Introduction

Speakers of a second language (L2), regardless of proficiency level, communicate for specific purposes. For example, an L2 speaker of English may wish to build rapport with a co-worker by chatting about the weather. The speaker will draw on various resources to accomplish her communicative purposes. For instance, the speaker may say ‘falling ice’ if she has forgotten the word ‘hail’ or may repeat the last few words of her interlocutor's utterance to show that she is listening and engaged. The term communication strategies (CSs) refers to the strategic use of various resources (both linguistic and non-linguistic) for communicative purposes. While speakers also use CSs in their native languages (L1s), research on L2 CS use is particularly interesting because speakers’ L2 linguistic resources and the associated cognitive processes are typically less developed, compared to those in their L1. Therefore, for L2 users to accomplish their communicative purposes in the L2, it is important that they effectively use the resources available to them. This research timeline presents key developments in theoretical understanding and empirical research targeting L2 CSs, mainly in oral communication. The timeline places particular emphasis on the evolution of theoretical approaches to the study of CSs and the consequent expansion of research in terms of the nature of participants, speech samples, and analytical tools used.

Early work on CSs focussed on definition and categorization. For a few early L2 acquisition theorists, for example, CSs were understood as instances of error, originating from incomplete knowledge of the target language (Richards Reference Richards1971). Most other definitions included the notion of CSs as L2 users’ potentially conscious reactions to problems in communicating their message. Early taxonomies of CSs were based on documenting surface-level characteristics of CSs, such as message reformulation, word coinage, or topic switch (e.g., Ervin, see timeline). Later taxonomies included a focus on speakers’ cognitive processes by specifying the source of information (e.g., their L1) contributing to speakers’ use of a CS, such as code-mixing (e.g., Bialystok, see timeline). However, by the early 1990s, CS frameworks incorporated a psycholinguistic perspective (e.g., Poulisse, Bongaerts & Kellerman, see timeline), drawing on specific cognitive and linguistic models of language learning and use, such as those of Levelt (Reference Levelt1983, Reference Levelt1989, Reference Levelt, Blanken, Dittmann, Grimm, Marshall and Wallesch1993, Reference Levelt1995). Versions of these frameworks continue to be used, often applied to research focussing on relationships between L2 users’ individual differences, such as L2 proficiency, and their use of CSs.

The use of cognitive frameworks to describe CSs was linked to particular kinds of participants and speech samples. Speaking tasks given to participants, explicitly identified as L2 learners, were meant to generate challenges in communication so that CSs would be produced and then tallied and analyzed. Early speaking tasks were often monologic, to reduce variability which could arise from interaction with an interlocutor. However, a seminal 1990s study on the naturalistic use of CSs between L2 English speakers introduced a theoretical approach which came to be known as interactional (Firth, see timeline). In this approach, communication is not conceived as a process of speakers being more or less successful in communicating messages to each other. Rather, communication is a process of interlocutors co-constructing and jointly achieving understanding. The emphasis here is on the ways that interlocutors co-construct understanding, not on learners’ gaps in linguistic resources. Therefore, CSs are not solely problem-oriented; instead, they encompass all resources used by interlocutors to achieve orderly interaction in a given context. Within this approach, the proper object of analysis is interactive, naturalistic communication (i.e., not controlled or guided by researcher-provided tasks or prompts), and CS use cannot be explained apart from its interactional context.

In the following decade, both cognitive/psycholinguistic and interactional approaches to CS research were used, with increasing attention paid to measuring the effects of CS use on communication and to training learners to use CSs. Firth & Wagner (see timeline) drew a clear distinction between cognitive/psycholinguistic and interactional approaches. They criticized the ‘traditional’ perspective in L2 acquisition research, arguing that it prioritizes cognitive models of language learning and use and presents L2 speakers as deficient language users. Cognitive/psycholinguistic approaches to investigating CS use continued into the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, most research fell into one of two streams: pedagogical training, which generally adopted taxonomies from the cognitive/psycholinguistic tradition, and studies conducted within the lingua franca approach, where naturalistic language use in pairs or groups of primarily L2 English speakers was analyzed for the ways the speakers jointly worked to successfully communicate.

The early 2000s witnessed the emergence and rapid expansion of research targeting CS use in computer-mediated communication. Early studies focussed on synchronous text-based communication, such as chat, but more recent research has kept pace with the possibilities afforded by technological advances, including 3D virtual reality systems. These technology-mediated studies have generally taken a cognitive/psycholinguistic approach to classifying CSs. In contrast, the great majority of CS research on English as a lingua franca in the past decade has been from the interactional perspective, with an increasing range of research contexts under study, such as professional workplaces, customer service centers, and university seminars.

From the 1980s onward, CSs were seen as potential solutions to L2 speakers’ communicative problems, and cognitive/psycholinguistic researchers hoped to identify particular CSs which could be highly effective for L2 speakers in resolving interactional misunderstanding. However, even across studies using common taxonomies, no clear trends for effective CSs have been uncovered. This lack of consensus on what constitutes an effective CS is likely due to the situation- and interlocutor-specific nature of effective CS use. Rather than trying to identify CSs which are generally effective, it may be more productive for L2 researchers, teachers, and users to exploit the available opportunities for meaningful and interactive communication, while also reflecting on how and why the use of particular CSs in particular instances was more or less effective.

This timeline includes three themes prominent in CS-themed publications:

• • Theoretical. Frameworks (F) refer to extended discussions of theoretical conceptualizations through which CSs can be explained and identified. These frameworks are often paired with taxonomies (T), explicit classifications and examples of CSs. Theoretical approaches used by researchers in CS research are often explicit, especially in early publications. In cognitive/psycholinguistic approaches (C), CSs are framed as ways that individual L2 users try to solve problems in communicating their message. In interactional approaches (I), the use of strategies is not presented as problem-based but as inherent to communication which is socially constructed.

• • Methodological. The language samples analyzed in CS research are of two main types: naturalistic (N), referring to language used in unprompted and real-life interactions, or research-based (R), meaning that language samples are elicited or prompted by researchers or researcher-provided tasks. In some studies, CSs have been examined in relation to measures of individual differences (IDs), such as L2 proficiency. In other studies, CSs have been evaluated for their effectiveness (E) or clarity in communicating a message. A small number of publications have also included retrospective interviews or stimulated recalls (SR) in order to elicit L2 speakers’ views or memories of their CS use. This theme also embraces research featuring technology (Tech).

• • Pedagogical. Pedagogically-oriented research (P) refers to studies in which L2 users received training on the use of CSs and were evaluated pre- and post-training.