Non-Native Speakers Understanding on Idiomatic Implicatures
Hendi Pratama
1
, Joko Nurkamto
2
, Sri Marmanto
2
,
Rustono
3
1
Faculty of Language and Arts, Universitas Negeri Semarang
2
Postgraduate Program, Universitas Sebelas Maret
3
Faculty of Language and Arts, Universitas Negeri Semarang
Keywords: Idiomatic Implicatures, Conversational Implicatures, Pragmatics, Teaching Pragmatics
Abstract: Idiomatic expressions is treated as lexical components for decades. However, Arseneault (2014a) has
argued that idioms shall be investigated via their pragmatic properties. Hence, idioms may be classified as
an implicature from the point of view of pragmatics. Her argument has become the basis of our decision that
idiomatic implicature is one of the sub-species of conversational implicatures. Conversational implicatures,
in general, do not bring problems for native speakers but they become problematic for second language
learners. Through this study, we attempt to measure and explain second language learners' comprehension
on idiomatic implicatures. The inquiry covers to what extent second language learners comprehend
idiomatic implicatures and what strategies the learners to interpret this type of implicatures use. To answer
those questions, this research involves 110 students answering three questions containing idiomatic
implicatures. The findings can help second language instructors to redesign their curriculum regarding
idiomatic implicature learning in particular and English pragmatics in general.
1 PRAGMATICS AND
PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE
Bachman (1990) explicitly mentions that pragmatic
competence is an inevitable part of language
competence to be mastered by second language
learners. According to her classification, there are
two competencies under language competence: (1)
organizational competence and (2) pragmatic
competence. The complete list of competencies can
be summarized as follows.
Figure 1: The Aspects of Language Competence
(Bachman, 1990).
The pragmatic competence laid out by Bachman
has two main strands: (1) illocutionary competence
and (2) sociolinguistic competence. Bachman’s
model of language competence has emphasized the
importance of pragmatics for second language
learners. Note to be taken, it seems that the field of
pragmatics is heavily related to illocutionary
competence than that of sociolinguistic competence.
Bachman is, in fact, the only expert who put
pragmatic competence as a sub-competence in
language competence. Other experts in EFL/ESL
like Canale & Swain (1980) and Celce-Murcia et al.
(1995) also argue that pragmatics is important for
second language learners but they did not mention
pragmatics explicitly and put it under different labels
instead.
Although it has been established that pragmatics
is an important competence for second language
learners, we have our own concern that second
language learners, especially in Indonesia, do not
have adequate mastery of English pragmatics. In the
previous study we have conducted, the learners have
a considerable amount of difficulty in
comprehending pragmatic features in English
(Pratama et al., 2016). The study involved 141
university students coming from three different
semesters: 57 freshmen, 41 sophomores, and 43
juniors. All of them are from the same English
department. Fifty-one multiple-choice questions
318
Pratama, H., Nurkamto, J., Marmanto, S. and Rustono, .
Non-Native Speakers Understanding on Idiomatic Implicatures.
DOI: 10.5220/0008217500002284
In Proceedings of the 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference (BELTIC 2018) - Developing ELT in the 21st Century, pages 318-327
ISBN: 978-989-758-416-9
Copyright
c
2022 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
were fdesigned to test the students’ understanding of
dialogues containing pragmatic features in English.
The results of the study are as follows.
Table 1: Summary of Pragmatic Test Results of Students
from Different Semesters.
Table 1 shows that second language learners in
the study have failed to comprehend some items.
From the 51 items, the 141 students can only answer
37.36 questions on average. If it is translated to real-
life situation, there is a 25% chance that students
will face communicational breakdown related with
dialogues containing pragmatic features in English.
Pragmatic competence can be broken down into
some important themes in pragmatics. According to
Horn & Ward (2006), there are some important
themes in pragmatics: (1) implicatures, (2)
presuppositions, (3) speech acts, (4) reference, (5)
deixis, (6) definiteness and indefiniteness, etc. Other
themes like politeness and cross-cultural pragmatics
can also be added to that list (Leech, 1983).
However, according to Levinson (1983), only
implicature has a very important role in pragmatics
because it is the most typical example of how
pragmatic force works.
2 PRAGMATICS FOR NON-
NATIVE SPEAKERS
At the early times when pragmatics was developed,
the pragmaticians focus their concepts of pragmatics
in monocultural society and the subjects are native
speakers of the language in that (Brown and
Levinson, 1987; Grice, 1975a; Sperber and Wilson,
1986a). In particular, the what-so-called
monoculture society is in fact Anglosaxonic culture
(Austin, 1962; Searle, 1985) . The paradigm was
slowly shifting and later on in 1980s there were
some pragmatics experts who raised their objections
on that narrow limitation of pragmatics. The experts
started to think that pragmatic research dealing with
Anglo speakers context cannot be generalized
universally for other research which involves
different types of speakers coming from different
cultural backgrounds (Kádár and Mills, 2011;
Wierzbicka, 2003). As parts of that movement, a
new generation pragmaticians have started
pragmatics competence research on non-native
speakers (Bardovi-Harlig, 2010; Kasper and Rose,
1999). The realm of foreign language learners
pragmatics has then become a denser body of
knowledge in 1990s and the field has been popularly
called interlanguage pragmatics (Leech, 2014). As
the domination of English as lingua franca in many
places around the world (Canagarajah, 1999),
interlanguage pragmatics' subjects have been
dominated by non-native speakers of English (Blum-
Kulka et al., 1989a; Schauer, 2009a). Research in
interlanguage pragmatics covers a number of
subthemes which are explored by different
researchers around the world (Bardovi-Harlig,
1999). Those subthemes include the following
subjects but not limited to pragmatics development,
pragmatics teaching, speech acts, speech situation,
pragmatics strategies, pragmatics resistance,
pragmatic research methodology, politeness and
implicatures. Among those subthemes, there is a
theme which is already overdiscussed namely
'speech acts' (Bataller, 2010; Bella, 2012a; Lee,
2011a; Nadar, 1998; Nguyen, 2008a; Schauer,
2009b; Wijayanto et al., 2013). Speech acts have
become particularly popular because in 1980, Blum-
Kulka et al. (1989a) has created a speech act
realization taxonomy which worked well among
academics and most researchers in pragmatics that
time are more willing to use their taxonomy. The
taxonomy has been well-documented in a project
called Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project
(CCSARP). In their publication, Blum-Kulka et
al.(1989b) have made an invitation and challenge for
researchers around the world to conduct speech acts
realization codification in their own countries. The
invitation and challenge have been received well by
pragmaticians around the world. Thus, other
subthemes other than speech acts are still
worthwhile to be discussed and gaps are still
available to fill.
One out of some subthemes that needs more
attention and discussion in research is non-native
speakers' implicature. Studies taking the theme of
non-native speakers' implicature are still rare and
some improvements in the current theories and
findings are still welcome.
The last time research on non-native speakers’
implicature has been conducted thoroughly. It was
Participants
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Semester 2
57
35.6842
7.33669
Semester 4
41
37.1707
6.93146
Semester 6
43
39.7674
5.43287
All
141
37.3617
6.85907
Non-Native Speakers Understanding on Idiomatic Implicatures
319
through studies administered by (Bouton, 1994) and
(Rover, 2005). Until then, detailed discussions
regarding non-native speakers' implicatures are
almost nonexistent. In Indonesia, there is one study
conducted by (Chandra, 2001a) dealing with non-
native speakers' implicatures but the study only
involves ten respondents and the approach used was
very limited. We personally think that opportunities
to conduct research on non-native speakers
implicatures are still wide open.
Pragmatics skills of non-native speakers may
come in two forms: receptive skills and productive
skills. Receptive skills include listening and reading
while productive skills include speaking and writing.
Previous studies in non-native speakers pragmatics
mostly focus on productive skills and less in
receptive ones (Bouton, 1994; Chandra, 2001a;
Kubota, 1995; Lee, 2012a; Murray, 2011; Rover,
2005; Soler, 2005). This gap provides a good reason
for the researchers in this study to conduct a research
on receptive skills.
This research mainly deals with receptive
strategies of non-native speakers in comprehending
conversational implicatures in English. Most of the
studies available are dealing with productive
strategies (Bada, 2010; Chen, 2015; Nguyen, 2008b)
and only a few are discussing the receptive strategies
(Chandra, 2001a; Lee, 2012a). Lee (2012b) uses
Language Processing Model by Bialystok (1993a)
and Chandra (2001b) uses the theory from (Sperber
and Wilson, 1986b). Other than (Bialystok, 1993b)
and (Sperber and Wilson, 1986b) receptive strategies
are still open for other theories to be adapted to
explain the phenomena.
There is also an overly used instrument in
interlanguage pragmatics and the instrument is
called discourse completion task (DCT) (Bella,
2012b; Lee, 2011b; Rose, 2009). This is a quite
strange phenomenon because there are a number of
alternatives available. Pragmatics research might use
role play (Félix-Brasdefer, 2007), discussion
(Nguyen, 2008b), verbal protocol (Lee, 2012a),
comprehension tests (Soler, 2005), in-depth
interview (Yates and Major, 2015), questionnaire
(Nguyen, 2008b)story telling (Bada, 2010) and
natural data recording (Economidou-Kogetsidis,
2013). DCT is an instrument that represents 40% of
interlanguage pragmatics studies.
3 IMPLICATURES AND
IDIOMATIC IMPLICATURES
An implicature is a pragmatic phenomenon in which
a speaker uses a coded utterance to deliver his intent
without explicitly mentioning it in his utterance
(Grice, 1975b). Using a method of inference and
common background knowledge, a hearer or more
are able to comprehend the message. The following
is the example of a dialogue containing an
implicature.
Alan : Are you going to Paul's party?
Barb : I have to work.
(Davis, 2014)
Alan asks a question to Barb. The question is
straightforward and Barb is supposed to say yes or
no. However, in this instance, Barb chooses to
answer using non-straightforward fashion. Her
answer implies that she would not come to the party.
Alan, using a method of inference and certain
background knowledge can interpret a particular
message that Barb would not come to the party.
From our previous research (Pratama et al.,
2017), we have classified ten types of implicatures
according to the classifications established by
(Grice, 1975b), (Bouton, 1994) and (Arseneault,
2014b). Those ten types of implicatures are POPE-
Q, Indirect Criticism, Sequential, Minimum
Requirement Rule, Scalar, Idiomatic, Quantity,
Quality, Manner and Relevance. The full taxonomy
can be illustrated in the Figure 2.
BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference
320
Figure 2: The Taxonomy of Implicatures for Second
Language Learners.
Among other works related to implicatures, the
work by (Arseneault, 2014b) mainly attracts our
attention. She argues that idiomatic expressions may
work as implicatures as well. Idiomatic expressions
have given clue to an utterance that the utterance
itself may contain an implicit message. This pattern
suits the definition of an implicature.
In order to understand the nature of the
implicatures taxonomy, the following table provides
the implicatures division, definition, and example.
Table 2: Implicatures' division, definition, and example
(Pratama et al., 2017).
Implicature
Remarks
Example
POPE-Q
Implicature
using rhetoric
question
John: Would
you like to go
to the beach?
Arthur: Is the
Pope Catholic?
Minimum
Requirement
Rule (MRR)
Number
mentioned by
the speaker
implicitly
means the
minimum
number
John: I need a
place with fifty
seats for my
son’s birthday
party.
Arthur:
McDonald’s
has fifty seats.
Sequential
Implicature
indicating the
order of events
Skeeter: OK,
how about we
just take walks
in the park and
go to the war
museum?
Wendy: Now
you're talking.
Indirect
Criticism
Implicature
indicating
criticism
without being
to explicit
Mr. Ray: Have
you finished
with Mark's
term paper
yet?
Mr. Moore:
Yeah, I read it
last night.
Mr. Ray: What
did you think
of it?
Mr. Moore:
Well, I thought
it was well
typed.
Scalar
Implicature
using modality
Dan: Oh
really? Does
he like them?
Gretta : She.
Yes, she seems
Idiomatic
Implicature
using idioms
and/or
idiomatic
expressions
Quantity
Implicature
relying on
manipulation of
quantity maxim
Quality
Implicature
relying on
manipulation of
quality maxim
Manner
Implicature
relying on
manipulation of
manner maxim
Relevance
Implicature
relying on
manipulation of
relevance
maxim
Non-Native Speakers Understanding on Idiomatic Implicatures
321
4 METHODS
This research is designed to answer two questions:
(1) to what extent second language learners
comprehend idiomatic implicatures? and (2) what
strategies are used by the learners to comprehend
this type of implicatures? In order to answer those
questions systematically, three dialogues containing
idiomatic implicatures to be tested to our
respondents are prepared. The following are the
three items included in our instruments.
Item 1
Context: John and Kelly are engaged. They are
talking about their future.
John: I think I’m still buying this house although it’s
next to a toxic waste dump.
Kelly: Have you lost your mind?
Question: What does Kelly’s statement mean?
a. Kelly disagrees with John’s idea.
b. Kelly agrees with John’s idea.
c. Kelly asks John if he is crazy.
Item 2
Context : Johnson is Angela’s best friend. Angela is
a psychologist. Johnson takes his friend, Charlie, to
consult with Angela.
Johnson: Nice to see you. Charlie, this is
Angela. Angela, this is Charlie. He's
my college roommate.
Angela: Nice to meet you, Charlie.
Johnson: Well, thanks for seeing us on such
short notice.
Angela : Why don't you guys come in and
make yourselves comfortable?
Question: What does Angela’s last statement
mean?
a. Angela does not let Johnson and Charlie in.
b. Angela is surprised by Johnson’s and
Charlie’s appearance.
c. Angela invites Johnson and Charlie to sit
down.
Item 3
Context : Sonny and Julian are father and son.
Because of a particular reason, Sonny confiscated
Julian’s toy.
Sonny: Give me that!
Julian: You just killed me.
Sonny: So what? Relax, you'll play later.
Julian: You can't tell me what to do. (Yelling)
Question: What does Julian’s last statement mean?
a. Julian thinks that his father does not have the
right to give an order.
b. Julian thinks that his father does not have any
ability to give an order.
c. Julian is not in the mood to relax.
Those three items were tested to 110
respondents. There are 40 respondents from English
department, 32 respondents from international class
majoring in Law and Engineering, and 38
respondents from regular Economics major. The
students coming from English department are taught
in English and they study English as their major.
The students from international classes are
Indonesians who are taught in English but their
major is not English. The students from regular class
are taught in Indonesian. One week after they did the
test, the researchers recalled 18 students to be
interviewed using Think Aloud Protocol (TAP).
TAP is a method of interview, which allows the
respondents to say out loud, what their minds
currently say (Ericsson and Simon, 1993). TAP is
conducted to answer the second question of this
study.
To codify the data, the researchers utilize the
taxonomy of strategies by (Vandergrift, 1997).
However, because the fact that Vandergrift's
taxonomy is mainly related with listening, only
some aspects of the strategies are fitted in this study.
The possible strategies used by the learners are:
(1) Inference: using the available information in the
dialogue to guess the part the learner does not
understand.
a. Linguistic Inference: using the words he
knows to guess on the words he does not
know.
b. Extralinguistic Inference: using the
relationship of the speakers, other parts of
the question, or other concrete situation to
guess the part that he does not understand.
c. Inter-part Inference: using markers that
show the relationships between utterances
and then guessing the meaning of the
utterance using those relationships.
(2) Elaboration: using the knowledge outside the
dialogue and relate it with the knowledge within
the dialogue in order to know the meaning of the
exchange.
a. Personal elaboration: using personal
experience.
BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference
322
b. World elaboration: using general
knowledge around us.
c. Academic elaboration: using
knowledge gain from academic
situation.
d. Question elaboration: using chain
questions to guess the answer
e. Creative Elaboration: creating stories
or unique point of view to guess the
meaning.
f. Imagery: using picture or mental
visuals to represent information coded
to separate category
(3) Summarization: making mental or written
summary of the information in the dialogue
(4) Translation: translating the target language to the
mother language word by word.
(5) Transfer: using the knowledge of the mother
language to facilitate the understanding of target
language.
(6) Repetition: reading aloud the dialogue to
understand the meaning.
(7) Grouping: to call information based on other
information with similar attribute.
(8) Deduction/Induction: Consciously applying rules
that have been learnt or developed by himself to
understand the dialogue.
All responses from the TAP are recorded and
then interpreted using Vandergrift's taxonomy
above. The following transcript can illustrate the
technique of data reading and analysis.
Context: Johnson is a good friend of
Angela. Angela is a psychologist. Johnson brought
his friend Charlie to consult with Angela.
Johnson: Nice to see you. Charlie, this is
Angela. Angela, this is Charlie. He's my college
roommate.
Angela: Nice to meet you, Charlie.
Johnson: Well, thanks for seeing us on such short
notice.
Angela: Why do not you guys come in and make
yourselves comfortable?
Question: What is Angela's final say?
a. Angela does not allow Johnson and Charlie
to enter.
b. Angela was surprised by Johnson and Charlie
c. Angela invites Johnson and Charlie to sit
down.
(Instrument A Problem 16)
ATOP1 : Because of Angela's statement "..come in
make yourselves comfortable?"
It means she let them in
INT : do you think we that phrase in Bahasa ?
ATOP1 : anggap rumah sendiri (come in, make
yourself at home)
(Respondent ATOP1 Data 16)
According to the responses by respondent
ATOP1 and elicitation questions given by the
interviewers, there is a strong possibility that the
respondent uses the knowledge from Bahasa
Indonesia and the knowledge is being transferred to
English. Evidently, ATOP1 recognizes Indonesian
expression 'anggap rumah sendiri' as similar with the
English expression of 'make yourselves
comfortable''. This type of technique is called
'transfer' according to Vandergrift's strategy
categorization.
All data were treated the same way as the
example above so that all strategies used by all 18
respondents can be recapped and analyzed.
5 LEARNERS'
COMPREHENSION OF
IDIOMATIC IMPLICATURES
The number for correct implicature items answered
by the respondents represents comprehension of
idiomatic implicatures in this study. After the
respondents’ works are checked for the correctness
of the answers and then recapped, the following data
can be presented here.
Figure 3: The summary of respondents’ results on
idiomatic implicatures.
There are three items of idiomatic implicatures
presented to 110 students; three is the maximum
point and zero is the minimum point. According to
the results, all students on average can answer 2.5
2.73
2.66
2.13
2.5
Group 1
(N=40)
Group 2
(N=32)
Group 3
(N=38)
ALL (N=110)
Non-Native Speakers Understanding on Idiomatic Implicatures
323
items correctly. The group from English department
got the best result with 2.73 on average. The group
from international classes achieves a slightly
different result with 2.66 on average. The group
from regular Economics class suffers the most. They
got only 2.13 on average. There are two points to be
taken from those results. First, target language
exposure in formal classrooms is possible to be an
important factor for the learners to be successful in
comprehending idiomatic implicature. Second,
compared with other types of implicatures such as
POPE-Q (Pratama, 2017a) and Indirect Criticism
(Pratama, 2017b), idiomatic implicatures can be
categorized as relatively easy implicature to
comprehend by second language learners. In the
previous studies, POPE-Q implicatures recorded
2.02 on average and indirect criticism recorded 1.61
on average. All indexes are based on three as
maximum score.
There are three items are tested in this study.
Each item has its own level of difficulty reflected by
the respondent scores.
Table 3: Item difficulty based on respondents' scores
Item ID
Percentage of respondents
who answer correctly
Item 1
75%
Item 2
90%
Item 3
85%
Item 1 contains the idiom 'have you lost your
mind?'. Item 2 contains the idiom 'make yourself
comfortable'. Item number 3 contains the idiomatic
expression 'you can't tell me what to do'. According
to the data, the most difficult idiomatic implicature
to interpret is 'have you lost your mind?'. and the
easiest idiomatic implicature is 'make yourself
comfortable'. There are some possible answers to
explain this phenomenon. The first possibility is that
for Indonesian students 'make yourself comfortable'
is more salient and frequent than 'have you lost your
mind'. This explanation is adapted from the input
and attention theory such as that of (Schmidt, 1995).
Second explanation is that the lexical and
grammatical components of item 1 have consumed
more mental capacity than those of item 2. This
explanation owes its credit to relevance theory
(Sperber and Wilson, 1986b). Both explanations
have not been tested empirically and follow up
research needs to be conducted to provide a more
accurate explanation.
6 LEARNERS' STRATEGIES TO
COMPREHEND IDIOMATIC
IMPLICATURES
In an effort to understand the strategies used by the
learners in comprehending idiomatic implicatures,
the researchers have utilized a Think Aloud Protocol
to 18 respondents. Nine respondents come from the
high proficiency group and the other nine are from
the low proficiency. Using this arrangement, it is
able to contrast the strategies used by high
proficiency group and low proficiency group. The
following is the recapitulation of strategies used by
both groups.
Table 4: Recapitulation of strategies.
Strategies
High Profi
Ciency
Low Profi
ciency
Linguistic
Inference
3
5
Extralinguistic
Inference
3
2
Between parts
inferencing
1
0
Personal
Elaboration
0
0
World Elaboration
2
0
Academic
Elaboration
0
0
Questioning
Elaboration
1
0
Creative
Elaboration
5
1
Imagery
0
0
Summarization
0
0
Translation
6
6
Transfer
6
2
Repetition
1
0
Grouping
0
0
Deduction/Inductio
n
15
7
*Random Guessing
6
It can be seen from the table above that high
proficiency students are willing to try different types
of strategies. The high proficiency group tries nine
out of fifteen strategies possible while the low
proficiency only utilizes six of them. Deduction/
induction has been the favorite strategy for both high
proficiency or low proficiency group with obvious
differences. Deduction/induction in high proficiency
BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference
324
group often leads to correct answers while the same
strategy used by low proficiency leads to wrong
answers. There are some strategies that are never
utilized by both groups: personal elaboration,
academic elaboration, imagery, summarization and
grouping.
There is a new strategy coming up during the
TAP session and it only applies to the low
proficiency group. This strategy involves random
guessing. This strategy never appears in high
proficiency group. It seems that it is easier for the
low proficiency group to frustrate and give up. Even
when the interviewer tries very hard to convince the
respondent to state their strategies, they choose to
give up and admit that they just guess the answer
randomly. Such feature never takes place in high
proficiency group.
7 CONCLUSIONS
This research revolves around two main questions
since the very beginning. The first question is to
what extent second language learners comprehend
idiomatic implicatures. Based on the findings,
second language learners with high exposure to
English in the classroom can interpret idiomatic
implicatures easier than those from low exposure
classrooms. Compared with other types of
implicatures, idiomatic implicatures are considered
relatively easy. The second question of the research
is what strategies used by the learners to
comprehend this type of implicatures. The findings
show that high proficiency group learners are more
likely to try more various types of strategies (9 out
of 15) compared with the low proficiency group (6
out of 15). Furthermore, there is an emergent
strategy coming up only in the low proficiency
group namely random guessing.
The implications of this study put the burden to
language teachers to use English as language of
instructions as consistent as possible. We can safely
say that, at least from this study, exposure in the
formal classroom plays an important role to improve
the learners understanding of English implicature.
Attention shall be given to students with low
proficiency because they are prone to frustration and
have a tendency to give in their efforts to
comprehend implicatures.
REFERENCES
Arseneault, M., 2014a. An Implicature Account of Idioms.
International Review of Pragmatics 6, 59–77.
https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00601004
Arseneault, M., 2014b. An implicature account of idioms.
International Review of Pragmatics 6, 59–77.
Austin, J.L., 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford
Publication Press, Oxford.
Bachman, L.F., 1990. Fundamental considerations in
language testing. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bada, E., 2010. Repetitions as vocalized fillers and self-
repairs in English and French interlanguages. Journal
of Pragmatics 42, 1680–1688.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.008
Bardovi-Harlig, K., 2010. Exploring the pragmatics of
interlanguage pragmatics: Definition by design.
Pragmatics across languages and cultures 7, 219–259.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., 1999. Exploring the interlanguage of
interlanguage pragmatics: A research agenda for
acquisitional pragmatics. Language Learning 49, 677–
713. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00105
Bataller, R., 2010. Making a request for a service in
Spanish: Pragmatic development in the study abroad
setting. Foreign Language Annals 43, 160–175.
Bella, S., 2012a. Pragmatic development in a foreign
language: A study of Greek FL requests. Journal of
Pragmatics 44, 1917–1947.
Bella, S., 2012b. Pragmatic development in a foreign
language: A study of Greek FL requests. Journal of
Pragmatics 44, 1917–1947.
Bialystok, E., 1993a. Metalinguistic awareness: The
development of children’s representations of language.
Bialystok, E., 1993b. Metalinguistic awareness: The
development of children’s representations of language.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G., 1989a. Cross-
cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex
Pub.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Kasper, G., 1989b. Cross-
cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex
Pub.
Bouton, L.F., 1994. Can NNS Skill in Interpreting
Implicature in American English Be Improved through
Explicit Instruction?--A Pilot Study.
Brown, P., Levinson, S.C., 1987. Politeness: Some
universals in language usage. Cambridge university
press.
Canagarajah, A.S., 1999. Interrogating the “native speaker
fallacy”: Non-linguistic roots, non-pedagogical results.
Non-native educators in English language teaching
7792.
Canale, M., Swain, M., 1980. Theoretical bases of
communicative approaches to second language
teaching and testing. Applied linguistics 1, 1–47.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., Thurrell, S., 1995.
Communicative competence: A pedagogically
motivated model with content specifications. Issues in
Applied linguistics 6, 5–35.
Non-Native Speakers Understanding on Idiomatic Implicatures
325
Chandra, O.H., 2001a. Pemahaman implikatur percakapan
bahasa Inggris oleh penutur asli Bahasa Indonesia.
Universitas Indonesia.
Chandra, O.H., 2001b. Pemahaman implikatur percakapan
bahasa Inggris oleh penutur asli Bahasa Indonesia.
Universitas Indonesia.
Chen, Y., 2015. Developing Chinese EFL learners’ email
literacy through requests to faculty. Journal of
Pragmatics 75, 131–149.
Davis, W., 2014. Implicature, in: Zalta, E.N. (Ed.), The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M., 2013. Strategies,
modification and perspective in native speakers’
requests: A comparison of WDCT and naturally
occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics 53, 21–
38.
Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A., 1993. Protocol analysis:
Verbal reports as data (revised edition). Bradford
books/MIT Press, Cambridge.
Félix-Brasdefer, J.C., 2007. Pragmatic development in
the Spanish as a FL classroom: A cross-sectional
study of learner requests. Intercultural pragmatics
4, 253–286.
Grice, H.P., 1975a. Logic and conversation, in: Cole, P.,
Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics Volume 3:
Speech Act. Academic Press, New York.
Grice, H.P., 1975b. Logic and conversation, in: Cole, P.,
Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics Volume 3:
Speech Act. Academic Press, New York.
Horn, L.R., Ward, G., 2006. The handbook of
pragmatics. Blackwell Publishing, Maiden.
Kádár, D.Z., Mills, S., 2011. Politeness in East Asia.
Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G., Rose, K.R., 1999. Pragmatics and SLA.
Annual review of applied linguistics 19, 81–104.
Kubota, M., 1995. Teachability of Conversational
Implicature to Japanese EFL Learners. IRLT
(Institute for Research in Language Teaching)
Bulletin 9, 35–67.
Lee, C., 2012a. A preliminary study of the thinking
processes and speech act comprehension patterns
of Contonese learners of English. Lodz Papers in
Pragmatics 8, 209–231.
Lee, C., 2012b. A preliminary study of the thinking
processes and speech act comprehension patterns
of Contonese learners of English. Lodz Papers in
Pragmatics 8, 209–231.
Lee, C., 2011a. Strategy and linguistic preference of
requests by Cantonese learners of English: An
interlanguage and crosscultural comparison.
Lee, C., 2011b. Strategy and linguistic preference of
requests by Cantonese learners of English: An
interlanguage and crosscultural comparison.
Leech, G., 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness Oxford
Studies in Sociolinguistics. Leech.–Oxford: OUP.
Leech, G.N., 1983. Principles of pragmatics. Longman,
New York.
Levinson, S.C., 1983. Pragmatics (Cambridge textbooks
in linguistics).
Murray, J.C., 2011. Do Bears Fly? Revisiting
Conversational Implicature in Instructional
Pragmatics. Tesl-Ej 15, n2.
Nadar, F.X., 1998. Indonesian learners’ requests in
English: A speech-act based study. Humaniora 61–
69.
Nguyen, T.T.M., 2008a. Criticizing in an L2: Pragmatic
strategies used by Vietnamese EFL learners.
Nguyen, T.T.M., 2008b. Criticizing in an L2: Pragmatic
strategies used by Vietnamese EFL learners.
Pratama, H., 2017a. Indonesian students responses to
POPE-Q implicature, in: The 8th International
Seminar Of Austronesian And Nonaustronesian
Languages And Literature. Universitas Udayana,
Denpasar.
Pratama, H., 2017b. EFL students’ misidentification of
criticism implicatures, in: UNNES International
Conference on ELTLT (English Language Teaching,
Literature, and Translation). pp. 224–227.
Pratama, H., Nurkamto, J., Marmanto, S., Rustono, R.,
2016. Length of study and students’
comprehension of English conversational
implicature, in: Prasasti. Universitas Sebelas Maret,
Surakarta, pp. 368–373.
Pratama, H., Nurkamto, J., Rustono, Marmanto, S., 2017.
Second language learners’ comprehension of
conversational implicatures in english. 3L:
Language, Linguistics, Literature 23.
https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2303-04
Rose, K.R., 2009. Interlanguage pragmatic development
in Hong Kong, phase 2. Journal of Pragmatics 41,
2345–2364.
Rover, C., 2005. Testing ESL Pragmatics. Peter Lang,
Frankfurt am Main.
Schauer, G., 2009a. Interlanguage pragmatic
development: The study abroad context.
Continuum, New York.
Schauer, G., 2009b. Interlanguage pragmatic
development: The study abroad context.
Continuum, New York.
Schmidt, R., 1995. Consciousness and foreign language
learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and
awareness in learning. Attention and awareness in
foreign language learning 9, 1–63.
Searle, J.R., 1985. Expression and meaning: Studies in
the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University
Press.
Soler, E.A., 2005. Does instruction work for learning
pragmatics in the EFL context? System 33, 417–
435.
Sperber, D., Wilson, D., 1986a. Relevance:
Communication and cognition. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Sperber, D., Wilson, D., 1986b. Relevance:
Communication and cognition. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference
326
Vandergrift, L., 1997. The comprehension strategies of
second language (French) listeners: A descriptive
study. Foreign language annals 30, 387–409.
Wierzbicka, A., 2003. Cross-cultural pragmatics. Walter
de Gruyter Inc.
Wijayanto, A., Laila, M., Prasetyarini, A., Susiati, S.,
2013. Politeness in Interlanguage Pragmatics of
Complaints by Indonesian Learners of English.
English Language Teaching 6, 188–201.
Yates, L., Major, G., 2015. “Quick-chatting”,“smart
dogs”, and how to “say without saying”: Small talk
and pragmatic learning in the community. System
48, 141–152.
Non-Native Speakers Understanding on Idiomatic Implicatures
327