Communication Strategies in a Second Language: Definitions and Taxonomies

Abstract

This paper examines trends in second language (L2) communication strategy (CS) research to date. We give a comprehensive review of the relevant literature from the last two decades, with particular consideration of the different ways in which CSs have been defined and of corresponding influences on the organization of strategy taxonomies. We first outline the history of CS research and discuss problem-orientedness and consciousness as defining criteria for CSs. We then offer a comprehensive list of strategic language devices and describe the major CS taxonomies, noting key trends, with special attention to current and future research orientations.

The impact of teaching communication strategies on EFL learners’ Willingness to Communicate

“…They lead to the initiation and maintenance of communication and smooth meaning negotiation (Maleki, 2010). Reduction strategies such as topic avoidance, message abandonment, going off the point, or even borrowing (for a comprehensive review of definitions and taxonomies of CSs see Dörnyei & Scott, 1997) were not dealt with in this study. As their names suggest, these strategies induce a sense of unwillingness to communicate in an L2.…”

Validation of the Oral Interaction Strategy Scale for speakers of Chinese as the first language in elementary schools

“…Since the 1980s, there has been a flurry of studies investigating communication strategies in second language acquisition research (Ellis, 2008). Alternative definitions of communication strategies have been proposed (Celce-Murcia et al, 1995;Dörnyei & Scott, 1997;Faerch & Kasper, 1983a;Kasper, 2009;Tarone, 1981). According to their research, the definitions provided in the aforementioned studies can be cate-gorized under two competitive approaches: the psycholinguistic view (e.g., Faerch & Kasper, 1983a;Littlemore, 2001) and the interactional view (e.g., Tarone, 1980;Williams, Inscoe & Tasker, 1997).…”

“…As a detailed overview of these taxonomies is out of our scope, the present discussion only highlights strategies under the integrative approach that emphasize negotiation of meaning. These strategies are best exemplified by research projects undertaken by Tarone (1980), Dörnyei & Scott (1997), Bejarano et al (1997), Naughton (2006), Nakatani (2006), and Celce-Murcia (2008).…”

“…As shown, from the largest to the smallest, the ratios of subscale variances explained by the general factor followed the order of giving clarification (84.3%), expressing attitude (67.7%), correcting errors (67.1%), asking for opinions (56.1%), requesting clarification (53.6%), expressing actively (53.3%) and non-verbal language (52.7%). Bejarano et al, 1997;Celce-Murcia, 2008;Dörnyei & Scott, 1997;Nakatani, 2006;Naughton, 2006;Tarone, 1980) and Chinese communication research (e.g., Gao & Ting-Toomey, 1998). Our analyses should be able to provide sufficient empirical evidence justifying the hypothesized appropriateness of using the OISI to profile the strategic oral communication behaviors of young L1 Chinese learners in Hong Kong primary classrooms, or evidence supporting the construct validity of the scale (Kane, 2006(Kane, , 2010(Kane, , 2013.…”

“…Compared to the inertness in L1 Chinese assessment research, second language acquisition research focusing on interaction strategies and the availability of quite a few inventories (e.g., Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1995;Dörnyei & Scott, 1997;Kasper & Kellerman, 1997;Nakatani, 2006;Tarone, 1981) possesses a dynamic atmosphere. To develop a list of L1 Chinese interaction strategies, borrowing from second language acquisition studies could be a convenient way, as much research has shown the overlap between first language (L1) and second or foreign language (L2) ability (Cook, 2003;Foucart & Frenck-Mestre, 2011).…”