中国英语学习者的交际策略研究_英文(5)

Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL LearnersA N MeiGuizhou UniversitySanooch S. N ATHALANGNational Electronics and Computer Technology Center, Thailand AbstractMost Chinese undergraduates studying English are not English majors. They need to use communication strategies (CSs) to facilitate their communication because they do not have sufficient exposure to the English language on a daily basis. This article presents results from an investigation that analyzed CSs used by undergraduates (non-English majors) studying English at Chinese Universities. Participants were first-year Arts and Science majors classified as having either a high or low English proficiency level. Data were collected for their performance on both one-way and two-way tasks. Results showed that student use of CSs was influenced by three variables: task type, English proficiency level, and academic major. The finding could be of value to those who are involved with language training for Chinese EFL learners. EFL instructors may be able to enhance student performance by making them aware of CSs that are already in their repertoire and encouraging them to use CSs more frequently.Key words: communication strategies; interlanguage; communication competence 1. IntroductionForeign language learners may encounter various communication problems when their interlanguage (IL) is limited. In order to convey their messages and remain in a conversation until their communication goal is reached, EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners need to employ communication strategies (CSs), which have been defined generally as devices employed by L2 learners to overcome perceived barriers to achieving specific110A N Mei & Sanooch S. N ATHALANGcommunication goals (Færch & Kasper, 1983).Analysis of these strategies provides us with rich insights into the complex process of language acquisition and enables us to generate ideas for developing strategies to improve language learners’ IL skills. Language learners’ IL development is influenced by their ability to use CSs. Chinese EFL learners have been found to employ IL CSs to cope with difficulties when they use English to communicate with their peers in various activities.This ability to deal with communication difficulties is referred to as “strategic competence”, which is an important component of communicative competence. It is believed that learners can improve their communicative competence by developing an ability to use specific CSs that enable them to compensate for their target language limitations (e.g., Bialystok, 1990; Dornyei, 1995).Communication strategies, as one of the factors which affect IL development, have been investigated by researchers since the notion of CS was offered in 1972 by Selinker. College English students (or non-English major students) in China are considered a large group who are studying English and need to use CSs to facilitate their communication because they do not have enough exposure to English in daily life. Therefore, they may have formed their own IL system that can provide them with various CSs in English interactions.Empirical investigations that analyze the use of CSs by Chinese EFL learners are of particular importance. Closely related to the empirical work on second language acquisition (SLA), the study of CSs has achieved much more success in western countries than in China. After Chen Siqing’s (1990) study on CSs used by Chinese EFL learners, more CS research has been conducted in China. Today, the study of CSs in China is still inadequate and unsystematic. Most research on CSs conducted by Chinese scholars is limited to a review of CSs research in other countries (Dai & Shu, 1994; Wang, 2000). Few empirical studies have been conducted to advance CS research in China (Gao, 2000).Research is called for on the relationship between the use of CSs and variables such as proficiency, task type and academic major. It is important to examine not only CSs themselves, but also the variables that mitigate the use of CSs. To date, no studies have considered the variables that we have included in this investigation.The present study examined the CSs used by Chinese EFL students at Guizhou University. It took an intra-individual and an inter-individual perspective. The purpose was to identify CSs that are commonly used by students, and measure the extent to which the use of these strategies is affected by students’ L2 proficiency as well as by two types of task and academic fields. The study was designed to answer the following questions:1. What are the different types of CSs used by Chinese EFL learners?2. I s the use of CSs influenced by variables such as task demands, L2 proficiency, andacademic major?2. Review of Literature2.1 Canale and Swain’s Framework of Communicative CompetenceCanale & Swain (1980) developed a widely cited framework of communicative competence, which takes into consideration communication strategies, as well as111Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learnersgrammatical competence and sociolinguistic competence. Later, it was determined that this limited spectrum of competencies was inadequate for a communicative approach to language teaching and learning. Canale (1983) revised this framework by allowing for the inclusion of four main areas of competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence and strategic competence.Strategic competence is determined by one’s mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be utilized for two main reasons: (a) to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to limiting conditions in actual communication (e.g. inability to recall something) or to insufficient competence in one or more of the other areas of communicative competence; and (b) to enhance the effectiveness of communication (e.g. deliberately slow down for a rhetorical effect). Canale & Swain (1980) suggested that this type of competence is demonstrated when individuals use communication strategies. Typical examples include the use of paraphrase, avoidance of difficulties, and requests for repetition, simplification, clarification or slower speech.Canale & Swain’s main contribution to communicative competence theory is that they have integrated into their model communication strategies that people often employ to cope with difficulties that arise during the course of communication.2.2 Definitions and Classifications of Communication StrategiesCSs research scholars have not yet reached a consensus on a rigorous definition of CSs. There have been many definitions proposed regarding the CSs of second language learners. Bialystok (1990) points out that, although research scholars offer various definitions for CSs, these definitions seem to share three main features:1. Problematicity: Problematicity includes strategies that are not normally used during routine language operations. Strategies are adopted when problems in either learning or production are perceived—problems that may interrupt communication.2. Consciousness: This refers to either the learner’s awareness that a strategy is being employed for a particular purpose, or the awareness of how that strategy may lead to an intended effect.3. Intentionality: This refers to the learner’s control over those strategies so that particular ones may be selected from a range of options and deliberately applied to achieve certain effects.Kasper & Kellerman (1997) described the term communication strategies as:Identification of CSs depends to a great extent on what one considers CSs to be, and in this respect, it matters very much whether one conceives of CSs as intra-individual or inter-individual events. (p. 3)There are two different approaches to communication strategy research in the current body of research literature, intra-individual and inter-individual. According to Færch & Kasper (1983, cited in Kasper & Kellerman, 1997: 2), CSs are “potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal”. This intra-individual view locates CSs in models of speech production (e.g., Dechert, 112A N Mei & Sanooch S. N ATHALANG1983; Færch & Kasper, 1983) or cognitive organization and processing models (Bialystok, 1990). In early work, most notions of CSs restricted the concept to such problem-solving activity. Færch & Kasper’s definition of CSs focuses on the learner or, more precisely, to the problems experienced by the learner in speech reception, and in the planning and execution of speech production. This definition conceives CSs as mental plans implemented by the L2 learner in response to an internal signal of an imminent problem, a form of self-help that does not require support from the interlocutor for resolution (e.g., Færch & Kasper, 1983: 36). This implies that the learner may make use of a communication strategy without signaling his interlocutor to indicate that he or she is experiencing a communication problem or, requesting assistance from the interlocutorThe inter-individual view of CSs (Tarone, 1983, cited in Kasper & Kellerman, 1997: 2) suggests that “the term CSs relates to a mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared. (Meaning structures here would include both linguistic structures and sociolinguistic rule structures)”. This definition introduces an inter-individual perspective. In Tarone’s words, “communication strategies are seen as tools used in a joint negotiation of meaning where both interlocutors are attempting to agree as to a communicative goal” (1980: 420). The negotiation of meaning as a joint effort between the interlocutors is central to the concept of communication strategies. This inter-individual perspective allows for an inclusion of various repair mechanisms. If those repair mechanisms were applied to “clarify intended meaning rather than simply correct linguistic form” (1980: 424), Tarone considers them communication strategies.The aim of the present study is to investigate both the intra-individual communication strategies that do not have to result in the interlocutor’s interference and those inter-individual communication strategies that focus more on how both interlocutors can achieve mutual comprehension.A review of the literature shows that there are many kinds of CS taxonomies, most of which are rather similar (for more taxonomies of CSs, see Poulisse, 1987 and Paribakht, 1982). Since the present study aims to cover intra-individual view of CSs (conveying meaning) as well as inter-individual view of CSs (requiring the listener to be involved in the conversation), there is a difficulty in depending on only one taxonomy from the literature. The taxonomy presented in Table 1 was adopted for the present study after a list of categories was derived from the existing literature.2.3 Communication Strategies and InterlanguageIt is generally thought that communication strategies were first invoked by Selinker (1972) in his paper entitled “Interlanguage” to account for errors made by learners of a second language. While there is general agreement that conversational interaction can facilitate IL development, CSs are thought to be one of the factors affecting IL development. The term Interlanguage in this study refers to a separate linguistic system based on the observable output which results from a learner’s attempted production of a target language (TL) norm (Selinker, 1972).In the theory of Interlanguage, five psycholinguistic processes could affect the113114Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learnersconstruction of interlanguages. Among them CSs are regarded as one of the five processes, used by the learner to resolve communication problems when the IL system seems unequal to the task. When, in the attempt to communicate meaning, the learner feels that the linguistic item needed is not available to him, he can resort to a variety of CSs in order to get his meaning across. The linguistic forms and patterns used in such attempts may become more or less permanent parts of the learner ’s IL. As a central component of IL, the notion of CSs refers to the approach that “learners use to overcome the inadequacies of their IL resources ” (Ellis, 1994: 396).IL represents an attempt to analyze the learner ’s developing linguistic system in a more systematic way. Research evidence has been provided to show the need for more research into IL. The present research then is undertaken in response to this need to focus on CSs.Table 1. CSs Used for the Present StudyIntra-individual CSsNotesC1Topic avoidance (TA): avoid discussions about the concept Avoidance C2Message abandonment (MA): stop in mid-utterance C3Meaning replacement (MR): use alternative expressions C4Generalization (Gen): use a generalized IL itemIL-based CSs C5Paraphrase (Par): focus on characteristic properties of the intended referent C6Word coinage (WC): create a new IL word C7Restructuring (Res): restructure one ’s utteranceC8Approximation (App): use an incorrect item that shares some semantic features C9Literal translation (LT): translate literallyTransfer by using L1-based strategies C10Language switch (LS): insert words from native language C11Foreignizing (For): apply TL modification to the L1 term C12Mime: replace a word with nonverbal cues (kinesthetically)Inter-individual CSsNotesC13Code-based confirmation check (CCC): repeat the previous utterance for confirmation IL NegotiationC14Positive confirmation check (PCC): offer information for confirmation C15Clarification request (CR): ask for clarificationC16Comprehension check (CC): attempt to check comprehension C17Other reformulation (OR): model the speaker ’s previous utterance C18Repetition (Rep): repeat an utterance3. Research DesignAs shown in Table 2, the participants in the present study included 117 non-English major first year students from two different academic departments (Arts and Sciences) atA N Mei & Sanooch S. N ATHALANGGuizhou University. These participants were selected because they were representative of students studying in the most common academic fields in China.The researcher was able to take advantage of the Nation-wide Standardized Matriculation Test (NSMT) to obtain the students’ English scores so as to establish two different levels. This examination is official and used widely in China, so it is highly valid and reliable. Unfortunately, an English speaking part is not included in the NSMT, all subjects were then given a speaking test called CET-SET (Band 4), a nation-wide examination for non-English major college students in China.Table 2.Participants in the StudyCollege of Arts College of Science Total High Proficiency303060Low Proficiency302757 Total 6057117The present study used a demographic information questionnaire and speaking tasks as instruments to collect data. A questionnaire to obtain background information was administered to all subjects at the beginning of the research in order to elicit their academic fields and NSMT scores. Then CET-SET (Band 4) was offered to test the subjects’ speaking ability. Their NSMT and CET-SET were combined to determine their proficiency as either high proficiency or low proficiency.According to the intra-individual view and the inter-individual view of CSs, the participants were required to perform both one-way and two-way tasks. In the one-way task (i.e., concept identification task), the participants were each given a sheet of paper with two lists of words (one concrete and the other abstract) in both English and Chinese (to prevent ambiguities); they were asked to select one concrete word and one abstract word and try to convey, without using the original words, the concepts to the native speakers, who did not know which concepts were being transmitted. In this way, the participants would have to use CSs to convey the meaning of the two concepts.For the two-way task (i.e., role play task), each high proficiency participant was paired with another high proficiency participant and each low proficiency participant was paired with another low proficiency participant. They were asked to play the role of customer and shopping assistant and negotiate with each other in order to solve a problem. In this way, they had to use CSs. Their performance was audio recorded.The data from these tasks were transcribed verbatim and coded via content analysis to identify the CSs used by the participants. A frequency form was designed to chart CSs that occurred during task performance. Each strategy used by each student was recorded by placing a tick (equal to a 1 score) on the frequency form. A zero score (no tick) was recorded for strategies that were not used. The data drawn from the speaking tasks by coding were submitted to qualitative analysis, while the data from the questionnaire and the frequency form were entered into the computer and processed by SPSS 15.0 for quantitative analysis.115Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learners4. Results and DiscussionThe English scores of NSMT from the questionnaires and the SET scores were put into SPSS in order to obtain the correlations between them. The Pearson correlation between NSMT and CET-SET was shown 0.58 at p = 0.000 < 0.05, which means that there was a significant correlation between the NSMT score and the SET score. And both of them were used to decide on the subjects’ proficiency level.4.1 Different T ypes of CSs Employed by Chinese EFL LearnersData analysis suggested that the one-way and two-way tasks used for this study made it necessary for all 117 participants to use CSs. Frequencies and percentages were adopted to examine each group of CSs and their subcategories of strategy in order to answer the first research question.Table 3 presents the results for each strategy group and for each strategy within each group. Group 2 of IL-based CSs (x= 57.6) was found to be the most commonly occurring one. In this group, paraphrase (42.3%) was the most frequently used strategy. Group 3 of L1-based strategies (x= 21) was the least commonly used group. In this group, foreignizing (0.4%) was then the least frequently used strategy.Table 3. Frequencies and Percentages of Overall CSs Employed by the SubjectsGroup CSs Number ofparticipantsFrequency Percentage Means of Frequency(CS use)Y es No Y es NoAvoidance TA23415219 6.493.626.3 MA2345817624.875.2MR2346228 2.697.4IL-based CSs Gen2346317126.973.157.6 Par2349913542.357.7WC2343231 1.398.7Res2348315135.564.5App2344019417.182.9L1-based CSsLT2342720711.588.521 LS234192158.191.9For23412330.499.6Mime2343719715.884.2IL Negotiation CCC2343220213.786.339.6 PCC2344119317.582.5CR2346816629.170.9CC234172177.392.7OR2344230 1.798.3Rep2347615832.567.5The number of participants listed in this table is 234, because each subject completed two types of task.116A N Mei & Sanooch S. N ATHALANGMost of the participants employed the paraphrase strategy to solve their communicative problems, especially for one-way tasks. In real situations, students always encounter difficulties in expressing their meaning. One possible explanation for this is that they are not able to access a word that is actually stored in their memory. They may simply be unable to recall a particular word at a given moment. Paraphrase can help students convey their meanings.For example, one participant described the word “kite” by saying, “You hold it by your long string…um and make it fly in the sky.” Another participant described the word “curtain” by saying, “It’s a cloth which hang up at the window to prevent the sunshine.” A third participant described “bravery” by stating, “When I am…um…afraid of something, um it gives me a power to face it, to face the difficulty.”Foreignizing was used to apply to the target language of English for the L1 term of Chinese. In the present study, the finding of L1-based strategies including foreignizing, literal translation and language switch is partially in accordance with that reported in Chen’s study (1990), which reported none of the obvious L1-based CSs in her study. She further claimed that it was probably due to the great distance between participants’ L1 (Chinese) and the TL (English). In the current investigation, the exception was found that some low proficiency participants resorted to literal translation and language switch. For example, during the speaking tasks several low proficiency participants switched to Chinese words like 怎么说呢？(how should I say it?) and translated literally “I think I cannot say…”.The most common strategy was paraphrase, followed by restructuring (35.5%) and repetition (32.5%), both of which occurred frequently. This study regarded use of the phrase “for example” as an example of using a restructuring strategy. The participants were found to resort to this strategy when they were unable to make themselves understood by the others. When one participant tried to describe the word “peace”, he uttered: “…For example, two countries, um… they don’t have wars” to restructure what he had just expressed. He used phrases such as, “there is no war, people live very happily.” This restructuring strategy helped the participant explain the meaning of “peace” clearly.Repetition was another strategy employed by the participants to reinforce the meaning of a word, or to fill an interval of silence. One participant in the role play repeated, “Do you have the receipt? Receipt?”.However, the variables of proficiency, academic field, and task may have relationships with CSs, which is also a part of the present research and will be reported under the second research question.4.2 Effect of Learner’s T ask, L2 Proficiency and Academic Field on T ypes of CSs Frequency was adopted to process the data of CSs in terms of CI (concept identification) and RP (role play). Table 4 summarizes all the results. The most common CSs used by the participants during one-way tasks (concept identification) were IL-based CSs (x= 49) and avoidance (x= 20). L1-based strategies (x= 11) and IL negotiation (x= 12) were the least common CSs used by the participants during the one-way tasks. The most common strategy used for two-way tasks (role play) was IL negotiation (x= 28) while avoidance (x = 6) was the least common strategy.To determine whether the differences between the frequencies were significant or not,117Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL LearnersChi-square tests were conducted. The results presented in Table 4 indicate that there were significant differences between the one-way task and the two-way task in the use of three strategy groups at p = .000 (group 1), p = .000 (group 2) and p = .000 (group 4), because all their significant values were less than .05.It seems that different types of tasks lead the participants to use different CSs. When the participants were required to perform one-way tasks like describing words, they used IL-based strategies frequently, and sometimes used avoidance strategies. When performing two-way tasks like role play, they frequently used IL negotiation strategies, because they had to reach communication goals by working cooperatively to make requests or perform checks. In the present study, there were no significant differences in the use of L1-based CSs for one-way versus two-way tasks.Table 4. Frequencies and Chi-square Values of CSs Employed by the Participants in the Two TasksGroup CSsFrequency PercentageMeans ofFrequencyChi-squarep value CI (n=117)RP (n=117)CI (CSuse)RP (CSuse)CI(CSuse)RP(CSuse)Y es No Y es NoAvoidance TA8109711076206.790.000 MA4671121053910.000MR6111011750013IL-based CSs Gen63540117540499.000.000 Par98191116841.000WC1116211512.561Res546329884625.001App2790131042311.015L1-basedCSsLT711020976171110.008.599 LS141035112114.031For0117111601.316Mime2295151021913.210IL Negotiation CCC111631861261228.000.000 PCC01174176035.000CR11166750157.000CC121055112104.078OR0117411303.044Rep585918995015.000*p≤.05; **p≤.01Chi-square tests were also used to analyze differences in CS use between high proficiency versus low proficiency participants in order to determine if there was a relationship between118A N Mei & Sanooch S. N ATHALANGproficiency and use of CSs. The results of these Chi-square tests are presented in T able 5. The results indicate that LP subjects (x= 18) tended to use avoidance more often than HP subjects (x= 8.3) at p = .002 < .05, and there was a significant difference between HP and LP. The results also show that HP subjects (x= 34.4) used IL-based strategies more commonly than LP subjects (x= 23.2) at p = .034 < .05, and a significant difference existed between them.Table 5 also presents some other important information regarding use of IL-based strategies. There were significant differences in the extent to which HP versus LP participants used generalization and approximation. Differences observed were significant at the .05 level for generalization (p = .048 < .05) and approximation (p = .024 < .05). Use of a generalized IL item requires students to have general knowledge of the unknown concept in their repertoire. HP students tended to have a larger repertoire than LP students, so they were able to employ the generalization strategy more often. Generalization and approximation are IL-based strategies which are, as a whole, more effective in facilitating understanding than are L1-based CSs. There were no significant differences in HP and LP participants’ use of paraphrase or restructuring. Both HP and LP participants frequently used these two strategies. Hence, classroom teachers should acknowledge, and pay special attention to the ways in which students use these strategies. Heightening their awareness of the benefits of using them could lead to positive outcomes.Table 5 shows that LP participants mimed frequently and sometimes switched to Chinese during speaking tasks, whereas HP participants did not do so to the same extent. HP participants probably had more options for filling silent periods. They may also have been better able to approximate intended meanings.When both HP and LP participants were put in situations where they had to produce English in order to reach a communicative goal, they often needed to utilize CSs. In the role play task, for example, they both used IL negotiation to help them achieve their communicative goals. There were no significant differences between HP and LP participants for use of this strategy.Table 5. Frequencies and Chi-square Values of CSs Used by HP and LP LevelsGroup CSsFrequency PercentageMeans ofFrequencyChi-squarep value HP (n=120)LP (n=114)HP (CSuse)LP (CSuse)HP (CSuse)LP (CSuse)Y es No Y es NoAvoidance TA1119141001128.318.000.002 MA219937771832.008MR3117311133.949IL-based CSs Gen39812490332134.423.2.048.034 Par566443714738.166WC2118111321.592Res487235794031.137App2793131012311.024119Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL LearnersGroup CSsFrequency PercentageMeans ofFrequencyChi-squarep value HP (n=120)LP (n=114)HP (CSuse)LP (CSuse)HP (CSuse)LP (CSuse)Y es No Y es NoL1-based CSsLT151051210213117.513.5.637.014 LS511514100412.023For1119011410.329Mime91112886825.000IL Negotiation CCC17103159914132316.7.822.067 PCC269415992213.087CR358533812929.971CC121085109104.098OR3117111331.338Rep457531833827.092*p≤.05; **p≤.01Chi-square tests were used to analyze the differences between Science and Arts participants. Data presented in Table 6 indicates that there were no significant differences between Science and Arts subjects in employing any group of strategy. However, it was observed that Science students were not as active as Arts students in using English in class. It seems that Arts students tended to be more communicative when performing English speaking tasks in class.Close inspection of the data in Table 6 also suggests that Science participants (36%) employed clarification requests slightly more often than Arts participants (23%). There was a significant difference between Science and Arts participants in using clarification requests at p = .023 < .05. In two-way tasks (role play), Science students tend to use clarification requests to facilitate communication in English. This finding suggests that it may be valuable for classroom teachers to integrate two-way tasks into classroom activities so that students are put in situations that require them to cooperate with their peers and be forced to speak more English.The results and discussion of the study, so far, have dealt with the relationship between communication strategies and the three variables of task type, L2 proficiency and academic fields. The field of IL CSs is still waiting to be explored further, especially in China. The present study is only an attempt to investigate it from a particular perspective. One important limitation of the study is that it is concerned only with CSs that are used when learners’ IL systems seem unequal to tasks in terms of lexical items and syntax. In actual communication, CSs occur at all levels of language use, such as morphology and sociolinguistics etc. Another limitation is that the subjects of the present study are 117 Chinese EFL non-English major students who fall into only two fields, Arts and Science. The results of the study, thus, may not be generalized to all Chinese EFL learners.。