In this paper I argue that the presentation and study of humor should be an important component in foreign language and translation courses. The use of humor in language courses, in addition to making classes more enjoyable, can contribute to improving students' proficiency. Humor is useful for the development of listening comprehension and reading. An analysis of the vast bibliography on humorology has led to the organization of humorous discourse into three groups: (i) universal or reality-based humor, (ii) culture-based humor, and (iii) linguistic or word-based humor. This grouping serves as a pedagogical framework for teaching humor in both language and translation classrooms. Learners and tyro translators should deal first with the relatively straightforward universal humor, continue with cultural humor, which demands more of learners and translators, and finally deal with linguistic humor that offers serious challenges to students of foreign languages and translation. The study of humor presents translators with the opportunity to exercise their creativity. Word-based or linguistic humor serves as a test of what can and cannot be translated and may entail a change in script if the ''new'' humorous discourse is to evoke laughter or at least a smile on the part of the target language audience.The scope of the paper: the importance of humor taxonomies and theories for language teaching and translationIn the field of foreign language teaching there are numerous suggestions for the use of humor in the language classroom. Observe the work of

No abstract

The realization that there are today more nonnative speakers than native speakers of English in the world with institutionalized and nativized varieties as well as their own specific communicative, cultural and pragmatic competencies has led to the rethinking of present-day practices in teaching, teacher preparation, and the writing of textbooks. Jenkins' publications (2000, 2003) dealing with the phonology of English and material for teaching English as an international language along with her book English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) (2007) call for the disengagement of the language from Anglo-American native speaker norms. This line of research presents serious questions for Applied Linguistics (AL) and English Language Teaching (ELT) that will, if implemented, entail major changes in that endeavor. The winds of change may indeed be beneficial for some and a threat to others. I argue in this paper for an open mindset with respect to the issues and to the new state of affairs in this globalized world today.

No abstract

This paper examines the pioneering model of World Englishes formulated by Kachru in the early 1980s that allocates the presence of English into three concentric circles: first of all, the inner circle (Great Britain, the USA) where the language functions as an L1 (or native language); secondly, the outer circle (India, Nigeria) where the language was forced upon the subjugated people by Britain; thirdly, the expanding circle (China, Brazil) where English is studied as a foreign language. Researchers in the area of language studies tend to put too much store in Kachru's model expecting it to expose the different circles: (i) the proficiency level of the speakers, (ii) the variation that exists in the different dialects of the language, and (iii) how the many users appropriate the language to perform their daily routine. Pung (2009) suggests "going beyond" the three circle model with his proposal of a Conical Model of English (CME), while Park and Wee (2009, p.402) state that models have no "magical efficacy in challenging dominant ideologies of English" and that change in the world is not brought about by models but my people. Based on Park and Lee's caution with regard to models, and in lieu of Pung's "going beyond" the well-known Kachruvian model, the thrust of this article is to look specifically under the inner circle, that is, the supposed "native speaker domain". It will be argued in this paper that the circles function as a palimpsest erasing and ignoring what happened in the past linguistically, historically and culturally before the appearance of English in the spaces that the language occupies at the present time in the inner, outer, and expanding circles. An examination of days gone-by, with a focus on Kachru's inner circle, can present a mirror to examine: (i) bilingual (multilingual) biases, (ii) migration of peoples and treatment of immigrants, (iii) respect (or lack of) for the linguistic and cultural rights of minorities, and (iv) the hegemony of English in relation to other languages - issues that concern us today and will continue to do so in the coming years.