SLA by DESTI ARYANI

The script of The Conversation between Father and His Son

A         : enek opo le.

B         : enek seng diculek pak

A         : sopo jenengane seng di culek?

B         : mboh’ jerene kelas loro sd seng di colek pak.

A         : mangkane dolane ojo adoh-adoh

B         : orak aku’ orak dolan adoh-adoh ko pak’e

A         : ojo gelem di ke’i permen opo benda seng lain yo..??

B         : yo pak segala macem aku orak gelem ko.

A         : lah..iku ngerti kue.

B         : seng nyolek lanang karo wedok pak.

A         : kue ngerti seng nyolek opo?

B         : orak..hehe paling seng nyolek seko deso yo pak?

A         : orak mesti, mangkane neng jalan ojo mencla-mencle karo uwong seng orak  

              Dikenal.

B         : iyo pak sopo seng mencla-mencle…pak.

A         : colek iku ngeri ndasmu iso di tugel

B         : ngerine pak koyo ngono po pak?

A         : iyo tenan pokok’e bali sekolah ojo dolan-dolan adoh-adoh langsung bali.

B         : iyo pak..

A         : yok dolan go ne’ mbak ayu yok?

B         : ngopo bapak ngjak’i aku dolan gone mbak’ayu

A         : yo dolan wae…lah, inget yo kalok arep dolan karo konco-koncomu

B         : yo pak aku dolane karo konco ku ko.

A         :iyo, ojo adoh2 juga yo...?

B         : yo pak

A         : engko dolan-dolan adoh-adoh koyo cah iku seng di colek ilang

B         : yo pak’e.

A         : di rungoke omongan bapak iki.

B         : yo pak tak rungke.

BABY TALK

As noted above, baby talk involves shortening and simplifying words, with the possible addition of allured words and non verbal utterances, and can invoke a vocabulary of its own. Some utterances are invented by parents within a particular family unit, or passed down from parent over generations, while others quite widely known.

A fair number of baby talk and nursery words refer bodily functions or private parts, partly because the words are relatively easy to pronounce. Moreover, such word reduce adults discomfort such things without breaking adult taboos.

Some examples of widely-used baby talk words and phrases in English, many of which are not found within standard dictionaries, include:

-          baba (blanket or bottle)

-          beddy-bye  (go to bed, sleeping, bedtime)

-          binkie (pacifier (dummy) or blanket)

-          blankie (blanket)

-          didee ( diaper)

-          din-din (dinner)

-          icky (disgusting)

-          nana (grandmother)

-          pee-pee (urinate or penis)

-          potty (toilet)

-          mama (mother)

-          wuv (love)

-          yucky (disgusting)

-          yum-yum (mealtime)

Moreover, many words can be derived into baby talk following certain rules of transformation, in English adding a terminal /i/ sound is a common way to form a diminutive which is used as part of baby talk, examples include:

-          horsey (from horse)

-          kitty (from cat or kitten)

-          potty (originally from pot now equivalent to modern toilet)

-          doggy (from dog)

(“Puppy” is often erroneously thought to be a diminutive of pup made this way, but it is in fact the other way around:  pup is shortening of  puppy, which comes from French popi or poupée).

Other transformations mimic the way infants mistake certain consonants which in English can include turning /l/ into /w/ as in wuv from love or widdo from little or in pronouncing /v/ as /b/ and /ð/ or /t/ as /d/.

Still other transformations, but not in all language, include elongated vowels, such as kitty and kiiiitty, meaning the same thing, While this is understood by English speaking toddlers, it is not applicable with Dutch toddlers as they learn that elongated vowels  reference different words.

Baby talk, teacher talk and foreigner talk

Krashen (1980) input hypothesis has inspired a large amount of research that attempt to find out the relationship between input and interaction in second/foreign language learning. Studies that attempt to prove the influence of comprehensible input in first language acquisition have resulted in term such as baby talk, motherese, care-giver speech and care-talker speech.

Flirtatious baby talk

Baby talk may be used as a form of flirtation between sex partners. In this instance, the baby talk may be an expression of tender intimacy, and may form part of  affectionate role play in which one partner speaks and behaves childishly, while the other acts motherly of fatherly, responding in parents. One or both partners might perform the child role.

Baby talk with pets

Many people use falsetto, glissando, and repetitive speech similar to baby talk when addressing their pets. Such as is not commonly used by professionals who train working animals, but is very common among owners of companion pets, This style of speech is different from baby talk, despite in tonal similarities, especially if the speaker used rapid rhythms and forced breathiness which may mimic the animal’s utterances. Pets often learn to respond well to the emotional states and specific commands of their owners who use baby talk, especially if the owner’s intonations are very distinct from ambient noise, For example, a dog may recognize baby talk as his owner’s invitation to play( as is a dog’s natural “play bow”); a cat may learn to come when addressed with the high pitched utterance, “Heeeeeeeerree kitty-kitty-kitty-kitty-kitty-kitty”!.

SLA (SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION)

Assignment

Conversation between a Father and his Son

In Javanese language

Created by:

DESTI ARYANI

0853042009

THE FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY

2011

SLA-BABY TALK BY RESTY FRAMILA UTAMI

AN INTRODUCTION TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PAPER PRESENTATION

“NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION”

BY



Resty Framila Utami
(0853042031)








TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
2011































ACKLNOWLEDGE

In every country where English is being learned as the foreign language, it is going to be difficult to make use it as well as their language. Especially, in Indonesia having so many tribes and also having different mother tongue, this is believed has become difficult to acquire English even they need to master Indonesian as well. Therefore, the linguistics is attracted to investigate the way how people acquire the language.

Second language acquisition is the study of how learning creates a new language system with only limited exposure to a second language (Yufrizal, 2007). By considering this, the writer believes that the language learner where English is as the second language will face some difficult things to acquire the language as well as native. The proficiency is not as good as people who live in the country who use it as their language. Therefore, they will create a new system so that they can master it.

In this opportunity, the writer tries to investigate how people communicate in English whether there are ways when they find difficulties in acquiring the meaning is used. Because each communicator will have their own strategies to negotiate when they don’t understand what people say to them?

This is also as the requirement in having semester test. But, before we elaborate it deeply, i must say thanks to Almighty Allah who always gives us changes to learn everything in the world. Not only our God but we also thank to the greatest prophet Muhammad SWT as the leader of Moeslem. Honestly, we cannot comprehend this subject without our beloved lecture therefore we also thank to our best lecture Mr. Hery Yufrizal, M.A.,Ph.D as the Second Language Acquisition lecture who has given his merciful in teaching us this subject patiently. This whole material is taken from his book; the title is An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition.


I. INTRODUCTION


Since English is not easy, people try so many things in order to be able become proficiency in using it. Thus, they apply so many ways so that they are able to comprehend the meaning being said by the speaker. For example, it is the conversation between two speakers who have low ability in speaking English;
A : I borrowed my sister’s comic last week
B : You borough my sister’s comic last week
A : No, I borrowed my sister’s comic last week
B : sorry you borough or borrowed my sister’s comic last week
A : I borough not I borrowed
B : Oooh,, You borrowed it

By observing this conversation, we can see that B has misunderstanding toward the words being said by A, and then B asks clarification from A. This way commonly happens in every circumstance where people try to communicate in English. That is what we call Negotiation of Meaning. But those errors are not totally broke the communication what the pioneer of education calls global errors. That ways is assumed as the technique to acquire the language by using the new system in order for easily to get the language.

It has been taken long time ago, people try to analyze how people negotiate the meaning when they found difficulties to grasp the meaning. Wagner (1996) in Yufrizal argues that interest in the study of interaction within the last two decades is partly due to consideration of the role of communication for second/foreign language acquisition. Second/ foreign language acquisition occurs especially when learners are engaged in the use of the language for communication. In this view interaction is treated as one of the most important aspects that influences the success or failure of second and/or foreign language acquisition. Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) claim that ‘language is best learned and taught through interaction’ (p.10). Long (1996) confirms that interactional modification leads to second language development and more active involvement in negotiated interaction leads to greater development.

Therefore I am also interested to record the conversations then finally identify the conversation where negotiation of meaning is occurred. As the language learner and teacher to be, this is going to be important to recognize how the negotiation is happened and to know whether it has bad implication in acquiring the language or not.



II. FRAME OF THEORIES

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. 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:









D. 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.


III. ANALYSIS


A. DIALOG

This is a conversation between two people in the school taken from 3rd grade of Senior High School. Both of them are in the same level in English Low and Low;

David : "Hello John, good morning!"
John : "O, hello David, good morning!"
David : "How are you today?"
John : " I'm fine, how about you?"
David : "Actually I'm getting better now, yesterday I got influence.
John : "O right, that's good, what’s up David? Is there any good news?
David : "Yes, actually I would like to invite you that next Saturday there will be a party in my home; my little brother is going to celebrate his birthday. So, will you come and join the party, David?"
(T) John : "Sorry,,” Pardon!
(S)David : my little brother is going to celebrate his birthday. So, will you come and join the party, David?"
(TU) John : Of course, I will come to the party.
David : "Great! Thanks, now I have to go home, there will be a guest in my home, Good Bye!"
John : "You're welcome, bye!"

Trigger (T) : Sound that can make misunderstanding
Signal (S) : Confirmation Check, Clarification Request
Response (S) : Self Repetition
Follow up (TU) : statement showed understanding

B. Analysis
Based on the conversation above, the writer analyze there are so many negotiation of meaning done by the speakers. They tried to clarify each words which probably difficult to be receipted so that the conversation can run well. It commonly happens with Indonesian’s students whereas English is a foreign language. Nevertheless, the writer believes that negotiation of meaning is a part of learning the language. That is one of ways to acquire the language directly, consciously/unconsciously.

THE ASSIGNMENT OF
SECOND LANGUAGE AND ACQUISITION SUBJECT
“NEGOTIATION OF MEANING”

BY
SITI MAISAROH
0743042039


ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
THE FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
2011


I. 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. Each of the talk has about three minute’s duration. 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.



II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

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.

The script
Text 1 and text 2 use the same picture


Text 1
Mimi and pipit has low level of skill
pipit : can you tell me the location of the wedding?
mimi : where the location of wedding party is…
pipit : yes, its I mean..
mimi : where the place huh?
pipit : yes yes
mimi : oh.. here in near in TPU Sukajawa
pipit : near what?
mimi : TPU Sukajawa
pipit : oh… how can I go there?
mimi : you can go by blue angkot or ojek
pipit : but my money is not enough for ojek
mimi : sorry?
pipit : I have not any money
mimi : oh…
pipit : so I chose angkot ya
mimi : yeah better
pipit : what angkot?
mimi : blue
pipit : oh yeah blue. So what
mimi : you take blue first after that you take red one.
pipit : just blue and red huh?
mimi : oho (nod)
pipit : left or right?
mimi : the angkot will take you at the adress
pipit : is it right?
mimi : yes… just follow it. ok
pipit : are you sure?
mimi :of course…
pipit : tell me again please…
mimi : huh?
pipit : tell me again ya
mimi : ok ok… you can take blue angkot to TK Ar-Raudhah
pipit : TK what?
mimi : TK Ar-Raudhah, you know that?
pipit : yeah I know… so?
mimi :its near from that TK eh kindergarten
pipit : yes yes and then?
mimi : from that kindergarten you can enter the gang in front of
pipit : in front of kindergarten is a gang?
mimi : yep
pipit : so?
mimi : enter… and turn left just turn left
pipit : sorry…
mimi : just turn left
pipit : huh
mimi : yep the location is in the right side of you
pipit : right me?
mimi : yes your right
pipit : huh… I know it now….
mimi : oke…
pipit : so I enter the gang and turn left the location is in right….
mimi : yep (nod)
pipit : ok thank you for your information…
mimi : no problem…




Text 2
The dialogue between Mimi and didi, mimi is lower level and didi has high level
pipit : i will go to eh party eh my friend party, in eh TPU sukajawa, do you know how to go there?
Didi : sorry?
pipit : how to go to TPU Sukajawa?
Didi : owh that place
Pipit : you know?
Didi : of course i know, it’s near my house.
pipit : really...?
Didi : you know telkom?
pipit : what?
Didi :telkom
pipit : ah yes
Didi : if you know telkom you have to go straight then in the tejunction you turn left trough imam bonjol street, after that turn left again in Tamin street. You will see a kidergarten named Ar-Raudah you enter the gang in front of it and the location is in your right side.
pipit : street what?
Didi : which one?
pipit : the first street, what street?
Didi : kartini street.
pipit : o ya
Did : kartini street then turn.... sorry...
pipit : turn left
Didi : ya turn left,
pipit : after that imam bonjol street and ta ta ta....
Didi : tamin street
pipit : yes i mean tamin street
Didi : huft... then?
pipit : i know the kindergarten, gang and my right
Didi : yes exactly
pipit : i know it. Kartini street, left, imam bonjol, left again, gang, and right.
Didi : yeah thats true... dont forget the kindergarten
pipit : oh yeah the kindergaten, i see
Didi : no
pipit : ok thank you so much
Didi : it’s ok...


Text 3 and 4 use the same picture

Text 3
The dialog between high level students, Ari and Didi.
Ari : I have a nice picture, do you want to see?
Didi : what picture?
Ari : here is the picture of my classmate
Didi : really?
Ari : yes…
Didi : where are you?
Ari : I’m not there
Didi : not there? Why?
Ari : i have micro teaching subject at that time
Didi : micro what?
Ari : micro teaching.
Didi : oh... by the way, so many beautiful lady in your class
Ari : yes, that’s true
Didi : which one do you like?
Ari : sorry?
Didi : is there any some one do you like?
Ari : no no... they all my friend my best friend.
Didi : really?
Ari : yeah...
Didi : but i think the pinky girl has a nice smile
Ari : pardon? A pinky girl?
Didi : yes...
Ari : her name is janah, siti nurjanah
Didi : siti?
Ari : yes siti nurjanah
Didi : same with dangdut singer right?
Ari : its ike nurjanah
Didi : hahaha just kidding... how about the funny man there?
Ari : funny man?
Didi : yup, the biggest smile...
Ari : oh... it’s Doni, my ex leader?
Didi : ex? why you say so?
Ari : i think it’s because he can’t handle the class anymore
Didi : can’t handle the class, why?
Ari : i don’t know...
Didi : do you think that they are a nice friend?
Ari : yeah they do
Didi : so which one is you close friend?
Ari : it’s ni ketut apriyani
Didi : sorry?
Ari : ni ketut apriyani
Didi : how come?
Ari : of course it can be, because she is a really kind girl, she also funny and humorise
Didi : nothing special
Ari : pardon?
Didi : nothing special
Ari : pardon
Didi : nothing special in your heart?
Ari : sorry?
Didi : huh is there notning special in your heart with her?
Ari : haha no of course not, she is just friend for me.
Didi : really?
Ari : yeah, just friend
Didi : ok... i trust you
Ari : look at this boy, look at his appearance, he is so strange right?
Didi : strange?
Ari : i don’t thing so...
Didi : no way
Ari : all the people said he is strange...
Didi : really? Why?
Ari : he has different style with us and he has an over confidence
Didi : over?
Ari : yeah over confidence
Didi : why you say so?
Ari : he always do a strange activity when he performing
Didi : oh no...
Ari : ok forget him, he is not important.
Didi : hey, how about the long hair one? She is cute i think
Ari : which one?
Didi : the long hair
Ari : oh she is Vita, a lampungnese girl. Why?
Didi : no just eh cute eh cute
Ari : haha, cute
Didi : yes cute girl
Ari : i think so

Text 4
The dialogue are between low level and hidh level, Ari and Mimi.
Mimi : it’s all your your classmate?
Ari : yes, exactly yes
Mimi : eh... how many are you your class?
Ari : sorry?
Mimi : member?
Ari : what?
Mimi : ehm calss member?
Ari : oh its around fourty students.
Mimi : so many
Ari : yeah i think so.
Mimi : you in this photo? No no no...
Ari : yes i’m not in that picture, because i have my other subject.
Mimi : oh...
Ari : (pause)...
Mimi : girl friend, where your girl friend?
Ari : pardon?
Mimi : eh your girl friend in the photo
Ari : ooh i have not girl friend, that’s all my friend
Mimi : really
Ari : i swear
Mimi : but the girls beautiful, they are beautiful
Ari : i think so, but no one is my criteria
Mimi : eh.... ya
Ari : (paused)
Mimi : (paused)
Ari : hey look at the two boys, what do you think of them?
Mimi : what?
Ari : do you like one of them huh?
Mimi : ha?
Ari : do you like one of them?
Mimi : eh... i think eh the left boy is good
Ari : which one?
Mimi : the left.
Ari : oh his name is Doni Alfaruqy
Mimi : doni what?
Ari : ALFARUQY
Mimi : ooh that’s a good name
Ari : (nod) but what about the other?
Mimi : yes i think he has a good looking
Ari : ha ha yu’re right...
Mimi : why you lough?
Ari : no no just eh just ... forget it
Mimi : how about the girl, eh good (paused) character
Ari : eh you mean their personality?
Mimi : what?
Ari : yeah character or personality
Mimi : yes
Ari : they all good girl...
Mimi : really...?
Ari : of course
Mimi : how about the currly hair?
Ari : heh?
Mimi : the curly girl
Ari : owh it’s leni apridawaty
Mimi : apri apri what?
Ari : apridawaty
Mimi : leni apridawati?
Ari : hu uh
Mimi : she sweet
Ari : yeah but not as sweet as you (low voice)
Mimi : sorry?
Ari : no no
Mimi : what?
Ari : you also sweet
Mimi : huuu
Ari : he he he
Mimi : eh eh can you tell me the eh the green light girl?
Ari : the what?
Mimi : the girl who wearing the green light cloth
Ari : oh RBR
Mimi : what?
Ari : RBR
Mimi : what RBR?
Ari : Rahmawati Bekti Rahayu... he he
Mimi : like SBY hehe
Ari : yes... she nice
Mimi : owh... all people is nice for you
Ari : pardon?
Mimi : you always think all people is good ya
Ari : yes all people have their good side, it’s surely i know
Mimi : ya ya ya
Ari : yep...
Mimi : ok, thank you for information
Ari : aha you’re welcome...nice to talk with you.
Mimi : ya...

III. Annalysis

Text 1
There are 4 trigger, in 3 minutes 25 second. In a minute there are around 100 words are produced. The negotiation is like this:
a. Morfological modification trough addition, deletion, substitution, of inflectional morfeme. Example:
- (T) pipit : can you tell me the location of the wedding?
(I) mimi : where the location of wedding party is…
(R) mimi : oh.. here in near in TPU Sukajawa
(T) pipit : near what?
(I) mimi : TPU Sukajawa

b. Clarification of request. Example:
- (T) pipit : but my money is not enough for ojek
(I) mimi : sorry?
(R) pipit : I have not any money
(RR)mimi : oh…

- (T) pipit : tell me again please…
(I) mimi : huh?
(R) pipit : tell me again ya
(T)mimi : ok ok… you can take blue angkot to TK Ar-Raudhah
(I) pipit : TK what?
(R) mimi : TK Ar-Raudhah, you know that?

- (T) mimi : enter… and turn left just turn left
(I) pipit : sorry…?
(R)mimi : just turn left

Text 2
There are 5 trigger. It’s need 2 minutes 32 second. In a minute they produce 75 words. The negotiation is like this:
a. Clarification request
- (T)pipit : i will go to eh party eh my friend party, in eh TPU sukajawa, do you know how to go there?
(I)Didi : sorry?
(R)pipit : how to go to TPU Sukajawa?
(RR)Didi : owh that place

- (T)Didi : you know telkom?
(I)pipit : what?
(R)Didi :telkom
(RR)pipit : ah yes
(T)Didi : if you know telkom you have to go straight then in the tejunction you turn left trough imam bonjol street, after that turn left again in Tamin street. You will see a kidergarten named Ar-Raudah you enter the gang in front of it and the location is in your right side.

- (I)pipit : street what?
(T)Didi : which one?
(I)pipit : the first street, what street?
(R)Didi : kartini street then turn.... sorry...
(RR)pipit : turn left

- (T) pipit : after that imam bonjol street and ta ta ta....
(I)Didi : tamin street
(R)pipit : yes i mean tamin street

Text 3
There are 6 triggers there. It’s need 5 minutes for converciating. They produce around 150 words in a minute. Here are the negotiation:
a. Explicit satatement or requesting clarification
- (T)Ari : i have micro teaching subject at that time
(I)Didi : micro what?
(R)Ari : micro teaching.

- (T)Didi : which one do you like?
(I)Ari : sorry?
(R)Didi : is there any some one do you like?

b. repetition of statement
- (T)Didi : but i think the pinky girl has a nice smile
(I)Ari : pardon? A pinky girl?
(R) Didi : yes she
(RR)Ari : her name is janah, siti nurjanah
(I)Didi : siti?
(R)Ari : yes siti nurjanah

c. requesting for clarification
- (T)Ari : it’s ni ketut apriyani
(I)Didi : sorry?
(R)Ari : ni ketut apriyani

c. Comprehension signal
- (T)Didi : nothing special
(I)Ari : pardon?
(R)Didi : nothing special
(I)Ari : pardon
(R)Didi : nothing special in your heart?
(I)Ari : sorry?
(R)Didi : huh is there notning special in your heart with her?

d. Semantik modification trough synonim, paraphrase
- (T)Ari : he has different style with us and he has an over confidence
(I)Didi : over?
(R)Ari : yeah over confidence

Text 4
There are 8 trigger here. They need 5 minutes 34 second to finish it. They poduce 155 words in a minute. Here are the negotiation:
a. Requesting for clarification
- (T)Mimi : eh... how many are you your class?
(I) Ari : sorry?
(R)Mimi : member?
(RR)Ari : what?
(RR)Mimi : ehm calss member?

b. Comprehension signal
- (T)Mimi : girl friend, where your girl friend?
(I)Ari : pardon?
(R)Mimi : eh your girl friend in the photo
(RR)Ari : hey look at the two boys, what do you think of them?
(I)Mimi : what?
(T)Ari : do you like one of them huh?
(I)Mimi : ha?
(R)Ari do you like one of them?
(RR)Mimi : eh... i think eh the left boy is good
(I)Ari : which one?
(R)Mimi : the left.
(RR)Ari : oh his name is Doni Alfaruqy
(I)Mimi : doni what?
(R)Ari : ALFARUQY
(RR)Mimi : ooh that’s a good name

c. Clarification request
- (T)Ari : eh you mean their personality?
(I)Mimi : what?
(R)Ari : yeah character or personality

d. Repeating the triger
- (T)Ari : owh it’s leni apridawaty
(I)Mimi : apri apri what?
(R)Ari : apridawaty
(RR)Mimi : leni apridawati?
(RR)Ari : hu uh
(RR)Mimi : she sweet
(T)Ari : yeah but not as sweet as you (low voice)
(I)Mimi : sorry?
(R)Ari : no no
(RR)Mimi : what?
(RR)Ari : you also sweet
e. Need clarification
- (T)Mimi : owh... all people is nice for you
(I)Ari : pardon?
(R)Mimi : you always think all people is good ya

f. Need clarefication by using triger
- (T)Mimi : eh eh can you tell me the eh the green light girl?
(I)Ari : the what?
(R)Mimi : the girl who wearing the green light cloth
(RR)Ari : oh RBR
(I)Mimi : what?
(R)Ari : RBR
(RR)Mimi : what RBR?
(RR)Ari : Rahmawati Bekti Rahayu... he he

IV. CONCLUSION

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.
The sex differences’ factor can not be ignored in learning language because it can effect their achievement in producing the language. On the dialoge above we can see that the conversiation between male and female there is still a distingtion ability. Male is tending more confidence in their performance when they speak because participants are typically in face-to face interaction; they can rarely on such extra linguistic clues as a facial expresion and gesture to aid meaning (feedback), that’s why they love to speak. Concerning with this, Moreno et al (2008) found males displayed a stronger ego-orientation and were more likely to report that they participated in an ego-oriented than did females. It can be seen in the text 3, where the participants are male.
In other hand female are likely tend to be avoid the face to face because female are lack of visual contact. In the first text where the participants are females, the dialogue is short enough.


Participants Data

Low level
1. Fitriyana Gunarti, 15 th, 10th class of SMA N I KALIREJO
2. Hikmi Halfiah, 15 th, 10th class of SMA N I KALIREJO
High level
1. Ferdi Karunia, 18 th, 12th class of SMA N I KALIREJO
2. Ari Dwi y, 18 th, 12th class of SMA N I KALIREJO

second language acquisition assignment

AN INTRODUCTION TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PAPER ASSIGNMENT

NEGOTIATION OF MEANING

IN COMMUNICATIVE TASKS

 

BY:

BETTY TRESYA MAYLIANTI (0743042009)

 

 

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTEMENT

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG

BANDAR LAMPUNG

2011

 

Abstract

 

The adoption of task-based teaching in Indonesia classrooms has not been widely accepted for two major grounds. First, teachers seem to cast some doubts as to what degree such an approach can contribute to their students’ language development. Second, classroom management issues, such as discipline and noise become another challenge to cope with. While these issues deserve serious attention, teachers’ unwillingness to venture the use of tasks seems to put their awareness of the learning process at stake.

It is through task-based teaching, students’ language development can be nurtured. This study is an attempt to probe the benefits of using two types of communicative tasks: picture comparison and picture drawing. The study involving two female Taiwanese native speakers learning English found that the interactional mechanisms created through a task and, negotiation of meaning provided a potentially rich forum for students’ language development. There are at least two prime elements accounting for this benefit. First, the type of direct indicators employed by the student creates linguistic urgency fostering the limit of their language capacity, and the use of embedded negotiation of meaning promotes students’ active involvement. Second, one way communicative tasks, to some degree, can yield greater opportunities for students to negotiate, thus enriching acquisition.

 

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of task-based activities in big classes, a common picture in Indonesian classrooms, is often perceived with scepticism, even distrust. Not only are teachers concerned about the degree to which such tasks can yield optimal language development, but they are also worried about some aspects of class management, like noise and discipline. While these matters deserve serious attention, what seems to be most at stake with teachers’ unwillingness to venture tasks is their awareness of learners’ learning processes.

Many teachers still seem to have a propensity to hold a product oriented view, putting the emphasis on language development as the product of what is taught (Ellis, 1984). On the other hand, process oriented teaching, which sheds light on the significance of the development of the internal process in learning, has not been fully taken into account. 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). Seedhouse (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.

 

INPUT, INTERACTION, AND SECOND LANGUAGE

DEVELOPMENT

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 recognising 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. The significance of modified interaction lies in its nature allowing the learners to actively involved in the discourse by negotiating. Stevick (1981), as cited by Gass and Varonis (1985: 150), asserts “active involvement is a necessary aspect of acquisition, since it is through involvement that the input becomes charged and penetrates deeply.”

Modified interactions are not only found in conversation between NS–NS and NS-NNS but also in that NNS–NNS. Summarizing some studies investigating NS-NNS discourse, Gass and Varonis (1985: 72) write that native speakers’ responses are characterized by greater elaboration, repetition, slower speech, more questions, more linguistic correction, and greater willingness to allow a topic shift”. This talk is referred to as ‘foreigner talk’. Varonis and Gass (1982) also indicate that foreigner talk involves the comprehensibility of the input from NNS.

In relation to NNS-NNS discourse, Gass and Varonis (1985) explain that due to the interlocutors’ shared incompetence in language, which, in turn, free them from being embarrassed to respond to other repair, their discourse “allows greater opportunity than NN-NN or NN-NS discourse for the negotiation of meaning.”

They further argue that negotiation of meaning is crucial since not only does it provide “a good forum for obtaining input necessary for acquisition” (p.83) but it also helps the interlocutors make a turn taking with full understanding equal footing (p.73). In particular, its role becomes more important when the non-understanding routines occur. They define these routines as “those exchanges in which there is an overt indication that understanding between participants has not been complete” (p.73). To account for the conversational episode involving these exchanges, Varonis and Gass? (1985:74-75) develop a model for the 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.”

 

METHODOLOGY

The Tasks

This paper employs two communicative tasks involving information exchange and information gap. The use of two kinds of tasks is intended to see whether different tasks yield different interaction patterns in its relation to SLD.

In relation to language acquisition, Pica and Doughty (1985) argue that such tasks lead to acquisition as they involve negotiation and conversational adjustments. The first one, picture-based comparison, requires the participants to find similarities and differences between a set of pictures. Having had a picture, each participant is to interact by asking, describing, or clarifying to find the similarities and differences. The second one, picture drawing, requires one of the participants to draw a picture based on the instruction given by her partner.

In terms of the way the information is delivered, using Gass and Varonis’ description (1985), these tasks can be classified into a two-way task and a one-way task. In a two-way task (picture-based comparison), both have information to share to complete the task, while in one-way task (picture drawing) only one participant has the information to give. However, in line with their explanation, the one way-task used in this paper “is not exclusively one-way but there is some exchange between the participants” (p.153).

Despite the above difference, both tasks are similar in that they make both participants heavily rely on their interaction to accomplish the tasks since they are not allowed to see each other’s picture. 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 female Indonesian native speakers with intermediate level of proficiency. They were master’s program students majoring in International Management at the University of Lampung, They are:

1. Name    : Christin Tiara Pita N

Age       : 20 years old

Student of University of Lampung

2. Name    : Mega Ria

Age       : 22 Years old

Student of STKIP

All participants were considered to be intermediate in English language proficiency.

 

Data Collection and Procedure

The data were derived from the language interactions produced by two participants engaged in picture-based comparison and picture-drawing tasks, each of which took approximately six-minute recording. The two tasks were given in one week apart.

Having been recorded, the data were transcribed and coded for T-I-R-RR (Trigger-Indicator-Response-Reaction to Response) on the basis of Gass and Varonis’ (1985) model of negotiation of meaning to measure its incidence of negotiation of meaning. In addition to their categories of indicators, clarification request to express indicators.

 

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The analysis of the data from tasks, picture comparison and picture drawing 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. Using Gass and Varonis’ (1985) model, this paper notes that out of 98 exchanges in picture comparison, there are only two indicators (lines 24 and 93) leading to the negotiation. On the other hand, with its fewer exchanges, picture drawing generates more negotiations. It displays 17 indicators from 85 exchanges (see transcript).

The two tasks are also different with respect to the complexity of their non-understanding routines. Picture comparison shows no embeddings in its non-understanding routines whereas some parts of picture drawing does. In other words, the latter consists of ”multiple layers of trigger-resolution sequences” (Gass and Varonis, 1985) (see extract B).

Looking at the role of these negotiations in developing the learners’ language, the analysis shows that the greater number of negotiation does not necessarily mean the greater degree of language development. While the only two negotiations in picture comparison lead to language learning (lines 25 and 94), there are four responses in picture drawing that do not affect the learners’ language (lines 3, 5, 7, 11) (see transcript). These responses are only repeating or acknowledging the indicators. This finding might be an indication that the way the interlocutor expresses her non understanding to some extent affects the occurrence of language development. Gass and Varonis (1985) differentiate indicators into two types: direct and indirect indicators. The former “directly expresses unaccepted input, leaving no doubt that there has been a lack of understanding”, whereas the latter is “a more gentle means of indicating that comprehension has in some sense been incomplete” (p.154).

The analysis of both tasks reveals that when the interlocutor indicates her non-understanding directly, using clarification request, over correction, explicit indication of non-understanding, it is more likely that language development occurs. This might be due to the nature of these indicators that gives some sort of obvious pressure to the speaker to explain.

On the contrary, the use of indirect indicators, such as echoing words from the previous utterance does not seem to lead to language development.

The following extracts will illustrate some of the above analysis.

Extracts A and B display how negotiation leads to language development, whereas extracts C and D show the one that does not.

 

Picture comparison

Extract A: line 22-27

22. B: and this person also has a kettle and the heater ok? Comprehension check

23. A: yeah but it’s not a regular kettle, old one T

24. B: what do you mean by old one? I—clarification request

25. A: it look like made in made in is is iron R—giving

example

26. B: ah iron made of iron like the one we use in Taiwan RR—structure correction

27. A: yeah yeah yeah made of iron like in Taiwan

By saying ok,

B ensures that A understands the kettle and the heater she is talking about.

A shows her understanding by responding affirmatively.

However, A’s expansion of the word kettle, the old one serves as a trigger.

B indicates by requesting further explanation, to which A responds with the material of that kettle. B reacts by giving an example. From this episode, it is apparent that through the negotiation of the meaning of old one, B grasps the idea that it refers to the old model of kettle, not to the condition. In addition to B’s comprehension, A’s and B’s negotiated work results in A’s semantic modification of the old one through giving the example of the material of the kettle (line25) and correction of the use of the preposition (line 27). In other words, A is likely to learn to develop her language.

 

Picture drawing

Extract B: line 5-14

5. A: okay number two a big face, big nose, small eyes… and smile left, ya I mean left T

6. B: left? (stop drawing) I – echoing with raising intonation/ confirmation check

7. A: yeah left hm hm R/T— acknowledgement/ repetition

8. B: I don’t understand what you mean left? RR/I-explicit non understanding clarification request

9. A: I mean hm hm I mean you draw face in … to left R/T----expansion

10. B: draw face to left? I—echoing with rising intonation confirmation check

11. A: ya to left R-acknowledgement/ repetition and with a hat T

12. B: what kind of hat? I – clarification request

13. A: ehm ehm like ehm cowboy ya cowboy hat R -- expansion

14. B: ah ya ya RR---showing understanding

Extract B illustrates some embeddings in the negotiation. A’s instruction in line 5 (left) brings about non-understanding that is indicated by B’ echoing the utterance with rising intonation. Capturing B’s confusion, unfortunately A just repeats her utterance. As a result, her response serves as a trigger.

This pushes B to explicitly indicates her non-understanding by saying ‘I don’t understand what you mean left’. B demands A to give overt explanation. Being indicated twice that her utterances raise some problems,

A eventually expands her instruction ‘I mean you draw face in….to left’.

However, once again it seems that A’s response does not completely help B since she is still echoing with rising intonation ‘draw face to left?’, signalling her incomplete comprehension. This time, A acknowledges (ya) and repeats the first instruction (left) and quickly proceeds with another one.

This signals her readiness to continue the talk and end the negotiation. In fact, B realizes this and moves to the clarification request of the kind of hat. A responds by expanding the detail of the hat. A’s language expansion can serve as a clue of her language development.

In this case, the interaction displays two interesting aspects of negotiation of meaning. When it is done through a single layer of trigger-resolution sequence (T-I-R) (lines 5-7), which only provides acknowledgement and repetition as responses (line 7), it does not seem to lead to A’s language development. However, it does when the negotiation involves embedded non-understanding routines (lines 7-8) which to a great degree might give some pressure to the speaker to explain.

 

Picture drawing

Extract C: line 4-5

4. B: oh r round? I – echoing by rising intonation

5. A: yeah round and …… R – acknowledging and repeating

Extract D: line 32-33

32. B: he looks angry? I – echoing by raising intonation

33. A: ya R – acknowledging

Extract C shows that B’s signalling her incomplete comprehension does not lead to A’s modifying her response as it is seen above she just acknowledges and repeats B’s indicator. Similarly, in extract D, A just responds ‘ya’ to B’s indicator. The use of direct indicators leading to language development marks the similarity of the patterns of negotiating meaning on both tasks.

The data discussed suggest that interaction involving negotiation of meaning can lead to language development. Supporting this, Pica (1987) asserts that assisting learners to gain comprehension and allowing them to manipulate L2 form through negotiation of meaning have an important role for SLA. However, the degree to which it ensures the occurrence of language development is not as high as its role in assisting comprehension.

On the basis of the analysed data, this paper predicts that the way the interlocutor initiates the negotiation might account for this. Using Gass and Varonis’ (1985) classification of indicators, it seems that direct indicators to some extent can maximize the urgency of the speaker’s further explanation, which in turn creates some sort of pressure for the speaker to go beyond his/her previous linguistic utterance. This eventually points the way to the learner’s language development. On the other hand, the indirect ones might not reflect the urgency for the speaker’s explanation. For example, the speaker might interpret the recipient’s echoing with rising or falling intonation as an indication of confirmation, resulting in only his/her acknowledgement or repetition. Extending this explanation, this paper suggests that active involvement of the learners to pursue the information is another crucial variable to language development. This is because as Stevick (1981), as cited by Gass and Varonis (1985: 150), states “It is through involvement that the input becomes charged and penetrates deeply.”

Foster (1998: 20) argues that due to the nature of communicative tasks, particularly those used in research, which tends “to focus on meaning rather than form, they do not encourage students to reflect openly on the language they are producing.” Slightly different from this argument, the analysis finds that the communicative tasks used for these data, to some extent, can lead the interlocutors to pay attention to their language forms through their negotiation of meaning. This is, for example, reflected in line 26 (picture comparison) and line 43, 71 (picture drawing) (see transcript). With regard to the effects of the type of tasks involved, the data analysed point out that two-way task yields fewer numbers negotiation of meaning than one-way task. This is different from Long’s claim (1983) that two-way tasks generate a greater amount of modified interaction. What might account for this discrepancy, as Gass and Varonis (1985) write, are shared assumptions. They further explain that there is an inverse relationship between instances of indicators and the amount of shared background. The greater the shared set of assumptions, the less the need for negotiation (p.159). In line with their argument, this paper finds that picture drawing yields less amount of negotiation as is indicated by its indicators since both participants have shared background of the task by looking at the picture.

On the contrary, one-way tasks might encourage the recipient to be more active in seeking the information. This is logical, as Gass and Varonis

(1985) point out, that she is the one who has the most urgent need to gain comprehension. Different from this view, Pica (1987) argues that information gap activities in which one participant holds all information and the other must work to elicit it have a danger that can lead to ‘unequal role relationship.’ However, by viewing that both parties have responsibility to provide information and seek it, that danger can be avoided.

 

I. Transcription: Picture differences

1. A : there are four folder on the shelf … picture

2. B : yeah yeah

3. A : and five piece of papers on the typewriter

4. B : ehm yeah

5. A : and also there is black telephone under the desk

6. B : yeah next to the typewriter

7. A : yeah in my picture there are two arrows in the target on the door

8. B : yeah ah, ya ya ya I saw it ya

9. A : in my picture there are two arrows

10. B : yeah ha? yeah two arrows

11. A : and and

12. B : I think is that is there two sandwiches on the desk beside the typewriter and one has been bite

13. A : … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …yeah yeah there are banana

14. B : yeah skin

15. A : yeah skin there is a book under the desk

16. B : yeah at the at the left side

17. A : yeah

18. B : and the drawer is

19. A : open

20. B : yeah and the paper I think is not

21. A : is not ha ha ha

22. B : and this person also has a kettle and the heater ok? Comprehension check

23. A : yeah but it’s not a regular kettle, old one T

24. B :what do you mean by old one? I—clarification request

25. A :it look like made in made in is is iron R--explanation

26. B : ah iron made of iron RR—structure correction like the one we use in Taiwan

27. A : yeah yeah yeah made of iron like in Taiwan

28. B : I know

29. A : there is a pencil on the chair

30. B : on the chair? no my is on the desk just between between

31. A : typewriter and kettle

32. B : yeah

33. A : there is one as well but I have another one on the chair

34. B : oh yeah but I didn’t and there is a picture on my right hand side what is this?

35. A : like a small table or something

36. B : yeah yeah

37. A : yeah yeah

38. B : with a car old car

39. A : ya ya

40. B : and there is a cup and the…

41. A : coffee flow

42. B : ya and the plate the dish used for cigarette

43. A : t h e dish used for cigarette

44. B : ya and the next to the next to the desk there is a trash can

45. A : ya

46. B : and the trash flow out

47. A : f l ow out and there is a clock on the floor

48. B : ya ya

49. A : it’s a bird

50. B : throw out (laughing)

51. A : ya (laughing) and the time is seven o’clock

52. B : no it’s…mine is nine o’clock I think yeah

53. A : mine is seven

54. B : and there is … ehm a ring bell on the floor as well

55. A : oh ya there is a ring bell

56. And next the window .. ehm ehm there’s a plant with three leaves

57. B : ha ha but it is not it’s not….grows very well

58. A : it seems going to die

59. B : maybe and there’s there’s bottles on the floor

60. A : yeah one is fall down

61. B : yeah and and there a can on the wall as well Just ehm ehm above the desk

62. A : ya under the shelves

63. B : yeah under the shelf and the ehm next to the can at the can at right side I think it’s a postcard

64. A : I t hink it’s a postcard

65. B : yeah and left hand side I think it’s a picture

66. A : yeah maybe

67. B : It’s a photo

68. A : It’s a photo with four picture

69. B : yeah yeah and the …… oh next to the folders, Could you see there a cup?

70. A : yeah broken

71. B : yeah broken one with two lines

72. A : yeah yeah

73. B : so I think maybe everything is the same

74. A : what’s the difference? oh there is a carpet under the chair

75. B : yeah yeah

76. A : and with one two three four five five lines on the carpet not very clear

77. B : yeah yeah

78. A : and do you know something with the line we made the sweater? It’s under put under the floor

79. B : yeah I saw it as well, I think this person might have a….

80. A : a dog

81. B : because he got a bell

82. A : a belt a dog belt

83. B : just at the left hand side of the desk

84. A : yeah and the I think this house is quite out of the wall paper, It’s not quite stick to the wall and you see just ..around around the door,the wall paper is not stick sticky to door

85. A : I can’t find in my picture

86. B : and the window the glasses has been broken

87. A : oh no not mine and the the draw I mean under the kettle there’s a shelf above the shelf the draw is

88. B : the drawer is open

89. A : yeah the first one

90. B : yeah the same and the and the curtain cover the half of the window

91. A : yeah maybe

92. B : maybe so under on the wall next to the bottom bottom bottoms T

93. A :bottoms? I---echoing with rising intonation

94. B :just under the shelf under the which put the plant R/T

95. A :oh you mean near the floor? RR/I—clarification request

96. B : yeah near the floor R----acknowledgement repetition

97. A : yeah maybe but I don’t think this picture is very clear I can’t find

98. B : that’s okay

II. Transcription: Picture drawing

1. A : number one a round big face with a big nose a face T

2. B : is the face big? big face, ya? I—confirmation check

3. A : ya R--acknowledgement

4. B : oh r round? I—confirmation check

5. A : yeah round and big nose, small eyes, smile and short hair ya. R—acknowledgement and repetition

okay number two a big face, big nose, small eyes and smile left ya I mean left T

6. B : left? I—echoing with rising intonation/confirmation check

7. A : yeah left hm hm R/T—acknowledgement and repetition

8. B : I don’t understand RR/I—explicit indication non-understanding

what you mean left? Clarification request

9. A : I mean hm hm I mean you draw face in to left R/T--- expansion

10.B : draw face to left? I------ echoing with rising intonation confirmation check

11.A : ya to left R---acknowledgement repetition and with a hat T

12.B :what kind of hat? I—clarification request

13.A : ehm ehm like ehm cowboy ya cowboy hat R--expansion

14.B : ah ah ya ya RR—showing understanding

15.A : number three is the woman T

16.B :woman? I—echoing with rising intonation confirmation check

17.A : ya R—acknowledgement

18.B :what kind of woman? I---clarification request

19.A : eh, round face, rr face, big nose, smile, smile eyes R/T

20.B : smile eyes? I—echoing with rising intonation confirmation check

21.A :small eyes ehm and without ehm R/T---correction not very long but cute

22.B :cute? no but curl I—echoing with rising intonation self correction

23.A : curl? curl hair R --expansion

24.B : eh just face?

25.A : ya just face

26.B : big nose, small eyes, smile, curl hair, very curl?

27.A : not not very curl

28.B : okay ya

29.A : number four a a man ehm big face, big nose

30.B : another big face and big nose?

31.A : y a ya all will be face, big nose, looks angry, he looks angry

32.B : he looks angry

33.A : ya

34.B : ah ya ya

35.A : and without hair without hair no hair

36.B : I know this not hair

37.A : okay number five a man

still small eyes, big nose

38.B : wait wait wait

39.A : s m ile smile

40.B : s m ile

41.A : and without glasses and small, curl short hair, ya ya short number six ehm a man small eyes, big nose, smile and with ear T

42.B :with ear? I—echoing with rising intonation confirmation check

43.A :a pair of ears (laughing) R--expansion

44.B : okay RR

45.A : and ehm it’s it’s a regular man’s hair T

46.B : what’s regular? I—clarification request

47.A : in chinese we use they suit if somebody wear a suit R/T—giving

example

48. B : a suit? RR/I—echoing with rising intonation /clarification request

49.A :I mean I mean when they wear suit ehm the hair R--expansion

50.B : hair model RR

51.A : ya hair model the style

52.B : ah ya ya ya (showing understanding)

It’s kind of …… (inaudible) wait like that?

53.A : ya okay Seven

54.B : ehm

55.A : big nose, small eyes, smile

56.B : big nose, small eyes, smile (repeating softly)

57.A : and with a hat hat hat

58.B : ya

59.A : and ya

60.B : the same as number two?

61.A : ya like number two but the hair the hand with a flower

but it’s a man I know it’s a man because (.) (.)

he has ehm what’s that shirt?

62.B : a a ah (showing understanding)

63.A : ya but the head with a flower

64.B : ya many flowers?

65.A : no just one

okay number eight

a big face, big nose, small eyes, smile without hair

smile and he bite a flower he he

66.B : ya?

67.A : like Spain the woman dance T

68.B :the Spanish woman dance? I—echoing

69.A :ya R—acknowledgement and the flower is on ehm the flower is on her face T

70.B :her face a woman? I--echoing

71.A : no a man oh ya his his face the flower on his face R/T—expansion

72. B : on his face? I -- echoing with rising intonation/confirmation check

73.A : I mean he he bite the flower R

74.B : ah ya ya RR

75.A : right side right side T

76.B :the flower on the right? I—echoing/confirmation check

77.A : ya R--ackowledgement

number nine the man’s face

78.B : e h wait

79.A : no no (she saw her partner started drawing a round face)

the man’s face is triangle (tringel) (traigel)

80.B : triangle (correcting her partner’s pronunciation)

81.A : face shape shape of face

82.B : is it triangle?

83.A : ehm ehm so triangle

big nose, small eyes (.) (.) with hair but like a mess

you know the hair like mess

84.B : ya ya

85.A : ya and a pair of ears.

 

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

 

Despite the fact that negotiation of meaning does not automatically lead to language development, this paper highlights that it can be a potential forum for language development. There are at least two qualities of negotiation of meaning accounting for this. The first concerns the type of indicators the learners used to signal their incomplete comprehension. By using direct indicators, the learners create linguistic urgency, pushing their partner to further develop the language. The second is related to the learners’ active involvement, which can be supported through the use of embedded negotiation of meaning.

Closely linked to the role of negotiation of meaning in language development is the type of the tasks. One-way tasks to some extent can provide greater opportunities for learners to negotiate than two-way tasks.

Bringing the above ideas within the classroom framework, this paper provides some insights for teaching. First, it is necessary for the teachers to use communicative activities promoting negotiation of meaning that support comprehensible input and output. Second, not only is it through tasks the teachers can encourage interaction involving negotiation of meaning, but also through their own teaching. Third, in the light of communicative teaching trend where group work or pair work is regarded beneficial for language development, the teachers should take into consideration how they group or pair the learners. This is related to the input the learners gain. It is suggested that they are mixed; for example, the high level with the intermediate one.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Ellis, R. 1984. Classroom second language development. Oxford: Pergamon Press

Ellis, R, Y. Tanaka, & A. Yamazaki. 1994. Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language learning 44/3, 449-491.

Foster, P. 1998. A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning Applied linguistic 19/ 1, 1-23.

Gass, S.M. 1997. Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gass, S.M. & E.M Varonis. 1985. Task variation and nonnative/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S.M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.) Input in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Newbury HousePublishers.

Long, M.H. 1981. Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In Harris Winitz (Ed.) Native language and foreign language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Volume379.

Long, M.H. 1983a. Native speaker/nonnative speaker conversation and the Negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied linguistics 4, 126-41.

Long, M.H. 1983b. Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in second language acquisition 5/2, 177-193.

Pica, T. 1987. Second language acquisition, social interaction and the Classroom. Applied linguistics 8/1, 3-21.

Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language learning 44/3, 493-527.

Pica, T. & C. Doughty. 1985. The role of groupwork in classroom second language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition 7/2.

Pica, T., R. Young, & C. Doughty. 1987. The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly 21/4, 737-758.

Richards, J.C. & T.S. Rodgers. 2002. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers, W. 1987. Interaction language teaching. London: Cambridge University Press.