Language Learning 47:1, March 1997, pp.173–210 Review Article Communication Strategies in a Second Language: Definitions and Taxonomies Zoltán Dörnyei Eötvös University, Budapest Mary Lee Scott Dörnyei and Scott Brigham Young University, Provo This paper examines trends in second language (L2) communication strategy (CS) research to date. We give a comprehensive review of the relevant literature from the last two decades, with particular consideration of the different ways in which CSs have been defined and of corresponding influences on the organization of strategy taxonomies. We first outline the history of CS research and discuss problem-orientedness and consciousness as defining criteria for CSs. We then offer a comprehensive list of strategic language devices and describe the major CS taxonomies, noting key trends, with special attention to current and future research orientations. Zoltán Dörnyei, Department of English Applied Linguistics; Mary Lee Scott, Department of Linguistics We are grateful to Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, Marianne Celce-Murcia, Gabriele Kasper, George Yule and Tamás Váradi for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Correspondence concerning this article may be addressed to Zoltán Dörnyei, Department of English Applied Linguistics, Eötvös University, 1146 Budapest, Ajtósi Dürer sor 19, Hungary. Internet:
[email protected] 173 174 Language Learning Vol. 47, No. 1 Researchers first raised the notion of second language (L2) communication strategies (CSs) at the beginning of the 1970s, following the recognition that the mismatch between L2 speakers’ linguistic resources and communicative intentions leads to a number of systematic language phenomena whose main function is to handle difficulties or breakdowns in communication. In fact, even a brief analysis of any spontaneous piece of L2 oral discourse reveals the importance of CSs in L2 users’ verbal performance: These speakers (except those at a very advanced, “near-native” level) tend to spend a great deal of time and effort struggling to make up for their L2 deficiencies (cf. Gass & Varonis, 1991). The understanding of strategic language use has, therefore, been an important research direction during the last two decades, and a considerable amount of research literature has accumulated on the nature of CSs, taxonomies of strategic language devices, variation in CS use, and the practical implications of CS research (focusing, in particular, on the teachability of CSs). At the same time, CS research does not lack controversies. There is no universally accepted definition of CSs; as a result, several competing taxonomies of CSs exist, including different ranges of language devices, from paraphrase to filled pauses, from code switching to interactional meaning-negotiation mechanisms (such as clarification requests). In fact, in view of the widespread use of the term “communication strategy” in applied linguistics —its coverage has by now become “compulsory” in any overview of L2 acquisition and use—it is surprising how little CS researchers agree about what exactly these devices are. This paper intends to provide an overview of CS research with a special focus on two key issues: the various definitions of CSs suggested in the literature and the different taxonomies of strategic language devices developed following these definitions. We selected these two focal issues because studies discussing other CS-related topics—such as task effect, variation according to proficiency level, the relationship between CS use in L1 and L2, the effectiveness of various CS types, or the usefulness of CS training—have often produced con- Dörnyei and Scott 175 troversial or contestable results due to the diverse conceptualizations of CSs. That is, those studies often made generalizations based on (partly) different language phenomena, whereas most researchers would now agree that strategic language behavior is highly complex, and intervening factors typically have only a subtle and non-uniform effect. Thus, we see the questions of definition and taxonomy as central to any further development in CS research. First, we present a brief historical outline of CS research; then we summarize the different conceptualizations of CSs, looking into their various defining criteria. Next we attempt to provide a comprehensive list of the strategic language devices mentioned in the literature; finally, we present and discuss the most important classification schemes of CSs. Historical Outline of CS Research Selinker (1972) coined the term “communication strategy” in his seminal paper on “interlanguage”, discussing “strategies of second language communication” (p. 229) as one of the five central processes involved in L2 learning. However, he did not go into detail about the nature of these strategies. Around the time Selinker’s paper came out, Savignon (1972) published a research report in which she highlighted the importance of coping strategies (the term she used for CSs) in communicative language teaching and testing. A year later Váradi (1973/1980) gave a talk, at a small European conference, generally considered the first systematic analysis of strategic language behavior (message adjustment, in particular). Váradi’s paper, however, was not the first published study on CSs; although it informally circulated among researchers, it only came out in print in 1980. By that time Tarone and her associates (Tarone, 1977; Tarone, Cohen & Dumas, 1976) had published two studies specifically focusing on CSs, providing the first definition of “communication strategy” and offering a taxonomy (Tarone, 1977) still seen as one of the most influential in the field. Dechert. Haastrup & Phillipson. 1990. Yule & Tarone. Weaver & Li. Harper. 1989.. Poulisse. 1983. and Poulisse (1993. 1995a. 1987. 1984. 1987. Bialystok & Kellerman.g. Wagner. Yarmohammadi & Seif. 1983c. 1984a. Canale and Swain (1980. Poulisse. Dörnyei & Thurrell. 1985. 1993. 1983. Kumaravadivelu. strategic competence. 1988. Bongaerts & Poulisse.g. 1983. 1987. 1987). 1995. 1988. Yule & Tarone. Raupach. 1994. in . 1994). First. Kellerman. Canale. 1991. 1992. 1994). 1987. 1987. Paribakht.. 1994. Tarone. 1983. 1992). 1984. 1986. 1990 was an important year in CS research because of two comprehensive monographs by Bialystok (1990) and Poulisse (1990) (for reviews.g. 1990. Færch and Kasper (1983a) published an edited volume. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. 1991. 47. Kellerman. which pulled together the most important published papers into one collection and also contained some important newly written studies (Bialystok. Bialystok. Willems. Bongaerts & Kellerman. 1989.176 Language Learning Vol. 1991) and several reviews (e. 1994. see Váradi. Dörnyei. Dörnyei & Scott. 1 The real “career” of CSs started in the early 1980s. 1985. 1987. Second. 1986. Kebir.. Work on the teachability issue also remained in the foreground of research interest (Cohen. The following five years brought further empirical and conceptual analyses (e. Bongaerts & Poulisse. Bongaerts. 1983) included them in their influential model of communicative competence as the primary constituents of one of the subcompetencies. 1992. and on their teachability (e. Ammerlaan. Chen. Rost. DeKeyser. The Netherlands became the dominant centre of CS studies as a group of researchers at Nijmegen University carried out a large-scale empirical project whose results both shed light on various aspects of CS use and challenged some aspects of the previous taxonomies (Bongaerts & Poulisse 1989. in Cook. Poulisse & Schils. 1987. Færch & Kasper. Poulisse. In the second half of the 1980s. These two publications were followed by increased research interest and a growing number of publications in the 1980s focussing primarily on identifying and classifying CSs. 1995. No. in Ellis. Kellerman & Bentlage. Scholfield. 1994. Kellerman. Clennell. Tarone & Yule. 1990). 1995b. 1983). Færch & Kasper. CSs constitute a subtype of L2 problem-management efforts. among others) and a book by Yule. (Færch & Kasper. with contributions from Duff. 1983b. requesting and providing clarification).Dörnyei and Scott 177 press) made a potentially important attempt to place strategic language behavior in a broader framework of speech production. Ross. in press. Wagner & Firth. dealing with language production problems that occur at the planning stage. 36) According to this conceptualization. meaningnegotiation and repair mechanisms (e. 195) CSs are potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal. p. in press. Different Approaches to Conceptualizing CSs The traditional view. Referential Communication Tasks (in press). Researchers originally saw CSs as verbal or nonverbal first-aid devices used to compensate for gaps in the speaker’s L2 proficiency. Indeed. in press. p. Advances in Communication Strategy Research (in press. Larsen- . in press. They are separate from other types of problem-solving devices. This view is reflected in Tarone’s (1977) and Færch and Kasper’s (1983b) definitions: Conscious communication strategies are used by an individual to overcome the crisis which occurs when language structures are inadequate to convey the individual’s thought. the research literature discussing the negotiation of meaning in L2 communication (for reviews: Gass & Selinker. 1977. 1994. Yule & Tarone. adapting Levelt’s (1989) general psycholinguistic model of speaking.. (Tarone. which involve the handling of problems that have already surfaced during the course of communication. Two more projects in the making are likely to become landmarks in CS research. in press-a. a volume edited by Kasper and Kellerman. as Yule and Tarone (1991) pointed out.g. discussing a number of research methodological issues. Poulisse. in press. Kellerman & Bialystok. Pica. Dörnyei’s extended view. 424). 1992. 1984a) or Tarone’s earlier (1977) one..g. This interactional perspective would allow for the inclusion of various repair mechanisms. 1983. 420). (p. Rubin.178 Language Learning Vol. 1983). Savignon. 1994. “CS are seen as tools used in a joint negotiation of meaning where both interlocutors are attempting to agree as to a communicative goal” (1980. 1994. 1995a. Psycholinguistics and. for a . This definition is potentially broader than Færch and Kasper’s (1983b. 1993. Tarone’s interactional perspective. 1991. Rost. p. Dörnyei & Scott.. the use of lexicalized pause-fillers and hesitation gambits) that help speakers gain time to think and keep the communication channel open are also problem-solving strategies—a point also mentioned by several other researchers (e. Dörnyei & Thurrell. 47. p. L2 research have extensively studied such stalling phenomena and the temporal organization of communication in general (e..g.g. No. 1995b. according to which CSs: relate to a mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared. 1987). 420). Váradi. The distinction between CSs and meaning-negotiation mechanisms was somewhat blurred by Tarone’s (1980) offering a third well-known conceptualization. stalling strategies (e. Even though Tarone herself never extended the scope of her CS taxonomy to include interactional trouble-shooting mechanisms. 1983. which Tarone considered CSs if their intention was “to clarify intended meaning rather than simply correct linguistic form” (1980. Savignon. Canale. Canale.. Rubin. other researchers did specifically list meaning-negotiation strategies among CSs (e. Willems. Rost. 1991. 1987.g. Rost & Ross. in Tarone’s words. 1 Freeman & Long. to a lesser extent. 1987. It introduced an interactional perspective. 1994) has been entirely independent of CS studies. 1983. Dörnyei (1995) suggested an extension of the definition of CSs arguing that because a primary source of L2 speakers’ communication problems is insufficient processing time. Bialystok (1990) defined this use of the term as “wilful planning to achieve explicit goals” (p.Dörnyei and Scott 179 review. 420). Thus. Færch and Kasper (1983c) considered pause fillers temporal variables rather than strategic devices. Canale’s extended concept. Although originally a military term. strategy in general use has come to refer to the implementation of a set of procedures for accomplishing something.g. the enhancement of communication effect is certainly such a goal. but these efforts have not been integrated into mainstream CS research. In an attempt to integrate several lines of previous research. 1991). and offering information” (Wiemann & Daly. Indeed. resolving social conflict. pause fillers would fall under production rather than communication strategies. 1). In Tarone’s (1980) framework. Dörnyei and Scott’s extended view. 1994.. 1983). where CS research has focused on ways of achieving “critical social goals such as gaining compliance. cf. . the difference being that production strategies “are not used for the primary purpose of negotiating meaning” (p. generating affinity. p. see Griffiths. Dörnyei and Scott (1995a. Savignon. This definition is broader than the restriction of CSs to problem-solving devices—therefore going beyond all the approaches discussed above—but the meaning potential of “strategies in communication” does not exclude such an extension. a communication strategy in the most general sense is a plan of action to accomplish a communication goal. He proposed that CSs involve any attempt to “enhance the effectiveness of communication (e. deliberately slow and soft speech for rhetorical effect)” (p. Canale (1983) offered the broadest extension of the concept of “communication strategy”. This conceptualization aimed at covering all the different types of communication problem-management mechanisms discussed in the L2 literature. 1995b) further extended the scope of CSs to include every potentially intentional attempt to cope with any language-related problem of which the speaker is aware during the course of communication. 11. Dörnyei and Scott explicitly conceived “communication strategies” to be the key units in a general description of problem-management in L2 communication. An example of the broader interpretation of “strategy” surfaces in L1 communication studies. and Poulisse). 158) Instead of conducting product-oriented research. for review: Daly & Wiemann. particularly Bialystok (1990) and the Nijmegen Group (i. methods to manage potentially difficult discourse situations (e. 1994). and focusing only on the surface verbalizations of underlying psychological processes. the proliferation of “different” product-oriented classifications in strategy research (see below) underscores Bialystok’s and the Nijmegen Group’s argument. Bongaerts. the systematic study of compensatory strategies has not been properly served by the construction of taxonomies of strategy types which are identified on the basis of variable and conflicting criteria which confound grammatical form. This inconsistency has led to a proliferation of strategy types with little regard for such desirable requirements as psychological plausibility. Kellerman. other researchers. took an entirely different approach. Yule and Tarone (in press) summarize the duality of approaches taken by researchers—the “Pros” following the traditional approach and the “Cons” taking a primarily psychological stance—as follows: .180 Language Learning Vol.e. However. 1 vii. or how to close a conversation) are also communication-enhancing strategies. therefore. incidental and inherent properties of referents. In Kellerman’s (1991) conclusion. how to interrupt someone. they argued that CSs are inherently mental procedures. The different conceptualizations described above share one thing: namely. Bialystok and the Nijmegen Group recommended CS research adopt a new analytic perspective. No. Similarly. CS research should investigate the cognitive processes underlying strategic language use. Indeed. how to hold the floor. Although their definition of CSs was similar to Færch and Kasper’s (1983b). (p. They claimed that not understanding the cognitive psychological and psycholinguistic dimensions of CS use. Psychological approaches to conceptualizing CSs... focusing on the cognitive “deep structure” of strategic language behavior. and encoding medium with putative cognitive processes.g. 47. parsimony and finiteness. would lead to taxonomies of doubtful validity. they follow a primarily linguistic approach to defining CSs. Poulisse’s speech-production model. essentially characterizing the means used to accomplish reference in terms of the observed form. A follow-up to Bialystok’s and the Nijmegen group’s approach to place CSs in a parsim o n i o u s c o g n i t i v e f r a m e w o r k w a s P o u l i s s e ’s ( 1 9 9 3 ) conceptualization of CSs within a coherent model of speech production.Dörnyei and Scott 181 The taxonomic approach of the Pros focuses on the descriptions of the language produced by L2 learners. with implicit references being made about the inherent similarity of linguistically different forms observed in the L2 output. which allowed more detailed psycholinguistic analysis of strategic language behavior than was possible before. It is primarily a description of observed forms in L2 output. Accordingly. 116). However. and their role in secondlanguage communication seems particularly salient” (p. However. 1995b) equated strategic lan- . with implicit inferences being made about the differences in the psychological processing that produced them. Dörnyei (1995) extended the scope of their definition to include devices that were not strictly meaningrelated. their existence is a reliably documented aspect of communication. Færch and Kasper (1983b) had also attempted this 10 years earlier. CS research is divided by the various theoretical perspectives adopted: Færch and Kasper (1983b) considered CSs verbal plans within a speech production framework. Dörnyei and Scott (1995a. Tarone (1980) viewed them from a discourse analytical perspective and pursued an interactional approach. It is primarily a description of cognitive processing. In fact. researchers have generally agreed with Bialystok’s (1990) statement that “communication strategies are an undeniable event of language use. Poulisse had access to Levelt’s (1989) model of speech production. The alternative approach of the Cons focuses on a description of the psychological processes used by L2 learners. Poulisse reconsidered some aspects of her earlier work as part of the Nijmegen Group and came up with a modified process-oriented cognitive taxonomy (see below). essentially characterizing the cognitive decisions humans make in order to accomplish reference. In sum. referring to “the idea that strategies are used only when a speaker perceives that there is a problem which may interrupt communication” (Bialystok. problemorientedness—or in Bialystok’s (1984. CSs were seen as language devices used to overcome communication problems related to interlanguage deficiencies. that is. and finally Poulisse (1993. This undoubtedly key feature of strategic language behavior is mentioned in most studies on CSs. Problem-orientedness As we have already discussed. However. Defining CSs A review of the CS literature reveals that two defining criteria are consistently mentioned. 47. Although they appear to capture the essence of strategic language behavior. an area where various approaches show considerable divergence.182 Language Learning Vol. problem-orientedness and consciousness. p. 1990) term. 3). in press-b) further developed the psycholinguistic perspective by integrating CSs in an adapted version of Levelt’s (1989) speech production framework. their lack of explicitness has partly caused the diversity in CS research. ‘problematicity’ —has become a primary defining criterion for CSs. 437). 1990. it leaves undefined the exact type of the problem. as Dörnyei and Scott (1995a. 1992. p. Canale (1983) proposed to include non-problem-solving strategies as well. To arrive at a better understanding of why CSs have elicited such diverse approaches. No. problem-orientedness in general is not specific enough. 1 guage use with communication problem-solving behavior in general. . Bialystok (1990) and the Nijmegen Group regarded CSs as primarily mental events and adopted a cognitivepsychological approach to their analysis. “the original insight into CSs was based on a mismatch between communicative intention and linguistic resources” (Váradi. Thus. 1995b) argued. we look closer at the defining criteria for “communication strategies” used in the published literature. Rubin. Canale. 1991. or because of a lack (or uncertainty) of understanding something fully. consciousness. Savignon. 1995. associated with strategies such as the use of fillers.g. associated with various types of self-repair. Haastrup & Phillipson. Tarone. Hence. Canale. Tarone & Yule. Dörnyei & Thurrell. 1990. and selfrepetitions (e. associated with various meaning negotiation strategies (e. 1994. Savignon. has been the second major defining crite- . several researchers extended the term to handle the following three types of communication problems as well: 1.g. 1983. Processing time pressure: the L2 speaker’s frequent need for more time to process and plan L2 speech than would be naturally available in fluent communication. 1987).” Consequently. 1972. 1983. 1991. Other-performance problems: something perceived as problematic in the interlocutor’s speech... Rost. 1983. Willems. 1995b. 1983. 1994. 1987. Rost. 1995a. Dörnyei. Consciousness A“strategy” being a conscious technique used to achieve a goal. 1995a. 1987). 1995a. therefore.e. Own-performance problems: the realization that something one has said is incorrect or only partly correct. self-rephrasing and self-editing mechanisms (e. resource deficits—gaps in speakers’ knowledge preventing them from verbalizing messages. Dörnyei & Thurrell. 1987).Dörnyei and Scott 183 Originally CSs were thought to handle only one type of language problem. Dörnyei & Scott. Savignon. Dörnyei & Scott. 1980. “communication strategy”).g. 1992. 3. Rubin. 1994. there developed a mismatch between the specificity of the speech phenomena to which CSs originally referred and the broadness of the term “communication strategy. 1994. 1987. Rost & Ross. was not reflected in the name given to these language devices (i. however. 1995b. either because it is thought to be incorrect (or highly unexpected). 2. hesitation devices. Tarone & Yule.. 1995b. Willems. 1987. 1992. This restriction to one set of problems. 1983. Dörnyei & Scott. 1983. Chen.. 1995b) argued that three aspects of consciousness are particularly relevant to CSs: . what was originally an intentional strategy may become in certain situations and/or with certain individuals a highly automatized or fossilized—hence not fully conscious—device. recommended that the term should be deconstructed into several aspects. the way a CS may achieve its effect. That is. He suggested four basic senses of consciousness: intentionality. which she defined as the “learner’s control over a repertoire of strategies so that particular ones may be selected from the range of options and deliberately applied to achieve certain effects” (p. In addition. as Gass and Selinker (1994) pointed out. “Consciousness” has. The main problem with using consciousness in this context. a central feature of language use is a tendency to automatize high-frequency elements.. No.e. the execution of the CS. when discussing consciousness in language attainment. is that to speak about CSs being “consciously used devices” mixes several meanings of the term. so many different connotations that one would best avoid it altogether. 35). 47. the intent/attempt to solve this problem. and control. the small set of strategies people use in the numerous problem-situations they encounter can become routinized. the use of a less-than-perfect “stopgap” device (i. Schmidt (1994). however. or the use of a CS when brought to the learner’s attention later. One can be conscious of a language problem. Bialystok (1990) also separated consciousness from intentionality. some strategies “are overlearned and seem to drop from consciousness” (p. 5). the CS). the alternative plan. attention. ix). reflecting the hierarchical organization of plans and the fact that in most cases a speaker consciously selects only certain elements in a plan. therefore. Dörnyei and Scott (1995a. In Wiemann and Daly’s (1994) words. A second problem with consciousness relates to Færch and Kasper’s (1983b) argument that “consciousness is perhaps more a matter of degree than either-or” (p. 1 rion for CSs. the repertoire of potentially applicable CSs. awareness. in fact. Drawing on the work of the researchers mentioned above.184 Language Learning Vol. Consciousness as awareness of strategic language use. “typer” used as an incorrectly learnt word or as a conscious attempt to form a noun from “type”. “umming and erring”.g. claimed that a fourth important aspect of consciousness. usually considered to be wordcoinage).Dörnyei and Scott 185 1. stopgap device or is doing a problem-related detour on the way to mutual understanding. should not necessarily be a defining criterion of CSs. . even if intentionally doing something to overcome a recognized problem. 2. with nonlexicalized filled pauses. for many L2 speakers ‘literal translation’ is a regular part of the L2 production process. Consciousness as intentionality. This separates CSs from cases when.g.) Dörnyei and Scott. (E. The speaker realizes that he/she is using a less-than-perfect. (E.. we would not count these as cases of CS use.) 3. who on similar grounds included the phrase “potentially conscious” in their definition of CSs. the speaker is usually aware of the difficulty faced. resulting in many good solutions. in fact. an automatized strategy can be considered a CS proper.. but uses these devices most of the time without a conscious decision. The speaker’s intentional use of the CS separates CSs from certain verbal behaviors that are systematically related to problems of which the speaker is aware but that are not done intentionally. however. This is. 1995). the speaker may not consider the final product a strategy but rather a piece of acceptable L2. analogous to the practice adopted by Færch and Kasper (1983b). Only those instances of problem-related language use which are related to language processing problems that the speaker consciously recognizes as such should be termed CSs in order to distinguish mistakes and CSs that may have a similar erroneous form (e.g.. consciousness as control. Consciousness as awareness of the problem. particularly because one purpose of CS training is to enhance automatization (Dörnyei. in contrast to devices applied to “repair the discourse when trouble occurs” (p. appears valid in that it maintains the basic criterion of problemorientedness. with the management of actual language-related problems in communication. 47. It is difficult to posit clear-cut criteria with respect to consciousness. Canale (1983). we believe that communication-enhancing strategies conceptualized thus broadly are not problem-solving devices proper and should be treated separately. 1 Conceptual Definition Researchers generally agree that the main purpose of CS use is to manage communication problems. However. Clearly. 132)1. 131). The vast majority of the CS literature is concerned only with the devices belonging to the second type. No. however. whether or not researchers have labelled devices not strictly related to resource deficits as “communication strategies” has been a matter of terminological decision. As pointed out earlier. in contrast. which concerned only one problem type (handling insufficient language resources). offering “spontaneous solutions to immediate. that is. particularly in light of the frequent and significant automatization of certain elements/ . because we lack a clear understanding of the role of consciousness within speech production. researchers primarily concerned with general problem-management in communication have used the term to cover the handling of a wider range of communication problems. With respect to problem-orientedness. the meaning potential of “strategy” allows such a broad interpretation. The only exception. it results in the term’s covering a more heterogeneous set of speech phenomena. very much depending on one’s priorities: Studies following the traditional conceptualization have limited “communication strategy” to a fairly homogeneous set of language phenomena related to speech production. the extension of the original conceptualization of CSs. Extending a distinction made by Long (1983): These strategies are used to avoid conversational trouble or failure in communication goal-attainment. extended the scope of CSs to include communicationenhancing devices.186 Language Learning Vol. short-term problems” (p. offered relatively elaborate and straightforward consciousness criteria. in some cases. and. Table 2 contains a summary of the 9 taxonomies from Table 1. On one end of the narrowbroad continuum are the typologies of the Nijmegen Group and Poulisse (1993). 1995b). Willems (1987). we have indicated in a special column whether a particular strategy was included in any of the other 8 taxonomies. and finally Dörnyei and Scott (1995a. Paribakht (1985). Bialystok (1990). 1987. because problem-orientedness in itself is an insufficient criterion of strategic language use. Dörnyei and Scott (1995a. 1991). Poulisse (1993). Table 1 contains an inventory of strategic language devices with descriptions/definitions. They argued that a problem-solving device is a strategy only if it is conscious in three aspects: consciousness as awareness of the problem. Bialystok (1983). Kellerman. The list is based on Dörnyei and Scott (1995a. by Tarone (1977). although sometimes under a different name. examples. consciousness as intentionality. Accordingly. 1995b). and consciousness as awareness of strategic language use. retrospective comments by the speaker. the list of strategies and their taxonomies in different studies on CSs vary significantly. Then we present nine different taxonomies of CSs. In this section we pull together all the main language devices mentioned in the literature under the label “communication strategy”. However. who explicitly restricted the scope of language . We have included explanatory notes about some of the less-known strategies. The first thing that becomes obvious when comparing the classifications is that they concern various ranges of language devices in different degrees of elaborateness. Inventory and Classifications of Communication Strategies The conceptual differences among CS researchers surface most explicitly when they specify the actual language devices they consider to be CSs. 1995b). the Nijmegen Group (based on Poulisse.Dörnyei and Scott 187 subprocesses in language processing. Færch and Kasper (1983b). one cannot altogether avoid taking certain aspects of consciousness into account in defining CSs. W. [laughter] Leaving a message unfinished because of some language difficulty. 1985. B and P: “semantic contiguity”.. 1987. and Indications Whether They Were Included in Any Other Taxonomies (T=Tarone. stuff. e. plate instead of “bowl” T. N: appr. pleasantly tired. F&K. which shares semantic features with the target word or structure. such as a superordinate or a related term. W Reducing the message by avoiding certain language structures or topics considered problematic languagewise “satisfied with a good job. who is responsible for a a house.g. Extending a general. Message replacement T. Using a single alternative lexical item. 1983. what-do-you-call-it. 6. P. “analytic strategies” Exemplifying. but instead I accepted less. 1983b. P=Paribakht. N: appr.” The overuse of thing. Message abandonment OTHER TAXONOMIES DESCRIPTION STRATEGY EXAMPLE Inventory of Strategic Language Devices with Descriptions/Definitions. N=Nijmegen Group) Table 1 . make.... thing. Examples (Based on Dörnyei & Scott. 3. “empty” lexical item to contexts where specific words are lacking.1995b). Circumlocution (paraphrase) 5. Approximation F&K. W=Willems. W. 4.” and so on. do.. Message reduction (topic avoidance) It is a person er.[Retrospective comment by the speaker:] I was looking for T. I had to say something. F&K=Færch & Kasper. as well as words like W: “smurfing” thingie. 1995a. for the block of house. Use of allpurpose words T. F&K.. 1. “holistic str.. W 2. W Substituting the original message with a new one because [Retrospective comment after saying that the pipe was of not feeling capable of executing it. I don’t know. B: “description”. F&K: “generalization”. illustrating or describing the properties of it becomes water instead of “melt” the target object or action. B=Bialystok. F&K.: I can’t can’t work until you repair my .. 1977. or by leaving out some intended elements for a lack of linguistic resources. broken in the middle instead of “the screw thread was broken”:] I didn’t know “screw thread” and well. 9. W. F&K.. W. an idiom. In an attempt to retrieve a lexical item saying a series of incomplete or wrong forms or structures before reaching the optimal form. Wordcoinage .. Omission1 15.. Retrieval Swallowing or muttering inaudibly a word (or part of a And uh well Mickey Mouse looks surprise or sort of XXX word) whose correct form the speaker is uncertain about.. 7. [Retrospective comment after using dejunktion and unjunktion for “street clearing”:] I think I approached it in a very scientific way: from ‘junk’ I formed a noun and I tried to add the negative prefix “de-”. leaving the utterance unfinished. 13. er. so he’s he’s he’s 8. P and B: “transliteration” F&K.. Including L1/L3 words with L1/L3 pronunciation in L2 speech. 11. N: under “transfer” Using the Latin ferrum for “iron”. and the Mickey as if it had been said. F&K: under “interlingual transfer”. Mumbling1 12.. Code switching (language switch) B. F&K: under “interlingual transfer”. hm sun is. with a L2 pronunciation) and/or morphology. [Retrospective comment explaining why the speaker used cap instead of “pan”:] Because it was similar to the word which I wanted to say: “pan”.. B. Foreignizing Using a L1/L3 word by adjusting it to L2 phonology (i. “morphological creativity” reparate for “repair” [adjusting the German word ‘reparieren’] Translating literally a lexical item.. B.. It’s brake er. Mouse. to “unjunk” is to ‘clear the junk’ and “unjunktion” is ‘street clearing’.. [the ‘sort of ’ marker indicates that the unintelligible part is not just a mere recording failure but a strategy].] 14. it’s broken broked broke. the sun is is. Literal translation (transfer) On Mickey’s face we can see the..e. language difficulties.. N: under “transfer” T.. a compound I’d made a big fault [translated from French] word or structure from L1/L3 to L2. and communicating the intended message according to an alternative plan. F&K T. W. Restructuring Abandoning the execution of a verbal plan because of wondering.. this may involve stretches of discourse ranging from single words to whole chunks and even complete turns. Leaving a gap when not knowing a word and carrying on then. [Retrospective comment: I didn’t know what ‘shine’ was... W. Use of Compensating for a lexical item whose form the speaker similaris unsure of with a word (either existing or non-existing) 1 sounding words which sounds more or less like the target item. N: appr. 10.Creating a non-existing L2 word by applying a supposed L2 rule to an existing L2 word. W: under “self-repair” T. F&K. N. Repeating a word or a string of words immediately after they were said. 1987. or accompanying [Retrospective comment:] I was miming here.. it’s a good question... maybe er. F&K.. [. to stall. taxonomy) goal than what is considered normal in similar L1 situations. 1977.Using more words to achieve a particular communicative (This CS was not included in Dörnyei & Scott’s . which was made” was said twice.1995b).. 21a. Describing whole concepts nonverbally. (Tarone & Yule.. 1995a. B. then the sun shines and the weather get be. B=Bialystok. in front of the house.. 1995b. Otherrepetition Interlocutor: And could you tell me the diameter of the pipe? The diameter. Examples range from very short structures such as well.. OTHER TAXONOMIES Making self-initiated corrections in one’s own speech. P=Paribakht. Repeating something the interlocutor said to gain time. N: under either a verbal strategy with a visual illustration. 1995a. but by adding something or using paraphrase. 1983b. you know.] Interlocutor: Oh. actually. five centimeters. Self-repair STRATEGY Inventory of Strategic Language Devices with Descriptions/Definitions. Selfrepetition5 21b. gets better.. 1987) (Tarone & Yule. Use of fillers4 Using gambits to fill pauses. I don’t know the material. actually. W=Willems. but not quite as it is. Examples (Based on Dörnyei & Scott. Selfrephrasing2 Speaker:. 1987) Repeating a term.. to put it out T. Overexplicitness (waffling)3 19.. W... 1983. W 17. Otherrepair DESCRIPTION 16a. 1985. Mime (nonlinguistic/ paralinguistic strategies) [Retrospective comment:] I wanted to say that it was made of concrete but I didn’t know ‘concrete’ and this is why “which was made. because our tip went wrong. and Indications Whether They Were Included in Any Other Taxonomies (T=Tarone. okay. 1987) (Tarone & Yule... you mean the tap. P. EXAMPLE 16b. tap. Correcting something in the interlocutor’s speech.. and to gain time in order to keep the communication channel open and maintain discourse at times of difficulty. well.. S: Tap. “holistic strategies” 18. F&K=Færch & Kasper. because I couldn’t remember the “analytic” or word. 20. N=Nijmegen Group) Table 1 (continued) . to longer phrases such as this is rather difficult to explain.what it’s made of. Speaker: The diameter? It’s about er.. ? What do you mean?. see also the example for message abandonment. such as You said. .?... it’s some kind of er. whereas guessing involves real indecision. F&K..... Do you mean. What’s the name? 24a. Direct appeal for help Requesting repetition when not hearing or understanding Pardon? What? something properly. I don’t really know what’s it called in English..?. It is then not the washing machine. that can be found in a clock that strikes out or [laughs] comes out when the clock strikes. Using verbal marking phrases before or after a strategy to signal that the word or structure does not carry the intended meaning perfectly in the L2 code.. You mean. but it’s not it’s not made of blocks. a smaller medium flat and in. I don’t know whether there’s a name in English or not [laughter] just it’s a panel flat. Asking for confirmation 28. two.. Asking for clarification 27. Guessing Repeating the trigger in a ‘question repeat’ or asking a full question. F&K.. Requesting explanation of an unfamiliar meaning structure. echoing a word or a structure with a question intonation. paper. 24b.Turning to the interlocutor for assistance by asking an it’s a kind of old clock so when it strucks er. Feigning Making an attempt to carry on the conversation in spite understanding6 of not understanding something by pretending to understand..’ that is. eye contact] Interlocutor: Do you have the rubber washer? Speaker: The rubber washer? . Trying to elicit help from the interlocutor indirectly by expressing lack of a needed L2 item either verbally or nonverbally. T. Indirect appeal for help W W T. (b) marking approximations: it’s some er. or three ‘clock then a bird is coming out.. and finally I managed to say I had no such thing. pause.. one..: (strategy markers in bold): (a) marking a circumlocution: On the next picture... [Retrospective comment: I didn’t know the meaning of the word. Requesting confirmation that one heard or understood something correctly. Asking for repetition 26.g.. Verbal strategy markers7 I don’t know the name... You saw what? Also ‘question repeats. it’s uh this kind of bird that.] 22... we call them blockhouse. (d) marking literal translation: it’s er. (e) marking code switching: the bird from the clocks come out and say “kakukk” or I don’t know what. 23. a panel [with an English accent].g.: Oh. W explicit question concerning a gap in one’s L2 knowledge... W E. [rising intonation. I don’t know. E. (c) marking foreignizing: ... Is it a sink? Guessing is similar to a confirmation request but the latter implies a greater degree of certainty regarding the key word. No I don’t.. 25. 1995a. W=Willems. the pipe? For the.. Yes.. Response: expand 33e. Expressing non-understanding STRATEGY W W OTHER TAXONOMIES Inventory of Strategic Language Devices with Descriptions/Definitions. Interlocutor: Get up? Where? S: Get down. 32. 1983b. Response: repeat 33b. Rephrasing the trigger.. P=Paribakht. basically. Speaker: Yes. S: I don’t know this thing. 1985... Comprehen.. it’s the thing which is in the pipe. Checking that what you said was correct by asking a concrete question or repeating a word with a question intonation. and you don’t know what to do with it. 29. Response: repair 33c. Interlocutor: And do you happen to know if you have the rubber washer? Speaker: Pardon? I: The rubber washer. 1977. EXAMPLE Repeating the original trigger or the suggested corrected See the example of other-repair. Speaker: The water was not able to get up and I. Providing other-initiated self-repair. 33a. you mean under the sink. F&K=Færch & Kasper. Confirming what the interlocutor has said or suggested. Putting the problem word/issue into a larger context. I: How wide is the pipe? Also. Own-accuracy check I can see a huge snow. Response: rephrase 33d. 1987. 1983. Examples (Based on Dörnyei & Scott. DESCRIPTION So the pipe is broken. form (after an other-repair). Do sion check you.Asking questions to check that the interlocutor can follow And what is the diameter of the pipe? The diameter. 31. puzzled facial expressions. this is er maybe you learnt mathematics and you sign er with th this part of things... B=Bialystok. you know what the diameter is? 30. Response: confirm Interlocutor: Uh.Expressing that one did not understand something properly either verbally or nonverbally. right? Interlocutor: What is the diameter of the pipe? Speaker: The diameter? I: The diameter. Interlocutor: Do you know maybe er what the diameter of the pipe is? Speaker: Pardon? I: Diameter. N=Nijmegen Group) Table 1 (continued) . and Indications Whether They Were Included in Any Other Taxonomies (T=Tarone. frowns and various types of mime and gestures. snowman? snowman in the garden.1995b). Interpretive Extended paraphrase of the interlocutor’s message to summary check that the speaker has understood correctly. hence. 5 Tarone and Yule (1987) pointed out that research has paid little attention to a very common interlanguage phenomenon. some of which are definitely not problem-oriented. 4 Fillers make up a broad category. 1995b) first discussed these three strategies. where the speaker often swallows the conjugation suffix about which he/she is uncertain. much as in a cloze or a C-test. which very aptly describes a core feature of fillers. On the other hand. 2 Tarone and Yule (1987) first identified this strategy. they suggested that it is caused by speakers’ insecurity about their L2 ability as well as by not having access to standardized routines or phrases. defining it as “excessive use of linguistic forms to fill a specific discourse ‘slot’ or ‘move’” (p. it is difficult to tell the strategic and non-strategic uses apart. 1995b) investigation. and (b) to provide the listener with another chance to hear and process the information. for example. that such strategies were still used points to their more general applicability. and provide smooth transformation in breakdowns. Interlocutor: Is it plastic? Speaker: No. As the retrospection extract demonstrates. Chen (1990) emphasized the “communication maintenance” function of repetition in Chinese students’ use of English: “Only one avoidance strategy was used by one low-proficiency learner. 174). they are stop-gap devices whose use is motivated by the assumption that the over-determined. cover for hesitations. however.Rejecting what the interlocutor has said or suggested without offering an alternative solution. 1981. including words and phrases used to fill pauses. Response: reject . fillers also fulfill a number of subtle discourse roles (see Edmondson & House. Dörnyei and Scott found few unambiguous examples of these strategies in their corpus but. the frequent repetitions of words or whole structures and clauses. In Dörnyei and Scott’s (1995a. the interviewer’s) L2 competence was superior to the speaker’s. these strategies are not merely instances of message reduction or abandonment. Færch & Kasper. 1984b). 3 Tarone and Yule (1987) first identified this strategy as a CS but Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1986) also discussed the language phenomenon. self-repetition is related to over-explicitness. stemming from speakers’ uncertainty about whether their L2 language use expresses their meaning closely enough. For this reason. mumbling is very common in languages with complex verb conjugation systems. redundant nature of language normally allows the listener to guess the incomplete or missing word from the context. They argue that repetitions are CSs used for two purposes: (a) to stall. They assumed that it was used with non-native listeners for whom the speaker wants to make the task easier. The learners would rather carry on the communication task by repeating what they had said than avoid the communication task” (p. 1 33f. 273). the listener’s (that is. Rohde (1985) talked about the function of such gambits as “safe islands” (pp. Edmondson and House (1991) call it “waffling”. 48–49) onto which the speaker can jump when experiencing problems. Dörnyei and Scott (1995a. gain time. g. Clark (1994) wrote about “editing terms” (e. 250). “kind of”. 249). P=Paribakht.g. 6 Table 1 (continued) Inventory of Strategic Language Devices with Descriptions/Definitions..e. one where the speaker signals to the interlocutor that a CS is coming “as if to enclose the borrowed item in inverted commas” (p.Wong-Fillmore (1979) and Aston (1986) highlighted feigning understanding as an important communication maintenance strategy that allows the speaker to remain in the conversation regardless of a lack of understanding of what the other said. p. and “like”) they use to indicate that they are being less accurate and to “prevent interpreting certain words or phrases too precisely. and Indications Whether They Were Included in Any Other Taxonomies (T=Tarone.” referring to any warning signals or “verbal inverted commas” whose function is to indicate to the interlocutor that a strategy is used (i. 1995b) conception of “strategy markers. and another that “does not prepare the microcontext into which the borrowed item will be introduced” (p. 1983. 1987. 91). W=Willems. that a word/phrase does not carry the intended meaning perfectly). 1983b. Harper (1985) distinguished two types.. eliciting attentive cooperation and thereby helping to achieve shared meaning and integration of the less-thanperfect interlanguage structure into the L2. 7 Discussing code switching.1995b). F&K=Færch & Kasper. N=Nijmegen Group) . B=Bialystok. This latter. broad conceptualization of “hedges” is analogous to Dörnyei and Scott’s (1995a. too literally” (p. “you know” and “I mean”. 1985. 91). and “hedges” (e. which speakers use to prepare the interlocutor for a repair. Similarly. 1977. Examples (Based on Dörnyei & Scott. 1995a.. “sort of”. (p. Tarone.e. 1987) recognize a basic duality in strategy use: strategies are used either (a) to tailor one’s message to one’s resources by altering. 1995b. reducing. which concerns L2 problem-management in general. 1983b. or completely abandoning the original content. 1985. Willems. see Kellerman. On the other end of the continuum is Dörnyei and Scott’s (1995a. 1995b) system. 1977. 1995a. Dörnyei and Scott (1995a.” preferred “message adjustment strategies. 61) Three of the 9 taxonomies (Færch & Kasper. If we ignore. Váradi (1973) and Færch and Kasper (1983b) termed strategies belonging to the first option “reduction strategies” and Tarone (1977) called them “avoidance strategies.” Corder (1981). the corresponding parts of 6 of the 9 taxonomies (by Bialystok. 1995b) also implicitly recognize the achievement-reduction dual- .. Dörnyei & Scott. then a core group of specific strategies that appear consistently across the taxonomies clearly emerges. 1983b. who pointed out that they could also be labelled “risk-avoidance strategies. Tarone. Færch & Kasper. Although the terminologies used and their levels of specificity vary a great deal. Paribakht.” Færch and Kasper (1983b) termed strategies belonging to the second option “achievement strategies”. 1987) show many similarities. for a rationale). or (b) to try and convey the intended message in spite of the linguistic deficiencies by extending or manipulating the available language system. differences in the structure of the taxonomies by abolishing the various overall categories. 1977. 1983.Dörnyei and Scott 195 phenomena examined to lexical-compensatory strategies (i. Corder (1981) called them “resource expansion strategies” and considered them “risk-taking strategies” because by using them the speaker ventures beyond “playing it safe” and takes a certain risk of not being able to convey the message. 1991. devices used to compensate for missing lexical items. and Willems. Bialystok (1990) expressed this basic convergence around similar concepts when she remarked that: the variety of taxonomies proposed in the literature differ primarily in terminology and overall categorizing principle rather than in the substance of the specific strategies. then. IL based strategies * Generalization * Paraphrase * Word coinage * Restructuring -Cooperative strategies -Non-linguistic strategies Retrieval strategies Bialystok (1983) L1-BASED STRATEGIES Language switch Foreignizing Tr ansliteration L2-BASED STRATEGIES Semantic contiguity Description Word coinage NONLINGUISTIC STRATEGIES Paribakht (1985) Willems (1987) LINGUISTIC APPROACH Semantic contiguity -Superordinate -Comparison * Positive comparison Analogy Syno nymy * Negative comparison Contrast & opposit.Self-repair of L1 idioms -Appeals for and proverbs assistance Idiomatic * Explicit transfer * Implicit CONCEPTUAL * Checking APPROACH questions Demonstration -Initiating repair Exemplification Metonymy MIME Replacing verbal output Accompanying verbal output . No.196 Language Learning Vol.Paraphrase * Description CONTEXTUAL * CircumAPPROACH locution Linguistic context * ExemplifiUse of L2 idioms cation and proverbs . CONSCIOUS Reduction of TRANSFER propositional Literal content translation Language switch -Topic avoidance -Message abandonment APPEAL FOR -Meaning ASSISTANCE replacement MIME ACHIEVEMENT STRATEGIES Compensatory strategies -Code switching -Interlingual transfer -Inter-/ intralingual transfer .Other features -Functional description Metalinguistic clues REDUCTION STRATEGIES Formal reduction -Phonological -Morphological -Syntactic -Lexical Functional reduction -Message abandonment -Meaning replacement -Topic avoidance ACHIEVEMENT STRATEGIES Paralinguistic strategies Interlingual strategies -Borrowing/code switching -Literal translation -Foreignizing Intralingual strategies -Approximation -Word coinage .Constituent features * Features * Elaborated features -Locational property -Historical property . 1 Table 2 Various Taxonomies of Communication Strategies Tarone (1977) AVOIDANCE Topic avoidance Message abandonment PARAPHRASE Approximation Word coinage Circumlocution Færch & Kasper (1983b) FORMAL REDUCTION Phonological Morphological Syntactic Lexical FUNCTIONAL REDUCTION Actional red. Modal red. 47. Antonymy Circumlocution -Physical description * Size * Shape * Color * Material .Smurfing Transliteration . 1995b) SUBSTITUTION DIRECT STRATEGIES Resource deficit-related strategies STRATEGIES * Message abandonment SUBSTITUTION * Message reduction * Message replacement PLUS * Circumlocution STRATEGIES * Approximation * Use of all-purpose words RECONCEPTU* Word-coinage ALIZATION * Restructuring STRATEGIES * Literal translation * Foreignizing * Code switching * Use of similar sounding words * Mumbling * Omission * Retrieval * Mime Own-performance problem-related strategies * Self-rephrasing * Self-repair Other-performance problem-related strategies * Other-repair INTERACTIONAL STRATEGIES Resource deficit-related strategies * Appeals for help Own-performance problem-related strategies * Comprehension check * Own-accuracy check Other-performance problem-related strategies * Asking for repetition * Asking for clarification * Asking for confirmation * Guessing * Expressing nonunderstanding * Interpretive summary * Responses INDIRECT STRATEGIES Processing time pressure-related strategies * Use of fillers * Repetitions Own-performance problem-related strategies * Verbal strategy markers Other-performance problem-related strategies * Feigning understanding .Dörnyei and Scott 197 Table 2 (continued) Various Taxonomies of Communication Strategies Bialystok (1990) ANALYSISBASED STRATEGIES CONTROLBASED STRATEGIES Nijmegen Group CONCEPTUAL STRATEGIES Analytic Holistic LINGUISTIC/ CODE STRATEGIES Morphological creativity Tran sfer Poulisse (1993) Dörnyei & Scott (1995a. that is. Although indirect strategies are not meaning-related. manageable. In their extended taxonomy of problem-solving strategies. they play a significant role in problemmanagement and therefore—if the term “communication strategy” is used in an extended sense—are a valid subcategory of CSs. They separated 3 basic categories. how CSs contribute to resolving conflicts and achieving mutual understanding. 1990. They do not provide alternative meaning structures. 1989) primarily rest on certain properties of the language devices concerned (e. Direct strategies provide an alternative. 1993) follow different organization principles. Paribakht. see below for more details). the Nijmegen Group. using fillers or feigning understanding) or indicating less-thanperfect forms that require extra effort to understand (using strategy markers or hedges). claiming that they “artificially carve up what are in fact unitary operations” (Kellerman & Bialystok. 1995a. are not strictly problem-solving devices. on the other hand. and Willems. Færch & Kasper. Bialystok and the Nijmegen Group considered the kind of descriptive categories found in these taxonomies psychologically unfounded and often over-detailed. and interactional strategies. Poulisse. Dörnyei & Scott. 47. Most traditionally identified CSs fall under this category.g.. Dörnyei and Scott (1995a. the role of the L1 or the type of knowledge utilized in CS realization). Four taxonomies (Bialystok. No. like circumlocution compensating for the lack of a word.g. direct. whereas the rest of the taxonomies cover only achievement strategies. 1985. the organizing principles in 5 taxonomies (Bialystok.198 Language Learning Vol. 1 ity. 1983. 1983b. which will be discussed below. Indirect strategies. Dörnyei and Scott’s taxonomy. 1977. in press. Apart from the reduction-achievement distinction. . and self-contained means of getting the (sometimes modified) meaning across. indirect. Tarone. 1995b. 1995b) first classified the strategies according to the manner of problemmanagement. but rather facilitate the conveyance of meaning indirectly by creating the conditions for achieving mutual understanding: preventing breakdowns and keeping the communication channel open (e.. (b) generalizability— independence of variation across speakers. . . otherperformance problems).. 135). Instead of the existing product-oriented taxonomies. 1990) include indirect learning strategies. processbased taxonomy of CSs that met three basic requirements: (a) parsimony—the fewer categories the better. or request for and provide clarification). their aim was to produce a context-free. some language-learning strategy classifications (e. so that studies which adopt them cannot provide much insight into the cognitive processes underlying CS use. (There are no direct and interactional processing time pressure-related strategies. that “they are insufficiently related to theories of language use or development. whereby the participants carry out trouble-shooting exchanges cooperatively (e. Interactional strategies involve a third approach. tasks. cognition and problem-solving behaviour” (Kellerman & Bialystok. and interactional) to the 4 types of communication problems already discussed (resource deficit. relate the 3 main categories (direct. we must note that including indirect strategies is an equivocal. Oxford. There are so many different CS types that generalizations are easily missed” (p. 1987)—main problem with previous taxonomies was. and (c) psychological plausibility (most important)—a taxonomy should be “informed by what is currently known about language processing. nor indirect resource deficit-related strategies. . then. . languages. Dörnyei and Scott (1995a.g. own-performance problems. resulting in a 3–by–4 matrix not every cell of which is filled. However. 620).g. and therefore mutual understanding is a function of the successful execution of both pair parts of the exchange. Bialystok’s (Bialystok & Kellerman. indirect. and proficiency levels. The Nijmegen Group’s— and similarly. according to Poulisse (1994). whose function is to “manage and support learning without (in many instances) directly involving the target language” (p. and contested judgment. processing time pressure.. in press). appeal for and grant help.Dörnyei and Scott 199 Similarly. 1995b).) The Nijmegen Group’s taxonomy. Conceptual strategies have 2 types: analytic (spelling out characteristic features of the concept) and holistic (using a substitute referent which shares characteristics with the target item). Bialystok’s (1990) intent to develop a psychologically plausible system of CSs was similar to that of the Nijmegen Group and her categories are not unlike theirs. providing some distinctive information about it. Bialystok conceptualized two main classes of CSs. that is. In accordance with her cognitive theory of language processing. Linguistic strategies involve manipulating the speaker’s linguistic knowledge through either morphological creativity or transfer. Kellerman (1991) relabelled linguistic strategies as “code strategies” so as to extend the category’s scope to include nonverbal strategies. “conceptual” and “linguistic” strategies. The latter involve “choosing a representational system that is possible to convey and that makes explicit information relevant to the identity of the intended concept” (p. speakers “manipulate the concept so that it becomes expressible through their available linguistic (or mimetic) resources” (Kellerman 1991. p. “analysis-based” and “control-based” strategies. No. Using the former.200 Language Learning Vol. circumlocution. and grammatical word coinage. 1 In an attempt to place CSs in a parsimonious cognitive framework. Bialystok’s taxonomy. and semantic word coinage. linguistic/code strategies include literal translation. code-switching. . by resorting to L1 or using mime. 134). to manipulate the intended concept on the basis of its analyzed knowledge—for example. 47. the Nijmegen Group divided compensatory strategies only into 2 principal categories. 133). holding the original content constant and manipulating the means of reference used to express the concept—for example. that is. Kellerman and Bialystok (in press) suggest that a better term for morphological creativity is “grammatical derivation. foreignizing. 149). such as a definition. The former involve attempts “to convey the structure of the intended concept by making explicit the relational defining features” (p.” Conceptual strategies include traditional categories like approximation. Dörnyei and Scott 201 Kellerman and Bialystok (in press) have made an important attempt to synthesize the Nijmegen taxonomy with Bialystok’s (1990) framework by positing a 2–by–2 matrix in which conceptual and linguistic knowledge representations (meaning and form) intersect with language processing operations (analysis and control). modified taxonomy of compensatory strategies consists of 3 major strategy types: (a) substitution strategies—omitting or changing one or more features of a lexical chunk . It is this disruption of the usual balance of processing. Although the matrix suggests that analysis and control are exclusive categories. although with varying significance. Although the Nijmegen Group’s taxonomy was psychologically plausible—it followed the distinction between conceptual and linguistic knowledge representations in long-term memory and was also compatible with Bialystok’s (1990) 2-component model of language processing—Poulisse (1993) argued that it did not sufficiently take into account the processes involved in speech production as outlined by the L2 adaptation of Levelt’s (1989) well-known model of L1 processing. from a process-oriented perspective. a disruption that may or may not be deliberately induced by the speaker. that makes this kind of communication strategy. holistic conceptual strategies and transfer strategies are largely similar: “Psychologically. the psycholinguistic processes underlying conceptual and linguistic/code strategies are no different viewed from Levelt’s speech-production perspective. Poulisse’s new. thus forming a continuum. in press-b). therefore the categories proposed by the Nijmegen Group need revision. then. Thus. For example. called upon when: the usual balance between analysis and control is disturbed (typically through inaccessibility of linguistic knowledge) so that one of the dimensions gains prominence. the authors emphasize that these 2 cognitive functions occur simultaneously in language processing. CSs are. Poulisse’s taxonomy. there is little or no difference between a substitution by a related L2 word and a substitution by the equivalent L1 word” (Poulisse. Summary and Implications Language problems and difficulties are a salient part of communication in a L2 and problem-management occurs at several levels.g. beds... in cases of definition-like structures (e. 47. Kellerman and Bialystok (in press) raised several issues concerning Poulisse’s (1993) tripartite model.202 Language Learning Vol. foreignizing)..” seen as the language devices used to handle communication problems. p.. traditional approximation or code switching). It is also understandable that the approaches to understanding CSs have varied according to the researchers’ general orientations towards language analysis. chairs and cupboards for FURNITURE”). 1 in search of a new lexical item (the L1/L2 specification being treated as one of the features).g. provide a fascinating insight into cutting-edge developments in CS research using a psychological approach. . Kellerman and Bialystok’s critical analysis. “stuff to kill flies”) and strategy tokens that exemplify superordinate categories by lists of category members (e. and (c) reconceptualization strategies—a change in the preverbal message involving more than one chunk (e.g. No wonder “communication strategies. “tables. 180.g. have been the target of much research during the past two decades. whereas the Nijmegen Group’s two-way classification scheme is immune to the list/single exemplar problem. 1993. (e. e. arguing that it “does not seem to be able to draw a clear distinction between Substitution and Reconceptualization strategies”: for example. circumlocution). together with Poulisse’s (in press-b) response.g. They contend that the ambiguous status of the fairly common phenomenon of exemplification definitely challenges Poulisse’s typology. This diversity is reflected in the various definitions and taxonomies of CSs discussed here. (b) substitution-plus strategies—substitution strategies accompanied by the “out-of-the-ordinary application of L1 or L2 morphological and/or phonological encoding procedures” (Poulisse.. No. by relating interlanguage analysis to psycholinguistic investigations of speech production. yet L2 courses do not generally prepare students to cope with performance problems. Revised version accepted 11 October 1996 Note 1 Even though Long (1983) called these discourse modification patterns “tactics” rather than “strategies.) Another is to focus on non-lexical CSs as well. in press. At present.” their definition appears to fit traditionally conceptualized “communication strategies”. (Kellerman & Bialystok. Second. particularly on strategies related to grammatical problems. excluding all other areas of strategy use. at the moment both models are restricted to lexical-compensatory strategies only. the study of CSs help refine scientific models of L2 learning and use. L2 speakers spend a lot of time and effort struggling with language difficulties. in that CSs are immediate verbal “first aid” devices. attempted to relate strategy use to current models of language processing and speech production. the main concern of several leading researchers is to establish a process-oriented framework of strategic language behavior with psycholinguistically valid process categories. First. CS research has made a lot of progress during the last two decades and has remained a potentially fertile source of insight for two reasons. Two particularly notable approaches. have already begun by attempting to fit “reduction strategies” and “appeals for help” into the Nijmegen scheme. One important direction for future research is to extend the psycholinguistic approach to cover other types of strategies. the Nijmegen Group’s and Poulisse’s (1993). The initial priority—identifying and classifying CSs—has gradually given way to the analysis of the mental processes underlying CS use. However. it is a truly “applied” area: The practical implications of understanding problem-management in L2 communication are enormous.Dörnyei and Scott 203 Looking at the development of CS research makes a general pattern evident. After all. In sum. . S.). J. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davies. TESOL Journal. 128-143. S. Communication strategies in L1 and L2: Same or different? Applied Linguistics.. M. A. Bialystok. Bialystok. (1990). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Clark. Speech Communications. E. Communication strategies. 9. Cook. Clennell. 4. R. Strategies in interlanguage learning and performance. Perspectives and proficiency in L2 referential communication. & T. Martin’s Press. C. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.. E. & Swain. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.). C. Canale. Applied Linguistics. Kasper (Eds. H. G. Q. 1. Language Learning. . 15. The impact of strategies-based instruction on speaking a foreign language (Research report). 243-250. D. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. Criper & A. Bialystok. 100-118). 7. Cohen.). (1987). New York: St. National Language Resource Center. C. MN: University of Minnesota. (1994). Corder. Interlanguage (pp. S. Language strategies in the classroom. P.204 Language Learning Vol. & Olshtain.). UK: Longman. (1990). K. Bialystok. Kellerman. 32-35. No. (1989). 160-175). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied Linguistics. W. 2-27). 10. N. A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese EFL learners. (1981). (1986). E. In A. Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. E. Communication and learning in the classroom community (pp. Bongaerts. 1-47. Language and communication (pp. Weaver. UK: Longman.. H. Oxford: Blackwell. Investigating the use of communication strategies by adult second language learners: A case for trusting your own judgement in classroom research. M. Harlow. E. Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication strategies. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. A. 8. Linguistics and second language acquisition.. 37-48). (1987). 155-187. (1994). (1984). E... Error analysis and interlanguage. 40. 171-200.. Chen. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 1 References Aston. Harlow. 47. (1993). In B. & Bentlage. Howatt (Eds. S. V. (1983).. Managing problems in speaking. & Kellerman. 165180. 253-268. (1986). In C. Das (Ed. T. Schmidt (Eds. E. (1983). P. M. Richards & R. Blum-Kulka. (1980). T. Minneapolis. Canale. In J. & Poulisse. Li (1995). Færch & G. Bongaerts. Y. & Wiemann. Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Færch (pp. Communicative processes and strategies. Færch & G. & Thurrell. G. J. Edmondson. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Z. Kasper (Eds. R. (Eds. UK: Longman. Kellerman. Edmondson. W. & House. 45. M. (1983). Selinker. Swain (Eds. On the teachability of communication strategies. L. Z. P. (in press). 9. Hillsdale. (1983b). L. The study of second language acquisition. & Kasper. Lusby (Eds. Kellerman (Eds. Kasper & E. Duff. Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg. (1983a). R. Ellis. (1992). Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp.). & M. Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. Dörnyei. Turley & K. Dörnyei. (1994). Sharwood Smith. S. 48. & Thurrell. Dörnyei.. C. Færch. (1995b). .. & Thurrell. Conversation & dialogues in action. M. C.Dörnyei and Scott 205 Daly. J. ELT Journal. (1991). In. Strategic competence and how to teach it. (1995).. March).. Communication strategies: What are they and what are they not? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL). (1995a. Dörnyei. Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.). A. (1988). The lexical generation gap: A connectionist account of circumlocution in Chinese as a second language. Dörnyei. M. UK: Prentice Hall. Selected papers from the proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium of the Deseret Language and Linguistics Society (pp. Harlow: Longman. Teaching conversational skills intensively: Course content and rationale. Advances in communication strategy research. L. 20-60). J.. Strategic interpersonal communication. UK: Longman.. 108-121. Plans and strategies in foreign language communication. (1991). In R. Z. London: Longman. Z. Harlow. & Scott. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Z. 29. CA. Provo. W. ELT Journal. (1994).. UT: Brigham Young University. Harlow. Hemel Hempstead. Dörnyei. Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon in interlanguage pragmatics. J. H. Let’s talk and talk about it: A pedagogic interactional grammar of English. Z.).. Communication strategies: An empirical analysis with retrospection. Strategies in interlanguage communication. In C. 273-287).155-168).). Færch.).). E. (1994). 40–49. S.. S. In C.. M. J. & Scott. Dechert. Phillipson. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Færch & G. 16-23. How a story is done in a second language. DeKeyser. S. Kasper (Eds. & Kasper. Long Beach. & House. In G. (1981). 55-85. M. 175–195). TESOL Quarterly. G. E. Swain (Eds..). “Miscommunication” and problematic talk (pp. In J. H. & Kasper.. Kasper (Eds. Gass. Fisiak (Ed. & Poulisse.). 140-158). Language Learning. 179-193). T.. R. Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. In C. UK: Multilingual Matters.. Compensatory strategies in second language research: A critique. E... Harlow. K. Wiemann (Eds. In: G. How to do a lot with little: Learner strategies of communication in verbal interaction. Miscommunication in nonnative discourse. Phillipson. M. CA: Sage. E. Kasper (Ed. M.. & Kasper. Coupland. Kasper (Eds. Newbury Park. (1984a). Harper. Second language acquisition: An introductory course. and some (non-)implications for the classroom. & Kasper. N. C. C. Clevedon. S. Krashen (Eds.). Strategic competence in foreign language teaching. (1991). 34.). G. 142-161). Bongaerts. E. Two ways of defining communication strategies. Ja und? . (1991). Scarcella.og hva’ så?: A contrastive discourse analysis of gambits in German and Danish. Achievement strategies in learner/native speaker interaction. 4. 100–112). 69-105).. NJ: Prentice Hall. C. Sharwood Smith. Kellerman. & Phillipson. Færch. C. UK: Longman. Kellerman. & Kasper. TESOL Journal. Kebir. Harlow: Longman. 28-31. Kasper. An action research look at the communication strategies of adult learners. & Varonis. 163-178).. Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. G.). New York: Newbury House. (1985). T. (1986). In R. (1994). Færch & G. 45-63. S. Ammerlaan. T. (1991). Færch & G. In N.). G. Advances in communication strategy research. Applied Linguistics. Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. (1983c). L. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Contrastive linguistics: Prospects and problems (pp.206 Language Learning Vol. L. Griffiths. 73-74-75. H. No. N. (1990). E. (Eds.). S. G. Berlin: Mouton.. C. Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Færch (pp. In R. 345-364. Strategy and system in L2 referential communication. Learning. 8194. & Kellerman. Revue de Phonetique Appliquee. a revision. 47. R. (1984b). E. Færch. D.. & Poulisse. & Selinker.). Færch. Ellis (Ed. System and hierarchy in L2 compensatory strategies. C. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press... Second language acquisition in context (pp.). Bongaerts. M. E. Selinker. . Englewood Cliffs. M. In C. (1994). 12. Hillsdale. In: R. Gass. & M. (1987). Giles. Andersen & S. & J. (1983). On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage production. London: Longman. Pausological research in an L2 context: A rationale. Kellerman. 210-238). M. and review of selected studies. G. teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom (pp. 121-145). Kellerman. Haastrup. 1 Færch. (in press). Poulisse. N. Færch. Kasper (Eds.. H. 4. Poulisse. E. (1989).). Paribakht.Dörnyei and Scott 207 Kellerman. Cambridge. Pica. The bilingual lexicon (157-189). Kasper & E. Poulisse. London: Longman. D. Kumaravadivelu. In C. 3. Compensatory strategies and the principles of clarity and economy. (1987). T. B. New York: Longman. N. In G. N. N. Poulisse. 132-146. Long. Poulisse. New York: Newbury House. The influence of task-and proficiencyrelated factors on the use of communication strategies: A quantitative analysis. Advances in communication strategy research. E. 141-153. E. Oxford: Pergamon Press. N. Weltens (Eds. (1990). M. T. T. 44. Kellerman (Eds.). Oxford. Levelt. & Bialystok. Problems and solutions in the classification of compensatory strategies. In R. (1994). 39. 126-141. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. London: Longman. Applied Linguistics. & Schils. TESL Canada Journal. The use of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis of compensatory strategies. (1989). Dordrecht: Foris. 620-624). IRAL. and outcomes? Language Learning. Bongaerts. R. 309-319. . (1988). 2. W. (1983).. UK: Multilingual Matters. Language Learning. (1986). & Kellerman. Second Language Research. Paribakht. In G. A theoretical account of lexical communication strategies. In A. MA: MIT Press. processes. Manchon (Eds. Larsen-Freeman. Schreuder & B. 36. (in press-a). J.). (1993). Bruton & R. N. An introduction to second language acquisition research. H. Kellerman (Eds. (1991). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. In The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. Speaking: From intention to articulation. 53-66. Communication strategies in a second language. pp. E. (1987). Kasper & E. Poulisse. Advances in communication strategy research.). (1985). (1994). N. On psychological plausibility in the study of communication strategies. 493-527. 15–48. 6. research on negotiation: What does it reveal about secondlanguage learning conditions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poulisse. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. M. 3. (1990). (in press-b). Introspection in second language research (pp. (in press). Strategic competence and language proficiency. On the pedagogical relevance of strategic competence. & Long. 213–229). Poulisse... Communication strategies and psychological processes underlying lexical simplification.). Applied Linguistics. L. M. Clevedon. & G. T. N. Theories of communication strategy use: Some recent proposals. Rost. J. Yorio & R. Rubin. (1983). 8. Working Papers on Bilingualism. Kasper & E. (1980). S.. E. MA: Addison-Wesley. Communicative competence: An experiment in foreignlanguage teaching. Scholfield.).. Washington: TESOL. Reading. Communication strategies in East-West interactions. H. E. Færch & G. 43–69). (1984). Brown. R. Harlow: Longman. A closer look at some interlanguage terminology: A framework for communication strategies. L. 76–90. Wenden & J. 1 Raupach. Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. In E. L. Baltimore. Savignon. D. (1983). 49–65). (1976). No. . E. M.. 219–232. In: S. Interlanguage. C. J. (1991). Crymes (Eds. S. Schmidt. (1972).). March). 41. Tarone. IRAL. 417–431. Holmen (Eds. Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. (1987). Hulstijn & R.). E. & Yule. 127–136). (1994). S.. Hemel Hempstead. Tarone. Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. Rohde. Initiatives in communicative language teaching (pp. (1972). J. Communication strategies: The researcher outmanoeuvred? Applied Linguistics. Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world Englishes (pp. Analysis and evaluation of communication strategies. A. In L. Ross. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Press. P. Smith (Ed. (1985). AILA Review. In C. Kasper (Eds. 11. A. 194–203). E. 47. Berns (Eds. 199–209). MA: Addison-Wesley. Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions. In J. (in press). & Dumas. S. Cohen. Glahn & A. foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage. UK: Prentice Hall. In G. 209–230. Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report. 15–30). (1987). Schmidt (Eds. Hemel Hempstead. M. Selinker. Advances in communication strategy research. Savignon & M. 9. On TESOL ‘77 (pp. Tarone. S. Tarone. (1987). Kellerman (Eds. Tarone. In A. 10. Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology and teachability. Savignon. Rost. UK: Prentice Hall. Learner strategies in language learning (pp. (1977).). 30. Teaching strategic competence in the foreign-language classroom. Learner discourse (pp. J. London: Longman. M. Communication strategies: Are they teachable? Paper presented at TESOL ‘94. E. Language Learning. Philadelphia: The Center for Curriculum Development.208 Language Learning Vol. D. G. (1994. Consciousness in second language learning [Special issue]. G. Compensatory fluency: A study of spoken English produced by four Danish learners. MD. 11–26. C. Reading. Communication strategies. research history and typology.).).).). 235–273. & Ross. Language Learning. Rubin (Eds. A retrospective approach to understanding inference in a second language listening task. In H. Hillsdale. Bialystok and The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English by N.). In J. Eliciting the performance of strategic competence. Strategies of target language learner communication: Message adjustment. 223–232. & M. & Daly. (1979).). (1983). A. In G. 13. 117–128). Kövecses (Ed. Kellerman (Eds. (1990). & S. Individual differences in second language acquisition. In: R. J. Yule. G. Rumania. Váradi. 179–194). Communication strategies and their significance in foreign language teaching. IRAL. G. & E. 59–71. (1987). 1973. Váradi. & Seif.. (1989). Wong-Fillmore. T. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Referential communication tasks. Timisoara. E. Yule. L. & Tarone. vii-xiv). & Yule. Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. T. Wiemann (Eds. In C. In Z. S. New York: Academic Press. Yarmohammadi. & W.Dörnyei and Scott 209 Tarone E. (1992). Færch & G. S-Y. (1994). frequency and underlying processes. E. E. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 18. Wiemann. 30. G. Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative . In R. Fillmore. G. Wagner. 159–174). New York: Newbury House. E. (in press). L. Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. Voices of friendship: Linguistic essays in honor of László T. M. & Tarone.. M. Yule. Willems. Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. by E. Scarcella. A.). Wang (Eds. Kempler. Dann du tagen eineeeee . Poulisse. Paper originally presented at the VIth Conference of the Rumanian-English Linguistics Project. Andersen.weisse Platte: An analysis of interlanguage communication in instructions. (1993). Kasper (Eds. Krashen (Eds. 351–364. Harlow: Longman. (1980). (in press). Kasper & E. Kellerman. IRAL.). Applied Linguistics. Bongaerts. András (pp. Váradi. Swain (Eds. S. T. The other side of the page: Integrating the study of communication strategies and negotiated input in SLA. resources. 434–440. J. D. Hillsdale. London: Longman. Introduction: Getting your own way. L. Wagner. J. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd University. 203–228). In C. G. Sharwood Smith. C. System.).. Selinker. More on communication strategies: Classification. D. 15.).). Disfluency phenomena in L2 speech.. A. Phillipson. Advances in communication strategy research. & Firth.. Kellerman.. J. Focus on the language learner. Review of the books Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use. J. M. (1992). T. (1991). Communication strategies at work. Individual differences in language ability and language behavior (pp. Daly & J. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Advances in communication strategy research. In G. No. Clevedon. Yule. E.). 162–171). Investigating L2 reference: Pros and cons.. & Tarone. (in press). London: Longman. Kellerman (Eds. 47. 1 volume for Claus Færch (pp. . UK: Multilingual Matters.210 Language Learning Vol. Kasper & E. G.