A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

1 0 8
T H E N U T S A N D B O L T S O F P R A G M A T I C S I N S T R U C T I O N
32
Hall (2002).
33
Schieffelin and Ochs (1986a, 1986b), see also below for a more detailed discussion
of second language socialization.
34
LoCastro (2003: 198).
35
Imposed, assumed, and negotiable identities from Pavlenko and Blackledge (2004: 21).

---

L A N G U A G E - A C Q U I S I T I O N T H E O R Y A N D T E A C H I N G P R A G M A T I C S
1 0 9
language. The formation of identity is closely related to the surrounding
context and is constantly under the influence of power in the relationship,
as the examples above show. Yet, individuals can exercise their agency to
varying degrees depending on the circumstances as part of their self-
assertion. They may be capable of making their own choices as to how they
use language, and might choose to contest and resist the positioning imposed
upon them as they negotiate in interaction. In L2 development, learners’
subjectivity affects the way they learn and use the language. They way they
express themselves pragmatically through the use of L2 is also dictated or at
least influenced by, for instance, their cultural affiliation and the sense of
who they are under the circumstance. In the next section, another theoret-
ical framework is introduced, which further helps to explain this connection
between identity, culture, and language/pragmatics.
Speech accommodation theory
Having its origins in social psychology, accommodation theory
36
can be 
useful in explaining speakers’ linguistic variability in social contexts. The
speech accommodation theory
37
takes both cognitive and affective variables
into account in explicating learners’ linguistic behavior in relation to 
their identity. This framework maintains that learners’ social characteristics
(e.g., objectively defined social categories such as age, gender, ethnicity, and
socioeconomic status) alone would not determine their speech behavior.
Rather, learners’ “own subjective attitudes, perceptions of situations, cogni-
tive and affective dispositions, and the like may interact to determine their
speech outputs.”
38
Learners’ attitude, motivations, feelings, values, and 
perceptions (i.e., their subjectivity) influence their social and psychological
distance from the target community. As a result, learners’ language converges
with or diverges from the target.
39
Simply put, when learners are in favor of
the target culture or individual members of that culture, they are more likely
to take on linguistic features of target-language speakers or characteristics of
the language.
36
As the theory has become more interdisciplinary with a wider focus from verbal to
non-verbal, and specific linguistic to discourse features, Accommodation Theory is
also more broadly termed as the communication accommodation theory (Giles et al.
1991; see also Weatherall et al. 2007 for issues of language and discourse in social 
psychology).
37
Beebe and Giles (1984).
38
Beebe and Giles (1984: 5).
39
Convergence and divergence are defined as “a speaker’s style shifting toward the
interlocutor” and “a shift away (to maintain or assert distinctiveness)” respectively
(Beebe and Zuengler 1983).

---

Convergence and divergence can be understood as linguistic strategies
for a range of linguistic behavior from, for example, phonological or lexical
features (e.g., pronunciation, speech rates, and word choice) to pragmatics
and discourse features (e.g., pause, utterance lengths, and turn-taking).
Speakers/writers may make an effort to adjust to the perceived speech 
patterns of the listeners/readers (i.e., convergence or accommodation) to
communicate effectively in a timely manner, to attain social approval, or to
maintain L2-related social identities. Speakers/writers may choose to accom-
modate their speech/writing styles when they estimate the cost to be less
than the perceived payoff. For example, a speaker from the rural US South
may choose to put on an Eastern accent while working professionally in an
Eastern city in order to claim membership in what is typically seen as a more
sophisticated speech community. On the other hand, speakers/writers may
choose to diverge from perceived L2 norms (i.e., divergence or resistance) in
order to maintain their distinctive in-group identities, and to accentuate
their linguistic differences with an intention to isolate themselves from
other language groups. The same Southerner may be proud of his culture
and decide to speak with his own accent in a bar to assert his identity
among the Easterners. The degree of convergence and divergence may be a
function of the speakers’ linguistic repertoires, individual differences, and
social and contextual factors.
In the following section, another spotlight on the elephant, second 
language socialization, will be highlighted as a new theoretical framework
for understanding the phenomenon of pragmatic language learning. This
framework shares an emphasis on social context with accommodation 
theories. Like accommodation theories, this perspective can also be applied
to the analysis of learners’ dynamic linguistic variability. However, while
accommodation theories emphasize learners’ social, psychological and
affective factors, language socialization highlights social and cultural
dimensions of authentic interactions and views learners’ language use as