Post on 05-Aug-2020
INDIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS
VOL. 34, NO. 1-2, JAN-DEC 2008
Communication Strategies: An Interplay
between Proficiency and Gender
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI
FARZAD ANGAMEH
Shahid Chamran University of Ahwaz, Iran
ABSTRACT
This paper is intended to investigate the interplay between proficiency
and gender in the use of communication strategies. Sixty Iranian
university male and female subjects studying English took part in the
experiment and performed two tasks: word recognition and picture-
story narration. The results indicate that proficiency had a more
perceptible effect on the frequency and types of communication
strategies. Tasks also had a strong effect on the number and type of
strategies chosen. Gender did not yield any significant results except
in the case of low proficiency level of female participants. The reason
was attributed to the subject of study and formal educational system.
INTRODUCTION
Communication strategies (henceforth CSs) are linguistic or non-
linguistic devices that learners apply to solve instantaneous, often
unforeseen, problems that rise in the course of communication. They
are the means that bridge the gap caused by the incongruity between the
speaker’s intentions and his linguistic repertoire (Færch & Kasper
1983a: 36, 1984: 47).
Research on the use of CSs is numerous. Bialystok (1983), for
example, by looking into the effects of different strategies such as L2-
based, L1-based, etc. used by different learners in a picture-story
reconstruction found that the more proficient learners among her
intermediate subjects used more L2-based strategies. Paribakht (1985,
1986) through a word and concept-identification task explored types
and frequency of CSs across three groups at three different proficiency
levels. She observed that there is a direct relation between the speakers’
use of CSs and their level of the target language proficiency.
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
122
Proficiency and task-related factors were also the goal of a study
carried out by Poulisse & Schils (1989). They selected three groups of
learners at three levels of proficiency (low, intermediate, and advanced)
and asked them to participate in three tasks: a) a picture-story
description, b) a story retell task, and c) a 20-minute interview. They
saw that there is an inverse relation between number of CSs used and
the proficiency level. That is, the more proficient the learners are, the
fewer strategies they use. However, they found that task-related factors
had a more perceptible effect on the use of strategies than the
proficiency level.
Kocoglu (1997), in a study on the relation between gender and
proficiency in the utilization of CSs, employed ten subjects paired with
ten native speakers as participants in casual conversations. She found
that gender of the native speaker can pose an influence on the use of
CSs since more strategies were utilized by female than by male
interlocutors. She concluded that the communication success depends
on pairing and on interlocutor’s personalities.
Most of the literature in the field seems to be lacking a general
comprehensive perspective of CSs. Many researchers investigated one
or two dimensions at a time, such as personality, L1 background,
effectiveness of the learner’s CSs, etc., with a small population.
However, as Firth & Wagner (1997) and Poulisse (1997) have reported,
there could be more than one factor determinant in one’s linguistic
performance.
This study targets particularly to compensate for the shortcomings
seen in the previous research; mainly in terms of a) the investigation of
the role of gender, b) inclusion of two tasks, c) inclusion of a bigger
population, and d) extension of the framework of the study.
THE STUDY
This study undertook to investigate the interplay of two factors –
proficiency and gender – in two different tasks: word recognition and
picture-story narration. It was primarily intended to find out the
difference in the frequency of CSs employed by the more or less
proficient learners of each sex. Then, it was to see what types of CSs in
terms of quality will be employed in a given task by the more proficient
and less proficient learners of each sex, and what the effect of the task-
related factors will be in this regard.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN PROFICIENCY AND GENDER
123
METHODOLOGY
Participants
At the outset, one hundred and thirty university students majoring in
English who had three years of education in the field in Iran took part in
this research. A general proficiency test was administered among the
participants to screen out 60 participants for the final test. Based on the
scores from the test, the 60 subjects were divided into four groups: a)
group 1: 15 High Proficient Male Participants (HPMP), b) group 2: 15
Low Proficient Male Participants (LPMP), c) group 3: 15 High
Proficient Female Participants (HPFP), and d) group 4: 15 Low
Proficient Female Participants (LPFP).
Tasks
Two criteria in the selection and use of CSs are, according to Færch &
Kasper (1984), “Problem-orientedness” and “potential-consciousness”.
However, levels of consciousness differ with respect to various layers
of language. The lexical layer, among other linguistic layers like syntax
and morphology, is admittedly selected more consciously (Blum-Kulka
& Levenston 1983: 120; Færch & Kasper 1984: 54). In order to induce
subjects’ use of CSs when appropriate lexical item is lacking, tasks had
to be designed to meet these criteria: a) involve the learners’ attempt to
convey a meaning, b) neither encourage nor hinder the employment of
certain CSs, c) motivate the learners in a ‘problem-solving’ situation, d)
provide an incentive for the learner to attempt to tell difficult things,
and e) be kept under control so that the CSs for conveying of the items
in the tasks could be examined.
To this end, communicative tasks chosen in this study were
concept-identification tasks. They were word description and picture
story narration. The word description included four words: two concrete
and two abstract words. The choice of four words would provide a
rather homogenous condition and clear comparison. Choice of abstract
words was because, lacking visual clues, such words were expected to
place heavier linguistic and cognitive burdens on the speakers than
concrete nouns (Carter 1998: 192), hence a stronger struggle for more
use of CSs.
The picture story tells the account of an old hat-seller who decides
to take a nap under the shades of a tree, ignorant of the monkeys on the
tree. When he falls asleep, the monkeys take the chance and take away
his hats. When the old man wakes up, he sees that the monkeys have
taken away his hats, and they do nothing but imitate him. He comes up
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
124
with a plan and throws his remaining hat on the ground. Seeing this, the
monkeys do the same thing and the old man manages to get his hats back.
Procedure
In the first task, the four words were written on separate 5 by 7 inches
cards along their Persian (Farsi) equivalent. The subjects were admitted
into a room individually to avoid any contact between them during the
experiment, and they were not informed as being high or low proficient
learners.
Each data collection session consisted of three phases: warm-up,
relating the lexical item, and narrating the picture story. In the warm up
stage, the interviewer explained to each subject the nature of the task
and informed him/her clearly what to do afterwards. Following this
phase, the first task started. In the first task, relating the lexical item,
each subject was given a card one at a time and was asked to describe
the word to the interviewer without using the word itself. This was done
for all the four words. Interaction between the subject and the
interviewer continued until either the interviewer was convinced of the
appropriate description of the word or the subject gave up.
In the picture story narration, six sequential drawings of a picture
were given to each subject individually, and they were asked to relate
them to the interlocutor. They were told to take their time and begin
whenever they felt ready. During all these procedures, the interviewer
remained fairly callous and non-responsive. This is based on Færch &
Kasper (1984), whereby although the interaction remains
unidimensional, it still is considered communicative. All the
participants’ responses were video and audio-taped for later coding and
analysis. After a preliminary screening of the videotapes, all the
interviews were transcribed for all the tasks employed from all sessions.
Taxonomy
The first step for data analysis was to develop a taxonomy. Reasons for
such a procedure could be attributed to the diversity of the population,
nature of the tasks and type of the tasks. The insight to develop a
taxonomy was taken from the previous studies conducted by Færch &
Kasper 1983a & b; Bialystok 1983; Paribakht 1985 and Chen 1990,
among others. The taxonomy included five categories: 1) L2-based
strategies), 2) L1-based strategies), 3) general knowledge (World
Knowledge), 4) no information (Avoidance), and 5) gestures
(Paralinguistic parameters). Each category including its specifications is
discussed below.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN PROFICIENCY AND GENDER
125
1. L2-based strategies
a) Synonym: producing the same meaning by alternative lexical item
self-reliance for (self-confidence)
HPMP71
b) Circumlocution: describing the characteristic features of the
intended item. This involves substantial restructuring of the
message, often resulting in awkward verbosity
do the job that the man was doing for (imitating)
LPFP7
c) Paraphrase: rendition of lexical item that is more appropriate and
more concise than circumlocution
There was a man whose job was to sell hats for (hat seller)
HPMP11
d) Super-ordinate terms: using a high coverage word for a
subordinate term
It is a kind of animal for (monkey)
LPMP1
e) Generalization: substituting one word with another with the same
meaning while the context for the word is different
made of something like wire for (string)
LPFP12
2 L1-based strategies
a) Code-switching: appealing to another linguistic code, typically a
mother tongue word, to solve the problem
I think this instrument have four sim for (string)
LPMP11
b) Literal translation: the process of translating a lexical item, an
idiom, etc., from L1 literally
Khoshal shod for (he got happy)
LPMP14
3. Knowledge-based strategies
a) Exemplification: providing examples to indicate the meaning of
the item
Uh, when suppose you are in court and you are a judge, you have
to be ... have with the .. with the two men that are in front of you,
you have to behave with them equally for (justice)
LPMP4
b) General knowledge: providing general characteristics of
somebody or something
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
126
I think it can be played in two ways like Flamingo and classical,
OK for (guitar)
LPMP7
c) Simile: use of comparison to relate meaning
has three things like hair for (string)
LPFP8
4. Avoidance
a) Message abandonment: leaving the message unfinished because
of some language problem
It is the name of a set in music that is very common in Iran and but
I don’t exactly know about for (guitar).
LPFP1
b) Topic reduction: reducing the message by avoiding certain
structures or topics considered problematic.
For example, LPFP12 avoided mentioning the old man’s amazement
and anger when he saw that his hats were taken by the monkeys.
5. Paralinguistic strategy:
Use of gestures to indicate a concept either by accompanying the verbal
output or completely replacing it
a) Accompanying verbal output:
For example, LPFP6 indicated how the guitar is played by
demonstrating the movements of the hand.
b) Replacing verbal output
Then, the man is thinking about and doing like this (scratching his
head)
LPMP3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A total of 735 strategies of all different types outlined above were used
by all the participants in approximately 490 minutes of talk. As far as
the relation between the proficiency and the frequency counts is
concerned, seen in Table 1, the CSs used by the low proficient were 499
(67.90%), which is a little more than twice the number used by the high
proficient ones, 236 (32.10%). Gender, in general, however, did not
produce any significant results in term of frequency (Table 2): the
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN PROFICIENCY AND GENDER
127
number of CSs used by males is close to that of females (48.70% versus
51.30%, respectively). Table 3 combines proficiency and gender effects
on the number of CSs employed by the participants in each group. For
convenience, Figure 1 below pictures this information graphically. As
viewed, HPMP and HPFP used fewer number of strategies (15.24% and
16.87%) compared with LPMP and LPFP who respectively used
33.47% and 34.42% of the total strategies.
Table 1. Number of CSs in relation to Proficiency
HP LP
Total & Percentage 236 (32.10%) 499 (67.90%)
Table 2. Number of CSs in relation to Gender
Males Females
Total & Percentage 358 (48.70%) 377 (51.30%)
Table 3. Number of CSs in relation to Proficiency & Gender
HPMP LPMP HPFP LPFP Total
112 246 124 253 735
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Series1 15.24% 33.47% 16.87% 34.42%
H PM P LPM P HPFP LPFP
Figure 1. A Graph Bar of ‘Table 3’
Interplay between proficiency and gender on type count
Tables 4 and 5 below show breaking down of these figures in relation to
proficiency and gender of the participants respectively. Use of CSs
across both levels of proficiency (inter-group) indicate a great
difference between them. As Table 5 below demonstrates, number of
L2-based strategy in HP is surprisingly higher than LP (60.65% versus
39.35%). However, preponderance of the use of other CSs was clearly
ascertained by LP (76.51% of L1-based strategy was used by LP versus
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
128
23.49% by HP, 86.40% of world knowledge by LP in comparison to
13.60% for HP, etc.) LP also outnumbered HP in the use of avoidance
with 78.30% versus 21.70%.
Apart from these HP/ LP differences, the other large difference was
seen in paralinguistic strategy where 20% were used by males and 80%
by females. Type of specific CSs across both genders remained almost
the same. As Table 5 below shows, L2-based remained constant
between males and females (49.53% versus 49.77% respectively), L1-
based for males was 54.37% and for females 45.63%, world knowledge
for males was 48.80% versus 51.20% for females, avoidance 55.75%
for females and 44.25% for males, and paralinguistics were used in
equal number by both genders (50%).
Table 6 below shows breaking down of CSs according to each
group). As the analysis of CS types used by each group indicates (Table
6), L2-based strategy was used by HPFP more than any other group
(60). L1-based and world knowledge were favored by LPMP (65 and 59
respectively). Avoidance was used more by LPFP (114) while
paralinguistic strategy was used more by LPMP.
Table 4. Number and Percentage Type of CSs Types in relation to
Proficiency2
HP LP Total
L2 131 (60.65) 85 (39.35) 216 (29.39)
L1 35 (23.49) 114 (76.51) 149 (20.27)
WK 17 (13.60) 108(86.40) 125 (17.00)
A 51 (21.70) 184 (78.30) 235 (31.97)
P 2 (20.00) 8 (80.00) 10 (1.37)
Total 236 (32.10) 499 67.90) 735 (100.00)
Table 5. Number and Percentage of Types of CSs in relation to Gender
Males Females Total
L2 107 (49.53) 109 (49.77) 216 (29.39)
L1 81 (54.37) 68 (45.63) 149 (20.27)
WK 61 (48.80) 64 (51.20) 125 (17.00)
A 104 (44.25) 131 (55.75) 235 (31.97)
P 5 (50.00) 5 (50.00) 10 (1.37)
Total 358 (47.70) 377 (51.30) 735 (100.00)
Table 6. Number of CSs used in each Category by all Four Groups
HPMP LPMP HPFP LPFP Total
L2 60 47 71 38 216
L1 16 65 19 49 149
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN PROFICIENCY AND GENDER
129
WK 2 59 15 49 125
A 34 70 17 114 235
P - 5 2 3 10
Total 112 246 124 253 735
Interplay between proficiency, gender, and task
In word recognition (WR), learners applied far more strategies than
picture story narration (PSN); that is 422 versus 313, respectively. Table
7 indicates CSs used by different proficiency groups. LP participants
applied more CSs in both tasks (298 in WR and 201 in PSN). However,
gender remained somewhat neutral to task-related factors (Table 8).
Males and females used 205 and 217 respectively in WR. In PSN males
used 153 and females used 160 CSs. The important finding was that
qualitatively each task brought forth certain CSs in higher frequencies
than others. In PSN, as seen in Table 9, avoidance most distinctly (162)
outnumbers other strategies while world knowledge, L2 and L1-based
strategies remained approximately at the same level in WR. Figure 2,
which is a graph bar for Table 9 for the reader’s convenience,
demonstrates CSs in terms of participants and task respectively. It can be
seen that avoidance with 51.76% was the most used CSs in PSN while
world knowledge came first in WR (29.15%).
Table 7. Number and Percentage of CSs in each Task with regard to
Proficiency
HP LP Total
Word Recognition 124 (29.38) 298 (70.62) 422 (57.41)
Picture Story Narration 112 (35.78) 201(64.22) 313 (42.59)
Total 236 (32.10%) 499 (67.90%) 735
Table 8. Number and Percentage of CSs in each Task concerning Grammar
Males Females Total
Word Recognition 205 (48.58) 217 (51.42) 422 (57.41)
Picture Story Narration 153 (48.89) 160 (51.11) 313 (42.59)
Total 358 (48.70) 377 (51.30) 735
Table 9. Number and Percentage of CSs in each Task
L2 L1 WK A P Total
Word Recognition 114
(27.01)
106
(25.12)
123
(29.15)
73
(17.30)
6
(1.42)
422
(57.41)
Picture Story Narration 102
(32.59)
43
(13.74)
2
(0.64)
162
(51.76)
4
(1.27)
313
(42.59)
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
130
0 %
1 0 %
2 0 %
3 0 %
4 0 %
5 0 %
6 0 %
L 2 2 7 .0 1 % 3 2 .5 9 %
L 1 2 5 .1 2 % 1 3 .7 4 %
W K 2 9 .1 5 % 0 .6 4 %
A 1 7 .3 0 % 5 1 .7 6 %
P 1 .4 2 % 1 .2 7 %
W o rd R e c o g n it io n P ic tu re S to ry N a rra t io n
Figure 2. CS Types in each Task
Analyses of the participants’ responses indicate a significant difference
caused by the proficiency level of the participants. Gender, however,
did not generally yield great differences among the subjects’ responses,
except for one strategy. In the same vein task-related factors were also
found to play a crucial role in the selection of specific strategies.
Proficiency and frequency
Based on the results, we can assert that there is a difference in the
number of strategies used by the high and low proficient participants, as
shown in Table 1 above. A t-test on the mean number of CSs by the
four groups, as shown in Table 10 below, reveals that there is a
statistically significant difference between the two groups at the level of
0.05 of mean differences.
Table 10. T - Test results of Proficiency Groups in the Number of CSs.
*p< 0.05
Group No. of
Subjects Mean σ t df Sig. Outcome
HP 30 7.8667 1.4559
LP 30 16.6333 2.0592 -19.040 8 .000* HP<LP
Further examination of the results indicates that this double use in the
number of CSs for LP remained sustained as figure 4.1 indicates –
HPMP 15.24%; LPMP 33.47%; HPFP 16.87%; and LPFP 34.42%.
Tukey HSD test, shown in Table 11 below, was conducted to explore
the statistical difference between the four groups.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN PROFICIENCY AND GENDER
131
Table 11. Tukey HSD Test results of the Frequency of CSs by the Four
Groups. *p< 0.05
Group Groups Mean Std. Error Sig. Outcome
LPMP -8.9333* .6510 .000 HPMP<LPMP
HPFP -.8000 .6510 .611 n.s HPMP
LPFP -9.4000* .6510 .000 HPMP<LPFP
HPMP 8.9333* .6510 .000 LPFP>HPMP
HPFP 8.1333* .6510 .000 LPMP>HPFP LPMP
LPFP -.4667 .6510 .890 n.s
HPMP .8000 .6510 .611 n.s
LPMP -8.1333* .6510 .000 HPFP<LPMP HPFP
LPFP -8.6000* .6510 .000 HPFP<LPFP
HPMP 9.4000* .6510 .000 LPFP>HPMP
LPMP .4667 .6510 .890 n.s LPFP
HPFP 8.6000* .6510 .000 LPFP>HPFP
As can be seen, high proficient of both genders (HPMP and HPFP) had
a statistically significant mean difference at the level of 5 percent with
the low proficient of both genders (LPMP and LPFP).
This irrefutable finding suggests that there is a reverse or negative
relationship between number of strategies and the proficiency level of
the students. That is, as the students’ level of proficiency rises from low
to high, number of CSs will decrease. Findings of this study are in line
with the previous studies by Bialystok (1983); Færch & Kasper (1983a,
1983b); Ellis (1984); Paribakht (1985 1986); Poulisse & Schils (1989);
Chen (1990); Liskin-Gasparro (1996); and Vandergrift (1997). With an
increase in the level of proficiency, the frequency intends to opt for a
descending order for less use of these strategies. These findings can be
explicated in the following terms.
Firstly, there is the degree of L2 knowledge. CSs are problem-
solving mechanisms which serve to compensate for the imperfections
one has in the target language. This imperfect and immature knowledge
in L2 is more severely and evidently seen in the low proficient learners.
This is because they have to carry out their task with the limited assets
in their possession. They ought to seek other alternatives to compensate
for these shortcomings. They have to take more time and effort to
rephrase and modify their original message. This in itself will increase
the number of CSs. As a proof to this claim, if the number of CSs used
by each group is taken as a rough index of number of problems subjects
face, it can be seen that the LP faced more communicative problems;
hence, more use of CSs. HP learners have richer L2 knowledge and
they can easily use this asset to overcome communicative problems
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
132
they encounter. Mangubhai (1991: 270) asserts: “the greater the
learner’s proficiency in the SL, the more resources there are available to
the learners in the process of meaning construction, and fewer problems
encountered.”
Secondly, command of the L2 knowledge is another factor that
determines the frequency occurrence. Command in this sense pertains
to the degree of awareness which a person has about his/her abilities in
the target language. One indicator of this command is the degree of
automatization of one’s language. Automatization refers to the rate of
articulation; the ease and speed of activating a procedure (Færch &
Kasper 1985: 127). Færch & Kasper (1983b: 219) believe that learners
normally have a lower degree of automatization of their interlanguage
(IL) than native speakers do. What Færch & Kasper deduce from their
study of learners’ automatization is that rate of articulation is likely to
vary with the learners’ proficiency level. For HP learners, their speech
enjoys more transitional smoothness (Færch & Kasper 1983b: 235).
This is possible because HP subjects, due to their better command, are
better planners for the type of message they intend to say. The lack of
automatization frequently makes the learner of an unrelated language
unable to cope with the time pressure demanded in oral communication.
This command of the L2 gives HP subjects a better evaluation of the
limitation of their resources, and more accurate prediction of the
problems that they might encounter.
This automaticity is not the case for the low proficient learners.
They have less capability to plan in advance because of their limited
and tentative knowledge as a result of which more troubles might come
on their way, hence more CSs. Evidence for this claim comes from
another line of research. In the study of the phenomenon of monitoring
and self-repairs, Kormos (1999: 331) quotes O’Connor (1988) who
analyzed the speech of three beginning and three advanced American
speakers studying French. O’Connor had found that less proficient
speakers resorted to more corrective repair, while advanced students’
self-corrections are likely to be more anticipatory in nature “that is, they
would be used to avoid possible breakdowns or communication
difficulties.” Thus, command of L2 endows learners with more
anticipatory power as their proficiency increases.
Proficiency and types of CSs
Patterns of types of CSs differed with regard to each group. Proficiency
groups differed in their choice of different CSs. The reason is that
proficiency interfered to cause great changes in the pattern of CSs
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN PROFICIENCY AND GENDER
133
among different groups. To obtain more reliable results of the
differences between HP and LP groups and make the results less
speculative, a t-test was performed on the mean proportional scores of
the two groups. Table 12 below shows the results of the t-test:
Table 12. T-test results of Proficiency Groups in terms of the Number
of CSs. *p< 0.05
Types Group No. of
Subjects Mean σ T f Sig. Outcome
HP 30 4.3667 1.4499 L2
LP 30 2.8333 1.3412 -4.252 8 .000* HP >LP
HP 30 1.667 .8743 L1
LP 30 3.8000 1.5403 -8.144 8 .000* HP<LP
HP 30 .5667 .9714 WK
LP 30 3.6000 1.3025 -10.225 8 .000* HP<LP
HP 30 1.7000 1.5347 A
LP 30 6.1333 2.2854 -8.821 8 .000* HP<LP
HP 30 6.667E-02 .2537 P
LP 30 .2667 .5208 -1.891 8 .064 n.s.
As seen in Table 12, there is a meaningful mean between CSs used in
each separate group. It can be seen that HP used L2 more than other
CSs while LP used other CSs in greater numbers. P yielded no
significant results for any of the group. Therefore, HP used more L2-
based and they yield the following pattern:
L2-based → avoidance → L1-based → world knowledge → paralinguistic
LP provided the following pattern:
Avoidance → L1-based → world knowledge → L2-based → paralinguistic
Strategy use does not seem to be a casual phenomenon. Paribakht
(1985: 141) argues that strategy use is transitional and dynamic. She
adds that “learners use of CSs has specific characteristics at different
developmental stages of their interlanguages.” Chesterfield &
Chesterfield (1985: 56) affirm that increasing proficiency in the second
language suggests ability to use strategies in more demanding ways. A
certain level of what we may call ‘continuum effect’ that is required in
the selection of CSs types.
Learners drew upon similar resources to compensate for their
incomplete knowledge; however, the proposition of each strategy
differed with the proficiency level of the students. HP used more L2-
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
134
based CSs. One explanation could be that HP learners obviously have
better grasp of the formal language. They are better planners and can
evaluate their resources beforehand. In this case continuum effect is at
the highest level. This greater command over the L2 and the ensuing
estimation of their abilities enables them to choose the most
economical, direct, relevant, and meaningful types of CSs. A few
examples of HP behavior below could shed some light on this
difference of strategy use.
a kind of musical instrument (L2-based: Guitar)
HPFP3
uhm to make a[n] equal attention to both sides (L2-based: Justice)
HPMP3
Nevertheless, choice of strategy differed in case of the low proficient
learners. They had little command over the target language and were more
uncertain about their resources. They had to depend on other ways such as
avoidance, their L1, knowledge of the world or paralinguistic CSs.
Avoidance is the most used CSs (235) among all. In the early
stages, the propensity for the occurrence of avoidance is highest. As
learners move towards the higher stages, L2-based strategies, which are
typical of upper stages, make themselves more evident and instead
avoidance strategies opt for lower percentages. By the use of avoidance,
LP preferred to give up relating the concept than putting up some effort
into explaining it. Blum-Kulka & Levenston (1983: 198) believe that
avoidance is due to lack of knowledge and assert that other strategies
must be found to fill in the semantic gap. This strategy is the least
demanding of CSs since what you are supposed to do is simply
circumvent the problem.
L1-based strategies provided LP with more trustworthy
mechanisms to draw upon than avoidance. In the case of L1-based,
continuum effect is one step up in comparison with avoidance. In this
strategy the learner tries to relate something. It is different from
avoidance where learners did not say anything. However, willingness to
relate something was limited to applying L1 knowledge. A few
examples help better understand this phenomenon:
Bardasht his hat (L1-based: picked up)
LPFP9
has three things like a hair (L1-based: strings)
LPFP7
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN PROFICIENCY AND GENDER
135
In L1-based strategy, continuum effect increased but in the absence of
reliable L2 resources learners had to resort to the next dependable
source: knowledge of the first language. Olsen (1999: 201) who studied
grammar and vocabulary in texts which were written by Norwegian
learners of English believes that L1 serves as a reference and assistance
in cases students encounter a linguistic problem.
World knowledge was the least used strategy among the three. In
this case attempt to use one’s world knowledge will involve using one’s
basic knowledge. For instance,
A tool of pop music (world knowledge: guitar)
LPMP12
For example, when we want to take an exam, we must study a lot
and have it for do our exam very well.
(world knowledge: self-confidence)
LPMP2
Here effort had to be put into place to not only use correct, relevant
knowledge, but also linguistic means to make their expression possible.
This would in itself increase the cost for the LP who have to process
two operations: choosing relevant knowledge and culling proper
linguistic means. Continuum effect would proceed to induce the use of
108 world knowledge CSs.
From what has been said it can be claimed that continuum effect
has great influence over CSs selection and preference and that it is
determined by the level of proficiency of the learners.
What has emerged from the data suggests a hierarchy of occurrence
for the arch strategies which can be shown graphically below:
Avoidance L1-based World knowledge L2-based
Low proficiency High proficiency
Proficiency and task
An independent question was about the task-related factors. At this
level it was seen that task-based factors did exert an influence in
number and selection of specific strategies. As Table 9 and figure 2
demonstrate, qualitatively there is a big difference between number and
type of CSs used in each task: avoidance occurred in greater frequency
in PSN than other strategies.
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
136
In the first task (WR), subjects used more CSs than the second
(PSN). This behavior remained almost constant between HP and LP.
As already explained in methodology, WR task involved relating 4
lexical items: two concrete and two abstract words. In PSN, 6 pictures
were given to the subjects and they were asked to relate them. There
were lexical items in each picture which posed a challenge to the
subjects. In other words, while the first one required relating the words
directly, the second one placed lexical items in the texture of the story.
The difference WR bore was that subjects had to communicate them or
avoid them. They had to come face to face with the problem that each
word presented. The second task, however, offered subjects the
opportunity to come to terms with the problem by ignoring it or choose
any other strategy based on their proficiency and continue narrating the
story. (This willingness to communicate a concept has a direct
relationship with types of CSs, as will be explained below).
Telling words about words brought its own complications and
raised number of CSs. When each task is considered separately, a large
number of CSs was evident among LPs. This can be explained in terms
of the task demands mentioned above. Clearly, task demands did not
put any strains on the behavior of the HP, but influenced the other
group quantitatively.
Qualitatively, selection of CSs varied with regard to each task. As
figure 2 indicates, world knowledge was the most used CSs with
29.15% followed by L2 (27.01%), L1 (25.12%) and lastly Avoidance
(17.30%). As it can be seen, the gap between the use of each CSs is
very small. This phenomenon can be depicted for the simple reason of
the nature of the task. Subjects in WR had to use other lexical items to
relate the target items. The items themselves were everyday vocabulary
words in students’ speech. However, their approach in dealing with
each item and their agility in tackling the items were their biggest
challenge the task sought to examine.
As Table 9 shows, PSN witnessed the increase of Avoidance
(51.76%). Following avoidance were L2 (32.59%), L1 (13.74%), and
WK (0.64%). Students’ tendency to use avoidance can be explicated as
such: avoidance granted subjects with an opportunity to go around the
problem whenever they reach a dead-end in communicating the item. In
WR, the option to avoid them was giving up the description task and
coming to full halt. Avoidance constituted only 17.30% in WR while
51.75% in PSN. For example, subjects avoided relating such lexical
items as surprise, scratch, imitate, throw, fist, etc. Each task,
henceforth, carried its unique requirements and dictated its demands to
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN PROFICIENCY AND GENDER
137
the experiment: WR communicating about the items, PSN
communicating the items themselves. The decisive factors are the
students’ abilities and styles in tackling the obstacles and the
requirements that each task presented
The next widely used CSs were L2-based communication strategy.
L2 occurrence next to avoidance is strange indeed, as they constituted
the two ends of the continuum of CSs occurrence. This can be
understood if again the nature of the task is taken into account. The
embedded items in PSN provided an interesting challenge to HP and
LP equivalently. LP approach was pointed out above in resorting to
Avoidance. HP’s approach, however, differed. They did not avoid the
problem, but related it, for example, in using repeated what the man
was doing (HPMP 5) to communicate the word imitation. They
confronted the problems most efficiently. Their plan intended to
respond to these items by applying their most effective devices, i.e. L2
CSs. While incorporation of avoidance reduced the effectiveness of the
story narrated by the LP, L2-based strategy employed by HP yielded
effective narration of the story. Other researchers have also proposed
stating L2 as the most effective CSs, too.
World knowledge shifted its position drastically. While world
knowledge was used 123 times in WR, in PSN it was used only twice,
which made it the least used communication strategy. The embedded
items provided the least appeal to world knowledge in PSN. Reason for
such an occurrence can be ascribed to the story-telling phenomenon. It
was concrete and tangible enough for the narrator and listener so as not
to impose too much burden. Unlike WR, whereby lexical items were
proposed in isolation, participants in PSN had to create a context for
the words and all types of pragmatic, linguistic and non-linguistic
devices to create a background for the words and facilitate the task of
the listener. Unlike WR, PSN made little cognitive load on both the
listener and the narrator. LPFP4, for instance, used her world
knowledge to relate self-confidence by saying: it’s a sense it is about
psychology. We need some power in our spirit to do well our works.
This reduced the number of world knowledge in PSN, since some of it
could be provided by the elements of the story.
Gender
One of the particular interests of this study was examining the role that
gender could have played in the selection of CSs. Our findings indicate
that gender’s role was characterized with near neutrality. As Table 2 has
revealed, males used 358 (48.70%) and females 377 (51.30%). To see if
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
138
the same result could be sustained statistically, a t-test was performed.
As seen in Table 13 below, there is no difference between males and
females at the level of 0.05.
Table 13. T- test results of Proficiency Groups in terms of the Number
of CSs. p < 0.05
Group No. of
Subjects Mean σ t df sig. Outcome
Males 30 11.9333 4.8419
Females 30 12.5667 4.7393 .611* 58 .611 n.s.
Qualitatively, as Table 6 above demonstrated, not much difference was
seen in the types of CSs between the two groups either. A t-test was
conducted to explore a deeper statistics of the results, as seen in Table
14 below. It can be seen that there is no statistically significant
difference between males and females in the selection of different types
of CSs at the level of 0.05.
However, further analysis of the results exhibits a minor difference
in terms of types among LPMP and LPFP in the use of avoidance. As
Table 6 indicates, LPMP applied 70 while LPFP resorted to 114 CSs. In
the least it may argued that gender exerted some effect in the choice of
one strategy; that is, avoidance. To further validate the results, a Tukey
HSD test was conducted (Table 15). As seen in the table, unlike the
other participant groups, the difference between LPMP and LPFP in the
selection of avoidance is statistically significant at the level of 0.05.
Table 14. Results of T-test in the use of CSs by Males and Females. p <
0.05
Types Gender No. of
Subjects Mean σ T df Sig. Outcome
Male 30 2.7000 2.0026 L2
Female 30 2.2667 1.6174 -.161 58 .872 n.s
Male 30 2.0333 2.1891 L1
Female 30 2.1333 1.6132 .922 58 .360 n.s
Male 30 3.4667 2.0800
WK Female 30 4.3667 3.6054 -.201 58 .841 n.s
Male 30 .1667 .4611 A
Female 30 .1667 .3790
-
1.184 58 .241 n.s
Male 30 3.5667 1.6121 P
Female 30 3.6333 1.5862 .000 58 1.000 n.s
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN PROFICIENCY AND GENDER
139
This difference can be attributed to the context of situation. Context of
situation in this case was a formal one. Eggins (1994: 64) mentions the
dimensions of this kind of role relationship. The interviews were
between male interviewer and his female interviewees. The power
relationship is unequal; the contact is occasional, and affective
involvement is low. The effect of this kind of tenor relation is
explained in terms of “face work” and ‘politeness’ below.
Face is defined by Goffman (1999: 306) as “a positive social value
a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has
taken during particular contact.” Goffman (1999: 307) then mentions
avoidance as the surest method of preventing threats to face. One kind
of avoidance is keeping off topics and activities which head towards
expression of information inharmonious with the line of information
one is maintaining. This same strategy was used with the female
participants more than male participants. Females preferred to give up
any attempt to convey the information than resorting to other types of
strategies such as L1-based or world knowledge. These strategies would
reveal their incompetence and threat their face.
The other factor is politeness. Politeness is defined by Holmes (1995:
5) as a behavior which actively expresses positive concern for others in
addition to “non-imposing distance” behavior. She then recognizes two
types of politeness: positive politeness and negative politeness. LPFP
learners of the study were avoiding the latter. As illustrated above, the
context of situation is formal. Therefore, females were induced to appeal
to negative politeness. For females in the study being negatively polite
means avoiding disagreeable topics, and not expressing items which
would jeopardize their validity. They had to do this with their limited
resources without any attempt to reveal their incompetence. As argued in
face work, in the absence of dependable L2 resources, world knowledge
and L1 knowledge could be good candidates. Nevertheless, use of these
strategies equals use of positive politeness in which case they had to
provide necessary information and keep the channels of talk open. As
positive politeness cannot be used, use of the other choice remains in
place. This would include use of every means to avoid tackling problems
for which they could not manage.
Table 15. Results of Tukey HSD Test. p> 0.05
Group Groups Mean Std. Error Sig. Outcome
LPMP .8667* .5033 .322 HPMP>LPMP
HPFP -1.7333 .5033 .470 n.s
L2
HPMP
LPFP 1.4667* .5033 .026 HPMP>LPFP
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
140
HPMP -.8667* .5033 .322 LPMP<HPMP
HPFP -1.6000* .5033 .013 LPMP<HPFP LPMP
LPFP .6000 .5033 .634 n.s
HPMP .7333 .5033 .470 n.s
LPMP 1.6000* .5033 .013 HPFP>LPMP HPFP
LPFP 2.2000* .5033 .000 HPFP>LPFP
HPMP -1.4667* .5033 .026 LPFP<HPMP
LPMP 1.6000 .5033 .634 n.s LPFP
HPFP -2.2000* .5033 .000 LPFP<HPFP
LPMP -3.2667* .4422 .000 HPMP<LPMP
HPFP -.2000 .4422 .969 n.s HPMP
LPFP -2.2000* .4422 .000 HPMP<LPFP
HPMP 3.2667* .4422 .000 LPMP>HPMP
HPFP 3.0667* .4422 .000 LPMP>HPFP LPMP
LPFP 1.0667 .4422 .086 n.s
HPMP .2000 .4422 .969 n.s
LPMP -3.0667* .4422 .000 HPFP<HPFP HPFP
LPFP -2.0000* .4422 .000 HPFP<LPFP
HPMP 2.2000* .4422 .000 LPFP>HPMP
LPMP -1.0667 .4422 .086 n.s
L1
LPFP
HPFP 2.0000* .4422 .000 LPFP>HPFP
LPMP -3.8000* .4012 .000 HPMP<LPMP
HPFP -.8667 .4012 .147 n.s HPMP
LPFP -.8667* .4012 .000 HPMP<LPFP
HPMP -3.1333* .4012 .000 LPMP>HPMP
HPFP 3.8000* .4012 .000 LPMP>HPFP LPMP
LPFP 2.9333 .4012 .353 n.s
HPMP .8667 .4012 .147 n.s
LPMP -2.9333* .4012 .000 HPFP<LPMP HPFP
LPFP -2.2667* .4012 .000 HPFP<LPFP
HPMP 3.1333* .4012 .000 LPFP>HPMP
LPMP -.6667 .4012 .353 n.s
WK
LPFP
HPFP 2.2667* .4012 .000 LPFP>HPFP
LPMP -2.4000* .5888 .001 HPMP<LPMP
HPFP 1.1333 .5888 .000 n.s HPMP
LPFP -5.333* .5888 .000 HPMP<LPFP
HPMP 2.4000* .5888 .229 LPMP>HPMP
HPFP 3.5333* .5888 .000 LPMP>HPFP LPMP
LPFP -2.9333* .5888 .000 LPMP<LPFP
HPMP -1.1333 .5888 .000 n.s
LPMP -3.5333* .5888 .000 HPFP<LPMP HPFP
LPFP -6.4667* .5888 .000 HPFP<LPFP
HPMP 5.3333* .5888 .130 LPFP>HPMP
LPMP 2.9333* .5888 .811 LPFP>LPMP
A
LPFP
HPFP 6.4667* .5888 .547 LPFP>HPFP
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN PROFICIENCY AND GENDER
141
LPMP -.3333 .1501 .130 n.s
HPFP -.1333 .1501 .547 n.s HPMP
LPFP -.2000 .1501 .811 n.s
HPMP .3333 .1501 .811 n.s
HPFP .2000 .1501 .547 n.s LPMP
LPFP .1333 .1501 .811 n.s
HPMP .1333 .1501 .811 n.s
LPMP -.2000 .1501 .547 n.s HPFP
LPFP -6.6667E-02 .1501 .970 n.s
HPMP .2000 .1501 .547 n.s
LPMP -.1333 .1501 .811 n.s
P
LPFP
HPFP 6.667E-02 .1501 .970 n.s
Besides this difference between LPMP and LPFP in selection of
avoidance, the results remained closely related. This homogeneity in
performance can be explained in terms of the subject of the study itself
and the formal environment of the subjects.
It is noteworthy to mention that CSs study per se constitutes one
dimension of foreign language communication. If the definition of CSs
provided by Færch & Kasper above is recalled, we understand that
these phenomena are concerned with problems that arise in the course
of communication and ways to deal with these obstacles. The evidence
in itself indicates a narrow scope with which the subject is concerned
while language use in general and foreign language use in particular are
much more diverse in application and wider in scope. Therefore,
expecting gender differences to occur might not have been a very
realistic view. To sum up, gender is a much-limited space for the CSs to
occur. On the other hand, subjects under study contributed to this
homogeneity of performance and negated any chance for diverse
outcome. Students in Iran including the subjects in the study seem to
undergo similar experiences in the learning of English. Learners of both
genders learn English through formal educational system. Likewise
teachers undergo similar practices in their training. Both the students
and the teachers are brought up in an L1 milieu. They do not experience
any real language contact with the speakers of the target language, nor
can they afford to have that luxury in the target language environment
itself. They are brought up in a space which lacks the social dimension
of language. Holliday (1994: 13) investigated the social dimension of
language. He distinguishes between macro and micro aspects of social
context: the macro context, he believes, comprises the wider societal
and institutional influences on what happens in the classroom. Micro
view involves a discourse or interactive content. Our classes are void of
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
142
almost both of these dimensions. What remains for the students to
maneuver is in the area of language proficiency or more linguistically
put ‘linguistic competence’. In this framework students might ascend to
higher levels of proficiency based on their personal effort and endeavor.
However, this effort will remain limited in the sense that it will not gain
operationality in a wider sociolinguistic perspective.
CONCLUSION This paper investigated interplay of two factors: proficiency and gender
in two tasks of word recognition (WR) and picture story narration
(PSN). The results of the analysis revealed that proficiency exercised a
crucial role in the selection of CSs. Gender, however, did not generally
yield much significant difference.
Types of CSs underwent some changes when proficiency was at
play. It was seen that with the increase in the level of proficiency,
choice of CSs opted for L2-based ones. Types in the lower levels of
proficiency exhibited a tendency towards the Avoidance strategy. Task-
related factors imposed quantitative and qualitative variations: in PSN,
subjects used less CSs, but in WR they used more. This was explained
in terms of the nature of the task and its demands. The task demand left
a bold imprint on the types of CSs. More avoidance was seen in PSN
while more balanced use of L2, L1, and world knowledge was observed
in WR.
It is worth mentioning that proficiency in both number and types of
CSs brought significant outcomes, but gender continued to be
uninfluential. However, LPFP showed more use of avoidance, which
was attributed to the context of situation. Context of situation reveals its
effect in “face work” and “politeness” phenomena. Reason for this
passive role was attributed to the narrow subject under study and the
formal environment. Focus on linguistic competence is most frequently
so intense that it leaves other aspects of language use unattended.
Depravity of contact with real native-like language use intensified this
situation.
NOTES
1. The letters are abbreviations for each proficiency group, and the number
after each abbreviation indicates the number each participant is labled. For
instance, HPMP7 indicates high proficient male participant number seven
and LPFP12 means low proficient female participant number twelve. For
the abbreviation of all groups, the reader is referred to section 3.1 below.
The italicized words, phrases, and clauses indicate CSs use on the part of
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: AN INTERPLAY
BETWEEN PROFICIENCY AND GENDER
143
the learners. Words and phrases enclosed in brackets followed by the word
‘for’ indicate the translation of the italicized section.
2. The abbreviations stand for the following terms: L2=L2-based, L1=L1-
based; WK=World Knowledge; A =Avoidance; P =Paralinguistic
REFERENCES
Bialystok, E. 1983. Some factors in the selection and implementation of
communication strategies. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in
Interlanguage Communication (pp. 100-118). London: Longman.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Levenston, E. A. 1983. Universals of lexical simplification.
In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in Interlanguage
Communication (pp. 119-139). London: Longman.
Carter, R. 1998. Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives. 2nd ed. London:
Routledge.
Chen, S. Q. 1990. A study of communication strategies in interlanguage
production by Chinese EFL learners. Language Learning, 40, 155-187.
Chesterfield, R. & Chesterfield, K. B. 1985. Natural order in children’s use of
second language learning strategies. Applied Linguistics, 6, 45-59.
Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London:
Pinter.
Ellis, R. 1984. The communication strategies and the evaluation of
communicative performance. ELT Journal, 38, 39-44.
Færch, C. & Kasper, G. 1985. Perspectives on language transfer. Applied
Linguistics, 8, 111-136.
——. & Kasper, G. 1984. Two ways of defining communication strategies.
Language Learning, 34, 45-63.
——. & Kasper, G. 1983a. Plans and strategies in foreign language
communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in
Interlanguage Communication (pp. 20-26). London: Longman.
——. & Kasper, G. 1983b. On identifying communication strategies in
interlanguage production. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in
Interlanguage Communication (pp. 210-238). London: Longman.
——. & G. Kasper (eds.) 1983c. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication.
London: Longman.
Firth, A. & Wagner, J. 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some)
fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal,
81, 285-300.
Goffman, E. 1999. On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social
interaction. In A. Jaworski & N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader
(pp. 306-320). London: Routledge.
Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Holmes, J. 1995. Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
Kocoglu, Z. 1997. Abstract. The role of gender in communication strategies.
ERIC. Ed 409725.
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI & FARZAD ANGAMEH
144
Kormos, J. 1999. Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language learning, 49, 303-
342.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. 1996. Circumlocution, communication strategies, and the
ACTFL proficiency guidelines: An analysis of student discourse. Foreign
Language Annals, 29, 317-330.
Mangubhai, F. 1991. The processing behaviors of adult second language
learners and their relationship to second language proficiency. Applied
Linguistics, 12, 268-298.
Olsen, S. 1999. Errors and compensatory strategies: a study of grammar and
vocabulary in texts written by Norwegian learners of English. System, 27,
191-205.
Paribakht, T. 1986. On the pedagogical relevance of strategic competence.
TESL Canada Journal, 3, 53-66.
——. 1985. Strategic competence and language proficiency. Applied
Linguistics, 16, 132-146.
Poulisse, N. 1997. Compensatory strategies and the principles of clarity and
economy. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication
Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp. 49-64).
London: Longman.
——. & Schils, E. 1989. The influence of task and proficiency-related factors
on the use of compensatory strategies: A quantitative analysis. Language
Learning, 39, 15-48.
Vandergrift, L. 1997. The Cinderella of communication strategies: reception
strategies in interactive listening. The Modern Language Journal, 81,
494-505.
HUSSEIN SHOKOUHI
FARZAD ANGAMEH SHAHID CHAMRAN UNIVERSITY OF AHWAZ, IRAN
E-MAIL: <H_SHOKOUHI@HOTMAIL.COM>