An investigation into pragmatic failure in spoken discourse made by the first year students at hue university college of foreign languages

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES --- DUONG HUU PHUOC AN INVESTIGATION INTO PRAGMATIC FAILURE IN SPOKEN DISCOURSE MADE BY THE FIRST-YEAR

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

-

DUONG HUU PHUOC

AN INVESTIGATION INTO PRAGMATIC FAILURE

IN SPOKEN DISCOURSE MADE BY THE FIRST-YEAR

STUDENTS AT HUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

MA THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY

OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

-

DUONG HUU PHUOC

AN INVESTIGATION INTO PRAGMATIC FAILURE

IN SPOKEN DISCOURSE MADE BY THE FIRST-YEAR

STUDENTS AT HUE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

MA THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY

OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING

CODE: 60.14.01.11

SUPERVISOR: Assoc Prof Dr PHAN VAN HOA

HUE, 2014

BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO

ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ

-

DƯƠNG HỮU PHƯỚC

KHẢO SÁT THẤT BẠI NGỮ NGHĨA TRONG PHÁT NGÔN CỦA SINH VIÊN NĂM THỨ NHẤT ĐẠI HỌC HUẾ

ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ

LUẬN VĂN THẠC SỸ: LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP

DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIẾNG ANH

MÃ SỐ: 60.14.01.11

NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN KHOA HỌC: PGS.TS PHAN VĂN HÒA

HUE, 2014

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I hereby acknowledge that this study is mine The data and findings discussed

in the thesis are true, used with permission from associates and have not been published elsewhere

Author

Duong Huu Phuoc

ABSTRACT

In order to communicate effectively in the target language, the learner

needs to acquire both linguistic competence and pragmatic competence In present

English language classrooms, teachers often overlook pragmatics, due to the

difficulty of its teaching, and instead of focusing on the grammatical aspects

Learners' lack of pragmatic knowledge can lead to pragmatic failure Pragmatic

failure is a problematic issue that tends to cause misunderstanding, embarrassment

and even insult between native speakers and language learners Finding out and

minimizing pragmatic failure is an essential prerequisite for a successful

communication Therefore, it is crucial that researchers should carry out a detailed

investigation on the nature of pragmatic failure so as to gain a deeper insight into

the cross-cultural pragmatic differences and enhance learners‟communicative

competence This research aims to investigate the root cause of pragmatic failure that

college English learners tend to produce in cross-cultural communication by

focusing specifically on the speech acts of refusals, compliment responses and

apology-making through questionnaires, discourse completion tests and interviews

Additionally, to identify the pragmatic competence of learners of English at Hue

College of Foreign Languages and to provide constructive suggestions about how to

improve their pragmatic competence Then, building on the analysis of the collected

data, it provided suggestions for college English teaching Hopefully, these

suggestions can help to develop students‟communicative competence

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would have been unsuccessful without the support, help and suggestions of my supervisor, friends, colleagues and family I would like to sincerely thank them who helped me to achieve this study

First of all, no one has been more influential than my supervisor Assoc Prof Dr Phan Van Hoa during the thesis writing process I would like to express my deep gratitude to him for his whole-hearted assistance and expert instruction

Secondly, I am very grateful to the staff of Hue University College of Foreign Languages, who facilitate our training process and assist us in the course of writing and conducting the thesis

Thirdly, I also wish to thank all the teachers of MA class 2012-2014 They imparted valuable knowledge of English to me and offered me opportunities to improve language teaching skills

Last but not least, I would like to thank my family, especially my parents who always encourage me to study and give me useful support

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Pages

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ABSTRACT ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale 1

1.2 Research Aims 3

1.3 Research Questions 3

1.4 Research Scope 3

1.5 Structure of the thesis 3

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2 1 Pragmatics 5

2.1.1 Introduction to pragmatics 5

2.1.2 Definitions of pragmatics 5

2.1.3 Features of pragmatics 6

2.2 Interlanguage pragmatics 8

2.3 Pragmatics and Foreign/Second Language Teaching 9

2.4 Speech act theory 11

2.4.1 Austin's speech act theory 11

2.4.2 Searle's speech act theory 12

2.4.3 Speech act of refusals 13

2.4.4 Previous studies on the speech act of refusals 13

2.4.5 Speech act of compliment responses 14

2.4.6 Previous studies on the speech act of compliment responses 15

2.4.7 Speech act of apologies 16

2.4.8 Previous studies on the speech act of apologies 17

2.5 Definitions of Pragmatic Failure 20

2.5.1 Jenny Thomas's Definition 20

2.5.2 He Ziran‟s Definition 21

2.5.3 Qian Guanlian‟s Definition 21

2.6 Classification of Pragmatic Failure 23

2.6.1 Thomas‟s Classification 23

2.6.2 He Ziran‟s Classification 23

2.7 Summary 24

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD 25

3.1 Research approach 25

3.2 Respondents 25

3.3 Research Site 26

3.4 Research instruments 26

3.4.1 Questionnaire 26

3.4.2 Discourse Completion Test 27

3.4.3 Interview 27

3.5 Data collection 28

3.6 Data analysis 28

3.7 Summary 29

CHAPTER IV: FINDING AND DISCUSSION 30

4.1 Findings from the discourse completion test 30

4.2 Discussion on data of the discourse completion test 33

4.2.1 The Use of Direct Strategies 33

4.2.2 The Use of Indirect Strategies 33

4.3 Findings from the questionnaire 34

4.3.1 Findings from responses to compliments 34

4.3.2 Findings from apology-making 37

4.4 Discussion on compliment response data 41

4.5 Discussion on apology-making data 41

4.6 Findings and discussion of the interview 42

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION 45

5.1 Conclusion 45

5.2 Potential causes of pragmatic failure 45

5.2.1 Cultural difference 45

5.2.2 Pragmatic Transfer 46

5.2.3 Inadequate pragmatic competence 47

5.2.4 Teaching-induced errors 48

5.3 Constructive suggestions for English learning and teaching 49

5.3.1 Recommendations for students and teachers 50

5.3.2 Recommendation for English course design 51

5.3.3 Recommendation for teaching activities 51

5.3.4 Recommendation for more authentic teaching material development 52

5.4 Limitation and suggestion for further research 53

5.4.1 Limitation of the study 53

5.4.2 Suggestion for further research 53

Appendix 54

REFERENCES 61

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Semantic formula 30

Table 4.2: Refusal 1- made to a boss's request 31

Table 4.3: Refusal 2- made to a classmate's request 31

Table 4.4: Refusal 3- made to an employee's request 32

Table 4.5: Refusal 4- made to a friend's invitation 32

Table 4.6: Refusal 5- made to a student's suggestion 33

Table 4.7: Herbert‟s Taxonomy of Compliment responses (Herbert, 1986, p 79) 35

Table 4.8: Compliment response 1 - made to someone's compliment 35

Table 4.9: Compliment response 2 - made to a friend's compliment 36

Table 4.10: Compliment response 3 - made to a teacher's compliment 37

Table 4.11: Compliment response 4 - made to a student's compliment 37

Table 4.12: Apology 1-made to a friend 39

Table 4.13: Apology 2-made to an older person 39

Table 4.14: Apology 3-made to a librarian 40

Table 4.15: Apology 4-made to a secretary 40

Table 5.1: Interchange 2 (Richards, Hull & Proctor, 1991, p 36) 49

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DCT: Discourse Completion Test

EFL: English as Foreign Language

ESL: English as Second Language

FLT: Foreign Language Teaching

HUCFL: Hue University College of Foreign Languages ILP: Interlanguage Pragmatics

L1: First Language

L2: Second Language

NNSs: Non-Native Speakers

NSs: Native Speakers

SLA: Second Language Acquisition

SLT: Second Language Teaching

WDCT: Written Discourse Completion Test

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale

English language teaching methodologies have shifted considerably Each method has its advantages and drawbacks More importantly, the main purpose of language learning and teaching is communication, which requires both mastery of linguistic competence and communicative competence In the current ESL /EFL teaching, teachers are concerned too much about teaching language knowledge and language structures while neglecting to cultivate learners to use language properly This is partly the requirements of most of the present exams as they only lay emphasis on linguistic competence Consequently, after having mastered abundant knowledge and structures of the language, students may still encounter many difficulties and conflicts in communication They tend to say some tactless words and sentences, although these words and sentences are of correct forms and right structures Such an inappropriate way of using language would definitely result in the failure of communication activities, which is called Pragmatic Failure Pragmatic failure closely relates to English learners‟ lack of pragmatic knowledge and understanding of the culture of the target country Pragmatic failure is a problematic issue since it tends to cause misunderstanding between native speakers and foreign language learners Undeniably, identifying and minimizing pragmatic failure is one of the prerequisites for a successful communication on the part of language learners Therefore, it is urgent and absolutely indispensable for learners

to carry out a comprehensive investigation on the nature of pragmatic failure so as

to gain a deeper insight into the cross-cultural pragmatic differences and benefit the cultivation of learners‟ cross-cultural communicative competence

As we have known, communicating with speakers of other languages is a complex behaviour that requires both linguistic and pragmatic competence Whether we speak in a first or second language, we are influenced by sociocultural norms and constraints that affect the way we communicate Rizk (2003) points out that what is considered appropriate in one language might not be so in another For

instance in Vietnam, the greeting 'where are you going ?' is considered as a common and friendly one while in an American context it is perceived as intrusion into privacy

Most of the problems that EFL learners face in intercultural communication are mainly pragmatic Teachers of EFL often choose not to stress pragmatic knowledge in their classrooms, focusing on linguistic knowledge instead Eslami-Rasekh (2004) warns that this might result in pragmatic failure when EFL learners actually communicate with native speakers (NSs) The only way to minimize pragmatic failure between NSs and non-native speakers (NNSs) is by acquiring pragmatic competence, that is, “the ability to use language effectively in order to understand language in context” (El Samaty, 2005, p 341) Vietnamese Learners are not exposed to the target community and culture and they find it extremely difficult to produce or sometimes understand a speech act

From my own experience and observation, I find that most of the students in Vietnam in general and at Hue College of Foreign Languages in particular are inclined to transfer sociolinguistic rules of speaking from the mother tongue to the target language Sociolinguistic rules of speaking are the norms and values that inform what is appropriate to say to whom and under what conditions (Wolfson, 1989) Wolfson termed these sociolinguistic rules, the “social rules of speaking”, which can vary greatly cross-culturally Improper performance of utterances might lead to serious consequences including misunderstanding, embarrassment, and even rudeness while interacting with English native speakers

As a teacher of English, I would like to conduct a research entitled "An

investigation into pragmatic failure in spoken discourse made by the first-year students at Hue University College of Foreign Languages" to provide

constructive suggestions to help them have an effective communication The proposed study is aiming to investigate how students perceive and produce pragmatic failure Based on the findings, possible solutions will be suggested to help students overcome their limitations

2 What causes these problems?

3 What are the solutions to these problems in terms of English teaching and learning ?

1.4 Research Scope

The research examined the pattern of pragmatic failure in the speech acts of refusals, compliment responses and apology-making by the first-year students at Hue College of Foreign Languages

As mentioned in research aims, The project's goal was to provide suggestions with a view to improving students' communicative effectiveness By doing this research, I can enhance my knowledge as well as teaching skills Hopefully, The suggestions can be useful for students, teachers and educators

1.5 Structure of the thesis

The thesis is organized into five chapters

Chapter I: Introduction

This chapter presents the background of research, research questions and scope of research

Chapter II: Literature Review

This chapter offers a fundamental overview of theoretical concepts relating to the research

Chapter III: Research Methods

This chapter gives methods used to collect data and information of participants Questionnaires, discourse completion test and interviews are described

in more detail

Chapter IV: Findings and Discussion

In the chapter, collected data are calculated and analyzed to draw some conclusions about the root of pragmatic failure to help students get over them and have a successful communication

Chapter V: Conclusion and Implication

This chapter summarizes the research findings, limitations of the study and

makes suggestions for classroom practice and further research

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

2 1 Pragmatics

2.1.1 Introduction to pragmatics

Communication in society occurs mainly through the medium of language However, the users of language communicate and use language on society's premises, and society controls their access to the linguistic and communicative means (Mey, 2001)

Pragmatics is concerned with the study of meaning in communication as expressed by speaker or writer and interpreted by listener and reader (Yule, 1996)

It focuses on the analysis of what people mean by their utterances rather than verbatim meanings of words or phrases people use in their utterances

Although pragmatics is a comparatively new branch linguistics, reference to pragmatics can be tracked back to ancient Greece and Rome The term 'pragmaticus'

is found in Latin and 'pragmaticos' in Greek, and both terms mean 'being practical' (Liu, 2005)

2.1.2 Definitions of pragmatics

The term 'pragmatics' is defined in different ways from different perspectives Pragmatics research, in applied linguistics, mostly focuses on the relationship between language use and the social and interpersonal context of interaction (Roever, 2010)

There are numerous definitions of pragmatics, and one of the interests in second language pedagogy has been proposed by Crystal (in Kasper, 2001, p 2) 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 Kasper (2001, p.2) indicates that communicative actions include not only using speech acts (such as apologizing,

complaining, complimenting, and requesting) but also engaging in different types of discourse and participating in speech events of varying length and complexity Leech and Thomas (in Kasper, 2001) divided pragmatics into two components,

namely pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics Pragmalinguistics refers to the

resources for conveying communicative acts and relational on interpersonal meanings Such resources include pragmatic strategies such as directness and indirectness, routines, and other range of linguistic forms which can soften or intensify communicative acts An example is given by Kasper in which two forms of apology are proposed as in "Sorry" and "I‟m absolutely devastated—could you possibly find it

in your heart to forgive me?" Both utterances are expressions of an apology, but definitely are uttered in different contexts Here the speaker uttering the latter apology has chosen some pragmalinguistic resource of apologizing Sociopragmatics has been described by Leech (1990, p 10) as the sociological interface of pragmatics , referring

to the social perceptions underlying participant‟s interpretation and performance of communicative action Speech communities differ in their assessment of speaker‟s and hearer‟s social distance and social power, their rights and obligations, and the degree of imposition involved in particular communicative acts (Holmes, 2001) Sociopragmatics

is about proper social behavior Learners must be made aware of the consequences of making pragmatic choices

Language users need to properly apply the language knowledge they have learned in different contexts, and this usage might fall outside of the traditional purview of institutional correctness-oriented language instruction (Belz, 2002) That

is to say, what language learners learn in class may be different from the language use they encounter outside the class Pragmatics focuses on the language producing process and its producers with an emphasis on more authentic language use

2.1.3.2 Context

Context plays an extremely important part in an utterance understanding Bilmes (1986) indicated that context is the total social setting in which the speech event takes place: "the meaning of an utterance is determined in large part by how it responds and how it is responded to, by its place in an interaction sequence" (p.127) It is " a dynamic, not a static concept It is to be understood as the continually changing surroundings, in the widest sense, that enable participants in the communication process to interact, and in which the linguistic expressions of their interaction become intelligible (Mey, 2009, p.39)

Context has a powerful impact on how referring expressions are to be interpreted (Yule, 1996) Understanding the language in communication requires our ability to interpret meaning in context

2.1.3.3 Meaning

In the field of pragmatics, meaning is a key problem Levinson (1983) has indicated that pragmatics is concerned with the study of utterance meaning while semantics researches sentence meaning Pragmatics can also be defined as the study

of particular kinds of meaning, such as "speaker's meaning", "contextual meaning" (Yule, 1996, p.3), "meaning in use", and "meaning in context" (Thomas, 1995, p.1) Meaning in pragmatics is related to the understanding of utterances within a particular context a speaker or user of the language has (Leech, 1983)

2.1.3.4 Social interaction

Understanding social interaction is indispensable for the development of

social competence Vygotsky (1978) argued that language and knowledge develop

simultaneously through social interaction

Pragmatically speaking, social interaction can refer to either spoken

communication involving at least two people or all kinds of written and mixed forms of

communication (Kasper & Rose, 2002) Thus, it is essential for English language

teachers and learners to be fully aware of different kinds of social interactions that

assist them to become socially competent in communication and to know how to

utilize this knowledge effectively (Wierzbicka, 2010)

2.2 Interlanguage pragmatics

Selinker (1972) first coined 'interlanguage' as the continuum that L2 learners

construct when they are L2 grammar systems on their way to the target language

norms In the SLA literature, Ellis (1985) described it as "the systemic knowledge of

language which is independent of both the learner's L1 and L2 system that he is trying

to learn" (p.42) Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) is a subfield of both interlanguage

studies, which belong to the realm, and pragmatics Interlanguage pragmatics, which

originated from pragmatic theory and development in L2 pedagogy, is a comparatively

new area It brings the study of acquisition to a mix of structure and use (Badovi &

Harlig, 2010), and applies pragmatic theories, principles and frameworks to study how

ESL/EFL learners encode and decode meaning in their L2 or FL (Schauer, 2009)

Kasper (1989), and Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993) defined ILP as the study

of non-native speakers' use and acquisition of linguistic action patterns in an L2

Kasper and Rose (2002) described ILP as a second-generation hybrid that belongs

to both pragmatics and SLA by definition as follows:

As the study of second language use, interlanguage pragmatics examines how non- native speakers comprehend and produce action in a target language As the study of

second language learning, interlanguage pragmatics investigates how L2 learners

develop the ability to understand and perform action in a target language

(Rose and Kasper, 2002, p.5)

Interlanguage pragmatics is concerned with both pragmatic competence and language performance of second or foreign learners (Ji, 2008) and the development

of pragmatic competence by non-native speakers Second or foreign language learners must not only be able to produce utterances that are appropriate to the context of their target language, but also must be aware of what constitutes suitable linguistic behavior in a range of social situations in their L2 or foreign language (Schauer, 2009)

Second or foreign language learners often employ the norms, strategies and phrases, which are used in their native language, to achieve a certain purpose in a translated form of their L2 or foreign language to achieve the same purpose (Schauer, 2009) Coulmas (1981) described this behavior as 'transfer' Kasper (1992,1998) divided 'transfer' into 'positive transfer' where the pragmatic forms, forms and strategies of L1 and L2 match and L1 knowledge can be transferred to L2, and 'negative transfer' where pragmatic forms, forms and strategies of L1 and L2 do not match and L1 knowledge cannot be transferred to L2 As the notion 'transfer' has become central to the term 'interlanguage', interlanguage pragmatics research frequently concentrated on the concept of 'negative transfer' (Schauer, 2009) The present research examines how English students at Hue College of Foreign Languages use English, including the transference of the phrases, norms and strategies of their L1 to the use of English, which is one of frequent causes leading to pragmatic failure

2.3 Pragmatics and Foreign/Second Language Teaching

The relationship between Pragmatics and Foreign or Second Language Teaching (F/SLT, henceforth) seems to have been very clear One of the major aims

of F/SLT undoubtedly is the development of the students‟ communicative competence Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) initially defined this competence as consisting of four interrelated sub-competencies: (1) grammatical competence, or mastery of the linguistic code of the language that is being learned, (2) sociolinguistic competence, or knowing the sociocultural rules of use of the L2,

(3) discourse competence, or being able to produce unified written or spoken texts, both in terms of coherence and cohesion, and (4) strategic competence, or commanding certain verbal and non-verbal devices in order to compensate for possible communication breakdowns, insufficient mastery of the L2 or to enhance communication Later on, Bachman (1990) proposed that language knowledge comprises two main kinds of knowledge that learners of an L2 must internalize: a) Organizational knowledge, which amounts to knowing how the formal structure

of an L2 is controlled so as to produce and/or recognise grammatically correct sentences and organize these in texts It subsumes a grammatical and a textual knowledge, similar to Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale‟s (1983)grammatical and discourse competences

b) Pragmatic knowledge, which involves knowing how words and utterances can be assigned specific meanings in context and function as the vehicles of their users‟ intentions As the previous knowledge, this one is also structured in others: lexical knowledge, which amounts to knowing the meaning of lexical items and using them figuratively; functional knowledge, or knowing how to relate utterances to their speakers‟ intentions; and sociolinguistic knowledge, similar to Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale‟s (1983) sociolinguistic competence

Pragmatic competence is a critical component in communicative activities because it may ultimately determine whether a successful communicative interaction takes place Successful communication in language learning must not only address linguistic forms but also acknowledge language as a reflection of the sociocultural norms of the L2 community

Widdowson (1978) notes that although students may have learned the rules of linguistic usage, they are often unable to use the language in context Learners' lack

of pragmatic competence leads to improper use of rules of sociolinguistic speaking when interacting with foreigners Pragmatic failure is unavoidable Effective communication, then, can only take place when the message conveyed by the speaker

is interpreted appropriately and understood by the hearer (Savignon, 1997)

2.4 Speech act theory

Speech act theory has aroused the widest interest of all the issues in general

theory of language usage (Levinson, 1983) It plays a core role in the field of

pragmatics Philosophers, such as Wittgenstein, Austin and Searle, proposed the

foundation of speech act theory Wittgenstein(1953, cited in Bach, 2004) made a

significant contribution to the field of pragmatics by stating that language was a

social activity and " the meaning of a word is its use in language" (Bach, 2004,

p.463) Austin was the father of pragmatics (Mott, 2003) and founded speech act

theory (Austin, 1962, 1975), which was later elaborated by Searle (1969, 1971,

1975, 1976, 1979)

2.4.1 Austin's speech act theory

Austin (1962) introduced the concept of the speech act, and his speech act

theory was built on the basis of his belief that speakers do not use language to say

things, but to do things Therefore, utterances are regarded as speech acts Austin

developed a system to distinguish three components of speech act, which was

regarded as seminal work:

(a) the locutionary act: the utterance of a sentence with determinate sense and

reference

(b) The illocutionary act: the making a statement, offer, promise, etc In uttering a

sentence, by virtue of the conventional force associated with it or with its explicit

performative paraphrase

(c) The perlocutionary act: the bringing about of effects on the audience by means of

uttering the sentence, such effects being special to the circumstances of utterance

(Levinson, 1983, p.236)

The concept of illocutionary force is closely associated the notion of the

illocutionary act , "which is the communicative plan or design behind a speaker's

remark (Leech, 1983, p.200) Yule (1996) pointed out that "of these three dimensions

, the most discussed is illocutionary force Indeed, the term 'speech act' is generally

interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance" (p.49)

2.4.2 Searle's speech act theory

Searle developed Austin's speech act theory further and indicated that the illocutionary force of an utterance and the perlocutionary effect an utterance has on the hearer relies on the speaker's choice of words and expression in their utterance (Schauer, 2009; Searle , 1969, 1975, 1976) Although Searle (1969) theory of speech acts is Austin's theory systematized, it has had most of its influence on linguistics (Levinson, 1983)

Searle (1976) advanced Austin's notion of speech acts and classified five categories of illocutionary force:

(a) representatives, which commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition (paradigm cases: asserting, concluding, etc.)

(b) directives, which are attempts by the speaker to get the addressee to do something (paradigm cases: requesting, questioning)

(c) commissives, which commit the speaker to some future course of action (paradigm cases: promising, threating, offering)

(d) expressives, which express a psychological state (paradigm cases: thanking, apologizing, welcoming, congratulating)

(e) declaration, which effect immediate changes institutional state of affairs and which tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions (paradigm cases: excommunicating, declaring war, christening, firing from employment)

(Levinson, 1983, p.240)

These five categories clearly suggest the basic kinds of action that one can perform in speaking as well as paradigms of different speech acts With these categories, the researcher can better understand language users' discourse meaning and communicative intention in social interactions The current study has analyzed three selected speech acts: refusal that belongs to commissives, and complement responses and apologies which are expressives to investigate College English students' pragmatic failure

2.4.3 Speech act of refusals

Refusal are face-threating acts (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and only occur when a speaker directly or indirectly says no to a request or an invitation Refusals belong to the classification of commissives, for they commit speakers to future action (Searle,1977) Chen (1996) indicated that refusals are opposite to the interlocutor' expectation, and they are often achieved through indirect strategies Refusals are important as they are sensitive social variables, such as gender, age, education level, power and social distance (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Fraser, 1990; Smith, 1998)

Refusals are also complex speech acts, for they require both long sequences

of negotiation, and cooperative achievements and face-saving strategies to adapt to the perceive 'disobedient' nature of the act (Félix & Brasdefer, 2006; Gass & Houck, 1999) Therefore, to execute them successfully, refusals need a high level of pragmatic competence (Chen, 1996)

2.4.4 Previous studies on the speech act of refusals

Several researchers (Beckers, 1999; Chen, 1996; Nelson, Carson, Al Batal,

& El Bakary, 2002) compared the speech act of refusals across cultural groups and found that refusal strategies are used and the content of the strategies are culture-specific Chen and Zhang (1995) investigated the Mandarin Chinese refusals They concluded that the most frequently used strategy in Chinese was reason, followed by an alternative Intrigued with ILP, Yamagashira (2001) set out

to conduct a research on pragmatic transfer in Japanese ESL refusals The results of his study demonstrated that pragmatic transfer in refusal situations occurs most frequently in a request situation when the refusers were in a higher status than the requester Felix-Brasdefer (2004) found that L2 learners differed from the native groups in the frequency, content, and perceptions of refusal strategies

Al-Kahtani (2005) analyzed the differences in realizing speech acts of refusals in different cultures Based on such dimensions of semantic formulas as order, frequency, and content, he compared Americans, Arabs, and Japanese

performance of refusals The research findings revealed that the participants differed in the ways they performed refusals, but not across all situations

Felix-Brasdefer (2006) investigated the linguistic strategies employed by monolingual native speakers of Mexican Spanish He focused on such aspects of politeness as the degree of formality, politeness systems and strategy use, and politeness and the notion of face in Mexico Having analyzed the refusal interactions, he came to the conclusion that among these speakers, the negotiation

of face is accomplished largely by various indirect attempts at renegotiating a successful resolution Yang (2008) analyzed situations in which refusals will occur

in the Chinese culture The findings of his research indicated that refusal is initiated

by four types of acts: request, offer, invitation, and suggestion

Although the literature on refusals is abundant, most studies, as mentioned before, have been conducted between English and languages such as Japanese, Chinese, Mexican, and so on As far as the present researcher‟s smattering knowledge is concerned, however, few systematic studies have been done to investigate the speech act of refusals produced by Vietnamese students Therefore, the researcher intended to hopefully fill this gap in the literature

2.4.5 Speech act of compliment responses

Holmes (1998) stated that " a compliment is a speech act which explicitly or implicitly attributes credit someone other than the speaker, usually the person addressed, for some 'good' (possession, characteristic, skill, etc.) which is positively valued by the speaker and hearer " (p.446) Compliment is viewed as positive speech act but can also be regarded as face-threatening acts (Holmes, 1988; Tang & Zhang, 2009).They serve as a serious sociocultural linguistic function which reflects agreed way of behaving (Doohan & Manusov, 2004; Tang & Zhang, 2009) Whether a compliment is a positive or a negative speech act relies on a number of factors, such as context, cultural courtesy, and a person's interpretation of what has been said (Tang & Zhang, 2009)

As compliments are acts of judgment on another person, people may feel uneasy or defensive regarding the compliments they receive, and they may have difficulty in appropriately making responses to these compliments (Knapp, Hopper and Bell, 1984) Compliment responses are intricate speech acts as they are multifunctional and ubiquitous (Yu, 1999), and they can reflect the sociocultural values and politeness diversity of the speaker (Cheng, 2011)

The acceptance of compliments is commonly adopted by English native speakers (Chen, 1993; Herbert, 1986; Holmes and Brown, 1987), while downgrading and rejections are often used by speakers of other languages, particularly those from Asian countries such as China, Japan and Vietnam (Chen, 1993; Tran, 2006; Yu, 2004) Thus, compliment responses are worth studying (Yu, 2003) Accordingly, by using the compliment response speech act in data collection, the current study are able to measure College English students' pragmatic competence and examine whether they give appropriate utterances in refusals, compliment responses and apology-making

2.4.6 Previous studies on the speech act of compliment responses

The first researcher who discussed compliment responses from a pragmatic perspective was Pomerantz in 1978 She claimed that Americans face two dilemmas when responding to compliments: (A) they have to agree with the speaker, and (B) they have to avoid self-praise Urano (1998), further explains this dilemma by stating that when a recipient of a compliment responds by agreeing with the speaker (Condition A), it violates Condition B as this response goes against the sociolinguistic expectations of the speaker On the other hand, if the speaker does not accept the compliment to avoid self-praise, the response will be face-threatening since it violates Condition A To mediate this conflict, recipients of compliments resolve to a variety

of solutions: (1) Acceptance, (2) Rejection, and (3) Self-praise avoidance

Herbert (1986) revised Pomerantz‟s taxonomy by analyzing American English speakers‟ compliment responses He collected more than a thousand samples of compliment responses from American college students in a three-years

period project Surprisingly, only 36.35% compliment responses were accounted for

by acceptance Herbert ended up with a three-category, twelve-type taxonomy of compliment responses

Since then, a number of contrastive studies have been conducted to compare compliment responses in different languages and language varieties Arabic and South African English speakers were found to prefer accepting compliments rather than reject them Speakers of Asian languages, on the other hand, were likely to reject compliments (Urano, 1998) In 1989, Wolfson collected observational data on compliments from authentic interaction between native and non-native speakers over a period of two years She found out that L2 speakers did understand the function of compliments as “a social lubricant” in the American culture They had difficulty in responding appropriately to compliments (Ghawi 1993, p.40) In another contrastive study of compliment responses between Chinese learners of English and American NSs of English, Chen (1993), found out that the majority of Chinese NNSs of English rejected compliments, compared to the American NSs who accepted and appreciated those compliments

More recently, Cedar‟s (2006) contrastive study of compliment responses used by Thai NNSs of English and American NSs of English revealed significant differences in responses to English compliments between the two groups While Americans tended to accept compliments and elaborate positively in their responses, Thai NNSs of English refrained from elaborating and used formulaic expressions in their responses Cedar explained this by stating that “the English conversational competence of Thai subjects was not developed enough to express their feelings of positive elaboration” (p.15) Despite aforementioned studies on compliments and compliment responses, the lack of studies on Vietnamese learners of English in this area is obvious

2.4.7 Speech act of apologies

Olshtain (1989) proposed that an apology was "a speech act which is intended to provide support for the hearer who are actually or potentially

malaffected by a violation" (pp 156-157) When a person apologizes, he or she shows a willingness to disgrace himself or herself to the person/s being apologized

to Apologizing is face-saving act for the hearer and face-threating act for the speaker (Bataineh, 2006)

Márquez-Reiter (2000) further described that an apology is a "compensatory action for an offense committed by the speaker which affected the hearer " (p 44) Apologies are acts that express negative politeness (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Nuredden, 2008), and belong to the classification of expressives The person who offers 'appropriate' apology admits "the wrongdoing, accept ultimate responsibility, express sincere sorrow and regret, and promises not to repeat the offense" (Gooder

& Jacobs, 2000, p.237) An apology is issued to resolve a conflict (Takaku, Weiner

& Ohbuchi, 2001) where the wrongdoer needs to show three Rs: regret, responsibility and remedy, for the offended to accept the apology as sincere

2.4.8 Previous studies on the speech act of apologies

Over the recent years there has been a large diversity of studies on the speech act of apology The greatest number of these studies looked at the way one apologizes in English, both with native and non-native speakers Nonetheless, there are other studies that investigated the perception and production of apologies in different languages

Tamanaha (2003) conducted a study that compared speakers of American English and Japanese in speech act of apologies The focus of the investigation was comparing American learners of Japanese to both native speakers of English and of Japanese According to the study, native speakers of English used more rational strategies, while native speakers of Japanese used more emotional ones For example, the Japanese speakers would express remorse and use explicit expressions

of apology, while the American speakers would give an explanation or justification

to the offense and then use an explicit apology Tamanaha has attributed these results to the fact that there are important underlying differences between the American and Japanese cultures

Significant cross-cultural differences in the selection of apology strategies were also found in the case of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language from Spain when compared to American native speakers of English (Mir, 1992) The results of this study have shown that native speakers of English use a greater variety of strategies when apologizing as compared to the ones used in English by the Spanish learners Thus, the Spanish learners would mostly use IFID (Illocutionary Force Indicating Device) when apologizing in English, as opposed to the native speakers of English which would combine different strategies Also, significant differences in the use of explicit apologies and offers to repair suggest that the Spanish learners are not aware of when these strategies are required in the target language, and therefore transfer their pragmatic competence from their native language

This is the case with speakers of Spanish from other cultures, as well In the case of Uruguayan speakers of Spanish compared to British English speakers differences in the use of apologies have also been demonstrated to be caused by cultural differences Thus, while intensified illocutionary indicating devices were expected to exist in most apologies in British English, they were considered inappropriate in the case of the Uruguayans (Márquez-Reiter, 2000) Differences exist in other types of apologies as well For instance, speakers of British English give more explanations when apologizing Márquez-Reiter believed that these differences arise from the fact that the British English speakers place a greater importance on saving face

Another study that compared the way native speakers of Australian English and Chilean speakers of Spanish use explanations in their apology strategies also attributed the differences on cross-cultural differences (Cordella, 1992) The author claimed that the most important reason for the differences lies in the fact that Chilean culture places a much greater emphasis on family than the Australian one, and thus their explanations were mostly related to family matters However, insofar

as the complexity of the explanations is concerned, the study found no significant

differences Not all scholars agree, however, with the importance placed on social and cultural factors in strategy selection Harlow (1990), showed that social variables such as age, familiarity and relationship between the speakers do not have

an effect on apologizing in the case of French learners of English However, she admitted that these results may also be the effect of a certain ambiguity in the instrument used for collecting data Nonetheless, she agreed that pragmatic competence is what decides the correct use of these speech acts, even if this competence is not influenced by age or familiarity of the speakers

Though fewer, there are also studies that investigate the proficiency of the speakers and also pragmatic competence transfer from one‟s native language to the target language Thus, in her study on Danish learners of English as a foreign language Trosborg (1987) concluded that in most of the cases the learners transferred their sociopragmatic competence regarding the type of apology used from their native language to the target language

Trosborg‟s findings were confirmed in the case of other languages, as well Thus, in a study conducted on Korean learners of English, Jung (2004) has also found that even though in some situations more advanced learners avoided transfer from their native language, most of the differences in their use of apologetic strategies from those of native speakers of English were due to transferring the strategies from their native language In most cases, this is due to the fact that the students are not aware of the social and cultural differences between their language and the target one This is also the case with Japanese learners of English, (Maeshiba et al., 1995) as well as with American students learning Japanese (Tamanaha, 2003) In spite of some of the studies presented, the speech act of apology is very much influenced by sociocultural factors Also, in the case of inter-cultural communication, the choice of apology strategies depends on both the cultural background of the speaker and that of the hearer Additionally, since most

of the studies presented in this section focus on comparing the way speakers of different languages apologize in English to the way native speakers of English do, it

has been shown that the choice of apologies is very much shaped by both language proficiency and the pragmatic competence of the speakers in case they are apologizing in a second or foreign language Even though the differences between one‟s native language and the target language depend very much on one‟s culture, all of the studies presented demonstrate the fact that such differences do exist, and that these differences correlate with the sometimes inappropriate use of apologies in the target language This study aims to examine learners' ability to use apology strategies in the target language Their improper rules of language use in apologies are regarded as pragmatic failure

2.5 Definitions of Pragmatic Failure

Pragmatic failure was firstly coined by Jenny Thomas in her article Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure in 1983 She defined and classified pragmatic failure in the essay and set a theoretical foundation for the analysis of pragmatic failure in cross-cultural communication Afterwards, pragmatic failure has been a focus of cross-cultural pragmatics Riley (1984 ) explains pragmatic failure in this way:

Pragmatic failure occurs when we fail in some way to understand a speaker's full intention in saying something For some reason , we do not go successfully from what

is said to what is meant It is, therefore an umbrella term covering a wide variety of communicative problems which prevent the successful grasping of the contextual meaning of an utterance

Pragmatic failure does not only occur when the learner uses language inappropriately, but also when she/he fails to grasp what is meant by what is said

2.5.1 Jenny Thomas's Definition

J Thomas (1983) defines pragmatic failure in Cross-cultural Pragmatic Failure as “the inability to understand what is meant by what is said” She points out that pragmatic failure has occurred on any occasion “On which H (the hearer) perceives the force of S‟s (the speaker‟s) utterance as other than S intended she or

he should perceive it” (Thomas, 1983) The following examples are used by

Thomas to illustrate her definition:

“a H perceives the force of S‟s utterance stronger or weaker than S intended s/he should perceive it;

b H perceives as an order an utterance that S intended s/he should perceive as a request;

c H perceives S‟s utterance as ambivalent where S intended no ambivalence;

d S expects H to be able to infer the force of his/her utterance, but is relying on the system of knowledge or beliefs that S and H do not share ”

2.5.2 He Ziran’s Definition

He Ziran (1988) points out that pragmatic failure refers to “failure to achieve the desired communicative effect in communication” He further indicates that “Pragmatic failures are not the errors in diction, but those mistakes failing to fulfill communication because of infelicitous style, incompatible expressions, and improper habit.”(He Ziran, 1997)

2.5.3 Qian Guanlian’s Definition

Qian Guanlian (2002) defines pragmatic failure in a more specific way and points out that “Pragmatic failure is committed when the speaker uses grammatically correct sentences, but unconsciously violates the interpersonal relationship rules, social conventions, or takes little notice of time, space and addressee.”

After a careful examination of the definitions mentioned above, I find that the traditional definitions of pragmatic failure is not without problem Firstly, it is unfair to impute pragmatic failure either to speaker (as QIAN Guan-lian did) or to hearer (as Thomas did) Both verbal and non-verbal communication involves sender (speaker, writer, etc.) and receiver (hearer, reader, etc.) Effective communication can only be achieved with the participation of both Sometimes, it is the sender who

is to blame for the communicative breakdown, while sometimes it is the receiver Therefore, when we define pragmatic failure, it is sensible to take both the sender and the receiver into account Secondly, the traditional definition seems to focus

much on verbal communication, little attention being paid to non-verbal communication, which is an integral part of communication In real communication,

a large number of pragmatic failures are due to inappropriate use of body language (such as gestures, facial expressions, etc.) or to the misinterpretation of time and space in communication In fact, the non-verbal means can sometimes achieve the communicative goal without the participation of verbal means Thirdly, even though most researchers took social factors into account in defining pragmatic failure, the psychological factors are unforgivably being ignored As we know, in different psychological state (such as age, personality, saturate state, anxiety, etc.), people tend to express and interpret ideas inappropriately compared with the intended ones, which will consciously or unconsciously cause pragmatic failure

After a thorough investigation of the nature and a careful examination of the existing definitions of pragmatic failure, it seems to be safe to define pragmatic failure as the communicative failure committed in the process of interpreting or expressing utterances (both verbal and non-verbal) due to the lack of the capability

of accurate interpretation or of effective use of language on different occasions with the participants‟ psychological states involved

This definition draws learners‟ attention to the following points

First of all, pragmatic failure is not just speaker-oriented; it also takes interpreter into consideration

Secondly, the scope is not restricted to verbal communication, but covers the whole range of communication including non-verbal behaviors and means Thirdly, it covers both spoken discourse and written discourse

Fourthly, the definition is taken into account not only linguistic, social factors, but also psychological factors In this study the researcher only investigated pragmatic failure by analyzing and examining whether the utterances produced by speakers are appropriate in a particular context or not

2.6 Classification of Pragmatic Failure

According to researches from different perspectives, classifications of pragmatic failure are different One of the most accepted one is put forward by Thomas (1983) in Cross-cultural pragmatic failure

Sociopragmatic failure results from different cultural norms and pragmatic principles that govern linguistic behaviors in different cultures Since speakers with different cultural backgrounds have different understandings of the appropriateness

of linguistic behavior, there may be barriers to effective communication As Thomas (1983) points out, different cultures have different ways of thinking, rules

of speaking, social values and place different relative weights on the pragmatic principles, and these cross-culturally different assessments of social parameters have negatively affected language users‟ linguistic choices, which finally result in sociopragmatic failure

2.6.2 He Ziran’s Classification

He Ziran (2004) points out that pragmatic failure has the following three manifestations: pragmalinguistic failure, sociopragmatic failure and pragmatic failure in cross-cultural communication Pragmalinguistic failure can be considered from both sides of the conversation On the one hand, the speaker commits pragmatic failure because he takes for granted that the listener is able to understand his meaning and he thus makes an inappropriate utterance On the other hand, the listener commits pragmatic failure by deducing the meaning of the speaker‟s

utterance incorrectly Sociopragmatic failure occurs when the speaker does not give concern to the identity and social status of the listener during the conversation He may produce pragmatic failure by using a polite form of expression toward a close person or someone of a lower social status; or by addressing a remote person or someone of a higher social status with an intimate form The speaker‟s lack of knowledge about the politeness principle of social interaction is a major cause of sociopragmatic failure He Ziran points out that pragmatic failure in cross-cultural communication occurs under the following four circumstances:

a The speaker chooses an inappropriate topic Different cultures usually have different beliefs, value views and living habits Therefore, people need to distinguish between free and constrained topics in intercultural communication

b The speaker uses expressions which have different implications in the target language, or which deviate from his own intention in producing such utterance This kind of pragmatic failure commonly happens in greetings Besides, misuse of fixed expressions in the target language also gives rise to misunderstanding

c The utterance made by the speaker to express a certain idea does not conform to the convention of the target language Since people with different cultural backgrounds tend to use different expressions and strategies to convey the same information, they tend to commit pragmatic failure while speaking a language other than their mother tongue

d A participant in a conversation makes an inappropriate response to a certain question or statement

2.7 Summary

This chapter gives several theoretical foundations relating to this study and considered the development of pragmatic competence as a crucial component in English teaching and learning Furthermore, It tries to establish what the pragmatic failure was In the following chapter, the data elicitation instruments and research subjects are described in more detail

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD 3.1 Research approach

For validity and reliability, I used triangulation by not concentrating on just one source of information I approached the topic from different points of view by combining quantitative data from discourse completion test (DCT) and qualitative data from interviews and questionnaires I also used theories and background knowledge from books and journal articles that guided me to approach my topic in the right way

Both quantitative and qualitative methods were applied in this study and data were collected and analyzed with quantitative techniques embedded into a primarily qualitative research framework It was believed that a combined quantitative and qualitative method was better than only one approach in discovering students' pragmatic failure and pragmatic competence at Hue College of Foreign Languages

The combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches can assist to achieve a fuller understanding of a target phenomenon and improve the validity of the research (Sandelowski, 2003) Quantitative approaches usually help to map the major trends or features across a group under study, and then the subsequent qualitative approaches enable the researcher to present a more realistic picture of the reality of the situation and reveal more complexities (Erickson, 1991)

3.2 Respondents

The respondents in this study were first-year students majoring in EFL from HUCFL Students were invited to participate in the study voluntarily They were fully informed of the aims and significances of the study by the researcher before the beginning of the study, and made their decisions independently as to whether to join or not They were also informed that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time

A total of one hundred students were invited to complete the questionnaire and discourse completion test In addition, twenty students among them were chosen at random to take part in the interview

3.3 Research Site

The research was carried out at Hue University College of Foreign Languages, Hue City, Vietnam This research site was chosen for two reasons Firstly, it was convenient for the researcher to collect data

Secondly, it aimed to help the effective teaching and learning of English in here

3.4 Research instruments

3.4.1 Questionnaire

A questionnaire is one of the quantitative data collection instruments that can obtain a broad perspective the research subject (Denscombe, 2007) Questionnaires are defined as "any written instruments that present respondents with a series of questions or statements to which they are to react, either by writing their answers or selecting among existing answers" (Brown, 2001, p.6) The questionnaire designed for this study included eight open-ended questions, each providing a real-life communicative context The respondents were required to write down the appropriate utterances according to their own understanding and they were allowed to look up unfamiliar words in the dictionary By using open questions instead of multiple- choice questions, the researcher intended to prevent respondents from using elimination skills in answering these questions so as to guarantee the validity of the research feedback Open ended questions let respondents decide the wording of the answer, the length of the answer and the kind

of the matters to be raised in the answer

The information collected from open-ended questions was more likely to reflect the full richness and complexity of the views held by respondents At the same time, respondents were given space to express themselves in their own words (Denscombe, 2007)

3.4.2 Discourse Completion Test

First employed by Blum-Kulka (1982) to explore pragmatic speech acts, DCT has become one of the most commonly used research instruments in pragmatics research (Kasper & Rose, 2002; Roever, 2010)

Zuskin (1993) highlighted that a DCT is a data collecting device particularly designed to obtain responses to problematic contextually-specific prompts To some degree, DCT has become an essential tool in eliciting language responses In interlanguage and cross-cultural pragmatics research, DCT is used as the standard way of gathering data because they allow a fast and targeted collection of a large amount of data (Roever, 2010) Parvaresh and Tavakoli (2009) have indicated that DCT, as pragmatic tools, are not only used for examining the L2 pragmatic knowledge but also for pragmatic research in the L1

This research used a WDCT, which required students to read a written description of a situation and then asked them to write down what they would say in that situation Cohen and Olshtain (1994) suggested that discourse completion "is a projective measure of speaking and so the cognitive processes involved in producing utterances in response to this elicitation device may not truly reflect those used when having to speak relatively naturally" (Cohen & Olshtain, 1994, p.13, )

A WDCT does not require participants to interact conversationally, only to write responses which they would use in certain situations Such responses can indirectly reveal a participant accumulated experience within a given situation (Woodfield, 2008) The use of WDCT in this research aimed to collect data about students' pragmatic knowledge and to examine whether their utterances are appropriate in given situations or not Failure to use language properly is referred to

as pragmatic failure

3.4.3 Interview

Interviewing is a most often used data collection strategy to acquire people's

insights on social phenomena (Dörnyei, 2007) Interviews are an often-used tool for

researchers and involve a set of assumptions and understanding about the situation that

are not generally connected with a casual conversation (Denscombe, 1983; Silverman, 1985) In a variety of applied linguistic contexts, interviews can help acquire language learners' rich and complex experiences and the understanding of the experience both

inside and outside the classroom (Dörnyei, 2007; Tinto, 1995)

In order to collect additional information as well as cross-validate data obtained from the questionnaires and discourse completion test, the interviews were used as the third method of the research It also helped the researcher to solve the problems on missing data, incomplete information of the questionnaires

The aims of interviews in this study were to examine students‟ attitudes toward learning pragmatics, to learn whether they are satisfied with the current pragmatic pedagogy, and whether they have suggestions to improve college English teaching Additionally, the interview aims to find out the potential sources of pragmatic failure and kinds of pragmatic failures that learners tend to produce

3.5 Data collection

Quantitative data was gathered from discourse completion test (DCT), while qualitative data was collected from interviews and questionnaires The data collection procedures of this research took place in the following chronological order

In order not to affect study routine, the study was conducted outside of teaching hours Participants had ninety minutes to finish discourse completion test and open-ended questionnaire Twenty students took part in the interview in a period of time of about sixty minutes, and then the researcher collected the results for minute analysis

3.6 Data analysis

The process of data analysis is to obtain information that lies behind the surface content of data The researcher needs to interpret and analyze the collected data in a logical way in order to identify the crucial components used to explain the nature of the thing being studied (Denscombe, 2007)

Regarding questionnaire and discourse completion test, the raw data were classified into three selected speech acts In each group, short expressions relating

to each different speech act were reported in frequency and percentages in order to give brief conclusion of pragmatic failure The data from interview were calculated into percentages The details of data analysis were explored more specifically in the next chapter

3.7 Summary

In this study, both qualitative and quantitative methods were applied Data collection was carried out by using instruments such as questionnaire, discourse completion test and interview The researcher gathered and analyzed the pragmatic failure based on investigation results from students