Volume 10, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1879-9264
  • E-ISSN: 1879-9272
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article introduces and defines the concept of 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Backus, A., Marácz & ten Thije, J.
    (2011) A toolkit for multilingual communication in Europe: dealing with linguistic diversity. InJ. N. Jørgensen (Ed.), A toolkit for transnational communication in Europe (pp.5–24). (Copenhagen studies in bilingualism; No. 64). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Humanities.
  2. Baghaei, P.
    (2011) Optimal Number of Gaps in C-Test Passages. International Education Studies4(1), 166–171. 10.5539/ies.v4n1p166
    https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v4n1p166 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bahtina-Jantsikene, D.
    (2013) Mind Your Languages: Lingua receptiva in Estonian-Russian CommunicationUtrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bahtina-Jantsikene, D. & Backus, A.
    (2016) Limited common ground, unlimited communicative success: An experimental study into Lingua Receptiva using Estonian and RussianIn: Philologia Estonica Tallinnensis1, 17–36. 10.22601/PET.2016.01.03
    https://doi.org/10.22601/PET.2016.01.03 [Google Scholar]
  5. Beerkens, R.
    (2010) Receptive multilingualism as a language mode in the Dutch-German border area. Münster: Waxmann.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Blees, G. J. & ten Thije, J. D.
    (2016) Receptive Multilingualism and Awareness. In: J. Cenoz (Eds.), Language Awareness and Multilingualism, Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp.1–13). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑02325‑0_25‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02325-0_25-2 [Google Scholar]
  7. Berthele, R.
    (2007) Sieb 5: Syntaktische Strukturen [5th Sieve: Syntactic structures]. In: B. Hufeisen, N. Marx (Eds.), EuroComGerm – Die sieben Siebe. Germanische Sprachen lesen lernen (pp.167–180). Aachen: Shaker Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Braunmüller, K.
    (2007) Receptive multilingualism in Northern Europe in the Middle Ages: A description of a scenario. InJ. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism (pp.25–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hsm.6.04bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.6.04bra [Google Scholar]
  9. Chapelle, C. A.
    (1994) Are C-tests valid measures for L2 vocabulary research?Second Language Research, 10, 157–87. 10.1177/026765839401000203
    https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839401000203 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, A.
    (2013) Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences36(3), 181–204. 10.1017/S0140525X12000477
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cook, V.
    (2013) Premises of multi-competence. InV. J. Cook and L. Wei (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence (pp.1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cook, V. J.
    (2005) Multi-competence: Black Hole or Wormhole?Available viawww.viviancook.uk/Writings/Papers/SLRF05.htmAccessed on20.11.2017.
  13. Dewaele, J.-M.
    (2016) Multi-competence and personality. InL. Wei & V. Cook (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence (pp.403–419). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107425965.019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107425965.019 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dörnyei, Z.
    (1994) Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal78(3), 273–284. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1994.tb02042.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02042.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, R.
    (1997) SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Franceschini, R.
    (2011) Multilingualism and Multicompetence: A Conceptual View. The Modern Language Journal95, 344–355. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2011.01202.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01202.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E.
    (2010) Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee?Journal of Memory and Language62, 35–51. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gibbs, R., & Van Orden, G.
    (2012) Pragmatic choice in conversation. Topics in Cognitive Science4, 7–20. 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2011.01172.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2011.01172.x [Google Scholar]
  19. Gooskens, C. S.
    (this volume). How well can intelligibility of closely related languages in Europe be predicted by linguistic and non-linguistic variables?Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2013) Experimental methods for measuring intelligibility of closely related language varieties. In: Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron and Ceil Lucas (Eds.), Handbook of sociolinguistics (pp.195–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gooskens, C., & Heeringa, W.
    (2014) The role of dialect exposure in receptive multilingualism. Applied Linguistics Review5(1), 247–271. 10.1515/applirev‑2014‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2014-0011 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gooskens, C., & van Heuven, V.
    (2017) Measuring cross-linguistic intelligibility in the Germanic, Romance and Slavic language groups. Speech Communication89, 25–36. 10.1016/j.specom.2017.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2017.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  23. Graddol, D.
    (1997) The future of English. A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century. London: British Council.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Grotjahn, R.
    (1987) How to construct and evaluate a C-test: A discussion of some problems and some statistical analyses. In: R. Grotjahn, C. Klein-Braley, & D. K. Stevenson (Eds.), Taking Their Measure: The Validity and Validation of Language Tests (pp.219–253). Bochum: Brockmeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Haugen, E.
    (1953) The Norwegian language in America. A study in bilingual behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 10.9783/9781512820522
    https://doi.org/10.9783/9781512820522 [Google Scholar]
  26. Henter, R.
    (2014) Affective Factors Involved in Learning a Foreign Language. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences127, 373–378. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.274
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.274 [Google Scholar]
  27. Härmävaara, H.-I.
    (2014) Facilitating mutual understanding in everyday interaction between Finns and Estonians. Applied Linguistics Review5(1), 211–245. 10.1515/applirev‑2014‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2014-0010 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jessner, U.
    (2014) On multilingual awareness or why the multilingual learner is a specific language learner. InM. Pawlak & L. Aronin (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism. Studies in honour of david singleton (pp.175–184). Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑01414‑2_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01414-2_10 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kaivapalu, A.
    (2015) Eesti ja soome keele vastastikune mõistmine üksiksõna- ja tekstitasandil: lingvistilised tegurid, mõistmisprotsess ja sümmeetria [Mutual comprehension of Estonian and Finnish Context-Free Words and Texts: Linguistic Determinants, comprehension Process and Symmetry]. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat11, 55–74. 10.5128/ERYa11.04
    https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa11.04 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kharkhurin, A. V.
    (2012) Multilingualism and Creativity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847697967
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847697967 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kleinschmidt, D. F. & Jaeger, T. F.
    (2015) Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Journal Psychological Review122(2), 148–203. 10.1037/a0038695
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038695 [Google Scholar]
  32. Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., Sunderman, G.
    (2009) Losing Access to the Native Language While Immersed in a Second Language Evidence for the Role of Inhibition in Second-Language Learning, Psychological science20, 1507–1515. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2009.02480.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02480.x [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu, P. & Liu, H.
    (2017) Creating common ground: The role of metapragmatic expressions in BELF meeting interactions. Journal of Pragmatics107, 1–15. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lüdi, G.
    (2007) The Swiss model of plurilingual communication. InK. Bührig & J. D. ten Thije (Eds.), Beyondmisunderstanding: Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication (pp.159–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Muikku-Werner, P.
    (2013) Vironkielisen tekstin ymmärtäminen suomen kielen pohjalta. [Understanding Estonian texts on a Finnish language base]. – Lähivertailuja. Lähivõrdlusi, 23, 210–237. 10.5128/LV23.09
    https://doi.org/10.5128/LV23.09 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mustajoki, A.
    (2017) Why is miscommunication more common in everyday life than in lingua franca conversation?InI. Kecskes and S. Assimakopoulos (Eds.), Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics (pp.55–74). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.274.04mus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.274.04mus [Google Scholar]
  37. Pienemann, M.
    (1998) Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pitzl, M.-L.
    (2005) Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a business context. Vienna English Working Papers14(2), 50–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Raatz, U. & Klein-Braley, C.
    (1982) The C-test – a modification of the cloze procedure. InT. Culhane, C. Klein-Braley, & D. K. Stevenson (Eds.), Practice and problems in language testing IV (pp.113–138). Colchester: University of Essex, Department of Language and Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Rannut, Ü.
    (2005) Keelekeskkonna mõju vene õpilaste eesti keele omandamisele ja integratsioonile Eestis [On the impact of language environment among on acquisition of Estonian and integration in Estonia by Russian students]. Tallinn: TLU Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Rehbein, J. & Romaniuk, O.
    (2014) How to check understanding across languages. An introduction into the Pragmatic Index of Language Distance (PILaD) usable to measure mutual understanding in receptive multilingualism, illustrated by conversations in Russian, Ukrainian and Polish. Applied Linguistics Review5(1), 131–171. 10.1515/applirev‑2014‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2014-0007 [Google Scholar]
  42. Rehbein, J., ten Thije, J. D., & Verschik, A.
    (2012) Remarks on the quintessence of receptive multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism16(3), 248–264. 10.1177/1367006911426466
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911426466 [Google Scholar]
  43. Ribbert, A., & ten Thije, J. D.
    (2007) Receptive Multilingualism in Dutch–German intercultural team cooperation. InJ. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive Multilingualism and intercultural communication. Hamburg Studies in Multilingualism (pp.73–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hsm.6.07rib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.6.07rib [Google Scholar]
  44. Saville-Troike, M.
    (2003) The Ethnography of Communication. An introduction. (3rd edition). Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470758373
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758373 [Google Scholar]
  45. Shumarova, N.
    (2000) Мовна компетенція особистості в ситуації білінгвізму [Individual linguistic competence in the situation of bilingualism]. Kyiv: Видавничий центр КДЛУ.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sloboda, M. & Brankačkec, K.
    (2014) The mutual intelligibility of Slavic languages as a source of support for the revival of the Sorbian language. InL. Fesenmeier (Ed.), Sprachminderheiten: gestern, heute, morgen = Minoranze linguistiche: ieri, oggi, domani (pp.25–44). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Swarte, F., Schüppert, A., & Gooskens, C.
    (2015) Does German help speakers of Dutch to understand written and spoken Danish words? – The role of second language knowledge in decoding an unknown but related language. InG. De Angelis, U. Jessner, & M. Kresic (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence and crosslinguistic interaction in multilingual language learning (pp.173–197). Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Statistics Estonia, Population by ethnic nationality
    Statistics Estonia, Population by ethnic nationality (2017) https://www.stat.ee/34278, accessedNovember 2017.
  49. Statistics Estonia, Native languages spoken in Estonia
    Statistics Estonia, Native languages spoken in Estonia (2011) https://www.stat.ee/64629?parent_id=39113, accessedNovember 2017.
  50. Ten Thije, J. D. & Zeevaert, L.
    (Eds.) (2007) Receptive Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hsm.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.6 [Google Scholar]
  51. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (2008) Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Tyshchenko, K.
    (2010) Всеслов’янські складники української мови [Pan-Slavic components of Ukrainian]. Ternopil: Мандрівець: всеукраїнський науковий журнал3, 65–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Verschik, A.
    (2008) Emerging bilingual speech: from monolingualism to code-copying. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (2012) Practicing Receptive Multilingualism: Estonian-Finnish communication in Tallinn. International Journal of Bilingualism16(3), 265–286. 10.1177/1367006911426465
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911426465 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2017) Language contact, language awareness, and multilingualism. InJ. Cenoz, D. Gorter, S. May (Eds.), Language Awareness and Multilingualism (1–13). Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Voegelin, C. F., & Harris, Z. S.
    (1951) Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of natural languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society95, 322–329.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Zeevaert, L.
    (2004) Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verständigung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs [Interscandinavian Communication. Strategies for Establishing Understanding between Scandinavians in Discourse]. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error