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.
ASJC Scopus subject areas