Karman. 2014. Pragmatic Features of Senior High School English Textbooks. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies. Graduate Program. Sanata Dharma University.
To be a competent speaker, an English learner should possess communicative competence with its several sub-competences. One of important sub-competences is pragmatic competence. The absence of pragmatic competence can be a serious problem in communication. A speaker who does not have a good pragmatic competence sometimes may fail to understand a communicative event or sound rude to his or her interlocutors. To master such competence in an EFL context is not easy since EFL learners do not have direct contact with native speakers of English. One of the ways to learn such competence is through textbooks. Good textbooks should contain sufficient pragmatic content to support learners in mastering such competence. The pragmatic content in English textbooks is manifested in six features of pragmatic information; speech act information, register, usage, politeness, styles, and cultural information.
This study is an attempt to answer these questions: (1) Which pragmatic features are contained in the commercial English textbooks for Senior High School students? and (2) How do the features support the development of learners’ pragmatic competence? This study is categorized as a content analysis study. The study investigated two English textbooks for Senior High School in Indonesia namely Talk Active and Pathway to English. The data were qualitative in nature. The data collection and analysis were carried out through unit per unit investigation of the books. This study investigated features of pragmatic information- speech act information, politeness, styles, usage, register, and cultural information- contained in English commercial textbooks used in Senior High School in Indonesia and how those features support learners’ pragmatic competence.
use such textbooks in their classroom to supplement them with other resources which have more pragmatic information.
The result of this study has some implicative benefits to the following parties. Firstly, English teachers could determine to use the textbooks either as the main materials or as supplementary materials in the classroom. Secondly, materials developers could develop better textbooks by addressing the lacks of pragmatic information in the textbooks being studied. Thirdly, English curriculum developers could include the substantial quantity of pragmatic features into the curriculum. Lastly, other researchers could have a new insight to explore a similar or relevant topic in this study.
Karman. 2014. Fitur-Fitur Pragmatik dalam Buku Ajar Bahasa Inggris untuk Sekolah Menengah Atas. Yogyakarta: Kajian Bahasa Inggris. Program Pasca Sarjana. Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Untuk menjadi seorang penutur bahasa yang kompeten, seorang pembelajar bahasa Inggris haruslah memiliki kompetensi komunikatif yang terdiri dari beberapa bagian kompetensi. Salah satu bagian kompetensi yang terpenting adalah kompetensi pragmatik. Kekurangan kompetensi pragmatik dalam tindak tutur dapatlah berakibat buruk bahkan fatal bagi seorang pembicara. Seorang pembicara yang tidak cakap dalam pragmatik kadangkala gagal dalam memahami sebuah tindak tutur atau bertutur tidak sopan kepada lawan bicaranya. Di dalam lingkungan bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing, menguasi kompetensi tersebut tidaklah mudah karena pembelajar bahasa Inggris jarang melakukan kontak langsung dengan penutur asli bahasa Inggris. Salah satu cara untuk mempelajari kompetensi ini adalah melalui buku ajar bahasa Inggris. Buku ajar yang baik seharusnya mengandung muatan pengajaran pragmatik yang cukup untuk mendukung pembelajar dalam upaya menguasai kompetensi tersebut. Muatan pragmatik dalam buku ajar dimanifestasikan dalam 6 fitur yaitu: speech act information, register, usage, politeness, styles, dan cultural information.
Penelitian ini berupaya menjawab dua buah pertanyaan penelitian yaitu: (1) Fitur-fitur pragmatik apa sajakah yang terdapat di dalam buku bahasa Inggris komersil untuk siswa SMA?dan (2) Bagaimanakah fitur-fitur tersebut mendukung perkembangan kemampuan pragmatik siswa? Penelitian ini dikategorikan ke dalam penelitian Analisis Isi. Penelitian ini meneliti dua buah buku ajar bahasa Inggris untuk SMA yaitu Talk Active dan Pathway to English. Data yang dikumpulkan bersifat kualitatif. Pengumpulan dan analisis data dilakukan dengan cara menginvestigasi unit per unit bagian dari buku. Penelitian ini meneliti enam fitur informasi pragmatik- informasi tindak tutur, register, penggunaan, kesopanan, variasi bahasa, dan informasi budaya - yang terkandung di dalam buku bahan ajar bahasa Inggris untuk anak SMA di Indonesia dan bagaimana fitur-fitur tersebut mendukung kompetensi pragmatik siswa.
dalam buku ajar tersebut melalui kegiatan yang berfokus pada pragmatik. Keeksplisitan fitur- fitur tersebut dapat menumbuhkan kesadaran siswa serta menarik perhatian mereka yang nantinya akan membantu penyimpanan ilmu di memori jangka panjang. Dengan kata lain, proses pembelajaran pragmatik berjalan sukses. Berhubung kualitas dan kuantitas fitur pragmatik di dalam buku ajar tersebut kurang memadai, maka disarankan kepada guru yang akan menggunakan buku ajar tersebut sekiranya dapat memperkaya materi dari sumber ajar lain yang memiliki muatan pragmatik yang lebih.
Hasil penelitian ini memiliki beberapa implikasi postif terhadap beberapa pihak berikut. Pertama, guru bahasa inggris dapat menentukan untuk menggunakan buku teks tersebut baik sebagai bahan ajar utama, atau hanya pelengkap. Kedua, para pengembang bahan ajar dapat mengembangkan buku teks yang lebih baik dengan mempertimbangkan kurangnya informasi prakmatik yang terdapat dalam buku teks yang diteliti. Ketiga, para pengembang kurikulum dapat memasukkan subtansi kualitas dan kuantitas fitur prakmatik ke dalam kurikulum. Terahir, penelitian ini dapat memberikan sebuah pandangan baru kepada para peneliti untuk mengembangkan penelitian yang serupa ataupun relevan dengan penelitian ini.
Kata Kunci: pragmatik, fitur pragmatik, buku ajar bahasa Inggris, Sekolah
i
PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS
A Thesis Presented to
The Graduate Program in English Language Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Magister Humaniora (M.Hum)
in
English Language Studies
by Karman 126332036
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
ii A THESIS
PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS
by Karman Student Number:
126332036
Approved by
Dr.B.B.Dwijatmoko, M.A. ………
iii
PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS
Presented by
Karman
Student Number: 126332036
Was Defended in front of the Thesis Committee and Declared Acceptable
Thesis Committee
Chairperson : Dr.B. B. Dwijatmoko, M.A. __________________
Secretary : F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D. __________________
Member : 1. Dr. J. Bismoko _________________
: 2. Barli Bram, M.Ed., Ph.D __________________
Yogyakarta, February 27th, 2015
The Graduate School Director
Sanata Dharma University
iv
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that all the ideas, phrases, and sentences, unless otherwise stated, are mine. I understand the full consequences including degree cancellation if I took somebody else's ideas, phrases, or sentences without proper reference.
Yogyakarta, February 27th, 2015
v
UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Karman
NIM : 126332036
Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
PRAGMATIC FEATURES OF SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEXTBOOKS beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan,
mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikanya di internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya
maupun memberikan royalty kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.
Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.
Yogyakarta, 27 Februari 2015 Yang menyatakan
vi
Karman. 2014. Pragmatic Features of Senior High School English Textbooks. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies. Graduate Program. Sanata Dharma University.
To be a competent speaker, an English learner should possess communicative competence with its several sub-competences. One of important sub-competences is pragmatic competence. The absence of pragmatic competence can be a serious problem in communication. A speaker who does not have a good pragmatic competence sometimes may fail to understand a communicative event or sound rude to his or her interlocutors. To master such competence in an EFL context is not easy since EFL learners do not have direct contact with native speakers of English. One of the ways to learn such competence is through textbooks. Good textbooks should contain sufficient pragmatic content to support learners in mastering such competence. The pragmatic content in English textbooks is manifested in six features of pragmatic information; speech act information, register, usage, politeness, styles, and cultural information.
This study is an attempt to answer these questions: (1) Which pragmatic features are contained in the commercial English textbooks for Senior High School students? and (2) How do the features support the development of learners‘ pragmatic competence? This study is categorized as a content analysis study. The study investigated two English textbooks for Senior High School in Indonesia namely Talk Active and Pathway to English. The data were qualitative in nature. The data collection and analysis were carried out through unit per unit investigation of the books. This study investigated features of pragmatic information- speech act information, politeness, styles, usage, register, and cultural information- contained in English commercial textbooks used in Senior High School in Indonesia and how those features support learners‘ pragmatic competence.
vii information.
The result of this study has some implicative benefits to the following parties. Firstly, English teachers could determine to use the textbooks either as the main materials or as supplementary materials in the classroom. Secondly, materials developers could develop better textbooks by addressing the lacks of pragmatic information in the textbooks being studied. Thirdly, English curriculum developers could include the substantial quantity of pragmatic features into the curriculum. Lastly, other researchers could have a new insight to explore a similar or relevant topic in this study.
viii
Karman. 2014. Fitur-Fitur Pragmatik dalam Buku Ajar Bahasa Inggris untuk Sekolah Menengah Atas. Yogyakarta: Kajian Bahasa Inggris. Program Pasca Sarjana. Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Untuk menjadi seorang penutur bahasa yang kompeten, seorang pembelajar bahasa Inggris haruslah memiliki kompetensi komunikatif yang terdiri dari beberapa bagian kompetensi. Salah satu bagian kompetensi yang terpenting adalah kompetensi pragmatik. Kekurangan kompetensi pragmatik dalam tindak tutur dapatlah berakibat buruk bahkan fatal bagi seorang pembicara. Seorang pembicara yang tidak cakap dalam pragmatik kadangkala gagal dalam memahami sebuah tindak tutur atau bertutur tidak sopan kepada lawan bicaranya. Di dalam lingkungan bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing, menguasi kompetensi tersebut tidaklah mudah karena pembelajar bahasa Inggris jarang melakukan kontak langsung dengan penutur asli bahasa Inggris. Salah satu cara untuk mempelajari kompetensi ini adalah melalui buku ajar bahasa Inggris. Buku ajar yang baik seharusnya mengandung muatan pengajaran pragmatik yang cukup untuk mendukung pembelajar dalam upaya menguasai kompetensi tersebut. Muatan pragmatik dalam buku ajar dimanifestasikan dalam 6 fitur yaitu: speech act information, register, usage, politeness, styles, dan cultural information.
Penelitian ini berupaya menjawab dua buah pertanyaan penelitian yaitu: (1) Fitur-fitur pragmatik apa sajakah yang terdapat di dalam buku bahasa Inggris komersil untuk siswa SMA?dan (2) Bagaimanakah fitur-fitur tersebut mendukung perkembangan kemampuan pragmatik siswa? Penelitian ini dikategorikan ke dalam penelitian Analisis Isi. Penelitian ini meneliti dua buah buku ajar bahasa Inggris untuk SMA yaitu Talk Active dan Pathway to English. Data yang dikumpulkan bersifat kualitatif. Pengumpulan dan analisis data dilakukan dengan cara menginvestigasi unit per unit bagian dari buku. Penelitian ini meneliti enam fitur informasi pragmatik- informasi tindak tutur, register, penggunaan, kesopanan, variasi bahasa, dan informasi budaya - yang terkandung di dalam buku bahan ajar bahasa Inggris untuk anak SMA di Indonesia dan bagaimana fitur-fitur tersebut mendukung kompetensi pragmatik siswa.
ix
pembelajaran pragmatik berjalan sukses. Berhubung kualitas dan kuantitas fitur pragmatik di dalam buku ajar tersebut kurang memadai, maka disarankan kepada guru yang akan menggunakan buku ajar tersebut sekiranya dapat memperkaya materi dari sumber ajar lain yang memiliki muatan pragmatik yang lebih.
Hasil penelitian ini memiliki beberapa implikasi postif terhadap beberapa pihak berikut. Pertama, guru bahasa inggris dapat menentukan untuk menggunakan buku teks tersebut baik sebagai bahan ajar utama, atau hanya pelengkap. Kedua, para pengembang bahan ajar dapat mengembangkan buku teks yang lebih baik dengan mempertimbangkan kurangnya informasi prakmatik yang terdapat dalam buku teks yang diteliti. Ketiga, para pengembang kurikulum dapat memasukkan subtansi kualitas dan kuantitas fitur prakmatik ke dalam kurikulum. Terahir, penelitian ini dapat memberikan sebuah pandangan baru kepada para peneliti untuk mengembangkan penelitian yang serupa ataupun relevan dengan penelitian ini.
x
Alhamdulillah, all praises be to Allah SWT, the Almighty, the Merciful, Who has granted me His blessing to finish this thesis. Without His blessing, of course, I could not reach the end of this journey. And may peace be upon to Muhammad, the seal of the prophet, his family and his companions.
I would like to express my deep appreciation to all those who gave me the possibility to complete this thesis writing and this master profgram. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the inspirational instruction and guidance of Dr. B. B. Dwijatmoko, M.A, as my supervisor. He has given me a deep appreciation and understanding of this subject matter. I also greatly appreciate all lecturers in the Graduate Program in English Language Studies of USD especially for F. X. Mukarto, M.S.,Ph.D., Dr. J. Bismoko, Prof. Dr. Soepomo Poedjosoedarmo, Dr. Novita Dewi, Dr. F.X. Siswadi, M.A., and Widya Kiswara M. Hum. Those people have inspired me in the world of linguistics, literature, and education in English Language Studies.
Special thanks also go to my fellow brothers and sisters in ethnical community, i.e. the residents of Wisma Bawakaraeng Yogyakarta, the members of Forum Komunikasi Mahasiswa Bone- Yogyakarta (FKMB-Y) and Ikatan Keluarga Mahasiswa/ Pelajar Indonesia Sulawesi Selatan (IKAMI- Sul- Sel). Thank you for the companion and togetherness for joy and sorrow during my study in Yogyakarta.
I also thank all of my fellow friends in the Graduate Program in English Language Studies Batch 2012. Together we have spent time learning language education, literature, and linguistics. Many things happened both joys and sorrows of working in groups for the sake of academic assignments, complaining, murmuring on a bunch of never ending assignments, etc. Nonetheless, I believe that those all are part of the process to be an expert in English education.
xi
TITTLE PAGE... APPROVAL PAGE... THESIS DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGE... STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY... PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI... ABSTRACT... ABSTRAK... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... TABLE OF CONTENTS... LIST OF TABLES... LIST OF FIGURES... CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION... A. Background of Study... B. Problem Limitation... C. Research Questions... D. Goals of Study... E. Benefits of Study... CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEWS...
A. Review of Related Theories... 1. Pragmatics... a. Pragmatic Dimensions... b. Pragmatic in Language Teaching... c. Pragmatic Failure of Language Learners... 2. Communicative Competence………... a. The Definition of Communicative Competence…….. b. Models of Communicative Competence………….… 3. Pragmatic Competence………...……… 4. Pragmatic Features in English Textbooks……….. a. Speech Act Information... b. Politeness... c. Styles...
d. Usage………...………
e. Register………
f. Cultural Information………..……..……… 5. Language Model of 2013 Curriculum……… 6. Language Learning Theories...
a. Explicit Learning………..……….. b. Noticing Hypothesis………..……….. B. Review of Related Studies... C. Conceptual Framework... CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY... A. Research Method...
xii
C. Research Instrument... D. Data Gathering Techniques... E. Data Analysis Techniques... F. Research Procedures………..…….
1. Specifying Phenomena to be Investigated……….. 2. Selecting Textbooks…...……… 3. Collecting the Data……….……
4. Organizing the Data………
5. Analysing and Interpreting the Data………..………. 6. Reporting the Result………..…………. CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION...
A. Findings... B. Discussion... 1. Speech Act Information……... 2. Politeness... 3. Styles... 4. Usage... 5. Register……... 6. Cultural Information... CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS, SUGGESTIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS………....
A. Conclusions... B. Suggestions... C. Recommendations... REFERENCES... APPENDICES...
Appendix 1………...………..
Appendix 2……….
Appendix 3……….
xiii
Table 3.1: Table Analysis of Speech Act Information
Table 3.2: Form of Table Analysis for Features of Pragmatic Information Table 3.3: Form of Table Checklist Summary
Table 4.1 : The Number of Units and Pages of Each Book
Table 4.2 : Distribution of the Pragmatic Content in Each Unit of Talk Active Table 4.3 : The Distribution of the Pragmatic Content in Each Unit of Pathway to
English
Table 4.4: The Comparison of Pragmatic Content in Both Textbooks Investigated Table 4.5: Features of Pragmatic Information in Pathway to English
Table 4.6: Features of Pragmatic Information in Talk Active Table 4.7 : Speech Act Information in Talk Active
Table 4.8 : Speech Act Information in Pathway to English Table 4. 9: Type of Speech Acts
Table 4.10 : Number of Linguistic Forms in Talk Active
Table 4.11 : Distribution of Linguistic Forms in Pathway to English Table 4.12 : Types of Pragmatic Focus Activities in Talk Active
Table 4.13 : Types of Pragmatic Focus Activities in Pathway to English Table 4.14 : The Distribution of Styles in Talk Active
Table 4.15 : Usage in Talk Active
Table 4.16 : Usage in Pathway to English
Table 4.17 : The Distribution of Register in Talk Active
xiv
Figure 2.1 : Bachman‘s Communicative Competence Model
Figure 2.2: Schematic Representation of Communicative Competence Model Proposed by Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, and Thurrell
Figure 2.3: Comparison of Communicative Competence Model Figure 2. 4: Pragmatic Competence Model
Figure 2. 5: Vellenga‘s Mode of Pragmatic Information (2004) Figure 2.6: Lakoff‘ Rules of Politeness (from Watts, 2003: 60) Figure 2. 7: Sample of Politeness Information
Figure 2.8: Sample of Usage (from Medina, Uceda, and Thierry, 2004) Figure 2.9: Sample of Register (from Medina, Uceda, and Thierry, 2004) Figure 2.10: Sample of Cultural Information (from Tillitt and Bruder, 1999) Figure 3. 1: Speech Act Information in Talk Active
Figure 3. 2: Speech Act Information in Pathway to English Figure 4.1: Types of Speech Act in Talk Active, Pg. 52
Figure 4.2: Types of Speech Act in Pathway to English, Pg. 47 Figure 4. 3: Comprehension Questions in Talk Active
Figure 4. 4: Pragmatic features of politeness in Pathway to English, 2013: 181 Figure 4.5 : Politeness Focus Activity in Path Way to English, Pg. 181
Figure 4.6 : Styles in Talk Active ,Pg. 92
Figure 4.7: Usage in Path Way to English, Pg. 112- 113 Figure 4.8: Usage in Talk Active, Pg. 94
Figure 4.9: Register in Guided Practice Activity Figure 4.10 : Register in Talk Active, Pg. 53
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains five sections that describe the nature of this study. Such sections consist of the background of the study, the problem identification, the problem limitation, the problem formulation, the objectives of the study, and the benefits of the study.
A. Background of Study
English has already become one of the most widely taught, learnt and spoken language in the world today. It is used as a first language by over 300 million people in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA, and as a second or foreign language by over 700 million people in the countries of Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America, and of the island nations of the world (Kachru and Nelson 2006). Because of the number of English users (both native and non-native speakers) is high, the use of English as the medium of communication between those people who have different cultural background is unavoidable. This condition automatically makes English as a lingua franca. In order that the communication between native and non-native or non-native and non-native speakers becomes mutually intelligible, a good command on communicative competence is required to both participants.
appropriately within a particular language community‖ (Saville- Troike, 2006:100). Later on, it was developed by many theorists such as Celci-Murcia et. al. (1995), Canale and Swain (1980), Bachman (1990), etc.
This term was firstly derived from Chomsky notion on Competence (Chomsky, 1968). This term, according to Chomsky, refers to the unconscious knowledge that people, at any stage language development, have of the grammatical features they speak. Foster (2013:8) says that the restriction of competence to grammar only was challenged by Dell Hymes. According to Hymes, Chomsky‘s notion on competence is too narrow. It is not only grammar.
Speakers have systematic knowledge about how to use their grammar to produce appropriate communications for a certain communication (i.e., pragmatic knowledge). Thus, he coined the term ‗communicative competence‘ for a broader
notion than that of Chomsky‘s notion on competence.
Communicative competence itself consists of several sub-competencies which vary among theorists. Those competencies are linguistic competence, social competence, cultural competence, discourse competence, actional competence, strategic competence, and pragmatic competence. Those competences are required in communication in order to achieve mutual intelligible among participants.
To avoid the risk due to the defective pragmatic knowledge, the need of teaching pragmatic to the English learners is vital. Pragmatic knowledge has a close relationship with sociocultural values and beliefs of the community where the target language is spoken. Thus, in terms of pragmatic knowledge input, ESL learners have a better chance of having adequate and abundant input than EFL learners (Kondo 2002). In other words, ESL(English as a Second Language) learners certainly have an advantage in acquiring pragmatic knowledge. Considering the position of English in Indonesia as a foreign language, it seems that English learners of Indonesia can not take great benefit of learning English pragmatic through direct interaction with native speakers of English since English is not widely used in the society. In this context, English as a Foreign Language, the classroom becomes the central site for the development of learners‘ pragmatic
competence (Kim and Hall 2002; Wichien and Aksornjarung 2011).
Meanwhile, many studies on evaluating textbooks such as by Vellenga (2004), Peiying (2007), and Wichien and Aksornjarung (2011) reported that most of English textbooks are not able to enhance learners‘ pragmatic competence
because they do not sufficiently provide pragmatic information for students to learn English. Those studies reported that the number and quality of pragmatic information which cover speech act information, metapragmatic information, and sociopragmatic information were not sufficient to develop learners‘ pragmatic
competence.
The presence of such information in English textbooks is quite essential since they will help learners to acquire pragmatic competence. According to Kasper and Schmidt (1996) learners‘ input should provide at least
pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic information. To add, Trosborg and Kasper (as cited in Pohl, 2004: 6) ―advocate the sharpening of learners' awareness of appropriate pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic behavior through explicit teaching and metapragmatic treatment of pragmatic features by way of description, explanation, and discussion‖.
with information on linguistic features and an understanding how to use such linguistic features relate to the contextual factors have a positive contribution to the learners‘ achievement in pragmatic competence.
Regarding English textbooks in EFL context, Indonesia has abundant source of learning materials for students. Many private publishers published English textbooks for different level to accommodate students‘ needs on English.
Even, the government also has several copyright English textbooks for every educational levels in which all textbooks are distributed in the form of electronic books freely. The effort to provide such textbooks by the government is to make sure that all Indonesian learners can have access to qualified textbooks freely or with low price because any publishers are allowed to print such electronic books without limits in several conditions. One of the conditions is that the book price does not exceed 15% from the total expense of book production (National Education Minister Act No 2 year 2008).
statement ‗Menganalisis fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan pada
teks… sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya‘ (Analyzing social function, text structure, and language component of text… based on its context of use). ‗Based on its context of use‘ is a distinctive phrase which refers to pragmatic competence. This phrase is included in several Kompetensi Dasar (Basic Competences) of curriculum 2013.
Considering the English textbooks circulating in Indonesia, studies focusing on English textbooks from pragmatic aspects are not many like any other topics. That is why this study will be possible to be carried out in Indonesian context.
B. Problem Limitation
2013, pragmatic competence is still of important since, as mentioned earlier, the use of language based on context still becomes central to the basic competencies.
Currently, there is shortage of English textbooks which use School Based Curriculum 2013 in the market because Indonesia has just implemented 2013 curriculum as the revision of the former curriculum. According to researcher‘s observation, there have been two English textbooks for curriculum 2013 ready in the market. The title of the book is Pathway to English by M. Sudarwati and Eudia Grace and an English textbook entitled Talk Active by Mulyono and Lanny Kurniawan which is published by Yudhistira Publisher. Thus, the researcher will only analyze both textbooks. In addition, considering the coverage of pragmatic is quite wide, this study will be limited only in analyzing a few features of pragmatic information in the textbook i.e. speech act information, politeness, usage, register, style, and cultural information which explicitly appear in teaching and learning activities in the textbooks. In addition, the data included in this study are only those which are explicitly provided for teaching and learning purposes. Meanwhile, those which implicitly exist in dialogues or conversation are not included in this study.
C. Research Questions
There are two research questions which will be discussed in this study. The questions are formulated as follows.
2. How do the features support the development of learners‘ pragmatic competence?
D. Goals of Study
This study is aimed to describe the pragmatic information which is contained in the English textbooks for Senior High School. It especially tries to describe what types of speech act commonly presented in the textbooks, numbers of linguistic forms provided for each speech act, types of explicit pragmatic instructions, usage of speech act or linguistic forms, register, teaching materials on politeness and styles, and information about target language culture in the textbooks. In addition, it also tries to discover how such features in the textbooks contribute to the learners‘ pragmatic competence. In other words, I will explain
how the features enhance learners‘ pragmatic competence.
E. Benefits of Study
This study has some implicative benefits for the following parties. Firstly, for English teachers, the finding of this study can be used as basic information in deciding either to use such English textbook or not as the main or supplementary materials in their classroom. If the textbooks have rich pragmatic information, of course, English teachers can rely on the textbooks as their main source of learning materials, but if the textbooks have low pragmatic information, they should find other materials to enrich the pragmatic information of such textbooks.
found in the text books being studied. Currently, there is shortage of English text books of Senior High School which use 2013 curriculum. Looking at the past curriculum, there were abundant number of English textbooks which used KTSP. It means that, currently many Indonesian material developers are still writing the English textbooks for Senior High school and have not yet been ready to publish their text books. Thus, the result of this study can be of useful for those who are currently writing English textbooks for SHS students.
Thirdly, it can help English curriculum developers to revise English language curriculum to include substantial quantity of pragmatic features and the quality of their presentations in textbooks. This benefit can be of use if a shortage of pragmatic information in textbooks is due to the defectiveness of curriculum which negatively influence the materials developer in designing textbooks.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEWS
This chapter covers some theories employed as the basis for the discussion in chapter four. It is intended to gain more understanding on the basic principles of the study so that the problems stated in chapter I could be solved theoretically. The discussion in this chapter includes review of theories that discuss the relevant theories underlying this study, review of related studies that discusses which research has proved useful and which seems less promising, and theoretical framework that focuses on the problem and solutions in analyzing English textbooks.
A.Review of Related Theories
This section will discuss the theory of pragmatic first, then it will be followed with communicative competence as well as its interwoven like pragmatic competence, features of pragmatic information in course books, and relevant language learning theories will also be discussed.
1. Pragmatics
The term ‗pragmatics‘ is firstly introduced by the philosopher Charles
Morris in 1938 (Levinson, 1987: 1; Barron, 2002: 26). There have been a lot of definitions of pragmatics. So, let me discuss several definitions of pragmatics
proposed by several theorists. Pragmatics, as defined by Levinson (1987: 24), is the
study of the ability of language users to pair sentences with the contexts in which they
would be appropriate. It is quite clear what is meant with pragmatics itself. It is about
the appropriateness of language used by users to the context. Another definition of
pragmatics from the view of second language pedagogy has been proposed by Crystal
(Kasper 2001). He defines pragmatics as ―the study of language from the point of
view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in
using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other
participants in the act of communication‖ (Kasper, 2001). In other words, pragmatics
is defined as the study of language from the view of the speaker and the hearer in
producing and comprehending communicative events. This view on pragmatics is
also supported by Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993). They view pragmatics as the study
of people's comprehension and production of linguistic action in context.
From those definitions, we found that there are several things in common. They
are language use and context. From these two points, we can draw a conclusion that
pragmatics is a study on language use in context. Since this study puts English in the
foreign language learning context, pragmatics here is referred to interlanguage
pragmatics, language which is produced by language learners not the native speakers.
The use of pragmatics sometimes is contrasted with syntax and semantic. For some people, those three terms are sometimes confusing since all of them deal with meaning. Thus, some people usually overlap in using these three terms. They use ‗semantic‘ to refer to syntax or they say ‗syntax‘ but they means pragmatics or
therefore concerned mainly with the meaning of lexical items, whereas pragmatics is defined as a study of relationships holding between linguistic forms and human beings who use these forms. In a simple way, it can be concluded that all of them deals with meaning but the meaning is derived differently by respective study area. Syntax derives meaning from formal relation between one word and others, while semantic derives meaning from the lexical item, whereas pragmatics derives meaning from the users‘ view. Thus, pragmatics focuses on meaning which
derives from both speakers and hearers.
a. Pragmatic Dimensions
Horn and Ward (2007) mention that the basic subfields of pragmatics theory
consist of implicature, presupposition, speech acts, reference, deixis, and
(in)difiniteness. However, based on interlanguage pragmatics research, such fields of
pragmatics can be classified into two broad categories, namely pragmalinguistics and
sociopragmatics (Eslami- Rasekh, 2005). The former refers to the linguistic resources
for conveying communicative acts and interpersonal meanings, whereas the latter
refers to the social perceptions underlying participants‘ interpretation and
performance of communicative acts. This classification happens because
interlanguage pragmatic research traditionally distinguished knowledge into linguistic
knowledge and social knowledge (Soler and Marti´Nez-Flor, 2008).
To put it simple, pragmalinguistic knowledge is language knowledge that is
needed by learners to produce certain speech act. It is language- specific. It is related
with language expressions used for particular speech act. While sociopragmatic
knowledge is knowledge on how to perform a speech act which is acceptable by the
pragmalinguistic knowledge acceptably and appropriately. For instance expressions
‗can you….‘, ‗will you…‘, ‗Do you mind…..?‘ for request and expressions ‗Hi’,
‗Hello’, How do you do?‘, ‗How are you?‘ for greetings. Knowing such kinds of
expressions is called pragmalinguistic knowledge. While using such kinds of
expressions for certain context (‗Hi’ or ‗hello’ for people you have already known
and ‗How do you do? For people you do not know very well) appropriately and
acceptably is called sociopragmatic knowledge.
b. Pragmatics in Language Teaching
There have been some literatures, which yield on the teachability of
pragmatics. However, some skeptics have claimed that pragmatic competence can not
be taught and, as some have similarly claimed in the case of teaching language form,
explicit focus on pragmatics in teaching is not necessary, as students will gradually
absorb pragmatic competence from their exposure to the target language (Brock and
Nagasaka, 2005). This claim is not totally true. This claim seems to be acceptable
only in ESL context. It has been already known that in ESL context, learners can get
lots of exposures from their environments and society. However, this claim seems to
be inapplicable in EFL context. It is obvious that in EFL context, learners have
limited number of language exposures from the society and environment. The central
cite for learning is the classroom with teachers and materials as the main source of
learning. Thus, they have few and limited exposures on target language, so it is
impossible for them to absorb and master pragmatic competence only based on such
limited number of exposures that they get in the classroom from either English
Thus, to make teaching pragmatic effective, Trosborg and Kasper (as cited in Pohl, 2004: 6) promote the sharpening of students' awareness of appropriate pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic behavior through explicit teaching and metapragmatic treatment. These can be achieved through description, explanation, and discussion of pragmatic features.
It has already been mentioned earlier that an explicit approach of teaching
pragmatics is little bit more effective than implicit one. The explicit teaching of
pragmatics is in line with the awareness- raising approach which has been widely
used in the current teaching of L2 pragmatics (Ishihara, 2010: 113).
The explicit teaching approach can be reached through instructional design in
the English course book, then transformed into classroom practice. Ishihara (2010:
113) mentions several classroom activities which yield to the explicit treatment of
pragmatic teaching. She classifies such activities based on focus into two broad
categories, pragmalinguistic focus and socio pragmatic focus.
The examples of pragmalinguistic focuses can be seen in the extract as follows.
analyzing and practicing the use of vocabulary in the particular context;
identifying and practicing the use of relevant grammatical structures;
identifying and practicing the use of strategies for a speech act;
analyzing and practicing the use of discourse organization (e.g.,discourse structure of an academic oral, and presentation);
analyzing and practicing the use of discourse markers and fillers (e.g.,well, um, actually);
analyzing and practicing the use of epistemic stance markers(i.e., words and
phrases to show the speaker‘s stance, such as: I think, maybe, seem, suppose, tend
to, of course)
noticing and practicing the use of tone (e.g., verbal and non-verbal cues and nuances).
(Ishihara, 2010:113- 114)
It is obvious that the activities above only emphasize on the linguistic aspect of
language. While the examples of sociopragmatic focus activities can be seen in the
analyzing language and context to identify the goal and intention of the speaker,
and assessing the speaker‘s attainment of the goal and the listener‘s interpretation
analyzing and practicing the use of directness/politeness/formality in an
interaction;
identifying and using multiple functions of a speech act;
identifying and using a range of cultural norms in the L2 culture; and
identifying and using possible cultural reasoning or ideologies behind L2 pragmatic norms.
(Ishihara, 2010: 114)
However, she adds that in reality of language teaching, there is not clear cut between both types of instructions. In other words, the instructions are blurred either it belongs to sociopragmatic focus or pragmalinguistic focus since to do the activities requires learners to focus on both linguistic and social aspects. It can be seen in the following extract.
collecting L2 data in the L2 community or the media, e.g., films, sit-coms;
comparing learners‘ L1 and L2 pragmatic norms;
comparing felicitous and infelicitous L2 pragmatic uses, e.g., comparing
successful and awkward interactions;
sharing personal stories about pragmatic failure or similar or different pragmatic norms in another culture;
reconstructing sample dialogues, e.g., recreating dialogues and sequencing of lines from a dialogue ;
role-playing (variation: role-plays with specific intentions, such as where one person attempts to persuade the other to accept an invitation and the other intends to refuse the invitation. The role-play can be recorded for subsequent reflection,;
keeping a reflective journal or interaction log;
interviewing L2-speaking informants about norms for pragmatic behavior; and
experimenting with certain pragmatic behavior in the L2 community.
(Ishihara, 2010: 114)
Looking at those language instructions, we can infer that all of those instructions are used to improve learners‘ pragmatic competence which can be
found in English textbooks. However, practically not all of those instructions are applied in English textbooks. Sometimes, there are only some of the instructions used in text books, whereas some of them are absent.
c. Pragmatic Failure of Language Learners
Learning language is a long process. It is common for language learners to
undergo a failure in producing language, especially when dealing with pragmatics.
meant by what is said´‖. In the same way, Blum-Kulka & Olshtain (1986: 166)
believe that pragmatic failure takes place ―... whenever two speakers fail to
understand each other‘s intentions‖. Thus, it can be concluded that pragmatic failure
is inability to comprehend utterances as intended by speakers and produce utterances
which are appropriate with the social rules.
According to Ishihara and Cohen (2010: 77), there are five causes of pragmatic
failures done by language learners. They are 1) negative transfer of pragmatic norms
2) limited L2 grammatical ability 3) overgeneralization of perceived L2 pragmatic
norms 4) effect of instruction or instructional materials 5) resistance to using
perceived L2 pragmatic norms.
Now let‘s see each cause in detail. Negative transfer of pragmatic norms
happens when learners assume that their own pragmatic norms can be applied in the
given situation in the target culture or they don‘t know pragmatic norms in the target
culture, so they just directly apply their own pragmatic norms to the target culture.
Let‘s take the case of Indonesian learners when they deal with offering. When an
English offers an Indonesian learner for a drink, the Indonesian learner tend to refuse
the offer first by saying ‗you don‘t need to bother yourself‘, and waiting for the offer
for the second time since Indonesian rarely accept an offer in the first time to avoid
negative image. But the foreigner just get it as a kind of refuse, in fact Indonesian do
not mean to reject it.
Secondly, the cause of pragmatic failure is limited L2 grammatical ability.
Learners may be able to comprehend others massages better when the interlocutor
uses grammar that they master. For instance, a learner who do not know conditional
were you, I would put that cigarette off‘ as a kind of suggestion or a gentle demand.
Since such kind of structures is beyond their grammatical knowledge.
Thirdly, the cause of pragmatic failure is overgeneralization of perceived L2
pragmatic norms. Overgeneralization means that generalizing a certain rule to other
language situations in which the rule can not be applied in such situation. For
instance, apologizing by simply saying ‗I‘m sorry‘ or ‗Excuse me’ sometimes work in
some situations, but not in others. It depends on the our interlocutors and the
magnitude of the offense.
Fourthly, the cause of pragmatic failure is effect of instruction or instructional
materials. Materials or language instruction can contribute to the learners‘ pragmatic
failure if the materials are not well written and designed. For instance, a text book
which uses unauthentic text tends to provide language samples which do not reflect
real life situation. In other words, the language sample like a model of conversation
which is given before the students are asked to produce their own language sounds
stiff or weird.
The last one is resistance to using perceived L2 pragmatic norms. This type of
pragmatic deviation happens with learners‘ awareness. Learners purposively avoid
using the target pragmatic norms due to their social identity, attitudes, personal belief,
and principles. For instance, when one introduces someone to others, sometime it is
followed with shaking hand either the same or different sex. But for some Muslims,
they tend to purposively avoid shaking hands with different sex.
2. Communicative Competence
focused on the acquisition of linguistic knowledge into language as communication. The term communicative competence itself was firstly coined by Hymes (Cheng and Kong, 2009: 33; Richards and Rodgers, 2006: 159). This term was coined by him in order to contrast a communicative view of language and Chomsky‘s theory on language competence. As mentioned before, communicative
competence shifted the view of language as structural system (influenced by Chomsky) into communicative functions.
a. The Definition of Communicative Competence
The term communicative competence is commonly used by many people in different ways. Some of them use it as the contrast to the grammar teaching approach and audiolingualism method. Some of them also use it as the synonym of progressive and innovative teaching (Savignon, 1997:7). Basically, term communicative competence consists of two words ‗communicative’ as the modifier and ‗competence’ as the head of the phrase. Literally, ‗communicative’
means willing to talk to people and give them information, and competence means the ability to do something well (Cambridge Advanced Learner‘s
Dictionary). Thus, it can be inferred that communicative competence means the ability to talk and give information. However, such kind of simple lexico semantical analysis is not adequate to perceive what is really meant with communicative competence. A technical definition is needed in order to grasp the idea of such term and also can be relevant for this scientific research.
by speakers and hearers when dealing with communication. In their concept of communicative competence, knowledge refers to the (conscious or unconscious) knowledge of an individual about language and about other aspects of language use. To add, they also believe that there are three types of knowledge: knowledge of underlying grammatical principles, knowledge of how to use language in a social context in order to fulfill communicative functions and knowledge of how to combine utterances and communicative functions with respect to discourse principles. To add, communicative competence is not only as an inherent grammatical competence but also as the ability to use grammatical competence in a variety of communicative situations (Hymes as cited in Bagarić and Djigunović, 2007).
Accordingly, Savile-Troike (2006: 100) also defines communicative competence as ―everything that a speaker needs to know in order to communicate
appropriately within a particular community.‖ This definition, besides supporting Canale and Swain definition on communicative competence, adds the idea ‗communicate appropriately within a particular community‘ as the underlying
idea. This imposes that the main point is the ability to use language as the native speakers‘ use.
b. Models of Communicative Competence
a model of communicative competence which consists of three main components; grammatical, sociolinguistic and strategic competence. Such framework of communicative competence is to support a curriculum design and evaluation (Savignon, 1997: 40). Later on, Canale then elaborated this framework into four components by adding discourse competence to the former model.
Now let us look at a glance respective component. Firstly, grammatical competence is learners‘ mastery on linguistic code, the ability to use lexical,
morphological, syntactic, and phonological features of a language a and to manipulate these features to form words and sentences (Savignon, 1997).
Secondly, sociolinguistic competence is learners‘ ability in recognizing the
social context in which language is used, the roles of participants, the information they share, and the function of the interaction (Savignon, 1997).
Thirdly, discourse competence which is sometimes called textual competence is learners‘ ability to form and comprehend series of meaningful sentence or sentences whole. This competence is mostly used by learners in recognizing the theme or topic of a paragraph, chapter or a book, getting the gist of conversation on the phone or a speech (Savignon, 1997).
Fourthly, strategic competence is learners‘ ability in coping with situation in
Another communicative competence model are also proposed by Bachman and Palmer (Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, and Thurrel, 1995: 8). They elaborate Canale and Swain‘s model of communicative competence based on language testing
result under the heading of language knowledge. The model is divided into two broad main categories, language knowledge and pragmatic knowledge. The categories are then divided into several sub-categories respectively. The former is defined as ―the knowledge of the components involved in controlling the formal
structure of language for producing or recognizing grammatically correct sentences and for ordering these to form texts‖. This knowledge covers 1)
grammatical knowledge which is similar to Canale and Swain‘s grammatical
competence 2) textual knowledge which is similar to but more elaborated than Canale and Swain‘s discourse competence. Whereas the latter is defined as the
knowledge of ―the components of that enable us to relate words and utterances to
Figure 2.1 : Bachman‘s Communicative Competence Model
Another communicative competence model was also proposed by Celce-Murcia,Dornyei, and Thurrell (1995). They develop a communicative competence model which evolved from Canale and Swain‘s model. The following figure is the chronological relationship of each sub-competence that they developed.
Communicativ e Language
Ability
Organizational Knowledge
Pragmatic Knowledge
Grammatical Knowledge
Textual Knowledge
Lexical Knowledge
Functional Knowledge
Figure 2.2: Schematic Representation of Communicative Competence Model Proposed by Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, and Thurrell
Figure 2.3 : Comparison of Communicative Competence Model (Adapted from Celce-Murcia et. al 1995)
From that figure, it can be clearly seen that all of those models have many things in common. Most of the models differently divide the division of each sub-competences but the essence are still the same. Among those models, Bachman and Palmer‘s model is the only model which explicitly mention the position of
pragmatic competence, while the others merge pragmatic competence into linguistic/grammatical, actional, and sociocultural competences.
competence into three sub-competences. Thus, Bachman and Palmer‘s model is really suitable for this study which focuses on pragmatic features of English text books.
3. Pragmatic Competence
The ability to use language appropriately includes pragmatic competence. It is defined as ―an aspect of communicative competence [which] refers to the
ability to communicate appropriately in particular contexts of use‖ (Jaworski in Muller, 2005: 37). Another definition was also proposed by Crystal. He defines pragmatic competence as what people must know in order to interpret and convey meaning within communicative situations: knowledge that accounts for ―the
choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction, and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication‖ (Crystal in Savile-Troike, 2006: 134).
Currently, linguists and language teachers have already been aware of the importance of pragmatic competence or proficiency in language development of learners (Glaser, 2009). Paulston as cited in Glaser (2009) says that in order to be a competent speaker and a successful L2 learner, the mastery of social usage of a language- pragmatic competence mastery- is equally necessary as the mastery of the linguistic forms of a language. ―Probably, one of the most important aspect of
pragmatic competence is that it does not necessarily develop parallel to lexico- grammatical proficiency,‖ (Glaser, 2009). This fact of pragmatic competence is
development. It can be seen in some cases of language learners who have a high proficiency of grammar, but still have problem in using those correct sentence forms socially and culturally acceptable. If I may say, the position of pragmatic competence is little bit higher than lexico-grammatical competence since in the real life, people still give toleration to speakers who make grammatical mistakes rather than those who make pragmatic failure. People who make pragmatic failure will be misinterpreted and even be considered rude by the interlocutors.
McKay (2009: 73) says that the acquisition of pragmatic competence covers two skills. The first one is the ability to understand the illocutionary force of an utterance, that is, what the speaker means by saying the utterance. The second one is the ability to know which form for expressing a particular meaning is most appropriate for a particular context (e.g Pass me that salt vs ‗Would you mind
passing me that salt?‘. This ability is crucial since selecting incorrect form for a
particular situation will be considered rude, even misunderstanding. McKay‘s model of pragmatic competence‘s coverage is too simple. Bachman and Palmer
propose another model which is more rigid and detail. The following lists are list of pragmatic competences which are adapted from Bachman and Palmer‘s model and Celce-Murcia, Dornyei, and Thurrel‘s model.
a) Knowledge of the meanings of words and the ability to use figurative language
c) The knowledge and ability to determine how they talk and are talked to based on participants‘ age, gender, office (profession, rank and public position),
status (social standing), social distance from and relations to each other d) The ability to use stylistic appropriateness strategy; like politeness
conventions, degrees of formality, and field- specific registers
e) The knowledge of socio cultural background of target language community f) Awareness of major dialect or regional differences
g) Cross cultural awareness; like differences, similarities, and strategies for cross- cultural communication
h) The knowledge and ability to use non- verbal communication like kinesthetic factors/ body language, prosemic factors/ use of space, haptic factors/ touching, paralinguistic factors (acoustical sounds and nonvocal sounds), and silence
Figure 2.4: Pragmatic Competence Model
4. Pragmatic Features in English Textbooks
There is disagreement among researchers in using one term in referring to this topic. Some researchers use features, while others use information. However, both features and information refer to the information in a text book which can help learners to develop their pragmatic knowledge and understanding. Thus, to accommodate these two views, the researcher will use features of pragmatic information to refer this idea.
It is not so easy to find out literature about features of pragmatic information in textbooks because there are no available books, which discuss explicitly about features of pragmatic information in textbooks. However, many
Pragmatic Competence
Linguistic
Social
Stylistic
Cultural
b
c
d
e
h g f
works investigating features of pragmatic information in course books scattered through journals of linguistic and education.
[image:47.595.100.514.249.590.2]One of journals which explicitly stated the features of pragmatic information in textbooks is Vellenga (2004). She has her own way in categorizing pragmatic information of textbook. She divides the pragmatic information in to two broad categories; metalanguage and metapragmatic information. Meta language covers the explicit treatment of speech acts, while metapragmatic information covers discussions of register, illocutionary force, politeness, appropriacy, and usage. If I may say, sub-headings of Meta- Pragamtics are the features of the information.
Figure 2. 5: Vellenga‘s Model of Pragmatic Information (2004)
English textbooks into six categories. Here are the brief discussion of each feature.
a. Speech Act Information
According to Nunan (1993: 65), speech act is simply things people do with the language, for instance apologizing, complaining, instructing, agreeing, and warning and so forth. In other words, utterances that people use to fulfill those needs are called speech acts. Learning how to perform these acts in the L2 is central to language learning, and knowing when to deploy them is basic to what we have called pragmatic competence.
Austin (as cited in Mey, 2004: 95) distinguishes speech act into tree different aspects; locutionary aspect, illocutionary force, and perlocutionary effect. Locutionary aspect is simply the activity we engage when we say something, whereas illocutionary force is the functional intention of the speaker‘s
utterance, and perlocutionary effect is the effect of the illocutionary force to the hearer. To make it clear, let us take an example. For instance, the act of saying ‗Can you pass the sugar, please?‘. This utterance is locutionary aspect, while the
illocutionary force is request. When the hearer responses to the speaker‘s request
to close the door, this illocutionary force is request. To put it simple, locution is the utterance produced by speaker, while the illocution is the intended meaning / the speaker‘s goal to produce the utterance. And the perlocution is the effect of the
utterance to the hearer.
Speech act information in this study consists of three categories- types of speech act (illocution), numbers of linguistic forms provided for each speech act (locution), and types of exercises or tasks which promote speech acts that students learn in every particular unit. The perlocutionary effect is not considered in this study since to obtain such information a classroom observation should be done. Of course that is not possible in this study since this study only uses textbooks as the source of data. This categorization of speech act information is adopted from Wichien and Aksornjarung (2011).
b. Politeness
Every language has its own ways to express politeness differently. Politeness itself is one of topics discussed in pragmatics. First of all, let‘s make a
working definition on politeness by collecting some definitions from various experts then drawing conclusion from those definitions.
only mentioned ‗the use of appropriate language‘. For me, it is too broad, since it
covers pragmatic definition. To cover this weakness, it seems essential to look at Urbanová and Oakland‘s definition on politeness. They suggest a definition which is quite simple but makes the concept clearer. They define politeness as ―the ability of the speaker to show respect, discretion, and goodwill‖ (as quoted in Švárová 2008). Similartly, Blum-Kulka also defines politeness from the view of metapragmatic definition ―politeness is positively associated with tolerance,
restraint, good manners, showing deference and being nice to people (as cited in Watts, Ide, and Ehlich 2005). From those views on politeness, it can be concluded that politeness is the way how speakers show respect, discretion, goodwill, tolerance, and good manner by considering social factors like age, gender, social distance, etc.
Figure 2.6 : Lakoff‘ Rules of Politeness (from Watts, 2003: 60)
According to the diagram above, it can be seen that to have a pragmatic competence especially in politeness, someone should know and master two general rules of politeness; 1) be clear and 2) be polite. Firstly, being clear consists of four rules; quantity, quality, relevance, and manner. These four rules are derived from conversational principles proposed by Grice. According to Grice, speakers are bound to these four principles when they communicate each other. Secondly, being polite consists of three sub-rules; 1) do not impose, 2) give options, and 3) make the addressee feel good – be friendly.
The figure above is one example how the pragmatic information especially politeness appears in an English textbook. The sample above is a feature of politeness which focus on linguistic forms. It is just related to how to express something politely by using certain linguistic forms. Using expressions which is similar to the formula above, at least, can make our addressee feel good. Making our addressee feel good, absolutely, is one of the politeness principles which has been mentioned before. To add, the appearance of this feature in a textbook of course can direct learners‘ attention and enhance learners‘ awareness on learning
the language.
c. Styles
Nobody speaks the same way all the time. They usually exploit the nuances of
the language they use for a variety of dialects. They use one dialect when they speak
to their teachers, another when they speak with their close friends, and another when
talking to their superior boss. These various situation dialects are called styles
(Fromkin, Blair, and Collins, 2000:420). In other words, it refers to the variation in a
[image:52.595.100.516.99.593.2]person‘s speech or writing (Richard and Schmidt, 2002: 522). Making variation or Figure 2. 7: Sample of Politeness Information (from Medina, Uceda, and Thierry,
using various styles in a language is common since single- style speakers will appear
to be quite abnormal in that respect (Wardhaugh, 2006 :5).
Fromkin, Blair, and Collins (2000:420) classify styles into two types; formal
and informal. Whereas others prefer to use formal and casual. This classification is a
simple categorization of styles because in reality linguists generally recognize a scale
of continuum ranging from very formal to very informal (Wales, 2001:160).
Considering those all, in this study, style refers to the degrees along formality-casualness continuum. Thus, any explicit information which indicates to the
continuum of formality or casualness will be considered present in a text book.
In a communicative event, speakers sometimes make variation in their speech.
The variation of someone‘s speech or utterance varies from casual to formal based on
the situation, persons‘ addressed, the location, the topic discussed, etc. In other words,
speaker‘s choice on degree of formality either formal or informal will be influenced
by situation, addressee, location, and topic being discussed (Richard and
Schmidt,2002). For instance, a discussion which takes place in an office between an
employee and his employer will fall into more formal rather than conversation which
takes place in a market.
The presence of styles in a textbook is quite essential. It gives learners
information to vary their speech, their linguistic forms in expressing a speech act. A
textbook should adequately provide learners materials to vary their speech, either
formal or informal, so that their speech will not sound stiff.
d. Usage
common term either in linguistic study or in language education study. However, if we try to look at many English course books or textbooks, there are some parts which give information to learners about how to use certain expressions in a communicative event. This part in English textbook is called usage in this study. It refers to ―the explanation about the usage of any linguistic forms and any
grammatical features, expressions, phrases, or words which could enhance pragmatic knowledge of the students‖ (Wichien and Aksornjarung, 2011). This type of feature is easily found in several English textbooks. The example of this feature can be seen in the following figure.
The figure above explicitly explains how to use every expression which appears in the speech bubble. For instance, expression ‗excuse me’ can be used before the speaker disturb someone. Looking at those explanation appearing in the boxes, learners are aware on when and how to use every expression which appear
in the speech bubbles. Looking at those explanation, it is obvious that the presence of such kind of explanation is essential because it can help learners to avoid pragmatic failure due to the misuse of expression in a situation or context.
e. Register
In stylistics and sociolinguistics, register refers to the variety of language defined according to the situation (Wales, 2001:337). It is a set of language items associated with discrete occupational or social groups (Wardhaugh, 2006: 52). Furthermore, Haliday, McIntosh and Strevens postulated that ‗language varies as its function varies; it differs in different situations. The name given to a variety of a language distinguished according to its use is register‘ (Bhatia: 1993:5-6). From those views on register, it can be concluded that r
