Humor as a pedagogical tool in foreign

language and translation courses

JOHN ROBERT SCHMITZ

Abstract

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, con-
tinue 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 translation

In the field of foreign language teaching there are numerous suggestions

for the use of humor in the language classroom. Observe the work of
Monnot and Kite (1974), Gomes de Matos (1974), Trachtenberg (1979),

Humor 15–1 (2002), 89– 113 0933–1719/02/0015– 0089

# Walter de Gruyter
90 J. R. Schmitz

Maurice (1988) and Deneire (1995). The study of humor by specialists in

discourse analysis (Dolitsky 1983), semiotics (Scherzer 1978), anthro-
pology, (Johnson 1978), education, (Darling and Civikly 1986–87) and
linguistics, (Hockett 1972) has contributed a great deal of knowledge
about humor and its role in human communication. Research on humor
is truly interdisciplinary.
It is the objective of this paper to examine pertinent bibliography in the
area of humor: Heller (1974), Johnson (1978), Dolitsky (1983), Norrick
(1984), Raskin (1985), Apte (1987), Long and Graesser (1988), Ruch et al.
(1993) for the purpose of suggesting ways of making use of humor in the
language classroom and in foreign language teaching materials. Marc
Deneire’s (1995) thought-provoking article on the use of humor in English
as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes serves as additional inspiration
for this article.
I also want to argue in favor of the use of humorous discourse in
translation courses. It is my intention to address myself to the question
of whether or not humor can be translated based on the work of
Liebold (1989), Laurian (1992), Lendvai (1996), Zabalbeascoa (1996),
and Ballard (1996), and to study the translation and interpretation
of humorous discourse in the light of recent developments and thinking
by these scholars in the field of translation studies. In particular,
I intend to examine the essentialist/non-essentialist debate sparked
off by deconstructionalist writers Derrida, (McDonald 1982), Culler
(1988) and translation specialists such as Robinson (1991) and Venuti
(1995).
Humor is part of virtually most social encounters; the use of humor and
wit is intimately related to human nature. Humorous statements are
speech acts that have different functions in spoken and written discourse
(Long and Graesser 1988); some involve social satire, a play on words,
while others have as their target, criticism of either men or women or a
particular group, nation or race. I will use the cover term ‘‘humorous
discourse’’ to refer to a variety of texts that are related but often
have subtle differences: jokes, jests, witticisms, quips, quipsels, sallies,
cracks, wisecracks, gags, puns, retorts, riddles, one liners, conundrums
(Tidwell 1956, Geiger 1980, Fechtner 1983). I will not look at these terms
in detail, for the presentation of definitions and the specific study of
taxonomies are not basic to my purpose.
Norrick (1984) presents a four-fold classification of witticism:
(i) comparisons, (ii) retorts, (iii) quips and (iv) stock conversational
 Humor in foreign language courses 91

witticisms. Quite pertinent also to the objective of this paper is the

taxonomy of jokes developed by Long and Graesser (1988) in which
jokes are classified into ten different categories: (i) nonsense, (ii) social
satire, (iii) philosophical, (iv) sexual, (v) hostile, (vi) demeaning to men,
(vii) demeaning to women, (viii) ethnic, (ix) sick and (x) scatological.
Long and Graesser (1988) also present a taxonomy of wit: (i) irony,
(ii) satire, (iii) sarcasm and hostility, (iv) overstatement and under-
statement, (v) self-deprecation, (vi) teasing, (vi) replies to rhetorical
questions, (viii) clever replies to serious statements, (ix) double entendres,
(x) transformation of frozen expressions and (xi) puns.
Long and Graesser’s classification is indeed pertinent for the theoretical
study of humor. But can all the types of humor in the authors’ taxonomy
be used in language classrooms with all types of learners, with adults
as well as children? Deneire (1995: 287) states that humor has to be used
with caution in classroom situations and in other public contexts as well.
With regard to this classification of jokes, most likely only the first three
may be fit for classroom presentation, that is, (i) nonsense, (ii) social satire
and (iii) philosophical. Types (iv) through (x) are quite problematic for
use in most classrooms. Common sense and tact will no doubt guide
teachers in their selection of suitable types of humor for their specific
classroom situation.
I am not advocating the use of humor that ridicules ethnic groups or
is demeaning to either men or women. In this regard, Darling and
Civikly (1986–87: 25) cite Sigmund Freud’s pioneering study on humor in
which a distinction is made between ‘‘tendentious’’ and ‘‘nontendentious
humor’’, the former being that which is ‘‘derogatory or ridiculing and
that masks themes of hostility or aggression’’ whereas the later, ‘‘void of
hostility, is more playful and innocent in character’’. The first can also
be referred to as ‘‘destructive humor’’ and the second is ‘‘constructive
humor’’. There are, however, problems when it is a question of making
use of some humorous material, particularly in high school and,
possibly in university classrooms. With respect to schools and teaching
in general, Erickson (1987: 12–13) points to three main views of school
culture: (i) culture as pieces of information, (ii) culture as a set of symbols
and concepts, and (iii) school culture as an arena of different meanings
formed as a result of political and social struggle. Schools are complex
entities and classrooms are public spaces populated by different students
with different values, attitudes and views of the world. What may be
acceptable in one group may not be in another. What may be felicitous in
92 J. R. Schmitz

one context might not work out in another. Many teachers report that
each classroom group has its own ‘‘personality’’.
One might ask why humor published in, for example, The Reader’s
Digest or The Farmers’ Almanac, is well received by readers. I believe the
success of this type of humor is due to its neutrality for it is not offensive
to specific individuals or groups.
Observe, for example, that the humor taken from the Farmers’
Almanac, set out in (1), is not destructive of, or demeaning to, specific
groups:

(1) (a) Small boy to father reading report card: ‘‘You’ll notice my grades
reflect the shocking incapacity of the school system.’’
(b) A diner walked into a crowded restaurant during the holiday
season. Catching the eye of a waiter, he said, ‘‘You know it’s been
10 years since I came here.’’
‘‘Well, it’s not my fault, ‘‘snapped the harried waiter. ‘‘I’m
working as fast as I can.’’
(c) A not-so-bright chap was elected to the town council. The first
proposal he made was to buy a new fire engine.
‘‘What will we do with the old engine?’’, another city father asked.
‘‘Well, for one thing,’’ the councilman offered, ‘‘we could use it for
false alarms.’’
(Geiger 1980, The Farmers’ Almanac)

Joke (1a) provides a clever answer on the part of a young boy, that
is ‘‘any young boy’’ to deflect his low academic standing; joke (1b)
involves a misunderstanding between an over-worked waiter among
the class of many over-worked servers who fails to ‘‘hear’’ what a diner
is telling him; joke (1c) pokes fun at an elected official who happens to
be incompetent, that is, any incompetent elected official. The frame of
the joke does not focus on the ethnic or religious background of the office
holder.
In theory ‘‘destructive jokes’’ as well as the ‘‘constructive’’ ones are
equally useful for teaching cultural perspectives; in theory there are no
types of jokes that should be excluded for humorous discourse serves
as a mirror of a particular nation or society. In practice, however,
classroom teachers, particularly in high school and possibly in some
university situations, may have to exercise care in the selection of
humorous materials.
 Humor in foreign language courses 93

Sudol (1981: 27) also refers to the ‘‘possible ramifications’’ in high

school classes of the humor that might be ‘‘slightly risqué, perhaps
borderline for school’’. If students tell the joke they heard in class in
the presence of their parents, during mealtime, for example, Sudol fears
that some parents may complain and that teachers might very well be
‘‘called before the board of education’’. The presentation of ‘‘sick’’ jokes
in classroom situations may offend those who may have some type of
impairment. Misunderstanding can occur in the use of ethnic or religious
jokes for students can take offense and feel that they are being ridiculed.
Sexual jokes and humor demeaning to women or men (Long and Graesser
1988) may also alienate students and create negative attitudes towards
the foreign language and create problems for teachers.
With respect to translation courses that are normally university level,
the instructor may have more leeway in the choice of the type of humor
to be used as exercises in class and for assignments outside of class.
Translators during the course of their professional careers will no doubt
come into contact with a variety of texts and no doubt translation courses
should reflect what future translators will experience in the course of their
careers.1 Robinson (1991: 131) points to the ethical questions translators
face in their work. He asks what translators should do with a text that
‘‘grossly offends his or her sensibilities’’, such as a neo-Nazi text. Should
they translate it and become a part of it? Or should they point out to their
readers ‘‘how pernicious this stuff is’’? Robinson is putting the burden
on translators. What should their ethical stance be with respect to racist
material? If translators have the power, they might attempt to subvert the
original and expose the violence of the discourse. If they are not so
empowered, the ethical thing would be to refuse to be a part in the
production of such material.
Based on Long and Graesser’s categories, I propose, for the purpose of
language teaching, the division of humorous discourse into three basic
groups. The first group includes humor that obtains mainly from the
context and the general functioning of the world. To be more precise, this
type of joke might be labeled the universal (or reality-based joke) for in
theory jokes belonging to this group would continue to be humorous
in translation from English into other languages. The second group is the
cultural joke or cultural-based joke. The third group is the linguistic joke
or word-based joke based on specific features in the phonology,
morphology or syntax of particular languages. The cultural or linguistic
jokes may not always be humorous in translation. The universal
94 J. R. Schmitz

(or reality-based) humor can be used in all three levels. The linguistic
or (word-based) humor would be more effective if introduced when the
students are truly intermediate or advanced in their proficiency level.
In the advanced level, the three types of humor can be exploited without
major problems.2

The use of humor in the English as a foreign language and

foreign language classroom

I propose the use of humorous material in written and oral form as

input in language classrooms. But this procedure, however, does not
exclude other uses of humor as cited by Neuliep (1991) such as the use of
‘‘personal anecdote or story related to the subject/topic’’, ‘‘some form
of verbal comedy’’ or ‘‘a brief humorous comment directed at national
or world events, personalities, or at popular culture’’. In this stance the
instructor herself tries to be spontaneously humorous and does not
depend on the presentation of oral and written material. It would
appear that the American high school teachers in Neuliep’s experiment
were not foreign language teachers. Although the author does not
inform his readers about the specific disciplines taught by the teachers
who participated in the experiment, I conjecture that the courses were
conducted (in English) to native speakers of the language in the social
and natural sciences. Many of these procedures obviously would not be
of use to foreign/second language teachers until, perhaps the advanced
stages of learning. I agree with Neuliep’s (1991: 354) findings that,
‘‘teachers use humor as a way of putting students at ease, as an attention-
getter, as a way of showing that the teacher is human, as a way to keep
the class less formal, and to make learning more fun.’’
I agree with Deneire (1995: 285) that there is a need for a harmonious
integration of humor into existing language teaching approaches. The
advantage of humor is that it can be used with any language teaching
approach or method, be it the Communicative Approach, Total Physical
Response (TPR) or Suggestopedia. There are drawbacks in incorporating
humor into textbooks. Humorous discourse ‘‘institutionalized’’ in this
way runs the risk of becoming stale very quickly for many humorous texts
can become outdated in a matter of months.
Humor provides teachers and students with the opportunity for a
respite from the formally assigned text material. Since humor in most
 Humor in foreign language courses 95

societies occurs at specific moments or situations in social interactions,

it would be best for teachers to maintain a file of humorous texts for
use at specific moments in the language classroom. Learning another
language is indeed hard work and requires a great deal of effort on the
part of the learners. Humorous material can add variety to the class,
providing a change of pace, and can contribute to reducing tension that
many learners feel during the learning process. But the use of humorous
texts in classes should be planned by the teacher. It should give learners
the impression of being spontaneous but yet be an integral part of the
course instrumental in building language skills, and never an incidental
or ‘‘by the way’’ activity. In order to increase the lexical competence of
students as rapidly as possible, the vocabulary that is part of humorous
material could be introduced prior to the presentation of humorous
material. All the vocabulary that is presented and eventually learned
as part of the course would be included in the evaluation of progress.
In this way, humor in the language classroom would be ‘‘no laughing or
joking matter’’ and hopefully would be taken seriously.3

When should humor be introduced in language courses?

Deneire (1995: 286) contends that humor should only be presented

when the students have ‘‘acquired the cultural and linguistic resources’’
necessary to understand it. In this view, the use of humor in the class-
room would serve as ‘‘an illustration and reinforcement’’ of what they
already know. For this writer, humor should not be used as ‘‘a technique
to introduce linguistic phenomena and cultural knowledge’’ (p. 294).
The present study is similar to Deneire’s in that it is based on the
belief that humorous discourse is invaluable in language learning and
is supported by practical experience in classroom situations.
I differ with Deneire (1995) in that I feel humorous discourse in the
form of anecdotes, jokes, puns and quips should be introduced from
the initial stage of language instruction and continued throughout the
language program. To be sure, the humorous material has to be selected
to fit the linguistic competence of the students. It is important for
students of foreign languages to know what types of discourse native
speakers consider to be humorous or ‘‘funny’’ or downright hilarious.
It is important also to identify appropriate texts that provoke laughter
or at least a smile on the part of native speakers. The earlier students
96 J. R. Schmitz

are introduced to authentic language input, to different styles of speech

and to speakers of different ages, sex, socio-cultural level and from
different regions, the less artificial or ‘‘classroom-like’’ their output will
be. I would disagree with Deneire’s proposal that humor be deferred
until students have the necessary linguistic competence to understand
and appreciate humor. Bearing in mind that there is so much to learn
about specific languages and their respective cultures and so little time in
most courses, it would not be wise to hold humor entirely (my emphasis)
in abeyance until later stages.
One objection that might be leveled at the proposal made in this
paper is that it is a mere reflection on the use of humor in the classroom
rather than an empirical study of humor with actual trials in school
contexts. To be sure, it would indeed be useful to conduct experiments
in different classroom settings in different parts of the world with
humorous discourse, focusing on the three types of humor outlined
above. Such a project would indeed be the subject of another paper.
The present study might be viewed as a plea for empirical research.
There is, without any doubt, a need for research on the use of humor in
language classrooms, but until there are sufficient studies based on
experiments with humor in different teaching situations, with different
levels of proficiency, different target and source languages, in different
countries, most of the proposals and recommendations will perforce be
based on practical experience with humor and classroom teaching.

Humor at the elementary level: a little bit can go a long way

In elementary FL/EFL courses, the instructor who wants to use humor is

of course restricted by the limited competence of the students. The early
introduction of humor makes it necessary to provide students as soon
as possible with appropriate vocabulary. Bearing in mind that the
students at this stage are far from being proficient, only universal humor is
appropriate, for it would in most cases be expected that the linguistic and
cultural jokes are beyond the level of competence of the students. In
beginning courses, at least towards the end of the semester, the teacher
may introduce ‘‘quips’’, that is, ‘‘smart’’ answers or retorts to the
questions or statements as presented in (2):
(2) (a) Last week I went fishing and all I got was a sunburn, poison ivy
and mosquito bites.
 Humor in foreign language courses 97

(b) Gee, Dad, that’s a swell fish you caught. Can I use it as bait?
(c) Are you fishing? No, just drowning worms.
(d) Do fish grow fast? Sure. Every time my Dad mentions the one
that got away, it grows another foot.

In (2a) the irony of the situation is that no fish were caught, but the
narrator gained experience in dealing with the hard realities of nature.
In (2b) a young man ridicules the size of the fish his father caught by
asking whether or not he could use it for bait. In (2c) the answer to the
‘‘stupid’’ question is a sarcastic remark. In (2d) the answer to the query
about whether fish grow fast is the retort provided by a son whose father
always exaggerates the size of those fish that escaped. The humorous
texts in (2) deal with real world situations, human behavior (lying,
exaggerating, bragging and asking obvious questions). For EFL learners
there are no language internal or linguistic problems in ‘‘getting’’ the
humor of these texts. The material in (2) can be presented as reading, used
as dictation or as a brief listening comprehension activity.

Humor at the intermediate level: more and more

In intermediate language courses, the possibilities are naturally much

wider, for the students at this level have a larger vocabulary and more
solid control of the syntax of the language. Universal humor should
of course be continued throughout the program. Pieces of humorous
discourse in the form of short narratives for reading are useful at this
stage. Two examples are presented in (3) and (4):

(3) The notorious cheapskate finally decided to have a party. Explaining

to a friend how to find his apartment, he said, ‘‘Come up to 5M and
ring the doorbell with your elbow. When the door opens, push with
your foot.’’
‘‘Why use my elbow and foot?’’
‘‘Well, gosh,’’ was the reply, ‘‘you’re not coming empty-handed,
are you?’’
The Lion/Reader’s Digest (December 1986)

(4) A young playwright gave a special invitation to a highly regarded

critic to watch his new play. The critic came to the play, but slept
98 J. R. Schmitz

through the entire performance. The playwright was indignant and

said:
‘‘How could you sleep when you know how much I wanted your
opinion?’’
‘‘Young man,’’ the critic said, ‘‘sleep is an opinion.’’
The Farmer’s Almanac

In the intermediate stage, most language students are ready to appreciate

cultural jokes. Some examples are shown in (5):

(5) (a) The stockbroker’s secretary answered his phone one morning:
‘‘I’m sorry’’, she said, ‘‘ Mr. Bradford’s on another line.’’
‘‘This is Mr. Ingram’s office’’, the caller said. ‘‘We’d like to know
if he’s bullish or bearish right now’’.
‘‘He’s talking to his wife,’’ the secretary replied.’’ Right now I’d
say he’s sheepish’’.
John Pizzuto.
The Great Wall Street Joke Book (Long Shadow Books).
Reader’s Digest (December 1986).
(b) The tailor had just measured the man’s waistline. ‘‘Harold, dear,’’
the customer’s wife said thoughtfully, ‘‘It’s amazing when you
think about it. A Douglas fir with the same circumference would
be seventy-five feet tall.’’
Kenneth Hall
in the American Legion Magazine/Reader’s Digest
(December 1986)

Jokes and humorous anecdotes such as the ones presented in (5) are,
in my view, pedagogically useful for the texts are short and provide
students with light reading and opportunity for listening comprehension
in class or in the language laboratory. The brevity of these texts may
provide a refreshing change from those longer reading assignments —
short stories, plays, and novels. In order to increase the lexical competence
of students as rapidly as possible (the intermediate stage is the time to
intensify the presentation of vocabulary), the vocabulary that is part of
humorous material could be introduced prior to the presentation of puns
of this type. All vocabulary that is presented and eventually learned as
part of the course would be included in the evaluation of progress.
The humorous discourses in (5a) and (5b) are quite transparent.
Joke (5c) is interesting in that some cultural information dealing with
 Humor in foreign language courses 99

the stock market (bullish, bearish) are associated with another script
dealing with personal relations with another individual. This joke is
cleverly constructed for two animals bull and bear along with the
adjectives bullish and bearish from the world of business are linked
with sheep/sheepish which refer to a husband who is diffident when dealing
with his wife. (5d) introduces some cultural information (Douglas Fir tree)
not always found in standard or in learner’s dictionaries.
In addition, in the USA, lawyers and attorneys are the butt of many
humorous texts, and even lawyers tell jokes about themselves. There is a
danger of course that some students may object to these jokes as I stated
above. Indeed, there are risks in teaching humor as Sudol (1981) observes.
But the fact is that these jokes occur in the culture. Students know of
course that not all (my emphasis) lawyers, doctors or plumbers are
dishonest and/or incompetent. Schaff (1984: 90) points to the complexity
of stereotypes in human affairs and points to the ‘‘formative influence of
stereotypes upon man’s social character.’’ I feel foreign students should be
aware that this type of joke is often part and parcel of conversations.
Brazilians tell jokes about the Portuguese with regard to stupidity
(cf. Davies 1997) and the Portuguese do the same with respect to
Brazilians. It would be a disservice to not (my emphasis) present this
material to learners particularly in university-level courses. Students
should not have to wait until they visit or live in Brazil or Portugal to
receive these cultural jokes. Such material is also invaluable for foreign
language learners for it provides them some insight into how members
of the society view each another. Jokes about lawyers taken from
Rafferty (1988) are set out in (6):

(6) Why does California have the most lawyers and New Jersey the most
toxic waste dumps?
New Jersey had first choice.
(Rafferty 1988: 54)

The advanced level: humor at is best

Linguistic or word-based humor and the cultural joke should, I feel, be

exploited fully at the advanced stage. I will deal with the linguistic-based
joke first.
100 J. R. Schmitz

An example of a linguistic-based joke in (7) which takes advantage

of the polysemy of the word still would be appropriate at this level of
proficiency.

(7) Wife: ‘‘Do you love me still?’’

Husband: ‘‘I might if you’d stay still long enough.’’
(Lendvai 1996: 91, apud Flier)

Those foreign learners of English who have not developed language

awareness or ‘‘word sensitivity’’ will no doubt fail to see the humor in the
situation in which a wife wishes to be assured that her husband continues
to love her and in another situation in which the husband states that he
can only make love to his wife provided she remain in one place for a
specific period of time. Some students, particularly ‘‘false’’ intermediate
students, fail to ‘‘get’’ this type of joke owing to lack of awareness that
a single word can signal different meanings.
Research in applied linguistics in recent years has shown the need to
de-emphasize grammar and grammatical rules and to give more attention
to strengthening the students’ vocabulary. Hatch and Brown (1995: 369)
argue for the use in language classroom of what they call ‘‘incidental
vocabulary learning’’ in addition to intentionally taught vocabulary.
As far as second language learning is concerned, Laufer (1997: 31) states
that the main obstacle to good reading is the ‘‘insufficient number of
words in the learner’s lexicon.’’ I feel that the use of humor in the form
of jokes as in (8) below can provide the ‘‘incidental vocabulary’’ in the
classroom that Hatch and Brown recommend. Students need massive
amounts of vocabulary in order to feel confident that they can understand
some or all of the exchanges that they hear and also have the opportunity
to employ their vocabulary in real situations. A good example of a
linguistic-based joke, quite difficult for many learners is joke (8) below.
Many learners of English will not find the joke in (8) to be funny at all
due to their lack of vocabulary and experience punning.

(8) What is the difference between stabbing a man and killing a hog?
One is assaulting with intent to kill and the other is killing with intent
to salt.
(Tidwell 1956)

This joke demands a great deal of lexical competence on the part of

learners for they have to cope with the play on the word salt and the
 Humor in foreign language courses 101

contrast ‘‘killing with intent to salt’’ and ‘‘assaulting with intent to kill.’’
Many learners who are native speakers of languages that do not have
this type of humor fail to find this type of joke to be amusing, and as a
result consider this exchange and others like them to be silly or even
stupid. Puns and plays on words are characteristic of English and part
of the culture. Those students who continue their study of English
and embark on the reading, for example, of Shakespeare’s plays will
encounter large numbers of puns and if they are to appreciate the Bard’s
plays, they must understand this humor and attempt to see humorous
discourse, as far as possible, as the playwright’s audiences did. Those
students who plan to deal with literary criticism in their university studies
will benefit a great deal from contact with humor in the foreign language
courses for the comic is a basic element in literature (Rubin 1982).
Puns are appropriate at the advanced stages and provide linguistic and
cultural information about the source language. Jokes written by children
for children (and their parents!) are useful and foreign language learners
might do well to maintain a repertoire of these jokes for use in class or
when they themselves meet children in the target culture. Some examples
taken from the Rosie O’Donnell Show are presented in (9):

(9) (a) What is more amazing than a talking dog?

A spelling bee.
(b) How does a dog stop a VCR?
He presses the paws button.
(Kids are Funny: Jokes Sent by Kids to the Rosie O’Donnell Show.
New York: Lucky Charms Entertainment, Inc.
and Warner Books Inc., p. 12).

All children who are growing up in an English-speaking culture would

most likely appreciate the jokes in (9), but not all foreign language
learners will understand these puns due to lack of specific linguistic and
cultural knowledge. In (9a) a spelling bee in many English-speaking
countries is a competitive game used to identify and award the best speller
in a group of students with a prize by eliminating from the activity those
who misspell a word. The humor in this exchange involves the suggestion
of another reading, that is, a world where there exist bees that know how
to spell words. (9b) can be humorous to children because they know that
dogs have paws and one stops a VCR by pressing the pause button but of
course for a dog to do this, it would have to use one of its paws. Children
102 J. R. Schmitz

brought up in the culture are sensitive to the homophony of pause

and paws.
In order to help students cope with humorous discourse, it is important
to present the vocabulary along with the different readings or possible
scripts. It would appear that those who fail to understand a specific
joke have difficulty in seeing that there exists a misunderstanding due to
the introduction of another script on the part of the participants in the
joke narrative. Word power is basic to the comprehension of humorous
discourse, but I would also contend that ‘‘humor competence and joke
competence’’ (Carrell 1997) are also essential. Learners do not always
develop joke and humor competence in a foreign language immediately,
but with sufficient input in the form of humorous texts this competence
can be nurtured for steady development during the course of study.
Another type of pun, the conundrum, is also appropriate at the
advanced level. This type is more difficult for foreign language learners for
they involve reference to two different meanings of a word or a play on
two different word meanings. Some examples are presented in (10):

(10) (a) When is a boat like a heap of snow?

When it’s adrift.
(b) When does a cabbage beat a beet in growing?
When it gets ahead.
(c) Why is the attorney like a minister?
Because he studies the law and the profits.
(d) If there are two flies in the kitchen, which one is the cowboy?
The one on the range.
(e) What part of the fish weighs the most?
The scales.
(Tidwell 1956: 110)

The first three puns in (10) lose much of their ‘‘humor’’ in writing.
English has a large stock of phonological jokes that bring together
different meanings of a specific word or relate different word sense that
sound alike. In (10a, b, c) the learners have to know about the existence
of snow drifts and boats adrift, about cabbages that come in ‘‘heads’’,
that is, a head of cabbage, a head of lettuce as distinguished from
winning a competition, beating someone in a game or contest, that is
‘‘getting ahead’’. In addition, there is a play on the homophony between
beat as a verb with the meaning to defeat and beet as a noun referring
 Humor in foreign language courses 103

to a type of vegetable. In (10c) the humor derives from the contrast of

two homophones in English, namely, profits (the unexpected or surprise
remark) and prophets (the expected one). A foreign language learner will
not perceive (10d) as a humorous texts unless he knows that ‘‘ cowboys
work on the range’’ while the flies in the kitchen are lighting on ‘‘the (gas)
range’’. Joke (10e) can bring a smile to those who know that in English
fish have scales and that objects are weighed with the use of scales. In
Culler’s words (1988: 15), ‘‘puns are at work in the central, formative
structure of major conceptual systems.’’

The cultural joke

In order to appreciate this type of joke, learners have to be familiar

with the cultural practices of a nation, society or community. Some
culture-based jokes are presented in (11)

(11) (a) Do you know what I got for Father’s Day?

No, what?
The bill for Mother’s Day.
(b) Father’s day always worries me. I’m afraid I’ll get something
I can’t afford.
(Fechtner 1983: 104)

To perceive the humor in (11a, b), learners have to know that in some
English speaking countries special days are set aside to remember mothers
and fathers. In the USA, Father’s Day comes after Mother’s Day. Both
(11a, b) involve a stereotype shared by certain members of the society that
only men pay the bills and are supposedly the sole providers. It also
imputes some irresponsibility to wives and children in their buying habits.
The text also points to materialism and the superficiality of giving of
presents in the culture. Cultural jokes serve as mirrors of the socio-
cultural practices of the society and can inform the learner how some
members of the community view themselves.
The joke is successful for members of the culture for these two special
days occur relatively near one another. Father’s Day is approximately one
month after Mother’s Day. The humor of this joke would, no doubt, be
lost in a culture where these days are not celebrated or, for example, in
Brazil where Father’s Day occurs in August, more than two months after
Mother’s Day.
104 J. R. Schmitz

In the advanced stages of language learning, the teacher, in addition

to introducing cultural jokes, can make use of the opportunity to have
students reflect critically about the target culture.4 The advanced level is
also the moment when instructors can attempt to tell jokes of their own
and attempt also to use humor as teachers did in other subject-matter
areas following Neuliep’s (1991) experiment.

Beyond the advanced level

Many Brazilian learners of English as a foreign language who travel to the

USA and many Americans who study Spanish in high school or college
and visit Spain or Mexico have difficulty in understanding jokes when
they hear them in actual conversational exchanges, while watching
television or seeing a film. However, in my view, if those students had
had the opportunity to listen to humorous material in the classroom or in
the language laboratory, they would have been better ‘‘listeners’’. Those
students who are willing listeners make more progress in their foreign
language course than those who avoid opportunities to hear jokes and
puns. Another accomplishment for language learners is to be able to tell a
joke to a native speaker. The ability to tell a joke, to be a good storyteller,
on the part of the learner permits the bonding of speaker and listener, of
joke teller with joke receiver or listener. (I remember my own feeling of
elation as a high school student when I was able to tell a joke to native
speakers and have them actually laugh at the joke.) Understanding a joke
is one thing, but telling one is indeed another and this competence may
not occur until students have been truly ‘‘ advanced’’ students for quite
some time.
Norrick (1994) has examined in conversational exchanges the degree of
involvement and joking on the part of speakers and listeners. If foreign
language learners are to become proficient in the day-to-day use of the
target language, they need to develop strategies to get involved in
conversational interactions. Some speakers are very competent joke tellers
while others are hopeless and cannot remember even a single joke.
Humorous material in the foreign language should be available for those
students who have the potential as language learners to tell a joke. But
humorous material should also be available for those learners who are
reluctant to tell jokes but would like to understand them when they
appear in interactions.
 Humor in foreign language courses 105

Humorous discourse in the translation class

Before I examine in more detail the question of whether or not humorous

discourse can be translated from one language to another, I want to
present, first of all, some remarks about recent developments in
translation studies and, secondly, to argue a case for the utilization of
texts that involve humor in translation and interpretation courses.
Deconstruction and post-structural theories refute the traditional view
of translation that attempts to search for original meanings in texts.
An original work, in the traditional view, is superior to any translation;
the task of the translator is viewed as being inferior or secondary to that
of the original author. It is the translator’s task, in this traditional view,
to protect the meaning of the original and deliver it ‘‘as best as she can’’.
Translators, in this conception, can never be ‘‘perfect’’ and never aspire to
be better than the original text in the source language. These essentialist
or logocentric views have influenced translation theory for over two
thousand years (Robinson 1991). Deconstruction and post-structural
views of language in addition question as well the notion of authorship.
Deconstructionalists argue that translators are never, in reality, faithful
to the original although many of them may believe that they are. When it
comes down to translating a pun that is language-dependent or language
specific such as in (12):

(12) The Dark Ages were so named because the period was full of knights.
(Newfield and Lafford 1991: 81)

It is not a question of respecting original versions or ferreting about for

original or ‘‘sacred’’ meanings. Rather, in a translation of (12) to another
language, it is the practical question of finding specific (as in the case of
the homonomy of knight/night in a specific target language such as
French or Portuguese that would contribute to creating a humorous
effect in those languages. The lack of the same play on words, knight/
night and dark (~lack of light) and Dark Ages (~lack of learning,
obscurantism) forces the translator to find another script with a different
set of homonyms in order to try at least to obtain a humorous effect in
other languages. Obviously, the pun will not be ‘‘same’’ nor is there any
guarantee that the response on the part of the listeners to the humor
will be the ‘‘same’’ as in the case of the source language joke. Translation
of humor is indeed a challenge and highly creative for the translators
106 J. R. Schmitz

must know the target and source language and culture extremely well.
In dealing with the translation of television programs from English
to Catalonian, Zabalbeascoa (1996: 244) states that, in certain cases,
‘‘_ the original jokes will have to be rendered as jokes that work as
such which means that entirely different jokes may have to be substituted
for the original ones.’’
Laurian (1992) argues that some jokes are impossible to translate and it
is, therefore, ‘‘_ necessary to change the reality of that which the text
refers to in the original language’’ in order to produce a humorous
effect in the target language. For Laurian (1992: 114) humor that is based
on phonetics, phonology or morphological ambiguity, in her words,
‘‘_ seem to be difficult to translate.’’ I agree with Laurian. Likewise,
Liebold (1989: 109) considers the translation of humor to be a challenge.
She contends that the translation of humor necessitates ‘‘_ the decoding
of a humorous speech in its original context’’ into another language
‘‘which successfully recaptures the intentions of the original humorous
message.’’ Also, this recapturing should elicit in the target language
‘‘an equivalent pleasurable response’’. Liebold’s remarks follow the
traditional view of translations that I outlined briefly above. It may
be impossible to capture the ‘‘original humorous message’’ especially
when one deals with language-dependent humor. Complications arise in
this view for one could ask just what is an ‘‘equivalent pleasurable
response’’. Who determines what is or is not equivalent or pleasurable?
Nilsen (1989: 123) argues that a translation ‘‘must be better than the
original’’. But this problem is indeed subjective for what is considered
‘‘better’’ depends always on a specific interpretive community.
The same framework that I propose for presenting humor in language
courses is also of use in translation courses. The universal or reality-based
joke would be introduced first, followed by the presentation of cultural
jokes and finally the linguistic-based or word-based jokes.

Universal or reality-based jokes in translation courses

Universal jokes offer in general no serious problems for translators.

I repeat for convenience those presented above in (2) accompanied by a
translation from English to Portuguese (a’–d’):
(2) (a) Last week I went fishing and all I got was a sunburn, poison ivy
and mosquito bites.
 Humor in foreign language courses 107

(a’) Na semana passada eu fui pescar e tudo o que consegui na

pescaria foi uma bela duma queimadura e um montão de picadas
de mosquito.
(b) Gee, Dad. That’s a swell fish you caught! Can I use it as
bait?
(b’) Puxa, pai. Que peixe legal voceˆ pescou. Posso usar como
isca?
(c) Are you fishing?
No just drowning worms.
(c’) Voceˆ está pescando?
Não, estou afogando minhocas, pô!
(d) Do fish grow fast?
Sure. Every time my Dad mentions the one that got away,
it grows another foot.
(d’) Os peixes crescem depressa?
Com certeza. Cada vez que o meu pai se refere àquele que
escapou, o peixe cresce mais um metro.

The cultural joke: will it be humorous after translation?

Cultural jokes are language specific and are often a challenge for
translators. Many of them do not ‘‘translate’’ well and would obviously
not be humorous to native speakers of the target language. For example,
the question in joke (5a) ‘‘We’d like to know if he’s bullish or bearish
right now’’ and the punchline, ‘‘Right now I’d say he’s sheepish’’ are
probably untranslatable into other languages. The translator would have
to find another joke, that is, a different joke with no doubt another
scenario and frame. This is what conference interpreters do when dealing
with cultural jokes (Zabalbeascoa 1996). The point is to get the audience
to laugh. Another cultural joke that might very well ‘‘lose’’ its humor
in translation is the one dealing with Mother’s Day and Father’s Day
in (11) above.
Another type of cultural joke examined earlier in this paper is
that which is demeaning to a specific profession or trade. Jokes about
lawyers in general offer no serious problem in translation, but may
not be humorous in a culture that does not relish ‘‘poking fun’’ or
feel the need to criticize members of the legal profession. Joke (12) is
108 J. R. Schmitz

a good example:

(12) ‘‘Everyone in my family follows the medical profession,’’ noted

Smith.
‘‘They’re lawyers.’’
(Rafferty 1988: 52)

Schmitz (1996, 1998) has argued that humor dealing with situations
or contexts that represent the real world can indeed be translated without
major problems; the non-linguistic humor (my first group, in this paper)
tends to more ‘‘translatable’’ than those in the second group, the cultural
jokes, (which in most cases are not at all humorous in the target
language) as well as the linguistic or word-based humor (the third group).
Language-based humor indeed brings about loss in translation (Lendvai
1996, Zabalbeascoa 1996), and the only solution for the translator is
to substitute another joke from her repertoire. With respect to the
translation of humor, Laurian (1992: 14) states that the joke in (13) would
be hard ‘‘if not impossible’’ to render in French:

(13) Famous Chinese diplomat attended gala reception in Washington

in early part of the day. Senate lady trying to make polite conversa-
tion asked: Dr. Wong, what ‘‘nese’’ are you? Chinese, Japanese or
Javanese? ‘‘Chinese’’, he replied, and you Madam? What ‘‘kee’’ are
you? Monkey, donkey or Yankee?

In Schmitz (1996) I agreed with Laurian with respect to the supposed

intranslatability of (13) into Portuguese and other languages. But another
researcher, Brezolin (1997), with the help of his students in a translation
class, came up with two possible Portuguese translations of the joke in
(13) which I set out in (14) with glosses:

(14) (a) E o senhor, que tipo de eira e´? Estrangeira, maloqueira ou

brasileira?
[And you sir, what kind of ‘‘eira’’ are you? Foreigner,
slum dweller or Brazilian?]
(b) E a senhora, que tipo de aca e´ a madame? Macaca, bruaca ou
polaca?
[And you madam, what kind of ‘‘aca’’ are you? Monkey, witch
or Polish?]
 Humor in foreign language courses 109

Joke (13) which Brezolin translates quite effectively into Portuguese

does not involve language-specific phenomena such as ambiguity,
polysemy or homonomy. The difficulty does not emanate from the
source language. The challenge for the translator is to find suitable
resources in the target language. It is a question of the translator’s
competence in the target language.
In another case of translation, Brezolin (1997: 24) quite rightly changes
the nationality of the joke in (15) in order for it to be humorous as well in
Portuguese (cf. Davies 1987) as shown in (16):

(15) How many Poles does it take to wash a car?

Two, one to hold the sponge and one to move the car back and forth.
(Ruch et al. 1993)

(16) Quantos portugueses são necessários para lavar um carro?

Dois. Um para segurar a esponja e outro para movimentar o carro
prá frente e para trás.

Jokes (15) and (16) are not the ‘‘same’’ joke for something has been
changed. If the translator/interpreter is able to convey a humorous effect
in the target language, she has indeed done her job. The desire to be
faithful and the fear of being unfaithful to the original has often haunted
many translators. When it a question of translating word-based jokes,
those translators who continue to remain beholden to the original or
source texts (in spite of post-structuralist criticism of the traditional
translation stance) may have their feelings of guilt reduced to some extent
if they perceive that it is the structure of the specific source language that
prevents a ‘‘faithful’’ translation. Their devotion to the extraction of
stable meanings is a futile task. What is important for translators is to
give priority to providing a humorous response (my emphasis) on the part
of the target audience.
The jokes from the third group, the ‘‘linguistic’’ or language-based ones
are indeed difficult or impossible to translate ( Lendvai 1996). An example
from this group that resist translation is joke (8) above (repeated once
again for convenience):

(8) What is the difference between stabbing a man and killing a hog?
One is assaulting with intent to kill and the other is killing with intent
to salt.
(Schmitz 1996: 93, apud Tidwell 1956)
110 J. R. Schmitz

With respect to puns, Ballard (1996: 314) claims the following:

Insofar as all translation begins as an exercise in reading, the study of punning
can be used during the first stage of the learning process to make students aware
of how meanings can be construed and misconstrued. (Ballard’s emphasis)
In conclusion, I have made a case in this paper for the use of humor as a
pedagogical tool in language classes. I have argued that non-linguistic
humor is, in general, easier for learners to process than linguistic humor.
In addition, I have also contended that students of translation should
likewise be exposed to humorous discourse as part of their training. In
the course of my remarks, I have claimed that linguistic humor offers a
greater challenge to translators than non-linguistic humor. It would
appear to be no accident that it is the linguistic-based humor rather than
the non-linguistic that presents more difficulties for both language
learners and translators.

Universidade Estadual de Campinas

Notes

Correspondence address: schmitz@iel.unicamp.br

1. In university level courses dealing with humor as a discipline there should, to my
mind, be no problem with the presentation of all types of humor, ‘‘tendentious’’ or
‘‘nontendentious’’ and I do not think participants would be upset or offended by the
material studied. For an excellent study of expectations of students in humor courses,
consult Edgar B. Wycoff, Humor in academia: an international survey of humor
instruction, Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 12(4), 37–456, 1999. In
courses where the study of humor is the actual subject matter such as in the courses
studied by Wycoff, I see no problem in the choice of humor. In school situations where
the teacher is in loco parentis, the situation may be different.
2. I want to thank the anonymous reviewers of my paper who contributed valuable
suggestions with respect to my classification of humor and for a very thorough and
critical reading.
3. Pedagogical materials as, for example, King, Ridout and Swain (1981: 35–38) include
some Irish jokes to illustrate some of the themes of jokes in parts of the United
Kingdom. With the emphasis on the politically correct at this point in time, no doubt
many textbook writers tend to eschew ethnic humor. See also Charles Jaret for a study
of attitudes with respect to ethnic humor: Attitudes of whites and blacks towards
ethnic humor: a comparison, Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 12(4),
385– 411, 1999.
4. EFL, ESL, and learners in advanced courses should, I feel, receive information about
the rules of joke-telling in specific linguistic communities. It is interesting to note that
ethnic jokes on public television or in films can normally only be told by members of the
specific ethnic or religious community, that is, African-Americans tell jokes about
African-Americans and Irish Catholics about Irish Catholics, etc.
 Humor in foreign language courses 111

References

Apte, Mahadev L. (ed.)

1987 Introduction. Language and humor. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language 65, 5–8.
Ballard, Michel
1996 Course Profile: Wordplay and the Didactics of Translation. The Translator
2(2), 333–346.
Brezolin, Amauri
1997 Humor: Sim. É possı́vel traduzi-lo e ensinar a traduzi-lo. Tradterm 4(1),
15–30.
Brooks, M. L. et al.
1983 Cucumbers are Better than Men Because _ . Watertown, MA: Ivory Tower
Publishing Company.
Carrell, Amy
1997 Joke competence and humor competence. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research 10(2), 173–185.
Caughie, John (ed.)
1981 Theories of Authorship. London: Routledge.
Coady, James and Thomas Huckin (eds.)
1997 Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Culler, Jonathan
1988 On Puns: The Foundation of Letters. London: Basil Blackwell.
Darling, Ann L. and Jean M. Civikly
1986–87 The effect of teacher humor on student perceptions of classroom communi-
cative climate. Journal of Classroom Interaction 22(1), (Dec./Jan.), 24–30.
Davies, Christie
1987 Language, identity and ethnic jokes about stupidity. International Journal
of the Sociology of Language 65, 39–52.
Deneire, Marc
1995 Humor and foreign language teaching. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research 8(3), 285–298.
Dolitsky, Marlene
1983 Humor and the unsaid. Journal of Pragmatics 7(1), 39–48.
Erickson, Frederick
1987 Conception of school culture. Educational Administration Quarterly 23(4),
11–24.
Fechtner, Leopold (ed.)
1983 5,000 and One Two Liners for Any and Every Occasion. West Nyack,
NY: Parker Publishing Co., Inc.
Flier, I.
1990 Angol Tréfak, Anekdoták III. English Jokes, Anecdotes. Budapest: LSI
Omak, Alapı́tvány.
Geiger, Ray (ed.)
1980 Farmers Almanac, Lewiston, ME: Almanac Publishing Company.
Gomes de Matos, Francisco
1974 Humo(u)r, A neglected feature in foreign language teaching. Creativity:
New Ideas in Language Teaching 8, (March), 1–2.
112 J. R. Schmitz

Hatch, Evelyn and Cheryl Brown

1995 Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Heller, L. G.
1974 Toward a general typology of the pun. Language and Style VII (Fall) (4),
271–282.
Hockett, Charles
1972 Jokes. In Smith, M. Estellie (ed.), Studies in Linguistics in honor of
George L. Trager. The Hague: Mouton.
Johnson, Ragmar
1978 Jokes, theories, anthropology. Semiotica 22(3/4), 309–334.
Kids are Funny
1997 Jokes Sent By Kids to the Rosie O’ Donnell Show. New York: Warner
Books/A Time Warner Company.
King, Judith et al.
1981 The Book of British of Humour. (Longman Structural Readers, Stage 4),
Harlow: Longman.
Laufer, Batia
1997 The Lexical plight in second language reading: words you don’t know,
words you think you know, and words you can’t guess. In Coady, James
and Thomas Huckin (eds.), Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 20–34.
Laurian, Anne-Marie
1992 Possible/impossible translation of jokes. Humor: International Journal of
Humor Research 5(1/2), 111–127.
Lew, Robert
1996 Exploitation of linguistic ambiguity in Polish and English jokes. Papers and
Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 31, 127–133.
1997 Towards a taxonomy of linguistic jokes. Studia Anglia Posnaniensa XXXI,
123–152.
Lendvai, Endre
1996 Types of untranslatable jokes. In Klaudy, José Lambert and A. Sohár (eds.),
Translation studies in Hungary. Kinga Budapest: Scholastica, 89–98.
Liebold, Anne
1989 The translation of humor: who says it can’t be done? Meta XXXIV(1),
109–111.
Long, Debra L. and Arthur C. Graesser
1988 Wit and humor in discourse processing. Discourse Processing 11,
35–60.
Maurice, Keith
1988 Laugh while learning another language: technologies that are functional and
funny. English Teaching Forum. XXVI(April), (2), 20–24.
McDonald, Christie (ed.)
1982 The Ear of the Other: Ortobiography, Transference, Translation: Texts and
Discussion with Jacques Derrida. (A translation by Peggy Kamuf of the
French edition. Levesque, Claude and Christie McDonald (eds.)). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Monnot, Michel and Jon Kite
1974 Pun and games: paronomasia in the ESL classroom. Tesol Quarterly 8
(March), (1), 65–71.
 Humor in foreign language courses 113

Neuliep, James W.
1991 An Examination of the content of high school teachers’ humor in the
classroom and the development of an inductively derived taxonomy of
classroom humor. Communication Education 40, October, 343–355.
Newfield, Madeleine and Barbara A. Lafford
1991 The origin of the specious: the creation and interpretation of puns.
Language and style 24(1), 77–89.
Nilsen, Don L. F.
1989 Better than the original: humorous translations that succeed. Meta XXXIV
(1), 112–124.
Norrick, Neil R.
1984 Stock conversational witticism. Journal of Pragmatics 8(2), 195–209.
1994 Involvement and joking in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 22, 409– 430.
Pizzuto, John
1986 The Great Wall Street Joke Book. Long Shadow Books: Reader’s Digest,
December.
Rafferty, Michael (ed.)
1988 Skid marks: common jokes about lawyers. California: Shelter Publications.
Raskin, Victor
1985 Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. Dordrecht: D. Reibel
Robinson, Douglas
1991 The Translator’s Turn. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Rubin, Louis D. Jr.
1982 Introduction: The great American joke. 3–15. In Rubin, L. D. Jr. (ed.),
The Comic Imagination in American Literature. Washington, DC: Voice of
American Forum Series.
Ruch, Willibald et al.
1993 Toward an empirical verification of the general theory of verbal humor.
Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 6(2), 123–136.
Schaff, Adam
1984 The pragmatic function of language. International Journal of the Sociology
of Language 45, 89–100.
Schmitz, John Robert
1996 Humor: é possı́vel traduzi-lo e ensinar a traduzi-lo? TradTerm 3, 87–97.
1998 Sobre a Tradução e o Ensino:o humor levado a sério. TradTerm 5(2),
(July/December), 5–6.
Sherzer, Joel
1978 Oh, that’s a pun and I didn’t mean it! Semiotica 22(3/4), 334 –350.
Sudol, David
1981 Dangers of Classroom Humor. English Journal, 26–28.
Tidwell, James N.
1956 A Treasury of American Folk Humor. New York: Crown Publishers Inc.
Trachtenberg, Susan
1979 Joke telling as a tool in ESL. English Teaching Forum 13(1), 89 –99.
Venuti, Lawrence
1995 The Translator’s Invisibility: a history of translation. London: Routledge.
Zabalbeascoa, Dirk
1996 Translating jokes for dubbed television situation comedies. The Translator
2(2), 235–257.