Influence of task, nativeness, and the imaginary interlocutor on communication strategies

Influence of task, nativeness, and the imaginary interlocutor on communication strategies

Definitory approaches to Communication Strategies (CS)

traditionally, CS are viewed as means of preempting a communication problem, are considered to be speaker-internal and implemented during the planning phase of the utterance
more recently, an expanded definition defined as criteria for CS problem-orientedness and consciousness (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997):

CS and problems: CS can be oriented towards own-performance problems, other-performance problems, or processing time pressure

CS and consciousness: an interlocutor is aware of the existence of a problem, intentionally uses a CS to handle it, and is aware that (s)he is doing so

Research Approaches to CS

traditionally, two central research views:

Pros: use performance data to create categories and taxonomies of observed CS ð problem of category inflation; use interlocutor in studies; compare L2 learner performance to NS performance, find many differences; attribute differential use of CS to differences in L2 proficiency, advocate teaching of CS (Færch & Kasper, 1983; Willems, 1987; Dörnyei & Scott, 1995)

Cons: derive underlying cognitive processes from performance data ð categories are highly parsimonious and constrained but very general; no interlocutor used; compare L2 learner performance to learners' L1 performance, find many similarities; attribute differential use of CS to differences in tasks, reject teaching of CS (Poulisse & Schils, 1989; Bialystok, 1990; Poulisse, 1993)
Yule (1997) tries to synthesize both in one taxonomy:

Communication Strategies

Achievement (Compensatory)

a. Conceptual: Holistic: approximation (analogy, superordinate)

Analytic: circumlocution (characteristics, color, function, shape, size)

b. Code: borrowing, foreignizing, word coinage

Reduction (Avoidance)

topic avoidance, message replacement, message abandonment

Interactive

mime, gesture, sound imitation, appeal for assistance

(from: Yule, 1997: 80)

Research Issues

the usual methodology elicits strategies by challenging speakers to perform near or above competence, e.g., making reference to objects (abstract / obscure), procedures, describing pictures, re-telling stories
Kasper (1997) demands more emphasis on the pragmatic aspect of CS, Yule (1997) argues for a communicative methodology, including the elicitation of purposeful, extended, structured, controlled, and varied discourse and the use of baseline data

Proficiency vs. Task Effect: Poulisse & Schils (1989) in a study with Dutch EFL learners found that the number of compensatory strategies decreased with proficiency level but that the type of strategy used depended on the task: learners made extensive use of analytic strategies in referential tasks (focusing on clarity) but preferred holistic and transfer strategies in narrative tasks (focusing on efficiency)

Interlocutor: little use of real or imaginary interlocutor in CS research (Wilkes-Gibbs, 1986, as well as Ross & Rost, 1991, are exceptions)

Research Questions

Are there differences in the use of referential communication strategies between NS and NNS of English?
Do different tasks elicit different strategies?
Is there an effect of the presence or absence of an imaginary interlocutor?

Participants

23 volunteers, 14 NS of English, 9 NNS

Method & Results per task

tasks were delivered web-based (http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/ Classroom/7773/esl.html)

Task 1:
Please describe the following object without using its name.

> This machine can drill through a board. (NNS)

> It makes a hole usually in wood to make easier to put something else in the hole such as a screw. (NNS)

> It is a tool designed to make holes in a variety of surfaces including wood, plasterboard, etc. It has two handles for better stability. The engage switch is located on one of the handles. It is medium-sized and plugs into the wall. Different sized bits can be placed in the head to allow for different sized holes. (NS)

83% of responses used the frame approximation + paraphrase (purpose): holistic ð analytic
NS and NNS differed in the level of additional detail which 50% of NS provided but only 22% of NNS

Task 2:

Please describe what a TRANSCRIPT is in a US university setting.

> A document which records a student's grades, GPA, course taken, statue. It is used for transferring to other school and for job applicant. (NNS)

> A transcript is a listing of all the courses of study undertaken by a specific individual and the corresponding grades received, usually organized by semester/quarter and year, which provides a record of said individual's academic career at a particular institution and which can be used to corraborate the same. (NS)

all used approximation + detail
45% additionally described the function of a transcript

Task 3:
You saw the following incredible scene as you were driving home from work yesterday afternoon.

[image not reproduced]

You're writing an email to a friend and decide to describe what you saw. Please write your description in the box below.

> A cow was passing by a house. He rang the door bell of that house. Then continue eating the grass in front of the house. A man came out from the house and didn't see anybody rang the bell. (NNS)

> You're not goingt o believe what I saw yesterday. This cow was eating grass on ths lawn, just like a ormal cow, but then all of a sudden it STANDS up on its two hind legs, walks over to this house, rings the doorbell, and then goes back onto the lawn to eat more grass. By the time the person living inside the house gets to the door, all he sees is the cow eating grass--a completely normal situation. He has no idea, and he does not suspect at all, that it was in fact the cow that rang his doorbell. (NS)

unsystematic difference in reference to cow and farmer
69% of NS used introductory statement and / or comment, 50% of NNS used one or the other

Task 4:
You have a friend in a foreign country with whom you communicate in English via email. In your last email you wrote about how you don't like the cafeteria here. You didn't realize that university cafeterias don't exist in his country. At the end of his last email he wrote: "By the way, what's a cafeteria?"

At the end of your email today you write a response:

> Cafeteria is a place for students and faculty to eat. They can buy food from there, or they can bring their own. (NNS)

> A cafeteria is where we can get food on campus. It's kind of like a very bad restaurant. Some students who live in the dormitories only eat there, because with thir dorm fee they get a card they can use for food at the caffeteria without carrying cash. But I have to pay cash there, so I don't go there. (NS)

9 started with "place" (holistic), followed by an explanation of the function (analytic), 12 started with an approximation (restaurant, dining room), never followed by function (holistic only)
NS used more detail than NNS
all NS kept the situation communicative (addressing the interlocutor, using "I"), but only 50% of NNS did

Task 5:
You're in the middle of preparing dinner and cocktails for a party when you realize that there is no way you will get everything finished before the guests arrive unless you save some time. So instead of making cocktails by hand as you were planning to do, you decide to call your friend Cathy and ask her if you can borrow her

But as you are talking to Cathy you are so nervous from all the time pressure that you just can't remember what the object is called. How would you describe it to Cathy?

> Cathy, do you have a machine to use when we make fresh juice? You know, I want to make fresh juice for coktail. I forgot the name of machine to mix fruits. (NNS)

> It is a tool to make a juice. (NNS)

> Cathy, you know, it's that thing that you put like food in it and it chops it up into mushy stuff like baby food. Or when you want to make drinks, you put ice and juice and stuff in it and then you push one of those buttons and it makes that whirring noise and it spins the liquid around and chops the ice and then you have a drink. Oh come on, Cathy, you know what I'm talking about don't you? Please say yes, 'cause I can't think of what this thing is called. It's not a food processor it's that other B thing that people used before food processors were popular. (NS)

75% of descriptions began with an all-purpose term, 70% mentioned purpose next
NS provided more detail than NNS
all NS simulated real communication, whereas only 40% of NNS did

Discussion

the most striking difference between NS and NNS was the amount of detail provided ð NNS seemed to focus on economy, NS on clarity
microlevel strategy choice was strongly conditioned by task, less by NS/NNS status
the presence or absence of an imaginary interlocutor in interaction with NS/NNS status strongly influenced the organization of participants' discourse: NS simulated a communicative situation and followed culturally prescribed discourse conventions, NNS did not
interaction between presence of interlocutor – task type – NS/NNS status were observable even on the level of referential strategy choice: on task 5 (blender), 15 subjects used an all-purpose term ("thing"), 5 used a more specific term ("machine", "tool"): all 5 were NNS and also did not attempt to simulate communication
in contrast, no participant used an all-purpose term in the non-interlocutor equivalent task 1 (drill), i.e. the use of an all-purpose term was communicatively conditioned by the presence of an interlocutor to which NS were more likely to adapt their discourse than NNS

Conclusion

the pragmatic aspects of the task affected participants' responses on the discourse level and the micro-level of strategy use
the effect of the context established by the task differed for NS and NNS
future research into CS should systematically investigate the effect of context factors on communication strategies and embed CS research in pragmatics

References

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies. A psychological analysis for second language use. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dörnyei, Z. & Scott, M. L. (1995, March) Communication strategies: What are they and what are they not? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Long Beach, CA.

Dörnyei, Z. & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning 47(1), 173-210.

Færch, K. & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.

Kasper, G. (1997). Beyond reference. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman, Communication strategies: psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 345-360). London: Longman.

Kasper, G. & Kellerman, E. (Eds.) (1997). Communication strategies: psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives. London: Longman.

Poulisse, N. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht: Foris.

Poulisse, N. (1993). A theoretical account of lexical communication strategies. In R. Schreuder & B. Weltens (Eds.) The bilingual lexicon (pp. 157-189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Poulisse, N. (1997). Compensatory strategies and the principles of clarity and economy. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman, Communication strategies: psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 49-64). London: Longman.

Poulisse, N. & Schils, E. (1989). The influence of task and proficiency related factors on the use of communication strategies: A quantitative analysis. Language Learning 39, 15-48.

Rost, M. & Ross, S. (1991). Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology and teachability. In Language Learning 41, 235-273.

Willems, G. (1987). Communication strategies and their significance in foreign language teaching. System 15, 351-364.

Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.