A Pragmatic Study on Listening: Theory and Practice

Arifuddin
  • University of Mataram Indonesia
  • Keywords:
  • Listening, Hearing, Merely Hearing
  • Abstract:
  • Hearing or listening capacity is a big gift from the Creator, an invaluable present. In reality, many people live with an unexpected misfortune, the deaf status. One important thing missing, hearing, or listening ability. Nevertheless, they can also survive and adapt to their life activities, live normally. Excellent! Why is listening important? To begin with, it is important to present only two general definitions of ‘listening’, though a variety of definitions of listening are available. The first, Goss (1982) defines listening as “the process of taking what you hear and organizing it into verbal units to which you can apply meaning”. The second, Wolvin and Coakley (1996) define listening as “the process of receiving, attending to, and assigning meaning to aural and visual stimuli”. Based on the two definitions, listening is something to do with getting the ‘meaning’ uttered by the speaker or sounded by the audio or audio-visual media. Accordingly, the idea that assumes listening as passive activity is not acceptable. Listening needs the listener’s cognitive involvement and concentration, different from ‘hearing’. Hearing is unintentionally done, with no specific target of getting the meaning or the speaker intent. Therefore, getting people to listen to each other is not an easy objective. Unfortunately, listening has come to be viewed as a passive, simple act that we just do. The word “just” is all too frequently used to describe listening in the admonition “Just listen.” This reduces listening, then, to the non-active, receptor, part of human communication. Listening may be one of the most, if not the most, a complex of all human behaviors (Wovin, 2010:2). Thus, listening is the active involvement of cognitive skill in understanding the ‘meaning’ or the ‘speaker intent’.
  1. Alagozlu, N. and S. Buyukozturk. (2009). Aural pragmatic comprehension. Novitas-ROYAL, 3(2), 83-92.
  2. Allami, H. (2006). A Sociopragmatic analysis of Griping: The case of Iranian students. The Linguistics Journal, 1, 59-76.
  3. Allan, K. (2011). Meaning and speech acts. Copyright ©Monash University ABN 12 377 614 012. Retrieved on May 4, 2011 from http://arts.monash.edu.au/linguistics/staff/kallan-speech-acts.php.
  4. Amin, K. (2003). The effect of speaker’s and listener’s gender on L2 listening comprehension. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 29(1), 99-107.
  5. Anderson, A. and T. Lynch. (1988). Listening. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  6. Arifuddin and I.M. Sujana. (2010). Consisteny of hemispheric accuracy in inferring sentences and dialogues. K@ta Journal, 12(1), 15-25.
  7. Arifuddin and Susanto. (2012). Gender-based failure to infer implicatures from Pre-TOEFL listening. International Journal of Learning and Development, 2(6), 62-72.glossary
  8. Arifuddin dan I.M. Sujana. (2004). Kecakapan berbahasan Inggris mahasiswa senior prorgram jurusan bahasa Inggris LPTK di NTB. Jurnal Penelitian Universitas Mataram, Februari 2004.
  9. Arifuddin. (2005). Hemispheric accuracy of English Education students University of Mataram in identifying topics of auditory associated English word groups. Journal Ilmu Pendidikan Program Pascasarjana IKIP Negeri Singaraja 2(2), 380-394.
  10. Arifuddin. (2007). Language assessment: competency-based approach. Yogyakarta: Intan Cendekia and Mataram: Arga Puji Press.
  11. Arifuddin. (2010). Neuropsikolinguistik. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers (PT RajaGrafindo Persada).
  12. Arifuddin. (2012). Sex-based short-term memory of vocabulary trained with Pease and Pease’s multimodality. International Journal of Human Resources Studies, 2(4), 208-223.
  13. Arikunto, S. (2005). Manajemen penelitian. Jakarta: Rine Cipta.
  14. Asher, N. and A. Lascarides. (2006). Indirect speech act. ESRC (UK) Research, May 26, 2006.
  15. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
  16. Austin, J. L. (1971). Performative-constative. In Searle, J.L. (Ed.). The philosophy of language (pp.13-22). Glasgow: Oxford University Press.
  17. Austin, J. L. (1979). Philosophical papers. 3rd ed. UK: Oxford University Press.
  18. Austin, J. L. (2007). From the performative to speech act. In J. Loxley (Ed.). Performativity (pp.6-21). London and New York: Routledge.
  19. Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
  20. Bach, K. (2003). Speech act and pragmatics. In M. Devvitt and R. Hanley (Eds.). Blackwell Guide to the Philosphy of Language. Retrieved on May 4, 2011 from (http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~kbach/Spch.Prag.htm).
  21. Bambini, V. (2010). Neuropragmatics. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 1-20.
  22. Banjar, S.Y. (2009). Cooperation and implicature. April 14, 2009. Retrieved on September 23, 2011 from Dr_Shadyia Y_Banjar Cooperation and implicature.mht.
  23. Bara, B.G. (2010). Cognitive pragmatics; The mental processes of communication. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  24. Barati, L. and R. Biria. (2011). The impact of first language intonational clue selection on second language comprehension. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 1(2), 33-38. Copyright ©2011SciRes.
  25. Bardovi-Harlig, K., M. Rose, and E.L. Nickels. (2008). The use of conventional expressions of thanking, apolozising and refusing. Selected Proceedings of the 2007 Second Language Research Forum. Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA.
  26. Barta, E. (2010). Test takers’ listening comprehension sub-skills and strategies. WoPaLP journal, 4, 59-85.
  27. Baser, V.G. and N. Mutlu. (2011). Analyzing pre-service elementary teachers’ pedagogical beliefs. Proceeding of 2nd International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications 27-29 April, 2011 Antalya-Turkey. ISBN: 978-605-5782-62-7.
  28. Basnakova, J., K.Weber, K.M. Petersson, P. Hagoort, & J.J.A.V. Berkum. (2010). Understanding speaker meaning: Neural correlates of pragmatic inferencing in language comprehension. Poster presented at HBM 2010 – The 16th Annual Meeting of the Organization for Human Brain Mapping, Barcelona, Spain.
  29. Benotti, L. and D. Traum. (2009). A computational account of comparative implicature for a spoken dialogue agent. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Semantics, pages 4-17. ©International Conference on Computational Semantics.
  30. Black, E. (2006). Pragmatic stylistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  31. Blight, R. (2002). Classroom procedure for explicit instruction in conversational implicature. Conference Proceeding of JALT 2002 at Shizuoka Japan, 142-148.
  32. Bloomfield, A., Wayland, S.C., Rhoades, E., Blodgett, A., Linck, J., Ross, S. (2010). What makes listening difficult? Factors affecting second language comprehension. University of Maryland.
  33. Blume, C.D. (2010). RAP: A reading comprehension strategy for students with learning disabilities. Unpublished Masters Degree Thesis. May 2010. ©The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
  34. Bornmann, G. M. (2000). Thre types of pragmatic Failure relevant to English language learning. Journal of Kibi International University School of International and Industrial Studies, 10, 21-28.
  35. Boyle, J.P. (1984). Factors affecting listening comprehension. ELT Journal, 38(1), 34-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/38.1.34.
  36. Breland, H., Y-W. Lee, M. Najarian, E. Muraki. (2004). Analysis of TOEFL CBT writing prompt difficulty and comparability for different gender groups. TOEFL Research Reports, Report 76 February 2004. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
  37. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New
  39. Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
  40. Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. (1990). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  41. Butt, M.M, Sharif, M.M., Naseer-ud-Din, M., Hussain, I., Khan, F., and Ayesha, U. (2010). Listening comprehension problems among the students: A case study of three govt. boy’s higher secondary schools.”European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(2), 311-315.
  42. Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London and New York: Continuum.
  43. Cedar, P. (2006). Thai and American responses to compliments in English.”The Linguistics Journal, 1(2), 6-28.
  44. Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: the basic. London & New York: Routledge.
  45. Chang, V. T. (2007). A Cognitive-pragmatic approach to discourse topic: A cross-linguistic analysis and universal account. Journal of Universal Language, 8, 1-21.
  46. Chapman, S and C. Routledge. (2009). Key ideas in linguistics and the philosophy of language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  47. Chen, Y. (2009). Learner perceptions of instruction in L2 Pragmatics. English Language Teaching Journal December 2009, 2(4), 154-161.
  48. Cocco, R. and F. Ervas. (2012). Gender stereotypes and figurative language comprehension. Hummana Mente Journal of Philosophical Studies, 22, 43-56.
  49. Cohen, A. D. & Macaro, E. (2007). Language learner strategies: 30 years of research and practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  50. Cohen, A. D. (2007). The teaching of pragmatics in the EFL classroom. ILI Language Teaching Journal, 3(2), 1-28.
  51. Cohen, A. D. (2014b). Towards increased classroom assessment of pragmatic ability. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 4(l),5-25.
  52. Cohen, A.D. (2012). Comprehensible pragmatics: Where input and output come together t. In M. Pawlak (Ed.) (March, 2012). New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. NY: Springer.
  53. Cohen, A.D. (2014a). Coming to terms with pragmatics. InN. Ishihara&A.D. Cohen (Eds.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language ond culture meet (pp.3-20). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
  54. Corbett, J. (2003). An intercultural approaches to English language teaching. Clevedan: Mulitilingual Matters Ltd.
  55. Corsetti, C. R. (2010). Pragmatic competence in the listening paper of the Certificate of Proficiency in English. BELT JOURNAL Porto Alegre,1(1), 14-25.
  56. Cousin, E. P. M. and M. Baciu. (2009). Hemispheric specialization for language according to grapho-phonemic transformation and gender. A divided visual field experiment. Brain and Cognition, 69(3), 465-471.
  57. Crap, P. (2011). Micropragmatics and micropragmatics. In Bublitz, W. and N.R. Norrick (Eds.). Foundations of pragmatics. Boston: DeGruyter Mouton.
  58. David, O. F. (2008). Socio-psychological determinants of ESL pragmatic competence in Nigeria. The social Sciences, 3(2), 73-77.
  59. Deda, N. (2013). The role of Pragmatics in English Language Teaching. Pragmatic Competence. DOI: 10.5901/ajis.2012.v2n4p63
  60. Denzin, N. K. and Y.S. Lincoln. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-32). 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
  61. Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 159-177.
  62. Dunkel, P. (1986). Developing listening fluency in L2: Theoretical principles and pedagogical considerations. The Modern Language Journal, 70(2), 99-106.
  63. Dykstra, L.K. (2006). On pragmatic perception: Do learners of Russian perceive the socio-cultural weight of the address pronouns? Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation University of Iowa, USA.
  64. Edwards, M. and K. Csizer. (2004). Developing pragmatic competence in the EFL classroom. English Teaching Forum July 2004, 16-21.
  65. Eisenstein, M. (1982). A study of social variation in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 32, 367-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1982.tb00977.x.
  66. Eslami-Rasek, A. and M. Mardani. (2010). Investigating the effects of teaching apology speech act, with a focus on intensifying strategies, on pragmatic development of EFL learners: The Iranian contexts. International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 30, 96-103.
  67. ETS Net. (2011) retrieved on July 7, 2011 from (http://www.vec.ca/english/3/toefl-sections.cfm).
  68. ETS Researchers. (2008). Validity evidence supporting the interpretation and use of TOEFL iBT scores. New Jersey: Princeton.
  69. ETS. (1997). TOEFL: Test and score manual. Princeton, New Jersey: ETS.
  70. ETS. (2007). The official guide to the new TOEFL iBT. New York: McGraw Hill.
  71. ETS. (2008). Test and score data summary fo TOEFL® Internet-based and Paper-based Tests January 2008-December 2008 test data. Princeton, New Jersey: ETS.
  72. ETS. (2011). Test and score data summary fo TOEFL® Internet-based and Paper-based Tests January 2011-December 2011 test data. Princeton, New Jersey: ETS.
  73. ETS. (2012). 2011-2012 Information and registration bulletin for paper-based testing (PBT). Princeton: New Jersey.
  74. Farashayian, A. and T.K. Hua. (2012). On the relationship between pragmatic knowledge and language proficiency among Iranian male and female undergraduate EFL learners. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(1), 33-46.
  75. Farina, E., O. Albanese and F. Pons. (2007). Making inferences and individual differences in emotion understanding. Psychology of Language and Communication, 11(2), 3-19.
  76. Fernandez, E. M. and H. S. Cairns,. (2011). Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  77. Field, J. (2007). The changing face of listening. In Richards, J.C. and W.A. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practices (pp. 242-247). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  78. Frieze, I.H. and J.C. Chrisler. (2011). Editorial Policy on the Use of the Terms “Sex” and “Gender”. Sex Roles Journal 21 May 2011, 64:789–790. DOI 10.1007/s11199-011-9988-2. ©Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
  79. Garcia, P. (2004). Pragmatic comprehension of high and low level language learners. TESL-EJ September 2004, 8(2), A-1.
  80. Gharaghani, Z., A .E. Rasekh, A. Dabaghi, and I. Tohidian.(2011). Effect of gender on politeness strategies in greetings of native speakers of Persian: English and EFL learners. Cyprot Journal of Educational Sciences, 3, 93-117.
  81. Gilakjani, A. P. and M. R. Ahmadi. (2011a). A study of factors affecting EFL learners’ English listening comprehension and the strategies for improvement. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 977-988. Doi:10.4304/jltr.
  82. Gilakjani, A. P. and M. R. Ahmadi. (2011b). The impact of authentic listening materials on Iranian EFL learners’ English listening comprehension. The Iranian EFL Journal Vol. 7 Issue 3, 157-165.
  83. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face interaction. Aldine.
  84. Goh, C. (1998). How learners with different listening abilities use comprehension strategies and tactis. Language Teaching Research, 2(2), 124-147.
  85. Goh, C. (1999a). How much do learners know about the factors that influence their listening comprehension? Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 17-42.
  86. Goh, C. (1999b). Learning to listen. REACT Vol. 2, 44-53.
  87. Goh, C. and Y. Taib. (2006). Metacognitive instruction in listening for young learners. ELT Journal, 60, 222-232. DOI:10.1093/elt/ccl002. ©The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University press, all right reserved.
  88. Goh, C. C., & Aryadoust, V. (2014). Examining the notion of listening sub-skill divisibility and its implications for second language listening. International Journal of Listening, 29(3), 109-133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10904018.2014.936119.
  89. Goldkuhl, G. (2004). Meanings of Pragmaticism: Ways to conduct information systems research. A paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Action in Language, Organisations and Information Systems (ALOIS-2004), 17-18 March, 2004, Linköping University, Sweden.
  90. Goss, B. (1982). Listening to language: An information processing perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Speech Communication Association, Hot Springs, April.
  91. Graham, S. (2006). Listening comprehension: The learners perspective. System, 34, 165-182.
  92. Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, LXVI, 377-88.
  93. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter, C. and J. Morgan (Eds.). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp.41-58). New York: Academic Press.
  94. Grujicic-Alatriste, L. (2008). Pragmatics in academia: The role of gender and power relations in the use of implicatures. The Forum, Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 1-3.
  95. Guo, N. (undated). An ivestigation of factors influencing English listening comprehension and possible measures for improvement. Retrieved on January 15, 2012 from aare.edu.au/05pap/guo05088.pdf .
  96. Guodong, L. and H. Jing. (2005). A contrastive study on disagreement strategies for politeness between American English & Mandarin Chinese. ASIAN EFL Journal, 7(1), 1-12.
  97. handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 74-87). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  98. Hasan, A. (2000). Learners’ Perceptions of Listening Comprehension Problems. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 13, 137-152.
  99. Hazali, M. (2010). Presupposition as a pragmatic inference – towards a new conceptualization of the term. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference Intercultural Pragmatics in Madrid October 21, 2010.
  100. Hebert, J. (2007). PracTESOL: It’s not what you say, but how you say it! In Richards, J.C. and W.A. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practices (pp. 188-200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  101. Hinkel, E. (2005). TOEFL test strategies. 3rd ed. Jakarta: Binarupa Aksara.
  102. Horn, L. R. (2007). Implicature. In Horn, L.R. and G. Ward (Eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 3-28). Hong Kong: Blackwell Publishing.
  103. Hua, X. and W. Tongshun. (2007). Chinese EFL learners pragmatic performance in listening tasks. CELEA Journal, 30(5), 19-25.
  104. Huang, Y. (2011). Types of inference: entailment, presupposition, and implicature. In W. Bublitz and N.R. Norrick (Eds.). Foundations of pragmatics(pp. 397-421). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.KG.
  105. Hudson, T., Detrner, E., & Brown, J.D. (1992). A framework for testing cross-cultural pragmatics (Technical Report 2). Honolulu: Unversity of Hawai, Second Language Teaching and Culture Curriculum Center.
  106. Huong, K. T. T. (2006). Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese: A pragmatics and conversation analysis perspective. On line published Ph.D. Dissertation. Hanoi: College of Foreign Languages Vietnam National University.
  107. Hurtford, J.R., B. Heasley, and M.B. Smith. (2007). Semantics: A coursebook. 2nd ed. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  108. Hwang, C.C. (2008). Pragmatic conventions and intercultural competence. ASIA TEFL August 2008 Volume 3 Issue 2.
  109. Ichsan, D. (1993). Tingkat kecakapan berbahasa Inggris mahasiswa program studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan Universitas Sriwijaya Angkatan tahun 1987 dan tahun 1988. Prosiding Seminar Hasil Penelitian Bidang Kependidikan BKS-PTN Bagian Barat ke-2 (Eds, Utomo, M., Sudrajat, Sujarwo, and Sudarmanto, R.G.)., Bandar Lampung, Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Lampung, hal. 113-125.
  110. Itkonen, T. (2010). Spoken language proficiency assessment. Master’s Thesis (pp. 5-18).
  111. Jalal, F., Samani, M., Chang, M.C., Stevenson, R., Ragazt, A.B., and S.D. Negara. (2009). Teacher certification in Indonesia: A strategy for teacher quality improvement. Jakarta: Depdiknas RI.
  112. Jianda, L. (2006). Assessing EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic knowledge: Implications for testers and teachers. Reflections on English language Teaching, 5(1), 1-22.
  113. Jiwandono, P. I. (2006). Culture bias in language testing. TEFLIN Journal, 17(1), 81-89.
  114. John, S.F, Lui, M., and R. Tannock. (2003). Children’s story retelling and comprehension using new narrative resource. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 18(1), 291-113.
  115. Kádár, D.Z. 2017. Politeness in Pragmatics. Linguistics. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.218
  116. Kai-huai, DU. (2008). Toward a better undertanding and manipulation of meaning: A prgamatic perspective. US-China Foreign Language Journal, 6(5), 54.
  117. Karjo, C. H. (2011). Investigation of scalar implicatures of Binus University students. K@ta journal, 13,(1), 123-133.
  118. Kavaliauskienė, G. and D. Užpalienė. (2010). Aspects of teaching adult learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8(1), 83-101.
  119. Kess, J. F. (1992). Psycholinguistics: Psychology, linguistics and the study of natural language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
  120. Kijpoonphol, W. (2010). An investigation of difficulties related to listening comprehension: A case study of university students. NIDA Language and Communication Journal, 30-51.
  121. Korta, K. And J. Perry. (2008). The pragmatic circle. Synthese Journal (2008) 165:347–357 DOI 10.1007/s11229-007-9188-3. © Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
  122. Kramsch. (1993). Plastina –teaching culture in literature in the ESL/EFL classroom. http://iteslj.org/Lessons/Plastina-CultureInLiterature/.
  123. Kreidler, C.W. (1998). Introducing English semantics. London & New York: Routledge.
  124. Kusumarasdyati. (2000). Theoretical and practical aspects of listening comprehension. Retrieved on February 16, 2012 from http://www.angelfire.com/journal/fsulimelight/listen.html.
  125. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. In Language in Society (Vol. 2, pp. 55-80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  126. Lam, W. Y. K. (2007). Raising students’ awareness of the features of real-world listenign input. In Richards, J.C. and W.A. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practices (pp. 248-253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  127. Lau, J. Y. F. (2011). An introduction to critical thinking and creativity. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
  128. Lee, C. (2010). An exploratory study of the interlanguage pragmatic comprehension of young learners of English. Pragmatics Vol. 20, No. 3, 343-373.
  129. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman
  130. Lenarz, M., Sonmez, H., Joseph, G., Buchner, A. and T. Lenarz. (2012). Effect of gender on the hearing performance of adult cochlear implant patients. The Laringoscope 122, 1126-1129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lary.23214.
  131. Levinson, S. C. (1987). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  132. Levinson, S. C. (2011). Pragmatics. Article 3.9.73. Retrieved on August 5, 2011 from http://www.pragmatics/Journal%20pragmatics%20Levinson.txt.
  133. Liddicoat, A.J. (2007). An introduction to conversational analysis. London: Continuum.
  134. Lindblom, K. (2010). Cooperative principle. In Brown, K., et al. (eds.). Conscise encyclopedia of philosophy of language and linguistics(pp.100-106). UK: ELSEVIER.
  135. Lloret, E. (2009). Topic detection and segmentation in auomatic text summarization. Attribution Name-Non-Commercial-Share Alike, December 13, 2009.
  136. Loukusa, S. (2007). The use of context in pragmatic language comprehension in normally developing children and children with asperger syndrome/high functioning autism: An application of relevance theory. Published Ph.D Dissertation. Oulu, Findland: Oulu University Press.
  137. Lund, R.J. (1990). A taxonomy for teaching second language listening. Foreign Language Annals, 23, 105-115.
  138. Lynch, T. (2009). Teaching second language listening (pp. 48-53). Oxford: Oxford
  139. Lynch, T. (2010). Listening: Sources, skills, and strategies. In R. Kaplan (ed.) Oxford
  140. MacFarlane, J. (2006). Pragmaticism and inferentialism. A paper presented at the Spring 2006 Seminar on Making It Explicit July 11, 2006.
  141. Maraheel, W.O.M. (2004). The effcets of using pragmatic competence test on the ninth graders’ proficiency of the major four skills in Nablus City. Masters’ degree Thesis. Faculty of Graduate Studies An-Najah National University Nablus Palestine.
  142. Martin, T. (1982). Intrspection and listening process. Master Theses, University of California, Los Angeles.
  143. Matsuoka, Y. (2009). Possible strategies for listening comprehension: Applying the concepts of conversational implicature and adjacency pairs to understand speaker intention in the TOEFL listening secion. Accent Asia, 3(2), 27-56.
  144. McCarthy, P.M., A.M. Renner, M.G. Duncan, M.D. Duran, E.J. Lightman, A.D.S. McNamara. (2008). Identifying topic sentencehood. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 647-664. Copyright 2008 Psyconomic Society Inc.
  145. McGraner, K.L. and L. Saenz. (2009). Preparing teachers of English language learners. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. September 2009.
  146. Mckelvie, B. (2000). The effect of hyper feminity on communication pattern in dating couples. Dissertation Abstract Internationa,l 60, 63-75.
  147. Miller, G. S. (2001). Cracking the TOEFL CBT. Princeton’s Review. Retieved 2 May 2011 from http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~b93021/CBTlisteningwz01.pdf.
  148. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  149. Moore, A. (2001). Pragmatics and speech act. Retrieved on 4 May 2011 from (http://www.teachit.co.uk/armoore/lang/pragmatics.htm).
  150. Mulac, S.,Bradac, J., and V.C. Gibbons. (2001). Empirical support for the gender-as-a-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis of male/female language differences. Human Communication Research 27, 121-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hcr/27.1.121.
  151. Nation, I. S. P. and J. Newton. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York: Routledge.
  152. Nikolaenko, N.N. (2005). Sex differences and activity of left and right brain hemispheres. Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiology, Volume 41, Number 6, 689-699.
  153. Ning, H., X. Dai, and F. Zhang. (2010). On gender difference in English language and its causes. Asian Social Science February 2010, Volume 6 No.2.
  154. Nishino, T. and M. Watanabe. (2008). Communication-oriented policies versus classroom realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 133-138.
  155. Nissan, S., DeVincenzi, F., and K.L. Tang. (1996). An analysis of factors affecting the difficulty of dialogue items in TOEFL® listening comprehension. TOEFL Research Report 51. New Jersey: Princeton.
  156. Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A textbook for teachers. UK: Prentice Hall International.
  157. Nunn, R. (2006). The pragmatics of cooperation and relevance for teaching and learning. The Linguistics Journal, 1, 5-16.
  158. Nurdiana. (2019). Understanding Pragmatics and Pragmatic Competence in ELT Materials. Journal of English Language and Culture Versi Online: http://journal.ubm.ac.id/xxx/xxx 10(1), 30 – 40. Th. 2019 DOI : dx.doi.org/xxx/xxxxxxxx p-ISSN: 2087-8346 Hasil Penelitian e-ISSN: 2597-8896
  159. O’Malley, Z.M, A. U. Chamot, and L. Kupper. (1989). Listening comprehension strategies in second language acquisition. Applied Lisnguistics ,10(4), 418-437.
  160. O’Sullivan, W. (2007). A study on politeness teaching to English learners in China. The International Journal of Language Society and Culture, 2007, Issue 2003, …. .
  161. Partee, B. H. (2009). Formal semantics, Lecture 4. MGU March 27, 2009, 1.
  162. Paynea, T. W. and R. Lynnb. (2010). Sex differences in second language comprehension. Personality and Individual Differences Journal, 50(3), 434-436.
  163. Pease, A. and B. Pease. (2006). Why men don’t listen and women can’t read maps. Isma B. Koesalamwardi (trans.). Jakarta: UFUK Press.
  164. Petrus, K. (2010). Meaning and analysis: New essays on Grice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
  165. Phillips, S. E. (1985). The test of English as a foreign language. In D.J. Kayser and R.C. Sweetland (Eds.). Test Critiques Vol. 3. Kansas City: Test Corporation of America.
  166. Pickering, M. J. and S. Garrot. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 27, 169-226.
  167. Pinel, J. P. J. (2009). Biopsikologi. (Biopsychology). (Helly Prajitno Soetjipto and Sri Mulyantini Soetjipto, Trans.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
  168. Pishghadam, R. And M. Sharafadini. (2011). A Contrastive Study into the Realization of Suggestion Speech Act: Persain vs English. Canadian Social Science, 7(4), 230-239.
  169. Rhodes, S. (1987). A study of effective and ineffective listening dysds using the system theory principle of entropy. Journal of the International Listening Association, 1, 35-53.
  170. Richards, J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly 17, 219-239.
  171. Richards, J. C. (2007). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  172. Richards, J. C. and R. Schmidt. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. 3rd ed. London: Pearson Education.
  173. Richards, J. C. and W. A. Renandya. (2007). Teaching listening. In Richards, J.C. and W.A. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practices (pp. 235-237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  174. Rost, M. (1990). Listening in language learning. New York: Longman, Inc.
  175. Rost, M. (1994). Introducing Listening. London: Penguin.
  176. Rubin, J. (1994). A review of second language listening comprehension research. Modern Language Journal 78.2, 199-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02034.x.
  177. Rueda, Y. T. (2006). Developing pragmatic competence in a foreign language. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 8, 169-182.
  178. Ryder, N., E. Leinonen and J. Schulz. (2008). Cognitive approach to assessing pragmatic language comprehension in children with specific language impairment. Health Care, 43(4), 427-447.
  179. Sadeghi, K. and S. Nazarbaghi. (2011). The effect of teaching finite state grammar (FSG) on listening comprehension ability of Iranian intermediate EFL learners. International Journal of Academic Research, 3(2), 595-600.
  180. Sadock, J. (2007). Speech act. In Hord, L.R. and G. Ward. (Eds.). The handbook of pragrmatics (pp. 53-73). Hong Kong: Blackwell Publishing.
  181. Salahshuri, S. (2011). The role of bacground knowledge in foreign language listening comprehension. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(10), 1446-1451.
  182. Saukah, A. (2000). The English proficiency of the academics of the teacher training and education institutions. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan 7.1, 67-76.
  183. Saukah, A. (2010). Visiting Lecture at Language and Literature Education Postgraduate Program Unesa on 20th of November 2010 at AK9 Postgraduate Program Building Unesa Surabaya.
  184. Schiffrin, D. (1995). Approaches to discourse. UK: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.
  185. Searle, J.R. (1997). Speech Act: An essay in the philosophy of language. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
  186. Seuren, P. A. M. (2010). The logic of language. Language from within volume II. New York: Oxford University Press.
  187. Shams, R. and A. Afghari. (2011). Effects of culture and gender in comprehension of speech acts of indirect request. English Language Teaching., 4(4), 279-287.
  188. Sharpe, P. J. (1997). Barron’s how to prepare for the TOEFL test. 8th ed. Jakarta: Binarupa Akasara.
  189. Sharpe, P. J. (2010). Barron’s TOEFL iBT. 13th ed. USA: Barron’s Educational Series,Inc.
  190. Shemanski, L. A. (2000). Implementing English: Pragmatics and EFL Curricula. SIT Graduate Institute.
  191. Shumin, K. (2007) Factors to consider: Developing adult EFL students’ speaking abilities. In Richards, J.C. and W.A. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practices (pp. 204-211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  192. Sirikhan S. and K. Prapphal. (2011). Assessing pragmatic ability of Thai hotel management and tourism students in the context of hotel front office department. Asian EFL Journa Professional Teaching Articles, 53, 72-94.
  193. Slabakova, R. (2009). Scalar implicature in second language acquisition. Lingua Journal (xxx, 2009, xxx-xxx) Article in Press, 1-19.
  194. Sribagus and Arifuddin. (2011). Memori EIV dan gender. Laporan Penelitian Hibah Bersaing DP2M DIKTI 2011. Universitas Mataram: Lemlit Universitas Mataram.
  195. Sribagus dan Arifuddin. (2012). Memori English Irregular Verbs berdasarkan frekuensi pengulangan dan jenis kelamin santri. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan (JIP) Universitas Negeri Malang, 8(1), 105-112.
  196. Steinberg S. (2007). An Introduction to Communication Studies. Juta and Company Ltd.
  197. Steinberg, D.D., H. Nagata, and D.P. Aline. (2001). Psycholinguistics. Malaysia: Pearson Education.
  198. Sujana, I.M.,Syahrial, E. and E. Fitriana. (2003). Profisiensi bahasa Inggris mahasiswaS1 bahasaInggris FKIP Universitas Mataram dalam Test of English as A Foreign Language (TOEFL). Jurnal Penelitian Universitas Mataram, 2(3), 14-26.
  199. Susan, N, Felicia D. and T.K. Linda. (1996). An analysis of factors affecting the difficulty of dialogue items in TOEFL® Listening Comprehension. Report Number: RR-95-37 TOEFL-RR-51. Princeton, NJ: ETS.
  200. Swan, M. (2007). Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics: Sorting out the muddle. TESL-EJ, 11(22), 1-20.
  201. Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and acuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 313-338.
  202. Thijittang, S. and T. Le. (2009). Gender differences and apologies in English of Thai learners: Pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspectives. Proceedings of the 5th Biennieal International Gender and Language Association Conference IGALA 5 (Eds. de Bres, J., Holmes, J., Marra, M.), held at Victoria University of Wellington, July 2008, pp. 51-66.
  203. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91112.
  204. Treiman, R., C. Clifton, C. Clifton, A.S. Meyer, & L.H. Wurm. (2003). Language comprehension and UC DAVIS, University Extension, Intensive English Program. Retrieved on May 2, 2002 from http://www.testwise.com/review.html.
  205. Tumijo dan S. Riyanto (2010). 99% sukses TOEFL. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Widyatama.
  206. Underwood, M. (1989). Teaching listening. New York: Longman.
  207. Van Duzer, C. (1997). Improving ESL learner’s listening skills: At the work place and beyond. ERIC publication February 1997, New York, CAL.
  208. Walters, F.S. (2009). A conversation analysis-informed test of L2 aural pragmatic comprehension. TESOL QUARTERLY, 43(1), 29-54.
  209. Wang, H. (2011). Conversational implicature in English listening comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, September , 2(5), 1162-1167.
  210. Watkins, P. (2005). Learning to teach English. England: Delta Publishing.
  211. Widdowson, H. G. (1984). Explorations in Applied linguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  212. Widdowson, H. G. (2009). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  213. Willis, J. (1981). Teaching English through English. London: Longman
  214. Wipf, J.A. (1984). Strategies for Teaching Second Language Listening Comprehension. Foreign Language Annals, 17(4), 345-348.
  215. Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 203-225.
  216. Wolvin, A. And C. Coakley. (1996). Listening. London: Brwon and Benchmark.
  217. Wright, M & Hosbach, J. undated. Introducing Listening Strategies into the E.F.L. Classroom: Selecting relevant materials. Pp.401-411.
  218. Wright, S.W and S.G. Sukur. (2011). Soal-soal TOEFL®. Yogyakarta: Kalarana Press.
  219. Yamashita, S. (2008). Investigating interlanguage pragmatic ability: What are we testing? In Soler and Marinez-Flor (Eds.). Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 201-223). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
  220. Yappy, S.N. (2002). An analysis of language functions in short talks of TOEFL listening section: Towards pedagogical and theoretical implications.”Magister Scientiae Journal No. 11 March 2002.
  221. Yazdanpanah, K. (2004). The effect of bacground knowledge and reading comprehension test items on male and female performance. The Reading Matrix, 7(2).
  222. Yousefi, M. (2011). Cognitive style and EFL learners’ litening comprehension ability. CONAPLIN Journal, Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 73-83.
  223. Yu, M. C. (2008). Teaching and learning sociolinguistic skills in university EFL classes in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 31-53.
  224. Zaidi, J.F. (2010). Gender differences in human brain: An overview. The Open Anatomy 2, 37-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1877609401002010037.
  225.  
A Pragmatic Study on Listening: Theory and Practice
PDF
Published
  • September 6, 2020
Categories
Copyright
  • Copyright (c) 2020 Arifuddin
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.