A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

participation in the L2 community.
27
Subjectivity and language learning
In a social, cultural, and affective view of language learning, our subjectivity
28
is seen as multi-faceted and in flux. Subjectivity refers to one’s views, emo-
tions, and perceptions of the world, as well as one’s self-concept in dynamic
relation to others
29
(e.g., identity, values, beliefs, morals, feelings, and 
personal principles). Individuals are likely to have a repertoire of subjec-
tivity (i.e., multiple identities) which is socially and culturally constructed,
negotiated, and jointly enacted with others in the interaction.
30
For example,
we may possess a range of identities in our various relationships to others 
such as:
■
national, racial, ethnic, generational, and gender identities (e.g.,
American, female, middle-aged, Caucasian, Latino);
■
relational identities (e.g., wife, brother, mother);
1 0 6
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
24
Byram and Morgan (1994); Dewaele (2005); House and Kasper (2000); Preston
(1989).
25
House (2008).
26
See for example, DuFon (2008); Horibe (2008); House (2003); Kachru and Nelson
(1996); LoCastro (2000); McKay (2002), (in press); and Tarone (2005).
27
For example, Norton (2000, 2001).
28
The construct of subjectivity is largely synonymous with that of social identity, and
many researchers seem to equate the two without clear demarcation between them.
In this volume, subjectivity and identity are used interchangeably (see more discussion
on these terms in Ishihara 2006).
29
Weedon (1997: 32).
30
Norton (2000); Ochs (1993); Weedon (1997).

---

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 7
■
socioeconomic, occupational identities (e.g., middle-class, teacher,
employee, student); or
■
ideological identities (e.g., peace activist, environmentalist).
Certain aspects of our identities may be highlighted or become salient in
specific contexts depending on the situational or interactional constraints.
That is, we wear different “hats” depending on the relationship and context.
In each situational and relational context, our identities are constructed 
relative to how others position themselves and others. Some aspects of our
identities may be more permanent while other aspects shift according to the
dynamics of the given social, historical, or political context. Individual sub-
jectivity can be characterized as:
■
multiple, dynamic, and non-unitary;
■
a site of struggle and sometimes contradiction; and
■
changing over time and space.
31
For example, a person (let us call her Jane for now) may start a day in the 
family being a wife and mother, but her subjectivity is reconstructed as a
teacher when at her workplace her student comes to class. She puts on a 
collegial hat when another teacher, John, walks into the office. John may
exchange a greeting with Jane as a friendly colleague, but then may reposi-
tion himself as Jane’s former teacher based on their former relationship as
they discuss John’s area of expertise. However, their subjective positions
may overturn when they discuss Jane’s area of expertise. Or they may begin
to position themselves as equals rather than a former student and a teacher
as they work together for a decade. In her attempt to negotiate her subjec-
tive position, Jane may have inner conflicts as to how to present herself in
each particular context, feeling obliged to conform to assigned positioning
on the one hand but wanting to contest the positioning on the other.
In addition, subjectivity is shaped both by individual dispositions and
cultural/societal positioning under contextual circumstances. In the example
of Jane and John above, when John imposes a less knowledgeable and more
powerless positioning on Jane, she may simply accept the lower status, being
non-confrontational and respectful in nature. Then, she would tend to use
rather polite and proper language with John to index this positioning; 
in turn, John interprets their relationship as somewhat asymmetrical.
Alternatively, Jane may draw on her membership in the progressive school
environment and attempt to construct more egalitarian values promoted in
31
Norton (1997, 2000).

---

the institution. Accordingly, her language would then be generally informal
and egalitarian, and presumably John would construct their relationship on
roughly equal terms as well. As these examples show, individuals create per-
sonal meaning for themselves in the social context where their individual
dispositions play a pivotal role in the formation and reformation of identity.
At the same time, subjectivity embodies particular social or cultural
norms and conventions created and maintained over time by other group
members sharing similar identities. This process contributes to the develop-
ment of certain linguistic features, social values, beliefs, and norms.
32
Speakers’
use of particular linguistic and pragmatic features is symbolic of their 
group standards, consolidating in-group belongingness as they speak. This
connectedness between pragmatics, culture, and subjectivity speaks to the
interface between culture and pragmatics discussed in Chapter 1. Within a
sociocultural view of subjectivity, language use is viewed as participation in
that cultural community. Through participation in particular linguistic,
pragmatic, and discourse practices, individuals become socialized into the
community and function as competent members of the community.
33
Another prominent characteristic of identity has been recognized as its
agency-giving nature in its relation to power and institution. Agency can be
understood as a self-reliant, independent, or self-defining capacity to oper-
ate with volition and power to bring about an effect, change, or decision in
the particular sociocultural context. Individuals are not always passive, but
can sometimes “contest a particular way in which they have been positioned
in a social site, seeking to create a new social position for themselves.”
34
In asymmetrical power relationships identity may be non-negotiable and
simply imposed (“imposed identity).
35
Again, in the example with Jane and
John, if John is an extremely overpowering and dominating colleague,
lower status may be imposed on Jane, his former student. Or sometimes
identities might be comfortably assumed, accepted, and not negotiated
(“assumed identities”). On other occasions, individuals may contest and
resist their identities in a dynamic interplay (“negotiable identities”). Jane
may resist being positioned as a lower-status person, and by exercising her
agency she may attempt to negotiate her identity as an equal colleague in
the ongoing interaction with John.
In summary, in the negotiation of identity, individuals can exercise active
human agency in deciding how to present themselves through their use of