10091708

8/6/2019 10091708

1/16

110

2010 6 Jun. 2010

33 3 Chinese Journal o Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly) Vol. 33 No. 3

Use of Communication Strategies by

Chinese EFL Learners

AN MeiGuizhou University

Sanooch S. NATHALANGNational Electronics and Computer Technology Center, Thailand

AbstractMost Chinese undergraduates studying English are not English majors. They need to use

communication strategies (CSs) to acilitate their communication because they do not have

suicient exposure to the English language on a daily basis. This article presents results rom an

investigation that analyzed CSs used by undergraduates (non-English majors) studying English

at Chinese Universities. Participants were irst-year Arts and Science majors classiied as having

either a high or low English proiciency level. Data were collected or their perormance on

both one-way and two-way tasks. Results showed that student use o CSs was inluenced by

three variables: task type, English proiciency level, and academic major. The inding could

be o value to those who are involved with language training or Chinese EFL learners. EFL

instructors may be able to enhance student perormance by making them aware o CSs that are

already in their repertoire and encouraging them to use CSs more requently.

Key words: communication strategies; interlanguage; communication competence

1. Introduction

Foreign language learners may encounter various communication problems when their

interlanguage (IL) is limited. In order to convey their messages and remain in a conversationuntil their communication goal is reached, EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners

need to employ communication strategies (CSs), which have been deined generally as

devices employed by L2 learners to overcome perceived barriers to achieving speciic

8/6/2019 10091708

2/16

111

AN Mei & Sanooch S. NATHALANG

communication goals (Frch & Kasper, 1983).

Analysis o these strategies provides us with rich insights into the complex process o

language acquisition and enables us to generate ideas or developing strategies to improve

language learners IL skills. Language learners IL development is inluenced by their

ability to use CSs. Chinese EFL learners have been ound to employ IL CSs to cope withdiiculties when they use English to communicate with their peers in various activities.

This ability to deal with communication diiculties is reerred to as strategic

competence, which is an important component o communicative competence. It is

believed that learners can improve their communicative competence by developing

an ability to use speciic CSs that enable them to compensate or their target language

limitations (e.g., Bialystok, 1990; Dornyei, 1995).

Communication strategies, as one o the actors which aect IL development, have been

investigated by researchers since the notion o CS was oered in 1972 by Selinker. College

English students (or non-English major students) in China are considered a large group whoare studying English and need to use CSs to acilitate their communication because they do

not have enough exposure to English in daily lie. Thereore, they may have ormed their

own IL system that can provide them with various CSs in English interactions.

Empirical investigations that analyze the use o CSs by Chinese EFL learners are

o particular importance. Closely related to the empirical work on second language

acquisition (SLA), the study o CSs has achieved much more success in western countries

than in China. Ater Chen Siqings (1990) study on CSs used by Chinese EFL learners,

more CS research has been conducted in China. Today, the study o CSs in China is still

inadequate and unsystematic. Most research on CSs conducted by Chinese scholars islimited to a review o CSs research in other countries (Dai & Shu, 1994; Wang, 2000). Few

empirical studies have been conducted to advance CS research in China (Gao, 2000).

Research is called or on the relationship between the use o CSs and variables such

as proiciency, task type and academic major. It is important to examine not only CSs

themselves, but also the variables that mitigate the use o CSs. To date, no studies have

considered the variables that we have included in this investigation.

The present study examined the CSs used by Chinese EFL students at Guizhou

University. It took an intra-individual and an inter-individual perspective. The purpose

was to identiy CSs that are commonly used by students, and measure the extent to whichthe use o these strategies is aected by students L2 proiciency as well as by two types o

task and academic ields. The study was designed to answer the ollowing questions:

1. What are the dierent types o CSs used by Chinese EFL learners?

2. Is the use o CSs inluenced by variables such as task demands, L2 proiciency, and

academic major?

2. Review of Literature

2.1 Canale and Swains Framework of Communicative Competence

Canale & Swain (1980) developed a widely cited ramework o communicative

competence, which takes into consideration communication strategies, as well as

8/6/2019 10091708

3/16

112

Use o Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learners

grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence. Later, it was determined that

this limited spectrum o competencies was inadequate or a communicative approach to

language teaching and learning. Canale (1983) revised this ramework by allowing or

the inclusion o our main areas o competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic

competence, discourse competence and strategic competence.Strategic competence is determined by ones mastery o verbal and non-verbal

communication strategies that may be utilized or two main reasons: (a) to compensate

or breakdowns in communication due to limiting conditions in actual communication

(e.g. inability to recall something) or to insuicient competence in one or more o

the other areas o communicative competence; and (b) to enhance the eectiveness o

communication (e.g. deliberately slow down or a rhetorical eect). Canale & Swain

(1980) suggested that this type o competence is demonstrated when individuals use

communication strategies. Typical examples include the use o paraphrase, avoidance o

diiculties, and requests or repetition, simpliication, clariication or slower speech.

Canale & Swains main contribution to communicative competence theory is that

they have integrated into their model communication strategies that people oten employ

to cope with diiculties that arise during the course o communication.

2.2 Definitions and Classifications of Communication Strategies

CSs research scholars have not yet reached a consensus on a rigorous deinition o CSs.

There have been many deinitions proposed regarding the CSs o second language learners.

Bialystok (1990) points out that, although research scholars oer various deinitions orCSs, these deinitions seem to share three main eatures:

1. Problematicity: Problematicity includes strategies that are not normally used

during routine language operations. Strategies are adopted when problems in either

learning or production are perceivedproblems that may interrupt communication.

2. Consciousness: This reers to either the learners awareness that a strategy is being

employed or a particular purpose, or the awareness o how that strategy may lead to an

intended eect.

3. Intentionality: This reers to the learners control over those strategies so that

particular ones may be selected rom a range o options and deliberately applied to achievecertain eects.

Kasper & Kellerman (1997) described the term communication strategies as:

Identiication o CSs depends to a great extent on what one considers CSs to be, and in this

respect, it matters very much whether one conceives o CSs as intra-individual or inter-

individual events. (p. 3)

There are two dierent approaches to communication strategy research in the current body

o research literature, intra-individual and inter-individual. According to Frch & Kasper(1983, cited in Kasper & Kellerman, 1997: 2), CSs are potentially conscious plans or solving

what to an individual presents itsel as a problem in reaching a particular communicative

goal. This intra-individual view locates CSs in models o speech production (e.g., Dechert,

8/6/2019 10091708

4/16

113


1983; Frch & Kasper, 1983) or cognitive organization and processing models (Bialystok,

1990). In early work, most notions o CSs restricted the concept to such problem-solving

activity. Frch & Kaspers deinition o CSs ocuses on the learner or, more precisely, to the

problems experienced by the learner in speech reception, and in the planning and execution

o speech production. This deinition conceives CSs as mental plans implemented by theL2 learner in response to an internal signal o an imminent problem, a orm o sel-help

that does not require support rom the interlocutor or resolution (e.g., Frch & Kasper,

1983: 36). This implies that the learner may make use o a communication strategy without

signaling his interlocutor to indicate that he or she is experiencing a communication

problem or, requesting assistance rom the interlocutor

The inter-individual view o CSs (Tarone, 1983, cited in Kasper & Kellerman, 1997:

2) suggests that the term CSs relates to a mutual attempt o two interlocutors to agree

on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared.

(Meaning structures here would include both linguistic structures and sociolinguistic rule

structures). This deinition introduces an inter-individual perspective. In Tarones words,

communication strategies are seen as tools used in a joint negotiation o meaning where

both interlocutors are attempting to agree as to a communicative goal (1980: 420). The

negotiation o meaning as a joint eort between the interlocutors is central to the concept

o communication strategies. This inter-individual perspective allows or an inclusion o

various repair mechanisms. I those repair mechanisms were applied to clariy intended

meaning rather than simply correct linguistic orm (1980: 424), Tarone considers them

communication strategies.The aim o the present study is to investigate both the intra-individual communication

strategies that do not have to result in the interlocutor s intererence and those inter-

individual communication strategies that ocus more on how both interlocutors can achieve

mutual comprehension.

A review o the literature shows that there are many kinds o CS taxonomies, most o

which are rather similar (or more taxonomies o CSs, see Poulisse, 1987 and Paribakht,

1982). Since the present study aims to cover intra-individual view o CSs (conveying

meaning) as well as inter-individual view o CSs (requiring the listener to be involved

in the conversation), there is a diiculty in depending on only one taxonomy rom theliterature. The taxonomy presented in Table 1 was adopted or the present study ater a list

o categories was derived rom the existing literature.

2.3 Communication Strategies and Interlanguage

It is generally thought that communication strategies were irst invoked by Selinker (1972)

in his paper entitled Interlanguage to account or errors made by learners o a second

language. While there is general agreement that conversational interaction can acilitate IL

development, CSs are thought to be one o the actors aecting IL development. The term

Interlanguage in this study reers to a separate linguistic system based on the observableoutput which results rom a learners attempted production o a target language (TL)

norm (Selinker, 1972).

In the theory o Interlanguage, ive psycholinguistic processes could aect the

8/6/2019 10091708

5/16

114


construction o interlanguages. Among them CSs are regarded as one o the ive processes,

used by the learner to resolve communication problems when the IL system seems

unequal to the task. When, in the attempt to communicate meaning, the learner eels that

the linguistic item needed is not available to him, he can resort to a variety o CSs in order

to get his meaning across. The linguistic orms and patterns used in such attempts maybecome more or less permanent parts o the learners IL. As a central component o IL, the

notion o CSs reers to the approach that learners use to overcome the inadequacies o

their IL resources (Ellis, 1994: 396).

IL represents an attempt to analyze the learners developing linguistic system in a more

systematic way. Research evidence has been provided to show the need or more research

into IL. The present research then is undertaken in response to this need to ocus on CSs.

Table 1. CSs Used or the Present Study

Intra-individual CSs Notes

C1 Topic avoidance (TA): avoid discussions about the concept

AvoidanceC2 Message abandonment (MA): stop in mid-utterance

C3 Meaning replacement (MR): use alternative expressions

C4 Generalization (Gen): use a generalized IL item

IL-based CSs

C5 Paraphrase (Par): ocus on characteristic properties o the intended reerent

C6 Word coinage (WC): create a new IL word

C7 Restructuring (Res): restructure ones utterance

C8 Approximation (App): use an incorrect item that shares some semantic features

C9 Literal translation (LT): translate literally

Transer by using L1-

based strategies

C10 Language switch (LS): insert words rom native language

C11 Foreignizing (For): apply TL modication to the L1 term

C12 Mime: replace a word with nonverbal cues (kinesthetically)

Inter-individual CSs Notes

C13 Code-based conrmation check (CCC): repeat the previous utterance or conrmation

IL Negotiation

C14 Positive conrmation check (PCC): oer inormation or conrmation

C15 Clarication request (CR): ask or clarication

C16 Comprehension check (CC): attempt to check comprehension

C17 Other reormulation (OR): model the speakers previous utterance

C18 Repetition (Rep): repeat an utterance

3. Research DesignAs shown in Table 2, the participants in the present study included 117 non-English

major irst year students rom two dierent academic departments (Arts and Sciences) at

8/6/2019 10091708

6/16

115


Guizhou University. These participants were selected because they were representative o

students studying in the most common academic ields in China.

The researcher was able to take advantage o the Nation-wide Standardized

Matriculation Test (NSMT) to obtain the students English scores so as to establish two

dierent levels. This examination is oicial and used widely in China, so it is highlyvalid and reliable. Unortunately, an English speaking part is not included in the NSMT,

all subjects were then given a speaking test called CET-SET (Band 4), a nation-wide

examination or non-English major college students in China.

Table 2.Participants in the Study

College o Arts College o Science Total

High Profciency 30 30 60

Low Profciency 30 27 57

Total 60 57 117

The present study used a demographic inormation questionnaire and speaking tasks

as instruments to collect data. A questionnaire to obtain background inormation

was administered to all subjects at the beginning o the research in order to elicit their

academic ields and NSMT scores. Then CET-SET (Band 4) was oered to test the

subjects speaking ability. Their NSMT and CET-SET were combined to determine their

proiciency as either high proiciency or low proiciency.According to the intra-individual view and the inter-individual view o CSs, the

participants were required to perorm both one-way and two-way tasks. In the one-

way task (i.e., concept identiication task), the participants were each given a sheet o

paper with two lists o words (one concrete and the other abstract) in both English and

Chinese (to prevent ambiguities); they were asked to select one concrete word and one

abstract word and try to convey, without using the original words, the concepts to the

native speakers, who did not know which concepts were being transmitted. In this way, the

participants would have to use CSs to convey the meaning o the two concepts.

For the two-way task (i.e., role play task), each high proiciency participant was pairedwith another high proiciency participant and each low proiciency participant was paired

with another low proiciency participant. They were asked to play the role o customer and

shopping assistant and negotiate with each other in order to solve a problem. In this way,

they had to use CSs. Their perormance was audio recorded.

The data rom these tasks were transcribed verbatim and coded via content analysis

to identiy the CSs used by the participants. A requency orm was designed to chart CSs

that occurred during task perormance. Each strategy used by each student was recorded

by placing a tick (equal to a 1 score) on the requency orm. A zero score (no tick) was

recorded or strategies that were not used. The data drawn rom the speaking tasks bycoding were submitted to qualitative analysis, while the data rom the questionnaire

and the requency orm were entered into the computer and processed by SPSS 15.0 or

quantitative analysis.

8/6/2019 10091708

7/16

116


4. Results and Discussion

The English scores o NSMT rom the questionnaires and the SET scores were put into

SPSS in order to obtain the correlations between them. The Pearson correlation between

NSMT and CET-SET was shown 0.58 at p = 0.000 < 0.05, which means that there was asigniicant correlation between the NSMT score and the SET score. And both o them were

used to decide on the subjects proiciency level.

4.1 Different Types of CSs Employed by Chinese EFL Learners

Data analysis suggested that the one-way and two-way tasks used or this study made it

necessary or all 117 participants to use CSs. Frequencies and percentages were adopted to

examine each group o CSs and their subcategories o strategy in order to answer the irst

research question.

Table 3 presents the results or each strategy group and or each strategy within each

group. Group 2 o IL-based CSs ( x = 57.6) was ound to be the most commonly occurring

one. In this group, paraphrase (42.3%) was the most requently used strategy. Group

3 o L1-based strategies ( x = 21) was the least commonly used group. In this group,oreignizing(0.4%) was then the least requently used strategy.

Table 3. Frequencies and Percentages o Overall CSs Employed by the Subjects

Group CSsNumber o

participants

Frequency Percentage Means o Frequency

(CS use)Yes No Yes No

Avoidance

TA 234 15 219 6.4 93.6

26.3MA 234 58 176 24.8 75.2

MR 234 6 228 2.6 97.4

IL-based CSs

Gen 234 63 171 26.9 73.1

57.6

Par 234 99 135 42.3 57.7

WC 234 3 231 1.3 98.7

Res 234 83 151 35.5 64.5

App 234 40 194 17.1 82.9

L1-based CSs

LT 234 27 207 11.5 88.5

21LS 234 19 215 8.1 91.9

For 234 1 233 0.4 99.6

Mime 234 37 197 15.8 84.2

IL

Negotiation

CCC 234 32 202 13.7 86.3

39.6

PCC 234 41 193 17.5 82.5

CR 234 68 166 29.1 70.9

CC 234 17 217 7.3 92.7OR 234 4 230 1.7 98.3

Rep 234 76 158 32.5 67.5

The number o participants listed in this table is 234, because each subject completed two types o task.

8/6/2019 10091708

8/16

117


Most o the participants employed the paraphrase strategy to solve their communicative

problems, especially or one-way tasks. In real situations, students always encounter diiculties

in expressing their meaning. One possible explanation or this is that they are not able to access

a word that is actually stored in their memory. They may simply be unable to recall a particular

word at a given moment. Paraphrase can help students convey their meanings.For example, one participant described the word kite by saying, You hold it by

your long stringum and make it ly in the sky. Another participant described the word

curtain by saying, Its a cloth which hang up at the window to prevent the sunshine. A

third participant described bravery by stating, When I amumaraid o something,

um it gives me a power to ace it, to ace the diiculty.

Foreignizingwas used to apply to the target language o English or the L1 term o

Chinese. In the present study, the inding o L1-based strategies includingoreignizing, literal

translation and language switch is partially in accordance with that reported in Chens study

(1990), which reported none o the obvious L1-based CSs in her study. She urther claimed

that it was probably due to the great distance between participants L1 (Chinese) and the TL

(English). In the current investigation, the exception was ound that some low proiciency

participants resorted to literal translation and language switch. For example, during the

speaking tasks several low proiciency participants switched to Chinese words like

(how should I say it?) and translated literallyI think I cannot say.

The most common strategy was paraphrase, ollowed byrestructuring(35.5%) and

repetition (32.5%), both o which occurred requently. This study regarded use o the

phrase or example as an example o using a restructuringstrategy. The participants wereound to resort to this strategy when they were unable to make themselves understood by

the others. When one participant tried to describe the word peace, he uttered: For

example, two countries, um they dont have wars to restructure what he had just

expressed. He used phrases such as, there is no war, people live very happily. This

restructuringstrategy helped the participant explain the meaning opeace clearly.

Repetition was another strategy employed by the participants to reinorce the

meaning o a word, or to ill an interval o silence. One participant in the role play

repeated, Do you have the receipt? Receipt?.

However, the variables o proiciency, academic ield, and task may have relationshipswith CSs, which is also a part o the present research and will be reported under the

second research question.

4.2 Effect of Learners Task, L2 Proficiency and Academic Field on Types of CSs

Frequency was adopted to process the data o CSs in terms o CI (concept identiication)

and RP (role play). Table 4 summarizes all the results. The most common CSs used by the

participants during one-way tasks (concept identiication) were IL-based CSs ( x = 49)

and avoidance ( x = 20). L1-based strategies ( x = 11) and IL negotiation ( x = 12) were the

least common CSs used by the participants during the one-way tasks. The most common

strategy used or two-way tasks (role play) was IL negotiation ( x = 28) while avoidance ( x

= 6) was the least common strategy.

To determine whether the dierences between the requencies were signiicant or not,

8/6/2019 10091708

9/16

118


Chi-square tests were conducted. The results presented in Table 4 indicate that there were

signiicant dierences between the one-way task and the two-way task in the use o three

strategy groups atp = .000 (group 1),p = .000 (group 2) andp = .000 (group 4), because

all their signiicant values were less than .05.

It seems that dierent types o tasks lead the participants to use dierent CSs. Whenthe participants were required to perorm one-way tasks like describing words, they used

IL-based strategies requently, and sometimes used avoidance strategies. When perorming

two-way tasks like role play, they requently used IL negotiation strategies, because they

had to reach communication goals by working cooperatively to make requests or perorm

checks. In the present study, there were no signiicant dierences in the use o L1-based

CSs or one-way versus two-way tasks.

Table 4. Frequencies and Chi-square Values o CSs Employed by the Participants in the

Two Tasks

Group CSs

Frequency PercentageMeans o

FrequencyChi-square

p valueCI (n=117) RP (n=117) CI (CS

use)

RP (CS

use)

CI

(CS

use)

RP

(CS

use)Yes No Yes No

Avoidance

TA 8 109 7 110 7 6

20 6

.790

.000MA 46 71 12 105 39 10 .000

MR 6 111 0 117 5 0 013

IL-based CSs

Gen 63 54 0 117 54 0

49 9

.000

.000

Par 98 19 1 116 84 1 .000

WC 1 116 2 115 1 2 .561

Res 54 63 29 88 46 25 .001

App 27 90 13 104 23 11 .015

L1-based

CSs

LT 7 110 20 97 6 17

11 10

.008

.599LS 14 103 5 112 11 4 .031

For 0 117 1 116 0 1 .316

Mime 22 95 15 102 19 13 .210

IL

Negotiation

CCC 1 116 31 86 1 26

12 28

.000

.000

PCC 0 117 41 76 0 35 .000

CR 1 116 67 50 1 57 .000

CC 12 105 5 112 10 4 .078

OR 0 117 4 113 0 3 .044

Rep 58 59 18 99 50 15 .000

*p .05; **p .01

Chi-square tests were also used to analyze dierences in CS use between high proiciency

versus low proiciency participants in order to determine i there was a relationship between

8/6/2019 10091708

10/16

119


proiciency and use o CSs. The results o these Chi-square tests are presented in Table 5. The

results indicate that LP subjects ( x = 18) tended to use avoidance more oten than HP subjects

( x = 8.3) atp = .002 < .05, and there was a signiicant dierence between HP and LP. The

results also show that HP subjects ( x = 34.4) used IL-based strategies more commonly than LP

subjects ( x = 23.2) atp = .034 < .05, and a signiicant dierence existed between them.Table 5 also presents some other important inormation regarding use o IL-

based strategies. There were signiicant dierences in the extent to which HP versus LP

participants usedgeneralization and approximation. Dierences observed were signiicant

at the .05 level orgeneralization (p = .048 < .05) and approximation (p = .024 < .05). Use

o a generalized IL item requires students to have general knowledge o the unknown

concept in their repertoire. HP students tended to have a larger repertoire than LP

students, so they were able to employ thegeneralization strategy more oten. Generalization

and approximation are IL-based strategies which are, as a whole, more eective in

acilitating understanding than are L1-based CSs. There were no signiicant dierences in

HP and LP participants use oparaphrase or restructuring. Both HP and LP participants

requently used these two strategies. Hence, classroom teachers should acknowledge, and

pay special attention to the ways in which students use these strategies. Heightening their

awareness o the beneits o using them could lead to positive outcomes.

Table 5 shows that LP participants mimed requently and sometimes switched to

Chinese during speaking tasks, whereas HP participants did not do so to the same extent.

HP participants probably had more options or illing silent periods. They may also have

been better able to approximate intended meanings.When both HP and LP participants were put in situations where they had to

produce English in order to reach a communicative goal, they oten needed to utilize

CSs. In the role play task, or example, they both used IL negotiation to help them achieve

their communicative goals. There were no signiicant dierences between HP and LP

participants or use o this strategy.

Table 5. Frequencies and Chi-square Values o CSs Used by HP and LP Levels

Group CSs


FrequencyChi-square

p valueHP (n=120) LP (n=114) HP (CS

use)

LP (CS

use)

HP (CS

use)

LP (CS

use)Yes No Yes No

Avoidance

TA 1 119 14 100 1 12

8.3 18

.000

.002MA 21 99 37 77 18 32 .008

MR 3 117 3 111 3 3 .949

IL-based CSs

Gen 39 81 24 90 33 21

34.4 23.2

.048

.034

Par 56 64 43 71 47 38 .166

WC 2 118 1 113 2 1 .592

Res 48 72 35 79 40 31 .137

App 27 93 13 101 23 11 .024

8/6/2019 10091708

11/16

120


Group CSs


FrequencyChi-square

p valueHP (n=120) LP (n=114) HP (CS

use)

LP (CS

use)

HP (CS

use)

LP (CS

use)Yes No Yes No

L1-based CSs

LT 15 105 12 102 13 11

7.5 13.5

.637

.014LS 5 115 14 100 4 12 .023

For 1 119 0 114 1 0 .329

Mime 9 111 28 86 8 25 .000

IL

Negotiation

CCC 17 103 15 99 14 13

23 16.7

.822

.067

PCC 26 94 15 99 22 13 .087

CR 35 85 33 81 29 29 .971

CC 12 108 5 109 10 4 .098

OR 3 117 1 113 3 1 .338

Rep 45 75 31 83 38 27 .092

*p .05; **p .01

Chi-square tests were used to analyze the dierences between Science and Arts

participants. Data presented in Table 6 indicates that there were no signiicant dierences

between Science and Arts subjects in employing any group o strategy. However, it was

observed that Science students were not as active as Arts students in using English in class.

It seems that Arts students tended to be more communicative when perorming English

speaking tasks in class.

Close inspection o the data in Table 6 also suggests that Science participants (36%)

employed clarifcation requests slightly more oten than Arts participants (23%). There was

a signiicant dierence between Science and Arts participants in using clarifcation requests

at p = .023 < .05. In two-way tasks (role play), Science students tend to use clarifcation

requests to acilitate communication in English. This inding suggests that it may be

valuable or classroom teachers to integrate two-way tasks into classroom activities so that

students are put in situations that require them to cooperate with their peers and be orcedto speak more English.

The results and discussion o the study, so ar, have dealt with the relationship

between communication strategies and the three variables o task type, L2 proiciency

and academic ields. The ield o IL CSs is still waiting to be explored urther, especially

in China. The present study is only an attempt to investigate it rom a particular

perspective. One important limitation o the study is that it is concerned only with

CSs that are used when learners IL systems seem unequal to tasks in terms o lexical

items and syntax. In actual communication, CSs occur at all levels o language use,

such as morphology and sociolinguistics etc. Another limitation is that the subjects othe present study are 117 Chinese EFL non-English major students who all into only

two ields, Arts and Science. The results o the study, thus, may not be generalized to all

Chinese EFL learners.

8/6/2019 10091708

12/16

121


Table 6. Frequency and Chi-square Values o CSs Used by Arts and Science Participants

Group CSs

Frequency Percentage Means o FrequencyChi-square

p valueScience (n=114) Arts (n=120) Sci (CS

use)

Arts (CS

use)

Sci (CS

use)

Arts (CS

use)Yes No Yes No

Avoidance

TA 10 104 5 115 9 4

15.7 10.7

.151

.129MA 34 80 24 96 30 20 .082

MR 3 111 3 117 3 3 .949

IL-based CSs

Gen 30 84 33 87 26 28

25.6 32

.838

.295

Par 45 69 54 66 39 45 .392

WC 1 113 2 118 1 2 .592

Res 38 76 45 75 33 38 .505

App 14 100 26 94 12 22 .057

L1-based CSs

LT 12 102 15 105 11 13

9.5 10.2

.637

.055LS 8 106 11 109 7 9 .547

For 0 114 1 119 0 1 .329

Mime 18 96 19 101 16 16 .993

IL

Negotiation

CCC 15 99 17 103 13 14

20.2 19.5

.822

.489

PCC 19 95 22 98 17 18 .737

CR 41 73 27 93 36 23 .023

CC 12 102 5 115 11 4 .061

OR 1 113 3 117 1 3 .338

Rep 33 81 43 77 29 36 .261

*p .05; **p .01

5. Conclusion

Findings rom this study suggest that students are likely to use dierent communication

strategies or dierent types o tasks. Both a one-way task (concept identiication) and

a two-way task (role play) were used in this study to elicit the use o communicationstrategies rom the participants. The one-way task perormed with native speakers elicited

more IL-based CSs rom students such as paraphrase, restructuringand generalization,

and avoidance strategies such as message abandonment. These CSs help students to get

their meanings across and ensure listener comprehension. It is obvious that the two-way

task required students to engage in more cooperative interactions in order to achieve

their communicative goals. It is believed that only when EFL learners realize the need to

communicate and exchange inormation that more interactions will be generated. English

teachers should consider this as they think about the purpose o each lesson, and arrange

tasks or their students accordingly. In this way classroom teachers may have opportunitiesto reinorce students use o CSs.

In this study, it was observed that, compared to LP Learners, HP learners used IL-

based strategies more oten and avoidance strategies less oten. Compared to avoidance

8/6/2019 10091708

13/16

122


strategies, IL-based CSs are more beneicial since they involve more positive attempts to

actively tackle the diiculties students ace during the communication process, instead o

avoidance. Teachers may believe that once students are willing to deal with the diiculties

they have with language production, gradual improvement can be expected. This is likely

due to the act that LP students have less conidence in using the English language. Hence,they sometimes mime or switch to L1 (Chinese) when communicating in English. Ater

students have studied English or six or more years, and their grammatical competence

has developed, their strategic competence should be monitored. Improvements in learners

strategic competence (a major component o communicative competence) can contribute

to the development o their communicative competence.

It is suggested in this study that subjects rom the Sciences resorted to clarifcation

requests more requently than those rom the Arts. This inding identiied some other

actors in addition to the tasks and their proiciency, or example, the students learning

situation, their motivation and personality which may result in the use o dierent CSs. It

is generally believed that Science students think more logically than Arts students, which

may beneit their English writing more than their English speaking. On the other hand,

Arts students are thought to have greater progress in interpersonal skills, which may

beneit their speaking communication. As English teachers who give instruction to both

Science and Arts students, we need to consider the nature o these two dierent ields and

take into account how learning situations may aect communication strategies.

Despite the limitations o this study, it examined some o the communication

problems that Chinese EFL learners encounter and also how they try to solve thoseproblems within their English repertoire by the use o various communication strategies.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the 13th International Conerence on English in Southeast Asia (ESEA

Conerence 2008, NIE, Singapore), where I presented the results o my study and received helpul

comments or this manuscript. I also thank the Guizhou Educational Commission (China) or their

kind research grants. Last but not least, my gratitude always goes to Mr. Peter or his careul reading

o this paper.

References

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis o Second Language Use.

USA: Blackwell Publishers.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C.

Richards & R. W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and Communication, 2-14. New York: Longman.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases o communicative approaches to SecondLanguage Learning & Testing. Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Chen, S. Q. (1990). A study o communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese

EFL Learners. Language Learning, 40, 155-187.

8/6/2019 10091708

14/16

123


Dai, W. D. & Shu, D. F. (1994). Research in communication strategies and its theoretical meaning in

FL communication. FL Journal, 6, 27-31.

Dechert, H. W. (1983). How a story is done in a second language. In C. Frch & G. Kasper (eds.),

Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, 175-195. London: Longman.

Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability o communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 55-85.Ellis, R. (1994). The Study o Second Language Acquisition. Oxord: Oxord University Press.

Ellis, R. (1995). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition o L2 word meanings.

Language Learning, 44, 449-491.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxord: Oxord University Press.

Frch, C. & Kasper, G. (eds.). (1983). Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. London:

Longman.

Gao, H. H. (2000). A research report on strategic competence in communication. FL Teaching and

Research, 1, 53-58.

Kasper, G. & Kellerman, E. (eds.). (1997). Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic andSociolinguistic Perspectives. Harton, UK: Longman.

Krippendor, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. London: Sage

Publications.

Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A. & Lier, L. V. (2001). Negotiation o meaning in conversational and

inormation gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (3), 377-

405.

Nakatani, Y. (2005). The eects o awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use.

Modern Language Journal, 89, 7691.

Nakatani, Y. (2006). Developing an oral communication strategy inventory. The Modern LanguageJournal, 90, 151-168.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Paribakht, T. (1982). The relationship between the use o communication strategies and aspects

o target language proiciency: A study o Persian ESL students. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation. University o Toronto, Toronto.

Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review o Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching,

10 (3), 209-30.

Selinker, L. 1992. Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman.Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, oreigner talks, and repair in interlanguage. Language

Learning, 30, 417-431.

Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion o communication strategy. In C. Frch & G.

Kasper (eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, 61-74. London: Longman.

Wang, L. F. (2000). Review o communication strategies in SLA abroad. FL Teaching and Research, 2,

124-131.

Appendix 1 Concept IdentificationDirections: The ollowing are 32 concrete concepts and 32 abstract concepts or you to choose rom.

Please choose one rom each column and report them within three minutes.

8/6/2019 10091708

15/16

124


Concrete Concepts Abstract Concepts

Zebra Camel

Computer Radio

Crab Peacock

Goose Crocodile

Mushroom Willow

Sunfower Chimney

Garage Mailbox

Fireplace Pond

Sea horse Fridge

Armchair Fountain

Greenhouse Balloon

Dormitory Keyboard

Monkey Piano

Envelope Kite

Airplane Temple

Calculator Curtain

Friendship Peace

Freedom Trust

Intelligence Attitude

Embarrassment Kindness

Loneliness Courage

Motivation Happiness

Condence Beauty

Imagination Bravery

Misortune Justice

Curiosity Grie

Relaxation Music

Experience Culture

Tolerance Mercy

Selshness Luck

Generosity Destiny

Sympathy Progress

Appendix 2 Role PlayShop service role cardsTry - Activities BBC | British Council 2004 www.teachingenglish.org.uk

Shop service role-play: Materials

Role-play cards:

Shop assistant

Customer, option 1 and 2

Returned goods policy orm (optionalthe shop assistants could use their own paper)

Role-play 1

Receipt

Date: 14/09/04Time: 11:32

Shirt, red 25.99

Camera79.95

Total 105.94

Customer

You bought two items rom a shop but there is a problem with both o them.

The shirt was or your brothers birthday but he doesnt like the colour.

Ater you took the camera to the beach, you discovered it was broken.

You want your money back!

Explain the problem to the shop assistant and use the receipt to answer the shop assistants questions.

8/6/2019 10091708

16/16

125


Role-play 2

Receipt

Date: 03/10/04

Time: 10:05

T-shirt, large...8.99

TV ...115.95

Total ...124.94

Customer

You bought two items rom a shop but there is a problem with both o them.

The T-shirt was or your dads birthday but it is too big or him.

The picture on the TV is bad (especially ater you got water on it).

You want your money back!

Explain the problem to the shop assistant and use the receipt to answer the shop assistants questions.

Role-play 1 & 2

Shop Assistant

You are a shop assistant. You need to listen to the customers complaint.

Find out:

What items the customer bought

When they bought them

What the problems with the items areYour manager doesnt like giving people their money back. Try to ind a dierent solution!

Returned Goods Policy

These are the rules for customers who want to return goods:

Receipt(exampleThey must bring the receipt with them.)

Number o days

Broken

Dont like it

Used it

(Copy editing: Devon Williams)

10091708

Documents