Using Cross-Linguistic-Cultural Interferences as a Means for Meaning Negotiation in Classroom Discourse

The process of encoding and decoding discussions about the nature of discussed meaning is affected by items from the previous learned languages, which means that the negotiation of meaning carried implied in cross-linguistic transfers and so for cultural interferences affects how learners interpret the negotiated foreign locutions. A sample of twenty adult students from The Center of Intensive Teaching of Languages (CEIL) at Ibn Khaldoun University of Tiaret (Algeria) was the subjects of observations, interviews, and experiments during our investigation into this phenomenon. Through treatment, discussion, and analysis of the data collected in the district of Tiaret (Algeria), we were able to gain a deeper comprehension of the topic under investigation. Later advances led to the conceptualization of the phenomenon's constituent elements. This made it possible for us to classify its elements by figuring out how the researched structure affected the adult learners' abilities to learn foreign concepts in the target language, as well as how frequently and at what rate it occurred. The degree to which the previously learned languages have an impact on meaning negotiation depends critically on how these concepts are interpreted.


Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate the way adult learners from The Center of Intensive Teaching of Languages (CEIL) at Ibn Khaldoun University of Tiaret (Algeria), carry out the negotiation of meaning in the light of cross-linguistic transfers and interferences of cultures.Understanding the way learners' linguistic and cultural backgrounds influence their capacity of negotiating meaning in English is the main concern of the current study.For cultivating a conceptual comprehension of the relationship between learners' negotiation strategies and the influences of their home languages and cultures, this study is guided by the following research questions: 1. How do cultural influences and cross-linguistic transfer affect meaning negotiation in adult EFL learning?
2. How does the linguistic and cultural background of learners' influence meaning negotiation?3. How do interpretations shaped by culture and languages learned in the past interact to affect meaning negotiation?
Plausible answers for the previous worries could be the following hypotheses: 1. Incompetence in language allows cultural and cross-linguistic transfer to impede negotiations.2. Item transfers during utterance interpretation, such as lexis, syntax, and pragmatics model negotiation.3. Linguistic transfers and cultural interferences from underlying knowledge impact meaning negotiation.
1. Literature Review Through potential cross-linguistic transfers, this phase seeks to introduce notions namely discourse, discourse analysis, and meaning negotiation.Here, we make reference to the background and context that made it possible for such a structure to exist in an attempt to make connections between the various components of the phenomenon under investigation.

Text and Discourse: Investigation of Interactive Communication
A text is referred to as the codification of a message into either a spoken or written language passive without any interactive process, while discourse is about communicating meaning between interlocutors in an interactive manner.Some theorists use the terms "text" and "discourse" synonymously, suggesting that the two concepts are the same.However, the main distinction between the two is that a text is passive without interaction, whereas discourse is interactive because it involves communication between parties Hawthorn (1992).

Classroom Conversation Analysis
An intimate ethnographic view discourse analysis in the classroom can be defined as the process of contextualizing language in order to analyze it.There are a number of influencing factors that can impact classroom discourse, causing various shifts and transpositions to occur during interactions, (Rymes, 2015).The way the analysis is done suggests that handling the classroom is carried out as a micro-ethnography.On this basis, classroom discourse analysis is considered as communication ethnography emphasizing learners' linguistic, cultural, and personal backgrounds as agents of influence during meaning negotiation (Bloome et al, 2005).
According to Coulthard (2014), the analysis of classroom discourse considers foreign languages as organized patterns and units that convey meaning as well as culture.Language functions as a learning medium, objects and goals.It considers examples and patterns provided to students as objects.As a primary objective, it refers to the ultimate goal for acquiring knowledge as well as exchanging information in order to develop productive and receptive language skills.

Constructing Meaning in Language Acquisition: Function of Classroom Conversation
In order to use target languages as subjects and tools of communication, then helping students understand concepts and ideas, teachers and students must negotiate meaning in classrooms (Cook, 2015).This process enables language to connect new ideas to learners' pre-existing linguistic abilities.Meaning and culture are conveyed through language (Ngũgĩ, 1986;Choudhury, 2014).Language acquisition in the classroom facilitates the transfer of cultures.By reinvesting alreadyexisting linguistic resources, comparative analysis that focuses on similarities between target language and learners' native one facilitates learning (Ruzhekova-Rogozherova, 2014).Contrastive analysis can help learners overcome motivational and belief-based challenges by enhancing their awareness, noticing ability, and language aptitude.

Analyzing Intercultural Discourse: Filling Communication Vault gap
By removing misconceptions, intercultural discourse analysis aims to maximize communication between speakers (Holliday et al., 2021).This can happen by learning the language of the other party or by negotiating a lingua franca based on cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Canagarajah, 2007).Competent English teachers in EFL classrooms are communicatively proficient at the level of native speakers and help to remove cultural barriers by facilitating the target language's transmission (Byram, 1997).In this instance, English serves as both a subject and a carrier of Anglo-Saxon "cultures" (plural intentionally used because of American exceptionalism).
The four components of Varonis and Gass (1985) model for analysis of negotiating meaning are the trigger that initiates falsified communication, indicator expressing confusion, responses that attempt to remove confusion, and the reaction that confirms understanding.As previously stated, teachers are regarded as having the same level of language proficiency as native speakers.Their students' interaction in learning language-based cultural conceptions are historically and socially constructed within their specific geographic context (Kachru & Smith, 2008).Despite their sociocultural awareness, learners may become confused by the acts performed by native or proficient speakers that are embedded in this culture.
Written and spoken words transmit ideas derived from physical-free cultures, as for; morals, social conventions and religion, in addition to tangible objects that symbolize human creativity in social settings (Dant, 1999;Smelser & Baltes, 2001).Anthropologists consider languages as socially designed artifacts that shape the human interactive process and change with each interaction (Smelser & Baltes, 2001).Cultural context of the target language is transferred to EFL classrooms environment, where the domineering language most likely varies linguistically from the target language's native culture.

2.3.Function of Cognates in Linguistic Distance and Language Acquisition
Because they have a high ratio of "good" to "false," cognates between closely related languages aid in learning (Ringbom, 2006).This demonstrates the advantageous effects cognates can have.Due to their linguistic similarity, speakers of closely related Scandinavian languages can negotiate meaning, unlike speakers of Finnish, which belongs to a different family (Otwinowska, 2015).This illustrates how linguistic distance matters.To learn the morphological, syntactic, and phonological examples of L2, beginners rely on cognates (Ringbom, 2006).Thus, cognates provide a starting point.Swedish speakers find it easier to learn English than Finnish speakers because both languages are Germanic (Otwinowska, 2015).This demonstrates how typological similarity affects acquisition ease.L1 to L2 transfers happen in the areas of phonology, grammar, and vocabulary (Kellerman & Sharwood Smith et al, 1986).In learner speech and accent, phonological transfers are apparent.Contrastive analysis is useful for learning guidance and error prediction (Ringbom, 1987;Odlin, 1989).This confirmed that contrastive analysis is useful.If the languages are similar, like Russian and Polish, then positive L2 to L3 transfers are possible (Mehlhorn, 2007).This demonstrated that language transfers are not one-way.With teacher assistance, pronouncing words correctly helps students negotiate meaning in the classroom (Cook, 2015).Understanding facilitates communication.When combined, these resources offer a thorough summary of all the important topics related to language transfer and meaning negotiation in the learning of second languages.

Phonological and Structural Transfers in the Acquisition of Second Languages
The main goal of this study is to determine the way cultural influences and cross-linguistic transfers affect adult learners of English in Algeria as they negotiate meaning (Jessner, 1999).According to earlier studies, learners' mother tongue and the target languages transfer in positive and negative ways when they are close to one another (Beenstock et al., 2001).False cognates can cause negative interference, but proximity can also help learning by utilizing more closely related cognate meanings (Ringbom, 1987).
Furthermore, it has been noticed that typological similarities between the L1 and L2 simplify structural understanding (Odlin, 1989).Learners' accents show phonological transfers from the L1 system, and identifying which errors are likely to be helpful in guiding learners is apparent (Mehlhorn, 2007).

Cultural Aspects Affecting Acquisition of Second Languages:
Cultural differences arise when learners interpret new ideas in light of their own contexts (Karmiloff-Smith, 1981).In order to negotiate meaning and enable students to actively engage in the learning process as opposed to passively absorbing information, cultural awareness is crucial.
In terms of learning, adults are also more autonomous, responsible, and mature than children (maturity reflecting completion of emotional and mental development).
Through contrastive analysis and deductive analogy, learners make sense of new concepts by drawing on their L1 and cultural background (Odlin, 1989).Using the development of skills for encoding and decoding messages within socio-geographical contexts, cultural perception shapes accurate communication.According to this case study, students who favored speaking Arabic as their first language were better at negotiating meanings.

Multiple Language Levels of Positive and Negative Transfers
Transfers related to Phonology affect learners' accent, while negative and positive transfers happen at many language levels (Mehlhorn, 2007).Because Scandinavian languages share many structural similarities, typological proximity makes learning easier (Ringbom, 2006).Because of their functional similarity.

Language Proximity and Negotiating Meaning
According to Beenstock et al. (2001), immigrants' L2 Hebrew proficiency was impacted by their L1 (Arabic was stronger than French).Due to perceived meaning similarities, beginner learners of language frequently transfer items related to lexis from native languages to the target ones once given an opportunity.Furthermore, cultural correspondences determine whether a cognate is transferred because of similarity in meaning; misleading cognates may cause problems if the meaning has changed.Subsequent studies failed to produce conclusive evidence supporting the idea that pragmatic transfers-such as cultural behaviors-between L1 and L2 were invariably positively or negatively correlated (Ringbom, 1987).

Morphological Proximity and Positive/Negative Transfers
Closer meanings between cognate words in L2 and L1 can help with vocabulary learning but can also cause mistakes from false friends.Next, both positive and negative transfers are highlighted.
Although historically, attitudes have shifted to recognize positive transfers as well, the focus has traditionally been more on the negative ones.According to this theory, related languages encourage positive transfer through more closely related cognate meanings, whereas distant target languages are more likely to cause negative transfer because of unrelated cognates (Ringbom,2006).For developing target language pronunciation, phonological patterns that are familiar to the speaker through positive L1-L2 transfers are necessary for negotiating meaning (Mehlhorn, 2007).
Through contrastive analysis and analogy, learners negotiate new meanings by deductively drawing on their cultural background.Furthermore, through functional similarity, typological similarities between languages facilitate structural understanding (Odlin, 1989).Next, perception of culture affects accurate communication development in the context of encoding and decoding messages in target language (Karmiloff-Smith, 1981).To assist students in developing their target language systems, instructors guide their development by modeling and providing prompts.

Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis and Levels of Transfer
Learners identify common structural patterns of language to facilitate grammar transfer through meaning negotiation (Ringbom, 2006).This makes it easier to distinguish between Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALPR) labor-intensive development and Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS), as well as to link concepts across languages.
Theories related to cross-linguistic transfers concerning learners ' mother tongue and second language are subjected to examination in this passage.It covers ideas such as lexical, structural, and pragmatic transfer that contribute to the understanding of how and why transfer happens at various levels.Linguistic interdependence hypothesis, one of the main theories presented, suggests that the L1 and L2 have a common underlying proficiency system represented by correlated "icebergs."The cognitive transfer of items related to lexis represent the main academic concepts from L1 to L2. Negotiation of meaning serves as a link between languages in the common proficiency system, enabling the transfer of negotiated concepts between them.

Research Design
This section describes the approach employed to investigate how adult EFL learners negotiate meaning through cultural interference and cross-linguistic transfer.Developing conceptual understanding about connection between learners' strategies of negotiating and the effects of home language and culture was the main objective.To provide a complete picture, a mixed methods design was used for the collection and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data.Multiple data sources were triangulated to validate insights.

Data collection and Sampling
The current exploration targets twenty adult EFL learners, ranging in age from twenty-five to thirtyfive, took part in the study.They were a varied group, speaking Algerian Arabic as their first language and varying levels of proficiency in other languages.
This research made use of a mixed methods design, qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis.Multiple sessions of interviews, testing, and classroom observations were used to collect both experimental and naturalistic data.Direct participant observation was conducted during eight English language classes each one is timed of one hour and half as part of the classroom observations.In-depth field notes were made to document instances of cross-linguistic influences and negotiation tactics.Furthermore, two testing sessions were held with cultural references that were pertinent to mother language and culture of the participants to elicit negotiation actions and track cross-linguistic transfers.Participants' self-reported information about language during negotiation episodes, preferences for particular languages, and variables influencing strategies choice were also gathered through semi-structured interviews.
A planned test lesson in a quasi-experiment produced more episodes of induced negotiation.To collect rich data on participant perspectives and negotiation interactions, systematic tools were used.Rate and frequency of different negotiation cases seen in classes were recorded using observation grids.For the purpose of discourse analysis, audio recordings were used to capture discussion and episode excerpts related to negotiations.Semi-structured interview protocols offered direction for participant interviews regarding language selections and negotiating tactics during instruction.

Results and Discussion
Analysis and interpretation of each session is done as a whole, with an emphasis on nature of discourse maintained by negotiating meaning through analysis of transfer.During the two initial discourse observation sessions, the researcher observed cultural and pragmatic interferences can be that allowed during meaning negotiating by means of task-based activities about authentic materials.This allows participants relate their backgrounds to the negotiated notion, and through doing so for those reflecting connotations behind them, inputs are understood and acquired.
When learners gained greater awareness of the systems guiding the target language, they were shown to be able of negotiating meaning in language free from negative transfers.As knowledge of systems governing target languages was developed, it was observed that the subjects made fewer mistakes.
Figure1: Using Arabic Language for Negotiation of meaning

Analyzing Frequency and Rate in Arabic (L) Negotiation Observation
With the exception of a few instances where transfers occurred between French calque in narrow the Arabic spoken variety in Algeria and so English, there were few lexical cross-linguistic interferences because of the great distance between Arabic and English.Whereas, because a considerable number of learners were observed making translation of communication when attempting to carry out direct negotiation of meaning from L1 to target languages, procedural transfers and pragmatic incidents were noted.While procedural ones were syntactic in nature, utilizing Algerian patterns, these transfers typically used cultural referencing to grasp the pragmatics within the target language.

Diversity in expressing the question in English
After utilizing the low variety to negotiate meaning, some learners pronounced "T" as ‫"ط"‬ (t˧) in transition from Arabic to English, resulting in negative phonological interferences that were recorded.Nature of the issue under discussion and learners' prior knowledge, accessibility and complexity of notions presented, as well as learners' motivation and incentive for negotiated appellations understanding, all had an impact on rate of using low varieties in meaning negotiating.

Observation of High Arabic Negotiations
Direct Translation Techniques Numerous students translated directly between their first language and English during negotiations, according to observational data.As a result, learners' L1 varieties' syntactic patterns and cultural references were used in pragmatic and procedural transfers.Factors Affecting the Use of L1.Accessibility of concepts, underlying knowledge, and discussion topics all affected how frequently learners used their L1 varieties.traditional Arabic usage.Although it was occasionally observed, classical Arabic was used for discussing abstract ideas that were challenging to convey in other varieties because of lexical constraints.In Classical Arabic, there was a debate concerning the meaning of life.
Transfers of pragmatism and culture pragmatic transfers were observed when religious concepts such as "God" were associated with the word "Allah" in Arabic.The general goal of interpreting data is comprehending how learners' sociocultural backgrounds and language repertoires interact with cross-linguistic influences to inform negotiation strategies in EFL meaning classrooms.

Observing French-language Negotiations Analysis of Rate and Frequency
Significance of fluency in French because French and English have a close linguistic relationship, learners who are proficient in the language are better capable of positively transferring cognates and infer subject meanings.Positive cross-linguistic influence was demonstrated by some students who were able to predict upcoming lesson topics by connecting concepts to L2 French.Using French in talk in 64 negotiations, the average number of times French was used was eight per session.It was mostly used to explain foreign ideas that weren't related to the L1s of the learners.
Results of French Arbitration Higher French users became proficient in the language more quickly and made fewer mistakes when producing English.The way that Subject 10 used the French word "croisière" to predict a "upcoming cruise ship" lesson is an example of how French helped with comprehension and negotiation of English-language material.Impact on Acquiring This suggests that linguistic close relationship and language contact between French and English acquisition resulted in positive transfer.Though they weren't as frequent as one might think given the overall advantages of L2 mediation, some negative transfers did happen.In summary, research consistently showed that through cross-linguistic influences between both French proficiencies mediated positively negotiation, transfer, and progress of proficiency.

English-language observation of negotiations: Analysis of Frequency and Rate
Learners manifested procedural, pragmatic and lexical interference from widespread languages as Arabic and French, when negotiating in English.The combined effects of French as a medium and interferences improved vocabulary stock, but also led to mistakes when L2 grammatical rules were applied.The intricate interactions between languages are reflected in this duality.Regarding the impact of earlier training, certain mistakes resulted from an excessive dependence on basic English syntax that was previously taught.
It was challenging to pinpoint the exact cause of mistakes between L1 interference and improving proficiency, though.The patterns of learners' second language utilized for comprehending topics appeared to have an impact on how initial L1 knowledge shaped output complicated sentences.Syntactic transfer example of the sentence "This is the yours, take it" is a good example of how French syntax is used.Self-reports from learners support use of L2 structures errors production, linking findings from several sources of data.In conclusion, a coherent examination of influences as cross-linguistic indicates that vocabulary was made easier by French, and that grammatical mistakes during English negotiations were a reflection of negative transfer of L2 procedural and syntactic rules, necessitating scaffolding support.
Figure 4: Using English for Negotiation of Meaning

Monitoring Meaning Negotiations: Frequency and Rate Analysis
Eight observation sessions lasting sixteen hours were used to record 204 negotiations of novel concepts.Most frequently, learners used their primary languages to negotiate meanings: There were seventy-five negotiations in Low Arabic and sixty-four in French after that.There were only eighteen negotiations in the minority High Arabic variety, compared to forty-seven in Standard Arabic.As was previously mentioned, a variety of linguistic and cultural factors led to language code-switching during negotiations.In light of cultural impacts and cross-linguistic transfers resulting from learners' assimilating and interpreting new concepts, this analysis centers on negotiations.
Conversations high frequency concerning low French and Arabic suggests that when learning English, students frequently drew from their prior language knowledge.Learners could use knowledge of grammatical, underlying vocabulary, and cultural implications to comprehend ideas of target languages through negotiation of new concepts in a more expressive language.The favored languages of the learners, especially Low Arabic and French, facilitated discussions that aided in the improvement of proficiency in English.
Figure 5: Use of the four varieties for Negotiating meaning

Analysis of Interview
Correlation between EFL learners' observed language learning behaviors and strategies and their self-perceptions of their English proficiency is analyzed in this section.First, learners' selfassessments of their abilities were obtained through a survey.

Views and Techniques of Language Learners
According to the survey, almost half (44%) think they were only average at English, while a third (33%) think they were very proficient.Just 22% of respondents think they had the skills necessary for simple communication.These self-reported opinions shed light on the attitudes that study participants had prior to the investigation.Afterwards, it was possible to compare learners' perceptions with their actual displayed strategies through observation of negotiation sessions.A distinct pattern showed that people who gave higher English ratings were using their L2 French proficiency to clarify meanings.According to qualitative analyses, students used French for transferring knowledge and improving English.They seemed to be active in viewing acquisition of language as a connected process across many languages.
Additionally, students who reported being more proficient in the language were observed using it both inside and outside of the classroom.This result suggests that they were purposefully using real target language to reinforce their abilities.The active use of French as a mediator, English negotiation, and extracurricular activities show strategic learning behaviors.On the other hand, observation notes indicated that learners who expressed lower levels of self-efficacy in English had less exposure to French as a secondary language.They didn't seem as at ease switching between languages to improve their fluency.This implies that they might not have been aware of the benefits of using cross-linguistic mediation techniques as a teaching strategy.The self-perceived abilities of EFL learners and their observable language learning strategies generally showed strong correlations.People who felt more comfortable speaking English took a more active role in the transfer of both French and English.Less proficient learners seemed to have less experience with cross-linguistic mediation.

Effects of L2 Proficiency on L3 Acquisition
This section looked at the relationship between English as a third language (L3) acquisition and proficiency in a second language (L2).The study revealed that the students' proficiency in French or other languages, like Spanish, varied widely.L2 proficiency and the capacity to learn English were found to be positively correlated; more proficient individuals in L2, such as fluent Spanish speakers, demonstrated considerable success learning vocabulary of English and notions.This suggests that being proficient in L2 is essential to making L3 acquisition easier.With very few instances about negative transfers which would impede development, highly proficient speakers of Spanish seemed to make constructive connections between grammatical structures and cognates.

Skills/ Concept Negotiating and Language Preferences
This stage is concerned with the relationship between learners' capacity to negotiate new notions in English as a foreign language and their self-reported language preferences from a survey.According to the survey, people who prefer the higher-proficiency Arabic dialect (H) had more opportunities to improve their English language skills than people who preferred the lowerproficiency Arabic dialect (L).The former group claimed to be better able to link concepts without translating directly to their dialect.The ten students' preference for French-associated cognates on survey over the closely related French and English helps them improve their language proficiency.Furthermore, individuals who indicated a preference for English in the survey were casually observed engaging in meaning negotiations in English with peers during breaks, thereby enhancing their proficiency in the language.Respondents' preferences for languages more like English-like French, according to the survey facilitated the development of target language competency and the ability to draw connections between cognates, as opposed to less similar languages like the lowerproficiency Arabic dialect.Thus, the perceived ability to negotiate unfamiliar concepts in English was correlated with self-reported linguistic preference as reported in surveys.
Individuals' cultural and linguistic background shape language preference, which is a complex phenomenon.The goal of this analysis is to comprehend how learners' stated preferences and their actual proficiency in meaning negotiation in English relate to each other.Although stated preferences offered valuable information, a more thorough analysis exposed residual factors that complicated target language use on its own.Statistical analyses were not feasible, though, because every learner represented a distinct case.Common themes, like different assessments of ability based on proficiency, could be found by classifying responses into a yes/no table.This method did a good job of combining different perspectives on how skills evolve over time.Even though preferences were stated, closer examination showed that communications were still part of the native frameworks.

Cultural Familiarity in Language Negotiation
Learners' ability to negotiate new ideas in a foreign language is greatly influenced by their cultural familiarity.In this study, which involved students debating Western subjects in English, it was discovered that students who had direct exposure to the culture showed higher levels of engagement and comprehension than their less exposed peers.Seldom were two students who had no prior exposure to Western culture observed actively participating in discussions.Their seeming inability to relate new concepts to existing cultural schema seemed to impede meaningful engagement.On the other hand, different individuals presented differing levels of prior knowledge acquired from different sources.
Furthermore, some students appeared to take advantage of perceptions via media as TV since they received early cultural exposure that their peers wholly lacked.This seemed to have an impact on their capacity to participate in conversations about Western cultural norms and customs.This cultural schema provided contextual relevance to help learners relate new concepts, which aided in their bargaining.Those who had no prior cultural exposure found it difficult to participate in a meaningful way.

Discussion
The results of this study shed light on the negotiation and transfer processes involved in learning a foreign language.Among the important topics for discussion are: A key component of negotiating meaning in a foreign language is the capacity to link new concepts to one's home language.As suggested by the responses, people who were more linguistically skilled and familiar with other cultures thought more deeply when they conceptualized cultural concepts using their mother tongue.They participated fully in the conversations.Instead of focusing on English, two learners who had trouble connecting to their native tongue tended to rely on Arabic dialects that were more similar to their own.In a similar vein, rather than taking chances in the L2, the less experienced French speaker with limited exposure to other cultures negotiated meanings using languages they were familiar with.This implies that strategy selection is influenced by linguistic and cultural familiarity.In paragraph3: Retention skills were also revealed by the responses as the majority found that practice and repetition helped them memorize the function of language in conceptualization and understanding: Language is essential to our ability to comprehend and formulate concepts about the world.This analysis looks at the role that a person's favorite language plays in learning, specifically whether it serves as a barrier or a facilitator.The information supplied provides evidence that learners' favorite languages have an influence on the capacity of negotiating meaning and picking up new ideas.Every student reported that the language they had chosen made it easier for them to understand contested expressions.
Conversely, students who preferred less similar languages, such as a dialect of Arabic with less proficiency, found it more difficult to negotiate.There is evidence to suggest that a person's preferred language can act as a barrier or a facilitating factor in their educational journey.Learners' conceptualization of discussions and the interpretations they contribute are impacted by the integration of cultural elements.Stronger concept associations are obtained by those whose preferences are more linguistically and culturally similar to the target language; more distant preferences may present more difficulties.Overall, the analysis indicates that understanding and assimilation of new concepts can be strongly influenced by the language a learner chooses to use.
The extent of the gap between L1/L2s and target languages seems affecting negotiation process's complexity, then dependence on transferring.Arabic presented other difficulties because of its greater differences from English, whereas more closely related languages made negotiating with French easier.Developing Competence: Learners could negotiate meanings independently apart from reliance on transfers as their proficiency in the target language systems grew over time.This implies that pattern internalization can lessen linguistic interference between languages.
Language skills were one factor that strengthened negotiation abilities; other language proficiency was another.Subsequent studies ought to investigate the ways extra variables related to learners impact the procedure.To sum up, this study advances our understanding of the dynamic processes that underlie the acquisition of a foreign language through linguistic resource negotiation and strategic application.

Conclusion
The investigation demonstrated that in order to fill in gaps, negotiating new concepts causes transfers from prior language knowledge.Positive and negative influences were noted in the varying degrees of lexical, procedural, pragmatic, and phonological transfers.Closely related languages, such as French and English, could negotiate meaning with few mistakes; however, depending on Arabic, a language more distantly related than English, presented more difficulties.
As awareness of target language systems grew, learners gradually negotiated meanings independently with fewer transfers; greater fluency in a language like French aided in this process.Phonological transfers mainly came from French and Arabic speech patterns, but psychologically, some factors as anxiety also affected learners' abilities and required further research On the whole, negotiations filled in knowledge and competency gaps by means of talks that reinforced the availability of resources; interpretations were influenced by cultural and linguistic backgrounds and the pragmatics of the source language.Since meanings are created within particular languages, encoding and decoding may be impacted by pragmatics from other languages; however, learners were able to maximize positive transfers and overcome a dependence on simplicity by using critical thinking.

Recommendations
Based on the results of this investigation, the following suggestions have been made: When dealing with new concepts, minimizing errors motivating learners to make considerable references to existing language resources through negotiation activities can leverage transfers between closely related languages, such as English and French.Creating authentic tasks that embody real-world scenarios for developing pragmatic competencies using cultural transfers sourced to learners' backgrounds.Giving a comparative analysis of the target language with languages sharing their phonological structure, such as French, English and Arabic(L), in order to help pinpoint areas that are prone to errors and direct instruction for reducing negative transfers.
The next step is to maximize lexical transfers and strengthen term retention by promoting critical thinking through exercises that compare cognates and analyze vocabulary gaps.Through an explicit teaching of socio-cultural connotations that support accurate encoding and decoding, you can prevent distortions from pragmatic transfers and increase awareness of differences in language pragmatics.
Differentiating instruction based on learners' individual differences, as other languages proficiency that can affect negotiation process, is also important.To improve understanding of this intricate process of learning a foreign language, investigate other variables that impact negotiation and transfers.Using insights gained from this study to guide pedagogical approaches that use negotiation and transfers strategically, can help to expose students to the target language over time through a variety of negotiation activities.

Conflict of Interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Figure
Figure 2 : Using Arabic H for Negotiating Meaning

Figure 3 :
Figure 3 : French use in Negotiation of Meaning How to cite this article according to the APA: BELAIDOUNI.D.& SIMERABET.M.L (2024), Using Cross-Linguistic-Cultural Interferences as a Means for Meaning Negotiation in Classroom Discourse, Journal of Languages & Translation, 04(02), Laboratory of information and communication technologies in the teaching of foreign languages and translation, Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef, Algeria, pages.129-143.