Comprehension of Ukrainian by Estonians via Russian: Structural and extra-linguistic aspects

封面

如何引用文章

详细

This study explores how people use and expand their linguistic resources in the situation when they have some proficiency in L2 and try to understand L3 that is related to L2. The focus of the study is on the comprehension of Ukrainian by Estonian L1 speakers via their proficiency in Russian (L2). This situation is labeled as mediated receptive multilingualism. The aim of this research is to investigate the role of cross-linguistic similarity (objective or perceived, in the terms of Ringbom 2007) and extra-linguistic predictors of success in comprehension. In addition to measuring the success rate, we pay attention to the participant's perspective. The experiment was conducted with 30 speakers of Estonian as L1 and included a questionnaire, C-test in Russian, three Ukrainian texts with different groups of tasks, and debriefing. In this article, we focus on the task of defining Ukrainian words from the text and on debriefing interviews. The results showed that similarity, perceived or objective, is not the only decisive factor in facilitating understanding. The participants’ explanations confirmed our previous findings that similarity, albeit important, is only partly responsible for successful comprehension. This became clear from the debriefing interviews. In many cases, the participants' choice was affected by a range of extra-linguistic factors: general knowledge, context, exposure to various registers of Russian, M-factor, meta-linguistic awareness, and learnability. In some instances, context and general knowledge outweighed similarity. These findings show how similarity worked together with extra-linguistic factors in facilitating successful comprehension in challenging multilingual settings.

作者简介

Anna Branets

University of Tartu

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: anna.branets@ut.ee
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7599-2169

Linguistics, PhD Student

Jakobi 2, 50090 Tartu, Estonia

Anna Verschik

Tallinn University

Email: annave@tlu.ee
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3989-0146

PhD, Professor of General Linguistics

Narva mnt 29, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia

参考

  1. Backus, Ad. 2014. Towards a usage-based account of language change: Implications of contact linguistics for linguistic theory. In Robert Nicolaï (ed.), Questioning Language Contact: Limits of Contact, Contact at its Limits, 91-118. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279056
  2. Bahtina, Daria & Jan D. ten Thije. 2012. Receptive multilingualism. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 4899-4904. WILEY Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1001
  3. Bahtina-Jantsikene, Daria. 2013. Mind Your Languages: Lingua Receptiva in Estonian-Russian Communication. Utrecht: LOT
  4. Bahtina-Jantsikene, Daria & Ad Backus. 2016. Limited common ground, unlimited communicative success: An experimental study into Lingua Receptiva using Estonianand Russian. Philologia Estonica Tallinnensis 1, 17-36. https://doi.org/10.22601/PET.2016.01.03
  5. Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, Calif: CSLI Publications.
  6. Berthele, Raphael. 2007. 5th Sieve: Syntactic structures. In Britta Hufeisen & Nicole Marx (eds.), EuroComGerm - Die sieben Siebe. Germanische Sprachen lesen lernen, 167-180. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
  7. Berthele, Raphael. 2008. Dialect-standard situations as embryonic Multilingualism. Findings on the inter-lingual potential of provinces. Sociolinguistica 22 (1). 87-107. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783484605299.87
  8. Blees, Gerda J. & Jan D. ten Thije. 2016. Receptive multilingualism and awareness. In Jasone Cenoz, Durk Gorter & Stephen May (eds.), Language Awareness and Multilingualism, 333-345. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02325-0_25-2
  9. Blommaert, Jan & Ad Backus. 2011. Repertoires revisited: ‘Knowing language’ in superdiversity. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 67. London, England: King's College.
  10. Branets, Anna & Ad Backus. 2020. L2 knowledge facilitating L3 learning: The role of Russian linguistic factors in understanding of Ukrainian by Estonians. Philologia Estonica Tallinnensis 5. 59-86.
  11. Branets, Anna & Daria Bahtina. 2021 The Role of Language Exposure in Mediated Receptive Multilingualism - Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja 31. 60-89.
  12. Branets, Anna, Daria Bahtina & Anna Verschik. 2020. Mediated receptive multilingualism: Estonian Russian-Ukrainian case study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 10 (3). 380-411. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17079.ver
  13. Braunmüller, Kurt. 2007. Receptive multilingualism in Northern Europe in the Middle Ages: A description of a scenario. In Jan D. ten Thije & Ludger Zeevaert (eds.), Receptive Multilingualism, 25-47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.6.04bra
  14. Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Cenoz, Jasone, Britta Hufeisen & Ulrike Jessner (eds.). 2001. Cross-Linguistic In uence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  16. Cenoz, Jasone, Britta Hufeisen & Ulrike Jessner (eds.). 2003. The Multilingual Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  17. Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.
  18. Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 1998. Lexical inventions: French interlanguage as L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics 19. 471-490.
  19. Giles, Howard, Nikolas Coupland & Justine Coupland. 1991. Accommodation theory: Communication, context and consequence. In Howard Giles, Nikolas Coupland & Justine Coupland (eds.), Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics, 1-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  20. Golubovic, Jelena. 2016. Mutual Intelligibility in the Slavic Language Area. Dissertation in Linguistics (152). Groningen: University of Groningen.
  21. Gooskens, Charlotte. 2006. Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of inter-Scandinavian intelligibility. Linguistics in the Netherlands 23 (1). 101-113.
  22. Gooskens, Charlotte. 2007a. The contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 28 (6). 445-467.
  23. Gooskens, Charlotte. 2007b. Contact, attitude and phonetic distance as predictors of inter-Scandinavian communication. Near languages - Collateral languages. Actes du Colloque International Réuni à Limerick, du 16 au 18 juin 2005. 99-109
  24. Gooskens, Charlotte. 2013. Experimental methods for measuring intelligibility of closely related language varieties. In Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron & Ceil Lucas (eds.), Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 195-213. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  25. Gooskens, Charlotte & Wilbert Heeringa. 2014. The role of dialect exposure in receptive multilingualism. Applied Linguistics Review 5 (1). 247-271. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2014-0011
  26. Gooskens, Charlotte, Wilbert Heeringa & Karin Beijering. 2008. Phonetic and lexical predictors of intelligibility. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 2 (1-2). 63-81. https://doi.org/10.3366/E1753854809000317
  27. Gooskens, Charlotte & Cindy Schneider. 2019. Linguistic and non-linguistic factors affecting intelligibility across closely related varieties in Pentecost Island, Vanuatu. Dialectologia 23. 61-85
  28. Gooskens, Charlotte, Renée van Bezooijen & Vincent J. van Heuven. 2015. Mutual intelligibility of Dutch German cognates by children: The devil is in the detail. Linguistics 53 (2). 255-283. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0002
  29. Gooskens, Charlotte & Vincent J. van Heuven. 2017. Measuring cross-linguistic intelligibility in the Germanic, Romance and Slavic language groups. Speech Communication 89. 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2017.02.008
  30. Gooskens, Charlotte & Vincent J. van Heuven. 2019. How well can intelligibility of closely related languages in Europe be predicted by linguistic and non-linguistic variables? Linguistic approaches to bilingualism 10 (3). 351-379. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17084.goo
  31. Grosjean, François. 1998. Studying bilinguals: Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1. 131-149
  32. Grotjahn, Rüdiger. 1987. How to construct and evaluate a C-test: A discussion of some problems and some statistical analyses. In Rüdiger Grotjahn, Christine Klein-Braley & Douglas K. Stevenson (eds.), Taking Their Measure: The Validity and Validation of Language Tests, 219-253. Bochum: Brockmeyer
  33. Härmävaara, Hanna-Ilona. 2014. Facilitating mutual understanding in everyday interaction between Finns and Estonians. Applied Linguistics Review 5 (1). 211-245.
  34. Härmävaara, Hanna-Ilona & Charlotte Gooskens. 2019. Mutual intelligibility of Finnish and Estonian vocabulary. Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja 29. 13-56. https://doi.org/10.5128/LV29.01
  35. Haugen, Einar. 1953. The Norwegian Language in America. A study in Bilingual Behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  36. Haugen, Einar. 1966. Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry 36 (2). 280-297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1966.tb00630.x
  37. Haugen, Einar. 1981. Interlanguage. In Einar Haugen (ed.) (1987), Blessings of Babel. Bilingualism and Language Planning, 77-81. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  38. Hlavac, Jim. 2014. Receptive multilingualism and its relevance to translation studies with data from interpreters of the Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages. Across Languages and Cultures 15 (2). 279-301. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.15.2014.2.6
  39. Jarvis, Scott & Aneta Pavlenko. 2008. Crosslinguistic In uence in Language and Cognition. New York & London: Routledge
  40. Jessner, Ulrike. 2014. On multilingual awareness or why the multilingual learner is a specific language learner. In Mirosław Pawlak & Larissa Aronin (eds.), Essential Topics in Applied Linguistics and Multilingualism. Studies in Honour of David Singleton, 175-184. Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01414-2_10
  41. Kaivapalu, Annekatrin & Pirkko Muikku-Werner. 2010. Receptive multilingualism: How Finnish as a first language helps learners to understand Estonian? Lähivertailuja. Lähivõrdlusi 20. 68-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/LV20.03
  42. Kaivapalu, Annekatrin. 2015. Mutual comprehension of Estonian and Finnish Context-Free Words and Texts: Linguistic Determinants, comprehension Process and Symmetry. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat 11. 55-74. https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa11.04
  43. Kaivapalu, Annekatrin & Maisa Martin. 2007. Morphology in transition: Plural inflection of Finnish nouns by Estonian and Russian learners. Acta Linguistica Hungarica - ACTA LINGUIST HUNG 54. 129-156. https://doi.org/10.1556/ALing.54.2007.2.2
  44. Kaivapalu, Annekatrin & Maisa Martin. 2017. Perceived similarity between written Estonian and Finnish: Strings of letters or morphological units? Nordic Journal of Linguistics 40 (2). 149-174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586517000142
  45. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press
  46. Lüdi, Georges. 2007. The Swiss model of plurilingual communication. In Kristin Bührig & Jan D. ten Thije (eds.), Beyond Misunderstanding: Linguistic Analyses of Intercultural Communication, 159-178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  47. Lüdi, Georges. 2013. Receptive multilingualism as a strategy for sharing mutual linguistic resources in the workplace in a Swiss context. International Journal of Multilingualism 10 (2). 140-158
  48. Muikku-Werner, Pirkko. 2013. Understanding Estonian texts on a Finnish language base. - Lähivertailuja. Lähivõrdlusi 23. 210-237. https://doi.org/10.5128/LV23.09
  49. Muikku-Werner, Pirkko. 2014. Co-text and receptive multilingualism - Finnish students comprehending Estonian. Eesti Ja Soome-Ugri Keeleteaduse Ajakiri. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 5 (3). 99-113. https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2014.5.3.05
  50. Quick, Antje Endesfelder & Anna Verschik. 2019. Usage-based contact linguistics: An introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics Review. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2019-0026
  51. Rehbein, Jochen Jan D. ten Thije & Anna Verschik. 2012. Lingua receptiva (LaRa) - remarks on the quintessence of receptive multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (3). 248-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911426466
  52. Ringbom, Håkan & Scott Jarvis. 2009. The importance of cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. In Michael H. Long & Catherine. J. Doughty (eds.), Handbook of Language Learning, 106-118. Oxford: Blackwell
  53. Ringbom Håkan. 2007. Cross-Linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
  54. Salehi, Mohammad & Aydin Neysani. 2017. Receptive intelligibility of Turkish to Iranian-Azerbaijani speakers. Cogent Education 4 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1326653
  55. Schüppert, Anja & Charlotte Gooskens. 2011. Investigating the role of language attitudes for perception abilities using reaction time. Dialectologia: Revista Electrònica. 119-140
  56. Selinker, Larry & Beatrice Baumgartner-Cohen. 1995. Multiple language acquisition: ‘Damn it, why can’t I keep these two languages apart?’ Multilingualism and Language Learning 8 (2). 115-123
  57. Sherkina-Lieber, Marina. 2015. Tense, aspect, and agreement in heritage Labrador Inuttitut: Do receptive bilinguals understand functional morphology? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5 (1). 30-61. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.1.02she
  58. Shumarova, Natalia. 2000. Individual Linguistic Competence in the Situation of Bilingualism. Kyiv: Видавничий центр КДЛУ. (In Ukranian)
  59. Swarte, Femke, Anja Schüppert & Charlotte Gooskens. 2013. Do speakers of Dutch use their knowledge of German while processing written Danish words? Linguistics in the Netherlands 30 (1). 146-159. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.30.11swa
  60. ten Thije, Jan D. & Ludger Zeevaert (eds.). 2007. Receptive Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.6
  61. ten Thije, Jan D., Charlotte Gooskens, Frans Daems, Leonie Cornips & Mieke Smits. 2017. Lingua receptiva: Position paper on the European Commission’s Skills Agenda. European Journal of Applied Linguistics 5 (1). 141-146. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2017-0003
  62. Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
  63. Tyshchenko, Kostyantyn. 2010. Pan-Slavic components of Ukrainian. Ternopil: Мандрівець: всеукраїнський науковий журнал 3. 65-75
  64. Verschik, Anna. 2012. Practicing receptive multilingualism: Estonian-Finnish communication in Tallinn. International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (3). 265-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911426465
  65. Verschik, Anna. 2017. Language contact, language awareness, and multilingualism. In Jasone Cenoz, Durk Gorter & Stephnen May (eds.), Language Awareness and Multilingualism, 1-13. Springer
  66. Voegelin, Charles F. and Zellig S. Harris. 1951. Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of natural languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95. 322-329
  67. Zeevaert, Ludger. 2004. Interscandinavian Communication. Strategies for Establishing Understanding between Scandinavians in Discourse. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač. http://www.luistertaal.nl/en/ (accessed 15.11.2021)

版权所有 © Branets A., Verschik A., 2021

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##