ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was, firstly, to investigate the relationship between pragmatic knowledge and language proficiency, i.e. whether the learners
with different proficiency levels perform differently in a pragmatic test or not. Secondly, the study aimed at exploring the relationship between gender and
language proficiency and pragmatic knowledge. That is, the study examined whether there is any significant difference between the performance of males &
females regarding their pragmatic knowledge and language proficiency.
120 university students including 60 freshmen and 60 seniors majoring in English Translation from Islamic Institute of Maarif NU Metro Lampung
were selected randomly. The participants were placed in the beginning, intermediate and advanced levels based on the results of the proficiency (TOEFL) test.
Then, a pragmatic competence test (MDCT) was used to determine the extent of participants' pragmatic knowledge. The calculated data were analyzed
through a combination of descriptive and inferential statistics.
The findings of the study obtained through statistical analyses indicated that a) there was no significant relationship between pragmatic knowledge
and language proficiency. In other words, the learners with different proficiency levels did not perform differently in the pragmatic test; b) female
participants performed better in pragmatic and proficiency tests.
Key words: 1. Pragmatic Knowledge 2. Language Proficiency 3. EFL Learners
1.

INTRODUCTION

Communicating with speakers of other languages is a complex behavior 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. Praising a girl of being fat, for instance in a Western African community is considered a compliment; while in
an
American
context
it
is
perceived
as
an
insult.
Pragmatics is considered as a subfield of linguistics developed in the late 1970s and has been defined in various ways, reflecting authors theoretical orientation and
audience. Many definitions have been proposed for pragmatics.
The most popular one has been offered by Crystal (1997), who proposed that pragmatics is:
"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. (p. 301)
In other words, pragmatics is defined as the study of communicative action in its sociocultural context. Communicative action includes 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.
Compared with phonology, morphology, and syntax, second language pragmatics, like second language vocabulary, was a relatively neglected area of second
language acquisition and applied linguistics until about two decades ago, but it has seen a veritable explosion of work of the late. Some researchers have concentrated
on unearthing what Hymes (1967) once referred to as those rules of use without which rules of grammar would be useless, Some have focused on how those rules are
acquired (or not), and some have attempted to address both aspects (p.10).
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 instead on linguistic knowledge. Eslami-Rasekh (2004) warns that this might result in pragmatic failure when EFL learners
actually communicate with native speakers (NSs), something that is attributed to some other cause, such as rudeness. The only way to minimize pragmatic failure
between NSs and 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). Indonesian EFL students are not exposed to the target community and culture and they find it extremely difficult to produce or sometimes understand a
speech act.
Major issues which are studied in pragmatics domain are deixis, presupposition, indirectness, politeness, conversational implicature, cooperative
principles and, speech acts. The focus of this study is on speech acts only.
Speech acts, in its general sense, has been defined as the utterances and the total situation in which the utterances are issued (Austin, 1962). Of different
types of speech acts, only requests and apologies are the concern of this study.
Some studies have shown that the influence of the level of L2 proficiency on pragmatic competence and performance has not been widely researched (Kasper
& Schmidt, 1996). Nor have different stages of pragmatic development been investigated in any detail (Schmidt, 1983; Ellis, 1992; Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford, 1993).
As such, following these studies, this study aimed to investigate the relationship between pragmatic knowledge and language proficiency. Based on the
findings of the study some suggestions have been offered to EFL teachers and syllabus designers of Indonesia.
1.1. Objectives of the study
Given the importance of pragmatic competence to the construct of language proficiency, and also the fact that the majority of EFL programs in Indonesia
neglect it, this researcher believes that an attempt should be made to introduce pragmatic competence to EFL classes in Indonesia. Therefore, the present study aimed at
exploring the relationship between language proficiency and L2 pragmatic knowledge. That is, it examined whether learners of different EFL proficiency levels
perform differently in a pragmatic test. Another objective of the study was to discover the probable relationship between gender and language proficiency and
pragmatic knowledge.
1.2. Research questions:
In particular, the study sought answers to the following questions.
1.
Do senior students have higher pragmatic knowledge than freshmen?
2.
Is there any significant relationship between language proficiency and L2 pragmatic knowledge in Indonesian EFL learners?
3.
Do learners of different EFL proficiency levels perform differently in a pragmatic test?
4.
Is there any significant difference between males and females' performance regarding their language proficiency?
5.
Is there any significant difference between males and females' performance regarding their pragmatic knowledge?
6.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. A review of studies related to pragmatics and language proficiency
No.
1.

Edmond et al (1994)

Study

2.

Feldman (1996)

3.

Takahashi (1996)

4.

Kasper (1997)

5.

Kit (2000)

Findings
After nine years of instruction, German EFL learned had the grammatical, pragmatic and
discourse ability to participate in a variety of conversational tasks. But the students transferred
pragmatic and discourse strategies from German to English which such a transfer was not
effective.
Grammar can not merely constitute a solid foundation for the development of PC & the
important role of the culture of the TL in the information of PC should be emphasized.
Proficiency did not have any effect on PC. EFL learners with both low and high p[roficiency
lied on some of the SL pragmatic.
Many aspects of pragmatics in an EFL setting are not automatically acquired, as a by-product of
a focus on grammar and context.
Learners across several levels as proficiency are capable of perceiving differences in situational

factors.
6.

Kit (2000)

Proficiency did not have the expected effect on PC. The main reason may be attributed to the
fact that EFL learners just learned English through what they were exposed to in the classroom;
the problem was lack of access to authentic materials.

7.

Rose & Kasper (2001)

Most aspects of pragmatics are quite amenable to teaching in foreign language classrooms, but
not all approaches in teaching pragmatics are equally effective.

8.

Barron (2003)

Increased grammatical proficiency may or may not cause a corresponding increase in pragmatic
capabilities. It may allow the learner to construct or overuse a structure which is pragmatically
less effective.

9.

Golato (2003)

A lot of researches have been done in different languages. In the findings, there are some
common points.
1.
The presence of GC can not be denied even if it may not have a hundred percent positive
effect.
2.
Althought PC can not taught, there are some ways to develop it in foreign environments.

2.2. Studies carried out on two speech acts of apology and request and gender differences
Regarding the research done in the area of speech acts, Holmes (1995) looked at gender differences in apologies and found both similarities and differences
between males and females. The most obvious differences that this study found were as follows:
1.
Women used significantly more apologies than men did.
2.
Women used most apologies for the hearers of equal power, while men apologized to women of different status.
3.
Women used most apologies for female friends whereas men used most for socially distant women.
Another study, focusing on sex difference and interaction, was done by Holmes (1989). He demonstrated a number of ways in which women differ from men in
their use of words. The illustrative data were taken from a study of compliments and apologies among New Zealanders of European origin.
Furthermore, Holmes (1989) discussed how apologies were illuminating sources of information on the socio-cultural values of a speech community, including
differences between male and female values. These sex differences were examined in the distribution of apologies in order to shed light on the complexities encouraged
by language learners in acquiring communicative competence.
Francis (1997) in a study found that the non-natives were found to rely on direct request strategies until their proficiency improved, whereupon they began to use
more complex strategies.
3.

METHODOLOGY

3.1. Participants
The participants in this study comprised 120 Indonesian students of Islamic Institute of Maarif Metro Lampung. They were selected among freshmen and
seniors majoring in English translation.
The sampling procedure was that of convenient sampling. This is because going through randomization procedures was not practical. The researcher then had
four groups on a voluntary basis; therefore, each group included 30 students who were: 1) 30 male seniors 2) 30 female seniors 3) 30 male freshmen 4) 30 female
freshmen.
In this study, sex of participants as one variable was taken into consideration but their age was not controlled.
3.2. Instruments
Two instruments were utilized for data collection purposes in this study. The first instrument was a Language Proficiency Test and the second one was a
Pragmatic Competence Test. The Test of English as a Foreign Language (Farhady TOEFL, 2006) was designed to measure the participants' language proficiency and
the Multiple Discourse Completion Test (MDCT) was used to measure the participants' pragmatic knowledge. A description on the features of the two instruments will
be presented below.
3.2.1.

TOEFL Proficiency Test

To determine the participants' degree of language proficiency, a TOEFL proficiency test was employed.
The employed test in this study was one of the Farhadi's (2006) TOEFL proficiency tests. The test consisted of 60 multiple choice questions (20 items on
structure, 20 items on vocabulary and 20 items on reading comprehension). (See Appendix I).
The results of the test were used as the basis to divide the participants into different levels of proficiency.
3.2.1.1.

Validity and reliability of the proficiency test:

The TOEFL Proficiency Test which has been used in this study is a valid test developed and validated by Farhady (2006). He reports that the test has
reasonable indices of validity and reliability. (Farhady, 2006, p.56).
To calculate the reliability of the proficiency test in this study, the researcher used the Internal Consistency Method (KR-21) having the reliability index of
0.80 which is a high positive reliability.
3.2.2.

MDCT Pragmatic Competence Test

The Multiple Discourse Completion test (MDCT) as a pragmatic competence test was a test taken from Liu (2004). This test has been developed in multiple
choice item format. It was developed and validated by Liu (2004) as a measure pragmatic knowledge. Since the original test was developed to tap two speech acts of
request and apology, it was decided to include just the two speech acts in the study.
Three situational variables (power, distance, and imposition/severity) were considered. Hudson et al. (1995) take all the three variables as binary, but the
variable power was taken as tertiary in this study. In terms of the power relationship, the speaker may be in a lower or higher status than the hearer, and in many cases,
they can also be equal in status.
3.2.2.1.

Validity and reliability of the pragmatic competence test:

To ensure the content validity of the test, three experts advice was sought. They unanimously confirmed the content validity. In other words, the experts read
the test and expressed the view that the items of the test are actually measuring the two speech acts of request and apology.
To further ensure the construct validity of the test, a factor analysis was rum. The resulting analysis extracted 4 factors. A majority of the items in the test had
loadings on the first two factors which could be interpreted as the two speech acts under question.
The reliability of this test was studied through KR-21 method. The reliability index was 0.79 which is a high reliability.
3.3. Data Collection Procedures
The data were collected over two weeks during the first semester of 2007-2008 academic years. The data collection was carried out by the researcher with the
cooperation of 60 freshmen and 60 senior students of Islamic Institute of Maarif NU Metro Lampung.

In each part and for each group, the nature of the research was explained for the students. In addition, the researcher explained about the advantages of their
participation in the study.
In order to avoid any misunderstanding on the students' part, the instructions were also given orally in their native language. The exams were administered in
two sessions for each group (male and female senior students of translation and male and female freshmen students of translation) separately.
In the first session, each group took the proficiency test. There was a time limit in this part. 20 minutes was allocated for each part (structure, vocabulary and
reading comprehension) and the total time for the proficiency test was 1 hour. At the beginning of the exam session, the students were informed that this proficiency
test is supposed to tap their overall English knowledge and it doesn't have any negative points.
The explanations were given orally about the test in the students' native language. The nature of the test was amply explained and elaborated to the freshmen
because it was feared that they might have difficulty as they were facing such tests for the first time. After the students finished the exam, all of the papers and answer
sheets were collected.
After scoring the LPT, the mean and the standard deviation were calculated. In order to divide the participants into three groups of high, mid , and low, it was
decided to consider the scores which lie one standard deviation above the mean as the high group and the ones lining one standard deviation below the mean as low and
the scores lining in between as the mid. Thus, the scores higher than 34 (out of 60) were considered as representing high language proficiency and those below 26 are
representing low language proficiency. The rest of the scores falling between 26 to 34 were considered as intermediate language proficiency. Consequently, out of 120
participants, 36 belonged to the high language proficiency group, 43 to the middle group, and 41 were attributed to the low language proficiency group.
In the second session, these three proficiency groups took the pragmatic test, with time limit (40 minutes). The explanations about the test were given orally
and in their native language and the participants were asked to read the items (especially the instructions) carefully and put themselves in different situations in the L2
environment and answer the questions according to the formality and informality, directness and indirectness, social powers and so on.
During the administration, the participants' questions were answered. If the participants didn't understand the instructions in English, they were explained
orally in their native language
3.4. Data Analysis
In order to find answers to the research questions posed earlier, a number of statistical analyses were run on the data. These included three Independent
Samples t-tests, a correlation analysis, and a One-Way ANOVA.
4.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Findings of the descriptive statistics for the scores of subjects on Language Proficiency & Pragmatic Knowledge
Table 4.1 shows descriptive statistics for the scores of the all participants on the two tests (proficiency test and pragmatic test).
Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics for the Scores of Subjects on LP and PC
Proficiency Level
120
0
2.0417
07333.
80331.
076.221.
1.444438.
1.00
3.00

Pragmatic Knowledge
120
0
12.7750
25724.
2.81790
032.
221.
404.
438.
5.00
20.00

Language Proficiency
120
0
25.5167
727037.
7.96419
865.
221.
997.
438.
11.00
54.00

N
Valid
Missing
Mean
Std. Error of Mean
Std. Deviation
Skewness
Std. Error of Skewness
Kurtosis
Std. Error of Kurtosis
Minimum
Maximum

Table 4.1. shows descriptive statistics for the scores of the all participants on the two tests (proficiency test and pragmatic test). These statistics include
minimum score, maximum score, the mean scores and the standard deviations obtained from TOEFL test and Pragmatic test. Also, the statistics of skewness and
kurtosis were calculated.
Considering the mean scores, the mean score on the TOEFL test is 25.51 (out of 60) which is a very low mean and the mean score on the pragmatic test is
12.77 which is also a low mean. As to gender differences, females have gained higher means in the two tests when compared to males with regard to their performance
on both tests (Both freshmen and senior female students performed better in the two tests).
Regarding the standard deviation, the table 4.1 shows that there is a significant difference between freshmen and seniors in terms of language proficiency, but
there is not any significant difference regarding their pragmatic knowledge.
Regarding the minimum and maximum scores, the minimum scores on both tests belong to the males (pragmatic test 5 out of 25 and proficiency test 11 out of
60) and the maximum scores belong to the females on both tests (pragmatic test 20 out of 25 and proficiency test 54 out of 60).
Regarding the skewness, Table 4.1 indicates that the language proficiency test (TOEFL Test) is positively skewed (.865) and the pragmatic test is a little
positively skewed (.032).
4.2. Findings from inferential statistics
To be able to answer the research questions introduced in 1.2. , the researcher has considered the appropriate data analysis into consideratioThe first question
of the study is:
4.2.1.

Do seniors have higher pragmatic knowledge than freshmen?

To answer this question, the scores of all seniors and all freshmen regarding their PC were compared through the application of an Independent-Samples Ttest. The results are shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. An Independent Samples T-test for the Pragmatic

Test among Freshmen & Seniors
Sig.
(2-tailed)

df

.350

118

-.939

.350

117.998

-.939

Sig.
.756

Seniors
Mean

Freshm
en Mean

.097

13.0167

12.5333

Pragmatic Knowledge
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variance
not assumed

Table 4.2 shows that the t-value does not exceed the critical value at the level of 0.05 . The significance value (.350) is larger than the significance level (.05).
So, there is no a significant difference between the two groups (freshmen and seniors) in their performance on PC.
Practically, seniors did not show higher PC; even though their LP is higher than that of freshmen. It shows the mere LP is not enough to enhance PC, and may
be other factors should be taken into consideration. This fact can be examined through question three.
The second question of the study is:
4.2.2. What is the relationship between LP and PC?
To answer this question, the scores of LP belonging to all seniors and all freshmen were correlated with the scores of PC of the same group through the
application of the Pearson Correlation Coefficient Formula. The result is shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3. The Pearson Correlation Coefficient between LP
and PC of all students

Correlations

language proficiency

pragmatic knowledge

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N

language
proficiency
1
.
120
.179
.051
120

pragmatic
knowledge
.179
.051
120
1
.
120

At the level of .05, the critical value of correlation is higher than that of the sample. Therefore, neither is the result significant, nor is there a linear correlation
between LP and PC. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the only determining factor in the improvement of PC may not be LP.
The third question of the study is:
4.2.2.

Do the learners with different proficiency levels perform differently in the pragmatic test?
In order to answer this question and to understand whether there is any significant difference between the means of the three proficiency groups on their
pragmatic test, a One-Way ANOVA was performed. Table 4.5 shows the results of this ANOVA. The figures in the table show that the obtained F ratio is highly
significant. This indicates that the means of the participants belonging to each of these three proficiency groups are significantly different from each other regarding
their language proficiency.
The results show that there is no significant difference between these three groups. This means that the difference between the three groups (high, mid and
low) in terms of their pragmatics is not significant.
Table 4.4. One-Way ANOVA Results for the Differences among Means of the Three Proficiency Groups on Their Pragmatic Test

ANOVA

language proficiency

pragmatic knowledge

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum of
Squares
5893.172
1654.794
7547.967
17.568
927.357
944.925

df
2
117
119
2
117
119

Mean Square
2946.586
14.144

F
208.334

Sig.
.000

8.784
7.926

1.108

.334

As the Table 4.4.shows, the significance value (.000) is less than .05 (significance level), so there is a significant difference among the mean scores for the
three groups regarding their language proficiency.
Table 4.4 also shows that there is not a significant difference between the means of three proficiency groups on the pragmatic test because the significance
value (.334) is larger than .05 (significance level).
This is clear evidence that the pragmatic test has not been able to differentiate among the subjects who are at different levels of proficiency in English.
The fourth question of the study is:

4.2.4.

Is there any significant difference between males & females in terms of language proficiency?
To answer this question, an Independent- Samples T-test was run to determine the difference between male and female participants in terms of their
proficiency knowledge.
Table 4.5. An Independent Sample T-test between gender &
Language Proficiency Test
Sig.
(2-tailed)

df

Sig.

Male
Mean

Female
Mean

.004

118

2.932

.219

1.528

23.4500

27.5833

.004

114.695

2.932

Language proficiency
variances

Equal
assumed
Equal

variance
not
assumed

As the table shows, the significance value .004 is less than the significance level (.05), so there is a significant difference between the mean scores of two
groups of males and females. The result shows that the female participants performed better than the male ones.
The fifth question of the study is:
4.2.5. Is there any significant difference between males & females in terms of language proficiency?
To answer this question, an Independent Samples T-test was run to determine the difference between male and female participants in terms of their
pragmatic knowledge.

Table 4.6. An Independent Samples T-test between gender and

The Pragmatic Competence Test
Sig.
df
t
Sig.
F
Male
(2-tailed)
Mean

Female
Mean

.041

118

2.069

13.3000

.042

115.181

2.069

.307

1.053

12.2500

Pragmatic
variances
assumed

Knowledge

Equal

Equal variance
not assumed

As the table shows, the significance value .041 is less than the significance level (.05), so there is a significant difference between the mean scores of two
groups of males and females. The result shows that the female participants performed better than the male ones.
5.

CONCLUSION

The following conclusions are drawn from the analyses of the data gathered in this research:
It seems sound to suppose that seniors should have a much higher PC than freshmen, but to the tester's surprise, the results of the t-test did not show the
expected results. There was not a significant difference between seniors and freshmen regarding their PC. So, participants of higher level of English
proficiency seem not to have correspondingly higher pragmatic ability. It can be concluded that LP which represents only the formal properties alone does
not suffice to elevate PC and other factors such as familiarity with the target culture and society, sufficient exposure to input, direct access to native speakers
etc are essential in this aspect.
2.
The results of the correlation in this study showed that LP did not have a positive and significant correlation with PC. This indicates that the language
proficiency test and the pragmatic test may measure different constructs. More precisely, a higher LP does not necessarily lead to a higher PC.
3.
The results of One Way ANOVA showed that there was not any significant difference between the performances of three proficiency groups regarding their
pragmatic ability. It may be concluded that contrary to our expectation, the level of EFL learners' language proficiency is not affected by their pragmatic
knowledge.
4.
Another variable which was investigated in this study was gender. According to the present study, it was revealed that gender had a significant role on the
performance of students regarding their LP and PC. Also the results showed that in both the LP and PC tests, females performed better than males. It can be
concluded that females pay more attention to the social factors such as formality/informality, power, dominance and distance relationships influencing the
way messages are conveyed in a given situation. That is why they perform better in a pragmatic test.
5.
6.
IMPLICATIONS
1.

With regard to the results of the study, some practical implications can be provided which may be useful to EFL teachers & syllabus designers.
The results of the study indicated that the number and/or the types of the courses that translation students take can not fulfill their needs of pragmatic
knowledge. EFL learners seem to be in need of ample interactions in a natural language environment. This research might give some clue to course and
syllabus designers to consider all aspects that influence pragmatic ability.
2.
Students may be capable in communicating with others, but the fact is that pragmatics and other aspects of communicative interaction are being neglected.
Functions and more specifically speech acts are so unknown to seniors, who are supposed to have been properly instructed, but the gained results were
incredible. Therefore, textbooks and materials as well as methods of teaching had better be evaluated more thoroughly.
3.
Moreover, teachers should create natural situations for the students in classrooms. EFL learners should encounter more authentic materials rather than just
A.B.C. of the language. They should gain a proper amount of knowledge of the language, or more precisely, a proper competence through providing them
1.

with various communication opportunities. These learners have not completely been able to handle the natural interactions with native speakers of that
language, yet.