AN INTRODUCTION TO SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
“NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION”
Created by :
THE FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND PEDAGOGY
The major distinction between integrationist and natives theories of SLA is that scholars such as Krashen emphasize comprehensible target language input which is one-way input and, on the contrary, interactions acknowledge the importance of two-way communication in the target language (Ariza and Hancock, 2003).
Integrationists agree that Krashen’s comprehensible input is a crucial element in the language acquisition process, but their emphasis is on how input is made comprehensible (Lightbown and Spada, 1998, p. 29). Moreover, Krashen distinguishes between language acquisition and language learning; however, this paper will focus mainly on Long’s theory of SLA.
This discussion will focus primarily on the interaction hypothesis proposed by Long. The following sections will highlight the main claims advanced by Long and discuss them critically in light of other competing perspectives on SLA and consider its EFL pedagogical implications.
In every country where English is being learned as the foreign language, it is going to be difficult to make use it as well as their language. Especially, in Indonesia having so many tribes and also having different mother tongue, this is believed has become difficult to acquire English even they need to master Indonesian as well. Therefore, the linguistics is attracted to investigate the way how people acquire the language.
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 the language learner where English is as the second language will face some difficult things to acquire the language as well as native. The proficiency is not as good as people who live in the country who use it as their 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 is used. Because 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. But, before we elaborate it deeply, i must say thanks to Almighty Allah who always gives us changes to learn everything in the world. Not only our God but we also thank to the greatest prophet Muhammad SWT as the leader of Muslim. Honestly, we cannot comprehend this subject without our beloved lecture therefore we also thank to our 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; the title is An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition.
This subject it is expected that the students know, comprehend and master that the interaction plays an important role in the development of second language learning. The interaction, particularly that which involves native speakers provides opportunities for nonnative speaker to gain comprehension input. The comprehensible input can be gained through the modification and negotiation of meaning with the native speakers. Nonnative speakers also have the opportunity to produce modification output by getting the responses from the speakers.
Since English is not easy, people try so 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;
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. Comprehensible output hypothesis works on the basis that second language acquisition takes place if learners are pushed to produce the target language.
Long (1980) studied the input and interaction features of native speakers’ talk to sixteen nonnative speakers contained a limited number of input modifications but extensive interactional structure of conversation were the most important and widely used way of making input comprehensible.
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.
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.
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 misunderstDavidng or non understDavidng 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 understDavidng on the part of the hearer.
b. Indicator (I), which is the hearer’s signal of incomplete understDavidng.
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.
A. DIALOG I
This is a conversation between two people in the school taken from 3rd grade of Senior High School. Both of them are in the same level in English Low and Low;
( TU)David: "Hello Jhon, good morning!"
( TU) Jhon : "Oooooohh, hello David, good afternoon!"
( TU) DAVID :"How are you today?"
( TU) JHON : " I'm fine, how about you?"
( TU) DAVID: "i’m fine thanks.
( TU) JHON : "O right, that's good, what’s up Nopri Is there any good news?
( T) DAVID : "well...agung, can you come to my birthday party in Novotel next Saturday???
( S) JHON : " Pardon....
( R) DAVID : can you come to my birthday party in Novotel next Saturday???
( S) JHON: it hear great, I will come to the party.
( TU) DAVID i : "Great! Thanks, now I have to go home, there will be a guest in my home, Good Bye!"
( TU)JHON : "You're welcome, bye!"
Trigger (T) : Sound that can make misunderstand David
Signal (S) : Confirmation Check, Clarification Request
Response (S) : Self Repetition
Follow up (TU) : statement showed understand David
B. Dialog II
This conversation between librarian and student from 1st grade of junior high school. Both of them are in different level in English high and low;
At the Library
( TU )Andy : Good afternoon, Madam, (greeting)
( TU )Librarian : Good afternoon, Andy. What can I do for you? (offering to help)
( T )Andy : I need to get some information on animal cells.
( S )Librarian : Whatttt….?
( R )Andy :the information on animal cells madam, where is it?
( T )Librarian : ooohhh,, I see….it is in the corner of bookcase.
( S )Andy : pardon…
( R )Librarian : in the corner of bookcase…you can see that…???
( TU )Andy : ooohh…all right. Hmmmm…how about map? where is the map madam???
( TU )Librarian : the map??? It is on the table beside the cupboard.
( TU )Andy : on the table beside the cupboard?
( R )Librarian : yes, it is on the table beside the cupboard
( T )Andy : where is the dictionary madam???
( S )Librarian : pardon….
( T )Andy : where is the dictionary???
( S )Librarian : dictionary???
( T )Andy : yes dictionary…
( TU/T )Librarian : oh dictionary, it is beside the book of English literature.
( S )Andy : book of English what?
( R )Librarian : English Literature
( S )Andy : English what??? Can you spell it???
( R )Librarian : L-I-T-E-R-A-T-U-R-E
( TU )Andy : Oh, I see. LITERATURE. Thank you, Madam. (thanking)
( TU )Librarian : you are welcome. (responding to thanks)
Trigger (T) : Sound that can make misunderstDavidng
Signal (S) : Confirmation Check, Clarification Request
Response (S) : Self Repetition
Follow up (TU) : statement showed understDavidng
Based on the conversation above, the writer analyze there are so many negotiation of meaning done by the speakers. They tried to clarify each words which probably difficult to be receipted so that the conversation can run well. It commonly happens with Indonesian’s students whereas English is a foreign language. Nevertheless, the writer believes that negotiation of meaning is a part of learning the language. That is one of ways to acquire the language directly, consciously/unconsciously.
Student in the conversation are both in the different level of proficiency in English. One of them invite to join to his birthday party. They trying to negotiate the meaning when they find the difficulties in comprehending the aim of the speaker. In the dialogue II are both in the different level of proficiency in English high and low. The student want to loan some book and other things to the librarian, so the librarian tell the student where it is.
As stated above there are Trigger (Sound that can make misunderstDavidng), Signal (Confirmation Check, Clarification Request), Response (Self Repetition), Follow up (statement showed understDavidng). They are symbol of negotiation of meaning.
The script of The Conversation between Mother and His Son (sunda )
Mother ( M )
Son ( S )
( S ) : mah, hoyong permen
( M ) : tos atuh, ulah permen wae
( S ) : tapi hoyong permen mah
( M ) : engke bilih nyeri waos...
( S ) : moal maah...
( M ) : meser nu sanes wae, ulah permen
( S ) : alim, hoyong permen wae...
( M ) :teu kenging kitu, keudah nurut sareng mamah ya bageur...
( S ) : hikkksss hiikkkss.... uwaaaaaaaaaaaa ( ceurik )
( M ) : atuh kasep ulah ceurik gera...
( S ) : hoyong permeeennnnn......
( M ) :nyak enggeus atuh hiji we nyak kasep?
( S ) : he’euh...
( M ) : hayu urang teun warung mang ujang meli..
( S ) : yeeeeee....horeeeee....
( M ) : dasar budak ai boga kahayang teh ogo kitu...
( S ) : hehehehehehehe (seuri)
As noted above, baby talk involves shortening and simplifying words, with the possible addition of allured words and non verbal utterances, and can invoke a vocabulary of its own. Some utterances are invented by parents within a particular family unit, or passed down from parent over generations, while others quite widely known.
A fair number of baby talk and nursery words refer bodily functions or private parts, partly because the words are relatively easy to pronounce. Moreover, such word reduce adults discomfort such things without breaking adult taboos.
Some examples of widely-used baby talk words and phrases in English, many of which are not found within standard dictionaries, include:
- baba (blanket or bottle)
- beddy-bye (go to bed, sleeping, bedtime)
- binkie (pacifier (dummy) or blanket)
- blankie (blanket)
- didee ( diaper)
- din-din (dinner)
- icky (disgusting)
- nana (grandmother)
- pee-pee (urinate or penis)
- potty (toilet)
- mama (mother)
- wuv (love)
- yucky (disgusting)
- yum-yum (mealtime)
Moreover, many words can be derived into baby talk following certain rules of transformation, in English adding a terminal /i/ sound is a common way to form a diminutive which is used as part of baby talk, examples include:
- horsey (from horse)
- kitty (from cat or kitten)
- potty (originally from pot now equivalent to modern toilet)
- doggy (from dog)
(“Puppy” is often erroneously thought to be a diminutive of pup made this way, but it is in fact the other way around: pup is shortening of puppy, which comes from French popi or poupée).
Other transformations mimic the way infants mistake certain consonants which in English can include turning /l/ into /w/ as in wuv from love or widdo from little or in pronouncing /v/ as /b/ and /ð/ or /t/ as /d/.
Still other transformations, but not in all language, include elongated vowels, such as kitty and kiiiitty, meaning the same thing, While this is understood by English speaking toddlers, it is not applicable with Dutch toddlers as they learn that elongated vowels reference different words.
Baby talk, teacher talk and foreigner talk
Krashen (1980) input hypothesis has inspired a large amount of research that attempt to find out the relationship between input and interaction in second/foreign language learning. Studies that attempt to prove the influence of comprehensible input in first language acquisition have resulted in term such as baby talk, motherese, care-giver speech and care-talker speech.
Flirtatious baby talk
Baby talk may be used as a form of flirtation between sex partners. In this instance, the baby talk may be an expression of tender intimacy, and may form part of affectionate role play in which one partner speaks and behaves childishly, while the other acts motherly of fatherly, responding in parents. One or both partners might perform the child role.
Baby talk with pets
Many people use falsetto, glissando, and repetitive speech similar to baby talk when addressing their pets. Such as is not commonly used by professionals who train working animals, but is very common among owners of companion pets, This style of speech is different from baby talk, despite in tonal similarities, especially if the speaker used rapid rhythms and forced breathiness which may mimic the animal’s utterances. Pets often learn to respond well to the emotional states and specific commands of their owners who use baby talk, especially if the owner’s intonations are very distinct from ambient noise, For example, a dog may recognize baby talk as his owner’s invitation to play( as is a dog’s natural “play bow”); a cat may learn to come when addressed with the high pitched utterance, “Heeeeeeeerree kitty-kitty-kitty-kitty-kitty-kitty”!.