Rabu, 04 Mei 2011

MYRA DESMAYENNI (SLA PAPER-NEGOTIATION OF MEANING)

MYRA DESMAYENNI (0813042038)


Second Language Acquisition Assignment
(ANALYSIS OF NEGOTIATION OF MEANING)






MYRA DESMAYENNI
(0813042038)



https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMKvn-q6mCwBDzjsD8RAG9J3uRxnt42qTsp-HGyYBLbBCb0SFdPFCJ_qU8vfPxSYXUPcUorOwxmocXi8jIRVDF7RcIcRHDDk3wkkgzDvwjAPdvvfN1SwoEg5dzHjs9ZIyY39bz2ay1lsMd/s200/LOGO-Unila3.jpg  









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

TABLE OF CONTENT

Preface ……………………………………………………... 1
Chapter I - Introduction    ……………………………......... 2
Chapter II - Theoretical Framework  
2.1. Theories of Negotiation of Meaning ………….....……… 3
2.2. The Roles of Negotiation of Meaning in Second language 
       Acquisition.................................................................... 4
Chapter III – Research and Finding
3.1. Transcript of the video ……………………………….... 8
3.2. Video    ………………………….....………….……..... 9
3.3. Data Analysis and Coding ..…………………….……...  9
Chapter IV - Conclusion  ………………………………… 15













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 a conversation.

Second language acquisition is the study of how learning creates a new language system with only limited exposure to a second language (Yufrizal, 2007). By considering this, the writer believes that the language learner where English is as the second language will face some difficult things to acquire the language as well as native. The proficiency is not as good as people who live in the country who use it as their language. Therefore, they will create a new system so that they can master it.

In this opportunity, the writer tries to investigate how people communicate in English whether there are ways when they find difficulties in acquiring the meaning is used. Because each communicator will have their own strategies to negotiate when they don’t understand what people say to them.

There is one talk to be analyzed, with two persons taking role as the addresser and the addressee respectively. The duration of this talk takes seven minutes. They use the same language that is English. This conversation between two college students of one of university in Bandarlampung, takes place at campus in the afternoon.

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.


I.                  INTRODUCTION

Interaction plays an important role in the development of second language learning.  Since English is not easy, people try so many things in order to be able become proficiency in using it. Thus, they apply so many ways so that they are able to comprehend the meaning being said by the speaker. For example, it is the conversation between two speakers who have low ability in speaking English;
A : I borrowed my sister’s comic last week
B : You borough my sister’s comic last week
A : No, I borrowed my sister’s comic last week
B : sorry you borough or borrowed my sister’s comic last week
A : I borough not I borrowed
B : Oooh,, You borrowed it

By observing this conversation, we can see that B has misunderstanding toward the words being said by A, and then B asks clarification from A. This way commonly happens in every circumstance where people try to communicate in English. That is what we call Negotiation of Meaning. But those errors are not totally broke the communication what the pioneer of education calls global errors. That ways is assumed as the technique to acquire the language by using the new system in order for easily to get the language. 

It has been taken long time ago, people try to analyze how people negotiate the meaning when they found difficulties to grasp the meaning. Wagner (1996) in Yufrizal argues that interest in the study of interaction within the last two decades is partly due to consideration of the role of communication for second/foreign language acquisition. Second/ foreign language acquisition occurs especially when learners are engaged in the use of the language for communication. In this view interaction is treated as one of the most important aspects that influences the success or failure of second and/or foreign language acquisition. Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) claim that ‘language is best learned and taught through interaction’ (p.10). Long (1996) confirms that interactional modification leads to second language development and more active involvement in negotiated interaction leads to greater development.

Therefore I am also interested to record the conversations then finally identify the conversation where negotiation of meaning is occurred. As the language learner and teacher to be, this is going to be important to recognize how the negotiation is happened and to know whether it has bad implication in acquiring the language or not.


II.               THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. Theories of Negotiation of Meaning
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.

2.2.The Roles of Negotiation of Meaning in Second Language Acquisition

Difference in definitions and description of negotiation of meaning from one researcher to another, as discussed previously, show that interest in the study of negotiation of meaning has developed rapidly. Beside the forms and definitions 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 contributions of negotiation of meaning to second language acquisition. Firstly, through negotiation of meaning, particularly in interactions 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 nonnative speakers to produce comprehensible output necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interactions without negotiation of meaning. Another important role of negotiation of meaning which may not have a direct impact on second language acquisition but is also an important element for second language learning through communication is that negotiation of meaning can function as an indication of pursuit of communication.
Interaction

There are two positions on how learning takes place: nature or nurture. “Nature” or “nurture” debate has always been controversial, especially in the field of language learning. The former means that learners learn the language by the innate knowledge about language, whereas the latter assumes that language development is inspired by the environment as learners are engaging in the interaction (Doughty & Long, 2003). Ellis (1994) defines interaction as when the participants of equal status that share similar need, make an effort to understand each other. If role relationship is asymmetrical, meaning negotiation is inhibited. He says that some other factors that influence interaction, except status, are: the nature of the task, characteristics of participants and participant structure. Today, with the focus on “process” in the path of language acquisition, it is believed that language is emerged through interaction and negotiation for meaning.

There is different set of evidence to support this claim. Doughty & Long (2003) elaborate on
the idea that there are two types of evidence in the environment that foster acquisition: positive and negative evidence. Positive evidence is the well-formed sentences or “models” in which learners are exposed to, and negative evidence is the type of information that is given directly or indirectly to the learners when they make an incorrect form of utterance in their interactional exchange (Long 1996, cited in Ellis 1999). Gough & Hatch (1975, cited in Doughty & Long, 2003) were among the pioneers who proposed the idea that language acquisition is fostered by the conversation. Earlier in this field, it was assumed that language acquisition is fostered by the modified input in the environment; i.e., when  the NS or proficient speakers adjust their language to the level of low-level learners to make it more comprehensible.

The interactionists agree with Krashen’s comprehensible input, but focus on the question of how input could be made comprehensible. In interactionist view, there is more than speaker modification or modified input in the form of simplification if one looks at the interactional structure in general. They claim that “modified interaction” is necessary for making language comprehensible. “Simplification” is not sufficient, but rather providing an opportunity to interact with other speakers makes input comprehensible. “Modified interaction” works better than “simplification” or “premodification”.

During modified interaction, learners make use of the following strategies to remove the
problematic areas in their interaction: comprehension checks, clarification requests or confirmation, self-repetition. So, the term “interaction” is different from “input modifications” that are the signs of “foreigner talk” which the adult provides some changes in the formal properties of utterances to learners. According to Doughty & Long (2003), interaction is not a forum for practice, but it forms a basis for development.


Interaction Hypothesis (IH)

Doughty & Long (2003) have cited Long’s (1996) interaction hypothesis as negotiation for meaning triggers interactional adjustments by the NS, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities and output in production ways. Interaction hypothesis emphasizes on the role of negotiated interaction in language development. During negotiation works, the learner’s attention is directed to:
1) The discrepancy between what s/he knows about L2 and what the L2 really is and
2) The areas of L2 which he doesn’t have information (Gass & Torrens, 2005). In this case, negotiation is the initial step to learning and it is one part of interaction. Interaction hypothesis that proposed by Hatch (1978), Long (1983), Pica (1994) and Gass (1997), says that interaction is essential condition for SLA, through which speakers modify their speech and interaction patterns to help learners participate in a conversation (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). Ellis (1999) refers to IH as the conversational exchanges that arise when interlocutors seek to prevent a communicative breakdown or to remedy an actual communication stop that has arisen.
He believes that acquisition is promoted when the input to which learners are exposed is made comprehensible through the interactional modifications that arise when meaning is negotiated. This definition is the co-extensive with what Long (1983, cited in Ellis 1999) has called “interactional modification”; i.e. changes to te structures of utterances to accommodate problems of understanding.


Sociocultural Theory, Interaction and L2 Acquisition

Interactionists believe that in some conversational exchanges, sometimes communication problems arise (Ellis, 1999).Gass & Varonis (1985, cited in Ellis, 1994) has called it “pushdown” as it pushes the conversation down rather than makes it to proceed. Interaction creates condition to facilitate language acquisition or makes incidental acquisition rather than intentional acquisition. The early version of “interaction” was similar to “input hypothesis” proposed by Krashen (1987). He said that there are three ways to obtain comprehensible input: context, simplified input and interaction. Long (1980, cited in Ellis 1999) agreed with Krashen that comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition, but he asserted the importance of “modified input”.

The next version of interaction proposed by Long (1996, cited in Ellis 1999) was that the role of negotiation is to facilitate the kinds of conscious “noticing”. In this version, the emphasis is on the learner internal mechanisms when s/he is interactionally involved in modified output. In this version, interaction is taken into account both “interpersonally” and “intrapersonally”. In the former, the learner notices input, whereas in the latter, they process information they got through input. In this version, negotiation supplies learner with positive evidence, negative evidence and opportunities for “modified output”(Long 1996, cited in Ellis, 1999). So, the latter version of IH, emphasizes on the role of negative feedback, modified output, comprehensible input and recognizes that interaction is a connection between “input”, “learner internal capacities” and “output”. Some problems of this theory are:
a. There are some problems to distinguish separate parts of meaning negotiation
b. The theory of L2 based on a single type of interaction (negotiation sequences) is restricted
c. Problems of individual differences have been neglected
Van Lier (2006) also rejects the atomistic approach in traditional IH, arguing that language is holistic and dynamic. Accordingly, this version of theory does not lead to full competence and it paved the way for another perspective in SLA; i.e., Sociocultural theory.
Socio-cultural perspective considers the role of multilingual society and argues that SLA should pay attention to the role of learners when they use language for different purposes and in different contexts. Lantolf (1996, cited in Ellis 1999) argued that SLA in the view of IH is the process that occurs in the mind of learners rather than in people-embedded activity. He further asserts that interaction is a form of mediation through which learners construct new forms and functions collaboratively (Lantolf, 2000). Ellis (1999) says that the ethnographers believe that “interaction” is constructed by participants as they dynamically negotiate not just meaning, but also their role relationships and their cultural and social identities.

There are different views and perspectives which consider language acquisition as social process. In this paper the idea of Piaget and Vygotsky have been discussed. In the cognitive perspective of Piaget, social interaction is given a secondary role, whereas in Vygotsky’s perspective, social interaction is primary for development (Fletcher & Garman, 1986). Vygotsky and Piaget differ in how they relate social interaction to language acquisition. For Piaget, language has propositional and context-independent properties and it is a tool for abstract reasoning. Context and social functions of language have been given a secondary role in acquisition. The development of children’s behavior is a gradual process for centering to decentering, so that a child is able to talk about displaced entities and events.

In the perspective of Piaget, different stages in the child development are hierarchically related
to each other, so that moral reasoning presupposes role-taking skills which presupposes, in turn,
logico-mathematical reasoning. In Vygotsky’s perspective, context-dependent and social interaction is primary in language acquisition. He claims that meaning is socially constructed and emerges out of the learner interactions with his/her environment (Vygotsky 1978, cited in Kaufman 2004). Vygotsky (1981, cited in De Vries, 2000) refers to the key construct of socio-cultural theory as “mediation”. He believes that learning occurs when biologically determined mental functions evolve into higher-order functions through social interaction. To him, mediation is social interaction that is brought about by creating tools. According to socio-cultural theory, functions are performed in collaboration with others.

As Vygotsky puts it, any function in the child’s development appears on two planes of social and psychological one, it moves from interpsychological to intrapsychological category. He proposed the notion of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), where learner constructs meaning through socially-mediated interaction and when adults establish social interaction with children to help their language and cognitive development (Fletcher & Garman, 1986). According to Vygotsky, interaction provides scaffolding, the means through which one person assists another one who can not perform independently. External scaffolding includes modeling, coaching, providing feedback, while internal scaffolding is when learner is engaged in self-monitoring and reflection.

In L1 acquisition, the mother-child interaction is an example of transition form interpsychological to intrapsychological process mediated by communication (Fletcher & Garman, 1986). He believed that social interaction plays a role in learning development. If we set the goals as a) goals that the learner can obtain without assistance b)goals that are beyond the capacity of learners and c) goals that can be met if guidance is provided, then ZPD falls in the area of c, that is the area between the learner’s potential development and his/her actual development (Ellis,1999). In other words, children are subject to “object regulation”, “other regulation” and “self-regulation” and the negotiation of meaning is a device to meet the “self-regulation” in which they can regulate their activities independently. In sociocultural theory, therefore, there are two kinds of interaction: “social interaction”, when people converse with each other and “private speech” as children talk to themselves.

It can be noticed that the ideas in two different theories of IH and socio-cultural theory are different, but related. In the former, “social interaction” is taken into account, while in the latter, “social interaction” and “private speech” have been concerned. IH is limited by considering one type of interaction, i.e. negotiation of meaning, whereas the latter is much broader and deals with interaction in general term. IH assumes that interaction facilitates acquisition by providing necessary data to the learner, whereas socio-cultural theory asserts that interaction is a social practice to shape and construct meaning. In IH, interaction facilitates learning and is neither necessary, nor sufficient. In socio-cultural theory, it is not only necessary, but primary in learning.

Ellis (1999) claims that it is beneficial to mix the perspectives of these theories and propose a much more comprehensive theory named “interactionist theory”. In interactionist perspective, interaction, whether interpersonal or intrapersonal, plays an important role in creating conditions for language acquisition. He further claims that interpersonal interaction is necessary for L1 but beneficial for L2, whereas intrapersonal interaction is necessary both for L1 and L2.


III.           RESEARCH AND FINDING


3.1.         Transcript of the video

This conversation between Hesti and Desi, college students of one of university in Bandarlampung, takes place at campus in the afternoon.
Desi     : Hesti, have you got your lunch?
Hesti    : Eeee…. Yeah…
            I ate mie ayam this… afternoon.
Desi     : Fried noodle?
Hesti    : No no no..! I mean… what is it… e….
Desi     : All right. What kind of mie ayam? I don’t know-
Hesti    : Yeah, it’s just like a noodle but..
Desi     : E hem……
Hesti    : It has so many chicken e…. on the top of that.
Desi     : Oh Really?
Hesti    : Yeah, It’s so  delicious.
Desi     : That’s a kind of interesting one. I wonder about the taste. Can you tell me?
Hesti    : Eeee…..  It so… what is it… e… chuncky..
Desi     : Oh really? E hem…
Hesti    : Eeee…. And it is chewed.. and also  the chicken is so delicious.
Desi     : Is it spicy?
Hesti    : Eeee… Yeah!
Desi     : Oh! I like something spicy! When did you buy that?
Hesti    : Eeee… actually…. E…. so e…. many sellers over UNILA campus but Eeee…. The delicious one is on … you know  campus eh Eeee FKIP.. FKIP, FKIP campus?
Desi     : Yes, I see. But-
Hesti    : Yeah
Desi     : But there are so many sellers over there.
Hesti    : It’s just in the corner of Dekanat.
Desi     : In the corner of Dekanat? There are…there are some..
Hesti    : Yeah! In the right one.
Desi     : In the right one? Oh! If I’m not mistaken, there is Ika FKIP canteen?
Hesti    : Yeah! Over there! You may try it! And it’s so cheap!
Desi     : Oh really? How much?
Hesti    : It’s only Rp.7000,-
Desi     : That’s pretty expensive.
Hesti    : No…!
Desi     : I guess the price, the fixed price for a noodle is about Rp.5000 – Rp.6000,-. What do you think?
Hesti    : Eeee… But I think that was so cheap than others  because… Eeee….. other sellers sell it e… about  more than Rp.10.000,-
Desi     : But I’ve got new idea!
Hesti    : Yeah?
Desi     : How about we make it?
Hesti    : We can make it…
Desi     : We can make it cheaper and we can taste it as many as we can. Do you know how to make it?
Hesti    : Eeee… Yeah…
Desi     : What is the basic of… e… basic of…..
Hesti    : What is it?
Desi     : It’s…. It’s just need noodles, chicken and what else?
Hesti    : Eeee….
            Just add MSG.
Desi     : Oh really?
Hesti    : Yeah..!
Desi     : I heard that MSG is pretty dangerous for our health.
Hesti    : Yeah if you just use it only for a little composition, it’s okay I think because…
Desi     : And how do you interpret a little? One spoon or… e… or .. a quarter?
Hesti    : Eeee…. To make e…. what is it—
Desi     : A bowl?
Hesti    : For one plate mie ayam, you can take about… e… What is it?
Desi     : A quarter of the spoon for the MSG. And then it does not really hard to make it. But can you mother, can your mother make it?
Hesti    : Eeee…. No I think. Because my mother seldom to make something like that.
Desi     : My mother’s too… But my mother sometimes makes Soto and then Tekwan…
Hesti    : Yeah!

Desi     : That’s easy than make mie ayam. I guess my family never made mie ayam for daily food. But mie ayam is pretty cheap. Not really expensive not really cheap. Means that it has fair price right and then the taste you said that good right.
Hesti    : Yeah…
Desi     : But I was wondering why… why many families, your family and my family, never make it. Meanwhile we really like it right.
Hesti    : Yeah! Eeee… It’s better for us to buy it because it’s simple and yeah.. you know… Just giving the money and we can get the noodles for a bowl and it can make your…. Your….   What is it, your stomach full and yeah.. better that..
Desi     : Yeah besides chicken noodles what is another food that best to eat? I guess.. that going to be nice. And what is the best food to eat for dinner?
Hesti    : Eeee…. Maybe I’d love to eat what is it.. e… fried rice!
Desi     : Fried rice?
Hesti    : Yeah!
Desi     : But sometimes it’s for breakfast not for dinner.
Hesti    : It doesn’t matter because we can make it easier. We just need some rice and also onion and oil and yeah..
Desi     : Chili?
Hesti    : Yeah! Chili! And you know, my mother today.. I think my mother today.. e… cook a lot of rice and it is enough for ours.
Desi     : E hemm… then you plan to cook fried rice for this dinner?
Hesti    : yeah!
Desi     : Is fried rice your favorite dinner?
Hesti    : Eeee… not really.. I mean I’d like to eat my dinner with different menu everyday, but…
Desi     : Oh..! How about we make fried rice right now?
Hesti    : Ok. Let’s go
Desi     : ok. Here we go.

3.2.         Video

The video of this observation is already provided in another part.

3.3.         Data Analysis and Coding

Participants:
Hesti = College students of one of university in Bandarlampung
Desi = College student of university in Bandarlampung

Trigger (T)                               : sound that can make misunderstanding
Indicator (I)                            : hearer’s signal of incomplete understanding, asking confirmation check, clarification request
Response (R)                           : self repetition
Reaction to Response (RR)    : element that signals either the hearer’s acceptance or continued difficulty with the speaker repair.
Follow up (FU)                       : statement that showed understanding.

This conversation between Hesti and Desi, college students of one of university in Bandarlampung, takes place at campus in the afternoon.

Desi     : Hesti, have you got your lunch?
Hesti    : Eeee…. Yeah…
                  T
            I ate mie ayam this… afternoon.
Desi     : Fried noodle?
                        I
Hesti    : No no no..! I mean…    what is it…    e….
                                    T                               T
Desi     : All right. What kind of mie ayam?  I don’t know-
                                           I
Hesti    : Yeah, it’s just like a noodle but..
Desi     : E hem……
Hesti    : It has so many chicken e…. on the top of that.
                                                 T
Desi     : Oh Really?
                    I
Hesti    : Yeah, It’s so  delicious.
Desi     : That’s a kind of interesting one. I wonder about the taste. Can you tell me?
Hesti    : Eeee…..  It so… what is it… e… chuncky..
Desi     : Oh really? E hem
                        FU
Hesti    : Eeee…. And it is chewed.. and also  the chicken is so delicious.
                T
Desi     : Is it spicy?
Hesti    : Eeee… Yeah!
Desi     : Oh! I like something spicy! When did you buy that?
Hesti    : Eeee… actually…. E…. so e…. many sellers over UNILA campus but Eeee…. The delicious one is
                T                              T                                                                   T
            on … you know  campus eh Eeee  FKIP.. FKIP, FKIP campus?
                                                    T                  R
Desi     : Yes, I see. But-
Hesti    : Yeah
Desi     : But there are so many sellers over there.
Hesti    : It’s just in the corner of Dekanat.
Desi     : In the corner of Dekanat? There are…there are some..
                        I
Hesti    : Yeah! In the right one.
Desi     : In the right one? Oh! If I’m not mistaken, there is Ika FKIP canteen?
                     I
Hesti    : Yeah! Over there! You may try it! And it’s so cheap!
Desi     : Oh really? How much?
Hesti    : It’s only Rp.7000,-
Desi     : That’s pretty expensive.
Hesti    : No…!
Desi     : I guess the price, the fixed price for a noodle is about Rp.5000 – Rp.6000,-. What do you think?
                                    R
Hesti    : Eeee… But I think that was so cheap than others  because… Eeee….. other sellers sell it e…
                T                                                                                          T                                  T
            about  more than Rp.10.000,-
Desi     : But I’ve got new idea!
Hesti    : Yeah?
Desi     : How about we make it?
We can make it… We can make it cheaper and we can taste it as many as we can. Do you know
            R
how to make it?
Hesti    : Eeee… Yeah…
Desi     : What is the basic of… e… basic of…..
                                    R
Hesti    : What is it?
Desi     : It’s…. It’s just need noodles, chicken and what else?
                      R
Hesti    : Eeee….
                 T
            Just add MSG.
Desi     : Oh really?
               I
Hesti    : Yeah..!
Desi     : I heard that MSG is pretty dangerous for our health.
Hesti    : Yeah if you just use it only for a little composition, its okay I think because…
Desi     : And how do you interpret a little? One spoon or… e… or .. a quarter?
                                                            I
Hesti    : Eeee…. To make e…. what is it
                T                      T
Desi     : A bowl?
                RR
Hesti    : For one plate mie ayam, you can take about… e… What is it?
                                                                                    T
Desi     : A quarter of the spoon for the MSG. And then it does not really hard to make it. But can you mother, can your mother make it?
Hesti    : Eeee…. No I think. Because my mother seldom to make something like that.
Desi     : My mother’s too… But my mother sometimes makes Soto and then Tekwan…
Hesti    : Yeah!
Desi     : That’s easy than make mie ayam. I guess my family never made mie ayam for daily food. But mie ayam is pretty cheap. Not really expensive not really cheap. Means that it has fair price right
                                                                                    R
            and then the taste you said that good right.
Hesti    : Yeah…
               FU
Desi     : But I was wondering why… why many families, your family and my family, never make it.
                                                            R
            Meanwhile we really like it right.
Hesti    : Yeah! Eeee… It’s better for us to buy it because it’s simple and yeah.. you know… Just giving the
                         T                                                        
            money and we can get the noodles for a bowl and it can make your…. Your….   What is it, your
                                                                                                                 R
            stomach full and yeah.. better that..
Desi     : Yeah besides chicken noodles what is another food that best to eat? I guess.. that going to be
                FU                                                                           R
            nice. And what is the best food to eat for dinner?
                                                R
Hesti    : Eeee…. Maybe I’d love to eat what is it.. e… fried rice!
                T
Desi     : Fried rice?
                   I
Hesti    : Yeah!
Desi     : But sometimes it’s for breakfast not for dinner.
Hesti    : It doesn’t matter because we can make it easier. We just need some rice and also onion and oil and yeah..
Desi     : Chili?
Hesti    : Yeah! Chili! And you know, my mother today.. I think my mother today.. e… cook a lot of rice
                                                                        R
            and it is enough for ours.
Desi     : E hemm… then you plan to cook fried rice for this dinner?
                                                            R
Hesti    : yeah!
Desi     : Is fried rice your favorite dinner?
Hesti    : Eeee… not really.. I mean I’d like to eat my dinner with different menu everyday, but…
                T                            T
Desi     : Oh..! How about we make fried rice right now?
Hesti    : Ok. Let’s go
Desi     : ok. Here we go.

There are also found some types of trigger in the conversation above such as:
1.      Semantic modification through paraphrase

e.g.

Hesti    : Eeee…. Yeah…
            I ate mie ayam this… afternoon.
Desi     : Fried noodle?
Hesti    : No no no..! I mean… what is it… e….
Desi     : All right. What kind of mie ayam? I don’t know-
Hesti    : Yeah, it’s just like a noodle but..


2.      Morphological Information through addition, substation, or deletion of inflectional morpheme (s) and/ or function

e.g.
a.      Desi        : And how do you interpret a little? One spoon or… e… or .. a quarter?
Hesti         : Eeee…. To make e…. what is it—
Desi          : A bowl?
Hesti         : For one plate mie ayam, you can take about… e… What is it?
Desi          : A quarter of the spoon for the MSG.
           
b.     Hesti       : It doesn’t matter because we can make it easier. We just need some rice and also onion and oil and yeah..
Desi        : Chili?
Hesti       : Yeah! Chili! And you know, my mother today.. I think my mother today.. e… cook a lot of rice and it is enough for ours.


3.      Syntactic modification through embedding and elaboration in clause (s)

e.g.

Desi     : Oh! I like something spicy! When did you buy that?
Hesti    : Eeee… actually…. E…. so e…. many sellers over UNILA campus but Eeee…. The delicious one is on … you know  campus eh Eeee FKIP.. FKIP, FKIP campus?
Desi     : Yes, I see. But-
Hesti    : Yeah
Desi     : But there are so many sellers over there.
Hesti    : It’s just in the corner of Dekanat.
Desi     : In the corner of Dekanat? There are…there are some..
Hesti    : Yeah! In the right one.
Desi     : In the right one? Oh! If I’m not mistaken, there is Ika FKIP canteen?
Hesti    : Yeah! Over there! You may try it! And it’s so cheap!



IV.           Conclusion

Based on the conversation above, the writer analyze there are so many negotiation of meaning done by the speakers. They tried to clarify each words which probably difficult to be understood so that the conversation can run well. It commonly happens with Indonesian’s students whereas English is a foreign language. Nevertheless, the writer believes that negotiation of meaning is a part of learning the language. That is one of ways to acquire the language directly, consciously/unconsciously.

Students in the conversation are both in the same level of proficiency in English. They are talking about one of the famous artist in Indonesia. They try to negotiate the meaning when they find the difficulties in comprehending the aim of the speakers. As stated above there are T (Sound that can make misunderstanding), S (Confirmation Check, Clarification Request), R (Self Repetition), Follow up/TU (statement showed understanding). They are the symbol of negotiation of meaning.

Since, they spoke without any even a script or a picture given by the writer, they made many negotiation of meaning believed as the way to grasp the second/foreign language. Hence, the writer believes that this is not only happening in English as foreign language circumstance but also happening in the place where English has become the second language. Therefore, the writer assumes that negotiation of meaning is naturally happen for the people who are speaking in not their mother tongue. It is the way to clarify the meaning when they find the gap in the conversation so that it can run well.
To summarize, negotiation of meaning has many definitions and classifications. One of those is as stated by Pica et al. They suggests that negotiation of meaning is generally consists of four interrelated moves. They are trigger, indicator, response and follow-up moves. The first, a trigger, is viewed as any utterances followed by the addressee’s signal of total/partial lack of understanding. Next, signal, is that of total or partial lack of understanding. All of those categories are well-studied by many experts. The basic and the main objective of the analysis is to know that there are always gaps in any communication. And to overcome this problem, it is the negotiation of meaning that plays its role well so that the communication can run well without any unnecessary misunderstanding.

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar