NEGOTIATION OF MEANING
By :
APAREL SHEKA RISDANTI 0613042059
Lecturer : Hery Yufrizal, M.A.,Ph.D
Subject : Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
LANGUAGE AND ART DEPARTMENT
ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM SI REGULAR
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
2011
I. INTRODUCTION
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 (Yufrizal; 2008). The figure shows how a negotiation process occurs. For example, during communicative exchange in which addresses had difficulty understanding and addressors sensed this difficulty, addressors could restructure the conversation in order to make their input comprehensible to addresses and thus allow the conversation to continue. In this restructuring, addressors could, for example, pause and question addresses as to whether they understood, or sensing confusion on the addresses’ parts, addressors could simply repeat themselves verbatim or in paraphrase.
To cover those problems in understanding the conversation, I tried to observe and analyze them by checking each others’ comprehensions, requesting clarifications and confirmation and by repairing and adjusting speech (Pica, 1988). Pica et al (1989) also suggest that negotiation of meaning basically consist of four interrelated moves. They are trigger (T), signal (S), Response (R), and follow up (F).
II. FRAME OF THEORIES
2.1 Negotiation of Meaning in Interaction
The native speakers and non native speakers are involved in an interaction, both interact ants work together to solve any potential misunderstanding or non understanding that occurs, by checking each others’ comprehension requesting clarifications & confirmation and by repairing speech.
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.
2.2 Framework for a Negotiation of Meaning
Definition and examples of negotiation meaning exchange and its elements as adapted from Pica et al (1989).
1. Non Native Speaker (NSS) Trigger: Utterances followed by NS signal of total or partial lack of understanding.
2. Native Speaker (NS) Signal: of total or partial lack of misunderstanding.
a. Request for Clarification
e.g. NNS : I still don’t know what the word is?
NS : the what?
b. Request for Confirmation through repetition of the NSS
e.g. NSS : on the right side
NS : on the right side?
c. Request for Confirmation through modification of the NSS
e.g. NSS : this is not uh this hasn’t common nature
NS : cars have common nature?
d. Request for Confirmation through completion or elaboration of NSS
e.g. NSS : sun and uh ….
NS : rays
Framework for negotiation of content adapted from van den Branden (1997).
RESPONSE Give additional information Repetition of trigger Modification of trigger Repetition of indicator Modification of indicator Confirm or negate indicator Inability to respond Ignore indicator Respond unnecessary Switch to a topic | NS: Why? NS: Whose bike? NS: Rick’s bike? NS: Rick’s bike? NS: Rick’s bike? NS: Whose bike? NS: Whose bike? NS: Rick’s bike? Oh it doesn’t matter. Go on. NS: Whose bike | NNS: because he needed one NNS: He has stolen a bike NNS: He just stolen a bike NNS: Rick’s bike NNS: Rick Starkey’s bike NNS: Yes NNS: I don’t know NNS; And then he drove home NNS: I really need a drink |
III. TRANSCRIPT THE CONVERSATIONS AND CODING
3.1 The First Conversation
3.1.1 Speakers Background
Female 1 (A) : her name is Ditta Anggraini (student in a first grade of junior high school).
Female 2 (B) : her name is Hani Dwi Maraliu (student in a first grade of junior high school).
3.1.2 Type Task
In this conversation, I took an Information Gap task to be applied. An information gap activity is an activity where learners are missing the information they need to complete a task and need to talk to each other to find it. The task about how two of speakers find out some blank notes about “What did you buy at…..?” and ask about the prices.
3.1.3 Coding
Trigger (T) : Words or phrases that cause of misunderstanding
Signal (S) : Signal to show misunderstanding
Response (R) : Respond of the signal or self repetition
Follow up : No more miscommunication or misunderstanding at all
3.1.4 Transcript
A : what did you buy at The Jeans Shop?
B : jeans and shirt
A : how much was it?
B : fifty nine point ninety nine and twenty nine point ninety nine
A : how much was the total?
B : seventy nine point ninety four dollars. What did you buy at Emily Cosmetic?
A : I bought men cologne and heh?
B : excuse me? (Request for Clarification)
A : I bought men cologne (Repetition of Trigger)
B : and? (Request for Clarification)
A : only that (Confirm or Negate Indicator)
B : alright
How much was it?
A : fifty five dollars
B : how much was the total?
A : the total was fifty eight pint thirty dollars. What did you bur at Max Music?
B : what? (Request for Clarification)
A : What did you bur at Max Music? (Repetition of Trigger)
B : oh I see. Video love tonight and CD romance
A : How much was it?
B : ninety point….
A : hah? (Request for Clarification)
B : ninety pint ninety nine and seventy point ninety nine (Modification of Trigger)
A : ok.
So how much was the total?
B : forty point twenty six. What did you buy at Penny’s flower?
A : I bought two dozen roses
B : what? (Request for Clarification)
A : I bought two dozen roses (Repetition of Trigger)
B : ok. Ok
How much was it?
A : forty dollars
B : how much was the total?
A : forty two point forty dollars
B : excuse me? (Request for Clarification)
A : forty two point forty dollars (Repetition of Trigger)
B : alright
A : what did you buy at “Stanleys”?
B : tie and socks
A : tie and? (Request for Confirmation)
B : socks (Repetition of Trigger)
A : I see
How much was it?
B : ten point ninety nine and five point ninety nine
A : how much was the total
B : seven dollars
A : what? (Request for Clarification)
B : seventeen dollars (Modification of Trigger)
A : ok
B : what did you buy at Grand Jewelry?
A : what? (Request for Clarification)
B : what did you buy at Grand Jewelry? (Repetition of Trigger)
A : alright
I bought diamond ring
B : how much was it?
A : one thousand two hundred dollars
B : what? (Request for Clarification)
A : one thousand two hundred dollars (Repetition of Trigger)
B : ok
How much was the total?
A : one thousand three hundred twenty dollars
B : what? (Request for Clarification)
A : one thousand three hundred twenty dollars (Repetition of Trigger)
B : ok. I see
A : what did you buy at ABC Chocolate?
B : I bought chocolate
A : how much was it?
B : nineteen point ninety nine
A : excuse me? (Request for Clarification)
B : nineteen point ninety nine (Repetition of Trigger)
A : alright
So, how much the total?
B : twenty one point eighteen. What did you buy at Hot Mart?
A : I bought candles, gift wrap, and card
B : how much was it?
A : candle four ninety nine dollars. Gift wrap five ninety nine dollars
B : excuse me? (Request for Clarification)
A : Gift wrap five ninety nine dollars. Card two ninety nine dollars (Give additional Information)
B : ok
How much the total?
A : the total is fourteen pint eighty one dollars
3.2 The Second Conversation
3.2.1 Speakers Background
Male 1 (A) : his name is Zidane (student in a first grade of junior high school).
Male 2 (B) : her name is Reza (student in a first grade of junior high school).
3.2.2 Type Task
In this conversation, I took an Information Gap task to be applied. An information gap activity is an activity where learners are missing the information they need to complete a task and need to talk to each other to find it. The task about how two of speakers find out some blank notes which is talk about a movie (location, synopsis, and showtime).
3.2.3 Coding
Trigger (T) : Words or phrases that cause of misunderstanding
Signal (S) : Signal to show misunderstanding
Response (R) : Respond of the signal or self repetition
Follow up : No more miscommunication or misunderstanding at all
3.2.4 Transcript
A : do you like seeing a movie?
B : sure, what movie would you like to eat?
A : how about “Penguin in Space”? it’s playing at the Caprice Theater
B : what’s spell?
A : C A P R I C E. T H…
B : T H…? (Request for Confirmation)
A : Yeah, T H E A (Give Additional Information)
B : what? (Request for Clarification)
A : A (Repetition of Indicator)
B : A? (Request for Confirmation)
A : yeah A (Confirm or Negate Indicator)
B : oh I see. Ok I know
A : A T E R
B : already. Who is in it?
A : it’s starring Jenny Robert. Jenny Robert
B : Jenny Robert? (Request for Confirmation)
A : Robert (Repetition of Trigger)
B : Robert. Ok
A : plays a penguin that travel through the space
B : what time does it start?
A : show times are at six forty five and eight forty five
B : six forty five and eight forty five? (Request for Confirmation)
A : yeah (Confirm or Negate Indicator)
B : ok
Do you feel like seeing a movie?
A : sure, what movie would you like to see?
B : how about “Gigantic”? it’s playing at the Capital Theater
A : what’s spell? (Request for Clarification)
B : C A P I T (Repetition of Trigger)
A : I? (Request for Confirmation)
B : yeah (Confirm or Negate Indicator)
A : I. first C A P I T O L (Request for Confirmation)
B : C A P I T O L. ok
A : who’s in it?
B : it’s starring Lenny Drew
A : Drew? (Request for Confirmation)
B : yes, Drew (Confirm or Negate Indicator)
A : D R E W (Request for Confirmation)
B : D R E Y (Modification of Indicator)
A : W or Y? (Request for Clarification)
B : sorry W (Modification if Indicator)
A : ok
B : plays a rich man who falls
A : who? ‘W’ (Request for Clarification)
B : who ‘W’, falls in love with a poor woman (Modification of indicator)
A : alright.
What time does it start?
B : show times are at seven and nine fifteen
A : hah? Seven and nine fifteen? (Request for Confirmation)
B : yeah (Confirm or Negate Indicator)
A : ok.
Do you feel like seeing a movie?
B : sure, what movie would you like to see?
A : how about “Idiot with guns VII”? it’s playing at the Metro Theater
B : Metro? (Request for Confirmation)
A : Metro. M E T R O (Repetition of Trigger)
B : ok.
Who is in it?
A : it’s starring Arnold Stallone
B : wait, wait. It’s starring? (Request for Clarification)
A : Arnold Stallone. S T A L L O N E (Repetition of Trigger)
B : what? (Request for Clarification)
A : S T A L L O N E (Repetition of Indicator)
B : Stallone, oh yes I know
A : plays a soldier who save New York
B : who saves? (Request for Clarification)
A : who saves New York from terrorists (Give Additional Information)
B : from? (Request for Clarification)
A : terrorists (Repetition of Indicator)
B : oh ok
What time does it start?
A : show times are at two, five and nine thirty
B : ok. Do you like seeing a movie?
A : sure, what movie do you like to see?
B : how about “The Tricycle Thief”? it’s playing at the Vogue Theater
A : what? (Request for Clarification)
B : Vogue. V O G U E (Repetition of Trigger)
A : V or F? (Request for Clarification)
B : V (Repetition of Indicator)
A : yes.
Who is in it?
B : Mick Page
A : what? (Request for Clarification)
B : Mick Page. M I C K (Repetition of Trigger)
A : ok
B : plays a thief who steals the tricycle of a powerful gangster
A : powerful what? (Request for Clarification)
B : powerful gangster (Repetition of Trigger)
A : oh I see.
What time does it start?
B : show times are at seven fifteen and ten thirty
A : ok
3.3 The Third Conversation
3.3.1 Speakers Background
Male 1 (A) : his name is Muhammad Rudy (student of English Department Lampung University).
Female 2 (B) : her name is Dilla (student of English Department Lampung University).
3.3.2 Type Task
In this conversation, I took an Information Gap task to be applied. An information gap activity is an activity where learners are missing the information they need to complete a task and need to talk to each other to find it. The task about how two of speakers find out the way to go some where (giving direction to some places).
3.3.3 Coding
Trigger (T) : Words or phrases that cause of misunderstanding
Signal (S) : Signal to show misunderstanding
Response (R) : Respond of the signal or self repetition
Follow up : No more miscommunication or misunderstanding at all
3.3.4 Transcript
A : I want to go to somewhere. I need some Aspirin. Do you know how to get some Aspirin?
B : if you want to get some Aspirin, you can go to Albert Pharmacy. It’s on the Pine Street, beside the department store.
A : what? Repeat once more (Request for Clarification)
B : It’s on the Pine Street, beside the department store. (Repetition of Trigger)
A : is it number nine? (Request for Clarification)
B : yes number nine (Confirm and Negate Indicator)
A : ok
B : do you know where I can rent DVD?
A : I see. You can go to Ace Music CDs. It’s on the first avenue. It’s beside department store, behind the bus station.
B : is it number twelve? (Request for Clarification)
A : yes, you are right (Confirm and Negate Indicator)
B : thank you
A : if I am hungry. No no. how to purchase software? Where should I go?
B : you should go to Future Computer
A : where is that? (Request for Clarification)
B : it’s on the second avenue. In front of the high school (Give Additional Information)
A : Is it number seven? (Request for Clarification)
B : yes
If I want to play bowling, where should I go?
A : you may go to Mike’s Bowling Alley
B : where is it?
A : it’s on the Cedar Street. Do you see Cedar Street?
B : sorry? (Request for Clarification)
A : Cedar Street (Repetition of Trigger)
B : Can you spell it? (Request for Clarification)
A : C E D A R (Modification of Trigger)
B : oh, ok. I see it
A : you may go to centre block. You find the Law Courts and Post Office. Mike’s Bowling Alley is between Law Courts and Post Office.
B : ok. Hmm, if I want to buy some shoes, where should I go?
A : shoes? (Request for Confirmation)
B : yes (Confirm and Negate Indicator)
A : I see. Just go to Elegant Shoes
B : where is it?
A : it’s on the third avenue
B : third avenue? (Request for Confirmation)
A : yes, on the bottom (Confirm and Negate Indicator)
B : yes, you are right
A : if you are hungry you can got to sushi. But, can you tell me where is it?
B : you can go to Edo Sushi. In the first avenue beside library
A : is it beside or across library? (Request for Clarification)
B : oh sorry, I mean it’s across library (Modification of Trigger)
A : alright
B : if I want to buy CD. Where should I go?
A : you may go to the Ace’s Music CD
B : where is the place?
A : it’s on the first avenue. It’s not far from Edo Sushi
B : beside library? (Request for Clarification)
A : no, it’s beside department store (Modification of Indicator)
B : is it number twelve? (Request for Clarification)
A : yes, you are right
Where should I go to buy steak?
B : you can go to A and A meats. It’s on the first avenue beside or near library, opposite the museum and in front of the hospital
A : across the museum? (Request for Clarification)
B : yes. In front of hospital (Confirm and Negate Indicator)
A : is it number thirteen? (Request for Clarification)
B : yes, number thirteen.
I want to have a cup of coffee, where should I go?
A : you can go to Monet Café
B : where is the location?
A : it’s on the Oak Street. There is aquarium there. It’s across from aquarium. It’s behind the police station.
B : and beside hospital right? (Request for Clarification)
A : no, it’s on the Oak Street across the Miko’s Bike (Give Additional Information)
B : ok, I know, I know
A : ya, because Monet Café has a best coffee there
B : thanks for your information. See you
A : see you
IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
4.1 The First Conversation
There are 12 (twelve) negotiations of meaning that are found in the conversation.
· Kinds of Signal
There are 2 (two) kinds of signal that are found in the first conversation. They are:
1. Request for Clarification
2. Request for Confirmation
· Kinds of Response
There are 4 (four) kinds of response that are found in the first conversation. They are:
1. Give additional information
2. Repetition of trigger
3. Modification of trigger
4. Confirm or negate indicator
· Length of Utterances
07.51 minutes = 516 words
4.2 The Second Conversation
There are 13 (thirteen) negotiations of meaning that are found in the conversation.
· Kinds of Signal
There are 2 (two) kinds of signal that are found in the second conversation. They are:
1. Request for Clarification
2. Request for Confirmation
· Kinds of Response
There are 6 (six) kinds of response that are found in the second conversation. They are:
1. Give additional information
2. Repetition of trigger
3. Modification of trigger
4. Repetition of indicator
5. Modification of indicator
6. Confirm or negate indicator
· Length of Utterances
09.59 minutes = 712 words
4.3 The Third Conversation
There are 10 (ten) negotiations of meaning that are found in the conversation.
· Kinds of Signal
There are 2 (two) kinds of signal that are found in the third conversation. They are:
1. Request for Clarification
2. Request for Confirmation
· Kinds of Response
There are 6 (six) kinds of response that are found in the third conversation. They are:
1. Give additional information
2. Repetition of trigger
3. Modification of trigger
4. Repetition of indicator
5. Modification of indicator
6. Confirm or negate indicator
· Length of Utterances
08.11 minutes = 678 words
V. WRITING
Peer Group Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Approach in Negotiation of Meaning
Negotiation is one of a range of conversational processes that facilitate SLA as learners work to understand and express meaning in the L2. Learners expressed interest and encouragement while seeking and providing assistance and initiating self-repair of their own utterances, all in the absence of communication breakdowns.
Conversation analysis has the capacity to examine in detail how opportunities for L2 learning arise in different interactional activity. Its particular strength, and one that distinguishes it from other social practice approaches, is its consistent focus on the orientation and relevancies that participants display to each other through their international conduct. Conversation analysis thus affords a distinct perspective on L2 learning as object and process. It enables researchers to reconsider such established SLA topic as fluency, correction, or the benefits of tasks for L2 learning, but also offers an acquisition perspective on interactional conduct whose potential for L2 learning has been largely unexplored.
In this case, when I observed the conversation where negotiation meaning was occurred, how participants understand and respond to one another in their turn at talk, with a central focus on how sequence are generated. The objective of conversation analysis is to uncover the tacit reasoning procedure and sociolinguistic competencies underlying the production and interpretation of talk in organized sequence of interaction (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 1998, p. 14, my italics). In the second language acquisition literature, the term ‘negotiation of meaning’ traditionally refers to the modification and restructuring of interaction as a result of communication breakdown, exemplified by participants restating, clarifying, and confirming information, particularly in native speaker (NS)–nonnative speaker (NNS) interaction.
Consequently, conversation analysts shifted their focus to the mechanics of topicality production, including initiations, closings, and shifts, and an increasingly large body of research about how topicality is accomplished by conversationalists has been conducted.
To analyze how topicality is accomplished and how topic shifts are managed, a strategy sometimes adopted has been to treat topic as ‘constituted in the procedures conversationalists utilize to display understanding and to achieve one turn's proper fit with a prior’ (Maynard 1980: 263). Within this analytical framework, topic is conceived as something that is achieved by participants, turn-by-turn in their talk, through repetitions, ellipsis, and topical talk is occasioned as conversationalists initiate, maintain, close and shift between ‘potential mentionable’. Such a conversation analytic approach is also in line with topics are an artifact of the way each turn is built to display an understanding of and ‘fit’ with the previous turn. What is important about this conversation analytic approach is that the basis of the analysis is in conversationalists’ own orientation to and construction of what they take to be relevant and pertinent to the set task as interaction proceeds.
It has been argued in the literature that peer student interactions are quantitatively and qualitatively different from both the assessor–candidate and teacher–student interactions. In particular, studies in educational psychology and second language acquisition have shown that opportunities for substantive conversation are greater in small peer groups than in teacher-controlled class discussions. In peer groups, interaction tends to be associated with sense making, meaning negotiating, or joint problem-solving activities, and no designated member of the group is responsible for the control and direction of interaction: instead, all students have the responsibility for managing talk and determining the direction of the discussion. The interaction is thus actually controlled and directed by the teacher as he or she nominates topics, allocates turns, monitors the direction of talk, and structures the discussion.
Negotiation process in this study, which seems to share some features of ordinary conversations discovered in the conversation, should be able to serve as evidence for the authenticity of the group oral discussion task as an oral language test instrument. Based on this instance, it is evident to us that a group oral discussion task of this kind has the potential to provide opportunities for students to demonstrate not only their linguistic competence, but also their interactional abilities to relate to each other in spoken interaction, for example, to initiate, expand, or close a topic, provided authentic conditions for communication are established, in particular topic engagement.
Clearly, knowledge of meaning negotiation patterns that occur in group assessment tasks can provide insights pedagogically into the organization of pair/group work in the classroom and the creation of effective learning environments. It is important that students should be aware that second or foreign language interactional discourse of any kind can serve as a window on both linguistic and conversational competence. In view of the argument that the ability to stay on topic, to move from topic to topic and to introduce new topics appropriately is at the core of communicative competence, analysis of topic organization during talk in testing situations can not only help distinguish differences in linguistic performances between peer candidates, but also help identify the elements of conversation that push the participants to move it forward, how topics are negotiated or discarded, and how individual candidates contribute to the negotiation of topicality. Such being the case, investigation of interactional test discourse can help to identify problematic areas to be focused on in teaching in the classroom.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar