DWI PARAMITA SAPUTRI (0743042008)

NEGOTIATION OF MEANING

 (SLA Assignment)

Name      : Dwi Paramita Saputri

NPM      : 0743042008

PS          : S1.Pend. B.Inggris (NR)

Lecturer  : Hery Yufrizal, M.A.,PH.D

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

BANDAR LAMPUNG

2009-2010

Negotiation of meaning

Negotiation of meaning is a process that speakers go through to reach a clear understanding of each other.

Example
Asking for clarification, rephrasing, and confirming what you think you have understood are all strategies for the negotiation of meaning.

In the classroomInformation gap activities such as jigsaw readings or listenings, group story building, spot the difference and communicative crosswords are examples of activities that give learners the opportunity to develop their communicative competence through negotiation of meaning as they share information.

Negotiation, or bargaining, happens when two or more parties communicate in order to reach an agreement on a mutually acceptable outcome in a situation where they need jointly to achieve a goal that is not available to either party alone and their preferences for outcomes are usually negatively related, i.e. one party's gain is often the other party's loss. It is a complex, competitive, and interactive activity that is influenced by a variety of factors, including cognition, perception, emotion, motivation, and interpersonal skills, and the context in which the negotaiation occurs.

The dominant framework for understanding fundamental negotiation strategy is the dual concerns model (Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim 1994). An early version of the dual concerns model was proposed as the Managerial Grid (Blake and Mouton 1964), and was reinterpreted by Thomas (1976). The model postulates that individuals in negotiation have two somewhat independent concerns: a concern for realizing one's own substantive outcomes in the negotiation, and a concern for helping the other party achieve their outcomes, usually in order to strengthen a positive working relationship with the other party. The strength of one's concerns on each of these two dimensions dictates one of five major strategies. Contending (i.e. competing or dominating) is the strategy to consider when one has a strong concern for one's own outcome and has little concern about the other's outcomes. Negotiators employing a contending strategy try to obtain the best outcome possible only for themselves. Negotiators using a yielding (i.e. accommodating or obliging) strategy show little interest in attaining their own outcomes but strongly care that the other party achieves their goals, possibly in order to build a stronger future relationship with the other party. The third strategy, inaction (i.e. avoiding), occurs when negotiators have little interest in achieving either their own outcomes or the other's outcomes and is equal to retreating or withdrawing from the negotiation. When negotiators show high concern for attaining their own outcomes and a high concern for whether the other party attains his or her outcomes, they pursue a collaborative or problem-solving strategy, in order to maximize their joint outcome and to reach a 'win–win' situation. Finally, negotiators pursue a compromising strategy when they display a moderate effort to pursue their own outcomes and a similarly moderate amount of effort to help the other party achieve his or her outcomes and strengthen the relationship (Lewitcky et al 2003).

Since parties negotiate largely to enhance their own outcomes, the two most common strategic approaches are competing (contending) and collaborating (problem solving). Thus, the dominant choice confronting the negotiator is whether the relationship with the other party is important or not. These two negotiation approaches are also called distributive (competitive or claiming value) vs. integrative (collaborative, problem solving, or creating value). In distributive bargaining, negotiators believe that there is a limited, controlled amount of key resources to be distributed — a 'fixed-pie' situation. One party's gain is anticipated to be at the cost of the other's. Moreover, each negotiator attempts to maximize his or her outcome at the expense of the other party, and assumes that no long-term relationship with the other party is desired. A classic prototype for a distributive bargaining process is the sale of a used automobile, where the seller tries to persuade the buyer to purchase the auto at the highest possible price and the buyer attempts to buy the auto at the lowest possible price. In order effectively to execute a distributive bargain, it is recommended that each party identify three key points. First, the party should have a target point (or a 'goal'), the point at which a negotiator would like to conclude negotiations. Second, negotiators should identify a resistance point or bottom line — the least acceptable deal he or she would accept and still consummate the negotiation. Finally, negotiators should set an opening offer, where they intend to begin the negotiation, and what they would consider to be the most optimistic settlement. As the process unfolds, parties exchange their initial offers, and then engage in a process of concessions as each moves towards their target, but go no further than their resistance point. The spread between the parties' resistance points is called the 'bargaining range' or 'settlement range'. When the buyer's resistance point is above the seller's (i.e. the lowest price the seller will accept is within the range of what the buyer will pay), any price in that bargaining range is acceptable to both parties and agreement can be reached. A fourth point that is important to parties in a distributive negotiation is their alternative — that is, another deal they could do away from the table with another party. Thus, a buyer probably has an alternative used car he can buy from another seller and the seller hopefully has an alternative buyer. Alternatives are important because they give the negotiator power to walk away from a negotiation when the emerging deal is not likely to be acceptable. Thus in distributive bargaining, the fundamental strategy for a negotiator is to push for a settlement close to the other party's resistance point, to persuade the other party to change his or her resistance point, to get the other party to think that this settlement is the best that is possible, and/or to convince the other party that one has a strong alternative available. Many books and articles have been written on the tactics and execution of this approach (see Lewitcky et al 2003)

When negotiators expect a future relationship with the other party, or wish to maximize the joint outcome between the parties, they are more likely to employ a collaborative negotiating approach. Because the parties have had a history of past interaction and expect to work with the other in the future, they should be less willing to act competitively, because this approach is likely to harm the relationship with the other. Instead, a collaborative (integrative) approach allows both parties to achieve their goals. The tactics of integrative negotiation include: a focus on needs and interests rather than positions; an effort to discover the interests of both sides; an open exchange of information and ideas; an effort to brainstorm and find creative ways to meet as many interests as possible; and a use of independent standards to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair (see Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1991, Lewicki et al. 2003). In an integrative bargaining situation, it is critical to generate mutual trust between parties to assure adequate information sharing and collaboration.

In either negotiation process, how negotiators perceive and frame a situation and an outcome has a huge influence on the negotiation process and reaction to the final outcome. The most scrutinized and understood framing effect is the gain–loss frame (Tversky and Kahneman 1981), in which an outcome can be perceived as a gain or loss compared to a reference outcome that is judged neutral. Decision theorists have found that people are more loss averse, i.e. the pain of losing the same amount of value exceeds the pleasure of gaining the same. Furthermore, in any given situation, there are almost always multiple possible reference points to compare to, therefore the same problem and outcome can be framed differently. Negotiations in which the outcomes are framed as losses tend to produce fewer concessions, reach fewer agreements, and perceive outcomes as less fair than negotiations in which the outcomes are framed as gains. Hence a successful negotiator should be able to understand both positive and negative framing of the situation and present it strategically to their opponent and at the same time avoid being framed by the opponent. There are other cognitive biases that influence negotiators' success. For example, many negotiators assume that all negotiations only involve a fixed pie and pit their own gain against the opponent's benefit. Consequently, many negotiators fail to explore integrative negotiation opportunities because of this 'fixed-pie belief'. Another bias is called the 'winner's curse'. When a negotiator makes an offer that is immediately accepted by the opponent, this response signals that the negotiator may have offered too much, which makes the negotiator feel discomfort about a negotiation victory that came too easily (Thompson1998).

The outcome of a negotiation is also influenced greatly by each party's real or perceived power, which is the ability to influence the other party or bring about outcomes they desire. Common sources of power for a negotiator come from the information and expertise that may change the other party's point of view, the amount of control over resources, and the negotiator's legitimate power (rank or title of office). Another source of power derives from the negotiator's alternative (BATNA — best alternative to a negotiated agreement). Negotiators with attractive BATNAs can set higher reservation prices for themselves and have the power to walk away from the negotiation table when the offers are too low.

As in many other social interactions, negotiators should pay close attention to ethical standards. Ethics are rules or standards for what kind of behaviour is right or wrong in a negotiation situation. Ethics in negotiation are mostly about truth telling — how honest, candid, and disclosing a negotiator should be. Arriving at a clear, precise, effective negotiated agreement depends on the willingness of the parties to share accurate information about their own true preferences, priorities, and interests. At the same time, because negotiators may also be interested in maximizing their self-interest, they may want to disclose as little as possible about their positions.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/negotiation#ixzz19IN9b4Y7

Target language (Students)

Teaching Speaking

Developing Speaking Activities

Traditional classroom speaking practice often takes the form of drills in which one person asks a question and another gives an answer. The question and the answer are structured and predictable, and often there is only one correct, predetermined answer. The purpose of asking and answering the question is to demonstrate the ability to ask and answer the question.

In contrast, the purpose of real communication is to accomplish a task, such as conveying a telephone message, obtaining information, or expressing an opinion. In real communication, participants must manage uncertainty about what the other person will say. Authentic communication involves an information gap; each participant has information that the other does not have. In addition, to achieve their purpose, participants may have to clarify their meaning or ask for confirmation of their own understanding.

To create classroom speaking activities that will develop communicative competence, instructors need to incorporate a purpose and an information gap and allow for multiple forms of expression. However, quantity alone will not necessarily produce competent speakers. Instructors need to combine structured output activities, which allow for error correction and increased accuracy, with communicative output activities that give students opportunities to practice language use more freely.

Structured Output Activities

Two common kinds of structured output activities are information gap and jigsaw activities. In both these types of activities, students complete a task by obtaining missing information, a feature the activities have in common with real communication. However, information gap and jigsaw activities also set up practice on specific items of language. In this respect they are more like drills than like communication.

With information gap and jigsaw activities, instructors need to be conscious of the language demands they place on their students. If an activity calls for language your students have not already practiced, you can brainstorm with them when setting up the activity to preview the language they will need, eliciting what they already know and supplementing what they are able to produce themselves.

Structured output activities can form an effective bridge between instructor modeling and communicative output because they are partly authentic and partly artificial. Like authentic communication, they feature information gaps that must be bridged for successful completion of the task. However, where authentic communication allows speakers to use all of the language they know, structured output activities lead students to practice specific features of language and to practice only in brief sentences, not in extended discourse. Also, structured output situations are contrived and more like games than real communication, and the participants' social roles are irrelevant to the performance of the activity. This structure controls the number of variables that students must deal with when they are first exposed to new material. As they become comfortable, they can move on to true communicative output activities.

Communicative Output Activities

Communicative output activities allow students to practice using all of the language they know in situations that resemble real settings. In these activities, students must work together to develop a plan, resolve a problem, or complete a task. The most common types of communicative output activity are role plays and discussions .

In role plays, students are assigned roles and put into situations that they may eventually encounter outside the classroom. Because role plays imitate life, the range of language functions that may be used expands considerably. Also, the role relationships among the students as they play their parts call for them to practice and develop their sociolinguistic competence. They have to use language that is appropriate to the situation and to the characters.

Students usually find role playing enjoyable, but students who lack self-confidence or have lower proficiency levels may find them intimidating at first. To succeed with role plays:

• Prepare carefully: Introduce the activity by describing the situation and making sure that all of the students understand it
• Set a goal or outcome: Be sure the students understand what the product of the role play should be, whether a plan, a schedule, a group opinion, or some other product
• Use role cards: Give each student a card that describes the person or role to be played. For lower-level students, the cards can include words or expressions that that person might use.
• Brainstorm: Before you start the role play, have students brainstorm as a class to predict what vocabulary, grammar, and idiomatic expressions they might use.
• Keep groups small: Less-confident students will feel more able to participate if they do not have to compete with many voices.
• Give students time to prepare: Let them work individually to outline their ideas and the language they will need to express them.
• Be present as a resource, not a monitor: Stay in communicative mode to answer students' questions. Do not correct their pronunciation or grammar unless they specifically ask you about it.
• Allow students to work at their own levels: Each student has individual language skills, an individual approach to working in groups, and a specific role to play in the activity. Do not expect all students to contribute equally to the discussion, or to use every grammar point you have taught.
• Do topical follow-up: Have students report to the class on the outcome of their role plays.
• Do linguistic follow-up: After the role play is over, give feedback on grammar or pronunciation problems you have heard. This can wait until another class period when you plan to review pronunciation or grammar anyway.

Discussions, like role plays, succeed when the instructor prepares students first, and then gets out of the way. To succeed with discussions:

• Prepare the students: Give them input (both topical information and language forms) so that they will have something to say and the language with which to say it.
• Offer choices: Let students suggest the topic for discussion or choose from several options. Discussion does not always have to be about serious issues. Students are likely to be more motivated to participate on students' linguistic competence.
• Set a goal or outcome: This can be a group product, such as a letter to the editor, or individual reports on the views of others in the group.
• Use small groups instead of whole-class discussion: Large groups can make participation difficult.
• Keep it short: Give students a defined period of time, not more than 8-10 minutes, for discussion. Allow them to stop sooner if they run out of things to say.
• Allow students to participate in their own way: Not every student will feel comfortable talking about every topic. Do not expect all of them to contribute equally to the conversation.
• Do topical follow-up: Have students report to the class on the results of their discussion.
• Do linguistic follow-up: After the discussion is over, give feedback on grammar or pronunciation problems you have heard. This can wait until another class period when you plan to review pronunciation or grammar anyway.

Through well-prepared communicative output activities such as role plays and discussions, you can encourage students to experiment and innovate with the language, and create a supportive atmosphere that allows them to make mistakes without fear of embarrassment. This will contribute to their self-confidence as speakers and to their motivation to learn more

Dialogue 1;

This converciation  between a child charlie (4) nad his brother hendri (7)

Charlie : what al you doing??

Hendri : eating

Charlie ; what is it? Bean?

Hendri : (laugh) where is mummy?

Charlie : cooking

Hendri : daddy?

Charlie : wolk to office

Hendri ; have yu eaten?? Come eat with me??

Charlie : no

Hendri: why??

Charlie : i have

Hendri  : what do you eat??

Charlie  : nodlee...... (smile)

Hendri  : nodlee, but i see you eat egg

Charlie : no, i eat noodle..... i wanna bollow that

Hendri : what??? I can heard clearly....

Charlie: bolrrow your penci...

Hendri: this, but take care... do you want to follow me play playstation???

Charlie ; no... mum folbid me

Hendri : ok... i go bye... bye....

This research is very valuable for education, especially English, because it provides learners opportunity to get comprehensible input and produce comprehensible output. Yufrizal (2008: 105) states that one of the activities that can provide opportunity for learners to get comprehensible input and produce comprehensible output is through negotiation of meaning, which also provides learners opportunity to use the target language as much as possible.

This research is a useful way of ensuring the relevance of teacher-education programs. Walker (1985) sees research as a useful way of ensuring the relevance of teacher-education programs. Involving student teachers in real research is likely to make teacher-educational programs more relevant.

Having this research, we have stimulated processes of second language acquisition. Nunan (1989: 45) states that the SLA research has been concerned with identifying those types of communicative tasks which seem to stimulate processes of second language acquisition.