Spring 2015

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

1.1 Pragmatic Competence. 3

1.2 Speech acts. 5

1.3 The Speech Act of Refusal…………………………………………………………………. 6

1.4 Explicit instruction for developing pragmatic knowledge……………………….. 7

1.5 Statement of the problem…………………………………………………………………… 8

1.6 Research question and hypothesis………………………………………………………. 9

1.7 Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………………… 9

2. Review of the literature……………………………………………………………………….. 12

2.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 12

2.2 Semantics versus pragmatics……………………………………………………………… 14

2.3 Pragmatic competence versus pragmatic failure……………………………………. 15

2 4.Pragmatic Awareness………………………………………………………………………… 16

2.5 Cross-cultural pragmatics………………………………………………………………….. 18

2.6 Factors Influencing L2 Learners, pragmatic Acquisition…………………………. 18

2.6.1 Linguistic competence. 18

2.6.2 Length of Residence in a target Country……………………………………………. 20

2.7 Speech acts. 20

2.8 On heretical frameworks related to L2 pragmatic development 22

2.9 On teachability of pragmatic knowledge. 23

2.10 Factors Influencing L2 Learners’ Pragmatic Acquisition. 25

2.11 On how EFL learners produce refusals………………………………………………. 26

3. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………… 36

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 36

3.2 Participants………………………………………………………………………………………. 36

3.3 Instrument 37

3.4 Procedure………………………………………………………………………………………… 37

3.5 Data analysis. 39

4. Results and discussion………………………………………………………………………… 41

4.1 Overview.. 41

4.2 Demographic statistics………………………………………………………………………. 41

4.2.1 Demographic statistics of participants according to gender 41

4.2.2 Demographic statistics of participants according to age. 42

4.3 Descriptive Statistics. 43

4.4 Checking the assumptions of covariance analysis…………………………………. 44

4.5 The findings of the hypothesis of the study. 45

4.6 Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………. 46

5. Discussion and conclusion. 54

5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….. 54

5.2. Summary……………………………………………………………………………………….. 54

5.3. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………… 55

5.4. Implications……………………………………………………………………………………. 56

5.5. Suggestions for further research. 57

5.6 Limitations of the study…………………………………………………………………….. 58

References. 60

64

list of Table

Table 4.1 The Frequency and Percentage of Participants According to Gender 42

Table 4.2 Frequency and Percentage of Participants According to Age………….. 42

Table 4.3 Descriptive statistics of learners’ polite refusal in English for experimental and control groups. 43

Table 4.4. The test results of normality of variable distribution in the participants  44

Table 4.5. The results of homogeneity of the variances using Levene’s test 44

Table 4.6. The results of analyzing the homogeneity of the regression slopes in the variable of the study………………………………………………………………………………. 45

Table 4.7. The ANCOVA results of the posttest mean scores of “polite refusal” 46

list of Figure

Figure 4.1 The Frequency and Percentage of Participants According to Gender 42

Figure 4.2 Frequency and Percentage of Participants According to Age. 43

Figure 4.3. The comparison of pre- and posttest between control and experimental groups………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46

Abstract

Communicative competence as the language users’ knowledge of how language is used encompasses one important component, pragmatic competence, which plays an important role in proper use of language in various contexts. The present study brought the concept of pragmatic competence into focus and took up an inquiry to make it clear whether L2 learners’ ability in using the speech acts of refusals can be developed by explicit instruction. To do so, the study encompassed 60 L2 learners who were in intermediate level of ability studying English in some language institutes in Ilam. The study was experimental in its approach having both control and experimental groups which were pre- and posttested to see the effect of interventionist approach on their pragmatic ability. In order to include continuous explanatory variables, covariates, ANCOVA was put to service. For the purpose of getting data to evaluate learners’ degree of refusal knowledge, the participants took the discourse completion test prior and after the training course. The findings of the study revealed that leaners’ knowledge of using speech acts of refusals improved significantly by applying the explicit technique of instruction in the classroom. Results in this study suggest equipping the language learners with understanding of both linguistic forms and behavior patterns in refusing strategies of the target language.