Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Background
In China, English is learned as a foreign language (EFL) and has the largest numberof learners. English is a worldwide language used for many purposes, which raisesquestions for Chinese EFL learners to overcome in using English to communicate withothers. The Ministry of Education in China has already issued a new English CurriculumStandard for Junior Middle School (Draft’ Ministry of Education of P. R. China, 2003)，which has pointed out that the training of communication competence is one ofindispensable parts of English teaching and learning. Communication strategies (CSs) areone of the core components of the communicative competence.In order to cultivate learners' effectively communicative competence, CSs should beemployed in the process of language learning. The description of CSs in EnglishCurriculum Standard for Junior Middle School is as follows: CSs are strategies learnerstook to obtain chances of speaking with others，maintain a conversation, expressmeanings and enhance the efficiency of communication by use of a second language. Thelearners may cooperate with their peers actively, initiate a conversation, use euphemismor overcome the difficulties occurring in the course of communication. EFL learners areapplying strategies like paraphrase, borrowing, asking for assistance, gestures andavoidance for maintaining the conversation.
………
1.2 Objectives
The objectives of the present study include:
(1) To investigate junior middle school students' CSs employment situations.
(2) To find out the differences of CSs application in English writing between urbanand rural students ?
(3) To provide some pedagogical implications for CSs training.
………
Chapter Two Literature Review
2.1 Definitions of CSs
The term "communication strategies (CSs)" is firstly mentioned in Selinker's (1972)research paper Inter language. The term is defined as "an identifiable approach by thelearner to communicate with native speakers". (Ellis，1984) After Selinker's work, manyresearches have followed up by the means of theoretical and empirical way on the studiesof CSs，definitions.The CSs are defined by researchers from different perspectives and for variousresearch purposes. The definitions of CSs are generally divided into two types. One isdefined from the perspective of interaction by some researchers such as Tarone, Corder，asserting that CSs is one means of compensating inadequate second language (L2)knowledge in communication. The other one is defined from the perspective ofpsycholinguistics by Faerch & Kasper as the representatives, who consider CSs somekind of mental phenomenon underlying actual language behavior. (Liu Naimei, 2007) Tarone (1976) consider CSs as a systematic attempt used by the learner to express ordecode meaning in the target language，in situations where the appropriate systematictarget language rules have not been formed. Then, in the following researches, Tarone(1981) defines CSs as "attempts to bridge the gap between the linguistic knowledge of thesecond-language learner and the linguistic knowledge of the target language interlocutor in real communication situations." which are comparing with Tarone (1980) defines CSsas a mutual attempt of two interlocutors to agree on a meaning in situations whererequisite meaning structures do not seem to be shared. According to the above definitions,the author finds the theoretical development of Tarone's definitions and Taroneemphasizes interaction of interlocutors in communication.
………
2.2 Taxonomies of CSs
According to the definitions of CSs made by researchers abroad，which are mainlybased on the empirical studies and researches on language learners' CSs applications, theclassification of the CSs can be accordingly proposed by them. However, there is no atypological way generally agreed nowadays. In Tarone's (1981) classification, which has tailored the avoidance in 1976 CSsclassification to the one only comprising topic avoidance and message abandonment inher 1977 and 1981 classification with a focus on abandoning concepts. Tarone's study hasserved a basis for subsequent research of communication studies, resulting in furthertypologies. (Bialystock，1990，Ellis, 1994) Every coin has two sides. Even though it iswell defined, it also undergoes a few problems which have been pointed out by someresearchers such as Bialystok (1990) and Kellerman (1997). According to Bialystok's(1990)，the taxonomy is frequently not reliable，for "the criteria for assigning an utteranceto a specific strategic category are sometimes vague, sometimes arbitrary and sometimesirrelevant". And Kellerman (1997) points out that Tarone's taxonomy is notpsychologically plausible by referring to "an art gallery" as "a picture-place" or as "aplace where you look art pictures" clearly reflect the same underlying cognitive process.Tarone's classification is not good enough for learners to understand and do not reflect thefunction or effect of the strategy on the process of communication.
………
Chapter Three Methodology........ 21
3.1 Research Questions........ 21
3.2 Subjects........21
3.3 Instruments........ 22
3.3.1 Questionnaire........ 22
3.3.2 Interview........ 23
3.4 Data Collection Procedures........ 23
3.5 Data Analysis Procedure........ 24
Chapter Four Findings and Analysis........ 25
4.1 Overall Application of CSs in Writing ........ 25
4.2 Comparison of CSs Application between Urban and Rural Students........ 35
4.3 Factors Affecting the Application of CSs in Writing........41
Chapter Five Pedagogical Implications ........ 44
5.1 Developing Students' Language Proficiency and Shifting........44
5.2 Strengthening CSs Training and Cultivating Students........46
5.3 Increasing CSs Application Awareness ........ 51
Chapter Five Pedagogical Implications
Based on the quantitative and qualitative data analysis of students' CSs application，students' CSs application situation is at medium level and they do not know what CSs areand how to use them appropriately in writing. And there are significant differences ofachievement strategies and clarification strategies' application situation between the urbanand rural students in English writing, while at item level，five items show significantdifferences.In order to improve learners' communicative competence effectively as the NewEnglish Curriculum Standard for Junior Middle School (2003) required，there are crucialnecessities for EFL teachers to take actions in developing students' language proficiencyand shifting learner's belief，strengthening CSs training and cultivating students' ability touse CSs in writing effectively，and increasing students' CSs application awareness.
………
Conclusion
Data analysis discussed in the former chapters shows that both urban and ruralstudents' CSs application situation is at the medium level，revealing that students applyavoidance strategies the most frequently and achievement strategies the least frequently.And there are significant differences in application of achievement strategies andclarification strategies even though avoidance strategies, empathy strategies andcooperation strategies do not show the significant difference between the urban and therural students. At item level，there are five items of CSs show significant differencesbetween urban and rural areas. Respectively, they are item 2 and item 10 in achievementstrategies, item 9 in empathy strategies, item 13 in classification strategies and item 18 incooperation strategies.These findings may suggest that junior middle school students from urban and ruralareas do not know much about CSs, that their awareness of CSs application in writing donot activated, and that learners' belief affects them in the choice of CSs and students donot get enough CSs training. The solution may be that teachers should pay attention to thecultivation of leaners' efficient communicative competence by developing students'language proficiency and shifting learner's belief, strengthening CSs training andcultivating students' ability to use CSs in writing effectively and increasing CSsapplication awareness. Therefore, students CSs instruction is definitely necessary in theurban and mrai junior middle schools.
…………
Reference (omitted)