Thus, the evidence of sociopragmatic transfer is clear by the fact that, in addressing the favor givers to accompany their use of thanking strategy,
ELs‘ assessment of social status of the interlocutors which is equivalent to non-
egalitarian value orientation of their L1 contexts, represented by INs, influences their social perception on how to vary their selection of the subcategories of
alerter which is functioned as address term title or name in addressing the favor givers with different status in L2 contexts.
2. Manifestation of Pragmatic Transfer
The manifestation of pragmatic transfer which occurs is negative sociopragmatic transfer. In contrast to INs and ELs, as Americans, AEs have
egalitarian orientation who believes that everybody is equal and, thus, can be treated equally.
480
In every situation, alerter strategy is never used by almost all AEs.
481
The main point is that, regardless the social status of the favor giver, AEs treat everybody equally by never once using any alerter strategy to address every
favor giver, whosoever they are, either professor, classmate, or junior student. It is clear that the evidence of negative sociopragmatic transfer is found
since L1-based social perception of non-egalitarian value orientation which underlies and influences how ELs vary their preference of the subcategories of
alerter strategy which is functioned as address term based on their assessment of the social power of the interlocutors is incongruent with egalitarian value
orientation of AEs as Americans which is NSs of L2 of ELs. As Kasper stated,
480
Anna Wierzbicka, op.cit. p.107.
481
Table 5.1-5.18 AEs Appendix 5
negative transfer occurs when L1-based pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic knowledge which is transferred by language learners is incongruent with L2
pragmalinguistic or sociopragmatic knowledge.
482
2. Non-structural Factors of the Evidences of Pragmatic Transfer
In the present study, similar to AEs and INs, in every situation, almost all ELs use thanking strategy in expressing gratitude. Hence, it can be concluded that
all ELs are the ‗executors‘ of positive pragmatic transfer in the use of thanking
strategy. It is also evident that ELs do negative pragmalinguistic transfer as a result from transferring their L1-based illocutionary force of showing respect to
the favor giver which is assigned in alerter strategy in the subcategory of title or name in accompanying the use of thanking strategy while thanking in L2 contexts.
But, if it is looked in detail, there are only 7 of 10 ELs who have similar preference to INs in which, not depending on any specific contextual variable, as
long as identifying title or name which can be used to address, in accompanying thanking strategy in the expressions of gratitude, they use alerter in the
subcategory of title or name to show respect to the favor giver. The 7 ELs are EL 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10. These ELs al
so become the ‗executors‘ of the occurrence of negative sociopragmatic transfer in the use of alerter since, in addressing every
favor giver by using at least one alerter strategy in the subcategory of title or name in accompanying thanking strategy, similar to INs, the 7 ELs vary the preference
of address term based on social status of the favor givers.
482
Gabriele Kasper 1986, op.cit,. p. 213.
The 7 ELs averagely have 100 as their iBT TOEFL score. They averagely have lived in the US for 1 year and 2 months. As Kasper stated, working together
with level of proficiency, as a developmental aspect in non-structural factors which contribute to the evidence of pragmatic transfer, length of stay in L2
community may increases the learners‘ familiarity with L2 contexts, hence, it potentially decrease the occurrence of pragmatic transfer.
483
But, the present study proves that advanced-level Indonesian learners of English who averagely has
lived in the US for 1 year and 2 months still rely on their L1-based value and social perception. Length of interacting in English with Americans also has no
significant influence. The present study also shows that
being ‗advanced‘ at the proficiency scores have nothing to do with
the development of learners‘ pragmatic competence. Then, in the present study, staying in the L2 community averagely for 1 year and
2 months does not have significant effect. It is in line with Cheng who proved that advanced-level Chinese learners of English who have lived in the US for less than
six months; and 1 year and 3 months still show significant differences with NSs of American English, but advanced-level Chinese learners of English who have lived
in the US for 4 years and more already show no significant difference with NSs of American English.
484
Thus, it is clear that living in the target community and interacting in English with Americans for averagely a year does not instantly
enough to make advanced-level ELs become familiar with L2 context.
483
Gabriele Kasper 1992, op.cit. pp. 219-221.
484
Stephanie Weijung Cheng 2005, op.cit. pp. 96-98.
112
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
A. Conclusions
Expressing gratitude or thanking is a language function which is performed by both AEs and INs in responding to every given situation where the favor givers
as the interlocutors did acts which benefit AEs and INs as the thankers. But, the preference of choosing appropriate thanking strategies and how to express them
appropriately are entirely culture-specific. Due to the similarities and differences at pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic level, what is appropriate for AEs is not
always appropriate for INs, and vice versa. This condition leads ELs as advanced- level Indonesian learners of English to do positive and negative pragmatic transfer
in the level of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic. In the present study, there are three evidences of pragmatic transfer which
are found: positive pragmalinguistic transfer in the use of thanking strategy; negative pragmalinguistic transfer in the use of alerter strategy; and negative
sociopragmatic transfer in the use of alerter strategy. Significant similarity between AEs and INs ‗facilitates‘ ELs to positively transfer their L1
pragmalinguistic knowledge in using thanking strategy. But, significant differences between AEs and INs lead ELs to do negative pragmatic transfer. It
happens since L1-based pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic knowledge which is carried out by ELs in using alerter strategy is extremely not matched to AEs. By
this fact, advanced ELs who have lived in the US for at least a year and have
