http://www.sarasuati.

com 

Tema 3: 
El proceso de 
comunicación. 
Funciones del 
lenguaje. La lengua 
en uso. La 
negociación del 
significado  
 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
2

Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso.
La negociación del significado.

Table of contents
1. The communication process. ___________________________________________ 2
1.1. Diff communication models ______________________________________________ 2
1.1.1. Transmission Model of Communication (Shannon & Weaver) _______________________ 2
Levels of problems in the analysis of communication. ________________________________ 4
Advantages of Shannon and Weaver's model _______________________________________ 4
Weaknesses of the transmission model of communication _____________________________ 4
1.1.2. Roman Jakobson model of communication. ______________________________________ 5
1.1.3. Stuart Hall's Model of Communication _________________________________________ 6
2. The functions of language. ____________________________________________ 7
Linguistic Functions _______________________________________________________ 7
Function as a fundamental principle of Lg. ___________________________________ 11
3. The use of Language ________________________________________________ 13
4. Negotiation of meaning. _____________________________________________ 14
Bibliography: ________________________________________________________ 20
Brief Summary _______________________________________________________ 19

1. The communication process.

Communication, the exchange of meanings between individuals through
a common system of symbols, has been of concern to countless scholars since
the time of ancient Greece. The English literacy critic I. A. Richards offered
one of the first – and in some ways still the best- definitions of communication
as a discrete aspect of human enterprise:
Communication takes place when one mind so acts upon its environment that another
mind is influenced, and in that other mind an experience occurs which is like the
experience in the first mind, and it is caused in part by that experience.
Diff communication
1.1. Diff communication models models

1.1.1. Transmission Model of Communication (Shannon & Weaver) 1. Shannon & Weaver
Here I will outline and critique a particular, very well-known model of Transmission Model

communication developed by Shannon and Weaver (1949), as the

prototypical example of a transmissive model of communication: a model which
reduces communication to a process of 'transmitting information'.

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
o de comunicacción. Funciones del lenguaje. La
El proceso a lengua en uso
o. La negociación del significado
o.
3

Shann
non and Weaver's
W mo
odel is one
e which is widely acccepted as o
one of
th
he main seeds ou
ut of wh
hich Communicatio
on Studie
es has g
grown.
Cla
aude Shan
nnon and Warren
W We
eaver were
e not socia
al scientists but engineers
wo
orking for Bell Teleph
hone Labs in the United Statess. Their go
oal was to ensure
the
e maximum
m efficienccy of teleph
hone cable
es and radio waves. They
T develloped a
mo
odel of communica
c ation whicch was in
ntended to
o assist in developing a
ma
athematica
al theory of communication.

C & W's original modell consisted of five ele

ements, plu
us a dysfun
nctional factor:
a. An in
nformation
on source, which pro
oduces a message.
m
b. A tra
ansmitter, which enccodes thee message into signalls.
c. A cha
annel, to which
w signa
als are ada
apted forr transmis
ssion
d. A rec
ceiver, which 'decod
des' the message
m from the sig
gnal.
e. A des
stination, where thee message arrives.
f. A sixtth elementt, noise is a dysfuncctional facttor: any in
nterferenc
ce with
the message
m t
travelling along the
e channel (such ass 'static' o
on the
teleph
hone or rad
dio) which may lead to the signal receive
ed being different
from that
t sent.
Shannon and Weaver's transsmission model
m is th
he best-kn
nown exam
mple of
the
e 'inform
mational' approach
h to com
mmunicattion. Altho
ough no serious
co
ommunication theoriist would still acce
ept it, it has also been the
e most
inffluential model
m of communica
c ation whicch has ye eveloped, and it
et been de
refflects a commonsensse understa
anding of what
w comm
munication
n is.

Iván Matella
anes Notes’
 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
4

Levels of problems in the analysis of communication.

Shannon and Weaver argued that there were three levels of problems of
Three levels of problems
communication: of communication:

1. The technical problem: how accurately can the message be - Technical problems

transmitted?
- Semantic problems
2. The semantic problem: how precisely is the meaning 'conveyed'?
3. The effectiveness problem: how effectively does the received - Effectiveness problems

meaning affect behaviour?

Shannon and Weaver somewhat naively assumed that sorting out Level A
problems would lead to improvements at the other levels.
Although the concept of 'noise' does make some allowance for the way in
which messages may be 'distorted', this frames the issue in terms of incidental
'interference' with the sender's intentions rather than in terms of a central and
purposive process of interpretation. The concept reflects Shannon and Weaver's
concern with accuracy and efficiency.

Advantages of Shannon and Weaver's model

Particular models are useful for some purposes and less useful for others.
Like any process of mediation a model foregrounds some features and
backgrounds others. The strengths of Shannon and Weaver's model are:
- Its simplicity, Adv of W&S Model:
- Simple
- Its generality, and - General
- Quantifiable
- Its quantifiability.

Weaknesses of the transmission model of communication

The transmission model is not merely a over-simplification but a
dangerously misleading misrepresentation of the nature of human
communication. This is particularly important since it underlies the
'commonsense' understanding of what communication is. Whilst such usage
may be adequate for many everyday purposes, in the context of the study of
media and communication the concept needs critical reframing.

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
o de comunicacción. Funciones del lenguaje. La
El proceso a lengua en uso
o. La negociación del significado
o.
5

1.1.2. Roman Jakob

bson mod
del of com
mmunicattion.
In 19
960 an stru
uctural ling
guist - Roman Jakob
bson (draw
wing on w
work by 2. R. Jakobsson
communication Model
Bü
ühler datin he 1930s) - propossed a mod
ng from th erpersonal verbal
del of inte
co
ommunication which
h moved beyond the basicc transmission mo
odel of
co
ommunication and hiighlighted
d the imp
portance of the co
odes and social
co
ontexts in
nvolved. He
H noted elsewhere
e that 'the efficiency
e o a speech
of h event
de
emands the
e use of a common code by its
i particip
pants'. He outlines w
what he
reg
gards as the six 'constittutive factors... in
i any act of v
verbal
co
ommunica
ation' thuss:

Th
he addres
sser sendss a message to the addresse e operative the
ee. To be
message requires a contextt referred to ('refere
ent' in ano
other, som
mewhat
am
mbivalent, nomenclature), seizzable by the
t addresssee, and either verbal or
capable of being
b verb
balized, a code
c fully
y, or at le
east partially, comm
mon to
th
he addres
sser and addressee (or in other wo
ords, to the
t encoder and
de
ecoder of the
t age); and finally, a contact, a physica
messa al channe
el and
ps
sychologic
cal conn
nection between
b t
the addre
esser and the add
dressee
en
nabling botth of them to stay in communiccation.

Iván Matella
anes Notes’
 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
6

1.1.3. Stuart Hall's Model of Communication

Whilst these earlier models had been concerned with interpersonal 3. Stuart Hall’s
communication Model
communication, in an essay on 'Encoding/Decoding' the British sociologist
Stuart Hall proposed a model of mass communication which highlighted the
importance of active interpretation within relevant codes. In contrast to
the earlier models, Hall gave a significant role to the 'decoder' as well as to the
'encoder'.
Hall referred to various phases in the Encoding/Decoding model of Phases in the model
known as moments:
communication as moments, a term which many other commentators have
subsequently employed (frequently without explanation):
a. Moment encoding.
- The moment of encoding: the practices of production
- The moment of the text: the symbolic construction, arrangement and b. Moment text.

perhaps performance. The form and content of what is published or broadcast

- The moment of decoding: the moment of reception by the reader, hearer c. Moment decoding.

or viewer

Hall himself referred to several 'linked but distinctive moments - production,

circulation, distribution/consumption, reproduction' as part of the 'circuit of
communication'.

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
7

Stuart Hall stressed the role of social positioning in the Social positioning in the
interpretation of txts by
interpretation of mass media texts by different social groups. Hall diff social groups

suggested 3 hypothetical interpretative codes (positions) for the reader of a txt:

1. Dominant reading: the reader fully shares the text's code and a. Dominant reading

accepts and reproduces the preferred reading (a reading which may not
have been the result of any conscious intention on the part of the author)
2. Negotiated reading: the reader partly shares the text's code and b. Negotiated reading

broadly accepts the preferred reading, but sometimes resists and

modifies it in a way which reflects their own position, experiences and
interests (local and personal conditions may be seen as exceptions to the
general rule).
3. Oppositional reading: the reader, whose social situation places them c. Oppositional reading

in a directly oppositional relation to the dominant code,

understands the preferred reading but does not share the text's
code and rejects this reading, bringing to bear an alternative frame
of reference (radical, feminist etc.)
When watching a television broadcast produced on behalf of a political party
they normally vote against

2. The functions of language. Functions of Lg

Linguistic Functions Function = use

What do we understand by the notion functions of Lg ? In the simplest
sense, the word function can be thought of as a synonym for the word use,
so that functions of Lg mean no more than the way people use their Lg.
Since there are so many factors of communication, and so many types of
communication, linguists and communication scientists have designed
several models of communication. The prominent among them is the
model proposed by an Austrian psychologist called Karl Buhler (1934). It was
further modified by Roman Jakobson (1953;1960), the celebrated Prague
School literary critic cum linguist and by Hymes (1964), the anthropolinguist.

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
8

But even before Buhler, it was Malinowski in 1923 that was the first to Malinowski’s:
Cultural point of view
come up with a two-way distinction between the pragmatic and the
- Pragmatic: All practical
magical function of language. By pragmatic uses of language, he meant uses of Lg (active &
narrative)
all practical functions, including the 'active' and the 'narrative' functions.
- Magical: Religious &
The magical included all religious and ritualistic uses of language. It was ritualistic uses of Lg

soon very clear that this two-way distinction was inadequate, in that while it
accounted for the primitive cultures and societies all right, it left out a
number of other important functions.
While Malinowski's classification stemmed from a cultural viewpoint,
Bühler's was essentially from the point of view of an individual. Plato was
the first to discuss an instrumentalist definition of language. According to this
definition, language primarily serves the purpose of communication. It
Bühler’s:
is a linguistic tool. From this instrumental approach, Karl Bühler devised a Individual point of view

model which described the communicative functions. In his words, language

is an "organum for one person's communicating with another about
things." The three main functions of language Bühler distinguishes in his
- Representation
model are representation, expression, and appeal. Which function applies - Expression

to which communicative action depends on which relations of the linguistic sign - Appeal

are predominant in a communicative situation.

= Sound; Phonological form.

= Linguistic sign.

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
9

How does this model work? Bühler's model describes the communication
between a sender and a receiver by including a third party, the objects or
Act of communication:
states of affairs. A communicative function is then attributed to each act of depending on which of
the 3 parties is mainly
communication, depending on which of the three parties involved was focused.

focused on most heavily.

When the focus is on the sender, we speak of the expressive - Expressive: speaker
is important.
function of communication. When the focus is on the objects, the function - Appellative: oriented
towards the receiver.
is representative. The third function refers to communication where the - Representational:
Covers all other thing.
focus is on the receiver. This function is called appeal. The circle symbolizes
the phenomenon of the sound, that is the actual word spoken. The triangle
symbolizes the linguistic sign and shares common space with the circle in some
areas, while extending beyond it in other areas. This overlapping portrays the
two key features of the relationship between the sign and its physical
realization.
Jakobson extended Bühler's system of communicative functions. Roman Jakobson

Jakobson stated that a common code is not sufficient for the communicative
process. A context is necessary from which the object of communication is
drawn. Jakobson allocates a communicative function to each of the
components:
- The emotive function1 focuses on the addresser. The addresser's own - Emotive: speaker is
important.
attitude towards the content of the message is emphazised. (following Buhler’s)

- The conative function 2 is allocated to the addressee. It is directed - Conative: oriented

towards the receiver.
towards the addressee. One example is the vocative. (following Buhler’s)

The referential function3 refers to the context. Here we, again, have
- referential: Covers all
- other thing.
(following Buhler’s)
the function emphasizing that communication is always dealing with
something contextual.
- The phatic function helps to establish contact and refers to the channel - Phatic: using Lg
merely to establish the
of communication. Some of these utterances only serve to maintain channel.

contact between two speakers, for instance Have a nice day! Or How do you
do?.

1
Resembles Bühler's expressive function.
2
Bühler called it the appelative function, so it is possible to find both terms in the literature.
3
Bühler called it representative function.

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
10

- The metalinguistic function deals with the code itself. This is the - Metalinguistic: use
Lg to talk about Lg
function of language about language. This whole reader is an example of
metalanguage. We use it to examine the code. The metalinguistic function is
also predominant in questions like "Sorry, what did you say?" where the
code is misunderstood and needs correction or clarification.
- The poetic function is allocated to the message. Messages convey more - Poetic: Form is the
most imp thing.
than just the content. They always contain a creative 'touch' of our own.
These additions have no purpose other than to make the message
"nicer". Rhetorical figures, pitch or loudness are some aspects of the poetic
function.
Naturally, several functions may be active simultaneously in utterances. To find
out which function predominates requires analysis.
Dell Hymes (1964/1972) completed the picture of six speech factors Dell Hymes

matching with six speech function when he proposed to add yet another
function: the situational or the contextual function (where the most - Contextual: Most
prominent place is
prominent place is occupied by the situation or the scene where language is occupied by the situation
where Lg is being used.
being used rather than to any of the other six factors just mentioned).
J. Britton
Britton (1970) did not add anything new, excepting that he
Just emphasized three
emphasized on only three functions: transactional, expressive and poetic. functions: transactional,
expressive & poetic
SO, in a brief and summarized schedule:

*Expressive/ emotive Fn Poetic Fn *Appellative / conative Fn

Message
Addresser Addressee
Context *representative / referential Fn

Contact Multilingual Fn
* = Bühler’s term Situation
**= Dell Hymes’ term Code Phatic Fn
Elsewhere= Jakobson terms ** Situational Fn

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
11

Morris (1967) had a completely different way of classifying D. Morris

speech functions. In his study of the human species from an animal

behaviouristic point of view, he came up with another classification of the
functions of language. His categories were:
- Information talking: co-
- Information talking : co-operative exchange of information. operative exchange of inf.
- Mood talking = expressive
- Mood talking: Bühler’s & Britton’s expressive function. function (Bühler)

- Exploratory talking: talking for talking’s sake, aesthetic. - Explotary talking =

Talking for talking’s sake
- Grooming talking: Meaningless, polite chatter of social occasions4. - grooming talking = phatic
communion (Malinowski)

Function as a fundamental principle of Lg.

How can we characterize language use? One way is to look at the Halliday

relationship between language forms and the features of the context.

We call this relationship linguistic register. The descriptive categories we use Relation btw the Lg
forms & the features of
are Field, Tenor, and Mode, based on Halliday's theory of language variation: the context.

- Field refers to the subject matter or topic. Field answers the question: Field: what is going on?

"What is happening?" "What is the activity?".

- Tenor refers to the roles of the participants in an interaction. Tenor Tenor: Who are taking part?

answers the question: "Who are participating and what is their relative
status or power?"
- Mode refers to the channel of communication. Mode answers the Mode: Channel of
communication
questions: "What is the language doing?"
Halliday described the way scholars from diverse disciplines have classified
language use according to function (Malinowski, Buhler, Jakobson, Britton) &
demonstrated the similarity among these scholars' categories. He summarized
them by arguing that language is by its very nature functional, and that
the organization of language must be explained in terms of a
functional theory. This is in direct contradiction to the Chomskyan
approach, which is a theory of form. Halliday illustrates his argument by
doing a linguistic (not literary) analysis of a line of text by Ben Jonson:
Or leave a kiss within a cup and I'll not ask for wine

4
What Malinowski referred to 40 years befote as phatic communion.

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
12

First, in terms of experiential meaning, he shows how the words in

this line are associated with events in the world. The sentence is about
something that we or someone else has experienced. It also has an
interpersonal meaning. It is a social interaction between two people
("I" and "you"); the focus here is on the participants. Then, there is a
logical meaning. We have to infer that "and" really means "If you leave a kiss
within the cup, then I will not ask for wine." Finally, the textual meaning is
understood in the wider context of the poem; it has features that make this
a poem--repetition, parallelism, rhythm, the intonational shapes one would hear
in the recitation, and so on.
Through this analysis, we see that the Lg functions could be categorized as: Lg Functions:

- EXPERIENTIAL (Association with event worlds) Experimental Fn (transitivity,

(Focus on Participants) Interpersonal Fn (Modality, mood, person)

- INTERPERSONAL
- LOGICAL (Logic relations between units) Logical Fn

(Features of the text) Textual Fn (theme, information, cohesive relations)

- TEXTUAL
Now, there is a connection here with what he has been describing earlier in
terms of field, tenor, and mode.
Halliday shows how field is expressed in the experiential function of
language--looking at the words themselves and their relationship to the world;
the fact that 'kiss' is used as a noun almost metaphorically since it is an unusual
noun--one which is derived from an action, a verb. Through further analysis, he
shows that this field of discourse is a love poem. Tenor is expressed
through the interpersonal function. Relationship between lover and
beloved, as expressed through the pronouns I and you and through a
command and a request. If you do this then I'll do this. Lover has to be
convinced. Mode is expressed through the textual function. It is lyric
poetry, it has a certain metric pattern in which there is a phonological feature of
tone groups; it is strongly person oriented, in which I and you come first
(theme-rheme). There is a balance in the structures of the phrases.
Situation: Feature of the context (Realized by) Text: Functional component of semantic sys.
Field (What is going on) → Experimental meaning (transitivity, …)
Tenor (Who are taking part) → Interpersonal meaning (mood, modality, …)
Mode (Role assign to a Lg) → Textual meaning (Theme, information, …)

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
13

3. The use of Language The use of Lg

Bloomfield and other influential behaviorists (A. P. Weiss, for instance)

regarded linguistics as a natural science patterned after physics. Behaviorists
studied elements that were overtly visible or tangible and lent
themselves to mechanistic explanations.
Suppose that Jack & Jill are walking down a lane. Jill is hungry. She sees
an apple in a tree. She makes a noise w/her larynx, tongue & lips. Jack jumps
the fence, climbs the tree, takes the apple, brings it to Jill & places it in her
hand. Jill eats the apple. This succession of events could be studied in many
ways, but we will distinguish btw the act of speech & the other occurrences,
which we will call practical events. The incident of speaking consists of
three parts, in order of time: Practical events

A. Practical events preceding the act of speech. (speaker)

Time
PE preceding the act of speech

B. Speech speech

PE following the act of speech

C. Practical events following the act of speech. (hearer)
The events in A concern mainly the speaker (the speaker’s stimulus) and the
events in C concern mainly the hearer (the hearer’s response).
Bloomfield explains the speech act further in a diagram representing
the sequence of events within the nervous systems of the fictitious speaker, Jill,
and hearer, Jack (fig.1). Jill is stimulated by a practical event (S) to speak
and when speaking her speech (r) is a substitute reaction for performing her
aim herself. Her speech, in turn, becomes the stimulus (s) for the hearer Jack,
who reacts by performing the practical reaction (R).

S → R > Smone is hungry (S) & goes to the fridge to fetch sm fruit (R)
S → r > Smone is hungry (S) and asks to smone else to fetch him some food (r) for her
Speechless
acts
S → R > Smone is hungry (S) & goes to the fridge to fetch sm fruit (R)
s → R > That person hears another person (s) & goes to the fridge to fetch sm fruit (R) for that person

S → r ……. s → R > Smone is hungry (S) and asks to smone else to fetch him some food (r).
That person hears her (s) & goes to the fridge to fetch sm fruit (R) Figure 1

- Practical Stimuli (S): hunger - Practical reaction (R): action.

- Substitute Stimuli (s): vibrations in the ear-drums. - Substitute reaction (r): performance of vocal movements.

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
14

Language, according to Bloomfield, enables one person to make a

reaction (R) when another person has the stimulus (S). As students of (r …… s)
Speech event
language we are concerned only with the speech event (r …… s), not the
real and practical events (S and R).
The important things5 are the same in both speechless (S → R) and the
speaking accurrence, namely (S) –the hunger & sight of food- & (R) –Movs
which get the food or fail to get it-. These are the practical phase of the
affair. The speech occurrence (r …… s) is merely a means by which S & R
may occur in diff individuals.

4. Negotiation of meaning. Negotiation of meaning

Most of the researches on learner discourse have been concerned with Interaction: A message
that contains information
whether and how input and interaction affect L2 acquisition. A number of of interest to the speaker
& listener in a situation of
rather different theoretical positions can be identified. As should be importance for both.
Diff theories:
obvious, a behaviourist view treats language as environmentally a. Bahaviouristic

determined, controlled from the outside by the stimuli learners are exposed to
and the reinforcement they receive. In contrast, mentalist theories b. Mentalistic

emphasise the importance of the learner’s ‘black box’. They maintain that
learners’ brains are especially equipped to learn language and all that is needed
is minimal exposure to input in order to trigger acquisition. Interactionist c. Interactionist

theories of L2 acquisition acknowledge the importance of both input and

internal language processing. Learning takes place as a result of a complex
interaction between the environment and the learner’s internal
mechanisms.
One question that can be asked is whether the discourse in which
learners participate is in any way different from the discourse native speakers
engage in. If learner discourse can be shown to have special properties it is
possible that these contribute to acquisition in some way.
It does indeed have some special properties. Just as mothers
modify the way they speak to children learning their L1, so do native
speakers modify their speech when communicating with learners.

5
Biologically speaking

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
15

These modifications are evident in both input and interaction. Input Foreign talk: Native
speakers modify their
modifications have been investigated through the study of foreigner speech when
communicating with
talk, the language native speakers use when addressing non-native speakers. learners

Two types of foreigner talk can be identified:

- Ungrammatical foreigner talk is socially marked. It often implies a
Ungrammatical
lack of respect on the part of the native speaker and can be resented by foreign talk:
Deletion of certain
learners. Ungrammatical foreigner talk is characterised by the deletion of grammatical
features.
certain grammatical features such as copula be, modal verbs (for
example, can and must) and articles, the use of the base form of the verb in
place of the past tense form, and the use of special constructions such as
‘no + verb’.
- Grammatical foreigner talk is the norm. Various types of modification Grammatical foreign talk:
of baseline talk (i.e. the kind of talk native speakers address to other native
speakers) can be identified. First, grammatical foreigner talk is delivered at a - Slow speech

slower pace. Second, the input is simplified. Examples of simplifications - Simplified input.

in the grammatical foreigner are the use of shorter sentences,

avoidance of subordinate clauses, and the omission of complex
grammatical forms like question tags. Third, grammatical foreigner talk
- Usage of simplest
is sometimes regularised. This involves the use of forms that are in some forms.
sense ‘regular’ or ‘basic’. An example is the use of the full rather than the
contracted form (‘will not forget’ rather than ‘won’t forget’). Fourth,
foreigner talk sometimes consists of elaborated language use. This - Lengthening of
phrases
involves the lengthening of phrases and sentences in order to make the
meaning clearer. An example is the use of ‘when you are coming home’ as a
paraphrase of ‘on your way home’.

Type of talk Example

Ungrammatical foreigner talk No forget buying ice-cream, eh?
Grammatical foreigner talk The ice-cream – you will not forget to buy it on your way
home – Get it when you are coming home. All right?

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
16

Input modifications of these kinds originate in the person addressing the

learner. We seem to know intuitively how to modify the way we talk to
learners to make it easier for them to understand. When this happens
they have a choice. They can pretend they have understood. Research shows Learners’ signal
that they don’t
that learners sometimes do this. Alternatively, learners can signal that they understand result in
an interactional
have not understood. This results in interactional modification as the negotiation of
meaning.
paricipants in the discourse engage in the negotiation of meaning.
The extract below is an example of an exchange between two learners. Izumi uses a
confirmation check (‘in him knee’) to make sure she has understood Hiroko when he
said ‘in his knee’. In so doing she introduces an error of her own which leads Hiroko to
correct it at the same time as he corrects his own original error ‘on his knee’. As a result
of this negotiation both learners end up correcting their own errors. There is plenty of
evidence to suggest that modified interaction of this kind is common in learner
discourse:
- Hiroko: A man is … uh … drinking c-coffee or tea with … uh … the saucer of the …
uh … uh … coffee set is … uh … in his … uh … knee.
- Izumi: in him knee
- Hiroko: uh … on his knee
- Izumi: yeah
- Hiroko: on his knee
- Izumi: so sorry. on his knee
(from S.Gass and E.Varonis. 1994. ‘Input, interaction and second language production.’
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 16:283-302)

How do such input and interactional modifications contribute to

L2 acquisition? There is still only limited empirical evidence that these
modifications do assist interlanguage development. Arguments have been
proposed , however, that suggest they do.
According to Stephen Krashen’s input hypothesesis, L2 acquisition
takes place when a learner understands input that contains grammatical forms
that are ‘i+1’ (i.e they are a little more advanced than the current state of the
learner’s interlanguage). Krashen suggests that the right level of input is
Krashen’s
attained automatically when interlocutors succeed in making Input hypothesis.
Comprehensible input
themselves understood in communication. Success is achieved by using
the situational context to make the message clear and through the kinds of
input modifications found in foreigner talk. According to Krashen, then, L2
acquisition depends on comprehensible input.
Other SLA theorists have drawn on the theories of L.S.Vygotsky, a Vygotsky’s
Zone of proximal
Russian psychologist, to explain how interaction serves as the basis of development

acquisition. The notion of the zone of proximal development is really

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
El proceso de comunicación. Funciones del lenguaje. La lengua en uso. La negociación del significado.
17

important. Vygotsky argues that children learn through interpersonal

activity, such as play with adults, whereby they form concepts that would be
beyond them if they were acting alone. In other words, zones of proximal
development are created through interaction with more knowledgable
people (students or teachers). Subsequently, the child learns how to control
a concept without the assistance of others. Seen this way, development
manifests itself first in social interaction and only later inside the learner.
According to activity theory, socially constructed L2 knowledge is a necessary
condition for interlanguage development.
Michael Long’s interaction hypothesis also emphasises the Long’s
Interaction hypothesis.
importance of comprehensible input but claims that it is most effective
when it is modified through the negotiation of meaning. It is not I+1 is more effective
when it is modified
difficult to see why. As the interaction between Hiroko and Izumi illustrates, through the negotiation
of meaning..
learners often receive negative evidence. That is, their interlocutors indicate
when they have not understood and, in the course of doing so, may model the
correct target-language forms. Thus, learners receive input relavant to
aspects of grammar that they have not yet fully mastered. There is
another way in which interaction may assist learners. When learners have the
chance to clarify something that has been said they are giving themselves more
time to process the input, which may help them not just to comprehend but
also to acquire new L2 forms. However, sometimes interaction can
overload learners with input, as when a speaker provides lengthy
paraphrases or long definitions of unknown words. In such cases, acquisition
may be impeded rather than facilitated. The relationship between modified
interaction and L2 acquisition is clearly a complex one.
Another perspective on the relationship between discourse and L2
E. Hatch:
acquisition is provided by Evelyn Hatch. Hatch emphasises the collaborative Scaffolding

actions of the learners and their interlocutors in constructing discourse and

suggests that syntactic structures can grow out of the process of building
discourse. One way in which this can occur is through scaffolding, which is an
informal, unplanned intervention of teacher and/or other learners to correct
and/or expand what is being said. Learners use the discourse to help them

Iván Matellanes Notes’

 Topic 3:
o de comunicacción. Funciones del lenguaje. La
El proceso a lengua en uso
o. La negociación del significado
o.
18

prroduce uttterances that the

ey would not be able to prroduce on
n their
ow
wn.
As in th
his example from
f Wagner Gough:
- Mark:: Come here.
- Home er: No come here.

Ho
omer, the L2 learnerr, producess a negativve utterance with th n ‘no +
he common
ve
erb’ pattern
n by repea
ating his interlocut
i tor’s utte
erance and
d attachin
ng the
egation no
ne n at the front. Scaaffolding of
o this type
e is common in the
e early
stages of L2
L acquis
sition and may account for some of the early transitional
strructures th
hat have ob
bserved in interlangu
uage.
The negotiatio
n on of meaning illustrated in the exxchange be
etween
Hiroko and Izumi and
d the dis
scourse scaffolding
s g which Hatch
H and others
ha
ave observved can be
b interprreted as evidence
e of the applicabi
a lity of
Vy
ygotsky’s ideas abo
out cogniitive deve
elopment in childre
en to SLA
A.

Iván Matella
anes Notes’
 T
Topic 3: Brief su
ummary.
19

Brief Sum
mmary
- The
T Commu
unication Prrocess:
COMMUNICATTION: Exchange of meaning btw individualls through a co
ommon system
m of symbols..

Different Co
ommunication Models:
TRANSMISSSION MODEL (S
Shannon and Weaver):
W Reduces commun nication to a process of tran
nsmitting inform
mation.
ONE of the main seeds out of which communicatio
c on studies has
s grown.
(Signaals are adapted
for trransmission) PROBLEMS:
- Te
echnical: How w accurately ca an the
messsage be trans smitted?
- Se
emantic: How precisely is th he
meaaning conveye ed?
(Producces (E
Encodes (Decodes the (Message arrives)
a - Efffectiveness: How
H effectivelyy does the
messag ge) messsage into message from rece
eived meaning g affect behaviior?
s
signals) the signal)
ADV VANTATGES:
- Its simplicity.
(Interferen
nces w/the messsage
traveling along the chan
nnel)

JAKOBSONN’S MODEL OF COMMUNICATIO

C N: It is highligh
hted the importance of code
es and social ccontexts involv
ved.
There are six constituttive factors in
n any act of ve erbal communication:

HALL’S MODEL
O : Highligh
hted the importtance of active
e interpretation w/in
relevant codes.
- Phases in the encoding/decoding g model:

o social posittioning in the interpretation of

- Hall stresssed the role of o mass
media texts by diff sociaal groups. He suggested
_Moment 3 hypothetical
hof Encoding: co
:odes or
Production.
positions for
f the reader of a text: _Moment of text: Construction,
_Domin nant reading: The reader fu ullyarrangeme
shares th he text
ent and code and
a
perform accepts th
mance. he preferred re
eading.
_Negottiated reading g: The reader partly shares
_Moment softhe text cod
decoding: and broadlyy accepts the preferred read
deReception. ding.
_Oppos sitional reading: Reading whose
w social situation
s placee them in a dirrectly opposiitional relatio
on to the dominant code.

- Functions
F off Language
e: Function=Use; So, the way people use Lg
1923 - MALIN
NOWSKI: 2 way
y distinction btw
w (a) pragma
atic –all practic
cal functions- and (b) magic
cal –all religio
ous and artisticc uses-.
The conceptt PHATIC COMM
MUNION, which is the meaningless, polite chatter,
c is coin
ned. CULTUR RAL VIWEPOINT.

1934 - BÜHLE
ER: From the point
p of view ofo the individua al. Instrumen
ntalist definition of Lg: Lg cchiefly serves
the purpose of communicaation. It’s a linguistic tool forr one person to
t communica ate w/another a about things. INSTRUM
MENTALIST.

1960 - JAKOBBSON: Extendeed Bühler systtem: EMOTIVE FN (focus on the

t OObjs and state
es of afairs.
addresser), CONATIVE FN (addressee),
( REFERENTIAL FN (context), PHATIC REPRESENTTATION.
FN (channel)), METALINGUIS
STIC FN (code) & POETIC FUN
N (message).

1972 – DEL HYMES: comple eted the 6 spe

eech factors picture
p adding
another funcction: SITUATIO
ONAL/CONTEXTU UAL FN.
Sen
nder. Receive
er.
EXPRESSION
N. APPEAL.
*EXPRESSIVEE/ EMOTIVE FN POETTIC FN *APPELLATIVE / CO
ONATIVE FN
Address ser Mess sage Addressee e

Context - *REPRESENTATIVE / REFERENTIAL FN

Contact - MULTILINGUAL FN
* = Bühler’’s term Code - PHATTIC FN Situatioon
**= Dell Hyymes’ term ** SITUATIONAAL FN
Elsewhere e= Jakobson termss

Iván Matella
anes Notes’
 T
Topic 3: Brief su
ummary.
20

- Functions
F off Lg:
1967 - MORRRIS: He had a completely
c diffferent way of classifying speech Function ns (behaviorist).
_Information tallking: Co-operative exchange of informattion.
_Mo ood talking: Bühler’s
B expreessive Fn (focus on sender)).
_Exxploratory tallking: Talking for talking’s sake,
s aestheticcs.
_Grrowing talkin ng: Meaninglesss, polite chattter of social occasions (Mallanowski’s Phatic communio on).
HALLIDAY: Fn
n is not just in
nterpreted as the use of Lg but
b as a funda amental prop perty of the Lg
g. How can wew characterizee Lg use?
One way is to
t look at the relationship
r bttw Lg forms an nd the feature
es of the conteext:
_Field: Refers to o the topic (What is going on? → EXPERIE ENTIAL FN: Worrds are associiated with real world events)
_Teenor: Refers to the roles off the participa ants (Who are e taking part → INTERPERSON NAL FN: interac
ction btw 2 pe
eople)
_Mo ode: Refers to o the channell of communiication (TEXTU UAL FN → Con ntext)

Deescriptive cateegories Functions of Lg.

of linguistic regisster.

- The
T use of Lg:
L
- Practical
P Stimuli (S): hunger
S → r ……. s → R > Smoone is hungry (S
S) and asks to smone else to fe
etch him
- Substitute
S reac
ction (r): performmance of vocal movements.
m
some food (r). That person he
ears her (s) & goes
g to the fridge to fetch sm fru
uit (R) - Substitute
S Stim
muli (s): vibration
ns in the ear-dru
ums.
- Practical
P reactio
on (R): action.
- Negotiation
N n of meaning:
• Input and Interaction: Different
D intera
acting theoriess.
_Beehaviorists: Lg
L as environm mentally deterrmined (controolled from the outside by the
e stumuli learnners are expossed to)
_Mentalists: Em
mphasize the im mportance of the
t learner’s blackbox.
b Minimal exposure equired to Lg processing.
e to output is re
_Interactionists: Lg takes placce as a result of interaction btw environm
mental & the leearners’ internaal mechanismm.
• Is learners
s’ discourse similar
s in any y way to a naative speaker’’s discourse? ?
_Motheresse & foreign
f talk (FT): Ungramm matical FT is socially
s marked. It often imp
plies a lack of respect
r by the
e part of the
native speakers. Grammatical FT is the norm m (Slow pace,, simplified inp
put, preferencee of reg forms, elaborated Lg
L use …).
_Naative speakerss seem to intuuitively knoww how to modiify the way th hey talk to forreign learnersrs. Learners ca
an pretend
theyy have undersstood or sign that
t they havee not. This res
sults in the NEGOTIATION OF MMEANING: Spea akers negotiatte through
inte
eraction the meaning of a sppecific word.

Bibliogra
aphy
1. Communicative
C process:
httpp://www.aber.a ac.uk/media/Doccuments/S4B/se em08c.html
httpp://www.penelo opeironstone.com/modelsofcom mmunication.htm m
httpp://www.cultsocck.ndirect.co.ukk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html
2. Fns
F of Lg :
httpp://www.anukriti.net/pgdts/cou urse412/ch1d.httml
httpp://www.uni-kassel.de/fb8/missc/lfb/html/text//startlfbframeset.html
3. Lg
L in use:
httpp://www.ludd.lu uth.se/users/jon
nsson/Course_papers/Behavioriism.htm
4. Negotiation
N of meaning.
m
httpp://efl4u.netfirm ms.com/teacher//articles/inputan
ndinteraction.httm
scaffolding: www.ibe.unesco.org/Regional/SEE/SEEpdf/van_crae en4.pdf
------------------------------
CEN N EDU; CEDE & MAD ed

Iván Matella
anes Notes’