Receptive Multilingualism

Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism (HSM)

Volume 6

Receptive Multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic conceptsEdited by Jan D. ten Thije and Ludger Zeevaert

Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism (HSM) publishes research from colloquia on linguistic aspects of multilingualism organized by the Research Center on Multilingualism at the University of Hamburg.

Editors

Jürgen M. MeiselMonika RothweilerJuliane HouseUniversity of HamburgResearch Center on Mulitlingualism

Receptive MultilingualismLinguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts

Edited by

Jan D. ten ThijeUtrecht University

Ludger ZeevaertUniversity of Hamburg

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Amsterdam / Philadelphia

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Receptive multilingualism : linguistic analyses, language policies, and didactic concepts / edited by Jan D. ten Thije & Ludger Zeevaert.

p. cm. -- (Hamburg studies on multilingualism, issn 1571-4934 ; v. 6)Includes bibliographical references and index.1. Multilingualism. 2. Communication. I. Thije, Jan D. ten. II. Zeevaert, Ludger.P115.R427 2007

306.44'6--dc22 2007009072isbn 978 90 272 1926 8 (Hb; alk. paper)

© 2007 – John Benjamins B.V.No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The NetherlandsJohn Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

8 TM

The production of this series has been made possiblethrough financial support to the Research Center on Multilingualism

(Sonderforschungsbereich 538 "Mehrsprachigkeit")by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

Contents

Abouttheauthors ix

Introduction 1Ludger Zeevaert and Jan D. ten Thije

Part 1 Historical development of receptive multilingualism

1. ReceptivemultilingualisminNorthernEuropeintheMiddleAges: Adescriptionofascenario 25

Kurt Braunmüller

2. Linguistic diversityinHabsburgAustriaasamodelformodernEuropeanlanguagepolicy 49Rosita Rindler-Schjerve and Eva Vetter

Part 2 Receptive multilingualism in discourse

3. ReceptivemultilingualisminDutch–Germaninterculturalteamcooperation 73Anne Ribbert and Jan D. ten Thije

4. Receptivemultilingualismandinter-Scandinaviansemicommunication 103Ludger Zeevaert

5. ReceptivemultilingualisminSwitzerlandandthecaseofBiel/Bienne 137Iwar Werlen

6. TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication 159Georges Lüdi

7. Receptivemultilingualisminbusinessdiscourses 179Bettina Dresemann

8. Speakerstancesinnativeandnon-nativeEnglishconversation: I+verbconstructions 195

Nicole Baumgarten and Juliane House

viii Receptive Multilingualism

Part3 Testingmutualunderstandinginreceptivemultilingualcommunication

9. Understanding differences in inter-­Scandinavian language understanding 217Gerke Doetjes

10. Scandinavian intercomprehension today 231Lars-Olof Delsing

Part4 Determiningthepossibilitiesofreadingcomprehensioninrelatedlanguages

11. Interlingual text comprehension: Linguistic and extralinguistic determinants 249

Renée van Bezooijen and Charlotte Gooskens

12. Processing levels in foreign-­language reading 265Madeline Lutjeharms

13. A computer-­based exploration of the lexical possibilities of intercomprehension: Finding German cognates of Dutch words 285

Robert Möller

14. How can DaFnE and EuroComGerm contribute to the concept of receptive multilingualism? Theoretical and practical considerations 307Britta Hufeisen and Nicole Marx

Name index 323Subject index 326

Kurt BraunmüllerUniversitätHamburgInstitutfürGermanistikI–SkandinavistikVonMellePark6D-20146HamburgGermanybraunmueller@uni-hamburg.de

Rosita Schjerve-RindlerUniversitätscampusAAKHGarnisongasse13,Hof8A-1090WienAustriarosita.schjerve-rindler@univie.ac.at

Eva VetterUniversitätscampusAAKHGarnisongasse13,Hof8A-1090WienAustriaeva.vetter@univie.ac.at

Renée van BezooijenDept.ofLinguistics,RadboudUniversityNijmegenP.O.Box9103NL-6500HDNijmegenTheNetherlandsr.v.bezooijen@let.ru.nl

Charlotte GooskensDept.ofScandinavianStudiesUniversityofGroningenP.O.Box716NL-9700ASGroningenc.s.gooskens@rug.nl.TheNetherlands

Anne RibbertDept.ofEnglishRadboudUniversityNijmegenP.O.Box9103NL-6500HDNijmegenTheNetherlandsa.ribbert@let.ru.nl

Jan D. ten ThijeDepartmentofDutchLanguageandCultureUtrechtInstituteofLinguistics(UIL-OTS)Trans10NL3512JKUtrechtTheNetherlandsJan.tenThije@let.uu.nl

Ludger ZeevaertUniversitätHamburgSFB538Mehrsprachigkeit—TeilprojektH3Max-Brauer-Allee60DE-22765HamburgGermanyzeevaert@uni-hamburg.de

Iwar WerlenUniversitätBernInstitutfürSprachwissenschaftLänggassstrasse49CH-3000Bern9Switzerlandiwar.werlen@isw.unibe.ch

Georges LüdiUniversitätBaselInstitutfürFranzösischeSprach-undLiteraturwissenschaftStapfelberg7/9CH-4051BaselSwitzerlandGeorges.Luedi@unibas.ch

About the authors

x ReceptiveMultilingualism

Bettina DresemannUniversitätErfurtSprachenzentrumPostfach900221D-99105ErfurtGermanybettina.dresemann@uni-erfurt.de

Nicole BaumgartenUniversitätHamburgSFB538Mehrsprachigkeit—TeilprojektK4Max-Brauer-Allee60D-22765HamburgGermanynicole.baumgarten@uni-hamburg.de

Juliane HouseUniversitätHamburgInstitutfürAllgemeineundAngewandteSprachwissenschaftAbteilungSprachlehrforschungVon-Melle-Park6,II.StockDE-20146HamburgGermanyjhouse@uni-hamburg.de

Gerard DoetjesFremmedspråksenteretHøgskoleniØstfoldN-1757HaldenNorwaygerard@doetjes.de

Lars-Olof DelsingLundsUniversitetSpråk-ochlitteraturcentrumNordiskaspråkBox201S-22100LundSwedenLars-Olof.Delsing@nordlund.lu.se

Madeline LutjeharmsVrijeUniversiteitBrusselVakgroepTALKenInstituutvoorTaalonderwijsPleinlaan2,lokaalE210

B-1050BrusselBelgiummlutjeha@vub.ac.be

Robert MöllerUniversitédeLiègeDépartementdeLanguesetLittératuresgermaniquesPlaceCockerill,3B-4000LiègeBelgiumr.moller@ulg.ac.be

Britta HufeisenTUDarmstadtSprachenzentrumHochschulstr.1D-64289DarmstadtGermanyhufeisen@spz.tu-darmstadt.de

Nicole MarxTUDarmstadtSprachenzentrumHochschulstr.1D-64289DarmstadtGermanynmarx@spz.tu-darmstadt.de

Introduction

LudgerZeevaertandJanD.tenThije

ReceptiveMultilingualism.Linguisticanalyses,languagepoliciesanddidacticconcepts

This volume reveals new perspectives from different theoretical frameworks on lin-guisticanalysesofreceptivemultilingualisminEurope.Receptivemultilingualismre-ferstothelanguageconstellationinwhichinterlocutorsusetheirrespectivemothertonguewhilespeakingtoeachother.Casestudiesarepresentedfromcontemporarysettings,alongwithanalysesofhistoricalexamples,theoreticalconsiderationsand,fi-nally,descriptionsofdidacticalconceptsestablishedinordertotransferanddissem-inate receptivemultilingualcompetence.Receptivemultilingualismcannot (yet)beregardedasanestablishedfieldwithinresearchonmultilingualism,eventhoughtheeconomic and political developments, usually denoted as globalisation, have led toaconsiderableincreaseininternationalcommunication.Infact,ithasbecomeclear,thatcommunicativechallengesconnectedtothesedevelopmentsarehardlysolvableusingtraditionalconceptsofmultilingualism.Therefore,newconceptshavetobede-velopedanddiscussed. At the University of Hamburg and especially at the Research Centre 538: Multi-lingualism pioneering work was carried out. Between 1989 and 1995 the role ofsemicommunication as used between speakers of Middle Low German and theScandinavianlanguageswasinvestigated.1ReceptivemultilingualcommunicationasaformoflanguagecontactthathadamajorimpactonthedevelopmentoftheMainlandScandinavianlanguageswasdiscussedandinthefollowingwidelyacceptedinthelit-eratureonScandinavian languagehistory (cf.e.g.Barðdaletal.1997:362,Teleman2002:29,Josephsson2006:22).ThelanguagesituationincontemporaryScandinaviawasthesubjectofresearchinasecondproject,2yieldingseveraldissertations(Zeevaert2004,Ház2005,Golinski2007andDoetjesinprep.)andnumerousfurtherpublica-tions.Infact,onlyfouroutoffourteenarticlesinthisvolumeactuallycomefromtheHamburgresearchprojectonsemicommunication.Thisshowshowexchangeanddis-cussion on receptive multilingualism have spread over Europe and increasingly at-tractedattentionoffunctionariesinallkindofinstitutions,variousresearchersandpolicymakers.Sofar,receptivemultilingualismhadbeenatypicalbottom-updevel-opment, supportedbyofficialEuropeanorganisationsonly toacertainextentcom-paredtootherEUlanguagepolicies. Sincethemid-ninetiesreceptivemultilingualismispromotedbytheEuropeancom-missiononparwithotherpossibilitiesofincreasingthemobilityoftheEuropeanciti-zensinordertosolvethestructuralproblemswithintheEuropeanUnion.Throughout,

2 LudgerZeevaertandJanD.tenThije

roughlyspeaking, the last tenyearsamarkedincrease intheresearchonthis topichasbeenobservable,a factwhichwasnot least stimulatedby thechallenges setbytheEuropeanmotto,unity in diversity,whichalsoreferstothelinguisticsituationinEurope.Theincreasingimportanceofthisissuehasbeenemphasisedbytheappoint-mentofacommissionerformultilingualism.Sincethebeginningof2007therearenow27officiallanguagesintheEU.ThenumberoflanguagesspokenasthemothertonguebyEUcitizens,however,canbeestimatedtobebetween40and100,depend-ingonwhethernearlyextinctlanguagessuchase.g.KaraiminLithuaniaorlanguagesthatarelinguisticallyveryclosetotheofficiallanguageofacountrylikeLimburgishintheNetherlandsareincludedornot. Thisvolumechallengesthreetacitassumptionsinthefieldofmultilingualcommu-nicationresearch,thatarecounteredbythefollowingstatements:

• Multilingualismisasocialphenomenondeeplyembedded inEuropean languagehistory.

• Multilingualunderstandingdoesnotnecessarilyrequirenear-nativelanguagecom-petency.

• Englishaslingua francaisnottheoneandonlysolutionforinterlingualcommuni-cationinEurope.

Thefirstassumptionreferstosuggestionsthatmultilingualismisarecentphenomenonandismainlyrelatedtoglobalisationandlabourmobility.Incontrasttothesestate-mentsithastobesaidthat, inactualfact,theideaofmonolingualismasthestand-ardcasefor individualsandsocieties is theresultoftheemergenceofnationstatesinEuropeintheeighteenthcenturyresultinginnational linguistichomogenisation.FormostcountriesoutsideofEuropeandNorthAmericamonolingualismisasome-whatunusualphenomenon.InmanycountriesinAsia,SouthAmericaorAfricasev-eraldifferentmothertonguesarespoken.ForexogamicsocietiessuchastheVaupésinSouthAmericamultilingualismisinevitable.Marriagesbetweenmembersofthesamespeechcommunityareprohibited,meaningthateverychildgrowsupinabilingualenvironment(cf.Romaine1994:38).IncountrieslikeIndiaorSouthAfricatheuseoffourdifferentlanguageswithdifferentfamilymembersandcolleaguesineverydaylifeisquitenormal(cf.thedepictionofBhatiaandRitchie2004:796f. ,orKamwangamalu2004:726f.),althoughacompletenearnative linguisticcompetence isnotseenasaprerequisiteforsuccessfulcommunication. ThesamepatterncanbeobservedinEuropeintheLateMiddleAgesandinEarlyModernTimeswhencommunicationwasmultilingualbydefault.Onepurposeofthisbookistoreconstructthehistoricaldevelopmentsofvariousmultilingualconstella-tionswhilefocussingespeciallyonreceptivemultilingualism.Scandinavia,SwitzerlandandtheHabsburgEmpireofferinterestinghistoricalmaterialforthelinguisticstudyofthemaincharacteristicsofthismultilingualconstellationundervariousconditions. It isnotbycoincidence thateightof the fourteenarticles in thisvolumerefer tomultilingualconstellationsbetweenGermaniclanguages.Inseveralpublicationsthe

Introduction 3

Scandinavianlanguagecommunityisdescribedasafunctioningexampleofreceptivemultilingualcommunicationand,therefore,asamodelforEuropeanunderstanding.Alreadyinmedievalsources,e.g.theIcelandiclawbookGrágás(‘GreylagGoose’)whichispasseddowninmanuscriptsstemmingfromthethirteenthcentury,Scandinaviaisdescribedasasacommonspeechareainwhichdönsk tunga(‘theDanishlanguage’)isspoken(cf.Melberg1952foracomprehensivedepiction).AtthesametimevisitorsfromSouthernEurope(liketheSpanisharchbishopRodrigoXimenes)reportedthattheinhabitantsofGermany,Scandinavia,theNetherlandsandEnglandallseemedtospeakdialectsofthesamelanguage(cf.Karker1978:7).GermaniclanguagesaretheofficiallanguagesinnineEUcountries(coveringmoreorlessthesameareadescribedbybishopXimenesinthethirteenthcentury)whichismorethananyotherlanguagegroup.Insum,GermaniclanguageshavedeterminedmultilingualhistoryinNorthernEuropeconsiderably. InScandinaviareceptivemultilingualcommunicationwaspropagatedasearlyasthefirsthalfofthenineteenthcenturyaspartofthePan-Scandinavianmovement(cf.Zeevaert2004:47andDoetjesthisvolume).Thismovementgraduallyledtoamoreintensive political and cultural cooperation between the Scandinavian countriesnowadaysknownastheNordicCouncil.However,inthecontextofspeakersoftheGermaniclanguagegroupoutsideoftheScandinavianlanguagesthisconsciousnessoflinguisticcommonalitiesandtraditionofreceptivemultilingualcommunicationisfarlessdeveloped.Inthesecases,newdidacticalconceptshadtobeestablishedinordertoovercomeany linguisticdifferences. It shouldbementionedthatalreadyover75yearsagoHeinzKloss(1929)designedadetailedconceptofacquiringareceptivecom-petenceofthedifferent(West)Germaniclanguages,aimedatestablishingamutualunderstandingbetweenspeakersofAfrikaans,German,Dutch,PennsylvaniaDutch,YiddishandFrisian.Atthattime,hisconceptwasmostlydisregarded,seenasallat-tentionwasplacedonapproachessupportingthehomogenisationanddisseminationofnationallanguages.Currently,ateamofresearchersfromvariousEuropeanuniver-sitiesunderthedirectionofBrittaHufeisen(Darmstadt)areworkingonthedidacti-calimplementationofthereceptivemultilingualapproachtowardstheGermaniclan-guagesthatwediscussmoreextensivelybelow(cf.HufeisenandMarxinprep.). Thesecondassumptionisrelatedtotheconceptionthatonlynear-native language competency guarantees a successful multilingual understanding. On the contra-ry,thecontributionspresentedinthisvolumeargueinfavourofnative-likecompe-tencenolongerbeingasufficientprerequisiteforadequatemultilingualcommunica-tion inmanybusinessand institutional settings.Consequently, thisconceptioncanorevenshouldbereplacedbyalistoforalandwrittencompetencieswhichcomprise(meta-)linguisticandinterculturalunderstanding,actionandinstitutionalknowledge.Theanalysesrevealhowtheconceptofreceptivemultilingualismrequiresmorethanminimallinguisticknowledge,andisneitherasimplepidginnorincompletelanguagelearning. Instead, it represents the acquisition of receptive competencies in morethanonegiventargetlanguage,andatthesametimeincludesasetofspecificforeign

4 LudgerZeevaertandJanD.tenThije

languagelearningstrategiesonthesideofthehearerinreceptivemultilingualism. Thisleadstotheconclusionthatpassive competenceisamisnomerforreceptivecom-petence.Inreceptivemultilingualconstellationsasanalysedinthisvolumethemainefforthastobemadebythehearer.Incasesofanyproblemsoccuringtheinteractantshavetodecidewhethertheywanttosomehowsolvetheproblemorchooseaso-calledlet it pass-strategy(cf.BaumgartenandHouse,Doetjes,Dresemann,Zeevaertinthisvolume). In interscandinaviancommunicative encounters as examinedbyZeevaert(2004)onlyfewinstancesofaccommodationstrategies(slowerandmoreaccentuat-edpronunciation,repetitions,reformulations)couldbeobserved.Inparticularcases,however, differences between (receptive) multilingual and monolingual discourseswereclearlyvisible:inreceptivemultilingualdiscoursesthetermsofcommunicationarenotfixedtothesocio-culturalknowledgeofthemembersofthespecificspeechcommunities.Instead,theyhavetobenegotiatedbytheparticipantsandcanbecon-sideredasbeingrelatedtodiscursive interculturesthatresultfromalongcooperationinculturalcontact(KooleandtenThije1994,tenThije2003). Strategies aimed at ensuring mutual understanding can be negotiated during in-teraction,butalsopredefinedby seekingagreementon thepreferred languagecon-stellationinadvance.InthecaseoftheDutch–GermancommunicationanalysedbyRibbertandtenThije(thisvolume)thiswasachievedbymeansofateamagreementbetweenthetwopersonsinvolvedpriortotheirworkingrelationshipattheGoethe-InstituteinAmsterdam.Thisagreementonmultilingualinstitutionaldiscoursefitsinwellwiththelanguagepolicyofthelocalinstitution.TheinstitutionalembeddingoftheinterscandinaviandiscoursesinvestigatedbyZeevaert(thisvolume)enablesanof-ficialformulationofwritteninstructionsforlinguisticbehaviourthatarehandedouttotheparticipantsattheinterscandinavianmeetings.EvenintheSwisscontextofficialrulesformultilingualcommunicativeencountersexist,butinthiscasetheyareoftenoverriddenbygeneralcustomsdevelopedbythecitizensofthemultilingualcommu-nities.Atleastinthosecasesinwhichthespeakerswerenotabletodevelopcommuni-cativecompetencesandculturalhabitsduringearlierexolingualencountersthisnego-tiationonmultilingualunderstandingcannotbecarriedoutinadvance,meaningthatinterlingualstrategieshavetobetriedoutandexecutedwithinthediscourseitself. Commonforallthesesituationsisthefactthataprerequisitenecessaryforthesuc-cessofmutualunderstanding lies in theacquisitionofnew linguistic competences.Thesecompetencesonlypartiallyoverlapwith thoseusually focussedon in foreignlanguageteaching.Besidesthecompetenceintheirmothertonguespeakershave,dif-ferently elaborate, partial competences in other language varieties, but also know-ledgeaboutotherlanguageswhichmaybelessdevelopedorevenwrong(cf.Coseriu1988:153ff.). A receptive multilingual competence as described by Lüdi (this vol-ume)goesbeyondpurelinguisticknowledgeandutilisesthosepartialcompetencesbymeansofdevelopingmultilingualcommunicativestrategies.Suchstrategiescanbedevelopedbytheparticipantswithinmultilingualcommunication.Theemergenceof

Introduction 5

pidginsinsituationsoflanguagecontactbetweenmembersofmutuallyincomprehen-siblelanguagesshowsthecapabilitypossessedbyhumanstoestablishmutualunder-standingiftheywishtodoso. Adistinctimprovementincommunication,though,canbereachedbyusingstrat-egiesthatgobeyondtheutilisationofthecontextorofuniversallinguisticcommon-alitiesandbytakingadvantageofanygivencorrespondencesbetweenthelanguagesinvolved.AsHufeisenandMarx(thisvolume)pointout,thetermforeign languages,viewedfromtheperspectiveofreceptivemultilingualism,hastobeconsideredasamisnomerseenasnolanguagecanreallyberegardedasforeign. However, the ability of language users to find such correspondences is limited.Hufeisen and Marx show that language learners have difficulties recognising simi-larities between languages automatically. Strategies of linguistic transfer have to bemadeobviouswiththehelpofdidacticalprocedures.FortheRomancelanguagesamethodofinferencewiththehelpofso-calledbridgelanguageshasalreadybeenes-tablished.HorstKleinandTilbertStegmanndevelopedanelaboratemethod(KleinandStegmann2000;McCann,KleinandStegmann2003)workingwithstudentsofRomancelanguagesattheUniversityofFrankfurt.Itwasusedsuccessfullyinlanguageinstructionandisbasedonthetechniqueofthe“sevensieves”whichareusedtosievethroughtextsinsearchoflexical,morphologicalandsyntacticcorrespondencesinthebridge language inorder tomakeclear the similaritiesbetween the languages.TheRomancelanguagesprovideespeciallygoodconditionsforthisprocedureseenastheyaremuchcloserrelatedtoeachotherthane.g.thelanguagesoftheGermanicgroup. IntercomprehensionbetweentheGermaniclanguagescanprofitfromtheEuroCommethoddevelopedoriginallyforRomancelanguages.Forinstance,ideastakenfromtheimplementationoftheEuroCommethodontheGermaniclanguages(HufeisenandMarxinprep.)wereusedsuccessfullyinanintroductoryIcelandiccourseofferedtostudentsofScandinavianlanguageswithoutpreviousknowledgeofIcelandicattheUniversityof Hamburg.3Thesuccessofthemethodwastested.Ontheonehandanimpressiveincreaseinreadingcomprehensionwasreached.Ontheotherhandspecialcharacteristicsofreadinginaforeignlanguage(asdescribedbyMadelineLutjeharmsinthisvolume)ledtolesssatisfactoryresultsforcertaintexttypes.Moreconsciousoperationsoflinguistictransferwererequired,withtheaccumulationofattentionalprocessing leadingtoanoverexertionoftheworkingmemorywhichinturnledtofrustrationanddemotivationamongthetestpersons.Insum,researchondidacticalmethodsofautomatisingstrategiesoflinguistictransferisneeded. Furthermore,thepracticalusehastobeobviousforthelearnersinordertokeepthemmotivated.Thedisenchantingresultsof theneighbouring languageeducationinScandinavia(cf.Zeevaert2004:59ff.)—asapartoftheireducationinthemothertongue,Danish,NorwegianandSwedishpupilsarealsoinstructedintherespectivelanguagesof theirScandinavianneighbours—canmainlybeattributed toa lackofmotivation.

6 LudgerZeevaertandJanD.tenThije

AcounterexampleisgiveninthematerialprovidedbyNUAS,anorganisationwhicharrangesmeetingsofemployeesfromScandinavianuniversitiesandappliesreceptivemultilingualismattheirconferences(cf.Zeevaertinthisvolume).Thismaterialissenttotheparticipantsofthemeetingsinadvanceandcontainsmostimportantlyinfor-mationonusefulstrategiessuggestedinordertocopewiththespecialcommunicativeconditions.Limitedcomplexityandaclearstructuremakeitpossibletoworkthroughthematerialinashorttime. Zeevaert’s(2004,thisvolume)analysesofthosemeetingsgivetheimpressionofawell-functioningcommunication.Theparticipantsuse the linguistic instructionsasastartingpointforthedevelopmentofareceptivemultilingualcompetence.Duringthecourseoftheinteractionstheparticipantsgainexperienceandatthesametimeacquiremetalinguisticknowledgeaboutthelanguagesinvolved,butalsoknowledgeabout successful strategies of communication which in turn can be integrated intotheircommunicativecompetence.Indifferentconstellationsinwhichtheparticipantsrevealdiverseexperiencesthosevariedcompetencescanleadtoindividuallydifferingstrategies,but likewise inthemultilingualsettingsasdescribedbyWerlen(thisvol-ume)discoursetraditionsareestablishedinordertocopewiththepeculiaritiesofthismultilingualsituation. Thethird—nowadayshardlytacit—assumptionreferstotheconceptionthatthemasteryofEnglish as Lingua Francaisthemostplausiblesolutionforallinternation-alcommunicationinEurope.EventhoughEnglish is learnedasa foreign languagebythemajorityoftheEUcitizensthedistributionofcompetenceisrathererraticbe-tweenandinsidethedifferentcountriesdependingonvaryingtraditionsandlevelsofeducation,nottomentionthefactthatitiseasierforspeakersofGermaniclanguagestomasterEnglishthanforlearnersfromotherlanguagegroups.IntheircontributiontothisvolumeBaumgartenandHousecometotheconclusionthatevenindiscours-escarriedoutbyratherproficientspeakersof Englishasaforeignlanguagecommu-nicativeincongruitiesstilltendtoexistmainlyresultingfromthespeakers’different(socio)linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Complete mutual intelligibility betweenthedifferentvarietiesof lingua francaEnglishcannotbetakenforgranted,andtheresultspresentedbyDresemann(in thisvolume) indicate thatparticipants in inter-nationalbusinessencounterscannotrelysolelyontheirknowledgeofEnglish. The contributions in this book do not dispute the importance of English as aninternationallanguage.However,theyexemplifyhow—dependingonthetypologic-aldistanceofthelanguagesinvolved,thelanguagecompetenciesoftheparticipants,thegiveninstitutionalpreconditionsandthenon-linguisticpurposesthathavetoberealised—themethodofreceptivemultilingualismcanbeafarmoreefficientwayofgainingmutualunderstandingthantheuseofEnglishasalingua franca.Europeisinneedofalanguagepolicythataccountsforthediversifiedregionalinterestsinsteadofissuingsolutionsthatruncountertotheactuallocalrequirements.ThelearningofthislessonisoneofthemajorchallengesfacingacommonEuropeanlanguagepolicy.

Introduction 7

Thecontentsofthecontributions

Part1:HistoricalDevelopmentofReceptiveMultilingualism

Kurt BraunmüllerpresentsasurveyofthelinguisticsituationinnorthernEuropeintheLateMiddleAgesandEarlyModernTimes.Atthattimereceptivemultilingualismwasjustoneaspectofacomplexdiglossic/multilingualsituation.Itwasusedmainlyinface-to-facetradingcommunication.Completebilingualismwasratheranexception,andmerchantsmoreoftenthannotonlypossessedpartialcompetencesorapassivecompetenceinthesecondlanguage.ThiscommunicativesituationwasnotunusualforpeopleintheMiddleAgesseenasnostandardlanguageexistedandeveryspeak-erusedhisowndialectandwasusedtohavingto identifysoundcorrespondences,grammaticalmorphemesanddivergenttermsandtransferthemintohisowndialect.Furthermoretheuseofalingua francawasinfluencedbythespeaker’sorigin,thatistosaybyhismothertongue,leadingtosyntacticandsemanticdifferencesbetweenthespeakers.Insomecontextsevenintrasententialcodemixingwasnotunusual. Latinwasprimarilythelanguageofthechurch,thesciencesandofhighereduca-tion,inotherwordsofwrittendomains,whereasLowGermanwasthelinguafrancaintradingsituations,butalsoforpoliticalconsultationsinface-to-facecommunication.LowGermanwasaprestigiouslanguagefortheupperclassesinnorthernEuropeandthesourceofextensivelexicalborrowing.DuetoboththeclosegeneticrelationshipandthefrequentcontactbetweenLowGermanandtheScandinavianlanguagesmu-tualunderstandinginoralcommunicationwaspossible.SeenastheyonlyremainedintheScandinaviantownsforshorterperiodstheHanseaticmerchantsgenerallydidnotacquireanactivecommandoftheScandinavianlanguages.Commontraditionsofcommerceandthefamiliaritywiththetermsoftradecombinedwithprocessesoflinguisticaccommodationenabledsuccessfulface-to-facecommunication.DuetothefactthatMiddleLowGermanwasthemoreprestigiouslanguageinthiscontactsitu-ationtheaccommodationwasoftenperformedbytheScandinaviansandresultedinabroadlexical,butalsomorphologicalinfluenceofMiddleLowGermanonDanish,NorwegianandSwedish.Inthecourseoftime,however,thepersistentcontactledtotheacquisitionofdeeperknowledgeoftheotherlanguagesimprovingthesuccessrateofreceptivemultilingualcommunicationevenmore. Finally, nationalism put an end to this way of unmediated communication be-tween genetically closely related languages. In contrast to the European EconomicCommunity, which developed from a trading organisation to a supranational polit-icalalliance,theHansawasconfrontedwithgrowingnationaleffortstowardstheendoftheMiddleAgescausingtradingrestrictionsandultimatelytheclosingofalltrad-ingofficesandeitherthemigrationoranintegrationandlinguisticassimilationofthemerchants. Furthermore, political power was centralised and linguistic standardisa-tionleadingtotheformationofnationallanguagesinitiated.Itbecamenecessaryto

8 LudgerZeevaertandJanD.tenThije

demonstrateone’spoliticalloyaltybymeansofpractisinglinguisticloyalty,andthisdevelopmentalsoimplicatedacertainlossoflinguisticflexibility.Thespeakerswereno longer confronted with dealing with deviating language varieties. A modern ex-ampleforthiscoherenceisthefactthatNorwegians,whoalreadyhavetodealwithdifferent spoken and written varieties of Norwegian inside their own borders, per-formmuchbetterintestsoninterscandinaviancomprehensionthantheirDanishorSwedishneighbours(cf.thecontributionsbyDelsingandDoetjesinthisvolume). BymeansofthreeScandinaviancasestudiesBraunmüller’sarticlepointsouttheroleofreceptivemultilingualismasatriggeringfactorinthedevelopmentofthemod-ernScandinavianlanguages.Receptivemultilingualismwasthestartingpointof L2-languageacquisitionbyadults.Germanspeakerscomparedthedefinitearticleþann/þan/þatwiththeMiddleLowGermanarticlewithad-intheonsetandconsequentlyreplacedtheScandinavianfricativewiththefamiliarobstruentd.ThispronunciationwastakenupbyScandinaviansasakindofprestigepronunciationandultimatelyledtothemodernMainlandScandinavianformsden/det/de.InasimilarmannertheLowGermanperiphrasticgenitivewasadoptedbytheScandinavian languagesas there-sultofareanalysis.Eventhedecreaseof V1patternsinmainclausesisdescribedasbeinginfluencedbyadultL2-learning,viz.asasimplificationofsyntacticvariationinthetargetlanguagefollowingthemodelofthesourcelanguage.Inthissensereceptivemultilingualismrepresentsasufficientstartingpointforsecond-languageacquisition,especiallyforadults. Asecondhistoricalexampleofamultilingualsettinginvolvingreceptivemultilin-gualism is contributed by Rosita Rindler-Schjerve and Eva Vetter. The authors de-scribethelanguagepolicyoftheHabsburgEmpireinthenineteenthcenturyasanex-ceptiontothegeneraldevelopmentoflinguistichomogenisationthatplayedacentralroleintheformationofnationstatesasdescribedbyKurtBraunmüller.Germanasthelanguageofthepoliticallydominantethnicgroupfunctionedasa lingua francabutneverbecameanall-embracingstatelanguage.Likeinmanyotherhistoricalmultilin-gualsituationsprimarydatareferringtotheactuallanguageuseisnotavailable.Thereasonforthelackofcontemporaryreportsonthelanguageuseinmultilingualset-tingscouldbeseeninthefactthatsuchsituationswerenotconsideredtobeunusualandthusnotnewsworthy.Therefore,thisinvestigationisbasedonofficialdocumentsoflanguagepolicythatregulatethemultilingualcommunicationandcanthusbeseenasreactionstocontemporaryproblemsandthusasafittingdescriptionofthesituation.EventhoughtheHabsburg languagepolicywasbasedontheprinciplesofpluralistequalityanddemocraticparticipationandwasaimedatmeetingthelinguisticrequire-mentsofthevariousethnicgroupsthroughoutthedifferentpartsoftheempire,itwasfarfrombeingunambiguousandcoulddifferconsiderablyovertimeandgeograph-icalspace.Thisfactisillustratedbythreecasestudiesofthreespecificdomains—ed-ucation,administrationandthejudiciary—inthedifferentcrownlandsofBohemia,GaliciaandTrieste.ThecentralisticHabsburgEmpireandtheEuropeanUnionasaneconomicandpoliticalallianceofequalmemberstatescanonlybecomparedtoeach

Introduction 9

othertoalimitedextent.ThenoteworthinessoftheHabsburgmodelofmultilingual-ismliesinthefactthatitisoneofthefewdocumentedexamplesoflinguisticpluralismandthatthereasonsforitssuccessandfailurecanbothbedescribedandutilisedinthecontextofthecontemporaryEuropeanlanguagepolicy.OneimportantreasonforthefailureoftheimplementationofprinciplesofapluralisticlanguagepolicyintheHabsburgEmpirewasthatonbehalfofanequationbetweenthecentralpowerandthepoliticalelitesinthedifferentterritoriestheinterestsoftheminoritieswereneglected.ForamodernEuropeanlanguagepolicytobesuccessfulthelessonhastobelearnedthatitneedstobebasedonasetofcommonlysharedvaluesandprinciplesconstitut-ingtheideologicalbasisfordemocraticdecision-makingandthesolvingofproblems.ThecasestudiesfromtheHabsburgEmpireillustratethatitwillbecrucialfortheEUtofindabalancebetweenthenecessityforacertainhomogenisationofthememberstatesandtherespectwithregardtotheirdifferences.Centralisticinterventionsmaythwarttheaimofdemocraticequalityiftheydisregarddiversifiedregionalinterests,anditisatleastdoubtablewhetherthetendencytowards‘Englishonly’,whichatthemomentcanbeobservedwithintheEUandissurelylookeduponespeciallybythesmallercountriesasawaytoreachdemocraticequalityinthelinguisticdomain,willbeacceptedbyallmembers.TheexperiencesfromtheHabsburgEmpireareoneofthefewexampleswhichcanbeusedtobuildamultilingualsupranationalcommonwealthoncommonpoliticalgroundsinEurope.

Part2:Receptivemultilingualismindiscourse

Anne RibbertandJan D. ten Thijereviewthreedifferentfactorsthatinfluencetheoc-currenceofreceptivemultilingualisminGermanDutchinterlingualcontact,namelyfactors referring to social and linguistic relations between nation states, the institu-tionalconstellationswithinnationstatesandfactorsrelatedtotheperspectivesoftheindividualinteractants.ComparedtoScandinavianlanguages,GermanandDutcharenotascloselyrelated(Goossens1985).Moreover,GermanyandtheNetherlandshaveamorediscordantcommonhistoryresultingfromtheSecondWorldWar(Westheide1997).Consequently,thewillingnesstoexercisereceptivemultilingualisminGermanDutch interlingualcontact is—irrespectiveofanyexisting languagecorrespondenc-es—negativelyinfluencedbytheirsocialhistory(Herrlitz1997).Nevertheless,Beneke(1996,cit.inLoos1997)statesthatintheDutch–Germanborderareareceptivemul-tilingualism is increasing. On the basis of a pilot study carried out at the GoetheInstituteinAmsterdamtheauthorsillustratetheoccurrenceandsuccessofreceptivemultilingualismwithininstitutionalcooperation.Moreover,thestudyrevealsthattheexistenceofkeywordsisanimportantprerequisiteinordertosuccessfullymakeuseofreceptivemultilingualism.AccordingtoKooleandtenThije(1994)thecognitivestructure of institutional key words can be characterised as follows: they representcommoninstitutionalknowledge,theyareabstractframeswhoseslotsarefilledinbyconcreteknowledgeelements,andareconnectedtoinstitutionalpurposes.Inorder

10 LudgerZeevaertandJanD.tenThije

toinvestigateprocessesofunderstandingfacilitatedbykeywordstheauthorsalsoad-dressinterculturalcharacteristicsofreceptivemultilingualism.Researchintointercul-turalcommunicationhasforalongtimefocussedonmisunderstanding.BührigandtenThije(2006)revealashiftofattentiontowardssuccessfulinterculturaldiscourse.Inactualfact,thearticlerevealshowkeywordscontributetointerculturalunderstand-ingbymeansofexemplarilyreconstructingthemannerinwhichculturalapparatuses(Rehbein2006)areappliedbytheinteractants. Ludger Zeevaert aims at giving a theoretical subsumption of the term receptive multilingualismandrelatedtermssuchaspolyglot dialogue, semi-communicationandintercomprehension.Itiscommonthatthesetermsdenotedifferingsituationsofcom-municativeencountersbetweenmembersofdifferentspeechcommunities.However,incontrasttointerpreting,theuseofalingua francaorL2communication,thosesitu-ationsarecharacterisedbythefactthatthespeakersdonotaimatcommunicatinginacommondiscourselanguagebutsticktotheirownL1whilebeingabletounderstandtherespectiveL1oftheircounterpart.ReferringtoMaturana’sradicalconstructivis-tic approach to communication, Zeevaert questions the opinion of receptive multi-lingualismbeingaformof ‘passive’multilingualism.Basedonexamplesfrominter-scandinavianprofessionaldiscourseshedescribestheroleofthehearerinreceptivemultilingualcommunicationasanactiveone.Thus,itisnotthespeakerwhocreatesinformationbysendingamessage toahearer.The information is farmorecreatedbythehearerintheprocessofintegratingthespeaker’sutterancesintohiscognitivespaceandthusreducinghisownuncertainty.Followingthismodelaprerequisiteforsuccessfulcommunicationisaconsensualspherecommonforbothspeakerandhear-er.Thesuggestedactiveroleof thehearerbecomesobviousparticularly in thecon-textofreceptivemultilingualcommunicationseenasacommonlanguageasapartofthisconsensualsphereismissing.Duetoeitheractivelearning(inthecaseofmutu-allyunintelligible languages)oroverlapsbetweentherespective languages involved(inthecaseofmutuallyintelligiblelanguages),partsofthelinguisticsystemsoftheparticipantsinvolvedinthecommunicationareidentical.Incontrasttocommunica-tionbetweenspeakersofthesamespeechcommunitywithidenticalcodes,however,itcannotbetakenforgrantedthatanutterancewillalwaysbeunderstood.Ofcoursethecontext—ortheconsensualsphereofspeakerandhearer—canhelptosupportsuccessfulcommunication.Peoplesharingcommonculturaltraditions,commonpro-fessionalknowledgeorgeneralcommoninterestsareconsequentlymoresuccessfulin establishing mutual understanding than people without a common background.Oneof the fewexamplesof institutionalisedreceptivemultilingualcommunicationisinterscandinaviansemicommunication.AsshowninthecontributionsbyDelsingandDoetjesinthisvolume,theleveloftheunderstandingofDanishbySwedesandSwedish by Danes does not suggest that a spontaneous, unimpeded understandingbetweenspeakersof these languageswouldbepossible.Zeevaert’sanalysesof inter-scandinaviandiscourses,however,donotrevealanyseveredifficultiesinunderstand-ingthatwouldjustifyacharacterisationofthosediscoursesasproblematic.Hecomes

Introduction 11

to theconclusionthatonemainfactor for thesuccessof thecommunication is thecommonprofessionalbackgroundoftheparticipants.Butalsothefactthatthecon-versationsareheldbylargergroups,partlyfromthesamecountry,helpstofacilitatethecommunicationseenasiteasesthepressureontheindividualspeakers.Insomecasesevensignalsofsecond-languageacquisitioncanbeobserved,mostlyindiscus-siongroupswithparticipantsmoreexperiencedininterscandinaviancommunication.Theyincludestrategiesofdealingwithtroublesources,butalsometalinguisticknow-ledgewhichisatleastpartlyacquiredduringthediscourses.ThedisadvantageofL2orlingua francacommunicationcomparedtoreceptivemultilingualismcanbeseeninthediscoursebehaviourofspeakerswhoarenotabletousetheirmothertongue(mostlyFinnsandIcelanderswhohavetospeakSwedishorDanish).Thosespeakerstakepartinthediscourselessactively. AsecondEuropeanareawherereceptivemultilingualismispracticedisSwitzerland.Iwar WerlenprovidesanoutlineofSwissmultilingualismwhichischaracterisedbyademandforlinguisticpeace.Switzerlandisamultilingualstatewithfourofficiallan-guages,eventhoughthelanguagebordersonawholeareseparatedquiteclearlymean-ingthatindividualbilingualismisratheranexceptionalcase.IncontrasttoSwitzerlandasawhole,mostofthe26cantonshaveonlyoneofficiallanguage.Inrecentyearslan-guagepolicyhasbeendirectedatsupportingreceptivemultilingualismbymeansofteachingasecondnationallanguageinprimaryschoolwithemphasisontheimpor-tanceofreceptivecompetences.Forthecommunicationofpeoplefromdifferentlan-guagebackgroundsthedefaultmodelinSwitzerlandistheterritorialityprinciple,i.e.thediscourselanguageistheofficiallanguagespokenintherespectivearea.Inbilin-gualregions,however,differentmodelsareused.Werlenanalyseslanguageuseinpub-licorsemi-publicplacesintwocitiesinthebilingualSwisscantonsBerneandFribourg.ThesituationintheGerman/FrenchbilingualcityofBiel/Biennecanbecharacterisedasadoublemonolingualismsystem.Twoeducationalsystems,aFrenchandaGermanone,exist,andcommunicationwiththeadministrationcanbecarriedouteitherinFrenchorGerman.Sincenoclearseparationexistsbetweenthetwolanguagegroups,German-speaking children automatically acquire French and French-speaking chil-drenacquireGermanasanL2. Inaddition to this,FrenchandGermanare taughtasforeignlanguagesatschoolfromtheageof11onwards.InFribourg/Freiburg,an-otherFrench/Germanbilingualcity,Germanisaminoritylanguage.ThereforeFrenchis expected tobe thedefault languageused in informalcommunicativeencountersbetweenunacquaintedinterlocutorsinpublicplaces.Theresultsfromtestrecordingsconfirmthisassumption.Interestinglyenough,incasesinwhichFrenchspeakingper-sonswereaddressedin(Swiss)GermanandviceversaonecouldobservedifferencesbetweenthetwocitiesBiel/BienneandFribourg/Freiburg.InBielinmostcasestheaddresseeaccommodateshischoiceoflanguagetotheaddresser,especiallyinserviceencountersinwhichthegreetingofthecustomerdecidesonthelanguageofdiscourse.Evenifoneoftheinterlocutorshaslimitedknowledgeoftherespectivediscourselan-guagethisdoesnotaffecttheusageoftheBielmodel.InFribourg,however,incasesin

12 LudgerZeevaertandJanD.tenThije

whichaFrenchspeakingpersonisaddressedin(Swiss)Germantheconversationwillcontinueinareceptivemultilingualmodeunlesstheaddresseraccommodatestotheaddressee’s language.Thisarticlesupports—likeotherarticles inthisvolume—theopinion that receptivemultilingualism isa significant,democraticoption formulti-lingualsocieties.Inmultilingualsettingsdifferentusagesoflanguagechoicewillauto-maticallydevelopunderdifferentcircumstances.However,theSwissmodelshowsthatpoliticalinfluenceonthoseusagesisalsopossible. ThecontributionbyGeorges Lüdialsodealswithexamplesfromauthenticrecep-tivemultilingualdiscoursesinSwitzerland.IncontrasttoWerlen’sobservationofcas-ualdiscourseheanalysestheinternalorganisationalcommunicationindifferentSwisscompanies.Patternsoflanguagechoicearelessclearintheseinstitutionsthaninthebi-lingualSwisscitieswheretraditionsforlanguageusehavedeveloped.IntheexamplesanalysedbyLüditheinterlocutorshavetonegotiatethelanguagechoicewhilemakinguseofallcommunicativeresourcestheydisposeof.Thestatusandactionpotentialsoftheparticipantsplayanimportantroleinthiskindofinstitutionaldiscourse,leadingtotheconclusionthattheSwissmodelofreceptivemultilingualismis,incontrasttoWerlen’sexamplesfromFribourg,bynomeansself-evident.EvenincasesinwhichtheofficiallanguagepolicyofacompanyfollowstheSwissmodeldifferingpatternsoflan-guagechoicescanneverthelessbeobserved.Inactualfact,bilingualbankdiscoursesadequatelyillustratethosedifficulties.ThediscoursedataanalysedbyLüdioriginatedfromthefusionofamonolingualFrench-speakingandamonolingualGerman-speak-ingbank.Thereceptivecompetencesoftheinterlocutorsarenotalwayssufficientinordertobeabletosticktoareceptivemultilingualmode,andvarioustechniquessuchasaccommodationtothelanguageofotherinterlocutors,languagemixingorlinguisticmediationbymeansoftranslationsorshortsummariesbylinguisticallymoreskilleddiscourseparticipantscanbefrequentlyfoundinthediscourses.Inadditiontothis,aproblemthatappearedonlymarginallyinthedatainvestigatedbyWerlenplaysanimportantroleinLüdi’sexamples.Hereferstotheconstellationasnotbeingbilingualbutrather trilingual,giventhefact that inmonolingualsettingstheGerman-speak-ingemployeesusuallyspeaktheirlocalSwiss-Germandialects,whereastheGermanacquiredbytheFrench-speakingemployeesisthewrittenstandardvariety.Thus,theuseofSwiss-GermanincertaincontextsautomaticallyexcludestheFrench-speakinginterlocutors.Adifferentstrategywasobservedinthediscussionsatascientificcol-loquiuminvolvingparticipantsfromdifferentFrench,GermanandSwissuniversities.Inthisconstellationthelanguagechoiceindiscoursewasnotdefinedinadvance,andtheparticipantshadtonegotiatetheirlinguisticbehaviourwithinthediscussion.ThelargenumberofinstancesoflanguagecrossinginwhichspeakersdonotusetheirL1,butinstead,forreasonsofpoliteness,switchtotheL1oftheirinterlocutorortothelin-gua francaEnglish,showthatthepracticalimplementationofthetheoreticalconceptof receptive multilingualism leads to different outcomes in different constellations.Nevertheless,allexamplesofreceptivemultilingualdiscourseinvestigatedintheart-iclecanbedescribedasbeingsuccessful.

Introduction 13

Bettina Dresemannanalyses theoccurrenceofreceptivemultilingualisminbusi-nesscommunication.Englishisthenumberonelanguageusedinbusinesscommuni-cationtoday.However,sometimesvariouslanguagesareappliedwithinonediscourseleading to various ambiguities appearing. In actual fact, interactants need to grasputterancesinalanguagetheydonotactuallyunderstand.Therefore,theauthorarguesthatparticipantsininternationalbusinessencounterscannotrelyontheirlinguisticknowledgealone(i.e.mainlylexicalandsemanticknowledge),andconsequentlyhavetorefertootherelementsofthediscoursesuchastyingsandcues,whichenablethemtorelatetheutterancetothesituation,e.g.abusinessnegotiation.Furthermore,dis-courseknowledgeenablestheinterpretationoftheutteranceincombinationwithin-stitutional,professionalandgeneralknowledgesuchasknowledgeon internationalbusinessconstellationsingeneral.Onlytakingthisknowledgestructureintoaccountis itpossible toexplainhowparticipantsmanagetounderstandeachotherandareabletoactinlinguisticallyambiguoussituations.Theabilitytodrawconclusionsfromlinguistic and non-linguistic cues and to combine them with other forms of know-ledge,suchaspragmaticandinstitutionalknowledge,isthereforeextremelyessentialforsuccessfulcommunicationinmultilingual(business)discourses. Englishasalingua francaplaysaprominentroleincommunicationbetweenspeak-ers fromdifferentspeechcommunities,notonly inbusinessdiscourses,butalso inprivateencounters.Eveninareaswithastrongtraditionofreceptivemultilingualun-derstanding English has gained ground as a means of establishing communicationonequalgrounds(cf.thecontributionsbyDelsingandLüdiinthisvolume).Nicole Baumgarten and Juliane House compare discourses between L1–English speakerswiththoseofspeakersofEnglishasalingua francawhilepayingspecialrespecttothelinguisticconstructionofsubjectivityinthecontextof I + verbconstructions(e.g.I think, I don’t know, I mean).TheanalysisisbasedonHalliday’sclassificationofverbalprocesstypes.BaumgartenandHousefinddifferencesintheexpressionofsubjectivitybetweenL1Englishandlingua francaEnglishdiscourses,butalsobetweenthediffer-entgroupsoflingua francausers.Ontheonehandthelingua francausershaveamorerestrictedrepertoireofmeansfortheexpressionofsubjectivity,ontheotherhandthedistributionofthedifferentprocesstypesalsodiffers.Thelingua francausersseemtoovergeneraliseandrefertothebasicmeaningsofastructure,possiblyinawarenessofmiscommunication,avoidingmoregrammaticalisedstructuresandpragmaticalusage,whereasL1speakersofEnglishtendtousecertainconstructionsasverbalroutines.Acomparisonbothbetweendifferentlingua francadiscoursesandalsobetweendiffer-entspeakersrevealsconsiderableindividualdifferencesthatcanpartlybeattributedtothespeaker’sL1.Otherfactors,however,mayalsoplayaroleintheemergenceofdifferences.Acharacteristicfeaturesharedbylingua francaEnglishdiscoursesandre-ceptivemultilingualcommunication(asdescribedbyZeevaertinthisvolume)istheuseoftheso-called ‘let-it-pass’strategy.Incomprehensibleorinadequateutterancesareoftensimplyignoredbythediscourseparticipants.Thiscouldbeseenasaprefer-enceforarestrictionofthecommunicationtothelevelofamereexchangeofinforma-

14 LudgerZeevaertandJanD.tenThije

tionalcontentinbothsettings.Thestudyisnotabletoinvalidateargumentsthatwereraisedagainstlingua francacommunicationanddescribeditaslessprecise,monoto-nous,toilsomeandaslackingaculturalintegration(cf.e.g.FinkenstaedtandSchröder1990).Even if inmostcasesofsupranationalcommunicationthroughoutEurope itwillnotbepossibletosubstitutetheuseof Englishwithreceptivemultilingualcom-municationduetothelackofreceptivecompetences,theresultsfromthestudyman-agetoraisethequestionastowhetherdifferencesbetweentheusageofEnglishasanL1andlingua francaEnglishactuallyinfluencethecommunicationbetweenL1andL2speakersofEnglish.Itshouldbeseriouslyanalysedinwhichcontextsreceptivemulti-lingualismwouldactuallybeaprofitableoption.

Part3:Testingmutualunderstandinginreceptivemultilingualcommunication

The mainland Scandinavian languages Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are usual-lycharacterisedasmutuallycomprehensible. Inmost interscandinavianencountersScandinavians use their mother tongue expecting to be understood by their fellowScandinavians.Thisimpressionofgenerallysuccessfulcommunicationisconfirmede.g.byZeevaert’s(inthisvolume)analyses.However,differentstudiesinthisfield,butalsounderstandingproblemsfrequentlyreportedby theparticipants in interscandi-navianmeetings suggest that receptivemultilingualcommunication inScandinaviaisinfactnotalwaysunproblematic.InordertodescribethemechanismsofreceptivemultilingualcommunicationinScandinaviaobjectivemeasurementsofthedegreeofmutual intelligibility are necessary. These measurements could also help to explainwhythiswayofcommunicationdoesnotplayamoreprominentroleintheRomanceorSlaviclanguageareas,eventhoughthelinguisticoverlapsarecomparabletothoseinScandinavia,andtoratetheimportanceofnon-linguisticfactorssuchasattitudesorculturalandpoliticalfactorsformutualunderstandinginamorereliablemanner.Gerard Doetjespresentsanoverviewof thedifferent studiesofScandinavian inter-comprehensionthathavebeenperformedsincethe1950iesanddescribesthemeth-odologicalproblemsconnectedtothedifferentapproaches.Hecomestotheconclu-sionthatthetestresultsareheavilyinfluencedbythechoiceofmethod,afactwhichhastobetakenintoaccountwhenapplyingtheresults to furtherresearch.Doetjestriestodeterminehowthedifficultylevel,butalsohowthetypeofquestionsusedinthetestsinfluencetheresults.Testtypesusingpre-formulatedanswersenablethetestpersonstorelybothonthetextandontheinformationgivenimplicitlyintheques-tionnaire,whereasinthecaseofopenquestionstheparticipantshavetorelymoreoninformationgatheredfromthetextsthemselves.Thisleadstohigheraveragescoresinthemultiple-choicetestandtolowerscoresintestsdemandingsummaries.Therefore,inordertobeabletodeterminethereliabilityofatest,itmightbeusefultorecalcu-late the resultson thebasisof Doetjes’ comparisonof thedifferentmethodsunderotherwise stable test conditions. Moreover, the results support Lutjeharms’ descrip-

Introduction 15

tionoftheprocessinglevelsreferringtothereadingofrelatedlanguagesinsuchawaythatlongersummariesprovidingawiderrangeofpossibilitiestomakeuseofformu-lationsfoundinthetesttextledtobetterresultscomparedtoshortsummariesthatrequireamoreadvancedprocessingofthecontentandacertainactofdissociatingfromtheformalsideofthetesttext. The INS investigation presented by Lars-Olof Delsing is the most recent analy-sisontheintercomprehensionofScandinavianlanguages.ItwasfundedbyNordiska kulturfonden (‘theNordicCulturalFund’)andcarriedoutbetween2003–2005.It isaimedatdescribingthechangesinmutualunderstandinginScandinaviawhichhaveoccurredsincethelastextensivestudyperformedbyMaurudover30yearsago.Thisnew investigation was felt to be necessary due to the considerable changes experi-enced by the Nordic countries since the 70ies. Internationalisation and globalisa-tionhave influenced thenationaleconomies,newmediahaveamplified thechoiceofinternationalTVandradiochannels,andalargenumberofworkingmigrantsandrefugeeshavecontributedtoawide-scalechangeinthestructureoftheScandinaviansocieties. Better connections such as the Öresund bridge between Denmark andSwedenortheSvinesundbridgeconnectingSwedenandNorwaysupportthemobil-itybetweentheScandinaviancountriesandwouldthereforebeexpectedtoimproveinterscandinaviancomprehension.Ontheotherhand,changesintheschoolsystemclearlysupporttheimportanceofEnglish,andalsotheEUmembershipofDenmark,FinlandandSwedenhasdiminishedtheimportanceoftheinterscandinaviancooper-ation.1200pupilsfromallScandinaviancountriesweretestedinDanish,Norwegian,SwedishandEnglish.Theinvestigationwasenhancedbytestingtheparentsofsomeofthepupilsinordertobeabletocomparelanguagecomprehensionbetweendiffer-entgenerations.ThetestconsistedofanextractfromaTVshow,aradionewscastandanewspaperarticle.Thelanguageunderstandingwastestedbymeansofopenques-tionsreferringto thecontentsandbyaskingfor translationsofcertainwords fromthetext. The results of the test more or less confirm the results from Maurud’s study. Insomecrucialpoints,however, thedesignof Delsing’s investigationdiffers consider-ably from that of Maurud, for example with respect to the number of participants,thegeographicaldistributionofthetestpersonsandalsotheinclusionofGreenland,theFaroeIslands,FinlandandIceland.AcomparisonwithMaurud’sresults,andalsowith the results from the adult control group, indicates that the level of intercom-prehension in Scandinavia is decreasing, especially in Denmark and Sweden. EventhoughtheresultsfromtheinvestigationmayseemdisenchantingwithrespecttothesuccessofreceptivebilingualisminScandinavia,especiallywhencomparedtotheun-derstandingof English, thearticle alsopointsout that comprehension tests cannotbeseentopresentarealisticpictureofinterscandinaviancommunication.Inreallife,contextandnon-linguisticbehaviourpositively influenceunderstanding,andacru-cialadvantageofreceptivemultilingualism,viz.theabilitytomakeuseofthemothertongue,isnotaccountedforinthetest.

16 LudgerZeevaertandJanD.tenThije

Part4: Determiningthepossibilitiesofreadingcomprehensioninrelatedlanguages

Madeline Lutjeharms’ contributionrefers to thespecialconditionsof readingcom-prehensioninrelatedlanguages.Itisfocussedonthedifferentprocessinglevelsthatcanbeidentifiedinthecontextofreading.Whenreadinginaforeignlanguage,lowerlevelsofprocessingsuchaswordrecognitionorsyntacticanalysisrequireattentionalresources,incontrasttoL1readingwheretheprocessingofsuchform-basedlinguisticinformationgenerallyfunctionsautomatically.Comprehensionstrategiescomparableto those of hearers in receptive multilingual discourse can be observed (e.g. guess-ing,skippingpartsofthetext).AnotherproblemisalsoreportedinthecontextoforalcommunicationbetweenspeakersofDanishandSwedish(cf.Teleman1981:105).Insomecasestheprocessingontheformlevelrequiressomuchcapacitythatthereaderisnotabletonoticethecontent.Thisarticlepaysspecialattentiontotheprocessingofcognates.Cognatesplayanimportantroleinreceptivemultilingualcommunicationbetweenrelatedlanguages,andmethodssuchasEuroCom(cf.HufeisenandMarxinthisvolume)makeuseofcognatesinordertoestablishafasterandmoreefficientac-cesstorelatedlanguages.Inreading,incontrasttospeaking,evennon-relevantlan-guagesareactivated.ForthedecodingofaGermantextbyDutchspeakersnotonlythecloselyrelatedL1,butalsothegeneticallymoreremoteEnglishlanguagehasef-fectsonwordrecognition.4However,Lutjeharmswasabletoidentifyindividualdif-ferencesbetweenlearnersintheirabilitytodetectcorrespondencesbetweenrelatedlanguages,andtheapplicationofthe‘sevensieves’approach,amethodofexplicitlyes-tablishingconsciousformalcorrespondencesbetweenthoselanguagesrelevantforthedifferentprocesslevels,isagoodwaytoimprovethisskill. Theroleofdeceptivecognates(‘falsefriends’)isdiscussedinacontroversialman-ner in the research on receptive multilingualism. On the one hand, psycholinguis-tic experiments suggest that cognates, asopposed to theirnon-cognateequivalents,showacommonrepresentationinthementallexicon,facilitatingautomaticprocess-ing.Ontheotherhand,ithasbeenobservedthatdeceptivecognatesrequireconsciousprocessinginordertopreventtheactivationofthe(misleading)L1-meaning.Suchef-fectsmustbeconsideredwhendevelopingspecialmethodsfortext-comprehensioninrelatedlanguages. Robert MöllerpresentshisresultsfromaprojectwhichsimulatesDutch–Germanreadingcomprehensionwiththehelpofacomputerprogramme.DutchandGermanare closely related, but not spontaneously mutually intelligible languages. However,eventhoughthelinguisticdistanceisnolargerthanbetweene.g.DanishandSwedish,receptivemultilingualcommunicationisanalmostunknownphenomenonbetweenthespeakersofthetwolanguages(foradetailedexplanationseeRibbertandtenThije’sarticleinthisvolume).TheanalyticalstructuresofDutchcanveryoftenbededucedfromsimilarGermanvariants,whereastheGermangrammaticalmorphologyoftenremains quite opaque for a speaker of Dutch. Due to these asymmetrical morpho-

Introduction 17

logicaldifferencesforaGermanreaderofDutchtextsthethresholdwhichhastobeovercomeisquitelow,especiallyiflearningaidsrequiredtodealwiththelexicaldif-ferences,butalsowithsoundcorrespondences,areathand.Duetothisfact,oneoftheaimsoftheprojectistodevelopsuchlearningaids.Thecomparabilityoftherecogni-tionofwordsbyacomputerprogrammetothereadingofatextbyahumanbeingiscertainlylimited,seenashumanreadersareabletomakeuseofthecontextoreventomakeguesses.However,oneadvantagecomputershaveoverhumanswhenobjective-lymeasuringlanguagedifferencesisthefactthattheyarelessobliviousthanhumans.Furthermore,itispossibletoresettheirmemoryandthusperformatestunderdiffer-entconditionswithoutrunningtheriskoftheresultsbeinginfluencedbyindividualdifferences. TheprogrammeNL-D-KOG,whichcontainsalistofDutch–Germancorrespond-encesmainlybasedontheOldHighGermanconsonantshift,wasusedtocomparethe5,000mostfrequentDutchwordstotheirGermancounterparts.Todeterminethedis-tancebetweentheDutchandGermancognates,andthustherespectivecostsforidenti-fyingthem,theLevenshteinalgorithmwasused.Theresultofthecomparisonwasthat77%oftheDutchwordswereidentifiedcorrectly.Thissuggeststhat,givenanadequatesetofcorrespondencerules,themajorityofDutchvocabularyshouldbeaccessibleforaGermanreader.AcomparisonoftheresultswiththoseofotherempiricalstudiesonDutch–Germanmutualunderstanding leads to theconclusion thatDutch–Germanreceptivemultilingualismisactuallyafeasibleoption.Moreover,givendifferentsetsofrules,theprogrammecanalsobeusedtodeterminethedistancebetweenotherlan-guagesandthusmakepredictionsaboutthepossibilityofintercomprehension. The results from a test carried out on the reading comprehension of languagesfrom the western branch of the Germanic language group are presented by Renée van BezooijenandCharlotte Gooskens.TherelationshipbetweenDutch,FrisianandAfrikaansiscomparabletothemainlandScandinaviansituation.(West)Frisian,alan-guage spoken in theNetherlands,wasoriginallyveryclosely related toEnglishbuthasconvergedtoDutchthroughoutthecourseoftimeduetothestronginfluenceofthenational language.Theopposite is true forAfrikaans, a language spokenbyap-prox.6millionpeopleinSouthAfrica.ItoriginatedfromdifferentDutchdialectsspo-kenbycolonists in theCaperegion in theseventeenthcentury,butdeveloped intoanAusbaulanguageinthenineteenthcentury.GooskensandvanBezooijenanalysetheunderstandingofwrittenFrisianandAfrikaansbytesting20nativespeakersofDutch and correlate their results both with the linguistic distance between the lan-guagesinvolvedandwiththeattitudestowardsthespeakers.Thecomprehensionwastestedbymeansofaclozetestbasedonnewspaperarticles.Allparticipantsweretest-edforbothAfrikaansandFrisian.Inadditiontothis,theirattitudestowardsthelan-guageswereassessed.TheresultsshowafarbetterunderstandingofAfrikaansthanofFrisian,andeventheattitudestowardsSouthAfricansturnedouttobemorepositivethantowardsFrisians.Amoredetailedanalysisoftheresults,however,didnotrevealanysignificantcorrelationonan individual level.Linguisticdistancewasmeasured

18 LudgerZeevaertandJanD.tenThije

onthebasisofthenumberofcognatesandnon-cognates,thetransparencyofthelex-icalcorrespondencesandtheLevenshteindistance,amethodusedtoobjectivelyde-terminethesimilarityofwords(adetaileddescriptionofthismethodisalsofoundinMöller’scontributiontothisvolume).Animportantresultwhichcouldbeseenfromthosemeasurementsisthefactthatitisnotthenumberofcognates—whichislargerforFrisianandDutchthanforAfrikaansandDutch—butratherthenumberofnon-cognateswhichisdecisiveforthedegreeofunderstanding.EventhoughtheamountofFrisian/Dutchnon-cognatesisonlyslightlyhigherthantheamountofAfrikaans/Dutchnon-cognates thismayaffect thecomprehensionconsiderablygiven the factthattheyprimarilyinvolvecontentwords,meaningthatjustoneunintelligiblewordisenoughtoimpedetheunderstandingofawholesentence.Asecondresult,namelythehigherLevenshteindistancebetweenFrisianandDutchcomparedtoAfrikaansandDutch,correspondsverywelltoLutjeharmsanalysisofreadingtextsinforeignlanguages.IthastobeassumedthattheidentificationofcognatesislessobviousandthusrequiresmoreeffortforDutch/FrisianthanforDutch/AfrikaansduetothehigherLevenstheindistance.Followingthisassumption,foraDutchreadertheprocessingofthecontentshouldbeaffectedmorebydifficultiesinidentifyingcognatesinFrisianthaninAfrikaans. Onthebasisofvariousmodelsof L3 learning Britta Hufeisen andNicole MarxarguethatL2acquisitiondiffersqualitativelyfromtheacquisitionoffurtherforeignlanguages.ThesedifferencesaredescribedinHufeisen’sfactormodel.Inadditiontoneurophysiological,learnerexternal,emotional,cognitiveandlinguisticfactorswhichinfluenceL2acquisition,thelearnerofathirdlanguagecanalsomakeuseofprevi-ousexperienceswithlearningtechniquesandstrategiesthatcanbevariablysuccess-fulfromlearnertolearner.Suchexperiences,e.g.withdifferentmethodsoflearningvocabulary,shouldhaveapositiveeffectontheacquisitionofafurtherlanguage.Butalsothelinguisticknowledgeacquiredwhenlearningalanguagecanbeusefulfortheacquisitionoffurther,especiallyrelatedlanguages.ThedominanceofEnglishasafirstforeignlanguageinthevastamountof EuropeancountrieshastheeffectthatotherlanguagessuchasGerman,SpanishorFrencharetypicallyacquiredasL3s.ThisarticlepresentsdifferentmethodsofL3learningthatmakeuseofthestrategicandlinguisticknowledgealreadyacquiredbylearnersintheprocessoftheirL2acquisition.InanexperimentalstudycarriedoutbyNicoleMarxitwasshownthatthispreviousknow-ledgeisnotautomaticallyactivatedinL3learning,butthatmethodsofsensitisingthelearners for similarities between the new language and languages already acquiredclearlyhadapositiveeffectonthelearningprocess.OnesuchmethodofsensitisationistheEuroCommethodwhichaimsatoptimisinginferencetechniquesinlanguagelearning.Thisisachievedbymeansofacomparisonoflanguagesondifferentlinguis-ticlevels,thesocalled‘sevensieves’.ThismethodwastestedinanEnglishlanguagecourseattheTechnicalUniversityofDarmstadt(Germany).ThecoursewasdesignedforstudentswhohadlearnedGermanasaforeignlanguagebuthadnoknowledgeof EnglishandfelttheneedtobeabletoreadEnglishtextsfortheirstudiesortheir

Introduction 19

laterprofessionswithoutbeingabletospendtoomuchtimeonacquiringproductiveskillsinatraditionallanguagecourse.Thepositiveresultsfromtheprojectssupporttheconceptofreceptivemultilingualism. Wewouldliketothankallauthorswhocontributedtothisvolumefortheireffortsin promoting the research on receptive multilingualism.We are also deeply grate-fultotheResearchCentre538:Multilingualismforincludingthisvolumeinitsser-iesHamburg Studies on MultilingualismandtoConxitaLleó,JürgenMeisel,MonikaRothweiler and especially Juliane House for their energetic support of this project.VeryspecialthanksgotothenumerousanonymousreviewersfortheirvaluableadviceandalsotoNicholasBurkeforhiseffortstotransformpartsofthebookintoaccept-ableEnglish.Wehopethatthisbookwillencouragefurtherresearchonreceptivemul-tilingualism.

Notes

1. DFGprojectNiederdeutsch und Skandinavien(‘LowGermanandScandinavia’),1990–1995,principalinvestigatorKurtBraunmüller.

2. Project Semikommunikation und rezeptive Mehrsprachigkeit im heutigen Skandinavien(‘SemicommunicationandReceptiveMultilingualismincontemporaryScandinavia’)attheDFGResearchCentre538:Multilingualism,1999–2005,principalinvestigatorKurtBraunmüller.

3. AshortsurveyoftheresultswaspresentedbyZeevaert(2006).TotestthesuccessofthemethodtheparticipantsweredividedupintwogroupsinthebeginningofthecourseandwereequippedwithtwodifferentshorttextstakenfromanIcelandicnewspaperalongwithfouropenquestionsandfourmultiplechoicequestions.Attheendofthecoursethetestwasrepeated,butthetextswereexchangedbetweenthegroupsinordertoavoidtheparticipantsalreadybeingfamiliarwiththetext.Foroneofthetextsthepercentagerateofcorrectanswersincreasedfrom15%to50%,aquiteimpressiveaffirmationoftheeffectivenessoftheEuroCommethod.Fortheothertext,however,hardlyanyincreaseintheamountofcorrectanswerscouldbeobserved.Fromadiscussionoftheresultswiththerespectivestudentsitbecameclearthatincontrasttothefirsttext,areportaboutscabiesspreadbyducks,anarrativestructurefacilitatingtheidenti-ficationofthecontentwasmissinginthesecondtext.Duetothisfact,guessingstrategieswerenotsuccessful.

4. SimilareffectswereobservedbyDoetjes(inprep.)intestsonDanish–Swedishintercompre-hension.

References

Barðdal,J. ,Jörgensen,N. ,Larsen,G.andMartinussen,B.1997.Nordiska. Våra språk förr och nu.Lund:Studentlitteratur.

Bhatia,T.K.andRitchie,W.C.2004.BilingualisminSouthAsia.InThe Handbook of Bilingualism[Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics], T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds), 780–807.Malden:Blackwell.

20 LudgerZeevaertandJanD.tenThije

Bührig,K.andThije,J.D.ten(eds)2006.Beyond Misunderstanding.Amsterdam:JohnBenja-mins.

Coseriu,E.1988.Sprachkompetenz. Grundzüge der Theorie des Sprechens[UTB1481].Tübingen:Francke.

Doetjes,G.inprep.ZurRollevonAkkommodationbeiderinterskandinavischenVerständigung.DissertationHamburgUniversity.

Finkenstaedt,Th.andSchröder,K.1990.Sprachenschranken statt Zollschranken? Grundlegung einer Fremdsprachenpolitik für das Europa von morgen [Materialien zur Bildungspolitik11].Essen:s.n.

Golinski,B.2007.Kommunikationsstrategien in interskandinavischen Diskursen[Philologia95].Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

Goossens,J.1985.Was ist Deutsch - und wie verhält es sich zum Niederländischen?[Nachbarn11].Bonn:KulturabteilungderKgl.NiederländischenBotschaft.

Ház,É.2005.Deutsche und Niederländer. Untersuchungen zur Möglichkeit einer unmittelbaren Verständigung.Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

Herrlitz,W.1997.IstBefehlBefehl?Beobachtungenbeimdeutsch–niederländischenKorpsinMünster.InNiederländer und Deutsche und die europäische Einigung,F.Wielenga(ed.),66–70.Bonn:PresseundKulturabteilungderKgl.NiederländischenBotschaft.

Hufeisen,B.andMarx,N. inprep.EuroComGerm— Die sieben Siebe: Germanische Sprachen leichter lesen lernen[EditionesEuroCom].Aachen:Shaker.

Josephsson,O.2006.Lågtyskaochhögtyska.Språkvård2006(3).Kamwangamalu, N. 2004. Bi-/multilingualism in Southern Africa. In The Handbook of

Bilingualism [Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics], T.K. Bhatia and W.C. Ritchie (eds),725–41.Malden:Blackwell.

Karker,A.1978.Detnordiskesprogfællesskab—historiskset.Språk i Norden1978:5–16.Klein,H.G.andStegmann,T.D.2000.EuroComRom– Die sieben Siebe: Romanische Sprachen

sofort lesen können[EditionesEuroCom1](2nded.,1sted.1999).Aachen:Shaker.Kloss,H.1929.Nebensprachen. Eine sprachpolitische Studie über die Beziehungen eng verwandter

Sprachgemeinschaften.Wien:WilhelmBraumüller.Koole,T.andThije,J.D.ten1994.The Construction of Intercultural Discourse. Team discussion

of educational advisers.Amsterdam:Rodopi.Loos,E.1997.Internationale Bedrijfscommunicatie. Reconstructief onderzoek naar het intertek-

stuele netwerk van Nederlandse en Duitse actoren in een bungelowpark.Utrecht.McCann,W.J. ,Klein,H.G.andStegmann,T.D.2003.EuroComRom — The Seven Sieves. How

to read all the Romance languages right away[EditionesEuroCom5].(2ndedn. ,1stedn.2002).Aachen:Shaker.

Melberg,H.1952.Origin of the Scandinavian nations and languages. An introduction. In two parts. Book 1, Part 1[ScandinavianandCelticseriesI1].Halden:Author’sedition.

Rehbein,J.2006.Theculturalapparatus:Thoughtsontherelationshipbetweenlanguage,cul-ture,andsociety.InBeyond Misunderstanding,K.BührigandJ.D.tenThije(eds),43–96.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Romaine, S. 1994. Language in Society. An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.

Teleman,U.1981.Omförståelseiallmänhetochomförståelseviagrannspråkenisynnerhet.ReferatochkommentartilldiskussionenisektionenDenlexikala-semantiskakomponen-tenidennordiskahörförståelsen.InInternordisk språkförståelse. Föredrag och diskussioner

Introduction 21

vid ett symposium på Rungstedgaard utanför Köpenhamn den 24–26 mars 1980, anordnat av Sekretariatet för nordiskt kulturellt samarbete vid Nordiska ministerrådet[ActaUniversitatisUmensis33]:C.-Chr.Elert(ed.),102–20.Umeå:UmeåUniversitetet.

Teleman,U.2002.Ära, rikedom och reda. Svenskt språkpolitik unter äldre nyare tid[Skrifterut-givnaavSvenskaspråknämnden85].Stockholm:NorstedtsOrdbok.

Thije, J.D. ten 2003. Eine Pragmatik der Mehrsprachigkeit. Zur Analyse diskursiver Inter-kulturen.InDie Kosten der Mehrsprachigkeit. Globalisierung und sprachliche Vielfalt; The Cost of Multilingualism. Globalisation and Linguistic Diversity,R.DeCillia,H.J.Krummand R.Wodak (eds), 101–23.Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie derWissen-schaften.

Westheide,H.1997.Trügerische Nähe. Niederländisch-deutsche Beziehungen in Geschichte, Sprache und Kultur [Europa 2020—Studien zur interdisziplinären Deutschland- und Europa-forschung16].Münster:Lit.

Zeevaert,L.2004.Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verstän-digung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs[Philologia64].Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

Zeevaert,L.2006.Isländischsofortlesenkönnen?IsländischimRahmendergermanischenInter-komprehension.PaperpresentedattheEuroCom-meetinginComo,15–16Sept.2006.

Part1

Historical development of receptive multilingualism

chapter1

Receptive multilingualism in Northern Europe in the Middle AgesAdescriptionofascenario*

KurtBraunmüllerUniversitätHamburg

This paper gives a survey of the linguistic situation in northern Europe in the lateMiddleAges.It isbasedonthreeearlierresearchprojectsandsummarisessomeoftheir results, especially as far as language choice and domains are concerned. Thefocus lies,however,on thedevelopment, roleand functionof receptiveasopposedtoproductivebi-/multilingualismandlanguagestandardisation.OnthebasisofPeterTrudgill’sterminologyoflanguagecontact,newtermsfordifferentiatingformsoflin-guisticconvergenceanddivergenceareproposed.ThreecasestudieshighlighttherolereceptivemultilingualismplaysforadultGermanlearnersof(eastern)Scandinavianlanguages,focusingontheformofthedefinitearticle,theuseoftheperiphrasticgeni-tiveandtheoverlookingofV1-patternsindeclarativesentences.

Keywords:lateMiddleAges,languagecontact,receptivemultilingualism,Scandinavianlanguages

1. Issuesandhistoricaldevelopmentofreceptivemultilingualism

1.1 Ashortoutlineofsomeissuesofreceptivemultilingualism

Receptivemultilingualismdefinitelyplaysnosalientrolewhendiscussingresearchonbi-ormultilingualismingeneral.Inrealityitisrathertheopposite:receptivemultilin-gualismisgivenonlymarginalattention,iftakenintoconsiderationatall.Theinterestandfocusundoubtedlyliesonthevariousformsof‘active’(productive)bilingualism,theirrestrictions,problemsandperspectivesaswellasontheinteractionbetweenthecommandoftherespectivelanguagesbyoneandthesamepersonandthealternateuseindifferentcontexts(knownas‘codeswitching’). Whendealinginformallywithissuesofbilingualism,receptivemultilingualismislikely tobeclassifiedasakindofresidual formofa formerlyactivecommandofaspecificlanguage,e.g.duetotheelapseoftime,thelackofpracticeorthedominanceof another language in almost all domains, often combined with the speaker chan-ginghis/herstatusfromthatofaformerlyfluentnativespeakertoamoreorlessovert

26 KurtBraunmüller

semi-speaker(cf.e.g.Dorian1997).Therefore,receptivemultilingualismisnotclassi-fiedasamanifestationofbilingualisminitsownright. There are, however, a few exceptions, e.g. when considering the linguistic situ-ation in Scandinavia today. The form of interlingual communication exercised inScandinavia,whichhasmisleadinglybeencalled“semicommunication”(byHaugen1966),isconsideredanimportantpoliticalandculturalgoalwithininter-Nordicco-operation.Inthisframework,receptivemultilingualismisanacknowledgedformofmultilingualism,basedonthegeneticallycloserelationshipbetweenthethreemain-landScandinavianlanguagesDanish,SwedishandNorwegianandrepresentsaformof interdialectal communication between these three Ausbau-languages (cf. Kloss1978:25).Thisformofdirect,transnationalcommunicationismainlyappliedwhenScandinaviansfromdifferentcountriesmeetandalthoughitfunctionsquitewellitisnotwithoutproblems.1Someoftheseproblemsareduetolinguisticdivergencesema-natingfromlanguagechangeandthedialectalpartingofaformerlymorecoherentlinguisticarea.Otherproblemscanbetracedbacktodifficultiesintryingtoincorpo-rateverydivergentandthereforeopaquedialects,tothelackoflinguisticflexibilityortoconsideringone’sownvarietysuperiortothoseoftheneighbouringlanguages.But,whenthereisawillthereisaway! Oneofthemaincharacteristicsof(genuine2)receptivemultilingualismisthatitisgenerallyappliedveryconsciously.Peoplewhodecidetomakeuseofreceptivemul-tilingualismfeelthatthereis,atleastinsomesituationsorforcertainpurposes,reallynoneedforacquiringanactivecommandoftherespectivelanguage;anapproximateorevenarudimentaryunderstandingofthislanguageisregardedasbeingsufficient.Therefore,onemayintendtoacquireonlysomereadingskillsorlearn,atleast,afewfrequently occurring words and phrases of the target foreign language, in order toroughlyunderstandwhathasbeenwrittenine.g.acertainpublicationorwhatabookisabout.Scientistsor librariansmay feel suchaneed forat least somebasicknow-ledgeof languages theydonotspeak.Moreover, touristsoften try toretrievesomevitalinformation,e.g.fromthemenu,fromtrafficorothersignstheyareconfrontedwithandwhichseemtoberelevantfortheirvisittoacountryinwhichtheydonotspeakorhardlyunderstandthelanguage. In order to grasp the approximate content of a text, written e.g. in a Romancelanguage,onehas thepossibilityofsuccessfullymakinguseofLatinwordstems, ifavailable,and/ortrytounderstandthecontentsofa(shorter)textbymeansofinter-nationallyusedwordsorviasimilaritiestoothermorefamiliarRomancelanguages.3Allpeopleusingreceptivemultilingualismarefullyawareofthefactthatthisformofgrasping the essential meaning of a message encoded in an (almost) unknown lan-guagecannotbemorethanatemporarysolutionoranad hoccompromise,butitisamethodsufficientforpreciselythispurpose. Therearealwaysothermeansavailableifmore,ormoreprecise,informationisre-quired.Inthecasesmentionedabove,onemaylookforanabstractinalingua francaorasummaryinalanguageyouaremorefamiliarwith,ortrytofindapersonwhois

ReceptivemultilingualismintheMiddleAges 27

abletotranslate/interprettherespectivetext,maybeviaalingua franca. Thisprocess,however,doesnotexcludetheacquisitionofadeeperknowledgeofthetargetlanguagewhich,soonerorlater,leadstoabetterintercomprehension—butnotnecessarilytoafullandactivecommandoftherespectivelanguage.Learningan-other language actively is time-consuming and often unnecessary, especially whendealingwithgeneticallycloselyrelatedlanguages.4

1.2 Receptivemultilingualismandnationalism

Informertimesreceptivemultilingualismwasnotsounusual,especiallynotinface-to-facetradingcommunication,e.g.onfairsinmoredistantpartsofEurope.Recently,Smith(2005:26)pointedoutwhenanalysingspeakingandwritingfrom500to1000ad,that“widespread,fullbilingualism”wasrestricted:“Activecompetenceinonebutgen-eralpassiveknowledge[viz.receptivemultilingualism;K.B.]oftheotherisonepossibil-ity;equallyprobableispartialabilityinthesecondlanguage,forexampleinrestrictedspheresoflifesuchasmercantileactivityorestatemanagement.”Aglanceatmodernhistorywillhelptounderstandwhyreceptivemultilingualismhaslostitsstatusasaformofmultilingualisminitsownright. Themainreasonfordisfavouringreceptivemultilingualisminthelasttwocenturiesistheriseofnationalism.Sincetheearlynineteenthcentury,nation,languageandiden-tityhavebecomecloselyintertwined.Adirectconsequenceofthisdevelopmentwaslin-guisticstandardisation,meaningthatonecommon,writtenandoftenalsospoken‘na-tional’languagetobeusedbyallfellow-citizenswascreatedinordertoexhibitanovert,i.e.avisibleandaudible,indicatorfornationalunityandcommon(ethnic)descent. Theconsequencesofthisideologyareobviousandquitesimple:ifyouarenotabletospeaktheindigenousand/orthecorrespondingnationallanguageas,oratleastlike,anativecitizen,youcannotberegardedasafullmemberofthiscountry/state.Inotherwords,amereunderstandingofvernacularvarietiesorevenanon-‘perfect’commandofthenationallanguageisnolongerconsideredtobesufficientevenifitworkedverywellinpracticebefore.Theperfectcommandofthe(dominant)vernacularlanguagehasthustakenoverashibbolethfunction:itisnolongercommunicationormutualun-derstandinginevery-daylifethatcountsbutfarmoretheuseoftheappropriatelinguis-ticcodewhich,atthesametime,servesasanidentifyingfeatureforallmembersofthatnation.Or,toputitinanotherway,onecanonlybecomeacitizenofanationifoneiscapableofspeakingits(oratleastthemajority’s)languageas‘perfect’aspossible,i.e.asanative(!)speaker.‘Imperfect’bi-ormultilingualismingeneral,whichinalmostallcasescanbeidentifiedbythespeaker’sforeignaccent,becamestigmatisedandreceptivemultilingualismwasneglectedbecauseeverybodynowrequiredanactivecommandofthenationali.e.themajority’slanguage.Nationalismthusturnedthefocusawayfromcommunicationandmanagingevery-daylifebymeansofamultiplelinguistic,oftendiglossiccompetence,inthedirectionofanidiomatically‘perfect’useofonepoliticallyfavouredlanguage,viz.thenationallanguage.

28 KurtBraunmüller

Thelinguisticpriceofthisdevelopmentisveryhigh:ifonereliesmoreorlessonthestandard(ornational)language,onelosesfamiliaritywithlocaldialectsandothervar-ietieswithinthissociety,nottospeakofthedeterioratingabilitytounderstanddiver-gentbutgeneticallycloselyrelatedneighbouringlanguages.Whatismore,oneexpectsnowadaysafocused languagewithlittleornovariation,clear-cutgrammaticalrulesandaclearlydefinedvocabularyandconsequentlydisfavoursallcharacteristicsofadiffusedlanguage(inthesenseofLePageandTabouret-Keller1985),includinge.g.ad hocwordformations,incompleteorelliptic,viz.context-dependent,sentenceconstruc-tions. Unifiedstandards,launchedeitherbychancelleriesorthefirstbookprintersinthelateMiddleAges,wereoriginallycreatedasameanstoenabletextualunderstandingandthedistributionofdocumentsandprintedmatters,respectively.Butatthesametime, they acquired a paradigmatic or leading function, especially for official docu-mentsandreligioustextsfromthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturyonward.Therefore,itwasonlyinevitableconsequencefor(European)nationalismtoproceedinthiswayinordertocreateanoptimallinguistichomogeneitywithinacertainterritory:minor-itylanguagesweresoonregardedasundesiredlanguages,notonlydisturbingethnichomogeneitybutalso the linguisticandnational identity.Speakersofminority lan-guageswere therefore lookeduponsuspiciously seenas themajorityof thepopula-tionneitherunderstood these languagesnorwere they interested in learning them.Moreover,themajoritypopulationfeltthatthemembersof(indigenous,nottospeakofimmigrant)minoritieswerenotreallyinterestedinbecominganintegralpartofthatnation,itsgoals,normsandcustoms.Statementssuchas‘IamaDaneandmymothertongueisGerman’nowadayssound,atleast,contradictory,ifnotabsurd(cf.Menke1996). Thisdevelopmenthas,however,notyetcometoanend.Englishasalingua francahasbitbybittakenoverthefunctionofasupra-nationalstandardlanguage—leadingtothesamenegativeeffectsbothforlinguisticflexibilityaswellasforreceptivemulti-lingualism.5Ifyoufindittoohardtolistenandadapttogeneticallyrelatedlanguages,youwillmostlikelyconsiderEnglishasanappropriatesolutionofyourcommunicationproblem.Thisstrategymaycertainlybeeffectiveforsimplertasks,suchasorderingameal(asatourist)orretrievingbasicinformationingeneral,butnotformorecompli-catedtasks.Furthermore,onemighthavetheimpressionthattheuseofalingua francaisafaircompromiseseenasallinterlocutorshavetousethesamelanguage,i.e.noonehastheprivilegeofspeakinghis/hermothertongue.Butinreceptivemultilingualismbetweengeneticallycloselyrelatedlanguages,theuseofthenativelanguagechangeswitheveryturnindiscourse.Whatremainsisakindof‘principleofleasteffort’,often,however,accompaniedbyscepticismthatyoucouldhavepresentedyourmessageinamuchbettermannerwhenmakinguseofalanguageyouarereallyfamiliarwith. ThesituationinScandinaviadiffersalsointhisrespect:evenintheeraofnational-ism,Scandinaviain totowasinthefocusofpatriotism(called‘Scandinavism’)andnot

ReceptivemultilingualismintheMiddleAges 29

onlytherespectivecountries(Denmark,Norway,6SwedenandevenFinland)them-selves. Inaway, it thereforeseemsrathernatural thatreceptivemultilingualism(or‘semicommunication’)andnationalismdidnotdirectlyinterferewitheachotherbutrathersupplementedeachother. Buttoday,theimpactofEnglishasthedominantinternational lingua francacan-notbeoverlooked:manyyoungerScandinaviansdonoteventrytousereceptivemul-tilingualismbutprefer toconverse inEnglishfromtheverybeginningofany inter-Scandinaviancontact.GlobalisationseemstobeoverridingScandinavisminthelongrun. Oneresultofthesenormativeprocesses,mentionedabove,wasthatreceptivemul-tilingualismbecameobsoleteseenasduetoitfavouringdirectmutualunderstandingbeyondanykindof(nationalorethnic)borderssometimesevenatanyprice,relyingonthepossibilitieswhichareinherentinanylinguisticdiasystem.Theknowledgeofadiasystemimpliesmuchmorethanjustthemasteringofthegrammaticalrulesandthevocabularyofa(standard)language:itenablesanunderstandingofobsoleteformsandsentenceconstructionsoccurringinoldertexts,neighbouringdialects,wide-spreadsociolectsandmanyotherlinguisticvarietiessuchasjargons,languagesforspecificpurposesand,lastbutnotleast,geneticallycloselyrelatedlanguages,which,strictlyspeaking,donotrepresentmuchmorethandialectsthathavebecomenational lan-guagesduetolanguagepolicyandlanguagecultivation.

1.3 Outlineofthefurtherdiscussion

ThemainaimofthispaperistopresentanoverviewofallformsofmultilingualismandlanguagecontactphenomenawehavecomeacrossinNorthernEuropeinthelateMiddleAgesandinearlyModernTimes. Iwill,atfirst,discussthemaindivergencesbetweenreceptivemultilingualismand(productive)multilingualismin[2.1.],followedbyanoverviewofthefunctionsanddomainsofthelanguagestobefoundinNorthernEuropeatthattimein[2.2.],togeth-erwithan(abridged)discussiononthehistoricaldevelopmentinthenorthEuropeanlowlandsandtheBalticingeneral,withspecialemphasisbeingplacedonlanguageuseandacquisitionrelatedtoanyformofmultilingualismin[3.].Thepaperconcludeswithasummaryofthreecasestudiesin[4.],whichrevealtheimpactofLowGermanon mainland Scandinavian languages and dialects due to language contact, mainlyduringtheeraoftheHanseaticLeague.Thesecasestudiesrelatetothemorphologic-alformofthedefinitearticle[4.1.],an‘imported’periphrasticgenitiveconstruction,calledgarpe-genitiv[4.2.],andchangesinthepreferenceinwordorder[4.3.]. Themaintriggeringfactorinalltheseinstanceswasreceptivemultilingualism,ac-companiedbyhypothesesonthestructureofthetargetlanguage,followedby(imper-fect)L2learningstrategiesandfinallydisseminatedbyagroupofadultswithhighso-cialprestigeandinfluence.

30 KurtBraunmüller

2. FormsofmultilingualisminNorthernEuropeduringtheMiddleAges

2.1 Receptivevs.productivemultilingualism

Table1showssomeofthemostrelevantfeatureswhichdistinguishreceptivemultilin-gualismfrom(productive)bi-ormultilingualismintheLateMiddleAgesandinEarlyModernTimes.Mostofthesefeaturescanalsobeappliedtoourtimes—if,ofcourse,receptivemultilingualismispractisedatall.Issuesrelatedtotheacquisitionofaread-ingcompetencehavenotexplicitlybeentakenintoconsiderationduetotheveryre-stricteddomainsofliteracyandwritingingeneralinearliertimes. ThescenarioforreceptivemultilingualisminthelateMiddleAgesthereforeseemsquiteclear:7 inalmostall cases thedomains for thiskindofasymmetriccommuni-cationhavebeenrestrictedtoface-to-faceinteractioninclearlydefinedsettings, i.e.receptive multilingualism is normally practised in purpose-oriented situations, pre-

Table 1. Featuresdistinguishingreceptivemultilingualismfrom(productive)bi-ormultilin-gualismintheLateMiddleAgesandinEarlyModernTimes

Receptive Multilingualism (Productive) Bi-/Multilingualism

Predominantlyforinformalcommunication Bothforformalandinformalcommunication

Purpose-oriented,no(productive)acquisitionofthetargetlanguageisintended

Function-oriented(withreferencetopersons,topicsordomains)

Face-to-facecommunication,especiallyindiglossictradingsituationsandotherbusinesscontacts*mayoccur

Norestrictionsinprincipalbutadistributionofthelanguagesinvolved

Establishingcommunicationatanyprice,frequentad hoc-accommodations,norules

Person-,topic-ordomain-relatedlanguageuse(includingcode-switching,ifappropriate)

Highlycontext-andaddressee-dependent Lowmandatorycontextoraddresseedependence

Emphasisoncommunicationexchangeandefficiencyininteraction

Alllinguisticfunctionsareavailable(ifnotrestrictedduetodomainsorfunctions)

Informalbutpragmaticallycontrolledlearningbylisteningandspeakingwherenogrammaticalnormshavetobeobserved

Allkindsofnatural-languageacquisitionandL2learing,especiallyfortheacquisitionofalingua franca(e.g.LatinorLowGerman)

Dominanceofpragmaticsandthesituationalcontext

Dominanceoflinguisticawarenesswithrespecttodomains,styles,normsandgrammaticalcorrectness

Includesthepossibilitytobecomea(fluent)speakerofthetargetlanguage;maygraduallyincludeoccasional(lexical)codeswitches.

Languageusemayberestrictedtofunctionaldistribution;thereforenonecessityforafulllinguisticcompetenceinalllanguagesspoken.

*However, the origin of a pidgin differs from receptive multilingualism since the languages involved are not mutually understandable.

ReceptivemultilingualismintheMiddleAges 31

dominantlyintradingornegotiations,inwhichthetermsoftradeandtheprinciplesofcommercehavewidelybeenacknowledgedandtheinteractionpatternsinvolvedfollowcommonandacceptedrules. Therefore, the linguistic form, as far as grammatical and stylistic correctness orthechoiceoftheappropriateregisterisconcerned,onlyplayedamarginalrole;withthepurposeoftheinteractionorthefactsconveyedbyamessageclearlyprevailing.Linguisticfluencyoracomprehensiveunderstandingoftheaddressee’slanguagewereneithernecessarynorexpectedatall. Theleadingnormsofthiskindofinteractionwerebasedonpragmaticadequacy.Even(emblematic)codeswitchingcouldoccur,thoughpredominantlyinlong-termcontacts,seenassporadicquotesorloansfromtheaddressee’slanguagenotonlydem-onstratesufficientmutualunderstandingbutalsoexpressacertainempathyandun-derstandingfortheinterlocutor,hissituationandlinguisticbackground.Furthermore,suchcodeswitchesexplicitlyunderlinethespeaker’swillingnesstoaccommodateandaccepttheaddressee’slinguisticvarietywithoutanyrestriction.8

Itis,however,importantthattheaddressee(a)consentstoconverseinthisasym-metricwayfollowingsomesortof‘let-it-passstrategy’,but(b)thatheisreallywillingandabletopractisereceptivemultilingualism,without(c)tryingtousealingua francaasamoreappropriatemeanstoachieveunderstandingonthebasisofathird/neutrallanguage,(d)norshouldhepreferconversingonlyinhisnativelanguage,duetohimconsideringhisownlanguagetobesuperiortotheaddressee’sdialect/languageortootherlanguagesingeneral. Therefore,receptivemultilingualismasmutuallyacknowledgedlinguisticbehaviourworksbestwhencarriedoutbetweeninterlocutorsofthesamesocialstatuswithatleastsomeessentialcontextualconditions,aspresentedintable1beingfulfilled,suchas face-to-face interactionbetweenspeakersofgeneticallycloselyrelated languages,emphasisoninformalcommunicationexchangeorpredominantlypurpose-orientedspeechsituations. Inanycase,youcannevertakeforgrantedthatreceptivemultilingualismwillworkwithoutproblemsorevenfunctionatallbeforeyouhaveagreedonthisformofcom-municationwiththeaddressee—unlessyouknowinadvancethatreceptivemultilin-gualismisthegenerallyacceptedformofcommunication,asisstillthecaseinmain-landScandinaviatoday. AsfarasthelateMiddleAgesandearlyModernTimesareconcerned,onehastobeawareofthefactthatreceptivemultilingualismrepresentedonlyoneaspectofmul-tilingualismtobetakenintoaccount.Functionaldiglossiawasthedefaultlinguisticprincipleatthattime:almostalldomainsweretiedtocertainlanguages,andnoonereallyexpectedyoutomasteralldomainsinoneandthesamelanguageoryoutobecapableofexpressingeverythinginanylanguageyouarefamiliarwith(cf.e.g.Jahr1995orNesse2003). Thisalsoappliedfortheuseofalingua francawhichwasdomain-relatedinasimi-larwaywhenused inconversationswithpeopleabroador inunfamiliar situations

32 KurtBraunmüller

(see2.2.).Therefore,nobodyreallyexpectedacomprehensiveor,aswenowadayspre-fertosay,‘perfect’commandofsuchalanguage:ifyouusede.g.Latinwithwordorderpatternsdescendingfromthesyntaxofone’sownvernacular,nobodywouldhavere-fusedsuchatextbarelyduetoitnotlivinguptotheclassicalLatinantiquityanditsstylisticnorms.SinceLatinwasbothalingua francaandalanguagewithoutanyna-tivespeakers,itwasopenforallkindsoflanguagecontact,especiallywithrespecttowordorderandsemanticreinterpretation. Even dialect mixing was widely accepted during the Middle Ages and in earlyModernTimes.LowGerman(asanativelanguage)hadalwaysbeenopentoallkindsof(lexical)loansfromthesouthernGermanspeakingterritories.Inoneoftheearli-estdocumentswritteninGerman,thefamousHildebrandslied,dialectalvariantsfromtworemote,divergentGermanspeakingterritoriesarefoundsidebysideinoneandthesamemanuscript:thearchaicOldHighGermanpoemwasimbeddedinashort,LowGerman,narrativeframe,withoutanycommentorjustification.Moreover,intra-sententialcodemixingwasalsotoleratedandcouldapparentlybeusedwithoutanynotification(formoredetailsseeBraunmüller2000a:278ff.). SincelanguagestandardisationwasnotyetontheagendaintheMiddleAges,onewas, basically, free to use varying dialectal forms side by side or to mix up differ-ent dialects, without anybody really blaming you for doing so, seen as no commit-tedguidelinesexisted for(inter)dialectalcommunication.Mostwell-knownwriterstendtoshow(considerable)individualvariationintheirtextproductionbuttheydonotmixtheirdialectsveryoftenwithothervariantsofthesamelinguisticdiasystem,whichwassimplyduetothefactthattheirowndialectwastheonlylanguagetheyhadanactivecommandof. Receptivemultilingualismalsoplayedasupplementaryrole:itsmainpurposewasto learn to understand your neighbours, both those in the immediate vicinity andthoselivingfurtheraway.Therangeofapplicationforreceptivemultilingualismwasthusalwaysthesame,namelytorecognisethecorrespondingsounds,inflexionalend-ings and terms in other, related dialects and to establish the appropriate equivalen-cyruleswithreferencetoone’sowndialect.Therefore,receptivemultilingualismwasverycommoninevery-daylifeintheMiddleAgesandbeyondseenasnoonespoke(orwrote)inexactlythesamewaynorusedthesamevocabulary. So, why should one strive for standardisation in a situation in which everybodywas faced with linguistic variation? If an institution such as the Hanseatic chancel-leryinLübeckaimstocodifyofficialtextsanddocuments,writtenexclusivelyinLowGermansincetheendofthefourteenthcentury, it isnotprimarily intendedtocre-ateastandardlanguageortoabolishdialectalvariationfarmoretobrandthesedoc-umentsasauthentic(viz.writteninLübeck)andauthorisedbytheHansa.Itwouldthusbemoreappropriatetoconsiderthisdevelopmentasanearlyattempttoestablishsomekindof linguisticbrandratherthanafirststeptowardsageneralstandardisa-tionofLowGermanasawrittenlanguage,inordertoreducedialectalvariation.The

ReceptivemultilingualismintheMiddleAges 33

Hansawasnot,unliketheformerEuropeanEconomicCommunity(EEC),aprecur-sorofapoliticalunion,butremainedatradingunionwithvacillatingformsofnet-working.9

Bytheway,standardisationisactuallynopropermannerofminimisingtheburdenoflearning(genetically)relatedlinguisticvarieties,rathertheoppositeholdstrue:ontheonehand,decodingamessagewill,admittedly,becomemucheasierforthehear-er/readerduetothereductionofvariation;butontheotherhand,thespeaker/writerhastolearnalargeamountofnewgrammaticalformsandequivalentwordsinordertomakeuseofthistrans-regionalformoflanguage.Ontopofthat,gettingusedtoex-tensivestandardisationsoonerorlaterconsiderablyreduceslinguisticflexibilityandpractice inunderstandingneighbouringdialectalvariants.That iswhyNorwegians,accustomedtointerdialectalcommunicationinevery-daylife,alwaysachievethebestmarksininter-Scandinaviancomprehensiontests,whereasDanesandSwedes,bothacquaintedtomoreorlessstandardisedformsoflanguage,performratherbadly(cf.e.g.DelsingandÅkesson2005:136ff.). Sincetherolesofproductionandreceptionchangequitefrequentlyincommuni-cation,thereisactuallynorealwinnerinsuchaprocess,asfaraslinguisticeconomyandeffectivenessisconcerned.Inanycase,standardisationmakessenseasfarasfor-eign-language learning isconcerned:onecanrelyonone,clearlydefined linguisticnorm,whichhastobelearned,butcanneglecttherestofthetargetlanguage’sunder-lyingdiasystem.

2.2 FunctionsanddomainsoflanguagesintheMiddleAgesandearlyModernTimes

Thelinguisticsituation in the(late)MiddleAgeswascompletelydifferent fromthesituationandpracticeweregardasnormalorself-evidentnowadays: Aswehavestatedintheprecedingsections,domain-,situation-andperson-relatedmultilingualism, including receptive multilingualism, was the norm, definitely notmonolingualismoradominanceofnationallanguages.EvensupranationallanguagessuchasLowGerman(inNorthernEuropeandaroundtheBalticSea)orgloballan-guageslikeLatin(butalsoGreek,intheBalkansandthecountriessurroundingtheeasternpartoftheMediterranean)principallyshowedthesamefunctionaldistribu-tionbutwererestrictedtofewerdomains.Besidetheirfunctionasalingua francaintradingsituationsoreveninlong-distancetravelling(cf.Burke1989),theywerealsousedas languages forspecificpurposes (LSP).Thus, thedomainsofLatinwerepri-marilytheBible,thechurchandChristianityingeneral,furthermoresciencesandarts,andfinallyeveryformofadvancedschoolingandhighereducation. ReferringtoSmith(2005:50),onemayadd“thatitwasintheearlyMiddleAgesthatLatinfirstemergedasaninternationalmandarinlanguagethroughoutmostofEurope.”Furthermore,shemakesclearthatthecultureofwritinginvernacularshasitsorigin

34 KurtBraunmüller

inLatin“asaformofculturalosmosisaroundtheperipheryoftheRomanworld”(p.32)whichcoincideswithourhypothesisonearlyGermanicbilingualismrelatingtothecreationofthefirstrunicscript(seeBraunmüller2004bandBeuerleandBraunmüller2004). LowGermanand,asaconsequenceoftheReformation,HighGermanwereabletotakeoversomeofthesefunctions,especiallyasfarastrading,legaltexts(suchasmu-nicipallawsorbylaws)orBibletextsareconcerned.However,atthebeginningofthisdevelopmentwefindreceptivemultilingualisminface-to-facesituations.Thiskindoftrans-regional/nationalcommunicationrevealedaconsiderableamountoflinguisticvariationandthusrequiredfamiliaritywithnon-standardisedformsofcommunication. Inotherwords,theexpansionofthescopeofone’sowndiasystem,accompaniedbyreceptivemultilingualismasthedefaultwayofunmediatedcommunication,madetwo things possible: (A) a considerable upgrading of one’s own vernacular beyonditsoriginalterritory(inourcase,primarilyforGermanspeakers,beyondtheNorth-GermanlowlandstowardsScandinaviaandsomeotherpartsoftheBalticarea),and(B)theintenseimpactof(Middle)LowGermanonthemainlandScandinavianlan-guagesandtheirdialects. Therefore,languagechangeduetolanguage(orratherdialect)contactbasedonbothclosegeneticrelationshipandwidelypractisedreceptivemultilingualism,especiallyatthebeginningofthesecontacts,notonlypavedthewayforintensivelexicalborrow-ings,includingtheadoptionofnewwordformationpatterns(cf.e.g.Diercks1993),and minor grammatical changes but also for the incorporation of certain GermanwordorderstructuresintothemainlandScandinavianlanguages(cf.themostrecentsurveyonthistopicinBraunmüller2004a). Table2illustratesthescenarioofthelanguagesfoundinmainlandScandinaviadur-ingtheMiddleAgesandinthesixteenthcentury. Themostinterestingaspectinthiscontextiscertainlythefar-reachingchangesthattheScandinavianvernacularsanddialectsunderwentasaconsequenceoftheexten-sivelanguagecontactwithLow,andlater,withHighGerman.However,itisnoteasytodecidewhichprocessesactuallyoccurred.Suitablecandidatesforcharacterisingthesedevelopmentsseemtobe:(a)creoloids,(b)koinésor(c)somesortofinterlanguageorinterdialect(cf.Trudgill2000:79ff.). SincemutualunderstandingandreceptivemultilingualismbetweenGermansandScandinavianswaspossibleonecouldarguetoclassifythesedevelopmentsascasesofdialect contact,butasearlyas theMiddleAges therewasnodoubt thatDanishandSwedish—writtenformsofNorwegiangraduallydisappearedduetothepoliticalunionwithDenmarkbeginning in1380—were(national) languagesandnotsomekindofdialect.Furthermore,therearenoargumentsinfavourofclassifyingtheselan-guagesas‘jargons’sincetheyneitheroriginatedfromdouble-sourcepidginsnorfromdouble-sourcecreoloidsseenastheyalwaysremainedwhattheywere:Scandinavianlanguagesintheirownright—thoughwithavastamountoflexicalloansandsomegrammaticalextensionsandrestructurings.

ReceptivemultilingualismintheMiddleAges 35

WhenanalysingtheimpactofLowGermanonmainlandScandinavianlanguages,10onemayobserveadmixture,ofcourse,andcasesofsimplification,butnoreduction.According to Trudgill’s contact typology (2000:82), creoloidisation occurs in lan-guagecontactsituations,whereaskoinéisationisfoundindialectcontactsituations.Furthermore,bothcategoriesshowdifferentdegreesofadmixtureandsimplification(withlessforeignimpactinkoinéisation).Buthowcanwemeasuretheextentofthatforeign impact,also inrelation to the sizeof therespectivepopulation?Would theterms‘interlanguage’and‘interdialect’,respectively,betterfitthephenomenatobeob-served?Thereasonforcreatinganinterlanguageisprimarilytoestablishcommunica-tion,whereastheemergenceofaninterdialectistheresultofaccommodation(p.83).Inanycase,German–Scandinaviancontactdoesn’tseemtomatchanyformofsocio-linguisticclassificationweareawareof. However,theproblemofnotbeingabletodistinguishsharplybetweenalanguage(contact)ontheonehandandadialect(contact)ontheother,isbynomeansanewone.HeinzKloss(1978:25ff.)thereforedistinguishedbetweenAbstand-andAusbau-languagestoterminologicallydisposeofthedilemmathattwocloselyrelateddialectalvariantswithinoneand thesamediasystemreceived thestatusof independent lan-guages:lookedatfromalinguisticpointofviewtherespectivelanguagesbehavelikedialectsbuthavereceivedahigherstatusduetopoliticaland/orsocialdecisions. Thelattertermbestfitsthesituationwearefacedwith:(Middle)LowGermancanberegardedasanAusbau-languageinrelationtosouthandeastGermandialects—although neo-grammarians would not agree for (mainly) phonological reasons.However, it evidently has more lexical and grammatical features in common withotherGermandialectsthane.g.withFrisianorMiddleEnglish.DanishandSwedish

Table 2. ScenarioofthelanguagesfoundinmainlandScandinaviaduringtheMiddleAgesandinthesixteenthcentury

Languages and their use in mainland Scandinavia during the Middle Ages

The pre-Hanseatic era The early Hanseatic era and the late Middle Ages

The late Hanseatic era and the 16th century

LowGermanonlyasavernacular(spokenintheNorthernLowlandsofEurope)

LowGermanasalingua franca(predominantlyusedasatradinglanguage;RMwascommonintrans-re-gionalcommunication)

LowandHighGermanasprestigious,trans-regionallanguagesandasLSP(RMdecreasing,L2-and2L1-bilingualismprevailing)

LatinasLSPandalingua franca

LatinasLSPandalingua franca

LatinasLSPandalingua franca

vernacularsanddialects(withsomeinfluencesfromLatinduetoChristianity)

vernacularsanddialects(withloansfromLowGerman)

restructuredvernaculars(duetoheavyimpactfromGerman)

minoritylanguages(ofvariousorigins)

minoritylanguages(un-changedduetodiglossia)

minoritylanguages(un-changedduetodiglossia)

36 KurtBraunmüller

canalsoberegardedasAusbau-languagesduetotheirhistoricaldevelopment;other-wiseonewouldratherspeakof‘regiolects’representingthetwomainbranchesofeastScandinavian. Iwouldliketosuggestthetermunilateral convergeoidforaone-sided,geneticallycloselyrelatedconvergence language,suchasDanishorSwedish,andthe termuni-lateral convergeolectforthesamecontactphenomenononlyonalevelofdialects(cf.thesituationinNorway).“Converge-”isdirectlyassociatedwithvariousformsofac-commodationandthereforefitsallcontactphenomenabetweenmutuallyintelligiblevariants.Iusetheterm“unilateral”becausethedominantlanguage,inthiscase(Low)German,hasnotorhardlybeeninfluencedbythisdevelopment. Thecomplementarytermwouldbedivergeoid.Itcouldbeusedforcharacterisingdistance-keeping(orpurist)languagessuchasModernIcelandicinwhichthenativespeakers(oratleastaninfluentialgroupofthem)forideologicalreasonstrytokeepallforeigninfluencesawayfromtheirmothertongue.Finnish,whenconsideringthere-lationshiptoEstonian,couldberegardedasanappropriatecandidateforadivergeoidaswell.Theprofilesofsuchlanguagesarecharacterisedbythemcreatingor,atleast,maintainingdistancetoallneighbouringandthereforepotentialcontactlanguages. Moreover, when considering the linguistic distance between Low German andallotherGermandialects,youcouldclassifyMiddleLowGermanasadivergeolect.(ModernLowGermanhas,however,changeditsstatus.Ithaschangedintoaconver-geolectoralmostadialectofHighGermanduetotheprestigiousroleofthisvarietyofGermanasanational/standardlanguage.)Thelinguisticbasisforthisclassificationis,however,completelydifferentfromthatappliedbytheneo-grammariansofthenine-teenthcenturyseenas it isnotfoundedona(predominantly)phonologicalsplitorsomeotherbifurcatinggrammaticalchangesbuthasitsorigininthesocialstatusofthatlanguage. The other languages located in Northern Europe do not require any commentsbeyond their characterisation in the table above. We will, however, come back tothefunctionaldistributionoftheselanguagesinthesection3,whencomparingtheScandinaviansituationwiththesituationinBritainduringthelateMiddleAges.

3. ThehistoricalsituationinNorthernEuropeinrelationtotheformsofmultilingualism

ThehistoricalsituationandthedevelopmentofthevariousformsofmultilingualisminthelowlandsofnorthernEurope,intheBalticandinmainlandScandinaviacanbeoutlinedasfollows:

A. DuetotheclosegeneticrelationshipbetweenLowGermanandtheScandinavianlanguages/dialectsanunmediated,basicmutualunderstanding in face-to-facecom-municationwaspossible.Merchants(oftheHanseaticLeague)speakingLowGerman

ReceptivemultilingualismintheMiddleAges 37

realisedthattheywerenotonlyabletounderstandjustremotedialectalvariantsofLowandHighGermanbutalsotheScandinavianlanguagesandsomeoftheirdialectstoacertainextent.Thisformofunderstandingwas,however,heavilydependentontradingsituationsinwhichthecontextualfactorssuchasthetermsoftradeandtheoutlinesof(international)businesscommunicationlargelyhadtobethesame. ThehistoricalcontextatthattimewasalsooptimalduetothenorthGermanmer-chantssucceedingingraduallytakingoverthetraditionalVisby-tradeacrosstheBalticSeabytheendofthetwelfthcentury.Furthermore,intensivetradingcontactsexistedbetweentheGerman,FrisianandDutchlowlandsontheonehandandJutlandontheotherfromtheveryearlyMiddleAgesonwards. Ontopofthat,LowGermanand,toaminorextent,alsoDutchasthemostwesternvariantoftheLowGermandialectalcontinuum,werehighlyrespectedbytheupperclassesallovernorthernEuropewhichledtointensiveloansfromLowGermantakingplace.Evendeep-rootedScandinaviantermswerereplacedbyloansfromthisprestig-ious‘global’language.11

B. Consequently,thenextstepwastheuseofreceptivemultilingualismasasuffi-cientmeansinspecificface-to-facetradingsituationsinwhichiswasnotnecessarytoactivelylearntheScandinaviancustomer’s/addressee’slanguage.Therewas,however,notmuchtimetobecomeacquaintedwithanydetailsoftheScandinavianlanguagesseenasmerchantsfromabroadwerenotallowedtostayoveralongerperiodoftimeintherespectivehostcountries.Astayoveraperiodofafewweekswasnormal,severalmonthswasthemaximum,andthatonlyinsummer.Theprivilegetostayalsoduringwinterwasimplementedmuchlater(cf.Brattegard1945:15ff.orNesse2002:85f.). Atthebeginning,themerchantsthemselvestravelledaround,predominantlyfromone(coastal)tradingplaceorimportanttowntoanother,directlyofferingtheirgoodsandproducts.Inlatertimes,thevastamountoftradingactivitieswerecarriedoutbyyoungerrepresentativesofthemerchants.Themerchantsthemselvespreferredtostayathomedirectingtheirbusinessvialongdistancecommunicationbymeansofletters,messengersortradingrepresentatives. C. The privilege of the Hanseatic merchants being allowed to settle in the Scan-dinaviancountriesledtotwodiverginglinguisticdevelopments:eithertheirmercantileagentswerestrictlyseparatedfromthelocalinhabitantsofthesetradingplaces/townslike inBergen/Norway(cf.alsoNesse2003)orNowgorod/Russiaor theysettled inmoreorlessenclosedpartsoftowns(cf.e.g.inTønsberg/Norway,Køge/Denmark,orinKalmarorStockholm/Sweden).Thefirstscenarioevidentlydidnotencourage(pro-ductive)multilingualismbut,atmost, theacquisitionofaratherrestrictedL2-com-petenceofthelocallinguisticvariety(formoredetailsonthesituationinBergenseeJahr1995:14ff.orNesse2002:75ff.,forthesituationinRussia/NowgorodseeGernentz1988).Thesecondscenario,however,inonewayoranotherledtonatural2L1-bilin-gualismandtovividcommunicationandsocialexchangebetweenthemerchantsandtheindigenouspopulation. D. Insomeplaces,especiallyaroundtheBalticSea,HighGerman—alsoreferred

38 KurtBraunmüller

toasMartinLuther’sandtheReformation’slanguage—asakindofdialectalvariantorextensionoftheLowGermandiasystemtookoverthefunctionofalingua francainmostdomains.Itwas,however,onlyusedinasupplementarymanner.However,thequalityof theGerman–Scandinavianlanguagecontact,basedoninterdialectalsimi-larity,didnotchange(seeBraunmüller2000b:10ff.).

ThefinalstepinthehistoryoftheLowGerman–ScandinaviancontactswaseithertheclosingdownoftheHanseaticofficesandstorehousesortheintegrationoftheimmi-grant,(Low)Germanspeakingpopulationintothelocalsocieties.Inbothcases,re-ceptivemultilingualismcametoanendsoonerorlaterfordifferentreasons(retreatvs.assimilation),orcontinuedassequentialL2-bilingualismintheupperclasses.HighGerman,laterfollowedbyFrench,remainedtheleadingforeignlanguageandlingua francaformanyScandinaviansuptothenineteenthcentury.ItremainedtheeasiestlinguistickeyforthemtogainadmissiontoEuropeancultureandtechnology,totradeandtocontactswiththesouthernpartsofthecontinentingeneral. IfyoucomparethesituationintheBaltictothatinlatemedievalLondon(forlin-guisticdataseeWright1996andforamoredetailedanalysisBraunmüller2000c),youwillobservemanyanalogies,asfarasthesimultaneoususeofvariouslanguagesandtheir distribution is concerned, although the historical preconditions and local cir-cumstancesdiffersignificantly:thereis,however,nobasissupportingtheassumptionthatreceptivemultilingualismplayedanyroleincommunicationintheThamesandharbourareaofLondonatthattime,whichisnotsurprisingseenasEnglish,Anglo-NormanFrenchandLatincannotnecessarilyberegardedasmutuallyintelligiblelan-guages. Themoststrikingobservationmadeisrelatedtothefactthatthereistheintensiveandfrequentmacaronicuseofthesethreelanguages,althoughtheswitchingbetweenthelanguagesisfarfromrandom(cf.Wright1997:347).Oneofthemostsalientfea-turesofthatkindof(macaronic)multilingualismistheinterlinguisticuseofabbrevia-tionsandsuspensions.Asmall,p-likeletterpcouldbeusedasaprefixandanapostro-phe-likesign 9asasuffix,representingthemorphemespar,per,pre,purand-re,-er,

-ariusrespectively(seeWright1996:9).Furthermore,ifyoufindawordlikecarpent9in sucha text from latemedievalLondonyoufirsthave tomakesurewhich is theunmarkedormatrixlanguage:ifitispredominantlyLatin,thisexpressionobviouslymeanscarpentarius,whereasifitisEnglishishastobereadascarpenter. Thisobservationrevealstwogeneralcharacteristicstrategiesofmultilingualism:

1. Decodingprimarilyreliesontheanalysisofthelexicalmorphemes.Derivational(orinflectional)morphemesplayonlyamarginalorsupplementaryrole.

2. Whereveritispossible,diverginggrammaticalstructuresareavoided,insyntax,12morphologyandwordformation.Thereisnodoubtthatbilingualspreferparallelgrammaticalstructures,especiallywithrespecttowordorder(cf.e.g.Braunmüller2001orNichols1992andNettle1999:137f.foraglobalperspectiveofthisobserva-tion).

ReceptivemultilingualismintheMiddleAges 39

Furthermore,thebusinessrecordspresentedinWright(1996)revealthatLatin,alsoasanLSP,wasunderpermanentpressurefromthetwoindigenouslanguages,thelan-guageoftheupper-class(Anglo-Norman)andthecolloquiallanguageusedbytherestofthepopulation(English),theresultbeingthatLatinwouldberebuiltasananalyticlanguage.Itbecamemoreandmoresimilartotheothertwovernacularswithrespectto word order and (analytic) morphological structure, which can also be observedwhenstudyingLatininitsotherfunctionasalingua franca.Themotivationpreced-ingthistypologicalchange,was—accordingtostrategy(2)—toreducetheburdenofhavingtomanageseverallinguisticcodessimultaneously. InScandinavia,asimilardevelopmentcouldbeobserved.LowGermanandlateralsoHighGermanwordorderpatternswereadoptedasmodelsduetotheirprestig-iousrolesininternationalcommunicationand,especiallyHighGerman,foritsshin-ingexampleofidiomatictranslationsofBibletextsinthesixteenthcentury.YetatthesametimewrittenHighGermanitselfbecamemoreandmoredependentonLatinstylisticnorms,asfarasOVwordorderindependentclausesortheextensiveuseofhypotacticsentencestructureswereconcerned.(Forarecent,detaileddiscussionoftheimpactofLatinonGermanwordorderseeChirita2003.) Ontopofthat,Latin,LowGermanandaScandinavianlanguage(here:Swedish)mayhavebeenusedinthesamecontextandforthesamepurposebutwithdifferencesrelating tocode switching.Therefore, itmayoccur thatLatinwordsorphrasesarefoundembeddedine.g.letterswithSwedishasmatrixlanguage,whereastheoppositehasnot(orhardly)beenobservedwithaprestigiouslanguagesuchasLowGermanfunctioning as matrix language. These and other observations presented in Tiisala(2004) clearly show that multilingualism, also in writing, was default in late medi-evalScandinaviabutthatnotalllanguageshadthesamestatusandprestige(Tiisala2004:196:“TheHanseneverapologisesforwritinginGerman”).Or,toputit inan-otherway,languageslikeLatinor(Low)Germanwereneverdependentonloansandformulasfromotherlanguages.Moreover,theysuppliedthecorrectformforcertaintypesoftexts,e.g. letters,whichcontainedasalutatio, benevolentiae captiatio, narra-tio, petitioandfinallyaconclusio.Ifyoupreferredtouseyourownlanguageyouhadtoobeytheserules,evenifthepreciseterminologywasstillmissingorunderelabor-ation.

4. ThreeexamplesfortheroleofreceptivemultilingualisminL2-languagelearning

InthefollowingsectionIwill illustratethefunctionofreceptivemultilingualisminsecond-languageacquisition,primarilybyadults,withfocusplacedonmorpho-syn-taxandwordorder.Ifthetargetlanguageisrelativelysimilartoone’sownvarietyonetriestofindtheeasiestwaytolearnthislanguage.Receptivemultilingualismcanbe

40 KurtBraunmüller

regardedasapromisingstartingpointbothforshort-cutsinlanguageuseandsimpli-fiedL2languagelearning.

4.1 Themorphologicalformofthedefinitearticle

BothLowGermanandtheScandinavianlanguagesusedpre-positioneddefiniteart-icles.InMiddleLowGermanthisarticlealwayshadad-intheonset(cf.de/di Man(n)‘the man’ or dü/de/di Frū ‘the woman’), whereas in the medieval Scandinavian lan-guagestwophonologicallydivergentformsoccur:(a)hinn/hin/hit[nom.sing.masc./fem./neutr.]asin(h)inn gamli maþr‘the(old)man’and(b)sá/sú/þator,inthelaterMiddleAgesdue toanalogy,þann/þan/þat [nom.sing.mask./fem./neutr.; alsooccur-ringwiththevowelsæore,asinþæn(n)orþen(n)]asinþa/æ/enn gamli maþr‘the(old)man’ininformalandoralcommunication.13Withoutprecedingattributesinanounphrasetheh-articlealwaysoccurspost-positional.Itiscliticizedtothenounandthehisdeletedatthejuncture.Thepost-positioned,cliticizeddefinitearticleisinflect-ed inaccordancewiththenoun:maþrinn ‘theman’[nom.sing.masc.],mansins ‘theman’s[gen.sing.masc.],maninum‘totheman’[dat.sing.masc.]andsoon.Futhermore,itcanbeobservedthatallformsoftheþ-articlewerepronouncedas[ð/__V]duetotheirweakstresspositioninsyntax,asisthecaseinModernEnglishaswell.OtherwiseitwouldremainvoicelesslikeinEnglish,too(cf.wordslikethin, thermometer, thank, thorn, thumbetc.). WhenspeakersofLowGerman,a languagewhichdoesnothavearticles inpost-position,realisedthattherewasapossibilityofinterdialectalunderstandingbasedonreceptivemultilingualismbetweenthemandtheirScandinaviantradingpartners,theymostlikelyneglectedtheinflectionaldefinitearticleasaninflectionalendingseenasitwasofminor importancefor thedecodingofamessageas farasreceptivemulti-lingualismwasconcerned.However,theþ/[ð]-articlesoccupiedthesamepositioninnounphrasesasthe(German)d-articles.Therefore,Germanspeakerswouldnotonlyhave analysed and understood the Scandinavian phrases correctly as forms corres-pondingtothedefinitearticleoftheirownlanguagebuttheywouldalsohaveinter-pretedtheseformsasbeingmorphologicallyrelatedtotheird-articles. Sincetheallophone[ð]wasnotpartofanymedievalGermanphonologicalsystem,adultsecondlanguagelearnershad(objective)difficultiesingraspingthissoundcor-rectlyand,furthermore,inpronouncingitinacorrectmanner.Duetothemorpho-phonologicalandsyntacticequivalencetheyreplacedthefricativesintheScandinavianþ/[ð]-articleswiththecorrespondingobstruentd(asintheGermandefinitearticles). Thisnewapproachatfindingareasonableexplanationforthed-onsetinthemain-landScandinavianarticlesystemisbasedontheobservationofcertainprinciplesofreceptivemultilingualismandL2-languagelearningbyadults.It isclaimedthattheScandinavianspeakersofoneofthenextgenerationsfollowingthecontactwithLowGermanadoptedtheobstruent(viz.German)pronunciationofþ/[ð>d]intheonsetastheirown,possiblyasakindofprestigepronunciationwhichcouldbeheardinthe

ReceptivemultilingualismintheMiddleAges 41

wholeofScandinaviaduetotheubiquitouspresenceofnon-nativeL2-speakersoftheScandinavianlanguages. ThisapproachexplainsadequatelywhytheOldScandinavianþ-articledidnotsur-vive,incomparisontootherarticlessuchasthet-articleasinModernFaroese(tann/tann/tað[nom.sing.masc./fem./neutr.]‘the/this’)ortheth-/[ð]articleasinModernEnglish(the,butcf.alsothis,thatetc.),butwasreplacedbythevoicedobstruentd-(asinMod.Scand.den/det//de[sing.utr./neutr.//pl.]‘the/(this)’).14Anexplanationbasedonanaturalphonologicalchange—i.e.avoidingthehighermarkedfricatives[ð-]infavourofobstruents[d-]—can,inprinciple,notbecompletelyruledout.Butifonear-guesinthatway,onewouldhavetofindanadequateexplanationforModernIcelandicandModernEnglishstillhavingplentyofwordswithfricatives[θ-/ð-]intheironset.InneitherofthelanguagescansuchalargeimpactfromlanguageswithoutsuchdentalfricativessuchlikeLow/HighGermanbeobserved.15

4.2 An‘imported’periphrasticgenitiveconstruction

The next example illustrating the role of receptive multilingualism for L2-languageacquisitionistheadoptionofaLowGerman/WestGermanicperiphrasticpossessiveconstruction,whichisinformallycalledgarpe16genitiveinNorway:Norw./Dan.far sin hat(cf.Germ.(dem[dative])Vater sein Hut)‘father’shat’[lit.‘(the)fatherhishat’]. InmanyIndo-Europeanlanguages,‘possession’cannotmerelybeexpressedbygen-itiveconstructions(inflectionalorperiphrasticones)orpossessivepronouns(i.e.thegenitiveformofthepersonalpronouns)butalsobyphrasesexpressingabenefactiverole,morphologicallyrendered,ifavailable,asdative(cf.HighGerm.(dem) Vater sein Hut/Buch,non-standardGerm.Wemist dieses Buch? ‘Whomdoesthisbookbelongto?’orLat.mihi librum est‘thisismybook’). IfGermanmerchantsusedsuchbenefactiveexpressionsinreceptivemultilingual-ismcommunicationwithScandinavianstheycouldrelyontheinterdialectal,geneticrelationshipconnectingthetwo languagesandontheexistenceofequivalentgram-maticalstructuresinbothlanguages.TheirScandinaviancounterpartswouldnotonlyhaveunderstoodthesephrasesbutcouldhaveintegratedthemintotheirownlanguagewithoutproblemsoranyfurtheradoption:theyclearlyrecognisedsin‘his/her’,occur-ringbothinLowGermanandScandinavianasapossessivepronoun,andthustreatedthepost-posedstructuralpositionof thispartof thephraseeitherasa(now)obso-letesyntacticpositionor,morelikely,asakindofapposition(inthecaseofDanishorSwedish)oraccordinglytothedefaultpositionofthepossessivepronounwhichwas(andstillis)post-positiveinNorwegian(andWestScandinavianingeneral). Thus, they(re)analysednoun(ordeterminer)phrases like[[far]NP[sinhat]NP]DP,accordingtoother,related(analytic)constructions,suchas[[taket]DP[påhuset]PP]DP‘theroofofthehouse’,asnoun/determinerphraseswithmodifierstotherightoftheheadnoun.ThesephrasesaretypicalforSVOlanguages,disregarding,however,thesemanticroleoffarasanunderlyingbenefactiveconstituent:i.e.“ahatbelonging to

42 KurtBraunmüller

fatherbenefactive”wasre-analysedas“fatheragentiveownsthis[sc.his]hat”.Inotherwords,surfacestructures inconnectionwitheasily identifiable, translinguisticmorphemes(alsocalled‘diamorphs’)werere-interpretedinsuchamannerthattheycorrespondedtothedefaultstructureoftheothernoun/determinerphrases.

4.3 Changesinthepreferenceinwordorder

Thelastexampleistakenfromsyntax.Aswehavearguedbefore,receptivemultilin-gualismcanbeappliedifyoutakeforgrantedthatthetargetlanguagefollowsthesamesyntacticprinciplesyouareusedtofromyourownlanguage/dialect. SincebothLow(andHigh)GermanfeaturedovertSVO-patternsinmainclausesitwasquiteeasytodecodemostoftheaddressee’sutterancesimmediately:youcouldrelyonthefactthatthefiniteverbwasgenerallyplacedinsecondpositionandthattheunmarkedorderofthepost-verbalnounphraseswasthattheindirectobjectwassitu-atedbeforethedirectobject.Differencesintheplacementoflocalortemporaladverbsmighthaveoccurredbutthatdidnotreallypreventsufficientmutualunderstandinginspeechsituationsbasedonreceptivemultilingualism.Ifthefiniteverb,however,occu-piedthefirstpositioninasentence(V1),youwouldstillbeabletointerpretthisutter-anceasyoumightconsiderthesentencetobeellipticorstylisticallymarkedinonewayoranother.Moreover,V1patternsalsooccurredinyourvariety,butwererestrictedtoquestionsandimperatives.Inanycase,youwouldhavehadtheimpressionthatthesamesyntacticrulesyouwerealreadyacquaintedwithappliedtothetargetlanguageaswell. GermanmerchantsandcraftsmenwhosettledinDenmarkorSwedenfeltobligedtolearntospeakthelocalvernacularsbuttheyobviouslysimplifiedthesyntaxoftherespectivelanguages,atleastwithrespecttoSVOwordorder,whichisquitetypicalbothforadultL2-languagelearningandforcreoles.Oneoftheconsequencesofthisstrategywasthatthetype-frequencyoftopicalisedobjectsandfrontedverbs(V1sen-tences)decreasedandthatthesentencestructuresofmainclausesbecamemoreandmoreuniformwithrespecttothesentenceinitialposition:morethan80%ofallcon-stituentsoccurringinthispositionwerenoweithersubjectsoradverbs(forfurtherde-tailsofthisinvestigationseeBraunmüller2006).ThepercentagerateofV2-structuresintheScandinavianlanguagesbeforehavingcontactwiththeGermanswasconsider-ablylowerduetothesentence-initialrhematicpositionofthefiniteverbinprosetexts(narrativeaswellaslegaltexts)beingquitecommon.TherangeoftheseV1-structuresrangedfromabout8%(averagenumber)toalmost33%.17

5. Concludingremark

Thistour d’horizonaimedatshowingthatreceptivemultilingualismwasoneaspectofacomplexdiglossic/multilingualsituationinnorthernEuropeinthelateMiddle

ReceptivemultilingualismintheMiddleAges 43

Ages—and in early Modern Times as well. Nationalism put an end to this way ofunmediated communication between genetically closely related languages outsideScandinavia. Butreceptivemultilingualismalsorepresentsastartingpointforsecond-languageacquisition,especiallyforadults.Therefore,itisimportanttoinvestigatetheprinciplesandstrategiesofreceptivemultilingualisminmoredetailthanhasbeenthecaseuntilnow.MedievalnorthernEuropeandpresent-dayScandinaviarepresentexcellentfieldsforfurtherinvestigations.

Notes

* Toa largeextent this survey isbasedondataandevidence fromthree researchprojects,all fundedbytheGermanResearchFoundationDFG,(a)“MiddleLowGermananditsrolein the typological and lexical restructuring of the old Scandinavian languages” (1990–1995),(b)“SemicommunicationandreceptivemultilingualismincontemporaryScandinavia”(1999–2005)and(c)“HistoricalScandinaviansyntaxinmultilingualcontexts”(2001–2008)—thelasttwoprojectsbeingcarriedoutwithintheCollaborativeResearchCentre538onMultilingualismatHamburgUniversity.Duetotheverylimitedspaceonlythegistandtheresultsofthesere-searchprojectscanbepresentedhere.Newerdataandobservationswill,however,bepresentedanddiscussedinchapter4.Iwouldliketothankthetwoanonymousrevisersfortheirsugges-tionsandcriticismwhichthispaperhascertainlyprofitedfrom.

1. Cf. Braunmüller (1999:308–47) for some basic information, Braunmüller and Zeevaert(2001)forabibliographicalsurveyandDelsingandÅkesson(2005)forthelatestempiricalin-vestigationavailable.

2. Thismeansthatanactivecommand,i.e.speakingorwritingthislanguage,hasneverbeenintended.

3. Cf.KleinandStegmann (2000:31ff.) for theEuroCom-projecton intercomprehensionofRomancelanguagesorMunskeandKirkness(1996)asfarasforeign(orloan)wordsinEuropeanlanguagesareconcerned.

4. Cf. the linguistic situation in mainland Scandinavia mentioned above but also betweenGermanandDutch(seeHáz2005),CzechandSlovak,SpanishandCatalanorPortuguese,justtonameafewrelatedlanguages,nottospeakofgenuineinterdialectalcommunicationasfoundinNorwayorintheGermanspeakingregionsofSwitzerland.

5. ForacomprehensivediscussionofthedifferentfunctionsofEnglishasalingua francaandanativelanguagetodaycf.e.g.House(2003).

6. Norwayisaspecialcaseinthisrespect.Itsnationbuildingtookplaceatquitealatestage(theunionwithDenmarkcametoanendin1814,butnotbefore1905didNorwaybecomefullyindependent).FormoredetailsonthespecialconditionsofNorwegiannationalismcf.Sørensen(2001)orStorsveen(2004).

7. For more details on the situation in Scandinavia see Diercks and Braunmüller (1993),Braunmüller(1995)orNesse(2002)andformedievalLondonseeWright(1996).

8. More evidence on code switching in receptive multilingualism/semicommunication in

44 KurtBraunmüller

ScandinaviatodaycanberetrievedfromtheverycomprehensivediscussioninGolinski(2007:159ff.), who analysed various forms of code switching, predominantly between Danes andSwedesaround theÖresund,and fromBraunmüller (2002:14ff.),where thephenomenonofinter-Scandinavianlinguisticaccommodationatanypriceisdiscussed.

9. For a more general survey of some details of this development, see Peters (2000: esp.1500f.).

10. I.e.Danish,Swedish,Norwegian(bytheendoftheMiddleAgesmostlyrepresentedinitsdialectssincetheliterarydomains,duetotheunionwithDenmarkfrom1380onwards,weremoreandmoretakenoverbyDanish),butnotSamiorFinnish.

11. Foranoutlineof this scenarioseeDiercksandBraunmüller (1993)andesp.Engelbrecht(1993),asfarasthehistoricalbackgroundisconcerned.

12. See the corpus presented in Wright (1996) and our studies on the development ofScandinavianwordorderinthelateMiddleAges,asdemonstratede.g.inBraunmüller(1995)and(2006).

13. InFaroeseonlythisdemonstrativepronounwhichalsoisusedasdefinitearticle,tann,tann,tað‘this;the’,showstheregularsoundchangefromOldNorseþtot.Allotherdemonstrativepronounsanddeicticexpressionshave,however,anh-intheonset(<OldNorseþaswell),duetodivergentaccentuationpatterns,whichalsocanbeobservedinIcelandic(seePetersen2004).Thereason for thisoneandonlyexceptionwithindeictic expressionshasobviouslybeen toavoidamorphologicalmergerwiththepersonalpronounhann‘he/him[acc.]’.

14. ForasurveyonthedistributionofthedefinitearticlesinthemodernMainlandScandinavianlanguagesandtheirdialectsseeDahl(2004).

15. Danish, the second national language of Iceland during the union with Denmark (1380–1944),hassuchadentalfricative.

16. ThistermisbasedonapejorativeNorwegiancharacterisationoftheLowGermantrades-menandmeans‘boastful’or‘big-mouthed’people.

17. Cf.alsothediscussioninMørck(2005)orthethesisofHeusler(1921:175–82)whoconsid-ersVSOasbeingthenormalwordorderinOldNorseprosetexts.DatafromeasternScandinaviadatingbacktothepre-LowGermanera,viz.uptoaroundtheendofthirteenthcentury,aredifficulttoobtainduetothelackofsubstantialwrittensources.Thetextsavailableareeitherlegaltexts(landscapelaws)orbasedontranslations/adoptionsfromtheBible,suchastheOldSwedishPentateuchparaphrasefromthemid-fourteenthcentury.

References

Brattegard, O. 1945. Die mittelniederdeutsche Geschäftssprache des hansischen Kaufmanns zu Bergen.2vols.Bergen:JohnGriegsBoktrykkeri.

Beuerle,A.andBraunmüller,K.2004.FrühegermanischeZweisprachigkeit?ZudenfrühestenRuneninschriftenunddendefixiones inder lateinischenGebrauchsepigraphik.Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit,FolgeB54:1–37.

Braunmüller, K. 1995. Semikommunikation und semiotische Strategien. Bausteine zu einemModell fürdieVerständigung imNordenzurZeitderHanse. InNiederdeutsch und die

ReceptivemultilingualismintheMiddleAges 45

skandinavischen Sprachen II,K.Braunmüller(ed.),35–70.Heidelberg:Winter.Braunmüller,K.1999.Die skandinavischen Sprachen im Überblick(2ndedn.).Tübingen:Francke.Braunmüller, K. 2000a. Højtysk som ‘naturlig’ fortsættelse af den nedertyske sprogkontakt i

Nordeni1500-tallet?InSpråkkontakt: Innverknaden frå nedertysk på andre nordeuropeiske språk[Nord200019],E.H.Jahr(ed.),277–88.Copenhagen:NordicCouncilofMinisters.

Braunmüller,K.2000b.VoraussetzungenfürdieÜbernahmehochdeutscherSprachstrukturenindie skandinavischenSprachen. InHochdeutsch in Skandinavien,H.-P.NaumannandS.Müller(eds),1–18.Tübingen:Francke.

Braunmüller, K. 2000c. On types of multilingualism in Northern Europe in the late MiddleAges: language mixing and semicommunication. In The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics10,G.Thórhallsdóttir(ed.),61–70.Reykjavík:UniversityofIceland.

Braunmüller, K. 2001. Verdeckte Mehrsprachigkeit. In Vulpis Adolatio. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Hubertus Menke, R. Peters, H. P. Pütz and Ulrich Weber (eds), 117–28.Heidelberg:Winter.

Braunmüller, K. 2002. Semicommunication and accommodation: observations from the lin-guisticsituationinScandinavia.International Journal of Applied Linguistics12:1–23.

Braunmüller,K.2004a.NiederdeutschundHochdeutschimKontaktmitdenskandinavischenSprachen. Eine Übersicht. In Deutsch im Kontakt mit anderen Sprachen, H.H. Munske(ed.),1–30.Tübingen:Niemeyer.

Braunmüller,K.2004b.ZumEinflussdesLateinischenaufdieältestenRuneninschriften.Ver-schränkung der Kulturen. Der Sprach- und Literaturaustausch zwischen Skandinavien und den deutschsprachigen Ländern. Zum 65. Geburtstag von Hans-Peter Naumann [BeiträgezurNordischenPhilologie37],O.Bandle,J.GlauserandS.Würth(eds),23–50.Tübingen:Francke.

Braunmüller, K. 2006. Wortstellung und Sprachkontakt: Untersuchungen zum Vorfeld undNebensatz im älteren Dänischen und Schwedischen. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik (Studien zum Ostnordischen)62:207–41.

Braunmüller, K. and Zeevaert, L. 2001. Semikommunikation, rezeptive Mehrsprachigkeit und verwandte Phänomene. Eine bibliographische Bestandsaufnahme [Arbeiten zur Mehr-sprachigkeit,FolgeB19].Hamburg:UniversitätHamburg,SonderforschungsbereichMehr-sprachigkeit.

Burke,P.1989.Heudomine,adsuntTurcae!AbrißeinerSozialgeschichtedespostmittelalter-lichen Lateins. In Küchenlatein, Sprache und Umgangssprache in der frühen Neuzeit,P.Burke,31–59.Berlin:Wagenbach.

Chirita,D.2003.DidLatininfluenceGermanwordorder?AspectsofGerman–Latinbilingual-ismintheLateMiddleAges.InAspects of Multilingualism in European Language History,K.BraunmüllerandG.Ferraresi(eds),173–200.Amsterdam:Benjamins.

Dahl,Ö.2004.Definitearticles inScandinavian:Competinggrammaticalizationprocessesinstandard and non-standard varieties. In Dialectology Meets Typology. Dialect grammar from cross-linguistic perspective,B.Kortman(ed.),147–80.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Delsing,L.-O.andLundinÅkesson,K.2005.Håller språket ihop Norden? En forskningsrapport om ungdomars förståelse av danska, svenska och norska.[TemaNord2005573].Copenhagen:NordicCouncilofMinisters.

Diercks,W.1993.ZurVerwendungprä-undpostmodifizierenderMorphemeimMittelnieder-deutschenundindenskandinavischenSprachen.InNiederdeutsch und die skandinavischen Sprachen I,K.BraunmüllerandW.Diercks(eds),161–94).Heidelberg:Winter.

46 KurtBraunmüller

Diercks, W. and Braunmüller, K. 1993. Entwicklung des niederdeutsch-skandinavischenSprachkontakts.UntersuchungenzurTransferenzanhandvonvolkssprachlichenTextendes15.,16.und17.Jahrhunderts—eineProjektübersicht.InNiederdeutsch und die skandi-navischen Sprachen I,K.BraunmüllerandW.Diercks(eds),9–40.Heidelberg:Winter.

Dorian,N.C.1997.Lexical Loss among the Final Speakers of an Obsolescent Language: A former-ly-fluent speaker and a semi-speaker compared. [TerralinguaDiscussionPaper2](http://www.terralingua.org/DiscPapers/DiscPaper2.html;March8,2006).

Engelbrecht, M. 1993. Mitteleuropäisch-skandinavischer Kontakt zwischen 800 und 1600aus historischem Blickwinkel. In Niederdeutsch und die skandinavischen Sprachen I,K.BraunmüllerandW.Diercks(eds),41–9.Heidelberg:Winter.

Gernentz,H.J.1988.Untersuchungen zum Russisch-niederdeutschen Gesprächsbuch des Tönnies Fenne, Pskov 1607. Ein Beitrag zur deutschen Sprachgeschichte.[Ost]Berlin:AkademieVerlag.

Golinski,B.2007.Kommunikationsstrategien in interskandinavischen Diskursen.Hamburg:Kovač.Haugen,E.1966.Semicommunication:ThelanguagegapinScandinavia.Sociological Inquiry

36:280–97.Ház,É.2005.Deutsche und Niederländer. Untersuchungen zur Möglichkeit einer unmittelbaren

Verständigung.Hamburg:Kovač.Heusler,A.1921.Altisländisches Elementarbuch.2ndedn.Heidelberg:Winter.House,Juliane2003.Englishasalinguafranca:athreattomultilingualism?Journal of sociolin-

guistics7:556–78.Jahr,E.H.1995.Nedertyskognordisk:språksamfunnogspråkkontaktiHansa-tida.InNordisk

og nedertysk. Språkkontakt og språkutvikling i seinmellomalderen, E.H. Jahr (ed.), 9–28.Oslo:Novus.

Klein,H.G.andStegmann,T.D.2000.EuroComRom: Die sieben Siebe: Romanische Sprachen sofort lesen können.2nded.Aachen:Shaker.

Kloss, H. 1978. Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800. 2nd rev. ed.Düsseldorf:Schwann.

LePage,R.andTabouret-Keller,A.1985.Acts of Identity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Menke,H.1996.‘IchbineineDäneundsprecheDeutsch.’ZurSprachgeschichteundSprachen-

politik imdeutsch-dänischenGrenzraum.InSprachenpolitik in Grenzregionen,R.Marti(ed.),137–61.Saarbrücken:SDVSaarbrückerDruckereiundVerlag.

Mørck,E.2005.Connective/narrative inversion inMiddleNorwegiandeclarative clauses. InContexts — Historical, Social, Linguistic. Studies in celebration of Toril Swan,K.McCafferty,T.BullandK.Killie(eds),263–78.Berne:Lang.

Munske,H.H.andKirkness,A.(eds).1996.Eurolatein. Das griechische und lateinische Erbe in den europäischen Sprachen.Tübingen:Niemeyer.

Nesse,A.2002.Språkkontakt mellom norsk og tysk i hansatidens Bergen.Oslo:Novus.Nesse, A. 2003. Written and spoken languages in Bergen in the Hansa era. In Aspects of

Multilingualism in European Language History,K.BraunmüllerandG.Ferraresi(eds),61–84.Amsterdam:Benjamins.

Nettle,D.1999.Language Diversity.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago IL: University of Chicago

Press.Peters,R.2000.DieRollederHanseundLübecksindermittelniederdeutschenSprachgeschichte.

InSprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erfors-chung. Vol. 2,W.Beschetal.(eds),1496–1505.2ndrev.edn.Berlin:deGruyter.

ReceptivemultilingualismintheMiddleAges 47

Petersen,H.P.2004.ThechangeofþintohinFaroese.RASK (Odense)21:51–61.Smith, J.M.H. 2005. Europe after Rome. A new cultural history 500–1000. Oxford: Oxford

UniversityPress.Sørensen, Ø. 2001. Kampen om Norges sjel 1770–1905. In Norsk Idehistorie, vol. 3. Oslo:

Aschehoug.Storsveen,O.A.2004.Enbedrevår.HenrikWergelandognorsknasjonalitet.Dr.ar.-disserta-

tion,UniversityofOslo.Tiisala,S.2004.Powerandpoliteness.Languagesandsalutationformulasincorrespondancebe-

tweenSwedenandtheGermanHanse.Journal of historical pragmatics5:193–206.Trudgill,P.2000.Onlocatingtheboundarybetweenlanguagecontactanddialectcontact:Low

German and continental Scandinavian. In Språkkontakt: Innverknaden frå nedertysk på andre nordeuropeiske språk[Nord200019],E.H.Jahr(ed.),71–85.Copenhagen:NordicCouncilofMinisters.

Wright,L.1996.Sources of London English. Medieval Thames vocabulary.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Wright,L.1997.TherecordsofHanseaticmerchants:ignorant,sleepyordegenerate?Multilingua16:339–50.

chapter2

Linguistic diversity in Habsburg Austria as a model for modern European language policy

RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetterUniversitätWien

Itisthepurposeofthispapertoshowthatthelanguagepolicyofthenineteenth-cen-turyHabsburgEmpirecanbeconsideredapromisingexampleofmultilingualman-agementandplanningbecause,asamodeloflivedmultilingualism,itshowsapoten-tialthatprojectsintopresent-daymultilingualEurope.Thepresentpaperelaborateson Habsburg language policy, which stood in stark contrast to the dominant nine-teenth-century ideologyofhomogeneousnation-states.As thispolicywas far fromaunifiedorstreamlinedmodel, thispaper investigates threespecificdomains—ed-ucation,administrationandthejudiciary—inthedifferentcrown-landsofBohemia,GaliciaandTrieste,wherethestruggleovermultilingualismandforpowerescalatedduringthenineteenthcentury.

Keywords:languagepolicy,HabsburgEmpire,multilingualism,nation-states

1. Introduction

InPartI“TheUnion’sObjectives”(Art.I-3)oftheTreatyEstablishingaConstitutionforEuropeitisstatedthattheEuropeanUnionshallrespectitsrichculturalandlin-guisticdiversity,andshallensure thatEurope’sculturalheritage issafeguardedandenhanced.ThisappearsallthemoreimportantwithinanenlargedUnionwithtwentydifferentofficiallanguagesandanothersixtyso-calledregionalorminoritylanguages.Hence,thereisanimmediateneedforpoliticalactionifthemottoof“unitedindiver-sity”isnotmerelytobeanemptywording. Inthisperspective,differentscenariosenhancingmultilingualcommunicationhavebeenunderdiscussioninrecentyears,suchastherequirementthatinthefutureeveryEuropeancitizenshouldspeakatleastthreecommunitylanguages(aslaiddownintheWhitebook1996).1Since2000andtheLisbonstrategy,2theCommissionhasrepeat-edlydeclaredmultilingualismalong-termgoalinordertoensuretheawarenessoflin-guisticdiversity,toenhancecitizens’accesstoEUlegislation,proceduresandinforma-tionand,mostimportantly,topromoteahealthymultilingualeconomy.AtameetinginBarcelona3in2002,theHeadsofStateorGovernmentoftheEUcalledforatleasttwoforeignlanguagestobetaughtfromaveryearlyage.In2003theCommissioncom-mitteditselftoencouragenational,regionalandlocalauthoritiestopromotelanguage

50 RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetter

learningandlinguisticdiversityinits“ActionPlan2004–2006—PromotingLanguageLearningandLinguisticDiversity”.4TheseactionscomplementmanyotherformsofsupportsuchastheLINGUAandSOCRATESprogrammesortheEuropeanYearofLanguages—2001and,mostrecently,thelaunchingofkeystudiestopromotedebate,innovationandexchangeofgoodpractice.5Moreover,promotingmultilingualismhasalsobecomeakeyaimofcitizeneducationatschoolswithintheEU.6

LinguisticdiversityhasalwaysbeenoneofEurope’sforemostcharacteristicoftheculturalassetandinmanyregionsmultilingualcommunicationhasalong-standingtradition.Fromthenineteenthcentury,however, theformationof thenation-stateswentalongwithculturalhomogenisationthatwasintimatelylinkedtoliteracyinthedominatingnationallanguage.Asaconsequence,interritorieswherethestatebound-ariesdidnotmapontotheexistingethnicboundariesmultilingualcommunitieswereconsequentlyforcedintonationalmonolingualism. Language diversity as it was practiced within the multiethnic Habsburg Empirethroughoutthenineteenthcentury,however,representsquiteanexceptiontothisrule.InterethniclanguageusewhichalsointheHabsburgEmpirewaslargelyregulatedbythestate,wasgenerallybaseduponaconceptofethno-linguisticautonomy,inparticu-larincaseswheretheregionalsocietiesprovidedforaculturallyelaboratedlinguisticcodeoftheirown(ase.g.theItalians).Germanasthelanguageofthepoliticallydom-inantgroupwasnever institutionalisedasanover-allstate languagealthoughtherewere some attempts at different periods in time to impose German in such a func-tion. These attempts, however, were mostly inspired by the central power’s require-menttoprovideforanefficientcommunicationandgovernanceinthefieldsofadmin-istration,judiciaryandeducation.Evenduringperiodssuchasthepre-revolutionaryVormärz7 (pre1848)orpost-revolutionaryNeo-absolutism8 languagepolicywasnotexplicitlyconceivedofasaninstrumenttoassimilatethevariousethnicgroupsintoGermanalthoughincertainregionsandatcertaintimesspecificregulationsbythecentralpowerwereperceivedassuch.From1848,andinparticular from18679on-wardslanguagepolicyintheWesternpartoftheEmpire(Cisleithania)10increasinglytookintoaccounttheclaimsoftherisingnationalitiesensuringnotonlylinguisticau-tonomyofthevariousgroupsbutprovidingforaregulationwhichexplicitlybannedcoercive learningofother languagesthatwereusuallyspokenwithintherespectivecrown-land11(“landesübliche Sprache”).Unfortunately,thisbanoncoercivelanguagelearningwhichwasdeterminedtoensureapolicyofnon-assimilationshouldresultinescalationoftheconflictamongthenationalitiesandeventuallycontributedtounder-minethepoliticalintegrationoftheEmpire. AfterthedisintegrationoftheHabsburgstatethiscentral-Europeanmodelofmul-ticultural communication was gradually replaced by national monolingualism inmostofthesuccessionstatesoftheEmpireanditbecamealmostcompletelyforgottenthroughoutthetwentiethcentury.Itwasonlyinthe1990sandwiththefalloftheironcurtainwhenitre-appearedagainwithinthediscussionuponfutureprospectsandthepromotionofEuropeanmultilingualism,inparticular,withinanenlargedUnion.

LinguisticdiversityinHabsburgAustria 51

Whilefarfrombeingamodelofaunifiedorstreamlinedlanguagepolicy,theregula-tionofinterethnicandsupra-regionalcommunicationwithintheHabsburgEmpireofthenineteenthcenturycanstillbeconsideredapromisingexampleofmultilingualmanagementatthestatelevel.ItisthepurposeofthispapertoarguewhytheHabsburgmodelcarriesapotentialwhichprojectsintopresent-dayEuropeanmultilingualism. Atthispoint,however,itmustbestressedthatcomparingthemultilingualpolicyoftheHabsburgstateandtheEUshouldnotignorethefundamentalstructuraldiffer-encesthatareconstitutiveforbothcontexts.Firstandmostimportantly,theEUisnotastatebutanallianceofstatesparticipatingasequalmembersinacommoneconom-icandpoliticalprogrammethatestablishestheUnion.TheHabsburgEmpire,ontheotherhand,wasawell-defineddynasticandcentralizedstatethatneverthelessresem-blestheEUincertainrespects. The Habsburg state reflected a multinational array that called for increased mul-tilingual policies. Greater political integration was demanded by the central statepower of the various nationalities within the state. As early as 1848 the Bohemian Charter12formulatedtheprincipleofequalrights.ThisprinciplecanbefoundinthePillersdorf Constitution(1848)as‘theinviolabilityofnationality’andintheImposed March Constitution(1849)as‘theinviolablerightofeverybranchofthepeopletothemaintainingandpromotionoftheirnationalityandlanguage’.Thelatterformulationisbasedon§1oftheKremsier Draft Constitution(1848)which,however,wasneverputintopracticeandinwhichevenastateguaranteeofthebasicprincipleofequalrightshadbeenenvisaged.13 In theend theprincipleof equal rightswas takenupby theConstitutionalDecreein§19oftheState Lawof186714asithadbeenformulatedintheImposed March Constitutionof1849. TheintegrationprocesswithintheEUisbasedoncorevaluessuchastheintegrityofmultiplenationalidentitiesandrespectforlinguisticandculturaldiversitywiththedifference,however,thatfromtheverybeginningculturalandlinguisticintegrationhasnotbeenpartofatop-downrulebutinsteadhasbeenevolvingfromthecommonpoliticalwillofMemberStates. Anotherparallelcanbeseeninthelingua francafunctionofbothGermanintheHabsburgEmpireandEnglish in theEUwith thenotabledifference,however, thatGermanwasthelanguageofaprivilegedpartofthepopulation,aswellasthelanguageofthestateanditsorganswhichthusgavetheHabsburgstateaGermaniccharacter.EnglishisdifferentforseveralreasonssinceitistheofficiallanguageoftwoMemberStatesthatjoinedtheECmanyyearsafteritsfounding.Moreover,Englishisnotasu-pranationalstatelanguage,norcanthelingua francaversionofEnglishintheEUbesaidtocarryanexclusivelyBritishcharacter. Yet another important parallel can be seen in the changing premises of polit-icaldecision-making in theHabsburgEmpireof thenineteenthcenturyand in theever-enlargingEU. In theHabsburgEmpire,more recently incorporated territorieslikeBukowinaorGalicia15differedfromtraditionalHabsburglandssuchasTriesteorBohemiainpowerstructureandnationalself-assertion.Thisisthereasonwhyvarious

52 RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetter

interestscouldnotalwaysbeaccommodatedthroughuniversalpoliticalstrategiesandlegalmeasures.WithintheEUanditsdifferentprocessesofenlargement,mostnotablytheoneof2004,theplanningoflanguagepolicieshastotakeintoaccountthechan-gingregionalrequirementsinadaptingitsstrategiestotherealityofspecificcontexts.Discrepanciesanddoublestandards,astheyhavecomeintobeingduringthelastac-cessionprocesswhennewMemberStateshadtofulfiltheCopenhagencriteriavis-à-vistheirethnicminoritieswhereasoldMemberStatesremainedexemptfromthisrule,areexamplesofthis.

2. MultinationalcommunicationandtheHabsburgmodel

Therearevariouspoliticallyandscientificallyconceivablewaystomanageandtoap-proachmultinationalcommunication.UndertheimpactofEuropeanintegrationandenlargementdifferentconceptsofmultilingualismhavebeenproposedsincethe1990sfromwhichClyne(2003)derivesfourmajorscenarios:

a.Polyglotdialogueorreceptivemultilingualism,i.e.eachspeakeruseshis/herfirstlanguageandunderstandsthoseoftheinterlocutors.

b.Multilingualcompetenceinrelatedlanguages,i.e.speakerslearnseverallanguageswhicharegeneticallyrelatedwithonelanguagebeingthemaincodeandtheothersbeinglearnedbycontrast.

c. Unspecifiedmultilingualism,i.e.speakersacquireseverallanguageswhicharepref-erablythoseoftheneighbouringcountries.

d.Englishasalingua franca(Clyne2003,41–3).

Thesefourscenariosbeinganabstractionofthemanifoldanddiversifiedpracticesofmultilingualcommunicationratherthanaclearcutinventoryoftheoreticallywellde-finedmodelsmaybeoverlappingandhencecanbefruitfullyintegratedoneintoan-other.Letus takee.g. thepolyglotdialoguebetweenspeakersofgenetically relatedlanguageswhomaycommunicateintheirrespectivelanguagesastheyhaveacquiredreceptive competences of their interlocutors’ languages through interaction andmaybe,alsobylearning.Herewerefertotheinter-ScandinaviancommunicationasithasbeenrecentlyinvestigatedbyZeevaert(2004,thisvolume).TakingintoaccounttherequirementoffutureEUcitizenstospeakthreelanguagesthiswouldmeanthatduetotheregionalandsupra-regionalneedsof EUcommunicationspeakerscoulddrawupon thesevarious scenarios in selectingor incombining themostappropri-ateamongthem.InthecaseofAustriaandinviewoftheenlargedUnionitwouldbeadvisabletointensifythelearningoftheneighbours’languageswhichnotonlywouldenhancethecommunicationwiththeneighboursbutwhichwould,atthesametime,alsohelptoovercomeexistingconflictsbetweentheGermanspeakingmajorityandthe autochthonous minorities within the country itself. Here, it is obvious that un-specifiedmultilingualismcouldbecombinedwithmultilingualcompetenceinrelated

LinguisticdiversityinHabsburgAustria 53

languages,andevenwithreceptivemultilingualism.Austriaprovestobeagoodex-amplewhentalkingaboutscenariosofmultilingualism,notonlyintermsofthenewlyemergedrequirementsofmulti-nationalcommunicationwithintheenlargedEUbutalsoforitshistoricalexperienceinpoliticallycopingwiththedifferentaspectsofmul-tilingualdiscourse. Forlackofdatathiscontributionwillnotbeabletoreconstructthespecificwork-ingsofreceptivemultilingualismwithintheHabsburgEmpireofthenineteenthcen-tury.TakingintoaccountthefunctionaldistributionoflanguageswithintheHabsburgstate,however,wecan startout fromthehypothesis that receptivemultilingualismmusthavebeenarealityinmanydomainsofcommunication.Fromthepresent-daystudyoflanguagesincontact,weknowthatmultilingualismisintimatelyassociatedwithaspectsof languagepolicyand languageplanning.Therefore, investigating thelanguage policy of the nineteenth-century Habsburg Empire promises not only toshowadiversifiedrangeofmultilingualpractices,butalsotorevealthesocio-politicalpremisesthatledtomultilingualisminpastsocieties.

2.1 Languagepolicyinthenineteenth-centuryHabsburgAustria

Itisimportanttonoteattheoutsetthat,whentalkingaboutlanguagepolicyintheHabsburgEmpireintermsofa‘model’inthesenseofcontinuousactivitiesandstrat-egies undertaken by the central state power to regulate multilingual communica-tion, thisdoesnotmeanthat theseactionswereapplied inequalmannerandwithequalmeasuresacrosstimeandspace(seealsoRindler-Schjerve2003a:3f.,Wallnig2003:26–9). Ithasalreadybeenpointedout that the interestsandpowerstructuresofthevariousethnicgroupsinthecrown-landsasinBohemia,TriesteorLombardywerefundamentallydifferentfromthoseinGalicia,BukovinaorDalmatiaandcould,therefore,notalwaysbeaccommodatedthroughuniversallegalmeasuresandpoliticalstrategies. Anotherpointisthatafter1848thecentralpowerinViennafollowedahardlineofhegemonicself-assertion,whereasinthe1860iesandthereturntoconstitutionalprinciplesittriedtoachieveallianceswiththenationalforces.Article19ofthe1867Constitution(Stourzh1980:1124ff.)isoneofthemostprominentexamplesforthis.Fromthis it follows that languagepolicy in theHabsburgEmpirerepresents theat-temptsofacentralpowertocopewitharegionallydiversifiedandconflict-ladencon-textwhicharosefromthedifferencesinculturalprestigeandthenumberofthelan-guagecommunities,whichatdifferenttimesandindifferentplacescalledforspecificpolitical measures and conflict appeasement. Focusing upon this diversification inspaceandtimewewillnowattempttoshortlysummarisethemainaspectsthatdeter-minetheheterogeneouscharacterofthispolicy. Asalreadymentioned,Habsburglanguagepolicywassituatedinacontextinwhichthestatepowerwascontinuouslychallengedbytheclaimsoftherisingnationalities.Itthusseemsobviousthat,atthelevelofrelationship,thereshouldhavebeenaclear-cut

54 RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetter

hierarchicalpolarisationinwhichtheGermandominated“centralstate”andthesub-ordinate“nationalities”wouldopposeeachother.Acloserlookatthehistoricaldata,however,showsthat,ratherthanasteadyhierarchicalpolarisation,therewasawiderangeofchangingmodelsoftheexerciseofpowerwhichconstantlyfoundnew,fragileandtemporarybalances(Wallnig2003).Particularly,inthewakeofongoingdemoc-ratisation,ithappenedthatthehegemonicpowerrelationsinthedifferentterritoriesofthestatewouldthemselvesbecomeunstableandwouldrequirearepeatednegotia-tionandtheestablishmentofaconsensusinwhichthestatepowerwascalleduponasaguarantororanarbiterfortheequalrightsofdifferentgroups.From1849andespe-ciallyafter1860theseshiftingpolarisationsweretheresultoftheassertionofinterestswithintheregionallydifferentiatednetworksofthedifferentethnicgroups,andalsobetweentheethnicgroupsandthecentralstatepoweritself. InTriesteandGalicia,forinstance,thestatesoughttoconcedeatypeofpluralistmultilingualismafter1849whichshouldhaveenabledtheunderprivilegedSlovenesandRuthenianstousetheirlanguagesintheofficialsphereparalleltothedominantregional languages Italian and Polish. In polyglossic contexts of this kind the statepowerfrequentlyattemptedtonegotiatebetweentherivallingpartiestakingintoac-counttheclaimsoftheunderprivilegedbutculturallynonwell-definedethnicgroupswhich were trying to redefine their status and to demand recognition for their dis-criminatedlanguageandculture.Thus,stateinterventionintoregionalpowerstrug-gleswasfrequentlyreadasonenationalityusingthestateforapoliticalmoveagainstanothernationality. Asinterventionsbythestatewerefrequentlycontestedbythelocalelites,themeas-uresonpartofthecentralpowercouldremainlargelyinefficient.Equally,thedirec-tionofstateinterventioncouldchangeacrosstimeandspaceand,sometimes,itcouldalsobemotivatedbylaissez-fairestrategiesoreventhelackofpoliticalaction.Thus,ithappened that languagerightswerenotalwaysactually implementedwithin the in-terethniccontextofanindividualcrown-landase.g.inTriestewheretheregionallydominantItalianelitesobstinatelyignoredtherightsoftheSloveniannationalityandwouldnotadmititslanguageinthepublicsincetheyconsideredSloveniannotasahistoricallyestablishedlanguage(Czeitschner2003).Hence,itwasonlytowardstheendofthenineteenthcenturythattheSlovenianlanguagebecamemorewidelyusedinthepublicsphere. Intimesofcrisis,suchasthethreattothemonarchyafter1860,thispolicycouldalsomeanthatthestatewouldcometoanagreementwiththelocalelitestherebyig-noringtheclaimsoftheunderprivilegedethno-linguisticgroupsorbymisjudgingtheactualneedsofthelocalpopulation.ThisemergesfromastudyontheadministrativedomaininGaliciawhere,after1869,ViennagrantedthePolishlanguageaprivilegedstatusoverRuthenian(anunderprivilegedvarietyofUkrainian)inordertosecureitsownsuper-ordinatehegemonicpositioninthisland(Fellerer2003).Stateinterventionwiththeinteresttoimposeequallanguagerightscouldalsoleadtothedestructionofawell-functioningsocietalmultilingualismandawell-establishedbilingualeducation

LinguisticdiversityinHabsburgAustria 55

systemsuchasinthecaseofPlzeň(Newerkla2003).InPlzeňthiswastheresultoftheuncompromisingimplementationofthe1867legislationregardingtheprinciplesoflanguageequalityandtheprohibitionoflanguagecoercion.Paradoxicallyaroundtheendofthenineteenthcenturythesegaverisetoamoremonolinguallyinspiredregime,andcalledintoquestiontheexistingmultilingualpracticeswhichhadbeeninplacesincethebeginningofthenineteenthcenturyinsomeregions. ItisalsoworthmentioningthatlanguagepolicyintheHabsburgEmpireofthenine-teenthcenturywasfarfrombeingunambiguous.Thus,itcouldhappenthattherewasadiscrepancybetweenanapparentlypluralisticlegislationandlanguagepracticeswhichrancounterconstitutionalprinciples.Thisisparticularlyvisibleinthetemporarilyos-cillatingdistributionoflanguageuseinpolyglossicregionsoftheEmpire,wherethenationalparadigmfrequentlyservedasacatalystfordiverseclaimsonthepartofso-ciallyandethnicallydifferentiatedgroupsfromthesameregion.Thereturntoconsti-tutionalprinciplesafter1849didgeneratelegalconcessionstothelanguages“currentlyused in the lands”aswellas to thenationalities residingwithin thestate.However,itwasnotsufficientlyclearforeachspecificcrown-landwhichlanguagescountedas

“current”andwhichlinguisticgroupsweresupposedtobenationalities.Thereforelegalregulationsveryoftenturnedouttobeamatterofinterpretationinthevariouslandsandthusprovidedthegroundsformultipleinterethnicconflictsthroughoutthesec-ondhalfofthecentury. Anotherpointisthatthelanguagepolicyofthemulti-ethnicHabsburgEmpirewasbasicallya-national.WhiletheHabsburgEmpirehadevolvedfromafeudal-dynasticintoaconstitutional-democraticstateinthecourseofthenineteenthcentury,thisstateremainedfundamentallya-national.16Sincethenationalprinciplewasnotatfocusinthispolicy,thestatemadeconcessionstothe“ethnicgroups”and“lands”onlyinasmuchaswasimmediatelynecessaryforinternalorexternalpolicymaking. Asamatteroffactandduetomajorideologicalandpoliticalshifts,thetradition-alpowerstructureof thismultiethnicstatehadtoberevisedaroundthemiddleofthenineteenthcentury.Therevolutionof1848initiallycausedsuchradicalchangesinpublic lifeandpublicdiscoursethat itbecameunthinkablefor largesegmentsofthe ethnically diversified population within the state to continue being linguistical-lyexcludedfromthepublicsphere.Consequently,thestatetriedtowintheconsen-susoftheestablishedregionalelitesbymakinglinguisticconcessionswhichincasessuchasTriestefurtherdiscriminatedagainsttheunderprivilegednationalitieswhichwere, however, of rising regional importance. Under certain conditions such as inGaliciaandduringashortperiodevenunderprivilegedgroupssuchastheRutheniansmightbesponsored.TheRutheniancorpusanditsstatusasthesecondregionallan-guagebesidePolishwereelaboratedalthoughthispracticewasretractedintheearly1850s. Then, with the move towards Neo-absolutism in the early 1850s the govern-menttried—withlittlesuccess—toelaboratetheroleofGermanasastatelanguage. After1860thetableshadturnedandthestatepowerreviseditstraditionalhegem-onicposition.Withtheendoftheneo-absolutistperiod,though,theconflictbetween

56 RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetter

thecentralpowerandbetweenthenationalitiesamongeachothercontinuedtosharp-en.Themainreasonforthiswasthecontinuinghegemonicclaimsofthetraditionallocalelitessothatthestatewasrepeatedlycalleduponasarbiterinescalatingconflicts.Theconflictsescalatedintheyearsafter1860and1867andespeciallyinthoseplaceswherethecentralpowertriedtocometoanarrangementwiththehegemonicclaimsoftraditionalelitesoftheparticularcrown-landwhilesimultaneouslyattemptingtoat-tendtotheneedsofunderprivilegedethnicgroups.Consequently,theethno-linguisticcompromisesandthelinguisticpluralismreachedinthepublicdomainscreatedtheimpressionofadegreeofliberalismandtolerancethatwereexceptionalforthetime. RegardingtheHabsburglanguagepolicyasaprominentmodelofenhancingmul-tilingualismdoesnotmean,however,thatthispolicywasactuallydeterminedbyplu-ralistviewsintermsofamultinationalcoexistenceonanequalfooting,andthismighteventuallyhaveaccountedfortheinherentweaknessofthismodel.Thestateforceswere far fromabandoningtheir traditionalpowerpositions,althoughthestrategiespursuedintheconservationofpowerwerenotmainlythosecharacteristicofhierarch-icaldomination,subordinationandrecriminationbutratherthosegovernedbytheprinciplesofpluralistequality,incorporationanddemocraticparticipation. Inconclusionwemaysaythatthislanguagepolicyappearedtobeacomplexinter-playofdiversifiedpracticesacrosstimeandspacewhichwasperceivedasashiftingbalancebetweentoleranceandpluralismontheonehand,andoppressionandauthor-itarianismon theother.Evenso, it representedauniquemodelof linguisticplural-ismwhichhadnocomparableparadigmatatimewhenEuropewasstronglyheadedtowardscreatinglinguisticallyunifiednationstates.Hence,thismodelofapolyglottstateofnationsactuallystoodinstarkcontrasttothethendominantideologyofthenation-stateandofnationalstate-formation.Yet,theinterventionsbythestatepowerwere doomed to failure since the apparently tolerant laws and the strategies of lin-guisticequalityastheywerelaiddownintheConstitutionof1867(Staatsgrundgesetz)wereneitherapttofurtherlocalinterethniccoexistenceandtolerancenordidtheysta-bilisethehegemonyofViennainthelongrun.Wedonotknow,howlinguisticnation-alismandstatepowerwerenegotiatedineverysinglecase,butweknowthatmultiplenationalself-assertionandstatehoodconceivedofasamultinationalentityinteractedinawaywhichbecamerelevantforthedisintegrationoftheHabsburgEmpire. AfterthisshortaccountofthemaincomponentsthatdefinetheHabsburglanguagepolicyinthenineteenthcenturywewillturnourviewtothreedomain-specificcasestudieswiththegoaltoshowhowthispolicydeterminedmultilingualcommunicationinspecifiedcrown-landsandacrossdifferentperiodsintime.Here,wemainlyrefertothefindingsinthevolumeofRindler-Schjerve(2003b)whichgivesanoutlineoftheinteractionoflanguageandpowerinthemulti-ethnicHabsburgEmpire.Ourdomain-specificcasestudieswilldrawonthesefindingsrestrictingthefocustoaspectsofmul-tilingualcommunicationinthefieldsofeducation,administrationandthejudiciaryincrown-landssuchasBohemia,GaliciaandTriesteacrossthetimefrom1848totheendofthecentury.Thereasonfortheinvestigationofthesespecificdomainsisthat

LinguisticdiversityinHabsburgAustria 57

linguisticpresenceinthesethreefieldsshouldguaranteeaccesstoandparticipationinstatepowerforthespeakersandtheircommunities.Thus,itgoeswithoutsayingthatthesedomains,inparticular,weretobecomethepreferredbattlefieldsofthestruggleoverlanguageandethnicornationalself-assertion.

2.2 Languagepolicyandeducation

Education represents a highly important domain and struggles within this domaincouldevengiverisetothefallofastategovernmentasin1895.17Concerningthepro-motionofmultilingualeducationinthisdomaindeliversaratherinterestingmodelconsistingintheteachingofdifferentsubjectsindifferentlanguagesunderthelabelof“utraquismus”. Theutraquistmodelwasmostlyrestrictedtoeducationattheprimarylevelwherechildrenweretaughtintheirmothertongueandinasecondlanguagewhichcouldbealanguagecurrentlyspokenintheland.Themothertongueshouldbe,however,graduallyreplacedbythesecondlanguageinthehighergradesofeducation.IntherarecasesofutraquistsecondaryschoolsGermanastheso-calledstatelanguagewasalsousedinhighergradesofeducation.Thispractice,though,gaverisetonumerousconflictswhereinlandssuchasCarinthiaandStyriaSlovenianwasrestrictedinfavourofGerman.AsimilareffectcanbefoundinIstriaandSilesiawhereCroatian,PolishorCzechbecamegraduallysubstituted(Stourzh1980:1136–1141).Althoughthismodelhadahighpotentialforenhancinginterethniccommunicationinmultilinguallands,itsweakpointcanbeseeninthatiteventuallywouldfavourfurtherassimilationintothedominantnationalityoftherespectiveland.Anotherpointisthatunderthepara-graphsofArticle19inthe1867Constitutionitwaslaiddownthatalllanguagescur-rentlyspokeninthelandswereequal,andthateachnationalityshouldbeentitledtoschooling in itsownmother tongue.Underparagraph3 the famousprohibitionoflanguagecoercionwas formulated,sayingthatnonationalityshouldbe forced intothelearningofanyotherlanguage.Consequently,thoseutraquistschoolswhichwereresentedasaninstrumentfavouringassimilation,weregraduallyreplacedbymono-lingual“nationalityschools”.Thesemonolingualschools,insteadofappeasingthees-calating interethnic conflicts further contributed to sharpen the emergent conflictsamongthenationalities. On the other hand, it has to be mentioned that in lands such as Dalmatia andMoraviawecanobservethedevelopmentofregionallyadaptedmultilingualmodelswhichintendedtoguaranteeacertaindegreeofbi-andtrilingualcompetenceamongthepupils.Thesemodelstookintoaccounttheveryrequirementsoflocalinterethniccommunication,ultimatelyignoringtheprovisionsregardingthebanonlanguageco-ercion(cf.Burger1995:243f.). ComparingthemultilingualpoliciesintheHabsburgeducationwithrecentdevel-opmentsinmultiple-languageacquisitionwithintheEU,ithastobestressedthattheconceptofmultilingualteachingdidnotexplicitlytakeintoaccountthedifferencebe-

58 RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetter

weenproductiveandreceptivecompetencessincelegalprovisionsconcentratedfirstandforemostonwrittenandspokenproficiency.Withthisbackgrounditwasnotanexplicitaimoftheutraquistpolicytofosterreceptivemultilingualism,althoughpoly-glotunspecifiedmultilingualismcouldactuallybeenhancedthroughthismodel. Ultimately,asaresultofthebanonlanguagecoercion,thepracticeofmultilingualschoolingwasdoomed to failureand,unfortunately, theutraquistmodelwhichap-pearstobeapracticalapproachofbothlivedhistoricalpracticeandmodernmultilin-gualeducationfellintodisuseformanydecades.Nowadays,andinadifferentform,itisbeingre-introducedunderthelabelofContentandLanguageIntegratedLearning(CLIL),especiallyinthecontextof EUeducationpolicywhereitappearsmainlyre-strictedtosecondaryeducation.AnotherpointisthatCLILtargetsthedevelopmentofmultilingualcompetenceswhereastheutraquistpolicy,asmentionedabove,veryoftenresultedinmonolingualeducation. Let us now turn to Bohemia, a crown-land in which the debate on multilingualschooling was rather heated. Newerkla (2003) has thoroughly investigated the situ-ationofbilingualeducationattwogrammarschoolsinPlzeň.Hisfindingsshowthatthebasicallytolerantlawof1867whichprovidedfortherighttohaveeducationinone’snativelanguageandwhichstatedthatnocitizenshouldbeforcedtolearnthelanguageofanyotherethnicgroupinPlzeň,actually,producedtheoppositeeffectandtriggeredofftheethnicconflictsthatithadbeenintendedtoprevent. InthefirsthalfofthenineteenthcenturyCzechwasnotonanequalfootingwithGerman,whichhadbeenadominantlanguageuntil1848.Afterashorttimeofpol-iticalconcessions,theGermandominatedhegemonicforcestriedagaintosuppressCzechself-determinism.ThecityparliamentofPlzeň,however,managedtopromotean equalizing curriculum of the utraquist type at both the German and the Czechgrammarschoolsinordertofosterbilingualcompetenceandtrustbetweenthetown’stwolanguagecommunities. However,in1866theimperialandroyalgovernorshipinPragueordainedthedis-continuationofexistingutraquistteachingattheCzechgrammarschoolandorderedtheuseofonesinglelanguageasthemeansofinstruction.Thisorderwasheavilyop-posedbythemajorityofPlzeň’sinhabitantswhowantedbothlanguagestocontinueasequalmediaofinstruction.Thisstruggleculminatedinabilingualprotestnotesignedbyinfluentialindividualsandpresentedtothecityparliament.However,thecityeldersbasedonArt.19thendeterminedGermanastheonlyofficialmediumofinstructionattheGermangrammarschool. IntheCzechgrammarschoolthesituationalsograduallyturnedtotheworse,al-thoughthereappearedtobestrongeffortstocounterbalancethemovetowardsmono-lingualism.In1875/76parallelclassesweregraduallydissolvedandin1877/78therewerenomoreparallelclassesattheCzechgrammarschool,withtheresultthatbythattime,theschoolhadbeenturnedintoamonolingualnationalityschool. AttheGermangrammarschoolCzechlanguageandliteraturehadalreadybecomeanoptionalsubjectin1869.Asaconsequence,aroundtheturnofthecenturyGerman

LinguisticdiversityinHabsburgAustria 59

hadsignificantlydroppedinimportance.TheshareofCzechstudentsattheGermangrammarschoolhadshrunktounder10%in1905.18Thesegregationwascompleteand the formerly dominant German language had been reduced to a subordinatedmeansofcommunication(Newerkla2003:192). Thisexampleshowsthatthroughoutthenineteenthcenturytherewasawiderangeoftemporarilychangingeffortsinwhichthestatepowerattemptedtocometotermswith the different nationalities in the lands and to counterbalance their diversifiedclaims,alsowiththeriskofsometimesmisjudgingtheactuallocalneeds.Weseethatthe central power’s language regulations could run counter the actual needs of thelocalpopulationandfinallydestroytheeffortsforapeacefulcoexistencebetweentheethnicgroups.Theconsequentturn-overfrommultilingualintomonolingualeduca-tiontriggeredoffethnicconflictswhichthispolicyhadactuallybeenintendedtopre-vent.

2.3 Languagepolicyandadministration

AdministrationwithintheHabsburgEmpirewasaprominentfieldofcommunicationsinceitneededtoprovideefficientinteractionbetweentheinterestsandrequirementsof thestatepowerand thecitizens.ThestatepowerhadabasicallyGermanicchar-actersinceGermanwasusedasthelingua francaofthepublicdomain,atleastuntil1848,andasitsymbolisedtheEmpireandthedynasty.Althoughtherewasnocorres-pondinglaw,asaruleGermanservedastheuniversallanguageforallpublicaffairs.Nevertheless,thestatepowerhadtocometotermswiththemultilingualrealityofitscitizensinordertobeefficient. AlreadysincethetimesofMariaTheresia,19thestatethusattemptedtotakeintoac-countthelanguagesspokeninthelands,however,invaryingmeasureanddegree.Thedifferencesinadmittingtherespectivelanguagesinadministrativeproceduresweredeterminedbyvariousfactorssuchastime,geographicalregionandculturalprestigeofthelanguagesandthespecificadministrativecontext.Togiveanexample,adminis-trationbefore1848mightbemoreGermandominatedthanaftertherevolutionaryortheneo-absolutistperiod.GeographicallyspeakingGermancould,however,beratherlimitedasanadministrativelanguage,ifwetakee.g.theItalianspeakinglandswherethehighlyprestigiousItalianinmanycontextsevendominatedGerman. As faras thedifferentcontextsofadministrationand their languageusearecon-cernedwehavetoconsiderthattherewasacertaingraduationof interactiontypesdependingonwhocommunicatedwithwhomwithintheinstitutions.Thus,e.g.inter-actionsbetweentheregionalandthecentralinstitutionswouldtakeplaceinGermanwhereasinteractionbetweenaregionalinstitutionandacitizencouldbeinlocallan-guages.Wealsonotethatsincetheseventeenthcenturyandinviewofthemultilingualsituationwithinthestatethereexistedseriousattemptsonthepartofthestatetoguar-anteeadministrativeefficiencyand,hence,toregulatethelanguageuseinthisdomain. LetusnowtakeamoredetailedlookatlanguageuseintheadministrationofGalicia

60 RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetter

underAustrianruleasitwasinvestigatedindepthbyFellerer(2003,2005).Hisfind-ingsshowthatalthoughGermanhadbeenforalongtimethedominantlanguageinthisdomainalongsideLatin,theactsoflanguageplanningfrom1812to1847stipulat-edthattheimperialauthoritiesshouldemployofficialswithgoodknowledgeofPolish.Yet, theuseof Polishhada rather symbolic standing in this context.Polish servedassecondlanguageforthecommunicativecontextswhichinvolvedthenon-Germanspeaking population and their representatives. Things started to change after 1848whenPolishand,foracertainperiod,alsothelanguagesofGalicia’sunder-privilegedUkrainians, called Ruthenian, entered increasingly into administrative use (Fellerer2003:157–64).PolishandRuthenianweregrantedtherighttobeusedasasubsidiarylanguageinexternalcommunication,i.e.whentheauthoritycommunicatedwiththePolishorRuthenianspeakingcitizens.Traditionallyspeaking,though,Ruthenianhadneverbeenusedbeforeasalanguageofpubliclifesinceitpassedasanunwrittenpeas-ants’dialectalthoughRuthenianspeakersmadeupfortytofiftypercentofGalicia’sentirepopulation.Thislackofprestigeshouldhaveanimpactuponthefurtherlan-guage-politicaldevelopmentintheregion. Duringtheneo-absolutistperiod(1851–60)theAustriangovernmentre-installedGermanastheuniversallanguageoftheEmpireresortingtoPolishonlyasasecondlanguageof the land.After thereturn toconstitutionalprinciples in1860,however,thesituationchangedandaneworderdevelopedwhichshouldlastuntilthedeclineoftheEmpire.Fromtheendofthe1860iesGermanwasrestrictedtotheinteractionwiththecentralstate,i.e.thecorrespondencewiththecentralinstitutionsinViennaandthepublicationoflegaldocumentsissuedinVienna.PolishandRuthenianwereadditionallyusedforthetranslationofthesedocuments.InadministrativeaffairsattheregionalanddistrictlevelPolishtookoverandin1866PolishbecamethesourcelanguagewithintheentireregionallegislationwhereastranslationswereprovidedintoGermanandRuthenian.Byandlarge,Polishreturnedasanofficallanguageinthosecontextswheretheregionalauthoritiescommunicatedbetweeneachotherorwherecommunicationtookplaceamongtheofficialswithinonesingleauthority.Asaconse-quence,Ruthenianremainedexcludedapartfromthesymbolicactoftranslatinglawsintothislanguage.BytheendofthedecadetheuseofRuthenianwasbacktothesitu-ationwhichheldbefore1848(Fellerer2003:165ff.). It is surprising that, after all, Polish would win the battle not only over Germanbut, in particular, over Ruthenian, given the ethno-demographic share after whichRuthenianswereconsideredanationalitythatshouldnothavebeenignored.OnemayaskwhyViennadidnotinterveneinthisasymmetricaldevelopmentinGalicia’sad-ministration(onthebasisofArticle19).OntheotherhanditiswellknownthattheAustro-Hungariancompromisein1867triggeredanagreementbetweenthegovern-mentandthePolisharistocracy.Hence,intimesofcriseswhenexternalpoliticalrea-sonsrequiredit,ViennaapparentlyrenouncedopposingtheoverallpolonisationofGalicia’sadministration,with theconsequence that thisdidnot leaveanyspace forRuthenianandRuthenianstogaininimportance.

LinguisticdiversityinHabsburgAustria 61

Fromthislanguagepolicywecanconcludethatthereis,atleastafter1866,noclear-cutpolarisationbetweentheGermandominatedcentralstateandthenationalitiesinthe lands.Whatwecansee, isashiftingbalancebetweenpluralismandoppressionwhich,however,appearsunderdifferentguisesanddifferentmotivationsatdifferenttimes.Thusitcouldhappenthatafter1848andafter1866Viennaintendedtoobtaindifferentagreementswiththenationalities,withtheconsequencethatafter1848theRuthenianswereincludedintothispluralistpolicywhereastheyremainedexcludedafter1866.Thisshowsthatthestatepolicyresortedtostrategieswhichwouldfavourthesegregationofnationalgroupsinalldomainsofpublicliferatherthantosupportindividualandcollectivemultilingualisminthisarea.Similartowhathappenedintheeducationaldomain,also inthissphereofpublic lifewemayobservearemarkabletrendtowardsmonolingualism. ComparinglanguageuseintheadministrativecontextofGaliciawithmultilingual-isminEUinstitutions,wenoticethatthereseemstobeaparallelconcerningthetrendtowardsmonolingualisminbothcontexts.ThiscanbeexplainedinthatEnglishhasemergedasapreferredlingua francainEUinstitutionalcommunication,althoughallimportantEUdocumentsmustbeprovidedintheofficiallanguagesoftheEUandthepracticeoftranslatingishighlyelaboratedwithinthedifferentinstitutions.UnliketheHabsburglanguagepolicyafter1867,linguisticnationalismisexplicitlybannedinthiscontext.AsfarastheroleofEnglishandGermanasalingua francainthisspecificcon-textisconcerned,itcanbesaidthatGermanwasmorethanasimplemeansofsupra-nationalcommunicationsincetheHabsburgstatehadaGermaniccharacterwhereastheEnglish-dominatedEUinstitutionsarenotassociatedwithastatepowerofanykind. Concerningreceptivemultilingualism,itmustbesaidthattherearenoreliabledataabout how this competence would have contributed to fostering multilingual com-munication in the Habsburg administration. Presumably, receptive multilingualismmighthavebeenarealityinthiscontextbutwhatmakesitdifferentfromtheEUscen-ariosofmultilingualismisthat inthenineteenthcenturyithadnotyetbeenrecog-nisedasaresourceofefficientlymanagingmultilingualcommunicationandoffoster-ingsupranationalidentities.Ourdatasuggest,however,thattheremusthavebeenalotofunspecifiedmultilingualismsinceinourpolyglotcontextadministrativeaffairshadtobehandledinthreelanguagesinordertoreachcitizens.Moreover,wedoalsoknowthatinaccordancewiththeprincipleofequalitytheprovincialgovernorswereinstructedthatallthecivilservantsofthecrown-landshadtoacquiresomeknowledgeofthelanguageusuallyusedintheland(Fischel1910:No.181).

2.4 Languagepolicyinthejudiciary

The judiciary is an institution in which the state figures as an arbiter between con-flictingpartiesandasagarantorforrightandpublicorder.Theinstitutionalisedreso-lutionofconflictsincourtisgovernedbyanormativebodyofrulesanddiscursive

62 RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetter

proceduresfromwhichitfollows,thatlanguageistheprimarymediumofinteractioninthisdomain.InmultilingualsocietiessuchastheHabsburgEmpirethejudiciaryappearstobeaverysensitivedomainsinceitdependsontheappropriatelanguagerules in order to ensure a fair and well balanced court procedure, and particularlywhenitcomestobi-andmultilingualtestifyingbeforethecourtortothepronounc-ingofjudgements.Therefore,theHabsburgEmpireattemptedtoregulatethelanguageuseofthecourtproceduresbyvariouslawsanddecrees.Goingbacktotheeighteenthcenturywe see that thereareanumberof effortsbywhich the state tried tocometotermswiththeneedsformultilingualisminthisdomain.InthefollowingwewillbrieflysummarisethemostimportantregulationsthroughoutthenineteenthcenturydrawingonCzeitschner(1997,2003). Fromthelateeighteenthcenturyonwardsweobserveseveralstrategieswhichin-clude the provision for German as the only official language in court (Josephinian Statute Bookof1787)andwhichprovide,incaseofneed,foraninterpretertoassistthe parties involved in a trial (Josephinian Court Regulations 1781; Criminal Court Regulations1788;West Galician Court Regulations1796andthefollowingPenal Law1803).UnderthePillersdorf Constitutionof1848,forthefirsttime,fundamentalrightsandfreedomsweregrantedwhichincludedtheinviolabilityofthenationalitiesandtheirlanguages.In1848itwasdecreedthatallthecivilservantsofthelandsweretoacquiresomeknowledgeofthelanguagescurrentlyspokenintheland(Fischel1910,No.181),andin1850itwasdeterminedthatasufficientnumberofjudgeshadtobeproficientinthecurrentlanguagesoftheregion.TheofficiallanguageintheSupremeCourtofJusticeandintheCourtofAppealwas,however,German.Iftrialswerecon-ductedinalanguageotherthanGerman,theverdicthadtobereadoutinthatlan-guageaswellasinGerman(Ogris1975:550f.).Intheneo-absolutistperiodtherewasnoconstitutionnordidfundamentalrightsandfreedomsexist.Withthereturntotheconstitutionalprinciplesin1867theequalityofthelanguagescurrentlyspokeninthelandswasguaranteedbythestate.Inthe1870sfurtherregulationsdeterminedthatdocumentsproducedinalanguageotherthantheoneusedincourthadtobetranslat-edbyanofficialinterpreter.Witnesseswhocouldnotspeakthelanguageusedincourtweretobeassistedbyaninterpreterorbythejudgeorminuteswriter,iftheywerepro-ficientinthislanguage(Fischel1910,No.358). Itisamajorproblemthattheactualimpactofallthesemeasuresonthemultilin-gualpracticesinjurisdictionhasbeenverylittleinvestigated.Inherstudyonpolyglottdiscourse and hegemony in the judicial system of Trieste Czeitschner (1997,2003)succeedsingivingadetailedaccountofhowthelanguageselectionwashandledinthis domain. From this account we may conclude that there was a discrepancy be-tweenthe languageuseas itwas legallyordainedandlanguageuseas itwasactual-lypractised.ThedatafromtheStateArchiveinTriestesuggestthatItalianremainedthedominantlanguagethroughoutthecenturyandthatlegalregulationsbetweenthelate18thandthemiddleofthe19thcenturyhadnovisibleeffect.Fromthe1820son-wardsthereareafewchanges(Czeitschner1997:141ff. ,2003:88–92)ofthekindthat

LinguisticdiversityinHabsburgAustria 63

German was more frequently used in the context of internal communication with-inthejudiciaryandbetweendifferentadministrativeauthoritiesofTrieste.Yet,thereisstillatotallackofSlovenedocuments.From1850until1918weobservethatthechanges in court organisation and constitutional changes did not have an immedi-ateimpactuponthelanguageruleinthejudiciaryof Trieste.Onlyinthe1890sthenumberofSlovenedocumentsincreasedtoadegreethatintheyears1910–1918theirnumbers came close to the German documents. This development shows that theconstitutionallyguaranteedequalityofallnational languageswasbeing implement-edveryslowlyalthoughthispracticewasrepeatedlymonitoredonpartofthecentralauthorities. An even more detailed account of the multilingual working in the judiciary canbederivedfromtheresultsof the investigationof thespecificrolecontexts thatde-finethisdomain.Here,wenotethatItalianisdominantinallinstitutionalinteractiontypesregardingthehandlingoffilesanddocumentsandcourtorganisationaswellasincommunicationwithinterestedpartiesandwithotherauthoritiesandexternalrelations. Ithas tobementioned, though, that in thefieldof institution-orauthor-ity-externalcommunicationSlovenewastakenintoaccount,butonlytowardstheendof the century although the dominance of Italian remained virtually unchallenged.Withinthecontextsofinstitution-orauthority-internaluse,suchascorrespondencewithauthoritiesofhigherrankweobserveadominanceofItalianfollowedbyGerman,andinthecorrespondencewithauthoritiesofequalrankadominanceofItalianandGerman,whereasincorrespondencewithauthoritiesoflowerrankGermanoutranksItalian. Asaconclusionwemaysaythatfromthe1850sonwardsthereisaremarkabledis-crepancybetweenthelegalframeworkasitwasdefinedbythestatepowertoguaran-teetheequalityoflanguageuseamongthedifferentnationalitiesontheonehandandtheactualimplementationofthelegalprovisionsontheother.Thismeansthatthiskindoflanguagepolicywouldbasicallyopenuptothenationalitieswithinthestatewhereasat thesametime it lacked thepower torestructuremultilingualcommuni-cationintermsofamoderndemocraticsocietywithinthissensitivedomain.Inthiscontextitismostsignificantthatincontrasttowhathappenedindomainslikeeduca-tionandadministrationthejudiciaryshowsacertainmovetowardsmultilingualism.Takingintoaccountthatthisdomaindoesnotappeartobeheadedtowardsnation-almonolingualismwemayconcludethatthelanguagepolicyoftheEmpirecarriedsomepotentialofshapingasupranationalmodelofstatemultilingualisminwhichthepartiesshouldco-existonanequalfooting. Unfortunatelythepresentdatadonotpermithypothesizingaboutthespecificim-pactofvariousmultilingualcompetencesofspeakersinteractingintherolecontextswithinthejudiciary.Thus,wedonotknowhowreceptiveandproductivecompetenc-eswereemployed inorder tocommunicateefficientlywithin thismultilingualcon-text.Fromvariouslegalprovisionsthatregulatedcommunicationinthejudiciarywelearnthatawitnessnotcompetentinthelanguageofficiallyusedincourtcouldonly

64 RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetter

beexaminedifboththeexaminingmagistrateandthestenographerweresufficientlycompetentinthewitness’language.Otherwiseanofficialinterpreterhadtobeconsult-ed(Czeitschner2003:98).Theproblem,however,isthatwedonotknowwhatexactlywasmeantby“sufficientlycompetent”sincethenineteenth-centuryconceptofmulti-lingualismdidnotyetdifferentiatebetweenthevariouscompetencesthatarepartofamodernunderstandingofmultilingualproficiency.

3. Thelessontobelearned

LetusnowconsiderwhatlessonscanbelearnedfrompolicyintheHabsburgEmpire.Aftersummarisingthemainpointsofthepreviouschapterswewilldevelopanoutlineofthemaincomponentswhichdefinedthesuccessandthefailureofthispolicy.Inasecondstepwewillattempttointegrateourfindingsintothebroadercontextoflan-guagepolicyandmultilingualisminpresentdayEurope. AstothesuccessesandultimatefailureoftheHabsburglanguagepolicyitcanbesaidthat,firstandforemost,ithasprovidedawiderangeofchangingmodelsfortheexercise of power in handling multilingualism and we noted that language regula-tions and practices were considerably diversified regionally and domain specific. Itwouldbemisleadingandalltoosimplistic,though,toconceiveofthispolicyintermsofaconfrontationbetweentheGermandominatedcentralpowerandthemulti-eth-niccommunitiesconceivedofassubordinatenationalities.Rather,wehavetoregardthispolicyasthecontinuouseffortonpartofthestatepowertocopewiththeevolv-ingnationalismswithinthemulti-ethnicstate.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatduringthenineteenthcenturyanditsmulti-facetedideologicalandpoliticalshiftsthetraditionalpowerstructureofthismultiethnicstatehadtobere-definedandadaptedtothere-quirementsofcontinuoussocietaltransformation.Obviously,mostofthepoliticalef-fortspursuedbythestatewereaimedatpreservingandsafeguardingthetraditionallyexistingpowerrelationswithinandoutsidethestate.Fromthisscopeitfollowsthatthepolicywhichwasenactedintermsofcompromiseswithandconcessionstothe

“ethnicgroups”and“lands”wasnotprimarilydeterminedbyaconceptionthatwouldaccountfortheformationofatrulypluralisticsocietywithinastateofnationalitiesbut,firstandforemost,bystrategicreasonsastheyemergedfromeverydayinternalandexternalaffairs.Here,itisimportanttostressthatthroughoutthenineteenthcen-turytheideologicalstanceofthispolicyremainedana-nationalone. Atthesametime,wemaysaythattheHabsburgpolicyhaddifferentoutcomessinceweobserveacertainmove,howevermodest,towardsmultilingualismwithindomainssuchasthejudiciary,whilequitetheoppositedevelopmentcanbeidentifiedintheeducationalandadministrativedomains.Fromthediscrepancieswhicharose fromeducationalpolicies inMoraviaandDalmatiawe learn that thestatequiteoftenat-temptedtoappeasetheinter-ethnicconflictsinadoptinginconsistentmeasureswhichfurtherescalatedtheconflicts.

LinguisticdiversityinHabsburgAustria 65

Another point is that the strategies defining the Habsburg model were far frombeingunambiguoussinceveryoftentheactualimplementationoflanguagepracticesin thedifferent lands rancounter thepluralistic languageprovisionsas they issuedfromvariousdecreesand,ultimately,fromtheconstitutionallawin1867.Fromthisitfollowsthat,ontheonehand,thestatewouldappearasanarbiterprovidingforplural-istbalanceandequalitywhileitignoredtherightsofnon-elitariannationalitiesbytry-ingtoaccommodatetheclaimsofthetraditionalelitesintheinterestofmaintainingcentralpower. Turningnowtothequestionofwhatwecanlearnfromthischapteronmultilin-gualismincentral-Europeanhistorywecanconcludethatfirstofallinter-ethnicallydiversifiedcommunitiesor statecompounds, ingeneral, requireadequateconceptsorguidelinestopoliticallyhandleandtoenhancemultilingualcommunicationifthiscommunicationisnottobecomeapermanentconflictpotentialamongthelinguistic-allydiversifiedcommunities.Aslinguisticaccesstopublicdiscoursemeansaccesstopowerandgovernanceinsociety,theshareoflinguisticallydiversifiedcommunitiesinmultilingualcommunicationhastoberegulatedinonewayoranother.Thisispar-ticularlytruefortheactualsituationwithinEUinstitutionswherewenoticeacertaintendencytowards‘Englishonly’thatisincreasinglyraisingconcernamongMemberStatessincetheyfearnotonlythelossofstatusandidentity,butalsomoderation(ofhavingasayatthesupranationallevel). DrawingontheHabsburgmodel,asecondconclusionwouldbethatconceivingoflanguagepolicyingreatmultilingualstatecompoundsintermsofadhocaccommo-dationsisdoomedtofailuresinceitrunscountercrucialprinciplesofdemocraticgov-ernance.Therefore—andthisisstillanotherlessontobelearned—suchalanguagepolicyneedstobefoundedinasetofcommonlysharedvaluesandprinciplesastheyform the ideological basis for democratic decision-making and problem resolution.AlthoughtheHabsburgstatehadevolvedfromafeudal-dynasticintoaconstitutional-democraticstateinthecourseofthenineteenthcenturytheobviousinconsistenciesof this languagepolicyoriginate in its insufficient foundation in suchprinciples. IfwenowturnaneyeonthemostrecentdevelopmentsoftheEU,weseethatthenewlyelaborated Constitutional Treaty refers to commonly shared values, i.e. democracy,respectforhumandignity,freedom,equality,theruleoflawandrespectforhumanrights,includingtherightsofpersonsbelongingtominorities.ThesevalueswillformthebasisforconstructingamultilingualUnion,eventuallydeterminingprospectivelanguagepoliciesinEurope. Sincethereisagreatdiscrepancy,notonlyintermsoftimeandsocialsettingbutalsointheperceptionofwhatconstitutesamultilingualdemocraticsociety,itappearssomewhatdifficulttodrawtheexactlinesbetweenpastandpresentlanguagepoliciesincomparingtheHabsburgwiththeEUcontext.Yet,thereistheprincipleofequal-itythatmeritssomeattentionasitdeterminesthequalityandultimately,thesuccessofmultilingualdemocraticpoliciesata larger supranational scale.Thecase studiesonTriesteandGaliciaareagoodexampleofhowthelanguagerightsofthedifferent

66 RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetter

nationalitieswerenegotiatedagainsttheprincipleoflinguisticequality.Ifwenowtakeintoaccountthemultilingualconflictzonesinmanypost-modernsocietieswerealisethatlittlehaschangedinthisrespectsinceitstillremainsanopenquestionofhowtopoliticallycopewithequalityagainstthebackgroundofdiversity.Diversitylinksupwithdifference,i.e.differenceintermsoflinguisticfeatures,speakersandtheircom-munitiesbutalsodifferenceinthestatusandpositionsthesecollectivesholdwithinthemultilingualsociety.Hence,tocopewiththisconflict-ladenissuewillbeoneofthemajorchallengesforanEUpolicyinwhichtheprinciplesofequalityanddiversityarehighontheagenda.Asmentionedabove,equalityhasbecomeadeclaredvalueoftheUnion,whereasdiversityservesasitsmotto.Ifwenowtakeregionalminoritiesinparticular, it turnsoutthat it isextremelydifficulttoaccommodatebothprinciples.ThisisonereasonwhytheEUhasputpressureonnewMemberStatestofulfiltheCopenhagencriteriabyprovidingfortherespectandsafeguardoftheirminorities. Anotherimportantlessontobelearnedfortheconceptualisationoflanguagepoli-ciesintheEUisthecasestudyonPlzeňwhereitturnedoutthatawellbalancedbilin-gualequilibriumintheeducationalspherewasdestroyedasthestatetookanalltoocentralisticstanceimplementingtheprincipleoflinguisticnon-coercion(which,iron-ically,wasmeanttofurtherdemocraticequality)top-downandagainsttheactuallocalorregionalneeds.Fromthiswelearnthatinlargemultilingualstatecompoundsthereisaneedforapolicythataccountsforthediversifiedregionalneedsandinterestsin-steadofenactingsolutionsthatruncountertheactuallocalrequirements.TolearnthislessonwillbeoneofthemajorchallengesfacingacommonEuropeanlanguagepolicy.Ontheonehand,acommonEuropeanlanguagepolicyisactuallyalreadyinthemak-ingifweconsiderthevariousstepstheCommissionhasundertakensincethe1990stofostermultilingualismwithintheUnion(cf.chapter1).Ontheotherhand,languagepolicyremainswithinthedomainofsingleMemberStatesintowhichtheUniondoesnothavethelegalcompetencetointerfere.Withongoingharmonisation,particularlywithinthefieldofmultilingualeducation,thequestionwillbehowtoaccommodatethediversifiedneedsforpromotingmultilingualismatthesupranational,nationalandregionallevels.HereagainminoritylanguagesandtheirintegrationintotheUnion’smultilingualismwillbeatouchstoneforacommonEuropeanlanguagepolicy.20

4. Conclusion

Ifwenowturntothefourmultilingualscenariosthathavebeenproposedundertheimpact of European integration and enlargement (chapter 2) we can conclude thattheHabsburgEmpire’smultilingualismisofsomeinterestsinceitshowsadiversifiedrangeofpracticesofmultilingualcommunicationwhichcanberelatedtothecommu-nicativerequirementsofmodernmultilingualsocieties. Concerningpolyglotdialogueandreceptivemultilingualism,wemustsaythatwedonotknowhowpolyglotdialogueswerenegotiatedindetailandhowreceptivemulti-

LinguisticdiversityinHabsburgAustria 67

lingualismcontributedtotheaccommodationofthediscoursebetweenthespeakerssincethemultilingualrealityreconstructedthroughhistoricaldatadoesnotprovideforclearevidencereferringtoreceptivecompetences.Thereasonmightbethattheconceptofmultilingualismcharacteristicofthenineteenthcenturydidnotdifferenti-atebetweenthevariouscompetencesthatdefinemultilingualproficiencytoday.Theresultsofourcasestudiessupportthishypothesis. Asformultilingualcompetenceinrelatedlanguages,itmaybearguedthatlanguageeducationconcentratedmainlyonthelanguagescurrentlyspokeninthelandsandoninternationallyprestigiouslanguagessuchasFrenchand,toalesserdegree,English.Thedevelopmentofmultilingualcompetenceinrelatedlanguageswasnotaprimaryeducationalconcernsincelanguageeducationtookplace,firstandforemost,accord-ingtothespecificcommunicativerequirementsoftheparticularland. Unspecifiedmultilingualismwasamostwidespreadphenomenoninthishistoric-alcontextsincespeakerslearnedseverallanguagesandpreferablythoseoftheirlandsandneighbours.Interestinglyenough,itwasthefamousArticle19oftheStateLawin1867thatimplicitlyfosteredthiskindofmultilingualismwhile,atthesametime,para-doxicallyunderminingitthroughthebanonlanguagecoercion(paragraph3). Alsothelingua francascenariohastobetakenintoaccountsinceGerman,whichfunctionedasanoverarchingstatelanguage,servedasasupra-regionalmeansofcom-munication,inparticularinmanypublicdomains.YetitmustberepeatedoncemorethatGermanasalingua francawasmorethanasimplemeansofsupranationalcom-municationsincetheHabsburgstatehadaGermaniccharacter. Concluding,wemaysaythattheHabsburgmodelcanbeconceivedasanalterna-tive to thestillpersisting trendsof linguisticallyunifiednationstatesand thepeda-gogicalideologiestheyhavebeenassociatedwithinthepast.DuringthenineteenthcenturythemultilingualpracticeswithintheHabsburgEmpirewouldhardlybesus-tainedbythecurrentpedagogicalideologiesofthattimeasthispedagogywasstronglyheadedtowardstheprinciplesoflanguagenationalismandculturalhomogeneity.Intheoutgoingtwentiethcenturythistraditionalconcepthasbeenlargelyrevisedduetothegrowinginternationalisationandglobalisation,andunderthe impactofdemoc-ratisationandintegrationinEurope.ContrarytowhathadhappenedtomultilingualeducationintheHabsburgEmpire,therecentshiftfrommono-tomultilingualisminmodernEuropeaneducationislargelysupportedbytheorybuildinginthisfield.AsEuropeanmultilingualeducationcanonlydrawonverylittledirectexperiencewithsupranationalmodelsofmultilingualism,thelivedmultilingualisminthemulti-ethnicHabsburgstatemayserveasahistoricalcasestudyfromwhichwelearninmorede-tailabouthowgreatmultilingualsocietiescanorganisetheirinteractionandhowtheycanadministratetheirpeacefulcoexistenceoncommonpoliticalgrounds.Therefore,wethinkthatthemodelofthemultiethnicHabsburgstate—atleastthatofthesecondhalfof thenineteenthcentury—carriesapotentialwhichprojects intocontactandconflictscenariosinpresent-dayEuropeanmultilingualism.

68 RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetter

Notes

1. http://www.eu.int/comm/education/doc/official/keydoc/lb-en.pdf (see: fourth general ob-jective“proficiencyinthreecommunitylanguages”,47–9).

2. ThememberStatesagreed inLisbontoestablishaneffective internalmarket toboostre-searchandinnovationandtoimproveeducationtomaketheEU“themostdynamicandcom-petitiveknowledge-basedeconomyintheworld”by2010.

3. BarcelonaEuropeanCouncil,15and16March2002,PresidencyConclusions,PartI,43.1.

4. COM(2003)449

5. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/key/studies_en.html

6. http://www.eurydice.org

7. ThisperiodbetweentheCongressofViennain1815andtheRevolutionof(March)1848isusuallyassociatedwiththeimageofapoliceandcensorshipstateandembodiedinthepersonofStateChancellorMetternich.TheVormärzismarkedbyaconsolidationoftheauthoritarianstateinwhichself-administeringbodiessuchastheestatescontinuedtoloseground,whereastheno-bilityandthemiddleclassforcescontinuedtobeabletoshareinthestatepowerapparatus.

8. Theperiodfrom1851–1860,generallyreferredtoas‘Neo-absolutism’,wascharacterisedbyagreatdealofreformistactivityconcentratingonextendingthepowersofthecentralisedstate.Usefulinnovationsinthetechnicalitiesofadministrationwereretained,suchastheministerialsystemandthesystemofdistrictadministration,butalsocertainliberaladvancessuchastheabolitionoflandcontrolandthefreedomofteachingandlearningintheuniversities,andbe-causeofthesetherewasalsoanincreaseintheopportunitiesforthestatetoparticipateinitsowndevelopment.In1860theimplementationofaparliamentaryconstitutionbroughtanendto‘Neo-absolutism’.

9. In 1867 Hungary was incorporated into the overall structure of the Empire as a partnerwithequalrights:TheK(aiserlich)-K(öniglich)(Royal-Imperial)monarchybecameaK(aiserlich) u(nd) K(öniglich)(RoyalandImperial),whichwassupposedtodemonstratetheupgradingoftheKingdomofHungary.Thepopularnamesforthetwoparts,CisleithaniaandTransleithania(derivingfromtheRiverLeithawhichmarkedtheborder)wereaparaphraseofthenewlegalsituation.HungaryacquiredanewgovernmentanditsownparliamentwhichonlycollaboratedwiththeVienneseequivalentsinmattersofforeignpolicy,thearmedforcesandthejointstatebudget.Thesettlement(“Ausgleich”)wasexpressedinseparateconstitutionallawsforCis-andTransleithania.

10. ThepresentpaperfocusesexclusivelyonthesituationinCisleithania,andinparticularonmultilingualismandlanguagepoliciesastheywerepractisedinCzechandGermanspeakingBohemia, inPolishandRuthenianspeakingGalicia, in Italian,andSlovenespeakingTrieste.The “Kingdoms and Territories” represented in Cisleithania were the Kingdoms of Bohemia,DalmatiaandGalicia-Lodomeria;theArchduchiesofAustriaaboveandbelowtheEnns;theDuchiesofSalzburg,Styria,Karinthia,Krain,SilesiaandBukowina;theMargravatesofMoraviaand Istria; the Princely Counties of Tirol and Görz-Gradisca; the Land of Vorarlberg; theCityof Trieste.In1910theCisleithanianpopulationwasmadeupasfollows:35.6%German,23% Czechs, 17.8% Poles, 12.6% Ruthenians, 4.5% Slovenians, 2.8% Serbs and Croats, 2.7%Italians—a category which also included Ladins and Friulians—1% Romanians, and 0.02%othergroups.

LinguisticdiversityinHabsburgAustria 69

11. Thefrequentlyusedterm“crown-land”or“land”refersingeneraltothefactthatacoun-trybelongedtothesphereofpowerofacrown(e.g. theBohemiancrownof Wenceslas, theHungariancrownofStephen…),butespeciallyafter1848“crown-land”referredparticularlytothecountriesoftheAustriancrown.

12. TheCharterisanimperialconcession,generallyseenasareactiontothePraguerevolution-arymovementof1848.

13. TheConstitutionwaselaboratedin1848andwasthefirstconstitutionwithintheHabsburgEmpire.Againstthebackgroundoftherevolutionaryevents(occupationofViennainautumn1848)adraftconstitutionwaselaboratedbythefirstReichsrat(=imperialcouncilasthefirstrepresentativebodyatthelevelofthewholestate)inKremsiersomemonthlater.AfewdaysaftertheKremsierReichsrathadpresenteditsconstitutionalprojecttotheEmperorandtothegovernment,thelatteransweredbyenactingitsownconstitution,theso-calledImposedMarchConstitution(“Oktroyierte Märzverfassung”),andbydissolvingtheparliament.OnNewYear’sEve1851, theEmperorrepealed the ImposedMarchConstitution. Itwasreplacedby theso-calledSilvesterpatent[NewYear’sEveDecree]whichfailstomentionequalnationalrightsal-together.Thisisthebeginningoftheneo-absolutistperiod(1851–1860).

14. EventssuchastheStateLawof1867(Staatsgrundgesetz)wereconsiderablyinfluencedbyacomplexnetworkofinternalandexternalpoliticaloccurrences,forexamplethelostwaragainstItalyandthelossofLombardyin1859,thestatefinancialcrisisandtheconstantchangesinthepoliticalconstellation.

15. Both lands were formerly parts of Poland and remained therefore untouched by theHabsburgs’centralizingtendenciesintheearlymodernperiod(cf.Wallnig2003:27f.).

16. Thisa-nationalcharacterofthestatepowerwasalsoreflectedinitsdynastywhichinmostofitspartshadgonethroughamultilingualeducation.Goebl(1997)givesaninterestingaccountofthemultilingualcompetencesofthedifferentHabsburgemperors.

17. ThestrugglewasabouttheintroductionofparallelclasseswithSlovenianandGermanasmeansofinstructionintheoneandonlyGermangrammarschoolofCelje.CeljewasaGermandominatedtowninaSloveniandominatedsurrounding.TheGermanliberalpartystronglyop-posedthisplangivingrisetoanethnicallyheateddebatewiththefinalresultthatthecoalitioninViennademissioned(Burger1995:159–61).

18. SeeNewerkla(2003:189)forthetablesoftheproportionaldistributionofthefirstlanguageatboththeCzechandtheGermangrammarschoolsince1850.

19. Maria Theresia (1717–1780), archduchess of Austria, queen of Hungary and queen ofBohemia(‘emperor’onlyinherqualityaswifeofFrancisIst),isfirstofallrememberedforthepromotionofasecularandpublicschoolsystem.Thereformsduringherreign(1740–1780)andthatofhersonJosefII(1780–1790)gaverisetothedevelopmentofacentrallystructuredlegalandciviladministrationinwhichcivilianbodiesbecameincreasinglyinvolved.

20. In this context it cannot be ignored that as far as linguistic minority promotion is con-cernedthereareactuallydoublestandardssinceoldMemberStatesarenotobligedtofulfiltheCopenhagencriteria.

70 RositaRindler-SchjerveandEvaVetter

References

Burger,H.1995.Sprachenrecht und Sprachengerechtigkeit im österreichischen Unterrichtswesen 1867–1918.Wien:VerlagderÖsterreichischenAkademiederWissenschaften.

Clyne, M. 2003. Towards inter-cultural communication in Europe without linguistic homog-enization. InDie Kosten der Mehrsprachigkeit. Globalisierung und Sprachliche Vielfalt,R.de Cillia, H.-J. Krumm and R.Wodak (eds), 40–7.Wien: Verlag der ÖsterreichischenAkademiederWissenschaften.

Czeitschner,S.1997.Polyglossie in der Domäne Gerichtswesen in Triest 1767–1918. Sprachpolitik und Sprachwirklichkeit in der Habsburgermonarchie.Doctoralthesis,universityofVienna.

Czeitschner,S.2003.Discourse,hegemonyandpolyglossiainthejudicialsytemofTriesteinthenineteenthcentury.InDiglossia and Power. Language policies and practice in the nineteenth century Habsburg empire,R.Rindler-Schjerve(ed.),69–105.Berlin:deGruyter.

Fellerer,J.2003.Discourseandhegemony:ThecaseoftheUkrainianlanguageinGaliciaunderAustrianrule(1772–1914).InDiglossia and Power. Language policies and practice in the nineteenth century Habsburg empire,R.Rindler-Schjerve(ed.),107–66.Berlin:deGruyter.

Fellerer,J.2005.Mehrsprachigkeit im galizischen Verwaltungswesen (1772–1914). Eine historisch-soziolinguistische Studie zum Polnischen und Ruthenischen (Ukrainischen).Wien:Böhlau.

Fischel,A.1910.Das österreichische Sprachenrecht,2ndedn.Wien:VerlagIrrgang.Goebl,H.1997.DiealtösterreichischeSprachenvielfaltund-politikalsModellfallvonheuteund

morgen.InLingua e politica. La politica linguistica della duplice monarchia e la sua attualità. Atti del simposio Istituto Italiano di Cultura, 31 May 1996,U.Rinaldi,R.Rindler-SchjerveandM.Metzeltin(eds),103–21.Vienna:IstitutoItalianodiCultura.

Newerkla,S.M.2003.TheseamysideoftheHabsburgs’liberallanguagepolicy:Intendedandfac-tualrealityoflanguageuseinPlzen’seducationalsystem.InDiglossia and Power. Language policies and practice in the nineteenth century Habsburg empire,R.Rindler-Schjerve(ed.),167–95.Berlin:deGruyter.

Ogris,W.1975.DieRechtsentwicklunginCisleithanien1848–1918.InDie Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, Verwaltung und Rechtswesen, Bd. II,A.WandruszkaandP.Urbanitsch(eds),538–662.Wien:VerlagderÖsterreichischenAkademiederWissenschaften.

Rindler-Schjerve,R.2003a. Introduction. InDiglossia and Power. Language policies and prac-tice in the nineteenth century Habsburg empire,R.Rindler-Schjerve(ed.),1–11.Berlin:deGruyter.

Rindler-Schjerve,R.(ed.)2003b.Diglossia and Power. Language policies and practice in the nine-teenth century Habsburg empire.Berlin:deGruyter.

Stourzh, G. 1980. Die Gleichberechtigung der Volksstämme als Verfassungsprinzip 1848–1918. In Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, Verwaltung und Rechtswesen, Bd. III/2,A.Wandruszka and P. Urbanitsch (eds), 975–1206.Wien: Verlag der ÖsterreichischenAkademiederWissenschaften.

Wallnig, T. 2003. Language and Power in the Habsburg Empire: The historical context. InDiglossia and Power. Language policies and practice in the nineteenth century Habsburg em-pire,R.Rindler-Schjerve(ed.),15–32.Berlin:deGruyter.

Zeevaert, L. 2004. Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verständigung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs[Philologia64].Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

part2

Receptive multilingualism in discourse

chapter3

Receptive multilingualism in Dutch–German intercultural team cooperation*

AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThijeRadboudUniversiteitNijmegen/UniversiteitUtrecht

Despite the typologicalproximityof DutchandGerman,receptivemultilingualismisseldomusedinDutch–Germancommunication.ThischapterexploresthefactorsthatinfluencethechoiceforreceptivemultilingualismasamodeofcommunicationinGerman–Dutchencountersbyreflectingontherelationshipofthetwolanguagesandnationstates.Furthermore,attentionispaidtotheinstitutionalconstellationandtherelationshipsbetweentheactual interactants indiscourse.Thesetheoreticalpre-liminariesareexaminedinananalysisofreceptivemultilingualismasitoccursinthelanguageteachingteamoftheGoethe-InstituteinAmsterdam(cf.Roelands2004)byanalysingteamdiscussionsasaformofinstitutionalcommunication(cf.KooleandtenThije1994).Itishighlightedhowinstitutionalkeywordsareusedinordertocon-veyinstitutionalknowledgethatisnotlanguage-specificinordertoenhancefelicitouscommunication.TheauthorsfinallyshowhowthediscourseattheGoethe-Instituteisstructuredinterculturally,makinguseofRehbein’s(2006)conceptofthe‘CulturalApparatus’.

Keywords:GermanDutchinteraction,teamdiscussion,interactiveplanning,institu-tionalkeywords,Goethe-Institute,interculturaldiscourse

1. Introduction

ThispaperdealswithreceptivemultilingualisminDutch–Germanteamcooperation.InordertogivethereaderanimpressionofthisspecificmodeofcommunicationwebeginthissectionwithadiscoursefragmentbetweentheDutchmanGerardandtheGermanBernd(seep.74).ThefragmentisarepresentativeextractofdiscoursebetweentheDutchmanGerardandhisGermancolleagueBerndwhobothworkattheGoethe-InstituteAmsterdam.GerardandBerndhavedecidedatthestartoftheirworkingco-operationthattheybothwanttousetheirrespectivemothertonguewhilespeakingtoeachother.Bothofthemhaveadequate,thatismorethanminimal,knowledgeoftheirinterlocutor’s languagesothattheycanunderstandeachotherreciprocally.Thedis-coursestretchesbetweenBerndandGerardaresomeofthefewdocumentedcasesofGerman–Dutchreceptivemultilingualism.Thisleadsustothequestionastowhythe

74 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

Fragment 1. 130504:zaterduitsdag

useofreceptivemultilingualismissorarebetweentheDutchandtheGerman.Takingintoaccountthetypologicalclosenessofthetwolanguagesandtheculturalproximityofthetwonationstates,itisastonishingthatbilingualDutch–Germandiscoursedoesnotoccurmoreofteninthereceptivemultilingualmode.Inmostcases,eitheroneoftheinterlocutorsadaptstothelanguageoftheother,orEnglishisusedasalingua franca(seeZeevaert,thisvolume,foranoutlineofallpossiblemodesofmultilingualcommunication).

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 75

Inthischapter,westartbyreviewingthefactorsthatsupporttheoccurrenceofre-ceptivemultilingualism.WerelatethesefactorstotheparametersintroducedbyHouseandRehbein(2004:3)asameansforanalysingmultilingualcommunication.Section2discussestheoccurrenceofreceptivemultilingualismfromthreedifferentperspec-tives.First,wefocusonthesocialandlinguisticrelationsbetweenthetwonationsandtheirstandardlanguages.Second,wediscusstheinstitutionalconstellationsthaten-ableorrestricttheoccurrenceofreceptivemultilingualism.Inathirdstep,weinvesti-gatetheperspectiveoftheindividualinteractantsinvolvedbydescribingthelinguisticandculturalcompetencesthatmightencouragetheuseofreceptivemultilingualism.Insection3,wediscussacasestudyonreceptivemultilingualismfromtheGoethe-InstituteinAmsterdaminmoredetail.Thisleadstoadiscussionastowhyreceptivemultilingualismisasuccessfulmodeofdiscourseinthisspecificcase.Weexemplifythissuccessbyanalysingastretchofplanningdiscoursetakenfromteamdiscussions(section5).Illustratedbytheuseofkeywords,wediscussoneofthemeansbywhichunderstandingisestablishedwithinthereceptivemultilingualmode.ThischapterisbasedonacasestudythatwascarriedoutbyRoelands(2004).Insection6,wedis-cusshowculturalunderstandingisachievedinreceptivemultilingualdiscourse.Forthispurpose,wewillapplyRehbein’snotionof ‘CulturalApparatus’(Rehbein2006).Finally,insection7,wedrawconclusionsfromthisfirstcasestudyonGerman–Dutchreceptivemultilingualdiscourse.

2. Receptivemultilingualismasaformofmultilingualcommunication

HouseandRehbein(2004)distinguishanumberofparametersthatconstrainmulti-linguallanguageconstellations.Inthispaper,werelatetheseparameterstothespecificcaseofreceptivemultilingualism,whichweconsiderasaspecificmodeofmultilin-gual communication. These parameters operate on different levels, which are, how-ever, interconnected. Besides the perspective of the individual interactants and thelanguagecontactpointofview,whichwasdiscussed inHouseandRehbein(2004),weconsideritasinevitabletoincorporatealsoaninstitutionallevelasanintermedi-atestagebetweenthediscourseofindividualinteractantsandlanguagecontactonthesocietallevel.

2.1 Languagecontactbetweentwonations

Firstofall,typologicalproximityisaparameterthatactsinfavourofreceptivemulti-lingualismsince,asinthecaseofcognatelanguages,bothinterlocutorscaneasilygaina certain passive command of the other’s respective language (House and Rehbein2004:3).Möller(thisvolume)revealshowspeakerscandetectthemeaningofprevi-ouslyunknownwordsinasecondlanguageonthebasisoftheircognatestatus.Inac-tualfact,typologicaldistanceisusedasacriterionfordefiningwhetherwearedealing

76 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

withreceptivemultilingualisminthebroadersenseoftheword,orratherwithsemi-communication(seeZeevaert,thisvolume). Besides linguisticdistance,differences in thesocio-politicalstatusof the two lan-guagesandnationsalsoplayapartinthedeterminationofreceptivemultilingualismas a form of multilingual communication (House and Rehbein 2004:3). Receptivemultilingualismisthemostequalmodeofcommunication,asnoneoftheinterlocu-torshastoadapttotheother,noraretheyforcedtousealingua franca.Therefore,wewouldratherexpecttofindreceptivemultilingualisminsituationsinwhichthetwolanguageshaveanequalsocio-politicalstatus.DeSwaan(2001), for instance, intro-ducesamodel thatmeasures thestatusofa languageon thebasisof itsamountofspeakersanditsconnectiontootherlanguages(‘centrality’)viamultilingualspeakers.Thestatusofthelanguageisfurthermoredeterminedbytheeconomicandpoliticalpowerofitsspeakers.Inequalityofstatuswillinmostcasesleadtothespeakersofthelowerstatuslanguageadaptingtothespeakersofthelanguagewiththehigherstatus.Thestatusheldbyaforeignlanguageinaparticularcountryisreflectedinitspositionintheschoolcurriculum(Clyne1991;Bourdieu1992).ADutchmanwouldratherbeexpectedtohavesomebasicknowledgeofGermanthanaGermanof Dutch,sinceGermanis—at leasttraditionally—consideredasanimportantforeignlanguageintheNetherlands,whereastheoppositedoesnotapply(Nelde1988;CPB1997).Note,however,thatrecentlythisimbalancehaschanged:DutchisbecomingmoreandmorepopularamongGermanhighschoolanduniversitystudents,whereasGermanislos-ingitsstrongpositionintheNetherlands,resultinginasignificantchangeinthelan-guageconstellationbetweenGermanyandtheNetherlands.Thischangeinthetrad-itionalconstellationhasbroughtabouttheneedfordifferentformsofcommunication(FinkenstaedtandSchröder1992).Whereas, traditionally, theDutchwould tendtoadapttotheGermans,receptivemultilingualismnowprovidesapossibleinstitutionalsolutionforcommunicationacrosstheborder(Herrlitz,p.c.)inthosecaseswheretheGermanshaveacquiredreceptivelanguageskillsinDutch.Thesocial-culturalchangesintheGerman–Dutchrelationshiparearecurrenttopicofvariousconferences(RavenandAspeslagh1997;Aspeslagh1998). Anadditionalfactortobementionedwithrespecttothemultilinguallanguagecon-stellation is thegeneral attitudeof the speakersofone language towards the speak-ersoftheotherlanguage.InthecaseoftheattitudetowardsGermans,forexample,speakersofotherlanguagesoccasionallystillhaveanti-GermanfeelingsleadingbacktotheSecondWorldWar(Zahn1984,1986;Lademacher1989;MüllerandWielenga1995). This in turn has also influenced the self-perception of Germans (Westheide1997;Linthout2000).Theattitudeandideasofspeakersaboutthewaytheyareper-ceivedmightthusinfluencethechoiceofthespecificmultilingualdiscoursemode.InthecaseofGermans,this(expected)negativeattitudecanleadtoanavoidanceoftheuseofGermanindiscourseandconsequentlytotheuseoftheotherperson’smothertongue(Dutchinourcase),oralingua franca(inmostcasesEnglish).Forinstance,Prescher(2006)discusseslanguageattritionamongGermanslivingintheNetherlands

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 77

andrelatesthisprocesstotheirproblematicmultipleidentities.ThiscanbeopposedtothegeneralpositiveevaluationtheDutchreceiveinGermany(e.g.RudiCarrellandLindadeMol1)(Westheide1997).

2.2 Institutionalconstellation

Thesecondperspectivewith respect to theoccurrenceof receptivemultilingualismrelates to the institutional constellation in which the multilingual discourse takesplace.BasedongeneralresearchreferringtolanguagechoiceinEurope(MilroyandMuysken1995;DeBot2004)wewouldexpecttheuseofreceptivemultilingualismtodependontheratioofspeakersofthetwolanguageswithinasocietalorganisation(seeSchjerve-RindlerandVetterinthisvolumeforahistoricalaccountoflanguagechoice).Furthermore,wewouldexpectthestatusheldbythespeakersofthelanguageswithrespecttoeachotherwithinthehierarchyoftheinstitutiontobeaninfluentialfactor(cf.Lüdithisvolume,Werlenthisvolume).Themoreequallythetwogroupsarerepresentedintermsofnumberandstatus,themoreprobableitisthatreceptivemultilingualismwillbeused.Moreover,thelanguagepolicyoftheorganisationplaysarole(Herrlitz1997;DeJongste1997).HerrlitzandLoos(1994),forexample,discussthe‘RudiCarrellmodel’.Accordingtothismodel,someorganisationsencouragetheuseofmultiplelanguages,whereasothersdiscouragefromitandprescribetheuseofonesinglelanguagewhichisconsideredtobethestandardlanguageofthiscompany.Itcouldalsobethecasethatanorganisationdoesnothaveaclearconceptionwithre-gardtoitslanguagepolicy.Inthatcase,itonlydependsontheemployeeswhichmodeofcommunicationischosentobeused(Loos1997,1998). KooleandtenThije(1994)haveshownthatthelengthofthecooperationbetweenemployeeswithinaninstitutionisanimportantfactorintheestablishmentofa‘dis-cursiveinterculture’(i.e.thecommonteamknowledgethatresultsfromthemulticul-turallongtermteamcooperationwithinthegroupandcannotbetracedbacktothesumoftheindividualdiscourseknowledgeofthesingleparticipants).Duetorecep-tivemultilingualismbeingpartofsuchadiscursiveinterculture,wewouldexpectittopotentiallytakeplaceinsituationsinwhichemployeeshaveco-operatedforlengthyperiodoftime. Thefactorsmentionedabovemightbeenhancedorweakeneddependingonthecountryinwhichtheinstitutionissituated,i.e.GermanyortheNetherlands(see2.1).

2.3 Theinteractants’perspective

Thethirdperspectivedealswithlanguagechoicefromthepointofviewoftheindivid-ualspeakerandhisinteractionswithotherinteractants(HouseandRehbein2004:3).Thiscoversboth the individual’s linguisticcompetence in the second language (e.g.Grosjean1982),aswellastheirpastexperienceswithotherculturesandlanguages(‘in-terculturalcompetence’).Ifsomebodyisaccustomedtodealingwithothercultures,he

78 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

orshewillthusbebettertrainedincommunicatingwithpeopleofadifferentorigin.Theknowledgeofadditionallanguagescanbehelpfulindeterminingthemeaningofanunknownword.Researchhasmoreoverborneoutthattheknowledgeofseverallan-guagesalsoenhancesmetalinguisticcompetence(HufeisenandMarx,thisvolume). Besides theactual linguisticdistance, thenotion ‘psychotypology’shouldalsobeconsidered when referring to the language constellation of multilingual communi-cation.Psychotypologyconcerns the language learner’sperceptionof theactual lin-guisticdistance.WorkbyKellerman(1979)suggeststhatalanguageuseroftenmises-timates theactualamountofcognatesexisting inacloselyrelatedforeign language.Psychotypologyplaysakeyroleinlanguageacquisition,seenasthelearnersubcon-sciouslydecideshowmuchlinguisticmaterialhecantransferfromhismothertongueintothesecondlanguagedependingonhisestimationoftheclosenessofthetwolan-guages.Thereforeitmightalsobearelevantconceptforassessinghowmuchthelisten-eractuallyunderstandsinthereceptivemultilingualmode(Lutjeharms,thisvolume). Finally,itshouldbementionedthatlanguageusersarguablyhavetobefamiliarwiththephenomenonofreceptivemultilingualismitselfinordertoadequatelyuseit.Inmostcases,receptivemultilingualismdoesnotarisespontaneously,butisfarmoretheresultofanagreementonthepartofthespeakersinvolved(BraunmüllerandZeevaert2001;Zeevaert,thisvolume) Wehavediscussedhowvariousparametersreferringtomultilinguallanguagecon-stellationsmayinfluencetheoccurrenceofreceptivemultilingualismincomparisontootherformsofmultilingualcommunication.Inthenextsection,wewillillustratehowthesefactorsinfluencedthemultilingualcommunicationattheGoethe-InstituteAmsterdam.

3. TheGoethe-InstituteAmsterdam

TheresearchdiscussedinthischapterisbasedonacasestudyattheGoethe-InstituteAmsterdam(Roelands2004;Roelandsand tenThije2006).Wewill reconstruct thediscoursestructuresobservedatthisinternationalinstitution,payingattentiontothedepartmentof language teaching,wherereceptivemultilingualismisappliedas themodeofcommunication.Wewillexaminewhichofthefactorsoutlinedabovecomeintoconsideration. TheGoethe-InstituteisaGermanorganisationestablishedtopromoteGermanlan-guageandcultureabroad.Itisrepresentedin144citiesworldwide.Inourcase,theGerman institution is situated in the Dutch capital Amsterdam. From a languagecontact perspective, German and Dutch are considered to be cognate languages.Linguistically,thetwolanguagesarethuscloselyrelated,acharacteristicwhichmightworkinfavourofreceptivemultilingualism.Asoutlinedabove,however,therelationbetweenthetwocountriesintermsofstatusandpowerisnotequal.GermanisspokenbyfarmorepeopleinGermany,SwitzerlandandAustria.Furthermore,Germanyis

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 79

economicallycomparativelymorepowerfulthantheNetherlands(DelsenanddeJong1998).Consequently,GermanhasbeenpartoftheDutchobligatoryschoolcurricu-lumforalongtime,whereasitwasrelativelyuncommonforaGermantospeakDutch.However,ashasbeenstipulatedabove,therehaverecentlybeenchangesinthisrespect.DutchisgainingmoreandmoreappreciationamongGermanstudents,whereasontheotherhandyoungDutchpeopledonotoftenchoosetolearnGermananymore. Fromaninstitutionalperspective,theGoethe-InstituteAmsterdamcanbeconsid-eredasaGermanorganisationthatoperatesinternationallyand,inourcase,issitu-atedintheNetherlands.IntheGoethe-InstituteAmsterdamGermanandDutchcol-leagueshavebeencooperatingcloselyoveralongerperiodoftime.Interestingly,duetothevastamountofhighlydevelopedlanguagecompetenciesoftheemployeesintheorganisationseveraldifferentcommunicativemodalitiescanbefoundwhenlookingattheinternalcommunication;employeeseitherspeakGerman,Dutch,oruserecep-tivemultilingualismintheircommunication.However,Englishaslingua francaisnotused.Finally,allkindsofcodeswitchingcanbedetected(Auer1998).Theparticipantshavethechoiceofspeakingtheirfirstlanguageorswitchingtoothercommunicativemodes. WhenlookingmorecloselyatthemultilingualcommunicationwithintheGoethe-Institute,wefoundthatthreedepartmentsfulfilthepreconditionsrequiredfortheuseof receptive multilingualism, namely the department of language teaching, the de-partment of culture, and the reception desk. However, only the department of lan-guage teaching has actually chosen to operate in the receptive multilingual mode.Functionariesintheothertwoteamsprefertoconverseinjustonelanguage,eitherDutchorGerman.Inthiscontext,thequestionarisesastowhytheteammembersinthelanguageteachingdepartmenthavechosentocommunicatebymeansofreceptivemultilingualism,whereastheemployeesworkingintheotherdepartmentshavemadedifferentdecisionswithrespecttotheirmultilingualcommunication.Takingintocon-siderationthebiographicalinterviewswithallemployeesandtheaudiorecordingsthatwerecarriedoutwithvariousanalysesondistinctdiscoursetypes(Roelands2004),weconcludethatlanguagecompetence,institutionalpositionanddiscoursetopicswerethedecisivefactorsforthedecisionontherespectivemodeofdiscourseusedbytheemployeesinthethreedepartments. Thefollowingcanbesaidaboutthelanguageteachingdepartment,whichistheonlydepartmentinwhichreceptivemultilingualismisused.Thedepartmentismadeupoftwoemployees.TheteammanagerBerndisfromGermanyandonlytemporarilylivingintheNetherlands.HeestimateshislanguagecompetenceinDutchapproximatelyatthelevelofB22accordingtotheCommonEuropeanFrameWork(CouncilofEurope2001).TheDutchteammemberGerardisalocalemployee.HeestimateshisGermanlanguagecompetenceatthelevelofC2.3BothareawareofthepotentialinterculturalproblemsbetweentheGermansandtheDutchresultingfromthehistoricalrelation-shipofthetwoneighbourcountriesandtheindirectinfluencesoftheSecondWorldWar.Theyunequivocallystatethatatthestartoftheirworkingrelationshipthreeyears

80 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

agotheychosetospeaktheirfirstlanguagewitheachotherwhileatwork.Consequentlytherearenodiscussionsrelatingtothechoiceoflanguageatthestartofeachinterac-tion.Receptivemultilingualismhasbecometheinstitutionalstandardfortheircom-municationatwork. InhisbiographicalinterviewtheDutchmanGerardstates(Roelands,2004:29):“Itismucheasier.Icanexpressmyselfmoreeasilyandmorepreciselywithrespecttoim-portantdetailsorwhenIamjoking.Itcostslessenergy,lesseffort,lessreflectionandIcanreactinstantly.”(TranslationbyR/tT).TheGermanBerndmentionedanaddition-alreasonfortheuseofreceptivemultilingualism:“Wheneverybodyisallowedtospeakhisfirstlanguage,democracycomesintobeing.”(ibid,29)(TranslationbyR/tT). Insection2,wereviewedanumberoffactorsthatweregardtobeinfluentialwithrespecttotheoccurrenceofreceptivemultilingualism.OnthebasisofthecasestudyintheGoethe-Institute,wearegivenabetterinsightintothefactorsthatarerelevantfortheconstitutionofthismultilingualcommunicativemode.Itturnedoutthatthein-dividualinteractantsplayamajorroleinthechoicetobemadebetweenthedifferentmultilingualmodes.WithintheGoethe-Institute,onlyoneofthethreedepartmentschoosestousereceptivemultilingualism.Thetypologicalrelationshipofthetwore-spectivelanguagesandtheorganisationinwhichtheinteractiontakesplacecreatevar-iouspossibilities.Theactualuseofthesepossibilities,however,dependsontheinsti-tutionallanguagepolicyoftherespectiveGoethe-Institute.TheGoethe-Institutethuscreatesthepossibilityforitsemployeestochoosetheirownmodeofcommunication.Thisisreferredtoastheriseofanactionspace(Rehbein1977). This case study raises the question as to which extent the language team in theGoethe-Instituteis‘special’.ThegeneralinstitutionalpurposeoftheGoethe-InstituteistopromotetheGermanlanguageandcultureabroad.Consequently,theorganisationmightbemorewillingtodevelopalternativemodesofmultilingualcommunication.Ontheotherhand,itcouldalsobepossiblethatsuchaninstitutehasaquitestrictanddefinedlanguagepolicywithrespecttotheinternalcommunicationasisthecaseinmanymultinationalcompanies.Inactualfact,thiscasestudyhasledustotheconclu-sionthattheoveralllanguagepolicyresultsinanactionspacethattheemployeesoftheGoethe-InstituteAmsterdamhavefilledindifferently. Fromaninteractantsperspective,itmightnotbecoincidentalthat,incontrasttotheotheremployeesof theGoethe-Institute, themembersof the languageteachingteamhavedecidedtoemploythereceptivemultilingualmode.Fromtheirprofessionalexpertisetheyareawareoftheimpactofcodeswitchingandlanguagechoiceoniden-tity construction during communication at work. Although the members of the re-mainingdepartmentshavecomparable languagecompetencies inbothlanguagesattheirdisposal,theydonotsetthemselvesthesameprofessionalchallengetodevelopreceptivemultilingualismasanalternativemodeofmultilingualcommunication.Inactualfact,theeverydayreceptivemultilingualismusedbythelanguageteachingteamexemplifiestheoverallgeneralaimsoftheGoethe-Instituteinaveryoriginalandcon-cretemanner.

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 81

Itwillbenecessarytoconductmoreresearchindifferentinstitutionstoassessthefactorsresponsibleforlanguagechoicemoreprecisely.ComparingGoethe-Institutesinvariouscountriescouldbringaboutinterestingfindings.Withthehelpofthispro-cedure,wecouldmeasuretheeffectofthefactorslinguisticandculturaldistanceofthetwolanguagecommunitiesbymeansoftheoccurrenceanddevelopmentofreceptivemultilingualism.Furthermore,itmighthelptoshedlightontheeffectofthelanguagepolicyadoptedbytherespectiveGoethe-Instituteforthewaythedifferentlocalinsti-tutesfillintheactionspace.Itisself-evidentthatresearchinotherinstitutionsisalsonecessaryinordertogainanall-embracingpictureofthephenomenonreceptivemul-tilingualism.

4. Receptivemultilingualmodeofthespeechactionpattern“InteractivePlanning”

Inordertoreconstructtherelevanceandinterlacementofthefactorsmentionedaboveintheactualrealisationofdiscourse,weanalysethediscoursestructuresinthecasestudyconductedintheGoethe-Institutefirstofallasaformofinstitutionaldiscourse(BührigandtenThije2005).Webeginthissectionbyintroducingthefunctionalprag-maticapproachtodiscourse(EhlichandRehbein1986;Rehbein2001)withafocusonKooleandtenThije’s(1994)approachtoteamdiscussions.Afterthatwewillraisethequestionwhetherthisapproachisapplicabletodiscourseinareceptivemultilingualmode. Thefunctionalpragmaticapproach4todiscourseandtextaimsat thereconstruc-tionofspeechactionpatternsastherealisationofsocietalpurposes.Aninstitutionalanalysisincludesthereconstructionofthesesocialpurposesandtheirtransitionintospeechactions.Institutionaldiscourseisanalysedbymeansofdifferentiatingbetweenfirst order institutional knowledge (every day interactant’s knowledge) and secondorder institutionalknowledge(professionalknowledge).Thisdifference isbasedonthedichotomybetweenclientsandprofessionals(or ‘agents’cf.EhlichandRehbein1986)withininstitutions.Thatmeansthatananalysisofinstitutionaldiscoursebeginswiththereconstructionofspeechactionpatternswhilecharacterisingthepurposesofthediscoursetypesinvolved. Ourdiscoursedatastemfromteamdiscussionswithinthelanguageteachingteamat theGoethe-Institute.According toKooleand tenThije (1994), teamdiscussionsare instancesofprofessional (agent-agent) interactionandcanespeciallybecharac-terisedbytwospecificspeechactionpatterns,namelythespeechactionpatternofin-teractiveplanningandthespeechactionpatternofreporting.Thesetwopatternsen-ableefficientknowledgetransferandactioncoordinationwithina(professional)team.Thepatternofinteractiveplanningaimsatreachingaconsensusoncommonactionplans,whereas thepatternofreportingaimsat thetransferandassessmentof insti-tutionalknowledge inorder tomakedecisions.Byanalysing the speechactionpat-

82 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

ternofreportingandinteractiveplanninginthelanguageteachingteamwefocusontheirmaincommunicativetasksandthusareabletoidentifythereceptivemultilin-gualcharacteristicsofGerman–Dutchprofessionaldiscourse. Asmentionedabovethepatternofinteractiveplanninghasitspurposeinreachingaconsensusofcommonactionplans.Inpracticethispurposeisrealisedbyoneoftheactantsformulatingaproposalforaplan,whichissubsequentlyassessedbyanotheractant.Theformerisreferredtoastheauthor of a planandthelatterthecritic(KooleandtenThije1994).Thecritichastheopportunitytoformulateanalternativeplanifhedoesnotagreewiththeauthor’sproposal.Inthiscasetheauthoroftheoriginalplanhastojudgethealternativeproposalandeitherpersistonhisoriginalproposalorac-ceptthealternativeproposal.Whenoneoftheproposalsisacceptedbybothauthorandcriticaconsensusisreachedwiththeresultofthepatternpurposebeingrealisedandafurtherspeechactionpatternbeinginitiated.Thesesubsequentcrucialstepsinrealis-ingthepurposeofthespeechactionarecalledpatternpositions(EhlichandRehbein1986). The speech action pattern of interactive planning is often used as a compre-hensivepatterninwhichotherspeechactionpatternssuchassubstantiating(givingreasons),explaining,rephrasingorreportingareembedded.Thismeansthatvariouspatternpositionsofthespeechactionpatternofinteractiveplanningcoincidewithpat-

Figure 1. ThespeechactionpatternInteractivePlanning(KooleandtenThije1994:122)

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 83

ternpositionsmentionedbefore.Forinstance,thepositiveornegativejudgementofaproposalforaplanisrealisedbyareportontheactualstateofaffairs(seefigure1). Figure1depictstheactionstructureofthespeechactionpatternofinteractiveplan-ning(KooleandtenThije1994:122).Theflow-chartinfigure1illustratestherecur-rent structureof thepatternbywhichseveral judgementscanbe formulatedabouteithertheoriginalorthealternativeproposalbeforeoneofthemisfinallyacceptedbybothauthorandcritic.Moreover,onthebasisofthisflow-chart,thedifferencebe-tweenasinglepatternpositionanddistinctspeechactionsmustbepointedout.Forinstance,aproposalforaplanmightberealisedbyoneormoreassertions,orevenbyacombinationofasuggestionandanassertionwhereastheacceptanceoftheplanmightberealisedeitherbyanassentoranassertionaswell.Bydifferentiatingbetweentheanalysisoftheillocutionofthesinglespeechactionontheonehandandthequal-ityofthepatternpositionontheother,thecontributionofsinglespeechactionstothepurposeoftheoverallpatterncanbedetermined. Thepatternofreportinghasthepurposeofassessingtheinstitutionalrelevanceoftransmittedknowledgeelementswiththeaimofmakingcommondecisions.Thispat-ternisalsocharacterisedbythedichotomybetweenareporterandanassessor(KooleandtenThije1994:108).Thepurposeofthepatternisachievedwhenbothaccepttherelevanceof the transmittedknowledge for theactualspeechsituation.Thepatternpositionsofthereporteraretheidentification,therepresentationandthejudgementofacertainstateofaffairs.Thepatternpositionsoftheassessorareinquiringaboutandsubsequentlyacceptingthetransmittedknowledge.Thispatternisalsorecurrentinthatasequenceofspeechactions,i.e.asequenceofassessmentsandquestions,canpassbybeforebothreporterandassessoragreeandaccepttherelevanceofthetrans-mittedknowledge. In the following, we reconstruct the discourse in our case study at the Goethe-InstituteAmsterdam.Wefirstfocusonthestandardtraversalofthesetwoinstitutionalpatternsintheteamdiscussionsbeforeproceedingbyanalysingreceptivemultilingualpeculiaritiesinthiscontext.Thequestionwhethertherealisationofthespeechactionpatternasintroducedabove(figure1)isalsoapplicablefortheanalysisofinterculturaldiscoursehasbeenraisedbefore(KooleandtenThije1994)andwasansweredaffirm-atively.Thefocusofthepresentstudyiswhetherthisalsoholdsforinterculturaldis-courseunderthereceptivemultilingualmode. Thefollowingstretchesofdiscourseweretakenfromtheplanningdiscussionofthelanguageteachingteam,inwhichtheteamdiscussestheagendaforthecomingmonth.Inthisfragmentthecolleaguesdiscussanunfortunateoverlappingofeventswithintheinstitution.TheteamhasthetaskoforganisingexaminationsonGermanlanguageskillsinwhichtheteachersoftheGoethe-Instituteactasexaminers.Whengoingthroughthefollowingmonth’sagenda,theteamcoordinatornoticesthatthenextexaminationover-lapsthefarewellpartyforacolleague.Therefore,theexaminerscouldruntheriskofmissingthefarewellparty.Theteamcoordinator’sobservationofthisoverlappinginiti-atesaplanningdiscussioninordertosolvethisproblem(seefragment2).

84 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

Fragment 2. 210404:farewellparty

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 85

86 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 87

Ifwereconstructthetraversalofthepatternofinteractiveplanning,wenoticethatBernd brings up the coincidence of the examination and the farewell party in seg-ment93(s93).Inthefollowing,bothcolleaguesassesstheinstitutionalrelevanceofthiscoincidenceandagreeonithavingnegativeconsequences.Ins102–105,Gerardexpressesaproposalforaplanbyasserting:“Mijnplan.is.om.goedindegatentehouden.datikdieaantallenookinderdaadVOORKoninginnedagDOORkrijg,Dusvooreindvandekomendeweek.DanmoetenwewetenhoeVEEL.kandidaten.Wantdanwetenweookhoeveelmensenwenodighebbenvoordatmondelingeexamen,hoeveelteamsdaarmoetenzijn..”(‘MyintentionistokeepwellinmindthatIreceivetheexactnumberofparticipantsindeedbeforeQueens’sday…Thatis,beforetheendofthecomingweek.Then,wehavetoknowhowmanycandidates.’).Afoursecondpause(s106)follows,whichcanbeconsideredasanacceptanceofGerard’sproposal.Gerardspecifieshisproposalbyuttering(ins107):“Dankunnenwehiermeteenin-ternorganiserenwiedaarnaartoegaan”(Thenwecanimmediatelyorganiseinternallywhowillgothere.)ThereuponBerndreacts(s108)withtheDutchquestion“Meteen?”(‘atonce?’).Gerardexplainshisproposalbysaying(ins109)“Ja,RUIMvantevoren,(zodatmensen)zichdaarechtopinkunnenstellen.”(Yes,longbeforesothatevery-bodyherecantakethatintoaccount).Afterapause(s110),whichcanbeinterpretedasanacceptanceonthepartofBernd,Gerardnotesdownthedeadlineforsubscrip-tionintheteamagenda(s111–113).Thismarksthefulfilmentofthepatternpurpose,theachievementofaconsensus. Fragment2isatypicalexampleofthediscoursewhichtakesplaceinthelanguageteaching team at the Goethe-Institute. It is striking that the patterns of interactiveplanningandreportingarerealisedsofrequently.Withinthesepatterns,theGermanexpatriateandtheDutchlocalbothtakeupthepositionsoftheauthorandthecritic.Onthebasisofthisequaldistributionofthepositions,wecanconcludethatthetwocolleagueshave a symmetric institutional relationship. It is furthermorequite strik-ingthatthecodeswitchingbetweenDutchandGermanseemstocoincidewiththeturntaking.Asweobservedinfragment1,theDutchproposalforaplanisevaluatedinGerman.Infact,thetraversalthroughthepatternisnotrealisedinonelanguage.Therefore,thequestionarisesastowhetheroneactionpatternofinteractiveplanningfunctionsasakindofunderlyingactionstructureforbothrealisationsinGermanandinDutch,orwhethertheseactionpatternsarelanguage-specific.Seenasbothactantshaveahighcompetenceinbothlanguagesandareexperiencedinbothcultures,wecannotanswerthisquestionjustonthebasisofthiscasestudy.Wecan,however,con-cludethattherealisationofthepurposeofthesepatternsisachievedinthereceptivemultilingualmode.Thislanguageconstellationhasbecomethestandardformultilin-gualcommunicationinthelanguageteachingteam. Inthenextparagraph,wewillfocusononelinguisticmeansusedbytheinteract-antstoensure(amoreorlessunproblematic)understandingwithinthereceptivemul-tilingualmode.

88 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

5. Institutionalkeywords

Inthefollowing,wewillelaborateoninstitutionalkeywords,oneofthespecialmeansthatareappliedbythecolleaguesBerndandGerardattheGoethe-InstituteAmsterdaminordertoensuremutualunderstanding.AsKooleandtenThije(1994)reveal,insti-tutional keywords are an important prerequisite for institutional cooperation. Theydiscussthreecharacteristicsoftherelationshipbetweenkeywordsandcognitivestruc-tures.First, “institutionalkeywords represent sharedknowledgeofqualified institu-tionalactors”(ibidem;140).Second,“thecognitivestructureconnectedwithinstitu-tionalkeywordsisanabstractframewhoseslotsarefilledwithconcreteknowledgeelements.Theabstractframeandtheconcreteknowledgeelementsarebothinterac-tivelyproduced”(ibidem140).Third,“theelementsofknowledgearestructuredac-cording to the institutionalpurposeof thekeyword” (ibidem;141).Keywordsactu-alisecommoninstitutionalknowledgeand,consequently,makeiteasiertoestablishmutualunderstanding. Keywordshelptocharacterisetheinstitutioninquestion.Theycanbecomposedofwordsorphrasesthatonlyexistwithintheparticularinstitution,butcanalsocontainvocabularythatisusedoutsidetheinstitutionaswell.Withintheinternalcommunica-tionoftheorganisation,however,thesekeywordsreceiveaspecial,institution-specificmeaning.Table1containsalistofkeywordsusedattheGoethe-InstituteAmsterdam.Ascanbeseeninthetable,mostkeywordsareGermannotionsorabbreviations,whichareusedbothbytheGermanandbytheDutchteammembersinallthedepartmentsoftheGoethe-InstituteinAmsterdam.ApossibleexplanationforthisisthattheGoethe-InstituteisaGermanorganisationoperatingonaworldwidebasis.Iftheemployeeswishtorefertocentralaspectsregardingthegeneralinstitutionalknowledge,itismostlikelythattheywillchooseGermankeywords.ThefrequentuseofGermankeywords,therefore,influencesthereceptivemultilingualcommunicativemode,meaningthattheDutchemployeeshavetoadapttotheforeignlanguagemoreoften. Somekeywordssuchas intensiv/intensief,Saal/zaalundSommer/zomer,however,arecognatesinDutchandGermanandcanthereforenotbepreciselyattributedtooneofthetwolanguages.Thesameholdstrueforabbreviations,whichinalotofcasescanbederivedfromeitherofthetwolanguages.Thekeywordsintable1refertoimport-antinstitutionalknowledge.Infact,thesewordsinstantlyactivatequitespecificinsti-tutionalknowledge.Bythisprocedureefficientteamworkisfacilitated.Inthefollow-ing,wewillillustratetheuseofkeywordsbydiscussinganexcerptfromthecasestudybyRoelands(2004).TheexcerptshowstheuseofaDutchkeywordbytheGermanemployeeBernd.Althoughsomeinstancesofcodeswitchingcanbe found, thedis-coursetakesplaceinthereceptivemultilingualmodewithbothspeakersusingtheirfirstlanguage.

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 89

Table 1. Exemplarylistofkeywords

German keywords

Team-specific meaning

Dutch keywords

Team-specific meaning

Kurs1–7Niveau1–7N5/6

Courseonsevendifferentlevels

Toetsje Language-assessmenttest

Kinderkurs Germancourseforchildren

Z1,Z3,Z4 Coursesonbusinesscommunication

Intensivkurs Two-weekcrashcourse

Zaterduitsdag SaturdaysGermantraining

Sommerkurs Summercourse Zaalagenda Memopadforroomreservations

Wochenplan Weekplanningforthewholeinstitute

TestDaf TestforGermanasforeignlanguage

ZOP Zentrale Oberstufenprüfung(centralassessmentforupperschool)

PWD-Protokoll Prüfung Wirtschafts-deutsch International (recordontheassessmentsforinternationalbusinesscommunication)

EDV Elektronische Daten-verarbeitung(dataprocessing)

KDS Kleines DeutschesSprachdiplom(FirstGermanlan-guagecertificate)

GDS Großes Deutsches Sprachdiplom(AdvancedGermanlanguagecertificate)

90 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

TheDutchkeywordToetsje

Intheexcerpt‘toetsje’(seefragment3),theemployeesBerndandGerarddiscussthesituationofastudentwhohasrequestedtoparticipateinalanguagecoursewithouthavingundertakentherequiredlanguageassessment.Theword‘toetsje’isanordinaryDutchwordthat,however,activatesspecificinstitutionalknowledgewhenmentionedbytheteammembersof theGoethe-Institute.Itreferstoashortoral test inwhichthelanguagecompetenceofastudentcanbedeterminedonthebasisofaspontan-eousconversationbetweenanapplicantandaGoethe-Instituteemployee.Inafeed-backinterview,Gerardexplainedhowthewordcameintouseintheinstitute’sexter-nalcommunicationwithpossiblefutureDutchstudents.Theword‘toetsje’isusedinitsdiminutiveforminordertomakeitsoundlessthreateningforafuturestudenttoundergoanexamination.Awordlike‘test’or‘examination’wouldmostlikelyfrightenpeople pointlessly. In fact, diminutives are a typical Dutch morphological phenom-enon.Afterhavingprovenitsfunctioninexternalcommunication,theword‘toetsje’hasconsequentlybecomean institutionalkeywordalso in internal communication.BoththeGermanandtheDutchemployeeareawareofitsspecificinstitutionalmean-ing.TheGermanteamcoordinatorthereforeusestheDutchkeywordinhisGermandiscourse.Theword‘toetsje’whichoriginatesfromexternalcommunicationhasthussucceededinbecomingacharacteristicoftheinternalcommunicationattheGoethe-Institute.Whereasthewordinitiallyonlyhadaneverydaymeaning,ithasturnedintoaninstitutionalkeywordforthelanguageteachingteam(seefragment3). Thekeywordswefoundare,apartfromafewexceptions,usedinonelanguagebybothinteractants.Inordertomakesurethatthesameinstitutionalknowledgeisac-tivated,theparticipantsthuschangethelanguagecodewhenusinginstitutionalkey-words.Thetranslationofinstitutionalkeywordsisnotappropriate,sinceatranslatedwordmayimplyachangeofmeaning.Onlywhenthekeywordsareappliedinonelan-guage,allemployeescanbecertainthatthesameinstitutionalknowledgeisactivated. Withrespect tokeywords, two typesofcodeswitchinghavebeendefined in theliterature, namely intersentential and intra-sentential code switching (Milroy andMuysken 1995). Intersentential code switching does not occur within the contribu-tionsof theparticipants.However, it is foundateverychangeinturn,since, inthecaseofreceptivemultilingualism,everyswitchofturnalsoresultsinaswitchofcodeas illustratedabove. Intrasentential code switchingcanbe foundmoreoften in thediscourseoftheDutchman,sincehehastointegratemoreGermankeywordsintohisspeechthanhisGermancounterpart. Theanalysiscarriedoutrevealsthatinstitutionalkeywordsenableandfacilitateacertainunderstandingbetween theparticipants in the receptivemultilingualmode.Thepeculiarityofkeywords inreceptivemultilingualismis that thesewordsdonotfollowthestandardrulesforlanguagechoice.Althoughthespeakerschoosetocom-

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 91

municateintheirfirstlanguage,theycodeswitchwhenusinginstitutionalkeywords.Sincethesekeywordsinevitablyactivateinstitutionalknowledge,thespeakersdecidenottoendangerthemutualunderstandingbytranslatingthekeywordsintotheirfirstlanguage.Institutionalkeywordsactivatethesameinstitutionalknowledgeamongallinterlocutors.Therefore,theyhelptobuildacommonbasisthatisespeciallyneededininterculturalandmultilingualcommunication,wheremisunderstandingsarefarmorelikelytooccurthaninmonolingualandmonoculturaldiscourse.

Fragment 3. 010304:toetsje

92 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

6. Receptivemultilingualismandinterculturaldiscourse

Finally,wewouldliketodiscusstherelationbetweeninstitutionaldiscourseandinter-culturalcommunication(BührigandtenThije2006;tenThije2002,2003).Thisrela-tioncanbestbeillustratedbymeansofananalysisofanotherfragmentfromourcor-pusfromtheGoethe-Institute. Infragment4,BerndandGerarddiscusswhichdeadlineshouldbedecidedonfortheenrolmentforatestthatistobecarriedoutattheGoethe-Institute.Berndenterstheplanningmodebysaying“So,dannPWD,wiesieht’sdenndaausmitderTerminleiste,AnmeldungistbiscircazweiWochenvantevoren”(“Well,comingtoPWD,whataboutthelistofdates,enrolmentispossibleuntilapproximatelytwoweeksbefore”).Again,aninstitutionalkeywordisused,namelyPWD,meaning‘PrüfungWirtschaftsdeutsch’(TestonGermanforeconomicpurposes).ThekeywordPWDisbasedontheemploy-ees’ specific institutionalknowledge.Wealsoobservea code switchwithinBernd’sutterance.HebeginsthefragmentinhismothertongueGerman,butthenswitchestoDutch.Bymeansofthisintrasententialcodeswitchto‘vantevoren’(‘before’),hemostlikelysignalsthatheisquotingaDutchcolleague.Ifwereadthroughtheplanningpat-ternthatunderliesthisdiscourse,itbecomesfairlyobviousthatthetwocolleaguesdonotagreeonwhichdeadlineshouldbegivenfortheexam.Berndsuggests(segment5)thattheyshouldnotbetoostrictonthedeadline,whereasGerardinsistsonhandlingthedeadlinequitestrictly.Accordingtohim,enrolmentshouldn’tbepossibleanymoreafterMay10th.Theplanningpatterncomestoanendinsegment113whenBerndac-ceptsGerard’sproposalbysaying:‘Ja,gut’(‘Yes,that’sok.’). Withrespecttotheinterculturalapparatusatwork,wewouldliketodrawattentiontothesegments108to114,inwhichBerndstates:“Diesolltienmeikommen.Eindvandemaand.Einunddreißigster?April.Dassindzehn.Achso.Stimmt.WirsagenimmerzweiWochen.Jagut.HasseRecht.”(TheyshouldbetherebyMay10th.Endofthemonth.April31th.That’s10.Oh,yes.That’strue.Wealwayssaytwoweeks.Okay,you’reright.) Nowconsiderfragment4.AccordingtoHoffmann(1997),expressionssuchas‘day’,‘week’,and‘year’belongtotheso-calledmetricalsystem.Theseexpressionsrefertoconsistent time intervals. Throughout the fragment, the actual range of these timeintervalsremainsunclear.Itfinallybecomesevidentfromthediscoursethatthetwoweeksdiscusseddonotstandfor14,butrathertendays.Acommonfact,thatwouldseem to be self-evident, is thereby put into question. This difference in the percep-tionofeverydayfactscouldresultfromculturalknowledge,aswillbearguedinthefollowing. Onemightexpectthemisunderstandingregardingthelengthofthetimeintervaltobesolvedwiththeuseoftheword‘circa’(approximately),butthereareotherhintsindicatingthatthediscourseisstructuredinterculturally.Wecanobserveaninterest-ingcontrastwithrespecttotheuseofthepersonaldeicticprocedurewe/wir(we)inthesegments105and112.Insegment105:“Machenweesimmernochganzlocker”,

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 93

Fragment 4. 130504:vantevoren

94 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

theDutch(orcolloquialGerman)deicticprocedure‘we’referstothegroupofspeak-ersthatincludesboththespeakerandthehearerandmaybeevenotheremployeesoftheGoethe-Instituteaswell.BerndreferstoageneralmaximintheGoethe-Institute,namely that deadlines are generally treated fairly loosely. Bernd’s utterance couldalsobeunderstoodasanallusiontotheproverbialDutchinformality(seee.g.Shetter1997). Insegment112,thedisagreementontheexactdurationofthetwoweeksisbroughtupbyBernd.Heutters:“WirsagenimmerzweiWochen”(“Wealwayssaytwoweeks”).Thepersonalpronoun‘wir’inthiscasereferstoagrouptowhichthespeaker,butnotthehearerbelongs(‘exclusivewe’).Inthiscontext,theexpression‘twoweeks’canbeinterpretedasalanguage-specificformulausedbyBernd.BerndreferstotheGermanlanguagecommunitytowhichthehearerGerarddoesnotbelong.Thiscontrastingofthetwogroupsofspeakerswithrespecttoonegroup-specificmaxim(cf.thecombin-ationofwe/wirandimmer(always))indicatesthattheinstitutionaldiscourseisstruc-turedinterculturally. Bernd’s remarksuggests thatheassumes that theDutchandtheGermanmetrictemporalsystemapparentlyworkinadifferentmanner.Hefurthermoreinterpretsthemisunderstandingrelatingtothetimeintervaloftwoweeksasaculturaldifference.Thereby, he indirectly refers to the concepts illustrated in ‘The silent Language’ byStuartHall(1959,1981),whichhighlightsthedifferenttimestandardsinvariouscul-tures.Gerarddoesnotjointhisdiscussion.Heacknowledgestheelaborationsmadebyhiscolleaguebyutteringtheinterjection‘hm’twice.Thequestionnowarisesastohowwecanaccountfor(thediscursiveelaborationof)thisculturaldifferencewithinadis-course-theoreticalframework.Forthispurpose,wewouldliketointroduceRehbein’s(2006) concept of a Cultural Apparatus. Cultural apparatuses are discursive instru-mentsthatstarttocomeintoplaywhenapparentlyself-evidentculturalfactsareputintoquestion,orwhenproblemsorinterculturalmisunderstandingsariseandremain(firstandsecondpositionoftheculturalapparatus,figure2).Afterhavingreflectedonadiscourseproblem,theinteractantscaneitherchangetheirstandardsolutionsandperceptions (fourth position), or stick to their original cultural standards. The out-comebecomesvisibleinthepost-history(fifthposition).

Schemeoftheculturalapparatus(Rehbein2006:74):

(i) theunderlyingformofstandardaction(withactionsystems)containsaprob-lem;

(ii) negatingaction,whichconsistsoftwoparts,suspensionofdiscourseandidenti-ficationoftheproblem,callsthepresuppositionsof(oneormoreof)thepartici-pantsintoquestion;

(iii) therefollowsa(partial)restructuringofmentalprocessessuchasactionprac-tices,thoughtstructures,formsofimaginingand/orsocialexperiences(τέχναι)(”thirdposition”);

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 95

(iv) this results innew formsof (speech)action throughanalterationof the rela-tionshipbetweensurfaceanddeepstructure, i.e. throughtheactofreflection(”fourthposition”);

(v) finallythepost-historyoftheapparatusmanifestswithconsequencesetc.

We would like to put forward the hypothesis that the segments 108 to 114 in frag-ment4containtheapplicationoftheculturalapparatus,leadingustothequestionofwhathappensinthefragment.BerndreflectsonGerard’ssuggestionconcerningthedeadlinefortheenrolmentforthetest.ItisinterestingtoobservethatheidentifiesthedatainDutch.Hestates:“tienmei”and“eindvandemaand”andthereforeconcludesthattheclosingdateforthedeadlineshouldbeApril31th.Ins109heutters‘dassindzehn’(thatisten).Speakingintermsoftheculturalapparatus,thereisaproblembeingformulated.Inthiscase,itisrelatedtothepreciseinterpretationoftheDutchtemporalexpression‘vantevoren’(‘before’)whichwasusedbyBernd.Thequestionarisesastowhichtimeinterval‘vantevoren’exactlycovers(firstposition).Inthefollowing,adis-cussionontheprecisehandlingofthedeadlinefortheenrolmentforthetest(secondposition)arises.Afterthat,wecanobservehowknowledgeisrestructuredwithrespecttothementionedintervaloftimebyatleastoneinteractant,inthiscaseBernd.Thiscouldbeinterpretedasthethirdpositionoftheculturalapparatuswiththeactualre-structuringofknowledgeasaresultbeingthefourthposition.However,thequestionarisesastowhetherwearereallydealingwithculturalknowledgethatisbeingrestruc-tured,orwhetherwearemerelyfacingamisunderstandingthatcouldalsohaveoc-curredinmono-culturaldiscourse.Wewillargueinthefollowing,thatatleastBerndinterpretsthemisunderstandingasbeingduetointerculturalmiscommunication.HeconsiderstheGermanandtheDutchinterpretationoftheterm‘twoweeks’tobedif-ferentandthusresponsiblefortheproblem.Berndreflectsontheexactperiodoftwoweeks(i.e.fourteendays)inanexothesis5(EhlichandRehbein1986)whichheendswith:‘achso’.Hethenexplainswhatthemisunderstandingwasbasedonaccordingtohim(‘Stimmt’(s111)That’strue.‘WirsagenimmerzweiWochen’(s112).Wealwayssaytwoweeks.).HefinallyacceptsGerard’splanningsuggestionbyuttering:Ja, gut.(Yes,okay).Hasse recht.(You’reright). Ifwetakealookatthepost-history(thefifthpositionoftheculturalapparatus),itisinterestingtofindthatBernd(onceagain)askswhatthepresentdateis.Insegment116,henoticesthatthepresentdateisApril21st,whichisconfirmedbyGerardinseg-ment117byhimrepeatingit‘eenentwintig’(21st)inDutch.Theculturalapparatushasanalysedthedifferentweighingoftimeasapotentialmisunderstanding,whichresultsinasuccessfultraversaloftheinstitutionalplanningpattern.Thereceptivemultilin-gualmodeofinteractionisre-establishedbacktotheinstitutionalteamstandard. WithrespecttothegeneralculturalsystemofDutchandGermanpresuppositions,itisstrikingthatthetwocolleaguestypifytheexactoppositeoftheculturalstereotypesoftheGermanandtheDutch(seee.g.Westheide1997).TheGermanproposestohan-dlethedeadlinefortheenrolmentquiteloosely,whichbynomeanscorrespondsto

96 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

theculturalstereotypeoftheGermanpunctuality/precision.TheDutchman,ontheotherhand,wants thedeadlinetobehandledprecisely,whichalsodoesnotcorres-pondtothestereotypeofDutchinformality.Itispossiblethattheinteractantsadjustthemselvestotheirperceptionoftheother’sculture.This,however,wouldhavetobeinvestigatedinmoredetailinfutureanalyses.

7. Discussionandconclusions

AttheendofthispaperwediscussthespecificcharacteristicsofthecasestudyintheGoethe-InstituteAmsterdamandformulatefutureresearchpossibilities.Westructuretheseconsiderationsaccordingtothethreeperspectivesweintroducedinsection2,namelythelanguagecontact,theinstitutionalconstellationandtheinteractants’per-spective. Fromalanguagecontactperspective,thiscaseconcernslanguagecontactbetweentwocloselyrelatedlanguages.Acomparisonofthiscasetothevarioussituationsinother Goethe-Institutes situated all over the world would make it possible to learnmoreaboutmultilingualismamongspeakersofdifferentlanguages.Ifotherlanguagesandnationsareconsidered,theimpactofthesocio-politicalstatusofthelanguagesandnationsontheoccurrenceofreceptivemultilingualismcouldbeanalysedinmoredetailaswellastheimpactofthereceptivemultilingualmodeonthegeneralattitudeofthespeakersoftheonelanguagetowardsthespeakersofotherlanguages.Moreover,thechangingattitudesoftheneighbourcountriestowardsGermanycouldbestudied(Fremdlinget al. , 1992;Trautmann1991)alongwith the changeswithin small lan-guagecommunitiesinEurope(Arntz1997).Inthiscontext,receptivemultilingualismmayevenleadtoareductionoftheuseofdialectsinborderregions(Hinskens1993). With respect to the second, institutional, perspective we would like to state thatour observed case exemplifies a language contact type that Ehlich (1992) denotesas‘Intektion’.WiththisneologismEhlichreferstothetypeoflanguagecontactthatcomesintobeingwhenanewsuper-structureisconstitutedabovetwoormorenationstatesinvolvedsuchastheEuropeanUnion.Thislanguageconstellationisreferredtoas ‘sophisticatedmultilingualism’(ibidem:68).Inactualfact, thismultilingualcom-municationresultsfromtheestablishmentofsupra-national institutionalstructurescorrespondingtoEuropeanunification.Inthiscontextacomparisonwith,forinstance,theotherinstitutionalcommunicationinGerman–Dutchcontactwouldbeveryinter-esting.Since1999,theGerman–DutchbordercitiesDinxperloandSuderwickhave,forinstance,establishedajointpolicestationthatisinchargeinbothcountries(tenThije2003).Inthiscontext,multilingualcommunicationisanessentialprerequisiteinordertorealisethemaininstitutionalpurposes.WhereastheGoethe-Institutecaseconcentratesonlyoninternalcommunication,thestudyofthispolicestationmightexpandourknowledgeaboutthespecificinstitutionalpreconditionsapplyingtothiscommunicativemodeinexternalmultilingualconstellations(Clyne2003).

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 97

Another restriction relating to the institutional perspective concerns the specificpurposeoftheGoethe-Institute.TheGoethe-InstituteaimsatpromotingGermanlan-guageandcultureabroad.Therefore,thisorganisationmightbegenerallymorewillingtodevelopalternativemodesofmultilingualcommunication.Wehaveshownthatthelanguageteachingteamrealisesitsmeaninstitutionalpurposesefficientlyusingthereceptivemultilingualmode.ByexpandingthiscasestudytootherGoethe-Instituteswecouldnotonlymeasuretheeffect that factorsof linguisticandculturaldistancebetweenthetwolanguagecommunitiesinvolvedhaveontheoccurrenceanddevel-opmentofreceptivemultilingualism,butwecouldatthesametimeshedlightontheeffectofthelanguagepolicyoftheGoethe-Instituteonthecompletionoftheactionspaceinlocalinstitutes. Finally, from the interactants’ perspective, we wish to stress the fact that in thiscasethelanguagecompetenceofbothinteractantswascomparativelyhighand,con-sequently,thereceptivemultilingualmodewasjustoneofthealternativestheywereabletoapplywithintheirteamcommunication.Theyalwayshadtheopportunityofswitchingtooneof thetwolanguages involved.Itwouldbe interestingtofocusoninteractantswithdifferentsecondlanguageskillsinordertodetecttheminimallan-guagecompetencethatisneededtoperformreceptivemultilingualism. TherestrictionsmentionedabovepreventusfromformulatinggeneralclaimsaboutreceptivemultilingualismthatgobeyonditsimplementationintheGoethe-Institutein Amsterdam. The perspectives for receptive multilingualism beyond the GoetheInstitutehavetobeelaboratedoninfutureresearch.

Notes

* Thischapter is anEnglishelaborationof theGermanarticlesbyRoelandsand tenThije(2006) and Ribbert and ten Thije (2006). We would like to thank the Goethe-Institute inAmsterdamforparticipatinginourresearch.Thenamesoftheparticipantshavebeenchanged.WealsothankNickyBurkeandtwoanonymousreviewersfortheirvaluablecommentsonapreviousversionofthisarticle.

1. The Dutch Rudy Carrell and Linda de Mol became famous as TV-presenters/actors inGermany.

2. InarecentmanualtheB2levelisdescribedasfollows:“Canusethelanguagefluently,ac-curatelyandeffectivelyonawiderangeofgeneral,academic,vocationalorleisuretopics,mark-ingclearlytherelationshipsbetweenideas.Cancommunicatespontaneouslywithgoodgram-maticalcontrolwithoutmuchsignofhavingtorestrictwhathe/shewantstosay,adoptingalevelofformalityappropriatetothecircumstances”and“Caninteractwithadegreeoffluencyandspontaneitythatmakesregularinteraction,andsustainedrelationshipwithnativespeakersquitepossiblewithoutimposingstrainoneitherparty.Canhighlightthepersonalsignificanceofeventsandexperiences,accountsforandsustainviewsclearlybyprovidingrelevantexplan-ationandarguments.”(CouncilofEurope,2003:56)

98 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

3. InarecentmanualtheC2levelisdescribedasfollows:“Hasagoodcommandofidiomat-icexpressionsandcolloquialismswithawarenessofconnotativelevelsofmeaning.Canconveyfinershadesofmeaningpreciselybyusing,withreasonableaccurancy,awiderangeofmodifi-cationdevices.Canbacktrackandrestructurearoundadifficultysosmoothlytheinterlocutorishardlyawareofit.”(CouncilofEurope2003:56)

4. Thearticle‘Discourse-PragmaticDescription’byBührigandtenThije(2005)containsasur-veyofthedifferentapproachestodiscourseandconversationanalysis.

5. EhlichandRehbein(1986)defineexothesisastheverbalizationofamentalstateofaffairs.

References

Arntz,R.1997.PassiveMehrsprachigkeit—EineChance fürdie„kleinenSprachen“Europas.In Einsprachigkeit ist heilbar. Überlegungen zur neuen Mehrsprachigkeit Europas [Socio-linguistica11].U.Ammon,K.J.MattheierandP.H.Nelde(eds),166–77.Tübingen:MaxNiemeyer.

Aspeslagh, R. 1998. Politik, Staat und Bürger: 1994–1998. In Dokumentation für die dritte Swedish–Danishändische Konferenz. Delft, den 19. und 20. März 1998,4–11.Clingendael:InstituutvoorInternationaleBetrekkingen.

Auer,P.(ed.)1998.Code-Switching in Conversation. Language, interaction and identity.London:Routledge.

Bot,K.de2004.AppliedlinguisticsinEurope.Aila Review17(1):57–68.Bourdieu,P.1992.Language and Symbolic Power.Cambidge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Braunmüller, K. and Zeevaert, L. 2001. Semikommunikation, rezeptive Mehrsprachigkeit und

verwandte Phänomene. Eine bibliographische Bestandsaufnahme [ArbeitenzurMehrspra-chigkeit, Folge B 19] Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, Sonderforschungsbereich Mehr-sprachigkeit.

Bührig, K. and Thije, J.D. ten 2005. Diskurspragmatische Beschreibung. In Sociolinguistics–Soziolinguistik. An international handbook of the science of language and society, Vol. 2,U.Ammon,N.Dittmar,andK.Mattheier(eds),1225-1250.Berlin:Mouton.

Bührig,K.andThije,J.D.ten(eds).2006.Beyond Misunderstanding. Linguistic analyses of in-tercultural communication [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 144]. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.

Clyne, M. 1991. Community Languages: The Australian experience. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Clyne,M.2003.Towardsinter-culturalcommunicationinEuropewithoutlinguistichomogeni-zation.InDie Kosten der Mehrsprachigkeit. Globalisierung und sprachliche Vielfalt; The Cost of Multilingualism. Globalisation and Linguistic Diversity,R.DeCillia,H.J.KrummandR.Wodak(eds),39–49.Wien:VerlagderÖsterreichischenAkademiederWissenschaften.

Councilof Europe2001.Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

CouncilofEurope2003.Relating Language Examinations to the Common European Framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEF).ManualPreliminaryPilotVersion. Strasbourg: Langaue Policy Division. http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/Portfolio (lastvisitedDecember,12th2006)

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 99

CPB,NetherlandsBureauforEconomicPolicyAnalysis1997.Challenging Neighbours. Rethinking German and Dutch economic institutions.Berlin:Springer.

Delsen,L.andJongE.de1998.The German and Dutch Economies. Who follows whom?Heidel-berg:Physica-Verlag.

Ehlich,K.1992.Kommunikationsbrüche,VonNachteilundNutzendesSprachkontakts.Ziel-sprache Deutsch23(2):64–74.

Ehlich,K.andRehbein,J.1986.Muster und Institution, Untersuchungen zur schulischen Kommu-nikation.Tübingen:GunterNarr.

Finkenstaedt,T.andSchröder,K.1992.Sprachen im Europa von morgen.Berlin:Langenscheidt.Fremdling,R. ,Lodder,H. ,Wagenaar,R.andWielenga,F.(eds).1992.Die überwundene Angst?

Die neun Nachbarländer und die deutsche Einheit. Düsseldorf: Landeszentrale für poli-tischeBildungNordrhein-Westfalens.

Grosjean,F.1982.Life with Two Languages. An introduction to bilingualism.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.

Hall,E.T.1981.The Silent Language.2nded. ,1sted.1959.NewYorkNY:AnchorBooks.Herrlitz, W. 1997. Ist Befehl Befehl? Beobachtungen zur interkulturellen Kommunikation

im deutsch–niederländischen Korps in Münster. In Niederländer und Deutsche und die Europäische Einigung,F.Wielenga(ed.),66–70.Bonn:NiederländischeBotschaft.

Herrlitz,W.andLoos,E.1994.Taalentaalgebruikindeinternationalebedrijfscommunicatie:Eentaalwetenschappelijkperspectief.Mens en Ondernemen2:144–60.

Hinskens,F.1993.Dialectalslinguafranca?Dialectgebruikinhetalgemeenenbijgrensover-schrijdend contact in het Nederrijnland en Twente. In Diglossienstudien: Dialekt und Standardsprache im niederländisch-deutschen Grenzland.L.Kremer(ed.),209–45.Vreden:LandeskundlichesInstitutWestmünsterland.

Hoffmann,L.1997.ZurGrammatikvonTextundDiskurs.InGrammatik der deutschen Sprache,Vol1.G.Zifonun,L.HoffmannandB.Strecker(eds),98–594.Berlin:deGruyter.

House, J. and Rehbein, J. 2004. What is ‘multilingual communication’? In Multilingual Communication,J.HouseandJ.Rehbein(eds),1–18.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Jongste, H.M. de 1997. Aspekte der deutsch–niederländischen Wirtschaftskommunikation.InWirtschaftswissenschaft, Anwendungsorientierte Forschung an der Schwelle des 21. Jahr-hunderts.U.Gröner,H.M.deJongste,U.KrackeandH.Senne(eds),43–56.Heidelberg:Decker.

Kellerman,E.1979.Transferandnon-transfer.Wherewearenow.Studies in Second-language acquisition2:37–57.

Koole,T.andThije,J.D.ten1994.The Construction of Intercultural Discourse. Team discussions of educational advisers.Amsterdam:RODOPI.

Lademacher, H. 1989. Zwei ungleiche Nachbarn. Wege und Wandlungen der deutsch–nieder-ländischen Beziehungen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche Buch-gesellschaft.

Linthout,D.2000.Onbekende Buren.Amsterdam:Atlas.Loos, E. 1997. Internationale Bedrijfscommunicatie. Reconstructief onderzoek naar het inter-

tekstuele netwerk van Nederlandse en Duitse actoren in een bungalowpark.Utrecht:UtrechtUniversity.

Loos,E.1998.Erfolgreichedeutsch–niederländischeBetriebskommunikation:WahrheitoderDichtung?Wirtschafts-Deutsch International. Zeitschrift für sprachliche und interkulturelle Wirtschaftskommunikation1:142–50.

100 AnneRibbertandJanD.tenThije

Milroy,L.andMuysken,P.(eds)1995.One Speaker, Two Languages. Cross-disciplinary perspec-tives on code-switching.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

MüllerB.andWielenga,F.(eds)1995.Kannitverstan? Deutschlandbilder aus den Niederlanden.Münster:agenda.

Nelde, P.H. 1988. Dutch as a language in contact. International Journal of the Sociology of Language73:111–19.

Prescher, P. 2006. Use it or lose it—First-language attrition and the “In-Between” positionof BilingualImmigrant.InArtikelen van de vijfde sociolinguistische conferentie.T.Koole,J.NortierandB.Tahitu(eds),377–92.Delft:Eburon.

Raven,S.andAspeslagh,R.(eds)1997.Multikulturelles Miteinander – Eine Utopie? Die Integra-tion von Ausländern in den Niederlanden und in Deutschland.Clingendael:InstituutvoorInternationaleBetrekkingen.

Rehbein, J. 1977. Komplexes Handeln. Elemente zur Handlungstheorie der Sprache. Stuttgart:Metzler.

Rehbein,J.2001.KonzeptederDiskursanalyse.InText- und Gesprächslinguistik/Linguistics of Text and Conversation. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung/An Inter-national Handbook of Contemporary Research,K.Brinker,G.Antos,W.Heinemann,andS.Sager(eds),927–45.Berlin:deGruyter.

Rehbein,J.2006.TheCulturalApparatus.Thoughtsontherelationshipbetweenlanguage,cul-ture,andsociety.InBeyond Misunderstanding. Linguistic analyses of intercultural communi-cation,K.BührigandJ.D.tenThije(eds),43–97.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Ribbert,A.andThije,J.D.ten2006.RezeptiveMehrsprachigkeitundinterkulturelleKommuni-kation am Arbeitsplatz. In Mehrsprachigkeit am Arbeitsplatz [Forum für AngewandteLinguistik48],B.MeyerandS.Kameyama(eds),109–29.Frankfurt:Lang.

Roelands, A. 2004. Rezeptive Mehrsprachigkeit in der institutionellen Kommunikation. Eine Fallstudie der deutsch–niederländischen Kommunikation im Goethe-Institut Amsterdam.Utrecht:UtrechtUniversity.

Roelands, A. and Thije, J.D. ten 2006. Rezeptive Mehrsprachigkeit in der institutionellenKommunikation. Eine Fallstudie zur deutsch–niederländischen Kommunikation imGoethe-Institut Amsterdam. In Mehrsprachige Individuen – vielsprachige Gesellschaften[ForumAngewandteLinguistik47],D.Wolff(ed.),165–76.FrankfurtamMain:Lang.

Shetter,W.Z.1997.The Netherlands in Perspective. The Dutch way of organizing a Society and its setting.Utrecht:NederlandsCentrumBuitenlanders.

Swaan, A. de 2001.Words of the World. The global language system. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Thije,J.D.ten2002.StufendesVerstehensbeiderInterpretationvoninterkulturellenDiskursen.InKultur(en) im Gespräch,H.Kotthoff(ed.),61–98.Tübingen:Narr.

Thije, J.D. ten 2003. Eine Pragmatik der Mehrsprachigkeit. Zur Analyse diskursiverInterkulturen.InDie Kosten der Mehrsprachigkeit. Globalisierung und sprachliche Vielfalt; The Cost of Multilingualism. Globalisation and Linguistic Diversity, R. De Cillia, H.J.KrummandR.Wodak (eds),101–23.Wien:VerlagderÖsterreichischenAkademiederWissenschaften.

TrautmannG.(ed.)1991.Die häßlichen Deutschen? Deutschland im Spiegel der westlichen und östlichen Nachbarn.Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.

Receptivemultilingualisminteamcooperation 101

Westheide, H. 1997. Trügerische Nähe, Niederländisch-deutsche Beziehungen in Geschichte, Sprache und Kultur [EUROPA 2000 Studien zur interdisziplinären Deutschland- undEuropaforschung16]Münster:LITVerlag.

Zahn,E.1984.Das unbekannte Holland. Regenten, Rebellen und Reformatoren.Berlin:SiedlerVerlag.

Zahn, E. 1986. Die Niederländer, die Deutschen - ihre Geschichte und ihre politische Kultur[SaarbrückenerUniversitätsreden18].Saarbrücken:UniversitätdesSaarlandes.

chapter4

Receptive multilingualism and inter-Scandinavian semicommunication

LudgerZeevaertUniversitätHamburg

Thisarticleisaimedatprovidingatheoreticalsubsumptionofthetermreceptivemul-tilingualism.Receptivemultilingualismisseenasacommunicativepracticeusedinsituationsofverbalinteractionunderspecialcircumstances.Itischaracterisedbydif-ferentlanguagesbeingusedbythedifferentdiscourseparticipants.Thisoverviewisillustratedwithexamplestakenfrominterscandinaviansemicommunication,i.e.theoralcommunicationbetweenspeakersofDanish,NorwegianandSwedish.Theseex-amplesshowthatthecrucialdifferencebetween‘usual’andreceptivemultilingualcom-municationliesinthefactthatthediscourseparticipantsbelongtodifferentspeechcommunities.Theyapplydifferent linguisticandnon-linguistic framesof referenceandarethusunabletorelyonanunconditionalfunctioningofthecommunication.Thelargerthedifferencesbetweenthelanguages,themoreprobableistheappearanceoftroublesourcesthatcanbeovercomewithdifferentmethods.

Keywords:receptivemultilingualism,interscandinaviansemicommunication,speechcommunity,troublesources

1. Introduction

Theverbalexchangebetweenspeakersofonespeechcommunityiscommonlyseenasthedefaultformofhumanlinguisticcommunication.Puttingasidecasesinwhichthemutual understanding is impeded by extralinguistic factors (noise, hearing impair-ment,speakingimpairmentetc.),communicationusuallyfunctionswithoutproblemsduetoprocessesofmutuallinguisticadaptation.Aspeech communityisheredefinedasageographicallyandsociallyhomogeneousgroupofhumanindividualswhohavedirect linguisticcontactwitheachother.Inordertocommunicatethisspeechcom-munityusesasystemoflinguisticutterances,theirlanguage.Concerningphonology,morphology, lexicon, syntax and discourse the utterances of the individuals withinthisspeechcommunityareidenticalandcomplywithaconventionalisednorm.Theformalidentityoftheutterancesisnecessaryinordertoenablemutualunderstand-ing.Newmembersof suchagroup(foremostchildren) learn this language interac-tivelythroughtheirlinguisticcontacttoothermembersofthespeechcommunity.Thelinguisticnormofthespeechcommunityishandeddowntothenextgenerationby

104 LudgerZeevaert

meansofsteadylinguisticinteraction.Uptoacertainamountinnovationsarepossibleaslongasthespeechcommunityisabletodealwiththembyprocessesofmutualad-aptation.1

Thefollowingarticledealswithasituationofcommunicationthatdeviatesfromthisnormalformofcommunication,viz.thelinguisticcommunicationbetweenmembersofdifferentspeechcommunitiesusingdifferentlanguagesisanalysed.Inthisspecialcasethemissingconcordanceofthelanguagesinvolvedhastobecompensatedforbyextranegotiationifthecommunicationistobesuccessful.Inordertoaccomplishthistaskdifferentsolutionsarepossibledependentontheconditionsimplied:

• Aninterpreterknowingbothlanguagesmediatesbetweentheinterlocutors.• BothinterlocutorsuseanL2(lingua franca),mostoftenthelanguageofapolitically

influentialnationsuchasnowadaysEnglish,butalsolanguagesthatarewidespreadforculturalorreligiousreasonsincertainareasoftheworldlikeLatininEuropeinthemiddleagesorStandardArabicintheIslamiccountriesmaybeused.Evenwrit-tenstandardlanguagescanplaythesamerole,asisthecasewithHighGermanusedbyspeakersofGermandialects thatshowa largegeographicaland linguisticdis-tance.

• ArtificiallanguagessuchasEsperantoornaturallyemergedpidginsasTokPisininNewGuineaareused.AnotherpossibilityistheapplicationofamorewidelyknownsignlanguageasthePlainsIndianSignLanguageusedbyNorthAmericanIndiansor thesign languagedevelopedbyTrappistmonks toavoiddisturbances in theircontemplationcausedbythenoiseofspokenlanguage.

• Oneof the interlocutors speaks the languageofadifferent speechcommunityasaforeignlanguageandusesitwhenincontactwithitsmembers.Incasesofalessproficientcommandofthelanguageevenaspecialregister(foreignertalk)maybeused.

• Theinterlocutorstrytoreachaunilateralorbilaterallinguisticapproximation,e.g.byutilisingarudimentarylanguagecompetenceandbymeansofadeicticorevenonomatopoeticdenominationofobjects.

• Bothinterlocutorsspeaktheirownlanguageandatthesametimeareabletounder-standthelanguageoftheircounterpart(receptive multilingualism).

Thefollowingconsiderationsarebasedonthelast-mentionedcaseofmultilingualcom-munication,viz.receptivemultilingualism.Receptivemultilingualdiscoursesarechar-acterisedbythefactthattheinterlocutorsinvolveddonotaimatacommonlanguageofdiscourse,exactlylikeincasesofinterpreter-mediateddiscourseandincontrasttoallotherexamplesofmultilingualdiscourseconstellations.However,whileinthecaseofinterpretingthecommunicationismediatedbyathirdparty,receptivemultilingual-ismrequiresthislinguistictransfertobeachievedbytheinterlocutorsthemselves. Thesuccessofsuchatransfercanbeverydifferentdependingonthedifferentcon-ditions of the receptive multilingual situations.Yet a more thorough theoretical de-

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 105

scriptionofthosedifferentcasesofreceptivemultilingualismwasnotperformed.Atafirstglance,thisretentivenessinrelationtoatheoreticalpenetrationofthematterofinvestigationisnotself-evident,giventhelargeamountofliteratureonthesubject.2Anexplanationmightbethatadefinitionofreceptivemultilingualismwouldhavetocompriseahostofverydifferentphenomena.Inadditionithastobestatedthatalargeamountoftheexistingliteratureonthedifferentaspectsofthesubjectaimsatsupport-ingtheideaofreceptivemultilingualismanddoesthusnotalwaysstriveforanobject-ivedescriptionofthecommunicationbetweenthespeakersofdifferentlanguages.3

Thus,thefirststepthatwillbemadeinthefollowingconsiderationsistodifferentiatebetweenthenumeroustermsusedintheliteratureinconnectionwithsituationsoforalcommunicationlackingacommonlanguage.

2. Receptivemultilingualism:Atheoreticaloverview

2.1 Receptivemultilingualismandunrelated/remotelyrelatedlanguages

Receptive multilingualism is a reasonable option of communication between lan-guages that are unrelated or only remotely related—under the condition that allspeakers involvedare familiarwithboth languages,andprovided that thespeakershaveonlyapassivecompetenceattheirdisposal(eitherbecauseonlyapassivecom-petencewasacquired,becauseoneormoreofthespeakersarelessadvancedlearnersorbecauseofalackoflanguagepractice)orthattheinterlocutorsprefertousetheirownmothertongueinspiteofanavailableactivecompetence(eitherbecausetheyfeelabletoexpressthemselvesbetterintheirfirstlanguageortomarktheirlinguisticiden-tityinamultilingualenvironment).Receptivemultilingualismthusprovidestheop-portunitytoavoidlinguisticdiscriminationinofficiallymultilingualcountriessuchasSwitzerlandorBelgium.4

2.2 Receptivemultilingualismandcloselyrelatedlanguages

Themutualunderstandingofspeakersofcloselyrelatedlanguages,however,underliestotallydifferentconditions.Inthecaserelatedtointhefollowing,speakersareabletounderstandthelanguageoftheirinterlocutorduetothegeneticproximityofthetwolanguagesandtheresultinglargetypologicalsimilarity.FollowingHaugen(1966:153),thisspecialcaseofreceptivemultilingualismhasbeentermedsemicommunication.5

Theclassicalcaseofsemicommunicationisthecommunicationbetweenspeakersof Danish,NorwegianandSwedish,but thetermisalsousedforsimilarsituationsasinthecommunicationbetweenspeakersofCzechandSlovak(Budovičová1987a,1987b)orbetweenMiddleLowGermanandOldScandinavian(Braunmüller1995).6

Semicommunication is attested for numerous language pairs, e.g. Czech–Polish(Hansen 1987), Croatian–Serbian (Haugen 1990), Hindi–Urdu (Haugen 1990),

106 LudgerZeevaert

Icelandic–Faroese (Braunmüller and Zeevaert 2001), Portuguese–Spanish (Coseriu1988:140, Jensen 1989, Zeevaert 2002), Spanish–Italian (Hansen 1987), Frisian–Dutch(Feitsma1986),Macedonian–Bulgarian(Haugen1990)orRussian–Bulgarian(BraunmüllerandZeevaert2001).EventheexchangebetweenthedifferentnationaldialectsofArabicmaybecalledsemicommunication(Haugen1990).Klein(2004:16f.)completesthislistbyaddingHebrew–Arabic,TurkishinCentralAsia,unspecifiedlan-guagesinAfricaandthePolynesianlanguagesMaori,Samoan,TahitianandHawaiian.

2.3 Receptivemultilingualcommunicationandsemicommunication

Receptivemultilingualcommunicationandsemicommunicationarecharacterisedbydifferentcommunicativeconditionsandshouldthusbetreatedasdifferentphenome-na.Thecommoncharacteristicofbothcasesisthatdifferentlanguagesareusedinonediscourse.However,theunderlyingtheoreticalconceptionofthetermlanguagedoesnotseemtobeidentical. Kloss (1967) distinguishes between abstand languages and ausbau languages.Abstandlanguagesarelanguagesthatdonotexhibitmutualintelligibility.Thisdefin-itionreliesonthe(objective)criterionoflinguisticdistanceundthusonlymakessenseincomparisontootherlanguages.Incontrasttothisanausbaulanguagemaybeintel-ligibleforthemembersofneighbouringspeechcommunitiesbutatthesametimecannotberegardedasadialectofthelanguageoftheneighbouringcommunitybecauseofitshighlydevelopedliteracy.Objectivecriteriaforthestatusofanausbaulanguageareamongotherthingsitsownwrittenstandardandtheexistenceoftechnicalliterature. Kloss’(1967)termausbaulanguageiscomparabletoCoseriu’sconceptofhistorical language.Coseriufoundshisdistinctionbetweenlanguageanddialectontheevalu-ationbythespeakersofthelanguageordialectunderconsiderationorbythespeakersoftherespectiveneighbouringspeechcommunities.ForCoseriu(1988:24)historic-allanguageexistsasahistoricalculturalproductandisrecognisedbyitsspeakersasalanguage.Ahistoricallanguageisdenotedbyanadjectiveproper(theGerman,French,Italianlanguage).7

Thus, the termreceptive multilingualism canbeused todescribe thecommunica-tionbetweenspeakersofabstandlanguages,butalsobetweenspeakersofausbaulan-guagesthatexhibitlittledistancebetweenthem.Thetermsemicommunication,how-ever,isonlyappropriateindescribingcontactbetweencloselyrelatedausbaulanguageswhichhastobedistinguishedfromcasesofdialectcontactsuchasthelinguisticex-changeoverpoliticalbordersbetweenspeakersofcloselyrelateddialectsbelongingtoadialectcontinuum,asforexampleintheGerman–Dutchborderland,orthelinguis-tic exchangebetween speakersofdifferent, less closely relatedvarietiesofminoritylanguagesinwhichanimmediatemutualunderstandingisnotpossible(e.g.Rhaeto-RomanceinSwitzerlandandNorthernItalyorSaamiinNorwayandSweden). Atafirstglancetheutilisationofapurelylinguisticcriterion,i.e.linguisticdistanceorimmediatemutualunderstandingbetweenlanguages,seemstoprovidethebestop-

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 107

portunity foramorestrictdefinitionof thedifferent termsseenas theunderstand-ingbetweenspeakersofdifferentspeechcommunitiesistestable,forexamplebyask-ingquestionsconcerningthecontentsofatext.8However,theevaluationofsuchtestsposesseveraldifferentquestions:

• Whichtypesoftextsaresuitablefortestinglanguagecomprehension?• Whichcriteriashouldbeappliedindefiningunderstanding?Didatestpersonun-

derstandatextonlyifallquestionsareansweredcorrectlyorisacertainpercentagesufficient(andinthatcase,whichpercentage)?

• Shouldaquantificationof thedegreeof intelligibilityrelyonthenumbersof testpersonswhopassthetestorontheaverageresultsofthewholegroup?9

EventhetwopersoncommunicationgamethatwasproposedbyErvin-Tripp(1971:64)inordertotestmutualintelligibilitybetweendifferentspeechcommunitiesisnotasuitablesolutioninourcase.Herproposalimpliedthatahearerisinstructedbyaspeakernotvisibletohimtoperformatask,e.g.toassembleanitem.However,itre-quiresthatthetestpersonsinvolveddidnothaveanykindofcontacttothelanguageofinstructionseenasthiswouldinfluencethereceptivecompetence.Moreover,notthemutualunderstandingoflanguagesistestedbutrathertheperformanceofanindivid-ual.Finallyithastobestatedthatsituations,inwhichthesuccessofacommunicativeactcanbevalidatedbyalanguageexternalactasinErvin-Tripp’sexperiment,onlyac-countforarathersmallpartofhumancommunication.Inmostcasesanimmediatecontrolofsuccessisnotpossible.

2.4 Aconsensualsphereasaconditionformutualunderstanding

CommunicationmodelsthatarebasedoninformationtheorysuchasthosedevelopedbyShannonandWeaver(1971:34)orEco(1988:50)10aresuitablefordescribingtheex-changeofinformationbetweenmachines.However,theyareonlyoflimitedusefortheinvestigationofcommunicationbetweenhumans,seenashumancommunicationex-ceedsthepureexchangeofinformation.Discussionsaboutpolitics,theweatherorafilmseenrecentlybybothinterlocutorsdonotservethepurposeoftransferringinformationfromaspeakertoahearer.FollowingUngeheuer,(1987b:322)suchcasesofcommu-nicationcanbelabelledas‘crucialcommunication’(kruziale Kommunikation).Itspur-poseisnottheexchangeofinformation,butfarmorethemediationofindividuallydif-ferentiatedworldtheories11orthetransferofmentalcontentsfromaspeakertoahearer. Onemodelofdescribing‘crucial’communicationisprovidedbytheChileanbiolo-gistUmbertoMaturana.Fromhisradicalconstructivisticpointofview,hestatesthatcommunicationbetweennervoussystems(e.g.humans)cannotbedescribedasanex-changeofinformation,becausethesystemsinvolvedareclosedandthereforecanonlyconstructaviewoftheworldoutsidethesystemincludingtheirinterlocutorbyusingtheneuronalactivitiesproducedbyinterfaces(sensesofhearing,seeing,smellingetc.).

108 LudgerZeevaert

Understandingwouldthusbetheprocessofreconstructingtherealityconstructedbythenervoussysteminusingsuchexternallyandinternallygeneratedneuronalactiv-ities.12

Inthisviewthehearer’sroleisasactiveasthatofthespeaker.Thesenseofanutter-anceisderivedbyahearerbyplacingitinhisowncognitivespace.Knowledgehastobecreatedbythehearer(Maturana1998:22).Itishisownchoicehowtoadjusthiscognitivespacebyinternallydevelopinghisownmentalstate.Hischoiceistriggeredbythe“message”,buttheorientationcreatedisindependentfromthesensethe“mes-sage”representsforthespeaker.Strictlyspeakingthereisnotransferofthoughtsfromaspeakertoahearer.Informationiscreatedbythehearerinreducinghisownuncer-taintybyhisinteractionsinhisowncognitivespace.13

Thebasisfortheorientationofthehearerishisownreferencesystem,viz.thestateofactivitycausedbyhisinteractions.Thisstateformsthecontextforlinguisticinter-action(Maturana1998:60).Thiscontextisneitheranobjectivenorastaticvariable.Itchangesinthecourseofalinguisticinteraction.Ambiguityinutterancesormisunder-standingsthatcanbedetectedbyanobservernotinvolvedinthecommunicationdonotexistfortheinterlocutors.Duetothecurrentcontext,themeaningofanutteranceisalwaysunambiguous,evenifthiscontextmaychangeasaresultofthelinguisticin-teractionorevenbymeansofselfreflection.14

Thisinturnimpliesthenecessityofaconsensualspherecommonforbothspeakerandhearer,atleastifcommunicationistoberegardedassuccessfulunderthecondi-tionthatthehearercreatesthemeaningactuallyintendedbythespeaker.Ontheonehandthisconsensualspherecomprisesthelanguage,andontheotherhandthecon-text,i.e.thecognitiveframeofreference(cf.Maturana1998:121ff.).Theregularinter-actionofindividualswhichincludesnurtureandeducationcreatesastructurallinkageleadingtotheformationofacommonlanguage,butalsototheconstructionofacom-monreality.15Thosecommonalitiesareenlargedbymeansoflinguisticinteraction.

2.5 Receptivemultilingualismandmultilingualdiscourses

Speechcommunitiesconsistofindividualspeakers,thereforetheextentoftheindivid-uals’contactinfluencesthedistancebetweenlanguages.Apoliticalseparationofre-latedlanguagesusuallyleadstoalargerlinguisticdistance,16whereastheirunificationinonestatenormallyresultsinlinguisticapproximation.17Inadditiontothis,mem-bersofacommunicationcommunity18donotonlydisposeofacommonlanguagebutalsoofacommonsystemofexperiencesderivedfromtheirupbringinginthesameen-vironment.Bythis,communicationisfacilitated.19

Fromthisfollowsthatafundamentaldistinctionhastobemadebetweenthecom-municationofspeakersusingdifferentlanguagesandtheconditionsofthiscommuni-cation.Incontrasttotheusualformofmonolingualdiscoursestheycanbedescribedasmultilingual discourses (thespecialcaseof interpreteddiscoursesis, thoughmen-tionedintable1,notdiscussedintheremainderofthepaper).

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 109

Notallcasespresentedintable2weretreatedseparatelyintheliteraturebecausesome of them might be regarded as special cases of phenomena already described.Onematterthisoverviewismeanttoshowisthatsomeauthorsstresstheactualdis-coursesituation(e.g.Haugen1966),whereasothersfocusonmoregenerallinguisticconditions(asDahlstedt1971). Itisalsotruethataprecisedelimitationofdifferentformsofmultilingualdiscoursesisnotfeasible.Especiallyaprecisediscriminationbetweenmutuallyintelligibleandunintelligible closely related languages is not possible. Moreover, the acquisition orimprovementofreceptiveskillsismucheasierinarelatedlanguagethaninanunre-

Table 1. Monolingualandmultilingualdiscourses

Monolingual discourse Multilingual discourse

Interpreteddiscourse Receptivemultilingualdiscourse

AandBshareacommonL1 InterpreterisabletospeakAndunderstandl1ofaandb

AisabletounderstandL1ofB,BisabletounderstandL1ofA

AundBshareacommonL2 InterpreterisabletospeakAndunderstandl2ofaand(Divergent)l2ofb

AisabletounderstandL1ofB,BisabletounderstandL2ofA

AspeaksL1ofBasL2 InterpreterspeaksandUnderstandsl1ofaand(Divergent)l2ofb

AisabletounderstandL2ofB,BisabletounderstandL2ofA

Table 2. Differenttypesofmultilingualdiscourses

A is able to understand L1 of B, B is able to understand L1 of A

A is able to understand L1 of B, B is able to understand L2 of A

A is able to understand L2 of B, B is able to understand L2 of A

Becausethelanguagesarecloselyrelated(mutuallyintelligible)

semicommunication(Haugen1966)

secondaryspeechcommunity(Dahlstedt1971)

peripheralspeechcommunity(Börestam2001)

Becausethelanguagesarerelated(mutuallyunintelligible)andAandBhaveacquiredreceptiveskills

adjoininglanguages(Kloss1929)

specialcaseofintercomprehension

intercomprehension(cf.Meissner2004)

Becausethelanguagesarenotornotcloselyrelated(mutuallyunintelligible)andAandBhaveacquiredreceptiveskills

polyglotdialogue(Augustin1997)

specialcaseofpolyglotdialogue

receptivemultilingualism(cf.Hansen1987)

110 LudgerZeevaert

latedone.Inotherwords,‘totalunconditionalintelligibility’and‘nopossibilityofun-derstanding’aretheendpointsofacontinuum(seefigure1).

German Dutch Icelandic Russian Japanese

Figure 1. MutualintelligibilitybetweenGermanandotherlanguages

Thedistancesbetweenthelanguagesdonotrepresenttheresultsfromlanguagedis-tancemeasurements,butaremeanttodisplayanimpressionisticrepresentationofthefactthatthepossibilityofmutualunderstandingbetweenlanguagesisdependentontheproximityoftheirrelationship.However,evenbetweenunrelatedlanguagessuchasGermanandJapanesemutualunderstandingisnotcompletelyexcluded.20Thedif-ferentdegreesofunderstandingmaythusbedescribedasacontinuumwherecasesofcommunicationinwhichspeakerandhearerattributeexactlythesamemeaningtoanutterancemarktheoneend,whereastheotherendismarkedbycasesofcommunica-tioninwhichahearerisnotcapableofattributinganymeaningtoanutterance. Ithastobepointedoutthatthemeaningattributedtoanutterancebyahearerdoesnotsolelyrelyonthedecodingofspeechsignals.Toderiveameaningfromanutter-anceahearerhasa largecontext tohisdisposal—comprisingcommonknowledge,culturespecificknowledge,commoncommunicativecompetence,situationalcontext,prosody,bodylanguageetc.Ontheotherhandtheunderstandingofutterancesinthemothertonguemaybeslightlyobscuredbytheuseofspecialtechnicalterminology,unknownabbreviationsoralackofcontextualknowledge.Finally, the capability of decoding linguistic utterances in closely related languagescanbeimprovedbydifferentmethods,afactthatisinstrumentalisedbythemethodof intercomprehension. In thiscontextcommonalities,partly identicalelementsandsimilaritiesbetweenlanguagesareusedsystematicallyinordertoacquireareceptivecompetence in a neighbouring language. The EuroComRom-method21 developedby Klein and Stegmann (2000) is a successful practical application of this concept.Correspondingprojectsweresoontofollow,cf.Zybatow(2002)andDuke,HufeisenandLutjeharms(2004).22

3. Interscandinaviansemicommunication:Anauthenticexample

3.1 Preliminaryremarks

Theideaofanalysingcommunicationbetweencloselyrelatedlanguagesbasedonre-ceptivecompetenceisnotcompletelynew.75yearsagoHeinzKloss(1929)designedadetailed,butbyandlargedisregarded,conceptofacquiringareceptivecompetenceofthedifferent(West)Germaniclanguages,aimedatestablishingamutualunderstand-ingbetweenspeakersofAfrikaans,German,Dutch,PennsylvaniaDutch,Yiddishand

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 111

Frisian.InthelasttenyearsorsothepoliticalandsocialchangesinEuropehaveledtoamassiveincreaseofresearchinthisfield.Themainemphasisliesontheevaluationofthelinguistic,politicalandsocialconditionsofreceptivemultilingualismandonthedevelopmentofdidacticconcepts.

3.2 Interscandinaviancommunication

InthiscontextitisveryoftenreferredtotheInterscandinaviancommunicationasamotivationandmodel.23Traditionally,eveninofficialcontextssuchaspoliticalcon-sultationsoftheScandinaviancountriesorinconferenceswithparticipantsfromdif-ferentScandinaviancountries,theScandinaviansdonotusealingua francaasEnglishoragreetouseoneofthelanguagesinvolved,butrathereveryparticipantuseshisownmothertongue.24

Thisformofreceptivemultilingualismispatronisedbytheso-calledneighbourlan-guageeducationinScandinavianschoolsandisbasedonthewidespreadfeelingofhis-torical,culturalandpoliticalcommonalitiesbetweentheScandinavianpeople. IthastobepointedoutthatthereisaqualitativedifferencebetweenInterscandinaviancommunicationandthemutualunderstandingoflanguagesintheRomanic,theSlavicorthecompleteGermanlanguagegroup.Ontheonehandthespeakersofthoselan-guages concernedby the intercomprehension researchare far less consciousof thepossibilityofthiswayofcommunicationthanpeopleinScandinaviaandhavethusnotdevelopeda traditionof semicommunication.On theotherhand thedistancesbetweenlanguagessuchasFrenchandRumanian,PolishandRussianorEnglishandIcelandicaremuch larger than thedifferencesbetween theMainlandScandinavianlanguagesDanish,NorwegianandSwedish. Nevertheless,scholarsinthefieldofInterscandinaviancommunicationagreeonthefactthat,duetothephonologicandlexicaldifferencesbetweenDanishandSwedish,aspontaneous,unimpededunderstandingdoesnotalwaysworkbetweenspeakersofthetwolanguages.Testsconductedbye.g.Maurud(1976)andBø(1975)showthatspokenDanishisunderstoodbySwedestolessthan50%ofallcases.25Inotherwords,thereisacontradictionbetweenthedegreeofunderstandingpredictedonthebasisofthelinguisticconditionsofreceptivemultilingualcommunicationandthefactthatobviouslysuccessfulreceptivemultilingualcommunicationcanbeobservedbetweenthespeakersofthedifferentScandinavianlanguages. OnecanthinkofvariouspossibitiestoexplainthefactthatInterscandinaviancom-munication apparently works in practice despite problems arising from theoreticalconsiderations:

• Thedemandsoftheaimofthecommunicationarereducedincomparisontomono-lingualcommunication,i.e.perhapsasuccessfulcommunicationisonlysimulated.

• Communicativeproblemsaredisambiguatedwith thehelpof extralinguistic con-text.

112 LudgerZeevaert

• Thespeakersusespecialstrategiesindealingwithtroublesourcesthatdifferfromthoseusedinmonolingualcommunication.

• Thesuccessof the communication is a resultof (controlledoruncontrolled) lan-guageacquisition.Knowledgeabout the linguisticdivergences isacquiredby thespeakerswhoaretherebyenabledtoovercomethosedivergences.

InthefollowinglinesIwouldliketotrytotestthosedifferentpossibilitiesongenu-ineexamplesfromInterscandinaviancommunicationinordertoobtainconclusionsaboutthefeasibilityofreceptivemultilingualismevenindifferentcontexts.

3.3 Interscandinavianworkgroupsandpaneldiscussions

Zeevaert (2004) investigated group work sessions within meetings of The Nordic Association of University Administrators26whichbesideslecturesareanintegralpartofthoseconferences.InthosesessionsuptoeightparticipantsfromdifferentScandinaviancountries discuss questions concerning the work of the university administrationsfromtheperspectiveoftheircountriesoforigin.Theaimofthediscussionisfirstandforemosttheexchangeofinformation—discourselanguagesareDanish,NorwegianandSwedish. TheaimofZeevaert’s(2004)investigationwastofindoutwhethertheparticipantswereable toestablisha functioningcommunicationdespite theproblemsofunder-standingthatwereattestedintheoretical,experimentalanddemoscopicapproaches,andifcertainstrategies,differentfromthoseusedwhithinaspeechcommunity,weredeveloped.Themethodologicalapproachwasbasedonconversationresearchandcom-municationtheory;transcriptionsofsixdiscourseswereanalysed,thetranscriptionsbeingsupplementedwithcomputerbasedquantitativeevaluationsofthediscoursebe-haviourindigitalisedversionsoftheoriginalrecordings. Anexaminationofboththelengthandthefrequencyofpauses,backchannelbe-haviour,treatmentoftroublesourcesandturntakinggavetheimpressionofafunc-tioningcommunication.Theresultsfromearlierinvestigationsthatrevealedsevereun-derstandingproblemsforspeciallanguagecombinations(Maurud1976)ordescribedInterscandinavian communication as fragmentary or problematic (Haugen 1966,Börestam1994)couldthusnotbeconfirmed.Seenasthediscoursesgenerallyappeartobesemanticallycoherent,thepossibilityofasimulationofsuccessfulcommunica-tion,whichinrealityisbasedonalackofmutualunderstanding,canbeexcluded. TheworkgroupsandpaneldiscussionsinvestigatedbyZeevaert(2004)mainlyrep-resent‘crucial’communication.27Theiraimisplacedonthemediationofmentalcon-tentsandnottheinstigationofnon-linguisticactions.Thisimpliesontheonehandthatadirectcontrolofsuccessisusuallynotgivenandontheotherhandthatmisunder-standingsnotdetectedbytheparticipantsdonothavesevereconsequences.Itisquitepossible,thattroublesourcesdiscoveredbyadiscourseanalysisdonotconstitutecom-municativeproblemsforthediscourseparticipantasexcerpt1suggests.

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 113

Table 3. Discourceparticipantsinexcerpt1

Token Discourse language Mother tongue m/f

IM Swedish Swedish fKT Danish Danish fGR Norwegian Norwegian f

Excerpt 1.

114 LudgerZeevaert

ThisdiscoursewasrecordedataNUAS-conferenceinSwedenandismainlyconcernedwiththeprospectiveeconomicaldevelopmentofuniversitiesandthedevelopmentofplanningandcooperationbetweentheuniversityadministrations.IntheexcerptfromthediscoursepresentedheretheSwedishwomanIM(foralistoftheparticipantsseetable3)givesexamplesfortheproblemsthatarisedwhencomputerswereintroducedintheadministration.Thedescriptionofthegrotesquecoincidencethatthemonitorofacomputer-hostileemployeestartsburningdoesnotmainlyservethefunctionofinformingbutfarmorefulfilsanexpressivefunction;fromIM’sutteranceitcanbeseenthatsheknowsthathernarrationisadigression.Therecurrentlaughingdocu-mentsthesocialfunctionofthecommunicaton,andfinallyeventheaimofimprovingthereceptivecompetenceisfulfilled:thetypicalSwedishtermbildskärm(‘monitor’)isframedbypausestoprovideanopportunityforquestionsifthetermshouldcauseanyproblemsinunderstanding. ObviouslytheDanishwomanKTisabletolinguisticallydecodetheutterancesoftheSwedishwomanIM.Thismaybederivedfromthefactthatneitherpauses,normeasurestoensuretheunderstandingcanbeobserved,andKT’sproposaltosolvetheproblemhastoberegardedasbeingcoherent,atleastifonlythedirectcontextiscon-sidered.However,ifonelooksatthewholediscoursecontext,thecontributionofKTseemstobelessadequate.Theactualsubjectofthediscoursesection,namelyhowtomotivatecomputer-hostileemployees,isnotpickedupbyKT,andherconcreteprop-ositionseemstobeinfluencedbythefactthatshedoesnotgrasptheironicdimensionoftheanthropomorphicdepictiongivenbyIM(thecomputerseemstotakerevengeontheemployeewhodoesnotlikehim).28Atthispointthecommunicationhastoberegardedastextuallysuccessfulbutpragmaticallyunsuccessful. Of course the interlocutors are not only simulating successful communication.However,thispartofdiscourseshowsthatthedemandsonreceptivemultilingualismhavetobereducedincomparisontomonolingualcommunication,evenifnoprob-lemsinlinguisticdecodingareobservedatthesurface.

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 115

3.4 Theroleofacommonbackground

TheworkgroupsessionsthatwererecordedinScandinavianconferencesdidnotgivethepossibilityofsolvingproblemsofunderstandingbymeansofextralinguisticcon-text.Incontrasttoforexamplelectures,inwhichbymeansoftheuseofvisualmediaitispossibletoprovidethelistenerwithinformationoverdifferentchannels,thepar-ticipantsofthegroupsessionshadtosolelyrelyonthespokenwordtosupportthelin-guisticdecoding.Auseofgesturesexceedingtheamountofnon-verbalcommunica-tioninmonolingualcommunicationwasnotobserved. However,thediscoursesgivehintsthatthecommonprofessionalbackground,viz.theoccupationintheuniversityadministration,hasapositiveeffectonthemutualun-derstanding.Inexcerpt2theparticipants(seetable4)informeachotherofhowtheallotmentofmoneyishandledattheiruniversities.

Excerpt 2.

116 LudgerZeevaert

Evenifinthedifferentcountriesdifferenttermsareusedforthedifferentmethodsofaccountancythespeakerssucceedinfindingthecounterpartofthetermsintheirownlanguageduetotheircommonbackground(seeexcerpt3).TheSwedishspeakerRAasksiftheotheruniversitiesusethekassaprincip.TheNorwegianspeakerJMmakessurethathehasunderstoodRAcorrectlybyreformulating(withquestionintonation)theSwedishtermkassaprinciptotheNorwegiantermkontantprinsipp.RAaffirmsthisbyrepeatingkontantprincipwhichisaformalsopossibleinSwedish. Even the term nettobudsjettering which is introduced into the discourse by theNorwegianspeakerJMandisunknowntotheSwedishspeakerRAisnotclarifiedbyadirectrequest(e.g.“whatdoesnettobudsjetteringmeaninSwedish?”).RAratherap-proachestheproblemwithaslightlylongwindedexothesis(“vadmenardenumednettobudgetering?”)thatiscontinuedandcompletedbyJMwhenRAbreaksoffhisconsiderations.FinallytheDanishspeakerOJparaphrasestheNorwegiantermnetto-budsjetteringwiththeDanishtermnettobevilling. Theconsensualpart,i.e.thecommonprofessionalcontextincludingknowledgeofprocedures andprocesses in theuniversity administrations that are common inallcountries,makesitpossibleforthespeakerstoleadasuccessfulcommunicationatpo-tentiallyproblematicpoints.

Table 4. Discourseparticipantsinexcerpt2

Token Discourse language Mother tongue m/f

RA Swedish Swedish mJM Norwegian Norwegian mTE Norwegian Norwegian mOJ Danish Danish m

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 117

3.5 Dealingwithtroublesources

Asmentionedabove,thediscoursestreatedbyZeevaert(2004)donotexhibitapartic-ularlyhighamountoftroublesourcesandrepaircomparedtomonolingualcommu-nication.However,theorganisersoftheconferencesdonotpredictthediscoursesitu-ationtobeunproblematic,whichbecomesclearfromthefactthatNUASestablishedataskforceconcernedwithlanguagequestionsthatdevelopedseveralmanualsaimedatimprovingmutualunderstanding. Themanualssuggesttochoosesuitableroomswithgoodacousticsandtoprovidethespeakerswithtechnicalandotherresources(overheadprojector,microphones,fa-cilitiestocopyhandoutsandwordlists)tosupporttheunderstandingofthespokenwordswiththehelpofvisualandwritteninformation.Eventhechoiceofadequate

Excerpt 3.

118 LudgerZeevaert

referentsandageneroustimeschedule(topreventpeoplefromspeakingtoofastduetotimepressure)areproposed. Muchmoreinteresting,though,arestrategieschosentodealwithtroublesourcesthatappear inthecourseofthediscourseandshowdifferencestomonolingualdis-coursesituations,seenassuchstrategiesmightalsobeusefulforothersituationsofreceptivemultilingualism. Iswasmentionedabove that thediscoursesanalysedbyZeevaert (2004)have tobeclassifiedascrucial communication,29meaningthatitismostoftennotpossibletocontrolwhetherornotanutterancewasactuallyunderstood.Noteveryproblemofunderstandinghastobeverbalisedinstantaneously,infactveryoftentheuseofalet it pass-strategy(waitingforaclarificationoftheproblemlaterinthediscourse)canbeasuccesfulchoice. Ofcoursethisstrategycannotbeillustratedbyexamplesbecauseitischaracterisedbynotdealingwithatroublesource.Evenifonespeakerdoesn’tfrequentlytakepartinadiscourse,afactthatcanbederivedfromaquantitativeanalysisofthenumberandlengthoftheutterancesofthedifferentspeakers,itdoesnotautomaticallyhavetobeassumedthathehasproblemsinunderstandingtheotherspeakers.Asuptoeightpersonstakepartinthediscoursestheresponsibilityofkeepingthediscussionalivecanbedividedbetweenthespeakers,andnoteveryparticipanthastoactivelytakepartthroughoutthewholediscussion. Itissignificant,though,thatspeakerswhoarenotabletousetheirmothertongue(Finns,Icelanders,FaroeIslanders,Greenlanders)havealowerstakeinthediscours-es compared to the speakers using their native language (Danes, Norwegians, andSwedes).Eventhiscannotberegardedassignificantevidenceforproblemsofunder-standing,butitshowsthatinreceptivemultilingualcommunication,insituationsinwhichonespeakerisabletousehismothertongue,whereastheotherspeakerhastoswitchtoanL2,thenonmothertonguespeakersappeartobeimpeded. Theabsenceofback-channelsignals,however,hastobelookedatasamoreobvioussignforproblemsofunderstanding.Back-channel behaviour30demandsfarlessmen-talactivitycomparedtocompleteutterancesandcanthereforebeperformedmoreorlessautomatically.Itisthusnotanindicatorforproblemsoflanguageproductionbutratherforproblemswithrespecttoreception. Thisdoesnot automatically imply that thehearersproducing littleback-channelbehaviourhaveproblemsinunderstandingtheirinterlocutors.Exactlyasfortheac-tiveparticipationinadiscourse,onehastoactontheassumptionofindividual,genderspecificandculturallydependentdifferences intheproductionofback-channelsig-nals.Alackofreceivedback-channelsignals,onthecontrary,isaratherstronghintto-wardstheassumptionthattheutterancesoftherespectivespeakertendtocauseprob-lemsofunderstandingfortheotherhearers. Inordertoassessifhisownutterancesareunderstood,aspeakerinreceptivemul-tilingualcommunicationshouldnotonlyregardrequestsforrepairbythehearersbutalsotakeintoconsiderationwhetherornotthehearersperformanormalback-chan-

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 119

nelbehaviour.Thereasonforthisisthatonemustassumethattheparticipantsapplythe same communicative rules they are used to from monolingual communicationcorrespondingly in receptive multilingual communication, implying that too manyrequestsforclarificationcouldbeconceivedasaface-threatening act,31afflictingthecommunicationtoomuch. Typical strategies of linguistic accommodation including a slow and enunciatedspeech,lexicalaccommodationstothetargetlanguage,theavoidanceofcolloquialex-pressionsandan increase inredundancybymeansof repetitionandreformulationcanonlybe identified in thediscourses inquestion ina few instances.ThismeansthateveniflinguisticaccommodationcannotberegardedasbeingatypicaltraitofInterscandinaviancommunicationitisabletogiveimportantinformationaboutthefunctioningofthecommunicationinthosecasesinwhichitcanactuallybeobserved.Thiswillbeillustratedbythefollowinganalysis.

3.6 Neighbouring-languageacquisition

The discourse investigated in the following was recorded at a conference of univer-sityadministratorsinSweden.Theworkgroupdiscussesquestionsregardingthefu-tureeconomicaldevelopmentoftheuniversitiesandthedevelopmentandplanningof cooperation in the university administrations.Within the discussions more gen-eral questions are also brought up—different structures in the direction of the de-partments,differentapproachesincoveringthedemandforbuildings,theincreasinginternationalcompetitionbetweenuniversitiesandexperienceswithelectronicdataprocessingarediscussed,partlyinananecdotalmanner. ThreeoftheparticipantsspeakSwedishasamothertongue,32twoNorwegian,andoneDanish(seetable5).TheoverallpercentagerateofNorwegianislargest,butnolanguageisclearlyover-orunderrepresented.TheDanishstakeislowest,butonehastoconsiderthattheDanishspeakerKTdoesnothaveanysupportfromcompatriotsandissolelyresponsiblefortheDanishcontribution.Amorethoroughinspectionoftheutterancesofthedifferentspeakers(cf.table5)showsthatthethreefemalespeak-ersGR(Norwegian),KT(Danish)andIM(Swedish)arethethreeparticipantsmainlyengagedinthediscourse.

Table 5. Discourseparticipantsandtheirshareindicourse

Speaker Discourse language

M/f Stake in dis-course/min

Stake in dis-course/turns

Back-channel signals

LF Swedish m 1.0 38 52ÅS Swedish f 0.5 7 4IM Swedish f 10.5 98 47KT Danish f 11.0 165 148KÅ Norwegian m 3.5 50 28GR Norwegian f 14.0 127 85

120 LudgerZeevaert

Theimpressionofaratherbalanceddiscourseissupportedbythefactthattheturnschangemainlybetweenthedifferent languages(81%).Apreference for turntakingbetweenspeakersofthesamelanguagethatwasobservedincomparablediscourses33cannotbefound.Thetransitionsbetweentheturnsarefluent.Noconspicuouspausesaretobeseen.Veryoftenthereisanoverlapbetweentheutterancesofthedifferentspeakers.Suchoverlapspresupposethatthehearerisabletofollowthespeakerintheplanningofhisutteranceseenastheinitiativefortakingovertheturnhastobepro-vokedbeforethespeakerhasendedhisutterance.Theycanberegardedassignalsforagoodworkingmutualunderstanding. Thesameholdstruefortheback-channelbehaviourobserved.Thespeakerssignalunderstandingandattentionbyregularlyback-channelling(everyeightsecondsonaverage).EspeciallytheDanishspeakerKTshowsbyherlargeamountofback-chan-nelsignals(cf.table5)thatsheisabletounderstandtheutterancesoftheNorwegianandSwedishparticipants.ButtherearefurtherindicationssuggestingthatKTismoreconcernedwithsafeguardingtheunderstandingthanherinterlocutors.AcomparisonwithDanishspeakers inotherdiscoursesshowsthatKTspeaksextraordinaryslow-lyandenunciated,34herutterancesarealsoshorterthanthoseoftheNorwegianandSwedishdiscourseparticipants(foursecondsonaveragecomparedtosixsecondsfortheNorwegiansandfivesecondsfortheSwedes). KTistheonlyparticipantinthediscoursewhomakeseffortstolexicallyadapttotheotherdiscourselanguagesinordertoavoidtroublesources.Oneexampleofthiseffortcanbefoundinexcerpt4,whereKTrealizesatroublesourceduringherutter-ance, namely the Danish word sovepude (‘pillow’). She obviously assumes that thewordwillnotbeunderstoodbytheSwedes,andthereforeaddstheSwedishsynonymkudde.Thiscannotbeseenasatypicalexampleofarepairasdescribedinconversationordiscourseanalysis,35butratheras theanticipatoryavoidanceofa troublesource.

Excerpt 4.

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 121

Thestrategyusedconsistsofadoubleutteranceofthetroublesource,firstinDanishandthenoncemoreinSwedish. Inexcerpt5KTappliesthesamestrategyandactuallyusesaSwedishidiom,ta hand om något(‘totakecareofsomething’).

InthisdiscourseKTis theonlyparticipantadapting linguistically.Theotherspeak-ers’lackofaccommodationcanofcoursenotbeillustratedbyexamples,butpossiblyitcanbedemonstratedinthecontextofotherinitiatedrepairs.Eveniftheyonlyoccuroccasionally(fiveinstancesinthewholediscourse)itcanbestatedthatGRhasapref-erenceforrepairingbymeansofrepetition(seeexcerpts6and7). In thiscase theeffortof repairing the troublesourcewitharepetition is success-ful seenas theDanish termfor ‘currant’,ribs, isnearly identical to thecorrespond-ingNorwegianterm,sothatamereperceptionproblemmaybecausingtheproblem.Swedishusesadifferentword,vinbär,butthisdoesnotleadtoaprobleminthiscase

Excerpt 5.

Excerpt 6.

122 LudgerZeevaert

becauseGRsutteranceinexcerpt6isnotpartofthegroupworkitselfbutpartofthesmalltalkinashortcoffeebreak. The trouble source in excerpt 7 is related to a Norwegian place name. In Inter-scandinaviancommunicationplacenamesveryoftencauseproblemsbecauseinmostcasesnolinguisticcontextcanbeusedfortherequireddecoding.TheNorwegiantownKongsvingerisobviouslynotknowntotheDanishspeakerKT.TheNorwegianspeak-erusesarepetitiontorepairthetroublesourcespecifyingthatKongsvingerisatown(Danish/Norwegianby),KTthenconfirmsherunderstandingbymeansofarepeti-tion.GR’sshorthesitationmayoriginatefromthefactthatsheactivatesherknowledgethatbymeans‘village’inSwedish(‘town’wouldbestad).However,itisnotnecessarytodealwiththistroublesourcebecausetheinitiativecomesfromtheDanishspeakerKTsothatareformulationinSwedishwouldbethewrongstrategyinthiscontext. Inexcerpt8,however,GRappliesareformulationbecauseKTissignallingaprob-lemofunderstandingbyaskingaquestion.Inthiscasethesubjectisanadministrationhandbookthathadbeendiscussedwithitsadvantagesanddisadvantagesearlierinthediscourse.AfterarequestforclarificationbyKT,GRstartswitharepetitionthatshebreaksoffagaininordertochooseareformulationinstead.KT,though,confirmsthesuccessoftherepairbeforeGRcomestotheactualtroublesourceinherreformulation. IntheonlyrepairthatisrequestedtobemadebyKTsheusesareformulation(see

Excerpt 7.

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 123

excerpt9).TheSwedishspeakerIMintervenesbecauseshedoesnotunderstandtheDanishtermuddannede(‘educated’).ConsequentlyKTreformulateswiththeSwedishtermutbildning.ThesuccessoftherepairisthenconfirmedbyIM. Excerpt10showshowsucharelativelyhighlevelofcompetence(definitelyexceed-ingareceptivecompetenceinthecaseofKT)canbeacquiredinpractice. TheSwedishspeakerIMproposestofetchsomecoffeeandavoidsusingthetypicalSwedishtermfika36(‘haveacupofcoffee’).TheDanishspeakerKTremembersfromanearlieroccasionthatSwedeshaveaspecialwordfordrinkingcoffeeandasksforit.BothSwedesinthegroupreacttoherquestionbynamingthewordandexplainingit.LFactuallyusestheDanishtermwienerbrød(‘Danishes’).

Excerpt 8.

124 LudgerZeevaert

Excerpt 9.

Excerpt 10.

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 125

Excerpt11may indicate thatKTimprovesherknowledgeofSwedishbyreadingnovelsintheneighbouringlanguage. IMcitesaproverboftenusedbyoneofhercolleagues(‘nospyingnoidea’),37GRsignalisesherunderstandingbyherlaughter,butaconfirmationofunderstandingisnotgivenby theotherhearers, soGR initiatesa repairof the trouble source.AfterthatKTandLFconfirmtheirunderstanding,andafterashortbreakKTprovidesthesourceofherlanguagecompetence,thenovelsoftheSwedishauthorJanGuillouwhoisfirstofallfamousforhisspynovels. Ofcoursesuchdiscoursebehaviourbyfarexceedsapurelyreceptivemultilingual-ism,butitshowsthattheacquisitionofactiveknowledgeisbyallmeansagoodwayofimprovingthecommunication.

126 LudgerZeevaert

4. Conclusion

Inthisarticleanapproachwasmadetodescribetheoretically,andwiththehelpofexamples,aformofhumanlinguisticcommunicationthatiscommonlynotonlyas-sumedtobedeviantfromthenormalsituationoflinguisticexchangebetweenmem-bersofaspeechcommunity,butalsofromnormalforeignlanguagecommunicationbecause in this context different languages are used simultaneously within one dis-course. Thisformofcommunicationdenominatedreceptivemultilingualism,however,isfarmorethanjustalinguisticcuriosity.Itissuccessfullyexercisedindifferentregionsoftheworldandprovides,forexampleinthecontextoftheEuropeanUnion,apos-sibilityofmasteringthelinguisticchallengesarisingfromtheadvancingglobalisationwithoutrelinquishingculturalandlinguisticdiversity.38

Asisshowninthedifferentarticlesinthisvolumetheconditionsforsucharecep-tivemultilingualismcanbeverydifferentdependingonthelanguagesinvolved,butalsodependingonthecommunicativeprerequisites.Forthisreason,Iaimedatcarry-ingoutadifferentiationofthisterminthefirstpartofthisarticle.Takingatheoreticalmodeloflinguisticunderstandingasastartingpointitseemedtobeimportanttofirstofalldistinguishbetweenthe(linguistic)conditionsofsuchaformofcommunicationanditspracticaluseinmultilingualdiscoursesituations.Furthermore,basedonthecriterionoflinguisticdistance,threeprototypicalscenariosofreceptivemultilingualcommunicationweresketched,whichinrealityhowever,arenotclearlyseparableinpracticeor,inotherwords,formacontinuum.

Excerpt 11.

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 127

Following those theoretical considerationsadocumentedcaseof receptivemulti-lingualcommunicationwasinvestigated,namelythecommunicationatconferenceswithparticipants from thedifferentScandinaviancountries. Itwas shown that thisformofmultilingualcommunicationthathasalongtraditioninScandinaviaandisinstitutionallyembeddedcanberegardedasanequivalentalternativetolingua franca communicationorinterpretingevenifit,likeotherformsofcommunicationbetweenmembersofdifferent speechcommunities,doesnotcorrespond tomonolingualL1communication. Thiscommunicationdoesnotonlyincludetheunderstandingofspeakersofmutu-allyintelligibledialectsofa(hypothetic)roofinglanguage(‘Scandinavian’),whichisthecaseforthelinguisticrelationbetweenNorwegianandSwedish.Italsoincludesthecommunicationbetweencloselyrelated,butnotunconditionally intelligible lan-guagessuchasDanishandSwedish,betweenspeakersofremotelyrelated,mutuallyfairly intelligible languages suchas IcelandicandSwedishandevenbetween speak-ersofunrelatedandtotallyunintelligiblelanguagessuchasSwedishandFinnishorDanishandGreenlandic. EvenifScandinavia,duetoitsspecialhistoricalconditions,isverysuitableforthisparticularformofmultilingualcommunicationthiscaseoffunctioningreceptivemul-tilingualismcanserveasanexampleeveninalargercontextofmultilingualEuropeanunderstanding.LiketheScandinaviancountries,thecountriesintheEuropeanUnionshareacommonculturalandreligioustradition,andinbothcasestherelationshipbetweenthecountrieswasnotfreefromconflictsincludingwars.Nowadaysthecon-cordancesaresocomprehensivethatpolitical,economicalandculturaltasksformer-lyseenasnationalresponsibilitiesareconducted incommoninstitutions,whichofcourseinmanycasesrequiresacertainwillingnesstocompromise.Giventhiswilling-nesssucha‘unityindiversity’mightalsobefeasibleinthelinguisticdomain.

Transcriptionconventions:

“...” interrruption“/” repair“.“ pause,lessthan1second“((3s))” pause,3seconds“((laughs,2s))” verbal,nonphonologicalactivity“[laughing” nonphonologicalactivityduringutterance“()” notunderstood“(2s)” notunderstood,lenghtofutteranceinbrackets“(ingenting)” goodguess“<S[...]>” switchoflanguagewithabbreviationforthelanguageswitchedto[[00:07:30]] timeelapsedindiscourse

128 LudgerZeevaert

Notes

1. Cf.Karam(2000:121).ThestudyofsuchprocessesoflinguisticadaptationformthestartingpointfortheCommunication Accommodation TheorydevelopedbyHowardGiles.(cf.e.g.Giles,Coupland and Coupland 1991). This theory is based on the Speech Accommodation Theory(SAT)whichwasestablishedatthebeginningofthe1970sasareactiontoLabov’swork.Itisinspiredbythediscoverythatinterlocutorsadapttoeachotherwithregardtospeedofspeech,pauses,lengthofutterances,choiceofstylisticallysalientphonologicalvariables,bodylanguageetc.inordertosignalisemutualapproval.InthebeginningtheSATwasprimarilyinterestedinsocialconditionsoflinguisticvariables.Fromthe1980sonitwasmodifiedtothemoresocio-linguisticallytargetedCommunication Accommodation Theory(CAT).

2. Cf.thebibliographybyBraunmüllerandZeevaert(2001).

3. AtypicalexampleisOhlsson’s(1977)refusaltousethetermsemicommunicationasade-scriptionforthecommunicationbetweenScandinavianswithdifferentmothertongues—notbecauseitiswrong,butbecausethenegativeconnotationoftheprefixsemi-mighthaveanega-tiveeffectontheeffortstoachieveabettermutualunderstandingbetweentheScandinaviancountries.

4. Cf.thearticlesbyGeorgesLüdiandIvarWerleninthisvolume.FinkenstaedtandSchröder(1990)describereceptivemultilingualismevenforAlsatianandFrenchinAlsaceandforFrenchandEnglishinCanada.FollowingHansen(1987),receptivemultilingualismbetweenDanishandJapaneseisdocumentedatleastinonecase.

5. TheproblematicnatureofthistermisdiscussedbyBraunmüller(2001:5f.)andZeevaert(2004:66ff.).

6. C.f.alsothearticlebyBraunmüllerinthisvolume.

7. “Wir verstehen unter einer “historischen Sprache” eine Sprache, die als historischesKulturproduktvorhandenistundvonihreneigenenSprechernunddenenandererSprachenalsSpracheanerkanntwird.WirerkenneneinehistorischeSprachevorallemdaran,daßsieeineneigenenNamenhat,durcheinadjectivumpropriumbezeichnetwird,z.B.diedeutsche,franzö-sische,italienischeSprache.”(Coseriu1988:24)

8. Methodstomeasurethemutualintelligibilitybetweenlanguagepairsaredescribedinthearticlesof Delsing,Doetjes,vanBezooijenandGooskensandMöller in thisvolume.Cf. forfurthertestsofmutualunderstandingbetweendialectsWolff(1966),Kirk(1970),Biggs(1957),VoegelinandHarris(1951),Brodkey(1972),Casad(1974)orYamagiwa(1967).Evenconcern-ingtheunderstandingbetweenScandinavianlanguagesdifferenttestsweremade,cf.Bø(1975),Maurud (1976), Börestam (1986), (1987a), (1987b), Ridell (2000), Jörgensen and Kärrlander(2001),Doetjes(2003),Doetjes(2004)—asummaryofthedifferenttestsisgivenbyGolinskiandDoetjes(2005):14ff.

9. Theresultsfromexistingtestsshowthatthisproblemisnottrivial.AstudycarriedoutbyJörgensenandKärrlander(2001),testingtheunderstandingofspokenDanishbySwedishandof spoken Swedish by Danish adolescents, reveals a rather high individual variability in thenumber of correct answers. Even for the different questions large differences in the numberof correct answers occur, due to the fact that some questions imply a much higher level ofknowledgeof thespecificculturalbackgroundof the twocountries. InMaurud’s (1976:117)studyNorwegiansgave94%correctanswerstoquestionsregardingthecontentofaSwedish

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 129

text,whereasmother-tonguespeakersreachedonly91,2%inansweringquestionsonthesameSwedishtext.Inotherwords,theNorwegianshadabetterunderstandingoftheneighbouringlanguageSwedishthantheSwedesoftheirownmothertongue.Comparableproblemsarere-portedbyDelsinginthisvolume.

10. ShannonandWeaver’smodelwasoriginallydesignedonbehalfoftheAmericantelephonecompanyBell.LikeEco’smodelitdescribesthetransmissionofasignalfromasendertoare-ceiverthroughadatachannel.

11. “[...]dieVermittlungindividuelldifferenzierterWelttheorien”(Ungeheuer1987a:58).

12. Thusunderstandingalsoincludesmentalprocessesnotdirectlytriggeredbyaspeaker.Bythis, cases of human communication can be explained in which a hearer succeeds in under-standinganutterancewithtemporaldelaybutwithoutanyadditionalinformationbeinggivenbythespeaker.Inthesecasesunderstandinghastobeledbacktotheinteractionofthehearerwithhisownmentalstates.

13. “Es ist dem Orientierten überlassen, wohin er durch selbständige interne EntwicklungaufseineneigenenZustandseinenkognitivenBereichorientiert.SeineWahlwirdzwardurchdie »Botschaft« verursacht, die so erzeugte Orientierung ist jedoch unabhängig von dem,wasdiese»Botschaft« fürdenOrientierendenrepräsentiert. ImstrengenSinnegibtesdaherkeine Übertragung von Gedanken vom Sprecher zum Gesprächspartner. Der Hörer erzeugtInformationdadurch,daßerseineUngewißheitdurchseineInteraktioneninseinemkognitivenBereichreduziert.”(Maturana1998:58f.)

14. Asanillustration,Maturana(1998:60)usestheexamplethey are flying planes,amodifica-tionofanexample fromChomsky(1965:21).Thus, it isacommontraitofambiguousutter-ancesandopticalillusionssuchasNecker’scube(cf.Nørretranders1994:267f.)thattheyallowfordifferentinterpretations,althoughonlyoneinterpretationcanbeactivatedatatime.

15. Cf.Ackermann(1997:55).

16. TypicalexamplesofsuchadevelopmentareDanishandSwedish,cf.Zeevaert(2004:43f.),SerbianandCroatian,cf.Radovanović(2000)andŠkiljan(2000)orevenLuxemburgianandGerman,cf.Moulin(2006).

17. FollowingWandruszka(1998:156),thisholdstruefortheIntergermanunderstandingthatisfacilitatedbythefactthatthegenuinedialectswerebyandlargereplacedbyasystemofregionaldialectsthatallowdifferentlevelsofapproximationcomparedtospokenandwrittenstandardGerman.(“daßheutekaumnoch irgendwo jemandaußerhalbderengstenDorfgemeinschaftdieangestammteunverfälschteOrtsmundartspricht,weilmaneineganzeSkalalandschaftlicherAnnäherungsformenandieallgemeinedeutscheUmgangsspracheundandasSchuldeutschzurVerfügunghat.”)

18. Itseemstobenecessarytodistinguishbetweenaspeech community(germ.Sprachgemeinschaft)consistingofallspeakersofalanguageontheonehand(inthesenseofahistoricallanguage,cf.Coseriu1988:24),andincontrast,acommunication community(germ.Kommunikationsgemein-schaft)consistingofthespeakersofacommunitywho,overalongerperiodoftime,havedir-ectlinguisticcontactwitheachotherand,asaresult,haveacommonlinguisticnormattheirdisposalusuallyrepresentingthefirstlanguageofthespeakers.Karam(2000:121)describesavillagecommunityasatypicalexample.ThiscorrespondstoGrimshaw’s(1971:116)descriptionofaspeech sub-community.Lenke,LutzandSprenger(1995:69)usethetermKulturgemeinschaft(‘culturalcommunity’)inordertoexplicitlyincludeevencommonmoralconcepts,behaviour-

130 LudgerZeevaert

alandpolitenesssystems,technologiesandcommonknowledgeotherthanthecommonlan-guage.

19. Börestam’s(1986:26) investigationof theunderstandingof DanishbyolderandyoungerSwedesshowsthatsuchacommonsystemofexperiencesmayinfluencethelevelofunderstand-inginreceptivemultilingualcommunication.Börestamisabletoshowthatthemutualunder-standingofspeakersofSwedishandDanishworksbestbetweenmembersofthesamegener-ation.Werlen(1998)investigatesproblemsinthecommunicationbetweenspeakersofGermanfrom Germany and from Switzerland that are not based on linguistic differences, but ratheron different systems of experience that she describes as different mentalities, cf. e.g.Werlen(1998:75).

20. AtestdescribedbyAndersen(1978:25)showsthatDanishlistenersareabletoreachapar-tialunderstandingofspokentextsinEastAsianandAfricanlanguagesduetotheuseofinter-nationalloanwordswithinthosetexts.

21. Foramoredetaileddescriptionc.f.thearticlebyHufeisenandMarxinthisvolume.

22. In the literature, the term intercomprehension is used for different phenomena. Klein(2004:15)usesitasanexpressionforthe(linguistic)conditionsforareceptivecompetenceinarelatedlanguage,whereasMeißner(2004:42)ontheotherhanddescibesitasthementalpro-cessleadingtounderstandingwhilereadingtextsfromarelatedlanguage(“das‚Verstehenbzw.dieDekodationsfähigkeitvonnichterlernten,abergleichwohldenIndividuenmehroderweni-gertransparentenSprachen’.[...]dasinterkomprehensiveLesen[bleibt]engandenVorgangderverbalenZeichenerkennunggebunden.[...]AlleinbeschränktsichdieInterkomprehensionsfor-schungaufdieverbaleZeichenidentifikationund–deutungimSinnederetymologischenundinterlingualenTransparenz.”).ForVandePoel(2000:102)intercomprehensionisamethodoflearning foreign languages: “Since communication relies on comprehension, intercomprehen-sionasalearningprincipleisawaytosavetimeandenergywhenlearningalanguage.”

23. Cf.e.g.Duke,HufeisenandLutjeharms(2004:111).

24. Inrealitythematterisabitmorecomplex.OnlyDanes,NorwegiansandSwedesareabletousetheirmothertonuges,whereasFaroeIslanders,Finns,Greenlanders,IcelandersandSami,who also take part in the cooperation between the Scandinavian countries, have to use oneof thethreeMainlandScandinavian languages inordertobeunderstood.Therfore inthere-searchonthetopicadistinctionismadebetweenaprimaryspeechcommunityconsistingofDanes,NorwegiansandSwedesandasecondaryspeechcommunityincludingevenFinnsandIcelanders,cf.Dahlstedt(1971)andDoetjesinthisvolume.

25. Cf.forthoseandothertestsoflanguageunderstandingZeevaert(2004:77ff.),GolinskiandDoetjes(2005:14ff.)andthearticlesbyDelsingandDoetjesinthisvolume.

26. Det nordiska universitetsadministratörssamarbetet(NUAS).

27. InthesenseofUngeheuer(1987b),cf.2.4.

28. This seems to be a typical problem for Interscandinavian communication. An investiga-tionbyTeleman(1977)shows thatmother tonguespeakersofSwedish,whousuallyhadnoproblems in linguistically interacting with Danes, had difficulties when encountering Danesinphaticcommunication,duetothefactthatinthegivencontextontheonehandlesstextualandextratextualcontextwasattheirdisposal,andontheotherhandthatirony,playsonwords,jokesandindirectnessareusedveryofteninphaticcommunication.

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 131

29. Cf.2.4.

30. Cf.Duncan(1973:38f.).

31. Vgl.ScollonandWongScollon(1995:34ff.).

32. LFandIMareSwedishcitizens,ÅSbelongstotheSwedishspreakingminorityinFinland.

33. Cf.Zeevaert(2004:237).

34. KTproduces139wordsperminuteontheaverage,Danishspeakersinotherdiscoursesinthecorpusproduce220wordsperminute.

35. Cf.Schegloff,JeffersonandSacks(1977)orRehbein(1984).

36. Other Swedish speakers in Interscandinavian discourses use this term, cf. Zeevaert(2004):273ff.

37. The Swedish spaning is a euphemism for spying, comparable to the English term intelli-gence.38. TheEuropeancommissiontriestofollowtheEuropeanmotto‘unityindiversity’anddoesnot strive for the enforcement of a lingua franca in Europe, but favours multilingualism, cf.A new framework strategy formultilingualism,http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/doc/com596_en.pdf[seen7.12.2005].SeealsoRindler-SchjerveandVetterinthisvolume.

References

Ackermann,S.1997.Organisches Denken. Humberto Maturana und Franz von Baader[SpektrumPhilosophie5].Würzburg:Ergon.

Andersen,E.1978.Dansk,norskogsvensk imundtlig form.Noglesynspunkterpåattituder,identitetogstrategier.InMødet mellem sprogene i det dansk-tyske grænseområde. Foredrag og indlæg fra en konference i Aabenraa 13–15 september 1978,14–37.Aabenraa:Institutforgrænseregionsforskning.

Augustin,V.1997.Thepolyglotdialogue:Anewapproachincrosslanguagecommunicationanditsputtingintopractice.InLa compréhension multilingue en Europe. Actes du Colloque des 10 et 11 mars 1997, tenu à Bruxelles, sous l’egide de la Commission européenne (DG-XXII),M.SlodzianandJ.Souillot(eds),93–6.Paris:s.n.

Biggs,B.1957.TestingintelligibilityamongYumanlanguages.International Journal of American linguistics23(2):57–62.

Börestam,U.1986.Dansk-svenskspråkförståelsevidvägskäl?InSvenska i tid och otid. Vänskrift till Gun Widmark från doktoranderna i Uppsala,C.AndersonÖstmanandA.Malmberg(eds),18–27.Uppsala:s.n.

Börestam,U.1987a.Dansk-svensk språkgemenskap på undantag. Nordisk språkförståelse i nutid-shistoriskt och regionalt perspektiv belyst av svenska gymnasieungdomars förståelse av äldre och nutida talad danska[FUMSrapport137].Uppsala:s.n.

Börestam,U.1987b.SpråkbronöverÖresund—idealellerverklighet?Rapportfrånenexperi-mentellundersökningavsvenskaungdomarsförståelseaväldreochnutidataladdanska.InAtt förstå varandra i Sydnorden. Nordiskt seminarium 7–9 november 1986 Schæffergården, Gentofte, Danmark[Nordiskaspråk-ochinformationscentret.Seminarierapport21],23–38.S.l.:s.n.

132 LudgerZeevaert

Börestam Uhlmann, U. 1994. Skandinaver samtalar. Språkliga och interaktionella strategier i samtal mellan danskar, norrmän och svenskar[SkrifterutgivnaavInstitutionenförNordiskaSpråkvidUppsalaUniversitet38].Uppsala:InstitutionenförNordiskaSpråk.

Börestam Uhlmann, U. 2001. Nordisk språkgemenskap—centrum och periferi. In Moderne lingvistiske teorier og færøsk, K. Braunmüller and J. í L. Jacobsen (eds), 199–225. Oslo:Novus.

Bø,I.1975.Elevenesforståelseavnabospråkene,deresbehovforoginnstillingtilundervisninginabospråkene.In«Nordisk Projekt» — en undersøkning av grannespråksundervisningen i byene Esbjerg, Eskilstuna og Stavanger.Rapport,63–123.S.l.:s.n.

Braunmüller, K. 1995. Semikommunikation und semiotische Strategien. Bausteine zu einemModell fürdieVerständigung imNordenzurZeitderHanse. InNiederdeutsch und die skandinavischen Sprachen II[Sprachgeschichte4],K.Braunmüller(ed.),35–70.Heidelberg:Winter.

Braunmüller, K. 2001. Semicommunication and Acommodation. Observations from the lin-guistic situation in Scandinavia [Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, Folge B 17]. Hamburg:UniversitätHamburg,SonderforschungsbereichMehrsprachigkeit.

Braunmüller, K. and Zeevaert, L. 2001. Semikommunikation, rezeptive Mehrsprachigkeit und verwandte Phänomene. Eine bibliographische Bestandsaufnahme [Arbeiten zur Mehr-sprachigkeit,FolgeB19].Hamburg:UniversitätHamburg,SonderforschungsbereichMehr-sprachigkeit.

Brodkey, D. 1972. Dictation as a measure of mutual intelligibility: a pilot study. Language Learning — A Journal of Applied Linguistics22(1):203–20.

Budovičová,V.1987a.Literarylanguagesincontact(AsociolinguisticapproachtotherelationbetweenSlovakandCzechtoday).InReader in Czech sociolinguistics[Linguistic&literarystudiesinEasternEurope(LLSEE)23],156–75.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Budovičová,V.1987b.Semikomunikáciaakolingvistickýproblém.Studia Academica Slovaca16:49–66.

Casad,E.H.1974.Dialect Intelligibility Testing[SummerinstituteoflinguisticsoftheuniversityofOklahoma,publicationsinlinguisticsandrelatedfields38].MexicoCity:s.n.

Chomsky,N.1965.Aspects of the Theory of Syntax.CambridgeMA:MITPress.Coseriu,E.1988.Sprachkompetenz. Grundzüge der Theorie des Sprechens[UTB1481].Tübingen:

Francke.Dahlstedt,K.-H.1971.Dennordiskaspråkgemenskapen.Språkvård1971(4):10–16.Doetjes, G. 2003. De rol van taalvariatie en taalafstand in de communicatie tussen Zweden,

NorenenDenen.Toegepast Taalwetenschap in Artikelen69(1):131–42.Doetjes,G.2004.Auf falscher Fährte in der interskandinavischen Kommunikation[Arbeitenzur

Mehrsprachigkeit,FolgeB53].Hamburg:UniversitätHamburg,SonderforschungsbereichMehrsprachigkeit.

Duke,J. ,Hufeisen,B.andLutjeharms,M.2004.DiesiebenSiebedesEurocomfürdenmulti-lingualen Einstieg in dieWelt der germanischen Sprachen. In Neuere Forschungen zur Europäischen Interkomprehension[EditionesEuroCom21],H.G.KleinandD.Rutke(eds),109–34.Aachen:Shaker.

Duncan,S.J.R.1973.Towardagrammarfordyadicconversation.InSemiotica9:29–46.Eco,U.1988.Einführung in die Semiotik[UTB105].München:WilhelmFink.Ervin-Tripp,S.M.1971.Sociolinguistics.In:Advances in the Sociology of Language.Vol.I:Basic

concepts, theories and problems: Alternative approaches[Contributionstothesociologyof

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 133

language1],J.A.Fishman(ed.),15–91.DenHaag:Mouton.Feitsma,A.1986.InterlingualcommunicationDutchFrisian,amodelforScotland?InScottish

Language and Literature, Medieval and Renaissance. Fourth International Conference 1984 — Proceedings —[Scottish Studies 4], D. Strauss and H.W. Drescher (eds), 55–62.Frankfurt:PeterLang.

Finkenstaedt, T. and Schröder, K. 1990.Sprachenschranken statt Zollschranken? Grundlegung einer Fremdsprachenpolitik für das Europa von morgen [Materialien zur Bildungspolitik11].Essen:s.n.

Giles,H. ,Coupland,J.andCoupland,N.(eds).1991.Contexts of Accommodation. Developments in applied sociolinguistics [Studies inEmotionandSocial Interaction].Cambridge/Paris:CambridgeUniversityPress/ÉditionsdelaMaisondesSciencesdel’Homme.

Golinski, B. and Doetjes, G. 2005. Sprachverstehensuntersuchungen im semikommunikativen Kontext [Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, Folge B 64]. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg,SonderforschungsbereichMehrsprachigkeit.

Grimshaw,A.D.1971.Sociolinguistics.InAdvances in the Sociology of Language.Vol.I:Basic concepts, theories and problems: Alternative approaches[Contributionstothesociologyoflanguage1],J.A.Fishman(ed.),92–151.DenHaag:Mouton.

Hansen, E. 1987. Det nordiske sprogfællesskab. In The Nordic languages and modern linguis-tics 6. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics in Helsinki, August 18–22, 1986, P. Lilius and M. Saari (eds), 7–20. Helsinki: HelsinkiUniversityPress.

Haugen, E. 1966. Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia. In Explorations in Sociolinguistics,S.Lieberson(ed.),152–69.DenHaag:Mouton.

Haugen,E.1990.Babels forbrødring. Om tospråklighet og språkplanlegging[DetBlåBibliotek].Oslo:Universitetsforlaget.

Jensen,J.B.1989.OnthemutualintelligibilityofSpanishandPortuguese.Hispania72:849–52.Jörgensen, N. and Kärrlander, E. 2001. Grannspråksförståelse i Öresundsregionen år 2000.

Gymnasisters hörförståelse.Lund:Institutionenförnordiskaspråk.Karam,F.X.2000.Investigatingmutualintelligibilityandlanguagecoalescence.International

Journal of the Sociology of Language146:119–36.Kirk, P. L. 1970. Dialect intelligibility testing: The Mazatec study. International journal of

American linguistics36:205–11.Klein,H.G.2004.FrequentlyaskedquestionszurromanischenInterkomprehension.In:Neuere

Forschungen zur Europäischen Interkomprehension [EditionesEuroCom21],H.G.KleinandD.Rutke(eds),15–37.Aachen:Shaker.

Klein,H.G.andStegmann,T.D.2000.EuroComRom— Die sieben Siebe: Romanische Sprachen sofort lesen können.2.edn.[EditionesEuroCom1].Aachen:Shaker.

Kloss,H.1929.Nebensprachen. Eine sprachpolitische Studie über die Beziehungen eng verwandter Sprachgemeinschaften.Wien:WilhelmBraumüller.

Kloss,H.1967.‘AbstandLanguages’and‘AusbauLanguages’.Anthropological Linguistics9(7):29–41.

Lenke,N. ,Lutz,H.-D.andSprenger,M.1995:Grundlagen sprachlicher Kommunikation. Mensch–Welt — Handeln — Sprache — Computer[UTB1877].München:WilhelmFinkVerlag.

Maturana,H.R.1998.Biologie der Realität.FrankfurtamMain:Suhrkamp.Maurud,Ø.1976.Nabospråksforståelse i Skandinavia. En undersøkelse om gjensidig forståelse av

tale- og skriftspråk i Danmark, Norge og Sverige[Nordiskutredningsserie13].Stockholm:s.n.

134 LudgerZeevaert

Meißner,F.-J.2004.TransferundTransferieren.AnleitungenzumInterkomprehensionsunter-richt. InNeuere Forschungen zur Europäischen Interkomprehension [EditionesEuroCom21],H.G.KleinandD.Rutke(eds),39–66.Aachen:Shaker.

Moulin, C. 2006. Grammatisierung und Standardisierung des Luxemburgischen. Eine gram-matikographische-sprachhistorische Annäherung. In Perspektiven einer linguistischen Luxemburgistik. Studien zu Diachronie und Synchronie [Germanistische Bibliothek 25],C.MoulinandD.Nübling(eds),305–39.Heidelberg:Winter.

Nørretranders,T.1994.Spüre die Welt. Die Wissenschaft des Bewußtseins.Reinbek:Rowohlt.Ohlsson,S.Ö.1977.Nabospråksförståelse.Nabospråkellergrannsprog.Mål & Mæle4(1):19–24.Radovanović,M.2000.FromSerbo-CroatiantoSerbian.Multilingua19(1/2):21–35.Rehbein, J. 1984. Reparative Handlungsmuster und ihre Verwendung im Fremdsprachenunter-

richt[RoligPapir30].Roskilde:Universitetscenter.Ridell,K.2000.Språkbroar. En studie av dansk-svenska radiosamtal i Öresundsregionen(D-upp-

sats).Uppsala:UppsalaUniversitet,Institutionenförnordiskaspråk.Schegloff,E.A. ,Jefferson,G.andSacks,H.1977.Thepreferenceforself-correctionintheorgan-

izationofrepairinconversation.Language53:361–82.Scollon, R. and Wong Scollon, S. 1995. Intercultural communication. A discourse approach

[Languageinsociety21].Oxford:Blackwell.Shannon,C.E.andWeaver,W.1971.The Mathematical Theory of Communication.12thedn. ,

1stedn.1949.UrbanaIL:UniversityofIllinoisPress.Škiljan, D. 2000. From Croato-Serbian to Croatian: Croatian linguistic identity. Multilingua

19(1/2):3–20.Teleman,U.1977.Samspråkpågrannspråk.InDialectology and Sociolinguistics. Essays in Honor

of Karl-Hampus Dahlstedt. 19 April 1977 [Acta Universitatis Umensis 12], C.-C. Elert,S.Eliasson,S.FriesandS.Ureland(eds),234–43.Umeå:s.n.

Ungeheuer,G.1987a.Washeißt‚VerständigungdurchSprechen?‘InGerold Ungeheuer: Kommu-nikationstheoretische Schriften I: Sprechen, Mitteilen, Verstehen[AachenerStudienzurSemi-otikundKommunikationsforschung14],J.G.Juchem(ed.),34–69.Aachen:Rader.(BeforeinGesprochene Sprache. Jahrbuch 1972[SprachederGegenwart.SchriftendesInstitutsfürdeutscheSprache26],7–38.Düsseldorf:Schwann1974.)

Ungeheuer, G. 1987b.Vor-Urteile über Sprechen, Mitteilen, Verstehen. In Kommunikations-theoretische Schriften I: Sprechen, Mitteilen, Verstehen[AachenerStudienzurSemiotikundKommunikationsforschung14],J.G.Juchem(ed.),290–338.Aachen:Rader.

Van de Poel, K. 2002. Motivating as a key factor in promoting multilingualism. In Eurocom. Mehrsprachiges Europa durch Interkomprehension in Sprachfamilien. Tagungsband des Inter-nationalen Fachkongresses im Europäischen Jahr der Sprachen 2001. Hagen, 9–10 November 2001,G.Kischel(ed.),102–11.Hagen:Fernuniversität.

Voegelin,C.F.andHarris,Z.S.1951.Methodsfordeterminingintelligibilityamongdialectsofnaturallanguages.Proceedings of the American philosophical society95:322–9.

Wandruszka, M. 1998. Die europäische Sprachengemeinschaft. Deutsch–Französisch–Englisch– Italienisch–Spanisch im Vergleich[UTB1588](1sted.1990).Tübingen:Francke.

Werlen,E.1998.Sprache, Kommunikationskultur und Mentalität. Zur sozio- und kontaktlinguis-tischen Theoriebildung und Methodologie[GermanistischeLinguistik194].Tübingen:MaxNiemeyer.

Wolff,H.1966.Intelligibilityandinter-ethnicattitudes.InLanguage and Culture in Society. A reader in linguistics and anthropology,2ndedn. ,D.Hymes(ed.),440–5.NewYork:Harper

Receptivemultilingualismandsemicommunication 135

andRow/JohnWeatherhill.(BeforeinAnthropological Linguistics1(3),1959:34–41.)Yamagiwa,J.K.1967.OndialectintelligibilityinJapan.Anthropological Linguistics9(1):1–17.Zeevaert,L.2002.InsertionalerSprachwechselinsemikommunikativenDiskursen.In:B.Meyer

and L. Zeevaert: Sprachwechselphänomene in gedolmetschten und semikommunikativen Diskursen[ArbeitenzurMehrsprachigkeit,FolgeB36],3–17.Hamburg:UniversitätHam-burg,SonderforschungsbereichMehrsprachigkeit.

Zeevaert,L.2004.Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verständi-gung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs[Philologia64].Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

Zybatow,L.2002.DieslawistischeInterkomprehensionsforschungundEurocomslav.InEuro-com. Mehrsprachiges Europa durch Interkomprehension in Sprachfamilien. Tagungsband des Internationalen Fachkongresses im Europäischen Jahr der Sprachen 2001. Hagen, 9–10 November 2001,G.Kischel(ed.):357–71.Hagen:Fernuniversität.

chapter5

Receptive multilingualism in Switzerland and the case of Biel/Bienne

IwarWerlenUniversitätBern

Switzerlandisamultilingualcountrywithfourdifferentnationallanguages.Amoredetailedlook,however,showsthatontheleveloftheindividualcantonsmultilingual-ismisratheranexeption.Onlyfourofthe26cantonshavemorethanoneofficiallan-guage,andevenheretheareasinwhichdifferentlanguagesarespokenareseparatedsharply.Thisarticleanalysesexamplestakenfromsuchexceptionalcases,Biel/BienneandFribourg/Freiburg.Theresultsfromthetwostudiesindicatethatthe‘Swissmodel’of receptivemultlingualism fosteredby theSwiss languagepolicy isutilisedby thepopulation, even if the default language model preferring the majority language ismorewidespread.Inmostcases,however,speakersdonotsticktosuchstaticmodelsandmakeuseoftheirlinguisticrepertoiresaccordingtothecommunicativeneedsinagivensetting.

Keywords:Switzerland,receptivemultilingualism,French,German,Swissmodel

0. Introduction

Whathasbeentermed“receptivemultilingualism”bytheeditorsofthisvolumeisattheheartofSwitzerland’smultilingualism.Sinceatleast1975,itisacentralobjectiveof the Swiss Cantonal Ministers of Education to foster national cohesion and com-municationbyintroducingasecondnationallanguageattheprimaryschoollevel.Inthe1975recommendations,theMinistersdecidedtointroduceFrenchasthefirstfor-eignlanguageintheGermanspeakingareaandGermanasthefirstforeignlanguageintheFrenchspeakingarea.ForthecantonsofGrisonsandTicino,specialsolutionswereproposed.Themeasuresrecommended,however,wereonlyslowlyimplemented,especiallyintheGermanspeakingarea.Somecantonsdidnotintroducethenewsys-tembefore1999,andonecantonresistedcompletely.Inthelate1990s,anewdiscus-sionconcerningtheroleofEnglisharose(seeAcklinMuji2003andStotzandMeuter2003fordetails).ThemaindivergencebetweenadvocatesofEnglishanddefendersofthesecondnationallanguageasthefirstforeignlanguagewastheprioritizationofeco-nomicversusnationalreasonsforlearningforeignlanguages.Englishwasseenasthelanguageofglobalization,internationalcommunicationandeconomicsuccess;FrenchandGermanwereseenaslanguagesneededfornationalcohesionandcommunication

138 IwarWerlen

andforcommunicationwithneighboringcountriessuchasFranceandGermany.Inrecentyears,thedebatehaslostmuchofitsimportance.Theministersdecidedthattwoforeignlanguagesshouldbeintroducedduringprimaryschool,namelyasecondnational languageandEnglish.Butwhichof the two shouldbe taughtfirst?WhiletheFrenchspeakingcantonsdecidedtostartwithGermanandintroduceEnglishatalaterstage,theGermanspeakingcantonsintheeastofthecountrychosetostartwithEnglish,whilethoseinthewesternpartdecidedtostartwithFrench.This,ofcourse,willcreateabarrierforinter-cantonalmobilityoffamilieswithschool-agechildren. Inordertounderstandthebackgroundofthesediscussions,wewillfirstprovideashortsketchofSwissmultilingualism,followedbyadiscussionoffourmodelsofinter-lingualcommunicationinSwitzerland(seealsoLüdi,thisvolume).Wewillthenturnourattention toanatypicalSwisscity,Biel/Bienne,which isofficiallybilingualandpracticesabilingualwayofcommunicatingthatdiffersfromthemodelobservedinotherbilingualareas.Biel/Biennewillbecontrastedtoanotherbilingualcity,Fribourg/Freiburg.ReceptivemultilingualismintheSwisscontextshowsvariousformswhicharedifferentiatedduetovaryingcontextfactors.

1. Thecontext:Switzerlandasamultilingualnation

Switzerlandisademocraticfederalstatewithfournationallanguages.Article4ofthecountry’s1999Constitutionasserts thatGerman,French, ItalianandRomansharethenationallanguages.ThisprominentplacewasdeliberatelychosenbyparliamenttoshowthatmultilingualismisanessentialpartofSwitzerland’sself-conception.Thefirst three languagesarealsodeclared“official languages” (inparagraph4ofarticle70),whileRomanshisanofficiallanguageonlyforpeoplewhosemainlanguage1isRomansh—itisasocalled“restricted”officiallanguage.Thedistinctionofnationalandofficiallanguagesmaybeseenintermsofstatusandusage:allfourlanguageshavethesamestatusasnationallanguages,butonlythreeareregularlyusedbythefederaladministration. The four national languages are valid only for the confederation as a whole, notfor its 26 member states, the cantons. According to article 70 paragraph 2 of theConstitution,eachcantonhastherighttodefineitsownofficiallanguageorlanguages.Traditionally,22ofthe26cantonshaveonlyoneofficiallanguage(1Italian,4French,and17German).Onlythreecantons(Berne,Fribourg,Valais)accepttwoofficiallan-guages(FrenchandGerman).However,inthesebilingualcantons,thelanguageareasare sharply separated. Only the bilingual district of Biel/Bienne and some commu-nitiesinthecantonofFribourgareexceptionstothispattern,aswillbeshownintheensuingdiscussion.TheCantonofGrisonsistheonlytrilingualcantonofSwitzerlandwithGerman,ItalianandRomanshasofficialcantonallanguages. WiththeexceptionoftheRomanshspeakingarea,thelinguisticbordersarerela-tivelyclearandthelanguagesformgeographicallydistinctareasacrosscantonalbor-

ReceptivemultilingualisminSwitzerland 139

ders.Ineachofthefourlanguageareas,thelocallanguageisabsolutelydominantintermsofnumbersofspeakers.ThiscanbeshownbythefiguresinTable1.Thefiguresshowveryclearlythatthelocallanguageisspokenbymorethan80percentoftheresi-dentpopulation(Swisscitizensandforeigners)ineacharea.Again,theonlyexceptionistheRomansh-speakingareawherethepercentageofthelocallanguageissmallerduetothehighnumberofGermanspeakers.Non-locallanguagesareinaminoritar-iansituationinallfourlanguageareas.Thefiguresalsoshowthatthereisacleardis-proportionbetweentheabsolutenumberofspeakers,withGermanspeakersformingthevastmajority,andRomanshspeakersrepresentingtheotherendofthespectrumwithonlyaverysmallminority.ThisdisproportionismirroredinthedistributionofthelanguagesonthenationallevelasshowninTable2.

Thefiguresshowthat91.0%oftheresidentpopulationspeakoneofthefournationallanguagesastheirmainlanguage.Buttheproportionsoftheselanguagesareveryun-evenlydistributed.ThespeakersofGermanarebyfarthelargestgroup,followedbyFrenchspeakers.Italianspeakersconstituteonly6.5%ofthewholepopulationandthespeakersofRomansharebyfarthesmallestgroup.9%ofthetotalpopulationspeakanon-nationallanguage.InTable3,thesixnumericallymostimportantnon-nation-allanguagesareshown.Thenon-nationallanguagesareessentiallythelanguagesofmigratingworkersandofpeopleseekingpoliticalasylum.ThespeakersofSerbian/CroatianandAlbanian—languagesofformerYugoslavia—wereimmigrantworkersuntilthebeginningoftheBalkanwarsthatmarkedtheendofYugoslavia;lateronthey

Table 1. Mainlanguagesperlanguageareainpercentagesforthewholeresidentpopulation(source:FederalOfficeofStatistics,FederalCensus,2000)

Main language Language area

German French Italian Romansh

German 86.6 5.1 8.3 25.0French 1.4 81.6 1.6 0.3Italian 3.0 2.9 83.3 1.8Romansh 0.3 0.0 0.1 68.9Non-nationallang’s 8.7 10.4 6.7 4.0Residentpopulation 5,221,135 1,720,365 320,247 26,263

Table 2. MainlanguagesoftheresidentpopulationofSwitzerlandinpercentandabsolutenumbers(source:FederalOfficeofStatistics,FederalCensus,2000)

Main language Percentage Absolute

German 63.7 4,640,359French 20.4 1,485,056Italian 6.5 470,961Romansh 0.5 35,095Non-nationallanguages 9.0 656,539

140 IwarWerlen

immigratedasasylumseekers.SpeakersofPortuguese,SpanishandTurkishwereandareimmigrantworkers.TherelativelysmallgroupofEnglishspeakersconsistsessen-tiallyoftwodifferentgroups:highlyqualifiedprofessionalsandpoliticallymotivatedmigrantsfromAfricanorAsiancountries. ItisacommonplacetodaytosaythatSwitzerlandisnolongeraquadrilingualbutamultilingualcountry(seee.g.Dürmüller1997),giventhefiguresof the2000cen-suscitedinTables2and3.Eventhoughthisiscorrectindemographicterms,itisstillincorrect in legalterms.Furthermore,there isastrongtendencytoneglectnon-na-tionallanguages—exceptEnglish—inSwisslanguagepolicy.Thispolicyisshapedbytwoconflictingprinciples:theprincipleofterritorialityandthe“freedomoflanguage”principle—thelatterbeingwhatisinternationallyreferredtoasthe“personalityprin-ciple”.Theprincipleofterritorialityistheconsequenceoftherightofthecantonstodefinetheirofficiallanguages.Thepersonalityprinciplesaysthateverypersonhastherighttousethelanguagesoftheirchoice,andthisrightmayonlyberestrictedbytheterritorialityprinciplewhenthereisalegalbase,anoverwhelmingpublicinterestandiftherestrictionisappropriate. Sincethecantonsareresponsiblefortheeducationalsystem,theirofficiallanguageisalsotheofficiallanguageoftheeducationalsystem.Giventheterritorialityprinciple,aCantonmaynotacceptpublicschoolsinotherlanguagesthantheofficialone.Thispolicyclearlystabilizesthestatusquoofthenationallanguagesandtheirborders(withtheexceptionoftheRomanshareawhichisinanongoingprocessofGermanisation;seee.g.Furer2005).Asstatedintheintroductiontothispaper,theSwissConferenceoftheMinistersofEducation2decidedtoinstallapolicyofreceptivemultilingualisminthesensethatasecondnationallanguageistaughtatprimaryschoollevel.Intheirlatestprogramofactivities,datedJune6,2006,theydeclarethattheywant“tofosterforcefullythelanguagecompetenceofthepupilsinthelocallanguage(firstnationallanguage)fromthebeginning,togivesolidknowledgeofasecondnationallanguageandof Englishtoallpupilsandtogivethemthepossibilityto learnathirdnation-allanguage”(EDK2006,3,ourtranslation).InaprojectcalledHarmoS(EDK2004)theMinisterswilldefinetheminimalcompetencespupilsshouldachieveaftergrades2,6and9 inL1,L2andL3defined in termsof theCommon European Framework

Table 3. Non-nationalmainlanguagesoftheresidentpopulationofSwitzerlandinpercentandabsolutenumbers(source:FederalOfficeofStatistics,FederalCensus2000)

Non-national language Percentage Absolute

Serbian,Croatian 1.4 103,350Albanian 1.3 94,937Portuguese 1.2 89,527Spanish 1.1 77,506English 1.0 73,425Turkish 0.6 44,523Otherlanguages 2.4 173,271

ReceptivemultilingualisminSwitzerland 141

of Reference for Languages. The receptive competences should receive more atten-tionthantheproductiveones.Attheendofgrade9(i.e.atage16)pupilsshouldbeabletocommunicateinasecondnationallanguageandinEnglish.Inanongoingre-searchproject,3wefoundthatFrenchwasinfacttheL2mostoftenindicatedbySwissGermanspeakerswhileintheFrenchspeakingareaGermanandEnglishwereequal-lyfrequentL2’s.ThismeansthatthelinguisticpolicyoftheMinistersof Educationimpactsthelinguisticcompetencesoftheadultpopulation.Butotherfactors,forex-ampleeconomicones,playarole,too. VariousconfigurationsofmajoritiesandminoritiesareoneofthemainproblemsofSwisslinguisticpolicymaking.Onthenationallevel,Germanisthemajoritylanguage,thethreeotherlanguagesbeinginaminoritysituation.Obviously,inthemonolingualcantons,themajoritylanguageisalwaystheofficiallanguage.Butinthebilingualcan-tonsthesituationismorecomplex.TwothirdsofthepopulationinthetwocantonsofFribourgandValaisspeakFrenchandonethirdspeaksGerman.IntheseCantons,FrenchisthemajoritylanguageandGermantheminorityone.Thiscreatesadoubleconstellationofmajorityandminority,Germanbeingmajoritylanguageonthefed-erallevelbutminoritylanguageinthecanton,Frenchbeingminoritylanguageonthefederal levelbutmajoritylanguageinthecanton.Thethirdbilingualcanton,Berne,hasalargeGermanspeakingmajority(about84%)andasmallFrenchspeakingmi-nority(about8%).MostFrenchspeakershereliveinthreenortherndistrictsandinthebilingualdistrictof Biel/Bienne.ThetrilingualcantonofGrisonshasaGermanspeakingmajority(about65%),followedbytheRomanshspeakingminority(about15%)andtheevensmallerItalianspeakingminority(about11%). Minoritiestendtobemoresensitivetounequaltreatment,majoritiestendto“for-get”theminorities.Thismayleadtoconflictsituations.SincethekeymetaphorforSwitzerland’s linguistic policy is “linguistic peace”, conflict situations are sought tobeavoided.Thus,Swissmultilingualismisessentiallybasedonapolicyofconsensuswheretherightsoftheminoritiesaresoughttoberespected. BeforeturningourattentiontoBiel/Bienne,thelinguisticsituationoftheGermanspeakingpartofSwitzerlandhastobespecified.WhatKolde(1981:65)describedasmedial diglossiaisthesituationinwhichthechoiceofeithertheH-ortheL-varietyde-pendsonthemediumofcommunication,i.e.speakingversuswriting.Roughlyspeak-ing,itcanbesaidthatSwissGermandialectsarespokenandStandardGermaniswrit-ten.TheSwissGermandialectsbelongtotheAlemannicdialectsspokenalsoinAlsace,Baden-Württemberg (Germany), Vorarlberg (Austria) and Liechtenstein. The SwissGerman dialects are mutually intelligible even if some mountain and more periph-eraldialectssuchasthoseoftheUpperValaisaresaidtobehardertounderstandthanothers. Asalreadymentioned,StandardGermanisprimarilyawrittenlanguage.ItsrelationtotheSwissGermandialectsisacontroversialtopic(seeHägiandScharloth2005).ThedefendersofthediglossicapproachseeStandardGermanandthedialectsastwodifferentformsofthesamelanguagesystem.TheoppositepositionholdsthatStandard

142 IwarWerlen

Germanisacloselyrelatedforeignlanguage.IntheaforementionedongoingresearchprojectonthelinguisticcompetencesofSwissadults,4asurprising52%nativeSwissGermandialectspeakersmentionedStandardGermanastheirfirstforeignlanguage.ItcomesthereforeasnosurprisethatmanySwissadultsdonotliketospeakStandardGermanatallandpreferswitchingtoFrenchorEnglish.

2. FourmodelsofinterlingualcommunicationinSwitzerland

Given the linguistic situationofSwitzerlandasawhole, akeyquestionarisesas tohowSwisspeoplewithdifferentlanguagebackgroundscommunicatetogether?InhiscomparativestudyonlanguagecontactinthetwobilingualcitiesofBiel/BienneandFribourg/Freiburg,Kolde(1981)describedtwomodelsoflanguagechoiceinamulti-lingualsetting,givenacontactbetweentwounacquaintedpersonswithtwodistinctmainlanguagesinapublic,neutralsituation.Hefirstdistinguishedthechoiceofthefirstspeaker(theinitialchoice).Normally,thiswillbehisorherfirstlanguage.5Thesecondspeakerreactsinoneoftwoways.Inthefirstmodel—calledSwiss modelbyKolde(1981:237)—thesecondspeakerwillanswerinherorhisownfirstlanguage.Inthesecondmodel—Kolde’sBiel/Bienne model(1981:239)—thesecondspeakerwillanswerinthelanguageofthefirstspeaker.Wecanaddathirdmodel,tentativelycalledthedefault model,normallyvalidformonolingualsettingsinthecontextoftheterrito-rialityprinciple:Everybodywillchoosethedefaultlanguageoftheterritory.Afourthmodelisthechoiceofalingua francathatisneitherparticipant’sfirstlanguage—e.g.English—byboththefirstandthesecondspeaker. TheSwiss model isaclearinstanceofreceptivemultilingualism:Everyonespeakstheirownlanguageandexpectstheotherspeakertounderstandthem.InSwitzerland,this model is especially valid for the two major linguistic groups—German andFrench. Romansh speakers are expected to speak and understand at least German,ItalianspeakersatleastFrench.TheSwissmodelisappliedonthefederallevel,e.g.inparliamentarycommissions,orinofficialmeetingsofthefederaladministration.ThemedialdiglossiaoftheGermanspeakingpartofSwitzerland,however,isoneofthedisturbing factors in thismodel:mostSwissGermanspeakersdonot like to speakStandardGermanandmostFrenchspeakersdonotunderstandSwissGermandia-lects.Thus,SwissGermanspeakersprefertospeakFrench—evenonGermanspeak-ingterritory. TheBiel/Bienne modelisabilingualmodel:Everypersonisexpectedtospeakandtounderstandbothlanguages(GermanandFrench).IntheBiel/Biennecontext,thespokenformofGermanistheSwissGermandialectand,restrictedtospecialcases,StandardGerman.ThisisasomewhatpuzzlingsituationsinceFrenchspeakerslearnStandardGermanatschoolbutareexpectedtospeakandunderstandSwissGermandialect.Bilingualspeakers inBiel/BienneoftenspeakboththeBiel/BienneGermandialectandFrench.

ReceptivemultilingualisminSwitzerland 143

Thedefault modelisamonolingualmodel:Everyoneshouldspeakandunderstandthe local default language. In monolingual settings6 this will be the local language.FortheRomanshspeakingarea,thedefaultlanguageinmoretouristicallydevelopedcommunitiesseemstobeGerman.ForBiel/Bienne,thereisnodefaultlanguage,forFribourg/Freiburg,thedefaultlanguageisFrench. Thelingua franca model(seeWattsandMurray2001)isalsoabilingualmodelim-plicatingtheacquisitionofEnglishasaforeignlanguagebyeverybody.TherearesomedomainswherespokenandwrittenEnglishalreadyisalingua francainSwitzerland,e.g. in scientific communication or in major international companies (see Murray2003).Butoverall,the lingua francamodelisnotverywidespread.Asecond lingua francamodelwithItalianaslingua francawascurrentunderlabormigrantswithdif-ferent first languages (e.g. Spanish, Portuguese, Serbian/Croatian, Albanian) in theGermanspeakingareainthesecondhalfofthelastcentury;itisnotclearifthislingua francastillexistsorisabouttodisappeargiventhefactthattherearepracticallynonewItalianlabormigrantstoday.ItseemsthatSpanishisintheprocessofreplacingItalianinthefunctionofamigrantworker’slingua franca.

3. ThecaseofBiel/Bienne—anofficiallybilingualcity

Biel/BienneandthesmallcommunityofEvilard-Leubringentogetherformthebilin-gualdistrictof Biel/Biennewhichispartoftheofficiallybilingualcantonof Berne.7Theotherdistrictsofthiscantonaremonolingual:eitherGermanorFrenchspeaking(formoreinformationonthiscantonandBiel/BienneseeWerlen2000).Biel/Biennebecame a bilingual city in the second half of the nineteenth century when Frenchspeakingworkersfromthesurroundingcountrysidecameintothecitytoworkinthenewlyestablishedfactories.ThisFrench“colony”obtainedtherighttohaveaFrenchschool.Since1900thepercentageofFrenchspeakershasbeenrelativelyconstantatalevelof28%to31%.Table4showsthesituationinBiel/Bienneattheendof2000intermsof themain languages.55.4%of thepopulationareGermanspeaking,28.1%Frenchspeaking.ThelargestgroupwithamainlanguageotherthanthetwoofficialonesarethespeakersofItalian.Thisisaresultoftheearliestgroupofworkmigrants

Table 4. MainlanguagesoftheresidentpopulationofBiel/Bienneinpercentandabsolutenumbers(source:FederalOfficeofStatistics,FederalCensus,2000)

Main language Percent Absolute

German 55.4 26,957French 28.1 13,695Italian 6.0 2925Others 10.4 5078Total 100.0 48,655

144 IwarWerlen

inthesecondhalfofthelastcentury.Otherlanguagescomprisesome60languages.Table5showsthelanguageswhicharementionedbymorethantwohundredpeople. Thecity’sadministrationdoesnottakeintoaccountlanguagesotherthanthetwoofficialonesforthesimplefactthattheadministrationwantstoknowinwhichlan-guagepeopleshouldbeaddressed.In2003,thecity’sstatisticsservicepublishedthefiguresofTable6.Table6showsthattheforeignresidentpopulationisdividedintotwoequallylargegroupswhiletheSwissresidentpopulationhasaproportionofroughly2:1.Spanish,ItalianandPortugueseforeignersoftenfindFrencheasierthanGerman;theywillthereforechooseFrench.TheconsequenceofthischoiceisthattheirchildrenwillattendtheFrenchschools.Albanians,Serbians,CroatiansandTurksontheothersidepreferGerman.SotheLatin-basedlanguagesfeedtheFrenchminority. TheinstitutionalbilingualismofBiel/Biennemaybeseenasasortofdouble mono-lingualism(seeElmiger2005):Eachpersonhastherighttocommunicatewiththead-ministrationinoneofthetwoofficiallanguagesandgetanswersinthesamelanguage.InthecaseofBiel/Biennethatmeansthateveryofficershouldhaveagoodcommandofbothlanguages,buttheirclientsareallowedtospeakeitherFrenchorGerman.Thisconceptofdoublemonolingualismleadstoadoublingoftheschoolsystem:ThereareGermanandFrenchschools fromkindergarten tohighschool.8These twosystemswere totally separateduntil recentyears.Theotherofficial languageof thecitywas

Table 5. Non-nationalmainlanguagesoftheresidentpopulationofBiel/Bienneinabsolutenumbers(source:FederalOfficeofStatistics,FederalCensus2000)

Main language Absolute number of speakers

Spanish 1066Albanian 681Portuguese 555Serbian,Croatian 483East-asianlang’s 430Turkish 420English 263Arabic 219Various 961

Table 6. GermanandFrenchastheofficiallanguagesoftheSwissandforeignresidentpopula-tionofBiel/Bienneinpercentandabsolutenumbers(Source:StatisticsserviceofBiel/Bienne2003)

German French

absolute percent absolute percent

Swiss 23,975 47.4 12,692 25.3Foreigners 6,808 13.6 6,735 13.4Total 30,783 61.3 19,427 38.7

ReceptivemultilingualisminSwitzerland 145

taughtasaforeignlanguageinbothsystems.Onlyrecently,bilingualclasseswerein-troduced,butmostpupilsattendmonolingualclasses. Thisconceptofdoublemonolingualism(withbilingualofficers)contrastssharplywiththecommonideaofindividualbilingualism.PeopleborninBiel/Bienneareex-pectedtobebilingualatleasttoacertainextent(seeWerlen2006).Sincethereisnoarealseparationbetweenthelinguisticgroups,evenchildrenwithmonolingualpar-entsnormallywillhavecontactonplaygroundsorotherplaceswithchildrenspeakingtheotherlanguageofthecity.Therefore,theywilllearnthesecondlanguage“danslarue”(onthestreet)(foramoredetailedaccountofthissubjectseePy2006).ThisleadstotheeffectthatbilingualchildrenwithFrenchspeakingparentswilllearnthelocalGermandialectastheirsecondfirstlanguage.IfsuchchildrenattendFrenchschoolstheywilladditionallylearnStandardGerman(startingingrade4,i.e.atage11)asaforeignlanguage.TheconsequenceisthattheywillspeakFrenchandtheBieldialectasnativespeakers,StandardGerman,however,astheirfirstforeignlanguage,usuallywithaFrenchaccent.ChildrenwithGermanspeakingparents,ontheotherhand,willlearnStandardGermaninitsSwissvariety(startingatgrade1oftheprimaryschool)andFrenchasaforeignlanguageatgrade5.

4. Theresearchprojectbil.bienne:bilinguisme à bienne — Kommunikation in einer zweisprachigen Stadt

InordertoobservethepatternsofcommunicationandbilingualisminBiel/Bienne,ateamofresearcherscarriedoutaresearchproject(seeConrad,MattheyandMatthey2002, Conrad 2005, Elmiger 2005, Werlen 2005, Elmiger and Conrad 2006) whichconsistedofthreedistinctmodules.Inthefirstmodule,aseriesof40interviewswithpeoplelivinginBiel/Biennewereconducted.Thequestionsaskedconcernedthecity’sbilingualism,thelanguagebiographiesoftheintervieweesandtheirattitudestowardsbilingualism.Theirsocialnetworkswerealsorecordedinordertoseewhatlanguagestheymentionedasusedwithfriends,neighborsandco-workers.Therewerealwaystwointerviewers,onespeakingGerman(normallyinthedialect),theotherspeakingFrench.Bothinterviewerswerebilingualbuttheykepttotheuseofonlyoneoftheirlanguages(withafewexceptions).Theintervieweeswerefreetochoosetheirlanguage.Inmostinterviews,thereisacertainamountofcodeswitchingonthesideofthein-terviewees.MuchoftheaboveinformationonBiel/Bienneanditsbilingualismareex-tractedfromtheseinterviews. Inasecondmodule,conversationsinpublicandsemipublicplaceswererecorded.Studentsandresearchersaskedpeopletheway,boughtsomethinginashop,etc.Aftertherecording,peoplewereinformedthattheconversationhadbeenrecordedforare-searchproject.Mostpeopleacceptedtherecording;ifthiswasnotthecase,therecord-ingwasdeletedimmediately.Peoplewerethenaskedsomequestionsabouttheirfirstlanguage,theirplaceofresidenceandothertopics.Theaimoftheserecordingswasto

146 IwarWerlen

seeinwhichlanguagethepersonanswered.Themostinterestingcaseswereconversa-tionsbetweenpeoplewithdifferentlanguages. Modulethreewassimilartomoduletwo,buttherecordingsweredoneinthebilin-gualcityofFribourg/Freiburginordertocomparethetwocities.Inthefollowingan-alysiswewillconcentrateontherecordingsofmoduletwo.

5. LanguagechoiceinaSwissmultilingualsetting

Inthissectionwewillpresenttheessentialfindingsofmodulestwoandthree;foramoredetailedanalysisseeConrad(2005).ThechoiceoflanguageintheconversationsrecordedinBiel/BienneandFribourg/Freiburgareofspecialinteresthere.Basedonthemodelsdiscussedinsection2ofthispaperthereweretwoexpectations,i.e.thatinBiel/BienneitshouldbethefirstspeakerwhowoulddeterminethelanguagechoiceandthatinFribourg/FreiburgthedefaultlanguagewouldbeFrench. WethereforepresentinTable7thenumberofrecordingsmadeinbothcitiesandthelanguagechoicemadebystudentsandresearchers.

Thedistributionofthelanguagesusedatthebeginningoftherecordingsisnotre-allycomparable.InFribourg/Freiburg,therecordingsinaSwissGermandialectfaroutnumber those inFrench,andnorecordingsweredone inStandardGerman. IntestrecordingsinFrenchwealwaysgotanswersinFrench.WethereforeconcentratedonrecordingsbeginninginSwissGermansincetheGermanspeakinggroupisinaclearminoritariansituationasTable8shows.OnlyafifthoftheresidentpopulationofFribourg/FreiburgareGermanspeakers;thevastmajorityisFrenchspeaking.This

Table 7. LanguagesusedbystudentsandresearchersatthebeginningoftherecordingsinBiel/BienneandFribourg/Freiburg

Language used by researcher Biel/Bienne Fribourg/Freiburg

Swiss-Germandialect 22 68French 44 2StandardGerman 4 0

Table 8. MainlanguagesoftheresidentpopulationofFribourg/Freiburginpercentandabso-lutenumbers(source:FederalOfficeofStatistics,FederalCensus2000)

Main language Percent Absolute

German 21.2 7520French 63.3 22,603Italian 3.8 1359Others 11.4 4065Total 100 35,547

ReceptivemultilingualisminSwitzerland 147

minoritariansituationisreflectedbythefactthatthecityofFribourg/Freiburgshowsnoclearmanifestationsofbilinguality.WhilestreetnamesinBiel/Biennearebilingual,thestreetnamesinFribourg/FreiburgarewritteninbothlanguagesonlyiftherearehistoricalsourcesshowingaGermanname.ForapersonarrivinginFribourg/Freiburgwithoutknowingitsbilingualstatus,thecitylookslikeotherFrenchspeakingtownsinWesternSwitzerland.Soitwasdecidedtostartmoreconversationsintheminoritarianlanguageinordertoseehowpeoplereacted. InTable9,thelanguagechoiceofthepeoplerecordedareshown.InFribourg,the70recordingsareevenlydividedinthreemajorcategories:in21casestheaddresseeaccommodatedhisorherFrenchtotheSwissGermandialect.In25casestheaddress-eedidnotaccommodatehisorherFrench.InthesecasestheaddressermaychoosetoswitchtoFrench(in9cases),toStandardGermanortocontinueinSwissGermandialects(in16cases),applyingtheSwissmodelinthelattercases.In21cases,thead-dresseereactedtoSwissGermandialectinSwissGermandialecttheaddresseebeinganativespeakerofaSwissGermandialect.OnlyinonecasewasaFrenchspeakingad-dresseeaddressedinFrench.IntheonlytwocaseswithFrenchasthelanguageoftheaddresser,bothaddresseesaccommodatedtoFrench. InBiel/Bienneontheotherhand,accommodationtotheaddresser’slanguagetookplacein46ofthe70recordings.Therewereonlyfourcaseswithnoaccommodationandthesecaseswererecordingsonthestreet,notinshopsoroffices,i.e.innon-serv-iceencounters;inthreeofthefourcasespeopledidnotknowtheotherlanguagewellenough(andtheyapologizedfortheir lackofknowledge).ThesethreepeoplewerevisitorstoBiel/Biennenormallylivinginotherplaces.In18cases,bothspeakershadthesameL1andin2casesapersonaddressedinStandardGermanansweredinSwissGermandialect. Theoverallpicturethatemergesisthat,inBiel/Bienne,thenormalsituationisthattheaddresser’s language leads toanaccommodationof theaddressee. InFribourg/Freiburg,however,Frenchisthedefaultlanguage;iftheaddresserdoesnotswitchtoFrench,theconversationwillbeinbothlanguages(Conrad2005)aspredictedbythe

Table 9. LanguagechoiceofaddresseesinBiel/BienneandFribourg/Freiburg

Language choice of addressee Biel/Bienne Fribourg/Freiburg

Accommodationtoaddresser’sSwissGermandialect 11 21Accommodationtoaddresser’sStandardGerman 3 0Accommodationtoaddresser’sFrench 32 2Noaccommodationtoaddresser’sSwissGermandialect 1 25Noaccommodationtoaddresser’sStandardGerman 1 0Noaccommodationtoaddresser’sFrench 2 0Addresser’sSwissGermandialectisaddressee’sL1 9 21Addressee’sL1isSwissGermandialect,addressedin

StandardGerman2 0

Addresser’sFrenchisaddressee’sL1 9 1

148 IwarWerlen

Swissmodel.TheonlyexceptiontothismodelisgivenincaseswhereaddresserandaddresseearebothnativespeakersofSwissGermandialects. Thefourmodelsmentionedabovemayroughlybedescribedasnormsinthesenseofmutuallyassumedrulesofbehavior.Butitisclearthatsuchnormscanbecancelled,inwhichcasetherewillbeexplicitnegotiationsofthelanguage(s)tobeusedinthecontactsituation.Inspecialsituations,therewillalsobespecialnorms.InBiel/Bienne,oneofthesespecialnormsisthatthecustomerisking,meaningthatinshopsorres-taurantsaswellasintheofficesofthemunicipaladministrationsit isthecustomerwhodecidesonthelanguagespoken(andnotthepersonwhospeaksfirst,perhapsgreetingthecustomer).Thereisampleevidenceofthisintherecordingswemadeinofficesandshops.

6. HowmultilingualcommunicationworksinBiel/BienneandinFribourg

Thefollowingexamplesstemmingfrommodule2inBiel/Bienne(examples1–3)andfromFribourg(example4)illustratethepointsmadesofar.ThefirstexampleshowshowthechoiceofFrenchbythestudentresearcherleadstoanaccommodationoftheclerk (Im). The transcription begins (see example (1a)) when Anouk (An), the stu-dentresearcher,enterstheofficeofajobagency.(ForreadersnotfamiliarwithSwissGermandialectsandFrench,SwissGermandialectswillbeprintedinCourier New

Example 1a.

ReceptivemultilingualisminSwitzerland 149

andFrenchinLucida Console.Therulesoftranscriptionaregiveninanappendixattheendofthispaper.) Theclerk(Im)isgreetingherinSwissGermandialect(line1).SheanswersinFrench(line2).Promptly,theclerkrepeateshisgreetinginFrench.Thusheacceptsthelan-guagechoiceofthecustomer.ThissmalldialogueistypicaloftheBiel/BiennesituationinthatthechoiceofthegreetinginFrenchorGermanbyacustomerispivotalforthelanguagetobeusedbytheclerk.ThelanguagethroughouttheensuingconversationisFrencheveniftheclerkhasamarkedaccentinit.OurinterpretationisconfirmedbytheclerklateronintheconversationwhenAnoukaskshimwhyheswitchedfromSwissGermantoFrench(seeexample(1b). AnoukmentionsthatsherealizedhisgreetingintheBielGermandialectbutthatsheansweredinFrench(line91).SheaskshimwhyhestartedinGermanandthencontinuedinFrench(line96).HeanswersthathetriedtospeakGermanbecausehisFrenchisreallybad(line98).LateronheevencallshisFrench“lepetitfrançaisqu’ona”(the little amount of French that one has)alludingperhapstotheidiomatic“lepetitnègre”(gibberish).HethentellsAnoukthathisfirstlanguageisItalian,theBieldialect

Example 1b.

100

150 IwarWerlen

beinghissecondlanguage.HepreferstospeaktheGermandialectbutthenheclearlystatestherule: Thegeneralrule—onewillalwaystrytospeakthelanguageofthe“candidate”(line102)—overrideshisownpreferenceoftheGermandialect.HisdeliberateattempttodeterminethelanguageoftheconversationbygreetingthecustomerinSwissGermanfailedinthecaseofAnoukandwillfailinanyothercaseinwhichacustomerchoosesFrench. Inthenextexample,wewillfindamorecomplexsituationcreatedbyourresearchdesign. Anouk, the student researcher, enters a drugstore. Anouk’s L1 is French;GermanisherfirstL2.SheisgreetedbythesaleswomaninFrench(line1inexample(2a)).ShereciprocatesthegreetinginFrench(line2)butthenswitchestoStandardGerman(printedinCourier New). Therearetwoobservationstobemade.Thefirstoneconcernsthegreetingbonjour.Itcanbeusedinbothlanguages,thedifferencebeingthepronounciation.Frenchhas

Example 1c.

Example 2a.

ReceptivemultilingualisminSwitzerland 151

avoicedfricative,anasalizedfirstvowelandanuvular/R/attheend.Germanspeak-ersnormallyuseavoicelessfricative,manyofthemdonotnasalizethefirstvowelandhaveanapical/r/attheend.bonjourmaythereforebeusedtotestthelinguisticaffili-ationofanunknownperson(seeConrad2005andWerlen2006forexamples).ThesecondobservationconcernsAnouk’sswitchtoGermanafterhavingheardtheFrenchpronounciationofbonjourandreplyingto itwithFrenchpronounciation.Forana-tiveGermanspeaker,AnoukhasanobviousFrenchaccent,butitseemsthatthesales-womandoesnotrealizethisaccent.NotonlyAnouk’saccentisclearlynonnative,shealsohassomeproblemsindefiningherrequest.Thereisevenamistakeinlines2and3(thenoununterschiedhasmasculinegender,notneuter).Nevertheless,thesaleswom-answitchestoGermaninline5.AfteralongandpainstakingconversationinGerman,Anoukexplainsthatsherecordedtheconversationandwhyshedidit.AnouktriestofindtheGermantranslationofanalyse conversationnelle(line52).Shedoesnotsuc-ceedandswitchestoFrench(line53)withoutswitchingbacktoGerman.Thisisthepoint(line54)wherethesaleswomanrealizesthatAnoukisaFrenchspeakerandsheidentifiesherselfasaromande, stemmingfromtheSuisse romande.Lateron in theconversation,shetellsAnoukthatshealwaystriestospeakFrenchatthebeginningof

Example 2b.

152 IwarWerlen

aconversationsayingbonjour.IfthecustomeranswersinGerman,shehastoswitchtoGerman;otherwise,shewillspeakFrench.Thisisexactlythesamestrategyasthestrategyoftheclerkinthefirstexamplewiththeonlyexceptionofthepreferredlan-guage.Inthiscase,thenormofthecustomeraskingleadstoanexolingualcommuni-cationsituation9inwhichtwonativespeakersofFrenchcommunicatedintwodiffer-entlyfossilizedvarietiesofGerman.

Example3.Biel/Bienne:droberquai

Thenextexampleshowsthatthechoiceofthelanguageofconversationisreadoptedafteraninterruptioncausedbyaquestionintheotherlanguagetoapasser-by.Thebe-ginningoftherecordingispracticallyincomprehensiblebutthestudentsnotedthattheystartedtheconversationinFrench.ThetranscriptionbeginswhenFIisgreetingafemalepasser-byobviouslyknowntoher.Thatthepasser-byisanacquaintanceofFI’s

Example 3.

ReceptivemultilingualisminSwitzerland 153

followsfromFl’sgreetingwhichimplicatesatu-relation.10ThewordsalithatsheusesisoriginallyaFrenchgreeting(salut)butisusedhereinthelocalGermandialectform.Thepasser-byanswerswithtschou,theBielandBerneseformofItalianciaowhich,incontrasttotheItalianfarewell,mayalsobeusedasagreeting.BothgreetingsareSwissGermandialectforms.Inline3,FIbeginsinFrench(le quai)butthenimmediatelyswitchestotheBieldialectandaskstheotherwomanwhereshethinksthattheupperquaiis.Theanswerisgiveninline5inaBernesedialectform.Inline6,FIrepeatspartoftheanswerinGerman(asecuringmove)andthen,addressingCornelia(Co),im-mediatelyswitchesbacktoFrench.InthefollowinglinessheexplainsthewaytotheupperquaiinFrenchusingsuchcolloquialformsaset pis.Inline12shedoesnotim-mediatelyfindthewordruisseaubutitisnotclearwhetherornotthisisduetoherrestrictedknowledgeof French.TheBiel/BiennemodelexplainstheswitchingfromFrenchtoGermanbacktoFrench:GiventhestartinFrench,theaddresseewasforcedtoswitchbacktoFrenchwhenspeakinganewtotheaddresser. WealreadysawintheexamplescitedthattheBiel/Biennemodeldoesnotrequirenear-nativecompetencesintheL2.Aslongasthegoalofthecommunicationcanbereachedwiththeparticipants’restrictedlinguisticmeansthereisnoneedtochangetheBiel/Biennemodel.Onlyinfourcasesdidtheconversationsinpublicplacesleadtoproblems(seeabove)duetorestrictedlanguageknowledge.However,theremaybemoreproblematicsituationssuchasmedicalconsultationswhererestrictedlanguageknowledgemayproduceseriousproblems.Wedidnotmakerecordingsinsuchset-tings,but,intheinterviewsofmodule1,experiencesofthistypewerereferredtobytheinterviewees.

Example4. TheSwissmodelinFribourg:poireau

Asalreadysaid,wealsofoundinstancesoftheBiel/BiennemodelinFribourg,butnotasoftenasinBiel/Bienne.Overall,Fribourgprefersthedefault-languagemodel.This

154 IwarWerlen

mayleadtoabilingualcommunicationofthereceptivemultilingualismsort.ThiscanbeillustratedbyanexamplefromFribourg(seeexample4).

7. Conclusion

Receptivemultilingualismisoneofseveralpossiblesolutionstotheproblemofcom-municating in a multilingual setting in Switzerland. It is officially fostered by theMinistersof Education.Thefiguresofanongoingresearchprojectshowthattheof-ficiallanguagepolicyoftheMinistershadasuccessfulimpactonthepopulation.Butreceptivemultilingualismisonlyoneoffourpossiblemodels.Thelingua francamodelisanotherpossibilitywhich,however,isnotveryfrequentlyused.Morewidespreadisthedefaultlanguagemodel:Eveninmultilingualsettings,thelanguageofthemajor-ityisused.InbilingualplacessuchasBiel/Bienne,however,rulesotherthantheonedefiningtheSwissmodelsareadapted,leadingtoaspecificBiel/Biennemodel.Theideaofsuchmodels,however,maybecriticizedasbeingtoostaticandnottakingintoaccountthedynamicsofthespeakersinacommunicationsituation.Aswasshowninsomeoftheexamples,speakersmayusetheirlinguisticrepertoiresaccordingtotheircommunicative needs resulting in code-switches, bilingual communications (calledparler bilinguebyLüdiandPy2002:131ff.)and—sometimes,eventhoughnotexem-

Example 4.

ReceptivemultilingualisminSwitzerland 155

plifiedinourcorpus—totheuseofalingua francaase.g.EnglishwithtouristsfromaScandinaviancountry.Thisflexibilityofthespeakersinmultilingualsettingsremainsachallengeforresearchonmultilingualism,butalsoforlanguagepolicy.

Notesonthetranscriptions

TranscriptionsaremadeaccordingtotheGesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem(GAT,seeSeltingetal.1998)withtheexceptionofthenotationofSwissGermandia-lectsandFrench.Speakersareindicatedbyshortforms;addresseesareindicatedbytheletterI(interviewee)followedbym(male)orprecededbyF(female).Researchersandstudentsareindicatedbyinitialsorthefirsttwolettersoftheirfirstname.SwissGermanistranscribedaccordingtotheproposalsofDieth(1986);itisabroadphon-emic transcriptionusingonly thecharactersof theGerman (Swiss) typewriterkey-board. Standard German and French are transcribed more or less orthographicallywiththeexceptionofhesitationsignals(suchasFrencheu)andassimilations(suchasFrenchyaforil y a).Aninterlinearliteraltranslationisaddedinitalics;thistransla-tionisascloseaspossibletotheoriginalandthereforeoftenungrammaticalinEnglish.Asalreadymentionedinthetext,forreadersnotfamiliarwithSwissGermandialectsandFrench,SwissGermandialectsareprintedinCourier NewandFrenchinLucida Console.

Notes

1. Theterm“mainlanguage”waschoseninthe1990and2000censusesinsteadoftheformerlyusedterm“mothertongue”.Itwasdefinedas“thelanguageyouthinkinandyouhavethebestcommandof ”.Inthecensuses,peoplecouldindicateonlyonelanguageastheirmainlanguage.Peoplewhoconsideredthemselvesbilingualhadtochooseoneoftheirlanguages.Formorein-formationonthedistributionoflanguagesseeLüdiandWerlen(2005).

2. TheSwissConferenceoftheMinistersofEducationdoesnotpublishinEnglish;thepubli-cationscitedarewritteninGermanandtranslatedbyus.ThesourcesarecitedwiththeGermanabbreviationoftheConference(EDK).

3. Theproject “Languagecompetencesof theadultpopulation inSwitzerland” (directedbyI.Werlen)ispartoftheNationalResearchProgram56“Linguisticdiversityandlanguagecom-petencesinSwitzerland”.ItstartedinJanuary2006andwillbefinishedinDecember2007.

4. Cf.note3.

5. Itisimportanttodistinguishbetweencontactsituationsinmonolingualandinmultilingualsettings.Theterm“monolingualsetting”doesnotimplythattherearenospeakersofotherlan-guages,butitmeansthatthelocalofficiallanguageisstronglypreferredevenifitisnotthefirstlanguageofthespeaker.Inmultilingualsettings,thesituationislessclear,aswewillshowlateroninthecontextofBiel/Bienne.

6. Asexplainedinnote5.

156 IwarWerlen

7. This is the legal situation according to the cantonal Constitution. The regulations of theConstitutionarecurrentlyunderrevision.Ifthisrevisionisacceptedbythepeople,Biel/Biennewillbethecapitalofabilingualregioncomprisingalotmorecommunitiesthannow.

8. SinceschoolsystemsareverydifferentinEnglishspeakingcountries,thetermhigh schoolmaybemisleading.TheGermantermisGymnasium,theFrenchonegymnase;bothleadtotheMaturormaturité(knowninGermanyasAbitur).

9. Foramorerefinedanalysisofexolingualvs.endolingualandbilingualvs.unilingualcom-municationseeLüdiandPy(2002):161.

10. Asiswellknown,bothFrenchandGermandistinguishbetweenformalandinformalformsofaddress,oftencalledvous-formandtu-form.

References

AcklinMuji,D.2003.Ledébatsuissesur l’enseignementdes languesétrangères.Versuneré-flexionsurl’auto-constitutionducollectifhelvétique.Inanglais, Englisch, inglese, Englais … English![BulletinVALS-ASLA77],H.Murray(ed.),67–81.Neuchâtel:Institutdelinguis-tique.

Conrad,S.-J. ,Matthey,A.andMatthey,M.2002.Bilinguismeinstitutionneletcontratsocial:lecasdeBiel-Bienne(Suisse).Marges linguistiques 3,http://www.marges-linguistiques.com.

Conrad, S.-J. 2005. Zweisprachige Kommunikation: Biel/Bienne und Freiburg imVergleich.InVilles bilingues – Zweisprachige Städte – Bilingual Cities. Akten des Kolloquiums in Biel/Bienne, 19.-20. März 2004 [BulletinVALS-ASLA82],S.-J.ConradandD.Elmiger(eds),43–62.Neuchâtel:Institutdelinguistique.

Conrad,S.-J.2006.VerständigungimöffentlichenRaumvonBiel/Bienne.InLe projet bil.bienne –bilinguisme à bienne * kommunikation in biel,D.ElmigerandS.-J.Conrad(eds).TRANEL(Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique 43), juin 2006:5–22. Neuchâtel: Institut de linguis-tique.

Dieth,E.1986Schwyzertütschi Dialäktschrift: Dieth-Schreibung.Aarau:Sauerländer.(2ndedn.,editedbyCh.Schmid-Cadalbert).

Dürmüller,U.1997.Changing Patterns of Multilingualism: from Quadrilingual to Multilingual Switzerland.Zürich:ProHelvetia.

EDK [Sch weizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren] 2004. HARMOS.ZielsetzungenundKonzeption.Juni2004.http://www.edk.ch/PDF_DownloadsHarmos/Harmos_Weissbuch_d.pdf.

EDK [Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren] 2006. Tätitgkeits-programmderEDK22.6.2006.http://www.edk.ch/PDF_Downloads/LLTG/tgpro_d.pdf.

Elmiger, D. and Matthey, M. 2006. La diglossie vu du “dedans” et du “dehors”: l’exemple deBienneetd’Evolène.InLe projet bil.bienne – bilinguisme à bienne * kommunikation in biel,D.ElmigerandS.-J.Conrad(eds).TRANEL (Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique)43,juin2006:23–47.Neuchâtel:Institutdelinguistique.

Elmiger,D.andConrad,S.J.2006.Introduction.InLe projet bil.bienne – bilinguisme à bienne* kommunikation in biel,D.ElmigerandS.-J.Conrad(eds).TRANEL(Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique)43,juin2006:1–4.Neuchâtel:Institutdelinguistique.

Elmiger,D.2005.L’orientationdeBiennecommevillebilingue:entreprotectiondumonolin-

ReceptivemultilingualisminSwitzerland 157

guismeetpromotiondubilinguisme.InVilles bilingues – Zweisprachige Städte – Bilingual Cities. Akten des Kolloquiums in Biel/Bienne, 19.-20. März 2004.S.-J.ConradandD.Elmiger(eds).Bulletin VALS-ASLA82:17–29.Neuchâtel:Institutdelinguistique.

Furer, Jean-Jacques 2005. Die aktuelle Lage des Romanischen. [Volkszählung 2000, Struktur-erhebungderSchweiz].Neuchâtel:Officefédéraldelastatistique.

Hägi,S.andScharloth,J.2005.IstStandarddeutschfürDeutschschweizereineFremdsprache?UntersuchungenzueinemToposdessprachreflexivenDiskurses.Linguistik online24(3),http://www.linguistik-online.com/24_05/haegiScharloth.html.

Kolde,G.1981.Sprachkontakte in gemischtsprachigen Städten. Vergleichende Untersuchungen über Voraussetzungen und Formen sprachlicher Interaktion verschiedensprachiger Jugendlicher in den Schweizer Städten Biel/Bienne und Fribourg/Freiburg i.Ue.[ZeitschriftfürDialektologieundLinguistik,BeihefteH.37].Wiesbaden:Steiner.

Lüdi,G.andWerlen,I.2005.Sprachenlandschaft Schweiz. Unter Mitarbeit von S. Colombo et al.[Volkszählung 2000, Strukturerhebung der Schweiz]. Neuchâtel: Office fédéral de la sta-tistique.

Lüdi,G.andPy,B.2002.Etre bilingue(2nded.).Bern:Lang.Murray,H.2003.ThestatusofEnglishinSwitzerland.InLiving with Languages. The contempor-

ary Swiss model,J.CharnleyandM.Pender(eds),87–106.Bern:Lang.Py,B.2006.DevenirbilingueàBienne.InLe projet bil.bienne - bilinguisme à bienne * kommu-

nikation in biel,D.ElmigerandS.-J.Conrad(eds).TRANEL(Travaux neuchâtelois de lin-guistique)43,juin2006:71–85.Neuchâtel:Institutdelinguistique.

Selting,M.etal.1998.GesprächsanalytischesTranskriptionssystem(GAT).Linguistische Berichte173:91–122.

Stotz,D.andMeuter,T.2003.EmbeddedEnglish:IntegratingcontentandlanguagelearninginaSwissprimaryschoolproject.Inanglais, Englisch, inglese, Englais . . . Englis,H.Murray(ed.),Bulletin VALS-Asla No 77:83–101.Neuchâtel:Institutdelinguistique.

Watts,R.J.andMurray,H.(eds)2001.Die fünfte Landessprache? Englisch in der Schweiz.Zürich:vdfHochschulverlagAGanderETH.

Werlen,I.(ed.)2000.Der zweisprachige Kanton Bern.Bern:Haupt.Werlen,I.2005.Biel/Bienne–LebenineinerzweisprachigenStadt.InVilles bilingues – Zwei-

sprachige Städte – Bilingual Cities. Akten des Kolloquiums in Biel/Bienne, 19.–20. März 2004.S.-J.ConradandD.Elmiger(eds).Bulletin VALS-ASLA82:5–16.Neuchâtel:Institutdelin-guistique.

Werlen,I.2006.FormulierungenvonNormenkommunikativenHandelnsinBiel/Bienne.InLe projet bil.bienne – bilinguisme à bienne * kommunikation in biel,D.ElmigerandS.-J.Conrad(eds). TRANEL (Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique) 43, juin 2006:87–109. Neuchâtel:Institutdelinguistique.

chapter6

The Swiss model of plurilingual communication

GeorgesLüdiUniversitätBasel

TheSwisshavedecidedtoteachthreelanguages,thelocallanguage,asecondnationallanguageandEnglish, fromPrimary schoolon.This shouldenablecommunicativeencounters between persons from different linguistic backgrounds. An asymmetrybetweenproductiveandreceptivecompetencesshouldfosterthereceptivebilingual-isminaformsometimescalled“Swissmodel”:everyonespeakshisorherownlan-guageandunderstandstheother.Butrealcommunicativepracticesdonotmatchthisstereotype fully. This paper analyses the complex dynamics of face to face interac-tion in some key examples of authentic cross-linguistic communication at work inSwitzerland. It shows how native and non-native speakers take mutual profit fromallthelanguagestheyknow.Neithermonolingualmodelsnorreceptivebilingualismstrictusensudominate;“mixed”formsofexploitingtherespectiverepertoiresemerge.Inordertounderstandthislanguageuse,thepaperquestionsthetraditionalrepresen-tationsoflanguagecompetence.

Keywords:receptivecompetence,Swissmodel,cross-linguisticcommunication,Switzer-land

1. Introduction

WeallknowthatSwitzerlandisquadrilingualandbasksinpeacefullinguisticharmo-ny.Butthisimageismisleadingandneedstobecorrectedinmanyrespects.First,theFederalConstitutionmentionsfournationallanguages(German,French,ItalianandRomantsch),but,inaddition,thereareincreasingunrecognizedlinguisticminoritiesofmigrantswholiveinSwitzerland(seetable1).1

Table 1. LinguisticminoritiesofmigrantsinSwitzerland

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

German 72.1 69.4 64.9 65.0 63.6 63.7French 20.3 18.9 18.1 18.4 19.2 20.4Italian 5.9 9.5 11.9 9.8 7.6 6.5Rhaeto-Romance 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5Otherlanguages 0.7 1.4 4.3 6.0 8.9 9.0

160 GeorgesLüdi

Table2givesanoverviewofthemostimportantlanguagesofimmigrationin2000(inabsolutefiguresandinpercentageofthewholeresidentpopulation). Second,theterritorialityprincipleallowsorratherconstrainstheuseofonlyoneoftheofficiallanguagesineachofthelanguageregionsofthecountrywiththeexceptionofafewoverlapareassuchasBienne,FribourgorthefederalcapitalBerne.Juridically,Switzerland is thusamosaicmadeupof largelymonolingual regions inwhich theothernationallanguagesenjoymoreorlessthesamestatusas,say,SpanishorEnglish. Theschoolsystem,withobligatorylanguageteachinginasecondnationallanguagefromthe3rd/5thgradeofprimaryschoolonwards,doesmakeanattempttocorrectthispicture.Buteven ifeveryadolescent inSwitzerlandhasacquiredabasicknow-ledgeofoneofher/hisneighbouringlanguages,wecanhardlyspeakofbilingualism,letalonemultilingualism.Wewillcomebacktothispoint. Third,GermanspeakingSwitzerlandprovidesthestageforadiglossicsituationbe-tweenstandardGerman(oftencalledHighGermanorwrittenGerman)andSwissGerman, the functional distribution of which can be roughly described as ‘medial’(Kolde1981).InalmostallsocialsituationsthroughoutGerman-speakingSwitzerlanddialectsarespokeninallsocialclasseswithoutexception(in2000,86.1%ofallinhab-itantsoftheGermanspeakingregion,includingthespeakersofotherlanguages,spokeSwissGerman[exclusivelyortogetherwithanothervariety]athome,butonly9.0%,mostlyforeigners,spokeStandardGerman[exclusivelyortogetherwithanothervar-iety]).Thediglossicsituationandthefactthatthedialectcanbeshowntohaveadopt-edanincreasingnumberoffunctionsintheelectronicmediaandinwrittencommu-nication(chatrooms,shortmessages)2inthelastdecades3haveledtoconsiderableunrestamongtheRomance-speakingminorities. Fourth,aseverywhereelseinEurope,Englishplaysanincreasingroleasaforeignlanguagetaughtatschool,asalanguageatworkandasalanguagepresentinthe“lin-

Table 2. Mostimportantlanguagesofimmigrationin2000

in % in absolute figures

Serbian/Croatian 1.4 103,350Albanian 1.3 94,937Portuguese 1.2 89,527Spanish 1.1 77,506English 1.0 73,425Turkish 0.6 44,523Tamil 0.3 21,816Arabic 0.2 14,345Dutch 0.2 11,840Russian 0.1 9‘003Chinese 0.1 8,279Thai 0.1 7,569Kurdish 0.1 7,531Macedonian 0.1 6,415

TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication 161

guistic landscape”.In2000(Federalcensusofthepopulationwithquestionsonlan-guageuseatwork),23.4%oftheactivepopulationintheGermanspeakingpartofthecountryindicatedthattheyusedEnglishatworkonaregularbasis.In1990theywere17.4%.Thecorrespondingfiguresare17.7%in2000and13.0%in1990fortheFrenchand11.0%in2000and7.7%in1990fortheItalianspeakingpartsofthecountry Forobviousreasons(sharedinstitutions,existenceofanationaleconomy,frequentmobilityofpartsofthepopulation,etc.),communicativeencountersbetweenpersonsfromdifferentlinguisticbackgrounds,maytheyliveinthesamelinguisticregionorcommunicateacross the languageborders,are frequentandnecessary.Another fre-quentlyreproducedmythsaysthatcommunicationisbasedontheprinciple“every-onespeakshisorherownlanguage”becauseallSwisscitizensarecompetentinseveralnationallanguages,atleastinthethreemajorones.Thispaperpursuesthequestionwhetherrealcommunicativepracticesmatchthisstereotypeornot.

2. Theeducationalcontext

Asalreadymentioned,mostSwiss citizensaremonolingualduring their childhood(ifweexcludethemigrantpopulationwithbi-/plurilingualrepertoiresincludingthelocal languageandoneorvariousnon-national languages).Therefore, thebasis forthe communication between the language groups must be laid by the educationalsystem.Afirstmajorreformofforeignlanguageteachingstartedin1975whentheConferenceofCantonalMinistersof Education(shortEDKorCDIP)decided that(a)allSwisschildren(andnotonly those“gifted” for language learningandattend-ingsecondaryeducationwithenlargedrequirements)shouldhavetheopportunitytolearnasecondnationallanguage,(b)thislearningshouldstartinPrimarySchool(4thor5thgrade)and(c)itshouldbebasedonacommunicativeapproachandnotonthegrammar-translation-method,whichdominatedtheSwisseducationalsystematthattime(CDIP1975).Elevenyears later,havingrealizedthat thenextschool leveldidnotaccountfortheskillsacquiredatPrimarySchoolinanappropriateway,thesameConference introduced so called “Meeting points” (CDIP 1986) in order to coordi-nate the teachingof the languagesatdifferent levels.Evenmoreexplicitely than in1975,theaccentwaslaidoncommunicativeskillsnotonlyforthePrimarySchool,butforthewholeperiodofcompulsoryeducation.Receptiveskillsshouldbesignificantlyhigher than productive ones at the end of the 9th grade, and orality more import-antthanreadingandespeciallywritingskills.Evenifitiseasiertocontrolknowledgethanaptitudes,theaccentshouldbelaidonthelatter.Thevisionexplicitlyaimedatby this asymmetry between productive and receptive competences was that—be-causethewholepopulationwouldhaveacquiredasecondnationallanguage—cross-linguisticencounterswouldbepossibleforeverybodyat leastbetweentheGermanandtheSwissspeakingFrench(theotherswouldhavetoacquireactiveknowledgeinatleastoneofthosetwo)alongthelinesofthe“Swissmodel”(Kolde1981,CDIP

162 GeorgesLüdi

1986).Withthis“plan”,wearemanifestlyat theheartof thedebateaboutreceptivemultilingualism. Evenifbythemidninetiesmostofthecantonshadadoptedthe1975and1986rec-ommendations,ageneraldissatisfactionwith thequalityof theL2competencesac-quiredbytheyounggenerationwasfelt(onlytheeliteswerereallyabletoapplythe

“Swissmodel”,e.g.atnationalexpertmeetingsintheSwissAcademyof HumanandSocialSciencesorintheCouncilofResearchoftheSwissNationalFoundation).Thisisduetodifferentreasons,whichwecannotdiscussindetailhere,e.g.theRomands’dissatisfactionwiththe fact that the languagespokenbytheirGermancompatriotsdoesnotreallyresembletheGermantheylearnatschool,toofewhoursdedicatedtoL2-teaching,inappropriatemethodsandwaysoftesting,inappropriateteachertrainingetc.Butanewmajorchallengehadappeared:learningasecondnationallanguageandcommunicationalongthelinesofthe“Swissmodel”werebecomingmoreandmoreoverruledbythepresenceof Englishasaninternational lingua franca.WhyshouldchildreninZurichlearnFrench—andthoseinGenevaGerman—iftheycouldeasilycommunicateinEnglish?AndwhataboutthethousandsofmigrantchildrenwhoseL1isnotthelocalofficialschoollanguage?Withalltheseproblemsinmind,theCDIPcommissionedaHolistic language-policy plan(“Gesamtsprachenkonzept”)thatshouldmakeproposalsforadeeplyrootedreformoflanguageeducationinSwitzerlandcom-prising the local national language, a second national language, English, languagesofimmigrationandotherancientandmodernlanguages.TheplanwaspresentedinSummer1998;4anothersixyearsofpoliticaldiscussionswerenecessaryuntilthecor-respondingpoliticaldecisionsweretakeninMarch2004. Theplanisbasedonasociolinguistic,pedagogicalandpoliticalanalysisofthesitu-ation,andonthefollowingspecificpremises:

• Theabilitytoexpresstrainsofthoughtsprecisely,toargueinadifferentiatedway,andtocommunicateideasbyusingthemediumoflanguageisessentialforthecul-turalandpoliticallifeaswellasforthegenerationanddisseminationofknowledge.

• LinguisticandculturaldiversityisdeeplyrootedinthehistoryofSwitzerlandandEurope.Itispartofthecontinent’sidentityandoftheideathatSwisspeoplehaveoftheircountry.ItscultivationandmaintenanceisanexplicitgoaloftheSwiss(cf.art-icle70intheConstitution)andEuropeanpolicies.

• Due to numerous movements of migration, but also to the expansion of privatetourism,Switzerland,historicallyquadrilingual,becamemultilingual.

• Theknowledgeofneighbouringlanguagesorpartner languagesnotonlypermitscross-border communication, but also and especially contributes to the develop-mentofmutualcomprehensionandofanattitudeoftoleranceforotherculturesandthustopeace.

• As an additional professional qualification, proficiency in various languages be-comesmoreandmoreimportantinaworldcharacterisedbymobilityandglobali-sation.

TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication 163

• Intermsofeducationalpolicy,thestudyofforeignlanguageshasacentralmeaningasanelementintheeducationforcitizenship.

• Duringtheobligatoryschoolperiod,thefoundationshavetobelaidsothateachin-dividualandthesocietyasawholecantakeonthosechallengesandmeetthemwithsuccess.

• Buildingontheiroriginalmonolingualorplurilingualcompetences,therepertoiresof thepupils shouldbebroadened in thedirectionof functionalplurilingualism,withintherealmsofanintegratedlanguagepedagogyandwithoutaugmentingofthetotalstrain.

Insummary,greatimportanceisattributedtothedevelopmentofthelocallanguage(initsstandardvarietyindiglossiccontexts),thelearningofadditionalnationallan-guages, the languages of the neighbours (among them also the languages of immi-gration)and languagesof largerdiffusionbecause thiscontributes tobuildingupastablesociety,functioningplurilinguallyandopentoamulticulturalworld.Therec-ommendationscontainclearreferencesregardingthenumberofforeignlanguages(atleastonesecondnationallanguageandEnglish)andthegeneralobjectivesthatshouldbeachieved(thestandardsbeingformulatedonthebasisoftheCommonEuropeanFrameworkscale).Thismeetstherequirementsofamanagementorientedtoefficien-cy.Thegoalsformulatedaredemandingandexceedinmanywaystheresultsprevious-lyobtainedbytheeducationalsystem.Therefore—andknowingthattheeducationalsystemwasnotfullysuccessfulinreachingthemorelimitedgoals—waysandmeansaredescribed forenhancing theefficiencyof language teaching inorder toachievetheseobjectives,e.g.startingwithsecondlanguagelearningatgrade3,twolanguagesat primary school, meeting points guaranteeing vertical (between the levels) andhorizontal (betweenschoolsandcantons)coherence, integrated languagepedagogy,teachingsubjectsthroughthemediaof foreignlanguages(CLIL),exchangepedago-gy,generaldiversificationofteaching/learningmethodsinordertomeettheneedsofdifferentstudentprofilesandofdifferentcombinationsoflanguages(teachingItalianasL2beingforinstancedifferentfromteachingItalianasL3),“intercomprehension”methodsteachingseveralrelatedlanguagessimultanously,etc. Theserecommendationsarestartingtobeimplemented,someofthemmeetpoliticalresistances:Learningtwoforeignlanguagesatprimaryschoolisquestionedbysometeacherorganisations,offeringoflanguagesofimmigrationisrejectedbylocalnation-alistpoliticians).Further,thereisaheavydebategoingonabouttheorder(English>Secondnational languageorSecondnational language>English).TherearevoicesadvocatinginfavourofintercommunitycommunicationinEnglishinSwitzerland(cf.WattsandMurray2001).Nevertheless,wemightsaythat—asinmostpoliticaldecla-rationsthroughoutEurope—thereisconsensusamongSwissthatthesolutionsforthecommunicationproblemsinanincreasingmultilingualcountrymaynotbemonolin-gual(onedominantnationallanguageorEnglish),butmustbeplurilingual(severalnationallanguagesandEnglishandotherlanguages).

164 GeorgesLüdi

3. French–Germanintercommunitycommunication:frommythtoreality

Wesaidalreadythatthe“Swissmodel”mightbeanidealisation.Letusbecomemoreprecise now.When talking about communication in situations where the partnersrelyonasymmetriccompetences,appliedlinguistsfrequentlyspeakabout“exolingualcommunication”,characterizednotonlybythedifferenceinitself,butalsobythefactthatallpartnersareconsciousofthissituationandusedifferentstrategiestocompen-sateforthesedifferencesandtoavoidmisunderstandingornon-understanding(seealreadyNoyauandPorquier1984,PyandAlber1985,Lüdi1989).Inmostcases,theunderlyingrepresentationofhowcommunicationworksismonolingual:Onelinguis-ticvarietyischosenthatisatleastpartlysharedbyallthepartnersandboth,i.e.thepartnerswithaweakerandthosewithabettercompetenceofthelanguagerespect-ively,makeanexclusiveuseofthisvariety.AMorroccanandaFrenchpartnerinPariswillexclusivelyspeakFrench,anAlbanianandaGermaninMunichGerman,etc.Incaseswherenoonehasevenlittleknowledgeoftheother’slanguage,athirdcodemaybeusedaslingua franca,e.g.EnglishbetweenaChineseandaGerman. However,manyresearchershavearguedsinceseveraldecadesthatthisconceptionofcross-linguisticorinterculturalcommunicationisbiasedbywhatwemaycall“ho-moglossic”viewsofthesocietyand“monolingual”representationsoftheindividuum(Lüdi2005c).Formanyyears,abulkofresearchhasshownthattheinteractingpart-nersoftenhavethechoicebetweenseveralmoreorlesssharedlanguagecompetencesbecausemorethanhalfofmankindisplurilingualbybirthand/orhasformallyorin-formallylearnedadditionallanguagesinmultilingualsettings.Infact,pluri-andmul-tilingualismisthenormalcaseinmostpartsoftheworld,unilingualismcanbede-finedasanexception.Thepartnersmightstillwanttoinsistonmonolingualwaysofcommunicatinge.g.forsocialreasons,becauseoneandonlyonevarietyisperceivedasthe“legitimate”oneinagivensituation(Bourdieu1982).Butwhileitistheirchoicetodefinethesituationas“monolingual”despitehavingalternatives,theycanalsode-cidetomutuallydefinethesituationas“bilingual”or“plurilingual”eveniftheircom-petencesarenotequal.Thisdoesnotonlyinvolvereframingofthesocialsituation,butalsoanotherwayofactivatingthelanguagesinthebrainintheso-called“bilingualmode”(Grosjean1985,2001).Thisistosaythatthefactualsymmetryorasymmetrybetweenthespeakers’competencesdoesnotautomaticallyentailspecificwaysofbe-haviour,butthattheinteractingpartnershaveconsiderablefreedominresolvingthecommunicativetaskandindefiningthesituation.Thisappliesparticularlyifweswapaperspectivethatiscentredonmodellingthebehaviourofspeakersorhearersforaninteractiveperspective.Interactivitymeansareciprocaldefinitionofthecommunica-tivesituationbyallinteractingpartners(Schutz1967).BaseduponSchegloff ’sdefin-itionof“discourseasaninteractionalachievement”(Schegloff1982),weclaimthatthechoiceofthelanguagemodeislocallynegotiatedanddefinedbythepartners—inthecompassofsystemsofsocialvalues,butsometimeswiththeexplicitintentionofques-tioningandreshapingthesesystems.

TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication 165

Manypeoplestillassociate“mixed”formsofspeechwithinsufficientcompetencesforchoosingamonolingualmode.This,definitely, isnotalwaysthecase,asahugeamountof researchhas shown inmore than30years (see for exampleMilroyandMuysken1995).Today,code-switchingasarecognisedformofuseofbi-/plurilingualrepertoires is largelydocumentedbyresearch(cf.Lüdi2005a foranoverview)andhasledtohighlyvaluedformsofmultilingualliterature(cf.Lüdi2005b).Ontheotherhand,itisevidentthat“interlinguisticcompensationstrategies”(FaerchandKasper1983aandb)arefrequentlyusedbybeginninglearners(eveninsociallymonolingualsituations)notbecausetheyactivelychooseabilingualmode,butbecausetheyjustcannotdobetter.Therearegoodreasons for thehypothesis thatcode-switching (bi-lingual technique) and translinguistic wording (exolingual technique) can be distin-guished(Lüdi2003).Butisthisdistinctionrelevantwhenitcomestoexplaininghowpeoplereallyinteractindailylife? AresearchprojectonLanguage Dynamics and Management of Diversity,financedbytheEuropeanUnionandstartingonOctober1st2006,isintendedtogenerateabroadandin-depthevaluationofcompetingmonolingualandplurilingualscenariosoflanguageuseindifferentprofessionalandinstitutionalsettings.Itwillcomparetheadvantagesanddrawbacksofthesescenarioswithdueattentiontotheassociatedef-fectsintermsofefficiencyandfairness.Expectedresearchresultswillconstituteessen-tialgroundworktowardsadeeperandmoreintegrativeunderstandingofthecomplexprocesseslinkingkeydimensionsoflanguagelearningandlanguageuseasbasisforformulatinglanguagepolicyproposals. Theprojectisfoundedonnewconceptionsof‘multilingualcompetences’.Theyareviewedlessintermsofformal(syntactic)knowledgeandmoreasasetoflinguisticre-sourcesavailabletomembersofacommunityforsociallysignificantinteractions.Thetotalityoftheseresourcesconstitutethelinguisticrepertoireofapersonoracommu-nity(Gal1986),notinan“additive”sense(themultilingualpersonasakindofcombin-ationofvariousmonolingualcomponents),butinaholisticview(Grosjean1985;LüdiandPy2003)whichvaluestheintegrationofpartialcompetences(CouncilofEurope2001).Apositiveassessmentofpartialcompetencesalsoshedsnewlightonthe“exo-lingual”techniquesforassuringintercomprehensioninthecaseofasymmetriccom-petencesmentionedbefore.Butthenotionofcompetenceitselfhasundergonedeepchanges in thecourseof the twentiethcentury.The“Hymesianrevolution”made itpossibletogobeyondthereductionistconceptionoflinguisticcompetenceintroducedbyChomsky.Itrecognisedthepluralnatureofcommunicativecapacitiesandallowedforaccountsofthediscursiveandpragmaticdimensionsoflanguageuse.ForHymesandhissuccessors(forexampleCanaleandSwain1980),thefocusremainshoweverontheobservablecompetenceofthelearnerandontheknow-howdepositedinhisorherbrain.Thereareseveralintentstomovebeyondtheseapproachesthattendtomisjudgethesituationalsensitivityofcompetences(regardlessofwhetherthiscompe-tenceislinguisticorpragmatic)andthecomplexityoftheprocessesinwhichtheseareimplemented,aspartofthepracticalactivitiesoflearners,usersandtheirinterlocutors.

166 GeorgesLüdi

Aninteractionistinterpretationofcompetence,bycontrast,isbaseduponacontextual-isedandcollectiveconceptionofactivitiesandofhumancognition,andfocusesonthecentralrolethatpracticalcommunication(and,therefore,socialaction)playintheirformatting.Thisperspectivedeconstructs,inaradicalmanner,anyindividualising,de-contextualisedandisolatingdefinitionoflinguisticandcommunicativecompetences. Researchonlanguageacquisitionconfirmsthehighdegreeofunpredictabilityandthe complex dynamics of face to face interaction in authentic interaction (Pekarek1999).Atthesametime,itshedsnewlightonthewaysnativeandnon-nativespeak-ersofalanguagetakemutualprofitfromtheirentirerepertoiresusingtheirrespectivefirstlanguagesandothersupportlanguages(e.g.EnglishwhenspeakingFrenchasL2,French,English,SpanishandLatinwhenspeakingItalianetc.).Wethusneeda lan-guagetheorythatgivesspecialprominencetothewaystheinterlocutorsexploitalltheresourcesthatareattheirdisposal.WefullyagreewithFranceschini(1999)whosum-marisesherconsiderationsasfollows:

I conceive the linguistic system from the perspective of its use in interaction. Inhumanevolution,theSystemLanguageemergesfromitsuse,inaphylogeneticaswellasinanontogeneticperspective.Languagedevelopedonabiologicalbase,butalwaysinthecontextofsocialinteraction.(1999,272mytranslation;seealsoTomasello1999,2003andBates2003).

Accordingtothisconcept, theelaborationandthemobilisationofcompetencesareconfiguredinthecourseofpracticalactivitiesthatarelinkedtospecificsocioculturalcontextsandtoparticularformsofaction,interactionandintersubjectivity(Berthoud,GrinandLüdi2005,PekarekDoehler2005,Lüdi2004,2006).

4. Examplesofintercommunitycommunicationatwork

Itisrelativetothisbackgroundandwithaviewtoelaboratingsuchconsiderationsthatwerecordedmanyhoursoforalinteractionbetweenactorsfromverydifferentlinguis-ticandsocialbackgrounds,inandoutsideSwitzerland,inordertogetabetterunder-standingofthealternativespresentinpotentiallyplurilingualsituations(Lüdi,Pyetal.1995,2003,Franceschini1999,Mondada2003,2004aandb,MiecznikowskiandMondada2001).Inthefollowing,wewillconcentrateonexamplesofinternalcommu-nicationatworkinSwitzerland.Theresearchquestioniswhethermonolingualmodelsononehand(theuseofonlyonenationallanguageor,progressively,theexclusiveuseofEnglish)andontheotherthe“Swissmodel”ofreceptivebilingualism—‘everyonespeakshisorherlanguageandunderstandstheother,i.e.mobilisesexclusivelypassivecompetencesintheother’slanguage’5—arerealisedinreallifeor,inotherwords,howtheseidealtypesarereflectedindailyinteractions.Weformulatethehypothesisthatinasituationofshared,evenasymmetric,bilingualism,otherformsofcommunicationwillemerge.Weconceivetheanalysisofkeyexamplesaspartofasearchforempiricalevidencewithoutanyclaimforstatisticalrelevance.

TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication 167

ThefirstexamplewasrecordedinMontreuxbyBettinaWetzel-Kranz(Wetzel-Kranz2000).‘Walter’(allnameschanged)isayoungGermanSwissinformaticianmandat-edtoinstallanewcomputerprogramintheofficeofasmallpublishinghousewhere‘Marinette’and ‘Jeanne’, twoyoungFrenchSwisswomen,workasprofessionals.Heis training themin frontofacomputerwhere theprogramis running.ThedefaultlanguagechoiceseemstobeincontradictiontotheSwissmodel:theGermanspeak-erchoosesFrench,FrenchspeakingMarinetteoftenGermanandsometimesFrench.OnlyJeannemainlystickstoherdominantlanguageFrench.ThethreeofthemmakesporadicuseofEnglishwordsorexpressions,alwaysinrelationtowhattheyobserveonthescreen.Inthesecondpartoftheexample(unrecordedspeechofseveralmin-utesbetweenlines34and36)‚Horst,theGermanbossofMarinetteandJeanne,joinsthescene(line44).Thepersonalconstellationchanges,andsodoesthelinguisticbe-haviour. In theunrecordedpartand from line36onwards, allparticipantswere inanexolingual-monolingualFrenchmode.WhenWalteraddresseshimselftoHorst,heuses(Standard)German.Afterashortperiodofexploratorylanguagechoice,i.e.alter-nationbetweenFrench,GermanandEnglish,thebaselanguagechangestoGermaninline55(evenifJeannecontinuesinterveninginFrench):

Example (1)

Marinette: exploring?Walter: ouiMarinette: [onva]surexploringehetcouperdataWalter: c’estoù?.là?

5 Marinette: ähnon.obenJeanne: au-dessus()Marinette G.alsähWalter: ahlà.ici.ouaisMarinette jagenau.undäh.products

10 Walter: livreurMarinette: livreur.texteWalter: [was?]Marinette: nein.Text.untenWalter: ouaispartieA

15 Marinette: hierhastduAWalter: ahokayMarinette: undalleSektionenWalter: commentfonctionnel’Europe((3sec.))Jeanne: commentça-commentfonc-tionnel’Europe’çac’est.comment

20 fonctionnel’Europe-c’estleseulquinesoitpasdelapartieBMarinette: maisçac’estlapartieAWalter: ilestdepartieAça?Jeanne: ahvousêtesenpartieAlà.ahnonjecroyaisqu‘onétait/qu‘onfaisaitla

partieA.Bexcuse-moi25 Walter: commentfonctionneEurope.c’estdedansmaintenant?.comment

fonctionne.c’esttoutenanglaisiciMarinette: äh

168 GeorgesLüdi

Walter:: Europeplace.EuropeanUnion((6sec.))Marinette: howEuropeworks((3sec.))ah.

30 Walter: maispasiciMarinette: nonmais.commentfonctionnel’Europe.c’est.esistdieseTitelWalter:: ahokayMarinette: äh.schaumalwiederbeiexploringWalter:: oui

35 ((theconversationgoesonforseveralminutes))Marinette: lesimagesenfaitpeuventnousparvenirenprincipedechaquepersonne

concernéeparl’article.sil’articlec’estparexemplel’articlec’estlecomitéeuropéen.

Walter: oui40 Marinette: benl’articlec’est

Walter: attendsattends.peut-êtreje.je.Horst’könntestdumalkommen’.weiljetztgehtsumdieRessourcen

Horst: ja

45Walter: maintenantilestentraindefaireça((Horstjoinsthegroup))youhavemade

theressourceshere’Horst: yeahWalter: yes.nowwehaveheretheimagesfromeditorHorst: mhmhWalter: nowitwillbereceivedfromTaylor.thefirst.aso

50 Jeanne: senttoTaylorWalter: senttoTaylororreceived’Horst: receivedMarinette: no.sent..theimages((3sec.))

55 Horst: kommenvonTaylor.gehenandieGrammatekJeanne: ahahahMarinette: ja.aberzuerstJeanne: (letroisième)Marinette: zuerstwirbekommendieFotosvonehdieLeuten

60 Horst: nein.daswoderTaylorverantwortlichiskriegtersie.dasistmirsogesagtworden.

Walter: etçamaintenantMarinette: jaweil.asoHorst: undesmachtjaauchSinn.weilderTaylormußsiejaerstmalsehen

65 obesgutisMarinette: klar.aber.zumBeispieldieAdressenistimmeruns.unddann.wir

schicken.weilzumzumBeispiel.ichhabdasProblemgehabt.weil.wirhabeneinFotosbekommenähähundjetztmüssenwirdaszuTaylorschicken

(recording and transcription: Bettina Wetzel-Krantz)

Generallyspeaking,theoveralllanguagechoiceisinconsistentasonecanexpectformultilingualspeech(LüdiandPy2003).Thefourpersonsmakeaverypragmaticuseofallthecommunicativeresourcestheyshare.WalterandMarinettedisplayafairlygoodactiveinteractivecompetenceinthesecondnationallanguage;Jeanne’sGerman

TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication 169

isonlyreceptiveasisHorst’sknowledgeof French.“Englishonly”couldalsobeanalternativeasshownintheintermediarypartoftheinteraction.Butnormativerepre-sentationsofeithermonolinguallanguageuseorofwhatthe“Swissmodel”couldbeseemtotallyabsent.Atthesametime,wegetafirstglimpseofexistingpowerrelationsbetweenHorstandhiscollaborators.Communicationdoesnot,ofcourse,occurina

“neutralspace”;multilingualspeakersexploittheirrepertoireinordertopressthemax-imumgainoutoftheirlanguagechoice.EvenifHorst’spreferentiallanguagechoiceisnormallyEnglish(heoftenimposesEnglishtotheothers),hereheswitchestoGermanin line 55, entailing a general change of the base language of the communication.Nevertheless,itisevidentthatmultilingualformsofspeechcanbeveryrewarding,asillustratedforexampleinthelinguisticbehaviourof Walter.Furthermore,thisinter-action,whichillustratesvariouswaysofmobilisingmultilingualrepertoires, isobvi-ouslysuccessful.InthelistofactivitiespresentedintheCommon European Framework(Councilof Europe2001), itwouldenter into thecategory“practicalgoal-orientedco-operation”.Thus,inordertomeasurethesuccessofthiscommunicativeevent,wedonothavetoassessthequalityofthelanguage(s)spoken,butwehavetoanswerthequestionwhetherthegoaloftheinteractionhasbeenachieved.Ananalysisofthemu-tualreactionsoftheinteractingpartnerstotheongoingconversationshowsthatthisisthecaseintheperceptionofthemembersthemselves.WegetfurtherconfirmationintheactivityreportwrittenbyWalterattheendofhisstayinMontreux. Letusnowturntoasecondexample.Thesettingisinaregionalbilingualbankthatwehaveanalysedindetail(Heiniger2005,LüdiandHeiniger2005).ThisinstitutionresultedfromamergerbetweenaformermonolingualFrench-speakingbankinthecantonofJuraandamonolingualGerman-speakingbankoperatingintheLaufental.Fromthebeginning,thenewcompanywassupposedtoworkinageographicalareacoveringtheFrench-Germanlanguageborder,withlocalagenciesworkinginthelan-guagesoftherespectivelocalclientswhiletheheadofficesmergedandthuscametoworkinbothlanguages.Forthoseresponsibleitwasalwaysclearthatthenewbankwouldbebilingual,theexplicitlanguagestrategyformulatedbytheheadofthebankbeingthateveryemployeeshouldcontinuespeakinghisorherlanguage,eveninjointmeetings. Therealityasobservedinanethnolinguisticstudyturnedouttobeslightlydiffer-ent.Letusfirstsaythatthenewbankisverysuccessfulcommercially.Quiteevidently,communicationinthemergedback-officesbetweenpersonsfromdifferentlanguagebackgroundsworksquitewell.Butitisnotthe“Swissmodel”initsidealsense.“Ichhabeeinfachfestgestellt,dassdas[sc.JedersprichtseineSprache]nichtausreicht,weil,vorallemdiewelscheSeitenocheinbisschen…,nochnichtsoweitist,odernicht,dasssieunsverstehen.DarummussmanhalteinfachjeweilsmeistensauchaufFranzösischprobieren[Ihaverealisedthatit(i.e.eachonespeaksherorhislanguage)isnotsuf-ficient,because,mainlytheFrenchspeakingsidestillhasto...,isnotready,Imean,tounderstandus]”,saysoneinformant.Fordifferentreasons(lackofstatusandknow-ledgeonbothsidesoftheborderindominantlyruralareas,6lackofcompetenceswith

170 GeorgesLüdi

someactorsinthebank,etc.)Englishplaysnoroleatallintheinternalcommunicativenetworks.Thethreevarieties(French,GermanandSwissGerman)donotappeartobechosenrandomly,butneitheristhereanevidentpreferentialchoiceforeachperson.Werner,thehighestrankingparticipantinthediscussion,switchesbetweenthevar-ieties,frequentlychoosesthe“other”language,translatesorasksfortranslation.JeanalwaysspeaksFrench;HeiriusestheemotionallyloadedSwissdialectknowingabouttheriskthatJeanwillnotunderstand;Wernerusesdifferentbridgingtechniques.Hereoneshortexample:

Example (2)

Werner Aso,dann,dannwerdenwirdas,dasKombi-FlexProduktwerdenwirauchindiesemProspektabbilden,he?Onveut,Michel,on

Jean Oui.Werner Onlaisseceproduitcombi-flexHypothekdansleprospectus.Jean Ah,ilvavenirjustementcequel’onfaiticionaura,ceprospectusetpuisonvaoffrir

ceproduit,ehWerner Ok…Heiri Jäjä,wenneinefrogt,scho.Werner parcequ’onditicifallsgewünscht,sionsouhaite.

(Recording and transcription: Monica S. Heiniger)

Inshort:evenif ‘everyonespeaksher/hislanguage’isthegenerallyacceptedcommu-nicativemaxim, it ishowever sometimescombinedwithor replacedbyother tech-niques:

• Someactors(mainlyspeakersofGerman)accommodatetotheFrench-speakingin-terlocutorandchooseFrenchfromthebeginningorswitchtoFrenchwhenacom-municativeproblemappears.

• GermanspeakingpersonsnormallydonotusethedefaultoralvarietybutmakeanefforttospeakstandardGerman;however,SwissGermanischoseninemotionallyimportantmomentseveniftheRomandsdonotunderstand.

• (More)bilingualcolleaguesareaskedtotranslateoratleasttomakeasummaryintheotherlanguage(seeDeStefani,MiecznikowskiandMondada2000).

• Veryoften,theutterancesineitherlanguagearenotpure,butmixed:concepts,lex-icalitemsorshortphrasesofanembeddedlanguagearesplashedas“translinguisticmarkers”(Lüdi2003)intoutterancesinthebaselanguage.Thishappenswithpar-ticularfrequencyincaseswhereGerman-dominantpersonsspeakFrench.

Wecouldaddmanysimilarexamplesoftalkatworktothislist.Theydonotreallycon-tradictthemodelofreceptiveplurilingualism.However,theyshowhowanabstractconceptisputintopractice,how,fromthelevelofamodel,itistranslatedintoreallife.Severalreasonsmaycausedeviationsfromtheidealmodel:(a)someone’sreceptivecompetenceintheotherlanguageisnotsufficienttoensurecommunication;(b)some

TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication 171

participantswillinglyuseavarietysomeoftheirinterlocutorsdonotunderstand.Itisaparticularityofpolyadicconversations,thatonecanmakealanguagechoicethatex-cludessomeoftheparticipants;(c)accommodationpatternsleadsomeonetotheuseoftheinterlocutor’slanguageaspreferentialchoice,etc.Themainlessontodrawfromtheseexamplesis,however,thatthereisalotoffreedomintheindividuallinguisticbe-haviour,butalsothatresponsibilityforensuringcommunicationissharedbyallpar-ticipantsintheinteraction. Theawarenessofspecificconstraints inplurilingual interactions isalsovisible inourthirdexample,documentedinaslightlydifferentcontext.Participantsfromsev-eralEuropeancountriesandlanguagebackgroundsmeetatacolloquiumonhistoryoftheantiquityorganisedbytheUpperRhineUniversities.Thewholecolloquiumwastaperecordedintheframeworkofaresearchprojectonplurilingualisminscientificencounters(Mondada2003).

Example (3)

ostman imaythereforeconclude.withaquestionmark\..might.thebyzanz/.xxxsection/aboutwhich.xxxxextensivelyaddswhere.andwhich.wassomuchatoddswithnnnn/sprincipalinterest.itself.beanotherexampleofhowmuch.thepresent

5 volumebearstheimprint.of(yussouf.acüla)\..°thankyou°\steiner nousvousremercions/beaucoup/((2sec))steiner nousavons.cinqminutes/((8sec))

10 ostman thankyou\((rires))

steiner ilyacertainementdesques[tions/(liberman) [INDENT}[wow/x(you)x °xx°

15 liberman ehxinenglish.ehwhatinterestme(what).intriguedme\..istheproblemofthe(1)outsidestimulationofturkishhistoriography.whichcamefromrussiafromtheimmigrantsfromrussia/

(e9/OT15058/am1B/CD5:12.37- 13.36)

Afrequentlyreproducedstereotypesaysthatinternationalscientificencountersmakeapreferentialorevenexclusiveuseof English.English isverypresent in thismeet-ingindeed,butthechoiceofthelingua francaisinnowaydominant.Instead,many

“plurilingual techniques” are employed. And it is manifest that the participants areawareoftheirmobilisationofplurilingualrepertoiresascanbeobservedfromtheirfrequentmentioningoftheirlanguagechoice.Inourexample,OstmanconcludeshispresentationinEnglishbymakingametadiscursiveannouncementofaquestion,thequestionandtheusualthankstotheauditors(lines1–5).ThechairmanSteinerthanks

172 GeorgesLüdi

inFrenchandopensthefloorfordiscussion(6–9).Becausenobodytakesthefloor,Ostmanrepeatshisthanksironicallyandearnslaughter(lines10f.).Steinerasksagainforquestions(12).ThefirstquestionisbyLiberman,inthelanguageofthepaper,butheannouncesexplicitlythathewillusethislanguage(15). Weretainfromtheseexamplesthatthereceptivecompetenceofallparticipantsismutually judgedtobesufficient forusingeitherFrenchorEnglishasapreferentialchoice.ThenextexamplefromthesamecolloquiumshowsthatthisisalsotrueforGerman.Thistime,threelanguages(atleast)constitutethesharedrepertoire:

Example (4)

Müller aberansonsten.istdaleidergotteswenigrauszuholenwaseh.<mich((enriant))>=

x =((petitrire))Müller =dannenttäuschthatabernajabessermanmerktsowasnach

5 dreiwochenbeschäftigung[wiewennmanein.halbesjahreh:schondrangesessenist\.vielendank\

Steiner alorseh:écoutezcesproblèmes/paraîtstimule:r/desexposéstoutàfai:tanimé:s[xxx/[INDENT}[((quelquesrires))

10 Steiner çaadeseffets/positifs\.boneuh:onaencoredeuxminutesDurand oui/euh:.euh°eh°i.ithink(i)don/tthinkyoushould

reallydrop.(drop)that\becausetherearetherearesomanythingstodo/withtheseeh.magazines

(recording and transcription Mondada and team)

AfterapaperpresentedinGerman,SteinerthanksagaininFrenchandopensthefloor,DurandasksthefirstquestioninEnglish.Buthedoesnotdothiswithoutaprepar-ationsequence(“oui/euh:.euh°eh°i.ithink”).Thistypeofbehaviourshowsthattheparticipantsareawareoftheplurilingualcharacteroftheirmeetingandofthedifficul-tiesraisedbythatfact,butalsoandmainlythattheyarewillingtousespecifictech-niquesforthemanagementofthelinguisticdiversityand,simultaneously,forguaran-teeingthesuccessoftheinteraction.InthiscaseDurand,aFrench-speakingscholar,prefersEnglishtoFrench,probablyduetopoliteness,becauseheassumesthatMüller’sreceptiveFrenchisweakerthanhisreceptiveEnglish.Mondadaandherteamfoundmanyinstancesoflanguagecrossing,i.e.usinganotherthanthepreferentiallanguageformanydifferentfunctions.Again,thesuccessoftheplurilingualspeechcannotbeassessedintermsoflinguisticnorms,butonlywithregardtothescientificoutcomeoftheconference,whichwasverygoodinaccordancewithwhatparticipantsreported.

5. Perspectives

AsIsaidbefore,mypurposeisnottoblamethecommunicativemaximeunderlyingthemodelofreceptivemultilingualism,butrathertoshowwhichformsthismaxime

TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication 173

adopt inreal life.Even ifwefindsimilar tokensofmultilingualbehaviour inmanyotherpartsoftheworld,itstillseemslegitimatetospeakofa“Swissmodel”.Infact,onecannotdenythatexternalconditionsexertaninfluenceonthespeakers’behav-iour.Wethinkthatlong-termSwissexperiencesinlanguageuseinFrench–Germanintercommunitycommunicationcontributedtotheconstructionofacommunicationculturewhichmightentailahigheracceptanceof“mixed”speechthaninothercoun-tries.Thus,anexistingsystemoflinguisticvaluesdetermineswhich“linguisticcapital”theknowledgeanduseofoneortheothervarietyconvey(Gumperz1982,Bourdieu1982). However, the fact that languagechoice ishighlyunstable,verydynamicandper-manentlyrenegotiatedamongtheparticipants,suggeststhatweshouldquestionthetraditionalrepresentationsofwhata—monolingualormultilingual—languagecom-petenceis.Onemightwanttocontinuethereflectionintwodirections:

a.Ifweconceivethemultilingualcompetenceasanintegratedwhole,formedbypar-tialcompetencesinallthevarieties(languagesanddialects)thattherepertoireofthemultilingualpersonconsistsof,thenwehavetoincludea“strategiccompetence”(CouncilofEurope2001),i.e.themasteryofexolingualandmultilingualcommuni-cationtechniquesaswehaveobservedabove.Inotherwords,wecontinuehereourpleaforanewlinguisticfocusonthemultilingualspeaker/hearer(cf.Lüdi2004).Wewouldevendaretointerpretthe“perfect”knowledgeofonelanguageasa“par-tialcompetence”.

b.Ifwereject the“essentialist”conceptionof languagethatunderliesmostmodernlinguistictheoriesatleastsinceHerder,thenwewillhavetofocus,onthecontra-ry,onthesituated,locallynegotiateduseofvariablelinguisticresourcesthatdrawupon the multiple repertoires of all participants in the interaction (Lüdi 2006).Communicativecompetencesareextremelysensitivetocontext.Inthelightofnewmodelsthatstressthecollectivedimensionofsocialactionandcognition,theclaimseemsjustifiedthatlinguisticresourcesareconstructed,formattedandimplement-edintheframeworkofconcrete,practical,commonlinguisticactivitiesoftheusers.FollowingFranceschini (1998,1999),PekarekDoehler (2005)andothers,wearesceptical about individualising, context free and autonomous (i.e. from other di-mensionsofsocialcompetence)conceptionsoflanguagecompetence.Thisispar-ticularly important for constructing models of plurilingual communication. Abroadconsensusstartsestablishingitselfthat“thehumanlanguagefacultyhasanendowmentformultilingualism”(Meisel2004).Inthelightofnewresearchresults,thiscannotmeanthepredominantuseofonesinglelanguageatatime.Themobi-lisationoftheparticipantsplurilingualresourceshappensin situ,notconsecutivelybutinonecommonmovement,isfrequentlynotdeterminedinadvance,butself-organised,negotiatedamongtheparticipants.Thelatterputtogetheralltheirpossi-bilities,whichareatthesametimeconstantlyreconfigured.

174 GeorgesLüdi

Inthissense,thedescribedmodelofplurilingualcommunication—whichmightnotbevery “Swiss”, indeed,—can serveasakindofanticipationofmodelsofplurilin-gualinteractiontocopewiththegrowingdiversityoftheEuropeanUnion,inordertofinda“plurilingualanswer”(UmbertoEco)forthecommunicativeproblemsinaworldcharacterisedbygrowingglobalisation.ThecolloquiumorganisedbyEUCOR,theassociationof theUpperRhineuniversitiesStrasbourgandMulhouse (French),KarlsruheandFreiburgimBreisgau(German)andBasle(Swiss),clearlypointsinthisdirection. Theseconsiderations,ofcourse,openthepathtomanynewandintriguingques-tions. Let us just mention one: An increasing number of universities throughoutEuroperequirestudentstoshowcompetencesinforeignlanguages,usuallyintheformoflanguagecertificates.Howdoesanewconceptionofplurilingualcompetencesandplurilingualinteractionbecomecompatiblewiththisrequirement?Letus,firstofall,reconsideracoupleofstatementsoftheCommon European Framework for languages:

a.Thecompetenceinaforeignlanguageisnever“perfect”,butcanbesituatedonadif-ferentiatedscalegoingfrombeginnerstoindependentusers.

b.Theframeworkencouragesprofilingofobjectivesandcompetences,whichconsti-tutetheanswertoverymanydifferentcommunicativeneeds.Aresearchermayforexampleonlyneedcomprehensionknowledge.Hewillhave toanswerquestionslike:Whatsortofthingswillhebelisteningtoorreading?Underwhatconditionswillhehavetoact?Whatknowledgeoftheworldorofanotherculturewillheneedtocallon?(Councilof Europe2001,44).TheresponsecouldforexamplebethatthispersonneedslisteningandreadingcompetenceattheB2levelinhisorhersci-entificdiscipline,butthattheotherskillsmightbesituatedatamuchlowerlevel.

However,evenif languagecoursesmoreandmoreaimatobjectivesofthekindwejust suggested, exams and certificates more scarcely do so. This is particularly truefororalinteraction.Indeed,“thefocusontheabilityofthecandidateinconvention-alapproacheswithinsecondlanguageassessmentviewsthecandidateinastrangelyisolated light; it isheorshewhoheldtobear thebuntof theresponsibility for theperformance;inthissensetheinevitablegapbetweenatestandreallifeappearsun-usuallystark.”(McNamara1997:452)Researchontherelationbetweeninterviewerstyleandcandidateperformanceinoralexams(BrownandHill2003)shedslightontheparticularcontextsensitivityoforalskills.Ifoneaddstoallthattheplurilingualcharacteroftheworkplaceinteractionswehaveobserved(morethantwolanguages),thefrequentdeviationsfromthe“receptivemultilingualism”model(oralproductioninforeignlanguages)andtheparticularawarenessfortheinstabilityofthesituation,itseemsobviousthatthereisnosecureproceduretotestthecapacityforsuccessfulplurilingualcommunicationasitwasdescribedabove,andthatthebestwayforac-quiringitislearningbydoing.

TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication 175

Notes

1. ForfurtherdetailsonthelinguisticlandscapeofSwitzerlandin2000seeLüdi,Werlenetal.(2005).

2. SeeforexampletheworkofSamuelSpycher(2004)onSMScommunicationandof BeatSiebenhaar(n.d.)onSwisschatrooms.ForearlyoverviewsalreadyRis(1990)andSiebenhaar(1996).

3. TheresultsoftheSwissNationalCensusshowthattheuseofSwissGermancontinuedin-creasingbetween1990and2000,namelyintheeducationalsystems,butthatthemedialdiglos-sia(onespeaksSwissDialectandwritesStandardGerman)isbeingweakened(Werlen2004).

4. http://www.romsem.unibas.ch/sprachenkonzept(lastvisitedJanuary,30th2007)

5. Onemightcall thismodelanothermanifestationofamonolingual ideologyinthesensethatacceptingtounderstandanotherlanguagecouldbetheconditionforrefusingtospeakitactively.

6. In2000,i.e.twoyearsbeforethemerger,only15.0%oftheworkingpopulationofLaufeneverusedEnglishatworkandevenonly6.7%ofthoseworkinginDelémont.Forthebankingsectortherespectivefigureswere19.4%and11.5%respectivelyinthetwotownshipscomparedwithanoverallrateofuseofEnglishof51.8%and42.2%inthebankingsectoroftherespectivelanguageregion.

References

Bates,E.2003.Naturaeculturanellinguaggio.InFrontiere della biologia. Il cervello di Homo sapiens,E.Bizzi,P.CalissanoandV.Volterra(eds),241–65.Rome:IstitutodellaEnciclopediaItalianafondatadaGiovanniTrecanniS.p.A.

Berthoud,A.-C. ,Grin,F.andLüdi,G.2005.La gestion de la diversité linguistique dans des con-textes professionnels et institutionnels.EUprojectproposal.

Bourdieu,P.1982.Langage et pouvoir symbolique. Paris:Fayard.Brown,A.andHill,K.1998.InterviewerstyleandcandidateperformanceintheIELTSoralin-

terview.IELTS Research Reports1:1–19.Canale,M.andSwain,M.1980.Theoreticalbasesofcommunicativeapproachestosecondlan-

guageteachingandtesting.Applied Linguistics 1:1–47.CDIP1975.Recommandationsetdécisionsconcernantl’introduction,laréformeetlacoord-

inationdel’enseignementdeladeuxièmelanguenationalepourtouslesélèvespendantlascolaritéobligatoire,30octobre1975.

CDIP1986.Pointsderencontre:enseignementdeslanguesétrangèresàlacharnièredesscolar-itésobligatoireetpostobligatoire,30octobre1986.

Councilof Europe2001.Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

DeStefani,E. ,Miezcnikowski,J.andMondada,L.2000.Könnensievielleichtkurzübersetzen:lesactivitésde traductiondansdes réunionsde travailplurilingues.Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée 5(1):25–42.

176 GeorgesLüdi

Faerch,C.andKasper,G.1983a.Plansandstrategiesinforeignlanguagecommunication.InStrategies in Interlanguage Communication, C.FaerchandG.Kasper(eds),20–60.London:Longman.

Faerch, C. and Kasper, G. 1983b. On identifying communication strategies in interlanguageproduction.InStrategies in Interlanguage Communication, C.FaerchandG.Kasper(eds),210–38.London:Longman.

Franceschini,R.1998.Code-switchingandthenotionofCodein linguistics:proposals foradual focusmodel. InCode-Switching in Conversation. Language, interaction and identity, P.Auer(ed.),51–74.London:Routledge.

Franceschini,R.1999.Italiano di contatto: Parlanti occasionali e riattivazioni di conoscenze non focalizzate. HabilitationBasle:PhilosophischeFakultätderUniversitätBasel.

Gal,S.1986.Linguisticrepertoire.InSociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society,U.Ammonetal.(eds),286–92.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter.

Grosjean,F.1985.Thebilingualasacompetentbutspecificspeaker-hearer.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural development 6:467–77.

Grosjean,F.2001.Thebilingual’slanguagemodes.InLanguage Processing in the Bilingual, J.L.Nicol(ed.),1–25.Oxford:Blackwell.

Gumperz,J.1982.Discourse Strategies. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Heiniger,M.S.2004.La gestion du plurilinguisme dans une entreprise: la perspective des acteurs.

Basle:RomanischesSeminar(finalpaper).Kolde,G.1981.Sprachkontakte in gemischtsprachigen Städten. Vergleichende Untersuchungen über

Voraussetzungen und Formen sprachlicher Interaktion verschiedensprachiger Jugendlicher in den Schweizer Städten Biel/Bienne und Fribourg/Freiburg i.Ue. Wiesbaden:Steiner.

Lüdi,G.1989.Aspectsdelaconversationexolingue.InActes du xviiie Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes. Université de Trèves (Trier) 1986, T. VII.D.Kremer(ed.),405–24.Tübingen:Niemeyer.

Lüdi,G.2003.Code-switchingandunbalancedbilingualism.InBilingualism: Beyond basic prin-ciples. Festschrift in honour of Hugo Baetens Beardsmore.J.-M.Dewaele,A.HousenandLiWei(eds),174–88.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Lüdi,G.2004.Pourunelinguistiquedelacompétencedulocuteurplurilingue.Revue française de linguistique appliquée IX(2):125–35.

Lüdi, G. 2005a. Code-Switching/Sprachwechsel. In Sociolinguistics — Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society.2ndcompletelyrevisedandextendededn. ,Vol.I. ,U.Ammonetal.(eds),341–50.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter.

Lüdi, G. 2005b. «Parler bilingue» et discours littéraires métissés. Les marques transcodiquescomme traces d’expériences interculturelles. In: Des cultures en contact. Visions de l’Amérique du Nord francophone, J. Morency, H. Destrempes, D. Merkle and M. Pâquet(eds),173–200.Québec:EditionsNotabene.

Lüdi,G.2005c.L’unilinguismeest-ilcompatibleavecladémocratie?Romanistische Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 29:89–107.

Lüdi,G.2006Multilingualrepertoiresandtheconsequencesforlinguistictheory.In:Beyond Misunderstanding. Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication. K.BührigandJ.D.tenThije(eds),11–42.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Lüdi,G.andHeiniger,M.S.2005.L’organisationdelacommunicationauseind’unebanquerégionalebilingue.Sociolinguistica 19:82–96.

TheSwissmodelofplurilingualcommunication 177

Lüdi,G. ,Py,B.etal.1995.Changement de langage et langage du changement. Aspects linguis-tiques de la migration interne en Suisse. Lausanne:L’Aged’Homme.

Lüdi,G.andPy,B.2003.Etre bilingue. 3rdedn.Berne:Lang.Lüdi,G. ,Werlen,I.etal.2005.Le paysage linguistique en Suisse. [StatistiquedelaSuisse.Recen-

sementfédéraldelapopulation2000].Neuchâtel:OfficeFédéraldeStatistique.McNamara,T.1997.‘Interaction’insecondlanguageperformanceassessment:Whoseperform-

ance?Applied Linguistics18(4):446–66.Meisel,J.2004.Thebilingualchild.InThe Handbook of Bilingualism [BlackwellHandbooksin

Linguistics15], T.K.BhatiaandW.C.Ritchie(eds),91–113.Oxford:Blackwell.Miecznikowski,J.andMondada,L.2001.Commentconstruit-ondesobjetsdesavoirdansdes

réunionsderechercheplurilingues?InComunicare in ambiente professionale plurilingue / Communicating in professional multilingual environments. Atti del Convengo VALS-ASLA, Lugano, 14–16.9.2000, S.Cigada,M.MattheyandS.Gilardoni(eds),217–40.Lugano:Edi-zionidell‘USI.

Milroy,L.andMuysken,P.(eds)1995.One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-disciplinary perspec-tives on code-switching. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Mondada,L.2003.Lasciencepolyglotte:Conditionsetpossibilitésdesinteractionsscientifiquesplurilingues.InLangues et production du savoir. Actes du Colloque de l’Académie Suisse des Sciences Humaines, Lugano, 14.6.2002, 33–42.Bern:SAGW.

Mondada, L. 2004a. La construction du savoir scientifique dans l’interaction plurilingue.Pratiques et représentations langagières dans la construction et la transmission des connais-sances, Cahiers du Français Contemporain 9:15–27.

Mondada,L.2004b.Waysof‘doingbeingplurilingual’ininternationalworkmeetings.InSecond Language Conversations, R.GardnerandJ.Wagner(eds),27–60.London:Continuum.

Noyau,C.andPorquier,R.(eds)1984.Communiquer dans la langue de l’autre. Paris:UniversitédeParisVIII.

Pekarek,S.1999.Leçons de conversation: Dynamiques de l’interaction et acquisition de compéten-ces discursives. Neuchâtel:Delachaux&Niestlé.

Pekarek Doehler, S. 2005. De la nature située des compétences en langue. In: Repenser l’enseignement des langues: Comment identifier et exploiter les compétences? J.-P.Bronckart,E.BuleaandM.Puoliot(eds),41–68.Villeneuved’Ascq:PressesuniversitairesduSepten-trion.

Py, B. and Alber, J.-L. 1985. Interlangue et conversation exolingue. Université de Lausanne. Cahiers du Département des langues et des sciences du langage 1:30–47.

Ris,R.1990.DialektologiezwischenLinguistikundSozialpsychologie.InLa Suisse face à ses langues — Die Schweiz im Spiegel ihrer Sprachen,J.-P.Vouga(ed.),40–9.Aarau:Sauerlän-der.

Schegloff,E.A.1982.Discourseasaninteractionalachievement:someusesof<uhhuh>andotherthingsthatcomebetweensentences.InAnalysing Discourse: Text and talk, D.Tannen(ed.),71–93.WashingtonD.C.:GeorgetownUniversityPress.

Schutz,A.1967[1962].Collected PapersI:The problem of social reality. TheHague:Nijhoff.Siebenhaar,B.1996.DasVerhältnisvonMundartenundStandardspracheinderdeutschsprachi-

gen Schweiz. www.germanistik.unibe.ch/siebenhaar/pdf/Siebenhaar_Mda_Std_unv1996.pdf.

Siebenhaar,B.(n.d.):DassprachlicheNormenverständnisinmundartlichenChaträumeninderSchweiz.www.germanistik.unibe.ch/siebenhaar/pdf/SiebenhaarChatGL.pdf.

178 GeorgesLüdi

Spycher,S.2004.‘Ischribdrdeno...’–SchweizerdeutscheUmgangsformeninderSMS-Kommu-nikation.Networx 36:3–33.http://www.mediensprache.net/networx/networx-36.pdf.(lastvisitedJanuary,30th2007)

Tomasello, M. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, Cambridge MA: HarvardUniversityPress.

Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Watts,R.J.andMurray,H.(eds)2001.Die fünfte Landessprache? Englisch in der Schweiz. Zürich:vdfHochschulverlagAGanderETH.

Werlen, I. 2004. Zur Sprachensituation der Schweiz mit besonderer Berücksichtigung derDiglossieinderDeutschschweiz.Bulletin VALS/ASLA79:2–30.

WetzelKranz,B.2000.MehrsprachigefachsprachlicheKommunikationamBeispieldertrina-tionalenIngenieurausbildungamOberrhein.Lecturegivenatthecolloquium“Kommuni-kationineinermehrsprachigenArbeitswelt”,Lugano,14–16Sept.2000.

chapter7

Receptive multilingualism in business discourses

BettinaDresemannUniversitätErfurt

English is the number one language of business communication today. However,sometimesvariouslanguagesareappliedinonediscourse,whichmayleadtoopaquesequences.Thuscomprehensionofutterancesinalanguagethatwasnotlearntbyoneoftheparticipantsisnecessaryinordertoachievenon-linguisticgoals.Participantsininternationalbusinessencounterscannotrelyontheirlinguisticknowledgealone,buthavetomakeuseofdifferentformsofknowledge.Thisarticlediscussesexamplesofsituationsinwhichcomprehensionhastobeachievedalthoughtheparticipants’lin-guisticknowledgealoneisnotsufficientforthistask.Aqualitative-interpretativeap-proachisusedtoexplainhowparticipantsachievecomprehensionandthecapacitytoactinlinguisticallyopaquesituations.Theexamplesdiscussedaretakenfromacorpusofauthenticbusinessnegotiations.

Keywords:businessnegotiations,Englishaslinguafranca,professionalknowledge

1. Introduction

Today’sglobalisedworldwithitsincreasinglyinternationalmarketsisconstantlyset-tingnewchallengesforcommunication.Communicationcanbecarriedoutinonelan-guageonlyorinvariouslanguages,withorwithoutthehelpofaninterpreter.However,notonlyindividualscanbemultilingual,discoursesalsotendtobemultilingualbe-causeoftenmorethanonelanguageisused.Theseformsofmultilingualismcanbeor-ganisedanduseagreedforms,ortheycandevelopspontaneously,sometimeswithoutaparticipant’sagreement.Thusmultilingualdiscoursecanbeproblematic if the in-terlocutorsdonothavethesamemasteryofthelanguage(s)used.Insituationswherelanguagesareusedwhicharenotmasteredbyoneormoreinterlocutors,opaquesitu-ations(cf.Müller1989)mayarisewiththeresultthatthecommunicativeeffortsbe-come increasinglydemanding.Thusparticipantsneed tomakeuseofvarious strat-egiestocopewiththesesituations. Informsofprofessionaldiscourselikebusinessnegotiations,comprehensionispar-amount.Inmostinstancesofbusinessencounterstoday,thelanguagechosenforcom-municationisEnglish.Yetsituationsariseinwhichotherlanguagesplayadecisiverole.

180 BettinaDresemann

Thereare instances inwhichthespeaker’smothertongue(L1)orthebusinesspart-ner’snationallanguageisused.Althoughspeakerssometimesdonotknowtheirin-terlocutor’sL1,theyarestillabletoreactorinteractinthesesituations.Inthispaperexamplesfrombusinessencounterswillbeusedtodiscusshowparticipantssucceedintheirnon-linguisticaimseventhoughtheymaynotknowthelanguagethatisbeingused.Therewillbe furtherdiscussionas tohowparticipantscompensate fora lackoflinguistic(i.e.mainlylexicalandsemantic)knowledgeandhowcommunicationismadepossible. After a short overview of some aspects of multilingualism and multilingual dis-course,thispaperwilldiscusstwodifferentsituationsinwhichlanguagesareusedthattheparticipantsarenotfamiliarwith.Itwilldiscussformsandfunctionsofmultilin-gualdiscourseaswellasthewaysinwhichcommunicatorscopewiththesituationandachievetheirgoals.

2. Aspectsandfunctionsofmultilingualism

Although some researchers differentiate between multilingualism as a societal phe-nomenonandbilingualism as individualbehaviour, in thispaper the term multilin-gualismisusedtocoverthebehaviourofindividualsincommunicativesituationsinwhichtwoormorelanguagesareapplied.Thatisbecauseinthesituationsdiscussedbelowtwolanguagesarespoken—Englishaslingua franca(ELF)plusthespeaker’sL1,whichisnotknowntothehearer.Soatleastthreelanguagesareinvolved,includingthehearer’sL1,whichinfluencethecommunicativesituation.Thus,theabbreviationL2isnotonlyusedforlanguagesthathavebeenacquiredorlearnedbytheuser—ifthisdifferentiationisatallnecessary—butforanylanguagethatisnottheL1ofthelanguageuserinquestion. Mostresearchinthefieldofmultilingualismhasbeencarriedouton“active”mul-tilingualism, i.e. speechproduction.Themainaspectof interesthasbeengrammar,i.e.morpho-syntax,andthelexicon(cf.Myers-Scotton1997,2002,Lüdi1996,Clyne1997).Here,the“compatibility”oftwolanguagesystemshasattractedmostofthein-terest.Onthepragmaticlevel,code-switching,asarealisationofmultilingualism,hasmostlybeendescribedasameansofestablishingasocialidentity(cf.e.g.HellerandPfaff1997,HolmesandStubbe2004)orachievingaspecificeffect,e.g.beingdramatic(cf.Clyne1997:309). However,whatisrequiredwhendiscussingtheabilityandfunctionsofmultilingualcommunicationistofocusontheinteractionbetweenparticipants(anapproachthatisinlinewithFirthandWagners’demandforanewperspectiveoncommunication;cf.FirthandWagner1997)andbetweenparticipantstogetherwiththeirdifferentkindsofknowledge(e.g.general,linguistic,professional,institutionalknowledge).Theprag-maticfunctionsofdifferent(speech)actionsneedtobeconsideredwheninterpretingboththeirproductionandtheirreception.

Receptivemultilingualisminbusinessdiscourses 181

Fewresearchershaveactually triedtoexplain theprocessesandconditionsofre-ceptive multilingualism.1 An exception is Zeevaert (2004, this volume), who de-scribestheabilityofScandinavianspeakerstointerpretdiscoursesequencesinotherScandinavian languages.Yet in Zeevaert’s data, the hearers were actually preparedtounderstandotherScandinavianlanguages,whichwerenottheirL1,butwere lin-guisticallyrelatedtoit.AccordingtoZeevaert(thisvolume)theabilitytounderstandtheinterlocutor’slanguageiseitherdependentonthelinguisticknowledge(AknowsB’sL1)orontheclosenessofthelanguage,i.e.theirtypologicalsimilarity. Therearesituations,though,inwhichthelanguagesarelesscloselyrelatedandyetonespeakeruseshis/herL1.Thusitisquitedifficulttoactuallydescribemultilingual-ismasapersonalability,especiallywhenitcomestolessproficientspeakers.Itmightbemorefruitfultoshifttheperspectivefromlinguisticknowledgetotheinteractionand to both the non-linguistic and linguistic procedures enabling communication.Thusacommunicativesituationcanbedefined—andevenmoreobjectivelythananindividual—asmultilingualifmorethanonelanguageeitherisappliedorplaysaroleinspeechproductionorincomprehension.AsHouseandRehbein(2004:1)pointout,multilingualcommunicationischaracterisedbythefollowingfeatures:

• Theuseofseverallanguagesforthecommonpurposesofparticipants• Multilingualindividualswhouselanguage(s)torealizethesepurposes• Thedifferentlanguagesystemswhichinteractforthesepurposes• Multilingualcommunicationstructures,whosepurposesmakeindividualsusesev-

erallanguages

Interestingly,accordingtoHouseandRehbein,theuseofdifferentlanguagesisdeter-minedbythe“commonpurposesofparticipants”.Thequestionis,however,whethertheuseofmorethanonelanguageindiscourseisnecessarilydeterminedbythecom-monpurposeorwhetherparticipantstrytotakeadvantageofusingonelanguageinpreferencetoanother. Sofar,encountersinwhichpeoplehadtouselanguagesdifferenttotheirL1ordif-ferentlanguagesinonesituationhaveusuallybeendescribedasintercultural commu-nication.Mostresearchinthefieldofinterculturalcommunicationtakesacriticalviewandregardscommunicativeproblemsasarising from linguisticdeficitsordifferentculturalbackgrounds.However,Loos(1999)e.g.showsthatcommunicationcanbesuccessfuldespitethefactthattheparticipants’linguisticandculturalknowledgemaynotbesufficient.Accordingtohisfindings,interlocutorscancreateacommongroundfortheirinteractionsbyusingcues.2

Although thesecontextualisation cues can,according toGumperz (1982), lead tomisunderstandingsashearersfromdifferentculturalbackgroundsmayinterpretthemdifferently,accordingtoLoos, linguisticreferencestootheroralorwrittentextsareinterpretedascuesindicatinginwhichsocialcontextthespeakerisacting,e.g.abusi-nessnegotiationororganisationalproceduresforstayingatabungalowpark(cf.Loos1999).Thuscommunicationcanbesuccessfulbecausespeakersrefertothesituational

182 BettinaDresemann

contexttoindicatethisreferencetothehearer.EhlichandRehbein(1986)evenassumepatternsofactionininstitutionalisedcontextswhichstructuretheactionsofspeakersandhearersandatthesametimeenabletheinterpretationofactionsonthegroundsofpredeterminedstepsofcommunication. Zeevaert(thisvolume)statesthatbesidesthelinguisticandsituationalknowledge,thehearercanalsorelyonhisgeneralknowledge,bodylanguage,prosodyandhisgen-eralcommunicativecompetencetounderstandthesituation.However,Zeevaertdoesnotdefine“generalcommunicativecompetence”indetail.Thusitishardtodifferenti-atebetweenprosodyandgeneralcommunicativecompetenceasinterpretingprosodymightbeincludedinthelattercategory.Inmyopinion,prosodyformspartofprag-maticcompetence,atleastintypologicallyrelatedlanguages.Allinall,hearerscanrelynotonlyontheirlinguisticknowledgeincommunicativesituations,butalsoontheirgeneralandprofessionalknowledgetomakesenseoftheongoingdiscourse.

3. Businessnegotiations

One typeofdiscourse that is—perhapsmore thanmanyothers—characterisedbyaimsandconditionswhich lieoutside thediscourse itselfarebusinessnegotiations.Thereisnoclear-cuttheoreticaldefinitionofwhatanegotiationis(cf.Wagner1995).However,whatmostdefinitionsofnegotiationshaveincommonistheawarenessoftheinterlocutorsthattheyeitherhaveinterrelatedgoalswhichtheywanttocombinefortheprofitofboth,orthatatleastoneofthemhascontrolovertheotherone’sgoal(Wagner1995,Rehbein2001,1995).WagnerandPetersencallthisspecificsituation,inwhichcooperationindiscourseisrequiredtoreachcompetitivegoals,cooperation under competitive conditions(WagnerandPetersen1993:271). WhileWagner(1995)andWagnerandPetersen(1993)definenegotiationsasadis-coursetypeinitsownright,Rehbein(1995)definesnegotiationsasanauxiliary devicethatcanbeappliedwithinpatternsofaction,e.g.inthe“patternofbuyingandselling”,iftheparticipantscannotproceedinthepatternofactionbecausetheyhavetoachieveagreementfirst(Rehbein1995).WagnerandPetersen(1993),ontheotherhand,de-finebusinessnegotiationsasawholeprocessconsistingofvariousphasesofwhichonlyonephaseiscarriedoutinface-to-faceinteraction.Theyalsoincludetheprep-arationphaseandtheratificationphase.Thesearedistinguishedfromthenegotiationphaseassuch,inwhichdetailssuchasconditionsofdeliveryareclarifiedargumenta-tively(WagnerandPetersen1993:272). Whethernegotiationsareregardedasanauxiliarydeviceoraspeechpattern,patternofaction,languagegameorthelike—thedecisiveaspectisthattheyarecharacterizedbycooperationaswellascompetition.Cooperationexistsfirstandforemostonthecommunicativelevel;otherwisethewholeinteractionwouldnotbepossible.EspeciallyiftheinterlocutorsuseanL2,cooperationisrequiredtoreachcommunicativegoals,e.g.throughagreatertoleranceofnon-standardformsorthroughnegotiationofmeaning.

Receptivemultilingualisminbusinessdiscourses 183

However,theinterlocutors’aimsmightstillbecompetitive.Andthusthewaytheyuselanguage(s)toreachtheirnon-linguisticgoalsmightbelesscooperative.

4. Languagechoice

IftheinterlocutorsdonotshareanL1,theymightchoosetorelyonaninterpreterorintermediator.Inmostencounters,especiallyinbusiness,however,nointerpreterismadeuseof.Participantsusuallychoosetousealingua francainstead.ThelanguagetheychooseinmostcasestodayisEnglish,i.e.EnglishasaLingua Franca(ELF),whichmeansEnglishusedbynon-nativespeakers,whoonlyapplythislanguageforaspecif-icpurpose (cf.MeierkordandKnapp2002:10).Althoughparticipantsdonothavecompletemasteryofthelanguage(Knapp2003),theyareusuallycapableofachievingunderstandingandcarryingoutnegotiationsinEnglish. Thusifotherlanguagesareused,thequestioniswhythisissoandwhatthecom-municativepurposeorthespeaker’smotivationis.Anotherquestionishowinterlocu-torsreactandhowtheymakesenseofthesituation,i.e.whichformofbackgroundknowledgeisactivatedandenablestheir(inter)actions.Toinvestigatethis,itisneces-sarytogobeyondtheparticipants’observableverbalandnon-verbalbehaviour.Oneapproachthattakestheparticipants’knowledgeaswellastheirinstitutionalrolesintoconsiderationistheapproachofFunctionalPragmatics(cf.EhlichandRehbein1986).Itallowsforconclusionsaboutthedifferentproceduresandformsofknowledgewhichenable the continuation of communication. Thus some conclusions will be madeabout thewayparticipants inmultilingualbusinessdiscoursesprocess informationandmakeuseofvarioussourcesofknowledgetotakepartintheongoingdiscourseeventhoughtheirsemanticknowledgealonedoesnotenablethemtodoso.

5. Thedata

ThedatainthispaperwererecordedforaPhDprojectonthefeaturesof EnglishasaLingua Franca(Dresemannforthcoming),whichconcentratesontheuseofELFinbusinessnegotiations.Theexamplesdonotformpartoftheprojectitself.Rather,theyareaninterestingby-productastheyrevealthatthelanguageactuallyusedinthene-gotiationsisnotonlyEnglish.TheuseofotherlanguagesbesidesEnglishwasquiteunexpected,especiallyas the interlocutorsdidnotknowtheirbusinesspartners’re-spectiveL1’s. Theexamplesaretakenfromtwodifferentbusinessencounters.Inbothencounters,alabelmanagerofaGermanrecordcompany,S1mGr,isinvolvedinnegotiationswithdifferent(potential)businesspartnersaboutdistributingmusictitlesinGermany.Allspeakersarenon-nativespeakersofEnglishandhavedifferentL1’s,namelyGerman,Norwegian,andFrenchasindicatedbytheabbreviationsGr,Nr,Frinthespeaker’sre-

184 BettinaDresemann

spectiveabbreviation.Theencounterswereaudio-recordedattwointernationalmusictradefairsinGermany.Theyweretranscribedinarelationofapproximately1:20usingtheconventionsofHIAT23withsomeadditions(seeappendix).

6. Multilingualdiscourse

Lexicalinferences

AccordingtoWagnerandPetersen’sdefinition,thepreparationofanegotiationformspartof thenegotiationprocess (WagnerandPetersen1993:272f.).So searching forcontactdataofpossiblebusinesspartnersonawebsiteispartofthepreparationphaseandthusofthenegotiationinthewidersense.Andtheownerofthewebsitecanbeexpectedtoprovidethenecessaryinformationforthepotentialbusinesspartner.Thus,thewebsitecanberegardedasformingpartof thediscourse—althoughinawidersense—betweenpotentialbusinesspartners. However,webpagesarenotalwaysinEnglish.Sometimestheyarecreatedinthenationallanguage.Inthesesituationstherearenocommunicativehints,whichthein-terlocutorusuallygivesininteraction,suchasprosodyornon-verbalbehaviour.Thusthecommunicativeproblemshavetobesolvedsolelybytherecipient’srelianceonhisorherownknowledge. Example1showshowS2fFr,anativespeaker(NS)ofFrenchandheadofdistribu-tionofaFrenchrecordcompany,tellsS1mGrhowshetriedtocontacthim.Sheusedhiscompany’swebsitealthoughitwasonly inGermanat that time,a languageshedoesnotknow.Duringtheirmeetingatthetradefair,sheexplainsherproblemsbyidentifyingthecorrectcontactperson.Althoughshewasabletoidentifythecorrectdepartment,shedidnotsendherfirstemailtoS1mGr,buttohisboss,Achim.

Example 1. Inferencedistribution

(665) S1mGr Imean/you,youapproachedAchim,my/–heisactuallytheheadofthedepartment–youapproachedhim,andheforwardedyouremailtome.

(666) S1mGr Yeah·...(673) S2fFr Ehm((1s))andeh/well,ehmIapproachedhim…(674) S2fFr Honestly,Ijustpickedup,youknow,thenameMeyerand…(675) S1mGr Iknow´.(676) S1mGr Yeah,Ireceivealotofthosemails,( )…(677) S2fFr Anditwaswritten[“Vertrieb”],andIthought:“Hm¯[Vertrieb,probably

distribution.” [vεrtrɪeb [vεrtrɪeb

(678) S1mGr Yeah¯((lacht))(679) S2fFr So…(680) S1mGr Yeah,butitwasperfect.

Receptivemultilingualisminbusinessdiscourses 185

S2fFrcontactedS1mGr’scompany.AsS1mGrmentionsinsegment(se)665,shedidnotcontacttherightperson.Here,thecommunicativeprobleminthepreparationphaseshows:S2fFrhadidentifiedthecorrectdepartmentofthecompany,butnotthepersonincharge.However,sheestablishedcontactwithS1mGrthroughhisbossandofferedhimproductsofoneofhermusiclabels.S1mGrexplainsthemisunderstand-ingtoher,obviouslytoletherknowwhyshehastodealwithanotherpersonthantheonesheoriginallycontacted.AfterS1mGrhasmentionedtheproblem,sheexplainswhathadhappened,startingwithsomehesitation(se673)butdoesnotcompleteherutterance. Instead, shestartsanewone inse674with“Honestly”andexplainshersearchingthewebsiteandpickingoutthename.ThusherreactioncanbeseenasanapologyfornotcontactingS1mGr.S1mGr’sreaction,thebackchannel“Iknow”witharisingintonation(se675)andthestatement“Ireceivealotofthoseemails”(se676),isanacceptanceofherapology.Italsoindicatesthatmanyusersofthewebsitefacethesameproblemanddonotcontactthecorrectperson.Italsoshowsthatthewaytheinformationwaspresentedmaynotbethemostlogicaloneasitobviouslyleadstomisunderstandings.However,allinallS2fFrhadachievedheraimassheorganisedameetingwitharepresentativeofthecorrectdepartment. Intherestoftheshortexcerpt,shetellsS1mGrhowshelookedfortheinformationandthencontactedhiscompany,explaininghercommunicativeproblemsandefforts:ShereadtheGermanwebsiteandfoundtheGermanterm“Vertrieb”(Germ.pronun-ciation:/feɑtrip)(se677).Althoughshedidnotknowtheterm,ascanbeseenbyherFrenchpronunciationofitandbythepassiveconstruction“itwaswritten”.Shedoesnotuseanyactivevoicehere,bywhichshedistancesherselffromtheGermanterm.Atthesametimetheverb“written”onlyindicatestheappearanceoftheterm,butgivesnoindicationofanyformofunderstandingitonherside.Inthenextpartoftheutterancesheindicatesthatshehadtoguesswhatitsmeaningwas:theverb“thought”showsthatshetriedtoprocesstheinformationbutwasnotsureaboutitsmeaning;sodoesthe

“Hm”,bywhichsheindicatedherinsecurity.Shethenrepeatsthetermandmentionshersuppositionastoitspossiblemeaning,distribution.Herstatementisweakenedbytheadverb“probably”,whichmakesherhesitationandinsecurityexplicit. TheGermannounVertriebisofGermanicoriginandnotrelatedtotheLatindistri-butioandthusnotrelatedtotheEnglishformdistribution,ahomographoftheFrenchnoun.Sotheformcannothavebeenofmuchhelptoher.However,shefoundthecor-rectdepartment.Asthelinguisticformdidnotindicatethedepartmentshewaslook-ingfor,shemusthaveusedherprofessionalknowledgetosolvetheproblem.Asapro-fessionalsheknowsthatenterprisesindicatethedepartmentsofexternalrelationsontheirwebsites.Soshecanassumethatthe(virtual)interlocutor,thecompanyowningthewebsite,providestheinformationthatisrequired.SooneoftheunitsofS1mGr’scompanygivenonawebsitehadtobethedistributiondepartment.Althoughshedoesnotgiveanyhintastohowsheidentifiedit—beit,e.g. ,byexclusionofotherorgani-sationalunitsgivenorbytheorderinwhichtheyappeared—itwasnotthelinguisticformwhichenabledhertoidentifythedepartmentshewaslookingfor.

186 BettinaDresemann

Rather,acombinationoftwotypesofknowledgehelpedheridentifythenecessaryinformation.Firstly,herprofessionalknowledgeabouttheorganisationofcompaniesand secondly her discourse knowledge that companies usually provide the contactpersonandemailaddressonawebsiteforpossiblebusinesspartners.Sohere,commu-nicationisaformofcombiningprofessionalanddiscourseknowledge,i.e.thecultur-allyandprofessionallydetermineduseofwebsites,andinferringthemeaningoftheforeignlanguagedatashefound. Besides,shehadahightoleranceofambiguitybecauseshewasnotsurethatherin-ferencewascorrect,butdecidedtoruntheriskofcontactingthewrongdepartment.Andalthoughshesenttheemailtotheheadofthedepartmentandnottothepersonincharge,hercommunicativeeffortsweresuccessfulbecauseshereachedheroverallgoal,meetingarepresentativeofthecompanytoestablishanewbusinesscontact.

7. CodeSwitching

7.1 CodeSwitchingforSmallTalk

Codeswitchingisaphenomenonthatmayalsoappearinbusinessconversation,forexampleifmorethantwospeakersareinvolvedandtwoofthemsharethesameL1.Examples2–4aretakenfromanegotiationinwhichthreespeakers,S1mGr,S2mNr,Sm3Grareinvolved.S1mGrandS2mNr,theownerofaNorwegianrecordlabelandpromotionmanagerat aNorwegian recordcompany, are involved inanegotiationaboutthedistributionofS2mNr’sproductsinGermany.IncontrasttoRehbein’saswellastoWagnerandPetersen’smodel,theratificationhasalreadybeendone,i.e.thecontractshavebeensigned,butS2mNrandS2mGrmeettonegotiatespecificdetails,suchashowtoimportthegoodstoGermany.Theyhavemetatatradefairandhavebeenjoinedbyanotherlabelmanager,S3mGr,oneofS1mGr’scolleagues,whoisnotinvolvedinthedeal.Duringtheirencounter,sequencesofnegotiationalternatewithsequencesofsmalltalk. Before thesequenceshowninexample2,S1mGrandS2mNrdiscussedawayoftransporting the Norwegian discs to Germany, e.g. with the help of transportationcompanies,butdidnotreachanagreement.Inexample2,S3mGrstartshisleave-tak-ingwhilststillusingEnglish.SuddenlyheswitchestoGermanandopensasidedis-coursewithhisGermancolleagueS1mGraboutworkingatthecompany’sfairstand. Startinghisleave-takingwithhisannouncementinse827,S3mGrchangesthetopic.Inse828hegivesthereasonforhisleaving:havingto“workbehindthecounter”,refer-ringtoastandatthetradefair.AlthoughS2mNrtakesupthenewtopicinse831withhisutterance:“Yeah,youhaveastand”,S3mGrswitchestoGermanandasksS1mGrwhetherhehasalreadyworkedatthestand(se832).S1mGroffersabriefanswertothequestioninGerman(se834),onlyconfirmingthathehasdonesoalready.

Receptivemultilingualisminbusinessdiscourses 187

Inse835,S3mGrgivesabackchanneltoS1mGr,andthenheaskshiminGermanhowhelikedit(se836).S1mGrtakesuptheconversationinGermanandtellsS3mGrabouthismeetingawomanattached tooneof theirpartnercompaniesduringhisstand duty. The two continue the small talk topic, and then S3mGr says good-byetoS1mGr(shortconversationinGerman,notgivenhere),beforeturningtoS2mNragaintosaygood-bye.However,heactuallydoesnotleaveatthispoint,butswitchestoEnglishagainandstayswiththetwo.HestartsanothersidediscourseinGermanwithS1mGrlater(seebelow). AlthoughtheconversationbetweenthethreemenoriginallytakesplaceinEnglishandthetopichasbeenintroducedinEnglishandtakenupbyS2mNr,S3mGrswitch-estoGerman.S2mNr,however,doesnotspeakGerman.Müller(1989)describesse-quenceswhereonepartyisnotcapableofunderstandingtheongoingdiscoursewith-outthehelpofaninterpreteras“opaque”sequences. Here,thesequenceisopaquetoS2mNr,andnoneofthetwoGermansoffersatrans-lation.ThusS2mNrisconsciouslyexcludedfromtheongoingdiscourse.However,thetopicseemsratherirrelevant,andthesequencecanberegardedassmall talk.Yet itobviously isan interestingsmall talktopictothetwomen,whichmighthavebeenof interest toS2mNr, too.Here,codeswitching isusedtoexcludeS2mNralthoughthereseemstobenoreasonfordoingso.Yetlateronintheencounter,S3mGrswitchestoGermanagainforarelevantmatter.Thusthesidesequencehere,inwhichS2mNrdoesnotinvolve,canberegardedasakindof“testingsituation”,whereS3mGrtriesto find out whether S2mNr knows German. As he obviously does not, S3mGr canuseGermanforastrategicsidediscoursewithhiscolleagueS1mGrandkeepthetalkopaquetotheotherpartyinthenegotiation(seeexample3).

Example 2. stand

(827) S3mGr IthinkIhavetogo,inacoupleofminutes.(828) S3mGr Ihavetoworkbehindthecounter.(829) S2mNr Yeah.(830) S3mGr Foronehour.(831) S2mNr Yeah,youhaveastand.(832) S3mGr <HastduschondeinenStanddienstgehabt?>{Haveyoudoneyourstand

duty?}(833) S2mNr <Ihaven’thadtimetogoandseeallthestandsyet.>(834) S1mGr Ja,ja.{Yes,yes}.(835) S3mGr Ja·(836) S3mGr Istdasokay?{Isitokay?}(837) S1mGr Ja,ichhabda[neganznette••FrauvonNatakennengelernt].

[lachend(laughing){Yeah,wellImetquiteanicewomanfromNata}.(838) S1mGr ((talkingtoS3mGrinGerman;smalltalk,leavetaking;1min,15sec))(839) S3mGr Nicetomeetyou.(840) S2mNr Yeahitwasreallynicemeetingyou.

188 BettinaDresemann

7.2 StrategicalCodeSwitching

Inexample3,codeswitchingisusedinasituationwherethetopicisofrelevancetoS2mNr,whoisagainexcludedthroughlanguagechoice.ItisagainS3mGrwhoswitch-estoGerman,butthistimetoaddressastrategicallyrelevanttopic.S1mGrandS2mNrarediscussingthedistributionoftheNorwegiangoodsviaanothercountry.S3mGraddressesS1mGrinGermanandsuggestsusingexistingbusinessconnectionstoim-porttheproductsfromNorway.TheideawasbroughtupbyS1mGrearlierintheen-counter.However,S2mNrdidnotfavourthisoption.Theydidnotdecideonthemat-ter,butchangedthetopicthen.Here,thetopicisonthescheduleagain. S3mGr’s suggestion is to use their business relation to the distribution companyRighthandtoorganiseforthetransportoftheNorwegianCD’stoGermany.RighthandimportsgoodsfromS2mNr’scompanybesidesdealingwithS1mGrandS3mGr’scom-pany,too.However,S2mNrisnotsatisfiedwithRighthand’swork,asbecameappar-entearlierinthediscourse.S2mNrandS1mGrdidnotdecideonthataspectalthoughS3mGrarguedinfavourofRighthandatthatparticulartime.HereS3mGrbringsthetopicupagain,butthistimeinGerman:

In846S1mGrtriestopostponethedecisionbyshowinghiswillingnesstofindacom-promisewithS2mNrasisindicatedbytheuseof“we”intheformulation“wehavetoseehowwecan...”.HeisabouttostartanewtopicwhenS3mGrinterruptshiminse346tosuggestinGermanthatheuseRighthandfororganisingthetransport.S1mGrdoesnotfavourtheideaascanbeseenbyhisnegative, thoughincomplete,answer

“No,thatis…”(se848).However,S3mGrdoesnotgiveupandsupportshisownsug-gestionbystatingitwasnoproblem(se849).Heseemstobequiteconvincedofhisideaandgivesareasoninthenextsegment.However,S1mGrisnotwillingtodiscussthematterashisnoncommittalanswer“We’llsee…”(se851)shows. Atthispoint,S2mNrtriestoengageintheconversation,buthisstart“It’sup…”isutteredsimultaneouslywithS1mGr’snextutterance.Sohistwointerlocutorsseemnottohearhim,andthereisnoreactiontohisattempt.Hewillrepeathisutterancelateron,leavingthedecisiontoS1mGr(cf.se876below).However,atthispoint,thetwoGermanspeakerscontinuetodiscussthepossibility.S3mGrsuggestsS1mGrpassthe

Example 3. Righthand

(846) S1mGr Sowehaveto,wehavetoseehowwecan…(847) S3mGr KannstjamitRighthandanfangenzudealen.{Whydon’tyoustartdealing

withRighthand.}(848) S1mGr Nee,dasist…{No,thatis...}(849) S3mGr DasistjakeinProblem.{That’snoproblem.}(850) S3mGr Diehabenjaalle().{Theyhaveallthe()anyway.}(851) S1mGr Ja,müssenwirmalgucken,wiewirdasmachen.{We’llseehowwe’regonna

doit.}(852) S2mNr It’sup,it’sup…

Receptivemultilingualisminbusinessdiscourses 189

ordersontohim.HediscussestheinternalprocedureswithS1mGruntiltheyarein-terruptedbyS2mNr,whoasksS3mGrabouthisresponsibilitiesconcerningmusicla-bels(se862):

S3mGrtriestoconvinceS1mGrofhisideaofusingRighthandfortransportingthegoodstoGermany.HisinterestinthematterisnotquiteclearasheisnotinvolvedinthedealwiththeNorwegianpartnerandS1mGrisinchargeofthematter.However,heisinfavourofusingthatcontactandofcombiningS1mGr’sorderswithhisown(se857).Hehimselfpasseshisordersontoanothercolleague,namelyGuido(se859).HeseemstoconvinceS1mGr,whoagreeshewouldadministerthelabelshimself,asS3mGrdoes.Andtheirothercolleague,Guido,wouldsendtheorderstoRighthand(se859).AtthepointwhereS1mGrseemstogiveinandagreetoS3mGr’sproposal,S2mNrasksS3mGrwhetherhetakescareofallthelabels(se862),correctlyassuminganegativeanswer,asthenegativeverbformshows. At this point he interrupts the conversation. He indicates that he knows what isgoingonbydrawingaconclusionaboutS3mGr’stasks(se862).Herunstheriskofhavingmisinterpretedthediscourse.However,byhisinterruptingthetalkatthede-cisivepoint,he regainshis influence in theongoingdecisionprocess.Heshifts thetopicfromthecooperationtothedifferentlabelsS3mGrisinchargeof(followingseg-ments;notgivenhere).Thenheendsthetopicinse875witha“Yeah.”andturnstoS1mGr.Heendsthediscussioninse876. Insteadofstartinganother“round”inthenegotiationprocess,he leavesthedeci-siontoS1mGr.However,heregainshisinfluencebyinterruptingthetwoandbyhand-ingthedecisionovertoS1mGr.

Example 4. Procedures

(852) S2mNr <It’sup,it’sup>…(853) S1mGr <Esgehtjaauch>dannauchnurumdie/umdenKontakt.{It’sonlyaboutthe

contactanyway.}(854) S1mGr Esistjadaseine,dieWarenbestellung.{Thatistheonething,theorders.}(855) S1mGr ( )…(856) S1mGr Ja,dasgingeschon.{Yeah,itwouldbepossible}.(857) S3mGr Ja,dusagstuns,wasbestelltwerdenmuß.{Yeah,youtelluswhathastobe

ordered.}(858) S3mGr Ichmein,derGuidobestelltsowasfastimmerbeiRighthand.{Imean,Guido

almostalwaysordersthosethingsatRighthand}.(859) S3mGr DerbestelltdannauchmeinenKrammit,aberichhabtrotzdemsehrviel

KontaktdirektzuYCK,weilYCKmirdannauchdie(dieLabels ),dieInfosrüberschickt.{Healsoordersmystuff,butIstillhavealotofdirectcontacttoYCKbecauseYCKthensendsmethe,(thelabels ),theinformation.}

(860) S3mGr Weilanlegenundsotuichallesselbst.{BecausethecreatingandsoonIdomyself}.

(861) S1mGr Daswürdeichdannhalt<auchmachen>.{Iwoulddothatmyself,too}.(862) S2mNr <Youare>,youarenotdoingallthelabel,right?

190 BettinaDresemann

AlthoughheisnotabletoexpresshimselfinGerman,S2mNrisabletofollowthecon-versationanddrawtheconclusionthatS3mGrisonlyinchargeofpartofthelabels.Certainlytheexplicitmentioningofthecompanyinse859provedtohavebeenusefulinthiscase.Itmusthaveservedasatying(cf.Loos1999,Firth1990),whichconnectedtheGermansequencetothenegotiationofimportproceduresmentionedearlierinthediscussion.Anotheraspectwasthefactthattheproblemhadbeendiscussed,butnoagreementhadbeenfound.S2mNrknowsthatitisoneoftheimportantaspectsofthenegotiationstilltobesettled.Sohisdiscourseknowledgehelpedhimtointerprettheotherparticipants’actions. However, the exact topic—using Righthand as a link between Norway andGermany—wasestablishedinS3mGr’sutterance(se847;example3)inGerman.SoS2mNrmusthavebeenabletoconcludethetopicbeforebeingabletofollowthecon-versation and interrupt it at a point at which a decision is about to be taken with-outhim(se861).Theutteranceitselfcontainsthetwofollowinghintsservingasty-ingsonthelexicallevel:firstly,thenameRighthandandsecondly,theGermanverbdealen.Dealen is a loanword inGerman,herecarrying theendingof theGermaninfinitive(-en)becauseitappearsafterthemodalkannst(secondpersonsingular,in-dicative,presenttense,activeofkönnen=can).AsitcontainstheEnglishverbdealasitsroot,itcanbeidentifiedifitissegmentedfromtheGermanending.ThusitislikelythatS2mNridentifiedthetopicwiththehelpofthetwocuesandconcludedthatane-gotiationwasgoingonabouttheproceedingofimportinghisgoodstoGermany.YetatthattimethenegotiationwastakingplacebetweenthetwoGermancolleagueswith-outhim. However, the lexical hints might not have been the only aspects helping S2mNridentifyS3mGr’s intentions.S3mGr’sutterance“Kannst jamitRighthandanfangenzudealen.” (se847) isaproposal.Thus,S2mNrmusthave identifiedthe illocution,presumablyby theprosodyof theutterance. In two typologically related languageslikeNorwegianandGerman,theprosodicpatternsandtheformsofspeechactsareoftenquitesimilar.SopresumablyS3mGr’sutterancewascomprehensibletoS2mNrbecause he combined the cues with the speech act, a proposal, which he identifiedthroughitsprosody.Heusedhisprofessionalknowledgeaboutthedifferentcompa-niesandtheprocedures.Addinghisdiscourseknowledge—thefactthatnodecisionaboutthedeliveryoftheproductstoGermanyhadbeentaken—heascertainedwhatthecontentmightbeand,whatismore,hecametoacorrectconclusionastotheprag-maticfunctionofthesidediscoursecarriedoutinGerman.ThusthecombinationofthedifferenttypesofknowledgecompensatedforthelackofknowledgeofGerman.

Example 5.

(876) S2mNr ((2s))Yeah,yeah,yeah,it’seh•it’suptoyou.

Receptivemultilingualisminbusinessdiscourses 191

Andhisabilitytoengageinaconversationwithoutmasteringthelanguageinuseena-bledS2mNrtostandhisgroundandregainthefloor,andtherebyhisinfluenceinthedecisionmakingprocessthatwasgoingon.

8. Conclusion

Although English certainly is the main language in most international business en-countersnowadays,masteryofthislanguageisnotsufficienttoachievenon-linguis-ticgoalsinbusiness.Thereareinstancesinwhichtheabilitiestounderstandanotherlanguageandtointerprettheongoingsituationareimportant.Theseinstancesareofdifferentkinds.Theymaybeunintendedortheymayservestrategicpurposes,e.g.ifoneparticipantwantstoexcludeanotherparticipantformtheongoingdiscourse.Asshown in theanalysesabove, thehearercancompensate fora lackof linguistic, i.e.mainly lexicalandsemanticknowledge,byusingelementsofthetalkastyingsandcues,whichenablehimorhertorelatetheutterancetothesituation,e.g.abusinessnegotiation.Furthermore,discourseknowledgemayenabletheinterpretationoftheutteranceincombinationwithinstitutional,professionalandgeneralknowledge.Inordertointerpretproblematicsituations,itisfirstandforemosttheconcludingofthepragmaticfunctionofanutteranceorbehaviourthatisdecisive.Forthecomprehen-sion of pragmatic functions and speaker’s intentions, linguistic knowledge of otherlanguagescanbehelpful.However,ifthisknowledgeisnotgivenornotsufficient,theinterpretationofaspeaker’sintentionwiththehelpofotherformsofknowledge,e.g.pragmaticknowledge,isanindispensablemeansinbusinessencounters. Thustheterm“passive languageuse”,asreceptive languageuseisoftencalled, isperhapsnothelpfultodescribecomprehensionoflanguagesinmultilingualcommu-nication.Itmightactuallybemisleadingastheheareractivelyneedstodecodemes-sages,purposesandintentionstobeabletointerpretanongoinginteraction.Andthelessahearerknowsthelanguagethatisused,i.e.itslexis,syntaxandsemantics,themorehe/shehastorelyonotherformsofknowledge,suchaspragmaticknowledge,generalknowledgeorprofessionalknowledgetointerpretthesituation.Sotheunder-lyingmentalprocessesaremoredemandingwhenitisnotpossibleforthehearertodecodethemessageonitslexicalorsemanticlevel. Allinall,thecombinationofdifferenttypesofknowledgeandthetrustinone’sownabilitytointerpretthesituationaccordinglyleadtocommunicativecompetence.Thiscommunicativecompetenceisessential,especiallywhenthelinguisticmeansarenotenoughtohandlethesituation.Thustheabilitytodrawconclusionsfromlinguisticandnon-linguisticcuesandtocombinethemwithotherformsofknowledge,suchaspragmaticandinstitutionalknowledge,makeforasuccessfulcommunicatorinmulti-lingual(business)discourses.

192 BettinaDresemann

Notes

1. For an overview of research of semicommunication and receptive multilingualism seeBraunmüllerandZeevaert(2001).

2. Cf.contextualisation cuesinGumperz(1982).

3. Cf.EhlichandRehbein(1979).

Signsandabbreviationsintranscriptions

/ selfcorrection() notunderstandable;Englishsentencesin{}:translationsofGermanoriginal risingintonation fallingintonation midlevelintonation<> simultaneoustalkS speakerf femalem maleFr FrenchGr GermanNr Norwegianse413 segment413

References

Braunmüller,K.andZeevaert,L.2001.Semikommunikation, rezeptive Mehrsprachigkeit und ver-wandte Phänomene[ArbeitenzurMehrsprachigkeit19].Hamburg:UniversitätHamburg.

Clyne,M.1997.Multilingualism.InThe Handbook of Sociolinguistics,F.Coulmas(ed.),301–14.Oxford:Blackwell.

Dresemann,B.Forthcoming.Features of English as Lingua Franca Communication in Professional Contexts.

Ehlich,K.andRehbein,J.1979.ErweitertehalbinterpretativeArbeitstranskriptionen(HIAT2):Intonation.Linguistische Berichte55:51–75.

Ehlich, K. and Rehbein, J. 1986. Muster und Institution. Untersuchungen zur schulischen Kommunikation.Tübingen:Narr.

Firth,A.1990.Linguafrancanegotiations:Towardsaninteractionalapproach.World Englishes9(3):269–80.

Firth,A.andWagner,J.1997.Ondiscourse,communication,and(some)fundamentalconceptsinSLAresearch.Modern Language Journal81(3):285–300.

Gumperz,J.1982.Discourse Strategies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Heller,M.andPfaff,C.1997.Code-Switching.InKontaktlinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch

zeitgenössischer Forschung. 1. Halbband [HandbücherzurSprach-undKommunikations-

Receptivemultilingualisminbusinessdiscourses 193

wissenschaft12.1],H.Goebletal.(eds),594–609.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.Holmes, J. and Stubbe, M. 2004. Strategic code-switching in New Zealand workplaces: Scaf-

folding,solidarityandidentityconstruction.InMultilingual Communication,J.HouseandJ.Rehbein(eds),155–78.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

House, J. and Rehbein, J. 2004. What is ‘multilingual communication’? In Multilingual Com-munication,J.HouseandJ.Rehbein(eds),1–17.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Knapp, K. 2003. Interpersonale und interkulturelle Kommunikation. In Interkulturelles Management,N.BergemannandA.Sourisseaux(eds),3rded.,109–35.Berlin:Springer.

Loos,E.1999.Erfolgreichedeutsch–niederländischeBetriebskommunikation:WahrheitoderDichtung?WirtschaftsDeutsch International:142–50.

Lüdi,G.1996.Mehrsprachigkeit.InKontaktlinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenös-sischer Forschung. 1. Halbband [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissen-schaft12.1],H.Goebletal.(eds),1.Halbband,233–45.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Meierkord, C. and Knapp, K. 2002. Approaching lingua franca communication. In Lingua Franca Communication,K.KnappandC.Meierkord(eds),9–28.Frankfurt/Main:Lang.

Müller,F.1989.Translationinbilingualconversation:Pragmaticaspectsoftranslatoryinterac-tion.Journal of Pragmatics13:713–39.

Myers-Scotton,C.1997.Code-switching.InThe Handbook of Sociolinguistics,F.Coulmas(ed.),217–37.Oxford:Blackwell.

Myers-Scotton, C. 2002. Contact Linguistics. Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Rehbein,J.1995.InternationalSalesTalk.InThe Discourse of Business Negotiation,K.EhlichandJ.Wagner(eds),67–102.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Rehbein,J.2001.Interculturalnegotiation.InCulture in Communication. Analyses of intercul-tural situations,A.diLuzio,S.GünthnerandF.Orletti(eds),173–207.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Wagner,J.1995.Whatmakesadiscourseanegotiation?InThe Discourse of Business Negotiation,K.EhlichandJ.Wagner(eds),9–36.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Wagner,J.andPetersen,U.1993.ZurDefinitionvonVerhandeln.InInterkulturelle Wirtschafts-kommunikation [Studium Deutsch als Fremdsprache—Sprachdidaktik 9], B.-D. Müller(ed.),2nded.,261–76.Munich:Iudicium.

Zeevaert. L. 2004. Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Ver-ständigung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs[Philologia64].Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

chapter8

Speaker stances in native and non-native English conversation*I+verbconstructions

NicoleBaumgartenandJulianeHouseUniversitätHamburg

Inlinguafrancacommunicationtheparticipantsoperateundertheassumptionofmu-tualintelligibilitydespitethefactthattheyareoftenunabletoknowwhethertheirin-terlocutors’varietyofEnglishinfactprovidesthesamerepertoireoflinguisticexpres-sionandhencethecontexttodecodeutterancesinthesenseintendedbythespeaker.ThearticleinvestigatestheexpressionofspeakerstanceinEnglishL1andEnglishasalinguafranca(ELF)discourse,examininginparticulartheuseof I+verbconstruc-tionsinordertoestablishwhetherEFL(Englishasaforeignlanguage)speakers’talkpatternsofsubjectivitytypicallydifferfromthoseinL1Englishdiscourse.FindingssuggestthatELFdiscoursediffersindeedfromEnglishL1discourseintheuseofverbtypes,speaker-specificpatternsoftheexpressionofstanceandspeakers’preferenceforexpressingprototypicalratherthangrammaticalizedandpragmaticalizedmeanings.

Keywords:linguafranca,mutualintelligibility,English,speakerstance,subjectivity

1. Introduction

Thisarticleexploressubjectivityindiscoursefromthepointofviewoftheconstruc-tionofspeakerstancesbynativeandnon-nativespeakersofEnglishinL1andEnglishasLingua Franca(ELF)conversation.Wewillsuggestonthebasisofourresultsthatsubjectivity in ELF communication—despite the assumption of mutual intelligibil-ity—is often expressed in such a way that it leads to communicative incongruitiescaused by speakers’ different L1s, their respective learner variety, or their sociolin-guisticandculture-specificbackgrounds,ofwhichindividualEFLspeakersmaynotbeaware. Linguisticsubjectivityreferstothewaysinwhichspeakersuselanguagetoexpresstheirperceptions,feelings,opinionsandevaluationsindiscourse.Benveniste(1966/1971),whofirstintroducedthenotionofsubjectivityinlanguage,claimsthattheex-pressionofsubjectivityindiscourseisthelinguisticreflectionoftheabilityofspeakerstoviewthemselvesas‘subjects’,andthatitisespecially—thoughnotexclusively—thegrammaticalcategoryofpronounswhichenablestheexpressivecapacityofspeakers,

196 NicoleBaumgartenandJulianeHouse

i.e. ,theirabilitytotalkaboutthemselvesbypositingthemselvesasthegrammaticalsubjectoftheutteranceandthetopicofthetalk. ThestartingpointforthepresentinvestigationisthefirstpersonsingularpronounIinsubjectpositionanditsco-occurrencepatternswithsemanticverbtypesandlexicalverbs.AccordingtoScheibman(2002)themostcommonfeaturesofspokendiscoursearesubject-predicatecombinationswhichallowthespeakerstopersonalizetheirtalk,tomarkattitude,evaluationandempathy,andthefirstpersonpronounisthemostbasic(i.e.prototypical)sourceofsubjectivityinlanguagebecauseitalwaysexplicitlyrefers to the speaker therebyautomatically introducinganexplicitargumentationalperspective to the discourse. “I signifies ‘the person who is uttering the present in-stanceofthediscoursecontainingI’”(Benveniste1966/1971:218)suchthattheprop-ositionexpressedwillalwaysbedirectlyrelatedtothepersonofthespeakerbythehearer(s).Theexpressionofsubjectivityindiscourseisthen,asitwere,theclosesttheinterlocutorscangettothespeakersandhowtheyseethemselves. Aconceptcloselyrelatedtosubjectivityis“stance”.Aspeaker’sstanceishisorherattitudetowardswhatheorsheissaying(ConradandBiber2001).Thatis,inadditiontopropositionalcontentspeakersexpress—veryofteninthesameutterance—mean-ingswhichconvey theirpersonal feelings, attitudes,values, judgements, andassess-ments (Biber et al. 1999). The expression of stance is associated with a number ofparticularlinguisticstructures.Beyondpronounsandtemporalandspatialdeicticel-ements—thecategorieswhichwereinitiallysuggestedbyBenveniste,andextendedin subsequent research to includeaspect,modalityand sentence structureasbuild-ingblocksofasubjectiveperspectiveindiscourse(cf.e.g.Lyons1977;Palmer1986;Iwasaki1993;Dorgeloh1996;Smith2002)—theconceptofstanceencompasseslargerunitsofdiscourse,i.e. ,grammaticalstructures,aswellaslexicalmeans.Amongthese,complement clause constructions (1), so-called comment clauses (finite adverbialclausessuchasutterance-finalI thinkorI guess)(2),lexicalverbs(3)andadjectives(4)withevaluativemeaningovertlyattributeastancetothespeaker.

(1) I hopethatIgotitright. (2) Igotitright,I guess. (3) I loveTVdrama. (4) I’msurprised.

Many other linguistic structures mark speaker stance in discourse (cf. Biber et al.1999).Inthepresentcontext,however,onlythosewhichsystematicallyco-occurwiththefirstpersonpronounI—thespeaker’sprototypicalresourcefortheexpressionofasubjectiveperspective—areofinterest. Grammatical and lexical means, (1), (2) and (3), (4), respectively, encode stancedifferently. The grammatical marking of stance always involves two structural com-ponentsthatcanbesaidtobeinaframerelationtoeachother:thefirstcomponentpresents theattitudeof the speakerand frames the second, theproposition. In thecaseofcomplementclauseconstructions,forexample,themainclauseexpressesthe

Speakerstances 197

stanceandservesasanattitudinalframeforthecomplementclausewhichexpressestheproposition.Thelexicalmarkingofstance,ontheotherhand,doesnotprovideanattitudinalframeforanotherproposition;thespeaker’sattitudeisinferreddirectlyfromtheuseoftheevaluativelexicalitem. In recent years there has been an upsurge of scientific interest in the linguisticsources of the expression of subjectivity, the historic semantic-pragmatic processwherebysubjectivemeaningsevolveandhowandtowhatpurposesubjectivemean-ingsareexpressed incommunicative interaction(Traugott1989,1995;Smith2002;HunstonandThompson2000;Scheibman2001,2002).Otherworkhasfocusedonreg-ister-orgenre-specificpatternsofstance-marking,ondifferencesinstance-markinginspokenandwrittenregisters,thediachronicdevelopmentofthelinguisticmarkingofstanceintexts(Biber2004;BiberandFinegan1994;Hyland1999,2005;Kärkkäinen2003),language-specificpatternsofstance-marking(Biber1995)andthedifferencesin stance-taking and stance-marking by native speakers of English and non-native(EFL)speakers(Hyland2004;Mauranen1993).Thelatterinvestigationshavealmostexclusivelyfocusedonwrittencommunication,inparticularwrittenacademicprose(see,however,Mauranen2006).Ithasalsobeenobserved(Hohenstein2004)thatevenadvancedL2speakersinL1–L2communication(inJapanese,inthiscase)havediffi-cultiesinthesituationallyandpragmaticallyappropriateuseofstance-takingdevices.This“pragmaticfailure”(Thomas1983;HouseandKasper1981;House1996a,2003),however,doesnotseemtobetheresultofdeficienciesinthespeakers’grammaticalknowledgebutcouldratherbeexplainedastheshiningthrough(Teich2003)of L1communicativeconventionsorthenon-availabilityofcertaintypesofstance-markingdevicesinthelearnervarieties.Onthewhole,withfewexceptions,existentresearchhasfocusedonsubjectivityandstanceinL1AmericanandBritishEnglish.Thereare,toourknowledge,noinvestigationsofthelinguisticconstructionofstance-markingandstance-takinginELFconversation. Thegoalofthepresentinvestigationistodescribetheconstructionofspeakerstanc-esthroughI + verb-constructionsinL1andELFconversation.Thisspecificlinguisticstructurewaschosenbecausedirectpersonalself-referencethroughthefirstpersonpronounisthemostbasic/prototypicalandatthesametimethemostexplicittypeofencodingthespeaker’ssubjectiveperspectiveinthediscourse.Atthesametime,eventhoughallknownlanguageshavethecategoryof ‘firstperson’,theactualuseofthefirstpersonpronounindiscourse ismoreoftenthannothighlyconstrained.Giventhat stance-marking is register-specific, language-specific, diachronically changinganddifferentlymarkedinnativeandnon-nativediscourse,itisreasonabletoassumethattheobserveddifferencesaretheexpressionofsuperordinatepreferencesforcom-municativestylesinthedifferentspeechandwritingcommunitiesinvolved.Inotherwords,becausethelinguisticexpressionoffeelings,opinionsandevaluationsisinher-entlyboundupwithconsiderationsofthespeaker’sandhisorherinterlocutor’sfaceandthedegreesofpolitenessappropriateinthecommunicativeencounter—which,inturn,aregovernedbycommunity-andculture-specificpatternsofinteraction—the

198 NicoleBaumgartenandJulianeHouse

communicativeconventionsregulatethetype(i.e.thelinguisticpattern)andthefre-quencyofstance-takingindiscourse.InELFcommunication,speakersofdifferentL1withpotentiallydifferingconventionalizedpatternsofstance-markingandstance-tak-inganddifferentlydiversified(learner)varietiesofEnglishinteract.Atthesametime,thecommunicativeconventionsofthespeakers’L1mayormaynotcoincidewiththeexpected communicative styles in comparable English L1 interactions.Which com-municativestyle,includingthelinguisticexpressionofspeakerstance,wemayask,doEFLspeakers inELFconversationthenadopt?Onethatreflects theconventionsofstance-markingandstance-takingintheirL1?AnimitationofnativeEnglishconven-tionseventhoughnoL1speakerispresent?Oranaltogetherdifferenttype,whichisalwaysnegotiatedanewinthecourseofeachELFinteraction(cf.Hüllen1992)?Asafirststeptowardsansweringthesequestionswewilltry,inthepresentarticle,tofindoutwhetherthe linguisticexpressionofstancethroughthefirstpersonpronouninELFconversationisdifferentfromL1English—andthuspossiblytypicalofELFcon-versation. Inthefollowingsections,wewillfirstdescribethedatabaseforour investigation(Section2).Secondly,wewillpresenttheglobalfrequenciesandsyntacticco-occur-rencepatternsofthefirstpersonpronounIinthenativeandELFdiscourse(Section3).Moredetaileddescriptionswillthenbegivenforthethreemostfrequentstance-ex-pressingcollocationsI think,I don’t knowandI mean.Section4concludesthearticlewithadiscussionoftheL1andEFLconstructionofspeakerstanceindiscourse,first,inthelightofvariationbetweentheEnglishL1andthelearnervarietiesinourcorpus,whichmaybetheresultofacombinationoffactors,rangingfromtransferoftheEFLspeakers’L1orLxcommunicativestylesintoEnglish,negativetransferintoEnglishandtheinfluenceofformalinstructiontodifferentdegreesofinvolvementinorexpo-suretogrammaticalizationprocesses.Secondly,wewilldiscusstheresultswithrespecttothequestionofhowtorelateEFLspeakers’individualpropertiestothepropertiesoftheELFdiscourseinwhichtheytakepart.Inotherwords,wewillaskwhetherourresultscanbesaidtobecharacteristicofELFcommunicationorcharacteristicoftheindividualEFLspeakersineachinteraction.

2. Thedatabase

Thedataconsistsofthreeaudio-tapedelicitedconversationsinEnglish—onewithagroupofEnglishL1speakersandtwowithEFLspeakers.Theparticipantsineachcon-versationtalkaboutaspecifictopicofgeneralinterestprovidedbytheresearchers,forexample“theroleofEnglishintheworld”or“menandwomeninthecontemporaryartsscene”.Thetopicswerechosentoelicitthelinguisticexpressionofopinions,be-liefs,feelingsandpersonalexperiencesaswellasanoverallargumentativediscourse.Theparticipantswerenotinformedabouttheresearchdesign.Theywereledtobelievethattheyweretapedbecauseofageneral,unspecifiedinterestintheirviewsonthe

Speakerstances 199

topicunderdiscussion.Theresearchersthemselveswerenotpresentduringthecon-versation.Eventhoughthediscussionswereinprincipleopen-ended,eachcametoacloseafterabout30minutes.TheconversationswererecordedinuniversitysettingsinGermany,i.e. ,thelanguageoftheenvironmentisGermanandallspeakers(includingthenativespeakersofEnglish)areproficientinGerman.Thus,thespeakershave,intheory,thepossibilitytofallbackonanothersharedlanguage.Allparticipantsareuni-versitystudents(eithervisitingorfull-time)intheirtwenties,andapartfrompossiblyhierarchicalgenderrelationships,theconversationsarecharacterizedbysymmetricalrolerelationships.Table1showsthemainrelevantcontextualdataforthe3groupsofparticipants.TheconversationsweretranscribedaccordingtotheHIATtranscriptionconventions(Rehbeinetal.2004).1

Forthepresentinvestigation,allutteranceswiththefirstpersonpronounIinsub-jectpositionwereanalyzedwithrespect to theirco-occurrencewithsemanticverbtypes,withlexicalverbs,thegrammaticalstructureoftheI + verbcombinations(i.e.complementclauseconstruction,simpleclause,finiteadverbial(verbalroutine)),theirsyntacticposition(initial,medial,final)andfunctionintheutterance(e.g.mainpro-cess,evidential,hedge),andthefunctionofthecompleteutteranceforthediscourse(e.g.agreeing,contradicting,elaborating,introducinganewtopic). InordertoassesstheI + verbcombinationsintermsoftheexpressionofsubjectiv-ity,themainverbsoftheI-utteranceshadtobeclassifiedbysemantictype.HerewefollowedthetaxonomyofverbalprocesstypesintroducedbyHalliday(Halliday1994).Hallidaypositsasetofprocesstypeswhichmodelthelinguisticexpressionofhumanexperiencealongthegeneralprocessesof “doing”,“sensing”and“being”.Verbalpro-cessesandtheparticipantinsubjectpositionarepartofthe“experientialcenter”oftheclause(HallidayandMatthiessen2004:176).Table2providesasummaryofthefoursemanticclassesusedinthisstudy.

Table 1. Contextualdataofthespeakers

Speaker Sex L1 L2 Lx

L1 C male English(US) German HebrewM male English(US) GermanW female English(US) GermanF female English(US) German

EFL1 H male Indonesian English German,JapaneseB female German EnglishL male Chinese English GermanJH female Korean English German

EFL2 AS female German EnglishMB female French English GermanDG female Nepali English GermanPD male Gujrati English German

200 NicoleBaumgartenandJulianeHouse

3. Co-occurrencepatternsofIinEnglishL1andELFconversation

Table3presentstheoverallfrequencyofutteranceswithI.Completeutterancesmin-imallyconsistofafiniteclausewithIinsubjectpositionandamainverb.

Theco-occurrenceof IwithverbtypesintheL1andELFdiscoursesisdisplayedinTable4.

ThecombinationofIwithmentalverbsisbyfarthemostfrequentchoiceinboththeL1andtheELFdiscourses.Theyareatleasttwiceasfrequentasthenextfrequentverbtype.ThedistributionofverbtypesintheL1discoursesuggeststhattheexpressionofsubjectivityandstanceissystematicallyparcelledoutacrossthedifferentexperientialdomains.ThetwoELFdiscoursesshowonlypartiallyoverlappingdistributions,bothhoweverdifferfromtheL1discourse.Thefollowingsectionspresentthecollocationof Iwitheachofthefourverbtypes,startingwiththemostfrequenttypeofmentalverbs.

Table 2. Mainverbtypes

Verb type Description Examples

Material doing,happening,creating,changing do,go,takeMental cognition/cognitiveactivity,emotion,desideration,

perceptionknow,think,like,feel,want,hear

Relational possession(xhasa),being(xisa;xisat,on,in…a) have,beVerbal saying say,talk,mean,belike

(quotative),go(quotative)

Table 3. UtteranceswithI

Incomplete Complete Total Total utterances

L1 5 120 125 489ELF1 1 80 81 418ELF2 8 188 196 1209

Table 4. I-utterancesbyverbtypeinL1andELFdiscourses

Verb type L1 (n=120) ELF1 (n=80) ELF2 (n=188)

Material 16 (13.4%) 8 (10.0%) 10 (5.3%)Mental 77 (64.1%) 59 (73.8%) 113 (60.1%)Relational 15 (12.5%) 3 (3.7%) 7 (3.7%)Verbal 12 (10.0%) 10 (12.5%) 58 (30.9%)

Speakerstances 201

3.1 Mentalverbs

Amongtheverbtypes,mentalprocessesarethemostprototypicalsitesoftheexpres-sionofasubjectiveperspectiveindiscoursebecausetheyreferdirectlytothespeakers’cognitiveprocesses,feelingsanddesires.Table5presentsthedistributionofmentalverbsacrosstheL1andtheELFdiscourses. Thetype–tokenratioforthementalverbsissomewhatlowerintheELFdiscoursesthanintheL1data.ThismightindicatethattheEFLspeakersrelyonamorerestricted,lessdiversifiedrepertoireofwhat theyperceiveas standardizedmeansofencodingsubjectiveattitudesbymeansofmentalverbs,althoughtheuseofmentalverbsclus-tersaroundtheverbsofcognitionthinkandknowinboththeL1andtheELFdiscours-es.Inallthreediscourses,I thinkandI don’t knowarethemostfrequentcollocations.I don’t knowisthesinglemostfrequentlyusedcollocationintheL1discourse,followedbyI think.Theyaccountfor21ofthe22(95.4%)occurrencesofthinkand24ofthe29(82.7%)occurrencesofknow.I thinkisthesinglemostfrequentmentalverbinbothELFdiscourses,whileI don’t knowiscomparativelyrare.2I thinkmakesup43of46(93.4%)and44of54(81.4%)occurrencesofthinkinELF1andELF2,respectively.I don’t knowaccountsfor4of7(57.1%)and14of27(51.8%)occurrencesofknow.

Table 5. Mentalverbs

Subtype Mental verbs L1 ELF1 ELF2

Cognition believe 1figure 1find 1forget 2 3guess 1know 29 7 27realize 1remember 2think 22 46 54

Emotion feel 3like 2 4love 1need 1

Perception hear 3 10look 1makeout 1see 11 2 5

Desideration want/wanna 3 1 4Total 77 59 113Type–Tokenratio 14.2% 10.1% 10.6%

202 NicoleBaumgartenandJulianeHouse

Inourdata,I thinkandI don’t knowoccurinthreeformalstructures:

Simpleclauseconstruction (5) I don’t know.(L1) (6) I thinkabouttheChinesepeople…(ELF1)

Mainclauseincomplementclauseconstruction (7) I don’t knowhowthatworks.(L1) (8) I thinkit’sjustgonnahappen.(L1)

Verbalroutine(Coulmas1981;Edmondson1989,1999;EdmondsonandHouse1981;House1996a,b) (9) Andsoespeciallytheyoungerpeople,I think,goforthat,thenewstuff.(L1) (10) Andthat’sjustäh/Ithinkthat’sjustähwellcrazyähdisgustingandähI don’t

knowähidioticähsick?(ELF2)

I thinkinBritishandAmericanEnglishhasbeenstudiedfromtheperspectivesofitspolysemoussemanticmeaninganditsfunctionaldiversificationindiscourse.Aijmer(1997,1998)distinguishesbetween‘cogitation’(‘thinking’)astheprototypicalmean-ingofI think—evidentinthesingleclauseconstruction—andthreeotherepistemicmeanings,namely‘belief ’,‘opinion’and‘subjectiveevaluation’,whichderivefromthelinguisticandsituationalcontextofoccurrenceandthehearer’sinferencing.Theepis-temicmeaningsofI thinkaretheresultofaprocessofgrammaticalizationinEnglish,in thecourseofwhich theselectionoffirstpersonsubjects for thinkoutnumberedall other combinations and the referential meaning of the collocation I think wasbleachedandgraduallyreplacedwithsubjectivemeanings(Traugott1995;ThompsonandMulac1991;HopperandTraugott1993). Wedistinguishusesof I thinkasmainclauseincomplementclauseconstructionswithorwithoutcomplementizer(“epistemicmainclause”)ontheonehand,andverbalroutine-likeusesofI thinkinutterance-medialandclause-medialandutterance-finalandclause-finalpositionontheotherhand,whicharemoredetachedfromthegram-maticalstructureoftheutteranceandthuscouldbesaidtorepresentamoregrammat-icalizedandpragmaticalizedformoftheexpression.Bothstructuralforms,however,expressthesamemeaningofbelief,opinionandsubjectiveevaluation.Table6displaysthedistributionofI thinkoverthestructuralformsintheL1andELFdiscourses.

Table 6. I think:Distributionoverformalstructures

L1 ELF1 ELF2

Simpleclauseconstruction 0 6 (13.9%) 2 (4.5%)Complementclauseconstruction 10 (62.5%) 26 (60.4%) 30 (68.2%)Verbalroutine 6 (37.5%) 11 (25.6%) 12 (27.3%)Total 16 43 44

Speakerstances 203

BothintheL1andtheELFdiscoursesI thinkispredominantlyusedasmainclausein complement clause constructions, where it serves to express the speaker’s belief,opinionandsubjectiveevaluation,andhisorherattempttohedgeorboosthisorherstance towards the upcoming proposition in the complement clause. The majorityofthecasesshowtheomissionofthecomplementizerthat.However,withonly7.6%percentoffullstructures,theEFLspeakersshowamuchhigherratioofthat-omissionthantheL1speakers(25%fullstructures),whichmightbeinterpretedasanindica-torofhypergeneralizationontheirpart.TheEFLspeakersseemtobelessawareofthestructuralvariabilityofthecollocation,theconcomitantmeaningdifferenceswithre-specttothe‘tentativeness’and‘deliberativeness’ofthespeaker’sstance,andthecon-comitantcommunicativeeffects.L1andELFdiscoursesfurtherdifferinthatsingleclauseconstructionsof the typeI think so,whichovertlysignal thespeakers’agree-mentortheirbelief,opinionandsubjectiveevaluationinthecontextofcorroboratingaprecedingproposition,andI think about,whichexpressestheprototypicalmeaning‘cogitation’,onlyoccurintheELFdiscourses.Conversely,I thinkasaverbalroutineismorefrequentintheL1datathanintheELFdata. Thereducedfrequencyof the“pragmaticalized”(HopperandTraugott1993)ver-bal routine form of I think and also the comparatively unvaried and inflexible useof I think without complementizer in complement clause constructions in the ELFdiscoursesmightberelatedtodifferencesintherepertoireofmarkersofsubjectivemeaningsoftheL1andtheEFLspeakers,orthewishtoresorttothemostbasicandprototypicalmeaningsofthestructureinorderto‘keepitsimple’andtoavoidmis-communication. Initsprototypicalmeaning,I don’t know isamarkerofthespeak-er’s insufficientknowledgeabout the topicof thediscourse, i.e., theexpression isadeclarationoftheinabilitytosupplyinformation.Tsui(1991)distinguishessixprag-maticfunctionsof I don’t knowwhichderivefromthiscoremeaningofinsufficientknowledge.Dependingonitssequentialplacementindiscourse(e.g.inareplytoaquestion, assessment, or request) I don’t know is used whenever the speaker wantsto avoid assessment, explicit disagreement or commitment, and intends to prefacedisagreement,tominimizeimpoliteness,ortoindicateuncertainty.Italsoservesasa hearer-oriented element of discourse organization opening up the conversation-al floor to the other participants (cf. Beach and Metzger 1997; Östman 1981), anditcanbeusedasa‘cajoler’tomakethecommunicativeactthatistransmittedmorepalatabletothehearer,toappealforsympathy(EdmondsonandHouse1981;House1996a). Table7presentsthedistributionofI don’t knowoverstructuralformsintheL1andtheELFdiscourses. The L1 and the ELF discourses differ with respect to the distribution over struc-turalforms:TheL1speakersuseI don’t knowpredominantlyasaverbalroutine(11),whereastheEFLspeakerspreferthesimpleclauseconstructionsandtheuseofI don’t knowasmainclauseincomplementclauseconstructions(12,13).

204 NicoleBaumgartenandJulianeHouse

(11) It’slike,I don’t know,ifyoulooklikeandthinkof(this?),itgoestowhatworksbestespeciallyinbusinessandthingslikethatbecauseIdon’tknowifthat’speoplegetlazierbuttheywannabemoreeffective.(L1)

(12) I don’t knowsomuchaboutJapanese.(ELF1) (13) I don’t knowwhyit’snot,notpre...I,IreallyaskmyselfwhythereisnoLAW

againstsuchTHINGS.(ELF2)

AmongthenineinstancesofsimpleclauseconstructionsintheL1discourse,threecanbecharacterizedasutterance-likeverbalroutines(14).Unlikeutterances,theydonotinthemselvesconstituteamoveintheinteractionalstructureofthetalkinthesenseofforwardingtheconversationtowardsapotentialoutcome(EdmondsonandHouse1981).Thesesingleclauseconstructionsdonotdenoteinsufficientknowledgeonthepartofthespeaker,rathertheyexpressthepragmaticmeaningsofthespeaker’suncer-tainty,andavoidanceoffullcommitmenttotheupcomingorprecedingproposition.

(14) L1C: Andsoit’slike,it’salreadyspreadsofar,it’slikeyou’reg/likeyou’retry-

ingtochangeitandmakeanotherworld-language.That’llbereallyhardtodothoughjustbecausenobodywillwannadoit.

F: Hm.C: And I don’t know.LikeIlookhereandjustlikegoingonin(??)andstuff

whenIlivedinHannoverF: Hm.C: itwaslike…Andit’sfunnybecauseeverythingh/everythirdwordwas

likeanAmericanword.F: Hm.

ThedistributionacrossformalstructuresshowsthattheexpressionofsubjectivitybymeansofI don’t knowdiffersbetweentheL1andtheEFLspeakers.TheEFLspeakerspredominantlyencode thesubjectivemeaning ‘insufficientknowledge’.3 Incontrast,theL1speakerscommonlyuseI don’t knowtoencodethepragmaticmeanings,whichdonotdenotearealdeficitinknowledge. Itmaybepossiblethatthedistributionof I don’t knowacrosstheL1andtheELFdataisareflectionofthedifferentstagesofthegrammaticalizationoftheexpressionintheL1andtheEFLvarieties:InthevarietyofEnglishintheL1datawefindboth

Table 7. I don’t know:Distributionoverformalstructures

L1 ELF1 ELF2

Simpleclauseconstruction 9 (37.5%) 1 (25.0%) 7 (50.0%)Complementclauseconstruction 5 (20.8%) 3 (75.0%) 3 (21.4%)Verbalroutine 10 (41.7%) 0 4 (28.6%)Total 24 4 14

Speakerstances 205

theprototypical(singleclauseconstructionsandmainclauseincomplementclauseconstructions expressing the meaning ‘insufficient knowledge’) and the verbal rou-tinevariants,eachfulfillingdifferentfunctionsinthediscourse.IntheEFLvarietiesintheELFdiscourses,wefindafrequencyanddistributionoverformalstructureswhichsuggeststhatI don’t knowisnotasfunctionallydiversifiedintheEFLvarietiesasintheL1variety.ThisisevidentinthefactthattheEFLspeakersclearlyprefertouseI don’t knowprototypically,insingleclauseconstructionsandasmainclauseincomplementclauseconstructions,i.e.asanexpressionofinsufficientknowledge,thanintheverbalroutineform,expressingpragmaticanddiscourseorganizationalmeanings.Moreover,theverbalroutine form,whichexclusivelyexpresseson-lineplanningdifficulties intheELFdiscourses,isonlyusedbythreespeakers.Intwoofthese,speakers’L1prag-maticmarkersorverbalroutinesareavailablewhichcanbetranslatedbyI don’t know.ThemeaningofGermankeine Ahnung(‘[Ihave]noidea’)undFrench(je) (ne) sais pas (moi)(‘Idon’tknow’)atleastpartiallyoverlapswithEnglishI don’t knowsothatthespeakersmayemployI don’t knowintheirL2–EnglishinawaythatmirrorstheuseoftheirL1expression.Incontrast,atleastinChinesesimilarlycorrespondinglexicalex-pressionsdonotseemtobeusedinthesecontexts.4

3.2 Materialverbs

Materialverbsmayencodeasubjectiveperspectiveinthediscoursewhentheyareusedtoconveypropositionalinformationaboutthespeakers’experiences—inthesenseofactivitiescarriedout(15)oreventstakenpartin(cf.Scheibman2001).Example(16)presentsauseofmaterialverbsinwhichthespeakerscastthemselvesinhypotheticalrolesorfictionaldialogicalexchangesinordertoillustratetheirpoint.

(15) Today,I readaähähmbookähafamousähwomeninHamburgähsomeähm••femaleartists.(ELF2).

(16) Hereit’slikeandit’slikewhatyou’retakingforforeignlanguageorFrenchororwhateveranditwasneverlike:oh,I’m takingEnglish’causethatwasjustpartofit.(L1).

MaterialverbsarethesecondmostfrequentverbtypeintheL1discoursebutrankonlyinthirdplaceintheELFdiscourses.Table8(seep.206)presentsthedistributionofmaterialverbsacrossthediscourses.

3.3 Relationalverbtypes

RelationalverbsareaboutthreetimesasfrequentintheL1discourseasintheELFdiscourses.RelationalverbscanbedirectexpressionsofsubjectivityinthecollocationI am + evaluative adjective(e.g.I’m serious.)orwhenthey—likematerialverbs—en-code the speaker’s subjective perspective by referencing propositional informationaboutthespeakerasinexample(17).

206 NicoleBaumgartenandJulianeHouse

(17) IstartedwhenI was ten.Howoldwereyou?(ELF1)

ThedistributionofrelationalverbtypesacrosstheL1andELFdiscoursesisdisplayedinTable9.

3.4 Verbalverbs

Similartomaterialandrelationalverbs,verbalverbs(e.g.say,talkandthequotativesbe likeandgo)canalsoexpresspropositionalinformationwhichimplicatesthespeak-ers’involvementinthecommunicativetaskandtheirsubjectiveevaluationofthesub-jectmatter(18,19).

(18) SoI was likehey,thatlookscool,ItakeGerman.(L1) (19) Causetheyseethemoviesandthey’relike:Wow,that’ssoAmerica.And

they…I’ve talked to people—oftenpeoplethoughtthat.(L1)

Table 8. Materialverbs

Material verbs L1 ELF1 ELF2

do 1 1fit 1go 1growup 2havealook 1learn 2live 6 1make 1moveback 1paint 1read 1 5see(=activity) 1 1sitback 1start 1study 1take 3Total 16 7 10

Table 9. Relationalverbtype

Relational L1 ELF1 ELF2

Iamin/at/onx 3 1Iamx 8 2 5Ihavex 4 2Total 15 3 7

Speakerstances 207

Theexplicitexpressionofspeakerstancethroughverbalverbs,however,isachievedbytheuseofI mean.I meanisthesinglemostfrequentcollocationinthegroupofverbalverbs.Table10presentsthedistributionofverbalverbsacrosstheL1andtheELFdis-courses. AccordingtoEdmondsonandHouse(1981),I meanisusedasaso-called‘gambit’usedinpre-,mid-,andpost-positiontoexpressthespeaker’sattempttoappealtohisorherinteractant’sagreementandcooperation,particularlyatinstancesinthediscoursewherethespeakercannotbesurethathisorhermessageiswelcometothehearer.Thisafffective-interactionalmeaningwasfoundbyKasper(1981)tobesostronglyunder-representedinherlearnerdatathatshediagnosedzero-occurrence. Schiffrin(1987) identifiesthreefunctionalaspectsforI mean,whichbearontheideationalstructureofthediscourse,ontheparticipantframework(i.e.therelation-shipbetweenthespeakerandthehearer(s)),andontheinformationstatusoftheprop-osition.Withrespecttotheideationalstructure,I meanmarkstheupcomingmodifi-cationofpriorpropositionalinformation.Withrespecttotheparticipantframework,speakersuseI mean,first,toexpresstheirorientationtowardthemeaningsoftheirowntalkand,secondly,tofocusattentiononthemselves.SchiffrinsuggeststhatI meanisespeciallyfrequentlyusedwhenspeakerspresentopinionsordisclosepersonalin-formation. In thesecontexts,I mean serves toputadditional focusonthespeakers’self,i.e.tomakethespeakers’involvementinthesubjectmatterandthecommunica-tivetaskmoresalient.Withrespecttotheinformationstateoftheproposition,finally,I meanmaintainsthespeaker’sandthehearers’focusonpriormaterial.Thehearerisinstructedtocontinuetoattendtothepriorinformationinordertohearhowitwillbemodifiedbythespeaker. TheoccurrencesofI meaninourdatalargelymirrortheusesdescribedbyEdmond-sonandHouseandSchiffrin.I meanoccursasamarkerofsubjectiveperspectiveinturn-initialposition(20,21),asaturn-internalmeansofreformulationandclarifica-

Table 10. Verbalverbs

Verbal verbs L1 ELF1 ELF2

agree 1ask 4belike 3go 1mean 3(4)* 8 49say 2 2 1talk 3 1Total 11 10 57

* One occurrence of I mean is inside the routine formula you know what I mean. Although I mean does express subjectivity in this collocation, it is not included in the present context because the present dis-cussion focuses on the single occurrences of the collocation I mean.

208 NicoleBaumgartenandJulianeHouse

tionwithinorbetweenutterances(22,23),andasemphaticevaluativetaginturn-finalposition(24).

(20) I mean,forAmericansit’sexcitingtogotoHawaii.(L1) (21) WellI mean,••it’salsoavery,verydelicatequestionbecause…(ELF2) (22) AndthenIsawahmadocumentaryaboutaVERYSMALLkid.I mean,sheis

likeFOURYEARSold.(ELF2) (23) F/forus,wehave,wedon’thaveproblem,I mean,Asia,Asianpeople.(ELF1) (24) Idon’tknowwhy,whypeopleconsiderTHISasartandwhypeoplegoforit

andwhyhegetsaforuminaniceMUSEUM!Why?I mean...(ELF2)

Inallthreediscourses,thereformulation/clarificationtypeofI meanismostfrequent.I meanoccursmorethantwiceasoftenintheELFdataasintheL1data.Atfirstsight,thisseemstoindicatethatthespeakersinELFconversationareparticularlyanxioustoensurehearercomprehensionbecauseI meanservesthespeakerstostructuretheirturns by keeping prior information in focus and focusing attention on themselves.This seems tobe true for theELF1data.However, thecontextsofoccurrence forI mean inELF2suggestthatI meancanhave,onthebasisofthereformulation/clari-ficationproperty,yetanother,relatedfunctionalreadydescribedbyEdmondsonandHouse(1981). InELF2data,thereformulation/clarificationuseofI meanalwaysseemstoincludetheexpressionofasubjectiveevaluation,i.e.I meanisusuallyaccompaniedby(strong-ly)evaluativeelements(lexicalandprosodicprominence)intheprecedingorfollow-ingutterancesorclauses(or inboth)(seeagainexamples20 to22and24above).5Where I mean connects two evaluative utterances we usually find the stronger, un-equivocalevaluationafterI mean,inthesecondutterance.InallthesecasesI meanseemstofunctionnotasadeviceforagenuine‘reformulation’and‘clarification’inthesenseofanalternativewordingfortheprecedinginformation—aswefinditintheL1andtheELF1data—butratherasafocalizingdeviceinthespeaker’scontributionwhichservesasthepointofdepartureforanexplicitexpressionofasubjectiveevalu-ation.Hence,I meanintheELF2dataappearstobeamarkerofspeaker’saffectivein-volvementinthetopicandinthediscourse;itsignalsthatthespeakerhasanopiniononthetopicandfocusesthehearer(s)ontheverbalizationofthisopinion.Asacaveattothisexplanation,ithastobesaidthatinELF281.2%percentofallinstancesof I meanareproducedbytheNepaliEFLspeaker.AndeventhoughthisparticularuseofI meanisnotrestrictedtoher,theresultsareveryheavilyskewedinherdirection.Wewillreturntothepossiblespeaker-specificityofELFtalkinSection5. Tosumup,inalldiscourses,thefirstpersonpronoun-mentalverbcombinationistheconstructionofchoicefortheexpressionofthespeaker’ssubjectiveperspective.TheL1andELFdiscoursesdiffer,however,intheuseoftheotherverbtypesfortheexpressionofsubjectivemeaningsindiscourse.IntheL1data,theexpressionofsub-jectivemeaningsisalmostevenlydistributedacrossthematerial,relationalandverbalverbtypes.Itappearsasiftheexpressionofspeakerstanceissystematicallyparcelled

Speakerstances 209

outoverthedifferentexperientialdomains(doing,feeling,being).TheELFdiscoursesdonotshowacomparablepattern.EFLspeakershandletheexpressionofstancediffer-ently.Stance-takingappearstobepredominantlyandfirmlyassociatedwiththeproto-typicalmeansofexpression,i.e.mentalverbs.Theremainderoftheexpressionsofsub-jectivitybymeansofI + verbconstructionsinthediscoursesareunevenlydistributedacrosstheotherverbtypes.Whatismore,wedonotfindthesamepatterninginELF1and ELF2, which might indicate that the conventions of expressing stance may bespeaker-specific—inthesenseofanidiosyncraticstyleintheirL2English—orspecif-icofthespeakers’L1.ThisisparticularlyevidentinthecaseofthecollocationI meaninELF2.Furthermore,thespeakersinELF2onlyseldomusematerialverbstoexpresstheirpersonalexperiencesinthediscourse.InbothELFdiscoursesthespeakersrarelyuserelationalprocessestoascribethemselvesattributes,whichentailsanovertexpres-sionofsubjectiveattitudesandthedisclosureofpersonalinformation.ThefactthatbothELFdiscoursesshowalmostidenticalvaluesfortherelationalverbtypessuggeststhatthisconstructiontypemaynotbeestablishedasaviablestance-takingdeviceinEFLvarietiesofspeakers’orisjudgedasaninappropriateorineffectivemeansofex-pressioninELFtalk.

4. Conclusion

L1speakersinL1-onlyconversationandEFLspeakersinELFconversationshowonlypartiallyoverlappingpatternsofconstructingspeakerstancebymeansofI+verbcon-structions.Apartfromageneralpreferencefortheuseofmentalverbtypes,L1andEFLspeakersdiffer in theiruseofverb types for theexpressionofasubjectiveper-spectiveinthediscourse.Theydifferalsowithrespecttothemostfrequentlyusedcol-locations:WhileI thinkandI don’t knowarethetwomostfrequentmentalverbcol-locationsinalldiscourses,L1speakersusetheexpressionI don’t knowthreetimesasoftenasEFLspeakersandEFLspeakersusetheexpressionI thinkatleast50percentmoreoftenthattheL1speakers.Inaddition,theL1andtheEFLspeakersusethetwoexpressionsdifferently.TheL1andtheEFLspeakersdifferbothintheirpreferencesforparticularstructuralformsandtheirpreferencesforparticularmeanings.Withre-specttobothI thinkandI don’t know,theEFLspeakersseemtopreferonthewholethemoreprototypicalmeaningsandformalstructuresoverthemoregrammaticalizedstructuresandpragmaticalizedmeaningsastheyareexpressedintheverbalroutineformsofthetwoexpressions.WithrespecttotheuseoftheverbalverbI mean,wefindtheexpressionofstronglyevaluativemeaningswhicharenotfoundintheL1data. ThedifferencesintheconstructionofspeakerstanceintheL1andtheELFdiscours-esmaybetheresultofavarietyoffactorswhichneedfurtherinvestigation:Firstly,theEFLspeakersmayshowaspecificpatternofstance-markingandstance-takingbecausetheyverbalizeinEnglishthecommunicativestyleappropriateincomparableL1com-municativesituations.Thiscould,forinstance,explainthedifferentdistributionofI +

210 NicoleBaumgartenandJulianeHouse

verbconstructionsacrossverbtypesintheL1andtheELFdiscourses;secondly,aswehaveseeninthecaseofI don’t know,theEFLspeakersmaytransferthefunctionandmeaningofsemanticallyrelatedexpressionsintheirL1intotheirL2English;thirdly,becauseforthemajorityofEFLspeakerstheuseofEnglishisdomain-specific(i.e.re-strictedtocertainsettings, times, topicsandinterlocutors), therepertoireofstance-markingintheL2Englishvarietiesmayberestrictedtowhatisconventionalizedintheparticulardomains;fourthlyandfinally,theEFLvarietiesmaydiffersystematic-allyfromtheL1Englishvarietiesbecausetheyarenotinvolvedinthesameprocessesoflinguisticevolution.NewlinguisticitemsandnewfunctionsofestablisheditemsintheL1varietieswillreachtheEFLvarietiesinevitablylater—i.e. ,onlyaftertheyareintroducedtotheEFLvarietiesbya‘stylisticleader’—whichinturnwillresultinanunevenanddomain-specificdistributionoftheinnovationacrosstheEFLvarieties–orthroughformalinstruction, if theinnovationreachesthestandardvarietyintheL1andisincludedinEFLtextbooks.Asaconsequence,aninnovationmaynotpro-gressveryfarorveryeasilythroughtheEFLvarietiesortheELFcommunities(ifonecanlegitimatelyspeakofsuchphenomena).ThispictureleavesuswiththequestionofwhetherELFinteractioncaninfactbesaidtohavecharacteristicfeatures,apartfromsuchverygeneralonesasanoverallenhancedcooperativeness(House2002a,b),orwhethereachinteractionisnotratherthesumoftheparticipants’EFLvarieties—cru-ciallyincludingtheirL1s.Hence,althoughallspeakersinELFcommunicationarecer-tainlycompetentinEnglish,theirvarietiesmaydifferwithrespecttotheirrepertoireofsubjectivitymarkersandtheexpressionofspeakerstances,whichmightbemutu-allyunintelligibleandthusapotentialtroublespotinELFinteraction. OnecharacteristicfeatureofELFtalkisthephenomenonof‘Let-it-pass’(Firth1996;House1999,2002a,b).‘Let-it-pass’referstotheparticipants’willinglyignoringgram-matically incorrect, incomprehensibleordubious, i.e. incompatiblewith theoverallgoal of the talk, contributions of their interactants. ‘Let-it-pass’ thus highlights thegeneralgoal-orientednessofELFtalkandpresumablyalsoofinteractionswhicharecharacterizedbyreceptivemultilingualism;ittendstoreducethetalktothereferential,transactionaldimensionofcommunicationbyfocusingspeakers’attentiononthere-trievaloftheinformationalcontentofacontributiontothedetrimentofgrammaticalcorrectnessandinteractionalandinterpersonalappropriateness.Undersuchcircum-stances,inappropriateandunexpectedexpressionsofsubjectivityandconstructionsofspeakerstancesmaynotbeovertlydetectableonthesurfaceofthediscourseunlesstheyrepresentseriousbreachesofthecommunicativenormsandevokereactionsbytheotherparticipants.Forthesereasons,ELFtalkhasalsobeendescribedasparticu-larly“robust”(Firth1996).Inawaythen,theinteractionaldimensionofcommunica-tion,i.e. ,theexchangeofinterpersonalsubjectiveandaffectivemeaningsmaybelessimportantfortheoutcomeofELFinteractions. Ouranalysisshows,however,thatEFLspeakersendeavourtoexpressspeakerstanc-esalthoughitisatpresentnotclearwhethertheiruseofthemoreprototypicallinguis-ticstructuresisamotivatedchoiceresultingfromanattempttocommunicatespeaker

Speakerstances 211

stanceswhichcanbedecodedwithcomparativeease,regardlessofthedegreeofpro-ficiencyofthehearers,orwhetheritiscausedbytheleveloftheirEnglishcompetenceandispresumablybeyondspeaker’sconsciouschoice.Itremainstobeseenwhetherthelinguisticmake-upofELFtalkmightberelatedtothefactthatEFLspeakersop-erateundertheassumptionofmutualintelligibilityjustbecausetheyallusethe‘same’language.

Transcriptionsymbols

( ) unclear(??) incomprehensible/ repair

… abortedutterance• pauseof0.25secondsCAPS prosodicprominence

Notes

* Wewouldliketothanktwoanonymousreviewersfortheirhelpfulcomments.Anyremain-ingshortcomingsare,ofcourse,ourown.

1. Thetranscriptionconventionsaregivenattheendofthearticle.

2. Thehighfrequencyof thecollocationI thinkinEFLspeakers’studentwritinghasbeenre-portedonbyRingbom(1998)andAijmer(2001).

3. ThespeakersinELF1useI don’t knowrarelyandexclusivelytoexpressthemeaning‘insuf-ficientknowledge’.

4. WewouldliketothankNicoleBartelandYingpinWangfortheinformationonFrenchandChinese.

5. AsopposedtoEdmondsonandHouse(1981),Schiffrin(1987)doesnotmentionaco-oc-currenceofevaluationandI mean.

References

Aijmer,K.1997.I think—AnEnglishmodalparticle.InModality in the Germanic Languages,T.SwanandO.JansenWestvik(eds),1–47.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Aijmer, K. 1998. Epistemic predicates in contrast. In Corpora and Cross-Linguistic Research:Theory method and case studies,S.JohanssonandS.Oksefjell(eds),278–95.Amsterdam:Rodopi.

Aijmer,K.2001.I thinkasamarkerofdiscoursestyleinargumentativeSwedishstudentwrit-ing. InA Wealth of English. Studies in honor of Göran Kjellmer,K.Aijmer(ed.),247–57.Göteborg:ActaUniversitatisGothoburgensis.

212 NicoleBaumgartenandJulianeHouse

Beach,W.A.andMetzger,T.R.1997.Claiminginsufficientknowledge.Human Communication Research23:560–85.

Benveniste, E. 1966/1971. Subjectivity in language. In Problems in General Linguistics,E.Benveniste,223–30.CoralGablesFL:UniversityofMiamiPress.

Biber,D.1995.Dimensions of Register Variation: A cross-linguistic comparison.Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress.

Biber,D.2004.Historicalpatternsforthegrammaticalmarkingofstance:Across-registercom-parison.Journal of Historical Pragmatics5(1):107–36.

Biber,D.andFinegan,E. (eds).1994.Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Biber,D. ,Johansson,S. ,Leech,G. ,Conrad,S.andFinegan,E.1999.Grammar of Spoken and Written English.London:Longman.

Conrad,S.andBiber,D.2001.Adverbialmarkingofstanceinspeechandwrting.InEvaluation in Text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse,S.HunstonandG.Thompson(eds),56–73.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress

Coulmas, F. (ed). 1981 Conversational Routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech.TheHague:Mouton.

Dorgeloh,H.1996.ViewpointandsubjectivityinEnglishinversion.InThe Construal of Space in Language and Thought,R.DirvenandM.Pütz(eds),509–26.Berlin:MoutondeGryuter.

Edmondson,W.1989.Discourseproduction, routinesand language learning. InEnglisch als Zweitsprache,B.Kettemann,P.Bierbaumer,A.FillandA.Karpf(eds),287–302.Tübingen:Narr.

Edmondson,W.1999.Twelve Lectures in Second-language acquisition.Tübingen:Narr.Edmondson,W.andHouse,J.1981.Let’s Talk and Talk about It. A pedagogic interactional gram-

mar of English.München:Urban&Schwarzenberg.Firth, A. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality. On ‘lingua franca’ English and

ConversationalAnalysis.Journal of Pragmatics26:237–60.Halliday,M.A.K.1994.An Introduction to Functional Grammar.London:Arnold.Halliday, M.A.K and Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar.

London:Arnold.Hohenstein,C.2004.AcomparativeanalysisofJapaneseandGermancomplementconstructions

withmatrixverbsofthinkingandbelieving:‘toomou’and‘ichglaub(e)’.InMultilingual Communication,J.HouseandJ.Rehbein(eds),303–41.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Hopper,P.J. ,andTraugott,E.C.1993.Grammaticalization.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

House,J.1996a.DevelopingpragmaticfluencyinEnglishasaforeignlanguage:Routinesandmetapragmaticawareness.Studies in Second-language acquisition18:225–52.

House,J.1996b.Contrastivediscourseanalysisandmisunderstanding:ThecaseofGermanandEnglish.InContrastive Sociolinguistics,M.HellingerandU.Ammon(eds),345–61.Berlin:Mouton.

House,J.1999.Misunderstandingininterculturalcommunication:InteractionsinEnglishaslinguafrancaandthemythofmutualintelligibility.InTeaching and Learning English as a Global Language,C.Gnutzmann(ed.),73–93.Tübingen:Stauffenburg.

House,J.2002a.CommunicatinginEnglishasalinguafranca.InEUROSLA Yearbook2,243–62.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Speakerstances 213

House, J. 2002b. Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In Lingua Franca Communication,K.KnappandC.Meierkord(eds),245–69.Frankfurt:PeterLang.

House,J.2003.Misunderstandingininterculturaluniversityencounters.InMisunderstanding in Social Life. Discourse approaches to problematic talk, J.House,G.KasperandS.Ross(eds),22–56.London:Longman.

House,J.andKasper,G.1981.PolitenessmarkersinEnglishandGerman.InConversational Routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech,F.Coulmas(ed.),157–86.TheHague:Mouton.

Hüllen, W. 1992. Identifikationssprachen und Kommunikationssprachen. Zeitschrift für ger-manistische Linguistik20:298–315.

Hunston,S.andThompson,G.(eds)2000.Evaluation in Text: Authorial stance and the construc-tion of discourse.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hyland,K.1999.Disciplinarydiscourses:Writerstance inresearcharticles. InWriting: Texts, processes and practices,C.CandlinandK.Hyland(eds),99–121.London:Longman.

Hyland,K2004.Disciplinaryinteractions:MetadiscourseinL2postgraduatewriting.Journal of Second Language Writing13:133–51.

Hyland,K.2005.Stanceandengagement:Amodelofinteractioninacademicdiscourse.Dis-course Studies7:173–92.

Iwasaki,S.1993.Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical considerations and a case study of Japanese spoken discourse.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Kärkkäinen,E.2003.Epistemic Stance in English Conversation.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Kasper,G.1981.Pragmatische Aspekte in der Interimsprache. Eine Untersuchung des Englischen

fortgeschrittener deutscher Lerner.Tübingen:Narr.Lyons,J.1977.Semantics.Vol.2.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Mauranen,A.2006.Spokendiscourse,academicsandglobalEnglish.InSpoken English, TESOL,

and Applied Linguistics: Challenges for theory and practice,R.Hughes(ed.).Basingstoke:Palgrave.

Mauranen, A. 1993. Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Finnish-English economic texts.English for Specific Purposes12:3–22.

Östman,J.1981.You Know: A discourse-functional approach.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Palmer,F.R.1986.Mood and Modality.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Rehbein,J. ,Schmidt,T. ,Meyer,B. ,Watzke,F.andHerkenrath,A.2004.Handbuch für das com-

putergestützte Transkribieren nach HIAT.[ArbeitenzurMehrsprachigkeit56].Hamburg:UniversitätHamburg.

Ringbom, H. 1998. High-frequency verbs in the ICLE corpus. In Explorations in Corpus Linguistics,A.Renouf(ed.),191–200.Amsterdam:Rodopi.

Scheibman,J.2001.LocalpatternsofsubjectivityinpersonandverbtypeinAmericanEnglishconversation.InFrequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure,J.BybeeandP.Hopper(eds),61–89.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Scheibman,J.2002.Point of View in Grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Schiffrin,D.1987.Discourse Markers.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Smith,C.2002.Accountingforsubjectivity.InThe Legacy of Zellig Harris,B.Nevin(ed.),137–

63.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

214 NicoleBaumgartenandJulianeHouse

Teich,E.2003.Cross-linguistic Variation in System and Text: A methodology for the investigation of translations and comparable texts.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Thomas,J.1983.Cross-culturalpragmaticfailure.Applied Linguistics4(2):91–112.Thompson,S.andMulac,A.1991.Aquantitativeperspectiveonthegrammaticizationofepis-

temicparentheticalsinEnglish.InApproaches to Grammaticalization,Vol.II,E.C.TraugottandB.Heine(eds),313–29.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Traugott,E.C.1989.OntheriseofepistemicmeaningsinEnglish:Anexampleofsubjectifica-tioninsemanticchange.Language65(1):31–55.

Traugott,E.C.1995.Subjectificationingrammaticalisation.InSubjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives, D. Stein and S. Wright (eds), 31–54. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Tsui,A.B.1991.ThepragmaticfunctionsofI don’t know.Text11:607–22.

part3

Testing mutual understanding in receptive multilingual communication

chapter9

Understanding differences in inter- Scandinavian language understanding

GerkeDoetjesHøgskoleniØstfold*

Linguisticallyseen,theoverlapbetweenthemainlandScandinavianlanguagesDanish,Norwegian and Swedish is relatively large. To a large extent, the languages are mu-tually intelligible and communication within Scandinavia therefore normally takesplace in the speakers’ respective first languages. However, this so called semi-com-munication isnotalwaysunproblematic.Thisarticlepresentsacriticaloverviewofthestudiesthathavebeenconductedoninter-Scandinavianlanguageunderstanding,pointingoutthatnoneofthemreallyseemstobeabletoprovideasecureanswertothequestionofhowwellScandinavianscanunderstandeachother’slanguages.Thismainlydependsonmethodologicalproblems.Moreover,thearticlepresentsasurveyofdifferentmethodsthathavebeenusedorpossiblycouldbeusedtoinvestigateinter-Scandinavian language understanding. The survey makes clear that test results arestronglyeffectedbythemethodchosenandthattheseeffectsoughttobetakenintoaccountwhentheabove-mentionedinvestigationsintounderstandingbetweenDanes,NorwegiansandSwedesareusedforfurtherresearch.

Keywords:Danish,Nowegian,Swedish,mutualintelligibility,semi-communication

1. Introduction

Within the Scandinavian branch1 of the Germanic language family, two separategroupsof languagescanbedefined:(1)theinsularScandinavianlanguagesFaroeseand Icelandic, and (2) the mainland Scandinavian languages Danish, NorwegianandSwedish.2Mutualintelligibilityispossiblewithin,butnotbetweenthelanguagegroups. FaroeseandIcelandicarebothsmall traditional languages thathavemanaged toholdtheirpostsintheScandinavianperiphery.Theyhaveapproximately60.000and300.000 speakers respectively.Both languageshaveconservative lexiconsandgram-mars,andstillhavemanyaspectsincommonwithOldNorse.Comparedtothemain-landScandinavianlanguages,thepercentageofloanwordsisverylow.Languagedis-tancebetweenFaroeseandIcelandicismodest, thusmakingmutualunderstandingpossible.Forcenturies,theFaroeIslandsandIcelandwerepartoftheDanishterritory.BotheconomicalandpoliticalconnectionsbetweenDenmarkanditsformerterritor-

218 GerkeDoetjes

ieshavesinceremainedtight.AsaconsequenceofthestrongrelationstoDenmark,mostspeakersofFaroeseandIcelandicshowaveryhighcommandofDanish.LargepartsofthepopulationsevenhaveDanishasafirstlanguage.ManyinhabitantsoftheFaroeIslandsandIcelandspeakEnglishasaL2toaveryhighstandard. The mainland Scandinavian languages Danish, Norwegian and Swedish have asignificantly greater number of mother tongue speakers (approximately 5.500.000inDenmark,4.500.000inNorwayand8.500.000inSweden).Theyarealsolesstrad-itionalthantheinsularScandinavianlanguages.Throughoutthepast1000years,themainlandScandinavianlanguageshavegonethroughanumberof languagechangeprocesses,e.g.lossofcasemarkers,reductionoftheverbparadigmaccompaniedbyastrongloaninfluencefromLow-German,Latin,French,andEnglish(cf.Bergman2001).Thosechangeshaveovertimeresultedinawideninglanguagegapbetweenin-sularandmainlandScandinavianlanguages.ThisgapmeansthatmutualintelligencebetweenFaroeseandIcelandicontheoneside,andDanish,NorwegianandSwedishontheothersideisnolongerpossible.ToovercometheunderstandinggapbetweenbothpartsoftheScandinavianlanguagebranch,thefirstgroupneedstomakeuseoftheirknowledgeofDanishwhencommunicatingwithmainlandScandinavians.3

Language drift processes have also effected mutual distances between Danish,NorwegianandSwedish.Nevertheless,theyshouldstillbeseenasverycloselyrelatedlanguages.Neitheronthepragmaticnoronthesyntacticlevelcananysignificantdif-ferencesbefound.Evenonthelexicalandthephoneticlevel,followingcenturiesofseparation, similarities are still relatively large and rather remind of differences be-tweendialectsthanbetweenlanguages.Fromalinguisticpointofview,thedifferencesbetween Danish, Norwegian and Swedish can be compared to interdialectal differ-ences,e.g.thosebetweenthedialectsofGermanspokenindifferentpartsofGermany,AustriaandSwitzerland.Followingthisview,Braunmüller(2002:6–9)describesthemainlandScandinavianlanguagesasmutualdialectsplacedonadialectalcontinuum,roofed by a non-existing pan-Scandinavian language. The fact that no roofing lan-guageexistsiscompensatedforbywhatoncestartedasapan-ScandinavianstudentmovementandthroughouttheyearshasgrownintoacommonideaofScandinaviantogetherness.Itisnotthatsuchasubjectivepan-Scandinavianideajustexists,coop-erationisalsoinstitutionalised.TheScandinaviancountriesreachedfar-rangingfreetrade agreements shortly afterWorld War II and the governments have since beenworkingtogethertightlywithintheNordicCouncil(Nordiskministerråd).4

Within the inter-Scandinavian context, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are usu-allyreferredtoasbeingmutuallyunderstandable,i.e.ScandinaviansshouldbeabletomakeuseoftheirownlanguagewhencommunicatingwithfellowScandinavians(cf.Zeevaert thisvolume).ThenecessityofspeakingEnglishwithin inter-Scandinavianbusinesses or universities, on holidays or in contacts via the internet, is thus ruledout.Inpractice,mainlyinternationalbusinesses,e.g.theScandinavianairlineSAS(cf.Bruntse2004)ortheinternationallyoperatingbankNordea,haveanEnglishlanguagepolicy.Yet inmostother inter-Scandinavian relationships, speakersnormally speak

Differencesininter-Scandinavianunderstanding 219

Danish, Norwegian or Swedish respectively, expecting to be understood by the re-mainingScandinavians(includingthosefromtheFaroeIslands,IcelandandFinlandcapableofspeakingandunderstandingoneofthemainlandScandinavianlanguages).EinarHaugen,apioneerinthefieldofinter-Scandinavianresearch,labeledthistypeofL2-communicationsemi-communication5(Haugen1966:153). Semi-communicationwasshowntoberelativelyunproblematicwhilstlargelyfunc-tioning like normal L1-communication. In their dissertations, both Ulla BörestamUhlmann and Ludger Zeevaert have found inter-Scandinavian communication nottobestronglyaffectedbythefactoftwoormoredifferentlanguagesbeinginvolved(BörestamUhlmann1994,Zeevaert2004).AsshownbyZeevaert,evenspeakersofFaroeseandIcelandicaswellasFinnishspeakingFinnsseemtobeabletosuccessfullytakepartintheScandinaviansemi-communicationprocess.Somedifferencesappear,butgenerally,semi-communicationseemstofunctionquitewell. As pointed out before, the similarities between the Scandinavian languages are,lookedatfromalinguisticpointofview,comparablewiththeoverlapsbetweenothercloselyrelatedlanguagesinEurope,suchasLow-andHigh-GermanandDutch,PolishandCzech,orevenSpanish,Portuguese,ItalianandFrench.Noneofthoselanguagepairsthoughseemtoplayaroleinbindingtogethertwoormorecountriespoliticallyandeconomicallythough,asitisthecaseinScandinavia.Thisleadstotheconclusionthat semi-communication is not only a linguistic phenomenon, but that it also de-pendsonculturalandpoliticalfactors(cf.Lüdithisvolume,Werlenthisvolume).Thespecialtyoftheinter-Scandinaviantypeofcommunicationliesinthepoliticalsphere.Itisnotonlythatpeoplehavethepossibilityofspeakingtoeachotherintheirownlanguages,itisfarmorethefactthattheyareurgedtodoso.WithinScandinavia,itisoftennotreallyappreciatedwhenonespeaksEnglishinacontextinwhichthereisnonecessitytodoso(cf.GrünbaumandReuter1997:4). Boththedialect-likelanguagedistanceandtherelativelywell-functioningcommu-nicationinpracticeindicatethatthereareonlyfewproblemsonthelanguagerecep-tionlevel.Although,thismustnotalwaysbetrue,seenaslanguagedifferencesexist,understandingproblemsarereportedfrequentlyfrompracticeandspeciallanguageguidesforinter-Scandinaviancommunicationhavebeenpublished(e.g.GrünbaumandReuter1997).Itmightbethecasethatsomeofthecommunicationproblemsema-nating fromthedifferencesbetween the languagesareactually tackledby intensiveuseoflanguageexternalstrategies,suchasbodylanguageorworldknowledge.Inthiscontext,KurtBraunmüllerreferstothepossibilityofusinga let it pass-strategyandothernon-elaboratingstrategies(Braunmüller2006;Zeevaertthisvolume).Butstill,toolittleisknownaboutthewaylanguagedistancewithinScandinaviaischallengedinsemi-communication. To be able to give a better description of how semi-communication works, wefirst have to answer the question of how well mainland Scandinavians actually un-derstandeachother’slanguages—regardlessoftheseeminglywellfunctioninginter-Scandinaviancommunication.Thegoalofthisarticleistoinvestigatewhatisalready

220 GerkeDoetjes

known about mutual language understanding between Danes, Norwegians andSwedes.AswillbeshowninChapter2ofthearticle,thequestionofhowwellpeopleinScandinaviaunderstandeachotherhasbeenakeypartofsemi-communicationre-searchforalongtime.Thequestionthoughhasapparentlybeenverydifficulttoan-swer.Therefore,inChapter3,itwillbeshownthatthesedifficultiesmainlydependonthewayprimaryinvestigationswerecarriedout.Inordertoputthisinabroaderper-spective,aninvestigationoflanguageunderstandingbasedonsixdifferenttesttypeswillbepresented.Finally,itwillbeconcludedthatastraightoutanswertotheabovequestionishardtoprovide,butthatotherquestionsaremorerelevantandthattherearewaystoanswerthosequestions.

2. Differencesinunderstanding

Empirical investigation of mutual understanding between mainland Scandinaviansbeganin1953,whenEinarHaugensentoutaquestionnairetoover300inhabitantsofDenmark,NorwayandSweden(Haugen1953).Heaskedthemtoreportonhowwelltheythoughttheycouldunderstandtheirneighbouringtongues.Thequestionnairewasansweredandsentbackby28%oftherecipients.Asaresult(seeTable1),HaugenfoundthatNorwegianstendtounderstandSwedes(89%)quitewell.UnderstandingDanishseemedtobeatasomewhatlowerlevel(83%).Norwegianisseenastheeasi-estlanguagetobeunderstoodbybothDanes(86%)andSwedes(94%).Furthermore,theresultsclearlyindicatethatthereisanunderstandingproblembetweenDanesandSwedes(DanishinSweden:54%;SwedishinDenmark:56%). Haugen’squestionnairewaslargelyreproducedaspartofaGallup/SIFOinvestiga-tioncarriedoutinthe1970ties(Nordiskarådet1973,seeTable2).Allinall,thenum-bersintheHaugeninvestigationwereatasomewhatlowerlevelthanintheGallup/SIFOpoll,afactmostlikelycausedbydifferencesintheansweringcategoriesbetweenbothstudies.Anyhow,ingeneral,theirfindingswerecomparable,apartfromtheap-parentlylowestimationoftheunderstandingofSwedishinDenmarkintheHaugenstudy.

Table 1. Haugen’s(1953)questionnaire

Danish Norwegian Swedish

Denmark – 86% 56%Norway 83% – 89%Sweden 54% 94% –Note: Figures shown are combined results in for two out of five answering categories: understanding almost everything and understanding everything. Other answering categories were pointing in the direc-tion of participants not or hardly being able to understand the neighbouring languages. Questions not answered were left out here.

Differencesininter-Scandinavianunderstanding 221

Withthefirsttwoinvestigationsbeingofasocio-linguistictype,ØyvindMaurudcarriedoutthefirstlarge-basedempiricallanguageunderstandingtest,investigatingbothwrittenandspokenlanguage.Hisparticipantswereyoungrecruitsfromthere-spectivecountriescapitals.ThetestcoveredDenmark,NorwayandSwedenandwascomplemented by questions relating to the understanding of the participants ownlanguage(Maurud1976,seeTable3;cf.alsoDelsingthisvolume).Thisstepisneces-saryinordertointerpretmutuallanguageunderstandingtestresultsinawaythatac-countsforthefactthatL1-understandingcanbefullymeasuredinsuchexperiments.TheDanes’understandingofSwedishhasthereforetobelinkedtotheSwedes’under-standingofthesametextmaterialintheirownlanguagewithinthesametestcontext.Othertestsoftenfailinthispoint,butneitherdidMaurudgoalltheway.ThefiguresforL1writtenlanguageunderstandingarenorealtestresults;seenasMaurudjustsetthefigureat100%,awaitinghisparticipantstobeabletoreadtheirownlanguagewith-outanyproblems. Maurud’sfindingsseemtobehighlycompatiblewiththoseof Haugen’sinvestiga-tion.Again,NorwegiansreachthehighestlevelofunderstandingandNorwegianisthelanguagebestunderstood(writtenlanguage:81%inDenmarkand76%inSweden;spoken language: 65% in Denmark and 41% in Sweden). Danes and Swedes againrevealproblems inunderstandingeachother (spoken language:21% forDanish inSwedenand40%forSwedishinDenmark). Aroundthesametime, IngeBøcarriedouta test similar to thatof Maurud(Bø1978).WhilstMaurudtookageneralviewoninter-Scandinavianunderstanding,Bøfocusedononespecificfactor,namelythepossibilityofreceivingTVfromanotherScandinavian country. A TV-dependent difference was observed, though the differ-

Table 2. Gallup/SIFOinvestigationinitiatedbytheNordicCouncil(1973)

Danish Norwegian Swedish

Denmark – 85% 78%Norway 79% – 97%Sweden 47% 95%

Table 3. Maurud’s(1976)all-roundtest. Theleftcolumnshowstheresultsofthewrittenlan-guage(W)part,thefigurestotherightarethespoken(S)languageresults. Figuresaremedianresults

Danish Norwegian Swedish

W S W S W S

Denmark 100% 93% 81% 65% 60% 40%Norway 94% 72% 100% 97% 87% 81%Sweden 68% 21% 76% 41% 100% 93%

222 GerkeDoetjes

encewasonlyminimalinmostcases(seeTable4).IntheNorwegiancase,participantsevenunderstoodDanishbetterwithouthavingthepossibilitytowatchDanishtelevi-sion(withTV:72%;withoutTV:80%).BødidnotinvestigateL1-understanding. Uptotheyear2000,onlyafewsmallercasestudieswerecarriedout(e.g.Börestam1984,1985,1987).In2000,acombinedrailwayandroadbridgeconnectingCopen-hagen(Denmark)withMalmö(southernSweden)wasopened.Inconnectionwiththisoccasionanew,widespreadinvestigationofmutualunderstandingwithinScandinaviawascarriedout(DelsingandLundinÅkesson2005;cf.alsoDelsinginthisvolume,JörgensenandKärrlander2001,LundinandZolaKristensen2001).Thetestconsistedofawrittenanda spoken languagepartandcovered theunderstandingof Danish,Norwegian,Swedishand,inordertocompareinter-Scandinaviancommunicational-ternatives,evenEnglishinDenmark,Norway,SwedenandfivefurtherScandinavianareas.L1languageunderstandingwasalsotested(seeTable5). InaccordancewiththepreviousstudiesitwasfoundthatNorwegiansaremostca-pableofsuccessfullymasteringinter-Scandinaviancommunication(writtenlanguage:77%forDanish,74%forSwedish;spokenlanguage:41%and69%).Accordingtotheresults,communicationbetweenSwedesandDanescouldbeproblematic.Norwegians’understandingofEnglishisapproximatelyatthesamelevelastheirinter-Scandinavianlanguageunderstanding(writtenlanguage:75%;spokenlanguage:70%).Thisisnotthe case for Denmark and Sweden. In both countries, English is in most cases un-

Table 4. Bø’s(1978)investigation. Resultsin%fortheTV-conditionforeachlanguagearesituatedintheleftcolumn. ThefiguresintherightcolumnshowtheresultsinplaceswithoutScandinavianTV. Resultsareseparatedforthewritten(W)andthespoken(S)languagepart.

Danish Norwegian Swedish

+TV –TV +TV –TV +TV –TV

W S W S W S W S W S W S

Denmark – – – – 51 67 45 58 53 63 35 35Norway 72 58 80 67 – – – – 76 84 75 75Sweden 48 39 29 19 59 76 50 71 – – – –

Table 5. DelsingandLundinÅkesson’s(2005)investigationofmainlandScandinavianandEnglishunderstandinginScandinavia. Figuresaregivenin%andcalculatedfromthepointsgivenona1-to-10scaleforeachtestpart(onewrittenlanguagepart,W;twospokenlanguageparts,S:videosequence,V;audiosequence,A)

Danish Norwegian Swedish English

W S W S W S W SV A V A V A V A

Denmark 61 92 78 73 18 35 63 15 27 58 61 63Norway 77 64 41 74 76 87 74 43 69 72 75 70Sweden 55 40 19 55 38 56 75 83 81 77 73 76

Differencesininter-Scandinavianunderstanding 223

derstoodbetterthantheremainingScandinavianlanguages.Atfirstsight,thiswouldstrengthentheassumptionofEnglishfunctioningasalinguafrancaforcommunica-tionbetweenDanesandSwedes.This,however,isonlyalinguisticsupposition,nottakingthepoliticalandideologicalbackgroundofScandinaviansemi-communicationintoconsideration. Theinvestigationsintroducedaboverevealseveralproblems.Formostofthem,itis impossible to say how well Scandinavians are actually capable of understandingeach other. To be able to provide a satisfactory answer to this question, it is neces-sary to measure L1-understanding as a level of normal understanding, in order tocomparethetestsfortheotherlanguageswiththesefigures.OnlyMaurud’sspokenlanguagetest(Maurud1976)resultsinfiguresforbothL1understandingandinter-Scandinavianunderstanding.Inthiscase,theproblemisarelativelywiderangeofun-derstanding(between93%and97%correctanswers),whichopensupthepossibilityofthetestgroupsfromthethreecountriesnotbeingcomparable.DelsingandLundinÅkesson (2005) also present L1 understanding figures, but those differ even morethanMaurud’s.Inthiscase,eventhetextstestedandthequestionsaskedwerepartlydifferent. Anotherproblemisthatlanguageunderstandinghassofaronlybeeninvestigatedbytestingone languageata time,whereas inrealsemi-communication,morethanonelanguageisused.Forexample,inasituationinwhichtwoDanesandoneSwedecommunicatewitheachother,theDanesonlyhavetoactsemi-communicativelyinpartoftheconversation.Thisshouldhaveapositiveeffectontheoverallunderstand-ingwithinsuchcommunicationsituations.Ridell(2000),whoanalysedthiskindofmixed(Danish/Swedish)understandingonasmallscaleinherMA-thesis,foundthatit functioned relatively well. But her test also fails in establishing the difference be-tweenL1understandingandunderstandinginthesemi-communicativetestsituation. Furthermore,itisalsoimpossibletoestablishalongtimecomparisonbetweenthedifferenttestsinordertofindoutwhethermutualunderstandinginScandinaviahasimprovedordeterioratedovertheyears.Thisispartlyduetothedifferencesbetweenthetestgroups.Maurudtestedrecruits,allmenattheageof18,fromthecountries’capitals.Bø’stestpersonswerehighschoolstudentsagedaround14–15,mainlyfromsmaller villages. Delsing and Lundin Åkesson also tested high school students, be-tween15–19yearsofage,fromthecapitals,largercitiesandsmallertowns. ThelattercomparedtheirresultstothoseofMaurudinordertofindoutwhethermutuallanguageunderstandinghasdevelopedinapositiveoranegativemanner.Theycametotheconclusionthat,evenifMaurud’sresultsareonagenerallyhigherlevel,itcannotsubsequentlybeclaimedthattheunderstandinghasdeterioratedseenastheproblemexistsofbothtestsbeingincomparable(DelsingandLundinÅkesson2005:87,cf.alsoDelsinginthisvolume).Inadditiontothat,therecentinvestigationmakesuseofanewtesttypeinwhichthestimulusmaterialispresentedinvideosequences.Yetthedifferencesbetweenthetests,bothtechnicallyandprincipally,aresimplytoolargetoreachreliableconclusionsonlong-termdevelopmentsinunderstanding.

224 GerkeDoetjes

Therefore,itstillremainsopenastohowwellScandinaviansdoactuallyunderstandeachother.Infact,theonlyconclusionthatcanbedrawnsofar,isthatNorwegiansaregenerallybestsuitablefortakingpartininter-Scandinaviancommunication,seenastheyunderstandtheotherlanguagesbetterandaregenerallyunderstoodslightlybet-terthantheDanesandSwedesrespectively.BetweenDenmarkandSweden,theun-derstandinggapseemstobefairlylarge.Thisconclusion,again,ismainlyinlinewithHaugen’sresults.

3. Testingunderstandingindifferentways

InChapter2,itwasstatedthatthelanguagetestscarriedoutsofararenotsufficientinordertofindanaccurateanswertothequestionofhowwellScandinaviansunder-standeachother.Thisleadsustothequestionastowhichextentvaryingdifficultylev-elsanddifferenttesttypescaninfluencetestresults.Inthefollowing,theeffectofsixdifferenttesttypesonthemeasurementofinter-Scandinavianlanguageunderstand-ingwillbepresented(cf.GolinskiandDoetjes2005forapreliminarydescriptionoftheinvestigationanditsresults). Thesixtesttypesweredefinedasfollows:(A)openquestions;(B)true–falseques-tions;(C)multiplechoicequestions;(D)wordtranslation;(E)summary;and(F)shortsummary.Inordertokeepthetestconditionsstableotherwise,allsixtestswerebasedonthesameshorttext6writteninSwedishabouttourismontheBalticSeaislandofGotlandandwerecarriedoutintestgroupsfromhighschoolsintwosmallprovincetowns(OdenseandKolding)inwesternDenmark(totalnumberofstudents:N=282;age15–19;resultsinTable6). Thefirsttest(A)wascarriedoutintwoschoolclasseswithatotalof54students.Thetextwasreadoutloud,followedbyfouropenanswerquestions,eachofthemre-latingtoadifferentpartofthetext.Thestudentscouldanswerasmuchastheywished,i.e.therewerenospaceortimelimits.Theanswerswerethencodedwith0(wrongan-swer),0.5(partlycorrectanswer)and1point(correctanswer).Intotal,180.5outofapossibletotalof216pointswerereached,thusresultinginameanunderstandinglevelof83.6%.Thenumberofpointsachievedbythestudentsindividuallyrangedbetween1.5and4.0. For the second test condition (B),43 students fromtwoclasseswere tested.Thequestions asked in this test related to the same text parts as in test A, but now de-mandedatrue–falseanswer.Correctanswerswereagainawardedwith1point,wronganswerswith0points.Thetesttypeexcludespartlycorrectanswers.With172pointsbeingthepossibletotalforthisgroup,160correctanswersresultedinanunderstand-inglevelof93.0%.Thelowestnumberofcorrectanswerswas2,thehighest4. Thethirdtesttype(C)alsousedafixedquestioningmethod,namelymultiplechoice.Again,fourquestionswereasked,relatingtothesamefourtextpartsasinthetestcon-ditionsabove.Allfourquestionshadfourpossibleanswers,ofwhichonlyoneanswer

Differencesininter-Scandinavianunderstanding 225

resultedin1point.Allotheranswerswereincorrectandcodedwith0points.Noneofthepossibleanswerswerepartlycorrectandinthatwaydistractingfromthecorrectanswer.Underthetrue–falsecondition,55studentstookpart.Of220possiblepoints,91.4%weregained.Thiscorrespondsto201correctanswers,rangingbetween2and4pointsperparticipant. Fromtheperspectiveof languageassessment, the fourth test (D)wasprincipallydifferent fromthe testconditionsapplied inA–C,asa translation taskwasused tomeasureDanishunderstandingofSwedishwrittenlanguage.Withinthetext,16wordswereunderlined.Thosewordshad tobe translated into the testpersonsL1, in thiscaseDanish.LikeintestA,theanswersweredividedintothreegroups:0pointsforwrong(orno)translations,0.5pointsforpartlyrighttranslationsand1pointforcor-recttranslations.50testpersonstookpartinthistest,leadingtoamaximumof800points.Allparticipantstogetherreached659points,correspondingtoanunderstand-inglevelof82.4%.Thelowestnumberofcorrecttranslationswas9,threeparticipantsscoredthefull16points. Afurthertesttypewasappliedintestcondition(E).ThestudentswereaskedtowriteasummaryoftheSwedishtextinDanish.Theycouldwriteasmuchastheywanted,norestrictionsweregiven.ThesummariesweresupposedtocorrectlyrefertothefourpointswhichthequestionsintestconditionsA-Creferredto.Toguaranteethattheassessmentcoveredthewholetextandnotjustpartsofit,eachtestperson’ssummarywasassessedinacomparableandtransparentwaymakingitpossibletocomparetheresultsfromalltestconditionswitheachother.Again,fullyandcorrectlysummarisedtextpartswererewardedwith1point,partlycorrectanswersscored0.5pointsandwrongorleftoutparts0points.36studentstookpartinthistest,makingup144pos-siblepoints.Intotal,theunderstandingmeasuredinthistestconditiontotalled76.4%(110points,resultsrangingbetween1and4points). Inthesixthtestcondition(F),theprocedureappliedin(E)wasrepeated,butnowtheinstructionsforthetestwerecomplementedbythetestpersonbeingaskedtokeepthesummaryshortandclear.Thisrestrictioningeneralresultedinshorteranswersand,inaccordancewiththeexpectations,theresultsofthetextunderstandingwereclearlylowerthanthosein(A)to(E).Nevertheless,with44personstestedandamaxi-

Table 6. UnderstandingofSwedishinDenmark;testedinsixdifferenttestconditions

Test condition Understanding

Overallresult 82.7%(A)Openquestions 83.6%(B)True/falsequestions 93.0%(C)Multiplechoicequestions 91.4%(D)Wordtranslation 82.4%(E)Summary 76.4%(F)Shortsummary 66.2%

226 GerkeDoetjes

mumof176pointsachievable,evenhere116.5pointswerereached(66.2%).Themax-imumofpointsachievedwas4,oneparticipantreachednopoints. Theoverallresultwas82.7%,7withtheresultsofthreetestconditionssituatedunderthislevel,andthreeabove.However,thisdoesnotmeanthattheunderstandingwasworseinsomecases,andbetterinothers.Itratherpointstothefactthatsometestcondi-tionsleadtohigherresultlevelsthanothers.Thismainlyisatesteffect.Sometesttypesautomaticallyleadtohigherresults,withthedifferingpossibilitiesofansweringcorrect-lyplayingahugerole(true–falseandmultiplechoicetestsresultinginanautomatic50%and25%chancerespectivelyofgettingacorrectanswer).Furthermore,pre-formulatedanswersplayastrongrole.Inthesecasesparticipantscanrelybothonthetextandontheansweringpossibilitiestoreachthecorrectanswer.Inmoreopentestmethods,e.g.openquestionsorsummarytests,merelyadvancedknowledgeofthetextsusedcouldplayarolewithsomeparticipants.Suchtesttypesarealsomorecomplicatedtoassessandevaluate.Bothfactorscouldhaveaslightlynegativeeffectontheresults. Resultsfromdifferenttestconditionscancompensateforsuchtestandratingeffectsbyrecalculatingthemeanresultof82.7%toabaselevelof100(seeTable7).Theindexfigureforthetranslationtask,aswellasbothsummaryconditionsstayunderthislevel(99.6,92.4and80.1respectively);theothertestconditionsreachindexfiguresover100(112.5forthetrue–falsecondition,110.5forthemultiplechoicetestand101.2fortheopenquestiontesttype).

4. Conclusions

Basedonresearchdonesofar,itisvirtuallyimpossibletogiveastraightoutanswertothequestionofhowwellScandinavianscanunderstandeachother’slanguages.Theappliedtestsdonotprovideclearanswers,seenastheresultsarealwayseffectedbythetest typebeingusedandbyseveralotherfactors.TheinvestigationscarriedoutbyHaugen (1953)andNordiska rådet (1973)aswell asMaurud (1976),Bø (1978)andDelsingandLundinÅkesson(2005)allmanagetoanswerpartsofthemainques-tionposed in thisarticle,but fail tocoverallaspectsof it.Furthermore,most testsfail tocontroltheL2languageunderstandingresults(e.g.of DanishbySwedes)ne-glectingtotestthesametextmaterialandusingthesamemethodsincomparableL1

Table 7. Indexfiguresforthedifferenttestconditions(mean=100)

Test condition Understanding

(A)Openquestions 101.2(B)True/falsequestions 112.5(C)Multiplechoicequestions 110.5(D)Wordtranslation 99.6(E)Summary 92.4(F)Shortsummary 80.1

Differencesininter-Scandinavianunderstanding 227

testgroups(e.g.DanishlanguageunderstandingtestedinaDanish-speakingcontrolgroup).Onlywhenthelevelofunderstandinginthisgroupisknown,cantheresultsachievedbygroupsofspeakersfortheotherlanguagesbeinterpretedreferringtothatlevel.Maurud(1976)reachesthisprerequisite,butonlyforthespokenlanguagepartofhis test.Evenhisfigures revealdifferences thatcouldmake the interpretationofinter-Scandinavian languagetestresultsdifficult.Otherresearchersonlypresentfig-uresfortheL2conditionorL1testresultsthatvarybetweenthelanguages. InChapter3,itwasshownthatdifferenttestconditions,allotherthingsbeingequal,presentuswithfiguresofunderstandingvaryingbetween66.2%for theshort sum-maryconditionand93.0%forthetrue–falsetesttype.Shortsummariesleadtorela-tivelylowresults,leadingtoanunderstatingoftheinter-Scandinavianunderstanding.Incontrast,resultsinthetrue–falseconditionpointintheotherdirection.Thisisim-portanttokeepinmindwheninterpretingtestresultsininter-Scandinavianlanguageunderstandinginvestigations. Itisoftenstatedthatnotestingmethodisperfect(cf.e.g.Alderson2000:203).ThisisnolesstrueforthetesttypespresentedinChapter3ofthisarticleaswellasforthetesttypesusedintheprimaryresearchonthetopicaspresentedinChapter2.Therefore,itmightbeagoodideatouseacombinationofseveraltestmethodsinordertobeabletoadequatelyanswertheabove-mentionedquestion. Fornow,wecanconcludethatathoroughinvestigationoflanguageunderstandingbetweenthemainlandScandinavianlanguagesisstillmissingandthatwethereforearenotabletopreciselydescribeunderwhatexactconditionsDanes,NorwegiansandSwedestakepartintheinter-Scandinaviansemi-communication.TheScandinaviancountriesareintensivelyworkingtogether,thereisastrongdesireforthisinformation.Anextstepininter-Scandinavianlanguagetestingcouldbetofocusmoreonlanguageunderstandinginspecialsituationsandundercertainconditions,e.g.mixedDanish–Norwegian–Swedish constellations, or in situations in which speakers use accom-modationstrategies(GrünbaumandReuter1997,GilesandSmith1979)inordertomakeiteasiertounderstanddialect-likeneighbouringlanguages.ButnotonlywithinScandinaviaisthereuseformoreinformationonthepossibilitiesofunderstandingneighbouringlanguages,asstudiesonothercombinationsofrelatedlanguageshavebeencarriedoutfocusingonthereceptiveuseofL1languages(e.g.vanBezooijenandGooskens2005forDutch,FrisianandAfrikaans,cf.alsovanBezooijenandGooskensinthisvolume,aswellasKleinandStegmann2000fortheRomanlanguages).

Notes

* ThisarticleispartlybasedonatesttheauthordesignedandcarriedoutwithintheresearchprojectSemicommunication and Receptive Multilingualism in Scandinaviain2004/2005.From1999until2005,thisprojectwaspartoftheCollaborativeResearchCenter538Multilingualism,locatedattheUniversityofHamburg.ThetestresultspresentedinSection3ofthisarticlewere

228 GerkeDoetjes

initiallydiscussedinaworkingpaperfromtheresearchcenternamedabove(cf.Chapter3ofGolinskiandDoetjes2005).Thisarticleaimstodeepenthethesespresentedthereandtoputtheminabroaderperspective.IwouldliketothankKurtBraunmüller,BernadetteGolinskiandLudgerZeevaertfortheirhelp.

1. Cf.Vikør(1995)forcomprehensivedescriptionsoftheScandinavianlanguages.

2. Cf.Dahlstedt(1974)foradiscussionontheseparationoftheScandinavianlanguagebranchintotwogroups,orasheputsit,afirst(mainland)andasecond(peripheral)languagecommu-nity.

3. Thisprincipleisalsousedbyspeakersofother,non-ScandinavianlanguagesinScandinaviawantingtotakepartininter-Scandinaviancommunication,e.g.FinnishspeakingFinnsusingSwedish.

4. The Nordic Council has a website, http://www.norden.org, which is aimed to provide in-formationabout theofficial cooperationbetween itsmembers (includingDenmark,NorwayandSwedenaswellasFinland,Iceland,GreenlandandtheFaroeIslands).Inaddition,thenon-official association Föreningen Norden (http://www.norden.se) has actively stimulated pan-Scandinaviancooperationsinceitwasfounded1919.

5. Thistermmightcausesomeconfusion,withsemi-notbeingusedinanegativeway(asine.g.semi-bilingualism).Haugenratherwantedtopointoutthatsemi-communicationcombinesre-ceptivebilingualismwithproductivemonolingualism(cf.BraunmüllerandZeevaert2001:4–5).

6. The test text was taken from the Swedish newspaper Gotlands Allehanda (http://www.gotlandsallehanda.se/)inDecember2003andispresentedintheAppendix.

7. Calculatedasthemeanresultofallparticipants.Themeanresultweightedfortestcondi-tionswas82%.

References

Alderson,J.C.2000.Assessing Reading.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Bergman,G.2001.Kortfattad svensk språkhistoria.Stockholm:Norstedtsakademiskaförlag.Bezooijen,R.vanandGooskens,C.2005.HoweasyisitforspeakersofDutchtounderstand

FrisianandAfrikaans,andwhy?Linguistics in the Netherlands22:13–24.Bø,I.1978.Ungdom og naboland. En undersøkelse av skolens og fjernsynets betydning for nabo-

språksforståelsen[Rogalandsforskning19784].Stavanger:Rogalandsforskning.Börestam,U.1984.Språkförståelse och språkpreferenser i internordisk kommunikation på Island

[FUMS120].Uppsala:Uppsalauniversitet,Institutionenförnordiskaspråk.Börestam, U. 1985. Dansk-svensk språkförståelse på Jyllands västkust. En punktstudie [FUMS

126].Uppsala:Uppsalauniversitet,Institutionenförnordiskaspråk.Börestam,U.1987.Dansk-svensk språkgemenskap på undantag. Nordisk språkförståelse i nutids-

historiskt och regionalt perspektiv belyst av svenska gymnasieungdomars förståelse av äldre och nutida talad danska[FUMS137].Uppsala:Uppsalauniversitet,Institutionenförnor-diskaspråk.

Börestam Uhlmann, U. 1994. Skandinaver samtalar. Språkliga och interaktionella strategier i samtal mellan danskar, norrmän och svenskar[SkrifterutgivnaavInstitutionenförNordiskaSpråkvidUppsalaUniversitet38].Uppsala:InstitutionenförNordiskaSpråk.

Differencesininter-Scandinavianunderstanding 229

Braunmüller, K. 2002. Semicommunication and accommodation: Observations from the lin-guisticsituationinScandinavia.International Journal of Applied Linguistics12:1–23.

Braunmüller, K. 2006.Vorbild Skandinavien? Zur Relevanz der rezeptiven Mehrsprachigkeitin Europa. In Praxen der Mehrsprachigkeit [Reihe Mehrsprachigkeit 20], K. Ehlich andA.Hornung(eds),11–29.Münster:Waxmann.

Braunmüller, K. and Zeevaert, L. 2001. Semikommunikation, rezeptive Mehrsprachigkeit und verwandte Phänomene. Eine bibliographische Bestandsaufnahme [ArbeitenzurMehrspra-chigkeit, Folge B 19]. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, Sonderforschungsbereich Mehr-sprachigkeit.

Bruntse, J.2004. It’s Scandinavian.Dansk-svensk kommunikation i SAS.Copenhagen:Køben-havnsuniversitet.MA-thesis.

Dahlstedt,K.-H.1974.Dennordiskaspråkgemenskapen.Språkvårdsstudier53:171–87.Delsing,L.-O.andLundinÅkesson,K.2005.Håller språket ihop Norden? En forskningsrapport

om ungdomars förståelse av danska, svenska och norska[TemaNord2005573].Copenhagen:Nordiskaministerrådet.

Giles,H.andSmith,P.1979.Accommodationtheory:Optimallevelsofconvergence.InLanguage and Social Psychology,H.GilesandR.St.Clair(eds),45–65.Oxford:BasilBlackwell.

Golinski, B. and Doetjes, G. 2005. Sprachverstehensuntersuchungen im semikommunikativen Kontext [Arbeiten zur Mehrsprachigkeit, Folge B 64]. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg,SonderforschungsbereichMehrsprachigkeit.

Grünbaum,C.andReuter,M.1997.Att förstå varandra i Norden — språkråd till nordbor i nor-diskt samarbete. En handledning utgiven av Nordiska rådet, Nordiska språksekretariatet och Nordiska språk- och informationscentret.Oslo:Nordiskaspråksekretariatet.

Haugen, E. 1953. Nordiske språkproblemer—en opinionsundersökelse. Nordisk tidskrift ör vetenskap, konst och industri29:225–49.

Haugen,E.1966.Semicommunication:ThelanguagegapinScandinavia.Sociological Inquiry36:280–97.

Jörgensen,N.andKärrlander,E.2001.Grannspråksförståelse i Öresundsregionen år 2000. Gym-nasisters hörförståelse[NordLund22:1].Lund:Institutionenförnordiskaspråk.

Klein,H.G.andStegmann,T.D.2000.EuroComRom— Die sieben Siebe: Romanische Sprachen sofort lesen können,2ndedn.[EditionesEuroCom1].Aachen:Shaker.

Lundin, K. and Zola Kristensen, R. 2001. Grannspråksförståelse i Öresundsregionen år 2000. Gymnasisters läsförståelse[NordLund22:2].Lund:Institutionenförnordiskaspråk.

Maurud, Ø. 1976. Reciprocal comprehension of neighbour languages in Scandinavia. An in-vestigationofhowwellpeopleinDenmark,NorwayandSwedenunderstandeachother’swrittenandspokenlanguages.Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research20:49–72.

Nordiskarådet1973.Den nordiska allmänheten och det nordiska samarbetet 1973. Attitydunder-sökning[Nordiskutredningsserie473].Stockholm:Nordiskarådet.

Ridell,K.2000.Språkbroar. En studie av dansk-svenska radiosamtal i Öresundsregionen.Uppsala:Uppsalauniversitet,Institutionenförnordiskaspråk(unpublishedMA-thesis).

Vikør,L.1995.The Nordic Languages. Their status and interrelations[Nordiskaspråksekretari-atet14].Oslo:Novus.

Zeevaert,L.2004.Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verständi-gung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs[Philologia64].Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

230 GerkeDoetjes

Appendix

ThefollowingtextwasusedforthetestpresentedinChapter3.Thetextwastakenfromtheon-linenewspaperGotlands AllehandainDecember2003.

Sommarens turister höll hårt i plånbokenSommaren2003blevenrekordsommarförGotland,aldrigförrharantaletbesökarevaritsåhögt.Ändånåddeinteomsättningennågrarekordnivåer. AndersMurat,turistchefpåGotlandsturistförening,trorattlågkonjunkturenärorsakentillattdethögaantaletturisterinteletttillstörreintäkter. –Folkrestemer,menhöllhårdareiplånboken,sägerAndersMurat. Framför allt konsumerades det mindre. Besökarna åt mindre på restaurang, roade sig bil-ligare och handlade mer sparsamt. Trenden ser likadan ut nationellt. Turistdelegationen hargenomförtenundersökningomhurturistsommaren2003sågutförhelariketochkommitframtillattvolymenharhöjtsmedanintäkternasjunkit.Somförklaringuppgesattflerväljerbilligarealternativförsittresande.Mångaköregenbilpåbekostnadavflyg,tågochbussellerborisom-marstuganellerhosvänneriställetförpåhotellochvandrarhem. EnannantydligtrendiriketsåvälsompåGotlandärattresandetförskjutitstilldensenaredelenavsommaren. –Många tar ut sin semester i augusti och jag tror detta beror på att vi anpassat oss efterEuropa. Att turismen fördelas över hela sommaren är bra för oss i turistnäringen, säger AndersMurat.

Chapter10

Scandinavian intercomprehension today

Lars-OlofDelsingLundsuniversitet

Thearticlepresentstheresultsfromastudyontheunderstandingofwrittenandspo-kenDanish,NorwegianandSwedish.Thestudywascarriedout in theyears2003–2005 within the INS-project and involves pupils and adults from the ScandinaviancountriesDenmark,FaroeIslands,Finland,Greenland,Iceland,NorwayandSweden.Theresultsarecompared to those fromastudypublishedbyMaurud in1976.ThecomparisonofthetwostudiesrevealssignificantchangesinthemutualunderstandinginScandinaviathatcanbeattributedtopoliticalandeconomicalinternationalisationandglobalisation,changesinthemedialandscapeandanincreasingmigrationrateintoScandinavia,butalsobetweentheScandinaviancountries.ThestudyiscompletedbyasimultaneousinvestigationofthecomprehensionofEnglish.

Keywords:Danish,Norwegian,Swedish,mutualunderstanding,globalisation,English

1. Introduction

The three Mainland Scandinavian languages, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian, areto a great extent mutually intelligible. It seems safe to state that most communica-tionbetweenDanes,SwedesandNorwegiansiscarriedoutintheScandinavianlan-guages,whereeachpersonspeakshis/herownlanguageandtriestounderstandtheother’s, when they are speaking theirs. Often, also Finns, Icelanders, Faeroese, andGreenlanders participate in communication in the Scandinavian languages, sincemanyof themare sufficientlyfluent inoneof theScandinavian languages todoso(manyFinnsknowSwedishandmanyIcelanders,FaeroeseandGreenlandersknowDanish,c.f.alsoDoetjesthisvolume,Zeevaertthisvolume). Thelinguisticsituationisnotunique;itcan,forinstance,befoundincommunica-tionbetweenspeakersofvariousRomance,Slavic,NorthIndianorBantulanguages.Politically the situation is however somewhat unusual, since there has been a polit-icalconsensus in theScandinaviancountries inparticular,and in theNordiccoun-tries in general to promote and strengthen this Scandinavian linguistic fellowship.DanishhaslongbeenthelanguageofeducationinGreenlandandtheFaeroeIslands(togetherwithGreenlandicandFaeroese,respectively),andithasbeentaughtasafor-eignlanguageinIcelandicschoolsalsoaftertheindependencefromDenmarkin1946.Similarly,SwedishhasbeentaughtasaforeignlanguagetoFinnsinFinland.Onlyre-centlyhasEnglishtakentheplaceasthefirstforeignlanguagetaughtinIcelandicandFinnishschools.1

232 Lars-OlofDelsing

InScandinaviaproper(Denmark,SwedenandNorway),thereisanagreementtoteachtheotherScandinavianlanguagesinschool.Thishasbeendonesincethe1950s,butwithvaryingdegreeofenthusiasmamongsttheteachers.PublicservicetelevisionintheNordiccountriesmakeanefforttocastTV-seriesandfilmsfromtheneighbour-ingcountries.2

TheknowledgeoftheScandinavianneighbouringlanguageswastestedamongstmil-itaryrecruitsinaninvestigationfrom1972(Maurud1976).3Inthispaper,Ipresentanewinvestigation—theINSinvestigation,carriedoutwithfundingfromNordiska kul-turfonden(theNordicCulturalFund)from2003–2005.TherewereseveralreasonstoinvestigatetheintercomprehensionofScandinavianlanguagesagain,sincetheNordiccountriesandtheirinteractionhavechangedconsiderablyinthelastthirtyyears. First,thethreeScandinaviancountries,Denmark,SwedenandNorway,haveseentheentryofalargenumberofimmigrantsandrefugees.ThepercentageofforeignbornpersonsfromoutsidetheNordiccountriesinSwedenwas2.9%in1975and8.4%in2001.4Thesecondgenerationimmigrantshaveincreasedevenmore,butwelackreli-ablestatistics.ThesituationissimilarinDenmarkandNorway,butonaslightlylowerlevel.InFinlandandIcelandtheimmigrationhasbeenalmostinsignificant. Second,thesupplyanduseofmassmediahaschangedconsiderably.In1972,theNordiccountrieshadonepublicservicechanneleach,exceptforSwedenwhereasec-ondchannelwasstartedin1969.Theonlyonesthatwereabletowatchtwotelevisionchannelsbeforethatwerethoselivingneartheboarderwithaneighbouringcountry.Nowadays,therearemanycommercialchannelsavailabletomostpeople.Throughca-blesandparabolicaerials,therearenownationalcommercialchannels,aswellasinter-nationalchannels,andmanyimmigrantsareabletowatchtelevisionfromtheirnativecountries.Englishdominatesthetelevisionchannelsthatpeopleactuallyview. Third, the school systems have changed a great deal, especially in Sweden andNorway. There, the old gymnasium is, in practice, transformed into a compulso-ryschoolform,fromwhereeveryoneissupposedtogainaccesstohighereducation.Englishistaughtfromthethirdorfourthclass,andnowadayseveryonebelow65yearsofageknowsEnglishtosomeextent. Fourth,thepoliticalsituationhaschangedsinceDenmark’smembershipintheEECin1974,whichwasfollowedbySwedenandFinlandwhobecamemembersoftheEUin1995.NorwayandIcelandareoutsidetheEU,buttheyaremembersoftheEESandSchengen.Thus,EuropeismuchmoreinfocusforScandinaviansnowthan30yearsago.Thetraditional foreign languages taught inScandinavianschoolswereEnglish,German and French. English has been strengthened, but the other languages havereceivedcompetitionfromlanguagessuchasSpanishandItalianandothersubjects.Simultaneously,pupilshavetendedtochooseothersubjectsthanforeignlanguages.TheresultofthisisthatEnglishisstrongerandisnowverydominant. Fifth,generaleconomicglobalisationhas leadtothecreationofseveralcommonScandinaviancompanies,especiallyinindustry,bankingandmedia.SomecompanieshavetriedtouseScandinavianastheircommonlanguage,butmosthaveturnedto

Scandinavianintercomprehensiontoday 233

English,atleastinofficialcircumstances.Frequently,employeesfindthemselvesinadiglossia-likesituation,speakingEnglishattheboardmeeting,butScandinavianoverlunch. Sixth,thepatternofcommutingandmigrationbetweentheNordiccountrieshaschanged. Due to varying states of the market, the exchange of labour between theNordic countries is considerable. A bridge between Copenhagen in Denmark andMalmö inSweden, theÖresundbridge,wasopened in theyear2000,and thenewSvinesundbridgebetweenSwedenandNorwaywascompletedin2005. Some of the changes mentioned above should lead to more interaction in Scan-dinavia,butotherwillleadtonewproblemsforcommunication.Someareclearlyfa-vouringEnglishasanalternativetotheScandinavianlinguisticfellowship. Intherestofthispaper,IwillpresentsomeoftheresultsofournewinvestigationonScandinavianintercomprehension,theINS-investigation.AsaconsequenceoftheincreasingimportanceofEnglishintheNordiccountries,thisinvestigationwasalsoaccompaniedbyaparallelinvestigationofthecomprehensionofEnglish.5

2. Theinvestigation

The investigation was initiated and funded by Nordiska Kulturfonden (The NordicCulturalFund).OneobjectivewastomakethisnewinvestigationcomparabletotheinvestigationofMaurud,carriedoutin1972,whichistheonlypreviousmajorinvesti-gationofthistype.Ourinvestigationwascarriedoutduring2003and2004.Ourmaingroupof informantswerepupils inthegymnasiumandotherschools for thesameagegroup(15–19yearsofage).WetestedthesepupilsinDanish,Swedish,NorwegianandEnglish.Firstwetestedsome1200pupilsinthetwoScandinavianlanguagesthattheyweresupposedtoknowtheleast,soSwedesandFinnsweretestedinDanishandNorwegian,Danes,Faeroese,IcelandersandGreenlandersinNorwegianandSwedish,andNorwegiansinDanishandSwedish.InasecondinvestigationwetestedroughlyathirdoftheclassesinEnglishandoneScandinavianlanguage. Theinvestigationwascarriedoutinthecapitalsofthecountriesandsemi-independ-entareas(partlyinordertomakeacomparisonwithMaurud’sinvestigationpossible)and insevenothercities.Ourchoiceofcitieswaspartlyguidedbyourknowledgeofcontactpatterns.Stockholm,forinstance,hasquitelittlecontactwithDenmarkor

Table 1. Locationsoftheinvestigation

Denmark Sweden Norway Finland Iceland Faeroe Isl. Greenland

Copenhagen Stockholm Oslo Helsinki Reykjavik Torshavn NuukÅrhus Malmö Bergen Jyväskylä Akureyri

VaasaMariehamn

234 Lars-OlofDelsing

Norway,andthereforwechoseMalmöasthesecondcityofinvestigation;Malmöhasextensive contacts with Denmark, especially since the Öresund bridge was opened.Similar considerations apply to the choice of other Scandinavian cities. In FinlandwewerealsoguidedbythesizeoftheSwedishspeakingpopulation,Helsinkihavingroughly8%Swedishspeakingpopulation,Vasa28%,Mariehamn95%andJyväskyläpracticallynoSwedishspeakingpopulationatall. Thisinvestigationofpupilswasfollowedupbyasmallerinvestigationofsomeoftheirparents.Wecontactedtheparentsofsome20%ofthepupilsinDenmark,SwedenandNorway.Theintentionwastocomparetwogenerationswithregardtocompre-hensionoftheneighbouringlanguages. Thelastpartoftheinvestigationwasdoneontheweb,andthepublicwasinvitedtodopartsofthetestontheweb.Theiranswershavebeengatheredinadatabase.Theintentionwasthattheseanswerswillbeabletoanswersomequestionsthatthemaininvestigationwillnot,sincethewebinvestigationgetsabroaderrangeofinformants,withregardtoageandgeography.Thewebinvestigationisnotanalysedyet,andisnotpresentedhere.

2.1 Thetest

All the informants were presented with a questionnaire. They filled in data aboutthemselves, such as sex, age, home language, attitudes towards the neighbouringcountriesandlanguages.Afterthattheyweretestedintwolanguages,forinstanceonetestonSwedishandoneonNorwegianforDanishconsultants.Everylanguagetestisconstitutedbythreeparts,onevideosequence,onetaperecordingandonewrittentext. Thevideosequence isashortextract fromtheTV-program“Whowants tobeamillionaire”,whichhasbeenbroadcastinallthethreeScandinaviancountriesandinGreatBritain.Thegeneralconceptandprocedureoftheprogramisthesameinallcountries,butthepersonsparticipatinginthequizandthequestionsareofcoursedif-ferent.Inbetweenthequestions,thereareintermissionsofsmalltalk,wheretheinter-vieweraskstheparticipantsabouttheireverydaylife,theiroccupationandtheirhob-bies.Asequenceofthiskindhasbeenchosenforeachofthefourlanguages(Danish,Swedish,NorwegianandEnglish).Inconnectiontothesesequencesthequestionnairecontainsfivequestionsaboutthecontentofthesmalltalk,suchas“Thewomanhasapet,whatkindofapetisthat?”Acorrectanswergivestwopoints(apartlycorrectan-swergives1point),andtheinformantmaythusget10pointsonthispartofthetest. Thetaperecordingcontainsapieceofaradionewsbroadcast.OriginallythetextisanewspaperarticleinDanish.Thishasbeentranslatedintotheotherthreelanguages,and ithasbeenreadbyprofessionalnewsreportersoractorshavingtherespectivelanguagesastheirmothertongues(femaleforDanish,SwedishandNorwegian,butmaleforEnglish).Thetextisthusidenticalforallthefourlanguages,andtheques-tionnaire contains five identical questions about the content, such as “How fast

Scandinavianintercomprehensiontoday 235

did thekangaroorun?”Acorrectanswergives twopoints (apartlycorrectanswergets1point),andtheinformantmaythusget10pointsalsoonthispartofthetest. Thewrittentextisanarticlefromanewspaper.TheoriginalarticlewaswritteninDanishandthentranslatedintotheotherthreelanguages.Thisisavocabularytest.Tenwordsareunderlinedinthequestionnaire,andforeverywordtherearefoural-ternatives,ofwhichonlyoneisacorrecttranslation.Thetextsareidenticalinthefourlanguages, but the underlined words are not always the same. The alternatives aresometimesverysimilarintheScandinavianlanguages,butnotalways.Everycorrectanswergives1point,andtheinformantmaythusget10pointsonthispartofthetest. Tosummarise,therearethreepartsofthetest,wherethefirstonehasdifferentcon-tentandquestions,thesecondhasidenticalcontentandquestions,andthethirdhasidenticalcontentbutonlypartlyidenticalquestions.Thelattertwohaveidenticalcon-tent,andinordertobeabletotesttwolanguagesatthesameoccasion,weproducedtwodifferentradionewsbroadcastsandtwodifferentnewspaperarticles. Thetworadiosequencesconsistoflightnews.OneisaboutarunawaykangarooinCopenhagen,theotheraboutpeopleintheUSAwhocountfrogsbylisteningfortheircroaking.Thetwonewspaperarticlesaremoreserious.OneisaboutnewlegislationaboutsyntheticdrugswithintheEU,andtheotheroneisabouttinnitusandcompen-sationinconnectionwiththisdisease.Inthiswayweavoidplayingthesameradiobroadcast,forinstancefirstinDanishandtheninNorwegianforourSwedishinform-ants,andlikewisetheinformantsgettwodifferenttextstoread.Roughlyhalfofthepupilshavebeentestedoneachvariantoftheradionewsbroadcastandthenewspa-perarticle.Thevideosequenceshavedifferentcontentfromthebeginningandhavenotcalledfortwoversionsinthisway.

2.2 Theinvestigation

Theinvestigationhasbeencarriedoutby20fieldworkers.TwelveofthemweretrainedduringaweekendcourseinCopenhageninFebruary2002.Theylearnedabouttheoverallpurposeanddesignof the investigation,and theygota thoroughsurveyofthequestionnaireandthevideoandtaperecordings.Theywerealsoinstructedabouthowtocontactschoolsandparentsetc.Sincetheneightnewfieldworkershavebeentrainedbytheoriginalfieldworkers. Thefieldworkerswereinstructedtocontactclassesattendingboththeoreticalandpracticaleducation.InthethreeScandinaviancountries,wealsotriedtofindclasseswithimmigrantsineachcity,sothatapproximately25%oftheinformantsshouldhavea foreignhome language.Thetestwascarriedout in40minutes ineachclass.Thepupilsfirstfilledintheirpersonaldata,andwerethentestedintwolanguages.Mostclassesweretestedinthelanguagesofthetwoneighbouringcountries,butsomeweretestedinthenationallanguageandEnglish. Theinvestigationhasalwaysbeencarriedoutintheordinarylanguageofeducation,NorwegianintheNorwegianclasses,FinnishintheFinnishclassesinFinlandetc.The

236 Lars-OlofDelsing

GreenlandersandtheFaeroesegettheireducationinbothDanishandthenativelan-guage.IntheseclassestheinvestigationwascarriedoutinDanish. Whenwetestedthepupils’parents,weonlydidsoinScandinavia,butotherwisetheyweretestedinthesamewayasthepupils.Someoftheparentsweregatheredinthepupilsschools,butmostlythefieldworkersvisitedthemintheirhomes.Thusthetestsituationwasnormallylessnoisyfortheparents. Thefieldworkershaveenteredthequestionnaireresultsintoourdatabase.Thean-swersfromIcelandandtheFinnishclassesinFinlandhavebeentranslatedintoDanishandSwedish,respectively,bythefieldworkers.Afewquestionnaireshavebeenomit-tedfromthedatabase.Onlypeople25yearsofageoryoungerhavebeenenteredintothedatabase,inordertokeeptheagegrouphomogenousandseparatefromthepa-rentalgroup.Afewpersonsdidnottaketheinvestigationseriously,andsomehavebeenomittedbecauseoftheirhomelanguage;wehaveexcludedimmigrantsoutsideScandinaviaandafewScandinavianslivinginanotherScandinaviancountry(DanesinNorwayetc.).SwedishspeakersinFinlandandDanishspeakersinGreenlandareconsideredmore stableminoritiesandarenot seenas immigrants.FinallypersonswithEnglishastheirhomelanguagewereexcludedfromtheEnglishtest. Withtheseomissionswehave1806questionnairesinthedatabase.Allofthemex-ceptsix,containtwo languagetests.6Thuswehave3606 languagetests,distributedasinTable2.ForFinland,FinnishspeakingclassesandSwedishspeakingclassesareshownseparately.7

Below,Igiveashortoverviewoftheresults.FurtherdetailsmaybefoundinDelsing&LundinÅkesson(2005).

2.3 Generalresults

Allfiguresarecalculatedasaveragesintherangebetween0and10.8Thosewhoweretestedintheirownmothertongueusuallyreachanaverageof8to8.5points,butitshouldbepointedoutthatthereadingcomprehensiontestprobablywasmoredifficultwhenthenative languagewastestedthanwhenEnglishorneighbouring languages

Table 2. Numberoflanguagetestsforeachlanguageandcountry

Danish Swedish Norwegian English Total

Denmark 113 267 267 110 757Sweden 256 78 256 75 665Norway 303 303 78 78 762Finland(Sw.) 92 56 92 56 296Finland(Fi.) 103 140 152 115 510FaeroeIsl. 47 24 39 16 126Iceland 144 107 107 70 428Greenland 31 20 11 0 62Total 1089 995 1002 520 3606

Scandinavianintercomprehensiontoday 237

were tested. InTable3 theresults for theneighbouring languagesaregiven for thedifferentcountries/areas.Intherightmostcolumn,theaveragefortheneighbouringScandinavianlanguagesaregiven;itisbasedontwolanguagesforDenmark,Sweden,Norway,andSwedishclassesinFinland,whereasitisbasedonallthethreelanguagesfortheothergroups. Table 3 shows that the Faeroese and the Norwegians understand the neighbour-ing languages better than other groups. The comparison between Faeroese andNorwegiansisabitmisleading,sincethefiguresarebasedonthreeandtwolanguagesrespectively.ItishoweverclearthattheNorwegiansareconsiderablybetterthantheSwedesand theDanes, and that theFaeroeseare clearlybetter than the Icelanders,FinnsandGreenlanders. AccordingtoTable2,theSwedesseemtomanageabitbetterthantheDanes,butthatisentirelyduetothevideorecording,wheretheDanishversionhappenedtobeeasierthantheSwedish(andtheNorwegian)one.Intheothertests,whicharemorecomparable,theDanesscore4.55pointsinSwedishand5.39inNorwegian,whereastheSwedesscored3.72inDanishand5.55inNorwegian.ThisisinaccordancewithMaurud’s(1976)investigation,i.e.theSwedesareworsethantheDanes,althoughtheDanesaremoreclosetotheSwedesinourinvestigation.

2.4 Scandinavianasasecondlanguage

Intheformersection,wesawthattheSwedishspeakingclassesinFinlandmanagedmuchbetter thantheFinnishspeakingclasses, twotothreetimesbetter.TohaveaScandinavianmother tongue thus seems tobeaclearadvantage,when it comes tounderstandtheneighbouringlanguages.AsfortheFaeroeseandtheIcelanders,theyhaveaNorthGermanic languageastheirmothertongue,andtheformeralsohaveDanishas their languageof education toagreat extent.Both theFaeroeseand theIcelanders are of course better in Danish, but they manage to understand SwedishandNorwegianastonishinglywell.TheGreenlandersontheotherhand(justliketheFinns)haveanon-relatedlanguageastheirmothertongue.TheyhaveDanishastheirlanguageofeducationtoagreatextent,andsotheymanageDanishquitewell,butare

Table 3. ComprehensionofneighbouringScandinavianlanguagesforcountries/areas

Country/area Danish Swedish Norwegian Neighbouring languages

Denmark – 3.53 4.18 3.86Sweden 3.80 – 4.98 4.39Norway 6.07 6.21 – 6.14Finland(Sw.) 3.64 – 4.77 4.20Finland(Fi.) 1.54 3.24 1.63 2.14FaeroeIsl. 8.28 5.75 7.00 7.01Iceland 5.36 3.34 3.40 4.03Greenland 6.61 2.23 3.73 4.19

238 Lars-OlofDelsing

poorintheothertwo.9TohaveaScandinavianlanguageasamothertongueisthusclearlyfavourableforthecomprehensionoftherelatedlanguages. InScandinavia,wedistinguishnatives fromimmigrantsbymeansof theirhomelanguage.Personswhoclaimtospeakonlythenationallanguage(Danish,SwedishorNorwegian,respectively)athomeareclassifiedasnativeandallothers(speakingonlyanon-Scandinavianlanguageorsuchalanguagetogetherwiththenationallanguage)areclassifiedasimmigrants.Withthis(approximate,butpractical)classificationwearriveattheresultsinTable4. Table 4 clearly shows that natives understand the neighbouring languages betterthan immigrants.This is of course to some extent a class issue; as a group, the im-migrants live in socially and economically less favourable circumstances than na-tiveScandinavians,whichisalsowitnessedbythefactthattheydonotmanagetheEnglishtestaswellasthenatives(seebelow).Tosomeextent, theworseresultsforthe immigrants will, however, have to be accounted for linguistically. Significantly,nativeScandinavianshavea largervocabulary,whichhelpsconsiderablywhencon-frontedwithrelatedlanguages.Forinstance,nativeSwedishyoungsterswillbemorelikelytoknowlowfrequencyvocabulary(oftenantiquatedwords)suchasicke,van-sklig,upprinnelse,andspörsmål(meaning‘not’,‘difficult’,‘origin’and‘question’),thantheirimmigrantclassmates.TheyoungstersalmostcertainlyusetheModernSwedishequivalentsinte, svår, ursprungandfrågaintheirownlanguage,butknowingthelessfrequentvariantswillbeveryusefulforthemwhentryingtounderstandDanishandNorwegian,wherethesewordsarefrequent. Thus,havingaScandinavianhomelanguageisclearlyanadvantage.Theimmigrantsthat we have tested are of course not a homogeneous group, and their proportionamongtheinformantsdeviatesmoreorlessfromtheirproportionofthegeneralpop-ulation.Theyareforinstanceover-representedinStockholmandunderrepresentedinBergen.Inthefollowingsections,IwillonlygiveresultsforthenativeScandinavians.

2.5 Comprehensionofneighbouringlanguagesinthedifferentcities

Wechosetoinvestigatetwocitiesineachcountry,partlyinordertobeabletocheckwhatrolethecontactwiththeneighbouringcountriesplays.Weassumed,forinstance,thatpeopleinMalmöwouldbebetteratDanishthanpeopleinStockholm,becauseof

Table 4. ComprehensionofneighbouringScandinavianlanguagesfornativesandimmigrantsinScandinavia

Danish Swedish Norwegian

Country Natives Immigrants Natives Immigrants Natives Immigrants

Denmark – – 3.67 3.04 4.35 3.63Sweden 4.26 2.87 – – 5.24 4.39Norway 6.55 4.61 6.75 4.57 – –

Scandinavianintercomprehensiontoday 239

theclosenessofMalmötoDenmarkandCopenhagen.Ourassumptionswere,byandlarge,confirmed,whichcanbeseeninTable5. FromTable5,wemayconcludethatthepeopleofBergenandOsloareequallygoodatDanish,whereasthepeopleinOslounderstandSwedishbetterthanthepeopleinBergen. This should of course be explained by the closeness of Oslo to Sweden. InSweden,wefindthattheinformantsinMalmöunderstandDanishmuchbetterthanthose from Stockholm. Danish is normally harder to understand for Swedes thanNorwegian,butMalmö’sclosenesstoDenmarkissignificantenoughtomakeDanishandNorwegianequallywellunderstoodbyourMalmöinformants(quiteincontra-rytothesituationinStockholm).InDenmarktheresultsaresurprising;theyoung-stersinCopenhagendoworseintheSwedishtestthanthoseinÅrhus.EventhoughCopenhagenisclosetoSweden,andSwedishtelevisionhasbeenavailabletoDanesintheCopenhagenareasincethechildhoodoftelevision,theyoungstersofCopenhagenseemtomanagelesswellthanthoseofÅrhus.ThismightbeduetolackofinterestamongtheCopenhageners.OurfieldworkersreportedmoreinterestfromthepupilsinÅrhus,anditseemsasifpartofthebadresultforCopenhagenshouldbeaccountedforbyattitudes.10

2.6 Agedifferences

InScandinavia,wereturnedtotheclasseswehadtestedinthespring2003andtestedsomeoftheirparents.Weaimedattestingtheparentsofonethirdofthepupils.InStockholm,wehadproblemsfindingparentswhowoulddothetest,butintheotherfiveScandinaviancitieswewereabletocarryouttheinvestigationoftheparentsasplanned.Forsomepupils,bothparentshavebeentested,andforothersonlyone,de-pendingonwhetherthepupilhastwoparentsathome,andwhethertheywerebothathomeatthetimeofourappointment.Wehavetestedsome170parents,andtheyaretobecomparedtotheirownchildren,nottothewholegroupofpupils.Theadvantageofthistestingprocedureisthatwemaycompareagroupofpupilswithjusttheirpar-ents,thusavoidingproblemsthatmightoccurwhereuppermiddleclassparentstendtoparticipateintestslikethesetoagreaterextentthanparentsfromthelowermiddleclassandtheworkingclass.Thecomparisonoftheparentsandtheirchildrenisgivenin

Table 5. Comprehensionofneighbouringlanguages(bynatives)inthedifferentcitiesofScandinavia

City Danish Swedish Norwegian Neighbouring language

Århus – 3.74 4.68 4.21Copenhagen – 3.60 4.13 3.87Malmö 5.08 – 4.97 5.02Stockholm 3.46 – 5.56 4.51Bergen 6.50 6.15 – 6.32Oslo 6.57 7.12 – 6.85

240 Lars-OlofDelsing

Table6,wherethemeanvaluesfortheparentsaregivenfirst,andthenthemeanvaluesforthepupils(thechildrenofthetestedparents). Table6mustbeinterpretedwithcare.Asmentionedabove,thiskindofinvestigationnormallyattractstheparentsofstudentswhomanagequitewellinschool;thisisbyandlargetrueaboutourinvestigationaswell.Thus,weshouldonlycomparetheresultsofthepupilsandtheirparents,notforinstancetheparents/pupilsacrosscountries. AccordingtoTable6,parentsareunambiguouslybetteratunderstandingtheneigh-bouringScandinavianlanguagesthantheirchildren.Thismaytosomeextentbeac-countedforbythefactthatparentsaremorematurelanguageusersgenerally;theyhavegreaterexperienceofcommunicationwithpeoplespeakingotherlanguages,theyhavealargerandmoreadvancedvocabularyetc.Furthermore,thepupilsweretestedinclassesof20to30,whereastheparentsweretestedinsmallergroups,oftenintheirownhomes.Nevertheless,thedifferencesarestriking;Table6reflectstwolanguagetestsinsixcities,eachwithfiveseparatetests(video,twolisteningtests,andtworeadingtests),whichamountsto60separatelanguagetests.In58outofthese60tests,theparentsmanagedbetterthantheirchildren;inthelasttwo,thechildrenwereonlyslightlybet-terthantheirparents. Evenifapartofthedifferencebetweentheparents’andthepupils’resultsshouldbeexplainedbythefactthattheparentsaremorematurelanguageusersandweretestedinsmallergroups(oftenindividually),Iinterprettheresultsasadeclineincomprehen-sionovertime.ThedeclineseemsespeciallysignificantinDenmark,butalsoquiteclearinSweden.InNorwayitishardertotell.

2.7 ComparisonwithMaurud

OurinvestigationshouldalsobecomparedtoMaurud’sfrom1972(publishedin1976).Thetwoinvestigationsarepartlydifferent;Maurudtestedmilitaryrecruits(onlymen)inthecapitalareasofthethreeScandinaviancountries,whereaswetestedhighschoolpupils (bothmenandwomen) in twocities ineachcountry.FurthermoreMaurud

Table 6. ComprehensionofneighbouringlanguagesinScandinaviaforpupilsandtheirpar-ents

Country Number ofinformants

Danish Swedish Norwegian Neighbouring languages

ParentsDenmark 64 – 5.93 6.62 6.28Sweden 47 7.26 – 6.86 7.06Norway 59 7.92 7.98 – 7.95PupilsDenmark 36 – 3.59 4.54 4.06Sweden 32 4.96 – 5.55 5.25Norway 48 6.73 6.88 – 6.81

Scandinavianintercomprehensiontoday 241

testedbothlisteningandreadingforcontentandwordcomprehension.Wetestedcon-tent comprehension for listening, only, and word comprehension for reading, only.Maurud’sinvestigationinvolvesfewerinformants(andcoversfewercitiesandareas),buthistestsaremoreextensiveforeachinformant. Tomakethetwotestscomparable,wehavecomparedonlyboysinthecapitalareasforcomprehensionofcontent in listening,andcomprehensionofwords inreading.FurthermorewecountonlynativeScandinaviansinourcomprehensiontests,sinceMaurud’s investigation included practically no immigrants.11 With these qualifica-tions,thecomparisonbetweenMaurud’sinvestigationandourscanbesummarisedasinTable7,whereMaurud’sresults(mediansgivenaspercentages)havebeenrecalcu-latedtobecomparabletoours(averagesgiveninpoints). InTable7,weseethat,forinstance,theDaneshave6.13(recalculated)pointsforSwedishinMaurud’sinvestigation,ascomparedto3.87intheINS-investigation.Weshould,however,immediatelystressthatwecannotcontrolforthedifferencesindif-ficultybetweenthetwotests(calculationsof thedifficultyof thetexts thatweusedshows that our texts were more difficult than Maurud’s; see Delsing and LundinÅkesson2005:34–8).Thusitismoreusefultocomparethedifferencesofcountry-lan-guagepairsbetweenthetwoinvestigations.ThisisdoneinTable8,whereMaurud’sresultisthereferencepoint(thebaseofanindexof100).Table8thusshowstheresultsofourinvestigation(INS)relativetothoseofMaurud’s.Anindexof75meansthatheresultofourinvestigationisthreefourthsofthatofMaurud’s. Table8showsthattheDanestestedforSwedishintheINS-investigationmanagedtoget55.7%ofthepointsthattheDanesgotinMaurud’sinvestigation.ComparingthethreeScandinaviangroups,Table8showsthattheDanesinourstudydiffermorefrom

Table 7. ComparisonofMaurud’sandourinvestigations

Country Danish Swedish Norwegian Neighbouring languages

Maurud(1972)Denmark – 6.13 7.90 7.01Sweden 5.17 – 7.42 6.29Norway 8.33 9.10 – 8.72INS(2003–2004)Denmark – 3.41 4.64 4.02Sweden 3.87 – 6.43 5.15Norway 6.62 8.05 – 7.33

Table 8. ResultsoftheINSinvestigationrelativetoMaurud’s

Country Danish Swedish Norwegian Neighbouring languages

Denmark – 55.7 58.6 57.3Sweden 74.8 – 86.6 81.8Norway 79.5 88.4 – 84.1

242 Lars-OlofDelsing

Maurud’sthantheSwedesandtheNorwegiansdo.ItalsoshowsthattheresultsoftheSwedesandtheNorwegiansinourinvestigationdiffermorefromMaurud’swhenitcomestoDanishthanwhentheyaretestedinNorwegianandSwedish,respectively.Keepinmindthatthefiguresdonotsayanythingaboutdeteriorationingeneral,sincewecannotcontrolforthedifferencesindifficultybetweenthetwotests,butthedif-ferencebetweentheDanesontheonehand,andtheSwedesandNorwegiansontheothersayssomething. This comparison thus confirms the comparison of pupils and their parents. ThecomprehensionofneighbouringlanguageshasdeterioratedinDenmark.Italsoindi-catesthattheNorwegiansaretheonesthatarebestatScandinaviancomprehension,andthattheymightbeatthesamelevelas30yearsago.Admittedly,theparentinves-tigationindicatesthattheSwedesareclosertotheDanesindeteriorating,whereasthecomparisonwithMaurudindicatesthattheSwedesalmostmatchtheNorwegians.AveryclearresultisthattheSwedish–Norwegianintercomprehensionissimilartothesituation30yearsago,whereastherehavebeenmorechangeswhereDanesorDanishareinvolved.

2.8 ComprehensionofEnglish

In our investigation, we also tested some of the pupils in English.We returned tothe classes where we tested the neighbouring languages, and carried out the sametestinEnglish(normallysomesixmonthslater).Theresultis,notsurprisingly,thatScandinavian youngsters are very good at English. Most of the tested pupils havenormallylearnedEnglishinschoolforsixtonineyears.InTable9,theresultsoftheEnglishtestsareshowntogetherwiththetestsofneighbouringlanguages.ThetableshowsonlynativeScandinavians;immigrantsarethusexcluded.12

Beforeweinterprettheresultsabove,itshouldbestressedthattheEnglishvideotestobviouslywassimplerthantheSwedishandNorwegianvideotest(theDanishonewasalsorathersimple).Itshouldfurtherbenotedthatsomeofthepupilsdoingthe

Table 9. ResultsforcomprehensionofneighbouringlanguagesandEnglishintheNordiccountries

Danish Swedish Norwegian English

Denmark – 3.67 4.35 6.08Sweden 4.26 – 5.24 7.55Norway 6.55 6.76 – 7.22Finland(Sw.) 3.64 – 4.76 7.66Finland(Fi.) 1.54 3.24 1.63 5.94FaeroeIsl. 8.28 5.75 7.00 7.60Iceland 5.36 3.34 3.40 7.17Greenland 6.61 2.23 3.73 –

Note: Unfortunately, the investigation of English comprehension was not carried out in Greenland.

Scandinavianintercomprehensiontoday 243

EnglishtesthadbeentestedforthesamenewsrecordingandnewspaperarticleinoneoftheScandinavianlanguagesbefore(normallyatleast6monthsbeforetheEnglishtest).Thismeansthattheymightremembersomeofthecontentfromthattest. Nevertheless,theresultsareclear;theresultoftheEnglishcomprehensiontestisbetter than that of the Scandinavian neighbouring languages in all countries/areas.OnlyintheFaeroeIslandsandNorwaydowefindtestresultsforneighbouringlan-guagesthatmaycompetewiththeEnglishresults.Thecomprehensionof EnglishissimilarinalltheNordiccountries,eventhoughtheFinnishclassesinFinlandandtheDanishgetalowerscorethantheothers.ThefactthattheFinnishmanagelesswellishardlysurprising,sincetheyhaveanon-Germanicmothertongue,differingfromEnglishinvocabulary,morphologyandsyntaxmuchmorethantheScandinavianlan-guages.13ThelowerfiguresfortheDanesarehoweversurprising;thereisnoobviousreasonthattheDanesshouldhavesignificantlyworseresultsthantheSwedesandtheNorwegians.

2.9 Analysis

Whenweinterprettheinvestigation,webeginwithsomeclearresults.OneoftheseisthatNorwegianshaveclearlybetterresultsthanSwedesandDanes.Wewouldliketoputforwardthefollowingsuggestionsasanexplanation. First,Norwegian(especiallyStandardNorwegian,i.e.writtenbokmålandthespo-kenOslovariety)takesanintermediatepositionbetweenDanishandSwedishinpurelinguisticterms.NorwegiansharesinmanywaysitsphonologicalsystemwithSwedish,andthedifferencesbetweenwrittenandspokenlanguagearemostlythesameinthesetwolanguages.Danish,ontheotherhand,isphonologicallymoreconservative(pri-marilywhenitcomestoinitialconsonantsandconsonantclusters)andmoreradical(when it comes topost-vocalic consonantsandprosody). Ifwe turn to thevocabu-lary,NorwegianisclearlymuchmoresimilartoDanishthantoSwedish.Norwaywasapartof Denmarkfromthelatefourteenthcenturytotheearlynineteenthcentury.AlsoaftertheseparationofNorwayandDenmarkin1814,theDanishlanguagecon-tinuedtobetheonlywrittenlanguage,usedbywriterslikeHenrikIbseninthelatenineteenthcentury.Norwegianwasbyand large replacedbyDanishas thewrittenlanguageformorethan300years.WhenNorwegianreappearsasawrittenlanguage,orratherastwowrittenlanguages,ithasaheavyDanishheritage.Bokmålisinprin-ciple a Norwegianised continuation of written Danish, whereas Nynorsk was creat-edasanewwrittenlanguagebasedonNorwegiandialectsinthenineteenthcentury.AlsoafterNorway’sindependencefromSwedenin1905,DenmarkandNorwayhavehadsimilarinstitutionsandsimilaritiesintheirpoliticalhistory(suchastheGermanoccupationandthemembershipinNato)andtheirinstitutions(suchashigheredu-cation),whichhavecausedsimilarinnovationsandchangesofthevocabulary.Thus,NorwegianisclosetoSwedishphonologicallyandclosetoDanishinitsvocabulary.This intermediatepositionof Norwegianishelpful,andithelpstoexplainnotonly

244 Lars-OlofDelsing

whytheNorwegiansunderstandtheneighbouringlanguagesbetterthanDanesandSwedes,butalsowhySwedesandDanesunderstandNorwegianbetterthanDanishandSwedish,respectively(compareTable3). Second,thereisacleardifferencebetweentheattitudesto,andtheinterestfor,theneighbouringcountries.NorwegianssometimesconsultSwedishandDanishjournals,magazines,televisionetc.fortheirspecialinterests.Wealsofindthattheculturalin-terest for theneighbouringcountriesamongNorwegians ismore intense than thatofDanesandSwedes.ItiseasiertofindabookinDanishorSwedishinaNorwegianbookstorethanviceversa.Maybe,theNorwegianinterestforSwedenismostevident;NorwegiansnormallyknowwhatisgoingoninSwedishpopularcultureinawaythatisunheardofinSweden.SwedishsingersandmusiciansmaybepopularinNorwayinawaythatNorwegiansingersandmusiciansarenotinSweden.WhetherthisisduetothefactthatNorwegians,whounderstandSwedishwell,havelesstroubletoaccessSwedishmedia,orthattheNorwegianinterestforSwedishculturegeneratesgoodlan-guagecomprehensionishardtotell. Third,Norwegiansareusedtolinguisticvariation,bothinspokenandwrittenlan-guage.Norwayhastwowrittenlanguages(BokmålandNynorsk)andbotharemoreliberal inorthographicandmorphologicalvariationthanDanishandSwedish.ThespokenNorwegianlanguageisalsomorevaried;dialectal formsandpronunciationinpublicsituationsareclearlymuchmoreacceptedinNorwaythaninDenmarkandSweden.ThismakestheNorwegianeyeandearusedtovariation.Norwegiansthushavestrategiestodecodeandunderstandspokenandwrittenlanguagethatisslight-lydifferentfromtheirownlanguage.ThisisofcourseanenormousadvantagewhenitcomestounderstandingSwedishandDanish.Norwegiansmay,ineffect,considerDanishandSwedishasdeviantNorwegiandialects. A lastkindof explanation is amatterof size.Generallymultilingualism ismorecommoninsmalllanguagecommunitiesthaninlargeones.Norwayhasslightlymorethanfourmillioninhabitants,whereasDenmarkhasmorethanfiveandSwedenninemillion.Additionally,DenmarkandSwedenhavealonghistoryofindependenceandindependentculturalprestige.Asaresultofthis,NorwegiansaremorelikelytoturntoSwedishorDanishjournals,televisionetc.whentheyhaveaspecialinterestthatcan-notbesatisfiedontheNorwegianmarket.Thisargumentshouldhowevernotbeexag-gerated;thesizedifferencebetweenNorwayandDenmarkissmall. EveniftheexplanationsabovedonotgivethewholeanswertotheNorwegianheadstart,theyareclearlypartoftheanswer.

3. Finalremark

Whenwecommunicate,therearetworequirementsforsuccess.Wehavetobeabletoexpressourselvesandwehavetobeabletounderstandwhatissaid.Inotherwords,wehavetoproduceandconsumelanguage.Theresultsgiveninourinvestigationare

Scandinavianintercomprehensiontoday 245

confinedtotheconsumptionpart.Thus,itonlysayssomethingaboutcomprehension;ourtestsinvestigateonewaycommunication,whereourinformantstrytounderstandwhatissaidorwritten.Whenwecommunicateinreallife,thereisalotofinformationofnonlinguisticcharacter,gestures, facialexpressions,etc. ,whichhelpthespeakertoadjusthislanguage(toaccommodate)tothelistener(c.f.alsoDresemannthisvol-ume).Ourinvestigationsaysnothingabouthowsuchphenomenahelpinterlocutorstounderstandeachother. Thesecondhalfofthecommunication,production,isnotinvestigatedatallinourstudy.14 The Scandinavian linguistic fellowship has precisely that advantage, name-lythatthespeakersmayspeaktheirownmothertonguewhencommunicatingwithneighbours.Wedonothavetosearchforwordsorexpressions,atleastnomorethanwedowhenwespeaktoourcountrymen.

Notes

1. ForaspecialstudyofIcelandersusingDanish,seeHauksdottir(2001).

2. ForashortsurveyofthehistoryoftheScandinavianlinguisticfellowshipandmodernlan-guagepolicy,seeLund(2006).

3. ApartfromMaurud’sinvestigation,somelessextensiveinvestigationshavealsobeenmade.TheÖresundBridgeprojectinvestigatedSwedish–DanishintercomprehensioninrelationtotheopeningoftheÖresundBridgebetweenMalmöandCopenhagen;seeDelsingandKärrlander(2002)andreferencescitedthere.

4. Source:StatistiskaCentralbyrån,‘CentralOfficeofStatisticsinSweden’.

5. TheinvestigationanditsresultsispresentedindetailinDelsingandLundinÅkesson(2005).For ease of reference to the tables there, it should be pointed out that the Swedish name ofHelsinkiisHelsingfors.

6. ThesesixquestionnairesarethosetestingEnglishandanotherlanguage,wheretheinform-antsclaimedEnglishastheirhomelanguage.InthesecasestheEnglishtesthasbeenexcluded.

7. ForFinland,SwedishspeakingclassesandFinnishspeakingclassesareshownseparately.

8. Thefiguresarecalculatedinthefollowingway:Forthevideotestanaveragewascalculatedforallconsultantsinthegroup.Forthetwolisteningcomprehensiontests(thekangarooandthefrogtexts),aseparateaveragewascalculatedforeachtest,andthentheaverageofthesetwoaverageswascalculated.Forthereadingcomprehensiontests(thetinnitusanddrugtests),thesameprocedurewasfollowed,calculatinganaverageoftwoseparateaverages.Inthiswaywecaneliminatethedifferenceindifficultyofthedifferenttests.Finallyanaverageofthethreeaverages(forvideo,listeningandreadingtests)wascalculated.

9. TheGreenlandersmanagewell in theNorwegian test, especially incomparisonwith theIcelanders.Thisishoweverprobablyduetothefactthattheyareveryfew,andthatseveralofthemhaveDanishastheirhomelanguage.

10. Thepupilswereaskedwhethertheywerewillingtoliveandstudyabroad.TheDanishyoung-stersweresignificantlylessinterestedingoingabroadthanotheryoungstersintheNordiccoun-

246 Lars-OlofDelsing

tries.Inthisconnection,thereishowevernocleardifferencebetweenÅrhusandCopenhagen.

11. Recruitshavetobecitizens,andin1972veryfew18yearoldcitizenshadanon-Scandinavianlanguageastheirhomelanguage.Forfurtherdetailsonthecomparison,seeDelsingandLundinÅkesson(2005).

12. Immigrantsareexcluded,first,becausetheirproportionofthepopulationisnotthesameastheirproportioninourinvestigation,and,second,becausetheyconstituteaheterogeneousgroup,wheresomeareverywellintegratedintothegeneralpopulation,whereasothersliveinsegregatedareas.Furthermore,immigrantshavedifferentoriginsinthedifferentScandinaviancountries;forinstance,DenmarkandNorwayhavelargePakistanigroups,whereasSwedenhasveryfewPakistaniimmigrants.

13. Fora special studycomparingFinnsandFinlandSwedes learningEnglish, seeRingbom(1987).

14. ForsomestudiesontheactualcommunicationwerefertoBörestamUhlman(1994),Zee-vaert (2004)and theproceedings from theSymposiumonNordic intercomprehension1980(seeElert1981).

References

Börestam Uhlmann, U. 1994. Skandinaver samtalar. Språkliga och interaktionella strategier i samtal mellan danskar, norrmän och svenskar[SkrifterutgivnaavInstitutionenförNordiskaSpråkvidUppsalaUniversitet38].Uppsala:InstitutionenförNordiskaSpråk.

Delsing, L.-O. and Kärrlander, E. 2002. The Öresund Bridge Project. Swedish Danish Inter-comprehension. In Mehrsprachiges Europa durch Interkomprehension in Sprachfamilien,G.Kischel(ed.),Hagen:Fernuniversität.

Delsing,L.-O.andLundinÅkesson,K.2005.Håller språket ihop Norden. En forskningsrapport om ungdomars förståelse av danska, svenska och norska[TemaNord2005573].Copenhagen:Nordiskaministerrådet.

Elert,C.-Chr.(ed.)(1981):Internordisk språkförståelse. Föredrag och diskussioner vid ett sympo-sium på Rungstedsgaard utanför Köpenhamn den 24–6 mars 1980, anordnat av Sekretariatet för nordiskt kulturellt samarbete vid Nordiska ministerrådet [Acta Universitatis Umensis33].Umeå:UniversitetetiUmeå.

Hauksdottir,A.2001.Lærerens strategier — elevernes dansk. Dansk som fremmedsprog i Island.[TemaNord20016].Copenhagen:Nordiskaministerrådet.

Lund, J. 2006. Norden, de nordiske sprog og nordisk sprogpolitik. In Nabosprogsdidaktik,L.Madsen(ed.),19–38.Copenhagen:Dansklærerforeningen.

Maurud,Ø.1976.Nabospråksforståelse i Skandinavia. En undersøkelse om gjensidig forståelse av tale- og skriftspråk i Danmark, Norge og Sverige[Nordiskutredningsserie13].Stockholm:Nordiskarådet.

Ringbom,H.1987.The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning[MultilingualMatters34].Clevedon:MultilingualMattersLtd.

Zeevaert,L.2004.Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verständi-gung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs[Philologia64].Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

part4

Determining the possibilities of reading comprehension in related languages

chapter11

Interlingual text comprehensionLinguisticandextralinguisticdeterminants*

RenéevanBezooijenandCharlotteGooskensRadboudUniversiteitNijmegen/RijksuniversiteitGroningen

The threeWest-Germanic languages Dutch, Frisian and Afrikaans are so closely re-lated that they can be expected to be mutually intelligible to a large extent. In thepresentinvestigation,weestablishedtheintelligibilityofwrittenAfrikaansandFrisianbyDutch-speakingsubjects.Itappearedthatitiseasierforspeakersof Dutchtoun-derstandAfrikaansthanFrisian.Inordertoexplaintheresults,attitudesaswellaslin-guisticdistanceswereassessed.Therewasnoevidenceofarelationshipbetweenatti-tudeandintelligibility.Threelinguisticdistancesdidshowarelationshipwithreadingcomprehension,namelythenumberofnon-cognates,thetransparencyofthelexicalrelatednessofcognates,andtheLevenshteindistance,whichcalculatesthesimilaritybetweenthewrittenformsofwords.

Keywords: Dutch, Frisian, Afrikaans, mutual intelligibility, attitudes, linguistic dis-tance,Levenshteindistance

1. Introduction

1.1 Aimoftheresearch

Whentwopersonsspeakingdifferentlanguagesmeet,therearethreepossibilities.Onespeakerswitchestothelanguageoftheother,bothpersonstakerecoursetoathirdlan-guage,orbothpersonskeepusingtheirownlanguage.Thethirdtypeofcommunica-tion,whichwewillrefertowiththeterm‘receptivemultilingualism’(BraunmüllerandZeevaert2001),canonlybeusedwhenthelanguagesinvolvedaresufficientlysimilar.Receptivemultilingualismoffersmanyadvantages,especiallyontheproductionside.Peoplecanexpressthemselvesmoreeasilyandmorepreciselyintheirmothertonguethaninalateracquiredlanguage.Thequestionis,ofcourse,whattheeffectisonthereceptionside.Howmuchofaneffortisneededtounderstandthespokenorwrittenmessage?What is theriskofcommunicationbreakingdown?Whatexactlyare thecausesofcommunicationfailure?

250 RenéevanBezooijenandCharlotteGooskens

1.2 FrisianandAfrikaansinrelationtoDutch

Researchintoreceptivemultilingualismhasalongtradition.Inthe1950sthemutu-al intelligibility of American Indian languages was studied (Hickerton, Turner andHickerton 1952, Pierce 1952, Wolff 1959). More recently much attention has beenpaidtothecommunicationamongScandinavians(e.g.Haugen1966,Maurud1976,Bø1978,BörestamUhlmann1994,Zeevaert2004).OtherlanguagesthathavebeeninvestigatedincludeSpanishandPortuguese(Jensen1989)andSlovakianandCzech(Budovičová 1987). The present study focuses on the intelligibility of Frisian andAfrikaansforspeakersofDutch.Therehavebeentwopreviousstudiesoftheintelligi-bilityofFrisianbyDutch-speakingsubjects(VanBezooijenandVandenBerg1999a,1999b),butonlyintheirspokenform,notinthewrittenmode.TheintelligibilityofAfrikaansforspeakersofDutchhasneverbeeninvestigatedexperimentally.HerewefocusontherelativeintelligibilityofwrittenFrisianandAfrikaans. Both Frisian and Afrikaans are related to Dutch. However, the historical back-grounds of the relationship are different (see Section 1.2). As a consequence, thepresent-day linguistic relationship between Dutch and Frisian deviates in many re-spectsfromthatbetweenDutchandAfrikaans.Theselinguisticdifferencescanbeex-pectedtoaffecttherelativeintelligibilityofthetwolanguages.Therefore,thefirstfac-torwewillconsiderinordertoexplainintelligibilityislinguisticdistance.Inaddition,wewilllookatthepossibleroleofattitudes.Itisoftencontendedintheliteraturethatapositiveattitudetowardsalanguagewillmotivatepeopletotryandunderstandthatlanguage,whereasanegativeattitudewillhinderintelligibility. So,thepresentstudyaddressesthefollowingthreequestions:

1. WhichlanguageismoredifficulttounderstandforDutch-speakingreaders,FrisianorAfrikaans?

2. Canthedifferenceinintelligibility,ifany,beexplainedbydifferentattitudestowardsthetwolanguages?

3. Canthedifferenceinintelligibility,ifany,beexplainedbydifferencesinthelinguis-ticdistancestothetwolanguages?

Beforegoingintotheresearchmethodandtheresults,wewillfirstprovidesomeback-groundinformationonFrisianandAfrikaans.

1.2 FrisianandAfrikaans

The present study deals with the variety of Frisian as spoken in the province ofFrieslandintheNetherlands.Intheliterature,thisvarietyissometimesreferredtoasWest-Frisian,todistinguishitfromtheNorth-FrisianandEast-Frisianvarietiesspo-keninGermany.Inthispaperwewillsimplyusetheterm‘Frisian’.Frisianisthesec-ondofficiallanguageoftheNetherlands,inadditiontoDutch.Itisspokenbyabout350.000people.Historically,FrisianiscloselyrelatedtoEnglish.Inthecourseoftime,

Interlingualtextcomprehension 251

however,FrisianhasbecomeincreasinglysimilartoDutch.Frisianisnowlinguistical-lymoredistantfromEnglishthanforexampleSwedish(GooskensandHeeringa2004).Forcenturies,Frisianwasalmostexclusivelyaspokenlanguage.FromthemiddleofthenineteenthcenturythestatusofFrisianslowlystartedtorise.ThiswaslargelyduetotheeffortsoftheFrisianmovement,whichstrivedfortheacceptanceofFrisianasafullyfledgedlanguage,fittobeusedforallcommunicativepurposes,includingcul-turalexpression.Thisgoalwasneverreachedcompletely,duetothepervasivenessofDutchinFrisiansociety.Nowadays,Frisianisusedmoreofteninthelowerthaninthehighersocialstrata,moreofteninthecountrysidethaninthetowns,andmoreoftenintheinformalthanintheformaldomains.Frisianistaughttoalimiteddegreeineduca-tion.OnlyasmallminorityoftheinhabitantsofFriesland(17%)canwriteFrisian,butmost(64%)reportthattheyareabletoreadFrisian(GorterandJonkman1995).DuetothedominanceofDutchinthemedia,education,andadministration,Frisianlosesmoreandmoreofitstypicalcharacteristics. Originally,Afrikaanswasadialectthatdevelopedamongasmallgroupof DutchcolonistswhosettledinSouthAfricaatthebeginningoftheseventeenthcentury.1Inthecourseoftimeitsnaturechanged,amongothersbecauseitwaslargelyusedbynon-nativespeakerswithaninsufficientcommandofDutch.Inthebeginning,Afrikaanswasmainlyaspokenlanguage,butinthenineteenthcenturyitstartedtobeusedinwriting. In 1921 Afrikaans was acknowledged as a separate language from Dutch.Atpresent,therearetenadditionallanguagesinSouthAfricawithanofficialstatus.Accordingtothelastcensusof1996,Afrikaansisspokenbyabout6millionpeople,bothblackandwhite.Thisis14%oftheSouthAfricanpopulation.ThemajoritylivesintheWesternCape(39%),Gauteng(21%),theNorthernCape(10%)andtheEasternCape(10%).Afrikaansisthemothertongueofpeopleofallsocialclasses.Mostspeak-erscanbefoundintheurbanizedareas.Afrikaansistaughtandusedatalleducationallevels.However,Englishhasmoreprestigeandisthereforegainingground. Tobeabletoanswertheresearchquestionsformulatedin1.1,threetypesofdataareneeded.First,theintelligibilityofFrisianandAfrikaanstextsbyspeakersofDutchhastobeassessed(Section2).Second,theattitudesofspeakersofDutchtowardsFrisianandAfrikaanshavetodetermined(Section3).Third,thelinguisticdistancesbetweenDutchandFrisianandbetweenDutchandAfrikaanshavetobemeasured(Section4).

2. Intelligibility

2.1 Method

SubjectsTwentynativeDutchlanguagestudents(twomenand18women)fromtheRadboudUniversityNijmegenandtheUniversityofGroningenwereselectedassubjects.Theyhadnoactiveknowledge (speakingorwriting)of FrisianandAfrikaansandnooronlyverylimitedpassiveknowledge(hearingorreading).Theirmeanagewas23years.

252 RenéevanBezooijenandCharlotteGooskens

Theyoungestsubjectwas18andtheoldestwas34.TheyallhadDutchastheirmoth-ertongue.TwosubjectsspokeadialectofDutchathome.InbothcasesthiswastheLimburgdialect,whichisnotrelatedtoFrisiannortoAfrikaans.

TaskIntelligibilitywasassessedbymeansofavariantoftheclozetest.2AsabasisweusedtwoDutchnewspaperarticleswithanaveragelevelofdifficulty.3Onearticle(‘thedat-ingtext’)wasaboutdatingagenciesandcomprised329words;theother(‘thefeministtext’)dealtwiththeimageofwomencreatedbymodernmusicstationsandconsistedof317words.Ineitherarticle,fivenouns,fiveadverbs,fiveadjectives,andfiveverbswereselectedatrandom.Thesewereplacedinalphabeticorderabovethetextandreplacedbyblanksinthetext.Next,thetwotextsweretranslatedintoFrisianandAfrikaans.TheFrisiantranslationwasmadebyanativeFrisian-speakingstudentofFrisianandcheckedbyalanguagespecialistfromtheFryskeAkademyinLeeuwarden(Friesland).TheAfrikaanstranslationwasmadebyanativeAfrikaans-speakingstudentofEnglishandcheckedbyalinguistfromSouthAfrica.IntheFrisianandAfrikaanstranslations,thesamewordswereremovedandplacedabovethetextsasintheoriginalDutchtexts.Thesearethetestversionswhichwereusedforthepresentinvestigation.Thesubjectsweregiventenminutestoputthe20wordsbackintherightplaceinthetexts.Theper-centageofwordsplacedbackcorrectlywastakenasameasureoftextcomprehension.InAppendixA,theAfrikaansversionofthedatingtextisgivenasanexample.

DesignAllsubjectsweretestedinbothlanguages.Inordertoavoidordereffects,subjectsthatgottheFrisianfeministtextgottheAfrikaansdatingtext,andtheotherwayaround.Furthermore,halfofthesubjectsstartedwithFrisian,whereastheotherhalfstartedwithAfrikaans.Sotherewerefourtestversionsthatwereeachadministeredtofivesubjects.Allsubjectsfirstfilledinaformenquiringabouttheirorigin,homelanguage,age,andsex.Thentheyweregiventwoblocks,withrespecttothefirstandthesecondlanguagetested,respectively.Bothblockscontainedasetofquestionsaboutthesub-ject’sattitudestowardsthelanguageathand(see3.1)andtheintelligibilitytest.

2.2 Whichlanguageismoredifficulttounderstand,FrisianorAfrikaans?

To determine the relative intelligibility of Frisian and Afrikaans we counted thenumberofwordsthatwereplacedcorrectlyintheoriginalsentencecontext.Forgreat-erstabilitywesummedthedataforthetwotexts.TheresultsareshowninTable1.ThemeanpercentageofcorrectresponsesappearstobeconsiderablyhigherforAfrikaans(81.8%)thanforFrisian(50.3%).Allbutoneof thesubjectshadahigherscore forAfrikaansthanforFrisian.Thedifference,testedbyapaired-samplest-test,issignifi-cant(t=-7,991,df=1,19,p=.00).So, theanswertothefirstquestionisclear,writtenFrisianismoredifficultforDutch-speakingreadersthanAfrikaans.

Interlingualtextcomprehension 253

3. Attitudes

3.1 Method

Beforecarryingouttheintelligibilitytest,subjectsfirstansweredsomequestionsthataimedatgaininginsightintotheirattitudestowardsthetwolanguages.Notonlytheattitudestowardsthelanguagesthemselveswereprobed,butalsotheattitudestowardsthespeakersofthelanguagesandthecountrieswherethelanguagesarespoken.Theideabehindthisisthatlanguageattitudesmaybeinfluencedbysocialconnotations(TrudgillandGiles1978).Subjectsnoteddowntheirresponsesonsixfive-pointscales.AsanexamplewepresentthequestionnairerelatedtoFrisian;thesamequestionnairehadtobefilledinforAfrikaans.

3.2 CanthedifferenceinintelligibilitybetweenFrisianandAfrikaansbeexplainedbydifferencesinlanguageattitudes?

ThemeanratingsontheattitudescalesarepresentedinTable2.InanumberofcasesthedifferencebetweenFrisianandAfrikaansissignificant.Thesubjects

• findSouthAfricaasignificantlymoreattractivevacationdestinationthanFriesland,• judgeSouthAfricanstobesignificantlymoreintelligentthanFrisians,

Table 1. Mean,minimumandmaximumpercentagesofcorrectresponsesforFrisianandAfrikaans.

Language mean minimum maximum

Frisian 50.3 20.0 90.0Afrikaans 81.8 45.0 100.0

DoesFrieslandappealtoyouasavacationdestination? verymuch □ □ □ □ □ notatall

WhatisyourimpressionofFrisians? likeable □ □ □ □ □ notlikeable intelligent □ □ □ □ □ notintelligent reliable □ □ □ □ □ notreliable

WhatdoyouthinkoftheFrisianlanguage? beautiful □ □ □ □ □ ugly

WouldyouliketolearnFrisian? verymuch □ □ □ □ □ notatall

Diagram 1. Frisianquestionnaire

254 RenéevanBezooijenandCharlotteGooskens

• aresignificantlymoremotivatedtolearnAfrikaansthanFrisian,• thinkFrisianstobesignificantlymorereliablethanSouthAfricans.

Averagedoversubjects,theattitudestowardsAfrikaansaremorepositivethanthosetowards Frisian. As the subjects generally had fewer problems with Afrikaans thanwithFrisian,thisoutcomesuggeststhatatthelevelofthegroupthetwotypesofdatamayberelated.Toexaminetherelationshipbetweenattitudesandcomprehensionattheindividuallevel,wecorrelatedthetwotypesofdataofeachsubject.Noneofthecorrelationcoefficientsprovedtobesignificant.So,itisnotthecasethatsubjectswhoexpressed a relatively positive attitude towards Frisian (or Afrikaans) were also rel-ativelysuccessfulinunderstandingFrisian(orAfrikaans).Thisoutcomepertainstothe subjects’performance foreachof the two languages separately.Finally,wealsocomparedrelativeattitudesandcomprehensionforthetwolanguagescombinedatthelevelofthesubject.TodothiswesubtractedforeachsubjecttheattitudescoresforFrisianfromthoseforAfrikaansandtheintelligibilityscoresforFrisianfromthoseforAfrikaans.Wethencorrelatedthetwotypesofdifferencescores.Again,nosignificantcorrelationswerefound.So,itisnotthecasethatsubjectswhoweremorepositiveto-wardsFrisianthantowardsAfrikaans(ortheotherwayround)alsoperformedmoresuccessfullyforFrisianthanforAfrikaans(ortheotherwayround).Wethinkthatthelastmeasureisthemostconvincingoneandthereforeconcludethatattitudesandtextcomprehensionarenotrelated.

Table 2. MeanattitudescoresforFrisianandAfrikaanswiththeminimumandmaximumscoresinparentheses.Ascoreof3isneutral,lowerthan3ispositiveandhigherthan3isnegative

Mean t-test

Scale Frisian Afrikaans t df sig.

DoesFriesland/SouthAfricaappealtoyouasavacationdestination?

3.3(2–5) 2.4(1–4) −2.70 19 .01

WhatisyourimpressionofFrisians/SouthAfricans?

likeable–notlikeable 2.6(1–4) 2.4(1–4) −1.07 19 .30intelligent–notintelligent 2.8(1–4) 2.6(1–3) −2.18 19 .04reliable–notreliable 2.6(1–3) 3.1(2–4) 3.25 19 .00

WhatdoyouthinkoftheFrisian/Afrikaanslanguage?

beautiful–ugly 3.2(2–4) 2.9(2–4) −1.67 19 .11WouldyouliketolearnFrisian/Afrikaans? 3.8(2–5) 2.9(1–5) −4.50 19 .00

Interlingualtextcomprehension 255

4. Linguisticdistances

4.1 Method

Tocalculatethelinguisticdistances,wefirstalignedtheDutchtextswiththeFrisiantranslationsandwiththeAfrikaanstranslations.Inafewcasesweadaptedthewordordertoobtainabetteralignment.Thealignedwordpairsformedthebasisforsevendistance measures. Measures A, B, and C express the nature of the relationship be-tweentheDutchandtheFrisian/Afrikaanswords,whethertheyarecognatesornot.MeasuresD,E,andFexpressthetransparencyoftherelationshipfromtheviewpointoftheDutchreader.AndmeasureG,theso-calledLevenshteindistance,expressesthedegreeoforthographicsimilaritybetweencorrespondingwords.Becauseweassumedthatlexicalwords(nouns,adjectives,numerals,mainverbs)aremoreimportantforin-telligibilitythanfunctionwords(articles,conjunctions,prepositions,pronouns,aux-iliaries,modals,particles,adverbs),distanceswerecalculatedseparatelyforthesetwowordcategories.Thedistancemeasureswillnowbeexplainedinfurtherdetail.

A. Percentage of cognatesAlargeproportionofcognates,i.e.wordsinthetwocorrespondingtextswithacom-monroot,canbeexpectedtofacilitatecomprehension.However,adirectrelationshipisnotanecessaryconditionformutualintelligibility.Insomecases,themeaningofawordcanbededucedviaacognatesynonym.Forexample,theDutchwordsamenlev-ing(‘society’)intheoriginalnewspaperarticlewastranslatedintheFrisiantextwithmaatskippij.Thesetwowordsarenon-cognates.Nevertheless,theDutchreadercaneasilyunderstandtheFrisianwordmaatskippijbecauseoftheexistenceoftheDutchsynonymmaatschappij.TheoriginalDutchtextcouldjustaswellhavecontainedthisword.Thepercentageofcognates,eitherrelateddirectlyorviaasynonym,constitutesthefirstlinguisticdistancemeasure.

B. Percentage of cognates related via a paradigmItisalsopossibletodeducethemeaningofawordparadigmatically.Forexample,theFrisian translationof theDutchwordzijn (thirdpersonpluralpresent tenseof theverbto be)isbinne.Thesetwowordsarenotrelated,notdirectlyandnotviaasyn-onym. However, a Dutch reader may nevertheless understand the meaning of theFrisianwordbecauseitisrelatedtotheDutchwordben(firstpersonsingularpresenttenseoftheverbto be),whichbelongstothesameparadigmaszijn.Thepercentageofcognatesrelatedviaaparadigmconstitutestheseconddistancemeasure.Mostofthewordsinthiscategoryarefunctionwords.

C. Percentage of non-cognatesItshouldbeimpossibletodeducethemeaningofawordinanunknownlanguageifitbearsnoformalrelationshipwiththecorrespondingwordinthemothertongue.The

256 RenéevanBezooijenandCharlotteGooskens

percentageofnon-cognatesshouldthereforebeanimportantindicatorof(theimpos-sibilityof)mutualintelligibility.Itisthecomplementofthefirsttwomeasures,butforthesakeofcompletenesswepresentallthree.

D. Transparency of the lexical relatednessAsstatedabove,itisimpossibletodeducethemeaningofanon-cognate(measureC).Inthecaseofcognates,however,deducibilityvaries.Inthecourseoftime,thephon-ologyorspellingofcognatewordsmayhavechangedtosuchanextentthattoareaderwithnohistorical-linguisticbackgroundtherelationshipisnolongertransparent.Wethereforeincludedameasureexpressingthetransparencyoflexicalrelatedness.Thescoringwasdonebythefirstauthorandcomparedtotheindependentscoringofasec-ondlinguist.Thepercentageofidenticalscoreswas82.2%(Pearson’sr=.92)forthetwoFrisiantextsand90.1%(Pearson’sr=.92)forthetwoAfrikaanstexts.Onthebasisoftheseresultsweconcludedthatthescoresweresufficientlyreliable.Inthescoringthefollowingfourgradesoftransparencyweredistinguished.

• Relatednesscompletelytransparent(0points)Whentwocognateshaveanidenticalform,thereisnorecognitionproblem.Inthiscaseascoreof0pointsisassigned.Example:Afr.uitbuitingvs.Du.uitbuiting‘exploit-ation’.Cognateswithasmallspellingdifferencenotleadingtoadifferenceinpronun-ciationwerealsoassignedascoreof0points.Example:Fri.buro’svs.Du.bureaus‘bu-reaus’.

• Relatednessfairlytransparent(1point)Ascoreof1pointisassignedwhenevertwocognatesaresosimilarthatthereadercanbeassumedtorecognisetherelationshipfairlyeasily.Inmostcasesthereisadiffer-enceinonlyoneletter.Example:Afr.sewentigvs.Du.zeventig’seventy’.

• Relatednessratheruntransparent(2points)Ascoreof2pointsisassignedwhenevertwocognateshavesolittleincommonthatitwillbequitedifficultforaDutchreadertorecognizetherelationship.Usuallyseveralletterswillbedifferent.Example:Fri.jierrenvs.Du.jaren‘years’.

• Relatednesscompletelyuntransparent(3points)Ascoreof3pointsisassignedifthetwocognatesbearsolittleresemblancethatitmustbe(virtually)impossibleforaDutchreadertoseetherelationship.Inmostcasesthemajorityofletterswilldiffer.Example:Afr.hêvs.Du.hebben‘have’.

DistancemeasureDwascalculatedbyaveragingthetotalnumberofpointsoverthetotalnumberofwordpairs;itcanvarybetween0and3.

E. Transparency of the grammatical relatednessInadditiontothelexicalmeaning,acorrectinterpretationofthegrammaticalmean-ingofawordisalsoaprerequisitefortextcomprehension.Isitclearwhichwordcat-egory(noun,verb,etc.)isinvolved?Isitclearwhattense,number,gender,person,etc.

Interlingualtextcomprehension 257

isinvolved?AnexampleofthefirsttypeofproblemisAfr.die,whichDutchreaderswillbeinclinedtointerpretasademonstrativepronounratherthanasadefinitearticle.AnexampleofthesecondtypeofproblemisAfr.is,whichwillbeinterpretedbyDutchreadersasasingularformoftheverb‘tobe’,whereasinAfrikaanstheformisalsousedfortheplural.Ifthegrammaticalrelatednesswastransparent,0pointwasassigned;ifitwasnottransparent1pointwasassigned.Thetwotypesofgrammaticaltransparen-cywerescoredseparatelyandsummed.Thescoresthusrangebetween0and2.

F. Transparency of total relatednessTodeterminethetotaltransparencyofthewordrelatedness,measuresDandEweresummed.Thescorescanrangebetween0and5.

G. Levenshtein distanceMeasuresD,E,andFaretosomeextentsubjectiveandalsoverytimeconsumingtocompute,as thetransparencyhas tobeestimatedseparately foreachpairofcorres-pondingwords.TheadvantageoftheLevenshteindistanceisthatsimilaritybetweenwordformscanbecomputedobjectivelyandautomatically.Inthepresentstudy,thesimplestvariantoftheLevenshteinmeasurewasoptedfor.Asthetextswerepresentedtothesubjectsinawrittenformratherthaninanauditoryform,webasedthedistancemeasureontheorthographicrepresentationofthewordsratherthanonthephonem-icrepresentation.Distancewasdeterminedonthebasisoftheminimumnumberoflettersthatneedtobeinserted,deleted,orsubstitutedinordertotransformthewordintheonelanguageintotheother.Allthreeoperationsweregivenanequalweightof1point.Wordlengthwascompensatedforbydividingthetotalsumofcostsbythenumberofalignmentsofletters(seeHeeringa(2004)foranextensiveexplanationofthenatureandapplicationof Levenshteindistances).AsanexamplewepresentthecalculationofthedistancebetweentheDutchwordzoekenandtheFrisianwordsykje‘search’(seeTable3). Thesumofcosts(1+1+1+1+1=5)isdividedbythenumberofalignments(7).Theresultisadistanceof0.71or71%.Thetotaldistancebetweentwotextsisthemeandis-tanceoverallwordpairs.TheLevenshteindistanceswerecalculatedonthebasisofthetextsinwhichtheoriginalsourcewordhadbeenreplacedbyasynonymifasynonymwasavailable(seeMeasureA).ItshouldbenotedthatmeasureGandmeasureDarerelated.ThelargertheorthographicdistanceasmeasuredbyG,thelesstransparentthelexicalrelatednessasmeasuredbyD.

Table 3. LevenshteindistanceforDutchzoekenandFrisiansykje‘search’

Alignment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Dutch z o e k – e nFrisian s y – k j e -Cost 1 1 1 1 1

258 RenéevanBezooijenandCharlotteGooskens

4.2 CanthedifferenceinintelligibilitybetweenFrisianandAfrikaansbeexplainedonthebasisofthelinguisticdistance?

Assumingthatintelligibilityisinverselyrelatedtolinguisticdistance,weexpectedthelinguisticdistancesbetweentheDutchandFrisianreadingtextstobelargerthanbe-tweentheDutchandAfrikaansreadingtexts.InTable4,theresultsofthefirstthreelinguisticdistancemeasuresarepresented.Weseethatforthecontentwordstheper-centageofcognates(relateddirectlyorviaasynonym)isalmostidentical(94.1%ver-sus94.6%).However,thereisamarkeddifferenceinthefunctionwords.WhereasinFrisianalmostallfunctionwords(93.4%)arerelateddirectlytotheirDutchcounter-parts,Afrikaanshasrelativelymanyfunctionwords(23.7%)thatarerelatedtoDutchviaaparadigm.Furthermore(notshowninthetable),wewanttomentionthefactthat the nature of the cognates differs between Frisian and Afrikaans, in the sensethattheAfrikaanstextshavealargerproportionofwordsthatarerelatedviaasyno-nym.Themeaningofthesesynonymssometimesslightlydeviatesfromthatoftheori-ginalDutchword.Forexample,theDutchwordopeens‘suddenly’wastranslatedbyAfrikaansskielik.DutchreadersprobablyinterpretthiswordcorrectlyviatheDutchsynonymschielijk.However,Dutchschielijkislessfrequentandslightlyarchaiccom-paredtoopeens.InquiteafewcasestherelationshipwiththeDutchcounterpartap-pearstobemoredirectinFrisianthaninAfrikaans.However,wedonotknowtowhatextentthisaffectsintelligibility. Whatwedoknowforsureisthatalargeproportionofnon-cognatesmusthaveanegativeinfluenceonintelligibility.Inthiscasethetermnon-cognatesisusedinthestrictsense.ItreferstothosewordsintheAfrikaansorFrisiantextwhicharenotre-latedtothecorrespondingwordsintheDutchtextandwhichhavenorelatedsyno-nymsinDutch.Thepercentageofnon-cognatesishigherforFrisianthanforAfrikaans,bothforfunctionwords(2.0%and0.8%)andforcontentwords(5.9%and3.7%).Thisdoesnotonlyholdforthenumberoftokens(24and14,respectively)butalsoforthenumberoftypes(20and10,respectively).ThesedifferencesbetweenAfrikaansandFrisianmightseemsmall,butitshouldberecalledthatonesingleunintelligiblewordcanmakeawholesentenceorevenacompleteparagraphunintelligible. Asstatedabove,notallcognatesareequallytransparentfortheDutchreader.InTable 5 the transparency scores are presented, separately for the lexical relatedness

Table 4. PercentageofDutch-FrisianandDutch-Afrikaanscognates,cognatesviaaparadigm,andnon-cognates,forfunctionwordsandcontentwordsseparatelyandtotal

Frisian Afrikaans

Function Content Total Function Content Total

A. Cognates 93.4 94.1 93.8 75.5 94.6 84.1B. Cognatesviaaparadigm 4.6 – 2.5 23.7 1.7 13.8C. Non-cognates 2.0 5.9 3.7 0.8 3.7 2.1

Interlingualtextcomprehension 259

(measureD),thegrammaticalrelatedness(measureE)andthecompleterelatedness(F).Thescoreshavealsobeenconvertedtopercentagestofacilitatecomparisonamongthethreemeasures.Forexample,thededucibilityofthelexicalrelatednessofFrisianfunctionwordsis(1.24/3)100−41.3%. ItcanbeseeninTable5thatthelexicalrelatednessoftheFrisiancognates(1.33)ismoredifficulttodeducethanoftheAfrikaanscognates(0.50).Thisholdsbothforcon-tentwordsandfunctionwords.Ontheotherhand,itiseasiertodeducethegrammat-icalrelatednessofFrisianwords(0.05)thanofAfrikaanswords(0.29).However,thelatterdifferenceissmallerthantheformer.Also,ithastobeassumedthatthetranspar-encyofthelexicalrelatednesscontributesmoretotextcomprehensionthanthetrans-parencyofthegrammaticalrelatedness.WethereforethinkthatmeasureDformspartoftheexplanationofwhyFrisianismoredifficulttounderstandthanAfrikaans. Finally,wealsocalculatedthelinguisticdistanceofAfrikaansandFrisiantoDutchby means of the Levenshtein distance (measure G). The Levenshtein measure ex-presseshowmanyletterstheAfrikaansandFrisianwordsdifferfromthecorrespond-ingDutchwordsasaproportionofthetotalnumberofalignments(see4.1).Weonlyshowtheresultsforthecognatesthatarerelateddirectlyorviaasynonym(measureA).Anycorrespondencebetweenthecognatesthatarerelatedviaaparadigm(measureB)andbetweenthenon-cognates(measureC)islargelybasedonchanceandthereforenotinteresting.ItappearsfromTable6thattheLevenshteindistance(totaldistance)ishigherforFrisian(34.2%)thanforAfrikaans(20.9%).Thedifferenceissignificantatthe1%level.ThismeansthatwithrespecttocognatestheformoftheFrisianwordsdeviatessignificantlymorefromDutchthantheformoftheAfrikaanswords.

Table 5. Meantransparencyoftherelatednessofcognates,splitupforfunctionwordsandcon-tentwords.Highervaluesdenotelowertransparency.Betweenbracketsthescoresconvertedtopercentages.AlldifferencesbetweenFrisianandAfrikaansaresignificantatthe1%level.

Frisian Afrikaans

Transparency Function Content Total Function Content Total

D. Lexicalrelatedness 1.24 1.45 1.33 0.40 0.63 0.50(range0–3) (41.3) (48.3) (44.3) (13.3) (21.0) (16.7)

E. Grammaticalrelatedness 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.35 0.21 0.29(range0–2) (1.5) (3.5) (2.5) (17.5) (10.5) (14.5)

F. Totalrelatedness 1.28 1.52 1.39 0.77 0.82 0.79(range0–5) (22.7) (30.4) (27.8) (15.4) (16.4) (15.8)

Table 6. MeanLevenshteindistancebetweenFrisian–DutchandAfrikaans–Dutchcognates(%)

Frisian Afrikaans

Function Content Total Function Content Total

G. 37.6 30.1 34.2 22.5 19.4 20.9

260 RenéevanBezooijenandCharlotteGooskens

5. Conclusionanddiscussion

This study of interlingual text comprehension reveals that Dutch-speaking readerswithnopreviousexposuretoFrisianandAfrikaansareabletosomeextenttoreadFrisianandAfrikaansnewspaperarticles.Thereis,however,aconsiderabledifferencebetweenthetwolanguages.ReadingAfrikaanspresentsfewproblems.Inaclozetest,fouroutoffivewordswereplacedbackcorrectly intheiroriginalsentencecontext.ReadingFrisianappearstobemuchmoredifficult,asnotmorethanhalfofthewordsareplacedbackcorrectly.Theresultsofthisstudysuggestthatinthewrittencommu-nicationwithDutch-speakingpeople,SouthAfricanscanuse(toalargeextent)theirownlanguage,whereasthisisnotpossibleforFrisians.Thispertainstoinformativetextsofaveragedifficultyreadbylinguisticallytrainedstudents.Recentresearchhasshownthattheresultscanbegeneralizedtonon-linguisticallytrainedsubjects(VanBezooijenandGooskens2005b,GooskensandVanBezooijen2006). Intheliterature,problemsininterlingualcommunicationareoftenattributedtotheattitudeofthereceiver(listenerorreader).Itisassumedthatthereportedormeasuredcomprehensionproblemsarenotsomuchduetoalackoftransparencyoftherelat-ednessofthelanguage,butrathertoalackofmotivation(seeWolff(1959)forvariousexamples fromWest-Africa). Unfortunately, it is very difficult to determine experi-mentallywhetheritisaquestionoflackofabilityorlackofwillingness.InthepresentstudytheattitudestowardsAfrikaanstendedtobemorepositivethantowardsFrisian.Itisunlikely,however,thatthishasledtogreatersuccessintheclozetests.First,therewerenosignificantcorrelationsat the individual level.So, subjectswitharelativelypositiveattitudedidnotperformanybetterintheintelligibilitytestthansubjectswitharelativelynegativeattitude.Second,thesubjectshadhad(virtually)nopersonalcon-tactwith(speakersof)FrisianandAfrikaans.Theirreportedattitudesprobablyreflectgeneral,non-emotionallybasedstereotypeswithnoeffectonperformance.Third,thetestwasadministeredaspartofacourseinsociolinguistics.Thestudentssawitasaninterestingandchallengingassignment.Weobservednosignsofanaversiontowardsthetask. Asmentionedintheintroduction,receptivemultilingualismhasbeenstudiedformanylanguagepairsinthepast.ThemostsystematicinvestigationshavebeenontheScandinavian languages. IntheScandinavianstudies,differences inmutualcompre-hensibilitybetweenspeakersofNorwegian,SwedishandDanishhavebeenattributedtodifferencesinattitudestowardstheneighboringlanguages.Forexample,languagetests have shown that Danes have a better understanding of spoken Swedish thanSwedeshaveof spokenDanish.Also,Danesaremorepositive towardsSwedesandtheirlanguagethanSwedesaretowardsDanesandtheirlanguage(cf.Delsingthisvol-ume,Doetjesthisvolume).However,measurementsperformedbyGooskens(2006)indicatethattheasymmetriccomprehensionscorescantoalargeextentbeattribut-edtoasymmetricphoneticrelationshipsbetweenthesubjects’languageandthetestlanguage in the two countries. Additionally, the asymmetric comprehension scores

Interlingualtextcomprehension 261

canbeexplainedbytherapiddevelopmentoftheDanishspokenlanguage,whichhasresultedinalargedistancebetweenphoneticcharacteristicsofthespokenlanguageandtheratherconservativespellingofthewrittenlanguage.Thisdifferenceismuchsmaller in thecaseofSwedish.When listeningtoSwedish,Danescanthereforeun-derstandmanySwedishwordsviatheDanishwrittenform.ThisismuchlessthecaseforSwedeswhenlisteningtoDanish.Finally,incontrastwithoralcomprehension,anasymmetricrelationshiphasnotbeenfoundforSwedish–Danishtextcomprehension,whichagainshowsthat,likeinourinvestigation,attitudeprobablyplaysaminorroleforthetestresults. Wethinkthat,justlikeforDanish,SwedishandNorwegian,thedifferenceinintel-ligibilitywhichwe foundbetweenFrisianandAfrikaansbyDutchreadershasalsomainlybeencausedbylinguisticfactors.Afirstfactoristhenumberof‘true’non-cog-nates,i.e.FrisianorAfrikaanswordsthathavenorelationtothecorrespondingwordintheDutchtextnortoaDutchsynonym.TheseoccurmoreoftenintheFrisiantextsthanintheAfrikaanstexts.Notunderstandingasingle,centraltermmayhavedisas-trouseffectsontextcomprehension.Asecondfactorwhichmayhaveplayedaroleisthe fact that theFrisiancognatesdivergemore fromDutchthantheAfrikaanscog-nates.ThisappearsbothfromtheobjectiveLevenshteinmeasurementsandfromthesubjectivetransparencyscores.Finally,athirdfactorwhichmayhaveworkedtotheadvantageofAfrikaansisthespelling.TheAfrikaansspellingismoresimilartotheDutch spelling than the Frisian spelling. Especially, the spelling of the Frisian vow-els,withagreatnumberofunfamiliardiacriticsandlettercombinations(e.g.ii,û,ú,ô,â,ê,ea,eo,oa,ue,iu,oai,uoi)maybeconfusingtotheDutchreader(formoreex-amplesofdifferencesbetweentheFrisian,Afrikaans,andDutchspellingsystems,seeVanBezooijenandGooskens2005a). TherearemanymorphologicaldifferencesbetweenAfrikaansandDutch,butthesearemainlysimplifications.ForaDutchreaderthesimplifiedmorphologicalsystemmaybeunusual,butintheenditmayhavelittleeffectontextcomprehension.Atextgenerally contains so much redundancy grammatically, that the absence of explicitmarkingof,forexample,numberintheverbsystempresentsnoproblems.Afterall,itdoesnotpresentanyproblemstotheAfrikaans-speakingreaderseither.Themorpho-logicaldifferencesbetweenFrisianandDutchareofadifferentnature.HeretheDutchreadersareconfrontedwithmeaningfulendingsthattheyhaveneverseen.BoththeFrisian and Afrikaans texts contained few syntactical differences with Dutch, so inthisrespectbothlanguagesmusthavepresentedfewproblems. Infutureresearch,weplantomakeamoredetailedanalysisofcommunicativelyrelevantdifferencesbetweencloselyrelatedlanguagesatdifferentlinguisticlevels.Forexample,fewinvestigationshavebeencarriedoutsofarontheroleofgraphemicdif-ferencesbetweenlanguagesforthereceptivecomprehensibilityofcloselyrelatedlan-guages. An exception is formed by Möller (this volume), who used statistical tech-niques to estimate the importance of various graphemic correspondences betweenGermanandDutchfortherecognitionofDutchwordsbyGermanreaders.However,

262 RenéevanBezooijenandCharlotteGooskens

hisfindingsstillhavetobetestedexperimentally.Wealsowishtoextendouranaly-sistospokenlanguagecomprehension.InVanBezooijenandGooskens(2005b)andGooskens(2006)thefirststepsinthisdirectionhavebeentaken.

Notes

* WewouldliketothankVincentvanHeuven,SuletteBruwer,JelskeDijkstraandBartAle-wijnsefortheirhelpinvariousstagesoftheinvestigation.

1. ThedataforAfrikaanshavebeentakenfromWebb(2002).

2. Theclozetestwasdevelopedin1953intheUnitedStatesbyWilliamTaylorandhasbeenusedextensivelyformeasuringtextcomprehension.Sometimesthewordsareplacedabovethetext, like inthepresentstudy.Alternatively, itmaybe lefttothesubjectstothinkofsuitablewords.

3. Wedeterminedthereadabilityofthetextbymeansoftheso-calledLIX-index(Björnsson1968).This indexconsistsof themeannumberofwordspersentenceplusthepercentageofwordsexceedingsevenletters.Textswithavalueofbetween35and44haveameandegreeofdifficulty.ThemeanLIX-valueforthetwoDutchtextswas42.

References

Björnsson,C.H.1968.Läsbarhet.Stockholm:Liber.Bø,I.1978.Ungdom og naboland[report4].Stavanger:Rogalandsforskning.Börestam Uhlmann, U. 1994. Skandinaver samtalar. Språkliga och interaktionella strategier i

samtal mellan danskar, norrmän och svenskar[SkrifterutgivnaavInstitutionenförNordiskaSpråkvidUppsalaUniversitet38].Uppsala:InstitutionenförNordiskaSpråk.

Braunmüller, K. and Zeevaert, L. 2001. Semikommunikation, rezeptive Mehrsprachigkeit und verwandte Phänomene. Eine bibliographische Bestandsaufnahme [ArbeitenzurMehrspra-chigkeit, Folge B 19]. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, Sonderforschungsbereich Mehr-sprachigkeit.

Budovičová,V.1987.Literarylanguagesincontact(Asociolinguisticapproachtotherelationbe-tweenSlovak&Czechtoday).InReader in Czech Sociolinguistics,J.Chloupek,J.Nekvapiletal.(eds),156–75.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Gooskens, C. 2006. Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of Inter-Scandinavian intel-ligibility. InLinguistics in the Netherlands 23, J.vandeWeijerandB.Los (eds),101–13.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Gooskens,C.andBezooijen,R.van2006.MutualcomprehensibilityofwrittenAfrikaansandDutch:symmetricalorasymmetrical?Literary and Linguistic Computing23:543–57.

Gooskens,C.andHeeringa,W.2004.ThePositionofFrisianintheGermanicLanguageArea.InOn the Boundaries of Phonology and Phonetics,D.Gilbers,M.SchreuderandN.Knevel(eds),61–87.Groningen:UniversityofGroningen.

Gorter,D.andJonkman,R.1995.Taal yn Fryslân op ‚e nij besjoen.Leeuwarden:FryskeAka-demy.

Interlingualtextcomprehension 263

Haugen,E.1966.Semicommunication:ThelanguagegapinScandinavia.Sociological Inquiry36:280–97.

Heeringa, W. 2004. Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences Using Levenshtein Distances.Groningen[Groningendissertationsinlinguistics46].Groningen.

Hickerton, H. , Turner, G.D. and Hickerton, N.P. 1952. Testing procedures for estimatingtransfer of information among Iroquois dialects and languages. International Journal of American Linguistics18:1–8.

Jensen,J.B.1989.OnthemutualintelligibilityofSpanishandPortuguese.Hispania72:849–52.Maurud,Ø.1976.Nabospråksforståelse i Skandinavia. En undersøkelse om gjensidig forståelse av

tale- og skriftspråk i Danmark, Norge og Sverige.Stockholm:Nordiskarådet.Pierce, J.E. 1952. Dialect distance testing in Algonquian. International Journal of American

Linguistics18:203–10.Trudgill, P. and Giles, H. 1978. Sociolinguistic and linguistic value judgments: Correctness,

adequacy,andaesthetics.InFunctional Studies in Language and Literature,F.CoppietersandD.L.Goyvaerts(eds),167–90.Gent:Story-Scientia.

VanBezooijen,R.andvandenBerg,R.1999a.WordintelligibilityoflanguagevarietiesintheNetherlands and Flanders under minimal conditions. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1999,R.vanBezooijenandR.Kager(eds),1–12.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Van Bezooijen, R. and Van den Berg, R. 1999b. Hoe verstaanbaar is het Fries voor niet-Friestaligen?Philologia Frisica anno 1999:9–26.Ljouwert:FryskeAkademy.

Van Bezooijen, R. and Gooskens, C. 2005a. Intertalig tekstbegrip. De begrijpelijkheid vanAfrikaanseenFriesetekstenvoorNederlandselezers.Nederlandse Taalkunde10:129–52.

VanBezooijen,R.andGooskens,C.2005b.HoweasyisitforspeakersofDutchtounderstandspokenandwrittenFrisianandAfrikaans,andwhy?InLinguistics in the Netherlands22,J.DoetjesandJ.vandeWeijer(eds),13–24.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Webb,V.2002.Language in South Africa. The role of language in national transformation, recon-struction and development.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Wolff,H.1959.Intelligibilityandinter-ethnicattitudes.Anthropological Linguistics1:34–41.Zeevaert,L.2004.Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verstän-

digung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs[Philologia64].Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

264 RenéevanBezooijenandCharlotteGooskens

AppendixA:TheAfrikaansversionofthedatingtext

Fillinthe20wordsontheemptylinesintheAfrikaanstextbelow.

aantreklike al blyk doen eksplosieffantasties internet lank misbruik moeilikemoet nooit onbetroubare paar somsstel teleurgesteld verhale werk woorde

Nie lank en blond nie maar ’n klein, kaalkop lamsak

Jaarlikssoektienduisendealleenlopersvia’nverhoudingsbemiddelingsagentskapofopdie__________na’nmetgesel.__________metsukses,maarookdikwelsdaarson-der.__________mansblykinwerklikheidoudenlelik,en__________agentskappeverdwynskoonveldsodradieinskryfgeldbetaalis.

Dithet__________geklinkindiekletskameropdienet.DieoumetwieAnnemarieopdieinternetinkontakgekomhet,hetaanalhaarvereistesvoldoen:hywas__________,blondenatleties.Hethygeskryf.“Maartydensdieeersteafspraakindiekroeghetdaar’nlamsakopmygesitenwag,”sêdie27-jarigevrou.“Hywasklein,kaalkopenhetooknogtienjaarouergelykasdieouderdomwathyopmywebtuisteopgegeehet.”Annemariehetdrie__________gewisselmetdiemanenhetkwaadenteleurgesteldvertrek.Diesprokiewasverby.

VirsulkekliënteisJokePronkaangestel.Sy__________virdieAlgemeneVerenigingVerhoudingsagentskappe(AVV)enbemiddelingeskilletussenkliëntenverhoudingsagent-skap.’n__________saak.“Diemenseis__________,”aldusPronk,’n__________honderdeuroterugbetalingbieddikwelsmintroos,hullewilveralstoomafblaas.”Pronk__________vaswatteragentskappeniehulafsprakenagekomhetnieendeel‘geelkaarte’uit.

Dieaantalverhoudingsagentskappehetdieafgelopejare—metnameopdieinter-net__________gegroei.Daaris__________vier—àvyfhonderd(opdienet).Metdiegroeineemdie__________ooktoe.Baieinternetagentskappeblykteverdwynsodradieinskry-fgeldbetaalis.“Skielikbestaandiewebwerweniemeernie.Ofhulle__________’nkan-toorinKazachstantehê.”Pronkkendie__________-,maarditkomvolgenshaarnievoorbydievyftienagentskappemet’nAVV-keurmerk,waarvoorsywerk,nie.Syraaikliënteaanom__________’neiee-posadrestegeenie,maaralleene-possetestuurviadiewebwerf.“Asmenseafsprakewilmaak,adviseeronsnadruklikomditte__________op’nopenbareplek.Ditisregtignienetpsigopatewatopdieinternetna’nvrousoeksoossommigesbeweernie,maarjy__________welversigtigwees.

chapter12

Processing levels in foreign-language reading

MadelineLutjeharmsVrijeUniversiteitBrussel

Readingisahighlycomplexactivitythatcanbedescribedaccordingtodifferentinter-actingprocessinglevels.Theselevelscorrespondtotheuseofspecifickindsofknow-ledge.Thispaperpresentsasurveyofreseachdataonreading,withthefocusonread-ingaforeignlanguage,especiallywhenrelatedtopreviouslyacquiredlanguages.Mostof the data on the reading process come from cognitive psychology and deal withreadingL1English.Dataandhypothesesonwordrecognitionandsentenceprocess-ing both in other languages and in foreign language reading are considered wherepossible.

Keywords: processing levels, foreign language reading, word recognition, sentenceprocessing

1. Introduction

Readingcomprehensionrequirestheuseofseveralkindsofknowledgeandabilities,just as any use of language does. The description of the reading process is normal-lystructuredaccordingtothedifferentkindsofknowledgerequiredforprocessing.Theuseofaspecifickindofknowledgeiscalledprocessinglevel.Theselevelsinteractduringprocessing,butfordescriptionpurposesprocessinglevelshavetobeseparatedandarenormallyrankedfromlowertohigherlevelprocessing,i.e.startingfromeyemovementsandlexicalaccesstosemanticprocessing.Thisbottom-upapproachcor-respondsapproximatelytofluentreceptivereading,alinearstyleofreadingforgettingtothegistofthetext. Untilabout1980,twocontrastingmodelsofthereadingprocesshadbeenproposed:a data-driven or bottom-up model and an expectancy-based or top-down model.Currently,thereisconsensusthatbothdata-drivenandexpectancy-basedprocessinginteractduringreading.Adescriptionofreadingasabottom-upprocessistosomeextentartificialfor,inperception,knowledgeaboutwhatweperceivealwaysinteractswithperceivedinformation.However,itisclearertodescribereadingasaserialratherthanasaparallelprocess. Inwhat follows, special focuswillbeputonaspectsof readingresearchrelevantfor reading a foreign language related to previously acquired languages. An elabor-atedidacticmethodfor learningtoreadrelatedlanguagesistheEuroCom-method,

266 MadelineLutjeharms

whichwasoriginallydevelopedforRomancelanguages(KleinandStegmann2000,cf.McCannetal.2003,HufeisenandMarxthisvolume).Tofacilitatetransferfromac-quiredlanguages,“sieves”tosupportthesearchforsimilarities—or:tolookforfamil-iarlinguisticmaterial—havebeenworkedoutforthismethod.Thesevensievesare(1) internationalvocabulary,(2)commonvocabularytypicalof the languagefamilysuchas“Pan-Romancevocabulary”,(3)soundcorrespondencesorsystematicsoundshifts,(4)spellingandpronunciation,(5)syntacticstructurescommontothelanguagefamily,(6)morphosyntacticelementsand(7)prefixesandsuffixes.

2. Researchonreading

In cognitive psychology the reading process is described as a form of informationprocessing. Aspects like motivation or reading purpose are in general ignored, al-though they largely determine how we read. They probably influence higher levelprocessing more than lower level processing. The purpose for reading determinesreadingstyles(likescanning,searchreading,skimming,receptivereading,intensivereading. . .),whereasmotivationinfluencesselectiveattentioncontrolandthuseffi-ciencyanddepthofprocessing.Positivefeelingsenhancetheabilitytoorganizeinfor-mationmorecreatively,whichimpliesastrongerrepresentationinlongtermmemory(Ashbyetal.2002:247).However,theintroductionofaspectssuchasmotivationthathavebeguntogainattentioninresearchonlyrecently,wouldcomplicateevenmorethealreadycomplexresearchdesign.Moreover,mostresearchisonsinglewordrec-ognitionandonsentenceparsing.Itisnotclear,whethermotivationandreadingpur-posehaveaninfluenceonthoseprocessinglevelsandifso,how. Researchdataon the readingprocessmainlycome from laboratoryexperimentsincognitivepsychology.Comprehensionprocessescanhardlybeobservedandmanyaspectsarenotopento introspection.Thisrequiresthedesignofoftencomplexex-perimentsstartingfromahypothesison(aspectsof)thereadingprocess.Detailsofthe reading process are isolated and controlled under certain conditions. Data col-lectedduringanexperimentallow forverificationor falsificationof thehypothesisandmostly leadtonewresearchquestions.Participantshavetosolveatask,e.g. todecidewhetheravisuallypresented stringof letters is awordornot.This is anas-pectofwordrecognition.Reactiontimes,errorrateandsometimeseyemovementsaremeasuredunderdifferentconditions.Experimentsonwordrecognitionoftenuseakindofprimingtoinfluenceconditions.Primingmeansthepresentationofasome-howrelatedwordbeforepresentingthetarget,whichcanfacilitate,i.e.prime,orinhib-itthetask.Oftenmaskedprimingisused,whichmeansthepresentationoftheprimeissoshort(subliminal),thatitcannotbeprocessedconsciously,asperceptionhappenswithoutawareness.Forsyntacticanalysis,manipulatedsentences,suchasgardenpathandfiller-gapsentencesareused,oftenwithambiguityresolution,butalsocomputersimulations.ForreadingL1manysuchresearchdataareavailableforallprocessing

Processinglevelsinforeign-languagereading 267

levels,althoughfarlesssoforhigherprocessinglevelslikesemanticprocessingthanforlower,formbasedlevels.WithnewermethodsliketheERP-method(event-relatedpotentials)measurementofelectricalactivityinthebrainrelatedtoparticulartasksispossible.Another imagingtechniqueofneuralactivity in thebrain isMRI(mag-netic resonance imaging,Francheschinietal.2004).Suchdatagiveabetter insightintoongoingprocesses,whereastraditionaldatamostlyfocusontheendproductofaprocessingtask.Althoughmoreresearchonbilingualsandevenmultilingualshasbeenpublishedrecently,experimentalandempiricaldataforforeignlanguagereadingarestillratherscarce.Therefore,adescriptionofinteractionmodelsandofdifferentprocessinglevelsduringL1readingisthestartingpointforadiscussionofreadinginaforeignlanguage.Readinginaforeignlanguagethatisnotcompletelyunfamiliarbe-causeoftypologicalproximitytoalanguageortolanguagespreviouslyacquiredand/orcommonvocabularywillbethesubjectofspecialfocus.

3. Modelsofinteractionandprocessinglevelsduringreading

Thetwotypesofprocessing inworkingmemorythatare important forreadingareautomaticprocessingandattentionalorcontrolledprocessing.Workingmemoryisatermusedtorefertosystemsthatstoreinformationtemporarilyinordertoperformcognitivetasksonthisincominginformation.Workingmemoryregulatesincominginformationandmaintainsitshortly,whileexecutiveprocessesmanipulatetheinfor-mation (Traxler et al. 2005). During this manipulation information retrieved fromlong-termmemoryisusedtopreparethenewinformationforintegrationintolong-timememory.Automaticprocessingisfast,parallelandwithouteffort.Thisdoesnotimplythatitisunintentional.Therearenocapacityconstraints.Attentionalprocess-ingdemandseffort,isserial,hascapacitylimitationsandisoftenaconsciousprocessoronethatisopentoconsciousness.Attentionalprocessingisrequiredfornew,un-familiarornotfullymasteredinformationaswellasforunexpectedandinconsistentinformationandespecially for semanticprocessingor comprehension.Non-seman-ticaspectsofprocessingcanbeautomatizedwithpractice(Rawson2004,cf.Paradis2004:31).Lower levelprocessing—eyemovements,wordrecognitionandsyntacticanalysis—isanautomaticprocessinfluentreading.Onperceiving,expectationsbasedonexperienceinteractwithincomingstimuli.Expectationsregardingtextcontinua-tionfacilitatefurtherprocessingwhenconfirmed,butexpectationsarealsoadaptedtotheincomingdataasanongoingprocess. Toexplainautomaticlowerlevelprocessingtwohypothesesplayaroleincurrentresearch:modularandconnectionistmodels.Fodor(1983)explainsprocessingasamodularprocess.Amoduleisanautonomousdevicethatonlyallowsfordomain-spe-cific,encapsulatedprocessingunitslikelexicalaccess,wordrecognitionorsyntactic-alanalysis.Modularprocessingisdescribedasfastanddatadriven,withoutinfluenceofcontextandofhigherprocessinglevelsonlowermodules.Theinformationproc-

268 MadelineLutjeharms

essedbyonemoduleispassedontothenextmodule.Centralprocessesarerequiredforcomprehensionandforprocessinginformationthatisexperiencedasillogicalorastoodifficult.Difficultymaybeduetoknowledgedeficitsthatcanbecompensatedforbyinferring.Suchcentralprocessesarenon-modularandslow,astheyrequireat-tention.Amodularmodelcouldexplainwhy, in thecaseofgood linguisticcompe-tence,receptionismostlyerrorfree.Connectionistmodelsaremorerecentand“de-scribethephysiological substrateofmemorybetterthanothermodels”(McClellandandRumelhart1985:101).Insuchhighlyinteractivemodelsmanyunitsornodesofanetworkfunctioninparallel.Thiscausesactivationspreadingandinhibition,bothtop-downandbottom-up.Interactivemodelsexplainwhy—ashasbeenobserved—higherlevelinformationlikemeaningspeedsuplowerlevelprocessing.AlthoughMcClellandandRumelhartappliedtheirinteractivemodeltoexplainwordrecognition(EllisandHumphreys1999:315ff.),onlyquiterecentlyconnectionistmodelshavebeenadoptedmoregenerallyasamodelforresearchonwordrecognition.Foralongtime,modularapproachdominatedthefield,whereasconnectionistmodelswereadoptedmorefre-quentlytoexplainparsing.Itisconceivablethatthetwoapproachesarenotmutuallyexclusive(cf.Paradis2004:122–50;Lutjeharms1994:54f.)

4. Processinglevelsofthereadingprocess

Thefollowingpresentationofprocessinglevelsisnotmeanttobeamodeloftheread-ingprocess.Thepurposeistointroducethekindsofknowledgeandprocessesorabil-itiesthatcontrolreading.Levelsandprocessescouldbesplitupintomoreorintofewerunitsandtheremaybeparallelprocessing. Whereaslowerlevelprocessingnormallyfunctionsautomaticallyinfluentreading,whenreadingalanguagenotyetwellacquired,attentionalresourcesareoftenrequiredforprocessingform-basedlinguisticinformation.Becauseofthelimitedcapacityofworkingmemoryforattentionalprocessing,avoidanceorguessingstrategiesarefre-quentlyused,whichinvolveskippingpartsoftexttomake(some)senseofitsmeaning.ThisisatypicalstrategyforbeginningandweakreadersinL1becauseofthelackofautomaticityinwordrecognitionandsyntacticanalysis(Lutjeharms1997).Indidacticreadingresearchonbeginningreaders,theideaofreadingasaprocessofpredictingandconfirmingwaslaunchedinthelatesixties—anideathatbecamequitepopularinforeignlanguageteachingandwasforsometimepropagatedasanidealstrategy,whichitcertainlyisnot(Bernhardt1993). Whentheformlevelrequiresattention,notenoughprocessingcapacityisavailableforcontent.Avoidanceandguessingstrategiesaretheninevitable,buttheyalsoentailmisunderstanding,esp.whenthereaderisnotfamiliarwiththecontentandwhencuesforguessingareinsufficient.FluentL1readersneedtoresorttothestrategiesofweakL1readerswhenacquiringanewlanguageforaslongastheirforeignlanguagecom-petenceistoolowbecauseoflackinglinguisticknowledgeorinsufficientautomaticity

Processinglevelsinforeign-languagereading 269

inusingtheknowledge.FocusonformlikeintheEuroCom-method,wherecognatesareusedsystematicallyforfasterrecognitionandacquisition,isusefulbothforforeignlanguagereadingandacquisition.Forreadingitsupportsguessingorratherinferring;foracquisitionthepossibilityofconnectingpartsoftheinputtopreviousknowledgesupportsmemorizing.Moreover,readingisausefulsourceforlinguisticinput,includ-ingrepeatedinput.Fluentreadingimpliesautomaticprocessingoflinguisticformsothatallattentionalresourcescanbefocusedonprocessingthesemanticlevel,i.e.onreadingforcontent.

4.1 Graphemiclevel:eyemovements,visualwordrecognitionandphonologicalrecoding

Eyemovementsduringreadinghavebeenstudiedforoveracentury.Eyemovementsaretheonlydirectlyobservablecomponentofthereadingprocess.Wedonotmoveoureyesevenlyalongthetextwhenreading.Eyemovementsconsistoffastjumpsinbetweenshortfixations.These jumpsarecalledsaccades.Fluentreadersfixateonlysomewordsorpartsofwords.Togetherwiththesefixationsperiphericsightguidesthesaccadetothenextfixation.Whenreadingarelatedlanguagewiththesamescriptandthesamekindofwordorder,eyemovementhabitscanbetransferredfromtheL1oranotheracquiredlanguagetothetargetlanguage.However,whenlinguisticcompe-tenceislow,morefixationswillberequired,thereadermightbelessefficientinchoos-ing thenextfixationpointandmanyregressionscanbeexpected.Regressionsalsooccurmoreoftenwhenreadingsemanticallydifficulttext.Textdifficultyis,ofcourse,largelyarelative,reader-dependentvariable. Wordsarereadfasterthanastringofsingleletters;thisiscalledthewordsuperior-ityeffect.Werecognizeorthographicpatternsand/ormorphemesmoreeasilythanastringofsingleletters.Frequencyisanimportantfactorinspeedinguprecognition,becausefrequentlyactivatedwordsorpartsofwordsarerecognizedfaster.Wordbe-ginningsare importantforvisualrecognition(DeutschandRayner1999:416“read-ersofHebrewandEnglishtendtolandinitiallyabouthalfwaybetweenthebeginningof thewordandthecentreof theword”).Thishasbeenobservedboth for isolatedwordsandforwordsincontext(ibid.).Whenreadingaforeignlanguage,thishabitcanleadtotheuseofprefixformeaningsearchwithoutattentionbeingpaidtothestemmorpheme,eveniftheprefixassuchshouldseemfamiliarfromacquiredlanguages(Lutjeharms2001,Müller-Lancé2002). Phonological recoding is a—probably very abstract—conversion of the visuallyrecognizedforminsound.Evidenceastowhethersuchaphonologicalrecodingisob-ligatoryforlexicalaccess,whetheritisaby-productornot(always)occurringiscon-flicting(Folk1999,KimandDavis2002:570);certainly,bothorthographicandphono-logicalfeaturesappeartobeactivatedatsomestagewhenreadingaword.Experimentalresultscouldbelanguagespecific.Subvocalizationisoftenobservedforprocessinglin-guisticallyorsemanticallydifficulttext,butthisconversionisapost-lexicalprocess

270 MadelineLutjeharms

necessaryforrehearsalinworkingmemory,forwhichtheacousticcodeisrequired.Thisimpliesthatknowledgeofthepronunciationofalanguageisimportantnotonlyforproductionandlisteningcomprehension,butevenforreadingtoavoidtheacquisi-tionofdefectivepronunciations.Rehearsalisalsorequiredforlookingupawordinadictionary.

4.2 Wordrecognitionwithlexicalaccessandrecognitionincontext

Mental lexicon is the designation for the representation of linguistic knowledge inmemory.Avisual andanauditory in-andoutput systemareconsidered tobe sep-arate fromthemental lexicon(JescheniakandSchriefers2001:372,also for furtherliterature).Thegraphemiclevelofthereadingprocesswouldthencorrespondtothevisualinputlexicon.Thenextphaseinwordrecognitionislexicalaccess,theaccesstoaword’sentryinthementallexicon.Withlexicalaccess,allrepresentationlevelsofawordinthementallexiconareavailableforfurtherprocessing. Severalhypotheticalmodelshavebeenproposedforlexicalaccess.BestknownistheLogogenModel(Morton1969).A logogenis“anevidencecollectingdevice . . .whichbecomesincreasinglyactivatedthemorefeaturesoftheincomingstimulusre-semblethoseofthewordthatitrepresents”(Taft1991:4).Accordingtoserial-discretemodels,onlyselectedentriesareactivated(Jescheniaketal.2001);accordingtocas-cadedactivationmodels,however,allactivatedlexicalnodescauseaweakerorstrong-eractivation,evenwhentheyarenotselected(Costaetal.2000).Serial-discretemod-elsaremodular,cascadedactivationmodelsconnectionist. Intheliteraturethepossibleroleofsyntaxanddiscourselevelsemanticconstraintsduringlexicalaccessiscontroversialandmightbetask-dependent(Balotaetal.1999:36ff. ,46ff.;cf.McQueenandCutler2001:485f.).Followinganoverviewofthelitera-tureSanfordconcludesthatevidencesuggests“thatatleastsomeofthemeaningofawordisaccessedassoonasitisencounteredinasentence”.Apparentlya“selective(orpartial)availabilityofsemanticinformation”occursasanearlyprocess,butsemanticprocessingcanbeshalloworincomplete(Sandford1999:329,cf.Bowersetal.2005,whoobservedsomeformofsemanticaccess).Proofreadingisacaseofrecognitionwithfocusonformandnoorshallowsemanticprocessingasacontrolledprocess.Butevenifaccesstoaword’sentryinthemental lexicondoesnotimplyimmediateac-cesstoitssyntacticandsemanticuse,theaccesstosuchinformationmustbeaconse-quenceoflexicalaccessinasfarasthewordhasbeenacquired. It is generally accepted that words have representations on several levels in themental lexicon.These includephonological, visual andmorphological formor syn-tacticalinformationanduse(includingwordclassor—forverbs—valency),butalsolinguisticcode.Whenreadingaforeignlanguagesuchwordrepresentationlevelstendtobetransferredfromthenativetranslationequivalenttotheforeignlanguagetargetword(cf.Chenetal.1997,JiangandForster2001).Especially inthecaseofrelatedlanguages,thisoftenprovesasuccessfulstrategy.Meaning(denotationandconnota-

Processinglevelsinforeign-languagereading 271

tion)couldbeseenaspartofsemanticmemory,buthowthisislinkedtothementallexicon is not clear. The generally proposed organizational form for all this know-ledgeinthementallexiconisakindofnetworkofinterconnectedunitsorfeatures.

“Processingflowsacrossaseriesofrepresentationlevels”(Petersonetal.2001:1223).Balota et al. (1999:47ff.) stress “the importanceof attentional selectionof appropri-ateprocessingpathways”withdifferentpatternsfound“dependinguponthetypesofgoalsengagedbyagiventask”and“argueforaflexiblelexicalprocessingsysteminwhichattentionalsystemsmodulatetheimportanceofthenumerouscodesavailableforagivenword”. Evidence is conflicting as to whether whole words are the basis of lexical repre-sentation or, in the case of morphologically complex words, morphemes—whichwould imply such words are then accessed via the base form (Marslen-Wilson1999:102f.);theaccessmayalsobelanguagespecific(Marslen-Wilson2001,Longtinetal.2003:331).However,manydatahavebeenfoundforthefacilitatingroleofmor-phemesduringlexicalaccess(Feldman2000),andinsomemodelsparallelprocessingofwholewordandmorphemicunits isproposed(Longtinetal.2003,LongtinandMeunier2005,Melinger2003,Moscosoetal.2005).Morphemes,inmanylanguagesat least,appear tobeoneof severalorganizationalprinciples in themental lexicon.Thisimpliesthatattentiontomorphemes,whethertheyareaffixes,grammaticalmor-phemesor stemmorphemes, isuseful for improving lexicalaccess.For inflectionalmorphemes and stem, separated morphological representation seems robust. Dataforanumberoflanguagesshowthatthetypeofmorphemeinfluencesmorphologic-al processing, whereby several properties (such as word formation type, i.e. inflec-tionvs.derivation,productivityofthemorphemeandaffixalhomonymy)mayinflu-enceprocessingincombinedform(Bertrametal.2000b).Inforeignlanguagereading(relatedlanguages,L1Dutch,L4German),Ifoundthatwordswithfamiliarlookingmorphemesareoftenaccessedontheformlevelonly,ifthemorphemesdonotsup-portunderstanding(as inGermanVorgangorentsprechen,Lutjeharms1988:220ff.).The familiarity may depend on inter or intralinguistic similarity. Such words arethenrecognizedontheformlevelandthisrecognitioninterruptsfurtherprocessing(Lutjeharms2004:17),probablyalsoasakindofavoidancestrategyduringademand-ingtask.Fortheacquisitionofforeignlanguagereading,recognitionexercisesfocus-ingonspecifictypesofmorphemescanberecommendedbecauseoftheimportantroleofmorphemesduringlexicalaccess(cf.sieve7intheEuroCom-method). Lexicalaccesscanonlyoccurifthereisarepresentationforthiswordoritsmor-phemesinthementallexicon.New,alreadyencountered,butnotyetacquiredwordscan be represented in episodic memory. Episodic memory is a memory system forspecific episodes, i.e. for information linked to a special place and time.We mightremember that we have already seen the word and where and when, maybe evenremember we have already looked it up, without having access to meaning or use.Accesstothemeaningofanewlyacquiredwordformisoftenbroughtaboutbywayofatranslationinamorestronglyfixedlinguisticcode.Inthecaseofmorphologic-

272 MadelineLutjeharms

alsimilaritybetweenthetargetwordandthetranslationequivalent,lexicalaccessviatheequivalentseemsplausible.Forreception,theprocessingoftargetlanguagewordscaninsuchacasebetransferredfromastrongerlanguage.Foruseinproduction,thecorrect word form should also be recallable. Here, sound correspondences are pos-siblyhelpful(cf.sieve3intheEuroCom-method). Ithasoftenbeenobservedthatwordsincontextareprocessedfasterthanwordsinisolation(e.g.Kutas1993).Thisisconsideredtobeaformofpriming:Whenac-cessingaword’srepresentation,awholenetworkoflinksonseverallevelsisactivated.Thisactivationspreadingcausesfasterprocessingofappropriateinformation.Ithasalsobeenobservedformorphologicalsimilarity,evenwithoutsemantictransparency(Zwitserlood1995,Bertrametal.2000a,cf.Feldman2000),andonthesentencelevel(Kutas1993). Inresearchonbi-ormultilingualparticipants,primingexperimentsaregenerallyusedasaresearchmethod.Afterpresentingaformand/ormeaningrelatedprimeinonelanguage,reactiontimesfortherecognitionofatargetwordinanotherlanguageare measured to see whether this prime speeds up reaction time or slows it down.Most of this research is on single content words in Indo-European languages. Theextenttowhichtheseresultscanbegeneralizedisnotyetclear.However,evenifsen-tenceinformationandsemanticcontextinfluencewordrecognitionasearlyaslexic-alaccess,suchexperimentaldatadohaverelevancefornon-experimentalprocessingsituationsastheyshowwhethercertaintypesofprimeactivateadequateornon-ad-equatenetworks. Onthewhole,researchdatarelatedtolexicalaccessinthecaseofbilingualismpro-ducearathercomplexpicture.Becausethementallexiconoriginallydevelopstogeth-erwithL1-acquisition,thenativelanguagehasaprominentroleinshapingit.Inthecaseof lowforeign languageproficiency,a target languageword isoftenconnectedtotheconceptbyanactivationofthetranslationequivalent(Chenetal.1997).Thiscorrespondstoasubordinatemodelofbilingualism.ButevenincaseofhighL2orL3proficiency,theconnectionbetweentheL1-wordandtheconceptisstrongerthanthatbetweenthetargetlanguagewordandtheconcept(ibid.:279ff.).Andevenwithnear-nativeproficiency,translationprimingeffectsappearearlierthanphonologicalprimingeffects(GraingerandFrenck-Mestre1998).ThismeansthatactivationofanL1translationequivalentinfluenceslexicalaccessearlierthantheactivationofphono-logicallysimilarmorphemes. Areseverallanguagesrepresentedinalanguagespecificway,i.e.separateorshared?Andifso,isthisafeatureofthementallexicon,ofinputandoutputsystemsorboth?Therearenoclearanswers to thesequestions.Ageneralanswermightnotevenbepossible, as word qualities, L1- reading skills and linguistic proximity between thelanguages concerned may influence research data. Thomas and Allport (2000) ob-served language specific word recognition procedures for listening comprehensionbutnotforreadingcomprehension,althoughinreadingsomeinfluenceoftypicalas-pectsofspellingwerefound.Inreading,thenon-relevantlanguagecouldnotbede-

Processinglevelsinforeign-languagereading 273

activated.Dijkstraetal.(1999)foundcumulativesupportinthecaseoforthographicandsemanticoverlap,whereasphonologicaloverlapresultedininhibition.Inspeak-ing,languagechoiceisundercontrol;inreading,thereislesscontrol(Dijkstraetal.2000:460ff. , Paradis 2004:230). Perhaps auditory input and output systems are ra-therlanguagespecific(cf.FrielandKennison2001:250),visualsystemsfarlesssep-arate—maybe only via phonological recoding. Roelofs’ data (2003, L1 Dutch, L2English),however,seemtoindicateasharedauditoryoutputsystemforproduction(cf.alsoCostaetal.2000:1285andDijkstraetal.1998:178).Thementallexiconmightbe seenas sharedor, asAmeel et al. (2005:63) summarize the evidence, itmaybethecasethat“therepresentationsofthebilingual’stwolanguagesmaybereadilyandbroadlypermeatedbyoneanother”. Foraccesstocognates,strongprimingeffectswereobserved,probablybecauseformandmeaningrelatedactivationstrengtheneachother(GraingerandFrenck-Mestre1998,cf.Costaetal2000:1290).DeGroot (1993)assumescommonrepresentationforcognatetranslationequivalents,butlanguagespecificrepresentationfornon-cog-nateequivalents (formoredata:Friel andKennison2001).Researchwithcognatessupports “aviewof languagenon-selectiveaccess implyingall languagesknown toanindividualmayaffectwordactivationandrecognition”(Lemhöferetal.2004:586).Thedataof Lemhöferetal.(2004:601,603)forDutch(L1)-English(L2)-German(L3)trilingualsdemonstrateforcognates“thatco-activationofthreelexiconsoccursevenwithin the same words”andthat“notonlythedominantlanguage(Dutch)exertsaninfluenceonawordrecognitiontaskcarriedoutinaweakerlanguage(German),butthatasecond,non-targetlanguage(English)canalsoaffecttherecognitionprocesson top of the strong facilitation caused by the mother tongue”.InteachingreadingskillsinGermanasanL4toDutchspeakers,Ioftenobservedthatconsciousknowledgeofthecorrectmeaningofadeceptivecognatecanonlybeusedinautomaticlexicalaccessafterfrequentexercising(cf.FrielandKennison2001:253);thestrongconnectiontotheL1-meaning(oftenstrengthenedbytheL2/3Englishmeaning,asinGermanweilvs.DutchterwijlandEnglishwhile)firsthastobeinhibited,esp.whenthedeceptiveL1-cognate is frequently activated. The possibly shared word representation of cog-nates justifies theconsciousconnectingof cognatewords in theEuroCom-method.Forinternationalisms,sharedrepresentationmaybeassumedaswell.

4.3 Sentenceprocessing

Syntax is expressed by words, by their order, their morphology, their word classandevenbytheirmeaning.Toa largeextent,syntacticmarkersareword-bound.Itseems probable that a lexical entry consists not only of the word form(s), but alsocontainspossibleusesofthisform.Justasinlinguistictheoriesonsyntacticprocess-ing (Lutjeharms 1998), a tendency to allocate always more importance to the lexi-concanbeobservedinparsingmodelsincognitivepsychology.BatesandGoodman(1997:568)present“evidencefromlanguagedevelopment,languagedisordersandreal

274 MadelineLutjeharms

timelanguageprocessinginsupportofalexicalistapproachtogrammar”.Informationaboutwordclass,morphologicalstructure,subcategorisationandargumentstructureareconnectedtothelexicalentry.Suchcuesguidesyntacticanalysis.Thereare,how-ever,twotypesofinformationand,accordingly,twotypesofparsingmodels.Inlexic-alentrydrivenmodels,propertieslinkeddirectlytothewordareemphasized.Thesepropertiesmightbesummarizedasinflectionalmarkersandvalencyor“attachmentbiasesofverbs,prepositionsandnouns”(SnedekerandTrueswell2004:275).Shapiroetal.(1993:110)founddataforalexicalentrydrivenparser:“Whentheverbisen-countered,thevariousargumentstructurepossibilitiesareexhaustivelyactivated......Thepreferredstructureisthenprojectedasapossibleinitialparse”.Inothermodels,phrasestructuredrivenrulesareprominent,withsentencerelatedproperties,mainlywordorder,beingused. In cognitive psychology most of the research is on English as L1. Syntactically,Englishisaspecialcaseaswordorderisthemostimportantcueforsentenceprocess-ing.MacWhinneyandBates(1989:XIV)evencall itanexoticlanguage,becauseoftheoverridingimportanceofwordorder.Inmostlanguagesfarmorecuesareusedforparsing.InEnglishforinstancetheassignmentoftherelativepronountoasubjectorobjectfunctioncanbedecidedimmediatelyafterthepronounhasoccurredforthesubjectisfollowedbyaverb,theobjectbyasubject,asin(Schriefersetal.1995:503):The senator that the reporter attacked . . . .AmbiguousrelativepronounsinDutchandGermantendtobeassignedasubjectfunction.Ifnecessary,areinterpretationfollows,butonlyattheendoftheclauseaftertheauxiliary.InEnglish,however,semanticin-formationinfluencesprocessingimmediately(ibid.).Fromsuchdata itmaybecon-cludedthatitisdangeroustogeneralizedatafoundforEnglish. Dutch and German are considered to be SOV-languages due to the underlyingstructure(Haegeman1991:520ff. ,SuchslandinBorsley1997),butallcombinationsofS(subject),O(object)andV(verb)arepossible,althoughOSVandVOSarerare.InSOV-sentences,suchassubordinateclauses,theremaybenoexpectationsaboutslotstofill,ascomplementsprecedetheverb.ThatiswhyargumentstructuremayplayarolethatisdifferentfromthatinSVO-sentences(Koniecznyetal.1997).Experimentalevidence has been found for the assumption “that case marking languages such asGerman may employ non-syntactical processing routes to determine the thematicinterpretationofasentence.....Thisfindingsupportsproposalsassumingthatmor-phologicalcasereflectsthethematicrelationsbetweenthearguments”(Bornkesseletal.2003:270,295).InDutch,casemarkingis,asinEnglish,onlyamatterofpronouns.Casemarkingcuesarethereforeveryoftennotavailable.Asaresult,wordordercuesappeartobemorewidelyusedbyDutch-speakersthanbyGerman-speakers.IfoundevidenceofthisstrategyinerrorsbyDutch-speakersreadingGermanLSPandavoid-ingcasemarkers(Lutjeharms1998:140f.). Aninterestingtheoryofsyntacticanalysis—afunctionaltheory—isMacWhinneyandBates’sCompetitionModel(1989).Thisconnectionistmodelshowswhatkindofelementsguidesyntacticprocessinginaspecificlanguage.Severalsurfacecuessuchas

Processinglevelsinforeign-languagereading 275

wordorder, lexemeswiththeirproperties,e.g.nounanimacy,congruencyandmor-phologicalindicators,e.g.subject-verbagreement,areusedsimultaneouslyindiffer-ent combinationsandwithchangingcue strength to reachcorrect role assignment(seealsoTraxler et al. 2005). Surface indicatorsmaybe syntactic cues (wordorder,inflectionalmorphology),phonologicalcues (prosodic informationand intonation)for listeningcomprehension,andsemanticcues(animacy).Theyareusedsimultan-eouslyincomplexconfigurationsofparallelactivation,i.e.incompetition.Cuescanreinforceeachother.Cuevalidityofasurfaceindicatordevelopsduringlanguageac-quisitionfromavailability,i.e.frequency,andfromreliability.Salience,i.e.detectabil-ity,alsoplaysarole.Twolevelsmapinthemodel,afunctionallevel(representationofmeaning)andaformallevel(surfaceforms),whichareprocessedincompleteinterac-tion.Form-functionmappingsaremadeasdirectlyaspossible.Asingleformcanmapontoseveralfunctionsandasinglefunctioncanmapontoseveralforms.Thesurfaceindicatorsarelanguagespecific. Within the Competition Model experiments on syntactic analysis in several lan-guageshavebeencarriedout,e.g.ontheroleofwordorderfortheassignmentofthesubject.InEnglish,wordorderisthemaincue;inItalian,itisverbmorphology(Lietal.1993,Liuetal.1992).InDutch,wordorderisalsothemaincue,butthecaseformofapersonalpronounhashigherconflictvalidity(McDonaldandMacWhinney1991:409,seealsoLutjeharms1998).Ifanimacyandwordorderconflict,wordorderis stronger inEnglish; in Italian it is animacy (McDonaldandMacWhinney1989).InGerman,morphologicalcuesareprominentassoonas theyarecomplete(BatesandMacWhinney1989:56).So,dependingonthelanguage,differentcueshavehigherconflictvalidity.Syntacticcuesappearnottobeasuniversalasoftenproposed(butseeUniversalGrammarresearchorClifton1995). Most of the data on syntactic analysis in a foreign language have been collectedwithintheframeworkoftheCompetitionModel.ItcouldbeshownthatlearnersofEnglishwithseveralL1s(Spanish,Italian,Dutch,Japanese,Chinese)useL1strategies,butalsosomeofthetypicalEnglishwordorderstrategies.L1strategiesdonotneces-sarily interfere, even if not used by native speakers of English.With growing profi-ciency,increasinglymoretargetlanguagestrategiesareadopted(forasurveyoftheliteratureseeMcDonaldandHeilenman1991,Liuetal.1992,Koda1993).Butnon-interferingL1strategiesmightstillbeapplied(KilbornandCooreman1987).Frenck-MestreandPynte(1997:121,134)demonstratedthattransferofsyntacticcuesfrommoreproficientlanguagesdependsonperceivedstructuralsimilarityofthelanguagesconcerned. Readersoftendonotperceivetargetlanguagecuesiftheyhavenotbeenpreparedtoreacttothem.Butevenaftersomepreparation,non-automatedcuestendtobeavoid-ed.Assyntacticanalysisisnormallyautomatic,influencingitisnoteasy.ForDutchspeakersreadingGerman, I foundthatcasemarkersareavoidedwhenthismorph-ologyisnotfamiliarfromL1(Lutjeharms1988:272ff.).Familiarlookingcasemarkersarenotavoided,butaremostlyunderstoodintheL1-function.Genitive-s,inGerman

276 MadelineLutjeharms

amarkerofsingular,isthussystematicallyprocessedasapluralmarkerorthe-er-casemarkerofanadjective(asinein großer Tisch, mit großer Mühe)isunderstoodasacom-parative,whichitwouldbeinDutch.Thefactthatknowledge—asevidencedbypro-ductivetasks—isoftennotusedinreceptionisprobablyduetolackofcontrol,i.e.lackofautomaticprocessingoftheforeignlanguagecue.Explicitknowledgehasnotyetdevelopedintoimplicitknowledge;noroutinehasasyetbeendeveloped.Knowledgerepresentationdoesnotimplyautomaticknowledgeretrieval.

4.4 Form,contentandtheroleofpriorknowledge

So far, mainly processing of linguistic form—also called decoding or lower levelprocessing—hasbeendiscussed.Lowerlevelprocessinginfluentreadingisahighlyautomatedprocess,i.e.fast,parallelandnon-attentional.Workingmemorycapacityisthencompletelyavailableforsemanticprocessing.Whenreadingastillinsufficientlyacquiredlanguage,decodingwillbeatleastpartiallyanattentionalprocess.Besides,theuseofresourcessuchasadictionaryorthehelpoflinguisticallymoreproficientreadersmayberequired.Inferringandavoidancestrategiesareinevitabletoarriveatsome—notnecessarilycorrect—interpretation,whenallworkingmemorycapacityisusedforlowerprocessing.Assuchconsciousinferringstrategies-sometimescalledintelligentguessingorpredicting—aretoodemandingforextensiveuse. Weneedpriorknowledgeonallprocessing levels: script, spellingpattern,wordswithrulesfortheiruse,syntacticpatterns,butalsoknowledgeoftheworldforhigherlevelprocessingandinferring.Whenreadinganewlanguage,wewilltrytotransferpriorknowledgeassoonasthisseemspossible.Weneedinterpretableformsforthetransferofknowledge.Contentknowledgecansupportthetransferofknowledgetothedecodinglevel incombinationwithrecognizable linguisticforms(international-isms,cognates,expectationsforwordorderetc.).However, thetransferofnon-suit-ableknowledgecanbeverymisleading,andintryingtoattainsomecoherenceonemisinterpretationcanleadtomoreerrors.Thebeststrategytoavoidsuchproblemsistomakegreateruseofresources,andespeciallytoachievemorelanguageacquisitionandtoincreaselanguageuseautomaticity.Moreproficiencymeansabetterchancetoinfercorrectlyonalllevels.

4.5 Semanticanalysis

Textcomprehensionisbroughtaboutbyaninteractionbetweendecodingresultsandpriorknowledgeofcontent.Lexicalaccessandsyntacticanalysisresult intheincre-mentalconstructionofapropositionalrepresentationofsentencecontent—aprocessthatinfluentreadingandwithforthereaderappropriatecontentprobablyoccursnon-attentionally.Someevidencehasbeenfoundthatinreadingforthegistofthemessagereadersmaybesatisfiedwithunderspecifiedrepresentationofaspectsoftextinforma-tion.Thishasbeenfoundforanaphoricinferences(Klinetal.2006).

Processinglevelsinforeign-languagereading 277

Content-based previous knowledge is mostly called knowledge of the world orschema-basedknowledge.Aschema“isanorganizedpacketofknowledgethatena-blesustomakesenseofnewknowledge”;it“canbeconceptualizedasaseriesofslotsthatcanbefilledwithparticularvalues”(Harley2001:329).Schemaknowledgedevel-opsasakindofabstractionbasedonpreviousexperience.Thispriorknowledgesup-portsanticipationandallowsfortheintegrationofthenewlyacquiredinformation.Toactivatesuitablepriorknowledgetitles,illustrations,abstractsetc.areusedforwrittentextsasameansofforegrounding.Schema-basedknowledgeofthesubjectmatterofatextisaprerequisiteforcontent-basedinferringduringreading.Thispriorknowledgeiswhatmakestextscoherent.Onthesentencelevel,theusualtopic-commentstruc-tureoftexts,i.e.knowninformationbeforenewinformation,followsthesameprin-cipleofforegrounding.Inouruseoflanguagemuchinformationisimplicit.IfwereadMary is happy. She won the lotteryweinfer,thatsheishappybecauseshewonthelot-teryandnotbecausee.g.herholidayhasjuststarted.Priorknowledgeabouttexttypes,textpatternsandabout the functionsof texts isalsousedduringsemanticanalysis.Allthesekindsofpriorknowledgeelicitexpectationsabouttextpurposeandcontentthatmaysupportdecoding.Abouthowexactlyandatwhichlevelthisoccursinfluentreadingisnotveryclear.Inthecaseofknowledgegapsonthedecodinglevel,allthesekindsofpriorknowledgecansupportattentionalsearchofmeaning.Whenreadingincoherentinformation,bridginginferenceshavetobemadeinordertomakesense.Togetherwithinternaltextproperties(suchasstyle,sentencelength,wordchoiceetc.)thepriorknowledgethatreadersbringtothetextdeterminestextdifficulty. Today,theresultofsemanticprocessing—whentextcomprehensionisreached—isusuallycalledamentalmodel(Johnson-Laird1983).Mentalmodels“aremultidimen-sionalandrepresentfivekindsofinformation”,suchasspatial,causalandtemporalinformationaswellasinformationaboutpeople’sgoalsandabout“thecharacteristicsofpeopleandobjects”(Harley2001:332).Thereareothermodelslikestorygrammars,VanDijk’smacrostructures(1980)orKintsch’(1988)construction-integrationmodel.Inconstructingamodeloftextinformationweinferwiththehelpofpriorknowledge.Theextenttowhich(some)inferencesmaybeprocessedautomaticallyisacontrover-sialpointinresearch(Rawson2004).Inferencescanbeintended,i.e.theauthorthinksthetargetgroupwillbeabletomakethem,orelaborated,whichmeanstheygobeyondwhatisrequiredforcomprehendingtextcontent.Decodingisofcoursethefirststeptobeabletoconstructamentalmodel,butothersubskillsandmemoryrepresentationssuchasuseofpriorknowledgeabouttexttopicandtextstructure,richnessofsemanticrepresentationsforwordmeanings,inferenceskillsandmetacognitivemonitoringtointegratetextinformationarealsorequired(Oakhilletal2003:463f.). Mentalmodelsareconstructed incrementally, i.e. graduallyusing incomingdata.Theyonly contain text content,not the linguistic formof a text.Memory represen-tationofa textconsistsofcondensed information that is taken fromthe text, com-binedwithpriorknowledgeonthetopic.Thisinformationisintegratedintolongtermmemory.Suchrepresentationsmayvary individuallyaccording topriorknowledge

278 MadelineLutjeharms

andreadingpurpose.Motivationfortextcontentimpliesmoreattentionisgiventoit,whichleadstodeeperprocessing.Readingpurposeinfluenceswhichpartsofcontentarefocusedon.Surfacetextformisnotretrievableafterreading.However,tracesofsurfaceformsareencodedsomehow,forevenwhenreadersnolongerrememberhav-ingseenthetextbefore,theyreadaoncealreadyprocessedtextfasterthanatextaboutthe same subject, but in a different form (Levy 1993:54ff. , Moscovitch and Bentin1993).Thisobservationexplainswhyevenatextthatisreadwithoutattentionforcon-tentsupportslanguageacquisition. Howdifferentisconceptualknowledgeacrosslanguages?Atleasttwoaspectsarerelevant inanswering thequestion:generalhumanperceptionandnaming.For lis-teningcomprehension,languagespecificeffectsinperceptionhavebeenobservedfor

“speakersofdifferent languagesbecomesensitised todifferentprosodicpatternandphonetic constraints” (Green 1998:253). Consequences of this phenomenon havebeenobservedforforeign-languageacquisitionaswell.Butaresuchlanguagespecificdifferencesalsofoundforconcepts?Here,thedataarenotconclusive(ibid.),butdif-ferencesinnamingpatternshavebeenfoundacrosslanguages(Maltetal.2003).Thereis“thenotionthatalllanguagesusethesamesetofsemanticprimitivesidenticaltoasubsetofconceptualprimitivesinwhichthinkingtakesplace”.Buttheseprimitivescanbecombined“intospecificconceptsofaparticularlanguage”(Green1998:253).Theremaybemoreor lessdifferenceaccordingtothekindof information,suchasmoredifferenceinthedomainofabstractknowledge,lessforvisual,auditoryandki-naestheticsystems.Related languagesmaypresent lessdifference innamingofcon-ceptualknowledgethanlanguageswithlittleproximity.

5. Code-switching

Ingeneral,code-switchingisseenasaphenomenonofdiscourse.Franceschinietal.(2004)havestudiedcode-switchingasaneuralactivity,whenreadingacontinuouscoherentstoryintwolanguages(inwhichafterapproximatelythreeshortsentencesthelanguageswitchesagain).Intheirresearch,code-switchingoccursonthedecod-inglevel.Whetherandhowthismightinfluencesemanticprocessingisanotherques-tion.However,code-switchingonthelevelofsemanticprocessingcanbeobservedaswell.Whenmakingnoteswhenreading(orlisteningto)EnglishorFrenchLSP-textsImixthreelanguages:thelanguagebeingdecoded,Dutch(L1)andGerman(thelan-guageIuseforteachingandmostlyforwritingLSP-texts).Acolleaguewiththesamelinguisticskillsconfirmsthatshedoesexactlythesame.OthercolleagueshavetoldmetheyusetheirL1whentakingnotewhilereadingorlisteningtoLSP-textsinlessstronglyacquiredlanguages.Thismeansthatthetextcontenthasbeenprocessed,butthatthesurfaceformlevelisnolongerpresentinworkingmemory,andthatcontentisrenderedinastronger,moreaccessiblecode—inacognitivelydemandingsituation.Itmightbeseenasaspecialcaseofmultilingualcommunication—inthecaseofreading

Processinglevelsinforeign-languagereading 279

“distributedovertwosituations”(HouseandRehbein2004:3),thatofreceptionandthatofproduction.

6. Processinglevels,readingandacquiringrelatedlanguages

IntheEuroCom-method,aforeignlanguageisacquiredwiththehelpofanL1and/orL2,L3etc.thatisrelatedtooneormoreoftheacquiredlanguages.Fromadidacticperspectivethismakessenseforseveralreasons.Fortheintakeofnewinformation,wehavetoorganizeitandconnectittoactivatedknowledgeinlong-termmemory.Thesituationissimilarforcontentandforlinguisticinformation.Activatedentriesinthementallexiconthatbelongtoalreadyacquiredlanguagescanfunctionasaconnectionor“transferbase”(Meißner2003).Ascognatesprobablysharearepresentationinthelexicon,connectingrelatedwordsandinternationalisms(sieves1and2)isasensibleprocessfroma learningperspective.Byactivatinganetwork,suchconnectionscanalsostrengthenalreadyacquiredlinguisticknowledge.Improvingrecognitionofcog-natesbyusinginterlingualsoundcorrespondencesalsofacilitatesrecallofmeaning.Notall learnersaregoodatdiscoveringsuchcorrespondences.Ihaveobservedthiswithmystudents,whowithL1orL2DutchhavetolearnL4German.GermanandDutcharecloselyrelatedlanguages,butGermanhadasecondsoundshift,whichdis-tanceditfromallotherGermaniclanguages.Somelearnersneedhelpandattentiontodiscovertherelationshipofcognatewords,whileothersseeitautomatically.ToseethecorrespondencesseemstobeeasierwhentherelatedlanguageistheL1.ThismightbeduetotheprominentroleofL1indevelopingamentallexicon.Whateverthecasemaybe,“recentstudieshaveshownthatlanguagelearnersfinditeasiertoacquirecognatetranslations”(FrielandKennison2001:249). Newgraphemesandtheirpronunciation(sieve4)havetobeacquired,alsotofa-cilitaterecognition(e.g.inEnglishbook,GermanBuchandDutchboekthevowelisrendered with three different graphemes, but the pronunciation is quite similar).Moreover,asmentionedabove,pronunciationisrequiredevenifthelearninggoalisreadingcomprehensiononly,bothforrehearsalinworkingmemoryandmemorizing,asforpossiblefutureacquisitionofotherskills. Becauseoftheimportanceofmorphemesasaprobablerepresentationallevelinthementallexicon,emphasisonaffixes(sieve7)isusefulforlearning.Moreover,linguisticknowledgecanbeappliedmoreflexiblywhensomeinsightintoderivationandcom-poundinghasbeenacquired.Forsyntacticanalysis(sieve5,mainsentencestructures),newroutines forsyntacticprocessingonlyhavetobedeveloped inthecaseofnewstructures.GermanorDutchspeakerswillnotneednewroutinesforprocessingSVO-structures,butEnglishspeakershavetodevelopnewroutinestocopewithnon-SVO-structureswhen theyarefirstencountered innew languages.At the levelof syntaxthereismoretypologicaldistancebetween,ontheonehand,GermanandDutch,withtheirveryflexiblewordorder,andEnglishandtheScandinavianlanguages,withtheir

280 MadelineLutjeharms

fixedwordorder,ontheother,thanbetweenthelattergroupandFrench.Typologicaldistancebetweenlanguagescandifferaccordingtotheprocessinglevel. Toacquireanewlanguagemeansespeciallytoacquirenewformsorperhapsonlypartiallynewformsasitisoftenthecaseinrelatedlanguages.Fortheconceptuallevel,shared representations seemmostplausible (cf.Zeelenberg&Pecher2003,Francis1999:322f.).Insemanticmemory,conceptsandthenetworkstheybelongtomayhavetobealteredslightlyortobedeveloped,butthelearningloadismainlyduetotheformlevel.Differencesinthoughttraditionsandinknowledgesystemsmayoccur,butthiscanalsobeanintralinguisticphenomenon;itisnottypicalofforeign-languageacqui-sition.Differentculturescansharealanguageanddifferentthoughtpatternscanoccurinsidealinguisticcommunitydependingonfactorssuchassocialgrouporscientificcommunity.Thesevensievesusefocusonformforalldecodinglevelsandthussup-port theacquisitionof form-basedprocessing levels—oftenusing inferring for therecognitionofpossibletransferbases(Meißner2003:36).Thisimpliesthatbothdata-drivenandexpectancy-basedprocessesareused.

References

Ameel,E. ,Storms,G. ,Malt,B.C.andSloman,S.A.2005.Howbilingualssolve thenamingproblem.Journal of Memory and Language53:60–80.

Ashby, F.G. , Valentin, V.V. and Turken, A.U. 2002. The effects of positive affect and arous-al on working memory and executive attention. In Emotional Cognition, S. Moore andM.Oaksford(eds),245–87.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Balota, D.A. , Paul, S.T. and Spieler, D.H. 1999. Attentional control of lexical processingpathways during word recognition and reading. In Language Processing, S. Garrod andM.Pickering(eds),15–57.Hove:PsychologyPress.

Bates,E.andGoodman,J.C.1997.Ontheinseparabilityofgrammarandthelexicon:Evidencefrom acquisition, aphasia and real-time processing. Language and Cognitive Processes1:507–84.

Bates,E.andMacWhinney,B.1989.Functionalismandthecompetitionmodel.InThe Cross- Linguistic Study of Sentence Processing,B.MacWhinneyandE.Bates(eds),3–73.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Bernhardt,E.B.1993.Reading Development in a Second Language: Theoretical, empirical and classroom perpectives.NorwoodNJ:Ablex.

Bertram,R. ,Baayen,R.H.andSchreuder,R.2000a.Effectsoffamilysizeforcomplexwords.Journal of Memory and Language42:390–405.

Bertram,R. ,Schreuder,R.andBaayen,R.H.2000b.Thebalanceofstorageandcomputationinmorphologicalprocessing:Theroleofwordformationtype,affixalhomonymy,andpro-ductivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition26:489–511.

Bornkessel,I. ,Schlesewsky,M.andFriederici,A.D.2003.Elicitingthematicreanalysiseffects:The role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes18:269–98.

Processinglevelsinforeign-languagereading 281

Borsley,R.D.1997.Syntax-Theorie. Ein zusammengefaßter Zugang.Deutsche Bearbeitung von Peter Suchsland.Tübingen:MaxNiemeyer.

Bowers,J.S. ,Davis,C.J.andHanley,D.A.2005.Automaticsemanticactivationofembeddedwords:Istherea‘hat’in‘that’?Journal of Memory and Language52:131–43.

Chen,H.-C. ,Cheung,H.andLan,S.1997.ExaminingandreexaminingthestructureofChinese–Englishbilingualmemory.Psychological Research60:270–83.

Clifton,C.1995.Thematicrolesinsentenceparsing.InReading and Language Processing,J.M.Henderson,M.SingerandF.Ferreira(eds),94–118.MahwahNJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Costa, A. , Caramazza, A. and Sebastian-Galles, N. 2000. The cognate facilitation effect:Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition26:1283–1296.

de Groot, A. 1993.Word type effects in bilingual processing tasks: Support for a mixed-rep-resentationalsystem.InThe Bilingual Lexicon,R.SchreuderandB.Weltens(eds),27–51.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Deutsch, A. and Rayner, K. 1999. Initial fixation location effects in reading Hebrew words.Language and Cognitive Processes14:393–421.

Dijkstra,T. ,vanHeuven,W.J.B.andGrainger,J.1998.Simulatingcross-languagecompetitionwiththeBilingualInteractiveActivationmodel.Psychologica Belgica38:177–96.

Dijkstra,T. ,Grainger,J.andvanHeuven,W.J.B.1999.Recognitionofcognatesandinterlingualhomographs:Theneglectedroleofphonology.Journal of Memory and Language41:496–518.

Dijkstra,T. ,Timmermans,M.andSchriefers,H.2000.Onbeingblindedbyyourother lan-guage:Effectsoftaskdemandsoninterlingualhomographrecognition.Journal of Memory and Language42:445–64.

Ellis, R. and Humphreys, G. 1999. Connectionist Psychology. A Text with readings. Hove:PsychologyPress.

Feldman,L.B.2000.Aremorphologicaleffectsdistinguishablefromtheeffectsofsharedmean-ingandsharedform?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition26:1431–1444.

Fodor,J.A.1983.The Modularity of Mind.CambridgeMA:MITPress.Folk,J.R.1999.Phonologicalcodesareusedtoaccessthelexiconduringsilentreading.Journal

of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition25:892–906.Franceschini,R. ,Krick,C.M. ,Behrent,S.andReith,W.2004.Theneurobiologyofcode-switch-

ing. Inter-sentential code-switching in an fMRI-study. In Multilingual Communication,J.HouseandJ.Rehbein(eds),179–93.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

Francis,W.1999.Analogical transferofproblemsolutionswithinandbetween languages inSpanish–Englishbilinguals.Journal of Memory and Language40:301–29.

Frenck-Mestre,C.andPynte,J.1997.Syntacticambiguityresolutionwhilereadinginasecondandnativelanguages.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology50(A):119–48.

Friel,B.M.andKennison,S.M.2001. IdentifyingGerman–Englishcognates, falsecognates,andnon-cognates:methodologicalissuesanddescriptivenorms.Bilingualism: Language and Cognition4:249–74.

Garrod,S.andPickering,M.(eds).1999.Language Processing.Hove:PsychologyPress.Grainger, J.andFrenck-Mestre,C.1998.Maskedprimingby translationequivalents inprofi-

cientbilinguals.Language and Cognitive Processes13:601–23.Green,D.W.1998.Bilingualismandthought.Psychologica Belgica38:251–76.

282 MadelineLutjeharms

Haegeman,L.1991.Introduction to Government & Binding Theory.Oxford:Blackwell.Harley,T.2001.The Psychology of Language.Hove:PsychologyPress.House, J. and Rehbein, J. (eds). 2004. Multilingual Communication. Amsterdam: John Benja-

mins.House, J. and Rehbein, J. 2004. What is ‘multilingual communication’? In Multilingual

Communication,J.HouseandJ.Rehbein(eds),1–17.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Jescheniak, J.D.andSchriefers,H.2001.Primingeffects fromphonologicallyrelateddistrac-

torsinpicture-wordinterference.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology54(A):371–82.

Jescheniak, J.D. , Schriefers,H. andHantsch,A.2001.Semanticandphonological activationinnounandpronounproduction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27:1058–1078.

Jiang,N.andForster,K.2001.Cross-languageprimingasymmetriesinlexicaldecisionandepi-sodicrecognition.Journal of Memory and Language44:32–51.

Johnson-Laird,P.N.1983.Mental Models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Kilborn,K.andCooreman,A.1987.SentenceinterpretationstrategiesinadultDutch–Englishbilinguals.Applied Psycholinguistics8:415–31.

Kim,J.andDavis,C.2002.UsingKoreantoinvestigatephonologicalprimingeffectswithouttheinfluenceoforthography.Language and Cognitive Processes17:569–91.

Kintsch,W.1988.Theroleofknowledgeindiscoursecomprehension:Aconstruction-integra-tionmodel.Psychological Review95:163–82.

Klein,H.G.andStegmann,T.D.2000.EuroComRom — Die sieben Siebe: Romanische Sprachen sofort lesen können.Aachen:ShakerVerlag.

Klin,C.M. ,Guzman,A.E. ,Weingartner,K.M.andRalano,A.S.2006.Whenanaphorreso-lution fails:Partial encodingof anaphoric inferences. Journal of Memory and Language54:131–43.

Koda,K.1993.TransferredL1strategiesandL2syntacticstructureinL2sentencecomprehen-sion.The Modern Language Journal77:490–500.

Konieczny,L. ,B.Hemforth,C.ScheepersandStrube,G.1997.Theroleoflexicalheadsinpars-ing:EvidencefromGerman.Language and Cognitive Processes12:307–48.

Kutas,M.1993.Inthecompanyofotherwords:Electrophysiologicalevidenceforsingle-wordandsentencecontexteffects.Language and Cognitive Processes8:533–72.

Lemhöfer,K.,Dijkstra,T.andMichel,M.C.2004.Threelanguages,oneECHO:Cognateeffectsintrilingualwordrecognition.Language and Cognitive Processes19:585–611.

Levy,B.A.1993.Fluentreading:Animplicitindicatorofreadingskilldevelopment.InImplicit Memory. New directions in cognition, development, and neuropsychology,P.GrafandM.E.J.Masson(eds),49–73.HillsdaleNJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Li,P. ,Bates,E.andMacWhinney,B.1993.Processingalanguagewithoutinflections:Areactiontimestudyofsentenceinterpretation.Journal of Memory and Language32:169–92.

Liu,H. ,Bates,E.andLi,P.1992.SentenceinterpretationinbilingualspeakersofEnglishandChinese.Applied Psycholinguistics13:451–84.

Longtin, C.-M. and Meunier, F. 2005. Morphological decomposition in early visual wordprocessing.Journal of Memory and Language53:26–41.

Longtin,C.-M. ,Segui,J.andHallé,P.A.2003.Morphologicalprimingwithoutmorphologicalrelationship.Language and Cognitive Processes18:313–34.

Processinglevelsinforeign-languagereading 283

Lutjeharms,M.1988.Lesen in der Fremdsprache. Versuch einer psycholinguistischen Deutung am Beispiel Deutsch als Fremdsprache.Bochum:AKS-Verlag.

Lutjeharms, M. 1994. Lesen in der Fremdsprache: Zum Leseprozess und zum Einsatz derLesefertigkeit im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Zeitschrift für Fremdsprachenforschung5(2):36–77.

Lutjeharms, M. 1997. Reading skills for weak learners. In Languages for Work and Life: The Council of Europe and vocational oriented language learning,G.EgloffandA.Fitzpatrick(eds),164–77.Strasbourg:CouncilofEuropePublishing.

Lutjeharms,M.1998.DiesyntaktischeVerarbeitungbeiderRezeptionvonSprache.InBetrach-tungen zum Wort. Lexik im Spannungsfeld von Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik,E.KleinandS.J.Schierholz(eds),117–51.Tübingen:Stauffenburg.

Lutjeharms, M. 2001. Reading comprehension and the C-test from a psycholinguistic view-point:Aspectsofthelowerprocessinglevels.InTests and Translation. Papers in memory of Christine Klein-Braley,H.PürschelandU.Raatz(eds),21–37.Bochum:AKS-Verlag.

Lutjeharms,M.2004.DerZugriffaufdasmentaleLexikonundderWortschatzerwerbinderFremdsprache.Fremdsprachen Lehren und Lernen33:10–26.

MacWhinney, B. and Bates, E. (eds) 1989. The Cross-linguistic Study of Sentence Processing.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Malt,B.C. ,Sloman,S.A.andGennari,S.P.2003.Universalityandlanguagespecificityinobjectnaming.Journal of Memory and Language49:20–42.

Marslen-Wilson,W.D.1999.Abstractnessandcombination:Themorphemiclexicon.InLan-guage Processing,S.GarrodandM.J.Pickering(eds),101–19.Hove:PsychologyPress.

Marslen-Wilson,W.D.2001.Accesstolexicalrepresentation:Cross-linguisticissues.Language and Cognitive Processes16:699–708.

McCann,W.J. ,Klein,H.G.andStegmann,T.D.2003.EuroComRom — The Seven Sieves: How to read all the Romance languages right away.Aachen:ShakerVerlag.

McClelland, J.L. and Rumelhart, D.E. 1985. Distributed memory and the representation ofgeneralandspecificinformation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General14:159–88(quotedafterthereprintinR.EllisandG.Hymphreys1999,75–105).

McDonald,J.L.andHeilenmanL.K.1991.Determinantsofcuestrengthinadultfirstandsec-ondlanguagespeakersofFrench.Applied Psycholinguistics12:313–48.

McDonald,J.L.andMacWhinney,B.1989.Maximumlikelyhoodmodelsforsentenceprocess-ing.InThe Cross-linguistic Study of Sentence Processing,B.MacWhinneyandE.Bates(eds),397–421.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

McDonald,J.L.andMacWhinney,B.1991.Levelsoflearning:Acomparisonofconceptforma-tionandlanguageacquisition.Journal of Memory and Language30:407–30.

McQueen,J.M.andCutler,A.2001.Spokenwordaccessprocesses:Anintroduction.Language and Cognitive Processes16:469–90(Specialissuespokenwordaccessprocesses).

Meißner, F.-J. 2003. EuroComDidact: Learning and teaching plurilingual comprehension. InSprachkompetenz — Mehrsprachigkeit — Translation. Akten des 35. Linguistischen Kolloqui-ums,L.N.Zybatow(ed.),36–46.Tübingen:GunterNarr.

Melinger, A. 2003. Morphological structure in the lexical representation of prefixed words:Evidencefromspeecherrors.Language and Cognitive Processes18:335–62.

Morton, J. 1969. The interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review76:165–78.

284 MadelineLutjeharms

Moscoso del Prado Martin, F. , Deutsch, A. , Frost, R. , Schreuder, R. , De Jong, N.H. andBaayen,R.H.2005.Changingplaces:Across-languageperspectiveonfrequencyandfam-ilysizeinDutchandHebrew.Journal of Memory and Language53:496–512.

Moscovitch,M.andBentin,S.1993.Thefateofrepetitioneffectswhenrecognitionapproacheschance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition19:148–58.

Müller-Lancé,J.2002.Lacorrélationentrelaresemblancemorphologiquedesmotsetlaprob-abilitédu transfer interlinguistique. InEurocom. Mehrsprachiges Europa durch Interkom-prehension in Sprachfamilien.TagungsbanddesinternationalenFachkongressesimEuro-päischenJahrderSprachen2001,Hagen,9.-10.November2001,G.Kischel(ed.),141–59.Hagen:Fernuniversität.

Oakhill,J.V. ,Cain,K.andBryant,P.E.2003.Thedissociationofwordreadingandtextcompre-hension:Evidencefromcomponentskills.Language and Cognitive Processes18:443–68.

Paradis,M.2004.A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism.[StudiesinBilingualism18].Amster-dam:JohnBenjamins.

Peterson,R.R. ,Burgess,C. ,Dell,G.S.andEberhard,K.M.2001.Dissociationbetweensyn-tactic and semantic processing during idiom comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27:1223–37.

Rawson,K.A.2004.Exploringautomaticityintextprocessing:Syntacticambiguityasatestcase.Cognitive Psychology49:333–69.

Roelofs,A.2003.Sharedphonologicalencodingprocessesandrepresentationoflanguagesinbilingualspeakers.Language and Cognitive Processes18:175–204.

Sanford,A.J.1999.Wordmeaninganddiscourseprocessing:A tutorial review. InLanguage Processing,S.GarrodandM.Pickering(eds),301–34.Hove:PsychologyPress.

Schriefers,H. ,Friederici,A.D.andKühn,K.1995.TheprocessingoflocallyambiguousrelativeclausesinGerman.Journal of Memory and Language34:499–520.

Shapiro,L.P. ,Nagel,H.N.andLevine,B.A.1993.Preferencesforaverb’scomplementsandtheiruseinsentenceprocessing.Journal of Memory and Language32:96–114.

Snedeker,J.andTrueswell,J.C.2004.Thedevelopmentconstraintsonparsingdecisions:Theroleoflexical-biasesandreferentialscenesinchildandadultsentenceprocessing.Cognitive Psychology49:238–99.

Taft,M.1991.Reading and the Mental Lexicon.HillsdaleNJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Thomas,M.S.C.andAllport,A.2000.Languageswitchingcostsinbilingualvisualwordrecog-

nition.Journal of Memory and Language43:44–66.Traxler,M.J. ,Williams,R.S. ,Blozis,S.A.andMorris,R.K.2005.Workingmemory,anima-

cy,andverbclassintheprocessingofrelativeclauses.Journal of Memory and Language53:204–24.

vanDijk,T.A.1980.Macrostructures.HillsdaleNJ:LawrenceErlbaum.Zeelenberg,R.andPecher,D.2003.Evidenceforlong-termcross-languagerepetitionpriming

inconceptualimplicitmemorytasks.Journal of Memory and Language49:80–94.Zwitserlood,P.1995.ProzesseundlexikalischeRepräsentationbeidervisuellenWorterkennung.

In Sprache: Verstehen und Verständlichkeit. Kongreßbeiträge zur 25. Jahrestagung derGesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik e.V. , B. Spillner (ed.), 115–18. Frankfurt a.M.:PeterLang.

chapter13

A computer-based exploration of the lexical possibilities of intercomprehensionFindingGermancognatesofDutchwords*

RobertMöllerUniversitédeLiège

Group relations between languages, especially cognate words, provide an excellentopportunity to develop receptive competence (“intercomprehension”). This paperpresentsacomputerizedapproachtotheinvestigationoftheextentofDutch–Germancognates in Dutch and the difficulties a German reader might have in recognizingthem.ThemainprocedureusedtofindingthemostsimilarGermancounterpartsofDutchwordsisbasedontheLevenshteinalgorithm,inwhichfindingsandassump-tionsongeneralsimilarityperceptionhavebeenintegratedalongwithasetofstatis-ticallyimportantsoundcorrespondences.Resultsshowthatabout75%ofthetestedfrequencylistof5,000DutchwordformscanbedecodedwiththehelpofGerman.

Keywords:Dutch,German,cognates,Levenshteinalgorithm,intercomprehension

1. Theroleofcognatesinreadingacloselyrelatedlanguage

The attitude of Germans towards written Dutch primarily falls—roughly speak-ing—intotwocategories:

a.“DutchisaforeignlanguagewhichIhaven’tlearntandconsequentlycannotread.”b.“DutchissosimilartoGermanthatitiseasytounderstandevenifyouhavenever

learntit.”

Thedifferenceis,ofcourse,partlyamatterofoptimismandself-confidenceindeal-ingwith foreign languages.But if youexplain the systematic relationshipsbetweenGermanandDutchwordstoGermanstudentsandletthemtrytodecodesmalltextsinDutch,youcanoftenobservean“aha!”reactionwhichshiftstheattitudefroma)tob).Thereseemstobeathresholdwhichcan(orcould)besurmountedrathereasily(atleastbypersonswithexperienceandknowledgeoflanguages,suchasstudentsofphi-lology),butwhichnonethelessblocksspontaneousaccesssothatmanypeoplewillnotattempttoovercomeit(cf.alsoHáz2005:38,110).Inaddition,customarymethodsoflanguagelearningnormallydonotconcentrateonreceptivecompetence;thisises-peciallytruefor“small” languages.Themarket isdominatedbyaseriesof learning

286 RobertMöller

aidsandcourseswhich in fact suggest that learningDutch in30 lessonsand learn-ingChinesein30lessonsinvolvesthesameprocessesandeffortinvested.DutchandGermancertainlycannotberegardedaseasilymutuallyintelligible.Buttakingonlywrittenlanguageintoconsiderationandleavingasidetheproblemsofpronunciation,we find that syntactical differences are unimportant and morphological differencesasymmetrical:itisoftendifficulttodecodeaGermansentencewithoutbeingfamiliarwiththeGermaninflectionalsystem,whilethemoreanalyticDutchstructuresingen-eralalsoexistinGerman,mostlyaslessformalalternatives.TheonlymajorobstaclesindecodingDutchwithhelpfromGerman(asamothertongueorasawell-masteredforeignlanguage)arethelexicaldifferences,1moreprecisely:reallexicaldifferencesontheonehandandphonologicaldifferencesbetweencognates(whichhinderrecogni-tion)ontheother.

2. Theproject

Inordertoassesstheactualelevationoftherecognitionthreshold,themostimportantthingstoknowarethenumberofcognatesinthelexicon,thepossibilitiesforrecog-nizingthem,andwhethermanyaremisleading.TheprojectthatwillbepresentedhereaimstoinvestigatethepossibilitiesforDutch–Germanreadingcomprehensionbyex-ploringthenumberofrecognizablecognatesandidentifyingthenecessaryknowledgeand the risksof thisapproachwithacomputerprogram.Beyond thegeneral inter-est in thesynchronicrelationshipbetweenthe languages, the investigationalsohasapracticalbenefit:Theresultsandthecomputerproceduresaretobeusedfordevel-opinglearningaidsforintercomprehensioninwhichcognatesandnon-cognatesaretreatedinadifferentwayandregularandnon-regularsoundcorrespondencesarein-dicatedineachcase. Certainly,therecognitionofisolatedcognatesisafarcryfromrealtextunderstand-ing(seeLutjeharms1988,2004),butitdefinestheminimumthatcanbeunderstood(and the maximum that could be misunderstood). Decoding strategies, such as in-ferencing fromtextualandgeneral context,whichplayamajor role in real foreignlanguagecomprehension,relyonfamiliarelementsasastartingpoint.Inreadinganunknown language, the only familiar elements are names, international words andcognates.Ifasufficientnumberoftheseislacking,andinferencingcanthereforeonlybebaseduponafewclues,thegeneralcontextmayperhapshelpthereadertoguessthatatextcontainscertaininformationheorshealreadyknows;ifthecontextisre-stricted,thereadermayevenguesswhichofseveralpossiblestatementsisbeingmade(XiselectedpresidentorYis)—butatransmissionofmoreextensivenewinforma-tionwillgenerallynottakeplace.Thetextualcontext,inturn,consistsofwordswhichareeitherdecodableascognatesorneedahelpingtextualcontextaswell.Thus,thenumberaswellasthetransparencyofcognatesarecrucialforintelligibility(seealso

FindingGermancognatesofDutchwords 287

vanBezooijenandGooskensthisvolume).Inrealtextreading,thecontextmayhelptobridgeacertainnumberoflexicalgaps,butthisdependsverymuchonchanceandontheindividualtext,whereasthestartingpoint,thenumberofpotentialgapsandbridgepiers,canbedeterminedforagivenconstellationoflanguages. Asmentionedearlier,thisdoesnotmeanthatallindividualreadersmakeuseofex-istingpossibilitiesinthesameway.Ifthenumberofcognatesisinvariable,theirrec-ognitiondependsverymuchonthereader’sproficiencyindetectingcognatesincaseswherethephonologicalrelationisnotsoobvious(andinmakinguseofthemincaseswheretheyarenotsemanticallyidentical,cf.below).Thisisaspecialskillthatcan(andmust)betrained(cf.Lutjeharms2004:78).Thequestionofunderwhichconditionstherelationshipbetweenphonologically/orthographicallydifferentcognatesiseasilyrec-ognizablehasbeentodatelittleinvestigated,2althoughresultsfromresearchinreadingcomprehension,acquisitionofreadingandwritingand(receptive)languageprocess-ing3providesomehints(cf.Lutjeharms1988:249,Scheerer-Neumann1996,SchadeandBarattelli2003).Itappearsthatforwordrecognition,thebeginningofawordismostimportant.Moreover,consonantsseemtobemoresalientthanvowels,ascanbeseenfromconsonant“skeletonwritings”usedbyyoungchildren(cf.alsothedifferentroleofconsonantsandvowelsintheablautsystem).Additionally,theamountof(ac-cumulated)differencesinaword,inrelationtoitslength,islikelytobeimportant.ThiscouldexplainwhycognatesbetweenGermanandotherGermaniclanguagesareoftennotrecognized:duetotheOldHighGermanic(OHG)ConsonantShift,consonantsinparticulararenotthesame.Thisisoftenthecaseintheinitialposition,andevenforthecloselyrelatedGermanandDutchitisnotunusualtofindpairsofcognatesinwhichnearly all segments differ, although according to general correspondence regulari-ties(Du.duik-en–G.tauch-en‘todive’).WithoutsomeknowledgeofDutch–Germansoundcorrespondences,suchwordscanbedecodedonlywithdifficulty. Thus,acatalogueofrelevantrulesofsoundcorrespondencescouldbeavaluableaidforreadersofGerman.Oneofthequestionsthatwillbepursuedherealsoishowtofindthemostrelevantinstancesfromthestandpointofintercomprehension.Thelinguisticpreoccupationwithsoundcorrespondences inrelated languageshasnear-ly always been dominated by a historical perspective.4 Referring to a historical sys-temsuchas(reconstructed)Germanicmakesitpossibletoformulateunidirectionalphonological “laws”.Thesoundcorrespondencesbetweenrelatedsystems,however,canrarelybeformulatedintolaws,sincerelationshipsaregenerallyobscuredbydiffer-entsoundmergersonbothsides.Thingsarefurthercomplicatedbyloanwords,whichinhistoricalphonologyaresimplyexcludedortreatedseparately,butsynchronicallyoftencannotbe recognizedas such.However, for receptive competence, theunam-biguity of phonological correspondences is not imperative so long as assumed cor-respondencesdonotleadtoincorrectassignments.5Moreover,highlydifferentiatedsystemsofrulesandconditionsofsoundcontextareinanycasenotpracticableasaneasyaccessrouteto intercomprehension.Thusit is importanttofindthoserulesof

288 RobertMöller

soundcorrespondencewhicharetruelynecessaryfordecodingandtotesttheextenttowhichtheremainingambiguitiesmayresultinmisunderstandings. Findingetymologicalequivalentsinone’sownlanguagedoesnot,however,guaran-teecorrectdecodingofunknownwords.Thefearoffalsecognates(“falsefriends”)isinfactveryoftenmentionedbyGermansasamainreasonfordistrustinganintercom-prehensiveapproachtoDutch.Inlanguageproduction,thisposesacertainproblem(cf.Arntz1997:170)—eveniftherealriskissmallerthanmanypeoplefear,sinceinmostcases,thecontexthelpstoavoidmisunderstandings.Inaddition,itisfartoosim-plistictodifferentiateonlybetween“true”and“false”friends.InSection6,afurtherdifferentiation,whichfocusesparticularlyonreception,willbeproposed. Thisdifferentiationcannotbedoneautomatically.Fortherest,theparticularadvan-tageofusingacomputerprogramisthatitdiffersfromhumanintelligenceinthatitdoesnotknowanythingithasnotlearnt,butneverforgets.Inthatrespect,itisquitedifferentfromrealhumanbehaviour;however,iftheaimisnottotestwhathumansdo,butratherwhatcanbeattainedinrelationtoaparticularinput,aprogramwillpro-videmuchmorepreciseanswers.Furthermore,itpermitstestingtheoutcomeunderdifferentconditions—withoutsecretlyextendingitsskillsduringthetest.

3. Which“previousknowledge”isnecessary?

3.1 Themainsoundcorrespondencesandtheirstatisticalimportance

Thefirstnecessarystepistoidentifytherelevantsoundcorrespondences.Fromadia-chronicpointofview,therelevantlawsofsoundchangearewell-known.Here,how-ever,itisimportanttoassesstheusefulnessofruleswhichhavetobeformulatedonastrictlysynchronicbasis,referringonlytotheresultsof thesechanges inmodernDutch.Firstofall,theusefulnessdependsonhowmanywordsareaffectedbyacer-tainrule.Toestablishthis,alistof2490cognateswasexaminedbyaprogramthatde-tectsandrecordsthedifferences.(Thislistisanextractofthebilingualwordlistwhichisalsousedlater.6)Itcontainsonlyoneinstance(preferablyasimpleform)ofeach(indigenous)lexicalmorpheme,becauseherethequestionisthefrequencyofcertaincorrespondences indifferentpairsofcognatemorphemesandnot thefrequencyofcertaincognatemorphemesindifferentwords.Incontrasttotheprocedurepresentedbelow,whichsearchesthecognatesthemselvesaswell,forthisfirststepthepairsofcognatesaregiven.Nodistinctionismadebetweentruecognatesandmisleadingones,since only phonologic relationships are of interest. The central procedure, however,isthesame:TheLevenshteinalgorithm(cf.Heeringa2004)isusedtodeterminetheoperations(substitution,deletion,insertionofsegments)thatarenecessarytotrans-formtheDutchwordintotheGermanone.Priortothis,thedifferencescausedbytherespectiveorthographicalconventionsareharmonized(apotentialreaderissupposedtoknow,forexample,thattheDutchpronunciationof<z>is[z],not[ts]asinGerman,

Tabl

e 1.

Soun

dco

rres

pond

ence

sin

Dut

ch-G

erm

anco

gnat

es(c

onso

nant

s)

p→

f(f)

slape

n–sc

hlaf

en51

t→s(

s),ß

eten

–ess

en75

(c)k

→ch

mak

en–m

ache

n10

9[l,

n]d

→[l

,n]0

keld

er–K

elle

r8

p(p)

→p

fpi

jp–P

feife

56t(t

)→(t

)ztij

d–Ze

it98

[Vok

]0[V

ok]→

d,t

leer

–Led

er14

p(p)

→b

knaa

p–K

nabe

2t→

dsle

nter

en–s

chle

nder

n5

k→

gkl

inke

n–kl

inge

n4

b(b)

→p

(p)

rib–R

ippe

10d

→t

dag–

Tag

178

g(g)

→(c

)kbr

ug–B

rück

e11

[Vok

]r→

r[Vo

k]vo

rst–

Fros

t4

f→p

(p)

hoof

d–H

aupt

2s(

s)→

(t)z

pels–

Pelz

,kl

os–K

lotz

35

f(f)→

pf

offer

–Opf

er2

s(s)

,z→

sch

zwan

–Sch

wan

147

j→g

jicht

–Gic

ht3

f→b

(af–

ab)

(ff→

bga

ffel–

Gab

el)

40 3(s

)s→

chs

vos–

Fuch

s9

-el→

-er

wan

dele

n–w

ande

rn3

v→

bg

even

–geb

enw

→b

erw

t–Er

bse

57 3

s, z→

rbe

s–Be

erev

rieze

n–fr

iere

n

3c h

[t]→

f[t]

krac

ht–K

raft

(-ac

htig

–-ha

ft)

7-e

r →-e

n/-

elijz

er–E

isen,

donk

er-d

unke

l

2/1

Table 2.SoundcorrespondencesinDutch-G

ermancognates(vow

els)

a(a)→eaarde-Erde

32ee→

eibeen-Beine→

eiem

mer-Eim

er

452

oo→au

ook-aucho→

austof-Staub

262

eu→üvleugel-Flügel

eu→ubreuk-bruch

126

e →afles-Flasche

38ei→

ew

einig-wenig

2eu→

a,e,ieneus->Nase

3

a(a)→ohalen-holen

10i→

eblik-Blech

13o(o)→

euloochenen-leugnen

2ij→

i(e)krijgen-kriegen21

o(o)→a oksel-A

chsel10

e(e)→i

berk-Birke79

o→u,ü

worst-W

urstoo→

unoot-Nuss

10415

ui→au,äu,eu

buik—Bauch

73

i→u,ü

kil-kühlslikken-schlucken[n.verw.]

4u →

o,ökurk-Kork

10ui→

iesluiten-schließen8

u→asnurken-schnarchen

2u→

ihulp-H

ilfe5

e→ö

lepel-Löffel11

ui→u,üduin-D

ünekruim

-Krum

e23

ie→ei

7o→

ew

orden-werden

4ui→

öfluit-Flöte3

0→e [ɵ]vlag-Flagge

458ie→

e(e)ziel-Seele

7oe→

aukroes-kraus

8ui→

eisluier-Schleier3

e[ɵ]→0w

oede-Wut

ie→ü,eu

liegen-lügenvriend-Freund

2oe→

o,öroest-rost

12

[gb]e[ɵ][+ln]→0

geloven-glauben6

i(e)→ei

kiem-Keim

6uu→

au,euvuur-Feuer

13ou[d,t]→

al,ol,ul[d,t,t]zout-Salz

13

FindingGermancognatesofDutchwords 291

andtheprogramknowsalsothatpostvocalic<h>inGermanonlyindicatesthatthevowelislongandthat<sch>and<ch>inbothlanguagesindicatesinglesegments,notclusters).Inthecomparison,diphthongsandaffricatesaretreatedassinglesegments.WhereastheLevenshteinalgorithmwilllaterbeusedtocalculatetheoveralldifferencebetweenthecomparedforms(“Levenshteindistance”),hereitservestodetectandreg-istertheindividualdifferences,i.e.thecorrespondingsounds,andgenerateasortedlistofthem. Theresultofthisprocedurewasthat,ofall2490cognates,542(22%)are(graphic-ally)identicalinbothlanguages,afurther61differonlyaccordingtodifferentortho-graphicalconventions,andtheothersexhibittherelationshipslistedinTables1and2.Thedifferencebetweenregularrelationshipsandexceptionalrelationshipsduetode-tourssuchasborrowingorprevailingofdialectalformsisratherobvious,butnever-thelesstheoverallimpressionbecomesalittlefuzzy.

3.2 Correspondenceandsimilarity

Notallthesecorrespondenceshavetobelearntasrules.NotonlywillagreatnumberofrulesdiscouragepeoplefromattemptingtoreadDutchwiththehelpofGerman,butmoreimportantly,manyofthesedifferenceswouldprobablyneverblockthede-codingofawordbecausecorrespondingelementsaresosimilar. Solongasanempiricalinvestigationremainstobeundertaken,onehastorelyontheoreticalconsiderationsconcerningsimilarityhere. In thiscase, similaritymeansboth orthographic similarity and phonetic similarity: the relationship between theDutch<oe>andGerman<o>(meloen–Melone) isobviousgraphically andwilldom-inatetheknowledgeofthe(different)pronunciation.Forgoed–gutitistheotherwayaround.Thequestionofperceptualsimilarityofsoundsisstillbeingdiscussed,forex-ample, in foreignaccentresearchor inmeasuringdialectdifferences(cf.Archibald1998,Heeringa2004).Forwrittenlanguage,thesituationisonceagaindifferent.Inanycase,partialidentityinphonologicaland/oringraphicalfeaturesisprobablynottheonlyfactor;theconnectionsbetweensoundsintheL1alsoplayaroleintherecogni-tionofcorrespondences.Germanspeakers,forexample,arefamiliarwiththeneutral-izationof theoppositionbetweenvoicedandunvoicedobstruents fromtheregularprocessoffinaldevoicinginGerman.Aswell,inmanyGermanregionsthephoneticdistinction between the Standard German voiced and unvoiced plosives is very re-duced,sothatpeopleareaccustomedtophenomenasuchasthecorrepondenceDutchbaviaan–GermanPavianfromtheirfamiliaritywithregionalandstylisticvariationaswell.Inthesameway,themostfrequentdifferencebyfarbetweenDutchandGermancognates,theabsenceofGermanfinal-e[ə]inDutch(bloem–Blume),shouldnotim-pederecognitionforseveralreasons:itisnotphoneticallysalient(unstressedsyllable,reducedvowel),commoninGermanallomorphy(Wolle–Woll|decke),andomissionoffinalschwaisnormalinmostregionalGermanvarietiesaswellasinsupraregionalallegrospeech.ThecorrespondenceDutch<s>/[s]–German<sch>/[ʃ], inparticular

292 RobertMöller

before consonants (snoer–Schnur), is supported by phonetic similarity and also bythefactthatGermanorthographyonlypartlyreflectsthe(EarlyNewHighGerman)changes > sch,sothat<s>before<t>and<p>regularlyhastobepronouncedas[ʃ].Moreover,asaconsequenceofthischange,thecombinationssn,sl,sm,swareexcludedinindigenousGermanwords,andthusloanwordshavebeenassimilatedtothisregu-larity(inSchlips‘tie’<Engl.slip(s),thisassimilationisevenreflectedbyorthography).Taking theseconsiderations intoaccount, thenumberofnecessarycorrespondenceruleswhichshouldbegiventoahumanreadercanbelimitedtothosewhichnotonlyconcernacertainnumberofwords/morphemes,butalsogobeyondthecorrespond-encescoveredbysimilarity. Onecouldarguethat ininvestigatingthepossibilitiesfor intercomprehensionbe-tween two languages, correspondence rules should be excluded. Ház (2005) andWenzel(inpress)testspontaneousreadingcomprehensionanddonotpresentevenbasicinformationaboutDutchorthographytotheirsubjects.Fromatechnicalpointofview,correspondencerulesarenotnecessarytomakeaprogramfindsimilarwords:theLevenshteinalgorithm(see3.3)isabletodeterminethedegreeofdifferenceforanygivenpairof strings thatdiffer ina regularor irregularway.Even if similarityrelationsarenottakenintoconsideration(cf.vanBezooijenandGooskensthisvol-ume), theresultsof thisprocedurearemostlyclosetohumanimpressionsofdiffer-ence.Includingsimilarityinthecalculation(see4)makesthemratherrealistic.Butifpossibilitiesforintercomprehensioncanbeconsiderablyimprovedbyapplyingasmallsetofcorrespondencerules,thislittleeffortseemsreasonable,anditisjustasinterest-ingtofindoutwhatcanbereachedintheendasitistotestwhatispossiblewithoutanypreviousknowledge.Thus,bothsimilarityandcorrespondencerulesareintegrat-edintheprogrampresentedhere,butitisimportanttokeepafundamentaldifferenceinmind:whichcorrespondencerulesaregiven isavariabledecisionand the rulesdependontherelationbetweenthelanguages,whilewhichsimilaritiesareperceivedwithoutsuchhelpisaninvariablestartingpointthatonlydependsonphoneticandperceptualuniversalsandprobablyonthenativelanguageofthereaders. Inordertoexplorethelexicalpossibilitiesofintercomprehensionbetweentwootherlanguages(e.g.DutchandSwedishorPortugueseandItalian),bothsetsofrulesmustbereplaced(andthespellingadaptationaswell—therestoftheprogramcanremainasis);if,however,thepotentialreadersareGermans,onlythesetofcorrespondencerulesmustbechanged.

3.3 Correspondencerules

ThemostrelevantoftheobscuresoundcorrespondencesarethosewhichgobacktotheOHGConsonantShift:theyplayastatisticallyimportantrole,arenotcoveredby(strong)similarityandconcernconsonants,whichseemtobemore“recognition-sen-sitive”thanvowels.ThedisagreeablethingabouttheOHGConsonantShiftisthedif-ferentoutcomeaccordingtopositionandsoundcontext:

FindingGermancognatesofDutchwords 293

– t,p7ininitialposition:G.z (tijd–Zeit),pf (pijl–Pfeil)– tbeforer,pandtincombinationwithfricatives:nodifference(trap–Treppe,steen–

Stein)– t,pintervocalic:G.ss/ß (laten–lassen,heten–heißen),f (slapen–schlafen,open–offen)– tt,ppintervocalic:G.tz (ketter–Ketzer),pf (appel–Apfel)– t,ppostconsonantic:G.z (hart–Herz),pf,f (damp–Dampf,helpen–helfen)– final,postvocalict,p:G.s,ß (dat–das,daß),f (op–auf)

Inthetraditionofhistoricalphilology,theOHGConsonantShiftisusuallypresentedinthisway,butisitnecessary,oratleasthelpful,tomakeallthesedifferentiationstofa-cilitateaccesstowrittenDutch,oronlysomeofthem,ornone?(Evenif[ts]and[s]aresimilar,thequestionremains,becausethecombinationcorrespondencerule+similar-itywouldrequiredoubleeffort.)Theansweriseasyincaseswherethereisnochange:evenknowingacorrespondencerulesuchast→ z,areaderwillalwaysfindaGermancognate with t instead of z (otherwise all loan words from Latin/Greek, French orEnglishwouldbeunrecognizable,too),becauseidentitymakesastrongerimmediateimpressionthancorrespondenceviaawell-knownrule(cf.alsoLutjeharms1997:157).Fortherest,thingsarelessevident.Ingeneral,thesimplestruleshouldbetheprefer-ableone.Here,thiswouldbe:t→(t)z,ss/ß,s. Thebenefitofdeterrentdifferentiationsaccordingtopositionandsurroundingde-pendsonthenumberofincorrectassignmentstheyhelptoprevent.Evenifaparticu-larcorrespondence(aspartofamoregenerallyformulatedcorrespondencerule)isetymologicallycompletelyfalse,hereitwoulddonoharmiftherespective“cognates”donotexistinthelexicon.Thereforeitisusefultoletthecomputertestdifferentfor-mulationsofthesecorrespondencerules,

A. notdifferentiatingatallB. differentiatingbetweeninitialpositionandothersC. differentiatingbetweeninitialposition,geminationandothersD. differentiatingbetweenallpositionsasabove—butwiththefullrangeofpossibil-

itiesinthefinalposition,becauseinmodernDutchformergeminatesalsoappearhereassimpleconsonants(kat<MiddleDutchcatte)anditisnotalwayspossibletorelyonvowellengthasaclue.

Inturn,theprogramisgiventhesedifferentversionsoftheOHGConsonantShiftcor-respondence rules (together with the other correspondence rules and similarity as-sumptions)andhastofindpossiblecognatesforeveryitemconcernedintheDutchlist inanextensive listofGermanwords8(including inflectedforms).Thedifferentcorrespondencerulesare takenintoaccount intheprocedure,whichcomparestheDutchwordwithsimilarGermanformsanddeterminesthedegreeofdifference.Toaccomplishthis,theLevenshteinalgorithmisused.TheLevenshteinalgorithmsumsupthe“costs”ofthemoststraightforwardwaytotransformstringAintostringBby

294 RobertMöller

substituting,insertingorelidingsinglesegments.9The“costs”thatarecausedbytheseoperations(whereasidentityofsegmentsis“free”)cannowbedifferentiated:asubsti-tutionwhichreflectsarelationshipgivenasacorrespondenceruleorasasimilarityrelationshipis“cheaper”thanothersubstitutions.Here,“costs”varybetween0.1forcorrespondences,0.2–0.8 fordifferentdegreesof similarity,0.9 resp.1 for “normal”substitutions/insertions/deletionsofvowelsresp.consonantsand2forsubstitutionsofconsonantsbyvowelsortheotherwayround.Todate,thesevalueshavebeenfixedmoreorlessad hocaccordingtosimilarityassessments(evenamoresystematicappli-cationofphonologicalfeaturesystemsapparentlydoesnotautomaticallyagreewithperception,cf.Heeringa2004:185). Thedistributionofcorrectandincorrectassignments(fromanetymologicalview-point; the difference between “good” and “misleading” cognates does not dependon the form of correspondence rules) for the different versions A–D of the OHGConsonantShiftrulesnowresultsinthefollowing(seeTable3). ItisevidentthattheresultsoftheversionsCandDarehardlybetterthanthoseofB.Thus,thesedifferentiationsdonotmakemuchsense.BetweenBandA,however,thedifferenceissomewhatmoreimportant.(Certainlythemajorityoftheincorrectassignments for A are German words with a voiced s which could be generally ex-cludedhere,butifthereaderisinstructedtoreplace<t>with<z,s,ss,ß>,thisdifferenceinpronunciationcouldeasilybeoverlooked.)ItseemsusefultochooseB,whichonly

Table 3. Assignmentsresultingfromdifferentruleversions

rule version

correct assignments

incorrect assignments, same word class

incorrect assignments, different word class

A 279 62 (e.g.tand→Sand,pers→Ferse)

61 (e.g.tegen→Segen,pijn→fein)

B 277* 42 (e.g.heten→hetzen) 39C 276 38 36D 276 38 (e.g.hert→Herz,

krant→Kranz,krijt→Kreis,hout→Haus,griep→Griff,koper→Koffer,doop→Topf)

36 (e.g.taart→zart,biet→bis,grot→groß)

(The results for t and p are parallel; moreover it would not make sense to obscure the systematic parallel by giving different formulations for t and p.)* If the etymologically less precise versions B and C do not only lessen the number of incorrect assign-ments, but also slightly the number of “right” ones, this is due to some “cognates” that are actually not real cognates, but nevertheless correspond in form and meaning. For plek–Fleck and pluis –Fluse the back-ground of this phenomenon is not clear, perhaps it has to do with concurrence between an inherited and a borrowed form. For verwijten–verweisen a fusion of different etyma has taken place in German (Middle High German still verwîzen with unvoiced s).

FindingGermancognatesofDutchwords 295

differentiatesbetweentheparticularprominentinitialpositionandallotherpositions,butevenAwouldnotleadtotoodisastrousaresult. Anothercaseinwhichtestingtheoutcomecanhelpdeterminetheusefulnessofdif-ferentrulesisDutchui.This<ui>mostlyrepresentsaformerGermanic*ûwhichinGermanhasbecomeau (äu,euincaseofumlaut),orGermanic*eu(G.äu,euaswell).AscanbeseeninTable1,thisisreflectedbythemajorityofcognates.However,therearealsoGermancognateswithuandü,oandö,eiandiecorrespondingtotheDutchui.ThecorrespondencebetweentheDutch<ui>andGerman<u>/<ü>(whichgoesbacktoborrowingfromDutchorLowGermaninGerman)iscoveredbythegraph-emicsimilarity.ThecaseswiththeGerman<o,ö>,<ei>areveryrareandnotsystem-atic.10Thosewith<ie>,however,areevidencedinacertainnumberofverbswiththesamedevelopment(sluiten–schließen).11Thus,therule<ui>–<ie>produces27(14)in-correctassignmentsasopposedtosixcorrectones,andtestingtheresultwithoutthisruleshowsthatevenif,inthatcase,somemoreincorrectassignmentsappearasthemostsimilarforms,thecorrectonesarestillthesecondbest—soit ispreferabletogiveonlyonerulefor<ui>:ui→ au,äu,eu. TheprogramisnowgiventherulesandsimilaritiesinTable3asbasicknowledge.Forveryfrequentcorrespondenceswhichoftenappear insalientpositions(suchasd→t),rulesaregivendespitesimilaritycorrespondence.If infurtherempiricalre-searchitturnsoutthatareader’sintuitionsaboutsimilaritydifferfromwhathasbeen

Table 4. “costs”fixedforthecalculationofLevenshteindistance

Correspondence rulesinitial p → pf;t → z 0.1 a(a)↔ e 0.1p → pf/f;t →(t)z/s(s)/ß;k → ch 0.1 e(e)→ i(e), o → u 0.1d → t 0.1 ee → ei;oo → au/äu 0.1v, f → b 0.1 ui → au, äu, eu;uu → au, äu, eu 0.1ou[+d/t]→ al/ol[+ d/t/z]Substitutions (in both directions)s–sch 0.2 longvowel–shortvowel 0.2

a–ä;o–ö;u–ü(umlaut) 0.2aai–ai/ä;ui–u/ü 0.2ei–e/i;ou/au–o/u 0.3

Consonants:voiced–unvoiced 0.4 e–ö;i–ü 0.4Otherconsonantsubstitutionswithoutchangeofplaceofarticulation

0.8 a–e;a–o;e–i;o- u 0.5

Otherconsonantsubstitutions 1.0 othervowelsubstitutions 0.9Insertion/deletionInsertion/deletionoffinale(schwa) 0.2 ld–ll, nd–nn(assimilations) 0.4Differencesinconnectingelementsofcompounds

0.2 otherdeletions/insertions 1.0

296 RobertMöller

assumedhere,therespectiveadaptationscaneasilybemade.Andifthelexicalbasisforintercomprehensionbetweentwootherlanguagesistobeexplored,onlythislistmustbereplacedbyanotherlist—ifthereader’s languageisGerman,onlythefirstpart,thecorrespondencerules.

4. TheprogramNL-D-KOG

ThejoboftheprogramNL-D-KOG12istofind,foragivenlistofDutchlemmas,themostsimilarGermanlemmas,todeterminethedifferencebetweenthetwoformsandwhetherornottheyarecognates(takingintoaccountthegivencorrespondencerulesandinstructionsaboutsimilarity),andfinallytocheckifthe/arealGermanequivalentisamongthewordsthathavebeenfoundandifotherwordshavebeenfoundandde-terminedassimilarwhicharenotequivalentsbutincorrectassignmentsormisleadingcognates.Thebasisforthisinvestigationarea“top10,000”(frequency)listofDutchwords13 to which the German equivalents have been added using the already men-tionedbilingualDutch–Germanlist,andtheGerman–Dutchversionofthelatter,re-ducedtotheGermanforms.Alllistsalsocontaininflectedwordforms,soitcanbetestediftherightassignmentscanbemadewithoutknowledgeofDutchmorphology. ThemethodoffindingthepossibleGermancognates(seeFig.1)isstructuredtobebothasefficientaspossibleandasclosetorealhumancognateprocessingaspossible(whichactuallyisidentical—onlythelatter’sflexibilityisunattainable). AfirstselectionfromtheGermanlistismadeaccordingtothefirstsegmentoftheDutchword,alsotakingintoaccountanycorrespondentorsimilarsegmentsthepro-gramknows(cf.newerversionsofthecohortmodeloflexicalaccess,seeSchadeandBarattelli2003:85f.,cf.alsoDijkstra2005:1723).Animportantsecondstepconsistsoffocussingonamoreabstractpatternoftheconsonanticstructureoftheword:This‘structurepattern’ encodes the sequenceof consonantsandvowelsasa sequenceofnumbersinwhichobstruentsaregroupedaccordingtotheirplaceofarticulation,na-salsandliquidsformtheirowngroupsandallvowelsonlyappearas“V”.Sequencesoftwoidenticalconsonants,affricatesanddiphthongsappearasonesingleposition,andendings(-en,-el)areleftout(cf.alsoLutjeharms1997:156).Affixesaregenerallynotincluded,butautomaticallymarkedassuchandreplacedbytheGermanequivalent.14ThuswegetasastructurepatternforDutchduiken:|2V3|(dental–vowel–palatal/velar[endingleftout]),andforGermantauchenaswell(similarlyforGermandick,taugen,Tag,zeigen,...),forDutchpijpweget|1V1|asinGermanPfeife(andPfaffe,Fabel...).Whetherornotthisreallymimicshumancognateprocessingremainstobetested,butitdoescorrelatetothesaliencyofconsonantsandotherfindingsaboutsimilarityper-ception(seeArchibald1998:102,cf.above). ThereareafewrelationshipsbetweenDutchandGermancognateswithwhichthisapproach has difficulty coping: the results of the Dutch r-metathesis (Dutch borst–German Brust), the loss of the intervocalic d (weer–Wetter, leer–Leder), the Dutch

FindingGermancognatesofDutchwords 297

Figure 1. FindingGermancognates

298 RobertMöller

change ft > cht (kracht–Kraft) and the vocalization of l in al/ol before d/t (oud–alt,goud–Gold).However,thismayberealisticinsofarastheserelationshipsseemtobemoredifficulttorecognizeforahumanreader,too.Ontheotherhand,thesephenom-enacanrathereasilybeintegratedviacorrespondenceruleswhichgeneratealternativestructurepatternstobelookedfor.Sothecorrespondenceou/al/ol(befored/t),whichconcernsacertainnumberofmorphemes,is includedinthelistofrules,whiletheothersarenot. Tospeeduptheprocedure,thestructurepatternsaremadeuponlyfortheDutchwordswhiletheprogramisrunning,whereastheGermanlistalreadycontainsthem.Thus,theGermanformstobecomparedwiththeDutchwordcanbefoundveryquick-ly.ThesearethencomparedwiththeDutchlemmabycalculatingtheLevenshteindis-tancemodifiedbythecorrespondencerules(“cost”0.1)andsimilarityassumptions(“cost”0.2–0.9),e.g.:

– duiken–tauchen:d → t(0.1),ui → au(0.1),k → ch(0.1)⇒sum0.3 – duiken–taugen:d → t(0.1),ui → au(0.1),k → g(similar,0.4)⇒sum0.6 – duiken–decken: ui → e(0.9)⇒sum0.9 – duiken–zeigen:d → z(bothdentals,0.8),ui -> ei(0.9),k → g(similar,0.4)⇒sum2.1 – duiken–dick:ui → i(0.9),e → 0(0.6–ifnotinfinalpositionorinacontextwhereeis

systematicallydeletedinGermanasin-elen,-eren),n→0(1)⇒sum2.5.

Thisshowsoncemorethedifferentroleofrulesandsimilarity:the“natural”orderbysimilaritywouldbe1.decken2.taugen3.tauchen(perhapsitcouldbearguedthatui —asagraphemeandasaphoneme—ismoresimilartoadiphthongthantoashortvowel,butstilltaugenwouldbepreferabletotauchen).Withtheadditionalknowledgeintroducedbythecorrespondencerules—reflectedintheprogrambylowercostsinspiteofinferiorsimilarity—therightcognatemovestothefirstplace.Forthehumanreader, the difference between spontaneous associations and rule-governed associ-ationswouldbeanalogous,evenif(asalreadymentioned)thequantificationofsimi-larityby theprogramisonlybasedonad hocassumptionsabout theperceptionofsimilaritybyGermanspeakers. Compound and derived words cause additional complications. If they exist inparallelinbothlanguages,inmanycasesonlythedifferentconnectingelementmaycauseproblems(zonnebloem–Sonnenblume).AsthisalsobelongstoGermanallomor-phyandisthereforeeasilyrecognizable,thesedifferencesdonot“cost”much.Ifadir-ectcounterpartdoesnotexist, thequestionis if themorphemescanberecognized.Here,theproblemofsegmentationhastoberesolvedfirst,aproblemhumanreadersoftenhaveinasimilarway:ifthepartsofthewordarenotobvious,itcanonlybeseg-mentedfollowingphonotacticalregularitieswhichthereadersknows,thatis,theso-norityscaleandtherestrictionsofconsonantclustersinGerman.Butthereareoftenseveralpossibilitiesandtherightsegmentationisnotalwaysthephonologicallyopti-malone,sothefirstguessmaybewronginwhichcaseasecondtryistobemade.Themainproblemforacomputerizedapproach,however,isthatitcannotbetestedauto-

FindingGermancognatesofDutchwords 299

maticallyifthemeaningofthewholewordcanbededucedfromthecognateparts. Theresultofthewholeprocedureisalistofthe“best”Germancognatecandidates,sortedaccordingtotheir“quality”,i.e.theLevenshteindistancetotheDutchword(seetheexampleduikenabove).Finally,thislistiscomparedtothetranslationequivalentsfortheDutchwordfoundinthebilingualDutch–Germanlist.Ifthetranslationequiv-alent (oroneof severalequivalents) isamong thecandidates thathavebeen found,theDutchwordismarkedby“!”,otherwiseby“-”.IftheequivalentisthecandidatewiththesmallestLevenshteindistance,andthusthe“best”candidate,thisisindicatedby“!!”;“≠”denotes“falsefriends”,namelycandidateswhichare“better”or“asgood”astherealequivalentor,incasethelatterisnotamongthecandidatesfound,whoseLevenshteindistancetotheDutchworddoesnotexceedacertainlevel(heresetto1.2).

5. Results

Todate,theprocedurehasbeenappliedtothefirst5000Dutchwordformsofthe“top10,000”list(excludingthenumerousnamesandabbreviations).Itwouldbeeasytotestamoreextensivecorpus,buttheerrorsandgapsinthebilingualliststillnecessitatealotofmanualrevision.(Moreover,theprofitofthepartialassignmentsofcompoundorderivedwordscannotbeexaminedbyaprogram.)However,testswithpartsoftheDutch–Germanbilinguallistasacorpussuggestthatforlowerfrequencywords,too,theoverallshareofGermancognateshardlydiffersfromtheresultspresentedhere. Forthe“top5,000”(seeFig.2),itresultsthatmorethanhalfofthewordformsareimmediatelydecodableviaGermancognates:theGermancognatesoftheseformsaretheassignmentswiththesmallestLevenshteindistance(“!!”,e.g.bezoek‘visit’:Besuch).TheshareofrecognizablecognatesisfurtheraugmentedbythosewhicharenotthemostsimilarGermanformbutoneof several similar forms(“!”—here thecontextmusthelptochosetherightassignment,e.g.toassignkoper‘buyer’/‘copper’toKäuferorKupferandnottoKoffer‘suitcase’).Togetherwiththecomplexwordswhosemean-ingcanbededucedfromthemeaningofcognatemorphemes(“→ !”,e.g.gebruiker

Figure 2. Germancognatesofthe“top5,000”Dutchwordforms(%)

300 RobertMöller

‘user’:gebrauchen‘touse’+suffix-er‘agent’),wearriveatashareofabout77%cog-nates.Theremaining23%mainlyconsistoftwotypesofwordforms:oneforwhichnoassignmenttoaGermanwordispossible(“0”)—thecomplexformswhosestruc-tureistransparentbutwhosemeaningcannotbededucedfromcognateresp.similarGermanmorphemes(“→0”,e.g.ontslagen ‘dismissed’oruitdaging ‘challenge’: *ent-schlagenor*Aus-tag-ungdonotmakesense)canbeaddedhere—andonegroupofmisleading cognates resp. incorrect assignments (“≠”, e.g. wet ‘law’ : Wette ‘bet’ orvervelen ‘to bore’–verfehlen ‘to miss’). The incorrect assignments where the DutchwordandthesimilarGermanworddonotbelongtothesamewordclass((“≠~0”),e.g.omlaag‘down’:Umlage‘divisionofcosts’)formafurthersmallgroupinbetween.Here,theriskofbeingmisledexists,butisratherlow.

6. Misleadingcognates

Theamountof“misleading”cognatesisnotsolargeasitisoftenassumed.Moreover,notall“misleading”cognatesareequallyso.Thedifferenttypologiesof“falsefriends”thathavebeenproposed(cf.Kroschewski2000)normallyrefertoproductionandin-cludetypeswhichareabsolutelyirrelevantforreception(suchascognateswithdiffer-entspellings)orhardlyrelevant,suchascognateswithadifferentstylisticvalue(e.g.Dutchadvocaat–GermanRechtsanwalt/Advokat).Forgeneralcomprehensionthisisunimportant,andforabettercomprehensionmorefamiliaritywiththelanguageisin-dispensable.Forcomprehension,itseemsreasonabletodifferentiatemisleadingcog-natesinthefollowingway:1.Howmisleadingaretheyreally(dotheypresentadangerofmisunderstanding)?,and2.Ifbeingmisledcanbeavoided,cantheysomehowpointintherightdirectioninstead?Bothaspectsareindependentofeachother:thereare

“falsefriends”whichare“harmless”butcanhardlyhelp(normallyhomonymssuchasDutch bellen ‘to ring’—German bellen ‘to bark’–the difference between real etymo-logicalcognatesandhomonymsdoesnotmatterforthereader)andotherswhichare

“dangerous”buthelpfulifthedangercanbeavoided(Dutchvuil‘dirty’–Germanfaul‘rotten’). Thedangerofmisunderstandingisoftennegligibleinmostcontextsduetosyntac-tical-semanticreasons.Evenifthewordclassisthesame,misleadingcognatesoftendifferwithregardtothecomplementstheydemand.Certainlyitcannotbetakenforgrantedthat“good”cognatesalwaysdemandthesamecomplementsinbothlanguages,butatleastitconstitutesgroundsfordistrustifapresumedcognatehasadifferentva-lence(cf.Lutjeharms1988:262,286).Ifthereaderhasrecognizedthatacognatedoesnotfitintothesemanticand/orsyntacticalcontext,itispossiblethatitmay,onthecon-trary,leadtoabetterequivalentviaassociations.Thesemayvary,butmainlyconcernthreedifferentaspects.First,semanticchange(asthemainsourceof“misleading”cog-nates)oftendoesnotaffectallcontextsequallyinwhichawordormorphemeappears;anoldermeaningoracommonareaofmeaningmayremaininasetexpressionormay

FindingGermancognatesofDutchwords 301

becomevisibleinanothermemberofthesamewordfamily.Second,languagesoftenusesimilarmetaphors;a“misleading”cognate,whichinGermanlacksthemetaphor-icaluseithasinDutch,mayleadtoasynonymthatisanappropriateequivalent.(ThusinDutchzakkenalsomeans‘tofail(anexam)’whereasinGermansackenonlymeans‘tosink’.However,theideaofadownwardsmovementisthesameasinGermandurch-fallen,meaning‘tofail(anexam)’.)Third,emancipationfromLatin(andotherloanin-fluence)hasbroughtforthmanysemanticloansandcalquesinDutchandGerman(asinotherGermaniclanguages).Theresultsofthisoftencorrespond,butsometimesdif-ferentbutmoreorlesssynonymousindigenouswordshavebeenchosen,ortheLatinwordhasnotbeenreplacedinonelanguage.So,inthetwolattercases,synonymsoftheGermancognatescanleadtoacorrecttranslation.Especiallythefirstcaseisquitefrequent,sothereaderwhooftenhastodealwiththistypeofcognatewilldevelopintuitionsaboutpossiblesemanticchangeinsteadofonlybeingmisled.

7. A“Clozetest”

ThatfactthatresultspresentedaboveconfirmthatGermancognatesaresonumerousthattheycanprovideaccesstowrittenDutch,shallbedemonstratedinashorttextex-ample,inwhichthecategories“0”,“→0”and“≠”ofFigure2aremarked(grey/under-lined/italics).Thetextcanbeconceivedasagap-fillingtask(“Clozetest”)inwhichthemarkedwordshavebeendeleted.

Deinternationaleennationaleontwikkelingenvanhetafgelopenjaarhebbendeonzekerhedeninonsdagelijksbestaandoentoenemen.Burgeroorlogen,aanslagenenanderevormenvangeweldtreffeniederedagweerveleonschuldigemensen.DitroeptdevraagophoeNederlandkanbijdragenaanduurzamevrede,veiligheidenarmoedebestrijding.Aardbevingen,overstromingenendroogteconfronterenoveralindewerelddemensmetzijnbeperkingen.Ookonslandisnietgespaardgeblevenvoordegevolgenvanlangdurigedroogte,ondanksdegroteaandachtvoorhetwaterbeheer.DeteruggangvandeeconomieisinNederlandinallescherptevoelbaargeworden.Najarenvanvoorspoedleidtditvoorveelburgersonverwachttotonzekerheid.Dagelijkswordenhonderdenmensenwerkloos.Deproblemenvanonzeeconomiezijnnietalleenconjunctureelvanaard.Omtotduurzaamhersteltekomenishetnoodzakelijkdeecono-mischestructuurteversterkenendesocialezekerheidgrondigteherzien.Deregeringbeseftdatditineersteinstantievoorveelmenseningrijpendegevolgenzalhebben.Erzijnookgrotezorgenomdecohesieinonzesamen-leving.Dewaardenvanverschillendebevolkingsgroepenblijkensomsveruitelkaarteliggenendeintegratieverlooptnietvoorspoedig.Voortszijndeonveiligheidenoverlastopstraatendeaantastingvandeleefomgevingverontrustend.Degrotestedenzienzichgeplaatstvooreenopeenhopingvanproblemen.(From:QueenBeatrix,SpeechfromtheThrone200315)

302 RobertMöller

Thewordsinitalicsillustratewhathasbeensaidabout“misleading”cognates:As‘de-votion’(G.Andacht)doesnotfitintoanon-religiouscontext,theadjectiveandächtigin the expression andächtig zuhören (‘to listen very attentively’) can provide an as-sociationwhich leads to ‘attention’ (Du.aandacht).As itcannotbe thedutyof theNetherlandstodeny(G.bestreiten)poverty,themeaningofbestrijdingmustbesome-thingelse.Streitenmeans‘argue,quarrel’,bute.g.inStreitkräfte‘armedforces’,Streitaxt‘battleaxe’itiscompletelysynonymtokämpfen‘fight’(Du.bestrijding=G.Bekämpfung‘fightagainst’). However,onefinalcautionhastobemade:thefrequencyoftheGermancognatesthemselveshasnotbeentakenintoaccountthusfar,althoughthisisnotonlyanim-portantfactor inwordrecognition(seeDijkstra2005:1723).Moreover, it isnotun-commonthattwocognatewordsdifferconsiderablyinfrequencyinbothlanguages.IfthephonologicalcorrespondencebetweentheDu.ziek‘ill’andG.siechisobviousandthemeaningisthesame,theformeristhenormalwordandthelatteriscompletelyob-solete.EvenforeducatednativespeakersofGerman,theknowledgeoflessfrequentorperipheralvocabulary(archaismsetc.)shouldnotbeoverestimated,butvagueremi-niscencescanoftenbeactivated(here, forexample,dahinsiechen ‘to languish’asanelevated,butstill-usedwordmaysupportthereceptivesurvivalofsiech).Bycontrast,manyexistingcognateswillnotbeofanyhelpformostreaderswhohave learntorarelearningGermanasaforeignlanguage.16Thesereadersmay,however,havesomeothercuesfromtheirownlanguage.Thisdistinctionshouldnotbeforgottenincon-nectionwiththeconceptofa“bridgelanguage”(cf.Klein2002:43),inordertoavoidfrustrationduetooverlyoptimisticexpectations.

8. Conclusion

Usingacomputerprogrammakesitpossibletoexplorethelexicalbasisofintercom-prehensionbetweentwolanguagesinadetailedandextensiveway,arrivingatquanti-fiableresults.ThepresentstudysuggeststhatbyfarthemajorityofDutchvocabularyisaccessibleforGermanreaders,iftheyarefamiliarwithasmallsetofsoundcorres-pondences.Usingthesameprocedures,onecouldtestthelexicaldistancebetweenanyotherlanguagesandcomparetheresults.TheLevenshteinprocedurecanprovideare-alisticmeasureoflexicalaccessibilitybyintegratingspecificfactorsofhumancognateprocessingsuchas similarityor saliencyofdifferences in thecalculation(onesuchfactor,frequency/currencyofthecognates,hasbeenneglectedinthisstudy,butafre-quencylistofGermanwordswouldbesufficienttoincludethis,too).Inaddition,thepossibilityforimprovingcognaterecognitionbyapplyingsoundcorrespondencerulescanbeintegratedintheprocedure—asdemonstratedhere—inordertotestwhatcanbereachedunderthiscondition,orleftout,ifthebasisforspontaneousunderstandingistobetested.

FindingGermancognatesofDutchwords 303

Towhatextenttherecognitionofisolatedwordscanreallyrepresentthepossibil-itiesofintercomprehensionbetweentwolanguagesingeneralcanonlybeexaminedbycomparingtheresultsofthisapproachwiththoseofempiricalstudiesoftextcom-prehension.17However,thestudiesbyvanBezooienandGooskens(thisvolume)andHáz(2005)corroboratetheassumptionthattheamountandthetransparencyofcog-natesplayadecisiveroleinrealtextunderstanding,andtheresultsreportedbyHázleadtothesameconclusionastheresultsofthepresentstudy:understandingDutchagainstthebackgroundofGermanisnotcompletelytrivial,butabsolutelypossible.Considering the fact that Ház’ test persons were not given any information aboutDutchorthographyandsoundcorrespondences,itisclearthattheresultscannotbeasgoodastheywouldbeundertheconditionsthepresentstudysupposesasastart-ingpoint.Normally,giventhesamepreviousknowledge,theresultsofreal textun-derstandingshouldalwaysbealittlebetterthanthoseofdecodingisolatedwords,buttheformerwillhaveadirectrelationtothelatter.Thus,acomputer-basedsearchforcognatesseemstobeapracticablewaytoachievearealisticandcomparablemeasureofthefeasibilityof intercomprehension,at least if therearenomajordifferences ingrammar,andfurthermoretoregisterindetailthespecificdifferencesandproblemsinordertoprovideasystematichelpforthisroutetoreceptivecompetence.

Notes

* Iwouldliketothanktheeditorsandreferees,NicoleMarxandVeronikaWenzelforhelpfulcomments

1. AccordingtoZeevaert(2004:273,275),suchcentralproblemsarisefromlexicaldifferencesininter-Scandinaviancommunicationaswell.

2. Ház (2005:130–46)presents someexperimentsconcerning theunderstandingof spokenwordsincontext(decodingofDutchwordsbyGermansandviceversa),butsheonlytestsafewwordsandinadditiontophonologicalcorrespondences,otherfactorsvary(thecontextismoreorlessclear,insomecasesidenticalEnglishcognatesexistandthetestpersonscertainlyknowthem),soitisimpossibletodrawdetailedconclusions.Lutjeharms(1988)isacomprehensivestudyofproblemsandstrategiesusedbyDutchreadingGerman,butherethereadershavealreadyhadGermaninstruction.Cf.alsoWenzel(inpress).

3. Heretoo,manyproblemsarestillunresolved,seeDijkstra(2005:1724).

4. TheoverviewgivenbyKuen(1993)ispartlyanexception,butheretheperspectiveisreverse(German→Dutch)andorientedonproduction,whichmakesaconsiderabledifference.

5. Forreasonsoftradition,thetermcognatewillherenormallybeusedtoindicateetymologicallyrelatedwords,butinfactthedifferencebetweena—truely—misleadingcognateandanincorrectassignmentbasedongenerallyexistingsoundcorrespondencesdoesnotmatterinthiscontext.

6. http://werners-index.de/niederlande.htm(April6th,2004).Thislistisnotperfect,butitisdif-ficulttofindfreelyavailablebilingualwordlists.

304 RobertMöller

7. kbecomeschorremainsasis,whichisnoproblemhere.Moreover,Germanwordswithini-tialchdonotexist.

8. BasedontheGerman–Dutchversionofthebilingualwordlist(seeabove).

9. Foranapplicationof Levenshteindistancewithoutdifferentiationof “costs”seealsovanBezooienandGooskens(thisvolume).

10. Somecorrespondencesareonlyacoincidence,e.g.therelationshipbetweenDu.ruiterandG.reiter‘rider’.

11. Here,earlyumlautincertaininflectionalformsandlateranalogicaladjustmentwithintheparadigmhastakenplaceinbothlanguages,butthelatterinadifferentway.

12. ProgrammedinVBAtodate.

13. http://wortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/html/wliste.html(March2004).

14. NearlyalltheDutchaffixesthatarehereincludedinalistcouldbeassociatedwiththeircog-nateGermanequivalentinthesamewayastheothercognates,butthisprocedurewillnotberepeatedforeverywordconcerned,asthesecognateaffixeswillquicklybestoredbyahumanreader(cf.Lutjeharms1988:244f.).

15. http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/content.jsp?objectid=4127(September2004).

16. Lutjeharms(1988:160and1997:159)reportsanimportantdifferencebetweenthesuccessofnativeandnon-nativespeakersofDutchinreadingGerman.Therespectiveknowledgeofpe-ripheralDutchvocabularyisnotamongthepossiblereasonssheproposes,butthesamefunda-mentaldifferencecanbenotedinthecomprehensionofMiddleHighGermantextsbyGermanstudents,wherethevocabularyproblemisobviouslydominant.

17. SuchasthestudiesbyHáz(2005)andWenzel(inpress),butusingmorethanonlyoneshortwrittentext.

References

Archibald,J.1998.Second Language Phonology.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.Arntz, R. 1997. Passive Mehrsprachigkeit—eine Chance für die ‘kleinen’ Sprachen Europas.

In Einsprachigkeit ist heilbar. Überlegungen zur neuen Mehrsprachigkeit Europas [Socio-linguistica11],P.H.Nelde(ed.),166–77.Tübingen:Niemeyer.

Dijkstra,T.2005.Wordrecognitionandlexicalaccess:Connectionistapproaches.InLexikologie/Lexicology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wort-schätzen [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 21], D.A. Cruse,F.Hundsnurscher,M.Job,MichaelandP.Rolf(eds),vol.2,1722–1730.Berlin:deGruyter.

Ház,É.2005.Deutsche und Niederländer. Untersuchungen zur Möglichkeit einer unmittelbaren Verständigung[Philologia68].Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

Heeringa, W. 2004. Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences using Levenshtein Distance[GroningenDissertationsinLinguistics46].Groningen.

Klein,H.G.2002.EntwicklungsstandderEurocomprehensionsforschung.InEuroCom — Mehr-sprachiges Europa durch Interkomprehension in Sprachfamilien [Editiones EuroCom 8],G.Kischel(ed.),35–45.Aachen:Shaker.

FindingGermancognatesofDutchwords 305

Kroschewski,A.2000.False Friends and True Friends. Ein Beitrag zur Klassifizierung des Phäno-mens der intersprachlich-heterogenen Referenz.Frankfurt:PeterLang.

Kuen,E.1993.Deutsch–Niederländisches Lernwörterbuch.Hamburg:Buske.Lutjeharms,M.1988.Lesen in der Fremdsprache. Versuch einer psycholinguistischen Deutung am

Beispiel Deutsch als Fremdsprache.Bochum:AKS.Lutjeharms,M.1997.WorterkennenbeimLeseneinerFremdsprache. InKognitive Linguistik

und Fremdspracherwerb: das mentale Lexikon, W. Börner and K. Vogel (eds), 149–67.Tübingen:Narr.

Lutjeharms, M. 2004.Verarbeitungsebenen beim Lesen in der Fremdsprache. In Neuere For-schungen zur Europäischen Interkomprehension[EditionesEuroCom21],H.G.KleinandD.Rutke(eds),67–82.Aachen:Shaker.

Schade,U.andBarattelli,S.2003.KognitionswissenschaftlicheBeiträgezuSprachproduktionundSprachrezeption.InPsycholinguistik — Psycholinguistics. Ein internationales Handbuch[HandbücherzurSprach-undKommunikationswissenschaft24],G.Rickheitetal.(eds),80–91.Berlin:deGruyter.

Scheerer-Neumann,G.1996.DerErwerbderbasalenLese-undSchreibfähigkeiten.InSchrift und Schriftlichkeit. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung[Handbücherzur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 10], H. Günther and O. Ludwig (eds),1153–1169.Berlin:deGruyter.

Wenzel,V.Inpress.Nederlandsvooriedereen.InAkten des IVG-Kongresses 2005,Paris.Zeevaert,L.2004.Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verstän-

digung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs[Philologia64].Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

chapter14

How can DaFnE and EuroComGerm contribute to the concept of receptive multilingualism?Theoreticalandpracticalconsiderations

BrittaHufeisenandNicoleMarxTUDarmstadtandWestfälischeWilhelms-UniversitätMünster

IfthegoalofreceptivemultilingualismistobeattainedintheEuropeancontext,newpedagogicalconceptsmustbedeveloped,testedandimplemented.Thefollowingdis-cussionhasasitsfocusthelearningofanew,tertiaryandpossiblyrelatedforeignlan-guage (FL), employing two models, Meißner’s Spontaneous Learner Grammar andHufeisen’sFactormodel,asa theoretical framework. It is shownhowthesemodelshavebeenusedtoinvestigatetertiarylanguagelearningandhowtheseconceptsapplytoimprovingthereceptionofnewFLs.Twoprojects,DaFnEandEuroComGerm,areconsidered,bothofwhichaimtohelpstudentsusetheirknowledgeofarelated,previ-ouslylearnedFLinordertoachievereceptivecompetenciesinanewFL.

Keywords: Spontaneous Learner Grammar, Factor model, DaFnE, EuroComGerm,receptivecompetence

1. Introduction

AccordingtotheWhiteBookoftheCouncilofEurope,everyEUcitizenshouldhavetheopportunitytolearnatleasttwoforeign1EUlanguages(CouncilofEurope2002).Inreality,thesituationlooksratherdifferent(Krumm2005,Besters-Dilger,deCilia,Krumm and Rindler-Schjerve 2001): countries whose principle language is usedmainlyoronlywithin itsownboundaries, likeFinnish inFinlandorDutch in theNetherlands,havelongfulfilledthisrequirement.Finnishstudentslearn—inadditiontoSwedish,theirsecondofficiallanguage—Englishandatleastonefurtherlanguage.Ontheotherhand,speakersofgloballanguages,likeEnglishorSpanish,oftenlearnat themostone foreign language.Although this isunderstandable fromapragmat-icpointofview,itunderminestheconceptofaEuropeanUnionwithmutualunder-standingandrespectbetweencitizens. Various pedagogical concepts have been introduced to make foreign languagelearning easier and more interesting, the latest being the communicative, the inter-

308 BrittaHufeisenandNicoleMarx

cultural,thetask-basedandthemultilingualapproaches.Anotherinterestingideanotspecifically developed for teaching purposes is the concept of the polyglot dialogue(Posner1991),orpluri-lingual discourse (Clyne2003). In theScandinaviancontext,thisphenomenonisdubbedinterscandinavian semicommunication(seeZeevaert’sandBraunmüller’scontributionsinthisvolumeandZeevaert2004):eachcommunicationpartnerspeakshis/herfirstornativelanguage,perhapswithsomeaccommodationtoeasecomprehension,andallothersunderstand.Forexample,onespeakermentionssomethinginSwedish,whichtheDutchpersonunderstandsandrepliestoinDutch.TheFrenchspeaker—havingareceptiveknowledgeofbothlanguages—addssome-thinginFrenchwhichbothearlierspeakersdonotspeakactivelybutunderstand.Inthisvolume,thisphenomenoniscalledreceptive multilingualism. ResearchersinDaFnE(DeutschnachEnglisch=GermanL3afterEnglishL2,third-language acquisition/tertiary language learning) and specifically in EuroComGermcombine theconceptof receptivemultilingualismwith the ideaof thepolyglotdia-logueorplurilingualdiscourseinordertoassistcommunicationamongEUcitizens.They study linguistic processes which underlie such communication patterns andsearchformethodstoprepareandenablespeakers/hearerstotacklethischallenge. Itisimportanttonoteherethatreceptiveknowledgeofoneormorelanguagesisnotatallpassive.Itincludesavarietyofcomplexprocesses,competenciesandtechniquesthatonlyafewspeakersdevelopinstinctively.Itisahighlychallengingcognitiveandlinguistictaskandmustbespecificallytrained,aswillbeshownbelow.Therefore,per-sonstryingtogainreceptiveknowledgeinvariouslanguagesoftenneedinstructionandhelp.Receptivemultilingualismfocusesonthetwoclassicalskills listeningandreadingandonmultiplelanguageprocessing. Inorder toaccept thisnew typeof communicativegoal, the formerpedagogicalaimofnative-likecompetencehasbeenreplacedbyaconceptofasetofcompetencieswhichcomprise(meta)linguisticandinterculturalunderstanding,domainspecificity,andcooperativecommunicativecompetence (Sprachhandlungskompetenz).Thecon-ceptofreceptivemultilingualism,whichextendsfarbeyondminimallinguisticknow-ledge,isneitherasimplepidginnorincompletelanguagelearning.Instead,itrepre-sentsboth theacquisitionof receptivecompetencies inmore thanonegiven targetlanguage,andincludesasetofspecificforeignlanguagelearningstrategiesinordertofillinthereceptivesideofthepolyglotdialogue. Whilethelinguisticfocusofthisnewdirectionrestsonwhathappensduringtheselearningandcommunicationprocesses,thepedagogicalfocusistheenhancementofspecific learningprocesses.Thepotentialpoliticalandeducationalconsequencesofsuchanovelapproachtolanguagelearningincludetheenhancementof Europeans’mobility.Citizensmaythenspendtimeabroadregardlessoftheirpreviouscompeten-ciesinthetargetlanguage.Theaimistoequipthemwiththetoolstofunctioninthetargetlanguageassoonaspossible.

DaFnE,EuroComGermandreceptivemultilingualism 309

2. Theoreticalbackground

During thepast tenyears,L3researchershavebegun todevelopandevaluate theirownmodelsontheprocessoflearningandacquiringmorethanonesecondlanguage.TheseresearchersarguethatitisneithersufficientsimplytousetheestablishedL2ac-quisitionmodelsfortheconsiderablymorecomplexsettingoflearninganL3orLx(x≥3),norisitappropriatetoextendexistingL2modelsasthesecannotexplainthedifferencesthatareevidentbetweenL2learningandL3learning.Thespeechproduc-tionmodelsof WilliamsandHammarberg(1998),deBot(2004)andClyne(2003)showthatthemechanismsoflanguagechoicearebasedmainlyonmodifiedL2mod-els(chieflyLevelt1989).Thesefeaturearelevantelementthatisnotthefocusofothermodels,namelyspeechproduction(seeTable1).

Inthefollowing,wewouldliketodemonstratethevariousmodelsthathavebeenre-centlyintroducedtoexplicatethedifferencesbetweenL2andL3learningandtoillus-tratehowthegeneralnotionofmultilingualismor—asAronin&ÓLaoire(2004;seeTable2)phraseit,individualmultilinguality—isdescribed. This model is applied to multilingual societies such as Israel or Ireland in ordertoexplainmultilingualsettingsanddominant languagesituations(Aronin2006).Itcomprisesasetofninecharacteristics:complexity,interrelatedness,fluctuation,vari-ationandinconsistency,multifunctionality, inequalityof function,self-balance,self-

Table 1. Multilingualspeechproductionmodels

Researcher(s) Name of model Main characteristics

SarahWilliamsandBjörnHammarberg(1998)

LanguagesSwitchesModel

Psycholinguisticspeechproductionmodel;languagesassumedifferentroles/functionsincommunicationbecomeapparentthroughcertainswitches

KeesdeBot(2004) SelectionandControlModel

Psycholinguisticspeechproductionmodel;automaticity,selectionandcontroldeterminethechoiceofspeechunits

MichaelClyne(2003) ModelofPlurilingualProcessing

Sociolinguisticmodel;includessocioculturalaspects

Table 2. Sociolinguisticmultilingualacquisitionmodel

Researcher(s) Name of model Main characteristics

LarissaAronin&MuirisÓLaoire(2004)

BioticModelofMultilinguality Sociolinguisticmodelthattriestoexplainmultilingualacquisitioninmultilingualsocieties

310 BrittaHufeisenandNicoleMarx

extension,andnon-replication.Theycontroltheindividuallanguagebehaviourandsetting. AscanbeseenintheDynamicModelofMultilingualism(Table3),whichexplainsindividualconditionsofthelearningprocess,languagemaintenanceandlanguagelossplayasimportantaroleasthelearningprocessitself. Wewilldiscusstwoofthethreeappliedmodelsindetailinordertolaythefoun-dationforthesubsequentdiscussion.Weareconvincedthattheacquisition/learningofanL3differsgreatlyfromtheacquisition/learningofanL2becauseofchangesintheindividuallearner’sbackground(seeTable3).GrosevawasthefirstresearchertohighlightthespecialrolethattheL2playsintheL3andLx(x≥3)learningprocess,asitactsasareferencebaseforfuturelanguagelearning.Newitemsandrulesarecon-stantlyrevisedandcomparedwiththeL2andtheL2-learningprocess.Meißner’sandHufeisen’smodels,developedwithintheframeworksofEuroComandDaFnE,portrayasimilarconceptionoftheL2,whichiscalledthebridgelanguage(Hufeisen1991)ortransferbase(Meißner2002)(seeTable4).

2.1 Multilingualprocessingmodel:Spontaneouslearnergrammar

Fromwithinthecontextofconstructivistlearningtheoryandmultilingualismpeda-gogy(EuroComDidact,cf.Meißner2002),theSpontaneousLearnerGrammarmodelwas proposed. Franz-Joseph Meißner’s model demonstrates the processes involvedduring thereception—bothwrittenandoral—of texts inanunknownforeign lan-guage.Themain focus isonhowa learnerwithahigh levelofcompetence inoneforeignlanguage(suchasFrench)deciphersatextinanunknownbutcloselyrelated

Table 3. Psycholinguisticmultilingualacquisitionmodel

Researcher(s) Name of model Main characteristics

PhilipHerdinaandUlrikeJessner(2002)

DynamicModelofMultilingualism

Psycholinguisticmodelthatincludesaspectssuchaslanguagemaintenanceandloss

Table 4. Modelsinappliedlinguisticsettings

Researcher(s) Name of Model Main Characteristics

MariaGroseva(2000) Foreign-languageacquisitionModel

L2becomesthecomparativeandcontrastivebasisforallfurtherlanguages

Franz-JosefMeißner(2004) MultilingualProcessingSpontaneousModel

DevelopmentofaLearnerGrammarbyzerobeginners

BrittaHufeisen(Hufeisen/Gibson2003)

FactorModel Describesthefactorsthatcontrolandinfluencethelearningprocess,itemphasizesdifferencebetweenL2andL3

DaFnE,EuroComGermandreceptivemultilingualism 311

language(suchasSpanish),andwhatprocessesareinvolvedwhenattemptingtoun-derstandthestructureofthisnewlanguage.Meißnersuspectsthatlearnerscontinu-ously turn forhelp toat leastoneknown,related language,whileat thesametimeformulating hypotheses about the new language. In this way, learners build a newspontaneous(orhypothetical)grammarforthissystem. IncontrasttoSelinker’sconceptofinterlanguage,thisspontaneousgrammar“coversthelinguisticknowledgeofatargetlanguagestill‘unknown’tothelearner,evenwiththefirstencounterofthelexical,morphematicalandsyntacticalstructures”(Meißner2003:40);itischaracterizedbyitssystematicityanddynamicsand“isconstructedlessuponthetargetlanguagethanuponthepatternsofoneormorepre-learnedcloselyre-latedforeignlanguages”(ibid.).Withtheassistanceofalltheotherlanguagesthatthelearneralreadyknows,thespontaneousgrammarisatfirstcomposedlessoftheactualstructuresofthetarget language,butratherofthesumofall thelearner’s languageknowledge.Overtime,itisthenadjustedandre-formulatedtobecomeeverclosertotheactualstructureofthenewlanguagesystem. Duringtheprocessofhypotheticalgrammarformation,atleastonehelperorbridge languageisalwayspresent,allowingthelearnertocomparestructuresoftheknownandthenewlanguage(s),andwillbeactivatedduringthefirstcontactwiththenewtargetlanguageifcertainconditionsaremet.Theseincludeanetymologicalrelation-shipbetweenthelanguagesinvolved,acertainproficiencyinthebridgelanguage,andfinally,apreviousamountofpreparationofthebridgelanguageforitsnewroll.Onlywhenthesethreeconditionsaremetisacontinuouscomparisonofthetwolanguagespossible(Meißner1998),suchthatthedevelopmentofthespontaneousgrammarisoptimised. Inourcontext, it is interesting toseehowMeißner’smodelexplains theprocessof grammar building, especially since Meißner is concerned primarily with recep-tive multilingual contexts. The procedure contains four steps (Meißner and Senger2001:41–3):

1. First,aspontaneousgrammarisbuiltinthetargetlanguage.Thisensuesthroughtheacquaintancewithabridge language(forexample, theL2Englishprovidesastructureforthe initialunderstandingoftheL3German)andishighlydynamic.Thisgrammarrecognizesinterlingualregularitiesviatheprocessofsystemisingandgeneralisinginput.

2. Aninterlingualcorrespondencegrammaristhenconstructedthroughthespontan-eousgrammar.Here,thespontaneousgrammardevelopsinterlingualcorrespond-enceruleswhichliesomewherebetweenthepreviouslinguisticknowledge(i.e.ofthebridgelanguage)andthegrowingknowledgeofthetargetlanguagesystem.

3. Next,aplurilingualinter-systemisbuilt.Thissystemsavesallsuccessful(aswellassomeunsuccessful)interlingualtransferprocessesandiscomposedoftransferbaseswhichprovideageneralframeworkfordecodingthenewlanguage.Inthismodel,sixsuchtransferbasesareofinterest:communicativestrategytransfer,transferof

312 BrittaHufeisenandNicoleMarx

interlingualprocessingprocedures,transferofcognitiveprinciples,transferaspro-or retroactive overlapping (Überlagerung), learning strategy transfer, and finallytransferoflearningexperiences(inthisway,themodelprovidesmanyparallelstothemodeldevelopedbyBrittaHufeisen,below).

4. Finally,ametacognitivestrategycollectiondevelops,inwhichlearningexperiencesinthetargetlanguagearesaved.

Thespontaneousgrammaristhusasubsetoftheinterlanguage,butnotinterchangeablewithit,asitisinastateofcontinualchange,andisproducedwithoutexplicittargetlan-guageknowledge,whichis,however,necessaryforthedevelopmentofinterlanguage. Inadditiontoformulatinghypothesesaboutthetarget language,a learnergradu-allydevelopsplurilingualsystemknowledge,whichcontainsbothpositiveandnegativecorrespondencerules,andthusmoreinformationintotalthanthespontaneousgram-maralone.Thisknowledgecanthenbere-appliedwhenreadingorlisteningtotextsinthetargetlanguage,orbeextendedandmodifiedthroughcontactwithanotherlan-guagesystem. However,Meißner’smodelalsohaslimitsforapplicationtooursituation,sinceitisprimarilyconcernedwithhowzerobeginnersdecodealanguage—butnothowlearn-erscontinuetolearn,andnothowtheylearnwhenguidanceorinstructionisavailable.ThisiswhereHufeisen’slearningmodelbecomesrelevant.

2.2 Hufeisen’sfactormodel

Hufeisen’sfactormodelconsistsoffourparts,eachdescribingonestageoflanguagelearning/acquisition,namelytheacquisitionofanL1orvariousL1s,thestagesofthelearningofanL2,thelearningofanL3,andthelearningofanL4.Eachseparatestagereferstotheinitiallearningstepstakenbythelearneroftherespectivelanguage,andaccountsforthefactorsthatinfluenceandcontrolthelearningprocess.Thegroupsoffactorsresponsibleforinfluencinglanguagelearningandacquisitionincludethefol-lowing:

• Neurophysiological factors are the basis of general language learning/acquisition,productionandreceptioncapability.Ifoneofthesefactorsishindered,languageac-quisitionfailsorisflawed.

• Learner external factors include socio-economic and sociocultural surroundingssuchasthelearningtradtitions,andthetypeandtheamountofinputthelearnerreceives.If,forinstance,sufficientorqualitativelyadequateinputislacking,acquisi-tion/learningismoredifficultorevenimpossible.

• Emotional factorssuchasanxiety,motivation,oracceptanceofthenewtargetlan-guagearehighlyinfluentialinthelearningprocess.Ifalearnerisforexampleverytenseorafraidtospeakthetargetlanguage,thisemotionalstateslowsorevenhin-dersthelearningprocessandsuccess(seeDewaele2002).

DaFnE,EuroComGermandreceptivemultilingualism 313

• Cognitive factors include languageawareness, linguisticandmetalinguisticaware-ness,learningawareness,knowledgeofone’sownlearnertypeandtheabilitytoem-ploylearningstrategiesandtechniques(seeJessner2004).

• Linguistic factorscomprisethelearner’sL1(s).

Schematically,L2-learningcouldbedescribedasshowninFigure1.Hufeisen’smodelemphasizes thedifferencesbetween learninganL2and learninganL3.WhereasatthebeginningoftheL2learningprocessthelearnerisacompletenoviceinthelearn-ingprocessofasecondlanguage, theL3 learneralreadyknowswhat it feels liketoapproachanewlanguage.Shehasdeveloped(consciouslyorunconsciously)certaintechniquesof learningnewwords.Sheknows that anew text isoftenunclear, andisabletocopewiththeinsecurityofhavingknowledgegaps.Thelearnermayhavepreviouslyexploredwhatforeignlanguagelearnertypesheisandwillbeabletoem-ploysuitablestrategies2andtechniquesaccordingly.IncomparisontothebeginningL2learningprocess,thelearningofanL3thereforemustrecognizeanewsetoflearn-ingfactors:

• Foreign/second language learning-specific factors,suchasindividualsecondlanguagelearning experiences, interlanguages of other learned languages, and foreign lan-guagelearningstrategies.

ThelinguisticfactorsmustbeextendedfromL1(s)toL1(s)andL2,whichcanfunctionasthebridgelanguageonthewaytotheL3(Hufeisen,1991).Thus,theL3learnerisabletorelyonlanguagespecificknowledgeandcompetenciesthatanL2leanerhasnotyetgained.Insummary,thetwostagesofthelearningprocessareshowninFigures1and2.

Figure 1. LearningofanL2

314 BrittaHufeisenandNicoleMarx

Besidesdescribingtheprototypicallanguagelearningprocess,themodelcanbeap-pliedtoexplainspecificlearningsituations.Ithastobekeptinmindthateachfactorinteractswiththeothersandthatthechangeinonecomplexoffactorsmightbefol-lowedbyachangeinotherfactorcomplexes,andthattheimportanceofsinglefac-torsandtheirrelevanceforthesuccessofthelearningprocesschangefromlearnertolearner. Themodelprovidesanexplanationforthefactthatnativespeakersof DutcharenotnecessarilygoodlanguagelearnersofGermanonlyduetolinguisticfactors(i.e.DutchandGermanbelongtothesamelanguagefamilyandare—incomparisontootherlanguageconstellations—fairlysimilar).Linguisticfactorsaremerelyonecom-ponentofthesecomplexes,andastheyinfluenceeachother,somefactorscanbecomepredominantandorunimportantincertainsituations.InspiteofthehighamountofsimilaritybetweenDutchandGerman,theDutchlearnermightstillfinditdifficulttolearnGermanbecauseheisnotmotivatedtolearnthislanguage. In projects such as German after English and English after German (see below),thestartingpointforthelearningprocessistherelativesimilarityoflanguages(lin-guistic factors), and certain specific strategies and techniques are employed to ex-ploitthesesimilaritiesinordertogetagraspofthetargetlanguageasquicklyaspos-sible.Therefore,theforeignlanguagespecificfactorsareusedtoenhancethelearningprocess. The above-mentioned projects show that learning strategies can be taught,learnedandsuccessfullyemployed(thiswasalsoshownbyMarx2005andNeuner2005inanotherstudy). Recentstudiesindicatethatindifferentcultures,thismethodisnotnecessarilysuc-cessful.Ouédroago(2005)reportsthatthelearningtraditionsinBurkinaFaso(Africa)donotemphasisecognitivefactorsbutratherotherlearningmethodssuchascondi-

Figure 2. LearningofanL3

DaFnE,EuroComGermandreceptivemultilingualism 315

tioning.Inthesecultures,teachingandlearningapproachesthatemphasizelanguageawareness, learningstrategiesorlearningawarenessmightnotbeashelpfulforlan-guagelearnerswhogrowupinalearningtraditionthatdoesnotfosterthesecognitiveaspects.Otherfactorssuchastheexistenceofteachingandlearningmaterialswillin-fluencethelearningsuccesstoagreaterdegree.

3. Recentexamplesoflinguisticresearchandgoodappliedpractice

3.1 Multiple-languageacquisition:Tertiärsprachenkonzept—GermanafterEnglish(DaFnE)

GermanistodayatypicalL3,whichmeansthatitisrarelychosenasafirstforeignlan-guageatschool,whereEnglishtakespriority.IfanL3islearnedinEurope,German,SpanishorFrencharethemostcommonchoices.Thus,beginninglearnersofGermanalreadyhavesomeknowledgeofEnglish,andtheseearlierexperiencesmighteasethelearningprocessofthenewforeignlanguage,asproposedbythemodelsmentionedabove. Onamoregenerallevel,thismeansthatstudentsnotonlyspeakanotherlanguagebesidestheirL1,butthattheyalsohaveforeignlanguagelearningexperience(seetheFactorModel).Theseareexperiencedlanguagelearnerswhocanapplyalargerangeoflinguistic,meta-linguisticandstrategicskillstothenewlanguagelearningprocessthroughcontinualtransferofdeclarativeandproceduralknowledge.3

The long-term Plurilingualism Project (DaFnE = Deutsch nach English/GermanafterEnglish),supportedbytheEuropeanCenterofModernLanguagesinGraz,hasexplored these issues further within linguistic, educational, and pedagogical con-texts,andhashadseveralpilotingphasesinvariousEuropeancountries(HufeisenandNeuner2004).Thisprojectwasnotdirectedprimarilyat receptivemultilingualism,butdidconsiderfeaturessuchasemployingreceptiveskillsinthebeginningphasesoflearning,drawingonearlierlanguagesandlanguagelearningexperiences,andusinglearningtechniquesandstrategiestoexploitearliercompetencieswhenundertakingthelearningofnewlanguages.Thus,inthisapproach,theconceptofreceptivemultilin-gualismisextendedandeventuallycomestoencompasstheproductiveskillsofspeak-ingandwriting. Learnerstendnottomakeuseoftheirpreviousknowledgeonasystematicbasis,however,asonlythelexiconisevidenttothemasatransferbase(seeCenoz,HufeisenandJessner2003).Moreover,itseemsthatlearnersdonotusetheirpreviouslanguageandstrategyknowledgeautomatically,butratherhavetobemadeawareofparallelsandtransferpossibilitiesbetweenlanguages,aswellasbeintroducedtopotentiallyuse-fultechniquesofhowtouseandemploypreviousforeignlanguageknowledgeandlan-guagelearningstrategies.ThiswasshownbyMarx(2005)inherdoctoraldissertation,whichfocusedontwobalancedgroupsofzerobeginnersofGermanwithknowledgeof

316 BrittaHufeisenandNicoleMarx

EnglishasanL2.Inthestudy,anexperimentalgroupwasexposedtoaspecificDaFnE-methodologyinvolvingasensitizationtothelearningsituationandthespecificben-efitsthatmultilinguallearnerspossess;thecourseinvolvedassistinglearnersrecognizesimilaritiesbetweentheirtwoforeignlanguagesandusethesebridgestoaidlearning. BothgroupsoflearnersweregivenweeklylisteningcomprehensiontasksandweretestedontheirLCabilitiesoverasix-weekintensivelanguagecourse.Comparedtothecontrolgroup,theexperimentalgroupachievedsignificantlyhigherscoresonlisteningtasksatthelanguagelevelofthelearners.Aswell,sensitizedlearnersperformedsignifi-cantlybetterondifficultlanguagetasks,solongastextscontainedsimilaritiesbetweenthetwolanguages(i.e.ahigherrateofcognates).Onthesetexts,themainadvantageshownbythesensitizedlearnersreflectedtheirabilitytoquickly,oftenautomaticallyrecognizeEnglish–Germancognatesandusethisknowledgetobuildanunderstand-ingofthetextasawhole.Learnersinthecontrolgroup,whohadnotpracticedinterlin-gualstrategies,werelessabletomakeuseoftheirpreviousknowledgeofEnglishandthushadfewerfootholdsonwhichtheycouldbuildtextcomprehension.Thus,trainingininterlingualstrategiesseemstobeanimportantfactorinwhetherdeclarativeknow-ledgefromotherlanguagesis,infact,drawnuponwhenataskinvolvescomprehensionofanL3. Variousexercisestotrainsuchinterlingualstrategieshavebeendeveloped,andanimportantoutcomeoftheDaFnEprojectmentionedabovewasthedevelopmentofspecificlearning/teachingmaterialswhicharedesignedtotakeintoaccountthepre-vious language knowledge and language learning experiences of students. SmallerEuropeancountrieslikeBulgariaorSwedenhaveintroducedspecificcurricula(Dikova,MavrodievaandStankulowa2001)andtextbooks(Elfving-Vogel,RydénandMertens1998).Distanceeducationmaterialtargetedatspecificlanguagegroupsalsotriestoin-troducetertiary language learning aspectsatamoregenerallevelusingasillustrationthesuccessionofEnglishasL2andthenGermanasL3(Neuner,Hufeisen,Erlenwein,Koithan,KuršisaandMarx,inpress).

3.2 EuroComGermandeag

WhiletheDaFnEconcepthasbeenappliedinGermanlanguagecoursesandempha-sisesallfourcompetenciesinlearning,otherprogrammesconcentratechieflyonre-ceptive skills, with the goal of enabling students to understand multiple languages,eveniftheydonot(yet)speakorwritethem.SuchisthephilosophyoftheEuroCom(European (Inter-) Comprehension) concept, which strives for intercomprehensionbetweenmembersof languagefamilies(i.e.receptivemultilingualism).4Inthefieldof Romance language intercomprehension, parallels between various key modernRomancelanguagesaredrawnandonthisbasis,theabilitytounderstandagroupoflanguageswithacommonbackgroundisdeveloped—thus,aGermannativespeakerwithasolidbasicknowledgeofFrenchwilllearntoreadandthenaurallycomprehendSpanish,Italian,Portuguese,RumanianandCatalanwithinarelativelyshorttimeon

DaFnE,EuroComGermandreceptivemultilingualism 317

thebasisoftheirknowledgeofFrench(andpossiblyEnglish).SincetheRomancelan-guagesarecloselyrelatedtoeachother,andmorethanathirdof Europeancitizensspeakoneastheirmothertongue,itiseasytounderstandwhythepioneeringworkinthisprojectwascompletedinthisfield(KleinandStegmann2000). TheEuroComstrategyistooptimizeinferencingtechniquesforstudentslearning(i.e. developing receptive competencies in) new, etymologically related foreign lan-guages. This inferencing is made possible through the comparison of languages atseven levels—by“sieving” theminsevenways.These levels includeapplyingprevi-ousandcontextualknowledgetoreadingtextsthroughthesearchfor internationalandpan-Romancevocabulary, forsoundcorrespondences, forcommongraphemesandpronunciations,forsyntacticandmorphosyntancticregularitiesinthelanguagefamily,andfinally,forcommonprefixesandsuffixes.Withpractice,thisprocesscanbecomeautomated(seeStoye2000),sothatunderstandingtextsispossiblewithinalanguagefamily. Thismethod,whichhasbeentaughtattheJohannWolfgangvonGoetheUniversityinFrankfurtsince1991,hasbeenusedsuccessfullyatbothuniversitiesandschools.WhileEuroComRomistheoldestandthusmostadvancedoftheprojects,twofurtherones focus on receptive competencies in European language groups: EuroComSlavconcentratesontheSlavicfamily,andEuroComGerm 5considersEuropeanGermaniclanguages(HufeisenandMarx2007).Inthelatterproject,theEuroComconcepthasbeenappliedtointercomprehensionineightlanguages,usingGermanandEnglishasthelinguistictransferbasesor“bridges”. Althoughmostcourseworkintheseprogrammesisdoneinaregularlanguageclass-roomundertheguidanceofwell-informedinstructors,theEuroComconceptalsoac-knowledgesthefactthattherearemanypeoplewhohavealreadyfinishedschoolandwhoeitherdonothaveaccesstosuchprogrammes,orarenotabletoinvestthetimerequiredinordertodevelopreceptivestrategiesinmanylanguagesatonce.Forthisreason,on-linecourseshavebeenintroducedwiththegoalofprovidinglearnerswithopportunitiestodevelopreadingcompetenciesinjustone(related)language.Thesecoursesrequirethelearnertoworkautonomouslyandremainmotivatedbydoingthenecessarycoursework,asthereisnoon-linetutoravailabletoanswerquestions.Theyhavetheadvantageofallowingthelearnertochoosewhenshewishestoworkonherlanguagelearning,howintensively,towhatdegreeshereviewsmaterialandalsowhichmaterialshechoosesfromthecollection.Further,suchacourseisnottiedtoaspecificprofessionorcourseofstudy. One project employing the EuroCom on-line platform is eag 6 (=English afterGerman),acoursedesignedtoenablestudentstolearntoreadEnglishonthebasisoftheirpreviouslylearnedGerman(inthecaseof,forexample,EasternEuropeanswholearnedRussianandGermaninschoolbutnotEnglish)orwhohaveacquiredGermanlanguageskills(Germannativespeakers).BecausereadingEnglishtextshasbecomeanecessityduringuniversitystudiesandprofessionallife,manypeoplearenowrealisingthattheirlackofEnglishknowledgeposesahindrance.However,these(future)pro-

318 BrittaHufeisenandNicoleMarx

fessionalsmightnothavethetime,thedesireortheneedtoachieveproductivecompe-tenciesinEnglishandmightthereforewishtobeginwithreceptiveknowledgeofthislanguageofwidercommunication.Thisstepismadepossibleviatheirpreviousknow-ledgeofGerman,alanguagewhich(asnotedabove)isrelatedtoEnglishandthusisabletoprovidemanybridgestonewlearnersof English.Germanisarichsourceofinternationalandpan-Germanicvocabulary,aswellassyntacticstructuralaids. The on-line materials follow a somewhat different structure than the classroomwork,movinginastructured,step-by-stepprogressionthroughthesevensievesandthelanguagesinvolved.AfterabriefintroductiontotheprinciplesoftheSevenSievesfortheGermaniclanguages,thelearnerworksthroughaseriesofauthentictexts,uti-lizingherpreviousanddevelopingknowledgeofGermanic languagesystemstode-velopandfurtherimproveherreadingpotentialinEnglish.Theprogrammeincorpor-atesvariouslevelsofanalysis,includinglexicalandsemantic(eachlexemeislinkedtohints—butnottoatranslation),morphological(tipsdividewordsintomorphemes,and separate explanations of morphological rules can be viewed) and grammatical(again,explanationsareprovidedforvariousphenomenaappearinginthetexts).Oncethelearnerhasworkedthroughaparticulartext—preferablywithouttheaidofadic-tionary—shecancontinue toanswermultiple-choicequestionsbothoncontentaswellasonlanguagestructure,checkherunderstandingagainstaparalleltranslationofthetext,andinthefinalstep,seewhichnew,“non-sievable”words(profile words)andwhichnewstructuresappearinthetextunderstudy.Inthiswayonlythosestructuresandlexemesnecessaryfortextcomprehensionareexplicitlyanalyzed,andonlyatthejuncturestheybecomeimportant.Agrammaticalor lexicalprogressioninthetrad-itionalsenseismissingfromthisconcept,andthelearnerwillnot,likeforexamplewithintraditionalcommunicativeapproaches,betaughttointroducehimselfbeforeheisconfrontedwithnewspaperarticles,touristinformationorjobadverts. Theon-lineeagcourseunderwentatrialphasein2005,inwhichstudentsoftheTechnicalUniversityofDarmstadt,Germany,withnoknowledgeofEnglishfamiliar-izedthemselveswiththeprogrammebeforecontinuingautonomously,eitherwithinauniversitylanguagelaboratoryorathome,thevarietychosenbymostofthelearners.StudentswererequestedtoreadanEnglishtextinthefirstsessionandthentoanswerquestionsabout itbeforetheprogrammewasexplainedtothem.Atthispointtheywereallowedtostartworkingonthetexts.Responsestotheprogrammewerequitepositive,withmanystudentscommentingthattheywouldcontinuetoworkwiththematerialsduringthesummermonths.However,motivationforautonomouslearningseemstobeakeyfactor(asinmoston-linelearningprogrammes),asmanystudentsfoundthat,asthesemesterworeon,theyhadlesstimetodevotetotheirEnglishread-ingcomprehension. Most people will need an understanding of other languages for communicationpurposes,andtheEuroComstrategyisamethodholdingagreatdealofpromiseforreachingthegoalofinterlingualcomprehensionwithinonelanguagefamily.Whether

DaFnE,EuroComGermandreceptivemultilingualism 319

inatraditionallanguageclassroomoron-line,studentshavetheopportunitytofamil-iarizethemselveswithlinguisticstructuresandsimilaritiesinmanylanguagesatonce,therebymovingclosertotherealpossibilityofapolyglotdialogue.

4. Conclusion

Results todateof theaforementionedprojects lendmuchsupport topreviousdatafrom the Romance, Slavic and Scandinavian language arenas, providing clear evi-dencethatreceptivemultilingualismwithintheGermanlanguageconstellationisarealpossibility,notonly linguistically,butalsowith respect to thepolitical aimsoftheEuropeanWhiteBook. It is imperative that furtherresearchwithinspecific lan-guageconstellations(suchasGerman,English,Swedish;Dutch,English,German;orGerman,English,Icelandic)beconductedinordernotonlytovalidatethemodelsandtheirexplanatoryvalue,butaswell,tofosterlearningand,specifically,receptivecom-petenciesinrelatedforeignlanguages. Ineffect,theterm“foreignlanguages”,viewedfromtheconceptofreceptivemul-tilingualism,isactuallyamisnomer.Nolanguage—especiallyfromwithinthesamelanguagefamily—cantrulybeconsideredunknownor“foreign”.Instead,weshouldbegintoconsiderlanguagesbeinglearnedforreceptivepurposestobesystemsalreadywellunderstood.Thecrucialstepforthelearneristofindtheproperkeytofullyun-locktheirmysteries.

Notes

1. Weareawarethattheconceptsofacquisitionandlearningshareanumberofcommonfea-turesandthatthesetwotypesofacquisitionrarelyoccurseparately.Still,thelearningprocessinvolvesanapproachtolanguagethatdoesnotusuallyhappenduringthenatural,undirectedacquisitionofagivenlanguage.Therefore,weuselearningtorefertotheformalsettingofin-structionandconcedethatacquisitiontakesalsoplaceduringthelearningprocess.

2. Dörnyei purports that language learning strategies do not exist because research cannotagreeonacommondefinition(2005a,b).Incontrast,wearguethatwhenalearningactivityhasbeenconsciouslydirected,purposefullyemployedandspecificallyusedinacertainsettingtoreachacertaingoal,andisusedatfurtherpointsinordertoreachasimilarlearninggoal,itiswelljustifiabletodescribethisactivityaslearningstrategy.

3. Wewillnotexploreinterferencehereasitisminimalcomparedtopositivetransfer,espe-ciallyinthecaseofreceptivecompetencies.

4. Seehttp://www.eurocom-frankfurt.de/formoreinformationonallprogrammes.

5. Seehttp://www.eurocomgerm.de/formoreinformationontheEuroComGermproject.

6. Seehttp://dmz02.kom.e-technik.tu-darmstadt.de/eurocomgerm/index.phpfortheeagcourse.

320 BrittaHufeisenandNicoleMarx

References

Aronin, L. 2006. Dominant language constellation: An approach to multilingualism studies.InMultilingualism in Educationals Settings,M.ÓLaoire(ed.),142–61.Baltmannsweiler:SchneiderHohengehren.

Aronin,L.andÓLaoire,M.2004.Exploringmultilingualisminculturalcontexts:Towardsano-tionofmultilinguality.InTrilingualism in Family, School and Community,Ch.HoffmannandJ.Ytsma(eds),11–29.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Besters-Dilger, J. , de Cillia, R. , Krumm, H.-J. , and Rindler-Schjerve, R. (eds). 2001. Mehr-sprachigkeit in der erweiterten Europäischen Union.Klagenfurt:Drava.

Cenoz,J. ,Hufeisen,B.andJessner,U.(eds)2003.The Multilingual Lexicon.Dordrecht:Kluwer.Clyne,M.2003.Dynamics of Language Contact.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.CouncilofEurope,800 Million Europeans.Strasbourg:CouncilofEurope.www.coe.int/T/E/ Com/About_Coe/Brocures/800millionsE.asp[2Mar.2007].DeBot,K.2004.Themultilinguallexicon:Modelingselectionandcontrol.International Journal

of Multilingualism1(1):17–32.Dewaele,J.-M.2002.Psychologicalandsociodemographiccorrelatesofcommunicativeanxiety

inL2andL3production.International Journal of Bilingualism6(1):23–8.Dikova,V. ,Mavrodieva,L.andStankulowa,K.2001.CurriculumfürDeutschalszweiteFremd-

spracheinderbulgarischenallgemeinbildendenOberschule.Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht [Online] 5 (3), 24pp. http://www.spz.tu-darmstadt.de/projekt_ejournal/jg_05_3/beitrag/dikova.htm[15Apr.2005].

Dörnyei,Z.2005a.The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual differences in second-lan-guage acquisition.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.

Dörnyei,Z.2005b.Individualdifferencesinsecond-languageacquisition.PaperpresentedattheAILAconferencein14Madison,WI,25–9July2005.

Duke,J. ,Hufeisen,B.andLutjeharms,M.2004.DiesiebenSiebedesEuroComfürdenmul-tilingualenEinstieg indieWeltdergermanischenSprachen. InNeuere Forschungen zur Europäischen Interkomprehension,H.KleinandD.Rutke(eds),109–34.Aachen:Shaker.

Elfving-Vogel,M. ,Rydén,K.andMertens,H.1998.Lust auf Deutsch.Stockholm:Bonnier.Groseva,M.2000.DientdasL2-SystemalseinFremdsprachenlernmodell?InTertiärsprachen.

Theorien. Modelle. Methoden,B.HufeisenandB.Lindemann(eds),21–30.Tübingen:Stauf-fenburg.

Herdina,P.andJessner,U.2002.A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism. Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Hufeisen,B.1991.Englisch als erste und Deutsch als zweite Fremdsprache — Empirische Unter-suchung zur zwischensprachlichen Interaktion.Frankfurt:PeterLang.

Hufeisen,B.andGibson,M.2003.ZurInterdependenzemotionalerundkognitiverFaktorenimRahmeneinesModellszurBeschreibungsukzessivenmultiplenSprachenlernens. InGehirn und Sprache: Psycho- und neurolinguistische Ansätze. Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée78,R.Francheschini,B.Hufeisen,U.JessnerandG.Lüdi(eds),13–33.

Hufeisen,B.andMarx,N.(eds)2007.EuroComGerm—Die sieben Siebe: germanische Sprachen lesen lernen.Aachen:Shaker.

Hufeisen, B. and Neuner, G. (eds) 2004. The Plurilingualism Project: Tertiary language learn-ing — German after English.Strasbourg:CouncilofEuropePublishing.

DaFnE,EuroComGermandreceptivemultilingualism 321

Jessner,U.2004.ZurRolledesmetalinguistischenBewusstseins inderMehrsprachigkeitsfor-schung.InBeim Schwedischlernen sind Englisch und Deutsch ganz ‘hilfsvoll’. Untersuchungen zum multiplen Sprachenlernen,B.HufeisenandN.Marx(eds),17–32.Frankfurt:Lang.

Klein,H.andStegmann,T.2000.EuroComRom — Die sieben Siebe: Romanische Sprachen sofort lesen können.Aachen:Shaker.

Krumm,H.-J.2005.VonderadditivenzurcurricularenMehrsprachigkeit:ÜberdieNotwendig-keitderEinbeziehungvonMinderheiten-,Migranten-undNachbarsprachen.InGesamt-sprachencurriculum — Integrierte Sprachendidaktik — Common Curriculum. Theoretische Überlegungen und Beispiele der Umsetzung,B.HufeisenandM.Lutjeharms(eds),27–36.Tübingen,GunterNarr(GiessenerBeiträgezurFremdsprachenforschung).

Levelt,W.J.M.1989.Speaking: From intention to articulation.CambridgeMA:MITPress.Marx,N.2005.Hörverstehensleistungen im Deutschen als Tertiärsprache: zum Nutzen eines Sensi-

bilisierungsunterrichts in „DaFnE“.Baltmannsweiler:SchneiderHohengeren.Meißner,F.-J.1998.GymnasiastenderSekundarstufeI lernendeninterlingualenTransfer.In

Mehrsprachigkeitsdidaktik. Konzepte, Analysen, Lehrerfahrungen mit romanischen Fremd-sprachen,F.-J.MeißnerandM.Reinfried(eds),217–37.Tübingen:Narr.

Meißner, F.-J. 2002. EuroComDidact. In Europäische Mehrsprachigkeit. Analysen — Konzepte — Dokumente,D.Rutke(ed.),45–64.Aachen:Shaker.

Meißner, F.-J. 2003. EuroComDidact: Learning and teaching plurilingual comprehension. InSprachkompetenz — Mehrsprachigkeit — Translation. Akten des 35. Linguistischen Kolloqui-ums.Innsbruck,20.-22.September2000,L.Zybatow(ed.),33–46.Tübingen:Narr.

Meißner,F.-J.2004.TransferundTransferieren.AnleitungenzumInterkomprehensionsunter-richt.InNeuere Forschungen zur Europäischen Interkomprehension,H.KleinandD.Rutke(eds),39–66.Aachen:Shaker.

Meißner,F.-J.andSenger,U.2001.VominduktivenzumkonstruktivenLehr-undLernparadigma.MethodischeFolgerungenausdermehrsprachigkeitsdidaktischenForschung.InBausteine für einen neukommunikativen Französischunterricht,F.-J.MeißnerandM.Reinfried(eds),21–50.Tübingen:Narr

Neuner, St. 2005. Fremdsprachenlernen und Lernerautonomie. Sprachlernbewusstsein, Lern-prozessorganisation und Lernstrategien zum Wortschatzlernen in Deutsch als Fremdsprache.Baltmannsweiler:SchneiderHohengehren.

Neuner,G. ,Hufeisen,B.,Erlenwein,S.,Koithan,U. ,Kuršisa,A.andMarx,N.Inpress.Deutsch als zweite Fremdsprache nach Englisch.Berlin:Langenscheidt(Fernstudieneinheit).

Ouédraogo,D.2005.MehrsprachigkeitundDeutschunterrichtinBurkinaFaso.WelcheStrate-gien zur Verbesserung der Lehr- und Lernmethoden. Vortrag auf der internationalenDeutschlehrertagungimAugust2005inGrazinderSektionDeutschalszweiteoderweitereFremdsprache.InBegegnungssprache Deutsch. Motivation – Herausforderung – Perspektiven. Thesenband der XIII. Internationalen Tagung der Deutschlehrerinnen und Deutschlehrer in Graz, 1.-6.8.2005,B.Sorger(ed.),336,Wien:InternationalerDeutschlehrerverband.

Posner,R.1991.DerpolyglotteDialog.Sprachreport3:6–10.Stoye,S.2000: Eurocomprehension. Der romanistische Beitrag für eine europäische Mehrsprachigkeit

[EditionesEurocom2].Aachen:Shaker.Williams,S.andHammarberg,B.1998.LanguageswitchesinL3production:Implicationsfora

polyglotspeakingmodel.Applied Linguistics19(3):295–333.Zeevaert,L.2004.Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verständi-

gung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs[Philologia64].Hamburg:Dr.Kovač.

AAcklin Muji 137Aijmer 202Alber 164Alderson 227Allport 272Ameel 273Archibald 291, 296Arntz 96, 288Aronin 309Ashby 266Aspeslagh 76Auer 79

BBalota 270, 271Barattelli 287, 296Barðdal 1Bates 166, 273–5Baumgarten 4, 6, 13Beach 203Bentin 278Benveniste 195, 196Bergman 218Bernhardt 268Berthoud 166Bertram 271, 272Besters-Dilger 307Beuerle 34Bhatia 2Biber 196, 197Bø 111, 128, 221–3, 226, 250Börestam 109,112, 219, 222, 246,

250Bornkessel 274Borsley 274Bourdieu 76, 164, 173Bowers 270Brattegard 37Braunmüller 7, 8, 32, 34, 38, 42,

78, 105, 106, 218, 219, 249, 308

Brown 174Bruntse 218Budovičová 105, 250Bührig 10, 81, 92Burger 57, 69Burke 33

CCanale 165Cenoz 315Chen 270, 272Chirita 39Chomsky 129, 165

Clifton 275Clyne 52, 76, 96, 180, 308, 309Conrad 145–7, 151, 196Cooreman 275Coseriu 4, 106, 128–9Costa 270, 273Coulmas 202Cutler 270Czeitschner 54, 62, 64

DDahlstedt 109, 130, 228De Bot 77, 309De Groot 273De Jong 79De Jongste 77Delsen 79Delsing 8, 10, 13, 15, 33, 43, 128–

30, 221–3, 226, 236, 241, 245–6, 260

De Stefani 170De Swaan 76Deutsch 269Dewaele 312Diercks 34, 43–4Dieth 155Dijkstra 273, 296, 302–3Dikova 316Doehler 166, 173Doetjes 1–4, 8, 10, 14, 19, 224,

228, 231, 260Dorgeloh 196Dorian 26Dresemann 4, 6, 13, 183, 245Duke 110Dürmüller 140

EEco 107, 129, 174Edmondson 202–4, 207–8, 211Ehlich 81–2, 95, 97–8, 182, 183Elfving-Vogel 316Ellis 268Elmiger 144, 145Ervin-Tripp 107

FFaerch 165Feitsma 106Feldman 271, 272Fellerer 54, 60Finegan 197Finkenstaedt 14, 76

Firth 180, 190, 210Fischel 61, 62Fodor 267Folk 269Forster 270Franceschini 166, 173, 278Francis 280Fremdling 96Frenck-Mestre 272–3Friel 273, 279Furer 140

GGal 165Gernentz 37Giles 128, 227, 253Golinski 1, 44, 128, 130, 224,

228Goodman 273Gooskens 17, 128, 227, 251,

260–2, 287, 292, 303Gorter 251Grainger 272, 273Green 278Grin 166Groseva 310Grosjean 77, 164, 165Grünbaum 219, 227Gumperz 173, 181, 192

HHaegeman 274Hägi 141Hall 94Halliday 13, 199Hammarberg 309Hansen 105–6, 109, 128Harley 277Haugen 26, 105, 106, 109, 112,

219–21, 224, 226, 228, 250

Ház 1, 285, 292, 303–4Heeringa 251, 257, 288, 291,

294Heilenman 275Heiniger 169Heller 180Herrlitz 9, 76, 77Hickerton 250Hill 174Hinskens 96Hoffmann 92Hohenstein 197Holmes 180

Index of names

324 Receptive Multilingualism

Hopper 202, 203House 4, 6, 13, 19, 75–7, 181,

197, 202–4, 207–11, 279Hufeisen 3, 5, 16, 18, 78, 110,

130, 266, 307, 310–17Hüllen 198Humphreys 268Hunston 197Hyland 197

IIwasaki 196

JJahr 31, 37Jensen 106, 250Jescheniak 270Jessner 310, 313, 315Jiang 270Johnson-Laird 277Jonkman 251Jörgensen 128, 222

KKamwangamalu 2Karker 3Kärkkäinen 197Kärrlander 128, 222, 245Kasper 165, 197, 207Kellerman 78Kennison 273, 279Kilborn 275Kim 269Kintsch 277Klein 5, 43, 106, 110, 130, 227,

266, 302, 317Klin 276Kloss 3, 26, 35, 106, 109, 110Knapp 183Koda 275Kolde 141, 142, 160, 161Konieczny 274Koole 4, 9, 77, 81–3, 88Kristensen 222Kroschewski 300Krumm 307Kutas 272

LLademacher 76Lemhöfer 273LePage 28Levelt 309Levy 278Li 275Linthout 76Liu 275Lleó 19Longtin 271

Loos 9, 77, 181, 190Lüdi 4, 12, 13, 77, 128, 138, 154–

6, 164–70, 173, 180, 219Lundin 222Lundin Åkesson 222, 223, 226,

236, 241, 245–6Lutjeharms 5, 14–18, 78, 110,

130, 268–75, 286, 287, 293, 296, 300, 303–4

Lyons 196

MMcCann 5, 266McDonald 275McNamara 174McQueen 270MacWhinney 274, 275Malt 278Maria Theresia 59Marslen-Wilson 271Marx 3, 5, 16, 18, 78, 130, 266,

314–17Matthey 145Matthiessen 199Maturana 10, 107, 108Mauranen 197Maurud 15, 111, 112, 128, 221,

223, 226, 227, 232, 233, 237, 240–2, 250

Mavrodieva 316Meierkord 183Meisel 19, 173Meißner 279, 280, 310–12Melberg 3Melinger 271Menke 28Mertens 316Metzger 203Meunier 271Meuter 137Milroy 77, 90, 165Möller 16, 18, 75, 128, 261Mondada 166, 170–2Morton 270Moscoso 271Moscovitch 278Mulac 202Müller 76, 179, 187Müller-Lancé 269Murray 143, 163Muysken 77, 90, 165Myers-Scotton 180

NNelde 76Nesse 31, 37Nettle 38Neuner 314–16Newerkla 55, 58, 59, 69Nichols 38Noyau 164

ÓÓ Laoire 309Oakhill 277Ogris 62Östman 203

PPalmer 196Paradis 267, 268, 273Pekarek 166, 173Petersen 182–6Peterson 271Pfaff 180Pierce 250Porquier 164Posner 308Prescher 76Py 145, 154, 156, 164–8Pynte 275

RRaven 76Rawson 267, 277Rayner 269Rehbein 10, 75–7, 80–2, 94, 95,

98, 131, 181–3, 186, 192, 199, 279

Reuter 219, 227Ribbert 4, 9, 16, 97Ridell 128, 223Ritchie 2Roelands 75, 78–80, 88Romaine 2Rothweiler 19Rumelhart 268Rydén 316

SSanford 270Schade 287, 296Scharloth 141Scheerer-Neumann 287Schegloff 164Scheibman 196, 197, 205Schiffrin 207Schriefers 270, 274Schröder 14, 76, 128Schutz 164Selting 155Senger 311Shannon 107Shapiro 274Shetter 94Smith 27, 33, 196, 197, 227Snedeker 274Stankulowa 316Stegmann 5, 43, 110, 227, 266,

317Stotz 137Stourzh 53, 57

Name index 325

Stoye 317Stubbe 180Suchsland 274Swain 165

TTabouret-Keller 28Taft 270Teich 197Teleman 1, 16, 130ten Thije 4, 9, 10, 16, 77, 78, 81–

3, 88, 92, 96–8Thomas 197, 272Thompson 197, 202Tiisala 39Traugott 197, 202, 203Trautmann 96Traxler 267, 275Trudgill 34, 35, 253Trueswell 274Tsui 203

Turner 250

UUngeheuer 107

VVan Bezooijen 17, 128, 227, 250,

260–2, 287, 292Van den Berg 250Van Dijk 277Vetter 8, 77, 131

WWagner 180–6Wallnig 53, 54Watts 143, 163Weaver 107Wenzel 292, 303–4Werlen 6, 11, 12, 77, 128, 130,

143, 145, 151, 155, 175, 219Westheide 9, 76, 77, 96Wetzel-Kranz 167Williams 309Wolff 250, 260Wright 38–9, 43–4

XXimenes 3

ZZahn 76Zeelenberg 280Zeevaert 1–6, 10, 13–4, 19, 43,

52, 74–8, 106, 112, 117, 118, 128–30, 181, 182, 192, 218, 219, 228, 231, 246, 249, 250, 303, 308

Zwitserlood 272Zybatow 110

AAbstand languages 106

see also Ausbau languagesaction space 80, 81active competence 105adult L2-language learning 42articles in post-position 40asymmetric communication 30attentional processing 5, 268attitudes 17, 96, 145, 201, 234,

244, 250–4Ausbau languages 26, 35, 36,

106see also Abstand languages

automatic processing 267–9

BBaltic 33–8, 224Biel/Bienne 11, 141–9, 153–6bilingualism 25–7, 37, 144–5,

160, 166, 180, 272bilingual cantons 138, 141bilingual city 11, 138–46bilingual district 138–43bilingual mode 164–5

bridge language 302, 310–13business communication 37,

179business negotiation 181–3,

191see also merchants

Cclosely related languages 27–31,

96, 105–10, 218–9, 261, 279cloze test 260, 301code switching 87–90, 165, 186–

8, 278see also dialect mixing

cognates 16–18, 88, 255–61, 273, 279, 285–8, 291–6, 299–303

cognate words 256, 279, 302misleading cognates 296, 300non-cognates 255–61, 286

collocations 198, 201communication

asymmetric communica-tion 30

business communication 37, 179

crucial communication 107, 118

ELF communication 195, 198, 210

exolingual communica-tion 152, 164

face-to-face trading communication 27

intercommunity communica-tion 163–6, 173

inter-Scandinavian communication 52, 222

interscandinavian semicommunication 103

multilingual communica-tion 1–4, 49–53, 61–6, 74–80, 106, 118–9, 126–7, 148, 173, 180–1, 191

semi-communication 1,10, 26, 76, 105–9, 111, 219–20, 227

see also conversationcommunicative competence

110, 166, 173, 308active competence 105multilingual competence 52,

67, 165, 173passive competence 4, 105communicative styles 197–8Competition Model 274–5complement clause

constructions 196, 202–5comprehension 15–18, 179, 191,

233–45, 252–6, 259–62, 265–72, 275–9, 286–7, 316, 318

see also intercomprehensioncontextualisation cues 181conversation 120, 145–52, 169,

186–91, 195–9, 209correspondence rules 292–8,

311–2creoloidisation 35

creoloids 34crucial communication 107,

118cues 181, 191, 268, 274–5, 302Cultural Apparatus 75, 94

DDaFnE 308–10, 315–6Danish 3–11, 34–6, 111–16,

119–23, 217–27, 231–9, 242–4

default language 143, 154, 167

default model 11, 143definite article 40

dialectal continuum 37, 218dialect mixing 32diamorphs 42diasystem 29, 32–5, 38diffused language 28diglossic situation 160discourse knowledge 77, 186,

190–1discourse organization 203discursive interculture 77divergeolect 36

Eeducational system 140, 161–3EEC 33, 232EES 232ELF communication 195, 198,

210ELF communities 210English as a foreign language

143, 195English as lingua franca (ELF)

2, 6, 180English L1 198–200EU 1–3, 6, 49–53, 61, 65–6, 232,

307–8EuroCom 269–73, 310, 316–18

EuroCom-method 265, 269–73

EuroComGerm 308, 316–17exolingual communication 152,

164experiential domains 200, 209

Fface-to-face interaction 30–1,

182face-to-face trading

communication 27false friends 288, 299–300Faroese 41, 106, 217–19feedback interview 90first person pronoun 196–9focused language 28foreign language 3–6, 76 142–5,

174, 231, 265–72, 285–6, 307–10, 313–15

English as a foreign language 143, 195

Fribourg/Freiburg 142–7functional diglossia 31functional pragmatic approach

81

Index of subjects

Subject index 327

Ggambit 207genetic relationship 34, 36, 41German 32–42, 50–64,73–83,

87–97, 110, 137–55, 159–64, 167–74, 183–90, 218–9, 271–5, 278, 285–8, 291–303, 314–19

Gesamtsprachenkonzept 162globalization 137

global languages 33, 307grammaticalization 198, 202,

204

HHabsburg Empire 50–6, 62–7Hanseatic chancellery 32historical language 106Holistic language-policy

plan 162homoglossic 164

Iillocution 83

see also speech actionimmigrants 235–8, 241–2institutional constellation 77

institutional discourse 81, 92, 94

institutional keywords 88–91institutional knowledge 81,

88–92, 180insular Scandinavian

languages 217–8intelligibility 106–7, 110, 195,

217, 250–61mutual intelligibility 106–7,

195, 250, 255–6inter-Scandinavian communica-

tion 52, 222interactional meaning 207interactive planning 81–3, 87intercommunity communica-

tion 163–6, 173intercomprehension 27, 110

163–5, 232, 286–7, 292, 303, 316–7

interdialect 34–5interdialectal differences 218

interlanguage 34–5, 311–2interlingual strategies 316

interscandinavian communica-tion 11, 15

interscandinavian semi-communication 103

Jjargon 34

Kkoinéisation 35koinés 34

Llanguage

language areas 138–9language awareness 313–5language choice 12, 77,146–9,

167–73, 273, 309language policy 4–12,50–6,

61–6, 80–1,140, 154–5, 165, 218

language tests 236, 240, 260see also Abstand languages;

Ausbau languages; closely related languages; bridge language; default language; diffused language; focused language; local language; minority language; national language; neighbouring languages; supranational languages

Latin 7, 26, 32–4, 38–9 60, 104, 144, 166, 185, 218, 293, 301

learner varieties 195, 204–9learning processes 308let it pass-strategy 118, 219Levenshtein distance 255–9,

291, 298–9lingua franca 6–14, 26–33, 51–

2, 67, 76, 127, 142–3, 154–5, 164, 183, 223

lingua franca communica-tion 14, 127

see also English as lingua franca (ELF)

linguistic accommodation 7, 119

linguistic distances 250–1, 255, 258

linguistic diversity 49–50, 126, 172

linguistic minorities 159listening tasks 316local language 59, 139–43, 161,

163Low German 32–41, 105, 295

Mmainland Scandinavia 34–6

mainland Scandinavian languages 29, 34–5, 217–19, 227

main language 139, 143–4, 191majority 141, 154, 203, 294medial 160medial diglossia 141–2medieval London 38

mental lexicon 16, 270–3, 279merchants 37, 41, 42Middle Ages 28–37, 40, 42minority 49, 141

minority language 11, 28, 106, 41

see also linguistic minoritiesmiscommunication 13, 95, 203

see also trouble sourcesmisleading cognates 296, 300models of interlingual

communication 138monolingual 4, 12, 33, 57–9,

108–9, 111–19, 141–5, 160–9, 173

morphemes 38, 42, 269–72, 279, 298–300

multilingualism 1–7, 29–33, 36–7, 52–8, 63–7, 137–42, 164, 173, 179–81, 308–109

multilingual communica-tion 1–4, 49–53, 61–6, 74–80, 106, 118–9, 126–7, 148, 173, 180–1, 191

multilingual competence 52, 67, 165, 173

multilingual discourses 104, 108–9

receptive multilingualism 25–34, 37–43, 52–3, 61, 73–81, 104–6, 111–14, 125, 174, 181, 249, 308, 319

unspecified multilingualism 52, 58, 67

see also bilingualismmutual intelligibility 106–7,

195, 250, 255–6mutual language

understanding 220–3mutual understanding 3–7, 36,

88, 91, 103–7, 110–12, 120, 217, 220–3, 307

Nnation-states 50national cohesion 137nationalism 27–9, 56, 67national language 27–9, 33, 50,

137–41, 160–3, 166, 180neighbouring languages 26, 28,

162, 232–8, 242–4non-cognates 255–61, 286Northern Europe 29, 33, 36Norwegian 26, 34, 41, 105, 111–

2, 119–22, 186–90, 217–22, 231–9, 242–4, 260, 261

Oofficial language 2, 51, 61–2,

138–41, 144, 154, 250opaque 26, 179, 187

328 Receptive Multilingualism

Pparticipant framework 207passive competence 4, 105phonological recoding 269, 273pluri-lingual discourse 308

plurilingual interactions 171plurilingual techniques 171

polyadic conversations 171polyglot dialogue 52, 66, 109,

308, 319possessive pronoun 41pragmatic knowledge 191prior knowledge 276–7process types 13, 199prosodic patterns 190psychotypology 78

Rreading process 265–70receptive multilingualism 25–

34, 37–43, 52–3, 61, 73–81, 104–6, 111–14, 125, 174, 181, 249, 308, 319

see also polyglot dialogue; semi-communication; pluri-lingual discourse

receptive skills 109, 315–6reporting 81–3, 87

SScandinavian languages 7–9,

34–7, 40–2, 217–19, 231–7,

240, 243, 260, 279Scandinavian linguistic

fellowship 231, 233, 245Schengen 232semantic processing 265, 276–8semi-communication 1,10, 26,

76, 105–9, 111, 219–20, 227see also receptive multilingual-

ism; polyglot dialoguesensitization 316similarity 105, 257, 271–2, 291–

8sound correspondences 266,

279, 286–92speech action 81–4, 180,speech community 103– 4, 112,

126spontaneous grammar 311–2stance 196–200, 207–10standardisation 27, 32, 33strategy 13, 31, 118, 219, 268–

71, 311- 2, 315–18let it pass-strategy 118, 219

subjectivity 195–200, 209–10supranational languages 33SVO-patterns 42Swedish 34–6, 111–16, 119–27,

217–27, 231–44, 307–8Swiss model 142, 153, 161–9Swiss multilingualism 141Switzerland 78, 105- 6, 137–43,

159–63, 218syntactic 198–9, 266–70, 273–6,

317–8

Tteam discussions 81–3territoriality principle 140–2,

160trading contacts 37transfer 5, 104, 107–8, 270, 275–

6, 280, 310–12, 317translation equivalent 270–2,

299translinguistic wording 165trouble sources 11, 112, 117–20typological distance 75, 279–80

typological proximity 75, 267

Uunilateral convergeolect 36unspecified multilingualism 52,

58, 67

VV1 patterns 8, 42varieties 27–9, 106, 173, 210,

250, 291learner varieties 195, 204–9

Wword order 34, 38–9, 42, 255,

274–6, 279, 280word recognition 266–73, 287,

302

In the series Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication:

6 Thije, jan D. ten and Ludger ZeevaerT (eds.):ReceptiveMultilingualism.Linguisticanalyses,languagepoliciesanddidacticconcepts.2007.x,328pp.

5 rehbein, jochen, Christiane hohensTein and Lukas PieTsCh (eds.):ConnectivityinGrammarandDiscourse.x,447pp.+index.Expected May 2007

4 LLeó, Conxita (ed.):InterfacesinMultilingualism.Acquisitionandrepresentation.2006.xiv,284pp.3 house, juliane and jochen rehbein (eds.):MultilingualCommunication.2004.viii,359pp.2 braunmüLLer, Kurt and Gisella Ferraresi (eds.):AspectsofMultilingualisminEuropean

LanguageHistory.2003.viii,291pp.1 müLLer, natascha (ed.):(In)vulnerableDomainsinMultilingualism.2003.xiv,374pp.