Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T02:58:49.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Communication Strategies: Focus on Interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Angela Labarca  and
Rajai Khanji
Angela Labarca
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Rajai Khanji
Affiliation:
University of Jordan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although previous work has analyzed the communication strategies (CS) of L2 learners (e.g., Faerch & Kasper, 1983; Tarone, 1980, 1977), this research is an attempt at studying CS used by both 12 speakers and their interviewers during a videotaped interview. Fifty-three beginning French learners were interviewed and the videotape was analyzed for CS used by both interactants; learners' performance was also rated (ACTFL, 1982). Subjects were instructed either by Total Physical Response (Asher, 1977, 1969) or Strategic Interaction (SI) (Di Pietro, 1982, 1979).

Data were subjected to correlational and MANOVA analyses. Significant differences were detected between groups. In general, the higher the proficiency rating, the lower was the use of CS. The method of instruction appeared to have an important bearing on amount and kind of CS used and on proficiency ratings received. SI students and their interviewers used fewer CS; SI learners also received higher ratings.

It appears that SI facilitated students' development of at least two underlying competencies, linguistic and interactional (Palmer, 1979; Canale & Swain, 1980). It is also posited that SI students' diminished use of CS indicates a higher degree of control over the activity, as proposed by the Vygotskian paradigm (Vygotsky, 1962).

Information

Type
Research Notes
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 68 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 1982. ACTFL provisional proficiency guidelines. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL.Google Scholar
Asher, J. 1969. The total physical response approach to second language learning. Modern Language Journal 58; 24–32.Google Scholar
Asher, J. 1977. Learning another language through actions. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. & Palmer, A. S.. 1982. The construct validation of some components of communicative proficiency. TESOL Quarterly 16; 449–64.Google Scholar
Canale, M. 1983. On some dimensions of language proficiency. In Oller, J. W. Jr., (ed.). Issues in language teaching research, pp. 333–42. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Canale, M. & Swain, M.. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1; 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Pietro, R. 1979. Verbal strategies in the modern language classroom. Bulletin of the PMLA 57; 3–10.Google Scholar
Di Pietro, R. 1982. The open-ended scenerio: A new approach to conversation. TESOL Quarterly 16; 15–20.Google Scholar
Educational Testing Service. 1982. Foreign language oral proficiency assessment. Princeton, NJ. Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G., (eds.). 1983. Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Frawley, W. & Lantolf, J. P.. 1984. Speaking and self-order: A critique of orthodox L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6; 143–59.Google Scholar
Frawley, W. & Lantolf, J. P.. 1985. L2 discourse: A Vygotskyan perspective. Applied Linguistics 6; 19–44.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. M. 1978. Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E. M. (ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings, pp. 401–35. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. and Frawley, W.. 1984. Second language performance and Vygotskyan psycholinguistics: Implications for L2 instruction. In Manning, A. & Martin, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth LACUS Forum, 1983. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar
Oller, J. W. Jr., 1979. Language tests at school: A pragmatic approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Palmer, A. 1979. Compartmentalized and integrated control: An assessment of some evidence for two kinds of competence and implications for the classroom. Language Learning 29; 169–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savignon, S. J. 1983. Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. 1977. Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report. In Brown, H. D., Yorio, C. A., & Crymes, R. H. (eds.), On TESOL 77: Teaching and learning English as a second language, pp. 194–203. Washington, DC: TESOL.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. 1980. Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning 30; 417–31.Google Scholar
Tarone, E., Cohen, A., & Dumas, G.. 1976. A closer look at some interlanguage terminology: A framework for communication strategies. Working Papers on Bilingualism 9; 76–90.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar