document

4043325319 Developing Communication Strategies Instruction Used in an English as a Lingua Franca Academic context BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 TANAPORN KHAMWAN A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCTOR DEGREE OF PHILOSOPHY IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE FACULTY OF EDUCATION BURAPHA UNIVERSITY 2022 COPYRIGHT OF BURAPHA UNIVERSITY

4043325319 การพฒั นาการใชก้ ลวธิ ีทางการส่ือสารภาษาองั กฤษในฐานะภาษากลางในบริบททางวชิ าการ BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 ธนพร คาวรรณ์ ดุษฎีนิพนธ์น้ีเป็นส่วนหน่ึงของการศึกษาตามหลกั สูตรปรัชญาดุษฎีบณั ฑิต สาขาวชิ าการสอนภาษาองั กฤษเป็นภาษาโลก คณะศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวทิ ยาลยั บูรพา 2565 ลิขสิทธ์ิเป็นของมหาวทิ ยาลยั บูรพา

4043325319 Developing Communication Strategies Instruction Used in an English as a Lingua Franca Academic context BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 TANAPORN KHAMWAN A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCTOR DEGREE OF PHILOSOPHY IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE FACULTY OF EDUCATION BURAPHA UNIVERSITY 2022 COPYRIGHT OF BURAPHA UNIVERSITY

The Dissertation of Tanaporn Khamwan has been approved by the examining committee to be partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor Degree of Philosophy in Teaching English as a Global Language of Burapha University Advisory Committee Examining Committee Principal advisor 4043325319 Principal examiner (Denchai Prabjandee) (Denchai Prabjandee) BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 Co-advisor Member (Assistant Professor Punwalai Kewara) (Assistant Professor Punwalai Kewara) External Member (Associate Professor Anchalee Wannaruk) Dean of the Faculty of Education (Associate Professor Sadayu Teeravanitrakul) This Dissertation has been approved by Graduate School Burapha University to be partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor Degree of Philosophy in Teaching English as a Global Language of Burapha University Dean of Graduate School (Associate Professor Dr. Nujjaree Chaimongkol)

D ABST RACT MAJOR: TEACHING ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE; Ph.D. (TEACHING ENGLISH AS A GLOBAL LANGUAGE) 61810053: KEYWORDS: TANAPORN KHAMWAN : DEVELOPING COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES INSTRUCTION USED IN AN ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA ACADEMIC CONTEXT. ADVISORY COMMITTEE: DENCHAI PRABJANDEE, , PUNWALAI KEWARA, Ph.D. 2022. 4043325319 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41

E ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Tanaporn Khamwan ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 4043325319

4043325319 TABLE OF CONTENTS BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 Page ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................. D ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................... E TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................F List of table ...................................................................................................................H List of figure .................................................................................................................. I Chapter 1 Introduction..................................................................................................1 1.1 Background of the study......................................................................................1 1.2 Statement of the problems ...................................................................................3 1.3 Purposes of the study...........................................................................................5 1.4 Research questions ..............................................................................................5 1.5 Research contribution..........................................................................................6 1.6 The scope of the study.........................................................................................7 1.7 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................7 1.8 Definitions of terms.............................................................................................9 Chapter summary.....................................................................................................10 Chapter 2 Literature Review.......................................................................................11 2.1 Internationalization............................................................................................11 2.2 Cross-cultural communication ...........................................................................12 2.3 English as a Lingual Franca ..............................................................................14 2.4 English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Context ............................................16 2.5 World Englishes.................................................................................................17 2.6 Roles of English in ASEAN ..............................................................................19

4043325319 G BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 2.7 Communication .................................................................................................20 2.8 Communicative competence .............................................................................20 2.9 Communication problems between ELF speakers ............................................23 2.10 Communication strategies ...............................................................................28 2.11 Communication strategies used and proficiency.............................................52 2.12 Way of Promoting Communication Strategies ................................................53 2.13 ELF Awareness................................................................................................55 2.14 Previous research.............................................................................................57 Chapter summary.....................................................................................................70 Chapter 3 Research Methodology ..............................................................................72 3.1 Research Design ................................................................................................72 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................85 Chapter 4 Findings.......................................................................................................86 4.1 Findings .............................................................................................................86 Chapter summary...................................................................................................109 Chapter 5 Discussion .................................................................................................110 5.1. Summary of the Study ....................................................................................110 5.2 Summary of the findings .................................................................................111 5.3 Discussion........................................................................................................112 5.4 Implications .....................................................................................................115 5.5 Limitations and recommendations for further studies .....................................116 Conclusion .............................................................................................................116 REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................118 APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................129 BIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................187

4043325319 List of table BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 Page Table 1 Summary of differences between Pros and Cons ...........................................32 Table 2 Tarone’s taxonomy.........................................................................................36 Table 3 Faerch & Kasper’s Taxonomy .......................................................................38 Table 4 Nijmegen’s Taxonomy ...................................................................................41 Table 5 Bialystok’s Taxonomy of Communication Strategies ...................................42 Table 6 Dornyei’s Traditional Conceptualizations of Communication Strategies......44 Table 7 Dornyei & Scott’s Taxonomy of Communication Strategies ........................45 Table 8 Summary of Various Taxonomies of Communication Strategies ..................49 Table 9 Taxonomy of Communication Strategies Adopted in this Study ...................52 Table 10 Previous studies on ELF communication strategies ......................................60 Table 11 Previous studies on communication strategies instruction in Thailand .........65 Table 12 The process of the first phase........................................................................74 Table 13 The process of the second phase ...................................................................77 Table 14 The process of the third phase.......................................................................81 Table 15 The comparing score of Oxford Placement Test and Common European Framework of Reference for Languages......................................................................84 Table 16 Needs of communication in the classroom between Thai students and Cambodian students and ways to solve the problems..................................................94 Table 17 Lesson plans to solve communication problems Thai students and cambodian students......................................................................................................98 Table 18 Lesson plans of communication strategies instruction. ..............................100 Table 19 Comparison between the pre-test and the post-test scores of communication strategies tasks of high proficiency students..............................................................104 Table 20 Comparison between the pre-test and the post-test scores of communication strategies tasks of low proficiency students...............................................................104

4043325319 List of figure Page Figure 1 Kachru’s three circles of English ..................................................................18 Figure 2 Surface structures of two binary systems ......................................................42 Figure 3 Steps of research and development approach................................................73 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41

4043325319 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 This chapter presents the background of the study, statement of the problems, purposes of the study, research questions, and research contributions. Then, it explains the scope of the study, conceptual framework, and operationalized definition, respectively. 1.1 Background of the study English is used as a communicative tool by individuals worldwide (Andy Kirkpatrick, 2012) It is not only used by Native English speakers (NES) but also by Non-native English speakers (NNES) (McArthur, 1998; McKay, 2002; A Pennycook, 1994) It is widely accepted that English is used internationally as a global lingua franca across boundaries in intercultural communication among people whose first languages are often not English (Baker, 2015; Seidlhofer, 2011) Thus, individuals need to become fluent multilingual speakers while retaining their national identity in accent and skills required for intercultural communication, especially in the context of internationalization (Baker, 2015; Graddol, 2006) Moreover, English has become increasingly essential in academic contexts. Many educational institutions worldwide have attempted to increase English Medium Instruction (EMI) programs at all educational levels, reflecting the more important role of English in academic contexts. In Thailand, for example, the number of EMI programs has increased dramatically from 78 programs in 2007 to 769 programs in 2018, serving approximately 20,497 international students (Nicola Galloway & Sahan, 2021) Phillipson (1992) reports that EMI is a vehicle for the internationalization of tertiary education. In other words, English is used as the medium language to teach subjects in countries where it is not the official language (Macaro, Curle, Pun, An, & Dearden, 2018) Many high schools, colleges, and universities in Thailand have recently enrolled foreign students, especially those from China and Cambodia (Nomnian, 2018) For example, as a lecturer working at a university adjacent to the border of Cambodia, I have noticed a steady increase in the

4043325319 2 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 number of students from Cambodia. The students come to study at an undergraduate level or do activities with Thai students in high schools and at the university. Since their first languages are different, they use English as a medium of communication. From this context, English functions as a lingua franca between Thais and Cambodians. Many scholars have conceptualized ELF differently. ELF scholars define ELF in four aspects: 1) focusing on communication, 2) negotiating with norm independent, 3) specific communicative circumstances, which, for this study, is the academic context, and 4) combining to make up a person’s semiotic repertoire. (N. Sifakis, 2019a) One widely cited notion is by Seidlhofer (2001), who described ELF as when English is chosen as the means of communication among people from different first language backgrounds across lingua cultural boundaries. From a second language acquisition perspective, Firth (1996) defined ELF as follows: …a contact language between people who share neither a common native tongue nor a common (national) culture, and for whom English is the chosen foreign language of communication (p. 240). In an ELF context, NNES may face considerable communication problems since their interlocutors bring multilingual repertoires to negotiate meanings during communication. The current ELF context has implications for how English should be taught. It becomes apparent that an important tool to prepare learners to use English in the ELF context is communication strategies, which English language teachers should include in their curricula so that they can effectively teach learners in academic contexts.(N. Galloway & Rose, 2015) Smit (2010) emphasized the importance of communication strategies in academic contexts that fewer communication difficulties will be perceived once a classroom community has been developed. Developing good communication strategies is so important. Many researchers have focused on this. Among others, C Faerch and Kasper (1983); Tarone (1980) have stressed that communication strategies are indispensable in helping English users solve communication problems when they lack linguistic skills and thus have to negotiate meaning with the interlocutors.

4043325319 3 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 1.2 Statement of the problems Internationalization has brought an increasing number of Cambodian students to further education in many educational institutions in Thailand. Since their first language differs from Thai, English is used as a medium for communication between them. Both Thai students and Cambodian students are NNES. Therefore, they are faced with language difficulty - inabillity to understand each other. Little attention has been paid in Thai academia to how we can help such international students prosper here in an ELF context. This lack of interest by administrators and teachers inevitably limits these international students’ access to the education they are entitled to, which may ultimately affect the enrollment of other prospective international students. Many ELF researchers have discussed the concept of accommodation as an essential strategy to achieve communicative purposes. Giles and Coupland (1991), Canagarajah (2005), and Cogo (2009) pointed out that accommodation strategies are very crucial because they are the adaptation to an interlocutor’s communicative behavior to help communication to negotiate meanings. Since communication strategies are very important nowadays, many researchers attempt to advocate for the need to use communication strategies in many contexts, for example, Inkeaw (2018) study communication strategies in the context of a telephone conversation. Galloway and Rose (2015) address the need to train students in accommodation strategies, while Matsumoto et al. (2012) propose that non-verbal communication can also help ELF reach communicative goals. Even though many researchers have addressed the importance of communication strategies, they did not focus on ELF in an academic context. Yoshida (2004), Galloway and Rose (2015), and Vettorel (2017) call for paying attention to the aspect of pedagogical implications of communication strategies in an academic context. They state that it is beneficial since it provides learners with ways and opportunities to interact in L2 contexts cooperatively. Moreover, communication strategies should be included or integrated into language teaching materials and classroom practices to equip learners with tools to cope with diversity: in the open

4043325319 4 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 seas of language use outside of language classrooms, these skills may be more important to communicative success. Therefore, it is the new challenge for ELF researcher to consider the training approaches to raise awareness and promote ELF practice of communication strategies. To date, there is limited communication strategies instruction for engaging students in the ELF academic context. Without the communication strategies instruction, intelligibility in understanding the lessons or contents may not occur with ELF students. Moreover, it can lead to communication breakdown between teacher and students inside the classroom or in academic context. According to previous studies, some scholars (e.g., Siqueira (2015); Yu (2015)) did their research in communication problems and strategic used but the area of pedagogy to support or train the strategic is scarce. (Vettorel, 2017) Moreover, the pedagogy of communication strategies had done mostly in EFL context. (Kongsom, 2009) Even though, communicative problems within ELF still exist, limited research has developed preparation program to enhance communication strategies or to help this group of students. (Vettorel, 2017) It is believed that communication strategies can assist NNES to solve some of their English communication problems and students may unconsciously use them to overcome language difficulties in real life situations (Canale, 1983; Ogane, 1998). Moreover, Tarone (1980) supports that communication strategies may be as important to communicative success as many of the lexicogrammatical and pragmatic details typically focused on in language classrooms. (Seidlhofer, 2004) Communication strategies cannot only solve linguistic problems, they can also help make conversation run more smoothly. (Kirkpatrick, 2007b) However, it is observed that prior researchers do not directly involve with communication strategies in ELF educational context. Therefore, it is very challenging to study in the area of the pedagogy and communication strategies employed between non-native speakers in order to help non-native students reach the communicative goals and promote mutual understanding. In this study, I focused on the area of communication strategies and pedagogies implications between NNES in order to help students negotiate their meaning with other non-native English interlocutors. In Thailand, communication

4043325319 5 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 strategies were studied in many dimensions which mostly in English as a foreign language (EFL) of teacher - student context. Generally, communication is not limited to only native and non-native speakers, but communication between non-native speakers also occur in daily life, for example, among members of the ASEAN community. Although, some researchers examined communication strategies in ELF context, they focused on communication strategies employed on the mutual understanding between non-native speakers, who are not students. (Inkeaw, 2018; Rajprasit & Hemchua, 2018) To fill the gap of communication strategies in ELF, this study emphasizes communication strategies in communication between students in formal situation of ELF and pedagogies, which can be quite challenging for all involved. Not only communication strategies are very significant, which students can use them as a device to overcome their communication barriers, the pedagogies implication of communication strategies is also important since the students can study communication strategies through effective activities. 1.3 Purposes of the study The study has two specific purposes: 1. To research common communication needs, reported by Thai students and Cambodian students, encountered in an ELF academic context 2. To develop components of communication strategies instruction 3. To investigate the effects of the communication strategies instruction on ability to use English in an ELF academic context 1.4 Research questions The following research questions were used to guide the pursuit of knowledge in this study: 1. What are common communication needs, reported by Thai students and Cambodian students, encountered in an ELF academic context? 2. What are components of the communication strategies instruction?

4043325319 6 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 3. What are the effects of the communication strategies instruction on ability to use English in an ELF academic context? 1.5 Research contribution This study provides empirical evidence for implementing communication strategies instruction to enhance ability to use English in an ELF academic context. The instruction was valuable for non-native English students, non-native English teachers and researchers in the field of ELT. For non-native English students, it is hoped that this communication strategies instruction was valuable for them directly since it can assist the students in order to negotiating meaning, as different strategies are required to resolve different types of problems. For English teachers, it is expected that the results of this study can be a guide to focus on when using the communication strategies instruction in the teaching plan in order to equip learners with tools to cope with diversity. However, if their teachers show these students how to use communication strategies more effectively, they were able to use them more effectively in the target language. For ELT researcher, it is hope that this study is a guideline in aspects of designing preparation communication strategies training instruction. Learners’ real problems and needs are currently needed to consider before designing training instruction since it can help researchers to solve the real communicative problem and select appropriate communication strategies for each context. Moreover, it can guide the ways to help or fulfill the learners to achieve skills. In addition, it is expected that the process of this study was presented the different new approach for selecting appropriate communication strategies for the training instruction in statistically, on the other hand, the previous study analyzes the communication strategies for training instruction from the texts or literature reviews. It is very challenging for language teachers to discover the new approach for presenting learners’ needs and show the results in statistic.

4043325319 7 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 Finally, it is hoped that further investigation into the other aspects of communication strategies by ELF students, such as collaborative cross-cultural communication, in which a lingua franca approach to language teaching could be adopted, could allow ELF students to successfully reach their communicative goals. 1.6 The scope of the study The present study aims to develop communication strategies instruction for ELF academic context. This study emphasizes oral communication only, not written communication since oral communication is considered a direct tool to express and convey meaning immediately. The non-native English speakers in this context refer to Thai students and Cambodian students. 1.7 Conceptual Framework This study is framed by communication strategies. Scholar divided communication strategies into two aspects: interactional and psycholinguistic views. The interactional view (e.g., Rost & Ross, 1991; Tarone, 1980) focused on the interaction between interlocutors and the negotiation of meaning. In this view, communication strategies are regarded as comprising not only problem-solving phenomena to compensate for communication disruptions, but also function as message enhancers as a part of pragmatic discourse. However, the psycholinguistic view (e.g., E. Kellerman and Bialystok (1997); Littlemore (2001); Poulisse, Kellerman, and Bongaerts (1987)) is more focused on the range of problem-solving activities available to the individual. This study conceptualizes communication strategies from both interactional view and psycholinguistic view. In interactional view, Tarone (1980) defined communication strategies as “mutual attempt(s) of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared”. This definition of communication strategies implies that they are “tools used in a joint negotiation of meaning where both interlocutors are attempting to agree as to a communicative goal” and “a shared enterprise in which both the speaker and the hearer are involved rather than being the sole responsibility of the speaker” (Tarone, 1980, p. 420). As these strategies reflect attempts on the part

4043325319 8 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 of the learners to make themselves more clearly understood to their interlocutors, they are considered interactional in nature. In psycholinguistic perspective, Faerch and Kasper (1983, p. 36) proposed a broader definition of communication strategies “communication strategies are viewed as potentially conscious plans for solving what an individual presents as a problem in terms of reaching a particular communicative goal” It is obvious that interactional view pointed out to help learners to reach their communicative goals, while psycholinguistic view proposed to assist learners to overcome linguistic problems. Moreover, this communication strategies training instruction is framed by Dornyei’s (1995) direct approach to teach communication strategies with six interrelated procedures in order to develop students’ communication strategies. Firstly, raising learner awareness about the nature and communicative potential of communication strategies that “making learners conscious of strategies already in their repertoire, sensitizing them to the appropriate situations where these could be useful, and making them realize that these strategies could actually work”. Secondly, encouraging students to be willing to take risks and use communication strategies that manipulating available language without being afraid of making errors. Thirdly, providing L2 models of the use of certain communication strategies is promoted through demonstrations, listening materials and videos, and getting learners to identify, categorize, and evaluate strategies used by native speakers or other L2 speakers. Fourthly, highlighting cross-cultural differences in communication strategies use involves various degrees of stylistic appropriateness associated with communication strategies, differences in the frequency of certain communication strategies in the speaker’s L1 and L2, as well as differences in the verbalization of communication strategies. Fifthly, teaching communication strategies directly is conducted by presenting linguistic devices to verbalize communication strategies which have a finite range of surface structure realization. Sixthly, providing opportunities for practice in strategy use is necessary because communication strategies can only fulfil their function as immediate first aid devices if their use has reached an automatic stage. These procedures above support the view of direct teaching of communication strategies to assist the learner reach communicative goal.

4043325319 9 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 1.8 Definitions of terms Common communication needs refer to communicative problems in a classroom setting, reported by both Thai students and Cambodian students as they use English in an academic context. Needs in this study were characterized by Nation and Macalister (2010), who categorized needs in terms of necessities, lacks, and wants. Necessities are what learners have to know to function effectively in communication. Lacks are the difference between the student’s present competence and the desired competence. Wants are what students put a higher priority in the available. English as a Lingual Franca in academic context refers to the use of English in English classrooms for several purposes, including seeking information, informing data, comparing the data, ordering, classifying, analyzing, inferring, justifying and persuading, solving problem, synthesizing and evaluating data or information in order to exchange idea and negotiating meaning (Chamot & O’Malley, 1994). Communication strategies instruction refers to a plan of teaching to enhance ability to use English in an ELF academic context to achieve communicative goals. The instruction was designed based on the framework of Dornyei (1995) as follows: 1) Raising learner awareness about the nature and communicative potential of communication strategies, 2) Encouraging students to be willing to take risks and use communication strategies, 3) Providing L2 models of the use of certain communication strategies, 4) Highlighting cross-cultural differences in communication strategies use, 5) Teaching communication strategies directly, and 6) Providing opportunities for practice in strategy use. Ability to use English in an ELF academic context refers to communication strategies, assisting the students to overcome communication problems in an ELF academic context. Ability to use English in an ELF academic context was assessed by using the communication strategies task. Thai students / Cambodian students refer to three groups of Thai students and Cambodian students. The first group consists of 15 Thai students and 15 Cambodian students for researching common communication needs. The second group consists of 15 Thai students and 15 Cambodian students for trying out

4043325319 10 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 communication strategies instruction in developing phase. The last group consists of 13 Thai students and 15 Cambodian students for investigating the effects of the communication strategies instruction on ability to use English in an ELF academic context Chapter summary This chapter presents the background and the problems of the study in communication between Thai students and Cambodian students in academic context. This study aims to develop communication between non-native students in academic context by enhancing communication strategies and pedagogies implication, in the form of learning communication strategies instruction, in order to help students negotiate meaning and overcome communicative problems. The research objectives are proposed to research common communication problems in an ELF academic context, to develop communication strategies instruction for ELF academic context, and to investigate the effects of the learning communication strategies instruction for ELF academic context.

4043325319 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 This chapter discusses a review of literature concerned with Global English, English as a lingual franca, communication, and communication strategies, and other related the topic of the study. 2.1 Internationalization The number of international mobility students spread rapidly and globally in higher education. According to the UNESCO statistics, the number of internationally mobile students has more than doubled, from about 2 million in 2000 to 4.6 million in 2015. Moreover, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2017) states that between 1995 and 2011the number of cross borders or international students in higher education worldwide is rapidly increasing. Guruz (2011) also supports that international students will increase more than eight million by 2025. Based on these statistics, it is noticed that the trend of internationalization increases rapidly. International students mobility concept is that the students cross borders to study in other countries in pursuit of knowledge can be traced back to the beginnings of higher education. (Lucas, 2009) Altbach & Engberg (2014) reported that most outbound international students are from Asia to the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. However, it is not only international Asian students study abroad in higher education. Foreign international students also come to study within the region of Asia. According to the number of internationalization students, Schwab (2017a) believes that international students bring a crucial aspect of diversity to the classroom and institute. Moreover, their international experiences create important learning opportunities to broaden their professional and personal perspectives. According to Schwab (2017a), the heart of internationalization mobility in higher education is globalization. It represents the international system in dimensions of the interaction and integration of cultures, politics, business and intellectual of cultures, politics, business and intellectual elements around the world. Albach (2004)

4043325319 12 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 states that the flow of studies and higher educated personnel across borders enhance globalization, since modern technology, the Internet, the increasing ease of communication, are supporting devices for them to study in different society or culture. Moreover, English is used as the lingua franca of academia. It can be said that English is used as a globalization language, which is one aspect that international students have to face when they use for cross-cultural communication. According to the impact of a large number of internationalizations in academic context, English as a Medium Instruction Program (EMI) is considered as a trend in internationalization of higher education across many non-Anglophone countries as countries shift from their focus from teaching English to teaching academic subjects in English. (Dearden, 2014; Graddol, 1997; J Jenkins, 2014) Dearden (2015) defines EMI as “the use of the English language to teach academic subjects in countries or jurisdictions where the first language of the majority of the population is not English” Phillipson (1992) also reports that EMI is a vehicle for the internationalization of tertiary education. Since, English is used as a medium language to teach subjects in countries where English is not the official language. EMI is a growing global phenomenon in all phases of higher education, and more universities are in a rush to offer both graduate and undergraduate programs through EMI. (Macaro et al., 2018) Graddol (2006) states that the adoption of EMI in higher education is widespread and represents one of the key trends governing the spread of English today. Moreover, he also emphasizes that EMI can enhance ability of language used between cross-cultural communication students, which is presented in the next part. 2.2 Cross-cultural communication According to globalization and internationalization, people from different countries have more chances to study, work and live together both face-to-face and online in newly formed communities. These people interact or communicate (both verbal and non-verbal) with one another through exchanging information. The ways of communication present their own cultural conceptions and values, including, their

4043325319 13 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 identities, social norms, inherited characteristics, and national customs through the ways they do, act and talk in daily life. (Nguyen, 2018) International Education offer opportunities for many people to become knowledgeable and at the same time communicate with others in a culturally and linguistically diverse learning environment. This communication process is called cross-cultural communication. (Xu, 2007) It is a process of creating, exchanging and negotiating meaning among people from different cultural backgrounds using a variety of means. Yuan (2012) defines cross-cultural communication as interpersonal communication and interaction across different cultures. Yuan also suggests that the key to achieving successful cross-cultural communication depends on the ability to efficiently interact by using both verbal and non-verbal communication with people who are from different cultures. In the globalized context, English language has been used as a common language for communication among people from different multilingual and multicultural backgrounds. (X. Yuan, 2006) Previously, cross-cultural communication considered the norms. Many NNESs are expected to successfully communicate with the target language or converging a target model corresponding to the nativenorm. (Greenwood, 2002; A Pennycook, 1994) Tseng (2002) reveals that “success in language learning is conditional upon the acquisition of cultural knowledge: language learners acquire cultural background knowledge in order to communicate, and to increase their comprehension in the target language” (p.13). The language-culture link is significant for non-native educators since culture plays a crucial role in helping non-native learners to be proficient in the target language (Nault, 2006). At present, cross- cultural communication is more challenge through globalization and cultural diversity (Alptekin, 2002). People from different language and cultures background use English to communicate for exchanging and negotiating meaning in various settings, travelling, academic study, or conferences. Non-native speakers are engaged in the specific intercultural context and require strategies for interpreting cultures and languages when they communicate (Crozet & Liddicoat, 2000). However, cross-cultural communication and interactional communication are closely related, it is focused on each aspect. Cross-cultural focuses on the comparison of different cultures (Yuan, 2012). In cross-cultural communication

4043325319 14 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 aspect, differences are understood and acknowledged, and can bring about individual change, but not collective transformations. In cross-cultural societies aspect, one culture is often considered “the norm” and all other cultures are compared or contrasted to the dominant culture. Whereas, intercultural describes communities in which there is a deep understanding and respect for all cultures. Intercultural communication focuses on the mutual exchange of ideas and cultural norms and the development of deep relationships. (Reisinger, 2009) Nevertheless, Browaeys & Price (2008) refer to Gudykunst (2004), said that cross-cultural communication is a “sub- domain” of intercultural communication and has to do with “the comparison of the various ways, people communicate across cultures” (p. 233). Seidlhofer (2006) states that when people from various backgrounds use English for communication, the ways they communicate and deliver their messages still rooted from their cultural beliefs and first language repertoires. She indicates that English has remained one of the most essential tools for cross-cultural communication as people often select it as a lingua franca. Therefore, Seidlhofer (2006) calls non- native speakers who use English for cross-cultural communication with other non- native speakers as a lingual franca context, which are presented in the next section. 2.3 English as a Lingual Franca The global spread of English has changed to status of English to ELF, which has received attention as a vehicle of communication between diverse NNES. ELF scholars, such as Sifakis (2019) defined ELF in four aspects. Firstly, ELF is the discourse produced in interactions involving speakers of different first languages (Firth, 1996). In this view, ELF regards as a linguistic concept and sees ELF as a language variety. Gnutzmann (2000) critiques that from this definition, it can also include native speakers when they engage in intercultural communication. Gnutzmann (2000) concludes that the key point of the definition is that speakers of whatever L1 can appropriate ELF for their own purposes without over-deference to native-speaker norms. This counteracts a deficit view of lingua franca English in that it implies equal communicative rights for all its users Secondly, ELF is defined as interactions between two or more lingua cultures in English for whom English is not the mother

4043325319 15 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 tongue (House, 1999). It is seen that ELF is defined from a sociolinguistic perspective as a working tool rather than a language variety. In this way, ELF typically works in multilingual and multicultural settings and is independent of norms that are culturally and historically associated with Standard English (Cogo & Jenkins 2010; Seidlhofer 2010). Thirdly, ELF is define from the features of its linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural flexibility as a means of communication that is appropriated by individual interlocutors under specific communicative circumstances or it can be said that this view emphasizes on the context of interaction and the users of ELF the community rather than the code, the discourse communities with a common communicative purpose (Seidlhofer 2011; Mauranen 2012; Jenkins 2015). Fourthly, ELF is considered as the situations develop a fluid ‘trans-semiotic system or communication in both verbal and non-verbal communication with many meaning-making signs, primarily linguistic ones, that combine to make up a person’s semiotic repertoire’ (Garcia and Wei 2014: p.42) and are compatible with the notion of translanguaging (Garcia 2009; Garcia & Wei 2014). The main role of English in lingua franca settings is to facilitate cross- cultural communication in a globalized world, speakers’ potential to be understood and communication success have become the primary concerns amongst ELF users and researchers in the expanding circle (Berns, 2008). Moreover, it is prioritized over native-speaker norms (Greenwood, 2002). However, many people may confuse about the idea of English as a lingual franca and English as a foreign language (EFL). ELF is argued to be an alternative approach to English as a Foreign Language. When making the distinction between EFL and ELF, Jenkins (2005) argues that speakers of EFL use their English chiefly to communicate with native speakers of English, often in the native speaker settings or focus on native norm. While ELF use their English primarily (or entirely if one takes the ‘purist’ interpretation of ELF) to communicate with other non-native speakers of English, usually from first languages other than their own and typically in NNES settings. They need therefore to be intelligible to, and to understand, other non-native speakers. At present, ELF has extended to the field of English language teaching (ELT) or in academic context, which is presented in the next section.

4043325319 16 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 2.4 English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Context English as a lingual franca in academic context investigates English as it is used by speakers with different mother tongues or non-native speakers to communicate in both verbal and non-verbal or person’s semiotic repertoire. According to internationalization, English has generally known as a default language for academic initiatives, international publications, conference activities and teaching. The unique of English as a lingual franca in academic context is heterogeneity and diversity (Ball and Lindsay 2013). Some scholars, such as Duff (2007) and Mauranen (2008) state that English as a lingual franca in academic context is the situation requires a better understanding of how English is used in new conditions where native speakers may not be present, and norm independent. It also raises several new concerns regarding the academic goals of teaching English. More generally, we know relatively little about the impact of the complex language contact on English that now characterizes its global usage. From this perspective, English is considered as a hybridized and adaptable resource, diversified in practice. Internationalization needs to use English for communication in order to perceive meaning-making and knowledge-structure processes as members of academic discipline. Duff (2007) also states that English as a lingual franca in academic context works as a tool for self- presentation, self-identification and belonging to a particular community of practice via the development of academic discourse practices. Moreover, Rose and Galloway (2019) support that English as a lingual franca in academic context promotes how ELF users utilize their multilingual repertoires and negotiate communication in multilingual encounters academic situation. Schmidt-Unterberger (2018) reports that ELFA relates to English for specific purposes (ESP) and English for academic purposes (EAP) programs play a key role, where ESP/ EAP teachers need “to activate and expand their students’ existing terminology knowledge and help them identify patterns and structures in relevance to professional genres” Chamot and O’Malley (1994) proposed that academic language is the language that is used for the purpose of acquiring new knowledge and skills in the classroom. Academic language differs in many ways from social language, the language that is used for purpose of interaction in social classrooms, the emphasis on

4043325319 17 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 academic language (Mufidah, Rukmini, & Faridi, 2012). But even academic language can be interactive. Teachers and students will explore new ideas, exchange analyzes and debate about values in both teacher-student and student-student interaction (Chamot & O’malley, 1994). Chamot and O’malley (1994) classify academic functions into 11 sub-functions: (1) seeking information, used to observe and explore the students’ competency, to acquire information in the teaching learning process (e.g. use Wh- questions); (2) informing, used to identify, to report, or to describe information (e.g. recount information presented by teacher or text, retell a story or personal experience); (3) comparing, used to describe similarities and differences in objects or ideas (e.g. explain the similarities and contrasts); (4) ordering, used to describe or arrange sequence objects, ideas, or events. (e.g., Explain a timeline, continuum, cycle, or narrative sequence); (5) classifying, used to make group objects or ideas according to their characteristics (e.g. describe organizing principle(s), explain why A is an example and B is not); (6) analyzing, used to separate whole into parts; identify relationships and patterns (e.g., Describe parts, features, or main idea of information presented by teacher or text); (7) inferring, used to make inferences; predict implications and hypothesize (e.g. describe reasoning process inductive or deductive or generate hypothesis to suggest causes or outcomes); (8) justifying & persuading, used to give reasons for an action, decision, point of view; convince others (e.g. tell why a is crucial and give evidence in support of a position); (9) solving problem, used to define and represent a problem; determine solution (e.g. Describe problem-solving procedures; apply to real life problems and describe); (10) synthesizing, used to combine or integrate ideas to form a new whole (e.g. summarize information cohesively; incorporate new information into prior knowledge); and (11) evaluating, used to asses and verify the worth of an object, idea, or decision. (e.g., Identify criteria, explain priorities, give reasons for judgment, and confirm truth). 2.5 World Englishes According to the increasing of English users, Kachru (1988) was the first to represent the spread of English across the world with three concentric circles, each associated with the different approaches and the contexts in which English has been

4043325319 18 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 acquired and is currently used by its speakers. Kachru (1992) divided countries into three circles depending on the history, role, and status played by the English language. First, inner circle countries are those in which English has been used traditionally as the mother tongue; native English speakers such as Americans, Australians, the British and Canadians. Kachru called these group societies as norm provider. He classified a second group as outer circle countries, the former colonies of the inner circle countries. English played an institutional role in these countries. In other words, even though English was not their first language, they used it for the purposes of everyday communication. He also pointed out that some societies of this group try to establish local norms, which are called norm-developing (Kirkpatrick, 2007b). The final group, expanding circle countries, includes those nations which do not belong to the colonized by members of inner circle members and English does not have any special intranational status or function. They constitute the context as English was not used as a mother tongue, and English is spoken or taught as a Foreign Language. Figure 1 Kachru’s three circles of English This group society is called norm dependent. People in this group have to use English as a medium to contact with people in other nations. English users who are not native-speakers and have their own nation language are categorized in Expanding circle, especially, people in ASEAN country. English plays a role in ASEAN context, which are presented below.

4043325319 19 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 2.6 Roles of English in ASEAN The roles of English directly affect ASEAN countries, especially considering the different religious and cultural backgrounds throughout Southeast Asia. The ASEAN Charter indicated in Article 34 that “the working language of ASEAN shall be English” (Kirkpatrick, 2010). English play crucial roles in ASEAN context. For example, in expanding circle ASEAN countries, in Thailand and Indonesia, English has been taught as foreign language in both countries. However, in the educational system of Indonesia, English is not compulsory subject in primary schools. Moreover, beyond the imprecise knowledge management, English is used in limited domains such as education, and tourism. Thus, the number of proficient English learners are low. In contrast, the education system in Thailand characterizes English as a lingua franca used to connect with other regions of the world in diverse perspectives (Baker, 2015). For Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia, due to the Vietnam War, English is banned to be taught as it is the language of enemy. The introductions of economic reforms in Vietnam acquire the better chances of education and job positions. English becomes to be the gate of success. Lao gives importance in English by designing English as a compulsory subject stating from Primary 3 while Myanmar has been influenced by colonization. It became the most dominant language and is accepted as the tool for employment with foreign agencies. Undoubtedly, English is the tool for socio-economic advancement such as on Filipinos (Kirkpatrick, 2010). According to the above mention, it is obviously seen that English is very important, particularly, for communication. People, who can speak English, can have good opportunities for their careers. It can be concluded that, despite, English is accepted as working language of ASEAN community, the issue of being the homebased to great ethnic, cultural, political and economic and linguistic diversity, has caused the challenging question that English is merely used as functional role in ASEAN language for their survival or it similarly has an emotive value. The controversial incongruences have been identified (Fiedler, 2011; Kumar & Sharon, 2008; Milner, 2011, 2012)

4043325319 20 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 However, the spread of English in ASEAN providing the language policy and reforms in Southeast Asia as well as the subject of English as lingua franca have been consequently focused under the exact role of English in ASEAN of which the members have diverse regional identities (E. Low & Ao, 2018; Tupas, 2018). 2.7 Communication Communication was defined as the process of speakers and listeners exchanging plans and discovering intentions (Grice, 1957). Canale (1983) argues that communication is known to have different characteristics, namely that it is a form of social interaction and normally acquired and employed in social interaction. It is unpredictability and creativity in form and message. Moreover, communication also takes place in discourse and socio-cultural contexts which provide appropriate language use and clues to interpret utterances accurately. In addition, Morrow (1977), Widdowson (1978) and Breen & Candlin (1980) revealed that the above characteristics are very beneficial description of the communication nature. These characteristics make the fluidity and changeability of language during the communication process. This view of communication is also accepted by the use of communication strategies where language cannot be presented as static but as a constantly evolving process whereby meaning is negotiated and transformed by its participants (Prinyajarn, 2007). Similarly, Oxford (1990) defined communication as “a mutual exchange between two or more individuals which enhances cooperation and establishes commonality” (p. 4). Communication is also seen as dynamic. It depends on the negotiation of meaning between two or more persons who share some knowledge of the language being used. Moreover, learners should have communicative competence knowledge which can enhance them to negotiate with interlocutors. 2.8 Communicative competence Communicative competence is started from Chomsky in 1965. He focused on the context of language and linguistic or grammatical competence. He believed that linguistic is the basic knowledge for speakers and listeners. However, Hymes

4043325319 21 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 (1967) argued against Chomsky that linguistics and grammatical competence are not inadequate. He claimed that Chomsky’s notion of competence should include social and cultural factors. He also indicates that knowledge and ability for use are required as a part of achieving in communicative performance. After the concept proposed by Chomsky and Hymes, communicative competences have been studied in various aspects. Cooley & Roach (1984) focused on the understanding of competence. He reported that Chomsky and Hymes’ concepts lacked details and need more explanations to be useful as a theoretical concept of competence. Later, Canale & Swain (1980) attempted to clarify the concept of communicative competence. In the view of language learning and teaching, they indicated that communicative competence, which consisted of communication strategies, grammatical competence, and sociolinguistic competence, is not inadequate for a communicative approach. Then, Canale (1983) gave the communicative competence’s definition as the follows: Communicative competence refers to both knowledge and skill in using this knowledge when interacting in actual communication. Knowledge refers here to what one knows (consciously or unconsciously) about the language and about other aspects of communicative language use; skill refers to how well one can perform this knowledge in actual communication (Canale, 1983, p.5) Canale (1983) also revealed his theoretical framework of communicative competence, which covered four main areas of knowledge and skills: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence and strategic competence. He also explained that firstly, grammatical competence consisted of knowledge of lexical items and the rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics, and phonology. It is the same competence that we associate with mastering the linguistic codes of a language. Secondly, sociolinguistic competence involves knowledge of the sociocultural rules of a language, and of discourse. This competence requires knowledge for using appropriate language for the social context, such as the roles of the participants, the information they share, and the function of the interaction. Thirdly, competence in discourse is in many ways the complement of grammatical competence. It is the ability to connect sentences in stretches of discourse and to form a meaningful whole out of a series of utterances. Discourse

4043325319 22 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 refers unit of language or everything from spoken conversation or written texts. While grammatical competence emphasizes on sentence-level grammar, competence in discourse is concerned with intersentential relationships. Lastly, strategic competence is the knowledge of both verbal and non-verbal communication strategies that may be called into action to compensate for communication breakdowns due to performance variables, insufficient competence, or limiting conditions in actual communication (e.g. inability to recall something). Moreover, it enhances the effectiveness of communication (e.g. deliberately slow for rhetorical effect). In other word, it can be stated that strategic competence refers to the ability of language learners to use communication strategies either to solve communication problems, or to enhance the effectiveness of communication, which allows speakers to appear more adept than they actually are (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992, p. 72). Thus, strategic competence is especially crucial for non-native learners with rather limited oral proficiency. Similarly, Galloway & Rose (2015) points out that ELF should aware of the important of strategies, which can assist them to reach communicative goals. Learners, who have insufficient strategic competence, may face with problems about vocabulary and are unable to fulfill their communicative purposes. Many scholars have attempted to discover new strategies to assist the conversational continuum. Richards, Platt, & Platt (1992) claimed that these strategies are procedures employed in learning and thinking which serve as a way of achieving a goal. Brown (1994) also maintained that strategies are: 1) specific methods of approaching a problem or task, 2) modes of operation for achieving a particular end, and 3) planned designs for controlling and manipulating certain information. Particularly, in communication between non-native speaker, as Seidlhofer (2003, p. 22) points out, strategic language skills are likely to be useful in lingua-franca communication. Strategic language competence, as defined by Canale (1983), is used to compensate limitations in other competences. Canagarajah (2005) points out that ELF emphasis on successful communication and negotiation of meaning hence, students need to acquire various strategies to help them achieve goals. It supports Giles & Coupland (1991) about accommodation strategies, which involve the adaptation to an interlocutor’s communicative behavior to help communication to negotiate meaning. Moreover, Cogo (2009, p. 270) states that ‘successful ELF

4043325319 23 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 communication relies on crucial adaptive accommodation skills along with appreciation and acceptance of diversity’. Cogo also notes that accommodation strategies allow their exchanges to be more intelligible. Similarly, Galloway & Rose (2015) address the need to train other used accommodation strategies, while Matsumoto et al. (2012) proposes that non-verbal communication can also help ELF to reach communicative goals. Moreover, Cogo (2010) reported that inadequate levels of shared socio-cultural knowledge between ELF speakers from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds can lead to misunderstandings, communication breakdowns, and communication difficulties in negotiating meaning, as the participants will rely on the norms of their mother tongue and native culture to interpret meaning. 2.9 Communication problems between ELF speakers 2.9.1 Misunderstanding in ELF Communication Misunderstandings can occur when interlocutors cannot communicate shared meaning. House (1999) reported that “misunderstanding is a part of the lingua- cultural practice of conversation” (p. 76) and arises in everyday communication between members of the same culture and language community. House (1999) also revealed that language use is full of mistakes and that “in a sense, then, communication is itself miscommunicative” (p. 76). Misunderstandings are thus no exception in our own linguistic and cultural environment (Gass & Varonis, 1991; Weigand, 1999). Misunderstandings can be the result of various causes. Linguistic differences create problems with understanding due to: 1) difficulty in the correct construction of sentences, 2) unfamiliarity with the vocabulary of the language in use, and 3) problems with the proper pronunciation of words and terms. Misunderstanding is not only caused by linguistic factors, but also by pragmatic factors. They may result from insufficient comprehension at different levels of language, misperceptions, or gaps in the general knowledge of the interlocutors. Moreover, misunderstandings may occur because of the uncooperative behavior among interlocutors in terms of communication, such as failure to monitor the differences in levels of understanding. For example, the audience should expect a speaker’s utterances to some coherent relation to the discourse so far. Therefore, they

4043325319 24 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 can rule out alternatives that are inconsistent with the discourse when considering the many possible interpretations of an utterance. Misunderstanding can lead to a communication breakdown in which one person cannot interpret some utterance, which was presented in the next section. Misunderstanding can also cause participants to form different judgments about what they have accomplished. House (1999, p. 78) classified pragmatic misunderstanding into four types: 1. Operational misunderstandings: They occur when expectation patterns are stronger than the real verbal input, and interlocutors stop to listen because schemes and scripts are automatically activated; 2. Language-based misunderstandings: They happen on different levels of decoding and encoding; 3. Conceptually-based misunderstandings: They are caused by differences in culture-specific knowledge and communicative preference patterns; 4. Strategic misunderstandings: Speakers use them consciously in order to gain advantages over their interlocutor. Mauranen (2006) reported that misunderstanding between NES and NNES communication has been studied widely. Studies of L2 acquisition have often investigated in the insufficiency of linguistic form and the lack of linguistic competence in L2 users; this has been presumed to cause communicative misunderstandings between native and non-native speakers. Mauranen pointed out that the situation between a native and non-native is different to a situation in which non-native speakers use a language as “vehicular language” (Mauranen, 2006). Mauranen (2006) explains vehicular languase as “auxiliary language that enables communication between speakers who do not share any other language. The basic definition of a lingua franca is thus solely functional English as a Lingua Franca can accordingly be defined as a vehicular language between speakers of different first languages for whom English serves as the most convenient common medium” (p. 137). 2.9.2 Communication breakdown In authentic communicative situations, language learners often cannot retrieve a word, use or comprehend an idiomatic expression, or grasp a topic (Willems, 1987). These types of reasons lead to communication breakdown.

4043325319 25 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 Hewstone & Giles (1986, p. 22) claimed that a communication breakdown occurs when “the construct is implicitly static, over-inclusive, and glosses over a heterogeneous range of objective and subjective ineffectuality of communication. Speakers are in dire need of an adequate operational definition of ‘breakdown’, a consistent set of miscommunication nomenclatures, and a working typology of intergroup communication difficulties.” In addition, Pica, Holliday, Lewis, Berducci, & Newmen (1991 cited in Choi, 2003), proposed that there were four stages to the sequence which leads to a communication breakdown: 1. The trigger is the beginning or the head of a negotiation of meaning sequences and it is the source of the communication breakdown. 2. The signal is an utterance or an indication showing non-understanding or potential communication breakdown in order to avoid it. 3. The response is a reply to an indication of a real or potential communication breakdown. 4. A continuation move is the closing of the sequence as learners reach mutual understanding or move on to a new topic.

4043325319 26 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 2.9.3 Negotiation of meaning The negotiation of meaning in a conversation is the maintenance of mutual understanding between interlocutors. It refers to conversational adjustments or modifications that occur in communicative interactions when learners and their interlocutors have difficulty in understanding messages (Lijuan, 2010). Moreover, Pica (1994) also stated the idea that the negotiation of meaning is a mutual effort made by the interlocutors: ‘‘as they negotiate, they work linguistically to achieve the needed comprehensibility, whether through repeating a message verbatim, adjusting its syntax, changing its words, or modifying its form and meaning in a host of other ways” (p. 494). During such a negotiation, interlocutors attempt to collaborate in order to arrive at message comprehension or reach their communicative goals by using strategies such as repetitions, clarification requests, confirmation requests, and comprehension checks. In the former situation, meaning negotiation is a mutual concern in which interlocutors can signal or show understanding or a lack of understanding immediately by turn-taking in a conversation. Thus, both sides adapt their utterances in order to ensure a final mutual understanding. The most important component of interactive communication, namely negotiation, is facilitative of communication, which can be analyzed from three perspectives. First, the nature of communication determines the importance of negotiation and its meaning (Widdowson, 1999). The development of communicative competence among learners is an implicit process of negotiating meaning. Second, meaning negotiation promotes the crucial socializing purpose of language. In communication, it refers to schematic knowledge, that is, more general and conventional assumptions and beliefs which define what is accepted as normal or typical, in terms of the way reality is structured or conventional conduct in everyday social life. Therefore, by activating relevant contextual knowledge, we can enter a particular culture or subculture. Third, Oliver (2002) reports that the process of meaning negotiation functions as both a means to prevent conversational difficulties and a repair mechanism to overcome communication breakdown. Furthermore, Pica (1994) the negotiation of meaning assists language learners in three principal ways. Firstly, it helps learners to obtain comprehensible input that is specially modified for their individual circumstances and is a necessary condition for

4043325319 27 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 non-native speakers. However, Fuente (2002) argued that negotiation can promote non-native learners to understand words and structures beyond their present level of competence and eventually enables them to incorporate them into their L2 production. Secondly, negotiating meaning also prompts learners to adjust and modify their own output in order to make themselves understood. In this process, learners are “pushed toward the delivery of a message that is not only conveyed, but conveyed precisely, coherently and appropriately” (Swain, 1985, p. 249). Thirdly, the negotiation of meaning provides learners with feedback about their attempts at acquiring the target language. During this process, learners are provided with opportunities to use words and to receive feedback, which may enable them to notice the discrepancies between the target language and their level of comprehension. In other words, it may facilitate attention to forms and thereby promote internalized input. Ellis (1991) claimed that the acquisition process included the procedures of noticing, comparing and integrating. Long (1996, p. 414) provided an updated interaction hypothesis, and also suggested that in terms of internalizing interaction as a role in negotiating interactions that elicit negative feedback, which may facilitate attention to some forms. On the other hand, the negotiation of meaning is also cognitively affected by factors including the proficiency levels of the participants, their background knowledge, their use of communication strategies, their individual character, motivation, and confidence levels, etc. The interaction of these factors may have some impact on the negotiation of meaning (Ma, 2004). Many scholars attempted to solve these problems with communication problems through a variety of approaches. Willems (1987), Faerch & Kasper (1983), Bialystok (1990), and Dornyei (1995) believe that communication strategies enable them to compensate for their target language deficiencies, enhance interaction in the target language, and eventually develop communicative competence. Communication strategies are considered as tools for language learners to assist them in order to reach communicative goals, which are presented details in the next part.

4043325319 28 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 2.10 Communication strategies Communication strategies (CS) were firstly introduced from the work of Selinker (1972). He considered communication strategies as one of the five central processed involved in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Later in the late of 1980s, Canale and Swan (1980) and Faerch and Kasper (1983) were proposed the roles of communication strategies. They indicated that communication strategies are a part in communicative competence as strategic competence, which involved the ability to use problem-solving tools to overcome learners’ communicative difficulties. However, in half of 1980s, a group of researchers at Nijmegen University conducted communication strategies in another aspect, which emphasized on the factors influence learners’ used communication strategies. Then, communication strategies are deepest studied about conceptualization, definitions, and classifications 2.10.1 Conceptualization of communication strategies Generally, scholars have studied communication strategies from two major perspectives. The interactional view (e.g., Rost & Ross (1991); Tarone (1980)) focused on the interaction between interlocutors and the negotiation of meaning. In this view, communication strategies are regarded as comprising not only of problem- solving phenomena to compensate for communication disruptions, but also function as message enhancers as a part of pragmatic discourse. However, the psycholinguistic view (e.g., E. Kellerman and Bialystok (1997); Littlemore (2001); Poulisse et al. (1987)) is more focused on the range of problem-solving activities available to the individual. Kongsom (2009) reported that, “These two major approaches to conceptualizing of communication strategies have been acknowledged to be the most influential in the field of CS studies.” 2.10.1.1 The interactional view The interactional view emerged from the work of Tarone (1980). This view is based mainly on the process of interaction between language learners and their interlocutors, and their approach to meaning negotiation. Thus, Tarone (1980, p. 419) defined communication strategies as “mutual attempt(s) of two interlocutors to

4043325319 29 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 agree on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared”. This definition of communication strategies indicated that they are devices employed in a joint negotiation of meaning in which both interlocutors are trying to agree as to communicative goals and a shared enterprise in which interlocutors (speakers and listeners) are involved rather than being the sole responsibility of the speaker. As these strategies reflect attempts on the part of the learners to make themselves more clearly understood to their interlocutors, they are considered interactional in nature. Tarone proposed the necessary criteria for communication strategies, which she explicitly distinguished from production strategies and learning strategies, as follows (Tarone, 1980, p. 419): 1. A speaker desires to communicate meaning x to a listener, 2. The speaker believes that the linguistic or sociolinguistic structures desired to communicate meaning x is unavailable or is not shared with the listener, 3. The speaker chooses to: a. avoid-not attempt to communicate meaning x or b. attempt alternate means to communicate meaning x. The speaker stops trying alternatives when it seems clear to the speaker that there is shared meaning. This interactional perspective would allow for the inclusion of various repair mechanisms, which Tarone (1980) considered communication strategies if their intention was “to clarify intended meaning rather than simply correct linguistic form.” (p. 24). Later, Canale (1983, p. 12) prolonged the concept of communication strategies by offering two types of communication strategies: “(1) strategies to compensate for disruptions in communication problems due to insufficient knowledge of the target language, and (2) strategies to enhance the effectiveness of communication with interlocutors.” The first type of communication strategies is involved with the problem-solving behaviors of the interlocutors regarding the negotiation of meaning (e.g. Nakatani (2005); Pica (2002)). The interactional view is focused on the meaning that learners employ when using communication strategies to improve the negotiation of meaning and convey messages during an interaction. Nakatani & Goh (2007, p. 208) maintained that “communication strategies are viewed

4043325319 30 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 not only as problem-solving devices to compensate for communication breakdowns, but also as devices with pragmatic discourse functions for message enhancement”. 2.10.1.2 The psycholinguistic view In psycholinguistic perspective, communication strategies are viewed as a cognitive process on the part of the speaker. It was focused on learners’ comprehension and production. Faerch & Kasper (1983) describes that communication strategies are part of the planning phase and are employed when learners are prevented from executing their original plan because of some problems. Hence, they proposed a wider definition of communication strategies in this view as “potentially conscious plans for solving what an individual present as a problem in terms of reaching a particular communicative goal” (p. 36). It can be stated that Faerch & Kasper (1983) defined communication strategies in terms of an individual’s mental response to a problem, rather than as a joint of conversation’s response by two interlocutors. Later, Bialystok (1990) offered a more general approach, which struggled to account for the use of learning and communication strategies by L1 and L2 speakers, including children and adults. She argued that communication strategies respond to cognitive mechanisms that operate through mental representations in linguistic processing. Her cognitive framework of communication strategies is mainly based on two cognitive skills, which emphasize development of the two components of language processing, the analysis of linguistic knowledge and cognitive control. Firstly, the analysis of linguistic knowledge is the ability of the learner to understand “the process of structuring mental representations of language which are organized at the level of meanings (knowledge of the world) into explicit representations of structure organized at the level of symbols (forms)” (Bialystok, 1990, p. 118). In other words, this ability alters the content of the message, by exploiting their knowledge of concepts. The strategies used to achieve this may include providing a definition of a concept or object or engaging in circumlocution. Secondly, cognitive control refers to the learner’s ability to “control attention to relevant and appropriate information and to integrate those forms in real time” (Bialystok, 1990, p. 125). Control-based strategies manipulate the expression method by integrating resources from outside the L2 in order to convey the intended message.

4043325319 31 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 These may include use of the L1 or non-linguistic strategies such as miming. Moreover, the Nijmegen Group (i.e., Kellerman, Bongaerts, & Poulisse) also supported the psychological processes underlying strategy use. Poulisse (1993), for example, conceptualized communication strategies within a coherent model of speech production, and her definition of communication strategies is as follows: Compensatory strategies are processes, operating on conceptual and linguistic knowledge representations, which are adopted by language users in the creation of alternative means of expression when linguistic shortcomings make it impossible for them to communicate their intended meanings in the preferred manner (pp. 192-193) Therefore, the psycholinguistic view of communication strategies has been mainly related with strategies for overcoming learners’ limitations in lexical knowledge. This view investigates the problem-solving behaviors of the learners, caused by gaps in their lexical knowledge. Hence, most researchers, who work in the area of psycholinguistic orientation haspointed the description of communication strategies to lexical-compensatory strategies only. 2.10.1.3 The pros and the Cons of communication strategies Yule and& Tarone (1997) proposed these two views as the Pros and the Cons of communication strategies. The Pros support a liberal expansion of categories of strategy, while the Cons are rather conservative, and reduce the number of compensatory strategies. The Pros often examine the variation in linguistic performance, while the Cons are more concerned with the strategy categories generalizability and psychological. The Pros also favor the teaching of some communication strategies (Tarone, 1984), while the Cons are opposed to such instruction, since the Cons view the strategies employed in creating L2 references as a form of cognitive processing. It can be summarized in the Table below, as follows:

32 Table 1 Summary of differences between Pros and Cons Pros Cons 1. Profligate, liberal expansion of categories1. Conservative, parsimonious reduction of categories 2. Taxonomic description of observed form 2. Description of underlying in output, external and interactive psychological process, internal and 4043325319 cognitive 3. L2 learner performance compared to TL 3. L2 learner performance compared to BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 native speaker performance; many their own L1 performance: many differences found similarities found 4. Elicitation prompts are real-world objects4. Elicitation prompts are abstract shapes 5. Listening partner, with a purpose, present5. No listening partner present 6. L2 learners with different L1s; L1s mostly6. L2 learners with same L1; L1 very dissimilar to TL similar to TL 7. Communication strategies should be 7. Communication strategies should not taught be taught 2.10.2 Definitions of communication strategies Communication strategy research has adopted various theoretical perspectives. Many scholars have defined communication strategies in different ways. Tarone (1980, p. 195) considered communication strategies from a discourse- analytical perspective and suggested an interactional approach. She maintained that communication strategies are “a mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations where requisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared.” Faerch and Kasper (1983b) proposed that communication strategies are verbal plans within the speech production framework. They defined communication strategies as “potentially conscious plans for solving what an individual present as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal” (Faerch & Kasper, 1983b, p. 36). Dornyei (1995) extended the scope of their definition to include devices that were not strictly meaning-related. He defined communication strategies as a primary

4043325319 33 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 purpose of negotiating meaning. Dornyei & Scott (1995a; 1995b) equated strategic language use with communication problem-solving behavior in general. They believed that communication strategies are the key units in a general description of problem-management in L2 communication. Canale (1983) proposed to also include non-problem-solving strategies as well. He stated that communication strategies are any attempt to enhance the effectiveness of communication. Bialystok (1990) and the Nijmegen Group offered communication strategies primarily as mental events and adopted a cognitive psychological approach to their analysis. Bialystok (1990, p. 4) defined communication strategies as the “willful planning to achieve explicit goals.” Poulisse (1993) developed the psycholinguistic perspective by integrating communication strategies in an adapted version of Levelt’s (1989) speech production framework. However, Bialystok (1990) pointed out that although communication strategy researchers offer various definitions. The definitions listed above share the following three main features: 1. Problematicity refers to a fact that one adopted strategy when faces with a problem in either learning or production, a problem that can disrupt or interrupt communication and cause failure communication. 2. Consciousness refers to learners’ awareness of the employment of a particular strategy. Bialystok (1990) states that consciousness is implicit in all the proposed definitions for communication strategies. She also explained that speakers make a choice when they communicate. For example, they can use “truck” or “lorry” to refer to the same thing. Thus, the learners make a choice, they make a “conscious consideration” (Bialystok, 1990, p. 4). 3. Intentionality refers to the learner’s control over those strategies, so that particular ones may be selected from the range of options and deliberately applied to achieve certain effects (Bialystok, 1990, p. 5). In other words, learners have some control over their strategy use. They may select or make a choice from the variety of strategies to deal with their communication problems.

4043325319 34 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 Bialystok (1990) also noted that none of the communication strategies were unique, and that the same three features have been found in most communication strategy definitions so far. According to the three concepts of communication strategy definitions listed above, scholars have studied communication strategy employment only in terms of native and non-native speakers. However, it is challenged to investigate the employment of communication strategies among non-native speakers whose first language is not English. Therefore, the present study has adopted the definition of communication strategies based on Tarone’s and Faerch & Kasper’s definitions and which consist of the three features above. 2.10.3 Classification of communication strategies Many scholars have attempted to classify communication strategies based on their concepts. Communication strategies were classified and developed in various taxonomies. According to a review of communication strategies definitions, It can be assumed that communication strategies can be divided into two aspects: interactional and the psycholinguistic view (Dornyei & Scott, 1997). An interactional view, a traditional approach, or a product-oriented approach is known as the ‘Pros’, proposed by researchers such as Tarone (1977) and Faerch & Kasper (1983). They emphasized the descriptions of the language produced by L2 learners, communication strategies are considered as devices to help learner to reach their communicative goals. On the other hand, a psycholinguistic view or process-oriented approach is better known as the ‘Cons’, which was proposed by researchers such as Bialystok (1990) and the Nijmegen group. They focused on internal and cognitive process, communication strategies are considered as tools for assisting learners to overcome language difficulties. Moreover, Dornyei & Scott (1997) combined some new types of communication strategy classification. The differences in theoretical viewpoints among these researchers are based on their specifications of the language devices that they considered to be communication strategies. The taxonomies of the communication strategies were presented in the following section.

4043325319 35 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 2.10.3.1 Interactional view Some scholars, including Tarone (1980), and Faerch & Kasper (1983), both proposed a communication strategy based on interactional views or social strategies. They believed that communication strategies could help language learner to maintain conversation between interlocutors and reach communicative purposes. Taxonomy 1: Tarone’s taxonomy Tarone (1977, 1983) proposed five main categories of communication strategies: avoidance, paraphrase, borrowing, appeal for assistance, and mime. The first category is avoidance. It is used when speakers do not want to talk about things which they know are difficult in their second language. Tarone divided avoidance into two subcategories: topic avoidance and message abandonment. Topic avoidance happens when the speaker simply does not talk about concepts for which the vocabulary or other meaning structures are unknown. Message abandonment occurs when the speaker starts talking about a concept but is unable to continue due to lack of meaning structure and stops in mid-utterance. The second category is paraphrase, which occurs when speaker paraphrases what they want to say. This is divided into three subcategories: approximation, word coinage, and circumlocution. A speaker may use these strategies to compensate for an unknown L2 word. Approximation occurs when the speaker uses a single target language lexical item or structure, which they know is incorrect, but shares sufficient semantic features with the desired item to satisfy the speaker. Word coinage is used when the speaker makes up a new word to convey a desired concept. Circumlocution occurs when the speaker explains the characteristics or elements of the object or an action, rather than using the appropriate language structure or target language. The third category is borrowing, which occurs when the speaker falls back on their first language. Borrowing is divided into literal translation, where the speaker translates word for word from their native language, and language switch, where the speaker uses a term from their native language term without bothering to translate. Fourthly, an appeal for assistance involves the speaker requesting the correct term or structure. The last strategy is mime, which occurs when the speaker uses non-verbal strategies in place of a meaning structure. The summary details are presented in the Table 2:

4043325319 36 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 Table 2 Tarone’s taxonomy Tarone’s Taxonomy 1. Avoidance 1.1 Topic avoidance: the speaker simply tries not to talk about concepts for which the target language item or structure is unknown. 1.2 Message abandonment: the speaker begins to talk about a concept but is unable to continue and stops in mid-utterance. 2. Paraphrase 2.1 Approximation: the use of a single target language vocabulary item or structure, which the speaker knows is incorrect, but shares enough semantic features with the desired item to satisfy the speaker. 2.2 Word coinage: the speaker makes up a new word in order to communicate the desired concept. 2.3 Circumlocution: the speaker describes the characteristics or elements of the object or action instead of using the appropriate target language item or structure. 3. Borrowing 3.1 Literal Translation: the speaker translates word-for-word from their native language. 3.2 Language Switch: the speaker uses a term from their native language without bothering to translate. 4. Appeal for assistance: the speaker asks for the correct term. 5. Mime: the speaker uses non-verbal strategies in place of a lexical item. It can be concluded that Tarone’s taxonomy is very important since it covers the communication strategies investigated in later studies. Moreover, the definitions and examples are clear and illustrative (Kongsom, 2009).

4043325319 37 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 Taxonomy 2: Faerch & Kasper’s Taxonomy Faerch & Kasper (1983) believed that speakers use communication strategies to solve communication problems. They provided two main categories of communication strategies: reduction and achievement strategies. Avoidance strategies are also known as reduction strategies, while achievement strategies are also known as compensatory strategies by some scholars. According to Bygate (1987) both achievement and reduction strategies are used to compensate for problems anticipated by learners, before they express what they planned to communicate. An achievement strategy aims to communicate the whole message, as perceived by the speaker. Some examples include the use of L1 items, translation, paraphrasing, miming or pointing, and eliciting or asking for help from interlocutor. These strategies ensure that a message is not lost or modified. In contrast, a reduction strategy is intended to either communicate an imperfect message or communicate a message other than the one that was originally intended. In other words, it results in reducing the message (i.e. that the learner failed to convey all of the intended messages and therefore, only a partial solution can be managed) or finding no solution (i.e. the learner leaves the message and tries to express other things that they can better manage). Cook (1993, p. 123 cited in Kongsom, 2009), reported that a speaker either avoids a linguistic form with difficulty (formal reduction) at one of the three linguistic levels of phonology, morphology or grammar, or avoid language function at the actional, propositional, or modal level (functional reduction). Achievement strategies are divided into non-cooperative and cooperative strategies. In non-cooperative strategies, the speaker attempts to solve the problem by L1 / L3 strategies, interlanguage strategies and non-linguistic strategies without resorting to support from others. When using L1/L3 strategies, the speaker relies on a language other than the L2 by code switching or trying out L1 expressions in the L2 with minimal adaptation by foreignizing. Interlanguage strategies are based on evolving interlanguage methods such as 1) substitution, replacing one item for another; 2) generalization, substituting a more general word for an unknown word; 3) description, or describing something; 4) exemplification, or providing an example when a learner does not know a word; 5) word-coinage, or making up a new word to cover a gap in communication; and 6) restructuring, or rephrasing sentences in a

4043325319 38 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 slightly different way. The non-linguistic strategies consist of mime and sound imitation. Lastly, cooperative strategies involve the help of another person. These strategies consist of direct or indirect appeals. The summary details are presented in the Table 3: Table 3 Faerch & Kasper’s Taxonomy Faerch and Kasper’s Taxonomy 1. Reduction strategies 1.1 Formal reduction 1.1.1 Phonology 1.1.2 Morphology 1.1.3 Grammatical 1.2 Functional reduction 1.2.1 Actionable reduction 1.2.2 Prepositional reduction 1.2.3 Modal reduction 2. Achievement strategies 2.1 Noncooperative 2.1.1 L1/L3- based strategies 2.1.1.1 Code switching 2.1.1.2 Foreignizing 2.1.1.3 Literal translation 2.1.2 Inter-language-based strategies 2.1.2.1 Substitution 2.1.2.2 Generalization 2.1.2.3 Description 2.1.2.4 Exemplification

4043325319 39 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 Faerch and Kasper’s Taxonomy 2.1.2.5 Word coinage 2.1.2.6 Restructuring 2.1.3 Non- linguistic strategies 2.1.3.1 Mime 2.1.3.2 Gesture 2.1.3.3 Sound initiation The two taxonomies above are similar. For example, an overlap can be seen with avoidance or reduction strategies. When using avoidance or reduction strategies (e.g. topic avoidance, or message abandonment), speakers deviate from unfamiliar topics, avoid solving communication problems, and reduce or abandon the messages that they intended to convey. However, Faerch & Kasper’s taxonomy seems to be more complicated than Tarone’s taxonomy, as it consists of more subtypes. Nevertheless, Bialystok (1990) indicated that the differences between two types of reduction (formal reduction and functional reduction) are not clear, as the use of formal reduction may result in the use of functional reduction. For example, if the speaker uses a formal lexical reduction because they do not know a target word, such as ‘mushroom’, he or she may employ a functional reduction to avoid discussing ‘edible fungi’ (Bialystok, 1990, p. 43). Kellerman, Bongaerts, & Poulisse, (1987), Bialystok (1990), Kellerman and Bialystok (1997) claimed that the taxonomies of Tarone (1977, 1983) and Faerch & Kasper (1983) all failed to generalize the taxonomies of communication strategies. The interactional view of these taxonomies emphasizes the descriptions of the superficial differences in strategy types, and ignores the cognitive processes underlying the use of strategies by the speaker. In this present study, communication strategies, which propose by Tarone (1983), are used. Since, the definitions and examples are clear and illustrative. Although, Faerch & Kasper’s work (1983) are not very clear in definitions and examples as I mention above, the achievement strategies, which are included in this

4043325319 40 BUU iThesis 61810053 dissertation / recv: 20082565 23:43:30 / seq: 41 present study such as code switching, foreignizing, word-coining, non-linguistic strategies and appeals, are still clear and illustrative. 2.10.3.2 Psychological View Scholars including Bialystok (1990) and the Nijmegen group, who studied communication strategies from a psychological perspective, emphasized the significance of the internal and cognitive processes. Taxonomy 3: The Nijmegen Group’s Taxonomy Some researchers, such as Kellerman (1991) and Poulisse (1987), viewed communication strategies in terms of the cognitive processes associated with them. They classified communication strategies into two main categories: conceptual and linguistic strategies. The conceptual strategies are divided into two subtypes, analytic strategies, which refer to the concept that a speaker intended to communicate by listing some of its properties, and holistic strategies, which refer to the idea of using a related word to express a related concept. Linguistic strategies include manipulating the linguistic skills of the speakers. The subtypes are based on morphological creativity, which refer to the use of L2 rules of morphological derivation to create, what the subject assumes to be, a comprehensible L2 lexis. A transfer strategy occurs when the speaker finds similarities between languages. The words or phrases that are transferred can sometimes be adjusted to the L2 and the use of a transfer strategy can also result in words that already exist in the language. The details are presented in the Table 4.