by
Indawan Syahri
Abstrak: Kajian longitudinal studi pragmatik yang lebih mengandalkan kealamiaan data dengan jumlah subjek penelitian yang relatif kecil telah sering dilakukan oleh para peneliti, terutama pada kajian bahasa pertama. Namun kajian cross-sectional pada bahasa asing masih jarang dilakukan. Angket Isian Wacana dan Permainan Peran dapat digunakan sebagai metode pengumpulan data pragmatik dalam kajian pragmatik Interlanguage (IL). Hasil analisis dan interpretasi data yang dikumpulkan melalui dua metode ini dapat digeneralisasi dalam konteks tertentu. Kedua metode dapat dijadikan pilihan dalam penelitian pragmatik IL.
Key words: Interlanguage, DCT questionnaires, role-plays, situational variables
INTRODUCTION
It is assumed that the accuracy in grammatical perspectives that works on the correctness of rule-usage is insufficient to fulfill the requirement of real communication since there are usually some conventionalities involved, at least those developed by both speakers and hearers. The appropriateness of language use is influenced by the language users’ knowledge of social meanings constructed by contextual cues and situations. In recent years many L2 and FL curricula and materials developed include strong pragmatic components or even adopt a pragmatic approach as their organizing principles (Kasper and Rose, 2001). This assumption has shaped the language teaching insights and ways of teaching, especially the teaching of English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL). It progressively changes its modes and
Indawan Syahri is a lecturer in English Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang.
paradigms, i.e. from structural approach to communicative approach, from an isolated way to an integrated way, and from language usage to language use. Simultaneously, it impacts the research fields. Numerous studies attempt to explore language use in terms of communicative acts.
By its tradition, the pragmatic studies are conducted based on the natural settings, for instance, those done by using the ethnography of communication proposed by Hymes (1974). The researchers dig up the data by observing how the interlocutors do things with words in natural settings. In relation to EFL in which the interlocutors socialize in English is limited, the natural uses of English, consequently, are also restricted. This article attempts to offer alternative methods of doing the pragmatic studies. It spells out the concepts of Interlanguage (IL) and IL pragmatics, pragmatic research methodologies, IL pragmatics studies: a methodological proposal, and concluding remarks.
IL AND IL PRAGMATICS
The term IL is firstly introduced by Selinker which refers to the language system that the learner constructs out of the input to which he has been exposed (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991:60). Various alternative terms have been used by different researchers to refer to the same phenomenon; Nemser (1971) refers to approximative systems, Corder (1971) to idiosyncratic dialects and transitional competence (Ellis, 1985). It was considered as a part of error analysis besides interlingual and intralingual errors. It attempts to have a posteriori explanation about the influence of L1 to the target language (TL) production and at the same time to respond the weaknesses of an a priori contrastive analysis. Contrastive analysts only focused on identifying the similarity and difference between L1 and TL. The similarities were considered the factors that made it easier for the learners while the differences made them difficult to learn the TL.
Furthermore, Ellis (1985) uses language-learner language which has three essential characteristics as another term of IL. Firstly, language-learner language is permeable, in the sense the rules constituting the learner’s knowledge are not fixed, but are open to amendment. In many respects this is a general feature of natural languages, which evolve over time in ways not distinct from the developments that occur in language-learner language. As all language systems, IL is permeable. The difference is only in the degree of permeability. It is amended following the continuum line, i.e. from the L1 approaching to TL like.
Secondly, language-learner language is dynamic, constantly changing. It does not jump from one stage to the next, but rather slowly revises the interim systems to accommodate new hypotheses about the TL system. This occurs by the introduction to a new rule, first in one context and then in another, and so on. A new rule spreads in the sense that its coverage gradually extends over a range of linguistic contexts. For instance, Ellis (1985:50) illustrates that early WH questions are typically non-inverted (e.g., ‘What you want?’), but when the learner acquires the subject-inversion rule, he does not apply it immediately to all WH questions. To begin with, he restricts the rule to a limited number of verbs and to particular WH questions (e.g. ‘who’ and ‘what’). Later he extends the rule by making it apply both to an increasing range of verbs and to other WH pronouns. This process of constant revision and extension of rules is a feature of the inherent instability of IL.
Thirdly, language-learner language is systematic, in the sense it is possible to detect the rule-based nature of the learner’s use of the L2. He does not select haphazardly from his store on IL rules, but in predictable ways. He bases his performance plans on his existing rule system in much the same way as the native speaker bases his plans on his internalized knowledge of the L1 system. The term ‘error’ itself is, therefore doubtful. A learner utterance can be identified at erroneous only with reference to the norms of the TL. For the learner, the true norms are contained in the IL system he has constructed (Ellis, 1985:51).
In addition, learning a second/foreign language (L2/FL) is not sufficient to learn just the pronunciation, lexical items, and appropriate word order. High levels of grammatical competence do not guarantee concomitant high levels of pragmatic competence (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999). In other words, IL grammatical competence is not a sufficient condition for IL pragmatic competence. A learner must also learn the appropriate way to use those words and sentences in L2 or FL. For instance, one must learn that within the context of a telephone conversation, “Is Mary there?” is more than a request for information. It is also a request to speak with Mary. One must learn to go beyond the literal meaning of utterances to understand the pragmatic force (Gass & Selinker, 1994:183). Similarly, the learners must learn how to produce and understand utterances in appropriate manners. They must select the certain patterns and strategies of conducting various communicative acts which must be appropriate to social contexts. The appropriateness of L2 or FL use in contexts is discussed under the topic of IL pragmatics.
IL pragmatics is defined as the study of second language acquisition (SLA) which focuses on the ways nonnative language users or L2/FL learners select and realize speech acts (Blum-Kulka, et al, 1989:9). Much of the work in IL pragmatics has been conducted within the framework of speech acts, the functions of language such as complaining, thanking, apologizing, refusing, requesting, and inviting. Within this view, the minimal units of human communication are not linguistic expressions, but rather the performance of certain acts such as making statements, asking questions, giving directions, apologizing, thanking, and so on (Blum-Kulka, 1989:2). All languages have a means of performing speech acts and presumably speech acts themselves are universal, yet the forms used in specific speech acts varies from culture to culture. Thus, the study of L2/FL speech acts is concerned with the linguistic possibilities available in the languages for speech act realization and the effect of cross-cultural differences on L2 performance and on the interpretation by native speakers of L2 speech acts (Gass & Selinker, 1994:183).
As the earlier IL studies have focused on learners’ linguistic errors and provided valuable insight into learning and communication processes, IL pragmatics focuses on learners’ inappropriate speech act realizations in order to uncover their pragmatic knowledge at a given time in their learning process (Blum-Kulka, 1989:10). So far increasing numbers of studies have been done by researchers, for examples, the studies done by Blum-Kulka et al (1989), Hassal (2001), Yuxin & Cheng (2002) Young (1982), Kaplan (1996), Hinds (1990) and Cohan & Ishihara (2004). IL pragmatics attempts to explain some of the learners’ speech act behavior as resulting from overgenaralization, simplification, or reduction of sociopragmatic (social meanings) or pragmalinguistic (linguistic meanings) IL knowledge (Blum-Kulka, 1998:10). Pragmatic or sociolinguistic transfers, i.e. L1 interference on L2/FL speech act realizations are adequately explained in IL pragmatic studies which contribute to second language acquisition (SLA), to both theories and practices.
PRAGMATICS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Cohen and Ishihara (2004) applied the most complicated design and complete methods in their study entitled “A Web-Based Approach to Strategic Learning of Speech Acts”. The study focused on the benefits of fine-tuning strategy training for pragmatic use of a foreign language involving the development of self-access, web-based instructional units for five speech acts in Japanese: apologies, compliments/responses to compliments, requests, refusals, and thanks. The training was given for one semester to determine the impact of the self-access wed-based materials on the learning of Japanese speech acts and the viability of fine-tuned wed-based strategy training. They mixed five sets of instruments in their study for collecting data.
The first is that the Learner Background Survey, which was created specifically for this study, consisted of 13 items such as learners’ gender, age, major, and year in college. Language-related items included those on learners’ native and dominant languages, experience studying other languages, Japanese language learning experience, traveling and living experiences outside the U.S., self-evaluation of the students’ four skills in Japanese, and the frequency with which the students used Japanese when performing a series of activities.
The second is that the Learning Style Survey was a self administered survey to assess learners’ general approaches to learning. The survey was composed of 11 parts with 8-30 items in each to determine learners’ overall style preferences in the perceptual area (e.g., visual/auditory/kinesthetic), in the cognitive area (e.g., global/particular, synthesizing/analytical, sharpener/leveler, random-intuitive/concrete sequential), and in the area of personality (e.g., extraverted/introverted, field independent/ field-dependent, impulsive/reflective).
The third is the Speech Act Strategy Inventory. It was specially constructed for this study and was tailored to investigate learners’ general use of strategies specifically for learning and using speech acts in a L2/FL. The strategies were extracted from the six-unit curricular materials used for the intervention, although learners studied only three units during the semester when the study was conducted. For each item, learners were asked to rate on a five-point scale the frequency with which they used the speech act strategy, as well as their perceived sense of success in using the strategy.
The fourth is the Speech Act Measure. This instrument is used to measure the learners’ speech act performance, consisting of a speech act DCT (Blum-Kulka, 1989) with each vignette calling for multiple rejoinders for which the learners are to produce written responses as if they were spoken. In their study the learners received 10 or11 situations for each of the two speech acts that they studied in the corresponding section of the Japanese language course, which meant that there were three versions of the measure, consistent with the speech acts that the given learners were assigned. Subjects were asked to write what they would say in interacting with native Japanese speakers in Japan without paying too much attention to mechanics. For each situation, contextual variables such as relative age and status, level of acquaintance (close, somewhat close, or distant), and the intensity of the act (e.g., magnitude of imposition) were manipulated and described bilingually. In order to obtain a more robust data set, the learner needed to fill in up to three rejoinders for each of the situations, which were presented first in Japanese, followed by an English translation – in order to make sure that the students fully understood the situation.
The Reflective E-Journaling was designed as an opportunity for the learners to provide semi-structured journal entries regarding their learning experiences with the speech act just studied. The format for elicitation of the information was semi-structured so that there would be a semblance of comparability across the e-mail responses, while at the same time not imposing researchers’ categories or points of view on the learners. Also, the learners were instructed to write as much or as little as they wanted to about any given issue. They were asked to provide information on the following: 1) Insights that they had gained from using the web-based materials, 2) Issues and confusions they had about the materials, 3) Attitudes regarding the utility of the speech act strategies and the presentation of the material (e.g., color coding according to the level of importance of the strategy, the summary chart), 4) Technological problems, 5) The strengths and weakness of the materials overall, and suggestions for improvements, and 6) Their experience using the speech acts in authentic outside-of-class contexts.
In order to determine the impact of the intervention on the learners’ rated speech act performance, score analysis of the pre-posttest ratings of the learners’ DCT performance was conducted. Two Japanese native speakers did the ratings, the first a non-teacher (Rater 1) and the second being a Japanese instructor (Rater 2) (also done by Hassall, 2000). The reason for having both a teacher and a non-teacher as raters was in order to assure a broader base for assessing the students’ output, since learners would most likely also need to communicate with non-language teachers in authentic contexts. The two raters were not given pre-determined evaluating criteria but asked to rely on their own intuitions in providing a holistic rating on a six-point scale for learner performance in each speech act situation. The raters viewed the learners’ pre- and posttest responses side-by-side as they rated them, although they were not told which was which. For each rejoinder within a given vignette, they were asked to take notes on what was either inappropriate or incorrect, the degree to which such inappropriateness or inaccuracies mattered for pragmatic appropriateness, and on what they perceived as better (or just merely different) in comparing the two versions. To determine the relationship between learner characteristics and gains in speech act performance, non-parametric correlational analyses were conducted between rated speech act gains on the one hand and learner background, learning style preferences, speech act strategy repertoire (learners’ perception of speech act frequency use and success) on the other. As a complement to the quantitative analysis, qualitative data were also collected and analyzed. Learners’ pre- and posttest speech act performance (i.e., both their improvements and instances of potential pragmatic failure) underwent in-depth analysis and was compared with the data from other sources (the Speech Act Strategy Inventory and the Reflective E-journaling). Learners’ comments in the journaling were interpreted using inductive and deductive coding of the themes that emerged and triangulated with findings from other sources.
Other studies with different designs are also conducted by pragmatic researchers recently. They make use longitudinal designs and cross-sectional designs alternatively. It is, however, a relatively small but growing number of studies have taken a developmental approach, and have investigated learners’ behavior at different levels of proficiency or longitudinally by comparing a group of learners to themselves over time (Dufan, 1999), e.g., drown on data from diaries, interviews and authentic discourse or even on child talks. Marcos and Verba (1997), for instance, observed two groups of L2 children aged 18 and 30 months in day-care centers during dyadic interaction with an Iranian adult focusing how they perform requests. Another pragmatics study using longitudinal design is corpus-based study of language used in authentic contexts, e.g., the study done by Bilbow (2002). Bilbow’s study focused on commissive speech acts in business meetings, comprising words of transcribed spoken discourse. The corpus consisted of audio-and video-recorded business meetings. The data recorded were those of not directly useful for the study, e.g., there are initiate commisive speech acts such as requests, statements of need, suggestions, plans, queries and combinations of them.
IL PRAGMATICS STUDIES: A METHODOLOGICAL PROPOSAL
Despite less feasibility of investigating non-native speakers’ (learners’) produce language in natural settings the IL pragmatic studies are possibly done by means of a certain method, i.e., elicitation method. There are two techniques of data collections can be employed, namely, Discourse Completion Task (DCT) questionnaires and Role-plays.
DCT Questionnaires
DCT was originally developed for comparing the speech act realization of native and non-native Hebrew speakers (Blum-Kulka, 1982). The task consists of scripted dialogues that represent socially differentiated situations. Each dialogue is preceded by a short description of the situation, specifying the setting, and the social distance between the participants and their status relative to each other, and followed by an incomplete dialogue. Respondents are asked to complete the dialogue, thereby proving the speech act aimed at (Blum-Kulka et al, 1986:14).
Currently, DCT is constructed in the form of questionnaire in which the respondents (subjects) are asked to realize certain speech acts corresponding to the situations. The subjects were elicited to respond to the tasks written in the questionnaires by writing their acts in the blank spaces provided. There are two types of DCT, i.e., close ended DCT and open ended DCT. The former provides some options that the subjects can select one which appropriately corresponds to the situations. The latter provides only some situations, no optional choices. The subjects are asked to write their own responses and usually each situation ends with some blank spaces for them to write in.
The close ended DCT questionnaires have practicality in term of the numbers of situations the researchers can provide. Besides, the subjects can complete the questionnaires in relatively short times. These sorts of questionnaire have once used by Suh (1999) to determine the differences between the English native speakers and ESL Korean learners in the use of politeness strategies and Gunarwan (1992) to identify the hierarchical level of directive acts in the use of politeness strategy employed by Indonesian native speakers. However, it does not mean that it has no weaknesses. One of the weaknesses is that the study seizes more knowledge and perception. It does not obviously reflect the subjects’ speech act realizations.
In different ways, the open ended DCT questionnaires possibly elicit more productive data. The subjects respond the situations in the form of utterances which show their own speech act realizations. These questionnaires feasibly explore more pragmatic data in which the study can claim that they elicit data in ‘use’ per se, not ‘usage’. The following are the examples situations that are constructed in DCT-questionnaires eliciting the subjects to realize directive acts.
Instruction: I would like to ask you to help me by answering the following questions concerning with requests. This is not a test so there is no “right” or “wrong” answer and you don’t even have to write your name on it. Please give your answers sincerely as only this will guarantee the success of the investigation. Thank you very much for your help.
Situation 1:
You realize that you have left your textbook at home. The fellow student sitting next to you has the textbook open in front of you and is following the lesson. You want the fellow student to share the textbook. What would you say to get him to share with you?
____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
Situation 2: You are preparing for a mid-term examination which is scheduled tomorrow. It’s about 9 p.m. A new neighbor about your age whom you do not already know is playing music very loudly. So you cannot concentrate on your studying. You want this neighbor to turn down the music. What would you say to get the neighbor to do this favor? ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
Situation 3: You are reading a book at a library. When you want to take notes you realize that you do not have a pen with you. A young person about your age whom you do not already know is sitting and reading a book next to you. You want to borrow a pen from this person. What would you say to get this person to do this favor? ____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Situation 4:
You are very much interested in taking a course, but you notice that this course requires a prerequisite course. Although you do not meet this requirement and do not already know the lecturer, you want to ask the lecturer to allow you to take this course. What would you say to get the lecturer to grant you permission to take this course?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
They are considered as effective ways of collecting pragmatic data as have been proved by other relevant studies (e.g., the studied done by Walters, 1979; Blum-Kulka & Olstain, 1989; Blum-Kulka & Levenston, 1987; Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Fraech & Kasper, 1989; Yu, 1999; Amerien, 1997; Aziz, 2002; Ernawati, 2004). They are obviously practical even for a big number of subjects. They enable the researcher to collect rich and neat data. Consequently, it is easy for the researcher to categorize both strategies and modifications of the requests realized. In addition, this technique enables the researcher to obtain more stereotyped responses. Besides, it is possible for the researchers to control other variables, that is to say, by very carefully developing the tasks used to elicit the speakers’ speech act realizations.
However, it does not mean that DCT which have been developed to date without some weaknesses [as other sets of instrument do]. Evidently, some researchers, e.g., Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig (1992), Rose and Ono (1995) have found out some weaknesses of using DCT questionnaires as the instrument of data collection in pragmatics studies, especially speech acts. They claimed that all data in pragmatics studies ideally come from natural conditions. The reason is because the DCT does not promote the turn-taking and negotiation strategies found in natural conversation. Some frequently used formulas, such as Accept, Reject and Delays, do not show up at all on the DCT (Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig, 1992).
In spite of weakness, DCT is claimed to be beneficial for collecting pragmatic data from a big number of subjects. It is used for comparing speech act not only cross-culturally, but also within the same language, as produced by NS and NNS (Blum-Kulka, 1986). It allows the researchers to test hypotheses, for instance, to see whether or not the learners enact requests differently from native speakers do. Additionally, using this type of written elicitation techniques enable the researchers to obtain more stereotyped responses; that is “the stereotype of the variants occurring in the individual’s actual speech” (Hill at al, 1986 cited in Blum-Kulka, 1986:13). DCT elicit representations of spoken language (Ritell & Mitchell, 1986). Besides, DCT also makes the researchers more possibly control other variables, that is to say, by very carefully developing the task or scenarios used to elicit the speakers’ speech act realization.
In order to reduce variability resulting from factors other than the ones expected, Hudson (2001:286-287) proposes several constraints needed to be put on generating the tasks, i.e., 1) neither interlocutor has gender specified in the task description, 2) the situation must be face to face, 3) the explicit statement beginning with either “You want” or “You need” must be used in the prompt, 4) the situation is context-internal to the roles, meaning that context of the speech event must have something to do with related activities, 5) no explicit money is to be involved in the context, 6) no context for speech act realization is the result of physical contact, injury, or violating social norms, 7) no stigmatized roles should be included (e.g., rich patron, famous star), 8) situations are familiar to the examinees, 9) no relationships with family, close friends, enemies, or intimates are used, and 10) professionally defined or formulaic interactional patterns (e.g., doctor-patient, lawyer-client) are avoided. However, the last two constraints are questionable why these constraints should be anticipated. Eventually, they may lead the responses that are pertinent to the influence of situational variables on speech act realizations.
Role-plays
Role-plays are also the other types of elicitation method that can be used for collecting pragmatic data. The subjects are asked to simulate dialogues based on the scenarios given. They act out the dialogues with other interlocutors and usually they demonstrate the talks in pairs. The data resulted are more exhaustive than those of DCT questionnaires, since the dialogue, by its nature, consists of several turn-takings, overlapping, and repetitions. The following are the examples of scenarios in role-plays used for eliciting pragmatic data of request realizations.
Instruction: Read the scenarios carefully and try to comprehend the contents and roles of the interlocutors in them. Demonstrate a dialogue of each scenario below with your fellow student.
Scenario 1:
You want to go home in a hurry after the class because of dropping off your father to station to leave for out of town. You will be late if you take a bus from the campus. Fortunately, you see a fellow student riding a motor cycle. It is a good chance for you to ask the fellow student to give a ride home.
Scenario 2:
You are in a class. The lecture is about to start. You realize that you do not have a pen with you. You want to borrow a pen from a fellow student who is sitting next to you.
Scenario 3:
You are completing your final paper or skripsi. You want to see and consult with your advisor about the paper. You see the advisor coming to the office. It is a good chance for you to have a consultation.
Further, the data obtained by means of the role-plays represents real spoken language. The researchers can tape not only the oral data but also visual data in terms of facial expressions and gestures. It is more productive, but less practical than those of DCT. Besides, if the same scenarios in role-plays are given to the other subjects they possibly duplicate or repeat others’ utterances. So to avoid this sort of bias, the researchers have to control the variability, for instance, by randomize the scenarios given to the subjects.
Combined DCT and Role-plays
Using both DCT and role-plays for delineating speech act realization is another sophistication of methodological procedures in doing the IL pragmatics studies. Of course, it will strengthen the evidence and contribute to the validity and reliability of the investigations, for instance, the study done by Ritell and Mitchell (1986) focusing on requests and apologies. In many ways, it was found that language elicited is very similar whether collected by means of DCT or role-plays (Ritell & Mitchell, 1989). The difference is only on the length of responses, vis a vis, responses obtained from oral elicitation relatively longer than those from written one. The NNS’ request realization are 35.7 words in average in DCT and 22.3 words in role-plays, 13.4 word differences while apology realizations are 29.3 words in DCT and 16.9 words in role-plays, 12.4 word differences (see Table 1). In other words, both elicit representations of spoken language. Both show similar patterns of speech act realizations.
Table 1 Length of Responses to Written DCT and Role-plays from Nonnative Speakers (NNS) and Native Speakers (NS)
Speech acts
Technique
Difference
DCT (n = 231)
in average
Role Plays (n = 264)
in average
NNS
NS
NNS
NS
NNS
NS
Requests
35.7
28.5
22.3
27.0
13.4 words
1.5 words
Apologies
29.3
23.1
16.9
20.9
12.4 words
2.2 words
n = numbers of utterances
Another example is the study done by Syahri (2007) which explores the acts of requesting as realized by EFL learners. The study makes use of both methods, i.e., DCT consisting of 15 situations and role-plays of 10 scenarios. Both result similar shape of distributions, though it is found different in term of percentage. They enable the researcher to come to the point that the subjects employed the conventionally indirect strategy and external modification most frequently in their request realizations as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Distributions of Request Strategies and modifications Elicited by DCT and Role-plays
Methods
Request Strategies
Request Modifications
Direct
Conventionally Indirect
Non-conventionally Indirect
Internal
External
DCT
4%
95%
1%
43%
66%
Role-plays
22%
63%
15%
5%
95%
Moreover, these methods can used to elaborate the pragmatic transfers occurring in FL learners’ speech act realizations. For this purpose, the researchers can construct the situational variables in DCT and role-plays based on the social dimensions in terms of social distance (SD) and dominance (D) between the interlocutors. The interlocutor relationships and setting or circumstances are explicitly stated in the situations and scenarios. They covers four patterns, that is, no social distance (-SD) and no dominance (-D) as constructed in Situation 1 and Scenarios 1 and 2 above, social distance (+SD) but –D as in Situation 2, -SD but dominance (+D) as in Situation 3 and Scenario 3, and +SD and +D as Situation 4 between the interlocutors. These patterns of social relationship are framed the situational variables of both methods.
The transfers are identified by comparing the speech acts realized by the subjects (non-native speakers) with those of the theories or, if possible, of the native speakers. Those are deviant or ‘ill uses’ are to be traced whether they assemble their native-culture norms. If the involvement of native-culture norms is identified concomitantly pragmatic transfer take places. In short, DCT, role-plays, or both are progressively used not only determine patterns in terms of strategy and modification, but also explore the pragmatic transfers.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Usually pragmatics studies are done using longitudinal approaches in which the researchers observe the speakers do things with words. IL pragmatics is another province in pragmatic studies. It attempts to investigate the non-native patterns of realizing speech acts in the target language. To conduct an IL pragmatics study, a researcher needs certain methods to be used. A longitudinal study, in which the data collected in natural settings, in this field is not practical to do and workable only for a small number of subjects.
DCT questionnaires and role-plays under the cross-sectional approach legibly make IL pragmatics investigated in broader perspectives. This sort of elicitation method can result rich pragmatic data. The researchers are able to trace the patterns of speech act realizations. For instances, the researchers can identify the strategies, modifications, and types of politeness strategies employed by the learners of English in realizing speech acts. Further, considering the interlocutor relationships and circumstances as the constructs of the situational variables in both methods, the studies can show the assemblage of native-culture norms in the subjects’ realizations.
At last, DCT questionnaires or role-plays also have some weaknesses, especially the artificial data obtained. The idea of utilizing both in IL pragmatics studies is more suggested. Using both, the researchers can maintain the validity and reliability of their studies by using both.
REFERENCES
Amarien, Novy. 1997. Interlanguage Pragmatics: A study of the Refusal strategies of Indonesian Speakers Speaking English. TEFLIN VIII (August): 128-141.
Aziz, E. Aminudin. 2002. Usia dan Realisasi Kesantunan Berbahasa: Sebuah Studi Pragmatik pada Para Penutur Bahasa Indonesia. PELBBA 16. Jakarta: Pusat Kajian bahasa dan Budaya Unika Admajaya.
Bilbow, Grahame T. 2002. Commissive speech act use in intercultural business meetings. IRAL 40(4): 287-303.
Blum-Kulka, S., Julian House and Gabriele Kasper (Eds). 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Blum-Kulka, S. and E. Olshtain. 1984. Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8: 47-61.
Blum-Kulka, S. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 1: 131-146.
Blum-Kulka, S. and Edward A. Levenston. 1987. Lexical-Grammatical Pragmatic Indicator. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9 (2): 115-170.
Cohen, Andrew D. and Noriko Ishihara. 2004. A Web-Based Approach to Strategic Learning of Speech Acts. (Online) http://carla.acad.umn.edu/speechacts/Speech_Act_Project.pdf accessed on April 26, 2005.
Dufon, Margaret A. 1999. The Acquisition of Linguistic Politeness in Indonesian as a Second Language by Sojourness in Naturalistic Interaction (Dissertation). Hawaii: University of Hawaii.
Ernawati, Diyah Bekti. 2004. Responding to Compliments: An Interlanguage Study of Indonesian Non-native Speakers of English. In Bambang Yudi Cahyono and Utami Widiati (eds). The Tapestry of English Language Teaching and Learning in Indonesia. Malang: State University of Malang Press.
Faerch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Internal and External Modification in Interlanguage Request Realization. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka., Julian House and Gabriele Kasper (Eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
Gunarwan, Asim. 1992. Persepsi Kesantunan Direktif di Dalam Bahasa Indonesia di Antara Beberapa Kelompok Etnik di Jakarta. PELBBA 5. Jakarta: Pusat Kajian bahasa dan Budaya Unika Admajaya.
Hassall, Tim. 2001. Modifying Requests in a Second Language. IRAL, XXXIX (4): 259-283.
Hudson, Thom. 2001. Indicators for Pragmatic Instruction: Some quantitative tools. In Kenneth R. Rose and Gabriel Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc.
Kasper, Gabriele and Kenneth R. Rose. 2001. The Role of Input Enhancement in Developing Pragmatic Competence. In Kenneth R. Rose and Gabriele Kasper (eds). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, Robert. 1996. “Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education.” Language Learning 16: 1-20.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane and Michael H. Long. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.
Marcos, Haydee and Mina Verba. 1997. The Influence of Social Context on Requests in Young Iranian Children. International Journal of Psychology, 32 (4): 209-219.
Ritell, Ellen M. and Candace J. Mitchell. 1986. Studying Requests and Apologies: An Inquiry into Method. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka., Julian House and Gabriele Kasper (Eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
Rose, Kenneth R. and Reiko Ono. 1995. Eliciting Speech Act Data in Japanese: The Effect of Questionnaire Type. Language Learning, 45 (2): 191-223
Suh, Jae-Suk. 1999. Pragmatic Perception of Politeness in requests by Korean learners of English as a Second Language. IRAL, XXXVII (3): 195-213.
Syahri, Indawan. 2007. Acts of Requesting as Realized by EFL Learners. Dissertation, unpublished. Malang: Graduate Program, the State University of Malang.
Walters, Joel. 1978. Strategies for Requesting in Spanish and English: Strategies similarities and Pragmatic Differences. Language Learning, 29 (1): 277-291.
Young, Linda Wai Ling. 1982. “Inscrutability revisited.” In John J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, 72-94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yu, Ming-Chung, 1999. Universalistic and Culture-specific Perspective on Variation in the Acquisition of Pragmatic Competence in a Second Language. Pragmatics 9(2): 281-312.
Indawan Syahri
Abstrak: Kajian longitudinal studi pragmatik yang lebih mengandalkan kealamiaan data dengan jumlah subjek penelitian yang relatif kecil telah sering dilakukan oleh para peneliti, terutama pada kajian bahasa pertama. Namun kajian cross-sectional pada bahasa asing masih jarang dilakukan. Angket Isian Wacana dan Permainan Peran dapat digunakan sebagai metode pengumpulan data pragmatik dalam kajian pragmatik Interlanguage (IL). Hasil analisis dan interpretasi data yang dikumpulkan melalui dua metode ini dapat digeneralisasi dalam konteks tertentu. Kedua metode dapat dijadikan pilihan dalam penelitian pragmatik IL.
Key words: Interlanguage, DCT questionnaires, role-plays, situational variables
INTRODUCTION
It is assumed that the accuracy in grammatical perspectives that works on the correctness of rule-usage is insufficient to fulfill the requirement of real communication since there are usually some conventionalities involved, at least those developed by both speakers and hearers. The appropriateness of language use is influenced by the language users’ knowledge of social meanings constructed by contextual cues and situations. In recent years many L2 and FL curricula and materials developed include strong pragmatic components or even adopt a pragmatic approach as their organizing principles (Kasper and Rose, 2001). This assumption has shaped the language teaching insights and ways of teaching, especially the teaching of English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL). It progressively changes its modes and
Indawan Syahri is a lecturer in English Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Muhammadiyah Palembang.
paradigms, i.e. from structural approach to communicative approach, from an isolated way to an integrated way, and from language usage to language use. Simultaneously, it impacts the research fields. Numerous studies attempt to explore language use in terms of communicative acts.
By its tradition, the pragmatic studies are conducted based on the natural settings, for instance, those done by using the ethnography of communication proposed by Hymes (1974). The researchers dig up the data by observing how the interlocutors do things with words in natural settings. In relation to EFL in which the interlocutors socialize in English is limited, the natural uses of English, consequently, are also restricted. This article attempts to offer alternative methods of doing the pragmatic studies. It spells out the concepts of Interlanguage (IL) and IL pragmatics, pragmatic research methodologies, IL pragmatics studies: a methodological proposal, and concluding remarks.
IL AND IL PRAGMATICS
The term IL is firstly introduced by Selinker which refers to the language system that the learner constructs out of the input to which he has been exposed (Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991:60). Various alternative terms have been used by different researchers to refer to the same phenomenon; Nemser (1971) refers to approximative systems, Corder (1971) to idiosyncratic dialects and transitional competence (Ellis, 1985). It was considered as a part of error analysis besides interlingual and intralingual errors. It attempts to have a posteriori explanation about the influence of L1 to the target language (TL) production and at the same time to respond the weaknesses of an a priori contrastive analysis. Contrastive analysts only focused on identifying the similarity and difference between L1 and TL. The similarities were considered the factors that made it easier for the learners while the differences made them difficult to learn the TL.
Furthermore, Ellis (1985) uses language-learner language which has three essential characteristics as another term of IL. Firstly, language-learner language is permeable, in the sense the rules constituting the learner’s knowledge are not fixed, but are open to amendment. In many respects this is a general feature of natural languages, which evolve over time in ways not distinct from the developments that occur in language-learner language. As all language systems, IL is permeable. The difference is only in the degree of permeability. It is amended following the continuum line, i.e. from the L1 approaching to TL like.
Secondly, language-learner language is dynamic, constantly changing. It does not jump from one stage to the next, but rather slowly revises the interim systems to accommodate new hypotheses about the TL system. This occurs by the introduction to a new rule, first in one context and then in another, and so on. A new rule spreads in the sense that its coverage gradually extends over a range of linguistic contexts. For instance, Ellis (1985:50) illustrates that early WH questions are typically non-inverted (e.g., ‘What you want?’), but when the learner acquires the subject-inversion rule, he does not apply it immediately to all WH questions. To begin with, he restricts the rule to a limited number of verbs and to particular WH questions (e.g. ‘who’ and ‘what’). Later he extends the rule by making it apply both to an increasing range of verbs and to other WH pronouns. This process of constant revision and extension of rules is a feature of the inherent instability of IL.
Thirdly, language-learner language is systematic, in the sense it is possible to detect the rule-based nature of the learner’s use of the L2. He does not select haphazardly from his store on IL rules, but in predictable ways. He bases his performance plans on his existing rule system in much the same way as the native speaker bases his plans on his internalized knowledge of the L1 system. The term ‘error’ itself is, therefore doubtful. A learner utterance can be identified at erroneous only with reference to the norms of the TL. For the learner, the true norms are contained in the IL system he has constructed (Ellis, 1985:51).
In addition, learning a second/foreign language (L2/FL) is not sufficient to learn just the pronunciation, lexical items, and appropriate word order. High levels of grammatical competence do not guarantee concomitant high levels of pragmatic competence (Bardovi-Harlig, 1999). In other words, IL grammatical competence is not a sufficient condition for IL pragmatic competence. A learner must also learn the appropriate way to use those words and sentences in L2 or FL. For instance, one must learn that within the context of a telephone conversation, “Is Mary there?” is more than a request for information. It is also a request to speak with Mary. One must learn to go beyond the literal meaning of utterances to understand the pragmatic force (Gass & Selinker, 1994:183). Similarly, the learners must learn how to produce and understand utterances in appropriate manners. They must select the certain patterns and strategies of conducting various communicative acts which must be appropriate to social contexts. The appropriateness of L2 or FL use in contexts is discussed under the topic of IL pragmatics.
IL pragmatics is defined as the study of second language acquisition (SLA) which focuses on the ways nonnative language users or L2/FL learners select and realize speech acts (Blum-Kulka, et al, 1989:9). Much of the work in IL pragmatics has been conducted within the framework of speech acts, the functions of language such as complaining, thanking, apologizing, refusing, requesting, and inviting. Within this view, the minimal units of human communication are not linguistic expressions, but rather the performance of certain acts such as making statements, asking questions, giving directions, apologizing, thanking, and so on (Blum-Kulka, 1989:2). All languages have a means of performing speech acts and presumably speech acts themselves are universal, yet the forms used in specific speech acts varies from culture to culture. Thus, the study of L2/FL speech acts is concerned with the linguistic possibilities available in the languages for speech act realization and the effect of cross-cultural differences on L2 performance and on the interpretation by native speakers of L2 speech acts (Gass & Selinker, 1994:183).
As the earlier IL studies have focused on learners’ linguistic errors and provided valuable insight into learning and communication processes, IL pragmatics focuses on learners’ inappropriate speech act realizations in order to uncover their pragmatic knowledge at a given time in their learning process (Blum-Kulka, 1989:10). So far increasing numbers of studies have been done by researchers, for examples, the studies done by Blum-Kulka et al (1989), Hassal (2001), Yuxin & Cheng (2002) Young (1982), Kaplan (1996), Hinds (1990) and Cohan & Ishihara (2004). IL pragmatics attempts to explain some of the learners’ speech act behavior as resulting from overgenaralization, simplification, or reduction of sociopragmatic (social meanings) or pragmalinguistic (linguistic meanings) IL knowledge (Blum-Kulka, 1998:10). Pragmatic or sociolinguistic transfers, i.e. L1 interference on L2/FL speech act realizations are adequately explained in IL pragmatic studies which contribute to second language acquisition (SLA), to both theories and practices.
PRAGMATICS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Cohen and Ishihara (2004) applied the most complicated design and complete methods in their study entitled “A Web-Based Approach to Strategic Learning of Speech Acts”. The study focused on the benefits of fine-tuning strategy training for pragmatic use of a foreign language involving the development of self-access, web-based instructional units for five speech acts in Japanese: apologies, compliments/responses to compliments, requests, refusals, and thanks. The training was given for one semester to determine the impact of the self-access wed-based materials on the learning of Japanese speech acts and the viability of fine-tuned wed-based strategy training. They mixed five sets of instruments in their study for collecting data.
The first is that the Learner Background Survey, which was created specifically for this study, consisted of 13 items such as learners’ gender, age, major, and year in college. Language-related items included those on learners’ native and dominant languages, experience studying other languages, Japanese language learning experience, traveling and living experiences outside the U.S., self-evaluation of the students’ four skills in Japanese, and the frequency with which the students used Japanese when performing a series of activities.
The second is that the Learning Style Survey was a self administered survey to assess learners’ general approaches to learning. The survey was composed of 11 parts with 8-30 items in each to determine learners’ overall style preferences in the perceptual area (e.g., visual/auditory/kinesthetic), in the cognitive area (e.g., global/particular, synthesizing/analytical, sharpener/leveler, random-intuitive/concrete sequential), and in the area of personality (e.g., extraverted/introverted, field independent/ field-dependent, impulsive/reflective).
The third is the Speech Act Strategy Inventory. It was specially constructed for this study and was tailored to investigate learners’ general use of strategies specifically for learning and using speech acts in a L2/FL. The strategies were extracted from the six-unit curricular materials used for the intervention, although learners studied only three units during the semester when the study was conducted. For each item, learners were asked to rate on a five-point scale the frequency with which they used the speech act strategy, as well as their perceived sense of success in using the strategy.
The fourth is the Speech Act Measure. This instrument is used to measure the learners’ speech act performance, consisting of a speech act DCT (Blum-Kulka, 1989) with each vignette calling for multiple rejoinders for which the learners are to produce written responses as if they were spoken. In their study the learners received 10 or11 situations for each of the two speech acts that they studied in the corresponding section of the Japanese language course, which meant that there were three versions of the measure, consistent with the speech acts that the given learners were assigned. Subjects were asked to write what they would say in interacting with native Japanese speakers in Japan without paying too much attention to mechanics. For each situation, contextual variables such as relative age and status, level of acquaintance (close, somewhat close, or distant), and the intensity of the act (e.g., magnitude of imposition) were manipulated and described bilingually. In order to obtain a more robust data set, the learner needed to fill in up to three rejoinders for each of the situations, which were presented first in Japanese, followed by an English translation – in order to make sure that the students fully understood the situation.
The Reflective E-Journaling was designed as an opportunity for the learners to provide semi-structured journal entries regarding their learning experiences with the speech act just studied. The format for elicitation of the information was semi-structured so that there would be a semblance of comparability across the e-mail responses, while at the same time not imposing researchers’ categories or points of view on the learners. Also, the learners were instructed to write as much or as little as they wanted to about any given issue. They were asked to provide information on the following: 1) Insights that they had gained from using the web-based materials, 2) Issues and confusions they had about the materials, 3) Attitudes regarding the utility of the speech act strategies and the presentation of the material (e.g., color coding according to the level of importance of the strategy, the summary chart), 4) Technological problems, 5) The strengths and weakness of the materials overall, and suggestions for improvements, and 6) Their experience using the speech acts in authentic outside-of-class contexts.
In order to determine the impact of the intervention on the learners’ rated speech act performance, score analysis of the pre-posttest ratings of the learners’ DCT performance was conducted. Two Japanese native speakers did the ratings, the first a non-teacher (Rater 1) and the second being a Japanese instructor (Rater 2) (also done by Hassall, 2000). The reason for having both a teacher and a non-teacher as raters was in order to assure a broader base for assessing the students’ output, since learners would most likely also need to communicate with non-language teachers in authentic contexts. The two raters were not given pre-determined evaluating criteria but asked to rely on their own intuitions in providing a holistic rating on a six-point scale for learner performance in each speech act situation. The raters viewed the learners’ pre- and posttest responses side-by-side as they rated them, although they were not told which was which. For each rejoinder within a given vignette, they were asked to take notes on what was either inappropriate or incorrect, the degree to which such inappropriateness or inaccuracies mattered for pragmatic appropriateness, and on what they perceived as better (or just merely different) in comparing the two versions. To determine the relationship between learner characteristics and gains in speech act performance, non-parametric correlational analyses were conducted between rated speech act gains on the one hand and learner background, learning style preferences, speech act strategy repertoire (learners’ perception of speech act frequency use and success) on the other. As a complement to the quantitative analysis, qualitative data were also collected and analyzed. Learners’ pre- and posttest speech act performance (i.e., both their improvements and instances of potential pragmatic failure) underwent in-depth analysis and was compared with the data from other sources (the Speech Act Strategy Inventory and the Reflective E-journaling). Learners’ comments in the journaling were interpreted using inductive and deductive coding of the themes that emerged and triangulated with findings from other sources.
Other studies with different designs are also conducted by pragmatic researchers recently. They make use longitudinal designs and cross-sectional designs alternatively. It is, however, a relatively small but growing number of studies have taken a developmental approach, and have investigated learners’ behavior at different levels of proficiency or longitudinally by comparing a group of learners to themselves over time (Dufan, 1999), e.g., drown on data from diaries, interviews and authentic discourse or even on child talks. Marcos and Verba (1997), for instance, observed two groups of L2 children aged 18 and 30 months in day-care centers during dyadic interaction with an Iranian adult focusing how they perform requests. Another pragmatics study using longitudinal design is corpus-based study of language used in authentic contexts, e.g., the study done by Bilbow (2002). Bilbow’s study focused on commissive speech acts in business meetings, comprising words of transcribed spoken discourse. The corpus consisted of audio-and video-recorded business meetings. The data recorded were those of not directly useful for the study, e.g., there are initiate commisive speech acts such as requests, statements of need, suggestions, plans, queries and combinations of them.
IL PRAGMATICS STUDIES: A METHODOLOGICAL PROPOSAL
Despite less feasibility of investigating non-native speakers’ (learners’) produce language in natural settings the IL pragmatic studies are possibly done by means of a certain method, i.e., elicitation method. There are two techniques of data collections can be employed, namely, Discourse Completion Task (DCT) questionnaires and Role-plays.
DCT Questionnaires
DCT was originally developed for comparing the speech act realization of native and non-native Hebrew speakers (Blum-Kulka, 1982). The task consists of scripted dialogues that represent socially differentiated situations. Each dialogue is preceded by a short description of the situation, specifying the setting, and the social distance between the participants and their status relative to each other, and followed by an incomplete dialogue. Respondents are asked to complete the dialogue, thereby proving the speech act aimed at (Blum-Kulka et al, 1986:14).
Currently, DCT is constructed in the form of questionnaire in which the respondents (subjects) are asked to realize certain speech acts corresponding to the situations. The subjects were elicited to respond to the tasks written in the questionnaires by writing their acts in the blank spaces provided. There are two types of DCT, i.e., close ended DCT and open ended DCT. The former provides some options that the subjects can select one which appropriately corresponds to the situations. The latter provides only some situations, no optional choices. The subjects are asked to write their own responses and usually each situation ends with some blank spaces for them to write in.
The close ended DCT questionnaires have practicality in term of the numbers of situations the researchers can provide. Besides, the subjects can complete the questionnaires in relatively short times. These sorts of questionnaire have once used by Suh (1999) to determine the differences between the English native speakers and ESL Korean learners in the use of politeness strategies and Gunarwan (1992) to identify the hierarchical level of directive acts in the use of politeness strategy employed by Indonesian native speakers. However, it does not mean that it has no weaknesses. One of the weaknesses is that the study seizes more knowledge and perception. It does not obviously reflect the subjects’ speech act realizations.
In different ways, the open ended DCT questionnaires possibly elicit more productive data. The subjects respond the situations in the form of utterances which show their own speech act realizations. These questionnaires feasibly explore more pragmatic data in which the study can claim that they elicit data in ‘use’ per se, not ‘usage’. The following are the examples situations that are constructed in DCT-questionnaires eliciting the subjects to realize directive acts.
Instruction: I would like to ask you to help me by answering the following questions concerning with requests. This is not a test so there is no “right” or “wrong” answer and you don’t even have to write your name on it. Please give your answers sincerely as only this will guarantee the success of the investigation. Thank you very much for your help.
Situation 1:
You realize that you have left your textbook at home. The fellow student sitting next to you has the textbook open in front of you and is following the lesson. You want the fellow student to share the textbook. What would you say to get him to share with you?
____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
Situation 2: You are preparing for a mid-term examination which is scheduled tomorrow. It’s about 9 p.m. A new neighbor about your age whom you do not already know is playing music very loudly. So you cannot concentrate on your studying. You want this neighbor to turn down the music. What would you say to get the neighbor to do this favor? ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________
Situation 3: You are reading a book at a library. When you want to take notes you realize that you do not have a pen with you. A young person about your age whom you do not already know is sitting and reading a book next to you. You want to borrow a pen from this person. What would you say to get this person to do this favor? ____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Situation 4:
You are very much interested in taking a course, but you notice that this course requires a prerequisite course. Although you do not meet this requirement and do not already know the lecturer, you want to ask the lecturer to allow you to take this course. What would you say to get the lecturer to grant you permission to take this course?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
They are considered as effective ways of collecting pragmatic data as have been proved by other relevant studies (e.g., the studied done by Walters, 1979; Blum-Kulka & Olstain, 1989; Blum-Kulka & Levenston, 1987; Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993; Fraech & Kasper, 1989; Yu, 1999; Amerien, 1997; Aziz, 2002; Ernawati, 2004). They are obviously practical even for a big number of subjects. They enable the researcher to collect rich and neat data. Consequently, it is easy for the researcher to categorize both strategies and modifications of the requests realized. In addition, this technique enables the researcher to obtain more stereotyped responses. Besides, it is possible for the researchers to control other variables, that is to say, by very carefully developing the tasks used to elicit the speakers’ speech act realizations.
However, it does not mean that DCT which have been developed to date without some weaknesses [as other sets of instrument do]. Evidently, some researchers, e.g., Hartford and Bardovi-Harlig (1992), Rose and Ono (1995) have found out some weaknesses of using DCT questionnaires as the instrument of data collection in pragmatics studies, especially speech acts. They claimed that all data in pragmatics studies ideally come from natural conditions. The reason is because the DCT does not promote the turn-taking and negotiation strategies found in natural conversation. Some frequently used formulas, such as Accept, Reject and Delays, do not show up at all on the DCT (Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig, 1992).
In spite of weakness, DCT is claimed to be beneficial for collecting pragmatic data from a big number of subjects. It is used for comparing speech act not only cross-culturally, but also within the same language, as produced by NS and NNS (Blum-Kulka, 1986). It allows the researchers to test hypotheses, for instance, to see whether or not the learners enact requests differently from native speakers do. Additionally, using this type of written elicitation techniques enable the researchers to obtain more stereotyped responses; that is “the stereotype of the variants occurring in the individual’s actual speech” (Hill at al, 1986 cited in Blum-Kulka, 1986:13). DCT elicit representations of spoken language (Ritell & Mitchell, 1986). Besides, DCT also makes the researchers more possibly control other variables, that is to say, by very carefully developing the task or scenarios used to elicit the speakers’ speech act realization.
In order to reduce variability resulting from factors other than the ones expected, Hudson (2001:286-287) proposes several constraints needed to be put on generating the tasks, i.e., 1) neither interlocutor has gender specified in the task description, 2) the situation must be face to face, 3) the explicit statement beginning with either “You want” or “You need” must be used in the prompt, 4) the situation is context-internal to the roles, meaning that context of the speech event must have something to do with related activities, 5) no explicit money is to be involved in the context, 6) no context for speech act realization is the result of physical contact, injury, or violating social norms, 7) no stigmatized roles should be included (e.g., rich patron, famous star), 8) situations are familiar to the examinees, 9) no relationships with family, close friends, enemies, or intimates are used, and 10) professionally defined or formulaic interactional patterns (e.g., doctor-patient, lawyer-client) are avoided. However, the last two constraints are questionable why these constraints should be anticipated. Eventually, they may lead the responses that are pertinent to the influence of situational variables on speech act realizations.
Role-plays
Role-plays are also the other types of elicitation method that can be used for collecting pragmatic data. The subjects are asked to simulate dialogues based on the scenarios given. They act out the dialogues with other interlocutors and usually they demonstrate the talks in pairs. The data resulted are more exhaustive than those of DCT questionnaires, since the dialogue, by its nature, consists of several turn-takings, overlapping, and repetitions. The following are the examples of scenarios in role-plays used for eliciting pragmatic data of request realizations.
Instruction: Read the scenarios carefully and try to comprehend the contents and roles of the interlocutors in them. Demonstrate a dialogue of each scenario below with your fellow student.
Scenario 1:
You want to go home in a hurry after the class because of dropping off your father to station to leave for out of town. You will be late if you take a bus from the campus. Fortunately, you see a fellow student riding a motor cycle. It is a good chance for you to ask the fellow student to give a ride home.
Scenario 2:
You are in a class. The lecture is about to start. You realize that you do not have a pen with you. You want to borrow a pen from a fellow student who is sitting next to you.
Scenario 3:
You are completing your final paper or skripsi. You want to see and consult with your advisor about the paper. You see the advisor coming to the office. It is a good chance for you to have a consultation.
Further, the data obtained by means of the role-plays represents real spoken language. The researchers can tape not only the oral data but also visual data in terms of facial expressions and gestures. It is more productive, but less practical than those of DCT. Besides, if the same scenarios in role-plays are given to the other subjects they possibly duplicate or repeat others’ utterances. So to avoid this sort of bias, the researchers have to control the variability, for instance, by randomize the scenarios given to the subjects.
Combined DCT and Role-plays
Using both DCT and role-plays for delineating speech act realization is another sophistication of methodological procedures in doing the IL pragmatics studies. Of course, it will strengthen the evidence and contribute to the validity and reliability of the investigations, for instance, the study done by Ritell and Mitchell (1986) focusing on requests and apologies. In many ways, it was found that language elicited is very similar whether collected by means of DCT or role-plays (Ritell & Mitchell, 1989). The difference is only on the length of responses, vis a vis, responses obtained from oral elicitation relatively longer than those from written one. The NNS’ request realization are 35.7 words in average in DCT and 22.3 words in role-plays, 13.4 word differences while apology realizations are 29.3 words in DCT and 16.9 words in role-plays, 12.4 word differences (see Table 1). In other words, both elicit representations of spoken language. Both show similar patterns of speech act realizations.
Table 1 Length of Responses to Written DCT and Role-plays from Nonnative Speakers (NNS) and Native Speakers (NS)
Speech acts
Technique
Difference
DCT (n = 231)
in average
Role Plays (n = 264)
in average
NNS
NS
NNS
NS
NNS
NS
Requests
35.7
28.5
22.3
27.0
13.4 words
1.5 words
Apologies
29.3
23.1
16.9
20.9
12.4 words
2.2 words
n = numbers of utterances
Another example is the study done by Syahri (2007) which explores the acts of requesting as realized by EFL learners. The study makes use of both methods, i.e., DCT consisting of 15 situations and role-plays of 10 scenarios. Both result similar shape of distributions, though it is found different in term of percentage. They enable the researcher to come to the point that the subjects employed the conventionally indirect strategy and external modification most frequently in their request realizations as shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Distributions of Request Strategies and modifications Elicited by DCT and Role-plays
Methods
Request Strategies
Request Modifications
Direct
Conventionally Indirect
Non-conventionally Indirect
Internal
External
DCT
4%
95%
1%
43%
66%
Role-plays
22%
63%
15%
5%
95%
Moreover, these methods can used to elaborate the pragmatic transfers occurring in FL learners’ speech act realizations. For this purpose, the researchers can construct the situational variables in DCT and role-plays based on the social dimensions in terms of social distance (SD) and dominance (D) between the interlocutors. The interlocutor relationships and setting or circumstances are explicitly stated in the situations and scenarios. They covers four patterns, that is, no social distance (-SD) and no dominance (-D) as constructed in Situation 1 and Scenarios 1 and 2 above, social distance (+SD) but –D as in Situation 2, -SD but dominance (+D) as in Situation 3 and Scenario 3, and +SD and +D as Situation 4 between the interlocutors. These patterns of social relationship are framed the situational variables of both methods.
The transfers are identified by comparing the speech acts realized by the subjects (non-native speakers) with those of the theories or, if possible, of the native speakers. Those are deviant or ‘ill uses’ are to be traced whether they assemble their native-culture norms. If the involvement of native-culture norms is identified concomitantly pragmatic transfer take places. In short, DCT, role-plays, or both are progressively used not only determine patterns in terms of strategy and modification, but also explore the pragmatic transfers.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Usually pragmatics studies are done using longitudinal approaches in which the researchers observe the speakers do things with words. IL pragmatics is another province in pragmatic studies. It attempts to investigate the non-native patterns of realizing speech acts in the target language. To conduct an IL pragmatics study, a researcher needs certain methods to be used. A longitudinal study, in which the data collected in natural settings, in this field is not practical to do and workable only for a small number of subjects.
DCT questionnaires and role-plays under the cross-sectional approach legibly make IL pragmatics investigated in broader perspectives. This sort of elicitation method can result rich pragmatic data. The researchers are able to trace the patterns of speech act realizations. For instances, the researchers can identify the strategies, modifications, and types of politeness strategies employed by the learners of English in realizing speech acts. Further, considering the interlocutor relationships and circumstances as the constructs of the situational variables in both methods, the studies can show the assemblage of native-culture norms in the subjects’ realizations.
At last, DCT questionnaires or role-plays also have some weaknesses, especially the artificial data obtained. The idea of utilizing both in IL pragmatics studies is more suggested. Using both, the researchers can maintain the validity and reliability of their studies by using both.
REFERENCES
Amarien, Novy. 1997. Interlanguage Pragmatics: A study of the Refusal strategies of Indonesian Speakers Speaking English. TEFLIN VIII (August): 128-141.
Aziz, E. Aminudin. 2002. Usia dan Realisasi Kesantunan Berbahasa: Sebuah Studi Pragmatik pada Para Penutur Bahasa Indonesia. PELBBA 16. Jakarta: Pusat Kajian bahasa dan Budaya Unika Admajaya.
Bilbow, Grahame T. 2002. Commissive speech act use in intercultural business meetings. IRAL 40(4): 287-303.
Blum-Kulka, S., Julian House and Gabriele Kasper (Eds). 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Blum-Kulka, S. and E. Olshtain. 1984. Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8: 47-61.
Blum-Kulka, S. 1987. Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 1: 131-146.
Blum-Kulka, S. and Edward A. Levenston. 1987. Lexical-Grammatical Pragmatic Indicator. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9 (2): 115-170.
Cohen, Andrew D. and Noriko Ishihara. 2004. A Web-Based Approach to Strategic Learning of Speech Acts. (Online) http://carla.acad.umn.edu/speechacts/Speech_Act_Project.pdf accessed on April 26, 2005.
Dufon, Margaret A. 1999. The Acquisition of Linguistic Politeness in Indonesian as a Second Language by Sojourness in Naturalistic Interaction (Dissertation). Hawaii: University of Hawaii.
Ernawati, Diyah Bekti. 2004. Responding to Compliments: An Interlanguage Study of Indonesian Non-native Speakers of English. In Bambang Yudi Cahyono and Utami Widiati (eds). The Tapestry of English Language Teaching and Learning in Indonesia. Malang: State University of Malang Press.
Faerch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Internal and External Modification in Interlanguage Request Realization. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka., Julian House and Gabriele Kasper (Eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
Gunarwan, Asim. 1992. Persepsi Kesantunan Direktif di Dalam Bahasa Indonesia di Antara Beberapa Kelompok Etnik di Jakarta. PELBBA 5. Jakarta: Pusat Kajian bahasa dan Budaya Unika Admajaya.
Hassall, Tim. 2001. Modifying Requests in a Second Language. IRAL, XXXIX (4): 259-283.
Hudson, Thom. 2001. Indicators for Pragmatic Instruction: Some quantitative tools. In Kenneth R. Rose and Gabriel Kasper (eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc.
Kasper, Gabriele and Kenneth R. Rose. 2001. The Role of Input Enhancement in Developing Pragmatic Competence. In Kenneth R. Rose and Gabriele Kasper (eds). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, Robert. 1996. “Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education.” Language Learning 16: 1-20.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane and Michael H. Long. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.
Marcos, Haydee and Mina Verba. 1997. The Influence of Social Context on Requests in Young Iranian Children. International Journal of Psychology, 32 (4): 209-219.
Ritell, Ellen M. and Candace J. Mitchell. 1986. Studying Requests and Apologies: An Inquiry into Method. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka., Julian House and Gabriele Kasper (Eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
Rose, Kenneth R. and Reiko Ono. 1995. Eliciting Speech Act Data in Japanese: The Effect of Questionnaire Type. Language Learning, 45 (2): 191-223
Suh, Jae-Suk. 1999. Pragmatic Perception of Politeness in requests by Korean learners of English as a Second Language. IRAL, XXXVII (3): 195-213.
Syahri, Indawan. 2007. Acts of Requesting as Realized by EFL Learners. Dissertation, unpublished. Malang: Graduate Program, the State University of Malang.
Walters, Joel. 1978. Strategies for Requesting in Spanish and English: Strategies similarities and Pragmatic Differences. Language Learning, 29 (1): 277-291.
Young, Linda Wai Ling. 1982. “Inscrutability revisited.” In John J. Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, 72-94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yu, Ming-Chung, 1999. Universalistic and Culture-specific Perspective on Variation in the Acquisition of Pragmatic Competence in a Second Language. Pragmatics 9(2): 281-312.
