E-J031-047_Bell_Pomerantz


EuroAmerican	
  Journal	
  of	
  Applied	
  Linguistics	
  and	
  Languages	
  
E-JournALL	
  Volume	
  1,	
  Issue	
  1,	
  November	
  2014,	
  pages	
  31-47	
  
ISSN	
  2376-905X	
  	
  
DOI	
  http://dx.doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.1.15
www.e-journall.org	
  	
  

Copyright	
  ©	
  2014.	
  This	
  work	
  is	
  licensed	
  under	
  the	
  Creative	
  Commons	
  Attribution-­‐NonCommercial-­‐NoDerivs	
  3.0	
  Unported	
  License. 31 
1Contact:	
  nbell@wsu.edu	
  

Reconsidering	
  language	
  teaching	
  through	
  a	
  focus	
  on	
  humor	
  

NANCY	
  BELL1,a,	
  ANNE	
  POMERANTZb	
  
aWashington	
  State	
  University	
  
bUniversity	
  of	
  Pennsylvania	
  

Received	
  9	
  March	
  2014;	
  received	
  in	
  revised	
  form	
  6	
  August	
  2014;	
  accepted	
  14	
  August	
  2014	
  

ABSTRACT 
EN Formal language education is often predicated on a series of modernist fictions that greatly simplify the nature of language and

the process of communication. Acts of linguistic creativity involving humor and language play are frequently either ignored or 
considered deviant. In this paper, we contribute to ongoing efforts to re-conceptualize language education in ways that make 
use of more robust (and less modernist) theories of language and communication. We revisit calls for more pedagogical focus 
on humor and language play and illustrate how more attention to these types of language might help us to move away from 
some of the classroom fictions that currently constrain teachers and learners alike. Specifically, we present recent conceptions 
of language and of communication, and discuss how, in light of these, humor and language play can be used to increase 
learners’ metalinguistic awareness and expand their communicative/interpretive repertoires.  

Keywords: 	
  HUMOR, LANGUAGE PLAY, SECOND LANGUAGE PEDAGOGY.

ES La enseñanza de idiomas formal a menudo se basa en una serie de ficciones modernistas que simplifican enormemente la
naturaleza del lenguaje y el proceso de comunicación. Los actos de creatividad lingüística que implican humor y juego 
lingüístico son frecuentemente ignorados o considerados desviados. En este trabajo ofrecemos una contribución a los 
esfuerzos en marcha para reconceptualizar la enseñanza de idiomas de manera que utilice teorías más sólidas (y menos 
modernistas) del lenguaje y la comunicación. Reivindicamos la necesidad de un enfoque más pedagógico en el humor y el 
juego lingüístico y mostramos cómo una mayor atención hacia estos tipos de lenguaje nos podría ayudar a alejarnos de 
algunas de las ficciones del aula que actualmente limitan tanto a los profesores como a los alumnos. En concreto, presentamos 
recientes concepciones del lenguaje y de la comunicación y analizamos cómo, a la luz de dichas concepciones, el humor y los 
juegos del lenguaje se pueden utilizar para aumentar la conciencia metalingüística de los alumnos y ampliar sus repertorios 
comunicativos/interpretativos. 

Palabras clave: HUMOR, JUEGOS LINGÜÍSTICOS, PEDAGOGÍA DE SEGUNDAS LENGUAS.

IT L’insegnamento formale delle lingue è spesso basato su una serie di convenzioni moderniste che semplificano notevolmente la
natura del linguaggio e del processo di comunicazione. Gli atti della creatività linguistica che coinvolgono l’umorismo o i giochi 
linguistici sono spesso ignorati o considerati fuorvianti. Con questo articolo vogliamo contribuire agli sforzi che si stanno 
compiendo per riconcettualizzare l’insegnamento delle lingue basandosi su teorie del linguaggio e della comunicazione più 
solide (e meno moderniste). Facendo nostre le richieste di un maggiore interesse pedagogico per l’umorismo e i giochi 
linguistici, mostriamo come una maggiore attenzione a queste forme del linguaggio possa aiutarci a discostarci da certe 
convenzioni che in classe ostacolano sia gli insegnanti sia gli alunni. In particolare, presentiamo alcune recenti concezioni del 
linguaggio e della comunicazione e discutiamo di come, alla luce di queste concezioni, l’umorismo e i giochi linguistici possano 
essere utilizzati per aumentare la consapevolezza metalinguistica degli alunni e incrementarne il repertorio 
comunicativo/interpretativo. 

Parole chiave: UMORISMO, GIOCHI LINGUISTICI, PEDAGOGIA DELLE LINGUE SECONDE.



BELL	
  &	
  POMERANZ	
  
	
  
 

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47 32 

Today,	
  the	
  modern	
  and	
  the	
  late	
  modern	
  worlds	
  coexist	
  with	
  increasing	
  
unease.	
  Modernity,	
  a	
  product	
  of	
  the	
  18th-­‐century	
  Enlightenment,	
  is	
  

characterized	
  by	
  all	
  the	
  features	
  that	
  FL	
  teachers	
  take	
  for	
  granted:	
  the	
  
existence	
  of	
  nation-­‐states,	
  each	
  with	
  their	
  national	
  language	
  and	
  their	
  
national	
  culture;	
  the	
  existence	
  of	
  standardized	
  languages	
  with	
  their	
  
stable	
  grammars	
  and	
  dictionaries	
  that	
  ensure	
  the	
  good	
  usage	
  of	
  the	
  
language	
  by	
  well-­‐educated	
  citizens	
  that	
  FL	
  learners	
  are	
  expected	
  to	
  
emulate;	
  the	
  superiority	
  of	
  national	
  languages	
  over	
  regional	
  dialects	
  

and	
  patois;	
  the	
  clear	
  boundaries	
  between	
  native	
  and	
  foreign	
  languages	
  
and	
  among	
  foreign	
  languages	
  so	
  that	
  one	
  can	
  clearly	
  know	
  whether	
  

someone	
  is	
  speaking	
  French,	
  German,	
  or	
  Chinese,	
  standard	
  Spanish	
  or	
  
regional	
  Spanish;	
  the	
  codified	
  norms	
  of	
  correct	
  language	
  usage	
  and	
  

proper	
  language	
  use	
  that	
  language	
  learners	
  have	
  to	
  abide	
  by	
  for	
  fear	
  of	
  
not	
  being	
  understood	
  or	
  not	
  being	
  accepted	
  by	
  native	
  speakers.	
  The	
  

language	
  teaching	
  profession	
  in	
  this	
  sense	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  highly	
  modernist	
  
profession.	
  (Kramsch,	
  2014,	
  p.297)	
  

	
  
1.	
  Introduction:	
  Language	
  teaching	
  as	
  fiction	
  

Formal	
  language	
  education	
  is	
  often	
  predicated	
  on	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  modernist	
  fictions	
  about	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  
language	
   and	
   the	
   process	
   of	
   communication.	
   These	
   fictions	
   are	
   not	
   lies	
   intended	
   to	
   deceive	
   unsuspecting	
  
students,	
  but	
  rather	
  a	
  loose	
  set	
  of	
  tacitly	
  agreed	
  upon	
  suppositions	
  that	
  make	
  classroom	
  language	
  learning	
  a	
  
more	
   concrete,	
   rewarding,	
   and	
  manageable	
  activity	
   for	
   all	
  participants.	
  We	
  might	
   think	
  of	
   these	
   fictions	
  as	
  
fabrications	
  rather	
  than	
  falsehoods,	
  as	
  teachers	
  and	
  learners	
  alike	
  are	
  often	
  well	
  aware	
  of	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  what	
  
we	
  call	
  “language”	
  in	
  the	
  classroom,	
  looks,	
  feels,	
  and	
  behaves	
  a	
  lot	
  differently	
  in	
  the	
  wild.	
  

For	
  example,	
  in	
  classroom	
  settings	
  the	
  language	
  of	
  instruction	
  is	
  often	
  presented	
  and	
  oriented	
  to	
  as	
  if	
  
it	
  consisted	
  merely	
  of	
  a	
  finite	
  set	
  of	
  linguistic	
  forms	
  to	
  learn,	
  accompanied	
  by	
  an	
  agreed	
  upon	
  set	
  of	
  rules	
  to	
  
abide	
   by	
   for	
   using	
   particular	
   bits	
   of	
   language	
   in	
   particular	
   contexts.	
   Utterances	
   are	
   deemed	
   right	
   or	
  
appropriate	
  depending	
  on	
  how	
  well	
  they	
  conform	
  to	
  an	
  idealized	
  version	
  of	
  how	
  the	
  focal	
  language	
  is	
  used	
  by	
  
an	
   imagined,	
   homogeneous	
   group	
   of	
   idealized	
   native	
   speakers	
   outside	
   the	
   classroom.	
   Acts	
   of	
   linguistic	
  
creativity,	
  and	
  in	
  particular	
  those	
  that	
  play	
  with	
  form,	
  are	
  either	
  ignored	
  or	
  considered	
  deviant,	
  thus	
  creating	
  
the	
  sense	
  that	
  language	
  is	
  a	
  closed	
  system	
  not	
  subject	
  to	
  its	
  users.	
  

It’s	
  not	
   just	
   language,	
  however,	
   that	
   is	
  party	
   to	
   this	
   fictionalization	
  process;	
   communication,	
   too,	
   is	
  
frequently	
   reduced	
   to	
   a	
   transmission	
  model	
   in	
  which	
  messages	
   are	
   transferred	
   between	
  people	
  with	
   little	
  
regard	
  for	
  the	
  interpretive	
  and	
  interpersonal	
  work	
  that	
  goes	
  on	
  in	
  interaction.	
  As	
  Guy	
  Cook	
  (2000)	
  has	
  noted,	
  
a	
  transactional	
  view	
  of	
  communication	
  has	
  come	
  to	
  dominate	
  in	
  language	
  classrooms,	
  with	
  the	
  idea	
  that	
  the	
  
most	
   important	
   (or	
   perhaps	
   even	
   sole)	
   aspect	
   of	
   interaction	
   is	
   the	
   transfer	
   of	
   utilitarian	
   information	
   from	
  
point	
  A	
  to	
  point	
  B.	
  Indeed,	
  aside	
  from	
  the	
  framing	
  of	
  particular	
  instances	
  of	
  register	
  variation	
  as	
  marked	
  (e.g.,	
  
tu	
  v.	
  vous	
  in	
  French	
  or	
  lexical	
  choice	
  in	
  academic	
  v.	
  non-­‐academic	
  contexts),	
  there	
  is	
  often	
  little	
  attention	
  paid	
  
in	
  language	
  education	
  to	
  the	
  vast	
  array	
  of	
  social	
  meanings	
  that	
  are	
  constructed	
  within	
  and	
  through	
  every	
  act	
  
of	
  language	
  use,	
  as	
  people	
  negotiate	
  their	
  actions,	
  identities,	
  and	
  stances.	
  	
  

Academic	
   publications	
   are	
   rife	
   with	
   critiques	
   of	
   these	
   and	
   other	
   language	
   classroom	
   fictions,	
   and	
  
professional	
  conference	
  proceedings,	
   teacher	
  education	
  programs,	
  and	
  on-­‐line	
  discussion	
  groups	
  have	
  been	
  
equally	
  passionate	
  in	
  calling	
  for	
  new	
  approaches	
  to	
  language	
  and	
  communication	
  in	
  the	
  classroom.	
  Thus,	
  our	
  
purpose	
  here	
   is	
   not	
   to	
   add	
   to	
   the	
   choir.	
  Rather,	
  we	
   are	
   interested	
   in	
   contributing	
   to	
   ongoing	
   efforts	
   to	
   re-­‐
conceptualize	
   language	
   education	
   in	
   ways	
   that	
   make	
   use	
   of	
   less	
   modernist	
   theories	
   of	
   language	
   and	
  
communication	
   (e.g.,	
  Block	
  &	
  Cameron,	
  2002;	
  Cook,	
  2000;	
  Díaz,	
  2013;	
  Kramsch,	
  2014;	
  Liddicoat	
  &	
  Scarino,	
  
2013;	
  Magnan,	
  Murphy,	
  &	
  Sahakyan,	
  2014).	
  In	
  particular,	
  we	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  frequent,	
  but	
  underexplored	
  calls	
  in	
  
such	
  work	
  for	
  a	
  broader	
  acceptance	
  of	
  humor	
  and	
  other	
  forms	
  of	
  playful	
  talk.	
  	
  	
  

Kramsch	
   (2008),	
   for	
   instance,	
   suggests	
   that	
   teachers	
   address	
   “accuracy	
   and	
   communicative	
  
effectiveness,	
   but	
   leave	
   room	
   for	
   and,	
   indeed,	
   encourage	
   stylistic	
   variation,	
   irony,	
   humor,	
   subversion”	
   (p.	
  
404).	
  In	
  this	
  paper,	
  we	
  too	
  recognize	
  the	
  importance	
  and	
  ubiquity	
  of	
  non-­‐serious	
  talk	
  in	
  everyday	
  life	
  and	
  its	
  
many	
  functions	
  (cf.	
  Cook,	
  2000).	
  Humor	
  is	
  an	
  important	
  and	
  frequently	
  used	
  resource	
  for	
  interaction	
  and	
  is	
  
particularly	
  helpful	
   for	
  navigating	
   face-­‐threatening	
  situations	
  and	
  critiquing	
   inequitable	
   relations	
  of	
  power.	
  
Yet,	
   despite	
   Cazden’s	
   (1974)	
   call	
   to	
   incorporate	
   humor	
   and	
   language	
   play	
   into	
   language	
   pedagogy,	
  
instructional	
  goals—like	
  helping	
  learners	
  to	
  understand	
  the	
  contextualization	
  cues	
  that	
  can	
  signal	
  humor—



RECONSIDERING	
  LANGUAGE	
  TEACHING	
  THROUGH	
  HUMOR	
  
	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47	
    33 

have	
  been	
  seen	
  as	
  either	
  not	
  important	
  enough	
  or	
  too	
  idiosyncratic	
  to	
  be	
  deemed	
  worthy	
  of	
  instruction.	
  Here,	
  
we	
   revisit	
   these	
   and	
   other	
   calls	
   for	
   more	
   pedagogical	
   focus	
   on	
   humor	
   and	
   language	
   play,	
   which	
   we	
  
conceptualize	
  broadly	
  as	
  any	
  use	
  of	
  language	
  that	
  is	
  non-­‐serious,	
  and	
  illustrate	
  how	
  more	
  attention	
  to	
  these	
  
types	
  of	
   language	
  might	
  help	
  us	
  to	
  move	
  away	
  from	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  classroom	
  fictions	
  that	
  currently	
  constrain	
  
teachers	
  and	
   learners	
  alike.	
   Specifically,	
  we	
  present	
   recent	
   conceptions	
  of	
   language	
  and	
  of	
   communication,	
  
and	
  discuss	
  how,	
  in	
  light	
  of	
  these,	
  humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  can	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  increase	
  learners’	
  metalinguistic	
  
awareness	
   and	
   expand	
   their	
   communicative/interpretive	
   repertoires.	
   Throughout	
   our	
   discussion,	
   we	
  
consider	
  how	
  humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  might	
  be	
  incorporated	
  into	
  curricula	
  for	
  learners	
  at	
  different	
  levels	
  of	
  
proficiency	
  and	
  in	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  learning	
  contexts	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  achieve	
  these	
  goals.	
  	
  	
  

	
  
2.	
  What	
  is	
  Language?	
  

As	
  noted	
  above,	
   language	
   in	
  L2	
   classrooms	
   tends	
   to	
  be	
  presented	
  as	
   an	
   internally	
   coherent,	
   stable	
  
system.	
  In	
  recent	
  years,	
  however,	
  applied	
  linguists	
  have	
  become	
  progressively	
  more	
  critical	
  of	
  the	
  underlying	
  
theories	
   of	
   language	
   that	
   have	
   shaped	
   the	
   field	
   of	
   language	
   education.	
   Increasingly,	
   language	
   is	
   being	
  
recognized	
   as	
   a	
   socio-­‐cognitive	
   system	
   that	
   exists	
   in	
   a	
   dynamic	
   state,	
   continually	
   being	
   constructed	
   and	
  
changed	
  by	
  its	
  users.	
  As	
  Hopper	
  (1998)	
  describes	
  it,	
  “Grammar	
  is	
  …	
  simply	
  the	
  name	
  for	
  certain	
  categories	
  of	
  
observed	
  repetitions	
  in	
  discourse.	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  natural	
  fixed	
  structure	
  to	
  language”	
  (p.	
  156).	
  This	
  perspective	
  
not	
   only	
   emphasizes	
   linguistic	
   variability	
   and	
   change,	
   but	
   also	
   the	
   inherent	
   tension	
   between	
   stability	
   and	
  
instability	
   in	
   the	
   system.	
   Such	
   views	
   are	
   detailed	
   particularly	
   well	
   in	
   the	
   work	
   of	
   applied	
   linguists	
   using	
  
complexity	
   or	
   dynamic	
   systems	
   theory	
   (e.g.,	
   Jessner,	
   2012;	
   Larsen-­‐Freeman	
   &	
   Cameron,	
   2008;	
   van	
   Geert,	
  
2008;	
  Verspoor,	
  de	
  Bot,	
  &	
  Lowie,	
  2011)	
  and	
  ecological	
  perspectives	
  on	
  language	
  and	
  language	
  learning	
  (e.g.,	
  
Kramsch,	
  2002;	
  2008;	
  Leather	
  &	
  van	
  Dam,	
  2002;	
  van	
  Lier,	
  2004).	
  	
  

Diane	
  Larsen-­‐Freeman	
  (1997),	
   for	
  example,	
   introduced	
   the	
   idea	
  of	
   language	
  as	
  a	
  complex	
  dynamic	
  
system,	
  rather	
  than	
  one	
  that	
  is	
  unitary,	
  stable,	
  or	
  closed.	
  Since	
  that	
  time,	
  she	
  has	
  continued	
  to	
  articulate	
  this	
  
position	
  and	
  examine	
   its	
   implications	
  for	
  L2	
  teaching	
  and	
  learning	
  (e.g.,	
  Larsen-­‐Freeman	
  &	
  Cameron,	
  2008;	
  
Larsen-­‐Freeman,	
  2010,	
  2011).	
  From	
  this	
  perspective,	
   the	
  appearance	
  of	
  regularity	
  and	
  stability	
   in	
   language	
  
emerges	
  as	
  individuals	
  interacting	
  in	
  specific	
  contexts	
  draw	
  on	
  particular	
  linguistic	
  resources	
  to	
  accomplish	
  
specific	
  social	
  actions.	
  Some	
  forms	
  (lexical	
  items,	
  syntactic	
  patterns)	
  are	
  more	
  useful	
  than	
  others,	
  and	
  appear	
  
with	
  greater	
  frequency	
  and	
  across	
  a	
  wider	
  variety	
  of	
  situations,	
  giving	
  rise	
  to	
  the	
  perception	
  of	
  language	
  as	
  a	
  
pre-­‐existing	
  cognitive	
  entity	
  that	
  is	
  merely	
  used	
  socially,	
  rather	
  than	
  an	
  open	
  system	
  that	
  is	
  constructed	
  in	
  a	
  
flexible,	
  bottom-­‐up	
  manner	
   in	
   social	
   interaction	
   that	
   is	
   in	
  use.	
  Dynamism	
   is	
   inherent	
   to	
   the	
  system	
  and	
   the	
  
direction	
  of	
  change	
  is	
  unpredictable,	
   in	
  part	
  because	
  the	
  things	
  that	
  will	
   influence	
  it	
  are	
  also	
  unpredictable.	
  
These	
  assertions	
  require	
  us	
  to	
  take	
  an	
  integrated	
  view	
  of	
  language	
  and	
  context,	
  as	
  the	
  two	
  are	
  not	
  conceived	
  
of	
  as	
  separate	
  parts.	
  Rather,	
  they	
  exist	
  in	
  a	
  dialectical	
  relationship,	
  with	
  one	
  constituting	
  the	
  other.	
  

The	
  ecological	
  view	
  of	
  language,	
  of	
  which	
  Claire	
  Kramsch	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  strong	
  advocate	
  (e.g.,	
  Kramsch,	
  
2002,	
  2008,	
  2014),	
  further	
  foregrounded	
  the	
  interconnectedness	
  of	
  language’s	
  cognitive,	
  interactional,	
  social	
  
and	
  historical	
  dimensions,	
  eschewing	
  the	
  tendency	
  within	
  linguistics	
  and	
  language	
  education	
  to	
  see	
  language	
  
in	
   discrete,	
   static,	
   or	
   decontextualized	
  ways.	
   Consonant	
  with	
   this	
   integrated,	
   holistic	
   stance	
   is	
   a	
   particular	
  
emphasis	
   on	
   language	
   as	
   dialogic.	
   Briefly,	
   Bakhtin	
   (1981)	
   argued	
   that	
   “within	
   the	
   arena	
   of	
   almost	
   every	
  
utterance	
   [either	
   spoken	
  or	
  written]	
   an	
   intense	
   interaction	
   and	
   struggle	
   between	
  one’s	
   own	
  and	
   another’s	
  
word	
  is	
  being	
  waged,	
  a	
  process	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  oppose	
  or	
  dialogically	
  interanimate	
  each	
  other”	
  (p.	
  354).	
  That	
  
is,	
  Bakhtin	
  conceived	
  of	
  utterances	
  as	
  fundamentally	
  in	
  conversation	
  with	
  other	
  utterances.	
  He	
  wrote:	
  

The	
  living	
  utterance,	
  having	
  taken	
  meaning	
  and	
  shape	
  at	
  a	
  particular	
  historical	
  moment	
  in	
  a	
  
socially	
   specific	
   environment,	
   cannot	
   fail	
   to	
   brush	
   up	
   against	
   thousands	
   of	
   living	
   dialogic	
  
threads,	
  woven	
  by	
  socio-­‐ideological	
  consciousness	
  around	
  the	
  given	
  object	
  of	
  an	
  utterance,	
  it	
  
cannot	
  fail	
  to	
  become	
  an	
  active	
  participant	
  in	
  social	
  dialogue.	
  (p.	
  276)	
  

	
  
Ecological	
  approaches	
  to	
  language	
  build	
  on	
  this	
  perspective,	
  further	
  invoking	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  language	
  as	
  

embedded	
   in	
   multiple,	
   but	
   not	
   necessarily	
   equally	
   accessible,	
   layers	
   of	
   synchronically	
   and	
   diachronically	
  
organized	
  context.	
  Blommaert	
  (2010),	
  for	
  example,	
  underscored	
  this	
  point	
  in	
  saying	
  that	
  whereas	
  language-­‐
in-­‐use	
  or	
  discourse	
  “occurs	
  in	
  a	
  real-­‐time,	
  synchronic	
  event”	
  it	
  is	
  also	
  “simultaneously	
  encapsulated	
  in	
  several	
  
layers	
  of	
  historicity,	
  some	
  of	
  which	
  are	
  within	
  the	
  grasp	
  of	
  the	
  participants	
  while	
  others	
  remain	
  invisible	
  but	
  
are	
   nevertheless	
   present”	
   (p.	
   130).	
   He	
   refers	
   to	
   this	
   as	
   layered	
   simultaneity.	
   For	
   Blommaert	
   and	
   other	
  
language	
   ecologists,	
   then,	
   language	
   cannot	
   be	
   divorced	
   from	
   its	
   social	
   and	
   temporal	
   locations.	
   Indeed,	
  



BELL	
  &	
  POMERANZ	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47 34 

research	
  on	
  interaction	
  in	
  multilingual	
  settings	
  (e.g.,	
  Creese	
  &	
  Blackledge,	
  2011;	
  Kramsch,	
  2008;	
  Kramsch	
  &	
  
Whiteside,	
  2008;	
  Rampton,	
  1999;	
  Rymes,	
  2014)	
  has	
  consistently	
  illustrated	
  that:	
  

social	
  actors	
   in	
  multilingual	
  settings,	
  even	
   if	
   they	
  are	
  non-­‐native	
  speakers	
  of	
   the	
   languages	
  
they	
  use,	
  seem	
  to	
  activate	
  more	
  than	
  a	
  communicative	
  competence	
  that	
  would	
  enable	
  them	
  
to	
   communicate	
   accurately,	
   effectively	
   and	
   appropriately	
  with	
   one	
   another.	
   They	
   seem	
   to	
  
display	
  a	
  particularly	
  acute	
  ability	
  to	
  play	
  with	
  various	
  linguistic	
  codes	
  and	
  with	
  the	
  various	
  
spatial	
  and	
  temporal	
  resonances	
  of	
  these	
  codes.	
  (Kramsch,	
  2008,	
  p.	
  400)	
  

	
  
Such	
  work	
  challenges	
  the	
  tendency	
  in	
  language	
  classrooms	
  to	
  view	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  L1	
  and	
  

L2	
  as	
  “simply	
  a	
  matter	
  of	
  code	
  replacement,	
  where	
  the	
  only	
  difference	
  is	
  in	
  words	
  and	
  structures”	
  (Liddicoat	
  
&	
  Scarino,	
  2013,	
  p.	
  14).	
  An	
  ecological	
  approach	
  to	
  language	
  encourages	
  teachers	
  and	
  learners	
  to	
  move	
  beyond	
  
a	
   view	
   of	
   language	
   as	
   a	
   structural	
   system	
   to	
   one	
   that	
   sees	
   language	
   as	
   variable,	
   dynamic,	
   dialogic,	
   and	
  
situated.	
  

Not	
   surprisingly,	
   these	
   views	
   on	
   language	
   radically	
   change	
   the	
   object	
   of	
   instruction.	
   First	
   and	
  
foremost,	
   they	
   function	
   to	
  dispel	
   the	
  persistent	
   fiction	
  of	
   a	
   stable,	
  universally	
  accepted	
   (national)	
   standard	
  
form	
   of	
   each	
   language.	
   This	
   has	
   major	
   implications	
   for	
   learners’	
   metalinguistic	
   development,	
   as	
   an	
  
understanding	
   of	
   language	
   as	
   variable,	
   dynamic,	
   dialogic	
   and	
   situated	
   is	
   quite	
   different	
   from	
   the	
   view	
   of	
  
language	
  that	
  is	
  usually	
  constructed	
  in	
  classroom	
  contexts.	
  Moreover,	
  rather	
  than	
  teaching	
  “a	
  language,”	
  we	
  
might	
   instead	
   think	
  of	
   our	
   goal	
   as	
   the	
  development	
  of	
   learners’	
   communicative	
   repertoires.	
  Briefly,	
  Rymes	
  
(2010)	
  defines	
  communicative	
  repertoire	
  as	
  the	
  aggregate	
  of	
  ways	
  that	
  individuals	
  “use	
  languages	
  and	
  other	
  
means	
  of	
   communication	
   (gestures,	
  dress,	
  posture,	
   and	
  other	
  media)	
   to	
   function	
  effectively	
   in	
   the	
  multiple	
  
communities	
   in	
  which	
  they	
  participate”	
  (p.	
  528).	
  An	
  individual’s	
  communicative	
  repertoire	
   is	
  not	
  simply	
  an	
  
array	
  of	
  multiple,	
  fully	
  formed	
  (national)	
  languages,	
  but	
  rather	
  an	
  ever-­‐changing	
  assembly	
  of	
  various	
  genres,	
  
speech	
  styles,	
  pragmatic	
   routines,	
  and	
  other	
  reoccurring	
  chunks	
  of	
   language,	
   complemented	
  by	
  an	
  array	
  of	
  
resources	
   (e.g.,	
   gestures,	
   dress,	
   posture,	
   etc.)	
   for	
  making	
  meaning.	
   This	
   repertoire	
   emerges	
   organically,	
   in	
  
bottom-­‐up	
  fashion,	
  as	
  an	
  ever-­‐changing	
  product	
  of	
  an	
  individual’s	
  life	
  experiences,	
  with	
  each	
  new	
  addition	
  to	
  
the	
  repertoire	
  existing	
  in	
  a	
  dialogic	
  relationship	
  with	
  its	
  other	
  components.	
  Here,	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  note	
  that	
  
we	
   are	
   not	
   saying	
   that	
   educators	
   must	
   do	
   away	
   completely	
   with	
   any	
   focus	
   on	
   more	
   patterned	
   or	
   stable	
  
aspects	
  of	
  the	
  language	
  of	
  instruction,	
  as	
  language	
  consists	
  of	
  an	
  interaction	
  between	
  stability	
  and	
  dynamism.	
  
Rather,	
   we	
   are	
   advocating	
   for	
   an	
   approach	
   to	
   pedagogy	
   that	
   recognizes	
   characteristics	
   like	
   variability,	
  
dynamism,	
   dialogism,	
   and	
   situatedness	
   in	
   its	
   underlying	
   conception	
   of	
   language	
   and	
   aims	
   to	
   help	
   learners	
  
develop	
  this	
  kind	
  of	
  metalinguistic	
  awareness.	
  	
  
	
  
3.	
  Connecting	
  new	
  understandings	
  of	
  language	
  to	
  humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  

How	
  might	
   a	
   focus	
   on	
   humorous	
   and	
   playful	
   language	
   help	
   to	
   illustrate	
   this	
   view	
   of	
   language	
   for	
  
language	
  learners?	
  How	
  might	
  an	
  infusion	
  of	
  language	
  play	
  help	
  learners	
  recognize	
  that,	
  contrary	
  to	
  the	
  way	
  
textbooks	
   portray	
   language,	
   variability	
   and	
   change	
   are	
   fundamental	
   features	
   of	
   complex	
   systems	
   and	
   not	
  
aberrations	
  or	
  “exceptions”	
  designed	
  to	
  confound	
  them?	
  In	
  what	
  ways	
  does	
  humor	
  illustrate	
  the	
  dialogic	
  and	
  
situated	
  nature	
  of	
  language?	
  Below	
  we	
  discuss	
  how	
  each	
  of	
  these	
  features—variability,	
  dynamism,	
  dialogism,	
  
and	
  situatedness—is	
  illustrated	
  in	
  humorous	
  and	
  playful	
  uses	
  of	
  language	
  and	
  how	
  a	
  focus	
  on	
  such	
  talk	
  can	
  
be	
  a	
  resource	
  for	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  metalinguistic	
  awareness.	
  

	
  
3.1.	
  Variability	
  

Language	
  play	
   illustrates	
  the	
  continual	
  push	
  and	
  pull	
  between	
  creativity	
  and	
  formulaicity,	
  between	
  
variability	
   and	
   patternedness	
   in	
   language	
   use	
   and	
   at	
   all	
   levels	
   of	
   structure.	
   To	
   be	
   considered	
   amusing,	
  
language	
   play	
  must	
   exhibit	
   some	
   creativity.	
   Too	
  much,	
   however,	
   and	
   the	
   humor	
  will	
   be	
   unrecognizable	
   or	
  
incomprehensible.	
  Too	
  little	
  and	
  it	
  will	
  be	
  considered	
  stale.	
  To	
  achieve	
  this,	
  many	
  instances	
  of	
  language	
  play	
  
derive	
  their	
  humor	
  from	
  unexpected,	
  but	
  appropriate	
  changes	
  to	
  formulaic	
  sequences	
  (see	
  Veale,	
  2012	
  for	
  an	
  
extended	
  discussion).	
  As	
  a	
  simple	
  example,	
  one	
  could	
  say,	
  “I	
  feel	
  great!	
  I	
  really	
  got	
  up	
  on	
  the	
  right	
  side	
  of	
  the	
  
bed	
   today!”	
   This	
   slight	
   alteration	
   to	
   the	
   formulaic	
   phrase	
   get	
   up	
   on	
   the	
   wrong	
   side	
   of	
   the	
   bed	
   illustrates	
  
knowledge	
  of	
  a	
  common	
  phrase	
  while	
  playfully	
  conveying	
  information	
  about	
  one’s	
  mood.	
  Learners	
  might	
  be	
  
introduced	
   to	
   other	
   types	
  of	
   alterations,	
   such	
   as	
  Avril	
   Lavigne’s	
   song	
  Runaway,	
  which	
  begins	
  with	
   the	
   line	
  
“Got	
   up	
   on	
   the	
   wrong	
   side	
   of	
   life	
   today.”	
  With	
   these	
   examples	
   and	
   some	
   encouragement,	
   students	
   might	
  
choose	
  additional	
  formulaic	
  sequences	
  and	
  create	
  their	
  own	
  playful	
  alterations	
  to	
  express	
  various	
  nuances	
  of	
  



RECONSIDERING	
  LANGUAGE	
  TEACHING	
  THROUGH	
  HUMOR	
  
	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47	
    35 

feeling.	
   This	
   technique	
   might	
   be	
   used	
   for	
   any	
   formulaic	
   sequence,	
   including	
   similes	
   (e.g.,	
   as	
   angry	
   as),	
  
common	
  collocations	
  (e.g.,	
  take	
  your	
  time)	
  or	
  conversational	
  gambits	
  (e.g.,	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  long	
  story	
  short	
  as	
  a	
  way	
  
of	
   introducing	
  a	
   summary).	
  Moreover,	
   such	
  an	
  activity	
   can	
  be	
   adjusted	
   for	
  use	
  with	
  both	
  novice	
   and	
  more	
  
advanced	
  language	
  learners	
  through	
  selection	
  of	
  particular	
  formulaic	
  sequences	
  requiring	
  varying	
  degrees	
  of	
  
lexical	
  and	
  syntactic	
  sophistication	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  this	
  playful	
  manipulation.2	
  	
  

In	
   addition,	
   playful	
   examples	
   of	
   linguistic	
   forms	
   and	
  patterns	
   that	
   “break	
   a	
  particular	
   rule”	
   can	
  be	
  
deployed	
   to	
   help	
   learners	
   understand	
   that	
   such	
   instances	
   are	
   a	
   normal	
   and	
   regular	
   part	
   of	
   language.	
   For	
  
example,	
   language	
   educators	
   and	
   language	
   learning	
   materials	
   often	
   characterize	
   forms	
   that	
   break	
   with	
  
particular	
   morphological	
   patterns	
   as	
   “irregular”	
   or	
   as	
   “exceptions”	
   to	
   some	
   kind	
   of	
   pre-­‐existing	
   rule.	
  
Language	
   play,	
   however,	
   can	
   be	
   used	
   to	
   counter	
   this	
   kind	
   of	
   prescriptivist	
   orientation,	
   by	
   illustrating	
   the	
  
bottom-­‐up	
  ways	
   in	
  which	
   certain	
   linguistic	
   forms	
   come	
   into	
   being.	
   Language	
   learners	
  might	
   be	
   presented	
  
with	
   a	
   new	
  word	
   from	
   the	
   domain	
   of	
   technology,	
   like	
   ping	
   (the	
   act	
   of	
   sending	
   a	
   test	
  message	
   to	
   another	
  
computer	
  or	
  user	
  to	
  check	
  for	
  responsiveness	
  or	
  measure	
  response	
  time),	
  and	
  be	
  asked	
  to	
  speculate	
  on	
  what	
  
its	
  other	
  forms	
  might	
  be.	
  Would	
  this	
  word	
  follow	
  “regular”	
  verb	
  morphology	
  as	
  in	
  “The	
  computer	
  pinged	
  me	
  
back	
   immediately”	
   or	
  would	
   it	
   follow	
   an	
   “irregular”	
   pattern	
   like	
   “The	
   computer	
   pang	
  me	
   back”?	
   Learners	
  
could	
  then	
  engage	
  in	
  a	
  data	
  collection	
  exercise	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  asked	
  other	
  users	
  to	
  generate	
  the	
  forms	
  of	
  ping	
  
or	
  asked	
  them	
  which	
  past	
  tense	
  form	
  they	
  preferred	
  and	
  why.	
  Such	
  an	
  exercise	
  could	
  even	
  make	
  use	
  of	
  corpus	
  
tools	
  (e.g.,	
   the	
  Corpus	
  of	
  Contemporary	
  American	
  English	
  or	
  Google	
  n-­‐grams)	
  and	
  some	
  simple	
  quantitative	
  
analysis	
   to	
   identify,	
  measure,	
   and	
   reflect	
   upon	
  actual	
   instances	
  of	
  ping	
   in	
   action.	
  Additional	
   forms	
   that	
   are	
  
either	
   new	
  or	
  whose	
   forms	
   are	
   in	
   flux	
  might	
   be	
   added	
   to	
   the	
   investigation	
   (e.g.,	
  dived/dove	
   or	
  whether	
   to	
  
“unfriend”	
  or	
  “defriend”	
  someone	
  on	
  Facebook)	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  illustrate	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  consensus	
  among	
  language	
  
users.	
   Such	
   activities	
  would	
  no	
  doubt	
   be	
   appealing	
   to	
   adult	
   learners	
   at	
   the	
   high	
   intermediate	
   or	
   advanced	
  
levels,	
   though	
   we	
   would	
   argue	
   that	
   even	
   young	
   learners	
   (9+	
   years)	
   could	
   easily	
   conduct	
   this	
   kind	
   of	
  
sociolinguistic	
  research	
  provided	
  that	
  they	
  had	
  sufficient	
  language	
  proficiency	
  and	
  appropriate	
  scaffolding.	
  	
  
	
  
3.2.	
  Dynamism	
  

Furthermore,	
   humor	
   and	
   language	
   play	
   can	
   be	
   used	
   to	
   illustrate	
   language	
   change	
   at	
   various	
  
timescales	
  across	
   the	
  system.	
  Diachronic	
  change	
   is	
  clearly	
  apparent	
   in	
  examples	
  of	
  humor	
   from	
  the	
  Middle	
  
Ages	
  or	
   the	
  Victorian	
  era;	
  however,	
   it	
   is	
  not	
  necessary	
  to	
  reach	
  that	
   far	
   into	
  the	
  past	
   to	
   find	
  humor	
  that	
  no	
  
longer	
   appeals	
   to	
  most	
   of	
   us.	
   Television	
   comedies	
   from	
  40	
  or	
   50	
   years	
   ago	
   can	
  usually	
   furnish	
   samples	
   of	
  
humor	
  that	
  is	
  now	
  seen	
  as	
  dated	
  and	
  unfunny,	
  often	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  language	
  used.	
  Topics,	
  styles,	
  and	
  forms	
  of	
  
humor	
  are	
  not	
  only	
  subject	
  to	
  personal,	
  but	
  also	
  societal	
  preferences,	
  and	
  these	
  change	
  over	
  time.	
  Not	
  only	
  
can	
  examples	
  easily	
  be	
   found	
  for	
   illustrative	
  purposes,	
  but	
   for	
  a	
  small	
  project	
  on	
   language	
  change,	
   learners	
  
may	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  provide	
  and	
  explain	
  their	
  own	
  examples,	
  either	
  from	
  the	
  media	
  or	
  from	
  personal	
  experience,	
  
perhaps	
  from	
  utterances	
  they	
  have	
  heard	
  from	
  parents	
  or	
  grandparents.	
  These	
  are	
  often	
  memorable	
  precisely	
  
because	
  they	
  have	
  failed	
  to	
  elicit	
  laughter	
  from	
  the	
  younger	
  generation.	
  

Dynamism	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  illustrated	
  through	
  attention	
  to	
  the	
  kinds	
  of	
  changes	
  that	
  happen	
  over	
  shorter	
  
timescales,	
  such	
  as	
  within	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  a	
  conversation.	
  Humor	
  often	
  derails	
  ongoing,	
  serious	
  talk,	
  and	
  as	
  such	
  
is	
  recognized	
  as	
  being	
  potentially	
  disruptive	
  to	
  conversation.	
  A	
  switch	
  from	
  a	
  serious	
  key	
  to	
  a	
  playful	
  key	
  can	
  
persist,	
  altering	
  not	
  only	
  the	
  mood,	
  but	
  subsequent	
  uses	
  of	
  language.	
  To	
  highlight	
  this	
  type	
  of	
  change,	
  learners	
  
might	
  be	
  presented	
  with	
  a	
  short	
  dialog	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  asked	
  to	
  examine	
  how	
  participants	
  enact	
  different	
  
orientations	
   to	
   the	
   acceptability	
   of	
   a	
   humorous	
   interjection,	
   as	
   in	
   the	
   following	
   interaction.	
   Here,	
   Jason	
  
attempts	
   to	
   (seriously)	
  discuss	
  a	
  painting,	
  but	
   is	
  derailed	
  when	
  Margaret	
  breaks	
   in	
  with	
  a	
   supportive	
   (and	
  
still	
  serious)	
  move	
  to	
  provide	
  the	
  title	
  of	
  the	
  work.	
  Upon	
  hearing	
  the	
  title,	
  Roger	
  begins	
  joking.	
  Jason	
  attempts	
  
to	
   correct	
   him,	
   but	
   the	
   others	
   continue	
   to	
   create	
   puns	
   (yawl/y’all,	
   port/port)	
   and	
   laugh.	
   Jason	
   withholds	
  
participation	
  and	
  is	
  only	
  able	
  to	
  return	
  to	
  his	
  topic	
  after	
  Roger,	
  whose	
  apology	
  suggests	
  that	
  he	
  has	
  seen	
  his	
  
punning	
  as	
  disruptive,	
  asks	
  seriously	
  about	
  the	
  artist:	
  

	
  
Jason:	
   That	
  painting	
  in	
  our	
  living	
  room	
  of	
  the	
  boat	
  in	
  the-­‐	
  
Margaret:	
   Yawl	
  in	
  the	
  channel?	
  Maine?	
  
Jason	
   There’s	
  a	
  little	
  boat	
  and	
  an	
  island.	
  
Roger:	
   Y’all	
  in	
  the	
  channel?	
  {laughing}	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2	
  Not	
  only	
  can	
  this	
  make	
  for	
  a	
  fun	
  activity,	
  but	
  mixing	
  serious	
  and	
  humorous	
  examples	
  may	
  also	
  increase	
  the	
  memorability	
  of	
  the	
  new	
  
terms	
  (see	
  Bell	
  2012	
  for	
  a	
  review).	
  



BELL	
  &	
  POMERANZ	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47 36 

Jason	
   Yawl.	
  Yawl.	
  
Margaret:	
   It’s	
  a	
  boat,	
  y’all.	
  
Roger:	
   What	
  are	
  y’all	
  doing	
  in	
  the	
  channel.	
  {laughing}	
  
Margaret:	
   I	
  need	
  a	
  little	
  port.	
  
Roger:	
   {laughs}	
  
Trudy:	
   {laughs}	
  
Margaret:	
   Y’all	
  in	
  that	
  channel	
  {laughing}.	
  What	
  are	
  y’all	
  in	
  that	
  channel	
  for.	
  I	
  know.	
  
Roger:	
   Sorry.	
  Who	
  painted	
  yawl	
  in	
  the	
  channel?	
  
Jason:	
   It’s	
  a	
  painting	
  by	
  a	
  painter	
  named.	
  .	
  .	
  

(Norrick,	
  2003,	
  p.	
  1340)	
  
	
  
Reflection	
  on	
  talk-­‐in-­‐interaction	
  such	
  as	
  this	
  helps	
  to	
  illustrate	
  the	
  ways	
  that	
  language	
  is	
  constructed	
  

and	
  changed	
  by	
  its	
  users.	
  More	
  advanced	
  learners	
  can	
  even	
  be	
  encouraged	
  to	
  record,	
  transcribe,	
  and	
  analyze	
  
humorous	
  episodes	
  on	
  their	
  own	
  to	
   further	
  explore	
  this	
  dimension	
  of	
   language.	
  Finally,	
   instances	
  of	
  humor	
  
that	
  develop	
  among	
  intimates	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  illuminate	
  the	
  diachronic	
  dimensions	
  of	
  language	
  at	
  a	
  more	
  
intermediate	
  timescale.	
  Classrooms	
  often	
  generate	
  their	
  own	
  in-­‐group	
  jokes.	
  Teachers	
  can	
  draw	
  attention	
  to	
  
this	
   by	
   building	
   on	
   shared	
   humor	
   in	
   the	
   weeks,	
   months,	
   and	
   years	
   that	
   follow	
   and	
   pointing	
   out	
   how	
   the	
  
group’s	
   language	
  practices	
  have	
  changed.	
  New	
  meanings	
   for	
   the	
  played-­‐with	
  phrases	
  may	
  emerge	
  and	
  new	
  
students	
  may	
  become	
   socialized	
   into	
   this	
   particular	
   humor	
  practice	
   and	
  participate	
   in	
   it	
   even	
   though	
   they	
  
were	
  not	
  present	
  for	
  the	
  original	
  joke.	
  	
  

In	
  demonstrating	
  how	
  linguistic	
  humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  change	
  at	
  various	
  timescales,	
  we	
  can	
  see	
  
how	
  some	
  of	
  this	
  humor	
  continues	
  to	
  be	
  used	
  today,	
  as	
  new	
  types	
  of	
  playful	
  utterances	
  are	
  constructed	
  using	
  
recognizable	
  bits	
  of	
  previously	
  used	
  language—perhaps	
  from	
  movies	
  or	
  advertisements,	
  but	
  also	
  fragments	
  
of	
  intimately	
  shared	
  discourse.	
  This	
  is	
  also	
  an	
  important	
  illustration	
  of	
  the	
  dialogic	
  nature	
  of	
  language.	
  
	
  
3.3.	
  Dialogism	
  and	
  Situatedness	
  	
  

Humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  utilized	
  as	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  counter	
  the	
  tendency	
  in	
  language	
  education	
  
to	
   view	
  meaning	
   in	
  monologic	
   and	
   decontextualized	
  ways.	
  Much	
   humor	
   depends	
   on	
   highlighting	
   and	
   then	
  
traversing	
   boundaries	
   between	
   particular	
   national	
   languages,	
   language	
   varieties,	
   registers,	
   genres,	
   and	
  
speech	
   styles.	
   For	
   example,	
   bilingual	
   sound	
   play	
   can	
   be	
   used	
   to	
   illustrate	
   that	
   the	
   line	
   between	
   national	
  
languages	
  is	
  not	
  as	
  rigid	
  as	
  it	
  may	
  seem	
  (particularly	
  in	
  classroom	
  contexts).	
  The	
  sounds	
  of	
  one	
  language	
  can	
  
take	
  on	
  new	
  meaning	
  when	
   they	
  are	
   recontextualized.	
  Even	
  novice	
   learners	
  may	
  delight	
   in	
  noting	
   that	
   the	
  
Spanish	
   word	
   quizás	
   shares	
   some	
   phonetic	
   semblance	
   to	
   the	
   English	
   phrase	
   kiss	
   ass,	
   but	
   only	
   when	
   the	
  
English	
  is	
  uttered	
  in	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  phonetic	
  rules	
  of	
  Spanish	
  [kis	
  as].	
  Likewise,	
  emergent	
  English/Hebrew	
  
bilinguals	
  might	
  enjoy	
  playing	
  with	
  the	
  homonymy	
  across	
  the	
  two	
  languages’	
  pronoun	
  systems.	
  The	
  Hebrew	
  
word	
   for	
  who	
   and	
   the	
   English	
   word	
   for	
  me	
   have	
   similar	
   phonetic	
   realizations	
   [mi],	
   thus	
   creating	
   ample	
  
opportunities	
  for	
  language	
  play	
  akin	
  to	
  Abbot	
  and	
  Costello’s	
  famous	
  “Who’s	
  on	
  first?”	
  routine	
  or	
  even	
  simpler	
  
pairings	
   like	
   “Do	
   you	
   watch	
   Dr.	
   Me	
   (Dr.	
   Who)	
   on	
   TV?”	
   Given	
   that	
   such	
   play	
   requires	
   not	
   only	
   access	
   to	
  
multiple	
   national	
   languages,	
   but	
   also	
   access	
   to	
   various	
   levels	
   of	
   context	
   and	
   timescales	
   to	
   be	
   funny	
  
(themselves	
   not	
   limited	
   by	
   national	
   borders),	
   it	
   presents	
   a	
   fine	
   example	
   of	
   dialogism	
   and	
   situatedness	
   in	
  
action.	
  	
  

With	
  respect	
  to	
  more	
  advanced	
  learners,	
  Belz	
  (2002),	
  Kramsch	
  (2009),	
  and	
  Canagarajah	
  (2011),	
  for	
  
example,	
  all	
  detail	
  projects	
  in	
  which	
  adults	
  were	
  given	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  compose	
  and	
  reflect	
  on	
  multilingual	
  
texts	
  in	
  language	
  classrooms	
  as	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  explore	
  the	
  resonances	
  across	
  (national)	
  languages.	
  While	
  many	
  of	
  
the	
  resultant	
  texts	
  were	
  serious	
  in	
  tone,	
  some	
  also	
  had	
  a	
  playful	
  element	
  to	
  them,	
  particularly	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  
the	
   places	
   where	
   “border	
   crossing”	
   took	
   place.	
   While	
   these	
   projects	
   involved	
   highly	
   proficient	
  
bi/multilinguals	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   the	
   languages	
   of	
   composition,	
   novice	
   language	
   learners	
   can	
   be	
   asked	
   to	
  
compose	
  texts	
   in	
   their	
  L1	
  that	
   integrate	
  smalls	
  bits	
  of	
   the	
   language	
  of	
   instruction	
  and	
  be	
  asked	
  to	
  critically	
  
reflect	
  on	
   their	
   rhetorical	
   choices.	
  The	
   resulting	
   texts—whether	
  humorous	
  or	
  not—will	
  no	
  doubt	
   illustrate	
  
language	
  play	
  in	
  action	
  and	
  will	
  be	
  rife	
  with	
  dialogism.	
  	
  

Indeed,	
  boundary-­‐crossing	
  humor	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  foreground	
  the	
  porousness	
  of	
  other	
  forms	
  of	
  
linguistic	
   organization.	
   In	
   educational	
   settings,	
   for	
   example,	
   it	
   is	
   not	
   uncommon	
   to	
   hear	
   people	
   speak	
   of	
  
“academic	
   language”	
   as	
   a	
   stable,	
   discrete	
   register	
   that	
   is	
   used	
   by	
   academic	
   people	
   to	
   do	
   academic	
   things.	
  
What	
   often	
   emerges	
   from	
   such	
   talk	
   is	
   a	
   belief	
   that	
   particular	
   words	
   or	
   grammatical	
   constructions	
   are	
  
inherently	
  academic	
  and	
  used	
  only	
  in	
  school	
  settings,	
  while	
  others	
  are	
  not,	
  when	
  in	
  fact	
  the	
  borders	
  are	
  much	
  



RECONSIDERING	
  LANGUAGE	
  TEACHING	
  THROUGH	
  HUMOR	
  
	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47	
    37 

more	
  porous,	
  with	
   “everyday	
   language”	
  used	
  at	
   times	
   in	
   classrooms	
  and	
   “academic	
   language”	
  appearing	
   in	
  
casual	
  conversations	
  (Zwiers	
  &	
  Crawford,	
  2009).	
  Register	
  humor	
  is	
  a	
  powerful	
  way	
  to	
  problematize	
  some	
  of	
  
this	
  thinking,	
  as	
  it	
  presents	
  learners	
  with	
  opportunities	
  to	
  play	
  with	
  the	
  boundaries	
  between	
  registers	
  and	
  to	
  
re-­‐examine	
  some	
  of	
  their	
  ideas	
  about	
  constructs	
  like	
  academic	
  language.	
  To	
  do	
  this,	
  learners	
  can	
  be	
  asked	
  to	
  
match	
  samples	
  of	
  conventional	
  and	
  non-­‐conventional	
  registers	
  to	
  specific	
  situations	
  and	
  discuss	
  why	
  some	
  of	
  
the	
   non-­‐conventional	
   choices	
   are	
   often	
   so	
   funny.	
   Whereas	
   such	
   examples	
   might	
   be	
   more	
   appropriate	
   for	
  
learners	
  with	
  more	
  advanced	
  levels	
  of	
  language	
  proficiency,	
  less	
  linguistically	
  complex	
  forms	
  of	
  register	
  play	
  
can	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  introduce	
  novice	
  learners	
  to	
  this	
  concept.	
  For	
  example,	
  greetings	
  are	
  a	
  powerful	
  way	
  to	
  show	
  
how	
  the	
  same	
  person	
  might	
  use	
  different	
  registers	
  to	
  construct	
  different	
  levels	
  of	
  hierarchy	
  and	
  intimacy	
  with	
  
his/her	
   interlocutors.	
   Learners	
  might	
   be	
   asked	
   to	
   “guess	
   the	
   relationship”	
   between	
   interlocutors	
   based	
   on	
  
their	
   greetings,	
   with	
   some	
   options	
   testing	
   the	
   boundaries	
   of	
   conventional	
   language	
   use	
   by	
   introducing	
  
humorous	
   pairings.	
   Likewise,	
   learners	
   might	
   be	
   presented	
   with	
   an	
   array	
   of	
   greetings	
   ranging	
   from	
   very	
  
“formal”	
  to	
  very	
  “informal”	
  and	
  then	
  be	
  asked	
  to	
  invent	
  a	
  humorous	
  scenario	
  in	
  which	
  these	
  greetings	
  might	
  
be	
   viewed	
   as	
   “normal”	
   or	
   “appropriate,”	
   despite—or	
   perhaps	
   because	
   of—the	
   dialogic	
   echoes	
   of	
   other	
  
situations	
   that	
   the	
   language	
   evokes.	
   Here,	
   it	
   is	
   important	
   to	
   note	
   that	
   while	
   playful	
   and/or	
   humorous	
  
elements	
  introduced	
  into	
  these	
  activities	
  will	
  no	
  doubt	
  serve	
  to	
  make	
  classroom	
  language	
  learning	
  more	
  fun,	
  
this	
   is	
   not	
   and	
   should	
   not	
   be	
   their	
   only	
   purpose.	
   When	
   the	
   instructional	
   goal	
   is	
   squarely	
   on	
   developing	
  
learners’	
  metalinguistic	
  awareness,	
  humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  become	
  valuable	
  pedagogical	
  resources.	
  

	
  
4.	
  What	
  is	
  communication?	
  

The	
  theories	
  of	
  language	
  described	
  in	
  the	
  previous	
  section	
  also	
  push	
  us	
  to	
  reconsider	
  what	
  we	
  mean	
  
by	
   communication.	
   These	
   theories	
   force	
   us	
   to	
   acknowledge	
   a	
   wide—indeed,	
   infinite—range	
   of	
   cognitive,	
  
social,	
  and	
  environmental	
   factors	
  that	
  can	
   influence	
  communication	
  and	
  draw	
  our	
  attention	
  to	
  the	
  dynamic	
  
ways	
   in	
  which	
  meaning	
  emerges	
   in	
   interaction.	
  As	
  noted	
  above,	
   common	
  social	
   situations	
  become	
  strongly	
  
associated	
  with	
  particular	
  uses	
  of	
   language	
  (e.g.	
  greetings	
  occur	
  upon	
  encountering	
  someone	
  and	
  greetings	
  
beget	
   greetings	
   as	
   responses),	
   known	
   as	
   attractors	
   (Larsen-­‐Freeman	
  &	
  Cameron,	
   2008).	
   These	
   patterns	
   of	
  
language	
  come	
  to	
  be	
  used	
  regularly	
  as	
  they	
  ease	
  the	
  cognitive	
   load	
  on	
  interlocutors	
  and	
  their	
  predictability	
  
helps	
  social	
  interaction	
  proceed	
  smoothly.	
  At	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  we	
  must	
  remember	
  that	
  the	
  system	
  is	
  dynamic.	
  
Meanings	
  are	
  not	
   fixed	
  and	
  communication	
   involves	
  constant	
  renegotiations	
  as	
  speakers	
  make	
  moment-­‐to-­‐
moment	
  mutual	
  adaptations	
  (Larsen-­‐Freeman	
  &	
  Cameron,	
  2008).	
  

Work	
   in	
   ethnomethodology	
   and	
   interactional	
   sociolinguistics	
   has	
   been	
   central	
   in	
   shaping	
   these	
  
contemporary	
   dynamic	
   views	
   of	
   communication	
   (e.g.	
   Erickson	
   &	
   Schultz	
   1982;	
   Goodwin,	
   1981;	
   Jacoby	
   &	
  
Ochs,	
   1995;	
   Kendon,	
   1990;	
   Linell	
   1998).	
   Linell	
   (1998),	
   for	
   instance,	
   proposed	
   that	
   words	
   and	
   utterances	
  
should	
  be	
  regarded	
  as	
  having	
  meaning	
  potential.	
  While	
  the	
  situation	
  at	
  hand	
  helps	
  to	
  prime	
  the	
  meanings	
  that	
  
are	
  most	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  relevant,	
  he	
  and	
  others	
  emphasize	
  that	
  participants	
  work	
  together	
  to	
  jointly	
  construct	
  or	
  
negotiate	
  which	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  interaction	
  are	
  relevant	
  and	
  how	
  they	
  should	
  be	
  understood.	
  Here,	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  
John	
  Gumperz	
  (1982)	
  on	
  contextualization	
  cues	
  remains	
  a	
  valuable	
  way	
  of	
  understanding	
  how	
  these	
  situated	
  
interpretations	
   take	
   place.	
   Gumperz	
   defines	
   contextualization	
   cues	
   as	
   “any	
   feature	
   of	
   linguistic	
   form	
   that	
  
contributes	
   to	
   the	
   signaling	
   of	
   contextual	
   presuppositions”	
   (p.	
   131).	
   Cues	
  may	
   include	
   linguistic	
   elements	
  
such	
  as	
  intonation	
  and	
  lexical	
  choice,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  paralinguistic	
  features	
  such	
  as	
  gesture,	
  gaze,	
  timing,	
  etc.	
  While	
  
some	
   cues	
   may	
   have	
   conventional	
   interpretations	
   (e.g.,	
   smiling	
   is	
   strongly	
   associated	
   with	
   signaling	
   an	
  
attempt	
  at	
  humor),	
  each	
  cue’s	
  meaning	
  must	
  be	
  negotiated	
  between	
   interlocutors	
  each	
   time	
   it	
   is	
  used.	
  The	
  
moment-­‐by-­‐moment	
   presentation	
   of	
   and	
   reaction	
   to	
   cues	
   helps	
   speakers	
   and	
   hearers	
   to	
   coordinate	
   their	
  
action,	
  adjusting	
  their	
  talk	
  as	
  meanings	
  emerge	
  in	
  real	
  time.	
  	
  

In	
  addition,	
  in	
  order	
  for	
  interactants	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  these	
  sense-­‐making	
  activities	
  they	
  must	
  have	
  access	
  
to	
  some	
  shared	
  frameworks	
  for	
   interpreting	
  communication.	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
   it	
   is	
   important	
  to	
  understand	
  that	
  
meaning	
   is	
  not	
  only	
   jointly	
   constructed	
  and	
  emergent,	
   but	
   also	
  mediated.	
  We	
  must	
  be	
   careful,	
   however,	
   in	
  
how	
   we	
   understand	
   this	
   mediation	
   process,	
   particularly	
   if	
   we	
   are	
   to	
   embrace	
   a	
   view	
   of	
   language	
   that	
  
foregrounds	
   dialogism,	
   situatedness,	
   and	
   layered	
   simultaneity.	
   Language	
   classrooms,	
   for	
   example,	
   often	
  
conflate	
  shared	
  ways	
  of	
  making	
  meaning	
  with	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  national	
  or	
  ethnic	
  culture.	
  From	
  this	
  perspective,	
  

Cultures	
  then	
  are	
  the	
  lens	
  through	
  which	
  people	
  mutually	
  create	
  and	
  interpret	
  meanings	
  and	
  
the	
  frame	
  that	
  allows	
  the	
  communication	
  of	
  meanings	
  that	
  go	
  beyond	
  the	
  literal	
  denotations	
  
of	
  the	
  words	
  being	
  used.	
  (Liddicoat	
  &	
  Scarino,	
  2013,	
  p.	
  20)	
  

	
  



BELL	
  &	
  POMERANZ	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47 38 

While	
   we	
   agree	
   that	
   the	
   idea	
   of	
   shared	
   interpretive	
   practices	
   is	
   central	
   to	
   the	
   notion	
   of	
  
communication	
   as	
   mediated,	
   we	
   maintain	
   that	
   these	
   shared	
   interpretive	
   practices	
   are	
   much	
   more	
   fluid,	
  
dynamic,	
   and	
   incoherent	
   than	
   terms	
   like	
   “culture”	
   or	
   “lens”	
   or	
   “interpretive	
   framework”	
   might	
   suggest.	
  
Indeed,	
   Gumperz	
   (1982)	
   himself	
   emphasized	
   that	
   contextualization	
   cues	
   are	
   learned	
   and	
   show	
   some	
  
patterning	
  across	
  social	
  groups,	
  but	
  as	
  in	
  the	
  theories	
  of	
  language	
  use	
  we	
  have	
  been	
  discussing,	
  the	
  variability	
  
and	
  dynamism	
  of	
  cues	
  must	
  also	
  be	
  acknowledged,	
  particularly	
  as	
  we	
  can	
  no	
  longer	
  see	
  languages	
  as	
  located	
  
within	
  clearly	
  defined	
  cultural	
  and/or	
  national	
  spaces.	
  Perhaps,	
  then,	
   it	
   is	
  more	
  useful	
  to	
  think	
  of	
  people	
  as	
  
relying	
  on	
   loosely	
  organized	
  and	
   constantly	
   changing	
   “interpretive	
   repertoires”	
   as	
   they	
  negotiate	
  meaning.	
  
Much	
  like	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
   language	
  as	
  communicative	
  repertoire,	
   the	
  notion	
  of	
   interpretive	
  repertoire	
  moves	
  us	
  
away	
   from	
  static,	
   unitary,	
   and	
   simplistic	
   views	
  of	
  meaning	
  making.	
  As	
  Liddicoat	
   and	
  Scarino	
   (2013)	
  put	
   it,	
  
“this	
  means	
  that	
  meanings	
  are	
  not	
  simply	
  shared,	
  coherent	
  constructions	
  about	
  experience	
  but	
  rather	
  can	
  be	
  
fragmented,	
  contradictory,	
  and	
  contested	
  within	
  the	
  practices	
  of	
  a	
  social	
  group	
  because	
  they	
  are	
  constituted	
  
moments	
  of	
  interaction”	
  (p.	
  21).	
  Moreover,	
  as	
  noted	
  in	
  the	
  previous	
  section,	
  we	
  must	
  always	
  remember	
  that	
  
meaning	
   is	
   as	
  much	
   a	
   synchronic	
   concept	
   as	
   a	
   diachronic	
   one.	
   Thus,	
  we	
   encourage	
   language	
   educators	
   to	
  
move	
  away	
  from	
  a	
  transition	
  model,	
  to	
  one	
  that	
  embraces	
  the	
  idea	
  of	
  communication	
  as	
  jointly	
  constructed,	
  
emergent,	
  and	
  mediated	
  across	
  timescales.	
  	
  

This	
   view	
   of	
   communication,	
   much	
   like	
   the	
   view	
   of	
   language	
   embraced	
   by	
   Complexity	
   Theory/	
  
Dynamic	
  Systems	
  Theory	
  and	
  an	
  ecological	
   approach,	
   serves	
   to	
  disrupt	
  many	
  of	
   the	
   fictions	
   that	
   find	
   their	
  
way	
  into	
  language	
  classrooms.	
  When	
  communication	
  is	
  understood	
  as	
  interpretive	
  rather	
  than	
  transactional,	
  
the	
  focus	
  moves	
  from	
  questions	
  about	
  particular	
  instances	
  of	
  language	
  use	
  as	
  “correct”	
  or	
  “appropriate”	
  to	
  a	
  
broader	
  concern	
  with	
  how	
  we	
  make	
  meaning	
  within	
  and	
  through	
  language.	
  This	
  does	
  not	
  mean	
  that	
  teachers	
  
should	
   not	
   teach	
   the	
   kinds	
   of	
   vocabulary,	
   grammar,	
   interactional	
   routines,	
   or	
   genres	
   that	
   might	
   be	
  
conventionally	
   associated	
   with	
   certain	
   contexts;	
   rather,	
   it	
   entails	
   teachers	
   and	
   learners	
   going	
   beyond	
  
memorization	
  and	
  mimicry	
  to	
  critical	
  reflection	
  on	
  what	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  these	
  and	
  other	
  communicative	
  resources	
  
might	
  mean	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  actions,	
  identities	
  and	
  stances	
  they	
  construct.	
  And,	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  instructional	
  goals,	
  
it	
  means	
   focusing	
  on	
   the	
  development	
  of	
   learners’	
   communicative	
   and	
   interpretive	
   repertoires	
   in	
   terms	
  of	
  
their	
  pragmatic—or	
  meaning-­‐making—competencies.	
  	
  

	
  
5.	
  Connecting	
  new	
  understandings	
  of	
  communication	
  to	
  humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  

The	
   introduction	
   of	
   humor	
   and	
   language	
   play	
   represents	
   one	
   way	
   to	
   accomplish	
   this	
   shift.	
  
Communication,	
  as	
  described	
  above,	
  is	
  much	
  less	
  predictable	
  than	
  language	
  textbooks	
  make	
  it	
  out	
  to	
  be.	
  Once	
  
language	
  use	
  is	
  seen	
  as	
  an	
  act	
  of	
  interpretation,	
  humor	
  becomes	
  a	
  kind	
  of	
  language	
  use	
  that	
  should	
  be	
  central	
  
to	
   language	
   teaching,	
   not	
   ancillary.	
   Humor	
   not	
   only	
   creates	
   and	
   relies	
   on	
   unpredictability,	
   but	
   also	
   often	
  
communicates	
  multiple	
  meanings	
   simultaneously	
   and	
   in	
   indirect	
   and	
   ambiguous	
  ways.	
   To	
   illustrate	
   these	
  
points,	
   we	
   discuss	
   several	
   ways	
   that	
   humor	
   and	
   language	
   play	
   can	
   be	
   used	
   to	
   help	
   foreground	
   a	
   view	
   of	
  
communication	
  as	
  jointly	
  constructed,	
  emergent,	
  and	
  mediated.	
  

	
  
5.1.	
  Joint	
  construction	
  and	
  emergence	
  of	
  meaning	
  

An	
  accumulation	
  of	
  research	
   into	
  the	
  ways	
  that	
  humorous	
   intent	
   is	
  signaled	
   in	
  conversation	
  shows	
  
that	
   this	
   information	
  normally	
   lies	
   below	
   the	
   level	
   of	
   consciousness	
   and	
   is	
   not	
   likely	
   to	
   be	
   something	
   that	
  
classroom	
   learners	
   will	
   pick	
   up	
   on	
   their	
   own.	
   Such	
   findings	
   can	
   be	
   used	
   not	
   only	
   to	
   raise	
   learners’	
  
metalinguistic	
   awareness	
   of	
   how	
   meaning	
   is	
   co-­‐constructed	
   and	
   emergent	
   within	
   interaction,	
   but	
   also	
   to	
  
expand	
  their	
  communicative	
  and	
  interpretive	
  repertoires.	
  For	
  example,	
   laughter,	
  as	
  a	
  contextualization	
  cue,	
  
has	
   always	
   been	
   intuitively	
   associated	
  with	
   humor	
   and	
   play,	
   and	
   in	
  many	
   cases	
   it	
   is	
   also	
   indicative	
   of	
   an	
  
attempt	
  to	
  joke	
  (Glenn,	
  1989;	
  Jefferson,	
  1979).	
  At	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  however,	
  it	
  must	
  be	
  recognized	
  that	
  laughter	
  
is	
  also	
  a	
  common	
  cue	
  of	
  conversational	
   instability	
  or	
  trouble	
  (e.g.,	
  Glenn	
  and	
  Holt,	
  2013;	
  Partington,	
  2006).	
  
Smiling,	
   in	
   fact,	
  may	
   be	
   a	
  more	
   conventional	
  means	
   for	
   cuing	
   humor	
   than	
   laughter	
   (Attardo,	
   Pickering,	
   &	
  
Baker,	
   2011;	
   Pickering	
   et	
   al.,	
   2009).	
   Beyond	
   confirming	
   or	
   dispelling	
   these	
   common	
   assumptions	
   about	
  
laughter	
  and	
  smiling,	
  students	
  can	
  be	
  introduced	
  to	
  additional	
  communicative	
  resources	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  used	
  as	
  
cues	
  to	
  humor.	
  Code,	
  style,	
  and	
  register	
  switching,	
  for	
  instance,	
  are	
  often	
  used	
  to	
  contextualize	
  an	
  utterance	
  as	
  
humorous	
   (Holmes,	
   2000;	
   Kotthoff,	
   1999;	
   Norrick,	
   2007).	
   These	
   encompass	
   a	
   wide	
   variety	
   of	
   linguistic	
  
resources	
  (phonological,	
  lexical,	
  syntactic).	
  Some	
  cues	
  are	
  also	
  associated	
  with	
  specific	
  types	
  of	
  humor,	
  such	
  
as	
  the	
  “blank	
  face”	
  as	
  a	
  signal	
  of	
  ironic	
  intent	
  (Attardo,	
  Eisterhold,	
  Hay,	
  &	
  Poggi,	
  2003)	
  or	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  third-­‐
person	
  pronoun	
  to	
  tease	
  an	
  interactant	
  who	
  is	
  present	
  (Straehle,	
  1993).	
  Furthermore,	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  cues	
  changes	
  



RECONSIDERING	
  LANGUAGE	
  TEACHING	
  THROUGH	
  HUMOR	
  
	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47	
    39 

according	
  to	
  the	
  relationship	
  between	
  interlocutors.	
  In	
  more	
  intimate	
  relationships	
  it	
  is	
  more	
  likely	
  that	
  the	
  
content	
  alone	
  will	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  signal	
  humor	
  (Flamson	
  &	
  Barrett	
  2008;	
  Flamson,	
  Bryant,	
  &	
  Barrett	
  2011).	
  

The	
   knowledge	
   of	
   these	
   conventional	
   cues	
   can	
   be	
   presented	
   in	
   the	
   classroom	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   help	
   L2	
  
users	
  identify	
  some	
  ways	
  that	
  hearers	
  might	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  identify	
  an	
  utterance	
  as	
  humorous	
  or	
  playful.	
  Film	
  and	
  
television	
   clips	
   seem	
   to	
  be	
  a	
   fairly	
   reliable	
   source	
   for	
   this	
   type	
  of	
   activity,	
   as	
   scripted	
   interaction	
  has	
  been	
  
demonstrated	
  to	
  represent	
  well	
  the	
  pragmalinguistic	
  aspects	
  of	
  utterances	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  compliments	
  and	
  
compliment	
   responses	
   (Rose,	
  2001),	
   apologies	
   (Kite	
  &	
  Tatsuki,	
  2005),	
   request	
  modification	
   (Martínez-­‐Flor,	
  
2007),	
  and	
  teases	
  (Janney	
  &	
  Bell,	
  2014).	
  That	
  is	
  to	
  say,	
  the	
  presentation	
  of	
  these	
  speech	
  acts	
  in	
  films	
  closely	
  
resembles	
   the	
   form	
  and	
   content	
   found	
   in	
  unscripted,	
   everyday	
   talk.	
  Thus,	
   examples	
  of	
   scripted	
   interaction	
  
can	
  be	
  shown	
  to	
  students,	
  who	
  can	
   then	
  attempt	
   to	
   identify	
   the	
  contextualization	
  cues.	
  The	
  cues	
  described	
  
above	
  for	
  humor	
  are	
  also	
  used	
  for	
  other	
  keys	
  or	
  functions,	
  which	
  allows	
  for	
  additional,	
  serious	
  examples	
  to	
  be	
  
shown	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  emphasize	
  the	
  situated	
  nature	
  of	
  interpretation.	
  Teachers	
  can	
  easily	
  adjust	
  the	
  complexity	
  
of	
  the	
  examples	
  and	
  the	
  saliency	
  of	
  the	
  contextualization	
  cues	
  to	
  meet	
  their	
  students’	
  needs,	
  making	
  this	
  kind	
  
of	
  work	
  appropriate	
  for	
  both	
  novice	
  and	
  more	
  advanced	
  learners.	
  	
  

Moreover,	
  opportunities	
  for	
  production	
  can	
  also	
  be	
  highlighted	
  so	
  that	
   learners	
  go	
  beyond	
  noticing	
  
particular	
   contextualization	
   cues	
   to	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   them	
   in	
   re-­‐contextualizing	
   interactions	
   as	
   funny	
   or	
   serious.	
  
Here,	
   the	
   instructional	
   focus	
  can	
  be	
  not	
  only	
  on	
  which	
  contextualization	
  cues	
  might	
  be	
  used	
   in	
  a	
  particular	
  
context,	
   but	
   also	
   on	
   how	
   learners	
   might	
   adjust	
   their	
   use	
   of	
   such	
   cues	
   in	
   real	
   time	
   depending	
   on	
   their	
  
interlocutors’	
   responses.	
   Similar	
   to	
   Canale	
   and	
   Swain’s	
   (1980)	
   notion	
   of	
   strategic	
   competence,	
   such	
  work	
  
helps	
   learners	
   to	
   understand	
   that	
   communication	
   is	
   jointly	
   constructed	
   and	
   emergent.	
   Moreover,	
   it	
   helps	
  
them	
  to	
  see	
  how	
  they	
  might	
  marshal	
  existing	
  communicative/interpretive	
  resources	
  or	
  perhaps	
  even	
  access	
  
new	
  ones	
  over	
  the	
  course	
  of	
   interaction.	
  Spontaneous	
  role-­‐plays	
  and	
  other	
  forms	
  of	
  drama-­‐based	
  pedagogy	
  
that	
   encourage	
   a	
   humorous	
   or	
   playful	
   element	
   are	
   particularly	
   suited	
   to	
   these	
   instructional	
   goals.	
   Taken	
  
together,	
   such	
   activities	
   not	
   only	
   contribute	
   to	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   learners’	
   metalinguistic	
   awareness	
   by	
  
introducing	
  them	
  to	
  the	
  notion	
  of	
  contextualization	
  cues,	
  they	
  also	
  serve	
  as	
  repertoire-­‐building	
  exercises	
   in	
  
terms	
  of	
  learners’	
  communicative	
  and	
  interpretive	
  capabilities.	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
  
5.2.	
  Mediation	
  

In	
   addition	
   to	
   proffering	
   a	
   view	
   of	
   communication	
   as	
   jointly	
   constructed	
   and	
   emergent,	
   humor,	
   in	
  
particular,	
   can	
   be	
   used	
   to	
   highlight	
   the	
   idea	
   of	
   communication	
   as	
   mediated	
   by	
   people’s	
   interpretive	
  
repertoires.	
  Specifically,	
  humor	
  is	
  especially	
  well	
  suited	
  to	
  addressing	
  what	
  Díaz	
  (2013)	
  calls	
  “languaculture	
  
dissonance.”3	
  Briefly,	
  languacultural	
  dissonance	
  	
  

refers	
   to	
   any	
   aspect	
   of	
   ‘language	
   practice’	
   that	
   originates	
   either	
   intentionally	
   or	
  
unintentionally,	
   and	
  which,	
   on	
   the	
  part	
  of	
   the	
   interlocutor(s),	
   comes	
  across	
   as	
  unexpected	
  
within	
  an	
  array	
  of	
  evaluation	
  that	
  may	
  range	
  from	
  the	
  slightly	
  incongruous	
  to	
  the	
  extremely	
  
out	
  of	
  place.	
  (p.	
  37)	
  	
  

	
  
Whereas	
  Díaz	
  (2013)	
  goes	
  on	
  to	
  elaborate	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  such	
  dissonances	
  may	
  lead	
  to	
  negative	
  

stereotyping,	
  we	
  argue	
   that	
  particular	
  attention	
   to	
  why/how	
  someone	
  might	
   find	
  such	
  moments	
   funny	
   is	
  a	
  
particularly	
   rich	
   starting	
   point	
   for	
   discussion.	
   That	
   is,	
   humor	
   opens	
   the	
   door	
   for	
   talking	
   about	
   how	
  
communication	
   is	
   mediated	
   by	
   peoples’	
   interpretive	
   repertoires.	
   Rather	
   than	
   focusing	
   on	
   what	
   makes	
  
dissonance	
  problematic,	
  a	
  focus	
  on	
  humor	
  shifts	
  the	
  conversation	
  to	
  how	
  mediation	
  works.	
  	
  	
  

For	
  example,	
  much	
  humor	
  is	
  predicated	
  on	
  violations	
  of	
  shared,	
  widely	
  circulating	
  “cultural	
  scripts”	
  
that	
   form	
   part	
   of	
   many	
   peoples’	
   interpretive	
   repertoires.	
   This	
   humor	
   may	
   poke	
   fun	
   at	
   expectations	
   for	
  
actions,	
  identities,	
  or	
  stances	
  in	
  a	
  particular	
  situation	
  or	
  indicate	
  something	
  about	
  the	
  kinds	
  of	
  scripts	
  that	
  are	
  
even	
  available	
  for	
  playful	
  manipulation	
  in	
  a	
  given	
  context.	
  An	
  examination	
  of	
  humor	
  asks	
  one	
  to	
  engage	
  with	
  
both	
  what	
  is	
  actually	
  present	
  in	
  an	
  interactional	
  moment	
  and	
  one’s	
  assumptions	
  and	
  expectations	
  about	
  what	
  
should	
   have	
   been	
   there.	
   Again,	
   clips	
   of	
   scripted	
   interaction	
   can	
   provide	
   a	
   way	
   to	
   access	
   and	
   reflect	
   upon	
  
dissonant	
  sequences	
  of	
  talk.	
  While	
  the	
  studies	
  of	
  scripted	
  and	
  naturally-­‐occurring	
  discourse,	
  cited	
  above,	
  have	
  
suggested	
   that	
   film	
   and	
   television	
   talk	
   provides	
   a	
   fairly	
   good	
   representation	
   of	
   the	
   pragmalinguistics	
   of	
  
speech	
  acts,	
  they	
  have	
  also	
  suggested	
  (with	
  the	
  exception	
  of	
  Martínez-­‐Flor,	
  2007)	
  that	
  these	
  sources	
  do	
  not	
  
accurately	
  represent	
  conventional	
  language	
  variation	
  according	
  to	
  social	
  factors,	
  such	
  as	
  how	
  speakers	
  alter	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
3	
  Díaz	
  draws	
  here	
  on	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  Agar	
  (1994)	
  and	
  Zamborlin	
  (2007).	
  



BELL	
  &	
  POMERANZ	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47 40 

the	
  forms	
  they	
  use	
  according	
  to	
  factors	
  such	
  as	
  their	
  hearer’s	
  age,	
  gender,	
  or	
  social	
  status.	
  In	
  other	
  words,	
  the	
  
sociopragmatics	
  of	
  speech	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  well	
  represented	
  in	
  scripted	
  discourse.	
  Often,	
  however,	
  these	
  unusual	
  
patterns	
   are	
   used	
   as	
   a	
   source	
   for	
   humor,	
   and	
   in	
   doing	
   so	
   implicitly	
   index	
   the	
   cultural	
   scripts	
   that	
   inform	
  
conventional	
  linguistic	
  choices.	
  Because	
  of	
  this,	
  humorous	
  film	
  and	
  television	
  talk	
  can	
  still	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  develop	
  
learners’	
   understanding	
   of	
   communication	
   as	
   mediated,	
   through	
   identification	
   of	
   and	
   reflection	
   on	
   the	
  
cultural	
   scripts	
   and	
   their	
   violations.	
   Likewise,	
   as	
   in	
   our	
   discussion	
   of	
   contextualization	
   cues,	
   such	
   noticing	
  
activities	
   can	
  be	
   adjusted	
   to	
   the	
   linguistic	
   proficiency	
   and	
  maturity	
   of	
   the	
   students.	
  Moreover,	
   they	
   can	
  be	
  
aligned	
  with	
  production	
  activities,	
  ranging	
  from	
  the	
  scripted	
  to	
  the	
  unscripted,	
  so	
  that	
  learners	
  have	
  a	
  chance	
  
to	
  create	
  their	
  own	
  humorous	
  episodes.	
  

	
  
6.	
  Conclusion:	
  humor	
  and	
  postmodernist	
  language	
  teaching	
  

As	
   we	
   noted	
   at	
   the	
   outset	
   of	
   this	
   paper,	
   we	
   are	
   certainly	
   not	
   the	
   first	
   to	
   highlight	
   and	
   critique	
  
modernist	
   models	
   of	
   language	
   and	
   communication	
   that	
   have	
   long	
   guided—and	
   many	
   would	
   argue	
  
constrained—language	
  education.	
  Although	
  the	
  alternative	
  conceptions	
  of	
  language	
  and	
  communication	
  that	
  
we	
   discuss	
   have	
   become	
  widely	
   accepted	
   in	
   applied	
   linguistics,	
   their	
   application	
   to	
   L2	
   pedagogy	
   remains	
  
underdeveloped.	
   This	
   paper	
   represents	
   an	
   attempt	
   to	
   remedy	
   that	
   gap.	
   To	
   this	
   end,	
   we	
   have	
   described	
  
several	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  might	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  counter	
  particular	
  fictions	
  about	
  language	
  
and	
   communication,	
   while	
   simultaneously	
   serving	
   to	
   develop	
   learners’	
   metalinguistic	
   awareness	
   and	
  
communicative/interpretive	
  repertoires	
  (for	
  additional	
  ideas	
  and	
  examples	
  see	
  Gardner,	
  2008;	
  Lucas,	
  2005;	
  
Tocalli-­‐Beller	
   &	
   Swain,	
   2007;	
   Tin,	
   2012,	
   2013).	
   Humor	
   and	
   language	
   play	
   provide	
   ample	
   opportunities	
   to	
  
illustrate	
  the	
  variability,	
  dynamism,	
  dialogism,	
  and	
  situatedness	
  that	
  scholars	
  emphasize	
  in	
  their	
  accounts	
  of	
  
language.	
   Likewise,	
   humor	
   and	
   language	
   play	
   allow	
   for	
   and	
   even	
   require	
   learners	
   to	
   adopt	
   a	
   view	
   of	
  
communication	
  that	
  is	
  predicated	
  on	
  joint	
  negotiation,	
  emergence	
  of	
  meaning,	
  and	
  mediation.	
  Moreover,	
  we	
  
have	
   shown	
   how	
   pedagogical	
   activities	
   designed	
   around	
   non-­‐serious	
   discourse	
   can	
   contribute	
   to	
   the	
  
expansion	
  of	
  learners’	
  communicative	
  and	
  interpretive	
  repertoires.	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  we	
  have	
  attempted	
  to	
  build	
  a	
  
case	
  for	
  using	
  humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  in	
  the	
  classroom	
  that	
  goes	
  beyond	
  the	
  “fun	
  factor”	
  as	
  an	
  instructional	
  
goal.	
  This	
  is	
  not	
  to	
  say	
  that	
  we	
  think	
  enjoyment	
  and	
  pleasure	
  have	
  no	
  legitimate	
  place	
  in	
  language	
  pedagogy—
our	
  stance	
  could	
  not	
  be	
  farther	
  from	
  this.	
  However,	
  we	
  are	
  focused	
  here	
  on	
  the	
  broader	
  goal	
  of	
  contributing	
  
to	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   approaches	
   to	
   language	
   teaching	
   that	
   connect	
   theory	
   to	
   practice	
   in	
  meaningful	
   and	
  
productive	
  ways.	
  	
  

Readers,	
   for	
   example,	
   may	
   recognize	
   that	
   many	
   of	
   our	
   pedagogical	
   suggestions	
   for	
   incorporating	
  
humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  into	
  the	
  classroom	
  have	
  their	
  origins	
  in	
  both	
  cognitive	
  and	
  social	
  approaches	
  to	
  L2	
  
development.	
   Focus	
   on	
   form	
   (e.g.,	
   Doughty	
   &	
   Williams,	
   1998;	
   Swain,	
   1998;	
   Swain	
   et	
   al.,	
   2009;	
   Williams,	
  
2001),	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  noticing	
  (e.g.,	
  Philp,	
  2003;	
  Pica,	
  1996;	
  Schmidt,	
  1990),	
  and	
  opportunities	
  for	
  output	
  
(e.g.,	
  Swain,	
  1985;	
  Swain	
  &	
  Lapkin,	
  1995)	
  all	
  figure	
  centrally	
  in	
  our	
  activities.	
  At	
  the	
  same	
  time,	
  our	
  repeated	
  
emphasis	
  on	
  engaging	
  learners	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  critical	
  reflection	
  is	
  rooted	
  in	
  the	
  field’s	
  gradual	
  embrace	
  of	
  
notions	
   like	
   agency	
   and	
   identity	
   (e.g.,	
   Atkinson,	
   2011;	
   Block,	
   2003;	
   Norton,	
   2000;	
   Pavlenko	
   &	
   Blackledge,	
  
2004;	
   Zuengler	
   &	
   Miller,	
   2004).	
   In	
   our	
   pedagogical	
   approach,	
   the	
   idea	
   of	
   the	
   learner	
   as	
   an	
   empty	
   vessel	
  
waiting	
  to	
  be	
  filled	
  with	
  target	
  language	
  forms	
  and	
  rules	
  has	
  clearly	
  given	
  way	
  to	
  a	
  view	
  of	
  the	
  learner	
  as	
  an	
  
active	
   constructor	
   of	
  meaning	
   (e.g.,	
   Kramsch,	
   2008,	
   2009,	
   2014).	
   And,	
   in	
   foregrounding	
   the	
   ambiguity	
   and	
  
polysemy	
  inherent	
  in	
  much	
  humorous	
  and	
  playful	
  talk,	
  we	
  pay	
  tribute	
  to	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  learners’	
  multiple	
  
and	
   ever-­‐changing	
   identities,	
   histories,	
   and	
   desires	
   mediate	
   both	
   their	
   access	
   to	
   and	
   use	
   of	
   particular	
  
communicative	
   and	
   interpretive	
   resources.	
   For	
   us,	
   the	
   goal	
   of	
   language	
   education	
   is	
   not	
   to	
   produce	
  
individuals	
   who	
   use	
   and	
   understand	
   “a	
   language”	
   in	
   exactly	
   the	
   same	
   way,	
   but	
   rather	
   to	
   help	
   emergent	
  
bilinguals	
   to	
   recognize,	
   expand,	
   and	
   critically	
   reflect	
   on	
   the	
   various	
   communicative	
   and	
   interpretive	
  
resources	
  they	
  have	
  at	
  their	
  disposal.	
  

Indeed,	
  in	
  recent	
  years,	
  ecological	
  and	
  intercultural	
  approaches	
  to	
  language	
  education	
  have	
  begun	
  to	
  
emerge	
  that	
  build	
  on	
  precisely	
  the	
  theories	
  of	
  language,	
  communication,	
  and	
  the	
  learner	
  that	
  we	
  discuss	
  here	
  
(e.g.,	
  Díaz,	
  2013;	
  Kramsch,	
  2014;	
  Liddicoat	
  &	
  Scarino,	
  2013).	
  Liddicoat	
  and	
  Scarino	
  (2013),	
  for	
  example,	
  posit	
  
that	
  the	
  goal	
  of	
  language	
  education	
  should	
  be	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  an	
  intercultural	
  orientation.	
  They	
  write:	
  

An	
   intercultural	
   orientation	
   focuses	
   on	
   languages	
   and	
   cultures	
   as	
   sites	
   of	
   interactive	
  
engagement	
  in	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  meaning-­‐making	
  and	
  implies	
  a	
  transformational	
  engagement	
  of	
  the	
  
learner	
  in	
  the	
  act	
  of	
  learning.	
  Here,	
  learning	
  involves	
  the	
  student	
  in	
  a	
  practice	
  of	
  confronting	
  
multiple	
   possible	
   interpretations,	
   which	
   seeks	
   to	
   decenter	
   the	
   learner	
   and	
   to	
   develop	
   a	
  
response	
  to	
  meaning	
  as	
  the	
  result	
  of	
  engagement	
  with	
  another	
  culture	
  (Kramsch	
  and	
  Nolden,	
  



RECONSIDERING	
  LANGUAGE	
  TEACHING	
  THROUGH	
  HUMOR	
  
	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47	
    41 

1994).	
  Here,	
  the	
  borders	
  between	
  self	
  and	
  other	
  are	
  explored,	
  problematized	
  and	
  redrawn.	
  
(p.	
  49)	
  

	
  
To	
  us,	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  just	
  the	
  interactive	
  and	
  transformative	
  aspect	
  of	
  their	
  framework	
  that	
  stands	
  out,	
  but	
  

also	
  the	
  emphasis	
  on	
  “confronting	
  multiple	
  possible	
  interpretations”	
  and	
  “decentering.”	
  Humor	
  and	
  language	
  
play	
  are	
  frequently	
  predicated	
  on	
  ambiguity	
  and	
  polysemy	
  in	
  both	
  their	
  structure	
  and	
  their	
  functions.	
  They	
  
are	
   clearly	
   dialogic,	
   addressed	
   to	
   immediate	
   aspects	
   of	
   the	
   linguistic	
   and	
   social	
   context,	
   and	
   also	
   to	
   our	
  
expectations	
  about	
  what	
   should	
  or	
   could,	
   as	
  well	
   as	
  what	
  has	
  previously	
  been	
  a	
  part	
  of	
   the	
  dialogue.	
  They	
  
push	
  us	
  to	
  consider	
  multiple	
  interpretations	
  simultaneously	
  and	
  to	
  imagine	
  various	
  perspectives.	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  
humor	
   and	
   language	
   play	
  would	
   seem	
   to	
   be	
   prodigious	
   resources	
   for	
   language	
   education	
   and	
   not	
  merely	
  
distractions	
   from	
   the	
   serious	
   business	
   of	
   learning.	
   Moreover,	
   the	
   emphasis	
   on	
   critical	
   reflection	
   and	
   the	
  
development	
  of	
  metalinguistic	
  awareness	
  complements	
  our	
   interest	
   in	
   language	
  classrooms	
  becoming	
  sites	
  
not	
  just	
  for	
  the	
  learning	
  of	
  particular	
  languages,	
  but	
  also	
  for	
  learning	
  about	
  language	
  itself.	
  As	
  Liddicoat	
  and	
  
Scarino	
   (2013)	
   put	
   it,	
   “[…]	
   developing	
   the	
   intercultural	
   includes	
   not	
   only	
   developing	
   awareness	
   but	
   also	
  
developing	
   the	
   ability	
   to	
   analyze,	
   explain,	
   and	
   elaborate	
   this	
   awareness;	
   that	
   is,	
   it	
   involves	
   a	
  meta-­‐level	
   of	
  
awareness	
  (or	
  meta-­‐awareness).”	
  (p.	
  50)	
  

As	
  we	
  have	
  illustrated	
  throughout	
  this	
  paper,	
  humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  offer	
  ample	
  opportunities	
  to	
  
engage	
   in	
   and	
  develop	
   just	
   this	
   kind	
  of	
   critical	
   reflexivity.	
  And,	
   in	
   thinking	
   about	
  what	
   language	
   education	
  
should	
  look	
  like	
  in	
  a	
  postmodern	
  world,	
  Kramsch	
  (2008)	
  suggests	
  that	
  	
  

we	
   teach	
   our	
   students	
   less	
   the	
   ability	
   to	
   exchange	
   information	
   precisely,	
   accurately,	
   and	
  
appropriately	
   in	
   monolingual	
   conversations	
   with	
   speakers	
   of	
   standard	
   national	
   languages,	
  
but,	
  rather,	
  that	
  we	
  develop	
  in	
  them	
  a	
  much	
  more	
  flexible	
  capacity	
  to	
  read	
  people,	
  situations	
  
and	
   events	
   based	
   on	
   a	
   deep	
   understanding	
   of	
   the	
   historical	
   and	
   subjective	
   dimensions	
   of	
  
human	
  experience.	
  (p.	
  391)	
  	
  

	
  
It	
  is	
  precisely	
  this	
  kind	
  of	
  capacity	
  that	
  we	
  hope	
  to	
  develop	
  in	
  our	
  students,	
  and	
  we	
  hope	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  

demonstrated	
  that	
  humor	
  and	
  language	
  play	
  are	
  particularly	
  well	
  suited	
  to	
  this	
  task.	
  
There	
   are,	
   of	
   course,	
   risks	
   involved	
   in	
   using	
   playful	
   or	
   humorous	
   talk	
   as	
   a	
   focus	
   for	
   language	
  

instruction.	
  Chief	
  among	
  these	
   is	
   the	
   fear	
  that	
   learners	
  will	
  not	
  get	
   the	
   joke	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  teacher	
  will	
  suffer	
  
some	
   loss	
   of	
   face	
   and/or	
   credibility,	
   or	
   even	
   that	
   some	
   learners	
   will	
   see	
   humor	
   as	
   inappropriate	
   for	
   the	
  
classroom	
  and	
   resist	
   its	
   implementation.	
  While	
  we	
   recognize	
   these	
   as	
   legitimate	
   concerns,	
  we	
  believe	
   that	
  
such	
  obstacles	
  can	
  be	
  overcome	
  through	
  careful	
  planning	
  and	
  presentation.	
  The	
  types	
  of	
  activities	
  we	
  have	
  
proposed	
  here	
  do	
  not	
  rely	
  on	
  the	
  students’	
  finding	
  them	
  amusing	
  for	
  their	
  success.	
  Rather,	
  they	
  are	
  primarily	
  
language	
   learning	
   and	
   awareness-­‐raising	
   tasks	
   that	
   happen	
   to	
   incorporate	
   a	
   playful	
   or	
   humorous	
   element	
  
that	
  students	
  may	
  or	
  may	
  not	
   find	
  enjoyable.4	
  Teachers’	
  primary	
  consideration	
  should	
  be	
  what	
  needs	
   to	
  be	
  
taught.	
   If	
   the	
  elements	
   to	
  be	
  addressed	
   lend	
   themselves	
   to	
  a	
  playful	
   lesson	
  design,	
   they	
   then	
  must	
  prepare	
  
that	
  lesson	
  by	
  thinking	
  through	
  the	
  pieces	
  of	
  linguistic	
  and	
  contextual	
  knowledge	
  that	
  learners	
  might	
  need	
  in	
  
order	
   to	
   work	
  with	
   a	
   particular	
   example,	
   and	
   strive	
   to	
   put	
   these	
   pieces	
   into	
   place	
   as	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   lesson’s	
  
overall	
   design.	
  At	
   the	
   same	
   time,	
   teachers	
   should	
   recognize	
   that,	
   even	
  more	
   so	
   than	
  with	
   serious	
   language	
  
use,	
   humor	
   and	
   language	
   play	
   always	
   entail	
   some	
   degree	
   of	
   unpredictability	
   and	
   thus	
   teachers	
   should	
   be	
  
prepared	
   to	
  deal	
  with	
   such	
   issues	
  as	
   they	
  arise.	
  Furthermore,	
  we	
  also	
   suggest	
   that,	
   rather	
   than	
   fearing	
   the	
  
unknown,	
  teachers	
  might	
  use	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  ideas	
  we	
  have	
  presented	
  here	
  to	
  think	
  about	
  how	
  they	
  can,	
  either	
  in	
  
the	
   moment	
   or	
   at	
   some	
   later	
   point,	
   capitalize	
   on	
   the	
   spontaneous	
   humor	
   that	
   arises	
   in	
   their	
   classrooms,	
  
including	
  in	
  particular	
  that	
  which	
  involves	
  moments	
  of	
  languacultural	
  dissonance.	
  

A	
   second,	
   and	
  equally	
  pressing	
   concern,	
   is	
   the	
   fear	
   that	
  particular	
   instances	
  of	
   humor	
  or	
   language	
  
play	
   might	
   be	
   perceived	
   as	
   offensive	
   by	
   the	
   learners	
   or	
   lead	
   to	
   the	
   construction	
   of	
   negative	
   stereotypes.	
  
Whereas	
   the	
   former	
  may	
   be	
   dealt	
  with,	
   at	
   least	
   in	
   part,	
   through	
   the	
   careful	
   selection	
   of	
  materials	
   and	
   the	
  
sensitive	
   management	
   of	
   classroom	
   discussion,	
   the	
   latter	
   presents	
   a	
   more	
   challenging	
   scenario.	
   Here	
   we	
  
would	
  advise	
  teachers	
  to	
  again	
  engage	
  with—and	
  not	
  shy	
  away	
  from—such	
  teachable	
  moments.	
  A	
  teacher	
  of	
  
Spanish,	
   for	
   example,	
   once	
   asked	
   us	
  what	
  we	
  would	
   do	
  with	
   types	
   of	
   humor	
   that	
   one	
   cultural	
   group,	
   as	
   a	
  
whole,	
   would	
   typically	
   find	
   funny,	
   but	
   other	
   groups	
   might	
   perceive	
   as	
   morally	
   suspect.	
   The	
   example	
   this	
  
teacher	
   gave	
   was	
   of	
   a	
   scene	
   where	
   someone	
   slips	
   and	
   falls	
   and	
   the	
   spectators	
   start	
   laughing.	
   First	
   of	
   all,	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
4	
  See	
  Tocalli-­‐Beller	
  and	
  Swain	
  (2007)	
  for	
  excerpts	
  of	
  student	
  interaction	
  around	
  a	
  riddle-­‐based	
  activity.	
  As	
  students	
  worked	
  to	
  decode	
  
the	
  ambiguity	
  that	
  created	
  the	
  humor	
  in	
  the	
  riddle,	
  they	
  exhibited	
  signs	
  of	
  varying	
  degrees	
  and	
  types	
  of	
  pleasure	
  and	
  amusement.	
  



BELL	
  &	
  POMERANZ	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47 42 

humor	
  preferences	
  are	
  known	
  to	
  be	
  highly	
  idiosyncratic	
  (Tannen,	
  1984),	
  and	
  students	
  need	
  only	
  look	
  to	
  the	
  
variety	
  of	
  humor	
   that	
   is	
   available	
   and	
  appreciated	
  within	
   their	
   own	
  extended	
   circles	
   in	
  order	
   to	
   recognize	
  
that	
   it	
   would	
   be	
   foolish	
   to	
   assume	
   that	
   all	
  members	
   of	
   a	
   particular	
   cultural	
   group	
   find	
   the	
   same	
   kinds	
   of	
  
humor	
   amusing.	
   At	
   the	
   same	
   time,	
   however,	
   humor	
   preferences	
   are	
   also	
   strongly	
   held	
   and	
   are	
   used	
   as	
  
important	
  identifiers	
  of	
  in-­‐	
  and	
  out-­‐group	
  status,	
  particularly	
  along	
  cultural	
  and	
  class	
  lines	
  (Kuipers,	
  2006a,	
  
2006b).	
  In	
  fact,	
  individuals	
  often	
  express	
  their	
  distaste	
  for	
  certain	
  comedians	
  in	
  vehement	
  terms,	
  and	
  extend	
  
their	
  scorn	
  even	
  to	
  fans	
  of	
  these	
  comedians	
  (Friedman	
  &	
  Kuipers,	
  2013),	
  something	
  not	
  seen	
  in	
  responses	
  to	
  
other	
  cultural	
  realms,	
  such	
  as	
  attire.	
  Because	
  of	
  this,	
  instances	
  of	
  languacultural	
  dissonance	
  involving	
  humor	
  
can	
   certainly	
   be	
   used	
   to	
   raise	
   awareness	
   and	
   engage	
   in	
   some	
   critical	
   reflection	
   around	
   competing	
   value	
  
systems	
   and	
   the	
   dangers	
   of	
   stereotyping.	
   Davies	
   (2004),	
   for	
   instances,	
   recommends	
   a	
   middle	
   ground,	
   in	
  
which	
   we	
   alert	
   our	
   students	
   to	
   the	
   possibility	
   of	
   dissonance,	
   while	
   also	
   emphasizing	
   the	
   impossibility	
   of	
  
delineating	
   national	
   styles	
   of	
   language	
   use.	
   She	
   suggests	
   that	
   abstract	
   statements	
   about	
   the	
   L2	
   “must	
   be	
  
constantly	
   linked	
   in	
   the	
   classroom	
   with	
   specific	
   instances	
   of	
   language	
   use.	
   Cultural	
   styles	
   have	
   to	
   be	
  
differentiated	
   in	
   relation	
   to	
   the	
   kind	
   of	
   action	
   being	
   performed”	
   (p.	
   213).	
   Using	
   German	
   and	
   American	
  
English,	
   she	
   provides	
   examples	
   of	
   potential	
   touchstones	
   for	
   the	
   examination	
   of	
   languacultural	
   dissonance,	
  
including	
  joking,	
  and	
  how	
  abstractions	
  about	
  language	
  behavior	
  can	
  be	
  linked	
  to	
  specific	
  instances	
  of	
  situated	
  
interaction.	
  

Furthermore,	
  moments	
  of	
  languacultural	
  dissonance	
  involving	
  humor	
  that	
  is	
  offensive,	
  discomfiting,	
  
or	
   simply	
  not	
  amusing	
   to	
   some	
  or	
  all	
  of	
  our	
   students	
   can	
  serve	
  as	
   catalysts	
  vis-­‐à-­‐vis	
  our	
  goals	
  as	
   language	
  
educators.	
  If,	
  as	
  Liddicoat	
  and	
  Scarino	
  (2013)	
  and	
  others	
  have	
  argued,	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  language	
  education	
  is	
  
the	
  development	
  of	
   intercultural	
   language	
  users,	
   then	
  such	
  examples	
  provide	
  us	
  with	
  opportunities	
   to	
  help	
  
learners	
  find	
  “a	
  personal	
  intercultural	
  style	
  and	
  identity”	
  (p.	
  25).	
  Work	
  in	
  pragmatics	
  has	
  demonstrated	
  that	
  
using	
  a	
  language	
  does	
  not	
  require	
  taking	
  on	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  values	
  that	
  other	
  users	
  of	
  this	
  language	
  hold,	
  and	
  that	
  
even	
  when	
   familiar	
  with	
   the	
   norms	
   of	
   the	
   L2,	
   learners	
  may	
   choose	
   not	
   to	
   abide	
   by	
   them	
   (Dewaele,	
   2008;	
  
Hinkel,	
   1996,	
   Siegal,	
   1996;	
   Rampton,	
   1987).	
   As	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   process	
   of	
   becoming	
   intercultural	
   speakers,	
   L2	
  
users	
  must	
  come	
  to	
  terms	
  with	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  they	
  can	
  never	
  become	
  “native	
  speakers”	
  and	
  must	
  develop	
  their	
  
own	
  ways	
  of	
  using	
  and	
  understanding	
  the	
  language	
  of	
  instruction,	
  both	
  seriously	
  and	
  playfully.	
  

This	
   last	
   point	
   brings	
   us	
   to	
   a	
   vast	
   and	
   important	
   area	
   that	
   we	
   have	
   not	
   discussed	
   in	
   the	
   present	
  
paper,	
   that	
  of	
   teaching	
  about	
  humor	
   itself.	
  As	
  we	
  noted	
   in	
  opening	
  this	
  paper,	
  serious	
  talk	
  has	
  traditionally	
  
been	
  privileged	
  in	
  the	
  L2	
  classroom.	
  This	
  is	
  understandable,	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  usually	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  expression	
  of	
  
transactional,	
   utilitarian	
   needs,	
   which	
   L2	
   users	
   are	
   imagined	
   as	
   requiring.	
   Non-­‐serious	
   communication	
   is	
  
thought	
   of	
   as	
   extra	
   and	
   thus	
   can	
   be	
   developed	
   at	
   a	
   later	
   date	
   and	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   classroom.	
   Yet,	
   playful	
  
discourse	
  can	
  have	
  an	
  equally	
  important	
  role	
  in	
  communicating	
  practical,	
  mundane	
  information.	
  Skill	
  in	
  using	
  
humor	
   can	
  make	
   navigating	
   certain	
   social	
   situations	
  much	
   smoother.	
  Many	
   face-­‐threatening	
   situations	
   are	
  
made	
  less	
  so	
  when	
  the	
  threat	
  is	
  framed	
  as	
  play.	
  Humor	
  is	
  regularly	
  used	
  to	
  manage	
  refusal	
  sequences,	
  to	
  do	
  
indirect	
   critiques,	
   or	
   to	
   respond	
   to	
   teasing	
   or	
   bullying.	
   The	
   ability	
   to	
   join	
   in	
   humorous	
   discourse	
   eases	
   an	
  
individual’s	
  entry	
  into	
  a	
  new	
  social	
  group.	
  It	
  is	
  also	
  crucial	
  to	
  recognize	
  that	
  although	
  we	
  have	
  been	
  discussing	
  
this	
   in	
   dichotomous	
   terms,	
   discourse	
   is	
   not	
   either	
   serious	
   or	
   non-­‐serious,	
   and	
   the	
   ability	
   to	
   construct	
   and	
  
detect	
   utterances	
   that	
   are	
   half-­‐joking	
   is	
   important	
   to	
   interaction.	
   All	
   of	
   these	
   things	
   are	
   implicated	
   in	
   our	
  
pedagogical	
   goal	
  of	
   expanding	
  emergent	
  bilinguals’	
   communicative/	
   interpretive	
   repertoires.	
  We	
  hope	
   that	
  
both	
  teachers	
  and	
  researchers	
  recognize	
  what	
  we	
  have	
  presented	
  here	
  as	
  merely	
  a	
  brief	
  foray	
  into	
  the	
  terrain	
  
that	
  remains	
  to	
  be	
  explored,	
  and	
  we	
  encourage	
  future	
  inquiry	
  in	
  this	
  area.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
References	
  
	
  
Agar,	
  Michael	
   (1994).	
  Language	
   shock:	
  Understanding	
   the	
  culture	
  of	
   conversation.	
  New	
  York	
   City,	
   New	
  

York:	
  Perennial.	
  	
  
Atkinson,	
   Dwight	
   (2011).	
  Alternative	
  approaches	
   to	
   second	
   language	
  acquisition.	
   New	
  York	
   City,	
   New	
  York:	
  

Routledge.	
  
Attardo,	
  Salvatore,	
  Eisterhold,	
  Jodi,	
  Hay,	
  Jennifer,	
  &	
  Poggi,	
  Isabella	
  (2003).	
  Multimodal	
  markers	
  of	
  irony	
  and	
  

sarcasm.	
  Humor:	
  International	
  Journal	
  of	
  Humor	
  Research,	
  16(2),	
  243–260.	
  
Attardo,	
  Salvatore,	
  Pickering,	
  Lucy,	
  &	
  Baker,	
  Amanda	
  (2011).	
  Prosodic	
  and	
  multimodal	
  markers	
  of	
  humor	
  in	
  

conversation.	
  Pragmatics	
  &	
  Cognition,	
  19(2),	
  224–247.	
  



RECONSIDERING	
  LANGUAGE	
  TEACHING	
  THROUGH	
  HUMOR	
  
	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47	
    43 

Bakhtin,	
  Mihkail	
  (1981).	
  The	
  dialogic	
  imagination.	
  Austin,	
  Texas:	
  The	
  University	
  of	
  Texas	
  Press.	
  
Bell,	
  Nancy	
  (2012).	
  Comparing	
  playful	
  and	
  non-­‐playful	
  incidental	
  attention	
  to	
  form.	
  Language	
  Learning,	
  62(1),	
  

236–265.	
  
Belz,	
  Julie	
  (2002).	
  The	
  myth	
  of	
  the	
  deficient	
  communicator.	
  Language	
  Teaching	
  Research,	
  6(1),	
  59–82.	
  
Block,	
  David	
  (2003).	
  The	
  social	
  turn	
  in	
  second	
  language	
  acquisition.	
  Washington,	
  DC,	
  Washington:	
  Georgetown	
  

University	
  Press.	
  
Block,	
   David	
   &	
   Cameron,	
   Deborah	
   (2002).	
   Globalization	
   and	
   language	
   teaching.	
   New	
   York	
   City,	
   New	
  

York:	
  Routledge.	
  
Blommaert,	
   Jan	
   (2010).	
   The	
   sociolinguistics	
   of	
   globalization.	
   Cambridge,	
   United	
   Kingdom:	
   Cambridge	
  

University	
  Press.	
  
Canale,	
   Michael,	
   &	
   Swain,	
   Merrill	
   (1980).	
   Theoretical	
   bases	
   of	
   communicative	
   approaches	
   to	
   second	
  

language	
  teaching	
  and	
  testing.	
  Applied	
  Linguistics,	
  1(1),	
  1–47.	
  
Canagarajah,	
   Suresh	
   (2011).	
   Codemeshing	
   in	
   academic	
   writing:	
   Identifying	
   teachable	
   strategies	
   of	
  

trans-­‐languaging.	
  The	
  Modern	
  Language	
  Journal,	
  95(3),	
  401–417.	
  
Cazden,	
   Courtney	
   (1974).	
   Play	
   with	
   language	
   and	
   metalinguistic	
   awareness:	
   One	
   dimension	
   of	
   language	
  

experience.	
  International	
  Journal	
  of	
  Early	
  Childhood,	
  6(1),	
  12–24.	
  
Creese,	
   Angela,	
   &	
   Blackledge,	
   Adrian	
  with	
   Taskin	
   Baraç,	
   Arvind	
   Bhatt,	
   Shahela	
   Hamid,	
   Li	
  Wei,	
   Vally	
   Lytra,	
  

Peter	
   Martin,	
   Chao-­‐Jung	
   Wu,	
   &	
   Dilek	
   Yağcioğlu	
   (2011).	
   Separate	
   and	
   flexible	
   bilingualism	
   in	
  
complementary	
  schools.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Pragmatics,	
  43,	
  1196–1208.	
  

Cook,	
  Guy	
  (2000).	
  Language	
  play,	
  language	
  learning.	
  New	
  York	
  City,	
  New	
  York:	
  Oxford.	
  
Davies,	
   Catherine	
   Evans	
   (2004).	
   Developing	
   awareness	
   of	
   crosscultural	
   pragmatics:	
   The	
   case	
   of	
  

American/German	
  sociable	
  interaction.	
  Multilingua,	
  23,	
  207–231.	
  
Dewaele,	
   Jean-­‐Marc	
   (2008).	
   “Appropriateness”	
   in	
   foreign	
   language	
   acquisition	
   and	
   use:	
   Some	
   theoretical,	
  

methodological	
  and	
  ethical	
  considerations.	
  IRAL,	
  46,	
  235–255.	
  
Díaz,	
   Adriana	
   Raquel	
   (2013).	
  Developing	
  critical	
   languaculture	
  pedagogies	
   in	
  higher	
  education.	
  Bristol,	
  

United	
  Kingdom:	
  Multilingual	
  Matters.	
  
Doughty,	
  Catherine,	
  &	
  Williams,	
  Jessica	
  (1998).	
  Focus	
  on	
  form	
  in	
  classroom	
  second	
  language	
  acquisition.	
  

Cambridge,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  
Erickson,	
   Frederick,	
   &	
   Schultz,	
   Jeffrey	
   (1982).	
  The	
   counselor	
   as	
   gatekeeper:	
   Social	
   interaction	
   in	
   interviews.	
  

New	
  York	
  City,	
  New	
  York:	
  Academic	
  Press.	
  
Flamson,	
   Thomas	
   &	
   Barrett,	
   H.	
   Clark	
   (2008).	
   The	
   encryption	
   theory	
   of	
   humor:	
   A	
   knowledge-­‐based	
  

mechanism	
  of	
  honest	
  signaling.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Evolutionary	
  Psychology,	
  6(4),	
  261–281.	
  
Flamson,	
  Thomas,	
  Bryant,	
  Gregory,	
  &	
  Barrett,	
  H.	
  Clark	
  (2011).	
  Prosody	
  in	
  spontaneous	
  humor:	
  Evidence	
  for	
  

encryption.	
  Pragmatics	
  &	
  Cognition,	
  19(2),	
  248–267.	
  
Friedman,	
   Sam,	
   &	
   Kuipers,	
   Giselinde	
   (2013).	
   The	
   divisive	
   power	
   of	
   humour:	
   Comedy,	
   taste	
   and	
   symbolic	
  

boundaries.	
  Cultural	
  Sociology,	
  7(2),	
  179–195.	
  
Gardner,	
   Sheena	
   (2008).	
   Transforming	
   talk	
   and	
   phonics	
   practice:	
   Or,	
   how	
  do	
   crabs	
   clap?	
  TESOL	
  Quarterly,	
  

42(2),	
  261–284.	
  
Glenn,	
   Phillip	
   (1989).	
   Initiating	
   shared	
   laughter	
   in	
   multi-­‐party	
   conversations.	
   Western	
   Journal	
   of	
  

Communication,	
  53,	
  127–149.	
  
Glenn,	
   Phillip,	
   &	
   Holt,	
   Elizabeth	
   (2013).	
   Studies	
   of	
   laughter	
   in	
   interaction.	
   London,	
   United	
   Kingdom:	
  

Bloomsbury.	
  
Goodwin,	
  Charles	
   (1981).	
  Conversational	
  organization:	
  Interaction	
  between	
  speakers	
  and	
  hearers.	
  New	
  York	
  

City,	
  New	
  York:	
  Academic	
  Press.	
  
Gumperz,	
  John	
  (1982).	
  Discourse	
  strategies.	
  Cambridge,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  
Hinkel,	
   Eli	
   (1996).	
  When	
   in	
  Rome:	
  Evaluations	
  of	
   L2	
  pragmalinguistic	
   behaviors.	
   Journal	
  of	
  Pragmatics,	
  26,	
  

51–70.	
  
Holmes,	
  Janet	
  (2000).	
  Politeness,	
  power	
  and	
  provocation:	
  How	
  humour	
  functions	
  in	
  the	
  workplace.	
  Discourse	
  

Studies,	
  2(2),	
  159–185.	
  	
  
Hopper,	
   Paul	
   (1998).	
   Emergent	
   grammar.	
   In	
   Michael	
   Tomasello	
   (Ed.),	
   The	
   new	
   psychology	
   of	
   language:	
  

Cognitive	
   and	
   functional	
   approaches	
   to	
   language	
   structure,	
   (pp.	
   155–76).	
   Mahwah,	
   New	
   jersey:	
  
Lawrence	
  Erlbaum.	
  

Jacoby,	
   Sally,	
   &	
   Ochs,	
   Elinor	
   (1995).	
   Co-­‐construction:	
   An	
   introduction.	
   Research	
   on	
   Language	
   and	
   Social	
  
Interaction,	
  28(3),	
  171–183.	
  



BELL	
  &	
  POMERANZ	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47 44 

Janney,	
   Elizabeth,	
   &	
   Bell,	
   Nancy	
   (March	
   2014).	
   Teasing	
   in	
   scripted	
   and	
   unscripted	
   discourse.	
   Paper	
  
presented	
  at	
  the	
  American	
  Association	
  for	
  Applied	
  Linguistics,	
  Portland,	
  Oregon.	
  

Jefferson,	
  Gail	
  (1979).	
  A	
  technique	
  for	
  inviting	
  laughter	
  and	
  its	
  subsequent	
  acceptance	
  declination.	
  In	
  George	
  
Psathas	
   (Ed.),	
   Everyday	
   language:	
   Studies	
   in	
   ethnomethodology,	
   (pp.	
   79–95).	
   New	
   York	
   City,	
   New	
  
York:	
  Irvington	
  Publishers,	
  Inc.	
  

Jessner,	
   Ulrike	
   (2012).	
   Dynamics	
   of	
   multilingualism.	
   In	
   Carol	
   Chappelle	
   (Ed.),	
   The	
   Encyclopedia	
   of	
   Applied	
  
Linguistics,	
  (pp.	
  1798–1805).	
  Malden,	
  Massachussets:	
  Wiley.	
  

Kendon,	
  Adam	
  (1990).	
  Conducting	
  interaction:	
  Patterns	
  of	
  behavior	
  in	
  focused	
  encounters.	
  Cambridge,	
  United	
  
Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Kite,	
  Yuriko,	
  &	
  Tatsuki,	
  Donna	
  (2005).	
  Remedial	
  interactions	
  in	
  film.	
  In	
  Donna	
  Tatsuki	
  (Ed.).	
  Pragmatics	
  
in	
   language	
   learning:	
   Theory	
   and	
   practice,	
   (pp.	
   99–117).	
   Tokyo,	
   Japan:	
   Japan	
   Association	
   for	
  
Language	
  Teaching	
  Pragmatics	
  Special	
  Interest	
  Group.	
  	
  

Kotthoff,	
  Helga	
   (1999).	
  Coherent	
  keying	
   in	
   conversational	
  humour:	
  Contextualising	
   joint	
   fictionalization.	
   In	
  
Wolfram	
  Bublitz,	
  Uta	
  Lenk,	
  &	
  Eija	
  Ventola	
  (Eds.),	
  Coherence	
  in	
  spoken	
  and	
  written	
  discourse:	
  How	
  to	
  
create	
   it	
   and	
  how	
   to	
  describe	
   it,	
   Selected	
  papers	
   from	
   the	
   international	
  workshop	
  on	
   coherence,	
   (pp.	
  
125–150).	
  Amsterdam,	
  Netherlands:	
  John	
  Benjamins.	
  	
  

Kramsch,	
   Claire	
   (2002).	
   Language	
   acquisition	
   and	
   language	
   socialization:	
   Ecological	
   perspectives.	
  
London,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Continuum.	
  

Kramsch,	
  Claire	
  (2008).	
  Ecological	
  perspectives	
  on	
  foreign	
  language	
  education.	
  Language	
  Teaching,	
  41,	
  
389–408.	
  

Kramsch,	
  Claire	
  (2009).	
  The	
  multilingual	
  subject.	
  Oxford,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  Press.	
  
Kramsch,	
  Claire	
  (2014).	
  Teaching	
  foreign	
  languages	
  in	
  an	
  era	
  of	
  globalization:	
  Introduction.	
  The	
  Modern	
  

Language	
  Journal,	
  98(1),	
  296–311.	
  
Kramsch,	
   Claire,	
   &	
   Whiteside,	
   Anne	
   (2008).	
   Language	
   ecology	
   in	
   multilingual	
   settings:	
   Towards	
   a	
  

theory	
  of	
  symbolic	
  competence.	
  Applied	
  Linguistics,	
  29,	
  645–671.	
  
Kuipers,	
   Giselinde	
   (2006a).	
   Good	
   humor,	
   bad	
   taste:	
   A	
   sociology	
   of	
   the	
   joke.	
   Berlin,	
   Germany:	
   Mouton	
   de	
  

Gruyter.	
  
Kuipers,	
   Giselinde	
   (2006b).	
   Television	
   and	
   taste	
   hierarchy:	
   The	
   case	
   of	
   Dutch	
   television	
   comedy.	
  Media,	
  

Culture	
  and	
  Society,	
  28(3),	
  359–378.	
  
Larsen-­‐Freeman,	
   Diane	
   (1997).	
   Chaos/complexity	
   science	
   and	
   second	
   language	
   acquisition.	
   Applied	
  

Linguistics,	
  18,	
  141–165.	
  
Larsen-­‐Freeman,	
   Diane	
   (2010).	
   Having	
   and	
   doing:	
   Learning	
   from	
   a	
   complexity	
   theory	
   perspective.	
   In	
   Paul	
  

Seedhouse,	
  Steve	
  Walsh,	
  &	
  Chris	
  Jenks	
  (Eds.),	
  Conceptualizing	
  ‘learning’	
  in	
  applied	
  linguistics	
  (pp.	
  52–
68).	
  Basingstoke,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Palgrave	
  Macmillan.	
  

Larsen-­‐Freeman,	
  Diane.	
  (2011).	
  Complex,	
  dynamic	
  systems:	
  A	
  new	
  transdisciplinary	
  theme	
  for	
  applied	
  
linguistics?	
  Language	
  Teaching,	
  45(2),	
  202–214.	
  

Larsen-­‐Freeman,	
   Diane,	
   &	
   Cameron,	
   Lynne	
   (2008).	
   Complex	
   systems	
  and	
  applied	
   linguistics.	
   Oxford,	
   United	
  
Kingdom:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Leather,	
   Jonathan,	
   &	
   van	
   Dam,	
   Jet	
   (Eds.)	
   (2002).	
   Ecology	
   of	
   language	
   acquisitionNew	
   York	
   City,	
   New	
  
York:	
  Springer.	
  

Liddicoat,	
  Anthony	
  J.,	
  &	
  Scarino,	
  Angela	
  (2013).	
  Intercultural	
  language	
  teaching	
  and	
  learning.	
  	
  New	
  York	
  City,	
  
New	
  York:	
  Wiley-­‐Blackwell.	
  

Linell,	
  Per	
  (1998).	
  Approaching	
  dialogue:	
  Talk,	
  interaction	
  and	
  context	
  in	
  dialogical	
  perspectives.	
  Amsterdam,	
  
Netherlands:	
  John	
  Benjamins.	
  

Lucas,	
  Teresa	
  (2005).	
  Language	
  awareness	
  and	
  comprehension	
  through	
  puns	
  among	
  ESL	
  learners.	
  Language	
  
Awareness,	
  14(4),	
  221–238.	
  

Magnan,	
  Sally,	
  Murphy,	
  Dianna,	
  &	
  Sahakyan,	
  Narek	
  (2014).	
  Goals	
  of	
  collegiate	
  learners	
  and	
  the	
  Standards	
  for	
  
Foreign	
  Language	
  Learning.	
  The	
  Modern	
  Language	
  Journal,	
  98,	
  Supplement.	
  

Martínez-­‐Flor,	
   Alicia	
   (2007).	
   Analysing	
   request	
   modification	
   devices	
   in	
   films:	
   Implications	
   for	
   pragmatic	
  
learning	
  in	
  instructed	
  foreign	
  language	
  contexts.	
  In	
  Eva	
  Soler	
  &	
  Maria	
  Safont	
  Jordá	
  (Eds.),	
  Intercultural	
  
language	
  use	
  and	
  language	
  learning,	
  (pp.	
  245–276).	
  Dordrecht,	
  Netherlands:	
  Springer.	
  

Norrick,	
  Neal	
  (2003).	
  Issues	
  in	
  conversational	
  joking.	
  Journal	
  of	
  Pragmatics,	
  35,	
  1333–1359.	
  
Norrick,	
  Neal	
  (2007).	
  Interdiscourse	
  humor:	
  Contrast,	
  merging,	
  accommodation.	
  Humor:	
  International	
  Journal	
  

of	
  Humor	
  Research,	
  20(4),	
  389–413.	
  
Norton,	
  Bonny	
  (2000).	
  Identity	
  and	
  language	
  learning.	
  New	
  York	
  City,	
  New	
  York:	
  Longman.	
  



RECONSIDERING	
  LANGUAGE	
  TEACHING	
  THROUGH	
  HUMOR	
  
	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47	
    45 

Partington,	
   Alan	
   (2006).	
  The	
   linguistics	
  of	
   laughter:	
  A	
  corpus-­‐assisted	
   study	
  of	
   laughter-­‐talk.	
   London,	
   United	
  
Kingdom:	
  Routledge.	
  

Pavlenko,	
   Aneta,	
   &	
   Blackledge,	
   Adrian	
   (Eds.)	
   (2004).	
   Negotiation	
   of	
   identities	
   in	
   multilingual	
   contexts.	
  
Clevedon,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Multilingual	
  Matters.	
  

Philp,	
   Jenefer	
   (2003).	
  Constraints	
  on	
   “noticing	
   the	
  gap”:	
  Nonnative	
   speakers’	
  noticing	
  of	
   recasts	
   in	
  NS-­‐NNS	
  
interaction.	
  Studies	
  in	
  Second	
  Language	
  Acquisition,	
  25,	
  99–126.	
  

Pica,	
  Teresa	
  (1996).	
  Do	
  second	
  language	
  learners	
  need	
  negotiation?	
  IRAL,	
  34(1),	
  1–21.	
  
Pickering,	
  Lucy,	
  Corduas,	
  Marcella,	
  Eisterhold,	
  Jodie,	
  Seifried,	
  Brenna,	
  Eggleston,	
  Alyson,	
  &	
  Attardo,	
  Salvatore	
  

(2009).	
  Prosodic	
  markers	
  of	
  saliency	
  in	
  humorous	
  narratives.	
  Discourse	
  Processes,	
  46,	
  517–540.	
  
Rampton,	
  Ben	
  (1987).	
  Stylistic	
  variability	
  and	
  not	
  speaking	
  ‘normal’	
  English:	
  Some	
  post-­‐Labovian	
  approaches	
  

and	
  their	
  implications	
  for	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  interlanguage.	
  In	
  Rod	
  Ellis	
  (Ed.),	
  Second	
  language	
  acquisition	
  in	
  
context	
  (pp.	
  47-­‐58).	
  London,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Prentice-­‐Hall	
  International.	
  

Rampton,	
   Ben	
   (1999).	
  Deutsch	
   in	
   inner	
   London	
   and	
   the	
   animation	
   of	
   an	
   instructed	
   foreign	
   language.	
  
Journal	
  of	
  Sociolinguistics,	
  3–4,	
  480–504.	
  	
  

Rose,	
  Kenneth	
  (2001).	
  Compliments	
  and	
  compliment	
  responses	
  in	
  film:	
  Implications	
  for	
  pragmatics	
  research	
  
and	
  language	
  teaching.	
  IRAL	
  39,	
  309–327.	
  

Rymes,	
   Betsy	
   (2010).	
   Classroom	
   discourse	
   analysis:	
   A	
   focus	
   on	
   communicative	
   repertoires.	
   In	
   N.	
  
Hornberger	
   and	
   S.	
   McKay	
   (Eds.),	
   Sociolinguistics	
   and	
   language	
   education,	
   (pp.	
   528–546).	
   New	
  
York	
  City,	
  New	
  York:	
  Multilingual	
  Matters.	
  

Rymes,	
   Betsy	
   (2014).	
   Communicating	
   beyond	
   language:	
   Everyday	
   encounters	
  with	
   diversity.	
  New	
   York	
  
City,	
  New	
  York:	
  Routledge.	
  

Schmidt,	
  Richard	
  (1990).	
  The	
  role	
  of	
  consciousness	
  in	
  second	
  language	
  learning.	
  Applied	
  Linguistics,	
  11,	
  
129–158.	
  	
  

Siegal,	
  Meryl	
  (1996).	
  The	
  role	
  of	
  learner	
  subjectivity	
  in	
  second	
  language	
  sociolinguistic	
  competency:	
  Western	
  
women	
  learning	
  Japanese.	
  Applied	
  Linguistics,	
  17(3),	
  356–382.	
  

Straehle,	
   Carolyn	
   (1993).	
   “Samuel?”	
   “Yes,	
   dear?”	
   Teasing	
   and	
   conversational	
   rapport.	
   In	
   Deborah	
   Tannen	
  
(Ed.),	
  Framing	
  in	
  discourse,	
  (pp.	
  210–230).	
  New	
  York	
  City,	
  New	
  York:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Swain,	
  Merrill	
  (1985).	
  Communicative	
  competence:	
  Some	
  roles	
  of	
  comprehensible	
  input	
  and	
  comprehensible	
  
output	
   in	
   its	
   development.	
   In	
   Susan	
   Gass	
   &	
   Carolyn	
   Madden	
   (Eds.),	
   Input	
   in	
   second	
   language	
  
acquisition	
  (pp.	
  235–53).	
  Rowley,	
  Massachusetts:	
  Newbury	
  House.	
  

Swain,	
  Merrill	
  (1998).	
  Focus	
  on	
  form	
  through	
  conscious	
  reflection.	
  In	
  Catherine	
  Doughty	
  &	
  Jessica	
  Williams	
  
(Eds.)	
   Focus	
   on	
   form	
   in	
   classroom	
   second	
   language	
   acquisition	
   (pp.	
   64–81).	
   Cambridge,	
   United	
  
Kingdom:	
  Cambridge	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Swain,	
  Merrill,	
  &	
  Lapkin,	
  Sharon	
  (1995).	
  Problems	
  in	
  output	
  and	
  the	
  cognitive	
  processes	
  they	
  generate:	
  A	
  step	
  
towards	
  second	
  language	
  learning.	
  Applied	
  Linguistics,	
  16,	
  371–391.	
  

Swain,	
   Merrill,	
   Lapkin,	
   Sharon,	
   Knouzi,	
   Ibtissem,	
   Suzuki,	
   Wataru,	
   &	
   Brooks,	
   Lindsay	
   (2009).	
   Languaging:	
  
University	
  students	
  learn	
  the	
  grammatical	
  concept	
  of	
  voice	
  in	
  French.	
  Modern	
  Language	
  Journal,	
  93,	
  
5–29.	
  

Tannen,	
   Deborah	
   (1984).	
   Conversational	
   style:	
   Analyzing	
   talk	
   among	
   friends.	
   Norwood,	
   New	
   Jersey:	
   Ablex	
  
Publishing	
  Corporation.	
  

Tin,	
   Tan	
   Bee	
   (2012).	
   Freedom,	
   constraints	
   and	
   creativity	
   in	
   language	
   learning	
   tasks:	
   New	
   task	
   features.	
  
Innovation	
  in	
  Language	
  Learning	
  and	
  Teaching,	
  6(2),	
  177–186.	
  

Tin,	
  Tan	
  Bee	
   (2013).	
  Towards	
  creativity	
   in	
  ELT:	
  The	
  need	
   to	
  say	
  something	
  new.	
  ELT	
  Journal,	
  67	
   (4):	
  385–
397.	
  	
  

Tocalli-­‐Beller,	
  Agustina,	
  &	
  Swain,	
  Merrill	
  (2007).	
  Riddles	
  and	
  puns	
  in	
  the	
  ESL	
  classroom:	
  Adults	
  talk	
  to	
  learn.	
  
In	
   Alison	
  Mackey	
   (Ed.),	
  Conversational	
   interaction	
   in	
   second	
   language	
  acquisition:	
  Empirical	
   studies	
  
(pp.	
  143–167).	
  Oxford,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Oxford	
  University	
  Press.	
  

Van	
   Geert,	
   Paul	
   (2008).	
   The	
   dynamic	
   systems	
   approach	
   in	
   the	
   study	
   of	
   L1	
   and	
   L2	
   Acquisition:	
   An	
  
introduction.	
  The	
  Modern	
  Language	
  Journal,	
  92(2),	
  179–199.	
  

Van	
   Lier,	
   Leo	
   (2004).	
   The	
   ecology	
   and	
   semiotics	
   of	
   language	
   learning:	
   A	
   sociocultural	
   perspective.	
  
Dordrecht,	
  Netherlands:	
  Kluwer	
  Academic.	
  

Veale,	
   Tony	
   (2012).	
   Exploding	
   the	
   creativity	
   myth:	
   The	
   computational	
   foundations	
   of	
   linguistic	
   creativity.	
  
London,	
  United	
  Kingdom:	
  Bloomsbury	
  Academic.	
  

Verspoor,	
   Marjolijn,	
   de	
   Bot,	
   Kees,	
   &	
   Lowie,	
   Wander	
   (2011).	
   A	
   dynamic	
   approach	
   to	
   second	
   language	
  
development.	
  Amsterdam,	
  Netherlands:	
  John	
  Benjamins.	
  



BELL	
  &	
  POMERANZ	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47 46 

Williams,	
  Jessica	
  (2001).	
  The	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  spontaneous	
  attention	
  to	
  form.	
  System,	
  29,	
  325–240.	
  
Zamborlin,	
   Chiara	
   (2007).	
   Going	
   beyond	
   pragmatic	
   failures:	
   Dissonance	
   in	
   intercultural	
   communication.	
  

Intercultural	
  Pragmatics,	
  4(1),	
  21–50.	
  
Zuengler,	
   Jane,	
   &	
   Miller,	
   Elizabeth	
   R.	
   (2006).	
   Cognitive	
   and	
   sociocultural	
   perspectives:	
   Two	
   parallel	
   SLA	
  

worlds?	
  TESOL	
  Quarterly,	
  40,	
  35–58.	
  
Zwiers,	
   Jeff,	
  &	
  Crawford,	
  Marie	
  (2009).	
  How	
  to	
  start	
  academic	
  conversations.	
  Educational	
  Leadership,	
  66(7),	
  

70–73.	
  
	
   	
  



RECONSIDERING	
  LANGUAGE	
  TEACHING	
  THROUGH	
  HUMOR	
  
	
  
	
  

E-­‐JournALL	
  1	
  (2014),	
  31-­‐47	
    47 

Nancy Bell, Washington State University 
nbell@wsu.edu 
EN Nancy Bell is an Associate Professor and coordinator of the ESL program in the English Department at Washington 

State University. Her research interests center mainly on the discourse analytic investigation of conversational humor and 
language play, especially with respect to second language users. Her work has appeared in such journals as Applied 
Linguistics, Humor: International Journal of Humor Studies, Journal of Pragmatics, Language Learning, and Intercultural 
Pragmatics. She is also the author of A Student’s Guide to the M.A. TESOL. 

ES Nancy Bell es Profesor adjunto y coordinadora del programa ESL en el Departamento de Inglés de la Washington State 
University. Sus intereses de investigación se centran principalmente en la investigación analítica del discurso del humor 
conversacional y el juego lingüístico, especialmente con respecto a los usuarios de una segunda lengua. Su trabajo ha 
aparecido en revistas como Applied Linguistics, Humor: International Journal of Humor Studies, Journal of Pragmatics, 
Language Learning e Intercultural Pragmatics. Es también la autora de A Student’s Guide to the M.A. TESOL. 
 

IT Nancy Bell è Professore Associato e coordinatrice del programma ESL presso l’English Department della Washington 
State University. Le sue ricerche si concentrano principalmente sullo studio analitico dell’umorismo nel discorso e dei 
giochi linguistici, soprattutto in riferimento agli utenti di lingua seconda. I suoi lavori sono apparsi in riviste quali Applied 
Linguistics, Humor: International Journal of Humor Studies, Journal of Pragmatics, Language Learning e Intercultural 
Pragmatics. È inoltre autrice di A Student’s Guide to the M.A. TESOL. 

	
  
	
  
Anne Pomerantz,	
  University of Pennsylvania 
apomeran@gse.upenn.edu 
EN Anne Pomerantz is a Senior Lecturer in the Educational Linguistics program at the University of Pennsylvania, Graduate 

School of Education, where she teaches classes on language and identity, second language pedagogy, and intercultural 
communication.  Her work has appeared in Applied Linguistics, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, Journal of Language 
& Identity in Education, Journal of Language & Intercultural Communication, Modern Language Journal, and Multilingua. 

ES Anne Pomerantz es Profesor Titular en el programa de Lingüística de la Educación de la University of Pennsylvania, 
Graduate School of Education, donde imparte clases sobre lenguaje e identidad, pedagogía de segundas lenguas y 
comunicación intercultural. Su trabajo ha aparecido en Applied Linguistics, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, Journal 
of Language & Identity in Education, Journal of Language & Intercultural Communication, Modern Language Journal, y 
Multilingua. 
 

IT Anne Pomerantz è Lettrice Senior (Professore Associato) del programma di Educational Linguistics presso la University 
of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, dove tiene corsi su linguaggio e identità, pedagogia della lingua seconda 
e comunicazione interculturale. I suoi lavori sono apparsi nelle riviste Applied Linguistics, Critical Inquiry in Language 
Studies, Journal of Language & Identity in Education, Journal of Language & Intercultural Communication, Modern 
Language Journal e Multilingua.