The previous chapter investigated the personal dimension of EFL classes through the lenses of identity and alterity. One of the five interpersonal roles identified was that of playing. As noted, playing was seen sporadically across the whole study, but extensively in only one class – that of Ajarn Murray.

This chapter will explore language play – principally of Ajarn Murray’s class – more deeply, and for two reasons. First, I believe that despite G. Cook’s seminal work (1997, 2000), language play remains neglected in ELT theory (see also Bell, 2011), and that it can fulfil many functions in opening up the second linguaculture to learners. So, the present chapter’s in-depth analysis can add to the handful of existing studies of language play located in Asian EFL. Second, as noted earlier, while eight of the nine teachers of this study are local Thais, bilingual in English, the ninth, Ajarn Murray, is an expat Anglo, bilingual in Thai. This chapter, therefore, may be of particular interest to other expat teachers across Asia. For many such teachers, it may not be possible to develop the high degree of bilinguality demonstrated here by Ajarn Murray. However, from my personal experience, and from observation, I would suggest that any move in that direction could benefit a teacher’s understanding of students, and enhance her/his potential contribution to local practices.

I explore first the nature of language play and verbal humour before moving to analyse in depth some episodes of ‘humorous language play’ found in the present study.

Language Play, Humour and Creativity

Language play has at times been associated with creativity, verbal art and verbal humour, in sometimes overlapping, and sometimes conflicting ways (G. Cook, 2000; Pomerantz & Bell, 2007). The present study relates these concepts as follows (Figure 8.1): verbal humour is seen as one form of language play; language play in turn is one form of verbal art; and linguistic creativity serves to underpin all three.