Feature Article
Negotiation of Meaning: Student Strategies in Interactive Group Work
Khalid Albahouth Majmmah University, Saudi Arabia
Negotiation of meaning has received a growing amount of theoretical and empirical support that confirms its beneficial impact on language acquisition (Branden, 1997; Farangis, 2013; Long, 1983, 1985; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002). This ethnographic case study examined the strategies that ESL learners used while implementing negotiation of meaning in an advanced English Language Program reading course. Data was collected through classroom observation and audio-visual recorded group work interactions. Findings confirm that ESL learners utilize eight common negotiation strategies defined by the literature in this field (Ellis, 2008; Long, 1983; Oliver, 1998). Moreover, four additional strategies: initiating questions, nonverbal communicative actions, explanatory requests, and demonstrative responses were identified.
Introduction
In the act of communication, language learners are exposed to complex structural inputs that are often above their proficiency level. Pica (1994) argues that by implementing negotiation of meaning strategies, second language learners are able to comprehend a wider range of input. Negotiation of meaning (NOM) is defined as a process or series of strategies, involving modification and restructuring of interaction, that speakers and interlocutors employ to reach a clear understanding of each other (Ellis, 1985; Long, 1985; Mackey, 1999; Pica, 1994). Long (1985) asserts that implementing NOM among learners facilitates speech comprehension,
Volume 24
17
No. 2
June 2016
and thus increases its efficiency in second language acquisition. Negotiation of meaning has been proven to 1) boost language acquisition because language learners are exposed to complex structural inputs that are above their proficiency level (Branden, 1997; Farangis 2013; Long, 1983, 1985; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002); 2) promote vocabulary acquisition (Branden, 1997; Luan & Sappathy, 2011; Pica,Young, & Doughty, 1987); 3) increase learner-to-learner interaction in the target language creating more authentic language production (Gass & Varonis, 1985; Zhao & Bitchener, 2007); and 4) motivate L2 learners to use the language more productively which in turn increases the opportunities to learn the language (Branden, 1997; Luan & Sappathy, 2011; Pica,Young, & Doughty, 1987). Studies specifically focusing on methodology and classroom interaction have found that NOM boosts language acquisition (Branden, 1997; Farangis, 2013; Long, 1983, 1985; Pica,Young, & Doughty, 1987; Toyoda & Harrison, 2002). NOM strategies provide second language learners with the opportunity to clarify unclear utterances in order to gain comprehensible input (Gass & Varonis, 1985; Long, 1983), and at the same time allow learners to modify their own output during a conversation flow in order to be understood (Swain, 1985). However, the most and least common strategies used in NOM have rarely been discussed directly in the research. This ethnographic case study takes a micro-social interactionist approach (conversations among
TESOL Arabia Perspectives
www.tesolarabia.org