Non-native/Non-native Conversations: A Model for Negotiation of Meaning

Non-native/Non-native Conversations: A Model for Negotiation of Meaning

Introduction

• Focus of the research: Conversational interactions between non-native speakers (NNS).
• Previous studies mainly focused on interactions involving native speakers (NS).
• Importance of NNS-NNS interactions for second language (L2) acquisition is emphasized.
• Follows the argument that negotiating meaning in NNS-NNS conversations differs from NS/NNS and NS/NS interactions.

Proposal of the Model

• Introduces a model for understanding negotiation of meaning within NNS-NNS discourse.
• Highlights the phenomenon of 'pushdowns' (instances where the conversation is interrupted to clarify understanding) and 'pops' (returning to the main topic after negotiation).
• The study aims to demonstrate that NNS-NNS interactions provide frequent negotiation of meaning opportunities, beneficial for language acquisition.

Features of NS-NNS Discourse

• NS-NNS conversation features:
  • NS often uses simplified language or 'foreigner talk' to aid understanding.
  • NS responses tend to be more elaborative, involving repetition and questions.
  • Focus on the comprehension of input rather than purely on output efficiency.
• Principal findings from earlier studies:
  • Modified interaction is crucial to L2 acquisition.

Analysis of NNS-NNS Discourse

• Describes structure and patterns within NNS-NNS conversations:
  • Typically a linear flow disrupted by interruptions (non-understanding).
  • Participants often work collaboratively to resolve comprehension issues, emphasizing shared incompetence.
• Other-correction is viewed positively; both interlocutors can share the responsibility for comprehension.

Non-Understanding Routines

• Definition: Exchanges where comprehension between participants is partially or entirely lacking.
• Key to these routines are the clarifications embedded within exchanges indicating breakdowns.
• Example of a non-understanding:
  • Example 1: "When are you going to visit me?" followed by "Pardon me?" illustrates a request for clarification.
• It’s crucial to differentiate non-understanding from misunderstandings that go unrecognized.

Model Construction

• Structure: The model has four functional elements:
  1. Trigger (T): The utterance that causes a breakdown in understanding.
  2. Indicator (I): Signals that comprehension isn’t complete (e.g., questions or requests for clarification).
  3. Response (R): Reply from the speaker addressing the indicator.
  4. Reaction (RR): Potential follow-up response from the indicator’s originator.
• Comprehension checks can happen at various points in conversation to gauge mutual understanding.

Conversational Continuants

• Exchanges aiming to maintain conversation flow, which may overlap with indicators of non-understanding, complicating interactions.
• Examples of surprises in discourse that encourage continued engagement despite comprehension issues.

Results (Statistical Findings)

• Quantitative analysis of pushdown routines:
  

• Strong correlation between negotiation work and comprehension input for language acquisition.
• Shared incompetence in NNS-NNS discussions allows for depth and complexity in negotiation, serving as a rich learning environment.
• Suggested that NNS-NNS interactions may be more beneficial for language acquisition than NS/NNS conversations.

Conclusion

• NNS-NNS interactions yield unique opportunities for negotiation not typically available in NS/NNS or NS-NS engagements.
• Calls for further exploration into varied discourse situations and implications on language learning.
• Acknowledges that despite progress in understanding, complexities remain, particularly relating to the social contexts of communication.