1

ABSTRACT
ICAL. GRAMMATICAL AND PRAGMATIC COMPETENCES IN ADULT
SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH (Supervised by .... and ....)
The aim of this study was to explore the factors that involved in the
correlation of grammatical and pragmatic competences in adult speakers
of English.
The method of this research was a mixed method design,
combining quantitative and qualitative approaches as it first found out the
correlation between grammatical and pragmatic competences in adult
learners and then explored factors involved in how the two competences
were correlated in adult learners as indicated by the correlation coefficient.
The instruments used in this study were tests and interview. The
population of this study was graduates of Linguistics of the Faculty of
Cultural Science of the University of Hasanuddin in academic year of
2014/2015 until 2016/2017.
The results of this study showed that grammatical competence is
not significantly correlated with the pragmatic competence (R = 0.073 and
Pvalue = 0.766). The competence of adults to understand the meanings
which are not directly stated may be caused by other factors; first, a more
mature and developed brain that adults have in comparison with a child or
a teenager that allows them to have metacommunication better; second, a
greater size of adults experience reservoir; and third, adults nature to be
more goal-oriented.
Key words: grammatical, pragmatic, adults, metacommunication, context,
orientation

ABSTRAK
ICAL. KOMPETENSI GRAMMATIKAL DAN PRAGMATIK
PENUTUR DEWASA BAHASA INGGRIS (Dibimbing oleh...dan..)

PADA

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengeksplorasi faktor-faktor yang

terlibat dalam korelasi kompetensi gramatikal dan pragmatis dalam
speaker dewasa bahasa Inggris.
Metode penelitian ini adalah desain metode campuran,
menggabungkan pendekatan kuantitatif dan kualitatif di mana dilakukakn
perhitungan kali mengetahui korelasi antara kompetensi gramatikal dan
pragmatis dalam pelajar dewasa dan kemudian faktor-faktor yang terlibat
dalam korelasi kedua kompetensi tersebut pada orang dewasa
sebagaiman diindikasikan oleh koefisien korelasi dari hasil perhitungan
yang dilakukan di awal dieksplorasi. Instrumen yang digunakan dalam
penelitian ini adalah tes dan wawancara. Populasi penelitian ini adalah
lulusan Linguistik Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Universitas Hasanuddin di tahun
akademik 2014/2015 sampai 2016/2017.
Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa kompetensi gramatikal
tidak berkorelasi secara signifikan dengan kompetensi pragmatis (R =
0.073 dan Nilai probabilitas = 0,766). Kompetensi pragmatis orang
dewasa untuk memahami makna yang tidak dinyatakan secara langsung
disebabkan oleh faktor-faktor lain; pertama, otak yang lebih matang dan
berkembang dibandingkan dengan anak atau remaja sehingga
memungkinkan orang dewasa memiliki metacommunication lebih baik;
kedua, pengalaman orang dewasa yang lebih banyak; dan ketiga, sifat
orang dewasa 'untuk menjadi lebih berorientasi pada tujuan
Key Words: grammatikal, pragmatik, orang dewasa, metakomunikasi,
konteks, orientasi

LIST OF TABLES
Number

page

1.

Norm for the classification level grammatical and

pragmatic competences

38

2.

Norm for the classification level grammatical and

pragmatic competences

39

3.

The distribution of frequency

grammatical competence scores

participants

40

The normality test of the participants grammatical

competence score

41

5.
6.

The overall level of participants grammatical competence

The distribution of frequency of the participants
pragmatic competence scores
The normality test of the participants grammatical and
pragmatic competence score

42
43

8.

The overall level of participants grammatical competence

45

9.

The analysis of the correlation between grammatical and

pragmatic competence all topics

45

10.

The hypothesis testing of the correlation between

grammatical and pragmatic competence

46

7.

of

the

43

LIST OF FIGURES
Number

page

1.

Three states in conversational implicature

29

2.

Conceptual framework

31

3.

The normality test of the participants grammatical

competence

41

4.

The normality test of the participants pragmatic

competence scores

44

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the background of this research, research
questions and objectives, significance, and the organization of the
research report.
A. Background
Communication refers to the process of transmitting information in
which understanding the information is the ultimate goal of communication
(Lunenburg, 2010). In concern with that, grammatical and pragmatic
competences are central to that process. Both of these domains are very
critical in the use of language since each plays a distinctive function,
determinant for the success of communicating messages.
In the context of English, grammatical competence is understood as
the knowledge of how language is structured. This knowledge is an
internalized system of rules that speakers of a language share (Kolln,
1996). Therefore, in other words, this competence refers to the knowledge
of a system of rules which allows the users of the language to create
meanings, by building both meaningful words and larger constructions of
sentences. Grammatical competence, by then, refers to as the possession
of the knowledge enabling the speakers to produce correct sentences and
express meanings by utilizing the embedded principles of the language as
opposed to as merely memorizing it (CEF, 1996).

Meanwhile, the notion of pragmatic competence, which was early

introduced by Chomsky (1980), is defined as the ability to understand the
speaker's intended meaning which does not depend only on structural and
linguistic knowledge like grammar and lexicons of the speakers
utterances, but also on the context of the utterance like place, manner,
and time and any pre-existing knowledge about what is involved as well.
By understanding such factors, ambiguity as well as implicatures can be
understood so as the the real intentions of the speaker can be inferred.
Of the importance of the two competences, a claim has been
majorly made that one cannot manage to be pragmatically appropriate
without the mastery of grammar to express it. The paramount position of
grammar is based on the rational that grammar constitutes one of the
basic elements of language, along with vocabulary, that makes it
indispensable as the precedence of pragmatic competence (Sickinger &
Schneide, 2014). As maintained, the ability to both recognize and produce
well-formed English sentences is an essential part of communicating
English messages (Thornbury, 1999).
The

influence

of

grammatical

competence

over

pragmatic

competence has been studied by a number of researchers. For instance,

Taguchi (2005) found out that the pragmatic comprehension in term of
conversational implicatures of Japanese respondents of intermediate level
corresponded with their ability in accuracy, which is one of the domain of
grammatical competence. The similar finding was also obtained from

Ashoorpour and Azari (2014) and Xiao (2015) in which they reported on
the

significant

relationship

between

grammatical

and

pragmatic

competence for the pre-intermediate and intermediate level students,

respectively. Respondents of the former study whose grammatical
knowledge were better performed better in discourse completion test
(DCT), that is, a test of eight specific situation in which the respondents
are required to perform the use of language to make requests appropriate
with each situation.
These studies, however, are not comprehensive in accounting for
the influence of grammatical competence on pragmatic competence
despite their insightful contribution. An apparent limitation of such studies
lies on their participants who are in pre-intermediate and intermediate
levels of junior and senior high schools. Meanwhile those of adults seem
to be less studied in the light of the previous studied that the researcher of
this current study managed to be accessed and reviewed. This gap needs
to be bridged as adults have some distinctive learning characteristics
which can generally influence the relation between their grammatical and
pragmatic competences.
As Florez and Bertz (2001) points out that one of the characteristics
of adult learning which differentiates them from other ages of learners is
that adults have reservoirs of experiences that serve as rich resources in
learning. By such resources, adults are more able to make uses of the
context and their pre-existing knowledge in recognizing and understanding

unstated meanings like in conversational implicature which is very

pragmatic in nature.
Underlying by such rationale, the nature of this current study is to
examine to how grammatical competence of adults is related to their
pragmatic competence, that is, whether or not their pragmatic competence
is more influenced by their grammatical competence or by not, and to find
out how such relationship can occur. For that purpose, a group of adults,
from Linguistics Department of Faculty of Cultural Science of the
University of Hasanuddin is taken to be the subject of the investigation.
B. Research Questions
Based on that rationale, the question of this research was as follows:
How grammatical and pragmatic competences are correlated in adult
speakers of English?
C. Objectives of the Research
Following the research questions, the objective of this current study
was to find out how grammatical and pragmatic competences are
correlated in adult speakers of English.
D. Significances of the Research
Theoretically, the finding of this study was expected to shed more
light on our understanding of the relationship of grammatical competence
and pragmatic competence, particularly for adult speakers of English.
Meanwhile, the research findings were expected to be practically used as

a reference for improvement in English practices and teaching as well as

for further researches in the similar area.
E. Scope of the Research
Regarding a broad scope of what it may refer to be grammatical
competence, consisting of that in phonology, morphology, syntax, and
semantics (Noguchi, 1987), this current study was focused on grammatical
competence in syntactic level. The rational is that sentences carry on
messages that may be pragmatically interpreted which cannot be done in
other levels. In a sentence like Can you pass me the salt?, the speaker
may not want to simply know whether the interlocutor has the physical
ability to move the salt to the speaker or not, but to implicitly want the
receiver of the message to perform the action of moving the salt.
Furthermore, due to the vastness area of pragmatic competence
which includes contextually appropriate language use, personal pronouns,
deictic expression of time and space, illocutionary acts, and conversational
implicatures (Habermas, 1982), this current study was focused on
conversational implicature as it is one of the most important contents of
pragmatics (Grice, 1975), whose uses prevail in many situations of
conversations.
F. Definition of Terms
Some key terms in this study were defined as follows:
1. Grammar refers to an internalized system of how language is
structured or combined to each other (Kolln, 1996).

10

2. Pragmatics refers to the interpretation of linguistic meanings in context

(Meures, 2004)
3. Grammatical competence refers to the possession of the knowledge
enabling the speakers to produce correct sentences and express
meanings by utilizing the embedded principles of the language, as
opposed to merely memorizing it (CEF, 1996).
4. Pragmatic competence refers to the ability to understand the speaker's
intended meanings, which does not depend on the linguistic
knowledge, but also on the context of the utterance and any preexisting knowledge about what is involved (Chomsky, 1980).
5. Conversational implicature is the meanings which are implied in
conversation because some elements are missing in actual language
use (Grice, 1975).
G. Hypotheses
The hypotheses in this current study were as follows:
1. H0 = there was no significant correlation between grammatical
competence and pragmatic competence in adult learners
2. H1 = there was no significant correlation between grammatical
competence and pragmatic competence in adult learners
H. Organization
The sequence of how this research report was written was divided
into five chapters. Chapter I defined a general introduction. It includes the
background of the study, research questions, and objective of the
research, significance of the research and the organization of the research
report. Chapter II provided a literature review which consists of previous

11

studies, theoretical background, and conceptual framework, while Chapter

III dealt with the research design, time and location of the research,
research instruments, population and sample, technique of collecting data,
and that of data analysis. Chapter IV dealt with the presentation of the
principal findings necessary to answer the research question and the
discussion of the findings. Chapter V dealt with the conclusion and some
implication out of this current study.

12

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter first investigates literature review of previous related

studies to maintain the position of this current study among other studies.
It also deals with some ideas related to this current study, and in the last,
this chapter deals with conceptual framework assumed in this current
study.

A. Previous Related Findings

A number of researches have been conducted on the influence of
grammatical competence on pragmatic competence. Some as the
representation of those researches are presented in the following.
Hyman (2000) conducted a research on junior school students on
A study of pragmatic competence in ESL learners in Hong Kong with
different grammatical ability. Employing qualitative approach, data from
Discourse Completion Task (DCT) of different situations were analyzed
that indicated that learners with different grammatical ability have different
refusal approaches. Those with higher grammatical ability are more
capable in adjusting their refusal strategies to interlocutors of different
social status and social distance, like making excuses as having prior
appointments, offering alternatives, and criticizing the requesters, while
those with lower grammatical ability tend to employ a monotonous strategy
for all different situations, that is, having prior appointment.

13

Taguchi (2005) conducted a study under the title Does EFL

students grammatical ability account for conversational implicature
decoding? on Japanese junior high school students. In this study, the
students

comprehensions

in

terms

of

the

accuracy

and

the

comprehension speed were measured. Using inferential analysis, the

results revealed a significant L2 grammatical ability influences on
accuracy, but not on comprehension speed. There was no significant
relationship between accuracy and comprehension speed.
Ashapoor and Azari (2014) conducted a quite comprehensive
research, involving junior and senior students in 20 schools in Iran under
the title The Relationship Between Grammatical Knowledge and
Pragmatic Knowledge of Speech Act of Request in Iranian EFL Learners.
Using inferential statistics, data from Discourse Completion Test (DCT) of
junior were analyzed inferentially. They reported that the findings of their
research indicated that there was a significant relationship between
grammatical knowledge and pragmatic knowledge of speech acts. In other
words, increase in grammatical knowledge does significantly increase the
pragmatic competence of speech act of request in students with high level
of proficiency.
Khamesian (2014) conducted a research under the title of
Grammatical competence: An indispensible component in

translating

scientific research article. Two research articles written graduates of

engineering and physics were analyzed qualitatively by focusing on the
conspicuous grammatical errors. The most errors were found to be

14

associated with grammatical aspects compared to those of lexical forms.

The errors of the former were in terms of like but less in lexical forms. The
errors in the former were in terms of tense, voice, mood, person, and
number that they hindered intelligibility. The analysis reveals that crucial
role of grammatical competence for Iranian students in higher education in
order to help them find their deserved stance in related international
discourse communities.
Xiao (2015) conducted a research with the title Does proficiency
affect adult pragmatic competence? Using instrument of dialogue
construction where participants were expected to complete a dialogue that
was partly guided by the researcher, the data of the participants
responses on the various dialogues were analyzed qualitatively by taking
into account the speaking proficiency level of the participants and different
social variables like gender, roles, relationships, and the degree of severity
of committed offenses as portrayed in the dialogues. The findings revealed
an overall positive proficiency effect on pragmatic competence, and in
most

cases

higher

proficiency

learners

have

higher

pragmatic

competence.
Out of the five representatives of the previous researches in the area of
grammatical competence and its influence on pragmatic competence, we
notice some limitations are attached to those studies, which can contribute
to the significance of conducting this current research. The overall studies
supported the significant relationship of grammatical competence on
pragmatic competence. Nevertheless, as pertained in the background of

15

this study, findings of such kinds of studies are not very likely to be
comprehensive for understanding the relationship of the two competences
despite their insightful findings.
First, the first to the third research employed either junior or senior high
school students as their participants. As their participants were non-adult
learners, the ability to generalize the results of these studies were called
into questions as adults have different characteristics that can support
their learning. One of them is that they have more experiences from which
they can use their knowledge of contexts and their pre-existing knowledge
to draw inferences or to understand meanings that are not explicitly stated.
Therefore, it is a likelihood that pragmatic competence of adults may not
or less likely to be a mere function of their grammatical competence.
Second, the fourth and the fifth researches were studied different
foci despite that the fact that their participants were all adult learners. The
fourth research dealt with the effect of grammatical competence towards
translating ability. Thus it was focused on semantic meanings as stated in
the texts. Giving any meanings or interpretation beyond what are explicit
may compromise the intended meanings of the translation per se. Much
the same thing also applies to the fifth research. As we know it, speaking
proficiency refers to a broad concept than pragmatic competence as it
requires the participants not only to understand the implied meanings, but
also to perform it.
Weighing some limitation of those studies, this current study is
intended to investigate the grammatical competence by taking adults as

16

the subjects of the investigation. Further, such grammatical competence

was examined on a more specific area of pragmatic competence, that is,
conversational implicature. By proposing such research area, this current
study is then expected to have its own distinctive place that to contribute
to a more comprehensive picture of the influence of the grammatical on
pragmatic competence along with other researchers in the similar areas.

B. The underlying theory

The underlying theory used in this current research was theory of
communicative competence. This theory is originally proposed by Hymes
(1972), as a reaction against the inadequacy of Chomskys account on
linguistic competence, that is, knowledge of lexicon and grammar for
generating messages. This theory emphasizes the knowledge of
language users of rules to use language in context (Canale and Swain,
1980, holding on that the successful acquisition of communicative
competence by ESL learners includes, among others, the successful
acquisition of grammatical, pragmatic, and strategic competences.
As simply put, communication is the process of exchanging
meanings. The two most important criteria of communicative competence
are i.e. effectiveness and appropriateness as communication involves not
only involve the transmission of sounds between interlocutors, but also a
social interaction of individuals as members of a community. At the same
time, communication takes place in terms of the cognitive processes, such
as trying to understand others intentions, as well as the generation and

17

interpretation of nonverbal behaviors (Gruyter, 2008). All these have

implications for the communicative competence of an individual; they
largely determine the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately.
In other words, a communication activity is generated neither alone
by mastered system of linguistic rules, nor by the extra-linguistic
conditions of its performance. On the contrary, in order to participate in
successful communication activities, the speakers must have at their
disposal, in addition to their linguistic competence, basic qualifications of
the performance of specific types of non-linguistic expressions which
serve to situate the expressions generated by the linguistically competent
speakers. Thus, it is clear that in this theory that both competences are of
an important position in communicating messages.
C. Related Concepts and Ideas
1. Grammar
Grammar can be defined as a set of formal pattern which is
concerned with the description, analysis, and formulization of how
linguistic units can be combined to convey larger meanings (Kolln, 1996).
Grammar is then the central component of language, encompassing
phonology, morphology, and syntax, mediating the system of sounds in
one hand, and the system of meaning on the other hand. It is also of
importance as it is employed as the standardization of language (Noguchi,
1987).
In phonological level, grammar refers to how distinctive sound units
can be combined to each other. For example, based on particular rules,

18

combination of p and s sound in the first syllable of a word is possible in

English, but r and s sound is not in the same language. In morphology
level, grammar defines the set of rules that describe the structure of
words. The word orator, for example, consists of two parts: the base orate
and the closed form -or. To mark the agent of the verb, the closed form
has to be attached after the base or the opened form. Therefore, the word
orator is grammatical in English, but ororate is not. Meanwhile, grammar
in syntactic level deals with the principles governing how words can be
assembled into sentences that a sentence like I found an unopened bottle
of wine is possible, while I unopened found bottle of wine an is not
possible.
2. Grammatical competence
As we have seen, essentially, the grammar of a language may be
seen as the set of principles governing the assembly of elements into
meaningful sentence despite its many definitions. As with grammar,
grammatical competence can then also be defined in many ways. One of
the definitions says that it is the ability to understand, recognize, and
express meaning of well-formed phrases and sentences in accordance
with these principles rather than simply memorizing and reproducing them
as fixed formulae (CEF, 1996).
Canale and Swain (l980) corroborate that grammatical competence
refers to the degree to which the language user has mastered the
linguistic code, including knowledge of vocabulary, rules of pronunciation
and spelling, word formation, and sentence structure. Such competence is
an essential concern for any communicative approach that is oriented

19

toward the eventual attainment of higher levels of proficiency, in which

accuracy and precision of understanding and expression are important
goals. Grammar competence, therefore, help speakers of a language
improves their credibility in communicating messages as such knowledge
of rules helps organize arguments and thoughts .
3. Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a sub-discipline of linguistics that studies the ways in
which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech
act theory,

conversational implicature, talk

in

interaction and

other

approaches to language behavior. Unlike semantics, which examines

meaning that is conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics
studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural
and linguistic knowledge, that is, lexicon and grammar of the speaker and
listener, but also on the context of the utterance, any pre-existing
knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and
other factors (MaCarthy, 1973).
There are numerous definitions of pragmatics, and one of interest in
second language pedagogy has been proposed by Crystal (1985: 240) as
the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the
choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in
social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other
participants in the act of communication. In other words, pragmatics is
defined as the study of communicative action in its sociocultural context.
As opposed to meanings in semantics which are defined purely as
the property of expression in a given language under some conventions of

20

interpreting texts, which is also known as lexical meanings, those in

pragmatics is contextualized by the speakers or the users of the language.
It means that to get the clear cut meaning of the language we have to
analyze it through context (context of situation and culture). As pragmatics
study about meaning, it refers to what the speaker means in real situation.
4. Pragmatic competence
It seems there is no precise definition of the notion of pragmatic
competence. This may be because there is a general agreement on the
meaning of the notion or there is no consensus among the definitions of
pragmatic competence. Pragmatic competence was first identified as
sociolinguistic competence and defined as the knowledge of contextually
appropriate language use (Canale and Swain, 1980; Canale, 1983). Later
on, Canale (1988) expanded this definition, and stated that pragmatic
competence includes illocutionary competence, or the knowledge of the
pragmatic conventions for performing acceptable language functions, and
sociolinguistic

competence,

or

knowledge

of

the

sociolinguistic

conventions for performing language functions appropriately in a given

context.
The importance of pragmatic competence for language learners is
that they may be well aware that sometimes the same sentence uttered in
different situations or with different speakers may result in different
meaning though their structures are identical. Austin (1962) explains this
phenomenon by his Speech Act theory and his ideas were further
developed into Indirect Speech Act theory by Searle (1975). Three authors

21

claim that in order to understand the force of a speech act, one has to
understand the social contexts in which the speakers engage in and the
sociocultural rules of speaking. Boxer & Pickering (1995) argue that the
acquisition of sociolinguistic competence is not only important but a
necessary component of successful language learning (Boxer & Pickering
1995). For the genuine communicative need of using a language, the role
of pragmatic knowledge becomes essential. A lot of miscommunication
happens due to pragmatic failure.
Furthermore, language learners often confuse the complexity of
meaning embedded in the role of speakers and the illocutionary force of
speakers. If a learner neglects this difference, he may interpret the
speaker's intention incorrectly and thus lead to communication failure. This
is particularly common in cross-cultural communication. When speakers of
two different cultures interact, they may speak under the assumption of
their own culture which may or may not be the same in another culture.
Boxer and Pickering (1995) call for more application of sociolinguistic
findings into English language teaching.
5. Conversational Implicatures
Implicature, a term coined by Grice (1975), is a special case of
situations in which the perceived meaning extends beyond the literal
meaning. Conversational implicature is, therefore, something which is
implied in conversation, that is, something which is left implicit in actual
language use. Grice in the same year also developed an influential theory
to explain and predict conversational implicature, and describe how they

22

are understood as The Cooperative Principle which is associated with

four maxims, as follows:
1. Maxim of Quality that is not to say what one believes to be false
and for which one lacks adequate evidence.
2. Maxim of Quantity that is to make ones contribution as informative
as is required for the current purpose of the exchange
3. Maxim of Relevance that is to make ones contribution relevant
centering on about the same topic and avoiding asserting
something irrelevant.
4. Maxim of Manner that is to avoid obscurity, ambiguity and be brief.
In concern with conversational implicature, one of the ideas of
Grices theory states that meanings can be divided into natural meaning
and non-natural meaning. Natural meaning refers to the meaning of the
utterance that can be generally gained by the conversational participants,
while non-natural meanings refer to the intended meaning conveyed by
the speaker and must be inferred by the receiver in particular contexts.
On the base of it, Grice proposed the key ideas of conversational
implicature in 1967. If the participants both have the expectation to
achieve a successful conversation, they must be cooperative with each
other, and speak sincerely, sufficiently, relevantly and clearly. To put it
another way, they must observe the co-operative principle and the maxims
of Quality, Quantity, Relevance and Manner. If someone who participate
the conversation flouts the co-operative principle and any of the maxims,
he must have intended to do so. And the receiver can infer the speakers
intended meaning in particular contexts.

23

Smith and Wilson (1979) expanded the conversational implicature

of Grice by proposing three initial states in understanding such implicature.
Below is the figure of how the meaning intended by the speakers can be
understood by the interlocutor through the three stages.

24

3
1

A: Wheres my box of chocolate

B: The children were in your room this morning
(Smith and Wilson 1979 in Leech 1983)
Figure 1. Three states in conversational implicature
In the first state, which is referred as the initial state, the speaker A
wants to know where the chocolates are. This speakers intention indeed
initiates a conversation. As the intention is uttered, interlocutor B perceives
and becomes aware of that intention and produces certain responses,
which in the example is by indicating that the chocolates are in the room
as well as implying that the chocolates may be eaten up by the children.
This awareness marks the second state as proposed by Smith and Wilson
(1979). This meaning understanding ends with the final state when the
speaker A, who in this turn has become the listener, understands the
messages and eventually knows the location of the chocolates along with
the possibility that the chocolates may have been eaten up.

D. Conceptual Framework

25

Below is the concept of how this current research is conceptually

framed. It contains derivation of communicative competence which
includes grammatical competence and pragmatic competence, as follows:

26

COMMUNICATION

GRAMMATICAL
COMPETENCE

PRAGMATIC
COMPETENCE

Conversatio
nal
implicature
s
Illocutionary
force

Syntax

Phonology
Morphology

Deictic
expression
Personal
pronouns
Contextually
appropriate
language use

Figure 2: Theoretical Framework

27

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter deals with the design of the research, the time and
location of the research, the instruments, the population and sample,
techniques of data collection, and techniques of data analysis.
A. Research Design
The design of this research was a mixed method design, combining
quantitative and qualitative approaches as it dealt with the quantification of
the correlation between grammatical and pragmatic competences in adult
learners and then explored factors involved in the correlation of the two
competences.
More specifically the design of this current study was sequential
explanatory design as in the context of this current study, one type of data,
that is, quantitative data, was first collected and analyzed before the
collection as well as the analysis of the other type of data, that is, the
qualitative data (Creswell, 2014).
B. Time and Location
The current research was conducted on October 31, 2016, starting with
the informing of the research location authority as to the intention of the
researcher to conduct this current study in the study location. The location
of the research was in the University of Hasanuddin, Makassar.

28

C. Instruments
The instruments of this research consisted of test and interview.
Test was used to measure the grammatical and pragmatic competences of
the participants and interview was used to probe into factors that influence
the relationship of grammatical and pragmatic competences in adults. The
instruments were further elaborated as follows:
1. Test
Two kinds of test were used. Both of the tests were adapted from
TOEFL ITP tests, that is, Structure and Written Expression Test was used
to measure the participants grammatical competence and Listening
Comprehension Test to measure the participants pragmatic competence.
TOEFL ITP test was used for the test in this current study for reasons that
this test is a very popular test, widely used for academic settings around
the world. By that fact the validity and reliability of tests was no longer a
question
Some adaptation of the TOEFL ITP tests, however, was made to meet
the need of this current study, as follows:
a. As pragmatic competence test

was

taken

from

Listening

Comprehension Test in TOEFL test, the recording was transcribed so

as the test of pragmatic competence can be conducted in written form
instead of spoken form.
b. The answer choices of listening section in TOEFL test are omitted.
Such omit is due to the possibility that the participants of the test may
not choose the right answer of a question as an effect of their
unfamiliarity with the vocabularies presented in the answer choices in
spite of their understanding of the meanings of the concerned

29

conversational implicature. Thus, their pragmatic competence score

may be lower than it would be.
c. The number of questions in both tests was reduced. As for pragmatic
competence test, the number of questions was reduced to 25 numbers
from 50 questions in the original Listening Comprehension Test of
TOEFL test, by focusing only on questions pertaining to conversational
implicature. Likewise, the questions for grammatical competence tests
was reduced to 25 questions, from a total of 40 questions, to
correspond with the number of question in Listening Comprehension
Test, without any particular attention to the type of the questions.
d. Direction for pragmatic competence test is changed to some extent to
suit the nature of the test that was conducted in this study, which is in
the form of written test instead of spoken one.
2. Interview
Interview was conducted to probe into factors that may underline of
how grammatical and pragmatic competences in adult learners were
correlated to each other as indicated by the correlation coefficient as
quantified in the correlational analysis. The type of the questions in
interview was semi-structured as part of the questions was predetermined
in the interview checklist, but may be developed based on the participants
responses. The predetermined questions of the interview were as many as
five questions, developed based on three criteria: their context
understanding, their experiences, and their orientation in communication.
The participants responses were recorded and translated into English
when necessary to provide supports in the analysis arguments.

30

D. Population and Sample

The population of this research was graduates of Linguistics of the
Faculty of Cultural Science of the University of Hasanuddin in academic
year of 2014/2015 until 2016/2017. They were chosen as the population of
this study to exclude the influence of English educational background
study towards the possible high correlation of grammatical and pragmatic
competence had English graduates been chosen for the population.
As the number of the graduates actively registered in those three
academic years was 30 students in total, the sample of the research was
intended to cover more than half of the population, that is, 20 students, so
as to the results of studying the samples can have more power for
generalization over the whole population .
E. Technique of Data Collection
1. Types of data
In concern with the types of data, data of this study can be
categorized as follows:
a. Quantitative data
Quantitative data refers to data in form of numbers or statistics. In this
study, the quantitative data refer to test scores of grammatical and
pragmatic competences.
b. Qualitative data
Qualitative data refers to data in forms of texts or words. In this study,
the qualitative data refer primarily to data from interview
c. Primary data
Primary data refers to data that are intentionally collected to answer
specific research problems or questions. The primary data in this study
was data from tests and interview.
d. Secondary data

31

Secondary data refers to data that are not originally created for
addressing the purposes of this study. Data of this type are generated
from literature reading and review, like those of books, research
reports, articles, and other relevant resources
2. Procedures of collecting data
The broad procedures of the data collection of this current study
were as follows:
a. Piloting the tests and interview
The tests both grammatical and pragmatic competences were first
piloted to two students to find out their feasibility to be administered to
the real sample
b. Reviewing the tests and the interview based on the results of the pilots
if necessary
c. Informing the participants of the research
The sample of this research was informed in concern with the aims of
this research and their confidentiality as well as things they were
expected to do in this research.
d. Distributing the participants consent forms as a statement that a
concerned participant

was voluntarily willing to participate in this

current study
e. Administering the test and the questionnaire to the participants
f. Analyzing the data of the tests
g. Administering the interview to the participants

32

h. Analyzing the data of the interview

F. Operational Definition of Variables
This study consists of one independent variable and one dependent
variable, which are grammatical and pragmatic competence respectively.
They are operationally defined, as follows:
1. Grammatical competence in this study was defined as the participants
syntactical knowledge measured by an adapted Structure and Written
Expression Test of TOEFL ITP test.
2. Pragmatic competence in this study was defined as the participants
conversational implicature knowledge measured by adapted Listening
Comprehension Test of TOEFL ITP test.
G. Technique of Data Analysis
The technique of data analysis in this research used univariat and
bivariate analyses. It means that data was first described in terms of their
frequency, percentage, and tendency of the means and standard deviation
and later the hypotheses of this research were tested. The data analyses
were performed through SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science)
version 22.
The procedures of the test analysis were elaborated as follows:
1. Scoring the tests
2. Quantifying the frequency and percentage of the participants scores
3. Testing the normality of the participants scores with KolmogorovSmirnov test with correction from Liliefors test as the sample size of
this current study was small (N >50)
4. Quantifying the mean score and the standard deviation
5. Classifying the level of participants grammatical and pragmatic
competences based on the mean score using norm as follows:

33

Table 1. Norm for the classification level grammatical and pragmatic

competences
Classification Level

Mean

Very high
High
Moderate
Low
Very low

81 - 100
61 80
41 60
21 40
0 20
Taken from (Schiffrin, 1987)

6. Quantifying the correlation coefficient of the two competences using

the following category:
Table 2. Norm for the classification level grammatical and pragmatic
competences
Classification Level

Coefficient

Very weak
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Very strong

0.00-0.199
0.20-0.399
0.40-0.599
0.60-0.799
0.80-1.00
(Sugiyono, 2010)

7. Testing the hypothesis using F test to see the influence of the

independent variable towards the dependent variable
8. Presenting the quantitative data in tables and figures
9. Analyzing the data qualitatively

34

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. RESULTS
The following results were obtained from grammatical competence
and pragmatic competence tests. The results were presented as follows:
1. The distribution of frequency of the adult learners pragmatic
competence
Based on the scoring on grammatical competence test, the
distribution of the participants grammatical competence scores were
presented in Table 3.
Table

3.

The

distribution

of

frequency

of

the

participants

grammatical competence scores

No.

Scores

1.
2.
3..
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

19
20
21
22
23
25
27
34

Frequency
(total students = N)
3
4
2
1
4
3
1
1

It was shown from Table 3 that the participants lowest score was 19
(N = 3), and the highest score was 34 (N = 1). We can also see that the
participants scored most on 20 and 23 (N = 4 each).

35

2. The normality test of the participants grammatical competence scores

The result of the normality test of the participants grammatical
competence scores was presented in Table 4.
Table 4. The normality test of the participants grammatical
competence score

Participants grammatical
competence scores

Conf. level
0.05

KolmogorovSmirnov
N
19

Sig.
0.67

It is shown from Table 4 that the significance level of the participants

grammatical competence scores (0.67) was greater than the confidence
level (0.05). It indicates the participants scores were normally distributed
or homogenous throughout the sample. The normality plots of the scores
are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The normality test of the participants grammatical

competence

36

As illustrated in Figure 2 the dots which stood for the participants'

grammatical scores were clustered around the straight line and almost
formed a straight line, indicating that the scores were normally distributed.
3. The overall level of the participants grammatical competence
The level of participants grammatical competence was presented in
Table 5.
Table 5. The overall level of participants grammatical competence
Overall mean

Overall Level

22.58

low

Standard deviation
(SD)
3.641

Total students
(N)
19

It was shown from Table 5 that the overall mean score of the
participants grammatical competence (N = 19) was 22.58. Based on the
classification level of grammatical competence used in this current study,
the level of the participants grammatical competence was in low level.
Besides, it was also shown that the standard deviation was 3.641. It meant
that the overall participants grammatical competence scores were not far
deviated from the data without deviation (SD = 0.00)
4. The distribution of frequency of the participants pragmatic competence
Based on the scoring on pragmatic competence test, the
distribution of the participants pragmatic competence scores were
presented in Table 6.
Table 6. The distribution of frequency of the participants pragmatic
competence scores

37

No.

Scores

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

42
43
44
55
57
61
63
66
70
71

Frequency
(total students = N)
4
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
1

It was shown from Table 6 that the participants lowest score was 42
(N = 4), and the highest score was 73 (N = 2). It was also shown that the
participants scored most on 42 (N = 4).
5. The normality test of the participants pragmatic competence scores
The result of the normality test of the participants pragmatic
competence scores was presented in Table 3.
Table 7. The normality test of the participants grammatical and
pragmatic competence score
Participants pragmatic
competence scores

Conf. level
0.05

KolmogorovSmirnov
N
19

Sig.
0.75

It is shown from Table 7 that the significance level of the participants

grammatical competence scores (0.75) was greater than the confidence
level (0.05). It indicates the participants scores were normally distributed

38

or homogenous throughout the sample. The normality plots of the scores

are illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure

4. The

normality

test of

the

participants pragmatic

competence scores
As illustrated in Figure 4 the dots which stood for the participants'
grammatical scores were clustered around the straight line and almost
formed a straight line. It indicated that the scores were normally
distributed.
6. The overall level of the participants pragmatic competence
The level of participants grammatical competence was presented in
Table 7.
Table 8. The overall level of participants grammatical competence
Overall mean

Overall Level

56.95

moderate

Standard deviation
(SD)
11.380

Total students
(N)
19

39

It was shown from Table 8 that the overall mean score of the
participants grammatical competence (N = 19) was 56.95. Based on the
classification level of grammatical competence used in this current study,
the level of the participants grammatical competence was in low level.
Besides, it was also shown that the standard deviation was 11.380. It
meant that the overall participants grammatical competence scores were
not far deviated from the data without deviation (SD = 0.00)
7. Analysis of the correlation between grammatical and pragmatic
competence
The result of the analysis to find out whether or not there was
correlation between grammatical and pragmatic competence was
presented in Table 9.
.
Table 9. The analysis of the correlation between grammatical and
pragmatic competence

Independent variable
(X)

Dependent variable
(Y)

Correlation
coefficient
(R)

Grammatical
competence

Pragmatic competence

0.073

As we can see in Table 9, the correlation coefficient between

grammatical and pragmatic competence was 0.073. Based on the criteria
of correlation coefficient (see p.30), it meant that the correlation between
grammatical and pragmatic competence was very weak.

40

8. Hypothesis testing
The result of hypothesis testing as to whether or not there was a
significant correlation between grammatical and pragmatic competence
was presented in Table 10.
Table 10. The hypothesis testing of the correlation between
grammatical and pragmatic competence

Variable

Level
of Significance

Probability
Value

Grammatical and pragmatic

competences

0.05

0.766

As shown in Table 10, the probability value of the correlation

between grammatical and pragmatic competences was higher (0.766)
than the level of significance (0.05). It meant that the grammatical
competence was not significantly correlated with pragmatic competence.
Based on that, H0 that hypothesized that there was no significant
correlation between grammatical and pragmatic competences was
accepted and H1, hypothesizing that there was significant correlation
between grammatical and pragmatic competences was rejected.
B. DISCUSSION
Based on the quantification of the scores from grammatical
competence test, it was found out that the participants grammatical
competence was quite low. As shown in Table 3, the highest score gained
by the participants was only 34 (N = 1) with 19 as the lowest score (N = 3).

41

Then, as shown in Table 4, the overall mean score for the sample was
22.58, indicating that the overall level of grammatical competence of the
sample was low. Furthermore, from Table 5 which was further illustrated in
Figure 2, it was shown that the low level of grammatical competence was
homogenous to the whole sample as its normality of the grammatical
competence scores was tested. The significant level of the participants
grammatical competence scores was higher (0.67) than the confidence
level (0.05).
Nevertheless, the pragmatic competence of the participants
seemed to be higher. As shown in Table 6, the highest participants score
on this competence test reached up to 71 (N = 1) with 42 as the lowest
score (N = 4). As indicated by the overall mean score (56.95), the overall
level of pragmatic competence of the participants was moderate (see
Table 7). This moderate level was representative for the whole sample as
proved by its normality test, as shown in Table 8 that was further illustrated
in Figure 3, in which the significance level of the pragmatic competence
scores was higher (0.75) than the confidence level (0.05).
Furthermore, the correlation between the grammatical and
pragmatic competences was found out to be very low as indicated by the
coefficient correlation between the two competences (0.073) as shown in
Table 9. The hypothesis testing that was further conducted showed that
the higher pragmatic competence of the participants was proven not to be
significantly correlated with the participants grammatical competence (see

42

Table 10). Other factors besides the grammatical competence were more
likely to be significantly correlated with the higher pragmatic competence
of the sample.
Based on the results of data analysis, this current study attempted
to give a reasonable account of factors correlated with the higher
pragmatic competence of adult speakers despite their lower grammatical
competence, taking into account the secondary data derived from the
study of the relevant literature and the interview results. Factors that may
be correlated with adults higher pragmatic competence were as follows:
1. Adult learners have a more developed brain
The development of a brain is characterized as a complex series of
dynamic and adaptive processes that operate along with the age of an
individual to promote the emergence and differentiation of a more complex
and dynamic structure of the human brain so as new neural structures and
more delicate functions can be supported (Stevens & Neville, 2009).
In this concern, adult brains are more mature and more developed.
Most neurons at this time of age have been migrated to their appropriate
locations within the cortex, hippocampus, cerebellum, and other
structures, thus, adding specific brain regions are added. This enables
adults to acquire or learn new or more complex skills better than in
childhood and adolescence (Knowland & Thomas, 2014).
In the context of this current study, the more complex ability that
may develop along with the development of the adults brain is

43

metacommunication. Metacommunication is one of metalinguistic skills

that consider messages within the context of conversation and serve to
negotiate the context in which a particular utterance is to be interpreted
(Baltzersen, 2013) so as this skill is central in understanding pragmatic
meanings (Istifci, 2011).
Metacommunnication allows adults to select and coordinate the
information responsible for understanding the meaning and shift the
attention from the information contained in a linguistic message to its
appropriate context. It means that the nature of metacommunication is
placed on the ability to understand context of linguistic messages so as to
allow the adults to be able to unfold the conversational implicature well
despite the low competence of their grammar.
Metalinguistic skills are the abilities to talk about language, analyze
it, think about it, judge it, and see it as an entity separate from its content.
For example, learning to read and write depends on metalinguistic
awareness of the component units of languagesounds, words, phrases,
and sentences. Metalinguistic skills also are used to judge the correctness
or appropriateness of the language we produce and receive. Thus,
metalinguistic cues signal the status of the transmission or the success of
communication
At least amongst linguists, language has always been seen as the
principal mode of communication for human beings (Trager, 1958) which is
accompanied by other communication systems such as body posture,

44

movement, facial expression, cf. Crystal (1966) where the formal means of
indicating communicative stances are listed: (1) vocalisations such as
mhm, shhh, (2) hesitations, (3) non-segmental prosodic features such
as tension (slurred, lax, tense, precise), (4) voice qualifiers (whispery,
breathy,...), (5) voice qualification (laugh, giggle, sob, cry), and (6)
nonlinguistic

personal

noises

(coughs,

sneezes,

snores,

heavy

breathing,...). Examples for some recent approaches that deal with vocal
outbursts include sighs and yawns (Russell et al., 2003), laughs (Campbell
et al., 2005; Batliner et al., in press), cries (Pal et al., 2006), hesitations
and consent (Schuller et al., 2009a), and coughs (Matos et al., 2006) that
it leads to multimodal language processing which in the context of this
current study comprises of multi-inputs (Johnston, 1998).
As a participant of this study (initial ABM) indicated that adults
indeed have more metacommunication ability than a child or a teenager so
as to help them more to understand the meanings of conversational
implicature as she said, I think that it is not really hard for us to
understand the meanings when see the messages in its context. Another
participant (IIS) shared the same opinion when saying, I think that we are
adults, and as adults we know that messages are not always explicitly
stated and we have many experiences about that. A participant (initial
LMI) said his opinion, saying, We often meet a situation where the
answer is not straight with the questions, but we can understand the
meanings though.

45

2. Adult learners have a greater reservoir of experiences (impacts on

learners experiences)
In addition to a more mature and developed brain, the greater size
of adult experiences seems to be also correlated with the adults higher
pragmatic competence. As understood, as an adult, the experiences that
one has are correspondingly greater. Experiences are a very important
and rich source of learning (Kolb, 2005). Therefore, learning in adulthood
is different from learning in childhood. Adults learn by mostly connecting
their learning with their experiences through such a way known as
reflection (Alhasan, 2012). The idea that adults learn through their
experiences was first promulgated by John Dewey (Tweedell, 2000).
In the context of this current study, the greater experiences that the
adults have may be in terms of the size of the experiences as well as the
intensity. In concern with that, the various circumstances that an adult may
have in relation with their living situations, working situations, or
educational situations may lead to the extensive and intensive
communication with others. In their communication and interaction, it
would be an inevitable that they encounter and need to understand many
pragmatic meanings which one part of them may be very likely in the form
of conversational implicature.
As a participant (initial US) said, I think that the more we meet
people, every day, we are automatically trained to understand many
meanings that are not directly stated. Another participant (intial MHY)

46

corroborated this, saying, in my working place, we are accustomed with

our friends saying indirect offensives,...so, we are familiar with that, while
a participant (initial YY) said, I am used to listen to listening exercises that
I can understand the implicit meanings more or less even though I dont
really understand the grammar.
From that illustration, it is clear that equipped with greater size of
experience reservoir, English adult learners can understand the implicit
meaning better despite their grammatical competence. A more intense
level of interaction in communities that adults may experience inevitably
significantly contributes to their competence in understanding the
implicature that they are more aware of the tone of the voice, body
language,

and

other

paralinguistic

information

or

extra-linguistic

information (Schuller et al, 2012).

Related to the first factor, that is, the more developed brain function
that adults clearly have simply in the light of their ages, adults are able to
take multi modal processing of information. Therefore, they are more
mature in constructing the world knowledge which refers to the individual
experience and understanding of particular events coupled with the
imposition of culture and which is not dependent only the word knowledge
which refers to an individual mental dictionary (Owens, 2005).
Concept development results in increased validity, status, and
accessibility. Validity is the amount of agreement between a language
users concept and the shared concept of the language community. Status

47

refers to the addition of alternative referents: For example, canine can be

substituted easily for the concept dog, and dog can be used to refer to the
dry, hot, dog days of summer, to a dog-eared book, or to being dog-tired.
Accessibility relates to the ease of retrieval from memory and use of the
concept. In general, the more you know about the word and the more you
use it, the easier it is to access
3. Adult learners are more goal-oriented
In learning, adults are more goal-oriented. It means that adults
primarily participate in learning programs to achieve a particular goal. It
makes adults put more emphasis on the goals of the learning than other
accompanying factors (Jovita, 2003).
In the context of this study, this nature to be a more goal-oriented
may be manifested in their more attention to understand the meanings of a
conversation or a communication activity rather than focusing on
understanding every single way how the message is grammatically
combined. In other words, adults are more focused on how the language
is used to achieve particular goals rather than on the forms of the
language itself.
The result of interview showed that the ignorance of grammar over
meanings was overwhelming in adults. For example, a participant (initial
H) said, I personally do not bother with the grammar when talking as well
as when understanding messages from others. A participant (initial KH)
observed, The ultimate goal of language is obviously to communicate so

48

to me as long as I can understand the meaning and my partner can

understand me, it is fine even if our grammar is not really good. A
participant (WLS) said, If we just focus on the grammar, communication
will never occur. What we want will never be known or understood.
From that explanation, we can conclude that besides a more
developed brain that allows adults to encode implicit meanings and a
greater size of experience reservoir, goal orientation which is typical
nature of adults also can correlate with the higher pragmatic competence
of adults, particularly in terms of conversational implicature, despite the
low grammatical competence.

49

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. CONCLUSION
Based on the result of the analysis, it can be concluded that in adult
speakers, grammatical competence is not significantly correlated with the
pragmatic competence. It means that despite the low competence in
grammar, adult speakers can remain understand the conversational
implicature quite well.

The competence of adults to understand the

meanings which are not directly stated may be caused by other factors;
first, a more mature and developed brain that adults have in comparison
with a child or a teenager that allows them to have metacommunication
better; second, a greater size of adults experience reservoir; and third,
adults nature to be more goal-oriented.

B. SUGGESTION
Based

on

the

conclusion,

it

can

be

suggested

that

in

communication grammar competence should not be overemphasized

before pragmatic competence. As proved, grammatical competence does
not become the primer factor that can determine the speakers or the
hearers in understanding each other messages. English educators or
instructors should consider the characteristics of the learners as an

50

integral part of the creation of successful learning or communication in

general.

51

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alhasan, A M. 2012. Factors Affecting Adult Learning and Their
Persistence: A Theoretical Approach. European Journal of
Business and Social Sciences, 1(6).
Ashoorpour, Bahareh & Azaei, Houshang 2014. The Relationship Between
Grammatical Knowledge and Pragmatic Knowledge of Speech Act
of Request in Iranian EFL Learners. Thesis: Islamic Azad
University, Tonekabon Branch, IRAN.
Bachman, L. F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baltzersen, K. Baltzersen. 2014. The Importance of Metacommunication
in Supervision Processes in Higher Education. International
Journal of Higher Education, 2(2).
Bazzanella C and DamianoR. 1999.The Interactional Handling of
Misundersatnding in Everyday Conversation. University of Torino.
P. 819.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and Apologies: A CrossCultural
Study
of
Speech
Act
Realization
Patterns
(CCSARP).Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
Brown, J.D. 2001. Pragmatics Tests: Different Purposes, Different Tests.
In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. 1983. From Communicative Competence to Communicative
Language Pedagogy. in J. C. Richards and R. W. Schmidt (Eds.).
Language And Communication. New York: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied
Linguistics.
Chomsky, Noam 1980 Rules and representation. Basil Blackwell Oxford
Crystal, D. 1985. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 2nd edition.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Crystal, D. 1997. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 4th edition.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Fasold R. 1990. The sociolinguistics of Language. USA: Basil Blackwell
Inc.
.1990. Grices Solution: Conversation Implicature. USA: Basil
Blackwell Inc.
Florez, MaryAnn Cunningham & Burt, Miriam. 2001. Beginning to Work
with Adult Language Learners: Some Considerations. Center for
Adult
English
Language
Acquisition.
Available
from:

52

http://markuttecht.com/sites/default/files/portfolio/LiteracyDevelop
ment/website/resources/6.pdf
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational Research:
Competencies for Analysis and Applications. New Jersey: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Grice H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.),
Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press. Retrieved on 21
December, 2013.
Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Essex, England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Johnston, M. (1998) Multimodal Language Processing. Center for HumanComputer Communication Oregon Graduate Institute.
Karthwohl. (1993).Descriptive Qualitative Method. The Association for
Educational Communications and Technology (AECT). Accessed
on
May
11th
2016.
Available
on
http://www.aect.org/edtech/ed1/41/41-01.html.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? (NetWork #6)
[HTML document]. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, Second
Language Teaching & Curriculum Center. Retrieved August 22nd,
2016 from www.nflrc.hawaii.edu/NetWorks/NW06
Kasper, G. and Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage
pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, pp. 149169
Knowland, V C. P. & Thomas, M S. C. 2014. Educating the adult brain:
How the neuroscience of learning can inform educational policy.
Springer, 60.
Kolb, D.A. 2005. Experiential Learning
Kolln, M (2009) Rhetorical Grammar: A Modification Lesson. English
Journal. 31(25)
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Krisnawati, Ekaning. (2011). Pragmatic Competence in The Spoken
English Classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Lee, S. J., 2002. Interpreting conversational implicatures: A study of
Korean learners of English. The Korean TESOL Journal, 5
Fall/Winter, pp.1-26.
Leech G.N. 1983. Principle of Pragmatics. Longman Group Limited. New
York. Amerika.
Leech, G. (1990). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman
Levinson S.C.1983.Pragmatics. Cambrige: University Press.
Lunenberg, F C. 2010. Communication: The Process, Barriers, And
Improving Effectiveness. Schooling, 1(1).

53

Mey, L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Beijing: Foreign Language

Teaching and Research Press: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Mojabi, Seyedeh Sepideh. (2014). Correlation between grammatical
competence and pragmatic competence among Iranian University
EFL learners.Dissertation. . Kuala lumpur. University of Malaya.
(pp. 115-121).
Niezgoda, K. and C. Rover. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical
awareness pp. 63-79 in Rose, K.R. and G. Kasper (eds).
Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rahim, Suharty. (2016). The Use of Cognitive Strategies to Improve the
Students Reading Comprehension (SMA Putri Yatama Mandiri
Boarding School). Unpublished Thesis. Makassar: Hasanuddin
University.
Rose, K.R and G. Kasper. (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching pp.19, p.64 in Rose, K.R. and G. Kasper (eds). Pragmatics in
Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rueda, Y.T. (2006). Developing Pragmatic Competence in a Foreign
Language in Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal (8) pp. 172182.
Schuller, B et al. (2012). Paralinguistics in speech and languageStateof-the-art and the challenge. Computer Speech and Language, 27.
Seliger

H.W &Shohamy E. 1998.Second

Method.Oxford University Press.

Language

Research

Setoguchi, Eric. (2008). Multiple-Choice Discourse Completion Tasks In

Japanese English Language Assessment Journal. University of
Hawaii at Manoa. Pp. 95-101.
Sickinger, Pawel & Schneider, Klaus Peter. 2014. Pragmatic Competence
and the CEFR: Pragmatic Profiling as a Link Between Theory and
Language Use. Linguistica, 54: 1.
Smolcic Elizabeth. (1997). Linguistic and Pragmatic Competence retrieved
on 13rd August 2016 from
http:///E:/thesis%20on%20progress/pragmatic%20competence
%20theories%20for%20thesis%20ical/Linguistic%20and
%20Pragmatic%20Competence%20%20Focus%20on
%20Language%20%20Teaching%20and%20Learning.htm

54

Spradley J.P. (1980). Participant Observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston

All rights reserved. Printed in USA.
Stevens, C., Lauinger, B., & Neville, H. (2009). Differences in the neural
mechanisms of selective attention in children from different
socioeconomic backgrounds: an event-related brain potential
study. Developmental Science, 12(4), 634646
Taguchi, N., 2005. Comprehending Implied Meaning in English as a
Foreign Language. The Modern Language Journal, 89.
Thomas J. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics.
Harlow:Peason education.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics,
4(2), 91-112.
Wikipedia Foundation Inc. Pragmatics. retrieved on 31 st August 2016 on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
Xiao, Feng. (2015). Proficiency Effect on L2 Pragmatic Competence,
Pomona College Uas.
Yule G. 1996. Pragmatics.Oxford New York: Oxford University Press

55

Appendix 1: Grammatical and pragmatic competence tests

GRAMMATICAL COMPETENCE TEST

Structure
Directions: Questions 15 are incomplete sentences. Beneath each
sentence you will see four words or phrases, marked A, B, C and D.
Choose the one word or phrase that best completes the sentence. Then,
on your answer sheet, find the number of the question and fill in the space
that corresponds to the letter you have chosen. Fill in the space so that the
letter inside the oval cannot be seen.
Look at the following example:
Mt. Hood _______ in the state of Oregon.
A. although
B. and
C. is
D. which
The correct choice is C.

QUESTIONS:
1. The North Pole ............. a latitude of 90 degrees north
A. it has
B. is having
C. which is having
D. has
2. The city of Beverly Hills is surrounded on ......... the city of Los Angeles
A. its sides
B. the sides are
C. it is the side of
D. all sides by
3. .............. greyhound, can achieve speeds up to thirty-six miles per hour
A. The
B. The fastest

56

C. The fastest dog

D. The fastest dog, the
4. Marmots spend their time foraging among meadow plants and flowers
or ...... on rocky cliffs
A. gets sun
B. sunning
C. the sun
D. sunny
5. The greenhouse effect occurs ............. heat radiated from the Sun
A. when does the earths atmosphere trap
B. does the earths atmosphere trap
C. when the earths atmosphere traps
D. the Earths atmosphere traps
6. The Rose Bowl, ............ place on New Years Day, is the oldest
postseason collegiate football game in the United States
A. takes
B. it takes
C. which takes
D. took
7. Experiments ........... represent a giant step into the medicine of the
future
A. using gene therapy
B. use gene therapy
C. they use
D. gene therapy use
8. ....... off the Hawaiian coastline are living, others are dead.
A. While some types of coral reefs
B. Some types of coral reefs
C. There are many types of coral reefs
D. Coral reefs
9. Nimbostratus clouds are thick, dark gray clouds .......... forebode rain.
A. what
B. which
C. what they
D. which they
10. Some economists now suggest that home equity loans are merely a
new trap to push customers beyond...........
A. they can afford
B. they can afford it

57

C. what is affordable
D. able to afford
11. The people who reverse the letters of words ............ to read suffer from
dsyslexia
A. when trying
B. if they tried
C. when tried
D. if he tries
12. Featured at the Henry Ford Museum ............. of antique cars dating
from 1865.
A. is an exhibit
B. an exhibit
C. an exhibit is
D. which is an exhibit
13. Rubber ........... from vulcanized silicones with a high molecular weight
is difficult to distinguish form natural rubber.
A. is produced
B. producing
C. that produces
D. produced
14. ............ appears considerably larger at the horizon than it does
overhead is merely an optical illusion.
A. The Moon
B. That the Moon
C. When the Moon
D. The Moon which
15. According to the World Health Organization, ........... any of the six most
dangerous diseases to break out, it could be cause for quarantine
A. were
B. they were
C. there were
D. were they

58

Written expression
Directions: In questions 16-40, each sentence has four underlined words
or phrases. The four underlined parts of the sentence are marked (A), (B),
(C), and (D). Identify the one underlined word or phrase that must be
changed in order for the sentence to be correct. Then, mark the letter of
the choices that corresponds to your answer.
Look at the following example.
The four string on a violin are turned in fifths.
A
B
C
D
The sentence should read. The four strings on a violin are turned in
fifths. Therefore, you should choose (B).

QUESTIONS:

16. Because of the flourish with which John Hancock signed the
A
Declaration of Independence, his name become synonymous with
B
C
D
signature.
17. Segregation in public schools was declare unconstitutional by the
A
B
C
Supreme Court in 1945.
D
18. Sirius, the Dog Star, is the most brightest star in the sky with an
A
absolute magnitude about twenty-three times that of the sun.
B
C
D
19. Killer whales tend to wander in family clusters that hunt, play, and
A
B
resting together.
C
D
20. Some of the most useful resistor material are carbon, metals, and
A
B
C
metallic alloys.

59

D
21. The community of Bethesda, Maryland, was previous known as
A
B
C D
Darcys Store.
22. Alloys of gold and copper have been widely using in various types of
A
B
C
D
coins
23. J.H. Pratt used group therapy early in this century when he brought
A
B
C
tuberculosis patients together to discuss its disease.
D
24. The United States has import all carpet wools in recent years because
A
B
C
domestic wools are too fine and soft for carpets.
D
25. On the floor of the Pacific Ocean is hundreds of flat-topped mountains
A
B
C
more than a mile beneath sea level.
D

60

PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE TEST

Directions: Read the short conversation between two people below. After
each conversation, read the question and write your answer on the
available space. Your answer could be either in a single statement or a
brief narrative.
Example:
Man
: That exam was just awful
Woman
: Oh, it could have been worse
What does the woman mean?
Sample answer:
In a single statement, your answer may be like: The exam wasnt that
hard or in a brief narrative like: to the woman the exam was easy enough
because she may have prepared herself

61

QUESTIONS
1. Woman : Carla said that you were rather rude.
Man
: Its unfair of her to say that about me.
What does the man mean?
2. Man
: I dont think this painting is very good.
Woman : It couldnt have been worse
What does the woman say about painting?
3. Woman : Are you ready to go?
Man
: Well, I need to water the plants first
What does the man mean?
4. Woman : How do you like this coffee?
Man
: Yesterdays coffee was my favorite
What does the man mean about the coffee?
5. Man
Woman

: I just got my third parking ticket this week.

: Why dont you try putting more money in the parking meter
when you park your car?
What does the woman suggest that the man do?

6. Woman : Were you able to get hold of the book that you wanted?
Man
: I did not have my library member card at that time.
.
What does the man mean?
7. Woman

: Have you heard that our tuition was increased by the end
of this semester?
Man
: Thats all I need!
What does the man imply about the lecture?

8. Woman
Man

: You didnt go into the pool, even for a quick dip?

: I put my big toe in and decided that the water was too cold
for me.
What does the man mean?

9. Man
: I need you to work on these new accounting reports
Woman : But I scarcely have time to finish the ones I already have.
What does the woman mean?
10. Woman

: How much longer do you think youre going to stay on that

exercise machine?

62

Man
: I give up!
What does the man mean?
11. Woman

: Look at those waves coming in. Theyre as huge as Ive

ever seen them
Man
: You can say that again!
What does the man mean?

12. Man

: Are you ready for the political science exam today? I stayed
up all night studying for it.
Woman : Didnt you know that the professor was sick today?
What does the woman mean about the exam?

13. Woman

: I havent turned in my schedule change form yet. Do you

think thats a problem?
Man
: You havent turned it in yet? Its absolutely essential that
you turn the form in immediately
What does the man mean?
14. Woman : Id like to try on some rings, please?
Man
: Do you prefer rings in gold or silver?
Where does this conversation probably take place?
15. Man

: Look at this. You made an awful lot of long distance calls

last month!
Woman : I called my family even more than usual. Thats why the
bills so much higher than usual.
What does the man feel about the bill?

16. Man
: What do you think of your new boss?
Woman : I couldnt be more impressed with him
What does the woman mean?
17. Woman : Did you go to the party last night?
Man
: if I had known it, I would have gone
What does the man say about the party?
18. Man
Woman

: I need to buy some stamps

: Then you better get to the post office quickly because it
closes at five oclock?
What could be inferred from the conversation about the time?

19. Woman

: Do you know how I can find the journal article that were
supposed to read for class tomorrow?
Man
: The professor copied it and put it on the reverse in the
Library
What does the man mean?

63

20. Woman : I really think you should try to be a little calmer

Man
: if I were any calmer, Id be asleep
What does the man mean?
21. Woman : I cant believe its snowing today
Man
: it wasnt exactly unexpected
What does the man mean?
22. Man

: How do you think you did on the literature exam that you

had this morning?

Woman : I really wish I could take it over again
What does the woman imply?
23. Woman

: You didnt have to wait outside. You couldve just opened

the door and walked right in
Man
: So the door was not locked?!
What had the man assumed?

24. Man

: My guess is that youre leaving the office now and heading

straight home
Woman : You hit the nail on the head!
What does the woman say about the mans guess?

25. Woman : Are you ready to work on the history paper?

Man
: I am worn out.
What does the man mean?
(Adopted from TOEFL Longman Course Book, 2010)

64

Appendix 2: The participant scores on grammatical and pragmatic

competences

Grammatical competence scores

19
19
20
21
22
23
23
23
23
25
27
34
37
37
37
38
38
41
41

Pragmatic competence scores

42
61
63
42
66
57
42
61
73
55
44
43
73
70
63
71
42
57
57

65

Appendix 3: The normality test of grammatical competence score

and pragmatic competence score

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Statistic
df
Sig.
Grammatical
.191
competence scores
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

19

.067

Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Statistic
df
Sig.
Pragmatic
.188
competence scores
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

19

.075

Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
df
Sig.
.825

19

.003

Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic
df
Sig.
.885

19

.026

66

Appendix 4: The mean score and the Standard deviation of

grammatical and pragmatic competence scores

Descriptive Statistics
N
Grammatical
competence scores
Valid N (listwise)

Minimum

19

Maximum

Mean

41

28.84

19

Std.
Deviation
8.248

19

Descriptive Statistics
N
Pragmatic competence
scores
Valid N (listwise)

Minimum Maximum
19
19

42

73

Mean
56.95

Std.
Deviation
11.380

67

Appendix 5: The correlation coefficient of grammatical and pragmatic

competences

Grammatical
competence scores

Pragmatic
competence scores

Correlations
Grammatical
competence
scores
Pearson
1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
19
Pearson
.073
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
.766
N
19

Pragmatic
competence
scores
.073
.766
19
1

19

68

Appendix 6: The hypothesis testing

ANOVAa
Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

Model
df
F
1
Regressio
1.278
1
1.278
.092
n
Residual
237.354
17
13.962
Total
238.632
18
a. Dependent Variable: Pragmatic competence scores
b. Predictors: (Constant), Grammatical competence scores

Sig.
.766b