Theoretical framework for communicative adjustment in language acquisition

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Although much of the work in the study of negotiation of meaning subsequent to Krashen (1982, 1985) support the notion that negotiation of mean- ing leads to comprehensible input, which in turn results in acquisition, I question the prevailing assumption based on four reasons. Firstly, negotiation studies show a tendency to under-estimate the role of adjustment. Secondly, it is questionable whether the negotiation for comprehensible input plays a crucial role in language acquisition where the input obtained by the learner is merely simplified input, not optimal input. Thirdly, the study of negotiation of meaning focuses upon meaning in the narrow sense of the word. Limiting the study of negotiation to lexical inadequacies does not guarantee an understanding of successful acquisition. I agree with Neustupny that interactive competence is an ingredient for acquisition. This notion embraces three areas of competence: sociocultural, sociolinguistic and linguistic which are inseparable for understanding language acquisition. Lastly, the relationship between negotiation and acquisition needs to be considered in terms of language learning strategies. The above four points indicate that the framework of negotiation for language acquisition needs to be reconstructed through a focus on the adjustment of inadequacies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)39-60
Number of pages22
JournalJournal of Asian Pacific Communication
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2001 Jan 1

Fingerprint

language acquisition
Linguistics
learning
Language
Theoretical framework
sociolinguistics
learning strategy
guarantee
linguistics
language

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Communication
  • Business, Management and Accounting(all)
  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

Theoretical framework for communicative adjustment in language acquisition. / Miyazaki, Satoshi.

In: Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, Vol. 11, No. 1, 01.01.2001, p. 39-60.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a5785eed5ac34da186424b49c694ec44,
title = "Theoretical framework for communicative adjustment in language acquisition",
abstract = "Although much of the work in the study of negotiation of meaning subsequent to Krashen (1982, 1985) support the notion that negotiation of mean- ing leads to comprehensible input, which in turn results in acquisition, I question the prevailing assumption based on four reasons. Firstly, negotiation studies show a tendency to under-estimate the role of adjustment. Secondly, it is questionable whether the negotiation for comprehensible input plays a crucial role in language acquisition where the input obtained by the learner is merely simplified input, not optimal input. Thirdly, the study of negotiation of meaning focuses upon meaning in the narrow sense of the word. Limiting the study of negotiation to lexical inadequacies does not guarantee an understanding of successful acquisition. I agree with Neustupny that interactive competence is an ingredient for acquisition. This notion embraces three areas of competence: sociocultural, sociolinguistic and linguistic which are inseparable for understanding language acquisition. Lastly, the relationship between negotiation and acquisition needs to be considered in terms of language learning strategies. The above four points indicate that the framework of negotiation for language acquisition needs to be reconstructed through a focus on the adjustment of inadequacies.",
author = "Satoshi Miyazaki",
year = "2001",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1075/japc.11.1.06miy",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "39--60",
journal = "Journal of Asian Pacific Communication",
issn = "0957-6851",
publisher = "John Benjamins Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Theoretical framework for communicative adjustment in language acquisition

AU - Miyazaki, Satoshi

PY - 2001/1/1

Y1 - 2001/1/1

N2 - Although much of the work in the study of negotiation of meaning subsequent to Krashen (1982, 1985) support the notion that negotiation of mean- ing leads to comprehensible input, which in turn results in acquisition, I question the prevailing assumption based on four reasons. Firstly, negotiation studies show a tendency to under-estimate the role of adjustment. Secondly, it is questionable whether the negotiation for comprehensible input plays a crucial role in language acquisition where the input obtained by the learner is merely simplified input, not optimal input. Thirdly, the study of negotiation of meaning focuses upon meaning in the narrow sense of the word. Limiting the study of negotiation to lexical inadequacies does not guarantee an understanding of successful acquisition. I agree with Neustupny that interactive competence is an ingredient for acquisition. This notion embraces three areas of competence: sociocultural, sociolinguistic and linguistic which are inseparable for understanding language acquisition. Lastly, the relationship between negotiation and acquisition needs to be considered in terms of language learning strategies. The above four points indicate that the framework of negotiation for language acquisition needs to be reconstructed through a focus on the adjustment of inadequacies.

AB - Although much of the work in the study of negotiation of meaning subsequent to Krashen (1982, 1985) support the notion that negotiation of mean- ing leads to comprehensible input, which in turn results in acquisition, I question the prevailing assumption based on four reasons. Firstly, negotiation studies show a tendency to under-estimate the role of adjustment. Secondly, it is questionable whether the negotiation for comprehensible input plays a crucial role in language acquisition where the input obtained by the learner is merely simplified input, not optimal input. Thirdly, the study of negotiation of meaning focuses upon meaning in the narrow sense of the word. Limiting the study of negotiation to lexical inadequacies does not guarantee an understanding of successful acquisition. I agree with Neustupny that interactive competence is an ingredient for acquisition. This notion embraces three areas of competence: sociocultural, sociolinguistic and linguistic which are inseparable for understanding language acquisition. Lastly, the relationship between negotiation and acquisition needs to be considered in terms of language learning strategies. The above four points indicate that the framework of negotiation for language acquisition needs to be reconstructed through a focus on the adjustment of inadequacies.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84989367411&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84989367411&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1075/japc.11.1.06miy

DO - 10.1075/japc.11.1.06miy

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 39

EP - 60

JO - Journal of Asian Pacific Communication

JF - Journal of Asian Pacific Communication

SN - 0957-6851

IS - 1

ER -