HESTI PRASETIANINGTIAS (0813042031) SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (SLA)

NEGOTIATION OF MEANING

Hesti Prasetianingtias

0813042031

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

ART AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY

UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

2011

I. INTRODUCTION

In human interaction, meanings are not simply transferred from one person to another but ‘negotiated’. That is to say, my success (or otherwise) in conveying my intentions (my meanings) is dependent upon a process of negotiation between us. I may initially try to adjust the way I express myself to fit better what I think to be your preferred ways of looking at things – to make it easier for you to see what I am getting at. If you are not convinced you know what I am trying to say to you, you may then try out your understanding on me to see if it is ‘correct’. At that point I may decide that what you think I meant is near enough to let it pass, or I may decide further negotiating work is necessary. The negotiation of meaning has been proposed as the key to second (and/or foreign) language development.

 Negotiation is the principal way that people redefine an old relationship that is not working to their satisfaction or establish a new relationship where none existed before. Because negotiation is such a common problem-solving process, it is in everyone's interest to become familiar with negotiating dynamics and skills. This section is designed to introduce basic concepts of negotiation and to present procedures and strategies that generally produce more efficient and productive problem solving.

II. FRAME OF THEORIES

In SLA process L2 is acquired through learners' interaction in the target language because it provides opportunities for learners to: (a) comprehend message meaning, which is believed to be necessary for learners to acquire the L2 forms that encode the message; (b) produce modified output, which requires their development of specifics of morphology and syntax; and (c) attend to L2 form, which helps to develop their linguistic systems (Krashen, 1982; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993; Pica, Holliday, Lewis, & Morgenthaler, 1989; Swain, 1985; Swain & Lapkin, 1995). Following from these assumptions about L2 acquisition, one can specify the observable features of learner language that should be ideal for acquisition. Features include signals which focus attention on language, and which may elicit a repetition or an expansion of previous language. These types of moves, which focus attention on language by repeating, recasting, and expanding on prior language, these are believed to be beneficial for SLA and therefore identification of such sequences has been a means of investigating the quality of particular L2 tasks for acquisition.

            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 interact ants 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 before.

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.

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.

III. ANALYSIS THE DATA

This is a conversation between two women that were talking about a picture.

 

 

Ella      :” Hello, Hi Renny.  How are you?”               (FU)

Renny  : “I”m fine and you?”                                     (FU)

Ella      :”I’m fine too.  What are you doing now?”    (FU)
renny   :”I’m reading .... a book.”                               (FU)

Ella      :”What’s your a book do you read?”              (TU)

Renny  :”This is about picture...ow..are you know this is?  What is the picture?”      (FU)

Ella      :”ow... this is picture...ow..”                           (R)

Renny  :”this is... is a not .... a not ... this not a blank little.”                                      (FU)

Ella      :”Blank little? Ow.. oh... and then?”              (S/R)   

Renny  :”a... this is policeman.”                                  (FU)

Ella      :’oh ... policeman.”                                          (R)

Renny  :” Okay and what is your father’s job?’          (FU)

Ella      :”oh... my father ...my father is teacher.”        (FU)

Renny  :”oh..”                                                              (T)

Ella      :”Your father?”                                               (S)

Renny  :”my father is farmer.”                                    (FU)

Ella      :”oh..what a..”                                                 (T)

Renny  :”your father is teacher.”                                 (S)

Ella      :” oh.. yeah..oh..”                                            (T)

Renny  :”there in the picture.your father...”                (T)

Ella      :”yeah..right.”                                                  (FU)

Renny  :”and your mother?”                                       (S)

Ella      :”my mother is housewife and you?”              (S)

Renny  :”yes, same.....do you know this picture?”      (S)      

Ella      :”yes, i know.  Yes i know.  This is policeman.”         (FU)

Renny  :”oh... this is policeman and this?”                  (R)

Ella      :”oh... i don’t know.”                                      (FU)

Renny  :”oh...this is a gardener yes...gardener.yeah...”           (FU)

Ella      “oh..yeah..yeah.  i know.  I know.”                (T)

Renny  :”mean in the garden a...”                               (T)

Renny  :”in your family how many your sister?”        (S)

Ella      :”ehm... i’m have’nt sister but i have 3 brother and you?”     (S)
Renny  :”three brother?”                                             (S)

Ella      :”yeah..”                                                          (T)

Renny  :”i don’t have brother but i have sister one sister.”                 (FU)

Ella      :”eh...and your sister?”                                    (T)

Renny  :”where your brother work?”                          (FU)
ella       :”e...my brother work a..in Liwa.”  Do you know Liwa?”     (FU)

Renny  :”yeah... i know but i don’t, i never..i never ..go to Liwa.”    (FU)

Ella      :”ow..have you ever gone to Mesuem Lampung?”                 (FU)

Renny  :”yes i have and you?”                                                            (FU)

Ella      :”i have too.”                                                   (FU)

Renny  :”oh...how about Museum Lampung?”           (FU)

Ella      :’Museum Lampung is...a...”                           (T)

Renny  :”what?”                                                          (S)
Ella      :”a...Museum Lampung is place...a...a...ehm...Museum Lampung is fresh with many Lampung culture.”                                                    (FU)

Renny  :”oh...that is very interesting.”                        (FU)

Renny  :”yeah... i agree with you and have you ever gone Way Kambas?”   (FU)

Ella      :”no, i never gone to Way Kambas.  Whare did it Way Kambas?”    (FU)

Renny  :’Way Kambas is the place that here many elephant that big or that small.”  (FU)

Ella      :”oh....eh...so..so i want go there eh...by the way eh...sometime i will go there.”      (FU)

Renny  :”yes...we can go there together sometime.”   (FU)

Ella      :’okay, i have another business.  I’m sorry.  I must go now.” (FU)

Renny  :”oh...yes.  see you.”                                       (FU)
ella       :”see you.”                                                       (S)

additional information:

Trigger (T)       : sound that can make misunderstanding

 Signal (S)        : confirmation check, clarification request

Response (R)   : self repetition

Follow Up (FU)           : statement showed understanding

Participants:

Ella =University student of Bhs. Indonesia and sastra daerah in Unila

Renny = University student of Bhs. Indonesia and sastra daerah in Unila

        

IV. CONCLUSION

From the conversation above and the analysis, we can conclude that when one of them did not understand about they were talking about they asked directly and another one gave the answer that she intended.  Therefore, in that conversation we can see the negotiation of meaning.  Consciously or unconsciously when they talked they had tried to clarify their utterances to their pair if there were misunderstanding utterances.  That is one of ways to acquire the language directly.  It commonly happens with Indonesia’s students whereas English is a foreign language.