20
There are important
conditions of Communicative Apparatus:
a.
S and H are co-present in one and the same action space and are
orally
interacting.
b.
Speaker’s “monitoring” (checking the hearer’s response) which is based
on S’s permanent perception of H’s activities.
c.
Hearer’s “steering” (hearer’s controlling the speaker’s action) which is
based on H’s permanent perception of S’s activities (Rehbein &
Romaniuk, in print).
Figure 1 illustrates how Communicative Apparatus (CA) of S’s steering H and of
H’s steering S (CA-SHS) functions. CA is divided into two categories: S’s part
and H’s part.
As can be seen in the framed part of the Figure 1, S’s part is categorized
into (I) augments (or ‘tags’) of utterance acts into speech actions, (II)
non-verbal
actions such as forms of gaze, and (III)
prosody. H’s part is also subdivided into
(I)
accompanying S’s speec actions (as interjections, speech formulas, etc.), (II)
evaluative procedures (Eng. “yes”, “no”, and equivalents).
Figure 1: Communicative Apparatus (CA) of S’s steering H and of H’s steering S
(CA-SHS) in monolingual communication. Hearer’s actions, acts and procedures
21
are given in italics. The framed elements are “boosted” under conditions of
Receptive Multilingualism (Rehbein & Romaniuk, in print).
Rehbein & Romaniuk (in print) explicated ‘the boosting of
Communicative Apparatus’ with their own words as follows:
“As receptive multilingualism, or RM, means communication
‘under impeding conditions’, the mental activities of S’s perceiving
H’s signals (through monitoring) and H’s receiving S’s speech
actions and their continuous flow into expressions in the interactive
space are positively enhanced. Such mental and interactive
enhancement comes close to a ‘boosting’ of the Communicative
Apparatus, or CA, with the effect of generating specific phenomena
of a Lingua Receptiva (LaRa).
Table 2: Classes of H’s signals used for categorizing H’s parts of ‘Communicative
Apparatus’ (CA) (Rehbein & Romaniuk, in print)
abbreva
tion
full name of
class of hearer’s
(H) signal in RM
description of the interactional value of
hearer’s (H) signal
classifica
tion
for
counting
NU
Non-
understanding
H signalizes non-comprehension of
speakers’
utterances
five
classes
summari
zed as
UNDER__STANDI__NG'>PROBL
EMA
TIC
UNDER
STANDI
NG
PU
Partial
understanding
H runs through some stages of
understanding but does not adopt S’s
plan and/or does not form an own
hearer’s plan
GU
Guessing
Realized by H’s echo
questions,
explicit hypotheses, queries etc. to
make sure that previous understanding
is correct
BU
Believing
to
understand
Continuing the
discourse without
confidence that understanding is
correct
MU
Misunderstandi
ng
In this class, adoption of S’s
plan by H
and formation of the H’s plan are
wrongly accomplished, i.e. H activates
wrong knowledge on the basis of
wrongly perceived speech
actions
UN
Understanding
All stages of understanding are
accomplished by H (default case)
counts as
UNDER
STANDI
NG
22
There are a few studies investigating the perception in receptive
multilingualism.
Romaniuk
(2010)
investigated
problematic
cases
of
understanding in intercultural communication among the interactants whose
native languages are Russian, Ukrainian and Polish. Results of the study
suggested that receptive multilingual communication between Russian, Ukrainian
and Polish native speakers is successful. However it “depends itself on the
direction of intelligibility”. Sağın-Şimşek (2012) assessed understanding in
receptive multilingual communications including Turkish-Azerbaijani and
Turkish-Uzbek based on Functional-Pragmatic Index of Language Distance
(PILaD) (Rehbein &Romaniuk, in print) so as to test the necessity of the
precondition of typological proximity for successful communication.
2.5. Linguistic Properties of Turkish and Azerbaijani Languages
In this section classification and historical development of Turkic
languages will be outlined while special attention will be devoted to Azerbaijani
and Turkish as they are the main subject languages of the present research.
2.5.1. Classification of Turkic Languages
Classification of Turkic languages has, to date, been one of the open
questions of Turkic linguistics (see Poppe, 1965; Tekin, 1990). Notwithstanding,
there are a great many classifications of Turkic languages, which belong to Uralic-
Altaic language family (Comrie, 1992; Menges, 1968; Schönig, 1998), suggested
by a variety of scholars (see Arat, 1953; Benzing, 1959; Doerfer, 1971, 1987;
Johanson, 1998; Menges, 1959, 1968; Poppe, 1965; Tekin, 1990) even though,
according to Poppe, ‘none of them can be regarded as fully satisfactory’ (1965:
33) with the exceptions of Johanson’s, Tekin’s and his own classifications as they
are more recent ones. However, as it is one of the most recent and cited
classifications, that of Johanson (1998) is presented here to outline the languages
involved within the Turkic language groups of the Altaic language family. As put
forward by Johanson (1998, pp. 82-83), a rough scheme of six relatively separate
branches is subdivided as follows: