Análisis de Comunicación Estratégica L2 para estudiantes...

Revista Educación Andrés Bello

ARTÍCULO

Revista de Educación Andrés Bello, Nº1, 2015, pp.29-64.

ANALYSIS OF L2 SPANISH LEARNERS’ STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION AND THE EFFECTS OF INTERVENING COMMUNICATIVE FACTORS

Análisis de Comunicación Estratégica L2 para estudiantes hispanos y los efectos de las intervenciones en los factores comunicativos MARITZA ROSAS MALDONADO Dra. En Lingüística Aplicada Magíster en Enseñanza del Inglés como Lengua Extranjera Núcleo de Investigación en Educación Universidad Andrés Bello [email protected]

Abstract This paper focuses on the way Spanish L2 learners communicate in face-to-face interactions via communication strategies. The aim of the study was to determine whether the learners’ strategic behaviour was influenced by three variables in interaction with one another: proficiency level, task and interlocutor. Dörnyei & Kormos’ taxonomy (1998) was used as the main analytical framework together with the interactional and paralinguistic CSs presented in a previous review (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). A task-based methodology was used to collect spoken data from two settings, that is, two types of dyads of a different level when carrying out two tasks. This was complemented with the learners’ verbal reports on their linguistic behaviour immediately after their interactions. The findings confirmed a 3-way interaction between the variables as affecting most of the categories of strategies analysed. The qualitative analysis of the learners’ interactions and verbal reports corroborated the types of associations obtained revealing further information on the difficulties that the learners encountered when trying to communicate in the L2 and how they managed to get their message across via their strategic behaviour. From a pedagogical perspective, CSs may be seen as facilitators of learners’ L2 oral interaction, inside and outside the classroom, thus as aids in their own learning process.

Key words: Communication Strategies (CSs), Interactions, L2 learners

Resumen El propósito del presente estudio fue comprender las dificultades que encuentran estudiantes de español como L2 al comunicarse cara a cara en este idioma mediante estrategias de comunicación. Para ello se analizaron tres variables: nivel de competencia, tarea e interlocutor, y cómo la posible interacción de estos tres factores influye la comunicación estratégica de estos estudiantes. El marco

MARITZA ROSAS – ANALISYS OF L2 SPANISH LEARNERS 30


analítico utilizado se basó en la taxonomía de Dörnyei & Kormos (1998) y en las estrategias interaccionales y paralingüísticas de Dörnyei & Scott (1997). Se utilizó una metodología basada en tareas para la recolección del discurso oral en dos contextos: dos tipos de parejas con distintos niveles al realizar dos tipos de tareas. Esto se complementó con la recolección de protocolos verbales inmediatamente después de las interacciones cara a cara. Los resultados de este estudio confirmaron los efectos de la interacción de estas tres variables en la mayoría de las categorías de estrategias analizadas. Las asociaciones que se observaron entre las variables fueron luego corroboradas mediante un análisis cualitativo, el cual además entregó información con relación a las dificultades que experimentaron los estudiantes al tratar de comunicarse en su L2 y cómo lograron tal comunicación. Desde una perspectiva pedagógica, estas estrategias podrían facilitar la interacción oral en la L2, tanto dentro como fuera del aula, contribuyendo así al proceso de aprendizaje de los estudiantes.

Palabras claves: Estrategias de Comunicación (EsC), Interacciones, Estudiantes de L2.

1. INTRODUCTION This paper reports on a study of how L21 Spanish learners’ use of communication strategies (hereafter CSs) is affected by a possible interaction of three variables: the learners’ proficiency level, the activity used in communication and the type of interactant, native speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS). The purpose of this study was to better understand the difficulties encountered by L2 learners when communicating in the target language by considering these three factors in interaction with one another, aspects which have been only examined individually. In addition, the focus of analysis will be Spanish as L2 and the CSs used in face-to-face communication, a different context to what has been generally examined. In order to do this, L2 Spanish learners with different proficiency levels interacted face-to-face in different dyads (NNS-NNS & NNS-NS) performing two tasks (closed & open); hence, a total of 36 interactions with different combinations of dyad and task were analysed. The quantitative and qualitative analyses carried out in both settings were based on Dörnyei &

1 The term ‘second’ language will be indistinctively used to refer to ‘second’ and ‘foreign’ language following Ellis definition “any language that is learned subsequent to the mother tongue, independently of the conditions in which the language is being learned” (1997:3).



Kormos’ taxonomy (1998) together with the interactional and paralinguistic devices presented in Dörnyei & Scott classification (1997).

The examination of these mechanisms originated in the study of Interlanguage (IL) in the 1970s and in the processes involved in the acquisition/learning of a second language (Selinker, 1972). Since then, these types of strategies have been the main focus within process-oriented IL research (Færch & Kasper, 1983, Kasper & Kellerman, 1997). Additionally, research carried out in the foreign language (FL) classroom also helped to complement studies on communication strategies, an aspect which was enhanced by the turn to more communicative teaching methodologies in the 1980s. This interest in CSs was reflected in the incorporation of these mechanisms in the theoretical framework for ‘communicative competence’ presented by Canale & Swain (1980), for which they proposed ‘strategic competence’ as an additional category to the existing ones (grammatical and sociolinguistic competence).

The relevance of the present paper lies in the interactional nature of the data elicitation and analysis, as well as the retrospective data collected which is expected will provide insight into how learners manage to communicate in the L2 and the main difficulties encountered in this process.

2. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES As mentioned above the study of communication strategies goes back to 1970s within the field of Interlanguage studies where the focus was on the various psycholinguistic processes learners experience when acquiring/learning an L2, particularly within the area of error analysis (Selinker, 1972; Tarone et al, 1976). It was during this time where these mechanisms were first defined and classified by following the main concepts of ‘problematicity’ and ‘consciousness’. This meant that the learners make



use of these strategies in order to overcome the problematic situations they encounter when trying to communicate in the L2; behaviour which implies awareness on their part. The first definitions and classifications proposed during these pioneer studies followed two approaches, the psycholinguistic and the interactional. The former considered the mental processes underlying the learners’ strategic behaviour (Færch & Kasper, 1983; Bialystok, 1990; Poulisse, 1987, 1993; Dörnyei & Kormos, 1998), whereas for the latter one the learners’ cooperation when interacting in the L2 was their main concern (Tarone, 1977, 1981; Yule & Tarone, 1997; Paribakht, 1984; Wagner & Firth, 1997). Thus, the psycholinguistic perspective focuses on the internal, mental processes undergone by L2 speakers/learners in communication, and the interactionist`s interest lies in the users’ performance, that is, what is observable in L2 communication. Similarly, but from a more pedagogical point of view, the concept of CSs was incorporated within a broader theoretical framework, that of communicative competence as proposed by Canale & Swain (1980). It was within this criteria for a communicative approach to second language teaching where a new component was incorporated, that of, ‘strategic competence’, defined as “verbal and non verbal communication that may be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or to insufficient competence” (p.30). These scholars also suggested that this strategic competence might be more useful at early stages of L2 learning, and that the use of CSs might be dependent on the learners’ age and their L2 proficiency, factors which would be also examined in later CS research. Others, such as Paribakht (1985) also found that all learners seem to possess this strategic ability, but that this competence and their L2 proficiency level appear to be independent. That is to say, the L2 knowledge that these learners have would help them in their selection of a specific CS, for example more related to their L1 or L2 depending on their interlanguage stage, but they would all share this strategic competence: “strategic competence and



linguistic competence are two different dimensions of language competence” (p.142). Bachman & Palmer (1996) also elaborated on the concept of strategic competence by redefining a previous proposal (Bachman, 1990) by stating that,

we conceive strategic competence as a set of metacognitive components, or strategies, which can be thought of as higher order executive processes that provide a cognitive management function in language use, as well as in other cognitive activities (p.70).

By metacognitive strategies, they referred to “those processes that enable language users to engage in goal setting, assessment and planning” (p.79), adding that the ability to use the language involves strategic competence and language knowledge (organisational and pragmatic). Although these authors developed this concept more deeply within the area of language testing, the construct proposed does cover the fact that language users in general utilise this type of competence, and that it refers in a broader sense not only to all underlying processes we are engaged in when performing any cognitive activity, but more specifically to being able to think about our own performance in any language-related event. The essential concepts of this proposal are therefore in line with Paribakht’s suggestions.

Various have been the definitions and classifications of CSs proposed within IL and CS research. For this study the one adopted was selected on its comprehensive and up-to-date basis,

strategies used by L2 learners in a conscious attempt to bridge a perceived communication gap either caused by the learners’ lack of L2 knowledge (resource deficit), problems with his or her own performance or problems resulting from interaction with an interlocutor (Lafford, 2004:204).



Additionally, this definition covers a wider range of mechanisms since it accounts for both theoretical perspectives above mentioned; hence, involving devices used for the speaker’s own problems in L2 speech as well as those triggered in the interlocutor’s output. Following the same criteria, the taxonomy proposed by Dörnyei & Kormos (1998) was considered for the identification of the CSs, to which the ‘interactional’ and ‘paralinguistic’ mechanisms from a previous review by Dörnyei & Scott (1997) were added in order to expand the analytical framework to account for a larger number/type of CSs.

Regarding empirical studies in this area, some of the main findings have shown that the use of CSs is influenced by various factors. One of these has to do with the learners’ proficiency which has indicated that those less competent L2 learners –who possess fewer L2 linguistic resources– need to rely more often on these mechanisms in order to communicate their message. Higher levels, on the other hand, seem to resort less often to CSs since they are more likely to rely on their richer L2 knowledge (Labarca & Khangi, 1986; Safont Jorda, 2001; Rababah & Seedhouse, 2004; Fernández Dobao, 2002). In addition, factors such as the activities carried out by the learners to communicate in the target language as well as the situational context where communication occurs have also been observed as influencing their use of CSs. For the task aspect, for example, studies have found that depending on the requirements of the communicative situation the learners would tend to use more or less cognitively demanding mechanisms, as well as those either more related to their L1 or L2 (Poulisse & Schils, 1989; Poulisse, 1987; Safont Jorda, 2001; Rababah & Bulut, 2007). There have been other factors, although less examined, such as the learning context (Lafford, 2004) and the influence of the interlocutor (Fernández Dobao & Palacios Martínez, 2007). This latter one, which is of interest for the present study, has been the focus in other fields of enquiry, such as interaction and L2 learning (Pica, 1988; Alcón & Guzmán, 1994). Most of this empirical evidence has been observed as



mechanisms in relation to different individual factors. The present study, on the other hand, attempts to confirm these associations but from a more comprehensive way by analysing the possible effects of three factors in interaction with one another. For this, the focus of analysis will be on the interactions of the different dyads and the retrospective comments provided by the learners in relation to their own L2 output.

3. THE STUDY This paper forms part of a larger study which attempted to determine possible associations between each of the variables above mentioned and the learners’ use of CSs. The individual analysis of each factor suggested a possible interaction between them, thus originating the present piece of work.

A descriptive, qualitative-quantitative study was designed to determine the effects of different variables, in interaction with one another, on the learners’ strategic communication. A total of 24 undergraduate students of the Hispanic and Latin American Studies and 7 native speakers of Spanish participated in this study, all of whom were studying at the University of Liverpool, United Kingdom. Twelve of them were enrolled in a second year ‘ex-beginners’ class2, whereas the other twelve were enrolled in a second year (advanced) class3. As part of the instruments utilised, a language background questionnaire was first administered to the prospective participants in order to find out their perception on their level of L2 proficiency, which would help to corroborate their level as determined by class (ex-beginners/advanced). This information was later corroborated with their marks obtained in the previous semester as part of their oral language class, information with which I could pair the participants according to a similar

2 This classification meant that these students had no language requirements to take this course. 3 This meant that these students were required to have A-level qualification to take this course.



proficiency level and facilitate the data analysis. Once the participants’ linguistic information had been obtained, and they had been paired according to a similar level, they were requested to attend the data collection sessions. The elicitation of the data involved the use of a closed type of task, a ‘jigsaw’ activity4 and an open task a ‘free-conversation’ activity. Through these tasks and in a laboratory context, the participants interacted by carrying out the different tasks with a different type of interlocutor. These interactions were video and audio recorded for a post interview conducted immediately after their performance of the activities. This post interview followed ‘stimulated recall methodology’ (Gass & Mackey, 2000), method used for eliciting learners’ retrospective information of the mental processes, that is, the CSs employed when facing communication problems. This methodology has been found beneficial to collect this type of observable information which can only be confirmed by means of the learners’ comments and corroboration of their linguistic behaviour. Thus, for this activity, the participants were asked to watch the videos of their interactions and to try to identify the problematic instances they had experienced when trying to communicate in the L2, and to explain how they had solved those problems. This would allow the identification and confirmation of the mechanisms used by the learners. This interview was carried out in the students’ L1 in order to facilitate the explanation of their linguistic behaviour. Subsequently, the data obtained from the learners’ interactions and retrospective comments was transcribed by using the software programme Transana (Fassnacht, version 2.1, 2005-2009). Afterwards, the data was inputted and analysed by means of the programme UAM Corpus Tool (O’Donnell, version 2.0; 2008). For this analysis, the framework

proposed by Dӧrnyei & Kormos (1998) together with the interactional and

paralinguistic CSs presented by Dӧrnyei & Scott (1997) were used. Once the

4 A story divided in two parts/sets of pictures, each half of the story was given to each interactant and together they had to find the sequence of the whole story.



identification of the CSs had been conducted, a one-to-one reliability test was carried out by a Spanish teacher from the University of Liverpool in order to validate my own examination of these mechanisms. Once the data had been analysed and validated, a loglinear analysis5 was conducted in order to examine these three independent variables (proficiency, task, interlocutor) and look for their possible interactions with one another as affecting the learners’ use of CSs. This kind of analysis is used in order to ‘test the relationship between more than two categorical variables (Field, 2009:721). This latter analysis was complemented with a qualitative examination of the learners’ interactions and retrospective comments; analysis which was expected would corroborate a possible interaction between the different factors.

4. INTERACTION OF VARIABLES As already mentioned the final aim of the present paper is to determine the possible effects of three factors –in interaction with one another– on the learners’ use of CSs. In order to do this the present analysis aimed at finding out which particular CS categories were more or less affected by this possible combination/s of the variables here examined so as to determine any influence on the learners’ strategic communication. Hence, this phenomenon was examined according to the main CS categories, thus from a more general point of view. Therefore, the following account will begin with an overview of the results obtained from a loglinear analysis for all the main CS classes, and then continue with the examination of some of these categories (for further information refer to appendix). It is worth adding that the loglinear

5 ‘Loglinear analysis is hierarchical: the initial model contains all main effects and interactions. Starting with the highest-order interaction [three-way interaction], terms are removed to see whether their removal significantly affects the fit of the model. If it does then this term is not removed and all lower-order effects are ignored’ (Field, 2009: 721).



analysis has been carried out from the proficiency level perspective, that is, the level has been used as the main variable or layer for this statistical test.

4.1 Analysis and discussion of results: general results

Figure 1 presents a summary of the results obtained from the loglinear analysis carried out for each of the five main categories of CSs analysed. In the first row, the type of interaction between the variables as shown by this statistical analysis is presented. In the following row, the statistically significant association between the variables is given.

Figure 1 Overview of results for each CS category: Loglinear analysis CS categories

PSM related to L2 Resource deficit

PSM related to processing time-pressure

PSM related to own-output problems

PSM related to other-performance problems

Interactional- Paralinguistic CSs

3-way interaction Highly significant (.003) For Level A there is a highly significant association between task-interlocutor (.001) NNS closed T NS open T

3-way interaction Highly significant (.001) For level B there is a highly significant association between task-interlocutor (.001) NNS open T NS closed

3-way interaction Highly significant (.001) For both levels: there is a significant association between task-interlocutor (A: .0.37/B: .011) A: NNS closed T NS open T B: NNS open T NS closed T

2-way interaction Highly significant (.001) Task-interlocutor significant (.006) Level-interlocutor significant (.000)

3-way interaction Highly significant (.003) For level A: there is a significant association between task-interlocutor (.008) NNS closed T NS open T

The results obtained from this loglinear analysis confirm that in most of the categories, there is a 3-way interaction of the variables, that is to say, the three variables in interaction with one another affect the use of most of the CS categories. The only difference in these results involves the category ‘Problem-solving mechanisms (PSM) related to other-performance problems’, which produced a 2-way interaction of variables and thus needed



further individual Chi-square tests. It can also be observed that in most of the categories, there is a highly significant association between the type of task and the type of interlocutor, variables which interact within the level, although in different ways. These associations vary according to the level and the CS category. What follows provides an overview of the way these variables interacted with one another in relation to the different types of CSs. For this, only those categories which appear to show the most interesting interactions (in bold) will form part of this examination. In this respect, ‘PSM related to L2 resource deficit’6 will be examined, considering its importance as a category which comprises what may be regarded as the most central areas of CS usage in L2 communication – which involves lexical, grammatical, and phonological-articulatory PSM (see appendix). In addition, ‘PSM related to other-performance problems’7, will also be examined in view of the different type of interaction that this category produced.

4.2 PSM related to L2 resource deficit (RD)

For the CSs within this category, the three-way loglinear analysis produced a final model that retained all effects. The likelihood ratio of this model was !2 (0) = 0, p = 1. This indicated that the highest-order interaction (the level x task x interlocutor interaction) was highly significant, !2 = 11.173, p = .001. The Chi-square tests performed for the levels show that for Level A only there was a highly significant association between the type of task and interlocutor, !2 = 12.075, p =.001. This suggests that there is a fundamental difference between levels: as examination of the observed and expected counts showed, Level A learners are more likely to make proportionally more use of this type of CS in the closed type of task, and when in interaction with another learner. Conversely, the same learners need to resort more than expected to these CSs in the open task and when with a NS. In order to

6 This category involves PSM used for compensating the learners’ lack of L2 linguistic resources 7 This category involves those PSM produced in the interlocutor’s output



explain these associations, the data produced in these particular settings will be analysed and illustrated with excerpts taken from the learners’ interactions. For a better understanding of these excerpts, the following conventions were used in the data transcription:

[ ] square brackets indicate overlapping speech (word) word in parenthesis indicates that the word was not clearly heard { } curly brackets show the researcher’s comments based on the videos (( )) double parentheses indicate inaudible speech ↑ upwards arrow indicates rising intonation wa-ter hyphens in between syllables mean that the word was slowly uttered (0.2) pauses are shown in seconds and placed in between parentheses italics words in italics show the English translation of each utterance

bold words in bold are my notation of relevant non-linguistic features, such as ‘risa’ /‘laugh’, and gestures.

4.2.1 D CSs - Level A: open task NS

The association between lower level proficiency, NS interlocutor and the open task will be first illustrated and examined.

Example 1 Level A: open task NS (‘best holidays’)

NS: ¿Cuáles han sido tus mejores vacaciones? Which are the best holidays you’ve ever had? NNS15: eh cuan cuando era niña fui aaa fui Francia con mi con mi

familia y eh no nosotros eh camp camping ↑ Camping en Francia y conducir conducir todos de la-gestos- (0.3) conducir a In Inglaterra ↑ En Francia-gestos

NS: ah ¿fuiste hasta Francia en coche? Ah did yo go to France by car? NNS15: Si-risa Yes - laugh NS: oh!



NNS15: hay y hay siete personas en mi familia so en el coche eh en el coche es muy

There are and there are seven people in my family so in the car eh in the car it is very

NS: [muy estresante-risa [very stressing-laugh NNS15: si-risa-eh si pero Yes-laugh-eh but NS: [y que [and what NNS: [pero es dive muy dive era muy divertido [but it is fu very funny it was very funny NS: y ¿qué visitasteis en Francia? And what did you visit in France? NNS15: en Francia eh xx, xx en Francia In France eh xx, xx in France NS: no lo conozco I don’t know it NNS15: en el en el sur suro suroeste↑ En el suroeste de Francia In the in the south southe southeast↑ in the Southeast of France NS: ¿fuiste a Disneyland? Did you go to Disneyland? NNS15: oh Disneyland si eh por mi eh por mi eh cum eh cumpleaños

cuando eh cuando tengo dieci dieciocho años eh fui a fui a-risa-Disneyland-risa

Oh Disneyland yes eh for my eh for my eh birth eh birthday when eh when I am eight eighteen years eh I went to I went to-laugh-Disneyland-laugh

NS: ¿otra vez fuiste a Francia? Did you go to France again?



NNS15: {puzzled look} NS: ¿fuiste dos veces a Francia? Did you go to France twice? NNS15: sí y fui a Disneyland por mi por mi cumpleaños cuando eh

dieciocho era muy divertido pero mm yes and I went to Disneyland for my for my birthday when eh

eighteen it was very funny but mm NS: [muy infantil] [too childish] NNS15: si eh tengo… Yes eh I have…

What can be first noticed in the excerpt above relates to the type of L2 speech produced. As this is a free-conversation, and thus open-ended activity, the speakers are free to talk, in this case, about the holidays they liked most, having therefore more linguistic freedom to communicate. This less restricted linguistic environment, however, prompts NNS15 to try to tell the NS a story in the past tense involving different actions and people, aspects which present more difficulties for this lower level learner to communicate. The different grammatical and lexical problems encountered in this cognitively demanding task, need therefore to be compensated with the use of the different ‘L2 resource deficit’ mechanisms, such as the ones underlined: grammatical reduction8 and substitution9, lexical tip of the tongue10, incorrect use of prepositions. What is also noteworthy here is the NS’s role in leading the conversation, by asking the learner questions so as to encourage her to continue elaborating on the topic as well as to confirm or clarify her message. This can be evidenced through the questions and comments made by the NS, which to some extent push the learner to develop more the

8 Using simplified/reduced grammar such as present and/or infinitive form tenses 9 substituting certain grammatical structures by transferring or overgeneralising an L2 form 10 Trying to retrieve and articulate an item in order to reach an optimal form (D�rnyei & Kormos, 1998:359-376)



conversation topic – forcing them to try to explain more complex ideas – which makes them encounter more problems in communicating, thus leading them to resort to more CSs of this type. NNS15 comments on this fact when explaining part of her strategic behaviour:

NNS15: (what did you want to say after that?) I think I wanted to say ‘there’s a lot of noise, a lot of people’ but I just couldn’t say it and then I looked at the card {with the instructions for the task} and the NS said there’s a lot of stress (was that ok?) yeah. (What happened there when you said ‘divertido?) I think I thought I’d said it wrong the first time so I said it again hoping it was right. I didn’t know if that was right so I repeated it (when you repeated it was it for her?) yeah it was for her to nod me to say that she understands.

These comments confirm the fact that the NNS is prompted to develop more complex ideas not only because of the task demands, but also because of the NS’s questions or comments, as was observed in the excerpts above. It is apparent that NNS15’s intended meaning was not only to try to narrate a story, which happened in the past, but also to explain the way she felt in that situation (‘fue estresante’ (‘it was stressful’), ‘fue divertido’ (‘it was fun’); all aspects which thus triggered the use of these CSs.

In order to further confirm the analysis proposed here, the extract above will be contrasted with an excerpt of the same setting but with a NNS interlocutor.

Example 2 Level A: open task NNS (‘stress and how to cope with it’)

NNS10: ¿si? eh también eh no me gusta cuando tu eh empezar una nuevo trabajo es muy muy difícil para mí porque no sé las cosas eh a hacer y (0.2) uff no sé eh

yes? Eh also eh I don’t like when you eh to start a new job it is very very difficult for me because I don’t know the things eh to do and (0.2)



uff don’t know eh NNS9: risa (0.4) sí eh sí ah eh cuando ah ah cuando tiene eh cuando

tengo una eh eh cosa a hacer eh por deberes eh eh pienso eh de eso todo el tiempo eh porque ess importante de de lo hacer pero eh eh me gusta ah hacer…

laugh (0.4) yes eh yes ah eh when ah ah when has eh when I have one eh eh thing to do eh for homework eh eh I think eh of that all the time eh because iss important of of do it but eh eh I like ah to do...

NNS10: ¿si? Risa eh también tengo eh eh los exámen exámenes orales es más más más difícil para mí cuando no me gusta hablar en una otra lengua-risa-en frente en en una situación formal eh con el profesor-gestos- es escribe-gestos-en el (note) no sé-risa-y eh ah mee me pongo rojo↑gestos-risa-y eh no me gusta es ho es horrible

yes? Laugh eh also I have eh eh the oral exam exams is more more more difficult for me when I don’t like to speak in an other language laugh in front in in a formal situation eh with the teacher gestures wri writing gestures in the (note) don’t know laugh and eh ah I blush↑gestures-laugh and eh I don’t like it’s ho it’s horrible

NNS10: si-risa Yes laugh NNS9: eh y es muy difícil de hablar Eh and it’s very difficult to speak NNS10: eh y también no me gusta… eh and also I don’t like...

In the excerpt above, it can be observed that these lower level learners encounter the problems characteristic of this type of open-ended task, with no visual support – lack of linguistic aid to guide their conversation – difficulties which are coupled with the learners’ lack of L2 resources, as



shown in the previous analysis. The NNS interlocutor; however, does not seem to impose the same demands observed when in interaction with a NS. In this NNS dyad, as both speakers lack the necessary L2 knowledge, they are not able to interact as much as when with a NS, whose L2 expertise enables them to prompt that interaction. This aspect can be evidenced in these speakers’ turns, which are longer and do not appear to be connected with their interlocutor’s previous message, as shown in the underlined interventions, producing a less fluent conversation. As opposed to the excerpt previously analysed, here the issues that the learners attempt to talk about seem to be less varied and more briefly developed. On some other occasions, it was also observed that the learners’ message was not necessarily related to the topic given, and that the learners changed the subject quite frequently, as they were not able to develop one particular subject for too long.

4.2.2 RD CSs - Level A: closed task NNS

I now turn to the interaction between lower level proficiency, closed task and NNS interlocutor as illustrated in the following excerpts.

Example 3 Level A: closed task NNS

NNS3: eh en mi pictura hay un un hombre eh solo eh ell eh eh esta fumar↑ en ah puede ser en su habitación↑ con una mesa y una

ventana, pero pienso queee está (0.2) eh o esto eh es el primero↑ no sé (0.3) y tú?

Eh in my first picture there is a a man eh alone eh hee eh eh is smoke↑

in an could be in his room↑ with a table and a window, but I think

thaaat he is (0.2) eh or this eh is the first↑ I don’t know (0.3) and you? NNS4: eh creo que la primera pictura es eh cuando un hombre, solo

también, es ah caminar a los eh (0.2) sss-risa-no no recuerda la



palabra-risa-pero es una ‘steps’-gestos-ah y en eh pero es en eh

creo que es eh en una eh restorante↑ eh y el es eh en un eh un

jaqueta↑ Eh I think that the first picture is eh when a man, alone too, is ah

walk to the eh (0.2) sss-laugh- I don’t don’t remember the word-laugh-but is a ‘steps’-gestures-ah and in eh but it’s in eh I think

that it is in a eh restaurant↑ eh and he is eh in a eh in jacket↑ NNS3: [sí .............. NNS3: pero eh también en mis picturas ah *ha abrido↑ abrido ah unaaa

eh botella↑ de de cham *champagne y es es to todo el eh champagne eh eh (0.4) eh (0.2) no sé cómo se dice es como eh (0.2) mucho mucho agua no sé es

but eh also in my pictures ah he has opened↑opened ah aaa eh bottle↑ of of cham champagne and is is a all the eh champagne eh eh (0.4) eh (0.2) I don’t know how to say is like eh (0.2) much much water I don’t know

NNS4: ¿dónde en tu picturas? Where in your pictures? NNS3: eh no sé, como no no agua pero *champagne {in English} es

como Eh I don’t know, like no no wáter but champagne is like NNS4: [oh vale] [oh ok] NNS3: eh mucho champagne eh en ah en desde eh la botella-gestos-

(rápido) Eh much champagne eh in ah in from eh the bottle-gestures-(fast) NNS4: ah vale Ah ok



[‘ha abrido’, ‘h’ is pronounced as in English, target word: ‘ha abierto’, ‘he has opened] [‘champagne’ is pronounced in English]

These two excerpts form part of the same interaction within this type of setting. They both show how the different demands imposed by the three variables in interaction triggered these learners’ use of various ‘L2 resource deficit’ CSs, such as grammatical reduction (‘él está fumar’, ‘hombre es caminar’), foreignising11 (‘pictura’/ ‘jaqueta’), and code-switch12, amongst others. These learners’ primary need to compensate for the lexical items required to carry out this closed task (‘jigsaw’) was observed as being quite frequent; a factor which is enhanced by their low proficiency. In addition, it can be seen how the NNS interlocutor, as opposed to the NS interlocutor analysed above, is not able to provide the assistance required by their peer. The following comments help to clarify some of the learners’ problems encountered when carrying out this activity and, particularly, when interacting with another learner.

NNS4: (when you do miming, is that a way of asking for help?) no, first in that case it was to help her to show her what I meant but I think I use my hands a lot in English and Spanish and also when I am nervous. Then, I understood when she said ‘desde la botella, muy rápido’, I realised when you opened the bottle of champagne, but before that I wasn’t really sure.

As can be seen, the speakers’ shared background and lower level of competence, together with the visual support they also shared in this particular task (pictures), promoted a mutual understanding between the speakers. This can be observed in the comments above, where NNS4 explains that she complemented her output with miming not as a way of eliciting help,

11 Using a L1 or L3 word by adjusting it to L2 phonology (i.e., with a L2 pronunciation) or morphology. 12 Including L1 or L3 words with L1 or L3 pronunciation in L2 speech; this may involve stretches of discourse ranging from single words to whole chunks and even complete turns (Dörnyei & Kormos, 1998: 359-376).



but to help her peer to understand her message and so aid comprehension. Something similar is evidenced in her last comments, where the learner confirms that she understood the way NNS3 attempted to communicate something related to the ‘opening of a bottle of champagne’, although NNS3’s message is grammatically reduced and so not very coherent. This demonstrates that the fact of interacting with another NNS fostered a more comfortable setting for the learners to try to use their rudimentary L2 language, but which also required the use of this type of CS in the realisation of this linguistically demanding type of task.

Hence, each type of task involved high demands particularly for these less proficient learners, triggering the production of ‘L2 resource deficit’ CSs. Nonetheless, the particular associations which emerged from the statistical analysis seem to highlight some distinct factors in each setting. It seems that the open task is more related to the NS interlocutor, because of the NS’s major leading role, which directs the conversation and guides the learners in what to talk about but imposes more linguistic demands in this freer context. Thus, in this setting, the learners feel more pressured to try to convey more complex ideas, in their attempt to talk about more personal information – as the free topics of this task required – leading to a higher use of these types of CSs. The closed task, on the other hand, is more related to the NNS interlocutor because, although the learners are faced with problems related to the specific language required in this task – and by their lack of L2 resources – the visual support provided helps to direct their interaction and guide them in what to talk about. Therefore, the context shared by both speakers together with their equal linguistic status provided the learners with a better context to try to communicate with the few L2 resources available, which concurrently triggered a frequent use of this type of CSs.



4.4 Analysis of results: PSM related to other-performance problems (OP)

As can be seen in the results obtained from the loglinear analysis, the present category shows a different outcome from the other CS categories, where it was observed that the three variables were producing effects in interaction with one another (level x task x interlocutor). Figure 1 shows that the 3-way loglinear analysis for ‘PSM related to OP’ produced a final model that retained the level x interlocutor and task x interlocutor interactions. The likelihood ratio of this model was !2 (2) = 4.996, p = 0.8213. In order to interpret these two interactions, each one will be first examined by means of individual Chi-square tests and subsequent odds ratio analyses. It is worth adding that the figures obtained for these combinations are quite low as observed in both tables below. This is due to this type of CSs, which are primarily triggered by the interlocutor’s communication problems, thus, in many cases, due to comprehension problems generated by the NS’s speech and evidenced in the learners’ use of CSs such as asking for repetition/clarification/confirmation, expressing non-understanding, feigning understanding. A further factor, in other instances, had to do with the NS providing help through CSs such as, guessing, other-repair and other-completion – CSs which are not included in this account – and which were not much employed by the NNS interlocutor.

4.4.1 Level x interlocutor interaction

The level x interlocutor interaction was highly significant !2 (1) = 14.004, p = .000. To interpret this, the odds ratio was calculated from the figures in Table 1 below. For this calculation, it was considered that the odds of outcome 1

13 In order to interpret this data, Field (2009:723) suggests ‘collapsing the data’. For this, the following conditions –which are present in these results – should be met: ‘(1) the highest-order interaction should be non-significant; and (2) at least one of the lower-order interaction terms involving the variable to be deleted should be non-significant’. The data in this case can therefore be collapsed, across the proficiency variable, and this 2-way interaction can be analysed by means of a Chi-square test on ‘level x interlocutor and task x interlocutor’, ignoring ‘task and level’ respectively. Then to interpret the Chi-square results, Field suggests calculating some odds ratios as shown in the present analysis.



v/s outcome 2 are the probability (frequency) of outcome 1 divided by the probability (frequency) of outcome 2 (Field, 2009).

Table 1 Results for the level x interlocutor interaction

Type of interlocutor Total

NNS NS

A count 17 49 66 expected count 26.7 39.3 66.0 Proficiency % of total 14.7% 42.2% 56.9% level Count 30 20 50 B Expected count 20.3 29.7 50.0 % of total 25.9% 17.2% 43.1% Count 47 69 116 Total Expected count 47.0 69.0 116.0

% of total 40.5% 59.5% 100.0%

From Table 1 it can be observed that, from the perspective of the lower proficiency level subjects, the odds that the NS will influence this type of CSs were 49/20 = 2.45. However, the odds that the NNS will affect the use of these CSs were 17/30 = 0.57; thus, the odds ratio is 2.45/0.57 = 4.3. This means that the odds that the lower level proficiency will elicit more of these CSs are 4.3 times greater with a NS than with a NNS. In order to determine the effects of these variables in this particular interaction some of the learners’ retrospective comments regarding their interaction with a NS will be analysed. This first combination of lower level proficiency and NS will be now examined.

As it has already been observed, the NS interlocutor did not only benefit these learners in general, in that they were perceived as a source of L2 knowledge, but also imposed more difficulties on them. These difficulties were found as being related to the ways in which the NS pushed the learners to elaborate more on their ideas in order to clarify their L2 output. Moreover, the more complex input provided by the NS’s speech also generated comprehension problems, which were usually solved by the learners’ use of



some of the CSs which comprise this category, such as asking for repetition/clarification or confirmation, expressing non-understanding or simply feigning understanding14. The following comments support this rationale.

NNS15A: I didn’t understand this part I think there’s one verb she says I didn’t understand what it was about, and you can see it in a minute, I think I thought I had understood, but then when she asked me I was like ‘oh no actually I don’t understand what you’re saying’. Then I didn’t understand ‘boroto?’ (‘alboroto’) but I understood ‘ruidoso’ and that’s why my look there laugh. (Later you asked her to repeat) I didn’t understand her at the time, but when she said it again I understood because I had to think in my head what ‘vez’ was and then I knew I understood, it just took me longer to process it. Then I was trying to think for the word for ‘we walked so we walked around everywhere’ I just leave it because I can’t think what it is, I know she was saying something about a car but, I just went along with it because I didn’t know how to say what I wanted to say.

These comments further confirm the kinds of comprehension problems that these learners found, primarily because of the more complex language produced by the NS, a difficulty which was intensified by these learners’ lower proficiency level. Because of this, the NNSs tried to focus on understanding the main ideas since, as they indicated, it was difficult for them to comprehend all the words the NS used. As was evidenced in the data, these communication problems were normally signaled through the learners’ facial expressions or the eye contact made with the NS in order to, for example, express their non-understanding, which prompted the NS to rephrase the message or used similar words. On other occasions, as NNS15A also indicates, the learner’s request for repetition of the NS’s message was also necessary, as they needed more time for the processing of the information given. Additionally, and as evidenced in this learner’s last

14 Making an attempt to carry on the conversation in spite of not understanding something by pretending to understand (Dörnyei & Kormos, 1998: 359-376).



comments – because of the comprehension problems together with their lack of L2 resources – she opted for feigning understanding so as to maintain the conversation. The following comments provide additional evidence regarding these learners’ interaction with a NS.

NNS10A: I was trying to say like ‘informal clothes’ like ‘he’s not wearing normal clothes’ but I just said ‘no formal’ like trying to think of a way to say it. (And she said ‘the gala’) like normal clothes? Is that? (no, but you said ‘yes’) what did she say? (very formal clothes) oh laugh I thought she had said ‘regala’ so I thought it was going to be like ‘regular’ laugh so that probably confused her laugh (so you thought you understood?) yeah but I didn’t. (Why didn’t you ask for repetition?) laugh ‘cause I thought I got the most important bit, and probably also because of not knowing her, you know like being like sorry ‘what did you say’ you know laugh (so how about with another NNS?) well maybe here just worrying about what I am saying more, and listen to what they say and understand little bits, and trying to think of what I am gonna say and don’t get caught up on what they’ve said. I think it’s like I just wanna get what I have to say out of the way laugh.

NNS11A: I understand more now when watching the video (you didn’t want to say that you didn’t understand?) well I got the gist but I didn’t understand the actual words, now I do. (Why did you say there ‘lo siento’?) Just apologising for my Spanish, I was very conscious at this point because it got better as we went on, I was a bit nervous.

The comments above add evidence in relation to these learners’ comprehension problems as being enhanced by the speakers’ non-shared status. NNS10A, for example, speaks about her feigning understanding regarding the word ‘gala’, which she thought it corresponded with the word she was trying to convey, but as she found out later, it did not; a mistake which, as she indicates, might have caused even further comprehension problems for both speakers. The same CS usage can be evidenced in



NNS11A’ comments, where he indicates that he understood the NS’s message more when watching the video of their interaction in the post-interview, thus implying that he also feigned understanding when communicating with a NS. It is therefore evident that this dyad’s unequal status – coupled with the learners’ lower competence – enhances their difficulties to understand the more complex speech produced by the NS. It is also noteworthy that the learners’ awareness and concern regarding this non-shared status with this type of interlocutor intensifies the problems encountered. They seem to be conscious about their low level of Spanish, and so feel more uncomfortable when interacting with a NS, which thus imposes an additional demand on them. This is clearly substantiated in NNS10A’s comments, where she describes all the different processes which she needs to pay attention to when with a NS, and particularly in order to comprehend their message and so maintain the conversation.

Thus, the NS’s more complex language, together with the non-shared status – characteristics which were exacerbated by the learners’ lower competence – triggered the learners’ use of ‘PSM related to OP problems’ in their attempt to achieve a general or superficial understanding of their interlocutor’s message, and be able to maintain the conversation.

4.4.2 Results for task x interlocutor interaction

For the task x interlocutor interaction, the results were also significant !2 (1) = 7.571, p = .006. To interpret this, the odds ratio was calculated according to the following results.



Table 2 Results for task x interlocutor interaction

Type of interlocutor total

NNS NS

A Count 35 34 69 Expected count 28.0 41.0 69.0 Proficiency % of total 30.2% 29.3% 59.5% level Count 12 35 47 B Expected count 19.0 28.0 47.0 % of total 10.3% 30.2% 40.5% Count 47 69 116 Total Expected count 47.0 69.0 116.0 % of total 40.5% 59.5% 100.0%

Table 2 shows that, from the perspective of the open task, the odds that the NS will influence this type of CSs were 35/34 = 1.03, and the odds that the NNS will influence these CSs were 12/35 = 0.34. Therefore, the odds ratio is 1.03/0.34 = 3.0, which means that the odds that the NS will influence this type of CSs are 3.0 times greater in the open task than in the closed task. Therefore, I now turn to the analysis of the combination NS interlocutor and open task, which was observed for the task x interlocutor interaction.

One of the first issues which can be observed in the following comments concerns the demands of this type of task. The freer linguistic context provided by this open-ended task –which also imposed cognitive difficulties – produced even more problems for most learners to try to maintain the communication, particularly with a NS. Thus, on some occasions, the NNS did not only have problems to understand the NS’s speech, but also to think of what to say because of the topic provided, as shown in the comments below. Concurrently, this less restricted language context seems to have encouraged the NS to speak more freely about the given topic – as was reflected in the varied and more complex language used – hence generating more difficulties for the learners to comprehend their message. In this respect, the comments below demonstrate the learners’ strategic use of the



language in order to cope with these comprehension problems. NNS11A explains that because of his non-understanding –signaled by his puzzled look, as observed in the video– the NS opted for rephrasing her output, but instead of clarifying the meaning it caused him more troubles to comprehend. In NNS15A’s comments, on the other hand, it can be observed how the learner had to resort to feigning understanding when not comprehending the NS’s question.

NNS11A: I was just trying to think of some conversation laugh. There I was just using what she’s saying actually laugh, and then she tried to change what she had said, because she realised I didn’t understand, and I think she tried to change what she was saying but it was more difficult...

NNS15A: I didn’t have much vocab so I couldn’t say ‘I get stressed’, even in English I can’t think of anything I get stressed about, so it was harder because I didn’t know what to talk about. Then, I didn’t know that’s what she was asking; I thought she had asked if I’d been to Spain.

The comments below add further evidence to the demands imposed by the NS interlocutor, and which prompted the learners to use this type of CSs. It is clear that in this task, in particular, the learners had more troubles to understand the NS, because of their more varied and more complex language, in addition to their fast-paced speech, as NNS16A mentions. It is also apparent, especially through NNS4A’ comments, that on some occasions, the learners opted for feigning understanding instead of asking for repetition or clarification, in an attempt to maintain the conversation, and also because of politeness, as they did not want to interrupt the flow of the interaction.

NNS16A: (did you understand there?) no laugh I didn’t understand anything she’s going too fast. (Is that what you wanted to say?) Yeah but again I wasn’t sure if that was what she was asking me so I was a bit hesitant.



NNS4A: I don’t think I understood that, you can see that I asked him to repeat that. I don’t know what that means so I must be pretending. Then, I don’t think I understood him, you can see it in my face laugh (Why don’t you generally say so?) I think it was probably because I was nervous and I thought we’ve gone too far and he’s said too much for me to say I don’t understand. And it’s just politeness of me nodding and...I think I understood the whole word but together it’s a bit too much.

The results obtained for this category – a two-way interaction of level x interlocutor and task x interlocutor – can thus be confirmed in that they emphasise one variable in particular: the NS interlocutor. As shown in the comments above, all the learners pointed to the same kind of comprehension problems, which prompted their use of CSs such as, asking for repetition/ clarification, expressing non-understanding and feigning understanding. Their incomplete understanding, on most occasions, of the NS’s output was the main difficulty experienced by most learners, comprehension problems which were intensified by their lower level of proficiency and by the demands of the open task.

5. CONCLUSION AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS This study attempted to determine whether L2 Spanish learners’ use of communication strategies was influenced by a possible interaction of three variables: the learners’ proficiency level, the activity used in communication and the type of interlocutor. The statistical analysis carried out made it possible to confirm the interaction of these variables with one another as affecting the learners’ use of specific CS categories. This examination also allowed the identification of the associations which contributed more to the significance of each type of interaction for each CS category. The qualitative



analysis of some of these associations demonstrated more clearly how the different effects of each variable were intensified by one another influencing in conjunction the learners’ strategic behaviour. The most interesting findings are related to the demands imposed by the task factor and the NS interlocutor, difficulties, which in the settings here analysed, were emphasised by the learners’ limited command of the target language.

One of the main conclusions refers to the importance of the study of CSs in that it allows focusing on the different problematic situations that L2 learners are faced with in interaction with other speakers. The various difficulties that the learners encountered when attempting to communicate in the L2 show how these strategies may in fact facilitate communication: by helping learners make use of and/or stretch their existing L2 resources in order to keep the conversations flowing. Bearing this in mind, instructing learners on the use of some CSs may prove beneficial as they may enhance learner autonomy, thus providing learners with a sense of confidence when using the language, especially in the early stages of interlanguage (Manchón, 2000; Faucette, 2001).

The analysis of these mechanisms also demonstrates how important it is to consider the L2 communicative context from a more comprehensive perspective. This was demonstrated through the learners’ reflections on their own output which not only indicated how the different factors examined affected their communication, but also other communicational aspects, such as the NS’s speaking pace and linguistic complexity, in addition to pragmatic factors, as for example, the learners’ sense of politeness when interacting with a NS. This confirms the complexity and variety of the processes involved in L2 communication which similarly reflect the learners’ interlanguage processes (see Ellis, 1997). From a pedagogical perspective, it seems that consideration should be given to other aspects of communication in the L2 class with respect to the teaching and learning of speaking skills,



such as, ‘contextual appropriacy’ (setting, participants’ status and relationship). In this way teachers would be able to extend the traditional focus on accuracy/fluency which has oriented the L2 class (Hedge, 2000:261).

Another aspect which was also evidenced in this study has to do with the learners’ lack of confidence (or insecurity) when communicating with a NS – as reflected in their verbal reports. It may be the fact that trying to express something different, in a more natural (or quasi natural) kind of conversation, to what they are used to in their L2 class, presented even more difficulties. This seems to be related to what has been suggested in Second Language Acquisition/Learning (SLA/SLL) with respect to learners’ exposure to the target language in varied ways. The Input Theory as well as Interactionist perspectives (Interaction Hypothesis, Sociocultural Theory) emphasise the importance of learners being exposed to an array of input sources as well as interactional contexts. Thus, to situations which resemble more real communication for the learners to be able to use the language in a more effective way (see Saville-Troike, 2006:99-132). This more real type of communication was particularly observed in this study in the learners’ performance of the ‘free-conversation’ activity where they were not only pushed to produce more complex language, because of the task demands, but also due to the NS’s speech and their role as prompter of communication. This evidence leads to one of the main factors within Interactionist Theories of learning that of ‘negotiation of meaning’, which has been found to be crucial in the L2 learning process (Long, 1981; Williams et al, 1997). These negotiation moves have been usually observed in NNS-NS interactions where the learner is forced to either repeat/clarify information or ask for confirmation due to comprehension problems. All instances which benefit learners by means of what is called ‘pushed output’ since the learners are pushed to produce the language as prompted by the modifications in their speech. These benefits have also been observed in NNSs interactions where, as was here examined in the realisation of a ‘jigsaw’ (problem-solving)



activity, the type of task to be carried out may also require this type of negotiation. According to Swain (1985), these modifications imposed by the communicative demands provide the learner with opportunities for testing their own hypothesis, thus modifying and expanding their interlanguage. By considering these aspects in the L2 classroom, we may be able to expose learners to how “...conversation works and to practise the skills needed to participate effectively” (Hedge, 2000:295).

Finally, consideration should be given to the ‘stimulated recall methodology’ used in this study as part of the data collection. As suggested by the literature, this method proved to be useful for the identification and confirmation of these mental (inner) mechanisms (see Færch & Kasper, 1987), and of the various processes already discussed. The benefits of these verbal reports – first studied in Second Language Research – have now been transferred to the L2 class where it has proven beneficial in the implementation of strategy instruction and autonomous learning (Cohen, 1987; Hedge, 2000). Through this type of introspection technique the learners are encouraged to reflect and focus their attention on certain aspects of their own learning/performance thus promoting a sense of independence and involvement in their own learning process.

REFERENCES Alcón, Eva and Guzmán, Joseph. “Interlanguage Modifications in NS-NNS Interlanguage Interactions: a study in an English-Catalan language learning context”. Revista Española de Linguistica Aplicada 10 (1994): 17-26.

Bachman, Lyle. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Bachman, Lyle and Palmer, Adrian. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.



Bialystok, Ellen. Communication Strategies. A Psychological Analysis of Second-language Use. Oxford & Cambridge: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

Canale, Michael and Swain, Merrill. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing”. Applied Linguistics, 1 (1980): 1-47.

Cohen, Andrew. Using Verbal Reports in Research on Language Learning. Introspection in Second Language Research. Eds., Færch, Claus and Kasper, Gabriele. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, 1987, 82-95.

Dörnyei, Zoltan and Scott, Mary Lee. “Communication Strategies in a Second Language: Definitions and Taxonomies”. Language learning, 47 (1997): 173-210.

Dörnyei, Zoltan and Kormos, Judith. “Problem-solving Mechanisms in L2 Communication”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20 (1998) 349-385.

Ellis, Rod. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Fassnacht, Chris. Transana version 2.1.computer software. 2005-2009. Madison: Center for Education Research.

Faucette, Priscilla. “A Pedagogical Perspective on Communication Strategies: Benefits of Training and an Analysis of English Language Teaching Materials”. Second Language Studies 19 (2001): 1-40.

Færch, Claus and Gabriele Kasper. “Plans and Strategies in Foreign Language Communication”. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. Eds. Claus Færch and Gabriele Kasper. London & New York: Longman, 1983, 20-60.

Færch, Claus and Kasper, Gabriele. Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon England: Multilingual Matters, 1987.

Fernández Dobao, Ana María. “The Effect of Language Proficiency on Communication Strategy Use: A case study of Galician Learners of English”. Miscelánea. A Journal of English and American Studies 25, (2002): 41-61.



Fernández Dobao, Ana María and Palacios Martínez, Ignacio. “Negotiating Meaning in Interaction between English and Spanish speakers via Communication Strategies”. Atlantis 29 (2007): 87-105.

Field, Andy. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Los Angeles: SAGE. 2009.

Gass, Susan and Mackey, Alison. Stimulated Recall Methodology in Second Language Research. New York & London: Routledge, 2000.

Hedge, Tricia. Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford: O.U.P, 2000.

Kasper, Gabriel and Kellerman, Erick. Communication Strategies, Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. United States: Pearson Education Limited, 1997.

Lafford, Barbara. “The Effect of the Context of Learning on the Use of Communication Strategies by Learners of Spanish as a Second Language”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (2004): 201-225.

Labarca, Angela and Khanji, Rajai. “On Communication Strategies: Focus on Interaction”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 8 (1986): 68-79.

Long, Michael. “Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379 (1981): 259-278.

Manchón, Rosa María. “Fostering the Autonomous Use of Communication Strategies in the Foreign Language Classroom”. Links & Letters 7 (2000): 13-27.

Marrie, Barbara and Netten, Joan. “Communication Strategies”. The Canadian Modern Language Review 47 (1991): 442-462.

O’Donnell, Michael. UAM Corpus Tool version 2.7.3. Computer software. 2008

Paribakht, Tahereh. The Relationship between the Use of Communication Strategies and Aspects of Target Language Proficiencies - a Study of ESL Students. Quebec: International Centre for Research on Bilingualism, 1984.

Paribakht, Tahereh. “Strategic Competence and Language Proficiency”. Applied Linguistics 6 (1985): 132-146.



Pica, Teresa. “Interlanguage Adjustments as an Outcome of NS-NNS Negotiated Interaction”. Language Learning 38 (1988): 45-73.

Poulisse, Nanda. “Problems and Solutions in the Classification of CS use”. Second Language Research 3 (1987): 141-153.

Poulisse, Nanda and Schils, Erik. “The Influence of Task- and Proficiency-related Factors on the Use of Compensatory Strategies: A Quantitative Analysis”. Language Learning 39 (1989): 15-47.

Poulisse, Nanda. “A Theoretical Account of Lexical Communication Strategies”. The Bilingual Lexicon, Eds. Robert Schreuder and Bert Weltens, Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1993, 157-189.

Rababah, Ghaleb and Bulut, Dogan. “Compensatory Strategies in Arabic as a Second Language”. Poznán Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 43 (2007): 83-106.

Rababah, Ghaleb and Seedhouse, Paul. “Communication Strategies and Message Transmission with Arab Learners of English in Jordan”. Annual Review of Education, Communication & Language Sciences. 2004 Retrieved from: http://research.ncl.ac.uk/ARECLS/vol1_documents/Ghaleb&Seedhouse/Ghaleb&Seedhouse.htm

Safont Jordá, María Pilar. “An Analysis on the Use and Selection of Communication Strategies by Catalan/Castilian Learners of English”. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 1 (2001): 57-72.

Saville-Troike, Muriel. Introducing Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Selinker, Larry. “Interlanguage”. IRAL 10 (1972): 209-231.

Swain, Merrill. “Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in its Development”. Input in second language acquisition. Eds. Gass Susan and Madden Carolyn. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 1985, 235-253.



Tarone, Elaine. “Some Thoughts on the Notion of Communication Strategies”. TESOL Quarterly 15 (1981): 285-295.

Tarone, Elaine., Cohen, Andrew. & Dumas, Guy. “A Closer Look at some Interlanguage Terminology: a framework for communication strategies”. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9 (1976): 76-90.

Tarone, Elaine. “Conscious Communication Strategies in Interlanguage: A progress report”. TESOL'77: teaching and learning English as a Second Language. Eds. H. Douglas Brown, Carlos Alfredo Yorio and Ruth. H. Crymes. Washington D.C.: TESOL, 1977, 194-203.

Wagner, Johannes and Firth, Alan. “Communication Strategies at Work”. Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Eds. Gabriele Kasper and Erick Kellerman. London & New York: Longman, 1997, 323-344.

Williams, Jessica, Inscoe, Rebecca and Tasker, Thomas. “Communication Strategies in an Interactional Context: The Mutual Achievement of Comprehension”. Communication Strategies, Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Eds. Gabriele Kasper and Erick Kellerman. London & New York: Longman, 1997, 304-322.

Yule, George and Tarone, Elaine. “Investigating Communication Strategies in L2 Reference: Pros and Cons”. Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Eds. Gabriele Kasper and Erick Kellerman. London & New York: Longman, 1997, 17-30.



APPENDIX: TAXONOMY OF THE CSS MOST OBSERVED IN THE STUDY

Based on Dörnyei & Kormos (1998) and Dörnyei & Scott (1997)

CSs

Problem-solving mechanism (PSM)

related to L2 resource deficit

lexical PSM message abandoment

code-switch foreignising

literal translation

grammatical PSM gramm. substitution gramm. reduction

incorrect use of prepositions

phonological and articulatory PSM

Lexical & morphological tip of the

tongue

PSM related to processing time

pressure

pauses

repetitions

PSM related to own-output problems

self-correction

check questions

PSM related to other-performance

problems meaning-

negotiation CSs

asking for repetition/confirmation/clarification

expressing non-understanding feigning understanding

Interactional and paralinguistic CSs

receiver mime

appeals for help

giver

Análisis de Comunicación Estratégica L2 para estudiantes...

Documents

Transcript of Análisis de Comunicación Estratégica L2 para estudiantes...