Speaking English as a Second Language: Learners' Problems and Coping Strategies 9783030550561, 9783030550578

Citation preview

Speaking English as a Second Language Learners‘ Problems and Coping Strategies Edited by Alireza Jamshidnejad

Speaking English as a Second Language

Alireza Jamshidnejad Editor

Speaking English as a Second Language Learners’ Problems and Coping Strategies

Editor Alireza Jamshidnejad Department of English Language College of Education University of Technology and Applied Sciences Rustaq, Oman

ISBN 978-3-030-55056-1 ISBN 978-3-030-55057-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8

(eBook)

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1

Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral Communication in EFL Contexts Alireza Jamshidnejad

Part I 2

3

4

1

Approaches to the Nature of L2 Oral Communication

L2 Communication as a Social Action: Silence in Oral Communication Yamin Qian

33

Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication: Spoken Grammar in Native and EFL Speakers Yen-Liang Lin

51

An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral Communication Ruiying Niu

75

v

vi

5

6

Contents

Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian Migrants in Australia Hossein Shokouhi Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication Alireza Jamshidnejad, Reza Falahati, and Etske Ooijevaar

Part II 7

8

129

The Nature and Typology of Learners’ Problems in L2 Oral Communication

The Construction of Problems in L2 Oral Communication Alireza Jamshidnejad

165

The Construction of Problems in L2 Oral Communication Alireza Jamshidnejad

195

Part III 9

103

Communication Strategies and Their Functions in L2 Oral Communication

The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies in L2 Oral Communication Alireza Jamshidnejad

229

10

Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies Alireza Jamshidnejad

253

11

Context Oriented Functions of Strategies Alireza Jamshidnejad

287

Contents

vii

12

Communicators-Oriented Functions of Strategies Alireza Jamshidnejad

313

13

Conclusion and Implications for Future Research Alireza Jamshidnejad

329

Index

339

Notes on Contributors

Reza Falahati is a lecturer of academic and professional English at Leiden University and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. He has taught a wide range of English, and (Applied) Linguistics courses in different universities located in Canada, Iran, and The Netherlands. His research interests are mainly L2 speech acquisition, academic writing, and discourse analysis. He is currently interested in the application of ultrasound in teaching pronunciation. His research is published by Routledge and in journals such as ESP across Cultures and Journal of the Canadian Acoustical Association. His master’s thesis from the University of Victoria received the 2005–2006 ISG/SUTA Outstanding Thesis Award by MIT & Sharif University. He holds an M.A. in education (University of Tehran), an M.A. in (applied) linguistics (University of Victoria), and a Ph.D. in linguistics (University of Ottawa). He also has the experience of working as a postdoctoral research fellow in Italy, SNS, for two years. Dr. Alireza Jamshidnejad is an associate professor of English language studies at the University of Technology and Applied Sciences in Oman, and has over twenty years of experience teaching and researching TEFL and Applied Linguistics. He obtained his first Ph.D. in Education, but shifted his research interest to EFL oral communication and foreign ix

x

Notes on Contributors

language teaching in his second Ph.D. from the UK. Most of his recent publications focus on language learners’ interaction in EFL contexts, and his unique approach to functions of communication strategies is very well known. After years of teaching, researching and publishing papers in the field of oral communication in EFL contexts, he has innovated a researchbased model to understand the nature of and classify the problems and strategies of L2 oral communication. Yen-Liang Lin is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of English, also serving as the Director of Media and Language Teaching Center, at National Taipei University of Technology, Taiwan. He received his Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics in 2013 from the University of Nottingham, UK. He has taught EFL at secondary and university levels for 15 years. His research interests include corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, speech and gesture, and language teaching research. Ruiying Niu is professor of English at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China. Her research interests include Sociocultural Theory, language production, interaction, writing feedback, and second language acquisition. Etske Ooijevaar is a Ph.D. candidate in Linguistics at Meertens Instituut in The Netherlands. She is writing her dissertation about the acoustics and articulation (with Ultrasound Tongue Imaging) of liquids in Dutch dialects. Her research interests are phonetics, phonology, and language variation and change. She has worked as a statistician/methodologist at Meertens Instituut. She holds an M.A. in Linguistics and a B.A. in French Language and Culture, both from the University of Amsterdam in The Netherlands. Dr. Yamin Qian is currently an Associate Professor at School of English Education, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies in China. She has been an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teacher in Higher Education for more than 20 years. Her major fields of interests include, not limited to, Sociology of Education, second language education, and Sociolinguistics.

Notes on Contributors

xi

Dr. Hossein Shokouhi currently a Senior Lecture at Deakin University, Australia, has co-authored two books, has published in various journals including Lingua, Discourse Studies, Australian Journal of Linguistics, book chapters with John Benjamins, Routledge, and Springer, has taken 7 Ph.D. students to completion, and has been external examiner for a number of Ph.D. theses. He has taught various subjects of Linguistics, Applied Linguistics, and TESOL in Australia and overseas, and has been a visiting scholar at Potsdam University, Germany, Deusto University, Spain, as well as La Trobe University, Australia, where he received his Ph.D. He has been a keynote speaker at several International Conferences. His current research is on language, culture, and critical thinking.

List of Figures

Chapter 1 Fig. 1 Fig. 2

Ogden and Richards’ triangle of meaning A systematic approach to oral communication

7 9

Chapter 4 Fig. 1

Hierarchical connection of the four layers of the ecosystem

94

Chapter 7 Fig. 1

Fig. 2

The initial position of participants’ characteristics and their performances in the investigation on L2 communication (Arrows show  A is investigated to inform B ) The revised version of the interaction between investigated areas in L2 communication research

169 169

Chapter 8 Fig. 1

Context-oriented problems in L2 oral communication

214

xiii

xiv

Fig. 2 Fig. 3

List of Figures

The sources of problems in L2 oral communication The process of problem construction in L2 oral communication in EFL contexts

215 219

List of Tables

Chapter 3 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Elements of ellipsis in BATTICC Number of vague expressions Number of headers and tails Number of unfilled and filled pausing

60 61 64 67

Chapter 4 Table 1

Factors affecting participants’ oral language learning

84

Chapter 9 Table 1 Table 2

The general description of strategies introduced in Dörnyei and Scott’s inventory (1997) The functions and priority use of CSs by EFL learners

240 245

Chapter 13 Table 1

Learners’ problems and their corresponding strategies in L2 communication

334

xv

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral Communication in EFL Contexts Alireza Jamshidnejad

1

Introduction

Becoming a fluent speaker of a new language is the main dream that motivates a large percentage of learners to take language courses. Still, many language learners perceive communicating skills such as speaking the most challenging skills to master (Khan & Pinyana, 2004; Lafford, 2004; Pinter, 2006; Somsai & Intaraprasert, 2011). This even becomes worse since oral skills are usually employed as the first criterion for assessing the effectiveness of second/foreign language education programmes. Students in second/foreign language education programmes are considered successful if they can communicate effectively in that language (Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Riggenbach & Lazaraton, 1991). A. Jamshidnejad (B) Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Rustaq, Oman e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_1

1

2

A. Jamshidnejad

Indeed, communicating in a language other than ones’ mother tongue can constitute a real challenge for most language learners. Mastering oral skills in a new language, particularly in an environment where there is not enough input of the target language (L2), would take probably a decade or so (Khan, 2010; Kongsom, 2009; Teng, 2012). Even after years of developing their semantic and syntactic competences, language learners often become frustrated and reluctant to participate effectively in L2 oral communication. They frequently complain about the lack of opportunities and resources that would enable them to learn how to communicate their message or intended meaning. Even advanced language learners can suffer from a lack of sufficient preparation to communicate beyond the classroom. Consequently, they prefer to keep silent whenever they are not sure whether they can manage the communication successfully. Others may decide to moderate or replace what they ‘want to say’ with what they ‘can say’ (Ervin, 1979, p. 359). As speaking is essentially a communicative act, study the nature of L2 oral communication is very crucial in understanding the causes of the problems mentioned above. Communication in a target language is a highly complex, demanding and multi-faceted skill that involves different competencies and mechanisms (Bygate, 2001; Kormos, 2006; Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 2000). It is also a skill that cannot be transferred automatically from the speaker’s first language into their second (Thornbury, 2007). Moreover, speaking is an activity generally performed in real-time but learned in the classroom where there are insufficient opportunities for practising command of English skills for real-world communication (for example see Choomthong, 2014; Karnnawakul, 2004; Kimsuvan, 2004). There are also different factors influencing the learners’ spoken performance in a communicative event, from individual (i.e. age, gender, L2 proficiency level, personality) to psychological (i.e. anxiety, confidence, motivation, stress, fears of mistakes) and social factors (i.e. face-threatening, the power relationship between interlocutors, educational context, task types) (see Chapter 12). This poses considerable pressure on L2 communicators and forces them to spend a great deal of time and effort struggling to construct tangible utterances for transferring their message in L2 oral interactions. Not being able to compensate for their L2 deficiencies, language learners may give up, keep

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

3

silent, speak with numerous pauses or trembling voices or even switch to their first language (L1) in their L2 oral interactions. Unwillingness to communicate, lack of confidence, anxiety, apprehension, nervousness and stress are feelings commonly reported by EFL language learners in L2 oral communication (Jackson, 2002; Tanveer, 2007; Tuan & Mai, 2015). However, some successful L2 speakers, despite their limited knowledge of the target language, can communicate effectively in a foreign language. They rely entirely on their available resources to communicate within restrictions by using coping strategies. The effective use of a target language to construct L2 communication in situations where there is communicative deficiency involves the effective use of communication strategies (hereafter CSs). This makes it urgent to explore oral communication as an independent skill to understand better the nature and causes of the difficulties participants face in their L2 speaking and the functions of strategies to cope with them. Due to the multifacet nature of L2 speaking, scholars from different branches of applied Linguistics are required to be involved in studying the problem construction in L2 oral communication. The following fields have significant contributions on what we know today about speaking (Khan, 2010): SLA (second language acquisition), first language acquisition, cognitive psychology (Khan, 2010), speech processing (Dell, 1986; Levelt, 1989, 1999), interaction (Gass, 2002; Long, 1985; Pica & Doughty, 1988; Swain, 1985), discourse analysis (Kasper, 1985; Tarone, 1981), language learner strategies (LLS) (Cohen, Weaver, & Li, 1996; Nakatani, 2006; O’Malley, Chamot, Stewner-Manzanares, Kupper, & Russo, 1985; Oxford, 1990), communication strategies (CS) (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997; Færch & Kasper, 1983; Poulisse, 1990; Tarone, 1981), task-based research (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; García Mayo, 2007; Gilabert, 2004, 2007; Robinson, 1995) and oral proficiency testing (Lumley & O’Sullivan, 2006; O’Sullivan, 2000; Purpura, 1999; Swain, Huang, Barkaoui, Brooks, & Lapkin, 2009). Although L2 oral communication has been attractive to a big group of senior and junior researchers around the world, to my knowledge, there is no published book focusing primarily on nature and construction process of problems in EFL oral communication. The main goal of this book is to bring together several lines of isolated research and

4

A. Jamshidnejad

provide a comprehensive overview of the various kinds of problems in oral communication, the ways they are constructed, and the strategies which can be used to deal with these problems in EFL (English as a foreign language) contexts. By the EFL context, we mean those contexts in which learners’ learn English in a situation/locality where it is not spoken/used in the community. A foreign language is mainly learned to be used in another country and usually has no communicative function outside the classes. Both L2 ‘oral communication’ and ‘speaking’ refer to learners’ ability to communicate in English fluently and effectively. The main framework of this book has been taken from the chief editor’s qualitative studies on oral communication in EFL contexts (Jamshidnejad, 2010). Using these studies, interpersonal communication theories and models, this book then offers a systematic framework to achieve a coherent process-oriented description and a deeper understanding of the complex and multidimensional nature of EFL oral interaction problems and then classifies them into different categories. This book not only stimulates learners’ problem construction process in EFL interactional discourse but also contains a practical typology and strategies which will be invaluable to both new and advanced language users.

2

The Nature of Communication

Communication is the main concept in the term ‘L2 oral communication’. Communication, as a concept, originally comes from the Latin word ‘communicare’ meaning ‘to share’ or ‘establish commonness’. Although there is not a single, universally accepted definition of communication used by scholars (Trenholm and Jensen [2004] referred to Dance and Larson [1972] who found 126 definitions of communication), ‘sharing’ a ‘message’ between two individuals or more is a ‘common part’ of all kinds of human communication. Social scientists use the term ‘dyadic communication’ to describe the interaction between two people (dyad) and interpersonal communication for interaction between two or more individuals. Small group communication, public communication and mass communication are other kinds of human communication

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

5

(Adler & Rodman, 2006, p. 6). By living in a society, people have spent a major part of their waking hours in some form of communication, whether they want to or not. Beck et al. (2004) and Adler and Rodman’s (2006) define communication as: a social systematic process of creating symbolic meaning and responding between communicators.

The ‘social ’ characteristic covers the interaction among ‘communicators’ as human beings. Because of the social nature of communication, scholars believe ‘we cannot not communicate’ (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967; Rosengren, 2000, p. 38). ‘Systematic ’ introduces the multidimensional nature of communication involving different interrelated subsystems. In the above definition, ‘communicators’, ‘symbolic meaning’ and ‘context’ can be introduced as the main subsystems of communication. Each communicator, as one of the main subsystems, needs ‘input ’ (past and present stimuli that give the communicator his/her information about the world) to participate in the process of communication (Tubbs & Moss, 1994, p. 8). According to Adler and Rodman (2006) communicators’ personal and social background, their perceptions of ‘self ’ and ‘others’ and their verbal and non-verbal language skills are some of the inputs influencing the process of communication. Communicators’ perception and image of themselves is called ‘self-concept’, containing an important element; ‘self-esteem’ [‘our evaluation of self-worth’ (ibid.: 48)]. The ‘self-concept’ is shaped by significant others’ evaluation of our ‘personality’ as well as by cultural factors (i.e. stereotyping) (Adler & Rodman, 2006, p. 69). Thus, feedback and the level of self-esteem have a direct relationship: positive feedback enhances your performance and improves your self-confidence, and negative feedback can cause a break- down in conversation (Tubbs & Moss, 1994). ‘Perception of others’, as another input, is shaped by communicators’ past experiences and expectations about communication, their social roles, and relationship, their knowledge of the interlocutor, the degree of involvement with others in communication and cultural factors (Adler &

6

A. Jamshidnejad

Rodman, 2006). Self-concept, self-esteem and the perception of others in communication are the factors to which I think previous studies have paid little or no attention. This book intends to consider them and to discuss to what extent learners’ oral problem and their use of coping strategies might be influenced by the communicator’s perception of self and others (see Chapters 7 and 12). Language skills in both verbal and non-verbal forms can also influence the communication process. Language is a collection of symbols managed by a set of rules (both linguistic and social rules) and is used to convey meaning between people (Adler & Rodman, 2006). Skills are goal-oriented activities or a series of actions that can be learned. Language skill, defined as knowledge and the ability to use this knowledge in communicative situations, has been the focus of most language studies, and they have highlighted the lack of language skills as the main source of problems in L2 communication. ‘The process of creating symbolic meaning and responding ’ is another main subsystem of communication, consisting of three themes: symbols, meaning and the process of creating and responding (Wood, 2004; Verderber & Verderber, 2003). ‘Process’ defines communication as ongoing, continuous, always in movement and motion and continuously changing; ‘creating and responding ’ involves creating a relationship by simultaneously sending, decoding and receiving messages, intentionally and unintentionally; ‘Symbolic ’ refers to symbols or signs as abstractions, arbitrary and ambiguous representations of things, process, ideas or events and ‘meaning ’ in Verderber & Verderber’s (2003) words, consists of ideas and feelings which communicators use as symbols to create meaning. Symbols are words, sounds and actions communicators use to present their meanings. Symbols are ‘arbitrary constructions that represent a communicator’s thoughts’ (Adler & Rodman, 2006). Due to their ‘abstract’ and ‘arbitrary’ nature, symbols are not concrete and tangible phenomena and do not have an intrinsic, natural relation to things to which they refer. Thus, the meaning of symbols depends on how people use them in the process of interaction. Adler and Rodman (2006) also described meanings as ‘social constructions’ and explained them by using Ogden and Richard’s ‘triangle of meaning’ (Fig. 1). The assumption of meaning as a social construction can shed light on the analysis of the

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

7

User

Thing (Referent)

Words (Symbols)

Fig. 1 Ogden and Richards’ triangle of meaning

nature and function of one of the main sources of misunderstanding and problematic communication. Figure 1 presents L1 communication as having a triangular relationship between symbols, things (an indirect relationship) and the user. So, people’s interpretation of symbols, and not symbols (words), creates meaning in the interaction. As a complete understanding requires complete agreement on the meaning of symbols among different users, it is not unusual if we experience misunderstanding in communication. For L2 communication, in which people are using L2 symbols with different perceptions, the problems are more serious. Context is the third concept in the definition of communication. In the transactional model, instead of a static environment, communicators are surrounded with a fluid context which is created and changes from moment-to-moment depending on contextual variables. Verderber & Verderber (2003) classified communication context into the following settings: physical, social, historical, psychological and cultural. With this classification, language researchers are afforded a more comprehensive perspective providing five different aspects of the context in communication which potentially could be used in their investigation. Similarly, Thompson (2003) summarised the following variables as major parts of context in interpersonal communication:

8

A. Jamshidnejad

• Social variables (different class groups, different genders and different racial or ethnic groups), • Physical variable (place, time and other physical condition of communication), • Relationship (participants’ view towards the relationship, the way and the purpose of their relationship) and • Speech genre and Purpose of communication. The participants’ social values, physical variables and relationships can be categorised in the social and physical contexts of Verderber and Verderber’s (2003) classification. Social norms and roles, either general or specific, are two important factors of the social setting in interpersonal communication. Norms are guidelines that limit and direct behaviour (Tubbs & Moss, 1994). Roles (child–parent, student–teacher, friend-friend, player–coach and employee–supervisor) are ‘sets of norms that apply to a specific subclass within the society’ (p. 213). Inter-role and intra-role conflicts caused by contradictory expectations of roles are among the main sources of discomfort in dyadic communication. Intimacy, affiliated need, willingness to make commitments, dominance, status and power are other norms in interpersonal communication highlighted by Tubbs and Moss (1994). To summarise all the above contextual variables and classifications, I present the following taxonomy of context: • Physical (environmental conditions such as place, time, the distance between communicators, seating arrangement, etc.), • Social (different class groups, different genders, different racial or ethnic groups, different social roles, and norms, dominance, status, and power), • Psychological (the moods and feelings each participant brings to communication, intimacy, willingness to make commitments), • Cultural (the beliefs, values, attitudes, meanings, social hierarchies, religion, notions of time and the roles of a group of people), • Historical and Relationship (the background of the previous communication between communicators, the nature of the relationship which

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

9

exists between the participants, their views towards the relationship, the way the relationship had started and its purpose). As communicators interact with each other in a social context, the relational, cultural and historical levels of the communication influence their competence. Therefore, no communication takes place in a vacuum; the context of the ongoing interaction surrounds each act of communication. The systematic approach to oral communication has been illustrated in the following diagram (Fig. 2): The above model provides researchers with a comprehensive framework for analysing learners’ performance in L2 oral communication based on a systematic perspective. In this approach, oral communication is a socially constructed system requiring three subsystems to function effectively: Communicators, the symbolic meaning (creating a message, responding) and the context. There is a general agreement among scholars (i.e. Adler & Rodman, 2006; Trenholm & Jensen, 2004; Verma, 2013) that any interruption in the above subsystems might threaten effective communication.

Context Communicators

Creating meaning Oral communication performance Fig. 2 A systematic approach to oral communication

10

3

A. Jamshidnejad

Challenges to Effective Communication

‘Effective communication’ is the term used by scholars to distinguish successful from less successful communication. According to Tubbs and Moss (1994), effective communication occurs when the receiver perceives what the sender has tried to convey. Understanding is defined as the accurate conveyance of a message and is one of the main scales used to measure effective communication; but pleasure, attitude influence, improved relationships and eliciting action are other possible outcomes of effective communications (p. 25). Scholars have considered two functions for effective oral communication: interactional and transactional (Yule, 1997). The primary function of transaction in oral communication is giving and receiving information rather than constructing social interactions. Burns (1998) considers requesting for goods or services, such as checking into a hotel or ordering food in a restaurant, as the second function of transactional communication. In fact, making and transferring a clear and tangible message to other participants is the central focus of talk as transaction (Richards, 2008). Interactional function of communication, on the other hand, focuses more on participants’ social interaction than giving and receiving information in communication. In other words, in transactional approach, the speakers’ lack of ability to construct and transfer their meaning may cause communication breakdown, while in the interactional approach, the listeners’ lack of comprehension has also been taken into consideration. If we assume that L2 speakers are much more likely than L1 speakers to face problems to express their meaning (Wagner, 1983), that helps to explain why language researchers focus more on the transactional than the interactional function of oral problems. In spite of this, in our daily social life, conveying the meaning (transactional function) may be much less important than the interpersonal relationship (interactional function) according to Tarone and Yule (1987). So, to be a successful communicator, one needs to convey meaning while constructing social relationships with people involved in a specific context of communication. Furthermore, scholars in L2 oral discourse analysis believe that the types of interactional activities occurring between non-native speakers

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

11

(hereafter NNS) are different from those in other types of discourse (i.e. Native speakers (NS)/NNS), particularly when communicators want to have an effective interaction in an actual or potential breakdown in communication (Pickering, 2006). To establish a ‘satisfactory interpersonal relationship’ through the L2, Aston (1993) for instance, focused on feeling and emotion rather than knowledge and referential transfer in interpersonal negotiation. According to Aston, communication problems rooted in differences in cultural experience and ethnic otherness. The amount of shared experience that participants bring into communication and the extent they show knowing and caring about each other are two affective factors of oral problems in NNS–NS interaction (ibid.). However, incompetence and the lack of a shared background, in Aston’s words (ibid.: 240), can also be used as an interactional resource to join and negotiate with others, even with ‘linguistic deficiency’. What seems primarily essential for effective communication, in Aston’s opinion, is ‘sharing feeling and attitudes rather than knowledge and ideas’. Moreover, the role of both sender and receiver has been considered crucial in effective communication. Lunenburg (2010), for instance, believes both sides of interaction should be at the same level of understanding to construct successful communication. The role of both shared feeling and attitude in communication has been noticed by ‘collaborative theory’. This theory pays more attention to the ‘role of participants’ based on an L1 communication framework. In collaborative theory, the mutual meaning is analysed as a collaborative activity, co-constructed by the speaker and the interlocutor. The main point of the collaborative model is the ‘grounding process’ in everyday language use (i.e. conversation) which is a process of developing and adding mutual meaning to the ‘common ground’ (shared knowledge, belief and assumption) (Wilkes-Gibbs, 1997). The grounding process starts with the speaker’s presentation, moving to an acceptance phase in which the interlocutor is sending signals of understanding or not-understanding, and speakers recognise and accept these. In the case of understanding, both interlocutors agree on the mutual meaning of communication, but in the case of ‘not understanding’, they are expected to show evidence of problematic interaction and initiate a ‘side sequence’ which is moving between refashioning (expand, revise or replace presentation) and initial presentation

12

A. Jamshidnejad

until both parties are satisfied with their mutual understanding(WilkesGibbs, 1997). According to this model, communication problems are mutually shared issues, which in successful communication mean that both sides accept responsibility for their solution through coordinative and collaborative work on agreement about the meaning of their message. The sociolinguistic approach, on the other hand, looks at L2 effective communication from the ‘social context of communication’ point of view. The analysis of moment-to-moment and face to face discourse processing in interpersonal interaction provides the sociolinguistic researcher with the opportunity to study the relationship between ‘social reality construction’ and interaction. Moreover, studying the moment of potential or actual problematic communication provides a unique opportunity for researchers to look at “participants’ social values, their perception of social status and the procedures they use to maintain, restore or disrupt it” (Rampton, 1997, p. 300). This leads research on effective communication beyond mere grammatical and lexical problems to other kinds of problematic knowledge, from referential meaning to social and interpersonal meaning, from individual interactions to group communication, from experiments with undergraduate subjects to informants with different levels of educational background. If L2 oral communication is studied beyond these limitations, the notion of problems can enlighten a very wide area outside SLA, and it becomes a rich field to study interactional, social and educational issues. In fact, sociolinguistics scholars, from John Gumperz (1982, 1992), the pioneer in interactional-sociolinguistic studies of miscommunication, to Bremer, Broeder, Roberts, Simonot, and Vasseur (1996) and Tyler (1995) have all considered the link between the discourse-external context and the process ongoing in interactions. Summarising the research on sociocultural miscommunication between NNSs and English native speakers (i.e. Blum-Kukla, 1983; 1987; Cohen & Olshtain, 1981; Olshtain, 1983; Olshtain & Cohen, 1983) Gass and Varonis (1991) concluded that the differences in the sociocultural rules of languages (politeness, apologies and requests) could result in miscommunication on the part of NNS. They claim that when NNSs of English are relatively fluent in their second language, miscommunication can occur depending

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

13

on the knowledge of the sociolinguistic rules of interaction that NSs expect NNSs to demonstrate and NSs’ familiarity with these rules (Gass & Varonis, 1991). Furthermore, problems in communication will be more serious if the NS perceives the NNS as being L2 proficient or fluent, rather than as a learner of the L2 with a low level of L2 comprehension (p. 131). As the communicators assume they understand each other completely, they are less likely to question interpretation, and this can be the most ‘dangerous’ cause of miscommunication for the NNS; the problem of an unshared common discourse space (see Chapter 2 for communication as a social event). Similar results came from Beebe, Takahanshi, and Uliss-Weltz (1990) on Japanese learners of English where the subjects are observed to transfer their L1 pragmatic rules to their L2. Gass and Varonis (1991) drew the same conclusion as Milroy (1984, p. 24) that ‘the locus of miscommunication’ may be specifically ‘pragmatic’ rather than ‘structural’ due to participants’ reference to their L1 rather than L2. Gumperz (1976, 1977) and Gumperz and Tannen’s (1979) studies on conversational inferences consider differences between L1 and L2 pragmatic rules as a cause of L2 miscommunication. These studies confirm the problems caused by different sociocultural rules and a lack of participants’ sociolinguistic knowledge. Genç (2007), in her doctoral dissertation, highlighted, ‘not understanding the context’, including the historical and the culture of the relationship, as one of the problem-makers in L2 oral communication. However, according to Adler and Rodman (2006), complete understanding among communicators is neither necessary nor possible. Coupland, Giles, and Wiemann (1991) based on Giles and Wiemann (1987) argue that communication researchers pay little attention to the fact that most communicators are sometimes ‘sceptical, crafty and less than veracious’. They believe that although almost all communication studies, and by implication L2 communication studies, consider miscommunication and problems as a matter of ‘transient annoyance’, ‘miscommunication’ may play a positive role in that it contributes to the process of ongoing interaction and human communication. As the positive role of misunderstanding in communication has not been the focus of previous

14

A. Jamshidnejad

studies, it has been considered in this study as one of the possible functions of breakdowns in communication (see Chapter 3 for pragmatic nature of communication). All the approaches, discussed in this section, can shed light on an undeveloped area of L2 effective communication. The systematic approach to communication, introduced in this chapter, however, can help us to integrate all the above approaches in one comprehensive model to understand how a target language can be effectively used to construct, maintain and develop friendly and cooperative interpersonal L2 communication. In any communication, all the subsystems (communicators, creating meaning and context) are required to work properly and cooperatively to make the process of communication goes smoothly. Any interruption in any of the communication subsystems results in a breakdown in communication. Language scholars need to know how an L2 interaction might end up in a breakdown rather than effective communication.

4

Communication Breakdown

Sometimes even with the presence of all the subsystems required for effective communication, interlocutors may fail to communicate successfully. Communicators‘ failure to complete the process of creating, transferring and receiving the meaning in communication is referred to as communication breakdown (Avval, 2011; Verma, 2013). The notion of communication breakdown has been defined under several terminologies, including misunderstanding, nonunderstanding, misinterpretation, pragmatic failure, problematic talk, miscommunication and repair (de Jager, 2012; Pitzl, 2010). Intercultural communication has provided the literature with a long history of research on communication breakdown. This phenomenon has also been attractive to scholars from other fields such as pragmatics, conversation analysis, politeness studies and interactional sociolinguistics, to name a few (de Jager, 2012). They have mainly focused on the occurrence, type, frequency, causes of breakdown in communication (Bazzanella & Damiano, 1999a, 1999b; Bilmes, 1992; Fraser, 1993; Hinnenkamp, 1999; Linell, 1995; Schegloff, 1987, 1992;

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

15

Tannen, 1991 Weigand, 1999; Weizman, 1999) and coping strategies for dealing with communication breakdown (Bazzanella & Damiano, 1999a, 1999b; Bosco et al., 2006; Hinnenkamp, 1999; Weigand, 1999). It seems that most of the scholars agree on the gap between what speakers say and what the listener/hearer comprehends as the leading cause of the breakdown in communication. However, it is considered as a natural process of speech event which occurs on a daily basis due to ongoing differences between communicators. Communicators require relying on their ability to deduce and guess the meaning of what has been said. This usually develops as a natural and automatic skill among native speakers; however, it will not naturally become an automatic skill for non-native speakers (de Jager, 2012). Therefore the possibility of communication breakdown for non-native speakers is more than native speakers. A communication breakdown is usually detected and repaired almost immediately in the third or fourth turn (Dascal, 1999). But if it remains unresolved for several turns, they may cause a complete breakdown in communication. In fact, some scholars have highlighted communication breakdown as an essential part of the comprehension process and not merely a breakdown, and have just started to investigate the nature, causes and coping strategies for resolving such ‘problematic’ talk (Blum-Kulka & Weizman, 1988; Dascal, 1985; Kreuz & Roberts, 1993). Over the last few decades, most of the scholars have studied communication breakdown among speakers of English as Lingua Franca (ELF) (see for example Björkman, 2013; Deterding, 2013; Kaur, 2011; Mauranen, 2006; Pitzl, 2005, 2010; Smit 2010; Watterson, 2008); however, there is relatively little work on the speakers of English as Foreign Language (EFL), and discussions that do exist are disparate. Bazzanella and Damiano (1999b, cited in de Jager, 2012) categorised the causes of breakdown into the following: Speakers, interlocutors, the interaction between speaker and interlocutors and structural misunderstanding. Mariani (2010), on the other hand, provides the following classification of the main causes of L2 oral communication problems: linguistic knowledge, cultural differences or even contextual interruptions. More recently, Tuguis (2017) has investigated speaking problems of a group of EFL students studying English at an Indonesian university to find the obstacles of using full English in L2 oral communication. His

16

A. Jamshidnejad

finding helps us to categorize the causes of speaking obstacles into the following groups: communicators’ factors (affective factor, age or maturational constraints), and contextual factors (sociocultural factor, lack of English learning community, school system, aural medium, inputpoor environment, lack of discipline/punishment and school system). Synthesising the available isolated studies on speaking problems into a comprehensive approach, this book, however, provides a systematic view of communication breakdown in EFL contexts.

5

Breakdown in L2 Communication

Communication is a systematic, but not a simple and easy process, constructed by communicators, the symbolic meaning (creating a message, responding) and the context. The systematic model of communication provides a comprehensive view of how all components of the communication process (communicators, context and symbolic meaning) interact as a whole system in a social situation to create and respond to a message. This approach allows studying the process of problem construction in a broader and more systematic perspective based on theories of general communication in different L2 interactional situations. In this approach, the processes underlying language do not differ from those in problematic communication. Therefore, the breakdown in communication is a natural part of the communication process with multidimensional nature rooted in the three sources: Communicators, symbolic meaning and context (see Chapter 7: the construction of problems in EFL context ). Communicators’ personalities, self-concept, perception of others and the ability to express themselves are the main contributors to ones’ performance in L2 oral communication (Luoma, 2004). Meanwhile, they are among the main sources of constructing psychological and affective problems in L2 oral communication. Low self- esteem, fear and shyness of making mistakes, anxiety, attitude and motivation have been of great difficulties or obstacles in L2 oral communication (Somsai & Intaraprasert, 2011; Richards & Renandya, 2002). Learners with lower self-esteem, for instance, may participate with more inhibition and thus

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

17

construct more barriers to protect themselves against possible failure in L2 oral interactions (Brown, 2007). Fear of making mistakes and being embarrassed about not being able to perform well may result in an apprehension feeling called anxiety. In fact, the fear of others’ evaluation of incompetency in L2 oral communication may lead the learners to give up or deny participating in L2 oral interactions. This is approved by Senel (2012), who found that the evaluations and attitudes of both teachers and classmates can cause a breakdown in EFL oral communication. Koichi Sato, 2003 (in Minghe & Yuan, 2013) also found that making mistakes in front of peers is the main obstacle of students’ participating in L2 communication. The feeling of ‘uncertainty, insecurity, fear and social distance’ (Rubio, 2007, p. 7) is the main inner obstacles reducing the level of learners’ performance and participation in oral interactions. These affective factors prevent learners from being ‘themselves’ when speaking in a target language. This is why the affective side of the learner, according to Oxford (1990), has probably the most significant impacts on their success or failure in language learning (for details see Chapter 7). Lack of language skills in meaning creating is another source of the breakdown in L2 communication. Lack of linguistic knowledge, including knowledge of grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation of target language beside discourse and speech act knowledge, may put EFL learners in difficult interactional situations. Limited linguistics knowledge, the absence of correct use of grammar (Yarnruksa, 1997; Sadiq, 2010; Ya-ni, 2007), lack of vocabulary (Liu & Jackson, 2008), choosing appropriate words and constructing correct sentence (Fitriani, 2019), and problems with oral production, pronunciation and accent among English learners (Paakki, 2013) have been the main linguistics obstacles found by researchers of EFL oral communication (for more details of language-oriented problems see Chapter 8). Unique characteristics of EFL context at social, cultural and historical levels also expose some limitations on communicators’ oral performance in L2 interactions. According to the systematic approach to L2 oral communication (see Fig. 2), the context of the ongoing interaction surrounds communicators who create the meaning. This has been supported by different researchers (i.e. Fraser, 2002, 2007; Kolb & Kolb,

18

A. Jamshidnejad

2005) who found that some characteristics of interactional contexts such as challenging, stimulating or supportive can influence learners’ language skills in general and their speaking skills in particular. They believe constructing a supportive environment can develop a better interactional skill in L2 communication. Other scholars investigating the role of EFL context in constructing oral problems in L2 communication (Al Asmari, 2015; Al Nakhalah, 2016; Gan 2012; Littlewood, 2007) have found the following as main contextual factors contributing to a range of oral problems in EFL communication: the lack of opportunities to speak English in instructional setting, non-supportive environment of educational system, lack of a focus on oral skills development in curriculum and teaching materials, and the input-poor environment for L2 oral interactions outside educational setting(for more details about context-oriented problems see Chapter 8). Based on the above discussions, it seems the systematic perspective of communication introduced in this chapter has a capacity to be broadened and expanded beyond current psycholinguistic and interactional approaches to include all potential factors constructing breakdown in L2 oral communication. As pointed out in this chapter, an interactional approach focuses more on participants and contextual roles in problematic communication than a psycholinguistic approach. However, this model is not able to present a comprehensive view of systematic analysis of how all components of the communication process (communicators, context and symbolic meaning) interact as a system in a problematic situation to create and respond to meaning. It seems the movement from an interactional approach to a systematic approach (based on theories of general communication) allows studying the nature of communication breakdown in a broader perspective. This also allows exploring different functions of strategies when communicators are faced with a problematic situation created by a network of all components of communication (see Chapter 8).

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

6

19

What Is This Book About?

This book provides a comprehensive overview and typology of learners’ problems and coping strategies in L2 oral communication based on the authors’ qualitative studies of oral communication in EFL contexts, which is divided into three parts according to their dominant theme. The first part, titled approaches to the nature L2 oral communication, comprises five chapters that strive to show the multi-facet nature of learning and mastering oral communication skills in EFL contexts. It opens with a chapter by Yamin Qian, who demonstrates the social nature of L2 oral communication thorough studying the silence in L2 speaking classes. Conducting a comparative qualitative case study on two EFL students, the researcher found that silence is not necessarily a failure in oral communication, but EFL learners’ responses to their social contexts thorough positioning of themselves, peers and teachers in EFL contexts. Yen-Liang Lin, in the next chapter, discusses the pragmatic nature of L2 oral communication by comparing the spoken grammar used by native and EFL speakers in L2 oral communication. Employing a discourse analytical approach, the researcher found that the spoken grammar features are used differently by native and non-native participants due to their different pragmatic functions for each group. The contribution by Ruiying Niu in chapter three focuses on the role of the learning environment on L2 oral interactions. The researcher employed the nested ecosystems model as the analytical framework of EFL oral communication to analyse a series of semi-structured interviews and journal writing. Using four levels of learning environment (microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem), the researcher found that Chinese participants’ oral communication learning is an ecological process constructed through the interaction between the learner and all different levels of the learning environment. In the next chapter, Hossein Shokouhi investigated the cultural aspects of L2 communication. Choosing a group of Persian migrants in Australia, Hossein shows how migrants’ lack of adequate competency in English has resulted in their linguistic disempowerment in L2 communication. The debilitating effect of being unable to speak expressively about Iran’s past glory and embolden their identity, as well as their inability in using the right

20

A. Jamshidnejad

language to make criticism of others is overwhelming. In the last chapter, Jamshidnejad, Falahati and Ooijevaar provide a comprehensive overview of the qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods in researching L2 oral communication. They then introduced the main techniques of data collection in each of the research methods, followed by a presentation of innovative approaches to do research on pronunciation. This chapter ends up with introducing the main research approach taken in this book and how it is situated in the various ways of undertaking research. The two chapters included in Part 2, the nature and typology of learners’ problems in L2 oral communication, focus on the ways in which problems are classified and constructed in EFL oral communication. First, the author distinguishes three sources of problem construction in L2 oral interactions: communicators, language and the context. Then he classifies learners’ problems in L2 oral interaction based on their sources into communicator-oriented, language-oriented and context-oriented problems. Alireza ends this chapter with a comprehensive overview of his findings on the communicators-oriented problems constructed by participants’ perception of self as ideal English speakers and their fear of speaking in front of the others in L2 communication. Describing learners’ language-oriented and context-oriented problems in the following chapter, Alireza completes the puzzle of the complex nature of problem construction in L2 oral communication. His further analysis of the audio-recorded data shows that the learners’ language-oriented problems are constructed mainly by learners’ lack of language accuracy in self- expression and their lack of proficiency in making the message intelligible. In addition to their language deficiencies, participants were not satisfied with the interactive opportunities in and out of the language classes constructed by the form oriented system of language education in EFL contexts. This chapter ends up with an overview of the typology of the problems and the process of problem construction in L2 oral communication. The last part of the volume, communication strategies and their functions in L2 oral communication, explores strategies with different functions for helping the language learners to cope with different challenges of L2 oral communications. In the first contribution, Alireza introduces his new classification of functions of communication strategies

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

21

(CSs) in L2 oral communication. Thematic analysis of oral recorded data shows that the participants employed CSs to transfer meaning when the meaning was problematic, but also they employed them to promote the language development and to keep the communication going on when the meaning is not problematic. He classifies the CSs into language-oriented, context-oriented and communicator-oriented strategies based on their functions in L2 oral communication. Then in the following three chapters, Alireza discusses his further analysis of each of the functions of CSs found in the previous section. First, he introduces strategies with language-oriented functions helping participants not only to deal with their problems in expressing and understanding the meaning of utterances but also to develop their language knowledge during L2 communication. In the second section, the author highlights strategies employed by the participants to deal with the lack of interactive satiations in EFL contexts. This group of strategies helped the participants to stay longer in L2 interaction, to construct a supportive and cooperative setting for L2 communication and to keep the interaction going. The last chapter pointed out the strategies whose function is helping the learners to deal with obstacles constructed by their ‘self ’ and ‘others’ in L2 oral communication. Thematic analysis of qualitative data shows that participants employ CSs to ‘reposition’ themselves, far from their problematic performance in front of the other, to boost their role as an expert in L2 interaction and to redefine it as language users interacting in unfair conditions. Participants employ some CSs of this category to share their own and their interlocutors’ resources to meet the communicative goals. The book ends with a chapter providing the readers with a comprehensive summary following by a conclusion and some implications for future research on L2 oral communication.

References Adler, R. B., & Rodman, G. (2006). Understanding human communication (8th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22

A. Jamshidnejad

Al Asmari, A. (2015). A comparative determination of barriers of oral English learning faced by preparatory year students. European Scientific Journal, 11(35), 58–81. Al Nakhalah, A. M. M. (2016). Problems and difficulties of speaking that encounter English language students at Al Quds Open University. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 5 (12), 96–101. Retrieved from www.ijhssi.org. Aston, G. (1993). Notes on the interlanguage of comity. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 224–250). New York: Oxford University Press. Avval, S. F. (2011). How to avoid communication breakdown in translation or interpretation? Translation Journal, 16 (2). Retrieved from https://transl ationjournal.net/journal/56breakdown.htm. Bazzanella, C., & Damiano, R. (1999a). Coherence and misunderstanding in everyday conversations. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bazzanella, C., & Damiano, R. (1999b). The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 817–836. Beck, A., Bennett, P., & Wall, P. (2004). Communication studies: The essential resources. London, New York: Routledge. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55–94). New York: Newburry House. Bilmes, J. (1992). Mishearing. In G. Watson, & R. M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in Context: Contributions to ethnomethodology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Björkman, B. (2013). English as an academic lingua franca. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Blum-Kulka, S. (1983). Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second language: A cross-cultural study of Hebrew and English. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 36–55). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131–146. Blum-Kulka, S., & Weizman, E. (1988). The inevitability of misunderstanding: Discourse ambiguities. Text, 8, 219–241. Bosco, F. M, Bucciarelli, M., & Bara, B. G. (2006). Recognition and recovery of communicative failures: A developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1398–1429.

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

23

Bremer, K., Broeder, P., Roberts, C., Simonot, M., & Vasseur, M. (1996). Achieving understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. London: Longman. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson Education. Burns, A. (1998). Teaching speaking. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18, 102–123. Bygate, M. (2001). Speaking. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 14–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bygate, M., Skehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing. Harlow: Pearson Education. Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31, 113–134. Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J., & Li, T. Y. (1996). The impact of strategiesbased instruction on speaking a foreign language. In A. D. Cohen (Ed.), Strategies in learning and using a second language (pp. 107–156). Harlow, Essex: Longman. Choomthong, D. (2014). Preparing Thai students’ English for the ASEAN economic community: Some pedagogical implications and trends. Language Education and Acquisition Research Network (LEARN) Journal, 7 (1), 45–57. Coupland, N., Giles, H., & Wiemann, J. M. (1991). Miscommunication and problematic talk. London: Sage. Dance, F. E. X., & Larson, C. E. (1972). Speech communication. New York: Holt Rinehardt and Winston. Dascal, M. (1985). The relevance of misunderstanding. In M. Dascal (Eds.), Dialogue: An interdisciplinary approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Dascal, M. (1999). Introduction: Some questions about misunderstanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 753–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-216 6(98)00059-9. De Jager, L. (2012). Misunderstanding in second language instructional communication. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321. Deterding, D. (2013). Misunderstandings in English as a lingua franca: An analysis of ELF interactions in south-east Asia. Berlin: De Gruyter. Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47 (1), 173–210.

24

A. Jamshidnejad

Ervin, G. L. (1979). Communication strategies employed by American students of Russian. The Modern Language Journal, 63(7), 329–334. Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). London: Longman. Fitriani, N. (2019). Communication breakdown among Indonesian EFL learners: Barriers and strategies. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 7 (1), 35–41. Fraser, B. (1993). No conversation without misinterpretation. In H. Parret (Ed.), Pretending to communicate. Berlin: De Guyter. Fraser, B. J. (2002). Learning environments research: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In S. C. Goh & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Studies in educational learning environment: An international perspective (pp. 1–25). Singapore: World Scientific. Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 103–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gan, Z. (2012). Understanding L2 speaking problems: Implications for ESL curriculum development in a teacher training institution in Hong Kong. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (1), 3. García Mayo, M. P. (2007). Investigating tasks in formal language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gass, S. (2002). Interactionist perspectives in SLA. In R. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 170–181). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1991). Miscommunication in nonnative speaker discourse. In N. Coupland, H. Giles, & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Miscommunication and problematic talk (pp. 121–145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Genç, B. (2007). An analysis of communication strategies employed by Turkishspeakers of English. Unpublished PhD, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey. Gilabert, R. (2004). Task complexity and L2 narrative oral production. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain. Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215–240. Giles, H., & Wiemann, J. M. (1987). Language, social comparison and power. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 350–384). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

25

Gumperz, J. J. (1976). Language, communication, and public negotiation. In P. R. Sanday (Ed.), Anthropology and the public interest: Field work and theory (pp. 273–192). New York: Academic Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1977). Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In M. Saville-Troike (Ed.), Linguistics and anthropology (pp. 191–211). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualisation and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 229–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. J., & Tannen, D. (1979). Individual and social differences in language use. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S. Wang (Eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. New York: Academic Press. Hinnenkamp, V. (1999). The notion of misunderstanding in intercultural communication. In Proceedings of the 5th Nordic Symposium on Intercultural Communication, edited by J. Allwood. Gothenburg. Jackson, J. (2002). Reticence in second language case discussions: Anxiety and aspirations. System, 30 (1), 65–84. Jamshidnejad, A. (2010). Exploring oral communication strategies in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context. Unpublished PhD thesis, Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, UK. Karnnawakul, P. (2004). Summary of research report: Foreign language teaching in the southern part of Thailand. Manusya Journal of Humanities, 7, 80–81. Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 200–215. Kaur, J. (2011). Intercultural communication in English as a lingua franca: Some sources of misunderstanding. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(1), 93–116. Khan, S. (2010). Strategies and spoken production on three oral communication tasks: A study of high and low proficiency EFL learners. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Spain. Khan, S., & Pinyana, A. (2004). Investigating independent language learning in classroom-based EFL learners. Document de Recerca. Universitat de Vic. Kimsuvan, A. (2004). Summary of research report: Foreign language teaching in the northern part of Thailand. Manusya Journal of Humanities, 7, 78–79.

26

A. Jamshidnejad

Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning theory bibliography. Experience based learning systems, Inc. Cleveland, OH. Retrieved from www.lea rningfromexperience. Kongsom, T. (2009). The effects of teaching communication strategies to Thai learners of English. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, School of Education, University of Southampton, England. Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc. Kreuz, R. J., & Roberts, R. M. (1993). The empirical study of figurative language in literature. Poetics, 22, 151–169. Lafford, B. A. (2004). The effect of the context of learning on the use of communication strategies by learners of Spanish as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (2), 201–225. Levelt, W., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. (2000). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Language production: A blueprint for the speaker. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Neurocognition of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Linell, P. (1995). Troubles with mutualities: Towards a dialogical theory of misunderstanding and miscommunication. In I. Marková, C. F. Graumann & K. Foppa (Eds.), Mutualities in dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40, 243–249. Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 71–86. Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language development (pp. 77–99). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. Lumley, T., & O’Sullivan, B. (2006). The impact of test taker characteristics on speaking test task performance. Language Testing, 22(4), 415–437. Lunenburg, C. F. (2010). Communication: The process, barriers, and improving effectiveness. Schooling, 1(1), 2. Retrieved from https://www. academia.edu/4402115/Communication_Strategies_Used_by_Young_Lear ners_in_a_Bilingual_Classroom.

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

27

Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mariani, L. (2010). Communication strategies: Learning and teaching how to manage oral interaction. Milan: Learning Paths – Tante Vie Per Imparare. Mauranen, A. (2006). A rich domain of ELF: The ELFA corpus of academic discourse. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5 (2), 145–159. Milroy, L. (1984). Comprehension and context: Successful communication and communicative breakdown. In P. Trudgill (Ed.), Applied socio-linguistics (pp. 7–31). London: Academic Press. Minghe, G., & Yuan, W. (2013). Affective factors in oral English teaching and learning. Higher Education of Social Science, 5 (3), 57–61. Retrieved from http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/hess/article/view/j.hess. Nakatani, Y. (2006). Developing an oral communication strategy inventory. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (2), 151–168. Olshtain, E. (1983). Sociocultural competence and language transfer: The case of apology. In S. M. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 232–249). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18–35). New York: Newbury House. O’Malley, J. M., Chamot, A. U., Stewner-Manzanares, G., Kupper, L., & Russo, R. P. (1985). Learning strategies used by beginning and intermediate ESL students. Language Learning, 35 (1), 21–46. O’Sullivan, B. (2000). Exploring gender and oral proficiency interview performance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruijter. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House / Harper and Row. Paakki, H. (2013). Difficulties in speaking English and perceptions of accents: A comparative study of Finnish and Japanese adult learners of English. Unpublished Master Dissertation, University of Eastern Finland, Finland. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1988). Variations in classroom interaction as a function of participation pattern and task. In J. Fine (Ed.), Second language discourse: A textbook of current research (pp. 41–55). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Pickering, L. (2006). Current research on intelligibility in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26, 219–233. Pinter, A. (2006). Teaching young language learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pitzl, M. L. (2005). Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a business context. Vienna English Working Papers, 14 (2), 50–71.

28

A. Jamshidnejad

Pitzl, M. L. (2010). English as a lingua franca in international business: Resolving miscommunication and reaching shared understanding. Saarbrücken: VDMVerlag Müller. Poulisse, N. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283–321. Purpura, J. E. (1999). Learner strategy use and performance and language tests: A structural equation modeling approach. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate and Cambridge University Press. Rampton, B. (1997). A sociolinguistic perspective on L2 communication strategies. In G. Kasper, & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 279–303). London: Longman. Richards, J. (2008). Teaching Listening and speaking: From theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J., & Renandya, W. (2002). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Riggenbach, H., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). Promoting oral communication skills. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed., pp. 125–136). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. Robinson, P. (1995). Task complexity and second language narrative discourse. Language Learning, 45, 99–140. Rosengren, K. E. (2000). Communication: An introduction. London: Sage. Rubio, F. (2007). Self esteem and foreign language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Sadiq, A. A. (2010). ESP students’ views of ESL grammar learning. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 10 (3), 143–156. Retrieved 7 July 2012 from http://pkukmweb.ukm.my. Sato, K. (2003). Improving our students speaking skills: Using selective error correction and group work to reduce anxiety and encourage real communication. Japan: Akita Prefectural. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1295–1345. Senel, M. (2012). Oral communication anxiety and problems of Turkish EFL learners at Samsun Mayis University, ELT Department. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3(1), 49–58.

1 Introduction: Challenges of L2 Oral …

29

Smit, U. (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education. Berlin: De Gruyter. Somsai, S., & Intaraprasert, C. (2011). Strategies for coping with face-toface oral communication problems employed by thai university students majoring in english. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 83–95. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Swain, M., Huang, L.-S., Barkaoui, K., Brooks, L., & Lapkin, S. (2009). The speaking section of the TOEFL_ iBT _ (SSTiBT):Test-takers’ strategic behaviours. In: TOEFLiBT _ Research Series No. TOEFLiBT-10. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. Tannen, D. (1991). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Morrow. Tanveer, M. (2007). Investigation of the factors that cause language anxiety for ESL/EFL learners in learning speaking skills and the influence it casts on communication in the target language. Unpublished thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Glasgow. Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly, 15 (3), 285–295. Tarone, E., & Yule, G. (1987). Communication strategies in east-west interactions. In L. E. Smith (Ed.), Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world Englishes (pp. 49–65). New York: Prentice-Hall. Teng, H. C. (2012). A study on the teachability of EFL communication strategies. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3566–3570. Thompson, N. (2003). Communication and language: A handbook of theory and practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Thornbury, S. (2007). How to teach speaking. Harlow: Pearson Education. Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (2004). Interpersonal communication (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tuan, N. H., & Mai, T. N. (2015). Factors affecting students’ speaking performance at le thanh hien high school. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2). Retrieved from www.multidiciplinaryjournals.com. Tubbs, S. L., & Moss, S. (1994). Human communication. Singapore: McGrawHill Inc.

30

A. Jamshidnejad

Tuguis, A. (2017). Exploring students’ problem in applying full English speaking area at English study program of Khairun University. Unpublished PhD thesis, Khairun University, Indonesia. Tyler, A. (1995). The co-construction of cross-cultural miscommunication: Conflicts in perception, negotiation, and enactment of participant roles and status. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17 (2), 129–152. Verderber, K. S., & Verderber, R. F. (2003). Inter-act: Interpersonal communication concepts, skills and contexts (10th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Verma, M. H. (2013). Communication breakdown: A pragmatics problem. The Criterion: An International Journal in English, 4 (1), 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.the-criterion.com/V4/n1/Verma.pdf. Wagner, J. (1983). Dann du tagen eineeeee—weisse platte- an analysis of interlanguage communication in instructions. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 156–174). London: Longman. Watterson, M. (2008). Repair of non-understanding in English in international communication. World Englishes, 27 (3–4), 378–406. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interaction patterns, pathologies and paradoxes. New York: W.W. Norton. Weigand, E. (1999). Misunderstanding: The standard case. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 763–785. Weizman, E. (1999). Building true understanding via apparent miscommunication: A case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 837–846. Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1997). Studying language use as collaboration. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 238–274). London: Longman. Wood, J. T. (2004). Communication theories in action: An introduction (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Ya-ni, Z. (2007). Communication strategies and foreign language learning. USChina Foreign Language, 5 (4), 43–48. Yarnruksa, W. (1997). The study of the relationship between reading skill and the achievement in learning English among senior high school students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Ramkhamhaeng University, Bangkok, Thailand. Yule, G. (1997). Referential communication tasks. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Part I Approaches to the Nature of L2 Oral Communication

2 L2 Communication as a Social Action: Silence in Oral Communication Yamin Qian

1

Introduction

This chapter explores a sociological perspective on the discourse of silence in L2 oral communication. Silence in this study refers to the absence of relevant talk in a classroom context (Jaworski & Sachdev, 1998). While teacher silence is regarded an effective teaching pedagogy, discussion on student silence has revealed more controversies (Collins, 2018; Ha & Li, 2014; Harumi, 2011; Jaworski & Sachdev, 1998; King, 2013; Kurzon, 1998; Mills, 2006; Zhou, Knoke, & Sakatomo, 2005). Generally, current discussion has identified four major categories of student silence such as (a) a deficiency, (b) a means of participation, (c) a resistance tool, and (d) one cultural pattern of learning in a language classroom context. The traditional view on silence, however, does show some common linguistic issues in L2 classes. The most common findings are that students are quieter as a result of their limited English language proficiency and lower interactional competence. These findings Y. Qian (B) Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_2

33

34

Y. Qian

are important as it has undoubtedly provided valuable insights on the reasons for student silence. Still, with student silence being traditionally regarded a problem in language classes, it reflects a dominant discourse on L2 communication in class contexts: verbally active language learners are always more ideal. On the other hand, another group of studies suggest that student silence should be interpreted as a form of meaningful and productive participation, in that it also shows students’ comprehensive understanding of and their active interaction with class contexts (AlHalawachy, 2014; Coombs, Park, & Fecho, 2014; Ha & Li, 2014; O’Connor, Michaels, Chapin, & Harbaugh, 2017; Yates & Nguten, 2012). Those studies have found that students use silence to resist class discourse, to learn better, and to solidify their cultural identities, it remains less discussed regarding how students’ interaction with class contexts affects their verbal participation in a language class. Specifically, more studies are needed to look at silence as a consequence of students’ interaction with the class context from a sociological perspective. Among the limited studies, student silence is found as a consequence of students’ individualistic interaction with classroom contexts (Ibrahim, Abdullah, Kasim, & Galea, 2017; Jaworski, & Sachdev, 1998; O’Connor et al., 2017; Tatar, 2005; Yates & Nguyen, 2012; Zhou et al., 2005). While those studies mainly focused on class contexts in high education (Ibrahim et al., 2017; O’Connor et al., 2017; Tatar, 2005; Yates & Nguyen, 2012; Zhou et al., 2005), fewer look at high school classes, in particular EFL high school classes. Therefore, there is still a need for more studies in EFL high school classroom contexts from a sociological perspective. In this regard, learners’ verbal and/or non-verbal participation in L2 classes is, in essence, the learners’ responses to their social contexts. Although studies on university classrooms have revealed important findings, it remains unclear how EFL high school students, with different social relations and class contexts, look at their silence in EFL classrooms. For this purpose, this study explores underlying reasons for silence in EFL contexts by two high school students’ classroom participation experiences. Through interviews and observations of classroom session, the study investigates the following questions: (1) How do the two EFL high school students

2 L2 Communication as a Social Action …

35

perceive their silence in English classes? (2) What causes the two EFL high school students’ silence in English classes? The result of this study is to hope to fill the gap in the existing literature and to contribute to the growing body of research on students’ silence in L2 oral communication.

2

Linguistic Competence in the Social Context of a Language Classroom

Bourdieu (1977) proposed a sociological perspective on linguistic competence. He suggested that linguistic competence is intimately connected to speakers’/listeners’ positions in a social structure, and to relationships of symbolic power in a field. Specifically, linguistic competence, according to Bourdieu (1977), is about “the capacity to produce sentences judiciously and appropriately” (p. 646), is “a praxis,” and is “to be spoken appropriately” (p. 646). More importantly, he suggested that language is “…not only an instrument of communication or even knowledge, but also an instrument of power. A person speaks not only to be understood but also to be believed, obeyed, respected, distinguished” (p. 648). He pointed out that language competence should involve the notion of power, as power shapes people’s communication. It is about people “‘on speaking terms’, that those who speak regard those who listen as worthy to listen and those who listen regard those who speak as worthy to speak” (p. 648). Bourdieu’s proposal of linguistic competence is important for studies in language classrooms because it points out the fact that words are “never used in isolation, but arise in contexts which need to be seen as dynamic social spaces where issues of power are always at stake” (Grenfell, 2011, p. 2). A language classroom is a social context full of social relations, and is also a site of power struggles manifested through talking and listening. Students’ interactions with classroom contexts are also a negotiation between students in regards to the legitimacy to talk, i.e., who should speak and who should listen. In particular, students’ voice and/or silence in essence reveal the power struggle of “speaking terms.”

36

3

Y. Qian

Student Silence in Classes

Studies have agreed that silence is complicated, and should not be merely regarded as the opposite of voice (Jaworski & Sachdev, 1998; Ollin, 2008). Instead, student silence needs to be carefully listened to and understood (Schultz, 2010). Chinese scholars working on student silence in Chinese K-16 educational contexts have also argued that classroom silence is not merely “a problem,” but also worthy of more investigation (Hu, 2018; Liu, 2012; Zheng, 2011), and it can be of many types (Ollin, 2008). Generally speaking, current studies have identified four types of student silence such as (a) deficiency, (b) a means of participation, (c) a resistance, and (d) one cultural pattern of learning. First, student silence could be a problem in language classes due to learners’ limited English language proficiency (Al-Halawachy, 2014; Harumi, 2011; Hu & Fell-Eisenkraft, 2003; Tatar, 2005). Students usually feel that they need more time to digest class content (Harumi, 2011), they are afraid of making mistakes (Hu & Fell-Eisenkraft, 2003), and they lack confidence to speak in classes (Hu & Fell-Eisenkraft, 2003; Tatar, 2005). The second group of studies found that silence is also a means of participation, in that it is the learners’ conscious choice (Berman, 1998; Collins, 2018; King, 2013; Qian, 2015a, 2015b; Saylag, 2014; Sharma, 2015; Tatar, 2005). Specifically, students purposefully use silence as one type of participation pattern. Students believe they listen more attentively while remaining silent. Also, as Tatar (2005) and Qian (2015b) pointed out in their studies, even when learners do not participate verbally, they may participate physically. For example, learners follow instructions, copy sentences and articles, and write reports during their group activities. Although these students do not talk, they still participate in class learning. The third group of studies looked at student silence as an outcome of cultural influences at both macro- and micro- culture of learning (Ibrahim et al., 2017; O’Connor et al., 2017; Tatar, 2005; Yates & Nguyen, 2012; Zhou et al., 2005). In particular, macro-cultural of learning this can be representative of a racial/ethnic culture of learning

2 L2 Communication as a Social Action …

37

(Ibrahim et al., 2017; Tatar, 2005; Yates & Nguyen, 2012), and microculture of learning focuses on a classroom culture of learning (O’Connor et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2005). Students remain silent in classes largely due to their previous learning experiences in class contexts which have distinct cultural value on silence. For example, students from Asian cultures are more likely to remain silent because it is regarded by their learning culture a tradition in general. Students remain silent to show respect to their teachers, and to their peer contributor. While macroculture of learning affects students’ participation choices, micro-culture of learning found that the class culture of learning is relevant. Specifically, students in a classroom with a culture of active participation are more likely to participate verbally (O’Connor et al., 2017). As Zhou et al. (2005) rightly pointed out, sometimes students remain silent because the class does not have a culture that is inclusive of all voices, to an extent that some students regard silence as a better choice. The last group of studies looked at silence from a critical perspective. While the first three groups of studies looked at silence as a problem, as an individual strategy, and as a culturally relevant response, this group found that silence is employed by minority students as a resistance strategy in response to class contexts. Silence, in essence, is marginalized students’ response to immediate educational contexts. For example, Asian students are more likely to remain silent when they experienced certain issues in class such as invisibility (Coombs et al., 2014), school knowledge that prefers mainstream values (Ha & Li, 2014). Students used silence to challenge their invisibility in curriculum content, and misinterpretation of their home country culture. In this regard, silence is not merely affected by Asian cultures of learning. Rather, it is a form of resistance. In fact, silence is also used by students from various cultural and racial backgrounds when they may have to confront potential conflicts (Schultz, 2010), and social class dominance (Jaworski & Sachdev, 1998). As Schultz (2010) pointed out in her study, disadvantaged students use silence as an effective tool against racial discrimination. For example, the students use it to avoid critique from advantaged students, to secure secrets from teachers, or to hide their academic engagement.

38

Y. Qian

Current studies have looked at silence in L2 classes from various perspectives. In communication activities, silence is understood as a linguistic deficiency, as a learning approach, as a culturally relevant strategy, and also as a resistance to misinterpretation and even discrimination. These findings have undoubtedly revealed the complicated nature of silence in language classes and have also challenged a long-time traditional discourse of language classes: Silence is the opposite of voice in the process of learning. The aforementioned studies have been conducted in either an ESL context, in which Asian students are in the same class with native speakers of English. In such a class, students from a certain cultural and ethnic background may employ silence as a strategy. However, it is also important to point out that we cannot simply regard students’ silence as an outcome of the macro-culture, when all students in a class are from the same macro-culture (i.e., Asian Culture). It is obviously more complicated. Therefore, it needs a sociological perspective to understand how micro-classroom context affects students’ verbal participation (i.e., silence) in L2 classes.

4

Methodology

This study takes a sociological perspective on the nature of L2 oral communication in class context, in which students’ verbal participation is largely shaped by their interactions with the context. Therefore, it needs a research method that can more effectively investigate students’ immediate interactions with such contexts. In this regard, qualitative case study is an ideal method in that it explores people’s response to their immediate context without interventions in a natural setting (Yin, 1994).

4.1

Context and Participants

This paper reports on two cases of students’ participation in English language classes. These cases were conducted at two schools and at different times: case one, Bill, in October of 2017 at School A, and case two, Harry, in October of 2018 at School B. Both schools were

2 L2 Communication as a Social Action …

39

at first-tier cities in southern China, about 150 kilometers away from each other. For understandable reasons, pseudonyms were used for the two participants in order to protect their privacy. Although more details will be introduced in the Findings section, some general information about the two participants is necessary here. Bill was in Grade 7 and Harry in Grade 11; both were in newly formed classes, in which students were still getting familiar with each other. Bill’s school was a mediocre school that had few graduates admitted to top high schools; Harry’s school was an elite high school, where most graduates were admitted to top universities both in and out of China. Bill’s English was obviously lagging, as his teacher, his peers, and he himself agreed; Harry had been always a top student. Bill was taking an additional after-school English tutoring program at the time of our research, i.e., Grade 7. Harry took such programs when he was in Grade 4; one year later, Harry became a top student in English, so he stopped participating in such programs. Bill and Harry were both socially popular, and were regarded as funny and interesting by their peers; both were very friendly to their peers and teachers.

4.2

Data Collection and Data Analysis

Bill and Harry were chosen from a broader study on student silence for this report because they both remained obviously silent in their classes. As a first step, the data on Bill and Harry were selected from the broader study. These included interviews (with them, other students, teachers, and parents), non-participatory observations, and field notes. Thematic analysis was used for data analysis. First, the data involving the participants’ silence were read many times, until emergent categories were identified; then the emergent categories were reduced to a few themes. After the themes were defined, those themes were used to recode the data in order to achieve consistency, during which the definitions were refined and altered.

40

5

Y. Qian

Findings

This qualitative case study examines student silence in L2 oral communication from a sociological perspective in EFL contexts. In order to better understand the reasons for their silence, it is important to understand the connection between the two participants and their immediate contexts. Therefore, the findings will be reported through the story of the two participants, Bill and Harry, in their classes.

5.1

Bill: A Student Not Worthy of Being Talked To

Bill was from a less academically prestigious school in a metropolitan city of southern China. His class ranked 13 out of 15 classes. This school followed a new national English curriculum standard which required more group activities. Therefore, teachers in the focal class divided the whole class into eight groups. Each group had seven students, while one student was appointed as a group leader. An English class in this province usually has both whole-class and group work section. Teachers teach in the whole-class section, and students later practice with their peers in group work sections. In group work sections, one of the group leaders’ responsibilities is usually to make sure their group finish tasks in time. The group which finishes the task in time and with a correct answer is usually awarded one point by the teacher; the group with the most points at the end of the class wins the group competition. Bill’s English language proficiency was comparatively lower than his peers, to the extent that he could not understand his teacher. He mostly remained silent in the whole-class learning section. In group activities, he made some attempts to participate verbally, yet few attempts seemed successful. Hoping to catch up, he was taking an after-class English program outside of the school, paid by his parents. As he explained, his English was so lagging that he needed to spend more time on this subject. The observation data showed that he appeared disengaged during class teaching and learning, and he had frequent side conversations with his best friend, Paul, who sat right next to him. They constantly exchanged

2 L2 Communication as a Social Action …

41

short conversations, making their group leader, Tim, feel obligated to stop them. The reason Tim felt obligated to stop Bill and Paul was due to his responsibility assigned by the teacher. The consequence of his failure to fulfill such responsibility was also immediate: If his group members constantly broke class rules, this group would lose points. Bill’s constant rule-breaking convinced Tim that Bill did not intend to learn English. As Tim explained in an interview, “Sometimes he [Bill] listens attentively. He is very smart. If he listens, he understands. But he talks too much, and cannot stop himself.” It seems that the competitive nature of group activities and the disciplinary role that a group leader was assigned to position Bill as a less desired group member. In particular, the competition between groups positioned Bill, who could hardly complete group work efficiently, as a “problem” who always lagged behind. What’s more, Tom as the group leader had to constantly stop Bill from breaking rules, for the benefit of the whole group. The failure to stop Bill created more tension between Bill and his group members. In other words, Bill’s constant side conversations with Paul positioned Bill (but, interestingly, not Paul) as a rule-breaker in the class and the group. His low competence in English language also positioned him as a low performer in the group, as shown in the following extract. Extract 1 In the whole-class teaching section, the teacher asked students to read aloud. Bill pretended to read along with the class. Later, the class was asked to write a test. Bill did not know where to start. He stared at the test paper and wrote nothing. Later the teacher asked group leaders to collect the papers. Bill did not want to submit his paper, but Paul grabbed it. When the teacher returned the papers, the group members found one empty paper. One group member said, “It must be Bill’s.” Others agreed, and Bill did not say anything.

Similar situations happened more than once. On another occasion, when the group found a test paper with too many mistakes, the group unanimously agreed that it must be Bill’s, but it was actually not. Bill protested, yet nobody believed him. Those incidents convinced

42

Y. Qian

the group that Bill was not a competent member due to both his rule-breaking behaviors and his lower English language competence. Meanwhile, the teacher’s instruction in the whole-class section seemed to reinforce the impression that Bill was the weakest member in the group, as shown in Extract 2. Extract 2 In one group activity, the group finished an exercise, and the teacher decided to choose students with lower English proficiency to answer her questions. Not surprisingly, Bill was selected, and he did not give any answers. Paul then told Bill, “You follow me. Repeat what I say.” Bill repeated after Paul, and laughed. Other group members were upset and said, “Don’t laugh.”

Member competence is particularly important for groups if they want to win more points during group activities, and having Bill as a group member might mean more challenges to winning competitions against other groups. While limited English language proficiency has been found to be an important factor in student silence (King, 2013; Harumi, 2011), this study found that limited English language proficiency had two roles. On the one hand, limited English language proficiency affected Bill’s participation. As Harumi (2011) pointed out, EFL learners sometimes need more time to digest information. However, the observation data showed that the teacher usually assigned group activities with limited time, which made verbal practice more challenging for students like Bill, as shown in Extract 3. Extract 3 This activity was designed as a peer conversation, yet the teacher gave just two minutes for the students to finish 13 exercises. Therefore, instead of verbal practice, the group decided to just write down the correct answers. Tim: Hurry up… [Then he started to read aloud the answers to the group members.] … Bill: What does “ring” mean? …

2 L2 Communication as a Social Action …

43

Tim: You copied [this word] yesterday. Another group member: It was four times. Tim: Yes, you copied this word four times. Why can you not remember?

On the other hand, limited English proficiency positioned Bill as a less competent member in his group, which further disenabled him from more verbal participation in group activities. As Jaworski and Sachdev (1998) pointed out, silence usually shows the ambiguity of interpersonal relations and participation structures in interaction. The fact that Bill was a less competent group member should not have prevented him from more participation opportunities. The observation data showed that he was either ignored by his peers when he had a question, or found no peers to practice English conversations, as shown in the Extract 4 and 5: Extract 4 After a group activity on English verb tenses, one group member (Tony in this report) looked at Bill and asked, “How much have you done?” After he read Bill’s answer, he told the group, “He [Bill] does not even know ‘have’, ‘has’.” Bill: I have not seen these. Tony: You’ve learned English for six to seven years, and you don’t even know ‘have’, ‘has’? Tony: (to the whole group): He does not even know ‘have’, ‘has’. Bill wrote “haves” on his test. Tony saw it and laughed, “How can you make a mistake like this?” Extract 5 In a group activity, the teacher asked group members to practice a peer conversation. In pairs, one student was supposed to ask a few questions such as, “What’s the weather like? Which season do you like best? What do you usually do? What do people usually do?”, and another student was to answer the questions. Bill hesitantly): What is the weather like…? Paul (in Mandarin): What? Bill covered his mouth and did not say a word afterwards.

44

Y. Qian

The observation data showed that Bill made several attempts to participate verbally in group activities, yet few or none of these attempts were successful. He was either laughed at or ignored by his peers. Obviously, his silence was mostly involuntary: Bill had few, or almost no, opportunities for verbal participation in group discussion due to his limited English language proficiency and also his peers’ reluctance to communicate with him. As a “left-behind” student, he was positioned as a less ideal, if not the worst, partner for verbal communications. In other words, English language competence shaped Bill’s relations with his peers, and also his position in participation structures. Specifically, Bill’s limited English language competence posited him as someone who was not worthy of being listened to and being talked to. However, it is also important to point out that English language competence and verbal participation opportunities do not have a simple cause-and-effect link. In other words, it was not simply Bill’s lower English language proficiency that caused his lack of participation opportunities, nor were his English language skills lower than most of his peers’ simply because he had fewer verbal participation opportunities. These two factors were interconnected and interwoven.

5.2

Harry: Verbal Participation Was for Exceptional Answers

Harry’s school was located in another metropolitan city about 140 kilometers away from Bill’s city and had a long-standing reputation for academically outstanding students. This senior high school offered courses for full-time students from Grades 10 to 12; each grade had 16 classes. In Grade 11, the school usually selected the most exceptional students to form four top classes. Harry studied in one of these four top classes in Grade 11. His class had more top students than the other three classes, which means his class ranked the first out of the 16 classes; yet interestingly the students in this class were quieter. Harry had been a top student since junior high school. In the focal class (Grade 11), Harry’s academic ranking was among the top 10, yet

2 L2 Communication as a Social Action …

45

he felt his ranking had dropped because this class had more top students compared to Grade 9. The interview data showed two main reasons for Harry’s silence in English classes: (1) fear of mistakes, and (2) fear of being average. The first reason seemed to stem from something more than learners’ linguistic competence. Fear of mistakes has been also found as a major reason for students’ silence in L2 classroom (Harumi, 2011; Hu & Fell-Eisenkraft, 2003). The findings of this study attempted to point out that such fear is not merely due to linguistic incompetence. Rather, it can also arise because of the sociocultural nature of an L2 classroom. Harry explained this in the following extract: Extract 6 Harry: It is very horrible. It is really awkward to make mistakes. The whole class sees you making mistakes, right? Researcher (R): So you are concerned about your classmates’ thoughts. Harry: Of course. Then they will think I am really weak, although I am really weak.

Harry chose silence in order to avoid making mistakes which can be regarded as a face-saving strategy (Tatar, 2005). However, this does not indicate that he was not learning. As Al-Halawachy (2014) pointed out, students may choose silence in order to listen better. Harry also used silence as an active approach to learning, as shown in Extract 7: Harry: You don’t talk. Just remember the answer and wait for the teachers to give the correct answers. Then you will have your aha moment. Research: Do you feel you will make more progress if you speak out? Harry: I don’t think so.

The second reason for Harry’s silence is worthy of more attention: fear of being average. This finding supports current studies that silence is a conscious choice, and is also a means of participation (Berman, 1998; Collins, 2018; Saylag, 2014; Sharma, 2015; Tatar, 2005). Details of this were revealed in Extract 8:

46

Y. Qian

Extract 8 Harry: I am afraid that my answers are not exceptional enough. …I just feel that my answers should be exceptional if I choose to answer the question. Researcher (R): Do you still feel not exceptional enough after you have heard others’ answers? Harry: Yes. I just feel they are all so incredible. R: Have you ever heard any answers that are not so exceptional? Harry: In my impression, all their answers are exceptionally good. Like my desk mate, he is so good. R: So do you think it is not right for you to answer a question if you just have an ordinary answer? Harry: Yes.

Fear of giving an unexceptional answer, on the one hand, reflects learners’ lack of confidence, as has also been found by other studies (Harumi, 2011; Hu & Fell-Eisenkraft, 2003). However, in Harry’s case, lack of confidence might not fully explain this matter. This was shown by the fact that Harry’s grades were in the top 10 and was also revealed in the interviews with his English teacher. On the other hand, his silence could be also explained through a Bourdieuian perspective: verbal participation may imply an issue of legitimacy to talk in class. In other words, only those who have exceptionally good answers may legitimately speak. Such a perception, the legitimacy of talking, was based on Harry’s past learning experiences. In Grade 10, he used to be verbally active in class. He competed with two other students to answer the teachers’ questions. “[We] used to compete in answering questions. See whose answer is better.” Harry explained his perception of an “exceptional answer.” It was “good points or good expressions. If there is no highlight, it feels boring.” This further showed that linguistic competence is social and relational: answers to a question should not only be right, but also be “appropriate,” in this case, having something to “highlight.” Harry’s case shows another perspective on verbal participation in L2 classrooms: only those who have “exceptional/better answers” may legitimately talk. Student silence in a class of top academic performers can be the manifestation of their perceived linguistic competence in a language

2 L2 Communication as a Social Action …

47

class. In other words, verbal participation should be legitimate and this is limited to “exceptional students with exceptional answers.”

6

Discussion

This study illustrates two EFL students’ silence in language classrooms and explores a sociological perspective on the discourse of silence in L2 oral communication. The findings suggest that, although the two students both tended to keep silent in their English classes, the reasons for their silence varied. Bill’s silence, on the one hand, was a result of his limited English proficiency. On the other hand, it was also a result of his positioning in competitive group activities. Limited English language proficiency positioned him as a less ideal group member in verbal participation. Harry’s silence seemed to be a case of a different nature. His silence was voluntary; it represented his own positioning of himself and of his answers in relation to other students’ answers in this class. Bill could not verbally participate in both the class and group activities because his English was not advanced enough; Harry chose not to participate verbally because he regarded his answers as not exceptional enough. It seems that silence in these cases was about students’ knowledge of the subject, about their lack of confidence, and about their linguistic competence, as discussed by many studies. From a Bourdieuian perspective, however, the two participants’ silence reveals the social nature of verbal participation in an educational context: who may legitimately talk and what is legitimate to say. Bill could not legitimately talk because of his limited English language proficiency; Harry regarded himself as not legitimate to talk when he could not provide exceptional answers. This further reveals the social nature of linguistic competence in an L2 classroom: linguistic competence is relational and social; so is verbal participation. Those who talk are perceived as the right ones to talk and also are regarded by their peers as the right ones to talk. Therefore, classroom silence can be a consequence of perceived legitimacy of “who and what”: who should be the right ones with what answers. Thus, teachers’ pedagogical decisions should take the sociological nature of

48

Y. Qian

language classes and linguistic competence into consideration. Undoubtedly, verbal participation is very important for language teaching and learning, yet, to EFL students, to talk or not to talk is more than a matter of manifestation of language abilities. This study has its limitations. As the study only focused on two participants in EFL high school contexts, the findings may not be readily generalizable. However, this small-scale qualitative case study also allows us to develop an in-depth understanding of students’ silence in L2 classroom contexts. Future study should further investigate both teachers’ and students’ perceptions of legitimate verbal participation, in particular, who may talk and what they may say, in an L2 classroom. Further study should also explore pedagogical and linguistic connections to the social nature of the L2 classroom, and how such connections shape learners’ interpersonal and interactive relations. Although this chapter points out that silence is not necessarily the opposite of voice, it is still a major challenge to EFL practitioners. Thus, pedagogical recommendations are important for an interactive L2 class. The teachers in both cases explored strategies to encourage the students to be more active in verbal participation. Due to the focus of this report, those strategies are not fully discussed. Nevertheless, it can be said that the students in both classes (i.e., Bill’s class and Harry’s class) were more active in creative activities designed by their teachers, not those taken from curriculum textbooks.

References Al-Halawachy, H. (2014). EFL learner’s silence at university level: Where to? Journal of Education and Practice, 5 (12), 90–119. Berman, L. (1998). Speaking through the silence: Narratives, social conventions, and power in Java. New York: Oxford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchange. Social Science Information, 16 (6), 645–668. Collins, R. B. (2018). Transcending the Lull: Silence as opportunity in the ELA Classroom. English Journal, 108(1), 88–91.

2 L2 Communication as a Social Action …

49

Coombs, D., Park, H., & Fecho, B. (2014). A silence that wants to be heard: Suburban Korean American students in dialogue with invisibility. Race Ethnicity and Education, 17 (2), 242–263. Grenfell, M. (2011). Bourdieu, language and linguistics. London: Continuum. Ha, P. L., & Li, B. (2014). Silence as right, choice, resistance and strategy among Chinese ‘me generation’ students: Implications for pedagogy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35 (2)‚ 1–16. Harumi, S. (2011). Classroom silence: Voices from Japanese EFL learners. ELT Journal, 65 (3), 260–269. Hu, C. (2018). The real and false silence in English classroom. Journal of Teaching and Management, 1, 89–91. Hu, Y., & Fell-Eisenkraft, S. (2003). Immigrant Chinese students’ use of silence in the language arts classroom: Perceptions, reflections, and actions. Teaching & Learning, 17 (2), 55–65. Ibrahim, B., Abdullah, A. N., Kasim, Z. M., & Galea, S. R. (2017). Learning through talk and learning through silence: In search of stance between theory and practice. International Journal of Education, Psychology and Counselling, 2(5), 249–256. Jaworski, A., & Sachdev, I. (1998). Beliefs about silence in the classroom. Language and Education, 12(4), 273–292. King, J. (2013). Silence in the second language classroom. Palgrave Macmillan. Kurzon, D. (1998). Discourse of silence. John Benjamins. Liu, Y. (2012). Educational philosophical reflection on students’ silence. Journal of Teaching and Management, 3, 30–31. Mills, J. (2006). Talking about silence: Gender and the construction of multilingual identities. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10 (1), 1–16. O’Connor, C., Michaels, S., Chapin, S., & Harbaugh, A. G. (2017). The silent and the vocal: Participation and learning in whole-class discussion. Learning and Instruction, 48, 5–13. Ollin, R. (2008). Silent pedagogy and rethinking classroom practice: Structuring teaching through silence rather than talk. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(2), 265–280. Qian, Y. (2015a). Social space, power and language identities. Scholar Press. Qian, Y. (2015b). Between classes and schools: Time, space and languages. In. W. Ma & G. Li. (Eds.), Chinese-Heritage students in North American schools: Understanding hearts and minds beyond test scores (pp. 103–119). New York: Routledge.

50

Y. Qian

Saylag, R. (2014). An exploration on the silence in the classroom within a diagnostic perspective: Whose silence is this? Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 21(114), 527–532. Schultz, K. (2010). After the blackbird whistles: Listening to silence in classrooms. Teachers College Record, 112(11), 2833–2849. Sharma, B. K. (2015). Interactional concerns in implementing group tasks: Addressing silence, dominance, and off-Task talk in an academic writing class. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 9 (3), 233–250. Tatar, S. (2005). Why keep silent? The classroom participation experiences of non-native-English-speaking students. Language and Intercultural Communication, 5 (3–4), 284–293. Yates, L., & Nguyen, T. Q. T. (2012). Beyond a discourse of deficit: The meaning of silence in the international classroom. International Education Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 11(1), 22–34. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Zheng, J. (2011). On students’ classroom silence. Education Exploration, 11, 24–25. Zhou, Y. R., Knoke, D., & Sakamoto, I. (2005). Rethinking silence in the classroom: Chinese students’ experiences of sharing indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9 (3), 287–311.

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication: Spoken Grammar in Native and EFL Speakers Yen-Liang Lin

1

Introduction

Oral communication usually takes place in a shared context, being coconstructed by the interlocutors and involving dynamic and unplanned turn-takings. The pragmatic nature of oral communication therefore produces some lexical and grammatical features that are unique and ubiquitous in spoken discourse, such as vague expressions or headers and tails, which may function in the organization and management of oral communication and in the speaker-listener relationship, particularly in terms of maintaining good relations (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, 2017). Unlike written discourse, oral communication is typically spontaneous, unplanned, and produced in real time with no opportunity for editing (Cullen & Kuo, 2007; Hilliard, 2014). Applied linguists have examined the grammar of spoken and written language and all agree Y.-L. Lin (B) Department of English, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_3

51

52

Y.-L. Lin

that, despite this difference, speaking and writing share the same basic underlying grammatical system (e.g., Aijmer, 2020; Carter & McCarthy, 2006, 2017; Friginal, Lee, Polat, & Roberson, 2017; O’Keeffe, Clancy, & Adolphs, 2011; Thornbury & Slade, 2006; Walsh & Knight, 2016). However, the system is adapted in a variety of dynamic and often resourceful ways to meet the specific situations in which each medium is applied. Although some grammatical features are ubiquitous in oral communication, they typically stand outside of the conventional clause structure and are sometimes considered as grammatically incorrect forms of “standard English.” However, these features may further serve as important communicative and interpersonal functions, enabling speakers to project interactive understanding in face-to-face communication, such as politeness, shared knowledge, turn-taking, and emotional engagement (Carter & McCarthy, 2017; Strauss, Feiz, & Xiang, 2018). The issues this chapter addresses are the pragmatic nature of spoken grammar that serves to create and maintain good interpersonal relationships between the speaker and listener. This study employs a discourse analytical approach to examine spoken grammar that is generally not adequately treated in conventional written grammar. These grammatical features are common in naturally occurring conversation but often neglected in English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom teaching. Given this disparity in learned and authentic grammar, EFL learners, despite spending years developing linguistic competences, may not be able to participate effectively in second language (L2) face-toface communication. Consequently, L2 learners are often heard as, at best, rather formal, and at worst, pedantic and bookish if they apply the written interaction model in actual oral communication in casual settings. By identifying features of naturally occurring oral communication, EFL learners are allowed to understand not only what they themselves do, but also what native/expert speakers actually do, rather than what textbooks say they do. For EFL learners with an intention to maintain a good relationship in face-to-face conversation, it would therefore be very helpful for them to be aware of, and learn, these important features.

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication …

2

53

Spoken Discourse and Real-Time Communication

One important feature of spoken discourse is the nature of spontaneity in real-time conversation in which speakers do not often construct over-elaborate patterns, clauses, or sentences. Due to the unplanned nature, conversations often consist of simple words or phrases, incomplete clauses or indeterminate sentence structures. For example, speakers might restart or abandon an utterance to be completed by other interlocutors, because of interruptions from other speakers or situations. Carter and McCarthy (2006, p. 168) note that in real-time speech, “utterances are linked … as if in a chain” and thereby coordinating conjunctions (i.e., and , or and but ) and simple subordinating conjunctions (i.e., so and because) are commonly used by speakers. Therefore, clause complexes need reassessment, since spoken language clauses that are traditionally restricted to a subordinate function often have the capacity to function as main clauses. Cheshire (2005), for example, presents subordinate clauses introduced by when that commonly occur alone in conversation, freestanding and not related to any main clauses, and clauses can also be co-constructed across different turns by more than one speaker due to discoursal or pragmatic constraints. In addition, word order is more flexible in speech as it is constructed in real time and follows the order of ideas emerging from a speaker, which may override grammar rules (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, 2017). Headers and tails, for example, may alter the word order of traditional written grammar, showing that spoken discourse is much more flexible than written forms (Carter, Hughes, & McCarthy, 2011; Mumford, 2009). The term headers refers to fronting adjuncts, objects and complements, and noun phrases before the pronoun (Cutting, 2011); for example, “the teacher, he is very nice.” Headers are often used to emphasize what the speaker thinks to be particularly important. Tails, on the other hand, normally occur after clauses and are sometimes referred to as “noun phrase tags.” They are commonly used to clarify or make explicit something in the main clause (Carter et al., 2011; Nava, 2005), for example, “They’re really nice, my teachers.” In this case, the noun phrase my teachers clarifies or repeats the referent of the pronoun They in

54

Y.-L. Lin

the sentence that comes before it. Similarly, the position of adverbials is another example of a spoken feature. The point made here is that the ordering of elements in spoken discourse may not conform to the norms of written language because of the constraints of spontaneity and the need for “clear acts of topicalization and suchlike to appropriately orientate the listener” in face-to-face interaction (ibid.).

3

Spoken Discourse and Interpersonal Interaction

Spoken language reflects an immediate social and interpersonal situation, and as a result, some particular grammar is used to reflect the pragmatic nature of spoken discourse in the speaker-listener relationship. Building on this idea, O’Keeffe, McCarthy, and Carter (2007) distinguished the notion of relational versus transactional language used in oral communication. Relational language refers to language that “serves to create and maintain good relations between the speaker and hearer, as opposed to transactional language, which refers to the exchange of information between speakers (i.e. the propositional content of the conversation)” (p. 159). For example, pragmatic markers and hedging or politeness devices may serve important relational functions. Some words, such as uh-huh, oh, yeah, and I see are often used to acknowledge what the speaker is saying and encourage him or her to continue. Such backchannels help to sustain the flow of interactions, further mark convergence and maintain relations across the speakers (Friginal et al., 2017; Lin, 2016; Walsh & Knight, 2016). It would be both awkward and difficult to have a spoken face-to-face interaction without these linguistic items. Hedging involves the use of certain words or phrases that “can mitigate the directness of what we say and so operate as face-saving devices” (O’Keeffe et al., 2007, p. 174). Hedging comes in a number of forms, such as modals (e.g., would, could ) and adverbs (e.g., just, kind of, a bit ). When these are used, speakers are less likely to come across as being too blunt or assertive. Situational ellipsis is a linguistic feature where certain words are omitted from a spoken phrase because they are either not necessary

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication …

55

or redundant. In these situations, a speaker does not explicitly refer to people or things that are shared in the immediate context (Carter & McCarthy, 2017). Items such as subjective pronouns or verb compliments would be redundant as they are “recoverable from the immediate context, either the linguistic context or situational one” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006, p. 83). Consequently, they are often deliberately omitted, as the following examples from Carter and McCarthy (2006, p. 181) illustrate: A: Don’t know what’s gone wrong here. B: Oh. Need any help?

In this case, speaker A’s utterance is understood as I don’t know what’s gone wrong here, with the ellipsis of the subject pronoun I ; speaker B omitted Do you prior to Need any help? Mumford (2009) states that “rather than being impolite or casual, ellipsis is actually more appropriate than full forms in certain situations” (p. 141). Although situational ellipsis does not often conform to written grammar norms, it is a pervasive and natural feature of spoken English. The features discussed above have been the focus of much recent corpus-based research into the grammar of spoken English (Carter et al., 2011; Cutting, 2011; Hilliard, 2014; Ishikawa, 2015; Lin, 2015, 2016; Timmis, 2012). For example, Ishikawa (2015) explored and identified the different unique linguistic features between Japanese learners and native English speakers. Lin (2014) employed a corpus linguistic approach to the analysis of multi-word patterns in EFL textbook dialogues and naturally occurring discourse. This recent corpus-based research has identified gaps between the two types of discourse and discuss how learners can be supported with corpus data. Drawing on this growing body of research, this article investigates the phenomenon of spoken grammar based on a newly developed corpus of intercultural conversation, the British and Taiwanese Teenage Intercultural Communication Corpus (BATTICC). While spoken language used in various contexts, particularly by native speakers or matured, advanced learners, has been extensively studied (e.g., Aijmer, 2020; Corley & Stewart, 2008; Evison, 2013; Ishikawa, 2015; Tottie, 2011), few have

56

Y.-L. Lin

focused on language used by adolescent English learners with intermediate proficiency levels who take part in intercultural exchanges. This study addresses the following research question: What are the prominent features of spoken grammar in oral communication between native and EFL adolescent learners? Specifically, this study examines (1) situational ellipsis, (2) vague expressions, (3) headers and tails, and (4) pausing used in an intercultural setting among a group of Taiwanese and British students. These features of spoken language are chosen because they present important pragmatic and interpersonal functions and are generally not adequately treated in conventional descriptive English grammar.

4

Data and Method

4.1

Corpus

Since this study aims to examine the linguistic features of spoken communication, an analysis based on naturally occurring samples of language data is necessary. The BATTICC, a newly developed specialized corpus, is therefore valuable as it represents the language use of specific people in specific contexts. The data that form the basis of BATTICC were collected from casual face-to-face conversation in an intercultural exchange project involving 32 British and Taiwanese teenage participants between 13 and 15 years of age. During the data collection process, the participants were randomly divided into eight groups, with each group containing two British and two Taiwanese students. They met face-toface and had a casual conversation in English in a hotel lounge. In the process of their conversation, the participants were not given any specific guidelines regarding what to talk about or how to structure the conversation, allowing them the freedom to create a conversational topic of common interest that sustains communication. The topics of the conversation among different groups varied, including traveling, food, hobbies, school life experiences, and cultural differences. All of the conversational meetings were audio-recorded.

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication …

57

Throughout the process of data collection, great importance was placed on the naturally occurring nature of the discourse. By emphasizing this, it was believed that the credibility of the research results would be increased. However, it is difficult to promote real, naturalistic talk in research settings and, in this case especially, speakers may feel uneasy about being recorded due to the obtrusive nature of audio recorders. This notwithstanding, it is possible to obtain natural responses from participants, especially if the recordings take place in relaxed, familiar settings (Adolphs & Carter, 2013). The fact that each recording in the current study lasts approximately 35 minutes also means speakers had the chance to become more accustomed to their surroundings and the presence of the recording equipment. This, it is hoped, promoted talk that was as natural as possible. Additionally, the first five minutes of each conversation was not analyzed. This spoken data collection resulted in approximately 240 minutes of recorded conversation, amounting to a total of 34,089 words (with 20,320 and 13,769 words in the British and Taiwanese datasets, respectively). All conversations were transcribed in accordance with standard orthographic practices1 in order to facilitate analysis using currently available corpus analytical tools. In the transcription, the speakers were numbered and speaker codes (e.g. , , etc.) used to represent speakers from the two different countries, where TW and BT refer to the Taiwanese and British participants, respectively. Extralinguistic information was also included in square brackets, such as [laughter], [coughing], and [inaudible speech]. Moreover, a sequence of two dots “..” indicates a brief break in speech rhythm, and a longer pause is marked as a sequence of three dots “…”. All repetitions of words and phrases (including self-interruptions and false starts) were also transcribed.

1 VOICE

transcription conventions [2.1]. Retrieved from http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/voice. php?page=transcription_general_information.

58

4.2

Y.-L. Lin

Data Analysis and Analytical Framework

Spoken language structures differ in fundamental ways from those of written language and require to be analyzed on their own terms. As there is no single standard framework for describing spoken grammar, the model used for the current study is mainly adapted from Carter and McCarthy’s (2006) analytical categories of spoken language. In particular, the study looks at: (1) situational ellipsis, (2) vague expressions, (3) headers and tails, and (4) pausing. The analytical categories are suitable as they highlight the differences in interpersonal/casual and academic/formal grammar, which is a main focus of this study. Situational ellipsis involves the deliberate omission of items such as subject pronouns and verb complements, which might not be necessary in utterances which contain enough information for the purpose of the conversation (Thornbury & Slade, 2006). Vague expressions fall into three types: vague categories, hedging, and vague quantifiers. Vague categories involve the use of words/phrases, such as kind of thing, and stuff (like that), and so on and things like that, which deliberately refer to categories or sets of items in an imprecise way. The second type serves to hedge the commitment of speakers to what they assert so that the utterances are softened in some way and they are slightly more indirect and less assertive. This study focuses on adverbial hedges, such as “a bit confusing,” “sort of tricky.” Vague quantifiers are used with numbers and quantities, as in “around seven,” “a couple of months ago.” Headers and tails occur outside of the sentence boundary, which may alter the word order of traditional written grammar and are highly unusual in written prose. Headers (e.g., the teacher, he is very nice) refers to fronting adjuncts, objects and complements, and noun phrases before the pronoun (Cutting, 2011). Tails (e.g., They’re really nice, my teachers) normally occur after clauses. Both headers and tails serve important purposes in conversation helping to reduce the burden on the listener involved to process language in real time (Cullen & Kuo, 2007). Pauses can be unfilled, which is simply a silence, or filled, which is identified by a vocalization such as er and erm (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, 2017). Each instance of the above-mentioned linguistic features was manually annotated by two coders and any disagreement was negotiated to reach

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication …

59

a consensus. Data were then analyzed using a frequency-driven quantitative analysis using WordSmith Tools (Scott, 2016) and the Log-likelihood (LL) Calculator (see http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/llwizard.html) developed by Paul Rayson. This analysis examines the between-group differences based on the frequencies of language features between Taiwanese and British participants. Although various statistical measures can be used to compare frequencies across datasets, the LL test is preferred in this study as it does not assume that data are normally distributed, and the use of LL ratios leads to very much improved statistical results, particularly when analyzing small volumes of text (McEnery, Xiao & Tono, 2006). In the LL test, the critical values with 1 degree of freedom are 3.83, 6.64 and 10.83 for the significance levels of 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively (McEnery et al., 2006; Rayson, 2008).

5

Findings and Discussion

5.1

Situational Ellipsis

The BATTICC consists of 71 and 98 instances of situational ellipsis in the Taiwanese and British datasets, respectively. Table 1 shows the different elements of ellipsis in the participants’ discourse. It can be noted that the Taiwanese participants generally used more situational ellipsis in oral communication than the British learners, although the difference between the two groups does not reach a significant level (LL < 3.83; p > 0.05). The ellipsis of the understood subject noun or pronoun in expressions is largely the speaker’s interpersonal choice which are sensitive to the relationship between the speaker and the listener (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, 2017). In the following excerpts, the bold italics in the sentences in parentheses illustrate this hypothetical understanding of what speakers have chosen to “omit” or have left unsaid. (1) : Do you like French then? : Er erm (it’s) pretty hard … pretty hard but … : (Is it ) Harder than English?

60

Y.-L. Lin

Table 1 Elements of ellipsis in BATTICC Element of ellipsis

Initial I (+be) Personal pron. they, he/she, you, we Interrogatives (+be) It and demonstratives (+be) Copular verb be Existential there Auxiliary verb do, does, did Preposition Final ellipsis Total ellipsis Total

Taiwanese

Sig. (LL)

British

N.

per 1000 words

N.

per 1000 words

14 10

1.02 0.73

13 14

0.64 0.69

1.44 0.02

6 18

0.44 1.31

7 33

0.34 1.62

0.18 0.56

1 10 3

0.07 0.73 0.22

4 10 4

0.20 0.49 0.20

0.95 0.75 0.02

2 7 71 36

0.15 0.51 5.16 6.401

4 9 98 53

0.20 0.44 4.82 4.701

0.13 0.07 0.18

(2) : Yeah, I have not tried… I don’t try fish and chips yet. : Okay, you should (try fish and chips). The majority of the situational ellipses involve the initial elements of the clauses or sentences. This is probably because the information at the beginning of the utterance is usually incorporated—information that is more readily recoverable from the context (Thornbury & Slade, 2006). Although the subject, verbs, or other grammatically essential elements are omitted, as Carter and McCarthy (2006) state, “in reality nothing is ‘missing’ from elliptical messages” (p. 181). Final ellipsis can also be found in the discourse, as shown in (2), where the ellipsis avoids repetition of the phrase try fish and chips by the interlocutor. Although the sentences appear not to be grammatically correct according to written norms, the listeners are still able to retrieve the meaning from the context. However, some cases of ellipsis in Taiwanese participants’ data show some ambiguity and interactional problems, and the meaning therefore is not easily retrieved, such as (3). It may not be clear when the first time TW35 asked whether BT24 is interested in nature, so the question is asked again.

61

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication …

(3) : So, er … are you interested in … something like like nature or something…er … like storms and sea and .. erm … : Are you interested or not? : In what sorry? : Are you interested in Hualien’s nature?

5.2

Vague Expressions

Vague expressions fall into three types: vague categories, adverbial hedges, and vague quantifiers. As presented in Table 2, a highly significant difference (p < 0.001) was identified in the use of overall vague expressions, as well as vague categories and adverbial hedges. Vague categories, which refer to vague use of categories of items, are common vague expressions in BATTICC. One highly important function of vague categories is to indicate assumed or shared knowledge and to mark in-group membership (Carter & McCarthy, 2006; O’Keeffe et al., 2007). In BATTICC, 177 instances of expressions indicating vague categories were found, including words and phrases such as thing, stu, like, or something, or anything, kind of and sort of , which were found in 36 and 141 instances in the Taiwanese and British datasets, respectively. Sort of is one of the most commonly used vague expressions in the British data, while no instances were found in Taiwanese learners’ discourse. The following excerpt presents how it is used in context. In Table 2 Number of vague expressions Type of Vagueness Vague categories Adverbial hedges Vague quantifiers Total ∗∗ p

< 0.001

Taiwanese

British

Sig. (LL)

N.

Per 1000 words

N.

Per 1000 words

36

2.61

141

6.94

∗∗ 32.38

4

0.29

50

2.46

∗∗ 30.47

49

3.56

92

4.53

1.90

89

6.46

283

13.93

∗∗ 44.84

62

Y.-L. Lin

(4) BT13 and BT14 are talking about gift ideas for their fathers. BT14 used the vague expression that sort of thing twice, and BT13 may well know what he/she means although no explicit reference is given. Moreover, the use of or something basically indicates an alternative category of gifts, and such usage simply “keeps options open” (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, p. 202). (4) : Right, because all of them .. all the presents I’ve made .. you know what I mean, like I made all the key rings they’re more for Mum then you know … my Dad doesn’t like that sort of thing. : Yeah, I bought a load of rope bracelets for my Dad. : My Dad’s not into that sort of thing. I was going to get him like a model or something … If I do, I’ll get him some alcohol from duty free … Another important function that vague expressions serve in my data is to hedge the commitment of the speaker to what they assert. In total 54 instances of adverbial hedges were found. As can be seen in the following excerpt involving the British speaker BT18 and the Taiwanese speaker TW16 talking about the differences between Taiwanese and British food, sort of is used three times in one utterance. (5) : Okay. Yeah, your food generally is a lot more sort of … erm … traditional and special than ours. Ours is just sort of simple, sort of , … : It’s okay, I like it … it’s your culture actually. : Yeah. : But I am .. I don’t like the traditional breakfast because it’s too salty and the flavour is too strong. : Well.. yeah… The speaker BT18 is likely trying to hedge the assertion by frequently using sort of when giving comments on Taiwanese food so that the statement sounds less direct. This is perhaps explained by the uncertainty of the speaker BT18 about their own assumption, and they thus intend to be less assertive; on the other hand, speaker TW16’s response

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication …

63

I don’t like the traditional breakfast because it’s too salty and the flavour is too strong seems much more direct compared to BT18’s statement. Miskovic-Lukovic (2009) calls such use of vague expressions “positive politeness strategies” (p. 622). These help to “downtone the force of the utterance” and to “mitigate against any potential threat to face” (O’Keeffe et al., 2007, p. 174). Moreover, the pervasive use of sort of in BT18’s utterance seems to indicate a certain level of hesitance in the planning of speech and searching for appropriate words in that the expression sort of functions as a filler or a time-buying device in the discourse, which might further develop speaking fluency in general and contribute to the flexibility and continuation of a conversation. However, as can be seen from the excerpt, the Taiwanese speaker TW16 uses very few fillers in his utterances, which might lead to breakdowns in interactional situations. Furthermore, vague quantifiers such as a bit and a little bit found in my data pragmatically function as downtoners, which is exemplified in the following cases. There are 16 instances of vague quantifiers as hedges in BATTICC. (6) : I think the question is boring. : They were a bit confusing. (7) : Because we go back to school the day I do my birthday. It is a bit annoying but it is okay. (8) : Don’t mind these two they’re a bit weird . In these cases, a bit or a little bit is commonly prefaced to different adjectives, such as confusing, annoying, weird , and strange, most of which seem to be used with negative situations. Such use of vague quantifiers seems to downtone and hedge the utterances, which is highly likely to be more appropriate in conversation, and as such this is considered as possessing more “pragmatic adequacy and integrity” in informal contexts, serving as a modification to reduce the negative assessment by the speakers (O’Keeffe et al., 2007, p. 71), as well as oral interaction problems and breakdowns. For example, in (6) BT06 identifies with the negative assertion previously provided by TW05 and reformulates it,

64

Y.-L. Lin

which presumably helps to minimize the negative emotion of the interlocutor and constructs and maintains a relaxing tone of conversation. Some vague quantifiers are particularly used with numbers, quantities, or some other measurable units. In BATTICC a wide range of expressions can be found. The most prevalent item of this type is lots of/a lot, which can be found serving this function in 72 instances. Other uses of vague quantifiers include about/around (29 instances), loads of (15 instances), and a couple of (8 instances). These items seem to indicate the absence of precision, and they have the same interpersonal functions as other vague expressions in that speakers tend to engage in a more conversational style and avoid being absolutely precise and perhaps being considered pedantic (Carter & McCarthy, 2006, 2017).

5.3

Headers and Tails

The use of headers and tails by British and Taiwanese participants differs (Table 3). Headers refer to fronting adjuncts, objects and complements, and noun phrases before the pronoun (Cutting, 2011). In BATTICC, 14 instances of headers were found, with 5 and 9 instances in British and Taiwanese participants’ datasets, respectively. Examples are presented below: (9) : Yeah, we … I don’t know … our lakes … I don’t think they ’re very clean but maybe they look clean. (10) : Because Eric … he wants us to prepare for tomorrow’s social activity. Table 3 Number of headers and tails Type Headers Tails Total ∗p

< 0.05

Taiwanese

British

N.

Per 1000 words

N.

Per 1000 words

5 0 5

0.36 0.00 0.36

9 4 13

0.44 0.20 0.64

Sig. (LL) 0.13 ∗ 4.14 1.25

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication …

65

(11) : Me and my friend … we honestly tried to do a proper high five and we went like this (12) : Yeah, and the man … maybe he’s thinking… (13) : Yeah. Erm … And what is your school like? : Pardon? : Your school , what’s it like? From the examples above it can be seen that headers generally include a noun or a noun phrase, which performs the orienting and focusing function, followed by a pronoun that refers back to the noun or noun phrases previously mentioned. For example, in (9) BT21 seems to put our lakes at the front to provide orientation for the listener, and the pronoun they is then used to refer back to our lakes. In this way, by using headers, his expression can be easily understood. It can also be seen clearly in (13) in that the first utterance what is your school like? by BT19 is rephrased to Your school, what’s it like?, which may be more easily understood by the hearer. From the examples it appears that headers provide orientation and emphasis for listeners, serving to include information which speakers consider relevant to their listeners and attempting to do so economically. Tails, on the other hand, appear in the final position of a sentence and its canonical position is filled by a pronoun with the same reference. This may allow speakers to express attitudes, to add emphasis, to evaluate and to provide repetition for listeners (Carter et al., 2011; Nava, 2005; Timmis, 2012). In BATTICC there were 4 instances of tails found in the British participants’ discourse, while no instances were found in Taiwanese learners’ data, showing a significant difference between the two datasets (Table 3). In the following examples (14) and (15), the noun phrases the weather here and climbing up hills clarify, repeat and/or emphasize the referent of the pronoun it in the sentence that comes before them. (14) : Okay. .. is it … is it a shock difference.. the weather here? (15) : But it was quite fun… climbing up hills.

66

Y.-L. Lin

In these excerpts it can be seen that tails serve “an essentially recapitulatory function” (Carter et al., 2011, p. 82). Although these features are considered “dislocated” elements, in the grammar of speaking the headers and tails are perfectly located to serve their interactive function in conversation. In this case, the British speakers seem to be sensitive to listeners’ reactions and employ clarifying noun phrases following the utterances to ensure cohesion and to facilitate the flow of communication. As such, Carter et al. (2011) describe tails as one of the elements of “an interpersonal grammar” in that the speaker attempts to involve the listener by using expressions that reflect personal attitude, feelings and listener-sensitiveness (p. 82). The lack of such interpersonal strategies in the Taiwanese data may partly be due to the insufficient learning input of spoken grammar presented in EFL teaching materials. As Lin (2014) reported, interactionally salient features of veridical discourse, such as headers and tails, were not found in all of the officially published EFL textbooks used in Taiwanese secondary schools.

5.4

Pausing

Pausing can be categorized into unfilled or filled pauses. Unfilled pauses are simply a silence labeled as a sequence of dots, such as (..) for a brief break or (…) for a longer pause in the transcripts of BATTICC. Filled pauses are identified by a vocalization such as er and erm. Overall, the Taiwanese learners generally use significantly more pauses than the British participants, although the use of erm between the two groups is not significantly different (Table 4). Such a substantial use of pauses in the Taiwanese participants’ discourse indicates a hesitation, mentally searching for perfect/correct words to use, or lack of confidence in speaking English. This may be partly because they have not had many opportunities to use the language and might therefore feel anxious when they speak a foreign language. Although the items are widely used, most of the time they do not disrupt the conversation. While pauses are sometimes considered as a sign of hesitation, they also have other functions in oral communication. One such example, the filled pause er or erm, can function to signpost speaker turns (Kjellmer,

67

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication …

Table 4 Number of unfilled and filled pausing Type of pauses

Taiwanese N.

Short pauses (..) Long pauses (…) Er Erm Total pauses ∗p

< 0.05

∗∗ p

Per 1000 words

British N.

Per 1000 words

Sig. (LL)

406 453

29.49 32.90

509 473

25.05 23.28

∗ 5.96

102 91 1052

7.41 6.61 76.40

58 133 1173

2.85 6.55 57.73

∗∗ 35.40 0.01 ∗∗ 43.22

∗∗ 27.49

< 0.001

2003). As can be seen in (16), er or erm indicates its use for turn-taking, turn holding and turn yielding, occurring at the initial, middle, and end of the message, respectively. In the BATTICC the majority of filled pauses are found as utterance or turn initiators. (16) : Erm what do you usually do in the holidays? : Erm Sleep. [laughter]—sleep, erm meet up with friends…er… : Er do you like sports? (17) : In England, there have afternoon tea? : Afternoon tea, yes, I love afternoon tea. Erm When we go to afternoon tea, you dress up nicely, and it’s usually in a big house, an old house, and erm you have many sandwiches, and cakes and tea obviously [laughter] it’s very nice. In many cases, er or erm not only serves as a turn initiator, but indicate that the speaker wants to take over the turn. As in (16), BT10 tries to break into the conversation and add extra information to the response. Similarly, some instances of er or erm serve the function of turn holding, keeping the floor while formulating the utterance (Kjellmer, 2003). This indicates that the speaker is preparing a new piece of information to be uttered, intends to go on speaking and may not be willing to yield the turn. As can be seen in excerpt (17), the first erm occurs at the end of

68

Y.-L. Lin

the first sentence and the speaker intends to keep the floor and continue. The second erm, following the coordinating conjunction and , indicates the speaker’s intention to add new information. From the analysis of pausing, it is evident that these strategies allow speakers to buy time for speech planning and keep the floor while formulating the following utterance, and meanwhile listeners are also provided with time to figure out what is going on and what will come next. Comprehension of communication as a result is therefore further facilitated (Mumford, 2009; Tottie, 2011). Although these pauses have been categorized as both disfluency features (Cutting, 2011) and hesitation disfluencies (Corley and Stewart, 2008), Tottie (2011) argues that the term disfluency is based on an ideal world of fluent speech production and is “a rather negative and uninformative default term that says nothing about the discourse functions” (p. 193). She therefore proposes the more positive term planners. This is a warranted perspective, as pauses are not necessarily negative or signs of disfluency, but rather have important functions that help to organize an utterance for the listener, so that they will more easily realize its structure and main point and be able to follow the argument (Kjellmer, 2003). As such, pausing not only indicates pure hesitation, but also has particular discourse functions in communication, guiding and lubricating the conversation in that “they operate partly below the level of consciousness and can therefore be an unobtrusive and effective instrument in facilitating spoken interaction” (Kjellmer, 2003, p. 191). In addition, what needs to be stressed is that some instances of pauses found in the Taiwanese participants’ discourse are a ya (4 instances) and ei (5 instances), etc. These items seem to be their first language equivalents, which sound very unnatural embedded in English conversation. In this regard, the natural features of spoken language should be introduced and encouraged for EFL learners by demonstrating authentic data extracted from real-time communication.

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication …

6

69

Conclusion and Pedagogical Implications

This chapter has identified significant features of spoken language, which have distinctive special qualities distinguishing them from the features of traditional written grammar. Based on a newly developed BATTICC corpus, this paper in particular employed a discourse analytical approach to explore (1) situational ellipsis, (2) vague expressions, (3) headers and tails, and (4) pausing used in oral communication among a group of Taiwanese and British secondary school students. The different use of these features between the two groups of participants has also been presented. This analysis of spoken language based on naturally occurring discourse by native speakers and EFL learners has added important context to a growing body of recent literature on spoken grammar (Carter & McCarthy, 2017; Carter et al., 2011; Cutting, 2011; Friginal et al., 2017; Lin, 2015, 2016; Mumford, 2009; Timmis, 2012; Walsh & Knight, 2016). From the analysis of situational ellipsis, the omission includes initial I plus copular verb be (e.g., I’m), subject pronoun it or other demonstrative pronouns plus be (e.g., It’s), personal pronoun (e.g., they, he/she, you, we), interrogatives (e.g., What’s), existential there, auxiliary verb do, does, did , and prepositions. Although Taiwanese learners generally used more situational ellipsis than the British participants in BATTICC, some cases of ellipsis in Taiwanese data show ambiguity and the meaning, therefore, is not easy to be retrieved in conversation. Vague expressions present important interpersonal functions in spoken communication, such as indicating shared knowledge, attitudes of the speaker, and ingroup membership. The investigation of headers and tails indicates more flexible syntax in spoken discourse than written forms. Headers are used by both groups of participants to emphasize what the speaker thinks to be particularly important, giving a lead-into the main conversation topic. Tails, on the other hand, are not used by Taiwanese learners at all, while native speakers use them to clarify aspect of the message or create a casual atmosphere in the conversation. The overuse of pausing in Taiwanese participants’ discourse may indicate a hesitation or lack of confidence in speaking English. However, it is evident that these

70

Y.-L. Lin

strategies do increase conversational flow by allowing speakers to buy time for speech planning and keep the floor while formulating the following utterance. Furthermore, listeners are also provided with time to figure out what is going on and what will come next, contributing to the continuation of a conversation. In this regard, speaking displays a wide range of management processes and listener-sensitive devices not typically found in conventional written grammar (Carter & McCarthy, 2017; Strauss et al., 2018). Although the features examined in this study are common in naturally occurring conversation, they are sometimes considered as “grammatically incorrect” forms of the target language and are therefore neglected in EFL classroom teaching. McCarthy (2006) further claims there can be “little hope for a natural spoken output on the part of language learners if the input is stubbornly rooted in models that owe their origin and shape to the written language” (p. 29). As Mumford (2009)suggests, EFL teachers should demonstrate to learners these significant features of spoken grammar, thereby training them for efficiency in speaking. Data in a corpus of naturally occurring discourse can therefore provide an empirical basis for language description by showing how language is used in natural contexts. Lin (2014, 2016), for example, sees great value in introducing and exposing learners to spoken grammar via real example texts and at the same time raising their awareness of particular patterns of language use. In addition to awareness raising, learners are encouraged to produce these features in their own speech since they have important interpersonal and communicative functions that serve to create and maintain a good relationship between the speaker and hearer (Carter & McCarthy, 2017; Mumford, 2009; Walsh & Knight, 2016). For learners with an intention to maintain a good relationship in face-to-face conversation, it would therefore be very helpful for students to not only be aware of but produce these features depending on the students’ specific situation and needs. It is also suggested that pedagogical materials expose learners to natural language use to some extent, including the important features of spoken English in the syllabus. The natural features presented in this study, i.e., situational ellipsis, vague expressions, headers and tails,

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication …

71

and pauses, can be introduced in textbooks even from a very early stage without affecting the difficulty of the texts. A number of teaching activities can be used when teaching spoken grammar to secondary school students. Hilliard (2014), for example, proposed a consciousness-raising activity of using short, authentic videos (e.g., TV sitcoms, talk shows, and interviews) to teach ellipsis. In the activity, students are given a script that includes all the omitted subjects and verbs and asked to cross out words that they do not hear in the video clip. Once students have listened and crossed out the words, the class discusses which and why such words were omitted. Moreover, headers and tails can be practiced through pair work. In this activity, one student starts with a head, and the second student finishes with the rest of the question or sentence; if the first student starts with a statement or question, the second student finishes with an appropriate tail. An example provided by Hilliard (2014, p. 8) is as follows: Student Student Student Student

A (head): Our teacher … B: she’s really beautiful. A (statement): Our teacher is really beautiful. B (tail): she is.

When learners are involved in identifying and discussing their own headers and tails, their awareness of these features of spoken grammar would be raised and they would also have opportunities to practice producing these features. While a small corpus such as BATTICC does not allow for strong conclusions to be drawn, this study identifies some grammatical and pragmatic features of spoken discourse by native and non-native English speakers. Further research of spoken language on more data and more diverse intercultural settings is needed with an aim of better understanding its versatile role in intercultural conversation. The cultural meaning of the genre, the distance, status, and power relations of the participants should also be taken into account. Additionally, examining a wider range of discourse types, with varying degrees of formality

72

Y.-L. Lin

in spoken communication, would increase the extent to which the conclusions drawn from the research can be generalized.

References Adolphs, S., & Carter, R. (2013). Spoken corpus linguistics: From monomodal to multimodal . London: Routledge. Aijmer, K. (2020). Spoken corpora. In S. Adolphs & D. Knight (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language and digital humanities. London: Routledge. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2017). Spoken grammar: Where are we and where are we going? Applied Linguistics, 36, 1–21. Carter, R., Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (2011). Telling tails: Grammar, the spoken language and materials development. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 78–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cheshire, J. (2005). Syntactic variation and spoken language. In L. Cornips & K. P. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 81–108). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Corley, M., & Stewart, O. W. (2008). Hesitation disfluencies in spontaneous speech: The meaning of um. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2(4), 589– 602. Cullen, R., & Kuo, I. (2007). Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: A missing link? TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 361–386. Cutting, J. (2011). Spoken discourse. In K. Hyland & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Continuum companion to discourse analysis (pp. 155–170). London and New York: Continuum. Evison, J. (2013). Turn openings in academic talk: Where goals and roles intersect. Classroom Discourse, 4 (1), 3–26. Friginal, E., Lee, J. J., Polat, B., & Roberson, A. (2017). Exploring spoken English learner language using corpora: Learner talk. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Hilliard, A. (2014). Spoken grammar and its role in the English language classroom. English Teaching Forum, 52(4), 2–13.

3 Pragmatic Nature of L2 Communication …

73

Ishikawa, S. I. (2015). A consideration of the difference between the spoken and written English of native speakers and Japanese learners: A corpus-based study. Discourse and Interaction, 8(1), 37–52. Kjellmer, G. (2003). Hesitation. In defence of er and erm. English Studies, 84 (2), 170–198. Lin, Y. L. (2014). Exploring recurrent multi-word sequences in EFL textbook dialogues and authentic discourse. English Teaching & Learning, 38(2), 133– 158. Lin, Y. L. (2015). Using key part-of-speech analysis to examine spoken discourse by Taiwanese EFL learners. ReCALL, 27 (3), 304–320. Lin, Y. L. (2016). Discourse marking in spoken intercultural communication between British and Taiwanese adolescent learners. Pragmatics, 26 (2), 221– 245. McCarthy, M. (2006). Explorations in corpus linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies. London: Routledge. Miskovic-Lukovic, M. (2009). Is there a chance that I might kinda sort of take you out to dinner?: The role of the pragmatic particles kind of and sort of in utterance interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(3), 602–625. Mumford, S. (2009). An analysis of spoken grammar: The case for production. ELT Journal, 63(2), 137–144. Nava, A. (2005). Comparing tails. An exploratory study of tails in native spoken English and in Italian EFL learners’ interlanguage. Mots Palabras Words, 6, 71–92. O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Keeffe, A., Clancy, B., & Adolphs, S. (2011). Introducing pragmatics in use. New York and Abingdon: Routledge. Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–549. Scott, M. R. (2016). WordSmith Tools Version 7.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software. Strauss, S., Feiz, P., & Xiang, X. (2018). Written versus spoken grammar. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1– 8). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Thornbury, S., & Slade, D. (2006). Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

74

Y.-L. Lin

Timmis, I. (2012). Spoken language research and ELT: Where are we now? ELT Journal , 66 (4), 514–522. Tottie, G. (2011). Uh and Um as sociolinguistic markers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16 (2), 173–197. Walsh, S., & Knight, D. (2016). Analysing spoken discourse in university small group teaching. In K. P. Corrigan & A. Mearns (Eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora: Databases for public engagement (pp. 291–319). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral Communication Ruiying Niu

1

Introduction

Context is indispensable to language learning so much so that English as a foreign language (EFL) learning contexts are often considered input-impoverished (Gao, 2009; Oxford, 2003). Such EFL contexts are especially unfavorable for developing oral English competence since unlike reading, writing, and listening, which can be performed individually, speaking requires interlocutors, preferably competent ones. With the prevalence of the social orientation to language learning, oral language development has been investigated from a social perspective, which stresses the influence of context. Socially-oriented studies have explored the role of English corners (Gao, 2009), social resources (Niu, Lu, & You, 2018), or study-abroad contexts (Conroy, 2016; Hern’andez, 2010) R. Niu (B) Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, China e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_4

75

76

R. Niu

in oral language learning as well as learners’ willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms (Peng, 2012). The ecological approach (van Lier, 2002) underscores the individual and contextual impact on language learning, whereas current related studies have seldom taken such an approach in exploring oral language learning. Therefore, the present study attempts to examine Chinese EFL learners’ oral English learning from an ecological perspective by taking Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model as the analytical framework. The study will shed light on the contextual aspects of oral language learning in EFL settings and reveal some strategies that EFL learners utilize in the instructional context.

2

Literature Review

2.1

Context and Oral Language Learning

Theoretically, the social orientation to language learning views the position of context differently from the psycho-cognitive perspective (Ortega, 2011). The latter considers context and cognition as dichotomous and regards context as the backdrop for explaining individual variations in language learning. By contrast, the social orientation maintains that language learning emerges from learners’ participation in social activities, context cultivates various aspects of language learning, and context and learning mutually influence and change each other (Verspoor, Lowie, & Van Dijk, 2008). In addition, contexts may constrain or facilitate language learning depending on the availability of resources and the learner’s agency in using the resources (Niu et al., 2018; Palfreyman, 2006). In this sense, despite the fact that foreign language contexts are considered resource-impoverished as compared with target language contexts (Oxford, 2003; Palfreyman, 2006), the learner’s agency plays an important role in both situations.

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

77

Empirically, studies on context and oral language learning have been conducted in both target language contexts, including studyabroad programs, and foreign language contexts. The former, mainly focusing on learning resources, generally found that short-term studyabroad programs could enhance learners’ language learning and cultural understanding because of the immersion environments and maximized language use (Conroy, 2016). In particular, learners’ oral language learning could be affected by such contextual factors as their relationships with other speakers and the language proficiency of their interlocutors (e.g., Baker-Smemoe, Dewey, Brown, & Martinsen, 2014), their time spent with native speakers (e.g., Dewey et al., 2014), and the quality of their homestays and interactions (e.g., Conroy, 2016), showing the role of learners’ agency. The studies focusing on target language contexts in general also discovered that learning a language requires not only overcoming obstacles but also resorting to various resources in order to approach the interactional competence and the social network of a community (e.g., Newcombe, 2007), and that it even requires taking proactive moves to initiate conversations with native speakers (e.g., Kurata, 2010). The empirical studies conducted in EFL contexts have investigated both social constraints and resources concerning oral language learning. Particularly, early studies in foreign language contexts like that in China surveyed the social constraints upon English learners’, especially nonEnglish-major learners’, oral English learning (Jin, Dai, Liu, Zhao, & Wu, 2004; Zeng, 2002; Zhang, Yang, & Li, 2004). Zeng (2002) recognized that such environmental factors as having little time or opportunity for practicing oral English, written-English-oriented teaching syllabi, materials and methods, and the Chinese face-saving culture might constrain learners’ oral English learning. Jin et al. (2004) found that social factors (e.g., chances to speak English) were associated with learners’ oral English learning. Zhang et al. (2004) identified two categories of social factors: environment-related factors (e.g., family background) and process-related factors (e.g., class training), which impact learners’ oral English learning. Different from early studies, a recent study by Niu et al. (2018) examined the social resources that Chinese EFL learners resort to in

78

R. Niu

oral language learning. The study, following the sociocultural orientation of language learning and using Activity Theory (Vygotsky, 1978) as the analytical framework, discovered 13 sociocultural resources in relation to artifacts (i.e., textbooks, curriculum, exams, contests, and the Internet), rules (i.e., pronunciation and intonation rules, and communication criteria), community (i.e., family, school, and society), and roles (being an English speaker, an English major, and/or a potential job seeker), which mediated the participants’ oral English learning by providing and actualizing learning affordances, serving as learning goals, and generating motivation for learning, and ultimately facilitated the participant Chinese EFL learners’ oral English learning. To sum up, notwithstanding the current-related studies on context and oral language learning, none of them have taken an ecological perspective (van Lier, 2000, 2002). The present study would employ this theoretical perspective to examine Chinese learners’ oral English learning in both classroom and out-of-class situations.

2.2

An Ecological Perspective on Oral Language Learning

The ecological perspective (van Lier, 2000, 2002) is one of the social orientations to language learning. Subscribing to the conception that context and language learning are unitary and dynamically interact with each other, the ecological perspective takes context as its central notion and focuses on examining the dynamic interaction between learners and the learning context (van Lier, 2000, 2002). Ecology refers to the “study of the relationships between all the various organisms and their physical environment” (van Lier, 2002, p. 144). In the field of language learning, “organisms” are language learners, while the “environment” refers to the context of learning. Context is considered to be “socially constructed and dynamically negotiated” (Cao, 2011, p. 469). The learning context is an intertwined network constituted by such factors as learners, teachers, micro classroom contexts, and macro institutional environments, which are interconnected and interdependent, acting and

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

79

interacting with each other. Language learning research from the ecological perspective explores how learners take actions and interact with other factors to achieve the learning purpose (Cao, 2011; van Lier, 2004). The nested ecosystems model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993) can be applied to capture the ecological nature of language learning. This model consists of four layers of an ecosystem: (1) Microsystem—the innermost layer, referring to “a pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given setting with particular physical and material characteristics” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22), for example, activities in the classroom; (2) Mesosystem—comprising of “the interconnection among two or more settings in which the developing person actively participates,” for example, the relations among home, school, and neighborhood peer groups for a child (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22); (3) Exosystem—involving “one or more settings that do not involve the developing person as an active participant, but in which events occur that affect, or are affected by, what happens in the setting containing the developing person,” for example, the parents’ network of friends (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 25); and (4) Macrosystem—encompassing “consistencies, in the form and content of lower-order systems (micro-, meso-, and exo-) that exist, or could exist, at the level of the subculture or the culture as a whole, along with any belief systems or ideology underlying such consistencies,” for example, belief systems, life styles, or social structures (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 26). The ecological perspective has been utilized to investigate learners’ situational willingness to communicate (WTC) in English as a second language (ESL)) and EFL contexts (Cao, 2011; Peng, 2012). For instance, the multi-case study of Cao (2011) investigated the dynamic and situated nature of WTC in ESL classrooms, finding that WTC in ESL classrooms emerged from the joint effects of individual characteristics (including self-confidence, personality, emotion, and perceived opportunities to communicate), classroom environmental conditions (such as topic, task, interlocutor, teacher, and group size), together with linguistic factors (like language proficiency and reliance on L1). Peng (2012), also a multi-case study, examined Chinese EFL learners’ WTC in the classroom. The study took the nested ecosystems model as

80

R. Niu

its analytical framework and identified six factors underlying the participants’ WTC in the microsystem: learner beliefs, motivation, cognitive factors, linguistic factors, affective factors, and classroom environment. The study also identified the factors in the mesosystem (i.e., learners’ past learning experiences and participation in extracurricular activities), the factors in the exosystem (i.e., curriculum design and course evaluation criteria), and the factors in the macrosystem (i.e., the rising importance of English, job-hunting, and Chinese cultural heritage) that also contributed to the participants’ classroom WTC. The study concluded that learners’ classroom WTC is socioculturally constructed as a function of the interaction of individual and environmental factors. The ecological perspective is equally applicable to the study of learners’ oral language learning, particularly the interactions between learners and both classroom and extracurricular activities that they engage in for cultivating communicative competence. From an ecological perspective, the development of learners’ communicative competence does not occur merely by receiving target language input in the classroom via vocabulary and grammar instruction. Instead, many factors mediate the learning process even in EFL contexts like that in China. Both the classroom and extra curricula constitute an ecosystem providing a language-conducive context rich in semiotic resources, various activities, teacher-student interactions, and peer interactions. These activities provide learners with affordances (i.e., possibilities leading to learning) (van Lier, 2004) of better comprehending linguistic information, making more target language production, and actively engaging them in the learning process. Based on the above conceptualization, the present study, taking the ecological perspective and particularly using the nested ecosystems model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993) as the analytical framework, attempts to explore how Chinese EFL learners perceive the factors contributing to their oral language learning, particularly focusing on what factors contribute to their oral language learning and how.

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

3

The Study

3.1

Research Questions

81

Two research questions guided the study: 1) What are Chinese EFL learners’ perceptions of individual and environmental factors underlying their oral English development from an ecological perspective? 2) How do these factors influence (facilitate or hinder) their oral English development?

3.2

Participants and Research Context

In order to make an in-depth investigation into the issue, a case study approach was adopted for the study (Duff, 2013). Two English-major freshmen from a university in China, known by pseudonyms as Ting and Jun, participated in the study. They were both female, aged 19, and admitted into this university through China’s National College Entrance Examination (NCEE), which includes a spoken English test. Englishmajor students were recruited because they are considered as successful English learners. In this sense, their learning experiences should be enlightening to other less successful English learners including nonEnglish major students. Therefore, English-major students should be a group worth studying. The fact is that English-major and non-English major students in China and also other EFL countries, I believe, do face different Englishlearning environments in university compared with when they were in pre-university education. In China, English learners in primary, secondary, and high schools all learn English as a subject and seldom have opportunities to speak English; spoken English teaching and learning are mainly constrained to preparing for the entrance examinations for high school and university. However, when students entered university, English-major students would face a different English-learning environment from non-English major students. The former would study

82

R. Niu

English-related courses on the four basic language skills in the first two years in university and content courses on literature, linguistics, and translation through English in the third and fourth year. Ting and Jun were taking such compulsory English-related courses as Communicative English for Chinese Learners (CECL; an integrated English course for training Chinese students’ communicative competence), Extensive Reading, English Writing, Listening, Debating, and Pronunciation and Intonation, as well as optional courses like Introduction to Linguistics, Greek and Roman Mythology, and European Culture. By contrast, non-English major students, required to study English for two years in university, still mostly learn English as a subject with reading and writing being emphasized and listening and speaking ignored. Therefore, Chinese non-English major students are often criticized for their failure in language learning, whose English is nicknamed as “dumb English.” In sum, the present study is set in the English-major learning context. The two participants Ting and Jun were both proficient English learners as indicated by their performances in the English written and spoken tests of the NCEE in high school and the term-final examination of CECL in university. The purpose was to gain insight into successful learning so as to shed light on less successful learners.

3.3

Data Collection

The data were collected by using semi-structured interviews and guided journals. Semi-structured interviews aimed to understand the participants’ English learning experiences in both pre-university and university education, while guided journals were utilized to document the participant’s spoken English learning events in university. The semi-structured interviews (see Appendix A) mainly focused on the participants’ demographic information, attitude, motivation, perception, and strategy as well as impacting factors in relation to spoken English learning. Participants’ journal writing was guided by cued questions presented in Appendix B. The two participants were first informed about the study and they showed willingness to participate. Then the interview was conducted

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

83

with the two participants, respectively, in Mandarin Chinese. Each lasted about one hour. On completion of the interview, the participants were required to keep learning journals in English and/or Chinese every week for about three months and submitted their journal each week over email. They both acted as instructed, and it turned out that they wrote journals mostly in Chinese.

3.4

Data Analysis

Both the interviews and journals were analyzed with reference to the nested ecosystems model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993). First, the interviews and journals were read repeatedly and the individual and environmental factors related to spoken language learning were identified and coded. Then the individual and environmental factors were categorized in terms of the four ecosystems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. Finally, the influence of the individual and environmental factors on spoken language learning was qualitatively inferred from the participants’ assertions in the interview and journal data. Iterative examination of the data was conducted to increase the validity of the data analysis. Data in Chinese were translated into English when cited in reporting the findings.

4

Findings

With reference to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) four ecosystems, the data analysis revealed 8 factors that influenced the participants’ oral English learning as listed in Table 1. The 8 factors were equally distributed among the four ecosystems, and will be elaborated and illustrated in Table 1.

4.1

At the Level of Microsystem

The two factors at the microsystemic level that emerged from the data were learners’ attitude toward oral language learning and the activities

84

R. Niu

Table 1 Factors affecting participants’ oral language learning Level of ecosystem

Microsystem

Mesosystem

Exosystem

Macrosystem

Factors identified

Learner attitude

Interactions with relatives

Curriculum design

Classroom activities

Extracurricular activities

Course evaluation

Standard national examinations Pressure from non-English majors

in the classroom, belonging to individual and environmental factors, respectively.

Learner Attitude In terms of attitude, both participants (Ting and Jun) thought that oral English learning was important, but this mentality evolved from primary school to university. In primary school, they did not perceive the importance of oral English learning because they learned English as a subject that was mainly for passing examinations, whereas oral English was rarely tested. In secondary school and high school, however, they developed an exam-driven perception of the importance of speaking English because they needed to take oral English examinations for entering both high school and university. In university, both participants further realized the importance of speaking English well because of their new identity—being English-major students. They desired to gain other people’s recognition and secure an advantageous position in future job-seeking by speaking English well. As Ting stated in the interview, In secondary school, oral English was not emphasized because we seldom had the chance to speak English. Now I feel that speaking English well is very important because oral English will leave people the first impression when one communicates with others or goes for a job interview. Speaking English well will attract other people and leave people a good impression, making them feel comfortable. This can help one communicate well with other people so as to gain more cooperative opportunities and even benefit future job-hunting.

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

85

Ting’s words show her “ecological transition” (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 26) because of the change in her role and setting from secondary school to university.

Classroom Activities As for classroom activities, both participants reported that in primary and secondary schools they seldom had chances to speak English, as they were mainly required to read and recite English words, sentences, and passages, and then complete exercises. By contrast, regarding their English learning in university, both participants mentioned that they engaged in more interactions in class. When questioned in the interview, Ting stated, “Now we have a lot more interactions, especially in CECL. There are lots of group discussions. In the past we always used Chinese in interactions. Now we value the chances of speaking English very much, and we try to have more practice.” Both participants in their weekly journals recorded various in-class oral activities including pre-class speeches (or morning reports), discussions, presentations, role-plays, and debates, all being learner-centered and directly pointing to students’ oral language learning. Here, the participants’ perceptions of pre-class speeches are presented to give a glimpse of how they interacted with classroom activities. Ting particularly mentioned the pre-class speech in 3 out of her 11 journals. In Journal 1 she described and then offered her comments on the activity, stating that such an activity could afford to train students’ independent thinking, help them practice and improve oral English, and increase confidence. That is, such activities constitute affordances (van Lier, 2000) for learning. Our CECL teacher developed a kind of before-class performance, where a student chosen that day was to show his / her own opinions towards a certain topic. We never knew who was to stand before the whole class, thus we all prepared very carefully. And after a student’s performance, the teacher would raise some questions or ask other students to answer. Then she would give suggestions to both the specific student and the whole class about how to form a good argument on the certain theme.

86

R. Niu

From my perspective, that performance was a perfect combination of self-thinking and oral English practicing. More importantly, the teacher’s points and oral English were of great help during the process of our imitation and learning. We actually improved our oral English and enhanced our confidence a lot.

In Journal 6, Ting continued to describe her own experience of giving the pre-class speech. Though she describes that she was not successful, she learned important lessons and knew how to perform better, including keeping calm and having well-organized ideas. This indicates Ting’s development from participating in such activities. In one of the CECL classes, I was luckily picked to be the speaker to give my opinion on the question, “Do you think registered gun ownership can help protect citizens?” But I think I screwed it up for my points were not clear and well-ordered. As I realized my problems, I began feeling nervous and repeated the same points in different ways, which only made it worse. Fortunately, I think I’ve made my point in the Q&A section. That was the first time I had been chosen to be the speaker in the before-class speech and it would serve as a good example, in how I failed, and also a reminder of my lack of calmness and arrangement skills. I learned that.

Ting in Journal 9 especially highlighted the role of the teacher in the successful conduction of the pre-class speech and how students could benefit from such an activity. The activity as a learning affordance (van Lier, 2000) was not only a practice opportunity but also an occasion to learn from the teacher’s instruction and modeling. Jessica is a good CECL teacher and I particularly like her before-class speech section not only for the section itself, but also for her elaboration when talking about how to give an impromptu speech from different angles on the certain topic she gave every day. Also, her intonation is almost similar to a native speaker, and therefore from the very first class I learnt a lot.

Jun mentioned the pre-class speech in her journals 1 and 7. In Journal 7, she accounted how she overcame difficulties in expressing ideas, from

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

87

which she gained a useful communicative strategy—an indirect and flexible way of expressing ideas. I did a morning report in the CECL class. My topic was “what ghost do I want to meet”. …… And the first ghost that flashed into my mind was 白蛇, the white snake. …… When I was talking about the story about the white snake and Xu Xian, I came across some words that I did not know, such as 道士 (daoshi) and 瘟疫 (wenyi). When I came across 瘟 疫, my teacher told me that I could state it in another way such as “a disease widely spread, and many people got ill.” Inspired by this, when I needed to say 道士, I said the priest of Daoism. In the talk, I realized that when my vocabulary is not large enough, I can express myself through describing the word I don’t know.

Besides learning from performing activities, preparing for such activities as presentations was also a learning opportunity for the participants. In Journal 4, Jun stated how she familiarized herself with relevant cultural knowledge and prepared herself to present the topic of ballet in an understandable way. The topic for our group’s presentation is ballet. Since we wanted to practice our oral English, we did not write too many words on the ppt slides. In preparing the ppt, we had to search for information about ballet. I thought that it was important for me, the presenter, to understand what I was talking about, so I studied the information about ballet carefully and got myself fully prepared. From this process I also gained confidence.

4.2

At the Level of Mesosystem

The mesosystem was found to consist of the participants’ interactions with relatives or peers and their participation in extracurricular activities, which respectively influenced their attitudes toward oral language learning and extended oral language learning beyond the classroom. 1. Interactions with relatives or peers Ting in the interview reported how the case of her cousin influenced her attitude to oral English learning as well as her motivation. When Ting was still a primary school student, one day she went to visit her

88

R. Niu

cousin, finding the boy learning English under the guidance of his father. Ting realized the distance between her and her cousin. Ting’s cousin possessed high English proficiency and was admitted into The University of Cambridge later on. This raised Ting’s awareness of the importance of learning English and speaking English well and motivated her to practice more. Jun in Journal 2 recorded the shared advice from one of her senior schoolmates’ learning experience. Her schoolmate passed her the message of the importance of English for pursuing overseas study and the importance of learning CECL well, because CECL provided students with plenty of opportunities for speaking English through interactions, discussions, or presentations. This strengthened Jun’s belief in promoting English communicative competence. 2. Participation in extracurricular activities As for extracurricular activities, both participants mentioned the English pronunciation contest (shortened as the P-contest) organized by the Faculty, which they attended as contestants. For both Ting and Jun, the P-contest provided them the affordances (van Lier, 2000) of realizing their problems with, methods of improving, and stronger determination for improving pronunciation. Ting in Journal 1 described the P-contest as the “most remarkable experience” of that week for oral language learning. In preparing for the P-contest, Ting and her partners encountered problems with sound linking, stress of long sentences, and tone. To overcome these problems, they practiced plentifully. Since their task in the P-contest was to imitate the actors and actresses in a movie clip, Ting reflected that through the activity she felt that imitation was “a quick way to improve oral English and pronunciation.” Similarly, Jun in Journal 5 reported that practicing in a group was a “shortcut ” to develop her oral English because she could immediately know the mistakes in speaking. Apart from the preparation, other contestants during the contest further stimulated Ting and Jun to realize the space for improvement. Through comparing her own performance with that of the other contestants, Ting further detected her own drawbacks and the direction for amending them. This was more effective than directly seeking for help according to Ting. Jun went to watch the P-contest, and her peers’ excellent performance inspired her to work harder and further

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

89

improve her oral English. Finally, even Ting’s failure to enter the final round of the P-contest stimulated her to question her own performance in the contest, and Ting hence decided to practice more than before. Following the P-contest, Ting and her partners participated in a voice dubbing contest organized by New Oriental, a privately-run English school in China, as a comeback from her failure in the P-contest. Ting stated that her team desired to make their efforts for the P-contest worthwhile and have another opportunity for self-verification. Ting did gain confidence from the dubbing contest since other competitors were not as “professional ” as her team. Ting especially appreciated the opportunity to talk to and obtain advice from the native English-speaking judge in the dubbing contest. Ting speculated that “the whole experience not only strengthened my pronunciation but also improved my ability to communicate with a foreigner.” Both participants’ attendance of other activities as audience members carried forward their perception of oral language learning and stimulated them to adjust their target. Ting attended a speech contest held by the sophomores, from which she learned that the fluency and effectiveness of speaking was more important than pronunciation. In the award ceremony for the junior students’ translation contest, Jun realized that the development of oral communicative proficiency requires strong language competence and language conversion ability from the judges’ comments on translation. Jun also served as a hostess in the senior students’ drama night. She was impressed by the fourth-year students’ excellent performance and deeply felt the importance of hard working in improving oral communicative competence since she witnessed how the senior students prepared for the drama night. Attendance of seemingly non-English-related activities informed both participants about language use in real situations. Ting in Journal 7 documented her experience of working as a journalist in the job fair held in her university. She interviewed a human resource director from a company, who complained about some English-major students’ unsatisfactory oral English competence in dealing with unexpected topics. Subsequently, Ting realized that it was urgent for her to develop “more useful oral skills”; otherwise, she would face the same situation in the job market. Different from Ting, Jun in Journal 3 recorded that from the

90

R. Niu

Mandarin training program she learned the importance of pronouncing each sound clearly for speaking English well. Additionally, both participants engaged in private learning activities regularly or occasionally. Particularly, Ting watched English movies each week during the data collection period. She not only learned pronunciation, intonation, and English expressions from movie-watching but also made connections between movies and what was taught in class, as shown in Ting’s Journal 6. I watched the first two episodes of Criminal Minds, which taught me a lot about American oral English. Firstly, thanks to the repetition of the phrase “pull over” in Episode one, I’ve got more ideas about how to distinguish the pronunciation of “pool” and “pull” which had made me suffer a lot in the last term. Secondly, it made me think a lot about the other tough problem I had suffered from – intonation. When interrogated about the missing girl’s location, the suspect said, “Isn’t she the girl that went missing a couple of days ago?” in a rising tone. But the police indicated that if the girl had already been killed the suspect would have spoken in a falling intonation. Pronunciation classes last term barely taught us how to decide the right type of intonation for a sentence without context. Thirdly, authentic expressions in American oral English were learned, for example “to learn outside the box.”

By contrast, Jun recorded more private learning activities including watching movies, singing English songs, reading microblogs, and visiting Macau, but mentioned each of these activities only once in the study. For example, Jun in Journal 6 documented one anecdote while visiting Macau, from which she realized that classroom communications might not lead to the ability of using English in real-life situations. Therefore, she was able to see that it is important to train the capacity of authentic English use, through methods such as watching movies. This week I went to Macau. When I was in Venetian, I wanted to find a coffee shop called 安德鲁饼店(a bakery famous for egg tarts). I asked the man standing at the service table, but suddenly I found that he could not listen to Chinese. My friends and I did not know how to say neither 安德鲁 nor 葡挞. We described it but we failed. Finally, the man showed

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

91

us a map of that shopping mall for us to find out. 安德鲁饼店 is called Lord Stow’s Bakery. We are very ashamed for that. We are English major students. But we cannot communicate with a foreigner after all. I thought that we practice oral-English in class, but not in our daily life. We may be able to speak English well in formal occasions, but not in daily life. We communicate with our friends, with those who are familiar with us. There’s no gap between us even if we use our body to communicate, because we know each other very well. Someone may think that if we speak English in our daily life, our oral-English ability will be surely improved. But after experiencing this, I think we should learn more from foreign movies, because we can only say the things that frequently happen in our life.

4.3

At the Level of Exosystem

Data analysis revealed that the exosystem consisted of curriculum design and course evaluation, which contributed to both participants’ oral language learning. 1. Curriculum design In terms of curriculum design, both participants perceived that different from their pre-university English learning, the curriculum for English majors was very systematic, which would not only lay a strong foundation but also provide plentiful opportunities for oral language learning. In the semester when the study was conducted, the English courses offered included obligatory courses such as CECL, Listening, Extensive Reading, Writing, Debating, Pronunciation and Intonation, and Grammar, as well as optional courses like Language and Human, European Culture, and Greek and Roman Mythology. All these courses provided affordances for performing oral activities as has been accounted in what happened at the microsystemic level. This is also illustrated by both participants’ journal documentation of the happenings in each course in relation to oral language learning. Ting, for example, in Journal 2, reported that she learned vocabulary and grammar from each course, trained listening comprehension ability, and practiced speaking in CECL, Debating, Reading, and Writing classes.

92

R. Niu

2. Course evaluation Regarding course evaluation, in their pre-university education, oral English had never been a part of the two participants’ English course evaluation, whereas, in university, oral English assessment ran through several of their courses both formatively and summatively. First, formatively, as Ting and Jun reported in the interview, in almost all university English classes, their participation including interactions would be counted in the course assessment. For example, in CECL their presentations were assessed, and hence they were pushed to prepare and perform their presentations conscientiously. Then, summatively, Ting in Journals 1 and 10 mentioned the CECL and Reading mid-term and term-final examinations, stating that she looked through the main points in the CECL textbook including some conversations to get familiar with oral expressions, and read the texts in the Reading book aloud to strengthen her memory of the essays. Such test preparation work, according to Ting, helped the development of her oral communicative competence.

4.4

At the Level of Macrosystem

The macrosystem consisted of such pedagogical and sociocultural factors as standard national examinations and the pressure from non-English major competitors, which affected the two participants’ attitude and learning agency (i.e., self-initiated effort for learning) (Gao, 2013).

Standard National Examinations Pedagogically, oral English has been a compulsory component of both the high school entrance examination and the college entrance examination in the region where the two participants lived in China. Therefore, they had to take the oral English examination for entering both high school and university. For this purpose, they took simulated oral English tests under the guidance of the teacher or by themselves. This backwash action improved their oral English at least to the level of being able to deal with the tests and going beyond reading and reciting articles as they usually did in daily study. Such test preparations would stimulate both

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

93

participants to develop a stronger perception, though exam-oriented and short-lived, of the need to speak English and increase their agency in improving oral English to some extent.

Pressure from Non-English Major Students Socioculturally, with the administration of China’s open-door policy and the advancement of computer technology and the Internet, more people began to realize the importance of learning English. When questioned what factors influenced her oral English learning, Jun responded that “many university students could speak English well, and she would lag behind if she did not work hard on practicing speaking English” (Journal 1). Both participants were pressured by their peers, including by non-English major peers. For example, Jun in Journal 4 recorded her amazement at one classmate’s good performance in the IELTS (International English Language Testing System) exam and her realization of the importance of diligence and practice for improving oral English as illustrated below: I learned that one of my classmates obtained a score of 7 in the IELTS. I felt amazed, for after all we are still freshmen and should not have very high English proficiency. Her oral English is great. I remember we got the same score in CECL last semester, but she made rapid progress, because she worked very hard and treasured every opportunity of speaking English. She was brave to express her ideas in the CECL class and prepared her presentation better than other classmates. I think I should keep practicing English and seek for opportunities of speaking English. Then I can get improved.

Jun in Journal 6 documented how her Portuguese-major friend awoke her about the urgency of improving her English including oral English and increased her sense of crisis about surviving as an English-major graduate in the future. She stated that I have a friend studying Portuguese. She asked me to take BEC Higher with her. I was very surprised. We are still in Year One, and I don’t think

94

R. Niu

we have the ability to pass BEC Higher, not to mention that my friend is majoring in Portuguese. I suddenly have a sense of crisis. I think we English students should learn more and become stronger and stronger. Only in this way can we survive in the future.

5

Discussion

The study, following an ecological perspective and with reference to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979, 1993) nested ecosystems model, identified eight individual and environmental factors that influenced Chinese Englishmajor students’ spoken language learning. The eight factors confirmed some of the factors, though more exactly constraining factors, in earlier studies: for example, the environmental factors in Zeng (2002), the social factors in Jin et al. (2004), and the environment-related and processrelated factors in Zhang et al. (2004). They also confirmed some of the social resources in Palfreyman (2006) and socioculturally mediating factors in Niu et al. (2018). However, different from previous studies, where the factors were usually categorized in types, the eight factors in this study were identified to be located at four layers of the ecosystem, and the four layers are hierarchically connected as schematized in Fig. 1. Notably, the eight factors should play different roles and contribute to spoken language learning in different ways. First, in the microsystem

Fig. 1 Hierarchical connection of the four layers of the ecosystem

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

95

or the innermost layer, learner attitude (the individual factor) should serve as the pre-condition for language learning, for attitude has long been recognized as “the single most important factor in second language learning” (Ellis, 1985, p. 118, cited from Savignon, 1976, p. 295). Learners’ positive or negative attitude would impel or deter their spoken language learning, which conversely would also influence their attitude. Classroom activities (one environmental factor) should function as both the means and the platform for learning to occur since they provide learners with resources and affordances (van Lier, 2004). The learning in relation to classroom activities may originate from learners’ preparation, performance, and observation as well as teachers’ instruction and modeling, as discussed with the pre-class speech in Sect. 4.1. Learners’ performance in classroom activities and their spoken language learning mutually influence each other, too. Different from the more straightforward connection between the microsystem and learner’s language learning, the linkage between the mesosystem and learners’ language learning should be established through the microsystem. In the mesosystem, learners’ interactions with relatives or peers might impact their attitude and hence language learning; the extracurricular activities that the two participants engaged in were the extension and supplement of their classroom learning, also providing resources and affordances (van Lier, 2004) for spoken language learning. Participants’ engagement with extracurricular activities also concurs with the importance of out-of-class learning for language learning reported in other studies (Kashiwa & Benson, 2018; Lai, Zhu, & Gong, 2015). For spoken language learning, it is even more essential for learners to attend out-of-class activities/interactions like various spoken English-related contests and movie-watching, because from them learners may have more contact with authentic English and opportunities for using English in authentic situations. Meanwhile, learners’ performance in out-of-class activities may also produce reciprocal effects on their classroom learning, including spoken language learning. Similarly, the exosystem and the macrosystem contributed to spoken language learning also through their linkage with the microsystem. In the exosystem, under curriculum design are the English skill courses around reading, writing, listening, and speaking. These courses not only lay a

96

R. Niu

foundation for language learning but also open space for engaging in classroom activities and hence affordances for spoken language learning. In addition, such factors as course evaluation in the exosystem as well as the standard national examination and the pressure from non-English major students in the macrosystem may inform learners about the benchmark for speaking English and the motivation for promoting spoken English. Participants of the study experienced ecological transition in their perception of spoken language learning as their encounters accumulated with the change of the environment. The examples were Ting’s perception of the importance of pronunciation to the importance of fluency and effectiveness, and Jun’s perception of the importance of language competence and language conversion ability to the importance of hard work for spoken language learning. Such changes suggest the interaction between the learner and the environment (Peng, 2012; van Lier, 2004), and corroborate the findings reported in other studies (Kashiwa & Benson, 2018; Peng, 2012). The study also revealed the participants’ problems in speaking English and the strategies for solving the problems. For example, Jun accounted her experience of expressing 道士 (daoshi) and 瘟疫 (wenyi) in English while delivering a presentation, and came to know the communicative strategy of expressing ideas indirectly. Ting realized many Chinese EFL learners’ and even English-major students’ difficulty in dealing with unexpected situations. These indicate that spoken language learning is a social process, which can only be achieved through and in communication.

6

Conclusion

To conclude, the study presents an ecological understanding of Chinese English-major students’ spoken English learning: spoken language learning in EFL instruction contexts is an ecological process constructed through the interaction between the learner and the learning environment; it works at four layers of the ecosystem; and the four layers of the ecosystem are interactively linked, interdependent, and interrelated

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

97

with each other, constituting a dynamic unitary ecosystem of spoken language learning. The study has advanced existing research by adopting an ecological perspective and especially taking the nested ecosystems model as its analytical framework, in that it identified the individual and environmental factors influencing spoken language learning and established connections among them. Building on the findings, the study provides pedagogical implications for oral language teaching and learning in EFL contexts. First of all, it is important to cultivate students’ positive attitude toward oral language learning. Then teachers at the microsystemic and mesosystemic levels are suggested to provide learners with more oral activities as far as possible and encourage students to participate in these activities, in which students can learn different aspects of oral language from teachers, peers, preparation, and performance so as to improve their own oral communicative competence. In addition, top-down innovations may also bring about changes to teaching and students’ oral language learning. For example, a systematic curriculum could help lay a comprehensive foundation, including listening competence, grammar, and at the very least vocabulary, for learners’ oral communicative competence development; compulsory oral examinations will also orient teachers and students to do test preparation and hence students’ oral communicative competence can be promoted. The findings of the study should be interpreted cautiously due to its qualitative nature. First, the study collected the participants’ three months of learning experiences, which determines that the factors identified could not be exhaustive, so no conclusive finding could be made about EFL learners’ oral English learning. Second, the factors identified could not be generalized to other learners since only two participants were examined and different students might construct their learning ecosystem differently. Third, the study focused on two Englishmajor students and could not reveal the situation of non-English major students or an even larger body of English learners, although the findings can enlighten and transcend to non-English majors’ oral language learning.

98

R. Niu

Acknowledgements I appreciate Ms. Kailun Lu’s data collection, the two student informants’ contribution and devotion to the study, and Professor Xiaoye You’s proofreading of the paper. The study has been supported by the Ministry of Education Project of the Centre for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, and the Bilingual Cognition and Development Lab, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (GDUFS), China, and funded by the GDUFS Featured Innovation Project (No. 17TS14) as well as the GDUFS International Language-service-oriented. Foreign Language and Literature Creative Construction Program (No. 101-GK17GS52).

Appendix A: Interview Questions (Originally in Chinese) 1. Do you think English learning important? Why? 2. Do you always hold a positive attitude toward English learning? Were there ups and downs? 3. Which do you think the most important, English listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary or grammar? 4. Do you think oral English learning important? Why? 5. How do you learn English in class, and after class? 6. What problems did you meet in English learning, and how did you solve those problems? 7. What teaching activities do you think affected your oral English learning? 8. Did you attach importance to English pronunciation and stress? How did you look at the effect of English pronunciation and stress on oral English learning? 9. What efforts did you make on your own to improve your oral English? 10. Have these factors, including your parents and relatives, your English teacher, your classmates and friends, examinations, the Internet, learning environment and so on, affected your English learning, especially oral English learning? If yes, please elaborate it in detail.

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

99

11. Why do you choose English as your major in university? 12. Have you felt any differences in learning English in university?

Appendix B: Cued Questions for Journal Writing (Originally in Chinese) 1. What aspect(s) of English learning (e.g., listening, speaking, reading, writing, vocabulary and grammar) did you do in the past week? 2. Please describe one event you did in the past week that could enhance your oral English most. 3. In the past week, did the following people or events help or influence your oral English learning? If yes, how? 1) Your parents, teachers, or classmates; 2) The internet and other facilities like the self-study center or library; 3) Examinations including course tests, TEM4, BEC, IELTS, GRE, TOFEL and so on; 4) English contests like the English pronunciation context and the English drama contest; 5) Social practices like the export-import trade fair, practicum, or part-time job; 6) Environments like the job market; 7) Were there other factors affecting your study in the past week? If yes, please elaborate them.

References Baker-Smemoe, W., Dewey, D. P., Brown, J., & Martinsen, R. A. (2014). Variables affecting L2 gains during study abroad. Foreign Language Annals, 47 (3), 464–486. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

100

R. Niu

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). The ecology of cognitive development: Research models and fugitive findings. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 3– 44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39, 468– 479. Conroy, M. A. (2016). Contextual factors in second language learning in a short-term study abroad programme in Australia. The Language Learning Journal, 44 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2015.1118643. Dewey, D. P., Brown, J., Baker, W., Martinsen, R. A., Gold, C., & Eggitt, D. (2014). Language use in six study abroad programs: An exploratory analysis of possible predictors. Language Learning, 64 (1), 36–71. Duff, P. A. (2013). Case study approach in applied linguistics. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gao, X. (2009). The ‘English corner’ as an out-of-class learning activity. ELT Journal, 63(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccno13. Gao, X. (2013). Reflexive and reflective thinking: A critical link between agency and autonymy. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 7 (3), 226– 237. Hern’andez, T. A. (2010). The relationship among motivation, interaction, and the development of second language oral proficiency in a study-abroad context. The Modern Language Journal, 94 (4), 600–617. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01053.x. Jin, Q., Dai, S., Liu, C., Zhao, F., & Wu, D. (2004). A survey study on successful CET-4 takers’ oral proficiency and influencing factors. Overseas Foreign Language Teaching, 2, 41–46. Kashiwa, M., & Benson, P. (2018). A road and a forest: Conception of in-class and out-of-class learning in the transition to study abroad. TESOL Quarterly, 52(4), 725–747. Kurata, N. (2010). Opportunities for foreign language learning and use within a learner’s informal social networks. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17 (4), 382– 396. Lai, C., Zhu, W., & Gong, G. (2015). Understanding the quality of out-ofclass English learning. TESOL Quarterly, 49 (2), 278–308. Newcombe, L. P. (2007). Social context and fluency in L2 learners: The case of Wales. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

4 An Ecological Perspective on EFL Learners’ Oral …

101

Niu, R., Lu, K., & You, X. (2018). Oral language learning in a foreign language context: Constrained or constructed? A sociocultural perspective. System, 74, 38–49. Ortega, L. (2011). SLA after the social turn: Where cognitivism and its alternatives stand. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 167–180). New York, NY: Routledge. Oxford, R. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: Concepts and relationships. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 41, 271–278. Palfreyman, D. (2006). Social context and resources for language learning. System, 34, 352–370. Peng, J.-E. (2012). Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System, 40, 203–213. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245–259). Oxford: Oxford University Press. van Lier, L. (2002). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language sociolization: Ecological perspectives (pp. 140–164). London: Continuum. van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 214–231. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zeng, X. (2002). Environmental/affective factors affecting non-English majors’ oral English output: An experimental study (MA thesis). Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an. Zhang, D., Yang, Y., & Li, R. (2004). Factors influencing Chinese EFL learners’ oral English fluency and corresponding teaching strategies. Foreign Language World, 1, 15–20.

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian Migrants in Australia Hossein Shokouhi

1

Introduction

Since the inception of Block’s (2003) ‘social turn’ in SLA, the trend in second language research towards poststructuralist norms, such as power dynamics, ideology, and politics of language (Fairclough, 2013; van Dijk, 2006), investment (Darvin & Norton, 2015; Norton, 2013), and the like has been accelerating. This study is aligned with filling part of the gap of this trend by investigating Iranian migrants’ lived experience challenges they face when speaking English in Australia. The current study, through interview data, is revealing how migrants’ lack of adequate competency in English has resulted in their linguistic disempowerment. The debilitating effect of being unable to speak expressively about Iran’s past glory and embolden their identity, as well as their inability in using the right language to make criticism of others is overwhelming. As such, H. Shokouhi (B) School of Education, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_5

103

104

H. Shokouhi

concerning the overall theme of the current book, this chapter will contribute to by focusing on some of the most challenging concepts (i.e. resistance), exposing the difficult moments of learners’ journey of using L2 in the real language use context (e.g. marginalization due to lack of linguistic power in L2), and reflecting on L2 speakers’ motives (i.e. linguistic empowerment). The themes expressed above, that is linguistic domination and power, identity, etc. are part of the cultural attributes of learning a language. Culture, vital to any human communication system, basically includes a set of beliefs, social practices, religions values, and ideologies generally conceded and maintained by the majority in any given community. These values and practices are learnt as part of a community’s language learning process. As cultures vary in terms of beliefs as well as social and religious norms, effective intercultural communication sometimes fails, and can even become confronting. Effective communication is truly possible if communicators possess a common knowledge of the culture surrounding that language. However, cultural values include a degree of tolerance in dialogic communication, freedom of speech for others, hence allowing for critical thinking, which, according to Paton (2015), is performed in the communicator’s own cultural artefacts. For instance, a Persian most likely sugar-coats his/her criticality in a complex web of Persian politeness to avoid confrontation. Other cultural norms can include, among other things, power relations (e.g. authoritative relations between individuals and the hierarchy that establishes that relation), individual and collective identity, investment, etc. In a society such as Iran, where many of the relationships are built on hierarchical basis (Beeman, 2001), people often grow up showing reluctance in disagreeing with their elders or authorities. That said, however, as it is the significance of this study, according to Liddicoat (2016), these socio-cultural norms will also allow interaction among language speakers to nurture and cultivate a kind of knowledge construction that can augment dialogic interaction between people. Further, as

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

105

Kramsch (2010) states, language helps this meaning-making social practice to be built between speakers, and it (re)creates interpretation that uphold and even bolster interpersonal relationships. Given the fact that Persian is a different language than English, and the socio-cultural norms that are practiced in Iran vary enormously from an English-speaking country such as Australia, this study is going to expose some of the fundamental cultural challenges for a group of Iranian migrants—challenges such as identity reconstruction, power dynamics in the language use context, investment in L2, and critical thinking. These concepts and practices have already been formed in Iran, and it is significant to realize how they reproduced in the Australian context. To this end, 12 individual interview sessions were conducted with Persian male-female speaking migrants in the State of Victoria, Australia (see the method section below) and they were asked to describe their language learning journey to Australia, considering their arrival, their settlement, their migrant English classes, their workplace, etc. To do this, a qualitative analysis of data, which is gathered from these interviews, is presented to discuss the challenges that they have encountered during their lived experience throughout their journey. The data mainly come from two different types of migrants—skilled visa migrants with university degrees and professional skills, as well as asylum seekers with various professions, and often with poorer English compared to the skilled migrant group. This study will adopt a CDA approach to shed light on these cultural challenges. The CDA approach that is taken in this study is based on Fairclough (2013) who sees language as text production and consumption. In other words, linguistic choices will be taken as the basis for demonstrating and interpreting the cultural nuances, such as power relations and the politics of language that could potentially facilitate or hinder communication of L2. The discussion will demonstrate how participants’ lived experiences help them cope with some of the cultural challenges.

106

2

H. Shokouhi

Theoretical Background

In this section the importance of Persian identities and how they are reflected in the use of English in the Australian community are discussed.

2.1

Persian Speakers’ Identity and L2 Communication Practices

Since this chapter is on the relation between some aspects of identity, in particular linguistic identity, of Persian speakers in L2 communication context (e.g. such as nationalism, the hierarchical order of power dynamics in Iran, and critical thinking), it is worthwhile to briefly outline the complexity of Persian speakers’ linguistic identity—hence the importance of terms zaher (appearance or public image), baten (inner self ) and Persian politeness system of ta’rof (see below) which are deemed significant in the discussion on power dynamics and critical thinking. Iran is a country of linguistic and cultural diversities and depending on what part of the country a person comes from, they exhibit different identities with respect to language use. For example, in the North West there are ethnic communities who speak Azari Turkish, and in the South West there are Arabic speaker communities. These two languages are quite distinct from Persian and unintelligible to Persian speakers. There are also Kurds in the North West, who speak Kurdish, and Baluchi in the South East, who speak Baluchi, both of which are from the same language group as Persian yet different from standard Persian. In between these extremes there are several dialect varieties including Lori, Gilaki, Mazandarani, etc. as well as a number of accents such as Shirazi, Esfahani, etc. That said, the mainstream language is Persian, which is the language of education and government. The socio-political and geo-political circumstances of Iran have continually been shifting due to massive wars. This is probably one of the underlying reasons for why Iranians have become adaptable to novel and unacquainted way of life (Katouzian, 2010). The consequence of the long-lasting attacks to the country has raised a sense of diffidence and insecurity among people that has created a tension within self, as

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

107

well as self and other—called zaher and baten (Beeman, 1986). This double standard duality has manifested itself in linguistic and cultural traits. The complexity in this tension has led to a complicated politeness framework called ta’rof that can take a very long time for a Persian speaker to master its maze (Sharifian & Tayebi, 2017). One of the representations of Persian politeness is the complex network of honorifics (Shokouhi, 2018). Shokouhi and Fard Kashani (2019) further discuss how two different groups of Iranian skilled migrants and asylum seekers in Australia face zaher and baten in a contrastive way. Nationalistic attitude and prejudice are also key characteristics of many Iranians (Zaini, 2020). They often like to think of the good wills and deeds of the glorious days of the past Persian Empire. According to Zaini, Elling (2008) believes that the feeling of nationalistic prejudice is stirred by the government at the time of crises and intensifies people’s emotion. While ordinarily the government is not concerned about the right of minorities, in crises the discourse of the government shifts towards the recognition of minority rights, including a right to their language, religion, etc. This resonates well with Bourdieu’s concept of capital (i.e. symbolic capital) and how power can steer the direction. What I intend to argue here further is the effect of Persian poetry that has produced a ‘linguistic capital’ which symbolizes Persian linguistic power, that is highly celebrated and bragged by almost any Persian speaker. Ferdowsi, the eleventh century epic poet, is eminently popular among the Iranians. His poetry, which is the reminiscent of Persian renowned eras, is often recited by the elders and impacts the audience’s patriotic sentiments. Ferdowsi’s pungent epic poetry, which is extremely melodious and harmonic, entices the listener, and as a result easily positions him. Another crucial role in language learning is played by critical thinking. Critical thinking has often been considered a Western inquest. For instance, Atkinson (1997), Canagarajah (2002), and Pennycook (1996) hold the view that critical thinking is much of a western product and is discordant with Asian collectivism. Moore (2011), also resonating this view that reflecting critically is a product of Western education, thinks that the role of language is evaluating, questioning, and critiquing in order to transform the existing knowledge, guidelines, and standards.

108

H. Shokouhi

However, Paton (2015) maintains that criticality exists in all cultures, but the manner by which it is represented varies from culture to culture. I argue that Persian literature and poetry has had a long lasting effect on Iranian’s critical ability. This effect partly comes from the Naser-Khosrow and Ferdowsi’s inspiration (eleventh century poets) and partly from Sa’di (a thirteenth century poet). While Naser-Khosrow and Ferdowsi’s advice is more direct, Sa’di’s is more didactic and political, and the blend has reinforced concepts zaher and baten. Shokouhi and Latifi (2019), citing from Persian poets, state that poets such as Naser-Khosrow and Ferdowsi believe that empowerment is achieved through knowledge and leads to critical thinking. They also maintain that throughout the centuries of the despot kings, the prevalent system of education has become a memorization system where things that are learned are considered as factual. Fahim and Sa’eepour (2011) as well as Fahim and Ahmadian (2012) believe that critical thinking has been downgraded in the Iranian educational system, and it has become very distant and almost alien to the education system. That said, critical thinking is not a norm of practice in the Iranian education system in general or the explicit teaching objective of Persian language and literature classes in particular, nor is it the practice of teaching L2 in the country. The kind of L2 that is taught in countries where the mainstream is a language other than English (Kachru, 1990—outer and expanding circles) mostly emphasizes the learning of grammatical structures and vocabulary. There is no denial that these are the fundamental building blocks for communication. However, what I argue is that it is as significant, if not more significant, to consider the role that language plays in creating knowledge in the new context. This study through participants’ comments and feedback has demonstrated that language should be used to empower an individual and to establish his/her role as an active participant in a community’s discourse to establish his/her identity as an individual. This can be enhanced by engaging into a dialogic space in L2 discourse, so as to augment the learners’ tolerance of criticality, and the language learner can generate new ideas. For instance, teachers and learners need to realize that they need not engage their conversation parties, when speaking English, in complex politeness network that they employ when speaking Persian because much of that complexly elaborated system of politeness is instigated from hierarchic relations.

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

3

109

Literature Review

There are many daily intervening cultural aspects, such as power dynamics, every day identity challenges, marginalization due to incompetency of the second language, and so on when a second language is learned and practiced in the real environment. This is different from the unnatural second language classroom whose aims are profoundly different (see above). Liddicoat and Scarino (2013) believe that the interplay between language and culture is vital in learning and using another language in real situation. They believe that the meaning of language is not solely based on the form of language, but the generation of meaning is chiefly based on the cultural frame, negotiation of identities of self and other, investment (Norton, 2013), etc. In one study that was carried out in 2010, De Costa uncovered that investment was particularly constructive for understanding the way English was embraced by his participant in exhibiting academic identity. However, many studies (Cummins & Early, 2010; Haneda, 2005) including De Costa suggested a central point that emerged from their research—the ownership of English. De Costa (2010) believes that an ideologically driven framework is needed to reflect on cultural constructs that takes into account socio-political context, linguistic capital, subjectivity, and ‘positioning’ in language learning issues. I also argue further that language users and learners are often positioned in various ways by those in power who suppress the voices of the weak in terms of language competence. Power positions a speaker and imposes its own construction of reality on the speaker. It is the structure of power that delineates the entrance of particular speakers into a debating space. As De Costa and Norton (2016) maintain, investigating the depth of power is one of the central concepts in recognizing ideology. In another study, Shokouhi (2016) reports on a case study of a Chinese postgraduate student in Australia that had challenges coming to terms with power relations and critical thinking in Australia at the commencement of her studies. As she had done a previous degree at a Chinese university, she said she was thinking of a similar hierarchical relation between teachers and students in Australia before coming to this country.

110

H. Shokouhi

However, she was astounded when she found the relation was not hierarchical. Further, she asserted that this hierarchical situation would impede people from making critiques. She acknowledged that it was not simply the role of language proficiency that deterred her from expressing her critical views but more importantly it was the way she had conceptualized critical thinking in China because in China most often critiquing equals to fault finding in others. We need to bear in mind that the focus of education systems such as Chinese, and most likely similarly Iran, is not on analytical thinking. The ‘authoritative power that dominates the education’ system determines the way students should perform critically. When hierarchy becomes the normativity, it turns into an ideological belief as part of a person’s habitus (Bourdieu, 1991). The participant, nonetheless, emphasized the contribution that Australia had on her lived experience regarding ‘open-mindedness’, which she thought was necessary for a ‘healthy context for educational goals’ (Shokouhi, 2016, pp. 128–129). Foucault (1994) mentions that it is the ideology that regulates the kind of social and educational practices, and it produces a kind of knowledge which seems authentic. The knowledge that is obtained in this way reproduces itself over time. Similarly, in this regard Bourdieu (1991) talks about habitus. Habitus is reproduced by ideology. It is the prevalent habitus in a society that delimits the identity of an individual or a collective to act, and probably pushes the individual to think in certain ways. The overseeing ideology controls the inclusion or exclusion of certain individuals or certain collectives. As the data in this study reveal, participants who are at a weaker position in terms of knowing and using English in the host community suffer the most and become very vulnerable, hence are side-lined. Nevertheless, it is a truism that today’s global access to resources will allow individuals to flex themselves from the hegemonic forces, though to a limited extent, but the new neoliberal social order of the world tries to cling to power and enjoy their hegemony as much as they can. The contention between these two has impacts on the identity of language users; hence the identity becomes more fluid than before. So, it seems that the investment that is perceived globally, at the present time, would allow for more freedom of individuals and their

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

111

agency roles, and can increase the resistant capacity of those in power as well (Darvin & Norton, 2015). The question is whether it is possible to treat the learning of another language in a classroom context and include adequate cultural contexts to enable learners deduce, infer, and interpret the different cultural meanings. It is the responsibility of the second language teachers as well as language learners to prepare the ground for this change. If this can be achieved, an intercultural identity will be developed in learners of a second language which will facilitate the development of the cultural nuances of the target language. The kind of intercultural identity achieved in this way will positively ease the boundaries between ‘self ’ and ‘other’ because communicating in English at a global level inevitably involves some kind of clash between one’s culture and others’ culture (Liddicoat, 2016).

4

Methodology

In this section, the theoretical frame for the study is presented, followed by the design of the study.

4.1

Theoretical Frame

Every culture possesses a set of symbolic resources that speakers utilize to show their dignity and pride. Norton (2013) argues that language learners try to invest in their language by relying on these symbolic resources—Bourdieu (1991) refers to them as symbolic capital. In actuality, identity of an individual is embodied within investment of his/her linguistic capital which is motivated by power relation, and the lack of this linguistic capital, hence linguistic disempowerment, can lead to marginalization. This could literally mean inaccessibility to many important resources. Language learner is a dynamic social actor whose multiple identities are in constant change. As Darvin and Norton (2015) maintain, language learners may have strong motivation; however, this does not mean that they also have highly invested in their language acquisition

112

H. Shokouhi

and language interaction. This is owed to several factors among which are the phobias in the classroom, racist jokes, sexist language, etc. For instance, it is not uncommon these days to hear discussions about islamophobia in the media and among politician, and even ordinary people. When such a heavy ambience and tone prevails, a Moslem finds it too challenging to partake in conversations with non-Muslims. Liddicoat (2016) referring to Habermas who believes that language should play an emancipatory role maintains that for language teaching to be effective, it is critical that the aim of language learning should be to enable ‘agency’ in terms of the choices that users need to make from among the resources available to them (p. 22). This means giving the language learner a central role so that they realize they are acting as social actors in order to reveal their identities through their language learning journey. It is on this basis that this chapter, according to Liddicoat and Scarino (2013), is going to address a ‘hermeneutic process’ of L2 communication in which language learners reveal their natural encounters in real L2 situations. That is, learners conceptualize what they have previously learned in their L1 and L2 contexts, and compare the cultural aspects (e.g. power, tolerance of ambiguity, criticism, etc.), and compensate for them with a new critical reflection. This study, therefore, purports to shed light on these cultural challenges that a group of Iranian migrants encounter while communicating their L2 in an English-speaking environment.

4.2

The Design of the Study

What follows in the design section of the study is the data collection procedure as well as data analysis.

Data Collection and Participants The data of this study come from a set of case studies that the author was involved in, and for which the ethics had been approved. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews and only questions that involved the role of language (i.e. English by Persian speakers

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

113

in Australia) were considered for the data analysis of this paper (see below for the types of questions). The selected excerpts from these data are specifically centring around issues such as linguistic identity, power achieved through language, nationalism, and critical thinking. There were 12 Persian speaker participants (five females and seven males) of the median age of 30–40, engaged in the use of English as part of their daily routines in Australia. The participants’ length of stay in Australia varied from 2 to 5 years. The participants were asked to describe their language learning journey and the feelings associated with it. They reflected on their arrival in Australia, and after that when they attended the English for migrants’ classes at different language centres that had been designated by the Victorian immigration department, and their workplace, if they had any work experience in Australia. Some of the participants had come on a skilled-based migration visa, some on a business visa, and some others had travelled to Australia by boat as asylum seekers, having no visa at the time of entrance.

Data Analysis As mentioned above, there was one main research question and three sub-questions that were posed to the participants. The main question was if they could describe their language learning journey to Australia (considering their arrival, their settlement, their English classes, their workplace, etc.)? And the sub-questions were: (a) if they could explain the identity challenges that they experienced while engaging in speaking English; (b) while communicating in English in the workplace or in interviews for a job if they encountered any enforced power; and (c) whether their journey helped them to reflect back retrospectively and heighten their critical thinking. The questions were asked in Persian, and participants were asked to respond to them with the language of their choice—Persian or English. All preferred to speak in Persian. After the data were collected, those chucks that were thematically related to this study were transcribed and translated into English. The translations were double checked by

114

H. Shokouhi

three Persian speakers who were fluent in English. The excerpts below begin with the initial letter of each participant. The analysis of data involves a qualitative analysis which reflects on the role that English as L2 plays in relation to the disempowered and marginalized Iranians in diaspora, and a way forward to critical thinking and reflection. The data are analyzed using Fairclough’s (2013) CDA approach. Fairclough defines a text the ultimate product of a discourse or social practice which reflects power relations embedded between the people involved in the text production. According to Fairclough, speakers’ selection of linguistic choices could suggest power and status relation, or show resistance to such relation. Speakers would choose to position others through these linguistic choices, or are themselves positioned by others through these choices. It is the order of discourse in a normal conversation or interview, as it is the order of the world at a macro level, that determines a certain type of language with specific characteristics to be produced and consumed. Discourses that are produced in this way become part of the discourse of a community and over the course of time become normalized, hence determining the order of discourse in a community. The data interpretation focuses on themes involving the politics of discourse that are highly pertinent to L2 oral communication skills in the host community of English-speaking Australia. As such, the data are analyzed for investment and identity (Norton, 2013), and ideas associated with identity, such as nationalism. The data are also interpreted for the significance of power and domination in the workplace in the host community. Critical thinking is the other concept for which the idea is interpreted. The reason for focusing on these themes is that they are sensitive topics and are extremely significant in migrants’ everyday life and discourse in English speaking communities, and lack of skills to deal with these topics would jeopardize their career and marginalize them.

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

5

115

Findings and Discussion

The following section reports on the data analysis and interpretation of the data in terms of three major concepts discussed in the literature. These are investment and the authoritative power of English, nationalism, and critical thinking. All of these reflect on symbolic and linguistic capitals (Bourdieu, 1991) as well as power (Foucault, 1994). The whole data are discussed under CDA approach (Fairclough, 2013).

5.1

Investment, Power, and Identity in Persian Migrants’ L2

Terms such as investment, power, and identity are in a constant interplay with each other. To being with, ‘investment’ is one of the key issues that demonstrates L2 speakers’ reflection on their past language learning, and what they think could be done to avoid the undesirable circumstance of the past language learning. For example, speaker K in the excerpt below admits that if she knew English would be determining of her future life and her children, she would invest in it much harder. Had this participant not been in Australia, she would have most likely not talked about this situation as investment. The reflection on her past in terms of the usefulness of English could be taken as guidance for those who never think of the benefit of English, particularly in the migration process. K: If my English had been improved before and after to Australia, I could have better invested in my life and my children’s education.

The same participant continues in the excerpt below focusing on another aspect of language use. She emphasizes the significant function of linguistic empowerment. As Sanches Silva (2013) stresses, where English is not the dominant language, as in the case of this participant while she was in Iran and did not realize the importance of English, speakers should think of an imagined community. The imagined community can be given an affordance of opportunity via virtual lines and interactions with those who use English as the mainstream language on the web.

116

H. Shokouhi

The imagined community can be utilized as a proper space for learning English by ESL/EAL teachers. K: Language gives you power. You know when I was in Iran, I knew some English and thought that would be it. Bust since I have come here, I see that this is not enough at all. And I seem to be at the beginning of my journey of learning English. The more you learn, the more you feel you are satisfied and powerful.

Knowing and using English in the poststructuralist global era is a matter of identity, which suggests that English is not owned by particular groups of people, previously referred to as native speakers. Norton (2013) perceives identity as a site of struggle. It is a site that constructs the power relations in which each speaker encounters people from different subjectivities. According to Weedon (1997) poststructuralism reveals the dominant power relations that exist between individuals and groups of community practices, and how this is defined by subjectivity which is an individual’s thoughts and feelings about one’s role and relation of power in the world order. Here in this excerpt the speaker imagines the site of contention between the linguistic capital before coming to Australia, when English was not taken seriously due to cultural conflicts between the Iranian government mind-set about the west, and the new context, where she realizes the importance of English. She is cognizant that the lack of knowledge of English will place her down in the hierarchy and she becomes impoverished and disadvantaged. In the following excerpt, speaker M also talks about the status and power that language gives him. His son who has invested in English is now in a better position to lead the family linguistically whereas the father thinks he is incapacitated by the lack of English. M: Sometimes, my child helps me with my English. I realize in him that he feels very powerful and standing at the top when he interprets for me. On the contrary, I feel disempowered in front of him.

As the breadwinner of the family, fathers enjoy a high status in Iran and their children are often under their command. However, his life

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

117

in Australia has taken two kinds of powers from him. One is the loss of his identity as a previously conceived powerful father, and the other is the powerlessness he feels because of his language. As it is evident in the two preceding examples by the direct use of ‘power’, Fairclough (2013) rightly points out that speakers choose phrases to suggest power and social status and the way disempowerment is reflected through resistance. In this case of L2, command and proper use of L2 will give the speaker power, and lack of it results in disempowerment and marginalization. In the case of the example above where the child interprets for the parents, it is seen clearly how power contention is created between parents and the child. As for the role of investment, presentation of identity and the empowerment through L2, as evidenced in the data, Persian speakers think that they should strive for showing their identity to other migrants from other countries living in Australia as well as the Australians. This aspirational motive which will trigger their language learning thirst for demonstrating their identity, and for which they are proud of, can in the long run affect the improvement of L2. It empowers them to seek their rights and release some of the pressure of becoming marginalized. The older migrants who have experienced marginalization due to incompetency in L2 will advise their children to invest in their language to be successful in the host community.

5.2

Nationalism and Identity Reflected in L2 Communication

Nationalistic attitude is a chief cultural principle for many Iranians. Zaini (2020) discusses nationalistic stance through the Persian concept of ta’sob/ghairat a term that is hard to define in English and find an equivalent for, however literally approximated to ‘emotional prejudice accompanied with a kind of bigotry’—a concept that is closely tied to ‘ownership’, authority, and ‘power’ (Shokouhi & Zaini, 2020). As Ferdowsi, the eleventh century Persian poet, maintains, acquiring knowledge creates power and authority. This is evident in the verse ‘tavana

118

H. Shokouhi

bovad hark e dana bovad ’ ‘the powerful is the one with knowledge’—a verse that almost any Persian regardless of degree of literacy remembers. One of the purposes that speakers insist to communicate is the cultural values that they think are instrumental. For instance, in the excerpt below, speaker S wishes to employ English to demonstrate to her listeners, and probably manipulate for political purposes the wealth of her cultural background. In other words, she envisages the application of language in expressing the cultural and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1991). S: I think I am devastated when I encounter a situation where I am unable to express the richness of Iran, its culture, its food and lifestyle.

Another speaker, T, in a different interview mentions a similar view. He thinks it is very worthwhile to be fluent in English so that he can convey the importance of his national pride and its historical values to people. This will give a sense of belonging as well as authority to the speaker who often tends to exaggerate the adherence to their nationalistic symbols. T: Iran was once a great country. Some people don’t know this and you want to explain it to them but inadequacy of vocabulary sometimes will not allow you to do so.

Beeman (2001) by discussing ‘affectivity’ as a communicative act that is ‘by nature systemic’ (p. 31) upholds that it requires some marking devices in language to convey the relation between speaker and addressee. It is a ‘heightened form of expression which seems best to convey emotion’ (p. 37). Beeman continues that this is emanated from the contrast between zaher and baten in the Iranian culture (see above). Baten is mystical and religious and is presented to the outside world when there is romantic craving or ‘righteous anger’ for something. Zaher, on the other hand, accommodates the public perception where addresses are ‘entertained’ (p. 38). It is a truism that hierarchical structure is almost a universal trait of all humans. In some cultures, such as Persian it is quite symbolic. It gives status and power to one who thinks holds the superior status. The more emotion and exaggeration are attached to it, the more

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

119

solemn would be the drive and thrust towards nationalism. However, what is not discussed by Beeman is the influence of Persian poetry on emotion. As discussed below, whether people are interested in epic poetry or romantic and mystic poetry, the powerful rhyming stimulates emotion so much so that the excessive delightfulness that is achieved is beyond imagination. This exaggerated emotion is compounded in the current political debate where the religious government demands the youth for compliance to the Islamic codes, and the youth, on the other hand, desire for the unfamiliar distant past which was nearly three thousand years ago when Persia enjoyed its highest imperial status. A similar quote is presented below by speaker N who thinks of the kings as glorious and majestic. Here the speaker takes you to a very distant past and relies on anecdotes or historical accounts. She talks about peace in the distant past; however there is little evidence for her belief. It is the involvement of emotion that stimulates this utterance. As mentioned above, Persian poetry and the concepts within different poets’ messages overshadow part of the Iranian identities. On the one hand, Ferdowsi’s poetry stirs a Persian’s emotion so much so that as if they are in a battlefield, and on the other hand, poets like Molana (known as Rumi), another thirteenth century poet, and Hafiz, a fourteenth century poet, predominantly speak of eternity and internal peace, as well as the transitory nature of this worldly life. N: Iran is very diverse in cultures and languages and I am very proud of my nationality because long long time ago the kings sheltered people from other places to live peacefully in Iran.

Pirzadeh (2018) characterizes the tradition of the oral culture in Iran and believes that relying on anecdote due to vast illiteracy in the past, which has exacerbated their critical thinking ability (see below), is a feature of majority of Iranians. Shokouhi, Norwood, and Soltani (2015) also stress the Persian’s preference for unidentified and unsourced evidential. As in hearsays, the unsourced evidential is very commonplace in Persian and they are hardly doubted or mistrusted. There is often little motivation for enquiring about the sources. As long as people do not name an authority

120

H. Shokouhi

and refer to them as unidentified sources, they are in a safe zone, and not considered as critical. As far as nationalism is concerned, while Persian speakers are in their home country—Iran, they are less concerned with their nationalistic identities, excepting for political crises circumstances. However, living in diaspora will prompt their nationalistic identity. This by itself can empower them to restore this identity and have debates around it in English. So, L2 teachers should encourage their learners to discuss topics related to their national identity. This kind of practice can not only enhance their motivation for improving L2 but can also lead to better thinking around the issue. When this kind of debate is challenged by teachers and language learners from other ethnic communities, they can realize that other cultures also enjoy holding similar nationalistic values. If Iran has had a glorious past, other cultures also possessed celebrated past. This kind of critical thinking can alleviate the dogmatic views around radical nationalistic and patriotic views.

5.3

Use of Critical Thinking in L2 Context

Critical thinking, as stated above, is a cultural precept. As will be seen from the quotes below, speaker A, who has attended some English classes in Australia as part of their migration settlement, is critical of the way asking questions was limited in Iran and this has had negative impacts on her learning English. She mentions that in Australian educational context, unlike Iran, they encourage the learners to express themselves, and even freely criticize. However, she thinks due to the Iranian cultural and educational background criticism is discourteous. She also maintains that it is not only her limited range of vocabulary in English but her inexpressiveness that makes her anxious. She continues that even if she were to elaborate matters in Persian, she would have probably been as anxious, not because of her command of Persian language but because of her inability in detailed speech in Persian. A: I have understood from very early on that criticizing or even critical thinking is considered impolite and negative. So, this means I normally

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

121

accept the idea. Many of our teachers at school were offended when they were asked more than a few questions. They thought we were challenging their authoritative power.

In another interview, speaker S emphasizes the same concepts. She believes that asking questions is regarded as rude. S: Frequently asking questions is rude and they look at you as you are disturbing the progress of the class. Therefore, at times I tried to hide my questions. I knew the grammatical structure of English and even my vocabulary expansion was not that limited, but since in Farsi classes we were never asked to give the details on ideas and elaborate on them, we could not improve the academic level of our conversation engagement.

In another instance, speaker F in the following excerpt points out that teachers are one of the major sources of impediments on learners’ critical ability. Nonetheless, it must be emphasized that teachers are from similar discourse communities as students. Bakhtin (1981) believes that one’s identity is the identity of others because it is through the interaction with others that one’s identity is co-constructed and shaped. Shor and Freire (1987) as well as Kim and Wilkinson (2019) believe that critical thinking is conceivable and likely to occur if in the dialogic communication circumstance there is no authoritative force to coerce the learner into a certain belief. F: Teachers would feed you with their ideas and not asking the students to interpret ideas or what they would think of the class discussions.

Finally, when asked whether they have sensed any improvement by attending English classes in Australia or by engaging in conversation with people, many were positive about the improvement. Two excerpts are mentioned below to illustrate this. R: In Australian classes I feel more confident. Even if you don’t raise any question, the teacher wants you to have your opinion on the matters that are discussed in the class. This motivates your critical reflection, see your

122

H. Shokouhi

faults and improve them. Now, I am a little able to elaborate on things whereas before I didn’t have that confidence and motivation. A: I think I have become open minded. I can listen to others, and I know that when my turn comes; I can express my ideas too. In Iran, it seems that we follow the teacher thoughtlessly. Here I seem to have changed my personality as well. I know how to raise questions without being impolite, and I know that other people respect my opinion too.

Speaker A also recounted a nice story about critical thinking in her school in Iran. She said once their composition teacher at the primary school asked them to write something about the popular lesson in their textbook ‘The liar shepherd’ which in many cultures is known as ‘The shepherd boy and the wolf story’. The story is about a shepherd who after three times lying to the villagers still kept telling them that a wolf was coming to devour their sheep. This resulted in the villagers’ disbelief in the shepherd. The shepherd was eventually helpless when the wolf really turned up the fourth time. This participant was asserting that one of her classmates said her father had told her to tell their teachers that the shepherd is not a liar. The liar is the politician who comes to collect vote, and every few years he appears and says that he has come to change our life, but every time he deceives us with a new trick, not like the poor illiterate shepherd with the same trick over and over again. So, out of the popular story another important educational story was created to redirect students’ attention to the real-world issues and how those in power would manipulate the truth, and how thinking critically would help their realization of the matter.

6

Conclusion

This study intended to shed light on the oral communication challenges of a group of Iranian L2 migrants to Australia. The main research question that was put forward to the migrant participants was to describe their language learning journey to Australia from their arrival, their settlement, their migrant English classes, their workplace, if they any, etc. The

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

123

other three sub-questions that followed were about the reflection on their identity, power, and critique capability while communicating in L2 (see data analysis section above). The interview data revealed that adequate competency in L2 is necessary but not sufficient to enable them to express their desires. The participants emphasized the empowering role of language. They wished they could express their Persian identity, make right criticism, and had access to resources. They emphasized that being disadvantaged of these had curbed them to marginalization and disempowerment. The interview data revealed three major socio-cultural challenges that Iranian migrants encounter while communication in English in Australia—loss of linguistic power that otherwise could be expressed by L1, unable to present their nationalistic identity as much as they wanted to, and the right way criticality could be expressed in L2. This study opens a window to those involved in teaching English to transcend teaching the basic components of language, and ensure that after their learners have made an acceptable improvement in English proficiency, redirect the focus on the actual cultural challenges that learners face in a society to which they will migrate. Teachers of English and material designers in Iran should realize the differences between the requirements for using English inside the country (e.g. for the purpose of reading, or job entry requirement, promotion in a job, etc.) and those for migration purposes. The skills and strategies that they need for the latter group to cope with the above challenges would be (a) raising their confidence in whatever amount of mastery in English they have, rather than focusing on errors; (b) also recommended is that they choose topics that raise awareness about the structural egalitarian life in English-speaking countries so that they have some familiarity with the communication system that operates between people and their relations; (c) choosing topics that deal with migrants’ fragile life and how learning English can assist in strengthening their mental life; and finally (d) as regards texts, the kinds of reading and spoken texts should be chosen that are challenging in terms of criticality (Fairclough, 2002; van Dijk, 2003). This would ease their tolerance towards ambiguities.

124

H. Shokouhi

Teachers of English as L2 need to be aware of the role that language plays in reflecting and shaping the language learner’s identity. They should concentrate on the function of critical power of language and allow for dialogic communication where tolerance of criticism could be enhanced. Teachers should allow for the expression of different voices. Some cultural tensions may become barriers in allowing people to communicate. For instance, probably in many cultures as well as in Iranian, critiquing authorities is considered ill-mannered and insolent. When learning another language, speakers think the same cultural tradition rolls over to the new language, and learners feel that it would be similarly impudent to question authorities. And even if they dare do so, they do not know when and how. Therefore, teachers should encourage their learners in the direction of using language for creative purposes, as the popular story of the ‘liar shepherd’ above has revealed to us.

References Atkinson, D. (1997). A critical approach to critical thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 71–94. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Beeman, W. O. (1986). Language, status and power in Iran. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Beeman, W. O. (2001). Emotion and sincerity in Persian discourse: Accomplishing the representation of inner states. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 148, 31–57. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Canagarajah, S. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Cummins, J., & Early, M. (Eds.). (2010). Identity texts: The collaborative creation of power in multi-lingual schools. Staffordshire, UK: Trentham.

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

125

Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistic. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56. De Costa, P. I. (2010). Reconceptualizing language, language learning, and the adolescent immigrant language learner in the age of postmodern globalization. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4 (9), 769–781. De Costa, P., & Norton, B. (2016). Identity in language learning and teaching: Research agendas for the future. In S. Preece (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and identity (pp. 586–601). London: Routledge. Elling, R. C. (2008). State of mind, state of order: Reactions to ethnic unrests in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 8, 481–501. Fahim, M., & Ahmadian, M. (2012). Critical thinking and Iranian EFL context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3, 793–800. Fahim, M., & Sa’eepour, M. (2011). The impact of teaching critical thinking skills on reading comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(2), 867–874. Fairclough, N. (2002). Discourse as social practice. London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1994). Truth and juridical forms. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984. Vol. 3, power (pp. 1–89). London: Penguin. Haneda, M. (2005). Investing in foreign-language writing: A study of two multicultural learners. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 4 (4), 269–290. Kachru, B. B. (1990). The alchemy of English: The spread, functions, and models of non—native Englishes. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Katouzian, H. (2010). The Persians: Ancient, mediaeval and modern Iran. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kim, M. Y., & Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2019). What is dialogic teaching? Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing a pedagogy of classroom talk. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 70–86. Kramsch, C. (2010). Language and culture. London: Oxford University Press. Liddicoat, A. J. (2016). Interpretation and critical reflection in intercultural language learning: Consequences of a critical perspective for the teaching and learning of pragmatics. In M. Dasli & A. R. Diaz (Eds.), The critical turn in language and intercultural communication pedagogy: Theory, research and practice (pp. 22–39). New York: Routledge.

126

H. Shokouhi

Liddicoat, A. J., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. Moore, T. (2011). Critical thinking and language: The challenges of generic skills and disciplinary discourse. London: Continuum. Norton, B. (2013). Identity and language learning: Extending the conversation (2nd ed.). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Paton, M. J. (2015). The geography of styles of reasoning: East and West, North and South. Philosophy East and West, 65 (1), 178–195. Pennycook, A. (1996). Borrowing others’ words: Text, ownership, memory, and plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 201–230. Pirzadeh, A. (2018). Iran revisited: Exploring the historical roots of culture, economics, and society. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Sanches Silva, J. F. (2013). The construction of English teacher identity in Brazil: A study in Mato Grosso do Sul (Doctoral dissertation). https://repositorio.ufsc.br/bitstream/handle/123456789/122768/323 598.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Sharifian, F., & Tayebi, T. (2017). Perception of (im)politeness and the underlying cultural conceptualisations. Pragmatics and Society, 8, 231–253. Shokouhi, H. (2016). A case study on critical reflection: A Chinese postgraduate in Australia. In I. Liyanage & B. Nima (Eds.), Multidisciplinary research perspectives in education: Shared experiences from Australia & China (pp. 123–130). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Shokouhi, H. (2018). A triangulation analysis of Persian honorifics in pre- and post-revolution Iran. Paper presented at 22nd Sociolinguistic Symposium at Auckland University, New Zealand. Shokouhi, H., & Fard Kashani, A. (2019). Language barrier and internal conflict among Iranian migrants in Australia: A case of unsettling tension. In S. H. Mirvahedi (Ed.), The sociolinguistics of Iran’s languages at home and abroad (pp. 199–223). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Shokouhi, H., & Latifi, M. (2019). Empowerment and knowledge transformation through critical reading and thinking: A case study of Iranian university students. In R. Chowdhury (Ed.), Transformation and empowerment through education: Reconstructing our relationship with education (pp. 58–72). London: Routledge. Shokouhi, H., Norwood, C., & Soltani, S. (2015). Evidential in Persian editorials. Discourse Studies, 17 (4), 449–466. Shokouhi, H., & Zaini, A. (2020). Cultural and politico-religious challenges impacting critical reading of text for Iranian postgraduates in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics.

5 Cultural Challenges for L2 Communication Among Persian …

127

Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). What is the “dialogical method” of teaching? Journal of Education, 169 (3), 11–31. Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). The discourse-knowledge interface. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11, 115–140. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Zaini, A. (2020). Persian speakers’ reading critically in Australian context: An analysis of linguistic features, readers’ identities and subjectivities (Unpublished PhD thesis). Deakin University, Australia.

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication Alireza Jamshidnejad, Reza Falahati, and Etske Ooijevaar

The existence of various trends of research on L2 oral communication is partly a reflection of frequent changes in the approaches towards second language learning and teaching. Some of the impetus for the changes and innovation in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) and pedagogy came from the growing fields of linguistics and psychology. Moreover, such a change is also a reflection of the shift in the priority for the proficiency language learners’ need, such as a move from reading comprehension to oral proficiency. In this chapter, we introduce different A. Jamshidnejad Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Rustaq, Oman e-mail: [email protected] R. Falahati (B) Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] E. Ooijevaar Meertens Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_6

129

130

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

aspects of research on L2 oral communication. The layout of this paper is as follows. First, research approaches in oral communication studies and their data collection techniques are introduced. The following section presents general research topics in the field of L2 oral communication and speaking, focusing mainly on L2 pronunciation. Innovative approaches in the field of L2 oral communication make the next section of this chapter. The last section of this chapter deals with the tasks and techniques used for eliciting oral interaction data before introducing the research approach that has been taken in this book.

1

Research Approaches in Oral Communication Studies

Oral communication, as the primary form of language use and a source of language innovation, has attracted investigators’ attention in SLA research and has been the subject of research in this field for decades. Towards the end of the nineteenth century and later with the development of audio-lingual, communicative and task-based language teaching methods in the twentieth century, the attention of researchers and practitioners shifted to speaking, a skill which had been neglected in the past. These methods emphasised the role of speaking in foreign language teaching; however, they were different from each other in terms of how they viewed speaking either as isolated responses to the instructions given by the teacher (as in audio-lingual method) or a real and meaningful interaction performed between interlocutors (as practised in communicative methods). The spread of communicative language teaching (CLT) in the 1980s led researchers in applied linguistics to focus on the use of a target language in communicative situations by L2 learners (Littlemore, 2001). In very broad terms, scholars have studied L2 oral communication and speaking (and the speech data) on qualitative, quantitative and mixed bases. The first two approaches (i.e. qualitative and quantitative) are different from each other on a number of aspects such as ideological orientation, nature of collected data and the method of collecting

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

131

them. While these two approaches are data-driven, the mixed approach is primarily theory-led (Dörnyei, 2007; Hughes, 2011). L2 spoken interaction has primarily been studied from a quantitative perspective. Quantitative research focuses more on examining the relationship within or across existing variables. A typical example is an experimental method where one or more variables (i.e. independent variable) are manipulated in order to see how they impact other variables (i.e. dependent variables). Reviewing the traditional research on L2 oral performance, Hughes (2002) shows that these studies are generally based on empirical, semi-real world data, gathered through recording and transcribing oral performance to investigate a central research question or a hypothesis. Relying on their psycholinguistic or cognitive perspective towards language learning, researchers with quantitative approach examine how individual learners acquire linguistic knowledge and skills through interaction with native speakers or with other language learners. As a part of L2 oral performance, these studies have also primarily been concerned with the mental process underlying the oral skill with particular emphasis on lexical problems (Ellis, 2008). The majority of L2 oral performance research used the standard method of problem elicitation whereby the learner was put in a situation in which they have to speak about some more or less determined ‘objects’ by the use of their target language (e.g. a story told in pictures). In fact, studies on oral performance followed assumptions such as empirical data gathered by experiment or survey in an artificial communicative setting to examine a hypothesis which are the basic features of the quantitative approach. The earliest endeavour in the field to uncover the complex nature of oral production was mainly using a quantitative approach, but this has gradually started to change over the past three decades into the qualitative method and more recently to mixed approaches. The qualitative research covers a wide range of methods and approaches which are grown out of various disciplines. According to Mackey and Gass (2005), qualitative research refers to ‘research that is based on descriptive data that does not make (regular) use of statistical procedures’ (p. 162). The main characteristics of such research are detailed description, natural and holistic representation, open-ended processes, ideological orientation and a limited number of participants. Mixed methods research, as a hybrid

132

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

model, combines both qualitative and quantitative forms of research in a single study to increase the validity of results.1 In fact, cognitive and social orientations in SLA research have influenced the approaches taken by the researchers of L2 oral communication. Traditionally, the main goal of SLA research has been to investigate language learners’ underlying knowledge and skills of the L2, i.e. their linguistic and communicative competence (Ellis, 2008). This led the majority of the studies of L2 oral interactions to employ the quantitative approach. Recently, however, the field has increasingly adopted a broader perspective to include more socially sensitive approaches to language learning and interaction in context (Block, 2003). Studies taking such a broad perspective require using the qualitative approach enabling them to explore oral interaction as a social phenomenon, intrinsically linked to issues such as identity, community membership and social relations of power. The research perspectives of L2 oral communication are presented in details in the following section.

1.1

Quantitative Approach to L2 Oral Communication

Quantitative research, originating from the progress of the natural sciences in the nineteenth century, was expanded into the field of social research by the application of the scientific method to the research methodology (Dörnyei, 2007). In applied linguistics, the quantitative approach developed as a result of the psychological trend in language studies (Dörnyei, 2007; Duff, 2002). As oral communication/speaking studies have been constructed mostly based on a cognitive and psycholinguistic approach to language teaching and learning (Boxer, 2004; Parks & Raymond, 2004), they were also influenced by the quantitative research approach. This approach became prominent in the 1980s and 1990s, the period in which oral communication study was at the centre of attention by SLA researchers (e.g. Bialystok, 1990; Corder, 1983; Dörnyei, 1995; Færch & Kasper, 1983; Paribakht, 1985). 1 See

Creswell, Clark, Gutmann, and Hanson (2003) for other terms used to refer to this type of research.

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

133

In the quantitative approach, researchers employ statistical analysis on numerical variables, mostly based on experimental and other well-controlled research methods, to be able to analyse the learners’ learning and performance in a target language. Brown (2004) classified these well-controlled research methods to the descriptive, exploratory, quasi-experimental and experimental categories. Almost all of the oral discourse researchers employ corpus-based data collection. They use ‘controlled’ or ‘semi-controlled’ research methods in which speakers are challenged to perform near or above competence. The followers of the quantitative approach argue that such a systematic and controlled method produces precise and reliable measurements and provides replicable and generalisable findings to the researcher using statistical analysis in a quick and valid research process (Dörnyei, 2007). Rampton (1997, p. 284), however, criticised the quantitative (i.e. experimental) approach on the grounds that it resulted in gathering tightly artificial data. His main critique on this approach was its use of artificial and laboratory data, instead of real-life and naturally occurring data in the language study. An authentic setting provides researchers with opportunities to study the ‘extra-linguistic’ factors, such as individual biographies, social relations and status, which can affect participants’ oral performance; while in experimental studies, those factors were limited to variables such as the students’ age, nationality and length of L2 study. Furthermore, naturalistic or quasi-naturalistic communication settings provide the researcher with an opportunity to collect information about how language users and their interlocutors react to each other during problematic moments in the discourse when a communication strategy (CS) is applied (Burdine, 2002). In addition, the controlled ‘laboratory’ aspect of these quantitative studies does not take into account the fact that almost every aspect of language acquisition and its use is influenced or even shaped by contextual factors (Collentine & Freed, 2004; Dörnyei, 2007). Richards (2003) quoted Schiffrin (1994) to highlight the social construction of language and meaning creation in interpersonal communication ‘Language [is] a socially and culturally constructed symbol system that is used in ways that reflect macro-level social meanings (i.e. group identity, status differences) and create micro-level social meanings (i.e. what one is saying and

134

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

doing at a moment in time)’. Isolated communication tasks in previous studies which do not consider the contextual variables present an incomplete perspective and interpretation of learners’ L2 oral performance in real life. Due to the criticisms made of the quantitative approach in the field, researchers started to apply a different approach in their studies. The following section presents the qualitative approach in L2 oral communication research.

1.2

Qualitative Approach to L2 Oral Communication

The main goal of qualitative research methods in language studies is to shed light on the complex and situated nature of L2 learning and use ‘by examining its rich socio-cultural contexts’ (Morita, 2000). According to Denzin and Lincoln (2005), qualitative research transforms the world naturally in terms of ‘the meanings people bring to them’. Richards (2009) considers this approach as opening new horizons to the process of research into language teaching and learning, and developing ‘a new millennium’ for a richer understanding of phenomena in future research. The methods used in this approach provide a more socially and culturally oriented methodology to explore situated use of language (Parks & Raymond, 2004). Holliday (2007), sets the aims of this approach as finding ways to directly investigate, rather than to reduce ‘…the effect of uncontrollable social variables’ to lead the researcher to explore deeply the behaviour of people in ‘specific social settings’ (pp. 4 and 5). Denzin and Lincoln (2005) provide the following definition for qualitative research: Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world…[through]a series of representation, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings, and memos to self… This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. (p. 3)

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

135

In fact, the qualitative approach can provide researchers with insights into the cultural, social and situational nature of language learning and use (Dörnyei, 2007). Given the situatedness and context-sensitivity of speech data, the qualitative approach could be a highly suitable one for linguistic studies. The techniques which are used for collecting qualitative data are observation (or field-notes), interviews, open-response questionnaire items, introspective techniques (such as think-aloud and retrospective reports/interviews) and conversation analysis. Observation is a data collection method through which the researcher can evaluate and understand the type of behaviours L2 teachers show in a naturalistic setting. The main goal for such a method is to collect data for an existing problem and issue to address the research questions in a study. Due to the nature of this method, it is usually used along with interviews or questionnaires while collecting data. The extent of the researcher’s involvement in these studies could vary from full participation such as the time a teacher is observing his/her own class to passive participation when researchers try to find the answers to their questions by listening to an audio recording from another teacher’s class (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 1994; Gold, 1958). The observation could be highly structured or less structured, depending on how detailed the researcher takes notes or makes checklists. The advantages of observation for collecting qualitative data are that it provides a large amount of firsthand data which explain the behaviours of participants in educational settings. Moreover, this method can be used in tandem with other data collection methods which secure triangulation validity criteria. The disadvantage of using this technique is that it does not allow researchers to see the underlying reasons or motivation for participant’s behaviours and actions. The other problem with using this technique is the observer’s paradox as Labov (1972) puts it. This refers to the fact that a participant’s performance changes as a result of being observed. In other words, the observation made under such a condition may not reflect the true potentials of participants. Interview, as another method of data collection, is the core method in qualitative research. It is a purposeful conversation with people to uncover and interpret the meanings they associate with a phenomenon.

136

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

Based on how flexible the questions could be, interviews could be structured, open and semi-structured. In the structured interviews, the researchers know exactly the specific information they are looking for. This is done through a long list of questions which are formulated prior to the start of the interview. The disadvantage of this method is that it cannot provide very rich and in-depth information, but it allows comparison across participants. In contrast to this method, the questions in open interviews are not predetermined. The main goals are to get detailed and deep answers about the participants’ feeling and meanings for a phenomenon. Both participants and researchers work to construct meanings together through the process of interaction (Richards, 2003). Semi-structured forms are the most commonly used interviews where researchers know the type of topics or questions which need to be covered during the whole process of an interview; however, they also allow their conversation with participants to develop in an unexpected direction if such a need is raised. Open-response items on questionnaires, as another form of qualitative data collection method, require participants to fill in space with their answers. This method is best suited for exploratory research, where researchers do not know for sure what topics are related to an issue. The open questionnaire gives the researchers an idea as to what people are thinking about a specific topic or issue. The advantages of using an open questionnaire are their practicality, flexibility and ease of use. One could collect a lot of information in a short period of time, and administer such questionnaires via phones, emails or other social media. The challenge for this method of data collection is the analysis of collected data since the answers are quite open and sometimes categorising them into smaller groups turns out to be a difficult task. Introspective techniques refer to different forms of the self-report such as think-aloud and retrospective reports/interviews. The self-report is used to collect data while the participant is doing a task/process, whereas retrospective reports/interviews are conducted after the task/process is finished. Both allow the researcher to examine the mental and internal processes participants employ at the time of language performance (Dörnyei, 2007). The challenge with this technique is that not all participants are good at the explicit expression of the processes they employ when doing a task.

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

137

The retrospective (recall) interview is a post-interview in which the researcher asks participants to listen to their recorded oral performance of the task and stop the tape where they want to comment on the linguistic difficulties they had encountered and explains how they had tried to overcome them. The justification of CS researchers in using retrospective interviews is to elicit CSs which can be only identified with the speaker’s help (Poulisse, Bongaerts, & Kellerman, 1987, 1990; Tarone & Yule, 1987). Lam (2006) justified her use of ‘stimulated recall interview’ to go deeper than the surface evidence of the participants’ strategic behaviour and to investigate whether communication training has changed students’ strategic behaviour (Jamshidnejad, 2010). It is crucially important that the data collection starts right after the participant’s performance is finished to avoid memory loss. Non-participant, classroom observation is another method for collecting qualitative data. This is an approach to study real and authentic conversation happening in classrooms between teachers and students or students only. The elements which are taken into account when analysing conversational spoken data are context, participants, their roles, identities and relationships. The significance of these variables lies in the fact that interlocutors influence the way people speak in a group. The main challenge facing this technique is the lack of agreement on descriptive categories and discourse structures relevant to speech. For example, scholars in the field of spoken discourse analysis still have not reached a consensus regarding the largest structural units existing in the spoken discourse (Coulthard & Brazil, 2002). This could be a problem for those choosing this technique as their tool for analysing natural speech.

2

Researching L2 Pronunciation

Research in the field of L2 oral communication and speaking includes a wide range of topics because there is a big overlap between this area and other disciplines such as phonology/phonetics, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, sociophonetics and discourse analysis. This language skill (i.e. speaking) has been treated differently in research papers across these disciplines. Some of them mainly focus on micro-level features

138

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

which directly affect the quality of spoken output such as pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar while macro-level features such as turn-taking, topic management and expressing politeness have received more emphasis in more recent studies. This is due to the development of communicative approaches to language teaching and the emphasis put on socio-pragmatic competence. Among the factors in the first group, pronunciation is more central and directly connected to oral communication. Research on teaching pronunciation has been mainly concerned with whether the segmental features such as consonant and vowel quality, aspiration or devoicing should be taught prior to prosodic features such as rhythm, stress and intonation (see Pennington & Rogerson-Revell, 2019). The research on L2 pronunciation could also be viewed from a perception perspective. Munro and Derwing (1995), for example specify three aspects of research on L2 or foreign accent, namely intelligibility, comprehensibility and accentedness. According to them, intelligibility is the extent to which the speaker’s intended utterance is understood by a listener whereas comprehensibility refers to the perception listeners have regarding the degree of difficulty encountered when trying to understand an utterance. According to the authors, accentedness deals with how much an L2 accent differs from the variety of English commonly spoken in the community. The interesting finding in studies exploring the relationships among these three criteria is that they are not necessarily dependent. This means that greater accentedness does not entail reduced intelligibility and comprehensibility; however, L2 listeners find unintelligible and incomprehensible utterances as accented production (Derwing & Munro, 1997; Munro & Derwing, 1995). The approach taken in such studies is mainly based on the perception of listeners towards spoken utterances. The following section presents two novel ideas for researching pronunciation.

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

2.1

139

Innovative Approaches to Pronunciation Research

This section presents two innovative approaches to research on pronunciation. The dominant perspective in classes for teaching English pronunciation is that students either want to sound British or American. Such a trend has been so prevalent in the field that most of the English educators take such preferences among ESL students for granted. To meet the demands of such students, teachers develop syllabi and use materials which help students master their desired L2 English accent. In the past few years, however, a new group of students is growing who do not want to sound like a specific English native speaker but like someone who is not stereotype and has an international image. In a survey conducted at the English Department of Leiden University on more than 100 students who registered for a course on English pronunciation, Smakman (2019) reported that the number of students who favour developing an international accent is growing fast. He states that 13% of participants expressed their interest in developing an international accent in the 2017–2018 academic year, while this number increased to 25% in the 2018–2019 academic year. This growing group of students expressed that ‘they don’t like the stereotypical images that come with standard English from England or the US and prefer to sound authentic, with a mixed accent and non-disturbing features of their native tongue’. According to Smakman, not only are the linguistic preferences of students changing, but the ideologies of ESL teachers are also developing. Professional language teachers know that adhering to the traditional idea of teaching British or American accents does not meet the needs of today’s English students living in a mixed and globalising world. One line of research could be to investigate how much the preferences of students vary as a result of the contexts in which they learn the English language. This could be an ESL context where English is the language of the majority (e.g. Britain, North America, Australia and New Zealand) versus English as an international language (EIL) context where English is widely used in the society, but it is not the language of the majority such as most of Europe and Arabic-speaking countries. Contrary to the results shown by Smakman’s survey, Derwing (2003)

140

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

reported that the majority of participants in her study who were learning English in Canada considered speaking with perfectly native pronunciation to be a desirable goal. We believe that the number of students who favour international accent is growing, and we need to identify new pedagogical priorities to assist this emerging group. This could be developing a new suitable model for teaching L2 pronunciation which considers all different groups of students living in post-modern times. The desire of these language learners for developing an international accent could also impact other areas of research. Some of the studies on pronunciation, for example have focused on accent in addition to intelligibility and comprehensibility as three aspects of foreign-accented speech (e.g. Munro & Derwing, 1995). Accent is defined as a listener’s perception of how different a speaker’s accent is from that of the L1 community. In these studies, trained native speakers of English usually listen to a series of sentences and rate each utterance for foreign accentedness. Research on pronunciation may change the definition of accent. By studying the fact that some English learners are showing a new tendency to develop an accent which does not conform with that of an English native speaker can change the definition which is assigned to accent. The second innovative approach, presented in this section, deals with using ultrasound as a new technology for teaching and researching pronunciation. The traditional views of teaching pronunciation (i.e. Intuitive-Imitative approaches) mainly require students to imitate teacher’s pronunciation without receiving any explicit guidelines or information from teachers. In contrast to these practices, the more recent approaches (i.e. Analytic-Linguistic approaches) ‘utilises information and tools such as a phonetic alphabet, articulatory descriptions, charts of the vocal apparatus, contrastive information, and other aids to supplement listening, imitation, and production’ (Celce-Murcia, Brinton, Goodwin, & Griner, 2010, p. 2). One of the common practices in such classes is providing explicit information about articulatory organs and describing the mechanisms for producing sounds. Saito (2013), for example investigated the effects of explicit phonetic information on the L2 pronunciation development of English /ô/ by Japanese learners. The experimental group in the study was exposed to the presentation of the rules on the relevant articulatory configurations of the English rhotic /ô/. This

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

141

included using an articulatory diagram for explaining the articulatory mechanisms for producing English /ô/ such as lip rounding, the raising of the tongue tip and obstruction in the glottal and pharyngeal areas of the vocal tract. The results showed significant improvement in the pronunciation of the experimental group in producing rhotic /ô/. Bradlow (2008) has also stated the positive effects of explicit phonetic instruction on pronunciation. She has emphasised that introducing the lip rounding feature of /r/ can be very useful when teaching English pronunciation. There are currently different technologies for viewing the tongue movement during speech. Ultrasound, which is becoming very widespread for capturing the tongue gestures, has a lot of advantages over the other technologies (e.g. X-ray, EMMA, MRI, X-ray and EPG) used for imaging the vocal tract. The positive points of ultrasound could be listed as non-toxic, high resolution, inexpensive, portable and comfortable. There is a high potential for applying ultrasound to both research and pedagogical issues in SLA. One interesting line of research could be to investigate how movies showing a teacher’s tongue movement during a speech or getting biofeedback of students’ tongue moving in real-time on the screen could improve language learners’ pronunciation. Previous research has shown improvement in L2 pronunciation as a result of explicit phonetic instruction. Moreover, the use of ultrasound for teaching and learning pronunciation in educational settings is reported in the past few years (Gick, Bernhardt, Bacsfalvi, & Wilson, 2008; Meadows, 2012; Tsui, 2012; Wilson, 2014). In general, these studies have reported that showing students their tongue movement on the screen help them follow articulatory instructions by a teacher in a more straightforward way. The pronunciation of students has also been improved for the target sounds as a result of using ultrasound in language classrooms. New research could be conducted by using ultrasound for teaching and researching pronunciation for new sounds and new languages to see how receiving biofeedback could improve the pronunciation of L2 speakers.

142

3

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

Tasks and Techniques for Oral Interaction Elicitation

The choice of elicitation task in oral communication studies is important since it allows us to tease apart the differences in our research findings related to the learning context or the language learners. Different kinds of tasks can be employed to identify and elicit learners’ oral perfromance from different L2 interactions. Tasks for eliciting oral interaction can be classified into the one-way task and the interactional (two-ways) task based on the presence or absence of an interlocutor in interaction. The following section presents these two tasks highlighting their strong and weak points.

3.1

One-Way Oral Tasks

In one-way tasks, the researchers’ focus is placed on the speaker’s utterances without an interlocutor’s interactions to elicit interactions. In this group of tasks, there is no inherent motivation for all members of the group to participate in the discussion or the problem-solving task; therefore, one-way tasks cannot ensure the active contribution by all members of the group. Furthermore, in Bejarano, Levine, Olshtain, and Steiner (1997) opinion, in one-way tasks, participants’ contribution to the task depends on other variables such as their personality traits or language proficiency, rather than on the task itself. Reviewing the literature shows that previous researchers mostly employ one-way tasks to produce corpus-based data from the learner’s oral performance in a more experimental and controlled setting. To have a coherent understanding of the underlying process of the L2 communication process, psycholinguistics researchers employ a substantial number of controlled elicitation tasks (Sharwood Smith, 1994). A few examples of one-way tasks in data elicitation are the concrete picture description, the novel abstract figure description, the concept-identification and story-telling (cartoon pictures with no verbal information, a story read to participants once in the first language, movie narration, etc.). One-way tasks are usually free of any interaction with an interlocutor, and social interactions are viewed as irrelevant (Kellerman, 1991). This means that

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

143

there will be no chance asking for clarification should there be any gap in information. Obviously, these tasks are not suitable for investigating the socio-pragmatic aspects of language.

3.2

Two-Ways Oral Tasks

On the other hand, two-ways tasks with an interactional nature are employed in a more authentic and less experimental situation where interlocutors play a more important role. Interactional tasks provide an opportunity for active contribution by all participants in L2 communication in a way that the information exchange is reciprocal. Interactive tasks such as group discussion, interview and conversation in a variety of contexts provide participants with optimal conditions for active participation and therefore for generating an optimum communicational corpus (Bejarano et al., 1997). Furthermore, two-way tasks, according to Boxer (2004), can give opportunities to extract more spontaneous spoken data. Information-gap interaction, role-playing interaction, conversation, interview and group discussion are the significant two-ways tasks used for eliciting oral data. The following section presents some of these tasks to demonstrate how an interactional task is used to create more communicative opportunities for participants. Information gap interaction is employed in situations where participants interact with each other to fill in the missing information, either to transfer information for direction-giving tasks (giving delivery directions using a map) or to do a spot-the-difference between pictures (identify the differences existing between two sets of pictures). It is believed that when some basic information given in a task is altered or ignored, some form of problem-solving language behaviour and repair work occurs. Referential conflicts in this type of task (i.e. differences in some parts of the maps) result in more mutual attempts at communication required from interlocutors. Spot-the-difference, another problem-solving task (Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993), was found to generate more opportunities for participants to negotiate and repair problems, than do other tasks. The explanation for this is that the successful completion of information gap tasks, as a controlled interaction, requires a highly constrained

144

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

outcome and therefore requires precise utterance production (Nakahama, Tyler, & Van Lier, 2001), which might increase the possibility of observing problems in task performance. Although such tasks might generate more opportunities for participants to negotiate meaning than do tasks not requiring a convergent outcome, they mainly focused on information exchange rather than other interactional purposes, such as negotiation of face, solidarity or interpersonal relations. This means that the information collected by this task is not comparable to natural and spontaneous data. There are some studies which used different forms of this task. For example, Wongsawang (2001) employed map direction tasks, and Yule (1991), Yule and Macdonald (1990) and Yule, Powers, and Macdonald (1992) used map drawing tasks. Dobao and Martínez (2007) also employed spot-the-difference tasks for 16 dyads of NNS and NS to describe a picture to their interlocutors so that they would be able to identify differences without looking at each other’s pictures. In these situations, one of the members of the group had to guide the other participant to accomplish a task by providing enough information to him/her. Role-playing interaction: Role-playing in hypothetical situations is a simulation of a potential authentic interaction with which participants might encounter and has attracted researchers’ attention in L2 oral interaction studies. The purpose of this semi-controlled task is to provide an opportunity to observe interactions among participants performing their roles in a target language to transfer meaning and comprehending the message successfully in their assumed roles. Rababah and Seedhouse (2004) employed the role-playing task with the following roles: a foreigner (learner A) arriving in London for the first time met someone who has been in London for a long time (learner B). The foreigner wants to solve their problems with the help of the resident. Lafford (2004) used several role-plays in pre- and post-tests interviews to elicit oral interaction discourse, based on a Spanish corpus. Japanese students, in Nakatani’s (2005, 2006) studies, were asked to participate in a ‘simulated conversation task’ where students played the role of a customer travelling alone in a foreign country and interacted with their

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

145

teacher as a travel agent. After 5 minutes of preparation, students were asked to use L2 in the communication process, which was recorded on videotape and was followed by students’ responses to a questionnaire. Although role-play tasks can provide researchers with the opportunity to observe participants’ turn-taking and spontaneous responses in face-toface interactions, they are hypothetical and simulations of roles in real and authentic interaction. Conversation between two or more participants is intended to elicit oral interaction data from a more authentic and uncontrolled interactional task. A conversational task probably can challenge the participants’ oral skills by engraining them in a relatively uncontrolled and open-ended interaction and setting. Nakahama et al. (2001) set up a conversational activity to produce an uncontrolled and open-ended interaction between participants and native speakers to discuss their common experiences related to their university. Their justification for using this task is that conversation can provide participants with an opportunity to be in the role of knower for a part of the conversation. The participants stated that ‘they found the conversational activity to be more challenging than the information-gap activity because they had to pay attention to the entire discourse in the former but mainly focused on lexical items in the latter’ (ibid., p. 377). With the same justification but focusing more on a variety of topics in the conversation, Dobao (2001) employed the conversation task in which students interact with herself as the interlocutor, and conversations began with question-answer and led to more natural and every day topics. However, the conversation task mainly occurs in dyads, and a participant in the conversation has no alternative but to pay attention and respond to their interlocutor during the entire conversation. An Interview is a face-to-face interaction between an interviewer and one or a group of participants to elicit oral data. Interviews, based on the researchers’ aim in their studies, can be designed in different formats, from the structure to the semi-structured or even the openended. The interaction pattern of an interview (Question-ResponseAcknowledgement) is slightly different from a natural conversation.

146

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

However, the interviewer’s control of the process of interaction is more than in a free conversation. The justification for using interview is that face-to-face interaction between a proficient (e.g. teacher) or a native speaker of the target language and language learners can put them in situations in which they may face with their lack of proficiency in L2 oral communication. However, the interviewer’s role in the interaction can be perceived as an informant, and the interviewees’ fear of producing a less-than-perfect performance in front of a proficient interlocutor might interrupt the process of interaction. Group discussion is another interactional task used in situations in which the students are expected to discuss in a group of 3–5 people and use a variety of topics, including problem-solving, ranking, information gaps and opinion sharing. Group discussions require the use of language in real-time and also allow communicators to use their target language in a relatively authentic situation of turn-taking. Researchers may use this task to have both controlled language outcomes and authentic data, similar to the uncertainties of the outside world, where genuine communicative situations occur. Group discussions are also important in that they provide an opportunity for participants either to speak as much as they can or to remain silent. Lam (2006) employed this task as she believes group discussion creates one ‘distinct genre of spoken interaction’ which facilitates classroom-based research on oral performance. Kwok (1987) also used this task for the same reason with a group of Chinese students. In addition to considering the presence/absence of interlocutors as the criterion for classifying elicitation tasks in oral interaction, one could divide these tasks based on different factors such as the type of spoken data, aims of the research, and different components and foci of speaking skill. This new division could include pairs such as authentic/natural versus non-authentic data, spontaneous/vernacular versus careful speech style, focused versus non-focused/open-ended elicitation, production

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

147

versus comprehension task and identification versus discrimination task. The following section presents this paired division in details. Authentic/natural versus non-authentic data tasks Authentic materials started to be more common as a result of communicative approach dominance in language teaching. According to Little, Devitt, and Singleton (1989) and Nuttall (1996), authentic materials reflect the real-life and social interaction of the native speakers in the target language. Moreover, they are the materials which are prepared for native speakers and are not designed for teaching purposes (Martinez, 2002). Authentic materials could be classified into listening, visual and printed materials (Genhard, 1996). Radio shows/news, cartoons and songs are different types of listening materials and street signs, magazines, postcards, maps, posters and newspaper pictures are considered different types of visual materials. Printed materials include sports reports, newspapers, train tickets and restaurant menus. There are some studies which have explored the positive effect of using authentic materials in teaching English as a second/foreign language (Freeman & Holden, 1986; Little & Singleton, 1991; Peacock, 1997). However, some fewer scholars disagree with this view, maintaining that the complexity and difficulty level of authentic materials reduces learner motivation (Morrison, 1989). Since non-authentic materials are usually simplified and less complex, some scholars have suggested that they are more relevant to be implemented as suitable materials in ESL/EFL contexts (Martinez, 2002; Miller, 2003). Spontaneous/vernacular versus careful speech style Research has shown that the style and register of speech affect its quality and features. According to Labov (1972), the features which distinguish different speech styles and registers from each other are speech rate/speed, pitch range, volume and rate of breathing. Dellwo, Leemann, and Kolly (2015) and Fujisaki (1997) showed that spontaneous speech has a higher rate compared to read the speech. Additionally, there are studies which have shown that other variables such as (filled) pauses, pitch mean/average and voice quality could also distinguish different speech styles. Falahati (2020), for example investigated the acoustic differences exhibited by L2 learners of Persian as well as Persian native

148

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

speakers in formal and informal registers. These two registers could be comparable to spontaneous and careful speech styles, respectively. The findings showed that in addition to morphological and syntactic devices, speakers use different prosodic variables such as pitch range and mean pitch in confrontation with formal and informal situations. Moreover, the speech rate measured by the average duration of words, regular syllables, (silent) pauses and pauses with hesitation varied across the two registers. Rather than having a bipolar continuum for speech styles, it seems that there is a wide range of speech styles which start from a true spontaneous daily conversation in a natural setting and end in reading aloud a text. There are some other styles such as speech produced in a lab environment and read the speech which could fall between the two endpoints of the continuum (see Bel, 2015, for further discussion on this topic). Focused versus non-focused/open-ended elicitation Elicitation techniques are a kind of tasks which employ different types of stimuli (e.g. verbal, visual or written) to collect data from participants. Through using different stimuli, informants are encouraged to share their ideas and thoughts in a comfortable environment (Barton, 2015; Johnson & Weller, 2002). The strong point of elicitation tasks is that by using stimuli such as describing a chart, participants assume the active role of the information provider. This will put them in a more powerful position which could result in yielding more authentic data (Cunningham, 2006). There is a range of options for choosing particular tasks for research purposes. According to Barton (2015), there are three different forms of elicitation tasks: • Arrangement tasks which ‘involves asking participants to categorise or sequence stimuli and explain their arrangements’ (p. 182). These tasks could be subdivided into sorting and ordering. • Construction tasks are the techniques which engage participants in ‘constructing their own responses to stimuli—in words, images, or a combination of the two’ (p. 186). These techniques could include drawing, projective devices, free listing and sentence completion. • Explanation tasks elicit data from participants by asking them to ‘explain the content of materials (usually visual images) or to describe

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

149

a process (such as their own thinking or teaching)’ (p. 194). Thinking aloud, stimulated recall and photo-elicitation are common techniques used in this category. Elicitation tasks either could aim at collecting data on specific components of the spoken language or they could have a general goal where a variety of answers are accepted. The examples of the first group, also known as focused view, are eliciting data on specific parts of speech such as articles or propositions or speech sounds such as velar stops, aspirated consonants, nasal vowels or other specific features of the spoken language such as rising intonation, pausing and turn-taking. In nonfocused/open-ended elicitation tasks, students can have a wide range of possible and correct answers. According to Littlejohn and Hicks (2003), the advantages of using open-ended elicitation task is that students can work at their own level without being left out. Moreover, this type of task would provide more opportunities for students and create more interaction among them to jointly work towards a richer outcome for the task. Production Versus Comprehension Task Research has shown that having poor competence in producing L2 sounds is not necessarily due to deficiency in articulation mechanism (e.g. Best, 1995; Strange, 1995; Tyler, Best, Faber, & Levitt, 2014). The lack of native-like oral production could also be related to the loss of perceptual sensitivity to foreign sounds. The sound system of L1 acts as a filter which affects the perception of L2 sounds and this is reflected explicitly in the ones which are acoustically different from L1 sounds. Because of such interaction between production and perception, research on these two areas usually complements each other and functions as the two sides of the same coin. The production tasks usually require participants to have an output which could be in the form of sound, physical movements, drawing, playing cards, etc., while comprehension tasks require participants to process an input internally and provide

150

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

appropriate behaviour based on the task demands (see discrimination versus identification data tasks for more information). Discrimination Versus Identification Tasks These tasks are usually used to check the comprehension of participants. In discrimination tasks, participants are supposed to decide which of the two sounds (out of three) are similar to each other. The target sound (i.e. X) could randomly appear either in different positions compared to other two sounds (i.e. A & B) like XAB, AXB and ABX or the position of the target sound is predetermined. In the latter case, participants hear three stimuli in a row and then are instructed to decide whether the first, second or last sound (i.e. X) they hear sounds more like the other two sounds (i.e. A & B). Some studies which have used this task in their experiments are Chen and Kager’s (2011) study of Dutch learners of Mandarin perceiving lexical tones as well as Rose’s (2010) research of English learners of Spanish distinguishing Spanish tap and trill and Tremblay’s (2009) perception study of French Canadian L2 learners of English stress. In identification tasks, listeners have to identify the sound that they hear. They have to either choose between two or more sounds/multiple forced-choice, or write down the sound that they hear. Díaz, Mitterer, Broersma, and Sebastián-Gallés (2012), for example used this task for Dutch learners of English to see how they could identify the English /æ//ε/ contrast. In another study, Carlet and Cebrian (2019) used forcedchoice identification (7 choices) of English vowel /i I æ 2 f / in CVC nonsense words and real words for Spanish/Catalan learners of English. Additionally, some elicitation techniques such as judgement task, discourse completion task, read speech task, map task, diapix task and gating experiment could be used in eliciting oral data. These techniques are presented below.  

 

Judgment Task L1 speakers judge the nativeness or fluency of L2 or L3 speakers by listening to recording without knowing the native language of the speaker. Rossiter (2009), for example used judgment task for three different groups of listeners in order to explore the speaking fluency of 24 adult ESL learners. They used a nine-point Likert-type scale to

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

151

rate and record their impressions of the fluency of ESL students’ speech. The reliability of the results using this task could be challenged due to the subjective and impressionistic nature of the judgement made by the raters. Discourse Completion Task Discourse completion task (DCT) has been widely used for pragmatic and phonetic studies with great success. The advantage of using such tasks is that they provide participants with a situational prompt and controls for a set of contextual factors at the same time. As a result, DCTs provide data which is comparable, systematic and quantifiable. For example, Falahati (2020) used DCT to investigate the acquisition of prosodic properties related to the expression of politeness in formal and informal contexts by Russian learners of Persian. The great advantage of using this task for eliciting pragmatic speech data is that it can control for social variables such as age, gender, social distance and power as well as formality of the context. There are also other studies which have used DCT in studies related to prosody (e.g. Kushch, Igualada, & Prieto, 2018) and pragmatics (e.g. Billmyer & Varghese, 2000; Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989; Félix-Brasdefer, 2010). Natural and spontaneous data will be ideal for research purposes; however, this does not lead to comparable situations due to the lack of control for social variables. Read Speech Task Speakers read aloud sounds, words, sentences or longer passages in the L2 language. The advantage is that target items can be studied, but the disadvantage is that participants may realise what the variable under study is and the speech may be less natural than in spontaneous conversation. This task has been used by Peperkamp and Bouchon (2011) for French-English bilingual’s production of English sentences with words that contain the vowels /i/-/I/ in order to assess the relation between production and perception of these two sounds. In read speech, items are controlled, but the speech is not spontaneous. In spontaneous speech, participants can freely talk, but may not use certain target words that a researcher is interested in. Several tasks such as the Map Task and

152

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

the Diapix Task which have been developed to both elicit more spontaneous speech from participants, while including certain target items are presented below. Map Task The Map task is designed for collecting spontaneous speech on many levels. In such a task, speakers should draw a route on their map through a verbal collaboration with a partner. Map tasks could provide very natural spoken data where variables such as familiarity between speakers, their social class, focusing on specific sounds/words as well as phonological features could be relatively controlled (e.g. Anderson et al., 1991; Brown, Anderson, Yule, & Shillcock, 1983). Diapix Task The Diapix task (Van Engen et al., 2010) was inspired by the Map Task (Anderson et al. 1991; Brown et al. 1983). The Diapix task is a spot-thedifference task in which two speakers have to find the differences between two similar pictures, while each speaker only sees one of these pictures. This could elicit a conversation of about 5 minutes. The advantage of this task is that it enables the researchers to elicit spontaneous data in which certain target words are used. The disadvantage is that it is hard to focus on a specific component of speech using this task. The DiapixUK task (Baker & Hazan, 2011) is an extended set of picture materials based on the Diapix Task by Van Engen et al. (2010). The number of picture pairs is larger, and pictures contain multiple layers that can be adapted according to the objectives of the study. Gating experiment The main goal of using gating experiment is to get a better understanding of the online processing of the spoken language and uncover the processes in word recognition. Such an experiment is set in a way that the same spoken stimulus is presented to the listener repeatedly, but the duration of the presented token is gradually increased in each pass (e.g. Grosjean, 1980). The longer portions of a word are played until participants start hearing a certain property of the sound. Trimble (2013), for example used this technique to see how L2 Spanish speakers perceive the intonational cues to distinguish different sentence types. Sentences were divided into different gates based on their prosodic and

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

153

stress features. Utterances with one, two or three gates were presented to the listeners who were asked to determine the sentence type of the presented token. Some scholars, however, have questioned the effectiveness of this technique due to its successive presentation format and the effect of repetition on the performance of participants in the task (see Cotton & Grosjean, 1984, for more discussion).

4

Summary of Research Approach in This Book

The main aim of this book is to find out how English users inside an EFL context perceived problems in L2 oral communication and how they employ their second language ‘to construct’ effective L2 communication, particularly when they encounter a problem. In fact, this book helps readers to know what problems a group of EFL language learners perceive in their L2 oral communication, how they are constructed and can be classified based on their main sources; and whether the participants use any specific strategies to manage problematic communication effectively; if yes, what the functions of those strategies are in their L2 oral communication, and how extra-linguistic factors may influence the strategies usage. The researcher decided to choose a qualitative approach in this research, due to the opportunities it may provide to the researcher to capture the richness of the participants’ construction of their oral performance in L2 communication. To meet that end and find the pattern of L2 oral communication, he chose interactional tasks (group discussions) that provide the optimal conditions for producing the corpus. Thus data were collected from ‘a series of group discussions’ in which participants with the different levels of proficiency and language experiences interacted with interlocutors to discuss everyday topics in their target language and in ‘different social situations’. Furthermore, in order to have less artificial and more natural settings, the researcher focused on everyday topics in face-to-face interactions between groups of language learners to elicit more interactional data. Moreover, as the problem-oriented nature of communication is assumed as a natural part

154

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

of L2 interactions, this study considered the process of problem construction and strategy usage as a jointly constructed process during the entire communication, rather than as a solution to any moment of difficulty. Creating a comprehensive, adaptable typology to classify perceived problems and observed strategies in this study, the researcher aimed to make this study comparable with other studies in the literature. While counting the frequency of oral interaction problems and observed strategies and distributing them among different categories has been the common purpose of almost all of the previous research, this study goes beyond all of them by examining the interrelationship between the different sources of problem making, different kinds of coping strategies and their functions in L2 oral communication in an EFL context. To meet this end, the researcher applied qualitative principles to both the research methodology and the data analysis to go beyond the traditional dominance of focusing on problem and strategies frequency and classification, and also to investigate the whole process of the construction of problems and strategy usage in L2 oral communication. Generally speaking, the qualitative approach has been chosen as an appropriate research methodology perspective in this study as it provided this research with an opportunity to investigate the pattern of problem makers in L2 oral interactions, coping strategies and their functions to manage the problematic situations, with a deeper understanding of the participants’ construction of L2 oral communication.

5

Conclusion

This chapter consists of a historical explanation and exploration of how people have researched L2 oral communication in a target language. Briefly reviewing research approaches in SLA as the initial field of studies on L2 oral communication, this chapter summarised the weaknesses and strengths of each approach for researching L2 oral communication. Then, referring to the importance of studying pronunciation in spoken discourse studies, the authors introduced some traditional and innovative methods of researching L2 pronunciation. The chapter then introduced different tasks and techniques for eliciting oral interaction data in

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

155

language studies. It is concluded that the advantages and disadvantages of each technique should be taken into account when researchers develop their research questions and try to collect data using a specific technique. The chapter ends with introducing the research approach taken in this book to study L2 oral communication in an EFL context.

References Anderson, A. H., Bader, M., Bard, E. G., Boyle, E. H., Doherty, G. M., Garrod, S. C., … Weinert, R. (1991). The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 34 (4), 351–366. Anderson, G., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. (1994). Studying your own school: An educator’s guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Baker, R. E., & Hazan, V. (2011). DiapixUK: Task materials for the elicitation of multiple spontaneous speech dialogs. Behavioral Research, 43, 761–770. Barton, K. C. (2015). Elicitation techniques: Getting people to talk about ideas they don’t usually talk about. Theory and Research in Social Education, 43(2), 179–205. Bejarano, Y., Levine, T., Olshtain, E., & Steiner, J. (1997). The skilled use of interaction strategies: Creating a framework for improved small-group communicative interaction in the language classroom. System, 25 (2), 203– 214. Bel, N. (2015). A continuum of speech: The difference between speech in conversation, interview, and lecture (MA thesis). Tilburg University. Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech perception and linguistic experience: Issues in crosslanguage research (pp. 171–204). Timonium, MD: York Press. Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 517–552. Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

156

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 1–34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Boxer, D. (2004). Studying speaking to inform second language learning: A conceptual overview. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 3–24). Clevedon, Buffalo, and Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Bradlow, A. R. (2008). Training non-native language sound patterns: Lessons from training Japanese adults on the English /r/ - /l/ contrast. In Studies in bilingualism phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 287–308). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Brown, G., Anderson, A. H., Yule, G., & Shillcock, R. (1983). Teaching talk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brown, J. D. (2004). Research methods for applied linguistics: Scope, characteristics, and standards. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 476–499). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell. Burdine, S. R. (2002). Means to an end: Communication strategies in french immersion (Unpublished PhD). Rice University, NDLTD Union Catalog, United States. Retrieved (10 October 2019) from http://scholarship.rice. edu/handle/1911/18068. Carlet, A., & Cebrian, J. (2019). Assessing the effect of perceptual training on L2 vowel identification, generalisation and long-term effects. In A sound approach to language matters: In Honor of Ocke-Schwen Bohn (pp. 91–119). Aarhus: Department of English, School of Communication & Culture, Aarhus University. Celce-Murcia, M., Brinton, D. M., Goodwin, J. M., & Griner, B. (2010). Teaching pronunciation: A reference for teachers of English to speakers of other languages (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chen, A., & Kager, R. (2011). The perception of lexical tones and tone sandhi in l2: Success or failure? ICPHS (pp. 444–447). Collentine, J., & Freed, B. F. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 153–171. Corder, S. P. (1983). Strategies of communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 15–19). London: Longman. Cotton, S., & Grosjean, F. (1984). The gating paradigm: A comparison of successive and individual presentation formats. Perception and Psychophysics, 35 (1), 41–48.

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

157

Coulthard, M., & Brazil, D. (2002). Exchange structure. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 50–78). London and New York: Routledge. Creswell, J., Clark, V., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advance mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cunningham, D. (2006). Capturing candor: Accessing teachers’ thinking about the cultivation of historical empathy. In K. C. Barton (Ed.), Research methods in social studies education: Contemporary issues and perspectives (pp. 183–206). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Dellwo, V., Leemann, A., & Kolly, M.-J. (2015). The recognition of read and spontaneous speech in local vernacular: The case of Zurich German. Journal of Phonetics, 48, 13–28. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Derwing, T. M. (2003). What do ESL students say about their accents? Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 547–567. Derwing, T. M., & Munro, M. J. (1997). Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: Evidence from Four L1s. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (1), 1–16. Díaz, B., Mitterer, H., Broersma, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2012). Individual differences in Late bilinguals’ L2 phonological processes: From acoustic-phonetic analysis to lexical access. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 680–689. Dobao, A. M. F. (2001). Communication strategies in the interlanguage of Galician students of English: The influence of learner-and task-related factors. Atlantis‚ 23(1)‚ 41–62. Dobao, A. M. F., & Martínez, I. M. P. (2007). Negotiating meaning in interaction between English and Spanish speakers via communicative strategies. Atlantis, 29 (1), 87–105. Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 55–86. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duff, P. A. (2002). Research approaches in applied linguistics. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 13–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

158

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). London: Longman. Falahati, R. (2020). The acquisition of segmental and suprasegmental features in second language Persian: A focus on prosodic parameters of politeness. In P. Shabani-Jadidi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian. Abingdon: Tailor and Francis Group. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports. In A. Martínez-Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues (pp. 41–56). Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Freeman, D., & Holden, S. (1986). Authentic listening materials. In S. Holden (Ed.), Techniques of teaching (pp. 67–69). London: Modern English Publications. Fujisaki, H. (1997). Prosody, models, and spontaneous speech. In Y. Sagisaka, N. Campbell, & N. Higuchi (Eds.), Computing prosody. Computational models for processing spontaneous speech (pp. 27–42). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Genhard, J. G. (1996). Teaching English as a foreign language: A teacher selfdevelopment and methodology. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Gick, G., Bernhardt, B., Bacsfalvi, P., & Wilson, I. (2008). Ultrasound imaging applications in second language acquisition. In J. G. Hansen Edwards & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 309–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Gold, R. L. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36 (3), 217–223. Grosjean, F. (1980). Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm. Perception and Psychophysics, 28(4), 267–283. Hardison, D. M. (2004). Generalization of computer-assisted prosody training. Lanuage Learnig & Technology, 8(1), 34–52. Hicks, D.‚ & Littlejohn‚ A. (2003). Primary colours activity book 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holliday, A. R. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Hughes, R. (2002). Teaching and researching speaking. London: Longman.

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

159

Hughes, R. (2011). Teaching and researching speaking. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited. Jamshidnejad, A. (2010). Exploring oral communication strategies in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Kent, UK. Johnson, J. C., & Weller, S. C. (2002). Elicitation techniques for interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 491–514). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kellerman, E. (1991). Compensatory strategies in second language research: A critique, a revision, and some (non-)implications for the classroom. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Færch (pp. 142–161). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kushch, O., Igualada, A., & Prieto, P. (2018). Prominence in speech and gesture favour second language novel word learning. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(8), 992–1004. Kwok, B. (1987). A study of the communicative strategies used by sixth-form students in small group discussion (Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved (23 January 2010) from http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/45/4500100.pdf. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. Lafford, B. A. (2004). The effect of the context of learning on the use of communication strategies by learners of Spanish as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (2), 201–225. Lam, W. Y. K. (2006). Gauging the effects of ESL oral communication strategy teaching: A multi-method approach. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(2), 142–157. Little, D., Devitt, S., & Singleton, D. (1989). Learning foreign languages from authentic texts: Theory and practice. Dublin: Authentik. Little, D., & Singleton, D. (1991). Authentic texts, pedagogical grammar and language awareness in foreign language learning. In C. James & P. Garrett (Eds.), Language awareness in the classroom (pp. 123–132). London: Longman. Littlemore, J. (2001). An empirical study of the relationship between cognitive style and the use of communication strategy. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 241– 265. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

160

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

Martinez, A. G. (2002). Authentic materials: An overview on Karen’s linguistic issues. Retrieved from http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/authenticmat erials.html. Meadows, B. (2012). Do you see what I’m saying?: Ultrasound technology as a tool for pronunciation instruction. In J. E. Aitken, J. P. Fairley, & J. K. Carlson (Eds.), Communication technology for students in special education and gifted programs (pp. 293–302). USA: Information Science Reference. Miller, L. (2003). Developing listening skills with authentic materials. ESL Magazine, 6 (1), 16–19. Morita, N. (2000). Discourse socialization through oral classroom activities in a TESL graduate program. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 279–310. Morrison, B. (1989). Using news broadcasts for authentic listening comprehension. ELT Journal, 43(1), 14–18. Munro, M. J., & Derwing, T. M. (1995). Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45, 73–97. Nakahama, Y., Tyler, A., & Van Lier, L. (2001). Negotiation of meaning in conversational and information gap activities: A comparative discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (3), 377–405. Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication strategy use. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 76–91. Nakatani, Y. (2006). Developing an oral communication strategy inventory. The Modern Language Journal, 90 (2), 151–168. Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Heinemann. Paribakht, T. (1985). Strategic competence and language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 6, 132–146. Parks, S., & Raymond, P. M. (2004). Strategy use by non-native English speaking students in an MBA program: Not business as usual. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 374–389. Peacock, M. (1997). The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. ELT Journal, 51(2), 144–156. Pennington, M. C., & Rogerson-Revell, P. (2019). English pronunciation teaching and research: Contemporary perspectives. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Peperkamp, S., & Bouchon, C. (2011). The relation between perception and production in L2 phonological processing. INTERSPEECH , 161–164.

6 Approaches to Research on L2 Oral Communication

161

Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second language instruction and research. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 9–34). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1987). The use of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis of compensatory strategies. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 213–229). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruijter. Rababah, G., & Seedhouse, P. (2004). Communication strategies and message transmission with Arab learners of English in Jordan. ARECLS E-Journal, 1(A6). Rampton, B. (1997). A sociolinguistic perspective on L2 communication strategies. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 279–303). London: Longman. Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42(2), 147–180. Rose, M. (2010). Intervocalic tap and trill production in the acquisition of Spanish as a second language. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 3(2), 379–419. Rossiter, M. J. (2009). Perceptions of L2 fluency by native and non-native speakers of English. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65 (3), 395–412. Saito, K. (2013). Reexamining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 1–29. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Sharwood Smith, M. (1994). Second language learning: Theoretical foundations. London: Longman. Smakman, D. (2019). Second-language sociolinguistics: Globalising pronunciation norms for learners. Talk presented at Sociolinguistic Series, Leiden University. Strange, W. (1995). Phonetics of second-language acquisition: Past, present, future. In K. Elenius & P. Branderud (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1995 international congress of phonetic sciences. Stockholm: Arne Stomberg.

162

A. Jamshidnejad et al.

Tarone, E., & Yule, G. (1987). Communication strategies in east-west interactions. In L. E. Smith (Ed.), Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world Englishes (pp. 49–65). New York: Prentice-Hall. Tremblay, Annie. (2009). Phonetic variability and the variable perception of L2 word stress by French Canadian listeners. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13, 35–62. Trimble, J. C. (2013). Perceiving intonational cues in a foreign language: Perception of sentence type in two dialects of Spanish. In Selected proceedings of the 15th hispanic linguistics symposium (pp. 78-92). Tsui, H. M. (2012). Ultrasound speech training for Japanese adults learning English as a second language (Unpublished MSc thesis). University of British Columbia. Tyler, M. D., Best, C. T., Faber, A., & Levitt, A. (2014). Perceptual assimilation and discrimination of non-native vowel contrasts. Phonetica, 71(1), 4–21. Van Engen, K. J., Baese-Berk, M., Baker, R. E., Choi, A., Kim, M., & Bradlow, A. R. (2010). The wildcat corpus of native-and foreign-accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with varying language alignment profiles. Language and Speech, 53, 510–540. Wilson, I. (2014). Using ultrasound for teaching and researching articulation. Acoustical Science and Technology, 35 (6), 285–288. Wongsawang, P. (2001). Culture-specific notions in L2 communication strategies. Second Language Studies, 19 (2), 111–135. Yule, G. (1991). Developing communicative effectiveness through the negotiated resolution of referential conflicts. Linguistics and Education, 3, 31–45. Yule, G., & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40 (4), 539–556. Yule, G., Powers, M., & Macdonald, D. (1992). The variable effects of some task-based learning procedures on L2 communicative effectiveness. Language Learning, 42(2), 249–277.

Part II The Nature and Typology of Learners’ Problems in L2 Oral Communication

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 Oral Communication Section 1: Communicators-Oriented Problems Alireza Jamshidnejad

1

Introduction

The first part of the book discussed different aspects of and approaches to the nature of L2 oral communication. Communicating in a foreign language is pervasively and even naturally multi-faceted, complex and problematic. Problems in L2 communication have been studied with two approaches: the linguistic and the interactional (interpersonal) approaches. The Linguistic approach emphasises on the role of both linguistic factors and individual characteristics (e.g. psychological, affective) on interrupting the referential meaning of utterances in L2 communication (Bardovi-Harlig & Griffin, 2005; Derwing & Rossiter, 2002; Gass & Varonis, 1991; Gregersen & Horwitz, 2009; House, 2003; Liu,

A. Jamshidnejad (B) Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Rustaq, Oman e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_7

165

166

A. Jamshidnejad

2006). In this approach, individual factors, such as age, gender, personality, motivation, language proficiency, or self-confidence, and languagebased factors, such as learners’ deficiency in vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation and even accent have been reported frequently as the main barriers to effective L2 oral communication. Interpersonal, or interactional sources of problems, on the other hand, refer to the social factors which are constructed interpersonally and cannot be attributed to either participant in communication. This approach mainly looks for socially constructed problems in L2 oral interactions. The power relationship between interlocutors, their face concerns and social status are examples of problems constructed by the nature of the interaction. These socially constructed factors, as well as sociocultural or socio-pragmatic differences, may cause difficulties in conversational inferences and increase the chance of misinterpretation, even though both participants share a referential meaning. The above two approaches have been taken independently in the previous studies resulted in isolated lists of problems described by each approach. Using the systematic approach to communication (introduced in Introduction), however, this study goes beyond the linguistics and interactional approaches to investigate the problems constructed by all subsystems of L2 oral communication. The main purpose of this study, thus, is to find out how the problems are constructed by all those involved in L2 oral communication.

2

Background to the Communicators-Oriented Problems

Despite years spending on English language learning, EFL communicators, to some extent, struggle to communicate effortlessly, clearly and confidently. Learners’ individual and affective factors have been seen responsible often more than cognitive skills in putting language learners in pressure while communicating in a target language (see Brown, 1994; Stern, 1983). Studies on the role of individual attributes in L2 speaking problems(i.e. Schwartz, 2005; Thornbury, 2005) focus on different characteristics such as experience, expectations, attitudes towards language

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

167

learning, gender, willingness to communicate, self-efficacy, the lack of motivation, fear of making mistakes, shyness, anxiety, fear of being evaluated and lack of confidence. Learner’s attitude is one of the strong influential factors affecting the failure or success of language learning (Oxford, 2011). Bui (2013), for instance, found students with a positive attitude towards speaking English participate more in L2 communicative opportunities than those with a negative attitude. Negative or idealistic attitude, on the other hand, may hinder participants from learning or employing their target language in communication. Studies show that students’ inability to participate in L2 communication may be due to either their own experience, expectations and attitudes towards language learning (Matˇejˇcek, 2013) or their teacher’s and classmates’ attitudes and evaluation in language classes (Senel, 2012). Gender is another individual attribute which makes differences in L2 oral communication. Mori and Gobel (2006), for example, found that females are more willing to communicate than males in EFL contexts. Female students have shown a greater desire than their male counterparts to take a risk to keep talking even when facing problems in L2 communication. While speaking, however, women have been more worried about making mistakes which results in feeling embarrassed and losing face. Besides, female students may be more reluctant to speak English with the opposite gender than male students (Mahmud, 2010). They were worried to be embarrassed about making mistakes in front of the opposite gender (ibid.). The fear of making mistakes is one of the most common communicators’ attributes resulting in their inability to participate effectively in L2 oral communication. Fearing of making mistakes mainly occurs when each of the communicators believes the level of their language competencies is less than what is required for taking part, continuing or finishing a successful L2 communication. This has been supported by different researchers who found the following reasons of fearing of making mistakes in L2 oral communication: being laugh at and/or receiving a negative evaluation from their peers (He & Chen, 2010) or teachers (Liu, 2007; Zhou, 2005), caused by their lack of oral competence (Koichi Sato, 2003 in Minghe & Yuan, 2013), or lack of vocabulary (Ballard, 1996, in Yan, 2007).

168

A. Jamshidnejad

Moreover, fearing of making mistakes may be related to the learners’ shyness in English speaking (Saurik, 2011). Shyness (Baldwin, 2011; Gebhard, 2000), stress (Ballard, 1996, in Yan, 2007) alongside with the lack of motivation in learning and practising oral skills (Al Nakhalah, 2016; Babu, 2010; Nunan, 1999; Pathan, 2013) are the other emotional barriers to effective L2 oral communication. Anxiety, as a common feeling of tension and apprehension, has been found as the main blocking factors of effective oral communication (Nascente, 2001). These undesirable feelings may give learners a negative image of themselves as a failure of English speakers resulting in losing self-confidence. Self-confidence goes down if teachers and the learning environment are discouraging oral communication in a target language (Brown, 2001; He & Chen, 2010). Reviewing the relevant literature, the researcher found that the majority of studies have just described different isolated lists of individual attributes as learners’ problems in L2 oral communication. Furthermore, most of the studies focus exclusively on the ‘individual self- expression’ rather than the ‘mutual achievement and comprehension’ of discourse to describe the kinds of problems in data collection and analysis. Methodologically, previous studies placed greater emphasis on the lexical side of communication problems, and pay little or no attention to the socialinteractional context (intercultural context, or interpersonal context, or communication context) of problems. The above lacks in the literature of problems in L2 oral communication are fostered by the somehow narrow approach taken by the researchers in those studies. Communicators’ characteristics were initially considered as further evidence for the participants’ performance in L2 communication problems. Figure 1 illustrates the position of the participants’ characteristics and their performance in the current literature of L2 communication. Communicators’ characteristics have been investigated as independent variables of their performance in L2 communication research. However, this approach does not provide a convincing explanation for participants’ problems in L2 oral communication. To go beyond the limitation of current approach, the researcher chose a broader approach in this study

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

169

Participants’ performance Participants’ characteristics

Research on L2 oral communication problems Fig. 1 The initial position of participants’ characteristics and their performances in the investigation on L2 communication (Arrows show  A is investigated to inform B )

to investigate the problems construction in context and from the perspective of all of those involved in its construction (see Introduction for more details). Figure 2 is a revised version of the initial illustration in 1 and provides a broader picture of how the investigated areas may inform each other in L2 communication research. In a revised perspective, participants’ performance is embedded in how they perceive and construct L2 oral communication.

Participants’ characteristics

Participants’ Performance

Research on L2 oral communication problems Fig. 2 The revised version of the interaction between investigated areas in L2 communication research

170

A. Jamshidnejad

This figure illustrates a new interpretation of the interactional relationship between two investigated areas in studying problems in L2 oral communication and their contribution to L2 communication research. In fact, this study tries to find out if the participants’ characteristics of L2 communication may inform their performance, and if the model in Fig. 2 can be used to describe the construction of problem in L2 oral communication.

3

The Study

This study aims to find the interrelationship between communicators‘ characteristics and their problem in L2 oral communication. Choosing a qualitative approach, the researcher aimed to have opportunities to investigate different aspects of the process of problem construction with a deeper understanding of the relationship between participants’ characteristics and their performance in managing problematic situations. In fact, the qualitative approach can provide researchers with insights into the cultural, social and situational nature of language learning and use (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 36). Given the situatedness and context-sensitivity of speech data, the qualitative approach could be a highly suitable one for the current study (for more details, see Sect. 4 in Chapter 6). To meet this end, the researcher found 12 Persian undergraduate students of English Literature and Translation and one postgraduate student in TEFL (total 13), both male and female, aged 20–24, who were interested in his study when he called and invited them to take part in the research. All participation was voluntary. They took part in a series of group discussions, interviews and stimulated recall interviews. The interviews helped the researcher to become more familiar with the field and the participants’ attitude towards L2 oral communication. Participants were asked to describe their language learning journey to master oral communication skill and their experience of any problems in their L2 interaction.

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

171

Being aware of the role of the teachers in constructing L2 oral communication in EFL contexts, the researcher decided to involve some English language teachers and university professors in his project. A group of four volunteer English teachers were interviewed in order to know their opinions about their students’ problems in L2 oral communication. The stimulated recall interview was used as a post-interview in which the researcher asks participants to listen to their recorded oral performance of the task and stop the tape where they want to comment on the difficulties they had encountered and explained how they had tried to overcome them (Jamshidnejad, 2010). This method is similar to what Dobao (2001), Lam (2006) and Dobao and Martínez (2007) have used in their studies. Their justification for using stimulated recall interviews is to elicit problematic moments of communication which can be only identified with the speaker’s help. All interviews were carried out in English. To collect the maximum data in a short time, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with all teachers. At the initial stages of the study, the researcher was a ‘stranger’ who became ‘familiar’ through the development of friendly relationships with the participants. He recorded all research activities on a digital recorder to use in preparing the research report and data analysis. This also helped him to be reflexive about his presence in the research setting. Using rich data (oral communication recordings, stimulated recall interviews and semi-structured teacher interviews) for deep description, being reflexive about his presence in the setting and writing a detailed procedure of data collection and the stages and process of the research improve the validity of the research methodology the researcher employed in this study (Holliday, 2007). Throughout the study, the researcher has developed an innovative methodological procedure for studying patterns of problem construction in an EFL setting. The procedure includes using a continuous series of L2 group or pair discussions, rather than isolated tasks, followed by interviews and stimulated recall interviews to explore more deeply the participants’ performance and also any extra-linguistic factors causing problematic L2 oral communication. In a series of group discussions, and by manoeuvring and selecting the members of the group (new

172

A. Jamshidnejad

or members from prior discussions, friends or classmates, males and females…), the free, wide-ranging topics (simple, difficult, new or repetition of the old topic for a series of discussion), the formal–informal situation and other factors, the researcher attempted to examine his research questions through the analysis of the participants’ performance in a variety of communication settings (for more details about the tasks for oral interaction elicitation see Sect. 3 in Chapter 6). Furthermore, being a member of a group, as well as a researcher, helped the researcher to construct a friendly relationship with the participants and cut off any negative effect of the presence of the researcher in the research setting. However, the small number of participants in this study is one of the limitations similar to most of the qualitative studies. This renders this study not suitable to draw far-reaching general recommendation from it, as the results may apply only to the small sample of upper-intermediate Persian English learners under investigation. It would not be efficient to make inferences for the bigger body of language learners until more research has been done on a wider population.

3.1

Problem Identification in L2 Oral Communication

In this study, the ‘problematic communication’ was identified by ‘interruption’ in the normal flow of interaction. The interruption in nonnative speakers’ oral communication can be determined either by comparison with ‘standard native language’ (Farch & Kasper, 1983; Tarone, Cohen, & Dumas, 1983) or by the speaker’s real performance in a specific situation (whether understandable or not) (Corder, 1983; Tarone, 1983). Færch and Kasper (1983) as initiators of the earlier method offer three types of the observable evidence for problematic behaviour in L2 oral communication (discourse markers): temporal variables, such as the rate of articulation pauses, drawls and repeats; self -repairs, such as false starts and new starts and speech slips, such as lapses and speech errors. Bialystok (1990, p. 24) criticises these features as evidence of problems due to the following shortcomings: features of speech errors are limited

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

173

to linguistic forms which can also be found in the attention gap, the change of intention and other forms of distraction. Moreover, if we accept these features as signs of problems [based on Færch and Kasper’s (1983) approach], they undoubtedly also occur even when there is no external evidence to reveal them. Turns with the same pattern shape might have different functions in conversation; therefore, ample context is needed whenever coding is used. Most of the examples provided in the literature do not present enough of the discourse for the reader to see how a breakdown is constructing. The breakdown has been usually identified based upon analysis of only one or two turns—the first turn containing the discourse markers (e.g. the intonation question) and the turn immediately preceding. Discourse markers of speaking problems (e.g. hesitation, rising intonation and verbatim repetition of a partner’s utterance) may signal understanding and interest in a further discussion just as easily as it may indicate a lack of understanding (Ohta, 2005). Without further context, it is not possible to determine the speakers’ analysis of the discourse markers, which is crucial evidence in understanding to what extent either comprehension or self-expression might be at issue. Thus, the researcher chose two strategies to deal with the above deficiencies in problem identification. First, he used at least three turns of conversation to identify problem construction. Second, he employed inference evidence in L2 oral performance as well as observable evidence compared with native discourse to identify the problematic performance. In the inference evidence method, problems are identified through the markers of retrospective protocol involving the ‘playback’ of original discourse and the self-report of the problematic performance by the L2 speakers (Kasper & Kellerman, 1997). The retrospective (recall) interview is a post-interview in which the researcher asks participants to listen to their recorded oral performance of the task and stop the tape where they want to comment on the linguistic difficulties they had encountered and explained how they had tried to overcome them. The justification of the researchers in using retrospective interviews is to elicit problems which can be only identified with the

174

A. Jamshidnejad

speaker’s help (Poulisse et al. 1987, 1990; Tarone & Yule 1987). Lam (2006) justified her use of ‘stimulated recall interview’ to go deeper than the surface evidence of the participants’ strategic behaviour and to investigate whether communication training has changed students’ strategic behaviour. To sum up, previous researchers employed two separate methods to identify the problems in communication: analysing the participants’ performance in a communication task to find out ‘discourse markers’ of problems and using participants’ self-reports of their experience of problematic moments; for example using a stimulated recall interview after a communication task. The researcher of the current study preferred to employ both the ‘self-report’ and ‘discourse markers’ of problems in his data collection because using two methods together would be more reliable than only one single method.

4

Data Analysis

To deepen my understanding of the patterns of participants’ performance in problematic communication, the researcher employed an interpretive framework of data analysis partly constructed by the current literature. This framework, in Eisner’s (1991) words, follows an interpretative (tries to explain why), and expressive (presents the real voice rather than depersonalised language) perspective in the analysis of the participants’ perception of L2 interactions, considering the possible social and individual variables in a more natural, rather than controlled, data setting (Jamshidnejad, 2010). Participants’ perspectives have been seen as a rich source of data (Kanno, 2003) and Mackey (2002) has suggested that ‘researchers working in the area of input and interaction could benefit from considering learners’ perspectives’ (393). Therefore, for a deep understanding of communication events, the researcher placed the participants’ performance into a context constructed by participants’ experience and previous assumptions about different parts of L2 communication.

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

4.1

175

The Coding Scheme for Analysing the Oral Communication Data

This section explains the system of coding used with the oral performance data to classify the observed problems in the participants’ performances. To guarantee the highest possible degree of reliability and consistency, the researcher decided to rely on different sources of evidence to identify problematic situations: discourse markers of problems, interlocutor’s signalling of the problems and retrospective comments in recall interviews. Discourse markers or problem indicators include errors, and non-fluencies, such as pauses or pause fillers, hesitation phenomena, such as repetitions or false starts, and explicit statements, like I mean or how do you say…? which become much more frequent when linguistic difficulties were encountered, and they were often interpreted by the researcher as evidence of instances of problems. Besides, the participants’ retrospective comments on their communication performance were also employed as complementary to the results of the problem indicators and other sources of breakdown identification. As the participants’ comments in the recall (retrospective) interviews helped to clarify certain ambiguous signals of problems and also disclose new instances of difficulties impossible to identify through external observation, they turned out to be a rich and reliable source of evidence for problem identification (Doboa & Martinez, 2007). Therefore, for each communication event, based on the above sources, the problems in the participants’ performance were identified and then transcribed. Together with these, the participants’ introspective comments in the recall interviews were quite helpful in spotting possible cases of oral problems in L2 communication.

4.2

The Coding Scheme for Interview Data Analysis

To analyse interviews, the first step, according to Richards (2003, p. 81), is transcription, which can serve as a basis for analysis. To avoid the problem of note-taking while interviewing, I did ‘audio-recordings’ for

176

A. Jamshidnejad

all interviews, as Hammersley and Atkinson (1986, p. 162) recommended. As my small digital recorder was not in the participants’ immediate line of sight, they probably forgot that they were being recorded. The interviews were analysed based on thematic view. Thematic Analysis is an approach to dealing with data that involves analysing and, in Holliday’s (2007, p. 93) words, organising the data. The main step in the thematic analysis is coding and arranging the data under emerging themes through the dialogue between data and a researcher (ibid., p. 94). In my interpretation of the interviews, the themes were not pre-established but instead arose through a long-term series of intensive dialogues with the interview data. I read and read the interviews’ transcripts several times and classified their content based on my interpretation of them into different themes. The first phase of the analysis showed that the data could be understood thematically. Some themes were explicitly mentioned in the interviews, for example ‘face concern’, and ‘collaboration’, and in such cases, it was straightforward to identify and label the themes. However, other themes were interpreted from the content of the interview. This type of labelling occurred if participants themselves did not use a specific metaphor, but they expressed a consistent set of characteristics of oral performance that pointed towards a particular theme. This kind of labelling is an interpretative practice used by Block (1992), Munby (1986) and Thornbury (1991). Following the basic interpretive procedure influenced by the aims of this study, the following themes were interpreted and labelled after data collection. They were modified several times during the procedure of data analysis, depending on how effectively they described and justified the participants’ performance and perception in communication breakdowns. The main aim of these themes is to organise the issues thrown up by the data. Participants’ construction of L2 communication breakdowns is based on the following themes: a. Communicators-oriented problems b. Language-oriented problems c. Context-oriented problems.

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

177

In this chapter, communicators-oriented problems will be discussed. The other two groups of problems will be explained in the next chapter.

5

Communicators-Oriented Problems

This section investigates communicators- oriented problems constructed by their perception of self and other interlocutors in L2 communication. The primary source of participants’ oral problems was their perception of self as an ideal L2 speaker and the fearing of speaking in front of other interlocutors. Therefore, the communicator oriented problems are categorised into the following two sub-themes: perception of self as an ideal L2 speaker; and perception of others.

5.1

Perception of Self as an Ideal L2 Speaker

Foreign/second language user’s beliefs and expectations about L2 learning and communication were seen as one of the essential factors constructing the language user’s oral performance in foreign or second language settings. Self-concept, the perception of the self as an individual, consists of three elements: ideal self, self-image and self-esteem (Bennett & Slater, 2008, p. 55). L2 user’s self-perception, thus, can be constructed by three factors: their image of what they would like to be as L2 users (ideal self), their image of what they are (self-image) and the gap between ‘self-image’ and ‘ideal self ’ as ‘self-worth’ or ‘self-esteem’. In the following extracts, I found that ‘being fluent in L2 oral communication’ is one of the participants’ wishes and expectations, a factor constructing their image of ideal self as L2 users. The following interview extracts describe how speaking fluently in a target language is an expectation, given a high priority by people from inside and outside the language educational setting. Arabi, one of the English teachers in a language institute, set ‘fluency in L2 speaking’ as one of his primary aims at the beginning of his professional training as an English teacher.

178

A. Jamshidnejad

Arabi: When I started my study in teacher training college, my main aim was to be fluent English speaker, because I believe that I can learn English Grammar in one month. (Teacher’s interview)

Not only the practitioners in language education but also the people out of the educational setting expect language learners to be fluent in L2 speaking. Amin, one of the graduate students, pointed at ‘other people’ giving priority to fluency in L2 speaking, rather than proficiency in the other skills, like reading and writing: Amin: Speaking is something else, people expect you to be fluent in speaking rather than reading and writing. (Introductory discussion)

Then she illustrated this point by referring to employers in the teaching job market who expect applicants for language teaching jobs to be fluent in L2 speaking rather than being proficient in the other skills. Amin: In learning English you should be able to speak English fluently, no one looking for your knowledge in linguistics, but the job market is looking for people with fluent accent in speaking. So, I found my language learning in university completely useless which couldn’t help me to be fluent. (Introductory discussion)

As can be seen, being a fluent speaker with a ‘fluent accent’ in the target language has been seen by Amin as an essential requirement for a language user to be employed as an English teacher. Native-like proficiency in L2 spoken was expected by ‘others’ from inside and the outside the language learning settings. The following interview extracts illustrate how my participants construct their ideal self and their expectations based on some high standards of performance. Speaking grammatically perfect was the first desire constructing participants’ self-expectation as an ideal L2 speaker. Najar identified pronunciation, intonation and idioms as important elements of his image of ideal self as L2 speaker.

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

179

Najar: In my opinion, pronunciation and intonation are fundamentals in language learning … I think learning idioms in English are important as well. (Introductory discussion)

Jafri also believed in fast speaking, structure and then accent as the three most important factors L2 speakers need to have in their oral communication. Jafri: pronunciation and fast speaking are very important in L2 oral communication. (Recall interview)

Other participants emphasised on different linguistics element as the most important features of an ideal English speaker. They mostly described their images of a good English speaker based on some perfect linguistic qualities such as good accent, pronunciation, intonation, structure, correct grammatical sentences, remembering correct word for context, not translating from L1 to L2, and finding easily the vocabulary they want to use. I interpreted all the above characteristics as high accuracy qualities with which participants constructed their image of an ideal L2 speaker in communication. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that these qualities will feature as part of the participant’s self-image. In fact, ‘being a perfect L2 speaker’ could be interpreted as the learner’s image of ‘ideal self’ and as a result of a tendency to ‘perfectionism’ in L2 communication. ‘Ideal self ’ is the L2 users’ image of what they would like to be, and perfectionism reflects the expectation of a high standard for their performance (Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002). ‘Setting of excessively high personal standards of performance’ (Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990, p. 450), perfectionists insist on their own high expectation that usually is high and difficult to reach (Flett & Hewitt, 2006). It is most likely that perfectionists experience unpleasant and less successful language learning than other students (Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002). This may apply to the participants in this study who wish and insist on being perfect L2 speakers who are able ‘to speak flawlessly, with no grammatical or pronunciation errors, and as easily as a native speaker’. This high level of expectation may construct the ideal conditions for experiencing language anxiety in L2 oral communication.

180

5.2

A. Jamshidnejad

Perception of Other Interlocutors in L2 Communication

For comprehensive understanding of L2 communication, researchers (i.e. Anderson, 1998, Dobao & Martínez, 2007; Wagner & Firth, 1997) paid attention to the role of both participants in interaction, or in Yule and Tarone’s (1991) words ‘both sides of the page’. Participants’ perceptions of their interlocutors significantly influence the pattern of interactional moves in L2 communication (Morris & Tarone, 2003, p. 325; Sato, 2007, p. 201; Sato & Lyster, 2007). In different extracts of the interview, participants in this study claim that they pay attention to their partners’ reaction to discover if the interlocutors face any problems in understanding the message. One of the participants confirmed he controlled the quality and quantity of information he wanted to give to his interlocutor based on the level of his familiarity with that interlocutor. Others declare that the presence of an unknown interlocutor or an interlocutor of the opposite gender influenced their performance in L2 oral communication. The presence of an interlocutor from an opposite gender in an L2 communication might provoke the speakers to promote the level of accuracy of their speech probably to demonstrate a higher level of proficiency in L2 oral communication. This may increase the possibility of making mistakes resulting in being more embarrassed in front of the opposite gender. This has been confirmed by one of the teachers in the following extract: Arabi: Embarrassment occurred in class particularly in a mixed class where girls embarrass because of errors in front of boys and vice versa. (Teacher Interview)

In addition to gender, speaking with an interlocutor with a high level of proficiency (e.g. native speakers, or teachers) and social status (English expert, teacher) has been seen difficult. Participants perceived speaking with a native speaker much more complicated than speaking with a non-native speaker. They have also perceived the presence of the teacher as a person with a higher social status in the interaction as a factor causing speaking more difficult. It seems the presence of an expert in the

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

181

target language, mainly when they are, or maybe, evaluating the participants’ oral skill can cause or increase participants’ anxiety in L2 oral communicating. Also, anxiety in L2 communication may be caused by participants’ over-thinking about the other interlocutors. One of the participants believes that speakers’ over-thinking about the interlocutors’ comprehension, regardless of their language proficiency level, may cause anxiety or stress in L2 oral communication. He thinks other EFL speakers spend much of their time adjusting their speech to their partners’ needs. In general, he believes speakers’ over-thinking about their audience’s comprehension makes them nervous and anxious while communicating. Thus, he tries to stop thinking a lot about his partner to avoid being anxious and worried. To sum up, problems in L2 oral communication are perceived as an ‘essentially social event’. The interlocutors’ characteristics such as known or unknown to each other, historical background of their relationship, gender, status and their proficiency level in a target language, are all perceived as influential on their performance in L2 communication. Participants claim that they may feel embarrassed about making mistakes in talking with interlocutors with a higher level of L2 proficiency or social status and from the opposite gender. Over-thinking about interlocutor’s comprehension and keeping the face in front of the more proficient interlocutors with higher social distance (e.g. teachers) in L2 interaction were seen as stressful and as triggering anxious behaviour in L2 communication.

Face Concern: The Fear of Others’ Evaluation Data analysis shows that the participants are aware of and even overconcerned about the interlocutors‘ evaluation of their performance in L2 communication. It seems participants possess a basic concern for their ‘face’ as well as their interlocutors’ face behind their interactional efforts. Face, according to Goffman (1967, p. 5) is the public self-image a person effectively claims for him/herself.

182

A. Jamshidnejad

Arabi, one of the teachers, argued that language learners’ fear of losing face which consists of their over -concern with others’ evaluation of them and others’ language proficiency level, may discourage learners from speaking in L2. Arabi said: Arabi: Overthinking about their partners’ ability of speaking and fear of losing face in front of that partner caused the speaker stop speaking. They always think their partner knows more than them and can speak better, and they think: ‘if I mistake my partners might think badly about me’. (Teacher’s interview)

Thinking about making mistakes in front of the others, particularly if the speaker plays the role of proficient language user, can intensify the risk of losing face. Participants particularly emphasise on laughing at their mistakes as the main source of ‘pressure’ causing an interruption in L2 oral interactions. Karb: being perfect speaker itself is one sources of the pressure in L2 speaking, for example, when I think that, as a teacher, I am not supposed to speak ‘ungrammatically’, especially in front of my students, I feel pressure because students will laugh at you and they do not trust more on you as a perfect teacher. (Recall interview)

Karb identifies the pressure of speaking in front of his students when they laugh at his mistakes. He believes this is because students evaluate their teachers, who are expected to produce perfect L2 utterances. This is a factor which imposes pressure on teachers to promote the accuracy level of their speaking in L2 classes. Teachers believe that their position as an L2 expert puts them under pressure and even may push them to leave the job if they cannot play the role of an expert appropriately. In answer to my question about the reason of not using request for help for dealing with their speaking problems, participants refer to their fear of losing face resulting from displaying the low level of proficiency in front of the other classmates. The speakers’ fear of displaying a lower level of proficiency than their partners is the main factor of preventing people from asking for help.

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

183

The following interview extract from Zafari, one of the language teachers, also confirms that the fear of being evaluated as a low-level L2 speaker by interlocutors is a cause for not using the target language in teacher–teacher interactions out of the class situation. Zafari: Well with my colleague I haven’t been in that situation, because we always speak Farsi with our colleagues, we don’t want to show that ‘aha I’m not a good speaker’, we don’t want to show our weakness in English … last year we had so many co-workers used lot of English slangs, slangs not even expression or something beautiful, … I can’t remember any of them but it was fully slang, and they were kidding when they see our speaking… we aren’t using slangs or we aren’t teaching them to our students, they would say us: ‘what kind of speaking do you have, how you are teaching the high level of English, you don’t know anything’, and we just joking with them saying: no problem we are … we don’t know anything in English and something like that, I think in Iran everybody who can speak English trying to show off funny. (Teacher Interview)

Zafari describes her experience of L2 talking with a group of colleagues in a language institute. A group of teachers challenged her and the other teachers, suggesting they were not ‘real’ teachers because they could not employ slang in their L2 speaking. Those who were criticised decided not to speak English with their critics to save face and probably their jobs as well. The use of slang and other special expressions was seen as a symbol of a higher level of proficiency and the skills and abilities of teachers who could not employ those expressions were directly challenged. I interpret this scenario to indicate that being evaluated by some interlocutors in terms of using particular forms, such as slang and idioms, in speaking may threaten the other communicators’ faces or felt a sense of proficiency and that this might end with L2 conversation stopping or switching to L1. In another interview, one of the participants talks about her experience of stopping speaking in English because of her classmates’ negative feedback. Jafri explains how the presence of interlocutors who discourage others from speaking may prevent speakers from using L2 language in communication:

184

A. Jamshidnejad

Jafri: … when I started my study in university for the first time, the other students pointed at me and said ‘o.k., we know you know something about English, don’t speak and let the other to talk’ … and that cause me not to talk and lose my motivation in speaking English and lost my fluency in American accent. (Interview)

Jafri stopped speaking when other classmates interpreted her behaviour as showing-off and asked her to give up L2 speaking. Others’ negative or positive reaction to learners’ performance in L2 communication might be perceived as face-threatening in L2 communication and as an obstacle to speaking in a target language. Thus, it appears that L2 communicators, particularly when they might be perceived as L2 experts, may find speaking as a potential facethreatening activity. Speakers who are expected to be more fluent than others feel a fear of losing face and fear of displaying a lower level of proficiency than their partners in L2 communication. Fear of losing face encourages some participants to produce utterances with a higher level of accuracy while it might discourage and even prevent others from speaking in front of others. However, the common effect of threats to loss of face on both groups of participants is a heightened feeling of anxiety and stress.

The Fears of Speaking in Front of Others Speaking in front of the others is frustrating, particularly when the others’ evaluation is taking into consideration. In the following extracts of interviews, the participants described their experiences of speaking English in front of the others as embarrassing, frustrating, stressful and anxious. Some of the participants have seen shyness as an obstacle of their speaking caused by their concerns about others’ evaluation of their speaking skill. In fact, fears of making mistakes in front of the others whose oral proficiency has been perceived higher than the speaker can make them shy to talk in class. Stress and feeling pressure which has been a familiar feeling among participants may result in frequent ‘pauses’ in L2 speaking.

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

185

Losing confidence and anxiety also have been mentioned as other obstacles in L2 speaking, particularly when participants are looking for an appropriate language element to be used in L2 interactions. Me: when do you forget the word or forget the pronunciation, how do you fix it? Kabiri: I don’t speak any more. Me: you will stop? Kabiri: yes, I lose my confidence and I don’t speak. (Interview)

Jafri also had experienced anxiety in speaking mainly when she forgot the word. Jafri: My problem is that during speaking in L2 the words go of my mind …I was worried and anxious because I was late and missed the first part of discussion when they ask to take part in discussion. (Recall interview)

Moazed and Kabiri have described their ‘bad’ emotional experience of not being able to say what they wanted to say in the following extract: Moazed: I feel very bad when I wanted to say but I can’t, it doesn’t matter who is it there I may not feel as bad as if I’m in my viva process Kabiri: yes, that’s terrible. Moazed: yes, it’s terrible. (Interview)

To sum up, the above extracts show that participants’ negative feeling may prevent them from taking part in L2 oral interactions. They were worried about their oral performance and feel embarrassed, shy, anxious and stressed while they were concerned about keeping their face in front of the others.

186

6

A. Jamshidnejad

Summary, Discussion and Implication

This study shows that the problems in L2 oral communication are constructed by communicators, the language and the context. In this chapter, the communicators’ expectations towards various aspects of L2 communication (self, others, context) was discussed as the first sources of problem construction in foreign or second language setting. This study shows the communicators’ perception of self and others mediated their problems in L2 oral communication. Participants’ expectation of an ideal self, constructed by language learners, teachers and even people outside the educational setting, have been summarised in ‘being a fluent L2 speaker’. Participants were insisting on and willing to define an ideal L2 speaker as someone who speaks linguistically perfect while getting the meaning across. With perfect linguistic expression having priority in participants’ self-expectation, promoting the language accuracy probably influenced the participants’ real performance in the L2 communication events. The high level of expectation of self-performance exerted a lot of pressure on the participants leading them to stop speaking or talking with a very high linguistics standard. In addition to self-expectation, participants’ perception of, and even over- concern about, other interlocutors’ comprehension reinforced their problems in L2 oral interactions. Participants claimed that they interpret a communicative situation as face-threatening if their interlocutors are in a higher level of proficiency or status, or want to show off their ability in using complex language. Whether face-threatening or not, participants’ expectation of and over-thinking about the interlocutor’s level of proficiency, and also their fear of speaking with a lower level of accuracy than the others have been perceived as an anxious and stressful challenge by the participants. Furthermore, the presence of interlocutors of the opposite gender in L2 communication is a factor pushing the speakers to promote the level of accuracy of their speech, probably to display their L2 speaking skill in front of partners with the opposite gender. The familiarity with an interlocutor (classmates, friends) and background to the relationship are also influential issues in L2 communication. Based on their familiarity, participants assess their interlocutors’ proficiency level and social status.

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

187

Participants claimed that they were always worried about the accuracy level of language used in L2 communication and tried to adjust it based on their interlocutors’ different status in proficiency, gender and social status in communication. Participants perceived speaking in front of an interlocutor of the opposite gender or with a higher level of proficiency and social distance as an anxious and stressful experience. The interlocutors’ gender and their level of familiarity, proficiency and social status affected problematic L2 interactions. Other studies also demonstrate that the familiarity and gender variables can affect the interaction among interlocutors in terms of interactional feedback, modified outputs and the resolution of referential conflicts (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; Iwashita, 2001; Ross- Feldman, 2007; Yule & Macdonald, 1990). The impact of other interlocutors’ characteristics such as proficiency, socioeconomic status, motivation and cultural background on the interaction among language users was emphasised by Kim and McDonough (2008, p. 212). Generally speaking, in this study, it became increasingly evident that participants’ problems in L2 communication was interactionally affected and constructed by their way of perceiving selves and others in L2 oral communication. This raises an interpretation that L2 communicators do not perform as ‘deficient’ native speakers, but as people in their own right. They are multicompetent users, in Cook’s (1999, p. 195) words, and can never perform as monolingual native speakers. However, it is their own tendency and desire to speak like natives, an attitude which provides L2 users with a lot of pressure and puts them in an endless situation of always looking for opportunities in L2 interaction to develop their knowledge of the target language. The implication for language policymakers is, therefore, to look at language learners as people on their own right, rather than endless language learners. Teachers, on the other hand, should make learners more aware of different kinds and sources of communication problems they might encounter and the advantages of applying various strategies to solve them. Teachers can expose language learners into a variety of real-world interactional situations where other English communicators, particularly proficient and native speakers, experience some oral problems as a natural part of their L2 interactions. Learners can also have

188

A. Jamshidnejad

opportunities to analyse the transcripts of spoken data to find how fluent English speakers make the same linguistic mistakes while communicating with each other in real-world situations. They might be even able to find some coping strategies used by different L2 communicators to deal with the problematic situations in L2 communication. Teachers can teach them how to choose more appropriate strategies and use them in a more creative and efficient way (for more details of communication strategies, see part 3).

References Al Nakhalah, A. M. M. (2016). Problems and difficulties of speaking that encounter English language students at Al Quds Open University. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 5 (12), 96–101. Reterived from www.ijhssi.org. Anderson, M. E. (1998). Communication strategies and grounding in NNSNNS and NS-NS interactions (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). University of Minnesota, USA. Babu, R. (2010). Teaching spoken English for non-native students: Problems. Solutions and Techniques [Online]. Available: http://www.eltweekly.com/eltnewsletter/2010/06/60-article-teaching-spoken-English-for-non-native-stu dents-problems-solutions-and-techniques-by-a-ramesh-babu/. Baldwin, C. (2011). How to overcome shyness during an oral presentation [Online]. Available: http://www.ehow.com/how_7852354_overcomeshyness-during-oral-presentation.html. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33, 401–415. Bennett, P.‚ & Slater, J. (2008). AS communication and culture: The essential introduction (3rd ed.). UK: Routledge. Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 319–343. Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Practice Hall.

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

189

Bui, T. T. Q. (2013). Strategies employed by EFL English majors for coping with communication breakdowns (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). School of Foreign Languages, Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 185–209. Corder, S. P. (1983). Strategies of communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 15–19). London: Longman. Derwing, T. M., & Rossiter, M. J. (2002). ESL learners’ perceptions of their pronunciation needs and strategies. System, 30 (2), 155–166. Dobao, A. M. F. (2001). Communication strategies in the interlanguage of Galician students of English: The influence of learner and task related factors. Atlantis, 23(1), 41–62. Dobao, A. M. F., & Martínez, I. M. P. (2007). Negotiating meaning in interaction between English and Spanish speakers via communicative strategies. Atlantis, 29 (1), 87–105. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). London: Longman. Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2006). Positive versus negative perfectionism in psychopathology comment on Slade and Owens’s dual process model. Behavior Modification, 30 (4), 472–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/014544 5506288026. Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14 (5), 449–468. Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1991). Miscommunication in non-native speaker discourse. In N. Coupland, H. Giles, & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Miscommunication and problematic talk (pp. 121–145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gebhard, J. (2000). Teaching English as a foreign or second Language: A teacher self-development and methodology guide. USA: The University of Michigan Press.

190

A. Jamshidnejad

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. New York: Anchor Books. Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern Language Journal, 86 (4), 562–570. Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. (2009). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern Language Journal, 86 (5), 562–570. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1986). Ethnography: Principles in practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. He, S. X., & Chen, A. J. Y. (2010). How to improve spoken English [Online]. Available: http://sites.google.com/site/languagejournal/ Home/how-to-improve-spoken-English. Holliday, A. R. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. House, J. (2003). Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters. In J. House, G. Kasper, & S. Ross (Eds.), Misunderstandings in social life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk (pp. 22–56). London: Longman. Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional-moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as foreign language. System, 29, 267–287. Jamshidnejad, A. (2010). Exploring oral communication strategies in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context (Unpublished PhD thesis). Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, UK. Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Kasper, G., & Kellerman, E. (1997). Introduction: Approaches to communication strategies. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 1–13). London: Longman. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234. Lam, W. Y. K. (2006). Gauging the effects of ESL oral communication strategy teaching: A multi-method approach. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(2), 142–157. Liu, M. (2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency level. System, 34, 301–316.

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

191

Liu, M. (2007). Anxiety in oral English classrooms: A case study In China. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(1), 119–121. Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 379–394. Mahmud, M. (2010). Language and gender in English language teaching. TEFLIN Journal, 21, 2. Matˇejˇcek, M. (2013). Difficulties in teaching speaking skills to adult English learners (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). School of Education, University of West Bohemia, Czech Republic. Journal of Sociology, 97 : 1295–1345. Minghe, G., & Yuan, W. (2013). Affective factors in oral English teaching and learning. Higher Education of Social Science, 5 (3), 57–61. Retrieved from: http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/hess/article/view/j.hess. Mori, S., & Gobel, P. (2006). Motivation and gender in Japanese EFL classroom. System, 34, 194–210. Morris, F. A., & Tarone, E. E. (2003). Impact of classroom dynamics on the effectiveness of recasts in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 53(2), 325–368. Munby, H. (1986). Metaphor in the thinking of teachers: An exploratory study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18(2), 197–201. Nascente, R. M. M. (2001). Practical ways to help anxious learners. Retrieved from: http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/anxious.html. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching & learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers: An International Thompson Publishing Company. Ohta, A. S. (2005). Confirmation checks: A discourse analytic reanalysis Japanese Language and Literature, 39, 383–412. Oxford, L. R. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited. Pathan, A. K. (2013). Major linguistic barriers of oral communication in English as perceived by the tertiary level ESL students. Languages in India, 13(3), 395–406. Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1987). The use of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis of compensatory strategies. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspection in second language research (pp. 213–229). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruijter. Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

192

A. Jamshidnejad

Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sato, E. (2007). A guide to linguistic modification: Strategies for increasing English language learner access to academic content (Paper developed for the U.S. Department of Education LEP Partnership). Sato, K. (2003). Improving our students speaking skills: Using selective error correction and group work to reduce anxiety and encourage real communication. Japan: Akita Prefectural. Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: Variable effects of interlocutor vs. feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 123–142). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Saurik. (2011). Learning English the easy way! [Online]. Available: http://gui des.wikinut.com/Learning-English-The-Easy-Way!/2wuchx26/. Schwartz, R. L. (2005). Taking a closer look at struggling ESOL learners. Retrieved from: http://www.ncsall.net/?id=994. Senel, M. (2012). Oral communication anxiety and problems of Turkish EFL learners at Samsun Mayis University, ELT Department. Frontiers of Language and Teaching, 3(1), 49–58. Stern, H. (1983). Teaching fundamental concepts of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4, 142–163. Tarone, E., Cohen, A. D., & Dumas, G. (1983). A closer look at some interlanguage terminology: A framework for communication strategies. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 4–14). New York: Longman. Tarone, E., & Yule, G. (1987). Communication strategies in east-west interactions. In L. E. Smith (Ed.), Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world Englishes (pp. 49–65). New York: Prentice-Hall. Thornbury, S. (1991). Metaphors we work by. ELT Journal, 45 (3), 193–200. Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking (J. Harmer, Ed.). London: Longman. Wagner, J., & Firth, A. (1997). Communication strategies at work. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 323–344). London: Longman.

7 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

193

Yan Hua, J. (2007, April). Investigating the difficulties in speaking English for academic purposes; a case study of an overseas Chinese student, Volume 4, No. 4 (Serial No. 40). China: Sino-US English Teaching. Yule, G., & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40 (4), 539–556. Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1991). 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 (pp. 142–161). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Zhou, N. (2005). How English as a second language affects Chinese students giving presentations during class in U.S. (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/.

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 Oral Communication Section 2: Language-Oriented and Context-Oriented Problems Alireza Jamshidnejad

1

Introduction

We have learned from the first part of the book that L2 oral communication has a multi-facet nature and works as a system of constructing and transferring meaning throughout the interrelationship among communicators, language and context, the interruption of which can cause difficulties in effective communication. The previous chapter found communicators, language and the context as three sources of problem making in L2 oral communication. Communicators-oriented problems, including those barriers constructed by the communicators’ perception of self as an ideal L2 speaker, and the perception of others’ evaluations of their speaking skill, have been discussed in the previous chapter. This chapter explores the role of the language and the context in the process of problem construction in L2 oral communication. The chapter tries A. Jamshidnejad (B) Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Rustaq, Oman e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_8

195

196

A. Jamshidnejad

to find out what aspects of the target language and the context may be perceived as more problematic for language learner’s oral interactions, and whether they can be classified thematically. It also explores how communicators, the language and the context may be interacting in the process of problem construction in L2 oral communication in an EFL context. The comprehensive analysis of the process of problem construction in L2 oral communication will be discussed at the end of this chapter.

2

The Study

This study aims to find and classify the linguistic and contextual problems learners experience in L2 oral communication. This study also explores the interrelationship between all three sources problem construction in L2 oral communication: communicators’ characteristics, their target language and the context. Choosing a qualitative approach, the researcher aimed to have opportunities to investigate different aspects of the process of problem construction with a deeper understanding of the relationship between participants’ performance in problematic situations and their characteristics, target language and the context. In fact, the qualitative approach can provide researchers with insights into the cultural, social and situational nature of language learning and use (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 36). Given the situatedness and context-sensitivity of speech data, the qualitative approach could be a highly suitable one for the current study (for more details, see Sect. 4 in Chapter 6). To meet this end, the researcher found 12 Persian undergraduate students of English Literature and Translation and one postgraduate student in TEFL (total 13), both male and female, aged 20–24, who were interested in his study when he called and invited them to take part in the research. All participation was voluntary. They voluntarily took part in a series of group discussions, interviews and stimulated recall interviews. The interviews helped the researcher to become more familiar with the field and the participants’ attitude towards L2 oral communication. Participants were asked to describe their language learning journey

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

197

to master oral communication skill and their experience of any problems in their L2 interaction. Being aware of the role of the teachers in constructing L2 oral communication in EFL contexts, the researcher decided to involve some English language teachers and university professors in his project. A group of four volunteer English teachers were interviewed in order to know their opinions about their students’ problems in L2 oral communication. The stimulated recall interview was used as a post-interview in which the researcher asks participants to listen to their recorded oral performance of the task and stop the tape where they want to comment on the difficulties they had encountered and explained how they had tried to overcome them (Jamshidnejad, 2010). This method is similar to what Dobao (2001), Lam (2006) and Dobao and Martínez (2007) have used in their studies. Their justification for using stimulated recall interviews is to elicit problematic moments of communication which can be only identified with the speaker’s help. All interviews were carried out in English. To collect the maximum data in a short time, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with all teachers. Using different types of data (oral communication recordings, stimulated recall interviews and semi-structured teacher interviews) for deep description, being reflexive about his presence in the setting and writing a detailed procedure of data collection and the stages and process of the research improve the validity of the research methodology the researcher employed in this study (Holliday, 2007). All research activities were recorded on a digital recorder to be used in preparing the research report and data analysis. This also helped the researcher to be reflexive about his presence in the research setting. Throughout the study, the researcher has developed an innovative methodological procedure for studying patterns of problem construction in an EFL setting. The procedure includes using a continuous series of L2 group or pair discussions, rather than isolated tasks, followed by interviews and stimulated recall interviews to explore more deeply the participants’ performance and also any extra-linguistic factors causing problematic L2 oral communication. In a series of group discussions, and by manoeuvring and selecting the members of the group (new or members from prior discussions, friends or classmates, males and

198

A. Jamshidnejad

females…), the free, wide-ranging topics (simple, difficult, new or repetition of the old topic for a series of discussion), the formal–informal situation and other factors, the researcher attempted to examine his research questions through the analysis of the participants’ performance in a variety of communication settings (for more details about the tasks for oral interaction elicitation see Sect. 3 in Chapter 6). Furthermore, being a member of a group, as well as a researcher, helped the researcher to construct a friendly relationship with the participants and cut off any negative effect of the presence of the researcher in the research setting. However, the small number of participants in this study is one of the limitations similar to most of the qualitative studies. This renders this study not suitable to draw far-reaching general recommendation from it, as the results may apply only to the small sample of upper-intermediate Persian English learners under investigation. It would not be efficient to make inferences for the bigger body of language learners until more research has been done on a wider population.

2.1

Data Analysis

To deepen my understanding of the patterns of participants’ performance in problematic communication, the researcher employed an interpretive framework of data analysis partly constructed by the current literature. This framework, in Eisner’s (1991) words, follows an interpretative (tries to explain why), and expressive (presents the real voice rather than depersonalised language) perspective in the analysis of the participants’ perception of L2 interactions, considering the possible social and individual variables in a more natural, rather than controlled, data setting (Jamshidnejad, 2010). Participants’ perspectives have been seen as a rich source of data (Kanno, 2003) and Mackey (2002) has suggested that ‘researchers working in the area of input and interaction could benefit from considering learners’ perspectives’ (393). Therefore, for a deep understanding of communication events, the researcher placed the participants’ performance into a context constructed by participants’ experience and previous assumptions about

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

199

different parts of L2 communication. The thematic analysis of data showed the following sources of problems in L2 oral communication: 1. The language-oriented problems 2. The context-oriented problems.

3

Language-Oriented Problems

Language-oriented problems occur when there is an interruption in the speakers’ intention, willingness and ability to cognise and encode, or in the hearers’ perception and decoding, mainly involving unsuccessful mappings of purpose and linguistic form (Dua, 1990). The languageoriented problems mostly caused by the learners’ limited knowledge of target language result in inhibition of participating in the demanding process of L2 communication. This moderate competence, or in Crystal’s (2003) word ‘reasonable’ competence, in L2 conversation overload learner’s attention to look for accurate pronunciation, proper vocabulary and correct use of grammatical structure in L2 interactions. Consequently, according to Hilton (2007), it becomes very demanding for a language learner to move to a higher level, strategic competence in L2 oral communication, and to speak smoothly. Language scholars and practitioners thus agree that speaking without having sufficient resources impose a large constrains on the L2 speakers. Dörnyei and Scott (1995) classified linguistic problems in L2 interactions based on their sources into four main categories: resource deficits, processing time pressure, own-performance problems and other performance problems. Resource Deficits include problems occurring in the process of ‘self-expression’ caused by a deficiency in the speakers’ L2 linguistic knowledge. Limited English vocabulary, lack of ability to make grammatically correct sentences and inappropriate pronunciation are the most common resource deficits for an effective L2 oral communication (i.e. Adler & Rodman, 2006; Al Asmari, 2015; Fitriani, 2019; Kim, 2006; Liu & Jackson, 2008; Pathan, 2013; Tanveer, 2007). Processing time pressure includes the pressure of time processing self-expression in natural, real-life communication. This is a widespread deficit learners experience

200

A. Jamshidnejad

when they participate in L2 interactions outside of the classroom situation. L2 learners complain about the lack of time in planning, processing and producing grammatically correct utterances in their L2 interactions (Nation & Newton, 2009; Tuan & Mai, 2015). They require spending more time than native speakers in looking for appropriate vocabularies in L2 interactions. Some of them spend too much time on translating utterances from their mother tongue into their target language (Zulkurnain & Kaur, 2014). Own-Performance Problems include speakers’ problems occurring both after producing ‘self-expression’ and during the continuous process of monitoring his/her own speech. Own-performance problems can be categorised into three types according to Dörnyei and Scott (1995): (a) the speaker’s understanding of expressing incorrect speech, (b) the speaker’s understanding of expressing less-than-perfect speech and (c) the speaker’s uncertainty about correctness or meaningful speech. This is mainly due to the lack of having enough vocabulary or ability to recall them in the process of transferring the intended meaning precisely. Speakers may feel upset or frustrated for not being able to convey the meaning (Cunha, 2017). The last source of problem making in L2 interaction is OtherPerformance Problems. This type of oral problem includes comprehension problems caused by the interlocutor’s speech, categorised by Dörnyei and Scott (1995) in three groups depending on what the speaker finds problematic: a) something perceived to be incorrect, (b) uncertainty of understanding something fully or (c) the lack of some expected message/response. The perfect match between the speaker’s meaning and the interlocutor’s understanding does not always exist; thus, comprehension gaps are frequent in L2 oral communication. This gap may happen due to the listeners’ lack of vocabulary, lack of contextual knowledge, speed of speech or speakers’ accent and pronunciation problems (Abdalhamid, 2012). On closer examination, one may categorise the Dörnyei and Scott’s (1995) linguistic problems into self -expression and comprehension problems. Three of the problems (resource deficits, processing time pressure and own-performance problems) could be categorised as the sources of the ‘self-expression’ problems. Self-expression problems can be referred

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

201

to the different phases of speech production: the process of producing, sending and monitoring the message in communication. Speakers may be faced with resource deficit and time pressure to making utterances when they are in the process of ‘producing and sending’ the message. They may find some errors and misunderstanding constructed by speakers’ utterances when they are ‘monitoring’ their produced utterance in the speech production process. The other-performance problems would be categorised as the sources of comprehension problems. They are problems in the comprehension of a message constructed by interlocutors’ utterances. Reviewing the literature, the researcher found a set of isolated list of linguistic problems rather than a comprehensive classification of language-oriented problems based on the learners’ perceptions of L2 oral communication. To fill the gaps, this study tries to answer the following question: what aspect(s) of language is (are) perceived as the most difficult by a group of Persian English speakers in L2 oral communication? Further thematic analysis of recorded data shows that the following aspects of language-oriented problems are perceived as problematic in L2 oral communication: 1. Lack of linguistics accuracy in self-expression 2. Making a message intelligible.

3.1

Lack of Linguistic Competencies in Self-Expression

Willing to speak with a high level of linguistic accuracy, participants in this study struggled with the lack of linguistic competence to speaking fluently in L2 oral communication. They have faced with lack of linguistic knowledge (i.e. vocabulary and grammar) to express themselves in L2 communication. They also reported that speaking grammatically correct put them in a hard situation in L2 oral communication. In the following extracts, a group of participants classify their lack of vocabulary and syntax as the main causes of their speaking problems.

202

A. Jamshidnejad

Jafri: My main problem is lack of vocabulary in speaking or in other word, how to say rather than what to say. (Recall interview) Arjani: … in most of time in oral communication my main problem is lack of vocabulary which leads me to make problematic sentences caused misunderstanding … (Introductory Discussion)

As can be seen in the above extracts of interviews, Karb, Jafri and Arjani reported the lack of vocabulary for expressing what they want to say as one of the main problems in L2 speaking. This was confirmed by the following two teachers: Zafari: They (students) … whenever they cannot find the word, they stop. They stop and start looking for words which they don’t know it, looking at their teacher and say in Farsi I don’t know this word and after teacher’s response, they will continue. (Teacher Interview) Shokouh: … I think it’s the vocabulary size that is outstanding, it stands for number one and and after that is the proper syntax, I think if you come from top to bottom, yes Vocabulary and Syntax are two essential problems. (Teacher Interview)

Both teachers have seen the lack of vocabulary as the main obstacle of their students’ speaking. Zafari’s students gave up when they could not find the appropriate vocabulary. Shokouh’s students experienced the lack of proper syntax alongside with the lack of vocabulary while speaking English. In addition to vocabulary and structure, the accent, pronunciation and intonation have been seen as the second essential difficulties in L2 speaking. Arabi identified accent as another problem of his students in learning L2 speaking. Arabi: other problem is accent, they mixed their local accents (Arabic, Kurdish, …) with English and it’s so weird, so funny. (Teacher Interview)

Amin in the following extract listed pronunciation and intonation as her main weakness in L2 Speaking:

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

203

Amin: I found my speaking, my pronunciation and intonation very weak, and should do something. (Introductory interview)

In summary and as can be interpreted from the above extracts, participants mostly experienced lack of linguistic sources such as lack of vocabulary, proper syntax, accent, pronunciation and intonation in their L2 speaking. This is similar to what Dörnyei and Scott’s (1995) called resource deficits in their classification of sources of oral problems. Obviously, the above interpretation of data validates the researcher’s classification of the resource deficit as one of the learners’ problems in ‘selfexpression’ even though time pressure and own-performance problems were not perceived as the important challenges of learners’ self-expression.

3.2

Making a Message Intelligible

In addition to the problem of lack of linguistic competence in L2 speaking, participants were concerned about the successful meaning transfer in L2 communication. The following extracts show participants’ problems in expressing their meaning in L2 oral communication. Amin talked about the difficulty of choosing the right means to transfer meaning in her L2 speaking: Amin: The most serious problem in speaking is that I didn’t care about the pronunciation and intonation but thinking about meaning transfer. (Introductory discussion)

As can be seen in the above extract, her problem was mainly to find a way to transfer the meaning in L2 communication by choosing the correct words. Najar claims a different opinion: Najjar: I check my sentences in speaking for any error however for other learners conveying meaning might be more important than structure … (Recall interview)

He believed that other L2 speakers are worried about the meaning transfer even though he believes that producing error-free sentences

204

A. Jamshidnejad

which are grammatically correct is more important than mere meaning transfer. Karb, another participant, identified both meaning transfer (what I want to say) and linguistic accuracy as two problem makers in his speaking. Karb: As I was looking for what I want to say plus how to say it perfectly with complex compound sentences put me in problem during speaking. (Recall interview)

Karb mentioned that his main problem in L2 speaking caused by both making and expressing the meaning in L2 speaking. I interpreted these three extracts to mean that participants perceived their own performance rather than the other performance, assumed by Dörnyei and Scott (1995), as the source of problem making in transferring the meaning across in L2 communication. Producing utterances with a high level of intelligibility and accuracy in the meaning transfer was interpreted as one of the obstacles learners experienced in their L2 oral communication. The participants were simultaneously concerned about their level of accuracy and their ability to get the meaning across in L2 communication. Giving priority to both accuracy and indelibility in oral interaction of utterances might be related to the participants’ expectation of displaying a perfect linguistic performance as a way to position themselves as ideal L2 speakers (see Chapter 7). However, willingness to be a fluent, nativelike speaker is such a high-performance standard that it creates the perfect conditions for any unsatisfactory performances increasing anxiety among participants, a finding which was predicted by Gregersen and Howritz (2002, p. 563). It could be because language users feel a gap between their expected high standards for performance (ideal-self) and their current less-than-perfect performance in real L2 communication (self- image).

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

4

205

Context-Oriented Problems

Scholars in applied linguistics are in agreement that speech should not be removed from the context in which it is produced, but should be analysed with an understanding and description of the context (Cicourel, 1992; Freed et al., 2004; Gumperz, 1992; Hymes, 1972). However, researchers sometimes do remove extracts of language from their original context to analyse them. Although this sort of research design has produced a great deal of insight into the linguistic performance of participants, it lacks a deep understanding of the contextual conditions that may have influenced those performances. Lack of opportunities to speak English inside and outside the language classes, lack of a focus on oral skills development in the curriculum and interactional tasks requiring turn-taking management and responding to others’ utterances are some of the obstacles of speaking constructed by the sociocultural, institutional and interpersonal contexts of L2 communication (Al-ma’shy, 2011; Gan, 2012). Scholars blame shared mother tongue as the main factor discouraging EFL learners from using their target language in interactions. In fact, switching to L1 is the first and most straightforward solution chosen by EFL communicators in problematic situations (Al Nakhalah, 2016). In addition to ease of using a shared L1, lack of opportunity to practise speaking in the school system and lack of involvement in real-life interactions out of language classes construct an input-poor environment of L2 oral communication in EFL contexts. Most of the schools, colleges and universities focus on EFL learners’ linguistics development such as grammar, reading comprehension, academic writing and doing exercises in order to achieve good grades and to pass the exams (Al Nakhalah 2016; Brophy, 2004; Bui, 2013; Hoge, 2012; Somsai & Intaraprasert, 2011). While there is no doubt about the importance of ‘taking context into account’, there is substantial disagreement as to the level on which context should be approached: macro (external factors surrounding communication), or micro (internally driven and dynamic factors) (Lafford, 2006, p. 3). However, many scholars (i.e. Al Nakhalah 2016; Batstone, 2002; Bui, 2013; Douglas, 2004; Lafford, 2006; Littlewood, 2007; Paakki, 2013; Somsai & Intaraprasert, 2011; Tannen, 1993)

206

A. Jamshidnejad

have adopted a micro-level, rather than a macro-level approach to the context of SLA. In fact, context is seen as ‘not solely constructed by factors surrounding the communication, but rather, is also defined by the perceptions of the individual learner and is subject to undergoing dynamic and rapid changes during the co-construction process at the micro-level’ (Lafford, 2006, p. 4). For a deep understanding of communication events, some researchers investigated the effect of interactive situations on communication. The interactive situation, or ‘interactive resource’ in Hall’s (1995, p. 208) words, includes composite categories of events, with a set of behavioural standards (including verbal behaviours) appropriate to them, describing a social encounter in a particular [communicative] setting (MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels, 1998). There are several classification schemes for the factors that influence the interactive situation. Five particularly detailed ones have been offered by MacIntyre et al. (1998), and seven cyclic and interactional elements in Hall (1993). For the purpose of this study, four factors, mentioned as central components in both frameworks above, appear to be particularly relevant- the setting, the tasks, the topics and the participants’ orientation to communication. In this section, the researcher investigates the role of the educational setting, the lack of opportunity of L2 interaction, the chosen task and the lack of knowledge about topics as different sources of problem making in L2 oral communication, and classifies them under the category of context-based problems in L2 oral communication (Jamshidnejad, 2010).

4.1

Educational Setting in EFL Contexts

The setting of the current research was chosen inside an EFL context where L2 learners generally share a common mother tongue and have little or no natural exposure to face-to-face oral interaction in their target language outside the classroom. Therefore, the language class constitutes one of the primary sources of the interaction in a target language for most

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

207

of the language learners, who are remote from a broader target language community. In Iranian schools, English instruction consists of three to four hours a week and is a required course from second-grade junior high school. Non-native-speaking teachers and learners form the basis for most of their interaction in the target language. They are required to use a language in class that is different from the languages spoken in their home and community. Thus, language learners frequently and increasingly become each other’s primary resource for language learning. However, there is an extended and still growing private sector, providing English courses for a variety of learning groups, even at primary school and even pre-school levels. In almost all private schools functioning within the three levels of general education in my research setting, namely primary, junior and high schools, English receives striking attention and probably extra hours of practice (Talebinezhad & Aliakbari, 2002). Despite this, opportunities for oral interaction with fluent English speakers are all too infrequent and often limited to their teachers, and the written skill has received primacy over its spoken forms in EFL educational contexts. This orientation may result from a focus on learning using the traditional grammar-translation methodology since pedagogical grammar trends to focus on how to write correctly (Skold, 2008). Learners of English sometimes feel that they speak more accurately than native speakers do since they have learnt to use complete sentences instead of authentic spoken English. Participants in this study who experienced such a form-oriented educational setting found this research as an opportunity to compensate for their lack of opportunities to practise and use their target language in interpersonal communication.

4.2

Speaking Tasks

‘Task’, as the second part of an interactive situation, involves a series of communicative language activities in which the participants interact and co-operate in various general topics. In this research, ‘group discussion task’ was chosen as according to Firth and Wagner (1997, p. 286),

208

A. Jamshidnejad

‘… they have not, as yet, attracted the attention of SLA researchers’. Engaging in an interactional task in a non-instructional setting in which no pre-determined role is assigned created a unique opportunity which most participants had not experienced before (for more details about the task in this study, see Sect. 3 in Chapter 6). The participants seemed to actively create their roles arising from their relationships with their peers or situational factors. They probably reassess the purpose and meaning of a task and also their ability to perform a task through interaction, an interpretation which is supported by Lantolf (2000). Due to their limited experience with interactional tasks in their language classes, the participants encountered problems communicating in a task which they had no experience in before. Furthermore, they found participating in an interactional task very demanding as the participants require simultaneously paying attention to the interlocutors’ reactions, managing turn-taking and reaching to a mutual understanding. Therefore, participants with little experience in interactional task within a non-instructional setting employed different strategies to overcome the difficulties of accomplishing the task (group discussion) successfully (for a list of strategies see Chapter 9).

4.3

Topics

The topic of discourse has been identified as one of the factors affecting the context of the communicative situation (Bou-Franch, 1994, p. 154). The topic of a task might significantly affect the ease of language use: familiarity with specific topics might enhance one’s linguistic selfconfidence, whereas a lack of this may hinder even a generally confident speaker (Maclntyre et al., 1998). There is research evidence that the interlocutors’ content knowledge about the topic of discussion may result in being more verbally forthcoming and can override certain limitations the speaker may have in his or her overall oral proficiency (Zuengler, 1993). Lack of topical knowledge can result in inhabitation and low participation in L2 oral interactions (Tuan & Mai, 2015). In fact, the participants’ oral performance in general topics crucially depends ‘on the interaction of individual and task’ (Apple & Lantolf, 1994, p. 480).

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

209

Topics in this study were free, wide-ranging and unpredictable, which tends not to be the case in instructional settings. The following extracts show the participants’ perception of how a topic of speaking may construct problems in L2 oral communication. Karb believes that lack of speakers’ background knowledge about the unfamiliar topics makes problems in students’ L2 speaking: Karb: Speaking about unknown topic makes the speaking problematic. Thinking about new words or topic that you are not hearing or thinking before makes you spend time and then you need to do pause in L2 speaking. In fact, when you have no information about the topic or a word new for you is one of the sources make problematic speaking. (Recall interview)

In his opinion, lack of information about the topic and hearing the new words and phrases in the partners’ utterances make the meaning transfer problematic. Jafri considers the following topics too difficult: job, marriage, divorce and so on: Jafri: my main problem is the topic when they are about jobs, getting married or divorce and something like that, because I don’t have any experience and knowledge about those topics to talk about them. (Interview)

This opinion was supported by Salehi when she talked about the general and academic topic in L2 communication: Saleh: Speaking in language classes are more about the routing and academic topic which are very different with natural every day conversation. (Introductory discussion)

As general topics are not discussed in language classes, participants are faced with problems when the topic of discussion is chosen from everyday conversation. Therefore, they are looking for opportunities for practising in everyday topics than academic topics. I propose that offering discussion of free topics in this study probably encouraged

210

A. Jamshidnejad

participants to continue going to other sessions of group discussion, letting them practise more oral skill in their target language. To sum up, participants faced with new problems when communicating in two-way tasks, talking about challenging topics required using new words and phrases from everyday conversations. In fact, the participants’ oral problems are partly constructed by the challenging topics, their lack of linguistic competence and their desire to communicate in such a problematic communicative situation, as part of their wish to be an ‘ideal’ L2 speaker (see Chapter 7).

4.4

Lack of Opportunity for Practising L2 Communication

In addition to the perception of self and others, participants’ orientation to L2 interaction might be influential in constructing the oral performance in L2 communications. Batstone (2002) distinguishes between two ends participants might aim at while using their target language: communicative and learning contexts. Context is perceived as ‘communicative’ if language learners aim at the use of language in interpersonal communication to convey meaning, and context is understood as ‘learning’ if learners focus on form and take risks towards the ultimate goal of improving their linguistic expertise. The goal or intention of an interactional discourse which directs the participants’ communicative activities in tasks is another factor constructing an interactive situation. In fact, ‘goals’ in L2 communication might be constructed through integrating the expectation of the external context (e.g. job market expectations) with the ‘internal context’ of the learners’ orientation (learning or communicative orientation) (Batstone, 2002, p. 2). The following interview extracts show the participants’ contextual orientation interpreted from their answer to a question about their reason for taking part in this study. One group claim that practising more in L2 oral communication is their reason for taking part in my research:

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

211

Kabi: The main reason I took part in this project is to practise speaking and to use what I know and learned. Hamid: Me too, my speaking has become very bad, I come here to make it better. (Recall interview) Jafri: … I take part in this research because I thought this opportunity might help me to improve my English language ability … (Recall Interview) Amin: It was a good chance to speak, I was looking for situation to have a group to speak English. (Interview) Karb: I would like to talk, I like to talk a lot, here or somewhere else. (Interview)

Most of the participants in this study were directly motivated by the opportunity provided by this research to improve their speaking skill, and this aim can be interpreted as participants ‘learning context’ orientation in this study. Some of the participants, however, did not approach this research as an opportunity to practise speaking. Instead, they were looking for a chance to talk about and discuss their performance in L2 learning and communication. They perceived this research as an opportunity to speak with an expert about their problems and to find possible answers to them. Delgarm: I took part to tell someone what kind of problems we have here and how we can solve our problem within this system, why is this in our educational system situation. (Recall interview) Moazed: It was interesting, I didn’t come here to practise, It was interesting for me what you want to do and what’s your conclusion, what you get of all these discussion. (Interview) Kabiri: the experience of contacting with someone like you, to be subject of this research, it was interesting I need to experience to contact with someone like you … the topics were fun because I had to something to practise. (Interview)

The above extracts show that the participants aimed at discussing and exchanging information with others by taking part in my research. Their orientation was communicative rather than learning during the communication events of this study. Generally speaking, almost all

212

A. Jamshidnejad

participants, either for learning or communicative reasons, frequently demonstrated a keen interest in developing, establishing and maintaining social relationships with other L2 users. However, the participants’ tendency to the learning orientation is formed by the different obstacles they have experienced. The following interview extracts are useful for illustrating the types of difficulties leading the participants to the learning rather than communicative orientation in L2 oral communication. Participants talk about the ‘lacks’ of current learning context to fulfil their expectation of an ideal learning context. Amin: Before coming in university, I didn’t have any special English language learning but high school language education including reading skill and vocabulary. In my BA study, I just passed the exams, did the class activities and graduated without any fluency in oral skill which I didn’t take them seriously. By starting my MA in English language teaching, I found my speaking, my pronunciation and intonation very weak, and should do something. (Introductory discussion) Kabiri: I began studying English when I was 11 in a language institute for 5 years. As time went by I understood I couldn’t speak just I can read and write, and I don’t like that because I want to be natural to speak as much as I can … I prefer to speak English, in this study, and I like it, and I am interested in it. (Introductory discussion)

As can be seen in both above extracts of introductory interviews, Amin and Kabiri were not satisfied with the oral performance opportunities offered in their past learning contexts. They also were aware of the lack of communicative context to provide them opportunities for practising L2 speaking out of their language classes: Karb: I haven’t been in opportunity to use my language (communicate) and feel ‘ah it is good that I know language’, and I stopped more practising in English because I found it useless. (Interview)

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

213

Karb stopped practising because he could not find any opportunity to communicate and use his target language. Jafri supported Karb’s opinion by talking about lack of opportunity and partner for practising: Jafri: Now and because of not having partner to practise speaking and discouraging environment for people who want to speak English out of the class made my communication skill really worse than before. (Two friends interview)

Jafri identified the unsupportive environment out of the classroom and also the lack of partners as the main impediments to practising and as the main reason for low proficiency in L2 oral communication. To sum up, in this study, participants’ goals were constructed by the lack of opportunity for oral communication in the form-oriented setting of the educational context and their inner orientation to interactional tasks which was mostly for ‘learning’ rather than ‘communicating’. Participants were not satisfied with their previous language-learning contexts as they did not provide them with opportunities to respond to their learning and communicative needs for being L2 fluent speakers. Therefore, they approached this research with more ‘learning’ and less ‘communicative’ orientation, in the hope of improving their linguistic expertise and also exchanging information with like-minded L2 speakers while taking part in L2 communication events. Although the setting of the study was non-instructional, the participants’ inner orientation (learning rather than communication) along with task expectation (as a non- or little-experienced task, requiring interlocutors’ contributions) and everyday (general) topics constructed opportunities for focusing on the form which carried the participants’ meaning in their L2 oral communication. This form focused context constructed situations that participants found gaps between their current performance and the ideal-self as an L2 speaker (ideal-self). They were looking for ways to compensate for the deficiency caused by their lack of linguistics competence, including proper vocabulary, good pronunciation, intonation, accent and proper syntax. The role of context in L2 oral communication problems has been illustrated in Fig. 1.

214

A. Jamshidnejad

Socio-cultural context: Lack of interactive situation Input-poor environment

Educational system, curriculum

Oral Tasks Topics

Problems in L2 oral communication Fig. 1 Context-oriented problems in L2 oral communication

5

Summary and Discussion: How Are Problems Constructed in L2 Oral Communication?

In this part, the process of problem construction in EFL oral communication will be discussed. Problems in L2 oral communication are interpreted as events, socially constructed by the contextual conditions of the entire communication, and by the communicators, who bring their agency into communication. This is supported by those researchers who conclude that language use is intimately tied to its social context (i.e. Atkinson, 2002; Candlin & Mercer, 2001; Firth & Wagner, 1997). Communication, in the Vygotskyan view, brings into consideration how individual competence is connected to, and constructed by both those with whom one is interacting and the larger socio-historical forces (Hall, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). It seems the Vygotskyan theory

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

215

Interactive context

Perception of Others Self-perception Language competencies

Problems in L2 oral communication

Fig. 2 The sources of problems in L2 oral communication

can offer an appropriate model for interpreting the interrelatedness of the social and cognitive aspects of L2 interactive discourse. Therefore, the social perspective was applied to the findings in order to reinterpret how the problems in L2 oral communication might be connected and constructed by the social context of EFL interpersonal communication. The primary analysis of data gathered in this study shows that the problems are constructed by the communicators’ perception of self and others, the language and the context of L2 oral communication (see Chapters 7 and 8). However, applying the ‘social meta-explanation’ to the findings, the researcher concluded that oral interaction problems are socially constructed phenomena by communicators and the social context. The process of problem construction in L2 oral communication is illustrated in Fig. 2.

5.1

Language- and Self-Oriented Problems

In this study, participants were simultaneously concerned about their level of accuracy and their ability to get the meaning across in L2 communication. However, speaking with a high level of intelligibility

216

A. Jamshidnejad

and accuracy in L2 communication was interpreted as a very demanding and problematic experience. These problems in L2 oral interactions seem to be partly constructed by the participants’ perception of self in L2 interaction. The participants’ perception of their individual language experience and linguistic skills is part of their history, which influences and constructs the way they interact within social interaction (Lee, 2004). Participants in this study perceive displaying a perfect linguistic performance as a way to position themselves as ideal L2 speakers. However, willingness to be a fluent, native-like speaker is such a high-standard performance creates the ideal conditions for any unsatisfactory performances increasing anxiety and stress among participants, a finding which was predicted by Gregersen and Howritz (2002). It could be because language users feel a gap between their expected high standards for performance (ideal-self) and their current less-than-perfect performance in real L2 communication (self- image). This interpretation was supported by Swain (1995). She believes struggling to produce intelligible output for interlocutors leads participants to pay particular attention to form, which may ‘notice a gap between what they want to say and what they can say, leading them to recognise what they do not know, or know only partially’. Sato (2007) also supports this interpretation in her study of Japanese EFL learners. The Japanese participants reported that they were more careful in terms of grammatical accuracy when they were interacting with other Japanese learners than with natives because they perceived NSs as partners who were more able to understand their ‘poor’ English than their learner partners.

5.2

Other-Oriented Problems: Interlocutors’ Gender, Familiarity, Proficiency and Social Status

In addition to self, other interlocutors’ gender and their level of familiarity, proficiency and social status have worked as the mediation of problem construction in L2 interactions. Other studies support the influential role of participants’ gender, familiarity with the conversation partner, level of perceived proficiency, socio-economic status, motivation

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

217

and cultural background in whether and how interactants communicate and collaborate with each other (e.g. Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; Iwashita, 2001; Kim and McDonough, 2008; Ross- Feldman, 2007). In this research, participants claimed that they always worried about the accuracy level of language used in L2 communication and tried to adjust it based on their interlocutors’ different status in proficiency, gender and social status in communication. Being concerned about the accuracy of utterances, particularly in front of an interlocutor of the opposite gender or with a higher level of proficiency and social-distance, construct an anxious and stressful experience in L2 oral communication. The anxious feeling may result from losing or threatening the face in L2 oral communication. Face has a long history, with a similar meaning to Goffman and his colleagues in Persian culture. Participants in the current research were aware of the importance of face-saving in communication. Participants may perceive speaking in front of an interlocutor of the opposite gender or with a higher level of proficiency and socialdistance as a face-threatening performance, causing anxiety and stress in L2 communication. Liu (2007) also supports this interpretation as he interprets face-threatening as a crucial factor in making speaking with the English teacher problematic for Taiwanese students. Liu agrees with Chi (1995) in his justification that face-threatening might be a result of the authoritative status of teachers in classrooms. Furthermore, speaking in an everyday-interaction task, on a wide range of topics for a long period of time, was described struggling by participants who have seen their lessthan-perfect performance (e.g. producing less-than-perfect utterances, using incorrect structure, and forgetting appropriate lexis) as a potential threat to their face.

5.3

Interactive Situation Problems

Further to the perception of self and others, the participants’ lack of proficiency in language and lack of interactive situations in EFL contexts were influential in constructing L2 problematic communication. Participants who criticised their instructional context for not providing the opportunity to fulfil their learning and communicative needs to be

218

A. Jamshidnejad

ideal L2 speakers approached my research with more ‘learning’ and less ‘communicative’ orientation to develop their linguistic knowledge and also to converse in the target language. With perfect linguistic expression having priority in participants’ self-expectation promoting the language accuracy with the current level of participants’ language competences enforced a lot of stress and pressure on participants in the L2 communication events. Not being satisfied with the level of accuracy of their oral performance, participants claimed that they were concerned about transferring the intelligible meaning in L2 oral communication. They also described talking about unfamiliar topics in two-way tasks as a challenging task due to their lack of language and background knowledge of topics of interactional tasks. The whole process of problem construction has been illustrated in Fig. 3. To sum up, problems in L2 oral communication are socially constructed events. English is learned as a target language in educational settings with a dominant grammar-translation approach and a lack of opportunity for using the target language in non-institutional settings for oral communication. Therefore, EFL learners are looking for opportunities to practise and develop their oral skill in a series of face-to-face interactional events with a wide range of everyday topics. In addition to the contextual condition, problems are mediated by the interlocutors’ characteristics, such as shared L1, gender, the level of familiarity with each other, proficiency and social status. Speaking in front of an interlocutor who is unknown, or of the opposite gender, or is perceived in a higher level of proficiency and social status, may be interpreted as a face-threatening and challenging performance. The problems become worse when participants are insisting on and willing to position themselves as ideal L2 communicators through speaking linguistically perfect using their insufficient language resources.

6

Implications

This study shows that L2 oral communication is co-construction phenomena and the joint efforts of all parties in EFL contexts. The problems in L2 oral communication, therefore, are interpreted as contingent

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

219

Sociocultural context, Educational system & Interactional setting -Lack of opportunities for L2 oral communication -Lack of oral skills development in curriculum -Lack of interactional tasks -Lack of general topics

Perception of others in communication -Interlocutor's characteristics such as the opposite gender, level of proficiency and social status, and familiarity - Others' evaluation of oral proficiency -Others' reaction to making mistakes (laughing at their mistakes, losing face, and displaying a lower level of proficiency)

Perception of Self -Willing to be a perfect speaker -Insisting on native-like proficiency Language competencies: Linguistic sources for Self-expression Intelligibility in Meaning transfer

Losing confidence, anxiety, stress, shyness

L2 speaking problems

Fig. 3 The process of problem construction in L2 oral communication in EFL contexts

social phenomena, as intersubjective entities and not as ‘things’ possessed by the individual. The implication for the language educator is thus to consider problems in L2 oral interaction as a product of all those involved in interactional discourse, rather than as individual mistakes of language learners. Policymakers, curriculum designers, teachers and learners are thus equally responsible for developing skills for successful oral communication in a target language. The logical consequence of the above arguments for TESOL is to design a model for foreign language education based on new assumptions

220

A. Jamshidnejad

of the nature of L2 interaction, learners and the context. It seems it is necessary to place more emphasis on language learners as people who are potentially successful L2 users, through changing the language education system, including the areas of syllabus design, curriculum development and teaching methodology. In order to modify some learners’ unreal attitude towards in L2 oral interaction (see Chapter 7 for perfectionism in self-expectation), EFL teachers should expose learners to the significant features of realworld interactions in target language, i.e. spoken grammar. Although using these features are strategically important and common in naturally occurring conversation, they are sometimes considered as ‘grammatically incorrect’ forms of the target language and are therefore neglected in EFL classroom teaching (for more details see Chapter 3). Moreover, I now strongly believe in Faucette’s (2001, p. 27) attitude when she comments ‘Teaching- recommended communication strategies empowers students to participate in communication by helping them to not give up in the conversation. We, as teachers, have a responsibility to provide our students with tools to communicate, such as through the development of strategic competence’. The next part of the book will discuss the types and functions of communication strategies used by EFL language learners in their L2 oral interactions.

References Abdalhamid, F. (2012). Listening comprehension strategies of Arabic-speaking ESL learners (Master’s Dissertation). Department of English, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Adler, R. B., & Rodman, G. (2006). Understanding human communication (8th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ahmed, M. K. (1994). Speaking as cognitive regulation: A Vygotskian perspective on dialogic communication. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 157–177). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

221

Al Asmari, A. (2015). A comparative determination of barriers of oral English learning faced by preparatory year students. European Scientific Journal, 11(35), 58–81. Al-Ma’shy, A. A. (2011). Causes of EFL speaking weakness in Saudi secondary schools in Al-Gunfuthah City. MA thesis submitted to the English Language Department, King Saud University, KSA. Al Nakhalah, A. M. M. (2016). Problems and difficulties of speaking that encounter English language students at Al Quds Open University. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention, 5 (12), 96–101. Retrieved from: www.ijhssi.org. Alvarado, C. S. (1992). Discourse styles and patterns of participation on ESL interactive tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 26 (5), 89–93. Appel, G., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Speaking as mediation: A study of LI and L2 text recall tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 437–452. Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 86, 525–545. Batstone, R. (2002). Contexts of engagement: A discourse perspective on “intake” and “pushed output”. System, 30, 1–14. Bou-Franch, P. (1994). Communication strategies and topic sequences in the conversational discourse of Spanish learners of English. Stylistica: Revista Internacional De Estudios Estilísticos y Culturales, 2(3), 153–162. Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bui, T. T. Q. (2013). Strategies employed by EFL English majors for coping with communication breakdowns (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). School of Foreign Languages, Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand. Candlin, C., & Mercer, N. (2001). English language teaching in its social context. London: Routledge. Chi, F. M. (1995). Discussion as inquiry in ESL/EFL reading: A study of Taiwanese college students’ meaning-construction of a literary text through small group discussion. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Long Beach, CA. Cicourel, A. V. (1992). The interpenetration of communicative contexts: Examples from medical encounters In C. Goodwin & A. Duranti (Eds.), In rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 291–310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (Ed.). (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (5th ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

222

A. Jamshidnejad

Cunha, C. (2017) Oral communication in the YL (young learner) classroom: understanding the use of L1 and maximising the use of L2 (Unpublished Master Dissertation). NOVA University Lisbon, Portugal. Dobao, A. M. F. (2001). Communication strategies in the interlanguage of Galician students of English: The influence of learner and task related factors. Atlantis, 23(1), 41–62. Dobao, A. M. F., & Martínez, I. M. P. (2007). Negotiating meaning in interaction between English and Spanish speakers via communicative strategies. Atlantis, 29 (1), 87–105. Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300. Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1995). Communication strategies: An empirical analysis with retrospection. In Selected Papers from the Proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium of the Deseret Language and Linguistics Society (pp. 155– 168). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. Douglas, D. (2004). Discourse domains: The cognitive context of speaking. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 25–44). Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters LTD. Dua, H. R. (1990). The phenomenology of miscommunication. In S. H. Riggins (Ed.), Beyond Goffman: Studies on communication, institution and social interaction (pp. 113–139). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Faucette, P. (2001). A pedagogical perspective on communication strategies: Benefits of training and an analysis of English language teaching materials. Second Language Studies, 19 (2), 1–40. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. Fitriani, N. (2019). Communication breakdown among Indonesian EFL learners: Barriers and strategies. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 7 (1), 35–41.

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

223

Freed, B. F., Segalowitz, N., & Dewey, D. P. (2004). Context of learning and second language fluency in french: Comparing regular classroom, study abroad, and intensive domestic immersion programs. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 275–301. Gan, Z. (2012). Understanding L2 speaking problems: Implications for ESL curriculum development in a teacher training institution in Hong Kong. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (1). Gregersen, T., & Horwitz, E. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and non-anxious language learner’s reactions to their own oral performance. The Modern Language Journal, 86 (4), 562–570. Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualisation and understanding. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 229–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language. Applied Linguistics, 14 (2), 145–166. Hall, J. K. (1995). “Aw, man, where you goin’?”: Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6 (2), 37–62. Hilton, H. (2007). Review of expertise in second language learning and teaching by K. Johnson (Ed.). System, 35, 112–117. Hoge, A. J. (2012). Babies know best: How to learn English like a baby. Effortless English Newsletter. Holliday, A. R. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Hymes, D. H. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional-moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as foreign language. System, 29, 267–287. Jamshidnejad, A. (2010). Exploring oral communication strategies in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context (Unpublished PhD thesis). Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, UK. Kanno, Y. (2003). Negotiating bilingual and bicultural identities: Japanese returnees betwixt two worlds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

224

A. Jamshidnejad

Kim, S. (2006). Academic oral communication needs of East Asian international graduate students in non-science and non-engineering fields. English for Specific Purposes, 25 (4), 479–489. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234. Lafford, B. A. (2006). The effects of study abroad vs. classroom contexts on Spanish SLA: Old assumptions, new insights and future research directions. Paper presented at the Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second languages. Lam, W. Y. K. (2006). Gauging the effects of ESL oral communication strategy teaching: A multi-method approach. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(2), 142–157. Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Seminar Series Delivered at the University of Melbourne, Australia, May 22. Melbourne, Australia. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79–96. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (Eds.). (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 83–100. Retrieved (14 May 2008) from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/ lee/default.html. Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative LANGUAGE teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 71–86. Liu, W. (2007). A study of communication strategies of Chinese junior high school EFL learners (Unpublished Master’s Dissertation). National Chung Cheng University, The Graduate Institute of the Department of Foreign Language and Literature. MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualising willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: Learners’ perceptions about interactional processes. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 379–394.

8 The Construction of Problems in L2 …

225

Nation, I. S. P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Paakki, H. (2013). Difficulties in speaking English and perceptions of accents: A comparative study of Finnish and Japanese adult learners of English (Unpublished Master Dissertation). University of Eastern Finland, Finland. Pathan, A. K. (2013). Major linguistic barriers of oral communication in English as perceived by the tertiary level ESL students. Languages in India, 13(3), 395–406. Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 79–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sato, E. (2007). A guide to linguistic modification: Strategies for increasing English language learner access to academic content (Paper developed for the U.S. Department of Education LEP Partnership). Sköld, L. (2008). Spoken English in the EFL classroom (Unpublished Bachelor Independent thesis Basic level). Karlstad University, Faculty of Arts and Education, Retrieved (10 February 2020) from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn= urn:nbn:se:kau:diva-1745. Somsai, S., & Intaraprasert, C. (2011). Strategies for coping with face-toface oral communication problems employed by Thai University students majoring in English. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 83–95. Storch, N. (2002). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305–322. Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Talebinezhad, M. R., & Aliakbari, M. (2002). Evaluation and justification of a paradigm shift in the current ELT models in Iran. Linguistik Online, 10 (2).

226

A. Jamshidnejad

Retrieved (16 February 2020) from http://www.linguistik-online.com/10_ 02/talebinezhadaliakbari.pdf. Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tanveer, M. (2007). Investigation of the factors that cause language anxiety for ESL/EFL learners in learning speaking skills and the influence it casts on communication in the target language (Unpublished M.Ed.). University of Glasgow, Educational Studies, Faculty of Education. Tuan, N. H., & Mai, T. N. (2015). Factors affecting students’ speaking performance at le Thanh Hien high school. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2). Retrieved from: www.multidiciplinaryjournals.com. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Zuengler, J. (1993). Encouraging learners’ conversational participation: The effect of content knowledge. Language Learning, 43, 403–432. Zulkurnain, N., & Kaur, S. (2014). Oral English communication difficulties and coping strategies of Diploma of Hotel Management students at UiTM. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 20 (3), 93–112.

Part III Communication Strategies and Their Functions in L2 Oral Communication

9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies in L2 Oral Communication Alireza Jamshidnejad

1

Introduction

The previous chapter discussed the process and sources of problem construction and the typology of different kinds of learners’ problems in L2 oral communication. To deal with each type of problem, participants may employ a series of strategies. This chapter, thus, investigates the nature and functions of strategies used by a group of language learners to discover how they use and perceive their second language to ‘construct’ effective communication inside an EFL (English as Foreign Language) context, particularly when they encounter a problem. The effective use of a target language in oral interactional situations where there is communicative deficiency involves the use of communication strategies (hereafter CSs),—a vital issue in applied linguistics studies since the late seventies (Dörnyei, 1995; Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). CSs A. Jamshidnejad (B) Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Rustaq, Oman e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_9

229

230

A. Jamshidnejad

have variously been described as devices, tactics, ways, plans and steps taken by language users to improve the effectiveness of their communication (Littlemore, 2003, p. 331) or to overcome any momentarily felt inadequacy in comprehension or self-expression (Færch & Kasper, 1983). More often than not, the ‘obstacle’ in communication seems to start with a vocabulary item, one which has not been learnt, or one which cannot be easily recalled. Mitchell and Myles (1998, p. 94) point out, however, that the study of CSs is a relative newcomer in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) research. For more than three decades, the effective use of language to manage communicative deficiency and achieve successful communication has attracted scholars’ attention to one of the key issues in second language acquisition (SLA) and sociolinguistics research: the use of communication strategies. CSs are used to overcome ‘breakdowns’, ‘gaps’ or ‘problems’ in communication which are ‘pervasive and even intrinsic’ in language use and communication even for native speakers’ (NSs) (Coupland, et al., 1991, p. 3). Appearing in literature first in the early 1970s, the term ‘communication strategies’ within an L2 (second language) context was coined by Selinker (1972), to connect CSs with ‘errors in the learner’s interlanguage system’. In 1973, Varadi’s study on the strategies used by learners to overcome their ‘lexical deficiency’ drew SLA researchers’ attention to CSs as a set of systematic phenomena. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the psycholinguistic approach to CSs as problem-solving procedures for interlanguage errors had become established in the literature (Færch & Kasper, 1983, Kasper & Kellerman, 1997). This approach, concentrating on non-native speakers/native speakers (NNS-NS) discourse, defined CSs as mechanisms to compensate NNS’s linguistic deficiency when they attempt to communicate with native speakers (i.e. Bialystok, 1990; Canale & Swain, 1980; Dörnyei, 1995; Færch & Kasper, 1983; Poulisse, 1990; Poulisse & Bongaerts, 1994; Tarone, 1977; Varadi, 1973/1980. For more than three decades after the coining of the term CS by Selinker, the function of CSs has been almost neglected or exclusively limited to compensating for L2 learners’ lexical deficiencies (Ellis, 2008, p. 509). In fact, due to the dominant psycholinguistic approach in CS definition, identification and classification, other possible functions of

9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies …

231

CSs have become neglected in traditional CSs studies. More recently, a number of CS studies, in a challenge to the traditional view, have started investigating CSs beyond the cognitive approach (i.e. Foster & Ohta, 2005; Lafford, 2004; Mariani, 2010; Somsai & Intaraprasert, 2011; Toomnan, 2014). However, there is still a lack of comprehensive investigation of different functions of strategies beyond the dominant cognitive approach. This study aims to explore the different function of CSs usage based on its systematic, comprehensive approach in CSs identification and classification.

1.1

Approaches to the Nature and Functions of CSs

Generally speaking, CSs usage has been conceptualized with two main perspectives: Psycholinguistic and Interactional. The psycholinguistic approach to CS study starts with the analysis of non-native speakers’ (NNS) oral performance during interaction with native speakers (NS). This approach concentrates more on studying CSs in speech production, cognitive organisation and information processing to show that CSs are just alternative tools with an underlying process similar to a ‘normal and ordinary’ aspect of language. Primary followers of this approach (i.e. Bialystok, 1990; Færch & Kasper, 1983; Poulisse, 1990) describe CSs as ‘individual conscious tools’, produced in problematic situations, employed by second language speakers to help ‘them’ to meet a ‘communicative purpose’ while encountering a problem. Whereas the function of CSs in Færch and Kasper (1983) is narrowed to overcoming linguistic difficulty, Bialystok (1990) considers all strategic and nonstrategic attempts to reach a communicative goal, and Poulisse (1990) defines CS as a part of general communication to communicate the intended meaning. It seems the function of CS in a cognitive approach is limited to conveying meaning and gaining a communicative goal through overcoming linguistic difficulties. By reviewing the definitions and their proposed functions of CSs, one can summarise the cognitive approach assumptions about the nature and function of CSs as follows: In the cognitive approach, CSs have an intra-personal and mental nature, used individually to overcome speakers’ problems with self-expression and

232

A. Jamshidnejad

to convey meaning after receiving an internal signal implying linguistic deficiency in their second language competence. (Jamshidnejad, 2010, p. 13)

Based on the above assumptions of the psycholinguistic approach to CSs, it is concluded that L2 speakers have three choices to handle their lack of linguistic resources to solve the problem of expressing a message: give up and abandon the message or change their original utterance (avoidance and reduction strategies); request help from the interlocutor to provide the missing information (so the interlocutor, not the speaker solves the problem) and use a compensatory strategy in an attempt to execute their original speech plan(s) (Smith, 2003). However, the psycholinguistic approach has been criticised for overlooking the interlocutor and other elements of communication as possible primary sources available for communicators to employ when dealing with problems in their L2 communication. Oral performance in a social situation, like communication, cannot be analysed unless the role of all of the elements (i.e. interlocutor) comprising that situation have been taken into account. Paying attention to ‘both sides of the page’, to the speaker and the interlocutors, interactional approach tries to provide a comprehensive understanding of strategic communication (Yule & Tarone, 1991). The interactional approach defines CSs as ‘mutual attempts’ constructed in an interactional situation to bridge communication gaps. The starting point of the interactional model is the assumption that communication of meaning is a ‘desired goal’ between speaker and listener (first criterion). This goal is faced with an obstacle in the form of the knowledge gap between them (second criterion); to deal with obstacles the speaker has two choices: not attempt to meet her/his goal, or find an alternative tool to achieve her/his communicative goal (third criteria). If the speaker realises that the listener has received the message and shares the meaning, the communication strategy activities will be stopped. Still, if the listener shows any difficulty in sharing the meaning, the use of CSs is continued until the speaker receives a message which shows that the message is correctly understood and accepted by the interlocutors.

9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies …

233

The interactional approach pays more attention to ‘meaning negotiation’ and the role of both participants in CSs usage and focuses on strategies to solve problems not only in self-expression but in ‘comprehension’ through clarifying the meaning. In this approach, the various repair or meaning-negotiation mechanisms are considered as strategies if they are formed to ‘clarify intended meaning’ rather than merely ‘correct linguistic errors’, as was emphasised by Dörnyei and Scott (1997, p. 178). In fact, in this approach, the primary function of CSs is to assist both communicators in conveying the meaning in an interactional situation.

1.2

CSs Functions Beyond Psycholinguistic and Interactional Approach

Dealing with oral problems in communication is the common function of CSs in both approaches. Although the problems investigated by both approaches range broadly from communication problems to narrower, specific lexical problems in L2 oral communication, both approaches primarily consider conveying the meaning as the main function of CSs in L2 communication. In addition to transmitting the meaning, CSs are used for negotiation and interpretation of meaning as emphasised by the followers of interactional approach (i.e. Dobao, 2001; Dobao & Martinez, 2007; Tarone, 1980, 1983; Yule & Tarone, 1997). CSs may be employed even though there is no any problem in L2 communication. They can be used for promoting and improving the effectiveness of conversation (Littlemore, 2003, p. 331). However, for decades, CSs have been studied primarily in terms of their transactional (i.e. transferring meaning) rather than their interactional function (i.e. making interpersonal relationships) (Konishi & Tarone, 2004, p. 175). This latter function of CSs has not attracted much attention from CSs researchers and, in the comparatively little work that has been done on studying CSs in EFL interactional discourse, the discussions that do exist are disparate (Cha, 2007, p. 20). Furthermore, almost all CSs studies focus exclusively on the ‘individual self-expression’ rather than the ‘mutual achievement

234

A. Jamshidnejad

and comprehension’ of discourse to describe the nature of CS in data collection and analysis (Williams, Inscoe, & Tasker, 1997). After decades of lack of research on the functions of CSs, some scholars recently investigated the different functions of CSs. Mariani (2010), for instance, has found four main categories of functions in his study on CSs as management tools in oral interactions. CSs for meaning expression are strategies to deal with speakers’ verbal problem in expressing the intended meaning in interactions (e.g. using paraphrasing, using examples, using approximations, using synonym or antonym, etc.). Second, CSs for meaning negotiation are strategies to deal with the problems of understanding the intended meaning in interactions, (e.g. request for help, confirmation or clarification request, in case the speaker encounters communication difficulties in understanding the intended message). Third, CSs for conversation management are strategies enabling communicators to keep the conversation going (e.g. time gaining tactics, let it pass, getting attention or interruption, helping other interlocutors to complete their utterances, etc.). The last group of CSs is (intercultural) interaction monitoring strategies. These strategies are used to improve intercultural misunderstanding in L2 communications. For example, apologising, or saying sorry for what has been said or done inappropriately or asking for clarification of utterances caused (cultural) misunderstanding, etc. The second study on functions of CSs was conducted by Somsai and Intaraprasert (2011). They categorised the functions of communication strategies into three categories: (1) CSs for conveying a message to the interlocutors (including continuous interaction strategies and discontinuous interaction strategies). This group of CSs is similar to the Mariani’s strategies whose aim is to overcome the verbal problem of communication, for instance, using similar words or phrases, switching to L1, circumlocution, appealing for help, time gaining strategies and so on. The second function of CSs is to improve understanding the message by using strategies like asking for repetition, noticing the gestures and facial expression, etc. This third function of CSs is for maintaining the conversation. These strategies help the communicators to keep the conversation going for a longer time. Paying little attention to grammar and being

9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies …

235

ready to take risks while speaking are two examples of CSs to maintain communication. The same categories of CSs functions have been introduced by Toomnan (2014) who studied Thai students’ use of strategies to deal with English oral communication breakdowns in the Northeast of Thailand. The participants in the study employed CSs for conveying their intended meaning, for understanding the interlocutors’ message and for keeping the conversation going. As can be seen from the above studies, scholars mainly agree on the three functions of CSs being discussed in psycholinguistic and interactional approaches to CSs: helping to convey the meaning, helping to understand the message and keeping the conversation going. It seems that recent studies have a common understanding of the CSs function, but they put different types of strategies for each function of CSs. However, current CS studies, methodologically, place greater emphasis on the lexical side of communication problems and pay little or no attention to the social-interactional context (intercultural context, or interpersonal context, or communication context) of utterances. In fact, in most studies, CSs are identified from the analysis of independent, isolated and context-free units of language. In fact, this somehow narrow approach is fostered by the dominance of quantitative research methodologies in CSs studies. To feel the above gap and to investigate all possible functions of CSs, the researcher in this study applied the systematic approach to L2 oral communication, introduced in Introduction of the book, to the current approaches to CS definition, identification and functions in the L2 oral communication. Therefore, CSs usage has been seen as a part of interpersonal interaction between at least two communicators (the speaker and listener) who attempt to create meaning in a dynamic context.

Research Questions To fill the above gaps, this study begins with a traditional question of CS studies: what is (are) the most frequent functions of CS(s) used by a group of Persian English-speakers in L2 oral communication? Reviewing the research literature, the researcher expanded his research question to

236

A. Jamshidnejad

a broader one: what is the construction of CSs usage in L2 oral communication? Reviewing the relevant literature, the researcher found that his initial inquiry about the frequency of the use of strategies among a group of language learners had been a common research question leading previous researchers to descriptive results and tables of CSs frequency. Therefore, he decided to describe the functions of CSs, in addition to their frequency in L2 communication tasks. In short, the main research questions of this study are as follows: 1. What types of CSs do a group of EFL language users tend to rely on when they encounter difficulties in L2 communication? 2. What functions might CSs perform when they are used by a group of EFL language users in L2 communication?

2

Study

To go beyond the current CS studies, the researcher employed a qualitative approach as the research methodology to investigate CS usage in context and from the perspective of all of those involved in its construction (Richards, 2003, p. 10). To do that, the constructivism principle (opportunism, reflexivity, deep description) in the ‘postmodern qualitative approach’ (Holliday, 2007, p. 19) were found very helpful for investigating the interactional effects of social context on the functions of CS usage in L2 oral communication. Therefore, the author believes that the social world, and by implication, CSs usage in L2 oral communication, is constructed through his interpretation of people constructing the social word (for details see Chapter 12). The sample of this study was a group of 12 Persian undergraduate students of English Literature and Translation and one postgraduate student in TEFL (total 13), both male and female, aged 20–24, who were interested in his study when the researcher called and invited them to take part in the research. All participation was voluntary. They took part in a series of group discussions, interviews and stimulated recall interviews. The discussions focused on everyday topics in face-to-face

9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies …

237

interactions between groups of language learners to enable the researcher to elicit the types and functions of CSs. Moreover, as in this study, the problem-oriented nature of strategies is a natural part of L2 interactions the focus was on CSs usage as a jointly constructed process during the entire communication, rather than as a solution to any moment of difficulty. The interviews, one the other hand, helped the researcher to become more familiar with the field and the participants’ attitude towards L2 oral communication. Participants were asked to describe their language learning journey to master oral communication skill and their experience of dealing with problems in their L2 interaction. The stimulated recall interview was used as a post-interview in which the researcher asks participants to listen to their recorded oral performance of the task and stop the tape where they want to comment on the difficulties they had encountered and explained how they had tried to overcome them (Jamshidnejad, 2010). This method is similar to what Dobao (2001), Lam (2006) and Dobao and Martínez (2007) have used in their studies. Their justification for using stimulated recall interviews is to elicit problematic moments of communication which can be only identified with the speaker’s help. All interviews were carried out in English. To collect the maximum data in a short time, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with all teachers. Using different types of data (oral communication recordings, stimulated recall interviews and semi-structured teacher interviews) for deep description, being reflexive about his presence in the setting and writing a detailed procedure of data collection and the stages and process of the research improve the validity of the research methodology the researcher employed in this study (Holliday, 2007). All research activities were recorded on a digital recorder to be used in preparing the research report and data analysis. This also helped the researcher to be reflexive about his presence in the research setting. Furthermore, being a member of a group, as well as a researcher, helped the researcher to construct a friendly relationship with the participants and cut off any negative effect of the presence of the researcher in the research setting. However, the small number of participants in this study is one of the limitations similar to most of the qualitative studies. This renders this study not suitable to draw far-reaching general

238

A. Jamshidnejad

recommendation from it, as the results may apply only to the small sample of upper-intermediate Persian English learners under investigation. It would not be efficient to make inferences for the bigger body of languages learners until more research has been done on a wider population.

3

Data Analysis

For each communication event, based on the signals of problem identification (see Sect. 3.1 in Chapter 7), the CS usage in the participants’ performance was identified and then transcribed. Together with these, the participants’ introspective comments in the stimulated interviews were quite helpful in spotting possible CS use. Finally, the results of the content analysis of transcription were compared with Dörnyei and Scott’s (1997) inventory of CSs to classify the observed CSs. Creating a comprehensive, adaptable CSs typology to classify observed strategies in this study, the researcher aimed to make his research comparable with other studies in the literature. However, as no category system is watertight, sometimes there might be a case for assigning an alternative label for a communication strategy. Still, every effort has been made in analysis to assign labels on the basis of careful analysis of the interaction and (where appropriate) participants’ comments. In order to find the functions of CSs usage, an interpretative (tries to explain why) and expressive (presents the real voice rather than depersonalised language) perspective was followed to interpret the reasons of participants’ performance. Then, based on the possible social and individual variables, CSs usage was analysed in a more natural interactive setting, rather than describing the frequency of CSs in a controlled setting. While counting the frequency of observed CSs and distributing them among different categories has been the common purpose of almost all of the previous research, this research examines the pragmatic aspects of CSs usage by looking at a broader context of the turn in which CSs were used. This method provided the research with an opportunity to investigate the pattern of the function of strategies, which are used

9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies …

239

to manage problematic situations, with a deeper understanding of the participants’ construction of L2 oral communication. The researcher borrowed the term ‘candidate’ from Ohta (2005, p. 391) to describe the strategies whose function was not yet clear; and in which was not clear ‘whether or not the strategies work, in context, as defined by the… prevailing definition’. To go beyond the surface, he focused on the differences between the ‘surface’ form of each observed communication strategy (e.g. confirmation check) and its possible pragmatic function(s) (e.g. to express interest rather than confusion), by looking at the wider context. To do that, the interlocutors’ responses to the strategy usage in the following turns were analysed to see if there was any sign of problematic communication. The Ohta’s (2005, p. 388) method in analysing at least three turns in conversation was employed in this study: (1) the initial turn which contains the utterance causing the problem in communication, (2) the turn containing the signal of strategy usage and (3) the turn containing the response. The first turn of the strategic conversation was studied to understand what the CSs referred to. The second turn, including the signal of strategy usage helped us to identify the occurrence of strategy usage in conversation. Dörnyei and Scott’s (1997) examples of CSs signals were used to identify learners’ use of strategy; for instance, if the language users employ ‘confirmation check’, they may use signals like ‘what do you mean?’, ‘You saw what?’ and also ‘question repetition’ (‘a part of any utterance with a rising, questioning intonation’) (see Table 1, for example of other CSs). Based on Ohta’s (2005) research, as it might be hard to identify the real function of strategies (e.g. clarification request) by just relying on the second turn or the turn including the signal of strategy usage. The third turn, including the interlocutor’s reaction to the strategy usage, has also to be taken into account to analyse how the interlocutor interpreted the function of strategy usage. The goal of this analysis is to investigate how each recipient of the candidate CS interprets it based upon the orientation evidenced in his or her response. Analysing how the interlocutor appears to have interpreted the utterance provides useful evidence of how the function of a particular utterance, whether or not it is the primary function of the utterance, or whether other possible functions could be

Clarification request

Confirmation request

Comprehension check

Interpretive summary

Expressing non-understanding

Requesting help

Use of general words

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Type of Strategy

Extending a general lexical item without needing to locate an exact referent (Carter & McCarthy, 1997, p. 16)

Asking the speaker to confirm whether the heard or understood utterance is correct or not Asking questions to check if the partner can follow the speaker Paraphrasing the interlocutor’s message to check if they understood it correctly or not Expressing that the interlocutor does not understand properly what was going on in the communication Requesting assistance from other partners when they are faced with a deficiency in self-expression

Requesting for more explanation, clarification or repetition to solve a comprehension problem

Description

What do you mean? You… what?; also ‘question repeats’, that is repeating a word or a structure with a question intonation (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997, p. 16) using ‘question repeat’ or questions such as ‘Do you mean…?’, ‘You mean …?’, ‘You said …?’ and etc. You know what I am saying? Do you understand what I mean? Hossein: so, you mean you saw your friends are learning English and makes you… Hamid: you surely don’t believe it I have ever read books? Kabi: … I don’t … understand. How can I put it in English? What you call them? I don’t know… how can I put the word? Thing, stuff, make, do

Signals of strategy usage

Table 1 The general description of strategies introduced in Dörnyei and Scott’s inventory (1997)

240 A. Jamshidnejad

Use of similar sound words

Repairing

Own accuracy check

Verbal strategy marker

Retrieval

Nothing to say

Use of Fillers

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Type of Strategy

Use of L1 knowledge

8

Description

Using gambits word and phrases to fill pauses and to gain time in order to keep the conversation open

Using markers to inform other partners that the speaker is using strategies to deal with the problem in self-expression Retrieving a target word or phrase by saying a series of incomplete or wrong forms or structures before producing the ideal form of target utterance Stop speaking as the speaker is faced with a self-expression problem

Checking the accuracy of the produced utterances

Using the knowledge of the mother tongue (literal translation and switching to L1) as a resource to express the meaning in breakdown communication Using an alternative lexical item which sounds are more or less like the target phrase Repairing self or other errors in oral performance

Hamid: have you seen Chinese before? Kabi: I don’t have anything to say Well, you know, let say, actually

Rostami: she be taking … she’s video taking me, she was video taking me… she was taking a video of me

Hamid: …how do you enjoy your place here (instead of: enjoy your presence here) No, he don’t … he doesn’t know, I cannot put myself in their in those shoes Repeating a word or phrase with rising intonation or by asking a concrete question, I don’t know’, ‘I don’t know how to put it in English’

Jafri: from … Eighty … (laughing) … HASHTADO DO (L1 equivalent for eighty two)

Signals of strategy usage 9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies …

241

242

A. Jamshidnejad

due to the context. Therefore, after identifying a candidate CS, a sequential analysis of each case was conducted to determine its function, or functions, based upon the analysis in context. The analysis, therefore, involved, the discourse following the use of candidate CSs. This included analysing the immediately subsequent talk as well as additional contextual material, including the speaker’s next turn at talk (the fourth turn) and beyond, as relevant. The CSs analysis, therefore, involved examining at least three turns of the sequences in their discourse contexts to find out if the strategy usage necessarily indicates the problems in expression-comprehension or efforts to invite the speaker to continue his/her speech. In other words, unlike previous CS studies, the researcher looked at a more extensive selection of the data, using a sociocultural approach (Lantolf, 1998; Ohta, 2001) to find other functions of CSs used in L2 interactions.

3.1

Transcription Conventions

The researcher completed the transcriptions of the audio recordings. As video recording was not possible, only the verbal aspect of the communication has been marked in transcription (See Appendix 1 for transcription conventions).

4

Findings and Discussion

4.1

Type of CSs1

Based on Dörnyei and Scott’s (1997) inventory of CSs, the researcher initially analysed the transcripts of the problematic moments (see Sect. 3.1 in Chapter 7 for the Coding Scheme) of the recorded oral communication sessions. It was noticed that the participants employed 15 different strategies when communication broke down: clarification request, confirmation request, comprehension check, interpretive 1 Adopted

from Jamshidnejad, 2010.

9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies …

243

summary, expressing non-understanding, requesting help for negotiation of the meaning, use of general words, use of L1 knowledge, use of similar sound words, repairing, own accuracy check, verbal strategy markers, retrieval, nothing to say, use of fillers. The following table presents the 15 different strategies, with brief descriptions and CSs markers, based on Dörnyei and Scott’s (1997, pp. 188–194) inventory of Strategic Language Devices (SLDs). The examples of the CSs markers were extracted from the corpus of this study. The participants used three additional strategies which did not fit within Dörnyei and Scott’s (1997) classification. The first, a ‘let-it-pass’ strategy, was described by Firth (1996) as being used in those situations in which the interlocutor lets the ‘unknown or unclear’ phrase ‘pass’ on to keep the conversation open. The other two strategies, named as an ‘asking for continuation’ and a ‘complementary’ strategy are used for ‘inviting a speaker to continue’ and ‘completing an interlocutor’s unfinished utterances’ (Ohta 2001, 2005). Ohta (2005, p. 392) argues that ‘analysing how the interlocutor appears to have interpreted the utterance’ provides researchers with an opportunity to go deeper than the surface level of strategy usage and to explore the functions of a strategy, in addition to the traditional functions defined by previous studies. She found a variety of particular functions, in addition to confirming comprehension, for confirmation check in her research, e.g. repairing initiation, marking the unexpected or humorous, and invitation for continuing (ibid., p. 384). ‘Asking for continuation’ strategies are those utterances inviting the interlocutor to go on speaking. Complementary strategies, on the other hand, are those collaborative activities for co-construction repairs in L2 interaction.

4.2

Functions of CSs

Based on Ohta (2001, 2005) and Foster and Ohta’s (2005) method, data were analysed in order to answer the second research question: What functions might CSs perform when they are used by a group of EFL language users in L2 communication?

244

A. Jamshidnejad

Each strategy is illustrated with samples of its main function and possible sub-function(s) (if any). Using a thematic analysis method, and based on the different functions of strategies interpreted from the key linguistic/language-related features in each extract, categories of CSs functions were developed to examine how communicators resolve difficulties when they arise. Participants’ performance in communication breakdowns can be classified into three main categories: • Promoting meaning transfer in communication; • Promoting the accuracy of language in communication; • Keeping the interaction going. Table 2 summarises the classification of the types and functions of CSs and the overall distribution of observed CSs represented in the corpus through statistical values for each category. This table helps us to interpret the general and specific picture of the strategies used in each category of performance. As can be seen in the table, the frequency of strategies which are employed to promote the accuracy level of language in communication is more than those for maintaining the flow of conversation and those for promoting meaning transfer. In fact, the participants’ first concern is to promote the accuracy level of their utterances through CSs for monitoring and improving their own and their partners’ performance, for helping each other and also for signalling or avoiding the problematic oral situations in L2 oral communication. The second most frequently used CSs deal with keeping the conversation channel open. To do that, they employ strategies for inviting others to continue, for collaborating with each other to complete and repair unfinished utterances, for letting their partners’ problems pass and even for filling the gaps by empty lexical items in L2 communication. The last most essential strategies are employed to promote meaning transfer through meaning negotiation strategies (clarification request, confirmation request, comprehension request and requesting help), by interpretive summary, by the use of general or similar sound words and even by the use of L1 knowledge to solve or avoid problems of self-expression and comprehension.

9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies …

245

Table 2 The functions and priority use of CSs by EFL learners Interpreted functions

CSs

Promoting meaning transfer (Solving or avoiding problems in self-expression and comprehension)

Clarification request Confirmation request Comprehension check Interpretive summary Expressing non-understanding Requesting help for meaning negotiation General words Use of L1 knowledge Use of similar sound words Total Repairing Own accuracy check Verbal strategy marker Retrieval Requesting help for negotiation the form Nothing to say Total Inviting to Continue Collaborative complementary and repair Let it pass Use of fillers Total

Promoting accuracy form of language in communication (Monitoring, improving and warning about the accuracy level of performance)

Maintain the flow of conversation (Collaboration to continue, complement and repair, ignoring the problem and use of fillers)

Observed Frequency 15 7 2 8 2 5 1 2 1 43 (31%) 23 7 6 1 11 4 52 (37%) 21 8 11 4 44 (32%)

Interestingly, the participants in this study used many more strategies in communication situations where there were no problems in the meaning transfer. The main functions of CSs in these situations seem to be to promote the accuracy level of communication or to maintain the flow of conversation. To promote accuracy, participants might insist and, if necessary, defend the accuracy level of their produced utterances in L2 communication. They monitor and evaluate the accuracy of their own, and their partners’, performance. If they realise that an accuracy problem, even a morpho-syntactic error, has occurred in their performance, they repair it or retrieve an ideal form for it. But if they do not realise the error and just guess the problem, they prefer to inform their partners

246

A. Jamshidnejad

that they are producing an inaccurate or less than perfect utterance in their self-expression. Sometimes participants ask for other interlocutors‘ help to find the accurate L2 form of a target phrase through negotiating the correct form in conversation. If they do not find any way to produce an accurate form, they might stop speaking. Less frequently used than those for promoting accuracy were the CSs employed to keep the L2 conversation going. Participants invite each other to keep the turn when they are interested in the topic of conversation, give complementary repair when they could predict and guess the remaining part of their partners’ unfinished utterance, and even allow the problem to pass in L2 communication. The participants also employ fillers to keep their turn without other partners’ collaboration. The actual example of strategies of each function and more explanation will be discussed in the next chapters of the book.

5

Conclusion

A new classification of CSs functions in L2 oral communication was revealed in this study. Participants used CSs not only to create meaning but to promote accuracy and to establish, maintain and develop interpersonal communication in their L2 oral communication, too. It seems that the pattern of the participants’ use of CSs is constructed by their need to transfer meaning when the meaning is problematic, but also by a need to promote accuracy in the L2 and to keep the communication going when the meaning is not problematic, and the communication is supportive and friendly. Most of the CSs were employed in situations in which the meaning was clear and unproblematic. While traditional and CSs researchers (i.e. Dörnyei & Scott, 1997; Færch & Kasper, 1983; Long, 1985; Tarone, 1980) proposed that strategies are usually used in problematic communication, this study, similar to the recent ones (e.g., Mariami, 2010; Somsai & Intaraprasert, 2011; Tooman, 2014) showed that participants employ CSs in unproblematic conditions as well. It seems to me that the participants employ more CSs for purposes

9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies …

247

other than getting the meaning across in communication. The reason is that in L2 communication, there may be more important targets than just meaning transfer. Taking L2 communication as an opportunity to develop language knowledge and also practice L2 interaction with other communicators are the other targets which participants might achieve by the use of different CSs in L2 oral communication. In fact, EFL learners may employ CSs to speak like a member of the target language community and to go beyond the ‘processing devices that convert linguistic input into well-formed output’ (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001, p. 145). This study shows that although L2 users are likely to frequently run into communication problems for a variety of reasons, CSs usage enables them to transfer the meaning, to develop the accuracy and to maintain successful communication in their target language. Therefore, it seems it is reasonable to integrate CS-training in L2 syllabus design. The use of CSs helps the students to apply their own and their partners’ resources to deal with their communication problems and to achieve their communicative goals. Therefore, I am in support of the idea of raising the learners’ awareness of the nature and potential communicative functions of CSs by making them conscious of the CSs existing in their repertoire. Every participant in this study was able to employ CSs. However, they might not always be aware of their use of CSs and thus do not use them effectively and spontaneously. The CSs and their functions should be introduced to the learners because each might be useful in a particular situation. If teachers can make learners more aware of the advantages of applying different CSs to solve their problems, they might be able to choose more appropriate CSs and use them in a more creative and efficient way.

Appendix 1: Transcription Conventions ? ,

Rising intonation, not necessarily a question continuing contour (when the speaker wants to continue his/her speech) … Pause of about 3 seconds (xxx) Unknown or ambiguous phrases

248

aaa ABC (abc) ABC (abc) Bold

A. Jamshidnejad

lengthening of syllables utterance in L1 English translation of L1 utterance emphasised utterance Researcher’s explanation instances of the crossing of central interest in discussion, discover of CSs.

References Adler, R. B., & Rodman, G. (2006). Understanding human communication (Eight ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bejarano, Y., Levine, T., Olshtain, E., & Steiner, J. (1997). The skilled use of interaction strategies: Creating a framework for improved small-group communicative interaction in the language classroom. System, 25 (2), 203– 214. Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Exploring spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cha, M. (2007). The use of communication strategies in international business settings. Modern English Education, 8(2), 19–39. Clennell, C. (1995). Communication strategies of adult ESL learners: A discourse perspective. Prospect, 10 (3), 4–20. Coupland, N., Giles, H., & Wiemann, J. M. (1991). Miscommunication and problematic talk. London: Sage. Dobao, A. M. F. (2001). Communication strategies in the interlanguage of Galician students of English: The influence of learner and task related factors. Atlantis, 23(1), 41–62. Dobao, A. M. F., & Martínez, I. M. P. (2007). Negotiating meaning in interaction between English and Spanish speakers via communicative strategies. Atlantis, 29 (1), 87–105.

9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies …

249

Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 55–86. Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47, 173–210. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. In C. Færch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 20–60). London: Longman. Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237– 259. Foster, P., & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26 (3), 402–430. Holliday, A. R. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. House, J. (2003). Misunderstanding in intercultural university encounters. In J. House, G. Kasper, & S. Ross (Eds.), Misunderstandings in social life: Discourse approaches to problematic talk (pp. 22–56). London: Longman. Jamshidnejad, A. (2010). Exploring oral communication strategies in an English as a foreign language (EFL) context (Unpublished PhD thesis). Canterbury Christ Church University, Kent, UK. Kasper, G., & Kellerman, E. (1997). Introduction: Approaches to communication strategies. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 1–13). London: Longman. Konishi, K., & Tarone, E. (2004). English construction used in compensatory strategies: Baseline data for communicative EFL instruction. In D. Boxer & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Studying speaking to inform second language learning (pp. 174–198). Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters LTD. Lafford, B. A. (2004). The effect of the context of learning on the use of communication strategies by learners of Spanish as a second language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (2), 201–225. Lam, W. Y. K. (2006). Gauging the effects of ESL oral communication strategy teaching: A multi-method approach. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(2), 142–157.

250

A. Jamshidnejad

Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Seminar Series Delivered at the University of Melbourne, Australia, May 22. Melbourne, Australia. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)activity, understanding second language learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–158). London: Longman. Littlemore, J. (2003). The communicative effectiveness of different types of communication strategy. System, 31(3), 331–347. Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 268–286). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Mariani, L. (2010). Communication strategies. Learning and teaching how to manage oral interaction. Milan: Learning Paths – Tante Vie Per Imparare. Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ohta, A. S. (2005). Confirmation checks: A discourse analytic reanalysis. Japanese Language and Literature, 39, 383–412. Poulisse, N. (1990). Variation in learners’ use of communication strategies. In R. Duda & P. Riley (Eds.), Learning styles (pp. 77–87). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy. Poulisse, N., & Bongaerts, T. (1994). First language use in second language production. Applied Linguistics, 15, 36–57. Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10, 209–230. Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31, 29–53. Somsai, S., & Intaraprasert, C. (2011). Strategies for coping with face-toface oral communication problems employed by Thai University students majoring in English. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 83–95. Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report. In D. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 77: Teaching and learning ESL (pp. 194–203). Washington, DC: TESOL.

9 The Nature and Functions of Communication Strategies …

251

Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417–429. Tarone, E. (1983). On the variability of interlanguage systems. Applied Linguistics, 4, 142–163. Toomnan, P. (2014). Use of strategies to deal with English oral communication breakdowns by Thai English major university students (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand. Tubbs, S. L., & Moss, S. (1994). Human communication. Singapore: McGrawHill Inc. Varadi, T. (1973). Strategies of target language learner communication: Message adjustment. Paper Presented at the Sixth Conference of the RomanianEnglish Linguistics Project in Timisoara. Varadi, T. (1980). Strategies of target language learner communication: Message adjustment. Published in IRAL, 18 59–71. Paper Presented at the 6th Conference of the Rumanian-English Linguistics Project. Timisoara. Williams, J., Inscoe, R., & Tasker, T. (1997). Communication strategies in an interactional context: The mutual achievement of comprehension. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 304–322). London: Longman. Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1991). 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 (pp. 142–161). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1997). Investigating communication strategies in L2 reference: Pros and cons. In G. Kasper, & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies (pp. 17–30). New York: Longman.

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies Alireza Jamshidnejad

1

Introduction

A new classification of functions of communication strategies (hereafter CSs) in L2 oral communication was introduced in the previous chapter. It shows that when L2 communicators feel that a breakdown has occurred, they may employ a series of strategies to compensate their deficiencies in meaning transfer, to develop their language knowledge and even to keep the conversation going (See Chapter 9). One of the main problems that language learners experience in their L2 interactions is the lack of language knowledge resulting in communication breakdown, classified as language-oriented problems (for more details, see Chapter 8). The language-oriented problems are mainly constructed by a gap between the required language resources and the immediately available linguistic resources for successful L2 communication. This may A. Jamshidnejad (B) Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Rustaq, Oman e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_10

253

254

A. Jamshidnejad

occur between non-native speakers more than others, particularly when communicators want to transfer the meaning in an actual or potential breakdown in communication (Pickering, 2006; Varonis & Gass, 1985). Disruptions in meaning transfer may cause ‘long-range difficulties’ in developing confident and effective oral communication (Morley, 1994, p. 67). Lack of accuracy and intelligibility of utterances are two primary language-oriented problems EFL learners experience in their L2 oral interactions (for detail see Chapter 8). In such problematic situations, strategies with language-oriented function are appropriate resources helping communicators to deal with the linguistic breakdowns. Strategies with ‘language-oriented function’ are a group of communication strategies frequently employed by L2 communicators to deal with their lack of language competencies. They help L2 speakers particularly to compensate for their lack of language competencies in meaning transfer and developing their knowledge of the spoken language. It is believed that some language learners who are able to employ language-oriented strategies can communicate successfully with only one hundred words of the target language (Dörnyei & Thurrell, 1991). More recently, Yaghoubi-Notash and Karafkan (2015) have also found a group of EFL teachers of both advanced and elementary level of English frequently employed a group of CSs for promoting the meaning transfer and comprehension in their classes. Due to the different linguistic sources of language-oriented problems, the language learners require using relatively different strategies. However, there is a lack of investigation on classifying strategies based on their different functions for dealing with different sources of languageoriented problems in EFL oral communication. The present investigation, therefore, aims to enrich and gain more insights into classifying communication strategies based on their functions of dealing with different sources of language-oriented problems in EFL communication.

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

2

255

Background of Study

Although all CSs traditionally function to bridge the gap in communication breakdowns, comparatively little research has been done on classifying the functions of CSs based on their roles in bridging the breakdown in L2 oral communication in EFL contexts. Researchers on English as Lingua Franca (ELF) interactions, however, have paid more attention to the classification of CSs based on their function in communication breakdowns. Kaur (2008, p. 19), analysing ELF interactions in an academic setting, showed that ELF speakers do pay attention to forms when ‘deviations’ threaten inter-subjectivity or when the interlocutor signals a problem. Kalocsai (2008, p. 18), on the other hand, observed that ELF communicators employed ‘negotiation strategies’ to express involvement by ensuring intelligibility. They employed ‘interactional strategies’, to show interest and enthusiasm, when mutual intelligibility is not called into question, and used ‘accommodation strategies’ (strategies used by speakers to accommodate linguistic aspects of their speech to each other) to show solidarity and casualness either when a non-understanding is being resolved, or when efficiency is being pursued. Other studies (e.g. Kowal & Swain, 1994; Leeser, 2004; Storch, 2002; Swain, 1998; Swain & Lapkin, 2001; Williams, 1999) have found that learners discuss both lexical items and grammatical forms when they carry out pair or small group activities. In fact, L2 speakers may use CSs to solve meaning problems and simultaneously build knowledge. This kind of oral interaction, called ‘collaborative dialogue’ by Swain (2000), is a useful term for further discussion about the second language-related function of strategies: language knowledge development. Solving a problem through collaborative dialogue, in Swain’s (2000, p. 102) opinion, is ‘joint with knowledge building’. Collaborative dialogues centre on how learners assist one another in reconstructing linguistic forms rather than engaging in the negotiation of meaning caused by communication breakdowns (Donato, 1994; Foster & Ohta, 2005; Lee, 2004; Swain, 2001). Although scholars recently have paid a great deal of attention to collaborative dialogues as a source of L2 learning (Swain &Watanabe, 2013), comparatively little research has been done on the functions of CSs as language development in English

256

A. Jamshidnejad

as Foreign Language (EFL) interactional discourse. Douadi (2019) investigating the type and frequency of CSs usage among EFL undergraduate students, found accuracy-based strategies as the most frequent CSs used by students. Yaghoubi-Notash and Karafkan (2015) also found promoting accuracy as one of the functions of teachers-employed CSs in advanced and elementary level classes. In addition, some recent CSs studies show that strategies are beneficial in developing both learners’ language knowledge and keeping the conversation going in addition to meaning transfer in L2 oral communication (Jamshidnejad, 2010; Mariani, 2010; Somsai & Intaraprasert, 2011). However, these positive roles of the breakdown in L2 oral communication has not been fully investigated in previous CSs studies. In this chapter, therefore, I examine how the use of strategies with languageoriented function can provide opportunities for communicators to not only assist each other in meaning problem-solving but also develop and practise their knowledge of the target language in L2 communication.

3

Study

Choosing the qualitative approach, the researcher employed the constructivism principle (opportunism, reflexivity, deep description) in the ‘postmodern qualitative approach’ (Holliday, 2007, p. 19) to investigate the interactional effects of social context on the functions of CS usage in L2 oral communication. Therefore, the researcher believes that the social world, and by implication, CSs usage in L2 oral communication, is constructed through his interpretation of people constructing the social word. The sample of this study was a group of 12 Persian undergraduate students of English Literature and Translation and one postgraduate student in TEFL (total 13), both male and female, aged 20–24, who were interested in the study when the researcher called and invited them to take part in the research. All participation was voluntary. They voluntarily took part in a series of group discussions, recall stimulated interviews and interviews. The discussions focused on everyday topics in face-to-face interactions between groups of language learners to enable

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

257

the researcher to elicit the types and functions of CSs. Moreover, as in this study, the problem-oriented nature of strategies is a natural part of L2 interactions the focus was on CSs usage as a jointly constructed process during the entire communication, rather than as a solution to any moment of difficulty. The interviews, one the other hand, helped the researcher to become more familiar with the field and the participants’ attitude towards L2 oral communication. Participants were asked to describe their language learning journey to master oral communication skill and their experience of dealing with problems in their L2 interaction. The stimulated recall interview was used as a post-interview in which the researcher asks participants to listen to their recorded oral performance of the task and stop the tape where they want to comment on the difficulties they had encountered and explained how they had tried to overcome them (Jamshidnejad, 2010). The justification for using stimulated recall interviews is to elicit problematic moments of communication which can be only identified with the speaker’s help. All interviews were carried out in English. To collect the maximum data in a short time, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with all teachers. Using different types of data (oral communication recordings, stimulated recall interviews and semi-structured teacher interviews) for deep description, being reflexive about his presence in the setting and writing a detailed procedure of data collection and the stages and process of the research improve the validity of the research methodology the researcher employed in this study (Holliday, 2007). All research activities were recorded on a digital recorder to be used in preparing the research report and data analysis. This also helped the researcher to be reflexive about his presence in the research setting. Furthermore, being a member of a group, as well as a researcher, helped the researcher to construct a friendly relationship with the participants and cut off any negative effect of the presence of the researcher in the research setting. However, the small number of participants in this study is one of the limitations similar to most of the qualitative studies. This renders this study not suitable to draw far-reaching general recommendation from it, as the results may apply only to the small

258

A. Jamshidnejad

sample of upper-intermediate Persian English learners under investigation. It would not be efficient to make inferences for the bigger body of languages learners until more research has been done on a wider population.

4

Data Analysis

For each communication event, based on the signals of problem identification (introduced in Sect. 3.1 Chapter 7), the CS usage in the participants’ performance was identified and then transcribed. As video recording was not possible, only the verbal aspect of the communication has been marked in transcription (See Appendix 1 for transcription conventions). Together with these, the participants’ introspective comments in the stimulated interviews were quite helpful in spotting possible CS use. In order to find the functions of CSs usage, an interpretative (tries to explain why) and expressive (presents the real voice rather than depersonalised language) perspective was followed to interpret the reasons of participants’ performance. While counting the frequency of observed CSs and distributing them among different categories has been the common purpose of almost all of the previous research, this research examines the pragmatic aspects of CSs usage by looking at a broader context of the turn in which CSs were used. This method provided the research with an opportunity to investigate the pattern of the function of strategies, which are used to manage problematic situations, with a deeper understanding of the participants’ construction of L2 oral communication. To describe the functions of strategies, the Ohta’s (2005, p. 388) method in analysing at least three turns in conversation was employed: (1) the initial turn which contains the utterance causing the problem in communication, (2) the turn containing the signal of strategy usage, and (3) the turn containing the response. The first turn of the strategic conversation was studied to understand what the CSs referred to. The second turn, including the signal of strategy usage helped us to identify the occurrence of strategy usage in conversation. Dörnyei and Scott’s (1997) example of signals was used to identify the strategy usage; for

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

259

instance, if the language user employ ‘confirmation check’, they may use signals like ‘what do you mean?’, ‘You saw what?’ and also ‘question repetition’ (‘a part of any utterance with a rising, questioning intonation’) (see Table 1 in Chapter 9 for example of other CSs). Based on Ohta’s (2005) research, as it might be hard to identify the real function of strategies (e.g. clarification request) by just relying on the second turn or the turn including the signal of strategy usage. The third turn, including the interlocutor’s reaction to the strategy usage, has also to be taken into account to analyse how the interlocutor interpreted the function of strategy usage. The goal of this analysis is to investigate how each recipient of the candidate CS interprets it based upon the orientation evidenced in his or her response. Analysing how the interlocutor appears to have interpreted the utterance provides useful evidence of how the function of a particular utterance, whether or not it is the primary function of the utterance, or whether other possible functions could be due to the context. Therefore, after identifying a candidate CS, a sequential analysis of each case was conducted to determine its function, or functions, based upon the analysis in context. The analysis, therefore, involved, the discourse following the use of candidate CSs. This included analysing the immediately subsequent talk as well as additional contextual material, including the speaker’s next turn at talk (the fourth turn) and beyond, as relevant. The analysis of functions of CSs, therefore, involved examining at least three turns of the sequences in their discourse contexts to find out if the strategy usage necessarily indicates the problems in expression-comprehension or efforts to invite the speaker to continue his/her speech. In other words, unlike previous CS studies, the researcher looked at a more extensive selection of the data, using a sociocultural approach (Lantolf, 1998; Ohta, 2001) to find other functions of CSs used in L2 interactions. The primary analysis of CSs functions shows that participants in this study employed communication strategies (CSs) for three functions in L2 interactions: promoting meaning transfer, promoting accuracy level of language and keeping the interaction going (see Chapter 9 for more details). This chapter focuses on the function of CSs in promoting meaning transfer in L2 oral communication. The further analysis of

260

A. Jamshidnejad

strategies for promoting the meaning transfer in L2 oral communication shows the following two sub-functions in the process of meaning transfer: 1. CSs for expressing the intended meaning 2. CSs for understanding the message 3. CSs for language knowledge development If the participants faced with difficulties in expressing the intended meaning, they may employ CSs like requesting help, literal translation, use of general words, similar sounds, and verbal strategy markers for better expressing the intended meaning in L2 oral communication understanding the message; and if they found obstacles in understanding their interlocutor’s message, they may employ CSs such as clarification and confirmation request, the interpretive summary, the comprehension check and expressing non-understanding in order to make the meaning more intelligible in L2 oral communication. The following sections show how participants employed each group of strategy to benefit from their functions in their L2 interactions.

5

Strategies for Expressing the Intended Meaning

The first part of strategies with language-oriented function is used for conveying the meaning in L2 oral communication. They are used in situations where the process of meaning transfer is interrupted due to the participants’ lack of ability in expressing the meaning. Participants, who struggle with the lack of lexical knowledge of constructing the meaningful form of utterances, employed the requesting for help, the use of L1 knowledge, the use of general words and words with similar sounds strategies mainly as facilitators of expressing the intelligible utterances in problematic L2 communication. In fact, if the process of conveying meaning is interrupted due to the lack of the intelligible form of utterances, participants may employ either their own language resources such

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

261

as L1 knowledge, general word and similar sound words, or the interlocutors’ resources through requesting help to express their meaning in problematic situations. The following extracts are some examples of strategies with the language-oriented function of promoting the intelligible form of utterances in L2 interactions. The primary function of strategies such as requesting help, literal translation, use of general words and similar sound words in is to promote the intelligible form of spoken language in L2 oral communication.

5.1

Requesting Help for Meaning Transferring

One of the participants’ more common strategies is the ‘requesting help strategy’. Dörnyei and Scott (1997) called it an ‘appeal for help’ and defined it as a ‘strategy’ to request assistance from other partners when a speaker is faced with a deficiency in self-expression. One can observe the following turn-taking in an ‘appeal for help’: the speaker experiences a problem in self-expression, signals for help, employs strategies such as circumlocutions, switching to L1, etc. to describe the meaning to the listener(s), and the interlocutor reacts to the request collaboratively to achieve the speaker’s meaning. The speaker and listener have to share knowledge of a detailed specific topic and collaborate in order to construct a complete appeal for help (Scholfield, 1987). In the following extract, the speaker, who uses a requesting help strategy, is helped to transfer her meaning successfully because she and her partners shared a common knowledge about the topic. 1. Jafri: exactly, the the purchase in the buying, not window shopping but some… some people from different different …what can I … how can I put it in English? 2. Hamid: different level of society 3. Jafri: Yes, come here, for example poor people … everybody come here, we cannot say all of them buy things, they can (speech continues) (Group discussion in shopping centre).

262

A. Jamshidnejad

I interpret Hamids’ immediate response to Jafri’s request to mean that Hamid’s information is enough to help Jafri. He probably shares knowledge with Jafri in the specific topic, which enables him to offer a phrase which is the one Jafri was looking for. Requesting help strategy is used for getting the meaning across through asking for help when the speakers are faced with a deficiency in their self-expression in L2 communication. The requesting help strategy is interpreted as a performance which provides participants with an opportunity to collaborate together in order to achieve mutual meaning. Speakers, providing an accurate and comprehensive explanation of their target phrase, and the partners, by not interrupting the users and by giving them enough time to explain their target phrase, collaborate to construct a successful appeal for help. In fact, the requesting help strategy is a speaker’s ‘midway’ to transfer the meaning while being open to the other interlocutors’ help.

5.2

Literal Translation and Switching to L1

Participants who share an L1 employ their knowledge of their mother tongue as a resource to express their meaning during a breakdown in communication. It seems that the participants’ knowledge of L1 makes the meaning transfer easier without spending time searching for an L2 equivalent. In fact, the use of L1 knowledge seems an easy access strategy, and thus, of time-saving when used in L2 communication. Therefore, sometimes the speaker translates a lexical item, a phrasal verb, an idiom or structure, word by word, and from L1 to L2 in communication (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). Scholars (e.g. Fitriani, 2019; Somsai & Intaraprasert, 2011; Ting & Phan, 2008) expect that code-switching is a common communication strategy employed by the speakers with shared L1. In interviews, when I asked participants about the ways they use to deal with communication breakdowns, the first strategy recounted was the use of L1 knowledge:

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

263

Delgarm: Well, I try to persuade myself I have the information about that topic, then I make the message in Farsi in my mind, and put it in English … (laughing)… I know it is not the good way but it’s the only choice. (Interview)

They were aware of the advantage of L1 knowledge, particularly when L1 lets them think about the subject in her L1 (Farsi) and then translates it into their second language (English) when presenting. Sometimes the participants employ a switch to L1 strategy, instead of a literal translation strategy, to express their meaning. Switching to L1 is another strategy chosen by communicators with shared L2 to convey their meaning through consciously using words or phrase from the L1 in L2 communication. The following extract is an example of using switching to L1 in this study: 1. Karb: no, let me just question please … how long have you been learning English? 2. Jafri: from … Eighty … (laughing) … HASHTADO DO (eighty two). I guess … it’s ahhhh six or eh … at about this time. (Group Discussion)

Karb, in the above example, asks his partner, Jafri, a question (line 1). Jafri’s answer starts with an L2 utterance but finishes by switching to L1 (line 2). I interpret this strategy as switching to L1 because Jafri uses it consciously to deal with her deficiency in her L2 knowledge. She uses her L1 because she knows that her interlocutor can understand it. I asked Jafri in a recall interview about the reason of her performance: Me: why did you switch to L1 in this situation? Jafri: because I wanted to find an equivalent for specific date in Roman calendar, it didn’t come to my mind and I switched to L1. (Recall Interview)

They confess that most of the L2 learners usually employ L1 knowledge, and translation in L2 speaking, even out of the language classes. However, I also found that many of the participants see L1 translation as an inappropriate strategy, or even as an error, in L2 conversation. Some

264

A. Jamshidnejad

of them believe if someone employs the L1 translation strategy, she/he is not a ‘good’ English speaker. Furthermore, in one of the stimulated interviews, Arjani criticised his friend, who used Persian structures in L2 speaking: Arjani: he said ‘everything is for free’ which is Persian sentence, we don’t have this in English language. He used a good American accent for Persian structure. (Recall Interview)

It seems that although the L1 translation is one of the most typical known ways of dealing with breakdowns in communication, the participants try not to employ this strategy until they have to. When I interviewed teachers, all of them identified L1 translation as a problem in their learners’ English speaking. One of the teachers sees L1 translation as a factor interfering with his students’ L2 speaking: Arabi: the next problem is word-by-word translation, they want to translate Persian sentence to English word by word, this makes reluctant in speaking and negative communication. They want to impose Persian to English speaking, for example ‘He asked from me’ instead of ‘He asked me’. (Teacher’s interview)

This section shows how the use of L1 knowledge can help the participants in an L2 conversation convey the meaning while they deal with the problem of self-expression. Participants use their L1 knowledge, as one of their own accessible sources like general words or using similarsounding words, in order to transfer meaning. However, it seems that although using L1 knowledge is an obvious way for the participants to deal with any breakdown in communication, they try not to employ it until necessary. In fact, participants interpret the use of literal translation or switch to L1 as face-threatening because some L2 users might consider using L1 knowledge strategy as an error in L2 communication.

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

5.3

265

Use of General Words

In the ‘general words’ strategy, speakers employ empty lexical items such as thing, stuff , make … to fill the gap they encountered in speaking. General words are nouns and, in Carter and McCarthy’s (1997) words, allow vague and indefinite reference. Using general words in communication enables a speaker to express meaning ‘without needing to locate an exact or precise referent’ (p. 16). Dörnyei (1995) classifies the use of general words strategy in a bigger group, called stalling strategies, which their main function is to help speakers gain time to think and keep the conversation channel open. The following extract is an example of a general word strategy: Delgarm: the place the environment is good but … the … things we ate was not good. (Group Discussion in an International Hotel)

Delgarm in the above situation is faced with lack of vocabulary (desserts) to convey her meaning. She completes her sentence by using ‘things’, one of the general words which can be used for filling a gap of vocabulary. In her recall interview, she gives the following explanation for her performance: Degarm: I wanted to say desserts, but it didn’t come to my mind at that time, I couldn’t remember, so I said thing. (Recall interview)

In fact, participants employ general words to transfer their meaning when faced by a deficiency in vocabulary. Other interlocutors guess the meaning of the general words probably through listening to the remaining utterance and also using their contextual knowledge. Instead of using the other interlocutors’ resources, speakers rely on general words as an accessible resource.

5.4

Use of Similar Sound Words

In this strategy, communicators who are faced with difficulty in expressing their message, use an alternative lexical item whose sound is

266

A. Jamshidnejad

more or less like the target phrase (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). An example of this strategy is: HamidI: but you can think about more positive things like how you enjoy your place here … your … here… how you enjoy it (look at Miss Delgarm). (Group Discussion in an International Hotel)

When I reviewed Hamid’s recall interview, I found that he wanted to say ‘your presence here’ but he could not. Hamid: I wanted to say ‘enjoy your presence here’, but it did come to my mind, so I used ‘place’ instead of ‘presence’. (Recall interview)

The function of using same sound words strategy is comparable to the use of ‘general words’ strategy, with this exception that, in the earlier, the strategy user prefers to use a word with a similar sound to the target phrase, but in the latter, the empty lexical items are used.

5.5

Circumlocution and Approximation

In this section, I present a part of the interview showing my participants were aware of using strategies such as circumlocution (paraphrasing) and approximation as compensation ways of their lack of vocabulary. Circumlocution is the strategy of describing, illustrating or exemplifying the target object of an action; and approximation is the strategy of using an alternative term, word or structure to express the meaning of the target lexical item as closely as possible (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). For example, Moazed, in the introductory interview, talks about her use of the circumlocution strategy under challenging situations: Moazed: well, um, I try to um put it in a different way, ok, that was one way I tried to fix that problem, and … I think that’s only way I could do at the moment. (Interview)

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

267

Najar and Salah also confirm their use of the circumlocution and approximation strategies to prevent any problem in meaning transfer: Najjar: I usually employ repetition to revise and check my sentence and also meaning creation. I also employ the synonyms and equivalents to make my speaking clearer. (Recall interview) Saleh: To solve the problem of forgetting a vocabulary or structure, I restructure the sentences completely, sometimes stop and start another sentence and sometimes I ask my friends that what it means in English … I tried to say many different ways and sentences to make myself understandable like rephrasing and paraphrasing. (Introductory discussion)

Sometimes, participants use verbal strategy markers such as ‘I don’t know’, ‘I don’t know what …’, before or after a strategy usage, to inform other partners about the production of ‘less than-perfect’ L2 forms that may require extra effort to be understood. In the following, a strategy marker is used by the speaker, who marks her use of an approximate alternative for her utterance (approximation) and also for her switching to L1 when she tries to complete her turn. Rostami: he said me that she’s gonna be in trouble if she wants to … emmmmm I don’t know … stands on …her beliefs, yes just like that … she was just talking that there’s no MORSHED (leader) (laughing) there is no… I don’t know… uhhhh proof to to the books like (speech continues). (two old friends’ discussion)

In the above example, Rostami marks her problematic situation by saying ‘I don’t know’, but immediately finds an alternative phrase with shared semantic meaning in order to convey her message (‘stands on her meaning ’). By saying ‘yes just like that …’ she signals that the produced utterance is ‘less-than-perfect’. In all the above extracts, participants confirmed their use of circumlocution and approximation as alternative compensation for their lack of lexical knowledge in expressing meaning in L2 oral interactions. This part described strategies used by the participants to deal with lack of language knowledge for forming and expressing the intelligible

268

A. Jamshidnejad

utterances in L2 communication. The requesting for help, the use of L1 knowledge, the use of general words, words with similar sounds, circumlocution and approximation strategies mainly have been used as facilitators for expressing the meaning in difficult communication. The preliminary function of these strategies is to improve the speakers’ self-expression in L2 interactions through other interlocutors’ help or using their own accessible resources to fill any gap in the conveying the meaning in their conversation. The presence of participants with a shared L1 provides the other interlocutors with an opportunity to employ L1 knowledge in problematic situations. However, the use of L1 knowledge might challenge perceptions of the speakers’ L2 language proficiency in communication which can be minimised by laughing after using L1 words.

6

Strategies for Understanding the Message

The second set of strategies, known as negotiation the meaning strategies, was employed by participants to deal with their problems in the intelligibility of utterances whose users often employ them to clarify, modify, or check the meaning of problematic utterances. If the meaning comprehension is problematic, the participants may employ strategies for requesting more explanation, asking for confirmation, checking the other participants’ understanding to eliminate doubts about comprehension and even through expressing non-understanding to prevent any possible misinterpretation and confusion caused by irrelevant replies to the others’ message in communication. The following sections are examples of each strategy used for promoting intelligibility of utterances.

6.1

Clarification Request Strategy

‘Clarification request’ is usually used by the communicators to ask for more explanation, clarification, or repetition to solve the comprehension problems (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). Unlike ‘normal’ questions in

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

269

conversation, clarification requests are about the problematic aspects of previous utterances: they indicate a problem with understanding that utterance, and they request a repair of that problem. In other words, the communicator’s perception and comprehension of the utterance are what is at issue. The primary function of this strategy is to facilitate meaning transfer when the listener is faced with a problem in understanding the message. The listener’s comprehension breakdown can be solved by requesting further explanation and clarification. The following extract is an example of clarification request: 1. Khajeh: I’ve got another question, what do you think what runs in our country nowadays? 2. Karb: what? 3. Kahjeh: ha, eh …what RUNS, ha, what RUNS? 4. Arjani: Aha 5. Karb: what runs our country 6. Arjani: Petroleum runs our country 7. Kajeh: Petroleum, petroleum runs our country 8. Karb: that’s it, that’s it (other partners support this idea and continued). (group discussion)

The extract describes how the participants, who experienced a problem in understanding the meaning, used a strategy to request more clarification. As a performance interrupting the communication process, the use of a clarification request strategy may be perceived as a proficiencythreatening performance. The participants, therefore, try to minimise the threatening effect of using this strategy through pretending incomprehensibility of a small part of their interlocutor’s utterance, by using ‘what’ as a dual-function question mark. The use of a clarification request strategy also can increase collaboration between the participants (see lines 6, 7, 8 in the extract) when the comprehension problem is shared between them.

270

6.2

A. Jamshidnejad

The Confirmation Request Strategy

Confirmation request is a strategy used to deal with a breakdown in comprehension. Using a confirmation request strategy enables an interlocutor to confirm whether the heard or understood utterance is correct or not. Strategy users usually employ the following discourse markers for asking confirmation in L2 communication: a ‘question repeat’ or full questions such as ‘Do you mean…?’, ‘You mean …?’, ‘You said …?’ and, etc. (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997, p. 188). Participants employ the confirmation request strategy to modify their comprehension through receiving negative or positive feedback to their request, which can enable the continuation of the L2 conversation. As a strategy for checking understanding in communication, the primary function of this strategy is to promote meaning comprehension by eliminating the listeners’ doubts about their comprehension. The following extract is an example of a confirmation request assisting its user in giving a negative response to his partner’s request: 1. Shokuh: yes and what about you? (Shokuh had raised a question about the previous night’s storm in a few turns ago) 2. Kabiri: about storm? 3. Shokuh: yes 4. Kabiri: I really have no idea (laughing). (Group Discussion with Professor)

In fact, by the use of a confirmation request strategy, participants looked for appropriate feedback to modify their understanding. In contrast, in a clarification request strategy, they impose on the other interlocutors to receive more information and explanations to clarify the meaning of the whole message.

6.3

Interpretive Summary (Check the Comprehension)

In an interpretive summary strategy, listeners check their understanding through paraphrasing their interlocutor’s message (Dörnyei & Scott,

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

271

1997). Although an interpretive summary strategy is similar to a confirmation request, it can be distinguished from the confirmation request by looking at the strategy user’s behaviour in conversation. While in an interpretive summary strategy, the listener provides the speaker with a summary of his/her speech, in a confirmation strategy, a speaker is asked to confirm an interlocutor’s interpretation of a part of his/her speech. The following extract shows how an interpretive summary strategy is used to check the understanding of an unfinished utterance. 1. Karb: something that is here and multiplicity reason are in here… this is something that has has aaa … what you call it?… reflectional or repsen … I don’t know what the word what the right word is … you see 2. Jalil: you mean there is a kind of super -ordinary relationship, right ? 3. Karb: yes. (Discussion with Professor)

Extracts in this section illustrate the use of an interpretive summary strategy in L2 communication. Listeners employ this strategy in order to eliminate their doubt about the meaning and enhance their comprehension. Instead of asking for more information by the use of the clarification request strategy, or requesting confirmation by the use of the confirmation request strategy, the listener provides the speaker with an interpreted summary of the message in order to receive feedback and to end their uncertainty in communication. An interpretive summary is also used by listeners to assist the speakers who are faced with the problem of self-expression.

6.4

Comprehension Check Strategy

Speakers use the comprehension check strategy to ensure that their partner can follow them (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). The main function of this strategy is to eliminate the speakers’ doubt about the partners’ understanding. The speakers give up their turn to check if their partners follow them.

272

A. Jamshidnejad

The following extract shows that the use of a comprehension check strategy in a friendly, supportive environment can reveal a hidden comprehension problem: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Ali: (looking at Rostami) Do you think body language is important? Jafri (instead of Rostami): it is Rostami: it IS Ali: (looking at Rostami) Do you understand what I mean? Rostami: No, I didn’t… (laughing) … I just repeat what my friend said. Jafri: (switch to L1) BODY LANGUAGE KHEYLI MOHEMME (body language is very important ) (tries to move her hands) Rostami: I didn’t get it, do you say body language? Ali: body language Rostami: gesture, yes they are. (Two old friends’ discussion)

In the first part of the conversation (turns 1–5), Rostami, by saying ‘no, I didn’t ’, shows that she did not understand the meaning of ‘body language’ and just repeated her friend’s answer. By looking at the remaining turns in the above conversation (lines 6–9), I understand that Jafri, instead of Ali, tries to help Rostami by switching to L1 and also using her body language. Jafri, in fact, plays the role of a supportive partner who tries to help her friend, even by switching to L1, a tactic which can be considered as a face-threatening performance in L2 communication. Finally, and with Jafri’s collaboration (line 6), Rostami initiates an effort to understand the meaning of ‘body language’ and asks a confirmation question by putting ‘body language’ in a question sentence (line 7). Ali confirms it by repeating ‘body language’ (line 8). I interpret the above extract as an example of comprehension check within a supportive, friendly, and non-threatening environment which provides the other participants with the opportunity to do well even when in a face-threatening situation. Like the clarification request strategy, participants employ a comprehension check strategy more successfully when the environment of communication is friendly, supportive. In the comprehension check

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

273

strategy, unlike the other strategies for dealing with comprehension problems, ‘the speaker’ rather than the listener, is concerned about understanding the message; therefore, the possibility of being too concerned (over-thinking) or unsuccessful in the use of a comprehension check strategy may be increased.

6.5

Expressing Non-Understanding

Sometimes, the listeners, when faced with a comprehension problem, express the fact that they do not correctly understand what is going on in the conversation. This is called ‘expressing non-understanding’ strategy (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). The following extract is the only example of this strategy I found in my corpus: 1. Hamid: you surely don’t believe it I have ever read books? 2. Kabi: I don’t … understand 3. Hamid: I don’t think you will believe that I have ever read single book in my life 4. Kabi: I didn’t … (laughing) hear what you said 5. Hamid: I don’t know how to put it, … Do you believe that I have ever read a book? 6. Jafri (try to complete): about the, 7. Kabi: I don’t know… I didn’t know you good. (Group discussion in shopping centre)

Kabi, being directly questioned by her partner, prefers to express nonunderstanding in order to prevent possible misinterpretation, confusion and loss of face which might arise from an irrelevant reply to the other interlocutors’ speech. However, expressing non-understanding enhanced collaboration between participants in transferring meaning and may even minimise the face-threatening effect of using this strategy. To sum up, it is noticeable that to overcome problems of meaning comprehension, participants often assist each other to clarify, modify, or check problematic utterances. Negotiation for meaning is the common name and function of some CSs (i.e. clarification request, confirmation request, comprehension check) through which the incomprehensible or

274

A. Jamshidnejad

partly comprehensible input becomes comprehensible (Foster & Ohta, 2005). In addition to negotiating their less-than-perfect utterances, participants summarise their interpretation of their partners’ speech or express non-understanding. The common function of all of the meaning negotiation strategies is to promote comprehension through receiving the explanation, reassuring about understanding or even expressing non-understanding to prevent possible misinterpretation and confusion caused by an irrelevant reply in communication. As using these strategies can interrupt the natural flow of conversation, the participants might consider them as less-than-perfect performances. Consequently, either the strategy users or their interlocutors try to minimise any potential loss of face by collaborating together to construct a supportive and friendly environment in their L2 interaction.

7

Strategies for Language Knowledge Development

Strategies for promoting language knowledge were used in situations where there is no problem in transferring the meaning. In fact, the participants employed a series of CSs to compensate for the lack of semantic, syntactic, and phonetic knowledge in L2 oral communication. The main function of using this group of CSs will be the negotiation of form, resulting in promoting the language knowledge in L2 oral communication. The following extracts are examples of strategies for developing language knowledge classified as the second language-oriented function of CSs.

7.1

Repairing, a Tendency to Improve Accuracy

Speakers often repair their own or others’ oral performances. It is also called error correction, particularly when it refers to self-repair (Rieger, 2003). In the previous study (e.g. Dörnyei & Scott, 1997), self-repair and other-repair are classified as two different types of strategies whose only difference is the source of error correction. According

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

275

to Dörnyei and Scott’s (1997) definition, in self-repair, speakers correct their own errors while in the other-repair, the other interlocutors repair the speaker’s errors. As I want to describe and classify the strategies based on their function in communication breakdowns, and also as both selfand other-repair are for correcting rather than ‘warning’ or ‘avoiding’ the problem, I prefer to put both of them in one category, named ‘repairing’. The following extracts show how participants monitor the form of their utterances to repair their morpho-syntactic errors such as the use of the third person (-s), past-present tense, and determiners, and replace the less accurate phrases or sentences with more accurate ones. – Third person ‘-s’: • Kabi: No he don’t, he doesn’t know how to act with the (Group Discussion in an International Hotel). • One of the participants called this error a ‘common error’ among Iranian English learners. – Past-present tense: • Jafri: I lost my partner, I stop watching TV more, I haven’t any … I didn’t have any one to talk to, I guess my English is not as much as good as past. (group discussion) – Determiners • Jalili: I lost my partner, I stop watching TV more, I haven’t any … I didn’t have any one to talk to, I guess my English is not as much as good as past. (group discussion) – Lexis with close meanings: • Delgarm: he try to learn the … to teach us in a friendly. (Group Discussion in an International Hotel)

Although these errors do not cause communication failures, speakers often repair them immediately and sometimes apologise for the interruption caused by those errors. I interpret the participants’ performance to mean that the primary function of the repairing is to practise the accurate form of the utterances and probably to promote the level of accuracy as an ideal speaker, rather than for facilitating the meaning transfer. It seems that all participants see the conversation as a chance to improve their L2 and collaborate in the repair strategies to improve communal accuracy.

276

A. Jamshidnejad

7.2

Accuracy Check

One strategy used by L2 speakers to check the accuracy of their speech is to repeat the word or phrase with rising intonation at the end of the sentence, thereby re-presenting the phrase as a question. The following examples are extracts showing the use of an ‘accuracy check’ strategy without any partners’ reaction: Khajeh: University of Petroleum I don’t think it’s … I don’t know … small chance … is it true, small? … … … Small chance (interrupted by Mr. Karb giving his idea about the topic, not about the Khajeh’s utterance). (group discussion)

In the above extracts, the participants, by looking at their interlocutors’ feedback, check their own accuracy rather than repairing their utterances, in order to improve the form of their spoken language. Reviewing the interlocutors’ feedback to the accuracy check, I interpret that the meaning in the above extract was clear and unproblematic and the participants’ insistence on speaking with a higher level of accuracy encouraged them to employ the accuracy check.

7.3

Retrieval

Dörnyei and Scott (1997: 189) defined retrieval as a strategy used by an L2 speaker to retrieve a target phrase or structure by saying a series of incomplete or wrong forms or structures before producing an accurate form of speech. The following is an example of this type of strategy: Rostami: she be taking … she’s video taking me, she was video taking me. (two old friends discussion)

The strategy user, Rostami, tries to retrieve the phrase ‘video recording ’ in her speech by repeating the incomplete forms of it (be taking, is video taking ). Participant repeats different forms of a word or structure to find a more proper form without any verbal signal of there being a problem in the other interlocutors’ comprehension. As there is no signal of any

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

277

problem in the partner’s understanding, I interpret that she is trying to promote the accuracy of her utterance in L2 communication, albeit unsuccessfully.

7.4

Negotiation of Form

Participants employ a help-requesting strategy not only for transferring meaning but also for promoting the accuracy level of their less-thanperfect utterances. I found a new function for the use of the requesting help strategy, other than transferring meaning, its traditional function in L2 communication (e.g. in Tarone, 1981; Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). Speakers employ a ‘requesting help’ strategy to find an accurate form of a word or a phrase through negotiation with the other partners. The following extracts are examples of participants’ use of negotiation of form strategy through requesting help for promoting the accuracy level of an utterance. The first extract describes the negotiation of the form embedded in the L1 translation strategy used in a situation in which participants assist each other and negotiate the proper form of a phrase in the target language: 1. Hamid: you know it’s depend how you define rich and poor, economically all three of us just … (laughing) we are under the poor line, I don’t know how they say it ? 2. Kabi: yes, yes under the poor under the, 3. Jafri: Under the line of … it is the Farsi structure. 4. Hamid: I know it is a Farsi but I couldn’t find a better structure than that 5. Kabi: Under the poverty line? 6. Hamid: Yes, under the poverty line. (Group discussion in shopping centre)

I interpret that the main function of the requesting help strategy in the above extract is for negotiating the accurate form of a less-than-perfect utterance. However, this requesting help strategy provides the participants with an opportunity to collaborate and find an appropriate form

278

A. Jamshidnejad

in the target language, which reflects the fact that one of the purposes of the conversation overall is to improve all the participants’ L2 proficiency. The next extract describes another example of the use of a requesting help strategy for producing an accurate form of L2 utterance. In this case, the speaker’s explanation of her target phrase guides the partner to guess the word and to help the speaker to compensate for the breakdown in her communication. 1. Amin: In India it’s not related to culture maybe it’s related to the as I said, the political situation, I mean … I don’t remember the exact word that another government another country has was ruling theeeeee, 2. Kabiari: colonise? 3. Amin: ye, ye colonising, yea, it’s depends to this fact, 4. Kabiri: you mean they’re used to remain silent. (Group Discussion)

In almost all the above extracts, meanings had already been conveyed through the speakers’ explanations. Thus, the speakers’ use of a requesting help strategy provided an opportunity to negotiate an appropriate form of the target language when the speakers are faced with a deficiency in self-expression in L2 communication. Instead of relying on their own language resource such as repairing, the accuracy check, and retrieval, participants share their problems and word searching with their partners in order to find the accurate L2 form for their message and to complete their utterances. Negotiation of form can be interpreted as the speaker’s strategy to share the word searching, the responsibility for finding an appropriate form of the target phrase, and probably also lessening the face-threatening effect of requesting help from the other communicators. The use of this strategy can also develop the proficiency and communal language-learning among all participants in L2 communication.

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

7.5

279

Nothing to Say (Avoidance)

Stopping or avoiding speaking is another strategy that speakers might use when they are faced with a problem of self-expression. This is a CS called ‘nothing to say’ or ‘avoidance’ (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997, p. 192). In the following section, I describe an example of communicative situations I interpret as demonstrating the use of an avoidance strategy in the corpus. 1. Hamid: (points to one of the guests in the Hotel) oh, She is Chinese … have you seen Chinese before? 2. Kabi: I don’t have anything to say (Laughing) 3. Delgarm: I have never seen before. (Group Discussion in an International Hotel)

The following extracts of interview also show that participants are aware of using ‘avoidance’ as a strategy for dealing with difficulties in speaking: Arjani: … I always use avoidance strategy when I faced with lack of vocabulary, I just stop making sentences. (Interview) Nasiri: …, I’m not very skilled in English … when I’m speaking sometimes I lose some words and I can’t remember them, so I, I, I stop speaking … I can’t convey my meaning in English fully.(Interview) Kabiri: when I forget the word, I don’t speak any more … I lose my confidence and I don’t speak. (Interview)

I interpret all the above opinions about the use of an avoidance strategy to mean that although all the participants are aware of avoidance as a strategy, they perceive it as negative regarding the accuracy level of their performance in L2 communication. The speakers might employ this strategy to promote the accuracy level of communication by avoiding producing an inaccurate utterance in L2 communication. Although most participants are aware of this strategy, they might rarely use it as a way of dealing with problems of self-expression in a real communication event. They probably perceive avoidance as proficiency-threatening performance. Participants may still use it as a last resort when they are faced with a lack of vocabulary in L2

280

A. Jamshidnejad

communication. This might be the reason why my participants use the avoidance strategy very rarely in their discussions (for more detail, see Table 2 in Chapter 9). To sum up, I interpret all strategies in this section beneficial for promoting participants’ knowledge of accurate forms of speech in L2 communication where, in most of the situations, the meaning is generally clear, and communication is supportive and collaborative. In such a friendly environment, participants might insist in and, if necessary, defend the accuracy level of their produced utterances in L2 communication. Participants’ insistence on word searching for a target phrase can be interpreted as a signal of their interest in learning, using and negotiating the most accurate form of speech in L2 communication. They monitor and evaluate the accuracy of their own, and their partners’ performance. If they realise that an accuracy problem, even a morpho-syntactic error, has occurred in their performance, they repair it or retrieve an ideal form for it. But if they do not realise the error and just guess the problem, they prefer to inform their partners that they are producing an inaccurate or less-than-perfect utterance in their self-expression. If the speakers are not sure about their own resource to produce the correct form, they may rely on their partners’ help in interaction. They ask for other interlocutors’ help to find the accurate L2 form of a target phrase through negotiating the correct form in conversation. If they do not find any way to produce an accurate form, they might stop speaking. The partners might respond to the speakers’ use of this type of CSs by waiting and giving a longer time for word searching, by offering an appropriate phrase or even by asking them to give up the word searching.

8

Discussion and Implication

This chapter recognised and classified different language-oriented functions of CSs used by a group of EFL learner in different interactional situations. Based on the traditional role of CSs in transferring meaning in communication, I reviewed the CSs used in communication events in terms of their function in transferring meaning and classified them into two categories: CSs used in interaction ‘with’ and ‘without ’ problems in

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

281

transferring meaning. When the meaning is not clear, the participants employ various CSs to make it clear. Interestingly, the participants in this study used many more strategies in communication situations where there were no problems in the meaning transfer. The main functions of CSs in these situations seem to be to promote the participants’ language knowledge. One of the interesting findings of this study is the use of CSs in unproblematic and friendly L2 communications. This finding challenges stereotypes about foreign language interactional discourse always being problematic. The majority of face-to-face interactions between EFL users in this study are comprehensible and successful and can be interpreted as communicative successes. Although largely neglected by SLA studies in general and CSs studies in particular (Firth & Wagner, 1997, p. 289), the important point is that language users often do succeed in communicating in an EFL context, even with a lack of communicative resources. The implication for SLA theory is therefore to revise the traditional assumption of the problematic nature of interaction among L2 learners involved in an EFL interactional discourse, and to consider L2 learners as successful language users, actively and collaboratively promoting accuracy in their utterances. The implication for the language educator is, therefore, to consider successful L2 social interaction as a product of the collaborative efforts of all those involved in interactional discourse, rather than as individual attempts between language learners. In introducing a variety of language-oriented functions of CSs (e.g. promoting expressing the meaning, understanding the message, and language knowledge development), teachers can encourage their students to take risks and to use CSs. This means that learners could use all their available resources to communicate language resources without being afraid of making errors (Yule & Tarone, 1990). One way to do that is to provide students with examples of L2 models of the use of certain CSs by means of listening materials and videos which contain communication strategy usage, and then to ask learners to identify, categorise, and evaluate CSs used by native speakers or other L2 speakers. Another way is to ask students to take part in tasks similar to those used in this research, record their own performance, and then analyse their own strategy usage. Then they can compare their performance with those

282

A. Jamshidnejad

involved in the conversation and with a native speaker. This task probably increases their awareness and reinforces their attitude towards their position as a successful L2 learner, rather than a failed native speaker. Moreover, participants in this study employed CSs to develop their language knowledge when communication is unproblematic. L2 oral interactions, thus, can be considered as a place where all sorts of knowledge come into play, particularly from the oral interaction perspective. In fact, non-native communicators often see themselves as learners even in oral interactions outside of the classroom, an interpretation supported by the few studies in non-educational settings (e.g., Varonis & Gass, 1985). That is, their language skills and competencies are seen to be underdeveloped (Firth & Wagner, 1997, p. 292). CSs usage in L2 interactions provides communicators with the opportunity to carefully monitor their own and their partners’ linguistic behaviour and facilitate the identification of the nature or source of problems as a precondition for moving on to collaborative problem- solving or knowledge construction. L2 interaction thus reflects the participants’ communicative intentions to overcome any difficulties of language knowledge through maintaining a cooperative and interpersonal relationship. In fact, CSs in L2 interaction enable participants not only to co-construct knowledge or solve problems but also to go beyond it to test their hypotheses or expand their knowledge to wider aspects of the language. So, not only novice learners but also more proficient learners can benefit from the L2 interaction. The implication for learning a target language in an EFL context is, therefore, to encourage language learners to take part in interaction regardless of their linguistic ability, and to learn strategies for successful L2 communication.

Appendix 1: Transcription Conventions ? ,

Rising intonation, not necessarily a question continuing contour (when the speaker wants to continue his/her speech) … Pause of about 3 seconds (xxx) Unknown or ambiguous phrases

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

aaa ABC (abc) ABC (abc) Bold

283

lengthening of syllables utterance in L1 English translation of L1 utterance emphasised utterance Researcher’s explanation instances of the crossing of central interest in discussion, discover of CSs

References Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Exploring spoken English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scholfield, P. (1987). Communication strategies—The researcher outmanoeuvred? Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 219–232. Donato, R. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 453–464. Dörnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 55–86. Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47, 173–210. Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1991). Strategic competence and how to teach it. ELT Journal, 45, 16–23. Douadi, F. (2019). Communication strategies among EFL learners: Frequency of use and type of strategies. Reve Des Letters et Sciences Sociales, 2(16), 186–196. Retrieved from: http://dspace.univ-setif2.dz/xmlui/bitstream/han dle/123456789/1302/Fatima%20Douadi.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285–300. Fitriani, N. (2019). Communication breakdown among Indonesian EFL learners: barriers and strategies. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies., 7 (1), 35–41. Foster, P., & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26 (3), 402–430. Holliday, A. R. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

284

A. Jamshidnejad

Jamshidnejad, Alireza. (2010). Exploring oral communication strategies in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Context. Unpublished PhD thesis. Canterburuy Christ Church University, Kent, UK. Kalocsai, K. (2008). ‘Doing being a language expert’: The case of the ELF speaker. The Second International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca. Southampton, England. Kaur, J. (2008). ‘Doing being a language expert’: The case of the ELF speaker. The Second International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca. Southampton, England. Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93. Lantolf, J. P. (1998). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Seminar Series Delivered at the University of Melbourne, Australia, May 22. Melbourne, Australia. Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 83–100. Retrieved from 14 February 2020. http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/ lee/default.html. Leeser, M. J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81. Mariani, L. (2010). Communication strategies: Learning and teaching how to manage oral interaction. Milan: Learning Paths––Tante Vie Per Imparare. Morley, J. (1994). Pronunciation pedagogy and theory: New views, new directions. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ohta, A. S. (2005). Confirmation checks: A discourse analytic reanalysis. Japanese Language and Literature, 39, 383–412. Pickering, L. (2006). Current research on intelligibility in English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26 , 219–233. Rieger, C. L. (2003). Repetitions as self-repair strategies in English and German conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 47–69. Scholfield, P. (1987). Communication strategies-the researcher outmanoeuvred? Applied Linguistics‚ 8(3), 219–232. Somsai, S., & Intaraprasert, C. (2011). Strategies for coping with face-toface oral communication problems employed by Thai university students majoring in English. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 83–95.

10 Language-Oriented Functions of Strategies

285

Storch, N. (2002). Relationships formed in dyadic interaction and opportunity for learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 305–322. Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Swain, M. (2001). Examining dialogue: Another approach to content specification and to validating inferences drawn from test scores. Language Testing, 18(3), 275–302. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects In M. Bygate, P. Skehan & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 99–118). Harlow, UK: Longman. Swain, M., & Watanabe, Y. (2013). Languaging: Collaborative dialogue as a source of second language learning. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 3218–3225). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 285–295. Ting, S. H., & Phan, G. Y. (2008). Adjusting communication strategies to language proficiency. Australian TESOL Journal, 23(1), 28–36. Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90. Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 51, 303–346. Yaghoubi-Notash, M., & Karafkan, M. A. (2015). Teacher-employed communication strategies: Investigating function type occurrence in Iranian EFL context. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 4 (2), 73–79. Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1990). Eliciting the performance of strategic competence. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 179–194). New York: Newbury House.

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies Alireza Jamshidnejad

1

Introduction

The previous chapters discussed the three functions of communication strategies (CSs) used by EFL learners to deal with their languageoriented problems in L2 oral communication. However, the language deficiency is not the only obstacle language learners should face with to be fluent English speakers. One of the main problems preventing language learners from being a fluent L2 speaker is the lack of opportunities for oral communication in EFL contexts. Form-oriented system of education besides the lack of L2 interactional opportunity in noninstitutional settings constructs a poor-input environment for developing oral communication (see Chapter 8). While the traditional CSs researchers proposed the function of meaning transfer for most of the CSs used by L2 communicators, some recent studies show that some A. Jamshidnejad (B) Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Rustaq, Oman e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_11

287

288

A. Jamshidnejad

communication strategies enable learners to deal with the problem of lack of supportive opportunities for L2 interaction in EFL context (See Mariani, 2010; Somsai & Intaraprasert, 2011). However, there is no agreement yet for CS types used for these context-orient problems. Also, the type of problems English language learners experience in different EFL contexts is likely to affect the types of CS used by learners in each context. This chapter, therefore, introduces a new classification of CSs whose function is helping L2 speakers to deal with different contextoriented problems in EFL settings (see Chapter 8 for more details about the different types of context-oriented problems).

2

Background of Study

A number of past studies have been explored the link between the use of communication strategies and cooperative L2 communication. Scholars (i.e. Cogo & Dewey, 2006; Foster, 1998, p. 19; Kaur, 2009; Meierkord, 2000; Pitzl, 2005; Seidlhofer, 2001, 2005) describe L2 discourse as usually occurring in a friendly and cooperative context with rare misunderstanding. Oliver (2002) also confirms that, because of the less-threatening nature of non-native speakers (NNS) interactional discourse, dyads in NNS/NNS interaction employ negotiation of meaning (part of CSs) more than dyads in NNS/NS communication. He then explained that: …a greater amount of negotiation occurs in NNS/NNS dyad than NNS/NS dyad because learners are less likely to feel embarrassed and threatened when they are conveying with each other than when they are conveying with an NS and, hence, are more likely to signal their own lack of understanding. (p. 106)

The majority of the EFL communication occurred between classmates, friends or, at least, language learners with a similar level of proficiency who study in the same discipline. They all ‘shared the incompetence’ in the target language (Aston, 1993, p. 240). They avoid insulting behaviour and putting their partners into embarrassing situations by,

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

289

for example, using expressions their interlocutors may not understand (Meierkord, 2000). As Varonis and Gass (1985, pp. 84, 85) remark, in L2 interaction, the participants are likely to ‘recognise their shared incompetence’ or to ‘admit a language deficit’. This ‘shared incompetence status’ can reduce the risk of losing face, by laying on ‘an initial face lower than that which is hoped for’ which may open up future opportunities for ‘comity’ (Aston, 1993, p. 243), and also negotiate the meaning ‘without too much embarrassment’ (Meeuwis, 1994, p. 67). The shared incompetence status probably constructs a friendlier and less-threatening environment in L2 communication events which enable communicators to practise and develop their language competence and also to construct their interpersonal relationships with others. Supportive interactional discourse probably encourages the participants to consider L2 communication as an opportunity to expand rather than restrict their interactional performances. Using CSs, language learners can keep the channel of conversation open, stay in the process of communication, and increase their chance of developing the ability to use the foreign language and to receive more language input and improve their language ability. CSs with this function can be a very valuable skill for non-native speakers because: … by maintaining the conversation, the NNS can presumably benefit from receiving additional modified input. Indeed, conversational maintenance is a major objective for language learners who regularly invoke communication strategies. (Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991, p. 126)

As Hatch (1978) wrote ‘… the learner should be taught not to give up’ (p. 434). This is supported by Liu (2007) who found in his research on Chinese junior high school EFL Learners that CSs helped the interlocutors maintain the flow of the conversation in different ways. L2 communicators employ CSs with the function of keeping the communication open for both learning and communicative purpose. This interpretation is also supported by Kaur (2008), Mariani (2010), Somsai and Intaraprasert (2011), Toomnan, (2014) whose studies found keeping the conversation going as one of the main functions of CSs used by L2 communicators.

290

A. Jamshidnejad

The supportive context of communication provides communicators with an opportunity to employ CSs for not only interactional but also transactional functions in their L2 interactions. Foster and Ohta (2005), for example, examined the function of a group of CSs in Japanese English learners and found that strategies for meaning negotiation can be used for the interactional (maintaining the supportive interaction) rather than the transactional function. Lee (2004) also focused on the same group of strategies. He found that Chinese students employ negotiation of meaning to maintain the flow of conversation, to practise and to learn a target language, as well. Toomnan (2014) also found the learners’ willingness to construct a pleasant atmosphere of conversation as one of the reasons for using CSs frequently by a group of EFL learners in Thailand. These studies show the importance of CSs usage in constructing supportive interactional context, even though none of them did comprehensive research to examine different context-oriented functions of CSs in EFL settings. Since the findings of those studies were not conclusive, this study aims to go further to investigate the use of CSs in relation to constructing supportive opportunities for more L2 interactions in order to reconfirm the results of past research works and explore other new strategies that may be used by participants in this study. This chapter, therefore, aims to investigate and classify those CSs whose function is constructing a supportive context of communication for keeping the conversation going.

3

Study

Choosing the qualitative approach, the researcher employed the constructivism principle (opportunism, reflexivity, deep description) in the ‘postmodern qualitative approach’ (Holliday, 2007, p. 19) to investigate the interactional effects of social context on the functions of CS usage in L2 oral communication. The sample of this study was a group of 12 Persian undergraduate students of English Literature and Translation and one postgraduate student in TEFL (total 13), both male and female, aged 20–24, who were interested in the study when the researcher called and invited

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

291

them to take part in the research. All participation was voluntary. They voluntarily took part in a series of group discussions, recall stimulated interviews and interviews. The discussions focused on everyday topics in face-to-face interactions between groups of language learners to enable the researcher to elicit the types and functions of CSs. The interviews, on the other hand, helped the researcher to become more familiar with the field and the participants’ attitude towards L2 oral communication. Participants were asked to describe their language learning journey to master oral communication skill and their experience of dealing with problems in their L2 interaction. The stimulated recall interview was used as a post-interview in which the researcher asks participants to listen to their recorded oral performance of the task and stop the tape where they want to comment on the difficulties they had encountered and explained how they had tried to overcome them (Jamshidnejad, 2010). The justification for using stimulated recall interviews is to elicit problematic moments of communication which can be only identified with the speaker’s help. All interviews were carried out in English. To collect the maximum data in a short time, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with all teachers. Using different types of data (oral communication recordings, stimulated recall interviews and semi-structured teacher interviews) for deep description, being reflexive about his presence in the setting and writing a detailed procedure of data collection and the stages and process of the research improve the validity of the research methodology the researcher employed in this study (Holliday, 2007). All research activities were recorded on a digital recorder to be used in preparing the research report and data analysis. This also helped the researcher to be reflexive about his presence in the research setting. Furthermore, being a member of a group, as well as a researcher, helped the researcher to construct a friendly relationship with the participants and cut off any negative effect of the presence of the researcher in the research setting. However, the small number of participants in this study is one of the limitations similar to most of the qualitative studies. This renders this study not suitable to draw far-reaching general recommendation from it, as the results may apply only to the small

292

A. Jamshidnejad

sample of upper-intermediate Persian English learners under investigation. It would not be efficient to make inferences for the bigger body of languages learners until more research has been done on a wider population.

4

Data Analysis

For each communication event, based on the signals of problem identification (introduced in Sect. 3.1 Chapter 7), the CS usage in the participants’ performance was identified and then transcribed. As video recording was not possible, only the verbal aspect of the communication has been marked in transcription (See Appendix 1 for transcription conventions). Together with these, the participants’ introspective comments in the stimulated interviews were quite helpful in spotting possible CS use. In order to find the functions of CSs usage, an interpretative (tries to explain why) and expressive (presents the real voice rather than depersonalised language) perspective was followed to interpret the reasons of participants’ performance. While counting the frequency of observed CSs and distributing them among different categories has been the common purpose of almost all of the previous research, this research examines the pragmatic aspects of CSs usage by looking at a broader context of the turn in which CSs were used. This method provided the research with an opportunity to investigate the pattern of the function of strategies, which are used to manage problematic situations, with a deeper understanding of the participants’ construction of L2 oral communication. To describe the functions of strategies, the Ohta’s (2005, p. 388) method in analysing at least three turns in conversation was employed: (1) the initial turn which contains the utterance causing the problem in communication, (2) the turn containing the signal of strategy usage, and (3) the turn containing the response. The first turn of the strategic conversation was studied to understand what the CSs referred to. The second turn, including the signal of strategy usage helped us to identify the occurrence of strategy usage in conversation. Dörnyei and Scott’s (1997) example of signals was used to identify the strategy usage; for

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

293

instance, if the language user employ ‘confirmation check’, may use signals like ‘what do you mean?’, ‘You saw what?’ and also ‘question repetition’ (‘a part of any utterance with a rising, questioning intonation’) (see Table 1 in Chapter 9 for example of other CSs). Based on Ohta’s (2005) research, as it might be hard to identify the real function of strategies (e.g. clarification request) by just relying on the second turn or the turn including the signal of strategy usage. The third turn, including the interlocutor’s reaction to the strategy usage, has also to be taken into account to analyse how the interlocutor interpreted the function of strategy usage. The goal of this analysis is to investigate how each recipient of the candidate CS interprets it based upon the orientation evidenced in his or her response. Analysing how the interlocutor appears to have interpreted the utterance provides useful evidence of how the function of a particular utterance, whether or not it is the primary function of the utterance, or whether other possible functions could be due to the context. Therefore, after identifying a candidate CS, a sequential analysis of each case was conducted to determine its function, or functions, based upon the analysis in context. The analysis, therefore, involved, the discourse following the use of candidate CSs. This included analysing the immediately subsequent talk as well as additional contextual material, including the speaker’s next turn at talk (the fourth turn) and beyond, as relevant. The analysis of functions of CSs, therefore, involved examining at least three turns of the sequences in their discourse contexts to find out if the strategy usage necessarily indicates the problems in expression-comprehension or efforts to invite the speaker to continue his/her speech. In other words, unlike previous CS studies, the researcher looked at a more extensive selection of the data, using a sociocultural approach (Lantolf, 2000; Ohta, 2001) to find other functions of CSs used in L2 interactions. The analysis of oral data shows that the participants employed strategies with the following two functions to deal with the lacks of interactional opportunities in EFL settings: • Strategies for co-constructing a supportive and cooperative interactional context. • Strategies for keeping the interaction going.

294

A. Jamshidnejad

They cooperate to construct a friendly and supportive context for dyadic L2 interactions. Then they employ a set of strategies to keep the interaction going for a longer period of time. These findings have been discussed in the following two sections.

4.1

Strategies for Co-Constructing a Supportive and Cooperative Context

Communication has been seen as a collaborative activity between speakers and addressees (Clark & Schaefer, 1989; Clark & WilkesGibbs, 1986; Wilkes-Gibbs, 1997). Collaboration, as a type of assistance [‘scaffolding’ in Wood, Bruner, and Ross’s, (1976) words], provides an opportunity to communicators for jointly constructing an L2 oral communication. Collaboration is considered as an essential part of what happens when learners interact with one another (Foster & Ohta, 2005). In this study, collaboration is described as a feature of interactional discourse and is consciously employed by participants to establish, develop, and maintain face-to-face interaction in L2 problematic communication. In the following stimulated recall interview extracts, the participants explain how they decided to collaborate with their partner when faced with problems in self-expression: Me: Why you didn’t interrupt Jafri when you saw she made a mistake in her sentence? Hamid: In my opinion, if we interrupted her when we understood her meaning, we will be impolite and this interruption may increase misunderstanding and make the situation worse. Delgarm: Yes, if we interrupted her, as all of us as non-native speakers have experienced to be interrupted in speaking, we don’t want to put our partner in trouble and make speaking more difficult. (Recall interview)

Clearly, there is a personal empathy between participants, each having experienced frustration in L2 communication themselves. As Varonis and Gass (1985, pp. 84–85) remark, in such interactions, all parties are likely to ‘recognise their shared incompetence’ or to ‘admit a language deficit’.

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

295

The participants decide to wait and give more time to the speaker to express herself adequately, even after she makes a mistake in her speaking. Kabi also waits and provides more time to the other interlocutors, before taking her turn in conversation: Kabi: When I do not understand a point in communication, I prefer to wait for my partner to ask or tell something helping me to understand; thus I give turn to my partner. (Recall interview)

Waiting and giving more time to the other partners may be seen not only as a collaborative effort by the interlocutors but also as a strategic choice made in order to be prepared for turn-taking. Kabi, in the above extract, confirms she used this tactic before turn-taking. Hamid also employed the tactic of waiting and giving priority of speaking to the other interlocutors in order to be prepared for turn-taking: Hamid: I try not to begin speaking in discussion until find something to say by listening to other partners, then I make the message based on information I received from others in discussion. (Introductory interview)

Participants collaborate with each other by giving time and priority of speaking in interaction to a communicator who was already speaking or to who was more prepared for turn-taking. ‘Inviting and involving the passive participants’ to take a turn in L2 communication is another collaborative conversational tactic. Hamid, in the following extract, talks about the importance of paying attention to the other partners and of assisting them to become engaged in the discussion: Hamid: ignoring others’ presence in discussion is very difficult … in Iranian culture is very difficult … if we are 4 and 3 of us are discussing while one keeps quiet, I will ask the fourth one what his/her opinion is. I think at least in Iran I tried to engage him in discussion. (Recall Interview)

296

A. Jamshidnejad

As can be seen, Hamid was concerned about the interlocutors who kept quiet during the discussion and tried to invite and engage them in the discussion. In a similar case, Amin raised a question to initiate a discussion when the other members of the group kept quiet. In fact, she helped the discussion to go on: Amin: it’s my habit to ask people to fill the gap [to not keep quiet]. (Recall Interview)

Amin describes her habit in inviting other participants to speak by raising a question and involving them in the discussion. To sum up, this data illustrates how participants consciously collaborate with each other to construct a friendly and supportive L2 communication. Participants employ tactics such as waiting and giving more time and also inviting and involving the passive interlocutors in conversation mainly to assist them in dealing with the problem of self-expression or comprehension and probably with keeping their turn and conveying their meaning successfully. Generally speaking, CSs usage has increased collaboration between participants resulting in minimising their frustrating experience of speaking in front of each other.

4.2

Strategies for Keeping the Interaction Going

Interactional context of EFL settings is one of the leading problem makers in L2 oral communication. In order to cope with the lack of opportunities for oral interaction in EFL contexts, language learners employed a set of strategies to keep the interaction going. In this section, I describe how the participants employed CSs to keep the conversation going. To maintain the conversation, the participants employ strategies to encourage and invite the other interlocutors to keep their turn in the conversation, to assist each other in completing or repairing the unfinished utterances, to let the problem pass (let-it-pass), and also the use of fillers and their shared L1. All of these strategies, except for the use of fillers, are employed collaboratively.

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

297

Asking for Continuation: New Function for Confirmation and Clarification Request Ohta (2005, p. 384) introduced ‘inviting to continue the talk’ as a new function for the confirmation request used in L2 oral communication. Asking for continuation is a strategy which on the surface is similar to a confirmation request, but demonstrates its user’s understanding, ‘thereby inviting the interlocutor to go on speaking’ (Ohta, 2005, p. 399). However, I interpret the function of the ‘asking for continuation’ in the clarification request strategy, as well. The utterances might be interpreted as requests for more clarification, but their main function is to show interest in knowing more about the topic. The first extract is a ‘repeat question’ used by one of the communicators, who repeats a part of his partner’s speech with a questioning intonation, (no idea? In line 5), to encourage his partner to continue the turn. 1. Shokuh: yes and what about you? (Shokuh had raised a question about the previous night’s storm a few turns before) 2. Kabiri: about storm? 3. Shokuh: yes 4. Kabiri: I really have no idea (laughing) 5. Shokuh: no idea? 6. Kabiri: no, I think it was really funny a simple storm that cut off everything in the city 7. Shokuh: aha (confirming). (Group Discussion with Professor)

Shokuh echoes the last part of Kabiri utterance with rising intonation ‘no idea’? (line 5). One could interpret this as the use of a comprehension check strategy with which the listener wants to check his understanding, but looking at the next turn, it appears that Shokuh’s use of a repeat question in line 6 encourages Kabiri to express his opinion in the conversation further. In fact, it seems that the main function of this strategy is to encourage the interlocutors to speak more and take part in the discussion, rather than dealing with a problem of comprehension.

298

A. Jamshidnejad

In the next example, I describe a situation in which the speaker switches to L1 in order to give up his speech but the other interlocutors encourage him to continue: 1. Khajeh: o.k. distract it, I can’t … (INO DIGE BALAD NISTAM (I really don’t know it) haaa …no 2. Rostami: why? (laughing) 3. Khajeh: squeeze them? 4. Arjani: what you mean? What do you mean squeeze them: organise them? What? 5. Khajeh: make them organised (laughing) 6. All participants Laughing 7. Khajeh: Yes, but I know my issues, ha … these are my problems, I have got to work them out, but they are very… rrrealy disport to me, it makes me disport. (Big Group Discussion)

In the above example, Khajeh is faced with a problem in expressing himself in line 1 and, therefore, switches to L1 and gives up his speaking. Rostami, one of his partners, invites Khajeh to speak by asking him ‘why’ followed by laughing. Khajaeh probably interprets Rostami’s question as an invitation to continue and tries to find a phrase in order to complete his utterance (line 3). This was followed by Arjani’s reaction (line 4). He employs the signal of a clarification request strategy by saying ‘what do you mean squeeze them’ followed by a synonym for the problematic phrase: ‘organise them’. I interpret this turn to mean that Arjani already knew the meaning of the phrase, and he just wanted to encourage Khajeh to continue and develop his speech further. Khajeh continues his speech and expresses his meaning more in the next turn. This is, therefore, another piece of evidence for the function of the clarification request strategy as an ‘invitation to continue’ rather than a way of dealing with a comprehension problem. In this section, I described extracts including clarification and confirmation request with a different function from their traditional ones. By repeating or asking about a part of the speaker’s utterance, the listeners attempt to show their interest to hear more about the topic. In fact, the listener invites the speaker to keep the conversation going in situations in which the meaning is clear, and there is no sign of misinterpretation

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

299

of the message. In fact, the function of these strategies, instead of dealing with comprehension problems, is to invite and encourage the speaker to keep the turn and to continue speaking in the L2 communication.

Collaborative Complementary and Co-Construction Repair: Maintain the Flow of Conversation This strategy is defined as a collaborative performance co-constructed by the participants who repair or complete each others’ utterances to keep the conversation going (Ohta, 2001, 2005). Ohta (2001) found that her participants collaborate to repair each other’s utterances in their L2 interaction. In Foster and Ohta’s (2005) study, the listeners were sensitive to the difficulties their partners were encountering and proactively ‘offered a variety of conversationally-based repair strategies’. This section describes examples of collaborative complementary and co-construction repair used by my participants to keep the conversation going. The first extract describes a co-construction repair in an interaction where the speaker does not realise that her utterance is not correct. 1. Kabi: you know, here is the better place in Ahwaz 2. Hamid: yes of course, the best place in Ahwaz is this place but not fully. (Group Discussion in an International Hotel)

As can be seen in the above example, Hamid repairs Kabi’s utterance without interrupting the flow of conversation. It means that even if the speaker does not recognise her error, other partners might, and may collaborate with the speakers to keep the conversation going by repeating or integrating the correct form of the errors into their own utterance. In his recall interview, Hamid confirms that he was aware of repairing his friend’s performance and he has had a similar problem before: Hamid: My partner (Ms. Kabi) employed a wrong structure the ‘better place’ in her speech, then as I interpreted this if I corrected her may be impolite I decided to repeat her sentence but with correct structure. Kabi: did I make a mistake? What? the better place?

300

A. Jamshidnejad

Hamid: Yes, because I made this mistake before, so I remembered it when you used it again. (Recall interview)

In fact, Hamid, in the above interview, explains that he chose this way of repairing because it is less-face-threatening for his friend. The outcome of using the co-construction repair strategy is to keep the flow of conversation without unnecessary interruption while the meaning is already clear, and the environment of the discussion is friendly and cooperative. The next example is an extract in which the listener completes the speaker’s utterance when the speaker is faced with a problem of self-expression. 1. Hamid: but you can think about more positive things like how you enjoy your place here … your … here … how you enjoy it? (look at Miss Delgarm). 2. Delgarm: the place the environment is good but … the things we ate not very good … the quality issss, 3. Kabi: is very bad. 4. Delgarm: less than I was expected, I thought (speech continues). (Group Discussion in an International Hotel)

As can be seen in the above example, Kabi tries to complete Delgarm’s utterance (in line 3). But Degarm is not satisfied with Kabi’s complementary offer and ends her turn with a different phrase (line 4). However, when I compare the Kabi’s complementary utterance (is very bad in the line 3) with Delgarm’s utterance (in line 4) it seems Kabi had already understood the Delgarm’s meaning before she completed her sentences. I interpret this extract as a strategy which provides an opportunity for participants to collaborate together in keeping the conversation going through complementary turn-taking and guessing the rest of their partners’ utterance even before the completion of their turn. But in the next extract, the listener employs an interpretive summary strategy to complete the speaker’s utterance before she encounters more hesitation in her self-expression. 1. Shokuh: How was your experience studying here, how do you compare your BA level with MA level?

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

301

2. Amin: we didn’t have enough courses in teaching practical teaching I meannn, 3. Shokuh: you mean you expected to go to class to teach … you know, practice this… that sort of thing? 4. Amin: no no … nooo, I like to have some courses with which lecturer ask us to come in front of class and for example teach a part of grammar or something like this, or tell us something about practical use of. 5. Shokuh: ya, ya this what I am saying, practical teaching, ya. (Group Discussion with Professor)

As can be seen, Amin, in answering Shokuh’s question (in line 1), wants to add more to her utterance (line 2). Before she finishes her turn, Shokuh interrupts her (line 3) and completes Amin’s utterance with an interpretive summary, starting with ‘you mean …’ I interpret Shokuh’s performance to mean that he probably wants to show Amin that he already understands her meaning and her explanation was enough. However, Amin gives negative feedback to Shokuh’s comprehension by saying ‘no’ (line 4) and then explains more in order to complete her meaning (line 4). This explanation assures Shokuh about his previous understanding. Shokuh confirms that his first comprehension was correct by saying: ye, this is what I’m saying…. (line 5). This example shows how the use of an interpretive summary strategy might help the listener to be sure about his comprehension and simultaneously allows the listener to collaborate with the speaker to complete her expression. The use of an interpretive summary strategy helps both participants in the interaction maintain the flow of conversation while the mutual understanding has already been achieved. To sum up, I illustrated the extracts in which participants collaboratively repair, complete and react to each other’s turns in L2 communication in order to keep the flow of conversation without interrupting each other unnecessarily. In fact, in all of the above extracts, the meaning is unproblematic, but the participants employ collaborative complementary and co-construction repair strategies to help each other to keep the interaction going.

302

A. Jamshidnejad

Let-It-Pass The ‘let-it-pass’ strategy is usually used in L2 interaction when the listener is faced with a problem of comprehension but lets the ‘unknown or unclear’ phrase ‘pass’ to maintain the conversation ‘on the assumption that it will either become clear or redundant as talk progresses’ (Firth, 1996; Matsumoto, 2015). In this section, I describe extracts in which listeners let their partners’ problems pass to take the turn and keep the conversations going. The first extract is an example of the let-it-pass strategy. In this extract, the listeners let the speaker’s use of the request for help strategy pass (letit-pass strategy) even though the speaker employs the request for help strategy several times. 1. Saleh: other fields which are called the … I don’t know the … the specific term …scientifi … ahhh public I don’t know ahhh … not the specialised not the specialised lessons I don’t know … what they call … ahhh … they just pass them, you know … aahh 2. Amin: but in university it is important for the students to be able to ahhh improve their skill even then there is not 3. Saleh: university ya, because there you can be specialising this major but in high schools no, it English for student who is studying mathematics is not true. (Introductory Communication)

In the above extract, Saleh marks her problem in remembering a specific term several times by saying ‘I don’t know the specific term’, ‘I don’t know what they call …’ By looking at the turn taken by Amin, I find there is no meaning problem caused by Saleh’s utterance. By letting Saleh’ requests for help pass, the listeners probably want to let her keep the turn and express herself more. I interpret this part of the interaction as an example of participants’ collaboration with Saleh through letting her problem pass, enabling her to keep her turn. The climate of the discussion seems to be friendly and less-face-threatening, even after Saleh’s use of a request help strategy several times with long hesitation. My interpretation is supported by Saleh’s comments in her recall interview:

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

303

Me: you told us, your partners, that you don’t know how do they call it? why? Saleh: Because I didn’t want to lose my turn, I wanted to speak so I ask my friends what do you call it, if they couldn’t help me, so I try to put it in the sentence. Me: so you were waiting them to help you? Saleh: yes. (Recall Interview)

As can be seen, Saleh wants to keep her turn while looking for help. Finally, Saleh leaves her appeal for help uncompleted when Amin takes the turn and expresses her opinion about the topic. The last extract is an interesting example of using let-it-pass strategy to keep the interaction going. When the listeners’ first use of let-it-pass is not noticed by Hamid, they finally decide to ask him to leave his word searching for a while. 1. Hamid: yes of course, I remember that I explain that to you, and all of them died because of, I don’t know what’s its community name in English, but … they were poisoned … all of them 2. Jafri: That’s too bad I hate them 3. Kabi: The cats? 4. Jafri: No, the people who made them pois … poisoned I guess 5. Hamid: I don’t know, I just forgot the name in English 6. Partners: (No one answered him, and all keep quiet) 7. Jafri: O.k. let’s think about that later and I have searched all the stores here and (speech continues). (Group discussion in shopping centre)

In the above example, Hamid marks his use of a requesting help strategy followed by an incomplete phrase describing his meaning. Although Hamid signals for help, Jafri just let-it-pass and expresses her feeling about ‘poisoning the cats’ (line 2). It seems that none of the partners replies to Hamid’s requesting help. This part of the conversation can be interpreted as an example of using a let-it-pass strategy. However, Hamid marks his dissatisfaction with his previous utterance (line 1) by saying ‘I just forgot the name in English’ (line 6), and, for the second time, no one responds to him. Finally, Jafri (in line 7) by

304

A. Jamshidnejad

saying ‘o.k.’ tries to change the topic and asks him to let his problem pass for a while and ‘think about it later ’. It might be because his partners already got the point and probably they are interested more in keeping the conversation going, or they may not know the exact phrase which Hamid is looking for. Thus, Jafri by saying ‘let’s think about it later ’ probably tries to minimise this threat to her proficiency. I interpret this example to mean that the listeners might let the speakers’ appeal for help pass as a strategy in order to either keep the conversation going or hide their inability to respond to their partner’s request for help. In this section, I illustrated extracts in which the listeners let their partners’ problems or their request for help pass in order to maintain the flow of conversation. In all of the above extracts, the meaning had already been conveyed, and the ‘let-it-pass’ strategy was used to keep the flow of conversation by ignoring their partner’s problems.

Use of Fillers for Time Gaining Communicators employ fillers to fill pauses, to stall, and to gain time in order to keep the communication channel open, through using words and phrases such as well, you know, let’s say, or actually at times of difficulty (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). In this section, I discuss the extracts of L2 communication showing how the participants employ these fillers to keep the flow of conversation. Jalili, one of the teachers, confirms that his students use ‘general words’ and ‘fillers’ as useful strategies which help them to compensate for any lack of competence in L2 communication: Jalili: To deal with this kind of problem, learners employ several strategies… like general words in speaking when they faced with lack of knowledge in vocabulary which Native speaker can use the exact word instead of general words… they employed discourse markers such as ‘you know’, ‘well’ and so on when they are involved in mental word or structure searching or avoidance. (Teachers Interview)

In addition to Jalili, the language learners also confirm that they employ fillers to hold their turn and keep the interaction going by gaining time

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

305

when they are faced with a lack of vocabulary in self-expression. Participants mostly identify ‘I don’t know’ ‘I mean’ and ‘you know’ as useful fillers. However, some may employ fillers to gain more time for thinking, prevent a break in his thinking process. Kabiri believes that fillers can defend him in problematic situations where he needs time to collect information. To find out about the functions of fillers, I summarise some examples of participants’ use of fillers in L2 communication The following extracts are the examples of using ‘let say’ as filler: • Mr. Arjani: it’s so vast… it’s so vast and so … ummm … let sayyyyy … untouchable… because I don’t know there 1000 of 1000 of books in English and all you can do is read about 100 in 4 years, maybe that too much but, you’re not (speech continues). (Introductory discussion)

Next is an example of using ‘you know’ and ‘well ’ as fillers in communication: 1. Rostami: but I like it to be … cause I am love in English 2. Arjani: really? 3. Rostami: they but they you know they they don’t… well …mmmmmm respect me, I’m 19 got a cry (laughing) I am in love with English that’s all, I like it. (Big Group Discussion)

In this section, I describe using fillers as part of the participants’ own sources, rather than other interlocutors’ collaboration, in order to keep the conversation channel open. Like other extracts, the fillers are used in interactions where the meaning seems to be clear and unproblematic, but the participants prefer to use their own accessible resource to maintain the conversation.

Use of Shared L1 In this section, I will explain how a shared L1 mediates CSs usage and functions. Scholars argue that a shared L1 plays a key role in helping communicators to construct shared status in L2 communication (Cogo,

306

A. Jamshidnejad

2009; Hülmbauer, 2009; Lantolf, 2000; Smit, 2010). Based on the analysis of their performance and interviews, I realise that my participants were aware of their shared L1 and its importance as an easy and economical resource to retrieve in the problematic moments of an interactional L2 discourse. They employ L1 as a means (with near-guaranteed accuracy) of transferring the intended meaning (particularly in literal translation and switching to L1), assessing and searching the appropriateness of L2 forms (through the use of an accuracy check-in Chapter 9), and as a way of scaffolding others into the correct form of the word (through requesting help for negotiation of form as in Chapter 9), which also was supported by previous studies (e.g. Anton & DiCamilla, 1999). By means of the LI as an easy way of communication, participants maintain each other’s interest in the task. When participants realise that they are interacting with interlocutors who share their L1, they might perceive the use of this L1 knowledge as a strategy that has a greater potential for success than other strategies. In fact, the use of LI seems to be necessary, at least with low L2 proficiency communicators, to construct a social space that facilitates the completion of the task by enabling participants to achieve ‘intersubjectivity’; a shared perspective on the task particularly when they are faced with problems (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999, p. 240). In summary, interlocutors with a shared L1 construct the opportunity to use L1 as a strategy to keep the conversation going even in problematic L2 communications, particularly when other resources such as L2 knowledge, other participants’ help and content knowledge are not available.

4.3

Summary of Collaboration for Keeping the Interaction Going

The above extracts illustrated the third function of CSs in L2 communication to maintain the flow of conversation. Participants collaborate with each other to keep the conversation going through inviting and encouraging the speakers to continue when they can use confirmation and clarification request strategies, by giving complementary repair when they can predict and guess an unfinished utterance, and by ignoring the

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

307

problems when they can use the let-it-pass strategy. They also employ fillers as one of their own resources to keep the conversation channel open. Similar to the strategies for promoting language knowledge (see Chapter 10), the strategies for keeping communication going are employed in situations where the atmosphere of communication is supportive, and the meaning is clear and unproblematic. While this supportive environment provides the participants with an appropriate opportunity to monitor, repair, signal and avoid any accuracy problem and focused on form (cf. Chapter 10), it allows participants to construct collaborative cooperation to encourage and complement each other’s speech, to ignore their problems and even to employ their L1 and fillers to maintain the flow of conversation.

5

Discussion and Implications

This study aims to investigate how a group of learners manage their performance in problematic L2 communication to compensate for the lack of opportunity of oral interaction in an EFL context. In this study, participants often do succeed in managing their limited communicative resources through employing strategies for collaborating and assisting each other to stay longer in L2 communication. In fact, in addition to receiving more language input, participants might be interested in using CSs for developing interpersonal relationships with their friends, classmates, and other interlocutors in the target language. This is what Aston (1993, p. 226) called ‘comity’—establishment and maintenance of friendly relations in communication. Most of the participants were classmates, friends or, at least, language learners with a similar level of proficiency who study in the same discipline (English literature and Translation), and who mostly took part in my research with a learning orientation. They were aware of their status as incompetent communicators and referred to their lack of L2 competence when they described their perception of an ideal L2 speaker in their interview (see Chapter 7). They all ‘shared the incompetence’ in the target language (Aston, 1993, p. 240). Therefore, shared incompetence status probably encourages

308

A. Jamshidnejad

participants to construct a supportive interactional context giving them opportunities to develop their language competencies and also to expand rather than restrict their interactional performances. The EFL users achieve all the above by using a series of CSs in small group discussion. Therefore, I support integrating a wide range of topics to be chosen by language learners for discussing in extracurricular groups such as debating society, speaking club, and special interests groups (SIG). Furthermore, the participants in this study claim that they have few opportunities to experience successful communication in their target language. One practical way to deal with this is to develop curricula which include samples of successful CSs used by skilled L2 users and native speakers. Integrating the materials produced by successful and skilled L2 language users can provide language learners with an experience of successful L2 communication. Besides, participants in this study confirm the importance of a shared L1 in constructing successful L2 communication. One practical implication for teachers is to see the use of L1 as a positive strategy in communication breakdowns rather than as a negative factor to be prevented. Introducing learning tasks involving using both L1 and L2, teachers can boost the multicomponent perspective for L2 learners in language classes. Although the findings of this study have shed some light on the role of context in the use and functions of CSs in L2 communication, it is only when the context is friendly and non-face-threatening. It is, therefore, necessary to study further the construction of context, in terms of different conditions of face-saving/risk-taking and particular cultural settings, and its effect on the use and functions of CSs in L2 oral communications.

Appendix 1: Transcription Conventions ? , …

Rising intonation, not necessarily a question continuing contour (when the speaker wants to continue his/her speech) Pause of about 3 seconds

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

(xxx) Aaa ABC (abc) ABC (abc) Bold

309

Unknown or ambiguous phrases lengthening of syllables utterance in L1 English translation of L1 utterance emphasised utterance Researcher’s explanation instances of the crossing of central interest in discussion, discover of CSs

References Anton, M., & DiCamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233–247. Aston, G. (1993). Notes on the interlanguage of comity. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 224–250). New York: Oxford University Press. Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294. Cogo, A. (2009). Accommodating difference in ELF conversations: A study of pragmatic strategies. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings (pp. 254–273). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Cogo, A., & Dewey, M. (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 5 (2), 59–94. Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47, 173–210. Firth, A. (1996). The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237– 259. Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19 (1), 1–23.

310

A. Jamshidnejad

Foster, P., & Ohta, A. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26 (3), 402–430. Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Holliday, A. R. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Hülmbauer, C. (2009). We don’t take the right way. We just take the way that we think you will understand. -The shifting relationship of correctness and effectiveness in ELF communication. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings (pp. 323–347). Newcastle upon Type: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Jamshidnejad, A. (2010). Exploring oral communication strategies in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Context. Unpublished PhD thesis. Canterburuy Christ Church University, Kent, UK. Kaur, J. (2008). Doing being a language expert’: The case of the ELF speaker. The Second International Conference of English as a Lingua Franca, Southampton, England. Kaur, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: Co-constructing understanding. Berlin: Verlag. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79–96. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction to second language acquisition research. London: Longman. Lee, L. (2004). Learners’ perspectives on networked collaborative interaction with native speakers of Spanish in the US. Language Learning & Technology, 8, 83–100. Retrieved from 14 Febraury 2020. http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num1/ lee/default.html. Liu, W. (2007). A study of communication strategies of Chinese junior high school EFL learners. Unpublished Master’s Dissertation, National Chung Cheng University, The Graduate Institute of the Department of Foreign Language and Literature. Mariani, L. (2010). Communication strategies: Learning and teaching how to manage oral interaction. Milan: Learning Paths––Tante Vie Per Imparare. Matsumoto, Y. (2015). Multimodal communicative strategies for resolving miscommunication in multilingual writing classrooms. Unpublished PhD thesis, The Pennsylvania State University.

11 Context Oriented Functions of Strategies

311

Meeuwis, M. (1994). Nonnative-nonnative intercultural communication: An analysis of instruction sessions for foreign engineers in a Belgian company. Multilingua, 13(1–2), 59–82. Meierkord, C. (2000). Interpreting successful lingua franca interaction: An analysis of non-native/non-native small talk conversations in English. Linguistik Online, 5 (1). Retrieved from 24 January 2020. http://www.lin guistik-online.de/1_00/MEIERKOR.HTM. Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ohta, A. S. (2005). Confirmation checks: A discourse analytic reanalysis. Japanese Language and Literature, 39, 383–412. Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 86, 97–111. Pitzl, M. L. (2005). Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a business context. Vienna English Working Papers, 14 (2), 50–71. Seidlhofer, B. (2001). Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 133–158. Seidlhofer, B. (2005). Key concepts in ELT: English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59 (4), 339–341. Smit, U. (2010). English as a lingua franca in higher education. Berlin: De Gruyter. Somsai, S., & Intaraprasert, C. (2011). Strategies for coping with face-toface oral communication problems employed by Thai university students majoring in English. GEMA Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 83–95. Toomnan, P. (2014). Use of strategies to deal with English oral communication breakdowns by Thai English major university students. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand. Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6, 71–90. Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1997). Studying language use as collaboration. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 238–274). London: Longman. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1(7), 89–100.

12 Communicators-Oriented Functions of Strategies Alireza Jamshidnejad

1

Introduction

Communicators’ expectation and perception are perceived as an essential subsystem of L2 oral communication interacting with the process of meaning creation and the contextual conditions of the interaction, the interruption of which can cause problems in communication. In fact, problems in L2 oral communication are perceived as ‘essentially social events’ mediated by the communicators’ perception of self and other interlocutors in interactions. In addition to the perception of self and others, lack of language competencies and poor-input environment of L2 oral interaction have been found influential in participants’ disfluency in L2 oral communication (see Chapter 7). Despite all of these obstacles, the participants have not given up their L2 interactions. They have employed communication strategies (CSs) as useful tools enabling A. Jamshidnejad (B) Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Rustaq, Oman e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_12

313

314

A. Jamshidnejad

them not only to overcome their obstacles in transferring meaning but also develop their language knowledge and achieve interpersonal goals in L2 communication (see Chapter 9). Interaction, therefore, is more than exchanging information, where agency matters; interlocutors also bring their own ‘personal histories replete with values, assumptions, beliefs, rights, duties, and obligations’ (Donato, 2000, p. 46). Interaction, and CSs usage by implication, can be defined as using language as a tool of mediation among a social community of learners (Van Boxtel, 2000). However, there is a lack of comprehensive research to move away from a language-centred description to a communicator-centred understanding of CSs usage, looking at not just what they did (in L2 oral interaction tasks) but why they did it (based on their perception of self, and others), and how these two react or respond to each other. To meet this end, this chapter tries to find out how the learners’ use of CSs can be mediated by their perception of self and others in L2 oral communication.

2

Background of Study

The role of both participants in mutual meaning has been noticed by Wagner and Firth (1997) in their ‘collaborative theory’. This theory pays more attention to the ‘role of participants’ based on an L1 communication framework. In collaborative theory, the mutual meaning is analysed as a collaborative activity, co-constructed by the speaker and the interlocutor (for details see Clark & Schaefer, 1989; Clark & WilkesGibbs, 1986; Wilkes-Gibbs, 1997). The main point of the collaborative model is the ‘grounding process’ in everyday language use (i.e. conversation) which is a process of developing and adding mutual meaning to the ‘common ground’ (shared knowledge, belief and assumption) (Wilkes-Gibbs, 1997, p. 239). The grounding process starts with the speaker’s presentation, moving to an acceptance phase in which the interlocutor is sending signals of understanding or not understanding, and the speaker recognises and accepts these signals. In the case of understanding, both interlocutors agree on the mutual meaning of communication, but in the case of ‘not understanding’, they are expected to show evidence of problematic interaction and initiate a ‘side sequence’

12 Communicators-Oriented Functions of Strategies

315

which is moving between refashioning (expand, revise or replace presentation) and initial presentation until both parties are satisfied with their mutual understanding (Wilkes-Gibbs, 1997). According to this model, communication problems are mutually shared issues, which in successful communication mean that both sides accept responsibility for their solution through coordinative and collaborative work on agreement about the meaning of their message. The communicators’ role in communication has also been emphasised by the followers of Vygotskyan view. The Vygotskyan theory holds a functional view of language as a mediator in goal-directed activities (i.e. strategy). It is believed that it can offer an appropriate model for interpreting the interrelatedness of the social and cognitive aspects of L2 interactive discourse (Hall, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). As reported by Lantolf (2000) and Hall (1995), the social context of interaction in a second language involves the interplay of (at the minimum) three socially constructed areas: Self-mediation (through private speech) Others-mediation in social interaction The interactive situation with the concomitant expectations (e.g. the practice(s) and goals they invoke) However, there is a lack of CSs research applying different aspects of an interactive situation, particularly self- and others- mediation to CSs usage in EFL oral communication. To apply this more ‘social meta-explanation’ to the findings, this chapter explores and illustrates the functions of CS as a socially constructed phenomenon mediated by communicators’ self and others in L2 oral interactions.

3

Study

Choosing the qualitative approach, the researcher employed the constructivism principle (opportunism, reflexivity, deep description) in the ‘postmodern qualitative approach’ (Holliday, 2007, p. 19) to investigate the interactional effects of social context on the functions of CS usage in L2 oral communication.

316

A. Jamshidnejad

The sample of this study was a group of 12 Persian undergraduate students of English Literature and Translation and one postgraduate student in TEFL (total 13), both male and female, aged 20–24, who were interested in the study when the researcher called and invited them to take part in the research. All participation was voluntary. They took part in a series of group discussions, interviews and stimulated recall interviews. The discussions focused on everyday topics in face-to-face interactions between groups of language learners to enable the researcher to elicit the types and functions of CSs. The interviews, on the other hand, helped the researcher to become more familiar with the field and the participants’ attitude towards L2 oral communication. Participants were asked to describe their language learning journey to master oral communication skill and their experience of dealing with problems in their L2 interaction. Using different types of data (oral communication recordings, stimulated recall interviews and semi-structured teacher interviews) for deep description, being reflexive about his presence in the setting and writing a detailed procedure of data collection and the stages and process of the research improve the validity of the research methodology the researcher employed in this study (Holliday, 2007). All research activities were recorded on a digital recorder to be used in preparing the research report and data analysis. This also helped the researcher to be reflexive about his presence in the research setting. Furthermore, being a member of a group, as well as a researcher, helped the researcher to construct a friendly relationship with the participants and cut off any negative effect of the presence of the researcher in the research setting. However, the small number of participants in this study is one of the limitations similar to most of the qualitative studies. This renders this study not suitable to draw far-reaching general recommendation from it, as the results may apply only to the small sample of upper-intermediate Persian English learners under investigation. It would not be efficient to make inferences for the bigger body of languages learners until more research has been done on a wider population.

12 Communicators-Oriented Functions of Strategies

4

317

Data Analysis

To find strategies whose function is beneficial for both communicators, I apply Vygotskyan perspective to examine the findings in a new framework. I support the Vygotskyan theory, holding a functional view of language as a mediator in goal-directed activities (i.e. strategy), and believe that individual competence is connected to, and constructed by both those with whom one is interacting and the larger sociohistorical forces (Hall, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). I am, therefore, interested in applying this perspective to interpret how the CSs usage in verbal communicative problem-solving activities might be connected and constructed by those involved in L2 oral communication. Using the new framework of analysis shows that CSs are beneficial for participants with the following communicators-oriented functions in L2 oral communication: 1. CSs with self-mediation function 2. CSs with others-mediation function

5

CSs and Self-Mediation

In this section, I examine how CSs usage might be mediated through the participants’ self-positioning in L2 interactions. I agree with Roebuck (2000, p. 90) that L2 communication is a jointly constructed discourse through which communicators ‘create, express and position themselves according to their own sociocultural histories, needs and expectations’. The positioning of the self in social interaction is a reflection of the participants’ voices in the framework of sociocultural theory in L2 communication and learning (Lantolf & Appel, 1994; van Lier, 1996). Participants need to be understood as individuals (communicators) who, in Pavlenko and Lantolf ’s (2000, p. 55) words, ‘have intensions, agency, affect and, above all, histories, as people’. In this study, participants struggle with displaying a perfect linguistic performance as a way to position themselves as ideal L2 speakers (cf. Chapter 7). Therefore,

318

A. Jamshidnejad

being faced with problems in interaction, participants might ‘reposition’ themselves in relation to each other and the interaction itself. To reposition themselves in interaction, participants might first distance themselves from their less-than-perfect performance by expressing their uncertainty in communication. In such situations, participants employ strategies such as verbal strategy markers, accuracy checks, expressing non-understanding and other indications of their uncertainty, to distance themselves from the less-than-perfect utterances or information in communication (cf. Chapter 10). In this way, they reposition themselves far from their imperfect performances and attempt to maintain the conversation to reproduce a better utterance or redefine their role in social interaction (Roebuck, 2000). To reposition self in relation to others, participants attempt to boost their role as an expert through displaying intention and insisting on producing the most accurate and intelligible utterances while trying to keep the flow of conversation open (cf. Chapter 11). This might happen because being a native-like speaker gives them the power to control the interaction, as MacIntyre et al. (1998, p. 549) hypothesised. Participants also were aware of the power of being an expert in L2 speaking as ‘other’ people, in and out of the language learning setting, explicitly valued it (cf. Chapter 7). Therefore, although they shared an L1, they rarely employed L1 strategy in L2 interaction. Instead, they employed L2-based strategies (e.g. repairing, own accuracy check, retrieval) with the function of promoting accuracy to show their insistence on L2 word searching and use (cf. Chapter 10). Furthermore, by agreeing to participate in the current research, participants initially position themselves as subjects in an experiment of L2 oral communication where their oral skill might be judged by the researcher. This is supported by the participants’ confirmation about their orientation to the context of communication of this research as learning rather than communicative (cf. Chapter 8). They also interpret my role in communication as an L2 expert. Although I tried to make my presence as neutral as possible, sometimes I was requested by participants to take part in conversations. They asked me about the correct lexis or

12 Communicators-Oriented Functions of Strategies

319

grammar needed for making an L2 utterance (an L2 expert), to evaluate their speaking skill (an evaluator) or to help and advise them for their current problems in L2 speaking (the helper, advisor). Therefore, they employ CSs to produce the utterance with high accuracy to display their skill and to be evaluated as an L2 fluent speaker. However, in problematic situations in which a less-than-perfect performance occurred, they tried to reposition themselves far from the researcher’s attention and evaluation. To do that, participants employed CSs to assist and encourage each other in keeping the turn (inviting to continue, and complementary repair as in Chapter 11) and even ignored each other ‘s’ problems (let-it-pass). Moreover, participants in their interview blamed their lack of L2 oral skills on the deficiencies of the language educational system (cf. Chapter 8). Similar to Roebuck’s research (2000), I interpret that the participants tried to show that their performance in this research was limited by the lack of their language learning system. Participants probably intend to insert their voice in order to ask other interlocutors and me to see them as language users who perform under unfair conditions. In fact, they rejected their role as performing less-than-perfect in interaction, arguably in order to escape judgement on the part of the researcher and their partners in L2 communication. To sum up, participants employ CSs to ‘reposition’ themselves, far from their less-than-perfect performance in front of the other, to boost their role as an expert in L2 interaction and to redefine it as language users interacting in unfair conditions. However, positioning the self far from their weak performance in problematic situations might be associated with the fear of losing face in front of other interlocutors, perceived as a threat to the self (Roebuck, 2000).

5.1

CSs and Face Concern

In this sub-section, I will investigate face concern in repositioning ‘self ’ through using CSs in L2 communication. Participants in this study perceived conversation with peers in an everyday-interaction task, on a wide range of topics for an extended period of time, as a potential

320

A. Jamshidnejad

threat to their face (see Chapter 7). When participants perceive their performance as less-than-perfect (e.g. producing less-than-perfect utterances, using incorrect structure, and forgetting appropriate lexis) they might decide to employ CSs to deal with their problem. As using strategies interrupts the natural flow of conversation, CSs usage might itself be considered as a face-threatening action. Therefore, participants need to estimate the risk of face loss and the degree of possibility to reach a particular goal in communication through the use of strategies. They then select a strategy from several choices, ranging from the most efficient but least face-saving to less efficient but most face-saving alternative. The interactional strategies whose usage depends on the other interlocutors‘ reaction (e.g. clarification, confirmation request, comprehension check, requesting help; requesting help for accuracy promotion; and complementary repairing, inviting to continue and let-it-pass) might be interpreted as having a high risk of face-losing. In contrast, other strategies in which participants rely on their own resources, rather than others, to deal with problematic situations (e.g. expressing non-understanding, use of general, similar sound words, literal translation and switching to L1, repairing, own accuracy check, retrieval, verbal strategy markers and use of fillers) might be used more frequently, because participants perceive them as strategies with a lower risk of face-threatening in L2 interaction. This is supported by the finding of this research in the summary of CSs frequency. The most frequent strategies were those in which participants did not depend on their partners’ help or feedback to complete their utterance in L2 interaction (cf. Table 2 in Chapter 9). Furthermore, participants in the communicative tasks, in Block’s (2003, p. 79) words, struggle to constantly walk ‘a fine line between the maintenance of positive and negative face’, balancing their personal need to be accepted and treated as a member of a group, while maintaining their freedom from imposition by others. As members of the L2 group discussion, participants who decide to use other interlocutors’ resources through interactional strategies are accepted by the other interlocutors as being assisted as members of the group. Meanwhile, they try to employ

12 Communicators-Oriented Functions of Strategies

321

different strategies and rely on their own resources in order to maintain their freedom from others’ resources. The functions of CSs, therefore, can be more driven by attempts to balance the two faces rather than by efforts to satisfy the transactional needs of discourse. Moreover, participants may perceive speaking in front of an interlocutor of the opposite gender or with a higher level of proficiency and social-distance as a face-threatening performance causing anxiety and stress in L2 communication (see Chapter 7). The fear of losing face may encourage some participants to use strategies to minimise it or might prevent others from L2 speaking in front of others. To sum up, face concern might be mediated through the use of CSs in self-positioning. Participants struggle to position the self constantly on ‘a fine line between the maintenance of positive and negative face’ through the manoeuvring of different CSs usage to enable them to be free from the other interlocutors’ help while keeping their membership of the peer group.

6

CSs and Others Mediation

In this section, I address the prominence of interlocutors’ agency in CSs usage in L2 oral communication. How we interact with each other is, to a large extent, mediated by our perceptions and evaluations of our interaction with ‘others’, and how we think they perceive us (Hall, 1995), rather than the conventional meanings already residing in the language we use. When we interact with each other, we interact within and through others in order to accomplish whatever communicative goals we have set, to become involved in those set by others, or to negotiate and work through a set of mutually defined goals (Hall, 1995). In the following sub-section, I investigate the interlocutors’ variables, including the shared L1, the gender, the level of L2 proficiency, the level of familiarity with others and the social status between participants as well as various co-construction discourses, jointly constructing a collaborative environment through using CSs in the ongoing interaction.

322

6.1

A. Jamshidnejad

CSs and Interlocutors’ Gender, Familiarity, Proficiency and Social Status

In this section, I discuss how the interlocutors‘ gender and their level of familiarity, proficiency and social status affected the mediation of CSs usage in L2 interactions. Other studies support the influential role of participants’ gender and familiarity with the conversation partner in whether and how interactants communicate and collaborate with each other (e.g. Gass & Varonis, 1985; Pica et al., 1991). The effect of familiarity with interlocutors on interaction is also supported by the findings of Plough and Gass (1993). The impact of other interlocutors’ characteristics, such as proficiency, socio-economic status, motivation and cultural background on the collaborative interaction among language users was emphasised by Kim and McDonough (2008). Other studies also demonstrate that the familiarity and gender variables can affect the interaction among interlocutors in terms of interactional feedback, modified outputs and the resolution of referential conflicts (Dörnyei & Kormos, 2000; Gass & Varonis, 1985; Iwashita, 2001; Ross- Feldman, 2007; Yule & Macdonald, 1990). In this research, the presence of interlocutors of the opposite gender in L2 communication is a factor encouraging the speakers to promote the level of accuracy of their speech, probably to display their ability in front of partners of the opposite gender (cf. Chapter 7). The familiarity with an interlocutor (classmates, friends) and background to the relationship are also important issues in L2 communication. Participants found the presence of an interlocutor of opposite gender and with a high social status make them in an anxious situation where they have to adjust the accuracy level of speaking based on their interlocutors’ different status in proficiency, gender and social status in communication (cf. Chapter 7). To do that, they employ a variety of form-enhanced strategies such as repairing, own accuracy check, requesting help and verbal strategy markers in their oral interaction (see Chapter 10). In fact, other interlocutors’ variables influenced the choice of CSs in L2 communication. Moreover, participants perceived speaking in front of an interlocutor of the opposite gender or with a higher level of proficiency and socialdistance as an anxious and stressful experience (cf. Chapter 7). To deal

12 Communicators-Oriented Functions of Strategies

323

with the stress caused by producing a less-than-perfect performance in front of the other, participants employ a variety of strategies to construct a collaborative and friendly environment in L2 communication (see Chapter 11 for a summary of those strategies). To sum up, CSs usage is mediated by the interlocutor’s gender, level of proficiency, familiarity and social status in L2 interaction. Participants employ CSs in order to share their own and their interlocutors’ resources to meet the communicative goals.

7

Discussion

This chapter aims to interpret how the participants’ perception of self and others can mediate CSs usage in L2 oral communication. CSs are interpreted as events, socially constructed by the contextual conditions of the entire communication and by the communicators, who bring their agency into communication. This study shows that the use of CSs is mediated by participants’ self-positioning and repositioning in relation to others and the interaction. As a reflection of the participants’ voices in L2 communication, participants were insisting on and willing to position themselves as ideal L2 communicators through keeping themselves far from any less-than-perfect performance, and by redefining their role as language users performing under unfair conditions in a research setting, in order to save face. Furthermore, they probably struggle to constantly balance their positive and negative face through the use of both interactional CSs, based on their partners’ resources and other strategies, based on their own. In addition to the self, CSs are mediated by the interlocutors’ characteristics, such as shared L1, gender, the level of familiarity with each other, proficiency and social status as well as various co-construction discourses, jointly constructing a collaborative environment for the ongoing interaction in L2 communication. Speaking in front of an interlocutor who was unknown, or of the opposite gender, or was perceived in a higher level of proficiency and social status, was interpreted as a face-threatening performance, calling for the use of CSs to construct a collaborative and friendly environment in L2 communication. In

324

A. Jamshidnejad

fact, CSs for a successful L2 interaction are mediated not only by the participants’ individual agency but also by the process of engaging in coconstructing the L2 performance in communication. Interaction, in this perspective, is more than exchanging information, where agency matters; interlocutors also bring their own ‘personal histories replete with values, assumptions, beliefs, rights, duties, and obligations’ (Donato, 2000, p. 46). Research findings (e.g. Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; Storch, 2002) also show that the quality of interaction significantly depends on those involved and the context in which they interact. In fact, participants employed CSs to speak like a member of the target-language community and to go beyond the ‘processing devices that convert linguistic input into well-formed output’ (Lantolf & Pavlenko, 2001, p. 145). All parties in communication employed CSs to co-construct the L2 communication as collaborative, friendly and supportive interpersonal communication. From a sociocultural point of view, the participants’ use of CSs in L2 communication cannot be viewed as an immediate product of the individual; rather, it is a socially constructed process by which participants bring their own history to co-construct their L2 performance. Language learners, thus, should be considered as L2 speakers in their own right, rather than failed native speakers, who attempt to maintain their own individual identity but, at the same time, want to come across as proficient members of the target-language community. The finding of this study also confirms that participants use CSs to show their conformity to target-language norms while interacting in their own way. They often construct interpersonal communication through a variety of CSs, reflecting both their own and their partners’ voices and histories in communication. Language learners’ attempts to find a voice is constructed by both their wish to become fluent and accurate Englishlanguage users and to construct an effective interaction as their own (e.g. Asian) rather than as imitating British or American speakers. The logical consequence of the above arguments for TESOL is to design a model for foreign language education based on new assumptions of the nature of L2 interaction, learners and the curriculum. It seems it is necessary to place more emphasis on language learners as people who are potential and actually successful L2 users, through applying the findings of this

12 Communicators-Oriented Functions of Strategies

325

research in the language education system, including the areas of syllabus design, curriculum development and teaching methodology. More emphasis on teamwork and co-operation in strategy training and putting active/less active pairs in each group of classmates might construct a friendly and cooperative environment for the effective use of CSs in oral communication. Active members would be encouraged to help and co-operate with other members of the group. Since I found the interlocutors‘ social status and proficiency as important variables in L2 oral communication, teachers can play a vital role in L2 group discussion. The teachers’ role in monitoring and managing the effective use of CSs in a group discussion is very important. As an expert in the target language, a teachers’ presence can modify the side effects of the group discussion in language learning; teachers can encourage passive members through empowering them and giving them the authority of choosing the topic and leading the discussion in a group. Finally, as I found a mixture of male and female participants as a challenging structure for producing more accurate utterances in L2 group discussion, I recommend teachers to put learners of both genders in one group when it is possible (e.g. the code of ethics in their society allows them to do that).

References Block, D. (2003). The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Clark, H. H., & Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13, 259–294. Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39. Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Z., & Kormos, J. (2000). The role of individual and social variables in oral task performance. Language Teaching Research, 4, 275–300.

326

A. Jamshidnejad

Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1985). Task variation and non-native/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S. M. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 149–161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Guerrero, M., & Villamil, O. (1994). Socio-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 484–496. Hall, J. K. (1995). “Aw, man, where you goin’?”: Classroom interaction and the development of L2 interactional competence. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6 (2), 37–62. Holliday, A. R. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional-moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as foreign language. System, 29, 267–287. Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211–234. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79–96. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)activity, understanding second language learners as people. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–158). London: Longman. MacIntyre, P. D., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualising willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as participation and the (re)construction of selves. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 155–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., Berducci, D., & Newman, J. (1991). Language learning through interaction: What role does gender play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(3), 343–376. Plough, I., & Gass, S. M. (1993). Interlocutor and task familiarity: Effects on interactional structure. In G. Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning (pp. 35–56). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

12 Communicators-Oriented Functions of Strategies

327

Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themselves in a psycholinguistic task. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 79–95). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ross-Feldman, L. (2007). Interaction in the classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158. van Boxtel, C. (2000). Collaborative concept learning: Collaborative learning tasks, student interaction and the learning of physics concepts. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. London: Longman. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wagner, J., & Firth, A. (1997). Communication strategies at work. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 323–344). London: Longman. Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1997). Studying language use as collaboration. In G. Kasper, & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Communication strategies: psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspectives (pp. 238–274). London: Longman. Yule, G., & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning, 40 (4), 539–556.

13 Conclusion and Implications for Future Research Alireza Jamshidnejad

This book provides a framework to understand the complex and multidimensional nature of problems and communication strategies in L2 oral communication. This chapter profiles an overall summary of the findings and end with the conclusion and the possible implications of the findings for future research. • The initial analysis of the participants’ perception of L2 communication shed light on the process of problem construction in L2 oral interaction. The participants’ desire to be ideal fluent L2 speakers, their perception and evaluation of other interlocutors’ characteristics and their contextual orientation and goal of taking part in L2 communication constructed the problematic situations, leading participants to choose particular CSs with appropriate functions for that situation. Thematic analysis of spoken data indicated the following classification A. Jamshidnejad (B) Department of English Language, College of Education, University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Rustaq, Oman e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8_13

329

330

A. Jamshidnejad

and subcategories of the main sources of learners’ problems in L2 oral interaction: 1. Communicators oriented problems a. Perception of self • willing to be a perfect speaker • insisting on native-like proficiency b. Perception of others • Others characteristics such as opposite gender, a higher level of proficiency and social status, and familiarity • others’ evaluation of oral proficiency • others’ reaction to making mistakes 2. Language oriented problems a. Lack of linguistic competencies in self-expression b. Lack of intelligibility in meaning transfer 3. Context oriented problems a. Lack of opportunities for L2 oral communication b. Lack of oral skills development in curriculum c. Lack of interactional tasks d. Lack of general topics As the research progressed, however, it became increasingly clear that, despite all the above problems, participants employing a series of communication strategies can communicate successfully in their target language. The thematic analysis shows that participants used a variety of strategies with the following main functions for the problematic moments of L2 communication. 1. Communicator oriented function a. To reposition self in interaction i. to boost their role as an expert through using a variety of formenhanced strategies ii. To distance themselves from their less-than-perfect performance through CSs expressing their uncertainty in communication

13 Conclusion and Implications for Future Research

331

iii. To distance themselves from other’s evaluation by ignoring each other’s mistakes and encouraging each other to continue the conversation iv. to rely more on their own resources than other interlocutors’ help v. to redefine their role as language users interacting in unfair conditions b. To reposition self in relation to others i. To boosts their accuracy in front others with the opposite gender, a higher level of proficiency and social status through using a variety of form-enhanced strategies ii. To share their language resources in order to construct a collaborative and friendly L2 communication 2. Language oriented function a. Strategies for expressing the meaning i. Circumlocution & approximation ii. Use of general and similar sounds words iii. Use of L1 knowledge iv. Requesting help b. Strategies for understanding the message i. Clarification and confirmation requests ii. Comprehension check iii. Interpretive summary iv. Express non-understating c. Strategies for developing language knowledge i. Repairing ii. Own accuracy check iii. Retrieval iv. Form negotiations v. Nothing to say 3. Context oriented function a. Strategies for constructing a collaborative communication i. Waiting and giving more time to interlocutors

332

A. Jamshidnejad

ii. Inviting and involving the passive interlocutors in conversation iii. Helping each other in dealing with the problem and keeping longer turns b. Strategies for keeping the interaction going i. Continuation request ii. Complementary repairs iii. Let-it-pass iv. Time gaining fillers v. L1 knowledge • The main functions of CSs in this study, in order of most to least common, are: promoting the knowledge of the language, maintaining communication, and promoting the transfer of meaning. It seems that, while the participants employ a range of strategies, there is a tendency to rely on improving their knowledge of the target language, rather than transferring the meaning or maintaining the communication. • Participants were mostly successful in their L2 oral communication through the use of a variety of CSs. It is therefore concluded that, despite their less-than-perfect performance, participants employed CSs to get the meaning across and construct successful L2 interpersonal communication. • Applying the sociocultural approach to the above findings opened a new window for understanding CSs usage in L2 interaction. CSs usage is a socially constructed process whereby the individual uses CSs to position themselves as agents whose contextual conditions of learning and communication affect the interactional outcomes. • The type and functions of CSs used in any interaction depend on an interactive contextual situation, the strategy users’ characteristics, e.g. motives, beliefs, attitudes, their learning situation, and also on other interlocutors’ variables such as L1, gender, the level of familiarity, proficiency and social status as well as the co-constructed discourse in L2 communication. Strategies, in this perspective, are more than the tools for delivering information from one person to another; rather, they shape and construct interpersonal communication through a collaborative and friendly effort and the scaffolding of peer interactions.

13 Conclusion and Implications for Future Research

333

The above classification of CSs functions in L2 oral communication is illustrated in the following Table 1.

1

Conclusion

To my knowledge, prior to this study, no research was available for the classification of different functions of CSs in related to the learners’ problems in L2 oral communication, particularly in the EFL context; this book is a pioneer in this area. The study shows that a lot is to be gained, in communication as well as in language knowledge, by making learners use CSs and work together in groups. I concluded that CSs usage in L2 interpersonal communications enables participants to achieve interpersonal and instructional goals, in addition to meaning negotiation. I argue that foreign-language users frequently demonstrate a keen interest in developing, establishing and maintaining social relations with other L2 users through the medium of the second language. The foreignlanguage users who want to develop interpersonal relationships in the second language are unlikely to be interested in L2 communication just for exchanging information. They are interested in both how they can ‘use’ a target language within an interactional situation and how they can learn from, ‘come across’ and ‘get on’ with other communicators. I also argue that this is often achieved in supportive, friendly, and non-face threatening environment constructed by a variety of cooperative and face enhancing CSs used by communicators who wish to be perfect speakers in L2, jointly constructing interpersonal talk in the target language. In fact, while participants are concerned about accuracy, they are not obsessed with it. They are willing to take the risk of making mistakes, of losing face, for the sake of practising a target language (e.g. English). The outcomes are the development in the target language through practising the accurate form of the language to modify their output while keeping the interpersonal interaction going and also negotiating meaning in problematic situations. Successful foreign-language users want to go beyond just having the necessary language which will allow them to exchange information:

334

A. Jamshidnejad

Table 1 Learners’ communication

problems

and

Learners’ problems in L2 oral communication Context oriented problems • Lack of opportunities for L2 oral communication • Lack of oral skills development in curriculum • Lack of interactional tasks • Lack of general topics

Language oriented problems a. Lack of linguistic competencies in self-expression b. Lack of intelligibility in meaning transfer

their

corresponding

strategies

in

L2

Learners’ Coping strategies CSs with Context oriented function a. Strategies for keeping the interaction going for a longer time i. Continuation request ii. Complementary repairs iii. Let-it-pass iv. Time gaining fillers v. L1 knowledge b. Strategies for constructing a collaborative communication i. Waiting and giving more time to interlocutors ii. Inviting and involving the passive interlocutors in conversation iii. Helping each other in dealing with the problem and keeping longer turns CSs with Language oriented functions a. Strategies for developing language knowledge i. Repairing ii. Own accuracy check iii. Retrieval iv. Form negotiations v. Nothing to say b. Strategies for expressing the meaning i. Circumlocution & approximation ii. Use of general and similar sounds words iii. Use of L1 knowledge iv. Requesting help c. Strategies for understanding the message i. Clarification and confirmation requests ii. Comprehension check iii. Interpretive summary iv. Express non-understating (continued)

13 Conclusion and Implications for Future Research

335

Table 1 (continued) Learners’ problems in L2 oral communication Communicators oriented problems a. Perception of self i. willing to be a perfect speaker ii. insisting on native-like proficiency b. Perception of others i. Others characteristics such as opposite gender, a higher level of proficiency and social status, and familiarity ii. others’ evaluation of oral proficiency iii. others’ reaction to making mistakes

Learners’ Coping strategies CSs with communicators oriented functions a. To reposition self in interaction i. to boost their role as an expert through using a variety of form-enhanced strategies ii. To distance themselves from their less-than-perfect performance through CSs expressing their uncertainty in communication iii. To distance themselves from other’s evaluation by ignoring each other’s mistakes and encouraging each other to continue the conversation iv. to rely more on their own resources than other interlocutors’ help v. to redefine their role as language users interacting in unfair conditions b. To reposition self in relation to others i. To boosts their accuracy in front of others with the opposite gender, a higher level of proficiency and social status through using a variety of form-enhanced strategies. ii. To share their language resources

they are interested in using language to achieve both informative and communicative goals in the target language—rather than being limited to what their current language competence allows them to do. Language knowledge and ability, therefore, should be seen as tools to facilitate interpersonal communication rather than aiming at the activities that can be carried out in a lesson. This means designing programmes, syllabuses, and textbooks based on an analysis of local and interpersonal needs and wants.

336

A. Jamshidnejad

From a sociocultural point of view, the participants’ use of CSs in L2 communication cannot be viewed as an immediate product of the individual; rather, it is a socially constructed process by which participants bring their own history to co-construct their L2 performance. Language learners, thus, should be considered as L2 speakers in their own right, rather than failed native speakers, who attempt to maintain their own individual identity but, at the same time, want to come across as proficient members of the target-language community.

2

The Implication for Future Research

The findings of the studies in this book are open to challenge and reconfirmation because the study has certain limitations. For instance, as the data was collected through audio recording, non-verbal communication was simply ignored. The non-verbal interaction might have a substantial effect on CSs usage, constructing different problems and functions of CSs in L2 communication. I suggest video-recording for collecting data appropriate for both verbal and non-verbal communication in future studies. Besides, the corpus of interactional data, compiled for the purposes of this book, is open for future research. It might be of use if I could do comparative analyses across different groups of students with different conditions of proficiency, familiarity, and social status in the communication events of this study. Second, the choice of CSs and success in using them in different problematic situations are influenced by a variety of factors. This book looked at some of them. Other factors including the learners’ attitudes, learners’ awareness of CSs, their cognitive styles, initial strategy use, personality, motivation, personal goals, and the social context they are involved in might all affect the ways learners use CSs. So, future research should study the relationships between these factors and the use and functions of CSs. This book has shed some light on the role of context in the problem construction and functions of CSs in L2 communication. It is, therefore, necessary to study further the construction of context, in terms

13 Conclusion and Implications for Future Research

337

of different conditions of face-saving/risk-taking and particular cultural settings, and its effect on the use and functions of CSs in L2 oral communications. This book focused on problems and problematic moments of L2 communication; however, participants often used CSs in unproblematic communications. I suggest that future researchers study CSs usage in successful communication—in addition to studies of perceived failures and problems. Participants were not aware of CSs usage and their functions in L2 communication. It is, therefore, necessary to make a comparison between learners who are not aware of the function of CSs and those that are in order to be able to determine the role of awareness-raising in CSs usage. Although studies in this book might have some limitations, it does suggest a new classification of learners’ problems and CS functions in L2 communication, which emerged from the data following a reiterative reading and rereading of the data rather than following predetermined categories and imposing them on the available data. I recommend this new classification for further study in order to find other functions of CSs constructed by different groups of language users in different situations. Furthermore, the type of tasks introduced in this book might be of use for future study. A series of group discussions, in which the construction of groups is changed by changing the number of members, known or unknown members, high or low level of proficiency and familiarity, gender and so on, as this can provide researchers with a unique opportunity to explore the effects of group variables on the construction of problems, and CSs usage and functions. Finally, the new way of researching L2 oral communication, revealed in this book, might be explored further in future studies. Following the principles of a qualitative approach in research methodology and interpersonal communication can provide researchers with a new way of looking at and exploring L2 interactional phenomena, ending up with new interpretations and contributions to the literature of problems, CSs and other aspects of L2 oral communication.

Index

A

applied linguistics 3, 130, 132, 205 attitude 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 65, 66, 69, 82–84, 87, 92, 95, 97, 98, 107, 117, 166, 167, 170, 187, 196, 220, 237, 257, 282, 291, 316, 332, 336 audio-recordings 135, 175, 242, 336 authentic setting 133

B

breakdown 5, 14–18, 63, 173, 175, 230, 241, 253, 254, 256, 262, 264, 269, 270, 278

C

communication 2, 4–16, 18, 21, 35, 38, 44, 52, 56, 66, 68,

69, 72, 78, 90, 96, 104, 105, 108, 121, 123, 124, 133, 137, 143, 145, 153, 166–168, 171, 172, 174, 177, 179, 183, 187, 195, 197–199, 201, 205–207, 210, 211, 213–215, 217, 220, 229–235, 237, 239, 241, 242, 244–247, 254, 257, 258, 262, 264, 265, 268–272, 274, 275, 278–282, 288–292, 294, 304–308, 313–315, 318, 320, 322–324, 330–337 communication breakdowns 10, 14–16, 18, 176, 244, 253, 255, 262, 275, 308 communication events 174, 175, 186, 198, 206, 211, 213, 218, 238, 258, 279, 280, 289, 292, 336 communication performance 175

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 A. Jamshidnejad (ed.), Speaking English as a Second Language, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55057-8

339

340

Index

communication research 168–170 communication task 134, 174, 236 communicator oriented problems 20, 176, 177, 195, 330, 335 communicators 2, 5–11, 13–18, 20, 104, 146, 166–168, 170, 183, 184, 186–188, 195, 196, 205, 214, 215, 218, 232–235, 244, 247, 253–256, 263, 265, 268, 269, 278, 282, 287, 289, 290, 294, 295, 297, 304–307, 313, 315, 317, 323, 333 competencies 2, 19, 103, 123, 167, 254, 282, 308, 313, 330, 334 comprehension 10, 13, 15, 68, 91, 129, 147, 149, 150, 173, 181, 186, 200, 201, 205, 230, 233, 234, 240, 242–245, 254, 260, 268–274, 276, 296–299, 301, 302, 320, 331 construction 3, 6, 12, 104, 109, 133, 153, 154, 169, 170, 176, 236, 239, 258, 282, 292, 308, 336, 337 construct meanings 136 context 2, 4, 5, 7–10, 12–14, 16–20, 33–38, 40, 47, 48, 51, 55, 56, 60, 61, 63, 69, 70, 75–78, 80, 82, 90, 96, 99, 104–106, 108–112, 116, 120, 132, 134, 137, 139, 142, 143, 151, 168, 169, 173, 174, 179, 186, 195, 196, 198, 205–208, 210–215, 217, 220, 229, 230, 235, 236, 238, 239, 242, 256, 258, 259, 288, 290, 292–294, 296, 308, 315, 318, 324, 336 conversation 5, 11, 14, 40–43, 52–58, 63, 64, 66–71, 77, 92,

108, 112, 114, 121, 134–137, 143, 145, 146, 148, 151, 152, 173, 183, 199, 209, 210, 216, 220, 233–235, 239, 241, 243–246, 253, 256, 258, 263–265, 268–275, 278, 280, 282, 289, 290, 292, 295–307, 314, 318–320, 322, 331, 332, 335 coping strategies 3, 6, 15, 154, 188, 334, 335 corpus 55–57, 69–71, 143, 144, 153, 243, 244, 273, 279, 336 critical thinking 104–110, 113–115, 119–122 culture 13, 36, 37, 77, 79, 104, 108, 109, 111, 118–120, 122, 124, 217, 278, 295

D

deficiency(ies) 2, 3, 11, 20, 33, 36, 38, 149, 166, 173, 199, 213, 230, 232, 240, 253, 261–263, 265, 278, 287, 319 dialogue 55, 176, 255 discourse 3, 4, 10–13, 17, 19, 33, 34, 38, 47, 51, 52, 55, 57, 59–61, 63, 65, 66, 68–71, 107, 108, 114, 121, 133, 137, 144, 145, 150, 168, 172–175, 208, 210, 215, 219, 230, 233, 242, 256, 259, 270, 281, 288, 289, 293, 294, 304, 306, 315, 317, 321, 323, 332

Index

341

E

F

EFL context 4, 16–21, 34, 40, 75, 77, 79, 80, 97, 153–155, 167, 171, 196, 197, 205, 206, 217–219, 255, 281, 282, 287, 288, 296, 307, 333 EFL setting 76, 171, 197, 288, 290, 293, 296 Elicit 137, 142, 144, 145, 148, 152, 153, 171, 173, 197, 237, 257, 291, 316 eliciting oral data 143, 150 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) 4, 15, 17–20, 34, 42, 47, 48, 52, 55, 66, 68–70, 75–77, 81, 96, 97, 181, 205, 207, 214, 215, 218, 220, 229, 233, 236, 243, 245, 247, 254, 256, 280, 281, 287–290, 308, 315 English native speaker 12, 38, 139, 140 English speaker 20, 55, 71, 78, 168, 179, 264 English teachers 46, 98, 171, 177, 178, 197, 217 Expressions 46, 51, 56, 58, 59, 61–66, 69, 70, 90, 92, 118, 124, 136, 151, 183, 186, 218, 234, 289, 301 extract(s) 41, 45, 143, 177, 178, 180, 183–185, 201–205, 209–212, 244, 261, 263, 265, 267, 269–279, 294, 295, 297–306

face-threatening 2, 184, 186, 217, 218, 264, 272, 273, 278, 302, 320, 321, 323 face-to-face interaction 54, 145, 146, 153, 237, 256, 281, 291, 294, 316 fear 2, 16, 17, 20, 45, 46, 146, 167, 182–184, 186, 319, 321 fluency 63, 89, 96, 150, 151, 177, 178, 184, 212 fluent 12, 13, 68, 114, 118, 177, 178, 184, 186, 204, 216, 287, 324, 329 fluent accent 178 fluent English speakers 178, 188, 207, 287 fluent speaker 1, 178, 213, 319 frustrating 184, 296

H

higher level 180, 181, 183, 184, 186, 187, 199, 217, 218, 276, 321–323, 330, 331, 335 high expectation 179

I

ideal self 177–179, 186, 204, 213, 216 information exchange 143, 144 intelligibility 138, 140, 204, 254, 255, 268, 330, 334 interaction pattern 145 interactions 3–7, 9, 11–15, 17, 19, 21, 34, 35, 38, 43, 52, 54, 77, 78, 80, 84, 85, 87, 88, 92, 95, 96, 104, 112, 115, 121,

342

Index

130–132, 136, 142–146, 149, 154, 166, 169, 172, 174, 180, 181, 183, 185, 187, 198–200, 205–208, 210, 216, 217, 220, 231, 234, 235, 237, 238, 242–244, 247, 253, 255, 257, 259–261, 268, 274, 280–282, 288–290, 293–296, 299, 301–305, 313–315, 317–324, 330, 332–334, 336 interlocutor(s) 2, 5, 11, 14, 15, 21, 51, 53, 60, 64, 75, 77, 79, 130, 133, 137, 142–146, 153, 166, 175, 177, 180, 181, 183, 186, 187, 200, 201, 208, 213, 216–218, 232, 234, 235, 239, 240, 243, 246, 255, 259–263, 265, 268–271, 273–276, 280, 289, 293, 295–298, 305–307, 313, 314, 319–325, 329, 331, 332, 335 interpretation 7, 13, 105, 114, 115, 134, 170, 176, 187, 203, 208, 216, 217, 233, 236, 256, 271, 274, 282, 289, 302, 337 interrelationship 154, 170, 195, 196 interrupt 146, 274, 294, 301, 320 interruption 9, 14, 15, 53, 172, 182, 195, 199, 234, 275, 294, 300, 313 Interview(s) 19, 34, 39, 41, 45, 46, 71, 82–85, 87, 92, 98, 103, 105, 112, 114, 118, 121, 123, 134–137, 143–146, 170, 171, 173, 175–178, 180, 183–185, 196, 197, 202, 211, 212, 237, 238, 257, 258, 262, 264, 266, 291, 292, 300, 306, 307, 316, 319

L

language acquisition 111, 133 language learners 1–3, 20, 34, 70, 78, 108, 111, 112, 120, 124, 129, 131, 132, 140–142, 146, 153, 172, 178, 182, 186, 187, 196, 198, 199, 207, 210, 219, 220, 229, 236–238, 253, 254, 256, 258, 281, 282, 287–289, 291, 292, 296, 304, 307, 308, 316, 324, 336 language learning 17, 75–80, 82–85, 87–89, 91, 94–97, 104, 107, 109, 112, 113, 115, 117, 131, 132, 135, 166, 167, 170, 178, 179, 196, 207, 212, 213, 278, 318, 319, 325 language proficiency 33, 36, 40, 42, 44, 47, 77, 79, 110, 142, 166, 181, 182, 268 language skill 5, 6, 17, 18, 44, 82, 137, 282 language teaching 48, 97, 112, 130, 132, 134, 138, 147, 178, 212 learning English 88, 93, 99, 116, 120, 123, 140, 178, 263 less-than-perfect 146, 200, 204, 216, 217, 246, 267, 274, 277, 280, 318–320, 323, 330, 332, 335 lexical problems 12, 131, 233 linguistic difficulties 137, 173, 175, 231 linguistics 6, 15, 17, 19, 33, 35, 45–48, 52, 54–56, 58, 79, 80, 82, 103–107, 113–115, 123, 129, 131, 132, 135, 139, 165, 166, 173, 178, 179, 186, 188, 196, 199–201, 203–205, 208,

Index

210, 213, 216, 218, 232, 244, 247, 253–255, 282, 317, 324 losing face 167, 182, 184, 289, 319, 321, 333

M

making mistakes 16, 17, 36, 45, 167, 168, 180–182, 184, 330, 333, 335 meaning transfer 203, 204, 209, 244, 245, 247, 253, 254, 256, 259, 260, 262, 267, 269, 275, 281, 287, 330, 332, 334 misunderstanding 7, 13–15, 201, 202, 234, 288, 294

N

native-like 149, 178, 204, 216, 318, 330, 335 native speaker (NS) 13, 15, 55, 69, 77, 86, 116, 131, 144–148, 179, 180, 187, 200, 207, 216, 230, 231, 281, 282, 288, 304, 308, 324, 336 natural spoken data 152 negotiate meaning 144, 289

O

obstacle 16, 17, 21, 77, 184, 185, 202, 204, 205, 212, 230, 232, 260, 287, 313 opposite gender 167, 180, 181, 186, 187, 217, 218, 321–323, 330, 331, 335 Oral Communication Data 175 oral communication research 134

343

oral communication strategies 4, 19, 153, 329 oral communication studies 130, 132, 142 oral interaction data 130, 145, 154 oral interaction(s) 2–4, 17–20, 63, 132, 144, 146, 154, 166, 172, 182, 185, 186, 196, 198, 204, 206–208, 215, 216, 219, 220, 234, 254, 255, 267, 282, 296, 307, 313–315, 322, 329, 330 oral interaction studies 144 oral performance 17, 131, 133, 134, 137, 142, 146, 153, 171, 173, 175–177, 185, 197, 208, 210, 212, 218, 231, 232, 237, 241, 257, 274, 291 oral problems 6, 10, 11, 18, 175, 177, 187, 200, 203, 210, 233 oral production 17, 131, 149 oriented problems 17, 18, 20, 176, 199, 201, 214, 253, 254, 287, 288, 330

P

perception 5–7, 12, 16, 20, 46, 48, 81, 82, 84, 85, 89, 93, 96, 118, 138, 140, 149–151, 174, 176, 177, 180, 186, 195, 198, 199, 201, 206, 209, 210, 215–217, 268, 269, 307, 313, 314, 321, 323, 329, 330, 335 perfect 66, 86, 178, 179, 182, 200, 204, 216, 218, 317 perfectionists 179 problem construction 3, 4, 16, 20, 154, 169–171, 173, 186,

344

Index

195–197, 214–216, 218, 219, 229, 329, 336 problem indicators 175 problem making 154, 195, 200, 204, 206 problem-solving 142, 143, 146, 230, 256, 282, 317 proficiency 2, 3, 20, 42, 43, 47, 56, 88, 89, 93, 123, 129, 146, 153, 178, 180–184, 186, 187, 208, 213, 216–218, 278, 288, 304, 306, 307, 321–323, 325, 330–332, 335–337 proficient 13, 82, 146, 178, 181, 182, 187, 282, 324, 336 Pronunciation 17, 20, 78, 88–91, 96, 98, 99, 130, 138–141, 154, 166, 178, 179, 185, 199, 200, 202, 203, 213

Q

qualitative research 131, 134, 135

R

real-life 90, 133, 134, 147, 199, 205 Recall interview 175, 185, 202–204, 209, 211, 263–267, 294–296, 299, 300, 302, 303 recall stimulated interviews 137, 171, 174, 197, 237, 256, 257, 291, 294, 316 repair 14, 143, 233, 243–246, 269, 274, 275, 280, 299–301, 306, 307, 319, 332 research methodology 132, 154, 171, 197, 235–237, 257, 291, 316, 337

S

second language 12, 52, 79, 95, 103, 109, 111, 129, 153, 177, 186, 229, 230, 232, 263, 315, 333 second language acquisition (SLA) 3, 12, 103, 129, 130, 132, 141, 154, 206, 208, 230, 281 self-expression 20, 168, 173, 199– 201, 203, 230, 231, 233, 240, 241, 244–246, 261, 262, 264, 268, 271, 278–280, 294, 296, 300, 305, 330, 334 self-image 177, 179, 181, 204, 216 social interactions 10, 142, 147, 216, 281, 315, 317, 318 speakers 2, 3, 10, 11, 15, 19, 35, 52–55, 57–59, 62–70, 77, 86, 104–107, 109, 111–120, 124, 133, 137, 138, 140–142, 148, 150–152, 171–174, 177–184, 186, 195, 197, 199–201, 203, 204, 208–210, 213, 216, 218, 231, 232, 234, 235, 237, 240–243, 247, 254, 255, 257, 259, 261, 262, 265, 267, 268, 271, 273–282, 287, 288, 291, 293–295, 298–302, 304, 306–308, 314, 317, 318, 322, 324, 329, 330, 333, 335, 336 speaking 1–4, 15–20, 36, 52, 66, 67, 70, 75, 82, 88, 89, 91, 95, 98, 99, 105, 108, 130, 137, 140, 146, 150, 154, 166–168, 173, 177–180, 182–187, 195, 199, 201–205, 209, 211, 212, 217, 218, 235, 241, 243, 246, 263–265, 267, 276, 279, 280, 295–299, 304, 308, 318, 319, 321–323

Index

speech 3, 8, 15, 17, 53, 57, 63, 68, 70, 85, 86, 89, 95, 104, 120, 130, 135, 137, 140, 141, 146–152, 170, 180, 181, 186, 196, 200, 201, 205, 231, 232, 242, 247, 255, 259, 261, 267, 271, 273, 274, 276, 280, 282, 293, 297–300, 303, 305, 307, 308, 315, 322 speech errors 172 spoken discourse 51, 53, 54, 69, 71, 137, 154 spoken interaction 68, 131, 146 spoken language 53–56, 58, 68, 69, 71, 149, 152, 254, 261, 276 spontaneous speech 147, 151, 152 strategies usage 153, 154, 239–243, 258, 259, 267, 281, 292, 293

T

target language 2, 3, 14, 17, 70, 76, 77, 80, 111, 130, 131, 133, 144, 146, 147, 153, 154, 167, 168, 177, 178, 181, 183, 184, 187, 196, 199, 200, 205–207, 210, 213, 218–220, 247, 254,

345

256, 277, 278, 282, 288, 290, 307, 308, 324, 325, 330, 332, 333, 335

U

understanding 2, 4, 7, 10–13, 21, 34, 48, 52, 59, 71, 77, 96, 109, 134, 142, 152, 154, 170, 173, 174, 180, 196, 198, 200, 205, 206, 208, 232, 234, 235, 239, 258, 260, 268–271, 273, 274, 277, 281, 292, 297, 301, 314, 315, 331, 332, 334 utterance 2, 21, 53, 55, 58, 60, 62, 63, 65–68, 70, 119, 138, 140, 142, 144, 153, 165, 173, 182, 184, 200, 201, 204, 205, 209, 217, 232, 234, 235, 239–241, 243–246, 248, 254, 258–261, 263, 265, 267–271, 273–281, 283, 292, 293, 296–303, 306, 309, 318–320, 325

V

variables lies 137