• The Conference
  • Home
  • Programme
  • Venue & directions
  • Organizing Committee
  • Scientific Committee
  • Exhibitors & sponsors
  • Satellite events
  • Conference Party
• Past & future
  • Previous symposia
  • Finland 2014
  • Spain 2016
• About FU Berlin
  • University homepage
  • Humanities at FU

Programme: accepted abstracts

Abstract ID: 1143

Part of Session 179: Mutual intelligibility of closely related languages in a multilingual Europe (Other abstracts in this session)

Mutual intelligibility in languange learning context: linguistic and strategic determinants of comprehension of Estonian and Finnish

Authors: Muikku-Werner, Pirkko (1); Kaivapalu, Annekatrin (2); Martin, Maisa (3)
Submitted by: Kaivapalu, Annekatrin (Tallinn University, Estonia)

In order to understand any previously unknown second or foreign language (L2), the learner has to make interlingual identifications (Jarvis & Odlin 2000: 538) between the structures, patterns and rules of the first language (L1) and L2. In closely related languages the interlingual identifications involve all linguistic subsystems: similarities and differences occur at the level of phonology and morphology as well as at the level of syntax and vocabulary. In addition to linguistic determinants, strategic and metalinguistic factors as well as cultural background play an important role in intelligibility of closely related language.

The paper addresses mutual intelligibility of two Finno-Ugric languages, Finnish and Estonian, in language learning situation. This study is a part of the international research project REMU (Receptive Multilingualism) of universities of Eastern Finland, Tallinn and Jyväskylä (Finland). The aim of the study is to explore what linguistic and strategic determinants are relevant to intelligibility of written texts, and what their relative contribution to intelligibility is.

Two groups of learners were recruited for this study:  Finnish university students (70) and Estonian students (70), all with no prior knowledge and experience of the L2. Both groups were given the same text Bridge over the sea respectively in Estonian and Finnish and then asked to describe its contents in writing. Translating was also encouraged. In addition, the students were asked to reflect on the experience: to describe what was easy, what was difficult, and what strategies were used in retrieving the meaning. As expected, the results showed that similarities in the vocabulary facilitated understanding. The learners were also aware of the existence of false friends: the similarity of form was not blindly trusted to provide a shared meaning. The structural similarity of the languages was equally essential in understanding the text: the morfosyntactic determinants such as the similarity of inflection, derivation, compounding, and sentence structure aided in deciphering the contents of the text. It can be concluded that, unlike production, the comprehension of closely related languages proceeds with simultaneous item learning and system learning (Ringbom 2007: 98−100). Comprehension is further supported by the ability to utilize the context, by metaliguistic awareness and the knowledge of the history and variation of the L1.

Keywords: acquisition of related language, receptive multilingualism, text comprehension, crosslinguistic influence, learner strategies, Estonian, Finnish

References:

Jarvis, S. & Odlin, T. 2000. Morphological type, spatial reference, and language transfer.  Studies on Second Language Acquisition 22, 535−556.

Kaivapalu, A. & Muikku-Werner, P. 2010.Reseptiivinen monikielisyys: miten suomenkieleinen oppija ymmärtää viroa äidinkielensä pohjalta. [Receptive multilingualism: How Finnish as a first language helps learners to understand Finnish]– Lähivõrdlusi. Lähivertailuja 20, 68–97.

Ringbom, Håkan 2007. Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.