Professional Documents
Culture Documents
r
n
y
e
i
&
S
c
o
t
t
,
1
9
9
5
a
,
1
9
9
5
b
)
,
a
n
d
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
W
h
e
t
h
e
r
T
h
e
y
W
e
r
e
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
A
n
y
O
t
h
e
r
T
a
x
o
n
o
m
i
e
s
(
T
=
T
a
r
o
n
e
,
1
9
7
7
;
F
&
K
=
F
r
c
h
&
K
a
s
p
e
r
,
1
9
8
3
b
;
B
=
B
i
a
l
y
s
t
o
k
,
1
9
8
3
;
P
=
P
a
r
i
b
a
k
h
t
,
1
9
8
5
;
W
=
W
i
l
l
e
m
s
,
1
9
8
7
;
N
=
N
i
j
m
e
g
e
n
G
r
o
u
p
)
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
E
X
A
M
P
L
E
O
T
H
E
R
T
A
X
O
N
O
M
I
E
S
1
.
M
e
s
s
a
g
e
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
m
e
n
t
L
e
a
v
i
n
g
a
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
u
n
f
i
n
i
s
h
e
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
s
o
m
e
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y
.
I
t
i
s
a
p
e
r
s
o
n
e
r
.
.
.
w
h
o
i
s
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
a
h
o
u
s
e
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
b
l
o
c
k
o
f
h
o
u
s
e
.
.
.
I
d
o
n
t
k
n
o
w
.
.
.
[
l
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
]
T
,
F
&
K
,
W
2
.
M
e
s
s
a
g
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
t
o
p
i
c
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
)
R
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
b
y
a
v
o
i
d
i
n
g
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
o
r
t
o
p
i
c
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
a
t
i
c
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
w
i
s
e
o
r
b
y
l
e
a
v
i
n
g
o
u
t
s
o
m
e
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
a
l
a
c
k
o
f
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
[
R
e
t
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
b
y
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
:
]
I
w
a
s
l
o
o
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
g
o
o
d
j
o
b
,
p
l
e
a
s
a
n
t
l
y
t
i
r
e
d
,
a
n
d
s
o
o
n
,
b
u
t
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
I
a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d
l
e
s
s
.
T
,
F
&
K
,
W
3
.
M
e
s
s
a
g
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
w
i
t
h
a
n
e
w
o
n
e
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
n
o
t
f
e
e
l
i
n
g
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
f
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
n
g
i
t
.
[
R
e
t
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
a
f
t
e
r
s
a
y
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
w
a
s
b
r
o
k
e
n
i
n
t
h
e
m
i
d
d
l
e
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
t
h
e
s
c
r
e
w
t
h
r
e
a
d
w
a
s
b
r
o
k
e
n
:
]
I
d
i
d
n
t
k
n
o
w
s
c
r
e
w
t
h
r
e
a
d
a
n
d
w
e
l
l
,
I
h
a
d
t
o
s
a
y
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
.
F
&
K
,
W
4
.
C
i
r
c
u
m
l
o
c
u
-
t
i
o
n
(
p
a
r
a
-
p
h
r
a
s
e
)
E
x
e
m
p
l
i
f
y
i
n
g
,
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
r
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
o
b
j
e
c
t
o
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
.
i
t
b
e
c
o
m
e
s
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
m
e
l
t
T
,
F
&
K
,
W
,
P
;
B
:
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
;
N
:
a
p
p
r
.
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
5
.
A
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
-
t
i
o
n
U
s
i
n
g
a
s
i
n
g
l
e
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
l
e
x
i
c
a
l
i
t
e
m
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
a
s
u
p
e
r
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
o
r
a
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
e
r
m
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
a
r
e
s
s
e
m
a
n
t
i
c
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
w
o
r
d
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
p
l
a
t
e
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
b
o
w
l
T
,
W
;
B
a
n
d
P
:
s
e
m
a
n
t
i
c
c
o
n
t
i
g
u
i
t
y
;
F
&
K
:
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
;
N
:
a
p
p
r
.
h
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
s
t
r
.
6
.
U
s
e
o
f
a
l
l
-
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
w
o
r
d
s
E
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
,
e
m
p
t
y
l
e
x
i
c
a
l
i
t
e
m
t
o
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
s
w
h
e
r
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
w
o
r
d
s
a
r
e
l
a
c
k
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
o
v
e
r
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
i
n
g
,
s
t
u
f
f
,
m
a
k
e
,
d
o
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
w
o
r
d
s
l
i
k
e
t
h
i
n
g
i
e
,
w
h
a
t
-
d
o
-
y
o
u
-
c
a
l
l
-
i
t
;
e
.
g
.
:
I
c
a
n
t
c
a
n
t
w
o
r
k
u
n
t
i
l
y
o
u
r
e
p
a
i
r
m
y
.
.
.
t
h
i
n
g
.
W
:
s
m
u
r
f
i
n
g
7
.
W
o
r
d
-
c
o
i
n
a
g
e
C
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
o
n
-
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
2
w
o
r
d
b
y
a
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
a
s
u
p
p
o
s
e
d
L
2
r
u
l
e
t
o
a
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
2
w
o
r
d
.
[
R
e
t
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
a
f
t
e
r
u
s
i
n
g
d
e
j
u
n
k
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
u
n
j
u
n
k
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
:
]
I
t
h
i
n
k
I
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
i
t
i
n
a
v
e
r
y
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
w
a
y
:
f
r
o
m
j
u
n
k
I
f
o
r
m
e
d
a
n
o
u
n
a
n
d
I
t
r
i
e
d
t
o
a
d
d
t
h
e
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
e
f
i
x
d
e
-
;
t
o
u
n
j
u
n
k
i
s
t
o
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
j
u
n
k
a
n
d
u
n
j
u
n
k
t
i
o
n
i
s
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
.
T
,
F
&
K
,
B
,
W
;
N
:
a
p
p
r
.
m
o
r
p
h
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
c
r
e
a
t
i
v
i
t
y
8
.
R
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
A
b
a
n
d
o
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
x
e
c
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
v
e
r
b
a
l
p
l
a
n
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
i
e
s
,
l
e
a
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
u
t
t
e
r
a
n
c
e
u
n
f
i
n
i
s
h
e
d
,
a
n
d
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
.
O
n
M
i
c
k
e
y
s
f
a
c
e
w
e
c
a
n
s
e
e
t
h
e
.
.
.
s
o
h
e
s
h
e
s
h
e
s
w
o
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
.
F
&
K
;
W
:
u
n
d
e
r
s
e
l
f
-
r
e
p
a
i
r
9
.
L
i
t
e
r
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
)
T
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
n
g
l
i
t
e
r
a
l
l
y
a
l
e
x
i
c
a
l
i
t
e
m
,
a
n
i
d
i
o
m
,
a
c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
w
o
r
d
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
f
r
o
m
L
1
/
L
3
t
o
L
2
.
I
d
m
a
d
e
a
b
i
g
f
a
u
l
t
[
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
F
r
e
n
c
h
]
T
,
W
,
N
;
F
&
K
:
u
n
d
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
g
u
a
l
t
r
a
n
-
s
f
e
r
;
P
a
n
d
B
:
t
r
a
n
s
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
.
F
o
r
e
i
g
n
i
z
i
n
g
U
s
i
n
g
a
L
1
/
L
3
w
o
r
d
b
y
a
d
j
u
s
t
i
n
g
i
t
t
o
L
2
p
h
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
(
i
.
e
.
,
w
i
t
h
a
L
2
p
r
o
n
u
n
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
)
a
n
d
/
o
r
m
o
r
p
h
o
l
o
g
y
.
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
f
o
r
r
e
p
a
i
r
[
a
d
j
u
s
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
G
e
r
m
a
n
w
o
r
d
r
e
p
a
r
i
e
r
e
n
]
B
,
W
;
F
&
K
:
u
n
d
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
g
u
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
;
N
:
u
n
d
e
r
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
1
1
.
C
o
d
e
s
w
i
t
c
h
i
n
g
(
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
s
w
i
t
c
h
)
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
L
1
/
L
3
w
o
r
d
s
w
i
t
h
L
1
/
L
3
p
r
o
n
u
n
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
L
2
s
p
e
e
c
h
;
t
h
i
s
m
a
y
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
d
i
s
c
o
u
r
s
e
r
a
n
g
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
s
i
n
g
l
e
w
o
r
d
s
t
o
w
h
o
l
e
c
h
u
n
k
s
a
n
d
e
v
e
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
u
r
n
s
.
U
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
L
a
t
i
n
f
e
r
r
u
m
f
o
r
i
r
o
n
.
T
,
F
&
K
,
B
,
W
;
N
:
u
n
d
e
r
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
1
2
.
U
s
e
o
f
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
-
s
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
w
o
r
d
s
1
C
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
l
e
x
i
c
a
l
i
t
e
m
w
h
o
s
e
f
o
r
m
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
i
s
u
n
s
u
r
e
o
f
w
i
t
h
a
w
o
r
d
(
e
i
t
h
e
r
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
r
n
o
n
-
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
)
w
h
i
c
h
s
o
u
n
d
s
m
o
r
e
o
r
l
e
s
s
l
i
k
e
t
h
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
i
t
e
m
.
[
R
e
t
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
i
n
g
w
h
y
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
u
s
e
d
c
a
p
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
p
a
n
:
]
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
i
t
w
a
s
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
t
o
t
h
e
w
o
r
d
w
h
i
c
h
I
w
a
n
t
e
d
t
o
s
a
y
:
p
a
n
.
1
3
.
M
u
m
b
l
i
n
g
1
S
w
a
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
o
r
m
u
t
t
e
r
i
n
g
i
n
a
u
d
i
b
l
y
a
w
o
r
d
(
o
r
p
a
r
t
o
f
a
w
o
r
d
)
w
h
o
s
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
f
o
r
m
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
i
s
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
a
b
o
u
t
.
A
n
d
u
h
w
e
l
l
M
i
c
k
e
y
M
o
u
s
e
l
o
o
k
s
s
u
r
p
r
i
s
e
o
r
s
o
r
t
o
f
X
X
X
[
t
h
e
s
o
r
t
o
f
m
a
r
k
e
r
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
u
n
i
n
t
e
l
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
p
a
r
t
i
s
n
o
t
j
u
s
t
a
m
e
r
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
b
u
t
a
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
]
.
1
4
.
O
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
1
L
e
a
v
i
n
g
a
g
a
p
w
h
e
n
n
o
t
k
n
o
w
i
n
g
a
w
o
r
d
a
n
d
c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g
o
n
a
s
i
f
i
t
h
a
d
b
e
e
n
s
a
i
d
.
t
h
e
n
.
.
.
e
r
.
.
.
t
h
e
s
u
n
i
s
i
s
.
.
.
h
m
s
u
n
i
s
.
.
.
a
n
d
t
h
e
M
i
c
k
e
y
M
o
u
s
e
.
.
.
.
[
R
e
t
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
:
I
d
i
d
n
t
k
n
o
w
w
h
a
t
s
h
i
n
e
w
a
s
.
]
1
5
.
R
e
t
r
i
e
v
a
l
I
n
a
n
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
t
o
r
e
t
r
i
e
v
e
a
l
e
x
i
c
a
l
i
t
e
m
s
a
y
i
n
g
a
s
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
o
r
w
r
o
n
g
f
o
r
m
s
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
r
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
o
p
t
i
m
a
l
f
o
r
m
.
I
t
s
b
r
a
k
e
e
r
.
.
.
i
t
s
b
r
o
k
e
n
b
r
o
k
e
d
b
r
o
k
e
.
F
&
K
1
6
a
.
S
e
l
f
-
r
e
p
a
i
r
M
a
k
i
n
g
s
e
l
f
-
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
o
n
e
s
o
w
n
s
p
e
e
c
h
.
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
s
u
n
s
h
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
w
e
a
t
h
e
r
g
e
t
b
e
.
.
.
g
e
t
s
b
e
t
t
e
r
.
W
1
6
b
.
O
t
h
e
r
-
r
e
p
a
i
r
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
s
s
p
e
e
c
h
.
S
p
e
a
k
e
r
:
.
.
.
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
u
r
t
i
p
w
e
n
t
w
r
o
n
g
.
.
.
[
.
.
.
]
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
:
O
h
,
y
o
u
m
e
a
n
t
h
e
t
a
p
.
S
:
T
a
p
,
t
a
p
.
.
.
1
7
.
S
e
l
f
-
r
e
p
h
r
a
s
i
n
g
2
R
e
p
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
e
r
m
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
q
u
i
t
e
a
s
i
t
i
s
,
b
u
t
b
y
a
d
d
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
o
r
u
s
i
n
g
p
a
r
a
p
h
r
a
s
e
.
I
d
o
n
t
k
n
o
w
t
h
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
.
.
.
w
h
a
t
i
t
s
m
a
d
e
o
f
.
.
.
(
T
a
r
o
n
e
&
Y
u
l
e
,
1
9
8
7
)
1
8
.
O
v
e
r
-
e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
n
e
s
s
(
w
a
f
f
l
i
n
g
)
3
U
s
i
n
g
m
o
r
e
w
o
r
d
s
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
a
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
v
e
g
o
a
l
t
h
a
n
w
h
a
t
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
n
o
r
m
a
l
i
n
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
L
1
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
(
T
h
i
s
C
S
w
a
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
D
r
n
y
e
i
&
S
c
o
t
t
s
,
1
9
9
5
a
,
1
9
9
5
b
,
t
a
x
o
n
o
m
y
)
(
T
a
r
o
n
e
&
Y
u
l
e
,
1
9
8
7
)
1
9
.
M
i
m
e
(
n
o
n
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
/
p
a
r
a
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
)
D
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g
w
h
o
l
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
n
o
n
v
e
r
b
a
l
l
y
,
o
r
a
c
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
i
n
g
a
v
e
r
b
a
l
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
w
i
t
h
a
v
i
s
u
a
l
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
[
R
e
t
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
:
]
I
w
a
s
m
i
m
i
n
g
h
e
r
e
,
t
o
p
u
t
i
t
o
u
t
i
n
f
r
o
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
e
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
I
c
o
u
l
d
n
t
r
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
t
h
e
w
o
r
d
.
T
,
F
&
K
,
B
,
P
,
W
;
N
:
u
n
d
e
r
e
i
t
h
e
r
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
o
r
h
o
l
i
s
t
i
c
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
2
0
.
U
s
e
o
f
f
i
l
l
e
r
s
4
U
s
i
n
g
g
a
m
b
i
t
s
t
o
f
i
l
l
p
a
u
s
e
s
,
t
o
s
t
a
l
l
,
a
n
d
t
o
g
a
i
n
t
i
m
e
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
k
e
e
p
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
o
p
e
n
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
d
i
s
c
o
u
r
s
e
a
t
t
i
m
e
s
o
f
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
y
.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
r
a
n
g
e
f
r
o
m
v
e
r
y
s
h
o
r
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
w
e
l
l
;
y
o
u
k
n
o
w
;
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y
;
o
k
a
y
,
t
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
p
h
r
a
s
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
i
s
i
s
r
a
t
h
e
r
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
o
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
;
w
e
l
l
,
a
c
t
u
a
l
l
y
,
i
t
s
a
g
o
o
d
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
.
2
1
a
.
S
e
l
f
-
r
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
5
R
e
p
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
w
o
r
d
o
r
a
s
t
r
i
n
g
o
f
w
o
r
d
s
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
y
w
e
r
e
s
a
i
d
.
[
R
e
t
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
:
]
I
w
a
n
t
e
d
t
o
s
a
y
t
h
a
t
i
t
w
a
s
m
a
d
e
o
f
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
b
u
t
I
d
i
d
n
t
k
n
o
w
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
a
n
d
t
h
i
s
i
s
w
h
y
w
h
i
c
h
w
a
s
m
a
d
e
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
a
s
m
a
d
e
w
a
s
s
a
i
d
t
w
i
c
e
.
(
T
a
r
o
n
e
&
Y
u
l
e
,
1
9
8
7
)
2
1
b
.
O
t
h
e
r
-
r
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
e
a
t
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
s
a
i
d
t
o
g
a
i
n
t
i
m
e
.
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
:
A
n
d
c
o
u
l
d
y
o
u
t
e
l
l
m
e
t
h
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
?
T
h
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
.
S
p
e
a
k
e
r
:
T
h
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
?
I
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
e
r
.
.
.
m
a
y
b
e
e
r
.
.
.
f
i
v
e
c
e
n
t
i
m
e
t
e
r
s
.
T
a
b
l
e
1
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
o
f
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
D
e
v
i
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
/
D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
(
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
D
r
n
y
e
i
&
S
c
o
t
t
,
1
9
9
5
a
,
1
9
9
5
b
)
,
a
n
d
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
W
h
e
t
h
e
r
T
h
e
y
W
e
r
e
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
A
n
y
O
t
h
e
r
T
a
x
o
n
o
m
i
e
s
(
T
=
T
a
r
o
n
e
,
1
9
7
7
;
F
&
K
=
F
r
c
h
&
K
a
s
p
e
r
,
1
9
8
3
b
;
B
=
B
i
a
l
y
s
t
o
k
,
1
9
8
3
;
P
=
P
a
r
i
b
a
k
h
t
,
1
9
8
5
;
W
=
W
i
l
l
e
m
s
,
1
9
8
7
;
N
=
N
i
j
m
e
g
e
n
G
r
o
u
p
)
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
E
X
A
M
P
L
E
O
T
H
E
R
T
A
X
O
N
O
M
I
E
S
2
2
.
F
e
i
g
n
i
n
g
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
6
M
a
k
i
n
g
a
n
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
t
o
c
a
r
r
y
o
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
s
p
i
t
e
o
f
n
o
t
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
b
y
p
r
e
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
.
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
:
D
o
y
o
u
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
r
u
b
b
e
r
w
a
s
h
e
r
?
S
p
e
a
k
e
r
:
T
h
e
r
u
b
b
e
r
w
a
s
h
e
r
?
.
.
.
N
o
I
d
o
n
t
.
[
R
e
t
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
:
I
d
i
d
n
t
k
n
o
w
t
h
e
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
w
o
r
d
,
a
n
d
f
i
n
a
l
l
y
I
m
a
n
a
g
e
d
t
o
s
a
y
I
h
a
d
n
o
s
u
c
h
t
h
i
n
g
.
]
2
3
.
V
e
r
b
a
l
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
m
a
r
k
e
r
s
7
U
s
i
n
g
v
e
r
b
a
l
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
p
h
r
a
s
e
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
o
r
a
f
t
e
r
a
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
w
o
r
d
o
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
a
r
r
y
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
l
y
i
n
t
h
e
L
2
c
o
d
e
.
E
.
g
.
:
(
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
m
a
r
k
e
r
s
i
n
b
o
l
d
)
:
(
a
)
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
c
i
r
c
u
m
l
o
c
u
t
i
o
n
:
O
n
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
p
i
c
t
u
r
e
.
.
.
I
d
o
n
t
r
e
a
l
l
y
k
n
o
w
w
h
a
t
s
i
t
c
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
.
.
.
i
t
s
u
h
t
h
i
s
k
i
n
d
o
f
b
i
r
d
t
h
a
t
.
.
.
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
f
o
u
n
d
i
n
a
c
l
o
c
k
t
h
a
t
s
t
r
i
k
e
s
o
u
t
o
r
[
l
a
u
g
h
s
]
c
o
m
e
s
o
u
t
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
c
l
o
c
k
s
t
r
i
k
e
s
;
(
b
)
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
i
t
s
s
o
m
e
e
r
.
.
.
i
t
s
s
o
m
e
k
i
n
d
o
f
e
r
.
.
.
p
a
p
e
r
;
(
c
)
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
e
i
g
n
i
z
i
n
g
:
.
.
.
a
p
a
n
e
l
[
w
i
t
h
a
n
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
a
c
c
e
n
t
]
,
I
d
o
n
t
k
n
o
w
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
r
e
s
a
n
a
m
e
i
n
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
o
r
n
o
t
[
l
a
u
g
h
t
e
r
]
j
u
s
t
i
t
s
a
p
a
n
e
l
f
l
a
t
;
(
d
)
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
i
t
e
r
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
:
i
t
s
e
r
.
.
.
a
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
m
e
d
i
u
m
f
l
a
t
a
n
d
i
n
,
w
e
c
a
l
l
t
h
e
m
b
l
o
c
k
h
o
u
s
e
,
b
u
t
i
t
s
n
o
t
i
t
s
n
o
t
m
a
d
e
o
f
b
l
o
c
k
s
;
(
e
)
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
w
i
t
c
h
i
n
g
:
t
h
e
b
i
r
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
c
l
o
c
k
s
c
o
m
e
o
u
t
a
n
d
s
a
y
k
a
k
u
k
k
o
r
I
d
o
n
t
k
n
o
w
w
h
a
t
;
s
e
e
a
l
s
o
t
h
e
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
f
o
r
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
2
4
a
.
D
i
r
e
c
t
a
p
p
e
a
l
f
o
r
h
e
l
p
T
u
r
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
f
o
r
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
b
y
a
s
k
i
n
g
a
n
e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
a
g
a
p
i
n
o
n
e
s
L
2
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
.
i
t
s
a
k
i
n
d
o
f
o
l
d
c
l
o
c
k
s
o
w
h
e
n
i
t
s
t
r
u
c
k
s
e
r
.
.
.
I
d
o
n
t
k
n
o
w
,
o
n
e
,
t
w
o
,
o
r
t
h
r
e
e
c
l
o
c
k
t
h
e
n
a
b
i
r
d
i
s
c
o
m
i
n
g
o
u
t
.
W
h
a
t
s
t
h
e
n
a
m
e
?
T
,
F
&
K
,
W
2
4
b
.
I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
a
p
p
e
a
l
f
o
r
h
e
l
p
T
r
y
i
n
g
t
o
e
l
i
c
i
t
h
e
l
p
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
b
y
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
l
a
c
k
o
f
a
n
e
e
d
e
d
L
2
i
t
e
m
e
i
t
h
e
r
v
e
r
b
a
l
l
y
o
r
n
o
n
v
e
r
b
a
l
l
y
.
I
d
o
n
t
k
n
o
w
t
h
e
n
a
m
e
.
.
.
[
r
i
s
i
n
g
i
n
t
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
,
p
a
u
s
e
,
e
y
e
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
]
T
,
F
&
K
,
W
2
5
.
A
s
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
r
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
w
h
e
n
n
o
t
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
o
r
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
.
P
a
r
d
o
n
?
W
h
a
t
?
2
6
.
A
s
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
l
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
n
g
e
x
p
l
a
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
u
n
f
a
m
i
l
i
a
r
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
W
h
a
t
d
o
y
o
u
m
e
a
n
?
,
Y
o
u
s
a
w
w
h
a
t
?
A
l
s
o
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
r
e
p
e
a
t
s
,
t
h
a
t
i
s
,
e
c
h
o
i
n
g
a
w
o
r
d
o
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
w
i
t
h
a
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
W
2
7
.
A
s
k
i
n
g
f
o
r
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
o
n
e
h
e
a
r
d
o
r
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
o
o
d
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
.
R
e
p
e
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
i
n
a
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
r
e
p
e
a
t
o
r
a
s
k
i
n
g
a
f
u
l
l
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
Y
o
u
s
a
i
d
.
.
.
?
,
Y
o
u
m
e
a
n
.
.
.
?
,
D
o
y
o
u
m
e
a
n
.
.
.
?
W
2
8
.
G
u
e
s
s
i
n
g
G
u
e
s
s
i
n
g
i
s
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
t
o
a
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
b
u
t
t
h
e
l
a
t
t
e
r
i
m
p
l
i
e
s
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
d
e
g
r
e
e
o
f
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
k
e
y
w
o
r
d
,
w
h
e
r
e
a
s
g
u
e
s
s
i
n
g
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
r
e
a
l
i
n
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
.
E
.
g
.
:
O
h
.
I
t
i
s
t
h
e
n
n
o
t
t
h
e
w
a
s
h
i
n
g
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
.
I
s
i
t
a
s
i
n
k
?
2
9
.
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
n
o
n
-
u
n
d
e
r
-
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
o
n
e
d
i
d
n
o
t
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
s
o
m
e
t
h
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
e
i
t
h
e
r
v
e
r
b
a
l
l
y
o
r
n
o
n
v
e
r
b
a
l
l
y
.
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
:
W
h
a
t
i
s
t
h
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
?
S
p
e
a
k
e
r
:
T
h
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
?
I
:
T
h
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
.
S
:
I
d
o
n
t
k
n
o
w
t
h
i
s
t
h
i
n
g
.
I
:
H
o
w
w
i
d
e
i
s
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
?
A
l
s
o
,
p
u
z
z
l
e
d
f
a
c
i
a
l
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
s
,
f
r
o
w
n
s
a
n
d
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
m
i
m
e
a
n
d
g
e
s
t
u
r
e
s
.
3
0
.
I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
E
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
p
a
r
a
p
h
r
a
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
s
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
t
o
c
h
e
c
k
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
h
a
s
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
o
o
d
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
l
y
.
S
o
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
i
s
b
r
o
k
e
n
,
b
a
s
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
a
n
d
y
o
u
d
o
n
t
k
n
o
w
w
h
a
t
t
o
d
o
w
i
t
h
i
t
,
r
i
g
h
t
?
W
3
1
.
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
-
s
i
o
n
c
h
e
c
k
A
s
k
i
n
g
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
c
h
e
c
k
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
c
a
n
f
o
l
l
o
w
y
o
u
.
A
n
d
w
h
a
t
i
s
t
h
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
?
T
h
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
.
D
o
y
o
u
k
n
o
w
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
i
s
?
W
3
2
.
O
w
n
-
a
c
c
u
-
r
a
c
y
c
h
e
c
k
C
h
e
c
k
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
w
h
a
t
y
o
u
s
a
i
d
w
a
s
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
b
y
a
s
k
i
n
g
a
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
o
r
r
e
p
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
w
o
r
d
w
i
t
h
a
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
I
c
a
n
s
e
e
a
h
u
g
e
s
n
o
w
.
.
.
s
n
o
w
m
a
n
?
s
n
o
w
m
a
n
i
n
t
h
e
g
a
r
d
e
n
.
3
3
a
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
:
r
e
p
e
a
t
R
e
p
e
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
o
r
t
h
e
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
m
(
a
f
t
e
r
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
-
r
e
p
a
i
r
)
.
S
e
e
t
h
e
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
o
f
o
t
h
e
r
-
r
e
p
a
i
r
.
3
3
b
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
:
r
e
p
a
i
r
P
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
o
t
h
e
r
-
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
e
d
s
e
l
f
-
r
e
p
a
i
r
.
S
p
e
a
k
e
r
:
T
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
w
a
s
n
o
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
g
e
t
u
p
a
n
d
I
.
.
.
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
:
G
e
t
u
p
?
W
h
e
r
e
?
S
:
G
e
t
d
o
w
n
.
3
3
c
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
:
r
e
p
h
r
a
s
e
R
e
p
h
r
a
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
.
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
:
A
n
d
d
o
y
o
u
h
a
p
p
e
n
t
o
k
n
o
w
i
f
y
o
u
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
r
u
b
b
e
r
w
a
s
h
e
r
?
S
p
e
a
k
e
r
:
P
a
r
d
o
n
?
I
:
T
h
e
r
u
b
b
e
r
w
a
s
h
e
r
.
.
.
i
t
s
t
h
e
t
h
i
n
g
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
.
3
3
d
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
:
e
x
p
a
n
d
P
u
t
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
w
o
r
d
/
i
s
s
u
e
i
n
t
o
a
l
a
r
g
e
r
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
.
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
:
D
o
y
o
u
k
n
o
w
m
a
y
b
e
e
r
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
i
s
?
S
p
e
a
k
e
r
:
P
a
r
d
o
n
?
I
:
D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
,
t
h
i
s
i
s
e
r
m
a
y
b
e
y
o
u
l
e
a
r
n
t
m
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
s
a
n
d
y
o
u
s
i
g
n
e
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
t
h
i
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
i
n
g
s
.
3
3
e
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
:
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
C
o
n
f
i
r
m
i
n
g
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
h
a
s
s
a
i
d
o
r
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
.
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
:
U
h
,
y
o
u
m
e
a
n
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
s
i
n
k
,
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
?
F
o
r
t
h
e
.
.
.
S
p
e
a
k
e
r
:
Y
e
s
.
Y
e
s
.
T
a
b
l
e
1
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
o
f
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
D
e
v
i
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
/
D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
(
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
D
r
n
y
e
i
&
S
c
o
t
t
,
1
9
9
5
a
,
1
9
9
5
b
)
,
a
n
d
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
W
h
e
t
h
e
r
T
h
e
y
W
e
r
e
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
A
n
y
O
t
h
e
r
T
a
x
o
n
o
m
i
e
s
(
T
=
T
a
r
o
n
e
,
1
9
7
7
;
F
&
K
=
F
r
c
h
&
K
a
s
p
e
r
,
1
9
8
3
b
;
B
=
B
i
a
l
y
s
t
o
k
,
1
9
8
3
;
P
=
P
a
r
i
b
a
k
h
t
,
1
9
8
5
;
W
=
W
i
l
l
e
m
s
,
1
9
8
7
;
N
=
N
i
j
m
e
g
e
n
G
r
o
u
p
)
S
T
R
A
T
E
G
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
E
X
A
M
P
L
E
O
T
H
E
R
T
A
X
O
N
O
M
I
E
S
3
3
f
.
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
:
r
e
j
e
c
t
R
e
j
e
c
t
i
n
g
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
h
a
s
s
a
i
d
o
r
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
o
f
f
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
I
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
:
I
s
i
t
p
l
a
s
t
i
c
?
S
p
e
a
k
e
r
:
N
o
.
1
D
r
n
y
e
i
a
n
d
S
c
o
t
t
(
1
9
9
5
a
,
1
9
9
5
b
)
f
i
r
s
t
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
t
h
e
s
e
t
h
r
e
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
;
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
s
t
o
p
-
g
a
p
d
e
v
i
c
e
s
w
h
o
s
e
u
s
e
i
s
m
o
t
i
v
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
a
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
-
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
,
r
e
d
u
n
d
a
n
t
n
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
l
y
a
l
l
o
w
s
t
h
e
l
i
s
t
e
n
e
r
t
o
g
u
e
s
s
t
h
e
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
o
r
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
w
o
r
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
,
m
u
c
h
a
s
i
n
a
c
l
o
z
e
o
r
a
C
-
t
e
s
t
.
F
o
r
t
h
i
s
r
e
a
s
o
n
,
t
h
e
s
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
m
e
r
e
l
y
i
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
o
f
m
e
s
s
a
g
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
a
b
a
n
d
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
D
r
n
y
e
i
a
n
d
S
c
o
t
t
f
o
u
n
d
f
e
w
u
n
a
m
b
i
g
u
o
u
s
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
r
p
u
s
b
u
t
,
f
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
m
u
m
b
l
i
n
g
i
s
v
e
r
y
c
o
m
m
o
n
i
n
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
s
w
i
t
h
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
v
e
r
b
c
o
n
j
u
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
o
f
t
e
n
s
w
a
l
l
o
w
s
t
h
e
c
o
n
j
u
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
f
f
i
x
a
b
o
u
t
w
h
i
c
h
h
e
/
s
h
e
i
s
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
.
2
T
a
r
o
n
e
a
n
d
Y
u
l
e
(
1
9
8
7
)
f
i
r
s
t
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
t
h
i
s
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
.
T
h
e
y
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
h
a
t
i
t
w
a
s
u
s
e
d
w
i
t
h
n
o
n
-
n
a
t
i
v
e
l
i
s
t
e
n
e
r
s
f
o
r
w
h
o
m
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
w
a
n
t
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
t
h
e
t
a
s
k
e
a
s
i
e
r
.
I
n
D
r
n
y
e
i
a
n
d
S
c
o
t
t
s
(
1
9
9
5
a
,
1
9
9
5
b
)
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
l
i
s
t
e
n
e
r
s
(
t
h
a
t
i
s
,
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
v
i
e
w
e
r
s
)
L
2
c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
c
e
w
a
s
s
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
s
;
t
h
a
t
s
u
c
h
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
w
e
r
e
s
t
i
l
l
u
s
e
d
p
o
i
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
m
o
r
e
g
e
n
-
e
r
a
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
.
A
s
t
h
e
r
e
t
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
,
s
e
l
f
-
r
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
i
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
o
v
e
r
-
e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
n
e
s
s
,
s
t
e
m
m
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
s
u
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y
a
b
o
u
t
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
i
r
L
2
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
u
s
e
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
e
s
t
h
e
i
r
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
c
l
o
s
e
l
y
e
n
o
u
g
h
.
3
T
a
r
o
n
e
a
n
d
Y
u
l
e
(
1
9
8
7
)
f
i
r
s
t
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
t
h
i
s
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
a
s
a
C
S
b
u
t
B
l
u
m
-
K
u
l
k
a
a
n
d
O
l
s
h
t
a
i
n
(
1
9
8
6
)
a
l
s
o
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
t
h
e
l
a
n
-
g
u
a
g
e
p
h
e
n
o
m
e
n
o
n
;
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
o
n
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
e
(
1
9
9
1
)
c
a
l
l
i
t
w
a
f
f
l
i
n
g
,
d
e
f
i
n
i
n
g
i
t
a
s
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
u
s
e
o
f
l
i
n
g
u
i
s
t
i
c
f
o
r
m
s
t
o
f
i
l
l
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
d
i
s
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
l
o
t
o
r
m
o
v
e
(
p
.
2
7
3
)
;
t
h
e
y
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
i
t
i
s
c
a
u
s
e
d
b
y
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
s
i
n
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
i
r
L
2
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
b
y
n
o
t
h
a
v
i
n
g
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
i
z
e
d
r
o
u
t
i
n
e
s
o
r
p
h
r
a
s
e
s
.
4
F
i
l
l
e
r
s
m
a
k
e
u
p
a
b
r
o
a
d
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
w
o
r
d
s
a
n
d
p
h
r
a
s
e
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
f
i
l
l
p
a
u
s
e
s
,
c
o
v
e
r
f
o
r
h
e
s
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
g
a
i
n
t
i
m
e
,
a
n
d
p
r
o
-
v
i
d
e
s
m
o
o
t
h
t
r
a
n
s
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
b
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
s
.
R
o
h
d
e
(
1
9
8
5
)
t
a
l
k
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
u
c
h
g
a
m
b
i
t
s
a
s
s
a
f
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
s
(
p
p
.
4
8
4
9
)
o
n
t
o
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
c
a
n
j
u
m
p
w
h
e
n
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
v
e
r
y
a
p
t
l
y
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
s
a
c
o
r
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
f
i
l
l
e
r
s
.
O
n
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
h
a
n
d
,
f
i
l
l
e
r
s
a
l
s
o
f
u
l
f
i
l
l
a
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
s
u
b
t
l
e
d
i
s
c
o
u
r
s
e
r
o
l
e
s
(
s
e
e
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
o
n
&
H
o
u
s
e
,
1
9
8
1
;
F
r
c
h
&
K
a
s
p
e
r
,
1
9
8
4
b
)
,
s
o
m
e
o
f
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
e
l
y
n
o
t
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
-
o
r
i
e
n
t
e
d
;
h
e
n
c
e
,
i
t
i
s
d
i
f
f
i
c
u
l
t
t
o
t
e
l
l
t
h
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
u
s
e
s
a
p
a
r
t
.
5
T
a
r
o
n
e
a
n
d
Y
u
l
e
(
1
9
8
7
)
p
o
i
n
t
e
d
o
u
t
t
h
a
t
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
h
a
s
p
a
i
d
l
i
t
t
l
e
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
v
e
r
y
c
o
m
m
o
n
i
n
t
e
r
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
p
h
e
n
o
m
e
n
o
n
,
t
h
e
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
r
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
w
o
r
d
s
o
r
w
h
o
l
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
c
l
a
u
s
e
s
.
T
h
e
y
a
r
g
u
e
t
h
a
t
r
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
C
S
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
t
w
o
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
:
(
a
)
t
o
s
t
a
l
l
,
a
n
d
(
b
)
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
l
i
s
t
e
n
e
r
w
i
t
h
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
c
h
a
n
c
e
t
o
h
e
a
r
a
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
C
h
e
n
(
1
9
9
0
)
e
m
p
h
a
s
i
z
e
d
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
C
h
i
n
e
s
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
u
s
e
o
f
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
:
O
n
l
y
o
n
e
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
w
a
s
u
s
e
d
b
y
o
n
e
l
o
w
-
p
r
o
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
l
e
a
r
n
e
r
.
T
h
e
l
e
a
r
n
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
a
t
h
e
r
c
a
r
r
y
o
n
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
a
s
k
b
y
r
e
p
e
a
t
i
n
g
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
h
a
d
s
a
i
d
t
h
a
n
a
v
o
i
d
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
a
s
k
(
p
.
1
7
4
)
.
6
W
o
n
g
-
F
i
l
l
m
o
r
e
(
1
9
7
9
)
a
n
d
A
s
t
o
n
(
1
9
8
6
)
h
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
f
e
i
g
n
i
n
g
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
a
s
a
n
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
t
h
a
t
a
l
l
o
w
s
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
t
o
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
a
l
a
c
k
o
f
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
s
a
i
d
.
7
D
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
w
i
t
c
h
i
n
g
,
H
a
r
p
e
r
(
1
9
8
5
)
d
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h
e
d
t
w
o
t
y
p
e
s
,
o
n
e
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
t
h
a
t
a
C
S
i
s
c
o
m
i
n
g
a
s
i
f
t
o
e
n
c
l
o
s
e
t
h
e
b
o
r
r
o
w
e
d
i
t
e
m
i
n
i
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
c
o
m
m
a
s
(
p
.
9
1
)
,
a
n
d
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
t
h
e
m
i
c
r
o
-
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
i
n
t
o
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
e
b
o
r
r
o
w
e
d
i
t
e
m
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
(
p
.
9
1
)
.
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
l
y
,
C
l
a
r
k
(
1
9
9
4
)
w
r
o
t
e
a
b
o
u
t
e
d
i
t
i
n
g
t
e
r
m
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
y
o
u
k
n
o
w
a
n
d
I
m
e
a
n
,
p
.
2
4
9
)
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
p
e
a
k
e
r
s
u
s
e
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
f
o
r
a
r
e
p
a
i
r
,
a
n
d
h
e
d
g
e
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
k
i
n
d
o
f
s
o
r
t
o
f
,
a
n
d
l
i
k
e
)
t
h
e
y
u
s
e
t
o
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
b
e
i
n
g
l
e
s
s
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
a
n
d
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
n
g
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
w
o
r
d
s
o
r
p
h
r
a
s
e
s
t
o
o
p
r
e
c
i
s
e
l
y
,
t
o
o
l
i
t
e
r
a
l
l
y
(
p
.
2
5
0
)
.
T
h
i
s
l
a
t
t
e
r
,
b
r
o
a
d
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
e
d
g
e
s
i
s
a
n
a
l
o
g
o
u
s
t
o
D
r
n
y
e
i
a
n
d
S
c
o
t
t
s
(
1
9
9
5
a
,
1
9
9
5
b
)
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
m
a
r
k
e
r
s
,
r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g
t
o
a
n
y
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
o
r
v
e
r
b
a
l
i
n
v
e
r
t
e
d
c
o
m
m
a
s
w
h
o
s
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
t
o
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
l
o
c
u
t
o
r
t
h
a
t
a
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
i
s
u
s
e
d
(
i
.
e
.
,
t
h
a
t
a
w
o
r
d
/
p
h
r
a
s
e
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
a
r
r
y
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
l
y
)
,
e
l
i
c
i
t
i
n
g
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
v
e
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
b
y
h
e
l
p
i
n
g
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
s
h
a
r
e
d
m
e
a
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
l
e
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
p
e
r
f
e
c
t
i
n
t
e
r
l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
L
2
.
T
a
b
l
e
1
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
o
f
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
D
e
v
i
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
/
D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
(
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
D
r
n
y
e
i
&
S
c
o
t
t
,
1
9
9
5
a
,
1
9
9
5
b
)
,
a
n
d
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
W
h
e
t
h
e
r
T
h
e
y
W
e
r
e
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
A
n
y
O
t
h
e
r
T
a
x
o
n
o
m
i
e
s
(
T
=
T
a
r
o
n
e
,
1
9
7
7
;
F
&
K
=
F
r
c
h
&
K
a
s
p
e
r
,
1
9
8
3
b
;
B
=
B
i
a
l
y
s
t
o
k
,
1
9
8
3
;
P
=
P
a
r
i
b
a
k
h
t
,
1
9
8
5
;
W
=
W
i
l
l
e
m
s
,
1
9
8
7
;
N
=
N
i
j
m
e
g
e
n
G
r
o
u
p
)
phenomena examined to lexical-compensatory strategies (i.e.,
devices used to compensate for missing lexical items; see Keller-
man, 1991, for a rationale). On the other end of the continuum is
Drnyei and Scotts (1995a, 1995b) system, which concerns L2
problem-management in general.
Although the terminologies used and their levels of specific-
ity vary a great deal, the corresponding parts of 6 of the 9 taxono-
mies (by Bialystok, 1983; Drnyei &Scott, 1995a, 1995b; Frch &
Kasper, 1983b; Paribakht, 1985; Tarone, 1977; andWillems, 1987)
showmany similarities. Bialystok(1990) expressedthis basic con-
vergence 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. If we
ignore, then, differences in the structure of the taxonomies
by abolishing the various overall categories, then a core
group of specific strategies that appear consistently across
the taxonomies clearly emerges. (p. 61)
Three of the 9 taxonomies (Frch & Kasper, 1983b; Tarone,
1977; Willems, 1987) recognize a basic duality in strategy use:
strategies are used either (a) to tailor ones message to ones
resources by altering, reducing, or completely abandoning the
original content; or (b) to try and convey the intended message in
spite of the linguistic deficiencies by extending or manipulating
the available language system. Vradi (1973) and Frchand Kas-
per (1983b) termed strategies belonging to the first option reduc-
tion strategies and Tarone (1977) called them avoidance
strategies; Corder (1981), who pointed out that they could also be
labelled risk-avoidance strategies, preferred message adjust-
ment strategies. Frch and Kasper (1983b) termed strategies
belonging to the second option achievement strategies; Corder
(1981) calledthemresource expansionstrategies andconsidered
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. Drnyei and Scott (1995a,
1995b) also implicitly recognize the achievement-reduction dual-
Drnyei and Scott 195
196 Language Learning Vol. 47, No. 1
Table 2
Various Taxonomies of Communication Strategies
Tarone
(1977)
Frch &
Kasper
(1983b)
Bialystok
(1983)
Paribakht
(1985)
Willems
(1987)
AVOIDANCE
Topic avoidance
Message
abandonment
PARAPHRASE
Approximation
Word coinage
Circumlocution
CONSCIOUS
TRANSFER
Literal
translation
Language switch
APPEAL FOR
ASSISTANCE
MIME
FORMAL RE-
DUCTION
Phonological
Morphological
Syntactic
Lexical
FUNCTIONAL
REDUCTION
Actional red.
Modal red.
Reduction of
propositional
content
-Topic avoidance
-Message
abandonment
-Meaning
replacement
ACHIEVEMENT
STRATEGIES
Compensatory
strategies
-Code switching
-Interlingual
transfer
-Inter-/
intralingual
transfer
- IL based
strategies
* Generalization
* Paraphrase
* Word coinage
* Restructuring
-Cooperative
strategies
-Non-linguistic
strategies
Retrieval strate-
gies
L1-BASED
STRATEGIES
Language
switch
Foreignizing
Tr ansliteration
L2-BASED
STRATEGIES
Semantic
contiguity
Description
Word coinage
NON-
LINGUISTIC
STRATEGIES
LINGUISTIC AP-
PROACH
Semantic
contiguity
-Superordinate
-Comparison
* Positive
comparison
Analogy
Syno nymy
* Negative
comparison
Contrast &
opposit.
Antonymy
Circumlocution
-Physical
description
* Size
* Shape
* Color
* Material
- Constituent
features
* Features
* Elaborated
features
-Locational
property
-Historical
property
- Other features
-Functional
description
Metalinguistic
clues
CONTEXTUAL
APPROACH
Linguistic
context
Use of L2 idioms
and proverbs
Transliteration
of L1 idioms
and proverbs
Idiomatic
transfer
CONCEPTUAL
APPROACH
Demonstration
Exemplification
Metonymy
MIME
Replacing verbal
output
Accompanying
verbal output
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
- Paraphrase
* Description
* Circum-
locution
* Exemplifi-
cation
- Smurfing
- Self-repair
-Appeals for
assistance
* Explicit
* Implicit
* Checking
questions
-Initiating repair
Drnyei and Scott 197
Table 2 (continued)
Various Taxonomies of Communication Strategies
Bialystok
(1990)
Nijmegen
Group
Poulisse
(1993)
Drnyei & Scott
(1995a, 1995b)
ANALYSIS-
BASED
STRATEGIES
CONTROL-
BASED
STRATEGIES
CONCEPTUAL
STRATEGIES
Analytic
Holistic
LINGUISTIC/
CODE
STRATEGIES
Morphological
creativity
Tran sfer
SUBSTITUTION
STRATEGIES
SUBSTITUTION
PLUS
STRATEGIES
RECONCEPTU-
ALIZATION
STRATEGIES
DIRECT STRATEGIES
Resource deficit-related strategies
* Message abandonment
* Message reduction
* Message replacement
* Circumlocution
* Approximation
* Use of all-purpose words
* Word-coinage
* Restructuring
* 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
ity, whereas the rest of the taxonomies cover only achievement
strategies.
Apart from the reduction-achievement distinction, the
organizing principles in 5 taxonomies (Bialystok, 1983; Frch &
Kasper, 1983b; Paribakht, 1985; Tarone, 1977; andWillems, 1989)
primarily rest on certain properties of the language devices con-
cerned (e.g., the role of the L1 or the type of knowledge utilized in
CSrealization). Bialystokandthe NijmegenGroupconsideredthe
kind of descriptive categories found in these taxonomies psycho-
logically unfounded and often over-detailed, claiming that they
artificially carve up what are in fact unitary operations (Keller-
man & Bialystok, in press; see below for more details). Four tax-
onomies (Bialystok, 1990; Drnyei & Scott, 1995a, 1995b; the
Nijmegen Group; Poulisse, 1993) follow different organization
principles, which will be discussed below.
Drnyei and Scotts taxonomy. In their extended taxonomy
of problem-solving strategies, Drnyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b)
first classified the strategies according to the manner of problem-
management; that is, how CSs contribute to resolving conflicts
and achieving mutual understanding. They separated 3 basic
categories, direct, indirect, and interactional strategies. Direct
strategies provide an alternative, manageable, and self-contained
means of getting the (sometimes modified) meaning across, like
circumlocution compensating for the lack of a word. Most tradi-
tionally identified CSs fall under this category. Indirect strategies,
on the other hand, are not strictly problem-solving devices. They
do not provide alternative meaning structures, but rather facili-
tate the conveyance of meaning indirectly by creating the condi-
tions for achieving mutual understanding: preventing
breakdowns and keeping the communication channel open (e.g.,
using fillers or feigning understanding) or indicating less-than-
perfect forms that require extra effort to understand (using strat-
egy markers or hedges). Although indirect strategies are not
meaning-related, they play a significant role in problem-
management and thereforeif the term communication strat-
egy is used in an extended senseare a valid subcategory of CSs.
198 Language Learning Vol. 47, No. 1
ity, whereas the rest of the taxonomies cover only achievement
strategies.
Apart from the reduction-achievement distinction, the
organizing principles in 5 taxonomies (Bialystok, 1983; Frch &
Kasper, 1983b; Paribakht, 1985; Tarone, 1977; andWillems, 1989)
primarily rest on certain properties of the language devices con-
cerned (e.g., the role of the L1 or the type of knowledge utilized in
CSrealization). Bialystokandthe NijmegenGroupconsideredthe
kind of descriptive categories found in these taxonomies psycho-
logically unfounded and often over-detailed, claiming that they
artificially carve up what are in fact unitary operations (Keller-
man & Bialystok, in press; see below for more details). Four tax-
onomies (Bialystok, 1990; Drnyei & Scott, 1995a, 1995b; the
Nijmegen Group; Poulisse, 1993) follow different organization
principles, which will be discussed below.
Drnyei and Scotts taxonomy. In their extended taxonomy
of problem-solving strategies, Drnyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b)
first classified the strategies according to the manner of problem-
management; that is, how CSs contribute to resolving conflicts
and achieving mutual understanding. They separated 3 basic
categories, direct, indirect, and interactional strategies. Direct
strategies provide an alternative, manageable, and self-contained
means of getting the (sometimes modified) meaning across, like
circumlocution compensating for the lack of a word. Most tradi-
tionally identified CSs fall under this category. Indirect strategies,
on the other hand, are not strictly problem-solving devices. They
do not provide alternative meaning structures, but rather facili-
tate the conveyance of meaning indirectly by creating the condi-
tions for achieving mutual understanding: preventing
breakdowns and keeping the communication channel open (e.g.,
using fillers or feigning understanding) or indicating less-than-
perfect forms that require extra effort to understand (using strat-
egy markers or hedges). Although indirect strategies are not
meaning-related, they play a significant role in problem-
management and thereforeif the term communication strat-
egy is used in an extended senseare a valid subcategory of CSs.
Similarly, some language-learning strategy classifications (e.g.,
Oxford, 1990) include indirect learning strategies, whose function
is to manage and support learning without (in many instances)
directly involving the target language (p. 135). However, we must
note that including indirect strategies is an equivocal, and con-
tested judgment. Interactional strategies involve a third
approach, whereby the participants carry out trouble-shooting
exchanges cooperatively (e.g., appeal for and grant help, or
request for and provide clarification), and therefore mutual under-
standing is a function of the successful execution of both pair parts
of the exchange.
Drnyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b), then, relate the 3 main
categories (direct, indirect, and interactional) to the 4 types of
communication problems already discussed (resource deficit,
processing time pressure, own-performance problems, other-
performance problems). resulting in a 3by4 matrix not every
cell of which is filled. (There are no direct and interactional proc-
essing time pressure-related strategies, nor indirect resource
deficit-related strategies.)
The Nijmegen Groups taxonomy. The Nijmegen Groups
and similarly, Bialystoks (Bialystok & Kellerman, 1987)main
problem with previous taxonomies was, according to Poulisse
(1994), that they are insufficiently related to theories of language
use or development, so that studies which adopt themcannot pro-
vide much insight into the cognitive processes underlying CS use.
. . . There are so many different CS types that generalizations are
easily missed (p. 620). Instead of the existing product-oriented
taxonomies, their aim was to produce a context-free, process-
based taxonomy of CSs that met three basic requirements: (a) par-
simonythe fewer categories the better; (b) generalizability
independence of variation across speakers, tasks, languages, and
proficiency levels; and (c) psychological plausibility (most impor-
tant)a taxonomy should be informed by what is currently
known about language processing, cognition and problem-solving
behaviour (Kellerman & Bialystok, in press).
Drnyei and Scott 199
In an attempt to place CSs in a parsimonious cognitive
framework, the Nijmegen Group divided compensatory strategies
only into 2 principal categories, conceptual and linguistic
strategies. Using the former, speakers manipulate the concept so
that it becomes expressible through their available linguistic (or
mimetic) resources (Kellerman 1991, p. 149). Conceptual strate-
gies have 2 types: analytic (spelling out characteristic features of
the concept) and holistic (using a substitute referent which shares
characteristics withthe target item). Linguistic strategies involve
manipulating the speakers linguistic knowledge through either
morphological creativity or transfer. Kellerman (1991) relabelled
linguistic strategies as code strategies so as to extend the catego-
rys scope to include nonverbal strategies. Kellerman and Bialys-
tok (in press) suggest that a better term for morphological
creativity is grammatical derivation. Conceptual strategies
include traditional categories like approximation, circumlocution,
and semantic word coinage; linguistic/code strategies include lit-
eral translation, code-switching, foreignizing, and grammatical
word coinage.
Bialystoks taxonomy. Bialystoks (1990) intent to develop a
psychologically plausible system of CSs was similar to that of the
NijmegenGroupandher categories are not unlike theirs. Inaccor-
dance with her cognitive theory of language processing, Bialystok
conceptualized two main classes of CSs, analysis-based and
control-based strategies. The former involve attempts to convey
the structure of the intended concept by making explicit the rela-
tional defining features (p. 133), that is, to manipulate the
intended concept on the basis of its analyzed knowledgefor
example, providing some distinctive information about it, such as
a definition. The latter involve choosing a representational sys-
temthat is possible to convey and that makes explicit information
relevant to the identity of the intended concept (p. 134), that is,
holding the original content constant and manipulating the
means of reference used to express the conceptfor example, by
resorting to L1 or using mime.
200 Language Learning Vol. 47, No. 1
Kellerman and Bialystok (in press) have made an important
attempt to synthesize the Nijmegen taxonomy with Bialystoks
(1990) framework by positing a 2by2 matrix in which concep-
tual and linguistic knowledge representations (meaning and
form) intersect withlanguage processing operations (analysis and
control). Although the matrix suggests that analysis and control
are exclusive categories, the authors emphasize that these 2 cog-
nitive functions occur simultaneously in language processing,
although with varying significance, thus forming a continuum.
CSs are, then, called upon when:
the usual balance between analysis and control is dis-
turbed (typically through inaccessibility of linguistic
knowledge) so that one of the dimensions gains promi-
nence. It is this disruption of the usual balance of process-
ing, a disruption that may or may not be deliberately
induced by the speaker, that makes this kind of communi-
cation strategy.
Poulisses taxonomy. Although the Nijmegen Groups taxon-
omy was psychologically plausibleit followed the distinction
between conceptual and linguistic knowledge representations in
long-term memory and was also compatible with Bialystoks
(1990) 2-component model of language processingPoulisse
(1993) argued that it did not sufficiently take into account the
processes involved in speech production as outlined by the L2
adaptation of Levelts (1989) well-known model of L1 processing.
For example, froma process-oriented perspective, holistic concep-
tual strategies and transfer strategies are largely similar: Psy-
chologically, there is little or no difference between a substitution
by a related L2 word and a substitution by the equivalent L1
word (Poulisse, in press-b). Thus, the psycholinguistic processes
underlying conceptual and linguistic/code strategies are no differ-
ent viewed fromLevelts speech-production perspective; therefore
the categories proposed by the Nijmegen Group need revision.
Poulisses new, modified taxonomy of compensatory strategies
consists of 3 major strategy types: (a) substitution strate-
giesomitting or changing one or more features of a lexical chunk
Drnyei and Scott 201
in search of a new lexical item (the L1/L2 specification being
treated as one of the features); (e.g., traditional approximation or
code switching); (b) substitution-plus strategiessubstitution
strategies accompanied by the out-of-the-ordinary application of
L1 or L2 morphological and/or phonological encoding procedures
(Poulisse, 1993, p. 180; e.g., foreignizing); and (c) reconceptualiza-
tion strategiesa change in the preverbal message involving
more than one chunk (e.g., circumlocution).
Kellerman and Bialystok (in press) raised several issues con-
cerning Poulisses (1993) tripartite model, arguing that it does
not seem to be able to draw a clear distinction between Substitu-
tion and Reconceptualization strategies: for example, in cases of
definition-like structures (e.g., stuff to kill flies) and strategy
tokens that exemplify superordinate categories by lists of cate-
gory members (e.g., tables, beds, chairs and cupboards for FUR-
NITURE). They contend that the ambiguous status of the fairly
common phenomenon of exemplification definitely challenges
Poulisses typology, whereas the Nijmegen Groups two-way clas-
sification scheme is immune to the list/single exemplar problem.
Kellerman and Bialystoks critical analysis, together with Poulis-
ses (in press-b) response, provide a fascinating insight into
cutting-edge developments in CS research using a psychological
approach.
Summary and Implications
Language problems and difficulties are a salient part of com-
munication in a L2 and problem-management occurs at several
levels. No wonder communication strategies, seen as the lan-
guage devices used to handle communicationproblems, have been
the target of much research during the past two decades. It is also
understandable that the approaches to understanding CSs have
varied according to the researchers general orientations towards
language analysis. This diversity is reflected in the various defini-
tions and taxonomies of CSs discussed here.
202 Language Learning Vol. 47, No. 1
Looking at the development of CS research makes a general
pattern evident. The initial priorityidentifying and classifying
CSshas gradually given way to the analysis of the mental
processes underlying CS use. At present, the main concern of sev-
eral leading researchers is to establish a process-oriented frame-
workof strategic language behavior withpsycholinguisticallyvalid
process categories. Two particularly notable approaches, the
Nijmegen Groups and Poulisses (1993), attempted to relate strat-
egy use to current models of language processing and speech pro-
duction. However, at the moment both models are restricted to
lexical-compensatory strategies only, excluding all other areas of
strategy use. One important direction for future research is to
extend the psycholinguistic approachto cover other types of strate-
gies. (Kellerman & Bialystok, in press, have already begun by
attempting to fit reduction strategies and appeals for help into
the Nijmegen scheme.) Another is to focus on non-lexical CSs as
well, particularlyonstrategiesrelatedtogrammatical problems.
In sum, 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. First, it is a truly applied area: The prac-
tical implications of understanding problem-management in L2
communication are enormous. After all, L2 speakers spend a lot of
time and effort struggling with language difficulties, yet L2
courses do not generally prepare students to cope with perform-
ance problems. Second, by relating interlanguage analysis to psy-
cholinguistic investigations of speechproduction, the study of CSs
help refine scientific models of L2 learning and use.
Revised version accepted 11 October 1996
Note
1
Even though Long (1983) called these discourse modification patterns
tactics rather than strategies, their definition appears to fit traditionally
conceptualized communication strategies, in that CSs are immediate ver-
bal first aid devices.
Drnyei and Scott 203
References
Aston, G. (1986). Trouble-shooting in interaction with learners: The more the
merrier? Applied Linguistics, 7, 128-143.
Bialystok, E. (1983). Some factors in the selection and implementation of
communication strategies. In C. Frch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in
interlanguage communication (pp. 100-118). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Bialystok, E. (1984). Strategies in interlanguage learning and performance.
In A. Davies, C. Criper &A. P. R. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 37-48).
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bialystok, E., &Kellerman, E. (1987). Language strategies in the classroom.
In B. K. Das (Ed.), Communication and learning in the classroomcommu-
nity (pp. 160-175). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Blum-Kulka, S., &Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance
and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165-
180.
Bongaerts, T., Kellerman, E., & Bentlage, A. (1987). Perspectives and profi-
ciency in L2 referential communication. Studies in Second Language Ac-
quisition, 9, 171-200.
Bongaerts, T., &Poulisse, N. (1989). Communication strategies in L1 and L2:
Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 10, 253-268.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative lan-
guage pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.). Language and
communication (pp. 2-27). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative ap-
proaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1,
1-47.
Chen, S. Q. (1990). Astudy of communicationstrategies ininterlanguage pro-
duction by Chinese EFL learners. Language Learning, 40, 155-187.
Clark, H. H. (1994). Managing problems in speaking. Speech Communica-
tions, 15, 243-250.
Clennell, C. (1994). Investigating the use of communication strategies by
adult second language learners: Acase for trusting your ownjudgement in
classroom research. TESOL Journal, 4, 32-35.
Cohen, A. D., Weaver, S. J., & T. Y. Li (1995). The impact of strategies-based
instruction on speaking a foreign language (Research report). Minneapo-
lis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Language Resource Center.
Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: St.
Martins Press.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
204 Language Learning Vol. 47, No. 1
Daly, J. A., & Wiemann, J. M. (Eds.). (1994). Strategic interpersonal commu-
nication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dechert, H. (1983). How a story is done in a second language. In C. Frch &
G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp.
175195). Harlow: Longman.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1988). Communicative processes and strategies. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 108-121.
Drnyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL
Quarterly, 29, 55-85.
Drnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1995a, 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), Long Beach,
CA.
Drnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1995b). Communication strategies: An empirical
analysis withretrospection. In, J. S. Turley &K. Lusby (Eds.), Selectedpa-
pers from the proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium of the Deseret
Language and Linguistics Society (pp.155-168). Provo, UT: Brigham
Young University.
Drnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1991). Strategic competence and how to teach it.
ELT Journal, 45, 16-23.
Drnyei, Z., &Thurrell, S. (1992). Conversation &dialogues in action. Hemel
Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall.
Drnyei, Z., &Thurrell, S. (1994). Teaching conversational skills intensively:
Course content and rationale. ELT Journal, 48, 4049.
Duff, P. (in press). The lexical generation gap: Aconnectionist account of cir-
cumlocution in Chinese as a second language. In G. Kasper & E. Keller-
man (Eds.), Advances in communication strategy research. London:
Longman.
Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1981). Lets talk and talk about it: A pedagogic
interactional grammar of English. Munich: Urban & Schwarzenberg.
Edmondson, W., & House, J. (1991). Do learners talk too much? The waffle
phenomenonininterlanguage pragmatics. InR. Phillipson, E. Kellerman,
L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/second lan-
guage pedagogy research: A commemorative volume for Claus Frch (pp.
273-287). Clevedon UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Frch, C., &Kasper, G. (1983a). Strategies in interlanguage communication.
Harlow, UK: Longman.
Frch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983b). Plans and strategies in foreign language
communication. In C. Frch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlan-
guage communication (pp. 20-60). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Drnyei and Scott 205
Frch, C., &Kasper, G. (1983c). On identifying communication strategies in
interlanguage production. In C. Frch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in
interlanguage communication (pp. 210-238). Harlow: Longman.
Frch, C., &Kasper, G. (1984a). Two ways of defining communication strate-
gies. Language Learning, 34, 45-63.
Frch, C., &Kasper, G. (1984b). Ja und? - og hva s?: Acontrastive discourse
analysis of gambits in German and Danish. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive
linguistics: Prospects and problems (pp. 69-105). Berlin: Mouton.
Frch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). Strategic competence in foreign language
teaching. In: G. Kasper (Ed.), Learning, teaching and communication in
the foreign language classroom (pp. 179-193). Aarhus: Aarhus University
Press.
Gass, S. M., &Selinker, L. (1994). Second language acquisition: An introduc-
tory course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1991). Miscommunication in nonnative dis-
course. In N. Coupland, H. Giles, & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Miscommuni-
cation and problematic talk (pp. 121-145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Griffiths, R. (1991). Pausological research in an L2 context: Arationale, and
review of selected studies. Applied Linguistics, 12, 345-364.
Haastrup, K., & Phillipson, R. (1983). Achievement strategies in learner/na-
tive speaker interaction. In C. Frch &G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in in-
terlanguage communication (pp. 140-158). Harlow, UK: Longman.
Harper, H. (1985). Howto do a lot with little: Learner strategies of communi-
cation in verbal interaction. Revue de Phonetique Appliquee, 73-74-75, 81-
94.
Kasper, G., & Kellerman, E. (Eds.). (in press). Advances in communication
strategy research. London: Longman.
Kebir, C. (1994). An action research look at the communication strategies of
adult learners. TESOL Journal, 4, 28-31.
Kellerman, E. (1991). Compensatory strategies in second language research:
Acritique, a revision, and some (non-)implications for the classroom. In R.
Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain
(Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative
volume for Claus Frch (pp. 142-161). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Mat-
ters.
Kellerman, E., Ammerlaan, T,. Bongaerts, T., & Poulisse, N. (1990). System
and hierarchy in L2 compensatory strategies. In: R. C. Scarcella, E. S. An-
dersen &S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a
second language (pp. 163-178). New York: Newbury House.
Kellerman, E., Bongaerts, T., & Poulisse, N. (1987). Strategy and system in
L2 referential communication. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Second language acquisi-
tion in context (pp. 100112). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
206 Language Learning Vol. 47, No. 1
Kellerman, E., &Bialystok, E. (in press). On psychological plausibility in the
study of communication strategies. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.),
Advances in communication strategy research. London: Longman.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1988). Communication strategies and psychological
processes underlying lexical simplification. IRAL, 36, 309-319.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). An introduction to second lan-
guage acquisition research. New York: Longman.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: Fromintention to articulation. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the
negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. New York: Newbury House.
Paribakht, T. (1985). Strategic competence and language proficiency. Applied
Linguistics, 6, 132-146.
Paribakht, T. (1986). On the pedagogical relevance of strategic competence.
TESL Canada Journal, 3, 53-66.
Pica, T. (1994). research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-
language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learn-
ing, 44, 493-527.
Poulisse, N. (1987). Problems and solutions in the classification of compensa-
tory strategies. Second Language Research, 3, 141-153.
Poulisse, N. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of
English. Dordrecht: Foris.
Poulisse, N. (1993). A theoretical account of lexical communication strate-
gies. In R. Schreuder &B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (157-189).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Poulisse, N. (1994). Communication strategies in a second language. In The
encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 620-624). Oxford: Per-
gamon Press.
Poulisse, N. (in press-a). Compensatory strategies and the principles of clar-
ity and economy. InG. Kasper &E. Kellerman(Eds.), Advances incommu-
nication strategy research. London: Longman.
Poulisse, N. (in press-b). Theories of communication strategy use: Some re-
cent proposals. In A. Bruton & R. Manchon (Eds.).
Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T. & Kellerman, E. (1987). The use of retrospective
verbal reports in the analysis of compensatory strategies. In C. Frch, &
G. Kasper (Eds.), Introspectioninsecondlanguage research(pp. 213229).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Poulisse, N., & Schils, E. (1989). The influence of task-and proficiency-
related factors on the use of communication strategies: A quantitative
analysis. Language Learning, 39, 1548.
Drnyei and Scott 207
Raupach, M. (1983). Analysis andevaluationof communicationstrategies. In
C. Frch & G. Kasper (Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication
(pp. 199209). Harlow: Longman.
Rohde, L. (1985). Compensatory fluency: Astudy of spoken English produced
by four Danish learners. In E. Glahn & A. Holmen (Eds.), Learner dis-
course (pp. 4369). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Press.
Ross, S. (in press). Aretrospective approach to understanding inference in a
second language listening task. In G. Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Ad-
vances in communication strategy research. London: Longman.
Rost, M. (1994, March). Communicationstrategies: Are they teachable? Paper
presented at TESOL 94, Baltimore, MD.
Rost, M., &Ross, S. (1991). Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology
and teachability. Language Learning, 41, 235273.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research his-
tory and typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in
language learning (pp. 1530). Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall.
Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign-
language teaching. Philadelphia: The Center for Curriculum Develop-
ment.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom
practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful defini-
tions for applied linguistics. In J. H. Hulstijn & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Con-
sciousness in second language learning [Special issue], AILA Review, 11,
1126.
Scholfield, P. (1987). Communication strategies: The researcher outmanoeu-
vred? Applied Linguistics, 8, 219232.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10, 209230.
Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A
progress report. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio &R. C. Crymes (Eds.), On TE-
SOL 77 (pp. 194203). Washington: TESOL.
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in in-
terlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417431.
Tarone, E. (1984). Teaching strategic competence in the foreign-language
classroom. In: S. J. Savignon &M. S. Berns (Eds.), Initiatives in communi-
cative language teaching (pp. 127136). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Tarone, E., Cohen, A. D., &Dumas, G. (1976). Acloser look at some interlan-
guage terminology: A framework for communication strategies. Working
Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 7690.
Tarone, E., & Yule, G. (1987). Communication strategies in East-West inter-
actions. InL. E. Smith(Ed.), Discourse across cultures: Strategies inworld
Englishes (pp. 4965). Hemel Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall.
208 Language Learning Vol. 47, No. 1
Tarone E., & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Vradi, T. (1980). Strategies of target language learner communication: Mes-
sage adjustment. IRAL, 18, 5971. Paper originally presented at the VIth
Conference of the Rumanian-English Linguistics Project, Timisoara, Ru-
mania, 1973.
Vradi, T. (1992). Review of the books Communication strategies: A psycho-
logical analysis of second-language use, by E. Bialystok and The use of
compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English by N. Poulisse, T.
Bongaerts, & E. Kellerman. Applied Linguistics, 13, 434440.
Vradi, T. (1993). Disfluency phenomena in L2 speech. In Z. Kvecses (Ed.),
Voices of friendship: Linguistic essays in honor of Lszl T. Andrs (pp.
117128). Budapest: Etvs Lornd University.
Wagner, J. (1983). Dann du tagen eineeeee - weisse Platte: An analysis of in-
terlanguage communication in instructions. In C. Frch & G. Kasper
(Eds.), Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 159174). Harlow:
Longman.
Wagner, J., & Firth, A. (in press). Communication strategies at work. In G.
Kasper & E. Kellerman (Eds.), Advances in communication strategy re-
search. London: Longman.
Wiemann, J. M., &Daly, J. A. (1994). Introduction: Getting your own way. In
J. A. Daly &J. M. Wiemann(Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication
(pp. vii-xiv). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Willems, G. (1987). Communication strategies and their significance in for-
eign language teaching. System, 15, 351364.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1979). Individual differences in second language acquisi-
tion. In C. J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, & W. S-Y. Wang (Eds.), Individual dif-
ferences in language ability and language behavior (pp. 203228). New
York: Academic Press.
Yarmohammadi, L., & Seif, S. (1992). More on communication strategies:
Classification, resources, frequency and underlying processes. IRAL, 30,
223232.
Yule, G. (inpress). Referential communicationtasks. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1990). Eliciting the performance of strategic compe-
tence. In: R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, &S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Develop-
ing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 179194). New
York: Newbury House.
Yule, G., & Tarone, E. (1991). The other side of the page: Integrating the
study of communication strategies and negotiated input in SLA. In R.
Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain
(Eds.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research: A commemorative
Drnyei and Scott 209
volume for Claus Frch (pp. 162171). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Mat-
ters.
Yule, G., &Tarone, E. (inpress). Investigating L2 reference: Pros and cons. In
G. Kasper &E. Kellerman (Eds.), Advances in communication strategy re-
search. London: Longman.
210 Language Learning Vol. 47, No. 1