Communication strategy use in oral academic discussions

 

Assoc Prof Dr Su-Hie Ting & Sing-Ee Sim

Paper presented at SOLLs.INTEC 2013, -3 July 2013, Cyberview Resort & Spa, Cyberjaya.

IntroductionL2 learners may not have the language proficiency to communicate intended messages. Either the message is abandoned or attempts are made to use existing linguistic competency to convey the message.

The good use of communication strategies enables L2 learners to maximise use of their linguistic capabilities to make meaning.

Contention: Instead of focussing efforts on improving language proficiency, the more feasible alternative is to develop strategic competence.

Strategic competence is defined as:

… mastery of verbal and nonverbal communication strategies that may be called into action for two main reasons:

a)to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to limiting conditions in actual communication or to insufficient competence in one or more areas of communicative competence; and b)to enhance the effectiveness of communication.

(Canale, 1983, p. 12)

IntroductionLess-proficient learners use more* communication strategies (Labarca & Khanji 1986; Poulisse & Schils 1989; Liskin-Gasparro 1996), prefer reduction strategies (Ellis 1983, cited in Ellis 1985) and rely more on L1 strategies compared to more proficient learners (Bialystok & Frohlich 1980; Bialystok 1983; Haastrup & Phillipson 1983; Paribakht 1985).

More proficient speakers were able to use tonicity to show salience of information to enhance the negotiation of meaning (Ting & Phan, 2008).

A more meaning-facilitation mode characterised cross-gender interactions (Ting & Kho, 2009).

Purpose of studyThe study examined the use of communication strategies by university students in oral academic discussions.

1.the extent to which L1- and L2-based strategies were used; and2.the extent to which lexical and discourse-based strategies were used.

Communication strategies for compensating linguistic inadequacies or enhancing meaning?

Method of studyGroup discussions of 26 TESL undergraduates for coursework assignments were audio-taped and transcribed. •5 male, 20 female•Aged 23-24

•Group discussions for assignment – academic subject matter but informal relationship (frequent contact, equal status)•Observation notes – facial expressions, gestures.

Data analysisTranscription – use of other languages was retained because language switch is one of the communication strategies.

Repetitions were transcribed as they were because restructuring is a communication strategy (Faerch & Kasper, 1984). For example, “it must be something, at least a guide, or I mean, I get the sample questions from literature. It’s better for me to do – to get it from literature”.

Communication strategies(Faerch & Kasper, 1981, 1984; Tarone, 1980, 1981)

Results

39,000-word transcript & 2913 communication strategies

1. Do students use more L1- and L2-based strategies?

Strategies FreqL1-based strategies

Language switch 98

L2-based strategies

ApproximationWord coinageCircumlocutionAppeal for helpRestructuringOffering helpDiscourse-based strategies

2799(96%)

(opting out) Message abandonment 16Total 2913

1. Do students use more L1- and L2-based strategies?

The students were coursemates who met one another for lectures every day and they were free to use other languages for the discussion as it was not held in class.

BUT only 98 instances of language switch. The academic subject matter restricted the language to mainly English – bringing about a reliance on L2 based strategies to see that the assignment topic is properly discussed.

Compared to class presentations where there is no language switch and slightly more message abandonments (Ting, Musa & Sim, 2012).

2. Do students use more lexical or discourse-based strategies? Freq Tota

lLexical Language switch 98 448

(15%)

Approximation 0Word coinage 1Circumlocution 9Appeal for help 22Offering help 31Restructuring 287

Discourse

Tonicity (stress & pitch) 1197 2449(85%)

Lexical repetition 476Tone (rising & falling) 739Topic fronting 37

Total (minus message abandonment, n = 16) 2897

2. Do students use more lexical or discourse-based strategies?

Overwhelmingly discourse-based strategies which do not require advanced language skills, thereby making it a feasible way for less proficient speakers to convey intended meanings.

• Tonicity (stress & pitch)• Lexical repetition• Tone (rising & falling tone)• Topic fronting (e.g., These communication

strategies, they are confusing). Marks new from given info.

2. Do students use more lexical or discourse-based strategies?

Based on Clennell s (1994, 1995) categorisation, ’lexical strategies have a compensatory role whereas discourse-based strategies have a message enhancing role. In this study, communication strategies are used to enhance negotiation of meaning.

These are TESL students, so language proficiency is not a big issue. May account for little use of CS to bridge gaps in communication.

2. Do students use more lexical or discourse-based strategies?

The lexical strategy that is frequently used is restructuring (287 or 64% of 448 lexical strategies).

When the speaker realises that he/she cannot continue the initial communication plan in the middle of the utterance, the message is reworded. It also serves to rectify grammatical errors. So now, what I can use is only the “binary opposi... Operation . ”

Too many restructurings gives impression of hesitant speech. Under stressful class presentation conditions, more restructuring occurs (Ting, Musa, & Sim, 2012).

ConclusionThe proficient L2 English speakers used tonicity, tone, lexical repetition (discourse-based strategies) to enhance their message and restructuring (lexical strategies) for conversational repair.

While this may signify the communication strategy usage pattern of the more proficient speakers, other studies like Ting and Phan (2008) have shown that less proficient speakers are equally good at using lexical repetition and topic fronting to highlight salience of message although they use tonicity less.

The findings suggest that it may be feasible to teach less proficient learners to use discourse based strategies for more fluent speech by stretching their language resources.

ConclusionYasuo Nakatani (2005, 2006, 2010): Strategy training

A. Oral comn strategy sheet to develop metacognitive skills at the beginning of the course.

B. Strategy diary to make plans, monitor and evaluate their performance.

1.Participate in simulated authentic conversation task2.Reflect on previous performance and repeat3.Brainstorm for new task to create dialogues4.Rehearse with peers and use diaries to make plans for using specific comn strategies5.Perform task6.Evaluate own performance using guidelines

Cited papersTing, S. H., Musa, M. K., & Sim, S. E. (2012, November 14-15). Communication strategy use during oral presentations. Proceedings of Technology, Science, Social Sciences and Humanities International Conference 2012 (TeSSHI), One Hotel Helang, Langkawi,

Ting, S. H., & Kho, T. P. (2009). Gender and communication strategy use in learning English as a Second Language. International Journal of Applied Linguistics (ITL), 157(1), 93-108.

Ting, S. H., & Phan, G. Y. L. (2008). Adjustment in communication strategy use to interlocutor’s language proficiency. Prospect (Australian TESOL Journal), 23(1), 28-36.