Negotiation of Meaning: How Conversation Teaches You

Negotiation of meaning is the repair work two speakers do when a message doesn't get through. One asks "What do you mean?" or checks "The hare?", and the other repeats or rephrases until it lands. Research since the early 1980s links it to better comprehension and better sentences. But learners rarely start it, so a good partner has to invite it.

What is negotiation of meaning?

In 1983, Michael Long argued that input has to be comprehensible to help you acquire a language. His twist was about how it becomes comprehensible. Changes to the structure of the conversation mattered more than simplifying the speech itself (Long, 1983).

These adjustments were more extensive and consistent than simplification, and often happened without it. Long described 15 devices in three groups: ones that avoid trouble, ones that repair it, and ones that do both. He had sketched the input and interaction argument two years earlier (Long, 1981).

A partner who talks slowly helps. A partner who checks and repairs helps more. For the input side, see comprehensible input.

The three signals: clarification, confirmation, comprehension

Researchers usually count three moves, all named in classroom studies of negotiation and feedback (Foster & Ohta, 2005; Lyster & Ranta, 1997). The working definitions below are the standard textbook ones from the tradition that runs through Long and Pica.

The clarification request does double duty. In classroom feedback research, it is also a prompt that pushes a learner to fix their own sentence (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).

What it sounds like in a retell

A learner retells The Tortoise and the Hare in Spanish. Each coach turn uses one signal.

And The Lion and the Mouse in Portuguese:

The coach checks, comments and asks. The learner supplies every plot event.

What the research found

Negotiation is a long-running idea in second language acquisition research. These studies built it.

Varonis and Gass modeled negotiation as a pushdown from the main conversation and a pop back up to it.

Why it works

Negotiation helps learners understand and segment input, reach word forms and meanings, and produce modified output. Pica's review also noted areas where it does not appear to help (Pica, 1994).

Through interaction, learners notice gaps between their speech and their partner's. Feedback pushes them to change what they say (Gass & Mackey, 2006).

How strong is the evidence?

A later review concluded that interaction is effective for second language development. How well it works depends on the partner, the task, the target feature and the setting (Loewen & Sato, 2018).

Know what these studies are. Most are lab or classroom pairs, one includes children, and the online studies were mostly text chat. None tested a solo learner with a voice coach.

The honest critique: learners rarely negotiate

In a real classroom, intermediate ESL students worked in pairs and small groups. They were not naturally inclined to negotiate meaning when they didn't understand (Foster, 1998).

A later study counted the three signals only where a breakdown was clearly signaled. Negotiation was "very low" (Foster & Ohta, 2005). Learners helped each other in other ways instead: finishing each other's sentences, prompting and encouraging.

Asking "what?" feels like admitting you're lost. So you nod along.

Why a good coach has to invite it

If learners won't start negotiation, the partner has to. SLPs don't wait for a client to announce a breakdown; they watch for it and repair it.

These are learning strategies borrowed from speech therapy. Learning a language is not a disorder, and ASHA is clear that accents aren't either.

The Edgewise coach builds the three signals into how it talks:

• Asks what you mean (clarification request), so you rephrase.
• Repeats the tricky part with rising intonation, like a confirmation check, so you can fix it yourself.
• Says it back right (recast) when asking would break the flow. See recasts.
• Slows down with shorter phrases and pauses at meaning breaks.

It also comments more and quizzes less. In real conversation, about 1 turn in 6 has a question (our own count, from the Switchboard corpus). Saving questions for real snags keeps it a conversation, not an interview.

Learn the phrases to ask back

The other half is on you. Have repair phrases ready before you need them.

For teachers, tutors and SLPs

Don't wait for learners to signal a breakdown; most won't. Model the repair phrases, use clarification requests on purpose and praise the reformulation. Peer help like co-construction is valuable too, but it isn't negotiation.

FAQ

What is negotiation of meaning in simple terms? It's the work two speakers do to fix a misunderstanding. One signals a problem; the other repeats or rephrases until the message gets through. Michael Long's interaction hypothesis holds that this work helps acquisition.

What are the three types of negotiation signals? A clarification request ("What do you mean?"), a confirmation check (repeating what you heard with rising intonation) and a comprehension check ("Do you understand?"). The first two come from the listener and the third from the speaker.

Is negotiation of meaning the same as corrective feedback? They overlap. A clarification request can flag a misunderstanding or prompt a learner to fix an error. Negotiation targets the message; corrective feedback targets the form.

Why don't learners ask for clarification more often? Classroom studies found learners rarely negotiate, even when lost. They help each other in other ways or move on, so a good partner invites it.

Your next step: Try a story retell in Edgewise. You tell the story, and the coach asks what you mean, repeats the tricky part and slows down when needed. Your first retell sets your level, and every round ends with your next piece: one specific thing to add next time.

Join early access

Related: What 40 years of language acquisition research says about learning to speak · Comprehensible input

Sources

1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Accent modification [Practice Portal]. https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/professional-issues/accent-modification/
2. Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.1
3. Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26(3), 402–430. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami014
4. Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.19.03gas
5. Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (2018). Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51(3), 285–329. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000125
6. Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second-language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x
7. Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.126
8. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
9. Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4), 557–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004027
10. Mackey, A., Oliver, R., & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning, 53(1), 35–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00210
11. Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 493–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01115.x
12. Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(1), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310000783X
13. Pica, T., Young, R., & Doughty, C. (1987). The impact of interaction on comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 737–758. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586992
14. Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.1.71
15. Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226311500025X