Teachability of communication strategies

instruction. Two distinct positions can be recognized on the bases of studies dealing with CS instruction. The researchers who hold the view against teaching of CSs claim that CSs can be acquired through experience of using a language (Bialystok, 1990; Bialystok & Kellerman, 1987; Kellerman, 1991). They have questioned the effectiveness of such training by

supporting the view that L2 speakers have already developed their strategic competence in their L1 and they will gradually transfer them into their L2 with meaningful practice. For example, Bialystok (1990) claimed that:

The more language the learners know, the more possibilities exist for the system to be flexible and to adjust itself to meet the demands of the learner. What one must teach students of a language is not strategy, but language (p. 147).

Furthermore, Kallerman (1991, p. 158) pointed out that “There is no justification for providing training of compensatory strategies in the classroom… Teach the learners more language and let the strategies look for themselves”. According to Faucette (2001) these ideas arise from the studies that focus on the cognitive processes involved in CS rather than

performance.

On the other hand, some researchers have explicitly favoured CS training by putting forward arguments for the reasons of training students in the use of CS. The following arguments from the point of their views clearly explain why classroom practice should include CS training.

1. CS training is important for the development of strategic competence which is part of the learner´s communicative competence. Dörnyei and Thurrell (1991), Tarone (1983) and Willems (1987) strongly support the importance of strategic competence with the claim that the development of CS use should be aimed in L2 teaching so that the learners can become more aware of how to use such strategies for more successful communication. According to Tarone (1983, p. 123), each component of communicative competence should have a place in foreign language teaching because “a student who has failed to develop competence in any of these components cannot truly be said to be proficient in the foreign language”. The prime hypothesis in language teaching is that even if the strategies are very well known and implemented, good results are not obtained unless the learner’s attention is drawn to this special component of his/her communicative competence. As cited by Tarone (1983, p. 124)

“Students not only need instruction and practice in the overall skill of conveying information using the target language; they also need instruction and practice in the use of communication strategies to solve problems encountered in the process of conveying information”. Therefore, learners should be trained in the use of CSs.

2. CS training help learners become more aware of the strategies that they already use in L1, thus transfer L1 skills. This issue is based on the ground that “even if learners already have communication strategies in L1 or the target language, they may not use them often enough, appropriately, efficiently, and spontaneously in the L2” (Faucette, 2001, p. 5). No doubt that certain strategies used by an L2 speaker can be transferred from his/her L1;

however, learners’ tendency to transfer can be affected by how they think that their mother tongue is similar to the target language, according to Paribakht (1985). She takes the

perceived distance between L1 and L2 into account to explain the learners CS use and states that “learners' awareness of the large distance between L1 and L2 may reduce their tendency to depend on L1-based CS simply because they assume that these will not work (Paribakht,

1985, p. 140). Willems (1987, p. 351), even though he accepts that L2 speakers have a tendency to use Cs that they have naturally developed in their L1, favours CS training by pointing out the existence of important individual differences because “not every learner is equally adept in using CmS or, for that matter, commands the same range of CmS”.

Therefore, learners’ attention should be brought to strategies they may already make use of in the L1 so that they become aware of this strategy use and utilize them in L2.

3. CSs bridge the gap between classroom and real-life communication. Faerch and Kasper (1986) point out the existence of “an inevitable gap between what learners are taught and what they need in present and future non-educational situations” (Faerch & Kasper, 1986, p. 179). It seems right to say that their thought provides justification for CS instruction to help learners overcome their communication problems in real life situations. According to Faerch and Kasper “. . . by learning how to use communication strategies appropriately, learners will be more able to bridge the gap between pedagogic and non-pedagogic communicative

situations” (1983, p. 56). Likewise, Willems (1987) explains such benefit in the following way:

The learner will be in need of language to express himself as he would in

non-pedagogic situations. He will need to be able to use his innate strategic and discourse competence. He will be in need of some basic awareness of what happens in face-to-face interaction and may benefit from instruction about communication strategies (p.

351).

4. CSs are important for contributing to the student´s security, self-confidence and motivation to communicate. Another claim in support of CS instruction is that such training may contribute to the development of sense of security and self-confidence which also result in high level of motivation when attempting to communicate in the L2 (Schmitt, 2013;

Willems, 1987). By addressing the traditional foreign language teaching, CS instructional practices have been suggested by Willems (1987). He contends that:

Especially for those learners who in traditional teaching do not reach the so-called

“threshold level” it is important to develop a strategic competence in order to “get by”

later on. A side effect of introducing a certain amount of attention to CmS will be that weaker learners will derive some motivation for learning the L2 as they will develop a feeling of at least being able to do something with the language (Willems, 1987, p.

352)

Regarding the specific characteristics of EFL context that learners do not have many opportunities to use language outside the classroom, classroom environment appears as a place providing practices and chances for CS acquisition. Therefore, the role of classroom should not be denied. Although the opportunities to use FL in the classrooms are generally limited, and gaining proficiency or competence is a long and difficult process, good language learners can make use of their classroom learning to develop their knowledge of CSs through instruction. Teachers should make learners aware of their existing strategy behaviour and teach them how to use it most appropriately and effectively.