Results on use of LLS showed that Japanese NNS were, contrary to expectations, able to report extensively that they use LLS actively to plan, monitor, evaluate, and solve problems in their conversations. Negative statistical correlations were found between LLS use and oral proficiency as measured by an oral proficiency rating and by a native speaker evaluation, that is, NNS used some LLS less frequently as they progressed in their ability to speak English. However, other LLS were identified as being used by learners more as they developed their proficiency. A distinction made between Reported LLS and Observed LLS was useful in interpreting the results of the study and in measuring the value of the introspective research method.

Perhaps the most interesting finding was that the subjects did not fit into the stereotype of Japanese learning and communication styles: they were active learners with the ability to use alternative means of expressing their message and were willing to reveal their personal attitudes and emotions.
 
 

Previous research has shown that Japanese students who go to the US to work or study generally feel they have inadequate training in conversational English (Hartung 1983, Robbins 1991). Teachers of English in Japan also find that conversational exchanges appearing in Japanese English textbooks often have no sociolinguistic validity (Okushi 1990), and pragmatic competence is seldom addressed in English classes (Takahashi & Beebe 1987). To make matters worse, important aspects of pragmatics, such as politeness, are totally ignored in the textbooks used for English in Japan (LoCastro 1994). Instead, so-called 'conversation' classes focus on pronunciation, listening accuracy, and memorization of stock phrases. Besides acquiring the simple ability to decode and encode oral language, the Japanese student must have a better understanding of the pragmatics of the English-speaking environment. Since so many problems arise from the mismatch that occurs between Japanese and American styles of discourse, an improved awareness of these linguistic styles could help to promote international understanding (Kitao 1989). In order to become the international citizens their country needs, Japanese students have to find ways of improving their communication skills in English. This study did not address the issues of conversational style or politeness, rather it focused on one crucial aspect of pragmatic competence, the management of initial conversations.

The set of research questions that directed this study grew out of my experiences as a teacher in Japan and as a graduate student in the U.S. As a teacher, I was frustrated with the difficulty of teaching students who feared face-to-face contact with a native speaker of English, and became aware of the need for strategies that would help Japanese students to overcome their hesitancy. As a graduate student, I was fascinated with the research on language learning strategies because of the promise it held for better coordinating the roles of the language learner and the language teacher. I was also intrigued by the field of pragmatics and the window it provided into the social nature of language. Knowing that I would return to Japan to teach when finished with graduate study, I realized I could combine these elements of frustration and fascination into work that might benefit the average learner of English in Japan. I had worked with high school students while I was in Japan previously, but felt that study of college students might provide more information on learners who had some opportunity to engage in face-to-face interaction in English, and who had more time to concentrate on studying spoken English than did high school students (who needed to concentrate on taking college entrance exams). Therefore, the following research questions were posed:

1. What learning strategies do Japanese college students most commonly use at two separate points in the development of their ability to carry out interpersonal oral communication?
2. What differences does discourse analysis reveal between the pragmatic abilities of individual Japanese college students to build interpersonal relationships through initial conversations in English?
3. What patterns of learning strategies use correlate with pragmatic competence as revealed by discourse analysis, native speaker evaluation, oral proficiency rating, and/or self-evaluation?

The highest-frequency Cognitive LLS was Substitution by Paraphrasing, which was used at least once by all but one NNS. Substitution is a simple but effective strategy for the times when one forgets or does not know the exact word for a concept. Frequent use of this strategy is a sign that the learner has the means to overcome the frustration of not knowing the precise word. It also shows that the speaker places a higher value on continuing the conversation than on being precise. This may seem to be an obvious desire, but again, it is not safe to assume that such willingness to abandon precision is typical of Japanese students. Japanese often seem to value being correct more than being able to continue the interaction by using an imperfect structure. Frequent comments about grammatical correctness made in the NNS' verbal reports reveal their preoccupation with form. NNS 9 (quoted above and in Appendix C) reported in the second round that she had come to focus more on the message because of her experience with her American conversation partner. NNS 1 demonstrated the use of Substitution in describing the air of Bangkok:

 NNS 1-2 said in a conversation:

Uh-huh, so. There was great, but Bangkok, it was big city (gestures with hands moving outwards) like Osaka or Tokyo I felt (breathes in sharply) uh, the dust, air dust (gestures with hands) A researcher asked in a follow-up interview: Kore wa ima nani o yuoo to omotta no? What did you want to say here?

 NNS 1-2: Ano, koogai de kuuki ga osen sareteru tte iitakattan desu kedo, pollution deshitaka ne, tte yuu tango ga dete konakute, tonikaku kuuki ga yogoreteru tte koto ga iitaku te "air dust" toka itte . . . I wanted to say the air was polluted, but I didn't think of the word "pollution," so I just wanted to say the air was dirty, so I said "air dust."

Linguistic Inferencing, which was the second most frequently reported Cognitive LLS, is evidence of the active nature of the learners' comprehension of English; when faced with uncertainty they used whatever portion of an utterance they could grasp to build towards meaning. Inferencing is the brain's alchemy: the speaker's meaning is reconstructed from a mere fragment of the original message. A learner must take the risk that her inference might be mistaken, but the frequency of Inferencing suggests that for many learners the benefit must outweigh the risk. This strategy, like Substitution, has the potential for reducing learners' feelings of inadequacy because it allows them to fill in the gaps' of their comprehension. Yet, one subject who was aware of using this strategy evaluated it negatively:

 NNS 5-2: Boku no warui kuse kamoshirenai n desu kedo, nanka . . . eega toka mite temo nanka ichibu dake kikitoretarisuru tango aru ja naidesu ka I think it's my bad habit, well, for example when I watch a movie, I can catch some part of the sentence, and I answer based only on that part I understand . . ."Poon" tte shitteru kotoba o I just catch some words I know.