Abstract
Due to the new agenda on multilingualism of the European Commission, the High Level Group on Multilingualism (2007) recommended the study of receptive multilingualism (or intercomprehension) and investigation of communication strategies used by speakers of Scandinavian, Romance and Slavonic languages to improve intra-European communication. In this special issue, we present a series of articles that report on investigations about receptive multilingualism that are related to the research on multilingualism in European research projects (the DYLAN project and the LINEE network and EUROCOM project, e.g. Hülmbauer, Vetter, & Böhringer, 2010; Stegmann & Klein, 1999).
In the first contribution to this special issue, Jochen Rehbein, Jan D. ten Thije and Anna Verschik determine the notion of receptive multilingualism as a mode of intercultural communication in which interactants employ a language and/or a language variety different from their partner’s and still understand each other without the help of any additional lingua franca. In order to emphasize specific characteristics of the receptive component of this mode, the authors introduce the new notion, lingua receptiva. By definition, lingua receptiva is the ensemble of those linguistic, mental, interactional as well as intercultural competences which are creatively activated when listeners are receiving linguistic actions in their passive language or variety. The authors elaborate on this concept of lingua receptiva by discussing various approaches to operationalize processes of understanding and to demonstrate that lingua receptiva should be considered as a non-alternative approach to English as lingua franca. In other words, the two modes should not be considered mutually exclusive.
In the second contribution, Anna Verschik addresses Estonian–Finnish communication in Tallinn. She discusses the issue of mutual intelligibility and criticizes the term on the grounds that it is people and not languages who speak, understand and communicate. In other words, a mere fact of material and structural similarities between closely related languages cannot explain understanding or misunderstanding unless particular speakers know how to draw cross-linguistic parallels and profit from these similarities. Another case can be illustrated by Russian speakers in Tallinn who also communicate with Finns and mostly draw on their knowledge of Estonian as L2. Thus, receptive competence can be acquired as well on the basis of L2 if L2 and L3 are related. Thus, receptiveness can take the form of an acquired competence, given that L2 (i.e. Estonian) is related to L3 (i.e. Finnish).
Similar discussion of acquired receptiveness is present in Annette Herkenrath’s contribution that deals with Turkish–German receptive bilingualism in children. The situation can be described as subtractive bilingualism where children of school age become more dominant in German. In the discourse passages under analysis, adults speak Turkish and children reply in German. Since the languages in question are not related and differ typologically, lexically and structurally to a great extent, it is suggested that the concept of receptive bilingualism is broadened to include acquired receptive and productive skills. Thus, receptive knowledge is not something ‘innate’ but a dynamic phenomenon.
Next, Çiğdem Sağın-Şimşek and Wolf König address the issue of mutual intelligibility between Azerbaijani and Turkish. Even though both languages belong to the Oghuz branch of the Turkic language family, the degree of intelligibility on the part of Turkish speakers is not as high as it may seem at first glance. Therefore, typological similarity alone is not a sufficient condition for receptive multilingualism. The informants in the study were Turkish-speaking students with no active command of Azerbaijani. After completing listening and translation tasks, the informants were asked to comment on the tests. One of the results was that their opinion about the intelligibility of Azerbaijani to Turkish speakers changed. For the most part, problems in understanding occur in Azerbaijani words of Persian origin. Moreover, the authors suggest that the impact of Russian on Azerbaijani increases the differences between the languages and affects comprehension for Turkish-speaking students.
Further, Anja Schüppert and Charlotte Gooskens look at receptive bilingualism between Danish and Swedish interlocutors. Inter-Scandinavian communication is probably one of the most studied cases of receptive bilingualism. The study in question sheds light on the interplay between linguistic and extra-linguistic factors. It is acknowledged that structural factors are important, yet literacy, contact with speakers of another Scandinavian language, historical beliefs, and attitudes definitely play a role in word recognition and understanding. This has been demonstrated by the fact that no significant differences were detected between Danish and Swedish children in word recognition tasks, whereas adult Danes tend to understand spoken Swedish better than Swedes understand Danish.
Eva Vetter investigates receptive competence in Romance languages, particularly in Italian. Terminological issues, such as the scope of receptive multilingualism and its relation to another research tradition of intercomprehension are discussed. The author argues for a broader understanding of receptive multilingualism, namely for the inclusion of the interactive component. The contribution addresses didactic issues as well, identifying a clash between didactic concepts based on an individual and, therefore, fit with the development of multilingual personal skills, and those concepts based on behaviourism. A series of important points is made on the basis of a case study on Italian teachers in Austria who are not familiar with the concept of acquisition of receptive competences.
Hopefully, the current issue will provide both empirical data and ideas for future research of receptive multilingualism in Europe and other parts of the world. The concept of lingua receptiva may give new insights into all kinds of existing practices of receptive multilingualism that have not been considered in this context up to now.