Background to the study
Together with Vietnam’s open-door policy, doi moi, which came into existence in
Since 1986, English has reemerged as the most important foreign language globally, overtaking Russian after years of dominance This shift reflects the increasing significance of English in international communication and business Additionally, Vietnam's accession as the 150th member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) highlights the country's growing integration into the global economy and the importance of English proficiency in fostering international trade relationships.
Since early 2007, globalization has driven Vietnam to adopt English as the dominant foreign language, marking a significant shift in educational policies This transition from Russian to English underscores the country's commitment to aligning with global standards More importantly, Vietnam's educational focus has shifted from traditional grammar and translation methods to prioritize communicative competence, enhancing students' practical language skills for better international engagement.
The shift towards emphasizing practical English communication skills is driven by the high demand for English speakers under Vietnam’s open-door policy, as traditional teaching methods have proven ineffective To implement this policy effectively, the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) has replaced all high school English textbooks (grades 6-12) with new materials focused on communicative competence At the university level, extensive efforts have been made to enhance students' ability to use English confidently in real-world situations Consequently, public complaints about students’ English communication skills have significantly decreased compared to fifteen years ago, reflecting improvements in language education outcomes.
Despite the focus on linguistic competence, very little attention has been given to developing learners' pragmatic competence, especially in high schools where students rarely have opportunities to enhance this skill In university settings, only English majors receive instruction in pragmatics, leaving non-majored students completely neglected Kasper (1997, as cited in Edwards & Csiceùr, 2004: 17) emphasizes that pragmatic competence is an integral part of communicative competence, not merely an additional linguistic knowledge The significant gap between grammatical and pragmatic skills in EFL teaching in Vietnam results in even advanced learners lacking essential pragmatic abilities, which critically hampers their overall communicative effectiveness This issue has been highlighted by scholars such as Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgan, and Reynolds (1996, as cited in Melinda & Kata, 2004: 17), underscoring the urgent need to address pragmatic skill development in language education.
Using pragmatically appropriate language is essential for effective communication; failure to do so can result in you appearing uncooperative, rude, or even insulting This is especially important for advanced learners, whose high linguistic proficiency often leads others to expect a corresponding level of pragmatic competence.
Conversational implicature, a key concept in pragmatics, plays a vital role in everyday communication by allowing speakers to imply meaning beyond their explicit words, requiring listeners to interpret underlying messages According to Grice (1989), speakers often suggest something beyond what they explicitly state, making pragmatic competence essential for effective understanding In Vietnam, however, there is limited classroom instruction focusing on developing pragmatic skills, with pragmatics typically taught as a theoretical subject only to advanced English majors in their third or fourth year, leading to neglect of conversational implicature Consequently, many Vietnamese EFL learners find understanding conversational implicature challenging, particularly in exams like the TOEFL, where inference questions frequently test this skill, resulting in difficulties in identifying correct answers.
At Bac Lieu University (BLU), there has been little focus on developing pragmatic competence for non-majored English students, with teachers and students alike lacking exposure to key pragmatic concepts such as conversational implicature A survey revealed that all ten English teachers had never attempted to teach pragmatic skills, and all one hundred students reported they had not learned about pragmatic concepts during high school or university Despite this, teachers acknowledged the importance of pragmatic competence, particularly conversational implicature, in enhancing overall communicative skills While six teachers believed students could acquire conversational implicature informally through communication, nine agreed that explicitly teaching these concepts would be more beneficial for students’ language development Only one teacher thought a combination of both approaches would be optimal This highlights a significant gap in pragmatic instruction and emphasizes the need to integrate pragmatic competence development into English education at BLU to improve students’ communicative proficiency.
Thirty-five out of one hundred students said that they had encountered at least one example of English conversational implicature whereas sixty-five students had not
Eighteen out of thirty-five students who encountered at least one example believed they could interpret the implications, highlighting their understanding of English conversational implicature All participants agreed that knowledge of conversational implicature is essential for developing communicative competence in English They emphasized that teaching this pragmatic concept should be incorporated into the curriculum for Vietnamese university students studying EFL Additionally, twenty-seven students felt that students can acquire knowledge of English conversational implicature naturally through communication without formal instruction Eighteen students believed that a combination of both learning methods—instruction and communication—would be most effective, underscoring the importance of integrating pragmatic teaching approaches to improve EFL learners' language skills.
Research indicates that pragmatic aspects of second language (L2) learning are teachable, as demonstrated by Kasper and Rose (2001) Numerous studies have explored the effectiveness of teaching pragmatic knowledge across various learning contexts and target languages, focusing on areas such as speech acts, pragmatic routines, and conversational implicature These investigations include participants with different proficiency levels, highlighting the broad applicability of pragmatic instruction (Kasper, 2001).
House & Kasper, discourse markers & adv German-EFL
1984, 1986 Billmyer, 1990 high int Japanese-EFL 1990b
1990 Lyster, 1994 sociostylistic Grade 8 English-French variation imm
1994 & strageties SL Bouton, 1994a implicature adv Mixed-ESL Kubota, 1995
House, 1996 Morrow, 1996 complaints, refusals int Mixed-ESL Tateyama, Kasper, pragmatic routines beg English-JFL Mui, Tay,
& Thananart, 1 Fukuya, 1998 downgraders int Mixed-ESL
This article explores the pragmatic aspects of language proficiency across various contexts It highlights how pragmatic routines, such as compliments and apologies, play a crucial role in effective communication among German-EFL and Hebrew-EFL learners The study examines pragmatic fluency in English-German and Japanese-EFL settings, emphasizing the importance of implicature understanding Findings suggest that pragmatic competence varies depending on language pairs and cultural backgrounds, with proficiency levels influenced by the ability to use pragmatic routines appropriately Enhancing pragmatic awareness can significantly improve communication skills in foreign language learning and teaching.
Fukuya et al., 1 (requests) Pearson, 1998
These studies, as Kasper pointed out, have proven that there exist positive effects for instruction
Lid's recent study investigated the impact of instruction on the development of French interactional norms among Australian learners Using a pretest/posttest design with a four-phase instructional treatment—comprising awareness raising, narrative reconstruction, production, and feedback—the research assessed changes over time, including a delayed posttest conducted one year later The findings demonstrated that targeted instruction significantly influenced learners' ability to produce appropriate interactional behaviors in French The study involved 66 students in the treatment group and a control group, highlighting the effectiveness of structured language instruction in enhancing communicative competence.
The treatment activities lasted 35 or 45 minutes each, with pretests and posttests recorded and transcribed to analyze student progress The results demonstrated that students in the treatment group used more elaborate opening and closing elements, indicating the effectiveness of the instruction This study provides evidence of the positive impact of targeted teaching methods on student learning outcomes.
This study investigates the use of sociopragmatic features among high-intermediate ESL students, focusing on their command of thanks, apologies, and requests in English-Spanish contexts It highlights how teaching interactional norms, such as requests and mitigators, can have short-term effects on language proficiency Drawing on research by Dicoat and Crozet (2001, as cited in Rose & Kasper, 2001), the study examines university students learning French as a foreign language and their application of pragmatic features through role-play activities Additionally, the research includes a four-week program with a pretest/posttest design to assess pragmatic development, where students worked in pairs on role-play tasks to practice achieving communicative goals like agreements without prior knowledge of their peer’s role card Overall, the findings suggest that focused instruction on pragmatic features can improve the use of interactional norms in second language acquisition.
To date, only two researchers have conducted interventional studies on L2 pragmatic development focusing on learners’ acquisition of conversational implicature Bouton (1994) investigated the impact of instruction on ESL learners’ ability to develop conversational implicature in the United States, while Kubota (1995) explored the teachability of conversational implicature among Japanese EFL students These significant studies will be examined in detail in Chapter Two, highlighting their contributions to understanding L2 pragmatic development.
Currently, there is a lack of research on conversation implicature in Vietnam's EFL education Vietnamese MOET-issued textbooks generally do not address conversation implicature comprehensively Notably, among available EFL resources in Vietnam, only TOEFL materials include examples of conversation implicature, primarily for listening test purposes This gap highlights the need for incorporating pragmatics and implicature topics into Vietnam's EFL curricula to enhance students' communicative competence.
It is very necessary to conduct this study in Vietnam in this situation.
Purpose of the study
This study aims to determine whether teaching the concept of conversation implicature can improve the communicative competence of Vietnamese university students learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Developing students’ ability to understand and use implicature is essential for effective communication in the target language The research highlights that the ultimate goal of language teaching is to enhance students’ communicative skills, which include both pragmatic and linguistic aspects Prior studies (Heilbrun, 1994; Kobuta, 1995) have shown that a positive outcome in both pragmatic and linguistic competence contributes to overall communicative competence, emphasizing their interconnected roles in language development.
Research questions
The following two research questions guide this study:
Research question (1): Can Vietnamese EFL students recognize and apply Englis conversational implicature in communication from the combination of implicit an explicit instru
Research question (2): How effective will treatment be on a long term basis?
Hypotheses
The previous studies (Bouton, 1994 and Kobuta, 1995) on the instructional effect of conversational implicature provide a sufficient basis for the following hypotheses:
The experimental group is expected to outperform the post-test 2 (delayed posttest), indicating that the treatment has a significant effect Previous research demonstrates that students who received instruction on conversational implicature performed better than comparison groups that were not taught this concept These findings suggest that teaching conversational implicature can enhance learning outcomes, emphasizing the importance of targeted language instruction for improved academic performance.
H2: The experimental group would respond significantly better in posttest 1 than in the pretest
H3: The experimental group would respond significantly better in posttest 2 than in the pretest
The experimental group is expected to perform significantly better in Posttest 1 compared to Posttest 2, indicating the immediate impact of summer vacation on learning outcomes While research addressing the teachability of conversational skills remains limited, this study explores how language instruction influences communication ability, referencing Bachman and Palmer's (1996) definition of communicative competence Notably, there were no classes between the treatment and posttests, suggesting participants lacked opportunities to practice the target language in a real EFL environment like Vietnam, which may lead to the disappearance of instructional effects over time.
Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 are motivated by Kobuta (1995)
Significance of the study
This study highlights the teachability of pragmatic competence in EFL learning, demonstrating that it can be effectively developed through a combination of implicit and explicit teaching methods The findings suggest that integrating both approaches enhances the acquisition of pragmatic skills, such as conversational implicature, which can be learned either independently through implicit methods or explicitly Overall, the results support the idea that pragmatic competence is trainable within EFL classrooms by leveraging a blended instructional approach.
In pa implicature in Vietnam to the best of my knowledge This research will, thus, be the pioneer e
Definitions of terms
Pragmatics is the study of language from the perspective of users, focusing on the choices they make and the constraints they face in social interactions It examines how context influences language use and the impact of communication on social relationships Understanding pragmatics helps reveal how speakers convey meaning beyond words, shaping effective and meaningful social communication Keywords such as "language use," "social interaction," and "communication effects" are essential for SEO optimization.
Pragmatic competence and communicative competence are essential aspects of effective language use, with pragmatic competence encompassing sociolinguistic and illocutionary skills Organizational competence, a key component of communicative ability, includes grammatical competence—covering vocabulary, syntax, morphology, and phonology—and textual competence, which involves cohesion, coherence, and rhetorical organization Understanding these interconnected facets enhances overall language proficiency and promotes clear, contextually appropriate communication.
Limitations
This research investigates the teachability of conversational implicature for EFL learners in Vietnam, focusing on six specific types of implicature The study utilizes two testing methods—multiple-choice tests (MCT) and sentence writing tests (SWT)—to assess learners' understanding Data analysis is conducted using statistical software to evaluate all test scores, providing insights into the effectiveness of instructional activities designed for this purpose.
Results and Discussion sions and Recommendations and they were all writt itten ones, too
Moreover, the number of the subjects in each group was only 45 Therefore, this research should be considered as the pilot research first conducted on this issue in Vietnam.
Delimitations
This research focuses on EFL teaching settings in Vietnam, with findings and recommendations specific to this context Due to the sample composition of BLU students, the generalizability of the results may be limited However, the insights gained can still provide valuable guidance for teachers in similar educational environments aiming to develop students' understanding of conversational implicature.
Data Analysis
The structure of the report
The study will be reported in five chapters:
Chapter1: Introduction Chapter 2: Literature Review
• Previous studies on the classroom-based instruction of conversational implicature Chapter 3: Methodology
The structure of the report
Grice’s theory
Levinson (1983) mentioned that in the W liam James lectures delivered at Harvard in
1967 Grice first introduced his theory about how people use language In this theory he developed the co-operative principle and the concept of conversational implicature
Grice (1989) proposed the concept of the ‘cooperative principle,’ which suggests that all speakers, regardless of cultural background, follow a fundamental rule to ensure effective communication He argued that conversation is a cooperative effort where participants contribute meaningfully rather than making disconnected or random remarks According to Grice, successful dialogues involve speakers working together to achieve mutual understanding through contributions aimed at the accepted purpose or direction of the conversation This principle underpins the natural flow of conversation and highlights the importance of cooperation in effective communication.
Effective conversations are inherently cooperative efforts where all participants recognize a common purpose or mutually accepted direction These exchanges can be formal or informal, with goals that may be clear or evolve during the discussion, offering varying degrees of latitude for participant input Recognizing the dynamic nature of dialogue, certain conversational moves are always appropriate at each stage to facilitate understanding and cooperation.
1989: 26) Grice (1989: 26-27) described his cooperative principle, which includes four sub- principles or maxims, as the following:
The cooperative principle: Make your conversational contribution such as is requir the stage at which it occurs, by the ac ch you are engaged
1 Make your contribution as inform the exchange)
2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
Quality Try to make your contribution one that is true
1 Do not say what you believe to be false
2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
3 Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) ade it short, in order to converse in a maximally xims: eeting B who is living in London) are you living now? talk exchange B provides enough information His answer surely sati e says is true ted to A’s A wants to know where B is livi s the maxim of relation quite clear B surely follows the maxim of manner indicated that these maxims are not always followed dire metimes adhered to indirectly or at some deeper level The following example (Levinson, 1983: 102) should make this clear:
A yellow VW parked outside Sue’s house draws attention, prompting curiosity about its connection to Bill The scene suggests a narrative that is both coherent and cooperative, encouraging readers to consider the relationship between Bill and the car This setting invites questions about the car's significance and its role in the story, aligning with SEO best practices for engaging and keyword-rich content.
W and there is a VW outside Sue’s house and that if that VW nciple is not confined to exchanges
Briefly, as Levinson (1983: 102) m efficient, rational, cooperative way, speakers have to speak sincerely, relevantly, and clearly, while providing sufficient information Consider the following example in terms of four conversational ma
Quantity: In this sfies A It is certain that he follows the maxim of quantity
Quality: B certainly follows this maxim because what h Relation: B’s utterance is completely rela ng and B gives the direct answer It is obvious that B follow
However, Grice (1989) also ctly or superficially but they are so
B: There is a Literally, B’s utterance fails to answer A’s question because the location of Bill and that of the car are not related to each other, so it seems to violate the maxim of relation Therefore, B might be thought not to be co-operative However, at some deeper level B’s answer turns out to be a co-ope relation Why is it so? On the assumption that B any connection between the lo suggestion that Bill has a V is Bill’s, he may be in Sue’s house
Grice (1989) proposed that the cooperative principle underpins all types of cooperative communication, emphasizing that it is rooted in general principles of rationality He illustrated this concept with examples to clarify how the cooperative principle guides effective and meaningful exchanges This approach highlights the importance of cooperation in ensuring clear and efficient conversational interactions across various contexts.
When A is assisting B in repairing a car, B expects A’s contributions to be genuine and meaningful, not superficial or spurious If B requires a specific part or tool, he relies on A to provide only what is necessary and relevant Clear communication about each person’s contribution is essential to ensure effective cooperation and trust during the repair process.
Effective communication relies on the principle of providing just enough information—neither more nor less than required For instance, if at a certain stage B needs four screws, B expects A to supply exactly four A would breach this principle if he knowingly provides either more or fewer than the specified number, compromising clarity and understanding.
In the context of quality, B expects A to provide sugar as the key ingredient in the cake A is assisting B by adding salt or other ingredients, which violates the conversational maxim of quality, as A would fail to observe this principle if he offers salt or any unrelated ingredient instead of the expected sugar.
B expects A’s contributions to be relevant to the specific needs at each stage of the transaction, emphasizing the importance of appropriate and timely input For instance, if B is preparing a cake, they need the specific ingredients, not unrelated items like a book or an oven cloth, which might be useful later but are not suitable at this stage A fails to meet expectations if he does not provide B with the necessary ingredients required for the current phase of the process This principle highlights the importance of contextual appropriateness and responsiveness in collaborative efforts.
In communication, B expects A to evaluate his performance with clarity and promptness According to Grice (1989), A would breach the maxim of manner if, for example, he asked B to pass a spoon but handed him a box containing forks and knives instead This highlights the importance of clear and concise exchanges to ensure effective understanding and adherence to conversational principles.
According to Grice (1989: 30), conversational maxims are not always strictly followed, as speakers may sometimes fail to fulfill them He identified several ways in which a participant in a dialogue might violate these principles, highlighting that such lapses are common in everyday communication Understanding these potential breaches of conversational maxims is essential for analyzing effective and natural interactions.
1 He may quietly and unostentatiously violate a maxim; if so, in some cases he will be liable to mislead
2 He may opt out from the operation both of the maxim and of the Coope plain that he is unwilling to cooperate in the way the maxim requires He may say, for example, I cannot say more; my lips are sealed
3 He may be faced by a clash: He may be unable, for example, to fulfill the first maxim of Quantity (Be as informative as is required) axim’ (1 & ) and ‘openly flouting a maxim’ (3 & 4) The former means that the speaker does not es not lead to conversational implicature while the latt ed that it is the speakers that implicate and it is the hearers that work o ying that p has impl onversationally implicated that q, if:
(1) s, or at least the Coo
(2) It d in order to mainta
(3) The speaker thinks and expects the hearer to think that he thinks that the hearer can ) is required
And in ord t the hearer will rely
(1) entity of previous hea without violating the second maxim of Quality (Have adequate evidence for what you say)
4 He may flout a maxim; that is He may blatantly fail to fulfill it
In Grice’s analysis, he distinguishes between deliberately violating a maxim and truly abandoning the cooperative principle When a speaker quietly breaches a maxim, it creates a conversational implicature, leading the hearer to assume that the speaker still intends to cooperate This subtle violation suggests that the speaker has not entirely abandoned the cooperative principle but is instead conveying additional implied meaning within the conversation.
Grice (1989: 30-31) believ ut a conversational implicature According to him a speaker who, by sa icated that q, may be said to have c
Kinds of Conversational Implicature
Generalized conversational implicatures: implicatures that ar particular context or special scenario being necessary
• Particularized conversational implicatures: implicatures that require specific contexts
Consider e two kinds of conversational implicature
The dog is looking very happy
This implicature is consistent across all contexts where the utterance is used, indicating a generalized conversational implicature Specifically, the use of the expression "an F" suggests that the mentioned F is not attributed to the speaker This understanding holds universally, implying that speakers assume the F referred to is not theirs, which is a key aspect of pragmatic language interpretation and conversational inference.
The meaning of what is implied when statement (9) is uttered greatly depends on the surrounding context For instance, the suggestion that the dog may have eaten the roast beef can only be understood by considering the specific situation and prior conversation Context plays a crucial role in interpreting implicature, making the implied message clear based on situational cues Understanding conversational implicature requires analyzing both the utterance and the context in which it occurs.
A: Where is my roast beef?
Levinson (1983:126) discusses conversational implicatures, which arise from the assumption that speakers may flout or exploit their conversational maxims He explains that this behavior underlies a specific class of utterances known as figures of speech, often involving scalar terms such as "many," "most," "all," "sometimes," "often," "usually," and "always." For example, in the statement "He used all of the printer paper," the scalar terms imply specific, context-dependent meanings beyond their literal interpretation Understanding these implicatures is essential for interpreting the speaker’s intended message accurately.
B: The dog is looking very happy plicature is thus a particularized conversational implicature he account of Grice’s theory of conversational implica ing ished between kinds of conversational implicature on another dimension: ational im is observing the maxims (which he called Standard conversational implicature) and those that are derived in more complex ways on the b maxim (for which he had no name) T common view that there is some spe exploitations of more straightforward ways of talking Consider example (4) and example
(7) above to see the difference between these two kinds
Gazdar (1979, as cited in Levinson 1983: 132-133) introduced a subtype of generalized conversational implicature known as scalar implicature This type of implicature occurs when the negation of any expression higher on a scale is implied by the utterance of a lower-scale term He argued that linguistic scales are composed of a set of words representing different degrees of a particular attribute, and the use of one term on the scale implies the negation of all higher-ranked terms.
When conveying information, speakers choose words from various scales—such as quantity (few, some), frequency (never, rarely, so), coldness (cool, cold, freezing), and likelihood (possibly, probably, certainly)—to communicate with maximum clarity and truthfulness They select the most informative and accurate term from these scales to ensure their message reflects both the maximum of quantity and quality, as demonstrated in examples from Peccei (1999: 34).
(10) A: Who used all the printer paper?
(11) A: I hear you are always late with the rent
By choosing some in (10), B implicates that he did not us
B selects the word sometimes to implicate that he is not always late with the rent These are examples of scalar implicature
Yule (1996) and Peccei (1999) completely agree on Grice’s classification of conversational implicature.
Properties of Conversational Implicature
Con y six distinctive properties (Grice,
Conver istic or non-linguistic nsider the following plaining implicature ‘His wife is not always ample, when the expression ‘in fact always’ is added to ouse in London
In the context of conversational implicatures, Levinson (1983) explains that such implied meanings are cancellable, meaning they can disappear in specific linguistic contexts For example, a conversational implicature may be canceled by adding more information that clarifies the speaker's intent or by the surrounding context demonstrating that the speaker is opting out An illustrative case is the statement, “Vietnam did not quite win the AFF cup,” which implies a close outcome but can be retracted or canceled when additional information clarifies the actual situation This cancellability is a key feature of conversational implicatures, highlighting their dependence on context and the flexibility of implied meaning in communication.
(13) His wife is often com This utterance certainly leads to the scalar complaining’ However, for ex
(13), this implicature will disappear Next, an implicature can also be contextually canceled Take the following example into consideration:
Peter and Maria, a newly married couple, bought a new house, which signifies their fresh start together This action subtly implies their plans to build a future as homeowners The statement highlights their recent milestone, but the implied meaning may be lost if the statement is spoken or forced out of context Properly understanding such implicatures can enhance communication clarity and SEO relevance.
Conversational implicatures are inherently non-detachable because they are tied to the semantic content of an utterance rather than its linguistic form, except for those influenced by the maxim of manner This means that replacing words with synonyms does not remove the implied meaning, as the implicature remains attached to the underlying message In other words, any linguistic expression conveying the same semantic content tends to carry the same conversational implicature, emphasizing the close link between meaning and implied communication.
(15) VietnThis utterance carries the implicatu implicature still remains the same even if the word almost is replaced by any of its synonyms such as nearly
Calculability is a key aspect of conversational implicatures, meaning they can be derived solely through the cooperative principle and its maxims A single literal meaning in conversation can give rise to multiple implicatures, which tend to be universal across contexts These implicatures are generally derived from rational considerations, distinguishing them from conventional implicatures associated with specific co-lexical items such as "but," "and," "therefore," and "moreover" (Grice, 1983) Understanding these distinctions is essential for effective communication and interpreting implied meanings in conversations.
The fourth property, non-conventionality, means implicatures, though dependent on the literal meaning of an utterance, are not part of that meaning
The fifth property of conversational implicatures is indeterminacy, meaning that an utterance's implicatures may vary across different contexts It is often impossible to precisely determine the set of implied meanings on any single occasion Levinson (1983: 118) illustrates this with an example, demonstrating how implicatures can remain ambiguous and context-dependent, highlighting the flexible and sometimes indeterminate nature of conversational implicatures in communication.
John's behavior and characteristics could indicate that he is cold, efficient, hardworking, or prone to frustration Alternatively, it might suggest he has limited grey matter or lacks certain emotional capacities These various traits highlight different possible interpretations of his personality.
Finally, universality means that conversational impli
Levinson (1983) argued that “if the max cooperation, we would expect them to be universal in application, at least in cooperative kinds of interaction.” (p 121)
Conversational Implicature vs Conventional Implicature
Grice (1989) introduced the concept of conventional implicature, a form of implied meaning that is not based on truth-conditional inference Unlike conversational implicature, conventional implicature arises from the conventional features linked to specific expressions These implicatures are non-truth-conditional inferences that emerge due to the inherent meaning associated with particular words or phrases, rather than from contextual or conversational principles.
1989), even (Kemption, 1975; Karttunen and Peters, 1979, as cited in Levins
127) and Wilson (1975, as cited in Levinson, 1983: 127) added yet following examples:
(17) p but q (+> p is in contrast to q) John is poor but he is ho
He is a Vietnamese; he therefore knows how to use chopsticks
He even helped tidy up afterwards
(20) p moreover q (+> q is in addition to p) Mary can read Vietnamese Moreover, she can write short stories in the language being poor and being hon
In communication, certain address forms such as "sir," "madam," "mate," "your honour," "sonny," "hey," and "oi" serve specific pragmatic functions, contrasting with other types of speech acts (Grice, 1989; Levinson, 1983: 127-128) These forms are generally non-cancelable, meaning they cannot be easily withdrawn or reversed once used, highlighting their definitive role in social interaction Unlike cancelable speech acts, these expressions are context-dependent and rely heavily on linguistic conventions, making them non-detachable and attached to particular social norms Additionally, some of these forms are conventional, meaning their usage is standardized within particular communities or settings, although they are not universally applicable and can vary based on cultural or situational factors.
Previous Studies …
Bouton’s studies
A cross-cultural study by Bouton (1988, cited in Kobuta, 1995) examined the ability of non-native English-speaking university students in the USA to interpret implicatures The study revealed that these students achieved the same interpretation of implicatures as native American speakers approximately 79% of the time, highlighting challenges in cross-cultural communication and pragmatic understanding among non-native speakers.
Bouton (1994, as cited in Kobuta 1995: 38-39) conducted a longitudinal study to explore the implicature interpretation skills of two groups of international students at an American university, focusing on their ability to understand implicature without explicit instruction The study involved a first group of 30 students who participated in a multiple-choice implicature test, aiming to assess their natural ability to interpret implied meaning in communication This research highlights how international students develop pragmatic language skills over time, even without formal teaching, emphasizing the importance of context in understanding implied messages in intercultural communication.
This four-and-a-half-year study conducted in 1986 and 1991 revealed that initially, in 1986, there was a significant difference in implicature test scores between American native speakers and non-native speakers (p < 0001) However, by 1991, no significant difference was observed between the two groups (p > 3056), indicating that non-native speakers' understanding of implicature converged with that of native speakers after four years of residing in the USA Additionally, a modified version of the test for non-native speakers significantly reduced the number of items they interpreted differently, and no types of implicature troublesome for non-native speakers were observed in the later assessment.
1986 were consistently causing trouble in 1991
In a 17-month study conducted in 1990 and 1992, a second group of 34 non-native speakers was tested on implicature comprehension, revealing significant improvement over time (p