Teaching the Discourse of Humor Across Cultures

By: Christine Winskowski

A few years ago, when I was teaching in Japan, I was talking to a younger Japanese colleague. I misstated something and had to correct myself. I blamed my mixup on my age, so I jokingly advised her, “Don’t get old. Just say no.” (That is, refuse to get old and make mistakes like me.)

She chuckled obligingly, and still smiling said, “Why is that funny? Nobody can help getting old.”

Well… that is true. And that is what is funny, but it was not funny to her. To find it funny, a person might have to know the “roots” of this joke. It came from a well-known political figure in the U.S. who used a slogan, “Just say no,” to discourage children and teenagers from taking drugs. It was a worthwhile campaign, but critics found it unrealistic and mocked the slogan. Then, “just say no” jokes began to be heard. Now, in the U.S., people say “just say no” on occasions where the joke is a ridiculous pretension of denial or rejection.

How can we help our students deal with humor in a target language and culture? Students may not find target humor funny, but they should be able to explore target humor, why speakers of that language find it funny, and how it differs from their home culture humor.

Traditionally, humor has not been a formal part of language teaching. We rarely see more than incidental bits of humor in our language teaching materials. Language teaching is serious business.

Yet in the last couple of decades, interest in the study of humor has been on the rise. We find it in social sciences (types of humor; personality and humor preferences; linguistics and humor; tests and measurements of humor) as well as physical sciences (medical and mental well-being and humor; physiological responses to humor; the neuroscience of humor). It seems that humor is pretty serious business too.

This article explores some interesting things for teachers (and perhaps students) to know about humor. Then, two models of the discourse of a humorous episode will be shown, followed by potential evidence of neural processes for the stages of those models. Next, some cultural differences in the perception and use of humor will be described. Finally, a way to integrate target language humor into a language class will be presented.

Handy Things for Teachers to Know from the Study of Humor

You might be interested to know that there is a basic template underlying episodes of humor, comprised of a core element plus a discourse structure. (This may not cover every funny thing on the planet, but it covers quite a lot.)

What Identifies a Humorous Moment?

Many scholars of humor agree that a humorous event (spoken or enacted in some way) contains something that doesn’t fit with what is expected. For example, suppose Person A chats with Person B. At any moment there is a reasonable statistical expectation of what might follow–what words and grammatical structures might follow, who might speak next, and what will be said.

Then, there is a violation of expectations in the stream of speech (or events), something unexpected said or done. It is an incongruity, and on this occasion, it is a funny one. That funny incongruity is what is at the core of humor. (However, the reverse is not always true; not all incongruities are humorous.) We can say that a funny incongruity will ordinarily make someone laugh. This is what psychologists might call an “operational definition of humor,” that is, this description works in practice. (It also allows us to sidestep having to explain what funniness actually is.)

The Development of Humor

Human beings are born with the capability of humor. (So are some animals, incidentally, like simians and possibly your pets.) Not only are babies capable of smiling and laughing shortly after birth, but sonograms show that some babies have been seen to smile in the womb at 22.3 to 30.5 weeks! A few months after birth, many babies smile in response to caregivers’ smiles, at tickling and other sensory experiences. A few months later, they move on to visual and auditory humor, like laughing at parents making funny faces or funny sounds. In the early years, a child might produce humor by pretending to eat a toy or mis-naming an object, showing the beginnings of concept-awareness (i.e., pretending to eat a toy violates the expected concept of eating food). Calling Dad by the cat’s name and strings of nonsense become hilarious violations of expectations, and very successful kid-humor.1 As a child’s language becomes more sophisticated in early and middle years, jokes with unexpected meaning, like puns and other word-play, appear:

Order, order in the court!

Ham and cheese on rye, Your Honor. (Honig, p. 63)

So, from the pre-verbal stage of childhood, there is a pattern of encountering incongruity, or violation of expectations, in the humorous play between the child and others. This simple pattern is a foundation for humorous discoursal exchange that continues into adult life, manifesting in more complicated ways.

The Study of Humor in English

Much of our readership is based in Japan, and many work with students learning English. Quite a lot of verbal humor in the U.S. (and perhaps other English-speaking cultures) can be divided into two general categories, as described by psychologists Long and Graesser (1988). One type is context-free jokes, which have recognizable formulas for part of the joke. The “just say no” joke is one example; the incongruity is the absurd notion that we can refuse to age by saying “no.”

Another example is “knock-knock jokes.”

Knock, knock. [called out, as if someone is at a door]
Who’s there? [presumably, an answer from inside the door]
I am.
I am who? [an odd version of “Who am I?”]
You tell me!

Knock-knock.
Who’s there?
Orange.
Orange who?
Orange you glad we’re telling jokes?

Long and Graesser point out that such formulaic jokes are complete in themselves and need no context to be understood. They are self-contained, and can be used as-is on a variety of occasions.

The other general kind of humor described by Long and Graesser is spontaneous, appearing in a conversation, or during an event. This type of humor is not formulaic and what is funny is usually linked to something in the situation. This humor is context-bound; that is, it is funny in the context of that situation, with those people and that moment, but not necessarily in another situation. Long and Graesser refer to context-bound humor as wit. Here is an example:

Once, while teaching in China, I was chatting with an American colleague teaching in a neighboring university. He mentioned that his school’s cook had served some rare and delicious mushrooms for lunch in their dining hall. My colleague wondered how the cook was able to get the mushrooms. He mused, “Maybe he knows someone in high places” (that is, an important person). I chimed in, “Or someone in low places” (where mushrooms grow).

This basic division of humor into a formulaic style and a free-form style can be helpful for introducing humor in the classroom. Long and Graesser offer a taxonomy of jokes (e.g., nonsense jokes, social satire, philosophical jokes, etc.) and a taxonomy of wit (e.g., irony, satire, puns, etc.), with explanations and examples of each. Marta Dynel (2009) also presents a similar division of humor into two types, yet with a different taxonomy for each. It is worth taking a look at these articles to see the surprising variety of forms that humor can take. Teachers can use them to illustrate English-language humor for students, and for developing materials and activities for students.

What is the Discourse Structure of Humor?

What happens to us when we hear a joke, or a bit of spontaneous wit? So far, we have the core element of humor, which is incongruity (with entertainment value). Now we need a more detailed picture of the discoursal structure or frame for the entire episode of a humorous moment.

Discourse Structure of Humor

To illustrate the structure of a humorous episode, I will show two models described in Long and Graesser (1988). One model is the incongruity-resolution model based on the work of Suls (1972).3

The incongruity-resolution model has two stages, with the first stage divided into two parts:

- Stage 1a: the speaker sets up the narrative; the listener hears and processes it
- Stage 1b: the speaker says/listener hears something incongruous in the narrative
- Stage 2: the listener resolves the incongruity, that is, recognizes the humor

Here is an illustration, adapted from an example in Long & Graesser, p. 46.

- 1a. I used to snore so loud that I would wake myself up.
- 1b. But I solved the problem.
- 2. Now I sleep in the next room.

To expand on this illustration, Table 1 below shows the humor’s stages and speaker’s utterances. I have added a hypothetical “interior dialogue” or mental stream of thought from the hypothetical listener. Interior dialogue arises from standardized imaginings, a term coined by Leon Jakobovits James describing what most people in a community setting might think, or how they might react internally to the “noticeables” of a situation held in common (1976).4 Additionally, I show the cognitive and affective processes that we might expect from this listener.

Table 1.
Incongruity-Resolution Model of Humor
Stage	Speaker	Listener’s interior dialogue	Cognitive/affective processes
1.a. Discourse frame/narrative	I used to snore so loud that I would wake myself up.	That’s terrible. Poor fellow. I pity his wife.	Cognitive processing of the information. Affective reactions.
	But I solved the problem.	Oh, that’s good. Probably went to the doctor.	Further processing; expectation of resolution.
1.b. Incongruity	Now I sleep in the next room.	Sleeps in the next room? That sounds goofy! What does he mean?	Confusion, casting around for meaning.
2. Resolution		Ah, it’s a joke! That’s a good one! I’ll have to remember that.	Recognition of the joke; sensation of mirth; enjoyment of the joke.
Source: Adapted from Long & Graesser, 1988, p. 46.

We see that Stage 1a is focused on cognitive processes as the listener hears the initial narrative, with some affective processing (“Poor fellow.”). Note the potential for predictive processing: “[He] probably went to the doctor.” In Stage 1b, we see in the internal dialogue how the listener experiences confusion, searches for a resolution. In Stage 2, the listener realizes the humor and experiences a flood of mirth, or at least amusement. As you might guess, Stages 1b and 2 happen in very rapid succession or nearly simultaneously in practice. This model may seem a bit artificial, but it has proved useful in accounts of neural activation during humorous episodes, as we will see below.

The second model that Long and Graesser describe is the script-switch model of humor, based on the work of Raskin (1984) (and compatible with Suls’ model). Raskin proposes that humorous episodes are constructed of two different scripts that are distinct and oppose each other (e.g., good/bad, expected/unexpected, etc.). Long and Graesser explain:

The joke begins with the presentation of text consistent with one script [I used to snore so loud that I would wake myself up. But I solved the problem.] Second, a script-switch trigger (ordinarily the punch line) is presented that is inconsistent with the currently evoked script. [Now I sleep in the next room.] The listener searches for an alternative script with which the text is compatible. Humor occurs due to the overlap in the two scripts. As you may notice, Raskin’s search procedure for the second compatible script is similar to Suls’ resolution phase (Long & Graesser, 1988, p. 46).

This model fits better with a discoursal explanation of humor, since it involves scripts (also called schemas)–formulaic speech and familiar patterns of discoursal interactions from which we can readily predict “next steps” in the conversation.

Neural Activation Underpinning Humor

These models of humor from Suls and Raskin are 40-50 years old, but they have stood the test of time. Patterns of neural activation during humorous episodes have been found to fit Suls’ model in particular. (Many researchers who work with the Suls model use a slightly different set of the “three stages”: 1 – setup of the narrative; detection of incongruity; 2 – resolution of incongruity; and 3 – sensation or enjoyment of mirth.)

Neuroscientist Shelia Kennison reviewed a small number of such studies5 and noted that there is partial consistency in the locations of brain activity for the three stages of the incongruity-resolution model. Also, there is some consistency of the brain functions that are believed to be related to those locations. The brain locations include the frontal and temporal lobes where we might find semantic or cognitive processing and detection of incongruity in Stage 1. They also include the anterior cingulate cortex, cited in Stages 2 and Stage 3 (depending on the study), which has diverse functions related to emotion, and the fusiform gyrus and medial frontal lobe in Stage 3. It is not compelling evidence,6 but it does show that there seems to be differential activation in the three stages, suggesting they are both psychologically and neurologically real stages in the discourse template for humor.

One interesting finding from the studies that Kennison cites is the entire range of brain locations that show activation in two or three stages of humor, which are numerous–over two dozen. Humor fires up quite a lot of the brain!

Still more interesting is the entire range of descriptive phrases for brain functions named in these studies.7 The descriptions of probable brain functions, which are believed to be linked to the activations, are numerous as well. (The neuroscientists seem mainly interested in neural firing patterns, but I found these descriptive phrases, culled from their reports, even more intriguing!) These include, for Stage 1: cognition and semantic processes, memory, categorization of information, incongruity detection, various kinds of assessment, affect (surprise, confusion), searching processes, integration of information, interpretation of many points of information, perspective-taking, and others. For Stage 2: organizing thoughts, detecting violations, disambiguating information, schema-shifting, evaluating, forming novel connections, comprehension, breaking expectations, incongruity resolution, frame-shifting, sensation of mirth, autobiographical memory retrieval, etc. For Stage 3: amusement response, sensation of funniness or mirth, processing of emotion, working memory forming novel associations, positive emotional arousal, anticipation of reward, motivation for incongruity resolution, affective appreciation. Each stage seems to have a fairly distinct set of brain function descriptors.

Now, if you have ever tried to quietly observe the stream of your mind, you have likely witnessed complete or partial cognitions and the sensations of affect, sometimes only fleetingly. In ordinary awareness, we don’t usually have time to actually register these mental sensations and cognitions, and much is unavailable to us. But these lists of likely brain functions in the previous paragraph give us an impressionistic picture of what we might find if it were possible to “transcribe” the internal processes during a humorous episode. And, many of the descriptors in the studies “fit” with the incongruity-resolution model as shown in Table 1 (even though the humor is unrelated). This seems to be what is happening during humorous episodes, just under the threshold of awareness.

Differences in Perspectives on Humor Across Cultures

If cultures differ, of course humor will differ across cultures. A recent review and critique of 31 studies by Lu (2023) explored differences in perception and use of humor across cultures, many of them focused on the well-known East-West divide. Lu (2023) states:

North Americans tend to value individualism (which emphasizes independence, uniqueness, and self-expression), and perceive humorous individuals as charismatic and competent because humor helps individuals stand out from others. By contrast, East Asians tend to value collectivism (which emphasizes conformity, harmony, and restraint) partly due to the influence of Confucianism, which maintains that “a man has to be serious to be respected”; thus, East Asians often shun humor.

Sample findings from Lu’s review include a study showing that Canadian students felt humor was more important than Chinese students did, and perceived themselves as more humorous than the Chinese did; another study showed that Chinese students held more negative attitudes toward humor than U.S. students did.

Another comparative analysis, this time between Japanese and English conversational humor, can be found in Takekuro (2006).8 The author notes the significance of uchi (in-group of family, friends, where one may be informal), soto (out-group of colleagues, business acquaintances, neighbors, where formalities are observed), and yoso (strangers). Exchanges of humor occur in the informal uchi domain, but are not expected or appreciated in the soto or yoso domains. Among westerners, however, the boundaries between intimates, acquaintances, and strangers are much more fluid, and humor may be expected, even during relatively formal occasions.

Lu’s review also covered studies in other parts of the world using the Humor Styles Questionnaire or HSQ.9 These studies showed, for example, that self-defeating humor (to ingratiate oneself) and self-enhancing humor (to show coping in adversity) were used more by U.S. students than Arabs; and that Russian and U.S. students most commonly used affiliative humor (showing friendliness and congeniality), while Russian students used self-defeating humor more than U.S students and U.S. students used affiliative and self-enhancing humor more.

Lu’s review also reminds us that cultural differences in humor may be found within regions and language groups. For example, South Asians are more assertive and expressive than East Asians, hence may value and use humor more (2023, p. 7). Further, in four English-speaking countries, Americans had highest scores in affiliative and self-enhancing humor; the British had highest scores in aggressive and self-defeating humor; and Australians had the lowest scores in all types (Lu, 2023, p. 4). In Osaka, Inoue states that conventions of humor are less reserved and more egalitarian than other parts of Japan due to the city’s historical tradition of business (2006).10 In a final study by Chang, Chan, and Chen (2024), regional differences in humor perception and neural differences were reported between Indigenous Taiwanese and (Chinese) Han people. Indigenous Taiwanese appear to have greater neural activation in the reward centers than Han people, suggesting greater pleasure and appreciation of humor, among other findings.

An individual’s humor seems to be profoundly conditioned by geography, history, culture, and language.

Helping Students Understand Humor Across Cultures

Humor in a foreign culture may be easy or hard to understand. Some humor may be universal, like certain kinds of physical humor. For example:

During a taiko drumming performance I saw, all performers were in a line across the stage, playing with amazing precision. Suddenly, the drumming stopped and the drummer on one end began drumming on his neighbor’s drum; the neighbor turned to his neighbor to drum, and so on, down the entire line to the last fellow, who turned to drum on…air! His look of indignation was priceless, and the multi-cultural audience erupted in laughter.

Other humor may just create awkwardness in another culture.

Many years ago, I was working as a cross-cultural trainer. My client was a smart and successful American business woman preparing to live and work in Paris. As part of the training seminar, a French businessman in our city came to discuss differences in U.S. and French business cultures.

My client stated that she liked to start a presentation by “cracking” a few jokes. She wondered if it would be a good idea to “warm up the audience” this way in a French business setting. In reply, the businessman said, “I wonder why Americans try to be funny and smile all the time.” Then looking at us, he said (bluntly), “I’m sorry, but they look kind of dumb.” My client and I were both quite startled (as I recall, I happened to be smiling a little, and didn’t know what to do with my face!).

We want our students to be introduced to the general norms of the target culture, the conventions for specific settings (work, school, socializing, formal occasions, etc.), and in these contexts, the operation of (suitable) humor. To prepare for this, instructors need resources on the target language/culture. If there are opportunities to learn about the humor of your students’ cultures, that will be helpful too, although they can explore this as well.

Cultural Themes and Scripts/Schemas

I am an advocate of using thematic concepts or dimensions for the study of culture and topics in culture. Culture themes that capture characteristics of life in a country don’t explain everything, and they are broad. However, over time, as learners get exposed to customs, beliefs, behaviors, conversations, values, etc., they begin to see coherent patterns emerging. I would advise collecting some materials on culture-themes or dimensions from scholars like these.

The pertinent elements of the target culture must be brought together with the discourse of humor episodes. Contained in the discourse of the jokes or wit are scripts or schemas that fit with the humor’s framework. Learning about these scripts is part of language learning. Analysis of the humor can bring out the narratives and standardized imaginings that come to mind with many people, as was illustrated in Table 1, like “The poor guy wakes himself up snoring! That’s terrible. He should go to a doctor.” It may also include, “I’ve heard that health issues can cause that.” “What does his wife say?” (etc.). Ultimately, these elements of humorous discourse can help to fill in broader patterns of social and cultural themes.

Here is another example of scripts for a piece of humor. First, the humor:

My two sisters and I have a set of coffee cups, which my middle sister found. The oldest sister’s cup says, “I’m the oldest. I make the rules.” The middle sister’s cup says, “I’m the middle child. I’m the reason we need rules.” And the youngest of us has a cup that says, “I’m the youngest. The rules don’t apply to me.”

As you read this, did you think of your own position among your siblings (if you have some)? And are the statements true for you? There is a lot of “folk” psychology about the serial order of siblings. “First born children tend to be leaders,” Middle-born children – “adaptable, rebellious.” Youngest – “spoiled, attention-seekers, etc.” Only children – “confident, responsible.” These suggest common scripts which emerge from people’s standardized imaginings and manifest in people’s narratives. A few days ago, my neighbor illustrated precisely such a narrative: She said, as the oldest, she had a lot of rules to follow; however, her younger sister was treated much more leniently!

These are the kinds of scripts, interior dialogue, and cultural narratives we want to introduce around the humor we are explaining.

Integrating the Discourse of Humor into Language/Culture Class

This section is adapted from Crawford-Lange and Lange (1987) on integrating language and culture.11 The authors offer eight steps for integrating a cultural theme into the language/culture class. I have adapted it to focus on the discourse of humor.

The authors’ process is described in general terms, with many alternatives. I follow this approach and advise teachers to trim, adapt, revise, level up or down, and innovate to fit their own classes.

1. Identification of a Cultural Theme: Humor in English. Select a theme, e.g. North American (or Australian or British, etc.) humor. Consider what sort of the humor will be most helpful and what can be reasonably covered. Rucynski uses these three questions to make those choices for his classes: “1) Are my learners likely to encounter this type of humor when communicating in the English-speaking world? 2) Does learning about this type of humor have value beyond just being funny? 3) Can this type of humor be incorporated using communicative and collaborative activities?” (2022, p.1).12 (Of course, omit sensitive kinds of humor, e.g., disparaging/insulting other people; sexual, religious, or political humor.)
2. Presentation of Humorous Content. Consider what materials you would like to start with–conversational humor from native speakers? Published collections on humor? Comedy video series? Present some representative samples to the students to introduce humor characteristics from the target culture. Discuss these choices with students. Then, invite them to locate samples of humor from their own cultures. If possible, instructors can prepare by looking into humor in the students’ home culture(s) as well. (In Japan, for example, see Davis, 2006;13 Neff & Rucynski, 2017; Oshima, 2013;14 and others.) The purpose here is to have students browse materials in order to “form the basis for defining perceptions of the native and/or target cultures” (Crawford-Lange and Lange, 1987, p. 259).
3. Discussion on Target/Native Culture. For this step, the authors suggest three focuses: a) description of the humor samples; b) identification and analysis of thematic features of the humor samples (are there noticeable characteristics?); and c) reaction to the materials from the perspective of the students’ home cultures. The end product might be a written statement describing students’ perceptions of the target humor, as well as comparisons and contrasts with their home culture humor. This could be done individually or in small groups.
4. Language and Discourse Learning. This step involves a deeper dive to explore the language of humorous episodes, both target and home humor, if you wish. Examine vocabulary, collocations, formulaic speech, grammar, speech functions. Next, look at the discourse structure, conversational norms, social roles and norms, and cultural themes where applicable. (This may go hand-in-hand with #5.)
5. Integration with Language Learning. The authors suggest that this step could be the manual integration of vocabulary and linguistic/grammatical elements with regular textbook materials; I would add discourse elements, formulaic language, and cultural findings as well.
6. Verification of Target/Native Perceptions. This step is designed to allow students to (re)examine resources (cultural dimensions, new humor samples, level-appropriate reading, or related materials) in greater depth to “develop, confirm, or modify” their initial perceptions prepared in Stage 3. Again, group or individual serves, with the aim of revising their statement of perceptions with more detail and greater sophistication.
7. Cultural Awareness. The authors state that the goal of this integrative process is for “students to gain facility in re-forming cultural perceptions on the basis of new input and interacting successfully in novel cultural situations” (p. 261). Some of the questions Crawford-Lange and Lange offer include: “Why are there cultural differences? What effects have geography, time, and people had on cultural evolution? What differences exist [in humor] between the target and native cultures? If your cultural perceptions [of target humor] changed during this unit, what caused them to change?” (p. 261). Time permitting, Stages 2 to 7 can be recycled.
8. Evaluation of Language and Cultural Proficiency in the Area of Humor. Crawford-Lange and Lange note that evaluation of proficiency should be focused on the process rather than discrete cultural points. Students can be given new cases of humorous material, and step through this process independently of class. Then students can present their findings: They could perform the humor in class, then explain the case using cultural dimensions, interior dialogue, and other analyses, and finally discuss their cultural perceptions, inviting audience participation.

At my tai chi chuan class today, I spotted one of the assistants, whom I hadn’t seen for some time. I asked how he was. He said, “Good, good. Just getting older all the time.” We both chuckled. He continued, “Nothing I can do about that.” I said, “Just say no.” He laughed.

Endnotes

Hoicka, E., et al. (2022). The Early Humor Survey (EHS): A reliable parent-report measure of humor development for 1-to 47-month-olds. Behavior research methods, 54(4), 1928-1953. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-021-01704-4
Honig, A. S. (1988). Humor development in children. Young children, 43(4), 60-73.
J.M. Suls (1972), A Two-stage model for the appreciation of jokes and cartoons: An information-processing analysis. In J.H. Goldstein & P.E. McGhee (Eds.), The psychology of humor. New York: Academic. Cited in Long and Graesser, 1988.
Leon A. Jakobovits James (1979). Language teaching vs. the teaching of talk. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 6-4(16), pp. 5-22. Revised and reprinted as The art of not-teaching language. In L. Jakobovits James & C. Winskowski (Eds.). Enduring principles, Vol. 4: Discourse Applications for teaching, p. 182. Forthcoming.
Kennison, Shelia M. (2020). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Humor (p. 13). American Psychological Association. Kindle Edition.
Kennison explains that these studies have various methods – some use EEG/ERP; others use fMRIs. Various kinds of humor are used – cartoons, written jokes, audio jokes, etc. And there are individual differences found across males/females, left- and right-handed people, and probably cultural divides. Further study controlling for such variables may present a clearer picture.
Chan, Y. C., et al. (2013); Dai, R. H., et al. (2017); Xue, D., et al. (2013); Tu, S., et al. (2014); additionally, I include: Prenger, M., et al. (2023).
Takekuro, M. (2006). Conversational jokes in Japanese and English. In J.M. Davis (ed.). Understanding humor in Japan, 85-98.
In addition to the humor styles mentioned, the Humor Styles Questionnaire identifies Aggressive humor (e.g., to belittle). See Martin, R. A., et al. (2003).
Inoue, H. (2006). Osaka’s culture of laughter. In J.M. Davis (ed.). Understanding humor in Japan, 46-56.
Crawford‐Lange, L. M., & Lange, D. L. (1987). Integrating language and culture: How to do it. Theory into Practice, 26(4), 258-266.
Rucynski, J. (2022). Humor in ELT (Part 2): Classroom techniques. TESOL Connections, June, p. 1.
Davis, J. M. (ed.). (2006). Understanding humor in Japan. Wayne State University Press.
Oshima, K. (2013). An Examination for Styles of Japanese Humor: Japan’s Funniest Story Project 2010 to 2011.

Christine Winskowski (PhD.) professor emerita at Iwate Prefectural University, Morioka Junior College. She has written and presented on the topics of discourse, students’ course evaluations, and cross-cultural adaptation.