The role of language exposure in mediated receptive multilingualism
Abstract
In this study, we investigate the role of exposure to L2 Russian on comprehension of L3 Ukrainian by speakers of L1 Estonian, using the mediating knowledge of L2 Russian. The experiment involved 30 participants and the following materials: a questionnaire, C-test in Russian, word recognition and text comprehension tasks in Ukrainian. We demonstrate that in mediated receptive multilingualism medium to high levels of L2 exposure boost L3 comprehension regardless of measured L2 proficiency. However, exposure enhanced comprehension only on the word level and not on the text level, highlighting the importance of examining comprehension in a differentiated manner. The same restriction holds for targeted L2–L3 instructions, which were administered as a shortcut to increasing metalinguistic awareness between Russian and Ukrainian: these instructions improved L3 word-level but not text-level comprehension. Since in the absence of explicit instruction the role of exposure was more pronounced, we argue that exposure and instructions interact depending on the particular configurations of available resources, as language users attempt to understand another language. We conclude that exposure to medium language is a crucial factor that might significantly boost comprehension in the target language through increased metalinguistic awareness, either more directly or by creating opportunities for incidental learning.
***
Sihtkeelega kokkupuute roll vahendatud retseptiivses mitmekeelsuses
Artiklis analüüsime, kuidas eesti emakeele (L1) kõnelejad mõistavad ukraina keelt (L3) vene keele oskuse toel (L2) ehk millist rolli mängib kokkupuude vene keelega arusaamisel ukraina keelest.
Katses osales 30 inimest ja materjalid koosnesid: küsimustikust, vene keele C-testist ning ukraina keele sõnade äratundmise ja teksti mõistmise ülesannetest. Uuringu tulemused näitasid, et vahendatud retseptiivse mitmekeelsuse kontekstis mõjutab L2-ga kokkupuude L2-st ja L3-st arusaamist kindlal viisil. Kokkupuude vene keelega avaldas positiivset mõju nii vene keele C-testi tulemustele kui ka ukrainakeelsete sõnade äratundmisele. Ukrainakeelsete tekstide mõistmist kokkupuude vene keelega aga märgatavalt ei mõjutanud, mis toob esile, kui oluline on arusaamise hindamine eristaval viisil. Teisalt hõlbustas L3 sõnade äratundmist nii keskmine kui ka kõrgem L2-ga kokkupuute tase, millest järeldub, et isegi vähene kokkupuude suurendab metalingvistilist teadlikkust. Katse sisaldas kahte sellisest hüpoteesist lähtuvat lisatingimust, mille põhjal formaalsed juhised võimaldavad teist, konkreetsemat õppimisallikat: mõned osalejad said eelnevalt formaalseid juhiseid ukraina keelest ja teised mitte. Need selged juhised aitasid kahtlemata kaasa L3-st arusaamisele ning nende puudumisel oli L2-ga kokkupuute roll veelgi märgatavam. Võib järeldada, et kui keelekasutaja üritab teisest keelest aru saada, siis eelmainitud tegurid, nii otsesemad kui ka kaudsemad, toimivad üksteisest sõltuvalt ja muutuvad vähem või rohkem märgatavaks olenevalt saadaval olevate ressursside konkreetsetest asetustest.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Annex 1 = Branets, Anna, Daria Bahtina 2021. Annex 1 to the article “The role of language exposure in mediated receptive multilingualism”: socio-linguistic questionnaire. DataDOI. http://dx.doi.org/10.23673/re-295
Bahtina-Jantsikene, Daria 2013. Mind Your Languages: Lingua Receptiva in Estonian-Russian Communication. Utrecht: LOT.
Bahtina-Jantsikene, Daria, Ad Backus 2016. Limited common ground, unlimited communicative success: An experimental study into lingua receptiva using Estonian and Russian. – Philologia Estonica Tallinnensis 1, 17–36. https://doi.org/10.22601/PET.2016.01.03
Bedore, Lisa M., Elizabeth D. Peña, Connie L. Summers, Karin M. Boerger, Maria D. Resendiz, Kai Greene, Thomas M. Bohman, Ronald B. Gillam 2012. The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish-English bilingual children. – Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15 (3), 616–629. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000090
Berthele, Raphael, Gabriele Wittlin 2013. Receptive multilingualism in the Swiss Army. – International Journal of Bilingualism 10 (2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2013.789522
Blommaert, Jan, Ad Backus 2011. Superdiverse Repertoires and the Individual. – Multilingualism and Multimodality, 11–32.
Branets, Anna, Ad Backus 2020. L2 knowledge facilitating L3 learning: The role of Russian linguistic
factors in understanding Ukrainian by Estonians. – Philologia Estonica Tallinnensis 5, 59–86. https://doi.org/10.22601/PET.2020.05.02
Branets, Anna, Daria Bahtina, Anna Verschik 2019. Mediated receptive multilingualism: Estonian-Russian-Ukrainian case study. – Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 10 (3), 380–411. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17079.ver
Branets, Anna, Anna Verschik (accepted). Comprehension of Ukrainian by Estonians via Russian: structural and extra-linguistic aspects. – Russian Journal of Linguistics 4.
Bruton, Anthony, Miguel García López, Raquel Mesa Esquiliche 2011. Incidental vocabulary learning: An impracticable term? – TESOL Quarterly 45, 759–768. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.268061
Brouwer, Catherine E. 2003. Word searches in NNS-NS interaction: Opportunities for language learning? – Modern Language Journal 87 (4), 534–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00206
Brouwer, Catherine E., Gitte Rasmussen, Johannes Wagner 2004. Embedded corrections in second language talk. – Rod Gardner, Johannes Wagner (eds.). Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum, 75–92.
Bybee, Joan 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886
David, Annabelle, Li Wei 2008. Individual differences in the lexical development of French-English bilingual children. – International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 11 (5), 598–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050802149200
Deanda, Stephanie, Natalia Arias-Trejo, Diane Poulin-Dubois, Pascal Zesiger, Margaret Friend 2016. Minimal second language exposure, SES, and early word comprehension: New evidence from a direct assessment. – Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19 (1), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000820
De Bot, Kees, Carol Jaensch 2013. What is special about L3 processing? – Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18 (2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000448
DeKeyser, Robert M. 2003. Implicit and explicit learning. – Catherine J. Doughty, Michael H. Long (eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Maiden, MA: Blackwell, 312–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch11
Doughty, Catherine J. 2003. Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. – Catherine J. Doughty, Michael H. Long (eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Maiden, MA: Blackwell, 256–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch10
Dörnyei, Zoltán 2009. The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eilers, Rebecca E., Barbara Zurer Pearson, Alan B. Cobo-Lewis 2006. Social factors in bilingual development: The Miami experience. – Peggy McCardle, Erika Hoff (eds.). Childhood Bilingualism: Research on Infancy through School Age. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, 68–90. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598715-006
Ellis, Nick C. 2005. At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. – Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27 (2), 305–352. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X
Ellis, Rod 2002. Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. – Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24 (2), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002073
Ellis, Rod, Shawn Loewen 2007. Confirming the operational definitions of explicit and implicit knowledge in Ellis (2005): Responding to Isemonger. – Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29 (1), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070052
Gathercole, Virginia C. Mueller 2002. Command of the mass/count distinction in bilingual and monolingual children: An English morphosyntactic distinction. – D. Kimbrough Oller, Rebecca E. Eilers (eds.). Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 175–206. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595721-009
Grotjahn, Rüdiger 1987. How to construct and evaluate a C-test: A discussion of some problems and some statistical analyses. – Rüdiger Grotjahn, Christine Klein-Braley, Douglas K. Stevenson (eds.). Taking Their Measure: The Validity and Validation of Language Tests. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 219–253.
Golubović, Jelena 2016. Mutual Intelligibility in the Slavic Language Area. Dissertation in Linguistics 152. Groningen: University of Groningen.
Gooskens, Charlotte 2006. Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of Inter-Scandinavian intelligibility. – Linguistics in the Netherlands 23 (1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.23.12goo
Gooskens, Charlotte 2007a. The contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages. – Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 28 (6), 445–467. https://doi.org/10.2167/jmmd511.0
Gooskens, Charlotte 2007b. Contact, attitude and phonetic distance as predictors of inter-Scandinavian communication. – Jean-Michel Eloy, Tadhg ÓhLfearnáin (eds.). Near Languages – Collateral languages. Actes du colloque international réuni à Limerick. Paris: L’Harmattan: 99–109.
Gooskens, Charlotte 2013. Experimental methods for measuring intelligibility of closely related language varieties. – Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron, Ceil Lucas (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.013.0010
Gooskens, Charlotte, Nanna Haug Hilton 2013. The effect of social factors on the comprehension of a closely related language. – Jani-Matti Tirkkonen, Esa Anttikoski (eds.). Proceedings of the 24th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland, 201–210.
Gooskens, Charlotte, Wilbert Heeringa 2014. The role of dialect exposure in receptive multilingualism. – Applied Linguistics Review 5 (1), 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2014-0011
Gooskens, Charlotte, Wilbert Heeringa, Karin Beijering 2008. Phonetic and Lexical Predictors of Intelligibility. – International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 2 (1–2), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.3366/E1753854809000317
Gooskens Charlotte, Renée van Bezooijen, Vincent J. van Heuven 2015. Mutual intelligibility of Dutch-German cognates by children: The devil is in the detail. – Linguistics 53 (2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2015-0002
Gooskens, Charlotte, Femke Swarte 2017. Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of mutual intelligibility between Germanic languages. – Nordic Journal of Linguistics 40 (2), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586517000099
Harley, Birgit, Merril Swain 1984. The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second Focus-on-Form language teaching. – Alan Davies, Clive Criper, Anthony P. R. Howatt (eds.). Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 291–311.
Herdina, Philip, Ulrike Jessner 2002. A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspective of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595547
Hulstijn, Jan 2003. Incidental and intentional learning. – Catherine J. Doughty, Michael H. Long (eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Maiden, MA: Blackwell, 349–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch12
Hulstijn, Jan H., Merel Hollander, Tine Greidanus 1996. Incidental vocabulary learning by advanced foreign-language students: the influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use, and recurrence of unknown words. – The Modern Language Journal 80 (3), 327– 339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01614.x
Jessner, Ulrike 2008. A DST model of multilingualism and the role of metalinguistic awareness. – The Modern Language Journal 92 (2), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00718.x
Jessner, Ulrike 2014. On multilingual awareness or why the multilingual learner is a specific language learner. – Miroslaw Pawlak, Larissa Aronin (eds.). Essential Topics in Applied Linguistics and Multilingualism: Studies in honour of David Singleton. Heidelberg: Springer, 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01414-2_10
Kaivapalu, Annekatrin 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 aastaraamat 11, 55–74. https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa11.04
Kaivapalu, Annekatrin, Pirkko Muikku-Werner 2010. Reseptiivinen monikielisyys: miten suomenkielinen oppija ymmärtää viroa äidinkielensä pohjalta? [‘Receptive multilingualism: How Finnish as a first language helps learners to understand Estonian?’]. – Lähivertailuja. Lähivõrdlusi 20, 68–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/LV20.03
Kharkhurin, Anatoliy V. 2012. Multilingualism and Creativity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847697967
Krashen, Stephen D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, Stephen D. 1994. The input hypothesis and its rivals. – Nick Ellis (ed.). Implicit and Explicit Learning of Language. London: Academic Press, 45–77.
Lightbown, Patsy M., Nina Spada 1990. Focus-on-form and Corrective Feedback in Communicative Language Teaching. Effects on Second Language Learning. – Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12 (4), 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009517
Malone, Jonathan 2018. Incidental vocabulary learning in SLA: Effects of frequency, aural enhancement, and working memory. – Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40, 651–675 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263117000341
Muikku-Werner, Pirkko, Annekatrin Kaivapalu, Maisa Martin 2012. Mutual intelligibility in language learning context: Linguistic and strategic determinants of comprehension of Estonian and Finnish. – Matthias Hünig, Uli Reich (eds.). Language and the City: Abstracts. 19th Sociolinguistic Symposium, Berlin, August 21–24. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, 266.
Norris, John M., Lourdes Ortega 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. – Language Learning 50 (3), 417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
Oscarson, Mats 1989. Self-assessment of language proficiency: Rationale and applications. – Language Testing 6 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553228900600103
Pearson, Barbara Zurer 2002. Narrative competence among monolingual and bilingual school children in Miami. – D. Kimbrough Oller, Rebecca E. Eilers (eds.). Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 135–174. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595721-008
Pearson, Barbara Zurer, Sylvia C. Fernández, Vanessa Lewedeg, D. Kimbrough Oller 1997. The relation of input factors to lexical learning by bilingual infants. – Applied Psycholinguistics 18 (1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009863
Pellicer-Sánchez, Ana 2016. Incidental vocabulary acquisition from and while reading: An eyetracking study. – Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38 (1), 97–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000224
Poulin-Dubois, Diane, Ellen Białystok, Agnes Blaye, Alexandra Polonia, Jessica Yott 2013. Lexical access and vocabulary development in very young bilinguals. – International Journal of Bilingualism 17 (1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911431198
Rehbein, Jochen, ten Thije, Jan D., Verschik, Anna 2012. Remarks on the quintessence of receptive multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16 (3), 248–264.
Rice, Kinsey, Judith F. Kroll 2019. English only? Monolinguals in linguistically diverse contexts have an edge in language learning. – Brain and Language 196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104644
Romaine, Suzanne 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rott, Susanne 1999. The effect of exposure frequency on intermediate language learners’ incidental vocabulary acquisition and retention through reading. – Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21 (4), 589– 619. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263199004039
Sanz, Cristina 2000. Bilingual education enhances third language acquisition: Evidence from Catalonia. – Applied Psycholinguistics 21 (1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400001028
Schwartz, Bonnie D. 1993. On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic behavior. – Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15 (2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011931
Sharwood, Smith, M. 2004. In two minds about grammar: On the interaction of linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge in performance. – Transactions of the Philological Society 102 (2), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0079-1636.2004.00137.x
Schüppert, Anja, Charlotte Gooskens 2010. The influence of extra-linguistic factors on mutual intelligibility: Some preliminary results from Danish and Swedish pre-schoolers. – Barry Heselwood, Clive Upton (eds.). Proceedings of Methods in Dialectology. Bamberger Beiträge zur Englischen Sprachwissenschaft. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 194–203.
Sherkina-Lieber, Marina 2015. Tense, aspect, and agreement in heritage Labrador Inuttitut: Do receptive bilinguals understand functional morphology? – Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5(1): 30–61. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.1.02she
Sherkina-Lieber, Marina 2020. A classification of receptive bilinguals Why we need to distinguish them, and what they have in common. – Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 10 (3), 412–440. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.5.1.02she
Shefelbine, John L. 1990. Student factors related to variability in learning word meanings from context. – Journal of Literacy Research 22 (1), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969009547695
Snow, Marguerite Ann, Myriam Met, Fred Genesee 1992. A conceptual framework for the integration of language and content instruction. – Patricia A. Richard-Amato, Marguerite Ann Snow (eds.). The Multicultural Classroom: Readings for Content-Area Teachers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 27–38.
Shumarova, Nataliia 2000. Мовна компетенція особистості в ситуації білінгвізму [‘Individual linguistic competence in the situation of bilingualism’]. Kyiv: Видавничий центр КДЛУ.
Spada, Nina, Patsy M. Lightbown 2008. Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? – TESOL Quarterly 42 (2), 181–207. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264447
Swain, Merrill 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output and its development. – Susan Gass, Carolyn Madden (eds.). Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235–253.
Swain, Merrill 1989. Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. – TESOL Canada Journal 6 (1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v6i1.542
Swarte, Femke, Anja Schüppert, Charlotte Gooskens 2013. Do speakers of Dutch use their knowledge of German while processing written Danish words? – Linguistics in the Netherlands 30 (1), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.30.11swa
Thomas, Jacqueline 1988. The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning. – Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9 (3), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1988.9994334
Thordardottir, Elin 2011. The relationship between bilingual exposure and vocabulary development. – International Journal of Bilingualism 15 (4), 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403202
Truscott, John 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. – Language Learning 46 (2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, John 1999. What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. – Canadian Modern Language Review 55 (4), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.55.4.437
Verschik, Anna 2012. Practicing Receptive Multilingualism: Estonian-Finnish communication in Tallinn. – International Journal of Bilingualism 16 (3), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911426465
Verschik, Anna 2017. Language contact, language awareness, and multilingualism. – Jasone Cenoz, Durk Gorter, Stephen May (eds.). Language Awareness and Multilingualism. Cham: Springer, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02325-0_21-2
Webb, Stuart 2007. Learning word pairs and glossed sentences: the effects of a single context on vocabulary knowledge. – Language Teaching Research 11 (1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168806072463
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/LV31.02
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2021 Anna Branets, Daria Bahtina
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1736-9290 (print)
ISSN 2228-3854 (online)
DOI https://doi.org/10.5128/LV.1736-9290