Communication Strategies and Their Role in Interactional Fluency in L1 Finnish and L2 English Dialogues : A Mixed Methods Study of University Students of English
Tammi, Taina (2024-10-31)
Communication Strategies and Their Role in Interactional Fluency in L1 Finnish and L2 English Dialogues : A Mixed Methods Study of University Students of English
(31.10.2024)
Julkaisu on tekijänoikeussäännösten alainen. Teosta voi lukea ja tulostaa henkilökohtaista käyttöä varten. Käyttö kaupallisiin tarkoituksiin on kielletty.
avoin
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on:
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2024112696950
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2024112696950
Tiivistelmä
This thesis uses a mixed methods approach to study communication strategies (CSs) in first language (L1) Finnish and second language (L2) English dialogues. The material used in the study was collected by the Fluency and Disfluency Features in L2 Speech (FDF2) project in the English department at the University of Turku. The participants were 50 university students of English. They were divided into pairs, and they conducted a dialogue concentrating on a problem-solving task both in the L2 and the L1. The task was to discuss 16 items, presented as pictures, and decide their order of importance when stranded on a desert island or being crash-landed on the moon. The participants also took the LexTALE proficiency test.
The focus of this study was to examine the frequency, and similarities and differences in the used CSs in the L1 and L2 dialogues, and to explore how the combinations of CSs were used to support interactional fluency. The CSs were identified and classified using a combination of Poulisse, Bongaerts, and Kellerman’s (1984) and Dörnyei and Scott’s (1997) taxonomies. The CSs were divided into direct strategies including approximations, all-purpose words, circumlocutions, retrievals, similar- sounding words, translations, word coinages, and code-switches, and interactional strategies including direct and indirect appeals for assistance, and verbal strategy markers. Approximations were further divided into three subcategories.
The quantitative analysis showed that 201 CSs were identified in the L2 dialogues, on average 4.02 per participant, and 169 in the L1, on average 3.38, and this difference was not statistically significant. Approximations were the most frequently used CSs in both languages, with 64 % of the CSs in the L2, respectively 61 % in the L1. Interactional strategies were the second most frequently used CSs, appeals for assistance being the 15 % of the used CS in the L1 and 10 % in the L2 dialogues, and verbal strategy markers adding 6 % to the L2 CSs and 2 % to the L1. Translation only appeared in the L2 dialogues, and in addition, the difference in frequency between the L1 and the L2 was statistically significant with verbal strategy markers. Overall, the frequencies of different CS types were similar across the languages.
The participants were divided into four groups according to the frequency of their CS use in both languages for further analysis. There were six participants in the group where CSs were used equal to or more than the median in both languages. In this group, same CSs appeared in both languages. However, this was not the case with the groups where CSs were used more frequently in one of the languages and less in the other, and there were 11 participants in both groups. This highlights the significance of examining the L1 and the L2 fluency of the same participants. The remaining 22 participants used CSs less frequently than the median in both languages. Finally, the combinations of CSs were explored both in individual and collaborative use. It was found that collaboratively used approximations were typically the repetition of the same approximation. This built cohesion and spared the participants from further negotiation of meaning. Overall, based on this study, CSs have an important role in supporting interactional fluency.
The focus of this study was to examine the frequency, and similarities and differences in the used CSs in the L1 and L2 dialogues, and to explore how the combinations of CSs were used to support interactional fluency. The CSs were identified and classified using a combination of Poulisse, Bongaerts, and Kellerman’s (1984) and Dörnyei and Scott’s (1997) taxonomies. The CSs were divided into direct strategies including approximations, all-purpose words, circumlocutions, retrievals, similar- sounding words, translations, word coinages, and code-switches, and interactional strategies including direct and indirect appeals for assistance, and verbal strategy markers. Approximations were further divided into three subcategories.
The quantitative analysis showed that 201 CSs were identified in the L2 dialogues, on average 4.02 per participant, and 169 in the L1, on average 3.38, and this difference was not statistically significant. Approximations were the most frequently used CSs in both languages, with 64 % of the CSs in the L2, respectively 61 % in the L1. Interactional strategies were the second most frequently used CSs, appeals for assistance being the 15 % of the used CS in the L1 and 10 % in the L2 dialogues, and verbal strategy markers adding 6 % to the L2 CSs and 2 % to the L1. Translation only appeared in the L2 dialogues, and in addition, the difference in frequency between the L1 and the L2 was statistically significant with verbal strategy markers. Overall, the frequencies of different CS types were similar across the languages.
The participants were divided into four groups according to the frequency of their CS use in both languages for further analysis. There were six participants in the group where CSs were used equal to or more than the median in both languages. In this group, same CSs appeared in both languages. However, this was not the case with the groups where CSs were used more frequently in one of the languages and less in the other, and there were 11 participants in both groups. This highlights the significance of examining the L1 and the L2 fluency of the same participants. The remaining 22 participants used CSs less frequently than the median in both languages. Finally, the combinations of CSs were explored both in individual and collaborative use. It was found that collaboratively used approximations were typically the repetition of the same approximation. This built cohesion and spared the participants from further negotiation of meaning. Overall, based on this study, CSs have an important role in supporting interactional fluency.