Volume 42, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0272-2690
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9889
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In order to explore why people in multilingual contexts choose one mediation strategy or another, we conducted case studies involving short-term mobility for adoption purposes. For parents who adopt a child born in a different country, the experience necessitates a range of linguistic strategies that include language learning, interpreting and translation services, lingua francas, and intercomprehension. A study of ten Italian transnational adoptive families shows that adoptive parents tend to combine these strategies according to the situational relevance of four mobility-related variables: parental agency, accuracy of information, self-reliance, and intimacy. The adoptive parents’ opinions about the benefits and limitations of each strategy indicate that mediation strategies are complementary means to reach the complex general purpose of acquiring parenthood.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Blees, Gerda J. , Willem M. Mak & Jan D. ten Thije
    2014 English as a lingua franca versus lingua receptiva in problem-solving conversations between Dutch and German students. Applied Linguistics Review5/1:173–193.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Blees, Gerda J. & Jan D. ten Thije
    2017 Receptive multilingualism and awareness. Jasone Cenoz , Durk Gorter & Stephen May , eds.Language Awareness and Multilingualism, Encyclopedia of Language and Education. New York: Springer. 333–345.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cherciov, Mirela
    2012 Investigating the impact of attitude on first language attrition and second language acquisition from a Dynamic Systems Theory perspective. Transnational Journal of Bilingualism17/6:716–733.10.1177/1367006912454622
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006912454622 [Google Scholar]
  4. Fiedler, Sabine , & Cyril Brosch
    2018 Esperanto – a lingua franca in use: A case study on an educational NGO. Language Problems and Language Planning42/2.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Gazzola, Michele & François Grin
    2013 Is ELF more effective and fair than translation? An evaluation of the EU’s multilingual regime. International Journal of Applied Linguistics23/1:93–107.10.1111/ijal.12014
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12014 [Google Scholar]
  6. Heller, Monica
    1995 Code-switching and the politics of language. Lesley Milroy & Pieter Muysken , eds.One Speaker, Two Languages: Code-switching and Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 158–174.10.1017/CBO9780511620867.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620867.008 [Google Scholar]
  7. Herkenrath, Annette
    2012 Receptive multilingualism in an immigrant constellation: Examples from Turkish – German children’s language. International Journal of Bilingualism16/3: 287–314.10.1177/1367006911426463
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911426463 [Google Scholar]
  8. Hülmbauer, Cornelia
    2014 A matter of reception: ELF and LaRa compared. Applied Linguistics Review5/1:273–295.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kalocsai, Karolina
    2009 Erasmus exchange students: A behind-the-scenes view into an ELF community of practice. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies3/1:24–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Klaveren, Simone van , Joanne de Vries & and Jan D. ten Thije
    2013Practices and Potentials of Intercomprehension. Research into the efficiency of intercomprehension with regard to the workflow at the Directorate-General for Translation of the European Commission. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. O’Driscoll, Jim
    2001 A face model of language choice. Multilingua: journal of cross-cultural and interlanguage communication20/3:245–268.10.1515/mult.2001.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2001.002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Parra-Aranguren, Gonzalo
    1994 Explanatory Report on the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Session (1993). The Hague: HCC Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Pöchhacker, Franz
    2001 Quality assessment in conference and community interpreting. Meta46/2:410–425.10.7202/003847ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003847ar [Google Scholar]
  14. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri Commissione per le Adozioni internazionali
    Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri Commissione per le Adozioni internazionali 2015Dati e prospettive nelle Adozioni Internazionali. Rapporto sui fascicoli dal 1° gennaio 2014 al 31 dicembre 2015. Florence: Istituto degli Innocenti.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Pym, Anthony , François Grin , Claudio Sfreddo & Lung Jan Andy Chan
    2012The Status of the Translation Profession in the European Union. Luxembourg: European Commission, Directorate General for Translation.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ribbert, Anne & Jan D. ten Thije
    2007 Receptive multilingualism in Dutch – German intercultural team cooperation. Jan D. ten Thije & Ludger Zeevaert , eds.Receptive multilingualism: linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 73–101.10.1075/hsm.6.07rib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hsm.6.07rib [Google Scholar]
  17. Snedeker, Jesse , Joy Geren & Clarissa J. Shafto
    2007 Starting Over: International Adoption as a Natural Experiment in Language Development. Psychological Science18/1:79–87.10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2007.01852.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01852.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Verschik, Anna
    2012 Practising 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]
  19. Volkman, Toby Alice
    2005Cultures of transnational adoption. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822386926
    https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822386926 [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