Second language learners’ divergence from target language pragmatic norms

Main Article Content

Maria Pia Gomez-Laich


Pragmatic competence is an indispensable aspect of language ability in order for second and foreign language (L2/FL) learners to understand and be understood in their interactions with both native and nonnative speakers of the target language. Without a proper understanding of the pragmatic rules in the target language, learners may run the risk of coming across as insensitive and rude. Several researchers (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Kasper & Rose, 2002) suggest that L2 pragmatics not only can be taught in the L2/FL classroom, but, more importantly, that explicit approaches that involve direct explanation of target pragmatic features are beneficial for learning pragmatics. Just as native speakers of a language acquire a “set of dispositions to act in certain ways, which generates cognitive and bodily practices in the individual” (Watts, 2003, p. 149), instructors can help learners to become aware of the pragmatic features that characterize the target language. Although the importance of explicit teaching of pragmatics is well recognized in the literature, learning norms and rules of pragmatics largely depends on learners’ subjectivity. Learners’ convergence or divergence from the L2 pragmatic norms, both consciously and out of awareness, sometimes depends on whether these norms fit their image of self and their L1 cultural identity. Since identity-related conflict can have significant consequences for the acquisition of second language pragmatics, failing to consider the centrality of learners’ identities will produce an inadequate understanding of SLA. This paper synthesizes studies that document the reasons why learners opt to remain foreign by resisting certain L2 practic-es. The following synthesis question was proposed: Why do language learners resist the pragmatic norms of the target language?


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Gomez-Laich, M. P. (2016). Second language learners’ divergence from target language pragmatic norms. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 249-269.
Author Biography

Maria Pia Gomez-Laich, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh

María Pia Gomez-Laich is a PhD candidate in second language acquisition at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Her research interests include pragmatics, language and identity, task-based language teaching, and second language writing.


  1. *Al-Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 581-601.
  2. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Barron, A. (2002). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  4. Benson, P., Barkhuizen, G., Bodycott, P., & Brown, J. (2012). Study abroad and the development of second language identities. Applied Linguistics Review, 3, 173-193.
  5. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London: Routledge.
  6. Billmyer, K. (1990). The effect of formal instruction on the development of sociolinguistic competence: The performance of compliments. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 1535.
  7. Block, D. (2007). Second language identities. London: Continuum.
  8. Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 255-272). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  9. Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 123-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1997). Pascalian meditations (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  11. Bouton, L. F. (1994). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157-167.
  12. Brock, M. N., & Nagasaka, Y. (2005). Teaching pragmatics in the EFL classroom? SURE you can! TESL Reporter, 38(1), 27-41.
  13. *Brown, L. (2013). Identity and honorifics use in Korean study abroad. In C. Kinginger (Ed.), Social and cultural dimensions of language learning in study abroad (pp. 269-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  14. Cohen, A. D. (2012) Research methods for describing variation in intercultural pragmatics for cultures in contact and conflict. In J. C. Felix-Brasdefer & D. A. Koike (Eds.), Pragmatic variation in first and second language contexts (pp. 273-294). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  15. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research. London: Sage.
  16. *Davis, J. (2007). Resistance to L2 pragmatics in the Australian ESL context. Language Learning, 57, 611-649.
  17. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Teaching Spanish pragmatics in the classroom: Explicit instruction of mitigation. Hispania, 91(2), 477-492.
  18. *Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of address terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 1-17.
  19. Hoffman-Hicks, S. (1999). The longitudinal development of French foreign language pragmatic competence: Evidence from study abroad participants (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.
  20. Hymes, D. (1979). On communicative competence. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  21. *Ishihara, N., & Tarone, E. (2009). Subjectivity and pragmatic choice in L2 Japanese: Emulating and resisting pragmatic norms. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Pragmatic competence in Japanese as a second language (pp. 101-128). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  22. *Iwasaki, N. (2011). Learning Japanese “politeness” and “impoliteness”: Young American men’s dilemmas during study abroad. Japanese Language and Literature, 45, 67-106.
  23. Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6) [HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved from
  24. Kasper, G. (2001). Four perspectives on L2 pragmatic development. Applied Linguistics, 22, 502-530.
  25. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In G. Kasper & K. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 1-10). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Oxford: Blackwell.
  27. Kim, I.-O. (2000). Relationship of onset of age of ESL acquisition and extent of informal input to appropriateness and nativeness in performing four speech acts in English: A study of native Korean adult speakers of ESL (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). New York University, New York, USA.
  28. Kinginger, C., & Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing development of meta-pragmatic awareness in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 10, 19-42.
  29. Kramsch, C. (2009). The multilingual subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  30. Lafford, B. A. (1995). Getting into, through, and out of a survival situation: A comparison of communicative strategies used by students studying Spanish abroad and at home. In B. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 97-121). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  31. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
  32. *Liao, S. (2009). Variation in the use of discourse markers by Chinese teaching assistants in the US. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1313-1328.
  33. *LoCastro, V. (2001). Individual differences in second language acquisition: Attitudes, learner subjectivity, and L2 pragmatic norms. System, 29, 69-89.
  34. LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective. New York: Routledge.
  35. *Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. Modern Language Journal, 95, 519-540.
  36. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  37. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 409-429.
  38. Norton, B., & McKinney, C. (2011). An identity approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 73-94). London: Routledge.
  39. Olshtain, E. (1983). Sociocultural competence and linguistic transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 232-249). Rowley, MA: Newbury.
  40. Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 155-173). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  41. Papastergiadis, N. (2000). The turbulence of migration. Cambridge: Polity.
  42. Pavlenko, A., & Blackledge, A. (2003). Introduction: New theoretical approaches to the study of negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. In A. Pavlenko & A. Blackledge (Eds.), Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 1-33). New York: Multilingual Matters.
  43. Regan, V. (1995). The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms: Effects of a year abroad on second language learners of French. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 245-267). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  44. Shardakova, M. (2005). Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 423-451.
  45. *Shively, R. (2011). L2 pragmatic development in study abroad: A longitudinal study of Spanish service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1818-1835.
  46. Siegal, M. (1995). Individual differences and study abroad. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 225-244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  47. *Siegal, M. (1996). The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics, 17, 356-382.
  48. Suri, H., & Clarke, D. (2009). Advancements in research synthesis methods: From a methodologically inclusive perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79, 395-430.
  49. Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
  50. Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. New York: Multilingual Matters.
  51. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
  52. Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. London: Blackwell.
  54. Wishnoff, J. (2000). Hedging your bets: L2 learners’ acquisition of pragmatic devices in academic writing and computer-mediated discourse. Second language studies: Working papers of the department of second language studies, University of Hawai`i, 19, 119-157.
  55. Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learners’ use of interactional discourse markers. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 223-244). New York: Cambridge University Press.