Communication strategies employed by low-proficiency users: Possibilities for ELF-informed pedagogy

2.1 Communication strategies from the perspective of SLA

SLA researchers began to pay attention to CSs in the 1970s as part of the process of interlanguage development (Ellis 2008). CS research was considered important as strategic competence – knowledge of how to cope with communication breakdown – was regarded as an essential component of communicative competence (Nakatani and Goh 2007: 207). The main purpose of CSs was purportedly to work through communicative problems, that is, CSs were thought to be consciously deployed when interactants realized that communication was being interrupted (Dörnyei and Scott 1997: 182–185). SLA researchers have defined CSs from two perspectives: the psycholinguistic and the interactional.

Researchers from the psycholinguistic perspective generally regard the use of CSs as indicating that a speaker is having difficulty expressing his or her intended meaning in a second language (Færch and Kasper 1983). In particular, lexical-compensatory strategies have been extensively investigated (Nakatani and Goh 2007). Færch and Kasper (1983) identified two types of CSs: reduction strategies that a speaker uses to escape from a problem and achievement strategies that a speaker uses to tackle a problem. The former includes topic avoidance, message abandonment, and meaning replacement, and the latter includes code switching, interlingual transfer, generalization, paraphrasing, word coinage, restructuring, cooperative strategies, and non-linguistic strategies.

CSs from the interactional perspective are strategies used to negotiate meaning to achieve a communicative goal (Tarone 1980). Thus, researchers are concerned with strategic behavior to overcome communication problems which occur during interactions with an interlocutor. This perspective on CSs focuses not only on a speaker’s problem-solving behavior but also on strategies to enhance communicative effectiveness (Nakatani and Goh 2007). From this perspective, Tarone (1980: 429) provides some examples of CSs, including approximation, word coinage, circumlocution, literal translation, language switch, appealing for assistance, mime, and avoidance. Although SLA researchers have viewed CSs from different perspectives, the CSs themselves appear to be similar (Ellis 2008: 506) and complementary (Georgieva 2009: 299).

This early SLA research drew upon cognitive models of learning and employed the mainstream SLA concept of interlanguage. Under such a paradigm, distinctions were made between language learners and language users, and a deficit view of language learning was maintained, whereby competence is measured by how well learners reach a native speaker standard. Later, CS research took on a sociolinguistic perspective which posits that language should be studied in reference to the situation or context in which it occurs (Ellis 2008: 502). With the sociocultural turn in SLA (Block 2003), studies involving CSs focused on how conversation is accomplished (Ellis 2008: 513) rather than perhaps what role CSs might play in language development.

2.2 Communication strategies from the perspective of ELF

Similarly, ELF researchers have paid attention to CSs not only as L2 speakers’ coping or compensatory strategies, but as essential strategies to achieve successful communication in interactions. Many studies investigating intercultural communication show that CSs facilitate effective communication among individuals with different language and cultural backgrounds. For example, proficient ELF users employ various strategies to increase clarity and explicitness, preempt communicative problems, and jointly create an interaction with their interlocutors (e.g. Cogo and Dewey 2012; Georgieva 2009; Kaur 2016b). Therefore, CSs have been considered not as strategies that only low-proficiency English learners use to deal with their own lack of proficiency, but as those that all English users utilize to achieve mutual understanding.

Many CSs explored and addressed by ELF research overlap those identified by SLA research. Table 1 shows the correspondence between CSs addressed by ELF studies and Dörnyei and Scott’s (1997: 188–194) inventory of CSs. The strategies utilized by ELF users for successful communication are similar to those employed by English learners to compensate for a lack of linguistic knowledge and resolve communicative problems. For example, SLA research regards literal translation as a compensatory strategy used when a learner cannot access the requisite English knowledge (Ellis 2008). A similar strategy is observed in an interaction where an ELF user uttered an idiom translated from a Dutch idiom in order to signal cultural affiliation with other participants (Pitzl 2009). However, as Björkman (2014: 124) claims, although CSs studied from the SLA and ELF perspectives are not necessarily distinct categories, some CSs are used more often than others in ELF interactions. More specifically, ELF CSs are associated more with achievement strategies, such as code switching and mime, than with reduction strategies, including message abandonment and topic avoidance.

At the same time, ELF research has explored various CSs that the SLA frameworks have not acknowledged. Table 2 shows some collaborative strategies that ELF research recognizes but Dörnyei and Scott (1997) inventory of CSs does not include. It should be noted that these strategies are not used to compensate for lack of English proficiency or to transmit an individual’s intended meaning. Instead, they are used to co-construct an interaction by supporting one’s interlocutors, signaling affiliation as a member, or keeping the interaction going. Furthermore, ELF research emphasizes the importance of accommodation, which involves individuals’ adaptation to their interlocutors’ language forms and speech patterns (see e.g. Dewey 2011; Seidlhofer 2009), and also the use of cooperative strategies including backchanneling, echoing, and self-initiated repair (e.g. Cogo 2009; House 2010; Mauranen 2012).

2.3 Teaching communication strategies

ELF researchers have regarded various communicative practices that facilitate intercultural communication as CSs, and emphasized their importance for all English users. In this sense, the range of CSs from the ELF framework is broader than that of the SLA framework. In fact, ELF-informed CS research has largely relied on interactional data elicited from highly proficient English speakers only; most CSs identified by ELF studies reflect these speakers’ communicative practices when they attempt to achieve mutual understanding in intercultural settings (e.g. Björkman 2014; Kaur 2016b; Matsumoto 2011). Researchers suggest that language teachers should focus on CSs used by such proficient ELF users. Seidlhofer (2011) argues,

The analyses of ELF interactions […] indicate the high functional load that various strategies and processes have for achieving understanding. A particular focus in teacher education would therefore need to be put on appreciating these aspects and on encouraging teachers to actively teach them. (Seidlhofer 2011: 205)

Although a list of CSs (e.g. Tables 1 and 2) might indicate which CSs English learners need to learn, it is not necessarily helpful for low-proficiency English learners because they may not be able to use many CSs due to lack of English language resources. Lam and Wong (2000), for example, demonstrated that participants in their study were not able to effectively clarify themselves even after intensive strategy training because of their limited linguistic knowledge. This indicates that certain CSs may require higher linguistic proficiency, and simply instructing learners how to adopt them in communication may not be successful. For effective strategy instruction, it might be beneficial for teachers to be informed of which CSs may be suitable for low-proficiency learners based on empirical data.

4.1 Participants

The participants were 20 first-year students, 11 males and 9 females, ranging in age from 18 to 19 in a private Japanese university. The students were education majors enrolled in two required general English classes instructed by two of the authors. Based on the results of a TOEIC Bridge placement test administered at the start of the school year, the students were assessed as basic users (CEFR A2 level) and placed in lower-proficiency level English classes. They did not receive explicit instruction in CSs in the classes.

Japanese students of this age have studied English for six years in junior and senior high school, and may have studied from one to six years in elementary school, or in private after-school classes. In Japanese school education, English is treated as a subject that often aims to develop grammatical knowledge and reading ability for entrance examinations (Ishikawa 2017: 239–240), which is one of the reasons why some Japanese university students’ oral English ability is often underdeveloped even after six years of English instruction.

4.2 Project-based learning project

Project-based learning (PBL) is as an instructional approach using authentic, real-world projects based on a highly motivating and engaging question or task in which students work cooperatively toward a solution (Bender 2012). The theme for our PBL was natural disasters, and the students were asked to develop a new and unique product that provides assistance to people during a catastrophe.

For the PBL project the two classes met individually for three 100-minute classes, and were combined for two 100-minute classes. Each class was divided into five groups consisting of four to five students. Each member of a group assumed the role of president, vice president, quality control manager, or creative advertisement manager(s). The first part of the PBL task was to introduce the driving question after students studied about natural disasters and watched videos on innovative temporary housing ideas developed in the United States after a hurricane. The topic was considered relevant and meaningful as Japan has experienced many natural disasters including the devastating 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. The two leaders of each group led their members in discussions in developing a unique product idea and listing its five main features. The second part of the PBL was a consulting session, in which the presidents and vice presidents from each group were pulled out to meet and consult with a language instructor. The PBL task ended with a formal group presentation to a mixed audience from the two combined classes. The authors acted as group facilitators.

4.3 Data collection procedure

Data were collected from each group during the consulting sessions. The instructors were three language teachers working at the university but who had not previously taught the participants. The three teachers, who used English as their L1 (an American female, an Irish female, and a British male), were informed that the aim of the study was not to correct mistakes but to play the role of a consultant who provides advice on the group’s product. They were provided with a list of questions to ask the students and told to model different CSs in a natural manner during the sessions. In each session, the students were asked to state their names, the name of their group, their roles, how the product was developed, and the five product features. Finally, the students were instructed to repeat the advice they received. Thus, the type of interaction was transactional, the purpose of which was the transmission of information among the interactants. The sessions were approximately 8 to 17 minutes in length and were audio and video recorded (see Table 3). Written consent to use the data for research purposes was obtained from each participant.

4.4 Data analysis

Audio- and video-recorded data of the 10 sessions were analyzed. The data were transcribed following CA conventions (Atkinson and Heritage 1984), which are detailed in the appendix. We closely examined the transcripts focusing on students’ observable behavior. First, we identified any non-understandings and misunderstandings between students and the instructor, which were located using four indicators of communication trouble: echo, explicit statement of non-understanding, no verbal response, and inappropriate response (Varonis and Gass 1985: 76). We also examined indicators of lexical problems due to a lack of the students’ linguistic knowledge, focusing on their inquiries regarding English expressions, such as “How do I say xxx in English?”. Subsequently, the CSs utilized to help solve these troubles were examined. Finally, we identified students’ use of strategies to clarify a message and prevent a possible non-understanding where there is no explicit signal of trouble in communication.

5.1 Communication strategies to resolve a prior non-understanding and misunderstanding between participants

In all the sessions, there were cases where students did not understand the instructors’ utterances and questions. When students failed to understand the intended message or were not sure about what the instructor said, they asked their partner what the instructor said, remained silent and abandoned the message, or showed that they did not understand. Among the three strategies, students most frequently asked each other in Japanese what the instructor said and attempted to collaboratively overcome the difficulty. Excerpt (1) shows a successful example (I = Instructor; S = Student).

Excerpt (1) starts with an instructor’s greeting and inquiry about the students’ positions (line 1). However, S1 does not comprehend what “president” means in the instructor’s utterance. Thus, in line 3, he asks his partner “What is President?” in Japanese and immediately elicits the appropriate answer (line 5). Consequently, S1 reiterates his position in English correctly in line 7. Although this strategy appears effective in this case, students in other sessions could not adequately overcome the problem of non-understanding since both students did not understand the instructor’s request.

There were a few cases where students used the “let-it-pass” strategy (Firth 1996) in order to carry on the conversation. However, this strategy did not lead to successful communication in the interactions. In these cases, directly negotiating meaning by asking for repetition, clarification, or confirmation (Dörnyei and Scott 1997) might have resolved the problem.

In other cases, students expressed non-understanding signaling the problem by giving a minimal query (e.g. “mm?” or “eh?”) or reprising the non-understood part. Minimal queries and reprising may be regarded as requests for repetition and clarification, but the interpretation of these strategies depends on the interlocutor and speakers do not necessarily obtain the information they demanded (Mauranen 2006: 132–133). In this study, there were only three cases in which students explicitly asked for repetition by saying “One more?” (Sessions 3 and 10) or “One more times?” (Session 8). Furthermore, there were no cases where students explicitly asked for clarification. Their strategies of showing non-understanding appear more limited than those used by high-proficiency English users, who can reformulate the non-understood part to check comprehension or form a hypothesis to pinpoint the location of the non-understood part (Cogo and Dewey 2012).

Although non-understanding in the interactions was resolved by the CSs described above, misunderstanding where students understood something different from what the instructor said (Cogo and Dewey 2012) was not successfully resolved. In nine sessions, students misunderstood the instructor’s questions or requests and gave responses that the instructor did not ask for. Excerpt (2) shows a typical example in which a student misunderstood the instructor’s request.

In lines 1, 2, and 5, the instructor asks the students’ names and positions in their group. However, after stating her name (pseudonym: line 6), S2 gives an explanation about the product her group has designed (line 8). Although the instructor did not obtain the appropriate answer, she accepts S2’s response by saying “okay” in line 9. The rising intonation indicates that she invites S2 to continue, and the student continues explaining the product (line 10). In other cases of misunderstanding, the instructors did not immediately and explicitly correct students’ misunderstanding but continued the interaction. Therefore, in most cases, students did not notice that they misunderstood the instructor’s intended message nor did they apply any CSs to deal with the misunderstanding. However, this finding may have been influenced by the instructor-directed interactional setting where students were simply required to answer instructors’ inquiries and provide the information requested by them.

There were a number of cases where instructors indicated non-understanding of students’ utterances, confirmed students’ intended message, and requested further explanation. In these cases, students collaboratively responded to the instructor’s question or request, or repeated the trigger (words or expressions that caused non-understanding). Excerpt (3) illustrates how students responded to an instructor’s question collaboratively.

Excerpt (3) starts with S1’s explanation about the five features of the product (lines 1 and 2). The instructor expresses non-understanding and requests clarification regarding “hand baggage”. The students think about how to explain it, and S1 provides an explanation in line 8. Then, the instructor confirms his understanding by paraphrasing what S1 has said (line 9). Subsequently, S2 provides S1 with what they wish to say in Japanese (line 12), and S1 utters a word that expresses the feature in lines 14 and 15.

However, although repeating the original trigger was another popular strategy, it did not always resolve the problem effectively. Excerpt (4) presents such a case.

Excerpt (4) starts with S1’s attempt to explain the word “rubble” since the instructor recommended the use of a different word in previous turns. He lists some features of rubble, one of which is block but pronounces it with a heavy Japanese accent, “burokku”, in line 1. The instructor then confirms her understanding of the word by trying to guess the word (line 3). However, the students repeat the word with the same pronunciation in lines 4 and 6. In the subsequent turn, the instructor makes a good guess and correctly comprehends the word. Similarly, in other sessions, repeating the trigger in the same manner was observed even though it caused non-understanding on the part of the instructors. The students did not employ other strategies to respond to an interlocutor’s non-understanding, such as rephrasing the trigger, explaining the trigger in a larger context, or adjusting pronunciation (Dörnyei and Scott 1997; Kirkpatrick 2010; Matsumoto 2011).

5.2 Communication strategies to overcome lack of linguistic resources

Trouble with expressing thoughts was frequently observed. Students had difficulty expressing what they wanted to say in English due to their limited linguistic knowledge. Thus, non-understanding or misunderstanding is not a concern here. Although there was considerable individual difference in how to cope with such lexical difficulty, students most frequently attempted to overcome the problem by using Japanese and asking their partner how to say certain words in English. If they could not elicit the answer, they attempted to express the word in their own way or by paraphrasing, and/or used gestures or paralinguistic cues to express the word. Excerpts (5) and (6) show successful and unsuccessful strategies employed by students, respectively.

Excerpt (5) starts with the instructor’s question about S’s position in the group. S employs a code-switching strategy providing her position in Japanese (line 2), and the instructor asks what it means (line 4). Code switching in this case was not successful since the instructor does not understand Japanese and cognates, which differs from a situation where the strategy can be effective (House 2010; Mackenzie 2014). In fact, although the use of Japanese was observed frequently (e.g. Excerpts [1] and [3]), students did not seem to use it as a strategy to enhance comprehension or show their bilingual identity, as identified by previous ELF studies (e.g. Cogo 2009; Cogo and House 2018; Franceschi 2017; Klimpfinger 2009). Then, S asks herself and her partner how to say the English equivalent of “Fuku Shacho” which means vice-president in line 5. After a two-second silence, the instructor is about to move on to a different topic (line 8). However, S comes up with the term “number two” to express her position as a vice president in line 9. This circumlocution expresses a property of “vice president” and thus the instructor indicates understanding. In general, interactions were eventually successful when students came up with an effective paraphrase or circumlocution or their partner helped to express the word they said.

In Excerpt (6), the instructor asks why the product the students designed looks wild (line 1). S2 provides the answer in Japanese (line 3) and asks his partner how to explain it in English (line 6). The instructor repeats the question again (line 8), and S1 asks how to say the English equivalent of “ninki aru”, which means “popular”, in line 12. Immediately after that, he says the word “famous” (line 12) and “all people is famous” (line 15). Probably, he intended to say “the wild design is popular among all people”. However, the instructor does not appear to understand his message correctly in lines 16 and 18. Unlike Excerpt (5), the instructor did not indicate understanding since the student failed to provide an appropriate paraphrase and his partner was not able to help.

Another frequently used strategy when students had trouble coming up with appropriate English words was the use of gestures and paralinguistic cues. Excerpt (7) shows a successful use of such cues.

In Excerpt (7), students attempt to explain how the rope attached to the life jacket works. In fact, they wanted to say that the rope is pulled to inflate the jacket and float in the sea. However, S1 struggles to express “pull” (line 3) and “inflate” (line 7). When he has a difficulty expressing “pull” in English, he makes a gesture to show a rope pulled. S1 corrects himself and confirms the accurate information with S2 in line 11. After listening to S1’s confirmation of the content, S2 makes the sound of putting air into the jacket and uses mime to show the jacket inflating in line 19. The instructor then correctly understands his message (line 21). In this case, the non-linguistic strategies served mainly as coping strategies to compensate for the lack of linguistic resources. In many cases, iconic gestures, which “present images of concrete entities and/or actions” (McNeill 2005: 39), were accompanied by the use of paraphrase to strengthen the meaning.

Students often helped each other explain their products by translating the instructor’s expressions into Japanese, translating the partner’s Japanese expressions into English, and telling the partner what to say. A frequently used strategy was lexical anticipation; students anticipated what their partner wanted to say and uttered the word for him or her (House 2010; Kirkpatrick 2010). Excerpt (8) includes some cases where students provided help to each other.

Excerpt (8) starts with an instructor’s question about the reason why people write their names on the balloon (line 1). S2 provides an answer but struggles to explain the reasons (line 4). He stops his utterance after saying “any”. It appears he wanted to say that anyone, or everyone, would be able to see the name easily if it is written on the balloon. In line 5, S1 helps his partner by providing a word to complete his utterance “any people.” S2 then acknowledges the help and repeats the phrase (line 6). Subsequently, the instructor asks students to explain the fifth feature of their product (line 8), and S2 asks his partner to explain (line 10). S1 starts to explain but cannot complete his sentence (line 12). After a 2.5-second silence, S2 helps by providing the word “chair” to complete S1’s sentence in line 14, and S1 acknowledges by repeating the word. This lexical anticipation suggests that the students were on the same wavelength (Kirkpatrick 2010: 127) and collaboratively attempted to achieve the communicative goal. This type of co-constructive behavior, which often occurs in ELF communication (Mauranen 2006: 137–138), was also observable in the interactions between the low-proficiency English users and their instructors.

5.3 Communication strategies to clarify a message and prevent a possible non-understanding

The students used various CSs to clarify their message, preempt communication breakdown, and co-construct discourse with their interlocutors, as proficient English users also do. The most frequently used CSs for effective message conveyance was a non-linguistic strategy including use of gestures and onomatopoeic words (see Excerpt [7]). Non-verbal strategies were also used as a coping strategy when students had some difficulty coming up with an appropriate English word or expression. As shown in Excerpt (9), students used gestures when they were able to say an appropriate word.

The instructor asks the students what their product is (line 1). S responds by saying “cap” and putting her hands around her head simultaneously in line 2. In line 5, she adds more information by saying “and mask” and puts her hands over her mouth. Although the student did not have difficulty saying these words, she tried to ensure message conveyance both verbally and non-verbally. The students used iconic gestures not only for expressing objects but also for actions such as walk, see, open, eat, and push in several of the sessions (Sessions 3, 4, 6, and 7). Students’ verbal speech and gestures are co-expressive in that they express the same concept in different ways (cf. McNeill 2005).

In all the sessions, students frequently repeated words or phrases uttered by their partner and instructor. Excerpts (3) (line 16) and (4) (line 6) show that a student repeated his or her partner’s word (compact, burokku). More frequently, students repeated the instructor’s words during the interactions (see Excerpt [10]).

In Excerpt (10), the instructor asks the students where the GPS is located in the product (line 1). S2 provides an answer in line 6 (sunglass), and S1 repeats the word. Subsequently, S2 attempts to provide a more precise answer (line 8). The instructor then correctly interprets S2’s message and says “in the sunglasses” (line 9). This is considered as the instructor’s lexical anticipation to complete S2’s utterance and confirm her comprehension of the student’s message. The instructor’s phrase is repeated by both students simultaneously in lines 10 and 11. As Mauranen (2012: 220–222) argues, repeating a word or phrase works to maintain the clarity of a concept and shows alignment with the interlocutor. It emphasizes the speaker’s agreement with interlocutors more strongly than just saying yes or yeah (Mackenzie 2014; Mauranen 2012). Moreover, this strategy may be considered an accommodation strategy that demonstrates students’ attempt to actively adopt the instructor’s phrases (Cogo and Dewey 2012). In so doing, students tried to co-construct an interaction and facilitate successful communication.

5.4 Summary of the findings

Table 4 summarizes the observed CSs in student–instructor interactions. The first five CSs (message abandonment, let it pass, direct appeal for help to the peer, asking for repetition, and repeating the trigger) were used to overcome interactional problems. The next four CSs (code switching, circumlocution, paralinguistic strategies, and lexical anticipation) were used by students to cope with their lack of linguistic resources. The last two CSs (paralinguistic strategies and echoing) served to ascertain message conveyance and prevent a possible non-understanding.