A PEDAGOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ON COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: BENEFITS OF TRAINING AND AN ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING MATERIALS

Effective strategies used to overcome communication difficulties are of crucial importance for second language (L2) learners. Therefore, L2 learners might benefit from instruction on how to cope with such difficulties. Since the early 1970’s, much research has been conducted on communication strategies (CS), the means used to overcome some difficulty in expressing an intended meaning. Due to differing theoretical perspectives, researchers have disagreed about the question of whether such strategy training is beneficial. However, few studies have specifically considered communication strategies from a pedagogical point of view. Also, practicing teachers of communication strategies may be at a loss when searching for appropriate materials. This study addresses this issue. In this paper, I will first briefly present a definition, some conceptualizations, and examples of communication strategies. Then, I will discuss the controversy concerning teaching CS, arguing in favor of it. This will be followed by a description of a research project that analyzed communication strategies found in English language teaching (ELT) materials. Findings suggest that although there are at least a few materials available from which language teachers could draw appropriate, adaptable CS activities, particularly from teachers’ resource books, most of the surveyed materials offer few suitable ideas for CS instruction. More materials that introduce communication strategy activities/tasks would be welcomed. Finally, suggestions for materials and pedagogical implications will be discussed. INTRODUCTION: TO TEACH OR NOT TO TEACH? It seems evident that no individual’s linguistic repertoire or control of language is perfect. Both non-native and native speakers of a given language sometimes struggle to find the appropriate expression or grammatical construction when attempting to communicate their meaning. The ways in which an individual speaker manages to compensate for this gap between what she wishes to communicate and her immediately available linguistic resources are known as communication strategies (CS). Although researchers are still not in complete agreement, one widely accepted definition is “communication strategies are potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal” (Færch & Kasper, 1983a, p. 36) (see Dörnyei & Scott, 1997, for a review and alternative definitions). Second Language Studies, 19(2), Spring 2001, pp. 1-40. Faucette – A Pedagogical Perspective on Communication Strategies 2 Early studies of CS first focused on defining and classifying strategies into taxonomies. More recently, empirical studies and reviews of CS have been conducted, and researchers have turned their attention to the relationship between CS and pedagogical issues (Kasper & Kellerman, 1997, chapter 1). Two fundamentally different conceptualizations of communication strategies have been categorized by Yule and Tarone (1997) as ‘the Pros’ and ‘the Cons.’ Essentially, the Pros, as in ‘proponents’ of teaching, or ‘profligate,’ in terms of their extravagant, liberal expansion of CS categories, have proposed additional categories to the taxonomies of CS. They often design studies that use an interlocutor and compare actual L2 learner performance to native speaker performance, finding many differences between the two. Because of such an approach, the results of their research generally lead them to advocate the teaching of communication strategies (e.g., Dörnyei 1995; Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1991, 1994; Tarone, 1984). On the other hand, the Cons, as in ‘conservative,’ favor a much more constrained and limited taxonomy of strategies. They are more concerned with the underlying cognitive processes than with performance. Con studies, which generally do not include an interlocutor, often compare L2 learners’ performance with their own first language performance, finding many similarities between the two. Due to this focus on cognitive processes and findings that indicate similarities between L1 and L2 CS use, as a rule, the Cons do not advocate teaching CS (e.g., Kellerman, 1991). Because communication strategy use is evident in L1, implying strategic transfer, why bother teaching such strategies to L2 learners? In two oft-cited quotes, Bialystok and Kellerman, respectively, express their opposition to teaching CS, “What one must teach students of a language is not strategy, but language” (Bialystok, 1990, p. 147). Kellerman writes “Teach the learners more language, and let the strategies look after themselves” (1991, p. 158). Whether to teach CS remains a point of contention. Very few studies have evaluated communication strategies from a pedagogical perspective. IN SUPPORT OF TEACHING COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES: BENEFITS OF TRAINING I will now consider the teaching of communication strategies in light of various domains of research: language learning strategies, listening strategies, strategy transfer, second language learning, procedural vocabulary, cultural differences in language use, learner autonomy, and the teaching and teachability of CS. Faucette – A Pedagogical Perspective on Communication Strategies 3 Towards Strategic Competence: Language Learning Strategies Research in learning strategy (LS) instruction indicates that communication strategy instruction may also facilitate language learning. For more than a decade, there has been a growing interest in LS, including how to integrate strategy training in the language classroom. Learning strategies are specific actions, behaviors, and procedures involved in the process of learning. There are a number of definitions and frameworks of language LS, ranging from broad definitions (e.g., Wenden, 1987) to more specific characterizations (e.g., Oxford & Cohen, 1992). However, O’Malley and Chamot’s threepart classification has been generally accepted (Ellis, 1994, p. 558). According to this model, learning strategies are categorized as metacognitive, cognitive, and socialaffective (e.g., Chamot & Küpper, 1989). Like communication strategies, learning strategies are considered important for the development of strategic competence, one of the three competencies of Canale and Swain’s famous framework of communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980). Strategic competence is defined as “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 & Swain, 1980, p. 30). Proponents of LS instruction, such as Oxford, claim that teachers should directly teach learning strategies, including compensation strategies, and provide training on how to transfer such strategies to other learning situations (Oxford, Lavine, & Crookall, 1989). Thereby, learners can become more aware of how to use such strategies for more effective communication (Cohen 1990; Mendelsohn, 1994; Oxford 1990). Research regarding ‘successful’ and ‘unsuccessful’ language learners indicates that active, effective learners tend to use appropriate strategies to reach their learning goals, whereas ineffective language learners are less expert in their strategy choice and use. In addition, this research suggests that learners can benefit from training (Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, & Todesco, 1978; Rubin, 1975; Stern 1975; Vann & Abraham, 1990; Wenden, 1985). The above “strategy-based approach” to language instruction (Mendelsohn, 1995) is not without its skeptics (e.g., Ridgway, 2000). For example, it has been suggested that being exposed to, and even using LS does not ensure success in language learning (Skehan, 1989). Also, as with CS training, there have been few empirical studies which evaluate the effectiveness of LS training. Despite this healthy cautiousness towards advocating LS instruction, Ellis (1994) says, “The study of learning strategies holds considerable promise ... for language pedagogy” (p. 558). He also says that learners 1 Oxford defines compensation strategies as “overcoming limitations in speaking and writing” (1990, p. 17). Presumably, she is referring to communication strategies. Faucette – A Pedagogical Perspective on Communication Strategies 4 should be able to ascertain which strategies to choose for when and what purpose (Ellis, 1994, p. 559). These are important considerations for strategy instruction. Some researchers have confusingly conflated communication strategies and learning strategies (e.g., Chamot & Küpper, 1980; O’Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990) without recognizing that they are theoretically different in research focus and purpose. For example, Oxford’s (1990) Learning Strategy System includes what she labels ‘compensation strategies’ (p. 15). However, unlike learning strategies, communication strategies are an immediate response to breakdowns in communication. According to Færch and Kasper (1983b, p. 2), “learning strategies contribute to the development of interlanguage systems, whereas communication strategies are used by a speaker when faced with some difficulty due to his communicative ends outrunning communicative means.” Tarone (1980) points out that the basic motivation of learners using CS is to communicate, whereas for LS the motivation is to learn (p. 419) (see also Tarone, 1983). The use of communication strategies may, indeed, lead to learning as the skillful learner exploits CS to elicit more input (see Second Language Learning section below). Thus, only in such cases, communication strategies can indirectly be considered a type of learning strategy. In summary, despite skepticism from some, studies conducted with second/foreign language students indicate that learning strategy instruction may help students achieve success in language learning. Despite the differences between learning strategies and communication strategies, research suggesting the benefits of learning strategy instruction als