Previous Studies THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

8

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Previous Studies

Focusing on a cross-cultural comparison study in interlanguage pragmatics, in 1986, Eisenstein and Bodman investigated expressions of gratitude after receiving a gift, favor, reward, and service which are made by NSs and NNSs of American English. 10 They employ a 14-situations open-ended DCT. 11 They involve 56 NSs of American English and 67 advanced students in ESL classes at colleges in the US who come from 15 language backgrounds who living in the US for among 3 months until 9 years. 12 By qualitatively analyzing, they report that NSs and NSSs have a noticeable pragmalinguistic difference in producing reciprocity strategy while expressing gratitude over a lunch treat. 13 In 2005, developing an exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development, Cheng investigated effects of increase of lenght of stay in the L2 community to learners‘ development of pragmatic competence by focusing on expressions of gratitude after receiving a favor which are made by Chinese learners of English. 14 She employs an 8-situations open-ended DCT. 15 As the baseline data, she involves 64 NSs of Chinese who are graduate students at 7 10 Miriam Eisenstein and Jean W. Bodman 1986, op.cit, pp. 167-169. 11 Ibid. pp. 170, 179-180. 12 Ibid. p. 170. 13 Ibid. p. 175. 14 Stephanie Weijung Cheng 2005, op.cit. p. 1 . 15 Ibid. pp. 32-38. universities in 4 cities in Taiwan and 35 NSs of American English who are graduate students at the University of Iowa. 16 Then, Cheng investigates expressions of gratitude which are made by 53 advanced-level Chinese NNSs of American English with a minimum TOEFL score of 550 who have different lengths of stay in the US. 17 By conducting descriptive and t-test analysis, the study finds an indication of pragmatic development through the length of stay in the US since expressions of gratitude which are made by Chinese NNSs who has lived in the US for more than 4 years and NSs of American English show no significant difference. 18 Based on the expressions of gratitude which are made by NSs of American English and Chinese, Cheng builds a thanking taxonomy which is adopted in the present study. Cheng‘s thanking taxonomy is adopted by some researchers. In 2009, Maryam and Raja used it to categorize the expressions of gratitude which are made by 10 Iranian intermediate and advanced EFL learners, and NSs of Iranian and American English. 19 Developing a cross-cultural comparison study in 2012, Reza and Sima also used Cheng‘s thanking taxonomy to categorize expressions of gratitude which are made by 180 Persian EFL students and 25 Chinese ESL learners. 20 As the baseline data, they use the data of 35 NSs of American English 16 Ibid. pp. 30-31. 17 Ibid. pp. 27-28. 18 Ibid. pp. 1, 83. 19 Maryam Farnia and Raja Rozina Raja Suleiman, ―An Interlanguage Pragmatics Study of Expressions of Gratitude by Iranian EFL Learners – A Pilot Study,‖ Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, Vol. 5. Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2009, p. 121. 20 Reza Pishghadam and Sima Zirei, ―Cross-cultural Comparison of Gratitude Expression in Persian, Chinese and American English, ‖ English Language Teaching, vol. 5, no. 1, Canadian Center of Science and Education, 2012, p. 120. which was studied by Cheng. 21 Reza and Sima reveal that Persian and Chinese learners use the same strategies as NSs of American English use in expressing gratitude, but preference of the strategies in certain contexts vary across cultures. 22 Expressing gratitude is infrequently studied in the field of pragmatic transfer. Hence, in this section, studies of pragmatic transfer which focus on the other speech acts are explained to highlight the ways how the studies of pragmatic transfer are developed and what kind of study which is further needed. In 1993, by descriptively analyzing, Takahashi and Beebe found the evidence of pragmatic transfer in the corrections which are made by advanced-level Japanese ESL learners who live in the US. 23 Developing a study of cross-linguistic influence, they compare corrections which are performed 15 Japanese ESL learners with 25 NSs of Japanese and 15 NSs of American English. 24 As Kasper stated, Takahashi and Beebe use the term of cross-linguistic influence and pragmatic transfer interchangeably. 25 Hence, their study is also categorized as a study of pragmatic transfer. In eliciting the data, they employ a 12-situations DCT. 26 In 1997, Dogancay-Aktuna and Kamisli found the evidences of positive and negative transfer in the speech acts of chastisement which are performed by advanced-level Turkish EFL learners with TOEFL score of 500 and 21 Ibid. p. 119. 22 Ibid. p. 121. 23 Gabriele Kasper and Shosana Blum-Kulka, Interlanguage Pragmatics New York: Oxford Universtity Press, 1993, p. 10. 24 Tomoko Takahashi and Leslie M. Beebe, ―Cross-Linguistic Influence in the Speech Act of Correction,‖ in Gabriele Kasper and Shosana Blum-Kulka editors, Interlanguage Pragmatics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 140. 25 Gabriele Kasper 1992, op.cit. p. 206. 26 Tomoko Takahashi and Leslie M. Beebe 1993, op.cit. p. 140. above who are all in two English universities in Turkey. 27 They compare the speech acts of chastisement which are performed by 68 Turkish EFL learners with what are performed by 80 NSs of Turkish and 14 NSs of American English. 28 Dogancay-Aktuna and Kamisli employ written role play consisted of 2 situations. 29 By quantitatively analyzing, they find that similarities on the preference of between NNs of Turkish and American English lead Turkish EFL learners to do positive transfer, while differences between the performances of both groups of NSs lead Turkish EFL learners to do negative transfer when they perform the speech acts of chastisement in L2. 30 In 2008, Wannaruk found evidences of pragmatic transfer in refusals which are made by 40 Thai EFL learners. 31 As the baseline data, she first compares refusals which are made by 40 NSs of Thai and 40 NSs of American English. 32 Developing a study of pragmatic transfer in 2009, Refnaldi revealed the evidences of pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer in compliments which are made by 87 Indonesian EFL students in State University of Padang in Indonesia. 33 Based on gathered previous studies, expressing gratitude was investigated in cross-cultural comparison and pragmatic development. But, there is no study on expressing gratitude in the field of pragmatic transfer which is found. More studies are called to investigate the speech act of expressing gratitude in pragmatic 27 Seran Dogancay-Aktuna and Sibel Kamisli 1987, op.cit. pp. 4, 13. 28 Ibid. p. 4. 29 Ibid. pp. 1, 5. 30 Ibid. p. 1. 31 Anchalee Wannaruk, ―Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals,‖ RELC Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3 Sage Publications, 2008, pp. 330-332. 32 Ibid. p. 320. 33 Refnaldi. ―Transfer Pragmatik Dalam Respon Terhadap Pujian Dari Bahasa Indonesia Ke Dalam Bahasa Inggris.‖ Linguistik Indonesia, vol. 27, no. 2. 2009, p. 184-186. transfer. Then, there is only one study which is found which investigates the evidence of pragmatic transfer based on the types of pragmatic transfer: pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic. Hence, more studies which specifically investigate pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic transfer are needed. Then, studies which report detailed explanation on how NSs of Indonesian or Indonesian learners of English express gratitude are not found. Thus, studies on Indonesians and Indonesian learners of English in expressing gratitude are needed.

B. Pragmatic Transfer in Interlanguage Pragmatics