salaam, perhaps a common reference system would help your research. develop a baseline and see if you can discover patterns that are good indicators of recognition. 

http://research.sabanciuniv.edu/23478/1/ulas_ICASSP13.pdf

Dear Reza,

Re: the most effective methods of capturing such theoretical constructs

I think you will find it useful to construct a model of cross-cultural and inter-lingual competences and then you can uses this as a reference point in your research. Since a model contains significant elements or characteristics of the original construct, as well as the relations that hold between them, the model of interlingual competences would probably have to feature the zones of overlap between L1 competences and L2 competences. A good way to figure these out is to use the language passports offered  in any coursebook of English as a foreign language. These passports go like: I can say, I can write, I can compare ..., etc. It depends on the level of the learners you're analyzing. If you can turn these passports into questionnaires, you can establish what exactly your learners can and what they cannot do in L1 and L2, respectively. Then, it should be easy to identify the zones of overlap.

As to cross-cultural competences, I believe you can use any existing model and adapt it to the situation you're exploring.

Good luck in your research,

Best

First we must learn to separate between pragmatic failure due to culture and that due to  simple inter-lingual incompetence. If we start to think in this way, we will realized that most the pragmatic failures are purely linguistic. The role of culture is getting more and more negligent due to the internet revolution since the 80;s. The Macdonalization of the world is a real fact but is ignored deliberately by researchers who are native speakers of English-Why?

My answer is that it is another form of hegemony. Native speakers want to remain in control of the SL teaching business. Confronted with a large number of non-native speakers who are linguistically competent and sometimes even better than them, the focus on cross-cultural pragmatics has now become the general trend in most research in socio-linguistics. The ultimate and undeclared goal of these most of the time unconvincing studies is to preserve the myth that a native speaker is always better.

I agree with the above to a certain extent. Sociocultural norms of interaction can be negotiated but they need to be understood.

I believe that learners need to become aware of the sociocultural norms of interaction. These can be highlighted by using conversation analysis as it reveals the orderliness of conversation and what norms conversationalists orient to. To be able to do that you need to use authentic videoed conversations and by exploring speech acts you can highlight pragmatic features. I have devised a methodology in which we use awareness-raising activities whereby learners focus on particular L2 sociocultural norms of interaction which they compare and contrast with their L1. That way they can learn intercultural competence as they have to reflect on the new norms and then interact with other learners. This methodology based on conversation analysis and politeness pragmatics has been encapsulated in a course book called Beyond Talk. It can be downloaded for free, if interested, on the link below.

Monash.academia.edu/AnneMarieBarrajaRohan

This question made me think broadly about human nature and the factors that are important in the language and culture learning process, especially pragmatic aspects. Two factors stand out to me, and they are need or motivation and precedent. Need and motivation are the root of all our learning. Learning our cultures helps us coordinate our actions with others’ actions and gives meaning to our lives. The same goes when we are learning another way of doing things or expressing ourselves. The second factor, precedent, deals more with the actual process of learning. It is something that has gone before and that provides a model for what to expect to do in the future. Precedent helps us refrain from repeating certain mistakes (e.g., when learning new cultural practices) or errors (language) over and over again. However, it also has drawbacks and can prevent us from seeing certain things as well.  To me, pragmatic failure is a precedent and it is a part of the leaning process. In the US, for example, leaning how to engage in a small talk is a bumpy road for many international students as they gain their linguistic and cultural competence.