A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

1 0 2
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
Contextual
factors
Social status (S)
Relative status (e.g., age, 
gender, role in conversation)
Distance (D)
Level of distance
Intensity (I)
Compliment topic
Dialogue
Equals (same age group, 
females, classmates)
Close
T-shirt (appearance/
possession)
Jenny: Nice T-shirt!
Steph: Well, Jenny, I bought it at a thrift store.
Jenny: But it looks new!
Steph: Oh, no, it’s used, I bought it for $1.
Jenny: That’s really cheap.
Steph: Thanks you.
learning of pragmatics, this means that learners need to attend to the 
language form and to the relevant factors that affect the form in the given
context. This framework posits that merely exposing learners to contextual-
ized input is unlikely to lead to students’ learning of pragmatics – that class-
room tasks will have more of a payoff to learning if the language forms and
relevant contextual features are highlighted and if the relationship between
them is explored. Apparently this point has much relevance to how prag-
matics is treated in everyday instruction.
To illustrate this point, let us revisit a piece of observational data that 
an actual language learner collected (see Chapters 3 and 7). Notice in the
chart below how the language in the dialogue (quoted as originally spelled)
reported by a learner and the contextual factors for the dialogue are juxta-
posed to facilitate the analysis of the form–context relationship.
Another question about the learning of pragmatics concerns the neces-
sary level of awareness of the linguistic form and contextual factors. This
framework distinguishes between at least two levels of awareness, noticing
and understanding. Noticing refers to “registering the simple occurrence of
some event” – that is, identifying surface linguistic forms. On the other
hand, understanding entails “recognition of a general principle, rule, or 
pattern.”
9
Noticing includes the noticing of a particular term of address on a
certain occasion (e.g., Jane or Professor Doe). Understanding would imply
that learners realize the meaning of the choice of that particular form in the
given context. So learners realize, for example, that the term of address, Jane,
is predictably used by her friends, colleagues, and family members, and that
Professor Doe would be the term of address most likely used by her students,
and understand why different terms are selected and when each term is
9
Schmidt (1993: 26).

---

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 3
used. When understanding occurs, learners realize why that particular form
was used in relation to the contextual factors such as the speaker/writer and
listener/readers’ relative social status, age, gender, distance, and the level of
formality of the occasion. The proponents of this framework would contend
that noticing is concerned with the question of “what linguistic and non-
verbal material is stored in memory,” whereas understanding is related to
questions regarding “how that material is organized into the language 
system”.
10
In this framework, learners need to notice the surface features
and to understand the principle, rule, or pattern involved for the learning of
pragmatics.
11
In fact, current research in L2 pragmatics generally appears to support
the noticing–understanding framework. Experimental studies have found
that explicit teaching of pragmatics – that is, instruction which includes
metapragmatic information – seems to be more effective by and large 
than an implicit approach.
12
Such metapragmatic information can include 
contextual information analyzed in terms of social status, social and psycho-
logical distance, and degree of imposition. Mere exposure to pragmatic input
(as in implicit teaching) may not lead to learners’ pragmatic development, or
the learning may emerge very slowly.
13
Generally speaking, explicit teaching
appears to heighten learners’ attention to specific linguistic features and an
understanding of how these features relate to contextual factors (both in
terms of how the context may shape language and how the use of certain
language form can shape the contextual relationship).
Other cognitive frameworks related to L2 pragmatics
Even if learners understand how contextual factors are typically evaluated
and how speakers’ intent is expressed in L2 forms, we cannot simply assume
that learners are able to produce these forms themselves in interaction. In
addition to noticing and attention, output and interactional opportunities
are likely to contribute to learners’ acquisition of the L2. During output
tasks when learners encounter a difficulty producing language, they may
10
Adapted from Schmidt (2001: 26).
11
More discussion can be found elsewhere, such as with regard to the control of pro-
cessing (Bialystok 1993), the levels and types of attention (Kasper and Schmidt 1996),
and the varying effectiveness of attention (Rose and Kasper 2001; Schmidt 2001).
12
See Rose and Kasper (2001) and Rose (2005), for comprehensive reviews of indi-
vidual studies. See Jeon and Kaya (2006), for quantitative meta-analysis of some of
these studies.
13
However, some implicit teaching techniques (e.g., input enhancement and recasts)
have also been found effective to trigger learners’ noticing (Alcón 2005; Fukuya and
Clark 2001; Rose 2005).

---

notice gaps in their language system and turn to input for relevant resources
in order to articulate their message.
14
Output tasks might facilitate learners’
noticing of certain forms that they are lacking while they attempt to 
communicate their intended meaning in the L2. Although this argument
focuses entirely on the development of grammatical ability, various produc-
tion tasks may be effectively used as a pedagogical tool to elicit learners’
noticing of key language features and appropriate modification of the out-
put. Although knowledge of grammar alone does not promise appropriate
pragmatic use, learners’ grammatical ability is known to relate to their 
L2 pragmatic competence.
15
In the section below we will discuss various 
production tasks, as well as tasks for receptive skill development, that may 
promote learners’ pragmatic development.
In addition, the interactional nature of communicative tasks (even some
simulations like role-play or multiple-turn discourse completion tasks) also
requires learners to attend not only to their own utterances but also to those
of their interactional partners and to respond appropriately in context,
often in real time. As learners engage in this negotiation of meaning in
interaction, they may learn to modify and restructure the immediate 
interaction in terms of linguistic form, conversational structure, or the 
content of the message.
16
Interactional opportunities may also promote a
learner’s retrieval and retention of information, and automaticity in recalling
this information could be enhanced, resulting in enhanced fluency.
The role of interaction can also be analyzed through a sociocultural
framework, particularly by means of the concept of the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD). In this framework, interaction is seen more widely as a
tool of thinking and learning, as well as a means for communication.
17
The
notion of the ZPD tells us that cognitive development occurs in interaction
with others who have more advanced cognitive ability (such as a teacher or
a more capable peer), rather than in isolation.
18
In the classroom, teachers’
(or peers’) scaffolding is typically mediated by language or cultural artifacts,
and can facilitate learners’ cognitive development. Teachers’ or peers’ scaf-
folding is woven into dialogic interaction in which learning occurs, and
through interaction learners eventually internalize the newly gained know-
ledge or skills. Then, learners become self-regulated when they no longer
need to rely on outside resources to carry out the task or access that