2010 6 33 3

Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly)

Jun. 2010 Vol. 33 No. 3

Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learners

AN Mei

Guizhou University National Electronics and Computer Technology Center, Thailand

Sanooch S. NATHALANG

Abstract
Most Chinese undergraduates studying English are not English majors. They need to use communication strategies (CSs) to facilitate their communication because they do not have sufficient exposure to the English language on a daily basis. This article presents results from an investigation that analyzed CSs used by undergraduates (non-English majors) studying English at Chinese Universities. Participants were first-year Arts and Science majors classified as having either a high or low English proficiency level. Data were collected for their performance on both one-way and two-way tasks. Results showed that student use of CSs was influenced by three variables: task type, English proficiency level, and academic major. The finding could be of value to those who are involved with language training for Chinese EFL learners. EFL instructors may be able to enhance student performance by making them aware of CSs that are already in their repertoire and encouraging them to use CSs more frequently.

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 conversation until their communication goal is reached, EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners need to employ communication strategies (CSs), which have been defined generally as devices employed by L2 learners to overcome perceived barriers to achieving specific
110

AN Mei & Sanooch S. NATHALANG

communication goals (Frch & Kasper, 1983). Analysis of these strategies provides us with rich insights into the complex process of language acquisition and enables us to generate ideas for developing strategies to improve language learners IL skills. Language learners IL development is influenced by their ability to use CSs. Chinese EFL learners have been found to employ IL CSs to cope with difficulties when they use English to communicate with their peers in various activities. This ability to deal with communication difficulties is referred to as strategic competence, which is an important component of communicative competence. It is believed that learners can improve their communicative competence by developing an ability to use specific CSs that enable them to compensate for their target language limitations (e.g., Bialystok, 1990; Dornyei, 1995). Communication strategies, as one of the factors which affect IL development, have been investigated by researchers since the notion of CS was offered in 1972 by Selinker. College English students (or non-English major students) in China are considered a large group who are studying English and need to use CSs to facilitate their communication because they do not have enough exposure to English in daily life. Therefore, they may have formed their own IL system that can provide them with various CSs in English interactions. Empirical investigations that analyze the use of CSs by Chinese EFL learners are of particular importance. Closely related to the empirical work on second language acquisition (SLA), the study of CSs has achieved much more success in western countries than in China. After Chen Siqings (1990) study on CSs used by Chinese EFL learners, more CS research has been conducted in China. Today, the study of CSs in China is still inadequate and unsystematic. Most research on CSs conducted by Chinese scholars is limited to a review of 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 for on the relationship between the use of CSs and variables such as proficiency, task type and academic major. It is important to examine not only CSs themselves, but also the variables that mitigate the use of 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 identify CSs that are commonly used by students, and measure the extent to which the use of these strategies is affected by students L2 proficiency as well as by two types of task and academic fields. The study was designed to answer the following questions: 1. What are the different types of CSs used by Chinese EFL learners? 2. Is the use of CSs influenced by variables such as task demands, L2 proficiency, and academic major?

2. Review of Literature
2.1 Canale and Swains Framework of Communicative Competence Canale & Swain (1980) developed a widely cited framework of communicative competence, which takes into consideration communication strategies, as well as
111

Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learners

grammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence. Later, it was determined that this limited spectrum of competencies was inadequate for a communicative approach to language teaching and learning. Canale (1983) revised this framework by allowing for the inclusion of four main areas of competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence and strategic competence. Strategic competence is determined by ones mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be utilized for two main reasons: (a) to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to limiting conditions in actual communication (e.g. inability to recall something) or to insufficient competence in one or more of the other areas of communicative competence; and (b) to enhance the effectiveness of communication (e.g. deliberately slow down for a rhetorical effect). Canale & Swain (1980) suggested that this type of competence is demonstrated when individuals use communication strategies. Typical examples include the use of paraphrase, avoidance of difficulties, and requests for repetition, simplification, clarification or slower speech. Canale & Swains main contribution to communicative competence theory is that they have integrated into their model communication strategies that people often employ to cope with difficulties that arise during the course of communication. 2.2 Definitions and Classifications of Communication Strategies CSs research scholars have not yet reached a consensus on a rigorous definition of CSs. There have been many definitions proposed regarding the CSs of second language learners. Bialystok (1990) points out that, although research scholars offer various definitions for CSs, these definitions seem to share three main features: 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 refers to either the learners awareness that a strategy is being employed for a particular purpose, or the awareness of how that strategy may lead to an intended effect. 3. Intentionality: This refers to the learners control over those strategies so that particular ones may be selected from a range of options and deliberately applied to achieve certain effects. Kasper & Kellerman (1997) described the term communication strategies as:
Identification of CSs depends to a great extent on what one considers CSs to be, and in this respect, it matters very much whether one conceives of CSs as intra-individual or interindividual events. (p. 3)

There are two different approaches to communication strategy research in the current body of research literature, intra-individual and inter-individual. According to Frch & Kasper (1983, cited in Kasper & Kellerman, 1997: 2), CSs are potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal. This intra-individual view locates CSs in models of speech production (e.g., Dechert,
112

AN Mei & Sanooch S. NATHALANG

1983; Frch & Kasper, 1983) or cognitive organization and processing models (Bialystok, 1990). In early work, most notions of CSs restricted the concept to such problem-solving activity. Frch & Kaspers definition of CSs focuses on the learner or, more precisely, to the problems experienced by the learner in speech reception, and in the planning and execution of speech production. This definition conceives CSs as mental plans implemented by the L2 learner in response to an internal signal of an imminent problem, a form of self-help that does not require support from the interlocutor for resolution (e.g., Frch & Kasper, 1983: 36). This implies that the learner may make use of a communication strategy without signaling his interlocutor to indicate that he or she is experiencing a communication problem or, requesting assistance from the interlocutor The inter-individual view of CSs (Tarone, 1983, cited in Kasper & Kellerman, 1997: 2) suggests that the term CSs relates to 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 here would include both linguistic structures and sociolinguistic rule structures). This definition introduces an inter-individual perspective. In Tarones words, communication strategies are seen as tools used in a joint negotiation of meaning where both interlocutors are attempting to agree as to a communicative goal (1980: 420). The negotiation of meaning as a joint effort between the interlocutors is central to the concept of communication strategies. This inter-individual perspective allows for an inclusion of various repair mechanisms. If those repair mechanisms were applied to clarify intended meaning rather than simply correct linguistic form (1980: 424), Tarone considers them communication strategies. The aim of the present study is to investigate both the intra-individual communication strategies that do not have to result in the interlocutors interference and those interindividual communication strategies that focus more on how both interlocutors can achieve mutual comprehension. A review of the literature shows that there are many kinds of CS taxonomies, most of which are rather similar (for more taxonomies of CSs, see Poulisse, 1987 and Paribakht, 1982). Since the present study aims to cover intra-individual view of CSs (conveying meaning) as well as inter-individual view of CSs (requiring the listener to be involved in the conversation), there is a difficulty in depending on only one taxonomy from the literature. The taxonomy presented in Table 1 was adopted for the present study after a list of categories was derived from the existing literature. 2.3 Communication Strategies and Interlanguage It is generally thought that communication strategies were first invoked by Selinker (1972) in his paper entitled Interlanguage to account for errors made by learners of a second language. While there is general agreement that conversational interaction can facilitate IL development, CSs are thought to be one of the factors affecting IL development. The term Interlanguage in this study refers to a separate linguistic system based on the observable output which results from a learners attempted production of a target language (TL) norm (Selinker, 1972). In the theory of Interlanguage, five psycholinguistic processes could affect the
113

Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learners

construction of interlanguages. Among them CSs are regarded as one of the five 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 feels that the linguistic item needed is not available to him, he can resort to a variety of CSs in order to get his meaning across. The linguistic forms and patterns used in such attempts may become more or less permanent parts of the learners IL. As a central component of IL, the notion of CSs refers to the approach that learners use to overcome the inadequacies of 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 for more research into IL. The present research then is undertaken in response to this need to focus on CSs. Table 1. CSs Used for the Present Study
Intra-individual CSs C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 Topic avoidance (TA): avoid discussions about the concept Message abandonment (MA): stop in mid-utterance Meaning replacement (MR): use alternative expressions Generalization (Gen): use a generalized IL item Paraphrase (Par): focus on characteristic properties of the intended referent Word coinage (WC): create a new IL word Restructuring (Res): restructure ones utterance Approximation (App): use an incorrect item that shares some semantic features Literal translation (LT): translate literally Language switch (LS): insert words from native language Foreignizing (For): apply TL modification to the L1 term Mime: replace a word with nonverbal cues (kinesthetically) Inter-individual CSs C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 Code-based confirmation check (CCC): repeat the previous utterance for confirmation Positive confirmation check (PCC): offer information for confirmation Clarification request (CR): ask for clarification IL Negotiation Comprehension check (CC): attempt to check comprehension Other reformulation (OR): model the speakers previous utterance Repetition (Rep): repeat an utterance Notes Transfer by using L1based strategies IL-based CSs Avoidance Notes

3. Research Design
As shown in Table 2, the participants in the present study included 117 non-English major first year students from two different academic departments (Arts and Sciences) at

114

AN Mei & Sanooch S. NATHALANG

Guizhou University. These participants were selected because they were representative of students studying in the most common academic fields in China. The researcher was able to take advantage of the Nation-wide Standardized Matriculation Test (NSMT) to obtain the students English scores so as to establish two different levels. This examination is official and used widely in China, so it is highly valid and reliable. Unfortunately, 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 for non-English major college students in China. Table 2. Participants in the Study
College of Arts High Proficiency Low Proficiency Total 30 30 60 College of Science 30 27 57 Total 60 57 117

The present study used a demographic information questionnaire and speaking tasks as instruments to collect data. A questionnaire to obtain background information was administered to all subjects at the beginning of the research in order to elicit their academic fields and NSMT scores. Then CET-SET (Band 4) was offered to test the subjects speaking ability. Their NSMT and CET-SET were combined to determine their proficiency as either high proficiency or low proficiency. According to the intra-individual view and the inter-individual view of CSs, the participants were required to perform both one-way and two-way tasks. In the oneway task (i.e., concept identification task), the participants were each given a sheet of paper with two lists of 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 of the two concepts. For the two-way task (i.e., role play task), each high proficiency participant was paired with another high proficiency participant and each low proficiency participant was paired with another low proficiency participant. They were asked to play the role of customer and shopping assistant and negotiate with each other in order to solve a problem. In this way, they had to use CSs. Their performance was audio recorded. The data from these tasks were transcribed verbatim and coded via content analysis to identify the CSs used by the participants. A frequency form was designed to chart CSs that occurred during task performance. Each strategy used by each student was recorded by placing a tick (equal to a 1 score) on the frequency form. A zero score (no tick) was recorded for strategies that were not used. The data drawn from the speaking tasks by coding were submitted to qualitative analysis, while the data from the questionnaire and the frequency form were entered into the computer and processed by SPSS 15.0 for quantitative analysis.
115

Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learners

4. Results and Discussion

The English scores of NSMT from 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 a significant correlation between the NSMT score and the SET score. And both of them were used to decide on the subjects proficiency level. 4.1 Different Types of CSs Employed by Chinese EFL Learners Data analysis suggested that the one-way and two-way tasks used for this study made it necessary for all 117 participants to use CSs. Frequencies and percentages were adopted to examine each group of CSs and their subcategories of strategy in order to answer the first research question. Table 3 presents the results for each strategy group and for each strategy within each group. Group 2 of IL-based CSs ( x = 57.6) was found to be the most commonly occurring one. In this group, paraphrase (42.3%) was the most frequently used strategy. Group 3 of L1-based strategies ( x = 21) was the least commonly used group. In this group, foreignizing (0.4%) was then the least frequently used strategy. Table 3. Frequencies and Percentages of Overall CSs Employed by the Subjects
Group CSs TA Avoidance MA MR Gen Par IL-based CSs WC Res App LT L1-based CSs LS For Mime CCC PCC IL Negotiation CR CC OR Rep Number of participants 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 234 Frequency Yes 15 58 6 63 99 3 83 40 27 19 1 37 32 41 68 17 4 76 No 219 176 228 171 135 231 151 194 207 215 233 197 202 193 166 217 230 158 Percentage Yes 6.4 24.8 2.6 26.9 42.3 1.3 35.5 17.1 11.5 8.1 0.4 15.8 13.7 17.5 29.1 7.3 1.7 32.5 No 93.6 75.2 97.4 73.1 57.7 98.7 64.5 82.9 88.5 91.9 99.6 84.2 86.3 82.5 70.9 92.7 98.3 67.5 39.6 21 57.6 26.3 Means of Frequency (CS use)

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

116

AN Mei & Sanooch S. NATHALANG

Most of the participants employed the paraphrase strategy to solve their communicative problems, especially for one-way tasks. In real situations, students always encounter difficulties in expressing their meaning. One possible explanation for 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 fly 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 amumafraid of something, um it gives me a power to face it, to face the difficulty. Foreignizing was used to apply to the target language of English for the L1 term of Chinese. In the present study, the finding of L1-based strategies including foreignizing, literal translation and language switch is partially in accordance with that reported in Chens study (1990), which reported none of the obvious L1-based CSs in her study. She further 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 found that some low proficiency participants resorted to literal translation and language switch. For example, during the speaking tasks several low proficiency participants switched to Chinese words like (how should I say it?) and translated literally I think I cannot say. The most common strategy was paraphrase, followed by restructuring (35.5%) and repetition (32.5%), both of which occurred frequently. This study regarded use of the phrase for example as an example of using a restructuring strategy. The participants were found 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 restructuring strategy helped the participant explain the meaning of peace clearly. Repetition was another strategy employed by the participants to reinforce the meaning of a word, or to fill an interval of silence. One participant in the role play repeated, Do you have the receipt? Receipt?. However, the variables of proficiency, academic field, and task may have relationships with CSs, which is also a part of 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 of CSs in terms of CI (concept identification) and RP (role play). Table 4 summarizes all the results. The most common CSs used by the participants during one-way tasks (concept identification) 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 for two-way tasks (role play) was IL negotiation ( x = 28) while avoidance ( x = 6) was the least common strategy. To determine whether the differences between the frequencies were significant or not,
117

Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learners

Chi-square tests were conducted. The results presented in Table 4 indicate that there were significant differences between the one-way task and the two-way task in the use of three strategy groups at p = .000 (group 1), p = .000 (group 2) and p = .000 (group 4), because all their significant values were less than .05. It seems that different types of tasks lead the participants to use different CSs. When the participants were required to perform one-way tasks like describing words, they used IL-based strategies frequently, and sometimes used avoidance strategies. When performing two-way tasks like role play, they frequently used IL negotiation strategies, because they had to reach communication goals by working cooperatively to make requests or perform checks. In the present study, there were no significant differences in the use of L1-based CSs for one-way versus two-way tasks. Table 4. Frequencies and Chi-square Values of CSs Employed by the Participants in the Two Tasks
Frequency Group CSs CI (n=117) Yes TA Avoidance MA MR Gen Par IL-based CSs WC Res App LT L1-based CSs LS For Mime CCC PCC IL Negotiation CR CC OR Rep *p .05; **p .01 8 46 6 63 98 1 54 27 7 14 0 22 1 0 1 12 0 58 No 109 71 111 54 19 116 63 90 110 103 117 95 116 117 116 105 117 59 RP (n=117) Yes 7 12 0 0 1 2 29 13 20 5 1 15 31 41 67 5 4 18 No 110 105 117 117 116 115 88 104 97 112 116 102 86 76 50 112 113 99 Percentage CI (CS use) 7 39 5 54 84 1 46 23 6 11 0 19 1 0 1 10 0 50 RP (CS use) 6 10 0 0 1 2 25 11 17 4 11 1 13 26 35 57 12 4 3 15 28 .078 .044 .000 10 .316 .210 .000 .000 .000 .000 49 9 20 6 Means of Frequency CI (CS use) RP (CS use) Chi-square p value

.790 .000 013 .000 .000 .561 .001 .015 .008 .031 .599 .000 .000

Chi-square tests were also used to analyze differences in CS use between high proficiency versus low proficiency participants in order to determine if there was a relationship between
118

AN Mei & Sanooch S. NATHALANG

proficiency and use of CSs. The results of these Chi-square tests are presented in Table 5. The results indicate that LP subjects ( x = 18) tended to use avoidance more often than HP subjects ( x = 8.3) at p = .002 < .05, and there was a significant difference 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) at p = .034 < .05, and a significant difference existed between them. Table 5 also presents some other important information regarding use of ILbased strategies. There were significant differences in the extent to which HP versus LP participants used generalization and approximation. Differences observed were significant at the .05 level for generalization (p = .048 < .05) and approximation (p = .024 < .05). Use of a generalized IL item requires students to have general knowledge of the unknown concept in their repertoire. HP students tended to have a larger repertoire than LP students, so they were able to employ the generalization strategy more often. Generalization and approximation are IL-based strategies which are, as a whole, more effective in facilitating understanding than are L1-based CSs. There were no significant differences in HP and LP participants use of paraphrase or restructuring. Both HP and LP participants frequently 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 of the benefits of using them could lead to positive outcomes. Table 5 shows that LP participants mimed frequently 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 for filling 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 often needed to utilize CSs. In the role play task, for example, they both used IL negotiation to help them achieve their communicative goals. There were no significant differences between HP and LP participants for use of this strategy. Table 5. Frequencies and Chi-square Values of CSs Used by HP and LP Levels
Frequency Group CSs HP (n=120) Yes TA Avoidance MA MR Gen Par IL-based CSs WC Res App 1 21 3 39 56 2 48 27 No 119 99 117 81 64 118 72 93 LP (n=114) Yes 14 37 3 24 43 1 35 13 No 100 77 111 90 71 113 79 101 Percentage Means of Frequency LP (CS use) Chi-square p value

HP (CS LP (CS HP (CS use) use) use) 1 18 3 33 47 2 40 23 12 32 3 21 38 1 31 11 34.4 8.3

.000 18 .008 .949 .048 .166 23.2 .592 .137 .024 .034 .002

119

Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learners

Frequency Group CSs HP (n=120) Yes LT L1-based CSs LS For Mime CCC PCC IL Negotiation CR CC OR Rep *p .05; **p .01 15 5 1 9 17 26 35 12 3 45 No 105 115 119 111 103 94 85 108 117 75 LP (n=114) Yes 12 14 0 28 15 15 33 5 1 31 No 102 100 114 86 99 99 81 109 113 83 Percentage Means of Frequency LP (CS use)

HP (CS LP (CS HP (CS use) use) use) 13 4 1 8 14 22 29 10 3 38 11 12 7.5 0 25 13 13 29 23 4 1 27

Chi-square p value

.637 .023 13.5 .329 .000 .822 .087 .971 16.7 .098 .338 .092 .067 .014

Chi-square tests were used to analyze the differences between Science and Arts participants. Data presented in Table 6 indicates that there were no significant differences between Science and Arts subjects in employing any group of 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 performing English speaking tasks in class. Close inspection of the data in Table 6 also suggests that Science participants (36%) employed clarification requests slightly more often than Arts participants (23%). There was a significant difference between Science and Arts participants in using clarification requests at p = .023 < .05. In two-way tasks (role play), Science students tend to use clarification requests to facilitate communication in English. This finding suggests that it may be valuable for 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 forced to speak more English. The results and discussion of the study, so far, have dealt with the relationship between communication strategies and the three variables of task type, L2 proficiency and academic fields. The field of IL CSs is still waiting to be explored further, especially in China. The present study is only an attempt to investigate it from a particular perspective. One important limitation of the study is that it is concerned only with CSs that are used when learners IL systems seem unequal to tasks in terms of lexical items and syntax. In actual communication, CSs occur at all levels of language use, such as morphology and sociolinguistics etc. Another limitation is that the subjects of the present study are 117 Chinese EFL non-English major students who fall into only two fields, Arts and Science. The results of the study, thus, may not be generalized to all Chinese EFL learners.
120

AN Mei & Sanooch S. NATHALANG

Table 6. Frequency and Chi-square Values of CSs Used by Arts and Science Participants
Frequency Group CSs Science (n=114) Yes TA Avoidance MA MR Gen Par IL-based CSs WC Res App LT L1-based CSs LS For Mime CCC PCC IL Negotiation CR CC OR Rep *p .05; **p .01 10 34 3 30 45 1 38 14 12 8 0 18 15 19 41 12 1 33 No 104 80 111 84 69 113 76 100 102 106 114 96 99 95 73 102 113 81 Arts (n=120) Yes 5 24 3 33 54 2 45 26 15 11 1 19 17 22 27 5 3 43 No 115 96 117 87 66 118 75 94 105 109 119 101 103 98 93 115 117 77 Percentage Means of Frequency Arts (CS use) Chi-square p value .151 15.7 10.7 .082 .949 .838 .392 25.6 32 .592 .505 .057 .637 9.5 10.2 .547 .329 .993 .822 .737 20.2 19.5 .023 .061 .338 .261 .489 .055 .295 .129 Sci (CS Arts (CS Sci (CS use) use) use) 9 30 3 26 39 1 33 12 11 7 0 16 13 17 36 11 1 29 4 20 3 28 45 2 38 22 13 9 1 16 14 18 23 4 3 36

5. Conclusion
Findings from this study suggest that students are likely to use different communication strategies for different types of tasks. Both a one-way task (concept identification) and a two-way task (role play) were used in this study to elicit the use of communication strategies from the participants. The one-way task performed with native speakers elicited more IL-based CSs from students such as paraphrase, restructuring and 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 information that more interactions will be generated. English teachers should consider this as they think about the purpose of each lesson, and arrange tasks for their students accordingly. In this way classroom teachers may have opportunities to reinforce students use of CSs. In this study, it was observed that, compared to LP Learners, HP learners used ILbased strategies more often and avoidance strategies less often. Compared to avoidance
121

Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learners

strategies, IL-based CSs are more beneficial since they involve more positive attempts to actively tackle the difficulties students face during the communication process, instead of avoidance. Teachers may believe that once students are willing to deal with the difficulties they have with language production, gradual improvement can be expected. This is likely due to the fact that LP students have less confidence in using the English language. Hence, they sometimes mime or switch to L1 (Chinese) when communicating in English. After students have studied English for six or more years, and their grammatical competence has developed, their strategic competence should be monitored. Improvements in learners strategic competence (a major component of communicative competence) can contribute to the development of their communicative competence. It is suggested in this study that subjects from the Sciences resorted to clarification requests more frequently than those from the Arts. This finding identified some other factors in addition to the tasks and their proficiency, for example, the students learning situation, their motivation and personality which may result in the use of different CSs. It is generally believed that Science students think more logically than Arts students, which may benefit 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 benefit their speaking communication. As English teachers who give instruction to both Science and Arts students, we need to consider the nature of these two different fields and take into account how learning situations may affect communication strategies. Despite the limitations of this study, it examined some of the communication problems that Chinese EFL learners encounter and also how they try to solve those problems within their English repertoire by the use of various communication strategies.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the 13th International Conference on English in Southeast Asia (ESEA Conference 2008, NIE, Singapore), where I presented the results of my study and received helpful comments for this manuscript. I also thank the Guizhou Educational Commission (China) for their kind research grants. Last but not least, my gratitude always goes to Mr. Peter for his careful reading of this paper.

References
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of 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 of communicative approaches to Second Language Learning & Testing. Linguistics, 1, 1-47. Chen, S. Q. (1990). A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese EFL Learners. Language Learning, 40, 155-187.

122

AN Mei & Sanooch S. NATHALANG

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 of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 55-85. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1995). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449-491. Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford 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 and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Harton, UK: Longman. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. London: Sage Publications. Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A. & Lier, L. V. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (3), 377405. Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. Modern Language Journal, 89, 7691. Nakatani, Y. (2006). Developing an oral communication strategy inventory. The Modern Language Journal, 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 of communication strategies and aspects of target language proficiency: A study of Persian ESL students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching, 10 (3), 209-30. Selinker, L. 1992. Rediscovering Interlanguage. London: Longman. Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talks, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417-431. Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. In C. Frch & G. Kasper (eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, 61-74. London: Longman. Wang, L. F. (2000). Review of communication strategies in SLA abroad. FL Teaching and Research, 2, 124-131.

Appendix 1 Concept Identification

Directions: The following are 32 concrete concepts and 32 abstract concepts for you to choose from. Please choose one from each column and report them within three minutes.

123

Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learners

Concrete Concepts
Zebra Computer Crab Goose Mushroom Sunflower Garage Fireplace Sea horse Armchair Greenhouse Dormitory Monkey Envelope Airplane Calculator Camel Radio Peacock Crocodile Willow Chimney Mailbox Pond Fridge Fountain Balloon Keyboard Piano Kite Temple Curtain Friendship Freedom Intelligence

Abstract Concepts
Peace Trust Attitude Kindness Courage Happiness Beauty Bravery Justice Grief Music Culture Mercy Luck Destiny Progress

Embarrassment Loneliness Motivation Confidence Imagination Misfortune Curiosity Relaxation Experience Tolerance Selfishness Generosity Sympathy

Appendix 2

Role Play

Shop 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 form (optionalthe shop assistants could use their own paper) Role-play 1 Receipt Date: 14/09/04 Time: 11:32 Shirt, red 25.99 Camera 79.95 Total 105.94 Customer You bought two items from a shop but there is a problem with both of them. The shirt was for your brothers birthday but he doesnt like the colour. After 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.

124

AN Mei & Sanooch S. NATHALANG

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 from a shop but there is a problem with both of them. The T-shirt was for your dads birthday but it is too big for him. The picture on the TV is bad (especially after 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 are Your manager doesnt like giving people their money back. Try to find a different solution! Returned Goods Policy These are the rules for customers who want to return goods: Receipt(exampleThey must bring the receipt with them.) Number of days Broken Dont like it Used it (Copy editing: Devon Williams)

125