PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

Transcription

1 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 THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2015

2 TITLE PAGE 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 THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA 2015 i

3 APROVAL PAGES A THESIS THE STUDENTS PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE OF IMPLICATURE IN SPOKEN ENGLISH by Yoseph Widirahmaya Approved by F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D. Supervisor Yogyakarata, May 12, 2015 ii

4 A THESIS THE srudents, rragmattc competence Or rnnplrcatvre IN SPOKEN ENGLISH Chairperson Members 2.Dr. Fr. B. Alip, M. Pd, M.A. 3. Dr. J. Bismoko Yogyakarta, 11 August 2015 uate School Director

5 STATf,MENT OT ORIGINALMY '-. '/ This is to certi$r that all the ideas, phrases, and sentences, unless otherwise stated, are the ideas, phrases,.senterces of the thesis writer. The writer understands the full consequences including degree cancellation if he took somebody else's ideas, phrases, or sentences without a proper reference. May l2,20l iv

6 ILMIA H UN TUK KEP ENTINGAN AKADEMIS PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Yoseph Widirahmaya Nomor Mahasiswa : 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 Yoseph Widirahmaya v

7 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 Program and using the students as the subjects of the study. vi

8 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 to Erna 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! vii Yoseph Widirahmaya

9 This thesis is dedicated to: All my students One of the most amazing things in the world is when you learn something and become a better person viii

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE... i APROVAL PAGES... ii STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY... iv LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS... ix LIST OF FIGURES... xi LIST OF TABLES... xiii LIST OF GRAPHIC... xiv LIST OF APPENDICES... xv ABSTRACT... xvi 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 A. Theoretical Review Development Pragmatics ix

11 a. Definition of Pragmatics b. Aspects of Pragmatics ) Speech Acts ) Politeness ) Implicature Pragmatic Competence Pragmatic Failure Language Transfer B. Theoretical Framework CHAPTER III : METHODOLOGY A. Research Method B. Research Setting C. Research Instrument D. Data Collection E. Data Analysis Technique CHAPTER IV : THE RESULT AND THE DISCUSSION A. The Results of the Study The Overall Result The Group Result based on the pattern B. The Discussion CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION A. Conclusion B. Pedagogical Implications C. Recommendation for Further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY x

12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. A schematic representation of Brown and Levinson s (1978) Figure 2.2. Components of Bachman language competence (adapted from Bachman, 1990: 87) Figure 2.3: Null Hypothesis Figure 4.1: Null Hypothesis Figure 4.2: The significant level (α) Figure 4.3: The null hypothesis rejection condition Figure 4.4.The figure of overall result Figure 4.5.Figure Result test no Figure 4.6. Figure Result test no Figure 4.7. Figure Result test no Figure 4.8. Figure Result test no Figure 4.9. Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no xi

13 Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figuret Result test no Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no Figure Figure Result test no xii

14 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1.The blueprint of the test Table 3.2. The scoring of each answer Table 4.1. Descriptives Statistic Table 4.2. The Means differences Table 4.3. The Post Hoc Test Result Table 4.4. Answer Table Table 4.5. Result Patterns and Implicature Characteristics xiii

15 LIST OF GRAPH Graph 4.1.The pattern of the development of the students pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English xiv

16 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Pragmatic Competence in Implicature Multiple APPENDIX II The Multiple Choice Test Results APPENDIX III Level of Difficulty APPENDIX IV Statisics Result APPENDIX V The Letter of Consent xv

17 ABSTRACT Yoseph Widirahmaya 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. The data analysis showed there was a significant difference between the group means, but surprisingly the pattern of the development showed that it was decreasing. The second semester means was 32.83, the fourth semester means was 32.77, and the sixth semester means was In other words, there was a Pragmatic Failure occurred in the xvi

18 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 Thomas (1983): A Pragmatic Failure is usually connected with a cross-cultural communication breakdown. xvii

19 ABSTRAK Yoseph Widirahmaya 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. Hasil data analisis menunjukkan bahwa ada perbedaan signifikan, tetapi pola perkembangannya menunjukkan grafik yang menurun. Nilai rata-rata semester 2 adalah: 32.83, semester 4: 32.77, dan semester 6: Dengan kata lain, terjadi yang disebut Pragmatic Failure dalam proces belajar. Penulis mengusulkan beberapa gagasan yang mengarah pada proses di mana mahasiswa benar-benar masuk ke dalam latar belakang kebudayaan dari bahasa Inggris dalam proses belajar mereka. Gagasan-gagasan tersebut muncul berdasarkan theori Pragmatic Failure yang mengatakan bahwa menurut Thomas (1983): Pragmatic Failure pada umumnya berhubungan dengan kegagalan komunikasi antar budaya. xviii

20 TR ODUCTION PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI CHAPTER I : IN 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 technology, science, and commerce. As a consequence, English is learned in 1

21 2 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 of communicating using English, in this case, the pragmatic

22 3 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 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. Richards and Rodgers mention that at least there are three different theoretical

23 4 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 changes in 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 them together at the level of sentence and discourse. According to Bachman

24 5 (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, Aksornjarung, and Laohawiriyanon (2010) Pragmatic Competence in Request: A

25 6 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 Implicature in Spoken English, the study belongs to the Developmental Study.

26 7 The two most common research strategies applied are longitudinal and crosssectional 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 of implicature 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 main consideration of choosing the students of the English Language Education

27 8 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 Dharma University, to evaluate the content of the syllabus whether it has covered

28 9 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 (Chamb ers, 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-tomedium 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 development will be more on a good change as a result of short-to-medium

29 10 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 additional conveyed meaning, that something must be more than just what the

30 11 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 by the speaker.

31 TURE R EVIEW PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI CHAPTER II : LITERA 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 people and 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 development is a discourse (a set of idea) that actually shapes and frames 12

32 13 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 development as 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 and change or stability in sensory capacities, motor skills, and health. Cognitive

33 14 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: 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). 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 in kind, structure, or organization.

34 15 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 textualthat reflect the fact 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 as Semantics, 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 distinguish grammatical meaning from pragmatic meaning. He writes: as

35 16 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: Syntax is 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. Pragmatics is 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 or she is producing utterances.

36 17 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 hand s 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 act is the social function, and the perlocutionary act is the effect. So, for example

37 18 when we say: It is cold in here, the locutionary act ( the liter al 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 when the speaker wants someone else to do something, such as: don t touch that!

38 19 The last one, commissives are those kinds of speech acts that the speaker uses to commit themselves to 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 selfimage that every member wants to claim for himself - and the efforts made by interlocutors to maintain each other s face. They purpose the term a Face-

39 20 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 of options 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 onrecord. On-record act can be badly on-record (i.e. performed by means of a direct speech act) or it can involve a face-saving activity. The latter can take the

40 21 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) introdu ces the conversational-contract view. In this conversational-contract view, the conversational partners may readjust the factors

41 22 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) and implicatum (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 implied. The interpretation process involves assumptions, shared knowledge of

42 23 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 (showing contrary to the expectation), and yet (indicating the present situation is

43 24 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? Mike : Is the Pope Catholic? By giving question is the Pope Catholic? as a response to Jane s question Mike implicates obviously! (The Pope, of course, is always Catholic.) (adopted from Rover, 2005: 124) 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 because according to Grice, in order to make the conversation as cooperative as

44 25 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 mentioned by Grice: since it is possible to opt out of the observation of this

45 26 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 this summer, 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 single meaning can give rise to different implicatures on different occasions, and

46 27 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 cross-cultural understanding is very prominent. The cross-cultural understanding

47 28 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 (Fromkin et 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 below shows Bachman s language competence components:

48 29 Language Competence Organizational Competence Pragmatic Competence Grammatical Textual Illocutionary Sociolinguistic Competence Competence Competence Competence 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 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.

49 30 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 add that: 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 normally assigned to it by a native speaker (Amaya, 2008: 13). In other words,

50 31 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 belief as 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, of course, 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 intended, the hearer must take into account both contextual and linguistic cues.

51 32 Often, context alone will determine what force is assigned to an utterance, (Thomas, 1983: 99). The cross-cultural understanding holds an important part in avoiding the sociopragmatic failure. Amaya (2008: 14) mentions that this failure/error has its origin in pragmatic transfer. Amaya has this statement based on Kasper s statement,..pragmatic transfer in interlanguage pragmatics shall refer to the influence exerted by learners pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production and learning of L2 pragmatic information (1992: 207). 5. Language Transfer In second language acquisition field, the term of language transfer is often used. The working definition of transfer proposed by Odlin (1989: 27) is as follows: Transfer is the influence resulting from similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired. L 1 transfer, according to Ellis (2008: 969), occurs when the influence results from the learner s mother tongue and there are two types of transfer, namely: borrowing transfer and substratum transfer. What is meant by borrowing transfer is when the L2 influences the L1, while when the L1 influences the L2 it is called substratum transfer. According to the behaviorist theories of language learning (Ellis, 2008: 349), the main impediment to learning is interference from prior knowledge. That is why there are what so called positive transfer and negative transfer. The similarities between the L1 and the target language can facilitate the L2

52 33 acquisition and this is the positive transfer. The differences can cause errors and avoidance, this is the negative transfer. Although Oldin (2004) comments that the problems relating to crosslinguistic influence are so varied and so complex that it does not exist any really detailed theory of language transfer (p.475), Ellis (2008: 397) tries to identify some of the key elements that a cognitive theory of transfer will need to incorporate. The key elements are: 1) Transfer occurs in both communication and in learning. In this part, Ellis emphasizes that a theory of language transfer needs to explain transfer in both L2 communication and transfer in L1 learning and the relationship between them. Ellis quoted Ringbom s claim on the relationship between transfer in communication and learning as follows: Transfer in communication is motivated by the learner s desire to comprehend or produce messages, but it may also have an effect on the process of hypothesis construction and testing, which many scholars see as central to interlanguage development. In other words, transfer in communication may lead to transfer in learning. (Ringbom, 1992: 106) Using Ringbom s claim, Ellis takes a conclusion that transfer in production can also contribute significantly to interlanguage development. 2) Transfer arises as a result of both differences and similarities between the target language and the L1. Based on Kleinmann (1978) s and Major and Kim (1996) s studies, Ellis draws the second key element that transfer arises as a result of both differences and similarities between the target language and the L1. This conclusion is also strengthened by Ringbom (2007) who states: transfer can take place as a result of

53 34 both difference between and similarities with the target language and that it is similarity that is the more important. 3) Transfer works in conjunction with other factors. It is already clear that transfer always works in conjunction with other factors. 4) Transfer is both a conscious and subconscious process. Although some studies done by Krashen (1983), Schac hter (1983), and Mohle and Raupach (1989) have different position on how deep transfer play role in acquisition ( a subconscious process ) and in learning (a conscious process), but basically it is mentioned that transfer is both a conscious and subconscious process. 5) Transfer is both conceptual and linguistic. The two issues arise for a theory of L2 acquisition that incorporates transfer. 6) Transfer is ultimately a subjective phenomenon. This key element is strengthened by the studies done by Lado (1957) and Odlin (2003). The most important conclusion in the study of transfer is that no theory of L2 use or acquisition can be complete without an account of L1 transfer (Ellis, 2008: 402). Meaning to say, L1 transfer holds a significant role in the L2 acquisition.

54 35 B. Theoretical Framework This part presents the framework used in the present study. It is to connect and give logical explanation in answering the research question theoretically. There are some important aspects contained in the research question. The research question is: Is there any significant development of the students pragmatic competence of implicature in Spoken English? First, it is the development. As it is explained in the previous sub chapter, what is meant by the development here is a good change or 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. Since the preset study is cross-sectional study in which the researcher investigates the pragmatic competence in implicature of the second semester, the fourth semester, and the sixth semester students of English Language Education Study Program, the researcher is intended to investigate if there is a significant development or, in this case, significant quantitative difference in the result of the Discourse Complement Test given between each level of the semester aforementioned. Referring to the definition of development used in the present study, the quantitative difference is supposed to be a good one or an improvement from the lower level to the higher level. The other aspect is the students pragmatic competence. The pragmatic competence being investigated in the present study is specifically the ability to interpreting the meaning in social context which means interpreting sentence

55 36 beyond its meaning at the level of the grammar. That is why it is not the ability to produce utterances being investigated in the present study, but more to interpret or understand the utterances given in context in the DCTs provided. There are some aspects in the pragmatics. However, present study also only focuses on the implicature: the additional conveyed meaning, that something must be more than just what the word mean (Yule, 1996: 35). The researcher focuses only on the notion of implicature because according to Yule, the notion of implicature is one of the central concepts in pragmatics (1996: 46), beside it is more interesting because interpreting what is meant by what is literally uttered involves background of knowledge and cultural backgrounds of the speakers, especially for learning second language. The null hypothesis of the present study is that nothing interesting is happening or there is no significant difference between the group means. H 0 : µ 1 = µ 2 = µ 3 Figure 2.3: Null Hypothesis The null hypothesis is that the means of the implicature multiple-choice test result between the second semester students, the fourth semester students, and the sixth semester students are more or less equal or do not show a significant difference. The research hypothesis is there is no significant development of the students pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English. It is predicted that the means between groups are more or less equal. The prediction is drawn inductively from most of the related studies on the pragmatic competence already mentioned in the Problem Identification ( Chapter I: page 5-6) that show the

56 37 Pragmatic Competence is relatively more difficult to improve comparing the Organizational Competence in SLA, the result of Kasper s study (1997) Can Pragmatic Competence be taught? with the answer is No as the conclusion, and the pragmatic failure theory by Thomas (1983) in which Thomas believes that in many cases 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.

57 OLOGY PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI CHAPTER III : METHOD METHODOLOGY This chapter discusses the methodology and procedure employed in the study. It consists of five sections. They are (a) Research method, (b) Research setting, (c) Research instrument, (d) Data collection, and (e) Data analysis technique. The first subchapter presents the research method used in the study. The second subchapter discusses the nature of the data. The third subchapter provides the discussion on the research instrument. The fourth subchapter is about the data collection. The fifth subchapter talks about the data analysis technique of the study. A. Research Method The present study, which aims to find the answer of this study: Is there any significant difference in the pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English among students with different length of study?, is a developmental study. There are two types of developmental study, namely longitudinal study and crosssectional study ( Ellis, 2008: 163). Ellis explains that longitudinal studies are clearly desirable for plotting developmental pattern, as they are enable change to be analyzed in a single learner at the micro level. The consequences are beside they are very time consuming, there is the danger that repeated observation or interviewing will influence the learner s behavior (ibid). Cross -sectional studies, on the other hand, can be conducted quickly and can compare groups of learners 38

58 39 with different levels. The weaknesses of cross-sectional study are they do not permit the analysis of causal relationship and cannot chart individual differences in development over time (ibid). Papalia (2003) also mentions as follows: Crosssectional study is a study design in which people of different ages (stages) are assessed on one occasion (page 53). Due to the limited time, despites the weakness of cross-sectional study, the present study was conducted as a crosssectional study. The present study compared groups of learners with different levels on one occasion. The present study is a quantitative research because it will find the answer based on some numerical data. Grix (2004) m entions Quantitative research is predominantly with quantity and quantifying (Grix, 2 004: 32). The present study used the quantitative technique because the researcher believed that the exact numerical data is more accountable to describe the students pragmatic competence in implicature. This belief was also based on Neuman s (2000) statement which is cited by Grix as follows: this technique produces precise numerical information which can be understood as the empirical representation of the (abstract) concepts (Grix, 2004: 117). The present study was conducted using quantitative technique as it was aimed to give description on the sample without giving any treatment to the sample. The technique was chosen also based on Creswell s (2003) definition about the technique, A survey design provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population (Creswell, 2003: 153). Gall (2007) adds that quantitative

59 40 researchers attempt to discover something about a large group of individuals by studying a much smaller group (Galls, 2007: 166). Based on the definitions above, the researcher used the quantitative analysis in conducting the present study. Some conditions taken into consideration were, firstly the present study was supposed to give a description on the students pragmatic competence in Implicature which can be seen through the exact numerical data. Secondly the present study which described the students pragmatic competence in the notion of implicature was done on a sample of small group of students without giving any treatment before. The numerical data was taken through a multiple choice Discourse Completion Tasks. The multiple choice DCTs being used will be discussed in the research instrument section. B. Research Setting As it is already stated above that Quantitative researchers attempt to discover something about a large group of individuals by studying a much smaller group (Gall, 200 7: 166), the researcher conducted the study in Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, with the students of the English Language Education Study Program as the participants. So, the population was the students who were preparing themselves in finishing their undergraduate in English Language Education. Based on Gall s statement about the population validity as follows: To achieve good population validity, quantitative researchers must select the sample randomly from the defined population to which they wish to generalize their

60 41 result (Gall, 2007: 169), the researcher took the sample randomly without considering the students grades report, gender, and age. All the students of the English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University, were considered as members of the accessible population that have an equal chance of being selected. This consideration was also based on Creswell (2003) who suggests: I recommend selecting a random sample in which each individual in the population has an equal probability of being selected (a systematic or probabilistic sample) (Creswell, 2003: 156). Due to the limited time of the present study, the present study was not done through the piloting study. The present study directly took the sampling from the clusters. Since the present study was a developmental Cross-sectional study, the samples were taken from the second semester, the fourth semester, and the sixth semester on one occasion. From each semester there were only 30 participants results taken randomly. The researcher would like to investigate if there was a significant development in interpreting implicature commonly used in English language between those three levels of semesters, and therefore this made the study a cross sectional study. Concerning the ethical issues in conducting research, based on the Ethical Standards of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) which states: It is a paramount importance that educational researchers respect the rights, privacy, dignity, and sensitivities of their research populations and also the integrity of the institutions within which the research occurs. Educational researchers should be especially careful in working with children and other

61 42 vulnerable populations. (American Educational Research Association, 2002: 3), before collecting the data, the researcher consulted and asked the permission from the head of English Language Education Study Program, Sanata Dharma University, personally and through the letter of consent dated 14 May The letter of consent is attached in the appendixes. For the participants rights, the researcher ensured the participants had a complete understanding of the purpose and the methods to be used in the study by explaining to the participants before and after they did the implicature Multiple-choice DCTs. The researcher also gave a short explanation on implicature to the participant. In this present study, the researcher used numbers instead of the participants names due to the participants privacy. C. Research Instrument Concerning the research question which aims to see the students pragmatic competence, the research instrument being used was a multiple choice test. The researcher chose a multiple choice test because the researcher was not intend to investigate the students competence in producing or uttering implicature, but their competence in interpreting and understanding implicature in spoken English language. In conducting the research, the researcher did not create the multiple choice test by himself in order to be able to present the more authentic context. The assessment of pragmatics contains a tension between the construction of authentic assessment tasks and practicality; tests must

62 43 establish the social context of conversation and learner responses should be productive, but real world situation are difficult to stimulate and scoring by several human raters is often not possible. (McNamara and Roover, 2006: 54). The researcher also based on Kasper s (2000) statement as follows: Spoken interaction includes authentic discourse, elicited conversation and role-plays which produce oral data and allow the examination of various discourse features. Questionnaires, by contrast, include production and multiple choice questionnaires as well as scaled response instruments. (Kasper, 2000: 317) Based on this condition, the researcher decided to combine Roover s (2005) and Bouton s (1988) that have been proved to be valid, although the researcher provided the blueprint of the questionnaire to prove that the multiple choice test being used matched with the present study. One example of a multiple choice test is as follows: Susan and Mei-Ling are roommates and are getting ready to go to class together. Mei-Ling : Is it very cold out this morning? Susan : It s August. What is Susan saying? a. It ll be nice and warm today. Don t worry. b. Yes, even though it s August, it s very cold out. c. It s so warm for this time of year that it seems like August. d. Yes, we re sure having crazy weather, aren t we? ( adopted from Bouton, 1988: 194) From the example above, we can see that the multiple choice test consists of three parts. The first part is a situational description, the second part is a brief dialogue, and the last part contains question which requires the respondents to comprehend

63 44 the last turn of the dialogue and choose the most appropriate meaning (pragmatic comprehension). There were 20 numbers of multiple choice test being used in the present study, number 1 11 were adopted from Rover (2005) and number were adopted from Bouton (1988). The multiple choice test could be seen in Appendix 1. The blueprint was also made to see the content validity, as Hughes (1989) suggests the content validity of the test could also be determined by a blueprint (Hughes, 1989: 22). The following table will show the blueprint of the multiple choice test being used. Table 3.1.The blueprint of the test No. Implicature Characteristic Questionnaire number 1 Relevance 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 17 2 Pope Question (relevance) 6, 11, 13, 16, 3 Manner 1, 5, 10, 20 4 Quality 2, 9, 14 5 Quantity 15, 18, 19 The Multiple-choice test used can be seen in the Appendix I. D. Data Collection The data was collected separately for each semester level, and each level had the same length of time duration. The time duration given was 30 minutes. All the participants could manage to finish the Multiple-choice test in time. E. Data Analysis Technique

64 45 The data was analyzed using statistics because the study was a quantitative research. Gall (2007) mentions that statistics are mathematical techniques for analyzing numerical data to accomplish various purposes, and statistics are used in virtually all quantitative research, but in many qualitative as well (Gall, 2007: 125). The type of scores is continues scores, Continuous scores are values of a variable located on a continuum, rating from high to low level of the variable and along with there are an indefinite number of points at which score can occur (Gall, 2007: 130). Since the study was to see the students pragmatic competence, so the scale measurement was interval, competence is always interval, because everybody must have some competence (ibid). There were some steps in doing the data analysis. Firstly, the researcher distributed the multiple choice test to the participants. The participants response or answer to each statement was presented in the table of data frequency and data percentage. The scoring of each option in the multiple choice test was based on measurement which was used to measure a competence, the interval scale. The score criteria was partly adopted from the Cohen and Olshtain Communicative Ability Scales (Cohen, 1994) which was also used in Rover and Bouton s study, because the present study was only measuring the participants pragmatic competence in implicature through the Multiple-choice test while the Cohen and Olshtain Communicative Ability Scales was intended to measure almost all pragmatic competence aspects through Oral Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs).

65 46 The Cohen and Olshtain Communicative Ability Scales as follows: 0 = No answer Wrong answers Answer irrelevant to the given situation Answer which do not convey a speaker s intention at all or change the speaker s intention 1 = Acceptable answers which contain one or more of the following characteristics but still can convey the speaker correct meaning and intention: too much or too little information, grammatical or lexical errors impairing but not preventing the interlocutor understanding the meaning or intention of the utterance, too polite or rude linguistic expression. 2 = Appropriate answers which fully convey a speaker s correct meaning and intention and contain the following characteristics: proper amount of information, grammatical and lexical correctness or minor errors which do not affect the interlocutor s ability to understand the meaning or intention of the utterance, polite linguistic expression. Since the present study was only done using a Multiple-choice test in which the participants were not to produce linguistic expression and the language competence being measured was only implicature in which the possibility of misinterpretation can normally occur, the present study adopted the same score criteria, namely: 0, 1, 2 for different reasons. Zero (0) score was given because the participants did not choose any option given which meant the participants did not

66 47 show their competence. The score 1 was given to any incorrect answer, because although the participants answered incorrectly it did not mean that the participants did not have any competence, it only showed that the participant misinterpreted the implicature which was explained in the theoretical review that the possibility of implicature misinterpretation is always open. Whereas for any correct answer was scored 2. So, the scoring ranged from 0, 1, and 2. Table 3.2. The scoring of each answer No Score The meaning of the score 1 2 Any correct answer based on the implicature given in the context. 2 1 Any incorrect answer chosen by the participants 3 0 No option chosen by the respondents Then, all the data collected was analyzed mainly quantitatively using SPSS statistics for Windows so that the Means, the Standard Deviation, and minimum and maximum values of the scores could be seen. The data was analyzed using One-way ANOVA, because the researcher intended to determine if there were any significant differences between the means of three independent (unrelated) groups, namely the second semester students, the fourth semester students, and the sixth semester students. The next step was to determine which specific groups differed from each other. In this step, a post hoc test was applied. Finally, the result was deeply discussed based on the theoretical framework of the present study.

67 R ESU LT AND THE D ISCU SSION PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI CHAPTER IV : THE THE RESULT AND THE DISCUSSION This chapter provides the result of the study from the SPSS analysis in answering the research question and the discussion. The result is the collected data which was analyzed using One-way ANOVA to investigate whether there was any significant development of the students pragmatic competence in the notion of Implicature between the three groups, namely: the second semester students, the fourth semester students, and the sixth semester students. The discussion is the result being analyzed based on the theoretical review and the theoretical framework of the study. A. The Results of the Study To see whether there is a significant difference between groups, One-way ANOVA is usually used. The present study also applied One-way ANOVA to compare the means between the three groups to examine if there was a significant different between the groups. The null hypothesis is that nothing interesting is happening or there is no significant difference between the group means. H 0 : µ 1 = µ 2 = µ 3 Figure 4.1: Null Hypothesis 49

68 49 The null hypothesis states that the three groups, namely the second semester students, the fourth semester students, and the sixth semester students, give a relatively equal means result from the implicature test given. The alternative hypothesis will show that the population means are not all equal, which indicates there is a significant difference between the three group means. This does not have to mean that all three groups have different means, but it shows that at least one of the population means differs significantly from the others. This present study used the significant level (α) = (α) = 100% - the confidence interval = 100% - 95% = 0.05 Figure 4.2: The significant level (α) Since the present study examined three different groups and took 30 respondents for each groups, so the degree of freedom: df between = 2 and df within = 87. The F critical ( F table) which was taken from the table based on df between and df within of the present study was The significant level (α) and the F critical (table) are also important in determining whether there is a significant difference between the group means. The null hypothesis will be rejected if : F value F critical (table) and sig α Figure 4.3: The null hypothesis rejection condition

69 50 The present study compared the means of the three groups of students. Each group consists of 30 students, so overall the number of the students (N) is 90. All the 90 students had the same Implicature test in the same length of time duration which was 30 minutes, though each group did the test in different time because the data was collected during the class hour and the three groups came from different levels of semester. Then data analysis of the present study was done in the SPSS program. The result of the data analysis shows as follows: Table 4.1: Descriptives Statistic Score 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Std. Lower Upper N Mean Deviation Std. Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum second semester fourth semester sixth semester Total Table 4.1: Descriptives Statistic Table 4.1 shows that the means of the three groups. The second semester s mean is 32.83, the fourth semester s mean is 32.77, and the sixth semester s mean is This shows that the means are decreasing from the lower semester to the higher semester. It indicates that there is no development in the sense of a good change in the statistical numbers from the lower semester to the higher semester. To make the difference of the means between the three groups more clearly comprehensible the means can be displayed in a graph. The graph of the

70 51 means of the three groups can also represent as the pattern of the development of the students pragmatic competence of the implicature in spoken English that occurs. The graph is as follows: Graph 4.1.The pattern of the development of the students pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English. To analyze if there is a significant development of the students pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English, the following table from the One-Way ANOVA analysis is needed: Table 4.2: The Means differences Score Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups Within Groups Total

71 52 Table 4.2 shows that: F value = 6.832, and Sig.value = When the result was applied to the null hypothesis rejection condition (figure 5.3), the result of the study rejected the null hypothesis because: F value F critical ( ) and sig.value α ( ). Meaning to say, there is a significant difference between the three group means, or at least one of the population means differs significantly from the others. Since the result of the present study rejected the null hypothesis, the next step was conducted to determine which specific groups differed from each other. In this step, a post hoc test was applied. The post hoc test was also conducted using SPSS, it was a called Tukey HSD. The result of the post hoc test done is as follows: Table 4.3: The Post Hoc Test Result Multiple Comparisons Score Tukey HSD Mean 95% Confidence Interval (I) semester (J) semester Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound second semester fourth semester sixth semester * fourth semester second semester sixth semester * sixth semester second semester * fourth semester * *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. From table 4.3, it is clearly seen that the significant value between the second semester and the fourth semester is 0.995, which means the significant value is

72 53 higher than 0.05 ( = s α). It proves that there is no significant difference between the second semester and the fourth semester. While the significant value between the fourth semester and the sixth semester is 0.006, which is lower than 0,05 ( = sig α ). So, this proves that there is a significant difference between the fourth semester and the sixth semester. When we examine the difference between the second semester and the sixth semester, we can see from table 4.3 also that the significant value between the second semester and the sixth semester is 0.005, which is also lower than 0.05 ( = sig α). Again, this also proves that there is a significant difference between the second semester and the sixth semester. To summarize the result analysis above, the results show: 1) Between the second semester and the fourth semester as already metioned: the significant value is higher than 0.05 ( = s α) which proves that there is no significant difference between the second semester and the fourth semester. 2) Between the fourth semester and the sixth semester: is lower than 0,05 ( = sig α ). So, this proves that there is a significant difference between the fourth semester and the sixth semester. However, the significant difference here does not show an improvement or a good change. This is indicated from the Mean Difference ( sixth semester fourth semester = I J ) in table 5.3 = (minus),

73 54 which means that the sixth semester has lower mean value than the fourth semester. 3) Between the second semester and the sixth semester: it is lower than 0.05 ( = sig α) which also proves that there is a significant difference between the second semester and the sixth semester. Again, the significant difference here does not show an improvement or a good change either. Based on table 4.3, the Mean Difference between the second semester and the sixth semester = the sixth semester the second semester = ( minus ), which also means that the sixth semester has lower mean value than the second semester. Based on the result analysis above, the answer of the research question is YES, there is a significant different of the students pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English. However, surprisingly the pattern of the development showed that it was decreasing from the lower semester to the higher semester. To make the One-way ANOVA analysis above more tangible and clearly comprehensible, the overall result of the multiple choice Implicature test is also presented in a figure. The figure was taken from the overall result of the test from the second semester students, the fourth semester students, and the sixth semester students. The second semester students result was shown in a blue color, the fourth semester students result was shown in a red color, and the green color was for the sixth semester students result.

74 55 1. The Overall Result The chart of overall result of the multiple choice test shows as follows: Figure 4.4.The figure of overall result. The vertical line in the chart 4.1 shows the number of the students, and the horizontal line shows the question number in the multiple choice test given to the students. From the chart, we can see that in almost every number of the multiple-choice test does not show a significant development happens between the students of the second semester, the fourth semester, and the sixth semester students. For some numbers of the multiple choice test, namely number 3, 5, 9, 14, and 19, the result even shows a steep decrease number of the students who can answer the implicature multiple choice test correctly. Number 3, it is answered correctly by 26 students out of the 30 second semester students, 23 students out of the 30 fourth semester students, and 15 students out of the 30 sixth semester students. Number 5, it is answered correctly by 10 students out of the 30 second semester students, 6 students out of the 30 fourth semester students, and 3

75 56 students out of the 30 sixth semester students. Number 9, it is answered correctly by 11 students out of the 30 second semester students, 10 students out of the 30 fourth semester students, and 6 students out of the 30 sixth semester students. Number 14, it is answered correctly by 29 students out of the 30 second semester students, 28 students out of the 30 fourth semester students, and 27 students out of the 30 sixth semester students. Number 19, it is answered correctly by 16 students out of the 30 second semester students, 10 students out of the 30 fourth semester students, and 8 students out of the 30 sixth semester students. The only number that shows a significant development that happens between the second semester, the fourth semester, and the sixth semester is number 11. For this number of the implicature multiple test, which is the Pope Question (relevance) type of implicature that implies the yes, of course answer, 15 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 16 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 20 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. The other numbers show some diversity but none of them shows any significant development that happened from the lowest level (the second semester) to the highest level (the sixth semester). The analysis of each number will be presented as to make clearer description.

76 57 2. The Group Result based on the pattern In this sub topic, the group result based on the pattern will be presented. However, before the presentation of the group result based on the pattern, it is good to see the answer table. Table 4.4. Answer Table Question Semester 2 Semester 4 Semester 6 number Correct % Correct % Correct % Table 4.4. shows the number of students out of 30 participants from each group who interpreted the Multiple-choice test the same as the answer key and its percentage for each question number. From table 4.4. it also can be seen that each question number has different pattern of development. It is very interesting to see the pattern of development in each number and to analyze deeper the tendency that occurred based on the implicature characteristics.

77 58 The results showed there were 4 major different patterns, namely: decreasing ( ), increasing and then decreasing ( ), decreasing and then increasing ( ), and increasing ( ). The result of each multiple choice implicature test is presented in Groups based on the patterns as follows: a. Decreasing ( ) The Multiple-choice test numbers that showed the decreasing pattern are: 3. Jane notices that her co-worker Sam is dirty all over, he has holes in his pants, and scratches on his face and hands. Jane : What happened to you? Sam : I rode my bike to work. What does Sam probably mean? a. Today he finally got some exercise biking. b. He hurt himself biking. c. It s hard to get to work without a car. d. He enjoys biking. Figure 4.5.Figure Result test no.3

78 59 The correct answer is: B. He hurt himself biking. This type of implicature belongs to those which violates Maxims of Relevance (be relevant). 26 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 23 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 15 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result also clearly shows that there is no significant development, since it shows that the higher semester level the less number of students answered correctly. 5. Jose and Tanya are professors at a college. They are talking about a student, Derek. Jose : How do you like Derek s essay? Tanya : I thought it was well-typed. What does Tanya probably mean? a. She did not like Derek s essay. b. She likes if the student hand in their work type-written. c. She thought the topic Derek had chosen was interesting. d. She doesn t really remember Derek s essay. Figure 4.6. Figure Result test no. 5 The correct answer is: A. She did not like Derek s essay. This type of implicature belongs to those which violates Maxims of Manner (clearness and

79 60 unambiguousness), since Tanya did not answer clearly whether she liked it or not but she implied by her answer that Derek s essay was nothing more than it was well-type. 10 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 6 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 3 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result also indicates that there is no significant development, since just like the result of question number 1 it shows that the higher semester level the less number of students answered correctly. The other similarity is that both of these implicatures (number 1 and 5) belong to the implicature that violates the Maxims of Manner. 6. Maria and Frank are working on a class project together but they won t be able to finish it by the deadline. Maria : Do you think Dr. Gibson is going to lower our grade? Frank : Do fish swim? What does Frank probably mean? a. He thinks they should change the topic of their project. b. He thinks their grade will not be affected. c. He did not understand Maria s question. d. He thinks they will get a lower grade. Figure 4.7. Figure Result test no. 6

80 61 The correct answer is: D. He thinks they will get a lower grade. This type of implicature also belongs to those which violate Maxims of Relevance which is presented in what commonly known as Pope Question. 25 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 22 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 18 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result shows that there is also no significant development, from 25 students from the second semester that answered it correctly decreases to 22 students from the fourth semester, then decreases again to 18 students from the sixth semester. 4. Max and Julie are jogging together. Max Julie : Can we slow down a bit? I m all out of breath. : I m sure glad I don t smoke. What does Julie probably mean? a. She doesn t want to go slow down. b. She doesn t like the way Max s breath smells. c. She thinks Max is out of breath because he is a smoker. d. She is happy she stopped smoking. Figure 4.8. Figure Result test no. 8

81 62 The correct answer is: C. She thinks Max is out of breath because he is a smoker. This type of implicature also belongs to those which violates Maxims of Relevance (be relevant). 27 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 27 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 25 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result was grouped in the decreasing pattern. This result shows that there is also no significant development, because it does not show improvement from the second semester to the fourth semester, and then the number of the students who answered correctly decreases to 25 in the sixth semester. 9. At a recent party, there was a lot of singing and piano playing. At one point, Matt played the piano while Brian sang. Jill was not at the party but her friend Linda was. Jill : What did Brian sing? Linda : I don t know what he thought he was singing, but Matt was playing Yesterday. What does Linda probably mean? a. Brian sang very badly. b. She was only interested in Matt and didn t listen to Brian. c. Brian and Matt were not doing the same song. d. The song that Brian sang was Yesterday. Figure 4.9. Figure Result test no. 9

82 63 The correct answer is: A. Brian sang very badly. This type of implicature belongs to those which violate Maxims of Quality (truthfulness) in which the speaker does not express his answer honestly. 11 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 10 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 6 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result also indicates that there is also no significant development, because the number is declining from the lowest semester to the highest semester although the difference between the second semester and the fourth semester is only one but the difference between the second semester and the sixth semester is 5 students. 12. Two roommates are talking. One has just been talking on the telephone to a woman that he was going to take to see a play. David : Darn it! Mandy just broke our date for the play. Now I ve got two tickets for Saturday night and no one to go with. Mark : Hey, David. Have you ever met my sister? She is coming down to see me this weekend. What was Mark s reason for mentioning that his sister was coming? a. Mark is just thinking ahead to the weekend and can t remember whether David has met his sister or not. b. There is nothing Mark can do to help his friend, so he is mentioning a problem of his own. c. Mark is suggesting that it might be good for David to take Mark s sister to the party. d. Mark wants to make sure that David knows that the woman is talking about is not his sister.

83 64 Figure Figure Result test no. 12 The correct answer is: C. Mark is suggesting that it might be good for David to take Mark s sister to the party. This type of implicature is the violation of Relevance (be relevant) because the speaker is not answering the question relevantly. 28 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 28 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 20 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. The result of this number was also grouped into the decreasing one with the similar explanation as number 8. This result also proves that there is no significant development, because although the number of the students who answered correctly relatively high, especially in the second and fourth semesters (28 students each), but it declines to 20 students in the sixth semester. 14. Rob and Max are talking about their annoying friend, who always asks for help, Wilson. Rob : Wilson is going to borrow my car tomorrow, what do you think? Max : Don t feed the stray dog! What does Max probably mean? a. Max suggests pay attention only to Max s own dog. b. Max reminds Rob about the stray dog in the neighborhood. c. Once Rob helps Wilson, Wilson will always ask for a help.

84 65 d. Once Rob feeds the stray dog, Rob will regret it. Figure Figure Result test no. 14 The correct answer is: C. Once Rob helps Wilson, Wilson will always ask for a help. This type of implicature is the implicature that violates the Maxims of Quality (truthfulness), Max did not express his opinion honestly, he replied with a saying instead. 29 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 28 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 27 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result shows that there is a slight decrease that occurs from the lowest semester to the highest semester, so this cannot be considered as a significant development either. 16. A mother and her daughter Jenny have been discussing the upcoming weekend. Jenny s parents are leaving town and this is the first time Jenny has been left at home alone. Mother: Are you sure you can take care of yourself this weekend? Jenny : Can a duck swim, mother? What is the point of Jenny s question? a. She wants to make sure that all duck can swim. b. She is asking if she can go with her mother for the weekend. c. She is trying to change the subject because she is a bit nervous. d. She is telling that she will be able to take care of herself okay.

85 66 Figure Figure Result test no. 16 The correct answer is: D. She is telling that she will be able to take care of herself okay. This type of implicature is the Pope Question (relevance). 27 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 27 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 26 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result also cannot be considered as a significant development. Although the number of the students who answered correctly in all semester being tested is relatively high, but the number decreases 1 level in the sixth semester, so it does not show a significant development. 19. Brenda and Sally have lunch every Tuesday. As they meet on this particular day, Brenda stops, twirls like a fashion model, and the following dialogue occurs: Brenda : I just got a new dress. How do you like it? Sally : Well, there certainly are a lot of woman wearing it this year. When did you get it? How does Sally like Brenda s new dress? a. We can t tell from what she says. b. She thinks Brenda has good taste in clothes because she s right in style. c. She likes the dress, but too many women are wearing it. d. She doesn t like it.

86 67 Figure Figure Result test no. 19 The correct answer is: D. She doesn t like it. This type of implicature is that which violates the Maxims of Quantity (conciseness), Sally s response was too wordy and yet it did not express that she liked the dress. 16 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 10 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 8 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. It is clear from the chart that the result does not show any development at all. The result shows the decrease from 16 to 10 between the second semester and the fourth semester, and from 10 to 8 between the fourth semester and the sixth semester, which means it decreases 6 students between the second semester to the sixth semester. b. Increasing then decreasing ( ) The Multiple-choice test numbers that showed this increasing then decreasing results are as follows: 1. Jack is talking to his housemate Sarah about another housemate, Frank. Jack : Do you know where Frank is, Sarah? Sarah : Well, I heard music from his room earlier. What does Sarah probably mean?

87 68 a. Frank forgot to turn the music off. b. Frank s loud music bothers Sarah. c. Frank is probably in his room d. Sarah doesn t know where Frank is. Figure Figure Result test no. 1 The correct answer is C. Frank is probably in his room. This type of implicature belongs to those which violate Maxims of Manner (clearness and unambiguousness). 18 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 25 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 22 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result clearly shows that there is no significant development, since it shows that the higher semester level the less number of students answered correctly. 2. Toby and Ally are trying a new buffet restaurant in town. Toby is eating something but Ally can t decide what to have next. Ally : How do you like what you re having? Toby : Well, let s just say it s colorful. What does Toby probably mean? a. He thinks it is important for food to look appetizing. b. He thinks food should not contain artificial colors. c. He wants Ally to try something colorful. d. He does not like his food much.

88 69 Figure Figure Result test no. 2 The correct answer is D. He does not like his food much. This type of implicature belongs to those which violate Maxims of Quality (truthfulness). 7 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 19 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 9 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result clearly shows that there is no significant development, because although there is an increase in the number of students who answered correctly between the second semester and the fourth semester (from 7 to 19), but the number is falling down to 9 in the sixth semester. 4. Felicity is talking to her co-worker Brian during a coffee break. Felicity : So, life must be good for you. I heard you got a nice raise. Brian : This coffee is awfully thin. You d think they d at least give us decent coffee. What does Brian probably mean? a. He doesn t want to talk about how much money he makes. b. He likes his coffee strong. c. He is planning to complain about the coffee. d. He doesn t care very much about money.

89 70 Figure Figure Result test no. 4 The correct answer is: A. He doesn t want to talk about how much money he makes. This type of implicature also belongs to those which violates Maxims of Relevance (be relevant). 20 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 23 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 13 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result indicates that there is no significant development, since there is no difference of number students who answered correctly between semester 2 and 4 (both shows 23), then when it comes to the result of the sixth semester number is falling down to 13 students. 7. Carrie is a cashier in a grocery store. After work, she s talking to her friend Simon. Carrie : I guess I m getting old and ugly. Simon : What makes you say that? Carrie : The men are beginning to count their change. What does Carrie probably mean? a. She has given wrong change a number of times, so people count their change now. b. Male customers aren t admiring her anymore like they used to be. c. The store might lose business if she doesn t look good. d. It gets harder to give correct change as you get older.

90 71 Figure Figure Result test no. 7 The correct answer is: B. Male customers aren t admiring her anymore like they used to be. This type of implicature also belongs to those which violates Maxims of Relevance (be relevant). 13 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 16 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 9 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result shows that there is also no significant development, although the number of students who answered correctly increases from 13 to 16 between semester 2 and 4, the number is falling again to 9 when it shows what happens in the semester sixth. 10. Hilda is looking for a new job. She s having lunch with her friend John. John : So, how is the job search coming along? Hilda : This curry is really good, don t you think? What does Hilda probably mean? a. She is very close to finding a job. b. She is no longer looking for a job. c. She just found a job. d. Her job search isn t going very well.

91 72 Figure Figure Result test no. 10 The correct answer is: D. Her job search isn t going very well. This type of implicature also belongs to those which violates Maxims of Manner (clearness and unambiguousness) in which for some extend it can also be considered as the violation of Relevance because the speaker is not answering the question relevantly. 15 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 23 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 14 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result also shows that there is also no significant development, because although the number shows that there is an increase from 15 to 23 (from the second semester and the fourth semester), the number of the students who answered correctly is 14 (which is one level lower than the second semester). 15. Two friends are looking over the various kinds of food at an international supper and trying to decide which kinds to try. Nida : There are so many different kinds of food here that I can t decide which to take first. Which do you recommend? Trixie : So far I ve only had some of that one the yellow one with the reddish sauce. Certainly is colorful, isn t it?

92 73 Is Trixie recommending the dish to Nida? How do you know? a. No, because Trixie talked only about how the dish looked, not how it tasted. b. Yes, because dishes that are colorful and attractive usually taste good. c. No, because Trixie hasn t tried any other dishes to compare the colorful one. d. Yes, since Trixie mentioned the dish, we know she thinks it s good. Figure Figure Result test no. 15 The correct answer is: A. No, because Trixie talked only about how the dish looked, not how it tasted. This type of implicature is the implicature that violates the Maxims of Quantity (conciseness). 6 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 9 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 5 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result shows that there is a development that takes place between the second semester and the fourth semester (from 6 students to 9 students), however the number of the students who answered correctly decreases to 5 students in the sixth semester, so this also cannot be considered as a significant development. 17. When Abe got home, he found that his wife had to use a cane in order to walk. Abe : What happened to your leg?

93 74 Wife : I went jogging. Another way the wife could have said the same thing is a. Today I finally got some exercise jogging. b. I hurt it jogging. c. It s nothing serious. Don t worry about it! d. I hurt it doing something silly. Figure Figure Result test no. 17 The correct answer is: B. I hurt it jogging. This type of implicature is that which violates the Maxims of Relevance (be relevant). 16 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 20 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 16 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result also cannot be considered as a significant development. Although the number of the students who answered correctly increases from 16 to 20 between the second semester and the fourth semester, but it again decreases to 16 in the sixth semester, so it does not show a significant development. 20. Rogers is offered a new job with a much higher salary and he is telling Matt about it. Rogers : Wilson brothers offered me a job, and it s very well-paid. Matt : Don t take any wooden nickels!

94 75 What does Matt probably mean? a. Make sure that Wilson brothers pay with real money! b. Be wise! Don t be easily fooled by promises! c. Don t try to make up such a story to me! d. I am not interested to hear about it. Figure Figuret Result test no. 20 The correct answer is: B. Be wise! Don t be easily fooled by promises! This type of implicature is that which violates the Maxims of Manner (clearness and unambiguousness). 19 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 25 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 22 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. Although the chart shows that there is an increase in the number of the students who answered correctly from 19 to 25 between the second semester and the fourth semester, but the number decreases 3 level from 25 to 22 between the fourth semester and the sixth semester, so this result also does not show a real significant development. c. Decreasing then increasing ( ) The Multiple-choice test numbers that showed the decreasing then increasing results are as follows:

95 Two roommates are talking about what they are going to do during the summer. Fran : My mother wants me to stay home and entertain the relatives when they come to visit us at the beach. Joan : Do you have a lot of relatives? Fran : Does a dog have fleas? How can we best interpret Fran s commence? a. Fran thinks her relatives are boring. b. Fran doesn t have very many relatives. c. Fran does have a lot of relatives. d. Fran is asking Joan if a dog usually has fleas. Figure Figure Result test no. 13 The correct answer is: C. Fran does have a lot of relatives. This type of implicature is another example of Pope Question (relevance). 22 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 19 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 22 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result also does not show that there is a significant development, because the number of the students who answered correctly decreases from 22 to 19 from the second semester to the fourth semester. Although the number

96 77 increases in the sixth semester but it is not higher than the second semester, so it cannot be considered as a significant development. 18. Bill and Peter have been friends since they were children. They roomed together in college and travelled Europe together after graduation. Now friends have told Bill that they saw Peter dancing with Bill s wife while Bill was away on business. Billy : Peter knows how to be a really good friend, doesn t he? What does Billy probably mean? a. Peter is not acting the way a good friend should. b. Peter and Bill s wife are becoming really good friends while Bill is away. c. Peter is a good friend and so Bill can trust him. d. Nothing should be allowed to interfere with their friendship. Figure Figure Result test no. 18 The correct answer is: A. Peter is not acting the way a good friend should. This type of implicature is that which violates the Maxims of Quantity (conciseness) which also contains ironic feature. 15 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 12 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 14 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered correctly. This result also does not show a significant development. The number of the correct student decreases 3 students from 15 to 12 between the second semester and

97 78 the fourth semester and in the sixth semester the number only increases to 14, just one level lower than the second semester. d. Increasing ( ) The Multiple-choice test number that showed the increasing result pattern is only one number which is number 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? Mike : Is the Pope Catholic? What does Mike probably mean? a. He doesn t want to talk about the rent. b. The rent is high. c. The apartment is owned by the church. d. The rent isn t very high. Figure Figure Result test no. 11 The correct answer is: B. The rent is high. This type of implicature is Pope Question (relevance) that implies the yes, of course answer. 15 out of the 30 semester 2 students answered correctly, 16 out of the 30 semester 4 students answered correctly, and 20 out of the 30 semester 6 students answered