both difference between and similarities with the target language and that it is similarity that is the more important.”
3 Transfer works in conjunction with other factors. It is already clear that transfer always works in conjunction with other
factors. 4 Transfer is both a conscious and subconscious process.
Although some studies done by Krashen 1983, Schachter 1983, and Mohle and Raupach 1989 have different position on how deep transfer play role
in ‘acquisition’ a subconscious process and in ‘learning’ a conscious process, but basically it is mentioned that transfer is both a conscious and subconscious
process. 5 Transfer is both conceptual and linguistic.
The two issues arise for a theory of L2 acquisition that incorporates transfer. 6 Transfer is ultimately a subjective phenomenon.
This key element is strengthened by the studies done by Lado 1957 and Odlin 2003.
The most important conclusion in the study of transfer is that no theory of L2 use or acquisition can be complete without an account of L1 transfer Ellis,
2008: 402. Meaning to say, L1 transfer holds a significant role in the L2 acquisition.
B. Theoretical Framework
This part presents the framework used in the present study. It is to connect and give logical explanation in answering the research question theoretically.
There are some important aspects contained in the research question. The research question is: Is there any significant development of the students’
pragmatic competence of implicature in Spoken English? First, it is the development. As it is explained in the previous sub chapter, what is meant by the
development here is a good change or an improvement that occurs in a human being that can be measured during the process or as a result at a certain point of
time. Since the preset study is cross-sectional study in which the researcher investigates the pragmatic competence in implicature of the second semester, the
fourth semester, and the sixth semester students of English Language Education Study Program, the researcher is intended to investigate if there is a significant
development or, in this case, significant quantitative difference in the result of the Discourse Complement Test given between each level of the semester
aforementioned. Referring to the definition of development used in the present study, the quantitative difference is supposed to be a good one or an improvement
from the lower level to the higher level. The other aspect is the students’ pragmatic competence. The pragmatic
competence being investigated in the present study is specifically the ability to interpreting the meaning in social context which means interpreting sentence
beyond its meaning at the level of the grammar. That is why it is not the ability to produce utterances being investigated in the present study, but more to interpret or
understand the utterances given in context in the DCTs provided. There are some aspects in the pragmatics. However, present study also only
focuses on the implicature: “the additional conveyed meaning, that something must be more than just what the word mean” Yule, 1996: 35. The researcher
focuses only on the notion of implicature because according to Yule, the notion of implicature is one of the central concepts in pragmatics 1996: 46, beside it is
more interesting because interpreting what is meant by what is literally uttered involves background of knowledge and cultural backgrounds of the speakers,
especially for learning second language. The null hypothesis of the present study is that “nothing interesting is
happening” or “there is no significant difference between the group means.”
Figure 2.3: Null Hypothesis
The null hypothesis is that the means of the implicature multiple-choice test result between the second semester students, the fourth semester students, and the sixth
semester students are more or less equal or do not show a significant difference. The research hypothesis is there is no significant development of the
students’ pragmatic competence of implicature in spoken English. It is predicted that the means between groups are more or less equal. The prediction is drawn
inductively from most of the related studies on the pragmatic competence already mentioned in the Problem Identification Chapter I: page 5-6 that show the
H : µ
1
= µ
2
= µ
3
Pragmatic Competence is relatively more difficult to improve comparing the Organizational Competence in SLA, the result of Kasper’s study 1997 Can
Pragmatic Competence be taught? with the answer is “No” as the conclusion, and
the pragmatic failure theory by Thomas 1983 in which Thomas believes that in many cases language teachers focus more on the linguistic forms and exposure
less on the importance of understanding any cultural differences between L1 and the target language which in turns causes the cross-cultural communication
breakdown.
