ENGLISH DIALOGS IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE OF ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM STUDENTS OF UNIMOR

Edmundus Bouk

Abstract


This research refers to pragmatic competence of English Study Program students of UNIMOR in English dialogs. Pragmatic competence is important in the context of language use from the view points of the language users. This research is aimed at describing the students’pragmatic competence in using English inside and/or outside the classroom from the perspective of pragmatic competence.It means how pragmatic competence is realized in English dialogs. The problems of this research are as follows: (1) How is pragmatic competence realized in English dialogs?, (2) How does context in English dialogs influence the speaker’s intention in negotiating meaning? The theoretical background of this research is based on concepts and/or ideas introduced by some experts in pragmatics, such as George Yule, Jenny Thomas, Levinson, Leech, and others. This research applies qualitative method toanalyze and describe how language is used based on the contexts found in the dialogs. Besides, it is also important to know what kind of meaning is negotiated in language use, since contexts can influence what is said. This research is focused on pragmatic contexts in dialogs. The data of this research are obtained from the fifth semester students of English Study Program in the academic year 2016/2017. The data is by collected asking the students in pairs to demonstrate their speaking ability in a dialog freely about any topic, then the dialog is recorded and transcribed based on the recording for further anaysis. The recorded dialog is the primary data of data analysis. In order to support the main research data, the researcher also uses observation technique as secondary data to support the main data by observing how the students interact inside and/or outside the classroom by using English. The result of the research showed thatpragmatic competence was realized in the dialog and the contexts could influence the speaker’s intention in negotiating meaning, since the utterance meaning does not reflect the intended meanings in the speaker’s mind.

Keywords


dialog, pragmatics, competence, contextual meaning.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Brown, G & Yule G.1991. Teaching Spoken Language.Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Best, J.W. 1981. Research in Education. (4th ed). New Jersey: Prentice –Hall, Inc.

Barron, A. 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics : Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam : John Benjamin.

Bygate, M. 1987. Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bygate, M. 1991. Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L.F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Canale, M. 1983. From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Padagogy. In J. C. Richards & R.W.Schmids.(eds.). Language and Communication, New York: Longman.

Clark, H.1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, L. 2007. Research Methods in Education(6th ed). London: Routledge.

Canale, M and Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics I: 1 – 47.

Counihan, G. 1988. Teach Students to Interact. Not Just Talk. The Internet TESOL Journal. Vol.4/7, July 1988.

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge : Mass: MIT Press.

Canale, M. & Swan, M. 1980. Theoretical Basis of communication Approach to Second Language Learning and Teaching. Applied Linguistics, I, 1-47.

Canale, M. 1983. From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy. In Richards & Schmidt (eds): 2 - 27.

Creswell, J.W 1994. Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.

Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Cole and Morgan (eds) : 41 – 58.

Hymes, D.H. 1972. On Communicative Competence. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press,. In Pride and Holmes (eds): 269 – 293.

Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. Pragmatics and Social Deixis. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkerley Linguistic Society, pp. 206-23.

Levinson, C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leech, G.N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London : Longman.

Mey, J.L. 1993. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Morris, C.W. 1938. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. In O. Neurath, R. Carnap & C. Morris (eds). International Encyclopedia of Unified Signs. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Nunan, D.1992. Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Parker, F. 1986. Linguistics for Non-Linguists. London : Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Richards, J.C. and Smith R.W (eds.). 1983. Language and Communication. London: Longman.

Rose, K. 1999. Teachers and Students Learning about requests in Hong Kong. In E. Hinkel (Ed). Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning. 56(2), 269 – 318.

Savinon, Sandra J. 1983. Communicative Competence : Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Westley.

Searle,J.R.1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, Jenny.1995. Meaning in Interaction an Introduction to Pragmatics. Essex: Longman.

Thomason, R.H. 1977. Where pragmatics fits in. In Rogers, Wall & Murphy, 161 – 166.

Thomas, J. 1983. Cross- cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 91 – 112.

Van Dijk, T.A.1976. (ed) . Pragmatics of Language and Literature. Amsterdam: North Holland.

Widdowson, H.G. 1989. Knowledge of Language and Ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 10. 128- 137.

Widdowson, H.G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics.Oxford : Oxford University Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.