T1 112011010 Full text
THE USE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES DURING
ONLINE CHATTING BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN
DEALING WITH VOCABULARY DEFICIENCIES
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Hezky Charisma Budiono
112011010
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2015
THE USE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES DURING
ONLINE CHATTING BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN
DEALING WITH VOCABULARY DEFICIENCIES
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Hezky Charisma Budiono
112011010
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2015
THE USE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES DURING
ONLINE CHATTING BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN
DEALING WITH VOCABULARY DEFICIENCIES
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Hezky Charisma Budiono
112011010
Approved by:
Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul, M. A.
Supervisor
Yustina Priska Kisnanto, M. Hum.
Examiner
ii
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic
community, I verify that:
Name
Student ID Number
Study Program
Faculty
Kind of Work
: Hezky Charisma Budiono
: 112011010
: English Department
: Faculty of Language and Literature
: Undergraduate Thesis
In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty
free right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
THE USE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES DURING ONLINE
CHATTING BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN DEALING WITH
VOCABULARY DEFICIENCIES
along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy,
reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval
system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in
whole or in part without my express written permission, as long as my name is still
included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in
: Salatiga
Date
: ________________
Verified by signee,
Hezky Charisma Budiono
Approved by
Thesis Supervisor
Thesis Examiner
Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul, M. A.
Yustina Priska Kisnanto, M. Hum.
iii
Copyright Statement
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any
course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To
the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously
published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the
text.
Copyright@ 2015. Hezky Charisma Budiono and Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul, M.A
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without
the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department,
Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.
Hezky Charisma Budiono:
iv
Table of Content
Approval Page .............................................................................................................. ii
Publication Agreement Declaration ............................................................................ iii
Copyright Statement ................................................................................................... iv
Table of Content ........................................................................................................... v
List Of Figures ............................................................................................................ vi
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 4
The Study ..................................................................................................................... 7
Findings and Discussions ........................................................................................... 11
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 25
Acknowledgment ....................................................................................................... 27
References .................................................................................................................. 28
Appendix A (Dornyei and Scott’s CSs Taxonomy) ................................................... 30
Appendix B (Data Transcription and Analysis Result) ............................................. 31
v
List of Figures
FIGURE 1. Chat-log example
FIGURE 2. Chat-log example with pauses and revisions indicator
FIGURE 3. Excerpt of Participant 10’s Chat-log with referring to L2 linguistic
knowledge strategy – Pause – Register and discourse reason
FIGURE 4. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with referring to L2 linguistic
knowledge strategy – Revision – Unnatural language reason
FIGURE 5. Excerpt of Participant 1’s Chat-log with self-repair strategy – Revision –
More representative words reason
FIGURE 6. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with over-explicitness strategy –
Pause – Considering explaining reason
FIGURE 7. Excerpt of Participant 3’s Chat-log with over-explicitness strategy –
Revision – Conveying better-meaning reason
FIGURE 8. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with referring to previous message
strategy – Pause – Considering discourse reason
FIGURE 9. Excerpt of Participant 5’s Chat-log with asking people for help strategy
– Pause – Forget the L2 reason
FIGURE 10. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with double-check strategy – Pause
– Adding explanation reason of waffling strategy
vi
THE USE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES DURING
ONLINE CHATTING BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN
DEALING WITH VOCABULARY DEFICIENCIES
Hezky Charisma Budiono
112011010
Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga
Abstract
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) becomes an effective
communication in globalized era, although it also has some communication
problems just like in face-to-face (FTF) communication. In order to deal with it, EFL
learners who use English as L2 should have communication strategies. This study
aimed to find out the communication strategies (CSs) employed by the EFL learners,
Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga,
Indonesia, to cope with the vocabulary deficiencies as the communication problem
faced during online chatting. Nature of CSs, CMC, and the vocabulary dimensions
become the theoretical framework of this study. Once the participants did an online
chat and recorded, stimulated recall protocol (SRP) followed the data collection
process using a semi-structured interview. FTF’s CSs taxonomy and CMC-related
CSs upon grammatical level difficulties are used to analyze the data. Out of 15 CSs
employed, two new CSs are proposed in this study. CSs in dealing with vocabulary
problems that exclusively occurred in CMC will also be discussed in this paper. The
finding may provide insight for teachers and EFL learners on how to overcome
vocabulary difficulties while communicating through online chatting and maintain
an effective communication.
Keywords: communication strategies, computer-mediated
vocabulary deficiencies, stimulated recall protocol
communication,
INTRODUCTION
Internet opens opportunities to communicate worldwide anywhere at any
time. This kind of communication called computer-mediated communication (CMC).
One well-known tool in CMC is online chatting (e.g. Facebook Messenger, BBM,
WhatsApp, LINE, etc.). In chatting, it is possible that people from different places
can communicate to each other, as long as they can digitally meet up at the same
1
time. However, since CMC participants can come from any parts of the world, the
languages used are also varied. Thus, English become a lingua franca in CMC.
However, the English language competencies among users may differ. Hence, it may
lead to communication problems that are caused by linguistic gap, such as grammar
incomprehension and vocabulary deficiency.
This study highlights vocabulary deficiencies, since it could be a major
problem for L2 learners. Lessard-Clouston (2013) defines vocabulary as:
…the words of language, including single item or phrases or chunks
or several words which co[n]vey a particular meaning, the way
individual words do. Vocabulary addresses single lexical items –
words with specific meaning(s) – but it also includes lexical phrases
or chunks. (p. 2)
From the definition above, we can conclude that vocabulary deficiency is a condition
when an individual meets a communication gap, in which an individual cannot
convey meaning and express thoughts into words. Consequently, an effective
communication (i.e. the achieved understanding upon the exchange of messages
between communicator and interlocutor) might not be achieved.
In order to achieve and maintain an effective communication, EFL learners
who face communication problems will try to find a way out during the
communication process. This attempt is called communication strategies (CSs). In
this study, CSs that are used during the online chatting are called as CMC-related
CSs.
Previous studies have tried to analyze certain CSs used during CMC (e.g.
Smith, 2003; Omar et al., 2012). Yet, their studies bound the participants with certain
tasks and time that may lead to anxiety. The anxiety may limit participants in
executing CSs and may not produce an effective communication. Their study also
2
focused on product-based analysis (e.g. reflective journals), which did not reflect the
psychological process of communication. Moreover, it did not focus on vocabulary
deficiencies as the communication gap during personal online chatting; rather, it
focused on inadequateness of English command in an Online Discussion (OLD) and
strategic completion of a task-based CMC.
Therefore, this study aims to identify the CSs used to deal with the
vocabulary deficiencies during personal online chatting, based on process-based
approach, within the scope of EFL students from Faculty of Language and Literature
in Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga. Later in the data analysis process,
this study uses Dornyei and Scott’s (1997) CSs taxonomy and Sumakul’s (2011)
CMC-related CSs to figure out CSs used by the participants during online chatting.
Furthermore, it is important for us to know the CMC-related CSs used in
order to give a contribution upon English language learning, especially English for
communicative purposes, which has become more dynamic with the development of
technology (Nakatani, 2006; Aydin, 2007; Ozdener, 2008; Khamis, 2010). For
teachers, the results of the study can expectedly help them in handling the students’
vocabulary problems in CMC by giving understanding about the alternative CSs to
use. In addition, this study will contribute in deeper understanding and give some
insights for technologically-exposed-EFL learners to use CSs in dealing with
vocabulary problems and, thus, maintain an effective communication. From here,
this study focuses on answering the research question: “What are the communication
strategies used by EFL students from FLL of Satya Wacana Christian University in
dealing with vocabulary deficiencies in online chatting?”
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Vocabulary Deficiencies
Deficiencies can be defined as the existing gap between ‘what a person have
in mind’ and their current ‘linguistic competence’ (Moattarian & Tahririan, 2013:
21). In addition, Rashidi and Koshravi (2010) based on Qian & Schedl (2004:30)
suggest that vocabulary actually have four dimensions of knowledge; they are
vocabulary size (number of words that learners understand the meaning), depth of
vocabulary
knowledge
(lexical
characteristics
including
register),
lexical
organization (storage, connection and representation of words in mental state of a
learner), and automaticity of receptive and productive knowledge (fundamental
process such as phonological and orthographic encoding and decoding, accessing
mental-lexicon’s structure and semantic features, lexical-semantic integration and
representation, and morphological parsing and composing).
Thus, vocabulary deficiency can be defined as a communication problem
when the process of delivering ideas is unsuccessful due to a lack of comprehension
on four vocabulary knowledge dimensions (e.g. do not know the English word,
forget certain English word, and do not know whether it is appropriate to use under
certain circumstances or not).
Communication Strategies (CSs)
Tarrone (1976: 78) provided the first definition of CSs as “a systematic
attempt by the learner to express or decode meaning in target language,” which
shows that the learner had language gaps and they needed a systematic solution to
4
overcome the gap. In 1980, Tarrone reformulated her definition because she believed
that interaction between communicator and interlocutor should be considered as
well. She coined that the definition of CSs is a collaboration of two people’s
(communicator and interlocutor) effort to have agreement on one meaning during the
communication (Tarrone, 1980: 419). So far, we can reckon that the CSs focused on
the product-based approach in FTF communication.
As a strategic attempt, CSs should involve psychological process when an
individual think and formulate plans in their mind before executing the message.
Consequently, CSs also can be seen from proses-based approach. Færch and Kasper
(1980:81) believed CSs as “potentially conscious plans for solving what to an
individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal.”
Hence, process based-approach in CS is indicated by cognitive process. This belief is
also supported by Bialystok & Kellerman (1987) who suggested two main strategies
involving cognitive process, ‘conceptual’ and ‘linguistic/code’ archistrategy. This
cognitive process becomes an interest in this study since it reveals the psychological
process of EFL learners in using a certain CS.
In spite of the differences, Færch and Kasper (1984) argued that CSs should
qualify two main criteria. They are problem-orientedness and consciousness. These
criteria used to conceptualize CSs at the philosophical level and determine whether
an action taken by oneself in handling communication problem is a CS or not. In
committing a CS, oneself should face a problem during communication (e.g. L2
linguistic gap), which later would be consciously executed into a certain action to
overcome the problem. Therefore, if the participants in this study neither have a
communication problem nor unconsciously overcome the problem (habitual – e.g.
5
code switching used in his/her daily communication), those actions would not
classified as CSs.
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)
Turnbull (2010) suggests that in this era, the internet shifts face-to-face
communication into Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). It used to take
form of e-mail (Adler et al., 2009), which in nowadays popular CMC through text
messages, applications of social networking and instant messenger. These forms give
more flexibility in communicating with everybody everywhere (Lenhart, Madden,
Cacgill, and Smith, 2007). CMC, which takes place in real-time situation, allows the
users to “negotiate meaning by modifying their written language” (Lee, 2002: 17).
Thus, CMC is mostly text-based. CMC in this paper will focus on online chat that is
a form of synchronous (real-time) CMC, using Web 2.0 applications – Facebook
Messenger. In real-time communication, the people involved should maintain he
communication ongoing just as in FTF communication.
Synchronous CMC indicates two functions of communication modes
involved in the process: reflectional function in writing and interactional function in
speaking (Warschauer, 1997). Interaction in speaking happens as the speakers take
turns to speak, respond, and interrupt during the ongoing communication.
Conversely, reflection in writing happens after the writing process occurs, which
later can be accessed and analyzed by many different people at any given time. This
idea goes hand in hand with Brown and Yule (1983: 13), who believe that the written
language’s main functions are storage and oral representation.
6
Since these two functions cannot occur in the same time but serve different
purposes, synchronous CMC become the bridge that makes writing more interactive
and open the possibility to edit, check, and store the message in computer. Thus, the
nature of synchronous CMC combines the speaking features in the writing mode.
CSs in dealing with Vocabulary Deficiency in CMC
Two CMC-related CSs are used as theoretical framework in data analysis.
First is Dornyei and Scott’s (1997) FTF CSs taxonomy (see in Appendix A). Despite
the fact that it deals with FTF communication problems, this study tries to apply it in
CMC that has different environment and features. Second is Sumakul’s (2011)
CMC-related CSs: referring to L2 linguistic knowledge and referring to previous
message, which overcome grammar problems, were used in this study to deal with
vocabulary deficiencies.
In order to narrow down the CSs used, this study limit vocabulary
deficiencies from the own-performance related problems and resources deficit
related problem. In this study, the CMC-related CSs should first, qualify the
requirements to be called CSs. Second, it should deal with the vocabulary
deficiencies problem only. Lastly, it should only exist in CMC environment.
THE STUDY
Context of the Study
This study analyzes CSs that are used by EFL learners in dealing with
communication problems. The CSs are based on Dornyei’s taxonomy (1997), and
the communication problems are specified to vocabulary deficiencies. This study is a
7
qualitative study, taking place on Satya Wacana Christian University (SWCU),
Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. The study was conducted on January 2015 as the
even semester started.
Participants
Subject sampling method is used in this study, which means the sampling is
focused on the EFL learners instead of the language. Ten students – eight women
and two men – were chosen from the Faculty of Language and Literature, batch
2011. They were chosen because of the accessibility and technology exposure
reasons, since they are last-year-students who have a lot of free time and
considerably had obtained the most experience of digital media exposure under
academic circumstances. Gender is not taken into account, since the CMC itself is
not limited for a certain gender.
Instruments of data collection
CamStudio 2.0
Cam Studio 2.0 is a software used for recording a desktop’s screen. This
software records the chatting processes and save it into a video file. In this study, the
video files are used as the stimulus for the participants to recall their memories
during the chatting.
REFOG Free Keylogger 6.2.3.1112
This is a software to record the keystrokes, produced by the participants. The
result is in a chat-log form as we can see in Figure 1:
8
[Enter]
[Left mouse-click]is[Space] she[Space] okay ?[Space] hope[Space] everything[Space] is[Space]
fine[Space] [Left mouse-click]how[Space] could[Space] that[Space] be[Shift]?[Space] [Enter]
is[Space] she[Space] goint[Backspace]g[Space] to[Space] take[Space]
FIGURE 1. Chat-log example
This chat-log is used as a proof in this paper that represents the pauses and revisions,
done by the participant during the online chatting process.
Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP)
The data were collected using Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP). Jimenez
(2007) proposes SRP by sharing the same method of thinking aloud protocols where
the participants should verbalize their thoughts when they get difficulties during a
task with exception of the verbalization will not be done immediately after the
participants face difficulties, but rather the verbalization will be done after the
communicative process happens. Jimenez also adds that some sort of media, function
as prompt, were provided to help them recalling the memories during the
communicative process. This study uses a video recording of their communicative
process. SRP used in this study to help the participants recalling the events as Gass
& Mackey (2007: 17) suggest that the recall of the mental process while they are
doing the task will be stimulated by the event of the performance itself. Thus, it is
very important to let the participants to recall their performance in order to
understand EFL learners’ cognitive process in employing.
During the practice of SRP, a semi-structured interview was conducted.
Questions were asked when the participants paused and revised their messages in
chatting. The first question was regarding the reason of pausing or revising to know
9
whether they faced communication problem or not. Secondly, if it was a
communication problem, another question was asked to determine whether the
communication problem was related to vocabulary deficiencies or not, referring to
the vocabulary’s dimensions. Third is a question about the anticipation action they
took to overcome the problem. Then, follow-up questions were given, when
necessary, to provide richer data in the analysis process.
Data Collection Procedure
Each participant spent two hours at maximum. Firstly, the participant did an
online chatting using Facebook Messenger with their friend. The topic in chatting
was not determined, but they were given ±30 minutes chatting per participant.
During the chats, the communication processes were recorded using CamStudio 2.0
and the keystrokes with REFOG Free Keylogger 6.2.3.1112. Then, the participants
watched the video together with the researcher. During video watching, a semistructured interview was conducted. The data later are transcribed and analyzed
based on the theoretical framework of CSs.
Data Analysis Procedure
The interview results were transcribed (refer to Appendix B) and classified
based on the Dornyei and Scott’s (1997) taxonomy and Sumakul’s (2011) CMCrelated CSs. The data were also classified using the vocabulary’s dimensions to
indicate that the communication problems were indeed vocabulary deficiencies. The
findings are discussed into two big sub-theme: the most frequently used CSs in
10
No
Communication
Occurrence per Participants (Sxx)
Total
dealing with vocabulary deficiencies and CMC-related CSs in dealing with
vocabulary deficiencies, which are expected to answer the research question.
when[Space] will[Space] you[Space](P03)
be[Space] in[Space]
[Shift]SAa[Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspac
e][Backspace]go(R01)
FINDING AND DISCUSSIONS
In this section, the data were presented in chat logs. They contain keystrokes,
which presents information regarding participants’ pauses and revisions during the
online chat. Figure 2 represents the data that has been marked, to indicate pauses and
revisions.
FIGURE 2. Chat-log example with pauses and revisions indicator
In Figure 2, (Rxx) indicates revisions and (Pxx) indicates pauses. Pauses
mean the participants are stopping themselves from typing because of a certain
reason. Revisions mean the participants delete certain word, replace a word, or add
more words to the sentences they had typed. With cases of a participant paused or
revised more than once, numbers follow the capital letters.
11
%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Strategies
Referring to L2
Linguistic
Knowledge
Self-repair
Over-explicitness
/ Waffling
Circumlocution /
Paraphrase
Approximation
Message
Replacement
Code switching
Omission
Ask people for
help
Use of Fillers
Referring to
previous
messages
Message
Abandonment
Use of allpurpose words
S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S06 S07 S08 S09 S10
1
5
4
3
1
3
1
4
2
24
32.00%
16
7
21.33%
9.33%
2
4
5.33%
1
1
4
3
5.33%
4.00%
1
1
3
3
3
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
2
2
2.67%
2.67%
1
1
1.33%
1
1
1.33%
4
4
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
14
Literal
Translation /
Transfer
1
1
1.33%
15
Double-check
Total CSs per
participant
1
12
1
75
1.33%
100%
5
12
17
4
10
2
6
4
3
This study found 15 communication strategies (CSs) used by 10 participants
in the data collection process, with 74 occurrences, dealing with the vocabulary
deficiencies. The CSs found are presented in table 1 below from the most frequently
used down to the least used CSs.
Table 1. CSs used per participant and its frequencies
12
Out of 15 strategies, 9 are derived from the Dornyei’s (1997) taxonomy and 4
of them are not. Among the four, Sumakul (2011) had proposed two of them (i.e.
referring to L2 linguistic knowledge and referring to previous message). The other
two are new strategies as indicated from the data analysis; they are asking other
people for help and double-check.
The most Frequently Used CSs in Dealing with Vocabulary Deficiencies
Referring to L2 linguistic knowledge, self-repair, and waffling are the top
three CSs that mostly FLL students used. In this section, the most frequently used
CSs are discussed due to the high number of occurrence compared to the rest of CSs
in the data.
The excerpts (chat-logs) are used to give the proof from data analysis
process. However, due to the conciseness reason, the rest of the data are presented in
Appendix B. In this section you will see “see Appendix B Sxx – P/Rxx”. While Pxx
and Rxx have been discussed earlier, Sxx indicates the pseudoname of the
participants.
Referring to L2 Linguistic Knowledge
Referring to L2 Linguistic Knowledge is a CS that used someone’s current
knowledge about L2 (in this case is English) to cope with communication problems.
The knowledge covers grammatical comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and any
linguistic aspect from that particular language one had learned from previous years.
This CS occurred 24 times, in which 23 of them occurred in pauses and only
once in revision process. This strategy most likely occurred during the thinking
13
process of an individual. Based on the interview and analysis, there are three basic
reasons in pausing for this strategy. First is the word-choice reason. The participants
have some options of vocabularies that can be used. Yet, they hesitated to put which
words, because they were considering the discourse, register, the natural usage of L2
(see Appendix B S03 – P01 and S02 – P01), and the meaning they wanted to convey
(see Appendix B S01 – P01; S02 – P07; S02 – P08; S05 – P04; S07 – P02; S07 –
P05; S09 – P03; S09 – P04; and S10 – P01).
i[Space] can[Space] actually[Space](P02)
stand[Space] writing,[Space] i[Space] [Backspace][Backspace]what[Space] i[Space]
FIGURE 3. Excerpt of Participant 10’s Chat-log with referring to L2 linguistic
knowledge strategy – Pause – Register and discourse reason
In Figure 3, the pause indicates consideration of using the word “do” or
“stand”. S10 said, “I don’t want to be cocky so I choose to use ‘stand’ in my
sentence.” Here, the participant was considering the discourse and register of the
conversation by referring to L2 linguistic knowledge. Other similar justifications
were found on S08 – P01, S02 – P05, and S05 – P03 that you can see in Appendix B.
Second reason for pausing is that they were recalling the English word. In
this case, the participants forgot an English word that would convey their meaning
precisely. They were neither opening google translate nor asking people around
them,; instead they stayed still and recalled the precise English word in their mind
(see Appendix B S06 – P01; S03 – P04; S03 – P06; S05 – P05; S09 – P01; S09 –
P02).
14
Last reason is that they were mentally translating the L1 word into the L2
word. Dornyei’s CSs taxonomy has “literal translation” strategy, but that action is
counted as a strategy when someone executes literal translation from L1 to L2 words
in chatting (e.g. “paku payung” – umbrella nail). This case was different because the
participants were using their L2 linguistic resources thoroughly to translate the L1
word accordingly to the meaning they wanted to convey (e.g. “paku payung” –
thumbtack). This process was neither verbalized nor typed. The participants just
stopped typing and translated the word in their mind, which indicated psychological
and cognitive process in utilizing a certain CS. (see Appendix B S03 – P07).
On the other hand, the revision in referring to L2 linguistic knowledge
strategy happened because the participant suddenly remembered that the L1 word
was literally translated and sounded unnatural in English.
OF]hat's[Space] when[Space] she[Space] op[Backspace][Backspace](R04)
was[Space] reading[Space] he[Backspace][Backspace]the[Space] messages[Space]
FIGURE 4. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with referring to L2 linguistic
knowledge strategy – Revision – Unnatural language reason
As shown in Figure 4, the participant was revising “op” as she wanted to type
“opening message” which was a literal translation from L1 language. She realized
and changed it into “reading” as she said, “‘Reading’ is more natural and correct I
think, because people are reading message on their phone rather than just opening
it.” Therefore, S07 preferred to use “reading” due to natural language reason.
Self-Repair
15
Self-repair occurred with the percentage of 21.62%. This is one of the CSs
Dornyei (1997) proposed in his taxonomy. The self-repair strategy means that the
participants repair the linguistic mistakes by themselves without any help from other
people or the interlocutor. In this study, self-repair strategy is highlighted upon the
lexical level problem occurred in the online chatting process.
With 16 entries on this strategy, all of them occurred in the revision process.
This phenomenon occurred because this strategy would be applicable only after the
participants realized their mistakes or lacks in their sentence or phrase after typing it.
This shows in CMC, a mental process of an individual in communicating and
handling communication problems is a continuous process. Unlike FTF
communication, in which editing conversation is impossible, CMC that contains
reflectional function of writing makes message revision possible to carry on effective
communications. Thus, self-repair strategy is also applicable in CMC.
Using a more representative word to convey the participants’ meaning rather
than the word that had already typed, become the main reason in employing this
[Shift]Krystal[Space] is[Space] really[Space] gr[Backspace][Backspace] (R01) beautiful[Space]
like[Space] me...[Enter]
strategy.
FIGURE 5. Excerpt of Participant 1’s Chat-log with self-repair strategy – Revision –
More representative words reason
A self-repair strategy in Figure 5 occurred when S01 wanted to type “great”
but then revised into “beautiful”. She said ”I think the word ‘beautiful’ has a more
precise meaning than ‘great’ because we are talking about a woman’s beauty rather
16
about their greatness.” Hence, we can see the psychological and cognitive process of
choosing that particular word (also see Appendix B S03 – R01; S03 – R04; S03 –
R07; S04 – R03; S05 – R03; S06 – R01; and S10 – R01).
Another reason is the usage of a more natural word. In this case, there are
two possibilities based on this reason. The first possibility is when the participants
realized that they had typed unnatural word in a phrase, and then revised it. Another
possibility is when they typed a grammatically correct word, yet they felt that the
word was not natural with the context of conversation and it resulted with them
revised the word (see Appendix B S01 – R04; S03 – R06; and S07 – R01).
Third reason is that the participants have unconscious knowledge of a dailyused word chunk and it was typed in the chatting without considering the discourse.
The participant revised it to avoid conveying a different meaning (see Appendix B
S05 – R05).
Lastly, the self-repair also occurred when the participants consider the
interlocutor to be involved or not cornered. It indicates register (sociolinguistic
studies) within the synchronous communication context. This reason is included in
the self-repair strategy since considering register is one of the four vocabulary’s
dimensions. It reflected the participants’ deficiency because there was a revision
involved in the communication process (no automatic L2 production), and it
indicated the lack of vocabulary mastery (see Appendix B S05 – R01 and S08 –
R01).
Over-explicitness (waffling)
17
Referring to Dornyei’s (1997) CSs taxonomy, another strategy used by EFL
learners appeared during the data analysis process with 9.47% occurrence, it was
over-explicitness or waffling. Over-explicitness is one of the CSs in which the
participants add more words to convey a sharper meaning. In this study, overexplicitness or waffling was used by adding extra words (vocabulary). Waffling in
pauses were shown when the participants did thinking processes (moments when
they looked unsure of putting certain words). While in revising processes, waffling
was indicated by the lack of automaticity in receptive and productive of vocabulary,
and the depth of the vocabulary knowledge itself.
Out of 74 occurrences of CSs, this strategy used seven times by the
participants. There are two cases found in the pauses and five cases in revisions. In
pausing, it shows the participants’ thinking process and considerations whether they
wanted to add more words or not. While in revisions, the participants went back to
the sentences they had typed and put more words to it.
There are two reasons why the participants did pauses in waffling. The first
one is that they want to explain word that they had typed. The participants stopped
for a while after writing a word. Then, they added more words, following the last
Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace]consider[Space] as[Space](P03)
g[Backspace]'goog[Backspace]d'[Backspace]'.(P04)
word she typed (started typing from the point she paused).
FIGURE 6. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with over-explicitness strategy –
Pause – Considering explaining reason
18
Based on Figure 6, the participant’s pause shows consideration in explaining the
word “good“ (P03) that she typed previously. S07 paused to think and the cognitive
process that was going on S07’s mind indicated the CS.
The second reason is that the participant wanted to give a more precise
meaning. If the previous reason is to explain, this case shows that the participant
wanted to add more representative words and convey their meaning better. There
was only one or two words added rather a bunch of words to explain like in the
previous case (see Appendix B S08 – P04).
Based on the reasons above, pauses in waffling actually show the depth of
someone’s linguistic knowledge and consideration toward the interlocutor. The
considerations to add or not showed the participants’ understanding of a word and
how they utilized it in maintaining an effective communication. It is also to consider
the interlocutors’ understanding of the word to communicate effectively, since CMC
has no intonation or any visible expression and gestures like in face-to-face (FTF)
communication.
On the other side, the revisions in waffling strategy also have several reasons.
First, it is because the participants wanted to convey a better meaning. This reason is
almost the same as the waffling in pauses, the difference is just it happened after the
participant finished a sentence and read his/her sentence once again quickly.
19
than[Space] [Shift]The[Space] [Shift]Hobbit.[Space] [Shift]The[Space] story[Space] is[Space]
more[Space] challenging[Space] and[Space]
mak[Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Up][Right][
Right][Right][Right][Right][Right][Right][Right][Right] plot(R02)
FIGURE 7. Excerpt of Participant 3’s Chat-log with over-explicitness strategy –
Revision – Conveying better-meaning reason
In Figure 7, S03 revised the sentence she had typed by adding the word
“plot” after the word “story” because she wanted to convey a meaning accordingly
(also see Appendix B S06 – R02 and S07 – R03).
The second reason is because the participants wanted to use more natural or
more commonly used words and phrases. When the participants felt that the words
they had typed a bit unnatural, they added more words to make it more natural (see
Appendix B S05 – R02)
Third reason is that the participants are unsure with the English word. This is
different from circumlocution (paraphrase) since the participants did not type a word
and paraphrase it; rather, words as details are added to convey their meaning because
they were not sure with the L2 words (see Appendix B S05 – R04).
To conclude this section, the most frequently used CSs by the participants are
referring to L2 linguistic knowledge, self-repair, and waffling. They have the highest
number of occurrences with a distinctive gap compared to the other CSs in this
study. This fact highlights the important part from this study that EFL students of
FLL SWCU were likely to employ these strategies the most to deal with vocabulary
deficiencies in online chatting.
20
CMC-related communication strategies dealing with vocabulary deficiencies
In this study, CMC-related CSs are strategies that meet the qualification of
becoming CSs under CMC context only and deal with vocabulary deficiencies.
Eleven CSs from Dornyei and Scott’s (1997) taxonomy are applicable in CMC.
However, it is not exclusively applicable under CMC context only. Therefore, the
other four strategies found in this study – referring to L2 linguistic knowledge,
referring to previous message, asking people for help, and double-check – are to be
considered as CMC-related CSs in dealing with vocabulary deficiency and will be
discussed in this sub-section. The first two CSs are proposed by Sumakul (2011) in
coping with grammar problems. Despite that fact, these two CSs actually can deal
with vocabulary problem too. In this sub-section, referring to the previous message
will be discussed more, as the referring to L2 linguistic knowledge has been
discussed in the previous sub-section.
Referring to previous message occurred twice and both of them happened in
the pauses. The participants paused to read the previous chat he/she had typed, to
check whether the word usage had represented their meaning and the discourse. It is
a CS used by maximizing the ‘reflectional function’ (Brown & Yule, 1983), or
storage function. In CMC’s circumstances, this term means that the participants
always have an opportunity to look back at the previous chats stored in the chatting
window during the CMC interaction – which is impossible to be done in FTF
communication – with the purpose to maintain the continuity of communication
effectively. If this CS was done in FTF communication, there would be distractions
toward the ongoing communication. It is also classified as a CS as well since it has
21
two qualification of a CS: problem-orientedness and consciousness (Færch and
stupid,[Space] including[Space] comes[Space] to[Space] the[Space] man's[Space] house[Space]
and[Space] brings[Space](P06)
the[Space] pair[Space] od[Backspace]f[Space] shoes[Enter]
Kasper, 1984).
FIGURE 8. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with referring to previous message
strategy – Pause – Considering discourse reason
Figure 8 shows that the participant was pausing and arranging words she
wanted to say. Here, a communication problem occurred when S07 wanted to
convey meaning through a phrase to make the interlocutor had the same discourse
with her. In solving her problem, she consciously referred to the previous message
and made the decision to type “the pair of shoes” rather than “her shoes” because she
said, “I want to make C (the interlocutor) know that I refer to the specific shoes. ‘Coz
if I use ‘her’ it is not really specific”. Therefore, it is obvious that this CS can be
classified as CMC-related CS, because this CS is dealing with the communication
problem, consciously undergone by the participant, and used during online chatting
or CMC.
For the new findings, the first CMC-related CS is named asking people for
help. This strategy does not directly ask the interlocutor like what Dornyei’s (1997)
taxonomy proposed. Rather, the participants asked people who were around them
because the online chatting process is a form of synchronous CMC in which there is
no FTF interaction. It opens a chance for the participants to ask for help from people
around them to get immediate result and continue the communication process. The
22
reason for using this CS is that the participants were stuck with or forget the L2
word, and wanted to have a fast response for maintaining the communication with
the interlocutor. This CS would be impossibly done in FTF because it will hinder the
communication and cause ineffective communication.
[Shift]Uncle..[Space] my[Space] deep[Space] condolences[Space] mak..[Enter](P01)
what[Space] is[Space] he[Backspace]is[Space] illness[Shift]?[Enter]
FIGURE 9. Excerpt of Participant 5’s Chat-log with asking people for help strategy
– Pause – Forget the L2 reason
Asking people for help strategy can be seen in Figure 9 because the
participants paused during the chatting and she admitted during the interview that
she asked her friends around her about the English word for “illness”. Forgetting or
unknowing the word in L2 was the communication problem faced by the participants
and they consciously asked people around them for help. This shows that asking
people for help is one of CS. Moreover, since this CS is only possible in online
chatting rather in FTF communication, we can classify it as a CMC-related CS.
Another interesting thing was found during the data analysis of waffling
strategy. Although waffling was the CS used, there was a process of reading the
sentence once again quickly before sending it. The participants said that they did that
in order to check whether the sentences had already corresponded what the
participants wanted. It might be one of a CS has never been noticed in CMC. This
strategy can be called “double-check”.
23
g[Backspace]'goog[Backspace]d'[Backspace]'.(P04)
[Enter]
[Caps Lock ON]I[Caps Lock OF][Space] don't[Space] want[Space] to[Space] watch[Space]
such[Space] movie[Space] that[Space] may[Space] make[Space]
FIGURE 10. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with double-check strategy – Pause
– Adding explanation reason of waffling strategy
In Figure 10, the participant paused because she was thinking about adding
explanation upon the word “good”. Although she was considering to add the
explanation on the same sentence or explain in a new sentence, she also did a
double-check on the sentence she had made before sending it to make sure that she
had typed correctly as she wished. It was proven based on the interview when she
said, “I just want to make sure my sentence is using correct words and grammar, also
I was considering explaining ‘good’ or not, also where should I put the explanation.”
There was a communication problem when the participant was unsure on sending the
chat. She did not believe that she used certain L2 word correctly, and whether or not
the interlocutor would understand what she wanted to say. Thus, the participant who
faced this problem re-check the message that had been typed consciously. This
strategy is impossible to be done in FTF communication because there is no typed
transcript of what we said. While in CMC, we have the opportunity to re-check what
we have typed. Based on these premises, we can conclude that this is also one of
CMC-related CSs. However, this CS was not performed by most of the participants
because there was no in-depth analysis and interview result regarding this strategy. It
is most likely happened because other strategies, such as referring to L2, cover the
double-check itself.
24
To conclude this section, this study shows that Sumakul’s (2011) CSs in
coping with grammar problems during CMC are also applicable in dealing with
vocabulary problems during CMC. The two new CSs proposed in this study also
show that EFL learners of FLL SWCU succeed in employing new CSs to deal with
vocabulary deficiencies based on their initiative to maintain effective communication
under CMC context; specifically online chatting.
Overall, these two sub-sections in discussion deduce a general understanding
that the participants tend to make pauses and revisions on vocabularies when they,
mainly, want to: a) convey their meaning with more representing words; b) use more
natural L2 words; c) consider the register and/or discourse. These are the three subcategories in analyzing CMC-related CSs in dealing with vocabulary deficiencies in
general. These sub-categories are the derivation from the vocabulary’s dimensions
(Rashidi and Koshravi, 2010). Up to this point, we can narrow down our
understanding with the belief that these sub-categories motivate EFL learners to use
CMC-related CSs. Hence, due to these reasons, CMC-related CSs such as referring
to L2 linguistic knowledge, referring to previous message, asking people for help,
and double-check, are used in dealing with the vocabulary deficiency.
25
CONCLUSION
The sole purpose of this study is to understand the communication strategies
(CSs) employed by EFL learners in dealing with vocabulary deficiencies in
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). In this study, 15 CSs are used to deal
with the 75 communication problems of vocabulary deficiencies encountered by the
students. Three most frequently used CSs in CMC (i.e. referring to L2 linguistic
knowledge, self-repair, and waffling) were discussed to understand the usage of
those CSs from the EFL learners’ experiences. Besides that, another important
finding is the CSs that are exclusively applicable in CMC. Four CMC-related CSs
were analyzed with process-based approach (Færch and Kasper, 1980), problemorientedness, conscious-execution (Færch and Kasper, 1984), and exclusivity feature
of a CS. The first two CMC-related CSs are the same as Sumakul’s (2011) proposedCSs: referring to L2 linguistic knowledge and referring to previous message.
Furthermore, this study proposed two new CSs: ask people for help and doublecheck. While ask people for help strategy could be observed clearly and elaborated in
this study, double-check strategy still needs more in-depth studies although the
phenomenon had occurred in this study.
Regarding the CSs that were previously studied in the FTF communication
circumstances (such as self-repair, circumlocution, code switching, etc.), this study
agrees with Sumakul (2011) that we should re-create our understanding toward them.
The CSs were occurred during synchronous communication and should be adaptable
in CMC environment. Moreover, this study focuses on the psycholinguistic process,
in which individuals initiated CSs to deal with the communication problem of
vocabulary deficiencies.
26
Overall, this study concludes that in CMC, the EFL learners also encounter
vocabulary deficiencies as communication problems, and certain CSs are employed
during the process of dealing with the problem. The CSs used can be derived from
FTF communication’s CSs, but that does not necessarily close the opportunity for an
individual to employ an alternative CS during the CMC to deal with the
communication problem, as we can refer to the two new strategies found in this
study.
Despite the findings, this study is still limited on several aspects. First is the
participants who are involved in this study were only 10 people and they did an
online chatting with EFL learners as well (non-native). More participants and online
chatting with native speakers could provide more heterogeneous data and
comparison in this field of study. Second, the 30 minutes data collection processes
also limit the richness of data. It is hoped that further studies can provide more
opportunities for the students to employ various CSs. Third limitation is upon the
communication problem topic discussed in this study. Other problems such as
discourse, semantic, and sociolinguistic issues that affect communication can be
analyzed as well in further studies. Regarding to vocabulary and L2 learning, further
studies can focus on classifying the vocabulary difficulties and discuss them indepth. As vocabularies are the lifeline of a language to communicate and convey
meaning, we could have new taxonomies in handling vocabulary deficiencies
problem especially in CMC, which represents the high-tech era.
27
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I gave my highest gratitude to God, Jesus Christ, who always guide and bless
me during my thesis making. I would like to acknowledge my superb supervisor,
Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul, M.A, because he had guided me and contributed so much
– energy, time, thoughts, and advises – in my thesis completion. Without his help,
this thesis would not be completed in time. I also want to acknowledge and thank my
thesis examiner, Yustina Priska Kisnanto, M.Hum. for all the time and patience in
giving me continuous feedback and suggestions for the betterment of my thesis.
Thank you for my friends Clarissa, Alberta, Raisha, Theodora, Pup
ONLINE CHATTING BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN
DEALING WITH VOCABULARY DEFICIENCIES
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Hezky Charisma Budiono
112011010
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2015
THE USE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES DURING
ONLINE CHATTING BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN
DEALING WITH VOCABULARY DEFICIENCIES
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Hezky Charisma Budiono
112011010
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2015
THE USE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES DURING
ONLINE CHATTING BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN
DEALING WITH VOCABULARY DEFICIENCIES
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Hezky Charisma Budiono
112011010
Approved by:
Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul, M. A.
Supervisor
Yustina Priska Kisnanto, M. Hum.
Examiner
ii
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION
As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic
community, I verify that:
Name
Student ID Number
Study Program
Faculty
Kind of Work
: Hezky Charisma Budiono
: 112011010
: English Department
: Faculty of Language and Literature
: Undergraduate Thesis
In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty
free right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
THE USE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES DURING ONLINE
CHATTING BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN DEALING WITH
VOCABULARY DEFICIENCIES
along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy,
reproduce, print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval
system or database, transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in
whole or in part without my express written permission, as long as my name is still
included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.
Made in
: Salatiga
Date
: ________________
Verified by signee,
Hezky Charisma Budiono
Approved by
Thesis Supervisor
Thesis Examiner
Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul, M. A.
Yustina Priska Kisnanto, M. Hum.
iii
Copyright Statement
This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any
course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To
the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously
published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the
text.
Copyright@ 2015. Hezky Charisma Budiono and Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul, M.A
All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without
the permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department,
Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga.
Hezky Charisma Budiono:
iv
Table of Content
Approval Page .............................................................................................................. ii
Publication Agreement Declaration ............................................................................ iii
Copyright Statement ................................................................................................... iv
Table of Content ........................................................................................................... v
List Of Figures ............................................................................................................ vi
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 4
The Study ..................................................................................................................... 7
Findings and Discussions ........................................................................................... 11
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 25
Acknowledgment ....................................................................................................... 27
References .................................................................................................................. 28
Appendix A (Dornyei and Scott’s CSs Taxonomy) ................................................... 30
Appendix B (Data Transcription and Analysis Result) ............................................. 31
v
List of Figures
FIGURE 1. Chat-log example
FIGURE 2. Chat-log example with pauses and revisions indicator
FIGURE 3. Excerpt of Participant 10’s Chat-log with referring to L2 linguistic
knowledge strategy – Pause – Register and discourse reason
FIGURE 4. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with referring to L2 linguistic
knowledge strategy – Revision – Unnatural language reason
FIGURE 5. Excerpt of Participant 1’s Chat-log with self-repair strategy – Revision –
More representative words reason
FIGURE 6. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with over-explicitness strategy –
Pause – Considering explaining reason
FIGURE 7. Excerpt of Participant 3’s Chat-log with over-explicitness strategy –
Revision – Conveying better-meaning reason
FIGURE 8. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with referring to previous message
strategy – Pause – Considering discourse reason
FIGURE 9. Excerpt of Participant 5’s Chat-log with asking people for help strategy
– Pause – Forget the L2 reason
FIGURE 10. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with double-check strategy – Pause
– Adding explanation reason of waffling strategy
vi
THE USE OF COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES DURING
ONLINE CHATTING BY INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS IN
DEALING WITH VOCABULARY DEFICIENCIES
Hezky Charisma Budiono
112011010
Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga
Abstract
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) becomes an effective
communication in globalized era, although it also has some communication
problems just like in face-to-face (FTF) communication. In order to deal with it, EFL
learners who use English as L2 should have communication strategies. This study
aimed to find out the communication strategies (CSs) employed by the EFL learners,
Faculty of Language and Literature, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga,
Indonesia, to cope with the vocabulary deficiencies as the communication problem
faced during online chatting. Nature of CSs, CMC, and the vocabulary dimensions
become the theoretical framework of this study. Once the participants did an online
chat and recorded, stimulated recall protocol (SRP) followed the data collection
process using a semi-structured interview. FTF’s CSs taxonomy and CMC-related
CSs upon grammatical level difficulties are used to analyze the data. Out of 15 CSs
employed, two new CSs are proposed in this study. CSs in dealing with vocabulary
problems that exclusively occurred in CMC will also be discussed in this paper. The
finding may provide insight for teachers and EFL learners on how to overcome
vocabulary difficulties while communicating through online chatting and maintain
an effective communication.
Keywords: communication strategies, computer-mediated
vocabulary deficiencies, stimulated recall protocol
communication,
INTRODUCTION
Internet opens opportunities to communicate worldwide anywhere at any
time. This kind of communication called computer-mediated communication (CMC).
One well-known tool in CMC is online chatting (e.g. Facebook Messenger, BBM,
WhatsApp, LINE, etc.). In chatting, it is possible that people from different places
can communicate to each other, as long as they can digitally meet up at the same
1
time. However, since CMC participants can come from any parts of the world, the
languages used are also varied. Thus, English become a lingua franca in CMC.
However, the English language competencies among users may differ. Hence, it may
lead to communication problems that are caused by linguistic gap, such as grammar
incomprehension and vocabulary deficiency.
This study highlights vocabulary deficiencies, since it could be a major
problem for L2 learners. Lessard-Clouston (2013) defines vocabulary as:
…the words of language, including single item or phrases or chunks
or several words which co[n]vey a particular meaning, the way
individual words do. Vocabulary addresses single lexical items –
words with specific meaning(s) – but it also includes lexical phrases
or chunks. (p. 2)
From the definition above, we can conclude that vocabulary deficiency is a condition
when an individual meets a communication gap, in which an individual cannot
convey meaning and express thoughts into words. Consequently, an effective
communication (i.e. the achieved understanding upon the exchange of messages
between communicator and interlocutor) might not be achieved.
In order to achieve and maintain an effective communication, EFL learners
who face communication problems will try to find a way out during the
communication process. This attempt is called communication strategies (CSs). In
this study, CSs that are used during the online chatting are called as CMC-related
CSs.
Previous studies have tried to analyze certain CSs used during CMC (e.g.
Smith, 2003; Omar et al., 2012). Yet, their studies bound the participants with certain
tasks and time that may lead to anxiety. The anxiety may limit participants in
executing CSs and may not produce an effective communication. Their study also
2
focused on product-based analysis (e.g. reflective journals), which did not reflect the
psychological process of communication. Moreover, it did not focus on vocabulary
deficiencies as the communication gap during personal online chatting; rather, it
focused on inadequateness of English command in an Online Discussion (OLD) and
strategic completion of a task-based CMC.
Therefore, this study aims to identify the CSs used to deal with the
vocabulary deficiencies during personal online chatting, based on process-based
approach, within the scope of EFL students from Faculty of Language and Literature
in Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga. Later in the data analysis process,
this study uses Dornyei and Scott’s (1997) CSs taxonomy and Sumakul’s (2011)
CMC-related CSs to figure out CSs used by the participants during online chatting.
Furthermore, it is important for us to know the CMC-related CSs used in
order to give a contribution upon English language learning, especially English for
communicative purposes, which has become more dynamic with the development of
technology (Nakatani, 2006; Aydin, 2007; Ozdener, 2008; Khamis, 2010). For
teachers, the results of the study can expectedly help them in handling the students’
vocabulary problems in CMC by giving understanding about the alternative CSs to
use. In addition, this study will contribute in deeper understanding and give some
insights for technologically-exposed-EFL learners to use CSs in dealing with
vocabulary problems and, thus, maintain an effective communication. From here,
this study focuses on answering the research question: “What are the communication
strategies used by EFL students from FLL of Satya Wacana Christian University in
dealing with vocabulary deficiencies in online chatting?”
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Vocabulary Deficiencies
Deficiencies can be defined as the existing gap between ‘what a person have
in mind’ and their current ‘linguistic competence’ (Moattarian & Tahririan, 2013:
21). In addition, Rashidi and Koshravi (2010) based on Qian & Schedl (2004:30)
suggest that vocabulary actually have four dimensions of knowledge; they are
vocabulary size (number of words that learners understand the meaning), depth of
vocabulary
knowledge
(lexical
characteristics
including
register),
lexical
organization (storage, connection and representation of words in mental state of a
learner), and automaticity of receptive and productive knowledge (fundamental
process such as phonological and orthographic encoding and decoding, accessing
mental-lexicon’s structure and semantic features, lexical-semantic integration and
representation, and morphological parsing and composing).
Thus, vocabulary deficiency can be defined as a communication problem
when the process of delivering ideas is unsuccessful due to a lack of comprehension
on four vocabulary knowledge dimensions (e.g. do not know the English word,
forget certain English word, and do not know whether it is appropriate to use under
certain circumstances or not).
Communication Strategies (CSs)
Tarrone (1976: 78) provided the first definition of CSs as “a systematic
attempt by the learner to express or decode meaning in target language,” which
shows that the learner had language gaps and they needed a systematic solution to
4
overcome the gap. In 1980, Tarrone reformulated her definition because she believed
that interaction between communicator and interlocutor should be considered as
well. She coined that the definition of CSs is a collaboration of two people’s
(communicator and interlocutor) effort to have agreement on one meaning during the
communication (Tarrone, 1980: 419). So far, we can reckon that the CSs focused on
the product-based approach in FTF communication.
As a strategic attempt, CSs should involve psychological process when an
individual think and formulate plans in their mind before executing the message.
Consequently, CSs also can be seen from proses-based approach. Færch and Kasper
(1980:81) believed CSs as “potentially conscious plans for solving what to an
individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal.”
Hence, process based-approach in CS is indicated by cognitive process. This belief is
also supported by Bialystok & Kellerman (1987) who suggested two main strategies
involving cognitive process, ‘conceptual’ and ‘linguistic/code’ archistrategy. This
cognitive process becomes an interest in this study since it reveals the psychological
process of EFL learners in using a certain CS.
In spite of the differences, Færch and Kasper (1984) argued that CSs should
qualify two main criteria. They are problem-orientedness and consciousness. These
criteria used to conceptualize CSs at the philosophical level and determine whether
an action taken by oneself in handling communication problem is a CS or not. In
committing a CS, oneself should face a problem during communication (e.g. L2
linguistic gap), which later would be consciously executed into a certain action to
overcome the problem. Therefore, if the participants in this study neither have a
communication problem nor unconsciously overcome the problem (habitual – e.g.
5
code switching used in his/her daily communication), those actions would not
classified as CSs.
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC)
Turnbull (2010) suggests that in this era, the internet shifts face-to-face
communication into Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). It used to take
form of e-mail (Adler et al., 2009), which in nowadays popular CMC through text
messages, applications of social networking and instant messenger. These forms give
more flexibility in communicating with everybody everywhere (Lenhart, Madden,
Cacgill, and Smith, 2007). CMC, which takes place in real-time situation, allows the
users to “negotiate meaning by modifying their written language” (Lee, 2002: 17).
Thus, CMC is mostly text-based. CMC in this paper will focus on online chat that is
a form of synchronous (real-time) CMC, using Web 2.0 applications – Facebook
Messenger. In real-time communication, the people involved should maintain he
communication ongoing just as in FTF communication.
Synchronous CMC indicates two functions of communication modes
involved in the process: reflectional function in writing and interactional function in
speaking (Warschauer, 1997). Interaction in speaking happens as the speakers take
turns to speak, respond, and interrupt during the ongoing communication.
Conversely, reflection in writing happens after the writing process occurs, which
later can be accessed and analyzed by many different people at any given time. This
idea goes hand in hand with Brown and Yule (1983: 13), who believe that the written
language’s main functions are storage and oral representation.
6
Since these two functions cannot occur in the same time but serve different
purposes, synchronous CMC become the bridge that makes writing more interactive
and open the possibility to edit, check, and store the message in computer. Thus, the
nature of synchronous CMC combines the speaking features in the writing mode.
CSs in dealing with Vocabulary Deficiency in CMC
Two CMC-related CSs are used as theoretical framework in data analysis.
First is Dornyei and Scott’s (1997) FTF CSs taxonomy (see in Appendix A). Despite
the fact that it deals with FTF communication problems, this study tries to apply it in
CMC that has different environment and features. Second is Sumakul’s (2011)
CMC-related CSs: referring to L2 linguistic knowledge and referring to previous
message, which overcome grammar problems, were used in this study to deal with
vocabulary deficiencies.
In order to narrow down the CSs used, this study limit vocabulary
deficiencies from the own-performance related problems and resources deficit
related problem. In this study, the CMC-related CSs should first, qualify the
requirements to be called CSs. Second, it should deal with the vocabulary
deficiencies problem only. Lastly, it should only exist in CMC environment.
THE STUDY
Context of the Study
This study analyzes CSs that are used by EFL learners in dealing with
communication problems. The CSs are based on Dornyei’s taxonomy (1997), and
the communication problems are specified to vocabulary deficiencies. This study is a
7
qualitative study, taking place on Satya Wacana Christian University (SWCU),
Salatiga, Central Java, Indonesia. The study was conducted on January 2015 as the
even semester started.
Participants
Subject sampling method is used in this study, which means the sampling is
focused on the EFL learners instead of the language. Ten students – eight women
and two men – were chosen from the Faculty of Language and Literature, batch
2011. They were chosen because of the accessibility and technology exposure
reasons, since they are last-year-students who have a lot of free time and
considerably had obtained the most experience of digital media exposure under
academic circumstances. Gender is not taken into account, since the CMC itself is
not limited for a certain gender.
Instruments of data collection
CamStudio 2.0
Cam Studio 2.0 is a software used for recording a desktop’s screen. This
software records the chatting processes and save it into a video file. In this study, the
video files are used as the stimulus for the participants to recall their memories
during the chatting.
REFOG Free Keylogger 6.2.3.1112
This is a software to record the keystrokes, produced by the participants. The
result is in a chat-log form as we can see in Figure 1:
8
[Enter]
[Left mouse-click]is[Space] she[Space] okay ?[Space] hope[Space] everything[Space] is[Space]
fine[Space] [Left mouse-click]how[Space] could[Space] that[Space] be[Shift]?[Space] [Enter]
is[Space] she[Space] goint[Backspace]g[Space] to[Space] take[Space]
FIGURE 1. Chat-log example
This chat-log is used as a proof in this paper that represents the pauses and revisions,
done by the participant during the online chatting process.
Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP)
The data were collected using Stimulated Recall Protocol (SRP). Jimenez
(2007) proposes SRP by sharing the same method of thinking aloud protocols where
the participants should verbalize their thoughts when they get difficulties during a
task with exception of the verbalization will not be done immediately after the
participants face difficulties, but rather the verbalization will be done after the
communicative process happens. Jimenez also adds that some sort of media, function
as prompt, were provided to help them recalling the memories during the
communicative process. This study uses a video recording of their communicative
process. SRP used in this study to help the participants recalling the events as Gass
& Mackey (2007: 17) suggest that the recall of the mental process while they are
doing the task will be stimulated by the event of the performance itself. Thus, it is
very important to let the participants to recall their performance in order to
understand EFL learners’ cognitive process in employing.
During the practice of SRP, a semi-structured interview was conducted.
Questions were asked when the participants paused and revised their messages in
chatting. The first question was regarding the reason of pausing or revising to know
9
whether they faced communication problem or not. Secondly, if it was a
communication problem, another question was asked to determine whether the
communication problem was related to vocabulary deficiencies or not, referring to
the vocabulary’s dimensions. Third is a question about the anticipation action they
took to overcome the problem. Then, follow-up questions were given, when
necessary, to provide richer data in the analysis process.
Data Collection Procedure
Each participant spent two hours at maximum. Firstly, the participant did an
online chatting using Facebook Messenger with their friend. The topic in chatting
was not determined, but they were given ±30 minutes chatting per participant.
During the chats, the communication processes were recorded using CamStudio 2.0
and the keystrokes with REFOG Free Keylogger 6.2.3.1112. Then, the participants
watched the video together with the researcher. During video watching, a semistructured interview was conducted. The data later are transcribed and analyzed
based on the theoretical framework of CSs.
Data Analysis Procedure
The interview results were transcribed (refer to Appendix B) and classified
based on the Dornyei and Scott’s (1997) taxonomy and Sumakul’s (2011) CMCrelated CSs. The data were also classified using the vocabulary’s dimensions to
indicate that the communication problems were indeed vocabulary deficiencies. The
findings are discussed into two big sub-theme: the most frequently used CSs in
10
No
Communication
Occurrence per Participants (Sxx)
Total
dealing with vocabulary deficiencies and CMC-related CSs in dealing with
vocabulary deficiencies, which are expected to answer the research question.
when[Space] will[Space] you[Space](P03)
be[Space] in[Space]
[Shift]SAa[Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspac
e][Backspace]go(R01)
FINDING AND DISCUSSIONS
In this section, the data were presented in chat logs. They contain keystrokes,
which presents information regarding participants’ pauses and revisions during the
online chat. Figure 2 represents the data that has been marked, to indicate pauses and
revisions.
FIGURE 2. Chat-log example with pauses and revisions indicator
In Figure 2, (Rxx) indicates revisions and (Pxx) indicates pauses. Pauses
mean the participants are stopping themselves from typing because of a certain
reason. Revisions mean the participants delete certain word, replace a word, or add
more words to the sentences they had typed. With cases of a participant paused or
revised more than once, numbers follow the capital letters.
11
%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Strategies
Referring to L2
Linguistic
Knowledge
Self-repair
Over-explicitness
/ Waffling
Circumlocution /
Paraphrase
Approximation
Message
Replacement
Code switching
Omission
Ask people for
help
Use of Fillers
Referring to
previous
messages
Message
Abandonment
Use of allpurpose words
S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S06 S07 S08 S09 S10
1
5
4
3
1
3
1
4
2
24
32.00%
16
7
21.33%
9.33%
2
4
5.33%
1
1
4
3
5.33%
4.00%
1
1
3
3
3
4.00%
4.00%
4.00%
2
2
2.67%
2.67%
1
1
1.33%
1
1
1.33%
4
4
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
14
Literal
Translation /
Transfer
1
1
1.33%
15
Double-check
Total CSs per
participant
1
12
1
75
1.33%
100%
5
12
17
4
10
2
6
4
3
This study found 15 communication strategies (CSs) used by 10 participants
in the data collection process, with 74 occurrences, dealing with the vocabulary
deficiencies. The CSs found are presented in table 1 below from the most frequently
used down to the least used CSs.
Table 1. CSs used per participant and its frequencies
12
Out of 15 strategies, 9 are derived from the Dornyei’s (1997) taxonomy and 4
of them are not. Among the four, Sumakul (2011) had proposed two of them (i.e.
referring to L2 linguistic knowledge and referring to previous message). The other
two are new strategies as indicated from the data analysis; they are asking other
people for help and double-check.
The most Frequently Used CSs in Dealing with Vocabulary Deficiencies
Referring to L2 linguistic knowledge, self-repair, and waffling are the top
three CSs that mostly FLL students used. In this section, the most frequently used
CSs are discussed due to the high number of occurrence compared to the rest of CSs
in the data.
The excerpts (chat-logs) are used to give the proof from data analysis
process. However, due to the conciseness reason, the rest of the data are presented in
Appendix B. In this section you will see “see Appendix B Sxx – P/Rxx”. While Pxx
and Rxx have been discussed earlier, Sxx indicates the pseudoname of the
participants.
Referring to L2 Linguistic Knowledge
Referring to L2 Linguistic Knowledge is a CS that used someone’s current
knowledge about L2 (in this case is English) to cope with communication problems.
The knowledge covers grammatical comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and any
linguistic aspect from that particular language one had learned from previous years.
This CS occurred 24 times, in which 23 of them occurred in pauses and only
once in revision process. This strategy most likely occurred during the thinking
13
process of an individual. Based on the interview and analysis, there are three basic
reasons in pausing for this strategy. First is the word-choice reason. The participants
have some options of vocabularies that can be used. Yet, they hesitated to put which
words, because they were considering the discourse, register, the natural usage of L2
(see Appendix B S03 – P01 and S02 – P01), and the meaning they wanted to convey
(see Appendix B S01 – P01; S02 – P07; S02 – P08; S05 – P04; S07 – P02; S07 –
P05; S09 – P03; S09 – P04; and S10 – P01).
i[Space] can[Space] actually[Space](P02)
stand[Space] writing,[Space] i[Space] [Backspace][Backspace]what[Space] i[Space]
FIGURE 3. Excerpt of Participant 10’s Chat-log with referring to L2 linguistic
knowledge strategy – Pause – Register and discourse reason
In Figure 3, the pause indicates consideration of using the word “do” or
“stand”. S10 said, “I don’t want to be cocky so I choose to use ‘stand’ in my
sentence.” Here, the participant was considering the discourse and register of the
conversation by referring to L2 linguistic knowledge. Other similar justifications
were found on S08 – P01, S02 – P05, and S05 – P03 that you can see in Appendix B.
Second reason for pausing is that they were recalling the English word. In
this case, the participants forgot an English word that would convey their meaning
precisely. They were neither opening google translate nor asking people around
them,; instead they stayed still and recalled the precise English word in their mind
(see Appendix B S06 – P01; S03 – P04; S03 – P06; S05 – P05; S09 – P01; S09 –
P02).
14
Last reason is that they were mentally translating the L1 word into the L2
word. Dornyei’s CSs taxonomy has “literal translation” strategy, but that action is
counted as a strategy when someone executes literal translation from L1 to L2 words
in chatting (e.g. “paku payung” – umbrella nail). This case was different because the
participants were using their L2 linguistic resources thoroughly to translate the L1
word accordingly to the meaning they wanted to convey (e.g. “paku payung” –
thumbtack). This process was neither verbalized nor typed. The participants just
stopped typing and translated the word in their mind, which indicated psychological
and cognitive process in utilizing a certain CS. (see Appendix B S03 – P07).
On the other hand, the revision in referring to L2 linguistic knowledge
strategy happened because the participant suddenly remembered that the L1 word
was literally translated and sounded unnatural in English.
OF]hat's[Space] when[Space] she[Space] op[Backspace][Backspace](R04)
was[Space] reading[Space] he[Backspace][Backspace]the[Space] messages[Space]
FIGURE 4. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with referring to L2 linguistic
knowledge strategy – Revision – Unnatural language reason
As shown in Figure 4, the participant was revising “op” as she wanted to type
“opening message” which was a literal translation from L1 language. She realized
and changed it into “reading” as she said, “‘Reading’ is more natural and correct I
think, because people are reading message on their phone rather than just opening
it.” Therefore, S07 preferred to use “reading” due to natural language reason.
Self-Repair
15
Self-repair occurred with the percentage of 21.62%. This is one of the CSs
Dornyei (1997) proposed in his taxonomy. The self-repair strategy means that the
participants repair the linguistic mistakes by themselves without any help from other
people or the interlocutor. In this study, self-repair strategy is highlighted upon the
lexical level problem occurred in the online chatting process.
With 16 entries on this strategy, all of them occurred in the revision process.
This phenomenon occurred because this strategy would be applicable only after the
participants realized their mistakes or lacks in their sentence or phrase after typing it.
This shows in CMC, a mental process of an individual in communicating and
handling communication problems is a continuous process. Unlike FTF
communication, in which editing conversation is impossible, CMC that contains
reflectional function of writing makes message revision possible to carry on effective
communications. Thus, self-repair strategy is also applicable in CMC.
Using a more representative word to convey the participants’ meaning rather
than the word that had already typed, become the main reason in employing this
[Shift]Krystal[Space] is[Space] really[Space] gr[Backspace][Backspace] (R01) beautiful[Space]
like[Space] me...[Enter]
strategy.
FIGURE 5. Excerpt of Participant 1’s Chat-log with self-repair strategy – Revision –
More representative words reason
A self-repair strategy in Figure 5 occurred when S01 wanted to type “great”
but then revised into “beautiful”. She said ”I think the word ‘beautiful’ has a more
precise meaning than ‘great’ because we are talking about a woman’s beauty rather
16
about their greatness.” Hence, we can see the psychological and cognitive process of
choosing that particular word (also see Appendix B S03 – R01; S03 – R04; S03 –
R07; S04 – R03; S05 – R03; S06 – R01; and S10 – R01).
Another reason is the usage of a more natural word. In this case, there are
two possibilities based on this reason. The first possibility is when the participants
realized that they had typed unnatural word in a phrase, and then revised it. Another
possibility is when they typed a grammatically correct word, yet they felt that the
word was not natural with the context of conversation and it resulted with them
revised the word (see Appendix B S01 – R04; S03 – R06; and S07 – R01).
Third reason is that the participants have unconscious knowledge of a dailyused word chunk and it was typed in the chatting without considering the discourse.
The participant revised it to avoid conveying a different meaning (see Appendix B
S05 – R05).
Lastly, the self-repair also occurred when the participants consider the
interlocutor to be involved or not cornered. It indicates register (sociolinguistic
studies) within the synchronous communication context. This reason is included in
the self-repair strategy since considering register is one of the four vocabulary’s
dimensions. It reflected the participants’ deficiency because there was a revision
involved in the communication process (no automatic L2 production), and it
indicated the lack of vocabulary mastery (see Appendix B S05 – R01 and S08 –
R01).
Over-explicitness (waffling)
17
Referring to Dornyei’s (1997) CSs taxonomy, another strategy used by EFL
learners appeared during the data analysis process with 9.47% occurrence, it was
over-explicitness or waffling. Over-explicitness is one of the CSs in which the
participants add more words to convey a sharper meaning. In this study, overexplicitness or waffling was used by adding extra words (vocabulary). Waffling in
pauses were shown when the participants did thinking processes (moments when
they looked unsure of putting certain words). While in revising processes, waffling
was indicated by the lack of automaticity in receptive and productive of vocabulary,
and the depth of the vocabulary knowledge itself.
Out of 74 occurrences of CSs, this strategy used seven times by the
participants. There are two cases found in the pauses and five cases in revisions. In
pausing, it shows the participants’ thinking process and considerations whether they
wanted to add more words or not. While in revisions, the participants went back to
the sentences they had typed and put more words to it.
There are two reasons why the participants did pauses in waffling. The first
one is that they want to explain word that they had typed. The participants stopped
for a while after writing a word. Then, they added more words, following the last
Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace]consider[Space] as[Space](P03)
g[Backspace]'goog[Backspace]d'[Backspace]'.(P04)
word she typed (started typing from the point she paused).
FIGURE 6. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with over-explicitness strategy –
Pause – Considering explaining reason
18
Based on Figure 6, the participant’s pause shows consideration in explaining the
word “good“ (P03) that she typed previously. S07 paused to think and the cognitive
process that was going on S07’s mind indicated the CS.
The second reason is that the participant wanted to give a more precise
meaning. If the previous reason is to explain, this case shows that the participant
wanted to add more representative words and convey their meaning better. There
was only one or two words added rather a bunch of words to explain like in the
previous case (see Appendix B S08 – P04).
Based on the reasons above, pauses in waffling actually show the depth of
someone’s linguistic knowledge and consideration toward the interlocutor. The
considerations to add or not showed the participants’ understanding of a word and
how they utilized it in maintaining an effective communication. It is also to consider
the interlocutors’ understanding of the word to communicate effectively, since CMC
has no intonation or any visible expression and gestures like in face-to-face (FTF)
communication.
On the other side, the revisions in waffling strategy also have several reasons.
First, it is because the participants wanted to convey a better meaning. This reason is
almost the same as the waffling in pauses, the difference is just it happened after the
participant finished a sentence and read his/her sentence once again quickly.
19
than[Space] [Shift]The[Space] [Shift]Hobbit.[Space] [Shift]The[Space] story[Space] is[Space]
more[Space] challenging[Space] and[Space]
mak[Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Backspace][Up][Right][
Right][Right][Right][Right][Right][Right][Right][Right] plot(R02)
FIGURE 7. Excerpt of Participant 3’s Chat-log with over-explicitness strategy –
Revision – Conveying better-meaning reason
In Figure 7, S03 revised the sentence she had typed by adding the word
“plot” after the word “story” because she wanted to convey a meaning accordingly
(also see Appendix B S06 – R02 and S07 – R03).
The second reason is because the participants wanted to use more natural or
more commonly used words and phrases. When the participants felt that the words
they had typed a bit unnatural, they added more words to make it more natural (see
Appendix B S05 – R02)
Third reason is that the participants are unsure with the English word. This is
different from circumlocution (paraphrase) since the participants did not type a word
and paraphrase it; rather, words as details are added to convey their meaning because
they were not sure with the L2 words (see Appendix B S05 – R04).
To conclude this section, the most frequently used CSs by the participants are
referring to L2 linguistic knowledge, self-repair, and waffling. They have the highest
number of occurrences with a distinctive gap compared to the other CSs in this
study. This fact highlights the important part from this study that EFL students of
FLL SWCU were likely to employ these strategies the most to deal with vocabulary
deficiencies in online chatting.
20
CMC-related communication strategies dealing with vocabulary deficiencies
In this study, CMC-related CSs are strategies that meet the qualification of
becoming CSs under CMC context only and deal with vocabulary deficiencies.
Eleven CSs from Dornyei and Scott’s (1997) taxonomy are applicable in CMC.
However, it is not exclusively applicable under CMC context only. Therefore, the
other four strategies found in this study – referring to L2 linguistic knowledge,
referring to previous message, asking people for help, and double-check – are to be
considered as CMC-related CSs in dealing with vocabulary deficiency and will be
discussed in this sub-section. The first two CSs are proposed by Sumakul (2011) in
coping with grammar problems. Despite that fact, these two CSs actually can deal
with vocabulary problem too. In this sub-section, referring to the previous message
will be discussed more, as the referring to L2 linguistic knowledge has been
discussed in the previous sub-section.
Referring to previous message occurred twice and both of them happened in
the pauses. The participants paused to read the previous chat he/she had typed, to
check whether the word usage had represented their meaning and the discourse. It is
a CS used by maximizing the ‘reflectional function’ (Brown & Yule, 1983), or
storage function. In CMC’s circumstances, this term means that the participants
always have an opportunity to look back at the previous chats stored in the chatting
window during the CMC interaction – which is impossible to be done in FTF
communication – with the purpose to maintain the continuity of communication
effectively. If this CS was done in FTF communication, there would be distractions
toward the ongoing communication. It is also classified as a CS as well since it has
21
two qualification of a CS: problem-orientedness and consciousness (Færch and
stupid,[Space] including[Space] comes[Space] to[Space] the[Space] man's[Space] house[Space]
and[Space] brings[Space](P06)
the[Space] pair[Space] od[Backspace]f[Space] shoes[Enter]
Kasper, 1984).
FIGURE 8. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with referring to previous message
strategy – Pause – Considering discourse reason
Figure 8 shows that the participant was pausing and arranging words she
wanted to say. Here, a communication problem occurred when S07 wanted to
convey meaning through a phrase to make the interlocutor had the same discourse
with her. In solving her problem, she consciously referred to the previous message
and made the decision to type “the pair of shoes” rather than “her shoes” because she
said, “I want to make C (the interlocutor) know that I refer to the specific shoes. ‘Coz
if I use ‘her’ it is not really specific”. Therefore, it is obvious that this CS can be
classified as CMC-related CS, because this CS is dealing with the communication
problem, consciously undergone by the participant, and used during online chatting
or CMC.
For the new findings, the first CMC-related CS is named asking people for
help. This strategy does not directly ask the interlocutor like what Dornyei’s (1997)
taxonomy proposed. Rather, the participants asked people who were around them
because the online chatting process is a form of synchronous CMC in which there is
no FTF interaction. It opens a chance for the participants to ask for help from people
around them to get immediate result and continue the communication process. The
22
reason for using this CS is that the participants were stuck with or forget the L2
word, and wanted to have a fast response for maintaining the communication with
the interlocutor. This CS would be impossibly done in FTF because it will hinder the
communication and cause ineffective communication.
[Shift]Uncle..[Space] my[Space] deep[Space] condolences[Space] mak..[Enter](P01)
what[Space] is[Space] he[Backspace]is[Space] illness[Shift]?[Enter]
FIGURE 9. Excerpt of Participant 5’s Chat-log with asking people for help strategy
– Pause – Forget the L2 reason
Asking people for help strategy can be seen in Figure 9 because the
participants paused during the chatting and she admitted during the interview that
she asked her friends around her about the English word for “illness”. Forgetting or
unknowing the word in L2 was the communication problem faced by the participants
and they consciously asked people around them for help. This shows that asking
people for help is one of CS. Moreover, since this CS is only possible in online
chatting rather in FTF communication, we can classify it as a CMC-related CS.
Another interesting thing was found during the data analysis of waffling
strategy. Although waffling was the CS used, there was a process of reading the
sentence once again quickly before sending it. The participants said that they did that
in order to check whether the sentences had already corresponded what the
participants wanted. It might be one of a CS has never been noticed in CMC. This
strategy can be called “double-check”.
23
g[Backspace]'goog[Backspace]d'[Backspace]'.(P04)
[Enter]
[Caps Lock ON]I[Caps Lock OF][Space] don't[Space] want[Space] to[Space] watch[Space]
such[Space] movie[Space] that[Space] may[Space] make[Space]
FIGURE 10. Excerpt of Participant 7’s Chat-log with double-check strategy – Pause
– Adding explanation reason of waffling strategy
In Figure 10, the participant paused because she was thinking about adding
explanation upon the word “good”. Although she was considering to add the
explanation on the same sentence or explain in a new sentence, she also did a
double-check on the sentence she had made before sending it to make sure that she
had typed correctly as she wished. It was proven based on the interview when she
said, “I just want to make sure my sentence is using correct words and grammar, also
I was considering explaining ‘good’ or not, also where should I put the explanation.”
There was a communication problem when the participant was unsure on sending the
chat. She did not believe that she used certain L2 word correctly, and whether or not
the interlocutor would understand what she wanted to say. Thus, the participant who
faced this problem re-check the message that had been typed consciously. This
strategy is impossible to be done in FTF communication because there is no typed
transcript of what we said. While in CMC, we have the opportunity to re-check what
we have typed. Based on these premises, we can conclude that this is also one of
CMC-related CSs. However, this CS was not performed by most of the participants
because there was no in-depth analysis and interview result regarding this strategy. It
is most likely happened because other strategies, such as referring to L2, cover the
double-check itself.
24
To conclude this section, this study shows that Sumakul’s (2011) CSs in
coping with grammar problems during CMC are also applicable in dealing with
vocabulary problems during CMC. The two new CSs proposed in this study also
show that EFL learners of FLL SWCU succeed in employing new CSs to deal with
vocabulary deficiencies based on their initiative to maintain effective communication
under CMC context; specifically online chatting.
Overall, these two sub-sections in discussion deduce a general understanding
that the participants tend to make pauses and revisions on vocabularies when they,
mainly, want to: a) convey their meaning with more representing words; b) use more
natural L2 words; c) consider the register and/or discourse. These are the three subcategories in analyzing CMC-related CSs in dealing with vocabulary deficiencies in
general. These sub-categories are the derivation from the vocabulary’s dimensions
(Rashidi and Koshravi, 2010). Up to this point, we can narrow down our
understanding with the belief that these sub-categories motivate EFL learners to use
CMC-related CSs. Hence, due to these reasons, CMC-related CSs such as referring
to L2 linguistic knowledge, referring to previous message, asking people for help,
and double-check, are used in dealing with the vocabulary deficiency.
25
CONCLUSION
The sole purpose of this study is to understand the communication strategies
(CSs) employed by EFL learners in dealing with vocabulary deficiencies in
Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). In this study, 15 CSs are used to deal
with the 75 communication problems of vocabulary deficiencies encountered by the
students. Three most frequently used CSs in CMC (i.e. referring to L2 linguistic
knowledge, self-repair, and waffling) were discussed to understand the usage of
those CSs from the EFL learners’ experiences. Besides that, another important
finding is the CSs that are exclusively applicable in CMC. Four CMC-related CSs
were analyzed with process-based approach (Færch and Kasper, 1980), problemorientedness, conscious-execution (Færch and Kasper, 1984), and exclusivity feature
of a CS. The first two CMC-related CSs are the same as Sumakul’s (2011) proposedCSs: referring to L2 linguistic knowledge and referring to previous message.
Furthermore, this study proposed two new CSs: ask people for help and doublecheck. While ask people for help strategy could be observed clearly and elaborated in
this study, double-check strategy still needs more in-depth studies although the
phenomenon had occurred in this study.
Regarding the CSs that were previously studied in the FTF communication
circumstances (such as self-repair, circumlocution, code switching, etc.), this study
agrees with Sumakul (2011) that we should re-create our understanding toward them.
The CSs were occurred during synchronous communication and should be adaptable
in CMC environment. Moreover, this study focuses on the psycholinguistic process,
in which individuals initiated CSs to deal with the communication problem of
vocabulary deficiencies.
26
Overall, this study concludes that in CMC, the EFL learners also encounter
vocabulary deficiencies as communication problems, and certain CSs are employed
during the process of dealing with the problem. The CSs used can be derived from
FTF communication’s CSs, but that does not necessarily close the opportunity for an
individual to employ an alternative CS during the CMC to deal with the
communication problem, as we can refer to the two new strategies found in this
study.
Despite the findings, this study is still limited on several aspects. First is the
participants who are involved in this study were only 10 people and they did an
online chatting with EFL learners as well (non-native). More participants and online
chatting with native speakers could provide more heterogeneous data and
comparison in this field of study. Second, the 30 minutes data collection processes
also limit the richness of data. It is hoped that further studies can provide more
opportunities for the students to employ various CSs. Third limitation is upon the
communication problem topic discussed in this study. Other problems such as
discourse, semantic, and sociolinguistic issues that affect communication can be
analyzed as well in further studies. Regarding to vocabulary and L2 learning, further
studies can focus on classifying the vocabulary difficulties and discuss them indepth. As vocabularies are the lifeline of a language to communicate and convey
meaning, we could have new taxonomies in handling vocabulary deficiencies
problem especially in CMC, which represents the high-tech era.
27
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I gave my highest gratitude to God, Jesus Christ, who always guide and bless
me during my thesis making. I would like to acknowledge my superb supervisor,
Dian Toar Y. G. Sumakul, M.A, because he had guided me and contributed so much
– energy, time, thoughts, and advises – in my thesis completion. Without his help,
this thesis would not be completed in time. I also want to acknowledge and thank my
thesis examiner, Yustina Priska Kisnanto, M.Hum. for all the time and patience in
giving me continuous feedback and suggestions for the betterment of my thesis.
Thank you for my friends Clarissa, Alberta, Raisha, Theodora, Pup