This article introduces and defines the concept of mediated receptive multilingualism as a mode of multilingual communication which eases understanding between typologically distant languages through the medium of a language closely related to the target. In an experimental setting, Estonians without previous exposure to Ukrainian were quite successful in understanding Ukrainian texts via their knowledge of Russian. As expected, they made use of various language-specific elements to improve intelligibility, such as linguistic similarities between Russian and Ukrainian. However, a number of extra-linguistic factors were detected as influential predictors of success, especially metalinguistic awareness, exposure to Russian, exposure to various registers, experience with multilingual situations, learnability, and attitudes towards Ukrainian. These findings contest a static take on multilingual potential and point out the emergent nature of competencies and practices that become relevant in multilingual settings. Unconventional communicative modes – like mediated receptive multilingualism – may activate linguistic and sociolinguistic resources needed for establishing understanding in novel and potentially challenging communicative settings.
Receptive multilingualism refers to language constellations in which interlocutors use their own language while speaking to each other. This mode was widely applied in the Middle Ages, but linguistic constellations were transformed into monolingualism determined by nation‐state formation from the 17th to the 19th century. Mainly due to areas and countries where receptive multilingualism still flourishes, researchers have demonstrated increasing interest in the processes behind this type of multilingual communication. This entry first discusses the theoretical concept of this phenomenon and then describes historical developments, linguistic and mental characteristics, as well as current applications.
This study investigated how speakers of Estonian as L1 with varying degree of proficiency in English judge grammaticality of bilingual constructions English adjective + Estonian noun from the point of view of adjective agreement. Estonian is rich in inflectional morphology, and adjectives agree with nouns in case and number. The empirical evidence from English-Estonian bilingual speech shows that agreement is not always the case even when an English adjective fits into Estonian declension system. It is hypothesized that the higher proficiency in/exposure to English is, the higher is the acceptability of bilingual adjective phrases, and (non-)agreement does not play a role. To test this, an experiment was designed where the test corpus of 108 sentences consisted of real and constructed examples, both in agreement and non-agreement condition. Real sentences came from fashion and beauty blogs and vlogs. The test was administered online and the participants were asked to rate adjective acceptability. The hypothesis was confirmed: increased proficiency in English, together with younger age, had a positive correlation with acceptability of all adjective types, independent of adjective (non-)agreement. Residence and birthplace had a small effect on acceptability of some adjective types. Whether sentences were real or constructed, had only a minor effect. Male participants tended to assess real sentences lower, probably because of the topics typical for female blogs. Monosyllabic consonant-ending adjectives were exceptional, as their assessment did not depend on any factor. All in all, the study demonstrated that grammaticality judgment among the native speakers of the same L1 differs because of different degrees of bilingualism, and structural factors, such as compatibility with Estonian declension system, are not decisive. Thus, it is not clear what an ideal native speaker is.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.