the effect of focus on form versus focus on forms …eprints.usm.my/30213/1/phd_thesis.pdf · 2016....
TRANSCRIPT
THE EFFECT OF ‘FOCUS ON FORM’ VERSUS
‘FOCUS ON FORMS’ PRAGMATIC
INSTRUCTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
PRAGMATIC COMPREHENSION
by
VAHID RAFIEYAN
Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
August 2014
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In the course of preparing this thesis, I benefited the support from those
whom I wish to acknowledge here. First and foremost I would like to thank God
whose strong will toward successful accomplishment of higher educational degrees
has been eternally bestowed upon my life.
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my thesis supervisors Dr. Lin
Siew Eng and Professor Dato’ Dr. Abdul Rashid Mohamed whose valuable
knowledge and guidance all through my PhD studies helped me sculpt my thesis in
the most stunning shape I could imagine.
My special thanks goes to Associate Professor Naoko Taguchi at Carnegie
Mellon University whose precious pragmatic comprehension tests helped with the
successful flow of the study and Khoo Mun Yee, Esther Hooi Chee Mei, and Lim
Mei Yin who helped with the data collection.
Last but not least I would like to express my earnest gratitude to my beloved
family; Ahmad Rafieyan, Khadijeh Mojadam, Saeid Rafieyan, Ali Rafieyan, Navid
Rafieyan, and Mohammad Rafieyan; whose sincere support, encouragement, and
concern toward my success all through my academic life in Malaysia helped to pave
the way toward higher educational achievements.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ viii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF APPENDICES ......................................................................................................x
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ............................................................................................... xi
ABSTRAK .......................................................................................................................... xii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... xiv
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................1
1.2 Background of the Study ..................................................................................1
1.3 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................7
1.4 Rationale for the Study ..................................................................................14
1.5 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................15
1.6 Objectives of the Study ..................................................................................16
1.7 Research Questions ........................................................................................16
1.8 Research Hypotheses .....................................................................................17
1.9 Significance of the Study ...............................................................................17
1.10 Scope of the Study .........................................................................................19
1.11 Operational Definition of the Terms ..............................................................19
1.12 Summary .......................................................................................................20
2 LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................21
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................21
2.2 Pragmatic Definition ......................................................................................21
2.2.1 Definitions for Pragmatics .................................................................22
2.2.2 Definitions for Pragmatic Competence ..............................................24
2.2.3 Definitions for Pragmatic Comprehension .........................................28
2.3 Studies on Pragmatic Comprehension ...........................................................30
iv
2.3.1 The Effect of Target Language Proficiency on Pragmatic
Comprehension ..................................................................................31
2.3.2 The Effect of Target Language Contact and Exposure on
Pragmatic Comprehension .................................................................33
2.3.3 Pragmatic Comprehension Ability .....................................................36
2.4 Studies on Pragmatic Instruction ...................................................................38
2.4.1 Studies which Resulted in No Effect for Pragmatic Instruction ........39
2.4.2 Studies which Resulted in the Positive Effect of both
Explicit and Implicit Form-Focused Pragmatic Instruction ...............41
2.4.3 Studies which Resulted in the Positive Effect of Explicit
Focus on Forms Pragmatic Instruction ..............................................49
2.4.4 Studies which Resulted in the Positive Effect of Implicit
Focus on Form Pragmatic Instruction ................................................55
2.5 Form-Focused Instruction ..............................................................................56
2.5.1 Focus on Form versus Focus on Forms ..............................................56
2.5.2 Types of Focus on Form ....................................................................58
2.5.3 Input Enhancement ............................................................................60
2.6 Relevance Theory ..........................................................................................62
2.6.1 Cognitive Environment ......................................................................63
2.6.2 Context ...............................................................................................63
2.6.3 Principle of Relevance .......................................................................64
2.6.4 Consistency with the Principle of Relevance .....................................65
2.6.5 Levels of Relevance ...........................................................................66
2.6.6 Descriptive and Interpretive Language Use .......................................67
2.6.7 Explicatures and Implicatures ............................................................67
2.7 Noticing Hypothesis .......................................................................................68
2.7.1 Levels of Consciousness ....................................................................68
2.7.2 Concept of Noticing Hypothesis ........................................................70
2.7.3 Versions of Noticing Hypothesis .......................................................71
2.7.4 Types of Noticing ..............................................................................71
2.7.5 Schmidt’s Own Experience ................................................................72
v
2.7.6 Factors Contributing to Noticing .......................................................72
2.7.7 Explicit versus Implicit Learning .......................................................74
2.8 Bachman’s Model of Communicative Competence ......................................75
2.8.1 Language Competence .......................................................................76
2.8.2 Strategic Competence ........................................................................80
2.8.3 Psychophysiological Mechanisms ....................................................81
2.9 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................82
2.9.1 Relevance Theory ..............................................................................82
2.9.2 Noticing Hypothesis ...........................................................................83
2.10 Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................84
2.11 Summary .......................................................................................................88
3 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................89
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................89
3.2 Research Design .............................................................................................89
3.3 Participants of the Study ................................................................................93
3.4 Research Instruments .....................................................................................95
3.4.1 Materials for the Study .......................................................................96
3.4.2 Pragmatic Comprehension Test .......................................................101
3.4.3 Interview Protocols ..........................................................................107
3.5 Pilot Study ....................................................................................................110
3.5.1 Reliability .........................................................................................110
3.5.2 Validity ............................................................................................113
3.5.3 Inter-rater Reliabity ..........................................................................115
3.6 Research Procedure ......................................................................................117
3.7 Data Analysis ...............................................................................................119
3.7.1 Pragmatic Comprehension Level .....................................................120
3.7.1(a) Determining the Cut Scores for Pragmatic
Comprehension Indicators ..............................................124
3.7.1(b) Development of Pragmatic Comprehension Indicators ...127
vi
3.7.2 Assessing the Effect of Pragmatic Instruction .................................131
3.7.3 Analysing Qualitative Data .............................................................136
3.8 Summary .....................................................................................................140
4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................142
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................142
4.2 Language Learners’ Level of Pragmatic Comprehension ............................143
4.2.1 Language Learners’ Level of Pragmatic
Comprehension in Pre-test ...............................................................144
4.2.2 Language Learners’ Level of Pragmatic
Comprehension in Post-test .............................................................145
4.2.3 Language Learners’ Level of Pragmatic
Comprehension in Follow-up Test ...................................................146
4.3 Assumptions for the Between-Within Subjects ANOVA
Conductive for Research Questions 2, 3, and 4 ...........................................148
4.3.1 Assumption of Independence of Observations ................................148
4.3.2 Assumption of Normality ................................................................149
4.3.3 Assumption of Homogeneity ...........................................................150
4.4 Effect of Form-Focused Instruction on Pragmatic Comprehension .............151
4.4.1 Comparing Experimental Groups with Control Group ....................152
4.4.1(a) Pragmatic Comprehension Performance for Pre-test .......153
4.4.1(b) Pragmatic Comprehension Performance for Post-test ......154
4.4.1(c) Pragmatic Comprehension Performance for Follow –up
Test ...................................................................................157
4.4.2 Qualitative Data ...............................................................................161
4.4.2(a) Advantages of Learning Implied Meaning .......................161
4.4.2(b) Disadvantages of Learning Implied Meaning .................164
4.5 The Most Effective and Sustainable Type of Instruction .............................166
4.5.1 Within-Subjects Comparison for Experimental Groups ..................167
4.5.1(a) Within-Subjects Comparison for Focus on Form
Group ................................................................................168
4.5.1(b) Within-Subjects Comparison for Focus on Forms
Group ...............................................................................172
vii
4.5.1(c) Comparing Focus on Form and Focus on Forms
Group ................................................................................175
4.5.2 Qualitative Data ...............................................................................177
4.4.2(a) Superiority of Focus on Form Instruction ........................177
4.4.2(b) Superiority of Focus on Forms Instruction ......................182
4.6 Discussion ...................................................................................................184
4.6.1 Language Learners’ Level of Pragmatic Comprehension ...............184
4.6.2 Effect of Instruction on Pragmatic Comprehension ........................189
4.6.3 The Most Effective Type of Instruction ..........................................194
4.6.4 The Most Sustainable Type of Instruction ......................................197
4.6 Summary .....................................................................................................201
5 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................202
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................202
5.2 Overview of the Study .................................................................................202
5.3 Restatement of the Objectives ......................................................................203
5.4 Synthesis of the Findings .............................................................................204
5.4.1 Language Learners’ Level of Pragmatic Comprehension ...............205
5.4.2 Effect of Instruction on Pragmatic Comprehension ........................205
5.4.3 The Most Effective Type of Instruction ..........................................206
5.4.4 The Most Sustainable Type of Instruction ......................................207
5.5 Pedagogical Implications of the Findings ....................................................208
5.6 Limitations of the Study ...............................................................................209
5.7 Recommendations for Stakeholders ............................................................211
5.8 Recommendations for Future Research ......................................................212
5.9 Summary .....................................................................................................214
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................215
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................235
viii
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
2.1 Levels of Relevance .................................................................................................66
3.1 Interpretation of Cohen’s Kappa Values ................................................................117
3.2 Descriptive Statistics for Pre-test ...........................................................................124
3.3 Cut Scores and Categories of Performers ..............................................................127
3.4 Literal Meaning Comprehension ..........................................................................128
3.5 Implied Meaning Comprehension ..........................................................................129
3.6 Pragmatic Comprehension Indicators ....................................................................130
3.7 Interpretation of Effect Size ...................................................................................135
3.8 Codes of Reference for Scores in the Database .....................................................139
3.9 Research Matrix .....................................................................................................141
4.1 Tests of Normality .................................................................................................149
4.2 Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances........................................................150
4.3 Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices .....................................................151
4.4 ANOVA for Pre-test ..............................................................................................153
4.5 ANOVA for Post-test ............................................................................................155
4.6 Post-hoc Test for Post-test ....................................................................................156
4.7 ANOVA for Follow-up Test .................................................................................158
4.8 Post-hoc Test for Follow-up Test ..........................................................................159
4.9 Advantages of Learning Implied Meaning ...........................................................162
4.10 Disadvantages of Learning Implied Meaning .......................................................165
4.11 Multivariate Tests for Focus on Form Group ........................................................169
4.12 Comparison of Tests for Focus on Form Group ...................................................170
4.13 Multivariate Tests for Focus on Forms Group ......................................................172
4.14 Comparison of Tests for Focus on Forms Group ..................................................173
4.15 Superiority of Focus on Form Instruction .............................................................178
4.16 Superiority of Focus on Forms Instruction ...........................................................182
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
2.1 Components of Communicative Language Ability..................................................76
2.2 Components of Language Competence ...................................................................77
2.3 Relevance Theory ....................................................................................................83
2.4 Noticing Hypothesis ................................................................................................84
2.5 Conceptual Framework ...........................................................................................87
3.1 Research Design .......................................................................................................92
3.2 The Relationship between z-Score Values and Locations in a Distribution ..........123
3.3 Cut Scores Based on z-Scores ................................................................................126
3.4 Experimental Groups versus Control Group ..........................................................132
3.5 Focus on Form Group versus Focus on Forms Group ...........................................133
4.1 Language Learners’ Level of Pragmatic Comprehension in Pre-test ....................145
4.2 Language Learners’ Level of Pragmatic Comprehension in Post-test ...................146
4.3 Language Learners’ Level of Pragmatic Comprehension in Follow-up Test ........147
4.4 Comparing Mean Scores of Pre-test for the Three Groups ....................................154
4.5 Comparing Mean Scores of Post-test for the Three Groups .................................157
4.6 Comparing Mean Scores of Follow-up Test for the Three Groups .......................160
4.7 Comparing Mean Scores of Three Tests for Focus on Form Group .....................171
4.8 Comparing Mean Scores of Three Tests for Focus on Forms Group ...................174
4.9 Comparing Mean Scores of Three Tests for Experimental Groups ......................176
x
LIST OF APPENDICES
PAGE
A Lesson Plan for the Focus on Forms Group ..........................................................235
B Lesson Plan for the Focus on Form Group ............................................................287
C Lesson Plan for the Control Group ........................................................................327
D Pragmatic Comprehension Test Used as Pre-test ..................................................377
E Pragmatic Comprehension Test Used as Post-test.................................................381
F Pragmatic Comprehension Test Used as Follow-up Test ......................................385
G Test Developer’s Consent ......................................................................................389
H Semi-Structured Interview .....................................................................................390
I Reliability Coefficient for Pre-test ........................................................................391
J Reliability Coefficient for Post-test .......................................................................392
K Reliability Coefficient for Follow-up Test ............................................................393
L Validity for Pragmatic Tests ..................................................................................394
M Validity for Interview Questions ...........................................................................395
N Inter-rater Reliability for Content Analysis ...........................................................396
O Inter-rater Reliability for Pre-test .........................................................................398
P Inter-rater Reliability for Post-test ........................................................................399
Q Inter-rater Reliability for Follow-up Test .............................................................400
xi
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
Rafieyan, V., Lin, S. E., & Abdul-Rashid, M. (2013). The Effect of Integrative
Attitude on the Development of Pragmatic Comprehension. Elixir Social
Studies, 57, 14041-14045.
Rafieyan, V., Norazman, A. M., & Lin, S. E. (2013). Relationship between Attitude
toward Target Language Culture Instruction and Pragmatic Comprehension
Development. English Language Teaching, 6(8), 125-132.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n8p125
Rafieyan, V., Lin, S. E., & Abdul-Rashid, M. (2013). Language Learners’ Attitudes
towards the Incorporation of Target Language Culture into Foreign Language
Instructions. International Journal of Linguistics, 5(4), 169-177.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v5i4.4193
Rafieyan, V., Orang, M., Bijami, M., Sharafi-Nejad, M., & Lin, S. E. (2014).
Language Learners’ Acculturation Attitudes. English Language Teaching,
7(1), 114-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n1p114
Rafieyan, V., Sharafi-Nejad, M., Khavari, Z., Lin, S. E., & Abdul-Rashid, M. (2014).
Pragmatic Comprehension Development through Telecollaboration. English
Language Teaching, 7(2), 11-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p11
Rafieyan, V., Sharafi-Nejad, M., Khavari, Z., Damavand, A., & Lin, S. E. (2014).
Relationship between Cultural Distance and Pragmatic Comprehension.
English Language Teaching, 7(2), 103-109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n2p103
Rafieyan, V., Sharafi-Nejad, M., & Lin, S. E. (2014). Effect of Pragmatic Instruction
on Sustainable Development of Pragmatic Awareness. Journal of Studies in
Education, 4(1), 206-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/jse.v4i1.5088
Rafieyan, V., Sharafi-Nejad, M., Damavand, A., Lin, S. E., & Abdul-Rashid, M.
(2014). Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Pragmatic
Awareness. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English
Literature, 3(4), 143-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.143
Rafieyan, V., Sharafi-Nejad, M., & Lin, S. E. (2014). Effect of Pragmatic Awareness
on Comprehension and Production of Conventional Expressions. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, 4(7), 1352-1358. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.7.1352-1358
Rafieyan, V., Sharafi-Nejad, M., & Lin, S. E. (2014). Effect of Form-Focused
Pragmatic Instruction on Production of Conventional Expressions. Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, 4(8), 1586-1592.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.8.1586-1592
xii
KESAN PENGAJARAN PRAGMATIK ‘FOCUS ON FORM’ BERBANDING
‘FOCUS ON FORMS’ KE ATAS PERKEMBANGAN PEMAHAMAN
PRAGMATIK
ABSTRAK
Anggapan umum ialah ciri-ciri pragmatik bahasa sasaran perlu diberi perhatian
terhadap pelajar bahasa melalui pengajaran pragmatik berfokuskan “form”. Untuk
menilai tahap pemahaman pengajaran pragmatik “Focus on Form” dan “Focus on
Forms”, satu kajian eksperimen telah dijalankan terhadap 45 orang siswazah yang
mengambil kursus Bahasa Inggeris di Universiti Sains Malaysia. Mereka telah
dibahagikan secara rawak kepada tiga kumpulan, iaitu kumpulan “Focus on Form”,
kumpulan “Focus on Forms”, dan kumpulan kawalan. Mereka menjalani 6-sesi
intervensi berdasarkan tugasan yang melibatkan pendengaran. Kumpulan “Focus on
Forms” menerima penjelasan metapragmatik tentang perbualan bahasa sasaran,
kumpulan “Focus on Forms” menerima pengukuhan input menggunakan transkrip
daripada pendengaran perbualan bahasa sasaran dan kumpulan kawalan melakukan
beberapa aktiviti mendengar. Data kuantitatif telah dikumpulkan melalui perbualan
ujian mendengar dalam bentuk soalan pelbagai pilihan serta menilai pemahaman
perbualan sasaran sebanyak tiga kali: sejurus sebelum intervensi, sejurus selepas
intervensi, dan satu bulan selepas intervensi. Data kualitatif dikumpulkan melalui
penyertaan 10 peserta dalam temu bual kumpulan fokus berbentuk separuh
berstruktur. Tahap kefahaman pragmatik telah ditentukan melalui pengkategorian
pelajar bahasa kepada empat kategori, iaitu sangat lemah, lemah, baik dan
pemahaman pragmatik secara optimal berdasarkan prestasi mereka terhadap ujian
mendengar pragmatik dan pengiraan “cut score” yang diperolehi melalui ujian
mendengar pragmatik terhadap 80 orang siswazah yang belajar Bahasa Inggeris di
xiii
Universiti Sains Malaysia. Keberkesanan serta kesan jangka pendek dan jangka
panjang pengajaran pragmatik “Focus on Forms” dan “Focus on Forms” telah dinilai
melalui “between-within” subjek ANOVA. Data temu bual juga ditentukan melalui
analisis isi kandungan untuk menyokong data yang diperoleh melalui ANOVA.
Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa pelajar bahasa telah dikategorikan dalam dua
kumpulan iaitu, pelajar yang mempunyai pemahaman pragmatik yang lemah dan
pelajar yang mempunyai pemahaman pragmatik yang baik. Pengajaran pragmatik
“Focus on Form” berkesan meningkatkan pemahaman pragmatik. Kedua-dua kaedah
“Focus on Form” dan “Focus on Forms” adalah berkesan bagi membina pemahaman
pragmatik, dan hanya pengajaran pragmatik “Focus on Form” yang menyumbang
terhadap pengetahuan pragmatik yang kekal. Implikasi pedagogi penemuan
mencadang menggabungkan teknik pengajaran pragmatik “Focus on Form” dalam
setiap kursus Bahasa Inggeris.
xiv
THE EFFECT OF ‘FOCUS ON FORM’ VERSUS ‘FOCUS ON FORMS’
PRAGMATIC INSTRUCTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
PRAGMATIC COMPREHENSION
ABSTRACT
The common assumption is that target language pragmatic features need to be
brought to language learners’ direct attention through form-focused pragmatic
instruction for them to be learned. To assess language learners’ level of pragmatic
comprehension and the effectiveness and sustainability of Focus on Form and Focus
on Forms pragmatic instruction on pragmatic comprehension, an explanatory
experimental study was conducted on 45 undergraduates studying English language
at Universiti Sains Malaysia by random assignment of participants to three equal
groups of Focus on Forms, Focus on Form, and Control and conducting a 6-session
intervention based on listening tasks. Focus on Forms group received metapragmatic
explanations of target language conversational implicatures, Focus on Form group
received input enhancement by highlighting target language conversational
implicatures of listening transcripts, and control group practiced some listening
activities. Quantitative data were collected through the administration of multiple
choice pragmatic listening comprehension tests, assessing comprehension of target
language conversational implicatures, three times: immediately before intervention,
immediately following intervention, and one month following intervention.
Qualitative data were collected through participation of 10 participants in a semi-
structured focus group interview. The level of pragmatic comprehension was
determined through the categorization of language learners into four categories: poor,
weak, strong, and optimal pragmatic comprehension performers based on their
performance on a pragmatic listening test and the calculation of the cut score
xv
obtained through piloting the pragmatic listening test on 80 other undergraduates
studying English language at Universiti Sains Malaysia. The effectiveness and
sustainability of Focus on Form and Focus on Forms pragmatic instruction were
assessed through “between-within subjects” ANOVA. Interview data were also
analyzed through content analysis to support the data derived through ANOVA. The
findings revealed that language learners were categorized mainly into two groups:
weak pragmatic comprehension performers and strong pragmatic comprehension
performers, form-focused pragmatic instruction was effective in developing
pragmatic comprehension to a great extent, both Focus on Form and Focus on Forms
methods of pragmatic instruction were equally effective in developing pragmatic
comprehension, and only Focus on Form pragmatic instruction led to sustaining
obtained pragmatic knowledge. The pedagogical implications of the findings
suggested the incorporation of Focus on Form pragmatic instruction techniques into
every English language course.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the main components which
guide the development of the thesis through subsequent chapters. The major
sections included in this chapter consist of background of the study,
statement of the problem, rationale for the study, purpose of the study,
objectives of the study, research questions, research hypotheses, significance
of the study, scope of the study, and operational definition of the terms.
What follows is the detailed elaboration on each section.
1.2 Background of the Study
The view of pragmatics was first introduced by the philosopher
Charles Moris in 1971 who considered pragmatics as part of the science of
semiotics which deals with the relationship between signs and sign users.
Semiotics consists of three main branches including: syntactic (syntax),
2
semantics, and pragmatics. Syntax refers to the study of the relationship
between signs, semantics refers to the study of the relationship between
signs and the objects to which the signs are applicable, and pragmatics
involves the study of the relationship between signs and the interpreters
(Levinson, 1983).
Since then, the study of language has been divided into four levels:
phonology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Phonology, syntax, and
semantics are components of grammar which explore language without any
reference to context or interpreters. Pragmatics, on the other hand, is a
component of linguistics which explores the principles leading language in
use in its various contexts (Tan, 1994; Moeschler, 2009).
Early language instruction had focused on the accurate use of
language. Then the trend of language instruction shifted from focusing on
grammatical competence to focusing on communicating appropriately in
1970s when Hymes (1967; 1971; 1972a; 1972b; 1972c; 1974) introduced
the notion of communicative competence. The aim of communicative
competence is to teach language learners to use language both accurately
and appropriately.
The concept of communicative competence states that using
language accurately through mastering the phonological, lexical, and
grammatical rules does not suffice to be a proficient language user (Chang,
2009) rather language learners must acquire the sociolinguistic (pragmatic)
3
rules of the language to be learned including “when to speak, and what to
talk about with whom, where and in what manner” (Wolfson, 1989).
The concept of communicative competence was further developed in
1980s by Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) to specify its diverse
elements. In Canale and Swain’s (1980) model of communicative
competence there are four competencies. The first one is grammatical
competence which entails the knowledge of syntactic, lexical,
morphological, and phonological aspects of the language and the ability to
use these aspects in order to produce accurate sentences. The second one is
sociolinguistic competence which refers to the understanding of the socio-
cultural context in which the language is used. The third one is discourse
competence which involves connecting a series of utterances in order to
form a meaningful unit. The last one is strategic competence which refers to
the knowledge of communicative strategies used to make up for insufficient
knowledge of rules as well as factors which constrain application of these
rules (Alptekin, 2002).
In 1990s, Bachman (1990) developed a model in which pragmatic
competence was explicitly introduced in communicative competence. In this
model, language competence comprises two competencies. The first one is
organizational competence which consists of grammatical competence and
discourse competence. The second one is pragmatic competence which
consists of sociolinguistic competence and illocutionary competence
(Eisenchlas, 2011).
4
Following the introduction of pragmatics by Charles Moris in 1971
and its subsequent inclusion in communicative competence by Bachman in
1990s, research in the area of interlanguage pragmatics has extensively
attracted the attention of a large body of linguistic scholars. Interlanguage
pragmatics deals with the way non-native speakers comprehend and produce
linguistic expressions in a target language and the way they acquire target
language pragmatic knowledge (Kasper, 1992).
There have been two types of research in the area of interlanguage
pragmatics. One type is a group of cross-sectional (contrastive) studies in
which language learners’ ability to produce or comprehend target language
pragmatic features are compared with native speakers’ ability. The other
type is a group of developmental (longitudinal) studies in which the progress
of a group of language learners in the production and comprehension of
target language pragmatics is examined.
Studies in interlanguage pragmatics in the past two decades have
been predominantly cross-sectional. Only recently developmental studies on
target language pragmatics especially focusing on the acquisitional
perspectives have been paid attention to (Kasper & Schmidt, 1996; Bardovi-
Harlig, 1999a; Rose, 2000; Kasper & Rose, 2002a; Barron, 2003; Achiba,
2003; Hakasson & Norrby, 2005). Furthermore; although most
developmental studies in the domain of interlanguage pragmatics have
focused on pragmatic production, only few studies to date conducted by
Bouton (1992; 1994), Kubota (1995), and Taguchi (2007a; 2008b; 2008d)
5
have investigated pragmatic comprehension (Taguchi, 2005; 2007a; 2007b;
Tan & Farashaiyan, 2012).
Even among the developmental studies conducted by Bouton (1992;
1994), Kubota (1995), and Taguchi (2007a; 2008b; 2008d) only the study
conducted by Kubota (1995) included pragmatic instructions. Furthermore
developmental studies have relied mostly on only quantitative data (Kasper
& Rose, 2002a) and a large body of scholars (e.g. Schauer & Adollphs,
2006; Geluykens, 2007) are calling for supplementing quantitative data with
qualitative methods in order to improve the reliability of obtained data
(Halenko & Jones, 2011). Moreover, most pragmatic acquisitional studies
have been conducted over intermediate-level, advanced-level and
postgraduate language learners and there is a dearth of research over
undergraduate language learners (Rose, 2005).
Also, a review of literature shows that in most pragmatic
acquisitional studies explicit instruction which refers to classroom
techniques served to direct language learners’ attention to target language
forms is more effective than implicit instruction which refers to methods of
allowing language learners to infer target language rules without awareness
(Takahashi, 2001; Norris & Ortega, 2001; Jeon & Kaya, 2006).
However implicit pragmatic instruction has been described as both
conceptually and methodologically underdeveloped area (Fukuya & Zhang,
2002) because in most studies they have been defined as mere exposure to
6
input (e.g. Tateyama, 2001; Takahashi, 2001) or the withholding of
metapragmatic information (e.g. House, 1996). Only few studies (e.g.
Fukuya & Clark, 2001; Fukuya & Zhang, 2002; Martinez-Flor & Fukuya,
2005) have operationalized implicit instructions in terms of Focus on Form
paradigm (Nguyen et al., 2012).
There are two types of form-focused instruction: Focus on Forms
and Focus on Form. Focus on Forms is equal to the traditional teaching of
discrete linguistic structures in separate lessons in a sequence which is
determined by syllabus designers (Long, 1991). “Focus on Form overtly
draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in
lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication” (Long,
1991:45-46). In other words, Focus on Forms instructional method uses
explicit awareness raising activities whereas Focus on Form instructional
method incidentally directs language learners’ attention to target language
forms (Dastjerdi & Rezvani, 2010).
Therefore, there is a growing need to investigate the acquisition of
target language pragmatic comprehension over undergraduate language
learners including both implicit and explicit form-focused instructions.
Furthermore, inclusion of a mixed method approach consisting of
quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection and data analysis can
help to gain more reliable findings.
7
1.3 Statement of the Problem
A speaker’s intended meaning cannot be merely derived from syntax
and semantics. Semantics studies the conventional or literal meanings of
expressions (what is said) whereas pragmatics studies the way speakers use
context and shared information to convey information which supplements
the semantic content of the expressions (what is meant). Therefore,
comprehending semantically incomplete expressions needs to be
supplemented with pragmatics (Jamaliah, 1999; Bianchi, 2004; Holtgraves
& Kashima, 2008; Bahaa-eddin, 2011).
This is referred to as the semantic underdeterminacy view of verbal
utterances. According to this view, the encoded meaning of the linguistic
expressions employed by a speaker (what is meant) underdetermines the
proposition explicitly expressed by the expression (what is said). Therefore,
some pragmatic inference processes are required to be undertaken in order to
arrive at the speaker’s intended meaning (Carston, 2002).
Introduction of the semantic underdeterminacy view of
communication implies that in order to communicate accurately as well as
appropriately, language learners need to learn the pragmatic rules of the
target language besides the grammatical rules. This is of crucial importance
since, according to Bachman’s (1990) model, pragmatic competence and
grammatical competence are two distinct aspects of communicative
8
competence. Hence, a high level of grammatical competence cannot
essentially lead to a high level of pragmatic competence.
However; studies conducted over language learners’ pragmatic
comprehension ability have revealed that language learners in general
possess a low ability to comprehend the intended meaning of target language
expressions and are not able to comprehend the intended meaning of target
language expressions fully (e.g. Taguchi, 2005; Alagozlu & Buyukozturk,
2009; Lee, 2010; Manowong, 2011).
In fact, as a major problem faced by language learners worldwide, a
large body of research on language learners’ pragmatic competence has
revealed that a high level of grammatical competence does not lead to a high
level of pragmatic competence and even language learners at the advanced
levels of language proficiency cannot achieve a native-like communicative
competence (Bardovi-Harlig, 1996; Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998;
Bardovi-Harlig, 1999b; Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Barron, 2003; Liu, 2006;
Rose, 2005; Gharaghani et al., 2011).
The reason is that every utterance can perform three types of acts
(Austin, 1962). The first act is called locutionary act which is the act of
conveying literal meaning through expressing an utterance. For instance, it is
cold in here. The second act is called illocutionary act which is the force
carried with a word or sentence. For instance, the expression “it is cold in
here” indicates “close the window”. The third act is called perlocutionary act
9
which is the effect of utterance on interlocutor or the change caused by the
utterance. For instance, closing the window after hearing the expression “it
is cold in here” (Zhao & Throssell, 2011).
The illocutionary force of utterances in a given context might differ
considerably from culture to culture resulting in various interpretations of
the same utterance (Murray, 2010). For instance, the remark “your wife is
really pretty” or complimenting a woman by saying “you look sexy” is
considered customary and acceptable by Westerners while Chinese perceive
such expressions as rude or offensive (Zhao & Throssell, 2011; Muir & Xu,
2011).
As another example; in response to a compliment such as “how
clever you are!”, a Malaysian uses a contradiction such as “no, I am not. I
am just like the others!” which can be quite surprising and even confusing
for a native English speaker who usually expects a “thank you” in response
to a compliment (Asmah, 1996).
The significance of developing pragmatic competence further arises
through realizing the fact that native speakers tend to tolerate non-native
speakers’ grammatical mistakes because they perceive the mistakes as non-
native speakers’ lack of sufficient linguistic knowledge. However; pragmatic
mistakes, which stem from the differences between socio-cultural norms of
the native and non-native speakers, might reflect badly on non-native
10
speakers and they run the risk of being perceived rude by native speakers
(Thomas, 1983).
For example; when enquiring about a sensitive topic such as asking
someone about “when he/she is planning to get married”, indirectness is
preferred in Malaysian context. Therefore, Malaysians use indirect ways of
asking about the issue such as “when are we going to eat nasi minyak
[special rice served at wedding reception in Malaysia]” which requires non-
Malaysians the need to understand not only the literal meaning but also the
intended meaning behind the utterance (Kamisah & Norazlan, 2003).
This is attributed to the fact that there are noticeable differences
between sociolinguistic aspects of the target language culture and the
language learners’ heritage culture (Alptekin, 2002). Therefore, pragmatic
competence of a particular language is best attained through being exposed
to the target language culture and having access to authentic materials
(Farashaiyan & Tan, 2012).
Language learners in the second language context are exposed to the
pragmatic features of the target language community to a great extent and as
a result have more opportunities to apply those pragmatic features in their
everyday interactions. Nevertheless; in a foreign language context, language
learners are deprived from exposure to the pragmatic features of the target
language community in order to develop their pragmatic knowledge of the
11
target language (Taguchi, 2008b; Martinez-Flor, 2008; Neddar, 2012;
Khodareza & Lotfi, 2012).
Moreover, as the other major problem faced by language learners,
teachers in English as foreign language contexts focus dominantly on the
grammatical aspects of the target language and do not pay sufficient
attention to the pragmatic aspects of the target language. Consequently, they
do not incorporate the pragmatic perspectives of the target language into
their classroom instructions neither through explicit Focus on Forms
instruction methods nor through implicit Focus on Form instruction methods
(Al Falasi, 2007; Farashaiyan & Tan, 2012).
Furthermore; textbooks, which are the major and maybe even the
only sources of providing target language exposure in a foreign language
environment (Richards, 2005), either do not present the pragmatic aspects of
the target language community (in the form of form-focused instructions) or
contain conversational models which are not naturally evident in the target
language interactions (Lee & McChesney, 2000; Martinez-Flor, 2008;
Nguyen, 2011).
For example, a review of instructional materials for language
learners reveals that textbooks normally mention the expression “I disagree
with …” in order to provide models of disagreement in the target language
context. However, observation of native speakers’ interactions reveal that
12
the expression “well … but …” is much more frequently used than the ones
mentioned in textbooks (Boxer & Pickering, 1995).
Understanding these culture specific expressions requires directing
language learners’ attention to the sociopragmatic as well as
pragmalinguistic features of the target language. As the pragmatic
perspectives of the target language culture are not often salient for language
learners, mere exposure to these pragmatic perspectives does not help
language learners to notice them (Kasper & Rose, 2002b). Consequently,
many aspects of target language pragmatics either are not learned or are
learned very slowly (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001).
In fact, learning without attention and awareness is impossible and in
order to acquire target language pragmatics, language learners must notice
both the linguistic forms of target language utterances and associated social
and contextual features (Schmidt, 2001). Thus, some sorts of awareness-
raising instructions, either in the form of explicit Focus on Forms or in the
form of implicit Focus on Form, are advised by scholars in the area of
interlanguage pragmatics in order to develop pragmatic competence in
language learners (Kamisah, 2004; Kasper & Rover, 2005; Rose, 2005;
Eslami-Rasekh, 2005; Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003).
However, as another major problem faced by language learners, the
majority of pragmatic acquisitional studies have merely focused on the
explicit Focus on Forms methods of pragmatic instruction which have been
13
referred to as classroom techniques served to direct language learners’
attention to target language forms (Takahashi, 2001; Norris & Ortega, 2001;
Jeon & Kaya, 2006) whereas implicit Focus on Form methods of pragmatic
instruction which have been referred to as mere exposure to input (e.g.
Tateyama, 2001; Takahashi, 2001) or the withholding of metapragmatic
information (e.g. House, 1996) have been ignored to a great extent (Nguyen
et al., 2012). Therefore, there is a growing need to determine the immediate
and long-term effect of Focus on Form methods of pragmatic instruction
compared to Focus on Forms methods of pragmatic instruction on the
development of pragmatic comprehension in language learners (Kamisah,
2004; Kasper & Rover, 2005; Rose, 2005; Eslami-Rasekh, 2005; Bardovi-
Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003).
To sum up; despite the fact that a high level of grammatical
competence does not lead to a high level of pragmatic competence (e.g.
Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Rose, 2005), language teachers focus dominantly on
the grammatical aspect of the target language (e.g. Farashaiyan & Tan,
2012). In fact, to acquire target language pragmatics, language learners must
notice both the linguistic forms of target language expressions and
associated social and contextual features (Schmidt, 2001). Thus, some sorts
of awareness-raising instruction, using either explicit Focus on Forms or
implicit Focus on Form techniques, are advised by the scholars to develop
and sustain pragmatic knowledge in language learners (e.g. Eslami-Rasekh,
2005; Bardovi-Harlig & Mahan-Taylor, 2003).
14
1.4 Rationale for the Study
It is now highly acknowledged that achieving the ideal
comprehension of target language expressions and texts requires knowledge
of target language pragmatics (Bianchi, 2004; Holtgraves & Kashima, 2008;
Bahaa-eddin, 2011) and the pragmatic rules of the target language should be
incorporated into language instruction (Bardovi-Harlig, 2001; Rose, 2005;
Gharaghani et al., 2011). However, the pragmatic aspect of the target
language are neither sufficiently incorporated in language instruction nor
naturally presented in language teaching textbooks (Martinez-Flor, 2008;
Nguyen, 2011) as its significance has not been proven yet.
Therefore, it is considered to be of significance value to assess the
actual effect of pragmatic instruction on language learners’ ability to
comprehend target language expressions and texts and to determine the ideal
method of instructing target language pragmatic knowledge. The results will
help to inform language educationalists whether or not it is necessary to
incorporate target language pragmatic knowledge into language learning
instructional materials and what the ideal method of instructing target
language pragmatics is.
15
1.5 Purpose of the Study
Given the significance of pragmatic knowledge in comprehending
speaker’s intended meaning in interactions between native and non-native
English language speakers, the idea of developing pragmatic comprehension
through incorporating pragmatic knowledge of target language speakers into
Language classrooms has come up. However, the debate over whether or not
pragmatic comprehension is teachable needs to be settled.
In response to the question regarding whether or not pragmatic
comprehension is teachable, this study has been conducted to investigate the
issue. The purpose of the study is to explore language learners’ current level
of pragmatic comprehension and the influence of incorporating pragmatic
information into classroom instructions on developing their pragmatic
comprehension.
Furthermore this study seeks to identify the type of instruction,
including Focus on Form and Focus on Forms, which can bring about the
highest effects on developing language learners’ pragmatic comprehension
as well as the type of instruction which can bring about the highest
sustainability of acquired pragmatic knowledge in language learners.
16
1.6 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study are:
1. To find out language learners’ current level of pragmatic
comprehension.
2. To find out the effect of form-focused pragmatic instruction on
developing pragmatic comprehension ability.
3. To find out the type of pragmatic instruction (Focus on Form or
Focus on Forms) which is more effective.
4. To find out the type of pragmatic instruction (Focus on Form or
Focus on Forms) which is more sustainable.
1.7 Research Questions
1. What is language learners’ current level of pragmatic comprehension?
2. What is the effect of form-focused pragmatic instruction on
developing pragmatic comprehension ability?
3. Which type of pragmatic instruction (Focus on Form or Focus on
Forms) is more effective?
4. Which type of pragmatic instruction (Focus on Form or Focus on
Forms) is more sustainable?
17
1.8 Research Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses have been set for the study:
1. Form-focused pragmatic instruction has no significant effect on
developing pragmatic comprehension ability.
2. There is no significant difference between the effect of Focus on
Forms and Focus on Form pragmatic instruction in developing
pragmatic comprehension ability.
3. There is no significant difference between the effect of Focus on
Forms and Focus on Form pragmatic instruction in sustaining
pragmatic comprehension knowledge.
1.9 Significance of the Study
Although currently there is no consensus on the best way of
developing pragmatic comprehension in language learners, the findings of
this study are important to help English language teachers and English
language coursebook designers to find out the significance of pragmatic
instructions in general and effectiveness of types of pragmatic instruction in
particular in this aspect of language education.
Identification of language learners’ level of pragmatic
comprehension prior to starting English language courses will help language
18
teachers realize the degree to which individual language learners’
comprehension of pragmatically implied meaning in comprehension based
courses including reading and listening suffers from lack of familiarity with
and awareness of cultural perspectives of the target language community. It
will also help them develop indicators of language learners’ level of
pragmatic comprehension based on the principle of Relevance Theory.
Consequently, through determining language learners’ pragmatic
comprehension level and indicating features which would specifically
describe language learners’ status within each level, the teacher will be able
to adjust the instructions in such a way that meets with the needs of
language learners. In this respect, the teacher can incorporate cultural
components of the target language community into instructional materials
and attract language learners’ attention to the cultural features through
consciousness-raising activities.
Language teachers will further realize whether traditional explicit
Focus on Forms method of pragmatic instruction in the form of
metapragmatic explanations of target language pragmatic features will lead
to immediate and sustainable learning in language learners or implicit Focus
on Form pragmatic instructions in the form of input enhancement
techniques.
Moreover, testing the impact of pragmatic instructions on language
learners’ pragmatic comprehension in general, will help coursebook
19
designers to realize whether incorporating pragmatic knowledge of the target
language society into instructional materials will benefit language learners
or not. They will also realize whether incorporation of target language
pragmatic knowledge into instructional materials in explicit forms can bring
about more effective learning or in implicit forms.
1.10 Scope of the Study
This study which is on the issue of the influence of Focus on Form
and Focus on Forms pragmatic instructions on the development and
retention of pragmatic comprehension involves the participation of 45
undergraduate learners of English at Universiti Sains Malaysia. The
participants, who were between the ages of 20 to 24 years old, were selected
based on convenience sampling. The study which employs a pre-test, post-
test, follow-up test true experimental design continued for 8 weeks from
June 5th
to July 24th
. Data from the experiment were collected through an
explanatory mixed method design using pragmatic comprehension tests and
semi-structured focus group interview.
1.11 Operational Definition of the Terms
Focus on Form: implicit instruction of target language features in order to
indirectly attract language learners’ attention and noticing to those features.
20
Focus on Forms: explicit instruction of target language features in order to
directly attract language learners’ attention and noticing to those features.
Form-focused Instruction: a cover term to include both Focus on Form and
Focus on Forms instruction.
Implicature: the implied meaning of a linguistic expression which goes
beyond the literal meaning it offers.
Pragmatic Comprehension: the inferential process of understanding the
communicator’s intended meaning in a statement.
Sustainable Learning: learning in which learned knowledge can be
maintained and continued to exist for a long period of time.
1.12 Summary
Considering the crucial role of knowledge of target language pragmatics to
comprehend target language expressions appropriately, the current study investigated
the effect of form-focused pragmatic instruction using implicit Focus on Form and
explicit Focus on Forms techniques on the development and sustainability of
pragmatic comprehension in language learners. The findings will be of great value
for language teachers and coursebook designers to decide whether or not language
classrooms should be enriched with target language pragmatic materials and, if so,
which method of pragmatic instruction will bring about the best results.
21
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of previously conducted related
studies as well as a detailed elaboration of the study’s major variables,
underlying theories, and tasks involved in the experiment. The major
sections included in this chapter consist of pragmatic definition, studies on
pragmatic comprehension, studies on pragmatic instruction, form-focused
instruction, Relevance Theory, Noticing Hypothesis, Bachman’s model of
communicative competence, theoretical framework, and conceptual
framework. What follows is the detailed elaboration on each section.
2.2 Pragmatic Definition
During the past three decades numerous scholars in the area of
sociolinguistics have come up with various definitions for pragmatics. The
definitions presented up to now look at pragmatics from different
22
perspectives including pragmatics, pragmatic competence, and pragmatic
comprehension. What follows is a review of definitions presented for each
aspect of pragmatics.
2.2.1 Definitions for Pragmatics
One of the earliest definitions for pragmatics was proposed by Leech
(1983) who defined it as “the study of how utterances have meanings in
situations” (p. 10). Since then several scholars in the field tried to define
pragmatics. Koike (1996) defined pragmatics as the study of the relationship
between language, its communication, and its contextualized use. He (1997)
also referred to pragmatics as “a brand of new linguistic area, studying
utterances in given situations and how to understand and use language
through context” (p. 4). According to Verschueren (1999) pragmatics refers
to “the study of linguistic phenomenon from the point of view of their usage
properties and processes” (p. 1). Xiong (1999) also stated that pragmatics
“studies the relationship between linguistic signs and sign users” (p. 1).
Levinson (2001) referred to pragmatics as “the study of relations
between language and context that are grammaticalized, or encoded in the
structure of a language” (p. 9). As Peccei (2000) stated pragmatics
“concentrates on those aspects of meaning that cannot be predicted by
linguistic knowledge alone and take into account knowledge about the
physical and social world” (p. 2). Fasold (2000) declared that pragmatics
23
“studies the use of context to make inferences about meaning” (p. 119).
According to Verschueren (1999) pragmatics could be defined as “a general
cognitive, social and cultural perspective on linguistic phenomena in relation
to their usage in forms of behavior” (p. 7). Sperber and Wilson (2001)
defined pragmatics as “a capacity of the mind, a kind of information-
processing system, a system for interpreting a particular phenomenon in the
world, namely human communicative behavior” (p. 183). Mey (2001)
mentioned that pragmatics “studies the use of language in human
communication as determined by the conditions of society” (p. 6).
Jaszczolot (2004) referred to pragmatics as “the study of how hearers
add contextual information to the semantic structure and how they draw
inferences from what is said” (p. 1). From Crystal’s (2008) point of view
pragmatics is “the study of language from the point of view of users,
especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using
language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on
other participants in the act of communication” (p. 301). As Fernandez and
Fontecha (2008) stated pragmatics “deals with the mismatch between what
is said and what is really meant since, in most communicative scenarios,
speakers mean more than they say in a strictly semantic sense” (p. 31).
Palumba (2009) asserted that pragmatics “deals with speaker’s meaning and
the way it is interpreted by the hearer(s), in what is known as implicature”
(p. 89). Richards and Schmidt (2010) saw pragmatics as “the study of the
use of language in communication, particularly the relationships between
sentences and the contexts and situations in which they are used” (p. 412).
24
Finally as Yule (2010) pointed out pragmatics is “the study of intended
speaker meaning” (p. 127).
Considering the above mentioned definitions provided by numerous
scholars in the field of interlanguage pragmatics, pragmatics can be referred
to the study of the social context in which an expression is expressed.
Accordingly, the study of the social context of the expression helps
complement the semantic content of the expression, thus, making the
expression comprehensible to the listener or reader without any
misconception and misunderstanding.
2.2.2 Definitions for Pragmatic Competence
Apart from the definitions provided for pragmatics, a variety of
definitions have been also presented for pragmatic competence. Chomsky
(1980) defined pragmatic competence as “the knowledge of conditions and
manner of appropriate use (of language), in conformity with various
purposes” (p. 224). Fraser (1983) stated that pragmatic competence is “the
knowledge of how an addressee determines what a speaker is saying and
recognizes intended illocutionary force conveyed through subtle attitudes in
the speaker’s utterance” (p. 29). Thomas (1983) referred to Pragmatic
competence as “the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a
specific purpose and to understand language in context” (p. 92). According
to Canale (1988) pragmatic competence includes “illocutionary competence,