punning riddles, in Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on
Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), Seattle; Cook, G. (1994). Discourse
and Literature, Oxford, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-437185-9
Lessard, G. & Levinson, M. (1992). Computational modeling of
linguistic humour: Tom Swifties, in ALLC/ACH Joint Annual Conference,
Oxford
Lessard, et al. (2002). Proceedings of the April's Fools'
day Workshop on Computational Humour, No. 20 in Twente Workshops of
Language Technology, Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente
Mc Kay, J. (2002). Generation of idiom-based witticisms to aid
second language learning. Master's thesis, Division of Informatics,
University of Edinburgh, Scotland
O'Mara, D. A. et al. (2002). Linguistic-humour and the
development of language skills in AAC, in Proceedings of 10th Biennial
Conference of the International society for Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, Odense, Denmark
Raskin, V. & Attardo, S. (1994). Non-literalness and
non-bonafide in language: approaches to formal and computational
treatments of humour, Pragmatics and Cognition, 2(1):3169
Ritchie, G. (2003). The JAPE riddle generator: technical
specification. Informatics research report EDI-INF-RR0158, School of
Informatics, University of Edinburgh
Ritchie, G (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes, Routledge,
London and New York, ISBN 0-415-30983-2
Rumelhart, D.E. 1980. 'Schemata: the building blocks of
language'. In R.J. Spiro, B. Bruce and W. Brewer (eds.).
Theoretical issues on rendering comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
pp 33-35
Semino, E. (1997). Language and World Creation in Poems and other
Texts. Harlow: Longman, ISBN 0582 303540
Stock, O. & Strapparava, C. (2002). Humorous agent for humorous
acronyms: the HAHAcronym project, in Proceedings of the April's
Fools' day Workshop on Computational Humour No. 20 in Twente
Workshops of Language Technology, Enschede, Netherlands: University of
Twente