SLA 1st Task. Negotiation of Meaning by Mirna Oktaviana

NEGOTIATION OF MEANING

BY:

MIRNA OKTAVIANA

(0853042022)

 

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

ARTS AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY

UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

2009/2010

I. INTRODUCTION

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 bought a new car yesterday

B : You brought a new car yesterday

A : No, I bought a new car yesterday

B : sorry you bought or brought a new car yesterday?

A : I bought not I brought

B : Oooh,, You bought 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.

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.

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.

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.

II. FRAME OF THEORIES

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 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.

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: Hi, Meli, How are u?
(TU)     B:, I’m fine. How about you, Erin?
(T)        A: I’m fine too,, btw what’re you doing?
(S)        B: Pardon,
(R)        A: What are you doing?
(TU)     B: Oooh.. I’m reading a magazine
(S)        A: WWWhat?
(R)(TU) B: Teen magazine.
(S   )     A: Teen magazine?
(R)        B: Yes, magazine, especially for teenager.
(TU)(S) A: teenager means remaja, is it right?

(R)       B: Yes. Remaja

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: What’s your opinion?
(S)      B: hmm,, what’s opinion that you mean?
(R)      A: I mean your opinion about my hair?
(T)      B: hmmm,, your hair, what happen with your hair?
(S)      A: what’s your opinion about new style of my hair?
(T)      B: owh, that’s good.

(S)      A: what do you mean by good?
(TU)   B: yes, that’s a good style for you.
(TU)   A: owh thank you. 

(T)      B: OMG, where is it?

(S)      A: What are you looking for?

(R)      B: my handphone. Do you see my handphone?

(S)      A: maybe on your bag.

(S)      B: my bag. No, it is not in my bag.

(T)      A: let see in your pocket!

(S)      B: Pardon,

(R)(TU)  A: your pocket.  P-O-C-K-E-T (while pointing the pocket)

(TU)    B: owh, yes. I can find it

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.