Conditions………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24

2.7. The Locutionary, Illocutionary and Perlocutionary Acts………………………………………………. 28

2.7.1. Locutionary Acts………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29

2.7.2. Illocutionary Acts…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31

2.7.3. Perlocutionary Acts………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33

2.8. Cooperative Learning………………………………………………………………………………………………. 34

2.8.1. Social Interdependence Perspective………………………………………………………………………… 37

2.8.2. Cognitive Development Perspectives………………………………………………………………………. 38

2.8.3. Behavioral Social Perspectives……………………………………………………………………………….. 38

2.8.3.1. Positive Interdependence……………………………………………………………………………………. 39

2.8.3.2. Individual Accountability/Personal Responsibility…………………………………………………. 40

2.8.3.3. Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction……………………………………………………………………… 41

2.8.3.4. Teamwork Skills………………………………………………………………………………………………… 42

2.8.3.5. Group Processing ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 42

2.8.4. Structuring Cooperative Learning…………………………………………………………………………… 45

2.8.5. Interactions in Groups…………………………………………………………………………………………… 47

2.8.6. Students Perceptions of Cooperative Learning…………………………………………………………. 50

2.9. Competitive Learning………………………………………………………………………………………………. 52

CHAPTER III: Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………. 57

3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

3.2. Participants…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 58

3.3. Instrumentation………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 59

3.3.1 Preliminary English Test (PET)……………………………………………………………………………….. 59

3.3.2 Discourse Completion Test……………………………………………………………………………………… 60

3.3.2.1 Reliability and validity of the instrument……………………………………………………………….. 63

3.4.Materials………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63

3.5. Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 63

3.5.1. Pretest ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 63

3.5.2. Treatment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 64

3.5.3. Posttest……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 66

3.6. Design……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 67

3.7. Statistical Analyses………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 67

CHAPTER IV: Results and Discussions………………………………………………………………………….. 68

4.1 Pilot study of Preliminary English Test (PET)……………………………………………………………… 69

4.2. Subject-Selection Statistics………………………………………………………………………………………. 70

4.3 Pilot study of MCDCT …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 70

4.4. Proficiency Test (PET)…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 71

4.5. Pretest of Speech acts………………………………………………………………………………………………. 73

4.6 Post test of speech acts……………………………………………………………………………………………… 73

4.7 Testing Assumptions………………………………………………………………………………………………… 74

4.8. Empirical Validity…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 76

4.9. Reliability Indices……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 77

4.10 Reliability of the Writing Tasks in the PET test………………………………………………………….. 77

4.11. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 79

CHAPTER V: Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………… 83

5.1 Restatement of the Problem………………………………………………………………………………………. 84

5.2 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 86

5.3 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………………………………………………………… 87

5.4. Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………………………………………………. 88

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 91

APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 105

APPENDIXI B…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 128

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of PET pilot study…………………………………………………………….. 89

Table 4.2 Descriptive Statistics of subject selection……………………………………………………………. 70

Table 4.3 descriptive statistics of pilot study of MCDCT pre/post test ………………………………… 70

Table 4.4 Descriptive statistics of PET by groups………………………………………………………………. 71

Table 4.5 Independent samples t-test of PET scores…………………………………………………………… 72

Table 4.6 Descriptive statistics of speech acts posttest by groups………………………………………… 73

Table 4.7 normality tests…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 74

Table 4.8 Independent samples t-test of Posttest scores……………………………………………………… 75

Table 4.9 Pearson Correlation PET with Pretest and Posttest of Speech Acts……………………….. 76

Table 4.10 K-R21 Reliability…………………………………………………………………………………………… 77

Table 4.11Inter-Rater Reliability of the Writing Pretest …………………………………………………….. 78

Table 4.12 Intra-Rater Reliability of the Writing Pretest…………………………………………………….. 78

CHAPTER I

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

• Introduction

It is generally recognized that the goal of language teaching is to develop learner’s ability to communicate appropriately in a given target language and culture. This means that it is not enough for teaching practices to exclusively focus on the features of the target language linguistic system. Otherwise, inappropriate use of language can lead to pragmatic failure and those speakers who do not use pragmatically appropriate language run the risk of appearing uncooperative at very least or more seriously, rude or uncultured (Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgam, & Reynols, 1991).

Pragmatic ability in a second or foreign language is part of a nonnative speaker’s (NNS) communicative competence and therefore has to be located in a model of communicative ability (Savignon, 1991). In Bachman’s model (1990, p. 87ff), ‘language competence’ is subdivided into two components, ‘organizational competence’ and ‘pragmatic competence’. Organizational competence comprises knowledge of linguistic units and the rules of joining them together at the levels of sentence (‘grammatical competence’) and discourse (‘textual competence’). Pragmatic competence subdivides into ‘illocutionary competence’ and ‘sociolinguistic competence’. ‘Illocutionary competence’ can be glossed as ‘knowledge of communicative action and how to carry it out’. The term ‘communicative action’ is often more accurate than the more familiar term ‘speech act’ because communicative action is neutral between the spoken and written mode, and the term acknowledges the fact that communicative action can also be implemented by silence or non-verbally. ‘Sociolinguistic competence’ comprises the ability to use language appropriately according to context. It thus includes the ability to select communicative acts and appropriate strategies to implement them depending on the current status of the ‘conversational contract’ (Fraser, 1990).