ASSIGNMENT SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

ASSIGNMENT SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

“NEGOTIATION of MEANING”





Disusun Oleh :

Victoria Alverina Ambarita

0643042046





















ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

THE FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY

2010










A Classroom Perspective on the Negotiation of Meaning

Abstract

It is widely argued that engaging in communicative language tasks helps a learner develop in an L2 in several ways Tasks provide an opportunity not only to produce the target language, but also, through conversational adjustments, to manipulate and modify it Checking and classifying problem utterances (‘negotiating for meaning’) ensures that task participants receive comprehensible input and generate comprehensible output, both of which have been claimed as crucial to second language acquisition (SLA) Task type is considered significant, with those tasks requiring an exchange of information most likely to prompt negotiations for meaning This paper reports a classroom observation of the language produced by intermediate EFL students engaged in required and optional information exchange tasks in both dyads and small groups The results show no clear overall effect for task type or grouping, though there was a discernible trend for dyads doing a two-way task to produce more negotiated interaction However, it was noticeable that many students in the small groups did not speak at all, many more in both dyads and small groups did not initiate any negotiated interaction, and very few students in either setting produced, any modified utterances Such positive results as were obtained seemed to be due to the disproportionate influence of a small number of the students, and so were not typical of the group as a whole The setting of the study within a classroom, as opposed to a venue especially arranged for data collecting, is suggested as a significant variable, with important implications for group work research methodology It is also suggested, contrary to much SLA theorizing, that ‘negotiating for meaning’ is not a strategy that language learners are predisposed to employ when they encounter gaps in their understanding

The process of bargaining that precedes an agreement. Successful negotiation generally results in a contract between the parties.


Example: Nelson wishes to purchase a property from Newman. Nelson is willing to pay up to a certain price and desires certain Conditions placed on the sale. Newman will accept anything over a certain price and may be willing to help finance the purchase for a higher price. In negotiation Nelson and Newman attempt to come to an agreement over the price and conditions. When they agree, a sales contract is executed.

Negotiation describes any communication process between individuals that is intended to reach a compromise or agreement to the satisfaction of both parties. Negotiation involves examining the facts of a situation, exposing the both the common and opposing interests of the parties involved, and bargaining to resolve as many issues as possible. Negotiation takes place every day in nearly every facet of life—from national governments negotiating border disputes, to companies negotiating work agreements with labor unions, to real estate agents negotiating the sale of property, to former spouses negotiating the terms of a divorce. Small business owners are likely to face negotiations on a daily basis when dealing with customers, suppliers, employees, investors, creditors, government agencies, and even family members. Many companies train members of their sales forces in negotiation techniques, and many others hire professional negotiators to represent them in business dealings. Good negotiation requires advance preparation, knowledge of negotiating techniques, and practice.

Regardless of the type of negotiation, experts recommend entering into it with a cooperative rather than a competitive attitude. They stress that the point of negotiating is to reach agreement rather than to achieve victory. "Any method of negotiation may be fairly judged by three criteria," Roger Fisher and William Ury wrote in their book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. "It should produce a wise agreement if agreement is possible. It should be efficient. And it should improve or at least not damage the relationship between the parties." When one of the parties uses "hard" negotiating techniques—or bullies and intimidates the other side in order to obtain a more favorable arrangement—it only creates resentment and poisons future negotiations. Instead, the idea should be to find a win/win solution that satisfies the needs and interests of both parties.

Preparing for a Negotiation

Good negotiation requires advance preparation, an understanding of the underlying assumptions and needs to be satisfied on both sides, a basic knowledge of human behavior, and mastery of a range of negotiating techniques, strategies, and tactics. In his book Fundamentals of Negotiating, Gerard I. Nierenberg outlined a number of steps toward adequately preparing for a negotiation. The first step is to "do your homework" about the other side. In nearly every negotiation, this will entail research to uncover their underlying motivations. In negotiating a business property lease, for example, it may be useful to find out the cost to the landlord of keeping the building vacant. The next step is to assess your own side's needs and establish objectives for the negotiation. It is important that the objectives remain relatively fluid, however, so as not to hinder the negotiation.

Another element of preparing for a negotiation involves deciding whether to use an individual or a team as your representative. This decision needs to be considered separately for every negotiation, and will always depend to some extent on what the other side is doing. A negotiating team offers a number of potential advantages. For example, it enables a small business to involve people with different areas of expertise in order to avoid misstatements of fact. Teams can also play into negotiating strategies and help gain concessions through consultation among team members. However, it is important to note that bringing extra people can be harmful to a negotiation when they do not have a distinct function. Using a single negotiator also offers some advantages. It prevents the weakening of positions that often occurs through differences of opinion within a team, and it also may help gain concessions through the negotiator's ability to make on-the-spot decisions.

The next step in preparing for a negotiation involves choosing a chief negotiator. Ideally, this person should have experience and training in negotiations, as well as a strong background in the area of the problem to be negotiated. Another important element of negotiation is selecting the meeting site. For a small business, holding the meeting on its own premises may provide a psychological advantage, plus will save on travel time and expense. It may also be helpful in enabling the negotiators to obtain approval from managers or use their own facilities to check facts and find additional information as needed. Holding a negotiation at the other side's offices, however, may help the negotiators to devote their full attention to the task at hand without distractions. It may also play into negotiating strategy by enabling the negotiators to temporarily withhold information by claiming a need to speak to higher level people or gather more information. A third alternative for a meeting site is a neutral location. Whatever site is chosen, it should be large enough to accommodate all parties and feature a telephone, comfortable chairs, visual aids, and available refreshments.

The Negotiation Process

Fisher and Ury recommend conducting negotiations according to the process of "principled negotiation." Their method has four main tenets:

1. Separate the people from the problem. The idea should be for both sides to work together to attack a problem, rather than attacking each other. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to overcome emotional responses and set aside egos.
2. Focus on interests rather than positions. The natural tendency in many negotiations—for example, dickering over the price to be paid for an antique—is for both sides to state a position and then move toward middle ground. Fisher and Ury warn against confusing people's stated positions with their underlying interests, and claim that positions often tend to obscure what people truly hope to gain through negotiation.
3. Generate a variety of options before deciding what to do. The pressure involved in any type of negotiation tends to narrow people's vision and inhibit their creativity, making it difficult to find optimal solutions to problems. Instead, Fisher and Ury suggest developing a wide range of possible solutions as part of the negotiating process. These possible solutions should attempt to advance shared interests and reconcile differences.
4. Base the result on objective criteria. No one will be happy with the result of a negotiation if they feel that they have been taken advantage of. The solution is to find and apply some fair standard to the problem in order to guarantee a mutually beneficial result.

Fisher and Ury's principles provide a good overall guide for the actual negotiation process. In his book, Nierenberg offered a number of other tips and strategies that may be effective in promoting successful negotiations. For example, it may be helpful to ask questions in order to form a better understanding of the needs and interests of the other side. The questions must be phrased diplomatically and timed correctly in order to avoid an antagonistic response. The idea is to gain information and uncover basic assumptions without immediately taking positions. Nierenberg stressed the importance of listening carefully to the other side's responses, as well as studying their facial expressions and body language, in order to gain quality information.

Nierenberg noted that good negotiators will employ a variety of means to accomplish their objectives. Small business owners should be aware of some of the more common strategies and techniques that they may see others apply or may wish to apply themselves. One common strategy is forbearance, or "patience pays," which covers any sort of wait or delay in negotiations. If one side wishes to confer in private, or adjourn briefly, they are employing a strategy of forbearance. Another common strategy is to present a fait accompli, or come to a final offer and leave it up to the other side to decide whether to accept it. In a simple example, a small business owner may scratch out one provision in a contract that he or she finds unacceptable, then sign it and send it back. The other party to the contract then must decide whether to accept the revised agreement. Nierenberg warns that this strategy can be risky, and encourages those who employ it to carefully appraise the consequences first.

Another possible negotiating strategy is reversal, which involves taking a position that seems opposed to the original one. Similarly, feinting involves apparently moving in one direction in order to divert attention from the true goal. For example, a negotiator may give in on a point that is not very important in order to make the real objective more attainable. Another strategy involves setting limits on the negotiation, whether with regards to time, the people involved, or other factors. It is also possible to change the participation in the negotiation if it seems to be at an impasse. For example, a neutral third party may be enlisted to help, or one or two people from each side may be sent off to continue the negotiation separately. It may also be helpful to break down the problem into small pieces and tackle them one by one. Another strategy might be to trade sides for a short time and try to view the situation from each other's perspective. All of these techniques may be applied either to gain advantage or to push forward a negotiation that has apparently reached an impasse.

The way in which people match their understanding of the world, their aspirations, and their interpretation of their place in it with social reality and what their senses tell them.

A method of dispute resolution where either the parties themselves or the representatives of each party attempt to settle conflicts without resort to the courts; an impartial third party is not involved. Compare arbitration; mediation.

Negotiation, or bargaining, happens when two or more parties communicate in order to reach an agreement on a mutually acceptable outcome in a situation where they need jointly to achieve a goal that is not available to either party alone and their preferences for outcomes are usually negatively related, i.e. one party's gain is often the other party's loss. It is a complex, competitive, and interactive activity that is influenced by a variety of factors, including cognition, perception, emotion, motivation, and interpersonal skills, and the context in which the negotiation occurs.

The dominant framework for understanding fundamental negotiation strategy is the dual concerns model (Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim 1994). An early version of the dual concerns model was proposed as the Managerial Grid (Blake and Mouton 1964), and was reinterpreted by Thomas (1976). The model postulates that individuals in negotiation have two somewhat independent concerns: a concern for realizing one's own substantive outcomes in the negotiation, and a concern for helping the other party achieve their outcomes, usually in order to strengthen a positive working relationship with the other party. The strength of one's concerns on each of these two dimensions dictates one of five major strategies. Contending (i.e. competing or dominating) is the strategy to consider when one has a strong concern for one's own outcome and has little concern about the other's outcomes. Negotiators employing a contending strategy try to obtain the best outcome possible only for themselves. Negotiators using a yielding (i.e. accommodating or obliging) strategy show little interest in attaining their own outcomes but strongly care that the other party achieves their goals, possibly in order to build a stronger future relationship with the other party. The third strategy, inaction (i.e. avoiding), occurs when negotiators have little interest in achieving either their own outcomes or the other's outcomes and is equal to retreating or withdrawing from the negotiation. When negotiators show high concern for attaining their own outcomes and a high concern for whether the other party attains his or her outcomes, they pursue a collaborative or problem-solving strategy, in order to maximize their joint outcome and to reach a 'win–win' situation. Finally, negotiators pursue a compromising strategy when they display a moderate effort to pursue their own outcomes and a similarly moderate amount of effort to help the other party achieve his or her outcomes and strengthen the relationship (Lewicki et al. 2003).

Since parties negotiate largely to enhance their own outcomes, the two most common strategic approaches are competing (contending) and collaborating (problem solving). Thus, the dominant choice confronting the negotiator is whether the relationship with the other party is important or not. These two negotiation approaches are also called distributive (competitive or claiming value) vs. integrative (collaborative, problem solving, or creating value). In distributive bargaining, negotiators believe that there is a limited, controlled amount of key resources to be distributed — a 'fixed-pie' situation. One party's gain is anticipated to be at the cost of the other's. Moreover, each negotiator attempts to maximize his or her outcome at the expense of the other party, and assumes that no long-term relationship with the other party is desired. A classic prototype for a distributive bargaining process is the sale of a used automobile, where the seller tries to persuade the buyer to purchase the auto at the highest possible price and the buyer attempts to buy the auto at the lowest possible price. In order effectively to execute a distributive bargain, it is recommended that each party identify three key points. First, the party should have a target point (or a 'goal'), the point at which a negotiator would like to conclude negotiations. Second, negotiators should identify a resistance point or bottom line — the least acceptable deal he or she would accept and still consummate the negotiation. Finally, negotiators should set an opening offer, where they intend to begin the negotiation, and what they would consider to be the most optimistic settlement. As the process unfolds, parties exchange their initial offers, and then engage in a process of concessions as each move towards their target, but go no further than their resistance point. The spread between the parties' resistance points is called the 'bargaining range' or 'settlement range'. When the buyer's resistance point is above the seller's (i.e. the lowest price the seller will accept is within the range of what the buyer will pay), any price in that bargaining range is acceptable to both parties and agreement can be reached. A fourth point that is important to parties in a distributive negotiation is their alternative — that is, another deal they could do away from the table with another party. Thus, a buyer probably has an alternative used car he can buy from another seller and the seller hopefully has an alternative buyer. Alternatives are important because they give the negotiator power to walk away from a negotiation when the emerging deal is not likely to be acceptable. Thus in distributive bargaining, the fundamental strategy for a negotiator is to push for a settlement close to the other party's resistance point, to persuade the other party to change his or her resistance point, to get the other party to think that this settlement is the best that is possible, and/or to convince the other party that one has a strong alternative available. Many books and articles have been written on the tactics and execution of this approach (see Lewicki et al. 2003).

When negotiators expect a future relationship with the other party, or wish to maximize the joint outcome between the parties, they are more likely to employ a collaborative negotiating approach. Because the parties have had a history of past interaction and expect to work with the other in the future, they should be less willing to act competitively, because this approach is likely to harm the relationship with the other. Instead, a collaborative (integrative) approach allows both parties to achieve their goals. The tactics of integrative negotiation include: a focus on needs and interests rather than positions; an effort to discover the interests of both sides; an open exchange of information and ideas; an effort to brainstorm and find creative ways to meet as many interests as possible; and a use of independent standards to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair (see Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1991, Lewicki et al. 2003). In an integrative bargaining situation, it is critical to generate mutual trust between parties to assure adequate information sharing and collaboration.

In either negotiation process, how negotiators perceive and frame a situation and an outcome has a huge influence on the negotiation process and reaction to the final outcome. The most scrutinized and understood framing effect is the gain–loss frame (Tversky and Kahneman 1981), in which an outcome can be perceived as a gain or loss compared to a reference outcome that is judged neutral. Decision theorists have found that people are more loss averse, i.e. the pain of losing the same amount of value exceeds the pleasure of gaining the same. Furthermore, in any given situation, there are almost always multiple possible reference points to compare to, therefore the same problem and outcome can be framed differently. Negotiations in which the outcomes are framed as losses tend to produce fewer concessions, reach fewer agreements, and perceive outcomes as less fair than negotiations in which the outcomes are framed as gains. Hence a successful negotiator should be able to understand both positive and negative framing of the situation and present it strategically to their opponent and at the same time avoid being framed by the opponent. There are other cognitive biases that influence negotiators' success. For example, many negotiators assume that all negotiations only involve a fixed pie and pit their own gain against the opponent's benefit. Consequently, many negotiators fail to explore integrative negotiation opportunities because of this 'fixed-pie belief'. Another bias is called the 'winner's curse'. When a negotiator makes an offer that is immediately accepted by the opponent, this response signals that the negotiator may have offered too much, which makes the negotiator feel discomfort about a negotiation victory that came too easily (Thompson 1998).

The outcome of a negotiation is also influenced greatly by each party's real or perceived power, which is the ability to influence the other party or bring about outcomes they desire. Common sources of power for a negotiator come from the information and expertise that may change the other party's point of view, the amount of control over resources, and the negotiator's legitimate power (rank or title of office). Another source of power derives from the negotiator's alternative (BATNA — best alternative to a negotiated agreement). Negotiators with attractive BATNAs can set higher reservation prices for themselves and have the power to walk away from the negotiation table when the offers are too low.

As in many other social interactions, negotiators should pay close attention to ethical standards. Ethics are rules or standards for what kind of behavior is right or wrong in a negotiation situation. Ethics in negotiation are mostly about truth telling — how honest, candid, and disclosing a negotiator should be. Arriving at a clear, precise, effective negotiated agreement depends on the willingness of the parties to share accurate information about their own true preferences, priorities, and interests. At the same time, because negotiators may also be interested in maximizing their self-interest, they may want to disclose as little as possible about their positions.

Example 1. Negotiation of meaning through oral interaction which occurred while ESL learners were working on tasks assigned by a researcher (Pica, 1994)



Exchange A

NS:


I have a piece of toast with a small pat of butter







NNS:


hm hmm







NS:


and above the plate







NNS:


what is buvdaplate?







NS:


above


NNS:


above the plate

NS:


yeah not up as if you are sitting at the table it would be farther away from you than the plate







NNS:


hm hmm









(Discussed in Pica, 1994, p. 512)



Exchange B

NS:


it's a rectangular bench

NNS:


Rectangular?

NS:


yeah it's in the shape of a rectangle with um you know a rectangle has two long sides and two short sides

NNS:


Rectangle?

NS:


re-rectangle it's it's like a square except you flatten it out

NNS:


square except

NS:


uh a rectangle is a square

NNS:


uhuh

NS:


except a square has four equal sides

NNS:


yes

NS:


a rectangle has two sides that are much longer and two sides that are much shorter

NNS:


OK