AN ANALYSIS OF NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN STUDENTS’ SPEAKING THROUGH INFORMATION GAP AT THE SECOND YEAR OF SMPN 29 BANDAR LAMPUNG

AN ANALYSIS OF NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN STUDENTS’ SPEAKING THROUGH INFORMATION GAP AT THE SECOND YEAR

OF SMPN 29 BANDAR LAMPUNG

By

MEILIA RACHMAWATI

A Script

Submitted in a Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for S-1 Degree

in

The Language and Arts Department of Teacher Training and Education Faculty

LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY BANDAR LAMPUNG

i ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN STUDENTS’ SPEAKING THROUGH INFORMATION GAP AT THE SECOND

YEAR OF SMPN 29 BANDAR LAMPUNG

By

MEILIA RACHMAWATI

According to School Based Curriculum (KTSP 2006), the students are expected to master four ability in English subject. The four skills are listening, speaking, reading and writing. The students have strong willing to communicate each other in English. However, they feel disappointed when they know that they are unable to speak English well. They rarely practice English in oral communication and there is gap in the language knowledge.

The objectives of this research are 1) to investigate whether students at the second year of SMPN 29 Bandar Lampung use negotiation of meaning in their speaking; 2) to investigate which component in negotiation of meaning that mostly used by the students. The research design is descriptive qualitative. Leedy (1974:79) suggests that a descriptive method simply looks with intense accuracy at the phenomena of the moment and then describes precisely what the writer has seen. The data were obtained by the students’ conversation using audio and video recorder. Then the writer made a transcription of the conversation and analyzed the data by classifying based on Pica’s study. (1989).

The results of this research show that all components in negotiation of meaning were used by students at the second year of SMP N 29 Bandar Lampung. The highest component was Trigger 32 items (26.66%) and the lowest component was Response Other-Modification 2 items (1.66%). Therefore it can be concluded that the highest frequency was trigger. Moreover, it can increase the students’ conversation continuity and open more chances for them to provide comprehensible input and produce more comprehensible output.

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

1. Lesson Plan ... 58

2. Transcription of Conversation ... 64

3. Students’ interview ... 79

4. Classroom Observation Sheet ... 86

5. Surat Izin Penelitian ... 87

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Page 1. Figure in Information Gap Task (Student A) ... 62 2. Figure in Information Gap Task (Student B) ... 63

x

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 1 Table of specification of Components in Negotiation

of Meaning by Pica’s study (1989) ... 34 Table 2 Frequency and Percentage of Student’s Negotiation

of Meaning based on Yufrizal’ Study ... 46 Table 3 The Result of Students’ Interview... 47

Table 4 The Result of Classroom Observation ... 48 Table 5 Table of specification of Components in Negotiation

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes background of the problem, formulation of the problems, objectives of the research, uses of the research, and scope of the research. In order to avoid misunderstanding, definitions of terms are provided in the last part of this chapter.

1.1 Background of the Problem

Language is important to communicate with other people. The importance of communication has brought people to learn an International language, which is English. Nowdays Indonesian students learn English language as a foreign language. English has become a compulsory subject that is taught and learnt at Elementary school up to University level. According to School Based Curriculum (KTSP 2006), the students are expected to master four ability in English subject. The four skills are listening, speaking, reading and writing.

Commonly, spoken test is done in written task rather than oral activity. Learning speaking just becomes a matter of book-based activitie and emphasizes largely on grammar rules instead of giving speaking practice. As a result, speaking target will not be mastered and the students will not learn to communicate orally because language is solely from a book and written task.

Speaking is a process of communication between at least two people. It is a way to express someone’s idea to his or her interlocutor. Bryne (1984) defines speaking as a two way process between speaker and listener and it involves the productive skill and receptive skill of understanding. It means that in the speaking process, they are sender who sends message and receptor that receives or responds the message given. They try to communicate each other. The general aim of speaking skill is communicative efficiency. By having a good ability in speaking, the students can communicate fluently to other people. So they are able to express the idea, work out in some aspect and maintain social relationship by

communicating with others in the society. That is why the students should be succesful in learning the second language especially in speaking skill.

Therefore, it can be said that the students have strong willing to communicate each other in English. But, then they feel disappointed when they realize that they are unable to speak English well. They rarely practice English in oral

communication and there is gap in the language knowledge. According to

Bialystok (1990:1), the gap can take place in various occasions as well as various language aspects in many forms such as in words, a phrase, sentence, clause, etc. The gap can cause miscommunication between the speaker and the listener.

According to Neu and Reeser (1997) in Information gap activity, one person has certain information that must share with others in order to solve a problem, gather information or make decisions. Based on the theory, the researcher thinks that Information Gap is the most interactive technique for the student in creating communicative learning, because it will help them speak actively in the class by

using conversation. Information Gap should be done in a pair or group work. By appropriating Information gap, the students become comfortable to speak

everything. Teacher only gives simple explanation about the activity and reviews vocabulary needed for the activity. Then, the students get the opportunity to develop their speaking freely.

As Pica (1985) states that Information Gap offered the largest precentage of opportunities for non-native speaker to modify their output in response to native speaker signals of request for clarification and confirmation than jigsaw and discussion task. Lam son (2009) defines that an information gap activity is an activity where students are missing the information they need to complete a task and need to talk each other to find it.

Negotiation of meaning is defined as series of exchanges conducted by addressors and adressees to help themselves understand and be understood by their

interlocutors (Yufrizal, 2007 p.14.). In this case, when native speakers and non native speakers are involved in an interaction, both interlocutors work together to solve any potential misunderstanding or non understanding that occurs, by checking each others’ comprehension, requesting clarification and confirmation and by repairing and adjusting speech (Pica, 1991).

Then negotiation of meaning is regarded to be more effective in order to avoid misunderstanding in the interaction. Negotiation of meaning also can avoid the obstacles in interaction. More participants negotiate more interactions occur. It occurs when two or more participants involved in oral interaction and found a potential for the communication to breakdown.

There are many components of negotiation of meaning that can appear during process of interaction. The writer is interested to investigate which component of negotiation of meaning are mostly used by students. In addition, the writer focused on analysis of negotiation of meaning in students’ speaking by using Information Gap which was conducted at the second year of SMPN 29 Bandar Lampung.

1.2 Formulation of the Problems

Based on the statements of the problems above, the writer would like to take the main problems of this research that are as follows :

1. Do students at the second year of SMPN 29 Bandar Lampung use negotiation of meaning in their speaking ?

2. Which component in negotiation of meaning is mostly used by the students ?

1.3 Objectives of the Research

Concerning to the problem above, the objective of this research are :

1. To investigate whether students at the second year of SMPN 29 Bandar Lampung use negotiation of meaning in their speaking.

2. To investigate which component in negotiation of meaning that mostly used by the students.

1.4 Uses of the Research

The uses of this research are addressed to : a) Theoretically

- To verify previous theories dealing with the theories in this research. - To be used as a reference for those who will conduct further research.

- It is expected that this study can enrich our knowledge in the aspect of oral communication.

b) Practically

- It might be beneficial for giving information about what types of negotiation of meaning that are used by students in their speaking.

- It might be beneficial as a reference for further research on the same field.

1.5 Scope of the Research

The writer conducted the research at the second year of SMPN 29 Bandar

Lampung. The subject of this research is class VIII A. In this research, the writer wanted to see the component in negotiation of meaning that mostly used by the students. For the material, the writer took expressing asking and giving

information. The writer classified the component was used by the students in their conversation by table of specification of components in negotiation of meaning and find out the component that mostly used by the students

1.6 Definition of Terms

1. Speaking is communication or conversation, two people are exchanging information or they have a communication or conversation needs (Doff, 1987:2).

2. Negotiation of Meaning is defined as side sequences to the main flow of communicational aimed at signaling and solving problem message

comprehensibility that is, aimed at restoring mutual understanding, (Van Den Branden, 1997:19).

3. An Information Gap activity is an activity where students are missing the information they need to complete a task and need to talk each other to find it. (Lam Son, 2009).

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter discusses about review of previous research, concept of speaking (definition of speaking, components of speaking), concept of teaching speaking concept of negotiation of meaning, the roles of negotiation of meaning in second language acquisition, negotiation of meaning in second and foreign language setting, concept of Information Gap, types of activities which are based on Information Gap, procedure of teaching speaking through Information Gap.

2.1 Review of Previous Research

Concerning the topic under discussion, there were several studies that have been carried out, will be discussed below:

1. Dian irawan (2012) from Lampung University compared between students’ production utterances using information gap and students’ production utterances using role play tasks at the second year of SMA Negeri 8 Bandar Lampung. Based on his pre observation, he found the students were often embarrased if they make mistake. Students were rarely practiced in the target language in the class. They still looked prude and hestitate to interact with their friends and their teacher by using the target language. He states that one of the problems were the technique used by the teacher in teaching speaking.

From the finding of his research, there was a relatively different result between information gap and role play tasks in generating interaction and effecting

students produce utterances. His results show that the total number of

utterances or C-units produced by the students by using information gap tasks was 848 C-units with the highest number of C-units was 33.0 C-units. The result in role play task shows that the total number utterances or C-units produced by the students was 813 C-units with the highest number was 30.0 C units.

2. Emayuta (2011) from Lampung University compared students’ production of utterances and negotiation of meaning using information gap task in pair and small group in speaking class in second grade of SMK Karya Pembangunan Gajah Mada Metro. She investigated whether the two different types of group work in speaking class that the students’ arrangement had different effect or not in students. She says that students still often found difficulties in

understanding and using spoken language because most of them could not produce a short dialogue fluently. Her result shows that information gap task and two kinds of sitting arrangement, pair work, and small group work were able to trigger the students to speak in the target language. Based on her reserach. The number of C-units and negotiation of meaning ( trigger, signal. Response, and follow up) produced in small group work were higher than in pair work.

3. Novita Nurdiana (2011) from Lampung University analyzed negotiation of meaning used by the students’interaction in SMA Negeri 4 Bandar Lampung. She states that students had difficulties in understanding the message,

materials, and improving their ability in English because of misunderstanding that probably occur in teaching learning process.She applied jigsaw task and

information gap task in her research. Her results shows that all component in negotiation of meaning used by students. Then there were two components of negotiation of meaning which were rarely used in students’ interaction, namely confirm or negate response and confirmation check through repetition

The writer believes that the negotiation of meaning has the roles that benefit for the conversation. One of them is negotiation of meaning can reduce the obstacle in the conversation and can make the conversation go on. In speaking between the students, misunderstanding about the message often occurs between the speaker and listener.

Based on the problem, the writer interests to analyze the negotiation of meaning in student speaking through information gap. In this research, the writer investigated whether students at the Second Year of Junior High School used negotiation of meaning or not. Then the writer also investigate which the component of

negotiation of meaning mostly used by the students in students speaking through information gap.

2.2 Concept of Speaking 2.2.1 Definition of Speaking

Speaking is one of the skills for students in learning a language. Because speaking is one of the skills to carry out a conversation in language. Speaking is

communication or conversation, two people are exchanging information or they have a communication or conversation needs (Doff, 1987:2).Whenever people intend to learn to understand a spoken language, they use language by speaking

the ideas and feeling. Therefore, Lado (1977:240) says that speaking is described as an ability to converse or to express the sequence of idea fluently.

Meanwhile Brown (2001:250) states, that speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving, and processing information. Based on this idea, there are three important points that must be occured to the participants of communication (speaker and listener) to construct the meaning during the interaction among.

Besides that, Harris (1974: 9) states that speaking is encoding process where people can communicate the ideas, thought and feeling orally. It means that we produce spoken message to someone. Spoken message is our ideas, thought and feeling that we want to share or interact to other people. So, here speaking situation involves a speaker who put a message with words or sentence that has content a listener.

From the ideas above, it can be concluded that speaking is the process of

interaction between speaker and listener in which the speaker sends the message , while the listener receive and process it in his mind in order to understand the intention of that message for the aim of responding to the speakers’message. 2.2.2 Components of Speaking

Speaking is one of the language arts that are most frequently used by people all over the world. The art of speaking is very complex. It requires the simultaneous use of the number of abilities which often develop at different rates. Generally, there are at least five components of speaking skill concerned with

comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, pronounciation, and fluency (Syakur, 1987:3). Below are the definition of the components.

a. Comprehension

Comprehension denotes the ability of understanding the speaker’s intention and general meaning (Heaton, 1978: 35). This idea means that if a person can answer or express well and correctly, it shows that he or she comprehends well. Besides that, if a person can understand about the speakers’ purpose, it refers he or she comprehends well.

b. Grammar

Grammar is viewed as a set of logical and structural rules that govern the

composition of sentences, phrases, and words in any given natural language. It is needed for students to arrange a correct sentence in conversation. It is in line with explanation suggested by Heaton (1978: 5) that students’ ability to manipulate structure and to distinguish appropriate grammatical form in appropriate ones. The utility of grammar is also to learn the correct way to gain expertise in a language in oral and written form.

c. Vocabulary

Vocabulary means the appropriate diction which is used in

communication(Syakur 1987). Vocabulary is divided into two parts, close class and open class. Close class consist of preposition, pronoun, conjuction,e.g.

And : I like dancing and singing. A : I eat a bowl of meatball. Your : What is your favorite food ?

My : My hobby is riding bycycle.

But :I do not like meatball but I like noodle.

Open class consist of noun, adjective, verb, adverb, e.g

Noun

I : I love playing badminton. I love playing badminton My : My hobby is reading story book.

Basketball : Basketball is Rahmi’s favorite sporVerb Play : Rudi is playing football with his brother. Go : Romi go to the fields to play football. Makes : Mother makes a cup of coffee for my father.

Adjective

Good : Markus is a good singer.

Bore : I always bore if I stay at home alone.

d. Pronounciation

Lado (1961: 23) also said that pronounciation is the act or manner of prounouncing words; utterance of speech. He also stated that pronounciation is a way of speaking a word, especially a way that is accepted or generally understood. Here is the example :

1) “ My mother is buying vegetables in the market”. 2) “ She goes to school every day” .

They will correctly prounounce it based on the right prounounciation. They will correctly prounounce like the following:

1)” mai ma mʌðƏ(r) ɪz bayin’ vedƷtƏbls ɪn ðƏ market”. 2) “ςi:gƏυz tu: sku:l „evri de ”.

e. Fluency

Fluency can be defined as the ability to speak fluently and accurately. Signs of fluency include a reasonable fast speed of speaking and only a small numbers of pauses. Fluency refers to the ease and speed of the flow of the speech (Harris, 1974:81). It means that when a person makes a dialogue with another person, the other person can give respond well without difficulty.

2.3 Concept of Teaching Speaking

Teaching speaking means teaching how to use language for communication, for transferring ideas, thought, over felling to other people. Rivers (1978: 6) states that speaking is developed from the first context with the language. Thus, we have to introduce speaking with the language that we learn, because by speaking we can transfer our ideas or thoughts to other people. Classroom activities that develop students’ability to express themselves through speech would therefore seem as in important component of a language course.

Then it is clear that communication through language is very important or the people. We cannot only teach what will be spoken but also the situation that we deal with. The teacher teaches speaking by carrying out students to certain situation. For instance, the topic is “sport”, the teacher carries out to involve student’s activities in this situation.

The topic here must be familliar to the students, so that the ideas and their organization are clear and the learners have an oral command of the language need to be described the topic. It is clear that speaking is the ability to express ones though and it is one of suitable forms of communication. There are several ways of teaching speaking that the teachers can use during teaching learning process. One of them is information gap.

Lam son (2009) defines that an information gap activity is an activity where students are missing the information they need to complete a task and need to talk each other to find it. So, the purpose of information gap technique is to create a conversation or dialogue that can convey specific information to complete the missing information.

In teaching speaking teacher should know the types of spoken language that will make teaching activity easier. According to Nunan (1991b:20-21) spoken language is drawn as such:

Monologues

In monologues when one speaker uses spoken language for any length of time, as in speeches, lectures, readings, news broadcaster, and the hearer must process long stretches of speech without interruptions-the stream of speech will go on whether or not the hearer comprehends. Monologues are divided into two kinds: Planned usually manifest little redundancy and are therefore relatively difficult to comprehend.

Unplanned exhibit more redundancy, which makes for ease in comprehension, but the presence of more performance variables and other hesitations, can help or hinder comprehension.

Dialogues

Dialogues involve two or more speakers and can be exchanges that promote social relationship (interpersonal) and those for which the purpose is to convey

propositional or factual information (transactional).

In teaching language also need to determine the focus of speaking skills in order to make the learning speaking in transactional form easier to be planned. In speaking there are some components to be considered.

Meanwhile, in transactional speaking the components that can be reached according to Richards (1990:25) that an issue that arises in practicing talk as transaction using different kinds of communicative tasks is the level of linguistic accuracy that students achieve when carrying out the tasks is accuracy. This also supported by Higgs and Clifford (1990:12) in Richards states that transactional speaking develops accuracy and fluency. We can see that if the students are able to deliver their mind with accurately and fluently the comprehension will increase. According to Richards (1990:34) teaching speaking with transactional types can be arranged by determining the goal of speaking skill:

1. Mechanics (pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary): Using the right words in the right order with the correct pronunciation.

2. Functions (transaction and interaction): Knowing when clarity of message is essential (transaction/information exchange) and when precise understanding is not required (interaction/relationship building).

3. Social and cultural rules and norms (turn-taking, rate of speech, length of pauses between speakers, relative roles of participants): Understanding how to take into account who is speaking to whom, in what circumstances, about what, and for what reason.

2.4 Concept of Negotiation of Meaning

Negotiation of meaning is defined as series of exchanges conducted by addressors and adressees to help themselves understand and be understood by their

interlocutors (Yufrizal, 2007 p.14.). In this case, when native speakers and non native speakers are involved in an interaction, both interlocutors work together to solve any potential misunderstanding or non understanding that occurs, by checking each others’ comprehension, requesting clarification and confirmation and by repairing and adjusting speech (Pica, 1991).

According to Pica et al (1991) there are basically four components in negotiation of meaning, namely:

1. Trigger

Trigger is the utterance that contains elements that create communication

breakdown. Pica et al (1989:17) says that trigger means the utterance followed by the speaker signal of total or partial lack of understanding. It can also be defined as prime of negotiation of meaning which or stimulate incomplete understanding on the part of the hearer (Varonis and Grass: 1985), e.g.:

Student A : And I need a very energetic person that uh... can what it can... Student B : Can attract.

Produce comprehension check that requires further clarification work from the listener. If a comprehension check can be responded to by the listener in a short

confirmation or negation, then the comprehension check itself serves as a signal for negotiation of meaning. However, when a comprehension check is produced by a speaker and it causes 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).

The following examples will illustrate this proposition. In example 1 the comprehension check is a signal, but in example 2, the comprehension check is trigger. e.g

Example 1

Student A : Do you see what, what I mean ?

Student B : Yes, uh... what time is it..., uh..., what time ? Example 2

Student A : And the..., the right cupboard right cupboard is uh...., the first first shelf on the right is a...., uh hmm set up cup set do you know a cup set ?

Student B : In the right ?

Student A : Yes yes three cup set uh..., and the next...., there are uh..., three glass.

2. Signals

Gass and Varonis (1985) defined signal as an indicator from a listener that

understanding is not complete. This indication is triggered by a speaker’s previous utterance. In many studies of negotiation of meaning signals have been closely linked to two concepts: confirmation checks and clarification of requests (Varonis and Gass: 1985). Signals are divided into confirmation check and clarification request. The detail explanation is discussed below.

a. Confirmation check.

It is defined as listener’s inquiry as to whether or not their expressed

understanding of the speaker’s previous is correct. (Foster, 1998, p.8). Pica et al. (1991) found that a confirmation check could occur in three ways:

1) The interlocutors repeats all or parts of the speaker utterance. It is called confirmation check through repetition, e.g.:

Student A : Cafe it’s too in South Street Student B : South Street?

Student A : Next to grocers

b) The interlocutor corrects or complete what the previous speaker has said, e.g.: Student A : Uh the story it tell about the man who wants to...

Student B : To trap?

Student A : To trap a bear but he...

c) The interlocutor elaborates or modifies what the speaker has said in order to confirm whether his/ her understanding of what speaker has said is correct, e.g.:

Student A : He see a frog the frog is on the water..., yeah, it seems it’s on uh...what is it kind of leafs on the water and then just ...she just smile the girl is stand on the left side of the picture.

Student B : Do you mean that she’s watching the frog? Student A : Yeah she was watching the frog.

b. Clarification request

A clarification request is a request for further information from an interlocutor about aprevious utterance (Foster: 1998). Unlike confirmation checks where the listener to the speaker’s utterance with some degree of non understanding, A clarification request can be expressed in the form of a WH- question or a yes/ no question with rising intonation, e.g.:

A : So the title? B : what ?

A : So the good title of it ?

A clarification request can also be exprresed through special expression such as’pardon’, or’ I beg your pardon’, e.g. :

A : Uh where is the car park ? B : Pardon ?

A : Car park

Sometimes a clarification request is expressed in a back channel cue. e.g. : A : Oh, I mean uh....you just move here ?

B : Yeah ?

A : Where do you come from ?

3. Response

It refers to a speaker’s attempt to clear up what the listener has said (unaccepted input). In many studies of negotiation of meaning responses were related to the discussion of the repair, that is, correction made by non-native speaker as a response to a modification of input action by native speaker (Foster:1998). There are five categories of response. They are self-repetition response, other-repetition response, self modification, other-modification response, and confirm or negate response.

a. Self- Repetition Response

It refers to a response produced by a speaker in the form of part or all an utterance produced in the trigger (Pica:1989) e.g.:

Student A : Now I in pub. Student B : What...pub? Student A : Pub

b. Other-Repetition Response

In this category, the speaker repeats what the listener says in the signal (Pica: 1989). Therefore, it is called other-repetition. In the speaker’s response to the signal, we can see that the speaker has changed his output based on the input from the listener. Since the listener’s signal is triggered by inability to interpret the speaker’s utterance, the signal always modifies the trigger toward the listener’s assumed interpretation. Therefore, the speaker in this case has produced modified output e.g.:

Student A : I think like a suit, us, usual Student B : Like usual suit

Student A : Yes, usual suit

c. Self Modification Response

In this category, the speaker modifies the trigger as a response to the listener’s signal of negotiation of meaning. In this category, the speaker modifies the trigger as a response to the listener’s signal of negotiation of meaning (Pica: 1991). The modification made by the speaker can be at level phonology, morphology, or syntax, or at the semantic level, e.g.:

Student A : And then uh... I think this picture tell tell us about ironic ironic picture.

Student B : Can you spell it.

Student A : Ironic ironic ironic in Indonesia ironi.

d. Other- Modification Response

Other –modification response is a modification by the speaker to reflect the signal given by the listener, e.g.:

Student B : What has she done ?

Student A : What has she done to the frog.

e. Confirm or Negate Response

It refers to a response in form of confirmation or negation. A „yes’ confirmation response is usually short e.g.:

Student A : Yes I see...what about his hair ? Student B : His hair...

Student A : Yes

4. Follow up

It refers to information about whether the communication modifications have been succesful or not. In a long negotiation of meaning, interlocutors usually repeat the signal –response exchange until an agreement is achieved. In short negotiation of meaning sequence, two kinds of follow-up are identified (Yufrizal, 2007) : a) Full comprehension of message being confirmed, e.g.:

Student A : On the top of cooker Student B : Pardon?

Student A : On the top of the cooker. Student B : Yes, on the top of the cooker. b) Continuation move

The interlocutor change their topic after a process of trigger-signal-response, e.g:

Student A : I think like a suit, us, usual. Student B : Like usual suit ?

Student A : Yes, usual suit.

Student B : Does the man smoke ? (Follow-up continuing move) Varonis and Gass (1985) proposed a simpler model for exchanges that create negotiation of meaning. The model consist of four primes called:

a) Trigger (T) which invokes or stimulates incomplete understanding on the part of the hearer.

c) Response (R) is the original speaker’s attempt to clear up the unaccepted-input. d) Reaction to the response (RR), which is an element that signal’s hearer

acceptance or continued difficulty with the speaker’s repair.

In the development of studies in negotiation of meaning, Alcon, Shortreed, martyn and Van Den Branden have broadened the concept of negotiation of meaning, such as by inserting some ideas from studies in communication strategies into the basic concept of negotiation of meaning.

Alcon (1996) in Yufrizal (2007 p.19), for instance, included some elements of communication strategies in their studies of negotiation of meaning, such as appeals for assistance, appeals for verification of meaning, definition request, appeals indicating lexical uncertainty for the component of signals; foreignization, literal translation, code switching, approximation for responses. Another extension of negotiation of meaning is by Van Den Branden (1997) who distinguished three definitions of negotiation: negotiation of meaning, negotiation of form and

negotiation of content.

Firstly, Branden (1997) in Yufrizal (2007, p.19) defines negotiation of meaning as side sequences to the main flow of conversation aimed at signalling and solving problems of message comprehensibility that is aimed at restoring mutual

understanding. Under this category, Branden divides the negotiation of meaning into two elements: indicator and response. The indicator includes clarification request, confirmation of request with trigger unmodified, confirmation of request with trigger modified, non verbal indicator. The response includes switch to the new topic, repetition of trigger, modification of trigger, repetition of indicator,

modification of indicator, confirm of negate indicator, inability to respond, ignore the indicator, respon unnecessary.

Secondly, Branden (1997) defined the negotiation of form as side sequences to main flow of conversation aimed at drawing the participant’s attention to formal aspect of description, and encouraging „ self repair’ or, at the very least,

acknowledgment of the formal modifications that the listener suggested. The negotiation of form also consists of two elements: indicator and response. The indicator includes request of rephrasal, prompt, confirmation request unmodified, confirmation modified, and metalinguistic comment. The response includes repetition of trigger, modification of trigger, repetition of indicator, modification of indicator, confirmation of negation of indicator, inability to respond, ignore indicator, and response unnecessary.

Thridly, Branden negotiation of content as stretches of interaction aim at pushing the participants to provide more information spontaneously offered in the

description. This type of modification also consist of two elements: indicator and responses. The indicator includes clarification request, confirmation request unmodified, confirmation request modified, and confirmation request elaborated.

The response includes giving additional information, repetition of trigger,

modification of trigger, repetition of indicator, modification of indicator, confirm or negate indicator, inability to respond, ignore to indicator, response unnecessary, and switch to a new topic.

2.5 The Roles of Negotiation of Meaning in Second Language Acquisition Pica (1996) inYufrizal admited that although there has been no empirical evidence of a direct link between negotiation of meaning and second / foreign language development, research studies in negotiation of meaning for the last two decades have shown that there are two obvious contributions of negotiation of meaning to second language acquisition. Firstly through negotiation of meaning (particularly in interactions involving native speakers) non native speaker obtain

comprehensible input necessary for second language acqusition much more frequently than in interaction without negotiation of meaning. Secondly, negotiation of meaning provides opportunities for nonnative speaker to comprehensible output necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interactions without negotiarion of meaning. Another important role of negotiation of meaning which may not have a direct impact on second language acquisition but it is also an important element for second language learning through communication is that negotiation of meaning can function as an indication of pursuit of communication.

2.6 Negotiation of Meaning in Second and Foreign Language Setting The majority of interaction studies deals with interaction involving native speakers and non native speakers hasbeen conducted in the target language setting. A set of research papers by Pica (1985a; 1985b; Pica and Doughty, 1985, 1986; Pica, young and Doughty, 1987; Pica et al. (1989); Pica et al, 1991 and Pica et al (1996)) has shown that when non native speakers indicate that they do not understand message, expressed through comments such as’ pardon me’,

„uuh?’, „what?’, „Excuse me?’. „ I...don’t understand’, the native speaker helps non native speakers to comprehend by modiyfing their utterances.

A communicative interaction in a foreign language setting, in which non native speakers interact with non-native speakers from the same L1 background, might result in different pattern of interaction form those in second language setting and from interaction which involves a native speaker. In the former setting the

interaction takes place for the sake of language practice rather than for communicative purpose.

Language input is usually confined to classroom and communication with foreign language teachers. The participants usually have a shared L1 knowledge, which some time hinders from negotiation of meaning and/ or permits them to use an alternative channel of communication. In the later setting, the participants is usually geared toward purely communicative purpose, i.e. to understand or be understood by their interlocutors. Language input is not confined to teachers and classroom situation but is abundant from social life outside the classroom. The participants in conversation usually have a gap in linguistic knowledge, the native speaker being in the position of superior and non native speakers being in the position of inferior. Consequently, there are some strategies applied by eithers the speaker or interlocutors in order to understand or to be understood.

2.7 Concept of Information Gap

Information Gap is an interactive technique that gives opportunities for the students to practice communication in different social context and social roles. Lam son (2009) defines that an information gap activity is an activity where

students are missing the information they need to complete a task and need to talk each other to find it.

In an information gap activity, one person has certain information that must be shared with others in order to solve a problem, gather information or make

decisions (Neu & Reeser, 1997). These types of technique are extremely effective in the L2 classroom. They give every student the oppurtunity to speak in the target language for an extended period of time and students naturally produce more speech than they would otherwise.

In addition, speaking with peers is less intimidating than presenting in front of the entire class and being evaluated. Another advantage of information gap activities is that students are forced to negotiate meaning because they must make what they are saying comprehensible to others in order to accomplish the task( Neu &

Reeser, 1997).

Each students has some, but not all, of the information needed for the activity. As partners to each other to fill in the “gaps” of missing information, they acquire communication skills in a way that is authentic and meaningful ( Basturkmen, 1994). The pair creates questions and statements and each individual responds in turn ( Annenberg Media, 2005). Since each partner knows something that he other does not they must communicate in order to attain complete understanding. Those questions which seek unknown answers are known as referential questions, which contrast with display questions, that is, those which seek obvious answers. For example, rather than asking “ Do you sleep every day ?, you could ask” when do you sleep? “ ( Annenberg Media, 2005).

Information gap is an activity in a pair that students get different task and should complete the missing information by talking to others to find it. The information gap involves a transfer of given information from one person to another. The each participants have some knowledge or information that isn’t shared by any others. They can only finish the task if they pool the information.

According to Brown (2001) there are some steps in teaching speaking by using Information Gap. The principles are as follows:

1. Decide on the teaching materials

The teacher must decide which teaching materials will be used for Information Gap activity. The teaching material can be taken from texts books of senior high school in the second grade. The material is selected ahead of time by the teacher. The teacher can also created his/her own authentic materials for Information Gap activities. The teaching materials should be decided based on student’s level and interests, teaching objectives and appropriateness for teaching.

2. Select situations and create dialogues

Then a situations should be selected. For every situation, dialogues should be provided (by the teaching materials/ teacher) or created by the students themselves.

3. Teach the dialogues for Information Gap

The teacher needs to teach vocabulary, sentences, and dialogues necessary for the situations. The teacher needs to make sure that the students know how to use vocabulary, sentences, and dialogues prior to doing the Information Gap

activities. Otherwise, the teacher should allow the students to ask how to say the words they want to say.

4. Have students practice the Information Gap

Students can practice to make conversation in group work. After they have played their own parts of view times, they, then, exchange roles. By doing this the students can play different roles and practice all of the lines in the

Information Gap. When the students are enough to demonstrate or perform in front of the class, the teacher can ask them to do so for their classmates. 5. Have students modify the situations and dialogues

Once students have finished and become familiar with an original situation, they can modify the situations or dialogues to create a variation of the original Information Gap.

6. Evaluate and check students’ comprehension

Finally, the teacher has to evaluate the effective of the Information Gap activities and check if the students have successfully comprehended the meaning of the vocabulary, sentences and dialogue. There are several ways to do students evaluations. Students can be given oral and listening tests related to the Information Gap. The example of oral test can include the following. 1. Students are asked to answer some simple questions related to the pictures. 2. Students are asked to re-enact the Information Gap.

3. Students are asked to translate the pictures into their native language.

It is better for the teacher to teach speaking through Information Gap technique based on the procedure above. So, it helps the teacher and the students to understand what is going to do in the class by using Information Gap. Besides

that, teaching speaking through Information Gap can make the students more active in speaking English.

2.8 Types of Activities which are based on Information Gap 1. Discovering Idential Pairs

Four pictures are distributed among four students and the fifth students holds a duplicate of one the pictures. He or she must ask question to the others to discover which student has the picture identical to his own.

2. Finding differences

The students are distributed pictures which look the same but actually they have differences. The students have to find the differences.

3. Complete drawing

One student has a complete drawing and the other has incomplete one. 4. Complementing the Crossword

Two student have the same crossword in which some of the boxes are the blank. Student A ask student B and student B should ask student A in order to get the words he needs. When student A or student B wants give the words, he should explained them. It is forbidden to say the words. In this activity the students use their own sentences in explaining the words.

5. Finding Missing Information

Two students have the same text but each student has missing information, the two students have different missing information. Student A has the information needed by the student B and vice versa. So the student should communicate in order to know the information.

From those types of activities in information gap. The writer consider to use complete drawing in information gap. Because complete drawing is easier to comprehend by the students. Then it can make the students more active, especially in their conversation.

2.9 Procedure of Teaching Speaking through Information Gap

There are several procedures that should be done in teaching speaking through information gap.

Activities:

1. Pre activity The teacher greets the students.

The teacher asks student to pray before the lesson is started. The teacher checks the students’ attendance list.

The teacher tries to brainstorm the students with the question relate to the material.

2. While Activities

Students pay attention about explanation expression of asking and giving information.

Students make the example of expression of asking and giving information in sentence.

Students are divided into pair. Students are divided into student A and student B.

Students get the picture. Student A gets incomplete picture and student B get complete picture.

Students perform with their partner to complete the picture.

3. Post Activities

The teacher asks the students’ difficulties in understanding the lesson. The teacher closes the meeting while greeting the students.

III. RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter discusses the methods of research was used in this study, such as: research design, subject of the research, research procedures, data collecting technique, data analysis, and credibility of the data.

3.1 Research Design

This research is descriptive qualitative research. Leedy (1974:79) suggests that a descriptive method simply looks with intense accuracy at the phenomena of the moment and then describes precisely what the writer has seen. In this research, the writer tried to investigate types of signals in negotiation of meaning that were used by the students. By recording the students’ speaking. The writer gathered the data with video and audio recording. After gathering the data, the writer transcribed and coded each student’s interaction then analyzed the data by classifying the component of negotiation of meaning based on Pica’s study (1989). The design of the research is based on : Recording, Transcribing, Coding, and Analyzing the students’ conversation based on the task given.

3.2 Subject of the Research

The writer used one class at the second year of SMPN 29 Bandar Lampung. The writer took only one of class to be sample and was chosen randomly.The class which was chosen is VIII A and number of students is 38. The writer chose this

school because it provides certain days to hold speaking class where the students are given the material. Here, the students were given a wide chance to share their opinion or discussed the material given by the teacher.

3.3 Research Procedures

In conducting the research, the writer uses the following procedures: 1. Planning

Before applying the procedures of the research, the writer did some planning, they were: determining the subject of the research, preparing the materials, and

discussing the procedures of applying Information Gap. Then instructing the students to take conversation about the topic that had been determined in task.

2. Application

In the application, The writer as an observer, directly observed the classroom and fulfilled the classroom observation sheet while the teaching and learning process was going on. Classroom observation also noted the components in negotiation of meaning was used. Then the writer recorded the students’ conversation with their partner. The writer recorded the students’ conversation by using audio and video recorder. She recorded their conversation from the beginning until the end of the conversation. Besides that, the writer conducted interview to the students. To know the reason they used negotiation of meaning in their conversation.

3 . Reporting

After recording the student’s conversation, the writer transcribed the conversation. Then the writer code each transcription of conversation. It necessary for the writer to give code for each conversation so it can be easily understood by the reader.

Then analyzing the data from transcriptions. The writer analysed the data from transcriptions completely to find out what the writer was looking for (based on research questions in chapter 1).

3.4 Instrument of the Research Elicitation

Elicitation involves planned, conversational interaction to gather the data needed. The main instrument used for the study is communicative task, where the

participants in the study perform various communication activities which are audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded for the analysis. The writer used table of specification for the components in negotiation of meaning based on Pica’s study (1989) to code the negotiation of meaning.

Table 1. Specification of Components in Negotiation of Meaning by Pica’s Study (1989)

No Component of Negotiation of Meaning

1 Trigger (T)

2 Confirmation Check through Repetition (CCR) 3 Confirmation Check through Modification (CCM) 4 Confirmation Check through Completion (CCC) 5 Clarification of Request (CR)

6 Response Self- Repetition (RSP) 7 Response other- Repetition (ROP) 8 Response Self – Modification (RSM) 9 Response Other – Modification (ROM) 10 Confirm or Negate Response (RN) 11 Follow-up

3.4 Data collecting technique 1. Recording

In collecting the data, the writer recorded the conversation of participants from beginning until the end. Then, the writer transcribed the data that she got by recording technique. The recording tools are audio and video recorder. Video recorder and audio recorder were used to record the conversation. The writer intended to have both video and audio recording to gain the data. Besides that, the writer used audio recording. Therefore, if there are many unclear taken from the video recording, it can be get from audio recording. Then the writer made a kind of codes and transcribed all dialogue from conversation.

2. Conducting Classroom Observation

The Classroom obeservation was conducted in VIII A at SMPN 29 Bandar Lampung. The Classroom Observation aimed to explain all students’ activities in the process of teaching and learning. The writer as an observer, directly observed the classroom and fulfilled the classroom observation sheet (see appendix 4) while the teaching and learning process was going on. Classroom Observation also noted the components in negotiation of meaning was used. The Classroom observation sheet in the form of a check list.

3. Interview

The interview was conducted in VIII A at SMPN 29 Bandar Lampung.The purpose of interviewing people is to find out their mind, what they think or how they feel about something. The writer conducted the interview to know the reason they used negotiation of meaning in their conversation.

3.5 Data Analysis

The data analysis was used by the writer is descriptive qualitative. Because this research is done in order to analyse what kind of signals in the negotiation of meaning in the conversation of student. So it means that the writer focused on description technique not in statistic technique. The writer described the conversation of student, giving coding and making notes. The next step is analyzing the transcriptions.

3.6 Credibility of the Data

To make the data valid, the writer used triangulation method. This method will be used since in obtaining the data, the writer used distinguished method to gather the authentic data that is in form of observation and interview. The purpose of observation is to explain the situation being investigated activities, person or individuals who are involved in an activity and relationship among them. The purpose of giving the interview is to obtain more accurate data needed about the learners’ comments on teaching learning process whether or not it is interactive for the learners.

V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter discusses about conclusions of the research. Includes some suggestion from the writer in order to make her script more useful for readers.

5.1 Conclusions

After collecting the data from recording, the writer would like to draw conclusions as follows:

A few students ( consist 18 students) at the second year of SMPN 29 Bandar Lampung apply negotiation of meaning in their conversation by using Information Gap. All components in negotiation of meaning were used by students. The highest frequency in negotiation of meaning that they used was trigger. The lowest frequency was response other-modification.

The component of negotiation of meaning can be ranked as follow:

(a) The highest frequency was trigger (b) The second frequency was follow-up since participants tried to check modification in interaction sucess or not. (c) The third frequency was clarification of request since one of participant totally didn’t comprehend what speaker has said. (d) The fourth frequency was response self-repetition. (e) The fifth frequency was response other-self-repetition. (f) The sixth frequency was confirmation check through modification.(g) The seventh frequency was confirm or negate response. (h) The eight frequency was

confirmation check through repetition.(i) The ninth frequency was response self-modification. (j) The tenth frequency was confirmation check trough completion. Then, response other modification.

5.2 Suggestions

Referring to the research findings on the last chapter, the writer would like to propose some recommendations as follows:

1. Students can be more motivated and more active to practice English in order to improve their English ability. The students are expected to practice their speaking whether in class or out of class. For example they can practice their speaking with his or her friends.

2. The teacher is expected to give the students the knowledge about negotiation of meaning. For example, teacher gives the explanation about negotiation of meaning and the examples of negotiation of meaning especially trigger and signal in the conversation.

REFERENCES

Brown, H. Douglass. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Aproach to

Language Pedadogy. San Fransisco: State University.

Annenberg Media. 2005. Teaching Foreign Language K-12. Anneberg: http://www.learner.org/channel/libraries/tfl/key_terms.html.January 10, 2006. Basturkmen, H. 1994. Using Learners’ Writing for Oral Information-Gap Activities.

London: http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol32//no1/p50.html. January 10, 2006.

Bialystok, Ellen. 1990. Communication Strategies: a Psychological Analysis of

Second Language Use. London: T.J. Press. Ltd.

Bryne, Don. 1984. Teaching Oral English. New Jersey: Lingman Group Ltd.

Diknas.2006. Buku Satuan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Doff, Adrian. 1987. Teaching English. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Emayuta. 2011. A Comparative Students’ Production of Utterances and Negotiation of Meaning using Information Gap Task in Pair and Small Group in Speaking Class in Second Grade of SMK Karya Pembangunan Gajah Mada Metro. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University (Unpublished Script).

Foster, P. 1998. A Classroom Prespective on the Negotiation of Meaning. Applied Linguistic 19 (1), 1-23.

Gass, S.M. and Varonis, E.M. 1984. The Effect of Familiarity on the

Comprehensibility of Non-Native Speech. Language Learning, 34 (1), 65-89.

Harris, David. 1974. English as Second Language. New York: Mc, Graw Mill. Heaton, J. B. 1982. Language Testing Modern English Publications. London:

Heaton, J. B. 1978. Writing English Language Test. London: Longman.

Irawan, Dian. 2012. A Comparative Study of Students’ Production of Utterances Using Information Gap and Role Play Tasks at the Second Year of SMAN 8

Bandar Lampung. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University (Unpublished

Script).

Lado, Robert. 1961. Language Teaching a Scientific Approach. New York: Mc.GrewHill Inc.

Lado, Robert. 1977. Language Testing. Tata Mc. Gorw. New Dehli: Hill Publishing Co. Ltd.

Lam Son, Tran. 2009. Using Information Gap Activities to Promote Communication

EFL Classes. Hanoi: British Council.

Leedy, Paul.1974. Practical Research Planning and Design. New Jersey: Mac Millan Publishing Company Co. Inc.

Mulyono. 2008. English Way 2 SMP Grade VIII. Yogyakarta:Quadra.

Neu, H. And Reeser, T.W.1997. Parle-mol un! PEU Information Gap Activities for

The Beginners. Paris: Boston Heinle and Heinle.

Nunan, David.1991. Language Teaching Methodology. Prentice Hall.

Nurdiana, Novita. 2011. An Analysis of Negotiation of Meaning at the First Year Students of SMAN 4 Bandar Lampung ( A Classroom Interaction Research). Bandar Lampung: Lampung University (Unpublished Script).

Penguin Books. 2002. Pair Work Book.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/images/cramplap/exemplars/18a.gif. Retrieved on March 25, 2013.

Penguin Books. 2002. Pair Work Book.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/images/cramplap/exemplars/18b.gif. Retrieved on March 25, 2013.

Pica, T. 1987. Interlanguage Adjustments as an Outcome of NS-NNS Negotiated Interaction. Language Learning, 38 (1), 45-73.

Pica, T. And Doughty, C.1985. The Role of Group Work in Classroom Second

Pica, T. Holliday, L. Lewis, N. Berducci, D. And Newman, J. 1991. Language Learning through Interaction: What Roles does Gender Play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63-90.

Pica, T. Holliday, L. Lewis, N. and Morgenthaler, L. 1989. Comprehensible Output as an Outcome of Linguistic Demands on the learner. Studies in Second Laqnguage Acquisition, 11. 63-90.

Pica, T. Lincoln-Parker, F. Paninos, D. and Linnel, J. 1996. Language Learner’s Interaction: How does it Address the Input, Output, and Feed Back Need of

L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59-84.

Pica, T. And Young, R. 1986. Making Input Comprehensible. Do interactional modifications help ? I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 72, 1-25

Raptou, V. (2001). Using Information Gap Activities in the Second Language

Classroom.www.caslt.org/Print/gapp.html. January 10, 2006.

Richards, J. C. and David N. 1990. Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers. W.M. 1978. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: University Press. Syakur.1987. Language Testing and Evaluation. Surakarta 11 Maret University Press Universitas Lampung. 2006. Format Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Bandar Lampung:

Universitas Lampung.

Van den Branden K. 1997. Effects of Negotiation of Language Learner’s output. Language Learning 47(4), 589-636.

Varonis, E.M. And Gass, S. M. 1985. Non-native/ Non-native conversations: A

Model for Negotiation of Meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 71-90.

Yufrizal, Hery. 2001. Language Acquisition Student Text Book. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University

Yufrizal, Hery. 2007. Negotiation of Meaning by Indonesian EFL Learners. Bandung. Pustaka Reka Cipta.

Yufrizal, Hery. 2008. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition ( A Text Book

V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter discusses about conclusions of the research. Includes some suggestion from the writer in order to make her script more useful for readers.

5.1 Conclusions

After collecting the data from recording, the writer would like to draw conclusions as follows:

A few students ( consist 18 students) at the second year of SMPN 29 Bandar Lampung apply negotiation of meaning in their conversation by using Information Gap. All components in negotiation of meaning were used by students. The highest frequency in negotiation of meaning that they used was trigger. The lowest frequency was response other-modification.

The component of negotiation of meaning can be ranked as follow:

(a) The highest frequency was trigger (b) The second frequency was follow-up since participants tried to check modification in interaction sucess or not. (c) The third frequency was clarification of request since one of participant totally didn’t comprehend what speaker has said. (d) The fourth frequency was response self-repetition. (e) The fifth frequency was response other-self-repetition. (f) The sixth frequency was confirmation check through modification.(g) The seventh frequency was confirm or negate response. (h) The eight frequency was

confirmation check through repetition.(i) The ninth frequency was response self-modification. (j) The tenth frequency was confirmation check trough completion. Then, response other modification.

5.2 Suggestions

Referring to the research findings on the last chapter, the writer would like to propose some recommendations as follows:

1. Students can be more motivated and more active to practice English in order to improve their English ability. The students are expected to practice their speaking whether in class or out of class. For example they can practice their speaking with his or her friends.

2. The teacher is expected to give the students the knowledge about negotiation of meaning. For example, teacher gives the explanation about negotiation of meaning and the examples of negotiation of meaning especially trigger and signal in the conversation.

REFERENCES

Brown, H. Douglass. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Aproach to

Language Pedadogy. San Fransisco: State University.

Annenberg Media. 2005. Teaching Foreign Language K-12. Anneberg: http://www.learner.org/channel/libraries/tfl/key_terms.html.January 10, 2006. Basturkmen, H. 1994. Using Learners’ Writing for Oral Information-Gap Activities.

London: http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol32//no1/p50.html. January 10, 2006.

Bialystok, Ellen. 1990. Communication Strategies: a Psychological Analysis of

Second Language Use. London: T.J. Press. Ltd.

Bryne, Don. 1984. Teaching Oral English. New Jersey: Lingman Group Ltd.

Diknas.2006. Buku Satuan Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Doff, Adrian. 1987. Teaching English. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Emayuta. 2011. A Comparative Students’ Production of Utterances and Negotiation of Meaning using Information Gap Task in Pair and Small Group in Speaking Class in Second Grade of SMK Karya Pembangunan Gajah Mada Metro. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University (Unpublished Script).

Foster, P. 1998. A Classroom Prespective on the Negotiation of Meaning. Applied Linguistic 19 (1), 1-23.

Gass, S.M. and Varonis, E.M. 1984. The Effect of Familiarity on the

Comprehensibility of Non-Native Speech. Language Learning, 34 (1), 65-89.

Harris, David. 1974. English as Second Language. New York: Mc, Graw Mill. Heaton, J. B. 1982. Language Testing Modern English Publications. London:

Heaton, J. B. 1978. Writing English Language Test. London: Longman.

Irawan, Dian. 2012. A Comparative Study of Students’ Production of Utterances Using Information Gap and Role Play Tasks at the Second Year of SMAN 8

Bandar Lampung. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University (Unpublished

Script).

Lado, Robert. 1961. Language Teaching a Scientific Approach. New York: Mc.GrewHill Inc.

Lado, Robert. 1977. Language Testing. Tata Mc. Gorw. New Dehli: Hill Publishing Co. Ltd.

Lam Son, Tran. 2009. Using Information Gap Activities to Promote Communication

EFL Classes. Hanoi: British Council.

Leedy, Paul.1974. Practical Research Planning and Design. New Jersey: Mac Millan Publishing Company Co. Inc.

Mulyono. 2008. English Way 2 SMP Grade VIII. Yogyakarta:Quadra.

Neu, H. And Reeser, T.W.1997. Parle-mol un! PEU Information Gap Activities for

The Beginners. Paris: Boston Heinle and Heinle.

Nunan, David.1991. Language Teaching Methodology. Prentice Hall.

Nurdiana, Novita. 2011. An Analysis of Negotiation of Meaning at the First Year Students of SMAN 4 Bandar Lampung ( A Classroom Interaction Research). Bandar Lampung: Lampung University (Unpublished Script).

Penguin Books. 2002. Pair Work Book.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/images/cramplap/exemplars/18a.gif. Retrieved on March 25, 2013.

Penguin Books. 2002. Pair Work Book.

http://www.qub.ac.uk/images/cramplap/exemplars/18b.gif. Retrieved on March 25, 2013.

Pica, T. 1987. Interlanguage Adjustments as an Outcome of NS-NNS Negotiated Interaction. Language Learning, 38 (1), 45-73.

Pica, T. And Doughty, C.1985. The Role of Group Work in Classroom Second

Pica, T. Holliday, L. Lewis, N. Berducci, D. And Newman, J. 1991. Language Learning through Interaction: What Roles does Gender Play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 63-90.

Pica, T. Holliday, L. Lewis, N. and Morgenthaler, L. 1989. Comprehensible Output as an Outcome of Linguistic Demands on the learner. Studies in Second Laqnguage Acquisition, 11. 63-90.

Pica, T. Lincoln-Parker, F. Paninos, D. and Linnel, J. 1996. Language Learner’s Interaction: How does it Address the Input, Output, and Feed Back Need of

L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30, 59-84.

Pica, T. And Young, R. 1986. Making Input Comprehensible. Do interactional modifications help ? I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 72, 1-25

Raptou, V. (2001). Using Information Gap Activities in the Second Language

Classroom.www.caslt.org/Print/gapp.html. January 10, 2006.

Richards, J. C. and David N. 1990. Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers. W.M. 1978. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: University Press. Syakur.1987. Language Testing and Evaluation. Surakarta 11 Maret University Press Universitas Lampung. 2006. Format Penulisan Karya Ilmiah. Bandar Lampung:

Universitas Lampung.

Van den Branden K. 1997. Effects of Negotiation of Language Learner’s output. Language Learning 47(4), 589-636.

Varonis, E.M. And Gass, S. M. 1985. Non-native/ Non-native conversations: A

Model for Negotiation of Meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 71-90.

Yufrizal, Hery. 2001. Language Acquisition Student Text Book. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University

Yufrizal, Hery. 2007. Negotiation of Meaning by Indonesian EFL Learners. Bandung. Pustaka Reka Cipta.

Yufrizal, Hery. 2008. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition ( A Text Book