The Development of the students pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English.

133 

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Loading....

Teks penuh

(1)

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.

(2)

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

(3)

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.

(4)

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

(5)

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

(6)

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. _________________

(7)
(8)
(9)

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

(10)

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

(11)

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!

(12)

viii

This thesis is dedicated to:

All my students

One of the most amazing things in the world

is when you learn something and

(13)

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

(14)

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

(15)

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

(16)

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

(17)

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

(18)

xiv

LIST OF GRAPH

(19)

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

(20)

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.

(21)

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

(22)

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.

(23)

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

(24)

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

(25)

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.

(26)

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

(27)

(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,

(28)

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

(29)

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

(30)

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

(31)

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

(32)

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

(33)

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

(34)

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

(35)

‘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

(36)

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

(37)

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

(38)

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

(39)

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

(40)

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

(41)

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

(42)

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

(43)

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

(44)

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

(45)

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

(46)

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

(47)

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

(48)

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

(49)

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

(50)

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

(51)

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

(52)

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

(53)

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

Figur

Figure 2.1. A schematic representation of Brown and Levinson’s (1978) politenessmodel(Ellis,2008:162)
Figure 2 1 A schematic representation of Brown and Levinson s 1978 politenessmodel Ellis 2008 162 . View in document p.42
Figure 2.2. Components of Bachman language competence (adapted from Bachman, 1990: 87)
Figure 2 2 Components of Bachman language competence adapted from Bachman 1990 87 . View in document p.51
Figure 2.3: Null Hypothesis
Figure 2 3 Null Hypothesis. View in document p.58
Table 3.1.The blueprint of the test
Table 3 1 The blueprint of the test. View in document p.66
Table 3.2. The scoring of each answer
Table 3 2 The scoring of each answer. View in document p.69
Figure 4.2: The significant level (α)
Figure 4 2 The significant level . View in document p.71
Table 4.1: Descriptives Statistic
Table 4 1 Descriptives Statistic. View in document p.72
Table 4.2: The Means differences
Table 4 2 The Means differences. View in document p.73
Table 4.3: The Post Hoc Test Result
Table 4 3 The Post Hoc Test Result. View in document p.74
Figure 4.4.The figure of overall result.
Figure 4 4 The figure of overall result . View in document p.77
Table 4.4. Answer Table
Table 4 4 Answer Table. View in document p.79
Figure 4.5.Figure Result test no.3
Figure 4 5 Figure Result test no 3. View in document p.80
Figure 4.6. Figure Result test no. 5
Figure 4 6 Figure Result test no 5. View in document p.81
Figure 4.9. Figure Result test no. 9
Figure 4 9 Figure Result test no 9. View in document p.84
Figure 4.10. Figure Result test no. 12
Figure 4 10 Figure Result test no 12. View in document p.86
Figure 4.11. Figure Result test no. 14
Figure 4 11 Figure Result test no 14. View in document p.87
Figure 4.12. Figure Result test no. 16
Figure 4 12 Figure Result test no 16. View in document p.88
Figure 4.13. Figure Result test no. 19
Figure 4 13 Figure Result test no 19. View in document p.89
Figure 4.14. Figure Result test no. 1
Figure 4 14 Figure Result test no 1. View in document p.90
Figure 4.15. Figure Result test no. 2
Figure 4 15 Figure Result test no 2. View in document p.91
Figure 4.16. Figure Result test no. 4
Figure 4 16 Figure Result test no 4. View in document p.92
Figure 4.17. Figure Result test no. 7
Figure 4 17 Figure Result test no 7. View in document p.93
Figure 4.18. Figure Result test no. 10
Figure 4 18 Figure Result test no 10. View in document p.94
Figure 4.19. Figure Result test no. 15
Figure 4 19 Figure Result test no 15. View in document p.95
Figure 4.20. Figure Result test no. 17
Figure 4 20 Figure Result test no 17. View in document p.96
Figure 4.21. Figuret Result test no. 20
Figure 4 21 Figuret Result test no 20. View in document p.97
Figure 4.22. Figure Result test no. 13
Figure 4 22 Figure Result test no 13. View in document p.98
Figure 4.23. Figure Result test no. 18
Figure 4 23 Figure Result test no 18. View in document p.99
Figure 4.24. Figure Result test no. 11
Figure 4 24 Figure Result test no 11. View in document p.100
Table 4.5. Result Patterns and Implicature Characteristics
Table 4 5 Result Patterns and Implicature Characteristics. View in document p.101

Referensi

Memperbarui...