Bi- and Multilingualism from Various Perspectives of Applied Linguistics [1 ed.] 9783737014298, 9783847114291

Citation preview

Interdisziplinäre Verortungen der Angewandten Linguistik

Band 2

Herausgegeben von Sylwia Adamczak-Krysztofowicz, Silvia Bonacchi, Przemysław Ge˛bal, Jarosław Krajka, Łukasz Kumie˛ga und Hadrian Lankiewicz

Die Bände dieser Reihe sind peer-reviewed.

Zofia Chłopek / Przemysław E. Ge˛bal (eds.)

Bi- and Multilingualism from Various Perspectives of Applied Linguistics

With 26 figures

V&R unipress

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über https://dnb.de abrufbar. Publication financed by the Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice (Poland). This volume is peer-reviewed. (Editorial referee: Teresa Siek-Piskozub; Peer reviewers: Anna Cies´licka, Melanie Ellis, Hanna Komorowska, Jolanta Latkowska, Andrzej Łyda, Piotr Mamet, Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Magdalena Olpin´ska-Szkiełko, Michał Paradowski, Hanna Pułaczewska, Joanna Rokita-Jas´kow, Agnieszka Ste˛pkowska, Ariadna Strugielska, Magdalena Wrembel) © 2022 Brill | V&R unipress, Theaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen, ein Imprint der Brill-Gruppe (Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Niederlande; Brill USA Inc., Boston MA, USA; Brill Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore; Brill Deutschland GmbH, Paderborn, Deutschland; Brill Österreich GmbH, Wien, Österreich) Koninklijke Brill NV umfasst die Imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau und V&R unipress. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen bedarf der vorherigen schriftlichen Einwilligung des Verlages. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht Verlage | www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com ISSN 2749-0211 ISBN 978-3-7370-1429-8

Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

List of Common Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

Part One: Discourse Communities: Languages in Contact Paola Attolino Chapter 1 – “Yo word is yo bond”: Black Semantics, Discourse Communities, and Translanguaging Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

Michael M. Kretzer Chapter 2 – Touristscapes: (Multilingual) Language Policy and (Monolingual) Linguistic Landscape (LL) at Tourist Sites in Eastern Cape, South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena / Jose Belda-Medina Chapter 3 – The Effects of Multilingualism in Medieval England: The Impact of French on Middle English Military Terminology . . . . . .

59

Part Two: Languages in the Mind: Language Development and Language Use Anita Buczek-Zawiła Chapter 4 – L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

Jadwiga Cook Chapter 5 – Locative Prepositions in Bilingual Children’s Languages. Example of Polish-French Young Bilinguals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

6

Contents

Giovina Angela del Rosso Chapter 6 – On Non-native Coarticulation: (New) Prospective Insights into (Old) Multilingualism- and Phonetics-Related Issues? . . . . . . . . . 121 Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek Chapter 7 – Attitudes toward Multilingualism in Poland and Japan from University Students’ Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Ewa Kujawska-Lis Chapter 8 – The Splendors and Miseries of Multilingualism: The Case of Joseph Conrad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak / Grzegorz Wlaz´lak Chapter 9 – Effects of Receptive Multilingualism on the Knowledge of Legal Vocabulary: An Analysis of the Multilingual Competence of a Selected Group of Polish Lawyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Jacek Pradela Chapter 10 – The Development of English Spelling through Dictation in a Polish-English Non-native Bilingual Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Boris Yelin Chapter 11 – Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching: Effects of Dominance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Part Three: Language Education: Supporting Multilingual Development Moira De Iaco Chapter 12 – A Multilingual Perspective on Metaphoric Gestures for Language Education Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Dana Hanesová Chapter 13 – University – an Inspiring Educational Environment for the Development of Students’ Multilingual Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Radosław Kucharczyk Chapter 14 – Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence in the Polish Educational Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

Contents

7

Beatriz López Medina Chapter 15 – Plurilingual Outcomes in Plurilingual CLIL Settings: A Case Study of Translanguaging in Secondary Education in Latvia . . . . . . . . 293 Jacopo Saturno Chapter 16 – Effect of Bridge Language Status in the Intercomprehension-Based Learning of L2 Polish by Speakers of Russian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Notes on Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank several people for their invaluable help at different stages of the development of this book. First and foremost, we wish to acknowledge the continuous encouragement and support of our V&R unipress Editor, MarieCarolin Vondracek. Second, we are very much indebted to the reviewers of the particular chapters for their immensely valuable suggestions: Anna Cies´licka, Melanie Ellis, Hanna Komorowska, Jolanta Latkowska, Andrzej Łyda, Piotr Mamet, Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Magdalena Olpin´ska-Szkiełko, Michał Paradowski, Hanna Pułaczewska, Joanna Rokita-Jas´kow, Agnieszka Ste˛pkowska, Ariadna Strugielska, and Magdalena Wrembel (in alphabetical order). Moreover, we would like to express our deep gratitude to the reviewer of the whole volume, Teresa Siek-Piskozub, for her invaluable insights and constructive remarks on the previous version of the manuscript. We are also very much indebted to Melanie Ellis, for her tremendous help and advice at the initial stages of this project. Finally, the first editor of the volume would like to warmly thank her daughter, Joanna Chłopek, for the exceptionally careful proofreading of some of the texts.

Introduction

Bilingualism and multilingualism, both at the individual and the societal levels, are common contemporary phenomena. The growing globalization of today’s world, the development of communication technologies, intensive migrations, various travel opportunities, and the growing internationalization of businesses, create multifarious opportunities of communication within and across linguistic and cultural boundaries. This calls forth the need for the knowledge of languages and the ability to use them in different situational contexts. More and more people and communities nowadays may call themselves bilingual or even multilingual. Bilingualism and multilingualism are linguistic, social, and cultural phenomena which are not only “a contemporary reality,” but also “a field of knowledge in its own right” (Singleton & Aronin, 2012, p. 1). Research studies conducted within the broad area of applied linguistics deal with various aspects of language use by bi-/multilinguals and multilingual communities, second and additional language learning, language contact, and language change, and not only contribute to their understanding, but also have significant practical relevance. Bi- and multilingual phenomena are contemporarily studied by representatives of various academic disciplines applying interdisciplinary research tools. The inclusion of the transdisciplinary perspective into the research on biand multilingualism is still an underrepresented area of theoretical study and empirical projects. Transdisciplinarity is to be understood as a unique dialogue between various research areas and ideas, which can become a fruitful source of theoretical and methodological development of the undertaken issues and thematic threads. This dialogue enables the research domains which come in contact with each other, in the context of theoretical considerations or empirical investigations, to keep developing in the borderland of their own conceptual solutions and their applicative perspectives. At the same time, the collaborative work stemming from the transdisciplinary methodological approach not only contributes to contacts across discipline borders, but also ensures productive transformation of various elements of contemporary humanistic studies.

12

Introduction

The present volume aims to view the multifaceted and rich phenomenon of bi-/multilingualism from many different angles. The texts included in the volume present cross-disciplinary – and often also transdisciplinary – research conducted within two dimensions: firstly, in the very attitude of the scholars (representing linguistics, culture studies, and literary studies) towards the phenomenon of bi- and multilingualism; secondly, in the research procedures which, under the common thematic denominator, aim to investigate the social, psychological, and pedagogical aspects of bi- and multilingualism. The readers of our volume will find here the voices of the representatives of various academic centers, offering insights into the phenomenon of bi-/multilingualism in the contexts of contact linguistics, psycholinguistics, language didactics, and literary studies. The volume comprises 16 chapters – both research papers and theoretical contributions – grouped in three thematic sections. The papers in the first part, entitled Discourse Communities: Languages in Contact, adopt a social and/or historical perspective on bi-/multilingualism. In the first chapter, Paola Attolino investigates the translanguaging spaces of Black Semantics in a diachronic, diatopic, and diastratic perspective, in order to explicate how Black English evolves and takes root over time and space, and to highlight to what extent it permeates various registers. Next, Michael M. Kretzer makes an attempt to characterize the linguistic landscape of the Sarah Baartman District in Eastern Cape in South Africa, by analyzing bi- and multilingual side boards found in the region. The paper is an interesting voice in the discussion about the African language policy, as well as the status and role of Afrikaans and English, and the other nine official indigenous languages. In the last chapter of this section, Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena illustrates the effects of language contact in the multilingual England of the Middle English period, by presenting the results of the analysis of the French influences observable in English military terminology. The study also indicates the significance of other languages as a source of new terms in English. The second part of the volume, under the heading Languages in the Mind: Language Development and language Use, comprises eight chapters, which view issues related to bi- and multilingualism from psycholinguistic and psychological perspectives. Anita Buczek-Zawiła presents the results of her research on the awareness of native language sound distinctions among advanced speakers of EFL in the context of L2 pronunciation training. The author reports low sound discrimination skills in the respondents’ L1, but indicates that intensive L2 training can make learners more sensitive to their L1 sound system, which in turn may prove advantageous for the L2 sound production. In her paper, Jadwiga Cook focuses on the way unbalanced bilingual children use locative constructions in order to describe static spatial events. As it turns out, young bilinguals make similar mistakes and use prepositions in a similar way in both languages, and interlingual

Introduction

13

transfer is a rare phenomenon. The relation between the age and the amount of inaccurate answers is more prominent in the case of a non-dominant language. Giovina Angela del Rosso illustrates the value of investigating non-native coarticulation by adopting a multidisciplinary approach, which integrates state-of-theart knowledge about multilingualism, language acquisition, and experimental phonetics. The author believes that such an approach may not only enhance the understanding of non-native coarticulation, but also allow researchers to gain new prospective insights into long-standing issues. In the next chapter, Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek explores the phenomenon of multilingualism from educational and individual perspectives in the context of two nearly monolingual countries, Poland and Japan. In particular, the author concentrates on university students’ attitudes towards multilingualism. Even though all students’ perceptions of multilingualism are generally positive, there are some differences between the two groups in this respect. The chapter by Ewa Kujawska-Lis offers an analysis of Joseph Conrad’s writings, thus providing a retrospective insight into the writer’s multilingualism. She explains how the interplay of his three languages, Polish, French, and English, was a source of both misery and creative achievements. Next, Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak and Grzegorz Wlaz´lak investigate the issue of receptive multilingualism of professional lawyers. The results of their study indicate that the legalese is probably not as internationally consistent as intended, and question the widely held assumption that lawyers need a single core vocabulary for their professional activity. Jacek Pradela analyzes the development of the spelling skills of a child raised in non-native bilingualism. The study results show that letter omission, letter substitution, and letter insertion are common categories of errors made in the weaker language; these are typically induced by letter-sound correspondences and cross-linguistic influences. In the chapter closing this section, Boris Yelin investigates the structure of the multilingual mental lexicon, by analyzing crosslinguistic influence observed in trilingual production. Based on the results of his study, which are only partially in line with previous research, the author proposes a more nuanced picture of the multilingual lexicon, in which lexical selection depends on simultaneous inhibition and activation of languages present in the mind. Part three of the volume, under the heading Language Education: Supporting Multilingual Development, adopts a broadly understood didactic perspective on bi-/multilingualism. In her contribution, Moira De Iaco demonstrates and evaluates the cognitive and communicative functions of metaphoric gestures. The author concludes that metaphoric gestures have the potential to teach cultural differences, as well as illustrate target language vocabulary and speech properties (e. g., intonation), thus facilitating the process of L2/L3 acquisition. In the next chapter, Dana Hanesová presents chosen results of one phase of a project aimed at raising the internationalization level of university education, initiated in 2019 by a group of language teachers at the Matej Bel University in Slovakia. The author

14

Introduction

shows that it is possible to increase the level of multilingualism amongst university students during their studies with the help of the human and financial resources available to the university. Radosław Kucharczyk presents his SMART model of developing multilingual competence and describes a previous study, whose results indicate that the components of the model can be developed in formal L3 learning contexts where linguistic and cultural diversity is rather low. In the next chapter, Beatriz López-Medina describes a study conducted in a history class at a plurilingual school in Riga (Latvia), where the CLIL approach is applied. The results allow the author to draw the conclusion that translanguaging strategies have the potential of facilitating content learning in plurilingual academic settings. Last but not least, Jacopo Saturno undertakes the theme of intercomprehension in foreign language learning. The results of his miniature experiment indicate the beneficial effects of the possibility to exploit positive transfer to communicate in an unknown foreign language which is typologically close to a known bridge language. These effects are particularly prominent if the bridge language is the L1, though they also occur in the case of an L2. All the chapters included in the volume are slightly modified versions of the papers presented during the international research conference Multilingualism from Various Perspectives of Applied Linguistics, organized by the Institute for Research on Education and Communication of the Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland, and took place in an on-line format on 23rd and 24th October 2020. Even though in many contemporary publications bilingualism is understood as a case of multilingualism (e. g., Jessner, 2006, p. 15; Singleton & Aronin, 2012, pp. 6–7), the volume’s title was extended to explicitly include issues related to both bilingualism and multilingualism. Finally, we would like to include some terminological remarks, which should facilitate the reading process. In all chapters, the term bilingualism is used when the knowledge and use of two languages by individuals, institutions, groups, or societies is meant; similarly, the term multilingualism refers to the knowledge and use of three or more languages. In most contemporary research publications it is either explicitly stated or implicitly assumed that a bi-/multilingual’s knowledge of each of their languages need not be perfect, but should enable communication according to their own needs and the demands of a particular communicative situation. In some chapters, the term plurilingualism is used in addition to the previous ones, which encompasses not only linguistic competences in more than two languages (i. e., individual multilingualism), but also cross-linguistic interactions between these competences, as well as a rich repertoire of linguistic and non-linguistic (often culture-specific) experiences, gained in the process of language acquisition and use, which are part of the communicative competence of a language user (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 4; see

Introduction

15

also Hanesová, Chapter 13 of this volume, for a thorough explication of the meanings of these two terms). With reference to individual bi-/multilingualism, a distinction should be made between simultaneous and consecutive (sequential) bilingualism and multilingualism. The former term refers to situations where a given person acquires two or more languages at the same time; the latter applies to cases when one’s languages develop at different stages of life. In the context of language education, one of the recently advanced methods of teaching and learning foreign languages is Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). In this method, instruction in a given subject takes place through the medium of a non-native language. This methodological design aims “to develop language proficiency as well the mastery of subject matter, critical thinking, and other cognitive skills through the use of a syllabus that integrates both language and subject matter (e. g., science, geography, history, environmental studies)” (Richards, 2013, p. 12). A bi-/multilingual practice which is often encountered both in language education and in natural social interaction is translanguaging. It consists in accessing and applying all linguistic resources available to a bi-/multilingual person (by means of, e. g., code-switching or translating from one language into another), in order to achieve communicative success (García, 2009, p. 140). We do hope that the present volume will provide its readers with interesting insights into issues related to bi-/multilingualism, as well as provoke to conduct further transdisciplinary studies in this fascinating research field. Zofia Chłopek and Przemysław Ge˛bal Wrocław and Warsaw, December 2021

References Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, New York, NY, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the local (pp. 128–145). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: forward, central, and backward design. RELC Journal, 44, 5–33. doi:10.1177/0033688212473293.

16

Introduction

Singleton, D., & Aronin, L. (2012). Multilingualism. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

List of Common Abbreviations

BE cf. CLI CLIL EFL et al. etc. FL e. g. L1 L2 L3 SE

Black English confer, compare cross-linguistic influence Content and Language Integrated Learning English as a foreign language et alia, and others et cetera, and other similar things foreign language exempli gratia, for example first language, native language second language third language Standard English

Part One: Discourse Communities: Languages in Contact

Paola Attolino

Chapter 1 – “Yo word is yo bond”: Black Semantics, Discourse Communities, and Translanguaging Spaces

Abstract The term Black Semantics refers to a core of words and phraseological units typical of African American culture. Many of these expressions are, in a sense, translingual, as Black English is not a dialect, but a distinct language that coexists with Standard English, and the interaction between them in the African-American linguistic repertoire is governed by the same principles as those that usually govern languages in contact. Based on the author’s earlier research into Black semantics, the present paper aims to offer an overview of the translanguaging spaces where code-meshing between Black Semantics and Standard English occurs, focusing on the interplay of conventionality and creativity, which may be detected both in the lexicon and in the numerous linguistic practices and cultural modes of discourse. Further consideration on linguistic prejudice as a covert form of racism will be offered. Keywords: Black Semantics, translanguaging, conventionality, creativity, racial prejudice

1.

Introduction and theoretical framework

The term Black Semantics was coined by Geneva Smitherman (2006) to refer to a core of terms and sentences distinctive of African American culture. Many of these words and word-groups may be considered translingual and have crossed boundaries of time, space, gender and social class, becoming the linguistic property of all Americans and, in some cases, of the world, particularly thanks to the global spread of Hip Hop music and the universality of its language. As James Baldwin unequivocally argued in a 1979 essay, Black English (henceforth BE) is not a dialect, but a distinct language, which co-occurs with the use of Standard English (hereafter SE) in the African American linguistic experience. Therefore, the interaction between them follows the same rules that generally govern languages in contact. An interesting example is offered by Barack Obama’s frequent code-switching (or rather code-meshing) from SE to Paola Attolino, University of Salerno (Italy), ORCID: 0000-0002-3277-1243, [email protected].

22

Paola Attolino

BE, a language negotiation that has gained him a (questionable) reputation for being articulate while black (Alim & Smitherman, 2012). The present paper offers an overview aimed at investigating the way Black Semantics and SE code-mesh, creating a harmonious interaction as well as translanguaging spaces. It also focuses on the interplay between conventionality and creativity, which is a distinctive feature both of African American lexicon and of its linguistic practices and cultural modes of discourse. It is worth pointing out that translanguaging spaces are not necessarily considered as physical spaces, but more as spaces that bilingual/multilingual individuals create in their own minds through the process of translanguaging. Translanguaging spaces provide an environment where each single language is not separated from the other ones. Instead, the known languages become intertwined and bilingual/multilingual individuals are able to come up with new strategies to achieve a specific communicative effect (Li, 2011). The overview offered in this paper follows previous research into Black Semantics in a diachronic, diatopic, and diastratic perspective (Attolino, 2016, 2019a, 2019b), carried out using Critical Discourse Analysis, or CDA (van Dijk, 1993; Fairclough, 2003), as a qualitative approach. CDA involves looking at lexicogrammatical choices in texts, using the tools of analysis developed within systemic-functional linguistics, or SFL (Halliday, 1978), and its metafunctions of field, tenor, and mode (Halliday & Hasan, 1989). Field expresses the ideational metafunction, which is about what happens in the world; tenor expresses the interpersonal metafunction, which deals with the relationships established via language; mode conveys the textual metafunctions, which involves a series of features such as the degree to which the process of interaction is shared by the interlocutors, as well as its channel or medium. The overview is focused on the interplay of conventionality and creativity in Black Semantics. On the one hand, conventionality encompasses the relationship between the individual and society, playing an essential role in social cohesion. On the other hand, creativity involves what Toni Morrison in her 1993 Nobel Lecture called word-work: black folks are in love with “the saying of words, holding them on the tongue, experimenting with them, playing with them” (Alim & Smitherman, 2012, p. 175). I will also discuss the way word-work may be observed not only in the ever-evolving lexicon of Black language, but also in its numerous linguistic practices and cultural modes of discourse, such as signifying and playing the dozens. Here the interaction between conventionality and creativity has led to what has been named Hip Hop Genius (Seidel, 2011), a term used to describe the ability to cope with difficulties in a creative way and to offer a critical insight into social events and human behavior in a given discourse community, considered as a group that works toward a common goal or purpose through communication (Swales, 1990). These considerations will provide me

“Yo word is yo bond”

23

with the opportunity to investigate the subtle though strong relationship between linguistic prejudice and racism.

2.

Translanguaging and Black Semantics

Translanguaging describes language as a social practice in a temporal-spatial frame, with an emphasis on the performative (Lu & Horner, 2013). As the focus shifts from language to language-users and social contexts, translanguaging should not be defined as deviance from the norm: the relationships between language and language-users are mutually shaping and constitutive. In other words, translanguaging is more about process than product. That BE is not just a limited register of English used by people who are not aware of standard language is a fundamental premise to investigate the translanguaging spaces where Black Semantics and SE coexist. As Smitherman (2006, pp. 2–3) points out: We Black folks be knowin we got some unique patterns of language goin on up here in the U.S. of A. Yet, still today, in the twenty-first century, after more than four decades – count ‘em, foe decades! – of research by language scholars, it’s some people who say Black Language ain nothin but “slang and cuss words,” or “it’s just broken English.”

It is worth noting that Smitherman herself here is translanguaging to structure her discourse and in doing so she is performing a kind of action, as she deliberately makes use of BE for academic purposes. In the quotation above she is referring to the studies on BE that started in the 1960s, with William Labov in the lead. It was only in 1973, however, that psychologist Robert Williams introduced the term Ebonics in an attempt to underline that African American Language is actually a language other than English, not a dialect or a bad variety. About twenty years later, in 1996, the Oakland Resolution officially recognized Ebonics as the legitimate language of African Americans. The aim of the resolution was to change educational policy in order to familiarize teachers with African American Language and expand the district’s bilingual programs to African American students; in other words, educators would pay more attention to the home language of black children and use it to help them learn standard classroom English. The Oakland school board’s endorsement of Ebonics as a separate language inspired nationwide debate. An editorial of the New York Times, for instance, referred skeptically to Ebonics as a simple black slang, not a distinct language (Haberman, 1996), whereas black leaders and intellectuals like Reverend Jesse Jackson condemned the board’s decision because they considered Ebonics a sign of limited education, a legacy of slavery, and above all an impediment to black people’s socioeconomic mobility. Some weeks later, the Resolution was ac-

24

Paola Attolino

knowledged as commendable by the Linguistic Society of America (Rickford, 1997), which made clear that children who speak Ebonics do not have to learn Standard English by osmosis, but through a consciously comparative rather than contrastive approach, so they have to be made aware of the differences between the two languages and of the different contexts in which they can consciously choose to use them, with that emphasis on the performative that is a distinctive feature of translingualism. A decade later, Barack Obama will embody this awareness, offering examples of rhetorically effective code-meshing rather than simple code-switching. The latter, in fact, tends to relegate BE to private domains, whereas code-meshing welcomes BE into the folds of public discourse, something that Obama has masterly achieved. However, the same fact that Obama has received unprecedented attention for his unique way of blending SE and BE is a symptom that African American Language’s linguistic classification is still debated today, with scholars such as Shana Poplack (2020) arguing that its proximity to SE renders it just a dialect of English, not a distinctive language. Other scholars, including H. Samy Alim and Geneva Smitherman (2012), have drawn attention to the negative social implications of subordinating BE to SE, reiterating the former’s unique style, structure, and lexicon as justification for considering it as a stand-alone language. As Pennycook (2000) suggests, people do not use language based on their identity, but rather to perform identity. This is why people who speak both SE and BE often find their bilingualism empowering: it is a tradition connected to practices of liberation and empowerment in which oppressed people could speak in ways that their oppressors could not understand. As Labov (2006) affirmed, African American Vernacular English (AAVE) – which is the expression he prefers to use when referring to African American Language – has developed its present form in the framework of the most racial segregation that the world has ever known. This is what James Baldwin also stated in the aforementioned 1979 New York Times article: “A language comes into existence by means of brutal necessity, and the rules of the language are dictated by what the language must convey” (Baldwin, 1979). BE is a language of necessity, the necessity to have a code, as African Americans were, and, sad to say, still are a “Negro nation within the nation,” as W. E. B. Du Bois stated in a famous speech delivered to the leadership of the NAACP in 1934 (Rucker, 2002, p. 37). This “Negro nation” has developed its unique way of using English, transforming it into a separate language: “The roots of African American speech lie in the counter language, the resistance discourse, that was created as a communication system unintelligible to speakers of the dominant master class” (Smitherman, 2006, p. 3). The dynamics of linguistic resistance can be observed in the so-called in yo face style, a peculiar feature of BE born in the framework of the induced illiteracy

“Yo word is yo bond”

25

of black slaves, who were forbidden to learn to read and write. This style provided blacks with the opportunity to reinvent themselves and to shape their identities, as well as to resist white supremacy with their ability to use the language of the white masters twisting it against them. Thus, this skill is rooted in slavery, but it is still found in a range of black stylistic practices such as semantic inversion and double talk: you say something, but you mean something else, disorienting that part of your audience (the whites) that is not able to grasp the core message of what is said.

3.

Phraseology and African Americans

Another language practice which is extremely interesting for the analysis of the translanguaging spaces where BE and SE cohabit is the use of phraseology, which is also a means to investigate the relationship between social events and human behavior, as well as the interplay between conventionality and creativity. Conventionality, in fact, takes into consideration the relationship between the individual and society, playing a crucial role in social cohesion. Proverb use, for instance, is an essential source of strategies to teach black people rapidly and in no uncertain terms about black life and living. Creativity, instead, encompasses black people’s love for “word-work [which] is sublime because it is generative: it makes meaning that secures our difference, our human difference – the way in which we are like no other life” (Morrison, 1993). Creativity involves what has been called Black flava (Smitherman, 2000), the uniqueness of a language style where the medium is the message. As stated above, the right to use BE is a question of linguistic freedom, agency, and justice. It is the right to resist white supremacy, keeping in mind the historical space of slavery to understand the force of black people’s languaging and translanguaging. As LeRoi Jones (aka Amiri Baraka) explains in Blues People (1963, p. 9): “It is ABSURD to assume, as has been the tendency, among a great many Western anthropologists and sociologists, that all traces of Africa were erased from the Negro’s mind because he learned English. The very nature of the English the Negro spoke and still speaks drops the lie on that idea.” BE’s uniqueness is in the power of the spoken word, the Nommo, an African term and concept which reverberates in African American culture, as it is believed to be the driving force of life: speaking is making something come into being (Alkebulan, 2005). This is why the statement Don’t speak on it, often used by senior Black Americans, sounds protective in the face of potential negative events (Smitherman, 1998). For the black community naming is a creative act, as evidenced by the familiar African American expression that gives the title to the present paper: Yo word is yo bond. The statement has biblical origins, as it can be

26

Paola Attolino

found in some passages of the Books of Matthew and The Book of Numbers in which one’s spoken vow becomes a sacred commitment (Waldman, 2016). It is worth remembering that the principle word is bond also allowed merchant traders late in the 1500s to make oral agreements legally binding, but was popularized in the mid-960s by the Five-Percent Nation, an Islamic group that stressed authenticity and self-knowledge alongside social progressivism (Smitherman, 2000). The expression has also entered Hip Hop phraseology with positive and reinforcing expressions such as “Word is born, Word up, Word to the Mother” (Smitherman, 1998, p. 208), and it has recently hit the headlines because of its controversial use by Melania Trump in her speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention. The First Lady was accused of plagiarizing her predecessor, as her remarks bore a striking resemblance to those delivered by Michelle Obama at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. The accusation focused in particular on the use of the expression Yo word is yo bond, because to utter this phrase in 2016 America means to invoke “a hip hop phrase” (Waldman, 2016), as it represents the resurfacing of an old familiar saying in the black oral tradition. As a black woman, Michelle Obama was entitled to use the expression, as she was both retrieving a powerful saw from the ethical canon and, perhaps, signifying to black listeners, whereas Melania Trump gave the impression to be clueless, without any real sense of what she was talking about. Indeed, the person who really masters the negotiation between SE and BE is Barack Obama, who was in fact defined by Bush and Biden during the 2008 presidential campaign “articulate while black” (Alim & Smitherman, 2012, p. 34). The choice of the adjective articulate stood out for its being used differently by blacks and whites and sparked a debate on The Racial Politics of Speaking Well, which was the headline of a New York Times article by Lynette Clemetson, who argued: “When whites use the word in reference to blacks, it often carries a subtext of amazement, even bewilderment […]. Such a subtext is inherently offensive because it suggests that the recipient of the ‘compliment’ is notably different from other black people” (Clemetson, 2007). Historically, when referred to black people the word articulate was meant to indicate the exceptional Negro, implying that white people are automatically assumed to be articulate, whereas most black people are not. Even if Barack Obama had not straightforwardly addressed the race issue in his electoral campaign, there was a moment when he had to publicly take it on in a memorable 2008 speech named A more perfect union, which in fact is known as Obama’s “Race Speech” (Alim & Smitherman, 2012, p. 74). The address was delivered in a very delicate political moment of his presidential campaign, when the controversial sermon sound bites from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor, had been spread all over the media as evidence of “reversal racism” (Gunn & McPhail, 2015, p. 16). The structure of Obama’s Race Speech follows the formula of the traditional American jeremiad, a

“Yo word is yo bond”

27

form of public discourse that bitterly laments the state of society and its morals. But what is new in Obama’s speech is the remix of classical traditions and the creation of a hybrid form able to suit the rhetorical demands of the so-called post-racial era. An interesting example of this remix, which is in some way translingual, is offered by proverb use in the following passage: “What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds, how many were able to make a way out of no way [emphasis added] for those like me who would come after them” (Obama, 2008). As Dundes (1975, p. 104) stated, proverbs are “the wisdom of many and the wit of one” and in the black community are used in more life domains and more extensively than in other cultures, as the practice is a crucial source of survival strategies. Repeated by parents to their children or to friends and siblings, proverbs embody the wisdom of black people, a legacy that has allowed African Americans to keep their essential perceptions of reality and fundamental value orientations. Making a way outta no way is one of these proverbs, often quoted by Martin Luther King in his sermons, speeches, and interviews (Mieder, 2010). Also, the late rapper Tupac Shakur once summed up effectively the content of this proverb: “This longstanding African American folk saying reflects the Black struggle to survive ‘against all odds’” (Alim & Smitherman, 2012, p. 74). Obama’s uttering of this familiar vernacular trope in the 2008 Race Speech not only symbolizes his black identity, but also functions as an important political statement, as he represents the black condition in terms of accomplishment, not breakdown. Furthermore, articulating the BE idiom Makin’ a way outta no way in the SE form Making a way out of no way, Obama “found a way to articulate Blackness on a national stage” (Alim & Smitherman, 2012, p. 76), in an effort to unify a still divided America. It is worth pointing out that this proverb has undergone a transformation in Hip Hop culture, where Makin’ a way outta no way resembles the expression Flipping something outta nothing, which refers to African American creative genius, “resourcefulness in the face of limited resources” (Seidel, 2011). And African American linguistic creativity is shown in any language domain, for example in the lexicon, which in its constant evolution features onomatopoeia (e. g., the verb pop for to shoot) and ideophones (e. g., the noun bling-bling for expensive jewelry), as well as eye dialect forms (e. g., the controversial term nigga for nigger), iconic use of alphabetical letters (e. g., G for a thousand dollar) or numbers (e. g., the adjective 7–11 for available) and acronyms. As far as the latter are concerned, it is worth considering the translingual significance of the acronym CPT, which stands for Colored People Time. Its connotation, in fact, changes with its users. For African Americans CPT is both a race-conscious expression and an inside joke, as it refers to black people’s pe-

28

Paola Attolino

culiar notion of time, their feeling of being in time rather than on time, thus in harmony with seasons, human events, natural rhythms and not slaves to a clock, as required by the white, mainstream culture (Smitherman, 2006). For white people, instead, the expression CPT embodies the stereotypical view of African Americans’ indolence, untrustworthiness, and lack of punctuality, hence it is connoted as a racist joke, as shown in a recent episode of Hilary Clinton’s electoral campaign. In April 2016, during a New York charity event hosting her, Mrs. Clinton poked fun at Mayor Bill De Blasio for his late endorsement of her candidacy. When De Blasio joked, “Sorry Hilary, I was running on CPT time” (Merica, 2016), the host of the event, African American actor Leslie Odom jr., warned the two politicians not to make such a joke. A few days later, President Barack Obama wanted to reiterate this warning during his last White House Correspondent Dinner. Apologizing for being late he said, “I was running on CPT, which stands for jokes that white people should not make” (Levine, 2016). In other words, when white people want to use African American expressions, they can’t move away from race-consciousness.

4.

Between nigga and wigga: nuances of racism in America

It is worth noting that black verbal and nonverbal communication has had an ambivalent reception in the white mainstream culture. The latter has always considered Black English as a minor variety of American English, but at the same time black talk has constantly fascinated white people. In the 1950s Norman Mailer, author of the essay The White Negro, ascribed the “Africanization of American English” (Smitherman, 1998, p. 30), to white people’s irresistible attraction to language, gesture, and music of African Americans, who have always lived at the edge of the dominant society, but have also been capable of daring their distinctive lifestyle. The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s fostered the socalled “wigga phenomenon” (Smitherman, 1998, p. 217), a derogatory expression referring to the adoption of black pop culture, language, and lifestyle by white people. In a 1991 article, Ebony magazine defined this crossover as the “high-five revolution” (Alim & Smitherman, 2012, p. 104) after the giving of a high-five congratulatory hand slap, which has become a greeting gesture extremely popular all over the world. Indeed, a fundamental role in the spreading of black culture is played by Hip Hop. Since the late 1970s, this cultural movement has had a huge impact on the USA and successively in every corner of the planet. Thanks to Hip Hop and new media outlets, black talk and black phraseology in particular have spread in an unprecedented way. When white people imitate styles and practices originally belonging to African American culture, it is not considered flattery, provided that

“Yo word is yo bond”

29

they pay homage to Black experience, as pointed out by rapper Ice Cube: “when you ‘talk that talk’ […] you must be ‘true to the game’” (Smitherman, 1998, p. 218), and this explains why a white rapper like Eminem appeals to the black community, because, as rapper Nas says in a 2008 song, “he my nigga,” a genuine member of the Hip Hop in-group. Moreover, the global spread of Hip Hop has had implications for language acquisition: it contributes to English learning all over the world, even if it is not the King’s English, the standard language, but African American phraseological heritage that mixes with local idioms, as stated by rapper Chuck D: “This is the sound and style of our young world, the vernacular used in today’s speak from scholastics to sports. [Because of Hip Hop,] young people around the world are training themselves to speak English quicker than their schools could, albeit a tad different from the King’s version” (Smitherman, 2006, p. 117). However, there are dimensions of black language and culture that continue to be unfamiliar or misunderstood by the white mainstream. This is true both for verbal and nonverbal communication and it means that not everybody knows how to answer the fundamental Hymesian question as far as communication in any language is concerned: “Who can say what to whom under what conditions?” (Hymes, 1974). Often the answer to this question is not the same for black people as it is for white people: although they seem to be speaking the same language, the connotations and rules of engagement for using that language differ significantly. This is patently evident in the semantic inversion of common English words such as nigga, muthafucka, and nappy, which can be used with a positive meaning only “by Blacks with Blacks in Black social contexts” (Alim & Smitherman, 2012, p. 107), whereas if uttered by white people they take on mostly negative connotations. Such a semantic shift occurs also in the case of ritualized language traditions, for example signifying and playing the Dozens, inner city verbal games where two opponents ritually insult each other in front of a public until one of them remains in hush mode and where the use of double meaning and indirect humor as critique subsumes rhetorical tropes like metaphor, metonymy, hyperbole, and irony (Attolino, 2016). As an outlet for physical aggression rooted in slavery, the performative nature of the Dozens respects the philosophy of another well-known black saying, Laughing to keep from crying, which represents the indomitable spirit of African Americans, their answer to the harshness of life, and gives also the title to one of the most significant works by Langston Hughes, a touchy social satire on the idea of race. As already said, the dynamics arising from the semantic inversion characteristic of black communication are often unintelligible to the white mainstream, unable to penetrate beneath the surface of obscene language. African American linguist Arthur Spears explained black language behavior as a phenomenon of reappropriation, which he named uncensored mode:

30

Paola Attolino

In this mode, expressions that in censored contexts [… church services and other contexts in which persons of high, mainstream-supported respect are present] are considered obscene or evaluatively negative are used in an almost or completely evaluatively neutral way, i. e., the expressions are not inherently negative or positive. That is, they are neutralized: they are negative, positive or neutral in force depending on how they are used. Many people who function exclusively or primarily in mainstream settings are not aware of this (Spears, 1998, p. 232).

Indeed, the same fact that in any society it is the language of those in power to be labelled as standard or normal is thought provoking. As Barack Obama put it, American society remains one in which, “in general, members of every minority group continue to be measured largely by the degree of our assimilation – how closely speech patterns [emphasis mine], dress, or demeanor conform to the dominant white culture – and the more that a minority strays from these external markers, the more he or she is subject to negative assumptions” (Obama, 2006, p. 235). Apart from having an ever-evolving lexicon, as has been already said, BE encompasses both a set of distinctive grammatical rules and numerous linguistic practices and cultural modes of discourse. BE, in fact, presents specific and systematic features regarding grammar, which differ significantly from SE and have been studied for the first time by sociolinguist William Labov (1972), such as copula absence (e. g., We straight for We are straight), expression used also by Barack Obama addressing a cashier who handed him the change in a fast food (Alim & Smitherman, 2012), invariant be for habitual aspect (e. g., He be actin’ crazy, meaning He usually acts crazy), stressed been to mark remote past (e. g., I been told you not to go there, meaning I told you a long time ago not to go there), omission of the third person singular present tense -s (e. g., He understand what I say), verb featuring -s in other persons (e. g., They always tries to be obedient), possessive -s absence (e. g., I’m braidin’ Talesha hair for I’m braiding Talesha’s hair), and multiple negation (e. g., You might not tell them nothing about it). As far as linguistic practices are concerned, speakers of BE may participate in cultural modes of discourse, including gestures, body language, and Tonal Semantics, a term coined by Geneva Smitherman “to refer to the use of speech rhythm, intonation, melodious repetition – that is, voice sound – to convey meaning in Black oratorical style” (Alim & Smitherman, 2012, p. 92). Though black language cannot be defined as just a checklist of features that distinguish it from SE or a set of deviations from the standard, it continues to be scrutinized and criticized in the American public sphere, including education, and unfortunately this fact is not surprising, as it underpins racist implications: “Black Communication becomes controversial only in a society that deprecates Blackness” (Alim & Smitherman, 2012, p. 125). Such deprecation can be shown through overt and covert racist practices. The latter are particularly interesting because they often reveal racist ideologies that even a racist may not be aware of.

“Yo word is yo bond”

31

Educators, for instance, continue to view the language of black children as something to eradicate for their sake, as if teachers’ commitment to teach them to be successful in life meant to teach them to be mainstream, because in the collective imagination being successful means being mainstream, and being mainstream means to be able to “act, talk and sound like Whites” (Alim & Smitherman, 2021, p. 190). That the issue of race in the United States is still unresolved is shown, amongst other things, by the numerous episodes of police brutality which have recently occurred in several American cities, consistently followed by the pacific protest carried out by the Black Lives Matter movement, which was born in 2013 from a hashtag on social media and has established itself as a political interlocutor in today’s America, as well as a sort of mantra to reiterate the urgency of the problem of racial discrimination. However, the race issue often goes unsaid in American society: “Race relations itself has been such a complicated, difficult and painful issue for so many Americans for so long that free and open discussion of racial matters may be difficult for people” (Brummett, 2008, p. 3). For this reason, the comic frame often turns out to be particularly effective for addressing race in America without the patronizing straightforwardness that comes with the tragic frame. A recent example in this regard is offered by Black Jeopardy!, a recurring sketch broadcasted during the television variety show Saturday Night Live as a funny parody of Jeopardy!, the most famous and longstanding television game show in the United States. As they exaggerate black stereotypes – and most of them pertain to black language – in a comedic way, the show, offering examples of translanguaging by the black contestants and affirming hyperbolically the exclusiveness of BE, has the potential to reverse the historically positioned hegemonic roles of black and white races, making black culture the dominant force, while giving white culture the minority. This reversal of roles gives each race the chance to see things from the other’s perspective, bringing them a little bit closer (Attolino, 2019b).

5.

Some closing remarks The language, only the language […]. It’s the thing that Black people love so much – the saying of words, holding them on the tongue, experimenting with them, playing with them. It’s a love, a passion. Its function is like a preacher’s: to make you stand up out of your seat, make you lose yourself and hear yourself. The worst of all possible things that could happen would be to lose that language. There are certain things I cannot say without recourse to my language. It’s terrible to think that a child with five different present tenses comes to school to be faced with books that are less than his own language. And then to be told things about his language, which is him, that are some-

32

Paola Attolino

times permanently damaging. He may never know the etymology of Africanisms in his language, not even know that ‘hip’ is a real word or that ‘the dozens’ meant something. This is a really cruel fallout of racism (Toni Morrison quoted in LeClaire, 1981).

Toni Morrison’s words sum up effectively the core of the brief insights presented in this paper. Language plays a crucial role in shaping our ideas of race and vice versa. Language, in fact, is fundamentally relational, as language meaning comes about in interaction. Actually, in interaction most people transform linguistic diversity into linguistic hierarchies, looking at linguistic repertoires not just as a product of time, space and experience, but as superior or inferior, as appropriate or inappropriate, as right or wrong. The social reinterpretation of linguistic diversity as hierarchies may lead to social injustices, and many Americans who are racialized as black, especially the ones who are close to the edge, are well aware of this. The development of the concept of translanguaging (Garcia & Li, 2013) opens up to a new understanding that language varieties are not just a list of linguistic features belonging to a given race. Moreover, the same notion of language varieties is being questioned to make room for expressions like “linguistic resources” (Alim, 2016, p. 37) that better convey the fluidity of language use: as they engage in a process of identification, speakers draw on their linguistic resources, and these dynamics entail translanguaging as a hybrid language use that is a deliberate, affiliative, and sense-making process, which calls both for new, unbiased educational policies and for a deeper social understanding.

References Alim, H. S. (2016). Who’s afraid of the transracial subject? Raciolinguistics and the political project of transracialization. In H. S. Alim, J. R. Rickford, & A. F. Ball (Eds.), Raciolinguistics. How Language Shapes our Ideas about Race (pp. 33–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190625696.001.0001. Alim, H. S., & Smitherman, G. (2012). Articulate while Black. Barack Obama, Language and Race in the U.S. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Alkebulan, A. A. (2005). Nommo. In M. K. Asante, & A. Mazama (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Black Studies (pp. 379–381). London-New Delhi: Sage. Attolino, P. (2016). “Yo mama so…”: The dozens as verbal street art. In M. Cariello, E. Falivene, C. Saggiomo, P. Viviani, & S. Obad (Eds.), Itinerari di culture (pp. 31–41). Napoli: Loffredo. Attolino, P. (2019a). “Making a way outta no way”: Conventionality and creativity in Black semantics. In V. Bonsignori, G. Cappelli, & E. Mattiello (Eds.), Worlds of Words: Complexity, Creativity, and Conventionality in English Language, Literature and Culture (pp. 475–484). Pisa: Pisa University Press.

“Yo word is yo bond”

33

Attolino, P. (2019b). Messing with blackness in SNL’s Black Jeopardy! In A. Amendola, & L. Barone (Eds.), To Be Continued… Seriality across Narrations, Languages and Mass Consumptions (pp. 18–30). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars. Baldwin, J. (1979). If Black English isn’t a language, then tell me what is? The New York Times, July 29. Retrieved January 30, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/1979/07/29/a rchives/if-black-english-isnt-a-language-then-tell-me-what-is.html. Baraka, A. (1963). Blues People: Negro Music in White America. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company. Brummett, B. (2008). Uncovering Hidden Rhetorics: Social Issues in Disguise. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc. Clemetson, L. (2007). The racial politics of speaking well. The New York Times. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/weekinreview/04clemets on.html. Dundes, A. (1975). Analytic Essays in Folklore. New York, NY: Mouton Publisher. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London & New York, NY: Routledge. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2004.08.003. Garcia, O., & Li, W. (2013). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism, and Education. New York, NY: Palgrave Pivot. doi:10.1080/15235882.2014.965361. Gunn, J., & McPhail, M. L. (2015). Coming home to roost: Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama, and the (re)signing of (post) racial rhetoric. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 45(1), 1–24. Haberman, C. (1996). Straight talk in the debate over Ebonics. The New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/31/nyregion/strai ght-talk-in-the-debate-over-ebonics.html. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: OUP. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia, PS: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (2006). Unendangered dialects, endangered people. To appear in N. ShillingEstes (Ed.), Gurt’06. Retrieved January 17, 2021, from https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~w labov/Papers/UDEP.pdf. LeClaire, T. (1981). “The language must not sweat.” A conversation with Toni Morrison. The New Republic. Retrieved January 29, 2021, from https://newrepublic.com/article /95923/the-language-must-not-sweat. Levine, S. (2016). Obama pokes fun at Bill De Blasio’s ‘CP Time’ joke. Huffpost. Retrieved July 26, 2017, from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-cp-time_n_5725657ce4b0 f 309baf11320. Li, W. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1222– 1235. Lu, M., & Horner, B. (2013). Translingual literacy, language difference, and matters of agency. College English, 75(6), 582–611.

34

Paola Attolino

Merica, D. (2016). Bill De Blasio defends racial joke told with Hilary Clinton. CNN Politics. Retrieved January 21, 2021, from http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/11/politics/bill-de-bla sio-hillary-clinton-racial-joke/index.html. Mieder, W. (2010) “Making a Way Out of No Way”. Martin Luther King’s Sermonic Proverbial Rhetoric. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Morrison, T. (1993). Nobel Lecture. The Nobel Prize in Literature 1993. Retrieved January 19, 2021, from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1993/morrison/lecture/. Obama, B. (2006). The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. New York, NY: Crown Publishers. Obama, B. (2008). A more perfect union. Internet Archive. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from https://web.archive.org/web/20080320231608/https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/ 18/text-of-obamas-speech-a-more-perfect-union/?mod=googlenews_wsj. Pennycook, A. (2000). English, politics, ideology: From colonial celebration to postcolonial performativity. In T. Ricento, & T. G. Wiley (Eds.), Ideology, Politics and Language Policies: Focus on English (pp. 107–119). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poplack, S. (2020). ‘It don’t be like that now’ – the English history of African American English. The Conversation. Retrieved September 15, 2021, from https://theconversatio n.com/it-dont-be-like-that-now-the-english-history-of-african-american-english-1296 11. Rickford, J. R. (1997). LSA Resolution on the Oakland “Ebonics” Issue. Retrieved January 17, 2021, from https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/lsa-resolution-oakland-ebonics -issue. Rucker, W. (2002). “A Negro nation within the nation”: W. E. B. Du Bois and the creation of a revolutionary pan-Africanist tradition, 1903–1947. The Black Scholar, 32, 37–46. Seidel, S. (2011). Hip Hop Genius: Remixing High School Education. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Smitherman, G. (1998). Word from the hood: The lexicon of African-American vernacular English. In G. Bailey, J. Baugh, S. S. Mufwene, & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), African American English. Structure, History and Use (pp. 203–225). New York, NY: Routledge. Smitherman, G. (2000). Talkin That Talk. New York, NY: Routledge. Smitherman, G. (2006). Word from the Mother. Language and African Americans. New York, NY: Routledge. Spears, A. (1998). African-American language use: Ideology and so-called obscenity. In G. Bailey, J. Baugh, S. S. Mufwene, & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), African American English. Structure, History and Use (pp. 226–250). New York, NY: Routledge. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Dijk, T. (1993). Discourse and Elite Racism. London: Sage. Waldman, K. (2016). Where does “Your word is your bond” come from, and why did Melania steal it? Slate. Retrieved January 19, 2021, from https://slate.com/human-inte rest/2016/07/your-word-is-your-bond-history-and-origins-from-matthew-to-hip-ho p.html. Yancy, G. (2004). Geneva Smitherman: The social ontology of African American Language, the power of Nommo, and the dynamics of resistance and identity through language. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 18, 273–299.

Michael M. Kretzer

Chapter 2 – Touristscapes: (Multilingual) Language Policy and (Monolingual) Linguistic Landscape (LL) at Tourist Sites in Eastern Cape, South Africa

Abstract Due to its Apartheid legacy, language policy in South Africa is an emotional and contested topic. Various debates and policy initiatives have taken place in the past. These include debates around the status of Afrikaans and English and the role of the nine official indigenous languages. Overall, English dominates all spheres of life. African languages are used to a lesser extent but to varying degrees. This research was conducted in the Sarah Baartman District in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The Eastern Cape is one of the less visited provinces by tourists, but it is part of the spectacular Garden Route National Park. Over 400 examples of designed tourist signs that reflect the LL were analyzed. Regardless of the multilingual reality, the vast majority of designed tourist signs were multimodal, but often monolingual or only hybrid English signboards. IsiXhosa, the dominant African language of the province, was hardly visible, except on a few bi- or trilingual boards, which included Afrikaans, English, and isiXhosa. The rest of South Africa’s linguistic repertoire and other international languages were not visible at all. Therefore, the LL did not reflect the socio-cultural situation with its isiXhosa-speaking dominance in the Eastern Cape or its tourist visitors’ diverse linguistic backgrounds. Keywords: African languages, isiXhosa, tourism, South Africa, Linguistic Landscape (LL)

1.

Introduction

On heritage day 2015, a public holiday in South Africa, the Eastern Cape Province re-named one of its districts to Sarah Baartman. Such name change aims to honor the first peoples, the Khoikhoi and San communities in South Africa. This was specifically with regard to the Eastern Cape. Under colonial rule, indigenous communities were completely marginalized. Sarah Baartman, a Khoikhoi woman, was ill-treated as a human novelty and displayed in public in the early 19th century in Europe due to her large buttocks. Therefore, to honor her and fully recognize the Khoikhoi and San communities in order to show that they are an Michael M. Kretzer, Ruhr University Bochum (Germany) / Rhodes University (South Africa), ORCID: 0000-0002-8603-0141, [email protected] / [email protected].

36

Michael M. Kretzer

equal part of South Africa, the re-naming took place (SABC, 2015). Such political decisions have an effect on South Africans, but also on tourists. The Eastern Cape and Sarah Baartman District have many areas which are frequently visited by national and international tourists, Sarah Baartman’s grave in the village of Hankey being one of them. Tourism plays an increasingly important role for many (developing) countries. As a labor-intensive sector, tourism contributes significantly to job creation. Various forms of tourism include cultural tourism, nature tourism, city tourism, and many other formats. In general, travelers are categorized as domestic, inbound, and outbound tourists. Another classification is according to personal or business and professional reasons. The individual purpose of tourism comprises plenty of reasons, such as education, health care, religion and pilgrimage, shopping, visiting friends, or holidays, leisure, and recreation. In 2019, the Eastern Cape represented only a 4.1% share of all tourist arrivals in South Africa. Only the Northern Cape Province attracted fewer tourists (Department of Tourism, 2020, p. 38). Nevertheless, international travel agencies still frequently included the Eastern Cape in their tours, targeting the Garden Route or other coastal areas. However, it is often not the leading tourist destination of South Africa, unlike Cape Town or the Kruger National Park. Overall in 2019, seven out of the top ten overseas international tourist markets were non-English speaking countries, including in descending order Germany, France, the Netherlands, India, China, Brazil, and Italy (Department of Tourism, 2020, p. 32). Regarding access, the English language is seen as an advantage in South Africa, together with its relative political stability, good general infrastructure, and accessible air travel (Saayman & Saayman, 2008, p. 83). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, tourism is significantly interrupted locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. It will take many years to recover or rebuild. COVID-19 has had a very destructive and devastating impact on the South African tourism sector, especially on the international arrivals, which decreased in certain months by 99% (Rogerson & Rogerson, 2020, p. 383). Fortuitously, the fieldwork for this study was already completed in February 2020. This presented one of the last chances to collect data before the various lockdowns took place. Overall, the research offers a snapshot of what was observed and documented during that time. The post-COVID-19 tourism might look quite different; the represented and analyzed data embodies insights into historical artifacts of a pre-COVID-19 LL era of tourism in the Eastern Cape. LL is always vivid and fluid, and changes over time. Therefore, it reflects sociocultural developments and always represents a snapshot, as language(s) and societies are mobile and continuously change. This chapter aims to address the existing research gaps of LL and tourism, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparative studies are also relatively rare; therefore, this study precisely ad-

Touristscapes

37

dresses this gap by researching the LL of three different tourist sites in a South African research area.

2.

Origins, areas, and scope of Linguistic Landscape (LL) research

The beginning of LL research is often attributed to Landry and Bourhis’s (1997, p. 25) publication. Their description is the most commonly cited definition: The language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings combines to form the linguistic landscape of a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration.

Their introductory depiction is often used as a definition of LL, and further extended with a list of elements under the umbrella of LL. Due to technological developments this includes many more digital boards as part of LL. The methodology that is used, as well as areas of LL, have also been significantly broadened. Nevertheless, some fundamental aspects remain consistent. Research into LLs often took place, and still takes place in various urban agglomerations, mainly multilingual or at least bilingual settings. This type of research is largely situated in cities in the Global North. Within Africa, studies about South Africa dominate. Despite this fact, some studies exist about other countries. For example, Anderson et al. (2020) conducted very recent research about a marketplace in Accra, in Ghana. Furthermore, Zimny (2017) and Akindele (2011) collected data in Windhoek and Gaborone, the capital cities of Namibia and Botswana. Fewer studies were conducted in rural settlements (Mokwena, 2017, p. 15). For South Africa, Loth (2016) researched rural settlements in the Free State Province in her PhD thesis, a hardly studied area regarding LLs. Banda and Mokwena (2019) researched the usage of African languages in the Northern Cape, a very rural province of South Africa, contributing to growing African LL research. During the process of broadening methodologies, definitions, and LL concepts, various “subfields” developed. Coining new terms such as “schoolscape” (Brown, 2012) or “foodscapes” appeared in parallel. Weldemichael, Peck, and Williams (2019) analyzed this aspect of LL research in Eritrea’s capital city Asmara. Only a few studies exist which include a diachronic analysis. One is the study by Said and Ong (2019) in Penang, reflecting LL changes over time. Regarding the relationship of language policy within educational contexts and LLs, a study by Kretzer and Kaschula (2021) offered an insight into the wide variety of language policy documents and the heterogeneity of LLs represented by school logos or information leaflets. Research about specific LLs in tourist

38

Michael M. Kretzer

areas or the reciprocal relationship between both also exist but are nearly exclusively limited to various field studies in different countries of the Global North. Research connecting the Global North and South and analyzing identity, heritage, and authenticity such as the study by Coupland and Garrett (2010), concerning the use of Welsh in the Patagonian context, remain very isolated research studies. Examples focusing on the LL at tourist spaces emphasizing indigenous languages appear rather seldom. One example is a study concentrating on the LL of the Irish tourist town Dingle in the Gaeltacht in the far West of the island. Interestingly enough, LL in Dingle uses Irish Gaelic precisely for tourism, performing a critical indexical role to showcase Dingle as a very authentic Irish experience (Moriarty, 2014, p. 466) to enable the “Other-experience” for tourists. Heller (2003, p. 490) highlights that tourism, branding it as an authentic cultural product, including language visibility, can uplift a particular language’s status. Languages other than English are, however, becoming more and more commodified to signal authenticity. In the contrary, English allows global tourists “easy” access to the tourist destination. Additionally, border areas or comparative topics regarding tourism are hardly ever researched. Only very few exceptions exist, such as the LL analysis in Lithuania and Poland’s border region (Ruzaitè, 2017). Both languages, Polish and Lithuanian, are “foreign” to the general, global tourist and pose difficulties to the accessibility of those tourist areas to – at least international – tourists. Hence, as mentioned above, if “smaller” or “indigenous” languages are used to portray authenticity, certain limitations or restrictions prevail. Therefore, accessibility, which includes a feeling of security through the LL, remains crucial for increasing global tourism. This might explain why English is at the forefront in so many places globally, not traditionally related to the English language or any other Anglophone cultural aspects.

3.

Language policy in South Africa

South Africa represents a multilingual and heterogeneous country with a substantial historical burden, including a colonial legacy and the very violent and inhuman apartheid era. Language policy was a key instrument of separation and indication of power and dominance and at no time in South African history was it a “neutral” tool for communication. African languages were hardly used during colonial times, except for primary school education, typical for Anglophone African countries. Although missionary organizations alphabetized and standardized African languages, they also arbitrarily divided and separated those languages (Kaschula, 1999, p. 66). Afrikaans developed out of Dutch and became

Touristscapes

39

THE identity marker of its speakers, which is exemplified in the following quote: “Die taal is gans die volk” (“The language is all the people”). The South Africa Act of 1909 laid down the Union’s foundation, and Article 137 of the Constitution declared Dutch and English official languages. Interestingly enough, the description was exact and did not leave any space for interpretation (University of Wisconsin, 2016, South Africa Act: Art. 137). Retrospectively in 1925, section 1 of the Official Languages of the Union Act 8 declared that Dutch includes Afrikaans (Malan, 2011, p. 383). The Report of the Joint Committee on the use of Afrikaans in Bills, Acts, and official documents of Parliament showed the significant efforts and success of Afrikaans’ acquisition planning. Publications were equally available in Dutch/Afrikaans and English, and the LL was also relatively equally represented. A clear diglossia between Afrikaans and English existed. After the National Party won the elections and introduced the system of apartheid, language policy was one key instrument to separate the constructed “races” and language groups. The LL also reflected this racist regime. The apartheid regulations distinctly separated people from different groups within all aspects of life through various legislative measures such as the Groups Areas Act of 1950. Such legislation built the foundation for all constructed racial legislative documents, like the Bantu Education Act of 1953, the Coloured Persons Education Act of 1963, among many others. Depending on the target population, the boards used language(s) of specific groups and were responsible for the development of those languages for the purposes of divided educational models. The Constitution of the Union of South Africa declared Afrikaans and English official languages and was very precise regarding its implementation procedures. After the democratic transition and the post-apartheid Constitution of 1996, South Africa has eleven official languages, including nine African languages (Republic of South Africa, 1996). Unlike previously, the new Constitution’s formulations were rather vague and needed to be interpreted accordingly. Formulations such as “enjoy parity of esteem” or “be treated equitably” in Article 6 (4) hinder an accurate judicial control of the language policy’s implementation significantly (Beukes, 2008, p. 18; Malan, 2011, p. 392; Ngcobo, 2012, p. 182). The only clear and precise formulation mentioned is the minimum of two languages to be used for the national and provincial government as stipulated under Article 6 (3)(b) (Republic of South Africa, 1996, Art. 6). Somehow “surprisingly,” as Heugh (2013, p. 230) described the new legislative Acts, the ANC government announced changes in its language policy. It seemed like the government realized existing flaws in the Constitution or the need for a more precise, supporting policy document. Therefore, in 2012 the Use of Official Language Act was published and implemented step by step on various government levels. This Act aims to increase African languages’ usage and make institutional language policies

40

Michael M. Kretzer

compulsory for all government departments and governmental institutions or ministries, such as police, health, and tourism. It also intends to regulate and monitor the eleven official languages used by various national governmental agencies (South African Government, 2012). The Eastern Cape government in 2016 passed the Use of Official Language Bill and declared isiXhosa, Afrikaans, English, and Sesotho to be the province’s official languages (South African Government, 2016). In November 2015, the Department of Tourism passed its official language policy document and ultimately declared English, Sepedi, and isiZulu as the three official languages for government purposes. The Department of Tourism also highlights the promotion of multilingualism that enhances people-centeredness according to communities’ individual language needs. Under point seven, the Department of Tourism anticipates clarifying its language policy more precisely, stating that the following aspects influence the selection of a language in each context or situation: “Usage of the particular language, practicability, expense, and regional circumstances” (Department of Tourism, 2015). The document further elaborates on communication with the public through advertisements, booklets, or signage on buildings, which are undoubtedly a significant part of LLs. Hence, those criteria should be considered for all tourism-related boards and signs (Department of Tourism, 2015).

4.

Legislative regulations for LL in South Africa and the Eastern Cape

A somewhat open legal framework is evident for the LL in South Africa. No clear and specific legal regulations exist to stipulate the rules of LLs. However, some laws are in place for road signage, corporate business, or in general outdoor signage. One example is the South African Manual for Outdoor Advertising Control (SAMOAC) of 1998 (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 1998). Surprisingly, the document does not mention any aspect related to language choice. Even in the Revised South African Manual for Outdoor Advertising Control (SAMOAC) of 2010, the text does not refer to language usage. The document itself is exact regarding specific definitions, measures, color, or duration it takes for a board is be allowed to be placed into the public sphere. The guideline sheet offers under class 5(c) “Tourism Information Signs” further specific regulations for the sub-category of tourism-related boards, but remains silent concerning language use (Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, 2011). In any event, some municipalities or metropolitan areas formulate their own individual outdoor signage policy documents. One example is the “Outdoor Advertising and

Touristscapes

41

signage policy” of Cape Town from 2016. The document also refers a few times to aspects of tourism and mentions “protecting environmental and heritage aspects and contributing to a sense of place” (City of Cape Town, 2016, p. 15) as a primary goal of its signage policy. But again, the document never defines any language policy for signage or public boards at all. Similarly, in its document “Outdoor advertising control policy,” the local municipality of Mangaung, based in Free State Province, never names language or anything related to language. The paper also focuses on definitions of different types of signs and groups them into various classes. For example, the Mangaung municipality document categorizes in class four, “Signs for the tourist and traveler,” all tourism-related signs and boards, but only to give specific definitions about such boards measures, without any language policy related guideline (Mangaung, 2018, p. 14). Within the Eastern Cape Province, similar policies exist on a local level. One such example is the Buffalo City Municipality with its “Policy: Outdoor Advertising signage.” This legal document is far less concerned about tourism. It just states that the boards and signs should be in “balance” with “conservation of visual, tourist, traffic safety” aspects (Buffalo City Municipality, 2010, p. 1). A wide variety of other legislative documents touch LL-related issues depending on the form’s core. The National Road Traffic Regulations of 2000 deal with all signage next to any public road, but for obvious reasons, focus on road safety first and foremost. The National Environmental Management Act of 1998 or the National Heritage Resources Act of 2003 deals indirectly with aspects of LL, but from the perspective of protecting the environment, or the cultural or natural heritage. This brief overview shows that hardly any attention is given to language policy for outdoor public boards and signs neither on a national, regional, or local level. Moreover, all analyzed documents remain relatively silent about what language(s) should be used at all. Hence, such legislative documents hinder judicial control. Nevertheless, as shown above, several regulations indirectly offer the legal framework for the LL of tourism in the Eastern Cape.

5.

Methodology

Data collection took place during several research trips to three different research sites in the Sarah Baartman District between April 2018 and February 2020 (see Figure 1). There were also a few research sites from other areas that were included, for example, Nature’s Valley, which is part of the Garden Route National Park. It became clear that districts do not always have separate language policies but instead follow the national or provincial policies.

42

Michael M. Kretzer

IsiXhosa L1-speakers, followed by Afrikaans, dominate the Eastern Cape, and only a small part of the population speaks English or Sesotho as their L1. IsiXhosa even increased between the Census 2011 and the Community Survey of 2016 from 78.8% to an overwhelming 82.7%. Afrikaans remained more or less stable with around 10%, and English significantly decreased from 5.6% to 3.9%. This Census data indicates how dominant isiXhosa is within the Eastern Cape (Statistics South Africa, 2018, p. 18). In the Sarah Baartman District, the situation looks far more balanced between Afrikaans and isiXhosa and these languages count for around 90% of all speakers.

Figure 1. Research Area – Sarah Baartman District in South Africa. Source: Generated by Michael M. Kretzer using 2016 Municipal Demarcation Board data

The research focused on the following research questions: 1. What is the LL like in different tourist areas in the Sarah Baartman District in South Africa? 2. What parallels and differences exist regarding those areas as well as other analyzed variables, such as content or aim of the LL, selected languages, ownership, among others? 3. To what extent is the displayed LL a reflection or implementation of the underlying legislative framework? This study includes over 420 pictures of LL. Two hundred and twenty examples of LL are from the Garden Route National Park at various locations, such as The Big

Touristscapes

43

Tree, Nature’s Valley, or Tsitsikamma Park. Seventy-nine LL examples are taken from different beach locations in Port Alfred and Kenton-on-Sea, and 122 LL examples at Grahamstown/Makhanda and Hogsback. The three research sites comprised two coastal tourist areas and one in-country tourist area within the Eastern Cape. The in-country tourist area of Grahamstown/Makhanda and especially Hogsback are predominantly, if not nearly exclusively, tourist destinations for South African tourists. However, the coastal research sites attract national as well as international tourists. The area of Tsitsikamma is a prominent destination for international tourists alongside the internationally well-known Garden Route National Park area. Some minor ethnographical observations of tourists took place during the LL data collection. However, such observations did not include participant observation or shadowing, as individual behavior was not the focus of interest but rather overall general reactions. Therefore group behavior observation was part of this research. In addition, it included observing tourists at tourism-information signs as those were more suitable to watch due to the informing role they play and their accessibility on foot. The study only included signs that are visible in the public domain from the outside. No internal signs within premises were used. Furthermore, mobile items, such as lexical or multimodal items on cars or products, were excluded. The study used a synchronic approach, collecting data within a specific time frame. During fieldwork at each research site, ethnographic observations took place for several minutes to see how particular boards attracted tourists or kept their attention. It only included touristic spots which were identified and some major roads leading to such locations. For obvious reasons, data collection did not include all LL at all three research sites due to the focus on the relationship between LLs and tourism. For example, street names or mobile boards with advertisements at street lights regarding abortion or information about church services were not analyzed. According to the Revised South African Manual for Outdoor Advertising Control (SAMOAC) Guideline 2010, the collected LL included mainly Class 5.2.5 “Signs for the tourist and traveler.” Class 5.2.5 consists of “5a) Service Facility Signs, 5b) Road Traffic Project Signs, 5c) Tourism Information Signs, and 5d) Gateway Signs” (Department of Environment, Forestry, and Fisheries, 2011).

44

6.

Michael M. Kretzer

Patterns of LL in touristic areas in the research area of Eastern Cape

The vast majority of LL was exclusively monolingual and in English. Two hundred and forty-one boards of the researched examples used only English. Monolingual Afrikaans or isiXhosa boards were only found on a single-digit number. Only three boards were monolingual isiXhosa, and also only six were monolingual in Afrikaans. None of the over 420 photographed boards was monolingual using Sesotho. Although all four languages are the official languages of the Eastern Cape, this already revealed a clear dominance of the English touristscape: the LL at tourist-related places. Nevertheless, Sesotho was not expected to be represented in the LL because its speakers are mainly concentrated in the northeast of the Eastern Cape, bordering Free State Province or Lesotho. A more significant, substantial number of boards used either isiXhosa or Afrikaans in addition to English or used to some extent all three languages as a hybrid board (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Overview of the touristscape: the LL based on Sarah Baartman District tourist boards. Source: Own compilation

Because nature dominated the touristic sites as a purpose of leisure travel, Latin’s re-occurring appearance might surprise one at first (see Figure 3). Another frequent occurrence was the Khoe-San language cluster through various place names, such as Tsitsikamma or Kowie. The example in Figure 3 included at least the tree’s name in four languages, namely Latin on top and in bold letters,

Touristscapes

45

English, Afrikaans and, surprisingly, isiZulu. IsiZulu and isiXhosa belong both to the Nguni language family and are closely related languages. This indicates this board’s production happened nationally, as the usage of isiZulu signals its somehow “lingua franca” status within South Africa as the most spoken African language. The central part and explanation are again exclusively monolingual in English. Nonetheless, the tourist signboards hardly used authenticity or “Otherexperience” as a commodity for the LL, unlike the described examples of the “Gaeltacht” (Moriarty, 2014). Furthermore, the above-mentioned “regional circumstances” from the Department of Tourism seem to not be considered for the touristscape of the research sites.

Figure 3. Hybrid LL, including four languages (Latin, English, Afrikaans, and isiZulu). Source: Photo taken by Michael M. Kretzer, 2020

One example of a monolingual isiXhosa board is a very old and nearly faint awareness board about HIV (see Figure 4). The board was found at the in-country research site at Hogsback, near the only small supermarket. Hence, it was at the market square, facing the small town’s main road and visible to all tourists and guests. Such a monolingual isiXhosa HIV-awareness board reveals a biased assumption or existing stereotype. This board was not available in monolingual English or Afrikaans at any place, but only in isiXhosa. Despite offering an inclusive isiXhosa-board through using the L1 of the majority of the Eastern Cape

46

Michael M. Kretzer

residents, especially concerning health communication about a sensitive topic, such exclusive, monolingual usage of isiXhosa for such awareness campaign stigmatizes HIV as a “black” or “amaXhosa” disease in that regard. The question remains whether it was just a coincidence that the only still visible HIV awareness/information board is this monolingual isiXhosa board. It could of course also just be a more successful way of reaching people, in the same way that certain COVID-19 information boards appear only in isiXhosa.

Figure 4. Monolingual isiXhosa HIV-board at Hogsback. Source: Photo taken by Michael M. Kretzer, 2018

None of the boards closely and directly related to any tourist site were monolingual in any African language. Monolingual Afrikaans boards were also scarce but included a variety of different boards. One group had town signs or “Gateway Signs” categorized under Class 5(d) within the SAMOAC. An example of this group is the “Welkom in Uitenhage” (see Figure 5) or a very old monument of the Voortrekkers of the mid-19th century (see Figure 6). The “Welkom in Uitenhage” board was partly destroyed, probably by a(n) (car) accident, which created a monolingual Afrikaans board. Previously the English welcome message was on the right side of this board. Nevertheless, interestingly enough, this sign was not yet repaired and remained a monolingual Afrikaans board.

Touristscapes

47

No trilingual Gateway Signs seemed to exist, reflecting an inclusive welcoming not only for international tourists, but also for daily visitors or commuters to the various towns alongside such touristic routes. Such exclusive LL is surprising, given the overwhelming dominance of isiXhosa L1 speakers in the Eastern Cape and its official language policy. Furthermore, there is an unused potential to signal authenticity towards international tourists and to attract guests of cultural or heritage tourism, as the previous Irish “Gaeltacht” example illustrated (Moriarty, 2014). An example of such tourism in South Africa is the Hector Pieterson Memorial and Museum in Soweto in Gauteng, including township tourism or liberation/struggle heritage tourism (van der Merwe, 2016, p. 122). A more holistic understanding of the term “heritage” to include cultural (anthropological) or industrial (mining, manufacturing, or railways) alongside nature (ecological) might help to promote such a (growing) niche of tourism for South Africa. So far, two of the three research sites nearly exclusively focus on nature. The 1820 Settlers Monument in Grahamstown/Makhanda is an exception because its focus is on anthropological heritage. Other examples include cultural villages, but those do not exist at the research sites. Thus to raise awareness and increase the visibility of isiXhosa, its permanent usage and visibility are vital and should not be limited or restricted to such boards or museums. Furthermore, the same applies to a lesser extent for Afrikaans. As shown above, it is the second most spoken language of the province, but its usage is decreasing.

Figure 5. Monolingual Afrikaans Town-Sign or “Gateway sign” at Uitenhage. Source: Photo taken by Michael M. Kretzer, 2020

48

Michael M. Kretzer

Figure 6. Monolingual Afrikaans Voortrekker-Monument in Port Alfred. Source: Photo taken by Michael M. Kretzer, 2019

The warning and prohibition board (see Figure 7), found in Nature’s Valley in the border region between Eastern and Western Cape, illustrates similar Afrikaans patterns. To some extent, its usage is also restricted to specific domains or geographical areas. Certainly, Afrikaans is still frequently used by private shop owners and on bilingual boards, but the language lost its exclusive and privileged position in society at the end of the Apartheid era. The same board composition was available in monolingual English and monolingual Afrikaans, but on two separate parts (see Figure 7). Many tourists stopped and read those boards and spoke with each other while taking pictures of them. Nevertheless, those boards were not available in isiXhosa or Sesotho, or any other African or international language. Such exclusion of African languages was somehow a missed opportunity to use “authenticity” plus enabling an inclusive LL environment. Many tourists from the Eastern and Western Cape provinces

Touristscapes

49

visited such beach sites, which led to very multilingual interactions surrounding such boards, including mainly English and isiXhosa, but also German or French as other international languages. However, such kinds of boards were, in general, rather an exception. Boards only appeared in monolingual form or used two or more languages for certain words or information. A duplicate of one board translated into another language was relatively hard to find. Around 75% of all boards included some pictures or visualization modes, and only a small number used only text. Multimodal boards dominated the LL, which was not surprising as the LL aimed to be appealing and explain certain things to heterogeneous groups of tourists. Most of the boards were private ones from different shops or retailers or they were put up by various government institutions, including national or provincial ones. The study found only isolated signs from educational, religious, or supranational institutions or NGOs in the touristscape. Since the visited sites were regulated, no educational or religious boards were expected, mainly because no large town or city center was selected as the research site. Multimodal, hybrid boards were very common, especially those ones categorized under Class 5(c) as so-called “Tourism Information Signs.” Such typical on-site boards represent a smaller percentage of all included LL. Those are strictly limited to on-site information, accessible on foot, with no pre-sign indicating distance or other information to the specific tourist site. Overall monolingual boards dominated the LL, followed by hybrid signs, which made up around 25% of the LL. Fully bi- or even trilingual, inclusive boards were only found on rare occasions (see Figure 2). Hybrid boards exist on a continuum. On the one extreme are boards with only a single non-English word, and on the other extreme boards are relatively bilingual, perhaps with only one phrase not translated. The more common hybrid boards only include single non-English words. Sometimes it is only on the seal or coat of arms of the municipality. Such a result aligns with the earlier studies, such as the mentioned case study of Lithuania and Poland regarding tourism and its significant share of English signboards (Ruzaitè, 2017). Only few tourist-related signboards did contain some local or smaller languages for “authenticity” purposes. Furthermore, most boards only included Latin names for plants or animals, which made them hybrid, but mostly excluded any African language. This explains why this category contained over 25% of all boards. Some include, for example, only Latin words or some Khoikhoi and San place names, such as Tsitsikamma. Many European, non-English native speakers travel to the Eastern Cape, so it was astounding to see no single word in German, French, Spanish, or other “international” languages like Mandarin. This is especially true of tourist sites, which are frequently or even predominately visited by international tourists such as Tsitsikamma as part of the very famous Garden Route. Even at Kenton-

50

Michael M. Kretzer

Figure 7. Two separate monolingual warning boards in English and Afrikaans at Nature’s Valley. Source: Photo taken by Michael M. Kretzer, 2020

Touristscapes

51

on-Sea or Port Alfred, those languages were not found and not included in the LL. The ideal function of LLs is to represent its surrounding linguistic area and also to be accessible for a wider audience, especially when it comes to tourist sites, including national and international tourists. Therefore, English dominance is partly understandable, but with a wrong underlying assumption about the universal accessibility of English. Such universal accessibility does not exist for all South African tourists, but also far more so for some international tourists. A considerably common feature is the decline in Afrikaans usage. Older boards are repeatedly bilingual, whereas the newer boards are often only monolingual in English. Sometimes those boards coexist and show changes of LL over time (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Old bilingual English-Afrikaans board and new monolingual English board. Source: Photo taken by Michael M. Kretzer, 2020

Other pervasive features are the “warning” or “prohibition” boards, which are far more multilingual than tourism-related information signs. For example, such warning signs as “no trespassing,” “private property,” or “unauthorized entry prohibited” are frequently trilingual (see Figure 9). Hence, African languages are mainly visible on those boards in the touristscape. These are not isolated examples of private boards, but include some tourist information boards, which were mainly concentrated on the beach research sites.

52

Michael M. Kretzer

Figure 9. Trilingual warning board at private forestry outside Tsitsikamma Park. Source: Photo taken by Michael M. Kretzer, 2020

However, within the Tsitsikamma Park, such incidences did not occur. This resulted in English dominating the LL. The selection of specific languages only for certain kinds of boards reveals their potential audience’s underlying assumptions. For example, suppose boards like “no swimming” or areas designated for swimming are only bilingual in English and isiXhosa. In that case, they demonstrate who was seen as the potential target population. In a very similar way, such patterns repeatedly occurred in the interior research site of Hogsback Park with its various hikes and its related LL. Multimodal signs to illustrate the warnings prominently were again only available in English and isiXhosa. IsiXhosa did not exist as part of the LL within or near the Tsitsikamma section of the Garden Route National Park, with only isolated exceptions on an outside parking lot near a smaller park area (see Figure 9). Within the main section of the park, very few bilingual Afrikaans and English boards existed. Those examples were often older boards and represented the

Touristscapes

53

older LL. It is questionable whether those boards will be replaced by bi- or trilingual ones, as seen in Figure 8.

Figure 10. Hybrid, multimodal, but English dominated board. Source: Photo taken by Michael M. Kretzer, 2020

Even more surprising was a series of information boards put up by SanParks to inform about different aspects of the park and the surrounding area. Those boards were erected very recently. All those multimodal boards of this series were nevertheless only in English, except for some Latin names of animals and plants. One part of this series even included a board about “People and Plants of the Garden Route.” However, it did not display anything about the predominant group of isiXhosa speakers or the indigenous Khoikhoi and San speaking communities, who inhabited that area initially thousands of years before various eras of colonization. The only African or isiXhosa words are “inyanga” and “isangoma,” which describe traditional healers, but there was no description of the amaXhosa culture or traditional nature-related knowledge using at least some isiXhosa words (see Figure 10). The same applies to the deep-rooted indigenous understanding of nature, plants, and animals from the Khoikhoi and San communities. They are hardly mentioned as part of the first peoples. Although this

54

Michael M. Kretzer

board is very colorful and multimodal and offers more profound knowledge to an international tourist audience, it could include more cultural aspects. Many national and international tourists spend some time viewing and absorbing this board series, as observed during the conducted study. Consequently, a real “decolonized” and “Africanized” board using (some) isiXhosa could inform national and international tourists and guests more substantially about the diverse cultures, indigenous knowledge, and language(s) of communities living alongside the Garden Route.

7.

Conclusion

English dominates the touristscape or LLs of tourist sites in the Sarah Baartman District in the Eastern Cape. Compared to monolingual Afrikaans or isiXhosa boards, monolingual English is more dominant than the other languages. Only a minor percentage uses English alongside isiXhosa or Afrikaans. Many boards represent a hybrid approach, with the dominance of English, but to varying degrees. Sometimes extensive parts or sections of the board are bilingual, or only isolated non-English words are visible on the boards. The non-existent German, French, Spanish, or Mandarin boards, or language elements on the boards, are notably surprising given the numbers of visitors from countries where these languages are spoken. Overall the Garden Route National Park LL is nearly exclusively monolingual English. At the coastal research sites or the in-country research sites, isiXhosa is much more frequently visible, though still less so than English. The tourist information boards hardly made use of languages other than English. However, warning or prohibition boards are often translated into isiXhosa or Afrikaans. Those boards are available in English and Afrikaans, or English and isiXhosa. To illustrate English dominance over Afrikaans and even more so over isiXhosa, some examples have been presented in this chapter. Ownership also affects the LL in many ways. Firstly, government boards use far fewer Afrikaans words, due to the language losing its exclusive position in a postapartheid society. Secondly, if languages other than English appear on boards, it is often on warning boards. The LL outside the designated tourist sites is more inclusive and multilingual, especially in rural or informal settlements. Nevertheless, such a kind of language policy does not reflect the South African constitutional tone of multilingualism, further elaborated in the Use of Official Language Act. The Department of Tourism highlights such general aims and declares multilingualism essential, but uses practicability clauses not to implement it. Therefore, the LL in Sarah Baartman does not reflect the envisaged constitutional language policy or LL. Consequently, the LL is not really inclusive or entirely welcoming for heteroge-

Touristscapes

55

neous tourist groups, allowing for access only through English as the easiest way forward. Moreover, such language policy and LL do not consider the hidden or unused potentials, which might exist for cultural tourism in the Sarah Baartman District or the province in general. All in all, to offer authenticity and be far more inclusive and fulfill the constitutional mandate of multilingualism, the “touristscape” or LL should include Afrikaans and isiXhosa (and first nations material) and more international languages, at least as artifacts.

References Akindele, D. O. (2011). Linguistic landscapes as public communication: A study of public signage in Gaborone Botswana. International Journal of Linguistics, 3(1), 1–11. doi:10.5296/ijl.v3i1.1157. Anderson, J. A., Wiredu, J. F., Ansah, G. N., Frimpong-Kodie, G., Orfson-Offei, E., & Boamah-Boateng, D. (2020). A linguistic landscape of the central business district of Accra. Legon Journal of the Humanities, 31(1), 1–35. doi:10.4314/ljh.v31i1.1. Banda, F. & Mokwena, L. (2019). The commodification of African languages in linguistic landscapes of rural Northern Cape Province, South Africa. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 260, 177–198. doi:10.1515/ijsl-2019-2054. Beukes, A. M. (2008). Language policy implementation in South Africa: How Kempton Park’s great expectations are dashed in Tshwane. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, 38, 1–26. doi:10.5774/38-0-20. Brown, K. D. (2012). The linguistic landscape of educational spaces: Language revitalization and schools in southeastern Estonia. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten, & L. Van Mensel (Eds.), Minority Languages in the Linguistic Landscape. Palgrave Studies in Minority Languages and Communities (pp. 281–298). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Buffalo City municipality (2010). Policy: Outdoor Advertising Signage. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.buffalocity.gov.za/CM/uploads/documents/773352736001 9.pdf. City of Cape Town (2016). Outdoor Advertising and Signage Policy (Draft 4). Retrieved January 26, 2021, from http://www.ecid.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/16-06-06_ Outdoor-Advertising-Policy-FINAL-Draft-for-PP.pdf. Coupland, N., & Garrett, P. (2010). Linguistic landscapes, discursive frames and metacultural performance: The case of Welsh Patagonia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 205, 7–36. doi:10.1515/ijsl.2010.037. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEA). (1998). South African Manual for Outdoor Advertising Control (SAMOAC). Retrieved November 28, 2018, from https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/1998mannual.pdf. Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries. (2011). Revised South African Manual for Outdoor Advertising Control (SAMOAC) Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.environment.gov.za/documents/strategicdocuments/samoac#saoutdoor_ advertising_control.

56

Michael M. Kretzer

Department of Tourism. (2015). Official Language Policy. Retrieved January 22, 2021, from https://www.tourism.gov.za/AboutNDT/Publications/Tourism%20Official%20Langua ge%20Policy_Gov%20Gazette%2039475.pdf#search=language%20policy. Department of Tourism. (2020). State of Tourism 2018/19. Retrieved January 28, 2021, from https://www.tourism.gov.za/AboutNDT/Publications/State%20of%20Tourism%20Rep ort%202018-19.pdf#search=state%20of%20tourism%20report. Heller, M. (2003). Globalisation, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 473–492. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2003.0 0238.x. Heugh, K. (2013). Multilingual education policy in South Africa constrained by theoretical and historical disconnections. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 215–237. doi:10.1017/S0267190513000135. Kaschula, R. H. (1999). South Africa’s language policy in relation to the OAU’s language plan of action for Africa. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 136, 63–76. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1999.136.63. Kretzer, M. M., & Kaschula, R. H. (2021). Language policy and linguistic landscapes at schools in South Africa. International Journal of Multilingualism, 18(1), 105–127. doi:10.1080/14790718.2019.1666849. Landry, R., & Richard Y. B. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 23–49. doi:10.1177/ 0261927X970161002. Loth, C. R. (2016). The Linguistic Landscape as Construct of the Public Space: A Case Study of Post-Apartheid Rural South Africa. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State dissertation. Malan, K. (2011). The discretionary nature of the official language clause of the Constitution. South African Public Law, 26, 382–407. doi:10520/EJC153200. Mangaung local municipality. (2018). Outdoor Advertising Control Policy. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from http://www.mangaung.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Out door-Advertising-Policy-DRAFT-29-May-2018.pdf. Mokwena, P. L. (2017). A Social Semiotic Analysis of the Linguistic Landscape of Two Rural District Municipalities in the Northern Cape, South Africa. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape dissertation. Moriarty, M. (2014). Contesting language ideologies in the linguistic landscape of an Irish tourist town. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(5), 464–477. doi:10.1177/13670 06913484209. Municipal Demarcation Board. (2016). 2016 Boundaries – Local Municipalities. Retrieved September 22, 2016, from http://www.demarcation.org.za/site/document-category/sha pefiles/. Ngcobo, M. N. (2012). The constitutional dynamism of a multilingual language policy: A case of South Africa. South African Journal of African Languages, 32(2), 181–187. doi:10.2989/SAJAL.2012.32.2.10.1147. Republic of South Africa. (2012). Use of Official Languages Act 12. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/35742_gon801_0.pdf. Republic of South Africa. (1996). Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, No. 108 of 1996. Retrieved April 11, 2012, from www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/images/a10896.pdf.

Touristscapes

57

Rogerson, C. M., & Rogerson, J. M. (2020). COVID-19 and tourism spaces of vulnerability in South Africa. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 9(4), 382–401. doi:10.46222/ajhtl.19770720-26. Ruzaite˙, J. (2017). The Linguistic landscape of tourism: Multilingual signs in Lithuanian and Polish resorts. Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri – Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric linguistics (ESUKA–JEFUL), 8(1). doi:10.12697/jeful.2017.8.1.11. SABC. (2015). E Cape municipality named after Sarah Baartman. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/111d1d0049f 768e5b87cfba53d9712f0/E-Cap e-municipality-named-after-Sarah-Baartman-20150924. Said, S. B., & Ong, T. W. S. (2019). Tracing linguistic changes on shop signs in Malaysia: A diachronic examination of George Town, Penang. Socjolingwistyka, 33, 209–230. doi:10.17651/SOCJOLING.33.13. Saayman, A., & Saayman, M. (2008). Determinants of inbound tourism to South Africa. Tourism Economics, 14(1), 81–96. doi:10.5367/000000008783554893. South African Government. (2016). Eastern Cape Legislature Passes Use of Official Languages Bill. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from https://www.gov.za/speeches/eastern-cape -legislature-passes-use-official-languages-bill-1-dec-2016-0000. Statistics South Africa. (2018). Provincial profile: Eastern Cape. Community Survey 2016. Report 03-01-08. Retrieved January 12, 2021, from http://cs2016.statssa.gov.za/wp-con tent/uploads/2018/07/EasternCape.pdf. University of Wisconsin. (2016). South Africa Act 1909. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from https://law.wisc.edu/gls/cbsa1.pdf. Van der Merwe, C. D. (2016). Tourist guides’ perceptions of cultural heritage tourism in South Africa. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 34, 117–130. Weldemichael, T. H., Peck, A., & Williams, Q. (2019). Changing tastes on the linguistic landscape of Asmara, Eritrea. Sociolinguistic Studies, 13(1), 107–126, doi:10.1558/sol s.37044. Zimny, D. (2017). Language and Place-Making: Public Signage in the Linguistic Landscape of Windhoek’s Central Business District. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University dissertation.

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena / Jose Belda-Medina

Chapter 3 – The Effects of Multilingualism in Medieval England: The Impact of French on Middle English Military Terminology

Abstract During the Middle English period (ca. 1100–1500), England was a multilingual society used to different languages and cultural influences (Short, 2007). Apart from the distinct English dialects, we can find the presence of speakers of French, the Celtic languages of Britain, and the influence of Latin as a means of instruction and religious language. English has been in contact with several languages through history and, among them, we must highlight the importance of French and Latin in regard to the incorporation of lexical borrowings and we must note that nearly 60% of the English vocabulary today has French or Latin origins (Bacz, 2012, p. 84). It is in this period that the English dialects underwent great changes and adaptations, which resulted in the standardization of the language with the introduction of the printing press by Caxton. French is one of the most important sources of new words in English, and the terminology dealing with warfare is one of the fields in which its influence is especially relevant in regards to borrowings. This chapter offers quantitative data regarding military terms that refer to defensive arms and offensive weapons used by soldiers in medieval England, including horse armament. Its aim is to illustrate the effects of the aforementioned multilingualism and language contact in the vocabulary of this particular field during the Middle English period. The results also reveal the importance of other languages as a source of new terms from a diachronic perspective. The main tool to carry out the research is the Middle English Weaponry Corpus (MEWC) (Poveda Balbuena, 2016, pp. 62–66), which offers a list of weaponry terms found in Middle English sources. These terms are divided into those with a native English origin and those that entered from other languages during the Old and Middle English periods, thus being present in Middle English texts. Apart from French, some of these languages are Old Norse, Latin, Italian, and the Celtic languages of Britain. Keywords: Middle English, French borrowings, military, medieval, language contact

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena, Silesian University of Technology (Poland), ORCID: 0000-00027776-9788, [email protected], [email protected]. Jose Belda-Medina, Universidad de Alicante (Spain), ORCID: 0000-0003-0115-0417, jr.belda@ ua.es.

60

1.

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena / Jose Belda-Medina

Introduction

If we pay attention to a literary work from the beginning of the Middle English period, such as The Peterborough Chronicle of 1137, written in the Eastern Midland dialect, we can find a text whose lexical items are purely Germanic. These are derived mainly from Old English, with a considerable number of words with a Scandinavian origin and a few Latin expressions. There are only some words from French in the text, such as tresor or privileges (Burrow, 1999, p. 75). However, if we analyze Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, dated two centuries and a half later in that same dialectal variety, we can see a big difference in the vocabulary used by the author, where the most striking feature is the abundance of words with a French origin. It has been traditionally assumed that there is a romanization of the English language from the 11th century onwards, particularly in terms of vocabulary. This is the result of the sociolinguistic reality of the country during a period in which the English culture moves further from its Northern Sea Germanic roots to become closer to the Romance cultures of the European continent, especially that of France (Short, 2007, p. 12). Many authors have even wondered if Middle English went through a creolization process with French (Baugh & Cable, 2009, p. 125). It is worth mentioning how Knowles (2005, p. 1) refers to Old English as if it were another language instead of a previous stage of English: “A language related to Modern English has been spoken in England since the early fifth century.” In the same line, Lipka (2002, p. 21) wonders if we could say that the language spoken in the country before the Norman invasion is the same language as English, and Trask (2007, p. 2) mentions that Old English is “spectacularly different from the English we use now […] and we can’t read it without special study.” The relationship between English and French reflects the political, artistic and military links of the kingdoms of France and England (Tejada, 1999, p. 159) and between the speakers of these two languages in England itself. The events surrounding war and military action provide a linguistic and cultural context that was relatively frequent during the medieval era. England participates in many military conflicts, in which France is also normally involved, in particular during the Hundred Years’ War between the two kingdoms, and there are also armed conflicts in England alone, like the War of the Roses at the end of the period. Most manuals dealing with the history of the English language mention the military semantic field as one of the most influenced by French. Funk (1998, p. 221), for example, mentions that most of the new military terms came into English via French and Italian, directly or indirectly in the case of the latter. Some examples of military terms from French which are still widely used in today’s English are: archer, ambush, arms, army, banner, battle, buckler, captain, combat, chieftain, dart, defence, enemy, garrison, guard, hauberk, lance, lieutenant, mail, navy,

The Effects of Multilingualism in Medieval England

61

peace, retreat, sergeant, skirmish, siege, spy, stratagem, soldier, etc. (Baugh & Cable, 2009, p. 171). In the particular case of military ranks, we can find that almost all words have a French origin, and there are fewer native terms or borrowings from other languages.1 As Leith (1997, p. 80) puts it, “the Anglo-Saxon system of rank-terms was largely re-structured after the Norman Conquest.” The objective of this chapter is to illustrate the effects of language contact between English and French during the period regarding the vocabulary of the military field. This research focuses on offensive weapons and defensive arms. As we will see, the results reveal the importance of French and the other languages with which English had contact during the Middle English period, and before, in the Old English period, leaving their trace in the language. The Middle English Weaponry Corpus (MEWC) (Poveda Balbuena, 2016) offers a list of weaponry terms from Middle English sources, especially created to develop this kind of studies. This chapter offers quantitative data collected from a first classification of the terms into native English words and borrowings, and a second classification according to their specific language of origin. The results obtained enable us to draw conclusions about the impact of the French language in Middle English weaponry terms. To find more information about the creation of the corpus, the criteria of inclusion or exclusion of terms, as well as other relevant information, see Poveda Balbuena (2016).

2.

English and French in England during the Middle English period

The presence of French speakers on a considerable scale started with the arrival of the Normans in England after the army under the Anglo-Saxon king Harald Godwinson was defeated at the Battle of Hastings by the troupes of William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, in 1066. A new ruling elite of Norman origin was established in the country, replacing the previous one, and along with it, also a new nobility, high clergy and a number of military forces settled in England (Baugh & Cable, 2009, pp. 112–116). Thus, in the resulting social reality, French becomes mainly the language of the most prominent people of the kingdom. At the beginning, French speakers had come from Normandy, but very soon, mixed marriages and relationships between the lower and higher classes, that is, between the speakers of English and the speakers of French respectively, could have also prompted a certain degree of bilingualism. The main reason that turned 1 Prince, duke, baron, judge, attorney, court, chancellor, bailiff, official, army, captain, and lieutenant, from French, replaced their native English equivalents (Trask, 2007, pp. 23–24). An example of Scandinavian borrowing is earl. We can find a native English term in lord.

62

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena / Jose Belda-Medina

French into the language of the rulers of the country was the connection between England and the European continent, since the kings of England were also dukes of Normandy. Not many years after the conquest, the testimony of Orderic Vitalis, a monk born in 1085 to a French father and an English mother, allows us to see that the inhabitants of the country were perfectly aware of the bilingual situation. In his particular case, he portrays it in quite a negative way (Tyler, 2011, p. 3). However, when we refer to England as a bilingual or even a multilingual country after the Norman invasion, we cannot assume that its general population started to speak more than one language. On the contrary, most people were monolingual, whether in English or French, and only some were truly bilingual, especially those who served as a link between the French speaking high classes and the English speaking lower ones. According to the standard classification of the history of the French language by different stages, Middle English corresponds with the later period of Old French and the beginning of Middle French. In this chapter, the broad term French refers mainly to the two different dialects of the langue d’oïl that influenced English through the Middle English period.2 These are Norman French and Central French. Norman French is also known as Anglo-French or Anglo-Norman, the latter being the name frequently used by authors who consider it a more distinct language from continental French, since this variety developed also in England from the 11th century onwards. Central French, the variety of Île de France, would influence not only English, but also other varieties of French, and other European languages from the 13th century onwards. Therefore, we can find borrowings from both varieties and even terms with both a Norman form and a Central one, like for example warranty and guarantee, which have developed different specialized meanings in this particular case. However, from a quantitative perspective, most borrowings have a Central French origin (See Smith, 1996). French was used mainly in literature, official documents and even in religious writings at the beginning of the period, together with Latin. During the 13th century, French became increasingly a mere administrative language, while Latin remained the language with the highest prestige throughout the whole period in the same way as in other European countries. In the course of the 14th century, the use of English in official environments started to increase and to be considered the national language of the kingdom, while the use of French decayed. According to Wright (2000) there were some attempts to standardize at least the written language and inhibit dialectal variation, such as with the so-called Chancery English in 1430, and later with the introduction of the printing press in 2 Langue d’oïl refers to the dialects of northern France. According to Tritter (1999, p. 18), these are “normand, picard, bourgignon et français.”

The Effects of Multilingualism in Medieval England

63

England by Caxton in 1476. However, as we will see, this does not mean that the French language ceased to influence English. Therefore, it is from those times on when the writing rules of the English language we know today started to take shape. Samuels (1975, p. 109) maintains that “written standard English has not changed radically since it first emerged as the vehicle of official business and administration around 1430.” The vocabulary of a language is especially prone to change in a multilingual environment due to the increase of lexical borrowings, so in this respect, the consequences of such a long period of contact between English and French can be seen in the vocabulary of English today. Many authors, such as Bacz (2012) or Trask (2007), mention that Modern English has lost near to 60% of its vocabulary in favor of borrowings from French and Latin, while according to Stockwell and Minkova (2001, p. 32), only 3% of the Old English vocabulary had a Latin origin.3 No other European language has changed so much in such a short period of time (Belda, 2002, p. 33), and this profound change took place especially in the Middle English period. The following table, loanwords as a proportion of all new words (Durkin, 2014, p. 35), made up from terms from Latin and/or French and based on the completed part of the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, offers the percentages of new words in periods of fifty years. It also illustrates whether they were incorporated from French or Latin, including also those that have a dubious origin: 1150–99: French 13%. Latin 8%. French or Latin 6% 1200–49: French 23%. Latin 1%. French or Latin 7% 1250–99: French 27%. Latin 1%. French or Latin 4% 1300–49: French 39%. Latin 1%. French or Latin 6% 1350–99: French 23%. Latin 13%. French or Latin 14% 1400–49: French 16%. Latin 17%. French or Latin 11% 1450–99: French 17%. Latin 16%. French or Latin 6%

As we can see, the highest peaks of borrowings from French take place in the 13th and 14th centuries, while Latin terms become more abundant by the end of the Middle English period. However, as Durkin (2014, p. 32) points out, the pace of French borrowings has been much more stable in time. According to this author (2014, p. 224), “the most unusual thing in the borrowing from French and Latin is the volume which led to changes in the nature and structure of the vocabulary of English […]. By 1500 the pattern was set and most of the most significant borrowing from French had already occurred.”

3 Or Greco-Latin, since many Greek terms, mainly related to the Church, will enter indirectly through Latin.

64

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena / Jose Belda-Medina

Sometimes it is very hard to determine if a term has entered into English from Latin or from French due to the formal similarities between these two languages, and we can even find some Latin terms that came into French and afterwards from the latter into English. According to Burnley (1992, p. 433), it can become even harder to identify one of these terms if English itself has used the derivation processes that it borrowed from French during the Middle English period. As an added difficulty, in French, some native words were slightly altered on purpose to make them look more Latin (Rodríguez Adrados, 2008, p. 223). Apart from the occasional difficulty in determining if a term has entered into English via French or Latin, we must also highlight that French words have diverse ultimate origins and, among them, there are many words from Frankish, a Western Germanic language like English. According to Duval (2009, p.19), there are some 600 to 700 Frankish borrowings in modern French. In fact, French military vocabulary in particular contains a high number of words with Germanic origins. Some examples are butin, escarmouche, espion, flèche, guerre, hache, trêve, and troupe (Walter, 1994, p. 236). Many of them got into other European languages via French. In the case of English, these terms can be formally similar to native English words, thus becoming difficult to identify as borrowings. An example of it can be the Old French term helme, which corresponds to the Old English term helm. As we already mentioned, in quantitative terms, French is the biggest source of new words in Middle English, but not all of them referred to new items or concepts yet unknown to English speakers. On the contrary, many of these terms had already their equivalents in the English language. This could result in the loss of one of the words, whether the English or the French one fell out of use, or both terms were used and the meaning of at least one of them was specialized (Baugh & Cable, 2009, p. 179). A clear example of a native word replaced by its French counterpart is the native English term her, which was replaced by army. In fact, we can also find armée in contemporary French, and Heer in contemporary German. Another example, also related to the military field is war, which came into English from Norman French, being a Germanic borrowing itself in Vulgar Latin, where it replaced the Latin word bellum, and thus it was present later in French. Found as guerra in other Romance languages, such as Italian or Spanish, and as guerre in Central French. Its origin can be found in the reconstructed term *werra, from a Western Germanic dialect, probably Frankish, and related to the modern German verb wirren, meaning disturbance, and the Old English word wyrsa, from which derives the contemporary English word worse. In many other cases, some of these terms referred to new concepts or items, like, for instance, the new pieces of armor that were being developed in the period, such as chaucer, chaumfrein, jaumber, and many others. In general, English adopted the French words with their meaning instead of forming new

The Effects of Multilingualism in Medieval England

65

words by means of English terms or derivation processes. It can be relevant to observe, not only the incorporation of French terms in the English language, but also the degree of resistance to it, if any. In the case of the military field, we can find some words that do not have an etymological link, but they are related semantically. As Durkin (2014, p. 6) puts it, “as a result of borrowing, many semantic fields in English show formally unrelated words for related concepts.” For example, the words bowman and archer have the same meaning, but they are not related etymologically. The first one derives from the English word bow, and the second one is a borrowing from French. All through history, English and French have been in contact among themselves and with other languages due mainly to their geographical emplacement. Before starting an intense linguistic contact in the 11th and 12th centuries, English and French already had some features in common: both languages have a Celtic substratum,4 both developed on two territories that were conquered by the Romans, and both were influenced by Church’s Latin. These territories were conquered by Germanic invaders after the withdrawal of the Romans: the AngloSaxons in Britannia and the Franks in Gaul.5 However, a significant difference in this respect is that the Germanic language (English) prevailed in southern Britannia, while the Romance language prevailed in Gaul (French). Another point in common is that later both territories had Viking settlements, the Danelaw in England and Normandy in France. However, in contrast to English, the influence of Old Norse in French is scarce, apart from a few maritime terms and place names (Renaud, 1989, p. 145). We must also bear in mind that, for us today, both medieval English and French have come to us as written languages, so it is hard to know up to what precise degree they were commonly spoken in England. It is also difficult for us to determine if the terms found in written form were used orally by English speakers in their everyday lives or not. In this respect Knowles (2005, p. 62) highlights that “by the time Caxton died in 1491 he had established a number of precedents for publishing in English. We must remember that published English was already removed from the language of the ordinary people”. Blake (1992) points out that the figure of Caxton is responsible of a great part of the French influence on written English, replacing native terminology by French words. In the same line, Horobin (2007, p. 68) highlights that “courtly literary works tend to employ many more French loans,” especially in works that are translations from French. Thus, 4 The Celtic influence is not high in French, but higher than in English. However, according to Herman (2013, p. 128), during the “Gallo-Latin” bilingualism period in the Roman Gaul the Celtic elements must have been considerable. 5 Posner (2006, p. 233) maintains that it is very likely the contact of Frankish and other Germanic languages with the Vulgar Latin variety that will evolve into Old French could have taken place gradually in the course of time, and not suddenly when the Franks ruled the territory.

66

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena / Jose Belda-Medina

we could get today a false impression of the actual use of French words in the everyday life of the country. As Baugh and Cable (2009, p. 123) mention: “Among the knightly class French seems to have been cultivated even when the mother tongue was English.” All of which could also have had a particular effect in the trend to incorporate French words in texts dealing with the military field. On the other hand, in medieval England, apart from English texts, there was a huge production of documents written in French and Latin. Therefore, it is very frequent to find terms appearing first in French or Latin than in English, which means that probably they were in use long before they appear in written English. Two examples of it in the military field are the words dagger and fachoun. We must remember that Middle English was divided into several dialects with different degrees of linguistic influences from other languages, and scribes were aware of the dialectal diversity from which the different orthographies derive. In the words of Chaucer himself, “ther was a gret diversité in writyng of oure tongue” (Burrow, 1999, p. 5). Apart from French and Latin, we can find the Celtic languages of Britain, and especially by the end of the period, we must add the contact with Italian, Dutch, and Low German. In the case of Italian, it would acquire more and more cultural prestige as the medieval era comes to its end, although it is true that, as we previously mentioned, Italian terms normally enter English via French. In regard to Dutch and Low German, the contact has to do mainly with commercial connections between the speakers of these two languages and English speakers due to their geographical proximity. Finally, we must not forget to mention that the phenomenon of multilingualism was not new in England during the Middle English period. As we briefly exposed, English had been in contact with other languages and cultures already in the Old English period: the Celtic languages of the inhabitants of Roman Britannia, Church Latin, and Old Norse. Therefore, the influence of these languages is expected in Middle English texts as well. The Anglo-Saxons themselves invaded Britannia in the 5th and 6th centuries, and the Celtic languages of the territory constitute the substratum of English, while the settlement of Norse speaking peoples in the Danelaw in the 9th century had a decisive influence in the development of the English language. There are many theories regarding the contact of Old English and Old Norse speakers and its influence on the language. Some authors, such as Poussa (1982), claim that the two languages underwent a creolization process, while Emonds and Faarlund (2014, p. 46) take one step forward, classifying English as a North Germanic language instead of a Western Germanic one. In this view, Middle English would not be the result of English influenced by Norse, but Norse influenced by English: an “anglicized Norse.”

The Effects of Multilingualism in Medieval England

3.

67

The medieval military development and its effects on vocabulary

Regarding the developments in the military field, the so-called medieval military revolution takes place in this period. It consists of a series of military transformations that took place during the Low Middle Ages, among which the changes in offensive and defensive weapons are remarkable (See Ayton & Price, 1998). In this period, the need of new defensive arms derives from the creation of new offensive weapons and vice versa, so the war industry developed very fast, culminating in the production and use of fire weapons. As Funk (1998, p. 218) points out, “during war days science is working at fever heat to devise new weapons and new services; manufacturers are developing new products […] and for all of these names must be found. The burning action of war creates new military terms.” By the beginning of the 13th century, the equipment of a man-at-arms was not much different to that of a Gothic warrior of the times of the fall of the Roman Empire. It is from 1280 onwards that the development of offensive and defensive weapons took place in favor of the former until the frequent use of fire weapons in the 16th century (Oakeshott, 1998a, p. 34). Therefore, the defensive armament was becoming obsolete against the new offensive weapons and had to be continuously improved. Gillingham (2005, p. 37) mentions that the most popular weapons were “designed to crush rather than to pierce armor,” such as the flail, the battle-ax, and the mace. In the first half the 14th century, the knights that could afford it started to equip themselves with more and more pieces, so that by the 1350 we can already find complete plate armors, and new pieces were added in the horses’ armors as well. The development was fast. Oakshott (1998b, p. 81) says that “every manuscript, picture, every statue, every tomb effigy of an armored knight showed one sort of armor – the old reinforced mail – for the 1340s, but a new sort, complete plate for the 1350s.” Among the first French lexical borrowings related to the military field, we can find: castel (1075), arblaste (1100), and tur (1100) (Freeborn, 1998, p. 75). These are scarce during the 11th and 12th centuries but they will increase considerably from the 13th century onwards. As we mentioned, the highest peak of incorporations takes place during the first half of the 14th century, declining slightly during the 15th century in favor of borrowings from Latin. Some military related terms are banere (1230), cote (1300), dart (1314), aparail (1330), embusche (1380), sable (1423), and garde (1426) (Freeborn, 1998, pp. 146–147, 185, 205, 223, 243–244, 271).

68

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena / Jose Belda-Medina

4.

Corpus of study, objectives, and methodology of the research

From a wide perspective, the military semantic field can include all kinds of terms referring to war strategy, clothing, tools, military ranks, and other elements directly or indirectly related to armies and war, depending on the specific criteria of inclusion. In this chapter, we will analyze the terminology list that the Middle English Weaponry Corpus (MEWC) (Poveda Balbuena, 2016, pp. 61–66) offers. It includes 184 terms from Middle English sources that refer to the offensive weapons and defensive arms that were part of the equipment used by infantry and cavalry soldiers, including horse armor. Therefore, siege weapons, defensive architecture or naval combat are not included in this study. Terms that refer to common civil tools, which, apart from their general use, ended up being developed as weapons are included.6 We can find a similar case in pieces of clothing, which share the same name with pieces of defensive armament, since they derive from the former, so they are also included. Fire weapons have not been included because they were mainly used as siege artillery and they are not usual in the hands of soldiers or as part of their equipment until the end of the medieval era and especially from the 16th century onwards.7 Compounds and terms formed by derivation that only specify the features of a weapon are not included in this research, but compounds that refer to an object that belongs to a different weapon category are included. For example, in the first case, with the adjective long we can find longsword or longbow, belonging to same category of weapon as sword or bow respectively, a close-combat weapon and a shooting weapon, so these are not included. On the contrary, the compound polaxe is included, since it belongs to the category of pole weapons instead of a closecombat weapon, as it is the case with axe, and it can be understood as a different weapon instead of a mere feature of axe. Regarding the analysis and quantification of compounds, those formed in English, such as hurle-batte, have their components analyzed individually, being thus two elements (hurle + batte), but not so when English has incorporated a compound that was formed in French, and as such, it has entered as a unit in English, like for example vaum-brace. The latter is taken into consideration as a single element. Having this in mind, there are 192 elements to consider out of the 184 terms of the MEWC. Due to the abundance of different orthographies in Middle English sources, the forms 6 It is mentioned in battle chronicles that civilians could make use of working tools as weapons (Beffeyte, 2005, p. 50), being developed later as proper weapons. Regarding pole-weapons, Oakeshott (1997b, p. 25) mentions that “until about 1300 it was just a bill-hook on a pole, but around this time the marriage with the spear took place: the glaive and the halberd.” 7 Some examples of artillery weapons are the pot-de-fer or the so-called carts of war. Oakeshott (1997a) mentions that some guns were used by the English in the battle of Crécy so early as 1346, but afterwards they started to become bigger and heavier.

The Effects of Multilingualism in Medieval England

69

provided in the MEWC are mainly selected from those found as entries in the Middle English Dictionary of the University of Michigan (See Poveda Balbuena 2016, pp. 61–198). The 184 terms of the MEWC are: abilement, aketoun, alet, anelas, appareil, arblast, armature, armes, armure, arwe, assaut, atir, bacinet, baselard, bard, bat, battle-axe, bavier, besagu, betel, bideu, bil, blasoun, bokeler, bolt, bord, boue, brace, brand, brandellet, brest, brest-plate, briganders, brinie, broche, broun, canel, chaucer, chaumfrein, clubbe, coife, coler, corset, coutel, couter, cover, crosseboue, culter, curasse, daggere, da-pacem, dart, doublet, egge, fauchette, fauchoun, flauncher, fleil, forke, gar-brasse, gauntelet, genulere, gere, gisarme, glaive, gore, gorger, gorget, greves, gusset, habergeoun, hache, hachet, halberd, harneis, hauberk, helm, helmet, hod, horete, hurle-batte, iren, jakke, jaumbe, jaumber, jaumbeus, javelot, jesseraunt, ketel-hat, knif, knivet, lange-denes, launce, launcegai, legharness, lesarde, levour, lome, mace, mailet, maille, main-fer, malle, martel, materas, misericorde, moton, ord, paitrure, palet, pane, paunce, pauncere, pavise, pece, pectoral, peitrel, pisane, plakart, plate, pol-axe, polein, polron, prikel, quarrel, quirre, quisser, quisseu, raft, rere-brace, rere-dose, rouel, sabatine, sabatoun, sable, salette, sax, scochoun, sharpe, sheld, shin-baude, shitel, shot, sithe, skene, sleve, slinge, solier, spar, sparthe, spaudeler, spere, splente, spud, staf, stele, steng, stomacher, stuffe, surcote, sword, takel, talevace, targe, target, tasse, tester, thwitel, tir, toile, tonlet, trappour, umbrel, umbrere, vaum-brace, ventaile, viser, voider, warde-brace, wede, wei, wepen, wifle, and wonde. The main lexicographical works used in the research are the Oxford English Dictionary and the Middle English Dictionary of the University of Michigan, complemented by the other works shown in the bibliography (see dictionaries and databases used). Firstly, we have classified and quantified the elements analyzed in order to answer the question about their origin and incorporation in the English language. These are put in three groups: Native (English words derived directly from their Old English roots), borrowings from other languages, and dubious terms (whether native or borrowings). Secondly, we have classified borrowings according to the language or languages from which they entered directly into English. Thus, if for example a term has a Celtic ultimate origin, but has entered into English from French, it is quantified as French. Therefore the languages of origin are French, Norse, Latin, Celtic languages, Dutch, or Low German.8 Finally, we have interpreted the results according to the theoretical premises exposed and 8 French terms appear in one group regardless of the dialectal variant (Norman or Central). Celtic terms are also put together, regardless if they were incorporated from the Celtic languages of Britain at the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons or from the languages of Wales and other Celtic speaking areas bordering England during the Middle English period. Low German and Dutch constitute one group since they are part of a dialect continuum, and are formally so similar that it is difficult to determine if a term comes from one or the other.

70

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena / Jose Belda-Medina

evaluated the impact of the different languages, including English itself, in the aforementioned corpus of study. For further information about the MEWC, and an individual analysis of each term see Poveda Balbuena (2016: 61–198).

5.

Results of the research

The first objective was to provide a quantification of the terms that are native English words and those that are borrowings: 19% of the elements analyzed are native words, 79% are borrowings, and 2% are dubious, that is, they could have come directly from Old English or be borrowings. The second one was to explore and quantify the borrowings in numbers and percentages according to the language from which they have directly come into English. The origins of the 192 elements in numbers and percentages the MEWC are: Native: 37 French: 121 Norse: 10 Latin: 5 Celtic: 1 Dutch/Low G.: 3

Probably native: 4 Probably French: 9 Probably Norse: 3 Probably Latin: 7 Probably Celtic: 3 Probably Dutch/L G.: 2

19%–21% 63%–68% 5%–7% 3%–6% 0.5%–2% 1.5%–3%

The distribution of the elements according to their language of origin is as follows9: – native origin: (battle-)axe, betel, bil, bolt, boue, brand, brest, brest(-plate), broun, (crosse-)boue, egge, gore, helm, hod, iren, (ketel-)hat, lange-denes, lome, ord, (pol-)axe, prikel, sax, sharpe, sheld, shin(-baude), shitel, shot, sithe, sleve, spere, staf, stele, steng, sword, wede, wepen, wifle. Probably native origin: hurle(-batte), pol(-axe), spud, thwitel; – French origin: abilement, aketoun, alet, appareil, arblast, armes, armure, assaut, atir, bacinet, baselard, bard, battle(-axe), bavier, besagu, blasoun, bokeler, bord, brace, brandellet, (brest-)plate, briganders, broche, canel, chaucer, chaumfrein, coife, coler, corset, coutel, couter, cover, curasse, daggere, dart, doublet, fauchette, fauchoun, flauncher, fleil, gar-brasse, gauntelet, genulere, gisarme, glaive, gorger, gorget, greves, gusset, habergeoun, hache, hachet, halberd, harneis, hauberk, helmet, horete, jakke, jaumbe, jaumber, jaumbeus, javelot, jesseraunt, launce, launcegai, (leg)harness, lesarde, levour, mace,

9 In the case of separable compounds according to the premises exposed, the part between brackets is the one excluded from the quantification. For example, in the case of shin-baude, the first element is native and the second one is French, so each one of them is quantified in its corresponding language.

The Effects of Multilingualism in Medieval England

– – – –

6.

71

mailet, maille, malle, main-fer, martel, materas, misericorde, moton, paitrure, palet, pane, paunce, pauncere, pavise, pece, peitrel, pisane, plakart, plate, polein, polron, quarrel, quirre, quisser, quisseu, rere-brace, rere-dose, rouel, sable, salette, scochoun, (shin-)baude, solier, spaudeler, stomacher, stuffe, surcote, talevace, target, tasse, tester, tir, toile, tonlet, trappour, umbrel, umbrere, vaum-brace, ventaile, viser, voider, warde-brace. Probably French origin: anelas, bat, forke, (hurle-)batte, knivet, pectoral, sabatine, sabatoun, targe; Norse origin: arwe, brinie, clubbe, gere, knif, leg(harness), raft, sparthe, wei, wonde. Probably Norse origin: spar, targe, thwitel; Latin origin: armature, crosse(-boue), culter, da-pacem, ketel(-hat). Probably Latin origin: anelas, bideu, forke, pectoral, sabatine, sabatoun, spar; Celtic origin: skene; probably Celtic origin: anelas, bat, (hurle-)batte; Dutch or Low German origin: slinge, splente, takel; probably Dutch or Low German origin: hurle-(batte), pol(-axe).

Discussion and conclusion

According to the results, one of the most remarkable features is the number of elements from French. Not only is the number of borrowings in general (79%– 81%) considerably bigger than the number of native elements (19%–21%); but in the case of French alone (63%–68%), it is also bigger than all elements from the all the other languages combined, including native English terms. The high number of French words can be explained taking into account the historical context in which the incorporation of the terms takes place. As we saw, in this period not only French was, together with Latin, one of the most prestigious languages of England, but most of the new weapons and arms were being imported from France. We must also remember that French was a literary language especially linked to knights, nobility, and military action. If we divide the weapons and arms in categories, such as defensive arms and offensive weapons; and then in further subgroups, such as pieces of armor, shields, horse’s armor, close-combat weapons, shooting weapons, and pole weapons, we observe that many of the terms in the MEWC refer to new pieces of armor that were being developed during the medieval military revolution, and they came in England from the continent, especially from France, as mentioned previously10. Thus, French borrowings are high and dominant in terms referring to defensive arms, as expected. In particular, we can observe that there is not a single native English element referring to horse armor. However, in the case of offensive weapons, the 10 Classification adapted from the wider one found in Beroiz Lazcano, Gómez Aguirre, & Serrano Larráyoz (2009).

72

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena / Jose Belda-Medina

numbers of native English and French elements are more similar, and there is even a slightly higher number of English elements referring to shooting weapons. If we pay attention to native terms we can see that most of them refer to older weapons, those that were already in England before French became such an relevant language in the country. The most obvious examples of it are words such as axe, spere, or sword. French, however, is the language of origin of most of those new during the period, being the best example those referring to pieces of armor, especially horse armor. So we can conclude the common tendency of English was to incorporate French terms in the language, more or less adapted, instead of developing new terms using native English resources. In reference to the 5% of dubious French terms, forke, pectoral, sabatine, and sabatoun could have entered English from Latin instead of French. In the case of anelas it could have come from Latin as well or directly from a Celtic language, as it is the case of the related terms bat and -batte (the latter being part of the compound formed in English hurlebatte, in which the first element has its origin in Dutch or Low German) and not via French. In the case of targe, it could have a Norse origin instead of a French one (being a Germanic borrowing in French in any case), whereas the related term target entered English through French. Nevertheless, we must mention that the -et diminutive is a derivation process that English inherited from French in Middle English times and in the case of knivet, the word could be formed in English itself from knife or have entered from the French. In any case, knife seems to have a Germanic ultimate origin11. As we exposed previously, during the Middle English period, French not only provided English with native French words derived from Vulgar Latin, but it was also a medium for the incorporation of terminology with diverse origins, which is to different degrees adapted to the French language. Considering the French borrowings of our research, there are many with a Germanic origin (around 15%), some examples of them are coife, dart, or habergeoun; from the Celtic languages of Gaul (some 6%), such as launce or materas; from Latin (around 4%), for example armature; and borrowings from other languages (3%), such as Italian, like briganders or pavise, the High German term halberd, the Dutch plakart, the Occitan gusset (dubious), or the Arabic jesseraunt. Therefore, all of these entered English through French. In our corpus, another remarkable feature is that the number of elements from Latin and Norse is similar, although slightly higher in the latter. Considering the elevate number of Latin words in today’s English, these results can be surprising. However, they are not so if we take into consideration the particular characteristics of the military field, together with the fact that English starts to incorporate 11 Old French cnivet. Nowadays, it can be found in a similar form also in the Catalan word ganivet, meaning knife.

The Effects of Multilingualism in Medieval England

73

terms from Latin in high numbers especially from the end of the 15th century onwards. We can also find some elements that could have entered directly from the Celtic languages, but we must say that in this case, they would have entered through the contact with the Celtic speakers of the territories bordering England in Middle English times, and not from the Celtic languages of Britain at the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. Regarding the other languages in contact with Middle English, we can also find some terms from Middle Dutch or Low German. However, there is none that has entered directly from Italian, whose influence was mentioned previously as one of the languages from which English incorporates military terms. As we saw, there are terms that have an Italian origin that have entered indirectly via French, such as brigandiers, salette, pavise, and talevace, in the same way as in the case of the other languages mentioned that have provided terms through French. Therefore, all of them are quantified as French borrowings. The results confirm that French contributed greatly in the formation of new words in Middle English with regard to the terminology of the military field dealing with weapons and arms due to the long period of contact between the two languages in England, thus reasserting the preliminary theoretical premises exposed. The military field is not the only field particularly influenced by French. In a wider sense, French has influenced to varying degrees any semantic field of the English language. Its legacy is so rooted in the language that it is even hard to identify by non-specialized English speakers. In the same way as with the military field, the terminology related to law and government can be traced back to Norman times, and French did not stop providing new terms and formulas in that field during the following centuries. Other semantic fields in which English, and other European languages as well, have incorporated a high number of French borrowings are the culinary world, fashion and the terminology dealing with art, to name a few. However, the influence of French on English is even more remarkable than in other languages because of the degree to which it has transformed English in the language we know today. It set a pattern for the incorporation of French words, and also modified English internally, like, for example, in the case of the derivation processes of English, such as the aforementioned formation of diminutives with -et, or adverbs with -able. Together with the further contribution of Latin, French started to shape the English language in medieval times to bring it nearer to that of the Romance group and move it partially away from the other Germanic languages, and the terminology of the military field is a good example of it.

74

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena / Jose Belda-Medina

References Quoted references Ayton, A., & Price, J. L. (Eds.). (1998). The Medieval Military Revolution: State, Society, and Military Change in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. London: I. B. Tauris Publishers. Bacz, B. (2012). For the conceptualization approach to meaning: Evidences from languages in contact. In M. Da˛browska, J. Les´niewska, & B. Pia˛tek (Eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact: Language and Culture: English and American Studies in the Age of Global Communication. Vol. 2: Language and Culture (pp. 83–108). Cracow: Cracow Tertium Society. Baugh, A. C., & Cable, T. (2009). A History of the English Language (5th ed.). London: Routledge. Beffeyte, R. (2005). L’art de la guerre au moyen age. Rennes: Ouest-France. Belda Medina, J. R. (2002). Languages of Discovery: A Comparative Linguistic Study of English and Spanish after the discovery of America. Alicante: University of Alicante Press. Beroiz Lazcano, M., Gómez Aguirre, M., & Serrano Larráyoz, F. (2009). Léxico sobre armamento y utillaje militar medieval. Navarra (siglos XIII–XVI): un proyecto en curso. Cuadernos del Instituto Historia de la Lengua, 3 (pp. 203–213). Pamplona: Universidad Pública de Navarra y Gabinete de Arqueología e Historia Navark S.L. Blake, N. (Ed.). (1992). The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burnley, D. (1992). Lexis and Semantics. In N. Blake (Ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 2: 1066–1476 (409–499). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burrow, J. A. (1999). A Book in Middle English. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Durkin, P. (2014). Borrowed Words: A History of Loanwords in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Duval, F. (2009). Le français médiéval. Turnhout: Brepols. Emonds, J., & Faarlund, J. (2014). English the Language of the Vikings. Olomuc: Palacky University. Freeborn, D. (1998). From Old English to Standard English. London: McMillan. Funk, W. (1998). Word Origins: An Exploitation and History of Words and Language. New York, NY: Wings Books. Gillingham, J. (2005). The Wars of the Roses. Peace & Conflict in 15th Century England. London: Phoenix Press. Herman, J. (2013). El latín vulgar. Edición española reelaborada y ampliada con la colaboración de Carmen Arias Abellán. Barcelona: Ariel. Horobin, S. (2007). Chaucer’s Language. Basingstoke; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Knowles, G. (2005). A Cultural History of the English Language (9th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Leith, D. (1997). A Social History of English. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Lipka, L. (2002). English Lexicology: Lexical Structure, Word Semantics & Word Formation. Tübingen: Gulde.

The Effects of Multilingualism in Medieval England

75

Oakeshott, E. (1998a). A Knight and his Armor (2nd ed.). Chester Springs: Dufour. Oakeshott, E. (1997a). A Knight and his Castle (2nd ed.). Chester Springs: Dufour. Oakeshott, E. (1997b). A Knight and his Weapons (2nd ed.). Chester Springs: Dufour. Oakeshott, E. (1998b). A Knight in Battle (2nd ed.). Chester Springs: Dufour. Posner, R. (2006). The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Poveda Balbuena, M. L. (2016). Orígenes y tipología de la terminología armamentística en inglés medio. Alicante: University of Alicante PhD thesis. Renaud, J. (1989). Les Vikings et la Normandie. Rennes: Ouest-France. Rodríguez Adrados, F. (2008). Historia de las lenguas de Europa. Madrid: Gredos. Samuels, M. L. (1975). Linguistic Evolution with Special Reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Short, I. (2007). Manual of Anglo-Norman. London: Anglo-Norman Text Society from Birkberck College. Smith, J. (1996). An Historical Study of English: Function, Form and Change. London: Routledge. Stockwell, R., & Minkova, D. (2001). English Words: History and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tejada Caller, P. (1999). El cambio lingüístico: Claves para interpretar la lengua inglesa. Madrid: Alianza. Trask, L. (2007). Historical Linguistics (2nd ed.). Oxon: Routledge. Tritter, J. L. (1999). Histoire de la langue française. Paris: Ellipses. Tyler, E. M. (Ed.). (2011). Conceptualizing Multilingualism in England, c.800–c.1250. Turnhout: Brepols. Walter, H. (1994). L’aventure des langues en Occident. Paris: Robert Laffont. Wright, L. (Ed.). (2000). The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dictionaries and databases used A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (2011). (2nd ed.). J. R. Clark-Hall. Blacksburg VA: Wilder. Dictionnaire de l’ancien français (1994). (2nd ed.). A. J. Greymas. Paris: Larousse. Dictionnaire étymologique et historique du français. (1995). (2nd ed.). J. Dubois, H. Mitterand, & A. Dauzat. Paris: Larousse. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots. (1967). (4th ed.). A. Ernout, & A. Meillet. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck. Dictionnaire du moyen français. (1992). A. J. Greymas, & T. Keane. Paris: Larousse. Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary. (2009). C. Kay, J. Roberts, M. Samuels, & I. Wotherspoon (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Le Grand Robert de la langue française. (1989). (2nd ed.). A. Rey. Paris: Dictionnaires le Robert. Middle English Dictionary. H. Kurath, A. Kuhn, & R. E. Lewis (Eds.). University of Michigan Press. Retrieved June 20, 2020, from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/. Oxford English Dictionary. (1989). (2nd ed.). J. Simpson, & E. Weiner. Oxford: Clarendon.

76

Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena / Jose Belda-Medina

Oxford English Dictionary Online. J. Simpson (Ed.). Oxford University Press. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from http://www.oed.com. Oxford Latin Dictionary (2012). (2nd ed.). P. G. W. Glare (Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. (1992). W. Meyer-Lübcke. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.

Part Two: Languages in the Mind: Language Development and Language Use

Anita Buczek-Zawiła

Chapter 4 – L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training

Abstract The paper explores the meta-phonological awareness of L1 sound distinctions among advanced speakers of EFL in the context of L2 pronunciation training. The subjects of the study are university students of English with Spanish, Turkish, and Russian L1 background. All of them have been participants of intensive pronunciation instruction in English as part of their degree training, being (foreign exchange) students in the English Department at the Pedagogical University in Kraków, and residing in Poland at the time. Two aspects are targeted for examination: phonological awareness applied to L1 and actual noticing of contextual variants in L1, all related to their L2 (English) production goals. The material is based on the examination of the students’ self-reports and essays (Spanish, Turkish, Russian as L1), which have been submitted as part of the regular pronunciation course. The data has been collected over the span of 5 years between 2015 and 2020, with one course per semester. That produced the total of 87 essays, 52 of them pertaining to Spanish as L1, 27 to Turkish, and 8 to Russian. Pattern-coding strategy (Miles et al., 2014) was employed to analyze the self-report data qualitatively. The analysis reveals low sound discrimination skills in the subjects’ L1, largely based on letter-to-sound correspondences and inability to see beyond print. After intensive training in their L2 they become to some extent more sensitive to the respective L1 sound inventory and the details of their L1 sound system. As a result, they can use it to their advantage when targeting L2 sound production. Keywords: phonological awareness, perception, L2 pronunciation, cross-linguistic influence

1.

Introduction

The functioning of the speakers’ L1 phonological systems in the perception, and, ultimately, production, of target language sound inventory and contrasts can be observed in a number of contexts and to a different degree. The specific L1 phonological features can differ in the level of their prominence, also in terms of Anita Buczek-Zawiła, Pedagogical University of Cracow (Poland), ORCID: 0000-0002-4179-0219, [email protected].

80

Anita Buczek-Zawiła

cross-linguistic transfer, to the effect that those more prominent are likely to greatly affect learners’ perceptions of what are identified by the students to be new target sounds. The regularity of this misperception by learners appears to be universally applicable. As a result, it seems only sound to underscore the role of good understanding of one’s own sound system. Phonological awareness has long been observed to play a major role for example in learning to read individual words, sentences, and paragraphs in any particular language. Access to the phonology of one’s language is instrumental in developing fine reading skills (Alshaboul et al., 2014; Sinha et al., 2009), via legitimate association between phonology and reading development. This consciousness and ability to manipulate the native sounds, syllables, variants, and the like can be used to the FL learner advantage in working first on understanding and recognition of target language phonological system properties and then moving onto the ability to produce the relevant examples themselves. This study investigates (a) the degree of conscious phonological awareness of L1 which university students of English from varied L1 backgrounds develop, and (b) whether they are able to make the connection between this awareness and their learning of the English sound system. To that end we observed and examined a number of students of English (L2) with Spanish, Turkish and Russian L1 background who have been participants of intensive formal instruction (henceforth FI, Carlet & Kivisto de Souza, 2018) in English pronunciation as part of their degree training, being (foreign exchange) students in the English Department at the Pedagogical University in Kraków (henceforth PUK for convenience). The effectiveness of such explicit FI has been well documented in research studies (Morales & Izquierdo, 2011). It needs to be emphasized here that the study participants all resided in Poland at the time of the study and, as a result, were immersed in the Polish settings, though taking a course in Polish as a foreign language was never mandatory for them. Additionally, their interactions in the group of international students or with the Polish students at PUK would normally take place via the medium of English, albeit heavily L1-accented in the overwhelming majority of cases. This could provide additional boost in attending to phonological form when compared to speakers of L1 background other than their own, as well as equally phonologically distant from the L2 target, though sharing certain phonetic similarities. Two aspects are targeted for examination: phonological awareness applied to L1 and conscious noticing of contextual variants in L1, all related to their L2 (English) production goals. The paper does not look into the effectiveness of explicit pronunciation training, since positive results of pronunciation enhancement as a result of FI have been previously abundantly reported on, especially when FI is combined with activities that aim at raising learners’ aware-

L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training

81

ness of the cross-linguistic features between the L1 and L2 (Carlet & Kivisto de Souza, 2018). The chapter builds on the assumption that it is the sensitivity to the native language signal and the ability to access and manipulate the segments and their variants that can significantly facilitate target phonology acquisition in L2 and Ln contexts. This enhanced phonological awareness about one’s first language sound system, and how it differs from other languages, can be the effect of having gained conscious linguistic knowledge and language learning experience on which they can potentially rely in their learning (Kopecˇkova, 2018). The chapter is organized as follows: we begin by outlining the state of the art knowledge about the relationship between first and second language phonologies. This is followed by describing the rationale and the methodology of the study, while the data from the students’ self-reports is presented subsequently. Discussion of emerging trends and observations concludes the chapter.

2.

Literature review

Transfer in adult language learning is normally taken to mean the effects of the native language (or some previously learned languages) on the acquisition and use of a second (or next) language (Pavlenko & Jarvis, 2002, p. 190), though it has been claimed that it can simultaneously work both ways, with L1 influencing L2 and vice versa. Cross-linguistic influence (CLI) is thus understood to be a process whereby the learner makes use of linguistic resources other than the knowledge of the language in which communication takes place (Ringbom, 2006, p. 38). Therefore, such strategy becomes a regular fixture in the context of learning the target language (see also del Rosso, chapter 6 of this volume; Yelin, chapter 11 of this volume, notably both discussing different phenomena than the ones tackled in this chapter). Where similarity can be perceived between existing categories and structures, a general facilitating effect for comprehension and learning is assumed to occur. Everybody is aware that the items are different in languages other than the L1, but tends to assume that the procedures and underlying systems are basically the same in the target language as in the L1, or some other language known, unless they have been shown to be different (Ringbom, 2006, p. 37).

For the purposes of this study, cross-linguistic transfer in phonology is taken to be the degree to which L1 phonological awareness facilitates – or otherwise – learning to speak in the target language. Phonological transfer is usually much more apparent than is transfer at the level of discourse. It covers various phenomena ranging from the actual sounds that L2 users perceive and produce (i. e., phonetics), to the ways that they categorize, structure, and organize these sounds

82

Anita Buczek-Zawiła

(phonology). As such, instances of phonological transfer are researched and documented widely (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008, p. 62ff)1. In that sense, CLI in phonology can refer to a learner strategy (conscious or otherwise), to the process or transference of L1 knowledge onto learning L2 phenomena, or to the result of such process (Escudero, 2017, p. 112). It has been an important area of research focused on bi- or multilingual language acquisition. For example, Calvo-Benzies (2019) observes in her findings, as well as in the studies she reviews in her paper, that it has become apparent that the phonological and orthographic systems of Spanish and Galician have a strong influence on the way bilingual speakers of these languages perform in English, across various tasks and measures described. When discussing Turkish learners’ difficulties, Ercan (2018) maintains that the problems stem from English and Turkish having different phonologies and orthographies, but also indicates that students are not able to produce English sounds correctly partially because they do not distinguish between the sounds, also in their L1, to be able to organize and manipulate them as required in the L2 sound system. Demircioglu (2013) reports that Turkish students of English do not demonstrate substantial difficulties in articulating English monophthongs present in the Turkish phonological system. For diphthongs, which do not exist in Turkish, the situation is different, the second element being unattainable is frequently dropped. Bekleyen (2011), in turn, focuses her study on problems that are rooted mainly in the spelling system of the English language, as experienced by Turkish EFL learners, who tend to rely on the phoneme-to-grapheme correspondences they transfer from their own linguistic background: Turkish has a rather transparent orthographical system. She observes that some of those inaccuracies are so entrenched in the learners’ minds that they resist modifications, a concern expressed also in Ringbom (2009), who additionally underlines the common instances where L1 phonological rules regularly interact with L2 rules, such as Final Obstruent Devoicing in some languages. Within usage-based approaches, these patterns of phonological extensions are generalized across common usage, regardless of a particular system being used for communication that functions within the dynamic model based on interactive activation (Langacker, 2003, p. 93). Combined with the above notions of cross-linguistic influence is the concept of meta-linguistic knowledge, defined as explicit and verbalizable knowledge about language. This competence is sometimes argued to be unnecessary or peripheral in the SLA process, yet some studies have demonstrated that explicit meta-linguistic knowledge can facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge by focusing on features of linguistic input (Ammar et al., 2010; see also Saturno, 1 An excellent review of those studies is found in Jarvis and Pavlenko (2008, p. 62ff), also those that are related to orthographic measures.

L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training

83

chapter 16 of this volume, on the above average meta-linguistic skills of his subjects). The overview of research on meta-linguistic awareness is provided in Jessner (2006). Jessner (2006, p. 42) summarizes the concept as referring to “the ability to focus attention on language as an object in itself, or to think abstractly about language and, consequently, to play with and manipulate language.” It is a trait present in the linguistic behavior of monolinguals and multilinguals, yet these groups make different use of it, both in extent and nature. The degree of its utilization is contingent on learning strategies informing and guiding the learning process as well as learning perception and production. SLA learners have to take account of the knowledge of the relationships between one’s two languages: “The metalinguistically aware multilingual learner explores and analyzes points of commonality between her or his language systems to obtain the target language item” (Jessner, 2006, p. 70). Turning specifically to phonology, Kopecˇkova (2018, p. 154) defines phonological awareness as the ability to notice, distinguish and manipulate the basic sound structure of a language. Mora et al. (2014), in the context of L2 speech acquisition, posit phonological awareness to be the knowledge about the phonological system of the target language, and about cross-language phonetic differences between the L1 and L2 sounds. They maintain that awareness at the level of noticing is a requirement for the acquisition of a target phonological structure, whereas L2 phonological acquisition can benefit from phonological awareness at the level of understanding. This meta-linguistic awareness, especially in the context of multilingual phonological acquisition, is termed metaphonological awareness by Wrembel (2015), who stresses the role of attention and noticing in input processing. The necessary pre-condition for any role that meta-phonological awareness may potentially play is that students are able to notice patterns and paradigms. This noticing hypothesis stipulates that conscious awareness (noticing) is essential for the development of L2 (and, presumably, L1) proficiency (Venkatagiri & Levis, 2007, p. 265), to the effect that learners’ awareness of the disparity between the input and their current interlanguage enhances learning, comprehensibility, and phonological short-term memory. Claims have been made that explicit pronunciation instruction can promote learners’ awareness of the spoken L2 and of their own learning (Kennedy & Trofimovich, 2010, p. 173). This enhanced awareness of the L2 language sound system may provide some insights and inform the students’ learning and pronunciation achievement, also in the areas of fluency and accentedness (Kennedy & Trofimovich, 2010). The area infrequently addressed is the students’ awareness of their native language phonological system characteristics which may affect and actually facilitate their L2 pronunciation. The “conscious knowledge of the sounds, syllable structure, phonotactics and prosody of the target language” (Venkatagiri & Levis, 2007,

84

Anita Buczek-Zawiła

p. 265) has long been observed to play a major role for example in learning to read individual words, sentences, and paragraphs in any particular language. To illustrate further, clear positive outcomes were reported between L1 phonemic awareness and the development of reading in English, where it was inferred that meta-linguistic awareness of one language transfers to the L2, thus facilitating the work on reading abilities with Spanish, French, and Arabic learners (Alshaboul et al., 2014, and sources cited there), even when the languages do not share the same orthographic system, transparent or otherwise. Ammar et al. (2010) report on the positive correlation between providing explicit information about L1-L2 differences and learners’ performance on untimed tests which allow access to that awareness. In relation to the above, McManus and Marsden (2017) investigate the influence of L1 explicit information and practice on online processing of natural language over time. A processing routine develops declarative knowledge that may serve learning and processing an L2 in various ways. This can be achieved through, e. g., clarifying and rehearsing nontransparent conceptual distinctions in the first language. Mora and Darcy (2017) discuss the concept of inhibitory control – the mechanism that allows bilinguals to speak one of their languages while blocking the interference from the language currently not in use, so that learners can better avoid interference from their L1 phonological categories resulting in more target-like / less accented L2 perception and production (Mora and Darcy, 2017; see also Yelin, chapter 11 of this volume, on effects of language dominance in the context of CLI). Kopecˇkova et al. (2021) review the role and importance of meta-phonological awareness in L2 research, and discuss the means to operationalize phonological awareness across multiple languages, following in line with Mora et al. (2014), Wrembel (2015), and Kopecˇkova (2018). All these studies underscore the strategies of intuitive and informed noticing, self-repair, modification of mistakes, as well as reflective meta-linguistic analysis of their own performance and attention to articulation. Therefore, the interaction of both the meta-phonological and cross-linguistic awareness have been demonstrated to be an essential component of multilingual competence. These findings are then generalized to other subsystems and skills in the foreign language. Most of the research that has examined learners’ awareness of their L1 on L2 processing has been carried out with adolescent and adult students, and the present study is in line with that trend.

3.

The study

The study reported on in this chapter is an investigation into the extent to which adult proficient Spanish-, Turkish-, Russian-speaking learners of English as a second language are aware of (a) their own L1 phonological systems with their

L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training

85

variants and peculiarities; (b) the influence of their first language phonologies on the processing and producing their target language forms. The data for the analysis was collected primarily in two ways: experimental elicitation data (i. e., guided linguistic performance, such as elicited imitation, oral and/or pen-and-paper tests of reception and production), and offline selfreport data (i. e., introspection and retrospection essays) (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). The test results have been analyzed elsewhere (Buczek-Zawiła, 2021), they are therefore excluded from the present investigations, though the findings seem to correlate with what transpires from the participants’ essays. The present study examines the results of the retrospective self-reports produced by course participants, who are the subjects in the study. The study is cross-sectional in nature. By way of definition, […] (a) cross-sectional study of CLI […] is one in which performance data are collected from individual language users at a single point in time, with no attempt made to track how CLI might change in relation to changes in the individuals’ knowledge of their languages. It is relevant to point out that […] crosssectional research tends to be intersubjective (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008, p. 32).

If transfer is assumed to be a process whereby the learner makes use of linguistic resources other than their knowledge of the language in which communication takes place (Ringbom, 2006, p. 38), then it is hardly surprising that such strategy becomes a regular fixture in the target language learning context. Where similarity can be perceived between existing words and structures, there occurs a general facilitating effect for comprehension and learning. This is the assumption behind the instructional practices employed during explicit L2 phonetic training that the students are given at PUK. The study does not aim to resolve the debate around whether it is the crosslinguistic similarity or difference that causes more difficulties for the learner, especially in the light of the vagueness of perceived similarities and differences. Following the above, several research questions have been formulated in relation to the present investigations: RQ1: Are the bilingual Spanish/Turkish/Russian speakers of English aware that they make pronunciation mistakes due to interference from their phonological system of their mother languages? RQ2: Are they aware of L1 sound distinctions, both at the phonemic and the contextual level? RQ3: How do they explain – if at all – the fact that they, at least initially, perceive the target language phonological system in terms of the L1 background? Do these perceptions change over time and with more FI explicit training?

86

Anita Buczek-Zawiła

As stated above, the study is cross-sectional in character, though the process of writing, revising drafts and producing final versions of the retrospective essays comprised the time span of seven to ten weeks.

3.1.

The material

The data analyzed in this chapter was collected primarily via self-report data (i. e., introspection and retrospection essays) (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). The techniques were part of instructional paradigms implemented during explicit pronunciation training classes, they were not introduced with research in mind. Rather, they had the hidden motive of informing classroom procedures and content.

3.2.

The self-reports

The self-report data was collected in the period between 2015 and 2020 from (Erasmus) foreign exchange students coming to PUK. It comes in the form of student essays written as part of the requirement to pass a course called Remedial Pronunciation Classes, lasting for one semester. Beginning in 2015, foreign exchange students coming to the English Studies Department at PUK, apart from attending regular courses with their Polish friends, could participate in extra classes of different subjects. One of those involved intensive explicit pronunciation training geared towards students of homogenous L1 background, and thus likely to experience similar systematic difficulties in their L2 oral performance. Whenever possible, that is when the formal requirements for the minimal number of students for the course to run were met, the foreign exchange students were grouped according to their L1. However, in seven out of ten courses run, such strict separation was not executed. The most numerous L1 groups were Spanish and Turkish speakers.2 During this period, 52 essays were collected from the L1 Spanish group and 27 from the L1 Turkish participants. In recent years, students with Russian as the L1 have been joining the classes as a result of bilateral exchange agreements between PUK and their respective institutions. Eight essays from this L1 group were analyzed as well. Table 1 provides some descriptive data. 2 There were also isolated cases of students coming from Italy (2), France (2) Germany (2), and the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Lithuania, Portugal (1) who participated in the classes, but their contributions, though valuable, are not taken into consideration in this study due to scarcity of evidence.

L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training

87

Table 1. The participants L1 background Number of participants Gender

F M

Overall 87

Spanish as L1 52

Turkish as L1 27

Russian as L1 8

51 36

33 19

12 15

6 2

Age 21–24 (mean 21.8) Time to complete 7–10 weeks (mean 8.97) the essays

The essay question was generally formulated along the lines: Analyze your mother tongue sound system in relation to English. Discuss how it helps or doesn’t help you to acquire good English pronunciation. The students were provided with relevant literature on the subject and encouraged to focus on their variety of L1 (e. g., Southern Spanish/Andalusian/Canary Islands Spanish). The actual essay writing was a several weeks’ task, with initial drafts, comments from instructors, and later modifications; in the end, the final versions were submitted. Both the drafts and the final versions have been used in the analysis below. Bibliography was suggested to the students (see, e. g., Coe, 2001; Monk & Burak, 2001; Mott, 2005; Rogerson-Revell, 2011; Thomson, 2001), though they were also encouraged to find and make use of other resources, which many of them did. All in all, the essays provided invaluable insights into whether and how profoundly the students understand the phonological impact of their L1s onto their perception and performance in English. Especially so since they were encouraged to finish off with some personal introspective self-evaluation of potential problem areas. Many of the reports include thorough attempts at pinpointing the areas of differences, only occasionally identifying similarities, most concentrated on problems and difficulties, as if trying a priori to defend their inaccurate productions. Only a portion of the ideas reported in those self-reports are listed for demonstration and discussion here, some are accompanied by teachers’ comments (italicized) in the early versions. They nonetheless form a representative sample of ideas and opinions expressed. They can be grouped along several categories, following the pattern coding strategy (Miles et al., 2014) and illustrated with examples in Table 2. This qualitative analysis followed the steps of the order of theme construction, displaying data and theory building or drawing conclusions, and began with the reduction of collected data through (a) simplifying the collected data (b) selecting and focusing on the relevant data, and (c) eliminating the irrelevant data through changing the written part of the data. The steps allowed the author to arrange the answers thematically and in consequence to obtain a

88

Anita Buczek-Zawiła

fuller picture of the participants’ opinions. As a result, the following broad categories were identified: – attending to orthographic measures (cf. Bekleyen, 2011; Calvo-Benzies, 2019; Ercan, 2018; Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008); – conscious knowledge of sounds, syllable structure, and phonotactics (cf. Kennedy & Trofimovich, 2010; Venkatagiri & Lewis, 2007); – intuitive and informed noticing of phonetic detail (cf. Jessner, 2006; Kopecˇkova, 2018; Kopecˇkova et al., 2021; Mora et al., 2014; Wrembel, 2015); – non-transparent conceptual distinctions in L1 and misinterpretation (Mc Manus & Marsden 2017; Mora and Darcy 2017; Wrembel 2015).

Table 2. The self-report data3 Phonological awareness category L1 transparent orthographies

Inability to go beyond print

L1 Examples group Spanish – In Spanish each vowel sound corresponds to one vowel written. However in English each vowel sound can be written in many different ways. – Spelling & pronunciation are very closely related in Spanish, so Spanish speakers tend to pronounce English words letter by letter. – In Spanish every single letter of a word is pronounced, except the sound [h]. – The first difference we can find between these two languages is that Spanish has a phonetic spelling, this means that you write exactly what you hear, one sound is represented graphically by one letter (always the same letter). Turkish – Words in Turkish are written the way they are pronounced and pronounced the way they are written. – The most common of all these rules about Turkish pronunciation is that in this language, every letter is pronounced and there are no silent letters. – One consonant is read as one sound. There are no combinations of consonants. Spanish – An English speaker would say [əˈbaʊt] while Spaniards would say [aˈbaʊt]. – Almost all Spanish community say [bird] or [berd] instead of [bɜːd]. [COMMENT: You have to name the problem directly: the influence of the spelling.] – Another example of tricky pronunciation for Spanish speakers could be the words that start in . For instance, zebra or zero, because in English

3 The original spelling, punctuation, and grammar have been retained.

L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training

89

Table 2 (Continued) Phonological awareness category

L1 group

Examples

–

Turkish –

– –

Failing to see similarity

the letter is pronounced as the Spanish . So, even if Spanish natives see the transcription [ˈzebrə], our negative transfer can confuse us, and we will pronounce it as in Spanish language. [COMMENT: Does the sound [z] (not the letter ) exist in Spanish? ANSWER: No.] [θ]: It sounds like the Spanish sound in cinco “five” or zapato “shoe,” with the tip of the tongue poking between the teeth. but we don’t have it, it is not written. /ð/: is very similar to the previous one but vibrating, and again we don’t write it [COMMENT: Note how the Spanish is pronounced differently in the word doy “give” and in the word hado “fate.”] is not a letter that is present in Turkish Alphabet. Hence, the first challenge for them is a sound which they are not familiar with. So, when they hear a word with [w] sound, their mind represents it to [v] sound which exists in Turkish Alphabet. One should not pronounce the letter while saying could and would, although it is there. Turkish people say [ˈdaɪə.mənds] as their native language does not give permission to change it to [z]. and they see the letter which in Turkish stands for a voiceless [s].

Russian – We can’t figure out how to use schwa /ə/, instead we are trying to say the exact letter that schwa /ə/ stands for in the word. – We don’t change vowels as we speak: in English we do : present (N) – present (V). [COMMENT: What about дома vs. домой?] – The sound [ц] consists of two elements: [t+s]. There is no such consonants the sounds of the English language. [COMMENT: What if you add a suffix to a word ending in , e. g., cats, bats, rats?] Russian – A number of the English sounds are perceived as the Russian sound [a]: cat [kæt], cart [kɑ:t], cut [kʌt]. All of these words sound for us as [kat] and we will pronounce it exactly like that. [COMMENT: The Russian stands for at least three phonetically different sounds: in пять it becomes [æ], in он пал it becomes [a:] and in травa you have two different sounds .] Spanish – In English [COMMENT: in Spanish, too], the vowels are characterized by: closeness – how closed or open the mouth is; backness – how far back is the

90

Anita Buczek-Zawiła

Table 2 (Continued) Phonological awareness category

Failing to recognize the difference at the level of segment realization

Misinterpreted pattern

L1 group

Examples

vowel articulated and roundedness – whether the lips are rounded. – The [s] is another consonant that never appears at the beginning of a word in Spanish. [COMMENT: What about siempre, sol?] Turkish – Furthermore English has an additional nasal sound /ŋ/ which does not occur in Turkish. [COMMENT: Are you sure that it doesn’t, what about mangal, banka?] Spanish – The letters (sic!) b and v sound the same in Spanish. – I confuse the bilabial plosive [b] with the labiodental fricative [v] (berry/ very), because Spanish people pronounce them in the same way. – Spanish speakers tend to give the sounds b, d, and g their native language values, therefore, and as we say earlier, they will probably use their Spanish pronunciation and expect it to be correct. We are corrected and told they sound different in Spanish somewhere. Spanish – If the /s/ is placed before a voiced consonant as /d/ or /b/, as in desde or resbalar, you can notice how this /s/ sound makes a stop, before the voiced consonant. – We tend to pronounce sounds [ʤ] and [ j] in the same way in words such as Jess /ʤes/= Yes /jes/, Jet / ʤet/ = Yet /jet/. Spanish learners find it extremely difficult to begin a word with consonant [ j]. Russian – Letter gives the sound that is Russian “и” which more corresponds to the English /iː/. And we do not have an equivalent of the sound /ɪ/. So it may be funny to hear a Russian guy saying: Sit on this seat. Turkish – English has also the sound /ɪ/, it is a shorter and lax version of /i:/. It’s not a version of /i:/, it’s a different phoneme. Turkish people tend to pronounce it the same way they do in their native language for the letter “i.” – Turkish language has 8 vowels in the alphabet whereas English language has only 5 vowels. [COMMENT: Vowel letters, because there many more vowel sounds in English.]

Noticing differences between varieties

Spanish – Now I know that there is no [z] sound, what Spaniards from the mainland pronounce when they say cinco and zapato is the [θ] sound for both words.

L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training

91

Table 2 (Continued) Phonological awareness category

L1 group

Examples – Andalusian Spanish people tend to skip letters [COMMENT: sounds!! you can skip letters when you write, not when you talk] while they are talking, like the [s] sound in Spanish or the [d] sound in the middle of a phrase, in other words, words like Sabes or Preparado could be pronounce like “sabeh” or “preparao.”

A cursory inspection of the quotes from the students’ reports provides some ground for claiming that there are certain dominant tendencies in their L1 perceptions, especially in relation to the target language. What needs to be stressed at the outset, though, is that the self-reports do not include only inaccurate or incomplete statements in relation to the participants’ respective L1 phonologies. For example, all participants were able to notice the lack of long vowels in their languages, underlining that fact as one of the more conspicuous differences between their L1 and L2 English phonological structures. Likewise, they were able to identify the more numerous qualitative distinctions in the vocalic inventories, both in relation to monophthongs and diphthongs. A good number of essays contained observations on the flexible word stress of English, in contradistinction to what they claim is the situation in their L1s (except for L1 Russian). To have a fuller picture, one needs to add that every report on Spanish and Turkish, and six out of eight on Russian, underscores the transparent orthography of their L1. This is contrasted with the opaque and confusing English spelling system, to the point when many of the essays repeat the untrue statement that English is not a phonetic language. Another clarification would be to pinpoint that literally every single one of the reports contained statements that were based on letters and not sounds, and that despite corrective comments from the teachers this obsession with spelling and attention to orthography predominate in the essays. It is as if participants are unable to go beyond print and ignore its potentially confusing impact. Two examples will be used to illustrate this trend. All L1 Spanish participants included a statement that the English voiced alveolar fricative [z] is a problem because Spanish (in either Castilian, Andalusian or Canary Island varieties) does not have it in the inventory. Even what is written as as in zapato “shoe” will be pronounced as either [s] or [θ] depending on the actual L1 Spanish variety (Ruiz-Sanchez, 2017). Consequently, pronouncing English distinctions like ice [aɪs] and eyes [aɪz], or even individual items like zebra or zero, was deemed to be a challenge “because in English the letter is

92

Anita Buczek-Zawiła

pronounced as the Spanish .” There was only one comment, cited below, which demonstrated that the person realized that sometimes indeed Spanish speakers pronounce the [z], even if the spelling is different. Spanish makes this sound [z] when a word ends with the consonant S and it is followed by a word starting with a vowel + consonant, for example Las orejas “the ears”) [laz oreχas]’ or los amigos [loz_a’miɣos]. Some people, but not me, say it also in desde [dezde/ desde] “since.”

The same person then went on to say that the [z] sound is very difficult to remember about when “trying to correctly pronounce phrases such as roses are red because we don’t read /z/ here.” It is in such instances when the presence of students with other L1 background was particularly beneficial, as participants from Spanish L1 group received comments from fellow students in class, who do not experience similar difficulties in perception: “but you do say [z] in this word.” And conversely, participants from L1 Turkish or Russian groups were peerinstructed when experiencing difficulties with the [v]/[w] production. In a pedagogical sense, then, the multilingual setting of many of those classes enhanced awareness and learning through attention to details and objective comments. This inability to go beyond spelling is also reflected in the remarks regarding the realizations of voiced stops /b/, /d/, /g/ in Spanish, which are generally considered relatively unproblematic. When asked in a comment whether they are pronounced in the same way everywhere, for example in word-medial position, the L1 Spanish participants would generally answer that there are no specific differences. There were only two statements to the contrary, both cited below: the Spanish /d/ does not sound the same in dolor and estado. In the second it is more like English th in this. the Spanish words ganas and agua show that /g/ sound is different. The second one is not an English sound.

Everybody else was largely contented to rely on the familiar L1 correspondences between spelling and pronunciation. The conviction is best illustrated with another quote, this time from an L1 Turkish participant: Orthography is a factor and it plays an important role in guessing the correct pronunciation of the words.

L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training

3.3.

93

Discussion

The data in the material essentially indicates that advanced learners of ESL perceive the target and the native language sound system phonemically and are largely guided in their perceptions by the spelling conventions applicable in their L1 (Bekleyen, 2011; Calvo-Benzies, 2019; Ercan, 2018; Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008), at the same time underlining areas of difference and thus potential or expected difficulties. Through training and self-reflection they become increasingly aware that the L1 phonological system is at the core of their perceptions and productions. The analysis of the research material provides evidence that the behavior in question is not an isolated incident, but is instead a common tendency of individuals who know the same combination of languages, yet at the same time it is not something that all language users do regardless of the combinations of the L1s and L2s that they know. Support was also found for the stipulation that a language user’s behavior in one language really is motivated by their use (i. e., the way they demonstrate their knowledge) of another language (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008). Adult learners rely on rules and categories of their own language when learning to perceive and ultimately produce L2 sounds (Ringbom, 2006, 2009). That inevitably leads to inaccuracies, as L1 categories are replicated and adjusted so that they can fit into the L2 systemic contrasts. Because of that, explanations justifying this state of affairs appear, for example, Demircioglu (2013) openly confirms that Turkish learners are accustomed to having inaccurate articulations. The evidence found confirms that the L2 phonology is initially attuned to the sounds and categories of the L1 (van Leussen & Escudero, 2015), and there is no reason why this cannot be used to the learner’s advantage, where informed conscious inferences can be drawn from the L1 starting point. There is ample evidence to support the claim that experience in one’s native language shapes the perceptual acquisition of a foreign language. This acquired consciousness is gradually applied to yield more target-like sound production, even if initially attempted only. The worrying factor is the relative insensitivity to contextual variants (Mora et al., 2014; Venkatagiri & Lewis, 2007). The insistence on no [z] or [ð] in Spanish, on the actual isomorphy of [b] and [v] in all contexts there, on the absence of [ŋ] in Turkish, on one and unchanging quality of some vowel sounds (most notably [a] and [o]) in Russian (Tharpe, 2019) – all this testifies to strong resistance on the part of adult advanced ESL students to become perceptually sensitive to incoming signals in their own L1s. The realization that contextual variants in the native language function as separate regular segments in the target one could effectively facilitate the mental adjustment to the perceived impossibility of

94

Anita Buczek-Zawiła

pronouncing them well. The problem behind not being able to produce the correct sounds, as shown by numerous studies (e. g., Buczek-Zawiła, 2015; Eckman et al., 2009; Wee, 2009), is not because they cannot physically produce the sounds, but that they do not distinguish between the phonetic signals to be able to organize and manipulate them as required in the L2 sound system. Participants frequently mentioned problems caused by phonemes that do not exist in their native languages. Phonemes such as /æ/, /θ/, /ð/, /ŋ/, /w/ do not exist in the Turkish language. Consequently, the L1 Turkish group found them rather difficult to pronounce. Similarly in Turkish orthography, each time the letter is used, it corresponds to the sound [ʒ], hence the declared inability to effortlessly switch to the target [ʤ]. Cases like the above have also been reported on in students’ essays, and numerous subject literature (cf. Bekleyen, 2011; Ercan, 2018). To quote the problematic speech sounds from Spanish: [f] and [θ] are considered easy, despite the latter one being not reflected in spelling, while [v] and [ð] are non-existent in the L1, hence proving challenging when speaking English, again, despite them functioning as contextual variants. The generally unproblematic distinction between [s] and [z] is regularly reported to be a major issue for Spaniards, as, at a phonemic level, only /s/ is a functional category, despite [z] existing as an allophone in Spanish words like mismo, asno and in Galician in forms such as trasno, sisno (Calvo-Benzies, 2019, p. 27). Allowing for the fact that noticing phonetic detail from the speech stream is challenging, at this level of competence in English and after implementing training in consciousnessraising via asking for the analysis of appropriate relevant examples, more is expected from the students, so that the noticing transforms from intuitive to informed (Mora et al., 2014). Understandably the mistakes resulting from the difficulties recognized by students are of different gravity: [w] and [v] reversals observed in the English pronunciation of L1 Russian speakers, are in part responsible for the discernible Russian accent in English but do not make Russian speakers incomprehensible (Tharpe, 2019). At the same time, transferring the approximant versions of /b/, /d/ and /g/ as pronounced intervocalically in Spanish onto English words like language, Cuba and medicine poses a threat to intelligibility. Similarly, the devoiced word-final segments in, e. g., cod (= cot?), dog (= dock) or rib (= rip?) by Russian speakers again can contribute to the onset of intelligibility (cf. Collins & Mees, 2008, pp. 208–222). The issue of even greater significance is the overwhelming reliance of letter-tosound correspondences and the inability to distance themselves from the spelling conventions. Classroom practice provides ample evidence that in the speakers’ minds language, both first and foreign, is represented graphically. L1 Russian, Spanish, and Turkish participants begin their linguistic experience in the linguistic system with transparent regular orthographies. The following observation

L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training

95

regarding L1 Turkish participants can safely be generalized across the other backgrounds: “Turkish orthography is to a large extent phonemic, i. e., employing a one-to-one letter-sound correspondence. Turkish students who are used to a system like this feel confused when they try to read English words, because in English, a total of 44 phonemes are represented by 26 letters” (Bekleyen, 2011, p. 96). All participants in the sample manifest this persistent adherence to orthography. One Turkish student observes: Most people worship spelling, forgetting that there are blind foreign people or illiterate foreign people who speak English/Turkish with a strong foreign accent, although they have never seen it written.

The shared belief is that one can always predict the pronunciation of a Spanish word by its spelling, whereas in the case of English there are far fewer direct correspondences between the phonological and the orthographic systems (Calvo-Benzies, 2019). The direct consequence of this substantial difference is that Spaniards pronounce every letter, and this can lead to problems with intelligibility. Even when consciousness-raising techniques are used in order to sensitize students to the details of the sound system, this in itself frequently proves inadequate, also when errors resulting from it are pointed out directly. This is not to say that spelling is universally harmful. Rather, since participants of either L1 background on the whole appear insufficiently familiar with certain differences and similarities between the orthographic and the phonological systems of English and their L1s, they could be encouraged to reflect on pronunciation of either of their languages through, e. g., think-aloud protocols, questionnaires, L1-L2 pronunciation comparison tasks or data sets analysis (Calvio-Benzies, 2019; Carlet & Kivistö de Souza, 2018). This is rarely done unless they are asked to do so in a pronunciation-focused course. It is unrealistic to assume that learners ought to try and establish a one-to-one relationship with units in the other language, however, they would benefit greatly from being able to predict both similarity and difference (Ringbom, 2006). When asked to estimate their abilities to notice and explain speech phenomena, especially in relation to the written versions of words and utterances, they confess to having to struggle to detach themselves from the written word, yet they can see the benefits of doing so, as their perception skills improve. After all, noticing is the prerequisite to learning (Carlet & Kivistö de Souza, 2018, p. 114), while being able to offer some reflective meta-linguistic analysis (Wrembel, 2015) can contribute to developing enhanced meta-phonological awareness in any language learnt. Positive instructional effects observed in the courses and represented in many of the participants’ reports cannot be attributed solely to the application of consciousness-raising techniques introduced into classroom procedures. Explicit in-

96

Anita Buczek-Zawiła

formation relating both to L1 and L2 sounds and variants is useful for learning, as it helps to turn declarative information into automatized implicit knowledge via substantial practice and consciousness-raising activities (McManus & Marsden, 2017). Rather, we count here the positive impact of explicit pronunciation instruction, focus on form and resultant increase in phonological awareness of novel and known sounds, making them more consciously noticeable, and thus enabling more accurate perception and production (Carlet & Kivistö de Souza, 2018; Kissling, 2013; Kopecˇkova et al., 2021). However, Rogers and Freeborn (2019) warn that even if learners have a large amount of relevant L2 experience and exposure, they are still likely to have a notably foreign accent if they continue to use their L1 often.

4.

Conclusion

The results of this study show that university students try to make generalizations when they pronounce English words. They try to guess the pronunciation of words by looking at the spelling. Sometimes they are successful, but generally they make a large number of errors because they over-generalize. The mispronunciations of words by non-native speakers reflect the influence of the sounds, rules, stress, and intonation of their native language. All this has been conspicuously present in the study material investigated in this chapter. The crucial factor for ultimate attainment in spontaneous speech is cognitive control (Bergman et al., 2015). It is therefore of paramount importance to be able to select the relevant features of one’s L1 sound system to be activated and employed in a facilitative manner in one’s L2 production (Mora & Darcy, 2017). Bergman et al. (2015), among others, advise to actively keep the influence of native language under control when learning and using the target one. That results in fluency being contingent on application of procedural routines which facilitate effortless combining of different sources of information, including the L1 phonological repertoire. It is obvious that explicit knowledge does not contribute to language proficiency on its own. Therefore, L1 phonological awareness, even when the rules have been conspicuously laid out, is insufficient to guarantee their accurate application in new or more complex instances. Such cognitive treatment requires practice in regularity noticing and rule application. It is to be expected that with more languages learnt, their phonological systems can be manipulated successfully and thus contribute to the target production. The chapter has tried to demonstrate how important the concept of crosslinguistic similarity, relevant for comprehension and learning, can be in FL phonological acquisition. The role played by such perceived similarity – or lack

L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training

97

thereof – will differ both qualitatively and quantitatively, being contingent on the learners’ awareness of L1 phonological system intricacies.

References Alshaboul, Y. (2014). The contribution of L1 phonemic awareness into L2 reading: The case of Arab EFL readers. International Education Studies, 7, 99–111. doi:10.5539/ies.v7n3p 99. Ammar, A., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2010). Awareness of L1/l2 differences: Does it matter? Language Awareness, 19(2), 129–146. doi:10.1080/09658411003746612. Bekleyen, N. (2011). Pronunciation problems of Turkish EFL learners. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 10(36), 94–107. Bergmann, C., Sprenger, S., & Schmid, M. (2015). The impact of language co-activation on L1 and L2 speech fluency. Acta Psychologica, 161C, 25–35. doi:10.1016/j.actps y.2015.07.015. Buczek-Zawiła, A. (2015). Extending foreign presence in English phonetics classes. In A. Bloch-Rozmej, & K. Drabikowska (Eds.), Within Language, Beyond Theories. Vol. 2: Studies in Applied Linguistics (pp. 3–22). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Buczek-Zawiła, A. (2021). Phonological awareness of L1 systemic segmental contrasts among advanced ESL speakers with varied L1 backgrounds. Anglica, 30(2), 109–127. doi:10.7311/0860-5734.30.2.06. Calvo-Benzies, Y. J. (2019). /ðə ’musɪk ɪn’dustrɪ jas es’tarted ’teikin le’gal ak’ʃɒn/*. A preliminary study on the nature and impact of phonological and orthographic transfer in the English speech of bilingual speakers of Spanish and Galician. In M. Juncal Gutierrez-Mangado, M. Martínez-Adrián, & F. Gallardo-del-Puerto (Eds.), Cross-Linguistic Influence: From Empirical Evidence to Classroom Practice (pp. 21–47). Cham: Springer. Carlet, A., & Kivistö de Souza, H. (2018). Improving L2 pronunciation inside and outside the classroom: perception, production and autonomous learning of L2 vowels. Ilha do Desterro, 71(3), 99–123. doi:10.5007/2175-8026.2018v71n3p99. Coe, N. (2001). Speakers of Spanish and Catalan. In M. Swan, & B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English. A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems (pp. 90–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Collins, B., & Mees, I. M. (2008). Practical Phonetics and Phonology. A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge. Demircioglu, M. D. (2013). The pronunciation problems for Turkish learners in articulating diphthongs in English learning. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 106, 2983– 2992. Eckman, F. R., Iverson, G., Fox, R.A., Jacewicz, E., & Lee, S. (2009). Perception and production in the acquisition of L2 phonemic contrasts. In M. A. Watkins, A. S. Rauber, & B. O. Baptista (Eds.), Recent Research in Second Language Phonetics/Phonology: Perception and Production (pp. 81–93). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.

98

Anita Buczek-Zawiła

Ercan, H. (2018). Pronunciation problems of Turkish EFL learners in Northern Cyprus. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching ((IOJET), 5(4), 877–893. Escudero, P. (2007). Second language phonology: the role of perception. In M. Pennington (Ed.), Phonology in Context (pp. 109–134). New York, NY: Palgrave McMillan. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Cross-linguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. London: Routledge. Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kennedy, S., & Trofimovich, P. (2010). Language awareness and second language pronunciation: a classroom study. Language Awareness, 19(3), 171–185. Kissling, E. (2013). Teaching pronunciation: Is explicit phonetics instruction beneficial for FL learners? The Modern Language Journal, 97(3). doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013. 12029.x. Kopecˇková, R. (2018). Exploring metalinguistic awareness in L3 phonological acquisition: the case of young instructed learners of Spanish in Germany. Language Awareness, 271 (2), 153–166. doi:10.1080/09658416.2018.1432629. Kopecˇková, R., Wrembel, M., Gut, U., & Balas, A. (2021). Differences in phonological awareness of young L3 learners: An accent mimicry study. International Journal of Multilingualism. doi:10.1080/14790718.2021.1897127. Langacker, R. W. (2003). Model dynamiczny oparty na uzusie je˛zykowym. In E. Da˛browska, & W. Kubin´ski (Eds.), Akwizycja je˛zyka w ´swietle je˛zykoznawstwa kognitywnego (pp. 30–119). Kraków: Universitas. van Leussen, J.-W., & Escudero, P. (2015). Learning to perceive and recognize a second language: The L2LP model revised. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:1000. doi:10.3389/fpsy g.2015.01000. McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2017). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(3), 459–492. doi:10.1 017/S027226311600022X. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative Data Analysis. A Methods Sourcebook (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. Monk, B., & Burak, A. (2001). Russian Speakers. In M. Swan, & B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English. A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems (pp. 145–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mora, J. C., Rochdi, Y., & Kivistö-de Souza, H. (2014). Mimicking accented speech as L2 phonological awareness. Language Awareness, 23(1–2), 57–75. doi:10.1080/09658416.2 013.863898. Mora, J. C., & Darcy, I. (2017). The relationship between cognitive control and pronunciation in a second language. In T. Isaac, & P. Trofimovich (Eds.), Second Language Pronunciation Assessment: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 95–120). Bristol: Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters, Channel View Publications. Retrieved 22 August 2021 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.21832/j.ctt1xp3wcc.10. Morales, D., & Izquierdo, J. (2011). L2 phonology learning among young adult learners of English: Effects of regular classroom-based instruction and L2 proficiency. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 13(1). http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?sc ript=sci_arttext&pid=S1607-40412011000100006.

L1 Sound Awareness (or Lack thereof ?) in the Context of L2 Sound Training

99

Mott, B. (2005). English Phonetics and Phonology for Spanish Speakers. Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions Universitat de Barcelona. Ringbom, H. (2006). The importance of different types of similarity in transfer studies. In J. Arabski (Ed.), Cross-linguistic Influences in the Second Language Lexicon (pp. 36–45). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ringbom, H. (2009). Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Rogers, J., & Freeborn, L. (2019). Nonlinguistic factors that affect the degree of foreign accent in second language Mandarin. Studies in Chinese Linguistics, 40(1), 75–100. doi:10.2478/scl-2019-0003. Rogerson-Revell, P. (2011). English Phonology and Pronunciation Teaching. London: Continuum. Ruiz-Sanchez, C. (2017). “Seseo, ceceo, and distinción in Andalusian Spanish: Free Variation or Sociolinguistic Variation?” Linguistic Vanguard, 3(1). doi:10.1515/lingvan-20 16-0075. Sinha, A., Banerjee, N., Sinha, A., & Shastri, R. (2009). Interference of first language in the acquisition of second language. Journal of Psychology and Counselling, 1, 117–122. Swan, M., & Smith, B. (2001). Introduction. In M. Swan, & B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English. A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems (pp. ix–xi). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tharpe, P. A. (2019). English Pronunciation, Intonation and Accent Reduction for Russian Speakers. American Pronunciation Coach, USA. Thomson, I. (2001). Turkish speakers. In M. Swan, & B. Smith (Eds.), Learner English. A Teacher’s Guide to Interference and Other Problems (pp. 214–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Venkatagiri, H. S., & Levis, J. M. (2007). Phonological awareness and speech comprehensibility: An exploratory study. Language Awareness, 16(4), 263–277. Wee, R. (2009). Sources of errors: an interplay of interlingual influence and intralingual factors. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(2), 349–359. Wrembel, M. (2015). Metaphonological awareness in multilinguals: a case of L3 Polish. Language Awareness, 24(1), 60–83.

Jadwiga Cook

Chapter 5 – Locative Prepositions in Bilingual Children’s Languages. Example of Polish-French Young Bilinguals

Abstract Perception and description of space are an experience shared by all humans and one of their main cognitive skills. However, the expression of spatial relations can differ across languages, which is why our interest in the present paper is turned towards the way PolishFrench BFLA children describe static spatial situations in their languages. The aim of the paper is to examine the relation between children’s age, language proficiency and the language used, and the way a spatial event is described, by comparing a French and Polish corpus of the locative prepositions used by a group of young bilinguals. The data was collected during recorded conversations with Polish-and-French-speaking children living in Poland, aged from 4 to 8. The task was to describe spatial situations in a series of illustrations by answering the question, Where is X? The locative constructions given by the participants were transcribed in CHAT format and analyzed. The analysis has shown (a) similarity in quality and quantity of prepositions in both corpuses; (b) similarity in the mistakes observed in both languages; and (c) confirmation of the connection between child’s age and language proficiency and the accuracy of responses. Keywords: Bilingual First Language Acquisition, early bilingualism, space in languages, stative spatial relationships, locative prepositions

1.

Introduction

The present paper constitutes a part of a wider research project on bilingual children’s expression of spatial relations. The starting point for the research is the fact that the perception of space, as well as the expression and description thereof and localizing objects in space, are universal experiences that all humans share. They are one of the main cognitive human skills. However, the manner of expressing those relations, as well as the lexical and morphosyntactic categories used for this purpose differ across languages (Hickmann, 2012, p. 26). The relation between the perception of space and its description in a given language is Jadwiga Cook, University of Wrocław (Poland), ORCID: 0000-0001-8952-4369, jadwiga.cook@ uwr.edu.pl.

102

Jadwiga Cook

visible in children who, as Melissa Bowerman states, on the one hand acquire morphemes to express spatial concepts that they already have, but on the other hand, need the language and linguistic input “to discover the particular way space is organized in their language” (Bowerman, 2000, p. 145). When we verbalize our spatial experience, we choose a given perspective of perceiving the world, which is determined by our language (Kopecka, 2004, p. 38). The expression of spatial relationships in different languages has already been a subject of studies in the field of linguistics. We can mention here the research by Hickmann (2012) on the way monolingual children (French, English, and German speakers) describe motion events. Hendriks and Watorek (2012) analyzed the way the same spatial situation is described by speakers of different L1s and L2s. Hendriks, Watorek, and Giuliano (2004) compared the way monolingual children and adult learners of the same language (as their L2) describe static spatial relations. Our interest leans towards the way bilingual (or BFLA – Bilingual First Language Acquisition; De Houwer, 2009, p. 2) children describe space, given that they are surrounded from birth by two different languages and therefore two models of localizing in space. The focal point of the present paper is the way bilingual children describe static spatial events. In this part of our research we focus on the prepositions used in the descriptions of spatial situations in Polish, which is in this case the community language and thus can be considered as stronger, compared to the equivalent descriptions in French (the language that can be considered as the weaker one). The topic of locative prepositions in bilingual children’s speech has already been under our analysis for the corpus in French (Cook, 2018) and for the corpus in English (Cook, 2020). In the present paper, we want to compare the French and the Polish corpus, with the aim of examining the relation between the way a spatial event is described and the child’s age, the language used, and his/her proficiency level in this language. We will look at the repertoire of prepositions and their use, as well as the level of detail of the answers given. We will also look at non-standard uses in the area of prepositions, especially those that could be related and traced to the child’s bilingualism.

2.

Spatial relations in language

Each spatial situation requires the presence of two main entities: the object being located and the one in relation to which the first object’s location is determined. Following Talmy’s (2000) terminology, we call them respectively Figure and Ground. Figure is a “moving or conceptually movable entity whose path, site, or orientation is conceived as a variable, the particular value of which is the relevant issue.” Figure is geometrically simpler in its treatment, more recently on the

Locative Prepositions in Bilingual Children’s Languages

103

scene (or in the speaker’s awareness), it is less immediately perceivable and of greater concern, more salient (Talmy, 2000, pp. 312, 316). Ground, on the other hand, is a “reference entity, one that has a stationary setting relative to a reference frame, with respect to which the Figure’s path, site, or orientation is characterized.” Ground is geometrically more complex in its treatment, it is also more familiar or expected and more immediately perceivable than the Figure. Ground is of lesser importance, less salient, once the Figure is perceived (Talmy, 2000, pp. 312, 316). Borillo (1998) divides spatial situations into two types: static (when the Figure is immobile) and dynamic (when the Figure is in motion), the latter being further divided into change of placement (within the limits of a space: the boy is running in the garden) and change of location (outside the limits of a space: the boy entered the classroom). As mentioned above, in the present paper we will focus on the children’s descriptions of static spatial events, with an immobile Figure located with respect to a similarly immobile Ground. There are two main elements of the expression of such a spatial relation which are prone to differ across languages. The first one is the locative verb, which can be either a copula verb (Eng. be, Fr. être, Pl. byc´) or a manner verb, more commonly used in Polish than in French or English (Kopecka, 2004, p. 65; Tutton, 2016, p. 16), i. e., lez˙ec´ [“to lie”], siedziec´ [“to sit”], stac´ [“to stand”], wisiec´ [“to hang”]. The second element is the locative preposition, which encodes the spatial situation. Presented with the same spatial situation, languages encode it with different prepositions, as Bowerman showed in her comparative analysis of the prepositions used in amongst others English, Japanese, Dutch, Berber, and Spanish. Where in English the prepositions on and in would be used, Spanish uses only en, Dutch uses three different forms: op, aan, and in, and Berber has two forms, x and di, with a different pattern of use than in the case of the English prepositions (Bowerman & Choi, 2001, p. 485). We want to verify how the use of prepositions in the children’s productions in Polish (the stronger language) differs from their analogue productions in French (the weaker language) as far as the variety and choice of the prepositions are concerned.

3.

Prepositions in language acquisition

A child’s lexical development can be divided into three stages. The research by Zare˛bina (1994) on Polish language acquisition shows that the first lexical layer, corresponding to the first stage, forms between the age of 10 and 22 months and, depending on the child, contains 50 to 100 words (including exclamations, nouns, and verbs, as well as traces of adjectives, adverbs, and pronouns). The

104

Jadwiga Cook

second layer, corresponding to the second stage, appears at around 24 months of age and is characterized by a rapid growth of the child’s vocabulary, reaching up to 500 words at the age of 36 months. The lexis at this stage contains more nouns and verbs, the number of adjectives, adverbs, and pronouns increases, there are also a few new categories: numeral adjectives, prepositions, and conjunctions. The third layer, corresponding to the third phase, reinforces the presence of all the categories mentioned above, especially those developed in phase two. Prepositions and conjunctions will develop until school age. At the age of 6, the child’s lexis contains 4000–6000 words (Zare˛bina, 1994, pp. 113–116, 130–136; PorayskiPomsta, 2015, pp. 141–143). Johnston and Slobin (1979, after Ingram, 1989) examined and presented the order of acquisition of locative expressions, which they found linked to the child’s cognitive development. The researchers conducted a study among young speakers of English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish with the aim of establishing the order of appearance of localizing expressions. As they predicted, the order in those four languages was similar. The first to appear in children’s speech are the prepositions in (Fr. dans, Pl. w), expressing the concept of containment, on (Fr. sur, Pl. na), expressing the concept of support and under (Fr. sous, Pl. pod), expressing the concept of occlusion. The next prepositions to enter the child’s language is beside (Fr. à côté de, Pl. obok), expressing the spatial relation of proximity (not depending on the speaker’s viewpoint). It is followed by the locative words front (Fr. avant, Pl. przed, przód) and back (Fr. arrière, Pl. tył) used to talk about the objects with inherent fronts and backs and expressing the relation of proximity to this inherent feature. Then between (Fr. entre, Pl. mie˛dzy), which expresses the coordination of two proximity relations, is acquired. The last to appear are the prepositions front and back but this time used to talk in relation to objects without inherent fronts and backs and expressing the coordination of the relative proximities of the speaker, reference object, and the located object. According to Johnston and Slobin, children acquire this set of locative words by their 4th birthday. Based on this research, confirming that the order of acquisition of the locative prepositions is strongly connected not necessarily to the language itself, but more to the cognitive development, we can assume that both analyzed languages, French and Polish, will present a pattern similar to the one presented above (Ingram, 1989, pp. 427–428). According to the timeline of language development proposed by Rondal (1999), the first prepositions to appear in a child’s language in French are the ones expressing the concept of belonging (à moi [“to me” / “my”], pour moi [“for me”], de moi [“of me”]), which occur around the second birthday. Later, between the 30th and 36th month, the child begins to use locative adverbs (dedans [“inside”], dessus [“above”], devant [“in the front”], derrière [“behind” / “in the back”]) and then, between the age of 36 and 42 months, the locative prepositions

Locative Prepositions in Bilingual Children’s Languages

105

(à [“at”], dans [“in”], sur [“on”], sous [“under”], près de [“close to”], en [“in”]) are introduced (Rondal, 1999, p. 84). According to the researcher, a 6-year-old child can locate an object in space using different locative adverbs or prepositions, while locating in time is still in the process of acquisition (Rondal, 1999, p. 95). Another study focusing on French locative prepositions was conducted in the years 1975–1978 by Piérart, who analyzed how children use two of them: devant [“in front of”] and derrière [“behind”]. The research showed that an 8year-old child uses them as an adult would in 75% of cases, meaning that the child does not only take into consideration the characteristics of the reference object but is capable of locating the two objects with respect to his/her own viewpoint. However, some discrepancies in the use of those locative prepositions are still present until the age of 10 (Moreau & Richelle, 1981, p. 96). As far as Polish research on the acquisition of prepositions is concerned, Porayski-Pomsta specifies that they appear in the child’s vocabulary in the third phase of lexical development, which happens between the age of 3 and 7 (when children begin school). We would also like to point out that Porayski-Pomsta uses the studies of Slobin to talk about the periodization of the appearance of locative prepositions in children’s speech (Porayski-Pomsta, 2011, pp. 11–12, 14). We can also mention the work of Łuczyn´ski (1994) which focused on declensions and different case forms in child’s language. Nouns in Accusative in a locative use, introduced by prepositions na [“on”] and w [“in”], in Genitive, with the preposition do [“to”] as well as in Locative case, introduced by prepositions na [“on”], w [“in”], przy [“next to”], and po [“after”] appear in the child’s speech at the age of 3–4 years (Porayski-Pomsta, 2015, pp. 153–155).

4.

Prepositions in bilingual children’s speech

The aim of the present study is to examine the relation between the way a spatial event is described and the child’s age, the language used, and his/her proficiency level in this language. In order to do so, we will compare the French and the Polish corpuses of conversations recorded with bilingual children. We will establish if the repertoire of the locative prepositions used can be considered similar in both language groups. We will also check whether the prepositions appear in the spatial descriptions in an expected way (based on predicted standard “adult” use). We will also look for any non-standard uses of prepositions, especially those that could be related and traced to the child’s bilingualism.

106 4.1.

Jadwiga Cook

Methodology

4.1.1. Participants The study is based on a corpus gathered in the years 2010–2016, consisting of recordings of conversations with nine Polish-and-French-speaking bilingual children, four girls and five boys, aged between 4;5 and 8;2 years. At the time of data collection, the children lived in Poland. Depending on the age, the children attended Polish primary schools or preschools. Their mothers are Polish, and their fathers are French. Since Polish is the language of the community, we will treat it as the dominant, stronger language. All of the children speak French (which we can consider as the weaker language), at various level of proficiency, and use it on a daily basis. The corpus consists of nine recordings of conversations conducted in French and in Polish. In each language, there are three recordings with children aged from 4;5 to 4;8, two with children of 5;0 and 5;6, one with a child aged 7;5, and three with children aged from 8;0 to 8;2. 4.1.2. Task All of the recordings were made by the researcher in the children’s homes. In most cases the researcher was with the child in his/her room, with the parent in the other room. In one case the parents were also present, but they did not participate in the recorded conversation. We conducted two recordings with each child, the first one in French, during which the subjects did not know that the researcher also speaks Polish. This made it easier to keep the children in the monolingual mode, set at the beginning of the meeting during a short conversation with the children about their interests, things in their room, etc. The second recording was conducted in Polish, on a different day (sometimes the next day, sometimes a week or two after the first meeting). Each recording took from 15 to 60 minutes, depending on the child: it was longer if the child was not focusing easily and needed longer breaks in order to talk about a different subject (however without switching to the other language). The children had to complete the same task in both languages, which was to answer the questions asked by the researcher (Where is X?) and describe the spatial relation in the presented set of 26 illustrations from children’s books (Child, 2008; Child, 2011; Lindgren & Wikland, 2008) and games (by Early Language Centre and Alexander). All children worked with the same set of pictures. All of them were taken from storybooks, picture books or games for young

Locative Prepositions in Bilingual Children’s Languages

107

readers. The recordings were then transcribed in the CHAT format using the CLAN software (Mac Whinney, 2014). The illustrations presented different spatial settings of animals, people, and objects, which would typically be described using the locative prepositions like na (Eng. on, Fr. sur), pod (Eng under, Fr. sous), obok (Eng. next to, Fr. à coté), przed (Eng. in front of, Fr. devant), za (Eng. behind, Fr. derrière), wokół (Eng. around, Fr. autour de), or przy (Eng. at, Fr. à). We will call them “expected prepositions,” since in a description of the given spatial situations, they would typically be used by an adult. The task given to the children was to answer the researcher’s questions, which contained either the copula verb byc´ [“be”]: Gdzie jest X? [“Where is X?”] or a more semantically detailed manner verb: Gdzie siedzi/lez˙y/stoi/chowa sie˛ X? [“Where is X sitting/lying/standing/hiding?”]. The children were to give an answer which would locate the Figure in the picture in relation to the Ground. The answers were supposed to follow the pattern of a Basic Locative Construction (BLC). The BLC is a typical construction used to answer the question Where is X? in a given language. In English and in French it is “a syntactically simple construction comprised of two noun phrases (NP’s), a preposition and a copula verb linking the subject noun phrase with the prepositional phrase,” like in the examples: The ball is on the sofa / La balle est sur le canapé (in Polish: Piłka jest na kanapie) (Tutton, 2016, p. 16). Kopecka underlines that not every localizing sentence follows the pattern of a BLC. Constructions like There is a cup on the table / Il y a une tasse sur la table (in Polish: Na stole jest filiz˙anka), even though they localize an object in space, do not constitute an answer to a “where” question, hence they cannot be classified as a BLC (Kopecka, 2004, pp. 52–54). Languages can be divided into three categories, depending on the way they construct a BLC: general verb languages (like English or French, which use mostly the copula verb be), postural verb languages (which use the manner verbs encoding posture), and multi-verb languages (like Polish, which uses both copula and manner verbs) (Tutton, 2016, p. 16). However, given the fact that while responding to a “where” question, the subjects rarely constructed their answers with a full BLC and often skipped the verb, we do not focus on this part of the construction but rather on the prepositions used.

4.2.

Previous results for French

We present here the results based on our previous research, conducted among the same group of bilingual Polish-French children and focusing on the locative prepositions they use while communicating in French (Cook, 2018). Table 1 presents the number of uses of different locative words that appeared in the

108

Jadwiga Cook

subjects’ answers. It includes locative prepositions (simple and complex) but also adverbs. The table includes the number of uses of each expression in the given age group and in total and, in brackets, the expected total number of occurrences of a given preposition. We also added the number of locative words used by children of different age. Table 1. Number of occurrences of different locative words in French (based on Cook, 2018, p. 55) Locative age 4;5–4;8 preposition / (3 children) adverb (expected occurrences) à [“at,” “in”] (0–36) 42 dans [“in”] (36–72) 12 sur [“on”] (63–81) 10 sous [“under”] (9) à côté de [“next to”] (27) derrière [“behind”] (18–36) devant [“in front of”] (18–45) dessous [“underneath”] (0) tout en haut de [“on the top of”] (0) près [“close”] (0) autour de [“around”] (1) Number of locative words used:

age 5;0–5;6 (2 children) 0

age 7;5 (1 child)

age 8;0–8;2 (3 children) 0

Total

28 16

0 9 9

16 39

42 65 74

1

1

0

3

5

5

4

4

6

19

2

1

1

6

10

0

0

0

4

4

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

7

5

6

6

10

The repertoire of prepositions and adverbs used is varied, even with the younger children, however, the locative words are not always adequately used according to the situation presented in the picture. We also observed the presence of a “passepartout preposition” à which is used to describe many different spatial relations, also those where a different preposition should be used (Cook, 2018). This preposition was one of the expected possibilities in the description of 4 illustrations, and it was used only by the youngest children (mostly one of them) and for rendering most of the spatial situations. As far as the other prepositions are concerned, dans and sur occur in the expected number, and sous, à côté de, derrière, and devant were used visibly less frequently than was required by the presented spatial situations.

Locative Prepositions in Bilingual Children’s Languages

109

The study has shown that: (a) the number of standard answers was higher among the children aged above 7 than among the children aged 4 to 5, and (b) the influence of the proficiency level in French on the correctness of the answers was also visible. A 4-year-old child who spoke French fluently chose the right prepositions for the given spatial situation more often than an older child with less fluency and proficiency in the language (Cook, 2018, pp. 62–63). Nevertheless, it is important to underline that those two factors: age (and with it, the level of cognitive development) and language proficiency, are connected. For example, the number of answers je ne sais pas [“I don’t know”] was higher among the younger children. The localizing skill seems to be a complex cognitive process, which is not entirely mastered before the eighth birthday. We also observed that some of the spatial situations were more often that others described in a non-standard manner. This could be the result of those particular illustrations, however it could also mean that the requisite cognitive process, needed for an accurate description of those situations, has not yet been acquired at the age of 8. It was not possible to discern which non-standard answers were connected only to the child’s age and which also to his/her level of language proficiency or cognitive development (Cook, 2018, p. 63). The last point we focused on was the influence of bilingualism on the children’s answers. We noticed a few (although not numerous) examples of deviation from the norms which could be traced to the fact that the subjects knew and used two languages on a daily basis, for example: – a literal translation of the Polish preposition which would be used to describe the spatial relation (e. g., boy, 5;0: dans la fenêtre – “in the window,” because the correct Polish expression is w oknie, and in French a more natural way to describe a person standing in a window would be à la fenêtre); – the choice of vocabulary (example of semantic extension – to describe the localization of a bunny held by a girl in her arms, some children used the word main [“hand”] instead of bras [“arm”], probably because of the fact that the Polish word re˛ka can be used in this context and mean both “hand” and “arm”); – lack of articles un/une and le/la/les, which are required in French but are a part of speech which does not exist in Polish (e. g., dans chapeau, à fenêtre, sur le main de fille, à côté de maison); – a few cases of code switching (Cook, 2018, pp. 61–63).

4.3.

Results for Polish

The analysis of the transcribed material in Polish has shown similar phenomena to those observed in the French corpus.

110

Jadwiga Cook

4.3.1. Repertoire of prepositions First, we would like to show the repertoire of the prepositions used by the children in their answers in Polish, for the moment without analyzing if they were properly used in the descriptions of spatial relations in the pictures. Table 2 presents the number of uses of a given preposition by children of different ages. We also added the information on how many times the given preposition was expected to appear in the descriptions (as we can see, there were cases of prepositions which we had not expected, and which appeared in the children’s answers). Table 2. Number of uses of different locative words in Polish Locative preposition / adverb (expected occurrences) na [72–90] [“on”] w [72] [“in”] pod [9] [“under”] obok [0–36] [“next to”] przy [9–45] [“next to”] za [18–27] [“behind”] przed [0–9] [“in front of”] koło [0–36] [“next to”] do [0] [“to”] z tyłu [0] [“in the back”] Number of locative words used:

age 4;5–4;8 (3 children)

age 5;0–5;6 (1 child)

age 7;5 (1 child)

age 8;0–8;2 (3 children)

Total

31 17

24 21

10 5

48 15

113 58

4

2

1

3

10

3

4

5

4

17

6

1

2

4

13

1

2

1

4

8

0

0

1

3

4

2

3

1

2

8

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

2

8

8

8

9

10

As we can see, although the overall repertoires of prepositions in the Polish and French corpus are similar and we counted 10 different locative words for both French and Polish, when we look at different ages, the repertoire is slightly bigger in Polish than in French – children use 8–9 prepositions or adverbs in Polish and 5–7 in French. Most of the prepositions in Polish are the equivalents of the ones present in the French corpus (na / sur; w / dans; pod / sous; obok, koło / à côté de; przed / devant). However, in Polish some of the prepositions were more used by one of the groups: we can see that w [“in”] was more often used by the younger children and za [“behind”] by the older children. Also, na [“on”] was more used

Locative Prepositions in Bilingual Children’s Languages

111

by the children while they were speaking in Polish than its French equivalent sur. The preposition przed [“in front of”] was only used by the 7 to 8-year-olds and by none of the 4-year-olds (this was also the case for devant in French). We can also see that in some cases a given preposition was used more often than expected. On the one hand, it is related to the appearance of the prepositions in the contexts where they should not be used, and on the other it is also the result of the fact that the subjects would sometimes look for the right way to render the spatial situation, trying a few sentences and descriptions, thus using more prepositions in one answer. We also observed a few unexpected forms: do [“to”] and z tyłu [“in the back”], the latter being used twice as a preposition: z tyłu kogos´ [“in the back of someone”] and three times as an adverb: z tyłu [“in the back”]. 4.3.2. Use of prepositions We will present the use of prepositions by the subjects, following the order of their acquisition, as described by Johnston and Slobin (1979) and presented above. The first group comprises the prepositions na [“on”], w [“in”], and pod [“under”], the second group przy, obok, koło [“beside,” “next to”]; and the third group, the prepositions za [“behind”] and przed [“in front of”]. 4.3.2.1. Prepositions na [“on”], w [“in”], and pod [“under”] First, we would like to look at the situation where the expected prepositions are the ones which, according to Johnston and Slobin (1979), appear first in the process of language acquisition. In Polish those are na [“on”], w [“in”], and pod [“under”]. (a) Expected preposition na [“on”] Our corpus contains ten illustrations which would be described with the preposition na followed by a noun in Locative case. The expected answers to the question Where is X? could be na ulicy [“on street-LOC”], na krzes´le [“on chairLOC”], na re˛ce / dłoni [“on hand-LOC”], na fotelu [“on armchair-LOC”], na ´sniegu [“on snow-LOC”], na ła˛ce [“on meadow-LOC”], etc. In most cases the description of those spatial situation did not cause any difficulties to the interviewed children, only in a few isolated cases were the responses too general (tam, gdzie jest duz˙o ´sniegu [“there where is a lot snow-GEN”], w parku [“in parkLOC”], w górach [“in mountains-LOC”]). One boy (aged 4) did not give answers to a few questions, saying nie wiem [“I don’t know”]. Errors regarding the choice of preposition were rare, they appeared in only 3 answers and concerned two pictures. The first one presented a girl walking in a meadow, with a butterfly sitting on her finger – examples (1) and (2).

112

Jadwiga Cook

(1) Q:

Gdzie u-siad-ł motyl-ek? where PFV-sit-PST.3SG butterfly-DIM? “Where did the little butterfly sit?” A [boy 4;0]: Nie wie-m. W re˛k-ach, na re˛-ce. NEG know-PRS.1SG in hand-PL.LOC on hand-SG.LOC “I don’t know. In the hands, on the hand.”

We observed another mistake in the case of this picture, it did not, however, concern the choice of preposition, but of the noun case. Although the case required by the verb usia˛´sc´ [“to sit”] followed by the preposition na [“on”] is the Locative case, what we observe in example (2) is the use of the Accusative case. (2) A [boy 7;0]: Na palec. On finger.ACC “On the finger.”

In the case of the second picture, presenting a teddy bear on an armchair, most children described the bear’s position with the expected preposition: na kanapie [“on sofa-LOC”], in some cases (example 3) they localized the toy using the preposition w [“in”]: w fotelu [“in armchair-LOC”]. Even though the preposition here is different from the expected (w instead of na), we cannot treat it as a mistake. While talking about an armchair, it is possible to use the preposition na (to simply locate the person or object) or the preposition w (when we talk of the armchair as of a place of rest and relaxation). When talking about a sofa, only na can be used, w would mean “inside the sofa.” Gdzie jest mis´? Where be.PRS.3SG bear.NOM? “Where is the bear?” A [girl 4;8]: W fotel-ik-u In armchair-DIM-LOC “On the little armchair.” A [boy 7;0]: W fotel-u In armchair-LOC “On the armchair.”

(3) Q:

(b) Expected preposition w [“in”] There were seven spatial situations for the description of which the expected preposition was w [“in”] and in most cases they were all described correctly (w domu [“in house-LOC”], w kapeluszu [“in hat-LOC”], w wózku [“in pram-LOC”], etc.). Mistakes were very few and they concerned a few detailed illustrations which appeared to cause more problems with description than others. An interesting case is a picture presenting a girl lying in her bed. The expected prep-

Locative Prepositions in Bilingual Children’s Languages

113

osition to render this situation would be w. However only the younger children answered the question Where is Lola? with w łóz˙ku [“in bed-LOC”]. All of the older children described her as being na łóz˙ku [“on bed-LOC”], which would suggest that the girl is lying on a bed which has been made and is not under the covers. Another illustration which caused more problems was a picture presenting a girl standing in a window, seen from the outside. The information given by the subjects was too general (in 3 cases they described her as being w domu [“in house-LOC”] or w pokoju [“in room-LOC”]) or the position of the girl was expressed with the prepositions przy, obok [“next to”], or in one case na [“on”]. Only two children (4;8 and 4;11) gave the expected answer w oknie [“in windowLOC”]. (c) Expected preposition pod [“under”] The preposition pod [“under”] was expected in only one description (picture presenting a girl looking for something under a park bench) and all interviewed children gave the expected answer: pod ławka˛ [“under bench-LOC”]. 4.3.2.2. Expected prepositions przy, obok, koło [“beside” / “next to”] Next in line, according to the acquisition pattern by Johnston and Slobin (1979) is the preposition beside, expressing the relation of closeness of Figure and Ground. In Polish this spatial relation can be expressed by one of the three prepositions przy, obok, and koło. They were expected in the description of five situations presented to the subjects. A lot of the answers (23 cases) were very general and did not locate the Figure with regard to the Ground (example 4 and 5). (4) Picture: a cat standing next to its bowl and a girl pouring it some milk Q: Gdzie jest kot-ek? Gdzie Where be.PRS.3SG cat-DIM.NOM? Where sto-i kot-ek? stand-PRS.3SG cat-DIM.NOM “Where is the little cat? Where is the little cat standing?” A [boy 4;8]: W dom-u i chc-e pi-c´ mleko. At house-LOC and want-PRS.3SG drink-INF milk.ACC “At home and wants to drink milk.” (5) Picture: a girl and a boy playing in the snow and building a snowman Q: Gdzie jest dziewczyn-ka? Where be.PRS.3SG girl-DIM.NOM? “Where is the little girl?” A [girl 8;0]: Na dworz-e, obok bałwan-k-a. On backyard-LOC next to snowman-DIM-GEN “Outside, next to the little snowman.”

114

Jadwiga Cook

´snieg-u. A [boy 4;8, girl 4;5]: Na On snow-LOC “In the snow.”

Another illustration presents a group of children sitting at a table. In Polish, the expected description would involve the preposition przy (siedza˛ / sa˛ przy stole [“they are sitting” / “they are at the table-LOC”]. This answer was given only twice (by a girl 4;5 and a boy 7;0), the rest of the subjects located the children on the chairs (na krzesłach [“on chairs-LOC”], na krzes´le [“on chair-LOC”]), close to the table (obok stołu [“next to table-GEN”]) and one person even positioned them on the table (na stole [“on table-LOC”]). We would like to highlight that the prepositions obok and przy are close in meaning in many contexts since they both express the relation of proximity. However, in the context of “sitting at the table” only przy can be used (siedza˛ przy stole). The use of obok would just place the person in the vicinity of the table. Another type of answer which appeared regularly while describing this group of situations was that giving not the location of the Figure but its action (examples 6 and 7) being a description of the above-mentioned picture with children building a snowman: (6) Picture: children building a snowman Q: Gdzie jest chłopiec? Where be.PRS.3SG boy.NOM “Where is the boy?” A [boy 8;0] Na s´nieg-u i robi-Ø On snow-LOC and make-PRS.3SG “In the snow and he is building a snowman.” A [boy 4;11]: Na s´nieg-u i robi-Ø On snow-LOC and make-PRS.3SG “In the snow and he is building a snowman.”

(picture 7)

bałwan-a. snowman-ACC bałwan. snowman.NOM

(7) Picture: group of children in a sledge pulled by a horse and a boy standing on the road next to the horse and waving at them Q: Gdzie jest chłopiec? Where be.PRS.3SG boy.NOM “Where is the boy?” A [boy 4;8]: Macha-Ø do ludzi-Ø. Wave-PRS.3SG to people-GEN “He is waving at people.”

Locative Prepositions in Bilingual Children’s Languages

115

4.3.2.3. Expected prepositions za [“behind”] and przed [“in front of”] Those two prepositions were expected in the description of five spatial relations in the pictures. We noticed that the children, rather than using prepositions locating the Figure behind or in front of the Ground, often chose the prepositions locating both elements as close to one another, like in the description of the picture presenting heads of two girls looking in the mirror, so that we see the backs of their heads and their reflections (example 8). (8) Q:

Gdzie sa˛ dziewczyn-k-i? Where be.PRS.3PL girl-DIM-PL.NOM “Where are the girls?” A [girl 4;5]: Obok lustr-a. Next to mirror-LOC “Next to mirror.”

Or a more general answer: A [girl 8;0]: W łazien-ce. In bathroom-LOC “In the bathroom.”

In the case of another picture (with a dachshund looking out from behind a tree) we could expect the use of the preposition za [“behind”], since the dog is hiding behind the tree. However, in 4 cases (children aged 4 and 8) the situation was described with pod – pod drzewem [“under tree-INS”], obok – obok drzewa [“next to tree-ACC”], or z tyłu – z tyłu drzewa [“in the back of tree-ACC”]. The latter was used not only as a preposition, but in a few cases also as an adverb (z tyłu [“in the back”]). 4.3.3. Effects of bilingualism Given the fact that all of the subjects live in Poland and Polish is their community, and therefore stronger, language, we did not expect to see many effects of bilingualism. It would also be hard to link any of the mistakes mentioned above in the area of prepositions to the fact that the children also know and speak French. The only example of bilingual behavior that we observed was occasional code switching, which we understand here as “alternate use of two or more languages in the same utterance or conversation” (Grosjean, 1982, p. 145). Code-switching occurred only in the case of two of the interviewed children (examples 9, 10, 11).

116

Jadwiga Cook

(9) Picture: girl looking for something under a park bench Q: Gdzie jest dziewczyn-ka? Where be.PRS.3SG girl-DIM.NOM “Where is the girl?” A (boy 4;0): (Fr) Sous la, (Pl) nie wie-m, pod ławk-a˛. Under the.F NEG know-PRS.1SG under bench-INS “(Fr) Under, (Pl) I don’t know, under the bench.” (10) Picture: girl in a window, seen from outside Q: Gdzie jest Lola? Where be.PRS.3SG Lola? “Where is Lola?” A (boy 4;0): W dom-u, (Fr) à la fenêtre (Pl) nie wie-m, In house-LOC (Fr) at the.F window (Pl) NEG know.PRS.1SG psy1 [przy] okn-u. next to window-DAT “At home, (Fr) in the window, (Pl) I don’t know, next to the window.” (11) Picture: a girl pushing a wooden cart with a big fish inside Q: Gdzie jest ryba? Where be.PRS.3SG fish.NOM “Where is the fish?” A (girl 8;0): Nie wiem, (Fr) une charette, dans une charette. NEG know.PRS.1SG (Fr) a.F cart in a.F cart “Don’t know, (Fr) a cart, in a cart.”

5.

Discussion and conclusions

The comparison of the bilingual children’s descriptions of spatial events in French and in Polish has shown that: 1. Equivalent prepositions appear and the overall repertoire of prepositions is similar in number in both the Polish and French corpus, although the children of different ages use a few more locative words while speaking in Polish than in French. 2. Similar mistakes were observed in both languages and they can include an inappropriate choice of preposition, a too general answer which does not locate the Figure with respect to the Ground, or describing the action of the Figure and not its location. In Polish, we can add to those also the mistakes 1 In this example, we rendered the child’s pronunciation. The fricative consonants are often problematic for smaller children and hence pronounced in a simplified manner. Here /ʂ/ was pronounced /s/. The child also used an incorrect case form – Dative (oknu) instead of Locative case (oknie).

Locative Prepositions in Bilingual Children’s Languages

117

made by younger children (4–5 years old) in nominal flexion (the choice of the case form of the noun introduced by the preposition). In French, only in a few cases it was possible to trace the incorrect preposition to the influence of Polish, however, it is not possible in the Polish corpus, where we did not observe any interference from French. If the preposition was not accurately chosen, we did not see any relation to the children’s knowledge of French. 3. In the Polish corpus, the relation between the age and the number of inaccurate answers (insufficiently precise or containing mistakes) is less visible than in the French corpus. This is related to the children’s higher proficiency in the Polish language, which in Polish is relative to their age (and it is not always the case in French, their weaker language). We examined the relation between the way Polish-French bilingual children of ages from 4;5 to 8;2 describe static spatial situations using prepositions and their age, language proficiency, and the language used. The latter can be considered the most important factor, the answers in Polish containing fewer mistakes and being more accurate than the answers in French. Hence, the study confirmed that Polish is the stronger language for the group of participants. Few mistakes possible to trace down to the children’s bilingualism also suggest that the fact of being bilingual does not negatively affect the aspect of children’s language development related to the locative prepositions. It was also noticed that the factors of age and language proficiency are connected, especially in the case of Polish. In general, older children give fuller, more accurate and correct answers, however, a younger, 4-year-old child with a higher level of proficiency and fluency in his/her weaker language made fewer mistakes than older children who spoke French less fluently. Obviously, it is not possible to generalize from one example, nonetheless this example shows that the matter of the accuracy of the responses cannot be related exclusively to age. What does slightly increase with age, and in both languages, is the repertoire of locative prepositions, which grows between the age of 4 and 8, following the three-stage lexical development pattern. Moreover, the study showed that describing some spatial situations may be problematic for all children, regardless of the language, level of proficiency, and age. The analysis based on a small group of participants allowed us to make some observations, however, it cannot allow to generalize the results of the study. The observations could be extended to other bilingual peers living in Poland or to groups of young bilinguals living in other countries and having a different dominant language. In the near future our project includes a study of the corpus gathered among Polish-English speaking young bilinguals. Its analysis will help to complete the data and results presented above.

118

Jadwiga Cook

References Sources of illustrations Child, L. 2011. Slightly Invisible. London: Orchard Books. Child, L. 2008. Charlie and Lola. My Completely Best Story Collection. London: Puffin Books. Lindgren, A., & Wikland I. 2008. Boz˙e Narodzenie w Bullerbyn. Poznan´: Zakamarki.

Games Find the rhyme. Early Language Centre. Opowiem ci mamo 2. Alexander.

Sources Borillo, A. (1998). L’espace et son expression en français. Paris: Ophrys. Bowerman, M. (2000). The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp.145–176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowerman, M., & Choi S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: universal and languagespecific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development (pp. 475–511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, J. (2018). Comment les enfants bilingues localisent-ils dans l’espace? Exemple de jeunes bilingues polono-français. Orbis Linguarum, 50, 51–68. Cook, J. (2020). Prépositions de lieu dans les productions des enfants bilingues polonofrancophones et polono-anglophones. Academic Journal of Modern Philology, 9/2020, 51–64. Grosjean, F. (2001 [1982]). Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Hendriks, H., Watorek M., & Giuliano P. (2004). L’expression de la localisation et du mouvement dans les descriptions et les récits en L1 et L2. Langages, 155, 106–126. Hendriks, H., & Watorek M. (2012). The role of conceptual development in the acquisition of the spatial domain by L1 and L2 learners of French, English and Polish. In M. Watorek, S. Benazzo, & M. Hickmann (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Language Acquisition. A Tribute to Clive Perdue (pp. 401–419). Bristol, Buffalo, Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Hickmann, M. (2012). Diversité des langues et acquisition du langage: espace et temporalité chez l’enfant. Langages, 188, 25–39. Ingram, D. (1989). First Language Acquisition. Method, Description, and Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Locative Prepositions in Bilingual Children’s Languages

119

Johnston, J., & Slobin, D. (1979). The development of locative expressions in English, Italian, Serbo-Croatian, and Turkish. Journal of Child Language, 6, 529–545. Kopecka, A. (2004). Étude typologique de l’expression de l’espace: localisation et déplacement en français et en polonais. Lyon: Université Lyon 2 PhD thesis. Retrieved January 22, 2021, from http://theses.univ-lyon2.fr/documents/lyon2/2004/kopecka_a#p=0&a= top. Łuczyn´ski, E. (2004). Kategoria przypadka w ontogenezie je˛zyka polskiego, czyli o wchodzeniu dziecka w rzeczywistos´c´ gramatyczna˛. Gdan´sk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdan´skiego. Mac Whinney, B. (2014). The CHILDES Project. Tools for Analyzing Talk – Electronic Edition, Part 1: The CHAT Transcription Format. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University. http://childes.talkbank.org/manuals/chat.pdf. Moreau, M.-L., & Richelle, M. (1981). L’acquisition du langage. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga. Pie´rart, B. (1977). L’acquisition du sens des marqueurs de relation spatiale devant et derrière. L’année psychologique, 77(1), 95–116. Porayski-Pomsta, J. (2011). Rozwój zasobu słownikowego dzieci w wieku przedszkolnym. Przegla˛d stanowisk. Poradnik Je˛zykowy, 9, 5–21. Porayski-Pomsta, J. (2015). O rozwoju mowy dziecka. Dwa studia. Warsaw: Elipsa. Rondal, J.-A. (1999). Comment le langage vient aux enfants. Tournai: Labor. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol. 1 & 2). Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Tutton, M. (2016). Locative Expressions in English and French. A Multimodal Approach, Berlin: De Gruyter. Zare˛bina, M. (1994). Je˛zyk polski w rozwoju jednostki. Analiza tekstów dzieci. Rozwój semantyczny. Dyskusja nad teoria˛ Chomskiego. Gdan´sk: Glottispol.

Giovina Angela del Rosso

Chapter 6 – On Non-native Coarticulation: (New) Prospective Insights into (Old) Multilingualism- and Phonetics-Related Issues?

Abstract Coarticulatory effects are language-specific and sub-categorical in nature. Nonetheless, they are pervasively exploited in speech production and perception. Yet, they are usually neutralized or marginalized in multilingualism and acquisitional research. Attaining native-like pronunciation is rare for adult learners, and even fine-grained patterns can cue accentedness. The aim of this chapter is two-fold. Firstly, it provides a literature overview of non-native coarticulation research, especially highlighting the background affecting its fragmentary epistemological status and the resulting issues. Studies on non-native coarticulation are limited and adopt a predominantly phonetic perspective. Secondly, a novel multidisciplinary approach is proposed and discussed as a potential solution to address these issues, by integrating state-of-the-art knowledge of multilingualism, language acquisition, and experimental phonetics. Adopting this approach would not only enhance our understanding of non-native coarticulation itself but also allow us to gain new prospective insights into long-standing issues. On the one hand, classic topics of multilingualism and language acquisition can be assessed in a further field, to explore interactions of coarticulation strategies with well-known linguistic, psycholinguistic, social, and contextual factors. On the other hand, the analysis of non-native coarticulation may also constitute a valid heuristic method to enhance cross-linguistic comparability in experimental phonetics by keeping segmental and suprasegmental targets constant. Keywords: coarticulation, accentedness, multilingualism, second language acquisition, non-native phonetics

1.

Introduction

The investigation of foreign-accented speech represents a long-established and prolific research topic in the field of second language acquisition (Munro, 2008). More recently, non-native phonetics and phonology have been further investigated, also in the perspective of third language acquisition, thanks to increasing Giovina Angela del Rosso, Roma Tre-Sapienza University (Italy), ORCID: 0000-0002-3581-7155, [email protected].

122

Giovina Angela del Rosso

attention being paid to complex and multilingual linguistic repertoires (Cabrelli Amaro et al., 2012; Cabrelli Amaro & Wrembel, 2016; Puig-Mayenko et. al., 2020; see also Yelin, chapter 11 of this volume). Indeed, at the phonetic level, transfer-induced errors are particularly prone to appear (see also Buczek-Zawiła, chapter 4 of this volume). Consequently, nativelike attainments have been shown to be remarkably uncommon for adult learners (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2009). Even proficient second language learners and bilinguals often do not master a native-like pronunciation of fine-grained phonetic patterns (Abrahamsson & Hyltenstam, 2003; Birdsong, 2014; Flege, 1995; Moyer, 1999). Hence, their speech production can be perceived as foreignaccented (Trouvain & Gut, 2007; Wrembel et al., 2018; see also Kujawska-Lis, chapter 8 of this volume). Notwithstanding, traditionally coarticulation patterns have not been contemplated among the conceivable cues of accentedness – with few notable exceptions (discussed in section 5). Therefore, this chapter first tracks and discusses the theoretical and experimental roots underlying this bias. Subsequently, goals and gains to encompass non-native coarticulation in future multilingualism and phonetic research will be illustrated. Working definitions of foreign accent and coarticulation will be provided and their research domains will be framed in sections 2 and 3, respectively.

2.

Foreign accent

There is a lack of agreement on an exhaustive definition of foreign accent (Munro 2008, p. 193). Yet, Jilka (2000, p. 7) pinpointed the core characteristic of foreignaccented speech, namely its deviations from a reference target. These deviations are mainly due to cross-linguistic influence and prompt cues of the learner’s first language (L1) while speaking a non-native language (L2, L3, Ln). Furthermore, Jilka argues that the accentedness cues must be defined in terms of perceptual detectability by native listeners, and not only in terms of instrumentally measurable differences in speech production. Early research on foreign accent was aimed predominantly at the segmental domain, while the relevance of prosodic aspects was acknowledged and explored several years later (Mareüil & Vieru-Dimulescu, 2006; Trouvain & Gut, 2007). However, studies and reviews in non-native phonetics do not generally take coarticulation into account; it is mainly asserted that divergences from the phonetic norms of the target languages can be detected “along a wide range of segmental and suprasegmental (i. e., prosodic) dimensions” (Flege, 1995, p. 233; see also Major, 2001, pp. 12–19; Major, 2008, p. 68; Zampini, 2008, p. 220). It is probable that two factors have crucially contributed to this. First, it is not entirely clear whether coarticulation relates to the segmental or suprasegmental level, in a

On Non-native Coarticulation

123

traditional taxonomy. As a matter of fact, its investigation requires a hybrid approach, because sub-segmental patterns are considered, but in their dynamic complex interactions, not in a static fashion. Secondly, the relevance of coarticulatory effects in speech has not always been recognized (see section 4). Exceptions to this trend will be reviewed later (in section 5).

3.

Coarticulation

Coarticulation is one of the central topics in the domain of phonetics and, as a consequence, its role and understanding have informed several speech production models (Benguerel & Cowan, 1974, p. 41; Mildner, 2018). It can be defined as the result of mutual influences and spatiotemporal overlaps among gestures and sounds in the speech chain. In particular, coarticulatory effects are exerted by adjacent and neighboring triggers (or influencing sounds) on a given target (or influenced sound). The direction of such effects can be chiefly anticipatory (or right-to-left) or carryover (or left-to-right), depending on the sound environment. The effects of contextual variability have been modeled according to different frameworks since they are pervasive in speech and are closely connected to two crucial motifs in phonetics, i. e., variability and unsegmentability of speech (Farnetani & Recasens, 2010; Hardcastle & Hewlett, 1999). Instances of coarticulatory dynamics are particularly noticeable in so-called minimal pairs: “A classic example of the impact of vowel-consonant coarticulatory dynamics is that the production of the vowel in ‘mish’ anticipates the ‘sh’ (/ʃ/) such that it differs from a production of the same vowel in the word ‘miss’” (Connine & Darnieder, 2009, p. 413). Despite the apparent straightforwardness of the abovementioned definition of coarticulation, overt and covert debates blazed about it during recent decades, especially between the 1960s and early 1990s. A detailed account of this controversy is outside the scope of this chapter. Besides, comprehensive overviews of coarticulation research are available (e. g., Farnetani & Recasens, 2010; Hardcastle & Hewlett, 1999; Hardcastle & Marchal, 1990; Mildner, 2018). Yet, for our purposes, it is essential to bear in mind that the critical controversies about coarticulation concern: – its origin, basis, and function: articulatory, acoustic, or perceptual (Kühnert & Nolan, 1999; Lindblom, 1990; Ohala, 1993); – its nature: phonetic and gradual versus phonological and categorical (Keating, 1990); – theoretical frameworks: featural versus gestural (Benguerel & Cowan, 1974; Browman & Goldstein, 1989);

124

Giovina Angela del Rosso

– the behavior of its influencing mechanisms: look-ahead versus time-locked (Bell-Berti & Harris, 1981; Benguerel & Cowan, 1974); – investigation techniques (Hardcastle & Hewlett, 1999; Stone, 2010); – metrics and interpretation of experimental results, especially for locus equations (Iskarous et al., 2010; Perillo et al., 2015); – hierarchies of coarticulation resistance and aggressiveness (Bladon & Al-Bamerni, 1976; Recasens et al., 1997); – implications for language change, speech perception, and production (Recasens, 2014). Table 1. Overview of the main factors influencing coarticulation Domain

Factor type

Endogenous linguistic factors

– sound identity and duration – coarticulation resistance/aggressiveness – phonetic context – phonetic inventory – articulatory, aerodynamical, and perceptual demands – syllable structure and positional phonotactic constraints – morpheme and word boundaries – stress and accent

Exogenous linguistic factors

– – – – –

Psycholinguistic factors

– frequency – lexical neighborhood density

speaker style speech rate emphasis prominence

Essential references Benguerel & Cowan, 1974 Bladon & Al-Bamerni, 1976 Fowler, 1981 Gili Fivela et al., 2011 Krull, 1989 Mildner, 2018 Recasens & Rodríguez, 2018 Zmarich & Avesani, 2015 Krull, 1989 Lindblom, 1963, 1990 Lindblom et al., 2009 Sloos et al., 2018 Scarborough, 2013

Despite these controversies, or maybe thanks to them, the effort to identify and predict patterns of “lawful variation” (Rhone & Jongman, 2012) has led to the detection and description of several interacting factors that shape coarticulation, through a number of experimental techniques (Hardcastle & Hewlett, 1999). The significant variables conditioning the coarticulatory effects have been classified into endogenous linguistic factors, exogenous linguistic factors, and psycholinguistic factors. Each of the factors listed in Table 1 yields and accounts for some coarticulation-induced variability in speech production. Table 1 shows how heterogeneous and intricate factors shaping coarticulatory processes are. The multiple interactions among these factors and the large number of their possible resulting combinations contribute to making them highly complex to disen-

On Non-native Coarticulation

125

tangle and investigate. The consequences of this issue will be addressed in the next section.

4.

The ostracism of coarticulation: Arguments and counterarguments

In the previous section, the fundamental dynamics underlying coarticulation and its pervasiveness were outlined. Yet, coarticulation is mostly disregarded outside research not strictly focusing on phonetics. Thus, this section will delve into the theoretical and empirical rationales of this circumstance. For the sake of brevity, two key issues will be discussed, namely universality and invariance.

4.1.

The alleged universality of coarticulation patterns

Historically, theoretical interest in coarticulation has been hindered by the popularity of Generative Phonology. Indeed, generativists claimed the exclusive relevance of discrete distinctive features and maintained the split between coarticulation and assimilation, belonging to phonetics and phonology respectively. As a result, coarticulation phenomena were collectively labeled as universal, merely execution-driven, and performance-related. Consequently, coarticulation was banished from generative grammar (Mildner, 2018; Volenec, 2015). However, the alleged universality of coarticulation is not entirely supported by experimental research investigating cross-linguistic variation. On the contrary, “It is well established that coarticulation patterns are language-specific and therefore must be specified in the grammars of languages” (Flemming, 2012, p. 1). Indeed, coarticulatory processes are partly triggered by universal physiological, articulatory, aerodynamic, and economy-oriented constraints. Nonetheless, the residual coarticulatory effects are language-specific, as consistently corroborated by empirical data (Beddor et al., 2002; Farnetani & Recasens, 2010; Hardcastle & Hewlett, 1999; Manuel, 1990; Mildner, 2018; Öhman, 1966; Recasens et al., 1993). The language-specific components of coarticulation resistance and aggressiveness even constitute the cornerstone of the Output Constraint Hypothesis (Manuel, 1990) and the Window Model (Keating, 1990). However, it is still not clear how language-specific magnitude and temporal extent of coarticulation reflect or are conditioned by other factors characterizing languages and gestures, e. g., phasing principles (Browman & Goldstein, 1989, p. 220), distribution of

126

Giovina Angela del Rosso

sound inventories (Manuel, 1999, p. 180), phonological specification (Keating, 1990, p. 465), and degree of articulatory constraint (Recasens et al., 1997). Nevertheless, for the purposes of this article, the cross-linguistic variation of coarticulation patterns and their implementation strategies need to be heeded. Coarticulation patterns undergo language acquisition processes, and the combination of its language-specificity and subtleness of its cues may be considerably challenging for non-native speakers to learn. Actually, the acquisition of coarticulation has been studied in the early language development of first and second language acquisition, for both normal and pathological speech (Rubertus & Noiray, 2020; Zmarich & Galatà, 2019). Hitherto, this research topic remains acutely underexplored, particularly for adult learners (see section 5.1).

4.2.

The quest for invariance within variability

The search for invariance epitomizes a pillar of every linguistic field, and especially coarticulation research (Iskarous et al., 2013). However, repeated failures of this highly complex quest have led to interpretations of coarticulation either as being noisy, flawed, and sub-segmental or as economy-driven and speaker-oriented variation. According to this view, listeners need to filter and compensate for coarticulatory effects, in order to restore the intended message, conveyed through a degraded signal (Hammarberg, 1982; Lindblom & Sussman, 2012; Tatham & Morton, 2006). Consequently, in theoretical models and experimental designs facing nonnative acquisition, coarticulatory contextual variability has been dealt with in two different ways. In some cases, coarticulation has been altogether neglected, and its complex influence on the speech chain has been disregarded. In other instances, coarticulation-related issues have been overcome through their preventive neutralization, namely by keeping coarticulatory effects constant. Neutralization techniques can be implemented either a priori, eliciting high controlled material, or a posteriori, if applied during the analysis phase. However, the view of coarticulation as neglectable fine-grained fuzziness can be negated by multiple counterarguments. Firstly, coarticulation remains a ubiquitous and unavoidable element in the speech stream (Farnetani & Recasens, 2010, p. 31). Our understanding of speech and languages cannot reach comprehensiveness if one of their essential elements is deliberately overlooked. Thus, “It would be misleading to think of coarticulation in speech as if it were an imperfection in the way language is realized. Speech and language have evolved under the influence of the constraints of the vocal mechanism, and there is no reason to suppose that the relationship between language and vocal mechanism is not a satisfactory one” (Kühnert & Nolan, 1999, p. 9).

On Non-native Coarticulation

127

Secondly, coarticulation-related sound changes represent long-term evidence supporting the fact that not all coarticulation effects are filtered by listeners since their influence can also induce parsing reinterpretation (Ohala, 1993; Recasens, 2014). As Desmeules-Trudel et al. (2020, p. 2) point out, “word representations are rich and include some amount of fine-grained phonetic details (see also Browman and Goldstein, 1986; Pierrehumbert, 2002) which are traditionally considered redundant in the literature on lexical and phonological storage.” Thirdly, natural languages are highly complex and efficient communication systems. Our current incapability to organically understand, investigate, and model language dynamics cannot be exploited to support perspectives considering coarticulation as distortion or deterioration of supposed ideal forms. Conversely, a growing body of evidence shows that contextual effects and the resulting redundancy are harnessed by both speakers and listeners, respectively to minimize effort and enhance perception during online speech recognition (Beddor et al., 2013; Connine & Darnieder, 2009; Scarborough, 2013; Zamuner et al., 2016; Zellou, 2017). The perceptual relevance of coarticulation has been disentangled thanks to the experimental design of the cross-splicing paradigm, whose preparation and functioning is clearly explained by Connine and Darnieder: It is possible to disrupt the typical course of coarticulatory events by cross splicing – a production of a vowel-consonant sequence ending in ‘sh’ can be edited such that the ‘sh’ is replaced with a ‘s’ taken from another vowel-consonant (VC) sequence. The resultant sequence consists of a token in which the vowel formants moving into the final consonant are mismatching (e. g., combining the initial consonant-vowel from ‘mish’ to the final consonant of ‘miss’ creates a token of ‘miss’ with mismatching co-articulatory information). The mismatching information is subcategorical, that is, it does not result in a shift in the perceived category of the final consonant – the ‘s’ in the above example is perceived clearly as such in both the matching and mismatching tokens. Despite the subcategorical nature of the mismatching information, Whalen (1984; see also Streeter & Nigro, 1979) showed that listener judgments are slowed in mismatching relative to matching tokens (Connine & Darnieder, 2009, p. 413).

In this respect, it is essential to remember that perceptual learning entails attunement to the sound representations or categories established and stored in the speakers’ long-term memory, namely to language-specific phonetic implementations. Thus, speakers’ perception of non-native sound patterns tends to be biased towards similar categories and cues already entrenched in the learners’ repertoire. Consequently, their production involving these sound patterns may be perceived as non-native and foreign-accented (Best, 1995; Flege, 1995; Iverson & Kuhl, 1995). If applied to language-specific coarticulatory effects in non-native speech, this means that utterances marked by non-native coarticulation patterns and strat-

128

Giovina Angela del Rosso

egies may cause slowed online word recognition, since those utterances may mismatch the listeners’ representations and expectations. Furthermore, deviations from reference targets embedded in non-native coarticulation patterns, though being fine-grained, may conceivably carry distributed and pervasive cues of foreign accentedness (see section 2). To sum up, this section was devoted to the presentation of arguments and counterarguments regarding the binomials coarticulation-universality and coarticulation-invariance. Reasoning supporting the possible contribution of coarticulation to foreign accentedness was also adopted. In both cases, a strong need to acknowledge the crucial linkage between accent and coarticulation has emerged, urging further studies on non-native coarticulation to be pursued. Furthermore, their implementation is expected to provide new insights into old issues in multilingualism and phonetics. Finally, the following section will directly engage with non-native coarticulation research, starting from its early stages and spanning to current needs and challenges.

5.

Non-native coarticulation research: State of the art

During the past two decades, pioneering papers on non-native coarticulation have appeared, focusing on adult learners. These groundwork studies answer foundational research questions, such as whether coarticulation patterns effectively undergo language acquisition, whether coarticulation transfers and crosslinguistic interferences from L1 can be detected, and whether typological tendencies can account for hybrid coarticulation strategies resorted to by learners (Badin et al., 2019; Baumotte & Dogil, 2008; Kochetov et al., 2018; Oh, 2008; Zsiga, 2003). These studies provide evidence consistently confirming that coarticulation strategies undergo language acquisition and uncovering patterns that can be related to the influence of L1; traces of typological tendencies have been identified by Zsiga (2003, p. 422): “Default patterns” emerge in consonant-to-consonant articulatory timing at word boundaries. Furthermore, according to Oh (2008, p. 381), “The fact that some of the learners acquired target values but not new patterns of coarticulation (and, in the case of EF5, the converse; native-like coarticulation without the vowel target values) provides evidence that coarticulation is not governed simply by the principle of maintaining perceptual distinctiveness among acquired targets.” Thus, the acquisition of coarticulation seems to be at least partially independent of the acquisition of its corresponding segmental targets. However, the aforementioned papers are sparse and scarce in number. Therefore, further investigations are needed. Furthermore, these initial-stage works share substantial weaknesses. Indeed, the results of these studies rest on

On Non-native Coarticulation

129

limited samples of informants, except for Oh’s (2008) research. As for their experimental design, materials have been based on datasets encompassing target sequences embedded in carrier sentences, recorded in reading tasks. The elicitation of target sentences is the traditional methodology in studies on (native) coarticulation. Yet, this kind of material provides evidence restricted to a specific language variety, style, and experimental setting. Consequently, results are not necessarily generalizable. Moreover, read-aloud tasks are cognitively and psychologically demanding, especially when including nonce words and utterances. For these reasons, they may be both unnatural and problematic for non-native speakers (Koda, 2012). Turning to their theoretical framework, these papers adopt a chiefly phonetic perspective. In fact, insufficient weight is given to sociolinguistic factors in sampling native and non-native informants. Particularly, little importance has been placed on geographical variation, notwithstanding its significant influence also on coarticulation. For instance, Recasens (2012) has found significant differences in the coarticulatory patterns of clear and dark /l/ allophones among 23 Catalan and English dialects. Recently, del Rosso (2021) has confirmed the relevance of geographical variation in C-V effects among 3 dialects of Italian. Besides, no explicit effort has been made to investigate nor to control factors that are highly relevant for language acquisition processes (Birdsong, 2014; Bylund et al., 2020; Moyer, 1999; Piske et al., 2001), except for language proficiency in Baumotte and Dogil (2008), and language experience in Oh (2008). According to these studies, both language proficiency and language experience positively correlate to the similarity between native and non-native coarticulation strategies, corroborating previous results in second language acquisition research (Baumotte & Dogil, 2008; Oh, 2008). In summary, available research dealing with speech production and nonnative coarticulation has provided valuable insights and foundation for future works. However, it is predominantly phonetic in nature, while a broader multidisciplinary approach may be beneficial in various ways. The feasible benefits and challenges of applying the multidisciplinary approach suggested in this chapter will be examined in the next section.

6.

A multidisciplinary approach to non-native coarticulation: strengths and challenges

Cultivating research on non-native coarticulation with a truly multidisciplinary, theory-, and data-driven approach could provide a fresh opportunity to broaden the current horizons of phonetics, second language acquisition, and multi-

130

Giovina Angela del Rosso

lingualism. Our knowledge of factors impacting coarticulation and multilingual matters influencing non-native acquisition should be combined to take into account and uncover interactions of linguistic, psycholinguistic, social, and contextual factors with coarticulation strategies. Specifically, this blended path would allow us, on the one hand, to further explore some of the classic issues of multilingualism and second/third language acquisition, such as: Which linguistic components non-native speakers learn; whether and how patterns are related, and which ones are more difficult to acquire; which linguistic and individual factors shape the learning process and why. On the other hand, new insights into phonetics may also emerge, especially about the (non-linear) relation between sound inventories and coarticulation patterns, thanks to the improved methodological solutions for cross-linguistic comparison of coarticulatory effects. Analyzing non-native coarticulation may constitute a valid methodological tool to avert the evergreen comparability issue arising in cross-linguistic studies of coarticulation patterns (Hardcastle & Hewlett, 1999). Designing homogeneous utterances in different languages is an often impossible task since the variables involved are numerous and intricate (see Table 1). In non-native coarticulation studies, both tasks and targets can be kept constant at once, thus allowing full comparability among the analyzed items. Consequently, cross-linguistic insights can be inferred by the learners’ L1s and repertoires, given apposite samplings of speakers (see Zmarich & Galatà, 2019, for the use of similar inferential procedures with children). However, several challenges must be faced, to pursue these scopes. The methodological designs need to be suitably adjusted, duly incorporating state-ofthe-art results and methodologies gained within the fields of second and third language acquisition. Also, appropriately large datasets should be used. Hence, suitable corpora need to be collected via multiple tasks, including various speech styles and an adequate number of accurately selected speakers. Moreover, a special effort is necessary to conceive test administration procedures, stimuli preparation, and task typologies. Thus, the overall structure of experimental settings ought to be amended because it should become learner-friendly, not merely aim at answering research questions. An additional challenge in non-native coarticulation lies in the absence of dedicated or adequate theoretical frameworks to support and drive the investigation. Language acquisition is not explicitly mentioned in the available coarticulation models. Conversely, the subsegmental acquisition is, indeed, mentioned in models of non-native phonetic acquisition; however, these models may also turn out to be inadequate frameworks for non-native coarticulation. In fact, they have been developed to model the acquisition of individual sound targets, not the dynamic interactions among them (Best, 1995; Flege, 1995; Iverson & Kuhl, 1995). In any case, before achieving the development of tailored models,

On Non-native Coarticulation

131

collecting a substantial amount of experimental data and consistent results is mandatory. Meanwhile, adopting and blending available models, effectively adjusted to handle non-native coarticulation, may constitute a valid short-term solution.

7.

Conclusion

This chapter serves two main purposes. Firstly, it tackles arguments accounting for the under-investigation of coarticulation in other fields, and especially within foreign accent research. Empirical counterevidence to the alleged irrelevance of coarticulation has been presented, related to speech production, perception, processing, and modeling. Therefore, the second part of the chapter is devoted to the specific reasons for integrating multilingualism, language acquisition, and phonetics research to investigate non-native coarticulation, adopting a novel multidisciplinary approach. It is maintained that this holistic approach could help to gain several prospective insights, which have been outlined. Indeed, a few studies of nonnative coarticulation already exist, but they are based on a chiefly phonetic approach. Their main results have been summarized, and both their importance and limitations have been pointed out. The multidisciplinary approach proposed here is both theory- and datadriven. Enhancing interpenetrations between otherwise self-reliant research fields involves new challenges and augmented levels of complexity, among other things. This choice may be considered upstream since the current trend in language modeling is to focus on narrow specific aspects. Yet, complex interactions can be handled by appropriate experimental designs or applying suitable techniques, while multidisciplinary approaches are especially essential to investigate inherently multidisciplinary phenomena, such as non-native coarticulation. Eventually, the actual complexity of linguistic repertoires cannot be simplified indefinitely. It is widely known that most speakers are not monolingual. However, most linguistic theories and models outside the fields of multilingualism and language acquisition still struggle to implement this state of facts (Tucker, 1999). In this respect, adopting a multidisciplinary approach to non-native coarticulation, as proposed in this chapter, may help provide experimental data and theoretical interpretations more accurately reflecting the authentic ongoing linguistic dynamics.

132

Giovina Angela del Rosso

References Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2003). Maturational constraint in SLA. In C. J. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 539– 588). Oxford: Blackwell. Abrahamsson, N., & Hyltenstam, K. (2009). Age of onset and nativelikeness in a second language: Listener perception versus linguistic scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249– 306. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00507.x. Badin, P., Tabain, M., & Lamalle, L. (2019). Comparative study of coarticulation in a multilingual speaker: preliminary results from MRI data. ICPhS 2019, 3453–3457. Melbourne, Australia. 5–9th August 2019. Baumotte, H., & Dogil, G. (2008). Coarticulation in non-native speakers of English: /ƎlV/Sequences in non-proficient vs. proficient learners. Proceedings of 2nd Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics (ExLing 2008), 137–140. Athens, Greece. 24–27th August 2008. Beddor, P. S., Harnsberger, J. D., & Lindemann, S. (2002). Language-specific patterns of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation: Acoustic structures and their perceptual correlates. Journal of Phonetics, 30(4), 591–627. doi:10.1006/jpho.2002.0177. Beddor, P. S., McGowan, K. B., Boland, J. E., Coetzee, A. W., & Brasher, A. (2013). The time course of perception of coarticulation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(4), 2350–2366. doi:10.1121/1.4794366. Bell-Berti, F., & Harris, K. S. (1981). A temporal model of speech production. Phonetica, 38, 9–20. doi:10.1159/000260011. Benguerel, A.-P., & Cowan, H. A. (1974). Coarticulation of upper lip protrusion in French. Phonetica, 30(1), 41–55. doi:10.1159/000259479. Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Cross-Language Speech Research (pp. 167–200). Timonium: York Press. Birdsong, D. (2014). The critical period hypothesis for second language acquisition: Tailoring the coat of many colors. In M. Pawlak, & L. Aronin (Eds.), Essential Topics in Applied Linguistics and Multilingualism (pp. 43–50). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Bladon, R. A. W., & Al-Bamerni, A. (1976). Coarticulation resistance in English /l/. Journal of Phonetics, 4(2), 137–150. doi:10.1016/S0095-4470(19)31234-3. Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. M. (1986). Towards an articulatory phonology. Phonology, 3, 219–252. doi:10.1017/S0952675700000658. Browman, C. P., & Goldstein, L. M. (1989). Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology, 6(2), 201–251. doi:10.1017/S0952675700001019. Bylund, E., Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2020). Age of acquisition – not bilingualism – is the primary determinant of less than nativelike L2 ultimate attainment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(1), 18–30. doi:10.1017/S1366728920000188. Cabrelli A., Jennifer, Flynn, S., & Rothman, J. (Eds.). (2012). Third Language Acquisition in Adulthood. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

On Non-native Coarticulation

133

Cabrelli Amaro, J., & Wrembel, M. (2016). Investigating the acquisition of phonology in a third language – a state of the science and an outlook for the future. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(4), 395–409. doi:10.1080/14790718.2016.1217601. Chang, C. B. (2018). Perceptual attention as the locus of transfer to nonnative speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 68, 85–102. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2018.03.003. Connine, C. M., & Darnieder, L. M. (2009). Perceptual learning of co-articulation in speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 412–422. doi:10.1016%2Fj.jml.2009.07.003. del Rosso, G. A. (2021). Can locus equation model dialect-specific variation in coarticulation? Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Experimental Linguistics (ExLing2021). Athens, Greece. 11–13th October 2021. doi:10.36505/ExLing-2021/12/0017/ 000490. Desmeules-Trudel, F., Moore, C., & Zamuner, T. S. (2020). Monolingual and bilingual children’s processing of coarticulation cues during spoken word recognition. Journal of Child Language, 47(6), 1–18. doi:10.1017/S0305000920000100. Farnetani, E., & Recasens, D. (2010). Coarticulation and connected speech. In W. J. Hardcastle, John L., & F. E. Gibbon (Eds.), The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 316– 352). Malden, Oxford, Chichester: Blackwell. Flege, J. E. (1995). Second language speech learning. Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issue in Cross-Language Research (pp. 233–277). Timonium: York Press. Flemming, E. (2012). The grammar of coarticulation. In M. Embarki, & C. Dodane (Eds.), La Coarticulation: Indices, Direction et Representation. L’Harmattan. Retrieved October 28, 2021, from http://web.mit.edu/flemming/www/paper/grammar-of-coarticulation.p df. Fowler, C. A. (1981). Production and perception of coarticulation among stressed and unstressed vowels. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 24(1), 127–139. doi:10.1044/jshr.2401.127. Gili Fivela, B., Stella, A., D’Apolito, S., & Sigona, F. (2011). Coarticulation across prosodic domains in Italian: An ultrasound investigation. Interspeech 2011, 393–396. Hammarberg, R. (1982). On redefining coarticulation. Journal of Phonetics, 10(2), 123–137. doi:10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30952-0. Hardcastle, W. J., & Hewlett, N. (Eds.). (1999). Coarticulation: Theory, Data and Techniques. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hardcastle, W. J., & Marchal, A. (Eds.). (1990). Speech Production and Speech Modelling. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Iskarous, K., Fowler, C. A., & Whalen, D. H. (2010). Locus equations are an acoustic expression of articulator synergy. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 128 (4), 2021–2032. doi:10.1121%2F1.3479538. Iskarous, K., Mooshammer, C., Hoole, P., Recasens, D., Shadle, C. H., Saltzman, E., & Whalen, D. H. (2013). The coarticulation/invariance scale: mutual information as a measure of coarticulation resistance, motor synergy, and articulatory invariance. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(2), 1271–1282. doi:10.1121% 2F1.4812855. Iverson, P., & Kuhl, P. K. (1995). Linguistic experience and the “perceptual magnet effect.” In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (pp. 121–154). Timonium: York Press.

134

Giovina Angela del Rosso

Jilka, M. (2000). The contribution of intonation to the perception of foreign accent. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart. PhD thesis. Keating, P. A. (1990). The window model of coarticulation: Articulatory evidence. In J. Kingston, & M. E. Beckman (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology (pp. 451–470). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Koda, K. (2012). How to do research on second language reading. In A. Mackey, & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Research Methods in Second Language Acquisition: A Practical Guide (pp. 158–179). Malden, Oxford, Chichester: Blackwell. Kochetov, A., Colantoni, L., & Steele, J. (2018). Gradient and categorical effects in native and non-native nasal-rhotic coordination. Proceedings of 2017 Annual Meetings on Phonology (AMP 2017). New York, USA. 15–17th September 2017. Retrieved October 28, 2021, from https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/amphonology /article/download/4239/3865. Krull, D. (1989). Consonant-vowel coarticulation in spontaneous speech and in reference words. In O. Engstrand, M. Dufberg, & C. Kylander (Eds.), PERILUS X (pp. 87–108). Stockholm: University of Stockholm. Kühnert, B., & Nolan, F. (1999). The origin of coarticulation. In W. J. Hardcastle, & N. Hewlett (Eds.), Coarticulation: Theory, Data and Techniques (pp. 7–30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lindblom, B. (1963). Spectrographic study of vowel reduction. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35(11), 1773–1781. doi:10.1121/1.1918816. Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H&H theory. In W. J. Hardcastle, & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modelling (pp. 403– 439). Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lindblom, B., & Sussman, H. M. (2012). Dissecting coarticulation: How locus equations happen. Journal of Phonetics, 40(1), 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2011.09.005. Lindblom, B., Sussman, H. M., & Agwuele, A. (2009). A duration-dependent account of coarticulation for hyper- and hypoarticulation. Phonetica, 66(3), 188–195. doi:10.1159 /000235660. Major, R. C. (2008). Transfer in second language phonology: A review. In J. G. Hansen Edwards, & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 19– 40). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Major, R. C. (2001). Foreign accent: the ontogeny and phylogeny of second language phonology. Mahwah, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Manuel, S. Y. (1990). The role of contrast in limiting vowel-to-vowel coarticulation in different languages. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88(3), 1286–1298. doi:10.1121/1.399705. Manuel, S. Y. (1999). Cross-language studies: relating language-particular coarticulation patterns to other language-particular facts. In W. J. Hardcastle, & N. Hewlett (Eds.), Coarticulation: Theory, Data and Techniques (pp. 179–198). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Mareüil, P. B. de, & Vieru-Dimulescu, B. (2006). The contribution of prosody to the perception of foreign accent. Phonetica, 63(4), 247–267. doi:10.1159/000097308. Mildner, V. (2018). Aspects of coarticulation. In M. Gósy, & T. E. Gráczi (Eds.), Challenges in Analysis and Processing of Spontaneous Speech (pp. 27–48). Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

On Non-native Coarticulation

135

Moyer, A. (1999). Ultimate attainment in L2 phonology: The critical factors of age, motivation, and instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 81–108. doi:10.1017/S0272263199001035. Munro, M. J. (2008). Foreign accent and speech intelligibility. In J. G. Hansen Edwards, & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 193–218). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Oh, E. (2008). Coarticulation in non-native speakers of English and French: An Acoustic Study. Journal of Phonetics, 36(2), 361–384. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2007.12.001. Ohala, J. J. (1993). Coarticulation and phonology. Language and Speech, 36(2–3), 155–170. doi:10.1177%2F002383099303600303. Öhman, S. E. G. (1966). Coarticulation in VCV utterances: Spectrographic measurements. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 39(1), 151–168. doi:10.1121/1.1909864. Perillo, S., Bang, H.-Y., & Clayards, M. (2015). Locus equation metrics as an index of coarticulation resistance: The effect of prosodic prominence. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 25(1), Jacksonville, Florida. 2–6th November 2015. doi:10.1121/2.0000390. Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. In C. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology, 7, 101–139. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Piske, T., MacKay, I. R. A., & Flege, J. E. (2001). Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: A Review. Journal of Phonetics, 29(2), 191–215. doi:10.006/jpho.2001.0134. Puig-Mayenco, E., González Alonso, J., & Rothman, J. (2020). A systematic review of transfer studies in third language acquisition. Second Language Research, 36(1), 31–64. doi:10.1177%2F0267658318809147. Recasens, D. (2012). A cross-language acoustic study of initial and final allophones of /l/. Speech Communication, 54(3), 368–383. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2011.10.001. Recasens, D. (2014). Coarticulation and Sound Change in Romance. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Recasens, D., Farnetani, E., Fontdevila, J., & Pallarès, M. D. (1993). An electropalatographic study of alveolar and palatal consonants in Catalan and Italian. Language and Speech, 36(2–3), 213–234. doi:10.1177%2F002383099303600306. Recasens, D., Pallarès, M. D., & Fontdevila, J. (1997). A model of lingual coarticulation based on articulatory constraints. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102 (1), 544–561. doi:10.1121/1.419727. Recasens, D., & Rodríguez, C. (2018). Contextual and syllabic effects in heterosyllabic consonant sequences. An Ultrasound Study. Speech Communication, 96, 150–167. doi:10.1016/j.specom.2017.11.009. Rhone, A. E., & Jongman, A. (2012). Modified locus equations categorize stop place in a perceptually realistic time frame. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131 (6), EL487–EL491. doi:10.1121/1.4722169. Rubertus, E., & Noiray, A. (2020). Vocalic activation width decreases across childhood: Evidence from carryover coarticulation. Laboratory Phonology: Journal of the Association for Laboratory Phonology, 11(1), 7. doi:10.5334/labphon.228. Scarborough, R. (2013). Neighborhood-conditioned patterns in phonetic detail: Relating coarticulation and hyperarticulation. Journal of Phonetics, 41(6), 491–508. doi:10.101 6/j.wocn.2013.09.004.

136

Giovina Angela del Rosso

Sloos, M., Ran, Y., & Weijer, J. van de. (2018). Register, tone, and consonant-vowel coarticulation. 9th International Conference on Speech Prosody, 15–19. Poznan´, Poland. 13– 16th June 2018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060603.g009. Stone, M. (2010). Laboratory techniques for investigating speech articulation. In W. J. Hardcastle, J. Laver, & F. E. Gibbon (Eds.), The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 9– 38). Malden, Oxford, Chichester: Blackwell. Streeter, L. A., & Nigro, G. N. (1979). The role of medial consonant transitions in word perception. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 65(6), 1533–1541. doi:10.1121/1.382917. Tatham, M., & Morton, K. (2006). Speech Production and Perception. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Trouvain, J., & Gut, U. (Eds.). (2007). Non-Native Prosody: Phonetic Description and Teaching Practice. Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Tucker, G. R. (1998). A global perspective on multilingualism and multilingual education. In J. Cenoz, & F. Genesee (Eds.), Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multilingual Education, 3–15. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Volenec, V. (2015). Coarticulation. In J. Davis (Ed.), Phonetics: Fundamentals, Potential Applications and Role in Communicative Disorders (pp. 47–86). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Whalen, D. H. (1984). Subcategorical phonetic mismatches slow phonetic judgments. Perception & Psychophysics, 35(1), 49–64. doi:10.3758/BF03205924. Wrembel, M., Marecka, M., Szewczyk, J., & Otwinowska, A. (2018). The predictors of foreign-accentedness in the home language of Polish–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(2), 383–400. doi:10.1017/S1366728918000044. Zampini, M. L. (2008). L2 speech production research. Finding, issues, and advances. In J. G. Hansen Edwards, & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 219–249). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Zamuner, T. S., Moore, C., & Desmeules-Trudel, F. (2016). Toddlers’ sensitivity to withinword coarticulation during spoken word recognition: Developmental Differences in lexical competition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 152, 136–148. doi:10.1 016/j.jecp.2016.07.012. Zellou, G. (2017). Individual differences in the production of nasal coarticulation and perceptual compensation. Journal of Phonetics, 61, 13–29. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2016.12. 002. Zmarich, C., & Avesani, C. (2015). L’influenza della durata consonantica sulla coarticolazione della sillaba CV con gradi diversi di prominenza prosodica. In A. Romano (Ed.), Aspetti Prosodici e Testuali del Raccontare: Dalla Letteratura Orale al Parlato dei Media (pp. 305–318). Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Zmarich, C., & Galatà, V. 2019. L’acquisizione fonetico-fonologica nel bambino prescolare bilingue. In M. C. Levorato, & A. Marini (Eds.), Il Bilinguismo in Età Evolutiva. Aspetti Cognitivi, Linguistici, Neuropsicologici, Educativi (pp. 39–63). Trento: Erickson. Zsiga, E. C. (2003). Articulatory timing in a second language: Evidence from Russian and English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(3), 399–432. doi:10.1017/S027226 3103000160.

Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek

Chapter 7 – Attitudes toward Multilingualism in Poland and Japan from University Students’ Perspective

Abstract This study aims to explore the concept of multilingualism from educational and individual perspectives. Based on secondary data and literature review, the present paper provides, on the one hand, a comparative overview of multilingualism in the Polish and Japanese education systems, which are seen as “the most ethnolinguistically homogenous nation-states (that is, almost without any native speakers of other languages than the national)” (Kamusella, 2009, p. 60), and on the other hand, it sheds light on beliefs about multilingualism as an individual phenomenon. The participants of the study were 22 Polish and 20 Japanese students of German Philology / Applied Linguistics at the A1-A2 level. To identify the complexity of their opinions about the topic, instead of imposing researcher-defined categories on them, a short qualitative-quantitative survey was designed and administered to the students at two universities – in western Poland and central Japan, respectively. The participants were confronted with two open-ended and one Likert scale questions. The first question aimed to capture their understanding of the phenomenon of multilingualism in general, while the second one explored their beliefs about its importance in their country. The third question asked participants to evaluate their own level of multilingualism, and furthermore requested stating reasons for their rating. Although students’ beliefs in both target groups reflected a positive attitude towards multilingualism, comparisons made between responses offered by Polish and Japanese participants revealed some differences both in understanding the term multilingualism as well as seeing themselves as multilingual. Overall, the findings suggest that Japanese students tend to see multilingualism more as an aspiration, while the majority of Polish students are inclined to perceive it as a crucial element of their current language learner identity. Keywords: multilingualism, Poland, Japan, core curriculum, attitudes

Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan´ (Poland), ORCID: 00000002-9230-1948, [email protected].

138

1.

Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek

Introduction

Multilingualism is a fascinating linguistic and socio-cultural phenomenon which has existed in different intensity and variety of forms throughout the whole of human history. Both from a historical and a contemporary perspective, it has always been viewed as a norm rather than an exception (Auer & Li, 2007; Romaine, 2006; Sopata, 2013; Spolsky, 1998), and, contrary to what is often believed, the number of multilingual people around the globe exceeds the number of people who are monolingual. According to the figures cited in Eberhard, Simons, and Fenning (2020), there are currently 7117 recognized languages in the world and about 200 countries. On the basis of this data, the conclusion can be drawn that with more than 35 times as many languages as there are countries, multilingualism exists almost everywhere in the world and few nations are either monoethnic or monolingual. It has to be noted that in spite of the near-universal presence of more than one language in every country, the global distribution of linguistic diversity is uneven (Romaine, 2006). There are different reasons for this, as Kamusella claims, analyzing Iceland, Japan, and Poland, for example: The most ethnolinguistically homogenous nation-states (that is, almost without any native speakers of other languages than the national) are Iceland, Japan and Poland. In the cases of Iceland and Japan, this unusual homogeneity was achieved by the longlasting maritime isolation of both polities. On the contrary, large-scale ethnic cleansing, expulsion, population exchanges, and sweeping border changes were employed to arrive at this result in the Polish case (Kamusella, 2009, p. 60).

This paper concentrates on the attitudes of Polish and Japanese adult learners towards multilingualism. So far few studies have examined this issue from a comparative point of view. An exception to this is Kimber’s (2014) study of bi-/ multilingualism from the perspective of Japanese as well as non-Japanese students at one of the universities in Japan. He separated a sample of 122 participants divided into sub-groups: the Japanese and non-Japanese; the latter group spoke 16 different first languages. In his research, less attention was paid to the non-Japanese group, and European participants constituted only a minority within the sample (8 respondents had English as their L1 and just 1 respondent Icelandic). In light of the considerations presented above, we try to address this gap by: – uncovering insights into how students in apparently monolingual Poland and Japan perceive multilingualism on an individual level as well as in their countries; – seeing how the participants’ views differ within and between the Polish and the Japanese group.

Attitudes toward Multilingualism in Poland and Japan

139

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a variety of definitions of multilingualism. The design of the study is outlined in Section 3. The results are presented in Section 4 and conclusions in Section 5, respectively.

2.

Multilingualism and the linguistic situation in Poland and in Japan

Although there have been many attempts to characterize the term multilingualism, it is far from easy to give an explicit definition, as it can be approached from different perspectives and/or interpreted in many ways. Without any doubt, such a complex and interdisciplinary phenomenon has multiple facets, and as Wilczyn´ska (2007, pp. 28–31) points out, at least its three dimensions may be distinguished: individual, social, and educational. We explore each dimension further below, especially as they are all associated with the research questions addressed in this paper. The first dimension, the individual one, which is sometimes also referred to as plurilingualism (e. g., the Council of Europe) or multilinguality (e. g., Gabrys´Barker, 2017) pertains in general to the ability of a human being to master more than one language. Interestingly, in its complexity, it embraces not only the number of languages, but also the level of proficiency as well as the use dimension. Important questions emerging from the quantitative approach are whether multilingualism and bilingualism are two different terms, or if multilingualism is a generic term referring to two or more languages. The latter one, seeing bilingualism or trilingualism as instances of multilingualism, seems to reflect the mainstream attitude nowadays (Cenoz, 2013). As noted above, another related issue within individual multilingualism is the level of proficiency in the different languages, ranging from the minimal to the maximal extent, which is, according to Baker (2011), considered as problematic in both extreme poles. Before going any further, our analysis also requires taking into consideration issues concerning balanced versus unbalanced multilingualism, in other words, the fact of being equally or unequally fluent in two or more languages. Further issues arise with respect to this, such as the necessity to possess all four linguistic skills or rather partial competence within a given language as it is virtually impossible to master several languages at the same level. In fact, this reasonable point of view implies that a multilingual individual naturally presents different levels of knowledge of different languages. It is worth noting that the use dimension does not imply knowing several languages, but being able to apply two or more of them in everyday life (Grosjean, 2010). This approach captures the core characteristics of multilingual language use, putting emphasis on the im-

140

Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek

portance of communicativeness rather than the mastery of language. The second dimension, the social one, is connected with the language profile of a country, and we can distinguish at least two forms of multilingualism: – territorial differentiation (there are more official languages in one country, e. g., in Belgium or in Spain); – communities (large European metropolises like London include multilingual communities). A few differences between Poland and Japan in this case are worth noting as the two countries present some variation regarding institutional frameworks concerning language(s) and language policy. In comparison to The Constitution of The Republic of Poland, which introduces in Article 27 the principle of officialdom of the Polish language, Japanese Constitution makes no mention of any official language, taking for granted that Japanese is the national language (Gottlieb, 2008, p. 105). Interestingly, there are two terms describing the national language in Japanese: kokugo and nihongo. The crucial difference between these two varieties of Japanese lies in the fact that the former is used by native speakers, while the latter is taught to foreigners. This distinction, moreover, reflects an enduring belief that Japanese is considered a cultural property specific to being Japanese, as kokugo means literally the language of our country, whereas nihongo is the Japanese language for others (Gottlieb, 2008, p. 105). When we consider the issue of multilingualism in Japan, it is worth noting that at the dawn of the Meiji Era (1868–1912), in 1871 to be exact, English was introduced as a subject tested in the university entrance examination system. Interestingly, as early as then, there had already been calls to replace Japanese and elevate English (Kimber, 2014). This idea was not continued, nor was the suggestion to give English an official status in Japan in a report Japan’s Goals in the 21th Century (2000) taken seriously. To the best of our knowledge, such discussions have never taken place in Poland. Another difference that we can distinguish is that Poland regulates the legal status of minorities and their languages as well. In the first legal document of this kind in the post-war history of Poland, i. e., the Act on National and Ethnic Minorities and on the Regional Languages, which was passed in 2005, important legal foundations for the linguistic functioning of ethnic minorities were offered: the status of a national minority was granted to Polish citizens of Byelorussian, Czech, Lithuanian, German, Armenian, Russian, Slovak, Ukrainian, and Jewish origin; the status of ethnic minority was granted to groups of the Karaim, the Lemko, the Romany, and the Tartar, as well as the status of a regional language to the Kashubian (spoken in the north of the country). Despite the number of languages mentioned, the Republic of Poland differs nowadays in terms of the presence and prevalence of the phenomenon of multilingualism from most of Western European countries. It has to be noted that before World War II, Poland

Attitudes toward Multilingualism in Poland and Japan

141

was a multi-ethnic state, and national minorities constituted more than 30% of the society. In other words, one-third of its 36,000,000 population consisted of Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Lithuanians, Jews, Germans, and Russians, who inhabited predominantly over half of its territory (Majewicz & Wicherkiewicz, 1998). Despite the historical traditions of multilingualism, at present Poland is linguistically rather homogeneous. Basing on the results of the National Census of Population and Housing (2011), it can be concluded that the total population of Poland equals 38,920,000, and what is more, the vast majority of citizens (almost 95%) use Polish at home for communication (93% for all purposes). Due to a low number of Polish citizens belonging to minorities (0.8–4%) and to the dispersal of some minorities, the minority languages are being used only in a small part of Poland’s territory. Japan, on the other hand, has no overarching documents considering either the national language or minority languages. Furthermore, according to Gottlieb (2008, p. 125), the Japanese government does not gather data on languages used by its citizens, and census forms do not contain questions on ethnicity, although there is a “nationality” category for foreigners. Therefore, it poses a challenge to estimate the number of Japanese citizens speaking another language as their first language at home. Listed under the category of “Japanese” are Okinawans, the Ainu population, and foreigners who have acquired Japanese citizenship (Gottlieb, 2008, p. 125). Official statistics show that 1,974,000 registered foreigners were living permanently in Japan at the end of 2004, with the biggest groups comprising speakers of Korean, Chinese, Brazilian Portuguese, Filipino, Spanish, and American English (Statistical Research and Training Institute, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication, Japan, 2006). They account for about 1.5% of the total population of 125,960,000. In the third dimension, our attention is drawn to multilingualism in the education system, whose role is pivotal in the dissemination of language policy (Eastman, 1983, p. 103). Furthermore, it can be stated that multilingualism refers to language education policies which constitute a form of human resource development planning (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997), aiming at developing language abilities that a society identifies as crucial for social, economic, or other objectives. In this way, language education policies determine which language(s) will be included in the education system of a certain country and the purposes for which those languages will be taught and learned. Policies therefore project an imagined future linguistic situation and make provisions to bring it into existence (Liddicoat, 2013). Some differences between the education systems are worth noting to understand language education in Poland and Japan. Figure 1 presents some relevant data on the two countries. At this point, it should be noted that on September 1, 2017, an education reform came into force in Poland. The previous basic school system, which was

142

Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek

Figure 1. Types of schools and duration of education in years (own elaboration)

similar to the Japanese one and in which the respondents of the study were educated, comprised a six-year primary school (Polish: szkoła podstawowa), a three-year junior high school (Polish: gimnazjum), and a three-year senior high school (Polish: liceum). The greatest structural difference between the old and the new system is thus the extension of the primary school period from six to eight years. Furthermore, the previous junior high school, which covered grades seven to nine, was dissolved. Instead of a three-year senior high school a four-year senior high school was created. This structural change has affected neither the number of modern foreign languages taught at Polish schools nor the starting grade for the second foreign language. On the basis of the analysis of the current Polish and Japanese national core curricula, which is a part of a larger project on multilingualism in language education policies, it can be concluded that the only foreign language referred to by name in the Japanese core curriculum is English, whereas the Polish document speaks of modern foreign languages (see Table 1). In addition, it should be noted that although the current Polish core curriculum, in the analyzed part, does not explicitly specify which foreign language should be the subject of education at the pre-school stage, it points to one fundamental factor concerning its choice: the modern foreign language taught in primary schools in a given district. Summarizing, it can be stated that there are many ways to approach multilingualism, the definitions are wide-ranging and rooted in various perspectives, which makes it challenging to agree on a common concept. As far as the linguistic situation of both countries is concerned, even with differences regarding legal foundations for the functioning of languages, Poland and Japan exhibit similarities in terms of ethnicity (both are relatively uniform, with a low percentage of minorities). Nevertheless, immigration, although still small in comparison with other countries, is increasing both in Poland and in Japan.

143

Attitudes toward Multilingualism in Poland and Japan

Table 1. Foreign languages in Polish and Japanese education (own elaboration) Type of educational institution kindergarten

Poland

Japan

one modern foreign language

unregulated by law

primary school

one modern foreign language English (from the 7th grade: two modern foreign languages) – English

junior high school senior high school university

two modern foreign languages English one foreign language till 1991: two languages; nowadays: one or two (depending on university)

3.

The study

3.1.

Aim of the study and research questions

The aim of the study was to gain insights into how students in apparently monolingual Poland and Japan perceive multilingualism on an individual level as well as in their countries, and to what extent their opinions are in line with the views of multilingualism presented in the literature.

3.2.

Participants

Both participant groups were pretty homogenous in their profiles. More specifically, they were 22 Polish and 20 Japanese students of German Philology / Applied Linguistics at the A1-A2 level, where the L1 was Polish or Japanese, respectively, and the L2 was English. As far as other languages are concerned, German was the L3 for Japanese students and the L4 for Polish students. The latter group had Spanish or French as the L3. The difference in general is that the Polish students knew three foreign languages, whereas the Japanese ones two. All participants were between 18 and 20 years old. A random sample chosen for this study, as mentioned before, was a group of undergraduate students from Poland and Japan, which to some extent provides a unique blend of voices. However, it is necessary to note that the low number of participants should be treated as a limitation of the study. It should be emphasized, though, that an attempt was made to ensure the homogeneity of both target groups in terms of age, as well as the field of study. Even though finding a bigger group of Polish participants would not have been a problem, it would remain a challenge in the case of

144

Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek

Japanese respondents as the number of people studying German at Japanese universities is not high (unfortunately, no data available, this statement is based on conversations with professors of German in Japan).

3.3.

Method and procedure

To identify the complexity of students’ opinions about the topic, instead of imposing researcher-defined categories on them, a short qualitative-quantitative survey was designed and administered in 2017 to undergraduates at two universities – in western Poland and central Japan, respectively. The participants in both groups were asked to complete an English-language paper version of the questionnaire at the beginning of one of their university classes. They were presented with two open-ended and one Likert scale questions. The first question (When is a person multilingual?) aimed to capture their understanding of the phenomenon of multilingualism in general, while the second question (What role does multilingualism play in your country?) explored the students’ beliefs about the importance of multilingualism in Poland and Japan, respectively. The third question (I am a multilingual person. How much do you agree with the statement?) asked participants to evaluate their own level of multilingualism, and furthermore requested stating reasons for their rating. Similarly to the study conducted by Kimber (2014), the analysis of the responses was based on the principles of the grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss 2008), which “involves an inductive process of reading the raw data repeatedly, and allowing salient themes to arise in the process. As these themes arise, a coding process then takes place, which is similar to categorization of thoughts and ideas that flow from the inductive process” (Kimber, 2014, p. 148).

4.

Results and discussion

The results of the study conducted with 42 respondents reveal that the students define multilingualism as a complex phenomenon and their answers gravitate to all three aspects which have been covered in the earlier discussion on individual multilingualism: number of languages, level of proficiency, as well as use dimension. Therefore, three major categories of answers have been determined. After a careful analysis of the raw data by the researcher, all references to the term “multilingualism” were allocated to their respective categories. Moreover, it has to be noted that some of the participants gave multiple answers to a question, resulting in a higher number of responses than that of the study participants.

Attitudes toward Multilingualism in Poland and Japan

145

Polish students: – use dimension: speaking/communicating (22); – number of languages: more than two languages (21); – level of proficiency: like a native speaker (6 out of 21), mother tongue and, e. g., English like a native speaker (1). Japanese students: – use dimension: speaking (15), reading (6), writing (3), speaking and understanding (1) (25); – number of languages: more than two (20); – level of proficiency: very good (5). The respondents’ statements presented below illustrate this aspect very effectively.1 Polish students: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

A person speaking Polish, English, and, for instance, German, according to the EU. When a person has no communication problems in at least two foreign languages. Speaking in more than two languages on a native level. When a person speaks Polish and other languages like a native speaker. When a person is able to communicate like a native speaker in more than one foreign language. (6) When a person speaks Polish and, e. g., English very well, with no accent.

Japanese students: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

When a person knows three languages very well, can write without mistakes. A person knows many languages, can read and write well. When a person speaks and can read in many languages. When a person speaks more than one foreign language and can read books in those languages. A person speaking Japanese, maybe Chinese and Korean as well, and also English. A person reading and speaking at least two foreign languages. The term refers to people speaking Japanese and, for example, English and German. People speaking and understanding many languages.

In conclusion, the participants of the two target groups exhibit strong similarities in terms of defining a multilingual person. The evidence gathered from this study suggests that both Polish and Japanese students tend to focus on the literal 1 All participants’ comments have been presented in their original versions; minor changes (e. g., involving the use of commas, periods, capital letters, and articles) have been introduced. The original emphasis has been retained.

146

Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek

“multi” meaning of more than two languages, or the mother tongue and at least two languages. A closer look at the responses allows us not only to refer to the number of languages but also to distinguish several languages that have been mentioned by name in addition to the mother tongues of the subjects, such as: English, German, Chinese, and Korean. Polish students: – more than two languages (Polish, English, and, e. g., German, at least two foreign ones) (21); – Polish and another language on a native speaker level (1). Japanese students: – many languages (11); – more than one foreign language, at least two foreign languages, three languages (5); – Japanese and other languages (1); – Japanese and English, and German (2); – Japanese, Chinese, Korean, and English (1). Furthermore, the analysis of the comments made by the Polish respondents provides evidence that to them, being able to speak in a language is the most crucial skill, whereas Japanese participants associate the use dimension not only with the productive language skills but also with the receptive ones, which may be traced back to the system of teaching in Japan, which pays much attention to reading and writing. As Gabrys´-Barker (2017, p. 88) notes in her study, Portuguese multilingual students specializing in foreign languages seem to have a limited understanding of the complexity of multilingualism. “The most evident example of this relates to the perception that it is speaking skills that constitute the essence of multilingualism. In this understanding, being multilingual means being able to communicate […].” This study shows similar results as far as the Polish students are concerned. Also Kimber (2014) comes to similar conclusions with regard to the non-Japanese sub-group of the participants of his study, in which speaking skills are mentioned in “a large portion of the responses.” We now proceed to the results of the analysis of the second question: What role does multilingualism play in your country? It can undoubtedly be stated that in both target groups the responses were virtually all positive with respect to promoting multilingualism. After carefully analyzing the data, the following categorizations have been introduced:

147

Attitudes toward Multilingualism in Poland and Japan

Polish students: – as EU-members, we are in the European Union, living in Europe, because of living in Europe it is necessary; – positive: important, very important, crucial, of big relevance, essential. Japanese students: – connecting us with the rest of the world, for global business, especially because of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, double names [i. e., spelled out in two languages] in the city for foreigners who don’t know Japanese; – positive: important, very important, but mainly Japanese and English, vital, necessary. The above results are very similar to those obtained by Kimber (2014). The slight difference lies in the fact that not all participants of his study showed a positive attitude toward multilingualism in Japan. Eight of them (three in the Japanese sub-group and five in the non-Japanese sub-group) made some critical comments oscillating around the idea that it is not necessary for Japan to promote multilingualism. To summarize the qualitative findings, an analysis of the first two questions showed that students in the two target groups recognize the complex nature of multilingualism, and focus mainly on the use dimension as well as the quantitative understanding of individual multilingualism. As far as the social dimension is concerned, the attitudes of the Polish and Japanese participants are welcoming toward multilingualism. Their comments on the topic, however, differ slightly. The Polish respondents emphasize being a part of the European Union in this context, whereas the Japanese participants pay more attention to the role of multilingualism in their country (understood in many cases as English being needed in addition to the L1, especially for foreigners visiting Japan). The third question asked students to assess their own level of multilingualism, and furthermore requested stating the reasons for their rating. The quantitative-qualitative analysis of the data is split into two sections in accordance with the dual nature of the question. Table 2 presents the results of the first part. Table 2. The number of responses (Question 3: I am a multilingual person. How much do you agree with the statement?) Strongly disagree Polish students Japanese students

Disagree 4

20

Neither agree nor disagree 7

Agree 11

Strongly agree

148

Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek

In their responses, Polish participants showed varied answers and came up with associations which can be classified into categories constituting an agree-disagree scale: Agree: (1) I think I am multilingual, because my English is very good. I can also speak Spanish (C2) and of course Polish. (2) Polish is very difficult but I can speak it! I can communicate in English, French (I spent two years in France as a child) and now I am learning German. (3) Yes, I can speak Polish, English, French and German. (4) I attended a bilingual school with Spanish in Poznan´ so my Spanish is really well. Polish is my mother tongue. Before entering the university, I spent one year in the US so my English has improved a lot.

Neither agree nor disagree: (1) I do not know if I could describe myself as multilingual: as far as the number of languages is concerned – yes, but if we consider the level… (2) On the one hand yes, but on the other no, because I am not a native speaker. (3) I don’t know. Probably the level of my foreign languages is too low even if I know a few.

Disagree: (1) I am not a native speaker that’s why I cannot describe myself as multilingual. (2) I am not bilingual. (3) I am not like a native-speaker.

Using the above statements, which illustrate a variety of opinions held by the respondents, we can observe that 50% of them refer to the number of languages while specifying their level of agreement. Those, who express their doubts, range between the category of quantity and the level of proficiency. The results show that all Japanese participants do not tend to regard themselves as being multilingual, but rather perceive multilingualism as an aspiration in life. The lexical items used to express the reasons for their rating also demonstrate that in their answers the students refer to hard work as a prerequisite for being multilingual in the future: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

I do not know German so far very well, maybe in the future I will be better. It is my goal, but now I am not multilingual. My English is poor. In the future, after many years of hard work maybe it will be possible. I have to study hard to be multilingual. I have to make many exercises in German and in English.

Attitudes toward Multilingualism in Poland and Japan

149

(6) I know only Japanese, a little bit of English, and I learn German now so I am not multilingual. I need to work hard.

One of the possible reasons for the discrepancies between the target groups might be, on the one hand, the fact that the Japanese students do not consider themselves multilingual because of their personality traits, which include a reluctance to self-praise. On the other hand, it should be taken into consideration that the Polish participants in general know more languages than the Japanese ones, as it was discussed in Section 3. Furthermore, on a personal level, the Japanese students rank themselves much lower than the Polish students with regard to the statement: “I am a multilingual person.” This may also be related to the education system in Poland based on the objectives of the EU’s policy according to which every European citizen should master two languages in addition to his or her mother tongue. By doing so, this system contributes to promoting the knowledge of multiple languages and probably implicitly raises the awareness of being multilingual.

5.

Conclusions and future research

The participants’ answers concerning the characteristics of a multilingual person are in line with the views on multilingualism presented in the literature and refer in varying degrees to the three main domains of individual multilingualism: use dimension, number of languages, and level of proficiency. Even though all of the study participants demonstrate positive attitudes towards multilingualism in their countries, describing oneself as a multilingual person remains a challenge, especially in the case of Japanese participants, who seem to see multilingualism more as an aspiration than an important element of their current language learner identity. It can be undoubtedly stated that for the students involved in this study the value of multilingualism as a resource for their countries was confirmed, and therefore it should be fostered, e. g., in the education system and through supporting at least bilingual linguistic landscapes. As the study was conducted with a relatively small sample of respondents, one of the possible directions for further research, which could help verify the results obtained in this paper, would be conducting a larger-scale study with a larger group, recruited from different universities and perhaps different countries.

150

Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek

References Auer, P., & Li, W. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Berlin, New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 3–18. doi:10.1017/S026719051300007X Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Eastman, C. M. (1983). Language Planning: An Introduction. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp. Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, Ch. D. (Eds.). (2020). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (23rd ed.). Dallas: SIL International. Gabrys´-Barker, D. (2017). New approaches to multilingualism research: Focus on metaphors and similes. In D. Gabrys´-Barker, D. Gałajda, A. Wojtaszek, & P. Zakrajewski (Eds.), Multiculturalism, Multilingualism and the Self: Studies in Linguistics and Language Learning (pp. 77–95). Cham: Springer. Gottlieb, N. R. (2008). Japan: Language policy and planning in transition. In: R. B. Kaplan, & R. B. Baldauf (Eds.), Language Planning and Policy in Asia (pp. 102–169). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual. Life and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kamusella, T. (2009). The Politics of Language and Nationalism in Modern Central Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf R. B. (Eds.). (1997). Language planning: From Practice to Theory. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Kimber, L. (2014). Attitudes and beliefs of students toward bi-/multilingualism at an international university in Japan. Ritsumeikan Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 33, 139–152. Liddicoat, A. J. (2013). Language-In-Education Policies: The Discursive Construction of Intercultural Relations. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Majewicz, A. F., & Wicherkiewicz, T. (1998). Minority rights abuse in communist Poland and inherited issues. Acta Slavica Iaponica, 16, 54–73. Romaine, S. (2006). Language policy in multilingual educational contexts. In K. Brown, & A. Anderson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 584–596). Boston: Elsevier. Sopata, A. (2013). Dwuje˛zycznos´c´, trójje˛zycznos´c´, wieloje˛zycznos´c´: podobien´stwa i róz˙nice. In S. Puppel, & T. Tomaszkiewicz (Eds.), Scripta manent – res novae (pp. 399–408). Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM. Spolsky, B. (1998). Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilczyn´ska, W. (2007). Wieloje˛zycznos´c´ – przegla˛d problematyki w uje˛ciu dydaktycznym. In M. Jodłowiec, & A. Niz˙egorodcew (Eds.), Dydaktyka je˛zyków obcych na pocza˛tku XXI wieku (pp. 27–40). Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellon´skiego.

Attitudes toward Multilingualism in Poland and Japan

151

Internet sources Japan’s Goals in the 21th Century (2000). Retrieved January 22, 2021, from https://www.kan tei.go.jp/jp/21century/report/pdfs/index.html. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) (2003). Regarding the Establishment of an Action Plan to Cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities.” Retrieved January 24, 2021, from https://www.gifu-net.ed.jp. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) (2014). English Education Reform Plan corresponding to Globalization. Retrieved January 24, 2021, from http://www.mext.go.jp/en/news/topics/detail/1372656.htm. Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT). Retrieved January 20, 2021, from http://www.mext.go.jp/en/. Podstawa programowej kształcenia ogólnego z komentarzem. Szkoła podstawowa. Je˛zyk obcy nowoz˙ytny. [The general education core curriculum with commentary. Primary school. A modern foreign language]. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from https://cke.gov.pl /images/_EGZAMIN_OSMOKLASISTY/Podstawa_programowa/SP_PP_2017_Jezyk_o bcy_nowozytny.pdf. Rozporza˛dzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej z dnia 14 lutego 2017 r. w sprawie podstawy programowej wychowania przedszkolnego oraz podstawy programowej kształcenia ogólnego dla szkoły podstawowej, w tym dla uczniów z niepełnosprawnos´cia˛ intelektualna˛ w stopniu umiarkowanym lub znacznym, kształcenia ogólnego dla branz˙owej szkoły I stopnia, kształcenia ogólnego dla szkoły specjalnej przysposabiaja˛cej do pracy oraz kształcenia ogólnego dla szkoły policealnej. [Regulation of the Minister of National Education of February 14, 2017 on the core curriculum for pre-school education and the core curriculum for general education for primary schools, including students with moderate or severe intellectual disabilities, general education for the firstdegree industry school, general education for special schools preparing for work and general education for post-secondary schools]. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from http://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/du/2017/356/1. Rozporza˛dzenie Ministra Edukacji Narodowej z dnia 30 stycznia 2018 r. w sprawie podstawy programowej kształcenia ogólnego dla liceum ogólnokształca˛cego, technikum oraz branz˙owej szkoły II stopnia. [Regulation of the Minister of National Education of 30 January 2018 on the core curriculum for general education for general secondary schools, technical secondary schools, and industry secondary schools]. Retrieved January 20, 2021, from http://www.dziennikustaw.gov.pl/DU/2018/467.

Ewa Kujawska-Lis

Chapter 8 – The Splendors and Miseries of Multilingualism: The Case of Joseph Conrad

Abstract Joseph Conrad (1857–1924) was a Polish-born novelist writing in English. Polish was his first language (mother tongue); he started to acquire French when he was five, and English when he was over twenty-one years of age. Language had special significance for him; it was not a mere means of communication, but an indispensable means of self-expression, without which he would not have become one of the greatest writers. The aim of this chapter is to analyze the impact of the three languages on Conrad’s private adult life and his writing. The adopted approach involves a retrospective analysis concentrating on some psycholinguistic aspects, such as circumstances and ways of acquiring consecutive languages, motivation accompanying language acquisition, and the outcomes of multilingualism, especially cross-linguistic influence. Additionally, the sociolinguistic approach is employed to pinpoint the role of Conrad’s multilingualism in creating his identities. Conrad’s late bilingualism as concerns English influenced his command of this language with respect to fluency, range and quality of vocabulary, grammatical correctness, and pronunciation. As for his artistic endeavors, creating in a foreign tongue was a source of constant stress as well as various kinds of mistakes one can find in his writing, often caused by interferences or (more or less conscious) calques both from Polish and French. Fluent command of French implied prestige and elitism, thus Conrad’s intellectual identity among foreigners, when he could not speak Polish, was initially mediated via French. Socio-political and economic circumstances made him choose English to construct his two professional identities, first as a sailor, and then as a writer. Concerning the latter, multilingualism contributed to Conrad’s creative use of the English language in which he introduced untypical collocations and created striking metaphors, often based on forms taken over from other languages he knew. Keywords: Joseph Conrad, multilingualism, cross-linguistic influences, creativity, linguistic consciousness

Ewa Kujawska-Lis, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn (Poland), ORCID: 0000-00031283-9615, [email protected].

154

1.

Ewa Kujawska-Lis

Conrad’s linguistic background: Polish, French, and English

Joseph Conrad (1857–1924) was a Polish-born English writer for whom language was constitutive to function in his various professional and social roles. He was proficient in three languages acquired in different circumstances and due to dissimilar motivations and needs. The impact of his multilingualism on his life and work defies dichotomous categorizations: Polish-French, Polish-English or French-English. In Conrad’s case not only three linguistic systems overlap and blend together, but also at least three cultures: “He [Conrad] knew and loved Poland, France and England. He loved England most proudly, France most warmly, Poland most deeply” (Bradbrook, 1965, p. 77). Polish was his first language (mother tongue); he started to acquire French when he was five, and English when he was over twenty-one years of age. This paper glimpses retrospectively at the three languages and their impact on his private adult life and his writing. Although he also knew some Latin and German, these languages are not discussed here as they did not affect his creative writing. Since in Conrad’s case it is impossible to run any tests to measure language proficiency, the analysis of biographical details and excerpts from his work are the only sources of relevant information. Such a reconstruction is, obviously, always only an approximation. The concept of multilingualism is a complex one and defined as “the capacity of societies, institutions, groups and individuals to engage on a regular basis in space and time with more than one language in everyday life” (Franceschini, 2009, p. 33). The term itself is often used interchangeably with bilingualism, as illustrated, for instance, by the definition offered by Maher (2017, p. 3): “‘individual multilingualism’ or ‘bilingualism’ means a person’s ability to use two languages […] separately or mixed with varying degrees of competence.” As Maher (2017, p. 5) further argues, “a multilingual person is not someone who has mastered several languages; rather it is someone who uses language for different functions in different contexts.” The following discussion focuses on the case of individual multilingualism and attempts to prove the point made by Maher: Conrad knew more than language and he did employ the languages he was proficient in (to various degrees) for various purposes. The approach adopted is two-fold. On the one hand, some psycholinguistic aspects are addressed, such as circumstances and ways of acquiring consecutive languages as well as their usage, motivation accompanying language acquisition in each case, and the outcomes of multilingualism, especially cross-linguistic influence. On the other hand, the sociolinguistic approach will be beneficial to indicate the role of Conrad’s multilingualism in creating his identities.

The Splendors and Miseries of Multilingualism

1.1.

155

Polish

Conrad acquired Polish from educated and erudite parents and the language at home was not only a means of communication, but also a creative tool since his father, Apollo Korzeniowski (1820–1869), was a writer and translator from French and English. Hence his linguistic background was one in which the quality of language was important and cultural and historical heritage was inscribed in its use. This would later result in the choice of writing as a career, hypersensitivity to the meaning of words and their aesthetic value, as well as linguistic echoes from and intertextual references to literary works he read in various languages throughout his life. As an adult, having left his homeland at the age of seventeen in 1874, he had scarce occasions to speak his mother tongue, yet he had never lost it and whenever possible he would employ it in conversation and writing, at times code-switching into his second language – French.

1.2.

French

Conrad’s second language was French which he acquired as part of his szlachta (land-owning gentry) background. It was not his personal choice but a natural element of his childhood. As Retinger (1941, p. 20) commented with reference to Conrad and 19th-century Polish educational context, “in the upper strata of society” children “had as a matter of course a French tutor or governess […], chatting in French from their earliest childhood.” In his biographical Personal Record, Conrad (1950, p. 65) recalls Mademoiselle Durand, who in 1863, as he observes, “in three months, simply by playing with us, […] had taught me not only to speak French but to read it as well.” This was during holidays he spent with his mother in the estate of her brother’s in-laws, and the governess was part of the household. Back at home, his father pursued the task undertaken by Mlle Durand and encouraged his son to read both in Polish and French (Hervouet, 1990, p. 7). Conrad continued to learn the latter language through his adolescence with tutors, especially with Adam Pulman, and in 1874 he was briefly placed in Antoni Syroczyn´ski’s boarding-house for boys (Najder, 2007, p. 43) where conversations were held in French. By the time he left his homeland, he had become proficient as regards all language skills, though no specific information is available concerning this language acquisition. Knowing French, including literature originally created in this language, was an added value which naturally complemented Conrad’s upbringing and education. Hence his knowledge of Polish and French can be perceived as elite bilingualism, the distinction between folk and elite bilingualism being originally made by Fishman (1977), understood as a means of enhancing societal status through the mastery of additional lan-

156

Ewa Kujawska-Lis

guages, and typically involving prestigious ones (Edwards, 2006, p. 26). It allowed him to create his intellectual identity. He employed that language to communicate abroad with non-Polish interlocutors and to express intellectual content when his command of English was insufficient. Throughout his life he wrote letters in French, also to English native-speaker correspondents, for instance, Henry James. Both writers often conversed in French, though they might have easily done so in English. Thus French implied prestige and elitism for Conrad. He felt comfortable among French-speaking people and befriended many Frenchmen, suffice to mention his close friend and biographer Gérard JeanAubry (1882–1950), who, according to Conrad’s wife (Conrad, 1959, p. 243), had a special place in his reclusive life, translator André Gide (1869–1951), and the author of publications about the writer’s life and work, Veléry Larbaud (1881– 1957). Conrad acquired French early enough to achieve fluency, though he did not use Polish and French interchangeably in his childhood on an equal basis and it can be assumed that he created separate conceptual representations for them. He employed these two languages in dissimilar situational contexts and when conversing with different people, including those who represented a different culture, like Mlle Durand. Consequently, his case can be classified as coordinate bilingualism, as understood by Weinreich (1953) who differentiated subordinate, coordinate, and compound bilingualism. Although it is often taken for granted that his French was native-like which would suggest balanced bilingualism (a rather utopian notion), it has been proved otherwise. Having analyzed Conrad’s letters in French, Rapin (1966) indicated a variety of mistakes, both grammatical, idiomatic, and orthographic. As argued by Baines (1960, p. 153), Conrad’s biographer, he “wrote French excellently but as a foreigner; in his letters his expression is idiosyncratic, and, incidentally, sprinkled with anglicisms, but lacks the deeper individuality which can only come from having lived into a language.” However, socially and psychologically, French played an extremely important role in his life. It was the language of socialization. Conrad, who spent his entire adult life outside his home linguistic environment, mediated his private and social lives via foreign languages. Proficiency in French offered him communicative security and self-esteem. But it was also the language in which he formulated most of his general and abstract ideas. Philosophical, political, and moral comments in his correspondence are in French. Hence, as argued by Najder (2007, p. 258), “French for him [Conrad] was a language of social immediacy, and also a language of theoretical discourse.” One of the reasons was that Conrad read philosophical texts mostly in French, another that in terms of syntax, French is more similar to Polish than English (Najder, 2007, p. 258), his third language known proficiently.

The Splendors and Miseries of Multilingualism

1.3.

157

English

Conrad began to acquire English when he embarked on a sailing career in the British navy. English was indispensable to communicate with the crew of the Skimmer of the Sea who “taught [him] many of a seaman’s duties and the very terms of our sea-speech” (Najder, 2007, p. 72). Initially, this involved simple English limited to sailing jargon, inclusive of nautical terminology, yet Conrad’s ambitions and social class background drove him to perfect the language to such a level of proficiency as to rise above the lowest class of sailors. Language is often used to claim a group identity and social status and Conrad was acutely aware that “having a higher rank in society is reflected by a different way of speaking” (Chassy, 2015, p. 49). Unlike in the case of French, the acquisition of English was Conrad’s conscious choice and decision, and the motivation was far more complex. First, he needed it for communicative reasons, next – to become part of the social class he aspired to, then, once he became a British citizen married to an Englishwoman and settled in England – it was his daily communicative necessity, and, finally, it was indispensable as a means to construct his second professional identity – that of the writer. Also the circumstances were radically different. He acquired French in a partly organized setting with a governess and tutors, whereas his acquisition of English was never formalized and systematized. As he recalled in a letter to Abbé Joseph de Smet of 23 January 1911: “My first English reading was the Standard newspaper, and my first acquaintance by the ear with it was in the speech of fishermen, shipwrights and sailors of the East Coast” (Karl & Davies, 1983, Vol. 4, p. 340). Although he learnt quickly, his late bilingualism influenced his command of English with respect to fluency, range and quality of vocabulary, grammatical correctness, and pronunciation. He claimed that he never used a grammar book, neither did he consult dictionaries. He picked up vocabulary from conversations and books, and initially he could not converse with educated speakers of English, and those with whom he did speak were frequently non-natives themselves. Since Conrad’s acquisition of English was very much dependent on the situational context and it occurred in close contact with English culture and speakers, and given the fact that he had already known French, it may be claimed that he represented a case of coordinate trilingualism.

158

Ewa Kujawska-Lis

2.

Outcomes of Conrad’s multilingualism

2.1.

Pronunciation

Privately, multilingualism was often a source of misery for Conrad. The most evident outcome of learning English much later than in his early childhood was his very strong foreign accent. Although he passed his exam for second mate only two years after his first contact with English, in 1880, meeting the condition that “foreigners must prove to the satisfaction of the Examiners that they can speak and write the English language sufficiently well to perform the duties required of them on board of a British vessel” (Najder, 2007, p. 82), Conrad never felt comfortable speaking this language. When in 1895 Edward Garnett heard the writer read aloud a few pages of his second novel, An Outcast of the Islands, he was shocked: “he mispronounced so many words that I followed him with difficulty. I found then that he had never once heard these English words spoken, but had learned them all from books!” (Najder, 2007, p. 201). Simultaneously, he was much irritated with the pronunciation of native speakers, which implies his difficulties with understanding the spoken language. When he asked his future wife to read the same manuscript to him, he burst out: “Please speak clearly! … Don’t eat up words. You the English are all alike, you pronounce the same sound for all letters” (Conrad, 1959, p. 11; own translation). Conrad found it difficult to comprehend words with unstressed syllables, the process unknown in Polish. Reminiscences of people who knew the writer intimately, or only in passing, abound in accounts of his unusual pronunciation that not only surprised them but also occasionally led to misunderstandings. Conrad’s problems with spoken language are succinctly summarized by H. G. Wells: He spoke English strangely. Not badly altogether; he would supplement his vocabulary – especially if he were [sic] discussing cultural or political matters – with French words; but with certain oddities. He had learnt to read English long before he spoke it and had formed wrong sound impressions of many familiar words. He had for example acquired an incurable tendency to pronounce the last e in these and those. He would say: “Wat shall we do with thesa things?” And he was always incalculable about the use of “shall” and “will.” When he talked about seafaring his terminology was excellent but when he turned to less familiar topics he was often at a loss for phrases (Wells, 1934, p. 525).

In consecutive years, Conrad, despite being immersed in the English culture and language, was unable to change his accent. In 1901, Ernest Dawson noticed the discrepancy between Conrad’s written and spoken English: “Those of his readers who heard him speak were continually surprised because he could not utter two words in English without betraying that it was not his mother tongue. And there were certain words which he, so to speak, declined to learn” (Najder, 2007, p. 318).

The Splendors and Miseries of Multilingualism

159

Conrad felt very insecure about his English pronunciation. In the already quoted letter to de Smet, he wrote self-critically: “But ‘mastered’ is not the right word; I should have said ‘acquired’. I’ve never opened an English grammar in my life. My pronunciation is rather defective to this day. Having unluckily no ear, my accentuation is uncertain, especially when in the course of a conversation I become self-conscious” (Karl & Davies, 1983, Vol. 4, p. 340). This self-consciousness was one of the miseries of his multilingualism. As biographers note, Conrad was often silent when in company and generally quite reclusive, preferring one-to-one conversations to large gatherings. This most likely resulted from his awareness of his linguistic imperfections. Although, when mythologizing his own life, he tried to joke about this, in everyday life he was not prepared for criticism. In his essay “Poland Revisited” written in 1915, he recalls with a pinch of humor his first visit to the office of sailing agent James Sutherland: “I produced elaborately a series of vocal sounds which must have borne sufficient resemblance to the phonetics of English speech, for his face broke into a smile of comprehension almost at once” (Conrad, 1949b, p. 153). In reality he was much more stressed about not being understood. Almost all his life he declined any invitations to give public speeches, fearing the audience’s reaction. He consented to his first public speech only a few years before he died, in 1919. In 1922, he confessed his reasons for those years of refusals: “I am not very anxious to display my accent before a large gathering of people. It might affect them disagreeably” (letter to Elbridge L. Adams of 20 November 1922; Najder, 2007, p. 474). Inability to acquire native-like pronunciation may have contributed to his sense of alienation, isolation, and even his bouts of melancholy since he behaved completely differently when speaking French: He was charming, eloquent and had a good sense of humor. Conrad’s use of English was definitely active and productive, yet by no means could we classify him as an ambilingual, described by Beardsmore (1986) as a person who can function equally well in either known language in all contexts with no traces of language A while using language B.

2.2.

Creative achievements and difficulties

Due to complex economic, social, and personal motivations, Conrad chose English to construct his identity as a writer. As Kilpert (2003, p. 165) indicates, “to use language is to put a construction on experience” and when he decided to begin writing for the past twenty years his experiences had been expressed mostly in English. But, in employing English creatively, he was in fact constructing experience rather than passively reflecting it. Conrad’s writing identity was linked with agency since he could actively use the resources of his various capitals (linguistic and cultural) and bring new linguistic entities into being. The choice of

160

Ewa Kujawska-Lis

writing in English opened up new possibilities for him. Though extremely difficult, writing in English liberated him in the sense of allowing him to express himself, but it was also a source of social benefits as being part of the artistic community in the country of his choice. Thus, the splendor of multilingualism found its expression in his fiction. He became one of the greatest writers in English, though critics voiced extreme and contradictory opinions. The highest praise was communicated by John Galsworthy, who noticed unusual potential in Conrad’s literary idiolect, rightly locating its roots in the writer’s complex linguistic background: “this writer, by the native wealth of his imagery, by a more daring and a subtler use of words, brings something new to the fund of English letters. The faults of style are obvious, the merit is the merit of unconscious, and unforced, and, in a sense, of accidental novelty. The style is inseparable from that which it expresses” (Galsworthy, 1973, p. 206). Though Galsworthy does not say it explicitly, Conrad’s novelty was correlative to his multilingualism. On the one hand, he very precisely selected English words to express as accurately as he could the intended meaning; on the other hand, he frequently transferred ready linguistic solutions from Polish and French, the languages he knew proficiently, thus creating fresh and innovative structures in the language in which he created. Functioning in a non-native linguistic environment since early adulthood, however, did not translate directly into ease of creation. Quite the contrary, creating in his third language was for Conrad a source of constant stress, though he frequently claimed that English was the only language he could write literature in. In his confessions, the notion of creative difficulty surfaces repeatedly: “All I can claim after all those years of devoted practice, with the accumulated anguish of its doubts, imperfections and falterings in my heart, is the right to be believed when I say that if I had not written in English I would have not written at all” (Conrad, 1950, p. vi). Writing in English had a very heavy psychological toll on him and, in fact, was a source of “many perplexities, difficulties, even despair” (Najder, 2007, p. 136). Self-mythologizing his life and art, he claimed in the Author’s Note of 1919 to A Personal Record: “The truth of the matter is that my faculty to write in English is as natural as any other aptitude with which I might have been born” (Conrad, 1950, p. v). This was but a mask covering reality. Privately he would admit: “I have been quarrying my English out of a black night, working like a coal miner in his pit. For fourteen years now I have been living as if in a cave without echoes” (letter to Edward Garnett, 28 August 1908; Karl & Davies, 1983, Vol. 4, p. 114), indicating his self-consciousness and struggling in his creative process. At the beginning of his career, he wrote to his publisher: “And if you knew the wear and tear of my writing you would understand my desire for some return. I writhe in doubt over every line. – I ask myself – is it right? Is it true? – do I feel so? – do I express all my feelings? And I ask it at every sentence – I perspire in incertitude over every word!” (letter to T. Fisher Unwin,

The Splendors and Miseries of Multilingualism

161

22 July 1896; Karl & Davies, 1983, Vol. 1, p. 293). In 1898, Conrad disclosed: “The more I write the less sure I am of my English” (letter to W. Hugh Chesson, 16 January 1898; Najder, 2007, p. 240). He was acutely aware of his mistakes which often frustrated him. In 1898, he confessed to Charles Lewis Hind: “Ah, if only I could write zee [sic] English, good, well! But you see, you will see!” (Najder, 2007, p. 240). Clearly, his written English was not that of the native speaker and this awareness often hindered his creativity; nevertheless, the urge to express himself through writing was stronger than self-limiting corrective processes. Nevertheless, problems associated with linguistic interference seem to have bothered Conrad to a lesser degree than something less tangible – the style which actually haunted him. Writing was frequently an emotional and almost physical torture for him: […] I hate the thing with such great hatred that I don’t want to look at it again […]. I sit down religiously every morning. I sit down for eight hours every day – and the sitting down is all. In the course of that working day of 8 hours I write 3 sentences which I erase before leaving the table in despair. […] I seem to have lost all sense of style and yet I am haunted, mercilessly haunted by the necessity of style (letters to Edward Garnett, 21 and 29 March 1898, after Najder, 2007, pp. 262–263).

Searching for just the right word, expression, idiom, accompanied his creative work constantly. He could spend the entire day discussing whether it is better to use blue or azure and calm or serene in the opening sentence of Youth (Cross, 1930, p. 21). By a specific selection and juxtaposition of lexical items he wished to attribute words with new dimensions, and doing so in a foreign language was both an emotional and intellectual effort coexisting with the sense of lack of adequate linguistic competence and uncertainty as to the quality of his art. Idiosyncrasy of Conrad’s English continues to be puzzling for readers and critics alike. One of the early reviewers of his works asserted: “In more ways than one Mr. Conrad is something of a law unto himself, and creates his own forms, as he certainly has created his own methods” (anon. review of Youth and Other Stories, Athenaeum, 20 December 1902; Sherry, 1973, p. 137). What was noticed as soon as Conrad started publishing is now echoed in critical assessments: “Conrad’s intentions, conscious as well as unconscious, were necessarily and deeply conditioned by his grasp of the language, a grasp that was of a different order than that of a native speaker, or even a polyglot who has learned a second or third language. Conrad is in fact best considered a master not of English but of what might be called ‘language itself ’” (Harpham, 1996, p. 152). Such comments suggest something elusive in his writing, something that is much more than the result of his multilingualism as seen from various perspectives: As concerns the Polish-English pair, he definitely represented late sequential, submersion, ascendant, productive bilingualism and, since there is not much evidence for the

162

Ewa Kujawska-Lis

influence of English on his Polish, with unidirectional interference, the distinction between unidirectional and bidirectional interference having been made by Paradis (2004, p. 188). In terms of Polish-French, interference was bidirectional. These labels, however, do not indicate what can be sensed in the reviews – the very personal, idiosyncratic, and creative employment of language.

2.3.

Cross-linguistic influences in Conrad’s writing

That Conrad’s English was marked by cross-linguistic influences both from Polish and French in terms of syntax and vocabulary was evident since his early writing and this continued to be the case throughout his career. His first letter written in English to Spiridon Kliszewski, dated 27 September 1885, seems to be a direct translation from Polish: “Dear Sir, According to your kindly expressed wish and my promise I hasten to acquaint you with my safe arrival here” (Karl & Davies, 1983, Vol. 1, p. 11) [Szanowny Panie, zgodnie z wyraz˙onym przez Pana uprzejmym z˙yczeniem i moja˛ obietnica˛, spiesze˛ powiadomic´ o moim bezpiecznym przybyciu; own re-translation]. In his early letters, he often employed the phrase according to in its Polish meaning zgodnie z. The Polish phrase can be translated into English both as according to and in compliance with, depending on the context. Conrad initially seems to have been using according to when he meant in compliance with, which would be the case of semantic extension of the former phrase. For example, “according to all probabilities we will leave here about New Year’s Day” (Karl & Davies, 1983, Vol. 1, p. 13), “according to what you know of me” (Karl & Davies, 1983, Vol. 1, p. 69). Only in time would he comply with the more common usage: “therefore I do not exist (according to Descartes)” (Karl & Davies, 1983, Vol. 1, p. 98). He made mistakes typical of learners in whose languages specific grammatical categories do not exist, such as definite and indefinite articles that are absent in Polish. As Coleman (1931, p. 465) asserts, “Conrad never mastered the English articles” and he would often place an article when it was not necessary; however, when the article was actually needed, he would omit it. In the sentence: “the light of remote sun coming victorious from amongst the dissolving blackness of the clouds” (Conrad, 1949a, p. 286; Lucas, 2000, p. 10), the noun sun requires an article, for instance, the light of the remote sun / the light of a remote sun, whereas depending on the article, the meaning changes (specific sun / unspecified sun). Such cases are interesting for the linguistic purist, but do not significantly impact the meaning of the texts. He also incorrectly used expletives there and it (Coleman, 1931, p. 466), which is hardly surprising as both occupy the same position in the sentence and, importantly from a bilingual perspective, they are used when the implied subject appears in analogous sentences in Polish. Thus the omission of the initial there by Poles is

The Splendors and Miseries of Multilingualism

163

quite a prototypical error. He would write: “Then came a complete silence” (Conrad, 1947, p. 28), that would be correct in Polish: [Naste˛pnie] nastała kompletna cisza, instead of Then there came complete silence. Some critics find such mistakes irritating for English readers (Mégroz, 1964, p. 156), though obviously they neither affect the interpretation nor artistic quality of his works. Conrad also had problems with English tenses, in particular with the Simple Past and Present and Past Perfect in sequences. This clearly resulted from the absence of the Present Perfect tense in Polish, and the equivalent of Past Perfect being outdated. A typical example would be the following sentence: “Men that had felt in their breasts the awful exultation such a look awakens become mere things of to-day – which is paradise” (Conrad, 1947, p. 172). As observed by Watt (2000, p. 47), the sequence of tenses demands that it be either have for had at the beginning or became for become at the end, while the sentence as a whole requires the present – men who feel. For the English critic, it appears that the sentence represents a general idea, hence the suggestion for the Simple Present tense. Yet, it seems that Conrad was trying to represent the notion of having experienced something, consequently the sequence opening with the Present Perfect would fit his idea, since the sentence continues: “forget yesterday – which was suffering; care not for to-morrow – which may be perdition” (Conrad, 1947, p. 172), implying past experience, yet still lasting. The fact that he used the past form was suffering may have influenced his choice of the initial Past Perfect tense. Sometimes a problematic tense sequence might be confusing for readers and, especially, translators who need to interpret the text correctly to reconstruct it in different languages. This can be illustrated by the following sentence: “All the time the Northman was speaking the commanding officer had been aware of an inward voice” (Conrad, 1955b, p. 73) where two simultaneous activities are described: speaking and listening associated with the growing awareness of one’s thoughts. Yet the choice of Past Perfect indicates that the commanding officer’s awareness of his own suspicions was or at least began prior to the Northman’s speech. This is contextually plausible since the commanding officer actually came to talk to the Northman because he was suspicious. Yet the selection of all the time and Past Continuous, stressing activities happening at the same time, should be followed by the verb form was. In another instance, Past Perfect is also scarcely necessary: “Taking advantage of these moments, the ship had been moved cautiously nearer the shore. It was useless to remain out in such thick weather” (Conrad, 1955b, p. 68). The Past Perfect had been moved suggests a much earlier action, whereas the narrative offers a retelling of actions happening one after another without a significant diachronic distance: “Slowly, with infinite caution and patience, they crept closer and closer” (Conrad, 1955b, p. 68). It appears that Conrad overuses the Past Perfect tense.

164

Ewa Kujawska-Lis

The most frequent outcome of his multilingualism, however, and also the most easily noticed by critics and readers was the position of adjectives and adverbs, often attributed to French syntax. This can be classified as static interference, understood as a systematic use of deviant grammatical elements from another language when processing the target language (Paradis, 2004, p. 187) – in this case English. For instance, Conrad would typically write: “He pronounced a professional remark in a voice harsh and dead” (Conrad, 1948a, p. 21) and “It spoke in a voice harsh and lugubrious but intrepid” (Conrad, 1948a, p. 38). In both cases the placement of adjectives is perfectly in accordance with Polish syntax and stylistics (powiedział głosem ostrym i martwym) where the position of adjectives is flexible and depends on the effect to be achieved, thus in many such cases it is actually difficult to pinpoint whether the transfer was from Polish or French. One can argue that the syntactic similarity between his mother tongue and second language found its expression in his third language, resulting in the deviant grammatical effect. In terms of style, early readers and critics perceived Conrad’s English as odd, to say the least. On the one hand, critics saw it as “suffer[ing] from exuberance, so that at times one feels all but stifled by its convolutions” (anon. review of Almayer’s Folly, Athenaeum, 25 May 1895; Sherry, 1973, p. 52). Syntactic structures that English readers found problematic resulted directly from the word order modelled on Polish and/or French, which feels unnatural in English, as well as his preference for long sentences. On the other hand, critics admired “the freshness and loveliness of […] expression” (anon. review of Almayer’s Folly, Guardian, 3 July 1895; Sherry, 1973, p. 57), which was yet another outcome of his multilingualism since he often modified fixed phrases and calqued, i. e., loan translated, Polish and French expressions, and sometimes introduced foreign words unknowingly. The writer’s predilection for untypical vocabulary was commented upon: “Mr Conrad […] betrays an occasional fondness for the use of most unusual words. […] ‘French nails polished and slim. They lay in a solid mass more inabordable than a hedgehog’” (anon. review of The Nigger of the “Narcissus,” Glasgow Herald, 9 December 1897; Sherry, 1973, p. 89). The critic overlooks interference from French, since the highlighted word is taken over from French in which it means “unapproachable,” “inaccessible” and with this meaning the comparison makes perfect sense. It seems that Conrad was unaware that this word did not exist in English. Some expressions were perceived as irritating and artificial in English, but in many cases calques, especially from Polish, were seen as particularly inventive since English readers could not trace Gallicism in them. Given Conrad’s diverse linguistic and cultural capitals, both Polish and French literary heritage found its way into his prose. Echoes of prime examples of Polish Romantic texts by: Adam Mickiewicz, Juliusz Słowacki, Cyprian Kamil Norwid,

The Splendors and Miseries of Multilingualism

165

Aleksander Fredro as well as influences of Polish Positivist writers: Bolesław Prus, Henryk Sienkiewicz, and Stefan Z˙eromski are ample. These, however, mostly concern thematic aspects rather than phrasing. However, as Hervouet (1990, p. 215) argues: “No doubt the Polish background in particular is a valuable, an indispensable key to explain the isolated, mysterious character of Conrad’s fiction; but a master-key it is not.” Meticulous comparative analyses of Conrad’s and French authors’ writings provide evidence that the Polish author borrowed freely from Flaubert, Maupassant, and France, not only thematically, but also linguistically. It is difficult (if not impossible) to assess to what extent thematic borrowings and linguistic influences from French writers were conscious, and to what extent they were correlative to Conrad’s immersion into French culture, language, and literature long before he started to write in English. It is quite likely that some expressions, manner of writing, and motifs became preserved in his cognitive base and he reached for them especially at the beginning of his career when writing in English was still a great effort for him and the already established French patterns and expressions could be easily retrieved. Conrad freely switched between Polish and French as well as French and English. Many of his letters were bilingual – half in English, half in French. There is ample evidence that he employed French (both spoken and written) at a time when the role of the first language had been taken over by English. It is quite possible that in the moments of most intense creative strain, these languages overlapped. Critics are divided in their opinions concerning French influences. Kirschner (1968, p. 204) firmly believes that Conrad was fully aware that he imitated French models, and even translated some fragments. Considering how difficult it was for Conrad to write his fiction and how deeply involved he was in searching for the best means of expression, treating intertextual traces as conscious borrowings of ready solutions seems to be an oversimplification of a complex creative process. Watt (1981, p. 50) observes that “there are certainly good grounds for the charge of verbal plagiarism in half a dozen brief passages.” Yet, as if trying to exonerate Conrad, he further argues that the majority of such cases are not essential for a given text and “look like unconscious residues of Conrad’s remarkable but erratic memory, he probably forgot that he was remembering” (Watt, 1981, p. 50). Hervouet (1990, p. 220), though admitting that “a few unobtrusive phrases and images” might have slipped “unnoticed into his writing as a result of some quirk of subconscious memory,” forcibly stresses that “borrowings are so obvious, numerous, and varied that it is abundantly clear that […] Conrad was highly conscious of these original texts.” In other words, they indicate “a deliberate mode of composition” (Hervouet, 1990, p. 220). Yet, traces of Conrad’s French readings are not employed to create intentional intertextual relationships between the texts and this may indicate that the writer was not fully aware of the

166

Ewa Kujawska-Lis

manner in which he drew on French literary heritage. It is likely that these were remnants of his multilingualism and it appears that critics are too harsh to condemn the writer for deliberately reaching for expressions from a specific language, whereas Conradian interferences are not always readily classifiable to one language only. Often it is impossible to determine the source of linguistic transfer. Critics who know French tend to attribute the majority of interferences to that language, whereas they might easily be classified as Polish. For instance, “the lecture of the letters” in Nostromo is perceived as a glaring Gallicism (Hervouet, 1990, p. 220). From a Polish perspective, this is an evident calque of lektura listów (“reading of letters”), with lecture being a false friend of lektura. Similarly, the adjective clear – “clear dress” (Conrad, 1955a, p. 35) – can be the calque of the Polish adjective jasny (“light,” “bright,” “clear”) or French clair (“light,” “bright,” “clear”). The phrase “on the first plan” (Conrad, 1948b, p. 30) may be either the calque from Polish na pierwszym planie or French au premier plan. Irrespective of the source, such expressions sound unusual for English readers accustomed to the idiomatic reading of letters, light dress or bright dress (depending on the context), and in the foreground, respectively. Yet, it would be hardly justifiable to argue that Conrad employed such expressions fully consciously to parallel French or Polish models; rather, these are quite standard interferences, exemplifying collocations and fixed phrases translated word-forword into English. Nevertheless, if the aforementioned phrases, when qualified as Gallicism, might be potentially recognizable for English readers due to lexical similarities, Polish idioms and proverbs transferred to English are most striking and can be perceived as novel forms of expression from native-speakers’ perspective. Again, given the scope of various interferences in Conrad’s English, be it phonetic, grammatical or lexical, it is difficult to state whether these were unconscious cross-linguistic influences or conscious decisions to enrich the expressiveness of the language, though in many instances the latter seems to be the case. This can be exemplified by the Polish proverb miec´ mleko pod nosem (“to have milk under one’s nose”), indicating someone’s youth, immaturity, and irresponsibility, used in its modified form to stress the character’s youthful age. Referring to lieutenant D’Hubert’s irresponsible behavior, the colonel says: “There’s some milk yet about that moustache of yours, my boy” (Conrad, 1954a, p. 197). For English readers this appears to be a novel metaphor created for the sake of the text, illustrating youth by a reference to milk left over the moustache, while for Polish readers this is a conventionalized, if modified, phrase. Conrad may have borrowed the idea of the association between drinking milk and youth, and adapted it to fit the context of a young officer sporting moustache. The modification may actually indicate quite a deliberate mode of utilizing the fixed phrase. Interestingly, “the few Polonisms which can be traced in Conrad’s works occur in the

The Splendors and Miseries of Multilingualism

167

speech of his ‘Polish’ characters, who may be either Poles or Russians, or South Americans, or Spaniards” (Morf, 1965, p. 215) and this also would imply conscious decisions to present foreign characters sounding foreign by endowing them with non-idiomatic English phrases which might be considered so in other languages. Some expressions taken over from Polish – an attempt to classify Conrad’s Polonisms was undertaken, among others, by Irmina Pulc (1974), examples taken after her, with my analysis – sound particularly odd, but in such cases Conrad often qualifies them to mark their oddity or, again, refers such phrasings to, perhaps, non-Englishmen. This is the case of the calque of the phrase w sile wieku as in the force of his age, employed instead of the English fixed phrase in the prime of life. It appears twice in the collection Tales of Hearsay. First, in “The Tale”: “He was a robust Northman, bearded, and in the force of his age” (Conrad, 1955b, p. 72). Not much is known about the Northman. He has no name, hence his nationality is undefinable. Then the phrase appears in another story “The Black Mate,” and here it is qualified. Conrad draws attention to the phrase itself: “Of course, he was not in his first youth; but if the expression ‘in the force of his age’ has any meaning, he realized it completely” (Conrad, 1955b, p. 87). In the first youth is also calqued from Polish pierwsza młodos´c´ since the English phrase is normally early youth, though the meaning is slightly different. Conrad, attempting to stress the character’s age, reaches for Polish expressions to avoid repetition: nie był pierwszej młodos´ci as he was past his prime and w sile wieku as in the prime of life. It can actually be claimed that the entire sentence reflects the Polish manner of thinking. Irrespective of the motivation, the achieved effect is important to the reader. Inverted commas added to the unusual phrase signal its oddity and create an impression that this is one of Conrad’s novel metaphors. That the writer was in this case modifying rather consciously Polish expressions can be evidenced by the fact that he knew the English fixed phrase. In the same story it appears on four occasions: “Only young men and men in their prime were equal to modern conditions of push and hurry,” “Why, the man’s in the prime of life,” “That man’s in the prime of life,” “strangely stately in his gait for a man in the prime of life” (Conrad, 1955b, p. 88, p. 106, p. 113, p. 116). Thus, he selected the Polish phrase as being more expressive, indicating his creative manipulation of languages he knew. Conrad’s English is indeed very creative, his metaphors particularly striking, when he decides to substitute certain elements in typical collocations to achieve a better aesthetic effect or to form an internally consistent image as he was particularly intent on creating sensory impressions. For instance, in the description of gas lamp light, he uses the noun tongue which normally does not collocate with light: “The small flame had watched me letting myself out; and now, exactly of the same size, the poor little tongue of light (there was something wrong with that

168

Ewa Kujawska-Lis

burner) watched me letting myself in” (Conrad, 1954b, p. 230). Both in Polish and English there is a phrase je˛zyk ognia / a tongue of flame, which Conrad extends to describe the light coming from fire inside the lamp, thus remaining in the same semantic field, yet creating a novel collocation – actually it is novel in both languages. The substituted element draws attention to fire thus zooming on the visual detail. He also fashioned original metaphors based on Polish idioms. For instance, he creatively reworked byc´ na je˛zykach (“to be on the tongues”), referring to being gossiped about: “The faithful austerity of the sea protected him from the rumors that fly on the tongues of men” (Conrad, 1954b, p. 351). This metaphor is perfectly understandable since, again, it is based on the visual image, and, at the same time, very unusual. Similarly, he turned conventionalized Polish comparisons into untypical ones in English. This can be exemplified with yet another phrase utilizing the visual impression: “drops of perspiration as big as peas” (Conrad, 1955a, p. 447), in which the Polish phrase łzy wielkie jak groch (“tears as big as peas”) is adopted and adapted to describe perspiration. In English, pea appears in the idiom referring to likeness like (two) peas in a pod, so readers may be surprised by the comparison, yet it is comprehensible and – most importantly – creates a very specific, if exaggerated, impression and impressions were vital in Conrad’s art.

3.

Conclusions

Multilingualism equipped Conrad with a unique feel for language and his metalinguistic awareness is evident in those cases when he activated both the literal and metaphorical meaning of English fixed phrases and idioms. This is the sphere in which his art becomes a splendor for him rather than a misery associated with writing in a language which was not his mother tongue. When Jim tells Marlow his story, he asks rhetorically: “Weren’t we all in the same boat?” (Conrad, 1948a, p. 125), referring idiomatically to being in the same difficult situation, yet he utters this sentence recalling the moment when he actually was in the boat with the other members of the crew who escaped from the Patna. Such examples are far from incidental cases. Conrad, despite occasional mistakes, very consciously shapes the semantic layer of his works through language which he treats flexibly, linking words which normally would not be linked, but by so doing drawing readers’ attention and uncovering additional levels of meaning. Marlow says about Jim “He had heroic health” (Conrad, 1948a, p. 244), which sounds odd, but it appears in the novel devoted to heroism and cowardice and with reference to the character who had always wanted to be a hero, and finally proved to be one, thus the description functions as a foreshadowing and fulfilment of heroic

The Splendors and Miseries of Multilingualism

169

dreams. Nothing in Conrad’s fiction is a matter of chance then, despite his occasional linguistic imperfections. His artistic endeavors were marked by mental stress and cross-linguistic influences from Polish and French, both negative ones represented by interferences leading to errors, and positive, primarily involving the creative employment of the English language in which the modified forms were often inspired by other languages he knew. Operating quite freely in three linguistic systems liberated him and it seems that his multilingualism was a vehicle for linguistic flexibility. The three languages he knew best were important in his life: “Polish remained the language of Conrad’s childhood memories and of unconscious instinct […]; French remained his ideal language for literary and intellectual analysis, cosmopolitan politeness and rhetorical elegance; but English became the necessary language of Conrad’s mature self” (Watt, 1981, p. 22). Yet, in Conrad’s case such a separation is far too simplistic, as in his fiction all these languages blended to some extent, resulting in an English that was idiosyncratically Conradian.

References Sources Conrad, J. (1947). Almayer’s Folly. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. Conrad, J. (1948a). Lord Jim. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. Conrad, J. (1948b). The Rover. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. Conrad, J. (1949a). An Outcast of the Islands. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. Conrad, J. (1949b). Notes on Life and Letters. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. Conrad, J. (1950). The Mirror of the Sea: Memories and Impressions; A Personal Record: Some Reminiscences. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. Conrad, J. (1954a). A Set of Six. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. Conrad, J. (1954b). The Arrow of Gold. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. Conrad, J. (1955a). Nostromo. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd. Conrad, J. (1955b). Tales of Hearsay and Last Essays. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd.

Secondary literature Baines, J. (1960). Joseph Conrad. A Critical Biography. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Beardsmore, B. (1986). Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Bradbrook, M. C. (1965). Joseph Conrad – Józef Teodor Nałe˛cz Korzeniowski. Poland’s English Genius. New York, NY: Russel and Russel. Chassy, P. (2015). How language shapes social perception. In D. Evans (Ed.), Language and Identity. Discourse in the World (pp. 36–54). London, New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

170

Ewa Kujawska-Lis

Coleman, A.P. (1931). Polonisms in Conrad’s Chance. Modern Language Notes, 46.7, 463– 468. Conrad, J. (1959). Józef Conrad, transl. Wanda Nałe˛cz-Korzeniowska. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie. Cross, W. L. (1930). Four Contemporary Novelists. New York, NY: Macmillan. Edwards, J. (2006). Foundations of bilingualism. In T. K. Bathia, & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 7–31). Oxford: Blackwell. Fishman, J. A. (1977). The social science perspective. In Bilingual Education: Current Perspectives. Social Science (pp. 1–49). Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics. Franceschini, R. (2009). The genesis and development of research in multilingualism: Perspectives for future research. In L. Aronin, & B. Hufeisen (Eds.), The Exploration of Multilingualism (pp. 27–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Galsworthy, J. (1973). Fortnightly Review, 1 IV 1908. In N. Sherry (Ed.), Conrad. The Critical Heritage (p. 206). London, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Harpham, G. G. (1996). One of Us. The Mastery of Joseph Conrad. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press. Hervouet, Y. (1990). The French Face of Joseph Conrad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karl, F., & Davies, L. (Eds.). (1983). The Collected Letters of Joseph Conrad (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Karl, F., & Davies, L. (Eds.). (1983). The Collected Letters of Joseph Conrad (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kilpert, D. (2003). Getting the full picture: A reflection on the work of M.A.K. Halliday. Language Sciences, 25.2, 159–209. Kirschner, P. (1968). Conrad: The Psychologist as Artist. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. Lucas, M. A. (2000). Aspects of Conrad’s Literary Language. Boulder, Lublin, New York, NY: Social Science Monographs, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University, Columbia University Press. Maher, J. C. (2017). Multilingualism. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Mégroz, R. L. (1964). Joseph Conrad’s Mind and Method. New York, NY: Russell & Russell. Morf, G. (1965). The Polish Heritage of Joseph Conrad. New York, NY: Haskell House. Najder, Z. (2007). Joseph Conrad: A Life. Rochester, NY: Camden House. Paradis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. Pulc, I. P. (1974). The Imprint of Polish on Conrad’s Prose. In W. T. Zyla, & W. M. Aycock (Eds.), Joseph Conrad, Theory and World Fiction (pp. 117–139). Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. Rapin, R. (1966). Le Français de Joseph Conrad. In Lettres de Joseph Conrad à Marguerite Poradowska. Genève: Droz. Retinger, J. H. (1941). Conrad and his Contemporaries. London: Minerva. Sherry, N. (Ed.). (1973). Conrad. The Critical Heritage. London, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Watt, I. (1981). Conrad in the Nineteenth Century. London: Chatto & Windus. Watt, I. (2000). Essays on Conrad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.

The Splendors and Miseries of Multilingualism

171

Wells, H. G. (1934). Experiment in Autobiography; Discoveries and Conclusions of a Very Ordinary Brain (since 1866). New York, NY: Macmillan.

Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak / Grzegorz Wlaz´lak

Chapter 9 – Effects of Receptive Multilingualism on the Knowledge of Legal Vocabulary: An Analysis of the Multilingual Competence of a Selected Group of Polish Lawyers

Abstract This chapter concentrates on the phenomenon of multilingualism, receptive multilingualism in particular, among legal circles; an assumption exists that professional lawyers should be able to recognize a core of high frequency legal words and phrases because these are internationally common in the legal register, which might be the effect of their latent receptive multilingualism. We examine the value of this assumption by using a language test to study the ability to recognize selected lexemes and phrases from a range of legal texts in four languages. The findings suggest that the lexical items included in the test often occur and are used in different ways across different languages in terms of range, frequency, collocation, and meaning. This result suggests that the legalese might not be as internationally consistent as intended and, more importantly, questions the widely held assumption that lawyers need a single core vocabulary for their professional activity. We argue that the different practices and discourses of disciplinary communities undermine the usefulness of such lexicon and claim that lawyers need a more restricted, disciplinebased lexical repertoire that is determined by local cultural and national factors. In other words, this professional group represents a set of multilingual receptive skills. Keywords: receptive multilingualism, legal English, lawyers’ multilingual competence

1.

Introductory remarks on multilingualism

The phenomenon of multilingualism can be studied at the societal and at the individual level, the latter being of particular concern to the present chapter. Multilingualism has long been researched within the scope of the sociolinguistic study (Appel & Muysken, p. 2005). Following the elitist theory in sociolinguistics, a considerable group of educated individuals represents a degree of bilingualism, as far as the classical languages are concerned, though this cannot be regarded as Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak, independent scholar (Poland), ORCID: 0000-0001-5288-6016, [email protected]. Grzegorz Wlaz´lak, Silesian University of Technology (Poland), ORCID: 0000-0003-4371-9245, [email protected].

174

Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak / Grzegorz Wlaz´lak

a type of linguistic multilingualism (Crystal, 2006, p. 409). Individual multilingualism, sometimes called “plurilingualism,” entails the sphere of acquiring and using several languages by an individual, the ability to master various languages, the attitudes of users to their mother tongue and the foreign languages they have learned, and the benefits they derive from using them in their professional and everyday lives (Aronin, 2019, p. 2). Li and Moyen (2008, p. 4) define a multilingual individual as “anyone who can communicate in more than one language, be it active (through speaking and writing) or passive (through listening and reading).” However, following Zeevaert and ten Thije (2007), we adopt a broader view of individual multilingualism: (1) multilingualism is a social phenomenon deeply embedded in European language history; (2) multilingual understanding does not necessarily require near-native language competency; (3) English as lingua franca is not the one and only solution for interlingual communication in Europe (Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007, p. 2).

Historically, the development of receptive multilingualism in modern Europe has merely been one aspect of a complex diglossic, or multilingual situation. Yet it ought to be explicitly defined as a set of multilingual receptive skills within a larger domain of functional multilingualism, signifying the choice of a particular language in a given situation, determined by the overall context, i. e., the function, the message, and the audience. With reference to the modern language community that uses two or more languages alternately in various situations, we may use the term multilingualism. In such cases it is often presumed that three or more languages are in question. Nevertheless, in the context of vocabulary and lexification process, it is safer to use the term “bilingualism,” as there are rarely observable lexical processes that operate under the influence of three or more languages at the same time (Booij, 2007, p. 268). Here, a more important factor is the level of new lexical item aggregation in one language under the pressure of another (dominant, more prestigious, the need of naming, etc.), and the ways users analyze borrowings and novel formations created by means of analogy. In the present chapter, the authors will attempt to evaluate the level of receptive multilingualism of a group of professional lawyers. To function in the modern global economy and politics, the need to broaden the skill of interpreting legal texts in various linguistic contexts is mandatory for every professional, not only a lawyer. These considerations will be confronted with the impact of this phenomenon on the users’ language, their lexicon, and morphological competence in the legal register.

Effects of Receptive Multilingualism on the Knowledge of Legal Vocabulary

2.

175

Defining receptive multilingualism

Receptive multilingualism refers to a situation in which language users draw on their respective language system in communication with one another. In other words, it is a language mode where speakers employ receptive knowledge of one another’s languages during interaction, using their respective preferred languages within the same conversation (Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007, p. 2). The concept of receptive multilingualism assumes a more than minimal linguistic knowledge, which is neither a simple pidgin nor an incomplete language system. Instead, it refers to the receptive competencies in more than one target language, and at the same time involves a set of specific foreign language strategies on the part of the language user. A distinct improvement in communication, though, can be reached by using strategies that go beyond the utilization of context or universal linguistic similarities, and by taking advantage of the existing correspondences between the languages involved. As Hufeisen and Marx (2007) point out, the term “foreign languages,” viewed from the perspective of receptive multilingualism, has to be considered as a misnomer, since no language can really be regarded as foreign. Nevertheless, users occasionally have difficulties recognizing similarities between languages automatically. For the Romance languages, a method of inference with the help of so-called “bridge languages” has been developed. Klein and Stegmann proposed an elaborate method allowing to search for lexical, morphological, and syntactic correspondences in related languages, in order to recognize the similarities between them (Klein & Stegmann, 2000; McCann, Klein, & Stegmann, 2003). The Romance languages provide a particularly good ground for this procedure, as they are much more closely related to each other than, for instance, the languages of the Germanic group (Gooskens et al., 2018, p. 169–172). It has been commonly assumed that the mastery of English as a lingua franca is the most reasonable means of international communication; however, complete mutual intelligibility between the different English language varieties cannot be taken for granted (Zeevaert & ten Thije, 2007, p. 6). Zeevaert (2007, p. 105) explains the concept of “receptive multilingualism” using terms such as “polyglot dialogue,” “inter-comprehension,” or “semi-communication.” Receptive multilingualism, the author remarks, is a reasonable form of communication between users of unrelated or only remotely related languages, under the condition that all speakers involved are familiar with these languages. This may refer to such language families as Hellenic with its classical Greek ancestry, and Italic with its forefather, classical Latin. When it comes to these specific groups of languages, modern speakers usually have only a passive competence at their disposal (either because only a passive competence was acquired or because of a lack of language practice), though interlocutors may prefer to use their own mother tongue de-

176

Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak / Grzegorz Wlaz´lak

spite available active competences (either because they are able to convey meanings better in their first language or because they want to indicate their linguistic identity in a multilingual environment). On the other hand, the mutual understanding of speakers of closely related languages, such as Spanish, Italian, or French, is due to the genetic proximity of those languages and the resulting typological similarities. Following Haugen (1966, p. 153), this special case of receptive multilingualism has been termed semi-communication, and may be restricted to a set of multilingual receptive skills.

3.

Strategies in multilingual communication

Zeevaert (2007) questions the perception of receptive multilingualism as a form of ‘passive’ multilingualism. He argues that the active role of the language user becomes obvious particularly in the context of receptive multilingual communication. “The receptive competences of the interlocutors are not always sufficient in order to be able to stick to a receptive multilingual mode, and various techniques such accommodation to the language of other interlocutors, language mixing or linguistic mediation by means of translation or short summaries by linguistically more skilled discourse participants can be frequently found in the discourses” (Zeevaert, 2007, p. 12). Participants in international encounters cannot rely on their linguistic competence alone (i. e., mainly lexical and semantic knowledge), and consequently have to refer to other aspects of the discourse, which enable them to relate the utterance to the situation, e. g., a business negotiation, legal proceedings, etc. Furthermore, discourse knowledge enables the interpretation of the utterance based on institutional, professional, and general knowledge such as the knowledge of international legal constellations in general. Only while taking this knowledge structure into account is it possible to explain how participants manage to understand discourse and are able to act in linguistically ambiguous situations (Zeevaert, 2007, p. 13). Another approach to receptive comprehension of related languages is represented by Lutjeharms (2007, pp. 265–281), who focuses on the different processing levels which take place in the mind. In the case of foreign language comprehension, lower levels of processing such as word recognition or syntactic analysis require attentional resources, in contrast to L1 comprehension where the processing of such form-based linguistic information generally takes place automatically. Comprehension strategies, comparable to those of users in receptive multilingual discourse (e. g., guessing, skipping parts of the text), can be observed. The author pays special attention to the processing of cognates, because deceptive cognates (“false friends”) play an important role in receptive multilingual communication and research (cf. the results of the present study).

Effects of Receptive Multilingualism on the Knowledge of Legal Vocabulary

177

On the one hand, psycholinguistic studies suggest that cognates, as opposed to their non-cognate equivalents, share a common representation in the mental lexicon, which facilitates automatic processing. On the other hand, it has been observed that deceptive cognates require conscious processing in order to prevent the activation of the (misleading) L1-meaning. Such effects must be considered when developing special methods for text comprehension in related languages (Lutjeharms, 2007, p. 16). In consequence, certain strategies and techniques are implemented by language users to facilitate transfer from various related languages, and support the search for similarities and familiar linguistic material, so called “sieves.” Zeevaert and ten Thije (2007, p. 13, after McCann et al., 2003 [2002]), enumerate seven “sieves”: (1) international vocabulary, (2) common vocabulary typical of the language family such as ‘Pan-Romance vocabulary,’ (3) sound correspondences or systematic sound shifts, (4) spelling and pronunciation, (5) syntactic structures common to the language family, (6) morphosyntactic elements, and (7) prefixes and suffixes.

Language users go through all of them to identify cognates and interpret them accordingly, which will be demonstrated in the present study.

4.

Polish legal language

The sociolect used professionally by lawyers and echoed by non-lawyers to refer to law is described differently by Polish linguists. It is named legal language (Pl. je˛zyk prawny; Pien´kos, 1999) or language of law ( je˛zyk prawa; Hałas, 1995). Most scholars treat legal Polish as a style of language: official style (styl urze˛dowy; Buttler, 1968, p. 469; styl urze˛dowo-kancelaryjny; Kurkowska & Skorupka, 2001, p. 261), official-legal style (styl urze˛dowo-prawny; Bartmin´ski, 1981, p. 40), administrative style (styl administracyjny; Gajda, 2001, p. 189), prescriptive-didactic style (styl normatywno-dydaktyczny; Klemensiewicz, 1953, pp. 32–33), legal substyle (podstyl prawny; Malinowska, 1995, p. 438). Linguistic dualism has developed in the Polish legal doctrine, on the basis of which legal language/style is traditionally divided into the language of law ( je˛zyk prawny) and the language of lawyers ( je˛zyk prawniczy; Wróblewski, 1948). This dichotomy results from different functions to be fulfilled by these two legal languages. The purpose of the language of law is to create laws, while the language of lawyers aims to describe and apply them. As a consequence, the former involves legal acts, codices, and precedents de iure, whereas the latter covers legal commentaries, legal reasoning, and judicial decisions. Legal language/style has several distinctive features. Legal texts include (a) lexicon of a triadic nature: general vocabulary, terms taken from ordinary lan-

178

Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak / Grzegorz Wlaz´lak

guage but used in a different meaning in legal language, and specialized terminology typical of various disciplines depending on the field that is regulated by the law (medical law, mining law, aviation law, sports law, etc.) (cf. Pien´kos, 1999, p. 24). Furthermore, legal language is characterized by (b) a lower tolerance for synonymy, i. e., words which are used interchangeably by non-lawyers are regarded as terms of different semantic value in law (Hałas, 1995, p. 28), e. g., Pl. zaz˙alenie and skarga (“an appeal”).1 The other features of legal language include: (c) directivity, (d) impersonality, (e) precision, and (f) standardization. Directivity refers to the illocutionary force of legal provisions whose purpose is to determine behaviors that are socially acceptable. The impersonality of legal language alludes to its applicability towards everyone (Lat. erga omnes), which conceals the identity of the performer of an action (cf. Wojtak, 1993, 2, p. 147). Apart from using specialized monosemous terms, the precision of the language of law also results from the avoidance of emotional and colloquial words (Walczyn´ska, 2000, p. 123). Standardization is related to the use of both set legal phrases and a fixed layout of the text with division into chapters, sections, paragraphs, and points (Wojtak, 1993, 2, p. 157).

5.

Goals, research questions, participants, and method

The aim of this research is to explore the phenomenon of receptive multilingualism among Polish legal professionals. Lawyers may be expected to understand the meaning of foreign lexemes and phrases owing to their fluency in legal language, whose lexis includes a substantial number of loanwords as a result of the reception of Roman law. A research instrument was designed to answer the following research questions: RQ1: What are the Polish lawyers’ linguistic competences related to receptive comprehension? RQ2: Does the knowledge of a specialized register (here legal diction) and cognates facilitate the reception of foreign texts? RQ3: Can legal professionals be treated as receptive multilinguals?

1 In general, appeal is the only common-law term used to apply to the court for a reversal. In Polish administrative proceedings, the term skarga is more general as it may refer to a vast array of matters, whereas zaz˙alenie is a means of appealing against decisions issued in the course of administrative proceedings.

Effects of Receptive Multilingualism on the Knowledge of Legal Vocabulary

179

RQ4: Should legal language be analyzed in the context of national culture? The research instrument in the present study was a language test for professional lawyers in Poland, evaluating their linguistic competence from the perspective of receptive multilingualism as defined in the initial sections. A sample of 50 active Polish lawyers was selected on a voluntary basis. The language test was sent by email to active lawyers known to one of the authors personally, asking them to take the test and send it to other active lawyers if interested. The active lawyer is a law graduate whose work requires application of the law. As a result, the sample group comprised mainly representatives of various legal professions, such as judges, prosecutors, attorneys-at-law, notaries public, court informant officers, including their trainees and assistants. In the self-evaluation section of the test, the respondents assessed both their language knowledge and legal experience, since there seems to be a correlation between them. Regarding their linguistic competence, thirty-three respondents declared that they knew English at least communicatively (B1–B2). Four respondents asserted communicative knowledge of French. In regard to other Romance languages, only one person rated their knowledge of Italian as intermediate, and no one assessed their knowledge of Spanish at this level. As a result, responses from the following number of tests were scrutinized in the study: 17 (English), 46 (French), 49 (Italian), and 50 (Spanish). The tests in which the respondents estimated their linguistic competence at an indeterminate or higher level were beyond the scope of the present analysis. The choice of the correct answer in such cases could result from the knowledge of a foreign language, rather than from receptive multilingualism, which is the issue under present analysis. Further, the question arises, whether or not legal language is an element of national culture, and accordingly whether the mastery of Polish legal terminology amounts to proficiency in foreign legal discourses. The language test consisted of four parts, and each part concerned a different language: English, French, Italian, and Spanish. Each section was preceded by a filtering question regarding the respondents’ level of linguistic competence. The participants’ task was to select one out of four possible meanings of a given term in English, French, Italian, or Spanish. Questions 1–4 contained foreign lexemes whose forms graphically resembled Polish legal terms or Latin maxims used nationwide by jurists. Thus, the research material contained borrowings and false cognates. A shortened version of the test, adapted for English, can be found in the Appendix. The part in which the respondents were to indicate their fluency in a language was excluded, and English translations were added. With the intent to highlight the false-cognateness of foreign forms, Polish spelling was kept in the answers to questions 1–4, while English translations were given in parentheses.

180

Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak / Grzegorz Wlaz´lak

The Polish legal loanwords and Latin legal expressions to which the questions refer were provided, followed by an arrow. However, this information was not revealed to the respondents. Correct answers were underlined. The corpus of loanwords and Latin expressions in Polish legal discourse was randomly selected from Słownik terminów, zwrotów i sentencji prawniczych łacin´skich oraz pochodzenia łacin´skiego (Kuryłowicz, 2002). This legal corpus was not included in the test, and it originally served as a lexical basis for the selection of foreign lexemes. The following dictionaries were used for this selection: (English) Oxford English Dictionary, (French) Le Robert, (Spanish) Clave, and (Italian) Lo Zingarelli.

6.

Results and discussion

The obtained data was evaluated using descriptive methods. The quantitative evaluation of the results, as displayed in Table 1, has shown that receptive multilingualism of the respondents is predominantly limited to these cognates whose meaning is similar in both L1 (Polish legal discourse) and L2 (foreign language). However, a significant decrease in receptive skills was observed when the meaning in L2 differs from its specialized use in L1. The analysis showed that false cognates are major obstacles in decoding foreign lexis, as revealed by the incorrect responses. It can be assumed that the number of correct answers would probably be higher, if the lawyers had not based their answers on the similarity in spelling between the words. Table 1. Quantitative data on receptive multilingual skills among Polish lawyers (percentage of correct answers to the test questions) Question no 1

English 100%

French 100%

Spanish 100%

Italian 74.42%

Mean for all languages 91.35%

2 3

17.64% 0%

52.17% 0%

100% 0%

100% 0%

77.77% 0%

4 MEAN (1–4)

0% 29.41%

0% 38.04%

78% 69.50%

38.77% 52.55%

35.80% 51.23%

5 MEAN (1–5)

17.64% 28.04%

26.08% 35.65%

0% 55.60%

0% 42.04%

9.25% 42.83%

The lawyers’ lexical competences can be statistically evaluated, since the overall mean for questions 1–4 (over 50% of correct answers) is twice the mathematical probability (25%). As regards Question 5, two patterns can be discerned. Firstly (English and French), the percentage of right answers fluctuated around the

Effects of Receptive Multilingualism on the Knowledge of Legal Vocabulary

181

lucky-draw probability, and secondly (Spanish and Italian), none of the respondents replied correctly, which might have resulted from the lawyers’ assumption that the Spanish and Italian legal concepts should have the same features as their literal equivalents in Polish. Furthermore, Questions 5 in the Spanish and Italian sections both involve multiple choice (one, two, three, or four answers can be correct), which decrease the probability of a lucky draw to 6.67%. The English part of the test focused on five selected items: exoneration, onus, curator, standing locust, and aliments. In the first example, all respondents (17 answers) chose the correct answer (a), since lawyers are familiar with the legal term egzoneracja (“exoneration”) that denotes factual and legal situations which may be referred to by the person who is obliged to redress the damage in order to be released from strict liability. The eristic Latin phrase onus probandi, in the second sample, is read as “the burden of proof.” Only three respondents chose the correct answer obowia˛zek (“a duty”) (b), while five and nine understood onus as (c) waga (“weight”), and (d) dowód (“proof”), respectively, which suggests that the lawyers interpreted the word onus based on the legal reading of the phrase onus probandi. Furthermore, the respondents misread onus as meaning probandi (“proof”). Similarly, the false friend word curator led all of the respondents astray, as none of them submitted the correct answer (d) kustosz. The responses were (a) opiekun (“a guardian”) (3 answers), and (c) kurator sa˛dowy (“a probation officer”) (14 answers). The nonsensical phrase standing locust was deliberately created for the purposes of this test as a lexical mirage reminiscent of the well-known legal phrase locus standi. The respondents were asked to translate the phrase into Polish. Nobody gave the correct translation of the phrase standing locust. All provided answers were in fact paraphrases of the legal reading of locus standi: interes prawny (“legal interest”) (1 answer), legitymacja czynna (“power to sue”) (2 answers), legitymacja procesowa (“power to appear before court”) (4 answers), and czynna legitymacja procesowa (“power to sue and appear before court”) (1 answer). Question 5 required the respondents to be familiar with foreign legal terminology, because the term maintenance is not universal for the entire common law doctrine. The responses were varied: (a) Scottish law (3 answers), (b) English and Welsh law (6 answers), (c) Australian law (3 answers), and (d) American law (5 answers). The correct answer was (a); the term spousal support is used in the United States, while the term maintenance is applied in England, Wales, and Australia. As far as the French section is concerned, all answers (46) to question 1 were correct, since the term agrément is an international notion which, in diplomatic law, refers to the initial consent of the receiving state to admit diplomatic representatives of the sending state (art. 4, VCDR, 1961). However, even without knowledge of international law, the English-speaking respondents might have

182

Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak / Grzegorz Wlaz´lak

connected the etymological dots between the French agrément and its English equivalent agreement. As regards Question 2, twenty four participants gave the correct answer. The knowledge of English might have been a crucial factor in this case, since the English noun damnation is a word of French origin. However, it is worth noting that the respondents who apparently were not fluent enough in English (18 answers) circled the answer (b) szkoda (“damage”), as a false cognate of the Latin word damnum, which is commonly used in the phrase damnum emergens (“actual loss”). The answer (c) ukaranie (“punishment”) was chosen four times. Question 3 contained a false friend too, with the French verb procurer (“to procure”) that visually resembles the Polish noun (d) prokurent (“a signing clerk”) and (b) prokurator (“a public prosecutor”), and hence the respondents chose these answers most frequently, respectively (d) 28 and (c) 18 times. Thirty-eight out of forty-six respondents replied to Question 4; most of the jurists (35 answers) translated the phrase jus de sanguine (“juice of red orange”) as prawo krwi (“right of blood”). The lawyers must have been deceived by the Latin phrase ius sanguinis (“right of blood”), which defines one of the ways of determining citizenship de iure.2 Three respondents submitted the one-word answer prawo (“law”). The responses to Question 5 were almost evenly distributed: (a) adopcja pełna (lit. “full adoption”) (17 answers), (b) adopcja całkowita (lit. “absolute adoption”) (17 answers), and (c) adopcja niepełna (lit. “partial adoption”) (12 answers). None of the respondents chose the answer (d) adopcja niecałkowita (lit. “non-absolute adoption”), probably due to the fact that this type of adoption does not exist in Polish law. The answer to this question required to juxtapose three types of adoption in Polish law (adopcja całkowita, adopcja pełna, and adopcja niepełna) and two types in French law (adoption simple and adoption plénière). As a result of an in-depth bilateral analysis, the Polish functional equivalent for the French term adoption simple would be adopcja niepełna (Pfeifer-Chomiczewska, 2014, p. 319). In the Spanish section, at the start the respondents were asked about the meaning of the word crimen (“a crime”). All of them (50) gave the correct answer, since this word functions as a noun in the Latin legal maxim nullum crimen sine lege (“no crime without a law”). Question 2 also caused no problems for the respondents, and all of them recognized the phrase buena fe (“good faith”) as a literal calque of the Latin expression bona fide. By contrast, none of the respondents replied to Question 3 accurately. The respondents might have been misled by the Polish legal term windykacja (“debt recovery”), which is associated with one of the two types of petitory actions, hence the answer (b) roszczenie (“a claim”) was given 29 times. Seventeen respondents deciphered vindicación mistakenly as (d) windykator (“a debt collector”), while four jurists decoded it as 2 The other way of acquiring citizenship is ius soli (“right of soil”).

Effects of Receptive Multilingualism on the Knowledge of Legal Vocabulary

183

(a) zados´c´uczynienie (“redress”). Question 4 was contingent upon the expression ius in bello, which refers to the laws of armed conflict. Despite the same spelling of the Spanish masculine adjective bello (“beautiful”) and the Latin noun bellum (“war”) in the dative/ablative case (bello), only eleven jurists were misled by this false cognateness and marked (a) wojna (“a war”) as a right answer. The remaining thirty-nine respondents submitted the correct answer (b) pie˛kny (“beautiful”), which might be succinctly explained by both the basic knowledge of Spanish and the graphic resemblance between the Spanish adjective bello and its cognates in other Romance languages, such as the French belle or the Italian bello. Question 5 concerned the legal characteristics of Spanish sociedad profesional (“professional partnership”). All answers were selected correctly as many as 44 times, since they fit the description of the Polish professional partnership whose features were well-known by the respondents. However, in contrast to its Polish semantic equivalent, the Spanish professional partnership is not considered a separate type of partnership, but can be a form of organization of each commercial partnership or company, and therefore it may require initial capital if required for a particular type of partnership or company (Supera-Markowska, 2009, p. 57). The right answer was not recorded. In the part concerning Italian vocabulary, thirty-five out of the forty-nine respondents guessed the correct answer (c) zatwierdzac´ (“to validate”). The answer (b) przemieniac´ (“to transform”) and (d) przeceniac´ (“to overvalue”) were indicated respectively by twelve and two respondents. The choice of answer (b) may have resulted from the fact that the process of validation of a legal transaction consists in converting a defective legal transaction (negotium claudicans) into a legally effective one, for example, by means of performing another legal transaction or by specific conduct of the parties. The answer to Question 2 was obvious to all respondents, since the Latinate derived adjective penalny (“penal”) is ubiquitously used in legal discourse. Furthermore, the jurists are familiar with the Latin penal maxims such as Nulla poena sine lege/culpa (“No penalty without a law/guilt”). There were false friends included in Question 3 and 4. In Question 3, the Italian noun curato (“a curate/vicar”) was repeatedly misinterpreted by the respondents as (b) kurator (“a probation officer”) (34 answers) or (d) kuracjusz (“a patient”) (15 answers). The correct answer (a) wikariusz (“a vicar”) was not selected even once. Question 4 also carries deceptive connotations. At first glance, the Italian phrase causa di morte (“a cause of death”) seems to be a calque of the Latin testamentary phrase mortis causa (“in case of death”), and indeed thirty respondents went astray by this spurious association and answered incorrectly (b) na wypadek ´smierci (“in case of death”). However, nineteen lawyers chose the correct answer (c) przyczyna ´smierci (“a cause of death”), since they might have drawn an etymological parallel between the Italian phrase and the legal term

184

Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak / Grzegorz Wlaz´lak

causa (“a cause”), which is used by Polish jurists to name a legally relevant reason to perform a particular legal act. In Question 5, the respondents were asked to indicate all the features of the Italian term testamento pubblico (“an official testament”). In analogy to the question about the characteristics of the Spanish professional partnership, the respondents selected mostly (42 answers) the features of the Polish testament urze˛dowy (art. 951 k.c.), which differs from its literal equivalent on the Apennine Peninsula. In contrast to testamentary provisions in Poland, an official testament in Italy is available to deaf or dumb people and has not to be drawn up in the presence of the local executive authorities, but is drafted by a notary public (art. 603 c.c.). None of the given answers were correct.

7.

Conclusions

The purpose of the present study was to analyze the phenomenon of receptive multilingualism among Polish lawyers, based on a test comprising assorted legal terms of foreign origin. One must admit that legal discourse, including Polish legalese, is abundant in Latin and Latinate terminology, which may tip the scales of receptive multilingualism in favor of jurists. Furthermore, bearing in mind that the lexis of Western European languages is borrowed from Latin in great measure, it can be presumed that Polish lawyers may be able to decode the meanings of foreign words, if they are familiar with their cognates in Polish legal discourse. Thus, in answer to the first research question (RQ1), legal professionals may be assumed to gain latent multilingual competence, despite not having learnt a particular language before. This phenomenon may be defined as a type of inter-comprehension skill in this professional group, as they gain the knowledge of several language systems, using strategies that allow for recognition of several terminological similarities. Furthermore, in answer to question two (RQ2), the analyses revealed that receptive multilingualism of the lawyers is tangible, but it is mainly limited to loanwords (e. g., agrément) and cognates (e. g., Sp. crimen, Fr./Eng. crime, It. crimine ← Lat. crimen). However, the process of understanding might still be distorted on the semantic level, since cognates may differ in meaning to a greater or lesser extent; consider, e. g., the use of the Spanish noun vindicación (1. “vindication”; 2. “vengeance, revenge”) and the Polish windykacja (“debt recovery”). Another matter is the lawyers’ derivative potential, as far as the formation of new concepts is concerned. The language of law as a discipline evades free and untamed word-formation, however, it facilitates the recognition of certain terms. In a similar vein, in answer to the last question (RQ4), the semantic discrepancy escalates when legal terminology is compared. Even if two terms look like

Effects of Receptive Multilingualism on the Knowledge of Legal Vocabulary

185

literal equivalents, their functional scopes might diverge, as tested (Questions 5 in the test). Owing to the fact that law is an element of national culture, legal concepts are less universal and translatable than scientific terminology where internationalisms prevail, and hence the lawyers’ mastery of national legal lexis does not amount to their fluency in applying foreign legal terms. As a result, legal language should always be studied in the context of national culture, which answers further research questions (RQ2, RQ3, RQ4). Moreover, a comparison of the degree of inter-linguistic equivalency of terminology in various sociolects could broaden the perspective on legal discourse as a culture-conditioned phenomenon. Despite the linguistic appeal of a universal receptive multilingualism among professional lawyers, there appear to be good reasons to approach the concept with caution. There exists a notable specificity of each professional discourse, which undermines the claims that there is a general language competence of international value to all law specialists required for, or engaged in, professional work. We have found that various parameters support the assertion above, and our analysis reveals an uneven and restricted range of selected lexemes, nationality-specific preferences for particular items over semantic equivalents, and additional meanings lent to items by international and national conventions and regulations. Although these findings underline the value of relying on decontextualized language elements as a source of generally valid evidence for professionals’ multilingualism, further research appears to be suitable to juxtapose receptive multilingualism of professionals with linguistic competences of nonprofessionals in other domains.

References Appel, R., & Muysken, P. (2005). Language Contact and Bilingualism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Academic Archive. Aronin, L. (2019). What is multilingualism? In D. Singleton, & L. Aronin (Eds.), Twelve Lectures in Multilingualism (pp. 3-4). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Bartmin´ski, J. (1981). Derywacja stylu. In J. Bartmin´ski (Ed.), Poje˛cie derywacji w lingwistyce (pp. 31-54). Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Booij, G. (2007). The Grammar of Words. An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buttler, D. (1968). Uwagi o poprawnos´ci stylu urze˛dowego. Poradnik Je˛zykowy, 10. Clave = Maldonado, C. (Ed.). (2006). Diccionario Clave. Diccionario de uso del español actual (8th ed.). Madrid: S. M. c.c. = Codice Civile Regio Decreto 16 marzo 1942, n. 262. Approvazione del testo del Codice civile. Retrieved January 10, 2021, from https://www.codice-civile-online.it. Crystal, D. (2006). How Language Works. New York, NY: The Overlook Press.

186

Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak / Grzegorz Wlaz´lak

Dresemann, B. (2007). Receptive multilingualism in business discourse. In J. ten Thije, & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive Multilingualism (pp. 179–194). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gajda, S. (2001). Styl naukowy. In Jerzy Bartmin´ski (Ed.), Współczesny je˛zyk polski (pp. 183–200). Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Charlotte, G., Vincent, J., van Heuvena, B., Golubovic´a, J., Schüpperta, A., Swartea, F., & Voigta, S. (2018). Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe in International Journal of Multilingualism, 15(2), 169–193. Hałas, B. (1995). Terminologia je˛zyka prawnego. Zielona Góra: Wydawnictwo Wyz˙szej Szkoły Pedagogicznej im. Tadeusza Kotarbin´skiego. Haugen, E. (1966). Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry, 36, 280–297. Hufeisen, B., & Marx, N. (2007). How can DaFnE and EuroComGerm contribute to the concept of receptive multilingualism? Theoretical and practical considerations. In J. ten Thije, & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive Multilingualism (pp. 307-321). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. k.c. = Ustawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. Kodeks cywilny. Retrieved January 12, 2021, from http://isap.sejm.gov.pl. Klein, H., & Stegmann, T. (2000 [1999]). EuroComRom – Die sieben Siebe: Romanische Sprachen sofort lesen können (2nd ed.). Aachen: Shaker. Klemensiewicz, Z. (1953). O róz˙nych odmianach współczesnej polszczyzny. Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Kurkowska, H., & Skorupka, S. (2001). Stylistyka polska – zarys. Warszawa: PWN. Kuryłowicz, M. (2002). Słownik terminów, zwrotów i sentencji prawniczych łacin´skich oraz pochodzenia łacin´skiego (3rd ed.). Kraków: Zakamycze. Le Robert = Rey-Debove, J., & Rey, A. (Eds.). (2002). Le nouveau petit Robert: dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert. Li, W., & Moyer, M. (Eds.). (2008). The Blackwell Handbook of Research Methods on Bilingualism and Multilingualism (pp. 3-17). Oxford: Blackwell. Lo Zingarelli = Zingarelli, N., Cannella, M., & Lazzarini, B. (Eds.). (2016). Lo Zingarelli 2017. Vocabulario della lingua italiana. Bologna. Zanichelli. Lutjeharms, M. (2007). Processing levels in foreign language reading. In J. ten Thije, & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive Multilingualism (pp. 265–281). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Malinowska, E. (1995). Styl urze˛dowy. In Gajda, S. (Ed.), Przewodnik po stylistyce polskiej (pp. 431–448). Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski. McCann, W., Klein, H., & Stegmann, T. (2003 [2002]). EuroComRom – The Seven Sieves. How to Read all the Romance Languages Right Away. (Editiones EuroCom.) (2nd ed.). Aachen: Shaker. Oxford English Dictionary. (2009). (2nd ed.). [CD-ROM, ver. 4.0]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pien´kos, J. (1999). Podstawy juryslingwistyki. Je˛zyk w prawie – prawo w je˛zyku. Warsaw: Oficyna Prawnicza Muza. Pfeifer-Chomiczewska, K. (2014). Adopcja prosta – kontrowersyjny sposób na stworzenie wie˛zi prawnej mie˛dzy konkubentami. Analiza prawa francuskiego. Miscellanea historico-iuridica, 12(2), 317–334. Supera-Markowska, M. (2009). Zarys prawa hiszpan´skiego i prawa polskiego. Esbozo del derecho español y del derecho polaco. Warsaw: C. H. Beck.

Effects of Receptive Multilingualism on the Knowledge of Legal Vocabulary

187

VCDR = the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. Retrieved January 12, 2021, from https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.p df. Walczyn´ska, M. (2000). O stylistyce tekstów normatywnych (na podstawie ustawy o zasadach ewidencji i identyfikacji podatkowej). In K. Michalewski (Ed.), Regulacyjna funkcja tekstów (pp. 127–130). Łódz´: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Wojtak, M. (1993). Styl urze˛dowy. In J. Bartmin´ski (Ed.), Encyklopedia kultury polskiej XX wieku. (Vol. 2, pp. 147–162). Wrocław: Wiedza o kulturze. Wróblewski, B. (1948). Je˛zyk prawny i prawniczy. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Umieje˛tnos´ci. Zeevaert, L. (2007). Receptive multilingualism and inter-Scandinavian semicommunication. In J. ten Thije, & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive Multilingualism (pp. 103–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zeevaert, L., & ten Thije, J. (2007). Introduction. In J. ten Thije, & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive Multilingualism (pp. 1–21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Appendix: Test of receptive multilingualism Instructions: Questions 1–4: circle the correct Polish translation of the given word or phrase. Question 4 (English and French section): translate the given phrase into Polish. Question 5 (Spanish and Italian section): there may be more than one correct answer. ENGLISH: 1. exonerate ← egzoneracja (‘exoneration’) a. zwolnic´ z odpowiedzialnos´ci (‘to exonerate’) b. egzekwowac´ (‘to exact’) c. uniewinnic´ (‘to exculpate’) d. dokonywac´ egzekucji (‘to execute’) 2. onus ← onus probandi (Lat. ‘the burden of proof ’) a. uprawnienie (‘entitlement’) b. obowia˛zek (‘a duty’) c. waga (‘weight’) d. dowód (‘proof ’) 3. curator ← kurator (‘a probation officer’): a. opiekun (‘a guardian’) b. pełnomocnik (‘an attorney in fact’) c. kurator sa˛dowy (‘a probation officer’) d. kustosz (‘a curator’)

188

Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak / Grzegorz Wlaz´lak

4. standing locust ← locus standi (Lat. lit. ‘place of standing,’ in law ‘right to bring a legal action or appear in court’): …………………….. 5. The English term aliment (Pol. ‘alimenty’) is used in… a. Scottish law b. English and Welsh law c. Australian law d. American law FRENCH: 1. agrément (‘an agreement’) ← agrément a. umawiac´ sie˛ (‘to agree’) b. umowny (‘contractual’) c. umowa (‘agreement’) d. strona umawiaja˛ca sie˛ (‘a contracting party’) 2. damnation (‘damnation’) ← damnum (Lat. ‘harm’) a. pote˛pienie (‘damnation’) b. szkoda (‘damage’) c. ukaranie (‘punishment’) d. skazanie (‘conviction’) 3. procurer (‘to procure’) ← prokurator (‘a public prosecutor’) a. prorokowac´ (‘to prophesy’) b. prokurator (‘a public prosecutor’) c. uzyskac´ (‘to procure’) d. prokurent (‘a signing clerk’) 4. jus de sanguine (‘juice of red orange’) ← ius sanguinis (Lat. ‘right of blood’) ………………….. 5. Circle a functional equivalent in Polish law for the French legal term adoption simple: a. adopcja pełne (‘full adoption’) b. adopcja całkowita (‘absolute adoption’) c. adopcja niepełna (‘partial adoption’) d. adopcja niecałkowita (‘non-absolute adoption’)

SPANISH: 1. crimen (‘a crime’) ← nullum crimen sine lege (Lat. ‘no crime without a law’): a. przeste˛pstwo (‘a crime’) b. przeste˛pca (‘a criminal’) c. przeste˛pczy (‘criminal’)

Effects of Receptive Multilingualism on the Knowledge of Legal Vocabulary

2.

3.

4.

5.

189

d. popełniac´ przeste˛pstwo (‘to commit a crime’) buena fe (‘good faith’) ← bona fide (Lat. ‘good faith’): a. dobry zwyczaj (‘good custom’) b. zła wiara (‘bad faith’) c. dobra wiara (‘good faith’) d. zły zwyczaj (‘bad custom’) vindicación (‘vindication/vengeance’) ← windykacja (‘debt recovery’): a. zados´c´uczynienie (‘redress’) b. roszczenie (‘a claim’) c. zemsta (‘vengeance’) d. windykator (‘a debt collector’) bello (‘beautiful’) ← ius in bello (Lat. ‘law in war’): a. wojna (‘a war’) b. pie˛kny (‘beautiful’) c. zło (‘evil’) d. niebezpieczen´stwo (‘danger’) Indicate features of the professional partnership in Spain (Sp. ‘sociedad profesional’): a. it is a separate commercial company b. initial capital is not required c. partners of the company are jointly and severally liable d. the liability of its partners is unlimited

ITALIAN: 1. convalidare (‘to validate’) ← konwalidacja (‘validation’): a. kontaktowac´ (‘to contact’) b. przemieniac´ (‘to transform’) c. zatwierdzac´ (‘to validate’) d. przeceniac´ (‘to overvalue’) 2. pena (‘a penalty’) ← nulla poena sine lege (Lat. ‘no penalty without a law’): a. szkoda (‘damage’) b. renta (‘a pension’) c. płatnos´c´ (‘payment’) d. kara (‘a penalty’) 3. curato (‘a vicar’) ← kurator (‘a probation officer’): a. wikariusz (‘a vicar’) b. kurator (‘a probation officer’) c. lekarz (‘a physician’) d. kuracjusz (‘a patient’) 4. causa di morte (‘a cause of death’) ← mortis causa (Lat. ‘in case of death’): a. dom umarłych (‘the house of the dead’)

190

Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak / Grzegorz Wlaz´lak

b. czynnos´c´ na wypadek ´smierci (‘in case of death’) c. przyczyna ´smierci (‘a cause of death’) d. kostnica (‘a morgue’) 5. An official testament (It. ‘testamento pubblico’) requires: a. the presence of two witnesses b. providing the date of drafting c. for instance the presence of local executive body d. is not allowed for deaf and dumb people

Jacek Pradela

Chapter 10 – The Development of English Spelling through Dictation in a Polish-English Non-native Bilingual Child

Abstract Correct spelling is an important element of language literacy development. This paper investigates the development of spelling in an eight-year-old non-native bilingual boy, using data from dictation sessions collected over a period of six months. The results, which are in line with similar research studies conducted in this field (Bebout, 1985; Cook, 1997; Treiman, 1993; Treiman, Berch, & Weatherston, 1993), show that letter omission, letter substitution and letter insertion are the most prevalent categories of errors. Letter-sound correspondence together with cross-linguistic influence are the main reasons of committing such errors. For that reason, creating plenty of opportunities to experience languages in aural and written form are a necessary step in developing biliteracy in a bilingual child. Keywords: non-native bilingualism, early bilingualism, dictation, spelling error, language awareness

1.

Introduction

The ability to spell words correctly is one of the key elements contributing to bilingual literacy, which bilingual children are expected to develop in order to become successful and competent users of both languages. Knowing that mastering both oracy and literacy skills requires time and effort, national school curricula globally include foreign language learning as compulsory subjects in kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, and much emphasis is placed on learners’ successful completion of these skills. There are, however, other ways through which mastery of oracy and literacy in given languages can be achieved and one of them is non-native bilingualism (Szramek, 2016). The aim of the present article is to focus on the development of English spelling through dic-

Jacek Pradela, Silesian University of Technology (Poland), ORCID: 0000-0002-2079-4253, [email protected].

192

Jacek Pradela

tation as one of the initial stages of writing in an eight-year-old non-native bilingual boy for whom English is the second language (L2).

2.

Early bilingualism

Early bilingualism (EB), which Haugen (1956) also calls infant bilingualism, is defined as a situation “when young children start to regularly hear two languages instead of just one” (De Houwer, 2013, p. 1822). The interest in EB is well documented in the research literature (Baker, 2001; De Houwer, 2013; De Houwer & Ortega, 2019; Döpke, 1992; Haugen, 1956; Paradis, Genesee, & Crago 2011; Saunders, 1983, 1988; Taeschner, 1983). As it is a very complex and dynamic process, EB may take different forms depending on the time of hearing these languages or the type of the language environment in which the children are raised. Therefore, within EB one can mention two important processes: bilingual first language acquisition (De Houwer, 1990, 2013; Meisel, 1989) and early second language acquisition (De Houwer, 1990, 2009). Bilingual first language acquisition (BFLA) takes place when “children start to hear two fundamentally different ways of speaking once they are born” (De Houwer, 2013, p. 1822). The fact that a child hears two different languages from birth primarily depends on the child’s parents or legal guardians and the language strategy they employ. Olpin´ska-Szkiełko (2013), Harding-Esch and Riley (2003), Tokuhama-Espinosa (2001), and Döpke (1992), among others, mention different family and language configurations that fall into the category of BFLA. The one parent one language (OPOL) strategy, i. e., the one in which both parents or legal guardians, usually of different nationalities, use their native languages to communicate with their children, appears to be the most prevalent. Early second language acquisition (ESLA), conversely, defines a process in which children are first exposed to one language and when they are older to another one. This process often takes numerous forms that could be labelled as early bilingual education in which “typically ESLA children hear only one language at home (L1) and meet the L2 in a group setting outside the home, such as a day-care centre or a preschool” (De Houwer, 2013, p. 1822). This situation may be illustrated by the case of immigrant families living in the target language country for whom the L1 is the minority language and the L2 the medium of instruction.

The Development of English Spelling through Dictation

2.1.

193

Non-native bilingualism as a form of early bilingualism

There are, however, families in which caregivers (i. e., parents, legal guardians, other family members, or nannies) share the same native language and, still, they intend to raise their children bilingually. In this case they decide to speak to them in a language which is not their L1. This state of affairs, called non-native bilingualism (NNB) (Romanowski, 2018; Szramek-Karcz, 2016), could be defined as a situation in which caregivers share the same native language (L1) and use it within their language community, but either one of them or both communicate with their children in a language that is different from their L1. In the literature NNB is referred to as artificial bilingualism (Baker, 2000; Kielhöfer & Jonekeit, 1983), home language immersion program (Saunders, 1983), intentional bilingualism (Sˇtefánik, 2000), or elective bilingualism (Harding-Esch & Riley, 2003; Valdés & Figueroa, 1994). While NNB provoked some controversy (SzramekKarcz, 2014, 2016) and some researchers (Baker, 2000; Grosjean, 2010; Romanowski, 2018; Saunders, 1983) discussed the difficulties that may arise if caregivers decide to raise their children in that way, it cannot be denied that it may be perceived as an example of early bilingualism.

3.

Developing writing

Long before a child learns to read and write in any language, he or she gathers information about the written language from the surrounding world. This may include, for example, recognizing neon-light signs on buildings, observing their caregivers reading newspapers or books, or writing simple notes such as shopping lists (Treiman, 2017). Children also make their first attempts to write, and this may include covering a piece of paper in various squiggles or doodles. All these initial writing experiences prepare them for literacy. Being able to read and write in two languages is one of the advantages of a bilingual child. This, however, does not have to be the norm and, as Garcia (2009) mentions, bilinguals may not develop literacy skills if they do not find them necessary.

3.1.

Writing skills

Learning to write is a continuous process requiring the mastery of a number of different abilities which, according to Gower, Phillips, and Walters (2005, p. 113), include the following: handwriting (a person’s style of writing), spelling (the ability to form words correctly from letters), punctuation (the ability to use marks, e. g., a comma, a full stop, in writing to separate words and phrases),

194

Jacek Pradela

sentence construction (knowledge of grammar rules that allows to build grammatically correct sentences), organizing a text and paragraphing (dividing a text into well-formed paragraphs), text cohesion (the use of appropriate linking words in order to make the text clear to the reader), and register/style (the use of vocabulary and structures appropriate to the formality of the text). As this article focuses on the initial stages of writing, only one of the writing skills, i. e., spelling, is going to be taken into consideration.

3.2.

Previous studies on the development of writing in bilingual children

Although research studies conducted on the development of writing in young bilingual children are not as extensive as the ones focusing on listening, speaking, or reading (de Groot, 2011), Williams and Lowrance-Faulhaber (2018) in their article reviewed 35 different studies that examined young (aged 3–8) bilinguals’ writing from various perspectives and used various research methods and tools that included qualitative and quantitative techniques/approaches. Some studies focused on the knowledge and understanding of written language, and they revealed that bilingual children were aware of the “differences between pictures and print as well as between orthographies”. Additionally, bilingual children were able to correctly apply “language-specific writing conventions and demonstrated their emerging sociolinguistic and sociocultural competence by preserving linguistic and cultural reference” (Williams & Lowrance-Faulhaber, 2018, p. 61). Of particular interest are also the language learning strategies that a group of Spanish-English emerging bilingual children used in order to develop the skill of writing. Williams and Lowrance-Faulhaber (2018, pp. 61–62) mention the following: phonetic, syntactic, and punctuation transfer, inter- and intrasentential code switching, and loan words. The same authors also cite the research conducted by Carlisle and Beeman (2000) and Reyes (2006), which revealed that “bilingual children have linguistic tools and resources available to them within each language and across languages, which they can employ during the composing process, in one or both languages – a bilingual advantage” (2018, p. 63). Also, Kuo et al. (2016, p. 2) discuss “bilingual advantage in phonological awareness,” resulting from cross-language transfer. They cite the research of Campbell and Sais (1995), Bruck and Genesee (1995), Chen et al. (2004), and Bialystok et al. (2003), in which bilingual children showed their superiority over monolingual peers in various phonological areas such as syllable-deletion tasks, measures of syllable awareness, tone awareness, and phoneme awareness. In another study concerning the development of writing by young bilingual speakers, Raynolds and Uhry (2010, p. 509) investigated the English spelling of native Spanish-speaking kindergarten children and the analysis showed that

The Development of English Spelling through Dictation

195

children “may experience difficulties spelling the different stop consonants, especially at the ends of words.” However, as the authors mention, techniques such as voicing and aspiration are helpful in overcoming these difficulties. In addition, Guimaraes and Parkins (2019, p. 217), in their longitudinal comparative study conducted with 88 six-to-seven-year-old bilingual and monolingual children on the effects of bilingualism on the spelling strategies, showed that “letter knowledge, phonological awareness and word concept were significant predictors of spelling.”

4.

Research design

4.1.

Aims of the study and research questions

Young bilingual children are exposed to various linguistic stimuli on the basis of which they discover the rules that govern both languages. Furthermore, the language experience they gain is helpful in developing literacy skills in both languages at later stages of their life. The present study concerns one of the most important elements of L2 writing development, spelling, and aims at answering two questions concerning its development: (1) What are the typical spelling errors of an eight-year-old NNB child at the emergent stages of biliteracy? (2) Does the L1 influence L2 spelling during early literacy development?

4.2.

The NNB child language biography

The subject of the study was a healthy eight-year-old boy of normal psychophysical development, born to Polish-speaking parents living in Poland. He had been exposed to two languages since he was born, Polish being spoken to him by his mother and English by his father. Since Poland is mostly a monolingual country he could be described as a Polish-dominant, Polish-English bilingual child. At the time of the study, he had not been exposed to any additional language. In order to ensure natural language development and introduce early English literacy skills, they were introduced in the following order: listening – speaking – reading – writing. The child’s father collected various language materials which included, at early stages, CDs with children songs and nursery rhymes in English to which the boy was regularly exposed while involved in various everyday activities: washing, eating, or playing. Additionally, he watched English cartoons with his father, and they discussed the storyline together at later stages. The same

196

Jacek Pradela

procedures concerning Polish language development were employed by the boy’s mother. As children develop literacy from a range of different experiences, English flashcards and books became an important element of his language development. The books were age appropriate and adjusted to the child’s cognitive development. Firstly, there were picture books the aim of which was to familiarize the boy with certain concepts and corresponding lexical items. After some time, the Point to … technique was used to make sure the child understood the English words. Next, books with more text on each page were introduced and through their repeated reading by his father, the boy learned the stories included in them off by heart. Consequently, he knew exactly when to turn the page over even though he did not know the letters. While learning to read aloud the words, the dual-route model was employed, “which consists of phonological and visual routes from perceived words to pronunciation” (Cook, 1997, p. 474). When the boy was five years old, he was introduced to the letters of the English alphabet in the form of single-letter flashcards, which was followed by listening to and singing the “ABC alphabet song.” The idea was to allow him to recognize the shape of the letters and familiarize him with letter-sound correspondences. This initial stage of writing was supported by simple palm/back/air writing activities. At later stages, numerous word-recognition activities such as matching (e. g., matching words with pictures, matching word halves), filling in the missing letters (consonants or vowels) in a word, unscrambling words (i. e., putting letters in the correct order, e. g., oth – hot), or playing various language (board)games (e. g., “Hangman,” “Word snake”) were introduced. All these initial stages of literacy skills the boy had gone through were prior to the study. Between the ages three and six the boy attended kindergarten. He did not feel alienated from his age group; on the contrary, he was an active participant in various group activities. When he turned five, he started participating in compulsory 30-minute English classes held twice a week. The classes focused mainly on developing listening and speaking skills, and included singing songs, saying poems, doing art and craft activities, and watching videos. The fact that he had been exposed to English since birth was a great advantage and resulted in his willingness to answer all the questions asked by the teacher. When the boy turned seven, he started compulsory primary education (early school education), and he was introduced to reading and writing in Polish. His literacy skills in Polish were regularly practiced five days a week. He also continued his English education by having two 45-minute English classes a week. The school also provided English coursebooks and workbooks that he learned from. Due to the fact that at school the amount of time devoted to English was considerably lower in comparison to Polish, the dominance of Polish literacy skills over English ones was visible. Therefore, various English books served as a basis

The Development of English Spelling through Dictation

197

for additional English language practice. Both silent reading and reading aloud were used, which involved answering various comprehension questions such as true/false, yes/no, putting the events in the correct order, or matching the words with the pictures.

4.3.

Research method

The research method used in the study was error analysis. The data was collected over a six-month period through the technique of dictation, which was divided into two stages: dictation of individual words and text dictation. 4.3.1. Dictation of individual words The aim of the first stage of research aimed at testing how well the boy had mastered the spelling of individual words and what kinds of errors he was making. It included the dictation of 312 everyday vocabulary items from My First Word Board Book (Wilkes, 2004) for individual word writing, to which the boy had been repeatedly exposed prior to the study. Most of the words belonged to the 3000 most frequently used words in spoken and written English, according to The Longman Communication 30001 and were grouped into the following thematic categories: body parts, household objects, days and months, food (fruit and vegetables, dairy products), in the bathroom, in the kitchen, in the garden, in the living room, in the bedroom, in the playground, in the school, on the farm, means of transport, wild animals, pets, weather, colors, and shapes. 4.3.2. Text dictation The aim of the second stage was to see how well the boy had mastered writing longer pieces of text. In order to make the dictation connected with the boy’s interests at that time, a Star Wars: Journey Through Space Level 2 (Windham, 2005) book was used, as that was the area in which the boy was interested. Level 2 of the book, which is part of the Dorling Kindersley multilevel reading program (ibid.; Lock, 20172), was characterized as “beginning to read alone” and included longer sentences and increased vocabulary enriched by such lexical items as longer words and proper nouns. It must also be emphasized that the boy had read the book before the dictation. 1 Cobb, T. https://www.lextutor.ca/freq/lists_download/longman_3000_list.pdf. 2 https://www.dkfindout.com/uk/explore/non-fiction-readers-support-your-childs-reading-de velopment/.

198

Jacek Pradela

4.3.3. The procedure The first stage of the research, which involved dictation at the word level, lasted 4 months and consisted in giving a dictation of 10–20 words per session from the lexical categories mentioned in section 4.3.1 twice a week. Each of the words was pronounced twice during the dictation. The second stage of the research, which lasted two months, took place after the first stage had finished and it consisted in giving a one-page dictation from the above-mentioned book once a week. The number of sentences ranged from two to four per page and, on average, 31 words were dictated per session.

5.

Results

5.1.

Stage one – individual words

The analysis of the 312 dictated words from the above-mentioned categories reveals that 134 (43%) words were spelled incorrectly. Additionally, in none of the above-mentioned lexical categories were all the words spelled correctly. However, in three of them, i. e., The weather, Colors, and Going swimming, the number of incorrectly spelled words was considerably lower. The first two categories included words that were both short (one- or two-syllable words) and of high frequency, which might be an explanation why most of them were correct. In the case of the Going swimming category, which included both short and compound nouns (e. g., swimming shorts, diving board), the number of misspelled words was also low. It must be emphasized, though, that the dictation of the words from these three categories took place nearly at the end of the four-month period and the boy’s literacy skills had certainly improved. Of particular interest, however, are the incorrectly spelled words, as they reveal different spelling strategies that the boy used during the dictation sessions. The categories of errors below are based on the ones suggested by Cook (1997) and include the following: letter omission, letter substitution, letter insertion, and transposition. There is also an additional category of unidentified errors. The results of the analysis reveal that the categories of letter omission and letter substitution are the ones that contain the highest numbers of incorrectly spelled words. Table 1 shows the numbers in each of the categories.

199

The Development of English Spelling through Dictation

Table 1. Error categories and numbers of incorrectly spelled words Letter Letter subomission stitution Number of incorrectly spelled 59 (44%) words

47 (35%)

Total Letter Trans- Miscellanumber of insertion position neous errors 20 (15%)

4 (3%)

4 (3%)

134

The analysis also revealed numerous cases of more than one error in some words; these errors represented different categories (see the examples included in Table 2). The length of some of the words and their similarity to Polish words (e. g., phonetic transfer) might have affected the boy’s performance. Table 2. Multiple errors in single words Categories of errors Target word motorcycle

Letter omission moto_cickle

Letter substitution motocickle

Letter insertion motocickle

basketball net chicken

------------chi_kin

bascetball nett chikin

gorilla

goryl_a

goryla

bascetball nett -------------------------

5.1.1. Letter omission As mentioned above, letter omission is the category with the highest number of errors, and it also covers such subcategories as silent letters or double letters. Silent letters (*nee – knee; *thum – thumb; *Wensday – Wednesday) are an example of the influence of the English pronunciation. These errors probably resulted from the boy’s lack of knowledge concerning the spelling rules. It must be stressed that although the above-mentioned words were incorrectly spelled, they were phonologically plausible meaning that phonemes “were represented in the correct order with a letter or letter group that may represent the phoneme in English” (Treiman et al., 2018, p. 82). The lack of double letters, which in the majority of cases concerned consonants (e. g., *lader – ladder; *peper – pepper; *buter – butter; *letuuc – lettuce), was recorded in 20 out of 59 words. Therefore, it nearly covers 1/3 (33%) of the total number of errors within this category. It is worth pointing out that in the English language consonant doublets usually take word-medial or word-final position and they follow short vowels (Cassar & Treiman, 1997; Treiman, 1993), which was the case of *lader, *peper, and *buter. It seems very unlikely that the boy had acquired such orthographic and phonetic knowledge because such rules

200

Jacek Pradela

are not taught at schools. Additionally, as Bebout (1985, p. 583) mentions, “consonant doubling never has any effect upon the pronunciation of the consonant(s) and often has no effect upon the surrounding vowels.” The word *letuuc is an interesting example as it contains three errors: omitting the letter , doubling the letter , which might be an example of letter insertion, and lack of the silent letter at the end of the word. The lack of the consonant doublet could be attributed to the errors discussed above. One explanation for doubling the letter might be the lack of metalinguistic awareness that such a combination of vowels does not exist in Polish and is very rare in English. The third error might have resulted from the interlingual transfer: there are no silent letters at the end of words in the Polish language. The results of the dictation also showed that some words containing consonant doublets or vowel doublets (e. g., pillow, ball, apple, carrots, broom, beehive) were spelled correctly. One possible explanation for this discrepancy could be what Cassar and Treiman (1997, p. 641) call “own experience with print,” i. e., through repeated exposure to English print materials the boy might have remembered certain words. Additionally, as it was mentioned earlier in the article, some of the words belonged to the group of the 3000 most frequently used words in spoken and written English. 5.1.2. Letter substitution This category with the second highest number (35%) of misspellings encompasses two types: vowel substitution and consonant substitution. Table 3 includes some examples of the observed instances of vowel replacement. Replacement of vowels in both directions is visible in the last three rows of the table. In other cases, vowel replacement took place only in one direction. One of these vowels , , and is always present in each category, which may be indicative of the difficulties they pose. Cook (1997, p. 481) suggests that “the obvious reason can be found in the rules of sound/letter correspondences. Unstressed vowels in English are commonly reduced to schwa /ə/,” which finds illustration in the errors such as *rhinocorus, *aprin, or *coler. Consonant substitution was also visible in the data gathered and some of the misspellings are shown in Table 4. Most of these errors may be attributed to the letter-sound correspondence in the English language. For example, the letters and sometimes correspond with the sound /k/, and whether the word should be spelled with or depends on what vowels follow these letters (Tucker, 1999).

The Development of English Spelling through Dictation

201

Table 3. Types of vowel replacements Vowel replacement →

Examples chikin → chicken; cirel → cereal; motorcickle → motorcycle

→ →

coler → collar; pees → peas; saled → salad aprin → apron

→ →

cubage → cabbage cukomber → cucumber

→ → →

rhinocorus → rhinoceros anion → onion ovol → oval

→ → → →

goryla → gorilla; toylet → toilet hiena → hyena pick-up track → pick-up truck soup → soap

Table 4. Types of consonant replacements Consonant replacement → →

Examples

→ →

fense → fence; rise* → rice; lunsh box → lunch box beez → bees; ezel → easel

→

scipin robe → skipping rope

bascetball → basketball; coala → koala; scipin robe → skipping rope cukomber → cucumber; skarecrow → scarecrow

The last subcategory of letter substitution refers to consonant digraphs. One of the difficulties recorded was the boy’s incorrect spelling of the novel voiceless sound /θ/, which is non-existent in his L1 (*teef – teeth; *Fersday – Thursday). It may be the case, as Raynolds and Uhry (2010, p. 509) suggest, that such errors resulted from his assimilation of the sound /θ/ to pre-existing L1 category, i. e., Polish /f/. Perhaps this is the result of an independent search for the best graphic equivalent among the Polish equivalents available to him. As his knowledge of English vocabulary expanded and phonological awareness increased, such errors disappeared. The same could be said about the graphic representation of the English diphthongs /aʊ/ and /əʊ/, as in the examples (*haose – house; *toster – toaster).

202

Jacek Pradela

5.1.3. Letter insertion This category accounted for 15% of total errors made by the child, which makes it the third largest category, and it included both consonant and vowel insertion. As far as the consonants are concerned, the most problematic letter was and it appeared in 6 out of 10 incorrectly spelled words (*chair – hair; *dischwarscher – dishwasher; *fisch – fish; *moutch – mouth; *paintbrusch – paintbrush; *rabit chuch – rabbit hutch). In the case of vowels, the following were problematic (*baicycle – bicycle; *kait – kite; *pigstay – pigsty), (*fringpane – frying pan; *spune – spoon), (*air plain – airplane; *chieres – cherries), (*tooe – toe), and (*letuuc – lettuce; *purpule – purple). One possible explanation for these errors might be the boy’s transference of Polish orthography into English. For instance, the sound /h/ in Polish can be represented by either or , which might have affected the wrong spelling of the word hair (*chair). Word length (e. g., dishwasher) and word frequency (e. g., rabbit hutch) might have been additional constraints. 5.1.4. Transposition This category of errors relates to the position of letters in a word. Four such examples were found, and the following misspellings were noticed: the wrong position of vowels (*braed – bread; *haed – head), the wrong graphic representation of the /u:/ sound (*suop – soup), and the wrong position of consonants (*cafl – calf). This might have resulted from the boy’s lack of knowledge concerning various ways of writing English long vowels or his lack of awareness that certain word combinations are not possible in the English language. Experimenting with the English writing system might also be a partial explanation for these errors – the boy had just started to discover the spelling rules and he relied on his existing knowledge. 5.1.5. Unidentified errors The last category includes the following errors which the author found difficult to classify: *schear – square, *crashont – crescent, and *jekso puzle – jigsaw puzzle. Although the lack of one in the word “puzzle” might be attributed to the above-mentioned category of letter omission, and the wrong letter combinations in the word ‘jigsaw’ might have been caused by Polish orthography, the incorrect spelling of the remaining words is difficult to account for.

The Development of English Spelling through Dictation

5.2.

203

Stage two – text dictation

After examining the dictation texts, which contained 219 words altogether of which 32 (15%) were incorrectly spelled and bearing in mind that the boy’s knowledge of English vocabulary expanded, it might be said that the boy had developed not only spelling but also some punctuation rules, which included the capitalization at the beginning of the sentence or putting a full stop at the end of the sentence. However, some of the errors he made represent the categories mentioned in the preceding sections: letter omission, letter substitution, and letter insertion account for 75 per cent of the errors made (e. g., *journy – journey; *enormes – enormous; *gliming – gleaming; *skyskrapes – skyscrapers; *beatful – beautiful; *thro – through; *brout – brought; *althow – although; *waterwy – watery). One of the reasons why he had made them is that the words, because of their length and complexity, were more difficult to spell. Furthermore, the influence of the spelling and pronunciation of both English and Polish cannot be underestimated. As both languages are active in the bilingual’s repertoire (Bialystok, 2017; Carlisle & Beeman, 2000; Reyes, 2006), the boy might also have searched for the best possible fit that represented the heard word during the dictation. On the one hand, the boy might not have known that in the English language “the same sound may be represented by different letters or letter combinations” (Westwood, 2014, p. 73). Therefore, the diphthong /əʊ/ could be represented by -ow (e. g., know, own, thrown) or -ough (e. g., although, dough). This certainly results from the fact that in the English language there are 44 different sounds and only 26 letters. On the other hand, he may have transferred the phonic strategy from learning Polish literacy, hence some of the errors (e. g., *enormes – enormous), and similar results may be found in the research done by Williams and LowranceFaulhaber (2018). Another set of incorrectly spelled words (12%), which was not present in the first stage of the study, is of particular interest as it falls into the category of homophones (*wons – once; *city’s – cities; *there – their x2). It is arguable whether all of them should be called errors because although *city’s and *there were incorrectly spelled, they function as independent words in the English language. The question arises whether the boy knew the correct spelling of the dictated words, i. e., cities and their. As for *wons, intralingual transfer might be to blame: the boy may have activated his pre-existing knowledge of the word won and added the ending, which resulted in the misspelling of the word once. The last group of errors (13%) refers to capitalization (*In – in) and punctuation (*I’s – is x3) within the text. These errors were marginal, and they were probably caused by the boy’s lack of attention because during the text dictation sessions the boy punctuated them correctly.

204

6.

Jacek Pradela

Discussion

The categories of spelling errors presented in the previous section reveal that the sources of errors were of different origin. Firstly, the letter-sound correspondence (grapheme-phoneme representation) is the area to be discussed. The fact that English is not a transparent language, i. e., it is not spelled the same way it is pronounced, might have influenced the NNB boy’s performance. Some of the errors were of intralingual nature and they resulted from the child’s false hypotheses concerning the English language. Therefore, his knowledge of various common letter combinations, consonant clusters, strings of vowels, silent letters, and letter doublets affected the incorrect spelling of words. Nevertheless, they were his best “attempts to represent the sounds of words” (Treiman, 1993, p. 278). These findings are also in line with the aforementioned research conducted by Guimaraes and Parkins (2019) and Raynolds and Uhry (2010, pp. 496–497), who, citing the research done by Read (1971), state that “children’s choice of letters might reflect how they represented the sounds, and that the misspellings made by children might reveal their developing awareness of the phonetic properties of words.” For that reason, while analyzing the spelling errors both orthographic and phonological awareness need to be taken into consideration. Secondly, cross-linguistic influence resulting from the similarities and differences between English and Polish and the application of the L1 writing strategies that the boy had developed were noticeable in the NNB child’s performance. Phonetic transfer from Polish to English, and in particular “the mismatch between their L1 and L2 phonological representations” (Raynolds & Uhry, 2010, p. 498), was visible in the case of graphemes corresponding to sounds (e. g., /θ/) that were non-existent in the boy’s more dominant (Polish) language. As Raynolds and Uhry (2010, p. 509) state, such sounds “may be assimilated to a preexisting L1 category, thereby creating difficulty in categorizing non-native sounds into new L2 categories.” This is also supported by Baker (2000, p. 101), who claims that “there may be some transfer of spellings from one language to the other. From the child’s point of view, this is creatively using their knowledge and experience to make headway in writing the second language. A child is making an intelligent, imaginative, and thoughtful guess at spelling in the second language.” Bearing in mind that both languages share the same writing system (the Roman alphabet), the child might have used the Polish writing system as a source of information for spelling in English (Guimaraes & Parkins, 2019, p. 238). Similar findings were reported by Williams and Lowrance-Faulhaber (2018, p. 61). Nevertheless, as Baker (2001, p. 352) states, “children literate in their first language still need to acquire the differences found in the second language (e. g., different sounds, vocabulary, grammatical structures), and these may need explicit instruction.”

The Development of English Spelling through Dictation

205

Finally, the boy’s limited exposure to written English, which he was provided with at home as part of NNB language development, and, consequently, fewer literacy-learning opportunities were additional constraints affecting his emerging language awareness. As mentioned earlier in the article, living in a monolingual country where English is not spoken on a daily basis and access to appropriate printed materials is limited might have influenced the NNB child’s early literacy skills, and writing in particular. Similar results concerning this bilingual asymmetry were found in the research done by Genesee and Nicoladis (2009), Scheele, Leseman and Mayo (2010), and Hoff et al. (2012).

7.

Conclusions

Correct spelling in any language is one the most important aspects of writing and literacy development in general. For this reason, the present study aimed at finding answers concerning the sources of English spelling errors made by a Polish-English non-native bilingual child. The author believes that the research findings (i. e., letter-sound correspondence, cross-linguistic interference, and limited exposure to language), although limited to only one person, might be of valuable help to primary school teachers or NNB children’s caregivers who would like to help their children to develop early literacy skills in two or more languages and to avoid typical spelling errors. It seems evident that providing ample opportunities for children to experience both languages is a necessary step in that undertaking (Cassar & Treiman, 1997), which is of paramount importance in the case of NNB children. Firstly, having access to a well-stocked home library full of age-appropriate books, recordings, videos, (board) games, flashcards, and activity cards is an important element of early literacy development. Secondly, by being engaged in different early literacy building activities children are likely to remember certain letter combinations, which may contribute to correct spelling, and, in the long run, help develop orthographic and phonological awareness (Westwood, 2014). Thirdly, the highfrequency everyday word-recognition activities and language games suggested by the author earlier in the article might serve as a starting point for early literacy development. This can be followed by more advanced writing activities that will focus on, for example, typical English consonant clusters or phonemes that are not present in the Polish language and, consequently, may lead to spelling problems resulting from cross-linguistic differences. Last but not least, Linan-Thompson et al. (2018) assert that detailed and systematic examination of learners’ writing is an indispensable component of successful literacy development. Therefore, organizing regular dictation sessions may be a useful way of obtaining feedback concerning the spelling errors learners

206

Jacek Pradela

are likely to make, provided they are context embedded, i. e., connected with children’s interests, or deal with the material covered during a lesson. This, in turn, may help teachers to take appropriate steps to help their learners overcome some of the spelling difficulties discussed in this article.

References Baker, C. (2000). A Parents’ and Teachers’ Guide to Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Bebout, L. (1985). An error analysis of misspellings made by learners of English as a first and as a second language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(6), 569–593. Bialystok, E., Majumder, S., & Martin, M. M. (2003). Developing phonological awareness: Is there a bilingual advantage? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 27–44. Bialystok, E. (2017). The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 233–262. Bruck, M., & Genesee, F. (1995). Phonological awareness in young second language learners. Journal of Child Language, 22, 307–324. Campbell, R., & Sais, E. (1995). Accelerated metalinguistic (phonological) awareness in bilingual children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 61–68. Carlisle, J. F., & Beeman, M. M. (2000). The effects of language instruction on the reading and writing achievement of first-grade Hispanic children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(4), 331–353. Cassar, M., & Treiman, R. (1997). The beginnings of orthographic knowledge: Children’s knowledge of double letters in words. Journal of Education Psychology, 89(4), 631–644. Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Li, W., Hao, M., Wu, X., & Shu, H. (2004). Phonological awareness of bilingual and monolingual Chinese children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 142–151. Cook, V. J. (1997). L2 users and English spelling. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(6), 474–488. doi:10.1080/01434639708666335. De Groot, A. M. B. (2011). Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals: An Introduction. New York, NY: Psychology Press. De Houwer, A. (1990). The Acquisition of Two Languages from Birth: A Case Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Houwer, A. (2009). Bilingual First Language Acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. De Houwer, A. (2013). Early bilingualism. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1822–1830). Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Blackwell. De Houwer, A., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2019). The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Döpke, S. (1992). One Parent – One Language: An Interactional Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

The Development of English Spelling through Dictation

207

Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Genesee, F., & Nicoladis, E. (2009). Bilingual first language acquisition. In: E. Hoff, & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Language Development (pp. 324–342). Chichester, Malden, MA, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Gower, R., Phillips, D., & Walters, S. (2005). Teaching Practice: A Handbook for Teachers in Training. London: Macmillan. Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Guimaraes, S., & Parkins, E. (2019). Young bilingual children’s spelling strategies: A comparative study of 6- to 7-year-old bilinguals and monolinguals. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(3), 216–245. doi:10.17583/ijep.2019.4099. Harding-Esch, E., & Riley, P. (2003). The Bilingual Family: A Handbook for Parents (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haugen, E. (1956). Bilingualism in the Americas. Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Senor, M., & Parra, M. (2012). Dual language exposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language, 39, 1–27. Kielhöfer, B., & Jonekeit, S. (1983). Zweisprachige Kindererziehung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Kuo, L., Uchikoshi, Y., Kim, T., & Yang, X. (2016). Bilingualism and phonological awareness: Re-examining theories of cross-language transfer and structural sensitivity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 1–9. Linan-Thompson, S., Degollado, E. D., & Ingram, M. D. (2018). Spelling it out, one por uno: Patterns of emergent bilinguals in a dual language classroom. TESOL Journal, 9(2), 330– 347. Meisel, J. M. (1989). Early differentiation of languages in bilingual children. In K. Hyltenstam, & L. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the Lifespan: Aspects of Acquisition, Maturity and Loss (pp. 13–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olpin´ska-Szkiełko, M. (2013). Nauczanie dwuje˛zyczne w ´swietle badan´ glottodydaktycznych. Warszawa: IKLA Publishing House, University of Warsaw. Paradis, J., Genesee, F., & Crago, M. (2011). Dual Language Development and Disorders: A Handbook on Bilingualism and Second Language Learning (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. Raynolds, L. B., & Uhry, J. K. (2010). The invented spellings of non-Spanish phonemes by Spanish-English bilingual and English monolingual kindergarteners. Reading and Writing, 23, 495–513. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9169-7. Read, C. (1971). Preschool children’s knowledge of English orthography. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 1–34. Reyes, I. (2006). Exploring connections between emergent biliteracy and bilingualism. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5(3), 267–292. doi:10.1177/1468798406069801. Romanowski, P. (2018). Strategies of communication in an NNB family: On the way to bilingual maintenance in a monolingual context. In P. Romanowski, & M. Jedynak (Eds.), Current Research in Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 26, 3–21. Cham: Springer. Saunders, G. (1983). Bilingual Children: Guidance for the Family. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Saunders, G. (1988). Bilingual Children: From Birth to Teens. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

208

Jacek Pradela

Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P. P. M, & Mayo, A.Y. (2010). The home language environment of monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(1), 117–140. Szramek-Karcz, S. (2014). Non-native bilingualism in Poland – a formulation of the problem. Linguistica Silesiana, 35, 293–303. Szramek-Karcz, S. (2016). The success of non-native bilingualism in Poland. Lingwistyka Stosowana, 17(2), 93–102. Sˇtefánik, J. (2000a). Bilingvizmus na pozadí dvoch morfologicky odlisˇných typov jazykov: intencˇný bilingvizmus u detí. Bratislava, Slovakia: Univerzita Komenského. Sˇtefánik, J. (2000b). Jeden cˇlovek, dva jazyky. Bratislava, Slovakia: Academic Electronic Press. Taeschner, T. (1983). The Sun Is Feminine: A Study on Language Acquisition in Bilingual Children. Berlin: Spring-Verlag. Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2001). Raising Multilingual Children: Foreign Language Acquisition and Children. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to Spell: A Study of First-Grade Children. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Treiman, R. (2017). Learning to spell words: Findings, theories, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(4), 265–276. Treiman, R., Berch, D., & Weatherston, S. (1993). Children’s use of phoneme-grapheme correspondences in spelling: Roles of position and stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 466–477. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.85.3.466. Treiman, R., Kessler, B., & Caravolas, M. (2018). What methods of scoring young children’s spelling best predict later spelling performance? Journal of Research in Reading, 42(1), 80–96. Tucker, E. (1999). Spelling Essentials. Bosheen, Wexford: Prim-Ed Publishing. Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R.A. (1994). Second Language Learning. Bilingualism and Testing: A Special Case of Bias. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. Westwood, P. (2014). Teaching Spelling: Exploring Commonsense Strategies and Best Practices. New York, NY: Routledge. Wilkes, A. (2004). My First Word Board Book. London: Dorling Kindersley Limited. Windham, R. (2005). Star Wars: Journey through Space. London: Dorling Kindersley Limited. Williams, C., & Lowrance-Faulhaber, E. (2018). Writing in young bilingual children: Review of research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 58–69.

Internet sources Cobb, T. The Compleat Lexical Tutor. Retrieved January 4, 2021, from https://www.lextuto r.ca/freq/lists_download/longman_3000_list.pdf. Lock, D. (2017). Non-fiction Readers: Support Your Child’s Reading Development. Retrieved January 4, 2021, from https://www.dkfindout.com/uk/explore/non-fiction-readers-sup port-your-childs-reading-development/.

Boris Yelin

Chapter 11 – Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching: Effects of Dominance

Abstract Recent psycholinguistic research has explored language switching in multilingual populations, which provides nuanced details about how the multilingual lexicon is cognitively organized and how languages interact during speech. This study examines cross-linguistic influence (CLI) in trilingual production with language dominance as the main factor, with resultant commentary on the multilingual lexicon. The L1, L2, and L3 are purposely varied for participants in this study, which allows for generalizable results regardless of a specific language combination. A modified picture naming task was used with sentence reading (i. e., carrier phrases) in conjunction with cued picture (i. e., object) naming. The carrier phrase language was followed by an object (represented by a picture), which participants had to name in a target language (L1, L2, or L3). Results partially corroborate past research in which more dominant languages are more easily suppressed but do not strongly support the claim that more dominant languages cause less CLI. Rather the data shows that the L2 is both the most influential and most affected language, which supports the L2 Status Factor Model. Furthermore, results may also support theories of inhibition. Considered together, a more nuanced picture of the multilingual lexicon appears in which forces of inhibition and activation exist in an interplay to moderate lexical selection. Keywords: language dominance, language switching, cross-linguistic influence, multilingual lexicon, picture naming

1.

Introduction

The multilingual lexicon has been increasingly studied in the past few decades in both cross-linguistic influence (CLI) and lexical access studies. Prior lexical access studies have informed researchers about unequal access to languages based on dominance in language switching experiments (e. g., Festman, 2008; Meuter & Allport, 1999; Olson, 2016). Many of the lexical access studies have focused on bilinguals with fewer addressing multilinguals. CLI studies, while including triBoris Yelin, Northeastern University (USA), ORCID: 0000-0002-9763-3749, [email protected].

210

Boris Yelin

linguals and beyond, have not analyzed diverse language profiles within one study. With these findings in mind this study aims to contribute by offering novel methodology while also answering the call for more and varied language combinations (e. g., De Bot, 2004; Ecke, 2015; Falk & Bardel, 2010; Rothman & Halloran, 2013) in order to assess CLI findings irrespective of specific language interactions (e. g., language similarity).

2.

The multilingual lexicon

The mental lexicon is the entire collection of words or lexical items in a person’s mind (Aitchison, 2012), and questions remain about its organization. As far as bilingual lexical storage, Kroll and Stewart’s (1994) three-store hypothesis (and resulting Revised Hierarchical Model), claiming that the linguistic systems of a bilingual’s two languages are interconnected due to shared concepts, resolved the competing one-store hypothesis (single storage for lexicon) versus the two-store hypothesis (independent storage). Szubko-Sitarek (2015) provides an excellent overview of the one-store and two-store hypothesis in terms of multilingual processing.

2.1.

Lexical access studies

Lexical access refers to the ways in which multilinguals select (a) specific word(s) from a specific language. It is important to note the relevant models and theories this study references with its approach to L1/L2/L3 interaction. Firstly, this study adopts the non-selective-access theory, according to which the mind searches all languages simultaneously in a non-language specific manner (De Bot, 2004; Dijkstra, 2003; Dijkstra & van Heuven, 2002). Secondly, the Parasitic Model is also relevant as it claims that new words latch onto preexisting similar words, especially cognates, providing additional evidence that lexicons are connected (Hall, 2002; Hall et al., 2009). Lastly, the Inhibitory Control Model (Green, 1998) states that a dominant language’s lexical items must be inhibited to produce the analogous lexical items in a less dominant language, positing that lemmas both represent a concept and are tagged as belonging to the L1, L2, later expanded to include L3 tags, L4 tags, and beyond (Li, 2006). It follows that more inhibition is necessary for dominant languages, since concepts activate lexical items in a dominant language with greater automaticity. Separate from the theory of inhibition, some researchers argue for different levels of language-specific activation where a language not in use is simply deactivated, not inhibited (e. g., Grosjean, 2008). For instance, Kroll and Stewart

Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching

211

(1994) found that category interference exists when naming pictures that are related semantically, but not when picture naming alternates with word naming, which addressed from this inhibitory point of view suggests that concepts are activated separately from the lexical items. Therefore, when observing an object and accessing a concept, the lexical item candidates are all activated, and then only the target is finally chosen. Since inhibition and activation can be considered complementary phenomena, some researchers assert that activating a certain lexical item in one language inhibits the other possible candidates (e. g., Burton, 2013). As far as testing lexical access, language switching is often used when analyzing the cognitive processes underlying language alternation. Language dominance has been included as a variable and has been found to influence switch costs, i. e., the amount of time it takes to utter a word when switching languages (Costa & Santesteban, 2004). Studies have often chosen isolated picture naming, and few have used pictures to elicit longer utterances (e. g., Tarlowski et al., 2013) or incorporated language-switched word naming in the context of a larger written utterance (e. g., Gullifer et al., 2013; Meuter & Allport, 1999). It is also important to note that neurologists, such as Paradis (2004), have been researching the functioning of the multilingual mind, including work on cases of aphasia (e. g., Goral et al., 2006).

3.

Cross-linguistic influence studies

CLI is a sign of a generally higher level of activation for a specific language that produces an influence of or a failure to inhibit that specific language. Factors that have been found to affect the amount, direction, and type of CLI are L2 status (e. g., Cenoz et al., 2001), order of acquisition (e. g., Burton, 2013; Falk et al., 2015; Flynn et al., 2004), proficiency (e. g., Burton, 2013), (psycho)typology (e. g., Falk, et al., 2015), and recency/maintenance (e. g., Falk & Bardel, 2010). Many models of CLI have been proposed, which will now be briefly discussed. The Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis (Håkansson et al., 2002) claimed that certain elements of an L1 could only be transferred and used successfully in an L2 (that has the same elements) if the speaker had reached a certain threshold (dominance/proficiency). In this study they examined the possibility that the true L2 of the subjects, English, affected their acquisition of the L3, German, V2 word order. This would overcome any typological similarity influence that their L1, Swedish, had over the L3. The Cumulative Enhancement Model had a stronger claim that the L3 could experience only facilitative transfer from the L1 and L2 (Flynn, et al., 2004).

212

Boris Yelin

The Language of Communication Model (Fallah et al., 2016) claimed that the language that is used most often for communication would produce the most CLI. In many studies that use the Bilingual Language Profile with their subjects, this is already a variable that heavily influences which language is the most dominant. Thus, it could be argued that Fallah et al.’s claim is that the dominant language (L1) would be the language that produces CLI, especially with those who naturalistically acquired their L1 and L2. It is important to note that they limited their claims to initial stages of L3 acquisition. This goes against the L2 Status Factor Model, but one must take its limitations of scope into accounts. The Linguistic Proximity Model (Westergaard et al., 2017) posits that balanced bilinguals (i. e., with two L1s) can transfer facilitative structures to an L3 that has a similar typology based on the structure. However, this study did not define the levels of dominance for their participants, and since they did not have unbalanced trilinguals, it is not a valid comparison for this study. The Scalpel Model (Slabakova, 2017) agrees that the L3 can exhibit morphosyntactic transfer from both the L1 and L2, and that the transfer is often very specific rather than wholesale and can be either facilitative, neutral, or detrimental. This model is the most flexible in terms of allowing for various types, amounts, and direction of CLI. Two models that are relevant to this study are the L2 Status Factor Model (Bardel & Falk, 2007; Falk & Bardel, 2011) and the Typological Primacy Model (Rothman, 2011). The L2 Status Factor Model proposes that due to the difference in storage of the L1 (procedural) versus an L2 (declarative), the L2 is more accessible with respect to L3 production. The model also points to the oftensimilar way in which people learn an L2 and L3, i. e., formal classroom learning. To offer contrast, in the Typological Primacy Model, Rothman (2015) claims that typology is the main factor because of language similarities. In the end, one vital difference to draw between the current study and the previous ones that led to these models is that the current study deals exclusively with lexical cross-linguistic influence. It may be that lexical CLI behaves differently than morphosyntactic CLI in terms of which factors exert more of an effect.

3.1.

CLI’s link to lexical access

CLI research, which often analyzes long stretches of speech, provides a more nuanced view than simply picture-naming. Ortega and Celaya (2013) claim that the level of inhibition of certain languages is dependent on respective proficiency levels. A high-proficiency language can be successfully suppressed in the production of a low-proficiency language, resulting in few instances of CLI (Ortega & Celaya, 2013). Conversely, a low-proficiency language is likely to create CLI in

Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching

213

another low-proficiency language (Bardel & Lindqvist, 2006). Thus, the L2 and L3 in terms of control may behave differently than an L1, especially when they are at much lower proficiencies than the L1. One can also relate this L2/L3 connection to the L2 Status Factor Model, though it would be hard to tease apart why the L2 is unique and functions differently from the L3, since the L2 and L3 share many commonalities, such as being acquired, stored and activated in a similar fashion, plus the fact that they often are lower-proficiency/dominance languages compared to the L1. These findings suggest an L1 may be suppressed with more success because of the high level of dominance. In contrast, an L2 or L3 may exhibit more CLI because of a lack of cognitive control/inhibition. Combining the ideas of the Inhibitory Control Model and the L2 Status Factor Model, one can see a holistic view of the function of the multilingual lexicon, in which successful targeted lexical access through inhibitory control improves with dominance. Thus, dominance is complemented by the L1-versus-other-language divide.

4.

Current study

This study explores the multilingual lexicon in trilingual connected speech employing a modified cued picture naming task with an intrasentential language switch to empirically study trilingual lexical access by examining CLI. The experimental design provokes a common situation in which a speaker begins an utterance and cannot access the most semantically important word in the sentence. In this tip of the tongue phenomenon (e. g., Ecke, 2001), the speaker can envision the lemma and must access the lexeme. For multilinguals, mind may consider equivalents of a certain lemma in any of the speaker’s languages. This study considers instances of CLI as the dependent variable with language dominance as the independent variable. Compared to other lexical access studies in which participants were presented with a series of pictures to name (e. g., Costa et al., 2006; Festman, 2008; Guo et al., 2011; Kroll & Stewart, 1994; Misra et al., 2012), this study includes a picture naming task within connected speech. Using connected speech reflects better the language reality of multilinguals, improving upon the simpler naming tasks that were divorced from the wider speech context. Furthermore, instead of analyzing multilinguals with an identical set of languages this study includes diverse languages combinations to comment more broadly on the multilingual lexicon. Considering the results related to the objective of explaining how the multilingual lexicon functions, the aim is to explore how well some of the aforementioned models, such as the Inhibitory Control Model, or the L2 Status Factor

214

Boris Yelin

Model, explain the CLI phenomena more completely with respect to dominance, which produces the following research question: How does language dominance influence CLI in switch and stay trials by condition (e. g., L1→L2, L1→L3, L3→L2, etc.)? It is hypothesized that stay responses should exhibit less CLI than switch responses. In switch responses, any target L1 production should experience less CLI than target L2 productions, which in turn experience less than any L3 productions based on an increasing level of control with stronger dominance.

5.

Methods

A variation on the cued picture-naming task (e. g., Olson 2016), which included a carrier phrase, was administered to unbalanced trilingual speakers with varied language combinations. In the task, participants uttered a carrier phrase (i. e., “I want the…”) along with the name of an object that was represented by a picture. There were three conditions; in each condition participants used one of their three languages to name the objects (e. g., Condition 1 = English object naming; Condition 2 = Spanish object naming, etc.). In each condition carrier phrases appeared in a random order in all three languages (L1, L2, and L3), but participants named the object in a single target language. The independent variable was the language combination between the carrier phrase and the language of the object. CLI was analyzed quantitatively as to the extent and the direction, e. g., L1→L3. A total of 13,608 trials were conducted.

5.1.

Participants and languages

A total of forty-two unbalanced trilinguals participated in this connected speech cued picture-naming study. Most participants recruited were in higher-level foreign language courses at the college level and/or graduate students, though there were some community members that had had language study or were multilinguals through more naturalistic means. There were 16 male and 26 female participants. Ages ranged from 19 to 66 (M = 33.17, SD = 12.76). Though some studies have found age-related trends (e. g., Gollan & Ferreira, 2009), dominance is significant and outweighs any age-related trend. With no significant effects and no specific age blocks in this experiment, the wide range of ages is deemed appropriate.

Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching

215

All participants had normal hearing and speech, and normal or corrected to normal vision. Participants were explicitly asked before beginning the study to confirm their three most dominant languages. Following Kemp’s (2009) emphasis on the necessity of clear research-specific definitions to determine what level of proficiency is necessary for a language to count as part of a multilingual’s language set, here the definition is broad; those who consider themselves to have a fundamental competence in a language may include that language in their set of languages. Though this definition is broad, for the purposes of this study, it is sufficient for participants to have a knowledge consistent with the ability to utter short phrases and be familiar with the lexical items on which they will be tested. Only two participants were eliminated for not identifying nor being familiar with half or more of the lexical items in any given language. In order to be able to more reliably generalize the results of this study, various trilingual language profiles with different language combinations were used. Participants were also asked whether they had formally studied or been immersed in other languages in order to monitor potential unintended language activation and CLI. From this pool of participants, few were true trilinguals that did not have some fundamental knowledge of other languages. While originally considered a concern, none of the participants produced any language other than their language triad languages during the tasks, which can be attributed to Szubko-Sitarek’s (2015) idea that only the elicited and most dominant languages were activated during the task. Though some participants had studied other languages, there was no production of any language other than the ones in question for any of the participants. Table 1 outlines the trilingual language profiles represented. The dominance order is not reflected, but rather for ease of comparison, languages are listed alphabetically. As a reviewer pointed out, it would have been ideal to have equal representation from each triad, equal representation of language dominance order within the triads, and more participants in order to strongly rule out (psycho)typological effects, so that remains a limitation of the study. Demographic and linguistic data was collected using the Bilingual Language Profile (BLP) (Birdsong et al., 2012) modified for trilinguals, which generated a language dominance score based on several factors including order/age of acquisition, language exposure, frequency and range of language use, self-rated proficiency, and language attitudes. These factors were considered collectively to gauge dominance. These factors are commonly collected in studies on lexical processing and cross-linguistic influence in L3 acquisition (e. g., Tremblay, 2006). Language proficiency and dominance were self-rated as has been done in previous studies (e. g., Festman, 2008; Olson, 2012; Ortega & Celaya, 2013). Language dominance was computed as a score based on the questionnaire responses. Scores ranged from 0–218; higher scores represent greater dominance.

216

Boris Yelin

Table 1. Language triads represented Language triad

Number of participants 12

English – French – Spanish English – German – Spanish English – Portuguese – Spanish

7 5

English – French – Mandarin English – Mandarin – Spanish

3 3

English – French – German English – French – Russian

2 2

English – German – Portuguese English – Italian – Spanish

2 2

English – Russian – Spanish English – German – Italian

2 1

English – German – Mandarin

1

The participants’ L1, L2, and L3 exhibited distinct dominance scores, 171.04, 111.28, and 65.44, respectively. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for the L1, L2, and L3 dominance data. An ANOVA revealed that the difference in dominance among the participants’ languages was highly significant (F (2,123) = 3.09, p < .001, η² = 0.782). The confidence intervals for the L1 data were 188.038, 95% CI [183, 193], for the L2 data were 117.9876, 95% CI [109, 127], and for the L3 data were 68.86542, 95% CI [60.4, 77.3]. Post-hoc pairwise t-test comparisons confirmed the difference with p < .001 between each language pair (e. g., L1 and L2). Looking at the means of the BLP scores, participants’ L1s were more dominant than their L2s, which were more dominant than their L3s. A Bartlett test of Homogeneity of Variances showed that there was a significant difference between the language dominances, B(2) = 13.8446, p < 0.01. A Shapiro-Wilk test showed that L1 dominance was not normally distributed, W(41) = 0.94, p = 0.03, the L2 dominance was not normally distributed, W(41) = 0.94, p = 0.02, and the L3 dominance was normally distributed, W(41) = 0.97, p = 0.32. Table 2. Language dominance score aggregate information L1 (N = 42) Mean SD

171.04 15.37

L2 (N = 42) Mean SD

111.28 29.48

L3 (N = 42) Mean SD

65.44 27.04

Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching

5.2.

217

Stimuli

In the connected speech cued picture-naming study, the single carrier phrase (“I want the ___”) was intended to activate a particular language, i. e., the L1, L2, or L3. This carrier phrase was used because it includes the minimum morphosyntax while remaining grammatical in each language. Furthermore, it maintains a comparable syllable length of two to three syllables across languages. Also, the phrase is rather basic, not semantically specific, and likely to be known to a trilingual in each language regardless of language dominance. The carrier phrase appeared in one of three languages followed by an object to be named in the language of the condition; the carrier phrase language was randomly selected. The language of the carrier phrase was either the same as the target language of the object (stay) (n = 24) or different from the target language of the object (switch) (n = 48). Each elicited phrase plus the object combination was one trial. There were three conditions as defined by the target language of the object: L1, L2, and L3. There were 216 target trials (24 target trials x 3 conditions x 3 repetitions). The total number of stimuli was 9,072 (216 * 42 participants). 5.2.1. Carrier phrase creation In order to create an acceptable, grammatical carrier phrase and object combination, code switching research was relied on in order to verify that the language switching was naturalistic. According to several bilingualism studies, code switches can occur if the surface representation in both the matrix and embedded languages allow code switching (Clyne, 1987; Myers-Scotton, 1997), and researchers such as MacSwan (2004) contend that there are no constraints between the determiner and noun.1 The definite article was included in the carrier phrase, except in cases where a language does not have articles, to prevent participants from adding additional variability with other determiners. The definite article in each carrier phrase corresponded to the grammatical gender of the object in that carrier phrase’s language. In order to illustrate the stimuli more clearly, let us assume that we are testing an English-German-Spanish speaker: 1 Though there are no constraints between a determiner phrase (DP) and noun phrase (NP), some naturalistic research has found that there are preferences for certain pairings as to the language of the DP and the language of the NP (e. g., Deuchar, 2006). For instance, in Spanish and English, a Spanish DP + English NP is strongly preferred, while in Welsh and English, a Welsh DP + English NP is strongly preferred (Herring et al., 2010). As far as this study is concerned, there is a wide range of language triads, and the results were analyzed according to pre-determined dominance, so this study actually controlled for more extralinguistic factors, which was one of the limitations of the Herring et al. (2010) study.

218

Boris Yelin

English: I want the

.

German: Ich will den

.

Spanish: Yo quiero la

.

5.2.2. Object selection This study utilized Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) images, widely used in primed picture naming tasks. After a normalization process, only those objects named with an absolute consensus in each language were considered for use as objects in the experiment. Twelve objects (eight target stimuli and four fillers) for each language triad were selected. Word names of selected objects in each language triad were analyzed for frequency in their respective lexicons using frequency dictionaries since people tend to recognize high-frequency words faster than low-frequency words (Schilling et al,. 1998). The frequency dictionaries determined word rankings based on usage, considering frequency and dispersion. The eight target words for each language in a given triad were determined via an ANOVA to have mean frequencies that were not significantly different from each other, as had been done in previous studies (e. g., Festman, 2008). The four filler words for each triad were also determined via an ANOVA to have mean frequencies that were not significantly different from each other. As seen in Table 3, different language combinations required different sets of words so that the experiment could be controlled to avoid multiple interpretations, direct cognates, and identical onsets. Furthermore, object words varied as to semantic categories in order to not contribute the additional factor of increased activation of semantically-linked words (Festman, 2008). Table 3. Example of two distinct words sets for two distinct language triads English

French

Spanish

English

Spanish

Russian

dog

chien

perro

arm

brazo

рука

dress

robe

vestido

ball

pelota

мяч

duck

canard

pato

belt

cinturón

ремень

flag

drapeau

bandera

bread

pan

хлеб

hat

chapeau

sombrero

dog

perro

собака

house

maison

casa

fish

pez

рыба

leg

jambe

pierna

house

casa

дом

window

fenêtre

ventana

window

ventana

окно

Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching

219

In addition to each set of eight target object stimuli, there were four fillers that were either exact cognates or interlingual neighbors (similar spellings) in two or more languages, and they were used in order to prompt more interaction among the three languages in the lexicon. These fillers were used for practice and reused in the task to continue to promote CLI, but they were not analyzed in the present study, since trilinguals have been found to recall cognates more quickly than noncognates (Otwinowska-Kasztelanic, 2011, Carroll, 1992; Christoffels et al., 2007). Conditions were counterbalanced across participants as in past research (e. g., Kroll & Stewart, 1994), so that participants would not always follow the same order of conditions to control for either fatigue or excelling at the task with practice. The order of the stimuli was randomized in each condition with respect to both the carrier phrase language and the object.

5.3.

Procedure

The experiment took place in a sound booth. Participants were first asked to identify the twelve objects (eight target stimuli and four fillers). Though the object name had been originally normed for English, the participants were asked to write the names of the objects in each of the three languages to ensure that they knew those vocabulary items in accordance with procedures used with other picture naming studies (e. g., Alonso, 2012). The order of the languages by dominance in which they had to identify the objects on the page was counterbalanced. In cases in which they did not know or could not recall a word, they were told the word and asked if they could now recognize it. Their responses were recorded so during data analysis, one could account for whether, during the naming task, participants struggled with words they did not recall or had not learned before. A total of 1,343 trials (of 9,029 trials: 15%) in which words were not recalled at first or not known were marked to later verify that those trials did not skew the results. After verifying the names of all the objects, the participants were allowed up to two minutes to review all the words. Participants were subsequently given instructions by the experimenter about the naming task, i. e., to read the carrier phrases as written and say the object in the language of the condition indicated by a flag. They were also told that their goal was to say the carrier phrase and object “as quickly and accurately as possible” and to not worry about potential mistakes. The PsychoPy program was used to present the trials within each condition. The participants completed three practice conditions, each consisting of the four filler objects. During the practice, participants were corrected if they were not performing the task correctly.

220

Boris Yelin

After completing the practice conditions, participants began the naming task. At the beginning of each condition, the following sequence occurred: (1) A written direction appeared stating “You will now start a new session. When you are ready you may press any key to continue. The flag that appears indicates the language in which you must ALWAYS name the OBJECTS.” A flag was displayed on the screen representing the target language of the condition, i. e., the language in which the participant named the object of each stimulus, for 5000 ms. (2) A fixation point appeared in the center of the screen for 5000 ms to indicate where the stimuli would appear. (3) A stimulus that included the carrier phrase and an object to be named appeared for 3000 ms as the computer simultaneously recorded the participant’s response. (4) A blank screen appeared for 1000 ms. Following all trials in a condition, the following message was displayed: “End of session. Press any button to exit. Please call your researcher into the sound booth.” This procedure was applied for all repetitions of the task. Participants had short breaks between conditions to lessen mental fatigue and prevent adaptation to the task. Participants’ responses were recorded by a microphone for later analysis. Using PRAAT (Boersma & Weenink, 2016), responses for each stimulus were demarcated at the onset of speech (i. e., the beginning of the carrier phrase) and the onset of the object name. The onset of speech, as recorded by the PsychoPy program’s voice key, provided the measurement of reaction time (i. e., the moment the stimulus appears on the screen to voice onset). The duration from the voice onset to the onset of the object name provided the measurement for the carrier phrase duration. Both reaction time and carrier phrase duration were measured to the nearest millisecond. Reaction time was measured manually in order to exclude non-speech noise, such as exhalation, as the onset of speech.

5.4.

Coding

The independent variable of language dominance was coded as a two-language combination. The nine combinations were as follows: L1→L1, L1→L2, L1→L3, L2→L1, L2→L2, L2→L1, L2→L3, L3→L1, L3→L2, L3→L3. With respect to criteria, trials were coded as exhibiting CLI if the participant uttered the complete name of the target lexical item or another word in a non-target language (a language switch) or if there was a false start in the non-target language, e. g., the English target word was book, but the participant said “lib…book,” evidencing CLI from Spanish libro. Besides false starts after the carrier phrase, there were also cases of language switches and false starts in the carrier phrase. Cases of cross-linguistic influence were coded for the source language of the cross-linguistic influence. This study also coded incorrect object names in the

221

Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching

target language as cross-linguistic influence, presuming that additional cognitive effort would create additional lexical competition in the mind, not just between languages, but within a language. Coding cases of cross-linguistic influence according to their position in the carrier phrase or the object potentially allows one to explore whether speakers are cognitively processing the language switch before beginning the utterance or at the point of switching. Considering the type of cross-linguistic influence and the location of the evidence within the produced trials, six patterns of cross-linguistic influence were analyzed (See Table 4). Table 4. Examples of CLI patterns2 CLI pattern Non-Target Language False Start Correct Object

Languages Spanish→German

Target Tür “door”

Production Quiero la p…Tür “I want the d… door.”

Non-Target Language Correct Ob- English→French ject Non-Target Language False Start Portuguese→English Carrier Phrase

nuage “cloud” Quero “I want”

I want the cloud.

Non-Target Language Carrier Phrase Complete

Mandarin→English

I want the key.

Target Language False Start Incorrect Object

French→French

我要 “I want” porte “door”

Target Language Incorrect Object

French→Spanish

I… Quero a belt. “I…I want the belt.”

Je veux la fen… porte. “I want the wind…door.”

vestido Je veux la falda. “dress” “I want the skirt.”

Non-Target Language False Start Correct Object refers to a case in which a speaker begins to produce the correct object name in the non-target language. Non-Target Language Correct Object refers to a case in which a speaker produces the correct object name as a complete language switch. Non-Target Language False Start Carrier Phrase refers to a case in which a speaker exhibits a false start from a nontarget language in the carrier phrase. Non-Target Language Carrier Phrase Complete refers to a case in which a speaker produces the carrier phrase in the non-target language. Target Language False Start Incorrect Object refers to a case in which a speaker produces the target language for the object, but exhibits a false

2 One reviewer mentioned that these categories were qualitatively different. This is true, but the examples are shown for reference as to what was marked as CLI. The differences between them would be more pertinent if there were enough data to look at the instances of each type separately. This is an area for future research.

222

Boris Yelin

start for a non-target word. Target Language Incorrect Object refers to a case in which a speaker produces the target language for the object but says a non-target word.

6.

Results and discussion

A total of 224 responses (from 9,029 target trials: 2.5%) were marked as potential cases of CLI. However, only 159 (1.8%) cases of CLI conformed to the criteria above with the remaining sixty-one cases eliminated from analysis for utterances that did not conform to any of the six categories; an example would be someone saying, “I forgot,” a non-sense word or the inability to completely say the carrier phrase and target word. These trials were first analyzed depending on switch versus stay conditions and dominance-relationship to understand how CLI manifests itself. Then, the trials were analyzed for the source of CLI and for the location/pattern of CLI, i. e., whether the CLI occurred in the carrier phrase or the object and whether a false start or a complete utterance was produced. For the switch versus stay analysis of CLI, there are more cases of CLI in switch trials (n = 132) than stay trials (n = 27). However, there was an almost equal number of cases of CLI in strong→weak switches (n = 65) as in weak→strong switches (n = 67). The source of CLI was predominantly the L2 (n = 72), followed by the L3 (n = 48) and L1 (n = 39) (see Figure 1 and Table 5). Following the same pattern, CLI was most present in the L2 (n = 65) and less so in the L3 (n = 50) and the L1 (n = 44), which displays the number of cases of CLI based on dominance along with the respective percentages relative to the total number of cases (Table 5). Table 5. CLI by language combination Source

Combination

Frequency L1 L1 L1 L2 L1 L3 Percent L1 0 16 1 0.00 10.06 0.63

L2 L1 L2 L2 L2 L3 L3 L1

L3 L2

L3 L3 Total

5 3.14

1 0.63

2 1.26

7 4.40

4 2.52

3 1.89

39 24.53

L2

9 5.66 4 2.52

7 4.40 6 3.77

19 11.95 9 5.66

11 6.92 6 3.77

10 6.29 11 6.92

4 2.52 4 2.52

72 45.28 48 30.19

25 15.72

11 6.92

159 100.00

L3 Total

2 1.26 0 0.00

7 4.40 3 1.89

3 1.89 5 3.14

2 1.26

26 9 16.35 5.66

18 14 11.32 8.81

30 24 18.87 15.09

Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching

223

Figure 1. Cases of CLI

A chi-square test of independence was used to determine whether the relation between the source language of the CLI instance and direction of the language change was significant. The relationship was indeed found to be significant: X2 (16, N = 159) = 37.14, p = .002, w = .48, 95% CI [3.37, 6.89]. Thus, there was a significant difference in the ratios of the instances of CLI across language switch conditions. A post-hoc power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) shows that given these elements, and the statistical power was .9885.3 Following Olson’s (2016) methodology, an error analysis was conducted to determine if there were error switch costs, i. e., a cost in correct production due to language switching. These costs were calculated by subtracting the number of errors in stay trials in a given language from the number of errors in the switch trials for that language. The following error switch costs were found: L1 = 40, L2 = 37, L3 = 28. These results may suggest that the inhibition necessary to control a more dominant language on a macro level also impacts the lexical access, producing more errors. However, there was an exception with the L1→L3 switch exhibiting fewer cases of CLI than in the other switches into the L2 or L3. This could be explained by the relative dominance of the L1 compared to the L3 allowing a stronger level of control for the L1 to prevent it from creating CLI. As to cases of CLI by dominance-relationship, there were a comparable number of instances of CLI when switching from a less dominant language into a more dominant language (n = 67) as when switching from a more dominant to a

3 A reviewer referenced Brysbaert (2019), who found that this application may sometimes not be as accurate attended, so that is something to take into account. Please see Brysbaert (2019) for a thorough review.

224

Boris Yelin

less dominant language (n = 65). This suggests that the process of inhibition is not closely tied to the mechanisms by which CLI occurs, at least in this study. Beyond analyzing cases and sources of CLI, six patterns of CLI were coded in order to observe their relative frequency in production (Table 6). The most common pattern of CLI was Non-Target Language False Start Correct Object (n = 64). The second most common was Non-Target Language Correct Object (n = 38). The third most common was Target Language Incorrect Object (n = 25). One example of this third type is when a subject named the “monkey” object simio in Spanish, which specifically denotes “ape.” This error was likely due to CLI from the Italian scimmia, which denotes “monkey.” The fourth most common was Non-Target Language False Start Carrier Phrase (n = 19). The less common types of CLI were Target Language False Start Incorrect Object (n = 9) and Non-Target Language Carrier Phrase Complete (n = 4). Only fourteen percent (n = 23) of the cases occurred in the carrier phrase, while 86% (n = 136) occurred in the object. Table 6. Instances of CLI by pattern Pattern Non-Target Language False Start Correct Object

Number of cases 64

% of total cases 39.6

Non-Target Language Correct Object Target Language Incorrect Object

38 25

23.9 14.5

Non-Target Language False Start Carrier Phrase Target Language False Start Incorrect Object

19 9

11.3 5.7

Non-Target Language Carrier Phrase Complete

4

1.8

Given that no language switch or stay condition was resistant to CLI, there is strong evidence for extensive interaction among a trilingual’s languages. Furthermore, since most cases of CLI were Non-Target Language False Start Correct Objects, the data supports the idea that multilinguals, even if they lexically access a non-target item initially, still have a great amount of control to reselect the target lexical item. This also lends evidence to the idea that the lexical items are strongly connected to the concept; even when participants uttered a non-target word in the target language, out of the twenty-three cases, only five were phonologically motivated, while the remaining eighteen were words that were semantically related to the target item. In general, the L1 experienced the least amount of CLI, which supports research showing that more proficient languages experience less CLI than less proficient languages because of the strength of the lexical/conceptual connections (Festman, 2008; Lindqvist, 2009). This resistance to CLI also supports the idea that speakers who are more dominant in a language also exert greater control over it and can prevent it from influencing a less dominant language, an

Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching

225

idea also supported by other prior research (e. g., Ortega & Celaya, 2013). In contrast to expectations, switching into the L2 (and even staying in the L2) was most susceptible to CLI (65 cases). Also, the most common source for CLI was the L2 (72 cases). These two results suggest that the L2 is the most susceptible to CLI, possibly due to its intermediary dominance relative to the L1 and L3; this link may also reveal that the L2 has a lower level of inhibition than the L1 but a higher level than the L3. This finding supports Kroll and Stewart’s (1994) Revised Hierarchical Model, which claims that the L2 has strong lexical ties to the L1, and it also supports the Parasitic Model (Hall & Ecke, 2003), which claims that the L3 forms ties to the L2 lexicon. Also, there are mixed findings with respect to the validity of the L2 Status Factor. In favor, there is a strong connection between the L2 and the L3 in terms of exhibiting cases of CLI. First, the primary source for cases of CLI when switching into an L3 were from the L2.4 This L2-L3 connection provides evidence for the high integration of these two languages in a trilingual’s mind, lending support to the L2 Status Factor Model. This connection is explicable in terms of a closer connection of the lexicons, in terms of the way in which one learns the words – formally – which is further strengthened by the Parasitic Model (Hall, 2002), since new words in the L3, in absence of L1 cognates, would latch onto the L2 equivalents. Thus, if the L2 and L3 lexicons are connected to such a degree, they will be accessed in a similar fashion, and this supports the closer connection between those two languages according to both lexical access models like the Revised Hierarchical Model (Kroll & Stewart, 1994) and CLI models like the L2 Status Factor Model (Bardel & Falk, 2007; Falk & Bardel, 2011). However, in terms of source of CLI, there is a greater similarity between the L1 and L3, further supporting a more intermediary position for the L2. This contrast may be due to the distinct differences in dominance among languages compared to a more balanced situation.

7.

Conclusion

This study’s goal was to expand the research of the multilingual lexicon, specifically in language switching situations in connected speech. One of the points to achieve this goal was to include a wide range of language combinations for generalizable conclusions. Another point was to have unbalanced trilinguals in 4 This is compared to the L1. Undoubtedly, there was a large amount of cross-linguistic influence from the L3 as well, but those instances were still in the target language because the utterances were L3 words but not the target words.

226

Boris Yelin

order to gauge the effect of language dominance regardless of a particular language arrangement. A final point was to bridge the theories/models of lexical access to those that address CLI while employing a more naturalistic methodology to explore how the mind processes multiple languages. The cross-linguistic influence findings support an equally strong and susceptible role for the L2, which does not align with past research that claims that more dominant languages are less susceptible to cross-linguistic influence. The results facilitate a complementary perspective that connects ideas of inhibition and cross-linguistic influence, concerning the exact conditions and mechanisms at work when selecting a language.

References Aitchison, J. (2012). Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Alonso, J. G. (2012). Assessing multilingual lexical incorporation hypotheses through a primed picture-naming task. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2(1), 91–107. doi:10.1075/lab.2.1.04gon. Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23(4), 459–484. doi:10.1177/0267658307080557. Bardel, C., & Lindqvist, C. (2006). The role of proficiency and psychotypology in lexical cross-linguistic influence. A study of a multilingual learner of Italian L3. Atti Del VI Congresso Di Studi Dell’Associazione Italiana Di Linguistica Applicata, Napoli, 9–10. Birdsong, D., Gertken, L. M., & Amengual, M. (2012). Bilingual Language Profile: An Easyto-Use Instrument to Assess Bilingualism. COERLL, University of Texas at Austin. https://sites.la.utexas.edu/bilingual/. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version 6.0.21, retrieved 25 September 2016 from http://www.praat.org/. Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2 (1). doi:10.5334/joc.72. Burton, G. (2013). Cross-linguistic influence in non-native languages: Explaining lexical transfer using language production models. International Journal of Multilingualism, 10(1), 46–59. doi:10.1080/14790718.2012.679274. Carroll, S. E. (1992). On cognates. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 8(2), 93–119. Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition. In B. Hufeisen, J. Cenoz, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 8–20). Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/978185359 5509-002.

Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching

227

Christoffels, I. K., Firk, C., & Schiller, N. O. (2007). Bilingual language control: An eventrelated brain potential study. Brain Research, 1147, 192–208. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.20 07.01.137. Clyne, M. (1987). Constraints on code switching: How universal are they? Linguistics, 25(4), 739–764. doi:10.1515/ling.1987.25.4.739. Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 491–511. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002. Costa, A., Santesteban, M., & Ivanova, I. (2006). How do highly proficient bilinguals control their lexicalization process? Inhibitory and language-specific selection mechanisms are both functional. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1057. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1057. De Bot, K. (2004). The multilingual lexicon: Modelling selection and control. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 17–32. doi:10.1080/14790710408668176. De Bot, K., & Jaensch, C. (2015). What is special about L3 processing? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(02), 130–144. doi:10.1017/S1366728913000448. Deuchar, M. (2006). Welsh-English code-switching and the Matrix Language Frame model. Lingua, 116(11), 1986–2011. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2004.10.001. Dijkstra T. (2003) Lexical Processing in Bilinguals and Multilinguals: The Word Selection Problem. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), The Multilingual Lexicon. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-306-48367-7_2. Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(03), 175–197. doi:10.1017/S1366728902003012. Ecke, P. (2001). Lexical Retrieval in a Third Language: Evidence from Errors and Tip-ofthe-Tongue States. In J. Cenoz, B. Hufeisen, & U. Jessner (Eds.), Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 90–114). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781853595509-007. Ecke, P. (2015). Parasitic vocabulary acquisition, cross-linguistic influence, and lexical retrieval in multilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 145–162. doi:10.1017/S1366728913000722. Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2010). 2010. The study of the role of the background languages in third language acquisition. The state of the art. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(2–3), 185–219. doi:10.1515/iral.2010.009. Falk, Y., & Bardel, C. (2011). Object pronouns in German L3 syntax: Evidence for the L2 status factor. Second Language Research, 27(1), 59–82. doi:10.1177/0267658310386647. Falk, Y., Lindqvist, C., & Bardel, C. (2015). The role of L1 explicit metalinguistic knowledge in L3 oral production at the initial state. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 227–235. doi:10.1017/S1366728913000552. Falk, Y., Lindqvist, C., & Bardel, C. (2015). The role of L1 explicit metalinguistic knowledge in L3 oral production at the initial state. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 227–235. doi:10.1017/S1366728913000552. Fallah, N., Jabbari, A. A., & Fazilatfar, A. M. (2016). Source(s) of syntactic cross-linguistic influence (CLI): The case of L3 acquisition of English possessives by MazandaraniPersian bilinguals. Second Language Research, 32(2), 225–245. doi:10.1177/026765831 5618009.

228

Boris Yelin

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. Festman, J. (2008). Cross-language interference during trilingual picture naming in single and mixed language conditions. Multilingualism: Learning and Instruction. Selected papers from the L3-Conference in Friburg, Switzerland, 109–119. Flynn, S., Foley, C., & Vinnitskaya, I. (2004). The cumulative-enhancement model for language acquisition: Comparing adults’ and children’s patterns of development in first, second and third language acquisition of relative clauses. International Journal of Multilingualism, 1(1), 3–16. doi:10.1080/14790710408668175. Francis, W. S., & Gallard, S. L. K. (2005). Concept mediation in trilingual translation: Evidence from response time and repetition priming patterns. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(6), 1082–1088. doi:10.3758/BF03206447. Gollan, T. H., & Ferreira., V. S. (2009). Should I stay or should I switch? A cost–benefit analysis of voluntary language switching in young and aging bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 640–665. doi:10.10 37/a0014981. Goral, M., Levy, E. S., Obler, L. K., & Cohen, E. (2006). Cross-language lexical connections in the mental lexicon: Evidence from a case of trilingual aphasia. Brain and Language, 98(2), 235–247. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2006.05.004. Green, D. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. doi:10.1017/S1366728998000133. Grosjean, F. (2008). Studying Bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gullifer, J. W., Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2013). When language switching has no apparent cost: Lexical access in sentence context. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(278). doi:0.3389/fpsyg.2013.00278. Guo, T., Liu, H., Misra, M., & Kroll, J. F. (2011). Local and global inhibition in bilingual word production: fMRI evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals. NeuroImage, 56(4), 2300–2309. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.03.049. Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18(3), 250–273. doi:10.1191/0267658302sr206oa. Hall, C. J. (2002). The automatic cognate form assumption: Evidence for the parasitic model of vocabulary development. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40(2), 69–87. doi:10.1515/iral.2002.008. Hall, C. J., & Ecke, P. (2003). Parasitism as a default mechanism in L3 vocabulary acquisition. The Multilingual Lexicon, 71–85. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-30 6-48367-7_6. Hall, C. J., Newbrand, D., Ecke, P., Sperr, U., Marchand, V., & Hayes, L. (2009). Learners’ implicit assumptions about syntactic frames in new L3 words: The role of cognates, typological proximity, and L2 status. Language Learning, 59(1), 153–202. Herring, J. R., Deuchar, M., Couto, M. C. P., & Quintanilla, M. M. (2010). ‘I saw the madre’: Evaluating predictions about codeswitched determiner-noun sequences using Spanish– English and Welsh–English data. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 13(5), 553–573. doi:10.1080/13670050.2010.488286.

Cross-linguistic Influence in Trilingual Language Switching

229

Kemp, C. (2009). Defining multilingualism. In L. Aronin, & B. Hufeisen (Eds.), The Exploration of Multilingualism: Development of research on L3, multilingualism and multiple language acquisition (Vol. 6, pp. 11–26). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/aals.6.02ch2. Kroll, J. F., & Dussias, P. E. (2008). The comprehension of words and sentences in two languages. In T. Bhatia, & W. Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 169– 200). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118332382.ch9. Kroll, J. F., & Stewart E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174. doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1008. Li, W. (2006). The multilingual mental lexicon and lemma transfer in third language learning. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(2), 88–104. doi:10.1080/1479071 0608668390. Lindqvist, C. (2009). The use of the L1 and the L2 in French L3: Examining cross-linguistic lexemes in multilingual learners’ oral production. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(3), 281–297. doi:10.1080/14790710902812022. MacSwan, J. (2012). Code-Switching and Grammatical Theory. In T. K. Bhatia, & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism (pp. 323–350). Malden, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118332382.ch13. Meuter, R. F., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 25–40. doi:10.10 06/jmla.1998.260. Misra, M., Guo, T., Bobb, S. C., & Kroll, J. F. (2012). When bilinguals choose a single word to speak: Electrophysiological evidence for inhibition of the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(1), 224–237. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.05.001. Myers-Scotton, C. (1997). Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Olson, D. J. (2012). Bilingual language contexts: Variable language switching costs and phonetic production [University of Texas Austin]. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/h andle/2152/ETD-UT-2012-08-5933. Olson, D. J. (2016). The gradient effect of context on language switching and lexical access in bilingual production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(3), 725–756. doi:10.1017/S01427 16415000223. Ortega, M., & Celaya, M. (2013). “El gos és a dins del basket”: Lexical CLI in L3 Catalan by L1 English-speaking learners. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada (RESLA), 26, 409–432. Kasztelanic, A. (2011). Awareness and affordances: Multilinguals versus bilinguals and their perceptions of cognates. In G. De Angelis, & J. Dewaele (Eds.), New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research (pp. 1–18). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. doi:10.21832/9781847694430-002. Paradis, M. (2004). A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. Rothman, J. (2011). L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: The typological primacy model. Second Language Research, 27(1), 107–127. doi:10.1177/ 0267658310386439.

230

Boris Yelin

Rothman, J. (2015). Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model (TPM) of third language (L3) transfer: Timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(2), 179–190. doi:10.1017/S1366 72891300059X. Rothman, J., & Halloran, B. (2013). Formal linguistic approaches to L3/Ln acquisition: A focus on morphosyntactic transfer in adult multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 51–67. doi:10.1017/S0267190513000032. Schilling, H. E., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26(6), 1270–1281. doi:10.3758/BF03201199. Slabakova, R. (2017). The Scalpel Model of Third Language Acquisition. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 651–665. doi:10.1177/1367006916655413. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174–215. Szubko-Sitarek, W. (2015). Multilingual Lexical Recognition in the Mental Lexicon of Third Language Users. New York, NY: Springer. Tarlowski, A., Wodniecka, Z., & Marzecová, A. (2013). Language switching in the production of phrases. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(2), 103–118. doi:10.1007/ s10936-012-9203-9. Tremblay, M.C. (2006). Cross-linguistic influence in third language acquisition: The role of L2 proficiency and L2 exposure. Clo/Opl, 34(1), 109–119. van Heuven, W. J., Schriefers, H., Dijkstra, T., & Hagoort, P. (2008). Language conflict in the bilingual brain. Cerebral Cortex, 18(11), 2706–2716. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn030. Westergaard, M., Mitrofanova, N., Mykhaylyk, R., & Rodina, Y. (2017). Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The Linguistic Proximity Model. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(6), 666–682. doi:10.1177/1367006916648859.

Part Three: Language Education: Supporting Multilingual Development

Moira De Iaco

Chapter 12 – A Multilingual Perspective on Metaphoric Gestures for Language Education Purposes

Abstract This contribution aims to argue the power of metaphoric gestures to achieve important goals in language education and to show cultural differences in multilingual contexts. To demonstrate and to evaluate the cognitive and communicative functions of these gestures, this paper will analyze three different examples of metaphoric gesture: the scissor hand gesture, the future and past gestures, and the metaphoric components of the explanatory gestures used for teaching the Italian expression fare la scarpetta (literally translated, “make the little shoe”). The results indicate that metaphoric gestures are affected by cultural differences and can be used to teach these differences across multilingual settings. They also can be used to illuminate the vocabulary and speech properties (e. g., intonation) of a target language, thus facilitating the learning of it. Keywords: metaphoric gestures, language education, conceptual metaphor theory, scissor hand gesture, future and past gestures, fare la scarpetta

1.

Introduction

In everyday life, we use different types of gestures which perform several functions in terms of the creation of meaning. They symbolize, illustrate, and regulate communication (e. g., beat gestures), in addition to expressing emotions and feelings, and allowing for adaptation. Among the so-called representational gestures are those described by McNeill (1992, 1998): deictic, iconic, metaphoric, and rhythmic. They have both cognitive and communicative functions. These gestures can be considered as an embodied cognitive extension of activities such as thinking, learning, processing, and speaking. They have an internal function that consists in organizing information according to the action frames (the spatial-motor thinking) (Kita, 2000, p. 164) and an external communicative

Moira De Iaco, University of Bari Aldo Moro (Italy), ORCID: 0000-0001-5943-8267, [email protected].

234

Moira De Iaco

function that involves representing thoughts in the visual space (Cienki & Müller, 2008). Gestures are an integral part of thought and communication (Alibali et al., 2000; Kendon, 2004; McNeill, 1998). They play a key role in thinking, communicating, and learning, since they use the spatial-motor modality as well as the visual space for representing and constructing images, which improve cognitive processes such as attention, memory, reasoning, and problem solving (Ianì & Formichella, 2018; McNeill, 1998, 2000). Gestures structure our thinking by offering a supplementary method of representation. They influence speaking and they support language learning by enabling comprehension through visual explanations (Chu et al., 2014; De Iaco, 2020; Ping et al., 2014). According to Casasanto and Lozano (2007, p. 3), “every gesture presumably corresponds to a spatio-motoric representation” in the mind of someone who gesticulates. The Information Packaging Hypothesis indicates that gestures allow speakers “to explore alternative ways of organizing a perceptual array,” therefore they help them “to break down a perceptual array into verbalizable units” (Alibali et al., 2000, p. 610). By re-representing the perceptual or motor knowledge, gestures prepare and improve the use of words, enhance the fluency of speech, and facilitate verbal language production and comprehension (Chu et al., 2014; Ping et al., 2014). What is the cognitive potential of gestures? They improve the functions of our system of attention. They support the activation of the supervisory attentional system of the working memory. They also offer a spatialmotoric form of input in addition to the phonological ones. This reinforces the rehearsal and maintenance of the traces during input processing across two subcomponents of the working memory: the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad (see Morsella & Krauss 2004). Since gestures integrate, reinforce, and sometimes replace verbal production, or alternatively communicate meanings independently from verbal language, McNeill (1998) argues that gestures, thought, and speech interact with and shape each other. This establishes a form of unity known as a growth point in the speaker’s way of thinking made by images and words together. Gestures, as an integral part of thought and communication (Kendon, 2004), can (a) organize the thought that is to be communicated regardless of the verbal language, (b) produce meaning, (c) prepare or reinforce the verbal language production, (d) help and improve comprehension, and (e) explain and teach a verbal language. When someone is trying to explain something to others, the use of gestures is instinctively increased to make the message “visible.” The spoken word is represented in the space to make it clearer and more comprehensible. Speakers tend to gesture more when they try to produce a message in a foreign language (see De Iaco, 2021). This leads to the argument that gestures can be knowingly and competently used to facilitate language learning.

A Multilingual Perspective on Metaphoric Gestures

235

From the point of view of language education, we can remark that gestures have cognitive and pragmatic functions. They improve the production and comprehension of the communicated content; therefore, they can be consciously used as a teaching strategy. It has been argued that teachers’ gestures have a positive effect on learners’ attention and memorization since they direct and optimize the attention processes (Gullberg, 2008; Tellier, 2008). In this regard, it is relevant what Tomasello (1995, pp. 106–107) argues: deictic gestures allow for the joint attention of the speakers. These types of gestures are widely used in the first language learning stages, which means that the L1 develops and functions through the process of joint attention. Then, gestures used by teachers allow learners to modify the verbal input at a pragmatic level by directing their attention not only to what the teacher is saying but also to what he/she simultaneously does. As Diadori (2013, p. 2 [own translation]) claims, this produces “a mirroring effect in the students, who unconsciously reproduce the same gestures of the teacher with mirror effects, which points to an adaptive and imitative attitude of the student during a language class.” Furthermore, gestures reflect cultural differences and, since they communicate meaning in an immediate and visible form, they can highlight these differences. The cultural dimension of gestures is important at both the expressive level (to learn using correct gestures according to different face-to-face interaction situations) and the comprehension level (to avoid misunderstandings which could discourage the students, creating a negative emotional disposition). In fact, a misunderstanding of gestures can negatively affect the motivation necessary to use the language, or to put into practice what has been learned. Such errors of interpretation can inhibit the communicative initiative of foreign language speakers. To avoid compromizing the interaction and achievement of communicative competence in a foreign language, it is necessary to learn the cultural differences that affect gestures. At the core of the cognitive linguistic perspective applied to gesture theory, there are metaphoric gestures, on which this paper focuses to argue that they can be used to achieve important goals in the language learning processes. They are to be considered within the framework of Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) conceptual theory of metaphor and its development through embodied cognition studies (Hostetter & Alibali, 2008; Lhommet & Marsella 2014, 2016). Metaphoric gestures are another way of expressing conceptual metaphors and they are highly important in all multilingual and cross-cultural situations. They allow speakers to undertake thinking and speaking while facilitating comprehension by illuminating the relationship between language, thought, and the context of communication. They embody this relationship through movements with a cultural characterization according to the thoughts, traditions, ways of acting, and habits shared by a community (McIlroy, 2016, p. 86).

236

2.

Moira De Iaco

Metaphoric gestures we live and learn by1

A metaphor is a way through which we conceptualize one mental domain in terms of another: it “is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but also in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 3; see also Tversky & Hard, 2009). Our concepts are metaphorically grounded in the perceptual-motor experience. This metaphoric basis is instanced by the gestures that are expressed by bodily movements that reflect the embodied nature of our system of concepts (Lhommet & Marsella, 2016). In this regard, Lhommet and Marsella (2016, p. 1) claim that “metaphoric gestures turn abstract ideas and discourse structures into the visual and the embodied. For example, holding or weighting a large object suggests the importance of an idea.” Metaphoric gestures are “representational gestures” (McNeill 1992) characterized by a different degree of iconicity. They can be conventional if they are accepted and shared by a speech community. Nevertheless, it is necessary to assume that metaphoricity is a way of meaning making and it can characterize all gestures included in McNeill’s classification, rather than only being a sub-category of representational gestures. This means that a deictic or rhythmic gesture can be metaphoric along with the illustrative or symbolic ones. In this regard, it could be also said that metaphoricity can be an ordinary linguistic property of different types of gestures. As Payrató and Clemente (2020, p. 163) write, “if we understand the concept of metaphor in a broad sense, as a symbolic operation, many other emblems,” or gestures in general, “also display metaphoric components.” They provide some examples of emblems which can assume a nonliteral metaphoric meaning such as “the oscillating hand means ‘more or less’” or “the cross frees somebody from an obligation.” Payrató and Clemente (2020, pp. 163–164) explain that these kinds of symbolic gestures are metaphoric since in them “we find a substitution or perception of a mental domain over another.” The hand oscillating sideways used to reply “more or less” to a question “recalls the combined upward-downward swing of the dishes of weighing scale [sic].” In the other above-mentioned gesture, “the cross stands in relation to the freeing of somebody from the obligation to say the truth or to fulfil an oath.” Cienki and Müller (2008, p. 8) describe metaphoric gestures by claiming that, “regardless of the context of their occurrence (signed or spoken language),” they are “voluntary movements of the body which use a cross-domain mapping to express certain thoughts or feelings.” Metaphoric gestures make the abstract visible. They show the pictorial content of the abstract process of metaphoriza1 The title of this section is a modified version of the title of Lakoff and Johnson’s book Metaphors We Live By.

A Multilingual Perspective on Metaphoric Gestures

237

tion, thus enabling an individual to see something as something else. This seeing as modality based on metaphorizing has been explained by Wittgenstein in the second part of his Philosophical Investigations (1953) and then examined more closely in his writings on the philosophy of psychology (1980, 1982). The seeing as is the process based on thought which, paired with the seeing that, creates an instant image of a conceptual similarity grounded in the physical perception. Cienki (1998, p. 486) refers to the metaphoric gestures as “the ones which have the potential to engage an active cross-domain mapping, that is the cognitive process of understanding something in terms of something else.” It means that they assist the conceptual understanding that is engaged in language production and comprehension, by showing the relationship between thought and language (McIlroy, 2016) that is essentially an everyday metaphoric relationship (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Metaphoric gestures provide support for the thesis of metaphor as a form of embodied cognition. The perceptual motor basis of gesture production suggests that gestures with a metaphoric content emblematically show the metaphoric essence of our system of concepts. We metaphorize the perceptual experience by embodying it and the gestures integrated with thought and speech show the so-called growth point (McNeill, 1998). According to Lakoff and Johnson’s theory and its development in the embodied cognition studies’ perspective, a metaphor is not a marginal linguistic creation, but instead a general cognitive principle that “involves whole systems of concepts rather than individual words or individual concepts” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980, p. 86) where “the metaphoric mapping may be processed online” (Cienki & Müller, 2008, p. 3). Since the structure of our concepts – which influence our perception, life experiences, and relationships with others – is to a great extent metaphoric, we live and think using metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Iconic and metaphoric gestures both have an iconic content. Cienki and Müller (2008, p. 5) highlight that if iconic gestures “depict aspects of the referent itself (concrete reference) which could be an entity, action or relation,” then metaphoric gestures “depict aspects of the entity, action or relation in terms of which the referent is being characterized.” Metaphoric gestures not only show the conceptualization of the abstract in terms of the concrete because they work in a cognitive way, but they also allow for the understanding of something in terms of something else, and the illumination of this understanding by showing an embodied image of it. Both ways of the understanding performed by metaphorizing (source domain and target domain) could be concrete. What gestures reveal is the abstraction of the properties of the source domain that have been transferred to the target domain. By showing this abstraction and illuminating this transfer, metaphoric gestures capture attention, keep it focused, and improve the understanding of concepts.

238

Moira De Iaco

There are different kinds of relationships between verbal language and metaphoric gestures. According to Cienki and Müller’s taxonomy (2008), they can be detailed as follows: – The same content may be expressed by words and gestures. This is the case of the metaphoric gestures that are “semantically co-expressive with speech, but temporally detached from the verbal metaphor.” They may occur before or after an utterance, or overlap it (Cienki & Müller, 2008, p. 8). Past and future gestures – which will be analyzed in the next section – are an example of the gestures and linguistic metaphoric expressions that refer to the same source domain that is seen as the target domain. – There are metaphoric gestures free of co-occurring speech, which occur without related verbal metaphoric expressions. This is the case where someone says, “That’s exactly what I meant.” Simultaneously, he/she gesticulates with the hand extended forward with the palm up. The gesture of the palm-up hand oriented forward represents the meaning of what is said in terms of an object on the hand. It is a visible object, something that the interlocutor can see as he/ she already knows it and understands its function. – Metaphoric gestures and metaphoric verbal expressions may have different content even if they are used at the same time. In this regard, Cienki and Müller (2008, p. 15) claim that “one metaphor may be expressed in speech while at the same time the target domain for that metaphor is characterized via a different source domain in a gesture.” In this regard, they suggest thinking about a linguistic expression such as “the decision I have to make is black or white” which may be accompanied by a gesture performed through the rotation of the palm of the hand from facing down to facing up. The source domain of the verbal expression is the opposition of the colors black and white, whereas the metaphoric gesture reflects the opposition of the orientation down/up.

3.

Metaphoric gestures in language education

The ordinary dimension of a conceptual metaphor and its verbal and gestural expressions make metaphors important from the perspective of language education. Littlemore and Low (2006) highlight that metaphors have a central role at every stage and in every part (learning, teaching, and testing) of language education. Since a metaphor performs a large range of functions, Littlemore (2010, p. 292) claims that language learners “need to be able to understand it relatively rapidly as an inability to do so may hold up the conversation and may thus be a source of frustration on both sides.” Metaphoric competence in the L1 “develops during childhood” (Littlemore, 2010, p. 291). It must be one of the main goals

A Multilingual Perspective on Metaphoric Gestures

239

achieved by L2 or FL learners. What kind of skills does metaphoric competence include? This refers to all skills that a FL learner needs to acquire to understand and produce efficacious metaphors. If we consider, as Littlemore and Low did (2006, p. 272), Bachman’s (1990) model of language competence, we may observe that “metaphors play varying but important roles in all the cells of the model: namely, illocutionary competence, textual competence, grammatical competence, and strategic competence.” Littlemore and Low (2006, p. 270) argue that “if teachers systematically draw the attention of language learners to the source domains of linguistic metaphors and of vocabulary involving metaphors, then the learners’ depth of knowledge of that language and their ability to retain it can improve significantly.” This is because metaphors enable conceptualization by creating images that offer a visual form of the verbal input, renewing it and supporting its memorization. Since metaphors have a cognitive potential, they can be used as a teaching strategy in an L2 or FL classroom for facilitating or improving vocabulary learning. Also, one cannot overlook that metaphors reflect cultural variations and since they show these variations through an image, they can be considered a tool in language education. In this regard, it must be assumed that metaphoric gestures can “convey primary metaphors” (McIlroy, 2016, p. 88), thus making visible and concrete, in the spatial-motor dimension, the relationship between thought and language. It has been proven by several studies that learning an L1, L2, or FL is facilitated by gestures. This is because the comprehension and memorization of the content are aided by observing the teacher’s gestures. Moreover, language production is supported and improved by the learner’s use of gestures (Kita & Özyürek, 2003; McCafferty & Stam, 2008). In this regard, according to Macedonia, Müller, and Friederici (2011), it is possible to argue that words associated with meaningful gestures are better memorized than words learned without an association with gestures or with an association with meaningless gestures. Memorization corresponds with the greater activation of the pre-motor cortex in the frontal lobe assigned to processing movements and their planning. It has been demonstrated that students better learn the new vocabulary of a non-native language when teachers teach new words using appropriate gestures (Gullberg, 2008; Tellier, 2008). From this perspective, it can be claimed that metaphoric gestures – which can showcase the abstraction of the pictorial contents and the transfer of a feature from the source domain to the target domain – facilitate the memorization of new vocabulary by offering the possibility to process it through the more immediate visual semantic representation and “by creating a rich network of semantic representations across multiple modalities in long-term memory” (Spencer, April, & Yukari, 2017). They permit the activation of visual processing of the semantic content of vocabulary in addition to the phonological one. This

240

Moira De Iaco

double encoding at the short-term memory level supports the transmission of the input to the long-term memory store. Spencer, April, and Yukari (2017) highlight that learning word meanings is not the only goal of studying a FL. They argue that it is fundamental to learn how “to correctly perceive the set of novel speech sounds that combine to create words in a FL” since “the meaning of a word cannot be committed to memory if the phonemes that comprise that word are not properly distinguished.” Metaphoric gestures facilitate teaching by using visual shapes. In this regard, Spencer, April, and Yukari (2017) indicate how metaphoric gestures can be used to teach speech sounds. They claim that “taking Mandarin as an example, it is commonplace for teachers to use hand gestures to metaphorically represent the various ‘shapes’ of the four Mandarin tones: a rising gesture may visually represent the acoustically rising nature of Tone 2, and a falling gesture may visually represent the acoustically falling nature of Tone 4” (Spencer et al., 2017). Such hand gestures metaphorize speech sounds in terms of the up and down body movements. This means that metaphoric gestures can also be used to teach correct pronunciation by conveying visual information about the sound segmentation and intonation. Furthermore, it needs to be emphasized that metaphoric gestures reflect cultural differences and thus can be used to highlight these differences. This means that they should be consciously used by language teachers to capture the attention of their students and draw their attention to different and new ways of conceptualization. Metaphoric gestures allow for the negotiation of the meaning of words in cross-cultural situations as they can perform and show, in a more immediate and direct spatial-motor form, different conceptualizations and different ways of thinking, living, and communicating.

4.

Three examples of metaphoric gestures

To better argue the ability of metaphoric gestures to express conceptual metaphors, to collaborate with the verbal language in producing and understanding them, and to convey the cultural differences that affect the metaphoric concepts according to which we think, live, and communicate we will analyze three exemplary gestures: the scissor hand gesture, the past and future gestures, and the metaphoric components of the explanatory gestures performed for teaching the Italian expression fare la scarpetta. The former two types were chosen to be analyzed because they emblematically express two conceptual metaphors examined by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). The scissor hand gesture refers to the conduit metaphor, while the past and future gestures refer to the orientational metaphors “future ahead and past behind the body.” They have the potential to introduce in a FL classroom the essential role of gestures in our communication.

A Multilingual Perspective on Metaphoric Gestures

241

They were also chosen because they show that metaphoric gestures give the possibility to illustrate metaphoric concepts that can be expressed differently in different cultures. The last example comes from the author’s direct experience in a multilingual context, in order to demonstrate how the comprehension and learning of idiomatic expressions can be facilitated by using gestures both in multilingual communication and in language education. In fact, gestures can teach about the metaphoric roots of idiomatic and/or popular expressions by embodying and directly expressing their meanings.

4.1.

Scissor hand gesture: An example of a metaphoric gesture which may teach conceptual metaphors and related verbal expressions

The scissor hand gesture (see Figure 1) used in different European countries (i. e., in Italy and Spain), as Payrató and Clement (2020, p. 162) clarify, “is based on a metonymy […]: the (simulation of the) action of cutting of an object, the scissors.” This kind of gesture can be used with a referential meaning to ask someone for scissors. However, in other communicative situations it can assume a figurative meaning. Payrató and Clemente (2020, p. 162) claim that as a metaphoric gesture the scissor hand gesture can have two meanings in Catalan: “cut, in the sense of shutting up or stopping an activity” and “cut, approximating the meaning of criticizing.” In Italy the scissor hand gesture can mean both “stop talking,” or “stop doing an activity,” or “criticize, referred to someone who criticizes someone else.” It can co-occur with similar verbal metaphoric expressions of cutting the talk or criticizing, to show and reinforce the verbal meaning by using the visual space. Alternatively, it can occur without the correspondent verbal expression. One can consider, for instance, the case when we need to make someone stop talking without using words, or when we want to indicate silently that someone is criticizing someone else. The scissor hand gesture used in the meaning of “stop talking” is the metaphoric expression of the conceptual conduit metaphor described by Lakoff and Johnson (1980). Many metaphoric expressions that we use to speak about language and its functions refer to this conceptual metaphor. According to the conduit metaphor, a speech act is produced by sending an object (a meaning) from the sender to the receiver along a conduit (i. e., the phonological, graphemic, or gestural container). The conceptualization of communication in terms of sending a message allows to assign certain properties, such as variable duration, namely a speeding up or slowing down, to the spoken utterance. The conveyance of a meaning (content) using words (containers) metaphorized as something concrete that is sent from the sender to the receiver enable the conceptualization of the communication as something that can be interrupted, shortened, and cut.

242

Moira De Iaco

Although this way of conceptualizing the communicative function of language in terms of sending a message from the sender to the receiver is widely shared across different cultures, the metaphoric expressions (not only verbal, but also gestural) that express it could be different. In the Indian culture, for instance, the gesture used for making someone cut a speech is a gesture performed by moving the thumb from left to right in front of the face of the speaker near the neck while the rest of the hand is a closed fist (see Figure 2). In Italy, this gesture has a completely different meaning (see De Iaco, 2021). It is a threatening gesture with the literal meaning “I will cut your throat,” that can be metaphorically used to tell someone to stop doing what he/she is doing, otherwise there will be serious consequences. It can also be used for joking in a friendly context. This example proves that metaphoric gestures may be either conventional or culture-specific. This means that they need to be correctly understood and learned to avoid misunderstandings in intercultural encounters. The image evoked by the second metaphoric meaning of the scissor hand gesture used in the sense of “criticizing” is different. Payrató and Clement (2020, p. 162) propose two possible explanations of this image. They hypothesize that the scissor could be metaphorized in the sense of criticizing because “criticism or gossip was assumed to be common in women’s circles” where the use of scissors is most widespread. They also suppose that “the movement of the hand with the scissors opening and closing” is like that of the mouth speaking tightly. The polysemy of the scissor hand gesture, even from a metaphorical point of view, demonstrates that the gesture’s meaning is strictly defined by the context in which it occurs. Therefore, it is necessary to learn the correct use of these gestures according to the different communicative situations and needs, and according to the cultural specificity of the speech community.

Figure 1. Italian scissor hand gesture. Source: photo taken by the author

A Multilingual Perspective on Metaphoric Gestures

243

Figure 2. Indian metaphoric cut gesture. Source: photo taken by the author

4.2.

Future and past gestures as tools to teach contents through metaphorizing processes

Another type of metaphoric gesture this paper aims to analyze is that of gestures used for representing the future and the past, which embody orientational metaphorization. They are included by Lakoff and Johnson (1980) in their conceptual metaphor taxonomy. In many cultures the future is thought to be something placed in the space in front of the speaker, while the past is conceptualized as something behind the speaker (Núñez & Sweetser, 2001). This metaphorization of the past and future in terms of the orientation of the body in the space is related to physical and cultural factors. In this regard, Lakoff and Johnson (1980, p. 16) claim that the orientation metaphors “have a basis in our physical and cultural experience.” In some cultures, the future is seen as something that must be reached, therefore it lies in the space ahead, the area that we still must travel to and the one towards which we are oriented to move. In other cultures, the future is thought to be something behind because it is something that one does not yet know and so it cannot be seen. In most cultures, people move their hands ahead or point in front of them to represent the future and move their hands behind or point behind to represent the past. In other cultures, such as the Aymaran, it is the opposite. Figures 3 and 4 present two examples of the metaphoric gestures used by most cultures for representing the future. In Figure 3, we see the famous statue of Lenin who is looking and pointing ahead, in accordance with the Sovietism political project. This metaphoric gesture for the future was examined by Cienki and Müller (2008). Figure 4 is an Italian advertisement for an insurance campaign (Unipol), in which an actor invites us to choose the future by saying that Unipol is always “one step ahead.” The actor points to the future while the words that accompany the gesture metaphorize the future by orienting it forward in terms of a movement ahead (“one step ahead”). In Figure 5 we can see a picture of a metaphoric gesture for the past conceptualized in the back.

244

Moira De Iaco

Figure 3. Lenin statue, Bishkek. Source: Cienki and Müller (2008)

Figure 4. Italian advertisement by UnipolSai. Source: unipolsai.it

Figure 5. Gesture for pointing at the past. Source: Telmon (2009)

Gu, Zheng, and Swerts (2019), in their study on the effect of language and culture on the temporal gestures and spatial conceptions of time with a focus on the spatial orientation of past and future in Chinese culture, argue that people’s way of conceptualizing time in space depends on their cultural attitude towards time, which is not only influenced by language. In this regard, they underline that “even though front-back time lexical metaphors in Spanish and Arabic both only suggest future-in-front mappings, Moroccans have a strong tendency for past-infront mapping, whereas most Spaniards have future-in-front mappings. The different space–time mappings between Moroccans and Spaniards have been argued to be related to cross-cultural differences in temporal focus (temporalfocus hypothesis).” In their experiment which aimed to “elicit Chinese people

A Multilingual Perspective on Metaphoric Gestures

245

speech accompanying gestures about time,” Gu, Zheng, and Swerts (2019) demonstrate that “apart from gesturing the past to the back and the future to the front (past-at-back/future-in-front gestures) (50.96%), Chinese people gestured the past to the front and the future to the back (past-in-front/future-at-back gestures) (49.04%).” Therefore, they conclude that “the Chinese sometimes can visualize time in space as the Aymara do (past-in-front/future-at-back).” This indicates that the space ahead can be used to conceptualize the future or past in relation to the focus on time by the speaker based on factors such as age, culture, education, multilingual competence, etc. We know, for instance, that the elderly focus more on the past rather than the future, giving it greater importance. Past and future gestures occur before, after, or simultaneously with their corresponding metaphoric verbal expressions. They can also co-occur with speech when referring to actions to be done or scheduled events (future) or to actions and events that have already happened (past). They demonstrate the embodied nature of concepts and offer the possibility to use the metaphorizing process to illustrate and teach learning contents such as the correct pronunciation and intonation of FL words. In addition, past and future gestures show the variability of metaphoric gestures across cultures. In multilingual contexts this cultural variability requires the ability to negotiate meanings of gestures according to the different ways of conceptualizing the future and the past. From the point of view of language education, it is necessary to underline that teaching the cultural variability of gestures should be the goal of language learning. This variability can be directly shown through metaphoric gestures which illustrate differences across cultures. It is necessary to assume metaphoric gestures as a tool to teach metaphoric concepts used in the target language to allow students to acquire a complete communicative competence and avoid embarrassing misunderstandings in the future. Furthermore, learning the symbolic meanings of metaphoric gestures enables to acquire a mental openness towards the different conceptualizations and the different ways of thinking.

4.3.

Explanatory gestures for the Italian expression fare la scarpetta: An example of the use of metaphoric gestures as tools for teaching FL vocabulary

The last example proposed for the analysis comes from my personal multilingual and cross-cultural experience. I was at lunch in a restaurant in the south of Italy with some Italians and some Americans who could speak only English. One of the Italians sitting next to me, once they had finished eating pasta, asked for bread to fare la scarpetta (“make the little shoe”). It is an expression with uncertain origins

246

Moira De Iaco

that is widespread in southern Italy. It has metaphoric roots and it means “to collect the sauce remaining on the plate by crawling a piece of bread on a fork through the sauce.” The bread may be more commonly held between the fingers. An astonished American lady, who did not understand Italian at all, came to me asking for an explanation of this expression. Upon starting to clarify it for the lady, I became immediately aware that it was impossible to explain the meaning of this expression without using gestures to show the embodied conceptualization of crawling the bread along the bottom of the plate (target domain) in terms of the crawling of the shoes on the ground (source domain). I attempted to explain the meaning of the expression by using explanatory metaphoric gestures to demonstrate the metaphorization in the visual space. When I talked about collecting the sauce, I crawled my hand by forming the so-called Italian gesture of the bag-hand facing down (see Figure 8). Then, I tried to explain the metaphoric meaning of the expression by swiping my right hand along the palm of my left hand using (seeing) my right hand as the shoe that crawls along the palm of my left hand, seen here as the ground (see Figure 9). By showing the source domain of the metaphor in the visual space, the gesture conveyed the metaphoric content. It allowed me to provide the co-occurring verbal explanation in English and to help my interlocutor to understand. In similar cases, when it is necessary to clarify a FL metaphoric expression or to explain the use of new vocabulary in a FL, gestures are an educational tool that enable the conveyance of meaning by explaining it in a more direct way. This is because metaphoric gestures convey the abstract content of metaphors in the visual space. Not only do they show the metaphor, but they also make the metaphor by giving shape to the abstract. Thus, they have a pragmatic function.

Figure 6. Source domain of the expression fare la scarpetta. Source: https://www.rockymoun tainfootandanklecenter.com (adapted)

A Multilingual Perspective on Metaphoric Gestures

247

Figure 7. First explanatory gesture of the metaphorizing process. Source: http://www.napolinel mondo.org/ (adapted)

Figure 8. Second explanatory gesture of the metaphorizing process. Source: https://www.pintere st.it/pin/78834109745032309/ (adapted)

Figure 9. Target domain of the expression fare la scarpetta. Source: https://www.cucinare.it/rub riche/fare-la-scarpetta-secondo-il-galateo (adapted)

An important question arises: What kind of functions do co-speech metaphoric gestures perform? They allow for the organization and creation of a verbal explanation in an L2. They also allow the interlocutor to better understand the verbal explanation through an embodied performance by the explanatory metaphoric gestures, which use a more immediate and concrete visual conduit

248

Moira De Iaco

for communicating. Therefore, as Casasanto and Lozano (2007, p. 20) write, gestures “support the central claim of Conceptual Metaphor Theory: abstract domains of knowledge depend, in part, on mental representations built up thorough perceptual-motor interactions with the physical world.”

5.

Conclusions

This paper has presented the cognitive, communicative, and educational functions of gestures. The nature and functions of metaphoric gestures have been focused on to claim that they embody and show the metaphoric structure of the system of concepts they refer to. In this sense, as the three analyzed examples of gestures demonstrate, metaphoric gestures are another everyday form of expression of conceptual metaphors characterized by cultural variability. They show the metaphorization process that leads many verbal expressions and they help convey the semantic content of words. As the scissor hand gesture proves, metaphoric gestures can be used to teach metaphors by showing their pictorial content in a more immediate way. Past and future gestures allow to suppose that metaphoric gestures such as the orientational ones can use the visual space to metaphorize the movement of the voice for the appropriate intonation and pronunciation in a FL thus allowing the learning of them. In addition, metaphoric gestures like the scissor hand gesture and those for the past and future can be used to make language students sensitive to the cultural differences which affect the use of gestures and their meanings across the different language communities. As has been shown by the explanatory gestures used in the third example to illustrate the meaning of fare la scarpetta and its metaphoric content, gestures can assume metaphoric functions to teach the vocabulary and idiomatic expressions of a target language.

References Alibali, M. W., Sotaro, K., & Young, A. (2000). Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, therefore we gesture. Language and Cognitive Process, 15(6), 593– 613. doi:10.1080/016909600750040571. Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. (2007). Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Casasanto, D., & Lozano, S. (2007). The meaning of metaphorical gestures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 694–709.

A Multilingual Perspective on Metaphoric Gestures

249

Cienki, A. J. (1998). Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. In J. P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap (pp. 189– 204). Stanford: CSLI Publications. Cienki, A. J., & Müller, C. (2008). Metaphor, gesture, and thought. In R. W. Gibbs Jr. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 483–501). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Iaco, M. (2020). Il ruolo cognitivo dei gesti nell’educazione linguistica. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada, 59(2), 1397–1408. doi:10.1590/010318137434211520200628. De Iaco, M. (2021). How gestures facilitate communication among speakers of English as L2 and the implications for language education. An interview of two Tamil native speakers in an English work context in Italy. Lingue e Linguaggi, 44, 125–141. doi:10.1285/i22390359v44p125. Diadori, P. (2013). Gestualità e didattica della lingua straniera: questioni interculturali. In C. M. Luise (Ed.), Aspetti comunicativi e interculturali nell’insegnamento delle lingue. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Gu, Y., Zheng, Y., & Swerts, M. (2019). Which is in front of Chinese people, past or future? The effect of language and culture on temporal gestures and spatial conceptions of time. Cognitive Science, 43(12), 1–32. doi:10.1111/cogs.12804. Gullberg, M. (2008). Gestures and second language acquisition. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought (pp. 276–305). London: Routledge. Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 495–514. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.3.495. Ianì, F., & Formichella, M. (2017). Il ruolo cognitivo dei gesti. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 4, 849–876. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture. Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kita, S. (2000). How representational gestures help speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and Gesture (pp. 162–185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1016/S074 9–596X(02)00505-3. Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 16–32. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University Press of Chicago. Lhommet, M., & Marsella, S. (2014). Metaphoric gestures: Towards grounded mental spaces. In T. Bickmore, S. Marsella, & C. Sidner (Eds.), Intelligent Virtual Agents (pp. 264–274). Boston, MA: Springer International Publishing. Lhommet, M., & Marsella, S. (2016). From embodied metaphors to metaphoric gestures. In 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. http://www.ccs.neu.edu/~ma rsella/publications/pdf/16-Cogsci-Lhommet.pdf. Littlemore, J., & Low, G. D. (2006). Metaphoric competence and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 268–294. doi:10.1093/applin/aml004. Littlemore, J. (2010). Metaphoric competence in the first and second language: similarities and differences. In M. Pütz, & L. Sicola (Eds.). Cognitive Processing in Second Language Acquisition: Inside the Learner’s Mind (pp. 293–316). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

250

Moira De Iaco

Macedonia, M., Müller, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). The impact of iconic gestures on foreign language word learning and its neural substrate. Human Brain Mapping, 32(6), 982–98. doi:10.1002/hbm.21084. McCafferty, S. G., Stam, G. (2008). Gesture: Second Language Acquisition and Classroom Research. London: Routledge. McIlroy, T. (2016). The use of metaphoric gestures by second language learners. 言語教育 研究, 27, 85–100. McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What the Hands Reveal about Thought. Chicago, IL: University Press of Chicago. McNeill, D. (1998). Speech and gesture integration. In J. M. Iverson, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), The Nature and Functions of Gesture in Children’s Communication (pp. 11–27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McNeill, D. (Ed.). 2000. Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morsella, E., & Krauss, R. M. (2004). The role of gestures in spatial working memory and speech. The American Journal of Psychology, 117(3), 411–424. doi:10.2307/4149008. Núñez, R. E., & Sweetser, E. (2006). Aymara, where the future is behind you: Convergent evidence from language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construal of time. Cognitive Science, 30, 401–450. doi:10.1.1.609.1795 Payrató, L., & Clemente, I. (2020). Gestures We Live By. The Pragmatics of Emblematic Gestures. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Ping, R. M., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2014). Understanding gesture: Is the listener’s motor system involved? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 195–204. doi:10.1037/a0032246. Spencer, K., April, B., & Yukari, H. (2017). Metaphoric gestures facilitate perception of intonation more than length in auditory judgments of non-native phonemic contrasts. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1), 1–11. doi:10.1525/collabra.76. Tellier, M. 2008. The effect of gestures on second language memorisation by young children. Gesture, 8(2), 219–235. doi:10.1075/gest.8.2.06tel. Telmon, T. (2009). La gestualità in Italia. In G. L. Beccaria (Ed.), Lingue e Linguaggi. Torino: UTET. Tomasello, M. (1995). Joint attention as social cognition. In M. Dunham (Ed.). Joint attention (pp. 103–129). University of Exeter, UK: LEA. Tversky, B., & Hard, B. M. 2009. Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspectivetaking. Cognition, 110(1), 124–129. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.008. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Bemerkungen über die Philosophie der Psychologie. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wittgenstein, L. (1982). Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Dana Hanesová

Chapter 13 – University – an Inspiring Educational Environment for the Development of Students’ Multilingual Competence

Abstract The aim of the chapter is to explain that it is possible to increase the level of multilingualism amongst university students during their studies using the common human and financial resources available to the university. Our assumption is that the university has the potential to provide all its students – not just those in linguistic study programs – with a stimulating learning environment that develops their multilingualism. This chapter presents some qualitative results of one phase of a wider project aimed at raising the internationalization level of university education, namely the implementation of a new course Global Encounters in Local Settings, in which the students develop their multilingual competence through genuine, meaningful communication with their foreign counterparts. The course is based on authentic tasks integrating the content of different fields of study with learning languages as well as several academic or transferable skills. After the teacher’s introductory instruction, the ethnically mixed teams of students collaborate on creating real-life mini-projects, using a service-learning strategy, focused on fulfilling a selected community need. During the implementation phase, students write reflective diaries about their learning. At the end of the term, they report on the results before the whole class. A qualitative examination of the course’s effectiveness via a quasiexperiment during both terms in 2020 showed that students’ multilingual competence was enhanced. Another positive result was the breakdown of the previous isolation of foreign students from domestic ones thanks to these mutual activities. Keywords: university, multilingual, competence, students, service-learning

1.

Introduction

Regardless of the limiting circumstances imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions in the years 2020–2021, and perhaps partially also because of them, we are witnessing increasing globalization pressures on universities – on their development of feasible strategies of internationalization that would affect the Dana Hanesová, Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica (Slovakia), ORCID: 0000-0003-25228389, [email protected].

252

Dana Hanesová

full range of university life. The success of a university is largely related to its proactive international endeavor. Online technologies have removed spatial and financial limitations and opened opportunities for a wide range of online international contacts, learning opportunities and virtual mobility of teachers, students, and non-teaching staff. The number of Erasmus exchanges is growing. However, the linguistic diversity in the European multilingual region continues to be a challenge for European universities. According to several Erasmus students’ feedback, in some European countries they still face situations when the locals are either unable or unwilling to communicate with them in a foreign language. Quite a few universities continue dealing with the question of how to motivate all their stakeholders to continue the life-long learning of foreign languages, so that they can be used at an appropriate communicative level during their encounters with foreigners. The aim of this chapter is to contribute to this current discussion about possible ways of developing multilingual competence in a specific educational – in our case university – environment. To do so, we are going to describe one segment of a project called Plurilingual and Intercultural Edulab Supporting the University Strategy of Internationalization (2019–2021), aimed at enabling any student from the university to develop their multilingualism by participating in authentic learning projects, situations, and tasks provided within a university setting, regardless of whether they are studying regular language courses. The overall intention of the Edulab project is to support the implementation of the University’s Internationalization Strategy in the day-to-day running of the university – to transfer the idea of internationalization from the managerial (macro) level not only into the curriculum design of foreign language programs for the registered students (mezzo level) but down to the micro level – into common interactions among teachers, students, and non-teaching staff. The project began in 2019 as a bottom-up initiative of a group of language teachers at Matej Bel University in Slovakia. The bottom-up procedure has also been proved to be a fruitful way of creating an international environment in the case of other language teams (Murray & Dingwall, 1997; Schaller-Schwaner, 2009; Vihman & Uhler, 2009). The research team has had multiple experiences with the development of the multilingual competence of their students either through several interculturally-oriented as well as English-medium study programs and several foreign language teaching courses, or via projects over the past two decades, for example the Leonardo da Vinci project English for Specific Purposes of Faculty of Education; the European Social Fund projects Targeted language and computer training for future teachers, Mobility – support of science, research, and education, Support for teaching study programs in foreign languages, Development of innovative forms of education.

University – an Inspiring Educational Environment

2.

Multilingual competence and its development

2.1.

Key concept of multilingualism and plurilingualism as its alternative

253

Most resources in this chapter use the term multilingualism, for example the documents by Language Dynamics and Management of Diversity (DYLAN) – an extensive international research project accomplished by 19 partners from 12 countries, supported by the European Union’s 6th Framework Program for Research and Technology Development in the years 2006–2011 (Berthoud et al., 2011). Other studies, e. g., published by the Council of Europe, the European Centre for Modern Languages, or individual French authors (Moore & Gajo, 2009), have started to use a new term plurilingualism. In most cases, they understand each other’s position and consider both terms – plurilingualism and multilingualism – as synonyms. Multilingualism has traditionally had two meanings: (a) the presence of more than two languages in a community or a geographical region; and (b) the ability of an individual to use more than two languages at an understandable level (Beacco et al., 2010). It denotes “the coexistence of different languages at the social or individual level” (CoE, 2018, p. 30), in other words, it includes both dimensions – social and individual (Cenoz, 2013). Researchers in the DYLAN project created a functional definition of multilingualism describing it as “the ability to interact, even imperfectly, in several languages in everyday settings” (Berthoud et al., 2011, p. 21). Cenoz, based on the references in her study, states that “the holistic view of multilingualism focusing on the multilingual speaker is sometimes referred to as plurilingualism” (Cenoz, 2013, p. 12). Plurilingualism, a term used quite often in Francophone studies, denotes not only the individual speaker’s command of more than one language but also his/ her capacity and competence to easily switch from one language to another and to learn new languages and their cultures based on previous experiences with language and intercultural learning (Beacco et al., 2010). On the one hand, a broader view of plurilingual competence refers to an individual learner’s knowledge and understanding of “different languages and language systems; various literatures, texts, discourses, and genres; language learning and language proficiency; language functions and language use; and social and intercultural understanding”; also interest, respect, and curiosity about languages, the ability to expand one’s linguistic repertoire, and even some kind of metacognitive awareness of the processes accompanying learning other languages (Boeckmann et al., 2011, p. 25). On the other hand, it includes the learner’s skill of using language varieties, all communicative skills, self-directed learning, as well as the ability to network, discuss, and use other desirable ways of interaction (Boeckmann et al., 2011, p. 26). Plurilingual competent individuals view their whole

254

Dana Hanesová

linguistic style as one, inter-related repertoire that they can use adequately in education or life situations (Cenoz, 2013, p. 12) and “combine with their general competences and various strategies in order to accomplish tasks” (CoE, 2018, p. 28). Although multilingualism and plurilingualism are, to some extent, overlapping concepts, authors promoting “plurilingualism” state that they have their own specific meanings. Because overall, on a global level, the term multilingualism is more established, we decided to use it in this chapter. In cases where the authors of the cited studies use the term “plurilingualism,” we retain this term out of respect for them.

2.2.

The developable nature of multilingual competence

According to some Francophone research studies, “current approaches perceive languages and speakers’ plurilingual and pluricultural competence as fluid, dynamic and changing over situations and time,” providing opportunities for “change and empowerment” (Moore & Gajo, 2009, p. 150). During the life of a person, his/her plurilingual awareness and competence evolves gradually “from the language of the home to that of society at large and then to the languages of other peoples (whether learnt at school or college, or by direct experience), he or she does not keep these languages and cultures in strictly separated mental compartments, but rather builds up a communicative competence to which all knowledge and experience of language contributes and in which languages interrelate and interact” (CoE, 2001, after CoE, 2018, p. 123). The idea that multilingual competence can be developed is based on research confirming that this ability is shared by all people. It should be relevant for any state “whatever degree of multilingualism they embody” (CoE, 2007, p. 38), and “may remain latent or only be developed with respect to varieties very close to the first language” (Coste, 2007, p. 38). It can flourish naturally as a result of a growing quantity of authentic interactions with other languages and cultures (Piccardo, 2013, p. 603), or intentionally, whether in a semi-formal or explicitly formal educational context. One of the prior objectives of the multilingual development process in educational settings should be raising the learner’s language awareness – awakening learners to languages (Hufeisen & Neuner, 2004; Candelier et al., 2004). Schools should support courses and activities that take place in several languages, even if they do not focus on teaching them in each situation. In our opinion, this clearly applies also to universities. Paying attention to prior experience plays a key role in the plurilingual development process. Learning new language structures and skills is dependent on existing neuronal networks (Zull, 2004), formed by previous exposure to external

University – an Inspiring Educational Environment

255

stimuli. In the context of language learning, this means that the pre-experience with learning a native language and non-native languages plays a crucial role in acquiring plurilingual awareness and skills.

2.3.

A holistic approach to the development of multilingualism at university

In contrast to the traditional, atomistic view of multilingualism, focusing on language elements, nowadays there is a trend of a holistic understanding of multilingualism. According to Cenoz, who prefers the use of the term multilingualism, this approach “relates the way multilingual students […] use their communicative resources in spontaneous conversation to the way languages are learned and taught at school” (Cenoz, 2013, p. 11). Multilingualism cannot be acquired just in the school setting; it is inevitably dependent on all ties with reallife communication. It involves all the languages and multilingual discursive practices that the learner knows, and which are at his/her disposal. Holistically approached, multilingualism “explores the possibility of establishing bridges that can link these two realities so that multilingual students can use their own resources to a larger extent in formal education” (Cenoz, 2013, p. 11). Cenoz distinguishes three basic elements that constitute holistic multilingualism: (a) the multilingual individual viewed from a holistic perspective as a person with a variable level of competence in each of the languages he/she uses, (b) the whole linguistic repertoire of all acquired languages – not just separate language elements – which multilinguals use freely according to their current needs; and (c) the whole social context. We would like to note that this applies to both nonformal and formal university language learning contexts, including e-learning, flipped, blended and hybrid learning, and the newest ways and forms of learning new languages. Some of them have been proven to be very suitable, especially in the COVID-19 pandemic situation. According to the DYLAN team, multilingual repertoires “serve as a resource for the construction, transmission and use of knowledge […] providing new ways of negotiating, reaching decisions, solving problems or supervising action,” and thus determining the function of the university, on providing ideas and activities there (Berthoud et al., 2011, p. 16). Of course, the development of multilingualism does not happen solely in the school context, but in the wider context of all social relations – through interaction with people in other settings, e. g., family, peers, or social networks (Moore & Gajo, 2009). According to the Framework of Reference for Plural Approaches to Languages and Cultures – FREPA (Béresˇová, 2017; Candelier et al., 2010), pluralistic competence operates – and thus needs to be developed – in the three areas of (a) the knowledge of lexis and grammar of all studied languages as well as the meta-

256

Dana Hanesová

cognitive knowledge of the process of language acquisition and using the communicative repertoire in the case of each individual language, (b) attitudes of respect for other languages and motivation to engage actively in linguistic activities, and (c) skills to observe/analyze/identify/compare linguistic phenomena, talk about linguistic aspects, interact between languages, use knowledge of one language to comprehend and produce another language, etc. From a pedagogical point of view, the holistic approach to multilingualism is therefore only possible if it is explicitly centered on the learner instead of on the curriculum or on the teacher. Multilingual competence represents a holistic view of language knowledge and skills (Moore & Gajo, 2009). As philosophers in the ancient Greek world – and more recently Maria Montessori, Jack Mezirow, Susan Kovalik, Karen Olsen, and other experts in education – have emphasized, the development of human abilities and skills must be viewed holistically. A holistically-minded teacher connects the head-heart-hands in a balanced way, focusing not just on the cognitive but also on the socio-affective and psychomotor dimensions of a learner’s personality. In the case of multilingual competence, it means taking into consideration a whole span of factors – cognitive (the level of multilingual awareness and pre-knowledge bank, concentration span, and memory capacity), affective (the learner’s self-concept, motivation, attitudes, worries, and interests) and physical factors (fatigue and exhaustion, and influence of climate changes) (according to Sousa, 2006). So, the teacher must pay attention to the student’s (a) previous language knowledge, (b) language needs, (c) language learning experience, and (d) language profile. According to DYLAN research results, from a cognitive point of view, the consequence of a university using “various kinds of access to knowledge” deepens our “understanding of the role of interaction.” It changes “our perception of processes and objects, resulting in deepening and ‘fine-tuning’ of conceptual understanding, enriches conceptual construction, reveals hidden or implicit meanings, and ‘unfamiliarized’ supposedly familiar meanings.” “Thus the use of terminology from several languages in higher education improves the development, processing and stabilization of knowledge” (Berthoud et al., 2011, p. 14, 15, 16). The research results of the DYLAN project underline the important role of the language policy and strategy of universities towards multilingualism, especially the openness of the university to considering multilingual repertoires “as a communicative, strategic and cognitive resource in interaction” (Berthoud et al., 2011, p. 12). In terms of the focus of this chapter, we emphasize not only the necessary steps of the university at the macro and mezzo level, but the micro level of daily teaching of university teachers and the overall positive atmosphere throughout the university studies. “Clashes between conceptual dimensions: practices, policies, and representations” that did not ‘match’ were observed also by DYLAN team, but their advice was not to see “conflicts […] as problems, but

University – an Inspiring Educational Environment

257

as areas of fragility in which policy interventions may be possible […]. [M]ultilingualism will be an asset provided that efficient policies help individuals and organizations develop their ability and wish to operate bilingually, and help create opportunities for the use of several languages” (Berthoud et al., 2011, p. 18). The European Centre for Modern Languages in Graz suggests implementing pluralistic approaches to languages and cultures in everyday teaching practices which include teaching methods and techniques that stimulate the students’ awareness of the need to learn more languages and cultures (Candelier et al., 2010). They should go hand in hand with intercultural competence and language education.

3.

Research description

The research described below took place at Matej Bel University (MBU) in Slovakia – historically a multilingual country (80% Slovak majority and over 5 linguistic minorities).

3.1.

Research problem and suggestions for investigation

Teachers in European universities should be well-prepared for multilingual and multicultural challenges, and be inventive in finding ways to raise the level of students’ multilingualism more intensively through implementing language teaching strategies based on scientific research. The question is: How, specifically, can university teachers develop students’ multilingual competence more intensively, given existing resources? We suggest that there are several, often overlooked, resources at teachers’ disposal, which they can integrate in a creative way in order to bring significant improvements in multilingualism at their school. For example, the presence of foreign students and teachers at the university should be considered as a large reservoir of human resources, with the potential to engage the whole community in developing interculturalism and multilingualism. In our opinion, creating multilingually-focused courses for ethnically mixed groups of students is one of the specific, feasible, and effective strategies towards the desired multilingual aim. To avoid an excessive amount of effort on the part of the teachers, and at the same time to ensure the desired outcomes, we propose the design of multilingually-oriented courses based on a simple, authentic, meaningful, and creative synthesis of proven linguo-didactic and pedagogical approaches. Therefore, we believe that such courses can be used in any educational environment as a tool for

258

Dana Hanesová

increasing the students’ multilingual competence. Of course, this idea must be verified by research.

3.2.

Research methodology

Given the requirement for triangulation of methods we verified our proposal by three, data collection methods. In the case of this research, they were used to obtain qualitative data. Two of them were focused on finding out the current state of multilingual needs at our university: (a) an institutional anamnesis using questionnaires and (b) the narrative stories of Erasmus students. The results of these two data-analyzing methods are published in other studies. The third method which we will focus on here was a quasi-experiment with a new course designed by the Edulab team based on the needs identified via methods (a) and (b). Although the main language of communication was, due to the administration of the course, English and/or French, students from different countries had the opportunity to be enriched by other mother tongues spoken by their colleagues. 3.2.1. Description of the intervention in the experiment Before starting the quasi-experiment, based on detected needs, the Edulab team created a new optional one term university course called Global encounters in local settings (GELS), focused on the development of multilingual and intercultural competence. The starting principles of the course, representing the complexity of real life, included a holistic orientation on the needs of each student, taking advantage of diversity, their openness for multilateral inclusion, the development of global transversal skills needed for life in the future and the labor market. The course is based on a creative, simple synthesis of several well-known educational strategies: – autonomous, self-directed learning via authentic and realistic tasks – taskbased learning, – meeting a certain community need – service-learning methodology, – integrating interdisciplinary content with language learning – Content-based Instruction (CBI) or Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), – using the existing human potential of people speaking various languages at the university, – project work in ethnically mixed teams of students, or even teachers. The course itself consists of several phases. After designing the course, the information about it was announced on the university website. It was then open for

University – an Inspiring Educational Environment

259

registration by any university student interested in multilingual and intercultural development or, generally, in the development of life skills. During the first whole group meeting with the teacher, all students shared their areas of interests and individual reasons for choosing this course; then the teacher divided them into small, ethnically mixed groups (4–5 students). In each group there were students with at least three different native languages. Although they used them in some situations, for the sake of the group project the communication mainly took place in English. After a set of explanatory meetings organized by the teacher (Phase 1), the students had to take the initiative and start working in their small mixed teams (Phase 2), without the direct whole-class intervention on the part of the teacher. They started to meet regularly to carry out (a) a needs analysis in partnership with a specific community and make decisions about the need they were going to focus on, (b) planning and constructing their project in order to meet the selected community need, (c) implementing the project, and (d) during the implementation phase, writing reflective diaries about their learning. If there were problems or questions in individual groups, the teacher was available for advice to the group leaders. Here are some examples of what specific communities and their needs the students chose for their projects and what kind of a project they prepared towards fulfilling them: – the community of incoming foreign students in the host country and their need to adapt to the new social and learning environment – project: The Survival Book, – the community of foreigners in a city and their need to find their way around – project: Welcome to Banska Bystrica, – the community of domestic students and their need to understand and welcome foreigners – project: Multilingual and multicultural university (questionnaire, training), – the community of refugees and their needs after arrival in a foreign country – project: Cultural integration material with all needed information about life in the new place, – the community of students demotivated and mentally weakened by the COVID-19 pandemic – project: Mental hotline during the pandemic. At the end of term, the teacher organized the next, and last, whole-class meeting (Phase 3) in the form of a final international seminar where students reported on their projects before the whole class and other interested parties. The students chose a variety of community needs for their projects. In most projects, they responded to the needs of incoming foreigners, especially foreign students at universities, during the first weeks of their stay in Slovakia. Another big challenge they took on in their projects was trying to help children and their families from

260

Dana Hanesová

socially disadvantaged backgrounds with learning languages during lockdowns. One group addressed the linguistic and other socio-cultural problems of immigrants. Other students worked very sensitively on the project, responding to the growing mental problems of students due to social isolation and lack of communication either with domestic or foreign students during a pandemic. The individual project presentations were followed by questions, feedback, reflection from the audience, and self-reflective comments. Besides the presentations, the students also prepared a written group report from their project procedures. Even after the end of the term, the teacher continued to communicate with the students (Phase 4) in cases where their projects were going to be re-used by any interested party (e. g., municipal office of the city) for a specific purpose. This procedure has ensured dissemination of projects created by the students and thus their sustainability. By the time this report was prepared, the course was implemented in six groups during three semesters. So far, up to 25 foreign students studying at universities abroad (via Erasmus and online exchange Emerge program) have always shown interest in it and registered for the course in addition to domestic students. In combination with the transition to online university education in 2020 (due to pandemic measures) it was possible and easy to create ethnically mixed student groups in all terms. 3.2.2. Quasi-experiment The quasi-experiment was aimed at determining the effectiveness of our “intervention” – the new GELS course. It consisted of three successive steps: (1) pretest, (2) intervention – the implementation of GELS at MBU, (3) post-test. The whole process took place three times in 2020–2021. Our research into ways of raising students’ multilingualism began with action research of pilot GELS activities by members of the Edulab team in 2018. The results encouraged the team to conduct further research. So, for the main research (2019–2021), the Edulab team decided to use scientifically based measurements of multilingual increase through comparing data from pre-tests and post-tests in both experimental and control groups. The tests were prepared in the form of questionnaires with mostly open and even dilemmatic questions, indirectly detecting changes in multilinguals’ attitudes, awareness, knowledge, and skills. All processes were richly documented via various other qualitative methods, such as diaries, group reports, videos, posters, and oral presentations. As with any experiment performed in a real teaching process and not in a laboratory – and therefore a quasi-experiment – it was not possible to make a random sample selection either of the experimental or control group. Therefore, purposive sampling was carried out. The total number of involved students was

261

University – an Inspiring Educational Environment

100 (see Table 1): The experimental groups included all students registered for GELS in each given term – in total 50 students from all study levels – Bachelor’s, Master’s, and PhD’s. They were divided into two parts according to the main language of the course (English and French groups). Similarly, control groups with the same number of 50 students were selected; half of them were students of pre-primary education enrolled in a non-linguistic pedagogical subject and the second half were students of social sciences enrolled in an English learning course. Table 1. Number of students in the quasi-experiment Number of students

Summer term 2019/20

GELS group Sum & ratio (foreign / 5 domestic) 2:3 Total = 100

Control group 5 0:5 12

Winter term 2020/21

Summer term 2020/21

GELS group 25 11:14

GELS group 20 12:8

Control group 25 0:25 50

Control group 20 0:20 38

The whole process of data collection took place in 2020 and in 2021 under coronavirus pandemic measures. Subsequently, they were subjected to both qualitative and quantitative data analyses. In the next section, a brief summary of some qualitative data analysis is presented.

4.

Research results

For 94% of the students (n = 47) in the experimental GELS group, subconscious interdisciplinary learning was a completely new experience. According to them it was the most effective course so far in relation to developing their international attitudes as well as their multilingual awareness and to some extent overall multilingual and intercultural competence. The remaining 6% said that they had a lot of intercultural experience of studying and working abroad before this course and they spoke several languages fluently, so the increase in these areas through GELS was not obvious. However, they also appreciated the increase in transversal competences, especially in the area of team leadership, time management, and interpersonal negotiations and group project work only using online technologies. All GELS participants appreciated the usefulness of cooperation in mixed teams, and they marked it as an essential element in the overall positive result of the course. Not only did it help them to develop multilingual awareness, and the higher thinking skill of guessing meaning of various word expressions, etc., but they learnt about the linguistic differences between various

262

Dana Hanesová

branches of languages, speech accents, differences in stylistics, discourse design, and the influence of culture on the use of various terms. Although the experimental course was not explicitly focused on learning a new language, all but two (already fluent) students noted an improvement in English or French – in the languages the GELS teachers chose for primary communication during the course. The groups that worked on projects related to multilingual topics (e. g., a Welcoming brochure for foreign students about Slovakia, a website LocalNewsGlobally – in all languages the students spoke, or a Lexicon of words used in the hosting country) explicitly mentioned an increase in their intercultural competence. As both the domestic and foreign GELS students said in their responses, GELS was the first opportunity that they had ever received to learn in international teams via interdisciplinary tasks with a specific community need. The possibility not only to study in one class with students from other linguistic and cultural backgrounds, but also to create non-fictitious but realistic projects for a community, represented a completely new way to increase their multilingual competence as well as other skills that are key competences for 21st century professionals (critical, creative, and reflective thinking, problem-solving, teamworking, project management, interpersonal communication, time management). They acquired them subconsciously, without much effort, directly from performing the project activities, through one of the main foreign languages and at the same time through raising awareness of other language use. They attributed the positive outcomes of GELS mainly to the opportunity to make free – individual and group – choices of the project topic according to their professional needs and interests, and the choice of the work schedule. They also appreciated the considerable degree of responsibility and accountability for a common project. As can be seen from the preliminary results of pre-tests and post-tests filled in by the experimental and control groups, as well as from students’ diaries and group reports, the concept and teaching methodology used in the new course proved to be significantly more efficient in the development of intercultural and multilingual competences of the experimental group than the methods used in courses the control groups attended. The aims of the courses, their content, assignments, and assessment did not reflect the actual linguistic and cultural needs of incoming foreign students. The control groups neither reported any increase of multilingualism nor showed any interest in cultural issues. Compared to the GELS students, the control groups achieved a minimal increase in multilingual awareness although there were explicitly multilingual topics in their textbook. They developed skills in one foreign language only, although their teacher used a variety of linguo-didactic methods – namely (a) filling-in worksheets on multilingual awareness, and (b) preparation of PowerPoint pre-

University – an Inspiring Educational Environment

263

sentations by students on intercultural topics. The teacher asked foreign students to include examples from their mother tongue in their presentation and to explain their use. The feedback to this multilingual component of the lesson was indifferent. Only 20% of students were excited by guessing the meaning and learning words in languages other than English; 56% of them showed active interest in other cultures, but a neutral attitude towards getting to know other languages. As many as 24% expressed a negative, almost complaining attitude: Why did we waste time today with a language other than English? (See Graph 1). As for the use of the multilingual worksheets, less than 40% of students considered them funny or interesting; 1% of them gave negative feedback.

Graph 1. Students’ attitudes to work with multilingual worksheets (in percentages) – L (languages), C (cultures)

In addition to these comparisons, there was an opportunity to compare the statements of Erasmus students who were GELS participants with the statements of Erasmus students from previous years. It showed that GELS developed their multilingual awareness, and to a limited extent multilingual competence (due to the short time of 10 weeks) more than previous courses, although the GELS alternative was accomplished solely online due to COVID-19 measures. In their reflections, the Erasmus students involved in GELS expressed their gratitude for this added value, the development of which was not so obvious in the traditional courses focused on merely professional content or the study of a single language.

264

5.

Dana Hanesová

Discussion

The results of our quasi-experiment can be compared with other scientifically verified experiences with multilingual courses at other universities. For example, the European project DYLAN dealt with the challenge multilingualism represents for European universities by investigating their linguistic strategies, emphasizing the importance of scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of multilingual courses. DYLAN researched not only the increase of “linguistic and disciplinary knowledge, but also the added value of multilingualism for the construction and dissemination of knowledge and the advantages of plurilingual alumni for the labor market” (Lüdi, 2009, p. 15). DYLAN’s intention was to present multilingualism as an advantage for European universities (Berthoud et al., 2011, p. 6), and exactly this idea was behind the creation of GELS by MBU teachers. According to the DYLAN research, “mixed teams” are for multilingual learners “the ideal place for using multilingual resources in an interactive, roughand-ready manner […]. Mixed teams have greater resources, knowledge, and experience, which makes them more efficient, more dynamic and more innovative and creative” (Berthoud et al., 2011, p. 16). The Edulab research confirmed the importance of ethnically-mixed students’ groups as well as the beneficial effect of mixing students from various study levels (Bachelors, Masters, PhD) for the growth of multilingual and intercultural competence, similar to the experience of researchers from the University of Nantes (Jeoffrion et al., 2014). The more experienced students help the younger ones to progress faster in their development of multilingual competence, as they provide them with incentives that they would normally only get in the last years of study. To achieve holistic language education, the Edulab team decided to use the strategy of multilingual learning via service to a specific community. In a sense, we applied the “concept of communities of practice” where “mutual engagement and the sharing of a repertoire of practices constitute community for its participants and bring about learning through participation in a community” as described also in courses by Schaller-Schwaner (2009, 251). We established the role of the students’ multilingual repertoire as a bank of verbal and non-verbal resources “that are jointly mobilized by the actors in order to find local solutions to practical problems. Multilingualism can be approached as a ‘do-it-yourself ’ toolbox” (Berthoud et al., 2011, p. 33). The Edulab team hoped that during this process, the multilingual learning would happen with some ease, subconsciously, in a positive atmosphere of cooperation with new and interesting people. The DYLAN team also suggested a creative and playful way of conducting the multilingual activities, covering four kinds of creativity – linguistic, cognitive, interactional, and strategic (Berthoud et al., 2011, p. 16). All of these can be identified in GELS outcomes.

University – an Inspiring Educational Environment

265

The holistic development of plurilingualism through the integration of the studied subjects and the acquisition of languages was also recommended by Coste et al., who call this decompartmentalized process of language learning an approach par excellence (2007, p. 70). The Graz Centre encouraged schoolteachers to deliberately seek to provide a plurilingual environment for students to maximize the plurilingual knowledge, attitudes, and skills growth (Candelier et al., 2010). The Edulab project shows how this can be accomplished in plurilingual courses. Data obtained via GELS resonate with other research studies (Barreneche, 2011; Suwaed, 2018) that confirm the usefulness and efficiency of service-learning methodology in teaching other languages and cultures. Similar to the DYLAN research, they suggest the need “to create a ‘multilingual climate’ in which internal communication is an extension of external communication rather than separate from it” (Berthoud et al., 2011, p. 19). The Edulab team made an effort to support its international effort by placing new multilingual elements within the university premises, e. g., placing large welcoming posters on the entrance walls and setting up multilingual self-service libraries. Although the pandemic situation led to an online-only version of GELS, it turned out to be a positive factor enabling access to GELS for more international students, reminiscent of a positive experience with an e-Tandem English-German language exchange (Prior, 2009, p. 275). The GELS outcomes were found to be similar to the Multilingual Context Project by six universities (England, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Italy, Portugal, Spain) which prepared ICT-based language learning materials, aimed at raising multilingual awareness of mobility students (meeting on campus, academic skills, academic courses, curriculum vitae, and oral presentations) (Argondizzo & Jimenez, 2009).

6.

Limitations of the research and threats

One of the limitations of this quasi-experiment is the relatively limited level of comparability of the pre-/post-tests between the experimental and control groups. GELS has a unique strategy and aims, different from the courses observed via the control sample. So, in a way, it was not fair to expect an increase in multilingualism in those courses, as they had not set such goals. However, even in cases where they have tried to do so, the GELS strategy has proved to be more natural, motivating, and leading to the internalization of the importance of interculturality and multilingualism. By comparing the two groups, we wanted to point out that via GELS not only the multilingual awareness increased, but that this was accomplished as part of a holistic development of overall readiness for further functioning in the international space.

266

Dana Hanesová

There are several possible serious threats to the continuation of this hitherto successful course. One of them arises if foreign students do not apply for the course. This would mean not securing the learning in ethnically mixed groups. But as the GELS experiment has shown, the interest of university students in global education and intercultural issues is growing at the moment. During each subsequent term, we have observed an increase in the number of foreign students enrolled in GELS, either Erasmus or eMERGE students. Of course, it has also been necessary to increase the intensity and quality of information about the course on the Internet, especially on the university website. Another threat would be the lack of teachers willing and ready to continue with the idea of a GELS course, which is always an issue in any educational innovation. However, the fact is that with the influx of a new generation of teachers at MBU University (a) the experience with service-learning courses grows and (b) the number of teachers who are passionate about pro-internationality increases, so there is real hope for its sustainability. In 2021 the Edulab team is preparing material for training university teachers, who are teaching in foreign languages to multilingual groups. This is how the teachers at the University of Tartu proceeded, considering “the commitment and competencies of the faculty and staff” inevitable in order to achieve long-term sustainability of the university strategy of internationalization (Vihman & Uhler, 2009, p. 293). The necessity to prepare university teachers to teach in multilingual classes was emphasized also, e. g., by the University of Helsinki (Lehtonen et al., 2009, p. 271).

7.

Conclusion

If we consider universities as places capable of perceiving perspectives in the field of science and research, then they should include a multilingual dimension in their operation. “In a multilingual university […] multilingualism is taken as an asset for growth in communicative complexity” (Franceschini, 2009, p. x). The aim of our paper was to present an innovative way of developing the multilingual competence of university students by the implementation of holistic strategies mixed in the form of a new multilingually and interculturally focused university course. It is a bottom-up response to the need of raising the internationalization level at the university. At the heart of the new approach is raising awareness of the importance of the foreign students and staff as a rich human resource, enabling the creation of a realistic language-rich learning environment in which multilingualism can be nurtured, whether through formal or informal educational input. It represents an important means of increasing the efficiency of university top-down efforts. The combination of top-down and bottom-up

University – an Inspiring Educational Environment

267

modes in order to raise the international level at the university was also suggested by the DYLAN team from 12 countries. The bottom-up classroom multilingual activities should be assisted by top-down institutional measures and educational policy interventions (Berthoud et al., 2011, p. 20). In our quasi-experiment, we tested our presupposition about the importance of the implementation of innovative teaching practices through a new servicelearning course. This course was focused on the creation of authentic projects by culturally mixed groups of university students who prepared them to fulfill the needs of the community of foreigners in the city and at the university. In comparison with other traditionally taught courses, GELS increased the multilingual awareness of students significantly. It is a holistic approach to teaching that takes into account the need to develop not only the students’ multilingual awareness, but also their attitudes and commitments to learn via serving the community, and thus to acquire the whole range of key transversal competences. It can only be accomplished successfully within a learner-centered course that can simultaneously meet the needs of both domestic and foreign students as well as those of their mixed groups. Based on our action research and quasi-experiments, we confirm the positive impact of this project of innovative university pedagogy, aimed at developing multilingual competence in the university setting. Of course, we realize that our limited research results, which are currently in the process of analysis and will be published in more detail later in 2021, should be followed by more research activities, so that research on this whole issue can be saturated with more data and compared with other studies.

Acknowledgements This chapter was developed with the support of KEGA 004UMB-4/2019 Plurilingual and Intercultural Edulab Supporting University Strategy of Internationalization.

References Argondizzo, C., & Jean, J. (2009). Communicating in multilingual academic contexts: The challenge of a European project for mobility students. In D. Veronesi, & Ch. Nickening (Eds.), Bi- and Multilingual Universities: European Perspectives and Beyond (pp. 353– 362). Bozen: Bolzano University Press. Barreneche, G. I. (2011). Language learners as teachers: Integrating service-learning and advanced language course, 94, Hispania, 1, 103–120.

268

Dana Hanesová

Beacco, J.-C., Byram, M., Cavalli, M., Coste, D., Cuenat, M. E., Goullier, F., & Panthier, J. (2010). Guide for the Development and Implementation of Curricula for Plurilingual and Intercultural Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Béresˇová, J. (2017). Interkultúrna komunikatívna kompetencia a jej odraz v Spolocˇnom európskom referencˇnom rámci pre jazyky. In J. Béresˇová, & X. Liashuk (Eds.), Intercultural Communicative Competence and Language Learning (pp. 27–36). Trnava: Trnava University. Berthoud, A.-C., Grin, F., Lüdi, G. (2011). DYLAN – Language Dynamics and Management of Diversity. The DYLAN Project Booklet: DYLAN Project Main Findings. 2006–2011. EU, DYLAN Book. Retrieved January 23, 2021, from http://www.dylan-project.org/DYLANProject_Final-Booklet_A4_300412.pdf. Boeckmann, K. B., Abel, E., Aalto, A., Atanasoska, T., & Lamb, T. (2011). Promoting Plurilingualism: Majority Language in Multilingual Settings. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages & Council of Europe Publishing. Candelier, M. (Ed.). (2004). Janua Linguarum – The Gateway to Languages – The Introduction of Language Awareness into the Curriculum: Awakening to Languages. Strasbourg: European Centre for Modern Languages & Council of Europe Publishing. Candelier, M., Camilleri-Grima, A., Castellotti, V., de Pietro; J.-F., Lörincz, I., Meissner, F. J., Schröder-Sura, A., & Noguerol, A. (2010). FREPA/CARAP: A Framework of Reference for Pluralistic Approaches to Languages and Cultures: Competences and Resources. Graz: European Centre for Modern Languages. CoE – Council of Europe. (2007). From Linguistic Diversity to Plurilingual Education: Guide for the Development of Language Education Policies in Europe. Executive Version. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division of Council of Europe. CoE – Council of Europe. (2018). CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment: Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Cenoz, J. (2013). Defining Multilingualism. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 3–18. doi:10.1017/S026719051300007X. Coste, D. (Ed.), Cavalli, M., Cris¸an, A., & van de Ven, P.-H. (2007). A European Reference Document for Languages in Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Franceschini, R. (2009). Mehrsprachige Universitäten sollten eine Selbstverständlichkeit werden: Capacità cognitive, and the Asset of Multilingualism. In D. Veronesi, & Ch. Nickening (Eds.), Bi- and Multilingual Universities: European Perspectives and Beyond (pp. vii–x). Bozen: Bolzano University Press. Hufeisen, B., & Neuner, G. (Eds.). (2004). The Plurilingualism Project: Tertiary Language Learning – German after English. Strasbourg: European Centre for Modern Languages & Goethe Institute. Jeoffrion, Ch., Marcouyeux, A., Starkey-Perret, R., Narcy-Combes, M. F., & Birkan, I. (2014). From Multilingualism to Plurilingualism: University students’ beliefs about language learning in a monolingual context. Language, Culture and Curriculum, February, 8–26. doi:10.1080/07908318.2014.887724. Lehtonen, T., Pitkänen, K., Siddall, R., & Virkkunen-Fullenwider, A. (2009). A Quick-anddirty SWOT analysis on master’s degree programmes conducted in English in nonEnglish environments. In D. Veronesi, & Ch. Nickening (Eds.), Bi- and Multilingual

University – an Inspiring Educational Environment

269

Universities: European Perspectives and Beyond (pp. 265–274). Bozen: Bolzano University Press. Lüdi, G. (2009). Mehrsprachige Universitäten als Beitrag zur Erhaltung der sprachlichen Vielfalt Europas. Die Perspektive des europäischen Forschungsprojekts DYLAN. In D. Veronesi, & Ch. Nickening (Eds.), Bi- and Multilingual Universities: European Perspectives and Beyond (pp. 15–31). Bozen: Bolzano University Press. Moore, D., & Gajo, L. (2009). Introduction – French voices on plurilingualism and pluriculturalism: Theory, significance and perspectives. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6, 137–153. Murray, H., & Dingwall, S. (1997). English for scientific communication at Swiss universities: God helps those who help themselves. Babylonia, 4, 54–59. Piccardo, E. (2013). Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Toward a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 600–614. Prior, J. (2009). The English “Problem” at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano. In D. Veronesi, & Ch. Nickening (Eds.), Bi- and Multilingual Universities: European Perspectives and Beyond (pp. 275–282). Bozen: Bolzano University Press. Sousa, D. A. (2006). How the Brain Learns. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Schaller-Schwaner, I. (2009). Under the microscope: English for plurilingual academic purposes. Becoming bilingual: Support for staff language development. In D. Veronesi, & C. Nickening (Eds.), Bi- and Multilingual Universities: European Perspectives and Beyond (pp. 245–264). Bozen: Bolzano University Press. Suwaed, H. (2018). The path less taken: Incorporating service-learning in the English language curricula. IAFOR: Journal of Language Learning, 4, 25–40. doi:10.22492/ijl l.4.1.02. Vihman, V.-A., & Uhler, J. (2009). Becoming bilingual: Support for staff language development. In D. Veronesi, & Ch. Nickening (Eds.), Bi- and Multilingual Universities: European Perspectives and Beyond (pp. 293–306). Bozen: Bolzano University Press. Zull, J. E. (2004). The art of changing the brain. The Educational Leadership, 62, 68–72.

Radosław Kucharczyk

Chapter 14 – Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence in the Polish Educational Context

Abstract The main aim of this paper is to present the author’s SMART model of developing multilingual competence, drawn up on the basis of research in the fields of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and the didactics of foreign languages.1 The elements that make up the model include strategies, metacognition, affectivity, reflectivity, and interlingual transfer. By definition it is a strongly individualized model, i. e., its components are different and differentially developed depending on the experience and language needs of the students. The study presented here was conducted among Polish-speaking students (Polish = L1) studying English (L2) and French (L3) at school. Its aim was to better understand how students use their knowledge of Polish (L1) and English (L2) while learning French (L3), and to show how the components of the SMART model can be developed during L3 learning in a formal educational context where Polish is the dominant language and students have limited contact with foreign languages outside the classroom. In other words, the study was carried out in a context where linguistic and cultural diversity is limited. Keywords: multilingualism, interlingual transfer, strategies, SMART model, French as L3

1.

Introduction

In recent years, the concept of plurilingual competence, and thus the didactics of plurilingualism, has been widely discussed in the literature in terms of the processes involved in the learning and teaching of foreign languages (e. g., Widła, 2011; Kucharczyk, 2019; Kucharczyk, 2020). It has been emphasized many times that the development of the above-mentioned competence could enable students to consciously use the resources of their linguistic repertoire, which, in turn, Radosław Kucharczyk, Uniwersytet Warszawski (Poland), ORCID: 0000-0002-1861-1358, r.ku [email protected]. 1 A detailed description of all stages of the study can be found in Kucharczyk, Radosław. 2018. Nauczanie je˛zyków obcych a dydaktyka wieloje˛zycznos´ci (na przykładzie francuskiego jako drugiego je˛zyka obcego). [Foreign language teaching and multilingualism didactics (on the example of French as a second foreign language).] Lublin: Werset.

272

Radosław Kucharczyk

could lead to the more effective learning of other foreign languages as a result of positive interlingual transfer. This view seems to have important implications for the process of teaching second (and subsequent) foreign languages. In Polish schools, students start learning the first foreign language (usually English) in the first year of primary school education. After six years of studying, they start learning a second foreign language. For the purposes of this article, L1 is taken to be the mother tongue of the students, L2 is the first foreign language, and L3 the second (or subsequent) foreign language that students learn at school. This article presents the results of research carried out among Polish-speaking students learning French as an L3 during compulsory school education. The aim of the study was to determine whether and to what extent the knowledge of Polish and English can facilitate the learning of French as an L3.

2.

Operationalization of the concept of plurilingual competence

The introduction of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (2001), and especially its supplementary version (CEFR CV, 2018), introduced a new dimension to language education in the context of using the learner’s linguistic resources in the process of learning and teaching another foreign language. Such a paradigm assumes that the learner acquires a new language based on previous experiences related to both communication and the learning process itself. Plurilingual competence thus needs to be viewed as an inherent element of language education and should be developed in a strategic manner, which requires appropriate commitment on the part of both the student and the teacher. According to the definition proposed by the authors of the CEFR (2001, p. 168), plurilingual competence is the result of the communicative competences that a language user has in different languages, so it covers all (quite heterogeneous) resources of their linguistic repertoire. A student’s linguistic repertoire is evolutionary in nature, as it changes as the individual acquires new linguistic experiences (Dufour, 2014). Moreover, these linguistic resources are not “filed in separate compartments” but rather are interdependent, influencing each other. Furthermore, the resources in question may include not only different languages, but also their different varieties: dialects, sociolects, etc. Language learners select appropriate resources from their linguistic repertoire in order to manage communication in the best and most effective way. Lüdi (2016, p. 44) rightly compares linguistic resources to a toolbox from which tools are chosen and applied as needed. For this reason, plurilingual competence is a functional competence drawn upon by learners depending on their needs and the given communicative

Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence

273

situation or – importantly from the point of view of this text – by the learning situation. A multilingual learner should be able to use the previously acquired knowledge in the field of language functioning and communication during the process of learning a new language. They know which of the previously used strategies were effective and try to transfer them to learning another language. This requires the student to have appropriate psycho-intellectual qualifications, such as, e. g., a positive attitude toward multilingualism, appreciating the possibilities of multilingualism and of focusing on the functionality of the act of communication (Wilczyn´ska, 2008, p. 38). In other words, the development of plurilingual competence is correlated with the development of linguistic and communicative awareness, which allows students to think about how to acquire new knowledge and skills, and ultimately leads to a faster and more effective process of learning another foreign language (Robert & Rosen, 2010, p. 58). It follows from the above that preparing students to consciously use the resources of their own linguistic repertoire should be one of the main objectives of language education. Students should be able to make use of positive interlingual transfer, using their own – strongly individualized – language repertoire resources to facilitate the process of acquiring another language.

3.

Components of the original model of strategic development of plurilingual competence

In the literature much space has been devoted to the description and advantages of a developed plurilingual competence (e. g., Kucharczyk, 2018), but there are still no practical studies that would show how students can both use and develop the resources of their linguistic repertoire in order to learn another language more effectively. This would be especially valuable in the context of learning and teaching an L3 in an institutional environment. For this purpose, a model was developed (Kucharczyk, 2018), the components of which are briefly described in this section. The focal point of the proposed model is students’ ability to use positive interlingual transfer, based on their skilful selection of strategies. In order to create a range of such strategies, based on their own previously acquired experience, the learner should manage the learning process and the emotions that accompany it, which in turn requires them to adopt a reflective attitude.

274 3.1.

Radosław Kucharczyk

Metacognition and the development of plurilingual competence

The ability to use the resources of one’s own linguistic repertoire to learn another language, with simultaneous reference to previous language learning experiences, requires well-developed learning skills, i. e., metacognition, assuming that the development of skills and acquisition of knowledge are active processes (e. g., Barth, 2004; de La Garanderie, 2013). It should also be recalled that the learning skill (Fr. savoir-apprendre) was identified by the authors of the CEFR (2001) as one of the four general competences, yet it is difficult to find any reference to plurilingual competence in its definition. This is strange as the CEFR gives new meaning to this competence. Within the perspective adopted in the discussed model, metacognition can be analyzed on two planes. On the one hand, it involves solving individual language problems, such as, for example, teaching grammar/ lexis or developing individual language skills (e. g., listening, reading, etc.) based on students’ linguistic resources. On the other hand, it covers the entire learning process, both in terms of linguistic and non-linguistic dimensions, where the student refers to previously acquired experiences. It can, therefore, be assumed that developing a learning skill based on previously acquired foreign language learning experiences requires the student to reflect on the following: – managing the process of learning a new language; – using previously constructed tools in the process of learning a new language; – the role played by individual factors during the process of language learning. In order to develop the ability to learn from their own linguistic repertoire, learners could be encouraged to ask themselves questions revolving around the above. The questions are intended to encourage students to reflect on what would be for them the most effective ways of language learning, and whether they can use these to learn another language. In addition, it is worth encouraging students to consider whether they can perceive language and communication as a coherent system, and whether they have the correct concepts to describe these. Finally, learners should consider to what extent their personality traits facilitate or hinder their language learning and how they can use such knowledge to learn another language. In other words, by simultaneously using and developing students’ learning skills based on their prior learning experiences, they can be encouraged to reflect on how they have learned other languages, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and how they can use this kind of “self-diagnosis” in learning another language.

Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence

3.2.

275

Affectivity and the development of plurilingual competence

The ability to properly manage the process of one’s own learning is closely related to the emotions that accompany it, which in turn is directly influenced by a student’s motivation, which can be described as a dynamic and highly individualized phenomenon of a processual nature susceptible to both external and internal stimuli (Fenouillet, 2011, p. 141). When discussing the affective nature of the learning process in relation to plurilingual competence, it seems advisable to refer to the role played by the socio-educational context in which the learning and teaching take place, as well as the role of social representations functioning among students. When it comes to the socio-educational context, it primarily defines the status of language learning, i. e., all the factors that determine the learning and teaching process (Gardner, 2001, p. 4). On the one hand, the place of the target language in the educational system in which the student functions is of concern: Is it an L2 or L3? Is it a compulsory school subject? Does the student need to pass a major language exam? etc. (Kucharczyk, 2016, pp. 202–294). On the other hand, it concerns the students themselves, who are socially and culturally conditioned (by individual experiences related to the target language and culture, as well as the values that are communicated by the students’ immediate environment, including their family) (Gardner, 2001, p. 4). Related to this issue is the matter of social representations, i. e., generally speaking, students’ perception of language. The representations in question may cover the following aspects (Beacco & Byram, 2003, p. 43): – language learning difficulties; – aesthetic values (e. g., the beauty of the sound of a language or the beauty of literary works written in that language); – the suitability of the language in relation to the student’s professional, personal, intellectual, or cultural needs. It should not be forgotten that social representations, and thus emotions accompanying language learning, are also related to the so-called psychotypological distance (e. g., Chłopek, 2011). In contrast to typological distance, psychotypological distance is a result of the learner’s subjective assessment of the degree of proximity (and therefore potential differences and similarities) between the language being learned and the languages that are part of their linguistic repertoire. It should be remembered, however, that in the process of learning and teaching foreign languages, psychotypological distance is closely related to learners’ motivation (Heidrick, 2006, p. 1). Hence teachers should encourage students to reflect on the structure and use of the languages they know and compare them with the language they are learning, so that they can change

276

Radosław Kucharczyk

their perceptions of the latter as well as reduce possible psychotypological distance.

3.3.

Reflectivity and the development of plurilingual competence

When implementing a strategic model of developing plurilingual competence during a foreign language lesson, it is impossible not to include didactic activities related to the learners’ acquisition of a reflective attitude, which prompts them to a deeper analysis of the phenomena and problems they are learning, and, thus, determines effective learning (Dewey, 1988, p. 33). If the student acquires new knowledge and skills in a reflective manner, it can be assumed that they will reject intuitive premises in favor of problem-solving based on previously acquired knowledge (Dan´ko, 2014, p. 70). In other words, learning which is consistent with the assumptions of reflective thinking is based on the use of previously gained experiences and skills (Perkowska-Klejman, 2014, p. 70), which are different for each student. Such an assumption is in line with the principles of multilingual didactics, in accordance with which a student learns new languages using previously acquired resources and based on their experience as a language learner. Therefore, it is worth introducing didactic activities developing a reflective attitude in students, thanks to which students would be able to look at the language and the communication process in a reflective and analytical way. This, in turn, would allow them to adopt a more flexible attitude when learning another language. To sum up, if teachers want to fully exploit the resources of their students’ language repertoire in L3 learning, they should encourage learners to reflect on the language, the communication, and the learning process itself based on their prior experiences.

3.4.

The development of plurilingual competence strategies

Emphasizing the role of learning and communication strategies in language education is not a new idea in didactic research.2 The canon of cited studies includes the works of Rubin (1987), O’Malley and Chamot (1990), and Oxford (1990). Regardless of their classifications, the described strategies always cover three areas: metacognitive, cognitive, and socio-affective ones. A thorough 2 In the context of language learning and teaching, the difference between communication strategies and learning strategies is very fluid as the individual learns a language by communicating. Therefore, in this article I do not distinguish between communication strategies and learning strategies, treating both terms as synonyms.

Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence

277

analysis of the strategies proposed by the researchers shows that they do not refer to the learner’s language repertoire resources at all (or hardly ever). However, it is precisely building on a range of such strategies which result from reflection on the experience gained in learning foreign languages that could make the process of learning another language more effective, both in cognitive and affective terms. The examples of linguistic repertoire strategies included in Table 1 show how language teachers can encourage students to use their linguistic repertoires (Kucharczyk, 2017b, pp. 177–179). Table 1. Linguistic repertoire strategies Strategies for learning vocabulary and grammar While learning the target language (vocabulary, grammar, phonetics, etc.), I make comparisons with the languages I already know. In the languages that I know, I see some words borrowed from other languages. In the languages that I know, I see some “international” words (called “internationalisms” or “transparent words”). I notice grammatical regularities among the languages that I know (e. g., the presence and use of articles, forms of possessive pronouns, feminine gender markers, plural form markers, etc.). When learning the grammar of a target language, I develop hypotheses concerning its relations (or lack of relations) with the grammars of the languages that I know. When learning the grammar of a target language, I try to find its regularities by referring to the grammars of the languages that I know. Strategies for communication in the target language When learning the target language, I use skills (related to reading, listening, writing, and speaking) acquired in other languages. I remember that different types of texts in different languages have a lot in common. Before listening or reading in the target language, I carefully read the instructions and try to guess what the text is about. I focus on the words that I know or that resemble words in the languages that I know. While listening, I pay attention to the fragments (words/sentences/intonation) which represent emotions, and which are similar in other languages that I know. Before reading, I look carefully at the titles, headings, pictures, charts, etc., included in the text. I check if they contain any words that I know or that resemble any words I know in other languages. I wonder if they help me guess what the text is about. While reading, I look carefully at the text and in order to determine its type (advertisement, article, book fragment, interview, etc.), trying to remember similar texts in other languages that I have already come across. I read the full text and try to determine its main theme, focusing on the words that I know or that resemble any words that I know in other languages. While reading, I try to understand the meaning of words that I don’t know and wonder if I know any similar words in Polish, English, or another language.

278

Radosław Kucharczyk

I always read full sentences and never get discouraged by the fact that I don’t understand some words or structures. I replace unknown words or structures with words that I know in other languages. When reading words that I don’t understand, I read aloud and think if they sound similar to any words that I know in other languages. I analyze the lexical structures that I don’t know and wonder if similar structures exist in other languages that I know. I carefully read the lexical structures that include some parts that are unclear to me. I analyze unclear fragments and wonder if I can understand them thanks to my knowledge of other languages. I analyze the grammatical structures that I don’t know and wonder if similar structures exist in other languages that I know. I read or listen to the text several times to make sure that my assumptions regarding unknown words or structures are correct. In verbal and written communication in the target language, I try to notice communicational similarities to other languages that I know. When talking in the target language, I send and receive non-verbal messages that I know in other languages (such as gestures, facial expressions, etc.). When talking in the target language, I send and receive paraverbal messages that I know in other languages. When writing in the target language, I try to remember what such a text looks like in other languages that I know, and think if I can use that knowledge. I wonder how my knowledge of other languages helps me to better understand a text in the target language. I wonder how my knowledge of other languages helps me to improve my communication in the target language. I try to figure out in what other way my knowledge of languages can facilitate my communication in the target language.

Developing the above strategies in a foreign language lesson may allow students – in my opinion – to consciously use their own linguistic repertoire resources, enabling them to consciously make use of positive interlingual transfer, which will be discussed later in the paper.

3.5.

Ability to use positive inter-linguistic transfer

The notion of transfer is not new in the field of language teaching research (e. g., Komorowska, 1980; Arabski, 2007; Kucharczyk, 2016a), but it is rarely studied in the context of using the resources of the student’s linguistic repertoire in the process of learning other languages. However, an awareness of the possibilities offered by the use of these resources can lead to positive interlingual transfer, which not only can make learning more effective, but can also positively influ-

Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence

279

ence the emotions accompanying the language learning process. For transfer to be considered positive, it should be: – deliberate, which means that it results from the student’s reflection on language and communication (Widła, 2011, p. 55); – justified, and, therefore, while transferring their knowledge and skills during the communication process, the student takes into account not only the content of the message, but also its purpose, the recipient, etc., i. e., all factors that affect the course of the communication process (Stolarczyk-Gembiak, 2015, p. 471). During a foreign language lesson, when students learn to consciously use the resources of their own linguistic repertoire, the teaching activities undertaken by the teacher, aimed at conscious and positive interlingual transfer, may include the following areas: – language systems (grammar, vocabulary, phonetics, spelling, etc.); – communication (reception, production, interaction, mediation); – solving tasks based on linguistic and extralinguistic skills. Summarizing this part of the chapter, it can be stated that at the heart of the proposed strategic model is the ability to make use of positive interlingual transfer, which requires a range of strategies based on the learner’s linguistic resources (e. g., Kucharczyk, 2016b). In order to create these strategies, it is necessary to acquire skills of managing one’s own learning process and emotions that accompany learning. These are based on previous experiences related to the process of learning languages and cannot take place without reflection on the part of the student. The relationship between the individual components of the model is illustrated in Figure 1. The model discussed in this chapter is called SMART, which is an acronym for its components (strategies, metacognition, affectivity, reflexivity, transfer). It also refers to the nature of plurilingual competence, which can be considered a SMART competence: The learner uses its elements depending on the needs imposed by the communication or learning situation. It is also worth emphasizing at this point that it is a strongly individualized model due to the individual character of each of its components, and therefore each component should be developed with a different level of intensity depending on learners’ individual needs.

280

Radosław Kucharczyk

Figure 1. SMART – strategic model of development of PC (adapted from: Kucharczyk, 2018, p. 224)

4.

Research Study

This paper focuses on part of a larger study into learning an L3 in the Polish educational context (Kucharczyk, 2018). It reports on focus group discussions which aimed at understanding how school students develop plurilingual competence.

4.1.

Background of the study

The study was carried out among Polish students (15–16 years old) learning French as an obligatory L3 at school ( junior secondary school). It should be noted that in Poland not many students decide to learn French, probably because they perceive French as a language which is quite difficult to learn and of little use in the future (e. g., Kucharczyk & Szymankiewicz, 2020). This is why it would seem advisable to suggest an alternative approach to foreign language learning, one that utilizes learners’ entire linguistic repertoire. The study which this paper draws on consisted of the following stages: – analysis of learners’ language learning context; – investigation of learners’ use of strategies while reading and listening (pretest);

Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence

281

– observation of learners’ participation in French lessons that were designed to help them discover how their knowledge of Polish (L1) and English (L2) can aid them in listening to and reading French; – focus group discussions led by the researcher with selected students on how they would address specific (reading and listening) tasks in French utilizing their knowledge of Polish and English; – testing learners’ French reading and listening proficiency; – investigation of learners’ use of strategies while reading and listening (posttest); – questionnaire investigating students’ opinions about the different ways in which they can use their knowledge of other languages while learning French. The remaining part of this paper will consider the focus group discussions during which the students, with the researcher’s aid, considered ways in which they can utilize their linguistic repertoire while learning French. It is worth noting at this point that the first stages of the study clearly showed that the students’ learning context was not favorable to language learning, in particular to learning French. This is due to the fact that Polish students’ most frequent contact with linguistic and cultural diversity is during foreign language lessons at school, as their immediate environment is characterized by a low degree of diversity. Students speak Polish (L1) at home, and within their environment most people are Polishspeaking. Students rarely use a language other than Polish in their everyday life. If anything, they use English during (not very frequent) trips abroad. We can therefore assume that students’ only contact with the French language is during French lessons.

4.2.

Study participants

The survey was conducted among students aged 15–16. At the time of the study (2015/2016), they were students of the third (and last) grade of junior secondary school. They were learning French as an obligatory school subject – for them it was a so-called second modern language. We can therefore presume that all the study participants knew Polish (L1) and English (L2), and had some basic knowledge of French (L3). While all students started to learn the language at the beginning of the first grade of junior secondary school, the number of hours of French per week varied, ranging from one to four. The study participants came from four different schools: two were in Warsaw, one in Sulejówek near Warsaw, and one in Ciechanowiec (Podlaskie Voivodeship). The choice of students was deliberate and related to their cognitive abilities: Students of this age are capable of critical, analytical, and abstract thinking,

282

Radosław Kucharczyk

which enables them to test hypotheses, verify new data, and create rules, which in this context are the rules of language use. Moreover, at this age, students should know their mother tongue quite well, having acquired knowledge about its structure and functioning during Polish language lessons. Furthermore, the participants had been learning English as an L2 for 9 years and were therefore aware of the challenges of learning a foreign language.

4.3.

Observation of the focus-group discussions

Throughout the study, groups of 3–4 students selected by their teacher participated in meetings with the researcher. During these meetings they would solve tasks testing their ability to read and listen to texts in French at A2 level (the level determined by the then binding core curriculum for a second foreign language). For each such meeting the teacher selected a different group of students. It is worth noting that throughout the school year the learners participated in lessons conducted by their French teacher during which they learned how to utilize their knowledge of Polish and English while leaning French. Meetings with the researcher were, in a way, a continuation of the way of working with the teacher, and, therefore, the “new” way of solving tasks should not have been a cognitive obstacle to reflection on the possibility of using the knowledge of other languages in learning French. The meetings were conducted in Polish, as using their mother tongue allowed the students to express abstract concepts which they would need when, for example, asked to solve linguistic tasks. The students were instructed to listen to or read a text and answer the questions that accompanied it (multiple choice questions, true/false questions, etc.). They then talked to the researcher about how they managed to give the correct answer. If they gave a wrong answer, they searched together for elements that could help them solve the task. The discussions were conducted by the researcher in order to obtain rich data on the possibilities of utilizing the knowledge of other languages in solving French tasks. A total of 26 meetings were held (school A: 7 meetings, school B: 8 meetings, school C: 4 meetings, school D: 7 meetings). All meetings were recorded and then transcribed, which gave a total of 490 pages of standardized typescript. During the meetings, the students worked on tasks based on the materials contained in the DELF3 A2 exam preparation files: A total of 4 reading comprehension sets and 6 listening skills sets were used. The topics discussed in the tasks were consistent with the requirements set for A2 level, e. g., buying a gift, going on

3 Fr. Diplôme d’études en langue française.

Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence

283

vacation, ecology, etc. Text genres on which the tasks were based were varied: informal conversations, advertisements, interviews, etc. The next part of the article presents a summary of the results of the application of the individual components of the SMART model, showing how the way in which the students solved problems evolved. The study took place over 3 trimesters: 1st trimester (October – December), 2nd trimester (January – March), and 3rd trimester (April – June). The trimesters comprised one school year. 4.3.1. The study – 1st trimester At the beginning of the study, the students’ skills in using the resources of their own linguistic repertoire to solve French tasks were quite limited. When it came to their ability to manage their learning process, a vast majority of the students participating in the discussions failed in this respect: There were no visible traces of the students planning how they would cope with the task: (1) R: I would like to ask you how you begin when listening in French. AIVU1: I don’t know.4

From an affective perspective, the surveyed students were generally willing to cooperate with the researcher, positive about solving the tasks, highly curious, and cognitively committed. Nevertheless, many perceived French as a difficult language and, what is worse, were skeptical about the possibility of using the resources of their own linguistic repertoire while learning it: (2) R: Martyna, do you like French? CIU3: Sometimes, it depends. R: And what’s the hardest part? CIU3: Well, this reading is terribly confusing. R: With English? Can you give me an example? [laugh] CIU2: For example, we have an “a” in French and in English it sounds like an “e.”

Perhaps as a result of their low level of reflection on linguistic and communicative processes, the students often failed to approach the task in a reflective manner. Only when guided by the researcher did they begin to do so more consciously, occasionally using the experiences they had gained when learning other languages. However, it is also worth emphasizing that the students’ reflections associated with possibilities of exploiting other languages while learning French were generally limited to the use of lexis. Thus, at this stage, the set of 4 Key to abbreviations: R = researcher, AIVU1 denotes individual students (A, B, C, or D specifies the school, whereas the number indicates the student).

284

Radosław Kucharczyk

strategies the students used based on their linguistic repertoire resources was poor and mainly covered similarities at the level of vocabulary (e. g., referring to the source word to understand words from an instruction), and occasionally similarities at the level of text organization. However, the students had a certain set of strategies not based on the resources of their language repertoire that they used when solving a task. These included such strategies as analyzing task instructions, analyzing the key words of instructions, and determining the type of text on which the task was based. It can, therefore, be assumed that they had some grounds for resorting to deliberate interlingual transfer, but at this initial stage these were very rarely if ever used. None of the participating students in the first trimester was aware of the phenomenon of positive interlingual transfer; it was only after the discussion with the researcher that they became aware of this. Thus, it would appear that shortcomings in both Polish and English prevented students from knowingly transferring the knowledge and skills acquired in other languages to French. For example, they knew that the French verb distribuer was the equivalent of dystrybuowac´ in Polish, but they did not know what dystrybuowac´ really meant. 4.3.2. The study – 2nd trimester In the second semester, a change in the way the students went about solving French tasks could be observed. Before starting to read or listen to the texts, the students planned how they would solve the task so that the adopted method of operation was as effective as possible. However, this was not a common phenomenon as some students still lacked the necessary learning skills. A certain change was visible in the students’ attitude to working in line with the assumptions of multilingual didactics. Most of the participants had a positive attitude to using the resources of their own linguistic repertoire while learning French and were less skeptical about this form of work, finding pleasure in identifying crosslinguistic similarities: (3) R: I would like to ask you how you start when listening in French. […] You have a listening task, you have questions and so on. AIVU2: Then questions first, so as to know at least what to expect and what information to listen to, and possibly to answer the questions, so that you can understand them, or some keywords that sound familiar, if it’s a more difficult text. I’m looking for keywords in this listening task.

However, it should be emphasized that while such an attitude was visible in most students, some were still skeptical about using the components of their multilingual competence in the process of learning French and did not want to get involved in solving the proposed tasks.

Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence

285

As far as their reflective attitude is concerned, the change was no longer so evident. Some students did try to use their own linguistic repertoire resources reflectively, noting not only the similarities, but also the differences between their languages (they were aware, for example, of the phenomenon of “false friends”). Nevertheless, reflecting on the language and the act of communication was still very limited in the case of many learner (e. g., they knew that similarly sounding words can have different meanings in different languages, but were not necessarily able to name the phenomenon or give examples to illustrate it). The students’ comments, which were quite laconic, also confirm a low degree of reflection. Importantly, however, from an affective perspective, the students seemed positive about using the resources of their own language repertoire during the tasks. Their cognitive curiosity in searching for cross-linguistic similarities was raised and they seemed less skeptical about this type of research. As for the strategies activated by the students, one could observe quite a conscious use of “general” strategies (not based on the resources of the linguistic repertoire), i. e., analyzing instructions in order to anticipate task content, general and selective listening to the text, focusing on keywords, specifying the text type, etc. Increasingly, some of the students began to associate French words with other words (primarily English words), but this was not a common phenomenon: Some of the students had hardly developed strategies related to listening to texts in French, because they rarely did such tasks in class. It is worth mentioning that in the second trimester traces of conscious and positive interlingual transfer began to appear in the students’ tests. Even so, this was quite limited and related mainly to vocabulary, and less often to the interpretation of the interlocutor’s intentions (comparative analysis of the intonation of the statements from a recording), which appears to be a result of the rather poorly developed other skills mentioned earlier. 4.3.3. The study – 3rd trimester By the third and final trimester of the study, the students were equipped with the tools to aid them in task planning. Most of them knew how to plan and choose an appropriate approach to solving a task by selecting a specific set of strategies, while students who could not do this were few. (4) R: Today we will do some listening. Before we start listening to the recording, this is a warm-up question – how should you listen, so that you can understand as much as possible? Do you know any techniques, ways to make it easier? BVIIU1: Firstly, with what accent they speak, I mean… do they speak more officially, is this some kind of announcement or speech, or is it a kind of conversation, like for example in a shop.

286

Radosław Kucharczyk

R: So it’s not so much accent as intonation, right? BVIIU1: Intonation.

At this stage a large number of the students had a positive attitude to using their own linguistic repertoire and could be characterized as having a fairly high cognitive curiosity. Nonetheless, there were still those who “tagged” languages and appeared distant from the possibilities offered by working in accordance with the assumptions of multilingual didactics. With regard to reflectivity, a considerable number of the students used the experiences acquired in other languages reflectively, which was visible, for example, in situations where it was useful to define the textual genre or when deciphering an unknown word (but only within fairly basic words). It is this reflection on the cross-linguistic similarities at the lexical level that seems to dominate after a year of work focusing on using the resources of one’s own linguistic repertoire in learning French. This issue is related to the strategies activated by the student participants: While the general strategies were used consciously and accurately, the strategies based on the resources of one’s own linguistic repertoire were quite limited, e. g., noticing cross-linguistic similarities at the lexical level, finding similarities at the grammatical level, noticing analogies between different kinds of texts. These are low-level strategies, activated incidentally, without any particular conviction of their usefulness. The students did not consciously apply strategies based on their linguistic knowledge. They were not really aware of how other languages can help them solve their problems. Only when guided by the researcher did they start to approach the task in a strategic way, but they did so very intuitively, without deeper reflection. For this reason, interlingual transfer is probably traceable: It was mainly at the level of lexis and text organization. It was often blocked by the students’ shortcomings in their other languages but also by their lack of conviction as to the usefulness of such transfer.

5.

Discussion

The analysis of the focus group discussions can be summarized as follows: – The implementation of the SMART model of foreign language learning is a long-term process that is closely related to the teaching and learning process. – When foreign language learning is situated in a context where different languages and cultures are not highly valued and where languages are treated as separate school subjects, each filed in a separate compartment, encouraging students to perceive links between languages is a difficult task requiring patience from the teacher.

Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence

287

– The students not only had difficulties with identifying links between French, Polish, and English, but also with planning how to approach tasks in French. This may result from a lack of intellectual maturity, but a more likely reason is that they see French only as a school subject and do not notice its usefulness for the future. – The above observations are closely related to students’ emotions during French classes: Students see French as a difficult language and they see little chance of being able to use it in the future, hence their motivation to learn it is low. – Students’ metalinguistic awareness is insufficiently developed, thus it may be difficult for them to identify similarities between French, Polish, and English. These results resonate with those of Cos¸ereanu (2010), who investigated interlingual transfer among students of 15 nationalities working on language production tasks. She found that learners who share an L1 and come from a similar educational background resort to interlingual transfer less frequently, which may help to explain our findings where the studied group was homogenous in terms of the L1 and educational context. This would suggest that working in multilingual contexts requires teachers to be more fully engaged, especially given Jamet’s (2009) conclusion that strategies activated by learners are closely related to language proximity. Her research on Italian speaking students learning French at A1 and A2 levels has shown that “the mother tongue plays an important role in second language learning when the languages are closely related” (Jamet, 2009, p. 57).5 Our results also suggest that, in accordance with Monville-Burston’s (2013) findings in the field of phonetics, cognitive complexity may impact negatively on students’ perceptions of the language being learned. Such cognitive complexity includes the learner’s experience in learning the target language as well as subjective social and psychological factors including attitudes to language and culture, and the nature of the students’ mother tongue. It therefore seems important, as Nowak (2015) noted in the summary of his research on the acquisition of the Russian language by Polish-speaking students, that the didactic process is managed in a way that enables students to use the resources of their mother tongue so as to facilitate the acquisition of the target language. Nowak states that: didactic activity aimed at assimilation and accommodation sensitizes the learner to such thinking and actions that lead to the selective use of the mother tongue, activating

5 In the original version: “[l]’importance accordée à la langue maternelle dans l’apprentissage d’une deuxième langue, apparaît donc un facteur plutôt positif dans le cas des langues proches.”

288

Radosław Kucharczyk

it where necessary and “allowing it to remain dormant” at other times (Nowak, 2015, p. 77).6

For this reason, it is important to help students develop a reflective attitude that facilitates (conscious) interlinguistic transfer. This is in line with Wojakowska’s (2021) findings from a study investigating multilingual competences in a specialist language learning setting. Conducting a study with a group of multinational students preparing to become diplomats, the researcher showed that teaching sequences that aim at positive language transfer leads to increased reflection by the students on how languages and communication function. As Wojakowska (2021, p. 205) observes: Thanks to the pedagogical sequencing, the diversity of languages and cultures in the classroom began to be considered by all the learners as normal and commonplace […] awareness of the distance and proximity between languages; the potential of partial comprehension across related languages; experience of activities conducive to the comparison of phenomena specific to different cultures […].7

It would therefore seem important that teachers are prepared (both during preservice and in-service training) to work with students to use their linguistic repertoire in order to make language learning more effective. Teachers need to know how to encourage students to reflect on how languages and communication function so that they can make use of interlingual transfer. This requires learners to build a range of strategies based on their previous experiences of learning and using languages.

6.

Conclusions

The observations made during individual meetings with the students allow us to conclude that those included in the study rarely resorted to the resources of their own language repertoire when solving tasks related to the French language. It should be noted, however, that the students were aware of the impact of these resources on the effectiveness of learning a language, especially an L3. This awareness was mainly related to lexical competence, but the students also per6 In the original version: “[d]ziałanie dydaktyczne ukierunkowane na asymilacje˛ i akomodacje˛ uwraz˙liwia ucza˛cego sie˛ na wypracowanie takiego mys´lenia i działania, które prowadzi do wybiórczego posiłkowania sie˛ wiedza˛ z zakresu je˛zyka ojczystego aktywuja˛c ja˛ tam, gdzie jest to poz˙a˛dane i ‘usypiaja˛c’ ja˛ w innych przypadkach.” 7 In the original version: “Grâce aux séquences pédagogiques, la diversité des langues et des cultures présente dans la classe a commencé à être considérée par l’ensemble des apprenants comme normale et ordinaire […] prise de conscience des distances et des proximités entre les langues; des possibilités d’intercompréhension partielle entre les langues voisines; expérience d’activités propices à la comparaison de phénomènes propres à diverses cultures […].”

Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence

289

ceived cross-linguistic similarities at the level of text organization and within the channel of communication, which was especially noticeable in the case of tasks testing listening comprehension. It is worth adding that the students’ reflectivity on the principles relating to the functioning of language and communication was poorly developed, which probably resulted from the shortcomings in their metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness. It is for this reason that interlingual transfer is underdeveloped and mainly occurs at the lexical level. It is, nevertheless, worth noting that even if during the school year the students did not learn how to fully use the resources of their linguistic repertoire, their behavior while solving tasks changed: They developed a range of strategies based on the resources of their linguistic repertoire and learned how to go about solving language tasks using their previous experiences. It is thus worth supporting students at the affective level of the learning process, as they were quite skeptical about solving language tasks based on their linguistic repertoire resources, which, in my opinion, proves the need for long-term didactic activities that focus on the individual components of the SMART model. At present, there are not many studies regarding this aspect of plurilingual competence, especially with reference to L3 teaching in educational contexts characterized by low cultural and linguistic diversity. It would therefore be worth extending the current study to allow for more generalizable results and to include other L3 languages within the same educational context. Thus, a similar study may be worth conducting with a larger research group to obtain more diverse data. Perhaps it is also worth verifying how students use the resources of their own linguistic repertoire to learn language subsystems or to develop other skills (e. g., reading comprehension, listening, speaking). And finally, it would be worth carrying out this type of research as a longitudinal study concerned with language teaching at a given educational stage, because only then would it be possible to see the increase in students’ skills in the conscious use of the resources of their own linguistic repertoire. The concept of plurilingual competence, increasingly emphasized in didactics, attributes the greatest importance to learners’ linguistic repertoire as an element influencing the quality and effectiveness of the process of learning other languages, as well as student’s motivation. Therefore, it seems advisable to prepare students for utilizing deliberate and positive interlingual transfer, especially in an educational context which is not very diverse in terms of language and culture. The transfer in question would be based on a highly individualized range of “multilingual” strategies, the creation of which would depend on students’ ability to manage the learning process, mainly from an affective perspective. This, in turn, would require students to adopt a reflective attitude.

290

Radosław Kucharczyk

References Arabski, J. (2007). Transfer mie˛dzyje˛zykowy. In I. Kurcz (Ed.), Psychologiczne aspekty dwuje˛zycznos´ci (pp. 341–351). Gdan´sk: Gdan´skie Wydawnictwo Psychologiczne. Barth, B.-M. (2004). Le savoir en construction. Paris: Éditions Retz. Beacco, J.-C., & Byram, M. (2003). Guide pour l’élaboration des politiques linguistiques éducatives en Europe. De la diversité linguistique à l’éducation plurilingue. Strasbourg: Conseil de l’Europe, division des Politiques linguistiques. Cos¸ereanu, E. (2010). Transfers interlinguistiques dans des tâches d’écart d’information chez des apprenants de FLE. Les Cahiers d’Acedle 7–2/2010, 1–25. Chłopek, Z. (2011). Nabywanie je˛zyków trzecich i kolejnych oraz wieloje˛zycznos´c´. Aspekty psycholingwistyczne (i inne). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Council of Europe. (2001). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Council of Europe. (2018). The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Dan´ko, M. (2014). Rozwój umieje˛tnos´ci refleksyjnych studentów – przyszłych nauczycieli je˛zyków obcych na poziomie wczesnoszkolnej edukacji je˛zykowej. In M. Baran-Łucarz (Ed.), Refleksja w uczeniu sie˛ i nauczaniu je˛zyków obcych (pp. 27–39). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. de La Garenderie, A. (2013). Plaisir de connaître. Bonheur d’être. Lyon: Chronique Sociale. Dewey, J. (1988). Jak mys´limy? Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. [(1933). How we Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers.] Dufour, M. (2014). Du concept de répertoire langagier et de sa transposition didactique. LIDIL, 49, 179–194. Fenouillet, F. (2011). Les multiples facettes de la motivation. In G. Toupiol (Eds.), Mémoire, langages et apprentissage (pp. 133–144). Paris: Éditions RETZ. Gardner, R. C. (2001). Language learning motivation: The student, the teacher, and the reasercher. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 1–18. Heidrick, I. (2006). Beyond the L2: How is transfer affected by multilingualism? Teaching College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 1–3. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from https://tesol-dev.journals.cdrs.columbia.edu/wp-conten t/uploads/sites/12/2015/06/3.3-Heidrick-2006.pdf. Jamet, M.-Ch. (2009). Contacts entre langues apparentées: les transferts négatifs et positifs d’apprenants italophones en français. Synergies Italie, 5, 49–59. Komorowska, H. (1980). Nauczanie gramatyki je˛zyka obcego a interferencja. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne. Kucharczyk, R. (2016). Kontekst nauczania je˛zyków obcych w Polsce – glottodydaktyczne implikacje dla drugich je˛zyków obcych. Linguodidactica, 20, 195–212. Kucharczyk, R. (2016a). Développer la compétence plurilingue dans un pays monolingue. Quelles implications pour l’apprentissage/enseignement de la deuxième langue étrangère ? Le cas des élèves polonais. Actas del III Congreso Internacional Nebrija en Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas, Nebrija: Nebrija Procedia, 245–259. Re-

Strategic Development of Plurilingual Competence

291

trieved December 11, 2020, from https://www.nebrija.com/vida_universitaria/servicio s/pdf-publicaciones/ActasIIICongresoSLANebrija.pdf. Kucharczyk, R. (2016b). Comment puiser dans le répertoire langagier de l’apprenant lors de de l’enseignement/apprentissage de la deuxième langue étrangère? Pratiques, 169– 170, 1–18. Retrieved August 20, 2017, from https://pratiques.revues.org/3000. Kucharczyk, R. (2017a). Rola kontekstu społecznego oraz czynników indywidualnych w rozwijaniu kompetencji róz˙noje˛zycznej polskich gimnazjalistów. Neofilolog, 49(1), 43– 59. Kucharczyk, R. (2017b). United in multilingualism. A few words about the didactics of multilingualism. Lublin Studies in Modern Languages and Literature, 41(2), 166–183. Retrieved January 5, 2018, from http://journals.umcs.pl/lsmll/article/view/6044. Kucharczyk, R. (2018). Nauczanie je˛zyków obcych a dydaktyka wieloje˛zycznos´ci (na przykładzie francuskiego jako drugiego je˛zyka obcego). Lublin: Werset. Kucharczyk, R. (2019). L’impact des facteurs affectifs sur le développement de la compétence plurilingue. Vers une approche SMARTen classe de langue tertiaire. Travaux de Didactique du Français Langue Étrangère 1/2019. Retrieved December 11, 2020, from http://revue-tdfle.fr/actes-1-44/141-l-impact-des-facteurs-affectifs-sur-le-developpe ment-de-la-competence-plurilingue-vers-une-approche-smart-en-classe-de-langue-te rtiaire. Kucharczyk, R. (2020). Enseigner le français aux élèves polonophones à l’époque du plurilinguisme. Vers une approche réflexive et stratégique. In F. Kakoyianni-Doa., M. Monville-Burston, S. Papadima-Sophocleous, & F. Valetopoulos (Eds.), Études Contrastives. Vol. 14: Langues Moins Diffusées et Moins Enseignées (MoDiMEs). Langues enseignées, langues des apprenants (pp. 31–50). Bruxelles, Bern, Berlin, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang. Kucharczyk, R., & Szymankiewicz, K. (2020). Uwarunkowanie wyboru nauki je˛zyka francuskiego przez polskich licealistów. Acta Neophilologica, 1(22), 73–90. Lüdi, G. (2016). Du plurilinguisme comme tare au plurilinguisme comme atout. L’héritage de l’idéologie monolingue. In G. Komur-Thilloy, & U. Paprocka-Piotrowska (Eds.), L’éducation plurilingue. Contextes, représentations, pratiques (pp. 31–53), Paris: Orizons. Monville-Burston, M. (2013). Complexité et transfert dans l’acquisition du français langue étrangère: le cas des apprenants chypriotes du FLE. Travaux de linguistique, 2013/1(66), 97–134. Nowak, I. 2015. Transfer w konteks´cie dydaktyki je˛zykowej doby postkomunikacyjnej. Lingwistyka stosowana, 12, 69–80. O’Malley, J. M., Chamot A. U. (1990). Strategies Used by Second Language Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle&Heinle. Perkowska-Klejman, A. (2014). Cztery poziomy refleksyjnos´ci studentów. Teraz´niejszos´´c – Człowiek – Edukacja, 16/1(61), 69–78. Robert, J.-P., Rosen, É. (2010). Dictionnaire pratique du CECR. Paris: Ophrys. Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history, and typology. In: A. L. Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 15–30). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

292

Radosław Kucharczyk

Stolarczyk-Gembiak, A. (2015). Transfer je˛zykowy jako forma przygotowania do tłumaczenia konsekutywnego. Konin´skie Studia Je˛zykowe, 3(4), 467–482. Widła, H. (2011). Skutecznos´c´ nauczania drugiego je˛zyka obcego – próba zastosowania wyników badan´ w praktyce. Lingwistyka stosowana, 4, 53–67. Wilczyn´ska, W. (2008). Motywy wyboru je˛zyka obcego w szkole a unijny postulat rozwijania wieloje˛zycznos´ci In A. Michon´ska-Stadnik, & Z. Wa˛sik (Eds.), Nowe spojrzenie na motywacje˛ w dydaktyce je˛zyków obcych (pp. 159–170). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Wyz˙szej Szkoły Filologicznej we Wrocławiu. Wojakowska, M. (2021). Développer la compétence plurilingue et pluriculturelle en classe de français sur objectifs spécifiques (exemple du français de la diplomatie). Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Beatriz López Medina

Chapter 15 – Plurilingual Outcomes in Plurilingual CLIL Settings: A Case Study of Translanguaging in Secondary Education in Latvia

Abstract Over the past two decades, linguistic policies affecting primary and secondary education worldwide have promoted plurilingualism in school settings (Council of Europe, 2006; UNESCO, 2000). As a result, and specifically in the European continent, bi-/plurilingual schools are now commonly found. However, they are facing a two-fold challenge: Teaching different languages, but also teaching through different languages. In consequence, and to facilitate these processes, many schools have adopted the Content and Language Integrated Learning approach (CLIL), often considered as “THE so-called current solution to FL teaching and learning in the EU” (Bruton, 2013, p. 287). This chapter describes a study conducted within the framework of the Erasmus+ KA2 2016-1-ES01-KA201-025491 project at a plurilingual school in Riga (Latvia), where the CLIL approach is used in secondary education. The History teacher and her students use Latvian, Russian, and English interchangeably integrating them in the content matter. The chapter explores the plurilingual outcomes of a task carried out in a History class by students of year 8 (n = 52) and their use of translanguaging as a tool to make and convey the meaning required to complete a written task successfully. The CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators (Celic & Seltzer, 2013) is used to analyze translanguaging strategies. The results of this analysis are complemented by the answers to a questionnaire administered to the participants (Gullberg & Indefrey, 2003), which provides information on their linguistic backgrounds. The findings show students in secondary education as strategic learners that use translanguaging as a tool to convey meaning in plurilingual academic settings. In conclusion, teaching translanguaging strategies could help secondary teachers facilitate content learning in similar plurilingual teaching conditions. Keywords: translanguaging, pedagogical translanguaging, CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), plurilingual teaching, language learning strategies

Beatriz López Medina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain), ORCID: 0000-0002-15242358, [email protected].

294

1.

Beatriz López Medina

Introduction

If some decades ago the acceptance of bilingual teaching as common practice in Europe was uncommon, more recently, “bilingual education is no longer an exclusive entity, but is increasingly becoming mainstreamed” (Pavón & Pérez, 2017, p. 109). In consequence, the initial difficulties faced by teachers and school heads alike have been largely overcome; for instance, the resistance of some parents towards bilingual education (Herranz Blokker, 2017), the need for teacher training (Bruton, 2013), or the lack of specific materials (Moore & Lorenzo, 2007), are now replaced by indicators showing that improvements have been made. Countries like Spain, where the proficiency in foreign languages has been an issue pending for decades, offer a linguistic panorama with near or over 50% of bilingual schools in several regions (Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional, 2020). In addition, from the earliest stages of primary (or pre-primary) education, young learners face the learning of content through an additional language. Even though “the more” does not always mean “the merrier,” the wide spread of bilingual schools in Western Europe has contributed significantly to the improvement of linguistic abilities in school contexts in a relatively short period of time (Verspoor et al., 2015). Behind the positive outcomes, however, years of training the CLIL approach, teachers improving their proficiency in foreign languages, together with the change of families’ mindsets towards bilingual schools, have turned into indicators of a linguistic awareness common to all stakeholders, not just to policy makers. Nowadays, throughout the European continent and despite the understandable disparities in linguistic policies, we can affirm that bilingual education is now well established. In this scenario, multilingual1 pedagogical practices can be seen as the next step regarding European linguistic policies. Furthermore, from 2009 onwards, the European Parliament has, among other actions, highlighted the importance of “teaching school subjects in different languages,” promoting European linguistic diversity and supporting multilingual citizens. Some educational contexts, such as international schools or schools in border regions, have long experienced the teaching-learning processes in/through several languages. However, the EU vision of an – at least – trilingual citizenry, not only requires revisiting language curricula, but also calls for the implementation of multilingual pedagogies beyond these contexts. This is not easy to achieve. Multilingual pedagogies “recognize the existence of multiple languages in 1 The terms plurilingualism and multilingualism are considered as similar practices in this paper, following Canagarajah and Liyanage (2012): “the difference between multilingualism and plurilingualism is largely theoretical. These are not different practices. The terms connote different ways of perceiving the relationship between languages in society and individual repertoire” (p. 49).

Plurilingual Outcomes in Plurilingual CLIL Settings

295

schools and attempt to leverage the students’ unitary semiotic system to make meaning and learn” (Kirsch, 2020, p. 2); they therefore involve engaging with linguistic and cultural diversity to scaffold knowledge construction. First and foremost, multilingual pedagogies call upon specialized teachers who can draw on their students’ linguistic repertoires and benefit from this strategy to support the process of content learning. The teaching experience analyzed in this study shows examples of both features. Located in Riga (Latvia), the multilingual context described in this chapter is a History class in secondary education (Year 8) where the teacher uses three vehicular languages (Latvian, English, and Russian) naturally while conveying the contents of the subject matter. Furthermore, there is evidence that the construction of knowledge of the target group is favored through the use of scaffolding strategies, flexibility in the use of multilingual resources, and emphasis on collaborative activities, among other practices. The target group of this study reflects the linguistic complexity of Latvia. Before 1991, when Latvia regained its independence, Russian had been the language used for inter-ethnic communication, considered a symbol of Soviet power (Ozolina, 1999). Since then, governmental linguistic policies have aimed to increase proficiency in Latvian. However, despite the everyday use of the official language (Latvian) regaining some popularity, it remains the native language for just 60% of the Latvian population. This chapter aims to identify the translanguaging strategies used by the students in the multilingual context of a school in Riga and also to analyze their distribution in the micro tasks involved throughout a History lesson using the CLIL approach. Concerns have arisen on the dearth of research in this area and the need for studies on translanguaging in CLIL contexts (Cenoz, Genesee, & Gorter, 2014; Lasagabaster, 2016, and Lin & He, 2017, among others).

2.

Literature review

Preliminary studies on factors affecting language acquisition highlight context as a key factor, since only by relating context and language could the latter be explained (Hymes, 1974). A rich learning environment is considered to affect linguistic performance (Firth & Wagner, 1997; Skehan, 1991), since it can facilitate (or hinder) the use of the target language. In this respect, from the early seventies, researchers have analyzed the main features of meaningful contexts, i. e., those that provide opportunities for interaction, feedback, and motivation to learn languages (Collentine & Freed, 2004; Moore, 2006, and Wedell & Maldariz, 2013, among others).

296

Beatriz López Medina

Context gains special relevance when additional languages are learnt/acquired or used in an academic environment, such as in CLIL settings (Meyer, 2010). In these cases, students develop their interlanguage at school, which makes them, at least to a certain extent, context-dependent in the development of proficiencies in their additional language(s). Frequently, in contexts where the CLIL approach takes place, content is conveyed through one additional language, only drawing on the L1 when certain content or language scaffolding is required (Lasagabaster, 2013). However, when several vehicular languages are used interchangeably, as in the case presented in this study, plurilingual learners need to “bridge between languages” (Moore, 2006, p. 126) and to this end, they make use of all their metalinguistic representations. The learners draw resources from their different linguistic repertoires to successfully complete the task. This is not unique to adult learners since “it seems that bi/plurilingual children, in favorable contexts, do not hesitate to use all language resources at their disposal, individually and collectively” (Moore, 2006, p. 135). This strategy is part of the “plurilingual strategic toolbox” which the learners draw upon when facing problem-solving throughout any period of their language learning process; for instance, they can code-switch between languages in the same conversational exchange, rephrase messages, redefine concepts in another language, or use gestures, to understand a message or to be understood. These plurilingual learners skilfully adapt these strategies to negotiate meanings, moving towards what Di-Pietro refers to as plurilingual expertise (2002, p. 47). Notwithstanding, in day-to-day lessons, where multiple vehicular languages are used, the resources needed by bi-/plurilinguals go beyond the mere linguistic, and “a shift in the focus from bi-/multilingual competencies to translanguaging” (Hassan & Ahmed, 2015, p. 25) is required. Translanguaging cuts across the boundaries that consider L1, L2, etc. as separate entities, and therefore leads bilingual or multilingual students to go beyond, and use strategies such as code-switching, code mixing, or translation. This phenomenon has been defined as “the act performed by bilinguals of accessing different linguistic features or various modes of what are described as autonomous languages, in order to maximize communicative potential” (García 2009, p. 140) and is said to provide advantages in plurilingual settings (Hassan & Ahmed, 2015). Through its use, learners use and deploy all resources available at their disposal for language processing, interaction, or production of any message, also contributing to maximizing their learning (García & Li, 2014). With this objective, students use their entire semiotic repertoire to make meaning, and are able to show their understanding through flexible classroom practices where there is no single academic or dominant language. Plurilingual students perceive these classrooms as safe contexts where the use of any resource from their semiotic repertoire is not only admissible, but also encouraged, as long as it facilitates successful communication and learning. In addition, recent evidence

Plurilingual Outcomes in Plurilingual CLIL Settings

297

(García & Li, 2014, Lasagabaster, 2016, and Kirsh, 2020, among others) indicates that the use of multilingual and translanguaging approaches has proven to be beneficial for linguistically diverse students (fostering inclusion, providing a safe learning environment, and helping students engage with the content). Translanguaging “refers to the process by which bilingual students perform bilingually in the myriad multimodal ways of classrooms – reading, writing, taking notes, discussing, singing, etc.” (García, 2011, p. 147). To favor this performance, teachers need to adopt flexible pedagogies where students feel free to use any strategy in any language. Teachers’ pedagogical translanguaging is intentional (Cenoz & Gorter, 2017), and it promotes a high level of participation, uses visuals frequently, allows the use of the language of choice, elaborates on the students’ discourse, provides input in different languages, and encourages multimodal communication, among other features (Hassan & Ahmed, 2015; Kirsch, 2020). Classroom translanguaging practices have been connected to the CLIL approach since the late 90s (Nikula & Moore, 2019), with research purposes largely focused on the L1 as a resource in CLIL lessons. However, the systematization of the practices has been mainly carried out through the work of CUNY-NYSIEB (the City University of New York – New York State Initiative on Emergent Bilinguals); from 2011, this project, led by Ricardo Otheguy, Ofelia García, and Kate Menken, has provided significant contributions to research throughout on-thegroundwork in schools, analyzing the development of bilingualism, and foregrounding the dynamic nature of the process. Part of their research findings turned into developing resources addressed to teachers working in contexts where bi-/plurilingual ecology is the norm. The Celic and Seltzer’s CUNY-NYSIEB guide for educators on translanguaging (2013), used as a framework in this study, is one of the key resources of this project. Translanguaging has gained increasing popularity among researchers over the last few years, moving away from concepts such as “English only” or “one face, one language.” These concepts, which consider languages as watertight compartments, ban or constrain any other language (heritage, home, L1) different from the target one used in those educational contexts, i. e., the vehicular language.

3.

Method

This study aims to explore the translanguaging strategies used in the target lesson by analyzing the teacher’s pedagogical practices related to the students’ final product (a Facebook profile of an explorer). To this aim, translanguaging strategies were analyzed through classroom observation and systematized use of

298

Beatriz López Medina

the taxonomy provided in Celic and Seltzer’s Translanguaging Guide for Educators (2013). In addition, an informal interview with the head teacher, conducted after the observed lessons, confirmed and clarified certain perceptions obtained from classroom observation. Finally, a questionnaire on the students’ linguistic history was also administered to determine the linguistic background of the participants and to identify a possible continuum of school-home translanguaging strategies (i. e., questions were posed to determine if the home contexts also provide translanguaging spaces similar to those found in school).

3.1.

Research questions

In this study, the following two research questions were posed: RQ1: Does the pedagogical practice used in the target class facilitate the use of translanguaging strategies? RQ2: How do the students show the translanguaging strategies in the process and completion of a task?

3.2.

Context

This study took place in the history class of a state school in Riga, Latvia, in the framework of the Erasmus+ project KA2 2016-1-ES01-KA201-025491 “Character-Based Learning as Pedagogical Innovation for CLIL Teaching and Inclusive Education.” As a result of the first (out of two) transnational visit to Latvia, observations of some lessons using the CLIL approach took place. Upon observation of the lesson, in the case of the target class (History in Year 8), the main features of the CLIL approach were observed: multimodal input, language of/ through/for learning, 4Cs curriculum (content, communication, cognition, culture), integration of language skills, scaffolding of language and content, etc. In addition, there was a natural use of the three languages shared by the teacher and students (Russian, Latvian, and English). The plurilingual competence was favored at all times and integrated simultaneously with the subject matter, shaping a rich learning environment. The class was considered an interesting context to analyze translanguaging strategies developed by both agents, the teacher and students, and therefore, during the second transnational visit, the study was conducted. The target school is state funded and provides trilingual education in English, Russian, and Latvian. English as a subject is offered to all students from year 1,

Plurilingual Outcomes in Plurilingual CLIL Settings

299

and introduced as a medium of instruction in year 5. A second foreign language (French or German) is offered from year 4, and Latin is a compulsory subject from year 10 onwards. The school positions itself as a reference in the country for its interest in languages, and leads programs on bilingual education, also assisting other schools when they start to implement the bilingual model.

3.3.

Description of the task

Participants were required to create a Facebook profile for a historical explorer. This task is included in the part of the curriculum related to The Age of Discovery, where students learn about the European voyages of discovery and the exploration of the New World. Students are provided with a template including all the sections of a Facebook profile they need to complete (see Figure 1). Upon completion of the task, students should have completed the following microtasks: – choice of an explorer; – identification of the explorer (surf the net to find a picture to download, print, and glue/draw in the space provided in the template); – written biography of the historical figure (search on the Internet, in textbooks, in the class library, to find information on the explorer’s life and accomplishments); – map of discovery showing the travel related to the figure by drawing the route (download, print, and glue the map in the space provided in the template); – written Facebook wall posts the historical figure would have made (What’s on my mind? / Post) and comments. The task calls for multimodality (oral and written information, maps, pictures, emoticons, drawings). Different sections of the profile also require the use of different text types: narrative, descriptive, and expository.

3.4.

Participants

A total of 52 students (46% male, 54% female) participated in the study. They were all Latvian students from year 8 (ages ranged from 14 to 15 years). They all spoke several languages, although their levels of proficiency varied, as did the quality and quantity of exposure to each language. Table 1 shows the linguistic diversity of the group.

300

Beatriz López Medina

Table 1. Participants’ mother tongues and additional languages Languages Russian

L1 92%

L2 2%

L3 0%

L4 0%

Latvian Ukrainian

4% 4%

36% 0%

12% 0%

2% 0%

English German

0% 0%

8% 2%

22% 14%

18% 20%

French

0%

0%

4%

12%

As can be seen in Table 1, Russian is the mother tongue for most students. This is the language they also indicated as using in most of their home communicative exchanges and at school when talking to their peers. The presence of the other languages is related to academic reasons (languages learnt at school) or to a heritage language (one of their parents’ L1 was not Russian). The fact that only 4% of the students have Latvian as L1 is likely due to the predominance of Russian as the L1 for their parents’ generation, and is, therefore, the language they use to speak at home and to their children. Most students indicate that sometimes Latvian is used in family conversations, but Russian is the most frequently used language for this purpose. English is mostly considered a school language, although its use for writing emails or leisure purposes (games, music, or surfing the net) is also noticeable in the questionnaires. Latvian seems to be the language they use in informal conversations with their friends. Finally, in a 1–5 Likert scale for questions on attitudes to languages, a significant majority of the students indicate they like learning new languages (marking points 4 and 5 in the Likert scale) and find it reasonably easy (marking points 3 and 4).

3.5.

Instruments

The participants responded to the Gullberg Indefrey Language Background Questionnaire (Gullberg & Indefrey, 2003) which was administered in English. Its aim was to gather information on the participants’ language background (linguistic biography, attitudes towards languages, and relevant experiences related to language learning). In addition, it provided information regarding the use of languages (formal or informal, topics, etc.). The head teacher, interviewed at the end both transnational visits, on the second occasion responded to questions regarding the teaching practices observed in her class, mainly in relation to the following topics: use and frequency of the three languages, kinds and use of visual supports, classroom management (group and individual work), and teacher-students (T-SS) and students-students

Plurilingual Outcomes in Plurilingual CLIL Settings

301

(SS-SS) interactions, mainly involving open/closed questions, debates, etc. The interview was conducted by the researcher and compared with the information gathered through the on-the-spot observation. This was achieved by establishing different categories after the first visit to the class, which correspond to the above-mentioned topics discussed with the teacher. During both visits, in each class observation the researcher was accompanied by native speakers of Latvian and Russian, who assisted with issues related to both languages (mainly shifts in languages, noticing code switching, etc.). Interaction with participants was kept to a minimum.

3.6.

Procedure

The study was conducted through a mixed methods approach. First, informal observation of lessons using the CLIL approach was carried out in the school, as part of the activities organized for researchers during the first transnational visit to the school in Riga (Latvia). After identifying the target class as a rich environment for analyzing translanguaging practices, an informal interview with the History teacher was essential to understand the context, her pedagogic principles, and the general linguistic mapping of the class. She agreed to cooperate and provide any information required to complete the study. Between the two transnational visits, consent forms were obtained. Additionally, in order to collect data from the field research, the questionnaire (Gullberg & Indefrey, 2003) was selected and adapted, and the observation criteria were registered in an observation sheet. Frequent communication with the History teacher via email was required for organization purposes (scheduling of the visit, administration of questionnaires, class organization, etc.). On the second visit to the school, the questionnaires on linguistic backgrounds were administered and the written tasks collected during class time. The observation sheet on classroom management and interaction was completed with comments from the History teacher after class. Materials generated in the lessons (written task) were gathered for further analysis. Finally, after the visit, data on translanguaging strategies was elicited by analyzing the task “Create a Facebook profile for an explorer.” All translanguaging practices were later compared to the information on language backgrounds provided in the questionnaires. In conclusion, data from classroom observation, interviews with the teacher, and analysis of the written material was triangulated to obtain information on translanguaging pedagogies and practices.

302

4.

Beatriz López Medina

Results

The observation carried out during the two visits to the target classroom provided insight into the flexible multilingual teaching pedagogy used by the History teacher. The lessons follow a conventional structure of warming up → presentation of the task → task development → evaluation of the task → wrapping up. The observation on the second visit confirmed the pedagogy observed on the first, mainly the natural use of the three vehicular languages in the T-SS and SS-SS exchanges. However, it was also observed that the pedagogic support (mainly linguistic scaffolding) was provided in English, which was also the language combined with visual materials (PowerPoint presentation with key words and phonetic transcriptions, words linked to images, and written instructions). In this respect, using Latvian and Russian as outside school and home languages might lead to the consideration of English as the “more academic language,” requiring more support and linguistic scaffolding. In addition, students are less exposed to this language, and also less proficient, especially when facing formal registers. Regarding discourse structure, the teacher encouraged students’ participation and they took the floor using the language of their choice in all kinds of interaction (T-SS, SS-SS). The pattern of interaction to provide instructions and give information was frequently Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF). In this pattern, there is an initiating move of a question, followed by a response and ended with the teacher’s feedback. The negotiation of meaning also involved using the three languages of their choice for all microtasks, questions, interactions, or activities. The freedom to draw from all linguistic repertoires as required by the speaker facilitated a smooth running of the class and students worked on the content without interruptions caused by lack of understanding. Code switching, paraphrasing, elaboration of the message, or any other resources could be provided as needed without altering the class dynamics. In relation to classroom management, the task was carried out through collaborative work of groups consisting of 4 or 5 students. The students worked together in these groups to complete the Facebook profile, drawing on their linguistic repertoire according to their preferences at any stage (see different contributions in the samples provided in Figures 1 and 2). The teacher played the role of a facilitator assisting the groups and providing support (scaffolding) when necessary, also using mediation to solve issues related to both language and content. The multimodal task progressed from guided (with a detailed explanation of the steps) to autonomous work. The students made use of all available resources: conventional resources used in History and Geography lessons (textbooks, maps,

Plurilingual Outcomes in Plurilingual CLIL Settings

303

posters, etc.) and ICT resources. In this respect, apart from the PowerPoint presentation to contextualize the task and to provide instructions and the necessary scaffolding, students could use the computer at the teacher’s desk to access the Internet and download and print images, maps, pictures, etc. Throughout the lesson, the teacher and students experienced a relaxed working atmosphere where participation was encouraged. Learners worked collaboratively, but could also use any available tool/resource autonomously to look up the meaning of difficult terms, information on content, etc. Regarding the translanguaging strategies used by the participants, they were identified and classified according to Celic and Seltzer’s guide: Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB Guide for Educators (2013: iv–vi; see Table 2). The source guide presents a more detailed section on language development than the modified version used for the purposes of this study, since it was used in a foreign language class. In this study, the number of the strategies related to language has been reduced since the languages are integrated in a content class (History), and references to explicit language development (language of learning) are limited to key vocabulary in English. Table 2. Translanguaging strategies: CUNY-NYSIEB and class in Riga Translanguaging strategies Translanguaging strategies CUNY-NYSIEB GUIDE CLASS IN RIGA. Task: Facebook profile Part 1. The translanguaging classroom Translanguaging strategies: Multilingual ecology Culturally relevant learning envi- Multicultural profile of school; plurilingualism and ronment multiculturalism are indicated in its mission (www.rkg.lv/) Multilingual learning environment

Students indicate different degrees of proficiency in four different languages (Table 1), using three of them daily just in their academic environment

Instructional foundations Multilingual objective Integrated instruction

The template provided for the task can be completed in any language The teacher talks about content using three vehicular languages with scaffolding in English

Designing units around multilingual culminating product Collaborative work

Multilingual texts are shown in the tasks (Figure 2)

Multilingual collaborative work

The same profile or, in some cases, the same section of the profile includes different languages Participants’ multilingual profile described in Table 1

Multilingual partners

304

Beatriz López Medina

Table 2 (Continued) Translanguaging strategies CUNY-NYSIEB GUIDE Translanguaging resources Using multilingual texts

Translanguaging strategies CLASS IN RIGA. Task: Facebook profile Students use texts from sources in different languages (webpages, textbooks, other books)

The Internet as a multilingual reSearch of information on the Internet in any lansource guage Part 2. Content and literacy development Content area and reading instructions Multilingual research Search of content (discoveries) is carried out through any vehicular language Comparing multilingual texts with Facebook profiles are compared and commented the same content area topic on when finished Multilingual reading and responses Information obtained from textbooks, the PowerPoint presentation and the Internet combine different languages Content area and writing instruction Translanguaging with interactive The same section is written by more than one writing student at times Translanguaging with independent Each student negotiates in the group what to write writing (language is a personal choice) Translanguaging with multi-genre Biography, log entry, comment to a post approach Part 3. Language development Vocabulary Graphic organizers Vocabulary inquiry across languages

Graphic organizers are used in the PowerPoint presentation Questions on how key terms made in English

When the Facebook profiles (consisting of biographies, personal feelings, short descriptions, etc.) were completed, they contained all of the required linguistic features (verbs in the past tense, descriptive adjectives, when necessary, etc.). In addition, there were also symbols such as emoticons and emojis used to express emotion. The freedom to use any vehicular language becomes evident in examples of the three languages, although the use of Latvian is much reduced compared to Russian and English. Finally, there is a display of visual content through which the students show their understanding, and which is also part of the construction of meaning required in the task. In line with the CLIL approach, the researcher found examples of language for learning, language through learning, and language of learning (Coyle, Hood, &

Plurilingual Outcomes in Plurilingual CLIL Settings

305

Marsh, 2010) in the final task and/or through the teaching process. First, students use language for learning in the negotiation of meanings carried out in the cooperative work (summarizing, note taking), as well as when asking and answering questions or debating. Second, the language through learning (the language “picked up” or “captured” in the learning process) is acquired/learned mainly when the teacher gives instructions, or while the students read information in their textbooks or online. Finally, the language of learning (language related to content) is, in this particular case, the language related to the topic The Age of Discovery / explorers (routes, trading, navigation, etc.). The natural use of multilingual input, as described above, seems to activate strategies which contribute to the learning outcomes. In addition, those learning outcomes are maximized due to the multilingual learner’s repertoire – when the students draw from the range of vocabulary and syntactic resources at their disposal and show them in the task. They also select symbols to convey meaning when appropriate (see Figure 2) and combine them with pictures and texts. When interviewed, the History teacher stressed three pedagogic practices upon which she based her teaching: First, she considered multilingualism as an asset, in line with Kirsch’s work (2020), i. e., capitalizing students’ linguistic background, and second, she highlighted the value of always being able to rely on ICT, which boosts “flow” when learning content in the apparent complexity of multilingual input. Finally, she underscored the possibility of drawing upon resources in any language to better understand certain content. At any time, if necessary, students could translate, transform, or adapt content from one language into another, turning an apparent obstacle (lack of resources in a specific language) into an advantage (use of linguistic resources in any language). These procedures suit the aim of the CLIL approach: learning content through language (any language).

306

Figure 1. Complete Facebook profile

Beatriz López Medina

Plurilingual Outcomes in Plurilingual CLIL Settings

307

Figure 2. Extract of a multilingual text

5.

Discussion

As indicated in the results section, overall, the features of translanguaging strategies identified in the Rigan target class correspond to the ones described in Celic and Seltzer’s guide (2013). In this section, the findings are compared with previous research on the topic. RQ1: Does the pedagogical practice used in the target class favor the use of translanguaging strategies? The results obtained from class observation and the interview with the teacher reveal a wide range of strategies used by both the teacher and participants, evidencing a free choice of linguistic strategies in any of the languages which are not separated during the lesson. In accordance with this practice, Creese and Blackledge observe that flexible plurilingualism is “a characterization of heteroglossic, translanguaging practice” (2011, p. 1201). This use of languages integrated with the content supports García and Li’s claim on a dynamic model of bilingualism (2014). Even the CALP (cognitive academic language proficiency) seems to be favored by translanguaging, as the learners’ texts show specific lexis on explorations, itineraries, and discoveries in the three languages, although mainly in Russian and English. In line with these results, Creese and Blackledge (2011) advocate for translanguaging pedagogies to develop academic language proficiency.

308

Beatriz López Medina

The linguistic scaffolding from where students can elaborate or provide equivalents in their own mother language(s) is provided by the teacher only in English. This practice is consistent with the claims by Hassan and Ahmed (2015) and with Lasagabaster’s study (2016) where teachers using translanguaging practices advocate the strategic use of a specific language; in other words, there is no need to mix the languages throughout the lesson. As for interaction (T-SS and SS-SS), the use of languages increases the possibilities of participation, as posited by Kirsch (2020). Efficient classroom management by the teacher is considered to be key in achieving effective collaboration among students. The teacher indicated that the students were used to collaborative work, and it is notable that the task shows the contributions of all group members. In these plurilingual contexts, group work allows for a substantial progress in the task and contributes to reducing language differences (Moore, 2006). In addition, using translanguaging strategies in groups allows weaker and stronger students to work together (Paulsrud et al., 2017) and encourages learning autonomy (García & Li, 2014). RQ2: How do the students show the translanguaging strategies in the process and completion of a task? Latvian, Russian, and English can often be found in the same piece of work, which shows metalinguistic awareness when the students choose the most efficient language for each required text. Students also decide which language to use to search information on the web, books, etc.; this is a student-led strategy characteristic of plurilingual learners (French, 2019). The interaction SS-T and T-SS is constant, as is the level of participation in the class. This is in line with the claims by Hassan and Ahmed (2015, p. 26) whose study shows a high level of class participation and engagement when there is a free choice of using the preferred language. The natural use of languages, according to the data obtained from the questionnaire, also facilitates the transition between the students’ home and the school context; in this respect, in the questionnaires, students claim to use the three languages outside school. There is, therefore, a natural continuum in line with Creese and Blackledge (2010, p. 112) who consider translanguaging “as an instructional strategy to make links for classroom participants between the social, cultural, community, and linguistic domains of their lives.” French (2019) also highlights the role of such translanguaging practices for learning and for socializing inside and outside of school. Moreover, as observed in previous research with younger children (Moore, 2006), plurilingualism is not used exclusively to boost learning, but also to evaluate the learnt content. The partic-

Plurilingual Outcomes in Plurilingual CLIL Settings

309

ipants in the present study also demonstrated having gained knowledge of the class content. The translanguaging practices used by the teacher and students achieve the twofold objective of teaching-learning content and communicating throughout the class, since the students understood the provided instructions and this understanding is visible in the completion of the Facebook profiles. The comprehensive approach towards translanguaging deployed by students and their teacher seem to yield positive outcomes in both areas (content and communication).

6.

Limitations of the study

Given the small sample size of the current study, the results must be interpreted with some caution. The study was also limited to one subject (History). In this respect, compiling information from similar teaching practices in other subjects would have provided the study with a more comprehensive approach towards translanguaging practices. Finally, written work in languages other than Russian, Latvian, and English might involve slightly different practices (different levels of scaffolding, choice of languages in the interactions, etc.).

7.

Conclusion

Schools across the world encompass an increasing number of students who are exposed to various languages from a very early age. The ecological microsystem of the Latvian school where this research was conducted is not an exception, and, far from ignoring this fact, the freedom to choose any language at any point of the lesson allows a rich array of linguistic processes. It also provides a safe learning environment where risk taking in elaborating discourse in any language is favored and not penalized despite the differences in language proficiencies. The possibilities offered by translanguaging strategies are skilfully utilized by the teacher in pursuit of maximizing communication and learning. The translanguaging pedagogy seems to favor natural translanguaging practices which merge to make meaning while learning the content matter thus improving its acquisition. It seems plausible to expect learning benefits from these strategies in other plurilingual contexts, should similar pedagogies be used. The teaching and learning translanguaging strategies stemming from multilingual schools is still a field to be widely explored. Future studies on the topic could delve into the development of translanguaging pedagogies / learning strategies over a period of time, the impact of significant differences in language

310

Beatriz López Medina

proficiency on translanguaging or the possible variation of strategies in different contexts, among others. It is hoped that the increasing number of plurilingual students will inspire further research in this line.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the European Commission (project KA2 2016-1ES01-KA201-025491). The author would like to thank José Luis Estrada Chichón, PhD, Irini Mavrou, PhD, and Òscar Santos-Sopena, PhD, for their valuable collaboration (data collection, administration of questionnaires, tasks design and many other contributions in the two-year span of the project).

References Bruton, A. (2013). CLIL: Some of the reasons why … and why not. System, 41(3), 587–597. doi:10.1016/j.system.2013.07.001. Canagarajah, S., & Liyanage, I. (2012). Lessons from pre-colonial multilingualism. In The Routledge Handbook of Multilingualism, 67–83. London: Routledge. Celic, C., & Seltzer, K. (2013). Translanguaging: A CUNY-NYSIEB Guide for Educators. CUNY-NYSIEB. The Graduate Center, the City University of New York, New York. Cenoz, J, Genesee, F., & Gorter, D. (2014). Critical analysis of CLIL: Taking stock and looking forward. Applied Linguistics, 35(3), 243–262. Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: threat or opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 901– 912. doi:10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855. Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2004). Learning context and its effects on second language acquisition: introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(2), 153–171. doi:10.1017/S0272263104262015. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: a pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115. Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2011). Separate and flexible bilingualism in complementary schools: multiple language practices in interrelationship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1196–1208. Council of Europe. (2006). Plurilingual Education in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Pietro, J. F. (2002). Et si, à l’école, on apprenait aussi ? Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère, 16, 47–71. doi:10.4000/aile.1382. European Parliament. (2010). Resolution of 24 March 2009 on multilingualism: An asset for Europe and a shared commitment (2008/2225(INI)). Official Journal of the European Union, C, 117 E/10 53, 59–64.

Plurilingual Outcomes in Plurilingual CLIL Settings

311

Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and some fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300. French, M. (2019). Multilingual pedagogies in practice. TESOL in Context, 28(1), 21–44. doi:10.21153/tesol2019vol28no1art869. García, O. (2009). Education, multilingualism and translanguaging in the 21st century. In A. Mohanty, M. Panda, R. Phillipson, & T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Eds.), Multilingual Education for Social Justice: Globalising the Local (pp. 128–145). New Delhi: Orient Blackswan. García, O. (2011). Educating New York’s bilingual children: constructing a future from the past. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14, 133–53. doi:10.1080/13670050.2010.539670. García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, Macmillan. Hassan, N., & Ahmed, K. (2015). Exploring translanguaging: a case study of a madrasah in Tower Hamlets. Research in Teacher Education, 5(2), 23–28. Herranz Blokker, R. (2017). What makes an effective bilingual programme? Talking from experience. In N. García Manzanares, & V. Vinuesa Benítez (Coords.), El bilingüismo a Debate. IV Congreso Internacional de Enseñanza bilingüe en Centros Educativos. Proceedings (pp. 1–9). Madrid: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. Gullberg, M., & Indefrey, P. (2003). Language Background Questionnaire. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kirsch, C. (2020). Opening minds to translanguaging pedagogies. System, 92, 102271. doi:10.1016/j.system.2020.102271. Lasagabaster, D. (2013). The use of the L1 in CLIL classes: The teachers’ perspective. Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 6(2), 1–21. doi:10.52 94/laclil.2013.6.2.1. Lasagabaster, D. (2016). Translanguaging in ESL and content-based teaching: is it valued? In D. Lasagabaster, & A. Doiz, (Eds.), CLIL Experiences in Secondary and Tertiary Education. In Search of Good Practices (pp. 233–258). Bern: Peter Lang. Lin, A. M. Y., & He, P. (2017). Translanguaging as dynamic activity flows in CLIL classrooms. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 16(4), 228–244. Meyer, O. (2010). Towards quality CLIL: successful planning and teaching strategies. Pulso, 33, 11–19. Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. (2020). Datos y cifras. Curso 2020–2021. Madrid: Spain. Moore, D. (2006). Plurilingualism and strategic competence in context. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(2), 125–138. doi:10.1080/14790710608668392. Moore, P., & Lorenzo, F. (2007). Adapting authentic materials for CLIL classrooms: An empirical study. Vienna English Working Papers, 16(3), 28–36. Nikula, T., & Moore, P. (2019). Exploring translanguaging in CLIL. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 22, 237–249. doi:10.1080/13670050.2016.1254151. Paulsrud, B. A., Rosén, J., Straszer, B., & Wedin, Å. (2017). Perspectives on translanguaging in education. In B. A. Paulsrud, J. Rosén, B. Straszer, & Å. Wedin (Eds.), New Perspectives on Translanguaging and Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

312

Beatriz López Medina

Ozolina, I. (1999). Language use and intercultural communication in Latvia. Intercultural Communication, 2, 221–235. Pavón, V., & Pérez, A. (2017). Enhancing disciplinary literacies: languages of schooling and whole-school language projects in Spain. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 109–130. doi:10.1515/eujal-2017-0023. Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2013). Psychology in the Classroom: Constructivism and Social Learning. Oxford: Routledge. Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 275–298. UNESCO. (2000). Records of the General Conference, 30th session, Paris, 26 October to 17 November 1999. Vol. 1: Resolutions. Paris: UNESCO. Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Xu, X. (2015). The effects of bilingual education in the Netherlands. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3, 4–27. doi: 10.1075/jicb.3.1.01ver. Wedell, M., & Malderez, A. (2013). Understanding Language Classroom Contexts: The Starting Point for Change. London: Bloomsbury. doi:10.5040/9781472553287.

Jacopo Saturno

Chapter 16 – Effect of Bridge Language Status in the Intercomprehension-Based Learning of L2 Polish by Speakers of Russian

Abstract This paper examines the relation between a learner’s multilingual repertoire and the processing (comprehension and production) of a complex L2 Polish morphosyntactic structure. A miniature experiment was run in which a group of students with knowledge of Russian took part in a brief course of L2 Polish, of which they had no experience. Since data was collected after only 4.5 hours of exposure to an otherwise completely unknown target language, it seems legitimate to assume that processing mainly relied on spontaneous intercomprehension, i. e., the possibility to exploit positive transfer to communicate in an unknown foreign language (Polish) that is genetically close to a known bridge language (Russian). Crucially, while all participants were familiar with Russian, for some it represented an L2, whereas for others it was the L1. The paper thus investigates to what extent the status (L1 vs. L2) of the bridge language affects positive transfer in the acquisition of a related target language. The results point to an advantage for the native speakers of the bridge language, although L2 speakers were also able to perform the task with considerable success. Keywords: intercomprehension, bridge language status, positive transfer, direct object marking, Polish, Russian

1.

Introduction

This paper aims to describe and quantify the effect of bridge language status (L1 vs L2)1 on the processing of an unknown target language in an intercomprehension context. For the purposes of the present paper, intercomprehension is defined as the possibility of using (i. e., understanding and possibly producing) a target foreign language that one has no direct experience Jacopo Saturno, Università di Bergamo (Italy), ORCID: 0000-0001-6932-6832, [email protected]. 1 Throughout this paper, the label L2 is used to refer generically to any non-native language, independently of the actual sequence in which learners acquired the languages that constitute their multilingual repertoire.

314

Jacopo Saturno

of, but is genetically close to another known language (the “bridge language”). In the situation considered here, participants attempt to use target Polish by relying on bridge language Russian.

1.1.

Intercomprehension

Intercomprehension is a recurrent topic in the present-day debate on multilingualism and the means to foster it (European Commission, 2010, 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2015; Meierkord & Day, 2017; ten Thije et al., 2017). Indeed, it has been shown to have numerous practical applications. In the domain of translation, it may lead to significant cost reductions in terms of time and financial resources (Zybatow, 2007), so much so that it is widely relied on in professional contexts, such as the Directorate-General for Translation of the European Commission (van Klaveren et al., 2013) or the Swiss army (Berthele & Wittlin, 2013). Thanks to its language teaching potential, intercomprehension is also considered a powerful tool to promote multilingualism (Hufeisen & Marx, 2007b; Lüdi, 2013) and reduce the dominance of a limited number of languages in education and international communication (Bulatovic´ et al., 2019; EuroStat, 2019; Seidlhofer et al., 2006), in accordance with EU policies on multilingualism, mobility, and employability. Research also acknowledges the benefits of intercomprehension for language teaching, including the revitalization of minority languages (Sloboda & Brankatschk, 2014) and the development of intercultural competence (Garrett-Rucks, 2016). However, most end-user resources devoted to intercomprehension (Bonvino et al., 2011; Hufeisen & Marx, 2007a; Klein & Stegmann, 2000; Labbé, 2019) do not aim to improve the learners’ proficiency in the target language, but rather address such skills as strategic reading and overall text comprehension. Moreover, they are not usually based on empirical SLA research.

1.2.

Transfer studies

Clearly, intercomprehension is only possible because of positive transfer, here understood exclusively as the transfer of linguistic material such as morphemes and constructions (Berthele, 2011; Bonvino et al., 2018; Möller & Zeevaert, 2015). Its effect on language acquisition, especially when the target language and the source language are typologically close, is to this day a vexata quaestio. On the one hand, teaching practice has long acknowledged that certain groups of learners enjoy an advantage in L2 acquisition that is most probably attributable to the influence of the L1. Indeed, the very notion of “false beginners” refers to

Effect of Bridge Language Status in the Intercomprehension-Based Learning

315

learners who have never studied the target language, but because of their language background possess far greater abilities than true beginning learners. Within the domain of Slavic languages, most existing research aimed to evaluate the baseline of comprehension skills observable in native speakers of a Slavic language attempting to process another (Heinz, 2009; Klysˇinskij et al., 2017; Reichert, 2013). Overall, the L1 seems to be of great help, although numerous variables need to be considered, such as the specific languages in contact, learners’ proficiency in the bridge language etc. The same rationale has been sometimes applied to L2 learners, although it is clear that learners differ from L1 speakers in several respects, chiefly vocabulary knowledge. Nevertheless, L2 learners typically have above-average meta-linguistic skills and language learning experience. Positive transfer originating from an L2 has been demonstrated by Saturno (2020a), who showed that a group of L1 Italian learners of L2 Russian were able to productively use Polish inflectional morphology, despite the fact that this target structure typically develops fairly late in L2 learners of Slavic languages (Artoni & Magnani, 2015; Di Biase et al., 2015). On the language teaching side, Townsend and Komar (2000) and Gribble (2013) propose a manual of Czech and Bulgarian, respectively, in which explicit and systematic reference is made to closely related Russian (whose knowledge is advisable to make the most of the comparative language teaching approach) to help the student progress through the acquisition process. On the other hand, other authors caution against overestimating positive transfer. Within the framework of Processability Theory (PT), for instance, the Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis (Pienemann et al., 2016) maintains that the structures of a given language can only be acquired in a fixed order, which in turn is determined by the processing cost of the structure (Pienemann, 1998). The L1 (or any other source language) cannot modify this order: at most, it can improve the accuracy with which the structure is produced once the learner is cognitively ready to process it. This hypothesis has received empirical support: Håkansson, Pienemann, and Sayehli (2002) showed that L1 Swedish learners of L2 German do not transfer the V2 word order of their L1, which is identically in the L2, but rather produce the ungrammatical Adv-SVO structure, in accordance with the developmental sequence predicted by PT. Concerning Slavic Languages, Magnani and Artoni (2021) demonstrate that independently of the L1, all their learners of L2 Russian acquired the target morphosyntactic structures in the same order. It is noteworthy that the L1s considered differed in their typological distance from the target language: while some belonged to the same Slavic language family as the target language, others expressed case marking in a different manner, and others still did not express this category at all. Slavic speakers, indeed, produced case marking with greater

316

Jacopo Saturno

consistency and accuracy than the other learners, but even in their case, all target structures were shown to emerge in the same universal order predicted by PT. A universal acquisition path is also postulated by studies rooted within the Learner Variety approach (Perdue, 1993). More specifically, it is suggested that learners go through several developmental stages, of which one, the Basic Variety, is particularly relevant for the purposes of the present study. In the words of Klein and Perdue (1997, p. 311), “there is no inflection in the B[asic] V[ariety] […]. Thus, lexical items typically occur in one invariant form,” called the basic word form. Grammatical and pragmatic meaning are expressed through word order, which in turn is determined by the interaction of a set of universal cognitive principles of a pragmatic (e. g., focus last) or semantic nature (e. g., controller first), as exemplified in the learner utterance in (1). (1) Holz sicher Schiff log safe ship ‘The log holds the ship in place’ (W. Klein & Perdue, 1992, p. 31)

Other studies report similar positional strategies, whereby the first noun or pronoun encountered in a sentence is typically interpreted as the sentence subject (on Russian, see Kempe & MacWhinney, 1998; VanPatten et al., 2013). Another fundamental claim of the Learner Variety approach is that unlike children acquiring their L1, L2 learners are expert language users, who bring to the acquisition process all the resources they have cumulated over their life. In addition to the universal cognitive principles mentioned above, these include world knowledge as well as the L1 and any foreign languages they might know (Rast, 2010).

1.3.

Target structure

The target structure of the present study is the opposition between the markers of the subject and object functions within the paradigm of Polish feminine nouns ending in -a, e. g., dziewczyna ‘girl.’ The former corresponds to the nominative case, instantiated by the ending -a (/a/); the object function is either expressed by the accusative case in -e˛ (/e/), if the verb is not negated, or by the genitive case in -y (/ɪ/) or -i (/i/),2 if it falls within the scope of negation (2). Although SVO is the predominant word order of Polish in terms of unmarkedness and, consequently, frequency (Dryer, 2013; Siewierska, 1993), the rich morphosyntactic system of

2 The choice of the allomorph depends on the final consonant of the stem. For more details on Polish and Russian, see Rothstein (2002) and Timberlake (2004), respectively.

Effect of Bridge Language Status in the Intercomprehension-Based Learning

317

this language in principle makes it possible to freely manipulate word order to express specific pragmatic nuances. (2) a. Ann-a lubi ryb-e˛ Anna-nom likes fish-acc.sg ‘Anna likes fish’ b. Ann-a nie lubi ryb-y Anna-nom not likes fish-gen.sg ‘Anna does not like fish’

The marking of the direct object looks very similar in Russian, the bridge language, although it does differ in a few details (3). First, the accusative case of Russian feminine nouns in -a ends in -u, rather than -e˛; second, the accusative case may be used to mark the direct object within the scope of negation, although the genitive is also possible depending on various factors, such as the semantics of the noun considered. Thus, one could say that the genitive marking of the object within the scope of negation is obligatory in Polish, whereas it is optional in Russian. Word order is equally flexible in the two languages. (3) a. Ann-a ljubit ryb-u Anna-nom likes fish-acc.sg ‘Anna likes fish’ b. Ann-a nie ljubit ryb-u Anna-nom not likes fish-acc.sg ‘Anna does not like fish’

1.4.

Research question

Against this background, the present paper aims to examine the relation between a learner’s multilingual repertoire and the processing of a complex Polish morphosyntactic structure in the context of spontaneous intercomprehension (i. e., in the absence of any specific training). More precisely, its purpose is to highlight to what extent the status (L1 vs. L2) of the bridge language affects positive transfer in the acquisition of a related target language. Through a qualitative analysis of learner production, moreover, the study will investigate whether or not L1 and L2 speakers of the bridge language produce different types of errors in the L2.

318

Jacopo Saturno

2.

Methodology

2.1.

Procedure

Data was collected within the VILLA NOVA project, which aimed to verify whether or not a first-exposure course (Han & Rast, 2014) could prove beneficial in the earliest stages of language teaching in a higher education setting. Specifically, its purpose was to quantify to what extent participants may process an unfamiliar language when prompted to activate their own resources before being given any explicit information on the target system. VILLA NOVA participants were exposed to 4:30 hours of Polish instruction and took part in several communicative tasks aiming to eliciting target structures in semi-spontaneous production. Input was carefully planned and recorded, in order to thoroughly correlate its features with interlanguage development. No grammatical explanations were provided. In addition, no written language or meta-language was used: All referents and actions were illustrated by pictures or icons. The Elicited Imitation task (EIT) adopted as the elicitation method of the study was administered at the end of the course. Participants were asked to listen to each stimulus sentence, translate it into German or Russian, and finally repeat it in Polish as accurately as they could. The purpose of the translation phase is two-fold. First, it functions as a distractor, effectively preventing the test-taker from mentally rehearsing the stimulus sentence. Second, it provides the researcher with information on the learner’s understanding of the stimulus, a goal that is not necessarily achieved through other types of distracting tasks. The EIT was administered individually in a quiet room in the presence of a researcher, who however took no part in the task once instructions were explained. Each session lasted 10 to 15 minutes. Participants’ responses were digitally recorded and manually transcribed using ELAN (Brugman & Russell, 2004). Transcriptions were double-checked by a native Polish speaker with linguistic expertise. For each target item, a binary score was attributed based on whether or not the ending produced by the learner fitted the syntactic context. This approach was made necessary by the fact that learner repetitions do not necessarily mirror the structure of the target sentence, but may convey the same meaning through alternative grammatical structures.

Effect of Bridge Language Status in the Intercomprehension-Based Learning

2.2.

319

EIT rationale

The rationale of the EIT is complex and requires an in-depth discussion of several aspects. Due to space limitation, only a brief overview of the most fundamental issues will be presented here. For a fuller discussion, the reader is referred to Saturno (2020b, pp. 39–48). The central assumption of the EIT rationale is that by relying on working memory (Baddeley, 1986, 2003), and more precisely on the phonological loop (Baddeley et al., 1998), one can usually remember short strings of sounds for a handful of seconds. It is also possible to repeat such strings with reasonable accuracy, but without necessarily understanding their meaning (Sachs, 1967). A properly designed experimental protocol should inhibit this possibility by engaging the test-taker in some distracting activity, preferably of a verbal nature: Under these conditions, participants can remember the meaning and lexico-grammar of the stimulus, but not its phonological form, so that the task becomes reconstructive: participants listen to targets, decode them and then re-produce them based on the current state of the interlanguage. Building on Skehan’s (1998, p. 168) notion of processing competence, Van Moere (2012, pp. 325–326) suggests that the EIT is particularly apt to measure the underresearched, but vital skill of processing efficiency, defined as “the speed and accuracy with which a learner orally processes familiar language,” which in the case of fully acquired structures tends to “near effortless processing of language,” or automaticity (DeKeyser, 2001). From this perspective, the EIT measures the learner’s ability to repeat strings that are too long and complex to be stored in phonological memory. On the practical side, the EIT gives full control over the target structure, allowing the researcher to study the production of linguistic structures that would otherwise take hours of spontaneous speech to observe, with no guarantee that they will surface at all (Bettoni & Di Biase, 2015), such as the obj-subj structures considered in the present work. The stimuli of the VILLA NOVA EIT form a simple story. Since its development is not predictable, extra-linguistic information cannot help in any way to perform the task. Each target item (i. e., feminine nouns in -a) occurred in three different forms, i. e. , nom.sg -a (subject), acc.sg -e˛ (direct object), and gen.sg -y/-i (negated direct object). In order to verify whether or not the use of a given morpheme is productive, all inflectional morphemes appeared several times as part of different lexical items (Pallotti, 2007). Target items were embedded in longer sentences, comprising vocabulary and grammatical structures that had appeared during the course and were thus familiar to learners (4, with underlined target items).

320

Jacopo Saturno

(4) 1. Jan jest studentem, a dzisiaj akurat ma lekcje˛. ‘Jan is a student, and today he has classes[fem]-acc.sg’ 2. Ale Jana lekcja nie interesuje. Obok jest dziewczyna. ‘But the lesson[fem]:nom.sg does not interest Jan. Next to him is a girl-nom.sg’ 3. Nie lubisz lekcji? Dziewczyne˛ pyta student. ‘You don’t like the lesson[fem]-gen.sg? The student asks the girl-acc.sg’

2.3.

Participants

Since the VILLA NOVA approach was designed to be applicable to the language teaching conditions of upper education, the course was open to all participants eligible to enrol in first-year Polish classes. The only requirement concerning their linguistic background was a lack of knowledge of Polish. The analysis of the enrolment forms made clear that only a minority of the students did not speak a Slavic language as L1, while three students had knowledge of Russian as an L2 (B1). In order to isolate the potential effect of bridge language status, therefore, the present paper compares the results of this subset of three L1 German learners of L2 Russian with an equal number of randomly selected L1 Russian speakers.

3.

Results

Before turning to the quantitative data, it is worthwhile to go through a qualitative overview of learner responses, here presented in broad IPA. First, coherently with the theoretical premises of the EIT and the results of previous studies (e. g., Håkansson, 1989), it is common for learners to rearrange the order of the elements of the original sentence (5a; compare with the stimulus sentence in 5b). Typically, the syntactically marked order object-subject is replaced with the more unmarked subject-object. (5) a. [ˈona nje xtse ˈkav-ɪ she not want:3sg coffee-gen.sg herˈbat-ɪ] tea-gen.sg b. Herbat-y ona nie chce; Tea-gen.sg she not want:3sg chce. want:3sG ‘She doesn’t want coffee or tea’

i and

nje xtse not want:3sg

kaw-y tez˙ nie coffee-gen.sg also not

Effect of Bridge Language Status in the Intercomprehension-Based Learning

321

Errors most typically consist in the overextension of the nominative case in contexts expressing a syntactic function other than the subject, such as [ˈmagd-a] in (6a). Even within the same utterance, however, other nouns may be correctly inflected, especially if the required form predominates in the input or occurs in a common phrase, like do restauracji ‘to the restaurant’ (Saturno, 2020b, pp. 115– 119). Overextension errors sometimes make it impossible to identify the underlying syntactic structure, which can only be reconstrued based on the translation provided by the learner (7). (6) [ jan-∅ zaˈpraʃa ˈmagd-a do restauˈraʦ-i] Jan-nom.sg invite:pres.3sg Magda-nom.sg to restaurant-gen.sg ‘Jan invites Magda to a restaurant’ (learner’s translation) (7) [kelnerka ʤefʧina ni suxa] waitress-nom.sg girl-nom.sg not listen:pres.3sg ‘The waitress does not listen to the girl’ (learner’s translation)

Example (8) highlights a category of errors that deserves a more detailed analysis. First, one can observe that the structure of the learner’s repetition (a) somewhat differs from the stimulus sentence (b) in that the verb [pojˈdjemi] (modelled on Polish pójdziemy [pujˈʥemɪ], cfr. Russian pojdëm [pʌjˈdʲom]) was creatively added by the learner, although the verbless structure is legitimate in Russian. However, since the noun restauracja ‘restaurant’ appears in the original nom.sg context, in the new syntactic framework its form is no longer appropriate. Further, the verb zaprasza [zaˈpraʃa] ‘invite:pres.3sg’ is repeated as [ˈspraʃivaje], a form that does not exist in Polish, but closely resembles Russian sprasˇivaet [ˈspraʃɪvajet] ‘ask:pres.3sg’. This in turn governs the genitive case in -y/-i, which might explain the use of the genitive ending [i] in [ˈʤefʧini] instead of the required accusative ending [e], although one cannot exclude other possible reasons, such as the overextension of a basic word form in -i, or even random variation. Altogether, the example suggests that the learner already has a fairly firm grip on the Polish input received so far, so much so that she can attempt modifications inspired by the bridge language. (8) a. [moʒe pojˈdjemi restauˈraʦja? ˈspraʃivaje ˈʤefʧin-i] maybe go:fut.1pl restaurant-nom.sg ask girl-gen.sg ‘Maybe we could go to a restaurant? [he] asks the girl’ (learner’s translation) b. Moz˙e restauracj-a? Zaprasza Jan dziewczyn-e˛ maybe restaurant-nom.sg invite:pres.3sg Jan-nom.sg girl-acc.sg ‘Perhaps a restaurant? Jan invites the girl’

On other occasions, case marking errors do not seem attributable to L1 interference, as in the substitution of the required form in -i (sałatki [saˈwatki] ‘salad: gen.sg’) with a form in -e (modelled on sałatke˛ [saˈwatke] ‘salad:acc.sg’) in (9).

322

Jacopo Saturno

Note that the syntactic structure used to negate a predicate of existence requires the genitive case in both Russian (net/netu) and Polish (nie ma). At most, one could hypothesize a general difficulty intrinsic to the acquisition of L2 Polish, due to the fact that the phonemes /ɪ/ and /e/ are perceptually very close and can be easily confused (Jassem, 2003; Sisinni et al., 2013).3 (9) [saˈwatk-e ne ma] salad-acc.sg not has ‘There is no salad’ (learner translation)

A common interference error is the use of a Russian word instead of the Polish cognate. This pattern is particularly evident when the two words differ in grammatical gender, like Russian sup (masculine) versus Polish zupa (feminine) ‘soup’ in (10). (10) [ jest ˈrɪba i sup] ‘There is fish and soup’ (learner translation)

A particularly interesting sub-type of error involves the substitution of the required Polish morpheme with its Russian equivalent, appropriately selected based on the syntactic context in which it appears. In (11), for example, the required Polish accusative in -e˛ (lekcje˛ [ˈlekʦje] ‘lesson:acc.sg’) is substituted by the Russian accusative form in -u (cfr. Russian lekciju [ˈljekʦɪju]). It is also worth noting that the copula verb is omitted, a pattern allowed by Russian, but not Polish. The omission of the stimulus chunk ‘and today he has’ probably indicates a lexical gap. (11) [ jan stuˈdent i ˈlekʦj-u] Jan student:nom.sg and classes-acc.sg (Russian morpheme) ‘Jan is a student and today he has classes’ (learner translation)

Phonological (negative) transfer is fairly widespread, especially in the case of very common words, e. g., [ˈljubiʃ] for Polish lubisz [ˈlubjʃ] ‘(you) like,’ cfr. Russian ljubisˇ [ˈljubiʃ]. Most probably because of the learners’ awareness of their tendency to incur in such interference errors, instances of hypercorrectism can also be encountered, whereby the participant mispronounces Polish words that are actually identical to their Russian equivalent, e. g., [ne] for Polish nie [nje] ‘no/ not,’ cfr. Russian ne [nje]. The negative transfer of phonological features at times hinders the analysis of the data, since in both Russian and German phonology (the L1s of the participants), unstressed word-final vowels are centralized, e. g., Russian devusˇka /ˈdʲevuʃka/, but [ˈdʲevʊʃkə] ‘girl’ (Yanushevskaya & Buncˇic´, 3 Concerning L1 perceptual interference, see Kuhl (2000), Best (1995), and Flege (1995).

Effect of Bridge Language Status in the Intercomprehension-Based Learning

323

2015). If transferred to Polish, such pattern may make it difficult to distinguish the various word-forms of a lexical item, e. g., dziewczyn-a ‘girl-nom.sg’ versus dziewczyn-e˛ ‘girl-acc.sg,’ since both are often pronounced [ʤefˈʧɪnə]. The impossibility to judge the appropriateness of the supplied inflectional ending led to the exclusion of 13 occurrences from the quantitative analysis. Crucially, all the errors exemplified above, with the sole exception of the overextension of -u in (11), occur in the output of all learners, independently of whether Russian is their L1 or an L2. From a quantitative point of view, the number of target items that were not translated and/or repeated (omissions) does not seem to change dramatically depending on the learner’s L1 (Table 1). This impression was indeed confirmed by a GLMM with Poisson error structure.4 Table 1. EI task, responses L1

Participant P3

Errors 9

Correct responses 18

Omissions 25

Ge

P11 P12

10 2

21 6

21 44

P1 P10

1 6

3 16

48 30

P13

3

25

24

Ru

The number of errors is slightly lower in the case of the L1 Russian speakers, due to the greater number of basic word-forms produced by the L2 Russian learners, but again, the effect of the L1 did not prove significant in a GLMM with binomial error structure.

4.

Discussion

While teaching material aiming to improve intercomprehension skills is often implicitly addressed to native speakers of the bridge language, a few studies (e. g., Marx & Mehlhorn, 2010; Saturno, 2020a) showed that speakers of an L2 may benefit from positive transfer in the acquisition of a related foreign language, too. The present research produced somewhat mixed evidence. Although the experimental design is too limited to produce any generalizable claims, even such a miniature experiment makes an important point concerning positive transfer, namely its extreme individual variability. One of the L1 Russian 4 All statistical models were fitted with R (R Core team, 2017) and its package lme4 (Bates et al., 2015).

324

Jacopo Saturno

participants performed much more poorly than the L2 Russian learners, most probably because she did not attempt to make use of the resources made available to her by the L1. This observation should tell language teaching practitioners that although a given linguistic repertoire does offer a theoretical language learning advantage, it is by no means guaranteed that the learner will exploit it or even be aware of it. There may be numerous reasons behind such failure. Some clearly involve individual personality, learning style, and overall language learning aptitude (Jaworska, 2020), and are to some extent beyond the language teacher’s control. It may also be the case that learners do not turn to their L1 because they are not aware of its potential: Marx and Mehlhorn (2010) report that the learner they described did not realize the similarities between the L2 and the target language until an individual coaching session helped him to identify them. Further, the refusal to use one’s L1 may be the inheritance of language teaching approaches experienced by the learner in earlier times. Whatever the reason, for the purposes of the teaching of second or additional languages, it seems that one of the first tasks required of the instructor who wishes to exploit the full potential of the learners’ linguistic repertoire is to make sure that the learners themselves are aware of it, removing any ideological or psychological barriers they may have built. Once this is done, the way will be paved for the learners to transfer explicit grammatical information and exploit their linguistic competence. Indeed, the results achieved by the participants who do make the most of their resources can be quite impressive. One of the L1 Russian speakers managed to correctly translate most of the stimuli of the EIT task and to repeat them, if not in their original form, at least without detriment to their meaning. Overall, inflectional morphology was often, though not always, accurate. The performance of the L2 Russian learners is characterized by much lower accuracy, but nonetheless one can recognize the signs of a conscious and productive effort to use their L2 Russian skills, which effectively represented a major, if not the main aid for the processing of Polish following so little input. Inflectional morphology is often, but not always, incorrect. Not surprisingly, most morphosyntactic errors involve the overextension of the basic word form of a noun, typically modelled on the nominative, onto an inflected form. Learners surely understood that just like Russian, the target language is characterized by complex inflectional morphology, for the most part quite parallel to that of the L2, and made their best to produce lexical items in an inflected form. It could be speculatively argued that failure to do so might be due to an excess of cognitive pressure, resulting from the joint task of identifying, articulating, and inflecting lexical items that were encountered only a few times during the course. Longer exposure and repeated practice are surely needed to foster associative learning (Wulff & Ellis, 2018) and develop automaticity (DeKeyser, 2001; Van Moere,

Effect of Bridge Language Status in the Intercomprehension-Based Learning

325

2012). The endings that are identical in Russian and Polish, e. g., gen.sg -y/-i, do show a greater proportion of correctly inflected occurrences. This observation suggests that similar forms may somewhat alleviate the cognitive burden just referred to. Even though it goes beyond the scope of this paper, it is also worth noting the frequent transfer of phonological features. This is truly an instance of negative transfer, whose source may be identified in the similarity of numerous Russian and Polish words, on the one hand, and in the high frequency of the lexical items in which such phonological features are most evident, on the other hand, which certainly facilitates their entrenchment in learner competence. Since similar systematic differences regard morphology, too (e. g., acc.sg -u vs. -e˛), the language instructor should be aware of them and devote sufficient time and attention to their treatment. Finally, a few words should be spent on the particular EIT adopted for this study. It is clear that it proved extremely demanding for all participants, independently of their L1, especially as far as the repetition phase is concerned. In fact, most participants were able to at least partly understand most of the stimulus sentences, but then could only repeat smaller chunks of text. Given the theoretical premises of the task, this difficulty should not be attributed to comprehension, since in that case one would expect that at least all the bits that have been translated should be repeated, too, but to the cognitive cost of speech production after such minimal exposure. It is possible that the EIT adopted here was too difficult for learners who were only exposed to four and a half hours of Polish input, independently of their L1. In fact, many other studies that used production tasks to explore the initial stages of L2 acquisition used much simpler stimuli (Artoni & Magnani, 2015; Saturno, 2020a; Saturno & Watorek, 2020). As mentioned above, however, the general tendency to obtain higher scores in comprehension (as measured by the translation task) than production is not common to all participants. Since it is very unlikely that the stimuli could be repeated based exclusively on phonological memory – although this possibility cannot be completely excluded when the learner did not provide any translation, and thus engaged in no distracting task – the most plausible explanation is that some learners only felt comfortable in providing the translation of a meaningful sentence, a goal that could not always be achieved. In repetition, on the contrary, they also produced chunks of stimuli, e. g., a phrase or even isolated words, out of context and therefore perceived as devoid of meaning.

326

5.

Jacopo Saturno

Conclusion

Following the recent immigration to Poland of more than a million speakers of East Slavic languages like Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian (Główny Urza˛d Statystyczny, 2020), mostly due to the impressive growth of the country’s economy (Walker, 2019), the linguistic integration of such large groups of people acquires new importance, as indeed witnessed by the existence of some (but not much) specialized teaching material (e. g., Kołak et al., 2015). The socio-economic and linguistic context in which such integration takes place is peculiar, as speakers of East Slavic languages are culturally and linguistically very close to Poland. While to the layman it may seem that positive transfer should occur automatically, making acquisition obvious, rapid, and effortless, SLA studies have long problematized this phenomenon. Some theories claim that if positive transfer cannot be negated, its role is often overestimated, as at most it can accelerate the acquisition process and the reaching of good accuracy level, whereas acquisition sequences are deemed to be universal and unmodifiable (Pienemann, 2005; Pienemann et al., 2016). This debate affects the research fields as a whole, but it is particularly critical with regard to L2 Polish, for which little empirical information is available. While the acquisition of L1 Polish has long been investigated (Da˛browska & Tomasello, 2008; Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, 1997; Haman, 2003; Krajewski, 2005; Smoczyn´ska, 1985), existing L2 research either targets very specific theoretical issues (Sulima, 2000) or describes acquisition in highly experimental contexts, which do not seem immediately applicable to language teaching practice (Dimroth, 2018). Further, although the notion of comparative language teaching is well known to Polish language teaching thought (Ge˛bal, 2014, 2016; Jasin´ska, 2013; Pancˇíková & Horák, 2018; Zawadzka, 2013), no studies exist on its effectiveness for the acquisition of L2 Polish in an intercomprehension setting. The present paper aimed to contribute to filling this gap through a miniature experiment, whose purpose was to highlight the difference in intercomprehension potential deriving from the status of the bridge language within the learner’s linguistic repertoire. In response to the research question of the study, the results suggest that while L1 status does provide an advantage, especially in very complex tasks, an L2 is a very good starting point, too, although L2 proficiency and metalinguistic skills are crucial variables in this respect. Said otherwise, while intercomprehension-based language learning is also effective for L2 learners of the bridge language, it brings the greatest advantages to native speakers of it. Clearly, no serious claim can be made on the basis of a study on such a small scale, which indeed should be regarded as a pilot study. Therefore, a much larger

Effect of Bridge Language Status in the Intercomprehension-Based Learning

327

project5 devoted to the acquisition of L2 Polish by East Slavic speakers is currently running under the scientific direction of the author of this paper and Przemysław Ge˛bal. The initiative, sponsored by NAWA (Narodowa Agencja Wymiany Akademickiej) within the Polonista program, aims to empirically describe the actual acquisition path of East Slavic speakers in the current Polish higher and life-long education system. In addition, the research also explores the sociological background of L2 Polish acquisition by this group of learners, as well as their expectations and perceived difficulties. It is hoped that the collection of detailed empirical information will lead to the elaboration of specialized teaching material and techniques, making the most of the ample opportunities offered by the intercomprehension-based teaching of closely related languages.

References Artoni, D., & Magnani, M. (2015). Acquiring case marking in Russian as a second language: an exploratory study on subject and object. In C. Bettoni, & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 177–193). Amsterdam: EuroSLA. Baddeley, A. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208. Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105(1), 158–173. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01. Berthele, R. (2011). On abduction in receptive multilingualism. Evidence from cognate guessing tasks. Applied Linguistics Review, 2, 191–220. Berthele, R., & Wittlin, G. (2013). Receptive multilingualism in the Swiss Army. International Journal of Multilingualism, 10(2), 181–195. doi:10.1080/14790718.2013.789522. Best, C. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception: New directions in research and theory. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research (pp. 171–204). Baltimore: York Press. Bettoni, C., & Di Biase, B. (2015). The development of Italian as a second language. In C. Bettoni, & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 117–148). Amsterdam: EuroSLA. Bonvino, E., Caddéo, S., Serra, E., & Pippa, S. (Eds.). (2011). EuRom5: Leggere e Capire 5 lingue Romanze. Milano: Hoepli. Bonvino, E., Fiorenza, E., & Cortés Velásquez, D. (2018). Observing strategies in intercomprehension reading. Some clues for assessment in plurilingual settings. Frontiers in Communication, 3, 29. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2018.00029. 5 Interkomprehensywne nauczanie je˛zyka polskiego jako obcego Słowian Wschodnich (w lingwistycznej perspektywie porównawczej).

328

Jacopo Saturno

Brugman, H., & Russell, A. (2004). Annotating Multimedia/Multi-modal resources with ELAN. In M. T. Lino, M. F. Xavier, F. Ferreira, R. Costa, & R. Silva (Eds.), Proceedings of LREC 2004, Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 2065–2068). Paris: ELRA. Bulatovic´, S., Schüppert, A., & Gooskens, C. (2019). Receptive multilingualism versus ELF: How well do Slovenes understand Croatian compared to Croatian speakers’ English? Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 8(1), 37–65. doi:10.1515/jelf-2019-2005. Da˛browska, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Rapid learning of an abstract language-specific category: Polish children’s acquisition of the instrumental construction. Journal of Child Language, 35, 33–558. DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 125–151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Di Biase, B., Bettoni, C., & Medojevic´, L. (2015). The development of case: A study of Serbian in contact with Australian English. In C. Bettoni, & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical Development in Second Languages: Exploring the Boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 195–212). Amsterdam: EuroSLA. Dimroth, C. (2018). Beyond statistical learning: Communication principles and language internal factors shape grammar in child and adult beginners learning Polish through controlled exposure: Beyond statistical learning. Language Learning, 68(4), 863–905. doi:10.1111/lang.12294. Dryer, M. S. (2013). Order of subject, object and verb. In M. S. Dryer, & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/81. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, K. (1997). Pre- and Proto- in Polish phonology and morphology and their interrelations. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 33(9), 159–171. European Commission. (2010). Languages for Jobs: Providing Multilingual Communication Skills for the Labour Market. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2012a). Intercomprehension: Exploring its Usefulness for DGT, the Commission and the EU. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2012b). Translation and Multilingualism: Intercomprehension. Luxemburg: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2013). Translation and Language Learning: The role of Translation in the Teaching of Languages in the European Union: A Study. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2015). Language Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. EuroStat. (2019). Foreign Language Learning Statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/stati stics-explained/index.php?title=Foreign_language_learning_statistics. Flege, J. (1995). Second-language speech learning: Theory, findings, and problems. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research (pp. 229–273). Baltimore: York Press. Garrett-Rucks, P. (2016). Intercultural Competence in Instructed Language Learning: Bridging Theory and Practice. Charlotte: Information Age.

Effect of Bridge Language Status in the Intercomprehension-Based Learning

329

Ge˛bal, P. (2014). Glottodydaktyka porównawcza jako nowa subdyscyplina glottodydaktyki. Lingwistyka Stosowana, 10, 37–49. Ge˛bal, P. (2016). Interkomprehensja, strategie mediacyjne i nauczanie je˛zyków obcych. In E. Lipin´ska, & A. Seretny (Eds.), Tłumaczenie Dydaktyczne w Nowoczesnym Kształceniu Je˛zykowym: Monografia Zbiorowa (pp. 77–94). Kraków: Ksie˛garnia Akademicka. Główny Urza˛d Statystyczny. (2020). Populacja Cudzoziemców w Polsce w Czasie COVID-19. https://stat.gov.pl/statystyki-eksperymentalne/kapital-ludzki/populacja-cudzoziemco w-w-polsce-w-czasie-covid-19,12,1.html. Gribble, C. (2013). Reading Bulgarian through Russian. Bloomington: Slavica. Håkansson, G. (1989). The acquisition of negative placement in Swedish. Studia Linguistica, 43(1), 47–58. Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S. (2002). Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18(3), 250–273. doi:10.1191/0267658302sr206oa. Haman, E. (2003). Early productivity in derivation: A case study of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish. Psychology of Language and Communication, 7(1), 37–56. Han, Z., & Rast, R. (Eds.). (2014). First Exposure to a Second Language: Learners’ Initial Input Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heinz, C. (2009). Understanding what you’ve never learned? – Chances and limitations of spontaneous auditive transfer between Slavic languages. WU Online Papers in International Business Communication, 5. https://epub.wu.ac.at/id/eprint/696. Hufeisen, B., & Marx, N. (Eds.). (2007a). EuroComGerm – Die Sieben Siebe: Germanische Sprachen Lesen Lernen. Aachen: Shaker. Hufeisen, B., & Marx, N. (2007b). How can DaFnE and EuroComGerm contribute to the concept of receptive multilingualism? In J. D. ten Thije, & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive Multilingualism: Linguistic Analyses, Language Policies, and Didactic Concepts (pp. 307–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jasin´ska, A. (2013). O interkomprehensji w nauczaniu je˛zyka polskiego jako obcego. Polski w Niemczech / Polnisch in Deutschland, 1, 68–75. Jassem, W. (2003). Polish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 33(1), 103–107. Jaworska, M. (2020). Umieje˛tnos´c´ uczenia sie˛ jako jedna z kompetencji kluczowych – perspektywa nauczycieli je˛zyków obcych. Socjolingwistyka, 34. doi:10.17651/SOCJOLI NG.34.12. Kempe, V., & MacWhinney, B. (1998). The acquisition of case marking by adult learners of Russian and German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(3), 543–587. doi:10.1017/S0272263198004045. Klein, H. G., & Stegmann, T. D. (2000). EuroComRom – Die Sieben Siebe: Romanische Sprachen Sofort Lesen Können [Français, Català, Español, Italiano, Português, Româna˘]. Aachen: Shaker. Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance Structure: Developing Grammars Again. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1997). The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301–347. doi:10.1191/026765897666879396. Klysˇinskij, E. S., Logacˇeva, V. K., & Belobokova, Y. A. (2017). Ponimaemost’ teksta na inostrannom jazyke: Slucˇaj slavjanskich jazykov. Keldysh Institute Preprints, 13, 1–23.

330

Jacopo Saturno

Kołak, K., Malinowska, M., Rabczuk, A., Zackiewicz, D., Kajak, P., & Zabłocka, M. (2015). Raz, Dwa, Trzy i po Polsku Mówisz ty!: Podre˛cznik do Nauki Je˛zyka Polskiego dla Dzieci na Ukrainie. T. 2 T. 2. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Krajewski, G. (2005). The role of grammatical gender in the acquisition of noun inflection in polish. Psychology of Language and Communication, 9(1), 75–84. Kuhl, P. K. (2000). A new view of language acquisition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97(22), 11850–11857. Labbé, G. (2019). Fondements Linguistiques et Didactiques de l’Intercompréhension Slave: Le cas des Langues Slaves de l’Ouest et du Sud-ouest [Ph.D. dissertation]. Paris: INALCO. Lüdi, G. (2013). Receptive multilingualism as a strategy for sharing mutual linguistic resources in the workplace in a Swiss context. International Journal of Multilingualism, 10 (2), 140–158. Magnani, M., & Artoni, D. (2021). L’interferenza della prima lingua nell’apprendimento del caso in russo. Linguistica e Filologia, 41. Marx, N., & Mehlhorn, G. (2010). Pushing the positive: Encouraging phonological transfer from L2 to L3. International Journal of Multilingualism, 7(1), 4–18. doi:10.1080/14790 710902972271. Meierkord, A., & Day, L. (2017). Rethinking Language Education and Linguistic Diversity in Schools: Thematic Report from a Programme of Expert Workshops and Peer Learning Activities (2016–17). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Möller, R., & Zeevaert, L. (2015). Investigating word recognition in intercomprehension: Methods and findings. Linguistics, 53(2), 313–352. Pallotti, G. (2007). An operational definition of the emergence criterion. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 361–382. Pancˇíková, M., & Horák, A. (2018). Interkomprehensja w je˛zykach zachodniosłowian´skich. In A. Achtelik, K. Grabon´, & J. Tambor (Eds.), W kre˛gu (glotto)dydaktyki (pp. 519–533). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu S´la˛skiego. Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1993). Adult Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pienemann, M. (Ed.). (2005). Cross-linguistic Aspects of Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pienemann, M., Lenzing, A., & Kessler, J. (2016). Testing the Developmentally Moderated Transfer Hypothesis: The initial state and the role of the L2 in L3 acquisition. In J. Kessler, A. Lenzing, & M. Liebner (Eds.), Developing, Modelling and Assessing Second Languages (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam: Benjamins. R Core team. (2017). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/. Rast, R. (2010). The use of prior linguistic knowledge in the early stages of L3 acquisition. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(2/3), 159–183. doi:10.1515/iral.2010.008. Reichert, A. (2013). Auditive intercomprehension between Russian and Bulgarian – degree and factors for the listening comprehension of native speakers. In J. Besters-Dilger, & U. Schöller (Eds.), Slavischer Sprachkontakt (pp. 119–130). Freiburg: Slavisches Seminar Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.

Effect of Bridge Language Status in the Intercomprehension-Based Learning

331

Rothstein, R. (2002). Polish. In B. Comrie, & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic Languages (pp. 686–758). London: Routledge. Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception & Psychophysics, 2(9), 437–442. Saturno, J. (2020a). Production of inflectional morphology in intercomprehension-based language teaching: The case of Slavic languages. International Journal of Multilingualism. doi:10.1080/14790718.2020.1730379. Saturno, J. (2020b). Utterance Structure in the Initial Stages of Polish L2 Acquisition: From Semantics to Case Morphology. Language Science press. https://langsci-press.org/ca talog/book/265. Saturno, J., & Watorek, M. (2020). The emergence of functional case marking in initial varieties of Polish L2. LIA, 11(1), 29–64. doi:10.1075/lia.00007.sat. Seidlhofer, B., Breiteneder, A., & Pitzl, M.-L. (2006). English as a lingua franca in Europe: Challenges for applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 26. Siewierska, A. (1993). Syntactic weight vs information structure and word order variation in Polish. Journal of Linguistics, 29(02), 233–265. Sisinni, B., Grimaldi, M., Gili Fivela, B., Sigona, F., & Calabrese, A. (2013). Percezione e produzione di vocali non native da parte di parlanti adulti. In V. Galatà (Ed.), Multimodalità e Multilingualità: La Sfida più Avanzata della Comunicazione Orale (pp. 355– 372). Roma: Bulzoni. Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sloboda, M., & Brankatschk, K. (2014). The mutual intelligibility of Slavic languages and its potential for the Sorbian language revival. In L. Fesenmeier, S. Heinemann, & F. Vicario (Eds.), Sprachminderheiten: Gestern, Heute, Morgen – Minoranze Linguistiche: Ieri, Oggi, Domani (pp. 25–44). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. doi:10.3726/978-3-653-04817-9. Smoczyn´ska, M. (1985). The acquisition of Polish. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. (Vol. 1, pp. 595–686). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sulima, K. (2000). Acquisition of Polish Nasal Vowel Syllables by Native English Speakers. New Britain: Central Connecticut State University. ten Thije, J., Gooskens, C., Daems, F., Cornips, L., & Smits, M. (2017). Lingua receptiva: Position paper on the European Commission’s Skills Agenda. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 141–146. doi:10.1515/eujal-2017-0003. Timberlake, A. (2004). A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Townsend, C. E., & Komar, E. S. (2000). Czech through Russian. Bloomington: Slavica. van Klaveren, S., de Vries, J., & den Thije, J. (2013). Practices and Potentials of Intercomprehension. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht. Van Moere, A. (2012). A psycholinguistic approach to oral language assessment. Language Testing, 29(3), 325–344. doi:10.1177/0265532211424478. VanPatten, B., Collopy, E., Price, J. E., Borst, S., & Qualin, A. (2013). Explicit information, grammatical sensitivity, and the First-Noun Principle: A cross-linguistic study in processing instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 97(2), 506–527. doi:10.1111/j.1 540-4781.2013.12007.x. Walker, S. (2019, October 26). ‘This is the golden age’: Eastern Europe’s extraordinary 30year revival. The Guardian.

332

Jacopo Saturno

Wulff, S., & Ellis, N. (2018). Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition. In D. Miller, F. Bayram, J. Rothman, & L. Serratrice (Eds.), Bilingual Cognition and Language. The State of the Science Across its Subfields. (pp. 37–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Yanushevskaya, I., & Buncˇic´, D. (2015). Russian. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 45(2), 221–228. Zawadzka, A. (2013). Interkomprehensja jako moz˙liwos´c´ wzbogacania tradycyjnej metodyki nauczania je˛zyka polskiego jako obcego. In J. Mazur, A. Małyska, & K. Sobstyl (Eds.), Glottodydaktyka Polonistyczna w Obliczu Dynamiki Zmian Je˛zykowo-kulturowych i Potrzeb Społecznych (Vol. 2, pp. 123–133). Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej. Zybatow, L. (Ed.). (2007). European multilingualism via EuroCom and multilingual education of translators via EuroComTranslat. In Sprach(en)kontakt, Mehrsprachigkeit, Translation: Innsbrucker Ringvorlesungen zur Translationswissenschaft V: 60 Jahre Innsbrucker Institut für Translationswissenschaft (pp. 187–206). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Notes on Contributors

Paola Attolino is currently employed at the University of Salerno, Italy, where she teaches English Language and Linguistics at the Department of Political and Social Science. Her research interests focus on pragmatics, sociolinguistics, argumentative discourse (especially media and political language). She has long been dedicated to the relationship between politics and rap language, developing a particular interest in Black Language and Black Semantics, and investigating the politics of language as embedded in the politics of race. She has variously published on these topics, including the monograph Stile Ostile: Rap e Politica (2003, Napoli: CUEN) and the editorship and Italian translation of Gil ScottHeron’s novel The Vulture/L’Avvoltoio (2021, Roma: ROGAS). Jose Belda-Medina is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of English Studies of the Universidad de Alicante (Spain). He has taught language and linguistics at different levels for 20 years both in Spain and abroad (Germany, UK, Ireland, USA). He is the director of the research group Digital Language Learning (DL2). His research interests are Applied Linguistics, Historical Linguistics, and Second Language Acquisition and Technology. In 2019 he received the Spanish National Award “Adoración Sánchez Holgado” for his research on the integration of technology into academic programs addressed at senior students. He has participated in different international conferences and research projects, and published articles in several scientific journals (Education Sciences, Target, Meta, Babel, Porta Linguarum, International Journal of Inclusive Education, Teaching English with Technology, Tonos Digital, etc.). Anita Buczek-Zawiła is currently employed at the Pedagogical University of Cracow, Institute of English Studies, Department of English Linguistics, where she conducts courses in phonetics, contrastive grammar, sound structure of languages, linguistic diversity on the British Isles, and nonverbal means of communication. Her research interests center around sound systems in contact, the paralinguistic features of communication, the interaction of L1 and Ln

334

Notes on Contributors

phonologies, and cross-linguistic influence. She is also involved in developing blended-learning courses for CAPT and is a co-editor and an author of the latest volume in the Studies in Computer Assisted Language Learning: CALL for Background series (Peter Lang, 2021). Jadwiga Cook is currently employed at the University of Wrocław, Poland, in the Institute of Romance Languages, where she teaches linguistics and conducts seminars on the variation of the French language and on bilingual first language acquisition. Her research interests are focused on early bilingualism, especially BFLA children’s use of static and dynamic locative expressions. She has published eight papers on the subject of early bilingual acquisition of Polish and French or English, co-authored a volume on bilingualism in Poland (Cook, J., & Libura, A. 2021. Dwuje˛zycznos´´c w Polsce. Od badan´ współczesnych rodzin dwuje˛zycznych do analiz wieloje˛zycznos´ci historycznej i literackiej. Wrocław: ATUT) and authored a publication on translation of colloquial French (Cook, J. 2019. Potocznos´c´ w przekładzie dialogu powies´ciowego. Na materiale polskich przekładów współczesnej francuskiej prozy powies´ciowej. Kraków: Universitas). Moira De Iaco is Adjunct Professor in Language Education at the Department of Humanistic Research and Innovation of the University of Bari “Aldo Moro.” Her research interests include gesture studies, corpus linguistics, and figurative language within the perspective of language teaching and learning. She has published several articles and two books on these topics. Giovina Angela del Rosso is currently a PhD student in Acoustic Phonetics at the Roma Tre University, in consortium with Sapienza University of Rome (Italy). Her research interests include: late bi-/multilingualism, coarticulation, and (foreign) accent in speech production, especially in the light of experimental phonetics and language contact phenomena in Italian dialects. Her PhD project focuses on the acquisition of non-native coarticulation strategies in L2 Italian. She is the author of “Can locus equations model language-specific variation in coarticulation?” (ExLing2021) and “L’accuratezza della trascrizione ASR sul parlato non-standard” (“The accuracy of ASR transcription of non-standard speech”) (Aitla2021, in press). Dana Hanesová has been teaching at the Faculty of Education of the Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, since 1993. In her research she focuses on teaching foreign languages to learners of various age levels, on the development of intercultural competence, critical thinking, creativity, and transversal skills during higher education, as well as comparative pedeutological issues. She is the author of several studies in these areas, e. g.: “Teachers under the Microscope”

Notes on Contributors

335

(2016), “From Learning Facts to Learning to Think” (2014), “Development of critical and creative thinking skills in CLIL” (2014), and “Intercultural competence of university teachers: a challenge of internationalization” (2019). Monika Kowalonek-Janczarek is currently employed at Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan´, Poland. Her research interests include: foreign language teaching and learning, multilingualism, language policy, and the language of tourism. Michael M. Kretzer is currently employed at the Department of Geography at the Ruhr University Bochum (RUB) in Germany. He focuses on education systems and language policies in Sub-Saharan Africa, mainly in South Africa, Malawi, Lesotho, Seychelles and Botswana. In addition, he researches Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) in Southern and Eastern Africa as well as (Virtual) Linguistic Landscapes and health crisis communication. He published several book chapters, e. g., for the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics and numerous articles in international journals such as the International Journal on Multilingualism, Current Issues in Language Planning, or the South African Geographical Journal and is currently the Chief Editor of the forthcoming Handbook of Language Policies in Africa (HLPA) Series from BRILL. Radosław Kucharczyk graduated from the Institute of French Studies at the University of Warsaw, where he is currently an Assistant Professor at the Department of Methodology of French Teaching. He conducts specialized courses in Foreign Language Teaching Methodology and Practical French courses. He also works as a French teacher at Narcyza Z˙michowska High School (with bilingual classes) in Warsaw. In his research, he focuses on the implementation of the European Language Policy (e. g., multilingual competence, mediation, etc.) in various educational contexts. Radosław Kucharczyk is also an expert of the Polish Central Examination Board (CKE). Ewa Kujawska-Lis is Professor at the Institute of Literary Studies of the University of Warmia and Mazury (Olsztyn, Poland). She specializes in Victorian fiction. Her current interest in theoretical and empirical research on literary translation focuses on early translations of the works by Dickens and Conrad and their contemporary retranslations and refractions. She has published in The Dickensian, Dickens Quarterly, The Conradian, and Conradiana. Her monograph Marlow pod polska˛ bandera˛ [Marlow under the Polish Flag] (2011) is a study of Polish translations featuring Charles Marlow. Her interests also include Conrad’s multilingualism, its linguistic effects and thematic representations in his fiction.

336

Notes on Contributors

Beatriz López-Medina is currently working at the School of Education, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Spain) in the area of Language Teaching. She obtained the 2nd National Award of Educational Research (team member) with a project on talented children. Bilingual education, additional languages and the CLIL approach are her main areas of research, e. g.: “On the Development of a CLIL Textbook Evaluation Checklist: A Focus Group Study” (Teaching English as a Second Language Electronic Journal, 2021); Mavrou, I. & López Medina, B. (2019). “Attentional capacity and written production in English (L1 and L2) and Spanish (L1) within the framework of Erasmus+ Project,” in Jiménez and Lahuerta (Eds.), Empirical Studies in Multilingualism: Analysing Contexts and Outcomes, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Rafał Krzysztof Matusiak is an independent scholar. He studied Law (2017), English Philology (2014), Spanish Philology (2011), Bulgarian Philology (2010), and Russian Philology (2009) at the University of Silesia in Katowice, where he also obtained a doctoral degree in linguistics (2020). He completed a two-semester course in Mediation (2021) at the University of Wrocław. He is currently studying for an MA in Economics at the University of Economics in Katowice. His research interests include legal linguistics, business English and translation studies. He is the author of several publications on legal language, e. g., Linguistic Indeterminacy in the Criminal Law (2021, Gliwice: Wydawnictwo Politechniki S´la˛skiej). Miguel Luis Poveda Balbuena teaches at the Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice (Poland), mainly subjects related to the Spanish language, such as Descriptive and Practical Grammar, Spanish Phonetics, Business Spanish, or Technical Spanish. He has carried out his research on phenomena derived from languages in contact from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives, e. g., Origins of the French Lexical Borrowings in Late Middle English Weaponry (in Academic Journal of Modern Philology, Vol. 7, Oddział Polskiej Akademii Nauk we Wrocławiu, Wrocław, 2018), Origins of the Germanic element in medieval Spanish: military terminology (in Polska Iberystyka: Ska˛d pochodzimy, kim jestes´my, doka˛d zmierzamy? Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego, Kraków, 2017). He is currently part of the Digital Language Learning (DL2) project of Alicante University (Spain). Jacek Pradela is currently employed at the Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland, where he teaches conversation and writing classes. His research interests include non-native bilingualism (NNB), English for Specific Purposes (ESP), and Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), in particular its application to higher education.

Notes on Contributors

337

Jacopo Saturno is a research fellow at the University of Bergamo, Italy, where he works on (a) second language acquisition (SLA), with a particular focus on Slavic morphosyntax, as well as (b) the language teaching potentialities of intercomprehension among Slavic and Romance languages. He coordinates a project on the acquisition and teaching of L2 Polish in an intercomprehension context, funded by Polish Narodowa Agencja Wymiany Akademickiej. His publications include a monograph on the acquisition of L2 Polish morphosyntax (Utterance structure in the initial stages of Polish L2 acquisition: From semantics to case morphology, 2020, Language Science Press) and numerous papers in international journals (e. g., Production of inflectional morphology in intercomprehension-based language teaching: The case of Slavic languages, 2020, International Journal of Multilingualism). Grzegorz Wlaz´lak, PhD in linguistics, an assistant professor at the Institute of Education and Communication Research of the Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice. A long-time practitioner, director of the Teacher Training College in Zabrze. Editor and co-editor of Scientific and Didactic Notebooks of NKJO. PhD in history of English, morphology, lexicography, and lexicology, currently expanding his interests towards sociolinguistic aspects of cross-cultural and interdisciplinary influence, text analysis, and specialist languages. Recent publications: ‘Scientific word-formation in eighteenth-century English’ (in Robert Kiełtyka [ed.], 2021, Studies in the Evolution of the English language. Berlin: Peter Lang) and co-editor of Language, culture, identity. Between Ethnolinguistics and Ethnomethodology (with Maria Banas´, to appear in 2022 in Interdisciplinary Approaches to Applied Linguistics, V&R). Boris Yelin is an Assistant Teaching Professor at Northeastern University in Boston USA, where he teaches Spanish, Portuguese, and Spanish linguistics. His research interests include psycholinguistic aspects of multilingual language use, second/third language acquisition and pedagogy, and sociopragmatic aspects of language, among other interests. His publications include ¿Españoles mundiales?: En busca de un paradigma. In Visionary Essays: The Future of Spanish and Portuguese. Hispania, 100(5), 299–304, and Capaz and Quizás in Argentine Spanish: Epistemic Adverbs with Mood Variability. Hispania, 100(1), 30–46.