THE EFFECTS OF IMPLICIT VERSUS EXPLICIT INSTRUCTIONS TO TEACH REFUSAL STRATEGIES ON STUDENTS’ SOCIOPRAGMATIC AND PRAGMALINGUISTIC COMPETENCE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32520/eji.v4i1.864Keywords:
Keywords: implicit, explicit, refusal strategies, pragmatic competencesAbstract
Abstract
The purposes of the study were to explain the effects of implicit instruction on student’s sociopragmatic competences, implicit instructions on students’ pragmalinguistic competences, explicit instructions on students’ sociopragmatic competences, explicit instructions on students’ pragmalinguistic competences, the differences between implicit and explicit instructions on students’ sociopragmatic competences, the differences between implicit and explicit instructions on student’s pragmalinguistic competences, and the interaction between instructions with the students’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic competences. The study used a quantitative research by using experimental factorial design 2x2. The data were taken from 80 second semester students at English Language Education Study Program at STAIN. The result of the study revealed that the mean score of post-test in implicit instruction on students’ sociopragmatic was 80.000 while explicit 92.550. Meanwhile, the mean score of post-test in implicit instruction on students’ pragmalinguistic was 83.000 while explicit 95.5000. It could be concluded that explicit has better effect to teach refusal strategies than implicit instruction on students’ sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic competence based on the difference between the means score on implicit and explicit.
References
Amarien, N. 2011. Interlanguage Pragmatics: A Study of the Refusal Strategies of the Indonesian Speakers Spaking English. Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN) Journal. Available on http://journal.teflin.org/index.php/teflin/article/view/178/66 Access on 8th September 2015
Austin J. L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxfor University Press.
Barron, Anne. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics, Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Beebe, L.M., T. Takahshi, and R. Uliss-Weltz. 1985. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. Paper presented at the Second Research Forum, UCLA. To Appear in On the Development of Communicative Competence in a Second Language, eds. R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, and S. C. Krashen Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Creswell, John W. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Third edition. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Cutting, Joan. 2002. Pragmatics and Discourse. A resource Book for Students. New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R.. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eryani, A. 2007. Refusal Strategies by Yemeni EFL Learners. The Asian EFL Journal. Volume 9, Number 2. Available on http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_2007_EBook_editions.pdf Access on 8th September 2015
Eslami-Rasekh, Z. 2004. Learning the Pragmatic Awareness of Language Learners. English Language Teaching Journal. Volume.59, Issue 3,pages 199 - 208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci039 Access on 8th September 2015
Fakher Ajabshir, Zahra. 2014. The Effect of Implicit and Explicit Types of Feedback on Learners’ Pragmatic Development. International Conference on Current Trends in ELT. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Volume 98. Pages 463 – 471 www.sciencedirect.com Access on 8th September 2015
Hymes, Dell. 1977. Foundations in Sociolinguistics. London: Tavistock Publications.
Kasper, G., Rose, K.R. 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Mahwah, NJ: Blackwell.
Kasper, G., Rose, K.R. Pragmatics in Language Teaching (New York: Cambridge University Press): 200-22
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mey, Jacob L. 1993. Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Searle, John R. 2010b. Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
