Use of Communication Strategies by Thai EFL Learners

Use of Communication Strategies by Thai EFL Learners
Yupadee Malasit, Thammasat University, Thailand
Nopporn Sarobol, Thammasat University, Thailand
Abstract: Most L2 learners need to use oral communication strategies to facilitate their oral
communication due to their lack of linguistic knowledge or the insufficient exposure the
English language on a daily basis. Hence, the purpose of this study is to investigate types of
communication strategies (CSs) employed by M.3 (grade 9) English Program students at
Joseph Upatham School and the effects of task type and English speaking proficiency: high,
middle, and low on their CS use. The data were collected via one-way and two-way speaking
tasks. Students’ oral performances were recorded and transcribed by the researcher. Data
analysis was based on integrated framework comprising avoidance strategies (Tarone, 1980)
and Compensatory strategies (Faerch and Kasper, 1983; Dornyei and Scott, 1997). Results
showed that the students’ use of CSs was significantly affected by task type since students
were inclined to employ CSs in two-way task significantly more frequently than in one-way
task. This suggested that two-way task seemed to be more effective in motivating the
elicitation of various communication strategies by students. However, the three groups did
not differ in the total number of communication strategies used, and the most-frequently used
CS is fillers/hesitation devices. This study could be of value in providing the significant
beneficial implication for foreign language teaching and learning in which the development
of strategic competence should be incorporated in ESL/EFL teaching curriculum.
Keywords: Communication strategies, strategic competence, Compensatory strategies,
ESL/EFL teaching, Task type
Introduction
In the authentic communicative situations, not only low-proficiency learners but also high
language proficiency ones are sometimes faced with the communicative problems. In order to
solve their problems, students are inclined to develop communication strategies (CSs) to
overcome target language deficiencies and eventually develop communicative competence
(Bialystok, 1990; Dornyei, 1995; Willems, 1987).
According to Canale and Swain (1980), communication strategies are helpful tools for both
native speakers and foreign language learners to compensate for insufficient competence.
Among three types of communicative competence, the notion of communication strategies
was adopted and labelled under strategic competence, which is the ability to employ
strategies of language use in the attempt to reach communicative goals.
In the context of second language learning, a large number of previous studies on strategic
competence have put an emphasis on two variables, that is, target language proficiency and
task type affecting how communication strategies are employed to compensate for linguistic
deficiency and/or a lack of content knowledge. However, Thailand still lacks these types of
research. Therefore, it is interesting to see if there are correlations between the use of
communication strategies for Thai students of all levels. Moreover, many previous studies
seemed to solely focus on one-way communication tasks, which have become the
802

problematic issue of communication strategy research as the results seemed not cover all
situations in real-life communication. Thus, to compensate for the gaps in the previous
studies, this study aims to identify CSs used by all students and examine the influence of
these two influential factors on students’ use of communication strategies. In particular, the
study attempts to answer the following questions.
1. What kinds of communication strategies are used by M.3 English Program
students at Joseph Upatham School ?
2. Is the use of communication strategy affected by students’ English-speaking proficiency
and task type?
Literature Review
Communication Strategies as Strategic Competence
The notion of “communication strategies” (CSs) reflects the concept of communicative
competence, proposed by Canale and Swain (1980), which not only involves knowing a
syntactic use of language, but also the appropriate use of language in a particular situation,
for example, to apologize or make a request. The model of communicative competence is
composed of three elements : grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and
strategic competence. Canale (1983) revised this old framework by allowing for the inclusion
of four main areas of competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence,
discourse competence and strategic competence. Compared with the first three components,
strategic competence seems to be the most relevant to CSs since it consists of interlocutor’s
ability to utilize communication strategies to compensate for lack of knowledge in other
competencies. As suggested by Faerch & Kasper (1983), it is perceived as the way learners
used to cope with communication breakdown and “manipulate language in order to meet
communicative goals” (Brown, 2001, p.220). Thus, strategic competence is especially
required for both native speakers and L2 learners to enhance their communicative
competence.
Definitions and Classifications of Communication Strategies
Although researchers offer various definitions for communication strategies regarding
second-language learners, Faerch and Kasper (1983) suggested all previous definitions shared
two main key elements: problematicity and consciousness. Regarding problematicity,
communication strategies are regarded as useful tools when there are breakdowns in
communication.
Consciousness is another characteristic identified in definitions of communication strategies.
Apart from the above-mentioned features, Bialystok (1990) provided another defining
criterion which is intentionality. According to Bialystok (ibid : 5), this characteristic refers to
the learner’s ability to manipulate the selection of communication strategies from the
availability of their linguistic resources and deliberately applied to achieve certain effects.
Bialystok (1990) noted that the main CS-defining criterion which has been widely employed
is the problematicity; thus, the widely accepted definition containing problem-orientedness as
“only when a speaker perceives that there is a problem which may interrupt communication”
(Bialystok, p.3). Additionally, Tarone (1981) suggested that to achieve the real
communicative goals, communication strategies should be regarded not only as problematic
mechanisms to solve individual communication difficulties or breakdowns, but also as mutual
attempts of two interlocutors which would bridge the gap caused by their limited linguistic
803

knowledge to reach particular communicative goal, thus providing them opportunities to
receive more TL input and produce new utterances.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine interactional strategies (e.g. clarification
request, confirmation check, comprehension check, and appeal for help) and also intraactional
strategies strategies (circumlocution, approximation, use of all-purpose words, wordcoinage,
use of non-linguistic means, literal translation, foreignizing, self-repair, code
switching, mumbling, circumlocution, use of fillers/hesitation devices, self-repetition, otherrepetition,
and omission) employed by learners to overcome their difficulties and generate the
target language to achieve communicative goals in actual interaction.
It has been acknowledged that in the field of CSs, various taxonomies of CSs have been
proposed by many researchers e.g. Tarone (1980), Faerch & Kasper (1984), and Bialystok
(1990), etc. For this reason, this study adapted the taxonomy for analysis of communication
strategies based on two opposite solutions including avoidance strategy (Tarone, 1980), intraactional
approach (Faerch & Kasper, 1983 ; Dornyei & Scott, 1997), and interactional
approach (Dornyei & Scott, 1997). The taxonomy and its sources are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. The CS Taxonomy for the Present Study
Strategy Sources
1. Avoidance strategies
1.1 Topic avoidance (TA) : To avoid talking about a concept
1.2 Message abandonment (MA) : To stop in mid-utterances
2. Compensatory strategies
2.1 Word coinage (WC) : To make up a non-existing new word to communicate
2.2 Code-switching (CS) : To switch the language to L1 without bothering to translate
2.3 Foreignizing (For) : To adjust L1 to L2 phonologically and/or morphologically
2.4 Use of non-linguistic means (Uon) : To replace a word with non-verbal cues
2.5 Self repair (SR) : To make a self - correction of one’s own speech
2.6 Mumbling (Mum) : To mumble with inaudible voice
2.7 Use of all-purpose words (UA) : To extend a general, empty item to the exact word
2.8 Approximation (App) : To substitute the L2 term with the item which shares the same meaning
2.9 Circumlocution (Cir) : To describe the properties of the object instead of the exact target item
2.10 Literal translation (LT) : To translate word for word from L1 to L2
2.11 Use of fillers/hesitation devices (UF) : To use filling words to gain time to think
2.12 Self- repetition (SR) : To repeat words or phrases of one’s own speech
2.13 Other –repetition (OR) : To repeat something the interlocutor said to gain time
2.14 Omission (Omi) : To leave a gap when not knowing a word or continue as if it was understandable.
2.15 Asking for repetition (AR) : To ask for repetition when having comprehension difficulty
2.16 Appeal for help (AH) : To request direct or indirect help from the interlocutor
2.17 Clarification request (CR) : To request for more explanation to solve a comprehension difficulty
2.18 Asking for confirmation (AC) : To request confirmation thatsomething correctly
2.19 Comprehension check (CC) : To ask for
2.20 Expressing non-understanding (EN) :
804
Tarone (1980)
Faerch & Kasper
(1983)
Dornyei & Scott
(1997)

Factors Affecting the Choice of Oral Communication Strategies
Previous studies indicated that the use of communication strategies was greatly affected by
English-speaking proficiency (e.g., Rost and Ross, 1991; Huang and Naerssen, 1987) and
task type (e.g., Poulisse, 1990 ; Wongsawang, 2001 ;Weerarak, 2003 ; Nakatani, 2005) in
communication process since the selection of CS types varies according to these factors.
As suggested by Bialystock (1997), the most significant predictor of specific communication
strategy use is language proficiency. In his longitudinal study, Ellis (1984) found that high
proficiency learners were likely to employ language-based strategies or compensatory
strategies e.g. word coinage, approximation and generalization and low proficiency learners
resorted more to knowledge-based and repetition. However, some available studies suggest
the contrastive findings that that less proficiency learners used more compensatory strategies
than the advanced ones as the former ones have adequate linguistic competence to use oral
communication strategies to overcome their communication deficiencies.
Regarding task type, different task requirements need response with different communication
strategies since certain strategies seem to fix specific communicative problems (Bialystok,
1981). Moreover, the familiarity of the speaker with the tasks significantly influences the
choice of communication strategies. Yule and Tarone (1997) also support this idea by saying
that “The more abstract the prompt, the more likely that conceptually related analogies will
be used. The more concrete and familiar the prompt, the more likely the simple names and
everyday functions will be mentioned” (p. 26).
Methodology
Participant
The participants consisted of 30 male and female students sampled from the total population
of 36 students who are in the M.3 (grade 9) English Program in Joseph Upatham School. The
researcher classified all students into high (H), middle (M) or low (L) groups on the basis of
their scores of Key English Test (KET). The scoring criteria described learners’ abilities in a
foreign language using five levels, from Fail to Pass with Distinction.
Materials/Research tools
Oral interview task
In this study, the semi-structured one-to-one interview was conducted with two
predetermined sets of questions. For the first part, students were asked 10 questions about
personal information on general topics such as family, accommodations, school, free-time
activities, and future career. The second part was about one topic concerning 2011 Big Flood
in Thailand, which comprises 10 questions. Oral interview with two parts of questions lasted
approximately 15-30 minutes.
Picture story narrative
After the interview session, students were asked to perform picture story narrative task,
telling a story of two boys caught in the storm on a fishing boat within defined period of time
at least 3 minutes.
Procedures
Both speaking tasks, oral interview and picture story narrative, were carried out after the end
of each school day in a laboratory room to avoid disturbance. They were asked to perform
each task individually. For the oral interview task, each participant was required to respond to
805

two sets of the predetermined questions within the defined time of 30 minutes. When the oral
interview task was completed, the picture story narrative was conducted. This task took
about 3 minutes for each participant. All speech was video-recorded and later transcribed for
analysis. After the completion of both types of speaking tasks, the researcher conducted the
retrospective interview which revealed students’ awareness of their CS use as well as their
perceptions of the effectiveness of each type of communication strategy.
Data analysis
In response to the research questions, the data were analyzed both qualitatively and
quantitatively from the transcriptions of the students’ oral performances. The procedures are
presented as follows:
1. The taxonomy adapted from Tarone (1980), Faerch and Kasper (1983), Dornyei
(1995), and Dornyei and Scott (1997) was employed to analyze and identify each strategy
used by M.3 students in the English Program in Joseph Upatham School.
2. After the communication strategies employed by students were transcribed and
identified, to report on the frequency of communication strategies, the researcher tallied
behavior traits according to each strategy from the voice-recordings twice, and employ a
descriptive statistics, i.e. means and standard deviation (S.D.). Then, as far as the traits were
concerned, the researcher calculated each strategy in terms of percentage and presented in a
tabular form.
3. To examine whether the students’ use of communication strategies were influenced
by language proficiency and task types, Chi-square and T-test were employed respectively to
compare the statistical data between high, middle, and low proficiency groups in the oral
interview task and the picture narrative task.
Results
Students’ Overall Communication Strategy Use
The overall communication strategies employed by the students are illustrated in terms of
frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation (S.D.) presented in table 4.1and figure
1.
806

Frequency of CS Use
Table 4.1 Overall Communication Strategies Used by Students
Communication Strategy F N=30 Mean Percentage Rank
1.Avoidance strategies
1.1 TA
1.2 MA
2.Compensatory strategies
1.1 Intra-actional strategies
2.1.1 WC
2.1.2 CS
2.1.3 For
2.1.4 UN
2.1.5 SR
2.1.6 Mum
2.1.7 UL
2.1.8 App
2.1.9 Cir
2.1.10 LT
2.1.11 UF
2.1.12 SR
2.1.13 OR
2.1.14 Omi
2.2. Interactional strategies
2.2.1 AR
2.2.2 AH
2.2.3 CR
2.2.4 AC
2.2.5 CC
2.2.6 EN
57
137
9
412
2
45
113
20
50
31
41
368
1,577
569
49
64
22
17
36
29
7
5
15
28
8
26
2
11
27
10
21
15
19
30
30
30
20
25
13
16
17
6
4
10
3.80
4.89
1.13
15.85
1
16.36
4.19
2
2.38
2.06
2.58
12.97
52.67
18.97
2.45
2.56
1.69
1.25
2.12
4.83
1.75
0.5
1.56
3.74
0.25
11.26
0.05
0.49
3.09
0.55
1.37
0.85
1.12
10.63
43.33
15.55
1.34
1.75
0.60
0.55
0.98
0.79
0.19
0.14
Total 3,660 - - 100 -
Figure 4.1: Overall Communication Strategies Used by Students
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
CS1
CS2
CS3
CS4
CS5
CS6
CS7
CS8
CS9
CS10
CS11
CS12
CS13
CS14
CS15
CS16
CS17
CS18
CS19
CS20
CS21
CS22
Strategy Category
8
5
19
3
22
11
6
17
9
14
12
4
1
2
10
7
16
18
13
5
20
21
807

2. Compensatory
strategies
Table 4.1 and figure 4.1 present the results for each strategy and for each strategy in each
group so as to show the general picture of the students’ use of communication strategies. It
was found that all of the strategies were employed with the total of 3,660 traits. As can be
seen, fillers/hesitation devices ( x = 52.67), ranked first in all strategies with the total number
of 1,577 traits used in this study, appeared to be almost half of the tallied strategies (43.33%),
as students tended to overuse them when the students performed the task. Meanwhile,
foreignizing ( x = 1, 0.05%) seemed to be the least-frequently used strategy with the total
number of 2 traits of use. Nevertheless, it should be noted here that the result in the use of
fillers/hesitation devices varied greatly among other participants due to the repetitive uses of
this strategy (S.D. = 32.92). The other two strategies of which the use of CSs varied from
participant to participant included code-switching (Item 2.1.2) and self-repetition (Item
2.1.12). These two strategies were inclined to statistically vary in terms of a number of CSs
used by participants (S.D. = 17.47 and 15.25 respectively) since some participants were
found to repeatedly use the strategies quite often, contributing to the increased width of
variation in a participant group.
The Comparison of the Use of Communication Strategies according to English-
Speaking Proficiency
Table 4.2 presents the comparison of the use of each communication strategy by the high,
middle, and low English-speaking proficiency, followed by the description dealt with the
relationship between communication strategies and English-speaking proficiency.
Table 4.2 Comparison of the Use of Each Communication Strategy by the High,
Middle, and Low English-Speaking Proficiency
Types of CSs CSs HP MP LP
N=10 N=10 N=10
F % F % F %
2.1 Intra-actional
strategies
808
Chisquare
P value
1.Avoidance strategies TA 2 0.05 7 0.19 48 1.31 .102
MA 45 1.23 52 1.42 40 1.09 .406
WC 6 0.16 3 0.08 0 0 .235
CS 33 0.90 195 5.33 134 3.66 .254
For 2 0.10 0 0 0 0 .117
UN 4 0.11 4 0.10 10 0.27 .228
SR 44 1.20 39 1.07 30 0.82 .423
Mum 5 0.14 2 0.1 13 0.36 .238
UA 14 0.38 24 0.66 12 0.33 .394
App 13 0.36 11 0.30 7 0.19 .388
2.
Compensator
y strategies
Types of CSs CSs HP
MP
LP Chi-
N=10 N=10 N=10 square
% F % F F % P value
Cir 8 0.22 24 0.66 9 0.25 .110
LT 47 1.26 190 5.19 153 4.18 .381
UF 609 16.63 583 15.93 408 19.62 .324
SR 238 6.50 170 4.64 139 3.80 .469
OR 12 0.33 14 0.38 23 0.63 .495
Omi 17 0.46 22 0.60 25 0.68 .470
2.1 Intraactional
strategies
(Cont.)

2. Compensatory strategies
* P

Frequency
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
* P

Discussions and Conclusion
Discussions
With respect to the first research question, findings of the present study revealed that all
communication strategies in the integrated framework were employed by the students.
Moreover, the present study indicates that the students tended to rely on compensatory
strategies (94.85%) more frequently than avoidance strategies (5.30%), indicating that the
students attempted to keep the conversation flowing and maintain their interaction with the
interlocutor. This could be explained that participants were familiar with the English
language as they studied in the English program. Put simply, the familiarity of L2 could
determine the frequency of CS use. Therefore, they had an awareness of using the target
language in the required communication situations.
It is also worth pointing out that among twenty-two communication strategies,
fillers/hesitation devices appeared to be the most-frequently used strategies (43.33%) as they
tended to be overused when the students performed their task. This is because the use of this
strategy allowed the students to process their cognitive demands required from the task as
well as did help the speech to flow naturally. Generally speaking, the students “slipped”
fillers in their actual speech rather than “used” them. In contrast, the least frequently - used
communication strategy appeared to be “foreignizing” (0.05%) as it was unusual to adjust L1
both morphologically and phonically to L2 because L2 (English) has different characteristics
from L1 (Thai).
To answer research question 2, the findings indicated that English-speaking proficiency did
not have the impact on the choices of communication strategies. This result could be
explained that no matter how L2-proficient they are, Thai EFL learners seemed to have the
target language problems, influenced by their native language transfer, therefore leading them
to use communication strategies as the tool to communicate successfully . In other words,
each student had an ability to tackle with individually communicative problems by employing
communication strategies. This provided support for Willems (1987), who maintains that
“…the way we handle language in the classroom not only in traditional structural approaches
but also in modern ‘communicative’ ones does not sufficiently help the learner to develop
this ‘strategic competence’” (p.361). That is to say, the ability to speak is not the same as the
ability to employ communication strategies. Nevertheless, it was observed that high and
middle-English speaking proficiency students tended to be enthusiastic in performing both
tasks than low English-speaking proficiency students.
The findings seemed to provide support to the explanation of Long (1990) regarding the
effects of task types on the use of communication strategies that the oral interview, as a open
task, promoted negotiation that involved talking about various topics which required the
students to share their own information and resorted to intra-actional strategies which
required them to use whatever that was available in their linguistic repertoire to help them
solve their difficulties. In contrast, picture story narrative task is considered as close task in
natural which required the students to reach single, correct answer or one of the small finite
set of solutions. Therefore, they were likely to give up when faced with language difficulties.
Regarding interactional strategies, it was found that oral interview task allowed the students
to resort significantly more frequently to this type of strategy than the picture story narrative
task. These results confirm Ellis (2003)’s ideas that reciprocal or two-way tasks would
promote interaction between two or more learners to achieve task outcome where both
811

learners have equal right to speak and provide more opportunities of negotiation of meanings
(Leaver, L.B. & Willis, R.J., 2004).
Additionally, some of the students reported that their communication anxiety during the tasks
negatively affected their willingness to communicate (WTC). The apprehension problems
lead them to have feelings of frustration, uneasiness, and worry. According to the
retrospective interview, their anxiety during the tasks arose from four important factors: the
degree of acquaintance between communicators, the topic of discussion, fear of evaluation,
involving in authentic communication situation, and their perception of low L2 competence.
The finding conforms to Mccroskey & Mccroskey (1986), who stated that communication
anxiety is the predictor of a person’s WTC in the second language. In other words, the
students who are capable of controlling their apprehension tended to be a risk taker in
communication. With willingness and confidence to communicate, they appeared to utilize
CSs effectively.
Self-perceived English speaking ability
The present study shows that the students who have perception of high English ability tended
to feel at ease with the use of English and be able to utilize CSs effectively. Even low
English -speaking ability students who show the positive attitude towards their self Englishoral
proficiency reported having confidence in English speaking and agile use of CSs.
Despite their defects in pronunciation and clarity of their speech, they felt comfortable with
their oral competence and attempted to maintain the flow of the conversation. As a result,
they adopted CSs to enhance their oral production, increasing the frequency of CS use. In
contrast, if the students no matter what their English oral proficiency are were afraid that their
speaking ability would not be so competent as the interlocutor anticipated, they were inclined
to lack confidence and feel apprehensive about communicating in his/her second language
and as a result avoid using it or using it with the reluctant attempt to communicate. Therefore,
the ability of using CSs was not correlated with English-oral proficiency. The finding is in
consistent with Baker & MacIntyre (2000) that the effective communication does not only
depend on the actual abilities of speaking but also how a speaker has a positive view of their
oral competence.
Frequency of using English outside the classroom
According to retrospective interviews, the students who reported their opportunity for
constant interaction in the L2 tended to be able to tackle with communication better than the
ones who lacked exposure to the target language and have self-awareness of using
communication strategies to overcome communication difficulties. Moreover, constant L2
interaction increased their perceived competence and willingness to communicate as they felt
familiar and comfortable with L2. The findings were consistent with Piranian (1979), who
maintained that language learners were exposed to the target language or have conversational
interaction in the actual situations tended to be more flexible and successful in using
communication strategies. The present study shows that the students with their enthusiasm to
use L2 in speaking both in and out of classroom become more L2 competent and confident to
initiate and maintain their conversation in L2 than students who rarely used the target
language on a regular basis. According to Clement (1986), “seeking opportunities to
communicate would greatly increase the chances for intercultural contact, L2 communication
practice (Larsen-Freeman, 2007) and comprehensible input (Krashen, 2003)”.
812

Pedagogical implications
It is recommended that it is useful to incorporate a formal instruction on CSs along with some
awareness-raising activities in school curriculumn. In this way, students could develop their
strategic competence through using various kinds of useful communication strategies as some
previous researchers (e.g., Dornyei, 1995; Nakatani, 2005; Le, 2006; Kongsom, 2009) have
confirmed that CS training in the classroom could literally help students to communicate
more effectively, raise students’ awareness of CSs, and enhance students’ confidence in
speaking English.
Suggestions for further research
The future research should investigate the teachability of communication strategies as the
results would give more ideas of how communication strategies could be taught in the EFL
classrooms and integrated in the EFL syllabus in the future. As the results of the present
study showed that task type has an impact on the use of communication strategies, various
types of task should be included in the CS training. The results would shed more light on how
teachers can design the appropriate tasks, which motivate the elicitation of various
communication strategies to help the students overcome the communication difficulties.
References
Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in
communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 50 (2),
311-341.
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language learning.
The Modern Language Journal, 65 (2), 24-35.
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second
Language Use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy. (2 nd
Ed.). San Francisco: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1 (1), 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language
Pedagogy. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and
communication. Harlow: Longman, 2-27.
Clement, R. (1986). Second language proficiency and acculturation: an investigation of the
effects of language status and individual characteristics, Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 5, 271-90.
Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 55-85.
813

Dornyei, Z., & Scott M., L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language:
Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning.47, 173-210.
Ellis, R. (1984). Communication strategies and the evaluation of communicative
performance. ELT Journal. 38 (1), 39-44.
Ellis, R. (2003). Communication Task-based Language Learning and Teaching.
Oxford:Oxford university Press.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London:
Longman.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of defining communication strategies.
Language Learning, 34(1), 45-63.
Huang, C. P.(2010). Exploring Factors Affecting the Use of Oral Communication
Strategies. Lunghwa university journal, 12(1), 85-104.
Kongsom, T. (2009). The Effects of Teaching Communication Strategies to Thai
Learners of English. PhD. Thesis. University of Southampton.
Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Larsen–Freeman, D. (2007). Reflecting on the Cognitive–Social Debate in Second
Language Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), 773-787.
Le, T. T.. (2006). Teaching communication strategies to Vietnamese learners of
English. Unpublished EdD. Dissertation. Columbia University.
Leaver, L.B. & Willis, R.J. (2004). Task-Based Instruction In Foreign Language
Education: Practices and Programs. Georgetown University Press:
Washington, D.C.
Long, M.H. (1990). Task, group, and task-group interactions. In S. Anivan
(Ed.), Language teaching methodology for the nineties (pp. 31-50). Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
McCroskey, J.C., & McCroskey, L.L. (1986). Correlates of willingness to communicate.
Paper presented at the Western Speech Communication Association Convention,
Tucson, AZ.
Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication
strategy use. The Modern language Journal, 89 (1), 76-91.
Piranian, D. (1979). Communication Strategies of Foreign Language Learners: A
Pilot Study. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Slavic Linguistics, University of
Washington.
Poulisse, N. (1990). The Use of Compensatory Strategies by Dutch Learners of
814

English. Dordrecht: Foris.
Rost, M. & Ross, S. (1991). Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology and
teachability. Language learning, 41, 235-273.
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage.
Language Learning, 30, 417-431.
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL
Quarterly, 15, 285-295.
Weerarak, L. (2003). Oral communication strategies employed by English majors
Taking listening and speaking 1 at Rajabhat Institute Nakhon Ratchasima.
Willems, G. M. (1987). Communication strategies and their significance in foreign
language teaching. System, 15 (3), 351-364.
Wongsawang, P. (2001). Cultural-specific notions in L2 communication strategies.
Second Language Studies, 19(2), 111-135.
Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1997). The other side of the page: Integrating the study of
Communication strategies and negotiated input in SLA. In R. Phillipson, E.
Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.),
Foreign/second language pedagogy research. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters, 56-73.
815