Review of Literature
Strategic competence, which is one of the major components
of communicative competence, is, as a number of researchers
believe, widely neglected by language course books and teachers.
This component is relevant to one's mother and target languages,
for communication breakdowns might occur in both situations and
they must be overcome. Yet it is of crucial importance for foreign
language learners because it involves strategies to be used
whenever communication is difficult.
To get a clear idea of this neglected component, first we will
go through the history of the term "communication strategy" and
the definitions coined by those interested in the study of the term.
Then we will have a look into the types and classifications of
communication strategies (CSs) given by researchers. The last part
of this review is devoted to pedagogical implications. This part
includes the significance of teaching CSs, factors affecting students'
choice of CSs and finally strategy training activities.
i.
Background of the Term "Communication Strategy"
a. Development of the term:
Dörnyei and Scott (1997) in their article Communication
Strategies in a Second Language: Definitions and Taxonomies
trace the development of the term "communication strategy".
Al-Twairesh, N.
1
They state that Selinker was the first to coin the term in his
paper on "interlanguage". Yet, they say that Selinker did not go
into detail about the nature of such strategies. In the same year,
Savignon published a research report highlighting the importance
of these strategies in communicative language teaching and
testing, which she calls "coping strategies". However, the first
one to provide a definition of CS and offer a taxonomy which is
still seen as one of the most influential in the field were Tarone
and her associates.
The real career of CSs, as Dörnyei and Scott state, began
in the early 1980s. First, they were included in Canale and
Swain's influential model of communicative competence. Then
Faerch and Kasper (1983) pulled together the most important
published papers into one collection, along with some important
newly written studies, in their edited volume Strategies in
Interlanguage Communication. These works were followed by
increased research interest in the 1980s which focused on the
identification, classification and teachability of CSs.
The second half of the 1980s witnessed the dominance of
the Netherlands by becoming the centre of CS studies. The
authors conclude with the 1990s which brought about two
comprehensive monographs by Bialystok (1990) and Poulisse
(1990). A lot of empirical and conceptual analyses followed these
advances.
Al-Twairesh, N.
2
b. Definition:
Dörnyei and Scott (1997) also dedicate a section to
"different approaches to conceptualizing CSs". They try to follow
the development of the definition of CSs in this part of the
article. They start with the traditional view which they say is
reflected in Tarone's (1977) and Faerch and Kasper's (1983)
definitions. Briefly, in this view, researchers saw CSs as verbal or
nonverbal first-aid devices which are used to make up for gaps in
the speaker's L2 proficiency.
Then
the
authors
look
into
Tarone's
interactional
perspective which they say is broader than Faerch and Kasper's
definition and Tarone's earlier definition. They quote Tarone's
words which states that, “CSs are seen as tools used in a joint
negotiation of meaning where both interlocutors are attempting
to agree as to a communicative goal” (1980, p. 420).
After that the writers provide Dörnyei's extended view
which argues that because “a primary source of L2 speakers'
communication problems is insufficient processing time, stalling
strategies that help speakers gain time to think and keep the
communication
channel
open
are
also
problem-solving
strategies”. This, the writers say, is a point mentioned by other
researchers as well.
Al-Twairesh, N.
3
Then Dörnyei and Scott give their own extended views
which includes every potentially intentional attempt to cope with
any language-related problem which the speaker is aware of
during the time of communication. However, the broadest
extension of the concept of CS was offered by Canale (1983). In
his paper, he proposed that CSs involve any attempt to “enhance
the effectiveness of communication.”
The authors define a communication strategy in the most
general
sense
as
“a
plan
of
action
to
accomplish
a
communication goal.”
ii.
Types of Communication Strategies
As Dörnyei and Scott (1997) state in their article, “the list of
strategies and their taxonomies in different studies on CSs vary
significantly.” On the other hand, Yarmohammadi and Seif (1992)
believe that the conceptions of CSs are more or less similar and,
thus, this results in overlapping taxonomies. They also state that
the data in most studies of CS have been classified by means of the
taxonomy developed by Tarone (1977). CSs in these taxonomies
are
generally
subdivided
into:
(a)
reduction
strategies,
(b)
achievement strategies. These types were termed by Corder (1981)
as
message
adjustment
strategies
strategies respectively.
Al-Twairesh, N.
4
and
resource
expansion
The first type, according to Dörnyei and Thurrell (1991),
involves the tailoring of one's message to one's resources. It is, as
the authors say, a kind of risk avoidance.
In the other type, which is resource expansion or achievement
strategies, the learner risks failure and tries to stay in the
conversation. The learner does this by trying to make up for his
deficiencies through a number of substrategies. Such strategies,
Dörnyei and Thurrell clarify, are either co-operative or non cooperative. The former is found when the learner appeals for help
from his/her partner. This appeal can be done directly, by the use of
questions, or indirectly, by means of eye gaze or pause. In non cooperative strategies, the learner does not call for his/her partner's
help and tries to overcome his deficiency depending on his/her own
resources. This can be done through the use of paraphrase,
approximation, miming, borrowing or even inventing words.
Nakatani (2005) follows the same classification mentioned
above in his paper. He defines achievement strategies as “learners'
active behavior in repairing and maintaining interaction” while
reduction strategies according to him, “reflect learners' negative
behavior as they try to avoid solving communication difficulties”
(p.81).
The author provides further subcategorization which is based
on
previous
Al-Twairesh, N.
representative
studies.
5
According
to
this
subcategorization, achievement strategies include: help-seeking,
modified interaction, modified output, time-gaining, maintenance,
and self-solving strategies. Reduction strategies, on the other hand,
include: message abandonment strategies, first-language-based
strategies,
interlanguage-based
reduction
strategies
and
false
starts.
Furthermore, McGillick (1993) in his paper refers to the two
types as productive and non-productive. The first group includes the
use of synonyms, paraphrasing, coining words and borrowing from
other languages. They are called productive, according to McGillick,
because they are used by learners to stay in the conversation.
On the other hand, he considers miming, pointing, avoiding
specific
topics
and
shifting
from
one
topic
to
another
as
nonproductive strategies. They are called so because they lead the
learner to dropping out of the conversation.
McGillick in his paper mentions the classification presented by
Richard Johnson in his book Communicative Interaction: A Guide for
Language Teachers. There, Jonhson talks about teachers' strategies
and learners' strategies. The latter refers to the usual types which
include reduction and achievement strategies.
Teachers' strategies, on the other hand, refer to problemreducing strategies and problem-creating strategies. According to
Johnson, in the first type, the teacher avoids challenging the
Al-Twairesh, N.
6
learners to take the risks that are important in the development of
their proficiency further. In the other type, the teacher challenges
the learners to go beyond their existing knowledge and proficiency.
This, as the author says, will lead to the development of language
skills and is also interesting and motivating to learners.
iii.
Teaching/ Training CSs in the classroom
a) Significance of training CSs in the class
Strategic competence is a major component of communicative
competence. The development of this component, as Dörnyei and
Thurrell (1991) suggest, largely determines the fluency and
conversational skills of the learner. They also state that teachers
are usually unaware of the importance of this component and the
activities that lead to training this strategy have hardly been
developed. This results in a lack of fluency and conversational skills,
which students usually complain about. Training this type of
competence,
in
particular,
helps
in
developing
the
learner's
confidence when getting into a conversation. Strategy training,
Dörnyei and Thurrell believe, “facilitates spontaneous improvization
skills and linguistic creativity” (1991, p.22). So the major point is
that the significance of these strategies lies in its effect on
improving the learners' performance skills, which is the ultimate
aim of teaching a foreign language.
Al-Twairesh, N.
7
The reason why researchers showed a lot of concern in
teaching CSs is that most textbooks are concerned not with
communication but with language forms. McGillick states that
teachers are obliged to raise the learners' consciousness concerning
CSs and the purposes of these strategies. This way, he says, we
encourage learners to focus on communication itself rather than on
language forms. The conversations which students engage into in
the class are part of the bigger activity of communication in general.
Hence, we need to develop the strategies that help to keep the
conversation channel open.
In a study done by Nakatani (2005), 62 females taking an EFL
course were divided into two groups: a control group and a strategy
training
group.
communicative
The
course,
first
group
whereas
received
the
only
strategy
the
training
normal
group
received metacognitive training, with focus on oral communication
strategy use.
Nakatani found that students in the strategy training group
improved
their
proficiency
in
the
oral
communication
tests
significantly more than those in the control group. This result
indicates that simply offering students communication practice was
not enough to develop their speaking ability. Another result of this
study was that students in the strategy training group learned to
make longer utterances which enriched their abilities to negotiate
meaning and maintain the conversation flow.
Al-Twairesh, N.
8
b) Factors affecting learners' choice of CSs
Si-Qing (1990) in his article reports a study conducted with
the purpose of looking into the relationship between L2 learners'
target language proficiency and their strategic competence. There,
he identifies and analyses 220 CSs employed by 12 Chinese EFL
learners of high and low proficiency.
Concerning the factors that affect learners' choice of CSs, SiQing found linguistic proficiency to be the main factor. His study
also revealed a number of other factors which affect such choices.
One is the linguistic concepts subjects were asked to convey. He
states that particular concepts lead to particular types of CSs as the
most effective way of expressing the meaning.
Another factor is the communicative task and communicative
situation.
In
his
study,
Si-Qing
was
able
to
control
the
communicative task to a large degree and the communicative
situation was quite formal. All of this, the author says, lead to
discouraging the learners' use of avoidance CSs.
The last factor mentioned by the author is the willingness of
the subjects. This, he says, might determine the final success of the
communicative task assigned to each subject.
c) Strategy training activities:
Dörnyei and Thurrell (1991) suggest some practical ideas for
strategy training which aim at enhancing some aspects of reduction
Al-Twairesh, N.
9
and achievement skills. Their ideas include: fillers, going off the
point, appealing for help and paraphrase and circumlocution.
Fillers, according to the writers, are a crucial part of learners'
strategic competence. Examples of these fillers range from very
short structures (e.g. you know; I mean; well; actually), to what
are almost phrases (as a matter of fact; I see what you mean). One
way of presenting fillers suggested by Dörnyei and Thurrell is by
playing unedited authentic recordings for students to note down all
the variations of what they believe to be fillers. When students
become aware of the importance of fillers, they should be
encouraged to use them whenever possible.
Another important part of strategic competence is "going off
the point". Students should be encouraged to use this technique
whenever they don't want to or simply can't answer a question. This
way students will gain a lot of confidence because they know that
they can remain in control of the conversation even if something
not expected occurs.
Appealing
for
help
can
be
done
through
the
use
of
interruptions or training the use of "I don't understand". The
authors in the article distinguish between explanation, definitions
and paraphrasing. They suggest for training the use of explanations
giving each student a slip of paper with the name of an object
Al-Twairesh, N.
10
written on it. Then each student must try to "explain" his/her word
without saying the actual word.
Concerning definitions, students are given the names of
objects which they are asked to define using the relative clause.
Paraphrasing is considered as an interpretive strategy which
involves the interpretation of the interlocutor's whole message.
Such strategies, as Dörnyei and Thurrell state, are not usually
encouraged in the learners' mother tongue. They are important in a
language course because they provide the learner with a sense of
security in the language by allowing him/her room to manoeuvre in
times of difficulty.
Al-Twairesh, N.
11