A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

1 0 4
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
14
See the output hypothesis (e.g., Swain 1998; Swain and Lapkin 1995).
15
Bardovi-Harlig (1996, 1999, 2001).
16
See the interaction hypothesis, e.g., Long (1996); Long et al. (1998).
17
Kasper and Rose (2002).
18
Vygotsky (1978).

---

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 5
awareness, because the new knowledge and skills have now become part of
their cognitive repertoire.
19
Viewing learners as social beings, this framework
focuses on how learning occurs interactionally, and can provide a rationale
for the use of discussion and group work in the classroom that engage 
learners in interaction with other learners and teachers.
20
Although theoretical frameworks for cognitive processing certainly help
us explain student learning in the L2 pragmatics classroom, it has been
pointed out that the learning of pragmatics should not be seen merely in
terms of cognitive processing since it most definitely involves the socio-
affective domain as well.
21
For instance, learners’ motivation, acculturation,
social identity, investment, and attitudes are likely to affect the ways in
which learners notice pragmatic input, understand the role of contextual
factors, negotiate meaning in interaction, and modify their language pro-
duction across contexts and over time. These factors may also come into
play when L2 speakers determine their own optimal level of cultural accom-
modation in a given setting
22
(e.g., completely emulating the target culture
norms, converging partly towards the L2 culture, or resisting L2 norms 
thoroughly to stay distant as an outsider). We now turn to the interdiscip-
linary understanding of these social, cultural, psychological, and affective
(emotional) aspects in relation to the learning of L2 pragmatics.
Interdisciplinary frameworks relating to 
L2 pragmatic development
From a cognitive perspective, learners whose language diverges from the
expected range of pragmatic norms may be viewed as lacking in pragmatic
ability. It may seem that success at L2 pragmatics would mean adhering
fully to the local norms. However, if we use the “spotlights on the elephant”
metaphor (Figure 6.1), there are other social, cultural, psychological, and
emotional lenses through which to view language learning, and some of
these have recently been gaining ground in the field of SLA.
23
The basic
stance taken is that L2 speakers may have various reasons for not depart-
ing so readily from their own values and switching to those in the L2 
19
Vygotsky (1978).
20
See elsewhere for much more on the sociocultural theory, e.g., Lantolf (2000);
Lantolf and Thorne (2006). More specific discussion on L2 pragmatics and the 
sociocultural theory can be found in, e.g., Kasper and Rose (2002); Ohta (2005);
Shively (2008).
21
Kasper and Schmidt (1996); Schmidt (1993).
22
Yoon (1991).
23
DuFon (2008).

---

community.
24
Just as with an L1, the use of an L2 is an expression of one’s
subjectivity, and so we need to take learners’ expressive needs into account
in their L2 use and development. Some L2 instructional practices and SLA
research reflect native-speaker models, and consequently the role of learner
identity is largely neglected in areas like interlanguage pragmatics.
25
Now, as
we teach English as an international language, the question of whose norms
are to be used as the pedagogical model is increasingly being raised since
native-speaker norms may not necessarily be relevant in communication 
in World Englishes. Pragmatically competent expert speakers – regardless 
of their native or non-native status – have demonstrated their ability to
negotiate their social and cultural identity through the use of local norms in
each given context.
26
We now turn to a few interdisciplinary frameworks
that help us understand learners as social beings and language learning as