Pragmatic Development in a Foreign Setting by ...

Pragmatic Development in a Foreign Setting by Indonesian Learners of English: Evidence from Non Pedagogical Intervention*1 Agus Wijayanto& Malikatul Laila Prodi. Pendidikan Bhs. Inggris, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta Email: [email protected]

Abstract Pragmatic acquisition in foreign settings is commonly enhanced by pedagogical intervention through explicit and implicit pragmatic teaching. This present study however explores pragmatic development in non pedagogical intervention setting in which Indonesian learners of English learn L2 (English) pragmatic aspects via independent implicit learning. The focus of the investigation is the development of direct and indirectness strategies of complaint. The data of the research was elicited through oral discourse completion tasks completed by the English learners in 2012. The same tasks were completed by the same English learners a year afterwards. The data obtained in 2012 and 2013 were then compared so as to observe any possible pragmatic development. Overall the findings indicated some development of direct and indirectness strategies. Nevertheless although an indication to use more indirect strategies was observed, it covered less than half of the research participants' strategies. Besides, each individual had complicated patterns of development. This research suggests that L2 pragmatics can develop in a foreign country setting but without pedagogical intervention the development cannot occur similarly to all language learners. Keywords: pragmatic development, interlanguage pragmatics, complaint, hedging, indirectness, pragmatic instruction, implicit learning 1. Background Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) is a relatively new branch of second language acquisition research which investigates how second or foreign language learners understand and perform linguistic action in a target language and how they acquire L2 pragmatic knowledge (Kasper, 1992). ILP involves two broad domains—the study of second language use examining how language learners comprehend and produce target language action, and the study of second language learning investigating the ways language learners develop their competence to understand and perform target language action (Kasper and Rose, 2002). As the study of second language use ILP concerns the most important aspect of communicative competence, the knowledge of how interlocutors produce utterances to communicate intentions and recognizes intended intention conveyed by other speakers. In the last two decades this area has become a new focus of exploration. To date for the last decade a number of ILP studies have begun to explore L2 pragmatic development by examining the effects of pedagogical intervention on the development of some aspects of pragmatic competence. They have claimed the efficacies of pragmatic instruction through explicit or implicit methods to L2 pragmatic development. For example some studies provided empirical evidence that explicit instruction was beneficial for developing various aspects of L2 pragmatics, e.g. learners‘ use of discourse markers (House, 1996), target pragmatic norms (Liddicoat and Crozet, 2001), L2 speech act strategies (Rose and Kwai-Fun, 2001), pragmatic routines (Tateyama, 2001), and metapragmatic knowledge (Takahashi, 2001). Others reported learners could benefit from both explicit and implicit instruction similarly (House, 1996; Soler, 2005), and both types of instruction provided varying effects on learners‘ pragmatic performance when they were combined with teachers‘ feedback (Koike and Pearson, 2005). ILP studies on pragmatic acquisition involving non-pedagogical intervention or implicit 1

This paper was presented at 1st COLALITE: Conference on Language, Linguistics and Literature, Jendral Soedirman University, Purwokerto- Indonesia, 9 November 2013

learning have been developing progressively; they chiefly investigated the effects of implicit learning during studying abroad (e.g. Khorshidi, 2013; Schauer, 2009; Taguchi, 2008) and a short sojourn to the country of the target language (e.g. Matsumura, 2007). The findings of these research commonly suggest that living in L2 environment would not necessarily develop learners‘ pragmatic performance unless they have intensive and direct contacts with native speakers in real-life communication. Nevertheless research on pragmatic development in home country settings has been very limited particularly the one which involves non-instruction. Williams (2005) has provided empirical supports that L2 acquisition may involve implicit learning processes although little has been known about aspects of L2 pragmatics which can be learned implicitly and how language learners can develop them through length of study. The present study was meant to fill in this gab by exploring the impacts of non-pedagogical intervention or independent implicit learning on pragmatic development in a foreign setting particularly in Indonesian EFL learning environment, and to extend Williams‘s (2005) findings to L2 pragmatic acquisition. The focal point of the study was the development of direct and indirectness strategies of complaint by Indonesian learners of English. 2. Essential Aspects for Pragmatic Development 2.1. Pragmatic Input The availability of pragmatic input, pragmatic instruction, learners‘ proficiency, length of exposure, and pragmatic transfer are among important determinants of pragmatic development discussed in literature. It has been held that target language or second language (SL) environment is beneficial in developing pragmatic competence as it exposes language learners to rich pragmatic input (Baron, 2003; Kasper and Schmidt, 1996), and in SL settings they have great opportunities to use target language for real-life purposes (Kasper, 2001). It was reported that language learners who have lived in SL environment significantly outperformed those who did not in terms of their pragmatic performance (House, 1996; Schauer, 2004), and they could develop pragmatic routines and exchanges which were more target-like (Barron, 2003; Hoffman-Hicks, 2002; Warga and Schölmberger, 2007). Unlike SL environment, home country or foreign settings have been generally considered to provide language learners poor pragmatic input for a number of reasons, e.g. language classrooms lack relevant target pragmatic models and appropriate language use (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford, 1996). They typically expose language learners to rich input of grammar rather than pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig and Dornyei 1998; Niezgoda and Röver, 2001). In foreign language learning settings, unfortunately target language is commonly treated as an object of study instead of as a means of communication (Cook, 2001). In addition as chances to observe native speakers‘ real life interaction in foreign settings are very scant, language learners have limited access to exemplary language use (Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan, 2007). 2.2. Pragmatic Instruction In home country settings where opportunities to engage in natural face-to-face interactions in target language are very limited, pedagogical intervention to L2 pragmatics is advisable. Pragmatic instruction generally includes making learners aware of their previous pragmatic knowledge for learning and using target pragmatics and assisting them to learn both pragmalinguistic forms and sociopragmatic contexts relating target language use (Schmidt, 2001). A number of studies have reported the advantages of instruction for developing various pragmatic aspects of L2 (Liddicoat and Crozet, 2001; Rose and Kwai-Fun, 2001; Takahashi, 2001; Tateyama, 2001). 2.3. Language Proficiency Learners‘ grammar knowledge commonly refered to as linguistic competence or ‗proficiency‘ has also been claimed to contribute to pragmatic competence. For this Kasper and

Rose (2002) suggested two orders of interconnection between grammar knowledge and pragmatic competence: pragmatics precedes grammar—characterizing the early stages of pragmatic development, and grammar precedes pragmatics—characterizing advanced learners. Kasper and Rose furthermore stated that there are three scenarios in which grammar competence precedes pragmatic competence. First, learners demonstrate knowledge of a particular grammatical structure but they do not use it to express illocutionary force. Second, they have knowledge of a particular grammatical structure and use it to express pragmalinguistic functions that are not conventionalized in the target language. Third, they demonstrate knowledge of a particular grammatical structure and its pragmalinguistic functions, but they apply pragmalinguistic form-functions in non target like sociopragmatic usages. Two major questions are raised by Barron and Warga (2007) in this area: whether learners‘ levels of grammatical competence relate to higher or lower levels of pragmatic transfer and whether learners‘ levels of grammatical competence constrain their L2 pragmatic competence. A number of studies have revealed that target language proficiency and pragmatic competence are interdependent. For instance high level of L2 linguistic proficiency is necessary for approaching native-like pragmatic competence (e.g. Cohen, Olshtain & Rosenstein, 1986; Félix-Brasdefer, 2007; Trosborg, 1987), and for performing L2 politeness (Koike, 1989). In addition learners with high levels of proficiency tend to get more exposure to target language pragmatics; therefore they learn more pragmatic input (Matsumura, 2003). 2.4. Pragmatic Transfer The notion of ‗transfer‘ emerged during 1940s-1950s in the era of approaches to language learning under the influence of behaviourist theory. Verbal behaviour largely based on the psychological concept of operant response in animal behaviour introduced by Skinner was to account for human language learning. Based on this concept, language learning was considered as verbal imitation activities or habit formations. Under this issue, language transfer in L2 learning was viewed as the interference of old habits (L1) on new ones (L2). In the era of Contrastive Analysis (CA) in 1960s and early 1970s, this role of L1 in the second language acquisition drew great interest. Under the influence of behaviourist theories, CA is proposed to account for difficulties of learning a new language as a result of L1 influence. CA bases its theoretical foundations mainly on Lado‘s Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) in which language elements that are similar to those of learners‘ native language will be simple to learn, while elements that are different will be difficult. CAH makes some assumptions: when there are some similarities between mother tongue and L2, positive transfer will occur, which will then result in correct performance as the new behaviour is similar to the old one, thus similarities will facilitate language learning. By contrast, when the greater gap between the linguistic systems of mother tongue and the target language is salient, language errors are predicted to occur as the result of the differences between old and new habits (Dulay, Burt, and Krashen, 1982). Transfer in interlanguage pragmatics refers to the condition in which learners‘ L2 pragmatic ability is affected by their L1 pragmatic knowledge (Kasper, 1992). Positive transfer occurs when the pragmatics of learners' native language, their interlanguage, and target language are congruent (NL=IL=TL), thus it facilitates pragmatic learning. By contrast negative transfer occurs when there are similarities in NL and IL (IL=NL), but with differences between NL and TL (NL≠TL) and between IL and TL (IL≠TL). Positive pragmatic transfer is regarded as an excellent facilitation for target language pragmatic development in which L1 pragmatic knowledge assists learners to develop target pragmatic knowledge whilst negative pragmatic transfer is considered as a threat as it often hinders learners‘ mastery and development of target language pragmatic competence (Kasper and Blum-Kulka, 1993).

3. Speech Act of Complaint Complaining intrinsically involves expression of negative feelings (displeasure, sadness, anger, etc.) to a complainable matter (Traverso, 2008). Drawing to Brown and Levinson‘s (1987) FTA, complaining threatens an addressee‘s positive face in which a complainer performs a negative evaluation of a situation as the result of the addressee‘s past or present actions he or she holds an accountability (North, 2000; Monzoni, 2008). As a form of a face threatening act complaint points out, often directly, some transgression or misconduct done by the recipients who have caused troubles or dissatisfaction to the complainer (Edwards, 2005). Complaining could also threaten the recipients‘ negative face as it may involve an implicit or explicit demand to rectify the unfavourable situation they did (Kraft and Geluykens, 2002). Due to this nature, complaining could often incautiously impair social relationship between interlocutors (Moon, 2001). Various complaint strategies were reported by some literature. For instance, DeCapua (1998) identified four complaint strategies including statement of problem, criticisms, requests for repair, and justification. Drawing from a study of complaint strategies by native and nonnative speakers of Hebrew, Olshtain and Weinbach (1987) identified five categories of complaint including below the level of reproach, e.g. No harm done, let’s meet some other time; disapproval, e.g. It’s a shame that we have to work faster now; complaint, e.g. You are always late and now we have less time to do the job; accusation and warning, e.g. Next time don’t expect me to sit here waiting for you; and threat, e.g. If we don’t finish the job today I’ll have to discuss it with the boss. Trosborg (1997) classified some complaint strategies including (1) No explicit reproach or a hinting strategy. In order to avoid a conflict, a complainer may have recourse to hinting strategies in which case the complainable is not mentioned in the proposition, (2) Expressing annoyance, in which a complainer expresses his/her annoyance, dislike, disapproval, etc., (3) Expressing negative consequence, (4) Accusations in which a complainer seeks to establish the agent of a complainable. In this strategy the accused is guilty of the offence. Rinnert and Nogami (2006) proposed a more general taxonomy of complaint consisting three major components. The first is the main component of complaint which consists of initiator (e.g. greetings, address terms, and other opening formulas), complaints (expressions of negative evaluation, including justification), and request (direct or indirect attempts to get the hearer to redress the situation). The next component is the level of directness which consists of indirect strategies (no explicit mention of offence, implied offence only), somewhat direct (mention of offence, but no mention of the hearer‘s responsibility), very direct (explicit mention of offence and hearer‘s responsibility for it). The last is mitigation involved (softening expressions such as a little, sort of, you know, I think etc.) 4. Research Method 4.1. Research Participants This research applied a longitudinal approach conducted at the English Department of a university in the Central Java in 2012 and 2013. The research participants at the first year research (2012) were 50 undergraduate students studying at the department comprising 25 males and 25 females who were at the second-year course of the degree of English education. The same students took part in the second year research (2013). However since some of them withdrew from participating, the number of the participants in 2013 was slightly different: 17 males and 20 females. The age of the students ranged between 18-21 years old, with the average age being 19.5 years. They have not received pragmatic instruction previously, in particular the speech act of complaint.

4.2. Research Instrument This research applied an oral DCT (ODCT) to elicit the research data. Like a written DCT, the ODCT consists of scenario description providing research participants with a specific social situation, setting, speaker‘s roles, and relative status levels of collocutors. Based on the scenario description, research participants were required to respond each ODCT orally, and the researchers recorded the responses. The ODCT of this present study involves nine scenarios each of which represent one of three different status levels constituting either different age levels or occupation (lower, equal, and higher) and three social distances or familiarities (close, familiar, unfamiliar) addressed to male and female interlocutors (see the appendix). 4.3. Data Analysis The data of complaint strategies elicited from the participants (17 males and 20 females) in 2012 and 2013 were analysed based on the levels of directness proposed by Rinnert and Nogami (2006) including indirect strategies (no explicit mention of offence, implied offence only), somewhat direct (mention of offence, but no mention of the hearer‘s responsibility), very direct (explicit mention of offence and hearer‘s responsibility for it). 5. Research Findings 5.1. The Use of Overall Direct and Indirect Complaint Strategies The following section provides some examples of complaint strategies made by the English learners. This is then followed with the directions of pragmatic development. It should be noted however, the grammar errors involved in the complaints were not considered in the analysis. 5.1.1. Indirect strategies (no explicit mention of offence) Through this strategy a speaker says something that is not explicitly relevant to the offence being complained, instead he/she invites hearer to search for an interpretation of the possible relevance. In this case he/she does not directly state that something is bad. The following are some of the examples. (1)

Oh it's ok, it's alright I will repair it soon. (a response to situation 1)

(2)

Sister, what happened? (a response to situation 2)

(3)

Mam do you remember that today I'll pay fee for my tuition? (a response to situation 3)

(4)

I will study..I will study now, I will study because I have homework..I. oh have exa...I have examination tomorrow. (a response to situation 4)

(5)

Can you finish your job now? (a response to situation 5)

(6)

Excuse me sir, please explain about my score. (a response to situation 6)

(7)

Miss sorry please stand in line. (a response to situation 7)

(8)

Excuse me sir! (a response to situation 8)

(9)

Miss my score does not exist (a response to situation 9)

Table 1 shows there is an increase in the frequency of indirect strategy suggesting the development of this strategy. Nevertheless although there are differences in the frequency of the indirect strategy, they are not markedly different and they are not distributed similarly across DCT situations.

Table 1. The comparison of the use of indirect strategy across DCTs in 2012-2013 Year DCT1 DCT2 DCT3 DCT4 DCT5 DCT6 DCT7 DCT8

DCT9

2012

5

20

53

46

12

31

26

15

40

2013

4

16

45

48

16

32

28

23

48

5.1.2. Somewhat direct (mention of offence, but no mention of the hearer’s responsibility) This strategy establishes the agent of an offence. Through this strategy the complainer can ask the hearer questions about the situation or that he/she was in some way connected with the offence or alternatively the complainer can directly charge the complainee of having committed the offence, although no responsibility has to be held. The following are some of the examples. (10) Why you broke my camera?(a response to situation 1) (11) Why are you late? I have said that this afternoon I will use my motorcycle to go to campus. (a response to situation 2) (12) Why do you forget that yesterday I have asked you to pay my tuition fee. (a response to situation 3) (13) Hey bro your music is very disturbing me. Please turn off your music because [….] (a response to situation 4). (14) Why the report is not finished yet? (a response to situation 5) (15) [….] I think I am good enough in it. Why did you give me D?(a response to situation 6) (16) Why you broke the line? (a response to situation 7) (17) Hey brother your voice disturbs me, please keep silence! (a response to situation 8) (18) Sir how is this? Why you just talk about Sinetron? My scr...my score is very important!(a response to situation 9) Table 2. The comparison of the use of somewhat direct strategy across DCTs in 2012-2013 Year DCT1 DCT2 DCT3 DCT4 DCT5 DCT6 DCT7 DCT8 DCT9 2012

54

56

23

30

62

45

50

61

35

2013

46

59

31

28

57

44

48

53

28

Table 2 shows that in 2013 the language learners used somewhat direct strategy less often than they did previously, except when responding DCT 2 and DCT 3. Although this finding suggests some declines in the use of this strategy, the frequencies are relatively low. 5.1.3 Very direct When using this strategy, a complainer expresses his/her annoyance, dislike, disapproval etc., directly concerning a certain state of affairs he/she considers bad for him/her. By mentioning the state of affairs in the presence of the complainee, the complainer asks the complainee to hold responsibility for the offence implicitly or explicitly. The following are some examples of the strategies. (19) What the fuck! is my camera is: oh no: This camera broke? Oh my God, you must to changes the (what?) change my lens-new my lens-new-in new. (a response to situation 1) (20) Oh shit you late you told me you be home earlier, now see, I am gonna be late to the campus. (a response to situation 2) (21) Why why you not responsible for your report? (a response to situation 5) (22) Excuse me sir I have stand in line about thirty minutes, please to take responsibility. (a to situation 9)

response

Table 3. The comparison of the use of very direct strategy across DCTs in 2012-2013 Year DCT1 DCT2 DCT3 DCT4 DCT5 DCT6 DCT7 DCT8

DCT9

2012

17

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

1

2013

26

1

-

-

3

-

-

-

-

Table 3 displays that Very direct strategy was used only in the four DCTs (1, 2, 5 and 9). The table indicates that there is an increase in the use of direct strategy in the four situations, although its frequency is relatively low, except the one in DCT 1. The chart below compares overall complaint strategies used in 2012 and 2013. The chart shows that direct strategy (with/without responsibility) was employed more frequently than was the indirect one. When the frequency of each strategy was compared, the use of Direct (with responsibility) and Indirect strategies increased in 2013, although it was relatively limited. The chart also shows that the frequency of direct strategy with no responsibility decreased in 2013; too, it was relatively small.

5.2. The Development of Complaint Strategies by Each Learner The development of both direct and indirect strategies was rather complicated to account as they did not occur similarly to each learner when responding the nine DCT scenarios. Besides, the strategies were used differently across the nine DCT scenarios in 2012 and 2013 by each individual. Nevertheless three directions of pragmatic development were obviously identified: (a) Language learners used similar strategies, but with different pragmalinguistic forms or wording, (b) They became more direct and rude, and (c) They became less direct and more polite. 5.2.1. Similar Strategies, but Different in the Wording Research participants tended to use similar complaint strategies, although they phrased them in different wording. This involved two directions: (a) constantly direct in 2012 and 2013, and (b) consistently indirect in 2012 and 2013. The examples of type (a): 2012

2013

Why you broke my camera? (situation1)

Why do you broke my camera (situation 1)

I am sorry girl what you are doing is bad for me (situation 8)

I am sorry don't disturb me! (situation 8)

The examples of type (b): 2012 Excuse me, can you minimize-minimize your music? (situation 5)

2013 I am sorry brother, can you reach the volume of the music-the music? (situation 5)

I am sorry miss, can you stand in line after me? Excuse me miss, can you stand in line? (situation 7).

5.2.2. More Direct This direction has two patterns of development: (a) they used indirect strategies in 2012, but direct and rude in 2013, (b) they used direct strategies in 2012, and escalated the directness in 2013. The examples of type (a): 2012

2013

Can you finish your proposal quickly because What have you done! You should finish this I wan to send the proposal to Jakarta. (situation report before this day! I must send this report to 5) Jakarta. (situation 5) Hello bro, please turn down you music, I will study. (situation 4)

The examples of type (b): 2012 Oh my God, why is it broken? (situation 1)

Hell shit! Turn off your music!. (situation 4)

2013 What the hell did you do to my camera? You should responsible with it! Give me back give me the new one! (situation 1)

Oh my God bro, you came late now I think I will Oh shit you late! You told me you-you be home be late to go to college. (situation 2) earlier, now see!, I am gonna be late to the campus! (situation 2)

5.2.3. Less Direct This direction has two sub directions (a) they used indirect strategy in 2012, and used more indirect or polite strategy in 2013, (b) they used direct strategy in 2012, and used less direct strategy in 2013. The examples of type (a): 2012

2013

Could you explain my mark mam?

Miss, my score does not exist?

Can you-can you help me to reduce the sound of your music please?

Hei guys, Would you reduce the music, please?

The examples of type (b): 2012

2013

Hey, are you crazy, this is night, I want to study!. your music is annoying. (situation 4)

Can you decrease your music please? (situation 4)

Hey you! You late give me your task! (situation5)

Can you finish your job now mam? (situation 5)

6. Conclusion The paper reported the development of complaint strategies by Indonesian learners of English. The results of the study revealed that the development of both direct and indirect complaint strategies were complicated as learners used both strategies across DCT scenarios differently. Three patterns of pragmatic development were identified, that is the English learners used more or less similar strategies, but they phrased the strategies with different pragmalinguistic forms or wording. Next, when their linguistic competence increased, as we assume, they had more linguistic resources to express complaint directly, which made them sound rude or more direct. Their direct or rude complaint however did not solely relate to the increase of their linguistic competence; as complaint is a speech act which is intrinsically rude and abusive, and hence their rudeness could be warranted. This could be also that they complained only to imaginative persons in the DCT scenario, thus whenever they made rude complaint they would not have negative consequences to their interpersonal relationship. Other possibility could be that the language learners lacked models of how to complain politely in English. Martínez-Flor and Usó-Juan, (2007) addressed this issue in that chances to observe native speakers‘ real life interaction should be made possible, otherwise language learners have limited access to exemplary language use. Ideally, when interlocutors intend to maintain a good interpersonal relationship, they could use more polite complaint. For this end, the learners in this research employed indirect and polite complaint, even though only a small number of learners did it. This suggests that when non pedagogical intervention involved, due to the nature of complaint, direct or rude means of expressing complaint might develop firstly before language learners could gradually develop more indirect and polite utterances. This paper further suggests that pragmatic teaching is essential.

Reference Bardovi-Harlig, K. and Hartford, B.S. (1996). Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17: 171–188. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen and Dornyei, Zoltan. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL QUARTERLY 32 (2): 233-262. Barron, Anne. (2003). Acquisition in Interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Barron, Anne and Warga, Muriel. (2007). Acquisitional Pragmatics: Focus on foreign language learners. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 113–127. Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness. Some Universal in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E. and Rosenstein, D. S. (1986). Advanced ESL apologies: What remains to be learned? International Journal the Sociology of Language 62: 51-74. Cook, H. (2001). Why can‘t learners of Japanese as a foreign language distinguish polite from impolite speech styles? In Kenneth R. Rose & Gabriele Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching. (pp. 80-102). New York: Cambridge University Press. DeCapua, A. (1988). Complaints: A comparison between German and English. Paper presented at the 1988 TESOL Convention, Chicago, IL, March 11 Dulay, Heidi., Burt, Marina, and Krashen, Stephen. (1982). Language Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edwards, Derek. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studie 7: 5-29. Félix-Brasdefer, J.C. (2007). Pragmatic development in the Spanish as a FL classroom: A crosssectional study of learner requests. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 253–286. Fraser, B. (1983). The domain of pragmatics. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language

and communication (pp. 29-59). New York: Longman. Olshtain, E. and Weinbach, L. (1987). ―Complaints: A Study of Speech Act Behavior Among Native and Nonnative Speakers of Hebrew‖. In J. Verschueren and Bertucelli- Papi(Eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective (PP. 195-208) Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hoffman-Hicks, S. D. (2002). The longitudinal development of French foreign language pragmatic competence: Evidence from study abroad participants. Dissertation Abstract International-A 61(2): 591. House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 225-252. Kasper, Gabriele. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8(3):203-231. Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. Pragmatics in language teaching. Eds. K. R. Rose and G. Kasper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 33-60. Kasper, Gabriele and Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University press. Kasper, G. and Rose, K.R. (2002). Pragmatics Development in a Second Language. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing. Kasper, Gabriele and Schmidt, R. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18:149-169. Khorshidi, Hassan Rasouli. (2013). Interlanguage Pragmatic Development in Study Abroad Program A study on request and apology in Iranian learners. International Journal of English and Education (2) 3: 105-116. Koike, Dale April. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. Modem Language Journal 73(3) : 279-289. Koike, Dale April and Pearson, Lynn. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System 33: 481–501. Kraft, Bettina, & Geluykens, Ronald. (2002). Complaining in French L1 and L2: A crosslinguistic investigation. EUROSLA Yearbook, 2: 227-242. Liddicoat, Anthony J. and Crozet, Chantal. (2001). Acquiring French interactional norms through instruction, in K.R Rose and G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press, 125-144. Matsumura, Shoichi. (2003). Modelling the relationships among interlanguage pragmatic development, L2 proficiency, and exposure to L2. Applied Linguistics 24(4): 465-491. Matsumura, Shoichi. (2007). Exploring the after effects of study abroad on interlanguage pragmatic development. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 167–192 Martínez-Flor , Alicia, & Usó-Juan, Esther. (2007). Pragmatic development in a second or foreign language: some classroom techniques. GRETA, 14 (1&2): 50-56. Monzoni, Chiara, M. (2008a). Direct complaints in (Italian) calls to the ambulance: The use of negatively framed questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41: 2465-2478. Moon, K. (2001). Speech act study: Differences between native and non-native speakers‘ complaint strategies. TESOL Working Papers series 1. College of Arts and Sciences, American University. Niezgoda, K. and Roever, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of the learning environment, in K.R. Rose and G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 63–79. North, Scott. (2000). Cultures of complaint in Japan and the United States. Working Paper, 17. The Sociology Department at the University of California, Berkeley. Rinnert, C., & Nogami, Y. (2006). Preferred complaint strategies in Japanese and English. Authentic Communication: Proceedings of the 5th Annual JALT Pan-SIG Conference, 32-47. Rose, Keneth R. and Kwai-fun, Ng. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliment, in K.R Rose and G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching New York: Cambridge University Press, 125-144. Schauer, G. A. (2009). Interlanguage pragmatic development: The study abroad

context. London: Continuum. Schauer, Gila A. (2004). May you speak louder maybe? Interlanguage pragmatic development in requests. EUROSLA Yearbook 4: 253-272. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Soler, Eva Alcon. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System 33: 417–435. Taguchi, Naoko. (2008). The role of learning environment in the development of pragmatic comprehension: A comparison of gains between EFL and ESL learners. Studies on Second Language Acquisition 30: 423–452. Takahashi, Satomi. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic competence, in K.R Rose and G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press, 125-144. Tateyama, Yumiko. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routine: Japanese sumimasen, in K.R Rose and G. Kasper (eds.). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press, 125-144. Traverso, Veronique. (2008). The dilemmas of third-party complaints in conversation between friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 41: 2385-2399. Trosborg, Anna. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 147167. Trosborg, Anna. (1997). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Warga, Muriel and Schölmberger, Ursula. (2007). The acquisition of French apologetic behavior in a study abroad context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(2): 221–251. Williams, John N. (2005). Learning without awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27: 269-304.

Appendix: DCT scenarios 1. Your close friend borrows your new digital camera to take seascapes views. When he returns your camera you find that the lens of your camera is broken. You complain your friend about it. You say: ... 2. Your brother borrows your motorcycle to visit his friend. You say that you are going to ride your motorcycle to go to your campus at 2 o‘clock. Your brother promises you to return it as soon as possible. Now you are about leaving for your campus but your brother has not come up yet. Finally your brother comes home very late. He says that he has forgotten that you are going to go to campus. You make a complaint to your brother. You say: ... 3. You are a student of a university. You asked for your tuition fee to your father three days ago. Your father promises that you will receive the money today. Now you are going to go to your campus to pay for your tuition fee as today is the deadline to pay it. Unfortunately when you ask the money to your father he says that he has forgotten to take the money from the bank. He is going to give you the money this afternoon or tomorrow morning. You complain your father about it. You say: ... 4. You are living at a dormitory. It is 22.30 now and you are still studying for the exam tomorrow morning. You are hearing the neighbour next door is playing rock music. The music is getting louder and

louder and disturbs your concentration. You go to your neighbour next door to complain about it. You say: ... 5. You are working at an electronic company. You are a sales supervisor. You asked one of your staffs to make a sales report last week. As it was promised that the report will be ready this morning. Now you need the report and you will send it to Jakarta. You ask the staff for it, but he says that it has not been completed. You make a complaint to him. You say: ... 6. You are reading the result of the final exam on the announcement board at your department. You find out that the score of your Structure II subject which you predict you will get A is D. You are not happy with the score. You meet the lecturer and make a complaint. You say: ... 7. You are at a copy service centre for copying a book chapter. Now you and other students are queuing for about 15 minutes. A student whom you do not know cuts the queue and asks the staff to copy his documents. It seemsthat he knows the staff well. You make a complaint to the student. You say: ... 8. You are living in Yogyakarta city. To go to your university you always take a bus. Now you are at a bus leaving for your university. On the way a busker is getting on your bus. He is playing his music just close to you and singing a song very loudly. The song is not melodious and it tends to annoy your ears. He also brushes your shoulder with his guitar several times. You are not very happy so you make a complaint to him. You say: ...

9. You are going to the administrative office to ask some information about your examination scores which you have not obtained. You are queuing at the office for about 30 minutes. Now it is your turn. You try to explain that you have not received your exam scores but the office staff is talking with others about the film they watched on TV, you are being ignored. You are not happy with it so you make a complaint to the staff. You say: ...