Content uploaded by Gerda Blees
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gerda Blees on Oct 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Receptive Multilingualism and Awareness
Gerda J. Blees and Jan D. ten Thije
Contents
Introduction: Early Developments and the Concept of Receptive Multilingualism ............ 2
Major Contributions .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 4
Receptive Multilingualism in Different Contexts .. . ......................................... 4
Factors of Successful Application .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Work in Progress .................................................................................. 8
Comparison with other Multilingual Modes ................................................. 8
Dealing with Asymmetry in Understanding: Hearer and Speaker .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Problems and Difficulties ......................................................................... 9
Investigating the Cognition of Receptive Multilingualism . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Investigating the Relation Between Receptive Multilingualism and Language
Acquisition .................................. ............................................... ... 10
Future Directions .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Cross-References .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Related Articles in the Encyclopedia of Language and Education .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 11
Abstract
Receptive multilingualism is a mode of interaction in which speakers with
different linguistic backgrounds use their respective preferred languages while
understanding the language of their interlocutor. The mechanisms and compe-
tences contributing to mutual understanding in this constellation are described by
G.J. Blees (*)
School of Liberal Arts & Utrecht Institute of Linguistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The
Netherlands
e-mail: g.j.blees@uu.nl
J.D. ten Thije (*)
Department of Languages, Literature and Communication & Utrecht Institute of Linguistics
(UiL-OTS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
e-mail: j.d.tenthije@uu.nl
#Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
J. Cenoz et al. (eds.), Language Awareness and Multilingualism, Encyclopedia of
Language and Education, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-02325-0_25-1
1
the concept of lingua receptiva (LaRa). Both concepts can refer to interactions in
typologically close as well as distant languages (inherent or acquired LaRa) and
to interactions where speakers use any language sufficiently understood by their
interlocutor. This chapter argues that successful use of lingua receptiva (LaRa) in
multilingual contexts both requires and contributes to language awareness. For
individual LaRa users, the awareness needed consists of knowledge of the option
to use this mode, basic receptive knowledge of the interlocutor’s language,
conscious activation of receptive competencies, and sensitivity to the interlocu-
tor’s level of comprehension and problems of reception during interaction. Using
LaRa will conversely contribute to the language awareness of individuals, as
LaRa forces speakers to consciously and often explicitly apply the required
linguistic and interactive skills in practice. To promote successful use of the
receptive multilingual mode in society, institutions need to develop explicit
language and education policies incorporating LaRa as an independent language
mode next to other multilingual modes of communication.
Keywords
Receptive multilingualism •Lingua receptiva •Semi-communication •Intercom-
prehension •Multilingual communication mode
Introduction: Early Developments and the Concept of Receptive
Multilingualism
Receptive multilingualism is a language mode where speakers employ receptive
knowledge of each other’s languages during interaction, using their respective
preferred languages within the same conversation (ten Thije and Zeevaert 2007).
Before further defining this concept in relation to other concepts and the idea of
language awareness, we go back to the origins of the research field: the study of
mutual understanding between speakers of different languages. The first publications
on this topic date back to the 1950s, when Voegelin and Harris (1951) introduced a
new method for investigating this phenomenon: instead of studying linguistic
anthropological data or asking informants about their comprehension, they proposed
to “test the informants”by exposing them to actual spoken discourse, recorded with
the newly introduced magnetic recorder. This method was then criticized by linguis-
tic anthropologist Hans Wolff (1959), who legitimately argued that successful
interlingual communication also depends on factors such as intercultural attitude,
political and cultural dominance, and the degree of bilingualism in an area. The
question of mutual comprehension was further explored by Einar Haugen (1966)
who surveyed Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish speakers for their comprehension of
each other’s languages and coined the term semi-communication to denote the
“incompleteness”of understanding reported by respondents. He proposed to sys-
tematically investigate lexical and structural differences between the languages and
relate these differences to language users’scores on comprehension tests to
2 G.J. Blees and J.D. ten Thije
disentangle linguistic and sociopolitical factors affecting comprehension, a line of
research recently taken up by the Mutual Intelligibility of Closely Related Lan-
guages (MICReLa) project for the Germanic, Slavic, and Romance language groups
(see, e.g., Gooskens and Van Bezooijen (2013)).
Today, the term receptive multilingualism is used for situations where interlocu-
tors use their mutual understanding of each other’s languages in actual interaction.
Analogous to the concept of lingua franca, a commonly known language used for
communication between speakers of different native languages, Rehbein, ten Thije,
and Verschik (2012) introduced the term “lingua receptiva”(abbreviated LaRa) to
refer to all “linguistic,mental,interactional as well as intercultural competencies
which are creatively activated”when speakers try to understand each other in
receptive multilingual communication (Rehbein et al. 2012, p. 249). Receptive
multilingualism has also been named intercomprehension, but the latter term is
strongly linked to the context of language education and focuses on reading as
well as listening comprehension. In addition, intercomprehension generally denotes
comprehension between speakers of languages which are typologically close (Conti
and Grin 2008), so-called inherent lingua receptiva (Verschik 2012). In contrast,
receptive multilingualism and LaRa can also denote “acquired lingua receptiva,”i.e.,
interaction between speakers of non-related languages who have acquired knowl-
edge of the other language through instruction or exposure, as can be observed in
communication between and within ethnic and linguistic minority and majority
groups (Herkenrath 2012; Bahtina-Jantsikene 2013). Furthermore, receptive multi-
lingualism does not necessarily involve interlocutors’native languages: it also
comprises interactions where participants use a second language that can be recep-
tively understood by their interlocutor (Rehbein et al. 2012). In this contribution we
use the term receptive multilingualism for the use of different preferred languages by
speakers with different linguistic backgrounds in one conversation, while we use
LaRa to refer to the mechanisms and competences contributing to mutual under-
standing in this constellation. LaRa can be seen as an element of the broader concept
of plurilingualism, the ensemble of linguistic, social, and intercultural competences
enabling an individual to successfully communicate in different language constella-
tions (Canagarajah 2009), in the sense that receptive multilingualism extends a
speaker’s plurilingual repertoire.
In the rest of this chapter, we give a state-of-the-art of receptive multilingualism
research, focusing on the crucial interaction between LaRa and language awareness,
“explicit knowledge about language, and conscious perception and sensitivity in
language learning, language teaching and language use”(Association of Language
Awareness 2007, cited by Svalberg 2007, p. 288). On the level of the individual
language user, receptive multilingualism requires language awareness: knowledge of
the option to use this mode, basic receptive knowledge of the interlocutor’s lan-
guage, conscious activation of receptive competencies, and sensitivity to the inter-
locutor’s level of comprehension and problems of reception during interaction.
Conversely, gaining experience with LaRa will contribute to language awareness,
as speakers are forced to apply the required linguistic and interactive skills in
Receptive Multilingualism and Awareness 3
practice. On the institutional and societal level, explicit language and education
policies are key to promoting awareness and successful application of receptive
multilingualism in society.
Major Contributions
Receptive Multilingualism in Different Contexts
Sociolinguistic studies show the importance of individual and institutional aware-
ness for receptive multilingualism in various contexts. In informal contexts, recep-
tive multilingualism emanates from individual language users’awareness of the
communicative resources available; in formal contexts, institutional awareness
through explicit negotiation and official agreement, and deliberate linguistic choices
made by individuals in actual interactions, determine whether and how LaRa is used
in practice.
In a longitudinal study of Turkish immigrant children in Germany, Herkenrath
(2012) shows how a child who grew up with her parents’native language but
acquired more proficiency in German once she reached school age deliberately
chose the LaRa mode when confronted with a German-Turkish bilingual interviewer
in a family context. Apparently she judged speaking German to her Turkish-
speaking interlocutor to be the most conducive to her communicative purposes.
This case illustrates how in an informal context, bilingual children’s choice of
receptive multilingualism is informed by awareness of their own and their interloc-
utor’s abilities in speaking and understanding different languages.
In workplace interaction, on the other hand, occurrence of receptive multilingual-
ism depends on an interplay between spontaneous choices of individual language
users and organizational conditions and policies. In the case of a German-Dutch one-
on-one team cooperation at the Goethe Institute in Amsterdam described by Ribbert
and ten Thije (2007), participants made an explicit agreement to use LaRa,
contending that it was easiest to both express themselves in their native language.
Organizational conditions –a history of equal cooperation between German and
Dutch colleagues, strongly developed language competencies of employees –con-
tributed to the establishment of this agreement. Beerkens (2010), who recorded
German-Dutch receptive multilingual meetings at civil society and government
organizations in the Dutch-German border area, shows an even stronger effect of
organizational policies. In the majority of her case studies, an explicit top-down
agreement had been made to employ the receptive multilingual mode. Even so, in
actual interaction, language users may deviate from established policies. In an
ethnolinguistic analysis of workplace communication between German- and
French-speaking colleagues in Switzerland, Lüdi (2007) observes that “pure”recep-
tive multilingualism, where each participant speaks his or her preferred language
throughout the conversation, is rare: more often, participants switch between lan-
guages and language modes, adapting to the situation and their interlocutors, even
when receptive multilingualism is the official policy.
4 G.J. Blees and J.D. ten Thije
For multilingual sales and service encounters, where interactions are shorter and
participants do not share a discursive history, individual language awareness is even
more important. No prior interpersonal or institutional agreement on the language
mode exists, and the language choice is negotiated on the spot. In her analysis of
Finnish-Estonian sales interactions in Tallinn, Verschik (2012) shows that this results
in “accommodated”LaRa dialogue in which participants rely on strategies such as
code-switching and adapted pronunciation. If such interactions are repeated over
time, a longer-standing tacit agreement to use LaRa can develop, as is demonstrated
by Greer in a study of a series of encounters between a Japanese hairdresser and his
Bolivian client, who tacitly negotiate a receptive bilingual Japanese –lingua franca
English interaction mode (Greer 2013). In these interactions, receptive multilingual-
ism develops from the bottom up and participants code-switch if necessary, showing
high discursive and linguistic sensitivity.
One of the institutions that could benefit from and contribute to the use of
receptive multilingualism is education. In higher education, where internationaliza-
tion is becoming more important, receptive multilingualism could be used as an
alternative to English as a lingua franca, allowing students to express themselves in
their preferred languages, without the lecturer having to provide all materials and
lectures in these languages (Blees et al. 2014). In language teaching, didactic
approaches based on intercomprehension stimulate language learners to recognize
similarities between a new language and languages they already know (Meissner
2008). In this vein, the EuroCom research project has developed a didactics for
learning languages within the Romance, Slavic, and Germanic language families,
resulting, for example, in a guide to learning how to read all Romance languages
(McCann et al. 2002).
Still, examples of deliberate application of receptive multilingualism in classroom
interaction are rare. In a sociolinguistic study of British community language
schools, Creese and Blackledge (2010) show that teachers and students use the
“translanguaging”strategy, mixing English and the language of instruction (e.g.,
Cantonese or Bengali), to achieve their educational and communicative purposes.
This sometimes results in receptive multilingualism, where the teacher typically
speaks the community language, while the student speaks English. The authors
argue that this type of interaction is a promising and more “ecological”alternative
to monolingual instruction (Creese and Blackledge 2010). However, it is not clear
yet how translanguaging, and receptive multilingual interaction in particular, affects
the development of productive skills in the language taught, a question to which we
will return in section “Investigating the Relation Between Receptive Multilingualism
and Language Acquisition.”
Factors of Successful Application
Successful application of the receptive multilingual mode is dependent on (1) socio-
cultural and institutional awareness of and commitment to receptive multilingualism,
(2) speaker’s communicative and linguistic abilities and attitudes, and (3) awareness
Receptive Multilingualism and Awareness 5
of typological differences and similarities between the languages used. On a societal
level, Braunmüller (2013) identifies three developments that have changed interna-
tional communication in Europe since the Middle Ages, when receptive multilin-
gualism was an important language mode. First, writing has become an important
medium, and written norms the standard for judging the appropriateness of some-
one’s language use. Second, nationalism has led to the development of standardized
national languages, leaving less room for dialects, deviations, and plurilingual
practices. Finally, Braunmüller notes that it has become a norm to accommodate
by speaking the interlocutor’s language or a lingua franca. Using one’s native
language or an accommodated version of it can be face-threatening, as a language
user may be seen as incompetent for not speaking the language preferred by the
interlocutor. As a result, today, using LaRa needs to be explicitly negotiated
(Braunmüller 2013).
Apart from these societal developments, institutional factors affect the use of
receptive multilingualism. According to Ribbert and ten Thije (2007, p. 77), it occurs
more often in settings where people from different linguistic communities frequently
cooperate for longer periods of time. Additionally, if participants from both com-
munities are equal in number and hierarchical status, it is more likely that this
“symmetric”language mode is chosen. If a formal language policy exists, this is a
determining factor as well, although Lüdi points out that participants may deliber-
ately deviate from this policy (Lüdi 2007).
When interactants decide to use the receptive multilingual mode, communicative
success depends on interlocutors’ability to consciously activate discursive and
(typological) linguistic knowledge during interaction. The essential difference
between LaRa and other types of communication is that participants switch between
languages when switching from the hearer to the speaker role and back. As speakers,
they need to monitor their conversation partner’s understanding and adapt their
utterances accordingly (Beerkens 2010); as hearers, they draw on linguistic, discur-
sive, and world knowledge to understand their interlocutor (Rehbein et al. 2012).
This requires activation of two linguistic repertoires throughout the conversation.
Different interactive mechanisms contributing to awareness and resolution of
misunderstanding have been identified in receptive multilingualism research.
Beerkens’(2010) analysis of problems of reception in German-Dutch LaRa dis-
course focuses on repair as a means for achieving understanding. The repair pattern
consists of four steps, from explicitly identifying to solving a reception problem
(Beerkens 2010, p. 283). Similar mechanisms have been observed in a study of
Kazakh-Turkish receptive multilingualism by Massakowa (2014), who concludes
that speakers are often unaware of their linguistic and discursive resources at the
beginning of the interaction but explicitly activate their multilingual potential during
the conversation. According to her, receptive multilingualism is more likely to have
this effect of explicit knowledge activation, as the alternation between languages
makes it more difficult to presuppose a shared knowledge base.
The observation that receptive multilingual dialogue calls for more explicit
negotiation of shared knowledge has led Bahtina-Jantsikene (2013) to introduce
the concept of meta-communicative devices (MCDs), strategies for ensuring
6 G.J. Blees and J.D. ten Thije
understanding on three levels: (1) the action constellation and conversational aims,
(2) conceptual orientation in space and time, and (3) linguistic expressions. In
addition, the author identifies a fourth mechanism aimed at checking overall under-
standing without explicitly targeting one of the three knowledge domains. In her
analysis of task-oriented Russian-Estonian Skype interactions, she observes that
these devices are applied differently depending on participants’proficiency: explicit
negotiation of linguistic expressions (MCD3) is used more often in dyads where
speakers have a lower proficiency in the other’s language (Bahtina-Jantsikene 2013).
When speakers communicate with each other in LaRa on a regular basis, key-
words can be used to activate cultural or institutional knowledge. These are words or
phrases with a “special, institution-specific meaning,”which are generally not
translated from one language to the other (Ribbert and ten Thije 2007, p. 88). Indeed,
institutional and cultural keywords contribute to mutual understanding in German-
Dutch interactions in governmental and civil society organizations, respectively
(Beerkens 2010).
Whether and how shared knowledge is activated in receptive multilingual inter-
action is partly determined by characteristics of the interactants. Looking at the
process of reception in isolation, researchers of mutual intelligibility have tried to
explain why understanding between speakers of related languages is often asym-
metric. Language attitude, a factor already mentioned by Wolff (1959), and exposure
are two major factors hypothesized to account for this asymmetry. Studies investi-
gating the effect of personal characteristics on LaRa interaction have yielded slightly
contradictory results. In an experiment on German-Dutch LaRa and ELF communi-
cation, no correlation was found between self-reported attitude and exposure on the
one hand and participants’success in solving a maze puzzle using LaRa on the other
hand, whereas self-reported listening proficiency in the other speaker’s language was
shown to be a predictor of success (Blees et al. 2014). In Bahtina-Jantsikene’s(2013)
study on Estonian-Russian communication, however, couples with mixed profi-
ciencies performed better than couples whose speakers were both highly proficient.
A possible explanation is that proficient speakers, because of their shared linguistic
knowledge, were less attentive to other types of knowledge gaps between them. In
contrast with Blees et al. (2014), Bahtina-Jantsikene (2013, p. 86) did find a positive
correlation between attitudes toward the other language and the speed of interactive
problem solving.
Evidently, linguistic properties of the languages involved also affect the interac-
tion. Even though cases of acquired lingua receptiva show that typological similarity
is not a prerequisite for LaRa interaction (Bahtina-Jantsikene 2013), the distance
between two languages in terms of pronunciation, lexicon, and syntax is believed to
be a predictor of success (Rehbein et al. 2012). The asymmetry in understanding
between speakers of related languages such as Spanish and Portuguese (Jensen
1989), Swedish and Danish (Gooskens and Van Bezooijen 2013), and Polish,
Ukrainian, and Russian (Rehbein and Romaniuk 2014) could at least partially be
attributed to typological properties of the languages. Gooskens and Van Bezooijen
(2013), for example, showed that for Danish and Swedish school pupils listening to
cognates in each other’s languages, comprehension was asymmetric because of
Receptive Multilingualism and Awareness 7
specific Danish sounds difficult for Swedes, competition from non-related lexical
neighbors in translating Danish cognates to Swedish, and lack of correspondences
between Swedish orthography and Danish sounds.
Clearly, the factors outlined above interact at different levels and address different
aspects of awareness. For example, depending on speakers’linguistic proficiencies,
different interactive hearer and speaker strategies are needed (Bahtina-Jantsikene
2013). In addition, similarities between languages contribute more to mutual under-
standing if speakers are more sensitive to these similarities, a sensitivity known to be
related to the number of languages a speaker has mastered (Beerkens 2010). Finally,
the willingness to make an effort to apply LaRa skills will depend on sociocultural
and institutional awareness and acceptance of receptive multilingualism.
Work in Progress
Comparison with other Multilingual Modes
As societal awareness of receptive multilingualism is growing, it is relevant to know
how well this mode works in comparison to other multilingual modes, such as
foreign language use, code-switching and code-mixing, English as a lingua franca
(ELF), and immigrant talk, where members of bilingual immigrant communities mix
their languages in a manner that has been conventionalized to a certain extent
(Rehbein et al. 2012; Backus et al. 2013). As mentioned in section “Receptive
Multilingualism in Different Contexts,”in practice, receptive multilingualism
often coincides with code-switching and code-mixing (Lüdi 2007; Verschik 2012).
However, the continuous switching and mixing typical for bilingual communities
require strong productive and receptive skills in both languages, making them
unsuitable for transnational communication. ELF, on the other hand, is a likely
alternative, having already become the default for transnational communication in
many contexts, including higher education, tourism, and international politics.
Comparing ELF and LaRa, Hülmbauer (2014) argues that these modes are similar
in the sense that speakers with different lingua-cultural backgrounds collaborate to
reach the best possible communication, creatively drawing on their respective
plurilingual repertoires. In ELF, speakers do this by consciously deviating from
native-speaker norms and using their respective linguistic backgrounds to co-create
the meanings intended. LaRa on the other hand is more native speaker-oriented,
requiring receptive language awareness from the hearer to infer the meanings
intended by the speaker. An empirical comparison between ELF and LaRa was
made by Blees et al. (2014), who asked German and Dutch students to solve a maze
task together using either ELF or LaRa. In ELF, participants were faster and more
successful, but this difference was accounted for by participants’high proficiency in
English. Further research with different participant groups should provide clarity
about the conditions for successful communication in receptive multilingualism
when compared to other modes.
8 G.J. Blees and J.D. ten Thije
Dealing with Asymmetry in Understanding: Hearer and Speaker
Knowing that success in receptive multilingualism is affected by interlocutors’
proficiency in each other’s language, LaRa users need to be aware of potential
differences in proficiency and strategies to resolve them. In section “Factors of
Successful Application,”we mentioned that understanding between members of
different linguistic communities is often asymmetrical (Gooskens and Van Bezooijen
2013; Jensen 1989; Rehbein and Romaniuk 2014). Whether this “average”asym-
metry between communities translates to actual asymmetry in LaRa interactions
obviously depends on the particular speakers involved. When asymmetry does
occur, this is more difficult to detect than in lingua franca or native-nonnative
dialogue, where proficient speakers adapt to their less proficient interlocutors by
simplifying their speech and mirroring the grammatical structure of the other
speaker’s utterances (Costa et al. 2008). In LaRa dialogue, speakers do not receive
feedback in the language they are speaking; therefore, it is more difficult for them to
adapt their utterances to the interlocutor’s proficiency level. For this reason, hearers
with a lower receptive proficiency need to signal problems of reception more
actively (Beerkens 2010), while speakers need to be more attentive to reception
problems and be more creative in solving them. In interactions involving less
proficient speakers, Bahtina-Jantsikene’s(2013) meta-communicative device
3, aimed at explicitly creating a shared linguistic knowledge base, is an important
interactive resource to overcome the problem of asymmetry.
Problems and Difficulties
Investigating the Cognition of Receptive Multilingualism
As stressed before, LaRa, more than monolingual interaction, requires speakers and
listeners to be more linguistically aware because of differences between their
languages and asymmetries in understanding. This leads to two questions on the
cognition of receptive multilingualism. First, psycholinguistic models of language
processing assume that during dialogue, production and reception affect each other
through interactive alignment, a process in which speakers interactively adapt their
linguistic and conceptual representations to reach a shared understanding of the
situation (Costa et al. 2008; Pickering and Garrod 2004). Repeating linguistic
structures from each other’s utterances is believed to help the process of automatic
alignment, but the core feature of receptive multilingualism is that speakers use
different languages and therefore cannot literally repeat each other. Because of this,
explicit alignment through meta-communication is needed (Bahtina-Jantsikene
2013). It is however still a question how the difference between productive and
receptive language affects the alignment of interactants’mental representations
during dialogue. Second, in relation to differences in understanding, the question
is how speakers process and respond to cues of understanding and misunderstanding
in the language of their interlocutor. To investigate these questions, an experimental
Receptive Multilingualism and Awareness 9
approach simulating naturalistic receptive multilingual dialogue is needed. As
language-processing experiments require high control of input, timing, and context,
this is a methodological challenge, which could be resolved by combining dialogue
tasks with controlled production and reception tasks and online measurements using,
for example, eye-tracking, event-related potentials (ERP), or fMRI.
Investigating the Relation Between Receptive Multilingualism
and Language Acquisition
As Massakowa (2014) has demonstrated, using LaRa requires speakers to con-
sciously activate their plurilingual repertoire. This may well result in the develop-
ment of more explicit second language knowledge, thereby contributing to the
development of productive skills as well. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to
explore the benefits of receptive multilingualism within the framework of plural
approaches of language instruction (Conti and Grin 2008; Backus et al. 2013) and
develop didactic concepts incorporating LaRa interaction. Most traditional bilingual
education theories, however, assume that separating languages during acquisition is
necessary to prevent contamination between the first language and the language to be
learned, which is why monolingual interaction is preferred (Creese and Blackledge
2010, p. 104). Still, “translanguaging,”using multiple languages in the classroom, is
gaining ground both in community language education and language education
research (Creese and Blackledge 2010), clearing the way for different types of
plurilingual classroom interaction, including receptive multilingualism. However,
it is unclear how receptive multilingualism affects the development of productive
skills in the second language. Evidence might be derived from longitudinal studies
following children raised in a receptive bilingual mode. In the Turkish immigrant
families described by Herkenrath (2012), children only start using German-Turkish
LaRa once their productive proficiency in German grows, but cases of “purely”
receptive bilingual children might be found in families where one of the parents uses
an immigrant or minority language, while the other family members use the majority
language of the place of residence.
Future Directions
Even though the European Union promotes plurilingualism and has explicitly
mentioned receptive multilingualism as a means for transnational communication
in Europe (High Level Group on Multilingualism 2007), European awareness of this
language mode outside Scandinavia is low. As mentioned in section “Factors of
Successful Application,”the focus on standardization and correctness in European
societies is not conducive to receptive multilingualism. However, the growing body
of receptive multilingualism and plurilingualism research (e.g., ten Thije and
Zeevaert 2007; Berthoud et al. 2013; Backus et al. 2013) will hopefully yield
10 G.J. Blees and J.D. ten Thije
stronger arguments on why and when to apply this plurilingual mode and how to
promote it.
One of the ways to promote receptive multilingualism and help speakers extend
their plurilingual repertoire is to explicitly teach LaRa in language education. To this
end, courses aimed solely at teaching LaRa interaction could be developed. These
courses could focus on differences and similarities between specific language com-
binations (e.g., a listening variant of the “seven sieves”for reading comprehension of
Romance languages (McCann et al. 2002)). In addition, they should teach how to
apply interactive devices for successful interaction, such as explicit negotiation
about the language mode, repair patterns (Beerkens 2010), meta-communicative
devices (Bahtina-Jantsikene 2013), and keywords (Beerkens 2010; Ribbert and ten
Thije 2007).
A second way to promote receptive multilingualism is to widen the scope of
receptive multilingualism research by looking beyond European contexts and lan-
guage combinations. The tendency toward standardization and written norms is less
pervasive in other parts of the world, leaving more room for plurilingual practices
like receptive multilingualism. India, with its diverse and dynamic linguistic land-
scape, is a case in point. Indian speakers of so-called plurilingual English
(Canagarajah 2009, p. 7) are highly aware of their linguistic resources and those of
their interlocutors, continuously adapting their language use as the communicative
context changes and adhering to “monolingual”language norms only when they
deem it necessary. Canagarajah (2009) gives examples of studies describing similar
constellations in Brazil, the Polynesian Islands, and South Africa. Investigating
receptive multilingualism in these contexts could greatly advance our knowledge
of interactive strategies and prerequisites for mutual understanding between speakers
with different linguistic backgrounds and change receptive multilingualism research
into a truly international research program.
Cross-References
▶Language Awareness in Multilinguals: Theoretical Trends
▶Language Contact, Language Awareness and Multilingualism
Related Articles in the Encyclopedia of Language and Education
Beatriz Lado: Methods in Multilingualism Research. In volume: Research Methods
in Language and Education
References
Backus, A., Gorter, D., Knapp, K., et al. (2013). Inclusive multilingualism: Concept, modes and
implications. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 179–215.
Receptive Multilingualism and Awareness 11
Bahtina-Jantsikene, D. (2013). Mind your languages: Lingua receptiva in Estonian-Russian com-
munication. Utrecht: Landelijke Onderzoekschool Taalwetenschap.
Beerkens, R. (2010). Receptive multilingualism as a language mode in the Dutch-German border
area. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
Berthoud, A., Grin, F., & Lüdi, G. (2013). Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism: The DYLAN
project. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Blees, G. J., Mak, W. M., & ten Thije, J. D. (2014). English as a lingua franca versus lingua
receptiva in problem-solving conversations between Dutch and German students. Applied
Linguistics Review, 5(1), 173–193.
Braunmüller, K. (2013). Communication based on receptive multilingualism: Advantages and
disadvantages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 10(2), 214–223.
Canagarajah, S. (2009). The plurilingual tradition and the English language in South Asia. AILA
Review, 22(1), 5–22.
Conti, V., & Grin, F. (Eds.). (2008). S’entendre entre langues voisines: Vers l’intercompréhension.
Chêne-Bourg: Georg.
Costa, A., Pickering, M. J., & Sorace, A. (2008). Alignment in second language dialogue.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 528–556.
Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for
learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 103–115.
Gooskens, C., & Van Bezooijen, R. (2013). Explaining Danish-Swedish asymmetric word intelli-
gibility –An error analysis. In C. Gooskens & R. Van Bezooijen (Eds.), Phonetics in Europe:
Perception and production (pp. 59–82). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Greer, T. (2013). Establishing a pattern of dual receptive language alternation: Insights from a series
of successive haircuts. Australian Journal of Communication, 40(2). http://austjourcomm.org/
index.php/ajc/article/view/1. Accessed 28 Dec 2014.
Haugen, E. (1966). Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry,
36(2), 280–297.
Herkenrath, A. (2012). Receptive multilingualism in an immigrant constellation: Examples from
Turkish–German children’s language. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(3), 287–314.
High Level Group on Multilingualism. (2007). Final report. Luxembourg: Office for official
publications of the European Communities. http://www.lt-innovate.eu/system/files/documents/
1340-ECHigh Level Group on Multilingualism Final Report (2007).pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2015.
Hülmbauer, C. (2014). A matter of reception: ELF and LaRa compared. Applied Linguistics Review,
5(1), 273–295.
Jensen, J. B. (1989). On the mutual intelligibility of Spanish and Portuguese. Hispania, 72(4),
848–852.
Lüdi, G. (2007). The Swiss model of plurilingual communication. In J. D. Ten Thije & L. Zeevaert
(Eds.), Receptive multilingualism: Linguistic analyses, language policies, and didactic concepts
(pp. 159–178). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Massakowa, G. (2014). Rezeptive Mehrsprachigkeit in der intertürkischen Kommunikation.
Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
McCann, W. J., Klein, H. G., & Stegmann, T. D. (2002). EuroComRom –The seven sieves: How to
read all the Romance languages right away. Aachen: EuroCom.
Meissner, F. (2008). La didactique de l’intercompréhension à la lumière des sciences de
l’apprentissage. In V. Conti & F. Grin (Eds.), S'entendre entre langues voisines: Vers l’intercom-
préhension (pp. 229–250). Chêne-Bourg: Georg.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 27(02), 169–190.
Rehbein, J., & Romaniuk, O. (2014). How to check understanding across languages. an introduc-
tion into the pragmatic index of language distance (PILaD) usable to measure mutual under-
standing in receptive multilingualism, illustrated by conversations in Russian, Ukrainian and
Polish. Applied Linguistics Review, 5(1), 131–171.
12 G.J. Blees and J.D. ten Thije
Rehbein, J., ten Thije, J. D., & Verschik, A. (2012). Lingua receptiva (LaRa)–remarks on the
quintessence of receptive multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(3),
248–264.
Ribbert, A., & ten Thije, J. D. (2007). Receptive multilingualism in Dutch –German intercultural
team cooperation. In J. D. Ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism
(pp. 73–103). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Svalberg, A. M. (2007). Language awareness and language learning. Language Teaching, 40(4),
287–308.
Ten Thije, J. D., & Zeevaert, L. (Eds.). (2007). Receptive multilingualism: Linguistic analyses,
language policies and didactic concepts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Verschik, A. (2012). Practising receptive multilingualism: Estonian–Finnish communication in
Tallinn. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16(3), 265–286.
Voegelin, C. F., & Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of
natural languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 95(3), 322–329.
Wolff, H. (1959). Intelligibility and inter-ethnic attitudes. Anthropological Linguistics, 1(3), 34–41.
Receptive Multilingualism and Awareness 13