Negotiation of Meaning in Second Language Acquisition
by:
SIH KADARWATI 0713042045
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
ARTS AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTEMENT
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
2010
Interactionist Theory in Second Language Acquisition Part I
Introduction
Over the last several decades, while second language researchers have proposed many theories of second language acquisition (SLA), there has been little agreement on any single SLA theory. Language acquisition theories have traditionally centered on ‘nurture’ and ‘nature’ distinctions, advanced by the social-interactionist and nativist camps respectively.
Social-interactionists see language as a rule-governed cultural activity learned in interaction with others, while nativists perceive language ability as an innate capacity to generate syntactically correct sentences. In other words, interactionists believe environmental factors are more dominant in language acquisition, while nativists believe inborn factors are more dominant.
Social-interactionists see language as a rule-governed cultural activity learned in interaction with others, while nativists perceive language ability as an innate capacity to generate syntactically correct sentences. In other words, interactionists believe environmental factors are more dominant in language acquisition, while nativists believe inborn factors are more dominant.
Vygotsky, a psychologist and social constructivist, laid the foundation for the interactionists view of language acquisition. According to Vygotsky, social interaction plays an important role in the learning process and proposed the zone of proximal development (ZPD), where learners construct the new language through socially mediated interaction (Brown, p. 287). Vygotsky's social-interactionist theory was proposed about 80 years ago, and still serves as a strong foundation for the interactionists’ perspective today (Ariza and Hancock, 2003).
On the other hand, nativists’ such as Krashen assume that natural internal mechanisms operate upon comprehensible input which leads to language competence. This is evident in Krashen’s input hypothesis of SLA. Krashen’s input hypothesis was first proposed over 30 years ago, expanding from Chomsky’s Language Acquisition Device. Since that time, there have been many theories put forward under influence Krashen’s input hypothesis.
Although Vygotsky and Krashen can be categorized into distinct positions, the application of their theories to second language teaching shares a number of similarities. According to Krashen’s input hypothesis, language acquisition takes place during human interaction in the target language environment. The learner is then exposed to rich comprehensible input in the target language. However, in order for acquisition to occur, the input would need to be slightly beyond the learner’s current level of linguistic competence. Both Vygotsky and Krashen put great emphasis on the role of interaction in SLA.
Long, among other interactionists, also believes in the importance of comprehensive input. His interaction hypothesis also stresses the importance of comprehensible input as a major factor in second language acquisition; however, he also believes that interactive input is more important than non-interactive input. In addition, Long stresses the significance of interactional modifications which occur in the negotiating meaning when communication problems arise (Ellis, 1994).
The major distinction between interactionist and nativist theories of SLA is that scholars such as Krashen emphasize comprehensible target language input which is one-way input and, on the contrary, interactionists acknowledge the importance of two-way communication in the target language (Ariza and Hancock, 2003).
Interactionists agree that Krashen’s comprehensible input is a crucial element in the language acquisition process, but their emphasis is on how input is made comprehensible (Lightbown and Spada, 1998, p. 29). Moreover, Krashen distinguishes between language acquisition and language learning; however, this paper will focus mainly on Long’s theory of SLA.
This discussion will focus primarily on the interaction hypothesis proposed by Long. The following sections will highlight the main claims advanced by Long and discuss them critically in light of other competing perspectives on SLA and consider its EFL pedagogical implications.
The Interaction Hypothesis – The Main Claims
Krashen’s sees the relevance of social contextual factors as conversational gambits in securing more input for the learner, which eventually relate to the notion of an affective filter that is said to determine what input gets through to the brain's central language acquisition mechanism (Allwright, 1995).
Long believes thatwhat makes input to be comprehensible is modified interaction, or negotiation of meaning. In Krashen’s input hypothesis, comprehensible input itself remains the main causal variable, while Long claims that a crucial element in the language acquisition process is the modified input that learners are exposed to and the way in which other speakers interact in conversations with learners. (Lightbown and Spada, 1993).
Long (1983, cited in Gass, 2002) investigates conversations between a native speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) and proposes his interaction hypothesis as follows:
Negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways. (cited in Gass, 2002, p. 174).
In other words, interactional adjustments make input comprehensible, and comprehensible input promotes acquisition, thus interactional adjustments promote acquisition (Lightbown and Spada, 1993, p.30). Long believes that when meaning is negotiated, input comprehensibility is usually increased and learners tend to focus on salient linguistic features (Ariza and Hancock, 2003). Caroll (2000) also summarizes Long’s Interaction hypothesis as follows:
Speakers in conversations negotiate meaning. In the case of conversations between learners and others, this negotiation will lead to the provision of either direct or indirect forms of feedback, including correction, comprehension checks, clarification requests, topic shifts, repetitions, and recasts. This feedback draws the learner’s attention to mismatches between the input and the learner’s output (p.291).
Negotiation of meaning leads to modified interaction, which consists of various modifications that native speakers or other interlocutors make in order to render their input comprehensible to learners. For example, native speakers in a conversation with non-native speakers often slow their speech down, speaking more deliberately.
This kind of language modification by native speakers addressing to language learners is sometimes referred as foreigner discourse (FD). Modifications identified in FD vary significantly depending on individual factors such as speech style, the discourse, social and cultural contexts.
In FD, for example, it is reported that individual utterances tend to be shorter and syntactically less complex, more frequent and concrete vocabulary is used while slang and idioms are avoided, NSs tend to restate information using synonyms, etc.
At the discourse level, modifications include feedbacks such as recasts, comprehension checks, clarification requests, self-repetition or paraphrase, restatement and expansion of NNS statement and topic switches (Wesche, 1994; Brown, 2000; Lightbown and Spada, 1998). An example of clarification request is as follows (Gass, 2002, p.174):
Speakers in conversations negotiate meaning. In the case of conversations between learners and others, this negotiation will lead to the provision of either direct or indirect forms of feedback, including correction, comprehension checks, clarification requests, topic shifts, repetitions, and recasts. This feedback draws the learner’s attention to mismatches between the input and the learner’s output (p.291).
Negotiation of meaning leads to modified interaction, which consists of various modifications that native speakers or other interlocutors make in order to render their input comprehensible to learners. For example, native speakers in a conversation with non-native speakers often slow their speech down, speaking more deliberately.
This kind of language modification by native speakers addressing to language learners is sometimes referred as foreigner discourse (FD). Modifications identified in FD vary significantly depending on individual factors such as speech style, the discourse, social and cultural contexts.
In FD, for example, it is reported that individual utterances tend to be shorter and syntactically less complex, more frequent and concrete vocabulary is used while slang and idioms are avoided, NSs tend to restate information using synonyms, etc.
At the discourse level, modifications include feedbacks such as recasts, comprehension checks, clarification requests, self-repetition or paraphrase, restatement and expansion of NNS statement and topic switches (Wesche, 1994; Brown, 2000; Lightbown and Spada, 1998). An example of clarification request is as follows (Gass, 2002, p.174):
NS: there’s there’s just a couple of more things
NNS: a sorry? Couple?
NS: couple more things in the room only just a couple
NNS: Couple? What
does it mean couple?
NNS: a sorry? Couple?
NS: couple more things in the room only just a couple
NNS: Couple? What
does it mean couple?
Long claims that these modifications can provide greater transparency of semantic or syntactic relationships for learners, and he further proposes that interactional modifications may be the crucial factor in facilitating comprehension by non-NSs. (Wesche, 1994).
Is Comprehensible input through interaction enough? Both Long and Krashen, as well as many language teachers and researchers, see comprehensible input as a source of acquisition, support the view that comprehensible input is necessary for language acquisition to occur. However, some researchers argue that comprehensible input is not sufficient to promote acquisition.
For example, Swain (1995) advances her comprehensible output hypothesis which claims that output, in addition to input, is also critical in SLA. Swain’s hypothesizes states that output allows learners to create awareness of language knowledge gaps, experiment with language forms and structures, and obtain feedback from others about language use (Ariza and Hancock, 2003).
Comprehensible output assists learners to notice a ‘gap’ between what they want to say and what they can say, leading them to recognize what they do not know or are forgetting about the target language. Noticing a problem pushes the learner to modify his or her output and in doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode (Ariza and Hancock, 2003). For example:
Is Comprehensible input through interaction enough? Both Long and Krashen, as well as many language teachers and researchers, see comprehensible input as a source of acquisition, support the view that comprehensible input is necessary for language acquisition to occur. However, some researchers argue that comprehensible input is not sufficient to promote acquisition.
For example, Swain (1995) advances her comprehensible output hypothesis which claims that output, in addition to input, is also critical in SLA. Swain’s hypothesizes states that output allows learners to create awareness of language knowledge gaps, experiment with language forms and structures, and obtain feedback from others about language use (Ariza and Hancock, 2003).
Comprehensible output assists learners to notice a ‘gap’ between what they want to say and what they can say, leading them to recognize what they do not know or are forgetting about the target language. Noticing a problem pushes the learner to modify his or her output and in doing so, the learner may sometimes be forced into a more syntactic processing mode (Ariza and Hancock, 2003). For example:
NNS: so I went to shopping yesterday
NS: oh you went shopping?
NNS:yes I went- I went shopping
NS: oh you went shopping?
NNS:yes I went- I went shopping
From this perspective, not only comprehensible input obtained through interaction is crucial, but also does comprehensible output play an important role in interaction.
Effects of Negotiation in Language Acquisition
Many researchers agree that interaction enriches the input to the learning mechanisms. According to Long, negotiation of meaning promotes language acquisition to occur.
Gass (1997) also acknowledges negotiation as a facilitator of learning, and claims that negotiation draws attention to erroneous or inappropriate forms, and also creates a situation in which learners receive feedback through direct and indirect evidence, and, as a result, this facilitates second language learning.
However, as Carroll (2001, p.291) points out, how interaction does this is not addressed by any of the standard literature on interaction. She attempts to clarify possible functions of negotiation of meaning in relation to enhancing of learning and argues that negotiation helps the learner make more precise his/her choice of lexical item, and this might strengthen the learner’s encoding of a given form and lead to greater practice, which in turn will enhance recall of the relevant items.
Carroll, however, states that it is still unclear whether the negotiated interaction can accomplish anything else other than practice. Thus, further research is needed to demonstrate any relationships between negotiated input and the any learning which occurs.
Ellis (1994, p.280) also notes experimental studies which have attempted to discover whether negotiation leads to interlanguage development and whether modifications help acquisition at least where vocabulary is concerned. However, Ellis also claims that there has been no empirical test of the claim that negotiation of meaning aids the acquisition of new grammatical features.
Ellis (1994), in summarizing findings of empirical studies concerning the relationship between feedback and learner output, states that learners are much more likely to produce output modifications in response to clarification requests than to confirmation requests and repetitions, as clarification requests require learners to produce improved output, instead of native speaker’s modeling of what the learner intended to mean.
In addition, pushing learners to produce more comprehensible output may have a long-term effect, but not necessarily for all learners. However, Ellis again notes that there is little hard evidence to support the output hypothesis so far, and it is not clear whether pushed output can result in the acquisition of new linguistic features (pp 280-284).
To summarize the above discussion, negotiation of meaning and pushed output are said to have the following effects on second language acquisition:
- It helps to promote communication
- It facilitates learning as it helps noticing a ‘gap’ between received input and the learner’s output
- It enables learners to receive feedback through direct and indirect evidence Recall of the relevant item will be enhanced
- It helps acquisition at least where vocabulary is concerned
- Clarification requests facilitate learners to produce output modifications
- Pushing learners to produce more comprehensible output may have a long-term effect
However, so far a relationship between the amount or type of negotiated input and the amount or type of learning which occurs still remains unresolved at this point and further empirical research is needed.
Effects of Negotiation in Language Acquisition
Many researchers agree that interaction enriches the input to the learning mechanisms. According to Long, negotiation of meaning promotes language acquisition to occur.
Gass (1997) also acknowledges negotiation as a facilitator of learning, and claims that negotiation draws attention to erroneous or inappropriate forms, and also creates a situation in which learners receive feedback through direct and indirect evidence, and, as a result, this facilitates second language learning.
However, as Carroll (2001, p.291) points out, how interaction does this is not addressed by any of the standard literature on interaction. She attempts to clarify possible functions of negotiation of meaning in relation to enhancing of learning and argues that negotiation helps the learner make more precise his/her choice of lexical item, and this might strengthen the learner’s encoding of a given form and lead to greater practice, which in turn will enhance recall of the relevant items.
Carroll, however, states that it is still unclear whether the negotiated interaction can accomplish anything else other than practice. Thus, further research is needed to demonstrate any relationships between negotiated input and the any learning which occurs.
Ellis (1994, p.280) also notes experimental studies which have attempted to discover whether negotiation leads to interlanguage development and whether modifications help acquisition at least where vocabulary is concerned. However, Ellis also claims that there has been no empirical test of the claim that negotiation of meaning aids the acquisition of new grammatical features.
Ellis (1994), in summarizing findings of empirical studies concerning the relationship between feedback and learner output, states that learners are much more likely to produce output modifications in response to clarification requests than to confirmation requests and repetitions, as clarification requests require learners to produce improved output, instead of native speaker’s modeling of what the learner intended to mean.
In addition, pushing learners to produce more comprehensible output may have a long-term effect, but not necessarily for all learners. However, Ellis again notes that there is little hard evidence to support the output hypothesis so far, and it is not clear whether pushed output can result in the acquisition of new linguistic features (pp 280-284).
To summarize the above discussion, negotiation of meaning and pushed output are said to have the following effects on second language acquisition:
- It helps to promote communication
- It facilitates learning as it helps noticing a ‘gap’ between received input and the learner’s output
- It enables learners to receive feedback through direct and indirect evidence Recall of the relevant item will be enhanced
- It helps acquisition at least where vocabulary is concerned
- Clarification requests facilitate learners to produce output modifications
- Pushing learners to produce more comprehensible output may have a long-term effect
However, so far a relationship between the amount or type of negotiated input and the amount or type of learning which occurs still remains unresolved at this point and further empirical research is needed.
Boy1 and boy2
B1 : Where is the position of post office?
B2 : It is in Mawar street in front of factory.
B1 : So, where is the place that I can get formal education?
B2 : You can go to school or university.
B1 : I want to eat so where I can get that food in Mawar street?
B2 : You can go to KFC and eat fried chicken there and drink strawbery bliss.
B1 : Hem...that’s sound good. We can go there together right?
B2 : That’s good idea.
B1 : Talk about Mawar street, I want to have such kind of sport...So where is the suitable place in your opinion?
B2 : You can come to swimming pool in front of St.Paul’s church, between factory and
bank.
B1 : Can you repeat, I’m little bit confuse...
B2 : Swimming pool is in front of St. Paul’s church, between factory and bank.
B1 : Where is the position of dormitory?
B2 : Dormitory?
B1 : Yes...dormitory.
B2 : Wait a minut.
B1 : OK
B2 : This is...The position of dormitory is in front of cinema, next to park in Lily street.
Boy1 and girl1
B1 : I’m a buddhist. So where is the nearest temple in this town?
G1 : Oh....you should go to temple in Mawar street. The temple was in front of school
next to factory.
B1 : Hah???Can you repeat that?
G1 : The temple is in front of school next to factory.
B1 : OK. I’m hungry now.Where do I get food in Lily street?
G1 : You can go to Mc Donald. There are delicious food in that place.
B1 : Ok I will go to that place after this.
G1 :You can go to Mc Donald after this conversation.
B1 : Yes, I said that just now.
G1 : Really?Ok.What’s next?
B1 : Hem....If I want to go to Jogja using plane, where should I go?
G1 : Definitly you should go to airport in Lily street, in front of harbor next to water
tower.
B1 : Where is the position of motel?
G1 : Still in Lily street, infront of water tower....
B1 : Wait a minut, I feel confuse.You said water tower near of airport and you said
again just now.
G1 : Please don’t cut my explaination.Arg....
B1 : OK...please continue...
G1 : The position of motel is in Lily street, in front of water tower , and between Pizza
Hut and harbot.
Boy2 and girl2
B2 : I want to play softball this afternoon. Where is the softball stadium?
G2 : In Bakung street, in front of Ritz cinema, beside university.
B2 : OK and than where is the position of city hall?
G2 : The position of city hall is in front of university, between Ritz cinema and central
Library.
B2 : Ok I get that.
G2 : So what’s next?
B2 : Where I get book?
G2 : What’s kind of book do you want to get?
B2 : Story book maybe?
G2 : You can buy it in book store or borrow it in central library.
B2 : Emmm....can you repeat that?
G2 : Buy it in book store or go to central library.
B2 : I want to buy something. But, what is it?
G2 : Why you ask me if the answer is in your brain?wkwkwk...
B2 : Aha...I want to buy sock, shoes, and pants.
G2 : You can go to mall in Bakung street, next to central library. I will accompany you.
B2 :OK girl.
Girl1 and girl2
G1 : Where is the position of book store?
G2 : The position of book store is in Kamboja street, in front of hotel, between restaurant
And hospital.
G1 : I’m a christian. I want to have a pray. Is there any church in Kamboja street?
G2 : Yes girl...The church is in front of mosque, between hospital and basketball stadium
The name is St. John’s church.
G1 : And than where is the position of football stadium?
G2 : The position of football stadium is in front of hotel.
G1 : Pardon?
G2 : Football stadium is in front of hotel.
G1 : Wait. You said that St. John’s church was in front of hotel. Can you check it?
G2 : Oh my God. Sorry I make a mistake. The football stadium is in front of hospital.
G1 : The last is where is the position of central railway station?
G2 : still in Kamboja street in front of basketball stadium next to mosque.
G1 : Ok I get it.
G2 : What’s next?
G1 : I think enough. I’m tired,hahaha...
G2 : Ok so do I.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar