Background to the study
Together with Vietnam’s open-door policy, doi moi, which came into existence in
Since 1986, English has regained its status as the most significant foreign language in Vietnam, following years of Russian dominance This shift has been further emphasized by Vietnam's accession as the 150th member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the largest global business organization.
In early 2007, Vietnam's shift towards globalization highlighted English as the dominant foreign language in the country This transition from Russian to English marks a significant change in the government's educational policy More importantly, the focus has shifted from traditional grammar and translation methods to prioritizing communicative competence in foreign language teaching and learning.
The shift in English education in Vietnam is driven by the growing demand for individuals who can communicate effectively in English due to the open-door policy, highlighting the inadequacies of traditional teaching methods In response, the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) has overhauled English textbooks for high school students from grades 6 to 12 Additionally, significant efforts have been made at the university level to enhance students' communicative competence nationwide As a result, public complaints regarding students' English communication skills have decreased significantly compared to fifteen years ago.
The focus in English language education has predominantly been on linguistic competence, with minimal attention given to pragmatic competence, especially in high schools where students lack opportunities to develop this essential skill At the university level, only English majors receive instruction in pragmatics, leaving non-majored students entirely overlooked According to Kasper (1997), pragmatic competence is not merely an addition to grammatical knowledge but a fundamental aspect of communicative competence This significant gap between grammatical and pragmatic competence in Vietnam's EFL teaching results in many learners, even those at advanced levels, lacking the necessary pragmatic skills, which ultimately hampers their overall communicative effectiveness This issue has been highlighted by researchers such as Bardovi-Harlig et al (1996), emphasizing the need for a more balanced approach in language education.
Speakers who fail to use pragmatically appropriate language may come across as uncooperative or, more seriously, rude or insulting This issue is especially relevant for advanced learners, as their high linguistic proficiency creates expectations for equally high pragmatic competence among their peers.
Conversational implicature, a key concept in daily communication, highlights how speakers often imply meanings beyond their literal words, as noted by Grice (1989) In Vietnam, there is a lack of classroom instruction focused on developing students' pragmatic competence, with pragmatics primarily taught as a theoretical subject to advanced English majors Consequently, conversational implicature is often overlooked in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching, leading to challenges for many Vietnamese learners This gap results in difficulties for students, particularly when answering TOEFL inference questions that frequently involve conversational implicature.
At Bac Lieu University (BLU), the focus on developing pragmatic competence among English non-majored students is notably absent A survey conducted by the researcher revealed that all ten English teachers acknowledged they had not prioritized the enhancement of their students' pragmatic skills Furthermore, all one hundred surveyed students reported that they had not been taught the concept of conversational implicature or any other pragmatic concepts during their high school or university education.
Despite ten teachers acknowledging that they had never formally taught conversational implicature, they recognized its significance in enhancing communicative competence They unanimously agreed that fostering students' pragmatic competence is as crucial as developing their linguistic skills While six teachers felt that students could naturally acquire knowledge of English conversational implicature through communication, the remaining four disagreed Nevertheless, nine teachers advocated for explicitly teaching conversational implicature, believing it to be more effective than allowing students to learn it passively, with only one teacher supporting both approaches as beneficial.
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
A survey of thirty-five students revealed that eighteen could interpret conversational implicature in English, highlighting its significance in enhancing communicative competence The majority agreed that this pragmatic concept should be integrated into the curriculum for Vietnamese EFL university students While twenty-seven students felt that conversational implicature could be acquired through communication without formal instruction, eighteen believed that a combination of both methods would be advantageous for learners.
Research indicates that the pragmatic aspects of a second language (L2) can be effectively taught, as confirmed by Kasper and Rose (2001) Numerous studies have explored the instruction of pragmatic knowledge across various learning contexts and target languages, focusing on the teachability of elements such as speech acts, pragmatic routines, and conversational implicature These investigations included students at varying proficiency levels, highlighting the importance of pragmatic instruction in language learning (for a comprehensive review, see Kasper, 2001).
House & Kasper, discourse markers & adv German-EFL
Billmyer, 1990 high int Japanese-EFL 1990b
Lyster, 1994 sociostylistic Grade 8 English-French variation imm
Bouton, 1994a implicature adv Mixed-ESL Kubota, 1995
Morrow, 1996 complaints, refusals int Mixed-ESL Tateyama, Kasper, pragmatic routines beg English-JFL Mui, Tay,
Fukuya, 1998 downgraders int Mixed-ESL
This article explores the pragmatic aspects of language proficiency across various language pairs, including German-EFL, Hebrew-EFL, and Japanese-EFL It emphasizes the importance of pragmatic routines, such as compliments and apologies, in enhancing communicative competence The study highlights how implicature plays a crucial role in achieving pragmatic fluency, particularly in English-German interactions Understanding these elements is essential for effective language learning and teaching.
These studies, as Kasper pointed out, have proven that there exist positive effects for instruction
Lid's recent study investigated the impact of instructional methods on the development of French interactional norms among Australian students Utilizing a pretest/posttest design, the research included a four-phase instructional treatment that featured awareness raising, narrative reconstruction, production, and feedback, followed by a delayed posttest conducted one year later The findings revealed significant effects of instruction on the learners' production, with participants divided into a treatment group of 66 students and a control group.
The treatment activities, lasting 35 to 45 minutes each, were recorded and transcribed for analysis Results indicated that students in the treatment group utilized more elaborate opening and closing elements, demonstrating the effectiveness of the instructional approach This evidence highlights the positive impact of the treatment on student learning outcomes.
This article discusses the impact of teaching sociopragmatics on language learners, particularly focusing on thanks, apologies, commands, and requests in English and Spanish Citing Dicoat & Crozet (2001) as referenced by Rose & Kasper (2001), it highlights a study involving university students of French as a foreign language, which demonstrated that instruction on interactional norms can yield short-term benefits in foreign language acquisition Additionally, research by Rds & Csiceùr (2004) examined opening and closing speech acts among 92 Hungarian high school students through a structured four-week program The study utilized a pretest/posttest design, where students engaged in role plays to negotiate agreements without accessing their partner's role card, allowing for an assessment of their pragmatic skills before and after the intervention.
Only two researchers have focused on interventional studies regarding L2 pragmatic development and learners' acquisition of conversational implicature Bouton (1994) investigated the impact of instruction on ESL learners' understanding of conversational implicature in the USA, while Kubota (1995) explored the teachability of this concept to Japanese EFL students A detailed discussion of these studies will be presented in chapter two.
Purpose of the study
This study aims to explore the teachability of conversation implicature to Vietnamese EFL university students, enhancing their communicative competence in English It is widely recognized among educators that the primary goal of language instruction is to develop students' ability to communicate effectively in the target language Research indicates that both pragmatic and linguistic competence are integral components of overall communicative competence, as supported by previous studies (Kasper, 1997; Kobuta, 1994).
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 achieve better results in the delayed posttest compared to the control group It is hypothesized that the treatment will have a significant effect on performance Previous research indicates that groups receiving instruction on conversational implicature performed better than those who did not receive such instruction.
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 show significantly better results in posttest 1 compared to posttest 2, addressing research question 1, while hypotheses 2-4 pertain to the teachability of conversational skills Notably, there has been limited research on this topic in Vietnam According to Bachman and Palmer (1996, as cited in Kimberly & Carsten, 2001), communicative competence plays a crucial role in language acquisition However, the lack of classes between the treatment phases indicates that participants had minimal opportunities to practice the target language in an EFL environment like Vietnam, leading to the hypothesis that the effects of instruction may diminish over time.
Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 are motivated by Kobuta (1995)
Significance of the study
This study reinforces the teachability of pragmatic competence in EFL contexts, highlighting that effective instruction can be achieved through a blend of implicit and explicit teaching methods Additionally, it confirms that conversational implicature can be developed independently through either approach, emphasizing the versatility of teaching strategies in enhancing pragmatic skills among EFL learners.
In pa implicature in Vietnam to the best of my knowledge This research will, thus, be the pioneer e
Definitions of terms
Pragmatics, as defined by Crystal (1997, cited in Kasper & Rose, 2001), is the study of language focusing on users, their choices, the constraints they face in social interactions, and the effects of their communication.
Pragmatic competence and communicative competence are essential components of effective communication Communicative competence encompasses both organizational and pragmatic aspects Organizational competence is further divided into grammatical competence, which includes vocabulary, syntax, morphology, and phonology, as well as textual competence, focusing on cohesion, coherence, and rhetorical organization In contrast, pragmatic competence involves sociolinguistic and illocutionary skills, enabling individuals to navigate social contexts and convey intended meanings effectively.
Limitations
This research investigates the teachability of conversational implicature to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in Vietnam, focusing on six specific types The study utilized two assessment methods: a multiple-choice test (MCT) and a sentence writing test (SWT) Statistical software was employed to analyze the scores from these assessments, providing insights into the effectiveness of the teaching approach.
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 specifically on the EFL teaching context in Vietnam, which may restrict the applicability of its findings Additionally, the unique characteristics of the BLU student sample could further limit the generalizability of the results Nevertheless, the insights and recommendations regarding the pragmatic development of conversational implicature may prove valuable for educators facing similar challenges.
Data Analysis
The structure of the report
The study will be reported in five chapters:
• 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 'cooperative principle,' asserting that all speakers, regardless of cultural background, adhere to a fundamental guideline in conversations He emphasized that contributions to discussions are not merely a series of unrelated comments; instead, they are typically structured around an initial proposal or goal, ensuring relevance and coherence This principle highlights the importance of cooperation in communication, facilitating effective exchanges between speakers.
Conversations are inherently cooperative efforts, where each participant acknowledges a shared purpose or direction, which may evolve throughout the exchange This common goal can vary in clarity, ranging from a well-defined topic to a more casual, open-ended discussion Regardless of its specificity, certain conversational moves are always possible at any stage of the dialogue.
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 raises questions about its connection to Bill and the significance of the vehicle This scenario prompts an inquiry into the relationship between Bill and the car, highlighting the importance of context in understanding their association.
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’s response to A’s question appears uncooperative because the location of Bill is unrelated to the car's location, seemingly violating the maxim of relevance However, a deeper analysis reveals that B's answer may actually indicate cooperation This interpretation hinges on the assumption that B is suggesting a connection between the locations, implying that if Bill is at Sue's house, it could explain the situation regarding the car.
Grice (1989) proposed that the cooperative principle governs conversational exchanges and extends to all forms of cooperation, rooted in general rationality considerations To illustrate this concept, he provided various examples related to the cooperative principle.
When A assists B in repairing a car, B anticipates that A's help will be sincere and meaningful If B requires specific tools or parts, he expects A to clearly communicate the nature of his contributions and ensure they are relevant to the task at hand.
The Cooperative Principle emphasizes that communication should be efficient and relevant For instance, if person B requires four screws, person A is expected to provide exactly that number Failing to do so by giving more or fewer screws would violate this principle.
In the context of quality, if B expects A to include sugar as an ingredient in cake A, A would violate this expectation by providing salt or any other ingredient instead of the requested sugar.
In a transaction, B anticipates that A's contributions will align with the current requirements at each stage For instance, while B is preparing to mix cake ingredients, he does not expect unrelated items like a book or an oven cloth, which may be useful later If A provides anything other than the necessary ingredients at this moment, he would not be meeting B's expectations.
In communication, B anticipates that A will deliver his performance with clarity and efficiency A would violate the principle of manner if, when requested to pass a spoon, he instead hands B a box containing not only the spoon but also forks and knives, leading to confusion (Grice, 1989: 28).
Grice (1989: 30) noted that conversational maxims are not always adhered to, predicting that participants in a dialogue may violate these maxims in several ways.
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 made a clear distinction between ‘quietly violating a m
Deliberately exploiting a maxim can create an opposite meaning, resulting in conversational implicature This leads the listener to assume that the speaker has not fully abandoned the cooperative principle in communication.
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
The implicature associated with the expression "an F" consistently suggests that the referenced F does not belong to the speaker, regardless of the context in which it is used This indicates a generalized conversational implicature that applies universally.
The meaning of the statement in (9) is highly context-dependent, as its implicature—suggesting that the dog may have eaten the roast beef—can only be understood when considering the surrounding circumstances.
A: Where is my roast beef?
In his 1983 work, Levinson discusses conversational implicatures that arise from the assumption that speakers may intentionally flout or exploit certain distinctions This concept is fundamental to understanding the category of utterances known as "figures of speech." Levinson defines scalar terms such as "many," "most," "all," "sometimes," "often," "usually," and "always," illustrating their significance in communication.
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) introduced the concept of scalar implicature, a subtype of generalized conversational implicature This implicature arises when a speaker uses a term from a linguistic scale, implying the negation of any higher terms on that scale Gazdar proposed that linguistic scales consist of various words that represent different values, highlighting the nuanced meanings conveyed through language.
Scale of quantity: few, some,
Scale of frequency: never, rarely, so
Scale of coldness: cool, cold, freezing
Scale of likelihood: possibly, probably, certainly
A speaker with a range of values will choose the most informative and truthful words, adhering to the maxims of quantity and quality This selection process ensures effective communication by prioritizing clarity and accuracy in expression.
(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
Peter and Maria recently purchased a new house together, emphasizing their commitment to a shared life rather than individual ownership In a related context, their conversation touched on Vietnam's near victory in the AFF Cup, highlighting the team's close call and the nuanced implications of their discussion about the match.
Cancellability is a key property of conversational implicatures, which can vanish in specific linguistic contexts This cancellation occurs when the speaker either provides additional information indicating they are opting out or when the context of the utterance clearly shows this intent For instance, a conversational implicature can be negated by introducing further details that change the original implication.
(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, purchased a new home This statement implies a significant milestone in their relationship, highlighting their commitment and shared future However, if this information is presented in a forced context, the underlying meaning may diminish.
The second key property of implicatures is non-detachability, meaning that conversational implicatures are inherently linked to the semantic content of an utterance rather than its linguistic form, with the exception of implicatures arising from the maxim of manner Consequently, one cannot simply detach a conversational implicature by substituting the words of an utterance with their synonyms, as any linguistic form that conveys the same semantic meaning typically retains the same conversational implicature.
This 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 the third property of conversational implicatures, which can only be understood through the cooperative principle and its associated maxims A single literal meaning in conversation can generate various implicatures, highlighting the universality of these interpretations Implicatures can be categorized into two types: rational and conventional Rational implicatures arise from logical reasoning, while conventional implicatures are linked to specific lexical items, such as "but," "and," "therefore," and "moreover" (Grice, 1983).
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, which refers to the difficulty in pinpointing the exact set of associated implicatures for any given utterance on a specific occasion Levinson (1983: 118) illustrates this concept with an example, highlighting that it is often impossible to determine the complete range of implicatures in a conversation.
John may be perceived as cold, efficient, hardworking, or even lacking intelligence, suggesting he embodies one or multiple of these traits.
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, distinguishing it from conversational implicature Unlike conversational implicature, which is based on the cooperative principle and its maxims, conventional implicature involves non-truth-conditional inferences that stem from the inherent features associated with specific expressions.
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
Terms of address such as "sir," "madam," "mate," and "your honour" represent a stark contrast to the previously discussed concepts (Grice, 1989; Levinson, 1983: 127-128) These terms are non-cancelable, meaning their implications cannot be revoked, unlike certain other expressions Additionally, they are conventional, as their meaning is closely tied to the specific linguistic context in which they are used Furthermore, these terms are non-detachable, as they are inherently linked to the identities of the individuals being addressed Lastly, they are considered non-conventional because their meanings are not universally understood and can vary across different contexts.
Previous Studies …
Bouton’s studies
A cross-cultural study by Bouton (1988, as cited in Kobuta 1995) revealed that non-native English-speaking university students in the USA correctly interpreted implicatures in English approximately 79% of the time, aligning with the interpretations of native American speakers.
In a longitudinal study by Bouton (1994, as cited in Kobuta 1995: 38-39), two groups of international students at an American university were examined for their ability to interpret implicature without formal instruction The study involved 30 participants from the first group who completed a multiple-choice implicature test.
A four-and-a-half-year study conducted in 1986 and 1991 revealed that there was no significant difference in implicature test scores between American native speakers and non-native speakers in 1991 (p > 3056) However, a substantial difference was observed in 1986 (p < 0001), indicating that the gap between native and non-native speakers diminished after the latter had lived in the U.S for four years Additionally, a modified version of the test showed a significant reduction in the number of items interpreted differently by non-native speakers, with no remaining types of implicature that had previously posed challenges for them.
1986 were consistently causing trouble in 1991
A study conducted over 17 months involving 34 non-native speakers revealed significant improvement in their ability to interpret implicature from 1990 to 1992 (p