Used three principal databases

Pragmatics and SLA:

Research in the area of pragmatics has shown that ‘language in use’ is highly context- dependent in which the forms and uses have to be explained in the realms of pragmatics, beyond the sentential level. The concept of the universality of pragmatics norms across all languages is therefore under examination, in which the occidental norms alongside other norms are identified. In 1990s, two influential cognitive psychological models addressed acquisition in ILP: The first model is that of Schmidt’s (1993,1995, 2001), the Noticing Hypothesis, and the other is that of Bialystok (1991, 1993), which is closely related to children’s acquisition of pragmatic conventions in their native language (L1). The current study is deeply- seated in the former model, a cognitive information-processing approach which advocates the impact of cognitive psychology on SLA. It mainly studies NNSs and adult learners, such as Schmidt’s (1983) well-known report on Wes, a Japanese adult learner of English. Consequently, Bialystok’s (1978) model is not considered in this study because children’s acquisition and first language acquisition are out of its scope.

Theoretical Frameworks of Pragmatics and SLA:

Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis:

The role of conscious and unconscious processes in foreign or second language (L2) learning has attracted a lot of controversy in applied linguistics for some time. Schmidt (1990) proposes a concept in SLA, the Noticing Hypothesis, in which learners cannot learn any TL feature unless they notice it. The Noticing Hypothesis as established by Schmidt (1995: 20) states that “what learners notice in input is what becomes intake for learning” and available for further mental processing. Schmidt (1995) claims that awareness is required for all learning. He emphasises (2001:26) “while there is subliminal perception, there is no subliminal learning”. He (2001: 3– 4) stresses, “SLA is largely driven by what learners pay attention to and notice in TL input and what they understand the significance of noticed input to be.” In fact, he is concerned with the importance of the role of input in the development of pragmatic competence. As mentioned in Kasper (2000:14), Schmidt refers to ‘Noticing’ as the ‘conscious registration of the occurrence of some event’. He further offers an extension to this concept which is the notion of ‘noticing the gap’, in which he states that L2 learners need to make comparisons between their own IL, output, and the TL input as a model in order to overcome errors. To further strengthen his argument, he denotes that they need to notice the mismatch between their own production and the target forms as a ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ condition for L2 acquisition and learning. To him, (2001: 30) “global alertness to target language input is not sufficient; attention has to be allocated to specific learning objects”. Extending his hypothesis in pragmatics, he observes that (2001: 30) “in order to acquire pragmatics, one must attend to both the linguistic forms of utterances and the relevant social and contextual features with which they are associated.” According to this framework, which is in line with Ishihara and Cohen, A.’s (2014), awareness and attention are inseparable, which manages access to consciousness and thus controls action and learning. A large and burgeoning body of research by Schmidt and Forta (1986); Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991); Kasper (2000, 2001); Rose and Ng (2001); Kasper and Rose (2002); Takahashi (2005, 2010a); Narita (2012); and Mahani (2012) among many other scholars adopt Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (1993, 1995, 2001) about how input becomes intake.
Embracing differing theoretical beliefs, debates continue about this hypothesis in the general field of cognitive psychology. However, some researchers claim that this view has earned its wide support on the basis of assumptions and instincts rather than on validated findings of exhaustive experimental research. John Truscott (1998), Wen Zhisheng (2008) along with other scholars contend the case that noticing is vital for L2 learning remains unresolved and that it is a source of considerable confusion, accordingly; they called for further empirical studies and research efforts in this respect. In contrast, other researchers such as Carr and Curran (1994) as well as Tomlin and Villa (1994) argue for dividing awareness and learning altogether, claiming their relationship to be notoriously elusive.
Noticing (also known as ‘conscious awareness’ according to Truscott, 1998: 103) alone does not mean that learners inevitably acquire language; rather, the hypothesis states that noticing is the necessary departing point for attainment, whether this noticing is achieved consciously or subconsciously. Schmidt (1993,1995, 2001) and Leow (2000) argue that noticing is vital to the launch of the cognitive processes, which leads to L2 acquisition and learning. Gass (1988), Skehan (1998), Schmidt (2001) as well as other academics emphasise that L2 learners begin to process input when they ‘‘notice’’ a specific linguistic feature in the input. Schmidt (1990: 132) defines noticing operationally as “cognitive operation that takes place both during and immediately after exposure to the input that is available for self-report.” With only a limited bulk of empirical research undertaken in relation to the role of noticing in L2 acquisition and no clear interpretations, some researchers defy the foundations of the Noticing Hypothesis in cognitive psychology including Truscott (1998: 120) who challenges this strong view of the hypothesis. He prefers its weaker version that noticing is helpful but might not be necessary or vital for learning and acquisition. Assuming its vulnerability and calling for appropriate and exhaustive investigation with empirical research to validate or challenge the Noticing Hypothesis rather than a random mix of ideas and concepts, Truscott (1998: 124) suggests an alternative view or a reformulation of the hypothesis that narrowed down the strong version of the hypothesis. He advocates that noticing is merely tied to the acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge but not to the development of CC. He recognises a role for teachers and teaching materials with regard to noticing, although he dissociates noticing from competence. Moreover, Terrell (1991) and Van Patten (1993), along with other researchers including Taguchi (2005), have also contended that metalinguistic knowledge can lead to developed comprehension, which will then assist in the improvement of competence. Thus, it can be easily claimed that noticing is an essential element in the development of competence.
In the same vein, Carr and Curran (1994: 214) point out that attention and noticing are more or less synonymous, where one cannot distinguish between paying attention to something and noticing it (Leow, 2001). In 1995, Schmidt notes that although not all learning is intentional, yet all learning requires attention, ‘essential for L2 learning', with which learners bring order to the input they encounter, facilitating understanding and boosting natural acquisition processes as learners struggle with their language learning (Schmidt, 1995: 4). He further recognises that attention is crucial to learning by which knowledge has mental representations, whether it is gained incidentally or intentionally (Schmidt, 1995:8). This claim is supported via both psychology as well as cognitive science in terms of memory retention, automaticity of retrieval and use; in fact, it is stated “attention is a necessary and sufficient condition for (encoding in) long-term memory to occur”. A number of researchers and theorists including Scovel (1991), Car and Curran (1994), Tomlin and Villa (1994), as well Van Lier (1994) argue the need of attention to input which has been found “necessary for input to become intake that is available for further mental processing” (Schmidt, 1995: 9). In keeping with the same views, McLaughlin (1990) highlights that the literature in experimental psychology indicates that long-term learning of new materials cannot be achieved without awareness as an essential, but not sole, condition. However, according to Truscott, it can be disputed that proponents of the Noticing Hypothesis fail to provide conclusive findings from experimental research in attention to indicate that language acquisition requires what is more than global awareness of input, arguing that the Noticing Hypothesis is “too vague to offer any principled means of determining what learners must notice” (Truscott, 1998: 110). He (1998: 108) adds that advocates of the Noticing Hypothesis fail to show that learning requires conscious attention to the particular details or information to be learnt, rather than attending to the task or the situation that is the source embodying those details or information (Truscott, 1998:108). Yet, both Long (1983, 1990) and Ellis (1990), through reconsidering a significant quantity of such empirical studies, have concluded that overall conscious learning seems to contribute to successful L2 development. Although these assertions offer useful insights into L2 acquisition, it is only through substantiated empirical research and evidence that they are validated. Schmidt and Frota (1986) offer the earliest data in which Schmidt analysed his own acquisition of Portuguese during a five-month stay in Brazil. Schmidt cites this as “strong evidence for a close connection between noticing and emergence in production” (1990: 141). Offering compelling evidence to support Schmidt’s case, Kasper (2000: 18) mentions DuFon’s (1999) study on the acquisition of politeness in L2 Indonesian during a homestay programme using six participants. DuFon (1999) claims pragmatic saliency plays a vital role in her learners’ acquisition according to their journals. Her learners make considerable comments on address terms and greeting expressions along with
the sociolinguistic conventions that govern the Indonesian system of address term, which the learners seem to have internalised to some extent by the end of the study.
Correspondingly, there can be a case for refuting Truscott’s (1998:117) serious challenges from his own statement “the evidence I dealt with was specifically about grammar instruction, not about formal instruction in general.” So it appears that his contentions do not extend to challenge the application of the Noticing Hypothesis in other areas. His challenge seems to be strictly applicable to grammar. Therefore, bringing the hypothesis into effect in areas such as pragmatics seems viable. However, further investigation should be prompted to offer further evidence that supports or refutes Truscott’s proposed weaker version of the Noticing Hypothesis. It should explore the relationship between the learners’ training and their acquisition of metalinguistic knowledge, facilitating their cognisance of how these processes contribute to their CC, which may assist to clarify what role noticing plays in L2 learning providing valuable information. This study aims at lending some supportive evidence to challenge Truscott’s weak version of the Noticing Hypothesis, by exploring the role of noticing and pragmatics instruction in promoting L2 language learning and development, in which noticing is surmised as necessary and vital but not sufficient for language learning (Schmidt, 1991: 141).