SLA 1st Task. Negotiation of Meaning By Dini Kurnia

NEGOTIATION OF MEANING

BY:

DINI KURNIA NURSEPTI

(0853042012)

 

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

ARTS AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY

UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

2009/2010

I. INTRODUCTION

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.

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.

For example, it is the conversation between two speakers who have low ability in speaking English:
A : so you came here by yourself or did you come with friends?
B : no no I - what? what you say?
A : did you come to the states with friends or did you come alone?
B : no, alone - from Toronto
A : did you get high marks? Good grades?
B : High marks?

A: good grades A’s and B’s – did you get A in English?

B : Oh no in English yes em B

            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.

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. Example 1 illustrates these types of linguistic exchanges that have been identified in SLA research.

          Negotiation occurs between spouses, parents and children, managers and staff, employers and employees, professionals and clients, within and between organizations and between agencies and the public. Negotiation is a problem-solving process in which two or more people voluntarily discuss their differences and attempt to reach a joint decision on their common concerns. Negotiation requires participants to identify issues about which they differ, educate each other about their needs and interests, generate possible settlement options and bargain over the terms of the final agreement. Successful negotiations generally result in some kind of exchange or promise being made by the negotiators to each other. The exchange may be tangible (such as money, a commitment of time or a particular behavior) or intangible (such as an agreement to change an attitude or expectation, or make an apology).

II. FRAME OF THEORIES

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 interactions 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.

III. ANALAYSIS

A. Dialog I

This is a conversation between two female, both of them are in the same level in English Low and Low;

(TU)     A: Good morning Sinta, How are u?
(TU)     B: Good morning Arin, I’m fine and you?
(T)        A: I’m fine too,, btw do you know miss Vina?
(S)        B: Pardon,
(R)        A: Do you know miss Vina?
(TU)(T) B: Oooh miss Vina,, of course I know her, She is our teacher, isn’t she?
(S)        A: WWWhat?
(S)        B: She is our teacher, isn’t she?
(TU)     A: Yes she is our Biology teacher
(T)        B: Sinta, have you met her?
(S)        A: Excu,, Excuse me can you repeat it?
(R)       B: have you meet her?
(TU)     A: Yes, of course. How about you?
(TU)     B: Yes, I do.

Trigger (T)          : Sound that can make misunderstanding
Signal (S)            : Confirmation Check, Clarification Request
Response (R)      : Self Repetition
Follow up (TU)   : Statement showed understanding

B. Dialog II

This is a conversation between male and female, both of them are in the different level in English High and Low;

(T)      A: Where is the book?
(S)      B: hmm,, excuse me?
(R)      A: my book, my English book, where is it?
(T)      B: hmmm,, your book,, it is in the your desk
(S)      A: What???
(R)      B: Iya, in your desk!!
(TU)   A: ooh… Where is my pen?
(TU)   B: pen? Hmm in your hand
(TU)   A: owh yes, in my hand, I forget.
(T)     A: Where is Mita?
(S)      B: Pardon?
(T)     A: Where is Mita?
(S)      B: Mita, our classmate friend?
(R)     A: Yes, Mita
(TU/T) B: Oh, I see her in the library
(S)     A: Hmmm,, what?
(R)     B: she is in the library
(S)     A: library, Can you spell it?
(R)     B: L-I-B-R-A-R-Y
(T)  A: Oo library, what is that?

(R)  B: Perpus, perpustakaan ..

(TU) A: owh.. I see.        

Trigger (T)         : Sound that can make misunderstanding
Signal (S)           : Confirmation Check, Clarification Request
Response (R)     : Self Repetition
Follow up (TU)  : statement showed understanding

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.

In the first conversation, both are they in the same level 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.

While in the conversation II are both in the different level of proficiency in English High and Low. Since, they spoke without any helping text only 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.