COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES USED BY ENGLISH PRE-SERVICE

STUDENTS OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF JAKARTA

Zaitunithoen_hatim@yahoo.com
Herwina Bahar wina_bahar@yahoo.com
Iswan guavaones_Isw@yahoo.co.id
Muhammadiyah University of Jakarta
ABSTRACT -- In communication, SL learners commonly face many problems dealing with
their second language proficiency. Thus, they will use communication strategies in order to
build effective communication. The aim of this paper is to find out communication strategies
applied by English pre-service students of Faculty of Education, Muhammadiyah University
of Jakarta. A total number of 42 students registered on the second semester of academic year
2015/2016 participated in this qualitative study. The instruments used to collect the data were
students conversation recordings with foreigners who speak English. The data were analyzed
based on Dornyei and Scotts (1997) taxonomy of communication strategies. The results were
presented in percentages. Based on the analysis of their conversation recordings through 23
strategies of Dornyei & Scotts taxonomy, literal translation (LT) found as the most frequent
strategy used by the students (73 times or 21%). The least frequent strategies used were word
coinage (WC), appeal for help (AH), and clarification request (CR). These three strategies
were only used once by the students (0.2%).
Keywords: communication strategies, pre-service students, taxonomy of communication
strategies
Bouton (1996) notes that the development of communicative competence should be
the goal of language teaching.However, in L2 context, most of the learners face problems
especially in speaking ability since it requires spontaneous responses. Besides, not all
learners are able to build meaningful communication in effective ways. Thus, in order to get
their message across, L2 learners make their best use of all availabe resources (such as
vocabularies, grammar, pronunciation, etc.) and apply a variety of different strategies. The
successful use of such strategies in order to communicate in a second language is called
strategic competence (Thornburry, 2008, p. 29).
The strategic competence of L2 speakers is gained by means of what are called
communication strategies. Communication strategies are exploited by these speakers when
they are faced with some troubles regarding their communication and conversation or when
Page 1

confronted with misunderstanding by a co-speaker. Further, Thornburry (2008) explains that

some commonly encountered communication strategies are such as:
1. circumlocution: using of a long complicated way of expressing something, for
example: I get a red in my head to mean shy
2. word coinage: creating a new word or phrase such as: vegetarianist for vegetarian
3. foreignizing a wrod: such as turning the Spanish word una carpeta (meaning a file for
papers) into the English-sounding a carpet
4. approximation: using an alternative, related word, as in the example of work table for
workbench
5. using an all-purpose word, such as stuff for thing, or make for do
6. language switch: or it is also called code-switching in which the speakers use L1 word
or expression
7. paralinguistic: using gesture, mime, etc. in order to convey the intended meaning
8. appealing for help, for example by leaving an utterance incomplete, such as in the
following dialogue:
Speaker 1: The taxi driver get angry, he lose his, ern, how you say?
Speaker 2: Temper
Speaker 1: He lose his temper and he shout me
Pre-service students of English education study program, Faculty of education,
Muhammadiyah University of Jakarta are prepared to become English teachers. They are
required to be competent for all language skills; active and passive. In the curriculum, the
students are given 3 stages of Speaking subjects, i.e. Speaking 1, 2, and 3. In Speaking 1
class, the students are taught basic skills in delivering their thoughts in English. In the
activities, the lecturer gives lecturing and after that the students will be asked to practice their
English in various ways; individual free-talk, dialogue, debate, etc. In Speaking 2, the
students are expected to be able to communicate with native speakers or to any foreigners
who speak English. The students are asked to have a communication to these English
speaking-people to measure whether or not their English is understandable enough. In
Speaking 3 they are taught public speaking and how to make an effective presentation. It is

Page 2

aimed to prepare them to be ready to deliver their ideas in front of the class (after they
graduate and become teachers).
Among those three levels of Speaking subject, the writer found most of the students
faced problems when dealing with native speakers or foreigners who speak English (in
Speaking 2). As when they were asked to have a 3-5 minutes communication with any
foreginers who speak English. It was their middle-term assignment. They should record their
conversation and put the dialogue in CDs. The CDs were then listened by the writer and used
as the resources to give comments, feedback and assessments toward students speaking
performance. The writer detected various communication strategies used by the students in
running two-ways conversation; between the students and the English speaking foreigners.
This finding proved what Dornyei (1995) claims that in order to solve their problems,
students are inclined to develop communication strategies (CSs) to overcome target language
deficiencies and eventually develop communicative competence.
Further, Dornyei (1995) explains that to solve their problems in the real
communication context, the interaction put L2 speakers to resort two sets of solutions;
avoidance strategies or compensatory strategies. The first set used to deal with cancellation of
the message while the other one applied in order to keep the conversation going. The choice
of L2 learners to employ any strategy under these two-sets of CSs is the compensation of
their insufficient knowledge of the language system. Thus, it is interesting to analyze which
strategy (ies) is/are most frequent used by L2 learners in acquiring their second language.
Based on the backgoround above, the writer is interested to analyze communication
strategies used by English pre-service students of Faculty of Education, Muhammadiyah
University of Jakarta, when having their communication with foreigners who speak English
in accomplishing their middle-term assignment, entitled: Communication Strategies Used by
English Pre-service Students of Muhammadiyah University of Jakarta

Page 3

Communication Strategies
In the field of applied linguistics, communication strategies has by now become
compulsory in any overview of L2 acquisition and use. The term of communication strategies
was firstly introduced by Selinker in 1972. This term then was defined by several linguists at
various points. Accoding to Corder (1981), communication strategies refer to systematic
technique employed by a speaker to express his or her meaning when faced with some
difficulty (103). Further he explains that communication strategies are used by L2 learners
in order to overcome the problems when communicating in target language. The problems are
caused by the incapacity of the L2 learners is using their second language. Stern (1983)
describes that communication strategies are techniques of coping with difficulties in
communicating in an imperfectly known second language.
Another definition given by Faerch and Casper (1983) who define communication
strategies as potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual presents itself as a
problem in reaching a particular communicative goal (p. 36). They put psychological factor
of individual mental response as the main aspect which affect L2 learners problem in
communication rather than the intercolutor.
Bialystok (1990) claims that by applying communication strategies, obstacles faced
by the speakers can be handled through alternative expressions to represent the intended
meaning. This defintion was implied in Dornyei (1995) statement which emphasizes that
communication strategies is a wide range of communication-enhancing devices (p. 60).
Based on the forementioned definitions of communication strategies, it can be
concluded that communication strategies employed by L2 learners in order to help them to
reach an intended communication.
Communication Strategies Taxonomies

Page 4

Even there are many definitions given toward communication strategies, there is no
universally accepted one, instead, several taxonomies of communication strategies exist.
These taxonomies cover different ranges of language devices. The various taxonomies in the
literature are primarily differ in terms of terminologies rather than the core of specific
strategies.
Some of taxonomies proposed by scholars since they were expanded in 1970s until
the last taxonomy in 1990 are Tarone (1980), Faerch & Kasper (1983), Bialystok (1981;
1990), The Nijmegen group(Kellerman, et.al., 1990), Poulisse (1997), and Dornyei & Scott
(1995).In their taxonomies, Tarone (1980) and Faerch & Kasper (1983) emphasize on the
idea of communication strategies which are used consciously. Faerch & Kaspers (1983)
clearly define communication strategies as potentially conscious plans for solving to what
an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal (p.
36). These plans are classified by them into three types, i.e. always consciously used, never
consciously used, and maybe consciously or unconsciously used (depend on the situations).
Bialystok (1981; 1990), however, has different ideas. She does nothave evidence to
support the claim of consciousness in communication strategies. According to her, when
they want to communicate, speakers have a choice to use the expressions/words without the
consideration of consciousness. Hence, she excludes the focus of consciouness in her
taxonomies. The Nijmegen group (1990) argues the focus on mental procedures in
communication strategies. Instead, they claim that cognitive aspect plays a major role in
speakers communication strategies. Their taxonomies classify communication strategies into
conceptual and linguistic strategies. In 1997, Poulisse tried to conceptualize detailed
psycholinguistic of strategic behaviour in which L2 learners employ when they find
difficulties to deliver their intended message.
Dornyei & Scotts Taxonomies (1997)

Page 5

Reviewing their own taxonomies of 1995, Dornyei & Scott proposed their taxonomies
in 1997 which were considered as the summary of all communication strategies available in
research. They added time-gaining strategies in the taxonomy to refer to the time gained by
the speakers to keep the communication channel open when they encounter problems. Their
taxonomies are problem-solving based strategies refer to the manner of problem-management
in which the strategies used in communication in order to resolve conflicts and achieve
mutual understanding.
Dornyei & Scott (1997) divided the strategies into three; direct, indirect, and
interactional strategies. Direct strategies comprise alternative, manageable, and self-contained
means of getting meaning across, such as finding the compensation for the lack of words.
Tradionally, most of communication strategies were categorized into these types of strategies.
Vice versa, indirect strategies are not straight to the point problem solving tools. Rather, they
provide the speakers with the alternatives to convey the meaning indirectly through several
channels such as using fillers or strategy markers. In interactional strategies, the participants
in the communication build cooperated-exchangeslike appealing for help and or requesting
clarification to reach successful mutual understanding between them. Based on the ideas of
those three classifications, Dornyei and Scott (1997) design their communication strategies
taxonomies as in the following table 1:

Table 1. Communication Strategies Taxonomy of 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
Page 6

2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
2.1.7
2.1.8
2.1.9
2.1.10
2.1.11
2.1.12
2.1.13
2.1.14

Word coinage (WC): To make up a non-existing new word to communicate

Code-switching (CS): To switch the language to L1 without bothering to
translate
Foreignizing (For): To adjust L1 to L2
Use non-linguistic means (Uon): To replace a word with non-verbal cues
Self repair (SR): To make a self-correction of ones own speech
Mumbling (Mum): To mumble with inaudible voice
Useof all-purpose words (UA): To extend a general, empty item to the exact
word
Approximation (App): To substitute the L2 term witth the item which shares
the same meaning
Circumlocution (Cir): To describe the properties of the instead of the exact
target item
Literal translation (LT): To translate word from L1 to L2
Use of fillers/hesitation devices (UF): To use filling words to gain time to
think
Self-repetition (Sr): To repeat words or phrases of ones own speech
Other-repetition (OR): To repeat something the interlocutor said to gain time
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 assk for repetition when having
comprehension
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

METHOD AND PROCEDURES

This is a qualitative research attempting to find out communication strategies used by
42 English pre-service students of Faculty of Education, Muhammadiyah University of
Jakarta. They were registered in the second year of bachelor degree program. The instruments
used to collect the data were students conversation recordings with foreginers who speak
Page 7

English. The data were analyzed based on Dornyei & Scotts (1997) taxonomy of
communication strategies (Table 1). The results were presented in percentages.
The writer applied the following procedures in doing her research: (1) collecting
students conversation recordings with foreigners who speak English; (2) analyzing the
strategies used by each student in the conversation; (3) tabulating the point of each strategy
employed by each student; (4) calculating the results and then presenting those results in
percentages; (5) converting the percentages into pie bar, in order to make the interpretation
of the results clearer.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Findings
In collecting the data, the writer listened to students conversation recordings with the
foreigners who speak English. The analysis was based on Dornyei & Scotts taxonomy of
communication strategies. In terms of frequency, the overall strategies employed by the
students are presented in the following table 2:

Table 2. Overall Strategy Used by the Students

in terms of Frequency and Percentages
Strategy Used

Frequency

Percentages

1.1 TA

1.4

1.2 MA

13

3.6
Page 8

2.1.1 WC

0.2

2.1.2 CS

2.1.3 For

0.6

2.1.4 Uon

1.6

2.1.5 SR

40

11.2

2.1.6 Mum

1.1

2.1.7 UA

0.6

2.1.8 App

2.2

2.1.9 Cir

1.6

2.1.10 LT

73

21

2.1.11 UF

41

12

2.1.12 Sr

19

5.3

2.1.13 OR

40

11.2

2.1.14 Omi

55

16

2.2.1 AR

1.4

2.2.2 AH

0.2

2.2.3 CR

0.2

2.2.4 AC

14

2.2.5 CC

0.6

2.2.6 EN

TOTAL

352

100%

The whole picture of the analysis results above can be clearly seen in the following pie-bar:

Page 9

It can be seen from table 2 that total strategies used by the students were 352 traits.
The use of literal translation (LT) was the most frequent strategy used by the students with 73
times or 21% out of total strategies. Meanwhile, there were 3 strategies appeared to be the
least frequent ones employed by the students, i.e. word coinage (WC), appeal for help (AH),
and clarification request (CR). The students only used each of these three for one time or
0.2% of total strategies used.

Discussion
Based on what the writer found from the students recordings, it was found that most
of them tended to translate their English directly from Bahasa (L1). The following is one of
the examples of literal translation used by the students:
Do you think about in here? (in Bahasa: Apa menurut anda tentang tempat ini?)

Page 10

It is clearly seen that the students was too much influenced by her L1 in which she literally
translated what she thought in her L1 into Engish.
In terms of three strategies on the last rank of the frequency, it was found that the
students only coined a new word once, confirmed for help once, and requested clarification
once. If it is referred to overall strategies employed, the results showed that in compensatory
strategies, the students tended to employ intra-actional strategies more frequent than the
interactional ones.

Conclusion
In communication, SL learners commonly face many problems dealing with their
second language proficiency. Thus, they will use communication strategies in order to build
effective communication.
English pre-service students of Faculty of Education Muhammadiyah University of
Jakarta also employed the strategies when they were running two-ways communication with
foreigners who speak English. Based on the analysis of their conversation recordings through
23 strategies of Dornyei & Scotts taxonomy, literal translation (LT) found as the most
frequent strategy used by the students (73 times or 21%). For the least frequent strategies,
word coinage (WC), appeal for help (AH), and clarification request (CR) were only used
once by the students (0.2%).

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.

Page 11

Bouton, L.F. (1996). Pragmatics and language learning. Pragmatics and language learning,
7, 1-20. Urbana-Campaign: DEIL, University of Illinois
Corder, S.P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dornyei, Z. & Scott, M.L. (1997). Communication strategies in second language: Definition
and taxonomies. Language Learning, 47, 173 220.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983). Plans and strategies in foreign language learning and
communication. NY: Longman.
Kellerman, E, Selinker, L, Sharwood, SM & Swam, M (eds). Foreign/second language
pedagogy research. Ina communicative volume for Claus Faerch, 142-161, Clevedon
Multilingual Matters.
Poulisse, N. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, pp. 209231.
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage.
Language learning, 30, 417-431.
Thornburry, Scott. (2008). How to teach speaking. NY: Longman.

Page 12