Judul Skripsi: An analysis of the negotiation of meaning in the speaking class with the eleventh grade students of SMAN 1 Barru. Helmi, 2020. Analysis A of Negotiation of Meaning in Speaking Class at the Eleventh Students of SMAN 1 Barru.A Prosis of English Education faculty of Teacher Training and Education Muhammadiyah University of Makassar (supervised by RadiahHamid andSujariati). The main objective of this research was to find out which component in meaning negotiation is mostly used by the students at the eleventh students of SMAN 1 Barru in the speaking class.
Berdasarkan temuan penelitian, beberapa siswa Siswa Kesebelas SMAN 1 Barru menggunakan negosiasi makna dalam percakapan mereka. Analisis Makna Negosiasi di Kelas Berbicara Siswa Kelas Sebelas di SMAN 1 Barru (penelitian deskriptif kualitatif).
INTRODUCTION
- Background of the Research
- Research Problems
- Objective of the Research
- Significance of the Research
- Scope of the Research
What is the component of meaning negotiation that is most commonly used by the second grade students of SMAN 1 Barru?”. The researcher uses the data to know the use of components in the negotiation of meaning. Percentages of meaning negotiation used by the students No negotiation of meaning Frequency rate.
Pica breaks down the components of negotiation of importance, which are: trigger, signals, response and follow-up. An analysis of negotiation of meaning in the second grade speaking class in SMAN 1 Pasir Sakti.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Previous Related Research Finding
First, Setiawati (2017) in her dissertation ‘An Analysis of Negotiation of Meaning in Speaking Class at the Second Grade of SMAN 1 Pasir Sakti’. The result of this study showed that (1) the students used meaning negotiation in their conversation, (2) the puzzle task led to the highest meaning negotiation in terms of trigger, while the information gap task most often resulted in a negative response (RN), as opposed to the puzzle task, and (3) there were differences in meaning negotiation in both types of tasks. Second, the outcome of this research, Sarah (2016) in her thesis 'Exploring Critical Thinking and Negotiation of Meaning Through Minecraftedu: A Case Study of Elementary Language' was a replication of previous research in which college-age French language learners participated in bag-based activities within the SecondLife social gaming environment to produce discourse. Third, Husni (2015) in her dissertation “Techiques of negotiation of Meaning used by English Department Students in Speaking Activity”.
The result of this research is a look at the meaning negotiation techniques that students use in their speaking activities. Researchers share a similarity in conducting research negotiation of meaning, which is one of the topics discussed in pragmatics.
Some Pertinent Ideas
- Concept of Speaking
- Teaching Speaking
- Negotiation of Meaning
Negotiation of meaning is defined as a series of exchanges carried out by addressers and addressees to help themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutor (Yufrizal, 2007). In other words, negotiation of meaning is a process that speakers go through to achieve a clear understanding of each other. When misunderstandings occur in the interaction process, the interlocutor has difficulty keeping their interaction going, so they try to change communication strategies, including negotiation of meaning as the effective solution.
Negotiating meaning is considered effective in avoiding misunderstandings in the interaction. Meaning negotiation is defined as a series of exchanges performed by addressees and addressees to help themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutors (Yufrizal, 2007). It can also be defined as a first for negotiating meaning, evoking or stimulating incomplete understanding in the listener (Grass and Varonis: 1984).
However, when a comprehension check is produced by a speaker and it prompts the listener to produce a confirmation check or clarification request, then the comprehension check serves as a trigger for a negotiation of meaning (Yufrizal, 2007). In many studies of negotiation of meaning, responses were related to the discussion of the repair, correction made by the NNS as a response to a change of input action from the native speaker (Foster: 1998). In this category, the speaker modifies the trigger as a response to the listener's signal of negotiation of meaning (Pica:1991).
First, Branden (1997) in Yufrizal (2007) defines negotiation of meaning as lateral sequences of mainstream conversations, aimed at identifying and solving problems of message comprehensibility, aimed at restoring mutual understanding. Under this category, Branden divides the negotiation of meaning into two elements: indicators and response. Second, Branden (1997) defines negotiation of meaning as ancillary sequences to the main stream of conversation, aimed at drawing the participant's attention to the formal aspect of the description and encouraging it.
First, through negotiation of meaning (especially in interactions involving the native language), non-native speakers obtain comprehensible input necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interaction without negotiation of meaning. Second, negotiation of meaning provides opportunities for non-native speakers for comprehensible output necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interaction without negotiation of meaning.
Conceptual Framework
METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
- Research Design
- Population and Sample
- Population
- Sample
- Instrument of the Research
- Data Collecting Technique
- Data Analysis
Classroom observation also considers the use of components in the negotiation of meaning. The researcher transcribes the student's interaction and then analyzes the data by classifying the meaning negotiation component. The researcher transcribes the notes and written data, identifies the components in the negotiation of meaning based on the interaction between the teacher and the students in the classroom. The researcher analyzes the classification of meaning negotiations and displays data on teachers' and students' statements.
The data findings are related to components in the negotiation of meaning used by students on teaching learning process. The researcher found that four components in negotiation of meaning according to Pica et al theory occurred smoothly and naturally in the process of students' conversation. The researcher found 20 utterances are identified as negotiation of meaning, 7 trigger utterances, 5 signal utterances, 3 response utterances and 5 follow-up utterances.
When the speaker says "excuse me? which school, senior high school?" the speaker makes a sign to emphasize the other students' question. When the speaker says “the shopping mall is on Pahlawan street opposite the gas station”, the speaker is responding to the other students' statement that the discussion will be clear or successful and repeats the signal response. Based on the data search, the researcher can conclude that the component in meaning negotiation that is most used by second grade students of SMAN 1 Barru is the trigger. out of 20 statements, the trigger is mostly used by students who produced 7 statements.
Based on the findings and discussion, some second grade students of SMAN 1 Barru use negotiation of meaning in their conversation. the researcher can conclude that the component in the negotiation of meaning mostly used by second grade students of SMAN 1 Barru is the trigger. out of 20 statements, the trigger is mostly used by students who produced 7 statements. It is also suggested to extend the study by investigating students' negotiation of meaning, as this study has not yet explored it. Exploring critical thinking and the negotiation of meaning through MinecraftEDU: A case study of primary language learners.
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
Findings
Based on the above data, the researcher can conclude that the students used the trigger more than the other component. Based on the above data, the researcher can conclude that signals are second to the trigger used by students in their conversation. Based on the above data, the researcher can conclude that the answer is in the last place among all the components.
Student Try to answer the statement of student A to make the discussion clear or successful. Student Atry must respond to the statement of Student B to make the discussion clear or successful. Based on the data above, the researcher can conclude that the follow-up is the same with cues that produced 5 utterances.
Because follow-up is the result of discussion about success or not of the conversation, it can be as the combination of signals and response. Based on explained above, it can be concluded that the dominant of component negotiation of meaning used by the students at SMAN 1 Barru during teaching learning process in the classroom is trigger.
Discussion
After conducting the research, the researcher found four components of negotiation of meaning used by the students in the classroom XII MIPA 1 SMAN 1 Barru based on the observation in November 2019. The students produced an utterance that contained unclear words or expressions and produced an understanding check , that required further clarification work from the listener. It can also be defined as prime of negotiation of meaning which invokes or stimulates incomplete understanding in the listener.
Students put the cues into sentences to provide cues to confirm or clarify incomplete sentences from another speaker. The students place the answer sentences to respond to the sentences the speaker discussed earlier. The students place the follow-up sentences to answer to make the discussion clear or successful and usually repeat the signal-answer.
By understanding the negotiation of meaning, Grade XI MIPA 1 SMAN 1 Barru students would be more aware of what language is really like. Thus, students can avoid misunderstandings or misunderstandings or misunderstandings in interpreting speakers' intended messages. When the researcher collected the data, the researcher found that the students do not know about negotiation of meaning, they confused how they used negotiation of meaning in their conversation.
When students already know about negotiation of meaning, and they know how and when to use negotiation of meaning. Therefore, the English teacher of grade XI MIPA 1 SMAN 1 Barru, it is important to provide knowledge of negotiation of meaning first before starting collect the data. The researcher expected that the limitation of this research will encourage other researchers who want to conduct similar studies to investigate more about negotiation of meaning.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
Conclusion
Based on the findings and discussion, some students in the second grade of SMAN 1 Barru apply meaning negotiation in their conversation.
Suggestion
Follow up - Bank is merdeka street near from east road - School is near field on.
Instrument
Data Result
Data Result Analysis
Documentation
Curriculum Vitae
