Abstract
This paper reports on the use of language transfer as a type of communication strategy and language learning strategy drawing on a variety of oral interaction activities from a Malaysian classroom for English as a second language. The study provides insights into not only how the learners’ first language functions as a strategy for communication but also how it can enhance second language learning by way of helping learners expand their second language repertoire and increase their automatization of second language items.
Keywords: language transfer, communication strategy, language learning strategy, second language learning
Introduction
Some people, despite their lack of vocabulary and grammar in a language, are able to communicate effectively in the language. How do they do it? They use their hands, they mix languages, they create words, they circumlocute or describe something they don’t know the word for. In short, they use communication strategies. This paper reports on one type of communication strategy, language transfer. This report is part of a larger study on communication strategies (Paramasivam, 1998) used by a group of Malaysian undergraduates learning English as a second language. The paper reports on how language transfer is used as a communication strategy and what its potential learning effect is amongst second language learners of English when performing oral tasks in a Malaysian ESL classroom.
The following research questions are addressed.
1. How is transfer employed as a communication strategy by a group of Malaysian learners of English in the performance of three types of oral tasks?
2. Are there similarities and differences in the way transfer is employed as a communication strategy in the three oral tasks?
3. What is the potential learning effect of transfer when employed as a communication strategy in these tasks?
Communication strategies
The ability to use communication strategies constitutes strategic competence, which is a component of communicative competence (Canale and Swain, 1980). Strategic competence is defined as “the verbal and non verbal communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or to insufficient competence” (Canale and Swain, 1980, p. 30).
A communication strategy is defined as “potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal” (Faerch and Kasper, 1983, p. 36). The main distinguishing criteria in this definition are problem-orientedness and consciousness. Faerch and Kasper contend that L2 learners want to express something through the second language but encounter problems as a result of their limited interlanguage. They therefore resort to communication strategies, which are solutions to the communication problems encountered. For example if a speaker wants to communicate ‘hairdresser’, but does not have this vocabulary in his interlanguage, he may circumlocute ‘one’s who who erm could cut people’s hair’ to get the message across to his interlocutor.
A distinguishing feature in the use of a communication strategy is the existence of a linguistic problem. The speaker perceives that there is a problem that may interrupt the achievement of his communicative goal. Often the problem arises as a result of his limited linguistic system relative to a given communicative goal. He may lack the linguistic resources needed, be uncertain about the correctness of rules belonging to his interlanguage system, or encounter fluency problems with the realization of specific rules. He therefore uses communication strategies, which are solutions to the problem, in order to achieve his goal.
The speaker’s choice of a communication strategy is influenced by his underlying behaviour. Faerch and Kasper (1983, p. 38) explain that there are two kinds of behaviour that the speaker can adopt, avoidance or achievement behaviour. If the speaker opts for avoidance, that is, if he chooses to do away with the problem, then the strategies he employs would entail a change in or a reduction in the communicative goal. He gives up, avoids or revises his original plan. Achievement strategies are attempts to attain the goal by alternative plans and are demonstrative of achievement behaviour. Examples of such strategies are transfer, appeals, paralinguistic means, word coinage, and circumlocution (Faerch and Kasper, 1983, p. 38).
Transfer as a communication strategy
As a communication strategy, transfer refers to “the use of items from a second language, typically the mother tongue, particularly syntactic and lexical, to make good the deficiencies of the interlanguage” (Corder, 1992, p. 26). This is to say the second language learner uses certain aspects of his mother tongue to express his meaning in second language communication because his interlanguage lacks the means to do it. Tarone (1983, p. 62-63) refers to this strategy as “borrowing”where the process involves the learner either translating word for word from the L1 to express his meaning, or using the L1 to convey his meaning without bothering to translate. Faerch and Kasper (1984, p. 49) refer to this similar strategy as “L1/L3 strategies” where the learner uses the features of his native language or second or third language to express his intended meaning in communication. Poulisse (1987) refers to the strategy as “transfer”where the speaker transfers one language to the other. If the learner exploits the similarities between languages and transfers from one language to the other, he is said to have used the transfer strategy. Transfer is manifested either by a “language switch”, where the learner uses words from the L1 or any other language to express his intended meaning in the target language, or “literal translation”, where the learner literally translates his intended meaning from one language into another.
Although the terms used in the literature vary, they generally mean the same thing - the use of a linguistic feature from one language in the performance of another. The literature acknowledges that the mother tongue is not the only source of transfer. Any other languages known to the learner may also be used as a source to supplement his interlanguage. In this study, the term transfer as understood by Poulisse (1987) is used to investigate the phenomenon in second language communication in a Malaysian ESL class.
Second language learning
Communication strategies have been classified as a type of language learning strategy (Tarone, 1980; Rubin, 1981; Oxford, 1990). Before discussing the link between the two, however, I would like to first elaborate second language learning so as to help consider the potential usefulness of transfer as a learning strategy.
There are two broad views to language learning – the behaviouristic view and the cognitive view. The underlying premise of the cognitive view to language learning is the creative-construction hypothesis. This approach believes that in learning a second language, the learner actively constructs the rules of the second language from the L2 data he encounters and gradually adapts these rules in the direction of the second language system.
An important aspect to the cognitive theory of language learning is rule formation. The main processes in rule formation are the formation and testing out of hypotheses about rules of the target language. In hypothesis formation, the learner forms a hypothetical rule of the second language based on the L2 data he is exposed to. This hypothetical rule is subsequently checked for its validity by being used in communication or, in formal learning settings, in exercises etc. This constitutes hypothesis testing. Based on the interlocutor’s feedback, the hypothesis under test is either confirmed or rejected. In the case of positive feedback, the hypothesis is confirmed and the hypothetical rule becomes a fixed rule of the learner’s interlanguage system. Negative feedback leads to hypothesis rejection and induces the learner to either look for new L2 data or to use the feedback to form a revised hypothesis. The procedure of hypothesis formation and testing is repeated until the learner’s hypothesis is confirmed and gets stored as a fixed rule. Once a fixed rule is established, the learner is said to have stopped learning in this particular interlanguage area.
Second language learning, however, constitutes more than the mere construction of L2 rules. It also constitutes the automatization of L2 rules so that they can result in fluent performance in communication (Faerch and Kasper, 1980; Spolsky, 1989). This is to say that the learner not only has to learn L2 rules but also to develop his ability to use these rules, more or less, automatically, in communication.
Faerch and Kasper (1980) see no contradiction in emphasizing the importance of rule automatization and holding a cognitive view of language learning at the same time. They contend that “since there is no direct way from the integration of an interlanguage rule into the learner’s cognitive structure to the free availability of that rule in communication, i.e., without the learner having to monitor” (p. 76), it is necessary to assume rule automatization as an intervening variable which can account for the difference between these two stages in L2 learning. They state that in order to achieve a more or less automatic access to the interlanguage system the most obvious plan to follow is to practice L2 in a variety of communicative situations.
In conclusion, second language learning consists of both cognitive aspects as well as behavioural aspects. The cognitive aspects involve rule formation and the behavioural aspects involve rule automatization. With this understanding, learning strategies are discussed in the following section.
Learning strategies
Learning strategies are devices learners make use of to learn a language. Rubin (1975, p. 43) defines them very broadly as “the techniques or devices which a learner may use to acquire knowledge”. Faerch and Kasper (1980) propose a psycholinguistic definition in which they define a learning strategy, as they define a communication strategy, in relation to problem-orientedness and consciousness.
The criterion of problem-orientedness implies that the learner is having a problem in reaching a particular learning goal, whereas the criterion of consciousness implies that the learner is consciously aware of his having the problem. Faerch and Kasper (1980, p. 60), therefore, define a learning strategy as “potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular learning goal”. The learning goal is in relation to constructing and mastering the rules of the target language.
Since language learning constitutes of rule formation and rule automatization, Faerch and Kasper hypothesize that problems in L2 learning exist at two levels. The learning problem may be a problem in hypothesis formation or it may be a problem in hypothesis testing and in increasing automatization. They classify learning strategies according to the type of learning problem encountered, as “psycholinguistic” and “behavioural” learning strategies (Faerch and Kasper, 1980, p. 68).
“Psycholinguistic” learning strategies are described as strategies that are adopted when the learning problem is a hypothesis formation problem and “behavioural” learning strategies when the problem is in hypothesis testing or in increasing automatization.
Faerch and Kasper explain that in forming hypotheses about L2 rules, learners basically rely on two sources, the L2 input and on prior knowledge and experience relating to language learning. Psycholinguistic learning strategies are classified on the basis of whether and how the learner makes use of prior knowledge in hypothesis formation. In this way, a distinction is made between the psycholinguistic learning strategies of “induction”, “inferencing” and “transfer” (Faerch and Kasper, 1980, p. 69).
“Behavioural learning strategies” include strategies that allow for practice of the L2 rules. An example of such a strategy is “appeal” (Faerch and Kasper, 1980, p. 62), where the learner appeals directly to some authority, for instance, a native speaker, or looks up reference materials like dictionaries or textbooks to test the validity of a hypothetical rule.
Learning strategies and communication strategies
There are variable views in the literature on the link between communication strategies and learning strategies. One school of thought sees communication strategies and learning strategies as separate manifestations of learner behaviour. Brown (1980, p. 87) for instance notes that they are clearly different because “communication is the output modality and learning is the input modality”. However he makes an exception for rule transference noting that this strategy may have a dual function: a learner may apply the strategy in learning a language as well as when communicating in it. Ellis (1986) also views communication strategies and learning strategies as quite different. He in fact argues that successful use of communication strategies may prevent learning since skilful compensation for lack of linguistic knowledge can make the need for learning seem unnecessary.
Tarone (1980) and Rubin (1981) however take an opposing stance to the link between communication strategies and learning strategies. Tarone (1980) suggests that communication strategies can help learners expand language. She holds that although the learner’s language output is imperfect grammatically and lexically, in the course of communication, the learner may be exposed to language input that may result in language learning. Rubin (1981) classifies communication strategies as indirect learning strategies: they are categorized as production tricks that can indirectly help contribute to language learning. Using communication strategies is therefore seen as a springboard to language learning.
The distinction between a learning strategy and a communication strategy, in fact, lies in the difference between learning and communication. Learning a second language, as discussed earlier, involves constructing the rules of the language (rule formation) and gradually coming to master them (rule automatization) in order to develop a discrete interlanguage system. Communicating in a language, on the other hand, does not involve the construction and mastery of rules. It involves ways of using the interlanguage system in interaction. Based on this characterization of learning and communication, it can be seen that although they are different in function, they are in actual fact interlinked. Learning cannot be kept distinct from communication. This is because learning takes place through communication. Communication provides exposure to the target language which is a necessary criterion for learning the language. The more communicative situations the learner engages in and the greater the variety, the more possibilities the learner has for practicing his interlanguage (rule automatization) and for constructing hypotheses about L2, and getting them tested (rule formation). If a learner avoids communication, he prevents himself from expanding his interlanguage system in these two ways, causing the learning of the language to come to a halt.
As a result of the close relationship between learning and communication, it is not always easy to distinguish a learning strategy from a communication strategy, especially in actual communicative situations (Tarone, 1981; Ellis, 1994; Brown, 1994). The difference between the two lies in the type of problem the strategy attempts to solve. In the case of a learning strategy, the problem is with regard to learning, that is in relation to hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing and increasing automatization. Strategies such as “transfer”, “inferencing”, “induction”, “word coinage”, “appeal” etc are some of the strategies used to tackle the problems above.
A communication strategy, on the other hand, is used to solve problems in the planning and realization of speech production. In the planning of speech production, problems are caused by a lack of linguistic resources, uncertainty about the correctness of rules belonging to the interlanguage system, and expectation of fluency problems in connection with the realization of specific rules. In the realization of speech production, the problems are in retrieving the forms of items which have been selected for speech production. Reduction strategies consisting of “avoidance” and “omission”, and achievement strategies like “code-switching”, “translation”, “restructuring”, “circumlocution”, “word coinage” etc are examples of communication strategies used to overcome such problems.
A communication strategy, although different from a learning strategy, can function as a learning strategy. This is to say that a communication strategy can at the same time have both learning and communicative functions for the L2 learner. In addition to its communicative function it can simultaneously have a subsidiary learning effect.
Faerch and Kasper (1980) state that a communication strategy enhances learning when it contributes to the two important aspects of language learning - hypothesis formation and automatization. They explain that since the use of a communication strategy presupposes that the learner experiences a problem, this implies that either his interlanguage system does not yet contain the appropriate item (planning problem), or that the appropriate interlanguge item is difficult to retrieve or is considered problematic from a correctness or fluency point of view (realization problem). They, therefore, conclude that communication strategies that aim at solving problems in the planning phase can lead to L2 learning with respect to hypothesis formation, and that communication strategies which attempt to tackle problems in the realization phase can lead to learning with respect to automatization.
Faerch and Kasper (1980) go on to explain that a communication strategy can only lead to learning if it is governed by achievement rather than avoidance behaviour. If a learner avoids communicating his intention, hypothesis formation and automatization do not occur. His interlanguage system remains unaffected which means learning cannot occur.
On the basis of this rationale, Faerch and Kasper (1980) give examples of communication strategies that have a potential learning effect. They distinguish between psycholinguistic and behavioural strategies. With regard to hypothesis formation the psycholinguistic strategies are “transfer”, “word coinage”, “generalization” and “inferencing” strategies, whereas, behavioural strategies are “appeals”. Strategies that enhance learning with regard to automatization are “restructuring”, “paraphrase” and “retrieval strategies”. According to them, “code-switching” and “non-linguistic strategies” such as “mimes” do not contribute to language learning (Faerch and Kasper, 1980, p. 62-69).
For the scope of this paper, only one communication strategy, that is transfer, is investigated. The findings show that this strategy can in fact function as a learning strategy in several ways. This is taken up in the section on research findings.
Related studies on language transfer as a communication strategy
There are many studies that have investigated transfer as a communication strategy in relation to learner variables like the learners’ level of L2 proficiency (Bialystok, 1983; Paribakht, 1985; Corrales, 1989; Fernandez Dobao, 2003), learners’ L1 (Palmberg, 1979), nature of communication task (Corrales, 1989; Poulisse and Schils, 1989; Yarmohammedi and Seif, 1992), and types of formal instruction received (Tarone, 1984; Dornyei, 1995). However, it is seldom investigated as an isolate communication strategy and is instead often examined as part of a gamut of communication strategies.
Bialystok (1983) for instance examined communication strategies used by advanced and regular 17-year-old students learning French as a second language and found that advanced students used proportionately more L2-based strategies than did the regular students, who relied more on L1-based strategies. L2 strategies referred to approximation, circumlocution and word coinage, whereas L1-based strategies referred to borrowing, language switch and literal translation. Fernandez Dobao (2003) who investigated communication strategy use of Galician learners of English across proficiency level when performing three types of oral tasks (picture story narration, photograph description, and conversation) also found that elementary students used more avoidance and transfer strategies compared to intermediate and advanced students. However between the intermediate and advanced learners, there was a higher use of transfer among the advanced students as she found they resorted to this strategy in their desire to be highly accurate and detailed. Transfer included both language switch and translation.
Corrales (1989) investigated communication strategies in relation to nature of the oral task amongst Spanish students of English and found that the Simulated Conversation Task elicited significantly more transfer strategies than the Structured Question Task. She noted that this was because the Conversation Task prompted the learners to monitor their speech more than they did in the Question Task, causing native language features to surface more frequently.
Poulisse and Schils (1989) conducted an analysis of communication strategies across three oral tasks - picture description, story telling and an interview – amongst Dutch learners of English who were required to perform these three oral tasks with a native speaker of English. Poulisse’s taxanomy, which consists of three major communication strategies, namely reduction, interactional and achievement strategies, was used to identify and classify the strategies used by the learners. The researchers found that the subjects predominantly used analytic conceptual strategies most in the picture description task and frequently resorted to holistic conceptual strategies and transfer strategies in the story telling and the oral interview tasks.
Yarmohammedi and Seif investigated (1992) task-type and communication strategy of intermediate Persian learners of English. Three types of tasks were used in their study: writing a composition on a series of pictures, translation and the narration of a completed picture story. The tasks involved both written and oral productions of the subjects. The findings revealed that achievement strategies were employed more frequently than reduction ones in both the written and oral tasks. However, a number of strategies such as cooperative, mime and retrieval strategies, were more specific to the subjects’ oral performance. In the written production of the story, there was a greater use of the literal translation strategy than in the oral production, and the reverse was true for code-switching.
Arnfast and Jorgensen (2003) examined code-switching as a communication, learning and social negotiation strategy among two groups of learners with different L1s and different types of instructional situation for the learning of Danish. One group was American English speaking students learning Danish in a Danish high school (immersion situation) while the other was Polish students learning Danish under formal instruction in Poland (non-immersion situation). They found overt code-switching to L1 by both groups as a communication strategy to compensate for shortcomings when conversing in Danish. In addition they discovered code-switching functioning as a competence or resource strategy for facilitating target language acquisition and for establishing social acceptance into the target language group.
In the Malaysian ESL context, there are several studies that have attempted to investigate the use of communication strategies of Malaysian ESL learners. Lee (1990) researched the communication strategies of 16-year-old learners in relation to their level of L2 proficiency. Khemlani-David (1991) experimented with the effect an instructional phase on communication strategy would have on the employment of communication strategies by a group of teacher trainees. Subramaniam (1994) carried out a comparative analysis of the communication strategies 16-year-old learners employ in their L1 and in their L2. Lee, Goh and Wong (2006) looked at lexical communication strategies used by undergraduates learning English as a second language during oral interactions in group discussions. All studies are insightful for understanding and developing the strategic competence of Malaysian ESL learners.
The present study departs from the existing literature on communication strategies in that it explores further the nature of communication strategies employed by a group of Malaysian learners of English as a second language when performing some types of oral tasks. As noted earlier, this paper is a sequel to a larger study on communication strategies (Paramasivam, 1998) and reports specifically on language transfer as a communication strategy and the potential learning effect of this strategy across oral tasks. To the best of my knowledge there is to date no local study that directly investigates transfer as a communication strategy as well as how it may potentially affect second language learning.
The oral tasks used in the study
Anderson, Brown, Shillcock and Yule (1984) distinguish three types of oral tasks commonly used in a speaking class. They classify tasks into those involving static, dynamic and abstract relationships. Tasks involving ‘static’ relationships involve the speaker in describing static relationships among objects. The relationships between the objects of the task are stable. Examples of this task-type are the picture description, giving instructions, following route directions and diagram drawing. In performing a task based on instructions, the main requirement of the speaker is to provide the hearer with enough information to identify the objects of the task and their spatial relationships.
Tasks involving ‘dynamic’ relationships are tasks that involve dynamic relationships among people or objects. The speaker has to describe events or relationships that change over time and space. This task-type elicits different types of communication problems from the Static Task. It poses a higher degree of communicative demands on the speaker. Examples of this task-type are telling a story and narrating an event like giving an eye-witness account of an accident.
Tasks involving ‘abstract’ relationships require the speaker to communicate abstract notions. In such tasks the speaker has to express an opinion on a given topic or offer justification for a particular action. The communicative demands of an Abstract Task are higher than that of the Static and Dynamic Tasks. In the Static and Dynamic Tasks the stimulus material presented to the student provides all of the content to be communicated. In contrast, in an Abstract Task, although the stimulus material is designed to elicit the expression of an opinion or justification, the material does not contain the actual content to be communicated. The communicative demand of this task-type is, thus, highest.
Anderson et. al. explain that the different types of oral tasks elicit different types of language and pose different communication problems for the speaker. They note that there is an ascending scale of difficulty among the different task-types. Tasks that involve the speaker in describing static relationships among objects are easier to communicate than tasks that require the speaker to communicate abstract notions, for instance in argument or justifications. Their classification of oral task-types is adopted for the purposes of the present study as it accounts for the different problems in communication. The factor of problematicity in communication is necessary for the present study because the defining criterion of communication strategy is problem-orientedness. The criterion for the use of a communication strategy is the existence of a communication problem. As this study investigates the use of communication strategy in relation to oral tasks, it is necessary to employ oral tasks that pose different communication problems.
The tasks used in the study are described below: all tasks reflect realities of real-life communicative situations and involve pair-work.
- Static Task : Instruction-giving task (henceforth referred to as Task A)
One of the pair, that is the instructee, performs a task e.g. making a flower or repairing a leaking tap, based on instructions given by the other pair, i.e. the instructor. The respondents are allowed to question and ask for clarifications.
2. Dynamic Task : Telling a story (henceforth referred to as Task B)
One of the pair, that is the narrator of the story, is given a sequence of pictures and asked to tell a story while the other of the pair, that is the listener, listens and is allowed to question and ask for clarifications.
3. Abstract Task : Opinion-giving (henceforth referred to as Task C)
The pair is given a survival situation and a list of items they have to rank in order of importance. This requires them to exchange opinions and reach consensus on the items ranked.
Research design
The subjects of the study were four Malay (two males and two females) first-year students of the Science and Computer Department, Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies, University Putra Malaysia. They were pursuing a Degree in Computer Science, and were at the intermediate level of English proficiency.
Only Malay respondents were used as it was easier and more reliable to define the status of English as a L2 in Malay homes, for in non-Malay homes English was either the L1, L2, L3 or L4 depending on the relative positions of their home languages and Bahasa Malaysia. Malay students were also used as the identification of communication strategies in the present study involved a comparison of the respondents’ L1 and L2 utterances and the researcher is a bilingual in both these languages.
An equal number of males and females were used to minimize the influence of gender on the use of communication strategies. Research has shown that there exist female and male differences in oral interaction with respect to the use of strategies such as fillers, qualifiers, interruptions, repetitions etc (Hirschman, 1994; Green and Oxford, 1995). All four respondents were twenty years of age.
All respondents had learnt English as a second language for eleven years, in six years of primary education and five years of secondary education. The English Language Syllabus for Malaysian Secondary Schools (1987) describes the position of English in Malaysia as that of a second language. The researcher, thus, accepted this categorically as true. The medium of instruction used in school was Bahasa Malaysia, the national language.
Data collection
Three task-types, all involving pair work, were used for data collection. As discussed earlier in this paper, these task-types were selected based on Anderson, Brown, Shillcock and Yule’s (1984) classification of oral tasks.
The subjects were paired off into four groups, Pair 1 Male-Male (P1Mi & P1Mii), Pair 2 Female-Female (P2Fi & P2Fii), Pair 3 Male-Female (P3M & P3F) and Pair 4 Female-Male (P4F & P4M) respectively. Each pair performed the three task-types, the Instruction-Giving Task (Task A), the Story-Telling Task (Task B) and the Opinion-Giving Task (Task C).
The respondents were paired off in this manner for two reasons Firstly, to minimize the influence of gender on the use of communication strategies and secondly, to ensure that there would be sufficient talk-time for each task-type in order to establish a reliable profile of strategy use for each task-type. A total of four hours of recorded talk were collected.
All three tasks were first performed in English and then immediately in Malay. Data collection involved three parts. In the first part, all four pairs performed the Instruction-Giving Task (Task A). P1 (Male-Male pair) and P2 (Female-Female pair) performed a task that required the pair to repair a leaking tap. P3 (Male-Female) performed a task that required them to fix a wire into a three-pin plug and P4 (Female- Male) had to make a flower out of ribbon. In the first stage of data collection for this task-type, one person in each pair was instructed by the researcher non-verbally on how to perform the task. The subjects then had to perform the task themselves. This enabled the researcher to assess whether the instructions had been understood. In the second stage, these subjects instructed their interlocutors (i.e. the second person in the pair) who carried out the instructions. The subjects were allowed to ask as many questions and to request for as much clarifications as they required.
In the second part of the data collection, the four pairs performed the Story-Telling Task (Task B). Two picture stories, referred to as Story 1 and Story 2 (see Appendix), were taken from Heaton’s (1976) Beginning Composition through Pictures. In this part, one person in each pair was given a picture story which he/she looked through for two minutes before telling his/her interlocutor a story based on it while the second person in the pair listened. The second of the pair was also instructed to participate as naturally as he/she would in a real life situation. The study showed that the listener did not merely engage in passive listening. His/her attention to the story being told was portrayed through head nods, laughs, questions about the story and responses to appeals for help from the interlocutor.
In the third part, the four pairs performed the Opinion-Giving Task (Task C). They were each given a survival situation for which they had to rank a list of items in order of importance for survival purposes. The two survival situations used, referred to as Survival Situation 1 and Survival Situation 2 (see Appendix), were taken from Ur (1981).
Data analysis
After the recorded data was transcribed, an identification procedure was employed. This procedure enabled the identification of the discourse units in which communication strategies were present. In order to arrive at a reliable identification of the strategy used, a combination of three identification procedures were used. Firstly, the researcher identified the discourse units that contained the communication strategy on the basis of problem indicators which include hesitation phenomena and temporal variables like pauses, repetitions, false starts, laughs, sighs, mimetic gestures, rising intonation and comments like “what you call”. However, the use of these problem indicators alone was not sufficient because it was not always clear whether the problems encountered by the students were linguistic in nature. For instance, hesitations, pauses and the like could have been strategies used by the student to hold on to his turn as he organized his thoughts or as he searched for the word he was looking for. In the case of the story-telling task, they could have been strategies he used as he grappled with the story line. This brought the researcher to the second stage of the identification procedure.
The second stage involved a comparison of the respondents’ L1 and corresponding L2 utterances of the task. The rationale behind this procedure was that the L1 version of the task revealed exactly what the learner wanted to say in English, i.e. his “intended meaning”, while the L2 version of the task reflected the learner’s adjusted meaning or message. This method of identification presupposed that all L2 expressions that differed from the L1 version in terms of their intended meaning arose from the employment of communication strategies. The strategy was identified by juxtaposing the corresponding L1 and L2 versions of the task and determining where they did not coincide. The four possibilities put forward by Palmberg (1979) (illustrated in Table 1 below) as regards the presence or not of a particular intended meaning in the L2 version of a task were used to determine the instances of strategy use.
Table 1: Possible Occurrences of Intended Meaning in the two versions of a Task (SEE PDF File)
The third stage of the identification procedure involved the use of the learners’ retrospective comments obtained from an interview session with the subjects. This was to verify that the discourse units identified so far were indeed the result of a linguistic handicap. In the case of language transfer, the interview sessions helped determine what problem they encountered, whether the problem was linguistic in nature and what their originally intended meaning was.
After the discourse units containing communication strategies had been identified they were analyzed. The analysis was carried out in relation to the research questions. It involved three stages.
In the first stage of the analysis, the communication problems encountered by the subjects in each task-type, beginning with Task A, subsequently followed by Task B and Task C, were described. This is necessary, because in order to gain an understanding of the communication strategies used in the task-types it is pertinent to first have an understanding of the communication problems that occur in each task-type, since communication strategies are solutions to communication problems.
In the second stage of the analysis, the communication strategies used by the subjects were classified using Poulisse’s (1987) taxonomy of communication strategies (see Appendix). Each type of communication strategy was described as they were used by the four pairs of students with respect to their linguistic configuration, communicative function and communicative intent in each of the task-types, beginning with Task A and followed by Task B and Task C respectively.
After the types of communication strategies used by the subjects in each task-type were described, an analysis of the similarities and differences in strategy use across the task-types was carried out. Each communication strategy as it was used in Task A, Task B and Task C was compared. The similarities and differences with respect to its linguistic configuration, communicative function and communicative intent were then described.
In the final stage of the analysis, each type of communication strategy was analyzed for its potential learning effect. This was done by employing the rationale provided by Faerch and Kasper (1980). They propose that communication strategies that solve problems in the planning phase lead to L2 learning with respect to hypothesis formation and that communication strategies that tackle problems in the realization phase lead to learning with respect to automatization. Language transfer was, thus, investigated in relation to two criteria. They were, firstly, whether the strategy resulted in the subjects learning an L2 item or learning a new context for an interlanguage item, since these are the two possible outcomes of successful hypothesis formation. Secondly, it was whether the strategy resulted in the learner being reminded of an interlanguage item he had problems retrieving, since this leads to automatization of the item. The nature of learning was, in other words, determined by looking into the type of language problem encountered by the subjects. If the problem was a planning problem, that is if the learner lacked the linguistic resources to express his intended meaning, and employed achievement behaviour to overcome the problem, it is assumed that he/she may have learnt either a L2 term or learnt a new context for an interlanguage item. If the problem was a realization problem, that is if the learner had difficulty in retrieving the intended interlanguage item, and adopted achievement behaviour, it is assumed that he may have had the opportunity to automatize the particular item.
Needless to say, the present study employed the ethnographic approach in its qualitative-interpretive mode, using the principles of discourse analysis and relying on triangulation through interviews for greater validity. With this, research findings are addressed in the next section.
Research findings
a. Transfer as a communication strategy
In the data of this study transfer manifested as a communication strategy in two ways. In both cases the respondents’ L1 (Malay) was the direct cause of the resulting expression.
i. language switch.
The respondent used a Malay word to express his intended meaning.
ii. literal translation.
The respondent literally translated his intended meaning from Malay into English.
i. Language switch
Language switch was used as a communication strategy in all the three task-types to solve language problems at the word level. A Malay word was used to express the target word.
In Task A, language switch was used to refer to objects used in the task and to explain the non-verbal aspects of the task, that is the actions required for performing the task. It was used as an independent strategy, that is as a sole attempt to solve the communication problem.
In Example 1, this strategy was used to refer to the washer, an object used in the task, which the instructor did not have the English word for. He referred to it as pelapik (line 3).
Example 1 See PDF
The instructor also had a problem with the object tap head in the extract above. He described it as the large screw the biggest screw (lines 4-5) while pointing at the intended object. These strategies are known as circumlocution and gestures and they co-occurred with language switch in the extract above.
Example 2 below illustrates language switch as a communication strategy to deal with a problematic action verb.
Example 2 See PDF
(P3F performs as instructed)
In lines 1-2, not knowing the English word for tindih, the speaker used the Malay equivalent instead. Subsequently, he used the word touch to express the same.
In Task B, language switch was used to deal with problems that involved descriptions of objects and characters in the story as well as descriptions of the actions of the characters. In this task-type, it was not used as an independent strategy. Instead, it was used as a supportive strategy to structure the interactional strategy. Within a direct appeal for help, the problem word was expressed in the L1, as shown below.
See PDF
The interview revealed that in lines 5-8, Fi ’s intended meaning was that, after cutting the table legs they played ping pong as usual, except that now they have to bend while playing because the table is too low. As she said in the interview, saya nak cakap dia orang main ping pong macam biasalah hanya sekarang dia orang terpaksa bongkok sambil main sebab meja tu rendah sangat. However, she had difficulty with the English equivalent for the word bongkok. She appealed for assistance from the interlocutor using the question bongkok apa ha (lines 7-8). The target word and the appeal were both expressed in Malay. Fii provided the English equivalent for the word and Fi subsequently used this word to get her meaning across.
In Task C, language switch was also used for problems in relation to expressing opinions about the functions of the items specified for the survival situations and their necessity. The strategy was used in two ways. As in Task A, it was used as an independent strategy (illustrated in Example 4 below). Apart from this, it was also used as a means to appeal for help from the interlocutor, as in Task B. This is shown in Example 5.
Example 4 *see PDF
In the extract above, Fi and Fii were discussing how to rank the ‘map’ and the ‘telescope’ as items for survival. Fi intended to say that, with the map we would know whether there are whirlpools or coral reefs, but with the telescope we can only see above water, we would not know where we are whether we are in a coral reef area or a whirlpool area. As she put it in the interview, dengan peta kita dapat tahu dekat situ ada jurang ke ataupun ada batu karang ke kan tapi dengan teleskop kita cuma dapat tengok atas paras air je tapi kita tak tahu kita ni sebenarnya atas apa ka mana area batu karang ke area jurang ke. When asked what she meant by jurang (line 4) she made circles with her hand to mean ‘whirlpool’. She did not know the equivalents for jurang and batu karang in English. The use of the word jurang in her L2 utterance is, therefore, classified as a language switch. However, the referent batu karang was omitted. She subsequently learnt the English equivalents of these two problematic words as during the interview she explicitly requested to know how they were referred to in English.
In Example 5 language switch was used as a supportive strategy to appeal for help for the referent cangkul (line 4).
Example 5 See PDF
In line 4, F’s intended meaning was that, the pick can also be used to dig the ground. However, she did not know the English equivalent for cangkul. She requested for help using the Malay question word apa while expressing the problematic concept in L1 with the word, cangkul, and gesturing the action dig.
ii. Literal translation
Literal translation is registered when the problematic word or message is translated from the L1 into the L2. It was used in all the three task-types to deal with problems at the word and message levels as an independent strategy.
In Task A, it was used for problems at the word level involving the non-verbal aspects of the task.
Example 6 See PDF
The interview revealed that in you over (.) that’s over (line 5) the instructor’s intended meaning was that the instructee had inserted too much of the cupric wire into the hole. As she put it in the interview, maksud saya wayar tu Suzana dah terlebih masuk saya nak Suzana masukkan kuprum tu saja tapi Suzana masukkan penebatnya sekali. Over is the word used to convey the concept terlebih masuk. The interview revealed he did not know how to convey this concept in English. As he put it in the interview, actually I don’t know how to say I just translate lebih over (.) and Suzana understand so ok. In dealing with his problem, M translated terlebih masuk from Malay, resulting in you over (.) that’s over.
In Task B, literal translation was used for problems involving actions performed by characters in the story.
Example 7 See PDF
In the utterance, how come she they can play the ping pong just the head only (.) only look each other (lines 1-3), Fi ’s intended meaning was, how are they going to play ping pong when they can only see each other’s faces. As she put it in the L1 version of the task, macam mana dia orang nak main ping pong hanya muka sahaja yang nampak di antara berdua. However, she did not know how to express all this in English. Her utterance shows she translated her intended meaning into the target language. Hanya muka sahaja yang nampak di antara berdua when directly translated into English is just only the head/face look each other.
In Task C, literal translation was used for problems involving the use of words and phrases in relation to the opinions expressed about the functions of the items specified for the survival situation and their necessity.
Example 8 See PDF
The interview revealed that in lines 3-4, in the utterance, to know the way to know where us are going the speaker intended to say that, they needed the map in order to know the way they should go. He had problems expressing this in English and, therefore, translated it from Malay. As he put it in the interview, saya nak cakap kita perlukan peta tu untuk mengetahui arah di mana kita perlu pergi. His utterance, to know the way to know where us are going, was literally translated from Malay, untuk mengetahui arah di mana kita perlu pergi.
The patterns of use of transfer as a communication strategy across oral tasks with regard to its communicative intent, language configuration and communicative function are summarized in Table 2 See PDF File
My next concern was looking into the potential learning effect of transfer as a communication strategy as used by the subjects of this study. This is dealt with in the next section.
b. Transfer and second language learning
As noted in the previous section transfer is manifested in the data as language switch and literal translation. The potential learning effect of transfer is thus examined from these manifestations.
i. Language switch
Using Faerch and Kasper’s rationale to language learning the linguistic strategy of transfer manifested as language switch may or may not enhance learning depending on the context in which it is used. It does not support language learning if by means of this strategy only the learner’s L1 is used to tackle the language problem, that is if the learners do not use the second language at all. The speaker therefore does not learn the L2 item of the problematic word. As a result, the interlanguage of the learner is unaffected. For instance, as in Example 1, the learner does not learn the L2 word of pelapik. Likewise in Examples 4 and 5 the learner’s interlanguage remains unaffected with regard to the use of the words cangkul and jurang. However, using L1 in order to communicate these concepts may have made the learners aware of their limited vocabulary. After the activity they can resort to sources of authority like a dictionary or the class teacher to learn the English equivalents of the problematic words. Language switch in Examples 1, 4 and 5 may therefore still be viewed as opportunities for language learning; the learner can treat them as ways of discovering and learning the vocabulary he lacks by taking remedial measures for instance in resorting to sources of authority to get the exact words in English. In this indirect way language switch may be viewed as having the potential as a language learning tool.
If however language switch results in the use of the L2 to tackle the problematic word, then learning can be said to have directly occurred during communication. This is seen in Example 2 where through the use of the word “tindih” (line 1) the learner is able to retrieve from his interlanguage repertoire a close paraphrase of the problematic word i.e. “touch” (line 1). In this case the problem may have been a realization problem and the use of language switch may have lead to automatization of the interlanguage item. Alternatively it may have been a planning problem and the learner hypothesized that “touch” is a suitable word to use to convey his meaning. This may have led to an expansion of his interlanguage repertoire with regard to the use of the word “touch” in this new context.
A positive effect of the use of language switch on second language learning is also seen in Example 3. The use of the word “bongkok” within the request for help (lines 7-8) resulted in the L2 item “bend” (line 9), which the speaker subsequently used in her communication. This may have also been a realization problem on the part of the speaker, and the appeal supported with language switch allowed for the L2 item to be retrieved and used in communication. This may have led to learning by means of automatization of the problematic L2 item.
ii. Literal translation
Transfer manifested as literal translation may enhance learning by enabling the learner to apply his interlanguage to new contexts. In this way, he has opportunities to expand his interlanguage repertoire. Example 7 illustrates this.
In how come she they can play the ping pong just the head only (.) only look each other (lines 1-3), Fi ’ s intended meaning was, how are they going to play when they can only see each other’s faces. As she put it in the interview, macam mana dia orang nak main ping pong hanya muka sahaja yang nampak di antara berdua. In expressing her intended meaning she translated from the L1. It is assumed she hypothesized that the utterance, just the head only look each other, translated from the L1, hanya muka sahaja yang nampak di antara berdua, can be used to express the intended meaning. Positive feedback from the interlocutor would have confirmed this hypothesis. The learner, therefore, may have learnt a new context for the interlanguage utterance just the head only look each other. She could have learnt that this is the way to express the intended meaning. Her interlanguage repertoire may have expanded in this way; the learner encountered a planning problem and through translation from the L1 may have learnt to apply her knowledge of L2 in a new context.
Similarly in Example 6, the learner may have hypothesized that the utterance “you over, that’s over” translated from the L1 terlebih masuk can be used to express the intended meaning. Likewise in Example 8 the expression “to know the way where us are going” translated from untuk mengetahui arah di mana kita perlu pergi may have been hypothesized as appropriate for the intended meaning to know the way we should go.
In the examples above (Examples 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8) the L1 may have functioned as a tool in the discovery of the structures of the L2, thus helping to facilitate the learning of these structures. Successful communication with the interlocutor may result in these structures being incorporated into the learners’ interlanguage system.
Summary of findings and Discussion
The transfer strategies of language switch and literal translation were used in all the three task-types. However, there were differences in the communicative intent conveyed. In Task A, the strategy was used to refer to objects used in the task and to express the non-verbal aspects of the task. In Task B, the strategy was employed to refer to and describe the objects and characters in the story. In Task C, it was used to convey words in relation to the opinions of the functions of the items specified for the survival situation and their necessity.
The linguistic configurations of language switch and literal translation were similar across the task-types. Language switch involved the use of an L1 word to convey the target concept and in literal translation, problem words and phrases were translated word for word from the L1. There were similarities and differences in the communicative functions of these strategies across the task-types. They were similar in that they were used as independent strategies (that is as sole attempts to tackle the communication problems encountered) across the task-types. Language switch, however, was also used as a supportive strategy to structure the interactional strategy of direct appeal. This occurred in Tasks B and C. Within a direct appeal the problem was expressed in L1. The strategy was not used in this manner in Task A. This is because the direct appeal was not used in Task A. The researcher postulates that the direct appeal was not used to deal with problems in Task A because of the nature of the task-type. In Task A, the respondents performed a task that required them to give and receive instructions. In performing the task, the objects used in the task were visible to both the respondents. For instance, in repairing the leaking tap, the tap, the spanner and the packet of washers were laid in front of both the respondents. The data showed that the problems in Task A involved the names of objects used to perform the task and the relevant verbs to express the actions required. The respondents had problems referring to the objects used to perform the task because the task required knowledge of technical names of those objects. In solving these problems through the interactional strategy, it was not expedient to explicitly request for the name of an object or an action in the L2. It was, for instance, not expedient to ask, “what do you call kepala paip” (tap head) as it would have been more appropriate to say, “take that” (i.e. the tap head) while pointing at it. In other words, it would have been more suitable to use non-verbal strategies. This is because, as mentioned earlier, the objects used in the task were visible to both the respondents. Similarly, it would have been awkward to ask, “what is lipat” or “how do you say lipat” (fold). Because of the nature of the task, it had been more expedient to use either non-verbal strategies or the linguistic strategy, that is to use the L1 word to express a verb that was problematic to say in English, for example the word ‘lipat’ in Malay for fold.
In addition to having a communicative function, transfer also had the potential to enhance L2 learning. This could have occurred in several ways. First of all, by way of helping the learner to expand his L2 repertoire. This can be explained in two ways. Firstly, the use of the strategy can allow the learner to learn new L2 lexis. The strategy that could have allowed for this is transfer manifested as language switch supported with the interactional strategy of direct appeal from a source of authority, such as the class teacher. Secondly, transfer can allow the learner to learn a new context for his interlanguage items. The learner would have had the opportunity to apply his interlanguage lexis in new contexts. He may have learned that in addition to what he understands a particular interlanguage word to mean, the word can have another meaning, or can be used differently, within a different context. The strategy that may have allowed for learning in this way is transfer manifested as literal translation.
In addition to helping expand the learner’s L2 repertoire, transfer also can enhance learning by allowing learners to automatize their interlanguage items. This involves instances when the learner was either reminded by his interlocutor of interlanguage items he had problems retrieving at the time of speech, or the learner himself was able to retrieve the problematic word from his mind. In these instances, the learner is made to be aware that the intended word is ‘there’ in his mind but he cannot recall it. When he remembers it or when the interlocutor brings it to his attention, he is able to increase the availability of the interlanguage term by using it in communication. The strategy that may have allowed for learning in this way is language switch used as an independent strategy and language switch used as a supportive strategy within a direct appeal.
If however the learner employed only Malay to convey his intended meaning without any use of the L2, his interlanguage remains unaffected and this appears not to lead to L2 learning in any way. However, if we look at learning in a broader perspective, the use of the Malay words can bring about learning in yet another way - it can draw the attention of the learners to their own limited vocabulary, and they can on their own accord resort to sources of authority like a dictionary or the class teacher to learn the English equivalents of the problematic words, and in this way add new words to their competence.
In a nutshell, transfer has the potential to enhance L2 learning firstly, by helping learners expand their L2 repertoire by way of learning new L2 lexis and learning new contexts of application for existing interlanguage items, and secondly, by providing opportunities that help learners automatize their interlanguage items. In short, transfer used as a communication strategy can be said to have the potential to affect language learning by way of “help[ing] learners become more fluent in what they already know [and] may lead learners to gain new information about what is appropriate or permissible in the target language” (Oxford, 1990, p. 49).
With regard to L2 communication, transfer contributes in two ways. Firstly, through its use communication does not come to a halt. The learner is able to convey his intended message, that is communication proceeds and this helps in the accomplishment of the task. Secondly, transfer promotes the adoption of achievement behaviour, which is a prerequisite for successful communication and language learning. There is a school of thought that perceives transfer or switch to the L1 as undermining the learning of the L2. Willis (1981) for instance is against the use of L1 in L2 classrooms: she defines teaching English through English (TETE) as “speaking and using English in the classroom as often as you possibly can”. Ellis (1986) in fact argues that skilful use of communication strategies as compensation for lack of linguistic knowledge can actually obviate the need for learning. Macdonald (1993) too follows this train of thought when he supports the view that L1 use cuts down exposure to the L2. This study however shows that using L1 in L2 communication can be more effective than avoiding its use in such communication. The study shows that careful and strategic use of L1 in L2 communication can be beneficial for both second language communication and second language learning. The study evidences that L2 learners fall back on their first language as a steady and reliable strategy to tackle language problems when communicating in the second language.
The study also shows that in addition to being used as an independent strategy, language transfer is also often used in combination with other communication strategies particularly the interactional strategy of direct appeal. This implies that if a teacher were to discourage the use of the L1 in L2 communication he would also discourage the use of other communication strategies that co occur with the use of L1 (for instance the direct appeal) and therefore inhibit achievement based behaviour when tackling communication problems, which can inadvertently negatively impact L2 learning. This is echoed in Harbord (1992, p. 351) who argues that “translation/transfer is a natural phenomenon and an inevitable part of second language acquisition”, and that disallowing L1 use in the L2 classroom would deprive learners of a valuable tool for communication and language learning. The findings of this study therefore lend support to careful and strategic use of the L1 in L2 classroom activities as a stable tool for L2 communication and learning. The implication for L2 training therefore is to not discourage L1 use in the L2 classroom but instead to encourage a strategic use of it. Learners should be taught how to code-switch skillfully and when to do it as a strategic move in L2 communication. L2 training also should not discourage the translation of L1 rules in L2 communication. The teaching environment should instead tap on this natural phenomenon as it opens up opportunities for learners to learn the correct L2 rules through peer repair and feedback or even through self repair as learners are somewhat aware of their faulty utterances in the L2 and seek for help from sources of authority.
Concluding remarks
This investigation evidences the potential in a learner’s L1 as a stable and reliable strategy for tackling breakdowns when communicating in a second language. The study supports language transfer as a useful tool for effective and successful L2 communication with the possible added advantage of a subsidiary effect with regard to second language learning. The claim about language transfer as a learning strategy however may seem subjective since this part of the research was primarily deduced from Faerch and Kasper’s (1980) rationale for communication strategies and language learning and lacked triangulation in reflective comments from respondents. The findings however are an eye-opener to the promise that lies in a learner’s first language for communicating in and learning a second language. As teachers, then, we must be receptive and sensitive to the place of the learner’s first language in the teaching and learning of the second language. Rodolpho Jacobson echoes this in his view that teachers need to acknowledge codeswitching as a natural phenomenon and the parallel use of L1 and L2 as unavoidable in the L2 classroom (Jacobson and Faltis, 1990). It is hoped then that further research on the place of L1 in L2 communication is undertaken more aggressively for instance by incorporating reflection from respondents in a more rigorous fashion - for example by involving follow-up interviews of how individual speakers manage to improve their language quality, listen to corrective feedback from the interlocutor and adjust their own speech, rephrase and demonstrate how they improve their verbal performance, reflect on what they think they have learned, think about the speaking experience and suppose how they could do better, connect what they do in L1 transfer with other communication strategies, and so forth in order to probe deeper into how the strategy of transfer may serve to enhance second language communication and learning.
References
Anderson, A., Brown, G., Shillcock, R., & Yule, G. (1984). Teaching talk: Strategies for production and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnfast, J.S. & Jorgensen, J.N. (2003). Code-switching as a communication, learning, and social negotiation strategy in first-year learners of Danish. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 13(1), 23-53.
Bialystok, E. (1983). Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication strategies. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp.100 -118). London: Longman.
Brown, H. D. (1980). Principles and practices of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Brown, H.D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Canale, M & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1), 1-47.
Corder, S.P. (1993). A role for the mother tongue. In S.M. Gass & L. Selinker, L (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 18-31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Corrales, O. (1989). At a loss for words: The use of communication strategies to convey lexical meaning. Foreign Language Annals 22(3), 227-240.
Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. Tesol Quarterly 29(1), 55-85.
Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1980). Processes and strategies in foreign language learning and communication. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin Utrecht 5(1), 47-128.
Faerch, C & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20-60). London: Longman.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language Learning 34(1), 45-63.
Fernandez Dobao, A.M. (2003). The effect of language proficiency on communication strategy use: A case study of Galician learners of English. Retrieved October 14, 2007 from http://www.atlantisjournal.org
Green, J. M. & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and gender. Tesol Quarterly 29(2), 261-297.
Harbord, J. (1992). The use of the mother tongue in the classroom. ELT Journal 46 (4), 350-355.
Heaton, J.B. (1976). Beginning composition through pictures. London: Longman.
Hirschman, L. (1994). Female-male differences in conversational interaction. Language in Society 23(3), 427-442.
Jacobson, R. & Faltis, C. (Eds.). (1990). Language description issues in bilingual Schooling. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (1987). The English Language Syllabus for Malaysian Secondary Schools.
Khemlani-David, M. (1992). Consciousness-raising of communicative strategies: A springboard to language proficiency. In B. Wijayasuriya & H. Gaudart (Eds.), Teaching and learning English in challenging situations (pp. 45-49). Kuala Lumpur: MELTA.
Lee Boon Hua. (1990). The relationship between the use of communication strategies and language proficiency in a group of ESL learners. Unpublished M.Ed. thesis, University Malaya, Petaling Jaya, Selangor.
Lee Geok Imm, Goh Seng Pang & Wong Bee Eng. (2006). The use of communication strategies by Malaysian undergraduates. In A. Sariyan, C.I. Salleh, M.A. Arshad, A. Sujud, A.Y. Buyong, Lee Geok Imm & Goh Seng Pang. Ujana Minda Jilid 1 (pp. 302-311). Petaling Jaya: Sasbadi.
Macdonald, C. (1993). Using the target language. Cheltenham: Mary Glasgow Publications.
Oxford, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.
Palmberg, R. (1979). Investigating communication strategies. In R. Palmberg (Ed.), Perception and production of English: Papers on interlanguage (pp. 53-75). Abo Academy: Abo Department of English.
Paramasivam, S. (1998). A typology and description of the communication strategies of a group of Malaysian learners of English. Unpublished Masters dissertation. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor.
Paribakht. T. (1985). Strategic competence and language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 6(2), 132-146.
Poulisse, N. (1987). Problems and solutions in the classification of compensatory strategies. Second Language Research 3(2), 141-153.
Poulisse, N. & Schils, E. (1989). The influence of task- and proficiency-related factors on the use of compensatory strategies: A quantitative analysis. Language Learning 39(1), 15-48.
Rubin, J. (1975). What the ‘good language learner’ can teach us. Tesol Quarterly 9, 41-51.
Rubin, J. (1981). Study of cognitive processes in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 117-131.
Spolsky, B. (1989). Conditions for second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Subramaniam, G. (1994). A comparative study between Malay and English communication strategies used by three Form Four students. Unpublished B.Ed.thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor.
Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL’ 77 (pp. 194-203). Washington D.C.: TESOL.
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning 30(2), 417-429.
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. Tesol Quarterly 15(3), 285-295.
Tarone, E. (1983). Some thoughts on the notion of ‘communication strategy’. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 61-74). London: Longman.
Tarone, E. (1984). Teaching strategic competence in the foreign language classroom. In S.J. Savignon & M.S. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in communicative language teaching (pp. 127-136). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ur, P. (1981). Discussions that work: Task-centred fluency practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willis. J. 1981. Teaching English through English. Harlow: Longman.
Yarmohammadi, L. & Seif, S. (1992). More on communication strategies: classification, resources, frequency and underlying processes. Iral 33(3), 223-232.
|
