The Language Teacher
06 - 2003

Encouraging the Use of Strategies to Improve Communication in the EFL Classroom

Ellen Scattergood

Urawa Akenohoshi Gakuen



The Place of Communication Strategies

"Speak what you think today in words as hard as cannon balls." - Emerson

The interactive model of SLA is based on the theory that language learning occurs through active participation in speech events (Van Lier, 1988). In an EFL country like Japan, however, there is little opportunity to take part in authentic, meaningful speech events in English. Indeed, a common complaint of Japanese adult learners is frustration at not having the ability to communicate verbally despite many years spent "learning" English. Students frequently comment that living in an English-speaking country is the only way to become fluent. While there is a sort of pessimistic logic in that, I posit that because this is not feasible for most Japanese learners, teachers and learners alike need to consider the quality of the communication that is occurring in the EFL classroom. One way to do this is to address the issue of strategic competence, the lack of which is at least partially responsible for the learners' real and perceived lack of fluency (Dornyei & Thurrell, 1991).

To cultivate this strategic competence, it is necessary for teachers to create a language classroom that includes both consciousness-raising of communication strategies and ample opportunity to practice them. This paper will discuss the notions of strategic competence and communication strategies and report on a current study, which was undertaken in two lower intermediate conversation classes to establish the benefit of introducing and practicing these strategies.

The Nature of Strategic Competence and Communication Strategies

Strategic competence was first defined by Canale (1983) as compensatory in nature. He and other researchers (e.g., Tarone & Yule, 1989; Oxford, 1990) refer to this area of communicative competence as the ability to use communication strategies (CS) to compensate for pragmatic failure because of limitations in knowledge or inability to retrieve necessary linguistic structures. In the early literature, the notion of strategic competence suggested how an ideal speaker would behave, under the assumption that the language produced by native speakers is somehow uniform and correct (Yule & Tarone, 1990). It is obvious, however, that even native speakers are incapable of understanding each other all of the time. Whether or not meaning is understood as we intend it is dependent not only upon language proficiency, but also on commonality of experience, and it is this aspect of language that must be strategically manipulated.

Although there is still disagreement regarding the conscious aspect of CS, they are generally considered to be undertaken at least in part consciously, and have been defined variously as:

Tarone's (1980) original definition of CS differed from production strategies (PS) because the former are based on the notion of negotiation of meaning, which includes adding and adapting information, asking for assistance, responding to requests for clarification, and checking for understanding (Bygate, 1987; Foster, 1998). PS, on the other hand, lack this interactional quality (Tarone, 1981). The interactional definition was criticized by Faerch and Kasper (1984) as focusing too exclusively on the notion of negotiation of meaning and the final product: the utterance. They formulated a taxonomy that takes into account the planning that is assumed to precede an utterance and the effects this planning has upon the execution. For them, CS involve a more obvious cognitive, or psycholinguistic process (Faerch & Kasper, 1984).

Recent literature has criticized previous definitions of CS for failing to define strategic competence in terms of actual communication. Skehan (1998) claims that for strategies to be significant they must not be merely temporary solutions to pragmatic failure, but contribute to longer-term language development. They must therefore leave a cognitive impression, or trace on the learner, be transferable to future situations, and be incorporated into the learner's usable linguistic repertoire.

Appendix A lists the CS taxonomy found to be most applicable to the learners participating in this study. It is based on the taxonomies that have been established in the field with one exception. While "code-switching" typically has been considered an "achievement strategy," I have placed it in the "avoidance" section for the purposes of this study, because of my belief that reliance on L1 in these conversation classrooms should not be considered an achievement strategy unless it is accompanied by an attempt at an explanation in English. Although the use of code-switching is of course a natural and effective communication strategy among many bilingual people, the learners in the classrooms in question have joined the class because they want to communicate in English. Their continued use of L1 thus inhibits the use of other strategies that can be used in their development of an interlanguage more comprehensible to English speakers who do not understand Japanese.

The Current Study

A simple exercise in word and concept description was used in two separate classes to elicit learners' CS. The learners (for profiles, see Appendix B) were given two sets of cards, the first of which included pictures of common objects, and the second included "Japanglish" words. This term refers to words incorporated into the Japanese language that many native Japanese speakers assume are English but are generally interpreted differently in English or are incomprehensible to most native English speakers. One reason for having this additional feature was to compare the CS used with simple nouns (the common objects) to more abstract notions, such as "energetic" and "feminist." The students were split into two teams and asked to try, in turns, to explain the terms to the rest of their team, who could not see the cards. They were asked not to use the names of the objects or notions but to try to explain them using any means possible except Japanese.

Prior to the start of the activity, the idea of communication strategies was briefly introduced and it was explained that the purpose of the activity was to try to use a variety of different linguistic and non-linguistic ways to convey the intended meaning. Although the list of CS (Appendix A) was not explicitly taught, strategies such as circumlocution, approximation, and generalization were explained through example. The results of this activity (the CS used by the learners) were then compared to several free conversations both before and after the activity to gauge whether the practice of CS had an effect on the number and type of strategies used. (See Appendix C for selected pre-activity and post-activity utterances and strategies.)

Results

In an informal verbal report immediately after the activity, participants in both groups responded that they had enjoyed it not only because of its game-like aspect, but because of the instant satisfaction they felt when their intended meaning was understood by the rest of the group. Surprisingly, despite the inevitable amount of frustration, code-switching occurred only once during the activity with one group and not at all with the other. All strategies were apparent in the activity itself, although, predictably, circumlocution and generalization/approximation were by far the most utilized.

In classes immediately following the activity, there was a noticeable decrease in the use of code-switching. Moreover, there was a decrease in silence and a coinciding increase in time-gaining strategies, leading to a much more comfortable conversational atmosphere. I attribute the willingness to utilize other strategies to the awareness and concentrated use of these CS that the activity fostered.

One unexpected result of this experiment was the occurrence of lexical over-elaboration. Tarone & Yule (1989) refer to strategies of over- and under-elaboration, concluding that NNS tend to over-elaborate in their utterances; however, their research refers to sentence structure rather than vocabulary. In the current study, "lexical over-elaboration" is defined as the use of vocabulary that is unnecessarily or unexpectedly - considering the proficiency level of the speaker - complex. Lexical over-elaboration does not refer to whether or not the term used is appropriate in context or grammatically acceptable, but merely to the unusual nature of the attempts at circumlocution. While it may be better for an EFL learner to err on the side of verbosity, lexical over-elaboration can be detrimental by 1) conveying a false sense of fluency, 2) alienating other students who may be unfamiliar with the expressions used, and 3) contributing to the fossilization of some learners' assumptions that one "correct" word is available for any given meaning. The activity attempted to introduce the learners to strategies that emphasize simplification and quantitative verbosity - that is, trying to say the same thing in many different ways. However, the sheer number of instances of lexical over-elaboration highlighted the apparent tendency of some learners to err on the side of affectation, which was almost certainly unintentional. Following are just a few examples (see Appendix B for participant information):

  1. "This is a tool, we can see very small calligraphy." (S.S., level 2, describing a magnifying glass)
  2. "If you have a weak eyes, you can see the thing bigger with it. It will be exaggerated." (K.A., J.K. group, level 2, describing a magnifying glass)
  3. "It's a kind of tool, child, with page, I can write. We can use carbon." (I.Y., J.K. group, level 2, describing a mechanical pencil)
  4. "It's a stationery and we write with it. It's the literature, looks like a literature wrote by a pencil." (A.O., K.P. group, level 2, describing a mechanical pencil)
  5. "He absorbed himself in investigating." (Y.S., K.P. group, level 2, describing the author of a book)
  6. "I have cultivated plants of tomato." (K.F., K.P. group, level 1)
  7. "He refused his conviction." (I.Y., J.K. group, level 2, meaning "He didn't believe him")
  8. "I derived from a dictionary." (T.S., level 4, meaning "I looked it up in a dictionary")
  9. "It's glutinous." (S.U., level 1, describing soggy tempura)
  10. "The extinguishers." (K.K., level 3, meaning "fire fighters")

Follow-up activities similar to the original object/notion description activity were incorporated into lessons periodically in the weeks following this initial introduction to CS. The learners continued to enjoy the game-like nature of the activity and most commented in self-reports that each time CS were reviewed in this fashion, they were reminded of 1) the importance of using a combination of production strategies to ensure comprehension of intended meaning, and 2) the importance of interactional CS, such as asking for clarification and checking for understanding. Adding this program of regular practice of CS has had beneficial results on the quality and quantity of English communication of these learners within the classroom. The hope is, of course, that eventually the activity itself will no longer be necessary because the strategies will have left a trace.

Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research

The main limitation of this study is that it describes a single activity and the results of a small group over a limited time. A longitudinal study with more students featuring additional elicitation activities and other types of "real" communication might be expected to have even more beneficial results. In addition, a more effective study would be to have the Japanese learners try to convey their intended meaning to English speakers who do not speak Japanese, particularly in the "Japanglish" activity.

Recently, research in the area of communication strategies has focused more on the cognitive aspects of communication. The way a learner thinks - her cognitive style - has been discovered to affect directly the types of strategies she uses (Littlemore, 2001). Incorporating awareness-raising activities of individual cognitive styles and learning preferences with CS usage activities like the one described in this study, would likely provide a more comprehensive set of data from which to draw conclusions about the usefulness of teaching CS. In small adult classes like the ones in this study, metacognitive awareness raising activities focusing on this connection are certainly a possibility, provided the learners are interested.

A related issue that must be dealt with when organizing activities to learn and practice CS is that of planning in the retrieval process. Researchers have found that the "din in the head," the realization of the learner that she has acquired the necessary language, may take time - 1 to 2 hours sometimes - to activate (Krashen, cited in Cohen, 1998, p. 244). This is potentially more problematic for learners whose only opportunity to speak English is a once-weekly 90-minute class.

Pedagogical Implications - Can and Should CS be Taught?

While the authenticity of picture description tasks may be questionable, the activities used to teach achievement strategies can have the two-fold benefit of providing the learners with more opportunity to use their acquired language, and to encourage them to use multiple strategies in all communicative situations, both L2 and L1. Adults do not generally need help communicating in their own language, but their communication in Japanese with non-native speakers may benefit from a heightened awareness of CS usage. Taking a direct approach to the teaching of CS entails more than simply increasing this type of learner awareness, however. The learners also need to have the opportunity to use the strategies in meaningful interactions. Turn-taking, back-channeling, and speech-act specific strategies are all necessary components of this type of effective communication (see Richards, 1990, pp. 79-80 for a more detailed list). The classroom can provide a relatively risk-free environment in which to practice using these strategies of negotiation of meaning as part of real communication.

Another aspect of negotiation of meaning that is necessary to keep in mind while teaching and researching in Japan is related to what Yamada (1997) refers to as "Listener Talk" and "Speaker Talk." According to Yamada, learners - like some Japanese speakers - who follow a Listener Talk approach to conversation tend to value reticence, are orderly in taking turns, and are less inclined to occupy the floor. They therefore may be reluctant to utilize such speaker strategies as checking for understanding or such listener strategies as asking for clarification. The Listener Talk style of communication places the onus on the listener to understand, not to ask for clarification. Speaker Talk interlocutors, on the other hand, assume that the both listener and speaker will use these strategies to negotiate meaning. The onus is doubly on the speaker and on the listener to clarify. In other words, the concept of negotiation of meaning is more applicable to a Speaker Talk style of communication. Students who have grown more accustomed to a Speaker Talk style of English conversation are better able to use these strategies, which are accompanied by both fluency (actual and perceived) and confidence. Learners who have become more comfortable with this type of conversational atmosphere seem to place less emphasis on "sasshi" (empathetic "reading" of what the speaker is trying to say without asking for clarification) and more emphasis both on producing comprehensible, complete utterances and on negotiating of meaning. This is not to say that all native Japanese speakers use Listener Talk, nor that those who do should necessarily forego that conversational style in favor of a Speaker Talk style in order to communicate more effectively in English. It does suggest that learners and teachers alike should be aware of the differences in individual conversational styles when learning about and using communication strategies and that opportunities should be provided for learners to experiment with different styles.

Conclusion

"Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do." - Goethe

It has been said that a person can communicate effectively with a repertoire of only about 100 words (Dornyei & Thurrell, 1991, p. 17). However simplistic such communication may be, this is encouraging for EFL learners. If, as Hatch maintained, "language learning evolves out of learning how to communicate," (cited in Van Lier, 1988, p. 74), then teachers are obligated to spend less time on teaching the nuts and bolts of English and more time on teaching effective communication using what has already been acquired.

This study was intended as a preliminary look into the use of communication strategies. Although the ability to use CS effectively is not synonymous with language learning and acquisition, strategic competence is an important aspect of effective communication. The question of whether the CS that these learners are using "leave a trace" remains for further exploration; however, it seems obvious at this stage that any available means must be exploited to enable often frustratingly reticent students, as well as those who have difficulty abandoning the crutch of their L1, to become more comfortable with their English voices.

References

Bygate, M. (1987). Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second language. London: Longman.
Dornyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1991). Strategic competence and how to teach it. ELT Journal 45(1), 16-23.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning 34(1), 45-47.
Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics 19(1), 1-23.
Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics 22(2), 241-265.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.
Richards, J. C. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riggenbach, H. (1998). Discourse analysis in the language classroom, Volume 1: The spoken language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning 30(2), 417-431.
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly 15, 285-95.
Tarone, E., & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
Yamada, H. (1997). Different games, different rules: Why Americans and Japanese misunderstand each other. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1990). Eliciting the performance of strategic competence. In R. Scarcella, E. Anderson, & S. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 179-194). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Biodata

Ellen Scattergood teaches Oral English and English Composition at Urawa Akenohoshi Gakuen, Saitama Prefecture, in addition to adult English conversation classes in Saitama, Tokyo, and Yokohama. Her research interests are learner autonomy, goal-setting, classroom second language acquisition, and materials development. She is in the process of earning her MA in TESOL from Columbia University Teachers College, Tokyo.

Appendix 1

(Based on the taxonomies of Tarone, 1977, cited in McDonough, 1995, p. 23; Faerch & Kasper, 1983, cited in McDonough, 1995, p. 24; Cohen, 1990, p. 57; Yule & Tarone, 1990, p. 191; and Paribakht, 1985, pp. 1335-1336. For a more elaborate taxonomy, see Oxford, 1990, p. 48; and Dornyei, 1995.)

- strategy (subgroup) example / explanation -
1 Abandon word "It's difficult for me. I can understand um, several, ummm." Avoidance Strategies
message (also "topic avoidance") ". . . Uh, it's difficult."
2 Code-switching _ "I must speak English. So! Uhhh, hitsuyou ni semarareta toiuka . . ."
3 Circumlocution appearance "It's big and round . . ." Achievement Strategies
constituent features "Made from iron . . . only head made from iron."
functional description "Using this, the small things looks bigger."
4 Approximation / Generalization hyponymy / metonymy "It's a kind of toy";
"It has handle . . ."
synonymy / analogy "It's like a . . ."
5 Restructure / Substitution _ "I have two . . . one brother and one sister." (for "siblings")
6 Word coinage _ "He's a vegetarianer."
7 Literal Translation _ "sea grass" (seaweed) ; "eye power" (eyesight)
8 Appeal for help cooperative asks someone (in L1 "How to say. . .?"
or L2 ". . . tte nan toiundaro")
non-cooperative looks in dictionary
9 Non-linguistic mime, gesture _
10 Gambits / Time-gaining initiate topic "By the way . . ."
repetition of self "I went, I went to, I went to . . ."
repetition of others A: ". . . fluent words . . ."
B: "Ah, fluent, fluent."
use of fillers um, er, etc.

Appendix 2
Participants

Group Name # of students Members (gender and age) Type of class Number of years spent studying English in current class Proficiency level (scale based on Underhill, 1987, p.98)
K.P. 4 Female, late 40s Weekly 60 minute conversation group 5 years 1-3
J.K 12 Co-ed, 30s-50s Weekly 90 minute conversation group 1-4 years 1-3

Additional information on learners using "lexical over-elaboration"

Student Name # of students in group Members (gender and age) Type of class Number of years spent studying English in current class Proficiency (of group)
T.S 20 Co-ed, 30s-70s Monthly 2 hour reading/discussion group 8 3-5
S.S. 4 Female, 50s Weekly 90 minute reading/conversation group 4 1-2
S.U. 7 Female, 30s-50s Weekly 90 minute conversation group 7 1-3
K.K. 5 Female, 50s-60s Weekly 2 hour reading/discussion group 8 3-5

Appendix C
Examples of Strategies Used in Free Conversation

utterance comments strategy used group / student name
Before CS activity
1 Uh I use the subway so to come my office I yoru. Code-switching K.P./A.O
2 I get a cold but I . . . ma, no fever, only nose and uh, cough. (.4) Mawari ni meiwaku. Code-switching K.P./K.F.
3 Sho-short sentence I can understand. But uh um, oosugiru.. Code-switching K.P./Y.S.
4 E: Why aren't you wearing a mask? Message abandonment K.P./K.F.
L4: Uh, uh, mm, yesterday I was all right. This morn-from this morning (.2) I don't like masks.
5 Sometimes in the train 'n''n', I 'n''n'they 'n' come 'n' speaking English? 'n'. And I :) don't listen to their conversation. :) 'n' It's difficult for me, I can understand 'n' several hmmm. Message abandonment K.P./M.N.
6 L1 I, I get glass? And my glass is uh, smoke? On why she doesn't wear a "cold mask "Literal translation, rephrase, repetition .K.P./Y.S.
E Foggy?
L1 Ah, foggy. Steam, steam.
7 Touge tte nantoiundarou. (How do you say "touge"?) Asking for help (in L1) J.K./I.Y.
8 There were many climbers, so, uh, the bus, the bus company, eh, bus company, eh, rinji basu wo dashita. Repetition, code-switching J.K./I.Y.
9 N.I.: Ah, serifu tte nantoiundarou? :) ah, speech words? I couldn't really tell what Iguchi said, but it's apparent he's trying circumlocution. Asking for help (in L1) J.K./I.Y. & N.I.
I.Y.: uh, uh, words which was used in xxx
After CS activity
10 Main street side, water way, water street Circumlocution K.P./Y.S.
11 It's very famous for . . . small river. Circumlocution K.P./K.F.
12 I had a very . . . very not good day. She's looking for "unfortunate" or "unlucky." Rephrase K.P./A.O.
13 They eat, like a rice plate. Sembei. She switches to Japanese to clarify. Circumlocution, code-switching K.P./Y.S.
14 There area is very good, good water (mimes a spring). Gesture, repetition K.P./Y.S.
15 L1: Shrine . . . shrine's . . . (gestures) She means the shrine itself. Gesture, circumlocution K.P./Y.S.
E: Gate?
L1: Not gate. It's house.
16 Hi . . . um, aisatsu, hello. To distinguish "hi" from "high" Code switching, rephrase J.K./S.S.
17 We had a line . . . we had wait, we had waiting for one or two hours. Rephrase, repetition J.K./S.C.
18 I went to the temples, which, whose name are seven gods that are, that are fortunetellers. Instead of just code-switching, he tried to explain Shichifukujin - trying very hard not to use L1. Circumlocution, repetition J.K./I.Y.
19 Italia has many, many, nandarou, many things, for example, cooking or shopping. Circumlocution, repetition J.K./Y.H.
20 Tra-tra, foot . . . How do you say it, after he walked? I want to say after someone walks, his foot . . . She means "footprints" or "tracks." Asking for help, circumlocution, gestures J.K./Y.H.
21 Old . . . old . . . how do you say the name of old German and Austria . . . Hungary . . . Ro- Roman . . . ? She means "Roman Empire." Asking for help, circumlocution J.K./Y.H.

Key: foreign words in italics; time gaining "em" = n; xxx = incomprehensible; silence in seconds (.2) = 2 seconds; laughter = :)


All materials on this site are copyright © by JALT and their respective authors.
For more information on JALT, visit the JALT National Website