Communication Strategies and Proficiency Levels in L2 Speech Production: a systematic relationship

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between the use of Communication Strategies (CSs) and the proficiency level of L2 1 learners. In order to pursue this objective, three speech samples of 30 English L2 learners were collected over a period corresponding to an academic semester. Participants consisted of three groups of 10 learners each and were selected from three different proficiency levels: pre-intermediate, intermediate, and advanced. Three oral narratives were used to elicit learners' L2 oral production, in three different sessions conducted with a one-month interval between each other. Data were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively according to Dörnyei and Kormos's (1998) taxonomy for CSs classification. Analysis revealed a common set of CSs systematically used across sessions and proficiency levels with a high frequency of occurrence.

Metacognition in Language Learning and Teaching

“…For instance, Candidate 6 in the intervention group used 348 words (group level mean = 450), while Candidate 4 in the comparison group, who was also a grade level 5 student, used 281 words (group level mean = 386). This finding is supported by other studies showing that high proficiency level students use fewer CSs (Chen 1990;Prebianca 2009). …”

“…However, the limited sample sizes (n = 22 and n = 13) may have been a restraining factor in this respect. Other studies have indicated that higher proficiency level students may be prone to using fewer strategies (Chen 1990;Prebianca 2009), as also evidenced in this study. Apart from this finding, the analyses yielded mixed and contradictory results.…”

Communication strategies used by different level L2 English learners in oral interaction

“…Research in this area has focused on investigating the use of CSs in relation to various factors, such as the learners' proficiency level (Bialystok & Fröhlich, 1980;Paribakht, 1984;Safont Jorda, 2001;García Núñez, 2006;Prebianca, 2009) and the task used for elicitation purposes (Poulisse & Schils, 1989;Rabab'ah & Seedhouse, 2004). Consideration has also been given to the influence of the learners' L1 (Fernández Dobao, 2001;Rabab'ah & Bulut, 2007), the situational context in which the CSs are employed (Williams, Inscoe & Tasker, 1997) as well as the learning context (Lafford, 2004), amongst others.…”

“…The empirical studies which have focused on the proficiency factor have demonstrated a relationship between learners' proficiency levels and their use of CSs (Fernández Dobao, 2001Safont Jordá, 2001;Littlemore, 2003;García Núñez, 2006;Prebianca, 2009). It has been observed that those learners with a lower level of L2 competence need to resort to a higher number of CSs due to the relatively small number of linguistic resources available.…”

“…In contrast, more proficient learners seem to rely on more cognitively demanding mechanisms (achievement CSs) like 'self-repairs', 'approximation', 'paraphrase' and 'restructure'. Additionally, time-gaining mechanisms have also been found as more related to lower levels as L2 processing requires more attentional resources and time than is needed when using an L1 (Prebianca, 2009;Wannaruk, 2003). Most of these studies; however, have limited their analysis to the lexical problems faced by learners in L2 communication.…”