Deri Herdawan (0713042019)

Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 The role of Communication in Second Language Acquisition

Long (1981, 1982) says comprehensible input is not enough for language acquisition. Learners need to interact with native speakers. He discovered that number of input modifications but extensive interactional adjustments. The hypothesis advances two major claims about second language acquisition:

1. Comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition.
2. Modifications to the interactional structure of conversation in the process of negotiating solutions to communication problem helps in making input comprehensible to learners.

This is very true since real communication that serves as practice provider will help greatly for learners in order to acquire the second language. The problem is that not every single communication serves its purpose right. Some of them might actually confuse the learners due to the lack of information of the learners (information gap). We have to admit that native speaker has more power than non native speaker (the learners), both in turn taking and dealing with the topic. This is caused by the learners lesser ability in expressing their ideas and thoughts in the same way as a native speaker. That is why the native is required to modify the input they give in more comprehensible way so that the learner will get the exact meaning of the message. This will happen during negotiation of meaning which will be discussed further in the next sub chapter.

1.2 Negotiation of Meaning

Negotiation of meaning is defined as a series of exchanges conducted by addressors and addressees to help themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutors. In this case, when native speakers and non native speakers are involved in an interaction, both interactants work together to solve any potential misunderstanding or non understanding that occurs, by checking each others’ comprehension requesting clarifications and confirmation and by repairing and adjusting speech.

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

a. Trigger (T) which invokes or stimulates incomplete understanding o the part of the hearer.
b. Indicator (I) which is the hearer’s signal (S) of incomplete understanding.
c. Response (R) is the original speaker’s attempt to clear up the unaccepted-input.
d. Reaction to the Response (RR), which is an element that signals either the hearer’s acceptance or continued difficulty with the speaker’s repair.

The model consists of two components, which are the trigger component and the resolution component. Trigger is the only content of trigger component, while the other three belong to resolution component. A trigger altogether with the resolution is called the negotiation of meaning sequence.
The next chapter will provide the examples of negotiation meaning in a conversation that has been recorded by the writer.


Chapter 2
Transcript

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

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

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


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

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

(Silence)

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

(Silence)

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

(Silence)

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


Video 3
The interactants in this video are:
1. Rio : An Indonesian native speaker.
2. Diddem : A non native Indonesian speaker.
A different method is used in this conversation. Rio will tell Diddem about the rule of a game, using Indonesian obviously.


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

(The conversation continues)

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



Chapter 3
Discussion

As we can see from the transcript, negotiation of meaning does occur in each of the conversation. It does not matter who the interactants are (female to female, male to female, or female to male). Here are the break downs of each conversation above.

In video 1, there are five sequences of negotiation of meaning. Here is one of them.
Shely : Bagus. Terakhir.
Pada gambar sebelah kiri. Di atas pohon cemara nomor tiga dari kanan,ada hiasan bintang. (Trigger)
Diddem : Apa? (Signal)
Shely : Pohon cemara. Yang ketiga dari kanan. (Response)
Diddem : Iya. (Signal)
Shely : Nah, di atasnya ada hiasan bintang. Gambar yang satunya tidak ada. (Response)
Diddem : Hiasan…bintang… (Signal)
Shely : Ya, hiasan bintang. (Response)
Diddem : Hmmmm….. Ah, ketemu. (Reaction to the Response or Follow up)


In video 2, there are only three sequences. Here is one of them.
Diddem : Lalu. Di Harpoon, ada bintang. Yang kanan 1 bintang……..kurang. (Trigger)
Andre : Kanan? (Signal)
Diddem : Ya. Yang kanan. (Response)
Andre : Oke. (Follow up)


In video 3, there are several sequences. The unique fact that happens is that they change the language in the middle of the conversation, resulting the role-switching of the native and non native speakers. Here is one of the sequences that occur in the conversation.
Rio : Nah, karena kamu tidak tahu jalan ke sana. Kamu bertanya dengan resepsionis. (Trigger)
Diddem : Resepsionis? Yang di depan itu? (signal)
Rio : Iya. (Response)
Diddem : Jadi, saya tidak tahu di mana teman saya itu? (Signal)
Rio : Tidak, tidak. Kamu tahu dia di mana. Hanya, kamu tidak tahu jalan menuju ke sana. (Response)
Diddem : Oh, jadi saya bertanya dengan resepsionis. (Signal)
Rio : Iya, benar. (Response)
Diddem : Wait. Why do we get separated? We are from the same country. (Follow up, also acts as a new Trigger)
Rio : What? Separated? (Signal)
Diddem : Yes. (Response)
Rio : Oh, that is because you go to Indonesia not at the same time. (Follow up)


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

I already said that negotiation of meaning sequences occur in each of those conversations. But, the amount of the sequence seems to differ based on the interactants. Conversation where Diddem acts as the receiver tends to be longer than the one with Andre as the receiver. Diddem also uses more words to express her incomplete understanding, while Andre prefers to be silent and think rather than ask (Give Signal) for the information provider Response. The negotiation of meaning sequences in Diddem conversation is also longer than that of Andre’s.
The reason for that is, I think, the fact that Diddem is a female and Andre is a male. Female tends to be more talkative than male. Female prefers to speak up what they have in mind, especially when they are confused, while male prefers to think it through instead. Kramer (1977), in a study of stereotypical, believes about verbal gender differences between male and female. Females were believed to smile more than men, to use the face and hands to express ideas more than men, and to be more concerned about the listener. Males were believed to be louder but less talkative than women.


Chapter 4
Conclusion

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