Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 43(2), 2007, pp.

83–106
© School of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
doi:10.2478/v10010-007-0020-5

COMPENSATORY STRATEGIES
IN ARABIC AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

GHALEB RABAB’AH
University of Jordan, Amman
[email protected]

DOGAN BULUT
Erciyes University, Kayseri
[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the compensatory strategies (CpSs) used in the oral discourse of second
year students studying Arabic as a second language (ASL) in the Arabic Language Institute at
King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The study examined the various strategies used
by a sample of 24 male learners who were all high school graduates from 8 different countries
(Russia, Kosovo, Senegal, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Benin, Malaysia and Ethiopia), speaking 8 dif-
ferent languages (Russian, Albanian, Wolof, Tajik, Urdu, French, Malay and Somali). To elicit
the CpS use, the subjects were audio-recorded while performing two tasks: an interview and a
role-play. The data were transcribed and analysed. The results showed that the subjects used a
range of compensatory strategies in their oral production. Moreover, there were differences
between the individual learners’ strategies according to their native language. The findings of
the study showed that ASL learners were risk-takers, and they expanded their limited linguistic
resources to achieve their communicative goals. The findings of the present study suggest that
strategic competence as reflected in the CpSs used by ASL learners should be integrated into the
ASL curriculum.

KEYWORDS: Compensatory strategies; communication strategies; Arabic as a second language;

discourse analysis; strategic competence.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Thousands of non-native speakers of Arabic all over the world are learning Arabic as a
foreign language because they have been motivated to know more about Islam and Arab
84 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

culture (Rabab’ah and Zughoul, 2007). Students in the US are also keen on learning the
language and knowing about its culture. Arabic is currently taught in most major institu-
tions of higher education in the United States and in some high schools. In The Washing-
ton Post, Simon (2001) reports:

A 1998 Modern Language Association survey showed that there were 5,060
undergraduates taking courses in Arabic at American universities; most of
them were majoring in other fields, such as history or international relations.
What’s more, the number of students studying Arabic began to rise after the
Persian Gulf War, and has jumped sharply since Sept. 11.

Saad (2004) also reports that students are learning Arabic at approximately 70 element-
ary and secondary schools across the United States, according to a survey by the Wash-
ington-based Centre for Applied Linguistics (CAL). The survey indicated that most of
these are private Islamic schools; however, with government funding, more public
schools are adding Arabic.
Learners of Arabic as a foreign/second language face difficulties not only in writing,
but also in communicating in real life situations (e.g., Smadi and Al-Abed Al-Haq 1995;
Stowasser 1981). The nature of the Arabic language plays a role in ASL learners’ defi-
ciencies. One of the major areas of difficulty that non-native speakers of Arabic may en-
counter is expressing themselves with ease and being understood by their interlocutors.
Smadi and Al-Abed Al-Haq (1995: 95) point out:

One of the most frustrating exercises in learning Arabic as a foreign language

(AFL) is the learner’s discovery that s/he cannot communicate with ease in
actual situations, even after many years of formal instruction in Arabic. In ad-
dition, most learners are still unable to write a coherent, well-developed and
properly organized piece of discourse and are incapable of manipulating the
rhetoric features of Arabic in their academic and nonacademic writing.

The main concern of foreign language teaching is the development of the learners’ com-
municative competence; however, a review of the textbooks available for teaching ASL
in Saudi Arabia leads to a surprising conclusion that one of the essential components of
such competence, strategic competence, is being ignored. Strategic competence refers to
learners’ use of compensatory strategies (CpSs), such as paraphrase, approximation,
coinage, transliteration, appeal for help and language switch in order for them to pass a
comprehensible message to their listeners when they lack the required linguistic items.
The development of ASL learners’ strategic competence helps to solve their communica-
tion problems (e.g., Oxford 1990; Tarone and Yule 1989; Dörnyei 1995; Rababah 2004).
An integration of strategic competence into ASL curriculum could be very helpful to
solve some of the communication problems that ASL learners may face.
 Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language 85

1.2. Compensatory strategy research

The fact that foreign/second language learners usually have some sort of communicative
deficiency in L2 production highlights one of the key issues of research in SLA, known
as communication strategies (CSs) or compensatory strategies (CpSs). To achieve suc-
cessful communication in situations where L2 learners face problems when there is a
mismatch between their communicative goals and their linguistic resources, they resort
to compensatory strategies (CpSs), as Rababah (2004: 148) points out:

Language learners attempt to solve their communication problems when they

lack adequate resources in the target language by resorting to CSs. Most re-
searchers agree that CSs are used to bridge the gap that exists between the non-
native speakers’ linguistic competence in the target language and their commu-
nicative needs.

Much of CpS/CS research has been concerned with defining, identifying and classifying
CpSs (e.g. Bialystok 1983; Færch and Kasper 1983a; Tarone, 1977). In SLA research,
communication strategies (CSs) have been referred to using different terms as “commu-
nication strategies” (Færch and Kasper 1983a), “communicational strategies” (Varadi
1980), “communicative strategies” (Corder 1983), “compensation strategies” (Harding
1983), and “compensatory strategies” (Poulisse 1990). In the present research, we em-
ployed Poulisse’s (1990) term, “compensatory strategies”, to emphasize that they are
active, conscious techniques that students can adopt, and teachers can teach.
Several definitions of compensatory strategies have been proposed in literature, but
most definitions are based on the concept of “problematicity” (Kasper and Kellerman
1997: 2). For example, Tarone (1977: 195) defines them as “conscious communication
strategies that are used by an individual to overcome the crisis which occurs when lan-
guage structures are inadequate to convey the individual’s thought”. Poulisse (1990: 88)
suggests, “[c]ompensatory strategies are strategies which a language user employs in or-
der to achieve his intended meaning on becoming aware of problems arising during the
planning phase of an utterance due to his own linguistic shortcomings”.
CpS-instruction has also been another area of interest. A group of researchers ques-
tioned the validity and usefulness of CpS training (Bialystok 1990; Kellerman 1991). By
contrast, other researchers (Willems 1987; Dörnyei 1995) have stressed that learners
must be trained in the use of CS because classroom learners cannot simply learn by “do-
ing” given that the foreign language classroom is not by its very nature the ideal scenario
for learners to engage “naturally” in a variety of communicative situations that would al-
low the implicit development of their strategic competence. A bulk of CpS research since
then has also addressed several issues, such as the effect of type of task and the condi-
tions under which the task is performed on strategy use and choice (e.g. Green 1995;
Poulisse 1990; Corrales and Emily 1989) and the effect of language proficiency on the
use of CpSs (Bialystok 1990; Green 1995; Rababah 2001).
86 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

Most CpS research has been conducted on English and many other languages other
than Arabic. To the best of our knowledge, no CpS research has been done on learners of
Arabic as a foreign language except Rababah’s study (2001). It is also noticeable that
much of the linguistic research done so far on speakers of Arabic as a foreign/second
language targeted only written discourse (Smadi and Al-Abed Al-Haq 1995; Suleiman
1991; and Stowasser 1981). This study is, therefore, an attempt to fill this gap by invest-
igating the compensatory strategies (CpSs) found in the ASL learners’ oral discourse.
The significance of this study drives from its impact on improving the quality of teach-
ing Arabic as a foreign language in general and making inroads into successful commu-
nication in Arabic in particular, in addition to the development of effective strategy train-
ing programs.

2. The study

2.1 Aims

The present research investigated the use of achievement strategies, reduction strategies
(Færch and Kasper 1983a), and other-performance problem-related strategies (Dörnyei
1995) to describe the data collected, which was based on audio-recorded transcripts of
the AFL learners’ oral production. Adopting a psycholinguistic approach (e.g. Færch and
Kasper 1983a; Bialystok 1983; Dörnyei, 1995), this study attempted to identify and ana-
lyse the CpSs that speakers of Arabic as a second language use when they encounter a
problem in communication. Strategies such as message abandonment, paraphrase, re-
structuring, retrieval, repetition, approximation, coinage, clarification request and asking
for repetition were studied in their context. This study also looked at differences in the
use of such strategies according the subjects’ native language. A particular type of
strategy might be used in one task but not in another. In order to ascertain whether this
applied to our subjects in the present research, two different tasks were used: an inter-
view and a role-play. The study sought to answer the following questions:

(1) Are there any differences in strategy use among the ASL learners of different
native language backgrounds?

(2) Are there any differences in strategy use among the learners due to the two tasks
used to elicit the ASL learners’ oral discourse?

2.2. Subjects

The data were collected during the spring semester of the academic year 2005–2006
from twenty-four male students from various social, language, and learning back-
 Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language 87

grounds. Twenty-four students were selected from two classes of 44 students studying
Arabic as a second language (ASL). The subjects were at the intermediate proficiency
level in Arabic, and they have been learning Arabic in a formal classroom context in the
Arabic Language Institute at King Saud University for two years. They were not living
in the university housing but in apartments with other compatriot students. The subjects
were interested in participating in the study. From the volunteers, the researchers selec-
ted those who spoke different languages to cover a wide range of nationalities and differ-
ent linguistic and ethnic backgrounds. Consequently, the sample consisted of 24 learners
of Arabic from eight countries (Russia, Kosovo, Senegal, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Benin,
Malaysia and Ethiopia), and speaking eight different languages (Russian, Albanian, Wo-
lof, Tajik, Urdu, French, Malay and Somali). Their age ranged from 20 to 22. The sub-
jects had not received any information about compensatory strategies so as not to raise
their awareness toward them, which then might affect their choice of strategies. To re-
cord the conversations, permission was taken from the subjects. In order to make the
subjects speak naturally without having any barriers, the researchers assured them that
the data would only be used for research purposes.

2.3. Research instruments

The most naturalistic methods of data collection are believed to be oral interviews and
conversations. Poulisse (1990) and Wannaruk (2002) used oral interviews between parti-
cipants, that is, non-native students of English and native speaker teachers. The main
drawback in this elicitation technique, however, is that CpSs are rarely found because
what the participants might say is less controlled by the experimenters (Kasper and
Kellerman 1997). Wannaruk (2002) also used an oral interview between students and
native English teachers. Green (1995) and Khanji (1996) used conversation tasks in
which they asked their subjects to play roles. In such tasks, it is easy to control the
speech acts that a researcher wants the participants to perform.
To find the effect of task on CpS use, two tasks were used to elicit data from the sub-
jects: (1) an oral interview with one of the researchers, who is a native speaker of Arabic,
and (2) a role-play task (see Appendices I and II). In the oral interview, the subjects were
asked about their names, nationalities, length of stay and study of Arabic in Saudi Ara-
bia, level of proficiency, problems they encounter in learning Arabic, and how to solve
them. Each individual was interviewed separately for approximately 15 minutes in one
of the offices.
In order to elicit natural conversations, the subjects were asked, in the second task, to
perform a role-play. They were asked to perform some speech acts in a question/answer
form which took each pair about five minutes to finish the task. A role-play card was
given to the subject who played Role A (asking questions) in which the speech acts were
designed to enquire or initiate conversation about:
88 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

(1) What the addressee does at the weekend.

(2) His father’s job.
(3) The importance of learning Arabic.
(4) His plans after completing the Arabic course.
(5) Invitation for a cup of tea or coffee.

In the first task, the researcher conducted the interview using standard Arabic, and the
subjects used the same variety of language as well. In the role play task, the subjects
were not asked to use a particular variety of Arabic language; nonetheless, they used
standard Arabic, too.

2.4. Identification procedures

Though certain strategies cannot easily be defined, Færch and Kasper (1983b: 214) lis-
ted the performance features that indicate strategic behaviour, which will be adopted in
our study:

The performance features fall into three classes: temporal variables, i.e. modi-
fications of speech along the temporal dimension; self repairs, i.e. speaker-initi-
ated modifications of already produced speech segments; and finally speech
slips, usually caused by one speech element affecting another speech element.

To maximise the reliability of classification, the first author of this paper (who is a native
speaker of Arabic) and a professor of Arabic language marked and labelled relevant parts
of the data that contained strategic behaviour, i.e. CpSs. Noticeable deviation from the
native speaker norm in the interlanguage syntax, word choice or discourse pattern was
considered to identify the CpSs. In addition, performance features, such as false starts,
pauses, drawls (lengthening the sounds as a time-gaining device), fillers (ah, am), re-
peats, slips of the tongue (lapses and speech errors) and self-repairs may be evidence of a
problem in the learner’s language proficiency (Færch and Kasper 1993b). These features
were used to signal a CpS use. After the first author translated the strategies into English,
both authors classified them according to the taxonomy mentioned below. The strategic
utterances were then classified for the purpose of data analysis. Moreover, the learners’
production was compared with the optimal meaning – actual meaning (Varadi 1980).
When differences were detected, the utterance was then classified as CpS strategy use.
Strategies were classified into three major categories: reduction strategies, achievement
strategies (Færch and Kasper 1983a), and other-performance problem-related strategies
(interactive strategies; Dörnyei 1995). However, since none of the researchers knew
some of the subjects’ native language (e.g. French, Urdu, Wolof), it must be admitted
that it was difficult for them to confirm whether some strategies were due to the subjects’
mother tongue interference or not.
 Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language 89

3. Findings and discussion

A total of 483 instances of compensatory strategies were identified in the oral production
from the sample of 24 subjects in both tasks: the interview and the role-play. Table 1
shows the frequency of these strategies starting with the most frequently used type of
strategies. Most widely used strategies included paraphrase (30%), restructuring
(20.5%), retrieval (14.3%), and repetition (13.2%). The rest of CpSs had fewer occur-
rences. These findings concur with those of Khanji (1996), Duff (1997) and Yarmoham-
madi and Seif (1992) who found that paraphrase repetition, restructuring, and approxim-
ation are among the most widely and frequently used strategies. All the learners resorted
to at least one of the above compensatory strategies (CpSs). Each strategy identified in
this study is discussed individually and illustrated with examples taken from the data.
Varadi (1980) used the term “optimal meaning”, and he suggests that foreign/second lan-
guage learners replace the optimal meaning (actual meaning) with the adjusted meaning
(what is actually said when they encounter a difficulty). The optimal meaning for each
example of CpS use is given, when needed, to note the difference.

Table 1. Frequency of strategy use for all students in both tasks

Category Strategy Frequency [%]

Reduction Message abandonment 50 10.3
Paraphrase 145 30.0
Restructuring 99 20.5
Retrieval 69 14.3
Achievement
Repetition 63 13.2
Approximation 31 6.4
Coinage 8 1.6
Clarification request 10 2.1
Interactive
Asking for repetition 8 1.6
Total 483 100.0

The strategies detected in the oral discourse of the learners of Arabic were divided into
three major categories: reduction strategies, achievement strategies and other-perform-
ance problem-related strategies (interactive).

3.1. Reduction strategies

As commonly discussed in literature, reduction strategies include topic avoidance and

message abandonment. Language learners may reduce their goals in order to avoid the
problem that they encounter during conversation. No topic avoidance cases were identi-
90 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

fied, whereas message abandonment was recorded in the study. The examples are all
taken from the performance of the group of learners in the interview and the role-play
tasks.
Message abandonment occurred when the learners began to talk about a concept but
were unable to continue due to lack of meaning structure, and stopped in mid-utterance.
Fifty instances were identified in the subjects’ performance in both tasks, accounting for
10.3% of the CpSs observed. In the following examples taken from the subjects’ oral
discourse, the learners became frustrated in the middle of their utterances, and they were
unable to continue and gave up after long pauses. Some of them replaced the message
with another one when they realised that they were facing a problem. Long pauses in the
learner’s production are indicative of emerging problems.
While trying to transmit his message, and after succeeding in presenting the “if
clause”, one of the participants discovered that his linguistic resources were insufficient
to complete the main clause. Therefore, he produced:

(1)

‫ة‬PQ‫ و آ‬TUVW‫ وا‬YZW[\]W‫ وا‬Y^[_`W‫ ا‬...،...،... YbcW‫ ا‬de‫ ه‬gh_i ‫[ن إذا أراد أن‬pqr‫ا‬
. ...ds... ds...ds ... ‫ة‬PQ‫و آ‬

‘If someone wants to master this language, ..., ..., ..., writing, and read-
ing and searching, and much and much er... er... er...’

Optimal meaning: ‘If someone wants to learn Arabic, he must read a

lot.’1

He abandoned the message, changed his plan and moved to another topic. He even failed
in attempting another topic, and he abandoned it due to his limited linguistic compet-
ence. The same thing happened to other two learners as shown below.

(2)

Yb cW‫رس ا‬vq gU q ds. ...ds. ..ds. ... [w ‫ ه‬Yx ‫را‬vW‫ ا‬....‫ا‬PyQ‫ آ‬zy W g` W ‫ت و‬v|_x ‫ا‬
.gyƒ~i Yy^PZW‫ ا‬YbcW‫[م و ا‬i‫ أ‬z]‚ ‫~ع‬Vx‫ € ا‬YwpW‫[ € ا‬w‫ ه‬YypqP|W‫ا‬

‘I benefited, but not too much ... studying here ... we study French here
every year every week five days and Arabic language two days.’

1
The examples taken from the corpus of the study are presented in Arabic, followed by a translation into Eng-
lish. Language mistakes that occur in Arabic are not corrected. Then the meaning that the participant intended
to convey (optimal meaning) follows.
 Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language 91

Optimal meaning: ‘Studying here is very beneficial. In my home coun-

try, we study French five times a week, but we study Arabic only twice
a week.’

(3)

.‫ ‚[ص‬Y|Q`ƒ ‫ آ_[ب‬...‫[ آ_[ب‬qvw‡ gUq ... ds. ...ds. ...ds. ....‫أ‬Phi ~‫€ ه‬wZi

‘I mean he reads ... er ... er ... er ... we have a book ... a special intensive
book.’

Optimal meaning: ‘The teacher reads from an intensive reading book.’

3.2. Achievement strategies

The subjects in the present study used their limited linguistic knowledge, and tried to
achieve their communicative goals. Achievement strategies included paraphrase, restruc-
turing, retrieval, repetition, approximation and coinage. The following examples on
achievement strategies are taken from the oral performance of the group of learners in
the interview and role-play tasks.

3.2.1. Paraphrase

The most widely used strategy was paraphrase, with a total of 145 cases. This strategy
was recorded when learners produced the same meaning using different linguistic forms.
It accounted for 30% of the CpSs used. The following examples taken from the corpus
are self-explanatory:

(4)

‫ا‬e‫‰\ˆ ه‬i ....‫ا‬vyŠ ‹_‫Œ اآ‬y\_x‫ƒ[ أ‬.... ‹Z Ži~ ‫’ƒ‘ء‬W YVpwW[^ ‫ي ~ي‬vw‡‫و‬
.”\‚ ‹_‫ اآ‬g`W ‫ا و‬e‫ل ه‬s

‘I have a difficulty in spelling, little difficulty. I cannot write well. He

makes mistakes this the this but I write incorrectly.’

Optimal meaning: ‘I make spelling mistakes/I don’t write well.’

92 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

(5)

.‫ف‬P‡‫— ا‬W ‫ أن‬YW”x‫Ž و أ‬Zƒ ‫ث‬vU_W‫€ أ™[ول ا‬wƒ šc‡‫ أ‬d‫_~ا‬pƒ ‫ي أرى‬eW‫œ[ ا‬i‫و أ‬

‘And the one whose level is higher than me, I try to talk with him and
ask him if I don’t know.’

Optimal meaning: ‘I also ask those who are more knowledgeable in Ar-
abic than I am.’

(6)

Yx‫]][ر‬W‫ و ا‬Y^[_`W‫œ[ ا‬i‫ و أ‬...ds. .. ‫][ل‬Z_x[^ Yi‫~د‬ZpW‫ ا‬Qƒ ‫[ك‬w‫ ه‬zyW €wZi

‘I mean, it is not like Saudi Arabia in using ... and writing and practice’

Optimal meaning: ‘I mean, we don’t practice reading and writing as we

do here in Saudi Arabia.’

(7)

... ‫[ت وا‬q‫~ا‬yUW‫ أŸ[ر وا‬Y^[ € .... ‫ا‬e‫— ه‬p¡ € ‫ي‬vW‫] وا‬Zi ‫و‬

‘My father works in a department and this is in a forest of trees and an-
imals and...’

Optimal meaning: ‘My father works in the department of forestry.’

3.2.2. Restructuring

This strategy was the second most used with 99 cases identified out of a total of 483, ac-
counting for 20.5%. This strategy was used when the learners discovered that they could
not complete a local plan which they had already begun realising and developed an al-
ternative local plan which enabled them to communicate their intended meaning (Færch
and Kasper, 1983a).
In the example €^ [_`W‫ ا‬PyVZ _W‫€ ا‬w Zi ...‫[ آ‬¢]W‫ ا‬...ds. ...ds. ... Yc`¢]W‫‘( ا‬the problem ... er ...
er ... the problems ... I mean writing’), the learner used the singular form Yc`¢]W‫‘ ا‬prob-
lem’, and then he corrected himself to produce the plural form ‫[آ‬¢]W‫‘( ا‬problems’). The
long pause after Yc`¢]W‫ ا‬is an indication that he had a problem, which he fixed later. More
instances of this strategy, which are self-explanatory, are as follows:
 Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language 93

(8)

.‫[ء‬i~¡‫\‘ب ا‬W‫\‘ب ƒŒ ا‬W‫ ا‬gƒ PQ‫ث اآ‬vU£‫€ أن أ‬c‡ €bVwi

‘I should speak more from the students ... with the proficient students.’

Optimal meaning: ‘I should speak Arabic with proficient students.’

(9)

...€pqP|W‫][ر ا‬Z_x¤‫ ا‬vZ^ ‫][ر‬Z_x‫ ا‬vZ^ g`W ‫و‬

‘But after colonization, after the French colonization...’

3.2.3. Retrieval strategy

Retrieval was the third most frequent strategy with 69 cases, accounting for 14.3%. Re-
trieval strategies were recorded when learners used pauses, fillers and hesitations, such
as ah, na’am, aqsid (‘ah’, ‘yes’, ‘I mean’). Fillers and hesitation are performance fea-
tures that indicate the existence of a communication problem, and the learners used them
to gain time by repeating words like na’am, aqsid, ah (‘yes’, ‘I mean’, ‘ah’). Such
strategy cases are shown below:

(10)

‫¦؟‬We‫ آ‬zyW‫ أ‬،YypqP|W‫ ا‬YbcW‫— ا‬c`_£ §q‫ أ‬:T™[VW‫ا‬

.‫ا‬vyŠ Ž_wh£‫ ƒ[ أ‬...ds.. .g`W ‫ و‬... —Zq ...d‫ا‬...—Zq :‹W[\W‫ا‬

Researcher: ‘You speak French, don’t you?’

Student: ‘Yes ... er ... yes ... but ... er ... I did not master it.’

(11)

.‫ة‬PQ`^ ‫ و‬...ds... €wZi Yx‫]][ر‬W‫ ا‬....d‫ا‬... €wZi ...ds.... ds. ... ‫ة‬PQ`^ v^¤

‘There must be a lot of ... er ... er ... I mean ... er ... practice. I mean ...
er ... and too much.’
94 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

3.2.4. Repetition

This strategy was recorded when learners repeated what they had already said in order to
bridge the gap in communication, and to gain time to produce a lexical or structural tar-
get language item. The two tasks used in the present study yielded 63 instances of repeti-
tion, accounting for 13.2% of the cases. Such cases are underlined in the following utter-
ances:

(12)

‫ي‬vc^ ... € ... € [¨]cZ£ ‫أت‬v^

‘I began learning it in ... in ... my country’

Optimal meaning: ‘I began learning it in my home country.’

(13)

.YW‫و‬vW‫[ن € ا‬wVW[^ ‫ون‬Py¢i ‫[رون‬¢i gieW‫ ا‬gƒ gƒ gƒ gieW‫ ا‬gƒ ‫~دون‬hi gieW‫ه— ا‬

‘They are leading, from those from from from those who are referred to
in the country.’

Optimal meaning: ‘They are all leaders in my country.’

(14)

Y^[_`W‫ ا‬... ...Y^[_`W‫وا© ا‬

‘God ... writing ... writing’

Optimal meaning: ‘It’s writing.’

3.2.5. Approximation

The use of a single vocabulary item or structure which shares enough semantic features
with the desired item was counted as an approximation strategy. The two tasks yielded
31 cases, accounting for 6.4% of the total number of instances observed. One of the
learners used ‫ة‬PUW‫ارس ا‬v]W‫ ا‬to mean Y[‰W‫ارس ا‬v]W‫ا‬. The following examples taken from
the corpus show the use of approximation strategy, which is bold-typed:
 Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language 95

(15)

... š_‫Œ أن أ‬y\_x‫ أ‬¤

‘I cannot give you my opinion...’ [laughter]

Optimal meaning: ‘I can’t give you my advice/I cannot advise.’

(16)

Yx‫را‬vW‫_¨€ ا‬q‫ أن ا‬vZ^ ،Yi[¨wW‫ ا‬vZ^

‘After the end, after I finish studying’

Optimal meaning: ‘After completing the course.’

(17)

.‫ة‬PyQ‫[ت آ‬x‫š ƒ][ر‬W‫_[ج ا‬U£ YbcW‫ا‬

‘Language needs too much practices.’

Optimal meaning: ‘Language needs a lot of practice.’

(18)

.[¨yc‡ «|U£ ‫ أن‬Yyƒ‘xr‫ ا‬Yƒ‫š ا‬c‡ ‹Ÿi ¦WeW

‘So, the Muslim nation must memorise it.’

Optimal meaning: ‘Muslims must conserve this language.’

3.2.6. Word coinage

Coinage was recorded when learners found it difficult to recall a certain target language
item, and they resorted to the creation of new words to fill the gap in communication.
Sometimes these were non-existent words. The strategy registered 8 instances, account-
ing for 1.6% of the 483 cases noted. One of the learners produced:
96 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

(19)

... ¦^[U‫[آ‘ت أ‬¢ƒ UW —Zq

‘Yes. To solve mushakilat (problems) of your friends...’

Due to the learner’s lack of familiarity with that target item mushkilat/mashakel (‘prob-
lems’), he invented that new plural form mushakilat which does not exist in Arabic.
The following utterance taken from the performance of one of the learners is an ex-
ample of this strategy:

(20)

... Arts ...ds ‫~ل‬hq ....ds ... ‫~م‬c‡ ‫ون‬v^ ... €wZi ...ds ... ‫رس‬v£ §q‫إذا أ‬

‘If you are studying ... er ... I mean ... without science ... er ... say ...
arts ...’

Optimal meaning: ‘If you are studying in the Arts stream...’

3.3. Other-performance problem-related strategies (interactive)

Other-performance problem-related strategies (Dörnyei 1995) were registered when the

learner failed to arrive at the optimal meaning – actual meaning – or did not understand
the message transmitted by the speaker. These strategies have been referred to as inter-
active strategies, which Yarmohammadi and Saif (1992) label “cooperative strategies”;
they include appeals for verification, direct assistance, and asking for clarification, con-
firmation, or explanation. The term “interactive”, however, better conveys that the
strategy involves an interaction, either with text or human. “Clarification request” and
“asking for repetition” were only recorded in the participants’ discourse.

3.3.1. Clarification request

Wannaruk (2002) defines clarification request as a request made for repetition or explan-
ation, such as saying What do you mean?; Again, please; Pardon?; You’re leaving this
Saturday? A clarification request was recorded when the speakers made requests for cla-
rification in order to negotiate meaning so that they could arrive at the intended meaning
of the interlocutor. For example, the subjects of the study used formulaic expressions
like ‫ ؟‬... v ¬h£ ­‫ ه‬... v ¬h£ (‘you mean ...?’, ‘do you mean ...?’) to arrive at the inter-
locutor’s intended meaning. This strategy accounted for 2.1% of the cases observed. Cla-
rification requests are manifested clearly in the following excerpts:
 Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language 97

(21)
‫؟‬Yy^PZW‫ ا‬YbcW‫[ƒ® ا‬qP^ ‫ إآ][ل‬vZ^ ]Z£ ‫~ي ان‬w£ ‫ ƒ[ذا‬:T™[VW‫ا‬
‫ج؟‬P‰_W‫ ا‬vZ^ :‹W[\W‫ا‬
.—Zq :T™[VW‫ا‬

Researcher: ‘What are you planning to do after completing the Arabic

programme?’
Student: ‘After graduation, you mean?’
Researcher: ‘Yes.’

(22)
‫~ع؟‬Vx‫ ا‬Yi[¨q € ]Z£ ‫ ƒ[ذا‬:(1 ) ‹W[¯
‫؟‬Yc\ZW‫€ € ا‬wZi ‫~ع؟‬Vx‫ ا‬Yi[¨q € :(2 ) ‹W[¯
.—Zq :(1 ) ‹W[¯

Student (1): ‘What do you do at the weekend?’

Student (2): ‘At the weekend? You mean during the holiday?’
Student (1): ‘Yes.’

3.3.2. Asking for repetition

Asking for repetition is asking the interlocutor to repeat something when not hearing or
misunderstanding something (Dörnyei, 1995). Eight cases were registered, accounting
for 1.6% of the cases observed. The learners in the present study used the same formu-
laic expression ‫§؟‬c¡ [­­ƒ ‫ إ‡[دة‬g­­`]i ­­‫ ه‬،‫‘ ‡|~ا‬Pardon? Could you repeat what you have
said?’. Asking for repetition strategy is manifested clearly in the following example in
which the learner asked for repetition using two such expressions. Here is the context in
which the cases occurred:

(23)

‫؟‬Y[‰W‫_¦ ا‬h|q šc‡ ‫رس‬v£ ‫ ه‬:T™[VW‫ا‬

‫§؟‬U]x ~W ،§c¡ [ƒ vyZ£ g`]ƒ ‫ ‡|~ا؟‬:‹W[\W‫ا‬

Researcher: ‘Are you studying at your own expense?’

Student: Pardon? Could you repeat what you said, please?’

3.4. Compensatory strategies by task type and native language

The use of compensatory strategies (CpSs) was analysed with reference to task type, and
native languages spoken by the learners of the study as shown in Table 2 below. There
98 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

were three learners representing each native language. Two tasks were used to elicit their
oral production: an interview and a role-play.

3.4.1. The interview task

Table 2 below shows the frequency of occurrence of each type of CpS in the interview
task that was verbalised by the speakers of each language. The task evoked a large num-
ber of CpSs, 416 cases.

Table 2. Frequency and distribution of CpS use in the interview task

according to the individuals’ native language

Native language
Albanian

Russian
Category CpSs Total [%]
Somali

French

Malay

Wolof
Urdu

Tajik

Reduction Message abandonment 8 8 3 8 3 5 4 3 42 10.1

Paraphrase 12 15 14 14 15 16 20 14 120 29.0
Restructuring 9 11 11 10 8 6 16 14 85 20.5
Retrieval 2 10 4 8 5 10 20 4 62 15.0
Achievement
Repetition 4 9 2 6 4 10 18 4 57 13.7
Approximation 4 2 3 4 4 2 5 3 27 6.5
Coinage – – 1 1 3 – 2 1 8 2.0
Clarification request 1 1 1 – 1 – 2 2 7 1.7
Interactive
Asking for repetition 1 1 – – – 1 2 1 6 1.5
Total 41 57 39 51 43 50 89 46 416 100

Table 2 shows that 416 cases of CpS use were recorded in the oral discourse collected
from 24 subjects representing 8 countries, and speaking 8 different native languages. The
most surprising feature is that the frequency of CpSs varied for each individual, accord-
ing to the individual learners’ nationality and native language, though they were all at the
intermediate level. In looking at the individual learners’ strategy use, there was evidence
that the Wolof native speakers used more CpSs than all the speakers of other languages
(89), accounting for 21.4% of the cases, followed by Albanian native speakers (57),
Malay native speakers (51), Tajik native speakers (50), Russian native speakers (46), and
Urdu native speakers (43). The Wolof native speakers talked twice as much as any other
speakers in the sample, which could be the only justification for having this high number
of strategies. Somali and French native speaker used the lowest number of CpSs, 41 and
 Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language 99

39 cases, respectively. It was also observed that Malay and Tajik native speakers did not
use clarification request strategy. On the other hand, Urdu, Malay and French native
speakers did not ask for repetition. Somali, Albanian and Tajik native speakers did not
resort to word coinage strategy.
It is also observed that paraphrase registered the highest number of CpSs (120), ac-
counting for 29%, followed by restructuring (85), accounting for 20.5%, whereas word
coinage (8), clarification request (7) and asking for repetition (6) registered the lowest
number of CpSs. The extensive use of paraphrase indicates that foreign language
learners of Arabic lack a great number of lexical items which they tried to compensate
for by using this strategy. These results are in agreement with Wongsawang’s (2001)
findings that circumlocution (i.e. paraphrase) is the most frequently used CpS (49.51%).
Based on the above results, we conclude that there are differences between the indi-
vidual learners’ use of CpSs according to their native language. This may be attributable
to mother tongue interference. Since none of the researchers speak the subjects’ native
languages, it was difficult to find out whether this claim is true or false. However, it is
well documented in SLA research that mother tongue interference is one of the major
causes of learners’ errors. Foreign language learners usually transfer rules from their nat-
ive language and apply them to the target language. According to McCowen and Scott
(2006), differences between one’s native language and the target language can contribute
to the complexity of the task, and causes errors.

3.4.2. The role-play task

The compensatory strategy (CpS) cases were analysed in the Role-play task. Table 3 be-
low shows the frequency of CpS instances according to the individual learners’ native
language and home country.
The immediately noticeable feature of Table 3 (see overleaf) is that in the role-play
task, paraphrase accounted for 31% of all the CpS occurrences, followed by restructur-
ing (18%), whereas message abandonment was used only twice, contrary to what the in-
terview task yielded (42) CpS cases, accounting for 10.1%. In fact, the interview task re-
sembles real life situations, and thus is a very demanding one. The questions were unex-
pected; therefore, the participants encountered more difficulties, and abandoned more
messages than they did in the role-play task. In the role-play task, the speech acts were
stated clearly in advance and Role A speakers did not ask follow- up questions as it
happened in the interview task. Moreover, it was noticed that Role B speakers were very
economical in answering the questions in that task, thus produced short responses and
fewer CpSs.
Another noticeable feature is the highly limited number of compensatory strategy
cases that the role-play task yielded (67) when compared with the interview task. The
difference is most probably due to the demands of the interview task, which required a
wider and more difficult range of vocabulary items than the role-play task. Another reas-
100 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

Table 3. Frequency & distribution of CpS use in the role-play task

according to the individuals’ native language

Native language
Category CpSs Albanian / Wolof / Malay / French / Total [%]
Russian Tajik Urdu Somali
Reduction Message abandonment 1 4 2 4 2 3 2 3 21 31
Approximation – 2 1 1 1 1 2 4 12 18
Paraphrase 1 3 1 1 – 1 2 9 13.5
Retrieval – 2 1 2 – 1 – – 6 9
Achievement Coinage 1 2 – – – – 1 2 6 9
Restructuring – – – 1 – 1 – – 2 3
Repetition – – – 1 – – 1 1 3 4.5
Coinage 1 2 – – – – 1 2 6 9
Clarification request 1 2 – 1 – 2 – – 6 9
Interactive
Asking for repetition – 1 – 1 – – – – 2 3
Total 4 16 5 11 4 8 7 12 67 100%

Note: Role A speakers registered (20), whereas Role B speakers registered (47) CpS cases.

on for recording the lowest number of cases in the role-play task might be that the speak-
ers limited their talk to the speech acts, which they were asked to perform, and they did
not use vocabulary items of their own. The listeners also limited their performance to the
available linguistic resources.
This finding is consistent with Rababah’s study (2001) which showed that the role-
play task recorded the lowest number of strategy use, but it contradicts with that of
Green (1995) who found that the role-play task recorded more strategies than a picture
description task did. This could be due to the fact that the role-play task used in the
present study was easier and not as demanding as that of Green (1995). In Green (1995),
the telephone conversation task required the subjects (Role A speakers) to assume the
role of a young German on holiday. They were asked to make a telephone call to the
warden of the youth hostel in York (Role B speaker). The part of the warden was recor-
ded. This makes it a very difficult and demanding task since it asks the learners to reply
to a recorded voice.
The most surprising feature of Table 3 above is that the frequency of CpSs varied for
each individual, according to the individual learner’s nationality and native language, al-
though they were all at the intermediate level. In studying the individual learner’s
strategy use, it is evident that Russian native speakers used more CpSs than all the
 Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language 101

speakers of other languages (16 cases), accounting for 10.7% of the registered CpS in-
stances, followed by Somali native speakers (12 cases), and Tajik native speakers (11 in-
stances). The speakers of these three native languages registered a total of 39 cases, ac-
counting for 58.2% of the total CpS cases registered in the oral production of the sample
of the study. Sometimes, learners’ mother tongue influences their approach to a foreign
language; they attempt to transfer what they know in their native language to the foreign
language. Wilkins (1972:199) observes:

When learning a foreign language an individual already knows his mother

tongue, and it is this which he attempts to transfer. The transfer may prove to be
justified because the structure of the two languages is similar - in that case we
get ‘positive transfer’ or ‘facilitation’ – or it may prove unjustified because the
structure of the two languages are different – in that case we get ‘negative trans-
fer’ – or ‘interference’.

In performing the speech acts in the role-play task, it is an outstanding feature of the
table above that Role A speakers, who were just requested to ask their partners five
simple questions, recorded the lowest number CpS cases (20). While Role B speakers re-
gistered 47 cases, accounting for 70.2%. This can be attributed to the fact that Role B
speakers’ task was very demanding. Role B speakers had to use their own words, where-
as Role A speakers were only performing five speech acts which were specified by the
researchers in advance (Appendix II); therefore, they did not have to use too many
words of their own.
Table 3 also shows that the use of CpSs varied according to the individual’s native
language. These findings can be related to Mabry’s (1994) research that described the
communication strategies and learning strategies of five adult learners of English in an
ESL classroom. One of her questions was “What patterns of strategy use are found
among the individual learners?” In looking at the individual learners’ strategy use, there
was evidence that the Arabic speakers used more communication strategies than learning
strategies; the Spanish speakers, on the other hand, used more learning strategies than
communication strategies.
As mentioned earlier, mother tongue interference could be one of the reasons for
having differences according to the individual’s native language. Besides, all the parti-
cipants were placed at the intermediate level, and they were studying Arabic for two
years at King Saud University; however, we had no idea about their educational or cul-
tural backgrounds when the study was conducted. Different cultures may have different
levels of directness, and this may also lead to different kinds of CpS use. Maybe those
who used fewer strategies were exposed to Arabic language back in their home coun-
tries, or they had more opportunities to communicate with native speakers of Arabic in
Saudi Arabia.
102 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

4. Conclusion

This study explored the compensatory strategies (CpSs) used by AFL speakers, and in-
vestigated how they attempted to solve their problems while communicating in the target
language, Arabic. The study revealed that AFL learners resorted to a range of compens-
atory strategies (CpSs) due to their limited linguistic resources. It also revealed that the
use of CpSs varied between individual learners coming from different cultural and edu-
cational backgrounds and speaking different native languages. These differences could
be attributed to their mother tongue interference, and educational and cultural back-
ground. Thus, these findings call for further research into the nature of these languages
and their relationship to Arabic. It was also found that the interview task yielded more
CpSs than the role-play task did. The findings imply that compensatory strategy use is
affected by important factors, such as the task and the learners’ background. These find-
ings are similar to those of Bialystok (1983), Bialystok and Frohlich (1980), Paribakht
(1985), Corrales and Emily (1989), Poulisse (1990) which reported that the use of the
CSs is influenced by the context and type of communication problem to be solved.
However, these findings are open to challenge because our present study is limited to
male ASL learners who were learning Arabic in a native language environment, Saudi
Arabia.
CpSs found in the learners’ data were classified into three major categories: reduc-
tion strategies, achievement strategies and other-performance problem-related strategies
(interactive). The findings of the present study showed that AFL learners were risk
takers, and they expanded their limited resources by using different types of strategies.
Yule and Tarone (1990) suggest that learners should use all their available resources to
communicate without being afraid of making errors; that is, they should be encouraged
to take risks. However, we believe that language teachers should not encourage or rein-
force all types of CpSs. For example, reduction strategies, such as topic avoidance, mes-
sage abandonment, and achievement strategy of repetition do not enhance language ac-
quisition (Rababah 2004); therefore, they should be discouraged. The other achievement
strategies and other-performance problem-related strategies (interactive) should be en-
couraged and reinforced. Achievement strategies such as paraphrase, appeal for help, re-
structuring, approximation may be encouraged. We also believe that other-performance
problem-related strategies, such as clarification request and asking for repetition, may
help negotiate meaning, and this may facilitate second/foreign language acquisition. Ne-
gotiating meaning with interlocutors helps language learners to get unknown language
items and use them later in other situations.
The findings of this study suggest that CpSs should be taught so that communication
does not break down. Some researchers (e.g., Dörnyei 1995; Dörnyei and Thurrell 1991;
Tarone 1984) advocate the teaching of communication strategies for enhancing second
language acquisition, hopefully the ultimate goal of language classrooms. Faucette
(2001: 6) states, “Communication strategies would serve as an excellent means for less
proficient learners to have the tools to maintain the conversation, resulting in the oppor-
 Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language 103

tunity to receive more language input and improve their language ability.” Moreover,
Larsen-Freeman and Long (1991) believe that a NNS’s ability to keep a conversation
going is a very valuable skill because by maintaining the conversation, the NNS can pre-
sumably benefit from receiving additional modified input. Indeed, if language learners
soon give up without employing the language and interactive strategies at their disposal,
it is unlikely they will develop their communicative ability.
Shehadeh (1999: 628), citing Swain’s output theory, proposes that language learning
actually occurs when students stretch their current interlanguage capacity to fill gaps in
knowledge. From Shehadeh’s position, progression in language learning is impossible
without the experience of knowledge gaps and the struggle to bridge them. Thus, lan-
guage learners should follow Hatch’s (1978: 434) advice that “Finally, and most import-
ant, the learner should be taught not to give up”.
To conclude, this study focused on AFL learners’ CpSs to provide new empirical
data regarding their use, since this area of research has received little or no attention, in
the hope that the development of the learners’ strategic competence is given due atten-
tion by integrating it into AFL curriculum. Moreover, language teachers and syllabus de-
signers should develop an effective strategy-training programme that equips AFL stu-
dents with CpSs that enhance language acquisition.

REFERENCES
Bialystok, E. 1983. “Some factors in the selection and implementation of communication
strategies”. In Færch, C. and G. Kasper (eds.). 100–118.
Bialystok, E. 1990. Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second language use.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Bialystok, E. and M. Frohlich. 1980. “Oral communication strategies for lexical difficulties”. In-
terlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht) 5. 3–30.
Corder, S. 1983. “Strategies of communication”. In Færch, C. and G. Kasper (eds.). 15–19.
Corrales, O. and M. Emily 1989. “At a loss for words: The use of communication strategies to
convey lexical meaning”. Foreign Language Annals 22(3). 227–239.
Dörnyei, Z. 1995. “On the teachability of communication strategies”. TESOL Quarterly 29(1). 55–
85.
Dörnyei, Z. and Thurrell, S. 1991. “Strategic competence and how to teach it”. ELT Journal 45(1).
16–23.
Færch, C. and Kasper, G. 1983a. “Plans and strategies in foreign language communication”. In
Færch, C. and G. Kasper (eds.). 20–60.
Færch, C. and Kasper G. 1983b. “On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage pro-
duction”. In Færch, C. and G. Kasper (eds.). 210–238.
Færch, C. and G. Kasper (eds.). 1983. Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Long-
man.
Faucette, P. 2001. “A pedagogical perspective on communication strategies: Benefits of training
and an analysis of English Language Teaching materials”. Second Language Studies 19(2). 1–
40.
104 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

Green, P. 1995. The use of communication strategies by German school students of English. [Un-
published PhD Dissertation, University of York, UK.]
Harding, E. 1983. Compensation strategies. (Occasional Paper No. 9.) Dublin: Trinity College.
Centre for Language and Communication Studies.
Hatch, E. 1978. “Discourse analysis and second language acquisition”. In Hatch, E. (ed.), Second
language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 401–435.
Kasper, G. and E. Kellerman. 1997. “Introduction: Approaches to communication strategies”. In
Kasper, G. and E. Kellerman (eds.), Communication strategies: Psycholinguistic and socio-
linguistic perspectives. London: Longman. 1–13.
Khanji, R. 1996. “Two perspectives in analyzing communication strategies”. IRAL 34(2). 144–
154.
Kellerman, E. 1991. “Compensatory strategies in second language research: A critique, a revision
and some (non-)implications for the classroom”. In Phillipson, R., E. Kellerman, L. Selinker,
M. Sharwood Smith and M. Swain (eds.), Foreign and second language pedagogy research:
A commemorative volume for Claus Færch. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 142–161.
Larsen-Freeman, D., and M. Long (eds.). 1991. An introduction to second language acquisition
research. London: Longman.
Mabry, A. 1994. The communication and learning strategies of five adult learners of English as a
Second Language. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, Columbia University Teachers College.]
McCowen, L. and M. Scott. 2006. “Mi mamá es bonito: Acquisition of Spanish gender by native
English speakers”. In Klee, C.A. and T.L. Face (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 7th Confer-
ence on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 161–169.
Morrison, S. 2003. “Arabic language teaching in the United States”. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Languages and Linguistics.
<www.cal.org/resources/langlink/june03feature.html> Retrieved 10 Jul 2006.
Paribakht, T. 1985. “Strategic competence and language proficiency”. Applied Linguistics 6. 132–
146.
Poulisse, N. 1990. The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Rababah, G. 2001. An investigation into the strategic competence of Arab learners of English at
Jordanian universities. [Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne.]
Rababah, G. 2005. “Strategic competence in an ELT syllabus”. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics
145. 145–165.
Rababah, G. 2005. “Communication problems facing Arab learners of English”. Journal of Lan-
guage and Learning 3(1). 180–197.
Rababah, G. and M.R. Zughoul. 2007. “The spread of Arabic: September 11th vs. the power of
language”. To appear in Ages: Journal of Historical, Archaeological & Civilization Studies
17(1).
Saad, N. 2004. “Demand for Arabic language education rises in United States: U.S. government
increases funding for foreign languages, area studies”. Bureau of International Information
Programs, U.S. Department of State.
<http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-
english&y=2004&m=December&x=20041230162741cpataruk0.8322565&t=
mena/mena-latest.html> Retrieved 18 Mar 2007.
Simon, P. 2001. “Beef up the country's foreign language skills”. The Washington Post, 23 October.
Smadi, O. and F. Al-Abed Al-Haq. 1995. “An analysis of AFL expository discourse”. Al-Arabiyya
28. 95–114.
 Compensatory strategies in Arabic as a second language 105

Stowasser, B. 1981. “Semantic analysis and the teaching of Arabic vocabulary”. Al-Arabiyya 14.
5–11.
Suleiman, Y. 1991. “Affective and personality factors in learning Arabic as a Foreign Language: A
case study”. Al-Arabiyya 24. 83–110.
Tarone, E. 1977. “Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report”. In
Brown, H., C. Yario and R. Crymes (eds.), On TESOL ’77. Washington DC.: TESOL. 194–
203. (Republished in Færch, C. and G. Kasper (eds.).)
Tarone, E. 1984. “Teaching strategic competence in the foreign language classroom”. In Savignon,
S. and M. Berns (eds.), Initiatives in communicative language teaching. Reading, MA: Ad-
dison Wesley. 127–136.
Varadi, T. 1980. “Strategies of target language learner communication: Message adjustment”.
IRAL 18: 59–71. (Paper originally presented at the Sixth Conference of the Romanian-English
Linguistics Project, Timişoara, 1973.)
Wannaruk, A. 2002. “Communication Strategies in an EST Context”.
<http://www.nceltr.mq.edu.au/conference2002/papers/Wannaruk.pdf> Retrieved 12 Jun 2006.
Willems, G. 1987. “Communication strategies and their significance in foreign language
teaching”. System 15. 351–364.
Wilkins, D.A. 1978. Linguistics in language teaching. London. Edward Arnold.
Wongsawang, P. (2001). “Culture-specific notions in L2 communication strategies”. Second Lan-
guage Studies 19(2). 111–135.
Yarmohammadi, L. and S. Saif. 1992. “More on communication strategies: Classification, re-
sources, frequency and underlying processes”. IRAL 30(3). 223–232.
Yule, G. and E. Tarone. 1990. “Eliciting the performance of strategic competence”. In Scarcella,
R., E. Andersen and S. Krashen (eds.), Communicative competence in a second language.
New York: Newbury House.

APPENDIX I
Interview task questions

(1) Where are you from?

‫§؟‬q‫ أ‬YW‫ أي دو‬gƒ

(2) What is your native language?

‫]¨[؟‬c`_£ €_W‫م ا‬¤‫ ا‬YbcW‫ƒ[ ه€ ا‬

(3) When did you start learning Arabic? Where? How?

‫؟‬gi‫ و أ‬¹y‫ و آ‬Yy^PZW‫ ا‬YbcW‫— ا‬cZ_£ ‫أت‬v^ š_ƒ ewƒ

(4) hy do you learn ArabicW?

‫؟‬Yy^PZW‫ ا‬YbcW‫— ا‬cZ_£ ‫][ذا‬W

(5) Which proficiency level are you at now?

‫ن؟‬¤‫§ أ‬q‫_~ى أ‬pƒ ‫€ أي‬
106 G. Rabab’ah and D. Bulut

(6) What do you study in this course?

‫_~ى؟‬p]W‫ا ا‬e‫رس € ه‬v£ ‫ƒ[ذا‬

(7) Are you studying at your own expense?

‫؟‬Y[‰W‫_¦ ا‬h|q šc‡ ‫رس‬v£ ‫ه‬

(8) What are you planning to do after graduation?

‫؟‬Yy^PZW‫ ا‬YbcW‫ ا‬Yx‫ درا‬gƒ ‫_¨[ء‬q¤‫ ا‬vZ^ ]Z£ ‫~ي أن‬w£ ‫ƒ[ذا‬

(9) From your own point of view, what are the problems that you or your friends face in
learning Arabic?
‫ك؟‬Pºq Y¨Š‫ و‬gƒ Yy^PZW‫ ا‬YbcW‫— ا‬cZ£ € ‫¡[ؤك‬v‫~اŠŽ أ‬£ ‫~اŠ¨¦ أو‬£ €_W‫[آ ا‬¢]W‫ƒ[ ه€ ا‬

(10) ?How can you solve these problems

‫[آ؟‬¢]W‫ ا‬de‫š ه‬c‡ ‹cb_W‫ ا‬g`]i ¹y‫¦ آ‬i‫أ‬P^

APPENDIX II
Role-play task questions

(1) Ask your partner about what he does at the weekend.

‫~ع‬Vx‫ ا‬Yi[¨q € ]Zi []‡ ¦hiv ‫”ل‬x‫ا‬

(2) Ask him about the job of his father.

dvW‫ وا‬Y|y¼‫ و‬g‡ ¦hiv ‫”ل‬x‫ا‬

(3) Ask him about the importance of learning Arabic.

Yy^PZW‫ ا‬YbcW‫ ا‬Yy]‫ أه‬g‡ ¦hiv ‫”ل‬x‫ا‬

(4) Ask him about his plans after completing the Arabic course.
YycVh_p]W‫ ‚\\Ž ا‬g‡ ¦hiv ‫”ل‬x‫ا‬

(5) Invite him for a cup of tea or coffee.

‫ك‬vw‡ ‫¨~ة‬hW‫[ي او ا‬¢W‫ ا‬gƒ [q[Ÿw ‫[ول‬w_W ¦hiv ~‡‫أد‬