A01 cohe4573 01 se fm. Qxd

participation in L2 community practices.
Second language socialization theory
The language socialization theory was developed under the influence of
anthropology. The framework has been employed by researchers of SLA who
attempt to understand L2 learning not only from cognitive but also from
social and cultural perspectives.
40
Language socialization theory views 
1 1 0
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
40
Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen (2003).

---

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 1 1
language learning as socially situated in communities of practice.
41
Novice
community members (such as language learners or children) become com-
petent members of the speech community as they acquire the knowledge,
orientations, and social practices of the community through activities medi-
ated by language.
42
Novice members learn to use language appropriately
through exposure to and participation in the local practices. Knowing 
linguistic patterns and appropriate language use, in turn, allows the novice
community members to become competent communicators and central
participants in the community.
International graduate students, for example, gradually socialize into the
academic discourse of the host university program as they participate and
engage actively in the academic community. With exposure and time in the
community, a study found that students increasingly acquired discourse
strategies, for instance, for oral academic presentations (e.g., strategies to
engage the audience). The students also learned to negotiate with instructors
on their expectations and acquired ways to prepare for, perform, and review
their presentations.
43
It is when these students were able to follow com-
munity norms and practices that they were given central membership in the
community.
Much work in language socialization centers on novice members’ social-
ization into community norms, that is, a type of convergence towards com-
munity practices. On the other hand, the divergence from those norms can
in fact be explained in terms of language socialization theory as well. Novice
members are not necessarily passive recipients of the sociocultural practices,
but rather may actively and selectively co-construct existing norms in the
community and the outcome of the interaction.
44
Let us take a look at a more specific and authentic example of language
socialization in which an L2-speaking community member negotiates and
appropriates a community norm. A Japanese Director of Operations for a US
university volleyball team, Nobuko, was a long-time community member, a
fluent L2 English speaker, and was generally well socialized into the com-
munity practices. Her students generally used informal language with her,
perhaps in an attempt to construct a relaxed and informal relationship with
Nobuko. Or maybe they assumed a casual relationship with Nobuko based
on her demeanor or their previous experience with other directors.
41
Lave and Wenger (1991); Wenger (1998).
42
Vygotsky (1978).
43
Morita (2002, 2004).
44
See, for example, Garrett and Baquedano-López (2002); Ochs (1993); Schieffelin
and Ochs (1986a, 1986b); Watson-Gegeo and Nielsen (2003).

---

However, Nobuko was against a certain informal way that her students
spoke to her in athletic contexts. For example, her students often made a
casual request to her on a volleyball court, Do you wanna get the ball? This
language of request struck Nobuko as overly informal and inappropriate,
because she herself was so strictly “disciplined” to speak “properly and
respectfully” to someone senior and of higher status. This pragmatic norm
appeared so deeply ingrained in her subjectivity that she decided to “dis-
cipline” her student players on what she thought was a “proper” way of
speaking. Sometimes she refused the students’ requests in jest, and other
times she explicitly pointed out what language students should be using. By
doing so, she deliberately flouted the expected norm of more informal and
egalitarian behavior. Some students understood her message immediately
and began constructing a more formal relationship with Nobuko by promptly
altering their L1 behavior. Some needed to hear Nobuko’s request for formal
language repeatedly in order to understand the intention behind it. Some
persisted with their informal language longer, attempting to negotiate a
more relaxed rapport. As a result of this negotiation, which often extended
over a few years, Nobuko began to see what she felt was a positive change 
in her students’ general language use. Through her accumulated effort over
time, she succeeded in resocializing her largely L1-speaking students in the
way that they used language pragmatically.
45
It is notable that language socialization can work bi-directionally,
involving negotiation between novice participants and more competent
core members of the community. Novice members’ socialization into exist-
ing practices leads to the maintenance or reproduction of such cultural 
routines. On the other hand, their creative language use that is divergent
from the norms fulfills L2 speakers’ expressive needs and can potentially
contribute to a minor and temporary change or a greater transformation in
the preexisting community practice.
46
This dynamic interpretation and application of the language socializa-
tion theory is particularly valuable in studying linguistically/culturally
diverse communities in which social standards themselves may be in flux
and negotiable in interaction. In such communities, the process of language
socialization can span a lifetime and change over time as bi- or multilingual
identity shifts in fluid social contexts and interactional situations.
47
In summing up, we have so far briefly discussed a cognitive framework of
relevance to the learning of L2 pragmatics, the noticing hypothesis, along