A matter of reception: ELF and LaRa compared
Abstract This article addresses the conceptual differences and commonalities between two modes of intercultural communication: English as a lingua franca (ELF) and Lingua Receptiva (LaRa). While the former is more frequent and wide- spread but disputed for reasons of monolingual dominance, the latter is lesser known und contextually restricted but praised for preserving linguistic diversity. The article takes such common presumptions as a starting point for a detailed comparative investigation of the concepts ELF and LaRa. The first section is dedicated to the overall language frameworks of the two modes. It thus points to their constellational specificities and the notions of locality and context involved in them. The second part takes a closer look at the speaker/hearer perspectives assumed in ELF and LaRa as well as at the different manifestations of linguistic variability and accommodation emerging from them. The third part is then concerned with the assumedly most prominent dividing points between lingua franca and lingua receptiva, namely issues of range, linguistic diversity and eventually the relative degree of plurilinguality exhibited in the two modes. In a final comparative summary of the points raised, the article ultimately comes to the conclusion that ELF and LaRa are not at all mutually exclusive but overlapping communicative modes. It thus argues that intercultural speakers could profit from using them in a complementary fashion.
Mind your languages: Lingua Receptiva in Estonian-Russian communication
This study was inspired by the idea that there is more diversity in the ways languages come into contact to create efficient and fair communication. The alternative mode explored in this study is called lingua receptiva (or, LaRa): here interlocutors speak their own language and have enough linguistic and interactional competencies to understand the language of the other. Success of this mode is often related to mutual intelligibility between languages (e.g., typologically close Scandinavian constellations). However, in this study the leitmotif lies in discovering the covert potential of LaRa not within but across language families. The data come from the dialogues between native speakers of Estonian and Russian, the two biggest linguistic groups in Estonia. The participants were pre-selected with the help of a socio-linguistic questionnaire, which focused on participants' self-reported L2 proficiency, exposure to multilingual situations as well as attitudes towards the languages and social groups concerned. A C-Test was administered to obtain more objective information regarding interlocutors' proficiency in Estonian and Russian as their L2. The empirical study was based on the psycholinguistic experiments that investigate alignment in dialogues. Dyads composed of one Estonian and one Russian-speaking participant were engaged in a Skype phone call. Their task was to find each other on an abstract map and agree on a route from one point to another. In psycholinguistics, `alignment' is a state that is established once the interlocutors have reached a shared understanding of relevant aspects of reality. Based on pertinent literature, it was hypothesised that in lingua receptiva other aspects affecting successful communication include general awareness of this mode, flexibility and activation of plurilingual repertoires, exposure and attitudes to multilingual situations as well as ability to find mutual strategies of accommodation. It was argued that in LaRa alignment is actively monitored and a set of meta-communicative devices (MCDs) was proposed. The results indicated that even dyads with limited L2 proficiencies are able to complete the task successfully or can be more efficient than linguistically advanced dyads. Interlocutors reach and maintain mutual understanding by `minding' their languages with the meta-communicative devices. These MCDs vary significantly depending on the individual L2 proficiency, the composition of proficiencies within a dyad; exposure and attitudes to L2 were also found to play a role. When L2 proficiency does not guarantee mutual understanding, compensatory strategies may include code-switching. Despite the instruction to use mother tongue, the subjects in this experimental task occasionaly used their L2: all these instances were analysed in the framework of contact linguistics. Their distribution, too, depended on L2 proficiency, attitudes and exposure. It was concluded that code-switching can also function as an alignment strategy. To sum up, LaRa can be recommended as an alternative mode of multilingual communication. Equipped with plurilingual resources and meta-communicative skills, LaRa interlocutors monitor their languages by adapting to what they believe would be understood by the hearer in each specific situation. Finally, it is beyond doubt that enough common ground can be built even with quite limited linguistic resources.
One plus one equals one: the forging of Standard Estonian
This contribution provides a historical sketch of the emergence and gradual elaboration of a standard variety of Estonian seen against the background of the development of society within Estonia, and within a framework comprising the key terms of standard language building in corpus planning. graphization, codification, and adaptation; in addition the role of purism in language adaptation is illustrated. It is argued that graphization in itself need not demarcate the beginning of standardization. Standardization of Estonian started in the sixteenth century when two written varieties emerged, one for North Estonia and another for South Estonia. The two written languages were codified in the first half of the seventeenth century and existed side-by-side in different parts of the area inhabited by Estonians for the following two centuries. After a major orthographic reform implemented in the 1860s and 1870s, the modern standard language was developed on an essentially northern basis, although allowing a number of southern characteristics to be incorporated into the standard. Further lexical and morphological adaptation followed suit at four linguistic conferences 1908-1911 and was continued by the subsequent language reform and language regulation movements between 1910 and 1940, when Estonian language planning also became institutionalized. Institutionalized modernization efforts have continued throughout the postwar period.