Humor Scholarship and TESOL: Applying Findings and Establishing a Research Agenda

Abstract

Research in the areas of second language (L2) pragmatics and of conversational humor has increased in recent decades, resulting in a strong base of knowledge from which applied linguists can draw information for teaching purposes and undertake future research. Yet, whereas empirical findings in L2 pragmatics are beginning to find their way into textbooks, recommendations and activities, intended to integrate humor into the L2 classroom with the goal of increasing learners' proficiency in the use and understanding of L2 humor, remain based on intuition alone. Despite parallel developments in L2 pragmatics and humor studies, the two areas of scholarship have largely ignored each other, with humor scholars focusing mainly on native language uses of humor, and applied linguists avoiding the study of humor by L2 users. The purpose of this article is to bring these two fields together by outlining some major linguistic and sociolinguistic findings of humor scholarship, discussing how these understandings might help us integrate humor into the L2 classroom in a principled manner, and suggesting directions for future research on humor and L2 learners.

Multicompetence in L2 Language Play: A Longitudinal Case Study

“…Language play involves the ability to manipulate the forms and functions of language for language learning practice, aesthetic pleasure, entertainment, and often humor (G. Cook, ). Research has demonstrated how the ability to construct language play and humor (which can be seen as one subcategory of play) in a second language (L2) can figure prominently into an individual's ability to negotiate various social roles and identities, do facework, and communicate subtle L2 meanings, as well as simply adding to the enjoyment of L2 use and learning (see Bell, , for a review). The majority of this work has focused on learners in classroom contexts as they negotiate school‐based tasks and interact with their peers and instructors.…”

Mitigation in Turning down Business Proposals across Cultures: The Case for Pragmatic Competence Instruction

“…Rose (2005) observed that instructional effects research "has a long way to go" (p. 385), a statement that still applies today, largely due to the relative neglect of pragmatics in second language acquisition research but also the methodological problems involved (see also Conclusions). More recent reviews of the literature (Bell 2011), however, conclude that explicit instruction in pragmatics can indeed improve pragmatic performance. A major finding is that direct pragmatic competence instruction is more likely to benefit learners than no instruction (Eun & Tadayoushi 2006).…”

The functions of “just kidding” in American English

“…Despite the risk inherent in using humor, it remains a crucial interactional resource. Conversational humor plays an important role in terms of relationship management and identity construction (e.g., Bell, 2011;Martin, 2007), in part due to its ambiguous nature, which creates both the risk and the interactional payoff. Because of its deniability, potentially through the use of phrases like just kidding, humor allows us to express criticism or praise indirectly (Dews and Winner, 1995), to express heartfelt emotions in a way that is not seen as maudlin (Oring, 2003), or to save face when complaining (Jorgensen, 1996).…”