15
analyzing language and context to identify the goal and intention of the speaker,
and assessing the speaker‘s attainment of the goal and the listener‘s interpretation
analyzing and practicing the use of directnesspolitenessformality in an interaction;
identifying and using multiple functions of a speech act;
identifying and using a range of cultural norms in the L2 culture; and
identifying and using possible cultural reasoning or ideologies behind L2
pragmatic norms.
Ishihara, 2010: 114
However, she adds that in reality of language teaching, there is not clear cut between both types of instructions. In other words, the instructions are blurred
either it belongs to sociopragmatic focus or pragmalinguistic focus since to do the activities requires learners to focus on both linguistic and social aspects. It can be
seen in the following extract.
collecting L2 data in the L2 community or the media, e.g., films, sit-coms;
comparing learners‘ L1 and L2 pragmatic norms;
comparing felicitous and infelicitous L2 pragmatic uses, e.g., comparing
successful and awkward interactions;
sharing personal stories about pragmatic failure or similar or different pragmatic norms in another culture;
reconstructing sample dialogues, e.g., recreating dialogues and sequencing of lines
from a dialogue ;
role-playing variation: role-plays with specific intentions, such as where one person attempts to persuade the other to accept an invitation and the other intends
to refuse the invitation. The role-play can be recorded for subsequent reflection,;
keeping a reflective journal or interaction log;
interviewing L2-speaking informants about norms for pragmatic behavior; and
experimenting with certain pragmatic behavior in the L2 community.
Ishihara, 2010: 114
Looking at those language instructions, we can infer that all of those instructions are used to improve learners‘ pragmatic competence which can be
found in English textbooks. However, practically not all of those instructions are applied in English textbooks. Sometimes, there are only some of the instructions
used in text books, whereas some of them are absent.
c. Pragmatic Failure of Language Learners
Learning language is a long process. It is common for language learners to undergo a failure in producing language, especially when dealing with pragmatics.
Thomas 1983: 91 defines pragmatic failure as ―...the inability to understand ´what is
16
meant by what is said´‖. In the same way, Blum-Kulka Olshtain 1986: 166 believe that pragmatic failure takes place ―... whenever two speakers fail to
understand each other‘s intentions‖. Thus, it can be concluded that pragmatic failure is inability to comprehend utterances as intended by speakers and produce utterances
which are appropriate with the social rules. According to Ishihara and Cohen 2010: 77, there are five causes of pragmatic
failures done by language learners. They are 1 negative transfer of pragmatic norms 2 limited L2 grammatical ability 3 overgeneralization of perceived L2 pragmatic
norms 4 effect of instruction or instructional materials 5 resistance to using perceived L2 pragmatic norms.
Now let‘s see each cause in detail. Negative transfer of pragmatic norms happens when learners assume that their own pragmatic norms can be applied in the
given situation in the targ et culture or they don‘t know pragmatic norms in the target
culture, so they just directly apply their own pragmatic norms to the target culture. Let‘s take the case of Indonesian learners when they deal with offering. When an
English offers an Indonesian learner for a drink, the Indonesian learner tend to refuse the offer first by saying ‗you don‘t need to bother yourself‘, and waiting for the offer
for the second time since Indonesian rarely accept an offer in the first time to avoid negative image. But the foreigner just get it as a kind of refuse, in fact Indonesian do
not mean to reject it. Secondly, the cause of pragmatic failure is limited L2 grammatical ability.
Learners may be able to comprehend others massages better when the interlocutor uses grammar that they master. For instance, a learner who do not know conditional
sentence tends to fail to understand the intended message if the interlocutor use ‗If I
17
were you, I would put that cigarette off‘ as a kind of suggestion or a gentle demand. Since such kind of structures is beyond their grammatical knowledge.
Thirdly, the cause of pragmatic failure is overgeneralization of perceived L2 pragmatic norms. Overgeneralization means that generalizing a certain rule to other
language situations in which the rule can not be applied in such situation. For instance
, apologizing by simply saying ‗I‘m sorry‘ or ‗Excuse me’ sometimes work in some situations, but not in others. It depends on the our interlocutors and the
magnitude of the offense. Fourthly, the cause of pragmatic failure is effect of instruction or instructional
materials. Materials or language instruction can contribute to the learners‘ pragmatic failure if the materials are not well written and designed. For instance, a text book
which uses unauthentic text tends to provide language samples which do not reflect real life situation. In other words, the language sample like a model of conversation
which is given before the students are asked to produce their own language sounds stiff or weird.
The last one is resistance to using perceived L2 pragmatic norms. This type of pragmatic deviation happens with learners‘ awareness. Learners purposively avoid
using the target pragmatic norms due to their social identity, attitudes, personal belief, and principles. For instance, when one introduces someone to others, sometime it is
followed with shaking hand either the same or different sex. But for some Muslims, they tend to purposively avoid shaking hands with different sex.
2. Communicative Competence
