NEGOTIATION OF MEANING
(A Second Language Acquisition Assignment)
By
Ferry Yun Kurniawan
0713042006
FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAMME
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
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 every second language user will face some obstacles to acquire the language as well as his/her native. The proficiency is not as good as people who live in the regiom who use it as their native 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 involved in conversations, since 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. To be honest, I cannot comprehend this subject well without my beloved lecture therefore I also give my gratitude to my 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; entitled An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Many people consider English is not easy, so they try 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; though the language will be dealt with in this paper is Kromo Inggil ( a Javanese traditional language).
A : I bought a new car yesterday
B : You brought a new car yesterday
A : No, I bought a new car yesterday
B : Sorry you bought or brought a new car yesterday?
A : I bought not I brought
B : Oooh,, You bought it
By observing this conversation, we can see that B has misunderstanding towards the words being said by A, and then B asks for 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.
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.
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.
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.
CHAPTER 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. Integration
Gass and Slinker (1994) outlined four possibilities for the outcome of input. The first two take place in the intake component and result in integration, the third takes place in the integration component, and the fourth represents input that exist the system early in the process.
D. 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:
E. 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.
CHAPTER III
THE TRANSCRIPTS AND CODINGS
Below are the transcripts containing coding of the conversations of non-native speaker and native speaker of Kromo Inggil ( Javanese traditional language) which have been recorded and transcribed by the writer:
Conversation 1
The interactants are:
1. Bejo : A native speaker of Kromo Inggil
2. Ahmad : A non-native speaker of Kromo Inggil (Sundanese lives in Java)
Bejo: Sugeng injing Mas Ahmad, pripun kabare?
AHMAD: Sugeng ijing mas bejo, sae jenengan pripun?
BEJO: Senes jenengan mas, njenengan. Kulo sae ugi , sampun mirsani putrone pak lurah dhereng?
AHMAD: opo?
BEJO: Mpun ningali putronepun pak lurah dhereng?
AHMAD: Ooh, nggeh kulo mpun ketemu. Sing lanang niko tho?
BEJO: Pripun?
AHMAD: Seng jaler niko tho?
BEJO: Senes tho, seng setri niko lho.
AHMAD: oh, niko tho. Menawi dipun rabi purun mboten mas njenengan?
BEJO: Nopone mas?
AHMAD: diken rabi kalih njenengan purun mboten?
BEJO: Lha purun banget tho mas, njenengan?
AHMAD: Nopo malih kulo.
Coding:
Trigger (T) : Sound that can make misunderstanding
Signal (S) : Confirmation Check, Clarification Request
Response (R) : Self Repetition
Follow up (TU) : Statement showed understanding
Conversation 2
The interactants are:
1. Bejo : A native speaker of Kromo Inggil
2. Susi : A non-native speaker of Kromo Inggil (Palembangian lives in Java)
BEJO: Mbak, wortele pundhi?
SUSI: nopo mas?
BEJO: wortel, ting pundhi ?
SUSI: o,, wortel niko lho ting kulkas
BEJO: nopo???
SUSI: nggeh ting kulkas!!
BEJO: ooh… gulo pundi gulo?
SUSI: gulo? Ting ngandap mejo niko
BEJO: ting ngandap mejo
SUSI: nggih ting mejo
BEJO: niki lombok ngge nopo kok kathah sanget?
SUSI: menopo?
BEJO: lombok kok kathah…
SUSI: Oh ngge nolak jawah
BEJO: Hmmm,, nopo niku?
SUSI: jawah
BEJO: o jawah, kulo mirenge seng lintunepun
SUSI: nopo niku?
BEJO: dawah,, matur nembah nuwun nggih…
SUSI: Semono ugi, sami-sami.
Coding:
Trigger (T) : Sound that can make misunderstanding
Signal (S) : Confirmation Check, Clarification Request
Response (R) : Self Repetition
Follow up (TU) : Statement showed understanding
Conversation 3
The interactants in this video are:
1. Susi: An Indonesian native speaker.
2. Vania: A non native Indonesian speaker. (Manadovian lives in Java)
A different method is used in this conversation. Susi will tell Vania about the rule of a game, using Kromo Inggil obviously.
Susi: Dolanan yuk…Kulo pengen sampeyan dados turis ingkang badhe mlampah dugi daerah liyo.
Vania: Emmm. nggeh
Susi: Nah, mergo sampeyan mboten ngertos margi dumugi mriko, sampeyan tanglet kalih .
Vania: Resepsionis? Seng ting ngarep niko?
Susi: Leres.
Vania: Dadhos, kulo mboten ngertos rencang kulo ting pundi?
Susi: Mboten ngoten, sampeyan ngertos nanging mboten paham marginepun.
Vania: Oh, dados kulo tanglet resepsionis.
Susi: Leres.
Vania: Nanging kenging nopo kok kepisah? Kulo kan sami asalepun.
Susi: Napane? kepisah?
Vania: Nggih.
Susi: Oh, sebabe dugine mboten sareng-sareng.
Vania: Ngoten?
Susi: Nggeh. Icak-icake mawon ngoten lho.
Vania: Oh. Kita ngarti. Ok. (speak in manado language)
Susi: Oke. Nggenne namine Munthilan.
Vania: Munthilan?
Susi: Nggih, Munthilan, Jowo Tengah.
Vania: Jowo Tengah. Pundit malih niku??
Susi: Oh. Mboten ngertos tho?? Wajar, dhereng nate mriko.
Vania: Nggeh, leres
Susi: Mulo kuwi tanglet sampeyan kalih resepsionis.
Vania: Nggeh pun nek mekaten.
Susi: Sip. Saget dipun mulai?
Vania: Oke.
Coding:
Trigger (T) : Sound that can make misunderstanding
Signal (S) : Confirmation Check, Clarification Request
Response (R) : Self Repetition
Follow up (TU) : Statement showed understanding
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
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 male to male). Here are the break downs of each conversation above.
The total length of speaking time is about 15 minutes and there are about 1735 words. From this, the Mean Length of Utterances is 1.9 words per second.
4.1 First Conversation
The conversation has 5 sequences of negotiation of meaning. The five sequences have:
ü 5 Triggers
ü 4 Signals
ü 2 Responses
ü 5 Follow-ups
The sequences are:
Bejo: Sugeng injing Mas Ahmad, pripun kabare?
AHMAD: Sugeng ijing mas bejo, sae jenengan pripun?
BEJO: Senes jenengan mas, njenengan. Kulo sae ugi , sampun mirsani putrone pak lurah dhereng?
AHMAD: opo?
BEJO: Mpun ningali putronepun pak lurah dhereng?
AHMAD: Ooh, nggeh kulo mpun ketemu. Sing lanang niko tho?
BEJO: Pripun?
AHMAD: Seng jaler niko tho?
BEJO: Senes tho, seng setri niko lho.
AHMAD: oh, niko tho. Menawi dipun rabi purun mboten mas njenengan?
BEJO: Nopone mas?
AHMAD: diken rabi kalih njenengan purun mboten?
BEJO: Lha purun banget tho mas, njenengan?
AHMAD: Nopo malih kulo.
Trigger (T) : Sound that can make misunderstanding
Signal (S) : Confirmation Check, Clarification Request
Response (R) : Self Repetition
Follow up (TU) : Statement showed understanding
4.2 Second Conversation
The conversation contains 4 sequences of negotiation of meaning, they have:
ü 4 triggers
ü 6 signals
ü 6 responses
ü 5 follow-ups
The sequences are:
BEJO: Mbak, wortele pundhi?
SUSI: nopo mas?
BEJO: wortel, ting pundhi ?
SUSI: o,, wortel niko lho ting kulkas
BEJO: nopo???
SUSI: nggeh ting kulkas!!
BEJO: ooh… gulo pundi gulo?
SUSI: gulo? Ting ngandap mejo niko
BEJO: ting ngandap mejo
SUSI: nggih ting mejo
BEJO: niki lombok ngge nopo kok kathah sanget?
SUSI: menopo?
BEJO: lombok kok kathah…
SUSI: Oh ngge nolak jawah
BEJO: Hmmm,, nopo niku?
SUSI: jawah
BEJO: o jawah, kulo mirenge seng lintunepun
SUSI: nopo niku?
BEJO: dawah,, matur nembah nuwun nggih…
SUSI: Semono ugi, sami-sami.
Trigger (T) : Sound that can make misunderstanding
Signal (S) : Confirmation Check, Clarification Request
Response (R) : Self Repetition
Follow up (TU) : Statement showed understanding
4.3 Third Conversation
The conversation has 9 sequences of negotiation of meaning, which have:
ü 9 triggers
ü 7 signals
ü 5 responses
ü 4 follow-ups
The sequences are:
Susi: Dolanan yuk…Kulo pengen sampeyan dados turis ingkang badhe mlampah dugi daerah liyo.
Vania: Emmm. nggeh
Susi: Nah, mergo sampeyan mboten ngertos margi dumugi mriko, sampeyan tanglet kalih .
Vania: Resepsionis? Seng ting ngarep niko?
Susi: Leres.
Vania: Dadhos, kulo mboten ngertos rencang kulo ting pundi?
Susi: Mboten ngoten, sampeyan ngertos nanging mboten paham marginepun.
Vania: Oh, dados kulo tanglet resepsionis.
Susi: Leres.
Vania: Nanging kenging nopo kok kepisah? Kulo kan sami asalepun.
Susi: Napane? kepisah?
Vania: Nggih.
Susi: Oh, sebabe dugine mboten sareng-sareng.
Vania: Ngoten?
Susi: Nggeh. Icak-icake mawon ngoten lho.
Vania: Oh. Kita ngarti. Ok. (speak in manado language)
Susi: Oke. Nggenne namine Munthilan.
Vania: Munthilan?
Susi: Nggih, Munthilan, Jowo Tengah.
Vania: Jowo Tengah. Pundi malih niku??
Susi: Oh. Mboten ngertos tho?? Wajar, dhereng nate mriko.
Vania: Nggeh, leres
Susi: Mulo kuwi tanglet sampeyan kalih resepsionis.
Vania: Nggeh pun nek mekaten.
Susi: Sip. Saget dipun mulai?
Vania: Oke.
Trigger (T) : Sound that can make misunderstanding
Signal (S) : Confirmation Check, Clarification Request
Response (R) : Self Repetition
Follow up (TU) : Statement showed understanding
I need to tell you that Vania’s and Ahmad’s proficiency in Kromo Inggil language is about the same. This will serve as the proof that the behavior of these two non native speakers is not influenced by their proficiency. At least, it will not affect them that much.
I, also, think that negotiation of meaning sequences occur in each of those conversations, yet, the amount of the sequence seems to differ based on the interactants. Conversation where Vania acts as the receiver tends to be longer than the one with Ahmad as the receiver. Vania also uses more words to express her incomplete understanding, while Ahmad prefers to be silent and think rather than ask (Give Signal) for the information provider Response. The negotiation of meaning sequences in Vania’s conversation is also longer than that of Ahmad’s.
The reason is, in my opinion, the fact that Vania is a female and Ahmad 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 V
CONCLUSION
We can see that when native speakers (nss) and non native speakers (NNSs) are involved in an interaction , both interactants works together to solve any potential misunderstanding or non understanding tha occurs, by checking each others’ comprehension, requesting clarification and confirmation and by reparing and adjusting speech.
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.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar