Article published in:
Mental representations in receptive multilingualism
Edited by Bonnie C. Holmes and Michael T. Putnam
[Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 10:3] 2020
► pp. 380411
References

References

Backus, A., Marácz & ten Thije, J.
(2011) A toolkit for multilingual communication in Europe: dealing with linguistic diversity. In J. N. Jørgensen (Ed.), A toolkit for transnational communication in Europe (pp. 5–24). (Copenhagen studies in bilingualism; No. 64). Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Humanities.Google Scholar
Baghaei, P.
(2011) Optimal Number of Gaps in C-Test Passages. International Education Studies 4(1), 166–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bahtina-Jantsikene, D.
(2013) Mind Your Languages: Lingua receptiva in Estonian-Russian Communication Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Bahtina-Jantsikene, D. & Backus, A.
(2016) Limited common ground, unlimited communicative success: An experimental study into Lingua Receptiva using Estonian and Russian In: Philologia Estonica Tallinnensis 1, 17–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beerkens, R.
(2010) Receptive multilingualism as a language mode in the Dutch-German border area. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Blees, G. J. & ten Thije, J. D.
(2016) Receptive Multilingualism and Awareness. In: J. Cenoz et al. (Eds.), Language Awareness and Multilingualism, Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 1–13). Springer International Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berthele, R.
(2007) Sieb 5: Syntaktische Strukturen [5th Sieve: Syntactic structures]. In: B. Hufeisen, N. Marx (Eds.), EuroComGerm – Die sieben Siebe. Germanische Sprachen lesen lernen (pp. 167–180). Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
Braunmüller, K.
(2007) Receptive multilingualism in Northern Europe in the Middle Ages: A description of a scenario. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive multilingualism (pp. 25–47). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chapelle, C. A.
(1994) Are C-tests valid measures for L2 vocabulary research? Second Language Research, 10, 157–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A.
(2013) Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3), 181–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V.
(2013) Premises of multi-competence. In V. J. Cook and L. Wei (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence (pp. 1–25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J.
(2005) Multi-competence: Black Hole or Wormhole? Available via http://​www​.viviancook​.uk​/Writings​/Papers​/SLRF05​.htm Accessed on 20.11.2017.
Dewaele, J.-M.
(2016) Multi-competence and personality. In L. Wei & V. Cook (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Multi-competence (pp. 403–419). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z.
(1994) Motivation and Motivating in the Foreign Language Classroom. The Modern Language Journal 78(3), 273–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(1997) SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franceschini, R.
(2011) Multilingualism and Multicompetence: A Conceptual View. The Modern Language Journal 95, 344–355. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E.
(2010) Attenuating information in spoken communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language 62, 35–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R., & Van Orden, G.
(2012) Pragmatic choice in conversation. Topics in Cognitive Science 4, 7–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gooskens, C. S.
this volume). How well can intelligibility of closely related languages in Europe be predicted by linguistic and non-linguistic variables? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism.
(2013) Experimental methods for measuring intelligibility of closely related language varieties. In: Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron and Ceil Lucas (Eds.), Handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 195–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gooskens, C., & Heeringa, W.
(2014) The role of dialect exposure in receptive multilingualism. Applied Linguistics Review 5(1), 247–271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gooskens, C., & van Heuven, V.
(2017) Measuring cross-linguistic intelligibility in the Germanic, Romance and Slavic language groups. Speech Communication 89, 25–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Graddol, D.
(1997) The future of English. A guide to forecasting the popularity of the English language in the 21st century. London: British Council.Google Scholar
Grotjahn, R.
(1987) How to construct and evaluate a C-test: A discussion of some problems and some statistical analyses. In: R. Grotjahn, C. Klein-Braley, & D. K. Stevenson (Eds.), Taking Their Measure: The Validity and Validation of Language Tests (pp. 219–253). Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Haugen, E.
(1953) The Norwegian language in America. A study in bilingual behavior. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Henter, R.
(2014) Affective Factors Involved in Learning a Foreign Language. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 127, 373–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Härmävaara, H.-I.
(2014) Facilitating mutual understanding in everyday interaction between Finns and Estonians. Applied Linguistics Review 5(1), 211–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jessner, U.
(2014) On multilingual awareness or why the multilingual learner is a specific language learner. In M. Pawlak & L. Aronin (Eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism. Studies in honour of david singleton (pp. 175–184). Heidelberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaivapalu, A.
(2015) Eesti ja soome keele vastastikune mõistmine üksiksõna- ja tekstitasandil: lingvistilised tegurid, mõistmisprotsess ja sümmeetria [Mutual comprehension of Estonian and Finnish Context-Free Words and Texts: Linguistic Determinants, comprehension Process and Symmetry]. Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat 11, 55–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kharkhurin, A. V.
(2012) Multilingualism and Creativity. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kleinschmidt, D. F. & Jaeger, T. F.
(2015) Robust speech perception: Recognize the familiar, generalize to the similar, and adapt to the novel. Journal Psychological Review 122(2), 148–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linck, J. A., Kroll, J. F., Sunderman, G.
(2009) Losing Access to the Native Language While Immersed in a Second Language Evidence for the Role of Inhibition in Second-Language Learning, Psychological science 20, 1507–1515. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, P. & Liu, H.
(2017) Creating common ground: The role of metapragmatic expressions in BELF meeting interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 107, 1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lüdi, G.
(2007) The Swiss model of plurilingual communication. In K. Bührig & J. D. ten Thije (Eds.), Beyondmisunderstanding: Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication (pp. 159–178). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Muikku-Werner, P.
(2013) Vironkielisen tekstin ymmärtäminen suomen kielen pohjalta. [Understanding Estonian texts on a Finnish language base]. – Lähivertailuja. Lähivõrdlusi, 23, 210–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mustajoki, A.
(2017) Why is miscommunication more common in everyday life than in lingua franca conversation? In I. Kecskes and S. Assimakopoulos (Eds.), Current Issues in Intercultural Pragmatics (pp. 55–74). Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pitzl, M.-L.
(2005) Non-understanding in English as a lingua franca: Examples from a business context. Vienna English Working Papers 14(2), 50–71.Google Scholar
Raatz, U. & Klein-Braley, C.
(1982) The C-test – a modification of the cloze procedure. In T. Culhane, C. Klein-Braley, & D. K. Stevenson (Eds.), Practice and problems in language testing IV (pp. 113–138). Colchester: University of Essex, Department of Language and Linguistics.Google Scholar
Rannut, Ü.
(2005) Keelekeskkonna mõju vene õpilaste eesti keele omandamisele ja integratsioonile Eestis [On the impact of language environment among on acquisition of Estonian and integration in Estonia by Russian students]. Tallinn: TLU Press.Google Scholar
Rehbein, J. & Romaniuk, O.
(2014) How to check understanding across languages. An introduction into the Pragmatic Index of Language Distance (PILaD) usable to measure mutual understanding in receptive multilingualism, illustrated by conversations in Russian, Ukrainian and Polish. Applied Linguistics Review 5(1), 131–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rehbein, J., ten Thije, J. D., & Verschik, A.
(2012) Remarks on the quintessence of receptive multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism 16(3), 248–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ribbert, A., & ten Thije, J. D.
(2007) Receptive Multilingualism in Dutch–German intercultural team cooperation. In J. D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (Eds.), Receptive Multilingualism and intercultural communication. Hamburg Studies in Multilingualism (pp. 73–103). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saville-Troike, M.
(2003) The Ethnography of Communication. An introduction. (3rd edition). Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shumarova, N.
(2000) Мовна компетенція особистості в ситуації білінгвізму [Individual linguistic competence in the situation of bilingualism]. Kyiv: Видавничий центр КДЛУ.Google Scholar
Sloboda, M. & Brankačkec, K.
(2014) The mutual intelligibility of Slavic languages as a source of support for the revival of the Sorbian language. In L. Fesenmeier (Ed.), Sprachminderheiten: gestern, heute, morgen = Minoranze linguistiche: ieri, oggi, domani (pp. 25–44). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Swarte, F., Schüppert, A., & Gooskens, C.
(2015) Does German help speakers of Dutch to understand written and spoken Danish words? – The role of second language knowledge in decoding an unknown but related language. In G. De Angelis, U. Jessner, & M. Kresic (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence and crosslinguistic interaction in multilingual language learning (pp. 173–197). Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Statistics Estonia, Population by ethnic nationality
(2017) https://​www​.stat​.ee​/34278, accessed November 2017.
Statistics Estonia, Native languages spoken in Estonia
Ten Thije, J. D. & Zeevaert, L.
(Eds.) (2007) Receptive Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyshchenko, K.
(2010) Всеслов’янські складники української мови [Pan-Slavic components of Ukrainian]. Ternopil: Мандрівець: всеукраїнський науковий журнал 3, 65–75.Google Scholar
Verschik, A.
(2008) Emerging bilingual speech: from monolingualism to code-copying. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2012) Practicing Receptive Multilingualism: Estonian-Finnish communication in Tallinn. International Journal of Bilingualism 16(3), 265–286. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Language contact, language awareness, and multilingualism. In J. Cenoz, D. Gorter, S. May (Eds.), Language Awareness and Multilingualism (1–13). Springer.Google Scholar
Voegelin, C. F., & Harris, Z. S.
(1951) Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of natural languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95, 322–329.Google Scholar
Zeevaert, L.
(2004) Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verständigung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs [Interscandinavian Communication. Strategies for Establishing Understanding between Scandinavians in Discourse]. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Holmes, Bonnie C. & Michael T. Putnam
2020. Mental representations in receptive multilingual grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 10:3  pp. 309 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 april 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.