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