Journal of

Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)

Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Communication Strategies in French Language Learning

among Non-Native Adult Speakers

Hazlina Abdul Halim,

[email protected]
Department of Foreign Languages,
Universiti Putra Malaysia

Normaliza Abdul Rahim,

[email protected]
Department of Malay Language,
Universiti Putra Malaysia

Roslina Mamat
[email protected]
Department of Foreign Languages,
Universiti Putra Malaysia

ABSTRACT
This exploratory study aimed to determine and categorize the type of Malaysian non-native
speakers’ communication strategies (CS) in learning French with regard to speaking skills. The
study, which was based on Dornyei & Scott’s (1997) model of communication strategy, utilized
both a qualitative and a simple quantitative method of data collection. The subjects consisted of
2nd and 3rd year foreign language students from various programs at Universiti Putra Malaysia
(UPM). A total of 10 Malaysian students in the French language course participated in this study.
The main instruments used were a speaking task prompt, an observation checklist, and an audio
recording. The overall findings based on the observations and transcription of the audio
recordings indicated that among the most frequently used communication strategies were the use
of literal translation (26.4%), the use of all-purpose words (18.4%), topic abandonment (12.8%)
and foreignizing from English (8.8%). The findings have resulted in a framework for foreign
language instruction and materials design. It also suggested that further intensive research should
be conducted to design and develop a communication strategies instruction framework which
would lead to the development of a comprehensive framework for the incorporation of
communication strategy in foreign language learning instruction, materials and tasks for
Malaysian learners.

Keywords: Malaysian learners; non-native speakers; French language;

communication strategies; oral presentation

ISSN: 1823464-X 18
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

INTRODUCTION
The term communication strategies (CSs) refers to any mechanism language learners use to
overcome their linguistic difficulties while communicating in a foreign language with a reduced
interlanguage system. The past researches in this area were mainly to classify and set the
taxonomy for the specific types of strategies available (Tarone, 1977; Faerch & Kasper, 1983;
Dornyei & Scott, 1997) and to explain the use of the strategies among the foreign language
speakers. Hazlina Abdul Halim et al. (2009), in their research on ‘Writing strategies among
Malaysian students learning French as a foreign language’ discovered that literal translation was
the most dominant strategy employed.

CSs play a major role in the language acquisition. Therefore, its incorporation in the
learning process will allow the weaker learners to ‘develop a feeling of being able to do
something with the language’ (Willems, 1987:352) and consequently will increase and
strengthen their learning motivation. This exploratory study investigates the use of oral CSs
among the French proficiency university students at Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Based on the purposes of the study, this research attempts to answer the following
questions:
1. What kinds of oral communication strategies do learners of French use during
communication tasks?
2. What strategies the learners used the most and the least?

Literature Review
Selinker (1972) proposed the notion of “communication strategies” (CSs), which he defined as a
by-product of a learner’s effort to express meaning in unprompted speech through a limited
target language system. Since he first used the term, it has been the subject of much discussion
but also of little consensus as to its correct definition. In early work, CSs was regarded as
language learners’ problem-solving behavior in the process of the target language
communication. Language learners employed CSs to compensate for their linguistic deficiencies
in order to achieve a particular communicative goal. This kind of notion focuses on the language
learners’ response to an imminent problem without taking into account the interlocutor’s support
for its resolution. Hence, it is an intra-individual, psycholinguistic view that “locates CS in
models of speech production or cognitive organization and processing” (Kasper & Kellerman,
1997: 2).

On the other hand, from the inter-individual interaction view, Tarone (1980:420)
defined CSs as the ‘mutual attempts of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in a situation
where the requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared’. Thus, CSs are utilized to
bridge the gap between the linguistic knowledge of the foreign language learner and that of the
target language interlocutor in real communication situations (Tarone, 1981) so as to avoid
communication disruptions.

Dörnyei (1995a) in his study discovered a focused communicative strategy instruction

could contribute to the second language development. Based on Dörnyei & Scott’s (1995a,
1995b) taxonomy, CSs are divided into twelve kinds and three basic categories, which are direct,

ISSN: 1823464-X 19
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

indirect and interactional strategies. In their taxonomy of communication strategies (1997), some
strategies underlined were message abandonment, topic avoidance, circumlocution, literal
translation, foreignizing, approximation and the use of all-purpose words.

The study by Hazlina Abdul Halim et al. (2011c) explored the influence of the
mother tongue and second language in the writing strategies of Malaysian learning
French as foreign language class. A total of 50 subjects participated in this study after
their 100 hours of learning French. The instrument used in the study was the writing
task, consisted of a short essay of 10 to 15 sentences in French on their normal routine
festive seasons, namely the Chinese New Year, Deepavali, Aidilfitri or Christmas. The
study discovered that apart from restricted vocabulary, CSs were used by the subjects
to further explain the elements in their culture that were not taught in the French class.
Circumlocution was a strategy used in this research where the subjects had sufficient
vocabulary but not specific vocabularies to express themselves in their writings.

The study by Mei & Nathalang (2009) reported on an investigation into the CSs used by
non-English major students in China. These students were divided into high and low proficiency
level. This study also revealed that high proficiency learners resorted to CSs more often than low
proficiency learners but resorted to avoidance less often than low proficiency learners. In their
study, they found that due to the fact that low proficiency learners have less confidence in using
the English language, they used mime or switched to L1 (Chinese), though not often.

METHODOLOGY
This exploratory study utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection. The
quantitative part involved a simple calculation of percentages for the CSs used, while the
qualitative part involved the explanation of the strategies. The subjects consisted of 2nd and 3rd
year foreign language students from different fields namely Humanities, Social Sciences and
Sciences at Universiti Putra Malaysia, with the age range of 23 to 24. A total of 10 respondents
participated in this study after their 50 hours of learning French. Respondents were 5 males and 5
females. They were divided into 3 groups randomly and were asked to spontaneously participate
in a 5-minutes conversation. The instrument used in the study was an oral task, guided by an oral
prompt and an observation checklist.

The oral task was a dialogue whereby the respondents were asked to introduce
themselves and later discussed about their daily activities. As the conversation involved the
grammatical and conversational aspects learnt in the beginner’s level, the respondents were
assumed to have sufficient vocabulary and grammar to develop the dialogue especially after the
50 hours of French lessons. The method of analysis for the oral task was adapted from Dörnyei
& Scott (1997) model of communication strategy. In their CS’s taxonomy, some of the strategies
underlined were message abandonment, topic avoidance, circumlocution, literal translation,
foreignizing, approximation and using all purpose words. This taxonomy will be the base of this
research. The dialogues for the three conversations were presented in the table form, as to better
explain the CSs used in each sentence and the sequence of the CS, for the incomplete phrases or
sentences.

ISSN: 1823464-X 20
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Based on the oral presentations from the three groups, 125 elements of communicative strategies
were used by the 10 subjects in the given task. The most dominant strategies used were the literal
translation (26.4%), the use of all-purpose words (18.4%), topic abandonment (12.8%) and
foreignizing from English (8.8%). Figure 1 shows the overall result:

Figure 1 Strategies employed by malaysian non-speakers of French

Results and discussion of communication strategies based on conversation from Group 1

From the conversation, it was found that the first group utilized 46 elements of communicative
strategies. The analysis from the Group 1’s conversation found that the most utilized strategies
were literal translation (26.1%) all purpose words (17.4%) and topic abandonment (15.2%).
Listed in Table 1 below are the transcripts, the strategies together with their explanations. The
mark <> indicated the missing element in the conversation.

Table 1: Communicative strategies based on transcription from group 1

(Respondents: 3 females and 1 male (S4))

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S1 : Bonjour, je suis - -
XXX, je suis
étudiante de la
université UPM.
Quel est votre nom ?
S2 : Je suis XX. Je suis - -
étudiant de la UPM
aussi

ISSN: 1823464-X 21
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S3 : Bonjour, je - -
m’appelle SSSS.

S4 : Bonjour, je use of all purpose S4 did not differentiate the usage of vous
m’appelle FFFFF, et word for subject (formal you) and tu (informal you). He
j’ai 20 ans. Je suis de pronoun generalized the usage.
la Faculté de
technologie. Et
vous ?
S1 : Je suis 20 ans aussi. Literal translation
S1 translated literally from English. In
Vous avez quel age ? from English and the
French to express your age, we use the
use of all purpose verb avoir (to have), but S1 used the verb
word for subject être (to be) as used in the English
pronoun structure. S1 did not differentiate the
usage of vous (formal you) and tu
(informal you). She generalized the
usage.
S2: J’ai 21 ans. Et vous? Use of all purpose S2 repeated the same error as S1 by
word for subject generalizing the usage of vous (formal
pronoun you) and tu (informal you).
S3 : J’ai 20 ans.
S4 : J’habite à Ipoh, Use of all purpose S4 repeated the same error as S1 and S2
Perak. Et vous ? word for subject by generalizing the usage of vous
pronoun (formal you) and tu (informal you).
S3 : J’habite à Subang - -
Jaya.
S2 : Quelle est ton - -
adresse ?
S1 : J’habite à Johor, en Circumlocution/ S1 paraphrased the postal code by
Malaisie et mon Omission of pronouncing them number by number
adresse est 1, rue preposition literally instead of combining the
Bentayen, un – zéro numbers two by two as in French. She
– deux – trois – trois also omitted using preposition by
– Johor. Et vous ? foreignizing French using Malay
structure, which allows dropping the
preposition.
S2: J’habite à 22, la rue Over explicitness The over explicitness is due to the
de Razak, à Ipoh. generalization of the rules in French.
S4: D’accord…. - -
S2: Vous avez <> frères Literal translation S2 literally translated from English “You
or <> sœurs ? from English, have brothers or sisters”: in French,
omission of article articles in front of nouns cannot be
and code switching to omitted.
English

ISSN: 1823464-X 22
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S3: …… ? Pardon ? Asking for repetition S3 expressed her incomprehension and
/ expressing non- requested directly for S2 to repeat the
understanding question
S2 : Vous avez <> frère or Repetition without S2 repeated the question and maintained
<> sœur ? any self correction, the same structural errors
and code switching
to English
S1 : Brothers or sisters ? Code switching to S1 code-switched to English to get the
English message through to S3

S4 : Oh… j’aime beaucoup Foreignizing from S4 built the sentence correctly but
la lecture et la English pronounced lecture as in English
musique.
S2 : Oh.. j’aime beaucoup Foreignizing from S2 built the sentence correctly but
faire du sport. Tennis English pronounced badminton as in English
et badminton…
S1: Ah…. Feigning S1 feigned of having understood
understanding
S2: Et <> la musique, aller Literal translation In Malay, it is possible to combine the
au cinéma et fais du from Malay phrase structure with and without verbs,
shopping but not in French
S3: Moi aussi - -
S3: Je n’aime pas le rock Structure literal In French, most adjectives are after the
musique translation from noun. Here, S3 followed English
English structure: I don’t like rock music.
S1: Je n’aime pas le Generalization of le, S1 used English translation as well as
musique rock, j’aime la, l’: translation generalization strategy (here: he realized
la musique classique, from English. the importance of the articles, but he
j’aime David didn’t realized the le, la used has to be
Gladerman. Vous associated with the correct gender of the
aimez le actor Brad noun)
Pitt ?
S2: Non, non… - -
S3: Moi aussi Structure literal In French, the correct expression
translation from following a negative form would be “Moi
Malay non plus”. Here, S3 followed Malay
structure : Saya juga / saya pun
S2: Ma favorite actor est Generalization of S2 generalized the usage of possessive
Jack Black possessive adjectives mon ma & mes (my in English
adjectives: mon, ma, and Malay have only one form). In
mes. Code switching French, possessive adjectives follow the
to English gender of the nouns they refer to. S2 code
switched to English for the word actor

ISSN: 1823464-X 23
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S3: Mmm..Moi aussi. Repetition S3 volunteered the information by
repeating the information given by S2 in
short sentence.
S2: …. J’aime manger les Topic replacement S2 started another topic.
pommes
S1: J’aime le poulet et les Omission of article, S1 omitted using the article for banane,
tomates. je n’aime literal translation due to literal translation from Malay “
pas <> banane from Malay Saya tak suka pisang”
S4: J’aime le jus Omission of article, S4 omitted using the article for pomme de
d’orange.. <> pomme literal translation terre, structure literally translated from
de terre, et vous ? from Malay Malay
S2: Je aime…. Je n’aime Message S2 wanted to elaborate on what he likes,
pas manger la salade abandonment but left the message to replace it with
what he doesn’t like
S4: Quelle est votre Foreignizing from S4 built the sentence correctly but
favourite couleur ? English pronounced favourite as in English
S1: J’aime le.. la.. le noir. Hesitation and self S1 hesitated in association the gendered
Et vous correction on the article to the color. She self-corrected by
article using the correct article.
S2: Je t’adore le vert et Use of all purpose S2 used the expression “je t’adore ( I
<> jaune. phrase & literal adore you)” that is a pre-made expression
translation from instead of using j’adore. He also omitted
English using the article for jaune, following
English structure
S3: J’aime la rouge. Generalization of S3 used generalization strategy for the (in
article using French, the is represented by le, la, l’ or
translation from les according to the gender and plurality
English or singularity of the noun)
S4: J’aime la rouge et <> Repetition and S4 repeated the message but elaborated it.
noir. omission of article Still she omitted using the article le, la, l’
using translation from or les because the structure is translated
English from English
S3 : J’ai un de frère et Structure literal S3 explained in French by using the
deux de sœurs translation from Chinese structure. In French, de is not
Chinese needed
S1: Quelle est votre Foreignizing from S1 built the sentence correctly but
favorite passe temps? English pronounced favorite as in English
S3: J’aime la musique Structure literal In French, beaucoup should be after
classique beaucoup. translation from J’aime. S3 followed English structure: I
Et vous ? English like classical musique a lot.

ISSN: 1823464-X 24
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Results and discussion of communication strategies based on conversation from Group 2

The analysis found that the second group utilized 30 elements of communicative strategies. The
most dominant strategies used were literal translation (26.7%), code switching (16.6%) and topic
avoidance (13.3%). Table 2 below is the transcript and the explanation of the strategies used by
Group 2. The mark <> indicated the missing element in the conversation.

Table 2: Communicative strategies based on transcription from group 2

(Respondents: 2 males and 1 female (S1))

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S1: Ça va ? Je m’appelle - -
Aiven. J’ai 23 ans.
J’habite à Penang, j’ai
deux frères
S2: Oh… Ça va bien. Je - -
m’appelle Lim.
S3: Je m’appelle An Soon. - -
S4: Bonjour, je m’appelle Literal translation S1 translated literally from English to
XXX. Je suis 22 ans from English express her age in French. She is using
the verb être (to be) as used in the
English structure
S2: J’ai 22 ans - -
S3: J’ai 23... je suis content Message S3 left saying his age and je suis content
de ….. J’habite à abandonment de vous connaître, fault of not having
Penang, et vous the vocabulary. He replaced the message
by switching the topic.
S2: J’habite à Negeri - -
Sembilan
S1: J’habite à Damansara. - -
S4: Ha ha ha Feigning S4 pretended he understood by laughing.
understanding
S1: Et je <> le sport, la Omission of verb – S1 omitted using the verb in her
natation et le verb avoidance. sentence. S2 built the sentence correctly
badminton Foreignizing from but pronounced badminton as in English
English
S2: Oh.. Ma Hobby est Code switching and S2 code switched to English by using the
regarde la télévision literal translation word hobby. He also used direct
from English. translation from English to formulate the
phrase (in English: my hobby is
watching the television. In French mon
passe-temps favori est de regarder la
télévision)

ISSN: 1823464-X 25
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S3: Je suis au cinema et … Generalization of the S3 generalized the usage of the verb
je lis moi-même… le verb être and aller: aller and être. She also pronounced
cassette musique. all purpose words. cinema as in English. S3 tried to express
Foreignizing from his understanding on the subject matter
English. Feigning thus tried to say that he listened to music
understanding in cassettes but he constructed the
delivering the sentences in such a manner that it was
message incomprehensible.
S1: Vous faites du sport, Topic avoidance S1 changed the topic by asking another
du tennis ? question.
S3: Ahh.. J’ai cinq family Topic avoidance. S3 avoided answering the question by
members et j’habite à Code-switching to presenting about his family. He code
Sunway.. Ma mère, ma English. switched to English (for the term family
père, et <> deux sœurs, Generalization and members). S3 generalized the usage of
combien vous êtes omission of possessive adjectives mon ma & mes
family members ? possessive adjectives (my in English and Malay has only one
: mon, ma, mes – form). He omitted using possessive
literal translation adjective in plural form. The sentence
from English/Malay. combien vous êtes family members was
Literal translation in translated directly from Malay, and
structure with used the verb être excessively to say
generalization of the “saya ada/ I have”.
verb using the all
purpose words
S2: J’ai cinq family.. j’ai Code-switching to S2 code switched to English for the
cinq….. English. Direct term family. He abandoned the message
appeal for with a tone that directly appealed for
understanding comprehension from the others.
S1: J’ai deuz frères et trois Foreignizing from S1 pronounced chocolat as in English.
sœurs. J’aime bien English and omission She omitted using the article for
manger <> of article – literal chocolat due to literal translation from
chocolate..et vous translation from English
English
S3: J’aime mange la Litteral translation S3 translated literally from Malay. In
pomme, et vous from Malay Malay, verbs are not conjugated
according to the subject pronoun.
S2: Je aime le … - -
gâteau……..

ISSN: 1823464-X 26
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S1: J’aime le gâteau, le nem. Code switching to S1 code switched to the word favorite
Ma favorite singer est English. Use of all and singer in English. She also used the
Siti Norhaliza et mon purpose word due to word gâteau to express delicacies as in
favorite acteur est Jacky literal translation Malay. S1 equally pronounced the word
Chan from Malay & acteur as in English.
foreignizing from
English
S2: Moi, J’aime Andy … Message -
abandonnement
S1: Tu as le numéro de - -
téléphone ?
S3: C’est 0-1-6-5-7-30-7-0- Circumlocution S3 paraphrased the postal code by
9-3. Quelle est ton pronouncing them number by number
adresse ? literally instead of combining the
numbers two by two as in French.
S1: Et quelle est ton Message avoidance S1 avoided saying her address by
adresse ? passing the question to the other two
partners.
S3: Errr… 15 jalan melawati Code switching to S3 code switched to English to inform
6 taman melawati 75001 English her postal code address.
selangor
S2: Bu che tao… désolé … Code switching to S2 code switched to Chinese to express
Chinese his incapability of performing the
address in French

Results and discussion of communication strategies based on conversation from Group 3

The analysis found that the third group utilized the most strategies, which were 81 elements of
communicative strategies. The most dominant strategies used were literal translation (18.5%),
the all purpose words (14.8%) and repetition (11.1%). Table 3 below is the transcript and the
explanation of the strategies used by Group 3. The mark <> indicated the missing element in the
conversation.

Table 3: Communicative strategies based on transcription from group 3

(respondents: 2 males and 1 female (S1))

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S1: Bonjour monsieur - -
S2: Bonjour - -
S1: Vous vous appelez - -
comment ?
S2: Pardon ? Direct appeal for S2 requested directly for S1 to repeat
help the question

ISSN: 1823464-X 27
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S1: Vous vous appelez - -
comment ?
S2: Je m’appelle Ang Boon - -
Yow
S1: Et vous? - -
S3: Je m’appelle Eric. Et vous ? - -
S1: Je m’appelle Alice - -
S3: Vous avez quel age ? - -
S1: Je suis 20 ans Literal translation S1 translated literally from English to
from English express her age in French. She used
the verb être (to be) as used in the
English structure : I am 20 years old
(French would say I have 20 years of
age)
S2: 20 ans…et vous ? - -
S3: Je suis 21 ans. Et toi ? Repetition. Literal S3 repeated the strategy, and adapting
translation from from S1, he inserted his own
English information. Switch to toi (subject
pronoun tu for second person singular
and informal for French)
S2: J’ai 25 ans Self correction S2 elaborated by using the correct
structure in French to express the age.
S3: Oooo… Feigning -
understanding
S1: J’habite Kota Bharu. Et tu ? Literal translation, Here S1 generalized the usage of the
use of all purpose word by translating into English.
word for stressed Since the translation for both toi and
pronouns and tu is “you”, S1 generalized the
subject pronoun pronoun tu (you) and use it as a
stressed pronoun; she should have
used toi (you) instead.
S2: J’habite est Pahang Literal translation S2 wanted to say “my house is in
from English Pahang” which explains the usage of
the verb être (to be) here. He should
have just used the preposition à (in)
instead.
S3: J’habite à Malacca. Qu’est- use of all purpose S3 did not differentiate the usage of
ce que vous faites dans la word for subject vous (formal you) and tu (informal
vie ? pronoun you). He generalized the usage.
S1: Hah? Asking for S1 expressed her incomprehension
repetition / and requested directly for S2 to repeat
expressing non- the question
understanding

ISSN: 1823464-X 28
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S3: Qu’est-ce que vous faites Other repetition… S3 repeated his question twice to get
dans la vie ? Qu’est-ce que the message through to S1.
vous faites dans la vie ?
S1: Je suis étudiante. Et vous? - -
S3: Je suis étudiant. - -
S2: moi étudiant aussi. Moi Literal translation S2 tried to elaborate but he used
étudiant de la cours anglais. from Malay and literal translation from Malay
Et toi English, use of all (translation: Me student too) which
purpose word de la is acceptable in Malay. Second
to express “of the” sentence: S2 used the same strategy,
literal translation from Malay for
structure (translation: me student
from the English course) and for the
grammar, S2 used English
translation as well as generalization
strategy (here : he used de la to say
‘of the’ without realising that cours
is masculine, he should have used
du).
S1: Je suis étudiante anglais Self rephrasing but S1 tried to rephrase but she still used
aussi literal translation the translation from Malay
from Malay (translation : I am student English
too) for the structure. In French she
should have added preposition en
(in)
S2: Oo … anglais aussi Confirm but use of S2 confirmed his understanding of
all purpose word what was being said but still
maintained the translation strategy
by not using en
S3: Combien de personnes vous Foreignizing from S3 tried to say famille in French but
avez dans votre familé English he pronounced the word using
English pronounciation.
S2: Ahhh… s’il vous plait.. Asking for S2 expressed her incomprehension
repetez s’il vous plait repetition / and requested directly for S3 to
expressing non- repeat the question
understanding
S3: Combien de personnes vous Repetition, S3 repeated the question but still
avez dans votre familé ? foreignizing from maintained the word famille by
English using English pronounciation.

ISSN: 1823464-X 29
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S2: Combien personne…ahh.. Guessing… literal S2 guessed by using keywords used
mon mere… pere… mama, translation from in the question Combien personne
il s’appelle CCCC. mon English for my. (How many people). The strategy
pere, il s’appelle Ang Generalization of il worked.
BBBB. Il est businessman for subject S2 generalized the usage of possessif
pronouns he and adjectives mon and ma (my in
she (use of all English and Malay have only one
purpose word). form) and the usage of third person
Code switch to singular il and elle from Malay (in
English Malay “he” and “she” have only one
form). S2 equally code switched to
English for the word “businessman”
S1: Ma mere.. mon mere..ahh Message reduction S1 abandonned the message, fault of
mon frere, ma sœur et not knowing the vocabulary to
ma..er….. elaborate.
S2: Vous avez votre petit.. Appeal for S2 indirectly appealed to S1 and S3
understanding to understand what he was trying to
say.
S1: Hah ? Asking for S1 expressed her incomprehension
repetition / and requested directly for S2 to
expressing non- repeat the question
understanding
S2: Vous avez votre petit… Self repair and S2 abandonned the message, fault of
désolé…désolé... moi message not knowing the vocabulary to
désolé… abandonment elaborate.
S1: J’aime la musique le rock Message avoidance S1 replaced the message with a new
topic
S2: Tu aimes la musique ? Asking for S2 asked for confirmation for the
confirmation/ new discussed topic
repetition
S1: Et vous ? Topic avoidance S1 avoided the topic by asking the
same question.
S2: Je n’aime pas la musique. Try to expand S2 tried to elaborate the message he
J’aime faire du velo. Oui, respond but abandonned and returned the
j’aime fait… mais…err.. et message question to S3
toi ? abandonment
S3: Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S2: Ohhh le nager… oui.. j’aime Feigning S2 expressed his comprehension and
le nager aussi. Er… qu’est- understanding, use used the same strategy of translation
ce que tu n’aimes pas ? of familiar sounded from Malay
word and literal
translation from

ISSN: 1823464-X 30
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Malay
S3: qu’est que tu n’aimes pas ? Asking for S3 expressed her incomprehension
repetition / and requested directly for S2 to
expressing non- repeat the question
understanding
S2: qu’est que tu n’aimes pas ? S2 repeated the question
S3: What did you don’t like ? Code switching S3 code switched to English directly
S1: Je n’aime pas <> sport.. literal translation Abandon of article : translation from
from English English (in French the use of article
is compulsory but not in English)
S2: Vous n’aime pas du sport et All purpose word S2 generalized the conjugation of the
? for verb and article verb aimer by using all-purpose
– generalization of conjugation. S2 also used the all
the rule. Ask to purpose article ‘to’ in a negative
expand form, though in French,
exceptionally for the verb aimer, we
use the definite article instead of
partitive. S2 directly appealed S1 to
elaborate her point.
S1: Et la sport. All purpose word S1 used the all purpose word
& Message strategy by using the definite article
abandonment ‘la’ excessively. S1 also cut short the
conversation.
S3: Aimez-vous le fromage ? Topic avoidance S3 avoided the message, and
changed to another topic.
S2: Le fromage oui…non…je Expand… over S2 tried to get the message across by
n’aime pas le fromage. explicitness… expanding his explanation.
J’aime l’omelette du message repetition Answered repeatedly to make sure
fromage. Je n’aime pas du the message was understood.
fromage… je n’aime pas du
fromage but j’aime
l’omelette du fromage
S1: J’aime les gâteaux... eh ! Self check to S1 self-checked her explanation to
oui ! J’aime les gâteaux… confirm the make sure the vocabulary in the
vocabulary explanation given was correct
S3: J’aime les gâteaux aussi.. Repetition
S2: Ah ! question. Tu aimes le Foreignizing from S3 used the noun travail which has
travail ? English quite a similar sound to travel in
English. The correct verb in French
is actually voyager. Travail in
French means a work / job.
S3: Tu aimes le travail? Asking for S3 expressed his incomprehension
repetition / and requested directly for S2 to
expressing non- repeat the question
understanding

ISSN: 1823464-X 31
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Transcription Strategy used Explanation

S2: Travail… non voyager… Self repair… S2 used the noun travail again, but
désolé… voyager. J’aime le Foreignizing from then corrected himself and
voyager. Vous travail en English. Use of explained correctly. He then used
août ou …. familiar sounding the strategy of familiar sounding
word (a verb) to French word: here he used the
replace the noun. voyager to replace le voyage (to
Appeal for travel to replace travelling). S3
understanding directly appeal to S1 and S3 to
understand what he was trying to
say.
S1: Oui…oui…oui… Feigning S1 feigned of having understood
understanding what S2 was trying to ask.
S2: Voyager. J’aime le voyager. Foreignizing from S2 used the noun travail (a
Vous travail en août ou english job)again what he really meant was
juillet ? voyager (to travel)
S2: Oh.. vous travaille pas. Et Feigning S2 feigned of having comprehended
toi ? understanding what S3 tried to tell him but it was
obvious he did not understand.
S1: Pardon ? Pardon ? Asking for S1 expressed her incomprehension
repetition and requested directly for S2 to
repeat the question
S2: Vous n’aimez pas le Self repair. Ask for S2 corrected himself but he then
voyager ? confirmation used the strategy of familiar
sounding French word : here he
used the voyager to replace le
voyage
S1: Oui…j’aime le voyager. Repetition of errors S1 repeated the verb-noun error by
:familiar sounding S2 and reused the familiar sounding
French word French word
S2: Où vous allez en voyager ? Repetition of errors S2 used the verb instead of noun
:f all purpose
French word
S1: Emm… Topic S1 left the topic
abandonment
S3: Quelle est votre nationalité ? Topic avoidance S3 changed the topic to avoid
having to elaborate it further.
S1: Je suis malaisienne..
S3: Je suis malaisienne aussi… Response repeat S3 used the response repetition
et toi ? strategy
S2: Je suis malaisienne aussi Response repeat S2 used the response repetition
strategy

ISSN: 1823464-X 32
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

Overall findings
This study explored the oral strategies in the French beginners foreign language class. From the
three conversations, the study revealed that even though the learners were given a simple
beginner task with learnt vocabularies (in this case, a self presentation and introduction of
friends), the learners still had the difficulties and sought a range of strategies to overcome their
weakness in the French vocabulary. This is due to the fact that the dialogues were spontaneous,
therefore, was limited in reforming the messages they wanted to convey as opposed to when they
write. Literal translation from either English or Malay was the most dominant strategy, followed
by all purpose words and message abandonment.

Apart from limited vocabulary, these strategies were used extensively on the grammatical
and structure rules in French. The usage of the strategy was equally due to the unlearned and
forgotten vocabularies of the subjects, and approximation of the vocabularies to the English
words. The reason was because the words in French and English have the same spelling, thus the
learners assumed that its meaning should be the same without further checking. The results of
this study were parallel to the study on the written communication by Hazlina Abdul Halim et al.
(2011) on the use of literal translation as the main strategy by French students.

In this study, the literal translation used involved the translating verbs literally from
English, and the syntax from English, Malay or Chinese. The all-purpose words strategy, on the
other hand, was used to generalize the use of article, subject tu and vous and possessive articles.
Foreignizing from English was another strategy used by the learners, which involved the
pronunciation of words as per English pronunciation. This was due to the similar orthography in
English and French.

Parallel to the findings above, code switching was used by the learners for two reasons:
they forgot certain vocabularies and switched to the language understood by all the audiences,
and they tried to accommodate the French expressions which were not understood by the group
members by switching to a language familiar to them. Finally, repetition strategy was used by
the learners to overcome the uncertainties of what was being said by the group members, to
gauge the group members’ understanding of what was being discussed, to reassure him/herself of
what was being discussed by the team members, and to compensate their lack of ideas to
continue the conversation.

The results of the study are useful to French instructors: it indicated for oral tasks, the
preparation time should be longer than written tasks, as the students will have to answer in
promptu, whereas for written tasks, they were allowed moments of reflection. The instructors
should equally be alerted to all the faux-amis in French and explain to their students the
implications and the reasons of the wrong use of these faux-amis in French sentences, especially
when the students start using literal translation as a CS.

ISSN: 1823464-X 33
 Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

CONCLUSION
Overall, this exploratory study, which adapted the Communication Strategies Taxonomy from
Dörnyei and Scott (1997), aims to find the types of strategies used by beginner French learners in
their oral communication. This exploratory study about oral strategies is useful for both learners
and teachers of French as a foreign language in Malaysia. As a result of this preliminary study,
learners can acquire a richer understanding of the language; and a later study can help identify
which strategies the learners find the most and the least useful.

Similarly, this study is beneficial for curriculum development teachers as it will be able
to help them identify which point and the reason learners utilize certain strategies and forego the
others. It is hoped that this exploratory study on oral strategies can lead to a series of deeper
researches in order to help students use and practice French in their daily lives.

REFERENCES

Dörnyei, Z. (1995a). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL QUARTERLY, 29, 55-58.
Dörnyei, Z. & Scott, M. (1995b).Communication strategies: an empirical analysis with retrospection. In
Turley, J.S. & Lusby, K. (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Proceedings of the 21st Annual
Symposium of the Deseret Language and Linguistics Society. Brigham Young University, Provo,
UT, 155-168.
Dörnyei, Z. & Scott, M. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: definitions and
taxonomies. Language Learning, 47(1), 173-210.
Dörnyei, Z. & Scott, M. L. (1997). Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and
taxonomies. Language Learning, 47, 173-210.
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1983). Processes in Foreign Language Learning and Communication .
International Studies Bulletin, 5, 47-118.
Hazlina Abdul Halim, Normaliza Abdul Rahim, Mohd Azidan Abdul Jabar & Adi Yasran Abdul Aziz
(2011). The influence of Languages (L1 & L2) and Culture on the Written Communication Of
Malaysian Students’ French Language Learning. In Hazlina Abdul Halim et al. (ed.). Lingua 3. pg
82-100. Serdang: UPM Press.
Kasper, G. & Kellerman, E. (Eds.). (1997). Communication Strategies. Harlow: Longman.
Mei, A. & Nathalang, S. S. (2009). Use of Communication Strategies by Chinese EFL Learners. In
Zhang, L. J., Rubdy, R. & Alsagoff, L. (Eds.). Englishes and Literatures-in-English in a
Globalised World: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on English in Southeast
Asia. Singapore: National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, 120-136.
Selinker, L (1972). Interlanguage. International review of applied linguistics, 10, 209-230
Tarone, E. (1977). “Conscious Communication Strategies in Interlanguage”, dalam Brown H. D.,Yorio
C.A. dan Crymes R.C. (eds.). TESOL ’77. Washington, D.C: TESOL
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk and repair in interlanguage. Language
Learning, 30, 417–431
Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL Quarterly, 15/3, 285-
295
Willems, G. (1987). Communication strategies and their significance in foreign language teaching.
System, 15, 351-364.

ISSN: 1823464-X 34
Journal of
Creative Practices in Language Learning and Teaching (CPLT)
Volume 1, Number 1, 2013

About the Authors

Dr Hazlina Abdul Halim is a senior lecturer and coordinator for BA (French Language)
programme at the department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of Modern Languages and
Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia. Her main research interests are in the areas of error
analysis of French language and communication and learning strategies of French language.

Dr Normaliza Abdul Rahim is an associate professor at the department of Malay Languages,

Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia. She is currently
the visiting lecturer for the Department of Translation and Interpretation, University of Hankuk,
South Korea. Her main research interests are discourse analysis and story board in language
teaching and learning.

Dr Roslina Mamat is a senior lecturer and Head of Department of Foreign Languages, Faculty of
Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia. Her main research interests
are in the areas of Discourse Analysis and Inter & Intra-culture Studies.

ISSN: 1823464-X 35