Negotiation Of Meaning (Rio Allen Wicaksi-0713042040)

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 The role of Negotiation of Meaning in Second Language Acquisition


Yufrizal (2008), in his book, An Introduction In second Language Acquisition, explains that there are so many differences in definition and description of negotiation of meaning from one researcher to another. Beside the forms and definitions of negotiation of meaning researchers also vary in their perception of the role of negotiation of meaning in second/foreign language acquisition. Pica (1996), says that there are two obvious contributions of negotiation of meaning in second language acquisition. Firstly, through negotiation of meaning (particularly interaction involving native speakers) nonnative speakers obtain comprehensible input necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interaction without negotiation of meaning. Secondly, negotiation of meaning provides opportunities for nonnative speakers to produce comprehensible output necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interaction without negotiation of meaning. Another role of negotiation of meaning which may not have direct impact to second language acquisition but it is an important element in second language learning through communication is that negotiation of meaning can fuction as an indication of pursuit of communication.


1.2 Negotiation of Meaning


Negotiation of meaning is defined as 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 and non native speakers 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 clarifications and confirmation and by repairing and adjusting speech.


There are several models of negotiation of meaning process. I will use the simple one by Varonis and Gass (1985). In this model, there are four primes called:


a. Trigger (T) which invokes or stimulates incomplete understanding o 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.
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 next chapter will provide the examples of negotiation meaning in a conversation that has been recorded by the writer.

Chapter 2

Transcript

This chapter contains the transcript of the interactions of native speaker and non native speaker which have been recorded by the writer.

Here is the picture of the participants:
 Andry

Digdam





















Video 1
The interactants in this video are:
1. Shelly : An Indonesian native speaker.
2. Digdam : A non native Indonesian speaker.
The conversation is conducted by using a”spot five differences in the two pictures puzzle”. Shelly and Digdam both have the same puzzle. But, Shelly has already known where the differences lie. Now, she has to tell Digdam, using Indonesian language, where the differences are.


Video 2
The interactants in the second video are:
1. Digdam : A non native Indonesian speaker.
2. Andre : A non native Indonesian speaker, too.
The same method is used in order to conduct a conversation between the two interactants. This time Digdam will be the information provider, and Andre acts as the information receiver.


Video 3
The interactants in this video are:
1. Rio : An Indonesian native speaker.
2. Digdam : A non native Indonesian speaker.
A different method is used in this conversation. Rio will tell Digdam about the rule of a game, using Indonesian obviously.
The complete transcript can be seen below the discussion.

Chapter 3

Discussion

After we read the transcript, we can see that negotiation of meaning does occur in each of the conversation. It does not matter who the interactants are (female to female, male to female, or female to male). Here, I will use Varonis and Gass model in negotiation of meaning, which consists of 4 parts:
1. Trigger (T) which invokes or stimulates incomplete understanding of the part of the hearer.
2. Indicator (I), which is the hearer’s signal of incomplete understanding.
3. Response(R), which is the original speaker attempt to clear up the unaccepted-input.
4. Reaction to the response (RR), which is an element that signals either the hearer’s acceptance or continued difficulty with the speakers repair.


Those 4 things above are 4 elements of negotiation of meaning according to Varonis and Gass. Here are the break downs of each conversation above.


In video 1, there are five sequences of negotiation of meaning, and we can find lot of negotiation of meaning here. But, here is one of them.
Shely : Mulai ya. Pada gambar 1, mulut roti jahe melengkung ke atas. (T)
Digdam : Mulut roti jahe?? (I)
Shely : Ya mulut roti jahe. (R)
Digdam : Ah, ya. Saya menemukannya. (RR)


In video 2, there are only three sequences. Here is one of them.
Digdam : Lalu. Di Harpoon, ada bintang. Yang kanan 1 bintang……..kurang.
(T)
Andre : Kanan? (I)
Digdam : Ya. Yang kanan. (R)
Andre : Oke. (RR)
In video 3, there are several sequences. The unique fact that happens is that they change the language in the middle of the conversation, resulting the role-switching of the native and non native speakers. Here is one of the sequences that occur in the conversation.
Rio : Ya, Rumbia. Letaknya di Lampung tengah. (T)
Digdam : Di lampung tengah. Di mana itu?? (I)
Rio : Oh. Kamu tidak tahu?? Wajar, kamu belum pernah ke sana. (R)
Digdam : Iya. Benar sekali. (RR)


Before I proceed further, I need to tell you that Digdam’s (Turkish) and Andre’s (Madagascan) proficiency in Indonesian language is about the same level, beginner. This will serve as the proof that the behavior of those two non native speakers is not influenced by their proficiency. At least, it will not affect them that much.


I already said that negotiation of meaning sequences occur in each of those conversations. But, the amount of the sequence seems to differ based on the interactants. The first conversation, where Digdam acts as the receiver, tends to be longer than the one with Andre as the receiver. Digdam also uses more words to express her incomplete understanding, while Andre prefers to be silent and think rather than ask (Give Signal) for the information provider Response. The negotiation of meaning sequences in Digdam conversation is also longer than that of Andre’s.


The reason for that is, I think, the difference in gender. Digdam is a female and Andre is a male. Female tends to be more talkative than male. Female prefers to speak up what they have in mind, especially when they are confused, while male prefers to think it through instead. Kramer (1977), in a study of stereotypical, believes about verbal gender differences between male and female. Females were believed to smile more than men, to use the face and hands to express ideas more than men, and to be more concerned about the listener. Males were believed to be louder but less talkative than women.

Chapter 4

Conclusion

Based on the explanation above, we can make a conclusion that the length of a sequence of negotiation of meaning may vary depends on the interactants. Gender also has very big influence in negotiation of meaning. Female tends to produce longer one while male the shorter one. The reason is that it is the nature of them, female being talkative and male being talk less do more.

TRANSCRIPT

Transcript of video 1
Shely : Mulai ya. Pada gambar 1, mulut roti jahe melengkung ke atas.
Digdam : Mulut roti jahe??
Shely : Ya mulut roti jahe.
Digdam : Ah, ya. Saya menemukannya. Di mana saya melingkarinya??
Shely : Pilih saja salah satu gambar itu. Di gambar 1 saja.
Digdam : Oke.
Shely : Lanjut ya. Di gambar 1, peri yang duduk…
Digdam : Yang duduk? Oke.
Shely : Ya. Yang duduk. Sayapnya ada dua.
Digdam : (……)
Shely : Sayap dia yang sebelah kiri ada 2.
Digdam : Mana?
Shely : Disebelah kiri. Sayap sebelah kiri.
Digdam : Kiri??
Shely : Ya, kiri.
Digdam : Oh, ya. Ketemu.
Shely : Lanjut. Butiran salju pasa peri kedua, di dekat lututnya tidak ada pada gambar 1.
Digdam : Butiran salju??
Shely : Ya, di dekat lutut.
Digdam : Lutut…
Shely : Ya, yang sebelah kanan.
Digdam : Oke. Dapat.
Shely : Sudah? Lanjut.
Digdam : Iya.
Shely : Yang keempat. Tanduk rusa.
Digdam : Tanduk rusa?
Shely : Ya. Di sebelah kiri rusanya tidak memiliki tanduk.
Digdam : Tidak punya tanduk??
Shely : Ya. Ketemu?
Digdam : Ah. Iya.
Shely : Bagus. Terakhir.
Pada gambar sebelah kiri. Di atas pohon cemara nomor tiga dari kanan, ada hiasan bintang.
Digdam : Apa?
Shely : Pohon cemara. Yang ketiga dari kanan.
Digdam : Iya.
Shely : Nah, di atasnya ada hiasan bintang. Gambar yang satunya tidak ada.
Digdam : Hiasan…bintang…
Shely : Ya, hiasan bintang.
Digdam : Hmmmm….. Ah, ketemu.
Shely : Oke, bagus sekali. Terima kasih Digdam.
Digdam : Iya, sama-sama.




Transcript of video 2


Digdam : Mulai??
Andre : Ya.
Digdam : Ada jahe, satu di atas mata……
Satu tidak.
Andre : (…….)
Digdam : Di atas mata.


(Silence)


Andre : Ya.
Digdam : Kedua. Ada peri…….yang di tangan kiri…..tidak ada gelang.


(Silence)


Andre : Ya.
Digdam : Lalu. Di Harpoon, ada bintang. Yang kanan 1 bintang……..kurang.
Andre : Kanan?
Digdam : Ya. Yang kanan.
Andre : Oke.
Digdam : Lalu. Butiran salju..


(Silence)


Andre : Hm….
Digdam : Ya, butiran salju.
Andre : Ada yang warna, rosa.
Digdam : Ya, warna rosa. Benar.
Kemudian. Kancing boneka salju kecil, tidak ada satu.
Andre : Kancing, oke.
Digdam : Iya.


Rio : Saya ingin kamu berperan sebagai seorang turis yang ingin mengunjungi teman kamu di daerah lain.
Digdam : Emmm. Iya.
Rio : Nah, karena kamu tidak tahu jalan ke sana. Kamu bertanya dengan resepsionis.
Digdam : Resepsionis? Yang di depan itu?
Rio : Iya.
Digdam : Jadi, saya tidak tahu di mana teman saya itu?
Rio : Tidak, tidak. Kamu tahu dia di mana. Hanya, kamu tidak tahu jalan menuju ke sana.
Digdam : Oh, jadi saya bertanya dengan resepsionis.
Rio : Iya, benar.
Digdam : Wait. Why do we got separated? We are from the same country.
Rio : What? Separated?
Digdam : Yes.
Rio : Oh, that is because you go to Indonesia not at the same time.
Digdam : Really?
Rio : Yes. Let us pretend that way.
Digdam : Oh. I get it. Ok.
Rio : Oke. Nama tempatnya Rumbia.
Digdam : Rumbia?
Rio : Ya, Rumbia. Letaknya di Lampung tengah.
Digdam : Di lampung tengah. Di mana itu??
Rio : Oh. Kamu tidak tahu?? Wajar, kamu belum pernah ke sana.
Digdam : Iya. Benar sekali.
Rio : Makanya kamu akan bertanya dengan resepsionis.
Digdam : Oh, yang di hotel itu?
Rio : Ya. Benar.
Digdam : Baiklah, kalau begitu.
Rio : Sip. Kita mulai?
Digdam : Oke.


(The conversation continues)


Actually, there are more interactions occurring in this video section. But I cut it off since the rest looks unnatural. While I think the negotiation of meaning occurs in the beginning part of the video. That is when Rio and Digdam exchange information about what they are going to do. They sometimes switch to both English, and Indonesian. That way, the role of NS and NSS are switched too, but yes, the negotiation of meaning still occurs since it does not matter what language is in use, but more to the essence of meaning delivered by the language.

Important Notes:

• Because I, got some difficulty in uploading the file directly to this blog, so i upload them on the other site, you may download it by click here.
• Because the participants (Andre and Digdam) did not allow the video to be shown, so i change it into mp3 file. 
• Special thanks for Digdam and Andre, for helping me finishing this task.