41SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
2023, vol. 20 (1), 41-66(228)
journals.uni-lj.si/elope
https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.20.1.41-66
UDC: 811.111:378.014.24
Nikola Jokić
University of graz, austria
Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of
Communication Strategies among Erasmus
Students
aBStraCt
The goal of this paper is to investigate english as a lingua franca (eLf), a phenomenon
that has attracted much attention in the last twenty years. Specifically, it aims to analyse the
communicative strategies non-native speakers of english employ with a view to securing
understanding. to achieve this, informal eLf conversations among erasmus students at
the University of graz are investigated. This study deploys qualitative methods, i.e., semi-
structured interviews with erasmus students were tape-recorded and transcribed. Therefore,
communication strategies that contribute to mutual understanding are presented along with
examples and their frequency of usage in the data. furthermore, the numerous functions of
communication strategies are mentioned along with possible explanations of their use. The
findings show that erasmus students employ various strategies with the aim of achieving
mutual understanding and preventing possible communication problems.
Keywords: english as a lingua franca, erasmus students, self-initiated communicative
strategies, other-initiated communicative strategies
Ali me sploh kaj razumeš? Analiza sporazumevalnih strategij
med študenti v okviru programa Erasmus
IZvLeČek
Predmet raziskave je angleščina kot lingua franca (aLf) – pojav, ki je v zadnjih dvajsetih letih
pritegnil pozornost jezikoslovcev. Cilj raziskave je analiza sporazumevalnih strategij, ki jih za
potrebe razumevanja uporabljajo nematerni govorci angleščine. v ta namen smo analizirali
neformalne pogovore v aLf med študenti v okviru programa erasmus na Univerzi v gradcu.
Uporabili smo kvalitativne metode: polstrukturirane intervjuje s študenti smo posneli in
transkribirali. v članku so na podlagi analize predstavljene sporazumevalne strategije, ki
prispevajo k vzajemnemu razumevanju, skupaj z zgledi in pogostostjo rabe. omenjene so
številne funkcije komunikacijskih strategij z možnimi razlagami njihove uporabe. rezultati
raziskave kažejo, da študenti v okviru programa erasmus uporabljajo različne strategije z
namenom doseganja vzajemnega razumevanja in preprečevanja morebitnih težav pri
sporazumevanju.
Ključne besede: angleščina kot lingua franca, študenti v okviru programa erasmus,
samoiniciativne sporazumevalne strategije, sporazumevalne strategije na pobudo drugih
42 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
1 Introduction
The fact that english has been used internationally as a lingua franca for centuries does not
represent an astonishing discovery. however, its unique position today means that english is
now being used globally to an extent far surpassing its earlier reach. Moreover, the situation
becomes increasingly complicated as the number of speakers of english continues to rise
exponentially. as a result, the last two decades have led to a rapid expansion in the field of
linguistics exploring this particular state of affairs. a considerable body of research has been
published on english as a lingua franca (eLf) (e.g., Jenkins 2000; Mauranen and ranta
2009; Seidlhofer 2011). What could be inferred from these studies is that misunderstandings
represent a rare occurrence due to the “effort eLf users put in so as to prevent such problems”
and their collaboration (Jokić 2017, 16). This stands in contrast with the popular belief that
the different levels of proficiency and wide range of accents could cause a breakdown in
communication among international users of english.
While previous eLf research concentrated more on identifying phonological or
morphosyntactic features, more recent literature has emerged dealing with pragmatic
strategies and their functions (e.g., Björkman 2014). It should be noted that the reason for
this could be because pragmatic features have long been thought of as somewhat challenging
to pinpoint compared to phonological or lexico-grammatical features.
The concept of a communication strategy (CS) was formulated in Selinker’s (1972) seminal
article on interlanguage as one of the five fundamental processes used in L2 communication.
In 1977, tarone published a paper in which she provided a taxonomy that is still regarded as
one of the most authoritative in CS research. however, it was váradi (1980) who carried out
the first CS analysis, which focused on message adjustment.
In the 1980 and 1990s, several studies were conducted with the aim of determining and
categorizing CSs (Bialystok 1990; Cook 1993; Poulisse 1987). a selection of the most
influential papers, edited by faerch and kasper (1983), had the same goal. Similarly, a group
of scholars at Nijmegen University undertook a study that proposed a new set of strategies
(kellerman et al. 1990). Lastly, another project that brought together the most important
papers at the time was kasper and kellerman (1997). This collection was significant because
it widened the scope of CSs research by including papers that perceived L2 acquisition not
only as a cognitive but also as a social phenomenon.
as far as the definition of CSs is concerned, a literature review reveals that most call attention
to “problematicity” or “problem-orientedness” (Dörnyei and Scott 1997, 182). eLf scholars
have suggested that the issue of “problematicity” needs to be tackled in the eLf field as well.
In eLf conversations, there is a wide range of different accents and proficiency levels, such
that the participants often seem to use “pro-active” strategies in order to avoid potential
misunderstandings. The characteristic of being prepared for a potential misunderstanding
and knowing how to handle it represents the quality of eLf conversations and is a recurrent
theme in eLf research (Björkman 2014, 124).
furthermore, Björkman (2014, 125) mentions that the only reference to the communicative
strategies’ framework related to eLf settings is kirkpatrick’s study (2007). however, she
43SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
criticizes the way CSs have been classified. kirkpatrick divided all strategies into speaker and
listener, which, according to Björkman, might be complicated when it comes to assigning the
roles in a conversation since the moment a listener replies to a speaker, they become a speaker
as well. Therefore, she proposes another categorization that is already known from Ca: “self-
initiated” and “other-initiated” strategies (Björkman 2014, 127).
to the best of our knowledge, Björkman (2014) is the only researcher that has provided a
communicative strategies framework within an eLf perspective. She produced a taxonomy
of strategies that occurred in eLf interactions in a higher education setting. The present
study follows Björkman’s thought process and uses her framework as a starting point,
adapting it to different settings, i.e., investigating whether these strategies are to be found
in informal conversations between erasmus students at the karl-franzens University of
graz, austria.
apart from kalocsai (2014), who analysed the practices of erasmus exchange students, there
is a general lack of research in communicative strategies in the erasmus community. Most
of the research on communicative strategies pertains to particular strategies analysing them
in greater detail (Cogo 2009; firth 1996; kaur 2011; kirkpatrick 2007; Lichtkoppler 2007;
Mauranen 2006). In contrast, this paper will review the most frequently recurring strategies
in an attempt to build a communicative strategies framework. at this point, it is crucial to
emphasize that it is beyond the scope of this study to analyse all communicative strategies
mentioned and described in the existing body of literature. What follows is thus a brief
explanation of perceived communicative strategies.
as noted by Norrick (1987, 245), “[e]veryday face-to-face conversation thrives, in particular,
on repetition”. however, despite its ubiquity, far too little attention has been paid to repetition
and its functions in conversations, and only a few scholars have tried to bridge this knowledge
gap by portraying its various forms and functions (Bazzanella 1996, 2011; Johnstone 1994;
Norrick 1987; tannen, 1987; 2007).
Paraphrase can be defined as “providing the same content by modifying the previous utterance
or ongoing utterance” (Björkman 2014, 131). It is considered by some linguists (tannen
1987) as an extended repetition. When speaking about paraphrase, we should highlight
that its use to pre-empt problems of understanding in eLf conversations has been already
documented (kaur 2009). What kaur (2009) emphasizes is that a speaker often chooses to
employ paraphrase when the problem is in understanding rather than hearing, which she
connects to the use of repetition.
Self-repair is described as a strategy that is used “when the speaker corrects the pronunciation,
the word selection, or the grammar of what they have just said” (Deterding 2013, 131). The
frequency of this in conversation is reported to be high, since speakers deal with any obstacles
that occur in the interaction as they go along (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). as regards
their function, self-repairs have often been portrayed in the literature as proactive (Mauranen
2006), thus contributing to mutual understanding. In her study, Björkman (2014) included
the type of repair referred to as “word replacement” and analysed their instances. In the
same vein, kaur (2011) identified self-repairs on four different levels, namely phonological,
morphological, lexical and syntactical.
44 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
Comprehension checks have been described in the literature as those strategies that speakers
use – and are therefore self-initiated – in order to verify whether the listener understood the
previously mentioned utterances (Björkman 2014). It is symptomatic that they often occur
in the form of a question or a stressed word. as far as the functions of comprehension checks
are concerned, they are of great importance as they allow the speaker to determine the level of
understanding in communication and spot any possible misunderstandings.
as regards confirmation checks, this strategy is used when the content of the previous
utterance is not precise enough. Speakers usually ask questions (e.g., Do you mean?), or
they use question repeats (i.e., repeating a word/utterance with a rising intonation) with
the purpose of continuing the flow of conversation. research into confirmation checks in
eLf contexts has revealed that they tend to be used proactively in conversations to prevent
misunderstandings (Mauranen 2006; Björkman 2014).
Clarification requests are similar to confirmation checks, in that they are also used when
inquiring about a previously uttered segment of a conversation. Correspondingly, they are
often formed as questions. however, when using clarification requests participants “ask for
explanations or more information on something they have not fully understood” (Björkman
2014, 133).
The final strategy, called by Björkman (2014) “co-creating the message/anticipation”, and
by kirkpatrick (2007) “lexical anticipation”, implies that participants finish each other’s
utterances, but only in those situations where they cannot deliver their message. Through
identifying any potential trouble and enhancing the utterance with the missing elements,
co-creation is established. as a result, an utterance is produced that strengthens mutual
understanding. In the next section, I will introduce my study and take a closer look at its
objectives, research questions, methodology and data.
2 Data and Methodology
The primary aim of this study is to investigate how international students talk to each other
and overcome linguistic and cultural obstacles in eLf contexts. In analysing their speech,
this study sets out to report on communicative strategies that international students – and
specifically erasmus students at the karl-franzens University of graz – employ in order to
prevent and overcome misunderstandings in conversation. to that end, a small-range corpus
which consists of only non-native speakers of english was built with a view to offering new
insights into the communicative effectiveness of eLf use. as has been discussed in major
publications on eLf (e.g., Seidlhofer 2011), native speakers are not excluded from eLf,
and nor are they from the community of erasmus/international students. however, this
study included only non-native speakers of english since it wanted to report on the use
of communicative strategies among speakers whose L1 is not english. Therefore, the focal
point of this study rests on erasmus students’ communication and the suitability of an eLf
framework as the best analytical approach from which insights could be gained.
45SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
This study is led by one principal research question:
rQ1: What are the strategies erasmus students use in order to prevent and overcome
possible misunderstanding?
a further underlying research question in this study is:
rQ2: to what extent do erasmus students use communicative strategies?
This research understands the erasmus community as a “community of practice” (kalocsai
2014) since it comprises a large pool of international students who experience similar
processes, some of these being the adaptation to a new environment, experiencing cultural
shock or using english as the primary language of communication, i.e., a lingua franca. as
a method of inquiry, group interviews were chosen to gain insights into the communicative
strategies employed by eLf speakers due to its advantage of obtaining a comparatively large
amount of qualitative data. During the interviews, which were semi-structured, with all the
questions set in advance, the participants were asked how they felt in the new surroundings
and what things they liked or did not like about graz. The semi-structured approach is
adopted as a balance between structured and unstructured interviews. While on the one
hand structured interviews “follow a pre-prepared, elaborate interview schedule” and often
lead to the lack of spontaneity, unstructured interviews represent the total opposite, allowing
“maximum flexibility to follow the interviewee in unpredictable directions” (Dörnyei 2007,
135). Using the semi-structured type of interview enables not only the possibility to pose
open-ended questions, but also offers the advantage of encouraging participants to explicate
whatever seems relevant to them.
as far as my role of the interviewer is concerned, not only was I able to be an observer, but
also a participant, which helped immensely in reaching valuable conclusions. engaging in
interviews also enabled me to ask about and share the participants’ experiences, albeit to a
limited extent. Moreover, while the interviews were held I took brief notes, which I thought
could be of importance in the data analysis.
The data reported in this study include seventeen group interviews ranging approximately
from 40 to 65 minutes and resulting in 15 hours and 35 minutes of conversational data.
of the 39 participants, 14 were male and 25 female. The group sizes ranged from two to
three speakers, except in one case where there were five speakers. all of the participants
were aged between 20 and 28. as regards the linguacultural context, it includes 18 different
backgrounds: most of the participants spoke romance languages as their L1s (Portuguese,
Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, french, Italian), followed by Slavic (Croatian, Slovenian,
Serbian, Bosnian, Czech, Ukrainian), germanic (Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish), hellenic
(greek) and finno-Ugric languages (finnish, hungarian).
The conversations were transcribed by using the voiceScribe editor and adapted voICe
mark-up and spelling transcription conventions (http://www.univie.ac.at/voice/documents/
voICe_mark-up_conventions_v2-1.pdf). In this study, transcribing interviews itself
represents part of the qualitative data analysis alongside identifying and categorizing
46 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
communicative strategies, which is strengthened by quantification, namely finding out about
their frequencies. furthermore, it is worth mentioning that this study adopts a Conversation
analysis (Ca) framework in its broadest sense to map the usage of interactional strategies
(firth 1996). The discourse was studied by taking into account the turn-taking system so that
the classification of communicative strategies would be easier. given that the participants had
as a goal to reach mutual understanding, the Ca approach was used to identify instances of
misunderstanding and the way the interviewees dealt with it. Moreover, apart from the turn-
taking system, this study includes details on overlaps and pauses when they are of importance.
3 Results
The following is a systematic account of communication strategies that the erasmus
students in this study used in their interactions. overall, this study reveals that the bulk of
communicative strategies belong to the self-initiated category with 562 instances (90%),
whereas other-initiated communicative strategies were found in 65 instances and account for
10% of the total number of instances. What follows is a visual overview of my taxonomy in
figure 1 and a detailed theoretical outline of these strategies illustrated with examples from
the corpus.
taxonom
y in Figure 1 and a detailed theoretical outline of these strategies illustrated w
ith exam
ples from
the
corpus.
F
IG
U
R
E 1. T
axonom
y of com
m
unicative strategies observed in the study.
3.1 Self-Initiated C
om
m
unicative Strategies
According to a definition proposed Björkm
an (2014, 129), self-initiated com
m
unicative strategies “are those
w
here the speaker him
self/herself initiates the use of a C
S for a variety of com
m
unicative purposes.” She
proceeds to say that the reason for doing this could be explained by the speakers’ decision to “enhance the
explicitness of a statem
ent they feel m
ay be potentially risky, to check the com
prehension of an utterance, or to
figure 1. taxonomy of communicative strategies observed in the study.
3.1 Self-Initiated Communicative Strategies
according to a definition proposed Björkman (2014, 129), self-initiated communicative
strategies “are those where the speaker himself/herself initiates the use of a CS for a variety
of communicative purposes.” She proceeds to say that the reason for doing this could be
explained by the speakers’ decision to “enhance the explicitness of a statement they feel may
be potentially risky, to check the comprehension of an utterance, or to replace a word that
may not be transparent to the other speakers” (Björkman 2014, 129). The current study
revealed that four different self-initiated communicative strategies were used among the
erasmus students under investigation. These were repetition, paraphrase, self-repair and
comprehension checks. The frequency of these strategies is illustrated below (figure 2).
This study found 562 tokens of self-initiated communicative strategies in the corpus. from
the data in figure 2, it is apparent that self-initiated repetition is by far the most frequent
self-initiated communicative strategy employed among the erasmus students. Thereafter,
the instances of self-initiated word replacement and self-initiated paraphrase are found to
47SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
be comparatively similar to each other in terms of their occurrence. Moreover, the results
obtained demonstrate that comprehension checks constitute the minority and are the least
frequent self-initiated communicative strategy.
3.1.1 Self-Initiated repetition
Self-initiated repetition entails a speaker reiterating their words. In order to accurately identify
repetition in eLf talk, certain criteria had to be applied in the analysis of the data. firstly,
the original linguistic unit of the repetition needed to be identified in the transcribed text.
Secondly, a methodological decision was made prior to the analysis that neither repetition due
to disfluencies (e.g., I like…I like…I like) nor repetition used for backchannelling purposes
(e.g., yeah yeah) were to be of considerable significance for this study. Thirdly, it is essential to
acknowledge that even though repetitions can be found on several levels, this study has as its
focus only those that occur on a lexical or syntactic level since further elaboration would go
beyond the scope this paper.
as regards the time of occurrence, repetition can be classified into immediate and delayed.
Bearing in mind how previous researchers (Lichtkoppler 2007; tannen 2007) dealt with this
issue, it was decided that immediate self-initiated repetition should be defined as one that
appears immediately after the original utterance or in the same turn (extract 1). on the other
hand, delayed self-initiated repetition was considered as such when there was at least one turn
between the original and repeated element (extract 2). Throughout the paper, the relevant
parts in the extracts are given in bold.
extract 1
1 S3: no i have seen i have seen
2 S1: you have okay (.) what do you think about that
3 S3: it’s it’s strange yeah it’s strange but i like it because i like dogs @@
replace a word that may not be transparent to the other speakers” (Björkman 2014, 129). The current study
revealed that four different self-initiated communicative strategies were used among the Erasmus students under
investigation. These were repetition, paraphrase, self-repair and comprehension checks. The frequency of these
strategies is illustrated below (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2. Number of self-initiated communicative strategies (562/627 instances).
This study found 562 tokens of self-initiated communicative strategies in the corpus. From the data in Figure
2, it is apparent that self-initiated repetition is by far the most frequent self-initiated communicative strategy
employed among the Erasmus students. Thereafter, the instances of self-initiated word replacement and self-
initiated paraphrase are found to be comparatively similar to each other in terms of their occurrence. Moreover,
the results obtained demonstrate that comprehension checks constitute the minority and are the least frequent
self-initiated communicative strategy.
3.1.1 Self-Initiated Repetition
elf-initiated repetition entails a speaker reiterating their words. In order t accurately i entify repetition in
ELF talk, certain criteria had to be applied in the analysis of the data. Firstly, the original linguistic unit of the
repetition needed to be identified in the transcribed text. Secondly, a methodological decision was made prior
to the analysis that neither repetition due to disfluencies (e.g., I like…I like…I like) nor repetition used for
backchannelling purposes (e.g., yeah yeah) were to be of considerable significance for this study. Thirdly, it is
essential to acknowledge that even though repetitions can be found on several levels, this study has as its focus
only those that occur on a lexical or syntactic level since further elaboration would go beyond the scope this
paper.
As regards the time of occurrence, repetition can be classified into immediate and delayed. Bearing in mind
how previous researchers (Lichtkoppler 2007; Tannen 2007) dealt with this issue, it was decided that
immediate self-initiated repetition should be defined as one that appears immediately after the original
utterance or in the same turn (Extract 1). On the other hand, delayed self-initiated repetition was considered as
such when there was at least one turn between the original and repeated element (Extract 2). Throughout the
paper, the relevant parts in the extracts are given in bold.
Extract 1
S3: no i have seen i have seen 1
S1: you have okay (.) what do you think about that 2
S3: it’s it’s strange yeah it’s strange but i like it because i like dogs @@ 3
Extract 2
figure 2. Number of self-initiated ommunicative strategies (562/627 instances).
48 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
extract 2
1 S3: today the woman was very rude at the shop
2 S2: they they (1)
3 S3: she was like a:h
4 S1: that is an interesting thing to talk about
5 S3: she was really rude at the shop
It is apparent from figure 3 below that the majority of self-initiated repetition instances
appeared immediately after the original or in the same turn. In contrast, slightly more than a
quarter of all self-initiated repetitions were classified as delayed. a comparison of the results
indicates the participants’ preference to repeat themselves in the same turn, thus offering an
explanation that they wished to enhance their peers’ understanding.
S3: today the woman was very rude at the shop 1
S2: they they (1) 2
S3: she was like a:h 3
S1: that is an interesting thing to talk about 4
S3: she was really rude at the shop 5
It is apparent from Figure 3 below that the majority of self-initiated repetition instances appeared immediately
after the original or in the same turn. In c ntrast, slightly more than a quarter of all self-initiated repetitions
were classified as delayed. A comparison of the results indicates the participants’ preference to repeat themselves
in the same turn, thus offering an explanation that they wished to enhance their peers’ understanding.
FIGURE 3. Self-initiated repetitions according to time of occurrence.
As far as the scale of fixity is concerned, a few of preconditions needed to be set out so that the obtained results
were reliable. First, exact repetition implied precise wording, whereas repetition with variation included minor
or major changes at the lexico-grammar level. The case when all the elements were changed without altering the
idea constituted a paraphrase which is viewed as a distinct strategy in this study. Furthermore, an important
factor in deciding between exact repetition and repetition with variation was a pause. If participants took a
pause after the repetition of an original phrase or utterance, this would be classified as an exact repetition and
the following elements would not constitute any variation (Extract 3). On the other hand, if the pause was
taken immediately after the original phrase or utterance and the repetition ensued, then that would represent
the example of repetition with variation (Extract 4).
Extract 3
S2: the only the only (.) part where when things are international are these students parties or students 1
happenings or whatever… 2
Extract 4
S2: they all seem yeah i mean but but one was from serbia @@@ i did not know that so yeah but so she was 1
very (.) she was very relaxed and yeah my mentor here is also very friendly 2
It should also be borne in mind that there is a significant difference between exact repetitions and repetitions of
disfluencies. As se n in Extract 3, the speaker does not repeat the seg ents just because he/she is not able to
produce an utterance, but rather for the purposes of emphasis and considerable relevance for the rest of the
conversation.
73%
27%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Immediate self-initated repetition (N=253)
Delayed self-initiated repetition (N=93)
TIME
Percentage of tokens
figure 3. Self-in t ated r titions according to time of o currence.
as far as the scale of fixity is concerned, a few of preconditions needed to be set out so that
the obtained results wer rel able. first, exact epetition im l ed precise w rding, whereas
repetition with variation included minor or major changes at the lexico-grammar level. The
case when all the elem nts were changed without altering the idea con tituted a paraphrase
which is viewed as a distinct strategy in this study. furthermore, an important factor in
deciding between exact r petition and repetition wit variati n was a pause. If participa ts
took a pause after the repetition of an original phrase or utterance, this would be classified as
an exact repetition and the following elements would not constitute any variation (extract 3).
on the other hand, if the pause was taken immediately after the original phrase or utterance
and the repetition ensued, then that would represent the example of repetition with variation
(extract 4).
49SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
extract 3
1 S2: the only the only (.) part where when things are international are these students
2 parties or students happenings or whatever…
extract 4
1 S2: they all seem yeah i mean but but one was from serbia @@@ i did not know that so yeah
2 but so she was very (.) she was very relaxed and yeah my mentor here is also very friendly
It should also be borne in mind that there is a significant difference between exact repetitions
and repetitions of disfluencies. as seen in extract 3, the speaker does not repeat the segments
just because he/she is not able to produce an utterance, but rather for the purposes of emphasis
and considerable relevance for the rest of the conversation.
With respect to the question of the usage of self-initiated repetitions in terms of form, this
study finds that slightly more than half of all the instances are repetitions with variation
(figure 4). taken together, these results provide valuable insights into the use of self-initiated
repetition, therefore suggesting that the participants employ it so as to ensure understanding.
With respect to the question of the usage of self-initiated repetitions in terms of form, this study finds that
slightly more than half of all the instances are repetitions with variation (Figure 4). Taken together, these results
provide valuable insights into the use of self-initiated repetition, therefore suggesting that the participants
employ it so as to ensure understanding.
FIGURE 4. Self-initiated repetition according to form.
3.1.2 Self-Initiated Paraphrase
Self-initiated paraphrase is defined as a strategy employed when a speaker wants to rephrase a previous utterance
without changing the content or idea. The results of this study show that self-initiated paraphrase is found in
100 instances in the corpus. With regard to the time of occurrence, self-initiated paraphrase can be classified
into immediate and delayed. As with repetition, an immediate self-initiated paraphrase was defined as one that
appears immediately after the original utterance or in the same turn (Extract 5). Conversely, delayed self-
initiated paraphrase was considered as when there was at least one turn between the original segment and
paraphrase (Extract 6).
Extract 5
S2: @@@ i spend on food really really and also on travels because i think that’s worthy i i don’t want to care 1
about money right now because i wanna live the erasmus ss experience so i’m going on trips and i’m buying 2
the food that i like 3
Extract 6
S3: probably because I I don’t know why but in the next town they speak different than I do (.) you can 1
basically say by the way a person speaks where they where the person is from 2
S2: mhm 3
S3: just by listening to a person 4
Figure 5 provides a summary of self-initiated paraphrase in the data as far as time of occurrence is concerned.
46%
54%
42% 44% 46% 48% 50% 52% 54% 56%
Exact self-initiated repetition (N=159)
Self-initiated repetition with variation (N=187)
FORM
Percentage of tokens
figure 4. Self-initiated repetition according to form.
3.1.2 Self-Initiated Paraphrase
Self-initiated para ase is defined as a strateg employed when a speaker wants to rephrase
a previous utterance without changing the content or idea. The results of this study show
that self-initiated paraphrase is found in 100 instances in the corpus. With regard to the
time of occurr nc , self-initiated paraphrase can be classified into immediat and d layed.
as with repetition, an immediate self-initiated paraphrase was defined as one that appears
immediately after the original utterance or in the same turn (extract 5). Conversely, delayed
self-initiated paraphrase was considered as when there was at least one turn between the
original segment and paraphrase (extract 6).
50 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
extract 5
1 S2: @@@ i spend on food really really and also on travels because i think that’s worthy i i
2 don’t want to care about money right now because i wanna live the erasmus ss experience so
3 i’m going on trips and i’m buying the food that i like
extract 6
1 S3: probably because I I don’t know why but in the next town they speak different than I do (.)
you can basically say by the way a person speaks where they where the person is from
2 S2: mhm
3 S3: just by listening to a person
figure 5 provides a summary of self-initiated paraphrase in the data as far as time of occurrence
is concerned.
FIGURE 5. Self-initiated paraphrase according to time of occurrence.
As can be seen in Figure 5, the majority of instances of self-initiated paraphrase tend to appear within the same
turn, whereas slightly more than one third are found later in the conversation. Overall, these results show that
self-initiated paraphrase is, in this study, utilized in informal interactions among the Erasmus students as the
second most frequent communicative strategy.
3.1.3 Self-Initiated Word Replacement
Self-initiated word replacement represents a type of self-repair that occurs at the lexical level. The current study
finds that there are 91 instances of self-initiated word replacement in the corpus. As Figure 6 shows, the word
choice category seems to be the most frequent, constituting half of all instances of self-initiated word
replacement. The insertion of a lexical item takes the second place with slightly more than a third of all
instances, whereas pronoun replacement represents the least frequent category of word replacement. Even
though pronoun replacement might be incorporated in the word choice category, this study distinguishes it as a
separate category due to its specific use.
66%
34%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Immediate self-initiated paraphrase (N=66)
Delayed self-initiated paraphrase (N=34)
TIME
Percentage of tokens
figure 5. Self-initiated paraphrase according to time of occurrence.
as can be seen in figure 5, the majority of instances of self-initiated paraphrase tend to
appear within the same turn, whereas slightly more than one third are found later in the
conversation. overall, these results show that self-initiated paraphrase is, in this study,
utilized in informal interactions among the erasmus students as the second most frequent
communicative strategy.
3.1.3 Self-Initiated Word replac ment
Self-initiated word replacement represents a type f self-repair that occurs at the lexical
level. The current tudy finds that there ar 91 inst nces of self-initiated wo d replacement
in the corpus. as figure 6 shows, the word choice category seems to be the most frequent,
constituting half of all instances of self-initiated word replacement. The insertion of a lexical
item takes the second place with slightly more than a third of all instances, whereas pronoun
replacement represents the least frequent category of word replacement. even though pronoun
replacement might be incorporated in the word choice category, this study distinguishes it as
a separate category due to its specific use.
51SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
FIGURE 6. Categories and frequency of self-initiated word replacement.
Word choice represents a category of word replacement where a speaker self-corrects themselves and chooses
another word that best describes the current situation. There are 47 such occurrences in the corpus. What the
examples in this category have in common is the fact that the speakers decided to perform a word replacement
in search of a better word to describe the concept in question. For example, in Extract 7, S2 describes the first
impressions of living in another country and in the second line they replace the word nature with parks, which
shows the intention of this speaker to enhance clarity and avoid any vagueness. Furthermore, this successful
attempt at minimizing ambiguity reveals one more characteristic, namely the speaker’s practice to replace a
general term with a more specific one.
Extract 7
S2: I was actually maybe a little bit depressed at beginning because I thought that that they have no nature (.) 1
no parks cause I am really I am really used to going to the woods every day…2
In addition, the research findings reveal that the insertion of lexical items is found in thirty-four examples in
the corpus. In Extract 8, when referring to bars and cafes, S2 realises that mentioning that it is a thing would
probably not be precise enough for the participants in the conversation, which prompts this speaker to insert
Austrian in order to pre-empt any communication problems.
Extract 8
S2: mhm so maybe bars or cafes is a thing is an austrian thing but not nightlife1
The third category of self-initiated word replacement is pronoun replacement, found in ten instances in the
corpus. What these instances have in common is that speakers could be aware of the fact that the use of
pronouns may lead to ambiguity. Therefore, they opt to pre-empt it by replacing them with their referents. In
Extract 9, S3 immediately realises that the pronoun us may be too ambiguous, which is why it is followed by a
prepositional phrase that makes it more specific what this speaker had in mind.
Extract 9
S3: yes yes for us (.) for students it is not good but if you work here it’s amazing1
In view of what has been discussed with respect to self-initiated word replacement above, it can be summarized
that this strategy aims to minimize and pre-empt any ambiguity in understanding that might occur by either
replacing words or inserting lexical items.
3.1.4 Comprehension Checks
52%
37%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Word choice (N=47)
Insertion of a lexical item (N=34)
Pronoun replacement (N=10)
Self-initiated word replacement
Percentage of tokens
figure 6. Categories and frequency of self-initiated word replacement.
Word choice represents a category of word replacement where a speaker self-corrects
themselves and chooses another word that best describes the current situation. There are
47 such occurrences in the corpus. What the ex mples in this category have in commo
is the fact that the speakers decided to perform a word replacement in search of a better
word to describe the concept in question. for example, in extract 7, S2 describes the first
impressions of living in another country and in the second line they re lace the word
nature with parks, which shows the intention of this speaker to enhance clarity and avoid
any vagueness. furthermore, this successful attempt at minimizing ambiguity reveals one
more characteristic, namely the speaker’s practice to replace a general term with a more
specific one.
extract 7
1 S2: I was actually maybe a little bit depressed at beginning because I thought that that they have
2 no nature (.) no parks cause I am really I am really used to going to the woods every day…
In addition, the research findings reveal that the insertion of lexical items is found in thirty-
four examples in the corpus. In extract 8, when referring to bars and cafes, S2 realises that
mentioning that it is a hing would probably not be precise en gh for the participants in
the conversation, which prompts this speaker to insert austrian in order to pre-empt any
communication problems.
extract 8
1 S2: mhm so maybe bars or cafes is a thing is an austrian thing but not nightlife
The third category of self-initiated word replacement is pronoun replacement, found in ten
instances in the corpus. What these instances have in common is that speakers could be aware
of the fact that the use of pronouns may lead to ambiguity. Therefore, they opt to pre-empt it
by replacing them with their referents. In extract 9, S3 immediately realises that the pronoun
52 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
us may be too ambiguous, which is why it is followed by a prepositional phrase that makes it
more specific what this speaker had in mind.
extract 9
1 S3: yes yes for us (.) for students it is not good but if you work here it’s amazing
In view of what has been discussed with respect to self-initiated word replacement above,
it can be summarized that this strategy aims to minimize and pre-empt any ambiguity in
understanding that might occur by either replacing words or inserting lexical items.
3.1.4 Comprehension Checks
Comprehension checks are a type of self-initiated communicative strategy that serves
the function of checking the listener’s understanding. overall, twenty-five instances of
comprehension checks were observed in the informal erasmus students’ interactions examined
here. as figure 7 shows, the majority of comprehension checks employed were in the form
of a stressed word with rising intonation. The second most frequent kind of comprehension
check is the minimal check with a rising intonation okay, which accounted for 20% of these.
only a fifth of the total number of instances goes to short questions such as you know?, do you
know?, you know what I mean? and another minimal check which is yeah. for the purposes of
this article, only the first two, i.e., the most frequent comprehension checks, will be analysed.
Comprehension checks are a type of self-initiated communicative strategy that serves the function of checking
the listener’s understanding. Overall, twenty-five instances of comprehension checks were observed in the
informal Erasmus students’ interactions examined here. As Figure 7 shows, the majority of comprehension
checks employed were in the form of a stressed word with rising intonation. The second m st frequent kind of
comprehension check is the minimal check with a rising intonation okay, which accounted for 20% of these.
Only a fifth of the total number of instances goes to short questions such as you know?, do you know?, you know
what I mean? and another minimal check which is yeah. For the purposes of this article, only the first two, i.e.,
the most frequent comprehension checks, will be analysed.
FIGURE 7. Forms and frequency of comprehension checks.
Regarding the use of okay, it occurs five times in the corpus in the function of a comprehension check, namely
in a rising intonation pattern. In Extract 10, S3 offers their opinion on the power distance in the relationship
between professors and students at their home university and the University of Graz. The statement about
professors who are seen as gods, seemingly the main message, is further elaborated in line four. Here, it is
emphasized that it is not only the professors themselves who play a crucial role in the outcome of this
relationship but that it also depends on the courses. In order to verify whether participants understood the
intent fully, this speaker utilizes a minimal check at the end of their utterance. It is of significance here that the
speaker waits for confirmation so that they may continue with the original topic.
Extract 10
S3: I like the relationship between the professor (1) and us so er I came from a big university and professors are 1
(2) gods @@@ and (1) you feel alone and very far from professors 2
S1: mhm 3
S3: so I think it’s (.) yeah maybe (4) it depends from the professors but from the course okay? (.) 4
S1: mhm 5
S3: but here we have (.) so I speak I speak for me for mathematician we have erm poqi 6
weniger okay so we have the possibility to speak with professor and ermmm 7
By far the most frequent form of a comprehension check is the use of a stressed word. In a total of fifteen
instances, it occurs with rising intonation with the aim of further checking understanding. The most striking
observation to emerge from these examples is that they tend to occur at the end of an utterance. In Extract 11,
60%
20%
8%
4%
4%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Stressed word (N=15)
Okay (N=5)
Do you know (N=2)
You know (N=1)
You know what I mean (N=1)
Yeah (N=1)
Comprehension checks
Percentage of tokens
figure 7. forms and frequency of comprehension checks.
regarding the use of okay, it occurs five times in the corpus in the function of a comprehension
check, namely in a rising intonation pattern. In extract 10, S3 offers their opinion on the
power distance in the relationship between professors and students at their home university
and the University of graz. The statemen about professors w o are seen as gods, seemingly
the main message, is further elaborated in line four. here, it is emphasized that it is not only
the professors themselves who play a crucial role in the outcome of this relationship but that
it also depends on the courses. In order to verify whether participants understood the intent
53SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
fully, this speaker utilizes a minimal check at the end of their utterance. It is of significance
here that the speaker waits for confirmation so that they may continue with the original topic.
extract 10
1 S3: I like the relationship between the professor (1) and us so er I came from a big university
2 and professors are (2) gods @@@ and (1) you feel alone and very far from professors
3 S1: mhm
4 S3: so I think it’s (.) yeah maybe (4) it depends from the professors but from the course okay?
5 (.)
6 S1: mhm
7 S3: but here we have (.) so I speak I speak for me for mathematician we have erm poqi
8 weniger okay so we have the possibility to speak with professor and
9 ermmm
By far the most frequent form of a comprehension check is the use of a stressed word. In a total of
fifteen instances, it occurs with rising intonation with the aim of further checking understanding.
The most striking observation to emerge from these examples is that they tend to occur at the end
of an utterance. In extract 11, the speaker used tonic stress with rising intonation on the word.
This is done with a view to checking whether the participants in the conversation understood the
message (in this case a word) so that the line of conversation can resume.
extract 11
1 S4: and it was like past six pm and everything was closed and I was completely shocked because
2 in Croatia I could buy cigarettes at one am if I wanted to and here nothing worked and then (.)
3 erm I found like those like machines?
4 S2: yeah
5 S3: mhm
In summary, these results show that erasmus students in this study use comprehension checks
in various forms. Whether they are structured as long or short questions, minimal checks or
stressed words, comprehension checks are employed in order to increase the efficiency of
understanding.
3.2 other-Initiated Communicative Strategies
other-initiated communicative strategies are those that the speaker uses “after another
speaker expresses a communicative need and marks the discourse for this communicative
need, such as asking about part(s) of the preceding utterance” (Björkman 2014, 132). In this
study, repetition and paraphrase also represent part of the scope of communicative strategies
erasmus students use in order to overcome and prevent misunderstanding, alongside
confirmation checks, clarification requests and co-creating the message. figure 8 provides the
breakdown of other-initiated communicative strategies according to their frequency.
54 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
the speaker used tonic stress with rising intonation on the word. This is done with a view to checking whether
the participants in the conversation understood the message (in this case a word) so that the line of conversation
can resume.
Extract 11
S4: and it was like past six pm and everything was closed and I was completely shocked because in Croatia I 1
could buy cigarettes at one am if I wanted to and here nothing worked and then (.) erm I found like those like 2
machines? 3
S2: yeah 4
S3: mhm 5
In summary, these results show that Erasmus students in this study use comprehension checks in various forms.
Whether they are structured as long or short questions, minimal checks or stressed words, comprehension
checks are employed in order to increase the efficiency of understanding.
3.2 Other-Initiated Communicative Strategies
Other-initiated communicative strategies are those that the speaker uses “after another speaker expresses a
communicative need and marks the discourse for this communicative need, such as asking about part(s) of the
preceding utterance” (Björkman 2014, 132). In this study, repetition and paraphrase also represent part of the
scope of communicative strategies Erasmus students use in order to overcome and prevent misunderstanding,
alongside confirmation checks, clarification requests and co-creating the message. Figure 8 provides the
breakdown of other-initiated communicative strategies according to their frequency.
FIGURE 8. Number of other-initiated communicative strategies.
As shown in Figure 8, the data from this study reveal that co-creating the message is the most frequent other-
initiated communicative strategy employed among the Erasmus students. The instances of confirmation checks,
clarification requests and other-initiated repetition are rather similar in terms of their occurrence. Furthermore,
the results demonstrate that Erasmus students utilized other-initiated paraphrase a few times. In the following
section I will provide a detailed description of other-initiated communicative strategies illustrated with the
examples taken from the corpus.
3.2.1 Other-Initiated Repetition
Other-initiated repetition is defined as a repetition by the same speaker that is prompted by another speaker’s
wish to check on comprehension. As such, it should be distinguished from other-repetition, which implies
figure 8. Number of other-initiated communicative strategies.
as shown in figure 8, the data from this study reveal that co-creating the message is the most
frequent other-initiated communicative st tegy employed among the er smus students.
The instances of confirmation checks, clarification requests and other-initiated repetition
are rather similar in terms of their occurrence. furthermore, the results demonstrate that
rasmus students utilized other-initiated paraphrase a few times. In the following section I
will provide a detailed description of other-initiated communicative strategies illustrated with
the examples taken from the corpus.
3.2.1 other-Initiated repetition
other-initiated repetition is defined as a repetition by the same speaker that is prompted
by another speaker’s wish to check on comprehension. as such, it should be distinguished
from other-repetition, which implies repetition by another speaker. In the results there are 12
instances of other-initiated repetition. In connection with its linguistic form, figure 9 shows
that more than half of other-initiated repetition instances belong to the exact repetition rather
than the repetition with variation category. Both types can be observed in the following
extracts.
extract 12 exemplifies exact repetition as employed by the erasmus students. S4’s clarification
request what prompts the choice of opting for exact repetition. a similar thing occurs in
extract 13, where S2 decides to change a couple of words with a view to securing mutual
understanding when prompted by S3 (hm?). as noted above, if there is at least one part of the
repetition that is changed in comparison to the original utterance, which was classified here
as repetition with variation.
extract 12
1 S4: […] german with long words and it’s very sometimes complicated to have a fluid language
2 S2: yeah
55SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
3 S4: so
4 S2: and did you improve your german
5 S4: what?
6 S2: did you improve your german
7 S4: I think I think yeah but
extract 13
1 S2: few dialects from your region
2 S3: hm?
3 S2: so there are several dialects in your region
4 S3: yeah it basically changes every town
5 S2: okay
another important finding is that other-initiated repetition is employed among the erasmus
students due to hearing problems. extract 14 touches upon the topic of english knowledge
among austrians. In line two, S3 expresses their belief that this is not the case with the older
generations, and they do this by repeating it twice. S1 repeats in the next line what they heard
with rising intonation, which initiates S3 to employ exact repetition. By reiterating their
words, S3 focuses on the achievement of shared understanding in the interest of preventing
any communication issues.
extract 14
1 S1: but do you think that they know english au<1> strains
2 S3: <1> old er people don’t older people don’t
3 S1: all all the people?
repetition by another speaker. In the results there are 12 instances of other-initiated repetition. In connection
with its linguistic form, Figure 9 shows that more than half of other-initiated repetition instances belong to the
exact repetition rather than the repetition with variation category. Both types can be observed in the following
extracts.
FIGURE 9. Other-initiated repetition according to form.
Extract 12 exemplifies exact repetition as employed by the Erasmus students. S4’s clarification request what
prompts the choice of opting for exact repetition. A similar thing occurs in Extract 13, where S2 decides to
change a couple of words with a view to securing mutual understanding when prompted by S3 (hm?). As noted
above, if there is at least one part of the repetition that is changed in comparison to the original utterance,
which was classified here as repetition with variation.
Extract 12
S4: […] german with long words and it’s very sometimes complicated to have a fluid language 1
S2: yeah 2
S4: so 3
S2: and did you i prove your german 4
S4: what? 5
S2: did you improve your german 6
S4: I think I think yeah but 7
Extract 13
S2: few dialects from your region 1
S3: hm? 2
S2: so there are several dialects in your region 3
S3: yeah it basically changes every town 4
S2: okay 5
Another important finding is that other-initiated repetition is employed among the Erasmus students due to
hearing problems. Extract 14 touches upon the topic of English knowledge among Austrians. In line two, S3
expresses their belief that this is not the case with the older generations, and they do this by repeating it twice.
S1 repeats in the next line w at they heard with rising intonation, which initiates S3 to mploy exact repetition.
58%
42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Exact repetition (N=7)
Repetition with variation (N=5)
FORM
Percentage of tokens
figure 9. other-initiated repetition according to form.
56 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
4 S3: older people don’t
5 S2: yeah they don’t
3.2.2 other-Initiated Paraphrase
even though there were only two instances of other-initiated paraphrase in the corpus, this
study shows that the participants employ it when they want to reformulate their own previous
utterances after a need for modifying has been expressed. In the conversation below (extract
15), the participants were asked whether they liked people in austria. however, S3 expresses
their opinion by stating that they do not believe in stereotypes. When asked to elaborate on
what they meant, S3 chooses to paraphrase the previously uttered part of a sentence. Despite
the fact that there is a general acknowledgement by S2 in line four and S1 in line seven, S3 opts
to employ paraphrase in the next turn one more time, only in this case self-initiated, so as to
secure understanding and emphasize their message. This example indicates that other-initiated
paraphrase is used to enhance clarity and resolve any potential ambiguity that might occur.
extract 15
1 S3: I don’t think it’s possible to say the austrian people are like that or they aren’t
2 S1: what what do you mean
3 S3: you cannot generalise in that way I think
4 S2: <1> yeah that’s it
5 S1: <1> yeah but
6 S3: <1> global isation and and everyone can choose to own lifestyle and
7 S1: that’s true
8 S3: people are individuals not stereotypes
3.2.3 Confirmation Checks
Confirmation checks are employed to confirm the understanding of previously uttered
statements, remarks, comments or opinions. Since these fall into the category of other-
initiated strategies, what is common is that they too need a trigger word or phrase in order
to be utilized. evidence of this will be illustrated by the extracts that follow in this section.
figure 10 below shows the breakdown of some of the most frequent confirmation checks
found used by the erasmus students.
There were 16 instances of confirmation checks in total in the data. It can be seen from the
figure above that slightly less than two-thirds of the total number of instances are question
repeats, i.e., repetitions of a word with question intonation. They are followed by you mean
and do you mean, at 31% and 6% respectively.
regarding you mean, the corpus shows that it is found five times. In extract 16, the speakers
are comparing transport infrastructure in austria with that in their home countries. S3
seems somewhat confused by the use of the phrase make business, which S2 considers very
important, and they demonstrate this by repeating it twice (line seven). Consequently, in line
57SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
nine S3 paraphrases and uses a confirmation check in order to reinforce and contribute to
mutual understanding, which is further enhanced by S2’s confirmation in line ten.
extract 16
1 S3: and trains here are much better than than in the balkans <3> in croatia especially
2 S1: <3> that’s true
3 S3: because the buses and the trains there are (.) slow and also not very modern and not very
4 <4> neat inside
5 S2: <4> yeah but you need you need <5> to think also
6 S3: <5> stuff like that
7 S2: about making business with the train I mean nowadays nowadays to make business between
8 barcelona madrid the two big cities the trains are always full (.) and that is because
9 S3: if you go to work you mean?
10 S2: exactly they go they run every half an hour there is a train to madrid and in two hours and
11 twenty minutes you are from city to city and there are six hundred and fifty km
This research has shown that in their conversations the erasmus students, as far as confirmation
checks are concerned, tend to use question repeats as a way to confirm whether previous parts
have been correctly understood. In extract 17, S5 wants to point out the price of a kebab by
repeating it twice in one turn. When S3 decides to use a confirmation check in the next turn
in order to validate the previously uttered phrase, S5 repeats the number again and confirms
the essential information. What is interesting in this example is that this participant repeats
the information in a rising intonation. What follows in the next turn is the confirmation of
the essential information in the form of repetition.
figure 10. forms and frequency of confirmation checks.
58 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
extract 17
1 S5: like we bought a kebab and it was
2 S2: xxx
3 S5: what was it se seven euros per each seven
4 S3: seven?
5 S5: seven
6 S2: then you did the bad deal come on
overall, the results in this section indicate that the speakers used various forms of confirmation
checks in order to confirm understanding and negotiate meaning.
3.2.4 Clarification requests
another other-initiated communicative strategy noted among the erasmus students is
clarification request. In this study, clarification requests are defined as strategies speakers
utilize in order to request clarifications that may solve a comprehension problem. figure 11
represents the relative frequency of all the forms of clarification requests found in interactions
in the data.
In total, there are 13 instances of clarification requests. as can be seen from figure 11, the
short question what accounts for nearly half of the instances, whereas question repeats make
up only half of that number. More extended questions such as what do you mean, and what
does it mean, comprise less than a fifth of the whole chart, while the least frequent clarification
requests are did you say and yeah at 8% each.
overall, clarification requests directly address potential comprehension problems by
introducing questions. In extract 18, the participants are talking about differences in
educational systems. S2 mentions (line one) that universities in their country make use of
S5: like we bought a kebab and it was 1
S2: xxx 2
S5: what was it se seven euros per each seven 3
S3: seven?4
S5: seven 5
S2: then you did the bad d al come on 6
Overall, the results in this section indicate that the speakers used various forms of confirmation checks in order
to confirm understanding and negotiate meaning.
3.2.4 Clarification requests
Another other-initiated communicative strategy noted among the Erasmus students is clarification request. In
this study, clarification requests are defined as strategies speakers utilize in order to request clarifications that
may solve a comprehension problem. Figure 11 represents the relative frequency of all the forms of clarification
requests found in interactions in the data.
FIGURE 11. Forms and frequency of clarification requests.
In total, there are 13 instances of clarification requests. As can be seen from Figure 11, the short question what
accounts for nearly half of the instances, whereas question repeats make up only half of that number. More
extended questions such as what do you mean, and what does it mean, comprise less than a fifth of the whole
chart, while the least frequent clarification requests are did you say and yeah at 8% each.
Overall, clarification requests directly address potential comprehension problems by introducing questions. In
Extract 18, the participants are talking about differences in educational systems. S2 mentions (line one) that
universities in their country make use of continuous evaluation. However, S3 still finds this puzzling and needs
the meaning of the term “continuous evaluation” to be refined, which is why they ask the question what do you
mean (line nine). What makes this example interesting is that the participant provides a synonym, i.e.,
assessment, alongside their interpretation. This direct clarification request leads to a full explanation of what S2
had in mind. As a result, shared understanding is accomplished, which can be seen by the use of a minimal
response in line fourteen.
Extract 18
S2: it’s a continuous evaluation so basically if you fail you need to restart the course 1
S3: that depends <2> on xxx that’s that’s 2
46%
23%
15%
8%
8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
What (N=6)
Question repeat (N=3)
What do(es) you(it) mean (N=2)
Did you say (N=1)
Yeah (N=1)
Clarification requests
Percentage of tokens
figure 11. forms and frequency larification requests.
59SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
continuous evaluation. however, S3 still finds this puzzling and needs the meaning of the
term “continuous evaluation” to be refined, which is why they ask the question what do
you mean (line nine). What makes this example interesting is that the participant provides
a synonym, i.e., assessment, alongside their interpretation. This direct clarification request
leads to a full explanation of what S2 had in mind. as a result, shared understanding is
accomplished, which can be seen by the use of a minimal response in line fourteen.
extract 18
1 S2: it’s a continuous evaluation so basically if you fail you need to restart the course
2 S3: that depends <2> on xxx that’s that’s
3 S1: <2> but how many times can you try
4 S2: four
5 S1: four
6 S3:<3> that’s in
7 S1: <3> oh we can try six times
8 S2: really
9 S3: we can try three times in croatia but what do you mean by continuous assessment like <4>
10 finishing
11 S1: <4> yes
12 S3: a course without a <5> without the final exam
13 S2: <5> it means that the final the final exam it’s only forty percent of the grade
14 S3: yeah <6> it’s the same for us in croatia
a similar use is noticed in extract 19, where erasmus students used what, and a question
repeat in order to clarify and request more information. In this example, the participants
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of larger and smaller cities as far as studying is
concerned. S5 makes inquiries into this, but the very formulation of the question prompts
S3 to use a clarification request (line eight). This example is also interesting because in the
next turn another speaker uses a question repeat in order to request more information. In
line ten, we can see that S5 corrects themselves and provides further clarification through an
exemplification. at this point, it should be mentioned that the reason both S2 and S3 initially
use a clarification request could be due to poor hearing, or S5’s rapid speaking.
extract 19
1 S5: but do you like more the touristic people or international environment of the international
2 students city
3 S3: <1> well
4 S2: <1> what was the first thing
5 S3: yeah
60 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
6 S5: @@@ I don’t know anymore @@@ do you like more like international environment with
7 students or whether touristic environment with
8 S3: what
9 S2: artistic environment
10 S5: touristic like vienna for example
11 S3: aaaaa noo xxx the first one xxx
12 S2: yeah
13 S3: I would not like tourists <2> xxx
14 S2: <2> today there were a lot of tourists only croatians (.) entire schlossberg was full of it
together the results provide insights into the function of clarification requests and suggest
that the erasmus students make use of them to elicit the information necessary for successful
communication.
3.2.5 Co-Creating the Message
Co-creating the message seems to be one of the strategies that the erasmus students tend to use
in their interactions in order to avoid communication problems. The principle of this strategy
is that participants jointly produce an utterance in a communication event. This reveals the
collaborative nature and cooperation through which shared understanding is maintained.
The reason why this strategy is perceived more as a collaboration than interruption is that the
participants are involved in the turn-construction process. They use the information that was
mentioned before and try to guess what the previous speaker meant.
In this study, co-creating the message occurs in 22 instances. It seems that a pattern typically
occurs when a participant pauses at the end of their turn, which seems to have the function
of a request for help. This can be seen in the following example.
extract 20
1 S4: I don’t think so it was properly about habits but I have observed that austrian has a strange
2 reason of life during week they wake up very (.)
3 S2: early yeah
4 S4: early and fi and and open and and close their business very soon in the night <1> for
5 example at when you are
6 S2: <1> yeah the secondary school
7 S4: when it is a six or seven <2> most of the business are closed
8 S3: <2> yeah xxx
In extract 20, the speakers talk about the habits of austrians they have observed. S4 wishes
to draw attention to the fact that austrians get up earlier in the morning than other people.
however, what we can notice is the brief pause (up to a half of a second in line two), after
which S2 provides a lexical suggestion based on the previously mentioned information
61SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
(line three). In the next turn, S4 accepts this suggestion by repeating it and continues the
conversation.
regarding the type of phrase that is employed, there are 14 examples that use a lexical
suggestion in the corpus as opposed to eight instances that use longer phrases. The previously
discussed extract 20 shows how other participants may contribute to the conversation by
providing a word. figure 12 below presents the forms of co-creating the message and their
relative frequency.
S4: I don’t think so it was properly about habits but I have observed that Austrian has a strange reason of life 1
during week they wake up very (.) 2
S2: early yeah 3
S4: early and fi and and open and and close their business very soon in the night <1> for example at when you 4
are 5
S2: <1> yeah the secondary school 6
S4: when it is a six or seven <2> most of the business are closed 7
S3: <2> yeah xxx 8
In Extract 20, the speakers talk about the habits of Austrians they have observed. S4 wishes to draw atte tio to
the fact that Austrians get up earlier in the morning than other people. However, what we can notice is the
brief pause (up to a half of a second in line two), after which S2 provides a lexical suggestion based on the
previously mentioned information (line three). In the next turn, S4 accepts this suggestion by repeating it and
continues the conversation.
Regarding the type of phrase that is employed, there are 14 examples that use a lexical suggestion in the corpus
as opposed to eight instances that use longer phrases. The previously discussed Extract 20 shows how other
participants may contribute to the conversation by providing a word. Figure 12 below presents the forms of co-
creating the message and their relative frequency.
FIGURE 12. Forms and frequency of co-creating the message.
As can be seen in Figure 12, the use of a lexical suggestion makes up approximately two-thirds of the total
number of instances, whereas the remainder goes to longer phrases. The following extract exemplifies longer
phrases.
Extract 21
S2: mmm I cannot say because I mean the problem I see here is that you need sometimes to find out or figure 1
out yourself what’s a what hooo <1> hooo 2
S3: <1> what works better for you 3
S2: what works better for yo for you I mean maybe the uni the interface between international students and the 4
and the (.) university err is not is not that fluent and 5
S3: mhm 6
64%
36%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Lexical suggestions (N=14)
Longer phrases (N=8)
Co-creating the message
Percentage of tokens
figure 12. forms and frequency of co-creating the message.
as can be seen in figure 12, the use of a lexical suggestion makes up approximately two-thirds
of the t tal number of instances, whereas the remainder goes t longer phrases. The following
extract exemplifies longer phrases.
extract 21
1 S2: mmm I cannot say because I mean the problem I see here is that you need sometimes to
2 find out or figur out you self wh t’s a what hooo <1> hooo
3 S3: <1> what works better for you
4 S2: what works better for yo for you I mean maybe the uni the interface between international
5 students and the and the (.) university err is not is not that fluent and
6 S3: mhm
In extract 21, the speakers talk about the differences in their educational systems, particularly
what they think about the practice of their host university in allowing students to choose
classes as opposed to having a fixed curriculum. S2’s argument is that students have to decide
on their own what seems to be best for them. however, S2 appears to struggle to finish
the utterance, which prompts S3 (line three) to provide a suggestion that helps to establish
understanding and carry on the conversation. The proof that the completion is successful is
the repetition by S2 in the next line.
62 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
The results in this section indicate that erasmus students use the strategy of co-creating the
message with the aim of preventing and also alleviating problems in communication. It is
interesting to note that by completing each other’s utterances the interactants enrich the
communication process and contribute to enhancing mutual understanding.
4 Discussion
as regards rQ1, this study has revealed that erasmus students take advantage of communicative
strategies in order to achieve understanding. four self-initiated communicative strategies were
found in informal discourse – self-initiated repetition, paraphrase, word replacement and
comprehension checks. as far as other-initiated communicative strategies are concerned, this
study shows cases of other-initiated repetition, paraphrase, confirmation checks, clarification
requests and co-creating the message.
With respect to the question of frequency, this study found 562 instances (90%) of self-
initiated communicative strategies in the corpus. a possible explanation for the significantly
larger number in comparison to other-initiated communicative strategies may be the speakers’
attempt to be more explicit or pre-empt problems either by repeating, rephrasing, repairing
themselves, or checking comprehension.
as far as self-initiated repetition is concerned, the findings in this study reveal that the erasmus
students prefer to employ it in the same turn (immediate self-initiated repetition) for the
purposes of emphasis and considerable relevance for the rest of the conversation. The results
concerning the form of repetition show that repetition with variation and exact repetition
are similar in terms of frequency. regarding the functions of repetition, the present findings
accord with Björkman’s (2014) account of self-initiated repetition used as an explicitness
strategy to strengthen understanding of a key piece of information.
as regards paraphrase, the current study finds that the participants often employ it, and
preferably in the same turn rather than a few turns after. furthermore, the use of paraphrase
as a means to obtain clarity and prevent communication problems is found at both lexical
and sentence levels, which is in line with research carried out by kaur (2009).
It has been demonstrated that self-initiated word replacement has an important role in
reducing the risk of ambiguity. Three categories spring from the analysis showing how they
contribute to successful communication: word choice, the insertion of a lexical item, and
pronoun replacement.
regarding comprehension checks, it is observed that the erasmus students use them to
confirm understanding. Comprehension checks are performed through the use of long or short
questions (you know what I mean?, do you know?, you know?), minimal checks (okay?, yeah? ) or
stressed words. The literature also enumerates examples with Are you with me?, Do you follow/
understand?, Do you know what I am saying?, and many others (Jamshidnejad 2011; vettorel
2019). however, this study did not find any instances of the abovementioned questions.
In comparison to self-initiated communicative strategies, other-initiated communicative
strategies are not as prominent, appearing in only 65 instances (10%) in informal spoken
interactions among the erasmus students.
63SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
regarding the other-initiated repetition, the participants in this study prefer exact repetition
to repetition with variation, which could be explained by the need to put an emphasis on
the most critical parts of an utterance. Consequently, it is noteworthy that they may use it in
situations where overlapping or hearing problems occur.
In relation to other-initiated paraphrase, it should be mentioned that it is the least frequent
strategy in the corpus. Nevertheless, a few of instances that were observed suggest that the
erasmus students employ it to promote understanding. This strategy has been explored to a
limited extent in the eLf field, with one such effort being made by Björkman (2014), who
illustrates how other-initiated paraphrased segments lead to the promotion of understanding.
In the same vein, Putry, Munir and Purwati (2019) reveal that other-initiated paraphrasing is
not as frequent as other strategies.
Upon examining confirmation checks, this study reveals that they are to be found in various
forms, among which question repeats are the most common. other forms include you mean
and do you mean. Moreover, the data indicate that the speakers make use of confirmation
checks in their interactions so as to mitigate possible vagueness and secure understanding.
as regards clarification requests, what becomes evident from the instances in this study is that
after their use, successful communication tends to be ensured. This inquiry has shown that
they are found in a variety of forms such as the short question what, question repeats, what
do/es you/it mean, did you say and yeah. further research on clarification requests lists other
expressions/phrases such as What do they mean, I didn’t catch that, I’m not with you, Could you
explain (Jamshidnejad 2011; vettorel 2019).
In Björkman’s (2014) study, clarification requests are reported to be the most frequent,
accounting for almost a third of the other-initiated communicative strategies, and this is
in agreement with Putry, Munir and Purwati’s (2019) findings which show that asking for
an explanation is often employed. In terms of frequency, the findings of this study do not
support the previously mentioned research. however, it is important to remember that the
differences in the frequency of communicative strategies that are observed could be attributed
to different settings (academic vs. informal), which might yield different results.
finally, co-creating the message is the most frequent other-initiated strategy found among
the erasmus students in this study, demonstrating that they jointly tried to enhance mutual
understanding. The study reveals that the participants also preferred to provide a lexical
suggestion rather than employ longer phrases. It is difficult to explain this choice, but it
might be related to the fact that the speakers did not want to interrupt the other speaker
with a long stretch of speech. on the subject of co-creating the message, other studies point
out the collaborative nature between participants that leads to sentence completion and
the achievement of a communicative goal (Cogo and Dewey 2012; Deterding 2013; kaur
2011; kirkpatrick 2010). The findings of the current study seem to be consistent with other
research as far as the functions of co-creating the message are concerned. however, in terms
of frequency, a contradictory result can be seen in Björkman’s (2014) study, which reports
only a few instances. The possible interpretation could be that Björkman’s participants were
involved in close-ended tasks requiring a final product, e.g., the solution of a problem or a
report in an academic setting.
64 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
5 Conclusion
This paper set out to conduct research into the communicative strategies involved in erasmus
students’ spoken and informal interactions. The main goal was to provide a taxonomy of
strategies in an environment where english is used as a lingua franca, such as among erasmus
students. What needs to be pointed out is that the results may not apply to other contexts.
Therefore, when comparing findings, the exact context of this study (the most important one
being the nature of informal and casual conversation) need to be taken into account.
furthermore, this study can be distinguished from others since it shines a light on
conversations among erasmus students, as there is a paucity of research as far as eLf within
this community is concerned. Therefore, it could be said that the findings from this project
contribute to the existing knowledge of spoken eLf interactions. further research might
investigate different communicative settings alongside the usage of other strategies attested
in the literature.
References
Bazzanella, Carla. 1996. Repetition in Dialogue. tübingen: Niemeyer.
—. 2011. “redundancy, repetition, and Intensity in Discourse.” Language Sciences 33 (2): 243–54.
https://doi .org/10.1016/j.langsci.2010.10.002.
Bialystok, ellen. 1990. Communication Strategies: A Psychological Analysis of Second-Language Use. oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Björkman, Beyza. 2014. “an analysis of Polyadic english as a Lingua franca (eLf) Speech: a
Communicative Strategies framework.” Journal of Pragmatics
66: 122–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.001.
Cogo, alessia. 2009. “accommodating Difference in eLf Conversations: a Study of Pragmatic Strategies.”
In English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, edited by anna Mauranen, and elina ranta, 254–
73. Newcastle upon tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Cogo, alessia, and Martin Dewey. 2012. Analysing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-Driven
Investigation. London: Continuum.
Cook, vivian. 1993. Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan.
Deterding, David. 2013. Misunderstandings in English as a Lingua Franca: An Analysis of ELF Interactions in
South-East Asia, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de gruyter.
Dörnyei, Zoltán. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed
Methodologies. oxford: oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Zoltán, and Mary Lee Scott. 1997. “Communication Strategies in a Second Language:
Definitions and taxonomies.” Language Learning 47 (1): 173–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-
8333.51997005.
faerch, Claus, and gabrielle kasper, eds. 1983. Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. New york:
Longman.
firth, alan. 1996. “The Discursive accomplishment of Normality: on ‘Lingua franca’ english and
Conversation analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics 26 (2): 237–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-
2166(96)00014-8.
Jamshidnejad, alireza. 2011. “functional approach to Communication Strategies: an analysis of
Language Learners’ Performance in Interactional Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (15): 3757–69.
https://doi.org /10.1016/j.pragma.2011.09.017.
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. oxford: oxford University
Press.
65SPeCIaL ISSUe artICLeS
Johnstone, Barbara. 1994. “repetition in Discourse: a Dialogue.” In Repetition in Discourse:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives, vol. 1, edited by Barbara Johnstone, 1–22. Norwood, NJ: ablex.
Jokić, Nikola. 2017. “Metadiscourse in eLf Spoken Discourse of erasmus Students in austria.” AAA:
Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 42 (2): 211–23.
kalocsai, karolina. 2014. Communities of Practice and English as a Lingua Franca: A Study of Erasmus
Students in a Central-European Context. Berlin: De gruyter Mouton.
kasper, gabriele, and eric kellerman, eds. 1997. Communication Strategies: Psycholinguistic and
Sociolinguistic Perspectives. oxon: routledge.
kaur, Jagdish. 2009. “Pre-empting Problems of Understanding in english as a Lingua franca.” In English as
a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings, edited by anna Mauranen, and elina ranta, 107–23.
Newcastle upon tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
—. 2011. “raising explicitness through Self-repair in english as a Lingua franca.” Journal of Pragmatics
43 (11): 2704–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.012.
kellerman, eric, ton ammerlaan, Theo Bongaerts, and Nanda Poulisse. 1990. “System and hierarchy in
L2 Compensatory Strategies.” In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, edited
by robin Scarcella, elaine andersen, and Stephen krashen, 163–78. New york: Newbury house.
kirkpatrick, andy. 2007. “The Communicative Strategies of aSeaN Speakers of english as a Lingua
franca.” In English in Southeast Asia: Varieties, Literacies and Literatures, edited by David Prescott,
118–37. Newcastle upon tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
—. 2010. “researching english as a Lingua franca in asia: The asian Corpus of english (aCe)
Project.” Asian Englishes 13 (1): 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2010.10801269.
Lichtkoppler, Julia. 2007. “‘Male. Male.’ – ‘Male?’ – ‘The Sex Is Male.’ – The role of repetition in english
as a Lingua franca Conversations.” Vienna English Working Papers 16 (1): 39–65.
Mauranen, anna. 2006. “Signaling and Preventing Misunderstanding in english as Lingua franca
Communication.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 177: 123–50. https://
doi.org/10.1515 /IJSL.2006.008.
Mauranen, anna, and elina ranta. 2009. English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and Findings. Newcastle upon
tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
Norrick, Neal r. 1987. “functions of repetition in Conversation.” Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the
Study of Discourse 7 (3): 245–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1987.7.3.245.
Poulisse, Nanda. 1987. “Problems and Solutions in the Classification of Compensatory Strategies.” Second
Language Research 3 (2): 141–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765838700300204.
Putry, Denanda Pratiwi, ahmad Munir, and oikurema Purwati. 2019. “other-Initiated Self-repairs in
Student-Student Interaction: The frequency of occurrence and Mechanism.” JEELS (Journal of
English Education and Linguistics Studies) 6 (1): 91–110. https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v6i1.1087.
Schegloff, emanuel a., gail Jefferson, and harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the
organization of repair in Conversation.” Language 53 (2): 361–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/413107.
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. oxford: oxford University Press.
Selinker, Larry. 1972. “Interlanguage.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10
(1–4): 209–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209.
tannen, Deborah. 1987. “repetition in Conversation: toward a Poetics of talk.” Language 63 (3): 574–
605. https://doi.org/10.2307/415006.
—. 2007. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
tarone, elaine. 1977. “Conscious Communication Strategies in Interlanguage: a Progress report.” In On
TESOL ’77, edited by Douglas h. Brown, Carlos a. yorio, and ruth C. Crymes, 194–203.
Washington: teSoL.
váradi, tamás. 1980. “Strategies of target Language Learner Communication: Message-adjustment.”
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 18: 59–71. https://
doi.org/10.1515/iral .1980.18.1-4.59.
vettorel, Paola. 2019. “BeLf Communication Strategies and eLt Business Materials.” Iperstoria 13: 72–
84. https://doi.org/10.13136/2281-4582/2019.i13.552.
66 Nikola Jokić Is It All Greek to You? An Analysis of Communication Strategies among Erasmus Students
voICe Project. 2007. “Mark-up Conventions.” VOICE Transcription Conventions [2.1]. https://voice.acdh
.oeaw.ac.at/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/voICe-mark-up-conventions.pdf. accessed January 28,
2023.