Abstract
This study investigates the degree of intelligibility of Croatian and Croatian speakers’ English for native Slovene listeners. For the purposes of the present experiment, 18 native speakers of Croatian were recorded narrating two short films in their mother tongue as well as in English. Each of the 135 participants, whose L1 is Slovene, listened to a recorded Croatian speaker retelling one story in their native language and another in English. The intelligibility of the two communicative modes was measured using multiple-choice questions. Overall, the level of comprehension was found to be higher for English than for Croatian. Two extralinguistic factors (border proximity and language preference) were also considered so as to gain a deeper insight into the nature of the intelligibility of English as a lingua franca (ELF) and receptive multilingualism as two potential mediums of communication between Croatian and Slovene speakers.
Apstrakt
U ovom istraživanju ispituje se u kojoj mjeri izvorni govornici slovenačkog razumiju hrvatski u poređenju sa engleskim jezikom kojeg produkuju hrvatski govornici. Za potrebe sprovedenog eksperimenta snimljeno je 18 izvornih govornika hrvatskog kako pripovijedaju dva kratka filma na svom maternjem jeziku, kao i na engleskom. Svaki od 135 učesnika, čiji je prvi jezik slovenački, slušao je po jednog snimljenog hrvatskog govornika kako pripovijeda radnju jednog filma na svom maternjem, a radnju drugog na engleskom jeziku. Razumljivost dva oblika komunikacije mjerena je putem pitanja višestrukog izbora. Rezultati pokazuju da su učesnici eksperimenta ispoljili veći stepen razumljivosti engleskog jezika u odnosu na hrvatski. U radu se takođe razmatraju dva vanjezička faktora (blizina granice i jezička preferencija) kako bi se stekao potpuniji uvid u karakter razumljivosti engleskog jezika kao lingua franca i receptivne višejezičnosti kao dva moguća sredstva komunikacije između govornika hrvatskog i slovenačkog jezika.
About the authors
Stefan Bulatović is a PhD student in Linguistics and an English instructor at the University of Montenegro. He holds a Research Master’s degree in Linguistics from the University of Groningen. His research interests include English as a lingua franca, English-medium instruction and receptive multilingualism. He has also previously worked as a Communication/PI Associate at UNHCR in Montenegro.
Anja Schüppert holds a Master’s degree in Scandinavian Linguistics from HU Berlin and a PhD in Linguistics from the University of Groningen. As a postdoc researcher she was employed in the project Mutual intelligibility of closely related languages in Europe, financed by The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). She currently holds a position as Assistant Professor in the Department of European Languages and Cultures at the University of Groningen. Her research focuses on communication across linguistic borders.
Charlotte Gooskens is Associate Professor of European Linguistics at the University of Groningen. Her research is concerned with language attitudes, speaker identity and mutual intelligibility of closely related languages as well as English as a lingua franca. She has previously worked as principal investigator for the projects Linguistic determinants of mutual intelligibility in Scandinavia and Mutual intelligibility of closely related languages in Europe, financed by The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) at the Center for Language and Cognition, Groningen.
Acknowledgements
We are particularly grateful to Kristy James for her valuable technical assistance in the experimental part of the study, as well as to Tena Žganec, who carried out the recording process at the University of Zagreb. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
Appendix
Task A:
Question 1
What is the girl doing at the beginning of the story?
□ She is waving at someone on the train.
□ She is meeting someone at the train station.
□ She is running to catch the train.
□ She has just got off the train.
Question 2
Why is the girl taking so long to buy the ticket?
□ She is looking for money.
□ A man asked her to help him buy a ticket.
□ The ticket machine is faulty.
□ The person in front of her is slow.
Question 3
What happened while the girl was sitting next to the boy?
□ The girl started crying.
□ A man stole the girl’s purse.
□ The girl started listening to music.
□ The boy fell asleep while reading a book.
Question 4
How did the girl get her bag back?
□ The boy took it from the thief.
□ The girl managed to catch the thief.
□ The police caught the thief.
□ The thief dropped the bag.
Question 5
What did the girl do when the boy returned the bag to her?
□ She couldn’t stop crying.
□ She gave the boy a hug.
□ She kissed the boy.
□ She offered the boy a reward.
Question 6
What do we learn at the end of the movie?
□ The girl gave the boy her phone number.
□ The boy and the girl kissed on the train.
□ The girl robbed the boy.
□ The boy mistakenly gave the girl his wallet.
Task B:
Question 1
What do we learn at the beginning of the movie?
□ The boy feels lonely.
□ The boy does not have enough food.
□ The boy is excited about his new job.
□ The boy lives with two roommates.
Question 2
What happened while the boy was walking after work?
□ He met a friend.
□ He found a skateboard.
□ He started crying.
□ Someone pushed him.
Question 3
What did the boy lose when he fell on the ground?
□ Keys
□ Phone
□ Ring
□ Glasses
Question 4
What did the boy find when he was leaving the house?
□ A letter
□ A dog
□ A new pair of glasses
□ A Bible
Question 5
What was written on the note he saw in the park?
□ A job advertisement.
□ Someone was looking for a dog.
□ A call for a skateboarding competition.
□ A quote from the Bible.
Question 6
How does the movie end?
□ The boys wins a money prize.
□ The boy becomes rich.
□ The boy found a new apartment.
□ The boy lives together with the dog’s owner.
References
Anderson, Anne H., Miles Bader, Ellen Gurman Bard, Elizabeth Boyle, Gwyneth Doherty, et al. 1991. The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech 34. 351–366.10.1177/002383099103400404Search in Google Scholar
Bahtina, Daria & Jan D. ten Thije. 2012. Receptive multilingualism. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 4899–4904. Oxford (MA): Blackwell.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1001Search in Google Scholar
Beerkens, Roos. 2010. Receptive multilingualism as a language mode in the Dutch–German border area. Münster: Waxmann.Search in Google Scholar
Bent, Tessa & Ann R. Bradlow. 2003. The interlanguage speech intelligibility benefit. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 114. 1600–1610.10.1121/1.1603234Search in Google Scholar
Berne, Jane E. 1993. The effects of text type, assessment task, and target language experience on foreign language learners’ performance on listening comprehension tests. Dissertation Abstracts International 53. 2354A. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Berthele, Raphael. 2007. Zum Prozess des Verstehens und Erschließens [On the processes of understanding and inference]. In Britta Hufeisen & Nicole Marx (eds.), EuroComGerm – Die sieben Siebe: Germanische Sprachen lesen lernen, 15–26. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Blees, Gerda J., Willem M. Mak & Jan D. ten Thije. 2014. English as a lingua franca versus lingua receptiva in problem-solving conversations between Dutch and German students. Applied Linguistics Review 5. 173–193.10.1515/applirev-2014-0008Search in Google Scholar
Bradlow, Ann R., Gina M. Torretta & David B. Pisoni. 1996. Intelligibility of normal speech I: Global and fine-grained acoustic-phonetic talker characteristics. Speech Communication 20(3–4). 255–272.10.1016/S0167-6393(96)00063-5Search in Google Scholar
Braunmüller, Kurt. 2007. Receptive multilingualism in Northern Europe in the Middle Ages: A description of a scenario. In Jan D. ten Thije & Ludger Zeevaert (eds.), Receptive multilingualism: Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts, 25–47. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hsm.6.04braSearch in Google Scholar
Brindley, Geoff. 1998. Assessing listening abilities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18. 171–191.10.1017/S0267190500003536Search in Google Scholar
Bugarski, Ranko. 2018. Govorite li zajednički? [Do you speak Common?]. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek.Search in Google Scholar
Bygate, Martin. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In Martin Bygate, Peter Skehan & Merrill Swain (eds.), Researching pedagogical tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing, 23–48. Harlow: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar
Cogo, Alessia & Jennifer Jenkins. 2010. English as a lingua franca in Europe: A mismatch between policy and practice. European Journal of Language Policy 2(2). 271–294.10.3828/ejlp.2010.16Search in Google Scholar
Cogo, Alessia & Martin Dewey. 2012. Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Delsing, Lars-Olof & Katarina Lundin Åkesson. 2005. Håller språket ihop Norden? En forskningsrapport om ungdomars förståelse av danska, svenska och norska [Does the language keep together the Nordic countries? A research report of mutual comprehension between young speakers of Danish, Swedish and Norwegian]. Copenhagen: Nordiska ministerrådet.10.6027/tn2005-573Search in Google Scholar
Deterding, David. 2013. Misunderstandings in English as a lingua franca: An analysis of ELF interactions in South-East Asia. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110288599Search in Google Scholar
Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. 2004. O.J. C 310/1 (never ratified).Search in Google Scholar
European Commission. 2007. High Level Group on Multilingualism. Final Report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Search in Google Scholar
European Commission. 2012. Special Eurobarometer 386, Europeans and their languages. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf (accessed 21 October 2016).Search in Google Scholar
Eurostat news release. 2017. 60% of lower secondary level pupils studied more than one foreign language in 2015. News release 33/2017, published on 23 February 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/7879483/3-23022017-AP-EN.pdf/80715559-72ba-4c19-b341-7ddb42dd61a6 (accessed 12 September 2017).Search in Google Scholar
Fras, Jona. 2012. The ideology of swearwords in Slovenia. Language & Communication 32(3). 229–239.10.1016/j.langcom.2012.04.004Search in Google Scholar
Giles, Howard & Nancy Niedzielski. 1998. Italian is beautiful, German is ugly. In Laurie Bauer & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Language myths, 85–93. London: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar
Golubović, Jelena. 2016. Mutual intelligibility in the Slavic language area. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Golubović, Jelena & Charlotte Gooskens. 2015. Mutual intelligibility between West and South Slavic languages. Russian Linguistics 39. 351–373.10.1007/s11185-015-9150-9Search in Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte. 2006. Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of inter-Scandinavian intelligibility. In Jeroen van de Weijer & Bettelou Los (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 23(1). 101–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/avt.23.12gooSearch in Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte. 2007. The contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 28(6). 445–467.10.2167/jmmd511.0Search in Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte. 2013. Methods for measuring intelligibility of closely related language varieties. In Robert Bayley, Richard Cameron & Ceil Lucas (eds.), The handbook of sociolinguistics, 195–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.013.0010Search in Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte & Vincent J. van Heuven. 2017. Measuring cross-linguistic intelligibility in the Germanic, Romance and Slavic language groups. Speech Communication 89. 25–36.10.1016/j.specom.2017.02.008Search in Google Scholar
Gooskens, Charlotte, Vincent J. van Heuven, Jelena Golubović, Anja Schüppert, Femke Swarte & Stefanie Voigt. 2018. Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe. International Journal of Multilingualism 15(2). 169–193.10.1080/14790718.2017.1350185Search in Google Scholar
Gorjanc, Vojko. 2013. Slovenačka jezička politika i odnosi društvene moći [Slovene language policy and societal power relations]. In Vesna Požgaj Hadži (ed.), Jezik između lingvistike i politike [Language between linguistics and politics], 13–36. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek.Search in Google Scholar
Greenberg, Marc L. 2000. A historical phonology of the Slovene language. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Search in Google Scholar
Greenberg, Marc L. 2006. Slovene. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 2nd edn, 424–428. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/02176-3Search in Google Scholar
Greenberg, Robert. 2004. Language and identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its disintegration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.2307/20058291Search in Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar. 1966. Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry 36. 280–297.10.1111/j.1475-682X.1966.tb00630.xSearch in Google Scholar
Hülmbauer, Cornelia. 2014. A matter of reception: ELF and LaRa compared. Applied Linguistics Review 5. 273–295.10.1515/applirev-2014-0012Search in Google Scholar
Hülmbauer, Cornelia & Barbara Seidlhofer. 2013. English as a lingua franca in European multilingualism. In Anne-Claude Berthoud, François Grin & Georges Lüdi (eds.), Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism: The DYLAN project, 387–406. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/mdm.2.18hulSearch in Google Scholar
Ivić, Pavle. 2001. Dijalektologija srpskohrvatskog jezika: Uvod u štokavsko narečje [Serbo-Croatian Dialectology: An Introduction into Štokavian]. Sremski Karlovci/Novi Sad: Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića.Search in Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jennifer, Alesia Cogo & Martin Dewey. 2011. Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44. 281–315.10.1017/S0261444811000115Search in Google Scholar
Jensen, John B. 1989. On the mutual intelligibility of Spanish and Portuguese. Hispania 72(4). 848–852.10.2307/343562Search in Google Scholar
Kapović, Mate. 2017. The position of Kajkavian in the South Slavic dialect continuum in light of old accentual isoglosses. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 62(1). 606–620.10.1515/slaw-2017-0038Search in Google Scholar
Kordić, Snježana. 2010. Jezik i nacionalizam [Language and nationalism]. Zagreb: Durieux.Search in Google Scholar
Kürschner, Sebastian, Charlotte Gooskens & Renée van Bezooijen. 2008. Linguistic determinants of the intelligibility of Swedish words among Danes. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 2(1–2). 83–100.10.3366/E1753854809000329Search in Google Scholar
Lüdi, Georges. 2007. The Swiss model of plurilingual communication. In Kristin Bührig & Jan D. ten Thije (eds.), Beyond misunderstanding: Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication, 159–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
MacKenzie, Ian. 2014. ELF and the alternatives. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 3(2). 395–407.10.4324/9781315150758-5Search in Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2012. Exploring ELF: academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Meierkord, Christiane. 2004. Syntactic variation in interactions across international Englishes. English World-Wide 25(1). 109–132.10.1075/eww.25.1.06meiSearch in Google Scholar
Meierkord, Christiane. 2012. English as a lingua franca. In Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0375Search in Google Scholar
Miller, Nick. 2013. Measuring up to speech intelligibility. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 48. 601–612.10.1111/1460-6984.12061Search in Google Scholar
Orešnik, Janez. 2006. Slovenia: Language situation. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics, 2nd edn, 428–429. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01825-3Search in Google Scholar
Požgaj Hadži, Vesna, Tatjana Balažic Bulc & Vlado Miheljak. 2013. Srpskohrvatski jezik iz slovenske perspektive [The Serbo-Croatian language from the Slovene perspective]. In Vesna Požgaj Hadži (ed.), Jezik između lingvistike i politike [Language between linguistics and politics], 37–65. Beograd: Biblioteka XX vek.Search in Google Scholar
Rehbein, Jochen, Jan D. ten Thije & Anna Verschik. 2011. Lingua receptiva (LaRa) – Remarks on the quintessence of receptive multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism 16(3). 248–264.10.1177/1367006911426466Search in Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald L. 1992. Nonlanguage factors affecting undergraduates’ judgments of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education 33(4). 511–531.10.1007/BF00973770Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Monika S. 2002. First language attrition, use and maintenance: The case of German Jews in Anglophone countries. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.24Search in Google Scholar
Schüppert, Anja. 2011. Origin of asymmetry: Mutual intelligibility of spoken Danish and Swedish. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Schüppert, Anja, Nanna Haug Hilton & Charlotte Gooskens. 2015. Swedish is beautiful, Danish is ugly? Investigating the link between language attitudes and spoken word recognition. Linguistics 53(2). 375–403.10.1515/ling-2015-0003Search in Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11. 134–158.10.1111/1473-4192.00011Search in Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24. 209–239.10.1017/S0267190504000145Search in Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2018. Standard English and the dynamics of ELF variation. In Jennifer Jenkins, Will Baker & Martin Dewey (eds.), The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca, 85–100. London/New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315717173-8Search in Google Scholar
Skehan, Peter & Pauline Foster. 1997. Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1(3). 185–212.10.1177/136216889700100302Search in Google Scholar
Sloboda, Marián & Mira Nábělková. 2013. Receptive multilingualism in ‘monolingual’ media: Managing the presence of Slovak on Czech websites. International Journal of Multilingualism 10. 196–213.10.1080/14790718.2013.789523Search in Google Scholar
Smit, Ute. 2010. English as a lingua franca in higher education: A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110215519Search in Google Scholar
Stabej, Marko. 2007. Size isn’t everything: The relation between Slovene and Serbo-Croatian in Slovenia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 183. 13–30.10.1515/IJSL.2007.002Search in Google Scholar
Swarte, Femke. 2016. Predicting the (mutual) intelligibility of Germanic languages from linguistic and extra-linguistic factors. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Tavakoli, Parvaneh & Pauline Foster. 2011. Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning 61(1). 37–72.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.xSearch in Google Scholar
ten Thije, Jan D. & Ludger Zeevaert (eds.). 2007. Receptive multilingualism: Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hsm.6Search in Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter & Howard Giles. 1978. Sociolinguistics and linguistic value judgements: Correctness, adequacy and aesthetics. In Frank Coppieters & Didier L. Goyvaerts (eds.), Functional studies in language and literature, 167–180. Ghent: Story-Scientia.Search in Google Scholar
van Bezooijen, Renée & Charlotte Gooskens. 2007. Interlingual text comprehension: Linguistic and extralinguistic determinants. In Jan D. ten Thije & Ludger Zeevaert (eds.), Receptive multilingualism and intercultural communication: Linguistic analyses, language policies and didactic concepts, 249–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hsm.6.17bezSearch in Google Scholar
Verschik, Anna. 2012. Practising receptive multilingualism: Estonian–Finnish communication in Tallinn. International Journal of Bilingualism 16(3). 265–286.10.1177/1367006911426465Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Hongyan & Vincent J. van Heuven. 2003. Mutual intelligibility of Chinese, Dutch and American speakers of English. In Leonie Cornips & Paula Fikkert (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, 213–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/avt.20.22wanSearch in Google Scholar
Yorkston, Kathryn M. & David R. Beukelman. 1978. A comparison of techniques for measuring intelligibility of dysarthric speech. Journal of Communication Disorders 11. 499–512.10.1016/0021-9924(78)90024-2Search in Google Scholar
Yuan, Fangyuan & Rod Ellis. 2003. The effect of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics 23(1). 1–27.10.1093/applin/24.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Zeevaert, Ludger. 2004. Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verständigung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs [Inter-Scandinavian communication. Strategies for establishing understanding between Scandinavians in a discourse]. Hamburg: Kovač.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
