View of Negotiation of Meaning of EFL Students Classroom Discussion: A Discourse Analysis

(1)

10.36597/jellt.v6i1.12176 This is an open-access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 164

NEGOTIATION OF MEANING OF EFL STUDENTS CLASSROOM DISCUSSION: A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Zwyna Rafika; Didin Nuruddin Hidayat^*; Nida Husna; Alek

UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Jl. Ir. H. Juanda No. 95 Tangerang Selatan, Banten, 15412, Indonesia zwyna.rafika20@mhs.uinjkt.ac.id; didin.nuruddin@uinjkt.ac.id; nida.husna@uinjkt.ac.id;

alek@uinjkt.ac.id

*Corresponding Author

Abstract: This article analyzes the strategy of negotiation of meaning and the application strategy in classroom discussions of graduate students. The research objective is to describe the strategy of negotiation of meaning used in the classroom discussion and to explore the application of the negotiation of meaning in the classroom discussion of graduate students in the material development course. The researcher used qualitative research in this article, focusing on descriptive qualitative as the study method. The participants of this study involved 16 graduate students in the English Education Program academic year 2020 and a lecturer in English Education. As a result, some models of negotiations of meaning were found in the classroom discussion. There are triggers, signals which consist of confirmation check and clarification request, the response includes response self-modification, response other-modification, response self-repetition, and response other repetition, and the last component, negotiation meaning is follow-up. Response self-modification is the most widely used component in classroom discussions of material development courses. This is because the lecturer always responds to students by making modifications to their speech so that students can understand the context being discussed. In short, in the classroom discussion of the material development course, the four components of the negotiation of meaning are indicated to overcome misunderstandings between lecturers and students.

Keywords: EFL learners, classroom discussion, negotiation of meaning

How to cite: Rafika, Z., Hidayat, D. N., Husna, N., Alek, (2022). Negotiation of Meaning of EFL Students Classroom Discussion: A Discourse Analysis. Journal of English Language and Language Teaching, 6(2), 164-177. DOI: 10.36597/jellt.v6i2.12176

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, English is a subject that can be learned in school from elementary to university. English also becomes an important aspect, especially in education. English in education is separated into two parts. First, English serves as a second language. Second, English plays as a foreign language. English as a second language refers to a language that serves the same purpose as the mother tongue (Si, 2019). While according to Iwai (2011), English as a Foreign Language can be defined as the learner learning English in non-English countries. In Indonesia, English plays a foreign language because English is not the mother tongue of Indonesian citizens. However, it must be learned so that people

(2)

Copyright © 2022, Journal of English Language and Language Teaching, ISSN 2579-6046 165 can master English well. In English education, people learn several skills to improve their ability through some practice.

In English education, people should have mastery of four basic English skills:

speaking, listening, writing, and reading. One of the essential English skills is speaking.

Speaking primarily means communicating our ideas, opinion, argument, knowledge, and information. According to Chastain (1976), speaking is a productive skill since it produces ideas, messages, and suggestions, and we need to practice it. It is clearly described that speaking produces something in our mind, and we must practice it. Speaking can be practised in the classroom and can be practised in the social environment. When we are constantly practicing our speaking skills, it will make our speaking become fluency so that people are easy to understand. In short, speaking is a crucial aspect of building good communication.

If the students can speak, they can communicate their ideas, opinion, and information quickly. However, the students find several obstacles in speaking, as they lack vocabulary, are embarrassed to speak in English in front of other people, have an unsupportive environment, and so on. In line with Tasmia (2019), she also stated the several problems one can face in speaking skills. There are difficulties in getting meaning or understanding the conversation, vocabulary, pronunciation, shyness, and afraid of making mistakes in the meaning or content of their speaking. It can be seen that the student difficulty in speaking in English is caused by several factors. When the teacher asks the students to speak in front of their class, they are not confident because they cannot speak English well. They are confused because they cannot deliver the idea. Most of them were confused about several aspects of speaking, such as grammar, limited vocabulary, and pronunciation. They try to express their idea, but they always make phrases like uuhhm... hhmm… at the end of the conversation. To overcome this situation, they have to use the negotiation of meaning. It can help the students and teacher avoid misunderstanding in conveying the information. For example, negotiation of meaning occurs when the teacher discusses two or more people. Sometimes, misunderstanding occurs in the middle of the discussion between the teacher and the students, so the negotiation of meaning can be used in this situation.

Negotiation meaning is the way of analysing, clarifying, and informing the information to avoid misunderstanding. Negotiation of meaning is done by two people or more. To emphasize, some research studies have discussed the negotiation of meaning—

the first research conducted by Maarif (2020). The result of the study showed that the meaning negotiation involved the student’s interaction in the pragmatic class, especially in their emotional, attitude, and cognitive. But in his research, he found the obstacles that came from the student themselves. The students are difficult to understand the vocabulary, idioms, and meaning. The researcher can use the instrument to get information about the student before conducting the research. The second is the research by Awalin et al. (2021). The result described that students could have different mistake criteria during the meaning of the negotiation process. In addition, the increase in students' proficiency can influence their awareness of the process of negotiation meaning. The third article is by Flora (2020). This research proved that the language

(3)

Copyright © 2022, Journal of English Language and Language Teaching, ISSN 2579-6046 166 accuracy in vocabulary and spelling are excellent but low in grammar. The direct corrective feedback works well because the peers negotiate meaning through clarification. Moreover, the students also have various responses to the corrective feedback.

Based on the three previous studies above, similarities discuss the negotiation of meaning. However, the research to be carried out also has significant differences.

Previous research did not describe in detail the approach used. Meanwhile, this study was conducted to find the strategies of negotiation meaning and explore their application in classroom discussions, and the data will be obtained by using an approach.

LITERATURE REVIEW Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a part of the linguistics aspect. Discourse analysis also can be stated as a language used between spoken and written. Several experts defined this term.

Harris (1952) stated that discourse analysis is the method that analyses the interconnecting speech or writing for continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limit of a simple sentence at a time. Moreover, McCarthy (1991) also defined discourse analysis as a vast area in linguistic. It is related to analysing the spoken and written language over the concerns in the structure of the clause or the sentence. So, it can be concluded that discourse analysis is the term of language used in written and spoken, and it is related to the social context. However, Gee (1999) explained the discourse analysis in more detail.

He stated that discourse analysis involves investigating how language is used to interpret network elements of situations that are realized at a given time and place and how network features of events simultaneously give meaning to that language, a process known as reflexivity.

Spoken Discourse

Spoken discourse is a part of discourse analysis. It is usually said as the conversational or interactional analysis. Discourse analysis covers spoken and written interactions usually used in the social context. Spoken discourse can be said as model of analysis.

Spoken discourse is related to the communication, interaction, and discussion that can occur in the classroom. A characterization of spoken discourse refers to the production and reception between written and spoken discourse. Clark (1996) said that spoken discourse is a joint activity because it needs the participation of the interlocutors and the coordination of their actions. Spoken discourse is essential for both the teacher and the students because it is suitable for communication and interaction. Cornish (2018) has explained two important aspects of understanding spoken discourse. First, he stated that spoken discourse is used to Infer propositional content and illocutionary force. In this aspect, spoken discourse can be seen when there is a misunderstanding.

A disagreement manifests in a speech in the form of a recorded conversation. In this case, the discourse is very clearly visible. Second, he argued that spoken discourse infers intended interactional moves and acts. He gave an example from a conversation that

(4)

Copyright © 2022, Journal of English Language and Language Teaching, ISSN 2579-6046 167 happened on BBC Radio. The presenters discussed one theme and picked the character of one actor. The conversation showed how the discourse participants interpreted each other’s utterances. It is also indicating how they act when they start the spoken discourse.

The spoken discourse aims to understand how the language is used in real situations. For example, spoken discourse can occur in discussions, presentations, Interviews, telephone calls, etc.

Negotiation of Meaning

Negotiation of meaning is a part of spoken discourse. It is a process that the speakers do to reach a clear understanding. According to Hartono (2017), a negotiation meaning is a conversational modification that occurs in the communicative interaction between the students and the interlocutors who find difficulties understanding the messages/information. It can help the students and the interlocutors to avoid misunderstanding. If the students' have difficulty understanding the messages, the interlocutors can clarify and inform them to make it more transparent. Two experts propose the components of negotiation of meaning. The first is negotiation of meaning.

Branden (1997) defines negotiation of meaning as "side sequences to the main flow of discourse focused on signaling and overcoming message comprehensibility concerns to restore mutual comprehension." Branden divides the negotiation of meaning into indicators and responses in this category. Clarification request, confirmation request with trigger unmodified, confirmation of request with trigger modified, and nonverbal indicator are among the indicators. Switch to a new topic, repeat the trigger, modify the trigger, repeat the indicator, modify the indicator, confirm the negate indicator, inability to react, disregard the indication, and response unneeded are all examples of responses.

Second, Branden (1997) defines negotiation of meaning as "side sequences" to the main flow of conversation aimed at drawing the participant's attention to the formal aspects of description and encouraging "self-repair" or, at the very least, acknowledgment of the formal modifications suggested by the listener. There are two elements to form negotiation: indicator and response. Request for rephrasal, prompt, confirmation request unmodified, confirmation modified, and metalinguistic comment are all indicators. The response includes repeating the trigger, changing the trigger, repeating the indication, changing the indicator, confirming the negate indicator, being unable to answer, ignoring the indicator, and responding unnecessarily. Finally, Branden (1997) defines content negotiation as conversations intended to encourage participants to supply more information than was initially offered in the description. There are two aspects to this form of modification: the indication and the answers. Clarification requests, unmodified confirmation requests, updated confirmation requests, and elaborate confirmation requests are all included in the indicator. Giving more information, repeating the trigger, modifying the trigger, repeating the indication, modifying the indicator, negating the indicator, incapacity to reply, ignoring the indicator, responding unneeded, and switching to a new topic are all examples of responses.

Furthermore, Pica also proposes the negotiation of meaning into several strategies. Pica et al. (1990) have four negotiations of meaning components. The first component is Trigger. A trigger is the negotiation of meaning that stimulates incomplete understanding on the part of the listener. The second is Signals. Signals refer to

(5)

Signals are divided into two parts: The first is confirmation checks. It is used when the speaker seeks the confirmation of the others through repetition with raising intonation.

The second is a clarification request. It occurs when the speaker seeks assistance in understanding the other speakers by making statements such as "I don’t understand”, and the imperatives "please repeat." The third component is Response. The speaker makes the response to confirm what has been conveyed to the listener. The response is divided into five parts as follows: Response Self-Repetition (RSR), Response Other- Repetition (ROR), Response Self Modification (RSM), Response Other-Modification (ROM), and Negate Response (NR). The last component of negotiation of meaning is follow up. It relates to details on whether or not the communication adjustment was successful. The interlocutor usually repeats the signal-response exchange until an agreement is reached in a long negotiation of meaning.

METHOD

In this study, the researchers used a descriptive qualitative method to analyze the negotiation meaning in classroom discussions with EFL graduate students. Creswell (2013) stated that the qualitative research method analyses and explores human social problems that occur naturally. This method is done by analysing words and explaining in detail the data obtained—this research uses the descriptive qualitative design. According to Sugiyono (2018), descriptive qualitative is a research method commonly used to examine natural conditions. The researchers act as a key instrument and describe a situation objectively or based on visible facts. In this research, the researcher tries to find out the strategies of negotiation of meaning that occur in the classroom discussion of graduate students. In addition, the researchers applied the theory of negotiation meaning from Pica to elaborate on the data found in the classroom discussion of the Material Development course. This study involved several participants. The participants of this study were 16 students of the master program in the English Education Program academic year 2020 and a lecturer of English Education, which contains of material development course. Seven students have conversations with the lecturer in the classroom discussion through the online class.

The instrument used in this research is a zoom recording. The classroom discussion of the material development class is carried out in an online class using the Zoom Meeting application. To analyse the language spoken throughout the conversations, the data for this study were gathered from spoken languages during the online course and recorded using Zoom recording. In collecting the data, the researchers recorded the conversation through an online learning session for 1 hour and 19 minutes. After recording the learning session, the researcher transcribes the audio in conversation and changes the data into written discourse. In line with the data collection, the transcript conversation among students and lecturers during the Material Development course were identified based on the principles of Negotiation of meaning by Pica. This research analyzes the negotiation of meaning used in classroom discussions, such as triggers, signals, responses, and follow-up.

(6)

Results

After collecting the data, the researchers found 25 utterances of negotiation meaning in the video of 1 hour 19 minutes. It can be tabulated as below:

Table 1. Utterances of Negotiation Meaning

No. Components of Negotiation Meaning Frequency

1. Triggers 1

2. Signals:

- Confirmation Checks - Clarification Request

6 2 3. Response:

- Response Other Repetition (ROR) - Response Self Modification (RSM) - Response Self Repetition (RSR) - Response Other Modification (ROM)

4 7 2 2

4. Follow Up 1

TOTAL 25

In the discussion class in the material development course, the researcher found 24 utterances that are included in the negotiation of meaning. The 25 utterances are divided into four components in the negotiation of meaning. It consists of a trigger with one frequency, signal 8 frequency, response 14 frequency, and a follow-up with 1 frequency. The results show that the response is a negotiation of meaning in class discussions. Seven utterances are included in the response, especially in the self- modification response. Based on the researcher's observations, this happened because the speaker responds to the listener by modifying the meaning of the listener. In this self- modification response, the speaker can modify the utterance to be understood by the listener, such as modifying the grammatical and semantic arrangement. In addition, the most widely used meaning negotiation component is the signals, especially the confirmation check, which consists of six utterances. The listener does a confirmation check. In this case, the listener aims to confirm the understanding they get from the speaker.

Furthermore, response to other repetitions became the most component after the confirmation check. Response other repetition is a negotiation found when the speaker

(7)

what has been told by the speaker, so the speaker must repeat his utterance, which is different from the previous utterance.

The researchers illustrated the observation result in a pie diagram. The diagram is aimed at picturing the significance of the negotiation of meaning components. The figure is mentioned below. The existence of negotiation of meaning strategy adapted from Pica et al. (1990) can be illustrated below:

Figure 1. The Existence of Negotiation of Meaning Strategy Adapted from Pica (1990)

Detail information:

Triggers : 4%

Signals:

 Confirmation Check : 24%

 Clarification Request : 8%

Response:

 RSM : 28%

 ROR : 16%

 RSR : 8%

 ROM : 24%

Follow up : 4%

4%

24%

8%

16%

28%

8% 8% 4%

TRIGGERS SIGNALS

Confirmation Check Clarification Request

RESPONSE Response Other Repetition (ROR)

Response Self Modification (RSM) Response Self Repetition (RSR) Response Other Modification (ROM) FOLLOW UP

(8)

Copyright © 2022, Journal of English Language and Language Teaching, ISSN 2579-6046 171 Pica et al. (1990) argued that Triggers are the components that are rarely found in the negotiation of meanings in the discussion class of material development courses.

Based on the observations, the researcher only found one utterance that was included in the trigger. Trigger is the negotiation of meaning that stimulates incomplete understanding on the part of the listener.

T (1): Lecturer: So, you have to remember, okay, so for the group presentation, you can have seven groups of presentation, but if the number of you...

Student: students...

Lecturer: yes... a class than fourteen. How many of you are in total?

Student: sixteen.

Based on the example above, there is a conversation between the lecturer and the student. Lecturers and students discuss class contracts that will be agreed upon in the material development course. In that situation, lecturers and students discuss presentation groups. The lecturer tries to count how many students there are in the class, so she says, "but if the number of you ..." this indicates that the lecturer does not know the number of students. Thus, one of the students said, "students." this is done by students to trigger the lecturer and inform other students that the lecturer is asking about the number of students in the class. After the students gave the trigger to the lecturer, the lecturer said, "yes... a class than fourteen, how many of you in total?" this proves that the student did succeed in stimulating the lecturer's signal.

In the results, signals occurred in classroom discussions. There are divided into three parts:

- Confirmation Check

According to Pica, confirmation check is a term meaning negotiation that aims to ask whether their understanding is correct. The researchers provide an example as follows:

CC (2): Students: miss… And how about the couple numbers of the members? I mean like, it’s the same, only two people?

Lecturer: Ya, only two. yes. only two. So only two for the group presentation and also only two for the project group.

Based on the conversation above, students act as a listener. Students want to confirm what the lecturer said earlier to avoid misunderstandings. Then the lecturer answers the form of confirmation by repeating some of the same vocabulary as the students.

- Clarification Request

Clarification request is part of signals. This type of negotiation of meaning can occur when the interlocutor cannot understand what the speaker is saying or does not understand what the speaker is saying. Usually, the interlocutor utters phrases such as

(9)

explain again about his statement. This can be seen in the example below:

CR (1): Students: The problem might be from the student itself.

Lecturer: uhm... what do you mean?

Based on the example above, there is a discussion between students and lecturers.

At that time, the speaker asked the listeners about development material. In this case, the listener looks unfocused on the material being discussed. So the speaker asks the listener, but the listener does not give a significant answer, so the speaker seems confused. The speaker tries to make a clarification request used as a signal so that the student can re- explain the statement he has said.

In negotiation meaning, the response is divided into four parts. The first is Response self-modification (RSM). This type of response is used when the speaker modifies a statement that acts as a signal. speakers can alter statements with some aspects of language, such as syntax and semantics.

RSM (1): Student: yes miss... sometimes they always say “miss, difficult, difficult”, but they don’t try to make it easier. Because in their mind, English is difficult. That’s the point. And what the materials, what the method it’s going to be same and difficult for them.

Lecturer: … okay. It’s essential for you to have in your mind... try not to blame the students, the first one. So, if we think that “well, okay the students are not confident, they don’t want to try,” it’s actually our task to make them more interested in English. So, if they think it’s difficult, maybe it’s difficult. Still, if we can help them to open their mind and to try, that’s our task, to help them, to facilitate them, so that you know they can learn English more interesting way, in a fun way, which then make them think that “oh well, learning English is fun. Why not study in English?”

In this case, the speaker tries to respond to the student's statement by modifying the meaning. The speaker makes a statement according to what the students are talking about. the speaker modifies his statement by revealing relevant facts and experiences. In addition, the speaker modifies her argument by providing new insights to students to gain new knowledge that has never been obtained before.

The second is Response Other-Modification (ROM). A Response Other- Modification is a change made by the speaker to reflect the listener's signal. Like the example below:

ROM (1): Lecturer: okay, Reza, what vocational school have you taught?

Student: I.T. miss.

Lecturer: I.T. okay. So, of course, the materials should be very different from vocational school in administration, or finance. The topic must be different. So, if they have to study exactly the same English textbook as public school, the level of interest

(10)

Copyright © 2022, Journal of English Language and Language Teaching, ISSN 2579-6046 173 will be lower because they don’t think it is something familiar to them. So, the topic related to the I.T. again, we have to try not to blame our students; we have to reflect on the way we teach, the materials that we decide to be delivered to our students. It depends a lot on us as the teachers…

The third is Response Self-Repetition (RSR). This response refers to the speaker's response in the form of part or all of the speech that results in the trigger Pica et al., (1989).

RSR (1): Student: maybe for guiding us so we can know what we should do, and what should we deliver to the student. And then perhaps to... what is it... aaa… to make aa… correct assessment I mean like we know that what should we assess in material, and it’s aa… what is it… it is related to the... the material is related to the assessment. I mean... yeah... maybe to guide us.

Lecturer: okay... so to guide for you to deliver the materials, ya…

Based on the example above, the speaker responds to the listener’s speech. It can be seen from the speaker's utterance that, yes, he repeats some of the statements uttered by the listener, namely guide or guidance, which is a signal from the conversation.

The last response is Response Other-Repetition (ROR). In this category, the speaker repeats what the listener said in a cue (Pica et al., 1989). Therefore, it is called the other-repeat response. It can be seen in the example below:

ROR (4): Student: Exactly.

Lecturer: … So even if you don't use some materials like that... But still, it will be; it can be fun in terms of the teaching and learning process as long as the teachers can create a situation where all students can enjoy the learning materials or the delivery of the delivery of the materials.

The speaker, in the case above, is repeating the listener's assertion. The speaker adjusts its output in response to the listener's input. Because the failure to comprehend the speaker's utterance triggers the listener's signal, the signal changes the trigger in the direction of the listener's supposed interpretation. As a result, the speaker provides a changed output in this example.

Besides the response, the result showed that the follow-up also occurred in the classroom discussion. Follow-up refers to whether the communication modification has been successful or not. In a protracted negotiation of meaning, the interlocutor often repeats the signal-response until an agreement is reached.

Fu (1): Lecturer: … But which one of the three?

Student: it is up to you, miss…

Lecturer: which group has three members? Just pick it randomly…

(11)

Copyright © 2022, Journal of English Language and Language Teaching, ISSN 2579-6046 174 Student: … I think developing the syllabus will be difficult because we should prepare a lot of material about creating…

Lecturer: alright…

The example above shows a negotiation of meaning between students and lecturers. The example above is included in the negotiation of the meaning of the follow- up section. As previously explained, the interlocutor always repeats the signal or response to create an agreed agreement between the listener and speaker.

Discussion

Negotiation of meaning can occur in classroom discussions conducted by speakers and listeners. In this study, the negotiation of meaning involved the lecturer and several students. Hartono (2017) argued that negotiation of meaning is a process of adjusting the conversation between the learner and the interlocutor having difficulty understanding the message conveyed. It can be said that the negotiation of meaning can help clarify understanding of the topic being discussed. According to the data that have been collected, Response Self-Modification is the most frequently used in classroom discussions in the Material Development course. Furthermore, from the study results, it was found that several lecturers' explanations were difficult for students to understand, so it was necessary to clarify the previous statement.

In the classroom discussion of Material development, the researcher found four components of negotiation meaning. The first, is the trigger. The trigger is used to stimulate incomplete expressions that the interlocutor wants to say. Alternatively, it can be defined as a primary meaning negotiation that enables the hearer's insufficient comprehension (Gass & Varonis, 1984). In line with Pica et al. (1989), trigger is the utterance followed by an NS signal indicating a total lack of comprehension. Based on the opinion of experts, it shows that triggers can be used when we want to provide stimulation if the interaction between the listener and speaker is not going well.

In addition, signals are the second most significant negotiation component of meaning after response self-modification. There are two kinds of signals: Confirmation Check, which has 24% consisting of 6 data, and Clarification Request, with 8% consisting of 2 data. The total of signals in the classroom discussion of Material Development is 8 data. Pica (1987) defined confirmation check as a movement made by the speaker to seek confirmation of an utterance through repetition and raising intonation that still has a relationship with the previous word. In line with the data that researchers have collected, the confirmation check occurred when the students and lecturer conversed and repeated the words several times. In line with Long in Ohta (2015), he argued that a confirmation check is designed to obtain information and ascertain whether or not the words conveyed are valid. Besides the confirmation check, clarification requests also is a part of signals. A clarification request occurs when the listener does not understand what the speaker is saying, so the listener asks for clarification by asking questions like what you mean, sorry, and so on.

(12)

Copyright © 2022, Journal of English Language and Language Teaching, ISSN 2579-6046 175 Furthermore, Response also plays a vital role in the component of negotiation meaning. The response is used when the listener wants to respond to an utterance from the speaker. The response also can be made with some modifications and repetition. One of the responses is Response Self-Modification. It found seven data with a percentage (28%), which indicates that the lecturer always modified every explanation. The modification is used to make the students easily understand her messages. Rachmawati et al. (2013) stated that response self-modification occurred at modification of the morphosyntactic level. It means that response self-modification involves the theory between morphology and syntax, which both theories are used to understand changes in word structure and interrelationships between languages. This explanation shows that when the lecturer responds with modifications made by herself, she can change the structure of words she has said. Rahmah et al. (2020) also express opinions about response self-modification. They are shortening it to become SMR (self-modification Response). They have a different perspective from Pica in categorizing response self- modification. They stated that SMR is the Response that can change based on the production of the trigger. While Pica et al. (1989) have separated that response self- modification is not a trigger but a part of the response. The other answer used in the data is Response Other-Repetition (ROR). The percentage of this data is 16%, consisting of 4 frequencies. This response occurs when the speaker changes the output based on the listener’s input. Response other-repetition can be stated as the technique for facilitating interlocutors in comprehending what the speaker has just uttered by restating the speaker's statement Marlina et al. (2019). Modification is possible with this response.

Because the inability to understand the speaker's speech triggers the listener's signal, the signal constantly adjusts the trigger to the listener's assumed interpretation.

The last component of negotiation meaning is follow-up. According to Pica in Yufrizal (2001), follow-up refers to information concerning whether or not the communication changes were successful. Interlocutors frequently continue the signal–

response exchange until they agree in a long conversation in the negotiation of meaning.

This is done to get a mutual agreement when we want to make a decision.

CONCLUSION

Negotiation of meaning often occurs, especially in class discussions between students and lecturers. Negotiation of meaning is included in spoken language.

Negotiation meaning analysis is carried out so that the speaker and listener can understand the context to be conveyed. The result showed that response self- modification is widely used in classroom discussion in material development courses.

Lecturers always modify statements that have been submitted previously to make it easier for students to understand the context that is being discussed.

The significance of this research is to enrich the knowledge and discussion about negotiation, meaning that it is very important in analyzing the spoken language, especially in classroom discussion. It can also help the students know the component of negotiation meaning and its application. Moreover, the students can avoid misunderstanding during the discussion if they master the aspects of negotiation

(13)

speaker and listener to classify the components of meaning negotiation easily. In addition, the negotiation of meaning can also provide knowledge through in-depth analysis.

REFERENCES

Awalin, A., Anam, S., & Purwanti, O. (2021). Student’s mistakes awareness in process of negotiation of meaning based on student’s level proficiency level. Linguistic, English

Education and Art (LEEA), 4(2), 285–292.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31539/leea.v4i2.1353

Branden, K. Van Den. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners ’ output. In Language learning: Vol. 47 (4) (Issue December, pp. 589–636).

Chastain, K. (1976). Developing Second-Language Skills: THEORY TO PRACTICE (2nd Edition). Houghton Mifflin Company.

Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge University Press.

Cornish, F. (2018). Understanding spoken discourse. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, December 2006, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04296- 6.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Flora. (2020). Focused Corrective Feedback and Negotiation of Meaning: Students’

Written Language Accuracy and Their Perception. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 7(2), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.30845/ijll.v7n2p11.

Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1984). The Effect of Familiarity on the Comprehensibility of Non-Native Speech. Language Learning, 34(1), 65–89.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1984.tb00996.x.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Routledge.

Harris, Z. S. (2013). Discourse Analysis. Linguistic Society of America, 28(1), 1–30.

Hartono, R. (2017). A Critical Review of Research on Negotiation of Meaning in Second Language Learning. JURNAL BAHASA DAN SASTRA, 6(1), 1–7.

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.36982/jge.v6i1.257.

Iwai, Y. (2011). The Effects of Metacognitive Reading Strategies: Pedagogical Implications for EFL/ESL Teachers. The Reading Matrix, 11, 150–159.

Maarif, A. S. (2020). The strategy of meaning negotiation in pragmatic class. Jurnal

Wahana Pendidikan, 7(2), 223–228.

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.25157/wa.v7i2.3759.

Marlina, Mahmud, M., & Salija, K. (2019). Teachers Negotiation of Meaning Strategies in an

Indonesian Training College esp Classroom.

(14)

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.

Ohta, A. S. (2015). Confirmation checks: A Discourse Analytic Reanalysis. Japanese

Language and Literature, 39(2), 383–412.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/30038905

Pica, T. (1987). Second-language acquisition , social interaction , and the classroom. 8(1).

Pica, T., Berducci, D., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Newman, J. (1990). Language Learning Through Interaction : What Role does Gender Play ? (Vol. 6, Issue 1).

https://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol6/iss1/3.

Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible Output as an Outcome of Linguistic Demands on the Learners (pp. 63–90). Cambridge University Press.

Rachmawati, M., Yufrizal, H., & Kadaryanto, B. (2013). An analysis of negotiation of meaning in students’ sepaking through information gap. UNILA Journal of English Teaching, 2(8), 1–12.

Rahmah, L., Komariah, E., & Iskandar, A. S. (2020). The analysis of negotiation of meaning strategy used by english teacher in classroom interaction. Research in English and Education (READ), 5(August), 123–135.

Si, P. (2019). A Study of the Differences between EFL and ESL for English Classroom Teaching in China. International Journal of Education & Multidisciplinary Studies, 15(01), 32–35. https://doi.org/DOI: http://dx.Doi.org/10.21013/jems.v15.n1.p4 How

Sugiyono. (2018). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta.

Tasmia. (2019). Students’ Problems in Speaking English at Eight Grade of Riyadhul Amien Islamic Boarding Junior High School Muaro Jambi.

Yufrizal, H. (2001). Negotiation of Meaning and Language Acquisition by Indonesia EFL Learners. TEFLIN Journal, 12(1), 60–87.