xvi ABSTRACT
Yoseph Widirahmaya. 2015. The Students’ Pragmatic Competence of Implicature in Spoken English. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
The goal of the present study was to investigate whether there is any significant difference of the students’ pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English. The considerations behind the goal were as follows: Language Competence consists of Organizational Competence and Pragmatic Competence. To be able to communicate using any language properly and successfully, human beings need to master those two components. However, in learning English as the target language especially at school the students often result at the unequal proportion development between the Organizational Competence and the Pragmatic Competence. Most of the results show that the Organizational Competence developed better than the Pragmatic Competence, although it is also possible that the Pragmatic Competence developed better that the Organizational Competence took place. The researcher was interested to investigate the development of
the students’ pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English as the target language. Implicature as one of Pragmatic aspects interested the researcher. Implicature is the conveyed meaning beyond what is literally said. By conducting the present study, the researcher expected to contribute for the theoretical benefit as the description of the
students’ pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English for the scientific report that can be used as a review in the second language acquisition, and in practical, it is hoped that the result of the study can be a meaningful input for schools in helping the students acquire the pragmatic competence better.
The present study belongs to the developmental study. To investigate the matter the researcher conducted a cross-sectional study. The population of the present study is the students of the English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma Universisty. The researcher compared three levels of semester students who were studying in the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. The researcher gave the same Multiple-choice Test in interpreting implicature commonly produced in spoken English to the sample of 90 students as the participants; 30 students were the second semester students, 30 students were the fourth semester students, and 30 students were the sixth semester students. The data then was analyzed using One-way ANOVA in order to see if there is a significant development in the Pragmatic Competence of implicature in spoken English between those three levels of semester.
xvii
L2 learning process. The researcher offered some suggestions that led to cultural immersion in which facilitates the students to completely immerse in the cultural background of the target language. The suggestions were offered because according to
xviii
ABSTRAK
Yoseph Widirahmaya. 2015. The Students’ Pragmatic Competence of Implicature in Spoken English. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meneliti apakah ada perkembangan kemampuan prakmatik mahasiswa yang signifikan khususnya dalam implicature dalam bahasa Inggris lisan. Latar belakang tujuannya adalah sebagai berikut: kemampuan bahasa terdiri dari dua komponen utama yaitu Organisational Competence dan Pragmatic Competence. Untuk dapat berkomunikasi menggunakan bahasa apapun, manusia perlu untuk menguasai ke dua komponen tersebut. Tetapi dalam mempelajari bahasa Inggris, khususnya di sekolah-sekolah, sering didapati ketidakseimbangan hasil dalam proporsi perkembangan ke dua komponen tersebut. Kebayakan kasus menunjukkan Organisational Competence berkembang lebih baik dari pada Pragmatic Competence, meskipun ada pula kasus di mana Pragmatic Competence-lah yang berkembang lebih baik. Penulis tertarik untuk meneliti perkembangan kemampuan prakmatik mahasiswa, khususnya dalam hal implicature dalam bahasa Inggris lisan. Implicature adalah salah satu aspek dalam prakmatik. Implicature adalah maksud yang tersirat dalam apa yang diucapkan. Diharapkan melalui penelitian ini penulis dapat memberikan sumbangan deskripsi kemampuan prakmatik mahasiswa, khususnya dalam hal implicature, dan dapat memberikan masukan bagi sekolah-sekolah dalam mengembangkan kemampuan prakmatik dengan lebih baik.
Penelitian ini termasuk dalam studi perkembangan. Di dalam melaksanakan penelitian, penulis menggunakan studi cross-sectional. Populasi penelitian ini adalah mahasiswa S1 Universitas Sanata Dharma jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris. Penulis membandingkan hasil tes pilihan ganda tentang implicature dari tiga semester yang berbeda yaitu semester 2, 3, dan 4 sebagai sample dan untuk tiap semesternya diambil 30 partisipan. Hasil tes kemudian diproses menggunakan kaji statistic One-way ANOVA untuk mendapatkan deskripsi statistic perkemebangan antara ke tiga semester tersebut.
A THESIS
Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain
the Magister Humaniora (M. Hum) Degree
in English Language Studies
by
Yoseph Widirahmaya 126332053
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA 2015
THE STUDENTS’ PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE OF IMPLICATURE
i
TITLE PAG E
THE STUDENTS’ PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE OF IMPLICATURE
IN SPOKEN ENGLISH
A THESIS
Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain
the Magister Humaniora (M. Hum) Degree
in English Language Studies
by
Yoseph Widirahmaya 126332053
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
ii
APROVAL PAG ES
A THESIS
THE STUDENTS’ PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE OF IMPLICATURE
IN SPOKEN ENGLISH
by
Yoseph Widirahmaya
126332053
Approved by
F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D. _________________
v
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASIKARYA ILMIA H UN TUK KEP ENTING AN AKADEMI S
KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma:
Nama : Yoseph Widirahmaya
Nomor Mahasiswa : 126332053
Demi perkembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan
Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:
THE STUDENTS’ PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE OF IMPLICATURE
IN SPOKEN ENGLISH
beserta perangkat yang diperlukan. Dengan demikian, saya memberikan hak
kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan
dalam media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data,
mendistribusikannya secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya 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 saya ini buat dengan sebenarnya.
Yogyakarta, May 12, 2015
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my inexpressible gratitude to
God the Almighty who always looks upon my lowliness. It is only because of His
mercy and generosity that I was able to experience the priceless helps from people
around me in finishing this thesis.
I am deeply indebted to my family, especially my beloved mother,Maria Sudaryati, for she always inspires me to be a better person. Despite my shortcomings, she used to ensure me that I could make a good teacher. She was a
teacher herself and her stories about her students strengthened my spirit to see
what I could do for the promising youths who study at schools. I also believe it is
her prayers that took the most important role so that I could finish this thesis.
My brothers and sisters were also very supportive, both spiritually and
financially.Christina Widiantarti, who always patiently picked me up in the bus station every time I went back home from Yogyakarta, Petrus Widiasmoro, who bought me a new laptop because I lost the old one in the bus,David Widiantoro, who paid the last semester fee, Yosephine Widiandayani, who is always sure that I can finish my study just like my other friends, without their supports I could
never finish what I started.
I would like to thank Mr.Kuswandono, S.Pd., M.Ed., Ph.D.as the head of the English Language Education Program, Sanata Dharma University for
giving me permission to conduct the study in the English Language Education
vii
Next, I would like to address my gratitude to Akademi Maritim Nusantara Cilacap as the institution where I am working at the moment for giving me the scholarship to take my graduate study and to Fr. Charlie Borrows, O.M.I., as the head of Yayasan Pembina Pendidikan Kemaritiman Cilacap, who has believed in me and sent me to study.
My deep gratitude also goes to my dedicated lecturers, especially F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D. He inspires me in so many ways. As my supervisor, he always knew the tactful ways in helping me understand better what I was trying to write.
Dr. J. Bismoko, he gave me the priceless knowledge as long as I remembered. I also thank Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A. and Dr. Fr. B. Alip, M. Pd., M.A. for their valuable guidance.
I also would like to mention my partner, David Wirick, in my acknowledgements. He is patiently waiting for me and sacrificing his time so that
I could pursue my dream. He also helped me searching the sources I needed in the
internet.
Special thank also goes toErna Koswara, S.Kom.He helped me editing my thesis. He taught me how to type better, too.
Last but not least, I owe a lot to my dearest classmates in English
Language Studies. They were always there whenever I needed help. Finally, I
would like to apologize if I have inadvertently omitted anyone to whom the
appreciation is due.
God bless everybody!
viii
This thesis is dedicated to:
All my students
One of the most amazing things in the world
is when you learn something and
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE... i
APROVAL PAGES... ii
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY... iv
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS... v
CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION... 1
A. Background ... 1
B. Problem Identification... 3
C. Research Question ... 6
D. Limitation of the Study ... 6
E. Objective of the Study... 8
F. Benefits of the Study... 8
G. Definition of Terms... 9
CHAPTER II : LITERATURE REVIEW... 12
A. Theoretical Review ... 12
1. Development ... 12
x
CHAPTER III : METHODOLOGY ... 38
A. Research Method ... 38
B. Research Setting... 40
C. Research Instrument... 42
D. Data Collection ... 44
E. Data Analysis Technique ... 44
CHAPTER IV : THE RESULT AND THE DISCUSSION ... 48
A. The Results of the Study ... 48
1. The Overall Result ... 55
2. The Group Result based on the pattern ... 57
B. The Discussion... 80
CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION... 91
A. Conclusion ... 91
B. Pedagogical Implications ... 92
C. Recommendation for Further Research ... 94
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. A schematic representation of Brown and Levinson’s (1978)... 20
Figure 2.2. Components of Bachman language competence (adapted from Bachman, 1990: 87) ... 29
Figure 2.3: Null Hypothesis ... 36
Figure 4.1: Null Hypothesis ... 48
Figure 4.2: The significant level (α)... 49
Figure 4.3: The null hypothesis rejection condition... 49
Figure 4.4.The figure of overall result ... 55
Figure 4.5.Figure Result test no.3 ... 58
Figure 4.6. Figure Result test no. 5 ... 59
Figure 4.7. Figure Result test no. 6 ... 60
Figure 4.8. Figure Result test no. 8 ... 61
Figure 4.9. Figure Result test no. 9 ... 62
Figure 4.10. Figure Result test no. 12 ... 64
Figure 4.11. Figure Result test no. 14 ... 65
Figure 4.12. Figure Result test no. 16 ... 66
Figure 4.13. Figure Result test no. 19 ... 67
Figure 4.14. Figure Result test no. 1 ... 68
Figure 4.15. Figure Result test no. 2 ... 69
Figure 4.16. Figure Result test no. 4 ... 70
Figure 4.17. Figure Result test no. 7 ... 71
Figure 4.18. Figure Result test no. 10 ... 72
xii
Figure 4.20. Figure Result test no. 17 ... 74
Figure 4.21. Figuret Result test no. 20 ... 75
Figure 4.22. Figure Result test no. 13 ... 76
Figure 4.23. Figure Result test no. 18 ... 77
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1.The blueprint of the test ... 44
Table 3.2. The scoring of each answer... 47
Table 4.1. Descriptives Statistic... 50
Table 4.2. The Means differences ... 51
Table 4.3. The Post Hoc Test Result... 52
Table 4.4. Answer Table ... 57
xiv
LIST OF GRAPH
xv
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Pragmatic Competence in Implicature Multiple ... 97
APPENDIX II The Multiple Choice Test Results ... 104
APPENDIX III Level of Difficulty... 107
APPENDIX IV Statisics Result ... 108
xvi ABSTRACT
Yoseph Widirahmaya. 2015. The Students’ Pragmatic Competence of Implicature in Spoken English. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
The goal of the present study was to investigate whether there is any significant difference of the students’ pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English. The considerations behind the goal were as follows: Language Competence consists of Organizational Competence and Pragmatic Competence. To be able to communicate using any language properly and successfully, human beings need to master those two components. However, in learning English as the target language especially at school the students often result at the unequal proportion development between the Organizational Competence and the Pragmatic Competence. Most of the results show that the Organizational Competence developed better than the Pragmatic Competence, although it is also possible that the Pragmatic Competence developed better that the Organizational Competence took place. The researcher was interested to investigate the development of
the students’ pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English as the target language. Implicature as one of Pragmatic aspects interested the researcher. Implicature is the conveyed meaning beyond what is literally said. By conducting the present study, the researcher expected to contribute for the theoretical benefit as the description of the
students’ pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English for the scientific report that can be used as a review in the second language acquisition, and in practical, it is hoped that the result of the study can be a meaningful input for schools in helping the students acquire the pragmatic competence better.
The present study belongs to the developmental study. To investigate the matter the researcher conducted a cross-sectional study. The population of the present study is the students of the English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma Universisty. The researcher compared three levels of semester students who were studying in the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University. The researcher gave the same Multiple-choice Test in interpreting implicature commonly produced in spoken English to the sample of 90 students as the participants; 30 students were the second semester students, 30 students were the fourth semester students, and 30 students were the sixth semester students. The data then was analyzed using One-way ANOVA in order to see if there is a significant development in the Pragmatic Competence of implicature in spoken English between those three levels of semester.
xvii
L2 learning process. The researcher offered some suggestions that led to cultural immersion in which facilitates the students to completely immerse in the cultural background of the target language. The suggestions were offered because according to
xviii
ABSTRAK
Yoseph Widirahmaya. 2015. The Students’ Pragmatic Competence of Implicature in Spoken English. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meneliti apakah ada perkembangan kemampuan prakmatik mahasiswa yang signifikan khususnya dalam implicature dalam bahasa Inggris lisan. Latar belakang tujuannya adalah sebagai berikut: kemampuan bahasa terdiri dari dua komponen utama yaitu Organisational Competence dan Pragmatic Competence. Untuk dapat berkomunikasi menggunakan bahasa apapun, manusia perlu untuk menguasai ke dua komponen tersebut. Tetapi dalam mempelajari bahasa Inggris, khususnya di sekolah-sekolah, sering didapati ketidakseimbangan hasil dalam proporsi perkembangan ke dua komponen tersebut. Kebayakan kasus menunjukkan Organisational Competence berkembang lebih baik dari pada Pragmatic Competence, meskipun ada pula kasus di mana Pragmatic Competence-lah yang berkembang lebih baik. Penulis tertarik untuk meneliti perkembangan kemampuan prakmatik mahasiswa, khususnya dalam hal implicature dalam bahasa Inggris lisan. Implicature adalah salah satu aspek dalam prakmatik. Implicature adalah maksud yang tersirat dalam apa yang diucapkan. Diharapkan melalui penelitian ini penulis dapat memberikan sumbangan deskripsi kemampuan prakmatik mahasiswa, khususnya dalam hal implicature, dan dapat memberikan masukan bagi sekolah-sekolah dalam mengembangkan kemampuan prakmatik dengan lebih baik.
Penelitian ini termasuk dalam studi perkembangan. Di dalam melaksanakan penelitian, penulis menggunakan studi cross-sectional. Populasi penelitian ini adalah mahasiswa S1 Universitas Sanata Dharma jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris. Penulis membandingkan hasil tes pilihan ganda tentang implicature dari tiga semester yang berbeda yaitu semester 2, 3, dan 4 sebagai sample dan untuk tiap semesternya diambil 30 partisipan. Hasil tes kemudian diproses menggunakan kaji statistic One-way ANOVA untuk mendapatkan deskripsi statistic perkemebangan antara ke tiga semester tersebut.
1
CHAPTER I:IN TR ODUCTI ON
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents respectively seven sections namely the background,
problem identification, research questions of the study, limitation of the study,
objective of the study, benefit of the study and definition of terms. The first
section gives a general background why it is needed to conduct this study. The
second section provides the existing gap from similar pragmatic studies that
inspires the researcher to conduct the present study. The third section shows the
research question of the study. The forth section sets forth the clear boundary of
the study. The fifth section exposes the objective of the study and the sixth section
conveys the benefits of the study result as a scientific report and a meaningful
consideration to ponder about in English learning process in the class. The
seventh section discusses the definition of terms mostly used in the study.
A. Background
It is an irrefutable phenomenon that learning English becomes such a must,
particularly because English is the Lingua Franca in this globalization era in
which English is used as an international language of technology, science, and
commerce. Hutchinson and Waters (1986: 6) state that a whole new mass of
people want to learn English not only for pleasure or prestige of knowing the
knowledge, but also because English is the key to international currencies of
almost every country around the world whether it is learned as the first language,
a second language, or even a foreign language.
Indonesia which also has to survive its existence in the world like the other
countries for example for its economic survival, of course, needs English to exist
in the economic competiveness in a globalised era. The only effective and
efficient way to make the Indonesian people acquire English is through education
whether it is done at schools or courses. English has become one of the
compulsory subjects in schools in Indonesia since 1975 especially starting from
secondary school level up and the government of Indonesia always renews the
curriculum of national education periodically without leaving English as an
important subject.
In relation with the Four Pillars of Education recommended by UNESCO,
which are Learning to Know, Learning to Do, Learning to Live Together, and
Learning to Be, English is not only one of the courses that need to be mastered in
order to be knowledgeable or to reach a certain goal such as passing a test and
getting a job. English is also supposed to be means of communication in leaving
together harmoniously in this global village so called the world. Although we do
not stay in English speaking countries, still English is the Lingua Franca which
somehow, somewhere, we use it in communication with other people around the
world. In other words, it is not the knowledge of English language, or
Organizational competence (Bachman, 1990: 87) that we need, but the
competence (Bachman, 1990: 87). Increasing the pragmatic competence of
English enables us to live together harmoniously in this global village.
This English pragmatic competence is even more needed because we will
soon face the AFTA (Asean Free Trade Area) in 2015. It is not merely our
knowledge of English language that supports us to compete and survive, but our
English pragmatic competence also takes a distinguish role. It is how we
communicate using English and also our understanding of English, especially the
conveyed meaning in what is explicitly said by the speakers, will build a good and
successful communication.
Based on this background, the researcher came into an idea that it is
important to conduct the present study. The present study is on the development
of the students’ pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English. The
present study is supposedly able to give a description about the development of
the students’ pragmatic competence, because the pragmatic competence also takes
an important part in communication. The notion of implicature is chosen because
implicature normally occurs in almost every language including in English
language.
B. Problem Identification
Learning English language needs a meticulous consideration because
learning language is not merely a matter of gaining knowledge. For centuries
some approaches and methods have been discussed, practiced, and evaluated.
views of language and the nature of language proficiency explicitly or implicitly
inform current approaches and methods in language teaching” (Richards and
Rodgers, 2001: 20). These are the structural view, the functional view, and the
interactional view.
Linguists also provide meaningful contributions. One of the important
ones is by Noam Chomsky (as cited in Fromkin V, et el, 2003: 3), “when we
study human language, we are approaching what might call the human essence,
the distinctive qualities of mind that are, so far as we know, unique to man.”
Fromkin (2003: 3) explains further that to understand our humanity, one must
understand the nature of language that makes us human. In correlation with this,
Meyer (2009: 1) adds that to study language, linguists focus on two levels of
description: pragmatics, the study of how context (both social and linguistic)
affects language use, and grammar, the description of how human form linguistic
structures, from the level of sound up to the sentence (ibid). This contribution
brings about changesin language teaching approach dating from the late 1960’s to
what so called Communicative Language Teaching which started to be known
after Hyme’s theory of communicative (1972) was elaborated by some writers
such as Brumfit and Johnson (1979) and Savigon (1983).
Later on, Bachman (1990) introduces Language Competence. Bachman
proposes that language competence is subdivided into two components
‘organizational competence’ and ‘pragmatic competence’ (Bachman, 1990: 87 ff).
Organizational competence comprises knowledge of linguistic unit and joining
(1990), Pragmatic competence is subdivided into ‘illocutionary competence’ and
‘sociolinguistic competence’. ‘Illocutionary competence’ can be categorized as
‘knowledge of communicative action and how to carry it out’, while
‘sociolinguistic competence’ means the ability to use language appropriately
according to context. Fraser (1990) gives further explanation that sociolinguistic
competence includes the ability to select communicative acts and appropriate
strategies to implement them depending on the current status of the
‘conversational contract’.
Dealing with pragmatic competence, there have been some studies
conducted in the second language acquisition field. Some of them are in
producing English request done by Scarcella (1979), Cathcart (1986), Blum-Kulka
and Olshtain (1986), House and Kasper (1987), Hill (1997), and Rose (2000) with
the result as it is stated by Ellis (2008: 176): “One of the strongest findings of
these studies is that even advanced learners do not acquire fully native-like ways
of requesting, in particular, then to produce longer request than native speakers.”
While the students’ refusals production was studied by Beebe and Takashashi
(1989) and also by Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford (1991), and the results are: “First,
L2 learners’ pragmatic behavior is not always in accordance with stereotypical
views. Second, although advanced L2 learners have no difficulty in performing
refusals, they do not always do so in the same way as native speakers.” (Ellis,
2008: 189)
Some other studies on pragmatic competence are also done by Pinyo,
Case Study with Thai English Teachers, Heidi Viljama (2012) Pragmatic
Competence of Finnish learners of English which was conducted for his MA
Thesis, and Tarja Nikula (2002)Teacher Talk Reflecting Pragmatic Awareness: A
Look at EFL and Concept-Based Classroom Settings.
However, most of the studies aforementioned are done not on Indonesian
students and do not specifically focus on the pragmatic competence of the
students especially in the notion of implicature. Reading on their studies and
realizing the Indonesian students’ pragmatic competence especially in the notion
of implicature has rarely been considered as an important pragmatic competence
indication to be studied, the researcher feels intrigued to conduct the study. This is
the reason for the present study which will attempt to investigate the development
of the students’ pragmatic competence of Implicature as it has already mentioned
above that pragmatic competence builds the language competence beside the
organizational competence.
C. Research Question
The present of the study is aimed to answer the question:
Is there any significant difference in the pragmatic competence of
Implicature in spoken English among groups of students with different
length of study?
D. Limitation of the Study
Since the present study entitled The Students’ Pragmatic Competence of
The two most common research strategies applied are longitudinal and
cross-sectional studies. The present study is conducted as a cross-sectional study
basically dealing with the limited time. As Papalia mentions that “Cross-sectional
study is a Study Design in which people of different ages (stages) are assessed on
one occasion,” (Papalia, 2003: 53), so the resent study is conducted on one
occasion and the participants are the students of different semesters namely the
second semester, the fourth semester and the sixth semester.
The present study will focus more on the development of the students’
pragmatic competence. The researcher will not evaluate the students’ pragmatic
competence in the sense of what level of pragmatic competence the students have
already acquired to produce in communication orally or in written production. The
researcher will only investigate whether there is any significant development of
the students’pragmatic competence in the sense of their understanding on written
context by giving them multiple choice tests.
The aspect of pragmatic competence being investigated in the study is the
notion ofimplicature–the conveyed meaning of the speaker (Grice, 1975: 43). It
is to find out whether the students acquire pragmatic competence of distinguishing
between “what is said” and “what is meant” by the speaker and whether the
students acquire pragmatic competence to recognize the conveyed or implied
meaning of what is said.
The context of the present study is the students of the English Language
Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University as the participants. The
Study Program as the participants is it is assumed that the students do not have
significant problem on their linguistic competence, which means the result of the
study will not be affected by the linguistic competence of the participants. So the
result of the study can portray merely the sociolinguistic competence, in this case
the students’ pragmatic competence in implicature in English language
E. Objective of the Study
Since this present study focuses on the students’ pragmatic competence of
implicature in Spoken English, therefore the main objective of this study is to find
out the pattern of the development of the students’ pragmatic competence of
implicature in spoken English.
F. Benefits of the Study
For the theoretical benefit, the result of the study will show the pattern of
the development of the students’ pragmatic competence in the notion of
implicature for the scientific report that can be used as a review in the second
language acquisition. It is already stated above that the study in the students’
pragmatic competence in implicature rarely done on Indonesian students, the
researcher believes that this present study can more or less give a review on this
case.
In practical, the result of the study can be a meaningful input for the
schools, in particular the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata
both the linguistic and sociolinguistic competence equally. If the result does not
show any significant development of the students’ pragmatic competence in
implicature between the different semesters, it implicates that the content of the
syllabus needs to add more attention on the sociolinguistic competence in such a
way that improves the students’pragmatic competence from one semester level to
the higher semester level.
G. Definition of Terms
This part will give brief definition of terms used and discussed in the present
study. The terms are:
1. Development
Development is a notion of good change (Chambers, 2004: iii, 2-3). So,
development involves ‘change’ in a variety of aspects of the human condition.
Development is also a process as Thomas (2004) refers to this meaning of
development as ‘a process of historical change’, which means that development
can be a long term process of structural societal transformation or a
short-to-medium term outcome of desirable target. Papalia mentions that there are two
kinds of developmental change: quantitative and qualitative, “Quantitative change is a change in number or amount, such as growth in height, weight, vocabulary, …..or frequency of communication. Qualitative change is a change in kind, structure, or organization,” (Papalia, 2003: 9). In the present study, the
term outcome of desirable target. The good change will be shown in a quantitative
change which is a change in the statistical number.
2. Pragmatic competence
Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000:20) propose pragmatic competence as “a
set of internalized rules of how to use language in socioculturally appropriate
ways, taking into account the participants in a communicative interaction and
features of the context within which the interaction takes place”. Rod Ellis (2009)
emphasizes the distinction between linguistic competence and pragmatic
competence as follow: “Pragmatic competence is normally distinguished from
Linguistic competence. Both are seen as relating to ‘knowledge’ and are therefore
distinct from actual performance”. In short, pragmatic competence is more the
knowledge of appropriate production and comprehension of language which is
performed in communication. The present study will see the pragmatic
competence as the knowledge of appropriate production and comprehension of
language which is performed in communication. However, since the present study
only uses a Multiple-choice Test, the pragmatic competence will be discussed is
more on the knowledge of appropriate comprehension of language in
communication which is written in a Multiple-choice Test.
3. Implicature
The word implicature was firstly introduced by Grice: “Implicature is the
conveyed meaning of the speaker” (Grice, 1975: 43). Grice distinguishes between
“what is said” and “what is meant”. Yule (1996: 35) states, “Implicature is an
word means.” The word implicature in the present study reflects to what is
implicitly meant in what is explicitly said. The Multiple-choice DCTs in the
present study will provide 20 numbers of written spoken English conversations in
which each of the conversations has an implicit meaning in what is explicitly said
12
CHAPTER II:LITERA TURE R EVIEW
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides the theoretical review which is used in the study and
the theoretical framework of the study. In theoretical review, it will be discussed
the constructs used in the study, namely development, pragmatics, pragmatic
competence, pragmatic failure, and language transfer. Beside the definitions of
pragmatics, the aspects of pragmatics will be discussed such as: speech acts,
politeness, and implicature. Meanwhile, in theoretical framework, all the
constructs and concepts will be built up and synthesized elaborately.
A. Theoretical Review
In this sub chapter, some theories, namely development, pragmatics,
pragmatic competence, pragmatic failure, and language transfer, will be discussed.
1. Development
There are many definitions of development from various perceptions.
Thomas (2004: 1) states, “development is contested, complex, and ambiguous.”
This is because development has been defined from different fields. For example,
from the literature point of view: “development is seen as a vision of the liberation
of peopleand peoples’ dominated, based on structural transformation in the 1950s
and 1960s,” (Gore, 2000: 794-5). Another perspective is from what Hickey and
Mohan (2003) identify as ‘post-modernists’, “The post-modernists view that
‘reality’ and power relationship,” (2003: 38). Still, there is another concept
suggested by Cowen and Shenton (1998). They see development as: “an
immanent (unintentional of underlying process) development such as the
development of capitalism and imminent (intentional or willed) development such
as the deliberate process to ‘develop’ the Third World which began after World
War II as much of it emerged from colonization,” (Cowen and Shenton, 1998:
50).
Apparently, the definitions of development aforementioned focus more on
the society development with all its aspects. The development discussed in the
present study is more specific on the study of human development. There is a very
simple definition, though, that can be used in almost all study on development.
This definition is suggested by Chambers (2004). Chambers mentions that
“development is notion of good change,” (2004: iii, 2-3). Of course, this very
simple definition raises many questions because it is too wide.
In the study of human development, the definition of development has
something to do with the ways in which people change throughout life. Papalia
and friends (2003) first give the definition of the field of human developmentas follows: “The field of human development is the scientific study of the human
being process of development” (Papalia, 2003: 7).
The domains of the development in the human development consists three
areas, namely physical development, cognitive development, and psychosocial
development. Physical development will be about the growth of body and brain
development can be seen on the change or stability in mental abilities including
learning, attention, memory, language, thinking, reasoning, and creativity.
Psychosocial development is more on change and stability in emotions,
personality, and social relationship.
So, it is clear that Papalia suggests that in the field of human development
there are two possible situations happen in the developmental process, namely
change and stability. However, it is through change that development occurs.
Furthermore, Papalia also mentions that there are two kinds of developmental
change:quantitativeandqualitative, “Quantitative changeis a change in number or amount, such as growth in height, weight, vocabulary, …..or frequency of
communication. Qualitative change is a change in kind, structure, or organization,” (Papalia, 2003: 9).
Based on some different definitions from some different perspectives
above, we can take a conclusion that development is a good change or, to be more
specific, an improvement that occurs in a human being that can be measured
during the process or as a result at a certain point of time. The good change or the
improvement can be on the physical development, cognitive development, and
psychosocial development. The development can be seen as quantitative change
which is a change in number or amount and qualitative change which is a change
2. Pragmatics
In this section, the definitions of pragmatics will be reviewed to help us
understand better what is meant by pragmatics and to construct the working
definition of pragmatics used in the present study. The aspects of pragmatics will
be discussed also, especially to portray the implicature focused in this present
study.
a. Definition of Pragmatics
Meyer (2009) states that “to study language, linguists focus on two levels
of description:pragmatics, the study of how context ( both social and linguistic ) affects language use, and grammar, the description of how humans form linguistic structures, from the level of sound up to the sentence” (page: 1). He also
suggests that “language has two additional functions-interpersonal and the
textual-that reflect the fact textual-that language is influenced by the social and linguistic contexts
in which it is used” ( Meyer, 2009: 17). He advocates that grammar is closely
related to what so called asSemantics,
“at this level, we are within grammar studying what is known as semantics: how words have individual meaning (lexical semantics) and can be used to refer to entities in the external world (reference)” (Meyer, 2009: 48).
While in pragmatics, he offers the matter of understanding the entire social
context. “a different level of interpretation that is studied within pragmatics,
which explores the role that the context plays in the interpretation of what people
say.” (p. 48)
Meyer also uses Stanley’s opinion in providing further explanation on to
Stanley Fish correctly observes, however, interpretation a sentence goes beyond
understanding its meaning at the level of grammar” (Meyer, 2009: 48).
In his book Pragmatics (1996), Yule states “Pragmatics is the study of
speaker meaning.” He elaborates it as follows: “Pragmatics is concerned with the
study of meaning as communicated by a speaker (or writer) and interpreted by a
listener (or reader)” (Yule, 1996: 4). Yule also adds “this type of study necessarily
involves the interpretation of what people mean in a particular context and how
the context influences what is said,”(Yule, 1996: 4). By adding this explanation,
Yule (1996) emphasizes that pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning.
In the same book, Yule also enunciates that “Pragmatics is the study of
how more gets communicated than is said,” (Yule, 1996: 4). According to him in
this study people investigate how lots of what is unuttered is recognized as part of
what is said. To make it clearer, Yule shows the distinctions among pragmatics,
syntax and semantics by stating as follows:
Syntaxis the study of the relationships between linguistic forms, how they are arranged and which sequences are well-formed.
Semantics is the study of the relationships between linguistics forms and entities in the world, that is, how words are literally connect to things.
Pragmaticsis the study of the relationships between linguistics forms and the users of those forms. (Yule, 1996: 4)
By stating this, Yule intends to shows that it is only in Pragmatics people discuss
the speakers’ intended meaning, their assumption, their purposes or goals while he
Based on the explanation above, we can take a conclusion that in
semantics we talk about words, how words have individual meaning (lexical
semantics) and how words can be used to refer to entities in the external world
(reference), for example the word “hand” in: second hand book (used), all hands
on the deck (all crew should be on the deck), and the city fell in the hand of the
enemy (control/power). While in pragmatics we study the meaning in social
context which means interpreting sentence beyond its meaning at the level of
grammar. It is more contextual, social, and many other aspects such as
psychological, etc.
b. Aspects of Pragmatics
Since in pragmatics we study the meaning in social context, the aspects of
pragmatics, will be reviewed in this section. The discussion will be on speech
acts, politeness, and implicature.
1) Speech Acts
When we produce utterances or sentences, we perform various “acts”.
Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) called them Speech Acts.
According to speech act theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1969), the performance of a speech act involves the performance of three types of acts: a locutionary act (the act of saying), an Illocutionary act (the performance of a particular language function by what is said), and a perlocutionary act (the achieving of some kind of effect on the addressee). (Ellis, 2008: 160)
In other words, the locutionary act is the literal meaning, the illocutionary
when we say: “It is cold in here,” the locutionary act ( the literal meaning) is
merely that it is cold in here, the illocutionary act (the social function) might mean
turn off the air conditioner, and the perlocutionary act (the effect) is whether or
not someone turns off the air conditioner. However, Levinson (1983) suggests that
speech act is more to ‘illocutionary act’ as it is stated by Ellis: “Levinson (1983)
pointed out that the term ‘speech act’ is generally used to refer exclusively to
‘illocutionary act’ “ (Ellis, 2008: 160).
Yule (1996) gives a simple definition on Speech Acts as follows: “Actions
performed via utterances are generally called speech Acts,” (Yule, 1996: 47). It
means that people use utterances to act something. He explains further that speech
act commonly includes apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, and
request.
Speech Act also has classification. There are declarations, representatives,
expressives, directives, and commissives (Yule, 1996: 53-54). Declarations are
those kinds of speech act that change the world via their utterance. Some
examples of declaratives are Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife,
Judge: The defendant is proved guilty, and Referee: The winner is Mike Tyson.
The earth is flat; Chomsky didn’t write about peanuts; It was a warm sunny day,
these sentences are example of Representatives, because the sentences state what
the speaker believes to be the case or not. Expressives state what the speaker feels,
for examples: I am really sorry! Or Congratulations! While directives are used
The last one, commissives are those kinds of speech acts that the speaker uses to
commit themselvesto some future action, for example: I’ll be back.
On the other hand, Meyer mentions that “A speech act can be explicit or
implicit, direct or indirect, and literal or non literal” (Meyer, 2009: 50), and he
emphasizes that indirect indicates politeness:
Indirect in English is very closely associated with politeness, since issuing a directive requires various strategies for mitigating the act of trying to get someone to do something, an act that can be considered impolite if not appropriately stated. (Meyer, 2009: 53).
To give a distinction between direct and indirect here, Searle, as it is stated
by Ellis (2008: 160), distinguishes ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ speech acts.
In a direct speech act, there is a transparent relationship between form and function, as when an imperative is used to perform a request (for example, ‘pass me the salt’). In an indirect speech act, the illocutionary force of the act is not derivable from the surface structure (Ellis, 2008: 161).
In short, we can summarize that speech acts is dealing with how people
express themselves through the utterances they are producing. Meaning to say,
when they are producing utterances they are not simply making grammatical
structures and words, but they are performing actions.
2) Politeness
One important aspect people consider in using language as means of
communication is politeness. Brown and Levinson (1987: 60-1) argues that
“politeness in language is centered around the notion of face-‘the public self
-image that every member wants to claim for himself’- and the efforts made by
Face-Threatening Act (FTA), “an utterance that undermines the tacit understanding that
all language should preserve face” (Meyer, 2008: 62).
Ellis also suggests that politeness is other consideration of a secondary
nature that enters into speech act performance.
Speakers have to take account of their relationship with the addressee and the degree of imposition imposed by the illocution and its propositional content in order to ensure that harmonious social relations between the speakers are not endangered. (Ellis, 2008: 161)
Concerning with this politeness, as also written by Ellis (2008: 161) a
model of politeness was proposed by Brown and Levinson, “Brown and Levinson
(1978) have developed a model of politeness, in which they distinguished a
number ofoptions or ‘strategies’ to the speaker.”
Figure 2.1.A schematic representation of Brown and Levinson’s (1978)politeness model(Ellis,2008:162)
Brown and Levinson propose that firstly, the speaker can choose to
perform the act or not to perform it. If the act is performed, it can be ‘off-record’
(i.e. performed in such a way that it can be ignored by the addressee) or ‘on
-record’. On-record act can be ‘badly on-record’ (i.e. performed by means of a
form of a ‘positive strategy’ or a ‘negative strategy’. The form of a positive
strategy involves some kinds of attempt to establish solidarity with the addressee
by emphasizing commonality, while the form of a negative strategy involves
performing the act in such a way that difference is shown to the hearer-the aim is
to give the hearer a way out of compliance with the act.
However, this “Politeness” proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) has
been opposed by some researchers as it is also stated by Richard J. Watts (2005).
Immediately after reprint in 1987 opposition was raised against Brown and Levinson’s conceptualization of politeness as the realization of face threat mitigation. Their approach did not seem to account for ways in which
politeness had been understood in the English-speaking world prior to the late twentieth century, nor did it seem to account for ways in which related
lexemes in other languages were used to refer to equivalent aspect of social behavior. (Watts, 2005: xi )
Most of the researchers are questioning the Universality of Politeness proposed by
Brown and Levinson, as it is clearly mentioned by Watts: “The Universality of
Politeness was opposed as in Politeness in a Non-Western Cultural Setting by
Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Sachiko Ide and Florian Coulness” (Watts, 2005: xiii).
Meaning to say the FTA is not always the same between the western countries and
Non- western Cultural setting. Further, Watts suggests that it is not enough to only
focus on pragmatic well-formedness when we talk about politeness. “In studying
politeness, we are automatically studying social interaction and the appropriacy of
certain modes of behavior in accordance with socio-cultural conventions”(Watts,
2005: 6).
Fraser (1990) introduces “the conversational-contract view”. In this
such as distribution of power, goals and intentions of the conversational partners
when the interaction takes place.
During the course of time, or because of a change in the context, there is possibility for a renegotiation of the conversational contract: the two parties may readjust what rights and what obligations they hold towards each other (Fraser, 1990: 232)
That is why Watts suggests: “Politeness is thus a dynamic concept, always open to
adaptation and change in any group, in any age, and, indeed, at any moment of
time” (Watts, 2005: 11).
Referring to the discussion above, we can draw a conclusion that
politeness is not as universal as Brown and Levinson suggest, for it always deals
with the variety of social characteristic that exist in each group of people from
every part of the world which makes politeness such a dynamic concept.
Politeness also can never be separated from the conversational contract as it is
suggested by Fraser.
3) Implicature
The notion of implicature was introduced by Grice (1975): “Implicature is
the conveyed meaning of the speaker” (Grice, 1975: 43). The word implicature is
derived from the verb implicate and the related nouns implicature (cf. implying)
andimplicatum (cf. what is implied) (page 44).Grice proposes that there is often
prevalent different meaning between “what is said” and “what is meant”. Meaning
to say, the conveyed or implied meaning brings about the process in which the
hearers manage to understand the difference between what is uttered and what is
contextual factors, and shared background understanding of the participants. The
interpretation process is also influenced by the features of the speaker’s utterance.
Yule (1996: 35) states: “Implicature is an additional conveyed meaning,
that something must be more than just what the word means.” He gives an
example as follows:
Charlene : I hope you brought the bread and the cheese.
Dexter : Ah, I brought the bread. (Yule, 1996: 40)
In the example above, Yule would like to show that there must be something that
Dexter intends to convey by not mentioning the cheese and this additional
conveyed meaning which is not literally said belongs to implicature.
Grice suggests there are two types of implicature, namely conventional
implicature and conversational implicature. Conventional implicature happens
when the conventional meaning of the word used determines what is being
implicated (Grice, 1975: 44), for example: “He is an Englishman; he is, therefore,
brave.” In this sentence, its implication is based on the conventional meaning of
therefore, which is the logical result of something that has just been mentioned,
namely He is an Englishman.
Yule also elaborates more about the Conventional implicature. He explains
further that: “Conventional implicature are not based on the Cooperative Principle
and the maxims and do not depend on special contexts for their interpretation,”
(Yule, 1996: 45). He mentions that the Conventional implicature are those
commonly associated with certain words that result in additional conveyed
meaning. According to him, those words can be: but (showing contrast), even
expected to be different). So, the Conventional implicature do not depend on the
special context but on the words which conventionally interpreted.
On the other hand, the Conversational implicature deals with the context
and the shared background knowledge of the speakers (Grice, 1975: 50). One
example for conversational implicature is as follows:
A: I am out of petrol.
B: There is a garage round the corner
B implicates that the garage is, or at least maybe open, and the answer for A, etc. (adopted from Grice, 1975: 51)
Another example of conversational implicature is the one which is commonly
known as “Pope Question” because it is given as a response to another question to
which the answer supposedly means to be “Obviously!” as in the situation as
follows:
Mike is trying to find an apartment in New York City. He just looked at a place and is telling his friend Jane about it.
Jane : “Is the rent high?”
From the example above, it is clear that the conversational implicature
violate the Cooperative Principle proposed by Grice himself (Meyer, 2009: 55)
that consists of four maxims: quantity (conciseness), quality (truthfulness),
relation (be relevant), and manner (clearness and unambiguousness ). This is
possible, the speakers needs to observe these maxims, however maxims are not
rules but guidelines as he stated as follows:
I have stated my maxims as if this purpose were a maximally effective exchange of information; this specification is, of course, too narrow, and the scheme needs to be generalized to allow for such general purposes as
influencing or directing the actions of others. (Grice, 1975: 47)
In other words, even though conversation observes cooperation, Grice
himself suggests that sometimes speaker can deliberately violate a maxim in order
to imply more than is said using implicature (Grice, 1975: 49). As Meyer also
cites: “When a maxim is violated (or flouted), a conversational implicature
results” (Meyer, 2008: 56)
Bouton (1988) also emphazises that a conversational implicature
commonly violate Principle of Cooperation and Maxims as follows:
In his now famous Principle of Cooperation and the related Maxims of Quality, Quantity, Relevance and Manner, Grice (1975, 1981) indicates that participants in a conversation in which the primary purpose is the exchange of information expect whatever a speaker says to be truthful, appropriately informative, relevant and clear. When as often happens, a speaker’s contribution seems on the surface to lack one or more of those characteristics, the other participants assume that they are expected to infer some other meaning that will meet the speaker’s obligations more completely. If they find such a meaning, they take that to be all or part of the message that the speaker intended to convey. This process, and the inferred message that result from it, is what Grice calls conversational implicature.(Bouton, 1988, Word Englishes vol. 7, p. 183)
According to Grice, conversational implicature (or Implicature as a
shorthand) possesses certain features. Firstly, it is cancellable, as it is clearly
principle (CP), it follows that a generalized conversational implicature can be
cancelled in a particular case” (Grice, 1975: 57). For example:
A: Mrs. X is an old bag.
( there is a moment of appalled silence )
B: The weather has been quite delightful thissummer, hasn’t it? B implicates that A’s remark should not be discussed.
(adopted from Grice, 1975: 54)
Secondly, it is non-detachable. By this Grice means that, as also cited by
Levinson (1983: 116), “the implicature is attached to the semantic content of what
is said, not to linguistic form, and therefore implicature cannot be detached from
an utterance simply by changing the words of the utterance for synonyms”. For
example:
“I cannot say more, my lips are sealed” (adapted from Grice, 1975: 49)
We cannot just change the word “sealed” into “fastened” or “locked”.
Thirdly, it is calculable. This means that” implicata are not part of the
meaning of the expressions to the employment of which they attach” (Grice, 1975:
58), meaning to say that: “the addressee would still be possible to make the
inference in question to preserve the assumption of cooperation principle”
(Levinson, 1983: 117).
Fourthly, the truth of implicature is not required by the truth of what is
said ( what is said may be true –what is implicated maybe false), the implicature
is not carried by what is said, but only by the saying of what is said or by putting
that way.
Finally, as it is elaborated by Levinson (1983: 118): “an expression with a
indeed on any one occasion the set of associated implicatures may not be exactly
determinable”. For example: “John’s a machine” (adapted from Levinson, 1983:
118). This can imply that John is cold, or efficient, or never stop working, or
many others.
Levinson states that implicature is one of the single most important ideas
in pragmatic (1983: 97). Some reasons behind his statement are that “implicature
seems to offer some significant functional explanations of linguistic fact, it also
provides some explicit account how it is possible to mean more than what actually
said, and it seems likely to affect substantial simplification in both the structure
and the content of semantic descriptions” (Levinson, 1983: 97 –98).
Levinson’s statement is also strengthened by Yule in his book as follows:
“For many linguists, the notion of implicature is one of the central concepts in
pragmatics,” (Yule, 1996: 46). Referring to what primarily the pragmatics dealing
with, an implicature is surely a prime notion of more being communicated than it
is literally uttered.
As a conclusion, we can say that implicature is the conveyed meaning
behind what is actually said, most of the time the conveyed meaning is not
literally uttered, and it is always contextual. Implicature also commonly occurs by
violating the principle cooperation and the Maxims. The effective use of
implicature needs such a similar background of knowledge on the context being
discussed possessed both by the speaker and the hearer. That is why when the
conversation happens between two people from different cultural backgrounds, a
takes an important role because having the characteristics of violating the
principle cooperation and the Maxims, even in the same cultural background
implicature is also open to the possibility of different interpretation.
3. Pragmatic Competence
Based on Ellis’ that “pragmatics is the study of how language is used in
communication” (Ellis, 2008: 975), Fromkin’s that “Pragmatics is concerned with
the interpretation of linguistic meaning in context” (Fromkinet el, 2003: 207) and
also according to Hymes (1972) that competence doesn’t only refer to knowledge
but also the ability to use it, so it can be concluded that Pragmatic Competence is
the ability to interpret language which is being used during the communication
contextually. In his glossary, Ellis writes: “Pragmatic competence consists of the
knowledge that the speaker-hearers use in order to engage in communication,
including how speech acts are successfully performed” (Ellis, 2008: 975).
Bachman (1990) suggests that language competence consists of
organizational and pragmatic competence. According to him, organizational
competence consists of grammatical competence, which is the understanding of
the structure of language, and textual competence, which is the ability to produce
texts, and what deals with pragmatic competence are illocutionary competence,
which is the relationships among signs, referents and language users and
sociolinguistic competence, which is the context of communication. So, based on
Bachman’s, ”Pragmatic competence is the knowledge of appropriate production
and comprehension of language in communication” (Bachman, 1990). The figure
Figure 2.2. Components of Bachman language competence (adapted from Bachman, 1990: 87)
Bialystok (1993) enunciates that although pragmatic competence deals with
the knowledge of rules, it includes the ability to apply the rules appropriately. It is
clearly mentioned in Bialystok’s definition as follows:
Pragmatic competence entails a variety of abilities concerned with the use and interpretation of language in context. It includes speakers’ ability to use language for different purposes – to request, to instruct, to effect change. It includes listener’s ability to get past the language and understand the speaker’s real intention, especially when these intentions are not directly conveyed in the forms – indirect requests, irony and sarcasm are some examples. It includes commands of the rules by which utterances are strung together to create discourse. (Bialystok, 1990: 43)
Viljamaa (2012) cited that Celce-Murcia and Olshtain (2000:20) propose
pragmatic competence as
From the definitions provided above, it can be concluded that pragmatic
competence is the ability to interpret meaning of utterances contextually based on
the knowledge possessed by the participants. It can also be concluded that the
knowledge of implicature (the ability to comprehend the speaker’s real intention)
is also part of pragmatic competence.
4. Pragmatic Failure
Due to the research question of the present study, it is also important to
know what is meant by what so called pragmatic failure. It is so because the study
is about the development of the students’ pragmatic competence. The expected
result is that there is a significant development, but there is also possibility that
the result is not as expected which means there is no significant development. In
this case, the pragmatic failure will be the crucial thing to be discussed about.
Thomas (1983) suggests that the term ‘pragmatic failure’ refers to the
inability to understand what is meant by what is said (page: 91). She says so based
on her understanding that pragmatic competence is the ability to use language
effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in
context (Thomas, 1983: 92). Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Olshtain (1986: 166)
also addthat: “pragmatic failure occurs when two speakers fail to understand each
other’s intention”.
Thomas divides this pragmatic failure into two areas or types, namely:
pragmalinguistic failure and sociopragmatic failure. Pragmalinguistic failure takes
place when the pragmatic force of a linguistic structure is different from that
pragmalinguistic failure has something to do with the linguistic form which might
be inappropriately transferred from L1 to L2. According to Thomas, this
pragmalinguistic failure is fairly easy to overcome because it is simply a question
of highly conventionalized usage which can be taught quite straight forwardly as
part of the grammar. Meanwhile, the sociopragmatic failure is much more
complicated to overcome, “Sociopragmatic failure involves the student’s beliefas
much as his/her knowledge of the language” (Thomas, 1983: 91).
She then elaborates deeper: “pragmatic failure is an area of cross-cultural
communication breakdown which has received very little attention from language
teachers” (1983: 91). Meaning to say, Thomas believes that language teachers
focus more on the linguistic forms and exposure less on the importance of
understanding any cultural differences between L1 and the target language which
in turns causes the cross-cultural communication breakdown.
Thomas emphasizes on cross-cultural matters because as aforementioned
that sociopragmatic failure involves the student’s belief which, ofcourse, this case
is closely related with the cultural background. Amaya (2008) explains further as
follows: “this sociopragmatic failure is more difficult to correct and overcome by
the students since this involves making changes in their own beliefs and value
system. In other words, when we learn any target language we do not merely learn
and acquire its linguistic form but also the cultural background of the target
language in order to be able to communicate properly using the target language,
“in order to interpret the force of an utterance in the way in which the speaker
