Channels • 2021 • Volume 6 • Number 1 Page 11 Classroom language in general presents an interesting context for humor research. In their 2014 publication, Bell and Pomerantz argue that much of formal language instruction is a fiction, or more accurately a fabrication, as teachers and learners are aware that most classroom language varies significantly from authentic communication among native speakers. Humor seeps into this crack, as stylistic variation and non-serious talk are ubiquitous in real-world interactions. Although Bell and Pomerantz are not the first to criticize the constraints of language education, their paper begins to fill the gap in applying alternative conceptions of language to L2 pedagogy, increasing the focus on interaction and communicative competency. Notably, they indicate that “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” ((Bell & Pomerantz, 2014, p. 40). Using humor to emphasize these factors in a language classroom encourages learners to creatively use both communicative and interpretive resources as they interact in the classroom. Honing in on the use of L1 humor in FL classrooms, Askildson (2005) observes, “The overwhelming majority of those surveyed indicated that even general (non-target language) humor was an important element of creating an overall environment conducive to learning. Specifically, participants indicated reduced anxiety/tension, improved approachability of teachers, and increased levels of interest as a result of humor usage by the teacher” (p. 55). Notably, reduced anxiety and motivation are associated with the lowering of the affective filter. Askildson goes on to state that humor’s perceived importance in learning should guide our consideration of the concept in research on pedagogy (p. 56). Finally, Askildson notes that “humor’s evident ability to lower the affective filter makes a strong argument in and of itself for explicit inclusion of humor in a language educational context” (p. 49). Given the results of his and others’ research in the field, Askildson strongly advocates further research on the pedagogical effects of humor in language-specific classrooms. Researchers Ziyaeemehr and Kumar (2014) also address a few aspects of humor’s role in the FL classroom, particularly its role in “foregrounding form,” “highlighting cultural dissimilarities,” and the notion of a “play frame,” similar to Norrick’s (2010) construct. They emphasize highlighting content and drawing students’ attention through the use of humor. That usage brings cultural and linguistic dissimilarities into relief thanks to contrasting expectations. Additionally, putting recasts of errors and more difficult language distinctions into a play frame politely corrects students’ errors and draws their attention to the particular structure in question (Ziyaeemehr & Kumar, 2014, p. 7). These features form a framework for analyzing the direct and indirect effects of humor in an FL classroom. Lastly, Bilokcuoglu and Debreli (2018) tout the potential of humor in “creating an affirmative environment and for establishing a less authoritarian way of teaching, leading to the reduction of affective filter among learners” (p. 356). Their article points out that given the prevalence of humor in everyday interactions and the potential of humor in classroom settings, it is surprising that more research has not been done on how to best use humor as a motivational and tension-reducing tool. Humor allows teachers to assume the role of facilitators instead of high-authority lecturers, especially in communicative classrooms. Often, teachers view humor as a distraction or cause of chaos rather than a tool for effective learning. Used correctly, humor can foster a sense of belonging for students and allow them to participate without losing face. These ideas must be balanced with the potential negative effects of overusing humor. In particular, sarcastic humor can lead to confusion in the L2, and humor directed too frequently at a single person might be misinterpreted
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=