Emilia Rosanti (0743042011) Negotiation of Meaning

AN INTRODUCTION TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PAPER ASSIGNMENT

“NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION”

by :

Emilia Rosanti

0743042011

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

TEACHING TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

UNVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

BANDAR LAMPUNG

2010

ABSTRACT

SLA researchers have given much attention to investigating the role that negotiated interaction plays in second language learning. Empirical research has demonstrated that the negotiation of meaning that occurs when communication difficulties arise may provide learners opportunities to receive comprehensible input, provide feedback on form and meaning, and assist them in their production of modified output. While the shorten and long-term effects of negotiation on SLA are currently being examined, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the negotiation of meaning can facilitate the language learning process.

From a pedagogical perspective, numerous studies have shown the effect that individual learner, task and context variables can have on promoting opportunities for negotiation. While some attention has been given to the effects of individual learner variables like ethnicity, gender and pairing, and to task and contextual variables on L2 negotiation, their effect on advanced learners has been little researched.

The study revealed that task was the only variable to affect the amount of negotiated repair: free conversation produced more negotiation than the decision making tasks.

I.                  INTRODUCTION

In line with SLA (Second Language Acquisition) research, it is argued that “teaching does not and cannot determine the way the learner’s language will develop” (Ellis,1985, 1994, cited in Skehan, 1996) as learners develop their own natural processes. Given this fact, a question highly pertinent to roles of teaching is how teaching can nurture this internal process. Process in second language development involves three senses as Ellis (1984) proposes: (a) the developmental process, (b) process as interaction, and (c) process as mental operation. It is particularly the second process, to which tasks based teaching can contribute. Willis (1996: 54) argues that interaction between/among learners during the discussion of the task is a potentially rich forum evolving their language, especially their language stores (Rivers, 1987). Seed house (1999) refers to ‘modified interaction’ as crucial mechanisms promoting acquisition, while Richards and Rodgers (2002) pinpoint input and output processing, motivation, as well as negotiated and fine tuned learning difficulty as the central keys of task based teaching. To enlighten teachers with respect to such benefits, this study discusses the degree to which the interaction created by a task can pave the way for learners’ language development.

Particularly, this study attempts to probe how the interaction patterns in a communicative task might contribute to learners’ language development. It focuses on the role of negotiation of meaning. Two questions are addressed : (1) The extent to which negotiated meaning affects language development and (2) How different tasks affect the negotiation of meaning. Some major accounts related to input, interaction, and second language development are discussed as the basis of analysis.

Negotiation is a dialogue intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. It is the primary method of alternative dispute resolution. The study of the subject is called negotiation theory. Negotiation is a rather complex interaction. Capturing all its complexity is a very difficult task, let alone isolating and controlling only certain aspects of it. For this reason most negotiation studies are done under laboratory conditions, and focus only on some aspects. Although lab studies have their advantages, they do have major drawbacks when studying emotions.

II.               FRAME OF THEORIES

The extent to which interaction contributes to language development is very much dependent upon what kind of input it provides. Krashen (1980), as cited by Gass and Varonis (1985), argues that in order for SLA to occur, learners are to be exposed to comprehensible input. It means they are to be exposed to the target language slightly higher than their level of production but at the level of their comprehension. Long (1981) argues that the input derived from negotiated work when the learners encounter communication problems points the way to SLA. Gass (1997) adds that the negotiation involves form and meaning.

 Though similarly recognizing the role of comprehensible input in SLA, Long (1981) differs from Krashen with respect to the way the input can be made comprehensible. Whereas Krashen (cited in Ellis et al., 1994) emphasizes the role of simplified input and contextual support, Long (1981) highlights the role of modified interactions. Long (1983) identifies three strategies in negotiating meaning: (1) comprehension checks – checking whether the interlocutor has understood something, (2) confirmation checks – ensuring whether s/he has heard or understood something the interlocutor said, and (3) clarification request – requesting help in understanding something the interlocutor said. Pica et al. (1987) specifically argue that modified interaction facilitates comprehension.

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 Rashen’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.

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 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.

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.

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).

To account for the conversational episode involving these exchanges, Varonis and Gass (1985:74-75) develop a model for the negotiation of meaning. The model represents four fundamental functions of the utterances: T (Trigger) ---- I (Indicator) --- R (the speaker’s Response) --- RR (Reaction to the Response).

 First, (T) Trigger is the utterance on the part of the speaker, which results in some indication of non-understanding on the part of the hearer.

Second, (I) Indicator is the one on the part of the hearer that pushes down the conversation rather than impels it forward.

Third, (R) Response is the speaker’s response acknowledging the non-understanding in some way.

Fourth, (RR) Reaction to the response is an optional element.

Despite the claims that interaction involving negotiation results in better comprehension that eventually facilitates SLA, Gass (1997) notes that few, however, indicate a direct link between “actual negotiation and subsequent learning” (p. 126). Some studies (Sato, 1986, 1990; Loschky, 1994; Ellis et al., 1994), as cited by Gass (1997), even show that while interaction, particularly negotiation, to some extent improves comprehension, it does not directly related to SLA. Therefore, Gass (1997: 131) argues that negotiation serves as “a means of drawing attention to

linguistic form, making it salient and thereby creating a readiness for learning.”

III.              METHODOLOGY

The Tasks

This paper employs the communicative tasks involving some pictures. The use of two kinds of tasks is intended to see whether different tasks yield different interaction patterns. In relation to language acquisition, Pica and Doughty (1985) argue that such tasks lead to acquisition as they involve negotiation and conversational adjustments. The pictures, requires the participants to go to somewhere which have in the picture. Having had a pictures, each participant is to interact by asking, describing, or clarifying to find the similarities and differences.

In this task they make both participants heavily rely on their interaction to accomplish the task. Given the very nature of these tasks, interaction becomes an element which does not only accompany the activities but it defines the activities themselves as well.

The Participants

The participants involved in these tasks were two male and two female, who study at Economy Faculty and Law Faculty of Lampung University. One of male and female has a basic level of proficiency with their English. And the other male and female have an advance level of proficiency with their English.

Data Collection and Procedures

The data were derived from the language interactions produced by four participants engaged in the pictures.Having been recorded, the data were transcribed and coded for : Trigger (T), Signal (S), Response (R), Follow up (TU). On the basis’s of Gass and Varonis’ (1985) model of negotiation of meaning to measure its incidence of negotiation of meaning.

IV.           ANALYSIS

TRANSCRIPTS

Dialogue 1

This is a conversation between male and female who has advance level of proficiency with their English.

1. A         :           Hi Sandra, how are you? (S)
2. B         :           I’m fine. How about you? (R) (S)
3. A         :           Me too .. (R)

Mmm .. Hei .. How was your holiday? (S)

4. B         :           Really good, but I’m so tired. (R)
5.  A        :           Why did you say like that?? (T)
6. B         :           Yeah.. Because I took by bus .. Hufftt.. (R)
7. A         :           Why you used bus? (T)

Did you go to Bali, yet? (S)

8. B         :           No, I didn’t went to Bali. Because I went to see my aunt in

Bandung. So our flight was cancelled. (S)

9. A         :           Bandung? How did it take? (R)
10. B         :           Huh .. The first one I took by bus from Lampung to Jakarta about 4

hours. And then from Jakarta to Bandung about 6 hours. (R)

11. A         :           From Lampung to Jakarta only 4 hours? Sure? (T)
12. B         :           Owwh no, no. I’m forgot. From Lampung to Jakarta about 7 hours.

Hehehee.. (S)

13. A         :           How far is it? From Lampung to Bandung?? (S)
14. B         :           About 660 km. (R)
15. A         :           How much the cost? (S)
16. B         :           The cost almost Rp.300.000. (R) (S)
17. A         :           What did you do when you in Bandung? (S)
18. B         :           Shopping of course! Hehehee .. (R)

Hmmm .. How about your holiday Jimmy?? (S)

19. A         :           I feel so happy.. I went to KL with my family. (R)
20. B         :           Kuala Lumpur? Malaysia? (R)
21. A         :           Yes it is ! (S)
22. B         :           Didn’t you take by plane? (S)
23. A         :           ….(no response)
24. B         :           How far is it? (S)
25. A         :           Hmmm .. I think about 3000 km or more. (R)
26. B         :           How much did it cost? (S)
27. A         :           It’s cost almost Rp. 600.000,- (R)
28. B         :           How long did it took? (S)
29. A         :           About 4 to 5 hours. (R)
30. B         :           Hmmm .. I think, I will go to KL for the next holiday. (R)
31. A         :           Wish you can go there next holiday. (R)

QUANTITY
To count how many utterances and words per seconds during the interaction
One utterance (Response) / 5 seconds

One words (Signal) /10 seconds

Dialogue 2

This is a conversation between male and female who has basic level of proficiency with their English.

1. A         :           Hi Romi, Do you know where is the Biology Laboratory? (S)
2. B         :           Hmm… There is .. There is the second room on the right side. (R)
3. A         :           Ok .. I see .. (R)
4. B         :           Do you know the Assembly Hall?? (S)
5. A         :           Assembly Hall??? (T)
6. B         :           Yes, Assembly Hall or we know as auditorium (R). Do you know where is

it? (S)

7. A         :           Owh .. Assembly Hall, I know (TU). It’s apart from staff room on the left

side Language Laboratory. (R)

8. B         :           Owh Yaa .. I see .. (R)
9. A         :           Do you know where is the Students Canteen?? (S)
10. B         :           Pardon?? (T)
11. A         :           Students Canteen…(R)
12. B         :           Owh .. Students Canteen .. It’s on the left side of Library. (R)

Do you know where is the Swimming Pool? (S)

13. A         :           Swimming Pool (thinking) (R) .. Oww Yeah .. (TU). It’s on the left side of

Tennis Court. (R)

14. B         :           On the left side of Tennis Court (R) .. mmmhh .. I see (TU). And the last ..

Hmm .. (S). Do you know where is the Library and Computer Library?? (S)

15. A         :           Library is in front of the Language Laboratory and the Computer Library

is the first room on the right side. (R)

16. B         :           Ok. I see. (TU)

Thank You.

17. A         :           Wait. Do you know where is the School Office and Music Room?? (S)
18. B         :           Yes, I know. School Office is in front of Car Park. And the Music Room is

the first room on the left side. (R)

19. A         :           Owh I see (TU). Thank You Romi.
20. B         :           You’re Welcome Shinta. (R)

QUANTITY
To count how many utterances and words per seconds during the interaction

One utterance (Response) / 9 seconds

One words (Signal) /15 seconds

ANALYSIS

The analysis of the data from task, picture comparison reveals that negotiation of meaning is the strategy that the interlocutors used when non-understanding routines occurred. As a result of their negotiation, there is no doubt that they gained better comprehension. However, in terms of the quantity, the tasks yield different numbers of negotiation of meaning.

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.

V.               CONCLUSION

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.

VI.           REFERENCES

Gass, S.M. (1997).Input, interaction, and Second Language Learner. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbraum Associate, Inc, Publishers.

Pica, T.1996.Do second language learners need negotiation ?IRAL, 34: 1-19.

Yufrizal, 2008. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition.Pustaka Reka Cipta.Bandung : Rineka Cipta.