Effects and Implications of Pragmatic Competence for Enhancing Efl University Students Written Performance

By Barham Sattar Abdulrahman

The book Effects and Implications of Pragmatic Competence for Enhancing EFL University Students Written Performance highlights the effects and implications of the Kurd EFL students lack of pragmatic competence on their written performance. It includes with the written performance of the students at the recognition level and the production level, and relies on the results achieved from its instruments: the students test, the students questionnaire, and the lecturers questionnaire. Depending on the results obtained from the tools, the study tries to identify and find out the sources of errors in the written performance of the Kurd EFL university students. The book hypothesizes that the inadequacy of the students written performance could be attributed to the curricula and/or the students dependence on the grammatical aspects of the foreign language neglecting the pragmatic and the socio-cultural dimensions. This gives turn to state that the students written performance is better at the recognition level than the production due to the negative interference of their mother tongue.
The book concludes that Kurd EFL learners at the university level face serious difficulties when writing in English. The inappropriateness of their written performance can be attributed to the negative effects of their first language, lack of contact with English native speakers and culture as well as the limited opportunities to have been in English speaking communities. Therefore, for enhancing EFL university students written performance, it is recommended that they should be introduced to the English culture through adding pragmatics and English Culture as two separate subject matters to the curricula, and to arrange summer courses for the students in English speaking countries, UK and US in particular.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse UK
• Release date: Dec 11, 2012
• ISBN: 9781477250051

Barham Sattar Abdulrahman

BARHAM SATTAR ABDULRAHMAN is a Kurdish researcher who works in the filed of Applied Linguistics. He taught English language, English Grammar, Composition Skills, and Essay Writing at College of Fine Arts, College of Education, and College of Basic Education. Now, BARHAM is Head of English Department- School of Basic Education- Faculty of Physical and Basic Education at University of Sulaimani- Iraqi Kurdistan Region and a member of the Scientific Committee in the School of Basic Education. He can speak three languages: Kurdish, English and Arabic.

Book preview

© 2012 Barham Sattar Abdulrahman. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse 12/4/2012

ISBN: 978-1-4772-5004-4 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4772-5005-1 (e)

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Acknowledgments

Abstract

List of Abbreviations

List of Tables

List of Figures

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Title

1.2 Statement of the Problem

1.3 Aims of the Study

1.4 Hypotheses

1.5 Procedures

1.6 Limits of the Study

1.7 Value of the Study

CHAPTER TWO

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Literature Review

2.2 Langue/Competence

2.2.1 Origin and Development of Competence

2.2.2 Different Views on Competence

2.2.2.1 Transformational View

2.2.2.2 Communicative View (Habermas’ View)

2.2.2.3 The Functional View

2.2.2.4 Ethnography of Communication View

2.2.2.4.1 Criteria for Communicative Competence

2.2.2.4.2 Components of Communicative Competence

2.2.2.4.2.1 Grammatical Competence

2.2.2.4.2.2 Discourse Competence

2.2.2.4.2.3 Sociolinguistic Competence

2.2.2.4.2.4 Strategic Competence

2.2.2.5 Communicative Language Ability

2.2.2.5.1 Organizational Competence

2.2.2.5.2 Pragmatic Competence

2.2.2.5.3 Functional Competence

2.3 Pragmatic Competence Related Issues

2.3.1 Deixis

2.3.2 Presupposition

2.3.3 Speech Acts

2.3.3.1 Representatives

2.3.3.2 Directives

2.3.3.3 Commissives

2.3.3.4 Expressives

2.3.3.5 Declarations

2.3.4 Reference and Inference

2.3.5 Politeness

2.3.6 Adaptability

2.3.7 Context and Co-text

2.3.8 Pragmatic Failure

2.3.9 Figurative Use of Language

2.3.10 Culture

2.4 EFL/ESL

CHAPTER THREE

DATA COLLECTION

3.1 The Sample

3.2 The Instruments

3.2.1 The Test and Its Design

3.2.2 Questionnaire

3.2.2.1 Lecturers’ Questionnaire Design

3.2.2.2 Students’ Questionnaire Design

3.3 Basic Considerations in Testing

3.3.1 Test Validity

3.3.2 Test Reliability

3.3.3 Test Practicality

3.3.4 Test Accuracy

3.4 Pilot Test Administration

3.4.1 Item Facility (IF)

3.4.2 Item Discrimination

3.4.3 Percentage of Errors

3.5 Central Tendency Measures

3.5.1 Mean

3.5.2 Mode

3.5.3 Median

3.5.4 Midpoint

3.6 Final Administration of the Test and the Questionnaires

3.7 Scoring Scheme

3.7.1 The Test

3.7.2 The Questionnaires

3.7.3 The Statistical Means of the Questionnaire

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

4.1 Quantitative Assessment

4.1.1 The Subjects’ Performance: the First Set of Questions

4.1.2 The Subjects’ Performance: the Second Set of Questions

4.1.3 The Subjects’ Performance: the Whole Test

4.2 Errors vs. Mistakes

4.3 Analysis and Discussion of Students’ Performance

4.3.1 Items of the First Set of Questions

4.3.2 Items of the Second Set of Questions

4.4 Sources of Errors

4.4.1 Interlingual Transfer

4.4.2 Intralingual Transfer

4.4.2.1 Overgeneralization

4.4.2.2 Ignorance of Rule Restriction

4.4.2.3 False Analogy

4.4.2.4 Hyperextension

4.4.2.5 Hypercorrection

4.4.2.6 Faulty Categorization

4.4.3 Context of Learning

4.4.4 Communication Strategies

4.4.4.1 Message Abandonment

4.4.4.2 Circumlocution

4.4.4.3 Word Coinage

4.4.4.4 Literal Translation

4.5 Analysing the Students’ Questionnaire

4.6 Analysing the Lecturers’ Questionnaire

4.6.1 Analysing Lecturers’ Personal Information

4.6.2 Analysing the Lecturers’ Responses

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

5.2 Recommendations

5.3 Suggestions

References

Appendices

Appendix (A): The Students’ Test

Appendix (B): The Lecturers’ Questionnaire

Appendix (C): The Students’ Questionnaire

Appendix (D): The Students’ Test (Old Version)

Appendix (E): The Students’ Questionnaire (Old Version)

Appendix (F): Instrument Materials

Appendix (G): The Sent Letter to the Jury Members

Appendix (H): Academic Qualification, Name, and University of Jury Members

Appendix (I): The Subject’s Performance in the Final Test

Appendix (J): The Subject’s Performance in the First Set of Questions/ Final Test

Appendix (K): The Subject’s Performance in the Second Set of Questions/ Final Test

Endnotes

Dedication

To my first teacher, my mother;

To my hard working father;

To my warm-hearted little sister;

To my beloved brothers;

With Love and Respect.

Barham

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to Prof. Dr. Anis Behnam Naoum without his encouragement, guidance, objective comments, and unfailing patience this study would not have been completed. I am also much grateful to my family, without their encouragement, unfailing help, and gracious support, I would not have finished this work.

Abstract

Pragmatic competence refers to the language users’ non-linguistic knowledge which goes beyond their linguistic competence and the literal meaning of language. It also enables them to understand and interpret the intended meaning of different linguistic acts whether stated directly or indirectly in different life situations.

The present study highlights the effects and implications of the Kurd EFL students’ lack of pragmatic competence on their written performance. It deals with the written performance of the students at the recognition level and the production level, and relies on the results achieved from its instruments: the students’ test, the students’ questionnaire, and the lecturers’ questionnaire. Depending on the results obtained from the tools, the study tries to identify and find out the sources of errors in the written performance of the Kurd EFL 4th year university students.

The researcher hypothesizes that the inadequacy of the students’ written performance could be attributed to the curricula and/or the students’ dependence on the grammatical aspects of the foreign language neglecting the pragmatic and the socio-cultural dimensions. This gives turn to state that 4th year students’ written performance is better at the recognition level than the production due to the negative interference of their mother tongue.

To investigate this two-fold hypothesis, the researcher prepared three tools to assess the students’ written performance (students’ test, students’ questionnaire, and lecturers’ questionnaire). The tools are supposed to be valid and reliable. The results obtained from the tools have been analysed statistically, with diagnosing sources of the students’ errors.

The study comes up with some conclusions which make the researcher suggest and recommend some basic points to the lecturers, syllabus designers, and foreign language learners to overcome some pragmatic problems that are basically associated with the EFL learning process. It concludes that Kurd EFL learners at the university level face serious difficulties when writing in English. The inappropriateness of their written performance can be attributed to the negative effects of their first language, lack of contact with English native speakers and culture as well as the limited opportunities to have been in English speaking communities. Therefore, for enhancing EFL university students’ written performance, it is recommended that they should be introduced to the English culture through adding ‘pragmatics’ and ‘English Culture’ as two separate subject matters to the curricula, and to arrange summer courses for the students in English speaking countries, UK and US in particular.

List of Abbreviations

CLA               Communicative Language Ability

EFL                English as a Foreign Language

ESL                 English as a Second Language

FL                    Foreign Language

H                      Hearer

ID                    Index of Discrimination (or Item Discrimination)

IF                     Item Facility

L1                    First Language

L2                    Second Language

LAD               Language Acquisition Device

MT                  Mother Tongue

Q1                   First Set of Questions

Q2                   Second Set of Questions

S                       Speaker

SAQs              Short Answers Questions

TL                   Target language

UG                   Universal Grammar

List of Tables

1 Table (1) The Origin of Competence (based on Newmeyer, 1996: 170)

2 Table (2) Components of Communicative Competence

3 Table (3) The Test Sample of the Study

4 Table (4) The Students’ Questionnaire Sample of the Study

5 Table (5) The Lecturers’ Questionnaire Sample of the Study

6 Table (6) The Pilot Test Result

7 Table (7) Item Facility of the First Set of Questions of the Pilot Test

8 Table (8) Item Facility of the Second Set of Questions of the Pilot Test

9 Table (9) Item Difficulty of the First Set of Questions of the Pilot Test

10 Table (10) Item Difficulty of the Second Set of Questions of the pilot Test

11 Table (11) ID of the First Set of Questions in the Pilot Test

12 Table (12) ID of the Second Set of Questions in the Pilot Test

13 Table (13) The Decision on the First Set of Questions Items/ Pilot test

14 Table (14) The Decision on the Second Set of Questions Items/ Pilot Test

15 Table (15) Percentage of Errors for the First Set of Questions

16 Table (16) Percentage of Errors for the Second Set of Questions

17 Table (17) Central Tendency of the Pilot Test

18 Table (18) Central Tendency of the Final Test

19 Table (19) Central Tendency of the Re-test

20 Table (20) Scoring Scheme

21 Table (21) Numbers and Percentages of the First Set of Questions, Subjects’ Performance

22 Table (22) Numbers and Percentages of the Second Set of Questions, Subjects’ Performance

23 Table (23) Students’ Results Obtained at Recognition and Production Levels

24 Table (24) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q1/ Item (1)

25 Table (25) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q1/ Item (2)

26 Table (26) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q1/ Item (3)

27 Table (27) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q1/ Item (4)

28 Table (28) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q1/ Item (5)

29 Table (29) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q1/ Item (6)

30 Table (30) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q1/ Item (7)

31 Table (31) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q1/ Item (8)

32 Table (32) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q1/ Item (9)

33 Table (33) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q1/ Item (10)

34 Table (34) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q2/ Item (1)

35 Table (35) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q2/ Item (2)

36 Table (36) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q2/ Item (3)

37 Table (37) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q2/ Item (4)

38 Table (38) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q2/ Item (5)

39 Table (39) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q2/ Item (6)

40 Table (40) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q2/ Item (7)

41 Table (41) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q2/ Item (8)

42 Table (42) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q2/ Item (9)

43 Table (43) Number of Responses and their Percentages, Q2/ Item (10)

44 Table (44) Correct and Incorrect Responses and Errors Percentage in the Test According to their Structure

45 Table (45) The Frequency of each Option in the Students’ Questionnaire

46 Table (46) Coefficient Midst and the Percentage Weight of Items in the Students’ Questionnaire

47 Table (47) The Frequency of each Option in the Lecturers’ Questionnaire

48 Table (48) Coefficient Midst and the Percentage Weight of Items in the Lecturers’ Questionnaire

List of Figures

49 Figure (1) CLA Components in Communicative Language Use (based on Bachman, 1990: 85)

50 Figure (2) Scores of the Final Test and Retest

51 Figure (3) Errors Percentage of the Whole Test

52 Figure (4) Frequency of Correct and Incorrect Responses/ Q1

53 Figure (5) Frequency of Correct and Incorrect Responses/ Q2

54 Figure (6) Percentage of Correct Responses and Errors Percentage of Q1

55 Figure (7) Percentage of Correct Responses and Errors Percentage of Q2

56 Figure (8) Mean: Recognition and Production Levels

57 Figure (9) Item Frequency of the Students’ Questionnaire

58 Figure (10) Average, Percentage Weight, and Rank of the items in the Students’ Questionnaire

59 Figure (11) Item Frequency of the Lecturers’ Questionnaire/ Q1

60 Figure (12) Item Frequency of the Lecturers’ Questionnaire/ Q2

61 Figure (13) Average, Percentage Weight, and Rank of Q1 Items in the Lecturers’ Questionnaire

62 Figure (14) Average, Percentage Weight, and Rank of Q2 Items in the Lecturers’ Questionnaire

63 Figure (1) CLA Components in Communicative Language Use

64 Figure (2) Scores of the Final Test and Retest

65 Figure (3) Errors Percentage of the Whole Test

66 Figure (4) Frequency of Correct and Incorrect Responses/ Q1

67 Figure (5) Frequency of Correct and Incorrect Responses/ Q2

68 Figure (6) Percentage of Correct Responses and Errors Percentage of Q1

69 Figure (7) Percentage of Correct Responses and Errors Percentage of Q2

70 Figure (8) Mean: Recognition and Production Levels

71 Figure (9) Item Frequency of the Students’ Questionnaire

72 Figure (10) Average, Percentage Weight, and Rank of the items in the Students’ Questionnaire

73 Figure (11) Item Frequency of the Lecturers’ Questionnaire/ Q1

74 Figure (12) Item Frequency of the Lecturers’ Questionnaire/ Q2

75 Figure (13) Average, Percentage Weight, and Rank of Q1 Items in the Lecturers’ Questionnaire

76 Figure (14) Average, Percentage Weight, and Rank of Q2 Items in the Lecturers’ Questionnaire

Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 The Title

Pragmatic competence refers to the language users’ ability to understand and use utterances appropriately in different real life situations. The current study focuses on the written performance of Kurd EFL university students, and investigates the effects and implications of pragmatic competence for enhancing their performance.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Kurd EFL learners usually take English as a foreign language for eight years before joining the university (from the 5th grade, primary schools)*. This period of time enables them to develop a sort of grammatical competence in the English language, yet they seem not to be able to express themselves adequately through their writings. The reason behind this failure could be attributed to the teachers, learners themselves, or the curricula. However, this study argues mainly for the effect of the students’ lack of pragmatic competence in their written performance; it attempts to explain to what extent pragmatic competence is important for enhancing the undergraduate EFL learners’ ability to write adequately, taking into account that learning a language is not a matter of acquiring a linguistic competence only but a long process of acquiring socio-cultural