Negotiation for meaning theory


Published on

Slides about negotiation for meaning theory

Published in: Education

Negotiation for meaning theory

  1. 1. Negotiation of meaning isa process that speakersgo through to reach aclear understanding ofeach other.
  2. 2.  NfM=Negotiation for meaning NS=Native Speaker NNS=Nonnative speaker
  3. 3. According to Long Comprehensible input gained through interactional adjustments such as negotiating meaning and modifying output is central to second language acquisition, and much research has been undertaken to discover which classroom activities give learners the greatest benefit from this type of interaction (Pica 1994).
  4. 4. It is founded upon Krashen’s notion that knowledge of a second language is acquired through exposure to comprehensible input. They provide learners with negative evidence about their own output, and push them to modify it to make it more comprehensible and more target-like (Swain 1985).
  5. 5. In the mid-1980s there was a considerable amount of research to determine which kinds of classroom activities were most productive in terms of negotiated interaction. There are many versions of information gap tasks, but each has the same basic rationale: hide certain information from one or more participants so that, in order to get it, they need to understand and be understood with clarity.
  6. 6.  Is always, initiated by a native speaker or teacher who has not encountered a communication failure, impasse, or breakdown, but who has chosen where some language focus would be most useful. Team Work
  7. 7.  Information gap activities such as jigsaw readings or listenings, group story building, spot the difference and communicative crosswords are examples of activities that give learners the opportunity to develop their communicative competence through negotiation of meaning as they share information.
  8. 8.  1 it can be tedious and face threatening; 2 it is typically lexical in nature and not morph syntactic; 3 it is hard to identify because its surface structures are often ambiguous 4 May not provide an accurate depiction of the value of a task in providing participants with opportunities for language learning.
  9. 9. By designing tasks where nothing couldbe achieved otherwise) invites frustration and embarrassment, two feelings which probably do not facilitate SLA.
  10. 10. As pointed out by Pica (1996) the processes beneficial to SLA which occur in NfM can surely also occur when learners are not stuck in some comprehension-related impasse and using a focus-on-form to get themselves out of trouble.In other words, weexplore the ways that success in communicating with and assisting a partnermay facilitate SLA.
  11. 11. Long (1980) Comprehension Checks Confirmation Check Clarification Requests
  12. 12. TagquestionsRepetitions
  13. 13.  It involves repetition of all or a part the talker’s preceding statement. Answerable by simple confirmation. EX: N - What do you like in London? S - London? (1.0) Ah, there are a lot of things to do here N - A lot? S- There are a lot of things to do in your free time. A lot of shops, and you can go bowling, skating (1.0) there are cinemas. Where I live, no.
  14. 14.  Formed by questions. Recode information. I don’t understand Try againEx :Yes, like, what was the most interesting thing in London?Ah, there are a lot of things to do in London.
  15. 15.  Teachers and students try to convey information to one another and reach mutual comprehension through restating, clarifying, and confirming information. The teacher may help students get started or work through a stumbling block using linguistic and other approaches. Research examining how learners succeed in L2 classroom by interaction, has shown that learners help one another as they interact.
  16. 16.  Assistance, is a feature of learner talk that is claimed to promote L2 development. This comes about how the learners collaborate to create discourse in the target language. Collaboration is considered an important part of what happens when learners interact with one another. the level of potential development is determined by language produced collaboratively with a teacher or classmate. the actual developmental level is determined by individual linguistic production.
  17. 17.  We see evidence of learners supporting each other, frequently expressing interest in what their interlocutor is saying and giving encouragement to continue. To take a cognitive perspective, we might say that the frequency of these attempts to modify utterances are signs that the learners are indeed focusing on form and are not content to let their interlanguage fossilize comfortably.
  18. 18.  From a sociocultural perspective we might prefer to say that in such exchanges more ZPDs were created—more places in the data where learners needed to rely on one another in order to proceed. For both approaches the infrequency of negotiations for meaning can be explained either by the fact that learners mostly understood each other very well.
  19. 19.  Negotiation for Meaning and Peer Assistance in Second Language Classrooms by PAULINE FOSTER and AMY SNYDER OHTA British Council: ledge-database/negotiation-meaninge
  20. 20. Negotiation of meaning isa process that speakersgo through to reach aclear understanding ofeach other.