802

Communication Strategies Used by Thai EFL Learners

Yupadee Malasit, Thammasat University, Thailand
Nopporn Sarobol, Thammasat University, Thailand

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate types of communication strategies (CSs) employed
by M.3 (grade 9) English Program students at Joseph Upatham School and the effects of task
type and English speaking proficiency: high, middle, and low on their CS use. The data were
collected via one-way and two-way speaking tasks. Students oral performances were
recorded and transcribed by the researcher. Data analysis was based on integrated framework
comprising avoidance strategies (Tarone, 1980) and compensatory strategies (Faerch and
Kasper, 1983; Dornyei and Scott, 1997). Results showed that the students use of CSs was
significantly affected by task type since students were inclined to employ CSs in two-way
task significantly more frequently than in one-way task. However, the three groups did not
differ in the total number of communication strategies used, and the most-frequently used CS
is fillers/hesitation devices. This study could be of value in providing the significant
beneficial implication for foreign language teaching and learning in which the development of
strategic competence should be incorporated in ESL/EFL teaching curriculum.
Keywords: Communication strategies, Strategic competence, Compensatory strategies,
ESL/EFL teaching, Task types

1. Introduction
In the authentic communicative situations, not only low-proficiency learners but also high
language proficiency ones are sometimes faced with the communicative problems. In order to
solve their problems, students are inclined to develop communication strategies (CSs) to
overcome target language deficiencies and eventually develop communicative competence
(Bialystok, 1990; Dornyei, 1995; Willems, 1987).
According to Canale (1983), communication strategies are helpful tools for both native
speakers and foreign language learners to compensate for insufficient competence. The
Canales framework of communicative competences includes four main elements:
grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic
competence. Among four types of communicative competence, the notion of communication
strategies was adopted and labelled under strategic competence, which is the ability to employ
strategies of language use in the attempt to reach communicative goals.
In the context of second language learning, a large number of previous studies on strategic
competence in non-Thai contexts such as Poulisse and Schils (1989), Flyman (1997), Huang
(2010), and Nakatani (2010) have put an emphasis on two variables, that is, target language
proficiency and task types affecting how communication strategies are employed to
compensate for linguistic deficiency and/or a lack of content knowledge. However, most of
the studies in Thai context seemed to focus merely on one factor, that is, either English oral
proficiency or task types. Moreover, regarding task types, many previous studies seemed to
solely rely on one-way communication tasks, which have become the problematic issue of

803
research about communication strategies because the results seemed not to cover all situations
in real-life communication.
Thus, to compensate for the gaps in the previous studies, this study aims to identify CSs used
by all students and examine the influence of two influential factors: English oral proficiency
level and two different types of tasks on students use of communication strategies. In
particular, the study attempts to answer the following questions.
1. What kinds of communication strategies are used by M.3 English Program
students at Joseph Upatham School?
2. Is the use of communication strategy affected by students English-speaking
proficiency and task types?

2. Literature Review
The notion of communication strategies (CSs) reflects the concept of communicative
competence, proposed by Canale and Swain (1980), which not only involves knowing a
syntactic use of language, but also the appropriate use of language in a particular situation, for
example, to apologize or make a request. The model of communicative competence is
composed of three elements: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and
strategic competence. However, Canale revised this old framework in 1983 by allowing for
the inclusion of four main areas of competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic
competence, strategic competence and discourse competence. Compared with the first three
components, strategic competence seems to be the most relevant to CSs since it consists of
interlocutors ability to utilize communication strategies to compensate for lack of knowledge
in other competencies. As suggested by Faerch & Kasper (1983), it is perceived as the way
learners used to cope with communication breakdown and manipulate language in order to
meet communicative goals (Brown, 2001, p. 220). Thus, strategic competence is especially
required for both native speakers and L2 learners to enhance their communicative
competence.
2.1 Definitions and Classifications of Communication Strategies
Although researchers offer various definitions for communication strategies regarding secondlanguage learners, Faerch and Kasper (1983) suggested all previous definitions shared two
main key elements: problematicity and
consciousness. Regarding problematicity,
communication strategies are regarded as useful tools when there are breakdowns in
communication. Problematicity refers to three main key elements: own-performance
problems, other-performance problems and processing time pressure.
The first element deals with intra-actional view of the speakers, which rely on their
individual awareness of their communication problems. The second one refers to interactional
perspective, which speakers perceive problems in interlocutors utterances, leading to the
employment of meaning negotiation strategies. The last one refers to the situation which
activates the attempt of speakers to use stalling or time-gaining strategies such as fillers or
hesitation devices in order to fill pauses and to gain time to think (Dornyei, 1995).
Consciousness is another characteristic identified in definitions of communication strategies.
Apart from the above-mentioned features, Bialystok (1990) provided another defining
criterion which is intentionality. According to Bialystok (ibid : 5), this characteristic refers to

804
the learners ability to manipulate the selection of communication strategies from the
availability of their linguistic resources and deliberately applied to achieve certain effects.
Bialystok (1990) noted that the main CS-defining criterion which has been widely employed
is the problematicity; thus, the widely accepted definition containing problem-orientedness as
only when a speaker perceives that there is a problem which may interrupt communication
(Bialystok, p.3).
Additionally, Tarone (1981) suggested that to achieve the real communicative goals,
communication strategies should be regarded not only as problematic mechanisms to solve
individual communication difficulties or breakdowns, but also as mutual attempts of two
interlocutors which would bridge the gap caused by their limited linguistic knowledge to
reach particular communicative goal, thus providing them opportunities to receive more input
of the target language and produce new utterances. Therefore, to overcome their difficulties
and generate the target language to achieve communicative goals in actual interaction,
interactional strategies (e.g., clarification request, confirmation check, and comprehension
check) and also intra-actional strategies (e.g., circumlocution, approximation, and wordcoinage) were employed by speakers.
It has been acknowledged that in the field of CSs, various taxonomies of CSs have been
proposed by many researchers, e.g., Tarone (1980), Faerch & Kasper (1984), and Bialystok
(1990). However, Dornyei (1995) suggested that the interaction in the real communication
context requires speakers to resort to two sets of solutions to solve their communication
problems: avoidance strategies or compensatory strategies. Whereas the first set of the
strategies deals with the cancellation of the message including message abandonment and
topic avoidance (Tarone, 1980), the second set - compensatory strategies- is to help keep the
conversation going. Regarding compensatory strategies, intra-actional approach (Faerch &
Kasper, 1983; Dornyei & Scott, 1997) and interactional approach (Dornyei & Scott, 1997)
were identified. For this reason, the adapted taxonomy of the present study adopted Dornyeis
two categories of solutions to communication difficulties. The selection of each strategy was
also on the basis of the preliminary data of Thai learners communication strategy use which
was drawn from the pilot study in the current study. Moreover, some Thai researchers
reported that these strategies were literally used by Thai learners when their linguistic
resources were unavailable or inadequate (e.g., Wongsawang, 2001; Wannaruk, 2003;
Binhayeearong, 2009; Kongsom, 2009). The taxonomy and its sources are presented in
Table 1.

805
Table 1. Taxonomy for Analysis of Communication Strategies
(Adapted from Tarone, 1980; Faerch & Kasper, 1983; Dornyei & Scott, 1997)
Strategy
1. Avoidance strategies
1.1 Topic avoidance (TA) : To avoid talking about a concept
1.2 Message abandonment (MA) : To stop in mid-utterances
2. Compensatory strategies
2.1 Intra-actional strategies
2.1.1 Word coinage (WC) : To make up a non-existing new word to communicate
2.1.2 Code-switching (CS) : To switch the language to L1 without bothering to translate
2.1.3 Foreignizing (For) : To adjust L1 to L2 phonologically and/or morphologically
2.1.4 Use of non-linguistic means (Uon) : To replace a word with non-verbal cues
2.1.5 Self repair (SR) : To make a self - correction of ones own speech
2.1.6 Mumbling (Mum) : To mumble with inaudible voice
2.1.7 Use of all-purpose words (UA) : To extend a general, empty item to the exact word
2.1.8 Approximation (App) : To substitute the L2 term with the item which shares the same meaning
2.1.9 Circumlocution (Cir) : To describe the properties of the object instead of the exact target item
2.1.10 Literal translation (LT) : To translate word for word from L1 to L2
2.1.11 Use of fillers/hesitation devices (UF) : To use filling words to gain time to think
2.1.12 Self- repetition (SR) : To repeat words or phrases of ones own speech
2.1.13 Other repetition (OR) : To repeat something the interlocutor said to gain t ime
2.1.14 Omission (Omi) : To leave a gap when not knowing a word or continue as if it was understandable.
2.2 Interactional strategies
2.2.1 Asking for repetition (AR) : To ask for repetition when having comprehension difficulty
2.2.2 Appeal for help (AH) : To request direct or indirect help from the interlocutor
2.2.3 Clarification request (CR) : To request for more explanation to solve a comprehension difficulty
2.2.4 Asking for confirmation (AC) : To request confirmation that something is understood correctly
2.2.5 Comprehension check (CC) : To ask questions to check interlocutors understanding
2.2.6 Expressing non-understanding (EN) : To show ones own inability to understand messages

806
2.2 Factors Affecting the Choice of Oral Communication Strategies
Previous studies indicated that the use of communication strategies was greatly affected by
English-speaking proficiency (e.g., Rost and Ross, 1991; Huang and Naerssen, 1987) and task
types (e.g., Poulisse, 1990 ; Wongsawang, 2001 ;Weerarak, 2003 ; Nakatani, 2005) in
communication process since the selection of CS types varies according to these factors.
As suggested by Bialystok (1997), the most significant predictor of specific communication
strategy use is language proficiency. In his longitudinal study, Ellis (1984) found that high
proficiency learners were likely to employ language-based strategies or compensatory
strategies e.g. word coinage, approximation and generalization and low proficiency learners
resorted more to knowledge-based and repetition. However, some available studies suggest
the contrastive findings that that less proficiency learners used more compensatory strategies
than the advanced ones as the former ones have adequate linguistic competence to use oral
communication strategies to overcome their communication deficiencies.
Regarding task type, different task requirements need response with different communication
strategies since certain strategies seem to fix specific communicative problems (Bialystok,
1981). Moreover, the familiarity of the speaker with the tasks significantly influences the
choice of communication strategies. Yule and Tarone (1997) also support this idea by saying
that The more abstract the prompt, the more likely that conceptually related analogies will be
used. The more concrete and familiar the prompt, the more likely the simple names and
everyday functions will be mentioned (p. 26).

3. Methodology
3.1 Participants
The participants consisted of 30 male and female students sampled from the total population
of 40 students who are in the M.3 (grade 9) English Program in Joseph Upatham School. The
researcher classified all students into high (H), middle (M) or low (L) groups on the basis of their
scores of Key English Test (KET). The scoring criteria described learners abilities in a foreign
language using five levels, from Fail to Pass with Distinction.
3.2 Materials/Research tools
3.2.1 Oral interview task
In this study, the semi-structured one-to-one interview was conducted with two predetermined
sets of questions. For the first part, students were asked 10 questions about personal
information on general topics such as family, accommodations, school, free-time activities,
and future career. The second part was about one topic concerning 2011 Big Flood in
Thailand, which comprises 10 questions. Oral interview with two parts of questions lasted
approximately 15-30 minutes.

807
3.2.2 Picture story narrative
After the interview session, students were asked to perform picture story narrative task, telling
a story of two boys caught in the storm on a fishing boat within defined period of time at least
3 minutes.
3.3 Procedures
Both speaking tasks, oral interview and picture story narrative, were carried out after the end
of each school day in a laboratory room to avoid disturbance. They were asked to perform
each task individually. For the oral interview task, each participant was required to respond to
two sets of the predetermined questions within the defined time of 30 minutes. When the oral
interview task was completed, the picture story narrative was conducted. This task took about
3 minutes for each participant. All speech was audio-recorded and later transcribed for
analysis. After the completion of both types of speaking tasks, the researcher conducted the
retrospective interview which revealed students awareness of their CS use as well as their
perceptions of the effectiveness of each type of communication strategy.
3.4 Data analysis
In response to the research questions, the data were analyzed both qualitatively and
quantitatively from the transcriptions of the students oral performances. The taxonomy
adapted from Tarone (1980), Faerch and Kasper (1983), and Dornyei and Scott (1997) was
employed to analyze and identify each strategy used by M.3 students in the English Program
in Joseph Upatham School. To report on the frequency of communication strategies, the
researcher tallied behavior traits according to each strategy from the voice-recordings twice,
and employ a descriptive statistics, i.e. frequency, means and standard deviation (S.D.). Then,
as far as the traits were concerned, the researcher calculated each strategy in terms of
percentage and presented in a tabular form. To examine whether the students use of
communication strategies were influenced by language proficiency and task types, Chi-square
was employed to compare the statistical data between high, middle, and low proficiency
groups in the oral interview task and the picture narrative task.

4. Results
4.1 Students Overall Communication Strategy Use
The overall communication strategies employed by the students are illustrated in terms of
frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation (S.D.) presented in Table 2.

808
Table 2. Overall Communication Strategies Used by All Students
Communication Strategy

N=30

Mean Percentage

Rank

1.Avoidance strategies
1.1

TA

57

15

3.80

1.56

1.2

MA

137

28

4.89

3.74

2.Compensatory strategies
2.1 Intra-actional strategies
2.1.1

WC

1.13

0.25

19

2.1.2

CS

412

26

15.85

11.26

2.1.3

For

0.05

22

2.1.4

UN

45

11

16.36

0.49

11

2.1.5

SR

113

27

4.19

3.09

2.1.6

Mum

20

10

0.55

17

2.1.7

UL

50

21

2.38

1.37

2.1.8

App

31

15

2.06

0.85

14

2.1.9

Cir

41

19

2.58

1.12

12

2.1.10

LT

368

30

12.97

10.63

2.1.11

UF

1,577

30

52.67

43.33

2.1.12

SR

569

30

18.97

15.55

2.1.13

OR

49

20

2.45

1.34

10

2.1.14

Omi

64

25

2.56

1.75

2.2 Interactional strategies

2.2.1

AR

22

13

1.69

0.60

16

2.2.2

AH

17

16

1.25

0.55

18

2.2.3

CR

36

17

2.12

0.98

13

2.2.4

AC

29

4.83

0.79

15

2.2.5

CC

1.75

0.19

20

2.2.6

EN

10

0.5

0.14

21

3,660

158

100

Total

809
Table 2 presents the results for each strategy and for each strategy in each group so as to show the
general picture of the students use of communication strategies. It was found that all of the
strategies were employed with the total of 3,660 traits. As can be seen, use of fillers/hesitation
devices (UF, Item 2.1.11) ( x = 52.67), ranked first in all strategies with the total number of 1,577
traits used in this study, appeared to be almost half of the tallied strategies (43.33%), as students
tended to overuse them when the students performed the task. Meanwhile, foreignizing (For, Item
2.1.3) ( x = 1, 0.05%) seemed to be the least-frequently used strategy with the total number of 2
traits of use. Nevertheless, it should be noted here that the result in the use of fillers/hesitation
devices varied greatly among other participants due to the repetitive uses of this strategy (S.D. =
32.92). The other two strategies of which the use of CSs varied from participant to participant
included self-repetition (SR, Item 2.1.12) and code-switching (CS, Item 2.1.2). These two strategies
were inclined to statistically vary in terms of a number of CSs used by participants (S.D. = 17.47
and 15.25 respectively) since some participants were found to repeatedly use the strategies quite
often, contributing to the increased width of variation in a participant group.
4.2 The Comparison of the Use of Communication Strategies according to EnglishSpeaking Proficiency
Table 3 presents the comparison of the use of each communication strategy by the high,
middle, and low English-speaking proficiency, followed by the description dealt with the
relationship between communication strategies and English-speaking proficiency.

Table 3. Comparison of the Use of Each Communication Strategy by the High, Middle, and Low
English-Speaking Proficiency

TA

strategies

MA

45

1.23

52

1.42

40

1.09

.406

WC

0.16

0.08

.235

CS

33

0.90

195

5.33

134

3.66

.254

For

0.10

.117

UN

0.11

0.10

10

0.27

.228

SR

44

1.20

39

1.07

30

0.82

.423

Mum

0.14

0.1

13

0.36

.238

UA

14

0.38

24

0.66

12

0.33

.394

App

13

0.36

11

0.30

0.19

.388

2.1 Intra-actional strategies

1.Avoidance

HP
N=10
F
%
2
0.05

2. Compensatory strategies

Types of CSs

CSs

MP
N=10
F
%
7
0.19

LP
N=10
F
%
48
1.31

Chisquare
P value
.102

810

2.1 Intra-actional
strategies (Cont.)
2.2 Interactional
strategies

2. Compensatory strategies

Types of CSs

CSs

Cir

HP
N=10
%
F
8
0.22

MP
N=10
%
F
24
0.66

LP
N=10
F
%
9
0.25

Chisquare
P value
.110

LT

47

1.26

190

5.19

153

4.18

.381

UF

609

16.63

583

15.93

408

19.62

.324

SR

238

6.50

170

4.64

139

3.80

.469

OR

12

0.33

14

0.38

23

0.63

.495

Omi

17

0.46

22

0.60

25

0.68

.470

AR

0.08

0.16

13

0.36

.406

AH

0.14

0.11

11

0.30

.184

CR

0.19

0.11

20

0.55

.238

AC

0.19

16

0.44

0.14

.366

CC

0.05

0.14

0.14

.220

EN

0.14

.050*

* P<0.05

Table 3 shows that there were no significant correlations between CS use and Englishspeaking proficiency in CS use among the three levels, except in expressing nonunderstanding (EN) at p = .050. Overall, it was found that there were no significant
differences in the use of CSs among three groups of students in the present study.
4.3 Effects of Learners Task on Each Communication Strategy Employed by All Students
Table 4 shows how the task types affected each type of communication strategies employed by all
students.

811
Table 4. The Comparison of Each Communication Strategy in both Tasks
Types of CSs

2.1 Intra-actional strategies

2.2 Interactional
strategies

2. Compensatory strategies

1. Avoidance

CSs

TA

All students
Oral interview
Picture story
narrative
F
%
F
%
50
1.37
7
0.19

Chi-square
P value
.006*

MA

121

3.31

16

0.44

.000*

WC

0.16

0.08

1.000

CS

368

10.05

44

12.02

.035*

For

0.05

.150

UN

15

0.41

30

0.82

.226

SR

83

2.27

30

0.82

.180

Mum

19

0.52

0.03

.089

UA

46

1.26

0.11

.002*

App

21

0.57

10

0.27

.547

Cir

39

1.07

0.05

.001*

LT

336

9.18

32

0.87

.008*

UF

1,456

39.78

130

3.55

.023*

SR

473

12.92

96

2.62

.009*

OR

49

1.34

.000*

Omi

56

1.53

0.22

.000*

AR

22

0.60

.095

AH

12

0.33

0.14

.314

CR

36

0.98

.011*

AC

29

0.79

.003*

CC

0.19

.537

EN

0.14

.509

* P<0.05

As shown in Table 4, the students tended to use some communication strategies in the oral
interview task more often than in the picture story narrative task. The detailed comparison
reveals that with the difficulty of the questions in oral interview task, some of the students
were inclined to employ avoidance strategies, that is, topic avoidance (TA) and message
abandonment (MA) significantly more often in oral interview task than in picture story
narrative task ( p= .006 and p= .000 respectively). As for time-gaining devices, use of
fillers/hesitation devices (UF), self repetition (SR) and other-repetition (OR) were employed
markedly more often in the oral interview task than in picture story narrative task (p= .023, p=

812
.009, and p= .000 respectively). Moreover, students appeared to use L1-related strategies
including literal translation (LT), code switching (CS), and omission (Omi), significantly
more frequently in the oral interview task than in picture story narrative task (p= .008, p=
.035, and p=.000 respectively). As oral interview task is regarded as a two-way
communicative task, it was clearly observed that two of interactional strategies, i.e.,
clarification request (CR) and asking for confirmation (AC) were employed significantly
more frequently in the oral interview task ( p= .011 and p= .003 respectively).

5. Discussion and Conclusion

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

813
significantly more frequently to this type of strategy than the picture story narrative task.
These results confirm Elliss (2003) idea that reciprocal or two-way tasks would promote
interaction between two or more learners to achieve task outcome where both learners have
equal right to speak and provide more opportunities of negotiation of meanings (Leaver, L.B.
& Willis, R.J., 2004).

6. Pedagogical Implications
It is recommended that it is useful to incorporate a formal instruction on CSs along with some
awareness-raising activities in school curriculumn. In this way, students could develop their
strategic competence through using various kinds of useful communication strategies as some
previous researchers (e.g., Dornyei, 1995; Nakatani, 2005; Le, 2006; Kongsom, 2009) have
confirmed that CS training in the classroom could literally help students to communicate more
effectively, raise students awareness of CSs, and enhance students confidence in speaking
English.

References
Bialystok, E. (1981). The role of conscious strategies in second language learning. The
Modern Language Journal, 65 (2), 24-35.
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second
Language Use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bialystok, E. (1997). The structure of age: In search of barriers to second language acquisition.
Second Language Research, 13(2), 116-137.
Binhayeearong, T. (2009). Communication strategies: A study of students with high
and low English proficiency in the M.3 English program at Attarkiah Islamiah School.
Unpublished Masters thesis, Prince of Songkla University.
Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
nd

pedagogy. (2 Ed.). San Francisco: Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics. 1 (1), 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language
Pedagogy. In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and
communication. Harlow: Longman, 2-27.

Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL

Quarterly, 29, 55-85.
Dornyei, Z., & Scott M., L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language:
Definitions and taxonomies. Language Learning.47, 173-210.

814
Ellis, R. (1984). Communication strategies and the evaluation of communicative
performance. ELT Journal. 38 (1), 39-44.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London:
Longman.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1984). Two ways of defining communication strategies.
Language Learning, 34(1), 45-63.
Flyman, A. (1997). Communication strategies in French as a foreign language.
Working Papers, 46, 57-73. Papers, 46, 57-73.
Huang, C. P.(2010). Exploring Factors Affecting the Use of Oral Communication
Strategies. Lunghwa university journal, 12(1), 85-104.
Huang, X.H., & Van Naerssen, M. (1987). Learning strategies for oral
communication. Applied Linguistics, 8 (3), 287-307.
Kongsom, T. (2009). The Effects of Teaching Communication Strategies to Thai
Learners of English. PhD. Thesis. University of Southampton.
Le, T. T.. (2006). Teaching communication strategies to Vietnamese learners of
English. Unpublished EdD. Dissertation. Columbia university.
Leaver, L.B. & Willis, R.J. (2004). Task-Based Instruction In Foreign Language
Education: Practices and Programs. Georgetown University Press:
Washington, D.C.
Long, M.H. (1990). Task, group, and task-group interactions. In S. Anivan
(Ed.), Language teaching methodology for the nineties (pp. 31-50). Singapore:
SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Nakatani, Y. (2005). The effects of awareness-raising training on oral communication
strategy use. The Modern language Journal, 89 (1), 76-91.
Nakatani, Y. (2010). Identifying Strategies That Facilitate EFL Learners' Oral
Communication: A Classroom Study Using Multiple Data Collection Procedures.
The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 116-136.
Poulisse, N. (1990). The Use of Compensatory Strategies by Dutch Learners of
English. Dordrecht: Foris.

Poulisse, N. & Schils, E. (1989). The influence of task-and-proficiency-related factors

on the use of compensatory strategies: A quantitative analysis. Language
Learning, 39 (1), 15-48.
Rost, M. & Ross, S. (1991). Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology and
teachability. Language learning, 41, 235-273.

815
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage.
Language Learning, 30, 417-431.
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL
Quarterly, 15, 285-295.
Wannaruk, A. (2003). Communication strategies in an EST context. Studies in language
and language teaching, 12, 1-18.
Weerarak, L. (2003). Oral communication strategies employed by English majors
Taking listening and speaking 1 at Rajabhat Institute Nakhon Ratchasima.
Willems, G. M. (1987). Communication strategies and their significance in foreign
language teaching. System, 15 (3), 351-364.
Wongsawang, P. (2001). Cultural-specific notions in L2 communication strategies.
Second Language Studies, 19(2), 111-135.
Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1997). The other side of the page: Integrating the study of
Communication strategies and negotiated input in SLA. In R. Phillipson, E.
Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.),
Foreign/second language pedagogy research. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters, 56-73