ANALYSIS NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN SECOND LANGUAGE INTERACTION
(For Second Language Acquisition Assignment)
BY
Rima Wati Arifin
0743042035
S1 ENGLISH NON REGULER
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
2011
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise be to Allah, the Almighty, the Creator of the universe. Because of His mercy, the writer is able to finish the paper entitled “Analysis Negotiation of Meaning in Second Language Interaction”. This paper is presented as partial fulfillment of the final-term requirement in Second Language Acquisition term.
In writing this paper, the writer collects the materials from the materials resources that are related to second language acquisition and negotiation of meaning terms and gives the examples to make clear about negotiation of meaning in second language acquisition.
The writer gets much helps from others in administering this paper. It is hard to mention all people who have given their worth contribution in this paper. Without their help, this paper will never be finished. The writer realizes that this paper is still far from being perfect so the writer wants the readers to give suggestion and criticize it. The writer expects that this paper can be useful to the development of the English learning process.
Bandar Lampung, 2th of January 2011
The Writer
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Problem
Learning languages, especially the English language, has become more and more important in Indonesia in recent years. The demands for learning a second language and the number of bilingual schools (in bilingual schools all subjects are always taught in the foreign language) have risen steadily. Interaction plays an important role in development of second language learning.
Firstly, the interaction which involves NS (Native Speaker) can provide opportunities for NNS (Non Native Speaker) or between speakers that come from different level of proficiency (Upper-Lower) in order to gain comprehensible input. Comprehensible input hypothesis was proposed on the basis that second language acquisition would occur if the learner obtains input one level beyond his/her current level of proficiency.
Next reason is that non native speakers or lower speakers also have the opportunity to produce modification output by getting the responses from the native speakers or upper speakers. Comprehensible output hypothesis works on the basis that second language acquisition takes place if learners are pushed to produce the target language.
Negotiation of meaning appears to be an important element in facilitating learners to gain comprehensible input and to produce comprehensible output. It occurs when two or more participants involved in oral interaction and found a potential for the communication to breakdown. Four components of negotiation of meaning are trigger, signal, response, and follow-up as I would like to illustrate in the following chapter.
1.2 The Objectives
This paper has some purposes:
1. To know the relation between negotiation of meaning as one of interaction elements and language acquisition.
2. To analyze negotiation of meaning aimed to know how speakers that are from upper proficiency level address speakers that are from lower proficiency level.
CHAPTER II
CONTENT
2.1 Concept of Second Language Acquisition
Second Language Acquisition is a study of how second languages are learned. It is also the study of how learning creates a new language system with only limited exposure to a second language. Additionally, second language acquisition is concerned with the nature of the hypothesis (whether conscious or unconscious) that learners come up with regarding the rules of the second language.
There are some fields that have influenced the study of second language acquisition:
1. The influence of linguistics: The study of how second languages are learned is part of the broader study of language and language behavior.
2. Language pedagogy: pedagogical decisions making must reflect what is known about the process of learning.
3. Cross-cultural communication: Understanding second language acquisition and how nonnative speaks allows us to separate issues of cross-cultural communication involving nonnative speech from stereotyped behavior.
4. Language policy and language planning: Many issues of language policy are dependent on knowledge of how second languages are learned.
Linguists have traditionally viewed language as a complex communication system. In the study of second language acquisition, there are some levels that occur in the process of learning and acquisition:
1. Level of Phonology: Knowledge of sound system
2. Level of Syntax: Knowledge of grammar
3. Level of Morphology and lexicon: A study of word formation
4. Level of Semantic: A study of meaning
5. Level of Pragmatics: The way in which native speakers use language in context.
Wagner 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. 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.
According to Krashen (1985) second language learners acquire the target language by “understanding messages, or by receiving comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985, p. 2). He furthermore argues that slightly advanced input (i+1) is the key element for language acquisition.
Long (1981, 1982) challenges Krashen’s idea by saying that comprehensible input is not enough for language acquisition. Long’s (1980, 1981, 1983) work has been claimed as proposing the interactional hypothesis. The hypothesis advanced two major claims about second language acquisistion:
1. Comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition
2. Modifications to the interactional structure of conversation in the process of negotiating solutions to communication problems helps make input comprehensible to learners (Long, 1985).
2.2 Concept of Negotiation of Meaning
Negotiation of meaning is defined as a series of exchanged conducted by addressors and addresses to help themselves understand 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 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:
1. Trigger (T) which invokes or stimulates incomplete understanding on the part of hearer
2. Indicator (I) which is the hearer’s signal of incomplete understanding
3. Response (R) is the original speaker’s attempt to clear up the unaccepted-input
4. 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 two models by Pica and Doughty (1985) and Grass and Varonis (1985) have stimulated some researchers to investigate the relationship between communication tasks and the patterns of interaction which have resulted from activities. The two models also suggest that in interactional modification or negotiation, there are at least two different moves: the move of signals and the move of reaction to the signal (repair or modification). The move of signal consists of three concepts:
1. Confirmation checks: Moves by which one speaker seeks confirmation of the other’s preceding utterance through repetition, with rising intonation, of what was perceived to be all or part of the preceding utterance.
2. Clarification requests: Moves by which one speaker seeks assistance in understanding the other speaker’s preceding utterance through questions, ... statements such as “I don’t understand,” or imperatives such as “Please repeat.”
3. Comprehension checks: Moves by which one speaker attempts to determine whether the other speaker has understood a preceding message.
Pica et al (1989) suggest that negotiation of meaning basically consist of four interrelated moves. The moves are trigger, signal, response, and follow-up moves. Negotiation of meaning exchange and its element as adapted from Pica et al (1989):
1. NNS Trigger: Utterance followed by NS signal of total/ partial lack of understanding.
2. NS signal: of total or partial lack of understanding
a. Explicit statement or request for clarification
b. Request for confirmation through repetition of the NNS
c. Request for confirmation through modification of the NNS
d. Request for confirmation through completion or elaboration of NNS
3. NNS response:
a. Switch to a new topic
b. Suppliance of information relevant to the topic, but not directly responsive to NS signal
c. Repetition of the NS modification of trigger
d. Self modification of trigger (Production of modified language, i.e. “Comprehensible Output”)
e. Repetition of NNS trigger
f. Confirmation or acknowledgement of Signal only
g. Indication of difficulty or inability to respond
4. Response to NNS:
a. Comprehension signal
b. Continuation move
Alcon (1996) and Shortreed (1993) included some elements of communication strategies in their studies of negotiation of meaning, such as appeals for instance, appeals for verification of meaning, definition requests, appeals indicating lexical uncertainty for the component of signals; foreignization, literal translation, code switching, approximation for responses. Martyn (forthcoming) included code switching, definition signal, and correction for signal of negotiation of meaning; code switching, completion, confirm/negate, and completion for responses of negotiation of meaning. Another extension of negotiation of meaning is by van den Branden (1997) who distinguished three definitions of negotiation: negotiation of meaning, negotiation of form and negotiation of content. Firstly, van den Branden (1997) defines negotiation of meaning as side sequences to the main flow of conversation aimed at signaling and solving problems of message comprehensibility that is aimed at restoring mutual understanding.
Framework for Negotiation of Meaning adapted from van den Branden (1997):
1. Indicator (of non comprehension)
a. Clarification request
b. Confirmation request with trigger unmodified
c. Confirmation request with trigger modified
d. Non-verbal indicators
2. Response
a. Switch to a new topic
b. Repetition of trigger
c. Modification of trigger
d. Repetition of indicator
e. Modification of indicator
f. Confirm or negate indicator
g. Inability to respond
h. Ignore indicator
i. Response unnecessary
Framework for Negotiation of Form adapted from van den Branden (1997):
1. Indicator (of inaccurate/inappropriate form)
a. Request for rephrasal
b. Prompt
c. Confirmation request unmodified
d. Confirmation request modified
e. Metalinguistic comment
2. Response
a. Switch to a new topic
b. Repetition of trigger
c. Modification of indicator
d. Repetition of indicator
e. Modification of indicator
f. Confirm or negate indicator
g. Inability to respond
h. Ignore indicator
i. Response unnecessary
Framework for Negotiating of Content adapted from van den Branden (1997):
1. Indicator
a. Clarification request
b. Confirmation request unmodified
c. Confirmation request with modified
d. Confirmation request elaborated
2. Response
a. Give additional information
b. Repetition of trigger
c. Modification of indicator
d. Repetition of indicator
e. Modification of indicator
f. Confirm or negate indicator
g. Inability to respond
h. Ignore indicator
i. Response unnecessary
j. Switch to a new topic
The role of negotiation of meaning in second language acquisition:
1. Through negotiation of meaning (particularly in interactions involving native speakers) nonnative speakers obtain comprehensible input necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interactions without negotiation of meaning.
2. Negotiation of meaning provides opportunities for nonnative speakers to produce comprehensible output necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interactions without negotiation of meaning.
Grass and Varonis (1994) were conducted to prove that through negotiation of meaning instead of justification of input, second language learners are able to understand the target language. One of the most popular examples of how a native speaker provides negotiated comprehensible input to a nonnative speaker is the following example from Pica et al (1989):
NS : it’s got a chimney
NNS : chimney?
NS : that’s where the smoke comes out of
In the example, the NS triggered an utterance that might not be understood by the NNS who signaled the misunderstanding by repeating the NS’ utterance of the word ‘chimney’. The NS responded to the signal by explaining the meaning of chimney. It was believed that if the NNS comprehended the message from the NS through such an exchange, second language acquisition occurred.
The second function of negotiation of meaning is that this activity allows nonnative speakers to modify their output based on the signal provided by the native speaker. This can be seen in the following excerpts:
NNS : here and then the left
NS : sorry?
NNS : ah here and one ah where one ah one of them on the left?
NS : yeah ones behind the table and then the other on the left of the table
In example above, the NS signaled non-understanding of the NNS’s utterance by a clarification request. The signal forced the NNS to modify her previous utterance so that the NS could comprehend it. In this negotiation exchange the NS clarification request did not contain a target language model but it did provide opportunities for the NNS to modify their output into something more comprehensible.
Swain (1995) postulated that output has a threefold function:
1. It is an opportunity for language learners to notice gaps in their knowledge of the L2 that need to be filled
2. It enables them to test the output hypotheses about the structure of L2, and also to reflect consciously upon the structure of L2
3. It enables for the language teacher to design task that get students to produce language and the reflect upon its structure, and this in turn will cause them to modify their output structurally.
One conclusion that can be obtained from studies of interaction, which involve either native speakers or only nonnative speakers, is that negotiation of meaning can occur in any interaction. The difference can be found in realization of modifications of input and modifications of output.
2.3 Concept of Information Gap Task
Two common kinds of structured output activities are information gap and jigsaw activities. In both these types of activities, students complete a task by obtaining missing information, a feature the activities have in common with real communication. However, information gap and jigsaw activities also set up practice on specific items of language. In this respect they are more like drills than like communication.
This paper focuses on information gap task in providing negotiation of meaning. Information-gap activity involves ‘a transfer of given information from one person to another-or from one form to another, or from one place to another-generally calling for the encoding or decoding of information from or into language.
In an information gap activity, one person has certain information that must be shared with others in order to solve a problem, gather information or make decisions (Neu & Reeser, 1997). These types of activities are extremely effective in the L2 classroom. They give every student the opportunity to speak in the target language for an extended period of time and students naturally produce more speech than they would otherwise. In addition, speaking with peers is less intimidating than presenting in front of the entire class and being evaluated. Another advantage of information gap activities is that students are forced to negotiate meaning because they must make what they are saying comprehensible to others in order to accomplish the task (Neu & Reeser, 1997).
Information gap activities can also reinforce vocabulary and a variety of grammatical structures taught in class. They allow students to use linguistic forms and functions in a communicative way. These activities bring the language to life for students. Grammar is no longer a concept they have difficulty applying to their speaking. Students have the opportunity to use the building blocks of language we teach them to speak in the target language.
CHAPTER III
ANALYSIS
In this paper, I would like to analyze negotiation of meaning in a conversation between two people that come from different level of proficiency that is upper and lower level. But in administering this, I use some theories of negotiation of meaning in second language that involve native speakers. The reason is that people of upper level of proficiency have more power like native speakers than people of lower level, both in turn taking and in dealing with the topic because of the people of lower level’ ability for expressing their thoughts and ideas in the same way as an people of upper level.
The conversation is based on information gap task because it allows the speakers to share the information and force them to use negotiation of meaning. This paper provides two conversations that involve two pairs of people in different level of proficiency:
• Conversation 1 is between a student of medicine faculty (upper) and a student of senior high school (lower).
• Conversation 2 is between a student of senior high school (upper) and a student of junior high school (lower).
The information gap task consists of two sheets. The two speakers should exchange the information about movie. They may not show the sheet each other so that negotiation of meaning may happen. The information gap task is as follows:
A Sheet: Do You Feel Like Seeing a Movie?
Practice the dialogue with a partner. Fill in the missing information.
Location:
Synopsis:
Showtimes:
Location:
Caprice Theater
Synopsis:
Jenny Roberts plays a penguin that travels through space.
Showtimes:
6:45, 8:45
Location:
Metro Theater
Synopsis:
Arnold Stallone plays a soldier who saves New York from terrorists.
Showtimes:
2:00, 5:00, 9:30
B Sheet: Do You Feel Like Seeing a Movie?
Practice the dialogue with a partner. Fill in the missing information.
Location:
Capitol Theater
Synopsis:
Lenny Drew plays a rich man who falls in love with a poor woman.
Showtimes:
7:00, 9:15 Location:
Synopsis:
Showtimes:
Location:
Synopsis:
Showtimes:
Conversation 1
A : “Halo, B!”
B : “Halo, A!”
A : “How are you?”
B : “I’m fine, and you?”
A : “I’m fine too, thank you. Do you like seeing a movie?”
B : “Ya, I like seeing movie..”
A : “Ok, do you know Gigantic movie?”
B : “Ya, I know..”
A : “And have you ever seen it?”
B : “Seen it?? (frowning her face)
A : “And have you ever seen it?”
B : “Oh, yes..”
A : “Can you tell me where can I see the movie?”
B : “Heh?” (rather confused)
A : “I mean where is the location?”
B : “Oh, location?”
A : “Yes..”
B : “Gigantic?”
A : “Yes, gigantic movie, where is the location?”
B : “Ok, Capitol theater.”
A : “Ok, Capitol theater..so, we can see Gigantic movie in Capitol theater.”
B : “Yes.”
A : “And then, do you know the synopsis?”
B : “Synopsis?”
A : “Yes.”
B : “Lenny Driw plays a richman who falls in love with a poor woman..Lenny Driw…..(false pronounciation)
A : “Lenny Driw? Can you spell it?”
B : “Ok. El..i..en..en..way..di..er..i..dabelyu..”
A : “Oh, I know. You mean Lenny Drew”(correct pronounciation)
B : “Lenny Drew, ok.”
A : “Now, do you know when it is played?”
B : ???
A : “Do you know when it is played?”
B : ???
A : “The showtimes?”
B : “Oh, you mean the showtimes?”
A : “Yes, the showtimes.”
B : “Ok, 7 and 9.15
A : “7 and..?”
B : “9.15..”
A : “Ok.”
B : “Do you know about Penguins in Space?”
A : “Yes, I have ever seen it.”
B : “Ok, location..”
A : “Location? Do you mean where can we see the movie?”
B : “Ok, where can we see the movie?
A : “Yes, that’s it. We can see the movie in Caprice theater.”
B : “ok, we can see the movie in Caprice theater.”
A : “Yes, and then do you know the synopsis? Synopsis means summary of the movie.”
B : “Oh, I don’t know that..but, the synopsis in this movie?”
A : “Yes, it is same..summary and synopsis.”
B : “Ok, do you know the synopsis?”
A : “Jenny Roberts plays a penguin that travels through space.”
B : “Can you repeat?”
A : “Ok, Jenny Roberts…”
B : “Yes, Jenny Roberts…."
A : “Plays a penguin that travels through space.”
B : “Ok, and showtimes?”
A : “You mean when it is played?”
B : “Ok, when it is played?”
A : “It is played on 6.45 and 8.45..”
B : “Ok, it is played on 6.45 and 8.45..”
A : “Good. And now, it’s my turn. Do you know a movie entitled Idiots with Guns VII?”
B : “No, I don’t know. Can you tell me where the location?”
A : “It is played in Metro theater.”
B : “It is played in Metro theater. And how about the synopsis?”
A : “The synopsis? Oh yes…Arnold Stallone plays a soldier who saves New York from terrorists.”
B : “Terrorist?”
A : “Yes.”
B : “Soldier?”
A : “Yes, soldier. Do you know soldier? Soldier is like police..something like that..”
B : “When is it played?”
A : “It is played on 2 o’clock, 5 o’clock, and 9.30..”
B : “Ok, It is played on 2 o’clock, 5 o’clock, and 9.30..”
A : “Ok, thanks for your information.”
B : “You’re welcome..”
Analyzing negotiation of meaning in conversation 1:
A : “And have you ever seen it?”
B : “Seen it?? (frowning her face)
A : “And have you ever seen it?”
B : “Oh, yes..”
A acts as a person of upper level of proficiency, while B acts as a person of lower level of proficiency. A’s utterance “And have you ever seen it?” is a trigger. B’s utterance “Seen it??” is an indicator that functions as a confirmation request with trigger unmodified. In addition, A’s utterance “And have you ever seen it?” is a response that functions as a repetition of trigger. And B’s utterance “Oh, yes..” is a form of reaction to the response.
A : “Can you tell me where can I see the movie?”
B : “Heh?” (rather confused)
A : “I mean where is the location?”
B : “Oh, location?”
A acts as a person of upper level of proficiency, while B acts as a person of lower level of proficiency. A’s utterance “Can you tell me where can I see the movie?” is a trigger. B’s utterance “Heh?” is an indicator that functions as a confirmation request. In addition, A’s utterance “I mean where is the location?” is a response that functions as a trigger modification. And B’s utterance “Oh, location?” is a form of reaction to the response.
B : “Lenny Driw plays a richman who falls in love with a poor woman..Lenny Driw…..(false pronounciation)
A : “Lenny Driw? Can you spell it?”
B : “Ok. El..i..en..en..way..di..er..i..dabelyu..”
A : “Oh, I know. You mean Lenny Drew”(correct pronounciation)
A acts as a person of upper level of proficiency, while B acts as a person of lower level of proficiency. B’s utterance “Lenny Driw plays a richman who falls in love with a poor woman..Lenny Driw…..” is a trigger. A’s utterance “Lenny Driw? Can you spell it?” is an indicator that functions as a clarification of request. In addition, B’s utterance “Ok. El..i..en..en..way..di..er..i..dabelyu..” is a response that functions as a trigger modification. And B’s utterance “Oh, I know. You mean Lenny Drew” is a form of reaction to the response.
A : “Do you know when it is played?”
B : ???
A : “The showtimes?”
B : “Oh, you mean the showtimes?”
A : “Yes, the showtimes.”
B : “Ok, 7 and 9.15
A : “7 and..?”
A acts as a person of upper level of proficiency, while B acts as a person of lower level of proficiency. A’s utterance “Do you know when it is played?” is a trigger. But B does not say anything. It is a non verbal indicator. In addition, A’s utterance “The showtimes?” is a response that functions as a trigger modification. In addition, B’s utterance “Ok, 7 and 9.15” is a form of reaction to the response. And A’s utterance “7 and..?” is a request for clarification.
B : “Ok, location..”
A : “Location? Do you mean where can we see the movie?”
B : “Ok, where can we see the movie?
A acts as a person of upper level of proficiency, while B acts as a person of lower level of proficiency. A’s utterance “Location? Do you mean where can we see the movie?” functions as request for confirmation through modification and then B says “Ok, where can we see the movie?” which is a signal of confirmation check by repeating previous A’s utterance.
Conversation 2
A : “Halo, have you ever seen movie?”
B : “Yes.”
A : “Do you know Gigantic movie?”
B : “emm…Gigantic movie?”
A : “Yes, Gigantic movie.”
B : “I know…but…emm…I don’t know…the location. Do you know?”
A : “Yes, I know the location. Location of Gigantic movie is in Capitol theater. “
B : “Sorry?’
A : “In Capitol theater.”
B : “Capitol theater.”
A : “Yes.”
B : “Emm..and synopsis..”
A : “You mean the synopsis of Gigantic movie?”
B : “Ya, the synopsis emm…of gigantic.”
A : “The synopsis is Lenny Drew plays a richman who falls in love with a poor woman.”
B : “Who falls in love?”
A : “Yes, falls in love.”
B :”Oh, emm…do you know…do you know…time show?”
A : “You mean the showtimes?”
B : “Yes, the showtimes.”
A : “The showtimes of Gigantic are 7 O’clock and 9.15..”
B : “Pardon me?”
A : “7 and 9.15..”
B : “7 and 9.15..” emm…do you know ..emm..Penguins in Space movie?”
A : “Yes, I know the Penguins in Space movie but I don’t know the location. Can you mention it?”
B : “Location?”
A : “Yes, the location of Penguins in space movie..”
B : “Location..location..emm…location are Caprice theater.”
A : “Sorry?”
B : “Emm..location..location..location is in Caprice theater.”
A : “oh, you mean the location is in Caprice theater?”
B : “Yah..”
A : “How about Synopsis?”
B : “Synopsis..tells..about..Jenny Roberts emm…plays a penguin ..emm..Penguin..that travels through space.”
A : “Travels?”
B : “Yah, that travels..”
A : “How about the showtimes?”
B : “Emm…emm..it is 6.45 and 8.45..”
A : “Pardon me?”
B : “Emm..emm..the showtimes are 6.45 and 8.45…”
A : “How about Idiots with Guns VII? Do you know the location?”
B : “The location I know in Metro theater.”
A : “Sorry?”
B : “Metro theater.”
A : “You mean in Metro theater.”
B : “Yes the location is in Metro theater.”
A : “How about the synopsis?”
B : “Synopsis…synopsis…is about Arnold Stallone….plays...a….soldier who saves New York from …toris.”
A : “You mean Arnold Stallone plays a soldier who saves..?”
B : “Who saves New York from…terrorists.”
A : “Terrorists?”
B : “Yah..”
A : “Can you spell it?”
B : “te..e..er..er..o..er..ai..es..te..
A : “You mean ti..i..double er..ou..er..ai..es..ti..es..”
B : “Yah..”
A : “How about the showtimes?”
B : “The showtimes…are..at..2, 5, and..and..9.30..”
A : “Ok, thank you for your information..”
B : “Me too. You’re welcome..”
Analyzing negotiation of meaning in conversation 2:
A : “Yes, I know the location. Location of Gigantic movie is in Capitol theater. “
B : “Sorry?’
A : “In Capitol theater.”
B : “Capitol theater.”
A acts as a person of upper level of proficiency, while B acts as a person of lower level of proficiency. A’s utterance “Yes, I know the location. Location of Gigantic movie is in Capitol theater “is a trigger. B’s utterance “Sorry?’ is an indicator that functions as a clarification request. In addition, A’s utterance “In Capitol theater” is a response that functions as a repetition of trigger. And B’s utterance “Capitol theater” is a form of reaction to the response.
A : “The synopsis is Lenny Drew plays a rich man who falls in love with a poor woman.”
B : “Who falls in love?”
A acts as a person of upper level of proficiency, while B acts as a person of lower level of proficiency. B’s utterance “Who falls in love?” is a request for confirmation through repetition.
B :”Oh, emm…do you know…do you know…time show?”
A : “You mean the showtimes?”
A acts as a person of upper level of proficiency, while B acts as a person of lower level of proficiency. A’s utterance “You mean the showtimes?” is a request for confirmation through modification.
A : “The showtimes of Gigantic are 7 O’clock and 9.15..”
B : “Pardon me?”
A : “7 and 9.15..”
B : “7 and 9.15..”
A acts as a person of upper level of proficiency, while B acts as a person of lower level of proficiency. A’s utterance “The showtimes of Gigantic are 7 O’clock and 9.15..” is a trigger. B’s utterance “Pardon me?” is an indicator that functions as a clarification request. In addition, A’s utterance “7 and 9.15..” is a response that functions as a repetition of trigger. And B’s utterance “7 and 9.15..” is a form of reaction to the response by using confirmation check.
B : “Location?”
A : “Yes, the location of Penguins in space movie..”
B : “Location..location..emm…location are Caprice theater.”
A : “Sorry?” ( clarification request)
B : “Emm..location..location..location is in Caprice theater.”
A : “How about the showtimes?”
B : “Emm…emm..it is 6.45 and 8.45..”
A : “Pardon me?” (clarification request)
B : “Emm..emm..the showtimes are 6.45 and 8.45…”
A acts as a person of upper level of proficiency, while B acts as a person of lower level of proficiency. In a conversation above, A signaled non understanding of B’s utterance by a clarification request. The signal forced B to modify her previous utterance so that B could comprehend it. In this negotiation exchange A clarification request did not contain a target language model but it did provide opportunities for B to modify their output into something more comprehensible.
B : “Synopsis…synopsis…is about Arnold Stallone….plays...a….soldier who saves New York from …torist.”
A : “You mean Arnold Stallone plays a soldier who saves..?” (request for clarification)
B : “Who saves New York from…terrorists.”
A acts as a person of upper level of proficiency, while B acts as a person of lower level of proficiency. In the conversation, A signaled lack of understanding by a request for clarification of what B intended. B responded to the signal by correcting her previous utterance. In this way, B has modified her output, so that it is comprehensible to A.
A : “Terrorists?”
B : “Yah..”
A : “Can you spell it?”
B : “te..e..er..er..o..er..ai..es..te..
A : “You mean ti..i..double er..ou..er..ai..es..ti..es..”
A’s utterance “You mean ti..i..double er..ou..er..ai..es..ti..es..” shows modification of spelling.
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION
Second Language Acquisition is a study of how second languages are learned. It is also the study of how learning creates a new language system with only limited exposure to a second language.
There are some fields that have influenced the study of second language acquisition:
1. The influence of linguistics: The study of how second languages are learned is part of the broader study of language and language behavior.
2. Language pedagogy: pedagogical decisions making must reflect what is known about the process of learning.
3. Cross-cultural communication: Understanding second language acquisition and how nonnative speaks allows us to separate issues of cross-cultural communication involving nonnative speech from stereotyped behavior.
4. Language policy and language planning: Many issues of language policy are dependent on knowledge of how second languages are learned.
Linguists have traditionally viewed language as a complex communication system. In the study of second language acquisition, there are some levels that occur in the process of learning and acquisition:
1. Level of Phonology: Knowledge of sound system
2. Level of Syntax: Knowledge of grammar
3. Level of Morphology and lexicon: A study of word formation
4. Level of Semantic: A study of meaning
5. Level of Pragmatics: The way in which native speakers use language in context
Long (1981, 1982) challenges Krashen’s idea by saying that comprehensible input is not enough for language acquisition. Long’s (1980, 1981, 1983) work has been claimed as proposing the interactional hypothesis. The hypothesis advanced two major claims about second language acquisistion:
1. Comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition
2. Modifications to the interactional structure of conversation in the process of negotiating solutions to communication problems helps make input comprehensible to learners (Long, 1985).
Negotiation of meaning is defined as a series of exchanged conducted by addressors and addresses to help themselves understand be understood by their interlocutors. Varonis and Gass (1985) proposed a simpler model for the exchanges that create negotiation of meaning. The model consists of four primes called:
1. Trigger (T) which invokes or stimulates incomplete understanding on the part of hearer
2. Indicator (I) which is the hearer’s signal of incomplete understanding
3. Response (R) is the original speaker’s attempt to clear up the unaccepted-input
4. Reaction to the response (RR) which is an element that signals either the hearer’s acceptance or continued difficulty with the speaker’s repair.
One conclusion that can be obtained from studies of interaction, which involve either native speakers or only nonnative speakers, is that negotiation of meaning can occur in any interaction. The difference can be found in realization of modifications of input and modifications of output.
In an information gap activity, one person has certain information that must be shared with others in order to solve a problem, gather information or make decisions (Neu & Reeser, 1997). Another advantage of information gap activities is that students are forced to negotiate meaning because they must make what they are saying comprehensible to others in order to accomplish the task (Neu & Reeser, 1997).
Based on the explanation above, it is expected that the readers can understand negotiation of meaning as an interaction element in second language acquisition.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Yufrizal, Hery. 2008. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition. Bandung: Pustaka Reka Cipta.
http://www.caslt.org/
http://xpresi-riaupos.blogspot.com/2009/12/task-based-syllabus.html
http://www.nclrc.org/essentials/speaking/developspeak.htm
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar