Communication Strategies and How to Teach them to Japanese High School Students

Akiko Ichikawa

1. Introduction
1.1

The motive behind my studies

1.1.1

Difficulties in improving the students speaking abilities

1.1.2

Improving strategic competence as one of the aims of communicative

language teaching (CLT)

2. The Definitions of Communication Strategies (CSs)

2.1

The forerunners of CSs studies

2.1.1

Interlanguage by Selinker (1972)

a by-product of the learners attempt to express meaning in spontaneous

speech with their limited target language system
2.1.2

Communicative competence by Canale and Swain (1980)

strategic competence as one of the subcategories (grammatical competence,

sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence)

=verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be called into
action to compensate for insufficient competence
2.2

Two main streams of defining CSs

2.2.1

interactional definition by Tarone (1980)

a mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations

where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared (Meaning
structures include both linguistic and sociolinguistic structures)
2.2.2

psycholinguistic definition by Frch and Kasper (1983c)

potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a

problem in reaching a particular communicative goal

3.

Classifications of CSs
3.1

Product-based classifications of CSs VS process-based classifications of CSs

3.1.1

An example of product-based classifications of CSs

CSs Following Traditional Conceptualizations (Drnyei, 1995)

A. Avoidance or Reduction Strategies
1. Message abandonment--leaving a message unfinished because of language
difficulties. (e.g., A student called Aya is a very motivated student, and one day she
and the ALT were talking about politics in Britain.

As the conversation went on, it

became more complicated for Aya and she started getting lost. So she switched the
topic to traveling around Britain and they enjoyed talking for the rest of the time.)
2. Topic avoidance---avoiding topic areas or concepts which pose language
1

difficulties. (e.g., The students were talking about their hobbies in class.

I knew

Kenjis hobby was keeping tropical fish but it seemed that he was talking about
something else.

I asked him why he didnt talk about tropical fish after class and

he said he wanted to but he didnt know many words related to the topic.)
B. Achievement or Compensatory Strategies
3.

Circumlocution---describing or exemplifying the target object or action.

(e.g., A

student called Tomoko didnt know the word professor, so she said to the ALT, a
teacher who teaches at university.)
4. Approximation---using an alternative term which expresses the meaning of the
target lexical item as closely as possible.

(e.g., A student called Yumi said, I went

shopping last Sunday and bought a bag.

but didnt know the word.

Actually she wanted to say rucksack

Even so, we got the main idea.)

5. Use of all-purpose words---extending a general, empty lexical item to contexts

where specific words are lacking.

(e.g., A student called Megumi used do when

she couldnt think of the appropriate verb.

the train. for I took a nap on the train.

For instance, she said, I did a nap on

However, this is comprehensible because

the object nap is more important than the verb to convey the speakers intention.)
6. Word-coinage---creating a nonexisting L2 word based on a supposed rule. (e.g., A
student called Haruka said paintist for painter after she learned the word
pianist.)
7. Use of nonlinguistic means---mime, gesture, facial expression, or sound
imitation.

(e.g., A student called Saori mimed instead of saying, I played

volleyball yesterday.)
8. Literal translation---translating literally a lexical item, an idiom, a compound
word or structure from L1 to L2.

(e.g., A student called Terumi said, I dont like

thick tea for I dont like strong tea., but the ALT was able to guess what she
meant.)
9. Foreignizing---using a L1 word by adjusting it to L2 phonologically and/or
morphologically.

(e.g., A student called Mai said,

hanbaagu. (hanbaagu is a hamburger steak.)

My favourite food is

She tried to pronounce hanbaagu

like an English word, hamburg, and the ALT got some ideas about the food and
asked her more questions to find out what exactly the food was.)
10. Code switching---using a L1 word with L1 pronunciation (or a L3 word with L3
pronunciation in L2).

(e.g., A student called Shuhei said to the ALT, Do you like

matsuri (festivals)?

Since the ALT didnt know the word, she asked him what

matsuri meant.)
11. Appeal for help---turning to the conversation partner for help either directly or
indirectly.

(e.g., A student called Mami asked me in class how to say kujira in

English and continued the conversation after she was told the English word.)
C. Stalling or Time-gaining Strategies
2

12. Use of fillers/hesitation devices---using filling words or gambits to fill pauses

and to gain time to think.

(e.g., When the ALT asked Koji a question, he started

his utterance with Well to gain time to think and enjoyed talking with her.)
3.1.2

An example of process-based classifications of CSs

CSs by the Nijmegen University Group (Poulisse and Schils, 1989)

conceptual

analytic

this you use for a baby so uh, that it cant uh make uh,
his clothes erm 3 uh dirty (bib: 114tl)
big uh 1 big uh, cars, theyre not uh really cars but big
and high cars (truck: 304t4)

holistic

vegetables (peas: 304t4)

table (desk: 303t4)

linguistic

morphological

representator

(representative: 214t3)

creativity

to ironize (to iron; 209t3)

transfer

middle (waist, Du: middle; 309t1)

cuffer (hairdresser, Fr: coiffeur: 314t3)

4. The Pros and Cons of Teaching CSs

4.1 Pros
Frch and Kasper (1983a)
if by teaching we also mean making learners conscious about aspects of their
(already existing) behaviour, it is obvious that we should teach them about
strategies,

in

particular

how

to

use

communication

strategies

most

appropriately.
Russell and Loschky (1998)
The learners havent noticed that they are able to use their L1 strategic
competence.
4.2 Cons
*The learners use CSs in their L1 as well as in the target language.
Kellerman (1991)
Teach the learners more language and let the strategies look after themselves
Teaching CSs may prevent the learners from learning new vocabulary.
4.3 Studies to support the teachability of CSs
4.3.1 Drnyei (1995)
Research questions and the results of his studies:
(1) Does the training of a specific strategy increase the frequency of the use of this
strategy by the students?---Yes, in frequency of fillers and circumlocutions
(2) Does the training of a specific strategy improve the quality (efficiency) of this
strategy in actual language use?---Yes, in circumlocutions
(3) Does strategy training have a direct impact on the students speech rate?---Yes,
3

but only fillers affected speech rate in the post-test.

(4) Is the success of strategy training related to the students initial level of
language proficiency?---No, it was unrelated to the learners EFL competence.
(5) What are the students attitudes toward strategy training and the usefulness of
CSs?---favorable

5. How to Teach CSs to High School Students

1.

Raising learners awareness about the nature and communicative potential of

CSs

2. Encouraging students to be willing to take risks and use CSs

3. Providing L2 models of the use of certain CSs
4. Highlighting cross-cultural differences in CS use
5. Teaching CSs directly by presenting linguistic devices to verbalize them
6. Providing opportunities for practice in strategy use
(Drnyei, 1995)
7. Considering the efficiency levels of CSs

6. How Teachers Can Measure Students Strategic Competence

6. 1

by speaking

Kitajima (1997), Poulisse and Schils (1989), Drnyei (1995):

describing objects or

pictures, narrating or retelling a story, or conversing freely

6.2

by writing

Russel and Loschky (1998), Salomone and Marsal (1997)

7. Research on CSs
7.1 Subjects:

1st-year high school students, two classes

(1) experimental (40) (with explicit instructions of CSs)

(2) control (40)

(without explicit instructions of CSs)

7.2 Period of the research: 1st term (April 2003 to June 2003)
7.3 Frequency of the class: have the whole class (40) once a week, and half of the class
(20) once a week.
7.4 Pretest/Protest
Objectives: to find out the quality and quantity of the learners CS use and see if
there is any improvement in their speaking
Pick 7 students from each group randomly. Each student describes a cartoon.
S/he can take time until s/he finishes describing them. S/he is told to speak
English as much as possible and what the interviewer can say is restricted.
Their demonstrations are video-taped, audio-taped, and transcribed.
retrospect their demonstrations, listening to the tape after that.

They

All the CSs

are identified and also their speaking abilities are evaluated into 5 levels at
4

least by two native speakers.

7.5 Research question: Do my Japanese high school pupils who are taught specific
types of communication strategies show more improvement in speaking than
the pupils who arent?
7.6 Hypotheses: The hypotheses Id like to set up are a kind of re-testing of
Drnyeis research questions, mentioned above.
Hypothesis 1:

The pupils in the experiment group will use those specific types

of CSs more frequently than the pupils in the control group.

Hypothesis 2:

The pupils in the experiment group will use those specific types

of CSs more effectively than the pupils in the control group.

Hypothesis 3: The pupils in the experiment group will improve their speaking
abilities more than the pupils in the control group.
Hypothesis 4: The great typological distance between the learners L1 and L2
discourage then from using L1-based CSs. (from Chens hypothesis, 1990)
7.7 The topics which seem to appear during the 1st term.
*introducing themselves/their friends (including their hobbies, families, and so
on)

*food, weather, music, etc., something common to talk about

7.8 CSs Id like to teach (CSs which I think are more effective to enhance the
learners communication abilities.)
7.8.1 appeal for help
What do you mean? /What does that mean?/ Do you know what I mean?
Sorry, I dont understand. Please speak more slowly/clearly.
Can you say that again?
I have no idea what youre talking about./ I dont get it.
Im not following you./

Wait a minute.

Im getting lost.

Could you go over that last part again?

How do you say .. in English? (only when the native speaker knows Japanese.)
What do you call it when ? / What do you call it?
[Activities to teach the CS]
1. One partner turns her face away or muffles what shes saying in order to
force her partner to ask what she means.
2.

The presenter reads the problem as quickly as possible with no pauses.

The listener must stop the speaker and ask a question whenever he/she does
not understand and try to solve the problem.

3. London is the capital(read a text)

---Sorry, can you repeat this last word again?
or Sorry, I couldnt hear the word after the.
5

---Sorry, what does the capital mean?

7.8.2 Circumlocution
physical properties(colour, size, spatial dimensions), specific features (It has a
motor), functional features(It is used in), locational features (You find it in a
factory), temporal features(Its between summer and autumn.)
[Activities to teach the CS]
1.

information gap---crossword, spot-the-difference

2. The teacher reads a sentence to the students and they have to paraphrase in
groups.

Each group reads its paraphrase aloud and the students compare it

with others for acceptability

4. The students work in pairs and define an object using a relative clause.
Each pair reads out their definition and compare it with others for
acceptability.
5. paraphrasing---So you are saying that., You mean.
7.8.3 fillers/hesitation devices
HmmLet me see/think.

Thats a difficult question.

Oh really? / Oh yeah?
Uh-huh./Mm-hmm.
Just a moment, please.
[Activities to teach the CS]
1. adding fillers
2. composing nonsense dialogue
3. one-word dialogue
7.8.4 Claims which support my choice of CSs
(1) Zoltan Dornyei, 1995
(62)as some strategies (such as message abandonment) are clearly not
desirable to teach, whereas some others (e.g.., circumlocution or appeal for
help), are not only useful and desirable, but also involve certain core words
and structures, which lend themselves readily to classroom instruction.
(2) Frank B. Brooks, 1992
(66) Strategies such as circumlocution need to be developed to make unknown
lexical items understood.More importantly, students need to be encouraged
to request clarification of information ..

[Reference]

Canale, Michael and Swain, Merrill. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative

approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Drnyei, Zoltn. 1995. On the Teachability of Communication Strategies. TESOL

QUARTERLY 29: 55-85.

Frch, Claus (Ed) and Kasper, Gabriele (Ed). 1983c. Plans and strategies in
interlanguage communication.

In Strategies in Interlanguage Communication,

eds. C. Frch and G. Kasper, pp.20-60. London: Longman.

Brooks, Frank B. 1992. Can We Talk? Foreign Language Annals 25: 59-71.

Frch, Claus and Kasper, Gabriele. 1983a. Plans and strategies in foreign language
communication.

In C. Frch, and G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage

communication (pp. 210-238). Harlow, England: Longman.

Kellerman, Eric. 1991. Compensatory strategies in second language research: A
critique, a revision, and some (non-)implications for the classroom. In R.
Phillipson, E Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, and M. Swain (Eds).

Foreign/second language pedagogy research; A commemorative volume for Claus

Frch: 142-161. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Kitajima, Ryu. 1997. Influence of Learning Context on Learners Use of
Communication Strategies. JALT Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1: 7-23.
Poulisse,

Nanda

and

Schils,

Erik.

1989.

The

Influence

of

Task-

and

Proficiency-Related Factors on the Use of Compensatory Strategies: A

Quantitative Analysis. Language Learning 39: 15-48.
Russell, George and Loschky, Lester. 1998. The Need to Teach Communication
Strategies in the Foreign Language Classroom. JALT Journal, Vol. 20, N.1, May.
Salomone, Ann Masters and Marsal, Florence. 1997. How to Avoid Language
Breakdown? Circumlocution! Foreign Language Annals v30 n4: 473-84.
Selinker, L. 1972. Interlanguage. IRAL XXV/3: 209-31.
Tarone, Elaine. 1980. Communication Strategies, Foreigner Talk, and Repair in
Interlanguage. Language Learning, 30: 417-431.