THE FORUM

The TESOL Quarterly invites commentary on current trends or practices in the TESOL profession. It also welcomes responses to rebuttals to any articles or remarks published here in The Forum or elsewhere in the Quarterly.

A Humor Competence Curriculum

DOUGLAS WULF George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia, United States doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.215250

& I recall the first time I successfully told a spontaneous joke in a language other than my native English. I was riding in a car with three native German speakers. Despite years of studying German in school, I discovered on this, my first trip abroad, that struggling along in real conversation was exhausting. Among my communication challenges, I was unable to deal with humor. Whenever those around me would laugh at someones comment, I was perplexed. Joining in with forced laughter, I wondered if others were aware how clueless I was. I only hoped the jokes were not about me. Also, attempts to translate humor directly from English resulted only in confused stares. However, on this car ride, I suddenly perceived the potential to say something funny. Ahead, I saw a woman emerging from a house. Near her was a firewood holder, and she was gathering up logs. Immediately, a slang expression I had once read sprang to mind, and I pointed and said: Diese Frau dort! Sie hat wirklich viel Holz vor der Tu r! (That woman there! She really has lots of wood in front of the door!) The remark hit its target, for what I said not only had a literal interpretation, but also a somewhat earthy double entendre. Although the wordplay only works in German, an approximate translation is: That woman there! Shes really stacked! My triumph was only slightly dampened when I was asked if I realized that I had said something funny. Thus, I was still regarded as perhaps not competent enough to generate German humor, since using humor in a second language (L2) can obviously be tough even with a good command of humor in ones first language (L1). As Bell (2007) notes, the construction and
TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 44, No. 1, March 2010

155

comprehension of verbal humor in an L2 constitutes a great challenge even to advanced L2 learners, as it often requires sophisticated linguistic, social and cultural competence (p. 28). Vega (1989) indicates even highly proficient L2 speakers seem to systematically fail in the interpretation and production of humor (p. 26). Despite challenges, it is enormously valuable for L2 students to gain some level of L2 humor competence. Schmitz (2002) observes: Humor is part of . . . most social encounters; the use of humor and wit is intimately related to human nature (p. 90). Humor helps us win friends or a mate, disarm enemies with a retort, defuse tension in a delicate negotiation, or persuade others to our point of view. In my own case, my German hosts certainly held me in higher esteem after my quip. It also boosted my self-confidence in conversations. In short, using humor has social rewards. Humorous interaction certainly occurs in L2 classrooms. There is extensive literature investigating how humor may enhance teaching and learning, though precise benefits are still debated. From their survey of studies examining use of humor in tests, McMorris, Boothroyd, and Pietrangelo (1997) conclude that humor does not appear to improve test performance, but humor in a test can make test-taking less stressful. Potential benefits of using humor in L2 teaching and learning have been noted by Gomes de Matos (1974), Monnot and Kite (1974), Trachtenberg (1979), Maurice (1988), Deniere (1995), and Schmitz (2002), among others. However, my concern is not to enhance learning with humor, but rather with building L2 humor competence. Vega (1989) notes that most of us who speak a second language have undergone . . . frustration, feeling dumb or even embarrassed at not getting the joke, or disappointed at one of our jokes falling flat (p. 1). In a Washington Post interview, the chief executive of the language software company Rosetta Stone described his own language immersion experience: It was painful, it was kind of humiliating at times because you dont understand the jokes that are made about you (Lazo, 2009, p. A12). Summarizing the views of international students interviewed about L2 humor, Morain (1991) reports: with one voice they spoke of the alienation they experience when humor passes them by (p. 407). One respondent emphasized the importance of acquiring L2 humor proficiency: If you are able to understand the humor, you can consider yourself bilingual (p. 406). Vega (1989) views humor competence as part of overall communicative competence, and Attardo (1994) regards her claim as not controversial (p. 211). Raskin (1985) regards part of linguistic competence as the ability . . . to pass judgments as to the funniness of a text (p. 51). Yet, Vega argues, humor competence in second
156 TESOL QUARTERLY

language learners is an unacknowledged and unexplored area both in humor research and language teaching pedagogy (p. v), noting also that second language learners are not provided with the necessary knowledge and exposure to become competent in the understanding and production of humor (p. 2). In the two decades since Vega (1989), some discussion of L2 humor competence pedagogy has been published, but scholarship has not been extensive. Cook (2000), who views humorous language as one type of language play, thus criticizes language teaching orthodoxy as still excessively focused on language for work rather than play. He maintains that classroom language typically concerns information rather than linguistic parallels and repetitions, exact rather than indeterminate meanings, . . . actual rather than alternative reality, . . . [and] usefulness rather than pleasure (p. 158). This utilitarian view of language acquisition contrasts with L1 acquisition in children. Cook (2000) describes how almost from the onset of language, children begin to experiment with language creatively, such as punning and nonsense rhyming. McGhee (1979) tracks how children notice gradually more sophisticated incongruities causing them to smile or laugh. Dealing with language in divergent ways might perhaps appear to waste class time, but it is playful, figurative language that often underlies humor, which is used almost everywhere, including the workplace. More could be written to persuade instructors to develop and employ humor-competence activities, but I do not pursue this in this brief article. Rather, assuming an instructor is already so persuaded, I consider how to design a humor curriculum. As a first step in this direction, I begin with methodological development in other areas of language competency. For example, Richards (1983) analyzes a listening comprehension methodology using the format approach/design/procedure. For approach, Richards surveys what is known about the listening phenomenon. For design, Richards advances taxonomies of microskills for listening comprehension, including ability to recognize the stress patterns of words and ability to recognize elliptical forms of grammatical units and sentences (p. 228). For procedure, microskills serve as objectives in listening-comprehension activities. Thus, microskills may be targeted though a variety of lessons. Similar considerations can perhaps be applied to humor. Taking what has been learned about humor, one may generate taxonomies of microskills to serve as objectives for humor-focused activities. Scholarship on humor is today considerable, as can be seen from the wide variety of topics covered in the extensive survey of humor research in Raskin (2008). The macrodivision humor taxonomy (i.e., reality-based, culture-based, and word-based) advanced by Schmitz (2002) already bridges
THE FORUM 157

scholarship in humor and language pedagogy. Supplementary delineations of microskills can add to the discussion. Rather than advancing and defending a microskill taxonomy purely of my own devising, I open the discussion by appropriating taxonomies already found in the existing literature. These taxonomies are from Morain (1991) and Attardo, Hempelmann, and di Maio (2002), both broadly in conformity with the semantic script theory of humor (SSTH) from Raskin (1985). Researchers in L2 pedagogy will already be well acquainted with applications of script theory (or schema theory) in much scholarship on L2 listening and reading comprehension. Indeed, Richards (1983), mentioned earlier, employs this theory. An untapped potential application for such humor taxonomies is in the design of humor competence curricula. This simple but valuable idea has not been satisfactorily recognized in the literature on language pedagogy. My hope is that the present discussion might serve to ignite greater progress in the area of humor competence curriculum design and research. Beginning with the level of approach, I draw directly from humor scholarship to conceptualize humor competence broadly.

APPROACH Studying verbal humor, we can investigate jokes and conversational humor. Getting the Point The point of a joke or humorous comment is often its central characteristic. Many analyses describe the point of a joke in terms of resolving or justifying some incongruity (see Martin, 2007, for a discussion of the incongruity theory of humor). Consider Example 1:
Example 1 A woman goes into a library and says to the librarian, Id like a hamburger and a milkshake please. The librarian replies, Young lady, this is a library! Oh sorry, says the woman, now whispering, Id like a hamburger and a milkshake please.

Employing terminology from Schmitz (2002), we might identify Example 1 as a reality-based joke, because it is one even beginning students can find funny, assuming they have general knowledge about libraries and fast-food restaurants. It is obvious why placing a fast-food order at a library is incongruous, even if said at library voice volume. Raskin (1985) does not analyze the point of such jokes in terms of incongruity but rather notes the occurrence of overlapping scripts that
158 TESOL QUARTERLY

are found in opposition. In this case, the script visiting the library overlaps and opposes the script going to a fast-food restaurant.

Sociocultural Knowledge Yet, sometimes locating the point of a joke is more challenging because it can require sociocultural knowledge. Morain (1991) notes regarding her students studying intercultural understanding, one of the hardest things for them to grasp is that people in other cultures laugh in the special way their cultures have taught them to laugh (p. 397). Concerning their analysis of American cartoons, Morain indicates that her international students were reluctant to participate, explaining that they did not even understand what the cartoons were about (p. 397). One must know who and what in a culture is lampooned and how. It is not sufficient to know that George W. Bush is a political figure and that Britney Spears is a singer. One must also know for what traits they are mocked. Who or what is mocked in a joke is labeled the target (see Attardo et al., 2002). Consider Example 2:
Example 2 Advisors briefed President Bush that two Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq. To everyones surprise, the president collapsed in tears. Finally, composing himself, he asked, Exactly how many is two brazilian anyway?

This joke involves the sound similarity between Brazilian and expressions for large numbers, such as billion and trillion. Furthermore, it is a cultural phenomenon that when discussing large amounts, English speakers sometimes invent nonsense numbers, such as ka-billion or ba-zillion. Finally, George W. Bush is often caricatured for the trait of mispronouncing or misunderstanding words and, therefore, is someone who might conceivably think a brazilian is a large number. Example 2 is thus culture-based in the terminology of Schmitz (2002). It is not surprising that sociocultural knowledge is frequently built into jokes. Martin (2007) indicates, in addition to incongruity, there are several additional theoretical avenues for analyzing humor, such as psychoanalytic theory (i.e., the role of humor in releasing impulses), superiority theory (i.e., the role of aggression in humor), and reversal theory (i.e., humor as play). All of these paradigms can be seen to involve a sociological component relating to their psychological aspects. Jokes thus serve social functions, making them more than just puzzles in which one spots an incongruity. Still, problem-solving can be a big part of humor. Much humor is lost once a joke is explained. Indeed, this may relate to yet another theory of humor noted by Martin, arousal theory. Among the stimulating properties of humor under this theoretical view, Martin lists novelty, level of surprise, complexity, change, ambiguity,
THE FORUM 159

incongruity, and redundancy. An influential discussion of humor theories is also found in Raskin (1985).

Masking Yet, even with greater sociocultural familiarity, the point of a joke may still be difficult to reveal. This is because, as Attardo et al. (2002) observe, Most jokes employ a masking or justification . . . of the incongruity (p. 4). Masking takes many forms, sometimes involving how language itself works, as in linguistic or word-based jokes described by Schmitz (2002). Ambiguity A significant masking device in verbal humor is ambiguity. Raskin (1985) maintains, deliberate ambiguity will be shown to underlie much, if not all, of verbal humor (p. xiii). Consider Kermit the Frogs claim in Example 3:
Example 3 Times fun when youre having flies!

In Example 3, flies can be a verb meaning moves swiftly or a noun meaning flying insects. In Example 2, the ambiguity is between Brazilian and a nonsense number (e.g., ba-zillion). My German joke also used an ambiguous expression. From a study of the Brown Corpus of English, DeRose (1988) observes that part-of-speech ambiguity pervades English to an astonishing degree (p. 31). Lexical ambiguity in English is often used in humor, as are other varieties of ambiguity.

Other Masking Devices Attardo et al. (2002) list 27 known logical mechanisms masking the point of a joke. Thus, in Example 3, the familiar expression Time flies when youre having fun is transposed with wordplay called chiasmus. The resulting statement is humorous because it applies to frogs rather than human beings. Example 1 involves reasoning from false premises about the purpose and function of a library. Figurative Language In addition to jokes, there is the crucial skill of using conversational humor. For example, it is funnier to say I could eat a horse than Im very hungry, though this is not formally a joke. Conversational humor often employs figurative language, as we see here with use of hyperbole
160 TESOL QUARTERLY

(i.e., overstatement). Figures of speech are also used in retorts, selfdeprecating humor, and more. Figurative language might be regarded as just a twist on literal language, but Sperber and Wilson (1995) show how figurative language can be richer than literal language by indirectly conveying many contextual implications. Consider one of their examples presented in Example 4, employing zeugma (a kind of parallelism):
Example 4 Mary came with Peter, Joan with Bob, and Lily with a sad smile on her face.

In Example 4, syntactic parallelism is not matched by semantic parallelism. Sperber and Wilson (1995) note, what might be suggested is that Lily had no one to come with, that she was sad because [of this], that there was a whole story behind her sad smile in which Mary, Peter, Joan and Bob were somehow involved, and which an imaginative hearer could spell out (pp. 223224). Example 4 need not be funny, but it has that potential. Figurative language challenges one to think deeply about an utterances context. On reflection, it is sometimes possible to discover humorous or mocking intent.

DESIGN Based on the preceding discussion, what follows is a first attempt at a nonexhaustive humor microskill taxonomy. More categories could certainly be added, such as those addressing the pragmatics of using humor appropriately (e.g., avoiding offending others). The taxonomy of sociocultural knowledge is based directly on Morain (1991), which was constructed from the categories of sociocultural knowledge required to understand the content of cartoons in all issues of The New Yorker from 1990. I do not include sample jokes here because it seems obvious enough that to understand some jokes about golf, for example, it may be necessary to have certain specific knowledge about the game. Similar considerations apply to jokes involving any knowledge base. For many jokes, the requisite knowledge base involves particular points of information about the society or culture. My only alteration is to add the category labeled joke-specific scripts. As Raskin (1985) and others have noted, there exist special scripts that appear almost exclusively in the context of humorous expression, such as the distorted stereotypes of ethnic humor. Given the pedagogical orientation of this taxonomy, it thus seems reasonable to list this as a distinct category. The taxonomy of masking devices is taken almost directly from the logical-mechanism taxonomy proposed by Attardo et al. (2002), though I treat ambiguity here as a masking device in its own right. I also classify
THE FORUM 161

vicious circle as a type of juxtaposition, because it juxtaposes concepts, though Attardo et al. (2002) omit this masking device from the taxonomy without comment. The taxonomical categories that follow can certainly be debated. For example, see Ritchie (2004) for a critique of the taxonomy from Attardo et al. (2002). Indeed, vigorous debate would be most welcome, because debate has been so lacking in the two decades since Vega (1989) passionately argued that all efforts should be geared at presenting learners with some classroom activities that reflect humorous communication situations in which they are likely to engage (p. 75). Be that as it may, drawing as I have described largely from Morain (1991) and Attardo et al. (2002), I present the following first attempt at a taxonomy of humor competence microskills.

A Proposed L2 Humor Competence Taxonomy

I. The point: Appreciating the point of a joke, as may be depicted as an overlapping script opposition or a justified/resolved incongruity. Also, working with the implied contextual interpretations of conversational humor. II. Sociocultural knowledge: Grasping sociocultural knowledge that motivates humor and that sometimes obscures the point of a joke or a humorous statement. A. The social world 1. Interpersonal interaction (family life, friends, pets, etc.) 2. Restaurants, bars, clubs 3. Popular culture (fashions and fads) 4. Social expectations (social stereotypes) 5. Entertainment (TV, movies, sports, etc.) B. The working world 1. Business and technology (office life, etc.) 2. Politics and government 3. Professions (doctors, teachers, lawyers, etc.) 4. Other work (blue collar workers, etc.) C. The language world (sayings, slang, gestures/body language) D. The intellectual world 1. History 2. Literature 3. Art and architecture 4. Music and dance 5. Science, nature, ecology 6. Philosophy, religion, psychology E. Any other world (visual gags, fantasy, etc.)

162

TESOL QUARTERLY

F. Joke-specific scripts: half-true or false information used specifically for joke-telling purposes, such as the theme in jokes that blondes lack intelligence or that a chicken had some reason for crossing a road. III. Masking: Dealing with the point of a joke or a humorous comment that is deliberately hidden. A joke may employ one or more of these devices. A. Ambiguity (Arguably the most significant masking device) 1. Phonetic: Sound similarity (e.g., What do fifty female pigs and fifty male deer make? A hundred sows and bucks!). 2. Lexical: Lexical items with multiple meanings (e.g., Sign at a dry cleaning business: Thirty years on the same spot). 3. Structural: Having another way to analyze a sentences structure (e.g., Sign at a gas station: Well sell gasoline to anyone in a glass container). 4. Referential: An expression having another possible referent (e.g., The Duchess handled the launching beautifully, smashing the champagne against the prow. The crowd cheered as she slid down the runway into the sea). B. Syntagmatic relationships 1. Direct spatial relationships a. Juxtaposition: Two elements presented together (e.g., Boomerang grenade). 1. Sequence: Elements ordered temporally (e.g., A snail goes into a bar, but the bartender kicks him out. A year later, the snail comes back in and says angrily, Hey, why did you do that?). 2. Vicious circle: A Catch-22 juxtaposition (e.g., He was so dumb, he sold the car for gas money). b. Parallelism 1. Explicit parallelism: Parallel connection, but with different senses, as via zeugma (e.g., He was arrested by her beauty and the cops). 2. Implicit parallelism: Parallelism only implied inferentially (e.g., Why wont sharks attack lawyers? Professional courtesy). 3. Proportion: Two analogies in parallel (e.g., A train stops at a train station. What happens at a work station?). 2. Reversals a. Actantial 1. Role: A normal role is reversed (e.g., Teacher: Did your father help you with your homework? Student: No, he did it all by himself).
THE FORUM 163

2. Role exchange: Two roles are traded (e.g., Scout master: How did you get to our meeting with that hurt ankle? Scout: A little old lady helped me across the street). 3. Potency mapping: Elements of one script mapped onto another with equal or contrasting potency (e.g., If he wants to be a proofreader, I suggest he apply at the M&M factory [i.e., less potent than proofreading documents]). b. Chiasmus: Elements trade places (e.g., Joey Adams: Never let a fool kiss you or a kiss fool you). c. Figureground reversal: Foreground and background concepts switch (e.g., Steven Wright: I couldnt fix your brakes, so I made your horn louder). d. Vacuous reversal: A reversal that results in no change in the sense (e.g., Under capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. Under communism, its just the opposite). C. Reasoning 1. Correct a. Almost situation: Just one difference makes all the difference (e.g., Luckily, Friday the thirteenth this month falls on a Thursday). b. Analogy: A valid analogy can nonetheless be absurd, as may be expressed via simile or metaphor (e.g., John and Mary had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who had also never met). c. Coincidence: A correct result arises by chance (e.g., Teacher: Can you tell me two pronouns? Student: Who? Me?). d. From false premises: Correct reasoning, but starting from a mistaken premise (e.g., The dog just ate the rat poison! What should we do? Well, we can use traps). e. Inferring consequences: Similar to sequential juxtaposition, but focusing on inference rather than temporal ordering (e.g., Steven Wright: The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese). f. Missing link: The logic is valid if the missing premise is accepted (e.g., Why is psychoanalysis quicker for men than women? When its necessary to go back to childhood, hes already there [Unstated premise: Men are children]). 2. Faulty a. Cratylism (puns): The incorrect notion that similar sounding words should have similar meanings (e.g., When is a boat like snow? When its a-drift).
164 TESOL QUARTERLY

b. Exaggeration: Use of hyperbole or overstatement (e.g., How do you know when youre talking with an outgoing programmer? He stares at your shoes). c. False analogy: Comparing two things with respect to some marginal aspect, as may be expressed via simile or metaphor (e.g., Hes just like a horoscope: Hes always telling me what to do and is usually wrong). d. Field restriction: The field of application of an expression is restricted to too small or large a domain (e.g., Steven Wright: I went to a restaurant that serves breakfast at any time. So I ordered French toast during the Renaissance). e. Ignoring the obvious: An unmistakable oversight is made (e.g., Patient: Doctor, I get a pain in my eye whenever I drink tea. Doctor: After you stir it, remove the spoon). 3. Meta a. Garden path: The text appears to have one interpretation, but this is cancelled by another (e.g., Student: The Dutch Boy put his finger in a leaky dike and saved an entire city. Teacher: Which one? Student: I believe his left index finger). b. Metahumor: The expectation that one is hearing a joke is itself used as part of the joke (e.g., Two muffins are in an oven. One says, Its hot in here! The other says, Look! A talking muffin!). c. Self-reflexive: Involving a self-referential element (e.g., Remember to add example of self-reflexive joke).1 d. Self-undermining: Involving a self-defeating element (e.g., Here, take this placebo). IV. Figurative Language: Using figurative language in humor, as noted earlier with hyperbole, metaphor, simile, and zeugma. Figures of speech often appear for humorous effect not only in jokes, but also in conversational humor. Here is an additional sampling of figures of speech: A. Anachronism: Placing something at the wrong time (e.g., Lincoln walked seven miles to school each day. Perhaps he often missed the bus?). B. Allusion: Drawing on sociocultural knowledge to reference a historical or literary figure, event, or object (e.g., Brilliant move, Einstein! Said to someone perceived to have done something stupid).
1

The joke here is self-referential in that the absence of an example joke here is itself the joke.

THE FORUM

165

C. Irony or sarcasm: Actual intent expressed in words having opposite meaning (e.g., Im not sure how much more of his wonderful music I can tolerate). D. Paradox or oxymoron: A self-contradictory but sometimes meaningful statement (e.g., working vacation). E. Repetition: Recurring elements, such as catchphrases (e.g., Maxwell Smart: Missed it by that much!).

PROCEDURE I do not advocate teaching humor theory to L2 students. Rather, L2 students seem to require guided practice in building L2 humor competence, and humor theory can help inform instructors about the nature of humor competence. Scholarship to develop and research classroom procedures relating to humor competence has been remarkably sparse, but there are a few examples. An early attempt is Claire (1984). Morain (1991) considers addressing sociocultural knowledge required for improved L2 humor competence. Lucas (2005) studies low-advanced and advanced students who worked collaboratively to determine double meanings of puns, reporting that comprehension of the puns [increased] from 28.75% at the beginning of the collaborative dialogues to 77.5% at the end, and 91.25% in follow-up interviews held the day after the initial conversations (p. 221). These fairly advanced students of English are presumably familiar with ambiguity from their respective L1s, yet their initial ability to comprehend ambiguity in English humor was low. Yet, with collaborative practice, they were able to reach a high level of ambiguity comprehension. It may thus be hypothesized that collaborative work on jokes involving other masking devices might similarly lead to improved comprehension of these jokes, though such research has not yet been undertaken. Thus, the proposed value of this taxonomy (or some more refined and expanded version of it) is as a guide to planning lessons incorporating humor microskills, the effectiveness of which might then be the subject of classroom-based research. Many activities could potentially help to build humor competence, including those dealing with sociocultural knowledge, ambiguity, masking devices, or figurative language. Here is a simple activity to help students become aware of humorbased masking devices inductively. Activity
1. Half the students are sent out of the classroom with some other task. 2. The teacher tells the remaining students a joke employing some masking device(s) from the taxonomy above. By varying the device(s) whenever this
166 TESOL QUARTERLY

activity is used, students gradually encounter many ways humor is masked. The teacher tells the joke extemporaneously twice. This example involving reasoning from false premises is from Attardo et al. (2002, p. 10): A guy stood over his tee shot for what seemed an eternity, looking up, looking down, measuring the distance, figuring the wind direction and speed. Driving his partner nuts. Finally his exasperated partner says, What the hell is taking so long? Hit the ball already! The guy answers, My wife is up there watching me from the clubhouse. I want to make this a perfect shot. Man, you dont stand a chance of hitting her from here!

3. The teacher asks what is silly or wrong in the joke (i.e., the point) and how this happened (i.e., the masking device[s]). The answers for this joke are:
Incongruity: The golfing partner thought the guy was trying to hit his wife. Masking: The partner misunderstood why his friend was aiming so carefully.

4. After all students get the joke or have it explained to them (ideally by other students), the waiting students enter. 5. Each student who heard the joke is paired up with one who has not heard it to retell the joke. Eventually, all students grasp the humor or have it explained to them.

CONCLUSION My aim is to bridge scholarship on humor research and language pedagogy. I advocate the development and use of a humor-competence taxonomy for designing classroom activities. The next step would be experimental studies. Do activities designed around specific humor microskills indeed lead to improved competence in these microskills? If so, to what degree? Can students be trained to detect, understand, and generate L2 humor more successfully? Being an accomplished L2 speaker involves not only using language for literal statements of fact, but also expressing oneself creatively, which includes humor. Better awareness of humor microskills by teachers and researchers may lead to effective classroom activities for building L2 humor competence.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author expresses his thanks to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful guidance. The author also thanks Tel Monks for his input and editing suggestions.
THE FORUM 167

THE AUTHOR
Douglas Wulf is an assistant professor in the Department of English at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, United States, where he teaches in the TESL certificate and linguistics graduate programs. His research interests include semantics/ pragmatics, philosophy of language, and the application of linguistics to TESL.

REFERENCES
Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic theories of humor. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Attardo, S., Hempelmann, C. F., & di Maio, S. (2002). Script oppositions and logical mechanisms: Modeling incongruities and their resolutions. Humor, 15, 346. Bell, N. D. (2007). How native and non-native English speakers adapt to humor in intercultural interaction. Humor, 20, 2748. Claire, E. (1984). Whats so funny? A foreign students introduction to American humor. Rochelle Park, NJ: Eardley. Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Deniere, M. (1995). Humor and foreign language teaching. Humor, 8, 285298. DeRose, S. J. (1988). Grammatical category disambiguation by statistical optimization. Computational Linguistics, 14, 3139. Gomes de Matos, F. (1974). Humo(u)r: A neglected feature in foreign language teaching. Creativity: New Ideas in Language Teaching, 8(March), 12. Lazo, A. (2009, May 11). On Wall Street, Rosetta Stone tries new lingua franca. The Washington Post, p. A12. Lucas, T. (2005). Language awareness and comprehension through puns among ESL learners. Language Awareness, 14, 221238. Martin, R. (2007). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach. London, England: Elsevier Academic Press. Maurice, K. (1988). Laugh while learning another language: Technologies that are functional and funny. English Teaching Forum, 26(2), 2024. McGhee, P. E. (1979). Humor: Its origin and development. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. McMorris, R. F., Boothroyd, R. A., & Pietrangelo, D. J. (1997). Humor in educational testing: A review and discussion. Applied Measurement in Education, 10, 269297. Monnot, M., & Kite, J. (1974). Pun and games: Paranomasia in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 6571. Morain, G. G. (1991). X-raying the international funny bone: A study exploring differences in the perception of humor across culture. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 397408. Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic mechanisms of humor. Boston, MA: Reidel. Raskin, V. (Ed.). (2008). The primer of humor research. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Richards, J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 219240. Ritchie, G. (2004). The linguistic analysis of jokes. London: Routledge. Schmitz, J. R. (2002). Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign language and translation courses. Humor, 15, 89113. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication & cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

168

TESOL QUARTERLY

Trachtenberg, S. (1979). Joke telling as a tool in ESL. English Teaching Forum, 21(4), 812. Vega, G. (1989). Humor competence: The fifth component. Unpublished masters thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

Database Selection Guidelines for Meta-Analysis in Applied Linguistics

YO INNAMI Toyohashi University of Technology Aichi, Japan RIE KOIZUMI Tokiwa University Ibaraki, Japan doi: 10.5054/tq.2010.215253

& The massive accumulation of knowledge and studies on certain topics

within the academic domain heightens the need for more research syntheses, and this is also true for the field of applied linguistics. A statistical approach to integrating studies is known as meta-analysis1; researchers attempt to quantitatively summarize a set of empirical data across studies in order to identify consistencies and explain variabilities through this method (e.g., Cooper & Hedges, 1994; Norris & Ortega, 2006, 2007). Although the concept of meta-analysis is a century old, Glass (1976) and Norris and Ortega (2000) initiated a widespread modern interest in this method in education and applied linguistics research. According to Cooper (1982), the meta-analysis process can be classified into five stages: (a) the problem formulation stage, in which research questions that are to be addressed in the meta-analysis are specified and formulated; (b) the data collection stage, in which the literature on relevant studies is researched; (c) the data evaluation stage, in which information that will help answer the research questions is coded; (d) the analysis and interpretation stage, in which the coded information is statistically integrated; and (e) the public presentation stage, in which the findings from the synthesis are disseminated among the audience. It must be noted that individual studies provide data included in a meta-analysis, which is in contrast to the traditional
1

There are also nonstatistical approaches to synthesizing research (see discussion in Light & Pillemer, 1984; Norris & Ortega, 2006).

THE FORUM

169