ARYANI MEISA (0813042020) SLA TASK

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA)
NEGOTIATION OF MEANING





Aryani Meisa
0813042020


















ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
ART AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
THE FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND PEDAGOGY
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
2011


PREFACE
This paper is constructed to fulfill a requirement of Second Language Acquisition subject. It contained an analyses of some talks which then, is directed to an exploration toward the negotiation of meaning occurred in the language used in the talks.

There are three talks to be analyzed, with two persons taking role as the addresser and the addressee respectively. Each of the talk has about three minute’s duration. All of them use the same language that is Javanese. The first is a male-to-female talk. Meanwhile the second is a male-to-male talk. And the last is a female-to-female talk.

Due to lack of experience and knowledge possessed by the writer, it is obvious that this analysis is still far from perfection. Thus, the writer is pleased looking for any suggestion and criticism from the readers.


THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
As advocated by Wagner (1996), the interest in the study of interactions within the last two decades is partly due to consideration of the role of communication for second/foreign language acquisition. The communication itself undoubtedly involves at least, if not one, two subjects, taking roles as the addresser and the addressee respectively. Each of them are trying to settle their knowledge and understanding of what is being talked.

However, in the process, there frequently occurs a misunderstanding or even non understanding by one of the speaker of his interlocutor’s utterances. Here, the function of negotiation of meaning plays its role in assisting an achievement of mutual understanding between the speakers.

Regarding the thoughtful view above, there subsequently emerges a reasonable question: “What is meant by negotiation of meaning?” Responding to this, there has been an attempt defining that negotiation of meaning is a series of exchanges conducted by addressors and addressees to help themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutors. In this case, when native speakers (Ns) and non native speakers (NNs) are involved in an interaction, both interactants work together to solve any potential misunderstanding or non understanding that occurs, by checking each others’ comprehension, requesting clarification and confirmation and by repairing and adjusting speech (Pica, 1988).

There have been many proposals of negotiation of meaning advocated by experts. Yet, this analysis tries to depart from a definition suggested by Pica et al (1989). They defined that negotiation of meaning basically consists of four interrelated moves. They are trigger, signal, response and follow-up moves.

The first to go, trigger, is viewed as any utterances followed by the addressee’s signal of total/partial lack of understanding. Then, signal is that of total or partial lack of understanding. There are some types of signal:
(1) explicit statement or request for clarification,
(2) request for confirmation through repetition on the addresser,
(3) request for confirmation through modification of the addresser, and
(4) request for confirmation through completion or elaboration of the addresser.

The next is response, consisting of:
(1) switch to a new topic,
(2) suppliance of information relevant to the topic, but not directly responsive to addressee signal,
(3) repetition of the addressee’s modification of trigger,
(4) self modification of trigger,
(5) repetition of the addresser’s trigger,
(6) confirmation or acknowledgement of signal only, and
(7) indication of difficulty or inability to respond.


The last is follow-up moves that consist of:
(1) comprehension signal, and
(2) continuation move.

All of the analysis below will much rely on the concept above
A. Input and Output
There are two important differences between comprehensible input and comprehended input. First, the former implies the speaker, rather than the hearer, controls the comprehensibility. With comprehended input, the focus is on the hearer (the learner) and the extent to which he or she understands. In Krashen’s sense of the word taken from Yufrizal (2007), comprehension is treated as a dichotomous variable; something is either understood or it is not. He was apparently using the most common meaning of the word, whereas in this sense we refer to comprehension as a continuum probabilities ranging from semantics to detailed structure analysis.

B. Intake
Yufrizal (2007; 76) states that intake is the process of assimilating linguistic material; it refers to the mental activity that mediates input and grammar. Gass (1998) refers to intake as selective processing. Intake is not merely s subset of input. It is the intake component that psycholinguistic processing takes place. That is, it is where information is matched against prior knowledge and where, in general, processing takes place against the backdrop of the existing internalized grammatical rules.

C. Integration
Gass and Slinker (1994) outlined four possibilities for the outcome of input. The first two take place in the intake component and result in integration, the third takes place in the integration component, and the fourth represents input that exist the system early in the process.

D. Negotiation of Meaning in Interaction
Yufrizal (2007; p.80) states Negotiation of meaning is defined as a series of exchange conducted by addressors and addressees to help themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutors. In this case, when native speakers (NSs) and non native speakers (NNSs) are involved in an interaction, both interactants work together to solve any potential misunderstanding or non understanding that occurs, by checking each others’ comprehension, requesting clarification and confirmation and by repairing and adjusting speech (Pica, 1988).

Varonis and Gass (1985) proposed a simpler model for the exchanges that create negotiation of meaning. The model consists of four primes called:
a. Trigger (T) Which invokes or stimulates incomplete understanding on the part of the hearer.
b. Indicator (I), which is the hearer’s signal of incomplete understanding.
c. Response (R) is the original speaker’s attempt to clear up the unaccepted-input, and,
d. Reaction to the response (RR), which is an element that signals either the hearer’s acceptance or continued difficulty with the speaker’s repair. The model was elaborated into the following figure and excerpt that follows:

E. The Roles of Negotiation of Meaning in Second Language Acquisition
Every researcher will have their own definitions and description of negotiation of meaning. It shows that interest in the study of negotiation of meaning has developed rapidly. Beside the forms and definition of negotiation of meaning, researchers also vary in their perception of the role of negotiation of meaning in second/foreign language acquisition. Pica (1996) admits that although there has been no empirical evidence of a direct link between negotiation of meaning and second/foreign language development, research studies in negotiation of meaning for the last two decades have shown that there are two obvious contribution of negotiation of meaning to second language acquisition. Firstly, through negotiation of meaning (particularly in interaction involving native speakers) nonnative speaker obtain comprehensible input necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interactions without negotiation of meaning. Secondly, negotiation of meaning provides opportunities for non native speakers to produce comprehensible output necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interactions without negotiation of meaning.


TRANSCRIPT
The dialogue are between Ari and Mimi.
Mimi : it’s all your your classmate?
Ari : yes, exactly yes
Mimi : eh... how many are you your class?
Ari : sorry?
Mimi : member?
Ari : what?
Mimi : ehm calss member?
Ari : oh its around fourty students.
Mimi : so many
Ari : yeah i think so.
Mimi : you in this photo? No no no...
Ari : yes i’m not in that picture, because i have my other subject.
Mimi : oh...
Ari : (pause)...
Mimi : girl friend, where your girl friend?
Ari : pardon?
Mimi : eh your girl friend in the photo
Ari : ooh i have not girl friend, that’s all my friend
Mimi : really
Ari : i swear
Mimi : but the girls beautiful, they are beautiful
Ari : i think so, but no one is my criteria
Mimi : eh.... ya
Ari : (paused)
Mimi : (paused)
Ari : hey look at the two boys, what do you think of them?
Mimi : what?
Ari : do you like one of them huh?
Mimi : ha?
Ari : do you like one of them?
Mimi : eh... i think eh the left boy is good
Ari : which one?
Mimi : the left.
Ari : oh his name is Doni Alfaruqy
Mimi : doni what?
Ari : ALFARUQY
Mimi : ooh that’s a good name
Ari : (nod) but what about the other?
Mimi : yes i think he has a good looking
Ari : ha ha yu’re right...
Mimi : why you lough?
Ari : no no just eh just ... forget it
Mimi : how about the girl, eh good (paused) character
Ari : eh you mean their personality?
Mimi : what?
Ari : yeah character or personality
Mimi : yes
Ari : they all good girl...
Mimi : really...?
Ari : of course
Mimi : how about the currly hair?
Ari : heh?
Mimi : the curly girl
Ari : owh it’s leni apridawaty
Mimi : apri apri what?
Ari : apridawaty
Mimi : leni apridawati?
Ari : hu uh
Mimi : she sweet
Ari : yeah but not as sweet as you (low voice)
Mimi : sorry?
Ari : no no
Mimi : what?
Ari : you also sweet
Mimi : huuu
Ari : he he he
Mimi : eh eh can you tell me the eh the green light girl?
Ari : the what?
Mimi : the girl who wearing the green light cloth
Ari : oh RBR
Mimi : what?
Ari : RBR
Mimi : what RBR?
Ari : Rahmawati Bekti Rahayu... he he
Mimi : like SBY hehe
Ari : yes... she nice
Mimi : owh... all people is nice for you
Ari : pardon?
Mimi : you always think all people is good ya
Ari : yes all people have their good side, it’s surely i know
Mimi : ya ya ya
Ari : yep...
Mimi : ok, thank you for information
Ari : aha you’re welcome...nice to talk with you.
Mimi : ya...



ANALYSIS OF CONVERSATION
There are 8 trigger here. They poduce 155 words in a minute. Here are the negotiation:

a. Requesting for clarification
(T)Mimi : eh... how many are you your class?
(I) Ari : sorry?
(R)Mimi : member?
(RR)Ari : what?
(RR)Mimi : ehm calss member?

b. Comprehension signal
- (T)Mimi : girl friend, where your girl friend?
(I)Ari : pardon?
(R)Mimi : eh your girl friend in the photo
(RR)Ari : hey look at the two boys, what do you think of them?
(I)Mimi : what?
(T)Ari : do you like one of them huh?
(I)Mimi : ha?
(R)Ari do you like one of them?
(RR)Mimi : eh... i think eh the left boy is good
(I)Ari : which one?
(R)Mimi : the left.
(RR)Ari : oh his name is Doni Alfaruqy
(I)Mimi : doni what?
(R)Ari : ALFARUQY
(RR)Mimi : ooh that’s a good name

c. Clarification request
- (T)Ari : eh you mean their personality?
(I)Mimi : what?
(R)Ari : yeah character or personality

d. Repeating the triger
- (T)Ari : owh it’s leni apridawaty
(I)Mimi : apri apri what?
(R)Ari : apridawaty
(RR)Mimi : leni apridawati?
(RR)Ari : hu uh
(RR)Mimi : she sweet
(T)Ari : yeah but not as sweet as you (low voice)
(I)Mimi : sorry?
(R)Ari : no no
(RR)Mimi : what?
(RR)Ari : you also sweet

e. Need clarification
- (T)Mimi : owh... all people is nice for you
(I)Ari : pardon?
(R)Mimi : you always think all people is good ya

f. Need clarefication by using triger
- (T)Mimi : eh eh can you tell me the eh the green light girl?
(I)Ari : the what?
(R)Mimi : the girl who wearing the green light cloth
(RR)Ari : oh RBR
(I)Mimi : what?
(R)Ari : RBR
(RR)Mimi : what RBR?
(RR)Ari : Rahmawati Bekti Rahayu... he he



CONCLUSION
We can conclude that negotiation of meaning is defined as a series of exchange conducted by addressors and addressees to help themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutors according to Yufrizal (2007; p.80). On the other hand, Pica, (1988) states, when native speakers (NSs) and non native speakers (NNSs) are involved in an interaction, both interactants work together to solve any potential misunderstanding or non understanding that occurs, by checking each others’ comprehension, requesting clarification and confirmation and by repairing and adjusting speech. There are such a classification who made by the researcher, and one of them is made by Pica. In short, the writer use one of Pica’s negotiation of meaning to analyze the conversation; Trigger (T); Sound that can make misunderstanding, Signals (S); Confirmation Check, Clarification Request, Response (R); Self Repetition, Follow up (TU) ; Statement showed understanding.
From all the discussion about the negotiation of meaning which have been discovered by researchers, include Pica and Yufrizal, it aims to overcome the misunderstanding words or statement which happen between NNS and NS.