0

ENGLISH TEACHER’S PERCEPTION ON THE IMPORTANCE

OF PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE IN INDONESIAN

EFL CLASSROOM

By

SAEPUL APANDI

NIDN : 04113127703

UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH TANGERANG

2010

1

ENGLISH TEACHER’S PERCEPTION ON THE IMPORTANCE

OF PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE IN INDONESIAN

EFL CLASSROOM

A. Introduction

This research will highlight the perception of Indonesian experienced

English teachers upon the importance of pragmatic competence in Indonesian

EFL classroom setting. The underlying assumption of this research is that

Indonesian English teachers in general frequently ignore cultural aspect of

English as the target language being taught in the classroom. This sort of

ignorance undoubtedly brings about inappropriate use of language. In other

words, Indonesian English teachers do not posses appropriate pragmatic

competence. This research, as its title suggests, attempts to investigate how

English teachers perceive the cultural norms in English language teaching and

its relevance towards the development of students’ pragmatic competence.

English language educators across Indonesia (also across the globe)

agree that the sole aim of English language teaching (also other foreign

language teaching) is to equip students as language learner with language

knowledge that will enable them to engage in communication in the target

language. For many years, the main objective of studies on the learning of

English as a second language was to analyze linguistic competence. The main

reason for this was the teaching methodology used, in which grammar was

central to learning. But for some years now, the communicative approach to

2

second-language learning has put grammar-centered classes to one side and

fostered the use of pragmatics.

The traditional approach towards English language teaching in

Indonesia was heavily emphasized on the development of students’ mastery

on perceptive grammar. This kind of approach is believed to be less effective

in promoting students’ communicative competence. The new vision on

communicative competence in second-language learning has led many

researchers to define (for redefine) terms such as pragmatic competence,

communicative competence or interlanguage. Many of these researchers have

considered that pragmatic competence, as well as communicative

competence, can be defined as the learner’s ability to put into practice the

knowledge that he/she has of the target language in order to express

intensions, feelings, etc, and interpret those of the speakers.

The term “communicative competence” was first coined by Del

Hymes in 1972 to refer to learner’s ability to adapt language to communicate

with other people (Cook, 1993). Chomsky prefers to the term as “pragmatic

competence” to refer to the ability to know how language relates to situation

for any purpose the speakers intend (Chomsky 1980 in Cook 1993).

Language educators across the globe agree that to learn (also to acquire) a

second language requires more than a mastery of vocabulary, phonological

and syntactical knowledge. A complete mastery of second language

absolutely involves pragmatic competence –knowing how to use it

appropriately. This competence definitely requires a second language learner

3

to address, comprehend and internalize social and cultural norms related to

the proper language use. Thus, linguistic competence –the ability to produce

and understand grammatical, meaningful sentences -of a person can be

maximally utilized in communication provided that he/she has good

communicative competence- the ability to produce and understand the

sentences and utterances in socially appropriate ways.

To improve students’ communicative competence, language experts

such as Celce-Murcia, Thurrel and Dornyei (1995) introduce a teaching

approach in the perspective of communicative competence. This model of

teaching attempts to cater for our knowledge on the types of language

competence (and performance) that needs to be developed so that students (as

language learner) can have proper communicative competence. Early in 1980

Canal and Swain brought in a brilliant idea the structure of communicative

competence namely Grammatical Competence, Discourse Competence,

Sociolinguistic Competence, and Strategic Competence. The first competence

mentioned is what Canal and Swain (1980 as quoted in Brown 1987) refers to

as “knowledge of lexical items and rules of morphology, syntax, sentence

grammar, semantics and phonology. The second competence mentioned

refers to the psychological dimension of communicative competence to relate

sentences to each other to form larger units of discourse (written or spoken)

for the purpose of inferring meaning, or performing communicative acts, of

understanding the communicative functions of sentences (Munby 1988). The

third competence, Sociolinguistic competence, is defined by Savignon (1993)

4

as an understanding of social context in which communication takes place,

including role relationship, the shared knowledge of the participants and the

communicative purpose for their interaction. Lastly, Strategic competence is

what Van Dijk defines as the amalgamation of learner’s cognitive, language,

grammatical, discourse, cultural and rhetorical competence.

Pragmatic competence is not included in this four elements of

communicative competence as it emerges later. The notion of pragmatic

competence was extended from sociolinguistics concept. Pragmatists see it

necessary to further develop particular concepts of sociolinguistics such as

speech act and politeness, for example, into more specific nature that can

cater for problems in developing students’ communicative competence. The

master is further discussed in the following section.

B. Theoretical Framework of the study

The study on teachers’ perception on the importance of pragmatic

competence has not been found out yet, but research on pragmatic

competence itself has been given special attention within the last decade. The

following are several prominent researches on pragmatic competence whose

works become valuable sources in the current research on pragmatics.

In Rose, Kenneth and Kasper (2001) Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig

proposes a question whether there is a great necessity to provide instruction in

pragmatic competence. Bardovi-Harlig replies her own question by saying

“YES”. Her research is an investigation on discrepancy between native

5

speakers pragmatic competence and that of non native speakers. Her finding

suggest that foreign learners and teachers place greater importance on

grammatical development and have problems with social implicature. Part of

the problem here would appear to be the learners’ tendency to rely heavily on

bottom-up processing some of sing instead of utilizing the frame for socio

cultural interpretation.

Bardovi-Harlig’s research reveals some of the major factors

underlying the above phenomenon, including limited input (inappropriate

models from classroom discourse patterns and books which still focus more

on grammar), flawed instruction, level of proficiency and, of course, the

learners’ first language and culture. Bardovi-Harlig deliberately avoids the

question as to whether or not native speaker pragmatic norms should be the

target for learners even though these forms may flaunt their first culture

conventions and make them feel uncomfortable. The question is an important

one though as it is fundamental to the teaching aims of pragmatic

competence. Here, the concepts of Byram (1997) and Kramsch (1993) would

be a useful complement to the argumentation. They see target pragmatic

features as a means by which to understand one’s own cultural template

rather than an aim in themselves.

Gabriel Kasper (2001) addresses classroom research on interlanguage

pragmatics. She points out that although interlaguage pragmatic has had a big

influence on the foreign language classroom, pragmatics has not often been

the object of classroom research. The first type of research she mentions,

6

observational studies, has highlighted the shortcomings of the foreign

language classroom as a place to develop pragmatic competence. Kasper

mentions particularly the important role of the teacher as a mediator of

socialization processes but also knowledge the enormous variety in teaching

style which means that what the learner picks up from classroom interactions

may be very much pot luck. Kasper’s research findings confirm that

pragmatic development in a foreign language environment is more restricted

than in a second language environment. But all of this is based on the

assumption that the target is to acquire native speaker patterns of pragmatic

competence. Surely the foreign language classroom has a great value when

the aim is to gain insight into one’s own cultural template via target patterns

because the foreign language classroom has the collective ‘foreign’

perspective on the target culture which allows development of insight into

common (but different) value dimensions.

Kasper in her 1997 publication entitled “Can Pragmatic Competence

Be Taught?” organized by the University of Hawaii states that pragmatic

competence can not be taught. She clearly states that both linguistic and

pragmatic competence are not teachable. She further says that competence is

a type of knowledge that learner possess, develop, acquire, use or lose. The

challenge for foreign or second language teaching is whether we can arrange

learning opportunities in such a way that they benefit the development of

pragmatic competence in L2. Kasper, in accordance with other pragmatists,

7

strongly agree that in order to communicate successfully in a target language,

pragmatic competence in L2 must be reasonably well developed.

The notion of pragmatic competence was in a fact of concept extended

by Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1989) to enrich the theory of interlanguage. In

their discussion of Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) they identify five research

areas: (1) pragmatic comprehension; (2) production of linguistic action; (3)

development of pragmatic competence; (4) pragmatic transfer; (5)

communicative effect. The third research area gains more attention in recent

years as it is closely related to the development of target language mastery. In

recent development, pragmatic competence is enriched with the concept of

pragmatic routines. This concept is further realized with the theory of

acquisition-prompting routines as the initial gate to promote the proper use of

language.

C. Purpose of the Study

This study will document teachers’ perception on the importance of

the development of pragmatic competence in English as Foreign Language

(EFL) classroom. This study is carried out in an attempt to investigate not

only teachers’ perspective on English language teaching (in accordance with

the idea of pragmatic competence), but also their classroom experience. More

specifically, this study will explore how those English teachers put their

pragmatic knowledge in the classroom practice. The investigation on

8

teachers’ perception on pragmatic competence will be guided by the

following basic research guestions:

1. How do (experienced) English teachers perceive pragmatics and

its importance in developing students’ pragmatic competence?

2. How do they view the use of classroom English as an initial effort

to enhance students’ communicative competence?

3. How do they perceive the relation between pragmatic competence

and the use of classroom English in promoting acquisition-

prompting routines in Indonesian EFL classroom?

D. Methodology

1. Site and Respondent

The study has taken place at MTsN 33 Jakarta. We purposefully

choose three respondents (this is termed as purposive sample as discussed

in Al Wasilah 200, pp.105). The sole reason why we only select them is

because they are known as the most experienced teachers (also

remarkable teachers). Therefore, we highly assume that their long

teaching experience can provide a beneficial insight on how English

language teaching should be carried out. The initials of the respondents

are MTH, 43 years old with 15 years of teaching, MYA, 35 years old with

12 years of teaching experience, and MW, 34 years old with 13 years of

teaching experience. Hence they represent different origins as well, but

this study will not highlight the socio background of the respondents.

9

2. Researcher Role

As Cresswell (1994), Al Wasilah (2000) and Silverman (2005)

point out that in qualitative research the researcher serves to play the role

as the instrument. This results in the fact that the researchers are required

not only to adapt themselves to the will-be-scrutinized, but also utilize

their knowledge and experience in understanding the phenomena.

3. Data Collection Method

Data are collected from the questionnaire given to the three

respondents. To get a better insight on their perception on the issue, the

respondent will be interviewed. This interview is meant to clarify and

confirm the answers made by the respondents. The questions posed in the

interview are developed according to the concept (answers) presented by

the respondents in the questionnaire. The interview took around 20 – 30

minutes .

4. Data Analysis Method

In an attempt to make sense of data, proofreading the data in

multiple angles so that we can come up with the feasible relationship

among ideas, realities and outcomes. When those three aspects are

unfolded, we try to make a comparison between data gained from the

questionnaire and that of interview. Ideas obtained from the two data

10

sources are being categorized. The similarity and dissimilarity found in

data sources will be grouped.

In order to make sense of data, we will use categorical symbol

such as PC for “Pragmatic Competence”, CE for “Classroom English”,

and APR for “Acquisition-Prompting Routines”. This categorical

symbolization is expected to facilitate us in identifying ideas and concepts

unfolded in the data sources. When this symbolization is established, we

will give an attempt to further make sense of the data by arranging and

interpreting them in a way as meaningful as possible.

5. Research Findings and Conclusion

Teachers’ Perception on Pragmatic Competence

a. EFL Context-Based Perception

Pragmatic competence should be integrated to the EFL context in

Indonesian classroom although it can positively and negatively

contribute. Some terms in the scope of pragmatics such as implicature

and entailment has been found in curriculum of Junior High School. It

would be better if the pragmatic competence is integrated implicitly

during the practical classroom activity such as in practical

conversation.

11

b. Significant Features-Based Perception

- Speech Act

Speech act is a part of pragmatic competence that should be

transferred to the students. This feature should be highlighted by

the teachers during the teaching and learning process in the

classroom. The feature is mainly needed to avoid

misunderstanding in communication activity. By applying speech

act, students would be able to know how to produce appropriate

utterance associated with the hearers (participant), place and time

sequence.

- Politeness

The teacher stated his consciousness about the importance of the

concept politeness, indirectness and praising in the daily human

conversation. it can be compared from the way of how western an

eastern people state an utterance to be polite to each other. The

eastern society such as Indonesia state the utterance indirectly. On

the other hand, the western society states the polite utterance in

almost direct way.

Another feature was about giving and responding praising. As an

effect of the indirect way of stating utterance, the eastern people

were viewed as to be indirect in praising. Moreover, eastern

people such as China and Malaysia, was less accustomed to praise

others. When the western society has convention in responding

12

praising with the acceptance, the eastern, in contrast, society has

accustomed to respond to the praising with refusal or rejecting.

c. Experience-Based Perception

What has been experienced by the teachers related to pragmatic

has been found through their perception on pragmatic competence in

EFL context. Some of the data show there are some differences,

especially about their perspective on teaching English before and after

they know pragmatic field.

Some points can be highlighted from the interview are self-

confidence, interpersonal skill, communication in teaching process,

and classroom interaction, pragmatic would make the process of

communication and interaction effective related to the time and

situation being.

d. Other view on Pragmatic Competence

The data of interview shows that pragmatic competence should

be practically applied in daily communication and interaction so that

people become accustomed to employ pragmatic in their daily life.

Vocabulary, Phonology and syntax still took the important role

in communication inside the pragmatic competence, which can lead to

communicate effectively.

13

Teachers’ Perception on Classroom English

a. Positive contribution of Pragmatic Competence

Some data show finding about teacher’s perception about positive

contribution of pragmatic in classroom English. The teacher perceived

one skill that should be mastered by professional teacher (in relation

with classroom English) is the ability to interact with students.

Pragmatic would contribute positively to the teacher interpersonal skill

b. Negative contribution of Pragmatic Competence

Beside the teachers perceive that pragmatic competence positively

contributed to the classroom English, they also perceived that English

pragmatic competence also can possibly contribute negatively to the

students through interaction and communication in classroom English.

When the teacher is teaching English, he/she is usually neglecting the

native language (Indonesian) in the same time. The controversy is

about the norm that should be adapted related to the language we learn

about.

Teachers’ perception on Students’ Acquisition Prompting Routine

(APR) combined with Pragmatic Competence

a. Implicit pragmatic teaching

Teacher should teach pragmatic competence implicitly during their

teaching activity in the classroom. Explicit teaching on pragmatic in

14

relation with students’ APR in the classroom is not effective. It is

important to teach pragmatic implicitly in order to construct APR in

the classroom.

b. Directed to socio-culture competence

Another finding related to the teacher perception on pragmatic

competence in relation with APR is that, in APR, pragmatic

competence could be directed to build students’ socio-culture

competence. The pragmatic stuff is in the area of socio-culture.

Although an utterance with the correct grammar and pronunciation

linguistically correct), it can be possible that our utterance would not

be understandable for the native speaker. Our utterance might tot

represent our conveyed idea so that the native speaker would

misunderstand the meaning. The utterance “she is a clever student”

was grammatically correct, but “clever” could mean “tricky” according

to native speaker although the conveyed meaning was

“knowledgeable” or “talented”. So the conveyed meaning could not be

reached by the hearer.

c. Engagement and exposure

Some data show that engagement and exposure on pragmatic is very

important and appropriate for students APR in English. Homestay

program could be the solution to engage students in pragmatic

15

competence and speaking English. It was really suitable for APR. Less

exposure and routine is one of the failures of English education (in

Indonesia). So on the teacher’s view, routine and engagement are two

related elements which should be implied to gain pragmatic

competence in English among students.

Conclusion

The English teachers perceive that, by mean of its positive

contribution, pragmatic should be integrated into the EFL context in

Indonesia although in one case –the controversy between Indonesian and

English norm- can be negatively influenced. Speech act and politeness are

the two essential features perceived by the teachers to give most

contribution on teaching learning activity. The teachers also perceive that

pragmatic competence will rise up teachers’ consciousness of the

importance of effective communication activity and could build up

teachers’ self confidence and interpersonal skill. The teachers also

perceive that pragmatic competence should be virtually applied in daily

communication activity so that people become accustomed to employ

pragmatic in their daily life.

To the use of classroom English as an initial effort to enhance

students’ communicative competence, the teachers perceive that

pragmatics will contribute positively as the representation of one skill that

should be mastered by the professional teacher.; the ability to interact and

16

work together with their students. The contribution also includes how to

use English properly related to whom we are speaking to and the context

of place and time. On the other hand, one of the teachers perceives that

English pragmatic competence also can possibly contribute negatively by

mean of classroom English. We were studying English. We were in the

world of English and neglecting our language norm in the same time.

Finally, when the teachers perceive the relation between

pragmatic competence and promoting acquisition-prompting routines in

Indonesian EFL classroom, they emphasize the concept of implicitly

pragmatic teaching activity in the classroom. Socio-culture will be the

most relevant competence to be constructed through teaching pragmatics.

Besides, the concept of engagement and exposure on pragmatic are

perceived to be significant and suitable to promote acquisition prompting

routine for students during English language learning.

6. Significance of the Study

It is highly expected this study will amplify our awareness on

cultural values so that we can produce culturally appropriate language use

both in the classroom communication and English daily communication

outside school environment. In other words, this research is to promote

the proper use of English in Indonesian EFL classroom. This study, to the

best of our understanding, is expected to contribute to develop English

teachers’ professionalism in its trust sense.

17

References

Alwasilah, A.C. (2000). Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-Dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya

Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics.Oxford: Blackwell.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. ( Eds ). (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies (Vol. XXXI). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation

Brown, H.D. (1978). Principles of Languange Learning and Teaching. Eaglewood : Prentice Hall Inc.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cook, C. (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: the Macmillan Press Ltd.

Cresswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Ellis, R. (1994). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman.

Kramsch, Claire (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Munby, J. (1878). Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.

Rose, Kenneth, R. and Kasper, G. (2001).Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press.

Savignon, S. (1993). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom

Practise, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

18

Silvermann, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publication

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning In Interaction. Essex: Longman House Websites Address

Campillo, P. S. (2005). Third Language Learners: Pragmatics Production and Awareness. [Online]. Available:http://www.atlantisjournal.org/Paper/ 28_1/P. Salazar.pdf [17 may 2008]

Franch, P. B. (1998). On Pragmatic Transfer. [Online]. Available: http://www.uv.es/boup/PDF/Sell-98.pdf [ 17 May 2008 ].

Kasper, G. (1997). Can Pragmatisc Competence Be Taught ? In SecondLanguage Teaching and Curriculum Centre. [Online]. Available: http://www.nflrc.hawai.edu/NetWorks/NW06/ [17 May 2008]

Liu, S. (1998) New Perspectives of Pragmatics. [Online]. Available:http://www.gxnu.cm/personal/szliu/New%20Perspectives% [17 May 2008]

Spencer-Oatey, H. (1999). Intercultural Communication. [Online]. Available:http://209.15.42.137/ic.org.uk/publications/socio.pdf [ 17 May 2008]

Yates, L. (2004). “The Secret Rule of Language”: Tackling Pragmatics in theClassroom. [Online]. Available: http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au

Prospect_journal/volume_19_no_1/19_1_1_Yates.pdf [17 May 2008]

Zegarac, V., and Pennington, M.C. (1997). Pragmatics Transfer in InterculturalCommunication. [Online]. Available: http://www.vlad.tv/publicpdfs/ p2000-pragmatictransfer.pdf [17 May2008]