Email this article 
Hide
Show all
Patterns of Negotiation of Meaning in English as Second Language Learners’ Interactions
Abstract
Problem Statement: The Internet as a tool that presents many challenges has drawn the attention of researchers in the field of education and especially foreign language teaching. However, there has been a lack of information about the true nature of these environments. In recent years, determination of the patterns of negotiation of meaning as a way to delve in these environments has grown in popularity.
Purpose of the Study: The current study was an effort to determine the types and frequencies of negotiation of meaning in the interaction of Malaysian students as English as a second language learners and, furthermore, to compare findings of this study with correspondent previous studies. To this end, two research questions were posed for this study: (a) what types of negotiation of meaning emerge in text-based synchronous CMC environments? and (b) Are there any differences between findings of this study and previous studies in terms of negotiation of meaning functions in this environment?
Method: Participants of this study were fourteen English as second language learners at Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). They were involved in a series of discussions over selected short stories. Analysis of students’ chat logs was carried out through computer - mediated discourse analysis (CMDA).
Findings and Results: This study yielded 10 types of functions in negotiation of meaning, which are clarification request, confirmation, confirmation check, correction or self correction, elaboration, elaboration request, reply clarification or definition, reply confirmation, reply elaboration, and vocabulary check. Furthermore, findings of this study indicated that students negotiated with an average of 2.10 per 100 words. According to the findings of this study, the most - frequently used functions were confirmation, elaboration, and elaboration request and the least frequently used functions were vocabulary check, reply confirmation, and reply clarification. The findings of this study were in line with the findings of previous studies in that the proficiency of the participants influences the amount of negotiation for meaning strategies that occur.
Conclusions and Recommendations: Findings of this study will give insight to teachers, learners, and researchers in the field of SLA and will help to sustain their liveliness and curiosity. Taking into account the current situation of Malaysia as the country that host so many international students from all over the world, future studies of these kinds can focus on examining the factor of proficiency in different dyads and its effect on students’ interactions in terms of negotiation of meaning.
Keywords: Computer – mediated communication (CMC); computer –mediated discourse analysis (CMDA); negotiation of meaning, teaching English as a Second Language; Language learning
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Akayoglu, S., & Altun, A. (2009 ). The functions of negotiation of meaning in text- based CMC. In R. de Cassia Veiga Marriott & P. Lupion Torres (Eds.), Handbook of research on E-learning methodologies for language acquisition (pp. 291-306). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Akayoğlu, S., Altun, A., & Stevens, V. (2009). Social presence in synchronous text based computer-mediated communication. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 34, 1-16.
Bitchener, J. (2004). The relationship between the negotiation of meaning and language learning: A longitudinal study. Language Awareness, 13(2), 81-95.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Chapelle, C. A. (2004). Technology and second language learning: Expanding methods and agendas. System, 32(4), 593-601.
Ellis, R. (1985). Teacher-pupil interaction in second language development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 69 - 85 ). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67-86.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring casual relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 31-36.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 224–255). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612 - 634). Oxford: Blackwell.
Herring, S. C. (2002). Computer-mediated communication on the Internet. In B. Cronin (Ed.), The Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (pp. 109 - 168). Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc./American Society for Information Science and Technology.
Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations and negotiated interaction in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 79-98.
Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. Tesol Quarterly, 40(1), 183-210.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
Leahy, C. (2001). Bilingual negotiation via e-mail: An international project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14(1), 15-42.
Lluna-Mateu, F. R. (2006). Development of Spanish L2 competence in a synchronous CMC (chat room) environment: The role of visually-enhanced recasts in fostering grammatical knowledge and changes in communicative language use. PhD thesis, Northwestern State University.
Luan, N. L., & Sappathy, S. M. (2011). L2 Vocabulary Acquisition: The Impact of Negotiated Interaction. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 11(2).
Patterson, P., & Trabaldo, S. (2006). Negotiating for meaning across borders with CMC. Teaching English with Technology 6(2).
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language learning, 44(3), 493-527.
Porter, P. A. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centred discussions. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation and second language acquisition (pp. 200-223). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Reysen, S., Lloyd, J. D., Katzarska-Miller, I., Lemker, B. M., & Foss, R. L. (2010). Intragroup status and social presence in online fan groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1314-1317.
Romiszowski, J. A., & Mason, R. (2004). Computer-mediated communication. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2007). Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. The Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'Éducation à Distance, 14(2), 50-71.
Sacks, H. (1984). " On doing 'Being Ordinary',". In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwienhorst, K. (2004). Native-speaker/non-native-speaker discourse in the MOO: Topic negotiation and initiation in a synchronous text-based environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 17(1), 35-50.
Shortreed, I. M. (1993). Variation in foreigner talk input: The effects of task and proficiency. In G.Crookes & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 96 - 122). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Toyoda, E., & Harrison, R. (2002). Categorization of text chat communication between learners and native speakers of Japanese. Language Learning & Technology, 6(1), 82-99.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics(15), 225-243.
Wesche, M. B., & Ready, D. (1985). Foreigner talk in university classrooms. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 329 - 344). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Yule, G., & MacDonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflicts in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language learning, 40, 539-556.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2010-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
Advances in Language and Literary Studies
You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.