No abstract

This article introduces and defines the notion lingua receptiva (LaRa) as a mode of multilingual communication in which interactants employ a language and/or a language variety different from their partner's and still understand each other without the help of any additional lingua franca. The quintessence of lingua receptiva is discussed in terms of pragmatic, psycholinguistic and language psychology approaches to multilingualism. Moreover, the occurrence of this mode is documented across various language families throughout time and in various discursive intercultures which it creates. Furthermore, three central characteristics are discussed, namely ideological barriers resulting in asymmetry, 'inference-making' mechanisms and the function of idiomatic expressions. Finally, lingua receptiva is compared to other multilingual modes, especially with English as lingua franca.

No abstract

The present article deals with receptive multilingualism (RM) in communication between Estonian salespersons and Finnish customers in Tallinn. A historical background and general description of this communication is provided. It is argued that RM is an established practice in this type of communication and that a nation-state is not necessarily marginalizing communication that deviates from monolingual norms. The notion of mutual intelligibility is critically analysed, and the data confirm that understanding is not exclusively dependent on material similarities between closely related varieties. Accommodation and negotiation are present in both sides, yet strategies employed by Finnish and Estonian interlocutors differ. The distinction between inherent and acquired RM is relevant in Russian–Finnish communication which takes place in the same environment. Finally, further research questions are formulated.

This article demonstrates how the field of Jewish interlinguistics and a case study of Jewish Russian (JR) can contribute to the general understanding of ethnolects. JR is a cluster of post-Yiddish varieties of Russian used as a special in-group register by Ashkenazic Jews in Russia. Differences between varieties of JR may be explained in terms of differing degrees of copying from Yiddish. The case of JR allows the general conclusions that (i) the diffusion of ethnolectal features into mainstream use is facilitated not only by a dense social network but also by a relatively sufficient number of speakers with a variety of occupations; and (ii) in addition to matrix language turnover and lexical and prosodic features, an ethnolect may be characterized by new combinability rules under which stems and derivational suffixes belong to the target language (here Russian) but their combination patterns do not. (Ethnolects, Jewish languages, Jewish Russian, language contact.