Journal of Language Sciences & Linguistics. Vol., 3 (8), 071-071, 2015
Available online at http://www.jlsljournal.com
ISSN 2148-0672 ©2015
The Effect of Observe-Hypothesize-Experiment
Method versus Presentation-Practice-Production
Method on Reducing Pragmatic Failure
The Case of Refusal Speech Act
Mahsan Gholami, Meisam Ziafar*
Department of English Language Teaching, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
*
Corresponding Author Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT: The present study was an attempt to investigate the effect of two teaching methods i.e.,
presentation-practice-production (PPP) method in comparison with observe-hypothesize-experiment (OHE)
method in reducing pragmatic failure of female intermediate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in
Aran language institute in Ahvaz. In this study, 60 female learners who studied English at intermediate level in
Aran language institute in Ahvaz were selected by giving a placement test. The instruments used in this
research, were the Quick Oxford Placement Test (QOPT) and the Written Discourse Completion Tests
(WDCTs). First, in order to homogenize the participants, they were given a QOPT. Then, in order to investigate
the pragmatic knowledge of students with respect to the case of refusal speech act, two WDCT as a pretest and a
posttest were administrated. The Participants were divided into three groups; a control group and two
experimental groups. Data analysis in this study was done based on the mean scores of two raters’ rating. In this
study, in order to evaluate the performance of the participants on pragmatic knowledge, the WDCT, used as
pretest was administrated to three groups. Experimental groups received two sessions of instruction per week,
during three weeks. After instructional period, three groups took part in the posttest. In order to investigate the
hypotheses of the present study, independent samples t- test and paired samples t-test were applied separately
for both OHE and PPP teaching methods. Also, ANCOVA was used to investigate the difference between two
teaching methods. The result of the present study showed that OHE and PPP methods had significant effect on
reducing pragmatic failure of female intermediate English Foreign Language learners in Aran language institute
in Ahvaz. Also, it should be noted that OHE method was more effective than PPP method in reducing pragmatic
failure of Iranian EFL learners.
Keywords: OHE, PPP, Pragmatic Failure, Refusal Speech Act.
INTRODUCTION
The field of pragmatics focuses on language use in real communication, and mainly on the relationships
among sentences, context and situations (Kasper & Rose, 2001). So, pragmatics involve the study of how to
interpret and use utterances and it depends on knowledge about the real world, how speakers use and
comprehend speech acts and the relationship between the speaker and the listener which affects the structure of
sentences (Richards & Schmidt, 2010; Thomas, 1983). The definitions provided by experts suggest that it
concentrates on the relationships among the utterances, the context and the speaker's purpose. Sometimes, in a
real communication some misunderstandings prevent successful communication. It may be due to pragmatic
incompetence, which leads to pragmatic failure (PF); that is to say, the failure of communication is because of
the incapability in using second language efficiently in real and intercultural communication.
170
J. Lang. Sci. Ling. Vol., 3 (8), 170-178, 2015
PF is related to the field of cross-cultural pragmatics which is a new branch of pragmatics which has been
developed rapidly over the last two decades. PF is a challenging problem which leads to misunderstanding and
interruption of communication between native speakers of a language and foreign or second language learners.
Consequently, identification and minimization of PF is a prerequisite for second language communication. For
the first time, Thomas (1983) proposed PF as the incapability to understand what is meant by what is said by
speaker. As she claimed, interference in communication is due to PF, which has no relationship with
grammatical mistakes but derives from inappropriate ways of speaking or the unusual expressions resulting
from various perceptions of what is considered as suitable linguistic behaviors. In order to be able to use foreign
or second language efficiently and to acquire the capability to communicate effectively and positively, English
language learners need to improve their communicative competence (CC) in all aspects of second language.
Communicative Competence
In general, CC can be defined as the learner´s ability to apply and use grammatical rules, to form correct
utterances and to know how to use these utterances appropriately. That is to say; the basic idea of CC remains
the ability to use language in an appropriate way, both receptively and productively, in real contexts and
situations. CC involves the ability to use grammatical competence in different communicative situations, thus,
bringing the sociolinguistic perspective into Chomsky's linguistic view of competence (Hymes, 1972). Savignon
(1983) claimed that the development of the concept of CC as it relates to language teaching can be traced back
to two sources: one theoretical, and the other practical. Theoretical sources are related to psychology, linguistics,
and communication theory and practical sources are related to pedagogical needs and concerns. According to
Savignon (1983), five characteristics of CC are as follows:
A. CC is a dynamic concept.
B. CC applies to both written and spoken language.
C. CC is context specific.
D. Competence and performance are different with each other.
E. CC is relative and depends on the cooperation of all the involved participants.
As another definition of CC, Canale and Swain (1980) stated that CC is a synthesis of a primary system of
knowledge and skills needed for communication. With respect to their definition, knowledge involves an
individual's knowledge about language and other features of language use. So, several types of knowledge can
be classified namely, knowledge of grammatical principles, knowledge of how to use language in a social
context and knowledge of how to combine different sentences, utterances and communicative functions with
respect to discourse principles. Competence can be considered as one of the most challenging terms in the field
of general and AL.Chomsky made a distinction between competence i.e., the monolingual speaker-listener's
knowledge of language and performance i.e., the actual use of language in real situations. Over the last three
decades, numerous researchers in the field of AL focused on the development of the notion of CC. Among those
researchers, Widdowson (1992) made an attempt to show the concept of CC and made a distinction between
competence and capacity. He asserts that CC can be described as the language learners’ knowledge of linguistic
and sociolinguistic conventions. He also defined CC as language learners’ procedural or communicative ability
to use knowledge, as means of creating and providing meaning in a language.
Pragmatic Failure
PF happens once speakers break up the interpersonal standards and social criterion unintentionally, or do
not adapt to the present time, and ignore the social status of the listener. Thus, such a communication may not
result in satisfactory interaction. According to Thomas' idea (1983), PF is defined as “the inability to
understand what is meant by what is said” (p.91). Based on her idea, PF can take place in any situation. PF
comes from inappropriate and also unsuitable ways of speaking or the unconventional expression resulting from
people’s different perceptions of what is considered as appropriate linguistic behavior (Thomas, 1983). She
asserted that “all deviations from the expected norms are attributed to pragmatic failure”. In other words,
deviation of the norms or deviation of the appropriateness leads to PF (Kasper, 1997; Rintell, 1979; Scarcella,
1979). For example, when during a communication, an EFL learner or non-native speaker says something other
than it is expected, PC will decrease and PF will take place.
To reduce the effect of PF, some ways would be helpful. Luo and Gao (2011) found that “in order to make
the communications smooth, language learners have to overcome the pragmatic failure by improving their own
linguistic competence, communicative competence and their cultural quality”. Also, they commented that “by
pragmatic linguistic failure, we mean that the failures result from the fact that what the speaker says does not
agree with the habit of the native speaker, by socio-pragmatic failure, we mean the utterances do not agree with
the social culture, customs of the native speaker's”.
Fernández Amaya (2008) found that “lack of pragmatic competence on the part of L2 students can lead to
pragmatic failure and, more importantly, to a complete communication breakdown”. In a study by school of
171
J. Lang. Sci. Ling. Vol., 3 (8), 170-178, 2015
foreign language studies of TANG, Jingwei (2013) asserted that “such an inappropriate way of using language
would definitely result in the failure of communication activities, which is called Pragmatic Failure”. Ziran
(2006) discusses that “pragmatic failure does not refer to the general wording and phrasing errors that appear in
language use, but rather refers to the failure to reach the expected result because of speaking improperly,
expressing ideas in unidiomatic way.” Thomas' PF theory is divided into two main categories: pragma linguistic
failure and sociopragmatic failure. According to Thomas (1983), the former takes place when the pragmatic
force mapped by the speaker onto a given utterance is systematically different from the most frequent pragmatic
force assigned to it by native speakers of the target language, or when conversational strategies are in an
inappropriate way transferred from the speaker’s first language to the target language. On the other hand, the
latter can be the result of different cultural rules and pragmatic rules that control linguistic performances in
various nations.
Reduction of Pragmatic Failure
Regarding various definitions of PF, presented in previous sections, in order for a communication to be
successful and satisfactory, EFL and ESL language learners should develop linguistic and CC to remove the
negative effect of PF.
A. Development of Linguistic Competence: Linguistic competence can be considered as the system of
linguistic knowledge possessed by native speakers of a language or the implicit system of rules that constitutes
one person's knowledge of a language. The system of rules that governs an individual’s tacit understanding of
what is appropriate and what is not in the language they speak. This type of competence enables a learner to
construct and understand sentences; one of the most important factors in the improvement in learning a foreign
or second language is to have a good knowledge of linguistic competence. For language learners prior to having
an acceptable pronunciation and using correct grammatical structures and lexical items, they should improve
linguistic competence (Brown, 2007).
B. Development of Communicative Competence: According to Hymes (1966), there are more
prerequisites to an effective communication in a language than speakers' mere grammatical competence. They
need adequate CC to be successful in communication. Trask (1997) defined CC as the use of language properly
in each social context. This competence enables language learners to start a conversation to be polite, and to
properly end a dialogue. According to Canale and Swain (1980), CC is classified into four main categories, i.e.,
grammatical competence (knowledge of the grammar, vocabulary, phonology, and semantics of a language),
sociolinguistic competence (knowledge of making relation between language and its nonlinguistic context),
discourse competence (knowing how to begin and end conversations) and strategic competence (knowledge of
communication strategies that can compensate for weakness in other areas).
C. Development of Foreign Language or Second Language Pragmatic Competence:
Omaggio Hadley (1993) stated that one of the most important principles of communicative language knowledge
or instruction is using authentic materials in instruction. Authentic material can be defined as spoken or written
language that has been produced in the course of real communication. According to Kasper (1997), authentic
second language input is essential for pragmatic learning, but it does not provide successful pragmatic
development. Many researchers have stated that noticing or consciousness is a prerequisite for the acquisition of
second language pragmatic features. According to Ellis (2003), noticing is a way through which input is
integrated into the learner's developing system.
Refusal Speech Act
Over the last three decades, refusal speech act has been one of the most important subjects in research on
discourse pragmatic (Wannaruk, 2008). According to Sadler and Eroz (2001), refusals are negative responses to
a variety of speech acts which are frequently used in our life such as requests, invitations, suggestions, and
offers. Generally speaking, refusal can be regarded as a face threatening act because it refuses the listener’s
wants. As one of the most important studies in this domain, Beebe et al (1990) stated that refusal behaviors
change from one language to another. Accordingly, when a language learner uses his/her native values to
perform speech acts, pragmatic transfer can take place. According to Beebe et al (1990), refusal speech acts are
classified into various semantic formulas and adjuncts appropriate. This classification consists of direct and
indirect strategies. Direct category is divided into two semantic formulas, namely, per formative and nonperformativity statements. Indirect category is divided into eleven semantic formulas, namely, statement of
regret, wish, excuse/reason/explanation, statement of alternative, set condition for future or past acceptance,
promise of acceptance in future, statement of principle, and statement of philosophy, attempt to dissuade
interlocutor, acceptance that functions as a refusal, and avoidance.
In general, how to say "no" in different social situations is more important than the answer itself. Refusals
should be concentrated because they are affected by various factors, i.e., age, gender, level of education, social
distance, and power (Smith, 1998). Oftentimes, learners cannot use pragmatic knowledge properly. For
172
J. Lang. Sci. Ling. Vol., 3 (8), 170-178, 2015
example, refusing an invitation, offering and requesting will be so hard because misinterpretations and
misunderstanding may take place. Also, refusals are not compatible with the listeners' expectations and realized
via indirect strategies (Al-Eryani, 2008). In order to overcome the complexity of refusal speech act, some degree
of risk-taking is involved. In refusing an invitation through using proper strategies, EFL and ESL learners
should improve their pragmatic knowledge to select the best and appropriate refusal speech act forms in their
communication, to avoid happening PF. According to Beebe et al (1990), “the refusal speech act is a major
cross-cultural sticking point for many nonnative speakers, and for that reason they are important for second
language educators and others involved in cross-cultural communication”. Therefore, the study of refusals plays
an important role in interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics. To sum up, refusal speech acts are multifaceted
and complicated and require long sequences of negotiation.
Present-Practice-Production Method vs. Observe-Hypothesize-Experiment Method
It is necessary to concentrate and discover the theoretical and pedagogical concepts characterized by PPP
and OHE methods. In order to understand PPP thoroughly, the following theories and notions i.e., deductive and
inductive teaching methods are based on different experts in this field of the study. Also, in order to understand
the PPP and OHE paradigms fully, the concepts of deductive and inductive teaching are described. Inductive
and deductive methods are two different approaches used in TEFL. Inductive teaching (inquiry or discovery
teaching) involves giving learners examples of language and working with them to come up with grammatical
principles. It can be considered a learner-centered approach to learning. On the other hand, deductive teaching
initiates by giving learners the rules and working with them to produce language, thence a more teacherscentered approach compared with the deductive approach. The inductive approach is usually recognized to be
more effective in the long run. Inductive approach is usually more inspiring and requires greater learner
involvement and contribution. So, learners are more actively involved in getting knowledge. Although the
inductive approach is generally believed to be more effective to learners, it can sometimes take a little longer to
complete. Traditional classrooms considerably rely profoundly on the deductive approach. According to
Richards and Schmidt (2010), deductive approach in language teaching can be defined as students are trained
principles and given specific information about a language. Then they apply these principles when they use the
language. Language teaching methods which focus on the study of the grammatical rules of a language (e.g., the
grammar translation method) can also use of the principle of deductive learning. In contrast to deductive
learning, learners may be taught grammatical or other types of rules directly and left to discover rules from their
own experience of using the language. Totally, language teaching methods emphasize use of language in context
rather than presentation of information about one language. With respect to the two teaching methods, PPP and
OHE have been considered deductive and inductive approaches respectively. While these methods are different
from each other, it is feasible for tutors to resort to techniques where explicit practices are used together with
analyzing examples and where the degree of guidance the students receive in working out the rules varies. It is
claimed that PPP involves students in language discovery where explicit illustration and inference from various
examples are combined. Regarding OHE method, a comprehensive description of each of its stages has not been
presented. So, these stages can be understood differently. Having investigated the lexical approach the stages
can be described as follows:
A. In the observe stage, students are presented with oral or written input and, with directions of a teacher.
B. In the hypothesis stage, the learners compose a hypothesis about the principles based on the perceived
linguistic behavior.
C. In Experiment stage, learners test their theories in a communicative context. Based on Natural
Approach of Krashen, the focus and the emphasis are on input in OHE method.
Accordingly, from a lexical approach errors are treated as vital elements of second language improvement.
If language learners come across a limitation of their hypothesis they need to modify their existing knowledge.
Because of the effect of Natural Approach which was proposed firstly by Krashen, by using OHE method,
mostly the concentration and the focus is on input. In general, the OHE method reflects Lewis’ learning theory
which also involves conscious awareness of learning process and language use combined with exposure to high
volumes of comprehensible input, as the first step of language acquisition. On the other hand, the PPP stages are
interpreted in various ways. These stages are described as follows:
A. In the Presentation stage, the language point is presented in context and it is followed by explicit focus
on form and meaning.
B. In the practice stage, the learners take part in controlled activities such as drills or simple
personalization where the focus is on form.
C. In production stage, the emphasis is on meaning and learners are stimulated and desired to use the
newly-presented language point in a free action such as a role-play.
According to Ellis (2003), PPP can be applied to both deductive and inductive approaches to language
teaching and learning. Ranta and Lyster (2007) assert that PPP is more relevant to cognitive learning theory than
173
J. Lang. Sci. Ling. Vol., 3 (8), 170-178, 2015
behaviorism. Under the influence of natural approach of Krashen, the emphasis is on input once using the OHE
method. Lewis believed that when OHE is in contrast with PPP, these teaching methods cannot be seen as selfcontained. As a matter of fact, the second stage of PPP, i.e., practice stage, is in some way similar to the
experiment stage of OHE, i.e., the third stage. It should be noted that the two teaching methods focus on trying
out new language but PPP benefits more from feedback and the experiment stage can help learners by further
scrutinizing the contents.
Statement of the Problem
Over the last three decades, by the advent of the grammar-based approach to second language
acquisition(SLA) proposed by some linguists and researchers in the field of language teaching, there has been a
substantial growth in linguistic research. But this development was focused on SLA and relegated the
importance of semantics (the study of meaning) and pragmatics (meaning derived through context). Nowadays,
pragmatic has received due concern in second and foreign language learning. Although many researches
concentrated on pragmatics and PC, this study focuses on PF. The deep and strong connection between culture
and language can develop language learner's ability to comprehend a second or foreign language. As a matter of
fact, numerous types of PF have been witnessed in real and intercultural communication. Since language is
intertwined with foreign culture, comprehensive target language is a complicated issue. Pragmatic is associated
with the ways learners achieve their aims in communication and it comprises students’ knowledge, use, and
acquisition of a foreign or second language.
Research Hypotheses
1: Observe-hypothesize-experiment method does not significantly reduce female intermediate EFL learners’
pragmatic failure.
2: Presentation-practice-production method does not significantly reduce female intermediate EFL learners’
pragmatic failure.
3: There is no significant difference between Observe-hypothesize-experiment and presentation-practiceproduction methods in reducing Iranian EFL learners’ pragmatic failure.
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The total number of population of the present study was 120 Iranian female EFL learners who majored in
English as a foreign language at intermediate level in Aran language institute of Ahvaz. They varied in age
from 15-20 years and the majority of them were Persian native speakers. The Respondents were chosen
randomly from several classrooms of the language institute. Based on the guidelines of the placement test, out of
120 EFL leaners, 60 participants who answered 35 to 40 correct questions were considered as intermediate level
and they were selected to participate in this study. They were randomly assigned to three groups, namely two
experimental groups (the PPP and the OHE groups) and a control group.
Instrumentation
The main research instruments utilized in the present study were a Quick Oxford Placement Test (QOPT)
for determining the proficiency level of participant and a pragmatic test, namely Written Discourse Completion
Test (WDCT). The WDCTs, in this study were used as a pretest and a posttest. The participants were required to
make refusals in different contexts, to complete the WDCTs.
Procedure
The present study was basically a quantitative and experimental study and it was applied to achieve the
objectives of the study. This research was carried out through four stages, namely a placement test, a pretest, an
instruction period and a posttest. First of all, in order to homogenize the participants of the study, 120 EFL
learners were given a Quick Oxford Placement Test. Out of the whole participants, 60 EFL learners were
selected to participate in the study. In order to investigate the pragmatic capability of the students with respect to
their knowledge of refusal speech acts, two paper-based Written Discourse Completion Tests were used as
pretest and posttest. WDCT was used to assess the learners’ ability to produce most appropriate refusal speech
acts in English based on different social contexts. After the pretest, the researcher provided the learners in two
experimental groups (OHE and PPP groups) with the predesigned instructional treatment. The whole instruction
for both experimental groups took place in twelve sessions and each session lasted for 90 minutes. These PPP
and OHE classes were held in six weeks. According to the principles of the methods .i.e., OHE and PPP, the two
174
J. Lang. Sci. Ling. Vol., 3 (8), 170-178, 2015
experimental groups received instructions in different ways. Having finished the instructional period, the three
groups (the OHE and PPP groups and the control group) took part in the posttest, and finally their scores were
collected and analyzed by appropriate statistical tests.
RESULTS
In the following Table 1, the pretest and posttest scores of OHE, PPP and control groups are shown
respectively.
Table1. The pretest and posttest scores of OHE, PPP and control groups.
Group
OHE
Maximum
32.50
38.50
29.50
34
28
28
Pretest
Posttest
Pretest
Posttest
Pretest
Posttest
PPP
Control
Minimum
19.50
22.50
19.50
24
21.50
21.50
Std. Deviation
2.99
3.94
2.90
3.58
1.67
1.73
Mean
23.50
32.93
23.15
29.85
24.48
24.58
N
20
20
20
20
20
20
The First Hypothesis: In order to study the first hypothesis, the pretest and the posttest of two experimental
groups and control group were investigated in OHE method by paired t-test.
Table 2. OHE method by paired t-test.
Paired Differences
Post Expre-Pre Expre
Post Cont-Pre Cont
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error Mean
9.42500
0.10000
5.05828
0.34793
1.13107
0.07780
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower
Upper
7.05765
11.79235
0.06283
.26283
t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
8.333
1.285
19
19
0.000
0.214
Also, in order to investigate the effect of OHE method on the experimental group, the independent T-test in
the pretest (table 3) and the posttest (table 4) was used to compare the experimental and the control groups.
Table 3. The independent T-test in the pretest.
Levene's Test for
Equality of
Variances
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
F
Sig.
t
df
Sig.
(2tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
3.713
0.062
-1.271
38
0.212
-0.97500
0.76732
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
-2.52836
0.57836
-1.271
29.811
0.214
-.97500
0.76732
-2.54250
0.59250
Table 4. The independent T-test in the posttest.
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
F
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances
not
assumed
175
Sig.
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
8.219
0.007
8.672
38
0.000
8.35000
0.96283
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
6.40085
10.29915
-
-
8.672
26.022
0.000
8.35000
0.96283
6.37096
10.32904
J. Lang. Sci. Ling. Vol., 3 (8), 170-178, 2015
As a result, the first hypothesis of the present study is rejected. That is to say, OHE method does
significantly reduce female intermediate EFL learners’ PF.
The Second Hypothesis: In order to study the second hypothesis, the pretest and the posttest of two
experimental groups and control group were investigated in PPP method by paired t-test.
Table 5. The pretest and the posttest of two experimental groups and control group in PPP method by paired
t-test.
Paired Differences
Post Expre-Pre Expre
Post Cont-Pre Cont
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error Mean
6.70000
0.10000
3.52957
0.34793
0.78924
0.07780
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
5.04811
8.35189
0.06283
0.26283
t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
8.489
1.285
19
19
0.000
0.214
To investigate the effect of PPP method on the experimental group, the independent T-test in the pretest
(table 6) and the posttest (table 7) was used to compare the experimental and the control groups.
Table 6. The effect of PPP method on the experimental group, the independent T-test in the pretest.
Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances
F
Equal
variances
assumed
Equal
variances not
assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
Sig.
t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
8.447
0.006
-1.769
38
0.085
Mean
Differenc
e
-1.32500
-
-
-1.769
30.381
0.087
-1.32500
Std. Error
Differenc
e
0.74919
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
-2.84165
0.19165
0.74919
-2.85424
0.20424
Table 7. The effect of PPP method on the experimental group, the independent T-test in the posttest.
Levene's Test for Equality of Variances
F
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Sig.
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Differenc
e
Std. Error
Differenc
e
15.433
0.000
5.935
38
0.000
5.27500
0.88880
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
3.47572
7.07428
-
-
5.935
27.384
0.000
5.27500
0.88880
3.45253
7.09747
As a result, the second hypothesis of the present study is rejected. That is to say, PPP method significantly
reduces female intermediate EFL learners’ PF.
The Third Hypothesis: In order to compare the two teaching methods i.e., OHE and PPP, ANCOVA test
was used. In the present study, the researcher used ANCOVA test because of, its high level of accuracy and
precision in comparison with ANOVA test and since there are more than two independent groups to compare.
Table 8. ANCOVA test.
Source
Type III Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Corrected
Model
Intercept
pretest
GROUP
Error
Total
Corrected Total
755.542
3
251.847
25.474
0.000
Partial Eta
Squared
0.577
305.044
42.183
752.747
553.642
52176.000
1309.183
1
1
2
56
60
59
305.044
42.183
376.374
9.886
-
30.855
4.267
38.070
-
0.000
0.044
0.000
-
0.355
0.071
0.576
-
176
J. Lang. Sci. Ling. Vol., 3 (8), 170-178, 2015
Table 9. Compare the two teaching methods, OHE and PPP.
GROUP
Mean
Std. Error
OHP
32.994a
0.704
PPP
30.035a
0.709
Control
24.321a
0.714
*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
31.584
28.615
22.891
Upper Bound
34.404
31.455
25.751
According to the results of Tables 9 and 10, it was observed that the mean scores of OHE and PPP groups
were more than the mean scores of control group and the mean scores of OHE group was greater than the mean
scores of PPP group. Also, the effect size of OHE method (0.67) was more than the effect size of PPP group
(0.62). It is concluded that OHE method was more effective than PPP method in promoting learners’ PC.
Therefore, there is significant difference between OHE and PPP methods in reducing Iranian EFL learners’ PF.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Based on this study’s findings, it was observed that both OHE and PPP language teaching methods, were
effective in reducing learners’ PF, but OHE method was more effective in promoting language learners’ PC and
as a natural result, in reducing language learners’ PF. According to Wahyuni (2012), using OHE method as an
alternative to PPP method is more effective in improving the students’ mastery in language functions and
promoting learners’ PC which provides naturally reducing their PF. PC relates to knowledge of the linguistic
systems and knowledge of the appropriate use of those linguistic systems in a situation. In other words,
according to Hymes (1972) and Widdowson (1992), PC refers to the knowledge of language and the ability to
use that knowledge in social communication. So, this language ability, i.e., PC has become more significant in
the education of EFL learners to use English appropriately. PC in the field of language learning and also
language teaching, received great attention, so numerous studies have been carried out (Bardovi-Harlig and
Hartford, 1993; Barron 2003; Schmidt, 1983; Siegal, 1996). In general, although the main goal of traditional
language teaching approaches has been to focus on learners’ mastery of the grammatical structure of a language,
the pragmatic features of language have been ignored. For that reason, language learners were unable to
effectively communicate in their foreign or second language. So, it is difficult for language teachers and second
language learners to overlook the dynamic and important relationship between these pragmatic features of
language and their role in acquisition of complete CC, which leads to promote language learners' PC and reduce
their PF. For instance, Judd (1999) stated three techniques for improving second language PC which are as
follows:
A. Cognitive-awareness raising activities, such as presentation, discussion, and pragmatic-consciousnessraising procedures.
B. Receptive-skills development by using teacher generated materials or natural data.
C. Productive-skills teaching through role playing.
As a final outcome of the present study and the findings of the other experimental researches on the field of
pragmatic, the researcher found that the phenomenon of the EFL learners' PF is common. PF as an important
problem in communication or in accordance with definition of Thomas (1983) “the inability to understand what
is meant by what is said” has some reasons. In another experimental study of Iranian EFL learners’ PF, Allami
and Naeimi, (2011) found that PF takes place because of the differences in language systems between English
and Persian and lack of good proficiency of Iranian English learners as a second source of PF. That is to say,
one of the main reasons for Iranian EFL learners' communication breakdown or PF in a communication can be
the differences in Persian and English languages. The dissimilarities between two languages can be attributed to
the ways in which people associate forms with meaning. The relationship between form and meaning is different
from one language to another and it is related to values of the speech community. Regarding many PF’s
definitions, presented in the two first sections, If EFL/ESL learners have adequate and sufficient PC in foreign
or second language; PF will reduce in foreign or second language communication. It should be noted that
cultural dissimilarities between Iranian EFL learners and English people may be reflected in different speech
acts. That is to say, people from different countries, refuse an invitation, an offer or a suggestion differently,
because of the cultural differences. Research on refusal speech act play an important role in interlanguage and
cross-cultural pragmatics and it should be considered as an important part in the field of pragmatics. In general,
refusals speech act are fundamentally face-threatening and these were described as “a major cross-cultural
sticking point for many nonnative speakers, and for that reason they are important for second language
educators and others involved in cross-cultural communication” (Beebe et al., 1990).
177
J. Lang. Sci. Ling. Vol., 3 (8), 170-178, 2015
REFERENCES
Al-Eryani A, 2008. Refusal strategies by Yemeni EFL learners.The Iranian EFL Journal. 9 (2): 84-101.
Allami H, Naeimi A, 2011. A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence
development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics. 43(1): 385-406.
Bardovi-Harlig K, Hartford B, 1993.Learning the rules of academic talk.Studies in Second Language
Acquisition. 15: 279–304.
Barron A, 2003. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics: Learning how to do Things with Words in a Study
Abroad Context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Beebe LM, Takahashi T, Uliss-Weltz R, 1990. Pragmatic Transfer in ESL Refusals. Developing
Communicative Competence in a Second Language. New York: Newbury.
Brown HD, 2007. Principles of language learning and teaching. (5 thed.). San Francisco: Pearson Education.
Canale M, Swain M, 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and
testing. Applied Linguistics. 1(1): 1-47.
Ellis R, 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fernández Amaya L, 2008. Teaching Culture: Is It Possible to Avoid Pragmatic Failure? RevistaAlicantina de
EstudiosIngleses. 21: 11-24.
Hymes DH, 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. Directions in sociolinguistics: The
ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Hymes DH, 1972. On communicative competence. Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Jingwei T, (2013). Analysis of Pragmatic Failure from the Perspective of Adaptation.Cross-Cultural
Communication, 9(3), 75-79.
Judd EL, 1999. Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. Culture in second language teaching and
learning. 5(3): 152-166.
Kasper G, 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu, HI: National Foreign Language Resource
Center, University of Hawaii Press. Iment.Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics. 6(1): 31-48.
Kasper G, Rose KR, 2001. Pragmatics in language teaching. Pragmatics in language teaching.Cambridge
University Press.
Luo X, Gao J, 2011. On pragmatic failures in second language learning.Theory and Practice in Language
Studies. 1(3): 283-286.
Omaggio Hadley A, 199). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Ranta L, Lyster R, 2007. A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The
Awareness-Practice-Feedback sequence. Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied
linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards JC, Schmidt R, 2010. Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics (4 thed.).
London: Longman.
Rintell E, 1979. Getting your speech act together: the pragmatic ability of second language learners' in Working
Papers in Bilingualism. 17: 97-106.
Sadler RW, Eröz B, 2001. I refuse you! An examination of English refusals by native speakers of English, Lao,
and Turkish.Arizona Working Papers in SLAT. 9(1): 53–80.
Savignon SJ, 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Texts and Contexts in
Second Language Learning.Reading, Massachusetts at all: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Scarcella R, 1979. On speaking politely in a second language.On TESOL. 79: 275-87.
Schmidt R, 1983. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics.In G. Kasper & S. Blum- Kulka, (Eds.),
Interlanguage pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Siegal M, 1996. The role of learner subjectivity in second language sociolinguistic competency: Western
women learning Japanese. Applied Linguistics. 17: 356–382.
Smith C, 1998. Can adults “Just say no?” How gender, status and social goals affect refusals.(Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation), University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Thomas J, 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics. 2: 91-122.
Wahyuni T, 2012. The effectiveness of using observe-hypothesize-experiment (OHE) as a teaching method to
improve the students’ mastery in language functions to the eighth grade students of SMP N 33 Purworejo in
the
academic
year
2011/
2012.
Program
StudiPendidikan
Bahasa
Inggris
FKIP,
UniversitasMuhammadiyahPurworejo, SCRIPTA; Englishdepartmentjournal. 1: 1-13.
Wannaruk A, 2008. Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals.RELC. 39(3): 318-337.
Widdowson HG, 1992. English language teaching and English language teachers: Matters arising. ELT Journal.
46(4): 333-339.
Ziran H, 2006. Notes on pragmatics. Nanjing: Nanjing Normal University Press.
178