Alignment in <i>lingua receptiva</i>: from automaticity towards monitored code-switching
Psycholinguistic alignment is a process in which interlocutors automatically adapt their lexical, structural and conceptual representations, enhancing both comprehension and production. Multilingual constellations also demonstrate alignment patterns, but rely on more monitoring than automatic alignment. This paper focuses on lingua receptiva – a multilingual communicative mode in which speakers use their own language and have enough proficiency to understand each other. Whenever L2 proficiency does not guarantee mutual understanding, compensatory strategies such as code-switching (CS) can be applied. In actual mono- and multilingual constellations, it is more common to use one language at a time, yet in this experiment the participants were invited to communicate in the mode of lingua receptiva. Nonetheless, CS occurred in the data and was analysed in the framework of language contact. Alternations and insertions were the main forms, and their distribution depended on L2 proficiency, attitudes and exposure. It is concluded that CS can function as an alignment strategy.
Metrics (links, shares etc)
Auer, P. (1995) “The pragmatics of code-switching: a sequential approach”. In L. Milroy and P. C. Muysken, eds. One speaker, two languages: cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, 115–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Auer, P. (1998) Code-switching in conversation: language, interaction and identity. London: Routledge.
Backus, A. and J. N. Jørgensen (2011) “Code-switching”. In J. N. Jørgensen, ed. A toolkit for transnational communication in Europe, 25–42. (Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism, 64.) Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.
Backus, A., L. Maracz, and J. D. ten Thije (2011) “A toolkit for multilingual communication in Europe: dealing with linguistic diversity”. In J. N. Jørgensen, ed. A toolkit for transnational communication in Europe, 5–24. (Copenhagen Studies in Bilingualism, 64.) Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.
Bahtina, D. (Forthcoming) “Combining cognitive and interactive approaches to lingua receptiva”. International Journal of Multilingualism.
Bahtina-Jantsikene, D. (prep.) “Mind your languages: lingua receptiva in Estonian-Russian communication”.
Beerkens, R. (2010) Receptive multilingualism as a language mode in the Dutch-German border area. Münster: Waxmann Verlag.
Bernolet, S., R. J. Hartsuiker, and M. J. Pickering (2007) “Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: evidence for the role of word-order repetition”. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 5, 931–949. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-73126.96.36.1991
Bock, J. (1986) “Syntactic persistence in language production”. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(86)90004-6
Braunmüller, K. (2007) “Receptive multilingualism in Northern Europe in the Middle Ages: a description of a scenario”. In J. ten Thije and L. Zeevaert, eds. Receptive multilingualism: linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts, 25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Garrod, S. and A. Anderson (1987) “Saying what you mean in dialogue: a study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination”. Cognition 27, 181–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(87)90018-7
Garrod, S. and Doherty, G. (1994) “Conversation, co-ordination and convention: an empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions”. Cognition 53, 181–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90048-5
Hansen, J. (2003) “The development of bilingual proficiency – a sequential analysis”. International Journal of Bilingualism 7, 379–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13670069030070040301
Haspelmath, M. (2011) “The European linguistic area: Standard Average European”. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, and W. Raible, eds. Language typology and language universals, 1492–1510. (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft.) Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ivanova, I., M. J. Pickering, and A. Costa (2012) “The comprehension of anomalous sentences: evidence from structural priming”. Cognition 122, 193–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.013
Metslang, H. (2009) “Estonian grammar between Finnic and SAE: some comparisons”. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 62, 49–71.
Mills, G. J. (2011) “The emergence of procedural conventions in dialogue”. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 471–476. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Muysken, P. C. (2000) Bilingual speech: a typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pickering, M. J. and S. Garrod (2004) “Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27, 169–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056
Rehbein, J., ten J. D. Thije, and A. Verschik (2012) “Remarks on the quintessence of receptive multilingualism”. International Journal of Bilingualism 16, 248–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006911426466
Sutrop, U. (2004) The Estonian language. Tallinn: Estonian Institute. Available online at <http://www.einst.ee/publications/language/language.html>. Accessed on 15.09.2012.
Verschik, A. (2004) “Aspects of Russian-Estonian code-switching: research perspectives”. International Journal of Bilingualism 8, 4, 427–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13670069040080040201
Verschik, A. (2005) “Russian-Estonian language contact, linguistic creativity, and convergence: new rules in the making”. Multilingua 24, 4, 413–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/mult.2005.24.4.413
Verschik, A. (2007) “Multiple language contact in Tallinn: transfer B2 > A1 or B1 > A2?” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 10, 1, 80–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.2167/beb372.0