Slides about negotiation for meaning theory

2. Negotiation of meaning is
a process that speakers
go through to reach a
clear understanding of
each other.

3.  NfM=Negotiation for meaning
 NS=Native Speaker
 NNS=Nonnative speaker

4. 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).

5. 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).

6. 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.

7.  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

8.  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.

9.  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.

10. By designing tasks where nothing could
be achieved otherwise) invites frustration
and embarrassment, two feelings
which probably do
not facilitate SLA.

11. 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, we
explore the ways that success in
communicating with and assisting a
partner
may facilitate SLA.

12. Long (1980)
 Comprehension Checks
 Confirmation Check
 Clarification Requests

13. Tagquestions
Repetitions

14.  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.

15.  Formed by questions.
 Recode information.
 I don’t understand
 Try again
Ex :
Yes, like, what was the most interesting thing in
London?
Ah, there are a lot of things to do in London.

16.  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.

17.  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.

18.  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.

19.  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.

20.  Negotiation for Meaning and Peer
Assistance in Second Language
Classrooms by PAULINE FOSTER and AMY
SNYDER OHTA
 British Council:
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/know
ledge-database/negotiation-meaninge

21. Negotiation of meaning is
a process that speakers
go through to reach a
clear understanding of
each other.