English Language Teaching; Vol. 10, No. 2; 2017 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 40 Using a Linguistic Theory of Humour in Teaching English Grammar Rufaidah Kamal Abdulmajeed 1 & Sarab Khalil Hameed 2 1 English Language Dept., College of Education for Women, University of Baghdad, Iraq 2 English Language Dept., College of Arts, University of Baghdad, Iraq Correspondence: Rufaidah Kamal Abdulmajeed. College of Education for Women, University of Baghdad. Baghdad. Al-Jadiriyah Compound. Iraq. E-mail: hajeya2@gmail.com Received: December 10, 2016 Accepted: January 3, 2017 Online Published: January 6, 2017 doi: 10.5539/elt.v10n2p40 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n2p40 Abstract Teachers who teach a new language grammar do not usually have the time and the proper situation to introduce humour when starting a new topic in grammar. There are many different opinions about teaching grammar. Many teachers seem to believe in the importance of grammar lessons devoted to a study of language rules and practical exercises. Other teachers feel that grammar is best learned by doing different language activities without focusing directly on the rules. This paper is devoted to explore the application of the linguistic theory of humour in teaching English grammar. The purpose of the experiment in this study was to show that the humorous way helped the students to learn grammar more effectively and that humour enhanced learning and helped retention and recalling grammar rules. The researchers created a control group and an experimental group to investigate the potential benefits of introducing humour in explaining a new topic of English grammar. The results showed that the exposure to humorous activities in the classroom tend to improve the student’s comprehension of the most difficult topics in their grammar book. Keywords: English Linguistics, language learning, grammar, humour 1. Introduction In teaching English grammar to the foreign language learners one must aim at making them efficient users of the language. The learners should be enabled to use the language for all their needs of communications. Some may argue that there is no correlation between teaching grammar and the development of the student’s skills in writing and speaking English. They are of the opinion that a language is learnt not by learning its rules but by actually practicing it. In other words, though doing grammar exercises can be a helpful way to learn those grammar rules, many think that immersing themselves in the language allows them to obtain the skills needed without doing intense study. For many others, an approach that incorporates parts of both of the above two methods is most effective because most people who are actively learning English grammar are those who speak other languages. Grammar is one of those issues that do not have an easy solution. It is tricky and it is tough. Teaching English grammar to a group of students is a a formidable job that requires outstanding skills and superlative efforts to make it successful. This research raises the following question: does the use of humour in the classroom promote and facilitate the teaching and learning of English grammar? The researchers have found out that the method which works best, along with all the previous mentioned approaches, is applying the linguistic theory of humour in teaching grammar. It all depends on the teacher’s innovative means of teaching. In this paper, the researchers concentrate on the most problematic subject in English grammar that almost all the students suffer from. It is the “inherent” and “non-inherent” adjectives. This subject is part of their grammar syllabus in the grammar book “A University Grammar of English” by Randolph Quirk and Sidney Greenbaum, 1973. They carry on an experiment in the classroom. This experiment is planned to discuss this subject in a humorous and non-humorous ways on two groups; control and experimental. The findings of the experiment show that the exam results of the students of the first group, i.e. control group, are not promising while the exam results of the