0

ENGLISH TEACHERS PERCEPTION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE IN INDONESIAN EFL CLASSROOM

By SAEPUL APANDI NIDN : 04113127703

UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH TANGERANG

2010

ENGLISH TEACHERS PERCEPTION ON THE IMPORTANCE OF PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE IN INDONESIAN EFL CLASSROOM

A. Introduction This research will highlight the perception of Indonesian experienced English teachers upon the importance of pragmatic competence in Indonesian EFL classroom setting. The underlying assumption of this research is that Indonesian English teachers in general frequently ignore cultural aspect of English as the target language being taught in the classroom. This sort of ignorance undoubtedly brings about inappropriate use of language. In other words, Indonesian English teachers do not posses appropriate pragmatic competence. This research, as its title suggests, attempts to investigate how English teachers perceive the cultural norms in English language teaching and its relevance towards the development of students pragmatic competence. English language educators across Indonesia (also across the globe) agree that the sole aim of English language teaching (also other foreign language teaching) is to equip students as language learner with language knowledge that will enable them to engage in communication in the target language. For many years, the main objective of studies on the learning of English as a second language was to analyze linguistic competence. The main reason for this was the teaching methodology used, in which grammar was central to learning. But for some years now, the communicative approach to

second-language learning has put grammar-centered classes to one side and fostered the use of pragmatics. The traditional approach towards English language teaching in Indonesia was heavily emphasized on the development of students mastery on perceptive grammar. This kind of approach is believed to be less effective in promoting students communicative competence. The new vision on communicative competence in second-language learning has led many researchers to define (for redefine) terms such as pragmatic competence, communicative competence or interlanguage. Many of these researchers have considered that pragmatic competence, as well as communicative competence, can be defined as the learners ability to put into practice the knowledge that he/she has of the target language in order to express intensions, feelings, etc, and interpret those of the speakers. The term communicative competence was first coined by Del Hymes in 1972 to refer to learners ability to adapt language to communicate with other people (Cook, 1993). Chomsky prefers to the term as pragmatic competence to refer to the ability to know how language relates to situation for any purpose the speakers intend (Chomsky 1980 in Cook 1993). Language educators across the globe agree that to learn (also to acquire) a second language requires more than a mastery of vocabulary, phonological and syntactical knowledge. A complete mastery of second language absolutely involves pragmatic competence knowing how to use it appropriately. This competence definitely requires a second language learner

to address, comprehend and internalize social and cultural norms related to the proper language use. Thus, linguistic competence the ability to produce and understand grammatical, meaningful sentences -of a person can be

maximally utilized in communication provided that he/she has good communicative competence- the ability to produce and understand the sentences and utterances in socially appropriate ways. To improve students communicative competence, language experts such as Celce-Murcia, Thurrel and Dornyei (1995) introduce a teaching approach in the perspective of communicative competence. This model of teaching attempts to cater for our knowledge on the types of language competence (and performance) that needs to be developed so that students (as language learner) can have proper communicative competence. Early in 1980 Canal and Swain brought in a brilliant idea the structure of communicative competence namely Grammatical Competence, Discourse Competence, Sociolinguistic Competence, and Strategic Competence. The first competence mentioned is what Canal and Swain (1980 as quoted in Brown 1987) refers to as knowledge of lexical items and rules of morphology, syntax, sentence grammar, semantics and phonology. The second competence mentioned refers to the psychological dimension of communicative competence to relate sentences to each other to form larger units of discourse (written or spoken) for the purpose of inferring meaning, or performing communicative acts, of understanding the communicative functions of sentences (Munby 1988). The third competence, Sociolinguistic competence, is defined by Savignon (1993)

as an understanding of social context in which communication takes place, including role relationship, the shared knowledge of the participants and the communicative purpose for their interaction. Lastly, Strategic competence is what Van Dijk defines as the amalgamation of learners cognitive, language, grammatical, discourse, cultural and rhetorical competence. Pragmatic competence is not included in this four elements of communicative competence as it emerges later. The notion of pragmatic competence was extended from sociolinguistics concept. Pragmatists see it necessary to further develop particular concepts of sociolinguistics such as speech act and politeness, for example, into more specific nature that can cater for problems in developing students communicative competence. The master is further discussed in the following section.

B. Theoretical Framework of the study The study on teachers perception on the importance of pragmatic competence has not been found out yet, but research on pragmatic competence itself has been given special attention within the last decade. The following are several prominent researches on pragmatic competence whose works become valuable sources in the current research on pragmatics. In Rose, Kenneth and Kasper (2001) Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig proposes a question whether there is a great necessity to provide instruction in pragmatic competence. Bardovi-Harlig replies her own question by saying YES. Her research is an investigation on discrepancy between native

speakers pragmatic competence and that of non native speakers. Her finding suggest that foreign learners and teachers place greater importance on grammatical development and have problems with social implicature. Part of the problem here would appear to be the learners tendency to rely heavily on bottom-up processing some of sing instead of utilizing the frame for socio cultural interpretation. Bardovi-Harligs research reveals some of the major factors underlying the above phenomenon, including limited input (inappropriate models from classroom discourse patterns and books which still focus more on grammar), flawed instruction, level of proficiency and, of course, the learners first language and culture. Bardovi-Harlig deliberately avoids the question as to whether or not native speaker pragmatic norms should be the target for learners even though these forms may flaunt their first culture conventions and make them feel uncomfortable. The question is an important one though as it is fundamental to the teaching aims of pragmatic competence. Here, the concepts of Byram (1997) and Kramsch (1993) would be a useful complement to the argumentation. They see target pragmatic features as a means by which to understand ones own cultural template rather than an aim in themselves. Gabriel Kasper (2001) addresses classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. She points out that although interlaguage pragmatic has had a big influence on the foreign language classroom, pragmatics has not often been the object of classroom research. The first type of research she mentions,

observational studies, has highlighted the shortcomings of the foreign language classroom as a place to develop pragmatic competence. Kasper mentions particularly the important role of the teacher as a mediator of socialization processes but also knowledge the enormous variety in teaching style which means that what the learner picks up from classroom interactions may be very much pot luck. Kaspers research findings confirm that pragmatic development in a foreign language environment is more restricted than in a second language environment. But all of this is based on the assumption that the target is to acquire native speaker patterns of pragmatic competence. Surely the foreign language classroom has a great value when the aim is to gain insight into ones own cultural template via target patterns because the foreign language classroom has the collective foreign perspective on the target culture which allows development of insight into common (but different) value dimensions. Kasper in her 1997 publication entitled Can Pragmatic Competence Be Taught? organized by the University of Hawaii states that pragmatic competence can not be taught. She clearly states that both linguistic and pragmatic competence are not teachable. She further says that competence is a type of knowledge that learner possess, develop, acquire, use or lose. The challenge for foreign or second language teaching is whether we can arrange learning opportunities in such a way that they benefit the development of pragmatic competence in L2. Kasper, in accordance with other pragmatists,

strongly agree that in order to communicate successfully in a target language, pragmatic competence in L2 must be reasonably well developed. The notion of pragmatic competence was in a fact of concept extended by Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1989) to enrich the theory of interlanguage. In their discussion of Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) they identify five research areas: (1) pragmatic comprehension; (2) production of linguistic action; (3) development of pragmatic competence; (4) pragmatic transfer; (5) communicative effect. The third research area gains more attention in recent years as it is closely related to the development of target language mastery. In recent development, pragmatic competence is enriched with the concept of pragmatic routines. This concept is further realized with the theory of acquisition-prompting routines as the initial gate to promote the proper use of language.

C. Purpose of the Study This study will document teachers perception on the importance of the development of pragmatic competence in English as Foreign Language (EFL) classroom. This study is carried out in an attempt to investigate not only teachers perspective on English language teaching (in accordance with the idea of pragmatic competence), but also their classroom experience. More specifically, this study will explore how those English teachers put their pragmatic knowledge in the classroom practice. The investigation on

teachers perception on pragmatic competence will be guided by the following basic research guestions: 1. How do (experienced) English teachers perceive pragmatics and its importance in developing students pragmatic competence? 2. How do they view the use of classroom English as an initial effort to enhance students communicative competence? 3. How do they perceive the relation between pragmatic competence and the use of classroom English in promoting acquisitionprompting routines in Indonesian EFL classroom?

D. Methodology 1. Site and Respondent The study has taken place at MTsN 33 Jakarta. We purposefully choose three respondents (this is termed as purposive sample as discussed in Al Wasilah 200, pp.105). The sole reason why we only select them is because they are known as the most experienced teachers (also remarkable teachers). Therefore, we highly assume that their long teaching experience can provide a beneficial insight on how English language teaching should be carried out. The initials of the respondents are MTH, 43 years old with 15 years of teaching, MYA, 35 years old with 12 years of teaching experience, and MW, 34 years old with 13 years of teaching experience. Hence they represent different origins as well, but this study will not highlight the socio background of the respondents.

2. Researcher Role As Cresswell (1994), Al Wasilah (2000) and Silverman (2005) point out that in qualitative research the researcher serves to play the role as the instrument. This results in the fact that the researchers are required not only to adapt themselves to the will-be-scrutinized, but also utilize their knowledge and experience in understanding the phenomena.

3. Data Collection Method Data are collected from the questionnaire given to the three respondents. To get a better insight on their perception on the issue, the respondent will be interviewed. This interview is meant to clarify and confirm the answers made by the respondents. The questions posed in the interview are developed according to the concept (answers) presented by the respondents in the questionnaire. The interview took around 20 30 minutes .

4. Data Analysis Method In an attempt to make sense of data, proofreading the data in multiple angles so that we can come up with the feasible relationship among ideas, realities and outcomes. When those three aspects are unfolded, we try to make a comparison between data gained from the questionnaire and that of interview. Ideas obtained from the two data

10

sources are being categorized. The similarity and dissimilarity found in data sources will be grouped. In order to make sense of data, we will use categorical symbol such as PC for Pragmatic Competence, CE for Classroom English, and APR for Acquisition-Prompting Routines. This categorical symbolization is expected to facilitate us in identifying ideas and concepts unfolded in the data sources. When this symbolization is established, we will give an attempt to further make sense of the data by arranging and interpreting them in a way as meaningful as possible.

5. Research Findings and Conclusion Teachers Perception on Pragmatic Competence a. EFL Context-Based Perception Pragmatic competence should be integrated to the EFL context in Indonesian classroom although it can positively and negatively contribute. Some terms in the scope of pragmatics such as implicature and entailment has been found in curriculum of Junior High School. It would be better if the pragmatic competence is integrated implicitly during the practical classroom activity such as in practical conversation.

11

b. Significant Features-Based Perception Speech Act Speech act is a part of pragmatic competence that should be transferred to the students. This feature should be highlighted by the teachers during the teaching and learning process in the classroom. The feature is mainly needed to avoid

misunderstanding in communication activity. By applying speech act, students would be able to know how to produce appropriate utterance associated with the hearers (participant), place and time sequence. Politeness The teacher stated his consciousness about the importance of the concept politeness, indirectness and praising in the daily human conversation. it can be compared from the way of how western an eastern people state an utterance to be polite to each other. The eastern society such as Indonesia state the utterance indirectly. On the other hand, the western society states the polite utterance in almost direct way. Another feature was about giving and responding praising. As an effect of the indirect way of stating utterance, the eastern people were viewed as to be indirect in praising. Moreover, eastern people such as China and Malaysia, was less accustomed to praise others. When the western society has convention in responding

12

praising with the acceptance, the eastern, in contrast, society has accustomed to respond to the praising with refusal or rejecting.

c. Experience-Based Perception What has been experienced by the teachers related to pragmatic has been found through their perception on pragmatic competence in EFL context. Some of the data show there are some differences, especially about their perspective on teaching English before and after they know pragmatic field. Some points can be highlighted from the interview are selfconfidence, interpersonal skill, communication in teaching process, and classroom interaction, pragmatic would make the process of communication and interaction effective related to the time and situation being.

d. Other view on Pragmatic Competence The data of interview shows that pragmatic competence should be practically applied in daily communication and interaction so that people become accustomed to employ pragmatic in their daily life. Vocabulary, Phonology and syntax still took the important role in communication inside the pragmatic competence, which can lead to communicate effectively.

13

Teachers Perception on Classroom English a. Positive contribution of Pragmatic Competence Some data show finding about teachers perception about positive contribution of pragmatic in classroom English. The teacher perceived one skill that should be mastered by professional teacher (in relation with classroom English) is the ability to interact with students. Pragmatic would contribute positively to the teacher interpersonal skill

b. Negative contribution of Pragmatic Competence Beside the teachers perceive that pragmatic competence positively contributed to the classroom English, they also perceived that English pragmatic competence also can possibly contribute negatively to the students through interaction and communication in classroom English. When the teacher is teaching English, he/she is usually neglecting the native language (Indonesian) in the same time. The controversy is about the norm that should be adapted related to the language we learn about.

Teachers perception on Students Acquisition Prompting Routine (APR) combined with Pragmatic Competence a. Implicit pragmatic teaching Teacher should teach pragmatic competence implicitly during their teaching activity in the classroom. Explicit teaching on pragmatic in

14

relation with students APR in the classroom is not effective. It is important to teach pragmatic implicitly in order to construct APR in the classroom.

b. Directed to socio-culture competence Another finding related to the teacher perception on pragmatic competence in relation with APR is that, in APR, pragmatic competence could be directed to build students socio-culture competence. The pragmatic stuff is in the area of socio-culture. Although an utterance with the correct grammar and pronunciation linguistically correct), it can be possible that our utterance would not be understandable for the native speaker. Our utterance might tot represent our conveyed idea so that the native speaker would misunderstand the meaning. The utterance she is a clever student was grammatically correct, but clever could mean tricky according to native speaker although the conveyed meaning was

knowledgeable or talented. So the conveyed meaning could not be reached by the hearer.

c. Engagement and exposure Some data show that engagement and exposure on pragmatic is very important and appropriate for students APR in English. Homestay program could be the solution to engage students in pragmatic

15

competence and speaking English. It was really suitable for APR. Less exposure and routine is one of the failures of English education (in Indonesia). So on the teachers view, routine and engagement are two related elements which should be implied to gain pragmatic competence in English among students.

Conclusion The English teachers perceive that, by mean of its positive contribution, pragmatic should be integrated into the EFL context in Indonesia although in one case the controversy between Indonesian and English norm- can be negatively influenced. Speech act and politeness are the two essential features perceived by the teachers to give most contribution on teaching learning activity. The teachers also perceive that pragmatic competence will rise up teachers consciousness of the importance of effective communication activity and could build up teachers self confidence and interpersonal skill. The teachers also perceive that pragmatic competence should be virtually applied in daily communication activity so that people become accustomed to employ pragmatic in their daily life. To the use of classroom English as an initial effort to enhance students communicative competence, the teachers perceive that pragmatics will contribute positively as the representation of one skill that should be mastered by the professional teacher.; the ability to interact and

16

work together with their students. The contribution also includes how to use English properly related to whom we are speaking to and the context of place and time. On the other hand, one of the teachers perceives that English pragmatic competence also can possibly contribute negatively by mean of classroom English. We were studying English. We were in the world of English and neglecting our language norm in the same time. Finally, when the teachers perceive the relation between pragmatic competence and promoting acquisition-prompting routines in Indonesian EFL classroom, they emphasize the concept of implicitly pragmatic teaching activity in the classroom. Socio-culture will be the most relevant competence to be constructed through teaching pragmatics. Besides, the concept of engagement and exposure on pragmatic are perceived to be significant and suitable to promote acquisition prompting routine for students during English language learning.

6. Significance of the Study It is highly expected this study will amplify our awareness on cultural values so that we can produce culturally appropriate language use both in the classroom communication and English daily communication outside school environment. In other words, this research is to promote the proper use of English in Indonesian EFL classroom. This study, to the best of our understanding, is expected to contribute to develop English teachers professionalism in its trust sense.

17

References

Alwasilah, A.C. (2000). Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-Dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Pragmatics.Oxford: Blackwell. Utterances: An Introduction to

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. ( Eds ). (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies (Vol. XXXI). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation Brown, H.D. (1978). Principles of Languange Learning and Teaching. Eaglewood : Prentice Hall Inc. Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cook, C. (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: the Macmillan Press Ltd. Cresswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Ellis, R. (1994). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman. Kramsch, Claire (1993). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Munby, J. (1878). Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge University Press. Cambrigde:

Rose, Kenneth, R. and Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press. Savignon, S. (1993). Classroom Communicative Competence: Theory and

Practise, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

18

Silvermann, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publication Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning In Interaction. Websites Address Essex: Longman House

Campillo, P. S. (2005). Third Language Learners: Pragmatics Production and Awareness. [Online]. Available:http://www.atlantisjournal.org/Paper/ 28_1/P. Salazar.pdf [17 may 2008] Franch, P. B. (1998). On Pragmatic Transfer. [Online]. Available: http://www.uv.es/boup/PDF/Sell-98.pdf [ 17 May 2008 ]. Kasper, G. (1997). Can Pragmatisc Competence Be Taught ? In SecondLanguage Teaching and Curriculum Centre. [Online]. Available: http://www.nflrc.hawai.edu/NetWorks/NW06/ [17 May 2008] Liu, S. (1998) New Perspectives of Pragmatics. [Online]. Available: http://www.gxnu.cm/personal/szliu/New%20Perspectives% [17 May 2008]

Spencer-Oatey, H. (1999). Intercultural Communication. [Online]. Available: http://209.15.42.137/ic.org.uk/publications/socio.pdf [ 17 May 2008] Yates, L. (2004). The Secret Rule of Language: Tackling Pragmatics in theClassroom. [Online]. Available: http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au Prospect_journal/volume_19_no_1/19_1_1_Yates.pdf [17 May 2008] Zegarac, V., and Pennington, M.C. (1997). Pragmatics Transfer in InterculturalCommunication. [Online]. Available: http://www.vlad.tv/publicpdfs/ p2000-pragmatictransfer.pdf [17 May2008]