Jumat, 07 Januari 2011

negotiation of meaning (IWAN HARI PURNOMO) 0743042017

Negotiation of meaning
ANALYSES OF NEGOTIATION OF MEANING
(SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION ASSIGNMENT)


By: Iwan Hari Purnomo
SRN: 0713042032










ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM
ART AND LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2010

PREFACE

This paper is constructed to fulfill a requirement of Second Language Acquisition subject. It contained an analyses of some talks which then, is directed to an exploration toward the negotiation of meaning occurred in the language used in the talks.

There are three talks to be analyzed, with two persons taking role as the addresser and the addressee respectively. All of them use the same language that is Javanese. The first is a male-to-female talk. Meanwhile the second is a male-to-male talk. And the last is a female-to-female talk.

Due to lack of experience and knowledge possessed by the writer, it is obvious that this analysis is still far from perfection. Thus, the writer is pleased looking for any suggestion and criticism from the readers.






THEORIES



As advocated by Wagner (1996), the interest in the study of interactions within the last two decades is partly due to consideration of the role of communication for second/foreign language acquisition. The communication itself undoubtedly involves at least, if not one, two subjects, taking roles as the addresser and the addressee respectively. Each of them are trying to settle their knowledge and understanding of what is being talked.

However, in the process, there frequently occurs a misunderstanding or even non understanding by one of the speaker of his interlocutor’s utterances. Here, the function of negotiation of meaning plays its role in assisting an achievement of mutual understanding between the speakers.

Regarding the thoughtful view above, there subsequently emerges a reasonable question: “What is meant by negotiation of meaning?” Responding to this, there has been an attempt defining that negotiation of meaning is a series of exchanges conducted by addressors and addressees to help themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutors. In this case, when native speakers (Ns) and non native speakers (NNs) 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).
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. All of the analysis below will much rely on the concept above

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 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. 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.


Conversation between 2 people in with different ability related English.
Eko : hei Yuda where do you go?
Yuda : I will go to my friend dormitory.
Eko : could you tell me where is the central plaza in this map.
Yuda : what central plaza… hmm,,, I don’t understand this place is Artomotto plaza eko.
Eko : hei yuda ms. Aggiaa said that artomotto has been changed into center plaza..
Yuda : owh… I see now here from the circle of gajah we turn right and than go straight afer that turn right and the center plaza is beside Suzuki dealer.
Eko ; wait.. wait circle of gajah? You mean the monument of adipura? Hmmm I a see.. but where actually from the Suzuki dealer right side or left side?
Yuda : of course in the right side my friend in the left side is the popular restaurant BEGADANG IV hmmm I always feel hungry if thinking about BEGADANG.
Eko : how if I go there with public transportation? Can I..?
Yuda : yeah… hm… hm.. actually I never go to there with public transportation, usually I go to there with my motor cycle and seldom with my Family wit our fan. But don’t worry eko I Know what should you do to finish the problem.
Eko : what .. what did you mean you don’t know but you will give me the solution.
Yuda : yeah I will.. I know because I smart and has a good knowledge first I have read from news paper from the Raja Basi Terminal you will go with Damri or blue mini bus.
Eko : blue mini bus.. I didn’t get the point..
Yuda : it means Angkot or Mikrolet..
Eko : owh… then after that
Yuda : you change your public transport after you arrive in the in font of RAMAYANI Plaza.
Eko : why I should change the transportation is there any little terminal?
Yuda : absolutely right bro.. there are little terminal in there. Then you search for angkot with purple colour with telukuk destination. And say to the driver Mr. please stop in the Central Plaza..
Eko : owh I see it make me clear.. thank you Yuda..
Yuda : not at all.







CONCLUSION and Analysis

To summarize, negotiation of meaning has many definitions and classifications. One of those is as stated by Pica et al. They suggests that negotiation of meaning is generally consists of four interrelated moves. They are trigger, signal, response and follow-up moves.The first, a trigger, is viewed as any utterances followed by the addressee’s signal of total/partial lack of understanding. Next, 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. Then, response consists 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.

All of those categories are well-studied by many experts. The basic and the main objective of the analysis is to know that there are always gaps in any communication. And to overcome this problem, it is the negotiation of meaning that plays its role well so that the communication can run well without any unnecessary misunderstanding.

Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar