论文部分内容阅读
Abstract： With the economic and political development， foreign language education especially the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language （EFL） has been given ever—increasing importance since the late 1970s. But the over—emphasis of linguistic competence through exams has been proved not to satisfy the communicative needs， so how to develop the Chinese students’ communicative competence through proper instruction is one of the key concerns in current English teaching. As one component of communicative competence， communication strategies are particularly crucial to foreign language learners.
Key words： communicative competence， communication strategies， oral communication
1. Main Studies of CSs Abroad
The notion CS （communication strategy） was initially proposed by Selinker （1972） in his article interlanguage， in which CS was described as one of the five central processes involved in L2 learning： language transfer， overgeneralization of target language， transfer of training， strategies of second language learning， strategies of second language communication. As one source of errors made by EFL or ESL learners， CS consists of strategies of dealing with the problems of communication arisen in interaction. CS is employed to meet the communicative needs and based on the features of learners’ language （interlanguage）. Since then， there has been a steady increase of interest in the learners’ communication strategies. Researches on CS answer the question of how to use the language in real communication. And speakers use the communication strategy in oral English production to achieve mutual understanding or solve problems of communication. CS is of great significance in the development of L2 learners’ language （interlanguage）， while applied linguists and researchers have defined CS in different ways.
1.1 Definitions of CSs
In 1973， Varadi analyzed language learners’ strategic behavior in an academic seminar in Europe and began to research into L2 learners’ employment of CSs. Tarone， Cohen and Dumas （1976） assume that certain interlanguage strategies are not only associated with language production but also applicable to comprehension of language. They define CS as “a systematic attempt by the learner to express or decode meaning in the target language， in situations where the appropriate systematic target language rules have not been formed”. They also consider the possible factors that might make an impact on the choice of CSs， concerning learners’ personality， language proficiency level and so on and so forth. Many researches on CSs seem limited only in foreign or second language context， which can be seen from the definition given by Stem （1983） that CSs are techniques of coping with difficulties in communicating in an imperfectly known second language.
The representative and influential achievement in 1980s refers to a framework of communicative competence advanced by Canale and Swain （1980）， which is composed of the following components： grammatical competence， discourse competence， sociolinguistic competence， and strategic competence. Canale and Swain define strategic competence as ‘how to cope in an authentic communicative situation and how to keep the communicative channel open’ （1980： 25）.
And later in 1981， Tarone defines CS as “a mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared”. As claimed by Tarone， in the interactional perspective， CSs are seen as attempts to bridge the gap between the linguistic knowledge of the L2 learner and the linguistic knowledge of the learner’s interlocutor in real communication situations.
Corder （1978） points out that how people communicate in L2 depends on the speakers’ knowledge of L2 and the speakers’ assessment of their interlocutors’ L2 competence and knowledge of the topic. His assumes that communication is a cooperative process and that both productive and perceptive strategies should be involved. Yet most of the studies concentrate on productive strategies and focus only on speakers’ part. This can be seen clearly from the definition of CS as “a systematic technique employed by a speaker to express his meaning when faced with some difficulty.”
In 1983， Faerch and Kasper gathered up a amount of dissertations composed by Tarone （1980）， Varadi （1980）， Bialystok （1983） and the like and published the first monograph concerning CSs named Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. Faerch and Kasper （1983a） propose two criteria for defining CSs： “potential consciousness” and “problem—orientedness”. And they define CSs as “potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in researching a particular communicative goal”. According to Faerch and Kasper， there are two categories of communicative goals： those that interlocutors experience no difficulty in achieving and those that present themselves as problems in communication. Faerch and Kasper （1983） claim that only plans for communicative goals as solving problems in communication are considered CSs. CSs are employed by the learner as he lacks or can not gain access to the linguistic resources required to express an intended meaning， which are problem—oriented. CSs are considered as a part of a particular kind of plan which is activated when the initial plan can not be carried out. It’s pointed out that there is a more complicated process from “planning program” to “articulatory program”. The problem might exist at any point in the articulation process， so the initial plan including communicative goal， discourse plan， sentence plan and the like must have been an alternative plan on the basis of the different problems. CSs are considered as the mental phenomena which underlie actual language behavior. And it is further pointed out by Faerch and Kasper （1983） that problems may occur in one or two phases of speech production： the planning phase or the executive phase. The scholars from Nijmegen University carried out a string of widespread and profound empirical study which was called Nijmegen Project and these achievements were talked over in detail by Kellerman， Bongaerts， and Poulisse （1987） in their theses. The framework of communicative competence put forward by Bachman is comparatively intact which has made a big step forward. Bachman （1990： 85） described that ‘communicative competence consists of two components， linguistic knowledge and strategic competence’. The two depend on each other for existence； however， the later that connects linguistic knowledge up to communicative situations is in a central position. Communicative competence does not play the part of just resolving the difficulties in communication； that is to say， the remedial measures which are taken due to the lack of linguistic knowledge are only portion of communicative competence. In 1990s， three monographs were published by Bialystok （1990）， Ploussie （1990）， and Kellerman & Kasper （1997）.
1.2 Classifications of CSs
As discussed previously， the researchers can not achieve a consensus on defining CSs， which to a certain extent leads to various classifications of CSs put forward by Corder （1978c）， Tarone et al. （1976）， Faerch and Kasper （1980） and the like. The typical and representative classifications of CSs are presented in this section， which are in accordance with the former main approaches to the definition of CSs.
1.2.1 Interactional Strategies
Tarone carried out an empirical research into nine L2 learners’ employment of CSs and then presented a classification. Therefore， these strategies are interactional which involves the learner and his or her interlocutor’s mutual attempt to make understood and the communication go on smoothly.
Although Tarone （1977） and her partners （Tarone， Cohen & Duma 1976） first propose the classification of CSs， there are a number of problems. Firstly， Tarone derive the typology from analyzing the nine objects’ observable speech production， so this taxonomy can not reflect the underlying cognitive process. Secondly， Tarone’s typology is just suitable for interactional， but not monologue. Tarone acknowledge that “the list of CSs is not intended to be a final characterization of all existent CSs； it is simply provided to help us reach both a classification and a definition of the communication strategy” （Tarone 1981）.
1.2.2 Psycholinguistic Strategies
Under the psycholinguistic perspective and on the ground of two fundamentally different ways in which the learners might behave when they are confronted with communicative difficulties， Faerch and Kasper characterize CSs according to two distinct behaviors. Compared with Tarone’s classification， Faerch and Kasper provide a more meticulous classification. As Ellis （1994） suggests that “Faerch and Kasper’s typology is an advance on that of Tarone in that their psychological frame provides a basis for classifying the CSs into categories rather than just listing them.” Faerch and Kasper’s classification has exerted a profound influence on the consequent CS taxonomy study. 1.2.3 Compensatory Strategies
In the recent updated study of CSs by Nijmegen project conducted between the 1980s and 1990s， it is claimed that target language learners will have three choices in the situation of insufficient linguistic resources needed to express their intended message in communication. According to Poulisse et al （1990）， compensatory stretagies are classified into two categories： conceptual and linguistic. The conceptual strategies are those strategies used to manipulate the concept of the target referent and to explain the item by the interlocutors. And conceptual strategies fall into two subcategories： conceptual—analytic and conceptual—holistic strategies. By conceptual—analytic strategies， learners select and articulate specific properties of the target referent， while through conceptual—holistic strategies， learners present a substitute referent which shares properties with the target referent. The linguistic strategies are subcategorized into two： transfer and morphological creativity. Transfer includes borrowing， foreignizing and literal translation.
2. Main Studies of CSs in China
Although studies of CSs have gained increasing acknowledgement abroad， there are few studies of CSs in China， especially empirical studies till 1990s. As pointed out by Shu & Zhuang （1985） and Dai & Shu （1994）， articles and works in this field are mainly introductions of the theories of CSs abroad and the reviews of CSs in second language acquisition abroad. Since then more and more researchers are becoming interested in the field of speaking English strategies.
Bibliography：
[1] Canale， M. & Swain， M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing [J]. Applied Linguistics 1： 1—47.
[ 2 ] Cohen， A. D. 2000. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language.
Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[3] Ellis， R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford：
Oxford University Press.
[4] 戴炜栋，束定芳. 外语交际中的交际策略研究及其理论意义[J]. 外国语，1994 （6）
[5]刘乃美.交际策略研究三十年：回顾与展望[J].中国外语，2007（5）
Key words： communicative competence， communication strategies， oral communication
1. Main Studies of CSs Abroad
The notion CS （communication strategy） was initially proposed by Selinker （1972） in his article interlanguage， in which CS was described as one of the five central processes involved in L2 learning： language transfer， overgeneralization of target language， transfer of training， strategies of second language learning， strategies of second language communication. As one source of errors made by EFL or ESL learners， CS consists of strategies of dealing with the problems of communication arisen in interaction. CS is employed to meet the communicative needs and based on the features of learners’ language （interlanguage）. Since then， there has been a steady increase of interest in the learners’ communication strategies. Researches on CS answer the question of how to use the language in real communication. And speakers use the communication strategy in oral English production to achieve mutual understanding or solve problems of communication. CS is of great significance in the development of L2 learners’ language （interlanguage）， while applied linguists and researchers have defined CS in different ways.
1.1 Definitions of CSs
In 1973， Varadi analyzed language learners’ strategic behavior in an academic seminar in Europe and began to research into L2 learners’ employment of CSs. Tarone， Cohen and Dumas （1976） assume that certain interlanguage strategies are not only associated with language production but also applicable to comprehension of language. They define CS as “a systematic attempt by the learner to express or decode meaning in the target language， in situations where the appropriate systematic target language rules have not been formed”. They also consider the possible factors that might make an impact on the choice of CSs， concerning learners’ personality， language proficiency level and so on and so forth. Many researches on CSs seem limited only in foreign or second language context， which can be seen from the definition given by Stem （1983） that CSs are techniques of coping with difficulties in communicating in an imperfectly known second language.
The representative and influential achievement in 1980s refers to a framework of communicative competence advanced by Canale and Swain （1980）， which is composed of the following components： grammatical competence， discourse competence， sociolinguistic competence， and strategic competence. Canale and Swain define strategic competence as ‘how to cope in an authentic communicative situation and how to keep the communicative channel open’ （1980： 25）.
And later in 1981， Tarone defines CS as “a mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared”. As claimed by Tarone， in the interactional perspective， CSs are seen as attempts to bridge the gap between the linguistic knowledge of the L2 learner and the linguistic knowledge of the learner’s interlocutor in real communication situations.
Corder （1978） points out that how people communicate in L2 depends on the speakers’ knowledge of L2 and the speakers’ assessment of their interlocutors’ L2 competence and knowledge of the topic. His assumes that communication is a cooperative process and that both productive and perceptive strategies should be involved. Yet most of the studies concentrate on productive strategies and focus only on speakers’ part. This can be seen clearly from the definition of CS as “a systematic technique employed by a speaker to express his meaning when faced with some difficulty.”
In 1983， Faerch and Kasper gathered up a amount of dissertations composed by Tarone （1980）， Varadi （1980）， Bialystok （1983） and the like and published the first monograph concerning CSs named Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. Faerch and Kasper （1983a） propose two criteria for defining CSs： “potential consciousness” and “problem—orientedness”. And they define CSs as “potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in researching a particular communicative goal”. According to Faerch and Kasper， there are two categories of communicative goals： those that interlocutors experience no difficulty in achieving and those that present themselves as problems in communication. Faerch and Kasper （1983） claim that only plans for communicative goals as solving problems in communication are considered CSs. CSs are employed by the learner as he lacks or can not gain access to the linguistic resources required to express an intended meaning， which are problem—oriented. CSs are considered as a part of a particular kind of plan which is activated when the initial plan can not be carried out. It’s pointed out that there is a more complicated process from “planning program” to “articulatory program”. The problem might exist at any point in the articulation process， so the initial plan including communicative goal， discourse plan， sentence plan and the like must have been an alternative plan on the basis of the different problems. CSs are considered as the mental phenomena which underlie actual language behavior. And it is further pointed out by Faerch and Kasper （1983） that problems may occur in one or two phases of speech production： the planning phase or the executive phase. The scholars from Nijmegen University carried out a string of widespread and profound empirical study which was called Nijmegen Project and these achievements were talked over in detail by Kellerman， Bongaerts， and Poulisse （1987） in their theses. The framework of communicative competence put forward by Bachman is comparatively intact which has made a big step forward. Bachman （1990： 85） described that ‘communicative competence consists of two components， linguistic knowledge and strategic competence’. The two depend on each other for existence； however， the later that connects linguistic knowledge up to communicative situations is in a central position. Communicative competence does not play the part of just resolving the difficulties in communication； that is to say， the remedial measures which are taken due to the lack of linguistic knowledge are only portion of communicative competence. In 1990s， three monographs were published by Bialystok （1990）， Ploussie （1990）， and Kellerman & Kasper （1997）.
1.2 Classifications of CSs
As discussed previously， the researchers can not achieve a consensus on defining CSs， which to a certain extent leads to various classifications of CSs put forward by Corder （1978c）， Tarone et al. （1976）， Faerch and Kasper （1980） and the like. The typical and representative classifications of CSs are presented in this section， which are in accordance with the former main approaches to the definition of CSs.
1.2.1 Interactional Strategies
Tarone carried out an empirical research into nine L2 learners’ employment of CSs and then presented a classification. Therefore， these strategies are interactional which involves the learner and his or her interlocutor’s mutual attempt to make understood and the communication go on smoothly.
Although Tarone （1977） and her partners （Tarone， Cohen & Duma 1976） first propose the classification of CSs， there are a number of problems. Firstly， Tarone derive the typology from analyzing the nine objects’ observable speech production， so this taxonomy can not reflect the underlying cognitive process. Secondly， Tarone’s typology is just suitable for interactional， but not monologue. Tarone acknowledge that “the list of CSs is not intended to be a final characterization of all existent CSs； it is simply provided to help us reach both a classification and a definition of the communication strategy” （Tarone 1981）.
1.2.2 Psycholinguistic Strategies
Under the psycholinguistic perspective and on the ground of two fundamentally different ways in which the learners might behave when they are confronted with communicative difficulties， Faerch and Kasper characterize CSs according to two distinct behaviors. Compared with Tarone’s classification， Faerch and Kasper provide a more meticulous classification. As Ellis （1994） suggests that “Faerch and Kasper’s typology is an advance on that of Tarone in that their psychological frame provides a basis for classifying the CSs into categories rather than just listing them.” Faerch and Kasper’s classification has exerted a profound influence on the consequent CS taxonomy study. 1.2.3 Compensatory Strategies
In the recent updated study of CSs by Nijmegen project conducted between the 1980s and 1990s， it is claimed that target language learners will have three choices in the situation of insufficient linguistic resources needed to express their intended message in communication. According to Poulisse et al （1990）， compensatory stretagies are classified into two categories： conceptual and linguistic. The conceptual strategies are those strategies used to manipulate the concept of the target referent and to explain the item by the interlocutors. And conceptual strategies fall into two subcategories： conceptual—analytic and conceptual—holistic strategies. By conceptual—analytic strategies， learners select and articulate specific properties of the target referent， while through conceptual—holistic strategies， learners present a substitute referent which shares properties with the target referent. The linguistic strategies are subcategorized into two： transfer and morphological creativity. Transfer includes borrowing， foreignizing and literal translation.
2. Main Studies of CSs in China
Although studies of CSs have gained increasing acknowledgement abroad， there are few studies of CSs in China， especially empirical studies till 1990s. As pointed out by Shu & Zhuang （1985） and Dai & Shu （1994）， articles and works in this field are mainly introductions of the theories of CSs abroad and the reviews of CSs in second language acquisition abroad. Since then more and more researchers are becoming interested in the field of speaking English strategies.
Bibliography：
[1] Canale， M. & Swain， M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative
approaches to second language teaching and testing [J]. Applied Linguistics 1： 1—47.
[ 2 ] Cohen， A. D. 2000. Strategies in Learning and Using a Second Language.
Beijing： Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[3] Ellis， R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford：
Oxford University Press.
[4] 戴炜栋，束定芳. 外语交际中的交际策略研究及其理论意义[J]. 外国语，1994 （6）
[5]刘乃美.交际策略研究三十年：回顾与展望[J].中国外语，2007（5）