233
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES DEVELOPED BY THE ALGERIAN
PRIMARY SCHOOL LEARNER
RAMDANI, Abdelkrim (Université d’Oran)
This article has for objective the identification of some of the communication strategies developed by the Algerian primary school pupil when he encounters problems in his communication by means of the school language -Standard Arabic- (henceforth SA). The six strategies reflect to a large extent the influence of the Algerian child's mother tongue -Algerian Arabic- (henceforth AA) on his speech production under the classroom situation.
What the utterances selected to be analysed have in common is that they reflect the Algerian learners' attempts to use SA being at the same time under the influence of their mother tongue AA. These utterances are two types, some are exclusively AA utterances, and others pertain to the learner's interlanguage (I.L.) in that they reflect the interaction of AA and SA structures in their production. An appendix will be added at the end of this article in order to reinforce our arguments about the communication strategies and the impact of AA on the pupils' attempts to use SA.
234 Strategy 1: Interlingual Transfer
The term is generally applied to the tendency of the learner to use a rule of his mother tongue in the production of second language speech, or as Littlewood resumes it:
"The learner's use of his previous mother tongue experience as a means of organising the second language data" (Littlewood. W.
1984, pp 25).
The Algerian pupil is noticed to use this strategy when he attempts to use SA.
(1) // (my father did not come)1
In this example, the pupil is expressing negation according to AApatterns2, i.e. the application of the two particles used to express negation in AA/m,/ to an SA verb // (come).
(2) / / (she took my brown colour pencil)
In this example, another pupil adds the suffix // used to express possession in AAto the SAitem /bunni/. It
1 The transcription used through this article is a phonological one.
2 For further discussion of the process of negation in A.A., see Lakhdar Barka (1993)
235
is to notice that the original SAitem functions as an adjective, and when the pupil adds the AAsuffix, he will change its function into a direct object.
As a first cause to the pupil's resort to an AArule in (2), we may notice his tendency to make less effort and simplification for, under SAnorm, he has to specify both the noun (object), and its complement (adjective), i.e. he would have said instead of (2) the following // (my brown colour pencil).
Utterances (1) and (2) though deviant reveal that the transformations effected by the two pupils can be attributed to neither SA nor AA. This implies the pupils' generation of a new set of rules which reflect the interaction between SA lexical items (verb and adjective) and AA rules for the expression of negation and possession, respectively. This interaction seems to be characteristic of their interlanguage as an independent system which contains elements from both AA and SA, and accordingly implies the impact that AA may have on the pupils' speech production in SA.
Strategy 2: Overgeneralization (regularization)
According to Richards (1971), a L2 learner is overgeneralizing when he creates deviant structures under the influence of other structures that he had experienced in the L2. As a distinctive feature of such a
236
strategy, we can state the learner's tendency to apply L2 rules to items or contexts where they do not apply.
However, it appears that the use of the term is restricted to a strategy that involves the generalisation of L2 rules only to L2 items which makes it, to a large extent, inapplicable to the strategy employed by the Algerian pupils.
Consequently, following other scholars, we will apply another term which is used in analogy with
"overgeneralization", but still different from it. The strategy would become named "Regularization", which broadly implies the learner's tendency to add:
"a marker that is typically added to a linguistic item [...] to exceptional items of a given class [...] that do not take such a marker"
(Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982: 157),
or more precisely, the application of rules used to produce regular forms to those that are seen irregular.
Transposed to the Algerian pupil, we will notice that SA rules and structures under the classroom situation are agreed on to reflect a total "regularity", i.e. represent the "norm", whereas AA structures are seen to have some
"irregularity" in them. Such a subjective view seems to be deeply rooted in the pupil, due largely to the
237
unobjective language practice imposed on him. As a result, he applies SA rules or markers to AA elements which do not take such markers in an attempt to make these correct and therefore acceptable to the teacher. In such an attempt, he may be said to be regularising these AA items in accordance with SA norms.
(3) // I.L.
/mi/ AA (tight: a pair of trousers) // SA
This I.L. utterance reflects a morphological modification effected on the AA item rather than on the SA item (for the initial consonant /m/) i.e. the insertion of a vowel // and the addition of a case inflection // which are characteristic of SA use, not AA
(4) /: / I.L. /: / AA (angry) // SA
This example reflects the same pattern as in (3), i.e. the addition of a case inflection may be in an attempt to make this adjective sound correct, but this example makes it clear that it is to the AA item that the SA rule is applied (the noticeable divergence between the AA item and SA item translates this).
238
Therefore, the pupils in (3) and (4) inflect AA items in order to make the teacher accepts them as correct. This shows that the Algerian pupil knows how to demarcate between SA regularity and AA irregularity to the extent of fusing the regular into the irregular in order to achieve his communicative intentions.
Strategy 3: Syntactic Reduction (simplification)
This strategy is generally understood to mean the
"non-application of rules that are assumed by the learner to be "optional" (Faerch & Kasper, 1980: 42), that is L2 rules that will not affect the learner's transmission of a specific meaning, this according to Dulay et Al (1982: 46), can be achieved by the
"omission" or the absence of a marker that needs to appear in a well-formed utterance.
The aim behind the application of such a strategy may be the simplification of the learner's speech in an attempt to make less effort, or as it will be noticed, as the result of the influence of this learner's mother tongue habits.
The Algerian learner's performance reflects such a reduction or omission at the level of grammatical morphemes (case endings and inflections). These rules may be assumed by the Algerian pupil to be optional
239
rules due largely to their infrequency and non-application in A.A., and as a result, he will not tend to apply them in his speech in S.A..
(5) // I.L. // AA (I forgot it) // SA
This pupil does not show the least interest in producing the highly inflected SA item and use instead the uninflected simple form as used in AA.
(6) // I.L. // AA (He tells me) /: / SA
In this example, the pupil reduces the SA personal pronoun /: / under the effect of a gemination of this with the final consonant of the SA verb. This gemination may be due to the effect of AA linguistic habits where the personal pronoun needs not to be specified as in SA(see appendix for other examples).
Strategy 4: Code switching
Tarone & Al (1976) use the term "code switching" to refer to the "tendency of the L2 learner to transport a native word or expression, untranslated into
240
the interlanguage3 utterance" (quoted in Faerch &
Kasper, 1983, pp 11). This may be done in order to supply the lack of knowledge of L2, or to avoid a difficult L2 form. The Algerian pupil has been noticed to resort to code switching as an issue to some problem he encounters in finding the correct and appropriate SAitem, and at times as the result of a natural flow of speech unaffected by any problem.
(7) pupil: /, ,""/ I.L.
(Teacher, a suit, what is it?) /, ": "
/ SA
The pupil uses a Wh-word in AA // (what) after a noun in SA// (suit), and before a disjunctive pronoun in SA// (she), this may be due to a difficulty he has encountered in finding the equivalent SA Wh-word //.
(8) pupil: /: / I.L. (He did not take out his copy book)
/: / S.A.
3 Interlanguage in this sense refers to the set of the utterances produced by the learner in his attempts to communicate in S.A.. This interlanguage utterance should reflect the interaction of A.A. and SAin the learner's speech production under the classroom setting
241
In (8), another pupil makes a double code- switching, from SA, and then to AA. He uses an AA verb // (took) between the two particles used to express negation in AA/, / before a noun (direct object) in SA/: / (copy book), then he switches again to AA in order to express possession by means of the AA possessive article // (his).
We may notice that the reason for this code switching can barely be related to limited or insufficient knowledge of SA equivalent forms. It appears that the high frequency of AA as the primary linguistic means of expression inside the classroom is playing an important role in the specification of the nature of this code- switching. It is an achievement strategy4 as far as it permits the learner to complete the meaning of his utterances, and therefore, reach communication;
nevertheless, through using another code in addition to SA(for other examples, see appendix).
Strategy 5: Synonymy - The use of AAas a first linguistic means in semantic interpretation
Shoshana & Levenston (1978) assume that:
4 An interesting fact is that the six strategies should be considered as achievement strategies in the sense that by their application the learner aims at succeeding in communication in the school language.
242
"All second language learners probably begin by assuming that for every word in their mother tongue, there is a single translation equivalent in the second language" (quoted in Faerch and Kasper, 1983, pp 132)
The reverse of this assumption seems to apply to the Algerian pupils who can be said to begin learning SAassuming that for every word in S.A., there is a single translation equivalent in A.A.. They reflect this when they are asked to give the meaning of a word in S.A., in which case it has been noticed that they do not try to use
"circumlocution"5, rather they fall back on the AAequivalent as a first issue in giving the answer.
(9) Teacher: // SA(What does "don't look back" mean?)
Pupil: // AA(Don't look back) to refer to girl.
(10) Teacher: // SA(What does
"she overlooked" mean?)
Pupil: // AA(that is, she overlooked)
5 Circumlocution is used here to refer to the learner's tendency to give a description or the definition of the L2 lexical item in other words, by using the L2. (see Faerch & Kasper eds, 1983:11)
243
In (9) and (10), the pupils know the meaning of the SA word; however, they resort directly to AA in order to give a semantic interpretation of these SA words.
This may imply that the SA words that the pupils hear are first interpreted according to these pupils' first representational system, i.e. AA.. It is very probable that an SA word is understood as far as its equivalent exists in AA.
Strategy 6: Word for Word Translation
Word for word translation can be seen to be one aspect of the strategy of transfer, in that the learner does think in terms of his L1 and translates his thought in L2 words. When this is done by the Algerian pupils, the result is likely to be a mismatch between the meaning the pupil wants to transmit (according to AA), and a form in which this meaning is expressed (according to SA).
(11) Teacher:
// SA.
(Why does Reda fear the hair-dresser?)
Pupil: // SA.
(Because he (the hair-dresser) burns him in his neck) -the meaning according to S.A..
This Asterisk is used to refer to the unacceptability of this utterance.
244
(Because he (the hair-dresser) injures him in his neck) -the meaning according to A.A.
We notice that the pupil, in his answer, gives a word for word translation of his thought in AA into SA, which results in a sentence syntactically correct, but semantically unacceptable (this in accordance with SA norms). We can illustrate this and say that verb (1) (which would become // in AA) is used in this context to mean (to injure), however, the SAword translates just another meaning exactly (to burn). This would mean that the pupil will fail in transmitting what he really intends to transmit. For a sentence both syntactically and semantically correct, the pupil should have used the right SA verb i.e., // (to injure)
We will be objective to say that the reason for this word for word translation may be the high similarity existing between // AA and // SA, since the main difference is only at the level of the velar //, nevertheless, this does not preclude the divergence existing between these two forms at the semantic level.
To sum up:
(I.L.) //
(A.A.) //
(S.A.) //
to injure (in the pupil's mind) to burn.
to burn. (in the pupil's words)
to injure //
245
This mismatch would reinforce the point raised in Gee (1996)6 that SA and AA each translate a different and particular mode of thinking which correlates with the rules and patterns of each code differently. This would imply that there can be no one-to-one relationship between thinking in AA and speaking in S.A., which, as we have seen in (11), would prevent the pupil from transmitting the real meaning of his sentence (of course, this would not occur as long as the Algerian teacher shares the same L1 with his pupils).
The Algerian pupil is taking some risk in producing such a sentence. Though he cannot find the SA equivalent verb, by means of which, he would convey his message in acceptable terms, he directly translates the verb used in AA (by inflecting it and changing the // into //). This has not been success-oriented for the uniqueness of the conceptual frames of each variety.
Then, thinking in terms of the mother tongue seems to be the threshold to learning or communicating in SA.
6 In fact Gee maintains that: " what is at issue in the use of language is different ways of knowing, different ways of making sense of the world of human experience, that is different social epistemologies".
(1996:59)
246 Conclusion
The identification of these strategies permits us to better conceive the complexity of SA learning process. These strategies reflect the Algerian learners' active involvement in this process and by this their mother tongue will be certainly involved. The inference of such strategies allows discovering some of the highly unpredictable rules and patterns that constitute an evidence of the Algerian learners' development of an interlanguage, whose basis is AA.
The different strategies above-cited reveal the Algerian learners' tendency to make use of what they know in order to achieve expression of what they do not know. The difficulty of eradicating these learners' mother tongue habits is reflected when the learners apply such strategies. Since that AA rules and patterns are fused in a planned and systematic way. This makes us attend to a very special type of interaction between AA and SA under the classroom circumstances. In this sense, it is very probable that AA will not hinder the process of SA learning or communication, but rather it will constitute a useful linguistic means that enables the learners to succeed in these processes.
247 Appendix:
Examples of Interlanguage Utterances:
Interlanguage utterance (I.L.)
S.A./AAcorrespondin
g utterances Explanation
// (He walks)
// A.A.
// S.A.
The insertion of a vowel // to inflect the AAverb.
// (The purple)
// A.A.
// S.A.
The addition of the SAdefinite article // to an adjective in A.A.
// (I came-in the exam"1st ...2nd"-)
// A.A.
// S.A.
The addition of a vowel // to inflect the AAverb with changing // into // in accordance with SAnorm.
// (He has)
//A.A.
// S.A.
The omission of the initial // and final // in the SAform under the effect of their inexistence in the
AAform and for
simplification..
// (With wood)
// A.A.
// S.A.
Omission of the SA// and its substitution for the simple // as used in the
248
AAform, also the reduction of the // sound.
// (Yesterday)
// A.A.
// S.A.
The omission of the final // and the substitution of // for // due to their inexistence in the AAform.
// (I read- past-)
// A.A.
// S.A.
The omission of the vowels // and // under the influence of their inexistence in the AAform.
/
/ (Abed moved the ball)
/
/ S.A.
The verb is in AA+ the direct object in S.A.. The AAverb is less complicated and easier than the SAverb with which the pupil is unfamiliar in such a context.
Interlanguage utterance (I.L.)
S.A./AAcorrespondin
g utterances Explanation
/
: / (teacher, he is jumping)
/
/ S.A.
The auxiliary is in AA+ the verb in S.A., this auxiliary is so frequent in the pupil's every day speech that he uses it instead of the SAauxiliary.
249
/
/(I have a sentence, teacher)
/
/ S.A.
The verb is in AA+ the direct object in S.A.. The pupil may have used the
verb in AAfor
simplification since he's not obliged to add the preposition // as when he has used the SAverb. Also, the verb in SAis somehow still unknown to this pupil.
/
/ (We make many things with wood)
/
/ S.A.
The direct object is in SA+
the prepositional phrase in A.A.. The pupil code switching to avoid the inflections added to the SAprepositional phrase, and also to make less effort.
T:
/
:/ S.A.
(What is "garden"?) P:
/
ñ/ A.A.
(Teacher, "garden")
The pupil in his answer used a loan word borrowed from french.
T:
/
The pupil used also a loan word borrowed from french.
250
/ S.A.
(What do "handlebars"
mean?)
P: /ñ/ A.A.
(Handlebars)
T:
/
:/ S.A.
(What does the handicapped (people) mean?)
P:
/ A.A.
(Teacher, the
handicapped people)
The answer is a loan word borrowed from french.
T:
// S.A.
(What does "the comb" mean?) P:
/
/ A.A.
(It means, it is the comb)
The pupil in his answer uses an AAequivalent word with a tendency to regularise it by the addition of the SAdefenite article //
251 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blum, Shoshana & Levenston, Eddie A. (1978).
"Universals of Lexical Simplification", in Faerch, Claus & Kasper, Gabriel (Eds.) (1983), pp. 119- 139.
Dulay, Heidi – Burt, Marina & Krashen, Stephen D. (1982), Language Two, New York: OUP.
Faerch, Claus & Kasper, Gabriel (Eds.) (1983) Strategies in Interlanguage Communication, London: Longman.
Faerch C. & Kasper G. (1980) "Plans and Strategies in Foreign Language Communication"
in Faerch, Claus & Kasper, Gabriel (Eds.) (1983), pp 20-60.
Faerch, Claus & Kasper, Gabriel (1983) "On Identifying Strategies in Interlanguage Communication" in Faerch, Claus & Kasper, Gabriel (Eds.) (1983), pp 210-238.
Gee, James Paul (2nd Ed, 1996) Social Linguistics and Literacies, Great Britain: Taylor & Francis.
252
Lakhdar Barka, Farida (1993), "Negation in Algerian Arabic" in Cahiers de Dialectologies et Linguistique Contrastive, Vol. 4, N° 1-2, pp 28- 41.
Littlewood, William (1984), Foreign and Second Language Learning, London: GUP.
Richards, Jack C. (1971) "A Non Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis" in Robinett, B.W. &
Schachter, J. (Eds.) (1983), 197-208.
